Personal Protective Equipment in Construction, 100321-100346 [2024-29220]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
insurer must permit OWCP or its duly
authorized representative to make such
an inspection or examination as OWCP
may require. In lieu of this requirement
OWCP may in its discretion accept an
adequate report of a certified public
accountant.
(c) Failure to submit or make available
any report or information requested by
OWCP from an authorized self-insurer
pursuant to this section may, in
appropriate circumstances, result in a
revocation of the authorization to selfinsure.
§ 726.113 Disclosure of confidential
information.
Any financial information or records,
or other information relating to the
business of an authorized self-insurer or
applicant for the authorization of selfinsurance obtained by OWCP is exempt
from public disclosure to the extent
provided in 5 U.S.C. 552(b) and the
applicable regulations of the
Department of Labor in 29 CFR part 70.
§ 726.114 Authorization and
reauthorization timeframes.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
(a) No initial or renewed
authorization to self-insure may be
granted for a period in excess of 12
months unless OWCP determines that
extenuating circumstances exist to allow
an extension.
(b) If an applicant is seeking to renew
its authority to self-insure, the applicant
must file its application no later than 90
days before its existing authorization
period ends.
(c) Each operator authorized to selfinsure under this part must apply for
reauthorization for any period during
which it engages in the operation of a
coal mine and for additional periods
after it ceases operating a coal mine.
Upon application by the operator,
accompanied by proof that the security
it has posted is sufficient to secure all
benefits potentially payable to miners
formerly employed by the operator,
OWCP will issue a certification that the
operator is exempt from the coal mine
operator insurance requirements of this
part based on its prior operation of a
coal mine. The civil money penalty
provisions of subpart D of this part will
be applicable to any operator that fails
to apply for reauthorization in
accordance with the provisions of this
section.
§ 726.115 Revocation of authorization to
self-insure.
OWCP may suspend or revoke the
authorization of any self-insurer for
good cause, including but not limited to:
(a) Failure by a self-insurer to comply
with any provision or requirement of
law or of the regulations in this part, or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Dec 11, 2024
Jkt 265001
with any lawful order or request made
by OWCP;
(b) The failure or insolvency of the
surety on its indemnity bond, if such
bond is used as security, or any other
financial institution holding any form of
security provided by an operator; or
(c) Impairment of financial
responsibility of such self-insurer.
§ 726.116
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
to obtain and submit proof of
commercial insurance or begin facing
civil penalties for failure to secure
benefits.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 3rd day of
December 2024.
Christopher J. Godfrey,
Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2024–28848 Filed 12–11–24; 8:45 am]
Appeal process.
(a) How to appeal. Any applicant that
wishes to appeal DCMWC’s
determination on an application must
submit a written appeal to the Director
of OWCP in the form and manner
prescribed by OWCP within 30 days of
DCMWC issuing such determination.
This deadline may not be extended.
(b) What to submit. Within 30 days
after filing a written appeal, the
applicant must submit any briefing on
which it intends to rely, including any
arguments that DCMWC’s initial
determination was erroneous. The
applicant is not entitled to submit any
further evidence at this time; all
evidence must be submitted to DCMWC
with the initial application. OWCP may,
at its discretion, extend this deadline at
the applicant’s request for up to 30 days
upon a showing of good cause. No more
than two extensions will be granted.
(c) Conferences. (1) The applicant
may request an informal conference to
present its position. Such request must
be made in writing when the applicant
submits briefing in support of its appeal.
(2) If the applicant requests a
conference, the Director of OWCP will
hold one with the applicant’s
representatives and the Department’s
Office of the Solicitor.
(3) If the applicant does not request a
conference, OWCP may either decide
the appeal on the record or, at its
discretion, schedule a conference on its
own initiative.
(4) The conference will be limited to
the issues identified in the applicant’s
written materials.
(d) OWCP’s review. OWCP will review
the previous determination and issue a
final agency decision.
(1) The Director of OWCP will review
the initial decision, evidence of record,
and arguments submitted on appeal.
The applicant may not submit new
evidence to the Director of OWCP.
(2) The Director of OWCP will have
60 days from receipt of the appeal to
take up the appeal and issue a final
agency decision.
(3) If the Director of OWCP issues a
final agency decision denying selfinsurance, any existing self-insurance
authorization of the applicant will end.
The applicant will have 30 days from
the issuance of the final agency decision
PO 00000
100321
BILLING CODE 4510–CK–P
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
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
OSHA is finalizing a revision
to its personal protective equipment
standard for construction to explicitly
require that the equipment must fit
properly.
DATES: This final rule is effective
January 13, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Docket: To read or
download comments or other
information in the docket, go to https://
www.regulations.gov. All comments and
submissions are listed in the https://
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 https://
www.osha.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
100322
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
Citation Method
In the docket for the personal
protective equipment in construction
rulemaking, found at https://
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 final
rule, citations to items in the docket are
referenced by the last four digits of the
Document ID Number. For example,
Document ID number OSHA–2019–
0003–0002 would be referenced as
‘‘Document ID 0002.’’ In a citation that
contains two or more documents, the
citations are separated by commas. In
cases where a commenter submitted
multiple documents, the attachment
number is included after the Document
ID. 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).
standard for construction, at 29 CFR
1926.95(c), to explicitly state that PPE
must fit properly. This revision will
align the language in the PPE standard
for construction with the corresponding
language in OSHA’s PPE standards for
general industry and shipyards 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 to provide
appropriate protection to employees
from workplace hazards. Improperly
fitting PPE may fail to provide any
protection to an employee, reduce the
effectiveness of protection, present
additional hazards, or discourage
employees from using such equipment
in the workplace.
The Final Economic Analysis for this
rulemaking demonstrates that this rule
is economically feasible and will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Table of Contents
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. Employees wear PPE 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, harnesses, and full body
suits.
OSHA has specific standards that
address PPE in general industry,
shipyard employment, marine
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 shipyard
employment (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)
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
A. OSHA’s PPE Requirements
B. Rulemaking History
C. Comments Received During the SIP–IV
Rulemaking
III. Summary and Explanation
A. Impact of Improperly Fitting PPE and
the Need for an Explicit Requirement
B. Whether the Rule Would Effectuate the
Purpose of the OSH Act Better Than
Consensus Standards
C. The Appropriateness of the New
Regulatory Text
D. Differences Between General Industry,
Maritime, and the Construction Industry
E. The Adequacy of Guidance on PPE
‘‘Proper Fit’’ in Construction
F. OSHA Enforcement of PPE Fit
Requirements
IV. Pertinent Legal Authority
V. Final Economic Analysis and Regulatory
Flexibility Act Certification
A. Profile of Affected Establishments and
Employees
B. Costs of Compliance
C. Economic Feasibility
D. Regulatory Flexibility Screening
Analysis and Certification
E. Benefits
VI. Technological Feasibility
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
VIII. Federalism
IX. State Plans
X. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
XI. Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
XII. Protecting Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
XIII. Environmental Impacts
I. Executive Summary
OSHA is finalizing revisions to its
personal protective equipment (PPE)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Dec 11, 2024
Jkt 265001
II. Background
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
requires that all types of PPE must be
provided, used, and maintained in a
sanitary and reliable condition
whenever the PPE is necessary due to
workplace hazards. Section 1926.95(b)
further requires that, even when
employees provide their own PPE, the
employer must assure its adequacy,
including proper maintenance, and
sanitation. Section 1926.95(c) provides
that all PPE must be of safe design and
construction for the work to be
performed. Unlike the general industry
and shipyards PPE standards, the
current PPE construction standard at
§ 1926.95 does not include an explicit
requirement that PPE properly fit each
affected employee.
PPE must fit properly to provide
adequate protection to employees. If
PPE does not fit properly, it can make
the difference between an employee
being safely protected, having
inadequate protection, or being
dangerously exposed. In some cases, illfitting 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 operate equipment,
putting the wearer and other workers at
risk of exposure to hazards, or may get
caught in machinery, resulting in
injuries to the wearer such as fractures
or amputations. The legs of protective
garments that are too long could cause
tripping hazards for the worker with the
improperly fitting PPE and could also
impact others working near that worker.
Protective clothing that is too small may
increase a worker’s exposure to hazards
by, for example, providing insufficient
coverage from dangerous machinery or
hazardous substances. The issue of
improperly fitting PPE is particularly
important for smaller construction
workers, including some women, who
may not be able to use currently existing
standard-size PPE. Fit problems can also
affect larger workers, and standard-size
PPE does not always accommodate
varying body shapes.
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 related to construction. 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
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
motion recommending that OSHA use
the Standards Improvement ProjectPhase 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 . . . .’’
(Document ID 0002).1 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 (Document ID 0003).2
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’’
(Document ID 0004). 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
(Document ID 0005, 0006).
Based on stakeholder suggestions, on
October 4, 2016, OSHA published the
SIP–IV Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) in the Federal Register
(Document ID 0007). 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’’ (Document ID 0007).
Additionally, OSHA stated that
clarifying the requirement would ‘‘help
ensure employers provide employees
with properly fitting PPE, thereby
adequately protecting employees
1 OSHA’s Standards Improvement Project (SIP) is
a series of regulatory reviews and rulemakings
intended ‘‘to improve and streamline OSHA
standards by removing or revising requirements that
are confusing or outdated, or that duplicate, or are
inconsistent with, other standards’’ (Document ID
0007).
2 ACCSH had previously, in 1999, issued a report
titled Women in the Construction Workplace:
Providing Equitable Safety and Health Protection
(Document ID 0020) in which the committee
identified ill-fitting PPE as a pressing issue for
women in construction and recommended that
OSHA revise the construction PPE standards in 29
CFR part 1926 ‘‘to conform with the General
Industry Standard for PPE (29 CFR 1910.132) which
specifies that the employer select PPE that properly
fits each affected employee.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Dec 11, 2024
Jkt 265001
exposed to hazards requiring PPE’’
(Document ID 0007).
OSHA received several comments
specifically addressing the proposed
revision to § 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 (Document ID
0008). The final rule did not include the
proposed revision to the construction
standard at § 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 separately
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’’ (Document ID 0008).
On July 17, 2019, OSHA presented a
draft proposed rule to ACCSH for its
recommendation, as required by 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’’ (Document
ID 0009). 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.
OSHA responded that the proposed rule
would not change how employers
assessed 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 shipyards 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 § 1926.95(c) in
response to the SIP–IV NPRM. The
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
100323
Laborers’ Health & Safety Fund of North
America (LHSFNA) and North
America’s Building Trades Unions
(NABTU) both supported the proposed
revision to clarify that PPE must
properly fit each affected employee
(Document ID 0016, 0017, 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’’ (Document ID
0017, Attachment 1). LHSFNA
commented that the fit problem can also
affect men, including with respect to
harness sizes for men who are over
certain weight limits (Document ID
0016). NABTU stated that the proposed
revision not only would make the
construction standard consistent with
the general industry standard but also
was supported by worker organizations,
safety associations, and ACCSH
(Document ID 0017, Attachment 1).
OSHA also received a comment in
support of the proposed revision from
Emmanuel Omeike (Document ID 0018),
a safety professional, which included
two studies addressing PPE and women
in construction (Document ID 0018,
Attachments 3, 4). The comment noted
several examples of employees who
were wearing PPE but nonetheless
sustained injuries due to improper fit
(Document ID 0018). Mr. Omeike stated
that employees are more likely to
remove improperly fitting PPE, thus
negating whatever protection the PPE
might otherwise provide (Document ID
0018). 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)
(Document ID 0019) opposing the
proposed revision to § 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 stated they
‘‘[did] not believe that OSHA seriously
considered the full impact this revision
will have on employers and the
construction industry in general.’’ They
argued that the proposed revision’s
‘‘broad scope covers a wide variety of
PPE and situations that are not fully
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
100324
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
appreciated in the SIP–IV’’ and that
‘‘[p]lacing 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.’’ They
further argued that the proposed
revision ‘‘fails to provide adequate
notice to employers as to what ‘properly
fit’ would mean’’ and questioned
whether the standard would be violated
if an employee complained that a hard
hat is uncomfortable or if arc-flash
clothing was ‘‘too long in the legs for
one employee’’ (Document ID 0019).
CISC also commented that revising
§ 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.’’ According to CISC, 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’’ (Document ID 0019). They
added that, in many cases, whether PPE
properly fits is subjective, and 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’’ (Document ID 0019).
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 of
and need for PPE vary greatly in
construction, therefore adding a new fit
requirement would create more of a
burden for construction employers
(Document ID 0019). 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’’ (Document ID
0019).
In response to CISC’s comment on the
SIP–IV proposal, OSHA acknowledged
in the NPRM for this rule that there is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Dec 11, 2024
Jkt 265001
a wide variety of PPE and hazards in the
construction industry and stated that to
protect workers from these varied
hazards in the construction industry, it
is critical that workers’ PPE fit them
properly. OSHA explained that it used
the phrase ‘‘proper fit’’ in the SIP–IV
rulemaking because that is the phrase
used in OSHA’s general industry and
shipyards 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
shipyards. OSHA further noted that the
addition of the ‘‘properly fits’’ provision
to the general industry standard was
made for the same reason that 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.
Given the limited purposes of SIP–IV
(i.e. ‘‘to remove or revise outdated,
duplicative, unnecessary, and
inconsistent requirements in OSHA’s
safety and health standards’’ (Document
ID 0008)) and the comments on the PPE
revision described above, OSHA
determined not to finalize the revision
to § 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, in order to
encourage robust public comment and
acquire relevant information from
stakeholders.
On July 20, 2023, OSHA published
the Personal Protective Equipment in
Construction Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) (Document ID
0001), proposing to revise 29 CFR
1926.95(c) to clarify that personal
protective equipment used in the
construction industry must properly fit
workers to protect them from hazards
they may encounter in the workplace.
OSHA has considered the issues raised
by commenters during the SIP–IV
rulemaking along with the comments
received on the NPRM and addresses
them below in Section III, Summary and
Explanation.
III. Summary and Explanation
This final rule amends 29 CFR
1926.95, Criteria for personal protective
equipment, to make explicit the existing
requirement that employers in the
construction industry must ensure PPE
worn by employees properly fits.
Specifically, OSHA is revising
§ 1926.95(c) to state that employers
must ensure all personal protective
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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.3 After reviewing the
comments received, OSHA is finalizing
the provision as proposed because the
agency has determined the proposed
language appropriately clarifies
employers’ obligations under the
standard. OSHA has also determined
that additional clarifying language is not
necessary for the reasons discussed in
section III.C. below.
As OSHA explained in the NPRM, the
agency has historically interpreted
§ 1926.95 as requiring that PPE properly
fit each employee, has published
guidance to that effect, and has issued
citations to employers in the
construction industry who failed to
provide properly fitting PPE (88 FR
46710–46712). As such, the revision in
this final rule does not represent a
substantive change to the standard.
Rather, the goal of the revision is to
clarify employers’ existing obligations
while aligning the language in the
construction PPE standard with similar
requirements for properly fitting PPE in
OSHA’s general industry (29 CFR
1910.132(d)(1)(iii)) and shipyards (29
CFR 1915.152(b)(3)) standards.
In response to the proposed rule,
OSHA received 85 public comments.
The vast majority of commenters
supported the change. These
commenters generally agreed that the
change would provide greater clarity
about employers’ responsibility to make
sure employees wear properly fitting
PPE and would improve the workplace
safety and health of construction
workers. Some commenters raised
concerns about the revisions, stating, for
example, that the specifics of the
requirement were unclear or that the
change would result in prohibitive costs
for employers. The issues raised by
these comments and others are
discussed in more detail below.
A. Impact of Improperly Fitting PPE and
the Need for an Explicit Requirement
In the NPRM, OSHA discussed the
importance of properly fitting PPE in
the construction industry, explaining
that improperly fitting PPE may not
protect workers from hazards and could
create additional hazards (81 FR 46710–
46711). The agency noted several
studies and reports that identified
instances of improperly fitting PPE
either failing to protect workers from the
hazard for which the PPE was intended
3 Existing 1926.95(c) states only that all personal
protective equipment shall be of safe design and
construction for the work to be performed.
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
(e.g., loose-fitting goggles exposing an
employee’s eyes to flying debris) or
introducing additional hazards (e.g.,
loose-fitting gloves becoming caught in
machinery). In addition, OSHA
identified evidence that employees are
more likely to remove or not use illfitting PPE.
In response to the NPRM, many
commenters agreed with OSHA that
improperly fitting PPE poses a hazard to
workers in the construction industry
(see, e.g., Document ID 0040, 0052,
0057, 0073, 0076, 0079–0081, 0115). For
example, the American Industrial
Hygiene Association (AIHA)
commented that ‘‘[a]ny worker’s safety
and health can be adversely impacted
by PPE that does not fit properly,’’
adding that workers who are smaller
and larger than average size are most
likely to be impacted by improperly
fitting PPE (Document ID 0058). NABTU
similarly stated that ‘‘[p]roperly fitting
PPE is essential in the construction
industry because poorly fitting PPE does
not provide the wearer with adequate
protection’’ (Document ID 0108). The
National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) identified
several studies demonstrating that
poorly fitting PPE can inadequately
protect workers and can create
additional hazards (Document ID 0073).
Numerous commenters shared their
personal experiences with the lack of
properly fitting PPE. For example, one
commenter (Document ID 0061) was the
first woman hired on a jobsite and
resorted to buying her own extra small
and small gloves because her employer
refused to provide her with anything
other than gloves that were too large.
After running out of gloves that properly
fit her, she was forced to wear the
improperly fitting larger gloves. While
working on an air conditioning unit, the
improperly fitting gloves became caught
in a pulley, resulting in a wrist sprain,
torn ligaments, fractured fingers, and
nerve damage. If this commenter had
been provided properly fitting PPE,
these injuries might have been avoided.
Another commenter, who stated that
OSHA’s proposal ‘‘would directly
improve my safety on the job,’’ shared
that, as a woman who has been
provided improperly fitting PPE, she
has suffered ‘‘multiple injuries and near
misses’’ because properly sized PPE
often is not available (Document ID
0065). Another commenter explained
how they have had to purchase their
own gloves because they have been told
it’s impossible to find gloves small
enough to fit them (Document ID 0056).
For fear of losing her job or not being
paid, a commenter who has worked 18
years as a laborer described using tape
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Dec 11, 2024
Jkt 265001
and raingear to protect herself while
working in water because the only
waders provided by the employer were
too large and presented a drowning risk
(Document ID 0080).
Many commenters raised concerns
about being provided various items of
improperly fitting PPE, with fall
protection harnesses frequently cited as
an item that often does not fit properly
(Document ID 0031, 0035–0037, 0039,
0044, 0048, 0053, 0056, 0063, 0064,
0066, 0068, 0073, 0075–0077, 0080,
0081, 0084, 0087, 0090, 0093, 0098,
0108, 0112, 0113). Although harnesses
come in various sizes and can be
adjusted to some extent, many
commenters describe receiving
harnesses that were too large. There
were commenters who mentioned
receiving extra large harnesses that did
not fit them appropriately because they
were too long (Document ID 0076,
0081). When given larger harnesses, one
commenter stated that the employer
tells them to ‘‘shrink it down to make
it fit’’ (Document ID 0068). A woman
new to the construction industry
commented that she has been dealing
with ill-fitting PPE such as harnesses
that are too loose on her and become a
‘‘safety HAZARD and a hinderance’’
(Document 0035). Several commenters
noted that harnesses and other PPE
designated as ‘‘unisex’’ are not truly
appropriate for women (Document ID
0036, 0037, 0041, 0063, 0108).
Some commenters noted that the lack
of properly fitting PPE can lead to a less
inclusive workplace. According to
Chicago Women in Trades and Allied
Organizations (CWIT), ‘‘As a result,
women struggle to secure consistent
employment and find work on safe and
respectful jobsites. In this sense, the
disproportionate challenges
tradeswomen face around accessing
properly fitted PPE is a consequence of
the way women are seen and valued in
the construction industry’’ (Document
ID 0098). Flatiron Construction added
that the proposed rule is not only
essential for preventing injuries in the
workplace, but ‘‘having proper fitting
PPE is also crucial to promoting a sense
of belonging within the industry’’ and
helping the construction industry attract
and retain workers (Document ID 0106).
Another commenter also argued that
clarifying OSHA’s PPE requirement
could lead to greater recruitment and
retention of workers, specifically
women (Document ID 0047). The
International Painters and Allied Trades
and the Signatory Wall and Ceiling
Contractors Alliance (Painters et al.)
added that ‘‘[i]f we are going to bring
more women into the trades both the
industry and the regulatory structure
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
100325
that surrounds it must evolve to ensure
the safety of women on the job.
Establishing that an employer’s
obligation to provide PPE in
construction extends to providing
properly fitting PPE is a critical part of
this’’ (Document ID 0078). One
commenter simply stated that putting
workers at risk because they do not fit
standard-size PPE is ‘‘inequitable and
immoral’’ (Document ID 0059).
A few commenters mentioned efforts
to address improperly fitting harnesses.
NIOSH commented that they have
conducted studies on fall protection
harnesses that have resulted in
‘‘guidelines to develop improved sizing
systems and strap lengths for whole
body fall arrest harnesses’’ and
‘‘improved harness configuration to fit
construction workers’’ (Document ID
0073). The ISEA notes that modern fall
arrest harnesses, especially those with
adjustable hip belts, are ergonomically
designed to fit women, and some
harnesses that are designed for women
will also fit men. They recommended
that ‘‘employers and their distributors
should work with employees to identify
a harness that fits properly and is
designed to protect against the hazards
at hand’’ (Document ID 0112). NABTU
cited examples of harnesses that are
designed to fit women, explaining that
‘‘harnesses designed to fit women aim to
provide improved protection against fall
hazards and increased comfort. They
offer a range of features tailored for
varied anthropometry, including hip
and chest adjustability, increased hip
and back support, vertical shoulder
straps, comfort padding and more’’
(Document ID 0108).
In the NPRM, OSHA preliminarily
determined that revising § 1926.95 to
include clear and explicit language that
PPE must fit properly would help
ensure workers in the construction
industry are protected from workplace
hazards (81 FR 46711). OSHA requested
comment on whether the inclusion of an
explicit requirement in § 1926.95(c)
would help clarify construction
employers’ obligations to provide
properly fitting PPE to their employees.
Numerous commenters were supportive
of OSHA’s clarifying language
(Document ID 0024, 0028, 0029, 0031,
0034–0048, 0050–0068, 0071–0081,
0083–0088, 0091–0098, 0106–0108,
0110, 0112, 0113, 0115, 0116). Of these
comments, many expressed the need for
an explicit requirement in the standard
to ensure that workers receive properly
fitting PPE. Kentucky’s Department of
Workplace Standards commended
OSHA for proposing explicit language
on properly fitting PPE, agreeing with
OSHA that ‘‘providing clear and explicit
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
100326
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
language in the construction PPE
standard clarifies employers’
responsibility to provide employees
with properly fitting PPE, thereby
ensuring employee protection’’
(Document ID 0095). CWIT commented
that ‘‘[t]he rule clarification aids in
reaffirming OSHA’s existing
interpretation of its current construction
standard and clearly communicates to
employers their obligations to provide
properly fitting PPE’’ (Document ID
0098). California’s Occupational Safety
and Health Standards Board (Cal/
OSHSB) responded that clarification of
the PPE requirements is necessary and
supported OSHA’s proposed revision
(Document ID 0107). The National
Safety Council (NSC) commented that
the clarifying language ‘‘will save lives
and prevent injuries’’ (Document ID
0096). The American Society of Safety
Professionals (ASSP) Chesapeake
Chapter also supported the proposed
revision (Document ID 0083).
Some commenters who support the
proposed changes believe including
explicit language that PPE must
properly fit construction workers could
spur the manufacture, distribution, and
availability of PPE in more wide-ranging
sizes and fits. A commenter who has
‘‘been too often confronted with the
challenge of finding PPE scaled to fit
smaller and female workers’’ supports
the clarification and hopes it will create
more of a market for PPE that fits
smaller workers and women (Document
ID 0031). One commenter likewise
expressed hope that this clarification
would ‘‘create the market demand for
smaller PPE that merchants currently
refuse to see’’ (Document ID 0046).
Another commenter said it was
imperative for women to get safety
equipment that fits them correctly
(Document ID 0113). After mentioning
how it is difficult to find options of
smaller sizes for various PPE, a
commenter said that the proposal would
‘‘lead to more demand . . . and
encourage manufacturers to make these
products’’ (Document ID 0039).
To this point, OSHA mentioned in its
proposed rule that The Center for
Construction Research and Training
(CPWR) and ISEA have a list of
manufacturers of PPE specifically for
women (81 FR 46711). In their comment
to the proposed rule, ISEA also noted
that ‘‘PPE manufacturers provide safety
equipment in size ranges and
adjustability to fit a vast majority of the
construction workforce. ISEA members
are willing to work with occupational
safety stakeholders to make sure all
workers have PPE that is
required. . . .’’ (Document ID 0112).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Dec 11, 2024
Jkt 265001
A number of commenters stated that
an explicit requirement for properly
fitting PPE will not only ensure they
have PPE to protect them from hazards
but would increase their productivity.
CWIT highlighted in their comment that
‘‘[w]hen PPE fits incorrectly, it can
cause a disruption to a worker’s . . .
capacity to complete projects’’
(Document ID 0098). A commenter
expressed how being asked to ‘‘make
due [sic]’’ with improperly fitting PPE
put them at risk of going home without
pay or losing their job because they
couldn’t complete the assigned tasks.
Properly fitting PPE would not just
protect them but allow them to do
complete tasks that would benefit their
employer (Document ID 0045). Another
commenter stated how the proposal
would drastically change their
productivity at work (Document ID
0048) while another explained how it is
difficult to do their job when safety
equipment does not fit correctly
(Document ID 0054). These comments
demonstrate how improperly fitting PPE
not only affords the wearer inadequate
protection from hazards but also hurts
employers’ productivity and makes it
difficult for workers who need nonstandard sizes of PPE 4 to remain
employed in the construction industry.
OSHA received two comments that
questioned the necessity of the
proposed revision and suggested that
existing standards are sufficient. One
commenter stated that OSHA could cite
29 CFR 1926.28(a), the general
requirement that PPE be worn in
hazardous conditions on construction
worksites (Document ID 0026); another
appeared to say that 29 CFR
1910.132(d), the general industry
standard on which OSHA is modeling
this revision to the construction
standard, renders this revision
unnecessary. That standard, however,
applies only to general industry work,
not construction work. And the general
requirement for PPE in construction is
inadequate because, as explained above,
it is clear from the record that workers
in the construction industry have either
struggled to obtain properly fitting PPE
or are still being provided PPE that does
not fit. This often leaves these
employees exposed to the hazards the
PPE is meant to protect against and may
be creating additional hazards. This is
especially true for workers of larger and
smaller stature, women in particular.
Based on the comments received and
the information in the record, OSHA
4 OSHA uses the term ‘‘non-standard’’ to refer to
sizes of PPE that are available on the market but
that some construction employers may not
routinely order or keep in stock.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
reaffirms its finding that improperly
fitting PPE is a hazard to workers in the
construction industry and finds that an
explicit requirement in § 1925.95 is
appropriate to clarify employers’
existing obligation to ensure PPE
properly fits each employee.
B. Whether the Rule Would Effectuate
the Purpose of the OSH Act Better Than
Consensus Standards
Section 6(b)(8) of the OSH Act (29
U.S.C. 655(b)(8)) requires OSHA, in
adopting a standard, 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 revising 29
CFR 1926.95 as proposed will better
effectuate the purposes of the OSH Act
than relying on the language of existing
national consensus standards.
While there are many consensus
standards that address PPE, there is no
general consensus standard on PPE that
incorporates a fit requirement. Instead,
each standard focuses 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 FlameResistant 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 is revising 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. This revision
also makes clear that all PPE must fit
properly, regardless of whether there is
an applicable consensus standard.
Additionally, many consensus
standards do not include mandatory
language. For example, both ANSI
standards discussed above include
specific language concerning properly
fitting PPE. However, while ANSI Z87.1
discusses the importance of properly
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
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 § 1926.95(c) in this
final rule will clarify that properly
fitting PPE is an enforceable
requirement rather than the nonmandatory suggestions contained in
those consensus standards. The agency
believes that a clear and explicit
requirement will help ensure that
employers provide employees with
properly fitting PPE.
OSHA requested comments on
whether the proposed revision would
effectuate the purpose of the OSH Act
better than existing consensus
standards. Several commenters agreed
that it would (Document ID 0073, 0098,
0108, 0112). NABTU responded that the
proposed revision would do so because
‘‘[w]hile some national consensus
standards address fit, there is no
requirement that employers follow
consensus standards’’ (Document ID
0108). Similarly, CWIT stated that
revisions to the OSHA standards would
be better than ‘‘adopting each consensus
standard, with varying language around
type, use, and fit’’ and relying on ‘‘a
non-mandatory suggestion as described
in certain consensus standards’’
(Document ID 0098). NIOSH also
supported revisions to the standard over
reliance on consensus standards
because ‘‘[p]roviding all the information
in one place will ensure all PPE fitting
guidelines are readily accessible and
consistent’’ (Document ID 0073). AIHA
also commented that this rule would
effectuate the purpose of the OSH Act
better than consensus standards because
‘‘[r]egulatory language is helpful for
employers to have a better
understanding of what is required and
thresholds for compliance’’ (Document
ID 0058). One commenter even
identified an instance of a consensus
standard obstructing their company’s
efforts to develop a Class 3 safety vest
for women (Document ID 0106).
ISEA, an organization whose members
design, test, manufacture, and supply
PPE and which serves as secretariat for
several consensus standards on PPE,
supports the new regulatory language,
noting that while consensus standards
ANSI/ISEA Z87.1–2020, Current Safety
Standards for Safety Glasses and Z89.1–
2019, Industrial Head Protection,
effectuate the purpose of the OSH Act,
‘‘a requirement that PPE fit properly
will help to make certain that workers
get PPE that meets these standards and
fits the wearer’’ (Document ID 0112).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Dec 11, 2024
Jkt 265001
Having evaluated the information
relevant to this particular issue, OSHA
concludes that revising the existing
standard as proposed will better
effectuate the purpose of the OSH Act
than relying on the language of existing
consensus standards.
C. The Appropriateness of the New
Regulatory Text
OSHA requested comment on the
wording of the agency’s proposed
addition to 29 CFR 1926.95, which, as
explained above, is substantially similar
to the language in OSHA’s general
industry and shipyards standards that
require properly fitting PPE.
Some commenters suggested language
for the regulatory text that would refer
to manufacturers’ instructions regarding
fit. A representative from Cook’s
Excavating, LLC, commented that OSHA
should adopt the language ‘‘[a]ll
personal protective equipment shall
properly fit the affected employee in
accordance with the manufacturer’s
recommendations’’ (Document ID 0034).
The World Floor Covering Association
also recommended relying on
‘‘manufacturer’s recommendations or
specifications to determine proper fit’’
as well as suggesting that ‘‘PPE that
meets applicable national consensus
standards should also be deemed to
properly fit’’ (Document ID 0114). Cal/
OSHSB encouraged OSHA to adopt
language similar to their standards,
which provide that PPE be used
according to the manufacturer’s
instructions (Document ID 0107).
NIOSH also recommended a reference to
manufacturers’ recommendations for
proper fit to provide additional
guidance to stakeholders (Document ID
0073). One commenter, however, was
skeptical of using manufacturers’
recommendations because
‘‘manufacturer’s instructions may not
provide clear or accurate guidance on
how to measure or adjust fit, especially
for women’s sizes or models’’
(Document ID 0091).
OSHA believes that the
manufacturer’s instructions and
recommendations can be an important
source of information concerning the
proper fit of PPE. OSHA encourages
employers to look to manufacturer’s
instructions and recommendations for
guidance on how an item of PPE should
properly fit the wearer. However, the
agency is not including it as a
requirement in its construction standard
because doing so would limit
employers’ flexibility when finding and
choosing PPE that meets the individual
needs of their workers. In addition, the
clarified requirement for employers to
provide properly fitting PPE applies
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
100327
regardless of whether the manufacturer
of the PPE provides instructions or
recommendations on proper fit. Where
the manufacturer’s instructions or
recommendations are silent on proper
fit, the employer can often look to
consensus standards for additional
guidance on the appropriate fit of an
item of PPE. Employers can also choose
PPE products for which guidance on
proper fit exists, either from the
manufacturer or otherwise, over items
where such information is lacking.
OSHA also requested comment on
whether there was any confusion about
what ‘‘properly fits’’ means for PPE used
in the construction industry. In the
NPRM, OSHA explained 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. Most commenters
expressed no confusion about what
‘‘properly fits’’ means, but some had
additional suggestions for explaining
the term. For example, the AIHA
suggested an ‘‘operational definition
. . . so that employers know what is
meant and for proper compliance
documentation . . . . The standard
should point employers to specific
actions per PPE item that can be taken’’
(Document ID 0058). NIOSH
commented that they agree with
OSHA’s interpretation of ‘‘properly fits’’
but that based on responses to the SIP–
IV rulemaking, it is clear it is not
‘‘universally understood’’ (Document ID
0073). They suggested that OSHA define
the phrase. CWIT endorsed OSHA’s
interpretation of the term but noted that
assessments of proper fit must take into
account workers’ body changes during
pregnancy (Document ID 0098).
Some comments requested additions
to the proposed regulatory text. The
ASSP Chesapeake Chapter asked for
clarification of employer and employee
responsibilities to ‘‘emphasize the
gravity of the issue and encourage
proactive measures in ensuring properly
fitting PPE is available’’ (Document ID
0083). One commenter asked OSHA to
‘‘expound[ ] on ‘proper fit’ in the
standard . . .’’ (Document ID 0032),
while another asked for ‘‘clarifications,
specifications, or resources for the
employers who are responsible to
provide the properly fitting PPE in
question’’ (Document ID 0033). The
latter commenter also suggested that
OSHA include a requirement for a
qualified or competent person to
determine the proper fit of PPE
(Document ID 0033). The United
Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of
America (UBCJA) suggested expanding
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
100328
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
the regulatory text to add, ‘‘To properly
fit personal protective equipment must
be comfortable to wear, not pose a
danger and provide effective protection’’
(Document ID 0074).
OSHA believes its explanation of
‘‘properly fits’’ provides employers with
enough information that they can select
PPE for their workers that will
adequately protect them from the
hazards of the worksite without creating
additional hazards. Given the significant
variety in types and models of PPE, the
varied circumstances in which they are
used, and the potential for new
technology and new forms of PPE in the
future, OSHA does not believe it is
appropriate or necessary for the agency
to prescribe specific fit criteria for all
possible forms of PPE. Similarly, OSHA
does not believe it is necessary for the
agency to prescribe specific criteria for
workers’ changing bodies, as the
requirement for properly fitting PPE
applies every time the PPE is used.
Rather, the agency believes a
performance-based approach is
appropriate, just as the underlying
requirement to identify and provide
necessary PPE is performance-based (see
29 CFR 1926.95).
In the general industry and maritime
sectors, OSHA has not needed to
accompany the requirement for properly
fitting PPE with specific directions
regarding fit for each item of PPE or
other details about what ‘‘properly fits’’
means; nor do those standards include
a requirement that a designated
competent person assess PPE fit. There
is no indication that this has resulted in
significant confusion among employers
in those sectors. Indeed, as noted in the
NPRM, OSHA issued only 51 citations
for improperly fitting PPE in general
industry and shipyards between the
years 1994 and 2021, which suggests the
vast majority of employers have been
able to comply (88 FR 46712). Providing
specific fit requirements for each
individual type of PPE item also might
undermine the manufacturer’s
recommendations for a particular PPE
item. Accordingly, OSHA is not
convinced that further details within the
regulatory text are necessary for the
construction industry. In any event,
OSHA can issue additional guidance in
the future if the agency determines it is
needed.
In the proposed rule, OSHA stated
that ‘‘properly fits’’ means, in part, that
the PPE ‘‘does not create additional
safety and health hazards arising from
being either too small or too large’’ (88
FR 46711). OSHA listed examples of the
additional hazards to which workers
can be exposed because of improperly
fitting PPE (81 FR 46710–46711). These
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Dec 11, 2024
Jkt 265001
examples demonstrate a few of the ways
that improperly fitting PPE can create
additional hazards, with a few examples
coming directly from OSHA
inspections. Commenters also submitted
examples of how improperly fitting PPE
can create additional hazards. The
UBCJA agreed with OSHA’s emphasis
on additional hazards, adding that
‘‘[e]ven a loose safety vest can pose a
danger if it is unexpectedly caught in
equipment’’ (Document ID 0074).
NIOSH explained that ‘‘[s]afety glasses
slipping off, loose gloves getting caught
on machines or exposing skin, or
blisters forming from ill-fitting safety
boots make working more difficult and
can adversely affect worker safety and
job satisfaction’’ (Document ID 0073.
The State Building and Construction
Trades Council of California noted that
‘‘oversized protective clothing can lead
to tripping hazards or get caught in
machinery. . . . Poorly-fitted fall
protection harnesses may lead to other
injuries. . . . Gloves that are too big put
a worker at risk of coming into contact
with chemicals that can cause
dermatitis or other skin diseases’’
(Document ID 0028). Another
commenter mentioned how ill-fitting
PPE could snag on scissor lifts
(Document ID 0097) while a member of
IBEW Local 48 commented that ‘‘[i]tems
that are too large run the risk of
becoming entangled in
machinery. . . .’’ (Document ID 0040).
CISC raised concerns about OSHA’s
discussion of additional hazards. They
contend that ‘‘[w]ithout additional
clarification on what ‘additional
hazards’ employers must address in
order to comply with the proposed rule,
employers will be forced to re-evaluate
every single piece of PPE they provide
to their employees. Employers will be
tasked with identifying additional
hazards that could result from their PPE
not ‘properly fitting’ in every situation’’
(Document ID 0109). CISC suggested
OSHA ‘‘provide notice of specific
hazards that are associated with PPE
that does not properly fit’’ and ‘‘clarify
what ‘additional hazards’ improperly
fitting PPE may cause’’ (Document ID
0109).
It is neither necessary nor possible for
OSHA to identify all hazards that might
arise from improperly fitting PPE, just as
the agency does not identify all hazards
that might necessitate PPE in the first
place (see 29 CFR 1926.95(a)). Given the
many combinations of PPE that can be
selected to protect workers from the
multitude of workplace-specific
hazards, employers are in the best
position to identify what hazards exist
at their particular worksite, the
appropriate PPE to address those
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
hazards, and the proper fit of PPE that
will not result in additional hazards.
This is both because employers have the
most knowledge of the work tasks
involved and the hazards faced by
employees at their worksite and because
they have access to the people with the
most direct knowledge about proper fit:
the employees who must wear the PPE.
In most cases, the affected employee
will be able to indicate whether the
provided PPE fits properly or whether it
poses a hazard from their work tasks.
The employer also knows the specific
PPE involved in a given case and can
refer to the manufacturer’s instructions
for that specific item for additional
guidance. Finally, to the extent that
relevant national consensus standards
address proper fit of particular PPE,
employers may look to those standards
for guidance as well.
The ASSP Chesapeake Chapter asked
for clarification of how the proposed
change affects the employer/employee
relationship, stating that ‘‘[c]learly
defined responsibilities for employers
will emphasize the gravity of this issue
and encourage proactive measures in
ensuring properly fitting PPE is
available’’ (Document ID 0083). This
revision has no impact on the employer/
employee relationship; it simply
clarifies that every employer is
responsible for ensuring that their
workers have properly fitting PPE.
Additional responsibilities employers
have regarding PPE of their workers in
the construction industry can be found
in Subpart E—Personal Protective and
Life Saving Equipment, 29 CFR 1926.95
through 1926.107.
D. Differences Between General
Industry, Maritime, and the
Construction Industry
OSHA requested comments on
whether any differences between
general industry and maritime and the
construction industry impact whether
OSHA should include ‘‘properly fits’’ in
the construction standard as proposed
in the NPRM. Commenters expressed
support for language that reflects the
requirements for properly fitting PPE in
the general industry and maritime
industries. NIOSH, for example, stated
that ‘‘mirroring the language for general
industry and maritime standards is
appropriate because of the significant
hazards and injury burden in the
construction industry. The change will
provide added emphasis on the
documented need to ensure all PPE fits
all workers well’’ (Document ID 0073).
The AIHA noted that it knew of no
differences between general industry,
maritime, and construction that would
impact OSHA’s inclusion of ‘‘properly
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
fits’’ in the construction standards
(Document ID 0058). Painters et al.
commented that ‘‘[t]here is nothing
unique to the construction industry that
would put an undue burden on
employers to ensure that each worker
has access to PPE that fits their size and
shape properly and can be used for the
purpose for which it was intended: to
protect the worker from hazards of
injury or illness’’ (Document ID 0078).
Some commenters suggested that it is
inappropriate to align the language in
the construction industry with the
language of general industry and
shipyards because the construction
industry is different from general
industry and shipyards. CISC argued
that an important difference between
the construction industry and other
industries is the changing conditions of
the worksite. ‘‘The construction
industry does not operate in static,
permanent worksites’’ with known
hazards that ‘‘have long since been
identified and documented’’ like in
general industry and shipyards; rather,
it is ‘‘dynamic’’ and ‘‘[w]hat PPE is
needed and when, can vary from day to
day . . .’’ (Document ID 0109). The
National Demolition Association (NDA)
made a similar argument, stating that
construction worksites present different
challenges and work conditions than
other industries, but did not elaborate
on what those differences are and how
they would be impacted by OSHA’s
proposal (Document ID 0111).5
OSHA does not find this argument
persuasive. First, § 1926.95(a) requires
construction employers to provide
appropriate PPE to employees when
necessitated by workplace hazards. This
is true regardless of how dynamic the
work activities are. Given that
employers must already analyze the
hazards on their worksites, no matter
how dynamic, and provide necessary
PPE, these commenters fail to explain
why the dynamic nature of the activities
warrants permitting employers to
provide PPE that does not fit.
Moreover, although there are
differences between the construction
industry and other industries, many of
the hazards that necessitate properly
fitting PPE to protect workers are the
same. In the NPRM, OSHA referenced
citations in general industry and
maritime for violation of the
5 NDA also commented that State and local
governments, rather than OSHA, should develop
any regulations on properly fitting PPE (Document
ID 0111). However, the OSH Act grants OSHA the
authority to promulgate safety and health standards,
including the construction standard that this final
rule revises. Furthermore, OSHA sees no reason
why a general requirement for properly fitting PPE
would differ among different geographic areas.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Dec 11, 2024
Jkt 265001
requirement for properly fitting PPE.
Many of those violations were for PPE
that is also used in the construction
industry, such as harnesses and gloves.
As evidenced by the comments to the
NPRM, several stakeholders’ primary
concerns about properly fitting PPE
involve these types of items (see, e.g.,
OSHA’s discussion of comments related
to harnesses in B. Impact of Properly
Fitting PPE). Neither CISC nor NDA
identified examples of PPE that are
unique to the construction industry.
OSHA also emphasizes that the
Advisory Committee on Construction
Safety and Health (ACCSH), which is
composed of an equal number of
employee and employer representatives
along with representatives from State
and Federal agencies and subject-matter
experts (see 29 CFR 1912.3(b)), has on
several occasions urged OSHA to align
the language in the construction PPE
standards with those in general industry
and shipyards (Document ID 0002,
0003, 0020). Finally, as explained in
Section VI, Technological Feasibility,
OSHA finds that there are no
technological barriers to providing
construction employees with properly
fitting PPE.
In sum, OSHA is not convinced any
differences that exist between the
construction industry and other
industries warrant depriving
construction employees of protection
against the hazards posed or not
prevented by improperly fitting PPE.
Indeed, as discussed above, properly
fitting PPE is already an implicit
requirement under the construction
standard for PPE and this final rule
makes that requirement explicit.
Accordingly, OSHA concludes that the
proposed language is appropriate for
inclusion in the standard.
E. The Adequacy of Guidance on PPE
‘‘Proper Fit’’ in Construction
Prior to the publication of the
proposed rule, ACCSH recommended
that OSHA provide additional guidance
explaining what ‘‘proper fit’’ means for
the construction industry. As described
above, in the NPRM, OSHA explained
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’’ (88 FR 46711). OSHA also
requested comment on whether existing
OSHA guidance regarding PPE ‘‘proper
fit’’ in construction is adequate and if it
is not, what type of additional guidance
OSHA should provide.
OSHA received a variety of comments
in response to this request. While
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
100329
NIOSH responded that existing
guidance was not adequate, they
commented that revising OSHA’s
construction standards to explicitly
state that PPE must properly fit would
help address this concern. NIOSH also
suggested that OSHA should define
‘‘properly fitting’’ (Document ID 0073).
The NSC noted they have a PPE training
that teaches that PPE should fit
comfortably and not be too large or too
small (Document ID 0096). CWIT
suggested that OSHA develop an eTool
to provide guidance on proper fit of PPE
(Document ID 0098). Cal/OSHSB
recommended that OSHA work with
manufacturers and provide guidance on
conformity assessments for all PPE
(Document ID 0107). The ISEA, while
agreeing with OSHA’s interpretation of
proper fit, suggested that OSHA work
with stakeholders to develop additional
guidance such as FAQs to minimize any
confusion about the requirement to
provide properly fitting PPE.
OSHA is willing to work with
construction industry stakeholders to
develop specific guidance that will
broadly address any confusion or
concerns the industry has about
providing PPE that properly fits
workers. To do that, OSHA must first
have clear and explicit language in its
construction standards that
communicates an employer’s
obligations. After a review of the
comments received in response to this
proposed rule, OSHA believes that the
proposed language accomplishes this
goal.
F. Osha Enforcement of PPE Fit
Requirements
In the NPRM, OSHA explained that
enforcement of the requirement for
properly fitting PPE in construction
would be the same as it has been in
general industry and maritime, relying
on enforcement guidance the agency has
already created for those industries and
applying it to the construction industry.
OSHA also provided citation data and
examples of violations of the
requirement to have properly fitting PPE
to demonstrate how the agency has been
enforcing this requirement in general
industry and shipyards (88 FR 46711).
Some commenters requested
additional information on how OSHA
will enforce this requirement. CISC
argued that the proposed rule ‘‘does not
discuss how investigators will be
evaluating PPE for compliance’’
resulting in ‘‘concern that employers
will be held to subjective standards of
whether PPE fits properly and what
steps employers must take to ensure
they are in compliance’’ (Document ID
0109). Other commenters who
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
100330
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
supported the proposed rule overall
agreed with this concern that
enforcement could be subjective
(Document ID 0088, 0091). Painters et
al., on the other hand, noted that the
proposed changes do not introduce new
concepts. ‘‘[W]e think it is important to
note that the uncertainty often
associated with the revision of an OSHA
standard does not pertain to this
proposed rule. OSHA is adopting
language it has long applied in the
general industry and maritime
standards’’ (Document ID 0078).
With regard to enforcement-related
concerns, OSHA believes that this
preamble adequately explains what
OSHA expects from employers: to select
PPE for their workers that is
appropriately designed and sized to
adequately protect them from hazards
without creating additional hazards.
OSHA believes this performance-based
interpretation of ‘‘properly fits’’
provides sufficient specificity while
maintaining flexibility to allow
employers to select the PPE necessary to
protect their workers on the job.
Additionally, there is existing guidance
that can assist employers in selecting
properly fitting PPE. Several
commenters pointed out that the
manufacturer’s instructions are an
important source of information on the
proper fit of PPE (see Document ID
0034, 007, 0107, 0114). Although
consensus standards do not carry
mandatory obligations to meet their
standards, they also can provide
guidance on how various PPE items
should fit.
One important aspect of determining
what PPE should be provided to
workers is comfort. OSHA stated in the
proposed rule that improperly fitting
PPE can be uncomfortable for the
wearer, which in turn can lead workers
to modify or disregard the PPE and
become vulnerable to a hazard (81 FR
46711). Several commenters echoed this
concern. Some commenters mentioned
that ill-fitting, uncomfortable PPE could
be dangerous (Document ID 0076, 0081).
NIOSH stated that comfort is an
important factor that can positively
impact PPE use (Document ID 0073).
Cal/OSHSB commented that ‘‘[m]aking
sure that PPE not only fits but is
comfortable is imperative to ensuring
that employees wear the PPE throughout
their shift’’ (Document ID 0107). UBCJA
requested that OSHA adopt language
stating that for PPE to properly fit, it
must be comfortable to wear (Document
ID 0074).
Some commenters expressed concern
about whether comfort would be an
indication of proper fit and, if so, how
OSHA would address that from an
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Dec 11, 2024
Jkt 265001
enforcement standpoint. CISC asked, ‘‘Is
comfort important because it encourages
employees to keep PPE on, or is it a
citable offense even if ‘uncomfortable’
PPE is being worn?’’ (Document ID
0109). Similarly, the Wood Floor
Covering Association asked, ‘‘Is simply
finding the PPE to be uncomfortable
sufficient to claim it does not properly
fit even [if] the equipment provides full
protection?’’ (Document ID 0114).
OSHA reaffirms its position that
comfort is an important consideration
for properly fitting PPE, both because
more comfortable PPE is more likely to
be worn by workers rather than
discarded and unused and because
discomfort in many cases can indicate
improper fit. An employee’s expression
of discomfort should be taken seriously
by the employer, as it may signal that
the PPE warrants further evaluation to
ensure it will serve its protective
purpose and will not create additional
hazards.
At the same time, OSHA also
recognizes that discomfort during the
use of PPE may not always be the result
of improper fit. Some PPE may be
inherently uncomfortable, despite fitting
properly. OSHA has explained in other
contexts that personal discomfort alone
does not give rise to a violation of the
OSH Act’s General Duty Clause, absent
a related recognized hazard that could
cause death or serious physical harm
(see Reiteration of Existing OSHA Policy
on Indoor Air Quality: Office
Temperature/Humidity and
Environmental Tobacco Smoke,
available at https://www.osha.gov/lawsregs/standardinterpretations/2003-0224). The same is true with respect to
PPE under 29 CFR 1926.95: OSHA
cannot issue a citation simply because
PPE that properly fits is uncomfortable.6
However, OSHA cautions that
regardless of fit, employers have an
independent duty to ensure that
appropriate PPE is worn at all times
when necessitated by a workplace
hazard (29 CFR 1926.28). Because the
record clearly indicates uncomfortable
PPE is more likely to go unused,
employers would be wise to take
seriously employees’ concerns about
discomfort.
Finally, a few commenters suggested
that increased enforcement from OSHA
and/or a ‘‘culture change’’ among
employers would be more effective in
achieving the goal of properly fitting
PPE than changing the rule (Document
ID 0026, 0027). While OSHA operates,
6 OSHA notes that while discomfort may not
alone establish improper fit, the converse is also
true; a lack of employee discomfort does not alone
establish proper fit.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
as always, with limited resources, the
agency believes that the amended
standard, by making employers’
responsibilities explicit, will encourage
a more protective approach to PPE
across the construction industry.
IV. Pertinent Legal Authority
The purpose of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C. 651 et
seq.) (‘‘the Act’’ or ‘‘the OSH Act’’) 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 (‘‘the Secretary’’) to promulgate
standards to protect workers, including
the authority ‘‘to set mandatory
occupational safety and health
standards applicable to businesses
affecting interstate commerce’’ (29
U.S.C. 651(b)(3); see also 29 U.S.C.
654(a) (requiring employers to comply
with OSHA standards), 655(a)
(authorizing summary adoption of
existing consensus and Federal
standards within two years of the Act’s
enactment), 655(b) (authorizing
promulgation, modification or
revocation of standards pursuant to
notice and comment)), and 655(b)(7)
(authorizing OSHA to include among a
standard’s requirements labeling,
monitoring, medical testing, and other
information-gathering and informationtransmittal provisions)). An
occupational safety or health standard is
a standard which requires conditions, or
the adoption or use of one or more
practices, means, methods, operations,
or processes ‘‘reasonably necessary or
appropriate’’ to provide safe or healthful
employment and places of employment
(29 U.S.C. 652(8)).
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)).
The OSH Act imposes several
requirements OSHA must satisfy before
adopting a safety standard. Among other
things, the standard must provide a high
degree ofemployee protection,
substantially reduce a significant risk to
workers, be technologically feasible, and
be economically feasible (see 58 FR
16612, 16614–16 (Mar. 30, 1993); UAW
v. OSHA, 37 F.3d 665, 668–69 (D.C. Cir.
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
1994)). OSHA need not make additional
findings on risk for this final rule
because the rule involves a clarification
of an existing OSHA standard and does
not create any new requirements for
employers. Accordingly, OSHA is not
required to conduct a significant risk
analysis for the change to § 1926.95 (see
Edison Elec. Inst. v. OSHA, 849 F.2d
611, 620 (D.C. Cir. 1988)).
A standard is technologically feasible
if the protective measures it requires
already exist, can be brought into
existence with available technology, or
can be created with technology that is
reasonably expected to be developed
(see Am. Iron and Steel Inst. v. OSHA,
939 F.2d 975, 980 (D.C. Cir. 1991)).
Courts have also interpreted
technological feasibility to mean that a
typical firm in each affected industry or
application group will reasonably be
able to implement the requirements of
the standard in most operations most of
the time (see, e.g., Public Citizen v.
OSHA, 557 F.3d 165, 170–71 (3d Cir.
2009); United Steelworkers of Am. v.
Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1272 (D.C. Cir.
1981)).
In determining economic feasibility,
OSHA must consider the cost of
compliance in an industry rather than
for individual employers. In its
economic analyses, OSHA ‘‘must
construct a reasonable estimate of
compliance costs and demonstrate a
reasonable likelihood that these costs
will not threaten the existence or
competitive structure of an industry,
even if it does portend disaster for some
marginal firms’’ (Am. Iron and Steel
Inst., 939 F.2d at 980, quoting United
Steelworkers of Am., 647 F.2d at 1272).
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
V. Final Economic Analysis and
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
Introduction
OSHA has examined the impacts of
this rule as required by Executive Order
12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
(September 30, 1993); Executive Order
13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review (January 18, 2011);
Executive Order 14094, Modernizing
Regulatory Review (April 6, 2023)
(hereinafter, the Modernizing E.O.); the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
(September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96354);
section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (March 22, 1995;
Pub. L. 104–4); and Executive Order
13132, Federalism (August 4, 1999).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess all costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Dec 11, 2024
Jkt 265001
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and
equity).7 The Modernizing E.O. amends
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
As amended, section 3(f) defines a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as an
action that is likely to result in a rule
that may: (1) have an annual effect on
the economy of $200 million or more in
any 1 year (adjusted every 3 years by the
Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) for changes in gross domestic
product), or adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, territorial, or
Tribal governments or communities; (2)
create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency; (3)
materially alter the budgetary impacts of
entitlement grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or (4) raise legal or
policy issues for which centralized
review would meaningfully further the
President’s priorities or the principles
set forth in [the Modernizing E.O.], as
specifically authorized in a timely
manner by the Administrator of OIRA in
each case.
OIRA has determined that this final
rule is a significant regulatory action
under E.O. 12866 (but not under section
3(f)(1)), and that it does not meet the
criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2)
under the Congressional Review Act.
OSHA has prepared this Final
Economic Analysis (FEA) which
presents the agency’s estimates of the
costs and benefits of the rulemaking.
Changes From the Proposal
As discussed above, OSHA is
finalizing this rule with the same
changes to the regulatory text that the
agency proposed. Public comments
received in response to the proposal
generally support the need for the rule.
A number of commenters gave examples
of employers not providing them with
properly fitting PPE. One commenter
said ‘‘I buy my own PPE, i.e., glasses,
gloves because no contractor ever has
small of either. I’ve been in the trade 27
years and have never had a contractor
have those for me’’ (Document ID 0094).
Another stated that ‘‘[a]s an electrician
since 2015, there have been years I have
not been provided correctly fitting PPE.
7 While OSHA presents the following analysis
under the requirements of Executive Orders 12866
and 13563, the agency ultimately cannot base its
regulatory decisions on a simple maximization of
net benefits due to the overriding legal
requirements in the OSH Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
100331
Employers did not anticipate my
pregnancy, so high-visibility coats were
hard to find and expensive. . . . A coat
for males had sleeves that were too long
and got in the way of working’’
(Document ID 0115). However, public
comments also support several changes
to the economic analysis. Those changes
are as follows.
For the proposal, OSHA estimated
minimal costs to comply with the rule
since it simply clarifies an existing
requirement. OSHA did, however,
request information from commenters
about the impact of the rule on the
provision of properly fitting PPE. Based
on responsive comments in the record,
OSHA has determined that it is
appropriate to account for additional
costs. In particular, OSHA has added
costs for purchasing properly fitting
harnesses and earplugs, which were not
included in the proposal. In addition,
OSHA has added ongoing annual costs
for non-compliant employers to
continue to provide properly fitting PPE
to their employees after initially
replacing it. OSHA has also added costs
for rule familiarization time as well as
the time for employers to assess,
research, and identify properly fitting
PPE for those workers who are not
currently being provided with it. Where
more recent economic data is available,
OSHA has updated the data used for its
analysis. Finally, OSHA is attributing
(although not quantifying) health and
safety benefits to this final standard
based on evidence in the record that
workers are being injured due to
improperly fitting PPE. These updates
are discussed in more detail later in this
section.
A. Profile of Affected Establishments
and Employees
1. Introduction
This final rule amends the
construction standard at 29 CFR
1926.95—Criteria for Personal
Protective Equipment, paragraph (c), to
clarify that PPE must properly fit each
employee. This revision clarifies an
existing requirement and OSHA
therefore concludes that the rule will
impose only limited costs on employers
that are not already providing their
employees with properly fitting PPE.
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 final rule is to clarify an existing
requirement about which there may
have been confusion in the regulated
community. Given the public comments
indicating that some employees are not
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
100332
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
being provided with PPE that properly
fits, the record supports the need for
changes in behavior among some
employers. As a result, OSHA has
estimated the costs for a portion of
employers to come into compliance
with the already-existing requirement to
provide properly fitting PPE. This
analysis demonstrates that the rule will
be feasible to implement.
2. Background
On November 15, 2007, OSHA
published its final rule on Employer
Payment for Personal Protective
Equipment (PPE Payment) (72 FR
64342). A brief description of this
rulemaking is provided here because
certain estimates and parameters used
in the economic analysis for this rule
are taken from the analysis
accompanying that final rule. In the PPE
Payment rulemaking, OSHA identified
the various types of PPE that are worn
by employees, the percentage of
employees who use PPE, 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).
Information on employee PPE use 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).
For this rulemaking, OSHA developed
assumptions about the types of PPE that
are universal fit versus those that are not
universal fit and the types of PPE that
are provided by the employer versus
purchased by employees for
reimbursement.
When the economic analysis for the
PPE Payment rule was performed, the
most recent data available on number of
employees were from the U.S. Census’
2004 County Business Patterns. Using
that data, OSHA estimated the number
of employees using PPE and the
industries in which they worked. Total
use of PPE in the construction
industries as derived in the PPE
Payment rule is presented in table 1.
Note that only the types of PPE that are
subject to replacement under this PPE
Fit rule are presented. OSHA uses the
values in table 1 as the basis for its
updated 2022 8 figures for PPE items
used (see table 7).
TABLE 1—USE OF SELECTED PPE IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES, FROM THE PPE PAYMENT RULE
Total PPE items
used by employees
(2004) U.S.
PPE provided by the employer
Chemical Protective Clothing ..................................................................................................................................................
Chemical Protective Footwear .................................................................................................................................................
Chemical Splash Goggles .......................................................................................................................................................
Earmuffs ...................................................................................................................................................................................
Face Shields ............................................................................................................................................................................
Gloves for Abrasion Protection ................................................................................................................................................
Gloves for Chemical Protection ...............................................................................................................................................
Non-Prescription Safety Glasses .............................................................................................................................................
Safety Goggles ........................................................................................................................................................................
Splash Aprons .........................................................................................................................................................................
358,089
211,871
584,797
642,362
1,194,399
2,940,764
896,173
3,485,009
2,506,959
197,632
Total of PPE items used by construction employees ......................................................................................................
13,018,055
Source: OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis (ORA), based on PPE Payment rule (72 FR 64406). See Final Economic Analysis spreadsheet
(Document ID 0118).
3. PPE Fit Rule—Affected
Establishments and Employees
Business Patterns (CBP) data for 2022.
All establishments within NAICS 236
(Construction of Buildings), NAICS 237
(Heavy and Civil Engineering
Construction), and NAICS 238
(Specialty Trade Contractors) are
OSHA determined the number of
establishments that would need to
comply with this rule using County
considered to be within the scope of this
rule. As shown in table 2, there are a
total of 800,651 establishments in the
affected Construction NAICS industry
codes.
TABLE 2—AFFECTED CONSTRUCTION ESTABLISHMENTS BY NAICS INDUSTRY, 2022
NAICS
Establishments
236 (Construction of Buildings) ...............................................................................................................................................
237 (Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction) ....................................................................................................................
238 (Specialty Trade Contractors) ..........................................................................................................................................
251,634
38,214
510,803
Total ..................................................................................................................................................................................
800,651
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Source: OSHA, ORA, based on U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns, 2024. See Final Economic Analysis spreadsheet (Document
ID 0118).
Overall employment and the number
of employees using PPE in these NAICS
industries—both broken out by sex—are
shown in table 3. Based on BLS Current
Employment Statistics for 2022, the
construction industry was made up of
about 86 percent men and 14 percent
women. According to the CBP, there
were 7,361,847 employees in the
8 As noted below, 2022 was the most recent year
for which the County Business Patterns data were
available at the time this analysis was performed.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Dec 11, 2024
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
construction industry in 2022. Taken
together, these data indicate that
employment in the construction
industry is comprised of 6,313,488 men
and 1,048,359 women. OSHA estimated
in the PPE Payment rule that 79.85
percent of construction employees use
PPE of any type. Using this percentage,
the agency estimates that 5,041,402 men
and 837,128 women in the construction
industry use any type of PPE. OSHA
used these parameters and this
100333
methodology to identify employees by
sex and PPE usage in the proposed rule
and received no comment on this
approach; OSHA therefore has
maintained the same methodology for
the final rule.
TABLE 3—ESTIMATED EMPLOYEES IN CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES BY SEX AND PPE USE, 2022
% of employees
Total employees
% Using PPE
Total employees
using PPE
Men ..........................................................................................
Women .....................................................................................
85.8
14.2
6,313,488
1,048,359
79.85
79.85
5,041,402
837,128
Total ..................................................................................
..............................
7,361,847
..............................
5,878,530
Source: OSHA, ORA, based on U.S. Census Bureau, 2024, and OSHA PPE Payment rule, 2007. See Final Economic Analysis spreadsheet
(Document ID 0118).
B. Costs of Compliance
OSHA has determined that this rule
could impose three main types of costs
on establishments in the construction
industry: (1) rule familiarization, (2)
researching PPE, and (3) replacing PPE.
The costs for researching properly
fitting PPE for purchase and for
replacing improperly fitting PPE will
only be incurred by employers who are
out of compliance with the alreadyexisting requirement to provide workers
with PPE that fits properly.
1. Rule Familiarization
Employers in some affected
establishments will spend time
familiarizing themselves with the rule.
OSHA estimates that rule
familiarization will take ten minutes for
a health and safety coordinator to
complete 9 and that 50 percent of the
establishments in the three construction
NAICS industries will take time to
familiarize themselves with the rule.
OSHA has assumed that only 50 percent
of establishments will need
familiarization time not only because
this final rule is simply a clarification of
an existing requirement, but because the
rule aligns the construction regulatory
text on PPE fit with the general industry
requirement, with which many
construction employers are likely
familiar. OSHA, therefore, believes that
many employers already know that they
must provide PPE that fits properly and
will not need to spend time
familiarizing themselves with this final
rule. The loaded wages 10 used to
calculate the cost of rule familiarization
time are taken from BLS’ Occupational
Employment and Wage Statistics
(OEWS) dataset for 2023 (https://
www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm) for
Occupational Health and Safety
Specialists and Technicians.11 Table 4
shows the costs of rule familiarization.
TABLE 4—TOTAL COSTS OF RULE FAMILIARIZATION
[2023$]
NAICS
50% of
establishments
Establishments
Unit burden
(hours)
Total cost
(2023$)
Wage
236 (Construction of Buildings) .......................................
237 (Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction) ............
238 (Specialty Trade Contractors) ...................................
251,634
38,214
510,803
125,817
19,107
255,402
0.17
0.17
0.17
$65.45
63.65
58.32
$1,372,517
202,694
2,482,631
Total ..........................................................................
800,651
400,326
NA
NA
4,057,842
Source: OSHA, ORA, based on U.S. Census Bureau, 2024, and BLS OEWS, 2024. See Final Economic Analysis spreadsheet (Document ID
0118).
For this final rule, OSHA is
accounting for costs related to
researching and finding non-standardsized PPE. Some commenters said that
it is difficult to locate PPE in certain
non-standard sizes. For instance, one
commenter said that it was challenging
finding PPE, including protective
footwear, to fit her smaller frame and
that she hopes this final rule will
eliminate the need for ‘‘extensive
searches for ‘small’ gear’’ (Document ID
0031). Another commenter said that
‘‘[h]igh-visibility coats that fit a
pregnant belly are hard to find’’
(Document ID 0115), while a third
commenter said that small size high
visibility vests and boots are difficult to
come by and that even proactive
employers can encounter limited supply
in non-standard sizes (Document ID
0079). Other commenters, however,
noted the availability of PPE to fit a
wide range of worker body shapes and
sizes (Document ID 0108, 0112; see also
Document ID 0014, 0117). Based on
these comments, OSHA has estimated
that it may take some additional time for
employers to find appropriate PPE in
non-standard sizes for workers not
9 This is comparable to the five minutes estimated
to be spent on familiarization in the FEA for
OSHA’s recent (and similarly brief) final rule on the
Worker Walkaround Representative Designation
Process (See 89 FR 22558, 22594 (April 1, 2024)).
10 The loaded wages include an industry specific
base wage (BLS, 2024, OEWS), a 31.23 percent
markup from base wages to account for employer
provided fringe benefits (BLS, 2024, Employer Costs
for Employee Compensation), and OSHA’s standard
17 percent markup from base wages to account for
overhead costs to the employer.
11 OSHA used the BLS OEWS Standard
Occupation Classification code 19–5010 for NAICS
236, 237, and 238.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
2. Researching PPE for Purchase
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Dec 11, 2024
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
100334
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
currently wearing properly fitting
PPE.12
In order to provide properly fitting
PPE for the employees who need it,
OSHA estimates that affected
establishments will spend 10 minutes
assessing the needs of their employees
related to PPE (assessment) and another
10 minutes researching and identifying
specific replacement PPE for employees
(identification). The agency estimates
that 184,935 construction employees
might require non-standard sizes of PPE
(see table 9) but recognizes that not all
those employees are using improperly
fitting PPE. This is especially true given
that construction employers are already
required to provide their employees
with properly fitting PPE. OSHA
assumes that up to 10 percent of those
workers—or 18,494 workers—were
being provided with incorrectly fitting
PPE prior to promulgation of this final
rule. While it potentially overstates the
number of employers who will need to
assess PPE needs and spend time
researching PPE in different sizes,
OSHA assumes that each employee
needing replacement PPE works at a
different company, such that the
number of employers that will need to
research PPE equals the number of
affected employees. A more detailed
explanation of the estimated number of
affected employees and thus employers
is described in the next section and
presented in tables 9 and 10.
OSHA calculated one-time, initial
costs for the PPE needs assessment and
identification of non-standard size PPE.
OSHA also estimated annually recurring
costs to identify properly fitting PPE for
newly-hired employees who may need
non-standard sizes of PPE. To calculate
the number of employers that would
need to incur this cost annually, OSHA
multiplies the estimated 18,494 workers
mentioned above by the JOLTS annual
hire rate within the construction sector
for 2023, which is 55.7 percent (BLS
JOLTS, 2024). For this analysis, OSHA
uses the loaded wage rate for a
purchasing manager 13 based on BLS’
OEWS dataset for 2023 to estimate the
costs for identifying the correct PPE,
and the loaded wage rate for
Occupational Health and Safety
Specialists and Technicians 14 for PPE
assessment costs.15 Table 5 shows the
initial costs for the assessment and
identification of properly fitting PPE.
Table 6 presents the ongoing, annual
costs of identifying non-standard sizes
of PPE for newly hired employees. The
cost of the PPE itself is estimated in the
next section.
TABLE 5—TOTAL COSTS OF INITIAL PPE RESEARCH
Affected
establishments
PPE research item
Unit burden
(hours)
Wage
(weighted average)
Total cost
(2023$)
Assessment ...........................................................................................
Identification ...........................................................................................
18,494
18,494
0.17
0.17
$60.82
91.64
$187,457
282,454
Total Cost .......................................................................................
..........................
........................
................................
469,911
Note: Using the figures presented here to perform the calculations in the table may not result in the same totals due to rounding.
Source: OSHA, ORA, based on BLS OEWS, 2024. See Final Economic Analysis spreadsheet (Document ID 0118).
TABLE 6—ANNUAL COST OF PPE IDENTIFICATION
Cost item
Affected
establishments
Hire rate
Unit burden
(hours)
Wage
(weighted average)
Total cost
(2023$)
Identification ...................................................................
18,494
55.7%
0.17
$91.64
$157,327
Note: Using the figures presented here to perform the calculations in the table may not result in the same totals due to rounding.
Source: OSHA, ORA, based on BLS OEWS, 2024 and BLS JOLTS, 2024. See Final Economic Analysis spreadsheet (Document ID 0118).
3. Replacing PPE
As shown in table 7, 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. PPE items
identified as universal fit are those that
are adjustable and capable of fitting
most people.16 OSHA assumes that PPE
items purchased by the employee and
then reimbursed by the employer
already fit properly, since the employee
will select the size that fits them best.
The remaining PPE items are those
provided by the employer that are not
universal fit.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
TABLE 7—PPE USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES *
PPE items provided by the employer, not universal fit
PPE items purchased by employee and reimbursed by
employer
Body Harnesses .................................................................
Chemical Protective Clothing .............................................
Chemical Protective Footwear ...........................................
Prescription Safety Glasses ...............................................
Protective Electrical PPE ...................................................
Protective Welding Clothing ...............................................
12 As noted in the Technological Feasibility
discussion, extensive lists of providers of nonstandard-sized PPE are available online from
multiple sources.
13 OSHA used the BLS OEWS Standard
Occupation Classification code 11–3061 for NAICS
236, 237, and 238.
14 OSHA used the BLS OEWS Standard
Occupation Classification code 19–5010 for NAICS
236, 237, and 238.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Dec 11, 2024
Jkt 265001
15 The loaded wages include an industry specific
base wage (BLS, 2024, OEWS), a 31.23 percent
markup from base wages to account for employer
provided fringe benefits (BLS, 2024, Employer Costs
for Employee Compensation), and OSHA’s standard
17 percent markup from base wages to account for
overhead costs to the employer. The wages
presented are weighted averages from the three
NAICS codes affected by this rule.
16 In their comment, AIHA objected to the term
‘‘universal fit,’’ saying that ‘‘[n]o PPE is universal
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
PPE items of
universal fit
Body Belts.
Hardhats.
Welding Helmets.
fit, even the most adjustable PPE may not fit
workers on the extremes of anthropometric data’’
(Document ID 0058). OSHA acknowledges that at
the tail ends of the distribution of human variation,
some adjustable PPE will not fit. For the purposes
of this analysis, however, OSHA maintains that
some items of PPE that come in standard, adjustable
sizes will fit nearly all individuals working in the
construction industry and so maintains this
designation for a limited number of items in this
analysis.
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
100335
TABLE 7—PPE USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES *—Continued
PPE items provided by the employer, not universal fit
Chemical Splash Goggles ..................................................
Earmuffs .............................................................................
Earplugs ..............................................................................
Face Shields .......................................................................
Gloves for Abrasion Protection.
Gloves for Chemical Protection.
Non-Prescription Safety Glasses.
Safety Goggles.
Safety Vests.
Splash Aprons.
PPE items purchased by employee and reimbursed by
employer
PPE items of
universal fit
Safety Shoes with Metatarsal Guards.
Safety Shoes Without Metatarsal Guards.
Welding Goggles.
Welding Helmets.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
* 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).
Note that Safety Vests were not included in the PPE Payment rule. Body harnesses and ear inserts have been moved from the Universal Fit
column to the column for Provided by the Employer, not Universal Fit, as a result of comments indicating these items are not universal fit.
Source: OSHA, ORA.
In this analysis, the only PPE that
OSHA is estimating may need
replacement as a result of this final rule
are the items that are provided by the
employer and not universal fit. For
these items, the standard size may not
fit all workers. Therefore, in cases where
employers have provided only standardsized PPE, some workers may not have
been provided properly fitting PPE.
OSHA derives the total number of
PPE items currently used by employees
by multiplying the number of PPE items
used by employees in 2004 as estimated
in the PPE Payment rule analysis by the
employment growth rate in the
construction industry from 2004 to 2022
per County Business Patterns data.
Using currently available supply
catalogs, the agency identified up to
three cost estimates for ‘‘standard’’ sizes
of each PPE item potentially requiring
replacement, taking the average of those
estimates for use in this analysis.17
OSHA then calculates the total costs of
replacing all employer-supplied, nonuniversal fit PPE by applying these unit
costs to the total number of PPE items
used by all employees who wear PPE.
Finally, to get the total one-time
replacement costs related to this rule,
OSHA estimates the number of
employees needing replacement PPE
and the average per-employee cost for
replacing their PPE with non-standard
sized PPE and multiplies them. A
detailed description of this approach is
provided in the following paragraphs.
In the PPE Payment rule, OSHA
estimated that the total number of
employer-provided, non-universal fit
PPE items worn by construction
employees in 2004 was about 13
million. However, that analysis did not
include safety vests in the list of
17 Note that current prices are in 2024 dollars
whereas this FEA uses 2023 dollars as its base year.
As such, the prices may be somewhat overstated.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Dec 11, 2024
Jkt 265001
necessary PPE. For this rulemaking, as
presented in the proposal, the agency
estimated the cost and use of safety
vests, including them in the number of
PPE items worn by construction workers
in 2022, the unit cost, and the total cost.
In addition, in the proposed PPE Fit
rule, OSHA treated body harnesses as
universal fit, which was consistent with
how body harnesses were treated in the
PPE Payment rule. However, OSHA
received a number of comments
suggesting that standard body harnesses
frequently do not fit women. One
commenter stated, ‘‘[o]ur research
suggests that there are a very limited
number of harnesses available on the
market that are truly ‘universal fit’
harnesses’’ (Document ID 0108). Several
commenters pointed out that women’s
bodies are shaped differently and that
unisex harnesses are not properly
adjustable to accommodate breasts,
hips, leg length, and height; that use of
improperly fitting harnesses could lead
to bodily harm; and that use of unisex
harnesses is uncomfortable for women
(e.g., Document ID 0048, 0068, 0076,
0077, 0080, 0084, 0093, 0098). One
commenter noted that in a fall, a
traditional unisex harness could damage
a woman’s pelvic region. That
commenter pointed out that while there
are harnesses that are designed
specifically to accommodate women’s
bodies, some employers think unisex is
‘‘good enough’’ (Document ID 0063).
Another commenter said ‘‘Women have
breasts so harnesses are not very
comfortable when they are designed for
men. There are, apparently, harnesses
designed for women but I never to this
day have even seen one’’ (Document ID
0066). Yet another commenter noted
that ‘‘On more than one job I have had
to use the generic one size fits all XL
safety harness where leg straps on the
tightest eyelet hang to my knees’’
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(Document ID 0090). Therefore, in the
final rule, OSHA has added body
harnesses to the list of PPE that are nonuniversal fit and might require
replacement. As a result, they have been
moved to the first column of table 7
above.
In addition, a comment from the ISEA
indicated that earplugs (referred to as
‘‘ear inserts’’ in the proposal) ‘‘are
designed and manufactured in multiple
sizes and shapes to accommodate the
wide range of sizes and shapes of ear
canals’’ (Document ID 0112). NIOSH
agreed, stating that earplugs ‘‘should be
reclassified as ‘provided by the
employer, not universal fit’ because
earplugs are not completely adjustable
and may not be capable of fitting every
person’’ (Document ID 0073, attachment
2). Based on these comments, OSHA
reclassified earplugs from universal fit
to provided by the employer, not
universal fit, and adjusted the cost
model accordingly.
Based on the most recent data (2022)
available from CBP (https://
www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cbp/
data/tables.html), employment in the
construction industries has increased by
10.74 percent since 2004. OSHA applied
this 10.74 percent increase to the
agency’s estimates, in the PPE Payment
rule, of the numbers of PPE items in
2004 that were employer-supplied and
not universal fit. As described above,
OSHA also added estimates for the use
of several PPE items that were not
included in that category in the PPE
Payment rule (safety vests, body
harnesses, and earplugs). Body
harnesses and ear plugs were accounted
for in the PPE Payment analysis as
universal fit PPE, and their use was
estimated there; thus, the estimates of
current use of these items are derived
from the PPE Payment analysis in the
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
100336
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
same way as use of the other items
accounted for in PPE Payment.
Because safety vests were not
included in the PPE Payment rule,
OSHA estimated the number of safety
vests used by construction workers
using occupation-level employment
data from BLS OEWS for 2023. A certain
subset of the employees in the three
affected NAICS industries is estimated
to need safety vests based on general
assumptions about the specific
occupation. As an example, while all
employees in occupations deemed inscope for this rule in the Heavy and
Civil Engineering Construction industry
(NAICS 237) are assumed to need safety
vests, Security Guards in the other two
industries (Construction of Buildings,
NAICS 236, and Specialty Trade
Contractors, NAICS 238) are considered
to be employees who are not near roads
and thus OSHA assumed only 5 percent
of these employees would need safety
vests.18
Based on the calculations described
above, the agency estimates that the
total number of non-universal fit PPE
items worn by construction employees
in 2022 was about 20.0 million.
Dividing the total number of PPE items
in use from table 8 (20,020,424) by the
total number of construction workers in
2022 wearing PPE from table 3
(5,878,530) yields an estimate that each
construction employee wearing PPE
provided by the employer, and not
universal fit, wears an average of 3.41
items of PPE.
Based on current pricing information,
OSHA estimated a total cost of
purchasing ‘‘standard’’ sizes of nonuniversal fit PPE of approximately
$262.0 million, including an estimated
$6.3 million for safety vests, $147.3
million for body harnesses, and
$442,000 for earplugs. OSHA divided
the total cost of PPE by the total number
of items of PPE for an average per unit
PPE cost of $13.08. The agency then
multiplied the per unit PPE cost by the
average number of items of PPE per
employee to calculate an average cost of
$44.56 ($13.08 × 3.41) to outfit a
construction employee in their needed
PPE, assuming that employee can use
standard sizes.
TABLE 8—USE AND COST OF SELECTED PPE IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES
Total PPE items
used by employees
(2022)
PPE provided by the employer, not universal fit
PPE unit cost,
standard size
(2024$)
Total cost
(2024$)
Body Harnesses a ....................................................................................................
Chemical Protective Clothing ..................................................................................
Chemical Protective Footwear .................................................................................
Chemical Splash Goggles .......................................................................................
Earmuffs ...................................................................................................................
Earplugs a .................................................................................................................
Face Shields ............................................................................................................
Gloves for Abrasion Protection ................................................................................
Gloves for Chemical Protection ...............................................................................
Non-Prescription Safety Glasses .............................................................................
Safety Goggles ........................................................................................................
Safety Vests b ..........................................................................................................
Splash Aprons .........................................................................................................
2,004,783
396,561
234,634
647,626
711,375
2,761,510
1,322,723
3,256,712
992,455
3,859,430
2,776,301
837,448
218,865
$73.48
7.71
12.86
10.07
12.49
0.16
15.79
10.63
1.82
3.87
4.60
7.49
6.60
$147,311,472
3,059,075
3,018,178
6,521,590
8,887,449
441,658
20,890,200
34,607,992
1,809,577
14,923,130
12,761,729
6,275,277
1,443,772
Total PPE items used by construction employees ..........................................
20,020,424
..............................
261,951,099
Average per Unit PPE Cost (2024) ..................................................................
................................
..............................
13.08
a The
PPE Payment analysis estimated the use of body harnesses and earplugs but considered them to be universal fit PPE items.
vests were not included in the PPE Payment analysis. OSHA, ORA, estimated their use in 2022 and their cost in 2024 dollars to be
consistent how the agency derived the values for other types of PPE.
Source: OSHA, ORA, based on PPE Payment rule, ERG Cost Estimates, 2024. See Final Economic Analysis spreadsheet (Document ID
0118).
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
b afety
Finally, OSHA estimated the costs of
purchasing replacement PPE for
employees with improperly fitting PPE.
Given the current lack of data on how
many employees might be wearing
improperly fitting PPE, OSHA estimated
this parameter by combining sex
specific construction employment data
with general population height and
weight distributions. The numbers of
women and men in the construction
industry who wear PPE is presented
above in table 3.
To estimate the numbers of women
and men who might require nonstandard sizes of PPE, the agency relied
on height and weight data for the
general population in the Census
Bureau’s 2010 National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey
(NHANES) (https://www2.census.gov/
library/publications/2010/compendia/
statab/130ed/tables/11s0205.pdf).19
OSHA assumed, as shown in table 9,
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 currently be
using improperly fitting PPE.20 21 OSHA
acknowledges that this assumption
results in only a rough estimate of
workers who might be using PPE that
fits improperly, for several reasons.
First, using the general population
height and weight distributions may not
align precisely with the height and
weight distributions for construction
workers. For example, Hispanic males
make up a greater proportion of the
18 As a result of these calculations, OSHA
determined that, among the roughly 1.4 million
construction workers considered, 837,448 of these
workers would use safety vests.
19 This data source reflects the most recent
publicly available data that can be used to estimate
the percentage of construction employees who are
above a certain weight threshold or below a certain
height threshold.
20 The base figure for men shorter than five feet
tall was too small to meet statistical standards of
reliability of a derived figure.
21 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 uses this universe of workers
when calculating the number of workers using PPE
that does not properly fit. OSHA’s analysis does not
attempt to account for workers who wear standardsized PPE but may nevertheless have been provided
with improperly fitting PPE by their employers.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Dec 11, 2024
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
construction workforce than the
population in general and are, on
average, slightly shorter than, and weigh
less than, non-Hispanic white males.
Second, it is possible that there are
fewer people who are much smaller or
larger than average in the construction
industry. Finally, OSHA 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, both male and female.22
Note that OSHA used an identical
approach to this issue in its preliminary
analysis and did not receive any
comments on it. Therefore, the agency
decided to retain this approach for the
final analysis.
Due to data limitations and as a
simplifying assumption for this
100337
analysis, the agency also assumes that
construction workers are distributed
across age groups in the same
proportions as the general population
examined in the NHANES. The agency
then multiplies the average percentages
for each weight and height category by
the total number of men, and the total
number of women, in the construction
industry that wear any type of PPE, as
shown in table 9.
TABLE 9—CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYEES WHO MIGHT REQUIRE NON-STANDARD SIZES OF PPE
Ages
Construction employee characteristic
Average
20–29
Men Above 300 pounds .....................................
Women Above 300 pounds ...............................
Women Under 5 foot tall ....................................
2.5%
2.3%
5.7%
30–39
40–49
3.1%
1.6%
6.0%
50–59
1.9%
1.7%
5.0%
1.9%
0.6%
8.0%
60–69
2.2%
0.7%
9.0%
Total
employees
2.32%
1.38%
6.74%
116,961
11,552
56,422
Total Employees Who Might Require Non-Standard Sizes of PPE ................................................................................................
184,935
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Source: OSHA, ORA, based on NHANES, 2010. See Final Economic Analysis spreadsheet (Document ID 0118).
The agency estimates that 184,935
construction employees might require
non-standard sizes of PPE but
recognizes that not all of those
employees are using improperly fitting
PPE. This is especially true given that
construction employers are already
required to provide their employees
with properly fitting PPE. OSHA
assumes that up to 10 percent of those
workers—or 18,494 workers—were
being provided with incorrectly fitting
PPE prior to promulgation of this final
rule. OSHA used the same assumption
in the preamble to the proposed rule
and received no comments on the
estimate nor suggestions on a different
estimate the agency should use;
therefore, OSHA has maintained this
methodology and simply updated the
underlying data used for this final
analysis.
OSHA received a number of
comments on the issue of whether nonstandard sizes of PPE are more
expensive than standard sizes. For
example, some commenters expressed
that ‘‘outlier sizes’’ tend to cost more
and that because of this, employers are
less likely to purchase them (Document
ID 0038, 0047). Similarly, others said
that employers’ ‘‘costs or compliance
burdens’’ would increase because
employers will have to purchase
multiple sizes of PPE, purchase smaller
quantities, or purchase from
manufacturers with which they do not
typically do business (Document ID
0082, 0107, 0112). Some commenters
who asserted that the rule would
increase costs for businesses cited very
high PPE unit costs that OSHA could
not corroborate or suggested employers
would be required to amass inventories
of PPE that the rule does not require
(Document ID 0082, 0114).
Other commenters argued that the
costs associated with purchasing
properly fitting PPE will be minimal.
For example, CWIT stated that this final
rule should result in ‘‘[l]ittle economic
burden’’ (Document ID 0098). NABTU
commented, ‘‘. . . over 90 percent of
construction establishments employ less
than 20 workers. As such, to the extent
some construction employers are not
already in compliance, the cost of doing
so will not be substantial’’ (Document
ID 0108). ISEA noted that while there
may be costs for special orders of PPE
in extremely small or large sizes, ‘‘the
size ranges of current PPE are likely to
be able to provide a proper fit to the vast
majority of the nation’s construction
workforce’’ (Document ID 0112).
To address these comments, OSHA
estimates that larger and smaller sizes of
PPE cost 15 percent more than the
average size PPE of that type. OSHA
thus calculated the average, per-person
cost to issue replacement PPE in nonstandard sizes by increasing the base
price of $44.56 by 15 percent, for an
estimate of $51.24. As indicated in table
10, OSHA estimates that replacing the
PPE for 18,494 employees would cost
roughly $948,000 for the entire
construction industry.
22 OSHA recognizes that the assumption that
standard-sized PPE properly fits all workers who
are above five feet tall and weigh less than 300
pounds is not accurate in some cases, especially
given the comments noting that ‘‘unisex’’ fall
protection harnesses do not fit many women
properly. As the rulemaking record reflects,
standard-sized PPE may not properly fit some
workers who are above five feet tall and weigh less
than 300 pounds; at the same time, some workers
who are shorter than five feet tall and/or weigh
more than 300 pounds may be able to safely use
standard sizes of PPE. Further, some individuals
who are under five feet tall may also be over 300
pounds, meaning the data may potentially double
count some individuals. Given this, it is important
to note that OSHA views the categories of women
shorter than five feet tall and men and women
weighing above 300 pounds as a proxy for all
workers who might require non-standard sizes of
PPE and therefore are more likely than others to be
receiving PPE that does not fit them properly.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Dec 11, 2024
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
100338
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 10—POTENTIAL PPE REPLACEMENT COST
[2023$]
Assumed percent of employees needing replacement PPE
(2022)
Total affected
employees
Average
per-employee
PPE cost, nonstandard size
Total cost
(2023$)
10% Employees .........................................................................................................
18,494
$51.24
$947,696
Note: Using the figures presented here to perform the calculations in the table may not result in the same totals due to rounding.
Source: OSHA, ORA. See Final Economic Analysis spreadsheet (Document ID 0118).
In addition to the cost of initially
replacing improperly fitting PPE for
some employees, employers will need to
continue providing these non-standard
sizes of PPE to those employees on an
ongoing basis. OSHA calculates the
recurring annual costs of providing
these non-standard sizes of PPE using
the marginal cost of non-standard sizes
of PPE compared to the cost of standard
sizes of PPE. As noted above, OSHA
estimates this marginal cost increase is
15 percent. As shown in table 12, OSHA
multiplies this marginal unit cost by the
number of PPE items per employee for
each PPE type, the total number of
employees needing non-standard sizes
of PPE, and the number of units of each
PPE type needed in a year. OSHA
determined the average useful life for
the PPE items being considered here, as
presented in table 11, based on
estimates the agency developed for the
PPE Payment rule and adjusted
according to comments in the record for
this rulemaking.23
TABLE 11—USEFUL LIFE OF SELECTED PPE
Useful life
(yr.)
PPE provided by the employer, not universal fit
Body Harnesses ............................................................................................................................................................................
Chemical Protective Clothing ........................................................................................................................................................
Chemical Protective Footwear .......................................................................................................................................................
Chemical Splash Goggles .............................................................................................................................................................
Earmuffs .........................................................................................................................................................................................
Earplugs .........................................................................................................................................................................................
Face Shields ..................................................................................................................................................................................
Gloves for Abrasion Protection ......................................................................................................................................................
Gloves for Chemical Protection .....................................................................................................................................................
Non-Prescription Safety Glasses ...................................................................................................................................................
Safety Goggles ..............................................................................................................................................................................
Safety Vests ...................................................................................................................................................................................
Splash Aprons ...............................................................................................................................................................................
2.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.40
0.005
1.00
0.15
0.05
1.00
0.20
0.50
0.50
Source: OSHA based on PPE Payment FEA (72 FR 64342 (Nov. 15, 2007)).
The number of PPE items per
employee presented in table 12 are
calculated using the average number of
items needed per employee (3.41) and
proportionally distributing that estimate
based on the overall numbers of each
PPE item compared to the total number
of all PPE items (see table 8). The
number of units of each PPE type
needed in a year is based on the useful
life estimates presented in table 11.
TABLE 12—ANNUAL MARGINAL COST OF NON-STANDARD SIZE PPE
[2023$]
Items per
employee
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
PPE type
Body Harnesses ...........................................................
Chemical Protective Clothing .......................................
Chemical Protective Footwear .....................................
Chemical Splash Goggles ...........................................
Earmuffs .......................................................................
Earplugs .......................................................................
Face Shields ................................................................
Gloves for Abrasion Protection ....................................
Gloves for Chemical Protection ...................................
Non-Prescription Safety Glasses .................................
Safety Goggles ............................................................
Safety Vests .................................................................
23 One commenter stated ‘‘The useful life in
regards to the economic analysis for ‘‘Gloves for
Abrasion Protection,’’ ‘‘Earmuffs,’’ and ‘‘Safety
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Dec 11, 2024
Jkt 265001
Employees
0.34
0.07
0.04
0.11
0.12
0.47
0.23
0.55
0.17
0.66
0.47
0.14
18,494
18,494
18,494
18,494
18,494
18,494
18,494
18,494
18,494
18,494
18,494
18,494
Items per
year
0.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.5
200.0
1.0
6.7
20.0
1.0
5.0
2.0
Goggles’’ all seem too high. In my experience as a
worker, I would imagine the earmuffs to be closer
to 0.40, gloves to be 0.15, and safety goggles to be
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Non-standard
size marginal
unit cost
$11.02
1.16
1.93
1.51
1.87
0.02
2.37
1.59
0.27
0.58
0.69
1.12
Total items
per year
3,153
2,495
1,476
4,075
5,595
1,737,512
4,161
68,303
62,444
12,142
43,670
5,269
Total
marginal cost
(2023$)
$34,758
2,887
2,849
6,155
10,485
41,683
9,858
108,875
17,078
7,042
30,111
5,923
0.20 or less on average’’ (Document ID 0069). OSHA
has adjusted the useful life of these types of PPE
accordingly.
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
100339
TABLE 12—ANNUAL MARGINAL COST OF NON-STANDARD SIZE PPE—Continued
[2023$]
Items per
employee
PPE type
Items per
year
Employees
Non-standard
size marginal
unit cost
Total
marginal cost
(2023$)
Total items
per year
Splash Aprons ..............................................................
0.04
18,494
2.0
0.99
1,377
1,363
Total ......................................................................
3.41
..................
N/A
N/A
1,951,673
279,065
Note: Using the figures presented here to perform the calculations in the table may not result in the same totals due to rounding.
Source: OSHA, ORA, based on PPE Payment rule, ERG Cost Estimates, 2024. See Final Economic Analysis spreadsheet (Document ID
0118).
As presented in table 13, the agency
estimates that if 10 percent of
employees who might require nonstandard sizes of PPE are provided with
properly fitting PPE as a result of this
clarifying rule, 50 percent of employers
in the construction industry take time to
familiarize themselves with the rule,
and one establishment for each
employee who requires new PPE spends
time researching properly fitting PPE,
the rule could have a one-time total cost
to the construction industry of
$5,475,450 plus $436,392 in annual
recurring costs. These estimated costs
translate to an annualized cost of
$1,045,955 over 10 years using a 2
percent discount rate.
TABLE 13—TOTAL COSTS OF THE PPE RULE
[2023$]
Total one-time
cost
(2023$)
Requirement
Total annual
cost
(2023$)
Total annualized cost
(2023$)
2%
0%
Rule Familiarization .......................................................................................
PPE Research ...............................................................................................
PPE Replacement .........................................................................................
Marginal Cost of Non-Standard Size PPE ....................................................
$4,057,842
469,911
947,696
0
$0
157,327
0
279,065
$451,746
209,640
105,504
279,065
$405,784
204,318
94,770
279,065
Total ........................................................................................................
5,475,450
436,392
1,045,955
983,937
Note: Using the figures presented here to perform the calculations in the table may not result in the same totals due to rounding.
Source: OSHA, ORA. See Final Economic Analysis spreadsheet (Document ID 0118).
4. Sensitivity Analysis
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 as a result of this rule. 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, as discussed
above, OSHA has estimated that affected
employees in construction wear an
average of 3.41 pieces of PPE of the type
(provided by the employer, not
universal fit) covered by OSHA’s
analysis; the primary 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, 3, or 4 items
of PPE, along with the 3.41 items used
in the primary analysis.
In the first sensitivity analysis, OSHA
multiplied the total number of
employees who may require nonstandard sizes of PPE (184,935) by the
various assumed non-compliance
percentages. Table 14, below, presents a
range of 5 percent to 100 percent noncompliance with the requirement to
provide PPE for construction workers
who may not be able to wear standard
sizes of PPE. 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 14. At most, fewer than 200,000
employees might be affected.
TABLE 14—POTENTIALLY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES
[2022]
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Percent of employees needing replacement PPE
Total employees
5 .....................................................................................................................................................................................................
10 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................
25 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................
50 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................
75 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................
100 .................................................................................................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Dec 11, 2024
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
9,247
18,494
46,234
92,468
138,701
184,935
100340
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
For the second sensitivity analysis,
OSHA combined the different
percentages of employees who might
need replacement PPE with different
numbers of items of PPE that might
need to be replaced for each affected
employee. In table 15, 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, 4, or the
average 3.41 pieces of replacement PPE.
TABLE 15—PPE ITEMS PER EMPLOYEE NEEDING REPLACEMENT
Total PPE items needing replacement
Percent of employees needing replacement PPE
1 Item
5 ...........................................................................................
10 .........................................................................................
25 .........................................................................................
50 .........................................................................................
75 .........................................................................................
100 .......................................................................................
To complete the sensitivity analysis,
OSHA multiplied the cost of the average
piece of non-standard sized PPE,
2 Items
9,247
18,494
46,234
92,468
138,701
184,935
18,494
36,987
92,468
184,935
277,403
369,871
calculated as $15.05 per piece ($51.24
cost per employee/3.41 items per
employee), by the number of total items
3 Items
3.41 Items
27,740
55,481
138,701
277,403
416,104
554,806
4 Items
31,492
62,983
157,458
314,916
472,374
629,832
36,987
73,974
184,935
369,871
554,806
739,741
of PPE needing replacement (displayed
in table 15, above). The results are
presented in table 16.
TABLE 16—TOTAL COST OF REPLACEMENT PPE, SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS RESULTS
[2023$]
Total cost for replacement PPE
(2023$)
Percent of employees needing replacement PPE
1 Item
2 Items
3 Items
3.41 Items
4 Items
5 ...........................................................................................
10 .........................................................................................
25 .........................................................................................
50 .........................................................................................
75 .........................................................................................
100 .......................................................................................
$139,134
278,269
695,672
1,391,344
2,087,017
2,782,689
$278,269
556,538
1,391,344
2,782,689
4,174,033
5,565,378
$417,403
834,807
2,087,017
4,174,033
6,261,050
8,348,067
$473,848
947,696
2,369,241
4,738,481
7,107,722
9,476,963
$556,538
1,113,076
2,782,689
5,565,378
8,348,067
11,130,756
Per Employee Cost .......................................................
15.05
30.09
45.14
51.24
60.19
Table 16 shows that, as a worst-case
scenario, if no employers are providing
properly fitting PPE to employees who
may require non-standard sizes of PPE,
and if each employee needs 4 items of
replacement PPE (more PPE than the
average of 3.41 PPE items), then the
total one-time cost to industry to
provide that properly fitting PPE would
be approximately $11.1 million.
Meanwhile, the cost to industry could
be as low as about $140,000 to replace
improperly fitting PPE, assuming only 5
percent of employees need one
replacement PPE item.
The percentage of employees needing
replacement PPE and the number of PPE
items each employee needs replaced
also impact the estimated marginal cost
of providing properly fitting PPE on an
ongoing basis. Table 17 presents the
annual marginal costs associated with
continuing to supply employees with
non-standard size PPE after initial
replacement, assuming varying
percentages of employees needing this
PPE and varying numbers of PPE items
per employee.
TABLE 17—ANNUAL MARGINAL COST OF NON-STANDARD SIZES OF PPE, SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS RESULTS
[2023$]
Annual marginal cost of non-standard size PPE
(2023$)
Percent of employees needing replacement PPE
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
1 Item
5 ...........................................................................................
10 .........................................................................................
25 .........................................................................................
50 .........................................................................................
75 .........................................................................................
100 .......................................................................................
Table 18 shows that the total
annualized cost of the rule could range
from approximately $718,000 to $5.2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Dec 11, 2024
Jkt 265001
2 Items
$40,970
81,941
204,852
409,705
614,557
819,409
$81,941
163,882
409,705
819,409
1,229,114
1,638,819
million when factoring in rule
familiarization, PPE research, and the
various PPE replacement scenarios
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
3 Items
$122,911
245,823
614,557
1,229,114
1,843,671
2,458,228
3.41 Items
$139,533
279,065
697,663
1,395,325
2,092,988
2,790,650
4 Items
$163,882
327,764
819,409
1,638,819
2,458,228
3,277,637
(assuming a 10-year time horizon and 2
percent discount rate).
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
100341
TABLE 18—TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST OF PPE FIT RULE, SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS RESULTS
[2023$]
Total annualized cost of PPE fit rule
(2023$)
Percent of employees needing replacement PPE
1 Item
5 ...........................................................................................
10 .........................................................................................
25 .........................................................................................
50 .........................................................................................
75 .........................................................................................
100 .......................................................................................
OSHA also considered a sensitivity
analysis that assumes a Purchasing
Manager would spend 30 minutes
instead of 10 minutes researching and
identifying non-standard sizes of PPE
for employees who do not currently
have properly fitting PPE. This revised
assumption increases the total
annualized costs of the rule from
$1,045,955 to $1,423,497 using a 2
percent discount rate over a ten-year
period.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
C. Economic Feasibility
The OSH Act requires that OSHA
show the economic feasibility of
standards. A standard is economically
feasible when industry can absorb or
pass on the costs of compliance without
threatening the industry’s long-term
profitability or competitive structure
(American Textile Mfrs. Inst. v.
Donovan, 452 U.S. 490, 530 n.55 (1981)
(Cotton Dust)), 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)). ‘‘[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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Dec 11, 2024
Jkt 265001
2 Items
$717,846
774,305
943,685
1,225,984
1,508,283
1,790,582
$774,305
887,225
1,225,984
1,790,582
2,355,180
2,919,779
health standards issued under section
6(b)(5) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C.
655(b)(5)), 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 16612, 16622–23 (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.’’)).
OSHA historically has applied two
threshold tests to examine economic
feasibility for industries 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.24 However, as discussed in
OSHA’s recent proposed rule on Heat
Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor
and Indoor Work Settings (89 FR 70698,
70943 (Aug. 30, 2024)), the agency is no
longer using costs as a percent of profits
as a measure of feasibility because
OSHA determined that the profit test is
not a useful measure of the economic
feasibility of a standard for a given
industry. To determine whether there is
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the
threshold test examines whether the
average costs for small entities are 1
24 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).
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
3 Items
$830,765
1,000,145
1,508,283
2,355,180
3,202,078
4,048,975
3.41 Items
$853,670
1,045,955
1,622,808
2,584,230
3,545,652
4,507,073
4 Items
$887,225
1,113,064
1,790,582
2,919,779
4,048,975
5,178,171
percent of their average revenues or
below.25 These threshold tests are not a
hard ceiling or determinative; instead,
they provide guidelines the agency uses
to examine whether there are any
potential economic impact issues that
require additional study.
Although this rule simply clarifies an
existing requirement, OSHA has
provided an estimate of the costs for a
proportion of employers to come into
compliance with the already-existing
requirement to provide properly fitting
PPE. As one commenter pointed out, the
rule ‘‘should not cause any financial
stress on any company unless they are
providing ill-fitting PPE to employees
currently’’ (Document ID 0034). 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. As shown
in table 19, the average construction
industry employer has revenues of $3.35
million annually and 9 employees. As a
worst-case scenario, if such an employer
had to conduct rule familiarization,
research PPE, and replace all the PPE at
issue in this rulemaking for all of their
employees (i.e., 3.41 items per employee
for 9 employees), including new hires,
and then continue to provide properly
fitting PPE, it would cost an annualized
$258, which is much less than 0.1
percent of an average employer’s
revenues. More realistically, an
employer might have to replace the PPE
for one of its employees and the perestablishment costs would be
substantially lower. Therefore, this rule
is clearly economically feasible.
25 For example, see OSHA’s Final Regulatory
Flexibility Screening Analysis in support of the
Hazard Communication rule (77 FR 17574, 17660
(March 26, 2012)).
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
100342
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 19—AVERAGE EMPLOYMENT AND REVENUES (2023$) PER ESTABLISHMENT BY NAICS
NAICS
Establishments
Average
employment per
establishment
Average revenue
(2023$) per
establishment
236 (Construction of Buildings) .................................................................................
237 (Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction) ......................................................
238 (Specialty Trade Contractors) ............................................................................
251,634
38,214
510,803
6
26
9
$3,825,160
9,892,428
2,078,011
Total Construction ..............................................................................................
800,651
9
3,347,121
Source: 2022 County Business Patterns (CBP). Available at https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/2022/econ/cbp/2022-cbp.html.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
D. Regulatory Flexibility Screening
Analysis and Certification
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 requirement
would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.26 While the rule simply
clarifies an existing requirement, even
when OSHA assumes that this rule
leads to changes in employer behavior
and associated costs, the costs are
minimal. Given the number of workers
OSHA estimates might be wearing
improperly fitting PPE compared to the
number of construction establishments
covered by this rule, it is statistically
unlikely that there will be more than
one worker who might be wearing
improperly fitting PPE at any given firm.
For the following reasons, this rule will
not impose significant costs (i.e., costs
that amount to more than one percent of
revenues) on small employers:
• Replacement PPE costs are less than
$52 per employee;
• Establishments will incur less than
$36 to complete rule familiarization and
PPE research upfront (plus another $15
annually if they have a new hire
requiring non-standard PPE); and
• The ongoing marginal cost of nonstandard sized PPE is about $7 per
employee, on average.
To further illustrate this point, in
order for a firm to experience impacts
greater than 1 percent of revenues, firmlevel revenues would need to be $3,162
or lower.27 According to the 2017
26 Small entity status is determined by the Small
Business Administration’s size standards.
Construction entities are considered small based on
their revenue, with the threshold ranging from less
than $19 million to less than $45 million in annual
revenue depending on which 6-digit NAICS
industry the employer falls under (See https://
www.sba.gov/document/support-table-sizestandards).
27 Rule familiarization cost per establishment of
$10.14, one time PPE needs assessment and
research cost of $25.41, annual research cost for
new hires of $15.27, and one time PPE replacement
cost of $51.24 for one employee, plus ongoing
marginal cost of nonstandard sized PPE of $6.68 for
one employee annualized at a 2 percent discount
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Dec 11, 2024
Jkt 265001
Although this rule is a clarification of
employers’ existing obligations,
comments in the record suggest that not
all employers are currently meeting
their obligation to provide their
employees with properly fitting PPE.
The agency expects this clarification
will improve compliance and thereby
produce benefits to workers who were
previously not receiving properly fitting
PPE. However, due to lack of
information about how many injuries,
illnesses, and fatalities are caused by
improperly fitting PPE, the agency is
unable to estimate number of injuries,
illnesses, and fatalities that may be
averted by this final rule. While OSHA
received a number of comments
providing anecdotal evidence from
individuals’ personal experience, no
commenter provided studies or data that
would allow the agency to estimate the
number of fatalities and non-fatal
injuries and illnesses caused by
improperly fitting PPE across the
construction industry. This section
discusses the evidence in the record
regarding potential benefits, the
difficulties in identifying PPE-related
injuries in the available data, and
potential benefits other than direct
health and safety benefits that may
result from this final rule. Finally, for
informational purposes, OSHA
calculates how many fatalities or nonfatal injuries and illnesses would need
to be prevented by this rule in order for
it to have positive net benefits.28
The comments OSHA received
revealed two types of benefits likely to
result from requiring properly fitting
PPE. The first type comes from
avoidance of injuries, illnesses, and
fatalities. Several commenters reported
that they were required to wear
incorrectly fitting PPE on the job and
that this made accidents more likely for
them (Document ID 0079, 0081, 0097).
Some reported having been injured due
to improperly fitting PPE while others
reported near misses. For example, one
individual reported that a safety vest
that was too big had gotten ‘‘caught on
equipment and nearly caused falls’’ and
that ‘‘[i]mproperly fitting gloves have
been caught in equipment’’ (Document
ID 0079). Another said that oversized
gloves caused her hand to be caught in
machinery, resulting in a serious and
permanently debilitating injury
(Document ID 0061). A comment from
the United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America (UBC) reported
stories shared by their members,
including two who suffered eye injuries
due to improperly fitting safety glasses,
one whose oversized fall protection
harness got caught on equipment and
caused a back injury, and two who
suffered injuries to fingers when their
oversized gloves were caught in
machinery (Document ID 0074). These
comments indicate that employees are
being injured due to improperly fitting
PPE.
However, specific numbers of injuries
or fatalities directly attributable to
improperly fitting PPE are difficult to
identify in the available data. As shown
above, improperly fitting PPE can cause
a variety of types of injuries (i.e.,
fractures, abrasions, sprains, cuts and
punctures) in a number of ways (i.e., by
causing falls, getting caught in
rate over 10 years yields a per employer cost of
$31.62. For a cost of $31.62 to exceed one percent
of revenues, the employer’s revenues would need
to be less than $3,162 annually ($3,162 * 0.01 =
$31.62).
28 By showing this break-even point, OSHA is not
suggesting the agency is required to engage in
formal cost-benefit analysis requiring that benefits
exceed costs but instead presents it for
informational purposes only.
Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB)
dataset (https://www.census.gov/data/
datasets/2017/econ/susb/2017susb.html), Specialty Trade Contractors
(NAICS code 238) has the lowest
revenues per firm for the smallest size
category (<5 employees) at $365,018
(inflated to 2023$), which is well above
the $3,162 needed for impacts to equal
1 percent of revenues. The agency
therefore certifies that this final rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
E. Benefits
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
machinery) and to a number of parts of
the body. Data available from BLS are
parsed by type of injury, cause of injury,
or part of the body injured, and injuries
that are reported in these categories may
include injuries caused by improperly
fitting PPE along with injuries resulting
from other factors. The data collected do
not specify whether PPE was being
worn or whether it contributed to an
accident or injury. Data from BLS
reported that, in 2021, there were more
than 37,000 sprains, strains, and tears,
more than 18,000 cuts and lacerations,
and 1,700 amputations that resulted in
days away from work in the
construction industry (BLS, 2023). The
injuries reported by commenters and
discussed above would fall within these
categories (if they were reported
appropriately). Based on this, it is
entirely plausible that there are some
injuries in these categories (as well as
other categories of injuries not
presented here) that are due to
improperly fitting PPE and that could be
avoided if employees wore properly
fitting PPE.
In addition to the specific accounts of
injuries detailed above, multiple
commenters expressed doubt that the
improperly fitting PPE they wear or had
worn would keep them safe in the event
an accident occurred; some worried that
the poor fit of their PPE (e.g., fall
protection harness) could lead to a fatal
accident (Document ID 0085, 0081,
0084, 0090, 0108). Others reported that
they felt they were putting themselves
in danger by working while wearing
improperly fitting PPE (Document ID
0080). Feeling unsafe at work has
negative consequences for workers’
mental health. The NSC conducted a
survey to evaluate the correlation
between workplace safety and negative
mental health impacts. NSC reported
that:
Respondents who felt unsafe at work were
nearly three times more likely to report also
experiencing depressive symptoms within
the past two weeks compared to those who
felt safe at work. In addition, respondents
who felt unsafe at work were more than twice
as likely to also report feeling symptoms of
anxiety compared to those who felt safe at
work.
Individuals with the highest level of
concern for their safety at work were the
most likely to report feeling depressed or
anxious frequently enough to meet one of the
criteria for clinical diagnosis of mental
illness (NSC, 2022).
Consistent with the findings of the
NSC survey, commenters reported
feelings of anxiety and stress, loss of
sleep, mental fatigue, and concern about
discrimination or retaliation; they also
worried about loss of income because of,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Dec 11, 2024
Jkt 265001
for example, being sent home due to a
lack of properly fitting PPE or being laid
off because they work slower due to PPE
that is too big and makes tasks more
difficult (Document ID 0045, 0074,
0087). Accordingly, the fit requirement
of this final rule may yield benefits from
reduced stress and other negative
mental health effects.
The third type of benefit likely to
result from this final rule is avoidance
of work or production delays that occur
when workers are wearing PPE that does
not fit. The UBC noted that, among
other benefits, ‘‘properly fitting PPE will
result in less lost production’’
(Document ID 0074) and the ISEA
likewise commented that the rule would
yield a financial benefit by preventing
injuries and fatalities (Document ID
0112). In its comment, NIOSH cited
studies finding that workers had
difficulty performing job tasks while
wearing poorly fitting PPE, including
one where study participants ‘‘reported
that poorly fitting PPE interfered with
work tasks and potentially affected their
productivity’’ and another where
participants reported that ‘‘[b]eing
unable to perform some technical tasks
while wearing standard issue gloves had
a direct negative effect on productivity’’
(Document ID 0054). Commenters also
reported that improperly fitting PPE
made it difficult to do their jobs
efficiently (Document ID 0073, 0079).
Accordingly, workers who are provided
with properly fitting PPE as a result of
this final rule may experience increased
productivity, which in turn benefits
employers because employees can work
faster and more efficiently.
Additional benefits that could accrue
to employees as a result of this rule
include not being denied work (e.g.,
Document ID 0061, 0114); not being sent
home without pay (e.g., Document ID
0087); and not having to pay for their
own PPE (e.g., Document ID 0056, 0060,
0067, 0094, 0115). Another commenter
suggested that improved safety would
help the construction industry
‘‘alleviate [. . .] risk and make working
in the industry a good choice for women
and other under-represented groups’’
which the commenter believed was
necessary in order for the industry to
meet the need for workers (Document ID
0074).
Based on the above, OSHA believes
that this rule will result in health and
safety benefits to workers, as well as
benefits to employers due to increased
worker efficiency and productivity.
Although the agency is unable to
quantify those benefits due to data
limitations, the agency has calculated,
for informational purposes, how many
injuries and/or fatalities this final rule
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
100343
would have to prevent to yield a net
benefit. To do so, OSHA begins with the
estimate that this final rule will impose
annualized costs of about $889,000 per
year using a two percent discount rate
and a ten year time frame. Next, OSHA
monetizes the potential safety and
health benefits of the rule. Monetization
allows comparison of the benefits and
costs of a rule in the same terms. When
OSHA is able to estimate the number of
injuries or fatalities prevented by a
given rule, the agency monetizes these
benefits.
If OSHA were to monetize fatalities
potentially avoided by this final rule,
the analysis would use the Department
of Transportation (DOT) 2023 value-ofa-statistical-life (VSL) estimate of $13.2
million per avoided fatality (DOT,
2024).29 DOT relied on a selected set of
nine recent economic studies that
provided usable estimates of VSL for a
broad cross-section of the population.
Because economic theory and empirical
evidence indicate that the value of
reducing life-threatening and healththreatening risks (and the corresponding
willingness of individuals to pay to
reduce these risks) will increase as real
per capita income increases, DOT
adjusted its VSL estimate to reflect
changes in real income over time, using
an income elasticity of VSL of 1.0 (the
percentage change in VSL in response to
a 1% increase in real income). For its
estimate of real gross domestic product
(GDP) growth over the ten-year period
for which OSHA estimates benefits, the
agency uses a recent Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) forecast of 1.7
percent per year (CBO, 2022).30
Accounting for real GDP growth over a
ten-year period, on an annualized basis
using a 2 percent discount rate, OSHA’s
adjusted VSL is $14.2 million.31
Although OSHA is unable to estimate
the number of fatalities that will be
prevented by this final rule, the agency
can demonstrate based on this adjusted
VSL, that this final rule will have
positive net benefits if it prevents one
29 The analysis is using 2023 as its reference
dollar year for comparing costs and benefits,
although given that the unit costs for PPE are using
the latest available information from 2024, the costs
might be slightly overstated for 2023.
30 See Table 2–1 in https://www.cbo.gov/
publication/58147 (CBO, 2022).
31 Beginning with a baseline ($2023) VSL of $13.2
million, OSHA applied an annual income growth
rate of 1.7% (Year 0 = 100.0%, Year 1 = 101.7%,
Year 2 = 103.4%, Year 3 = 105.2%, Year 4 =
107.0%, Year 5 = 108.8%, Year 6 = 110.6%, Year
7 = 112.5%, Year 8 = 114.4%, Year 9 = 116.4%)
and a discount rate of 2% to derive a present value
income growth rate of 107.7%. Multiplying the
baseline VSL times the present value income
growth rate ($13.2 × 107.7%) yields an adjusted
VSL value of $14,217,770, or after rounding, $14.2
million.
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
100344
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
fatality about every 14 years
($14,200,000/$1,045,955 = 13.6) based
on avoided fatalities alone regardless of
avoided non-fatal injuries.
Similarly, OSHA typically monetizes
the benefits of avoided nonfatal injuries
and illnesses based on the value of a
statistical injury (VSI) and, if
monetizing benefits for this final rule,
would use the midpoint of the range of
the values cited in Viscusi and Gentry
(2015) converted to 2023 dollars using
the GDP deflator, or $116,588 per injury.
Based on this VSI, if this rule prevented
about 9 ($1,045,955/$116,588 = 8.97)
nonfatal injuries or illnesses a year, it
would have positive net benefits
regardless of avoided fatalities.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
References
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2024). Job
Openings and Labor Turnover Survey
(JOLTS). Available at https://
www.bls.gov/jlt/data.htm (Accessed
March 18, 2024). (BLS JOLTS, 2024)
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2023).
Survey of Occupational Injuries and
Illnesses, Number of nonfatal
occupational injuries and illnesses
involving days away from work,
restricted activity, or job transfer
(DART), days away from work (DAFW),
and days of restricted work activity, or
job transfer (DJTR) by industry and
selected natures of injury or illness,
private industry, 2021–2022. Available at
https://www.bls.gov/iif/nonfatal-injuriesand-illnesses-tables/case-anddemographic-characteristics-table-r12021-2022.xlsx. (BLS, 2023)
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2023, May).
Occupational Employment and Wage
Statistics. May 2023 National IndustrySpecific Occupational Employment and
Wage Estimates. NAICS Sectors.
Available at: https://www.bls.gov/oes/
current/oessrci.htm. (BLS, May 2023)
Congressional Budget Office (CBO). (2022).
The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2022
to 2032. Available at: https://
www.cbo.gov/publication/58147. (CBO,
2022)
Department of Transportation (DOT). (2024).
Department Guidance on Valuation of a
Statistical Life in Economic Analysis.
Available at: https://
www.transportation.gov/office-policy/
transportation-policy/reviseddepartmental-guidance-on-valuation-ofa-statistical-life-in-economic-analysis.
(DOT, 2024)
Leigh JP. (Leigh) (2011, Dec). Economic
Burden of Occupational Injury and
Illness in the United States. The Milbank
Quarterly. 2011 Dec; 89(4):728–72.
Available at: https://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC3250639/. (Leigh, Dec. 2011)
National Safety Council (NSC). (2022). ‘‘NSC
Survey Finds Workplace Safety Issues
Correlate with Depression, Anxiety.’’
Available at: https://www.nsc.org/
newsroom/nsc-survey-finds-workplacesafety-issues-correlate (NSC, 2022)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Dec 11, 2024
Jkt 265001
Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
(2023). Circular No. A–4. Executive
Office of the President. Available at:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/
uploads/2023/11/CircularA-4.pdf. (OMB,
2023)
Park, Jisung, Nora Pankratz, and Arnold
Behrer. (2021, July) ‘‘Temperature,
workplace safety, and labor market
inequality.’’ IZA Discussion Paper 14560
(2021): 1–94. Available at: https://
www.iza.org/publications/dp/14560/
temperature-workplace-safety-and-labormarket-inequality. (Park, et al., July,
2021)
Viscusi, W. K., & Gentry, E. P. (2015). The
value of a statistical life for
transportation regulations: A test of the
benefits transfer methodology. Journal of
Risk and Uncertainty, 51, 53–77. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11166-015-9219-2.
(Viscusi and Gentry, 2015)
VI. Technological Feasibility
This final rule amends § 1926.95(c) to
make explicit construction employers’
existing obligation to ensure PPE worn
by employees properly fits each
employee. In the NPRM, OSHA
explained that this revision would
improve clarity for the construction
sector and would ensure consistency
between the construction PPE standards
and existing OSHA standards for
general industry and shipyards. OSHA
further stated that because the
requirement for properly fitting PPE
already exists in the construction
industry, the agency believed that
providing properly fitting PPE is already
common practice among construction
employers. Therefore, OSHA
preliminarily concluded that the
proposed rule would be technologically
feasible.32
In response to the NPRM, no
commenter identified any technological
barriers to providing construction
employees with properly fitting PPE.
Instead, as one commenter stated, ‘‘PPE
is readily available for the wide range of
worker anthropometrics’’ (Document ID
0108). According to another, ‘‘PPE is
available in different sizes. In addition,
most PPE is adjustable, and available in
a range of sizes, meaning the wearer can
achieve a proper fit’’ (Document ID
0112). General industry and shipyard
employers have been able to comply
with the comparable requirements in 29
CFR 1910.132(d)(1)(iii) and
1915.152(b)(3), providing further
evidence of technological feasibility,
especially given that no commenter
32 As explained in the NPRM, because the
revision in this final rule is simply a clarification
of an existing requirement, the agency is not
required to perform a new technological feasibility
analysis for this rulemaking. Nonetheless, OSHA is
including a discussion of technological feasibility
for informational purposes.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
identified any PPE that is unique to
construction work (see Document ID
0078). OSHA has also identified
industry resources that demonstrate the
availability of PPE designed for many
different body types, such as the list of
PPE for all genders and sizes compiled
by CPWR (see Document ID 0117) and
ISEA’s List of Female PPE
Manufacturers (Document ID 0014).
Although some commenters did
indicate they had difficulty obtaining
properly fitting PPE in the past
(Document ID 0031, 0046), these
comments do not demonstrate a
technological feasibility issue, but rather
a market supply issue. As one
commenter noted, ‘‘[s]maller sizes exist
for many types of PPE, but only larger
sizes are stocked by sellers’’ (Document
ID 0046). These same commenters also
expressed hope that this final rule
would increase availability by spurring
demand (Document ID 0031, 0046). As
one commenter stated, ‘‘[t]here could be
experiences of longer lead times for
certain PPE items; however, as
employers increase the demand for
manufacturers to produce more size
variations, this problem should be
alleviated’’ (Document ID 0098). After
reviewing the comments received and
the evidence in the record, OSHA finds
that this final rule is technologically
feasible.
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule 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)).
VIII. Federalism
OSHA reviewed this final rule in
accordance with Executive Order 13132
(64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999)), which,
among other things, is intended to
‘‘ensure that the principles of federalism
established by the Framers guide the
executive departments and agencies in
the formulation and implementation of
policies.’’ The E.O. provides for
preemption of State law where there is
clear evidence that Congress intended
preemption of State law, or where the
exercise of State authority conflicts with
the exercise of Federal authority under
the Federal statute. The E.O. directs
agencies to limit any such preemption
to the extent possible. The E.O. also
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
requires that agencies consult with
states on rules that have ‘‘federalism
implications,’’ which are those that have
‘‘substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the
National Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.’’
This final rule complies with E.O.
13132. The hazards addressed by this
final rule and its goal of protecting
construction workers are national in
scope and the final rule does not
include ‘‘federalism implications’’ as
defined in the E.O. Under section 18 of
the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.,
Congress expressly provides that States
may adopt, with Federal approval, a
plan for the development and
enforcement of occupational safety and
health standards (29 U.S.C. 667); OSHA
refers to these OSHA-approved, Stateadministered occupational safety and
health programs as ‘‘State Plans.’’
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 (29 U.S.C. 667). Subject to
these requirements, State Plans are free
to develop and enforce under State law
their own requirements for occupational
safety and health standards. The choice
to become a State Plan is part of the
statutory scheme and is not mandatory,
so there are no federalism implications
for States that choose to adopt a State
Plan. The effect of this final rule on
States and territories with OSHAapproved occupational safety and health
State Plans is discussed in Section IX,
State Plans.
In States without OSHA-approved
State Plans, the States are not employers
under the OSH Act and the final rule
would therefore not have a substantial
direct effect on them (29 U.S.C. 652(5)).
IX. State Plans
When Federal OSHA promulgates a
new standard or a more stringent
amendment to an existing standard,
States with their own OSHA-approved
occupational safety and health plans
(‘‘State Plans’’) must either amend their
standards to be identical to, or ‘‘at least
as effective as,’’ the new standard or
amendment, or show that an existing
State Plan standard covering this issue
is ‘‘at least as effective’’ as the new
Federal standard or amendment (29 CFR
1953.5(a)). State Plans’ adoption must
be completed within six months of the
promulgation date of the final Federal
rule.
OSHA has determined that by
including in 29 CFR 1926.95 an explicit
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Dec 11, 2024
Jkt 265001
requirement that PPE must fit properly,
this final rule will increase protection
afforded to employees in the
construction industry by clarifying
employers’ obligations under the
standard. Accordingly, within six
months of the rule’s final promulgation
date, State Plans are required to review
their standards and adopt amendments
to those standards that are identical to,
or ‘‘at least as effective’’ as, this rule,
unless they demonstrate that such
amendments are not necessary because
their existing standards are already ‘‘at
least as effective’’ in protecting workers.
To avoid delays in worker protection,
the effective date of the State standard
and any of its delayed provisions must
be the date of State promulgation or the
Federal effective date, whichever is
later. The Assistant Secretary may
permit a longer time period if the State
timely demonstrates that good cause
exists for extending the time limitation
(29 CFR 1953.5(a)).
Of the 29 States and Territories with
OSHA-approved State Plans, 22 cover
public and private-sector employees:
Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii,
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New
Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto
Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah,
Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and
Wyoming. The remaining seven States
and Territories cover only State and
local government employees:
Connecticut, Illinois, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York,
and the Virgin Islands.
X. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
OSHA reviewed this final rule
according to the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’; 2 U.S.C.
1501 et seq.) and Executive Order 12875
(58 FR 58093 (Oct. 28, 1993)). Section
202 of the UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1532,
requires agencies to assess the
anticipated costs and benefits of a rule
that includes a Federal mandate ‘‘that
may result in expenditures in any one
year by state, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector,’’ of at least $100 million,
adjusted annually for inflation. This
provision does not generally apply to a
duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program (2 U.S.C.
658(5)).
As discussed above in Section V.
Final Economic Analysis and
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification,
the agency has preliminarily determined
that compliance with this final rule will
require expenditures of less than $100
million (adjusted annually for inflation,
which would now amount to more than
$180 million) per year by all affected
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
100345
entities. Accordingly, this proposal is
not a significant regulatory action
within the meaning of the UMRA.
This rule does not place a mandate on
State or local government for purposes
of the UMRA. As explained above in
Section IX. State Plans, those States
with OSHA-approved State Plans
voluntarily choose to adopt, with
Federal approval, a plan for the
development and enforcement of
occupational safety and health
standards. Thus, to the extent they are
required to comply with OSHA
standards, it is the result of their
voluntary decision, not a Federal
mandate. In States without OSHAapproved State Plans, the States and
their political subdivisions are not
employers under the OSH Act (29
U.S.C. 652(5)). Thus, the final rule does
not impose costs on them.
The OSH Act does not cover Tribal
governments in the performance of
traditional governmental functions, but
it does cover Tribal governments when
they engage in activities of a commercial
or service character (see Menominee
Tribal Enterprises v. Solis, 601 F.3d 669
(7th Cir. 2010); Reich v. Mashantucket
Sand & Gravel, 95 F.3d 174 (2d Cir.
1996)). However, the cost of the
revisions in this final rule for these
covered activities by a Tribal
government would not meet the
threshold established in UMRA. OSHA
certifies that this rule would not
mandate that State, local, or Tribal
governments adopt new, unfunded
regulatory obligations of, or increase
expenditures by the private sector by,
more than $100 million in any year, as
documented in the Final Economic
Analysis.
XI. Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
OSHA reviewed this final rule in
accordance with Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000)) and
determined that it would not have
‘‘tribal implications’’ as defined in that
order. The clarification to 29 CFR
1926.95 does 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.
XII. Protecting Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, Protecting
Children from Environmental Health
and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885 (April 23,
1997)), as amended by Executive Orders
13229 and 13296, requires that Federal
agencies provide additional evaluation
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
100346
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
of economically significant regulatory
actions that concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk that an agency
has reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children. As
explained elsewhere in this preamble,
OSHA has determined that this final
rule is not an economically significant
regulatory action. In addition, this rule
is intended to protect workers of all
ages, and OSHA has no information that
children comprise a disproportion share
of the affected workforce. To the extent
older children are employed in the
construction industry, this final rule
will have a protective effect on these
older children by ensuring that they are
provided properly fitting PPE. OSHA
has therefore determined that this rule
will not disproportionately affect
children or have any adverse impact on
children. Accordingly, Executive Order
13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks, requires no further agency action
or analysis.
Signed at Washington, DC.
Douglas L. Parker,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health.
XIII. Environmental Impacts
■
OSHA has reviewed the final rule
according to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the
regulations of the Council on
Environmental Quality (40 CFR part
1500 et seq.), and the Department of
Labor’s NEPA procedures (29 CFR part
11).
Pursuant to 29 CFR 11.10 and
consistent with CEQ regulations, the
promulgation, modification, or
revocation of any safety standard is
categorically excluded from the
requirement to prepare an
environmental assessment under NEPA
absent extraordinary circumstances
indicating the need for such an
assessment. OSHA finds that this final
rule presents no such extraordinary
circumstances.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1926
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
PART 1926—OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY
AND HEALTH STANDARDS
Subpart E—Personal Protective and
Life Saving Equipment
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.
2. Amend § 1926.95 by revising
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 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. 2024–29220 Filed 12–11–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
Safety Zone, Lower Mississippi River,
Natchez, MS
Douglas L. Parker, Assistant Secretary
of Labor for Occupational Safety and
Health, authorized the preparation of
this document under the authority
granted by sections 4, 6, and 8 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), 5 U.S.C.
553, Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 8–
2020 (85 FR 58393), and 29 CFR part
1911.
Jkt 265001
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, OSHA amends 29 CFR part
1926 to read as follows:
RIN 1625–AA00
Authority and Signature
17:18 Dec 11, 2024
Amendments to Standards
[Docket Number USCG–2024–1055]
Construction, Personal protective
equipment, Occupational safety and
health.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Final Regulatory Text
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard is
establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters on the Lower
Mississippi River from mile marker
364.4 to mile marker 365.5. The safety
zone is needed to protect personnel,
vessels, and the marine environment
from potential hazards created by
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
waterborne fireworks display with a
fallout zone of approximately 350 feet
around the barge. Entry of vessels or
persons into this zone is prohibited
unless specifically authorized by the
Captain of the Port, Sector Lower
Mississippi River.
This rule is effective December
31, 2024, from 6 p.m. through 7 p.m.
DATES:
To view documents
mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://
www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2024–
1055 in the search box and click
‘‘Search.’’ Next, in the Document Type
column, select ‘‘Supporting & Related
Material.’’
ADDRESSES:
If
you have questions about this rule, call
or email MST1 Peter Buczakowski, U.S.
Coast Guard; telephone 901–208–0311,
email Peter.L.Buczakowski@uscg.mil.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background Information and
Regulatory History
The Coast Guard is issuing this
temporary rule under the authority in 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory
provision authorizes an agency to issue
a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the
agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ‘‘impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.’’ The Coast Guard finds that
good cause exists for not publishing a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is
impracticable. The NPRM process
would delay the establishment of the
safety zone until after the date of the
event and compromise public safety. We
must establish this temporary safety
zone by December 31, 2024, and lack
sufficient time to provide a reasonable
comment period and then consider
those comments before issuing the rule.
Also, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the
Coast Guard finds that good cause exists
for making this rule effective less than
30 days after publication in the Federal
Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be contrary to the public
interest because action is needed to
respond to the potential safety hazards
associated with the waterborne
fireworks displays on December 31,
2024.
E:\FR\FM\12DER1.SGM
12DER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 239 (Thursday, December 12, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 100321-100346]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-29220]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OSHA is finalizing a revision to its personal protective
equipment standard for construction to explicitly require that the
equipment must fit properly.
DATES: This final rule is effective January 13, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Docket: To read or download comments or other information in
the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov. All comments and
submissions are listed in the https://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: [email protected].
General and technical inquiries: Vernon Preston, OSHA Directorate
of Construction, telephone: (202) 693-2020; email:
[email protected].
Copies of this Federal Register notice and news releases:
Electronic copies of these documents are available at OSHA's web page
at https://www.osha.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 100322]]
Citation Method
In the docket for the personal protective equipment in construction
rulemaking, found at https://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 final rule, citations to
items in the docket are referenced by the last four digits of the
Document ID Number. For example, Document ID number OSHA-2019-0003-0002
would be referenced as ``Document ID 0002.'' In a citation that
contains two or more documents, the citations are separated by commas.
In cases where a commenter submitted multiple documents, the attachment
number is included after the Document ID. 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).
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
A. OSHA's PPE Requirements
B. Rulemaking History
C. Comments Received During the SIP-IV Rulemaking
III. Summary and Explanation
A. Impact of Improperly Fitting PPE and the Need for an Explicit
Requirement
B. Whether the Rule Would Effectuate the Purpose of the OSH Act
Better Than Consensus Standards
C. The Appropriateness of the New Regulatory Text
D. Differences Between General Industry, Maritime, and the
Construction Industry
E. The Adequacy of Guidance on PPE ``Proper Fit'' in
Construction
F. OSHA Enforcement of PPE Fit Requirements
IV. Pertinent Legal Authority
V. Final Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act
Certification
A. Profile of Affected Establishments and Employees
B. Costs of Compliance
C. Economic Feasibility
D. Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis and Certification
E. Benefits
VI. Technological Feasibility
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
VIII. Federalism
IX. State Plans
X. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
XI. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
XII. Protecting Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks
XIII. Environmental Impacts
I. Executive Summary
OSHA is finalizing revisions to its personal protective equipment
(PPE) standard for construction, at 29 CFR 1926.95(c), to explicitly
state that PPE must fit properly. This revision will align the language
in the PPE standard for construction with the corresponding language in
OSHA's PPE standards for general industry and shipyards 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
to provide appropriate protection to employees from workplace hazards.
Improperly fitting PPE may fail to provide any protection to an
employee, reduce the effectiveness of protection, present additional
hazards, or discourage employees from using such equipment in the
workplace.
The Final Economic Analysis for this rulemaking demonstrates that
this rule is economically feasible and will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
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. Employees wear PPE 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,
harnesses, and full body suits.
OSHA has specific standards that address PPE in general industry,
shipyard employment, marine 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
shipyard employment (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) requires that all types of PPE must
be provided, used, and maintained in a sanitary and reliable condition
whenever the PPE is necessary due to workplace hazards. Section
1926.95(b) further requires that, even when employees provide their own
PPE, the employer must assure its adequacy, including proper
maintenance, and sanitation. Section 1926.95(c) provides that all PPE
must be of safe design and construction for the work to be performed.
Unlike the general industry and shipyards PPE standards, the current
PPE construction standard at Sec. 1926.95 does not include an explicit
requirement that PPE properly fit each affected employee.
PPE must fit properly to provide adequate protection to employees.
If PPE does not fit properly, it can make the difference between an
employee being safely protected, having inadequate protection, or being
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 operate equipment,
putting the wearer and other workers at risk of exposure to hazards, or
may get caught in machinery, resulting in injuries to the wearer such
as fractures or amputations. The legs of protective garments that are
too long could cause tripping hazards for the worker with the
improperly fitting PPE and could also impact others working near that
worker. Protective clothing that is too small may increase a worker's
exposure to hazards by, for example, providing insufficient coverage
from dangerous machinery or hazardous substances. The issue of
improperly fitting PPE is particularly important for smaller
construction workers, including some women, who may not be able to use
currently existing standard-size PPE. Fit problems can also affect
larger workers, and standard-size PPE does not always accommodate
varying body shapes.
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 related to
construction. 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
[[Page 100323]]
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 . . . .'' (Document ID 0002).\1\ 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 (Document ID 0003).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ OSHA's Standards Improvement Project (SIP) is a series of
regulatory reviews and rulemakings intended ``to improve and
streamline OSHA standards by removing or revising requirements that
are confusing or outdated, or that duplicate, or are inconsistent
with, other standards'' (Document ID 0007).
\2\ ACCSH had previously, in 1999, issued a report titled Women
in the Construction Workplace: Providing Equitable Safety and Health
Protection (Document ID 0020) in which the committee identified ill-
fitting PPE as a pressing issue for women in construction and
recommended that OSHA revise the construction PPE standards in 29
CFR part 1926 ``to conform with the General Industry Standard for
PPE (29 CFR 1910.132) which specifies that the employer select PPE
that properly fits each affected employee.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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'' (Document ID 0004). 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 (Document ID 0005, 0006).
Based on stakeholder suggestions, on October 4, 2016, OSHA
published the SIP-IV Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Federal Register (Document ID 0007). 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'' (Document ID 0007).
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''
(Document ID 0007).
OSHA received several comments specifically addressing the proposed
revision to Sec. 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
(Document ID 0008). The final rule did not include the proposed
revision to the construction standard at Sec. 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 separately 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'' (Document
ID 0008).
On July 17, 2019, OSHA presented a draft proposed rule to ACCSH for
its recommendation, as required by 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'' (Document ID
0009). 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. OSHA responded that the proposed
rule would not change how employers assessed 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 shipyards 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 Unions (NABTU) both supported the proposed revision to clarify
that PPE must properly fit each affected employee (Document ID 0016,
0017, 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'' (Document ID 0017, Attachment 1). LHSFNA
commented that the fit problem can also affect men, including with
respect to harness sizes for men who are over certain weight limits
(Document ID 0016). NABTU stated that the proposed revision not only
would make the construction standard consistent with the general
industry standard but also was supported by worker organizations,
safety associations, and ACCSH (Document ID 0017, Attachment 1).
OSHA also received a comment in support of the proposed revision
from Emmanuel Omeike (Document ID 0018), a safety professional, which
included two studies addressing PPE and women in construction (Document
ID 0018, Attachments 3, 4). The comment noted several examples of
employees who were wearing PPE but nonetheless sustained injuries due
to improper fit (Document ID 0018). Mr. Omeike stated that employees
are more likely to remove improperly fitting PPE, thus negating
whatever protection the PPE might otherwise provide (Document ID 0018).
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) (Document ID 0019) opposing the proposed
revision to Sec. 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 stated they ``[did] not
believe that OSHA seriously considered the full impact this revision
will have on employers and the construction industry in general.'' They
argued that the proposed revision's ``broad scope covers a wide variety
of PPE and situations that are not fully
[[Page 100324]]
appreciated in the SIP-IV'' and that ``[p]lacing 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.'' They further argued that the
proposed revision ``fails to provide adequate notice to employers as to
what `properly fit' would mean'' and questioned whether the standard
would be violated if an employee complained that a hard hat is
uncomfortable or if arc-flash clothing was ``too long in the legs for
one employee'' (Document ID 0019).
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.'' According to CISC, 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'' (Document ID 0019). They added that, in many cases, whether
PPE properly fits is subjective, and 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'' (Document ID 0019).
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 of and need for
PPE vary greatly in construction, therefore adding a new fit
requirement would create more of a burden for construction employers
(Document ID 0019). 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'' (Document ID
0019).
In response to CISC's comment on the SIP-IV proposal, OSHA
acknowledged in the NPRM for this rule that there is a wide variety of
PPE and hazards in the construction industry and stated that to protect
workers from these varied hazards in the construction industry, it is
critical that workers' PPE fit them properly. OSHA explained that it
used the phrase ``proper fit'' in the SIP-IV rulemaking because that is
the phrase used in OSHA's general industry and shipyards 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 shipyards. OSHA further noted that the addition of
the ``properly fits'' provision to the general industry standard was
made for the same reason that 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.
Given the limited purposes of SIP-IV (i.e. ``to remove or revise
outdated, duplicative, unnecessary, and inconsistent requirements in
OSHA's safety and health standards'' (Document ID 0008)) 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, in order to
encourage robust public comment and acquire relevant information from
stakeholders.
On July 20, 2023, OSHA published the Personal Protective Equipment
in Construction Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (Document ID
0001), proposing to revise 29 CFR 1926.95(c) to clarify that personal
protective equipment used in the construction industry must properly
fit workers to protect them from hazards they may encounter in the
workplace. OSHA has considered the issues raised by commenters during
the SIP-IV rulemaking along with the comments received on the NPRM and
addresses them below in Section III, Summary and Explanation.
III. Summary and Explanation
This final rule amends 29 CFR 1926.95, Criteria for personal
protective equipment, to make explicit the existing requirement that
employers in the construction industry must ensure PPE worn by
employees properly fits. Specifically, OSHA is revising Sec.
1926.95(c) to state that employers must ensure 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.\3\ After reviewing the comments received, OSHA is
finalizing the provision as proposed because the agency has determined
the proposed language appropriately clarifies employers' obligations
under the standard. OSHA has also determined that additional clarifying
language is not necessary for the reasons discussed in section III.C.
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Existing 1926.95(c) states only that all personal protective
equipment shall be of safe design and construction for the work to
be performed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As OSHA explained in the NPRM, the agency has historically
interpreted Sec. 1926.95 as requiring that PPE properly fit each
employee, has published guidance to that effect, and has issued
citations to employers in the construction industry who failed to
provide properly fitting PPE (88 FR 46710-46712). As such, the revision
in this final rule does not represent a substantive change to the
standard. Rather, the goal of the revision is to clarify employers'
existing obligations while aligning the language in the construction
PPE standard with similar requirements for properly fitting PPE in
OSHA's general industry (29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1)(iii)) and shipyards (29
CFR 1915.152(b)(3)) standards.
In response to the proposed rule, OSHA received 85 public comments.
The vast majority of commenters supported the change. These commenters
generally agreed that the change would provide greater clarity about
employers' responsibility to make sure employees wear properly fitting
PPE and would improve the workplace safety and health of construction
workers. Some commenters raised concerns about the revisions, stating,
for example, that the specifics of the requirement were unclear or that
the change would result in prohibitive costs for employers. The issues
raised by these comments and others are discussed in more detail below.
A. Impact of Improperly Fitting PPE and the Need for an Explicit
Requirement
In the NPRM, OSHA discussed the importance of properly fitting PPE
in the construction industry, explaining that improperly fitting PPE
may not protect workers from hazards and could create additional
hazards (81 FR 46710-46711). The agency noted several studies and
reports that identified instances of improperly fitting PPE either
failing to protect workers from the hazard for which the PPE was
intended
[[Page 100325]]
(e.g., loose-fitting goggles exposing an employee's eyes to flying
debris) or introducing additional hazards (e.g., loose-fitting gloves
becoming caught in machinery). In addition, OSHA identified evidence
that employees are more likely to remove or not use ill-fitting PPE.
In response to the NPRM, many commenters agreed with OSHA that
improperly fitting PPE poses a hazard to workers in the construction
industry (see, e.g., Document ID 0040, 0052, 0057, 0073, 0076, 0079-
0081, 0115). For example, the American Industrial Hygiene Association
(AIHA) commented that ``[a]ny worker's safety and health can be
adversely impacted by PPE that does not fit properly,'' adding that
workers who are smaller and larger than average size are most likely to
be impacted by improperly fitting PPE (Document ID 0058). NABTU
similarly stated that ``[p]roperly fitting PPE is essential in the
construction industry because poorly fitting PPE does not provide the
wearer with adequate protection'' (Document ID 0108). The National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) identified several
studies demonstrating that poorly fitting PPE can inadequately protect
workers and can create additional hazards (Document ID 0073).
Numerous commenters shared their personal experiences with the lack
of properly fitting PPE. For example, one commenter (Document ID 0061)
was the first woman hired on a jobsite and resorted to buying her own
extra small and small gloves because her employer refused to provide
her with anything other than gloves that were too large. After running
out of gloves that properly fit her, she was forced to wear the
improperly fitting larger gloves. While working on an air conditioning
unit, the improperly fitting gloves became caught in a pulley,
resulting in a wrist sprain, torn ligaments, fractured fingers, and
nerve damage. If this commenter had been provided properly fitting PPE,
these injuries might have been avoided. Another commenter, who stated
that OSHA's proposal ``would directly improve my safety on the job,''
shared that, as a woman who has been provided improperly fitting PPE,
she has suffered ``multiple injuries and near misses'' because properly
sized PPE often is not available (Document ID 0065). Another commenter
explained how they have had to purchase their own gloves because they
have been told it's impossible to find gloves small enough to fit them
(Document ID 0056). For fear of losing her job or not being paid, a
commenter who has worked 18 years as a laborer described using tape and
raingear to protect herself while working in water because the only
waders provided by the employer were too large and presented a drowning
risk (Document ID 0080).
Many commenters raised concerns about being provided various items
of improperly fitting PPE, with fall protection harnesses frequently
cited as an item that often does not fit properly (Document ID 0031,
0035-0037, 0039, 0044, 0048, 0053, 0056, 0063, 0064, 0066, 0068, 0073,
0075-0077, 0080, 0081, 0084, 0087, 0090, 0093, 0098, 0108, 0112, 0113).
Although harnesses come in various sizes and can be adjusted to some
extent, many commenters describe receiving harnesses that were too
large. There were commenters who mentioned receiving extra large
harnesses that did not fit them appropriately because they were too
long (Document ID 0076, 0081). When given larger harnesses, one
commenter stated that the employer tells them to ``shrink it down to
make it fit'' (Document ID 0068). A woman new to the construction
industry commented that she has been dealing with ill-fitting PPE such
as harnesses that are too loose on her and become a ``safety HAZARD and
a hinderance'' (Document 0035). Several commenters noted that harnesses
and other PPE designated as ``unisex'' are not truly appropriate for
women (Document ID 0036, 0037, 0041, 0063, 0108).
Some commenters noted that the lack of properly fitting PPE can
lead to a less inclusive workplace. According to Chicago Women in
Trades and Allied Organizations (CWIT), ``As a result, women struggle
to secure consistent employment and find work on safe and respectful
jobsites. In this sense, the disproportionate challenges tradeswomen
face around accessing properly fitted PPE is a consequence of the way
women are seen and valued in the construction industry'' (Document ID
0098). Flatiron Construction added that the proposed rule is not only
essential for preventing injuries in the workplace, but ``having proper
fitting PPE is also crucial to promoting a sense of belonging within
the industry'' and helping the construction industry attract and retain
workers (Document ID 0106). Another commenter also argued that
clarifying OSHA's PPE requirement could lead to greater recruitment and
retention of workers, specifically women (Document ID 0047). The
International Painters and Allied Trades and the Signatory Wall and
Ceiling Contractors Alliance (Painters et al.) added that ``[i]f we are
going to bring more women into the trades both the industry and the
regulatory structure that surrounds it must evolve to ensure the safety
of women on the job. Establishing that an employer's obligation to
provide PPE in construction extends to providing properly fitting PPE
is a critical part of this'' (Document ID 0078). One commenter simply
stated that putting workers at risk because they do not fit standard-
size PPE is ``inequitable and immoral'' (Document ID 0059).
A few commenters mentioned efforts to address improperly fitting
harnesses. NIOSH commented that they have conducted studies on fall
protection harnesses that have resulted in ``guidelines to develop
improved sizing systems and strap lengths for whole body fall arrest
harnesses'' and ``improved harness configuration to fit construction
workers'' (Document ID 0073). The ISEA notes that modern fall arrest
harnesses, especially those with adjustable hip belts, are
ergonomically designed to fit women, and some harnesses that are
designed for women will also fit men. They recommended that ``employers
and their distributors should work with employees to identify a harness
that fits properly and is designed to protect against the hazards at
hand'' (Document ID 0112). NABTU cited examples of harnesses that are
designed to fit women, explaining that ``harnesses designed to fit
women aim to provide improved protection against fall hazards and
increased comfort. They offer a range of features tailored for varied
anthropometry, including hip and chest adjustability, increased hip and
back support, vertical shoulder straps, comfort padding and more''
(Document ID 0108).
In the NPRM, OSHA preliminarily determined that revising Sec.
1926.95 to include clear and explicit language that PPE must fit
properly would help ensure workers in the construction industry are
protected from workplace hazards (81 FR 46711). OSHA requested 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. Numerous commenters were
supportive of OSHA's clarifying language (Document ID 0024, 0028, 0029,
0031, 0034-0048, 0050-0068, 0071-0081, 0083-0088, 0091-0098, 0106-0108,
0110, 0112, 0113, 0115, 0116). Of these comments, many expressed the
need for an explicit requirement in the standard to ensure that workers
receive properly fitting PPE. Kentucky's Department of Workplace
Standards commended OSHA for proposing explicit language on properly
fitting PPE, agreeing with OSHA that ``providing clear and explicit
[[Page 100326]]
language in the construction PPE standard clarifies employers'
responsibility to provide employees with properly fitting PPE, thereby
ensuring employee protection'' (Document ID 0095). CWIT commented that
``[t]he rule clarification aids in reaffirming OSHA's existing
interpretation of its current construction standard and clearly
communicates to employers their obligations to provide properly fitting
PPE'' (Document ID 0098). California's Occupational Safety and Health
Standards Board (Cal/OSHSB) responded that clarification of the PPE
requirements is necessary and supported OSHA's proposed revision
(Document ID 0107). The National Safety Council (NSC) commented that
the clarifying language ``will save lives and prevent injuries''
(Document ID 0096). The American Society of Safety Professionals (ASSP)
Chesapeake Chapter also supported the proposed revision (Document ID
0083).
Some commenters who support the proposed changes believe including
explicit language that PPE must properly fit construction workers could
spur the manufacture, distribution, and availability of PPE in more
wide-ranging sizes and fits. A commenter who has ``been too often
confronted with the challenge of finding PPE scaled to fit smaller and
female workers'' supports the clarification and hopes it will create
more of a market for PPE that fits smaller workers and women (Document
ID 0031). One commenter likewise expressed hope that this clarification
would ``create the market demand for smaller PPE that merchants
currently refuse to see'' (Document ID 0046). Another commenter said it
was imperative for women to get safety equipment that fits them
correctly (Document ID 0113). After mentioning how it is difficult to
find options of smaller sizes for various PPE, a commenter said that
the proposal would ``lead to more demand . . . and encourage
manufacturers to make these products'' (Document ID 0039).
To this point, OSHA mentioned in its proposed rule that The Center
for Construction Research and Training (CPWR) and ISEA have a list of
manufacturers of PPE specifically for women (81 FR 46711). In their
comment to the proposed rule, ISEA also noted that ``PPE manufacturers
provide safety equipment in size ranges and adjustability to fit a vast
majority of the construction workforce. ISEA members are willing to
work with occupational safety stakeholders to make sure all workers
have PPE that is required. . . .'' (Document ID 0112).
A number of commenters stated that an explicit requirement for
properly fitting PPE will not only ensure they have PPE to protect them
from hazards but would increase their productivity. CWIT highlighted in
their comment that ``[w]hen PPE fits incorrectly, it can cause a
disruption to a worker's . . . capacity to complete projects''
(Document ID 0098). A commenter expressed how being asked to ``make due
[sic]'' with improperly fitting PPE put them at risk of going home
without pay or losing their job because they couldn't complete the
assigned tasks. Properly fitting PPE would not just protect them but
allow them to do complete tasks that would benefit their employer
(Document ID 0045). Another commenter stated how the proposal would
drastically change their productivity at work (Document ID 0048) while
another explained how it is difficult to do their job when safety
equipment does not fit correctly (Document ID 0054). These comments
demonstrate how improperly fitting PPE not only affords the wearer
inadequate protection from hazards but also hurts employers'
productivity and makes it difficult for workers who need non-standard
sizes of PPE \4\ to remain employed in the construction industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ OSHA uses the term ``non-standard'' to refer to sizes of PPE
that are available on the market but that some construction
employers may not routinely order or keep in stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA received two comments that questioned the necessity of the
proposed revision and suggested that existing standards are sufficient.
One commenter stated that OSHA could cite 29 CFR 1926.28(a), the
general requirement that PPE be worn in hazardous conditions on
construction worksites (Document ID 0026); another appeared to say that
29 CFR 1910.132(d), the general industry standard on which OSHA is
modeling this revision to the construction standard, renders this
revision unnecessary. That standard, however, applies only to general
industry work, not construction work. And the general requirement for
PPE in construction is inadequate because, as explained above, it is
clear from the record that workers in the construction industry have
either struggled to obtain properly fitting PPE or are still being
provided PPE that does not fit. This often leaves these employees
exposed to the hazards the PPE is meant to protect against and may be
creating additional hazards. This is especially true for workers of
larger and smaller stature, women in particular.
Based on the comments received and the information in the record,
OSHA reaffirms its finding that improperly fitting PPE is a hazard to
workers in the construction industry and finds that an explicit
requirement in Sec. 1925.95 is appropriate to clarify employers'
existing obligation to ensure PPE properly fits each employee.
B. Whether the Rule Would Effectuate the Purpose of the OSH Act Better
Than Consensus Standards
Section 6(b)(8) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(8)) requires OSHA,
in adopting a standard, 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 revising 29 CFR 1926.95
as proposed will better effectuate the purposes of the OSH Act than
relying on the language of existing national consensus standards.
While there are many consensus standards that address PPE, there is
no general consensus standard on PPE that incorporates a fit
requirement. Instead, each standard focuses 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 is revising 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. This revision also makes clear that all PPE must fit
properly, regardless of whether there is an applicable consensus
standard.
Additionally, many consensus standards do not include mandatory
language. For example, both ANSI standards discussed above include
specific language concerning properly fitting PPE. However, while ANSI
Z87.1 discusses the importance of properly
[[Page 100327]]
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
Sec. 1926.95(c) in this final rule will clarify that properly fitting
PPE is an enforceable requirement rather than the non-mandatory
suggestions contained in those consensus standards. The agency believes
that a clear and explicit requirement will help ensure that employers
provide employees with properly fitting PPE.
OSHA requested comments on whether the proposed revision would
effectuate the purpose of the OSH Act better than existing consensus
standards. Several commenters agreed that it would (Document ID 0073,
0098, 0108, 0112). NABTU responded that the proposed revision would do
so because ``[w]hile some national consensus standards address fit,
there is no requirement that employers follow consensus standards''
(Document ID 0108). Similarly, CWIT stated that revisions to the OSHA
standards would be better than ``adopting each consensus standard, with
varying language around type, use, and fit'' and relying on ``a non-
mandatory suggestion as described in certain consensus standards''
(Document ID 0098). NIOSH also supported revisions to the standard over
reliance on consensus standards because ``[p]roviding all the
information in one place will ensure all PPE fitting guidelines are
readily accessible and consistent'' (Document ID 0073). AIHA also
commented that this rule would effectuate the purpose of the OSH Act
better than consensus standards because ``[r]egulatory language is
helpful for employers to have a better understanding of what is
required and thresholds for compliance'' (Document ID 0058). One
commenter even identified an instance of a consensus standard
obstructing their company's efforts to develop a Class 3 safety vest
for women (Document ID 0106).
ISEA, an organization whose members design, test, manufacture, and
supply PPE and which serves as secretariat for several consensus
standards on PPE, supports the new regulatory language, noting that
while consensus standards ANSI/ISEA Z87.1-2020, Current Safety
Standards for Safety Glasses and Z89.1-2019, Industrial Head
Protection, effectuate the purpose of the OSH Act, ``a requirement that
PPE fit properly will help to make certain that workers get PPE that
meets these standards and fits the wearer'' (Document ID 0112). Having
evaluated the information relevant to this particular issue, OSHA
concludes that revising the existing standard as proposed will better
effectuate the purpose of the OSH Act than relying on the language of
existing consensus standards.
C. The Appropriateness of the New Regulatory Text
OSHA requested comment on the wording of the agency's proposed
addition to 29 CFR 1926.95, which, as explained above, is substantially
similar to the language in OSHA's general industry and shipyards
standards that require properly fitting PPE.
Some commenters suggested language for the regulatory text that
would refer to manufacturers' instructions regarding fit. A
representative from Cook's Excavating, LLC, commented that OSHA should
adopt the language ``[a]ll personal protective equipment shall properly
fit the affected employee in accordance with the manufacturer's
recommendations'' (Document ID 0034). The World Floor Covering
Association also recommended relying on ``manufacturer's
recommendations or specifications to determine proper fit'' as well as
suggesting that ``PPE that meets applicable national consensus
standards should also be deemed to properly fit'' (Document ID 0114).
Cal/OSHSB encouraged OSHA to adopt language similar to their standards,
which provide that PPE be used according to the manufacturer's
instructions (Document ID 0107). NIOSH also recommended a reference to
manufacturers' recommendations for proper fit to provide additional
guidance to stakeholders (Document ID 0073). One commenter, however,
was skeptical of using manufacturers' recommendations because
``manufacturer's instructions may not provide clear or accurate
guidance on how to measure or adjust fit, especially for women's sizes
or models'' (Document ID 0091).
OSHA believes that the manufacturer's instructions and
recommendations can be an important source of information concerning
the proper fit of PPE. OSHA encourages employers to look to
manufacturer's instructions and recommendations for guidance on how an
item of PPE should properly fit the wearer. However, the agency is not
including it as a requirement in its construction standard because
doing so would limit employers' flexibility when finding and choosing
PPE that meets the individual needs of their workers. In addition, the
clarified requirement for employers to provide properly fitting PPE
applies regardless of whether the manufacturer of the PPE provides
instructions or recommendations on proper fit. Where the manufacturer's
instructions or recommendations are silent on proper fit, the employer
can often look to consensus standards for additional guidance on the
appropriate fit of an item of PPE. Employers can also choose PPE
products for which guidance on proper fit exists, either from the
manufacturer or otherwise, over items where such information is
lacking.
OSHA also requested comment on whether there was any confusion
about what ``properly fits'' means for PPE used in the construction
industry. In the NPRM, OSHA explained 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. Most
commenters expressed no confusion about what ``properly fits'' means,
but some had additional suggestions for explaining the term. For
example, the AIHA suggested an ``operational definition . . . so that
employers know what is meant and for proper compliance documentation .
. . . The standard should point employers to specific actions per PPE
item that can be taken'' (Document ID 0058). NIOSH commented that they
agree with OSHA's interpretation of ``properly fits'' but that based on
responses to the SIP-IV rulemaking, it is clear it is not ``universally
understood'' (Document ID 0073). They suggested that OSHA define the
phrase. CWIT endorsed OSHA's interpretation of the term but noted that
assessments of proper fit must take into account workers' body changes
during pregnancy (Document ID 0098).
Some comments requested additions to the proposed regulatory text.
The ASSP Chesapeake Chapter asked for clarification of employer and
employee responsibilities to ``emphasize the gravity of the issue and
encourage proactive measures in ensuring properly fitting PPE is
available'' (Document ID 0083). One commenter asked OSHA to ``expound[
] on `proper fit' in the standard . . .'' (Document ID 0032), while
another asked for ``clarifications, specifications, or resources for
the employers who are responsible to provide the properly fitting PPE
in question'' (Document ID 0033). The latter commenter also suggested
that OSHA include a requirement for a qualified or competent person to
determine the proper fit of PPE (Document ID 0033). The United
Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America (UBCJA) suggested
expanding
[[Page 100328]]
the regulatory text to add, ``To properly fit personal protective
equipment must be comfortable to wear, not pose a danger and provide
effective protection'' (Document ID 0074).
OSHA believes its explanation of ``properly fits'' provides
employers with enough information that they can select PPE for their
workers that will adequately protect them from the hazards of the
worksite without creating additional hazards. Given the significant
variety in types and models of PPE, the varied circumstances in which
they are used, and the potential for new technology and new forms of
PPE in the future, OSHA does not believe it is appropriate or necessary
for the agency to prescribe specific fit criteria for all possible
forms of PPE. Similarly, OSHA does not believe it is necessary for the
agency to prescribe specific criteria for workers' changing bodies, as
the requirement for properly fitting PPE applies every time the PPE is
used. Rather, the agency believes a performance-based approach is
appropriate, just as the underlying requirement to identify and provide
necessary PPE is performance-based (see 29 CFR 1926.95).
In the general industry and maritime sectors, OSHA has not needed
to accompany the requirement for properly fitting PPE with specific
directions regarding fit for each item of PPE or other details about
what ``properly fits'' means; nor do those standards include a
requirement that a designated competent person assess PPE fit. There is
no indication that this has resulted in significant confusion among
employers in those sectors. Indeed, as noted in the NPRM, OSHA issued
only 51 citations for improperly fitting PPE in general industry and
shipyards between the years 1994 and 2021, which suggests the vast
majority of employers have been able to comply (88 FR 46712). Providing
specific fit requirements for each individual type of PPE item also
might undermine the manufacturer's recommendations for a particular PPE
item. Accordingly, OSHA is not convinced that further details within
the regulatory text are necessary for the construction industry. In any
event, OSHA can issue additional guidance in the future if the agency
determines it is needed.
In the proposed rule, OSHA stated that ``properly fits'' means, in
part, that the PPE ``does not create additional safety and health
hazards arising from being either too small or too large'' (88 FR
46711). OSHA listed examples of the additional hazards to which workers
can be exposed because of improperly fitting PPE (81 FR 46710-46711).
These examples demonstrate a few of the ways that improperly fitting
PPE can create additional hazards, with a few examples coming directly
from OSHA inspections. Commenters also submitted examples of how
improperly fitting PPE can create additional hazards. The UBCJA agreed
with OSHA's emphasis on additional hazards, adding that ``[e]ven a
loose safety vest can pose a danger if it is unexpectedly caught in
equipment'' (Document ID 0074). NIOSH explained that ``[s]afety glasses
slipping off, loose gloves getting caught on machines or exposing skin,
or blisters forming from ill-fitting safety boots make working more
difficult and can adversely affect worker safety and job satisfaction''
(Document ID 0073. The State Building and Construction Trades Council
of California noted that ``oversized protective clothing can lead to
tripping hazards or get caught in machinery. . . . Poorly-fitted fall
protection harnesses may lead to other injuries. . . . Gloves that are
too big put a worker at risk of coming into contact with chemicals that
can cause dermatitis or other skin diseases'' (Document ID 0028).
Another commenter mentioned how ill-fitting PPE could snag on scissor
lifts (Document ID 0097) while a member of IBEW Local 48 commented that
``[i]tems that are too large run the risk of becoming entangled in
machinery. . . .'' (Document ID 0040).
CISC raised concerns about OSHA's discussion of additional hazards.
They contend that ``[w]ithout additional clarification on what
`additional hazards' employers must address in order to comply with the
proposed rule, employers will be forced to re-evaluate every single
piece of PPE they provide to their employees. Employers will be tasked
with identifying additional hazards that could result from their PPE
not `properly fitting' in every situation'' (Document ID 0109). CISC
suggested OSHA ``provide notice of specific hazards that are associated
with PPE that does not properly fit'' and ``clarify what `additional
hazards' improperly fitting PPE may cause'' (Document ID 0109).
It is neither necessary nor possible for OSHA to identify all
hazards that might arise from improperly fitting PPE, just as the
agency does not identify all hazards that might necessitate PPE in the
first place (see 29 CFR 1926.95(a)). Given the many combinations of PPE
that can be selected to protect workers from the multitude of
workplace-specific hazards, employers are in the best position to
identify what hazards exist at their particular worksite, the
appropriate PPE to address those hazards, and the proper fit of PPE
that will not result in additional hazards. This is both because
employers have the most knowledge of the work tasks involved and the
hazards faced by employees at their worksite and because they have
access to the people with the most direct knowledge about proper fit:
the employees who must wear the PPE. In most cases, the affected
employee will be able to indicate whether the provided PPE fits
properly or whether it poses a hazard from their work tasks. The
employer also knows the specific PPE involved in a given case and can
refer to the manufacturer's instructions for that specific item for
additional guidance. Finally, to the extent that relevant national
consensus standards address proper fit of particular PPE, employers may
look to those standards for guidance as well.
The ASSP Chesapeake Chapter asked for clarification of how the
proposed change affects the employer/employee relationship, stating
that ``[c]learly defined responsibilities for employers will emphasize
the gravity of this issue and encourage proactive measures in ensuring
properly fitting PPE is available'' (Document ID 0083). This revision
has no impact on the employer/employee relationship; it simply
clarifies that every employer is responsible for ensuring that their
workers have properly fitting PPE. Additional responsibilities
employers have regarding PPE of their workers in the construction
industry can be found in Subpart E--Personal Protective and Life Saving
Equipment, 29 CFR 1926.95 through 1926.107.
D. Differences Between General Industry, Maritime, and the Construction
Industry
OSHA requested comments on whether any differences between general
industry and maritime and the construction industry impact whether OSHA
should include ``properly fits'' in the construction standard as
proposed in the NPRM. Commenters expressed support for language that
reflects the requirements for properly fitting PPE in the general
industry and maritime industries. NIOSH, for example, stated that
``mirroring the language for general industry and maritime standards is
appropriate because of the significant hazards and injury burden in the
construction industry. The change will provide added emphasis on the
documented need to ensure all PPE fits all workers well'' (Document ID
0073). The AIHA noted that it knew of no differences between general
industry, maritime, and construction that would impact OSHA's inclusion
of ``properly
[[Page 100329]]
fits'' in the construction standards (Document ID 0058). Painters et
al. commented that ``[t]here is nothing unique to the construction
industry that would put an undue burden on employers to ensure that
each worker has access to PPE that fits their size and shape properly
and can be used for the purpose for which it was intended: to protect
the worker from hazards of injury or illness'' (Document ID 0078).
Some commenters suggested that it is inappropriate to align the
language in the construction industry with the language of general
industry and shipyards because the construction industry is different
from general industry and shipyards. CISC argued that an important
difference between the construction industry and other industries is
the changing conditions of the worksite. ``The construction industry
does not operate in static, permanent worksites'' with known hazards
that ``have long since been identified and documented'' like in general
industry and shipyards; rather, it is ``dynamic'' and ``[w]hat PPE is
needed and when, can vary from day to day . . .'' (Document ID 0109).
The National Demolition Association (NDA) made a similar argument,
stating that construction worksites present different challenges and
work conditions than other industries, but did not elaborate on what
those differences are and how they would be impacted by OSHA's proposal
(Document ID 0111).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ NDA also commented that State and local governments, rather
than OSHA, should develop any regulations on properly fitting PPE
(Document ID 0111). However, the OSH Act grants OSHA the authority
to promulgate safety and health standards, including the
construction standard that this final rule revises. Furthermore,
OSHA sees no reason why a general requirement for properly fitting
PPE would differ among different geographic areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA does not find this argument persuasive. First, Sec.
1926.95(a) requires construction employers to provide appropriate PPE
to employees when necessitated by workplace hazards. This is true
regardless of how dynamic the work activities are. Given that employers
must already analyze the hazards on their worksites, no matter how
dynamic, and provide necessary PPE, these commenters fail to explain
why the dynamic nature of the activities warrants permitting employers
to provide PPE that does not fit.
Moreover, although there are differences between the construction
industry and other industries, many of the hazards that necessitate
properly fitting PPE to protect workers are the same. In the NPRM, OSHA
referenced citations in general industry and maritime for violation of
the requirement for properly fitting PPE. Many of those violations were
for PPE that is also used in the construction industry, such as
harnesses and gloves. As evidenced by the comments to the NPRM, several
stakeholders' primary concerns about properly fitting PPE involve these
types of items (see, e.g., OSHA's discussion of comments related to
harnesses in B. Impact of Properly Fitting PPE). Neither CISC nor NDA
identified examples of PPE that are unique to the construction
industry.
OSHA also emphasizes that the Advisory Committee on Construction
Safety and Health (ACCSH), which is composed of an equal number of
employee and employer representatives along with representatives from
State and Federal agencies and subject-matter experts (see 29 CFR
1912.3(b)), has on several occasions urged OSHA to align the language
in the construction PPE standards with those in general industry and
shipyards (Document ID 0002, 0003, 0020). Finally, as explained in
Section VI, Technological Feasibility, OSHA finds that there are no
technological barriers to providing construction employees with
properly fitting PPE.
In sum, OSHA is not convinced any differences that exist between
the construction industry and other industries warrant depriving
construction employees of protection against the hazards posed or not
prevented by improperly fitting PPE. Indeed, as discussed above,
properly fitting PPE is already an implicit requirement under the
construction standard for PPE and this final rule makes that
requirement explicit. Accordingly, OSHA concludes that the proposed
language is appropriate for inclusion in the standard.
E. The Adequacy of Guidance on PPE ``Proper Fit'' in Construction
Prior to the publication of the proposed rule, ACCSH recommended
that OSHA provide additional guidance explaining what ``proper fit''
means for the construction industry. As described above, in the NPRM,
OSHA explained 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'' (88 FR 46711). OSHA also
requested comment on whether existing OSHA guidance regarding PPE
``proper fit'' in construction is adequate and if it is not, what type
of additional guidance OSHA should provide.
OSHA received a variety of comments in response to this request.
While NIOSH responded that existing guidance was not adequate, they
commented that revising OSHA's construction standards to explicitly
state that PPE must properly fit would help address this concern. NIOSH
also suggested that OSHA should define ``properly fitting'' (Document
ID 0073). The NSC noted they have a PPE training that teaches that PPE
should fit comfortably and not be too large or too small (Document ID
0096). CWIT suggested that OSHA develop an eTool to provide guidance on
proper fit of PPE (Document ID 0098). Cal/OSHSB recommended that OSHA
work with manufacturers and provide guidance on conformity assessments
for all PPE (Document ID 0107). The ISEA, while agreeing with OSHA's
interpretation of proper fit, suggested that OSHA work with
stakeholders to develop additional guidance such as FAQs to minimize
any confusion about the requirement to provide properly fitting PPE.
OSHA is willing to work with construction industry stakeholders to
develop specific guidance that will broadly address any confusion or
concerns the industry has about providing PPE that properly fits
workers. To do that, OSHA must first have clear and explicit language
in its construction standards that communicates an employer's
obligations. After a review of the comments received in response to
this proposed rule, OSHA believes that the proposed language
accomplishes this goal.
F. Osha Enforcement of PPE Fit Requirements
In the NPRM, OSHA explained that enforcement of the requirement for
properly fitting PPE in construction would be the same as it has been
in general industry and maritime, relying on enforcement guidance the
agency has already created for those industries and applying it to the
construction industry. OSHA also provided citation data and examples of
violations of the requirement to have properly fitting PPE to
demonstrate how the agency has been enforcing this requirement in
general industry and shipyards (88 FR 46711).
Some commenters requested additional information on how OSHA will
enforce this requirement. CISC argued that the proposed rule ``does not
discuss how investigators will be evaluating PPE for compliance''
resulting in ``concern that employers will be held to subjective
standards of whether PPE fits properly and what steps employers must
take to ensure they are in compliance'' (Document ID 0109). Other
commenters who
[[Page 100330]]
supported the proposed rule overall agreed with this concern that
enforcement could be subjective (Document ID 0088, 0091). Painters et
al., on the other hand, noted that the proposed changes do not
introduce new concepts. ``[W]e think it is important to note that the
uncertainty often associated with the revision of an OSHA standard does
not pertain to this proposed rule. OSHA is adopting language it has
long applied in the general industry and maritime standards'' (Document
ID 0078).
With regard to enforcement-related concerns, OSHA believes that
this preamble adequately explains what OSHA expects from employers: to
select PPE for their workers that is appropriately designed and sized
to adequately protect them from hazards without creating additional
hazards. OSHA believes this performance-based interpretation of
``properly fits'' provides sufficient specificity while maintaining
flexibility to allow employers to select the PPE necessary to protect
their workers on the job. Additionally, there is existing guidance that
can assist employers in selecting properly fitting PPE. Several
commenters pointed out that the manufacturer's instructions are an
important source of information on the proper fit of PPE (see Document
ID 0034, 007, 0107, 0114). Although consensus standards do not carry
mandatory obligations to meet their standards, they also can provide
guidance on how various PPE items should fit.
One important aspect of determining what PPE should be provided to
workers is comfort. OSHA stated in the proposed rule that improperly
fitting PPE can be uncomfortable for the wearer, which in turn can lead
workers to modify or disregard the PPE and become vulnerable to a
hazard (81 FR 46711). Several commenters echoed this concern. Some
commenters mentioned that ill-fitting, uncomfortable PPE could be
dangerous (Document ID 0076, 0081). NIOSH stated that comfort is an
important factor that can positively impact PPE use (Document ID 0073).
Cal/OSHSB commented that ``[m]aking sure that PPE not only fits but is
comfortable is imperative to ensuring that employees wear the PPE
throughout their shift'' (Document ID 0107). UBCJA requested that OSHA
adopt language stating that for PPE to properly fit, it must be
comfortable to wear (Document ID 0074).
Some commenters expressed concern about whether comfort would be an
indication of proper fit and, if so, how OSHA would address that from
an enforcement standpoint. CISC asked, ``Is comfort important because
it encourages employees to keep PPE on, or is it a citable offense even
if `uncomfortable' PPE is being worn?'' (Document ID 0109). Similarly,
the Wood Floor Covering Association asked, ``Is simply finding the PPE
to be uncomfortable sufficient to claim it does not properly fit even
[if] the equipment provides full protection?'' (Document ID 0114).
OSHA reaffirms its position that comfort is an important
consideration for properly fitting PPE, both because more comfortable
PPE is more likely to be worn by workers rather than discarded and
unused and because discomfort in many cases can indicate improper fit.
An employee's expression of discomfort should be taken seriously by the
employer, as it may signal that the PPE warrants further evaluation to
ensure it will serve its protective purpose and will not create
additional hazards.
At the same time, OSHA also recognizes that discomfort during the
use of PPE may not always be the result of improper fit. Some PPE may
be inherently uncomfortable, despite fitting properly. OSHA has
explained in other contexts that personal discomfort alone does not
give rise to a violation of the OSH Act's General Duty Clause, absent a
related recognized hazard that could cause death or serious physical
harm (see Reiteration of Existing OSHA Policy on Indoor Air Quality:
Office Temperature/Humidity and Environmental Tobacco Smoke, available
at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2003-02-24).
The same is true with respect to PPE under 29 CFR 1926.95: OSHA cannot
issue a citation simply because PPE that properly fits is
uncomfortable.\6\ However, OSHA cautions that regardless of fit,
employers have an independent duty to ensure that appropriate PPE is
worn at all times when necessitated by a workplace hazard (29 CFR
1926.28). Because the record clearly indicates uncomfortable PPE is
more likely to go unused, employers would be wise to take seriously
employees' concerns about discomfort.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ OSHA notes that while discomfort may not alone establish
improper fit, the converse is also true; a lack of employee
discomfort does not alone establish proper fit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, a few commenters suggested that increased enforcement from
OSHA and/or a ``culture change'' among employers would be more
effective in achieving the goal of properly fitting PPE than changing
the rule (Document ID 0026, 0027). While OSHA operates, as always, with
limited resources, the agency believes that the amended standard, by
making employers' responsibilities explicit, will encourage a more
protective approach to PPE across the construction industry.
IV. Pertinent Legal Authority
The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C.
651 et seq.) (``the Act'' or ``the OSH Act'') 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 (``the Secretary'') to promulgate standards to protect workers,
including the authority ``to set mandatory occupational safety and
health standards applicable to businesses affecting interstate
commerce'' (29 U.S.C. 651(b)(3); see also 29 U.S.C. 654(a) (requiring
employers to comply with OSHA standards), 655(a) (authorizing summary
adoption of existing consensus and Federal standards within two years
of the Act's enactment), 655(b) (authorizing promulgation, modification
or revocation of standards pursuant to notice and comment)), and
655(b)(7) (authorizing OSHA to include among a standard's requirements
labeling, monitoring, medical testing, and other information-gathering
and information-transmittal provisions)). An occupational safety or
health standard is a standard which requires conditions, or the
adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods, operations,
or processes ``reasonably necessary or appropriate'' to provide safe or
healthful employment and places of employment (29 U.S.C. 652(8)).
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)).
The OSH Act imposes several requirements OSHA must satisfy before
adopting a safety standard. Among other things, the standard must
provide a high degree ofemployee protection, substantially reduce a
significant risk to workers, be technologically feasible, and be
economically feasible (see 58 FR 16612, 16614-16 (Mar. 30, 1993); UAW
v. OSHA, 37 F.3d 665, 668-69 (D.C. Cir.
[[Page 100331]]
1994)). OSHA need not make additional findings on risk for this final
rule because the rule involves a clarification of an existing OSHA
standard and does not create any new requirements for employers.
Accordingly, OSHA is not required to conduct a significant risk
analysis for the change to Sec. 1926.95 (see Edison Elec. Inst. v.
OSHA, 849 F.2d 611, 620 (D.C. Cir. 1988)).
A standard is technologically feasible if the protective measures
it requires already exist, can be brought into existence with available
technology, or can be created with technology that is reasonably
expected to be developed (see Am. Iron and Steel Inst. v. OSHA, 939
F.2d 975, 980 (D.C. Cir. 1991)). Courts have also interpreted
technological feasibility to mean that a typical firm in each affected
industry or application group will reasonably be able to implement the
requirements of the standard in most operations most of the time (see,
e.g., Public Citizen v. OSHA, 557 F.3d 165, 170-71 (3d Cir. 2009);
United Steelworkers of Am. v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1272 (D.C. Cir.
1981)).
In determining economic feasibility, OSHA must consider the cost of
compliance in an industry rather than for individual employers. In its
economic analyses, OSHA ``must construct a reasonable estimate of
compliance costs and demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that these
costs will not threaten the existence or competitive structure of an
industry, even if it does portend disaster for some marginal firms''
(Am. Iron and Steel Inst., 939 F.2d at 980, quoting United Steelworkers
of Am., 647 F.2d at 1272).
V. Final Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
Introduction
OSHA has examined the impacts of this rule as required by Executive
Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993);
Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
(January 18, 2011); Executive Order 14094, Modernizing Regulatory
Review (April 6, 2023) (hereinafter, the Modernizing E.O.); the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96354);
section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (March 22,
1995; Pub. L. 104-4); and Executive Order 13132, Federalism (August 4,
1999).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity).\7\ The
Modernizing E.O. amends section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. As
amended, section 3(f) defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an
action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) have an annual
effect on the economy of $200 million or more in any 1 year (adjusted
every 3 years by the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for changes in gross domestic product), or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or Tribal governments
or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3)
materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) raise legal or policy issues for which centralized
review would meaningfully further the President's priorities or the
principles set forth in [the Modernizing E.O.], as specifically
authorized in a timely manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each
case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ While OSHA presents the following analysis under the
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, the agency
ultimately cannot base its regulatory decisions on a simple
maximization of net benefits due to the overriding legal
requirements in the OSH Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OIRA has determined that this final rule is a significant
regulatory action under E.O. 12866 (but not under section 3(f)(1)), and
that it does not meet the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2) under
the Congressional Review Act.
OSHA has prepared this Final Economic Analysis (FEA) which presents
the agency's estimates of the costs and benefits of the rulemaking.
Changes From the Proposal
As discussed above, OSHA is finalizing this rule with the same
changes to the regulatory text that the agency proposed. Public
comments received in response to the proposal generally support the
need for the rule. A number of commenters gave examples of employers
not providing them with properly fitting PPE. One commenter said ``I
buy my own PPE, i.e., glasses, gloves because no contractor ever has
small of either. I've been in the trade 27 years and have never had a
contractor have those for me'' (Document ID 0094). Another stated that
``[a]s an electrician since 2015, there have been years I have not been
provided correctly fitting PPE. Employers did not anticipate my
pregnancy, so high-visibility coats were hard to find and expensive. .
. . A coat for males had sleeves that were too long and got in the way
of working'' (Document ID 0115). However, public comments also support
several changes to the economic analysis. Those changes are as follows.
For the proposal, OSHA estimated minimal costs to comply with the
rule since it simply clarifies an existing requirement. OSHA did,
however, request information from commenters about the impact of the
rule on the provision of properly fitting PPE. Based on responsive
comments in the record, OSHA has determined that it is appropriate to
account for additional costs. In particular, OSHA has added costs for
purchasing properly fitting harnesses and earplugs, which were not
included in the proposal. In addition, OSHA has added ongoing annual
costs for non-compliant employers to continue to provide properly
fitting PPE to their employees after initially replacing it. OSHA has
also added costs for rule familiarization time as well as the time for
employers to assess, research, and identify properly fitting PPE for
those workers who are not currently being provided with it. Where more
recent economic data is available, OSHA has updated the data used for
its analysis. Finally, OSHA is attributing (although not quantifying)
health and safety benefits to this final standard based on evidence in
the record that workers are being injured due to improperly fitting
PPE. These updates are discussed in more detail later in this section.
A. Profile of Affected Establishments and Employees
1. Introduction
This final rule amends the construction standard at 29 CFR
1926.95--Criteria for Personal Protective Equipment, paragraph (c), to
clarify that PPE must properly fit each employee. This revision
clarifies an existing requirement and OSHA therefore concludes that the
rule will impose only limited costs on employers that are not already
providing their employees with properly fitting PPE. 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 final rule is to clarify an existing
requirement about which there may have been confusion in the regulated
community. Given the public comments indicating that some employees are
not
[[Page 100332]]
being provided with PPE that properly fits, the record supports the
need for changes in behavior among some employers. As a result, OSHA
has estimated the costs for a portion of employers to come into
compliance with the already-existing requirement to provide properly
fitting PPE. This analysis demonstrates that the rule will be feasible
to implement.
2. Background
On November 15, 2007, OSHA published its final rule on Employer
Payment for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE Payment) (72 FR 64342).
A brief description of this rulemaking is provided here because certain
estimates and parameters used in the economic analysis for this rule
are taken from the analysis accompanying that final rule. In the PPE
Payment rulemaking, OSHA identified the various types of PPE that are
worn by employees, the percentage of employees who use PPE, 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). Information on employee PPE use 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). For this rulemaking, OSHA developed assumptions
about the types of PPE that are universal fit versus those that are not
universal fit and the types of PPE that are provided by the employer
versus purchased by employees for reimbursement.
When the economic analysis for the PPE Payment rule was performed,
the most recent data available on number of employees were from the
U.S. Census' 2004 County Business Patterns. Using that data, OSHA
estimated the number of employees using PPE and the industries in which
they worked. Total use of PPE in the construction industries as derived
in the PPE Payment rule is presented in table 1. Note that only the
types of PPE that are subject to replacement under this PPE Fit rule
are presented. OSHA uses the values in table 1 as the basis for its
updated 2022 \8\ figures for PPE items used (see table 7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ As noted below, 2022 was the most recent year for which the
County Business Patterns data were available at the time this
analysis was performed.
Table 1--Use of Selected PPE in the Construction Industries, From the
PPE Payment Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total PPE items used
PPE provided by the employer by employees (2004)
U.S.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Protective Clothing...................... 358,089
Chemical Protective Footwear...................... 211,871
Chemical Splash Goggles........................... 584,797
Earmuffs.......................................... 642,362
Face Shields...................................... 1,194,399
Gloves for Abrasion Protection.................... 2,940,764
Gloves for Chemical Protection.................... 896,173
Non-Prescription Safety Glasses................... 3,485,009
Safety Goggles.................................... 2,506,959
Splash Aprons..................................... 197,632
---------------------
Total of PPE items used by construction 13,018,055
employees....................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis (ORA), based on PPE Payment
rule (72 FR 64406). See Final Economic Analysis spreadsheet (Document
ID 0118).
3. PPE Fit Rule--Affected Establishments and Employees
OSHA determined the number of establishments that would need to
comply with this rule using County Business Patterns (CBP) data for
2022. All establishments within NAICS 236 (Construction of Buildings),
NAICS 237 (Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction), and NAICS 238
(Specialty Trade Contractors) are considered to be within the scope of
this rule. As shown in table 2, there are a total of 800,651
establishments in the affected Construction NAICS industry codes.
Table 2--Affected Construction Establishments by NAICS Industry, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS Establishments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
236 (Construction of Buildings)................... 251,634
237 (Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction).... 38,214
238 (Specialty Trade Contractors)................. 510,803
---------------------
Total......................................... 800,651
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: OSHA, ORA, based on U.S. Census Bureau, County Business
Patterns, 2024. See Final Economic Analysis spreadsheet (Document ID
0118).
Overall employment and the number of employees using PPE in these
NAICS industries--both broken out by sex--are shown in table 3. Based
on BLS Current Employment Statistics for 2022, the construction
industry was made up of about 86 percent men and 14 percent women.
According to the CBP, there were 7,361,847 employees in the
[[Page 100333]]
construction industry in 2022. Taken together, these data indicate that
employment in the construction industry is comprised of 6,313,488 men
and 1,048,359 women. OSHA estimated in the PPE Payment rule that 79.85
percent of construction employees use PPE of any type. Using this
percentage, the agency estimates that 5,041,402 men and 837,128 women
in the construction industry use any type of PPE. OSHA used these
parameters and this methodology to identify employees by sex and PPE
usage in the proposed rule and received no comment on this approach;
OSHA therefore has maintained the same methodology for the final rule.
Table 3--Estimated Employees in Construction Industries by Sex and PPE Use, 2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total employees
% of employees Total employees % Using PPE using PPE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Men................................. 85.8 6,313,488 79.85 5,041,402
Women............................... 14.2 1,048,359 79.85 837,128
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................... ................. 7,361,847 ................. 5,878,530
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: OSHA, ORA, based on U.S. Census Bureau, 2024, and OSHA PPE Payment rule, 2007. See Final Economic
Analysis spreadsheet (Document ID 0118).
B. Costs of Compliance
OSHA has determined that this rule could impose three main types of
costs on establishments in the construction industry: (1) rule
familiarization, (2) researching PPE, and (3) replacing PPE. The costs
for researching properly fitting PPE for purchase and for replacing
improperly fitting PPE will only be incurred by employers who are out
of compliance with the already-existing requirement to provide workers
with PPE that fits properly.
1. Rule Familiarization
Employers in some affected establishments will spend time
familiarizing themselves with the rule. OSHA estimates that rule
familiarization will take ten minutes for a health and safety
coordinator to complete \9\ and that 50 percent of the establishments
in the three construction NAICS industries will take time to
familiarize themselves with the rule. OSHA has assumed that only 50
percent of establishments will need familiarization time not only
because this final rule is simply a clarification of an existing
requirement, but because the rule aligns the construction regulatory
text on PPE fit with the general industry requirement, with which many
construction employers are likely familiar. OSHA, therefore, believes
that many employers already know that they must provide PPE that fits
properly and will not need to spend time familiarizing themselves with
this final rule. The loaded wages \10\ used to calculate the cost of
rule familiarization time are taken from BLS' Occupational Employment
and Wage Statistics (OEWS) dataset for 2023 (https://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm) for Occupational Health and Safety Specialists and
Technicians.\11\ Table 4 shows the costs of rule familiarization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ This is comparable to the five minutes estimated to be spent
on familiarization in the FEA for OSHA's recent (and similarly
brief) final rule on the Worker Walkaround Representative
Designation Process (See 89 FR 22558, 22594 (April 1, 2024)).
\10\ The loaded wages include an industry specific base wage
(BLS, 2024, OEWS), a 31.23 percent markup from base wages to account
for employer provided fringe benefits (BLS, 2024, Employer Costs for
Employee Compensation), and OSHA's standard 17 percent markup from
base wages to account for overhead costs to the employer.
\11\ OSHA used the BLS OEWS Standard Occupation Classification
code 19-5010 for NAICS 236, 237, and 238.
Table 4--Total Costs of Rule Familiarization
[2023$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50% of Unit burden Total cost
NAICS Establishments establishments (hours) Wage (2023$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236 (Construction of 251,634 125,817 0.17 $65.45 $1,372,517
Buildings)...................
237 (Heavy and Civil 38,214 19,107 0.17 63.65 202,694
Engineering Construction)....
238 (Specialty Trade 510,803 255,402 0.17 58.32 2,482,631
Contractors).................
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... 800,651 400,326 NA NA 4,057,842
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: OSHA, ORA, based on U.S. Census Bureau, 2024, and BLS OEWS, 2024. See Final Economic Analysis
spreadsheet (Document ID 0118).
2. Researching PPE for Purchase
For this final rule, OSHA is accounting for costs related to
researching and finding non-standard-sized PPE. Some commenters said
that it is difficult to locate PPE in certain non-standard sizes. For
instance, one commenter said that it was challenging finding PPE,
including protective footwear, to fit her smaller frame and that she
hopes this final rule will eliminate the need for ``extensive searches
for `small' gear'' (Document ID 0031). Another commenter said that
``[h]igh-visibility coats that fit a pregnant belly are hard to find''
(Document ID 0115), while a third commenter said that small size high
visibility vests and boots are difficult to come by and that even
proactive employers can encounter limited supply in non-standard sizes
(Document ID 0079). Other commenters, however, noted the availability
of PPE to fit a wide range of worker body shapes and sizes (Document ID
0108, 0112; see also Document ID 0014, 0117). Based on these comments,
OSHA has estimated that it may take some additional time for employers
to find appropriate PPE in non-standard sizes for workers not
[[Page 100334]]
currently wearing properly fitting PPE.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ As noted in the Technological Feasibility discussion,
extensive lists of providers of non-standard-sized PPE are available
online from multiple sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to provide properly fitting PPE for the employees who need
it, OSHA estimates that affected establishments will spend 10 minutes
assessing the needs of their employees related to PPE (assessment) and
another 10 minutes researching and identifying specific replacement PPE
for employees (identification). The agency estimates that 184,935
construction employees might require non-standard sizes of PPE (see
table 9) but recognizes that not all those employees are using
improperly fitting PPE. This is especially true given that construction
employers are already required to provide their employees with properly
fitting PPE. OSHA assumes that up to 10 percent of those workers--or
18,494 workers--were being provided with incorrectly fitting PPE prior
to promulgation of this final rule. While it potentially overstates the
number of employers who will need to assess PPE needs and spend time
researching PPE in different sizes, OSHA assumes that each employee
needing replacement PPE works at a different company, such that the
number of employers that will need to research PPE equals the number of
affected employees. A more detailed explanation of the estimated number
of affected employees and thus employers is described in the next
section and presented in tables 9 and 10.
OSHA calculated one-time, initial costs for the PPE needs
assessment and identification of non-standard size PPE. OSHA also
estimated annually recurring costs to identify properly fitting PPE for
newly-hired employees who may need non-standard sizes of PPE. To
calculate the number of employers that would need to incur this cost
annually, OSHA multiplies the estimated 18,494 workers mentioned above
by the JOLTS annual hire rate within the construction sector for 2023,
which is 55.7 percent (BLS JOLTS, 2024). For this analysis, OSHA uses
the loaded wage rate for a purchasing manager \13\ based on BLS' OEWS
dataset for 2023 to estimate the costs for identifying the correct PPE,
and the loaded wage rate for Occupational Health and Safety Specialists
and Technicians \14\ for PPE assessment costs.\15\ Table 5 shows the
initial costs for the assessment and identification of properly fitting
PPE. Table 6 presents the ongoing, annual costs of identifying non-
standard sizes of PPE for newly hired employees. The cost of the PPE
itself is estimated in the next section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ OSHA used the BLS OEWS Standard Occupation Classification
code 11-3061 for NAICS 236, 237, and 238.
\14\ OSHA used the BLS OEWS Standard Occupation Classification
code 19-5010 for NAICS 236, 237, and 238.
\15\ The loaded wages include an industry specific base wage
(BLS, 2024, OEWS), a 31.23 percent markup from base wages to account
for employer provided fringe benefits (BLS, 2024, Employer Costs for
Employee Compensation), and OSHA's standard 17 percent markup from
base wages to account for overhead costs to the employer. The wages
presented are weighted averages from the three NAICS codes affected
by this rule.
Table 5--Total Costs of Initial PPE Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected Unit burden Wage (weighted Total cost
PPE research item establishments (hours) average) (2023$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment................................. 18,494 0.17 $60.82 $187,457
Identification............................. 18,494 0.17 91.64 282,454
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost............................. ............... .............. .................. 469,911
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Using the figures presented here to perform the calculations in the table may not result in the same
totals due to rounding.
Source: OSHA, ORA, based on BLS OEWS, 2024. See Final Economic Analysis spreadsheet (Document ID 0118).
Table 6--Annual Cost of PPE Identification
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected Unit burden Wage (weighted Total cost
Cost item establishments Hire rate (hours) average) (2023$)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Identification................................................... 18,494 55.7% 0.17 $91.64 $157,327
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Using the figures presented here to perform the calculations in the table may not result in the same totals due to rounding.
Source: OSHA, ORA, based on BLS OEWS, 2024 and BLS JOLTS, 2024. See Final Economic Analysis spreadsheet (Document ID 0118).
3. Replacing PPE
As shown in table 7, 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. PPE items
identified as universal fit are those that are adjustable and capable
of fitting most people.\16\ OSHA assumes that PPE items purchased by
the employee and then reimbursed by the employer already fit properly,
since the employee will select the size that fits them best. The
remaining PPE items are those provided by the employer that are not
universal fit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ In their comment, AIHA objected to the term ``universal
fit,'' saying that ``[n]o PPE is universal fit, even the most
adjustable PPE may not fit workers on the extremes of anthropometric
data'' (Document ID 0058). OSHA acknowledges that at the tail ends
of the distribution of human variation, some adjustable PPE will not
fit. For the purposes of this analysis, however, OSHA maintains that
some items of PPE that come in standard, adjustable sizes will fit
nearly all individuals working in the construction industry and so
maintains this designation for a limited number of items in this
analysis.
Table 7--PPE Used in the Construction Industries *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PPE items purchased by
PPE items provided by the employer, employee and reimbursed by PPE items of universal fit
not universal fit employer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Body Harnesses........................ Prescription Safety Glasses... Body Belts.
Chemical Protective Clothing.......... Protective Electrical PPE..... Hardhats.
Chemical Protective Footwear.......... Protective Welding Clothing... Welding Helmets.
[[Page 100335]]
Chemical Splash Goggles............... Safety Shoes with Metatarsal
Guards.
Earmuffs.............................. Safety Shoes Without
Metatarsal Guards.
Earplugs.............................. Welding Goggles...............
Face Shields.......................... Welding Helmets...............
Gloves for Abrasion Protection........
Gloves for Chemical Protection........
Non-Prescription Safety Glasses.......
Safety Goggles........................
Safety Vests..........................
Splash Aprons.........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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).
Note that Safety Vests were not included in the PPE Payment rule. Body harnesses and ear inserts have been moved
from the Universal Fit column to the column for Provided by the Employer, not Universal Fit, as a result of
comments indicating these items are not universal fit.
Source: OSHA, ORA.
In this analysis, the only PPE that OSHA is estimating may need
replacement as a result of this final rule are the items that are
provided by the employer and not universal fit. For these items, the
standard size may not fit all workers. Therefore, in cases where
employers have provided only standard-sized PPE, some workers may not
have been provided properly fitting PPE.
OSHA derives the total number of PPE items currently used by
employees by multiplying the number of PPE items used by employees in
2004 as estimated in the PPE Payment rule analysis by the employment
growth rate in the construction industry from 2004 to 2022 per County
Business Patterns data. Using currently available supply catalogs, the
agency identified up to three cost estimates for ``standard'' sizes of
each PPE item potentially requiring replacement, taking the average of
those estimates for use in this analysis.\17\ OSHA then calculates the
total costs of replacing all employer-supplied, non-universal fit PPE
by applying these unit costs to the total number of PPE items used by
all employees who wear PPE. Finally, to get the total one-time
replacement costs related to this rule, OSHA estimates the number of
employees needing replacement PPE and the average per-employee cost for
replacing their PPE with non-standard sized PPE and multiplies them. A
detailed description of this approach is provided in the following
paragraphs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Note that current prices are in 2024 dollars whereas this
FEA uses 2023 dollars as its base year. As such, the prices may be
somewhat overstated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the PPE Payment rule, OSHA estimated that the total number of
employer-provided, non-universal fit PPE items worn by construction
employees in 2004 was about 13 million. However, that analysis did not
include safety vests in the list of necessary PPE. For this rulemaking,
as presented in the proposal, the agency estimated the cost and use of
safety vests, including them in the number of PPE items worn by
construction workers in 2022, the unit cost, and the total cost.
In addition, in the proposed PPE Fit rule, OSHA treated body
harnesses as universal fit, which was consistent with how body
harnesses were treated in the PPE Payment rule. However, OSHA received
a number of comments suggesting that standard body harnesses frequently
do not fit women. One commenter stated, ``[o]ur research suggests that
there are a very limited number of harnesses available on the market
that are truly `universal fit' harnesses'' (Document ID 0108). Several
commenters pointed out that women's bodies are shaped differently and
that unisex harnesses are not properly adjustable to accommodate
breasts, hips, leg length, and height; that use of improperly fitting
harnesses could lead to bodily harm; and that use of unisex harnesses
is uncomfortable for women (e.g., Document ID 0048, 0068, 0076, 0077,
0080, 0084, 0093, 0098). One commenter noted that in a fall, a
traditional unisex harness could damage a woman's pelvic region. That
commenter pointed out that while there are harnesses that are designed
specifically to accommodate women's bodies, some employers think unisex
is ``good enough'' (Document ID 0063). Another commenter said ``Women
have breasts so harnesses are not very comfortable when they are
designed for men. There are, apparently, harnesses designed for women
but I never to this day have even seen one'' (Document ID 0066). Yet
another commenter noted that ``On more than one job I have had to use
the generic one size fits all XL safety harness where leg straps on the
tightest eyelet hang to my knees'' (Document ID 0090). Therefore, in
the final rule, OSHA has added body harnesses to the list of PPE that
are non-universal fit and might require replacement. As a result, they
have been moved to the first column of table 7 above.
In addition, a comment from the ISEA indicated that earplugs
(referred to as ``ear inserts'' in the proposal) ``are designed and
manufactured in multiple sizes and shapes to accommodate the wide range
of sizes and shapes of ear canals'' (Document ID 0112). NIOSH agreed,
stating that earplugs ``should be reclassified as `provided by the
employer, not universal fit' because earplugs are not completely
adjustable and may not be capable of fitting every person'' (Document
ID 0073, attachment 2). Based on these comments, OSHA reclassified
earplugs from universal fit to provided by the employer, not universal
fit, and adjusted the cost model accordingly.
Based on the most recent data (2022) available from CBP (https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cbp/data/tables.html), employment in
the construction industries has increased by 10.74 percent since 2004.
OSHA applied this 10.74 percent increase to the agency's estimates, in
the PPE Payment rule, of the numbers of PPE items in 2004 that were
employer-supplied and not universal fit. As described above, OSHA also
added estimates for the use of several PPE items that were not included
in that category in the PPE Payment rule (safety vests, body harnesses,
and earplugs). Body harnesses and ear plugs were accounted for in the
PPE Payment analysis as universal fit PPE, and their use was estimated
there; thus, the estimates of current use of these items are derived
from the PPE Payment analysis in the
[[Page 100336]]
same way as use of the other items accounted for in PPE Payment.
Because safety vests were not included in the PPE Payment rule,
OSHA estimated the number of safety vests used by construction workers
using occupation-level employment data from BLS OEWS for 2023. A
certain subset of the employees in the three affected NAICS industries
is estimated to need safety vests based on general assumptions about
the specific occupation. As an example, while all employees in
occupations deemed in-scope for this rule in the Heavy and Civil
Engineering Construction industry (NAICS 237) are assumed to need
safety vests, Security Guards in the other two industries (Construction
of Buildings, NAICS 236, and Specialty Trade Contractors, NAICS 238)
are considered to be employees who are not near roads and thus OSHA
assumed only 5 percent of these employees would need safety vests.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ As a result of these calculations, OSHA determined that,
among the roughly 1.4 million construction workers considered,
837,448 of these workers would use safety vests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the calculations described above, the agency estimates
that the total number of non-universal fit PPE items worn by
construction employees in 2022 was about 20.0 million. Dividing the
total number of PPE items in use from table 8 (20,020,424) by the total
number of construction workers in 2022 wearing PPE from table 3
(5,878,530) yields an estimate that each construction employee wearing
PPE provided by the employer, and not universal fit, wears an average
of 3.41 items of PPE.
Based on current pricing information, OSHA estimated a total cost
of purchasing ``standard'' sizes of non-universal fit PPE of
approximately $262.0 million, including an estimated $6.3 million for
safety vests, $147.3 million for body harnesses, and $442,000 for
earplugs. OSHA divided the total cost of PPE by the total number of
items of PPE for an average per unit PPE cost of $13.08. The agency
then multiplied the per unit PPE cost by the average number of items of
PPE per employee to calculate an average cost of $44.56 ($13.08 x 3.41)
to outfit a construction employee in their needed PPE, assuming that
employee can use standard sizes.
Table 8--Use and Cost of Selected PPE in the Construction Industries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total PPE items PPE unit cost,
PPE provided by the employer, not universal fit used by employees standard size Total cost
(2022) (2024$) (2024$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Body Harnesses \a\.................................... 2,004,783 $73.48 $147,311,472
Chemical Protective Clothing.......................... 396,561 7.71 3,059,075
Chemical Protective Footwear.......................... 234,634 12.86 3,018,178
Chemical Splash Goggles............................... 647,626 10.07 6,521,590
Earmuffs.............................................. 711,375 12.49 8,887,449
Earplugs \a\.......................................... 2,761,510 0.16 441,658
Face Shields.......................................... 1,322,723 15.79 20,890,200
Gloves for Abrasion Protection........................ 3,256,712 10.63 34,607,992
Gloves for Chemical Protection........................ 992,455 1.82 1,809,577
Non-Prescription Safety Glasses....................... 3,859,430 3.87 14,923,130
Safety Goggles........................................ 2,776,301 4.60 12,761,729
Safety Vests \b\...................................... 837,448 7.49 6,275,277
Splash Aprons......................................... 218,865 6.60 1,443,772
---------------------------------------------------------
Total PPE items used by construction employees.... 20,020,424 ................. 261,951,099
---------------------------------------------------------
Average per Unit PPE Cost (2024).................. .................. ................. 13.08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The PPE Payment analysis estimated the use of body harnesses and earplugs but considered them to be
universal fit PPE items.
\b\ afety vests were not included in the PPE Payment analysis. OSHA, ORA, estimated their use in 2022 and their
cost in 2024 dollars to be consistent how the agency derived the values for other types of PPE.
Source: OSHA, ORA, based on PPE Payment rule, ERG Cost Estimates, 2024. See Final Economic Analysis spreadsheet
(Document ID 0118).
Finally, OSHA estimated the costs of purchasing replacement PPE for
employees with improperly fitting PPE. Given the current lack of data
on how many employees might be wearing improperly fitting PPE, OSHA
estimated this parameter by combining sex specific construction
employment data with general population height and weight
distributions. The numbers of women and men in the construction
industry who wear PPE is presented above in table 3.
To estimate the numbers of women and men who might require non-
standard sizes of PPE, the agency relied on height and weight data for
the general population in the Census Bureau's 2010 National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) (https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s0205.pdf).\19\ OSHA
assumed, as shown in table 9, 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 currently be using improperly fitting
PPE.20 21 OSHA acknowledges that this assumption results in
only a rough estimate of workers who might be using PPE that fits
improperly, for several reasons. First, using the general population
height and weight distributions may not align precisely with the height
and weight distributions for construction workers. For example,
Hispanic males make up a greater proportion of the
[[Page 100337]]
construction workforce than the population in general and are, on
average, slightly shorter than, and weigh less than, non-Hispanic white
males. Second, it is possible that there are fewer people who are much
smaller or larger than average in the construction industry. Finally,
OSHA 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, both male and female.\22\ Note that OSHA used an
identical approach to this issue in its preliminary analysis and did
not receive any comments on it. Therefore, the agency decided to retain
this approach for the final analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ This data source reflects the most recent publicly
available data that can be used to estimate the percentage of
construction employees who are above a certain weight threshold or
below a certain height threshold.
\20\ The base figure for men shorter than five feet tall was too
small to meet statistical standards of reliability of a derived
figure.
\21\ 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 uses this universe of workers when
calculating the number of workers 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.
\22\ OSHA recognizes that the assumption that standard-sized PPE
properly fits all workers who are above five feet tall and weigh
less than 300 pounds is not accurate in some cases, especially given
the comments noting that ``unisex'' fall protection harnesses do not
fit many women properly. As the rulemaking record reflects,
standard-sized PPE may not properly fit some workers who are above
five feet tall and weigh less than 300 pounds; at the same time,
some workers who are shorter than five feet tall and/or weigh more
than 300 pounds may be able to safely use standard sizes of PPE.
Further, some individuals who are under five feet tall may also be
over 300 pounds, meaning the data may potentially double count some
individuals. Given this, it is important to note that OSHA views the
categories of women shorter than five feet tall and men and women
weighing above 300 pounds as a proxy for all workers who might
require non-standard sizes of PPE and therefore are more likely than
others to be receiving PPE that does not fit them properly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to data limitations and as a simplifying assumption for this
analysis, the agency also assumes that construction workers are
distributed across age groups in the same proportions as the general
population examined in the NHANES. The agency then multiplies the
average percentages for each weight and height category by the total
number of men, and the total number of women, in the construction
industry that wear any type of PPE, as shown in table 9.
Table 9--Construction Employees Who Might Require Non-Standard Sizes of PPE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ages
Construction employee characteristic ------------------------------------------------------------ Average Total
20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 employees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Men Above 300 pounds.............................................. 2.5% 3.1% 1.9% 1.9% 2.2% 2.32% 116,961
Women Above 300 pounds............................................ 2.3% 1.6% 1.7% 0.6% 0.7% 1.38% 11,552
Women Under 5 foot tall........................................... 5.7% 6.0% 5.0% 8.0% 9.0% 6.74% 56,422
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Employees Who Might Require Non-Standard Sizes of PPE............................................................................ 184,935
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: OSHA, ORA, based on NHANES, 2010. See Final Economic Analysis spreadsheet (Document ID 0118).
The agency estimates that 184,935 construction employees might
require non-standard sizes of PPE but recognizes that not all of those
employees are using improperly fitting PPE. This is especially true
given that construction employers are already required to provide their
employees with properly fitting PPE. OSHA assumes that up to 10 percent
of those workers--or 18,494 workers--were being provided with
incorrectly fitting PPE prior to promulgation of this final rule. OSHA
used the same assumption in the preamble to the proposed rule and
received no comments on the estimate nor suggestions on a different
estimate the agency should use; therefore, OSHA has maintained this
methodology and simply updated the underlying data used for this final
analysis.
OSHA received a number of comments on the issue of whether non-
standard sizes of PPE are more expensive than standard sizes. For
example, some commenters expressed that ``outlier sizes'' tend to cost
more and that because of this, employers are less likely to purchase
them (Document ID 0038, 0047). Similarly, others said that employers'
``costs or compliance burdens'' would increase because employers will
have to purchase multiple sizes of PPE, purchase smaller quantities, or
purchase from manufacturers with which they do not typically do
business (Document ID 0082, 0107, 0112). Some commenters who asserted
that the rule would increase costs for businesses cited very high PPE
unit costs that OSHA could not corroborate or suggested employers would
be required to amass inventories of PPE that the rule does not require
(Document ID 0082, 0114).
Other commenters argued that the costs associated with purchasing
properly fitting PPE will be minimal. For example, CWIT stated that
this final rule should result in ``[l]ittle economic burden'' (Document
ID 0098). NABTU commented, ``. . . over 90 percent of construction
establishments employ less than 20 workers. As such, to the extent some
construction employers are not already in compliance, the cost of doing
so will not be substantial'' (Document ID 0108). ISEA noted that while
there may be costs for special orders of PPE in extremely small or
large sizes, ``the size ranges of current PPE are likely to be able to
provide a proper fit to the vast majority of the nation's construction
workforce'' (Document ID 0112).
To address these comments, OSHA estimates that larger and smaller
sizes of PPE cost 15 percent more than the average size PPE of that
type. OSHA thus calculated the average, per-person cost to issue
replacement PPE in non-standard sizes by increasing the base price of
$44.56 by 15 percent, for an estimate of $51.24. As indicated in table
10, OSHA estimates that replacing the PPE for 18,494 employees would
cost roughly $948,000 for the entire construction industry.
[[Page 100338]]
Table 10--Potential PPE Replacement Cost
[2023$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average per-
Assumed percent of employees needing replacement PPE Total affected employee PPE cost, Total cost (2023$)
(2022) employees non-standard size
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10% Employees....................................... 18,494 $51.24 $947,696
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Using the figures presented here to perform the calculations in the table may not result in the same
totals due to rounding.
Source: OSHA, ORA. See Final Economic Analysis spreadsheet (Document ID 0118).
In addition to the cost of initially replacing improperly fitting
PPE for some employees, employers will need to continue providing these
non-standard sizes of PPE to those employees on an ongoing basis. OSHA
calculates the recurring annual costs of providing these non-standard
sizes of PPE using the marginal cost of non-standard sizes of PPE
compared to the cost of standard sizes of PPE. As noted above, OSHA
estimates this marginal cost increase is 15 percent. As shown in table
12, OSHA multiplies this marginal unit cost by the number of PPE items
per employee for each PPE type, the total number of employees needing
non-standard sizes of PPE, and the number of units of each PPE type
needed in a year. OSHA determined the average useful life for the PPE
items being considered here, as presented in table 11, based on
estimates the agency developed for the PPE Payment rule and adjusted
according to comments in the record for this rulemaking.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ One commenter stated ``The useful life in regards to the
economic analysis for ``Gloves for Abrasion Protection,''
``Earmuffs,'' and ``Safety Goggles'' all seem too high. In my
experience as a worker, I would imagine the earmuffs to be closer to
0.40, gloves to be 0.15, and safety goggles to be 0.20 or less on
average'' (Document ID 0069). OSHA has adjusted the useful life of
these types of PPE accordingly.
Table 11--Useful Life of Selected PPE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PPE provided by the employer, not universal fit Useful life (yr.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Body Harnesses....................................... 2.00
Chemical Protective Clothing......................... 0.50
Chemical Protective Footwear......................... 0.50
Chemical Splash Goggles.............................. 0.50
Earmuffs............................................. 0.40
Earplugs............................................. 0.005
Face Shields......................................... 1.00
Gloves for Abrasion Protection....................... 0.15
Gloves for Chemical Protection....................... 0.05
Non-Prescription Safety Glasses...................... 1.00
Safety Goggles....................................... 0.20
Safety Vests......................................... 0.50
Splash Aprons........................................ 0.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: OSHA based on PPE Payment FEA (72 FR 64342 (Nov. 15, 2007)).
The number of PPE items per employee presented in table 12 are
calculated using the average number of items needed per employee (3.41)
and proportionally distributing that estimate based on the overall
numbers of each PPE item compared to the total number of all PPE items
(see table 8). The number of units of each PPE type needed in a year is
based on the useful life estimates presented in table 11.
Table 12--Annual Marginal Cost of Non-Standard Size PPE
[2023$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-standard
PPE type Items per Employees Items per size marginal Total items Total marginal
employee year unit cost per year cost (2023$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Body Harnesses................ 0.34 18,494 0.5 $11.02 3,153 $34,758
Chemical Protective Clothing.. 0.07 18,494 2.0 1.16 2,495 2,887
Chemical Protective Footwear.. 0.04 18,494 2.0 1.93 1,476 2,849
Chemical Splash Goggles....... 0.11 18,494 2.0 1.51 4,075 6,155
Earmuffs...................... 0.12 18,494 2.5 1.87 5,595 10,485
Earplugs...................... 0.47 18,494 200.0 0.02 1,737,512 41,683
Face Shields.................. 0.23 18,494 1.0 2.37 4,161 9,858
Gloves for Abrasion Protection 0.55 18,494 6.7 1.59 68,303 108,875
Gloves for Chemical Protection 0.17 18,494 20.0 0.27 62,444 17,078
Non-Prescription Safety 0.66 18,494 1.0 0.58 12,142 7,042
Glasses......................
Safety Goggles................ 0.47 18,494 5.0 0.69 43,670 30,111
Safety Vests.................. 0.14 18,494 2.0 1.12 5,269 5,923
[[Page 100339]]
Splash Aprons................. 0.04 18,494 2.0 0.99 1,377 1,363
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... 3.41 .......... N/A N/A 1,951,673 279,065
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Using the figures presented here to perform the calculations in the table may not result in the same
totals due to rounding.
Source: OSHA, ORA, based on PPE Payment rule, ERG Cost Estimates, 2024. See Final Economic Analysis spreadsheet
(Document ID 0118).
As presented in table 13, the agency estimates that if 10 percent
of employees who might require non-standard sizes of PPE are provided
with properly fitting PPE as a result of this clarifying rule, 50
percent of employers in the construction industry take time to
familiarize themselves with the rule, and one establishment for each
employee who requires new PPE spends time researching properly fitting
PPE, the rule could have a one-time total cost to the construction
industry of $5,475,450 plus $436,392 in annual recurring costs. These
estimated costs translate to an annualized cost of $1,045,955 over 10
years using a 2 percent discount rate.
Table 13--Total Costs of the PPE Rule
[2023$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total annualized cost (2023$)
Requirement Total one-time Total annual -------------------------------
cost (2023$) cost (2023$) 2% 0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule Familiarization........................... $4,057,842 $0 $451,746 $405,784
PPE Research................................... 469,911 157,327 209,640 204,318
PPE Replacement................................ 947,696 0 105,504 94,770
Marginal Cost of Non-Standard Size PPE......... 0 279,065 279,065 279,065
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total...................................... 5,475,450 436,392 1,045,955 983,937
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Using the figures presented here to perform the calculations in the table may not result in the same
totals due to rounding.
Source: OSHA, ORA. See Final Economic Analysis spreadsheet (Document ID 0118).
4. Sensitivity Analysis
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 as a result of this rule. 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, as discussed above, OSHA has estimated that affected
employees in construction wear an average of 3.41 pieces of PPE of the
type (provided by the employer, not universal fit) covered by OSHA's
analysis; the primary 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, 3, or 4 items of
PPE, along with the 3.41 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 (184,935) by the
various assumed non-compliance percentages. Table 14, below, presents a
range of 5 percent to 100 percent non-compliance with the requirement
to provide PPE for construction workers who may not be able to wear
standard sizes of PPE. 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 14. At most, fewer than 200,000 employees
might be affected.
Table 14--Potentially Affected Employees
[2022]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of employees needing replacement PPE Total employees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.................................................... 9,247
10................................................... 18,494
25................................................... 46,234
50................................................... 92,468
75................................................... 138,701
100.................................................. 184,935
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 100340]]
For the second sensitivity analysis, OSHA combined the different
percentages of employees who might need replacement PPE with different
numbers of items of PPE that might need to be replaced for each
affected employee. In table 15, 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, 4, or the average 3.41
pieces of replacement PPE.
Table 15--PPE Items per Employee Needing Replacement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total PPE items needing replacement
Percent of employees needing -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
replacement PPE 1 Item 2 Items 3 Items 3.41 Items 4 Items
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5............................... 9,247 18,494 27,740 31,492 36,987
10.............................. 18,494 36,987 55,481 62,983 73,974
25.............................. 46,234 92,468 138,701 157,458 184,935
50.............................. 92,468 184,935 277,403 314,916 369,871
75.............................. 138,701 277,403 416,104 472,374 554,806
100............................. 184,935 369,871 554,806 629,832 739,741
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To complete the sensitivity analysis, OSHA multiplied the cost of
the average piece of non-standard sized PPE, calculated as $15.05 per
piece ($51.24 cost per employee/3.41 items per employee), by the number
of total items of PPE needing replacement (displayed in table 15,
above). The results are presented in table 16.
Table 16--Total Cost of Replacement PPE, Sensitivity Analysis Results
[2023$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total cost for replacement PPE (2023$)
Percent of employees needing -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
replacement PPE 1 Item 2 Items 3 Items 3.41 Items 4 Items
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5............................... $139,134 $278,269 $417,403 $473,848 $556,538
10.............................. 278,269 556,538 834,807 947,696 1,113,076
25.............................. 695,672 1,391,344 2,087,017 2,369,241 2,782,689
50.............................. 1,391,344 2,782,689 4,174,033 4,738,481 5,565,378
75.............................. 2,087,017 4,174,033 6,261,050 7,107,722 8,348,067
100............................. 2,782,689 5,565,378 8,348,067 9,476,963 11,130,756
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per Employee Cost........... 15.05 30.09 45.14 51.24 60.19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 16 shows that, as a worst-case scenario, if no employers are
providing properly fitting PPE to employees who may require non-
standard sizes of PPE, and if each employee needs 4 items of
replacement PPE (more PPE than the average of 3.41 PPE items), then the
total one-time cost to industry to provide that properly fitting PPE
would be approximately $11.1 million. Meanwhile, the cost to industry
could be as low as about $140,000 to replace improperly fitting PPE,
assuming only 5 percent of employees need one replacement PPE item.
The percentage of employees needing replacement PPE and the number
of PPE items each employee needs replaced also impact the estimated
marginal cost of providing properly fitting PPE on an ongoing basis.
Table 17 presents the annual marginal costs associated with continuing
to supply employees with non-standard size PPE after initial
replacement, assuming varying percentages of employees needing this PPE
and varying numbers of PPE items per employee.
Table 17--Annual Marginal Cost of Non-Standard Sizes of PPE, Sensitivity Analysis Results
[2023$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual marginal cost of non-standard size PPE (2023$)
Percent of employees needing -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
replacement PPE 1 Item 2 Items 3 Items 3.41 Items 4 Items
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5............................... $40,970 $81,941 $122,911 $139,533 $163,882
10.............................. 81,941 163,882 245,823 279,065 327,764
25.............................. 204,852 409,705 614,557 697,663 819,409
50.............................. 409,705 819,409 1,229,114 1,395,325 1,638,819
75.............................. 614,557 1,229,114 1,843,671 2,092,988 2,458,228
100............................. 819,409 1,638,819 2,458,228 2,790,650 3,277,637
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 18 shows that the total annualized cost of the rule could
range from approximately $718,000 to $5.2 million when factoring in
rule familiarization, PPE research, and the various PPE replacement
scenarios (assuming a 10-year time horizon and 2 percent discount
rate).
[[Page 100341]]
Table 18--Total Annualized Cost of PPE Fit Rule, Sensitivity Analysis Results
[2023$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total annualized cost of PPE fit rule (2023$)
Percent of employees needing -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
replacement PPE 1 Item 2 Items 3 Items 3.41 Items 4 Items
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5............................... $717,846 $774,305 $830,765 $853,670 $887,225
10.............................. 774,305 887,225 1,000,145 1,045,955 1,113,064
25.............................. 943,685 1,225,984 1,508,283 1,622,808 1,790,582
50.............................. 1,225,984 1,790,582 2,355,180 2,584,230 2,919,779
75.............................. 1,508,283 2,355,180 3,202,078 3,545,652 4,048,975
100............................. 1,790,582 2,919,779 4,048,975 4,507,073 5,178,171
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA also considered a sensitivity analysis that assumes a
Purchasing Manager would spend 30 minutes instead of 10 minutes
researching and identifying non-standard sizes of PPE for employees who
do not currently have properly fitting PPE. This revised assumption
increases the total annualized costs of the rule from $1,045,955 to
$1,423,497 using a 2 percent discount rate over a ten-year period.
C. Economic Feasibility
The OSH Act requires that OSHA show the economic feasibility of
standards. A standard is economically feasible when industry can absorb
or pass on the costs of compliance without threatening the industry's
long-term profitability or competitive structure (American Textile
Mfrs. Inst. v. Donovan, 452 U.S. 490, 530 n.55 (1981) (Cotton Dust)),
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)). ``[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 OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5)), 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 16612, 16622-23 (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.'')).
OSHA historically has applied two threshold tests to examine
economic feasibility for industries 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.\24\ However, as discussed in OSHA's recent proposed rule on
Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings
(89 FR 70698, 70943 (Aug. 30, 2024)), the agency is no longer using
costs as a percent of profits as a measure of feasibility because OSHA
determined that the profit test is not a useful measure of the economic
feasibility of a standard for a given industry. To determine whether
there is a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the threshold test
examines whether the average costs for small entities are 1 percent of
their average revenues or below.\25\ These threshold tests are not a
hard ceiling or determinative; instead, they provide guidelines the
agency uses to examine whether there are any potential economic impact
issues that require additional study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 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).
\25\ For example, see OSHA's Final Regulatory Flexibility
Screening Analysis in support of the Hazard Communication rule (77
FR 17574, 17660 (March 26, 2012)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although this rule simply clarifies an existing requirement, OSHA
has provided an estimate of the costs for a proportion of employers to
come into compliance with the already-existing requirement to provide
properly fitting PPE. As one commenter pointed out, the rule ``should
not cause any financial stress on any company unless they are providing
ill-fitting PPE to employees currently'' (Document ID 0034). 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. As shown in table 19, the average construction industry
employer has revenues of $3.35 million annually and 9 employees. As a
worst-case scenario, if such an employer had to conduct rule
familiarization, research PPE, and replace all the PPE at issue in this
rulemaking for all of their employees (i.e., 3.41 items per employee
for 9 employees), including new hires, and then continue to provide
properly fitting PPE, it would cost an annualized $258, which is much
less than 0.1 percent of an average employer's revenues. More
realistically, an employer might have to replace the PPE for one of its
employees and the per-establishment costs would be substantially lower.
Therefore, this rule is clearly economically feasible.
[[Page 100342]]
Table 19--Average Employment and Revenues (2023$) per Establishment by NAICS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Average revenue
NAICS Establishments employment per (2023$) per
establishment establishment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236 (Construction of Buildings)........................ 251,634 6 $3,825,160
237 (Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction)......... 38,214 26 9,892,428
238 (Specialty Trade Contractors)...................... 510,803 9 2,078,011
--------------------------------------------------------
Total Construction................................. 800,651 9 3,347,121
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2022 County Business Patterns (CBP). Available at https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/2022/econ/cbp/2022-cbp.html.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis and Certification
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 requirement would have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.\26\ While
the rule simply clarifies an existing requirement, even when OSHA
assumes that this rule leads to changes in employer behavior and
associated costs, the costs are minimal. Given the number of workers
OSHA estimates might be wearing improperly fitting PPE compared to the
number of construction establishments covered by this rule, it is
statistically unlikely that there will be more than one worker who
might be wearing improperly fitting PPE at any given firm. For the
following reasons, this rule will not impose significant costs (i.e.,
costs that amount to more than one percent of revenues) on small
employers:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Small entity status is determined by the Small Business
Administration's size standards. Construction entities are
considered small based on their revenue, with the threshold ranging
from less than $19 million to less than $45 million in annual
revenue depending on which 6-digit NAICS industry the employer falls
under (See https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement PPE costs are less than $52 per employee;
Establishments will incur less than $36 to complete rule
familiarization and PPE research upfront (plus another $15 annually if
they have a new hire requiring non-standard PPE); and
The ongoing marginal cost of non-standard sized PPE is
about $7 per employee, on average.
To further illustrate this point, in order for a firm to experience
impacts greater than 1 percent of revenues, firm-level revenues would
need to be $3,162 or lower.\27\ According to the 2017 Statistics of
U.S. Businesses (SUSB) dataset (https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/2017/econ/susb/2017-susb.html), Specialty Trade Contractors (NAICS code
238) has the lowest revenues per firm for the smallest size category
(<5 employees) at $365,018 (inflated to 2023$), which is well above the
$3,162 needed for impacts to equal 1 percent of revenues. The agency
therefore certifies that this final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Rule familiarization cost per establishment of $10.14, one
time PPE needs assessment and research cost of $25.41, annual
research cost for new hires of $15.27, and one time PPE replacement
cost of $51.24 for one employee, plus ongoing marginal cost of
nonstandard sized PPE of $6.68 for one employee annualized at a 2
percent discount rate over 10 years yields a per employer cost of
$31.62. For a cost of $31.62 to exceed one percent of revenues, the
employer's revenues would need to be less than $3,162 annually
($3,162 * 0.01 = $31.62).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Benefits
Although this rule is a clarification of employers' existing
obligations, comments in the record suggest that not all employers are
currently meeting their obligation to provide their employees with
properly fitting PPE. The agency expects this clarification will
improve compliance and thereby produce benefits to workers who were
previously not receiving properly fitting PPE. However, due to lack of
information about how many injuries, illnesses, and fatalities are
caused by improperly fitting PPE, the agency is unable to estimate
number of injuries, illnesses, and fatalities that may be averted by
this final rule. While OSHA received a number of comments providing
anecdotal evidence from individuals' personal experience, no commenter
provided studies or data that would allow the agency to estimate the
number of fatalities and non-fatal injuries and illnesses caused by
improperly fitting PPE across the construction industry. This section
discusses the evidence in the record regarding potential benefits, the
difficulties in identifying PPE-related injuries in the available data,
and potential benefits other than direct health and safety benefits
that may result from this final rule. Finally, for informational
purposes, OSHA calculates how many fatalities or non-fatal injuries and
illnesses would need to be prevented by this rule in order for it to
have positive net benefits.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ By showing this break-even point, OSHA is not suggesting
the agency is required to engage in formal cost-benefit analysis
requiring that benefits exceed costs but instead presents it for
informational purposes only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The comments OSHA received revealed two types of benefits likely to
result from requiring properly fitting PPE. The first type comes from
avoidance of injuries, illnesses, and fatalities. Several commenters
reported that they were required to wear incorrectly fitting PPE on the
job and that this made accidents more likely for them (Document ID
0079, 0081, 0097). Some reported having been injured due to improperly
fitting PPE while others reported near misses. For example, one
individual reported that a safety vest that was too big had gotten
``caught on equipment and nearly caused falls'' and that ``[i]mproperly
fitting gloves have been caught in equipment'' (Document ID 0079).
Another said that oversized gloves caused her hand to be caught in
machinery, resulting in a serious and permanently debilitating injury
(Document ID 0061). A comment from the United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America (UBC) reported stories shared by their members,
including two who suffered eye injuries due to improperly fitting
safety glasses, one whose oversized fall protection harness got caught
on equipment and caused a back injury, and two who suffered injuries to
fingers when their oversized gloves were caught in machinery (Document
ID 0074). These comments indicate that employees are being injured due
to improperly fitting PPE.
However, specific numbers of injuries or fatalities directly
attributable to improperly fitting PPE are difficult to identify in the
available data. As shown above, improperly fitting PPE can cause a
variety of types of injuries (i.e., fractures, abrasions, sprains, cuts
and punctures) in a number of ways (i.e., by causing falls, getting
caught in
[[Page 100343]]
machinery) and to a number of parts of the body. Data available from
BLS are parsed by type of injury, cause of injury, or part of the body
injured, and injuries that are reported in these categories may include
injuries caused by improperly fitting PPE along with injuries resulting
from other factors. The data collected do not specify whether PPE was
being worn or whether it contributed to an accident or injury. Data
from BLS reported that, in 2021, there were more than 37,000 sprains,
strains, and tears, more than 18,000 cuts and lacerations, and 1,700
amputations that resulted in days away from work in the construction
industry (BLS, 2023). The injuries reported by commenters and discussed
above would fall within these categories (if they were reported
appropriately). Based on this, it is entirely plausible that there are
some injuries in these categories (as well as other categories of
injuries not presented here) that are due to improperly fitting PPE and
that could be avoided if employees wore properly fitting PPE.
In addition to the specific accounts of injuries detailed above,
multiple commenters expressed doubt that the improperly fitting PPE
they wear or had worn would keep them safe in the event an accident
occurred; some worried that the poor fit of their PPE (e.g., fall
protection harness) could lead to a fatal accident (Document ID 0085,
0081, 0084, 0090, 0108). Others reported that they felt they were
putting themselves in danger by working while wearing improperly
fitting PPE (Document ID 0080). Feeling unsafe at work has negative
consequences for workers' mental health. The NSC conducted a survey to
evaluate the correlation between workplace safety and negative mental
health impacts. NSC reported that:
Respondents who felt unsafe at work were nearly three times more
likely to report also experiencing depressive symptoms within the
past two weeks compared to those who felt safe at work. In addition,
respondents who felt unsafe at work were more than twice as likely
to also report feeling symptoms of anxiety compared to those who
felt safe at work.
Individuals with the highest level of concern for their safety
at work were the most likely to report feeling depressed or anxious
frequently enough to meet one of the criteria for clinical diagnosis
of mental illness (NSC, 2022).
Consistent with the findings of the NSC survey, commenters reported
feelings of anxiety and stress, loss of sleep, mental fatigue, and
concern about discrimination or retaliation; they also worried about
loss of income because of, for example, being sent home due to a lack
of properly fitting PPE or being laid off because they work slower due
to PPE that is too big and makes tasks more difficult (Document ID
0045, 0074, 0087). Accordingly, the fit requirement of this final rule
may yield benefits from reduced stress and other negative mental health
effects.
The third type of benefit likely to result from this final rule is
avoidance of work or production delays that occur when workers are
wearing PPE that does not fit. The UBC noted that, among other
benefits, ``properly fitting PPE will result in less lost production''
(Document ID 0074) and the ISEA likewise commented that the rule would
yield a financial benefit by preventing injuries and fatalities
(Document ID 0112). In its comment, NIOSH cited studies finding that
workers had difficulty performing job tasks while wearing poorly
fitting PPE, including one where study participants ``reported that
poorly fitting PPE interfered with work tasks and potentially affected
their productivity'' and another where participants reported that
``[b]eing unable to perform some technical tasks while wearing standard
issue gloves had a direct negative effect on productivity'' (Document
ID 0054). Commenters also reported that improperly fitting PPE made it
difficult to do their jobs efficiently (Document ID 0073, 0079).
Accordingly, workers who are provided with properly fitting PPE as a
result of this final rule may experience increased productivity, which
in turn benefits employers because employees can work faster and more
efficiently.
Additional benefits that could accrue to employees as a result of
this rule include not being denied work (e.g., Document ID 0061, 0114);
not being sent home without pay (e.g., Document ID 0087); and not
having to pay for their own PPE (e.g., Document ID 0056, 0060, 0067,
0094, 0115). Another commenter suggested that improved safety would
help the construction industry ``alleviate [. . .] risk and make
working in the industry a good choice for women and other under-
represented groups'' which the commenter believed was necessary in
order for the industry to meet the need for workers (Document ID 0074).
Based on the above, OSHA believes that this rule will result in
health and safety benefits to workers, as well as benefits to employers
due to increased worker efficiency and productivity. Although the
agency is unable to quantify those benefits due to data limitations,
the agency has calculated, for informational purposes, how many
injuries and/or fatalities this final rule would have to prevent to
yield a net benefit. To do so, OSHA begins with the estimate that this
final rule will impose annualized costs of about $889,000 per year
using a two percent discount rate and a ten year time frame. Next, OSHA
monetizes the potential safety and health benefits of the rule.
Monetization allows comparison of the benefits and costs of a rule in
the same terms. When OSHA is able to estimate the number of injuries or
fatalities prevented by a given rule, the agency monetizes these
benefits.
If OSHA were to monetize fatalities potentially avoided by this
final rule, the analysis would use the Department of Transportation
(DOT) 2023 value-of-a-statistical-life (VSL) estimate of $13.2 million
per avoided fatality (DOT, 2024).\29\ DOT relied on a selected set of
nine recent economic studies that provided usable estimates of VSL for
a broad cross-section of the population. Because economic theory and
empirical evidence indicate that the value of reducing life-threatening
and health-threatening risks (and the corresponding willingness of
individuals to pay to reduce these risks) will increase as real per
capita income increases, DOT adjusted its VSL estimate to reflect
changes in real income over time, using an income elasticity of VSL of
1.0 (the percentage change in VSL in response to a 1% increase in real
income). For its estimate of real gross domestic product (GDP) growth
over the ten-year period for which OSHA estimates benefits, the agency
uses a recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast of 1.7 percent
per year (CBO, 2022).\30\ Accounting for real GDP growth over a ten-
year period, on an annualized basis using a 2 percent discount rate,
OSHA's adjusted VSL is $14.2 million.\31\ Although OSHA is unable to
estimate the number of fatalities that will be prevented by this final
rule, the agency can demonstrate based on this adjusted VSL, that this
final rule will have positive net benefits if it prevents one
[[Page 100344]]
fatality about every 14 years ($14,200,000/$1,045,955 = 13.6) based on
avoided fatalities alone regardless of avoided non-fatal injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ The analysis is using 2023 as its reference dollar year for
comparing costs and benefits, although given that the unit costs for
PPE are using the latest available information from 2024, the costs
might be slightly overstated for 2023.
\30\ See Table 2-1 in https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58147
(CBO, 2022).
\31\ Beginning with a baseline ($2023) VSL of $13.2 million,
OSHA applied an annual income growth rate of 1.7% (Year 0 = 100.0%,
Year 1 = 101.7%, Year 2 = 103.4%, Year 3 = 105.2%, Year 4 = 107.0%,
Year 5 = 108.8%, Year 6 = 110.6%, Year 7 = 112.5%, Year 8 = 114.4%,
Year 9 = 116.4%) and a discount rate of 2% to derive a present value
income growth rate of 107.7%. Multiplying the baseline VSL times the
present value income growth rate ($13.2 x 107.7%) yields an adjusted
VSL value of $14,217,770, or after rounding, $14.2 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, OSHA typically monetizes the benefits of avoided
nonfatal injuries and illnesses based on the value of a statistical
injury (VSI) and, if monetizing benefits for this final rule, would use
the midpoint of the range of the values cited in Viscusi and Gentry
(2015) converted to 2023 dollars using the GDP deflator, or $116,588
per injury. Based on this VSI, if this rule prevented about 9
($1,045,955/$116,588 = 8.97) nonfatal injuries or illnesses a year, it
would have positive net benefits regardless of avoided fatalities.
References
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2024). Job Openings and Labor
Turnover Survey (JOLTS). Available at https://www.bls.gov/jlt/data.htm (Accessed March 18, 2024). (BLS JOLTS, 2024)
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2023). Survey of Occupational
Injuries and Illnesses, Number of nonfatal occupational injuries and
illnesses involving days away from work, restricted activity, or job
transfer (DART), days away from work (DAFW), and days of restricted
work activity, or job transfer (DJTR) by industry and selected
natures of injury or illness, private industry, 2021-2022. Available
at https://www.bls.gov/iif/nonfatal-injuries-and-illnesses-tables/case-and-demographic-characteristics-table-r1-2021-2022.xlsx. (BLS,
2023)
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2023, May). Occupational
Employment and Wage Statistics. May 2023 National Industry-Specific
Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates. NAICS Sectors. Available
at: https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oessrci.htm. (BLS, May 2023)
Congressional Budget Office (CBO). (2022). The Budget and Economic
Outlook: 2022 to 2032. Available at: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58147. (CBO, 2022)
Department of Transportation (DOT). (2024). Department Guidance on
Valuation of a Statistical Life in Economic Analysis. Available at:
https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/revised-departmental-guidance-on-valuation-of-a-statistical-life-in-economic-analysis. (DOT, 2024)
Leigh JP. (Leigh) (2011, Dec). Economic Burden of Occupational
Injury and Illness in the United States. The Milbank Quarterly. 2011
Dec; 89(4):728-72. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3250639/. (Leigh, Dec. 2011)
National Safety Council (NSC). (2022). ``NSC Survey Finds Workplace
Safety Issues Correlate with Depression, Anxiety.'' Available at:
https://www.nsc.org/newsroom/nsc-survey-finds-workplace-safety-issues-correlate (NSC, 2022)
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). (2023). Circular No. A-4.
Executive Office of the President. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/CircularA-4.pdf. (OMB,
2023)
Park, Jisung, Nora Pankratz, and Arnold Behrer. (2021, July)
``Temperature, workplace safety, and labor market inequality.'' IZA
Discussion Paper 14560 (2021): 1-94. Available at: https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/14560/temperature-workplace-safety-and-labor-market-inequality. (Park, et al., July, 2021)
Viscusi, W. K., & Gentry, E. P. (2015). The value of a statistical
life for transportation regulations: A test of the benefits transfer
methodology. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 51, 53-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-015-9219-2. (Viscusi and Gentry, 2015)
VI. Technological Feasibility
This final rule amends Sec. 1926.95(c) to make explicit
construction employers' existing obligation to ensure PPE worn by
employees properly fits each employee. In the NPRM, OSHA explained that
this revision would improve clarity for the construction sector and
would ensure consistency between the construction PPE standards and
existing OSHA standards for general industry and shipyards. OSHA
further stated that because the requirement for properly fitting PPE
already exists in the construction industry, the agency believed that
providing properly fitting PPE is already common practice among
construction employers. Therefore, OSHA preliminarily concluded that
the proposed rule would be technologically feasible.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ As explained in the NPRM, because the revision in this
final rule is simply a clarification of an existing requirement, the
agency is not required to perform a new technological feasibility
analysis for this rulemaking. Nonetheless, OSHA is including a
discussion of technological feasibility for informational purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the NPRM, no commenter identified any technological
barriers to providing construction employees with properly fitting PPE.
Instead, as one commenter stated, ``PPE is readily available for the
wide range of worker anthropometrics'' (Document ID 0108). According to
another, ``PPE is available in different sizes. In addition, most PPE
is adjustable, and available in a range of sizes, meaning the wearer
can achieve a proper fit'' (Document ID 0112). General industry and
shipyard employers have been able to comply with the comparable
requirements in 29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1)(iii) and 1915.152(b)(3),
providing further evidence of technological feasibility, especially
given that no commenter identified any PPE that is unique to
construction work (see Document ID 0078). OSHA has also identified
industry resources that demonstrate the availability of PPE designed
for many different body types, such as the list of PPE for all genders
and sizes compiled by CPWR (see Document ID 0117) and ISEA's List of
Female PPE Manufacturers (Document ID 0014).
Although some commenters did indicate they had difficulty obtaining
properly fitting PPE in the past (Document ID 0031, 0046), these
comments do not demonstrate a technological feasibility issue, but
rather a market supply issue. As one commenter noted, ``[s]maller sizes
exist for many types of PPE, but only larger sizes are stocked by
sellers'' (Document ID 0046). These same commenters also expressed hope
that this final rule would increase availability by spurring demand
(Document ID 0031, 0046). As one commenter stated, ``[t]here could be
experiences of longer lead times for certain PPE items; however, as
employers increase the demand for manufacturers to produce more size
variations, this problem should be alleviated'' (Document ID 0098).
After reviewing the comments received and the evidence in the record,
OSHA finds that this final rule is technologically feasible.
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule 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)).
VIII. Federalism
OSHA reviewed this final rule in accordance with Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999)), which, among other things, is
intended to ``ensure that the principles of federalism established by
the Framers guide the executive departments and agencies in the
formulation and implementation of policies.'' The E.O. provides for
preemption of State law where there is clear evidence that Congress
intended preemption of State law, or where the exercise of State
authority conflicts with the exercise of Federal authority under the
Federal statute. The E.O. directs agencies to limit any such preemption
to the extent possible. The E.O. also
[[Page 100345]]
requires that agencies consult with states on rules that have
``federalism implications,'' which are those that have ``substantial
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This final rule complies with E.O. 13132. The hazards addressed by
this final rule and its goal of protecting construction workers are
national in scope and the final rule does not include ``federalism
implications'' as defined in the E.O. Under section 18 of the OSH Act,
29 U.S.C. 651 et seq., Congress expressly provides that States may
adopt, with Federal approval, a plan for the development and
enforcement of occupational safety and health standards (29 U.S.C.
667); OSHA refers to these OSHA-approved, State-administered
occupational safety and health programs as ``State Plans.''
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 (29 U.S.C. 667). Subject
to these requirements, State Plans are free to develop and enforce
under State law their own requirements for occupational safety and
health standards. The choice to become a State Plan is part of the
statutory scheme and is not mandatory, so there are no federalism
implications for States that choose to adopt a State Plan. The effect
of this final rule on States and territories with OSHA-approved
occupational safety and health State Plans is discussed in Section IX,
State Plans.
In States without OSHA-approved State Plans, the States are not
employers under the OSH Act and the final rule would therefore not have
a substantial direct effect on them (29 U.S.C. 652(5)).
IX. State Plans
When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or a more stringent
amendment to an existing standard, States with their own OSHA-approved
occupational safety and health plans (``State Plans'') must either
amend their standards to be identical to, or ``at least as effective
as,'' the new standard or amendment, or show that an existing State
Plan standard covering this issue is ``at least as effective'' as the
new Federal standard or amendment (29 CFR 1953.5(a)). State Plans'
adoption must be completed within six months of the promulgation date
of the final Federal rule.
OSHA has determined that by including in 29 CFR 1926.95 an explicit
requirement that PPE must fit properly, this final rule will increase
protection afforded to employees in the construction industry by
clarifying employers' obligations under the standard. Accordingly,
within six months of the rule's final promulgation date, State Plans
are required to review their standards and adopt amendments to those
standards that are identical to, or ``at least as effective'' as, this
rule, unless they demonstrate that such amendments are not necessary
because their existing standards are already ``at least as effective''
in protecting workers. To avoid delays in worker protection, the
effective date of the State standard and any of its delayed provisions
must be the date of State promulgation or the Federal effective date,
whichever is later. The Assistant Secretary may permit a longer time
period if the State timely demonstrates that good cause exists for
extending the time limitation (29 CFR 1953.5(a)).
Of the 29 States and Territories with OSHA-approved State Plans, 22
cover public and private-sector employees: Alaska, Arizona, California,
Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada,
New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. The
remaining seven States and Territories cover only State and local
government employees: Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, New York, and the Virgin Islands.
X. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
OSHA reviewed this final rule according to the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA''; 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) and Executive
Order 12875 (58 FR 58093 (Oct. 28, 1993)). Section 202 of the UMRA, 2
U.S.C. 1532, requires agencies to assess the anticipated costs and
benefits of a rule that includes a Federal mandate ``that may result in
expenditures in any one year by state, local, and tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or by the private sector,'' of at least $100 million,
adjusted annually for inflation. This provision does not generally
apply to a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program (2 U.S.C. 658(5)).
As discussed above in Section V. Final Economic Analysis and
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification, the agency has preliminarily
determined that compliance with this final rule will require
expenditures of less than $100 million (adjusted annually for
inflation, which would now amount to more than $180 million) per year
by all affected entities. Accordingly, this proposal is not a
significant regulatory action within the meaning of the UMRA.
This rule does not place a mandate on State or local government for
purposes of the UMRA. As explained above in Section IX. State Plans,
those States with OSHA-approved State Plans voluntarily choose to
adopt, with Federal approval, a plan for the development and
enforcement of occupational safety and health standards. Thus, to the
extent they are required to comply with OSHA standards, it is the
result of their voluntary decision, not a Federal mandate. In States
without OSHA-approved State Plans, the States and their political
subdivisions are not employers under the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 652(5)).
Thus, the final rule does not impose costs on them.
The OSH Act does not cover Tribal governments in the performance of
traditional governmental functions, but it does cover Tribal
governments when they engage in activities of a commercial or service
character (see Menominee Tribal Enterprises v. Solis, 601 F.3d 669 (7th
Cir. 2010); Reich v. Mashantucket Sand & Gravel, 95 F.3d 174 (2d Cir.
1996)). However, the cost of the revisions in this final rule for these
covered activities by a Tribal government would not meet the threshold
established in UMRA. OSHA certifies that this rule would not mandate
that State, local, or Tribal governments adopt new, unfunded regulatory
obligations of, or increase expenditures by the private sector by, more
than $100 million in any year, as documented in the Final Economic
Analysis.
XI. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
OSHA reviewed this final rule in accordance with Executive Order
13175 (65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000)) and determined that it would not
have ``tribal implications'' as defined in that order. The
clarification to 29 CFR 1926.95 does 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.
XII. Protecting Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, Protecting Children from Environmental
Health and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885 (April 23, 1997)), as amended by
Executive Orders 13229 and 13296, requires that Federal agencies
provide additional evaluation
[[Page 100346]]
of economically significant regulatory actions that concern an
environmental health risk or safety risk that an agency has reason to
believe may disproportionately affect children. As explained elsewhere
in this preamble, OSHA has determined that this final rule is not an
economically significant regulatory action. In addition, this rule is
intended to protect workers of all ages, and OSHA has no information
that children comprise a disproportion share of the affected workforce.
To the extent older children are employed in the construction industry,
this final rule will have a protective effect on these older children
by ensuring that they are provided properly fitting PPE. OSHA has
therefore determined that this rule will not disproportionately affect
children or have any adverse impact on children. Accordingly, Executive
Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks, requires no further agency action or analysis.
XIII. Environmental Impacts
OSHA has reviewed the final rule according to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the
regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR part 1500
et seq.), and the Department of Labor's NEPA procedures (29 CFR part
11).
Pursuant to 29 CFR 11.10 and consistent with CEQ regulations, the
promulgation, modification, or revocation of any safety standard is
categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental
assessment under NEPA absent extraordinary circumstances indicating the
need for such an assessment. OSHA finds that this final rule presents
no such extraordinary circumstances.
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, authorized the preparation of this document under
the authority granted by sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), 5 U.S.C. 553,
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393), and 29 CFR part
1911.
Signed at Washington, DC.
Douglas L. Parker,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
Final Regulatory Text
Amendments to Standards
For the reasons stated in the preamble, OSHA amends 29 CFR part
1926 to read as follows:
PART 1926--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS
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. 2024-29220 Filed 12-11-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P