29 CFR 1926 Subpart AA - Confined Spaces in Construction

162 Pages·2015·1.07 MB·English

Vol. 80 Monday,
No. 85 May 4, 2015
Part II
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Part 1926
Confined Spaces in Construction; Final Rule
S2
E
UL
R
with
D
O
R
P
N1
V
T
P
V
K4
S
D
mstockstill on VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 May 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM 04MYR2
25366 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 85/Monday, May 4, 2015/Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR document are available at http:// training provision, issued in 1979,
www.regulations.gov. Electronic copies applies to confined space work in
Occupational Safety and Health of this Federal Register document, as construction. Following the
Administration well as news releases and other relevant promulgation of the general industry
documents, are available at OSHA’s rule, OSHA agreed to propose a
29 CFR Part 1926 Web page at http://www.osha.gov. standard for confined spaces in
[Docket ID–OSHA–2007–0026] SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION: construction as part of a settlement of a
legal challenge filed by the United
RIN 1218–AB47 Table of Contents
Steelworkers of America. After
I. Executive Summary consulting with the Advisory
Confined Spaces in Construction
A. Introduction Committee for Construction Safety and
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health B. Need for Regulation Health (ACCSH) on a draft, and holding
C. Affected Establishments
Administration (OSHA), Labor. several stakeholder meetings in
D. Benefits, Net Benefits, and Cost
ACTION: Final rule. Effectiveness locations across the country, OSHA
E. Compliance Costs developed a draft and conducted a
SUMMARY: OSHA is adding a new F. Economic Impacts Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
subpart to provide protections to G. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (SBAR Panel) in 2003. The Agency
employees working in confined spaces II. Background published its proposed rule for confined
in construction. This new subpart A. Record Citations
spaces in construction on November 28,
replaces OSHA’s one training B. History
2007 (72 FR 67351). The proposal
requirement for confined space work C. Need for a Rule Regulating Confined
with a comprehensive standard that Spaces in Construction incorporated feedback from ACCSH, the
III. Summary and Explanation of the Final stakeholder meetings, and the SBAR
includes a permit program designed to
Standard Panel, and addressed issues unique to
protect employees from exposure to
1926.1201—Scope the construction industry, such as
many hazards associated with work in 1926.1202—Definitions higher employee turnover rates,
confined spaces, including atmospheric 1926.1203—General Requirements
worksites that change frequently, and
and physical hazards. The final rule is 1926.1204—Permit Required Confined
the multi-employer business model that
similar in content and organization to Space Program
the general industry confined spaces 1926.1205—Permitting process is common on construction worksites.
standard, but also incorporates several 1926.1206—Entry permit During the SBAR Panel, some small
provisions from the proposed rule to 1926.1207—Training entity representatives expressed a
1926.1208—Duties of Authorized Entrants
address construction-specific hazards, preference for the general industry rule
1926.1209—Duties of Attendants
accounts for advancements in 1926.1210—Duties of Entry Supervisors and requested that OSHA consider
technology, and improves enforceability 1926.1211—Rescue adopting that rule for the construction
of the requirements. 1926.1212—Employee Participation industry. When the proposed rule was
DATES: The final rule becomes effective 1926.1213—Provision of Documents to the published, OSHA requested comment
on August 3, 2015. Secretary on how the Agency could adapt a
ADDRESSES: In accordance with 28 IVA. A. Lgeengacly A Duettheromriityn ations standard similar to the general industry
rule for the construction sector.
U.S.C. 2112(a), the Agency designates B. Final Economic Analysis and Regulatory
Ms. Ann Rosenthal, the Associate Flexibility Analysis Commenters indicated that they had
Solicitor of Labor for Occupational 1. Introduction been following the general industry rule
Safety and Health, Office of the Solicitor 2. Need for Regulation for quite some time and suggested
of Labor, Room S4004, U.S. Department 3. Profile of Affected Industries adopting that standard with some
of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., 4. Benefits and Net Benefits modifications for the construction
Washington, DC 20210, to receive 5. Technological Feasibility industry. OSHA considered the unique
6. Costs of Compliance
petitions for review of the final rule. challenges faced by the construction
7. Economic Feasibility and Regulatory
industry as well as the requests by
FORFURTHERINFORMATIONCONTACT: Flexibility Determination
commenters for more consistency
General information and press 8. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
inquiries: Mr. Frank Meilinger, Office of 9. Sensitivity Analysis between the general industry and
Communications, Room N3647, OSHA, 10. References construction standards. The final rule
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 C. Office of Management and Budget reflects the organization, language, and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, Review Under the Paperwork Reduction most of the substantive requirements of
DC 20210; telephone [phone]; Act of 1995 the general industry rule. Some of the
D. Federalism
email [email protected]. aspects of the construction industry that
E. State-Plan States
Technical information: Ms. Jessica L. F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act are not present in general industry work
Douma, Directorate of Construction, G. Consultation and Coordination With are addressed by modifications such as
Room N–3468, OSHA, U.S. Department Indian Tribal Governments information exchange requirements to
of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., H. Applicability of Existing Consensus ensure that multiple employers have
Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) Standards shared vital safety information. OSHA
693–2020 or fax [phone]; email V. Authority and Signature also adjusted the construction rule to
S2 [email protected]. VI. Amendments to Standards account for advances in technology and
ULE For additional copies of this Federal I. Executive Summary equipment that allow for continuous
D with R ROeffgiicset eorf dPoucbulimcaetniot,n cso, nUta.Sc.t :D OeSpHarAtm, ent A. Introduction mbeotwnietoenri nthge o rfe hgauzlaatrodrsy. Otetxhte or fd tihffee rences
RO of Labor, Room N3101, 200 Constitution OSHA last issued rules addressing general industry rule and this standard
P
N1 Avenue NW, Washington, DC, 20210; work in confined spaces in 1993; reflect improvements in clarity of
V
PT telephone [phone]. Electronic however, those provisions applied only language and enforcement
V
K4 copies of this Federal Register to general industry work. A single considerations that have been addressed
S
D
mstockstill on VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 May 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM 04MYR2
Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 85/Monday, May 4, 2015/Rules and Regulations 25367
in interpretations of the general industry utility lines, and other types of projects. An estimated 6 fatalities and 812
rule. Also potentially affected are general injuries occur annually among
contractors, as well as specialty-trade employees involved in construction
B. Need for Regulation
construction contractors and employers work in confined spaces addressed by
Prior to the promulgation of this rule, engaged in some types of residential the provisions of this rulemaking. Based
OSHA had one provision in its construction work. on a review and analysis of the incident
construction standards for a general reports associated with the reported
training requirement when employees D. Benefits, Net Benefits, and Cost injuries and fatalities, OSHA expects
work in confined spaces. This provision Effectiveness full compliance with the final rule to
at 29 CFR 1926.21(b)(6) provided prevent 96 percent of the relevant
OSHA expects the final rule to
limited guidance, instructing employers injuries and fatalities. Thus, OSHA
improve the safety of workers who
to train employees as to the nature of estimates that the final rule will prevent
encounter confined spaces in
the hazards involved, the necessary approximately 5.2 fatalities and 780
construction. The programmatic
precautions to be taken, and in the use additional injuries annually. Applying
approach of the final rule includes
of protective emergency equipment an average monetary value of $62,000
provisions for: Identifying confined
required. OSHA has determined that per prevented injury and a value of $8.7
spaces and the hazards they may
this final rule, which provides a higher million per prevented fatality (value of
level of guidance and safety information contain; allowing employers to organize statistical life) results in estimated
to employers engaged in this kind of the work to avoid entry into a monetized benefits of $93.6 million
work, will reduce the average number of potentially hazardous space; removing annually.
fatalities and injuries in confined spaces hazards prior to entry to avoid employee OSHA estimated the net monetized
covered by this standard by 96 percent. exposure; restricting entry through a benefits of the final rule to be about $33
permit system where employers cannot million annually when costs are
C. Affected Establishments
remove the hazard; providing annualized at 7 percent ($93.6 million
The final rule affects establishments appropriate testing and equipment in benefits minus $60.3 million in
in several sectors of the construction when entry is required; and arranging costs). Table IV–1 summarizes the costs,
industry, including work involving for rescue services to remove entrants benefits, net benefits, and cost
buildings, highways, bridges, tunnels, from a confined space when necessary. effectiveness of the final rule.
TABLE IV–1—NET BENEFITS
[Millions of 2009 dollars]
7% discount 3% discount
rate rate
Annualized Costs
Evaluation, Classification, Information Exchange and Notification ......................................................................... $12.4 $12.2
Written Program, Issue Permits, Verify Safety, Review Procedures ...................................................................... 4.2 4.2
Provide Ventilation and Isolate Hazards ................................................................................................................. 2.8 2.7
Atmospheric Monitoring ........................................................................................................................................... 11.4 11.3
Attendant.................................................................................................................................................................. 3.6 3.6
Rescue Capability .................................................................................................................................................... 8.2 7.6
Training .................................................................................................................................................................... 11.3 11.3
Other Requirements ................................................................................................................................................ 6.4 6.3
Total Annual Costs ........................................................................................................................................... 60.3 59.2
Annual Benefits
Number of Injuries Prevented.............................................................................................................................................................. 780
Number of Fatalities Prevented ........................................................................................................................................................... 5.2
Monetized Benefits .............................................................................................................................................................................. 93.6
Net Annual Monetized Benefits (Benefits Less Costs)
33.3 34.4
Totals may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding.
Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis, OSHA. Details provided in text.
E. Compliance Costs achieve full compliance with existing contract to OSHA. For the final
applicable requirements. economic analysis (FEA), OSHA
The estimated costs of compliance
D with RULES2 wcfuoilstlht sc tonhmeiscp erlsuisalaner cyree .fp oTrreh eseemyn pdt lotoh yneeo artsd i dtnoic taliuocdnheaie l ve ERpcreOoogpnuSoolHasmtAeodi rcb yr aAu Fslneleeda,x l iytinhbs eiipsl aiP atrrynte, d Aloi mnnIna iailnt yiraaserilpys o frotr the ueuwmppitddphaal totteehyddem sdteeha nentta ea, wonwna acl geyoessstseta ,si b anilnnpisd uth htrmsee.v eOfeninnStsauH,l e Arsu, laen d
RO costs for employers that are already in prepared by CONSAD Corp. [2]1under estimated the total annualized cost of
N1P compliance with the new requirements compliance with the present rulemaking
V
VPT imposed by the final rule; nor do they 1References are available at the end of this to be between about $59.2 million
SK4 include costs employers must incur to section of the preamble. (when costs are annualized at 3 percent)
D
mstockstill on VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 May 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM 04MYR2
25368 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 85/Monday, May 4, 2015/Rules and Regulations
and $60.3 million (when costs are growth for the United States are II. Background
annualized at 7 percent). The final rule’s negligible.
A. Record Citations
requirements for employers to evaluate,
classify, and exchange information G. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis References in parentheses are to
account for the largest component of the exhibits or transcripts in the docket for
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as
total compliance costs, at approximately this rulemaking. Documents from the
amended in 1996 by the Small Business
$12.2 million to $12.4 million (when subpart AA rulemaking record are
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act,
costs are annualized at 3 and 7 percent, available under Docket OSHA–2007–
requires the preparation of a Final
respectively). Other compliance costs 0026 on the Federal eRulemaking Portal
associated with the final rule include Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for at http://www.regulations.gov or in the
costs related to atmospheric certain rules promulgated by agencies (5 OSHA Docket Office. The term ‘‘ID’’
monitoring—($11.3 million to $11.4 U.S.C. 601–612). Under the provisions refers to the column labeled ‘‘ID’’ under
million), training ($11.3 million), rescue of the law, each such analysis must Docket No. OSHA–2007–0026 on http://
capability ($7.6 million to $8.2 million), contain: (1) A statement of the need for, www.regulations.gov. This column lists
written programs, permits, and review and objectives of, the rule; (2) a individual records in the docket. This
procedures ($4.2 million), attendants statement of the significant issues raised document will identify each of these
($3.6 million),—and ventilation and by the public comments in response to records only by the last three digits of
hazard isolation ($2.7 million to $2.8 the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, the record, such as ‘‘ID–032’’ for OSHA–
million). a statement of the assessment of the 2007–0026–0032. Identification of
agency of such issues, and a statement records from dockets other than records
F. Economic Impacts
of any changes made in the final rule as in OSHA–2007–0026 will be by their
To assess the economic impacts full ID number. In addition, the
a result of such comments; (3) a
associated with compliance with the transcripts for the public hearings
response to any comments filed by the
final rule, OSHA developed quantitative OSHA held on July 22–23, 2008 are
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
estimates of the potential economic identified by the docket number in the
Business Administration, and a detailed
impact of the requirements in this rule record under Docket No. OSHA–2007–
statement of any change made to the
on entities in each affected industry. 0026–0210 and –0211. To aid readers in
proposed rule in the final rule as a
OSHA compared the estimated costs of locating citations to the transcripts, this
result of those comments; (4) a
compliance with industry revenues and document refers to these citations using
profits to provide an assessment of description and an estimate of the the abbreviation ‘‘Tr.’’ and the
potential economic impacts. number of small entities to which the corresponding page numbers, such as
The costs of compliance for the final rule will apply or an explanation of why ID–201, Tr. pp. 10–15.
rule are not large in relation to the no such estimate is available; (5) a
B. History
corresponding annual financial flows description of the projected reporting,
associated with the regulated activities. recordkeeping, and other compliance On March 25, 1980, OSHA published
The estimated costs of compliance requirements of the rule, including an an Advanced Notice of Proposed
(when annualized at 7 percent) estimate of the classes of small entities Rulemaking (ANPR) on confined spaces
represent about 0.08 percent (less than that will be subject to the requirement, for the construction industry (45 FR
1 percent) of revenues and 1.6 percent and the type of professional skills 19266). The ANPR posed 31 questions
of profits, on average, across all entities. necessary for preparation of the report concerning confined-space hazards in
One industry, NACIS 23621 Industrial the construction industry, and the
or record; and (6) a description of the
Building Construction, showed the Agency received 75 comments in
steps the agency took to minimize the
potential for compliance costs to exceed response to these questions. However,
significant economic impact on small
10 percent of annual profits (10.5 OSHA took no further action on this
entities consistent with the stated
percent), but the Agency concludes that regulatory initiative at the time.
objectives of applicable statutes,
the final standard is still feasible for this The Agency subsequently published a
including a statement of the factual,
industry because it affects less than 2 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
policy, and legal reasons for selecting
percent of all firms in that industry for a general industry confined spaces
the alternative adopted in the final rule,
sector each year, and OSHA believes rule on June 5, 1989 (54 FR 24080).
that firms engaged in confined spaces and why the agency rejected each one OSHA issued the general industry
work are larger and more profitable than of the other significant alternatives to confined spaces rule (29 CFR 1910.146)
average. Moreover, OSHA does not the rule considered by the agency which on January 14, 1993 (58 FR 4462).
believe that industries will absorb all or affect the impact on small entities. The general industry standard
most of the final standard costs in lost OSHA analyzed the potential impact requires employers to classify hazardous
profits, as the price elasticity of demand of the final rule on small and very small confined spaces as ‘‘permit-required
in construction is sufficiently inelastic entities, as described further under the confined spaces’’ and to implement
for minor price increases to offset heading ‘‘Final Regulatory Flexibility specific procedures to ensure the safety
costs—here, a price increase of less than Analysis,’’ later in this preamble (see of employees who enter them. It
0.5 percent (or one-half of 1 percent). contains detailed procedures for
Section IV). OSHA concludes that the
OSHA concludes that compliance developing a written confined-space
compliance costs are equivalent to
with the requirements of the final rule program, monitoring atmospheric
approximately 1.64 percent of profits for
D with RULES2 iatshf feIeen ccc otaoendsdotds mii natiindocduna ls,el tbycray ofs neseaoedsmc itoboinlcre .ia imnn p aeanvcaetlrsyy s is of al(elfefsesssc t thtehadan ns am 1p applrle orecxneitmnittia)e tose flg yae n0nn.e1ur0aa lpll yere,r cvaeennndtu es httuhranarziaonauuritndghhgso, relioimszcoepklda lo oteiuynmteg ept apslg,oh pyoyeruseeitvcs p aefrlnr oohtcimanezg dea unrdrteessr ,i ng
RO associated with this rulemaking, OSHA for very small industries, though the these spaces, providing rescue (both non
P
N1 concludes that the effects of the final inelasticity of demand in construction entry and entry rescue), and
V
PT rule on international trade, would allow the costs to be offset by maintaining records. The general
V
K4 employment, wages, and economic price increases in most industries. industry standard specifies a limited
S
D
mstockstill on VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 May 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM 04MYR2
Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 85/Monday, May 4, 2015/Rules and Regulations 25369
exception from some of the permit- ACCSH recommended that OSHA use hazardous atmosphere), which small
required confined-space requirements the draft as a proposed confined spaces business entities participating in the
when the only hazard in a confined standard. OSHA determined that the SBREFA review process considered
space is an atmospheric hazard and ACCSH draft proposed standard needed burdensome and unnecessary; OSHA
ventilation equipment will control the revision to make it easier to understand, removed this provision because it
atmospheric hazard at safe levels. It also especially for small employers that do believes that existing construction
provides protection to employees from not employ a separate safety staff. The standards (for example, 29 CFR 1926.55)
non-atmospheric hazards (for example, Agency also determined that the draft adequately address these hazards. The
physical hazards) in confined spaces. proposed standard did not address proposed standard used a confined-
However, the general industry standard adequately certain hazards, such as space classification approach consistent
does not apply to construction hazards encountered in sewer- with the ACCSH recommendations.
employers, and, as such, does not construction work. Consequently, OSHA organized the proposed standard
specify the appropriate level of OSHA determined that it was necessary chronologically to guide the employer
employee protection based on the to develop a new draft proposed from its initial encounter with a
hazards created by construction standard. potential confined space through the
activities performed in confined spaces. In 1998, OSHA completed a new draft steps necessary to ensure adequate
In 1993, as part of the litigation proposed standard, but discovered that protection for employees. In addition, it
activity associated with the newly there were several issues that the addressed the need for coordination and
promulgated general industry standard, Agency needed to resolve before it information exchange at construction
OSHA agreed in a settlement with the could finalize the draft proposed sites, which typically have multiple
United Steel Workers of America to standard. To get feedback from the employers.
issue a proposed rule to extend construction community, OSHA held The Agency recognized that a number
confined-space protection to three stakeholders meetings in October of requirements in the proposed
construction employees. On February of 2000 across the country. The topics standard for confined spaces in
18, 1994, OSHA submitted a draft discussed at the stakeholder meetings construction duplicated, or were similar
proposed standard for confined spaces were: (1) Typical confined spaces to, the provisions of the general industry
in construction to the Advisory encountered in construction; (2) standard for permit-required confined
Committee for Construction Safety and whether the proposed standard should spaces. Nevertheless, OSHA had
Health (ACCSH) for comment. ACCSH require an early-warning system for concerns about whether the general
established a work group on March 22, spaces in which the employer could not industry standard adequately addressed
1994, to address the OSHA draft isolate an engulfment hazard (such as in the unique characteristics of confined
proposed standard and report its some sewer situations); (3) the need for, spaces in construction. The feedback
findings to the full committee. ACCSH and cost of, continuous monitoring for that OSHA received from ACCSH,
adopted the work group report on May atmospheric hazards; (4) how a confined stakeholders, and the SBREFA process
17, 1994 and recommended that OSHA spaces standard for construction could indicated that, compared to general
incorporate it into a rulemaking docket. accommodate the needs of small industry, the construction industry
In this report, ACCSH noted that the businesses; and (5) whether the experiences higher employee turnover
general industry standard did not meet proposed standard should permit an rates because construction employees
the needs of the construction industry. attendant to perform his or her duties often work at multiple worksites
ACCSH found that employers often do for more than one confined space at a performing short-term tasks. Unlike
not identify or classify confined spaces time. most general industry worksites,
encountered or generated at In late 2003, OSHA completed construction worksites are continually
construction worksites prior to the drafting the proposed standard and evolving, with the number and
beginning of a construction project, and convened a panel under the Small characteristics of confined spaces
noted the difficulties faced by Business Regulatory Enforcement changing as work progresses. Also,
employers generally on construction Fairness Act (SBREFA) to solicit multiple contractors and controlling
worksites, where conditions often comments on the proposal from small contractors are more common on
change rapidly and many different business entities. The SBREFA panel construction worksites than general
subcontractors may perform work conducted two conference-call industry worksites. Therefore, a
simultaneously. discussions, which were open to the construction standard for confined
Consequently, ACCSH established a public, in which small entity spaces, even more so than the general
work group to draft a proposed standard representatives expressed their concerns industry standard for confined spaces,
that would meet the unique needs of the about the draft proposed standard; these must emphasize training, continuous
construction industry. The draft representatives also submitted written worksite evaluation, and
proposed standard emphasized comments to the record that covered the communication requirements
identifying different types of confined issues. The SBREFA panel then Decision to abandon the proposed
spaces encountered in construction (for submitted its recommendations to the new classification system and adapt an
example, spaces in which the employer Agency in November 2003. alternative that is more similar to the
isolates all hazards or controls The Agency published a proposed general industry standard.
atmospheric hazards at safe levels, and rule for confined spaces in construction During the SBREFA review process,
spaces that are permit-required spaces), on November 28, 2007 (72 FR 67351). some small entity representatives urged
S2 as well as inter-contractor information The proposed confined spaces standard OSHA to consider adopting the general
ULE exchange and the detailed protections for construction reflected input from industry standard for construction, and
D with R nspeecceisfsiacr hya tzoa erdlism. inate or control sStBakReEhFoAld reerv mieewe tpinrogcse, sAsC. FCoSrH e,x aanmdp tlhee, tcoo usoldli caidt acpotm amn aelntte ronna htiovwe s tthaen dAagredn cy
RO As the result of the ACCSH work OSHA removed a provision that similar to the general industry standard
P
N1 group review, ACCSH submitted a draft addressed working in hazardous to the construction sector. When the
V
PT proposed standard for confined spaces enclosed spaces (i.e., spaces designed Agency published the proposed
V
K4 in construction to OSHA in 1996. for human occupancy but subject to a construction standard, it requested
S
D
mstockstill on VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 May 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM 04MYR2
25370 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 85/Monday, May 4, 2015/Rules and Regulations
public comments on how to adapt an industry standard’s broad, performance- must so differ when the record evidence
alternative standard similar to the based requirements, and defined a larger warrants the change. . . . Where the
general industry standard for the number of confined-space change between proposed and final rule
construction industry (72 FR 67352, classifications. is important, the question for the court
67401 (Nov. 28, 2007)). During the Nevertheless, in recognition of the is whether the final rule is a ‘logical
comment period and the public hearings commenter requests for more outgrowth’ of the rulemaking
OSHA held on July 22–23, 2008, OSHA consistency between the two standards, proceeding’’). The resulting final
received many comments and much OSHA is using the organization, standard is a logical outgrowth of the
testimony regarding the issue of using language, and most of the substantive proposal, and the number of comments
an adapted version of the general requirements in the general industry urging an adapted version of the general
industry standard as the basis for the confined spaces standard as the basis for industry standard provides a clear
final rule rather than the new the final confined spaces in indication that the affected members of
classification systems proposed in the construction rule. However, differences the public are not only familiar with the
NPRM. A clear majority of comments in employee and worksite general industry standard, but also
were in favor of finalizing a confined characteristics between the construction viewed the inclusion of part or all of the
spaces in construction standard that industry and general industry, as well as general industry standard’s structure
more closely resembles the general the comments and testimony of the and language as a potential outcome of
industry standard for confined spaces. regulated community indicating the this rulemaking. The confined-space
(See, e.g., ID–032; –047; –075; –088; need for consistency and continuity in issues the Agency addresses in the final
–092; –095; –105; –106; –115; –117; OSHA requirements, prompted OSHA rule are the same as in the proposed
–118; –119; –120; –121; –125; 150; –152; to develop a final rule for confined rule, and the Agency addressed the
–153; 185; –189; –210, Tr. pp. 54–60, spaces in the construction industry that criticisms and suggestions made by
74–76, 174–175, 282–284; –211, Tr. pp. contains important requirements from interested parties in response to the
73, 172, and 238–239.) Several the proposed rule and some additional proposed rule. In short, the combination
commenters proposed adopting the changes. Many of these changes, such as of OSHA’s request for comment on the
general industry standard with some the information exchange requirements, approach that it ultimately adopted in
adaptations for the construction context, are designed to address the heightened the final rule, the explanation of the
though not all of these commenters need, on constantly evolving hazards it sought to address in proposal,
specified, or agreed on, what specific construction worksites for and the comments and testimony
adaptations were appropriate (see, e.g., communication, worksite evaluation, received in response to the proposal
ID–092; –117; –125). The Agency and training for confined spaces in provided the regulated community with
received a number of comments construction. In addition, several adequate notice regarding the outcome
suggesting that many construction regulatory provisions in the general of the rulemaking. Therefore, the
employers were currently following the industry rule differ from the regulatory Agency concludes that there is no basis
general industry confined spaces provisions of this final rule because the for further delaying promulgation of the
standard (see, e.g., ID–075; –085; –088; provisions of this final rule: (1) Address standard to obtain comment on the
–092; –095; –112; –117; –118; –120; construction-specific issues; (2) account approach adopted in this final rule.
–121; –125; –147). for advancements in technology; (3) Many of the comments OSHA
For the reasons discussed in the address concerns raised by the regulated received on the proposal related to
preamble to the proposed rule, and in community through comment and at the specific requirements included in the
light of the comments and testimony the hearing; or (4) reflect improvements in detailed procedures of the proposed
Agency received, OSHA remains language for modern regulatory drafting standard. As a result of finalizing a
convinced that the general industry (‘‘must’’ in place of ‘‘shall’’), clarity and confined spaces in construction
standard does not adequately address enforcement considerations. In most standard that closely resembles the
confined-space hazards as these hazards cases, the preamble that follows this general industry standard, much of this
arise in the construction industry. introductory section explains the detailed language does not appear in
Moreover, the 19 years of experience differences between the provisions of this final rule. In some cases, OSHA
that employers have working with the the final rule and the general industry addressed the substance of the comment
general industry rule, and that OSHA rule. in the discussion of the most relevant
has enforcing the general industry rule, The Agency believes that it provided preamble section in this final rule. In
highlight several areas in which adequate notice of the substantive terms other instances, the issue raised in the
additional clarification in the language of the final rule, as well as an extensive comment became moot as a result of
of the general industry standard could description of the subjects and issues OSHA’s decision not to include the
improve the effectiveness of a new involved. Accordingly, the Agency proposed text in the final rule.
construction standard. Therefore, OSHA fairly apprised interested persons of the Therefore, OSHA is not directly
is not simply incorporating the general content of the rulemaking, and the responding to each of these particular
standard by reference into the comments and hearing testimony comments in the summary and
construction standards. provide ample evidence that interested explanation of the final rule.
OSHA believes that the particular parties to the rulemaking understood OSHA considered, but ultimately
duties and obligations in the general the issues and potential outcomes of the rejected, several other regulatory
industry standard and the proposed rulemaking. See, e.g., Nat’l Mining Ass’n alternatives based on the comments
S2 construction standard are similar, and v. Mine Safety & Health Admin., 512 submitted to the Agency. For example,
ULE that the public’s confusion over the re- F.3d 696, 699 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Miami- some commenters suggested that
D with R oisr gthane irzeesdu lstt rouf ctthuer ed eing rtehee o pf rdoeptoasile din r uthlee 1D0a4d9e, C1o0u59n t(y1 1vt.h U C.Sir. .E 2.0P0.A8.),; 5U2n9i tFe.d3 d efomllpolwoyinegrs e sithhoeurl 2d9 h CavFeR t 1h9e1 o0p.1ti4o6n o orf this
O
R proposed rule, as well as its Steelworkers of America, AFL–CIO–CLC final rule (ID–089, p. 2; –147, p. 4). This
P
N1 organization. Most notably, compared to v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1221 (D.C. suggestion relates to some commenters’
V
PT the general industry rule, the proposed Cir. 1980) (‘‘a final rule may properly concern that having separate rules for
V
K4 rule added specificity to the general differ from a proposed rule and indeed confined spaces in construction and
S
D
mstockstill on VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 May 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM 04MYR2
Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 85/Monday, May 4, 2015/Rules and Regulations 25371
general industry makes it confusing for A similar comment discussed Virginia’s such spaces, nor did it address the
employers that perform both confined spaces rule, but did not actions of employers outside the spaces
construction and maintenance inside a suggest OSHA adopt that rule (ID–047, engaged in activities that might harm
confined space to comply with the p. 1). Another commenter suggested employees inside the spaces. For
different requirements of each rule OSHA adopt the majority of California’s situations in which none of the
based on the type of the work they are confined spaces rule (ID–077, p. 1). construction standards apply, the
performing (see, e.g., ID–119, p. 3). OSHA notes that the Occupational employer was still required to comply
OSHA developed this standard because Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH with the general-duty requirement of the
of the unique hazards of confined-space Act) allows for different regulatory OSH Act to ‘‘furnish to each of [its]
work in construction and, although this schemes to address the hazards of employees employment and a place of
final rule is similar to §1910.146, there confined-space work provided those employment which are free from
are differences when certain procedures standards are at least as effective as the recognized hazards that are causing or
are necessary to protect employees from Federal OSHA standard. The record are likely to cause death or serious
the unique hazards of construction indicates that, by issuing a final rule physical harm to [its] employees’’ (29
confined-space work. Therefore, an that is similar to §1910.146, OSHA is U.S.C. 654), but this ‘‘general duty’’ is
employer does not have the option of not drastically changing industry often more difficult for OSHA to enforce
bypassing the procedures that are practice for addressing confined-space and does not provide the same level of
unique to this final rule by complying hazards. (See, e.g., ID–047; –075; –085; guidance and safety information
instead with §1910.146. Such a policy –088; –092; –095; –112; –117; –118; provided in a standard.
would severely undermine OSHA’s –120; –121; –125; –147; –189.) As noted in the economic analysis
effort to protect employees from the Therefore, OSHA believes that State- section of the preamble to this final rule,
unique hazards present during Plan States that have standards OSHA determined that employees in the
confined-space operations in applicable to construction work in construction industry who perform
construction. confined spaces that are similar to work in confined spaces face a
OSHA recognizes that the differences §1910.146 will not have to make major significant risk of death or serious
between §1910.146 and this final rule changes to their existing rules to ensure injury, and that this final rule would
can make it more complicated for that these rules are at least as effective substantially reduce that risk. At
employers to comply with two different as this final rule. When a State-Plan present, OSHA estimates that 20,479
sets of procedures if they perform State’s confined spaces rule is not as establishments annually have
maintenance and construction work at effective as this final rule, OSHA employees entering at least one
the same time in the same confined believes that the record warrants a confined space as defined by this final
space. In order to ease the compliance change in the State-Plan State’s rule so rule. OSHA estimates that, each year, 6
burden on these employers, OSHA will that it will provide construction fatalities and 900 injuries occur among
consider compliance with this final rule employees with the same level of employees working in confined spaces
as compliance with §1910.146. This protection afforded to them by this final covered by this final rule. OSHA
enforcement policy was suggested by at rule. For a full discussion of State-Plan determined that the final rule, when
least one commenter (ID–211, Tr. p. States, see Section IV.E (‘‘State-Plan implemented properly by employers,
303). States’’) later in this preamble. will reduce the average number of
Another commenter suggested that
C. Need for a Rule Regulating Confined fatalities and injuries in confined spaces
OSHA issue a directive on confined-
Spaces in Construction covered by this standard by 96 percent
space work in construction instead of a
(5.2 fatalities prevented annually, and
final rule (ID–100, p. 5). OSHA Before promulgating this final rule,
780 injuries prevented annually). (For
generally issues a directive on a OSHA had one existing provision in its
further explanation of the significant-
particular work practice after the construction standards that included a
risk calculations, see section V.B.
Agency issues a rule, not in lieu of a general training requirement for
(‘‘Final Economic Analysis and
rule; accordingly, the directive provides employers working in confined spaces.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis’’) of this
guidance as to how the Agency will A broad ‘‘safety and training’’
document.)
enforce a standard. The rulemaking requirement in 29 CFR 1926.21(b)(6),
process, on the other hand, provides the adopted by the Agency in 1979, III. Summary and Explanation of the
public with notice and an opportunity provided limited guidance: Under this Final Standard
to comment on the Agency’s proposed provision, employers were only
Explanation of Changes to Subpart V—
action, and the Agency may use the required to instruct employees required
Power Transmission and Distribution
information gathered during this to enter into confined or enclosed
process to impose substantive duties on spaces as to the nature of the hazards Subpart V of part 1926 governs
employers, such as employers engaged involved, the necessary precautions to construction work involving power
in confined-space construction work. be taken, and in the use of protective transmission, generation, and
The information gathered by the Agency and emergency equipment required. distribution. OSHA recently updated
during the rulemaking process for this Fatality and injury data, OSHA subpart V (79 FR 20316 (April 11, 2014).
final rule supports issuing a final rule enforcement experience, and advice When it did so, OSHA required
for confined-space work in construction. from ACCSH indicate that compliance with the general industry
Therefore, OSHA rejects the alternative §1926.21(b)(6) did not adequately confined-spaces standard at §1910.146
S2 approach suggested by the commenter. protect construction employees in in several provisions of subpart V.
ULE A different set of commenters focused confined spaces from atmospheric, OSHA did so because at that time there
D with R ostna ninddairvdisd. uOanl es tcaotems’m ceonntfeirn eadss seprtaecde sth at p§h1y9s2i6c.a2l1, (abn)d(6 o) tahpeprl hieadz,a irtd rse. qEuvierend w hen wstaans dnaor dco fmorp croenhsetnrusicvteio cno,n bfuint etdh-es paces
RO several State-Plan States have effective employers only to train employees who Agency explained in the subpart V
P
N1 confined space standards and that this work in confined spaces—it did not preamble that ‘‘the references to the
V
PT rule will unnecessarily force those states address how to protect trained general industry standard in final
V
K4 to change these standards (ID–135, p. 3). employees while they are working in §1926.953 are included as a placeholder
S
D
mstockstill on VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 May 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM 04MYR2
25372 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 85/Monday, May 4, 2015/Rules and Regulations
pending the promulgation of the spaces construction standard to the new sentence in §1926.1953(a) only
confined spaces in construction reference in place of §1910.146, but exempts employers from compliance
standard. OSHA intends to change these OSHA intended to add a corresponding with some, but not all, of subpart AA’s
references to refer to the construction note to §1926.268 when it promulgated requirements. In the ‘‘in lieu of’’
standard when it promulgates that the new construction confined spaces sentence in §1910.269, OSHA only
standard.’’ (79 FR 20376) OSHA is, standard (see 79 FR 20376–20377). As excuses employers from compliance
therefore, amending subpart V in this part of this rulemaking, OSHA is with §1910.146(d) through (k) for these
rulemaking to replace references to the therefore adding a note to the definition routine entries, but employers must still
general industry confined spaces of ‘‘enclosed space’’ in §1926.968 that comply with the requirements in
standard with references to this final corresponds to the note in §1910.269(x), §1910.146(c) and (l), including the
construction rule, because OSHA replacing the reference to §1910.146 requirements to assess the space,
specifically tailored this final rule to with a reference to subpart AA. prevent unauthorized entry,
construction work, making the confined communicate with and coordinate with
Amendments to §1926.953
spaces in construction rule more the host employer when applicable, and
appropriate than the general industry Prior to this rulemaking, §1926.953(a) to involve entrants and their
standard for construction work in subpart V, as amended in 2014, representatives in the process. Likewise,
addressed by subpart V. required that entry into an enclosed in §1926.953(a), the enclosed spaces
space to perform construction work requirements apply in lieu of the permit
Amendments to Definition of ‘‘Enclosed
meet the permit-space entry requirements in §1926.1204 through
Space’’ in §1926.968
requirements of paragraphs (d) through §1211, but employers still need to
An ‘‘enclosed space’’ is a term of art (k) of §1910.146 when the precautions comply with subpart AA’s
under subpart V and the corresponding taken under §§1926.953 and 1926.965 corresponding requirements in
general industry standard for electric were insufficient to eliminate hazards in §1926.1203 to assess the space, prevent
power generation, transmission, and the enclosed space that could endanger unauthorized entry, and coordinate with
distribution (§1910.269) describing a the life of an entrant or interfere with and communicate with the controlling
workspace such as a manhole or vault escape from the space. Similarly, contractor, in addition to the
that is designed for periodic employee §1926.953(g) stated that employees may requirements in §1211 to involve
entry under normal operating not enter any enclosed space while it entrants and their representatives in the
conditions, and that, under normal contains a hazardous atmosphere, process.
conditions, does not contain a unless the entry conforms to the permit- Finally, in addition to some minor,
hazardous atmosphere, but may contain required confined spaces standard in non-substantive grammatical changes to
a hazardous atmosphere under §1910.146. OSHA is amending improve the paragraph, OSHA is also
abnormal conditions (§1910.269(x) and §§1926.953(a) and 1926.953(g) by revising the note to paragraph
§1926.968). There is overlap between replacing each reference to §1910.146 §1926.953, which appears at the end of
an enclosed space and a ‘‘permit- with a reference to subpart AA so that the section, by replacing its reference to
required confined space’’ (permit space) the appropriate construction standard, §1910.146 with a reference to new
as defined in the confined spaces rather than a general industry standard, subpart AA. The note clarifies that
standards for general industry will apply. OSHA considers employers who comply
(§1910.146) and construction (new OSHA is also adding a sentence to with new subpart AA when entering an
subpart AA): An enclosed space meets §1926.953(a) to clarify that employers enclosed space as in compliance with
the definition of a permit space—while may comply with the requirements of §1926.353(a). Some employers may
it is not expected to contain a hazardous §1926.953 ‘‘in lieu of’’ most of the prefer to comply with new subpart AA
atmosphere, it has the potential to requirements in new subpart AA when rather than §1926.353(a), and subpart
contain one—but the definition of the entry into the enclosed space is a AA protects employees entering
permit-space is broader than the routine entry for subpart V work and enclosed spaces at least as effectively as
definition of enclosed space. For there is no hazardous atmosphere in the the provisions in §1926.353.
instance, if a space contains a hazardous space. Without this clarifying sentence,
Section 1926.1201—Scope
atmosphere under normal conditions, employers could have been confused
that space is a permit space under about which standard applied. OSHA The scope of new 29 CFR part 1926,
§1910.146 or new subpart AA, but it is determined that §1926.953 provides subpart AA—Confined Spaces in
not an enclosed space under final adequate protection to employees in Construction is set forth in 29 CFR
§1910.269 or subpart V. that situation and announced in the 1926.1201. This subpart provides
The note to the definition of subpart V preamble that it intended to minimum safety and health
‘‘enclosed space’’ in §1910.269(x) states add the sentence when it issued this requirements and procedures to protect
that enclosed spaces expected to contain final rule (see 79 FR 20376). employees who work in confined
a hazardous atmosphere meet the The new ‘‘in lieu of’’ sentence in spaces. It addresses how to protect
definition of permit spaces in §1926.953(a) corresponds to a similar employees from confined-space hazards.
§1910.146, and entry into them must sentence in §1910.269(e) specifying that The final rule includes requirements for
conform to that standard. Subpart V, employers are not required to comply training, identification and assessment
however, did not have any definition of with §1910.146(d) through (k) for the of confined spaces, hazard analysis,
‘‘enclosed space’’ until OSHA amended same type of routine entries into entering, working, exiting, and rescue
S2 it in 2014 by adding a definition that enclosed spaces. OSHA has used for confined spaces containing a variety
ULE matched the general industry definition slightly different wording from the of different hazards.
D with R iinn c§lu1d9e1 0th.2e6 n9o(xte) .e OxcSeHpAt t hexapt liat idniedd n iont ltahnagt u‘‘aing el iienu § o1f’9’ 1la0n.2g6u9a gtoe eism opnhlyas ize ‘‘InTthroe dpurcotpioonse’’d s reuclteio cno tnhtaati nperdo vaind ed a
RO the preamble to the subpart V applicable where the entry is routine general overview of the standard and
P
N1 amendments that it did not include the and the space does not contain hazards stated that the proposed standard would
V
PT note at that time because there was no that could cause death or impede exit. cover ‘‘working within or near a
V
K4 comprehensive corresponding confined As with the general industry standard, confined space that is subject to a
S
D
mstockstill on VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 May 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM 04MYR2
Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 85/Monday, May 4, 2015/Rules and Regulations 25373
hazard’’ (see proposed §1926.1201(a)). which is similar to the language of the typically have sufficient natural
OSHA removed the ‘‘Introduction’’ proposed rule except that it avoids the ventilation to prevent a hazardous
section to make this final rule similar to reference to ‘‘their job site.’’ The atmosphere from forming. The final
§1910.146, and to avoid confusion language in final §1926.1201(a) phase is typically conducted without
caused by potential overlap with the incorporates a bright-line test (whether any employees inside the tank (ID–210,
‘‘Scope’’ provisions. Section 1926.1201 or not the worksite has a confined Tr. p. 5).
in the final rule is the scope section. space) to underscore two important Whether a confined space exists is a
Paragraph (a). Although many points in the final rule that also are true separate analysis from whether a hazard
commenters urged OSHA to conform for the general industry standard and exists, unless the hazard prevents
this final rule to the general industry the proposed rule: First, all employers unrestricted egress from the space. A
standard as much as possible, the scope engaged in construction have a duty steel tank is a confined space at any
section for confined spaces in general under the final standard to ensure that stage of construction when it has
industry at §1910.146(a) expressly their employees do not enter a confined limited or restricted means for entry and
excludes construction work. Therefore, space except in accordance with the exit (see the definition of a confined
it is impractical for OSHA to change the requirements of the standard, and the space in §1926.1202, which is
language in final rule §1926.1201 to presence of a confined space on the discussed later in this preamble).
mirror §1910.146(a). Instead, OSHA worksite triggers this duty rather than However, OSHA recognizes that a
structured the scope section in final rule the type of work the employer is significant portion of steel-tank
§1926.1201 in a manner that draws performing. Second, there are critical construction activity may not result in
from the language in the scope sections components of this standard, such as work inside a confined space if
of the general industry standard and the information sharing and coordination of contractors generally do not assemble
proposed rule. As with the scope of the work, that apply to certain employers the tank sections in a manner that
general industry standard, which states that, regardless of whether their would place an employee inside a space
that it protects employees from the employees are authorized to enter a with limited egress. Even when
hazards of entry in permit-required confined space, have information construction of the tank results in such
confined spaces (§1910.146(a)), OSHA necessary for the protection of a space, the space may not contain a
phrased final §1926.1201(a) in terms of employees working inside confined hazard that would render it a permit-
the employees protected by the final spaces, or are engaged in activities that required confined space. If the space is
standard. In contrast, the scope of the could, either alone or in conjunction not a permit-required confined space,
proposed rule focused on employers with activities inside the confined then the employer’s duties are very
(see proposed §1926.1202(a)). While the space, endanger the employees working limited. In such spaces, the employer’s
final standard necessarily imposes the inside a confined space. Final responsibility under this standard
duties exclusively on employers, OSHA §1926.1201(a) makes it clear that the would be limited to verifying what the
concluded that phrasing the scope in focus of the final standard is on the type commenter asserts is true: There is no
terms of employers ‘‘who have confined of work performed, and whether that atmospheric hazard or other hazard.
spaces at their job site’’ was potentially work could produce, and expose Nevertheless, the commenter
more problematic than the general employees to, confined space hazards. acknowledged that welding activities in
industry approach because the regulated Although final §1926.1201(a) differs some steel tank construction,
community could misinterpret the slightly from proposed §1926.1202(a), particularly for relatively small tanks,
proposed language as requiring some this difference does not affect the scope could produce the types of hazardous
analysis of the extent to which the of the final rule; it merely makes the atmospheres this standard is intended to
employer exercised control over a scope more precise than the scope of the address (ID–210, Tr. pp. 228–229).
particular part of a construction site. proposed rule. This change also is Thus, OSHA is not categorically
A number of commenters expressed consistent with the proposed excluding steel tanks from coverage
confusion about the description of the ‘‘Introduction’’ section in proposed under this standard and continues to
standard included in the proposed §1926.1201(a). include steel tanks in the list of
introduction, which appeared to Final §1926.1201(a) includes a note potential confined spaces to alert
function as an additional statement with a non-exhaustive list of potential employers that the process of steel-tank
about the scope of the rule (see, e.g., ID– confined spaces that commonly occur construction could place employees in a
032.0; –100.1; –105.1; –114.1; –119.1; on a construction worksite. This list space that meets the definition of a
–120.1; –125.1; –135.0.) In particular, provides examples for employers who permit-required confined space.
many commenters asserted that the may be unfamiliar with confined spaces Another commenter asserted that the
reference to work ‘‘within or near a in construction. The note to final note did not include wind turbines (ID–
confined space,’’ as used in the §1926.1201(a) is identical to the note to 210, Tr. p. 154). This commenter
proposed description of the standard, proposed §1926.1202(a). misunderstood the reference to
was too vague, and requested that One commenter asserted that OSHA ‘‘turbines’’ in the note in the proposed
OSHA clarify its meaning. (See, e.g., ID– should exclude steel tanks, which and final rules. The reference to
031, p. 4; –061, p. 7; –095, p. 1; –101, OSHA included in the list of examples ‘‘turbines’’ is general, and applies to all
p. 2; p. 1; –106, p. 1; –117, p. 7; –120, of confined spaces in construction in turbines that meet the definition of a
p. 2; –121, p. 8; –124, p. 4; p.–125, p. the proposed rule, from the new confined space.
5.) In response, OSHA did not include standard when the tanks are under It is important to note that only the
S2 the phrase ‘‘within or near a confined construction because this activity does presence of a hazard inside a confined
ULE space’’ in the scope section in this final not produce an atmospheric hazard (ID– space will trigger the majority of
D with R rOuSleH. AIn dsteesacdri, biens f tihnea ls §co1p9e2 6in.1 m20o1r(ea ), 1In3 8p,a prt.i 2cu; –la2r1, 4th.1e, cpo. m4;m –e2n1t0e,r T ars.s per. t2e1d7 ). pOrnoec ecdoumrmese rnetqeur iarsesde rbtye dth tihsa fti nliaml irtuelde .
RO definite terms by stating that the new that contractors typically do not close egress is a continual hazard to every
P
N1 standard protects employees engaged in entirely steel tanks under construction employee in a confined space,
V
PT construction activities at a worksite until the final phase of construction and regardless of whether any other hazards
V
K4 with one or more confined spaces, that, prior to the final phase, the tanks exist (ID–060, p. 3). Therefore, the
S
D
mstockstill on VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 May 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM 04MYR2
25374 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 85/Monday, May 4, 2015/Rules and Regulations
commenter argued that the permit standard at 29 CFR part 1915, subpart §1926.1201(b)(1) and (b)(2), OSHA
requirements of this final rule, B—Confined and Enclosed Spaces and exempted construction activities
including the requirement to have a Other Dangerous Atmospheres in covered by subparts P and S. In its
rescue service available, should apply to Shipyard Employment would cover explanation in the proposed rule, the
all confined spaces, even those spaces such work. Agency noted that subparts P and S
in which another hazard does not exist. Paragraph (b) Exceptions. This generally provide adequate protections
This approach would apparently treat paragraph explicitly excludes against hazards in excavations and
all confined spaces as permit spaces, construction work regulated by 29 CFR underground work (72 FR 67356 (Nov.
which would be a radical departure part 1926, subpart Y—Diving, 28, 2007)). In light of the additional
from OSHA’s longstanding treatment of construction work regulated by 29 CFR hazards associated with sewers as
confined spaces in the general industry. part 1926, subpart P—Excavation, and continuous systems that often have
OSHA does not agree that such a construction work regulated by 29 CFR
hazardous atmospheres and engulfment
departure, or the additional costs that part 1926, subpart S—Underground
hazards, the Agency proposed limiting
employers would incur because of such Construction, Caissons, Cofferdams and
the Excavations, and Underground
departure, are warranted in the absence Compressed Air from the scope of this
Construction exemptions to ‘‘non-
of employee exposure to some hazard final rule. Accordingly, this provision
sewer’’ work, which would have the
inside the confined space. Limited exempts employers operating under one
effect of applying this final standard, in
egress in a confined space is a safety of the three listed exemptions from
addition to subpart P or subpart S,
concern only when an employee cannot complying with this final rule for work
whenever an employer performed
readily exit a confined space to avoid within a confined space, so long as that
excavation or trenching construction
being exposed to a hazard within the work falls within the scope of one of the
work related to a sewer system. One
space. Limited egress, by itself, is listed subparts.
unlikely to injure or kill an employee. The Agency exempted each type of commenter urged OSHA to limit the
If limited egress is the only safety work covered by the listed subparts exemption further, characterizing
concern, then OSHA concludes that it is from the requirements of this standard subpart P as ‘‘insufficient for addressing
not reasonable to require employers to because OSHA specifically tailored the potential worker exposures to hazardous
comply with the provisions of this final existing requirements in these subparts atmospheres,’’ and asserting that this
rule that pertain to permit spaces. In to protect employees from the hazards final rule should apply to excavations
such a circumstance, employers already associated with confined spaces. In where a hazardous atmosphere exists
must follow existing construction addition, OSHA believes that because the confined spaces standard
standards that apply to work in an overlapping standards covering these would provide more comprehensive
enclosed space (for example, activities could be unnecessarily protection for employees than the
§1926.353—Ventilation and protection burdensome to employers, or cause excavation standard (ID–105, p. 5). The
in welding, cutting, and heating at, and some confusion about the appropriate commenter did not, however, provide
§1926.55—Gases, vapors, fumes, dusts, procedures to use. any basis for this assessment. Two
and mists). Under §1926.1201(b)(3), this confined commenters emphasized the
Another commenter noted that the spaces standard does not apply to significance of the hazards posed by
shipyard employment standard at 29 construction activities covered by 29 excavation, and urged OSHA to protect
CFR part 1915 includes confined spaces CFR part 1926, subpart Y, which employees from those hazards; however,
requirements and was unsure whether encompasses diving and related support they did not discuss subpart P—
this new construction standard will operations conducted in connection Excavations and did not provide a clear
apply to confined space construction with all types of work and rationale for why those standards do not
work performed in a shipyard (ID–028, employments, including construction provide adequate protection for
p. 1). It will. OSHA focuses on the type (29 CFR 1926.701, referencing 29 CFR employees working in excavations (ID–
of work activity, not necessarily the 1910.401). As defined in subpart Y, a 032, p. 4; –034, p. 1).
location of the work activity, in ‘‘diver’’ is an employee working in
A different commenter asserted that
determining whether this confined water using underwater apparatus
OSHA should apply the confined spaces
spaces in construction standard or the which supplies compressed breathing
standard to hazards in excavation work
shipyard employment standard, part gas at the ambient pressure (§1926.701,
not covered by the excavation
1915, applies. See, e.g., Feb. 9, 2004, referencing §1910.402). The Agency
letter to Jack Swarthout.2The shipyard notes that, if a diver engages in requirements (ID–025, p. 2). In other
employment standards apply to ship construction activity in an area that words, OSHA should exempt excavation
repairing, shipbuilding, ship breaking, meets the definition of a confined space work unless there is a hazard present
and related employment. This confined under this final rule, and is not working not addressed by subpart P—
spaces in construction standard covers in water or removes his/her underwater Excavations, but addressed by this
confined space work in shipyards to the breathing apparatus, then, in most cases, confined spaces standard, in which case
extent that it is construction work and the activity is outside the scope of the confined-space requirements
is not ship repairing, shipbuilding, ship subpart Y because the employee is no applicable to addressing that specific
breaking, or related employment. An longer a ‘‘diver’’; in such a case, the hazard would apply. The commenter
example in which this confined spaces requirements of this confined spaces did not provide an example of a hazard
in construction standard applies is the standard apply instead. that could be present in excavations but
S2 construction of a building on the The other exemptions set forth in not addressed by subpart P. Also, OSHA
ULE grounds of a shipyard. Non-construction final §1926.1201(b) are identical to the believes that the approach advocated by
D with R wsuobrjke cpte trof othrmise fdin ianl ar uslhei;p eyiathrder i s not prermopoovseedd t ehxee ‘m‘npotnio-snesw eexrc’’e lpimt tihtaatt iOonS HfoAr tahned c momaym neontt perr owmooutled s laefaedty t.o O cSoHnfAu sion,
PRO §1910.146 or the shipyard employment the exemption that applies to 29 CFR designed the confined spaces standard
N1 part 1926, subpart P—Excavations and to work as a comprehensive system, not
V
VPT 2All of the letters and memoranda included in 29 CFR part 1926, subpart S— through piecemeal application.
SK4 this preamble are available at www.osha.gov. Underground Construction. Under Therefore, OSHA concludes that it is
D
mstockstill on VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:26 May 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04MYR2.SGM 04MYR2