Personal Protective Equipment for Shipyard Employment

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1915

[Docket No. S-045]

Personal Protective Equipment for Shipyard Employment

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),

Department of Labor.

ACTION: Proposed rule; limited reopening of the rulemaking record.

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

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is

reopening the rulemaking record for the proposed revision of the

regulation of personal protective equipment for shipyard employment (53

FR 48150, November 29, 1988) to incorporate the rulemaking record

developed for the recently revised regulation of personal protective

equipment for general industry (Docket S-060, final rule published in

59 FR 16334, April 6, 1994) and the record for the proposed regulation

of personal protective equipment (fall protection equipment for general

industry) (Docket S-057, 55 FR 13423, April 10, 1990). While the

shipyard rulemaking on personal protective equipment (PPE) generated 10

comments, the general industry rulemakings generated hundreds of

comments and several thousand pages of hearing testimony regarding PPE

issues. The Agency believes the regulation of PPE in shipyard and

general industry employment should be consistent, in order to

facilitate compliance and effective employee protection. OSHA has

determined that the information in Dockets S-060 and S-057 is relevant

to full consideration of the issues raised by the shipyard PPE

proposal, and that it is appropriate to reopen the record to

incorporate those materials and to allow the public an opportunity to

comment. This notice also raises specific PPE issues arising out of the

general industry rulemakings for public comment.

DATES: Comments on the issues raised in the notice of reopening must be

postmarked by August 22, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Comments are to be sent to the Docket Office, Docket No. S-

045A, U.S. Department of Labor, room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC 20210.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James F. Foster, Occupational

Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, room N-

3637, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone

(202) 219-8148.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On November 29, 1988, OSHA proposed to revise the personal

protective equipment (PPE) requirements in the shipyard employment

standards (part 1915, subpart I) (53 FR 48150). The proposal updated

references to national consensus standards and added requirements for

hazard assessment, proper selection and care of PPE, training,

lifesaving equipment and personal fall protection equipment. The

written comment period ended on February 27, 1989. The Agency received

10 comments on the proposed rule. There were no hearing requests.

On August 16, 1989, OSHA proposed to update the existing general

industry standards (part 1910, subpart I, Docket S-060) for eye and

face (Sec. 1910.133), head (Sec. 1910.135) and foot (1910.136) PPE and

to add generic requirements for hazard assessment, proper selection of

PPE, prohibition on use of damaged or defective PPE and training in the

proper use of PPE (Secs. 1910.132 (d) through (f)) (54 FR 33832). The

proposed general industry revisions were consistent with the

corresponding provisions of the proposed rule for shipyard employment.

On April 10, 1990, the Agency proposed to add criteria for personal

fall arrest equipment (Secs. 1910.128, 1910.129 and 1910.131) and

positioning device equipment (Secs. 1910.128 and 1910.130) to the

general industry PPE standards (part 1910, subpart I, Docket S-057) (55

FR 13423). Again, the criteria proposed for general industry PPE were

consistent with those proposed for shipyards.

The two general industry rulemakings generated extensive records,

including hundreds of comments and several thousand pages of hearing

testimony. On April 6, 1994, OSHA issued a final rule (59 FR 16334)

which completed Agency action in the Docket S-060 proceeding. Based on

the rulemaking record, OSHA made some changes to the proposed rule in

drafting the final rule. In particular, OSHA revised the proposed

training requirement so that it provides clear direction regarding what

constitutes adequate training and what circumstances trigger a

requirement for retraining. In addition, the final rule added

requirements for the certification of the hazard assessment

(Sec. 1910.132(d)(2)) and certification that the required training has

been provided and understood (Sec. 1910.132(f)(4)).

Also, based on the rulemaking record for general industry fall

protection PPE (Docket S-057), the Agency is considering further

limiting or prohibiting the use of body belts and non-locking snaphooks

in personal fall arrest systems. In particular, the evidence in the

record supports the conclusion that an employee who falls while wearing

a body belt as part of a personal fall arrest system is substantially

more likely to suffer death or serious injury than would be the case if

the employee were wearing a full body harness. Furthermore, the

rulemaking record indicates that locking snaphooks designed to prevent

``roll out'' (where snaphooks become accidentally disengaged during

use) provide a higher level of employee protection than single-action

(non-locking) snaphooks.

While it is appropriate to facilitate employer access to safety and

health standards by maintaining separate standards for general industry

(part 1910) and for the shipyard industry (part 1915), the Agency

believes that the substance of those standards should be consistent.

OSHA believes, based on its review of the pertinent rulemaking records,

that PPE used in shipyards does not differ markedly from PPE used in

general industry. Therefore, the Agency has determined that the

information generated in the general industry rulemakings should be

taken into account as the Agency drafts the final rule for shipyard

PPE, as well. To this end, OSHA is incorporating the general industry

PPE rulemaking records (Dockets S-057 and S-060) into the record for

the shipyards PPE rulemaking. In addition, OSHA is reopening the

written comment period for the shipyard PPE proposal so the public has

an opportunity to comment on the newly incorporated materials.

II. Issues

OSHA is requesting comments on these five specific issues:

1. Certification of hazard assessment. OSHA believes that a hazard

assessment is an important element of a PPE program because it produces

the information needed to select the appropriate PPE for the hazards

present or likely to be present at particular workplaces. The Agency

believes that employers are able to determine and evaluate the hazards

of their particular workplaces and to use this information for proper

PPE selection.

Proposed Sec. 1915.152(b) required employers to select the types of

PPE to be used by employees based on an assessment of the workplace

hazards relative to PPE. The comments on proposed Sec. 1910.132(d),

which contained identical language, indicated concern about the level

of documentation required for hazards assessment (Exs. 3:1 and 3:68).

In regard to the general industry rulemaking, OSHA concluded that some

form of record is needed to provide OSHA compliance officers and

affected employees with appropriate assurance that the required hazard

assessment has been performed. Given the performance-oriented nature of

the rule, the Agency determined that the generation and review of

extensive documentation would be unnecessarily burdensome.

OSHA has addressed such situations in other rulemakings (e.g.,

permit-required confined spaces, Sec. 1910.146(g)(4); and the control

of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout), 1910.147(c)(7)(iv) by requiring

employers to verify their compliance with a requirement through a

written certification. The Agency has found that a written

certification is a reasonable means by which to establish

accountability for compliance.

Therefore, OSHA determined that an employer could adequately verify

compliance with the hazard assessment requirement through a written

certification which identified the workplace evaluated; the person

certifying that the hazard assessment had been performed; the date(s)

of the hazard assessment; and which identified the document as a

certification of hazard assessment. Accordingly, the Agency added this

requirement to the final rule as Sec. 1910.132(d)(2).

OSHA believes that verification through written certification would

also be appropriate with regard to hazard assessments to be performed

under proposed Sec. 1915.152(b). Therefore, OSHA solicits comments,

with supporting information, as to the need for certification of the

hazard assessment and the anticipated impact of such a requirement on

the shipyard industry.

2. Certification of training. Proposed Sec. 1915.152(e) required

that employees be trained in the proper use of their PPE. Proposed

Sec. 1910.132(f) contained an identical requirement. Based on comments

received in relation to proposed Sec. 1910.132(f) (Exs. 3:41, 3:46,

3:49, 3:62 and 3:129) which expressed concern regarding the level of

documentation employers would be required to provide for their training

efforts, OSHA raised Issue 4 in the hearing notice (55 FR 3414,

February 1, 1990) to elicit additional information on the recordkeeping

needed to document compliance with the proposed paragraph. The

commenters (Exs. 7:8, 7:19 and 7:39) generally supported some sort of

certification for completion of training.

Based on the rulemaking record and the considerations raised above

in regard to Reopening Issue 1, OSHA determined that employers could

adequately verify compliance with proposed Sec. 1910.132(f) through a

written certification. Accordingly, the Agency revised proposed

paragraph (f) to add paragraph (f)(4), which requires a certification

record that identifies each employee trained, the date(s) of training,

and which identifies the document as a certification of training in the

use of PPE.

OSHA believes that verification through written certification would

also be appropriate with regard to training to be provided under

proposed Sec. 1915.152(e). Therefore, OSHA solicits comments, with

supporting information, as to the need for certification of employee

training and the anticipated impact of such a requirement on the

shipyard industry.

3. Training elements. As mentioned above, proposed Sec. 1915.152(e)

required that employees be trained in the proper use of their PPE, and

proposed Sec. 1910.132(f) set forth an identical requirement. Based on

comments and testimony received in relation to proposed

Sec. 1910.132(f) (Exs. 3:36, 3:41, 3:50, 3:60, 3:73, 3:86, 3:88, 3:116,

3:128; 7:3, 7:8, 7:11, 7:20, 7:29, 7:38; Tr. 23:24; 4/3, Tr. 272-286;

4/4) which expressed concern that the proposed language did not provide

enough detailed guidance regarding what constituted adequate training,

OSHA determined that more specific guidance should be provided by the

final requirement. Accordingly, the Agency determined that more

specific guidance was appropriate and revised proposed Sec. 1910.132(f)

to require, at a minimum, training in the following areas:

When PPE is necessary

What PPE is necessary

How to properly don, doff, adjust, and wear PPE

The limitations of the PPE; and

That proper care, maintenance, useful life and disposal of

the PPE.

In addition, many of the above comments and testimony suggested

that in order to have a successful training program, employers should

set measurable training objectives and have their employees demonstrate

that they have reached those objectives. Also, it was suggested that

retraining be provided, when the employer determined that employees may

not possess sufficient knowledge about the PPE. Accordingly, the

following provisions were added to Sec. 1910.132(f) in the final rule:

(2) Each affected employee shall demonstrate an understanding of

the training specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section, and the

ability to use PPE properly, before being allowed to perform work

requiring the use of PPE.

(3) When the employer has reason to believe that any affected

employee who has already been trained does not have the understanding

and skill required by paragraph (f)(2) of this section, the employer

shall retrain each such employee. Circumstances where retraining is

required include, but are not limited to, situations were:

(i) Changes in the workplace render previous training obsolete; or

(ii) Changes in the types of PPE to be used render previous

training obsolete; or

(iii) Inadequacies in an affected employee's knowledge or use of

assigned PPE indicate that the employee has not retained the requisite

understanding or skill.

OSHA believes that these more specific training requirements would

also be appropriate with regard to training provided under

Sec. 1915.152(e). Therefore, OSHA solicits comments, with supporting

information, as to the need for such requirements and the anticipated

impact of those requirements on the shipyard industry.

4. Body belts and harnesses in fall arrest systems. Proposed

Sec. 1910.129(b) provided the system performance criteria for personal

fall arrest systems. In particular, the proposed paragraph limited

maximum arresting force on an employee to 900 pounds (4 kN) when using

a body belt and 1,800 pounds (8 kN) when using a body harness. The

corresponding provision for shipyard employment, proposed

Sec. 1915.159(a)(4)(iii), limited maximum arresting force for either

belts or harnesses to the lesser of 10 times the employee's weight, or

1,800 pounds (8 kN). The more protective criteria in proposed

Sec. 1910.129(b) are based on information obtained after the Shipyard

PPE proposal was issued (53 FR 48150, Nov. 29, 1988). This information

is discussed in the General Industry PPE proposal (55 FR 13423, April

10, 1990).

Comments and testimony received on proposed Sec. 1910.129(b) (Exs.

3:22, 3:31; Tr. 240-241 and 1374) indicate that the Agency needs to

reconsider allowing the use of body belts in fall arrest systems. OSHA

solicits comments, with supporting information regarding whether or not

body belts should be permitted for use in fall arrest systems, and the

anticipated impact on the shipyard industry of any requirement which

might limit or prohibit their use.

5. Locking and non-locking snap hooks. Proposed Sec. 1915.159

(a)(15), (a)(16), and (a)(17) prohibited certain snap hook connections

(such as, connecting snap hooks to each other) where snap hooks have

been known to accidentally disengage, allowing an employee to fall.

Proposed Sec. 1910.129(c)(1) required that snap hooks, unless of the

locking type, and designed for certain connections (such as to each

other, to horizontal lifelines, or to incompatibly shaped objects), not

be used for these connections.

Comments and testimony received on the general industry provisions

(Exs. 3:9, 3:12, 3:19; Tr. 210) has led the Agency to consider a

prohibition on the use of non-locking snap hooks in personal fall

protection systems.

OSHA solicits comments, with supporting information, regarding

whether or not non-locking snap hooks should be permitted for use in

personal fall protection systems or in positioning device systems, and

the anticipated impact on the shipyard industry of any requirement

which might further limit or prohibit their use.

III. Public Participation

Written comments regarding the materials incorporated into the

shipyard PPE record through this notice must be postmarked by August

22, 1994.

Four copies of these comments must be submitted to the Docket

Office, Docket S-045A, U.S. Department of Labor, room N-2634, 200

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. (202) 219-7894. All

materials submitted will be available for inspection and copying at the

above address. Materials previously submitted to the Docket for this

rulemaking need not be resubmitted.

IV. Authority

This document was prepared under the direction of Joseph A. Dear,

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S.

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC

20210.

It is issued under section 6(b) of the Occupational Safety and

Health Act (29 U.S.C. 655), section 41 of the LHWCA (33 U.S.C. 941) and

29 CFR part 1911.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of June 1994.

Joseph A. Dear,

Assistant Secretary of Labor.

[FR Doc. 94-16240 Filed 7-5-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-M