# Personal Protective Equipment for Shipyard Employment

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-16240

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Uncategorized Document
- **Published:** July 6, 1994

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-16240. Public record. Not legal advice.