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; Request for public participation in public

meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

announces an informal public meeting to provide an opportunity for oral

and written presentations regarding specific issues raised through the

reopening of the Shipyard Employment Personal Protection Equipment

(PPE) rulemaking record (59 FR 34586, July 6, 1994) and the

incorporation of the general industry PPE rulemaking docket (S-060).

DATES: Notices of intention to appear at the public meeting must be

postmarked by January 11, 1995. The public meeting will be held on

January 25, 1995 in Washington, D.C.

Any written information or comments must be received by OSHA no

later than January 25, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit all notices of intention to appear and written

comments to Ms. Audrey K. Best, Directorate of Safety Standards

Programs, Room N-3609, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety

and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC

20210. Telephone (202) 219-7225; FAX (202) 219-7477. Please submit four

copies of all written information.

Persons with disabilities, who need special accommodations, should

contact Ms. Audrey Best, by January 11, 1995 at the address above.

The public meeting will be held in the Frances Perkins Building,

U.S. Department of Labor, Conference Room N3437(A and B), 200

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of Information and Consumer

Affairs, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department

of Labor, room N-3647, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20210. Telephone (202) 219-8148.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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). This 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. The written comment

period ended on February 27, 1989. The Agency received 10 comments on

the proposed rule, and one hearing request, which was withdrawn.

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).

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

fall arrest equipment (Sec. 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).

The two general industry rulemakings generated extensive rulemaking

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 general industry PPE proceeding. Based

on the rulemaking record, (59 FR 16334, Docket S-050), OSHA made some

changes to the proposed rule in drafting the final rule. In particular,

OSHA revised the proposed training requirements to provide clear

requirements for what is adequate training and what circumstances

trigger retraining. In addition, the final rule added requirements for

certification that the required hazard assessment (Sec. 1910.132(d)(2))

and training (Secs. 1910.132(f)(4)) had been performed.

Also, based on the general industry rulemaking record (Docket S-

057), the Agency is considering whether it should revise the proposed

rule for general industry fall protection PPE to further limit or to

prohibit the use of body belts and non-locking snap hooks in personal

fall arrest systems. In a related rulemaking for fall protection in the

construction industry, OSHA recently issued a final rule (59 FR 40672,

August 9, 1994) which prohibits the use of body belts and nonlocking

snap hooks in personal fall arrest systems after December 31, 1997.

The Agency believes that the substance of the OSHA standards for

general industry (part 1910), shipyard (part 1915) and construction

employment (part 1926) should be consistent where possible. OSHA

believes that PPE used in shipyard employment does not differ markedly

from PPE used in general industry, and that the standards covering PPE

use should not differ markedly either.

While the Agency recognizes that work activities in shipyard

employment often differ from those in other industries, the Agency

believes that much of the information generated in the general industry

rulemakings will help the Agency draft the final rule for shipyard PPE.

To this end, OSHA formally incorporated the general industry PPE

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

shipyard employment PPE rulemaking (59 FR 34586, July 6, 1994).

In that same notice, OSHA reopened the written comment period for

the shipyard employment PPE rulemaking to provide the public with an

opportunity to comment on the newly incorporated general industry

materials and on five specific issues (certification of hazard

assessment; certification of training; training elements; body belts

and body harnesses; and locking and non-locking snaphooks). The comment

period, which ended August 22, 1994, elicited 13 comments, including

one hearing request. These comments generally opposed any revision to

proposed 1915 subpart I based on the 1910 subpart I records.

Based on these submissions, OSHA is convening a public meeting to

seek additional input regarding all issues raised therein with emphasis

on the issues set out below. OSHA solicits further input regarding how

the incorporation of the provisions discussed in the July 6, 1994

notice of reopening would impact the shipyard industry. The Agency also

requests that interested parties provide input regarding any experience

they have had with the implementation of such provisions.

Issues

Issue 1--Certification of Hazard Assessment

Proposed part 1915 subpart I would require that employers select

PPE for their employees based on an assessment of the pertinent

workplace hazards (proposed Sec. 1915.152(b)). For example, shipyard

maintenance workers, in general, are required to wear hard hats, safety

glasses and safety shoes. Maintenance workers who are exposed to

airborne concentrations of asbestos that exceed the PELs, are also

required to wear full-body clothing, gloves and foot coverings.

The proposed provision did not specifically address documentation

of the hazard assessment. The revised PPE standard for general industry

requires that affected employers verify that they have assessed

workplace hazards through a written certification. As discussed in the

July 6, 1994 notice, the Agency has been considering whether it would

be appropriate to require written certification of hazard assessments

in shipyards, as well.

One commentor (Ex. 9-2) said that such a certification provision

required the approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),

pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act and the implementing

regulations. Other comments (Exs. 9-3, 9-7, 9-8 and 9-10) stated that

OSHA should take a performance-oriented approach to documentation of

hazard assessments, instead of adopting the general industry written

certification requirement. In particular, a commentor (Ex. 9-7) stated

``certification of hazard assessment requirements should be based on

employees' duties that tend to be constant rather than on the shipyard

work place that is neither fixed, nor constant, nor readily

quantifiable like work places in all other industries.''

In addition, one commentor (Ex. 9-11) stated that hazard

certification is unnecessary, because that company has ``a good hazard

assessment program that addresses PPE. A properly trained Compliance

Officer can make a fair determination concerning PPE.''

Those commentors indicated that requiring hazard assessments for

each job, if followed literally, would create considerable costs for

shipyard employers, without increasing employee safety. Those

commentors also stated that requiring employers to certify their hazard

assessment activities would increase shipyard operational costs and

paperwork burdens, with no safety benefit.

Based on those comments, OSHA requests input regarding the

appropriateness of a documentation requirement; the manner in which

shipyards currently document their hazard assessments; and suggested

language for a verification requirement that would address concerns

specific to shipyard employment. In particular, the Agency solicits

information regarding hazard assessment programs currently in use in

shipyards and experience concerning the effectiveness of such programs.

In addition, the Agency is considering the extent to which current

hazard assessments performed by trade or occupation provide the

necessary information for selection of appropriate PPE. The following

are examples of typical trade-based hazard assessment formats that OSHA

may consider to be acceptable:

Example 1: Welder

Based on an assessment of the workplace hazards to which welders

are exposed, the equipment listed below is the basic PPE required for

this occupation. This does not take into account a job location in

which additional PPE may be required such as where the welder works

from an elevated platform without guard rails. In this situation the

welder must wear the proper fall protection equipment, such as a body

harness.

--Hard hat

--Welding Shield (Face)

--Welding Gloves

--Safety Glasses

--Safety Shoes

--Welding Sleeves (welding in the overhead position)

(Signed and dated)

Example 2: Yard Maintenance Worker

Based on an assessment of the workplace hazards to which shipyard

maintenance workers are exposed, the equipment listed below is the

basic PPE required for this occupation. Where maintenance workers are

exposed to other hazards, such as asbestos exposure where the

insulation on a pipe is being repaired, the maintenance worker must be

provided with the appropriate supplemental PPE (requirements for

asbestos PPE are set out in Sec. 1915.1001).

--Hard Hat

--Safety Glasses

--Work Gloves

--Safety Shoes

(Signed and dated)

Issue 2--Certification of Training and Training Elements

Proposed Sec. 1915.152(d) required that employees be trained in the

proper use of their personal protective equipment. The proposal did not

address certification of training nor did it address specific training

elements. The revised PPE standard for general industry requires

employees to be trained and retrained, as necessary, in at least the

following:

When PPE is necessary;

What PPE is necessary;

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

The limitations of the PPE; and,

Useful life and disposal of the PPE

This training may be provided in a variety of ways, such as through

tool box training or at safety meetings. Once this training has been

completed, Sec. 1910.132(f)(4) requires employers to verify through a

written certification that each affected employee has received and

understood the required training. This certification requirement may be

satisfied through a training log or other document that the employer

has already been using to keep track of its training activities. For

compliance purposes, a record which provides the names of the employees

who have successfully completed the training, the date of the training,

the type of certification (that is, completion of PPE training), and

the signature of a supervisor or trainer would be sufficient. OSHA

solicits additional information concerning whether it is appropriate to

clarify the requirements of proposed Sec. 1915.152(d) by incorporating

the above-noted training elements and whether the Agency should add a

new requirement for written certification of training.

In response to the notice of reopening, OSHA received comments

(Exs. 9-6, 9-8 and 9-9) which stated that training can be satisfied

during new employee orientation. Another commentor (Ex. 9-7) supported

OSHA's intent for general requirements for training. The commentor also

believed that ``documentation of all training should be in the form of

training logs, which would be the equivalent of ``written

certification'' to avoid the non-value added redundance of record

keeping.'' In addition, a commentor (Ex. 9-9) stated that most

shipyards are already complying with the OSHA PPE training standard

under consideration. Most of the shipyards that responded to the notice

of reopening stated that they already have a written certification

program and a new hire training program in effect. One commentor (Ex.

9-11) stated that requiring employers to certify their training

activities would increase shipyard operational costs and paperwork

burdens, with no safety benefit.

Issue 3--Body Belts and Body Harnesses

Proposed part 1915 subpart I would allow the use of personal fall

arrest systems with either body belts or body harnesses, but would

limit the impact load allowed for body belts to one-half of that

allowed for body harnesses (900 pounds as opposed to 1800 pounds). The

July 6, 1994 notice stated that OSHA was considering whether the part

1915 subpart I final rule should bar the use of body belts for fall

protection. Some commentors (Exs. 9-1, 9-3, 9-7 and 9-8) suggested that

there is no basis for barring the use of body belts for fall arrest and

that the load limits set in the proposed rule were appropriate. In

particular, the South Tidewater Association of Ship Repairers and

Newport News Shipbuilding (Exs. 9-3 and 9-11) stated that requiring

employers to dispose of body belts and to purchase body harnesses would

impose unreasonable financial burdens. Those commentors also stated

that a review of their records showed no injuries that would have been

prevented by having employees wear body harnesses instead of body

belts; that belts had greater ease of use; and that the cost of

harnesses was approximately double that of body belts. On the other

hand, Tampa Shipyard (Ex. 9-8), Atlantic Marine (Ex. 9-9), and General

Dynamics (Ex. 9-10) stated that they already employ body harnesses in

their personal fall arrest systems. Tampa Shipyards and Atlantic Marine

stated that the use of body harnesses was cost effective, even though

harnesses could cost twice as much as body belts, because the

additional safety factor provided by harnesses was worth the

investment. In addition, General Dynamics (Ex. 9-10) stated that its

systems already comply with the general industry criteria.

Subsequently, OSHA promulgated a revised fall protection standard

for construction, part 1926 subpart M (59 FR 40672, August 9, 1994),

which prohibits the use of body belts in personal fall arrest systems

after December 31, 1997. After that time, construction employees may

use body belts only with positioning device systems. The Agency has

found, as follows:

The evidence in the record clearly demonstrates that employees

who fall while wearing a body belt are not afforded the level of

protection they would be if the fall occurred while the employee was

wearing a full body harness. In addition, [a commentor] presented

evidence of injuries resulting from the use of body belts. The best

available evidence the Agency has at this time indicates that the

Agency should ban the use of body belts after a reasonable period.

This will allow employers to phase out their existing inventory.

OSHA seeks input regarding the extent to which a phased in ban on

the use of body belts in personal fall arrest systems would be

appropriate for shipyard employment. Please provide information on the

useful life of body belts currently in use or on the market, the impact

loads imposed on employees who fall while wearing such body belts, the

cost of the body belts and body harnesses that are currently available,

along with other data which would help OSHA address this issue.

Public Participation

Public Meeting

OSHA has scheduled a public meeting in the Frances Perkins

Building, U.S. Department of Labor, Conference Room N-3437 (A and B),

200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, on January 25, 1995 to

provide an informal forum in which interested persons can present oral

and written comments and information regarding issues raised in the

July 6, 1994 notice of reopening.

The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. The presiding officer, who will be

a representative of OSHA's Directorate of Safety Standards Programs,

will have the necessary authority to regulate the conduct of the

meeting.

OSHA requests that any person wishing to make oral presentations

notify OSHA in advance. The notice should identify the person and

organization, the amount of time needed for oral presentation, the

subject matter, and a brief summary of the intended oral presentation.

All persons giving written advance notice will have time reserved for

their oral presentations.

Persons who wish to make oral presentations, but who have not

notified OSHA of their intention to appear, may ask for an opportunity

to speak at the time of the meeting. While the Agency will attempt to

accommodate ``walk-on'' participants, priority will be given to those

who submitted timely notices of intention to appear.

All persons desiring to participate in the public meeting must file

a notice of intention to appear postmarked by January 11, 1995,

addressed to Ms. Audrey K. Best, Directorate of Safety Standards

Programs, Room N3609, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and

Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC

20210.

All written submissions must be received by OSHA no later than the

date of the public meeting, January 25, 1995. A subsequent period for

the submission of additional written materials may be set at the public

meeting, at the discretion of the presiding officer. The materials

submitted will be available for inspection and copying at the above

address. All written and oral submissions, and other information

gathered by the Agency, will be considered in any action taken.

Authority and Signature

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 of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655), section 41 of the Longshore and

Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941), Secretary of Labor's

Order No. 1-90 (55 FR 9033), and 29 CFR part 1911.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 7th day of December 1994.

Joseph A. Dear,

Assistant Secretary of Labor.

[FR Doc. 94-30518 Filed 12-12-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P