# Personal Protective Equipment for Shipyard Employment

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-30518

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Uncategorized Document
- **Published:** December 13, 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; 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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-30518. Public record. Not legal advice.