Personal Protective Equipment for Shipyard Employment (PPE)

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

revising its standards for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for

Shipyard Employment, 29 CFR part 1915, subpart I. The final rule

updates, reorganizes, and simplifies shipyard employment PPE standards

into a comprehensive framework that encompasses the shipbuilding, ship

repair, and shipbreaking industries. Where appropriate, the final rule

deletes existing specification-oriented provisions that limit employer

innovation and incorporates performance-oriented language.

EFFECTIVE DATES: The final rule becomes effective August 22, 1996

except for Secs. 1915.152(b), 1915.152(e), 1915.159(d), 1915.160(d),

will not become effective until an Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) Control number is received and displayed for these ``collections

of information'' in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The incorporations by reference of certain

publications listed in this final rule is approved by the Director of

the Federal Register as of August 22, 1996.

Other Dates: Written comments on the paperwork requirements of this

final rule must be submitted on or before July 23, 1996.

ADDRESSES: In compliance with 28 U.S.C. 2112(a), the Agency designates

the Associate Solicitor for Occupational Safety and Health, Office of

the Solicitor, Room S-4004, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210 for receipt of petitions for

review of the standard.

Comments on the paperwork requirements of this final rule are to be

submitted to the Docket Office, Docket No. S-045, U.S. Department of

Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 202l0,

telephone (202) 219-7894. Written comments limited to 10 pages or less

in length may also be transmitted by facsimile to (202) 219-5046.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Anne C. Cyr, Acting Director,

Office of Information, Division of Consumer Affairs, Room N-3647, U.S.

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20210; Telephone (202) 219-8151.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background

II. Workplace Hazards

III. Summary and Explanation of Final Rule

IV. Summary of Final Economic Analysis, Regulatory Flexibility

Certification, and Environmental Impact Assessment

V. Paperwork Burden

VI. Statutory Considerations

VII. Federalism

VIII. State Plans

IX. Authority

I. Background

In May 1971, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA), under authority granted by section 6(a) of the Occupational

Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655), adopted Federal

standards issued under section 41 of the Longshore and Harbor Workers'

Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941), as standards applicable to ship

repairing (29 CFR part 1915), shipbuilding (29 CFR part 1916), and

shipbreaking (29 CFR part 1917) operations. OSHA also adopted other

Federal standards and national consensus standards as general industry

standards (29 CFR part 1910) and construction industry standards (29

CFR part 1926), which apply to shipyard hazards and working conditions

not specifically covered by standards in parts 1915, 1916, or 1917.

On April 20, 1982 (47 FR 16984), the ship repairing, shipbuilding,

and shipbreaking standards were consolidated into 29 CFR part 1915

``Occupational Safety and Health Standards for Shipyard Employment.''

The purpose of the consolidation was to eliminate duplicative

provisions. The consolidation did not alter substantive requirements of

these standards, nor did it affect the applicability of the general

industry and construction standards in 29 CFR parts 1910 and 1926,

respectively, to hazards or conditions in shipyard employment not

addressed in the consolidated part 1915.

Later in 1982, the Shipbuilders Council of America (SCA) and the

American Waterways Shipyard Conference (AWSC) requested that OSHA

identify the specific provisions of the general industry standards that

apply to shipyards and then consolidate them into the existing part

1915 provisions, making one set of shipyard employment standards. OSHA

agreed that such consolidation was appropriate, and decided to begin

work on a subpart-by-subpart basis.

As part of that effort, OSHA published a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register for subpart I of part 1915

(Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), November 29, 1988, 53 FR 48092).

In particular, the proposed rule updated the pertinent references to

national consensus standards, incorporated Sec. 1910.134 (respiratory

protection) by reference to replace the less comprehensive provisions

in Sec. 1915.152, and added requirements for hazard assessment,

training, fall protection systems, and positioning device systems. OSHA

received 10 comments in response to the NPRM. Those comments are

discussed in the Summary and Explanation section of this document,

below.

A short time after the November 1988 publication of the proposed

rule on PPE, the Shipyard Employment Standards Advisory Committee

(SESAC) was established. SESAC was chartered to provide OSHA with

guidance in revising, consolidating, and modernizing the varying sets

of regulations that were being applied in the shipyard industry to

produce a truly vertical standard for all shipyard employment. The

intended result of this activity was the development of a single set of

occupational safety and health standards for shipyard employment that

would cover vessels, vessel sections and related activities. The newly

developed shipyard employment standards would apply to all shipyard

employment. SESAC provided OSHA with comments on PPE-related issues,

and their comments are discussed in the Summary and Explanation below.

Following publication of the proposed 1915 shipyard PPE standard,

OSHA initiated two rulemakings to address General Industry Personal

Protective Equipment (PPE) standards. The first of these PPE

rulemakings (NPRM at 54 FR 33832, August 16, 1989) covered all PPE

(such as eye, face, hand, and foot) other than respiratory protection,

electrical protective equipment, personal protective systems, and

positioning device systems. The Agency published the final rule for

this rulemaking on April 6, 1994 (59 FR 16334). The Agency also

initiated a second general industry rulemaking to add requirements for

personal fall arrest systems and positioning systems to the general

industry PPE standards (Docket S-057; NPRM at 55 FR 12323, April 10,

[[Page 26323]]

1990). This rulemaking had not yet been concluded.

The Agency determined that the information in the above-noted

rulemaking records was relevant to the issues raised in the Shipyard

PPE proposal. Accordingly, on July 6, 1994, OSHA reopened the Shipyard

PPE rulemaking record (59 FR 34586) to incorporate the General Industry

PPE dockets and to allow the public an opportunity to comment. The

Agency indicated that it was considering more detailed guidance

regarding: Adequate training requirements; verification of the proposed

hazard assessment and training requirements through written

certification; and prohibition of the use of body belts and non-locking

snaphooks. OSHA subsequently revised its requirements for fall

protection in construction (final rule at 59 FR 40672, August 9, 1994).

The final rule, containing requirements for personal fall protection

equipment similar to those in the shipyard PPE proposal, prohibited the

use of body belts in personal fall arrest systems (PFAS)

(Sec. 1926.502(d) introductory text) and the use of non-locking

snaphooks in PFAS (Sec. 1926.502(d)(5)) and in positioning systems

(Sec. 1926.502(e)(7)). Those prohibitions take effect on January 1,

1998.

The shipyard PPE reopening comment period ended August 22, 1994.

OSHA received 13 comments, including one hearing request. Those

comments are discussed in the Summary and Explanation section below.

In lieu of a hearing, OSHA agreed to hold an informal public

meeting (59 FR 64173, December 13, 1994) to allow comments and

testimony on the issues raised in the reopening. At the public meeting

on January 25, 1995, there were five oral presentations and five

written submissions, which are discussed in the Summary and Explanation

section. The rulemaking record closed on February 28, 1995.

II. Workplace Hazards

OSHA has determined that employees in shipyards are exposed to a

significant risk of injury from hazards that can be mitigated by the

use of suitable personal protective equipment. OSHA has also concluded

that compliance with the final standard will substantially reduce

employee exposure to PPE-related hazards.

The shipyard industry has had one of the highest rates of injuries

of any industry for many years. In 1992, the shipyard industry, SIC

3731, had an injury rate of 34.2 per 100 full-time employees

(``Occupational Injuries and Illnesses: Counts, Rates, and

Characteristics, 1992,'' published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in

April, 1995). Approximately half of these injuries were severe enough

to result in lost time from work. These numbers mean that a shipyard

employee has about a 1 in 3 chance (34 percent) of experiencing an

injury at work annually and a 1 in 10 chance every year of being

injured seriously enough to require time away from work to recuperate.

In comparison, the average annual risk of injury for all employees

in the United States was about 9 per 100 full-time employees in 1992;

for the manufacturing sector of the economy, the annual injury rate was

about 11 per 100 full-time employees.

Table 1 presents estimates of lost-workday injuries by body part

based on 1992 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data. These estimates

are consistent with injury data from a Department of Transportation

Maritime Administration survey and the Agency's analysis of OSHA 200

Forms (discussed further in the Benefits section of the summary of the

Economic Analysis, presented later in this Preamble). Table 2 presents

BLS lost workday injury data by nature of injury.

Table 1.--BLS Estimates of Shipyard injuries involving Lost Workdays by Body Part

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

Number of

Body part Number of 1992 extrapolated 1994 Percent (%)

injuries (a) injuries (b)

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

Head, unspecified................................... 73 63 0.6

Ear(s).............................................. 0 0 0.0

Eyes(s)............................................. 1,080 925 9.4

Face................................................ 51 44 0.4

Scalp............................................... 91 78 0.8

Neck................................................ 350 300 3.0

Arm(s) unspecified.................................. 49 42 0.4

Elbow............................................... 265 227 2.3

Forearm............................................. 128 110 1.1

Wrist............................................... 478 409 4.1

Hand(s)............................................. 508 435 4.4

Finger(s)........................................... 720 617 6.2

Upper extremities, multiple......................... 0 0 0.0

Trunk, unspecified.................................. 0 0 0.0

Abdomen............................................. 88 75 0.8

Back, unspecified................................... 954 817 8.3

Back, lumbar........................................ 1,198 1,026 10.4

Back, thoracic...................................... 168 144 1.5

Chest............................................... 289 247 2.5

Hip................................................. 306 262 2.7

Shoulder(s)......................................... 601 515 5.2

Trunk, multiple parts............................... 0 0 0.0

Lower extremities, unspecified...................... 0 0 0.0

Leg(s), unspecified................................. 59 51 0.5

Thighs.............................................. 89 76 0.8

Knee(s)............................................. 1,073 919 9.3

Lower leg(s)........................................ 123 105 1.1

Leg(s), multiple.................................... 0 0 0.0

Ankle(s)............................................ 624 534 5.4

Foot/feet........................................... 488 418 4.2

Toe(s).............................................. 123 105 1.1

Lower extremities, multiple......................... 0 0 0.0

[[Page 26324]]

Multiple body parts................................. 674 577 5.8

Circulatory system.................................. 0 0 0.0

Digestive system.................................... 0 0 0.0

Excretory system.................................... 0 0 0.0

Nervous system...................................... 0 0 0.0

Respiratory system.................................. 0 0 0.0

Body parts, NEC..................................... 163 140 1.4

Not identified by body part......................... 720 617 6.2

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

Total........................................... 11,533 9,876 100.0

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

(a) Bureau of Labor Statistics. Survey of Occupational injuries and illnesses, 1

(b) Extrapolation based on decline in shipyard employment of 14.4 percent bet 1992 and 1994.

Table 2.--BLS Estimates of Shipyard Injuries Involving Lost Workdays, by Nature of Injury

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

Number of

Nature of injury Number of 1992 extrapolated 1994 Percent (%)

injuries (a) injuries (b)

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

Amputation.......................................... 0 0 0.0

Burn (heat)......................................... 410 351 3.6

Burn (chemical)..................................... 80 69 0.7

Concussion.......................................... 0 0 0.0

Infective/parasitic disease......................... NA NA NA

Contusion/bruise.................................... 2,085 1,785 18.1

Cut/laceration/puncture............................. 622 533 5.4

Dermatitis.......................................... 0 0 0.0

Dislocation, unspecified............................ 88 75 0.8

Electric shock...................................... 0 0 0.0

Fracture............................................ 558 478 4.8

Low temperature exposure............................ NA NA NA

Hearing loss or impairment.......................... 0 0 0.0

Inflammation of joints.............................. 114 98 1.0

Poisoning........................................... 114 98 1.0

Radiation effects................................... 213 182 1.8

Scratches/abrasions................................. 728 623 6.3

Sprains/strains, unspecified........................ 5,044 4,319 43.7

Torn ligaments...................................... NA NA NA

Sprains/strains, NEC................................ NA NA NA

Multiple injuries................................... 308 264 2.7

Circulatory system condition........................ 0 0 0.0

Eye diseases........................................ 0 0 0.0

Nervous system condition............................ 255 218 2.2

Respiratory system condition........................ 0 0 0.0

Ill-defined condition............................... 0 0 0.0

Other injury, NEC................................... 216 185 1.9

Not identified by nature............................ 698 598 6.1

Total........................................... 11,533 9,876 100.0

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

(a) Bureau of Labor Statistics. Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, 19

(b) Extrapolation based on decline in shipyard employment of 14.4 percent between 1992 and 1994.

NA: Not applicable. Nature of injury category not incuded in BLS tabulations.

Shipyard employment typically involves fabrication and repair of

large steel plates, beams, and pipes as well as painting and coating

operations and other outfitting activities such as electrical work,

ventilation and sheet metal work, and work on propulsion systems.

Welding is a common production technology, requiring grinding and

chipping of welds and accounting for many eye injuries. Employees also

frequently work in awkward positions, out-of-doors throughout the year,

on scaffolds, and in enclosed or confined spaces. The shipyard

industry's relatively high employment turnover rate contributes to the

high rates of injuries, because newly hired workers tend to be less

well trained and have a higher frequency of accidents.

The Agency has concluded that PPE-related hazards pose a

significant risk of serious injury to shipyard employees, and that

compliance with the PPE standard is needed to substantially reduce that

risk. The Agency has estimated that compliance with the final PPE

regulation will significantly reduce the likelihood of an injury--from

34.2 to 21 per 100 full-time employees per year.

For a full discussion of the benefits of the final standard see the

summary of the Economic Analysis presented below in this preamble or

the full Economic Analysis, which is in the docket.

III. Summary and Explanation of Final Rule

In this section of the preamble, OSHA explains how the final rule

relates to the proposed and existing standards, and

[[Page 26325]]

how the comments and testimony presented on each provision influenced

the drafting of the final rule. This section also addresses issues

raised in the July 6, 1994, reopening notice and the December 13, 1994,

public meeting notice. Except where otherwise indicated, proposed

provisions that did not elicit comments are being promulgated as

proposed, for reasons stated in the preamble to the proposed rule (53

FR 48151-48158).

As discussed above, on April 6, 1994, OSHA issued a final rule for

its rulemaking on PPE used in general industry (59 FR 16334) (part

1910, subpart I, Docket S-060). That document updated the regulation of

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

protection (Sec. 1910.136), and added provisions for hazard assessment,

PPE selection, disposal and training (Sec. 1910.132 (d)-(f)), and hand

protection (Sec. 1910.138). The proposed rule (54 FR 33832, August 16,

1989) was consistent with the corresponding proposed rule for shipyard

PPE. However, based on the rulemaking record, OSHA revised the general

industry proposal to address training and the documentation of

compliance with the hazard assessment and training requirements in more

detail. Given the similarity of the PPE used in general industry and

shipyard employment, OSHA determined that the information generated in

this general industry rulemaking was relevant to the drafting of the

shipyard PPE standards, as well.

Also, proposed part 1910 subpart I, PPE (Fall Protection Systems)

(55 FR 13423, April 10, 1990) set criteria for the proper selection,

use and maintenance of personal fall arrest systems (Secs. 1910.128,

1910.129, and 1910.131) and positioning device systems (Secs. 1910.128

and 1910.130) in general industry. The part 1910 subpart I proposal

relied heavily on the approach taken by the Agency in its final rule on

Powered Platforms for Exterior Building Maintenance, Sec. 1910.66 (54

FR 31456, July 28, 1989, Docket S-700A). In the Preamble to the 1910

subpart I proposal, OSHA determined that the requirements for personal

fall arrest systems used by employees on powered platforms should be

the same as those for personal fall arrest systems used by employees in

other occupations (55 FR at 13430).

Based on the record developed for the general industry fall

protection PPE rulemaking (Docket S-057), OSHA decided that it was

appropriate to consider prohibiting the use of non-locking snaphooks in

personal fall arrest and positioning device systems and to consider

prohibiting the use of body belts in personal fall arrest systems.

Recently, the Agency included such prohibitions in the final rule for

fall protection in construction (59 FR 40672, August 9, 1994). As

stated above, the Agency has determined that OSHA's fall protection PPE

standards should be consistent with each other.

Therefore, based on its policy of promoting consistent regulation

of PPE across industry lines, the Agency concluded that the information

generated on PPE in general industry was relevant to the use of that

PPE in shipyards, as well.

Accordingly, OSHA incorporated Dockets S-057 and S-060 into the

shipyard PPE rulemaking record and reopened the comment period for part

1915 subpart I to provide an opportunity for public comment on the

newly incorporated materials (59 FR 34586, July 6, 1994). The Agency

provided additional opportunity for public input on these materials (59

FR 64173, December 13, 1995) at an informal public meeting on January

25, 1995.

In addition, OSHA has added certain personal fall arrest criteria,

Sec. 1910.159 (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(7), (c)(2), (c)(3) and (c) (7) to the

final rule, because the need for such requirements has been established

through the corresponding General Industry and Construction rulemaking

proceedings. These requirements are discussed further, below.

OSHA has concluded that the PPE needed in shipyard employment does

not differ markedly from that needed in general industry or in

construction, and that the standards covering PPE should not differ

markedly either. The final rule reflects this determination and

incorporates OSHA's review of the existing rulemaking record, including

the materials incorporated from other PPE-related dockets.

Section 1915.151 Scope, Application, and Definitions Applicable to

This Subpart

Final rule paragraph (a) sets forth the scope and application of

Subpart I. This subpart applies to all work in shipyard employment,

regardless of geographic location. This language is consistent with

that in recently published part 1915 subpart B [Sec. 1915.11(a)][59 FR

37816, July 25, 1994].

Proposed paragraph (a)(1) stated that this subpart would cover PPE

provided for and used by shipyard workplaces and operations (including

shipbuilding, ship repairing, and shipbreaking), but would not apply to

construction operations in shipyards covered by part 1926.

Newport News Shipbuilding (NNS) stated [Ex. 6-2] that the term

``provided'' should be changed to ``made available'' because the

suggested language was consistent with that in existing Sec. 1915.153

and with current industry practice. However, the Agency has deleted the

proposed language, ``personal protective equipment to be provided for

and used by employees'' because it believes that requirements for the

provision and use of PPE are more appropriately addressed in

Sec. 1915.152, General Requirements.

The Shipbuilding Council of America (SCA) (Ex. 6-1) and NNS (Ex. 6-

2) stated that part 1926 (OSHA's construction industry standards)

should not apply to employees of shipyards who perform construction

work since one of the objectives of the rulemaking was to bring

uniformity to the workplace by providing employees and employers with

one set of safety standards to govern their work. SCA suggested that

part 1926 apply only to construction work performed in shipyards by

outside contractors (non-shipyard employees). OSHA believes, however,

that it is inappropriate to distinguish between shipyard employees and

contractor employees when setting requirements for worker protection.

Therefore, OSHA is not making the suggested change.

The Agency has consistently maintained that construction

activities, such as the erection of building structures, are covered by

the construction standards (29 CFR part 1926) and are not subject to

the requirements of the shipyard standards (29 CFR part 1915).

Furthermore, Sec. 1926.30, Shipbuilding and ship repairs, explicitly

provides that shipyard employment is covered exclusively by the

shipyard standards. Accordingly, the proposed paragraph (a)(1) language

regarding the application for part 1926 in unnecessary and has been

deleted.

Proposed paragraph (a)(2) provided that subpart I of part 1910--

except Sec. 1910.134, Respiratory protection--would not apply to

shipyard employment. Since OSHA has chosen to view respirators as a

separate, full rulemaking [59 FR 58884 November 15, 1994] which will

apply to shipyard employment as well as general industry, the final

shipyard PPE standard will continue to reference existing Sec. 1910.134

for respiratory PPE until the shipyard respirator rulemaking is

complete. In all other respects, subpart I of part 1915 will be a self-

contained set of PPE standards for shipyard employment. It will not be

[[Page 26326]]

supplemented through reference to the General Industry standards.

Paragraph (b), Definitions

Paragraph (b) defines the terms used in this standard.

The proposed definitions paragraph did not include a number of

terms and definitions that OSHA has used, or proposed to use, in other

standards that address fall protection PPE [e.g., Powered Platforms for

Building Maintenance 29 CFR 1910.66 (July 28, 1989 54 FR 31408); Fall

Protection in Construction part 1926, subpart M (51 FR 42718, Aug. 9,

1994); and General Industry PPE-Fall Protection, proposed 1910.128(b),

subpart I (55 FR 13423 April 10, 1990)].

The new terms and definitions included in paragraph (b) are:

anchorage, connector, deceleration distance, equivalent, free fall,

free-fall distance, lanyard, lifeline, lower levels, rope grab, and

self-retracting lifeline/lanyard. Newly defined terms, revised terms,

and proposed terms that elicited comments are discussed below. OSHA has

determined that the inclusion of these definitions is appropriate for

the purpose of clarity and to provide guidance consistent with that set

in corresponding standards. In addition, as discussed further below,

OSHA is adding a definition for the term ``qualified person.''

The proposed term ``capable person'' will be replaced by the more

familiar term ``qualified person'' in the final rule. SESAC also

recommended using ``qualified person'' in the regulatory text (Tr. p.

84-85, SESAC meeting, November 20, 1991).

``Deceleration device.'' This term describes equipment such as a

rope grab, ripstitch lanyard, specially woven lanyard, tearing or

deforming lanyard, and automatic self-retracting lifeline/lanyard, that

serves to dissipate a substantial amount of energy during a fall arrest

or otherwise limit the energy imposed on an employee during fall

arrest. The proposed definition simply required that the device

dissipate more energy than does a standard line or strap-webbing

lanyard. After a careful review of the proposed definition, OSHA has

revised the definition to indicate the extent to which a deceleration

device must dissipate the energy imposed on an employee during fall

arrest.

``Personal fall arrest system.'' This term means a system used to

stop an employee's fall. The proposed definition, which was effectively

identical, did not elicit comments.

``Positioning device system.'' This is a body belt or body harness

system rigged so that an employee can work on an elevated, vertical

working surface with both hands free while leaning. The proposed

definition has been rewritten for clarity. OSHA did not receive any

comments on the proposed definition.

The proposed definition of ``strength factor'' has not been carried

forward into the final rule because this term is not used in the final

rule.

Section 1915.152 General Requirements

Paragraph (a) of the final rule, Provision and use of equipment,

requires that employers provide and ensure that employees use personal

protective equipment for eyes, face, head, extremities, torso, and

respiratory system, including such PPE as protective clothing,

protective shields and barriers, personal fall protection equipment,

and life saving equipment, whenever such PPE is necessary for employee

protection. Except for some editorial changes, this provision is

identical to that in the proposed rule.

Paragraph (b) requires that employers assess the work activities in

the shipyard to identify what hazards are present, or are likely to be

present, which necessitate the use of PPE. OSHA is aware that many

shipyard employers assess workplace hazards according to the trade or

occupation of affected employees. The Agency believes that it is

appropriate to allow employers flexibility in organizing their

assessment efforts. Therefore, OSHA has added a note to the final rule

which provides that a hazard assessment conducted according to the

trade or occupation of affected employees will be considered to comply

with paragraph (b), if the assessment addresses any PPE-related hazards

to which employees are exposed in the course of their work activities.

Where any such hazards are identified, the employer shall select

the appropriate PPE for each affected employee (both in terms of type

of PPE and fit), communicate selection decisions to affected employees,

and document that the hazard assessment has been performed. After the

assessment has been done, the standard does not expressly require the

employer to review the hazard assessment on any periodic basis.

However, it is the Agency's intent that hazard assessments be conducted

at the intervals and on a schedule dictated by the risks in the

workplace. For example, when there is a change in technology,

production operations, or an occupation's task that has the potential

to affect PPE-related hazards, the employer must review the

appropriateness of the existing hazard assessment and the PPE being

used and update the hazard assessment as necessary.

In the proposal, this paragraph required that employers select PPE

for their employees based on an assessment of workplace hazards.

Commenters who responded to the July 6, 1994 notice (59 FR 3486) and

participants at the January 25, 1995 public hearing stated that the

term ``workplace'' that appeared in the requirement for hazard

assessment in proposed section Sec. 1915.152(b) was not appropriate.

They suggested that OSHA instead use the term ``trade'' or ``work

activity.''

For example, the South Tidewater Association of Ship Repairers,

Inc. (Ex 9-3) recommended that OSHA change ``workplace to ``work

activity'' or ``trade.'' Tampa Shipyards Incorporated (Ex. 9-8) stated:

We would definitely agree that PPE used in general industry does

not differ markedly from PPE used in the shipyards. We would point

out the fact that work environment in shipyards is substantially and

drastically different from general industry work environment. Most

of the general industry work environment is a fixed work

environment; manufacturing plant with assembly lines, consistent

work processed, etc. The commercial shipyard work environment

changes not only on a daily basis but sometimes on an hourly basis

depending upon the size and configuration of a ship (or workplace)

and the type of work to be accomplished on board that ship.

The Shipbuilders Council of America (Ex. 9-7) stated:

We believe that standards should be based on generic and uniform

nature of the duties performed by specific categories of employees,

rather than solely by the workplace * * * shipyard workplace that is

neither fixed, nor constant, nor readily quantifiable like

workplaces in all other industries.

In addition, the Shipbuilders Council of America (Tr. pp. 8-9)

testified that:

The general industry standard is specifically targeted toward

fixed facilities and processes, unlike commercial ship repair and

ship building. Now the definition of workplace differs greatly from

a manufacturing environment to a commercial ship repair facility.

Workplace is used throughout the general industry PPE standard. By

definition, workplace means, and I quote out of the Webster's

dictionary, ``a place, shop or factory where work is done.''

The commercial shipyard work environment changes not only on a

daily basis * * * And from personal experience I can tell you it

changes on an hourly basis and on a ship-to-shop basis which varies

by size and configuration.

OSHA acknowledges that shipyard employees--unlike general industry

[[Page 26327]]

employees--may work in several worksites during a shift. OSHA agrees

with the commenters that the term ``workplace'' does not identify the

appropriate source of PPE-related hazards in shipyards and believes

that requiring hazard assessments by trade and related work activities

effectively addresses the PPE-related risks in shipyards.

The proposal also required employers to select PPE that would

protect employees from the particular occupational hazards they were

likely to encounter, to communicate their selection decisions to

employees who would be obtaining their own PPE, and to have employees

who obtain their own PPE follow the employers' selection decisions.

The proposed rule assumed that some employees would be providing

some of their own PPE. For that reason, OSHA specified, in the

proposal, that employers would need to provide any such employees with

PPE selection information and to make sure that their affected

employees obtained the right PPE. This was intended to ensure that

employees are properly protected by their PPE, regardless of who

purchased it.

Subsequently, the Agency determined that it was appropriate to

provide additional guidance regarding when employers would be expected

to pay for PPE and when employees would be expected to pay. On October

18, 1994, OSHA issued a memorandum to its field offices which stated as

follows:

OSHA has interpreted its general PPE standard, as well as

specific standards, to require employers to provide and to pay for

personal protective equipment required by the company for the worker

to do his or her job safely and in compliance with OSHA standards.

Where equipment is very personal in nature and is usable by workers

off the job, the matter of payment may be left to labor-management

negotiations. Examples of PPE that would not normally be used away

from the worksite include, but are not limited to: welding glasses,

wire mesh gloves, respirators, hard hats, specialty glasses and

goggles (designed for laser or ultraviolet radiation protection),

specialty foot protection (such as metatarsal shoes and linemen's

shoes with built in gaffs), face shields and rubber gloves, blankets

and cover-ups and hot sticks and other live-line tools used by power

generation workers. Examples of PPE that is personal in nature and

often used away from the worksite include non-specialty safety

glasses, safety shoes, and cold-weather outer wear of the type worn

by construction workers. However, shoes or outer wear subject to

contamination by carcinogens or other toxic or hazardous substances

which cannot be safely worn off-site must be paid for by the

employer. Failure of the employer to pay for PPE that is not

personal and not used away from the job is a violation and shall be

cited.

Although the equipment used in shipyard employment often differs from

that mentioned in the October 18 memorandum, the same policy

considerations apply in the Shipyard PPE context. Therefore, OSHA will

apply the above-stated policy when determining who pays for the PPE

required under Sec. 1915.152(a).

In addition, the Agency has determined, after further

consideration, that all affected employees need to be informed of PPE

selection decisions in order to facilitate compliance with the

standard. The proposed language that distinguishes between employees

who pay for their own PPE and those who do not has been deleted and the

provision has been revised accordingly. Paragraph (b) has also been

editorially revised for clarity.

In the proposal, paragraph (b) did not specifically address

documentation of the hazard assessment. The recently revised PPE

standard for General Industry (Sec. 1910.132(d)(2)), however, requires

employers to verify through a written certification that a required

hazard assessment has been performed. OSHA explained its decision (59

FR 16336) to require such verification as follows:

OSHA believes 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 * *

* It is not ``necessary for employers to prepare and retain a formal

written hazard assessment.'' Given the performance-oriented nature

of this rulemaking, OSHA has determined that the generation and

review of extensive documentation would be unnecessarily burdensome.

The Agency has found that a written certification is a

reasonable means by which to establish accountability for

compliance.

Therefore, the Agency has determined that employers can

adequately verify compliance with Sec. 1910.132(d) of the final rule

through a written certification which identifies the workplace

evaluated; the person certifying that the evaluation has been

performed, the date(s) of the hazard assessment; and which

identifies the document as a certification of hazard assessment.

Taking into account the similarities between PPE used in General

Industry and that used in Shipyard employment, OSHA reopened the

Shipyard PPE rulemaking record (59 FR 34586, July 6, 1994) to provide

public notice that the Agency was considering a requirement for

shipyard employers to verify their compliance with the hazard

assessment provision through a written certification. The notice of

reopening solicited comments on the need for and impact of a

certification requirement.

The Preamble to the final rule for Fall Protection in Construction

(part 1926, subpart M) (59 FR at 40721, August 9, 1994) underscored the

flexibility employers have in complying with certification

requirements, stating that a ``certification record can be prepared in

any format an employer chooses, including reprinted forms, computer

generated lists, or 3 x 5 cards.''

Commenters to the shipyard PPE record (Exs. 9-3 and 9-7) stated

that any requirement for the certification of hazard assessment should

be focused on employee ``work activity'' or ``trade'' rather than on

the ``workplace.'' For example, the South Tidewater Association of Ship

Repairers (STASR)(Ex. 9-3) stated that ``[t]here is a constant

transition of trades moving among various shops and vessels as well as

a rotation of vessels. It is not feasible for designated shipyard

employees to monitor continuously a ``workplace'' in constant change.''

In addition, STASR observed that it would be advantageous to identify

``a universal requirement for trade-specific PPE as opposed to {a}

site-specific requirement, peculiar to one location.'' The SCA (Ex. 9-

7) stated that shipyard work duties, unlike duties undertaken in a

factory, are neither fixed, constant, nor readily quantifiable.

Three other commenters (Exs. 9-6, 9-8 and 9-9) were particularly

concerned that compliance with the certification requirement under

consideration would necessitate continuous or repeated hazard

assessment. These commenters, along with several others (Exs. 9-1, 9-4,

9-5, 9-11 and 9-13), indicated that they have already implemented

written programs to identify PPE needs, so that certifying performance

of the hazard assessment would be redundant.

In addition, commenters (Exs. 9-10 and 9-14) suggested that OSHA

accept any form of documentation which provides the information needed

to verify compliance. In particular, General Dynamics Electric Boat

Division (EBDiv.) (Ex. 9-10) stated ``EBDiv. recommends that OSHA

continue with its performance oriented approach and allow employers the

flexibility in determining the most efficient and effective manner for

documenting hazard assessments.''

Based on the above-discussed comments, the notice of informal

public meeting (59 FR 64173, December 13, 1994) solicited input

regarding the means by which shipyard employers could adequately verify

compliance with the requirement for hazard assessment. In particular,

the notice stated that OSHA was ``considering the

[[Page 26328]]

extent to which current hazard assessments performed by trade or

occupation provide the necessary information for selection of

appropriate PPE'' and provided examples of trade-based formats (for

welder and for yard maintenance worker) that the Agency might consider

to be acceptable.

In response, commenters (Exs. 11-2, 11-3, 11-6 and 11-8) stated

that the shipyard industry already adequately documents its hazard

assessment activities. NNS (Ex. 11-6) also expressed concern that the

use of the term ``certify'' was unnecessary, stating that certification

``does not contribute to improved safety and health. We suggest that

certification should be replaced by a signature.'' In addition, NNS

testified (Tr. 28-29, January 25, 1995), as follows:

We still don't understand why the word ``certify'' can't be left

behind in favor of the word ``document'' or ``signature'' or some

other type of verbiage. We think that the word ``certify'' carries

with it some connotations that will thwart, if you will, the

employee involvement efforts that we're stepping forward trying to

initiate.

The SCA testified (Tr. 11-12) that:

Where hazard assessment is already in place because of existing

OSHA standards * * * we recommend that these assessments be allowed

to meet the requirements of the portion of this standard.

Where hazard assessment does not exist, and it would be hard for

me to say where it doesn't in the shipyard industry, we'd recommend

that an annual assessment be made of the affected craft, possibly of

the machinery or pipefitting departments. Once the hazard assessment

is conducted for these crafts, we recommend that the company safety

representative be allowed to make these assessments and sign the

assessment certifying his or her review and assessment. This

assessment should be no more than listing the personal protective

equipment required for that particular craft in all working

circumstances.

The UBC Health and Safety Fund of North America (Ex. 12-4) stated

as follows: ``OSHA should require written certification of hazard

assessment for employers to select the Personal Protective Equipment

(PPE) that is necessary for work being performed by trades or

occupations. This assessment should take into account the PPE necessary

to protect employees performing specific work tasks.''

OSHA has concluded that the documentation format described by

commenters and meeting participants will provide adequate assurance

that the required hazard assessment has been performed. The Agency

agrees that a hazard assessment record which conveys the required

information does not need to be called a ``certification.''

Accordingly, the Agency will use the term ``document'' rather than the

term ``certification'' to describe these minimal written record

required under final rule Sec. 1915.152(b)(4). Appendix A provides

several acceptable ways of meeting the requirements, including some

examples of the trade-based formats.

Final rule paragraph (c) requires employers to ensure that

defective or damaged PPE is not used. The proposed paragraph was

essentially identical. This provision does not preclude the repair and

reuse of PPE. OSHA recognizes that there are many situations where PPE

can be removed from service, repaired, and then returned to service.

There were no comments on the proposed paragraph, and OSHA therefore

promulgates this provision as proposed, except for minor editorial

changes.

Final rule paragraph (d) requires that PPE that has been worn by

workers and has become unsanitary be cleaned and disinfected before it

is reissued. There were no comments on the proposed provision, and this

paragraph is unchanged except for minor editorial changes.

Final paragraph (e) sets the training requirements for users of

PPE. OSHA has consistently maintained that employees must be properly

trained in order to benefit from the use of PPE. The proposed part 1910

and part 1915 PPE training provisions were identical, requiring simply

that employees ``be trained in the proper use of their personal

protective equipment.'' As discussed in the part 1910 subpart I final

rule preamble (59 FR 16337-40, April 6, 1994), OSHA divided the

training into four training elements: what affected employees must

understand about their PPE; what PPE-related skills those employees

must have; when affected employees would need retraining; and what

documentation of training was needed.

OSHA concluded that these training elements should also be

considered for inclusion in the shipyard standard. Therefore, the July

6, 1994, shipyard PPE notice discussed the general industry training

provisions and solicited comments. In order to clarify the requirements

for the shipyard industry and provide clear guidance for enforcement,

the Agency has revised this provision (paragraph (e)(2)) to read: ``The

employer shall ensure that each affected employee demonstrates the

ability to use PPE properly before being allowed to perform work

requiring the use of PPE.'' The Agency is not prescribing the means by

which employers comply with this provision.

The general industry PPE standard, Sec. 1910.132(f)(4), provides

that: ``[t]he employer shall verify that each affected employee has

received and understood the required training through a written

certification that contains the name of each employee trained, the

date(s) of training and that identifies the subject of the

certification.''

The comments received in response to the July 6 notice opposed a

requirement for a written certification of compliance. For example,

STASR (Ex. 9-3) commented that:

Every shipyard in the Hampton Roads area has a safety program

and a safety office. Every shipyard mandates usage of safety

equipment for all employees. Those who do not comply are often sent

home. STASR shipyards have safety programs with many of the PPE

standards already in place. The PPE training and recordkeeping

requirements are, in some cases, redundant.

When an employee is hired and undergoes initial training, that

employee can be given a list of equipment to wear while performing a

specific task. This is far preferable to sending a monitor to

evaluate a worksite on a continuous basis. The shipyard may then

certify that an individual has been given the necessary training and

the employee will certify understanding of the safety requirements

for his or her trade.

The SCA (Ex. 9-7) commented that:

We support the general requirement for training as it does serve

to enhance a safer working environment * * * we believe that

training should be focused on trade specific duties of employees

with the greatest emphasis being placed on orientation training at

the outset. PPE serves a very useful purpose, and empirical data

often establishes that causes of accident or occupational injuries

are attributable to the fact that employees failed to comply with

company PPE standards * * *. Additionally, documentation of all

training should be in the form of training logs, which should be

considered to be the equivalent of ``written certification'' in

order to avoid the non value added redundance of record keeping.

Tampa Shipyards Incorporated (Ex. 9-8) stated that:

We are already complying with this proposed standard and we

suspect many other shipyards are also complying with this standard.

Verification through written certification should not be

required if an employer can produce training logs with the

employee's name, the date the training took place, type of training

conducted and the name of the instructor. Training logs should be

interpreted under this standard as ``written certification.''

General Dynamics, Electric Boat Division (EBDiv) (Ex. 9-10)

commented that:

EBDiv agrees with OSHA that training is an essential element of

a PPE program but does not agree that ``training'' as specified in

the standard requires certification.

[[Page 26329]]

EBDiv firmly believes training is a key and necessary component

of safety and health programs. EBDiv provides extensive training to

its employees on a variety of disciplines not mandated by OSHA in

addition to training mandated by OSHA.

Based on these comments, OSHA raised the issue of the need for

documentation of training in the December 13, 1994, meeting notice (59

FR 64173). AWH Corporation (Ex. 11-3) commented that training is

provided when the employee is hired and at weekly ``gangbox'' safety

meetings, and that training is periodically reinforced by including PPE

as a topic at safety meetings.

NNS responded (Ex. 11-6) that ``[t]he requirement to certify PPE

training dictates recording specific information which can later be

retrieved so as to prove training was conducted. We will provide

samples of our existing system at the January 25 meeting.'' NNS

provided copies of training documentation at the meeting (Ex. 12-2) and

testified (Tr. 29-30) as follows:

We've provided a recommended definition for the word

``certify''* * *

``Certify'' means to evaluate subjectively, based on appearance

and available information at that time. The certifying individual in

a training session, for example, would verify that the trained

individual was present during the stated training; he would ensure

that required information was delivered to the target audience in

what he believed to be an understandable fashion, and he would watch

individuals perform activities which indicate that they have

understood the training, and then use his judgment at that time to

determine whether further instruction was needed or not.

The SCA testified (Tr. 13-14, January 25, 1995) as follows:

We would request that training certification requirements be met

in the following manner. Number one, documented new hire orientation

* * *. Secondly, we request that training certification requirements

be met as documented annual refresher training.

We'd recommend this documentation be in the form of training

logs which many of us already keep on the computer * * *

Some of our members suggest * * * giving a new employee a list

of all required safety equipment that he or she should wear at the

time they go through new-hire orientation, just as a reminder * * *

this is already being done in many of our yards.

In response to these submissions, OSHA emphasizes that any

documentation of training that provides the specified information will

provide adequate assurance that the training requirements have been

satisfied. Therefore, Sec. 1915.152(e)(4) of the final rule requires

employers to verify that each affected employee has received the

required training with documentation that includes: employee(s) name;

the date(s) of training, and type of training the employee received. In

the case of an employee who has already been trained (either prior to

the effective date of this standard or by another employer), OSHA will

accept documentation dated as of the time the current employer

determines that the employee has the requisite proficiency.

As discussed above, the rulemaking record indicates that most

shipyard employers are already documenting training in the form of a

log, computer database, or some type of written document. Examples of

acceptable documentation would be records of stand-up safety meetings

and tool box meetings, or a tool room log (where an employee has

checked out PPE such as safety glasses, hard hat, gloves, face shield).

OSHA will accept any form of documentation that effectively

communicates the required information.

Section 1915.153 Eye and Face Protection

Final rule paragraph (a) sets out requirements for eye and face

PPE. Paragraph (a)(1) requires employers to ensure that employees use

eye and face PPE when employees are exposed to eye or face hazards from

flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acid or caustic

chemicals, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light

radiation. This provision is based on the requirements in existing

Sec. 1915.151 (b)(1) and (c)(1). This provision is essentially

unchanged from that proposed. OSHA did not receive any comments on this

provision.

Final paragraph (a)(2) provides that front and side protection must

be used when there is a hazard from flying objects. Detachable side

protectors (for example clip-on or slide-on side shields) meeting the

pertinent requirements of this section are acceptable.

OSHA has determined that detachable side shields that meet the

pertinent criteria (ANSI Z87.1-1989, as referenced by final rule

Sec. 1915.153 (b)(1) and (b)(2)) will provide adequate protection from

flying objects. Permitting detachable side shields will allow employers

the flexibility to use this kind of protection when necessary, based on

the working conditions at the employee's occupation or trade. The

Agency has concluded that the same considerations that supported the

adoption of such a requirement in other corresponding OSHA standards

are relevant to shipyard employment.

Employers should be aware that some PPE could create new hazards to

employees. For example, allowing employees to wear wire-frame glasses

(plano or prescription safety glasses) around energized electrical

parts would increase the potential for electric shock.

In the proposal, paragraph (a)(2) required that eye and face

protective equipment properly fit employees. In the final rule

Sec. 1915.152(b)(3) already requires that all PPE properly fit

employees, and OSHA has therefore not included proposed paragraph

(a)(2) in the final rule.

Paragraph (a)(3) addresses appropriate eye PPE for employees who

wear prescription lenses. This provision requires that employers

provide each such employee either with eye protection that incorporates

the prescription in its design or with PPE that can be worn over

prescription lenses without disturbing the proper position of the

lenses. The final provision, which is essentially the same as the

proposed paragraph except for minor editorial changes, elicited no

comments.

Proposed paragraph (a)(3) required that protectors with tinted or

variable tinted lenses not be worn when an employee was required in the

course of work to pass from a brightly lit area, such as outdoors, into

a dimly lit area, such as a vessel section. The Agency proposed this

requirement to reduce the potential for extreme changes in lighting to

temporarily impair an employee's vision.

OSHA received four comments on this provision, all addressing the

same point. The commenters (Exs. 6-5, 6-6, 6-9 and 6-10) opposed any

prohibition on the use of tinted or variable tint lenses.

Colonna's Shipyard, for example, stated that:

The use of the terms ``well lighted'' and ``dimly lighted'' are

vague. Tinted lenses, that primarily reduce glare, may not

appreciably reduce the amount of light passing through the lenses.

As technology improves, variable tint lenses have been shown to

reduce the time it takes for the lenses to change from full shading

to minimal shading. In fact, employees coming from an interior

location into brilliant sunlight can be temporarily blinded by the

sun's glare.

In addition, two comments received on proposed subpart B of part

1915 (Doc. S-505) (Ex. 6-15, Bay Shipbuilding Corp. (BSC) and Ex. 6-36,

Peterson Builders, Inc. (PBI)), addressed this proposed provision. BSC

stated that: ``Protectors with tinted or variable tint lenses should

not be worn when an employee passes from a well lighted area into a

dimly lighted area. Tinting over #2 shade is too dark, but #2 shade or

under is felt to be acceptable and safe in most areas.''

[[Page 26330]]

PBI stated that:

We need the use of tinted lenses to protect our employees from

stray ultraviolet rays from weld arc. We presently limit our

employees to a 1.7 tint on safety glasses. We are also in favor of

the use of the variable tint lenses. This standard is in

contradiction to 1915.153A1, which requires us to protect employees

from injurious light radiation. This has not been a problem for us

in causing accidents.

After evaluating the information in the record for this rulemaking

(Doc. S-045), OSHA has concluded that the proposed requirement was too

restrictive. The Agency has determined that the employer (for example,

through the services of the company's safety professional) is in the

best position to determine when tinted or variable tint lenses should

be used, based on an awareness of working conditions. This approach is

consistent with the current ANSI standard (ANSI Z87.1-1989, paragraph

6.5.2), which is (as discussed below) being incorporated by reference

in the final rule. Accordingly, proposed paragraph (a)(3) has not been

retained in the final rule.

Paragraph (a)(4) is essentially unchanged from the proposed

paragraph. It requires employers to ensure that affected employees use

equipment with filter lenses for protection against injurious light

radiation and that the lenses have a shade number that is appropriate

for the work being performed. Table I-1--Filter Lenses for Protection

Against Radiant Energy--lists the necessary shade numbers for various

operations. These provisions are consistent with other OSHA standards

(existing Sec. 1915.151(c)(1) and Table I-1 in Sec. 1915.118).

In addition, a note to this provision states that, when goggle

lenses and a helmet lens are worn together, the shade value of the two

lenses can be summed to satisfy the shade requirements of Table I-1,

Sec. 1915.153. Bath Iron Works Corporation (BIWC) (Ex. 6-7) objected to

this note, stating that the validity of the additive approach to filter

lens selection has not been adequately demonstrated and violates

accepted industry practice. OSHA disagrees with this view, because the

technical experts responsible for the applicable consensus standard,

ANSI Z87.1-1989, have indicated that the additive use of lenses is

protective, provided that the combined values sum to the necessary

value. Therefore, the note to Table I-1 has been retained.

Paragraph (b) sets performance criteria for eye and face PPE.

Paragraph (b)(1) provides that protective eye and face devices

purchased after August 22, 1996 shall comply with ANSI Z87.1-1989,

``American National Standard Practice for Occupational and Educational

Eye and Face Protection,'' which is incorporated by reference, or shall

be demonstrated by the employer to be equally effective. PPE which

satisfies the criteria set by subsequent editions of the pertinent ANSI

standard will be considered to comply with paragraph (b)(1) if the

updated ANSI criteria are substantively unchanged or provide equivalent

protection.

In the proposal, this paragraph, which was designated paragraph

(b)(1), required that the design of eye and face protection, in

general, comply with the provisions of ANSI Z87.1-1979, while

providing, in the alternative, that plano (non-prescription) spectacles

comply with the performance-oriented criteria set out in proposed

paragraph (b)(2). Shortly after the NPRM was issued, the 1979 edition

of Z87.1 was superseded by the current 1989 edition. ANSI Z87.1-1989 is

effectively identical to ANSI Z87.1-1979, except that the 1989 revision

deleted design restrictive language that had limited the use of new

technology in eye and face PPE. OSHA believes that performance-oriented

regulatory language, such as that referenced from ANSI Z87.1-1989, will

provide employers with appropriate flexibility to protect their

employees while taking the particular circumstances of their workplaces

into account. The Agency further believes that allowing employees to

rely on the 1989 edition will facilitate compliance with the final

rule, but will not prevent employers from using PPE that would have

been allowed under proposed paragraph (b)(1).

Final rule paragraph (b)(2) requires that eye and face PPE

purchased before August 22, 1996 comply with ANSI Z87.1-1979 or be

demonstrated by the employer to be equally effective. OSHA has

determined that it is appropriate to allow the continued use of such

PPE in order to avoid imposing unreasonable burdens on employers. As

noted above, the substantive provisions of the 1979 and 1989 editions

are effectively identical, so employee safety would not be furthered by

requiring that employers remove PPE tested under ANSI Z87.1-1979 from

service. In this way existing stocks of PPE can be depleted, and any

replacement PPE must satisfy the criteria referenced in ANSI Z87.1-

1989.

Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would have set performance-oriented

criteria for plano spectacles, addressing impact protection, optical

requirements, flammability resistance and radiant energy protection.

This paragraph was included in the proposal because OSHA had determined

that the design provisions (such as for minimum lens thickness or frame

design) of the consensus standard referenced by existing

Sec. 1915.151(a)(1) (ANSI Z2.1-1959) were outdated. The removal of the

design restrictive language from ANSI Z87.1 when it was revised in 1989

eliminated the need to address this problem in the final rule.

Accordingly, no such provision appears in the final rule.

Section 1915.154 Respiratory Protection

Final rule Sec. 1915.154 incorporates existing Sec. 1910.134,

Respiratory protection, by reference, as was proposed. The shipyard

industry has been complying for years with Sec. 1910.134 with regard to

its respiratory protection programs. The two comments received on

proposed Sec. 1915.154 (Exs. 6-1 and 6-2) agreed with OSHA's proposal

to replace Sec. 1915.152, the existing shipyard respirator standard,

with Sec. 1910.134. Both comments expressed the belief that

Sec. 1910.134 is more protective and certainly more current than

Sec. 1915.152.

OSHA has published a proposed revision of Sec. 1910.134,

Respiratory Protection, which covers general industry, construction and

shipyard employment (59 FR 58884, Nov. 15, 1994). When the revised

respiratory protection standard becomes a final rule, OSHA will apply

that rule to shipyard employment.

Section 1915.155 Head Protection

Final rule paragraph (a) addresses the use of protective helmets.

Paragraph (a)(1) requires employers to ensure that affected employees

wear protective helmets when they are working in areas where there is a

potential for head injury from falling objects. This requirement is

essentially the same as current Sec. 1915.153(a). The national

consensus standard for protective headgear, ANSI Z89.1, referenced in

final rule Sec. 1915.155(b), deals only with the head injury hazards

posed by falling objects and high-voltage electric shock and burn.

Therefore, this section of the final rule addresses PPE that is used to

protect the head from these hazards.

The proposed rule addressed the use of protective helmets where

there was potential for injury to the head from falling or moving

objects. The duty to protect employees from other hazards to the head,

such as moving objects, may be invoked through the general requirements

of final rule Sec. 1915.152(a) when such hazards are identified by the

hazard assessment.

[[Page 26331]]

Commenting on proposed subpart B of part 1915 (Doc. S-050, Ex. 6-15

of Docket #S-050), BSC stated: ``The standard should reflect what is

stated in the ANSI standard for head protection.'' As noted above, the

ANSI standard addresses falling object, not moving object, hazards and

proposed paragraph (a)(1) has been revised accordingly.

Paragraph (a)(2) requires that affected employees wear protective

helmets designed to reduce electric shock hazards when working in areas

containing potential electrical hazards or energized conductors. This

provision is essentially identical to the proposed provision and to

other corresponding OSHA standards.

Final rule paragraph (b) sets the performance criteria for

protective helmets. This paragraph provides that protective helmets

purchased after August 22, 1996 shall comply with ANSI Z89.1-1986,

``Personnel Protection--Protective Headwear for Industrial Workers--

Requirements,'' which has been incorporated by reference, or shall be

demonstrated by the employer to be equally protective. PPE which

satisfies the criteria set by subsequent editions of the pertinent ANSI

standard will be considered to comply with paragraph (b) if the updated

ANSI criteria are substantively unchanged or provide equivalent

protection. The Agency believes that this performance-oriented approach

will encourage innovation and the use of improved equipment. The

proposed rule also referenced the 1986 edition of ANSI Z89.1.

The consensus standard (ANSI Z.2-1959) referenced by the existing

rule (Sec. 1915.153(a)) has been superseded several times since the

existing standards were adopted. OSHA does not expect that much, if

any, head PPE which was produced to meet the 1959 requirements is still

in use. Furthermore, the Agency has concluded that ANSI Z.2-1959 does

not provide adequate guidance regarding the selection of appropriate

head protection. Therefore, unlike final rule Sec. 1915.153, this

section does not explicitly ``grandfather'' PPE which complies with the

existing rule. Employers can continue to have their employees use head

PPE which was produced to comply with a pre-1986 edition of ANSI Z89.1

if the employer establishes that the equipment either satisfies the

performance criteria of ANSI Z89.1-1986 or provides equivalent

protection.

The 1969 and 1986 editions of ANSI Z89.1 set essentially the same

requirements, except with regard to electric insulation for Class B

helmets. The Agency has concluded that Class B helmets already in use

which satisfied the criteria set by the 1969 edition would also satisfy

the 1986 criteria. Accordingly, final rule paragraph (b)(2) allows

employers to continue to use protective helmets purchased before the

effective date of the standard being published today provided that such

helmets meet the criteria of ANSI Z.89.1-1969. This means that

employers will not be required to replace protective helmets currently

in use if they meet these criteria.

Section 1915.156 Foot Protection

Final paragraph (a) requires that affected employees wear

protective footwear when they are exposed to hazards from falling and

rolling objects, electrical hazards, and objects that may pierce a shoe

sole. This is consistent with requirements in other corresponding OSHA

standards. This language, which is effectively identical to that in the

proposal, differs from existing Sec. 1915.153(d), which requires

employers only to make safety shoes available and ``encourage'' their

use. OSHA believes that requiring employers to have affected employees

wear protective footwear is necessary to protect their feet from the

risk of serious injury. The AWSC (Ex. 6-4) commented that it would

impose a cost burden on employers if they were required to purchase

safety shoes for their employees. Therefore, they recommended that OSHA

not require the employer to pay for foot protection, stating as

follows:

The current regulatory language concerning foot protection of

employees requires the employer to encourage the use of and make

available appropriate foot protection. The new language states that

the employer ``shall ensure that employees wear protective

footwear.'' AWSC does not object to the practice of wearing the

correct protective footwear, and supports the use of this type of

personal protective equipment. However, the new language indicates a

dramatic shift from current shipyard operations.

Shipyard facilities have instituted many different policies to

provide protective footwear to the employee, including disallowing

employees to work at the facility unless they are wearing the

appropriate footwear and providing an allowance to purchase the

footwear. Lists of available and appropriate suppliers are

circulated to the employees as a guide.

OSHA also received a comment on this subject from PBI (Docket S-

050, Ex. 6-36) that stated: ``This requirement is going to be cost

prohibitive. We presently recommend safety shoes and contribute to

their purchase. However, this standard would practically make them

mandatory throughout the shipyard. Our injury experience does not

indicate a need for mandatory safety shoes.''

As discussed above in reference to the provision for hazard

assessment, subpart I requires employers to identify the hazards to

which their employees may be exposed and have those employees equipped

accordingly. Therefore, employees would be required to wear protective

footwear only when such protection was appropriate. In addition, as

discussed above in reference to OSHA's 1994 Memorandum on PPE, OSHA

interprets the part 1915 subpart I requirements for employers to

provide PPE to mean that employers pay for PPE required by the company

for the worker to do his or her job safely and in compliance with OSHA

standards. The above discussed policy memorandum specifically indicates

that employers should expect to pay for specialty foot protection. On

the other hand, OSHA policy also provides that payment for PPE which is

personal in nature and useable away from the workplace (such as safety

shoes) is left to labor-management negotiations.

Final rule paragraph (b) sets the performance criteria for

protective footwear. Paragraph (b)(1) provides that protective footwear

purchased after August 22, 1996 shall comply with ANSI Z41-1991,

``American National Standard for Personal Protection-Protective

Footwear,'' or shall be demonstrated by the employer to be equally

protective.

In addition, paragraph (b)(2) allows protective footwear purchased

before August 22, 1996 to continue to comply with ANSI Z41-1983,

Personal Protection-Protective Footwear, or footwear that the employer

can demonstrate to be equally protective. PPE which satisfies the

criteria set by subsequent editions of the pertinent ANSI standard will

be considered to comply with paragraph (b) if the updated ANSI criteria

are substantively unchanged or provide equivalent protection. The

Agency believes that this performance-oriented approach will encourage

innovation and the use of improved equipment. Proposed paragraph (b)

referenced the 1983 edition of ANSI Z41 for all protective footwear.

The 1991 edition of ANSI Z41, which has superseded the 1983

edition, imposes essentially the same requirements as the 1983 edition,

except that the 1991 edition provides more specific performance

requirements for resistance to compressive forces and standardizes the

puncture resistance testing methods. OSHA believes that referencing

ANSI Z41-1991 for shoes

[[Page 26332]]

purchased after August 22, 1996 provides appropriate and up-to-date

criteria for employers and employees seeking to buy protective

footwear.

OSHA has determined that it is appropriate to provide explicitly

for the continued use of foot PPE purchased prior to the effective date

of the final rule, as long as it complies with the pertinent provisions

of the ANSI standard (ANSI Z41-1983) referenced by the proposed rule.

In this way, the Agency avoids imposing unreasonable burdens on

employers.

Section 1915.157 Hand and Body Protection

Final rule Sec. 1915.157 addresses hand and body PPE. Paragraph (a)

requires employers to ensure that affected employees use appropriate

PPE when their hands or other parts of their bodies are exposed to

hazards that could lead to injuries. The final rule identifies skin

absorption of harmful substances, severe cuts or lacerations, severe

abrasions, punctures, chemical burns, thermal burns, harmful

temperature extremes, and sharp objects as examples of hazards that

would require the use of PPE. The proposed provision was essentially

identical to that in the final rule, except that it identified the

hazards requiring protection in more general terms.

Final rule paragraph (b) requires employers to ensure that no

employee wears clothing impregnated or covered in part with flammable

or combustible materials (such as grease or oil) while engaged in hot

work operations or working near an ignition source. This requirement is

necessary to protect workers in hot work operations from fire hazards.

The proposed rule stated that employees shall not wear greasy

clothing when performing hot work operations. Existing Sec. 1915.153(e)

provides that employees shall not be permitted to wear ``excessively

greasy'' clothing while performing hot work operations.

The AWSC recommended (Ex. 6-4) that the word ``excessively'' be

retained in the regulatory text of the final rule.

Shipyard work by definition is not a clean activity. Employees'

clothing will be dirty. However, the clothing may not be ``greasy''

or even excessively greasy. Deletion of the descriptive term

``excessively'' will create rather than diminish compliance

problems. We do not advocate that employees wear excessively greasy

clothes when performing hot work operations, but without a proper

explanation by OSHA as to the rationale for deleting the term, we

advocate retention of the word ``excessively'' in the proposed

language.

In addition, BSC commented (Ex. 6-15 in Docket S-050) that the

language of the proposed paragraph was unclear. BSC suggested that OSHA

revise the proposed language to require that employees ``not wear

clothing impregnated with flammable or combustible materials when

performing hot work operations.''

OSHA believes that retention of the term ``excessively,'' as

suggested by the AWSC, could potentially complicate compliance because

the Agency has not established a measurable, objective standard for

determining what is excessive. Moreover, the risk of flammability

exists when clothing is impregnated, or covered, even impart, with a

flammable or combustible substance. Therefore, the Agency has concluded

that it is appropriate to prohibit employees from wearing clothing

impregnated or covered with a flammable or combustible substance during

hot work operations. The Agency agrees with the BSC that the standard

needs to address all flammable and combustible materials, not just

grease, and that adding the term ``impregnated'' (in the sense of

permeated, imbued, or saturated) will more clearly express OSHA's

intent. The provision has been revised accordingly.

Final rule paragraph (c) requires that the employer have employees

wear protective electrical insulating gloves and sleeves, or other

rubber protective equipment that provides equivalent protection when

the employees are exposed to electrical shock hazards while working on

electrical equipment. The proposed rule was effectively identical,

except that it did not provide for the use of ``other electrical

protective equipment.'' The Agency has determined that the addition of

this performance-oriented revision will encourage innovation and

facilitate compliance.

Section 1915.158 Lifesaving Equipment

This section sets requirements for lifesaving equipment used in

shipyard employment. Some of the language in the final rule has been

editorially revised to reflect the language used in the U.S. Coast

Guard's standard for approved lifesaving equipment (46 CFR part 160).

OSHA's existing Sec. 1915.154(a) specifies that the above-cited U.S.

Coast Guard requirements for this equipment shall be followed. The OSHA

final rule provides clarification of acceptable personal flotation

devices and uses terminology that is consistent with current Coast

Guard requirements. Also, for Type IV PFDs, the U.S. Coast Guard

regulations use the term ``ring life buoys'' rather than the term

``life rings'' as proposed by OSHA. Therefore, OSHA has replaced ``life

rings'' with ``ring life buoy'' wherever the term appeared in the

proposal. The proposed language did not elicit any comments.

Final rule paragraph (a)(1) requires that personal flotation

devices (PFDs) worn by employees be approved by the U.S. Coast Guard as

a Type I PFD, Type II PFD, Type III PFD, or Type V PFD, unless the

employer provides employee worn equipment that is as effective as the

types listed (e.g., a Coast Guard approved immersion suit). Any PFD

which is U.S. Coast Guard approved and marked as a Type I PFD, Type II

PFD or Type III PFD is acceptable to OSHA for use by employees. A Type

V PFD, including Type V Hybrid PFDs, is acceptable to OSHA for use by

employees if it is U.S. Coast Guard approved and marked for use as a

work vest, for commercial use, or for use on vessels. The language of

the proposed paragraph, which was based on existing Sec. 1915.154(a),

has been editorially revised and clarified in the final rule.

Final rule paragraph (a)(2), addressing the inspection of PFD's,

was proposed by the Agency for deletion with the intent of covering

defective PFD equipment under revised general requirements

Sec. 1915.152(c), ``Defective and damaged equipment.'' After further

consideration the Agency has concluded that a PFD is critical

lifesaving equipment which requires specific inspection prior to each

use for dry rot, chemical damage, or other defects (such as tears,

punctures, missing or non- functioning components) which affect their

strength and buoyancy. Therefore, the language of existing

Sec. 1915.154(b) is being retained in the final rule.

Paragraph (b) establishes requirements for ring life buoys and

ladders. Paragraph (b)(1) requires that at least three 30-inch (0.78 m)

U.S. Coast Guard approved ring life buoys with lines attached be kept

in readily visible and accessible places when working on a floating

vessel of 200 or more feet (61 meters). Ring life buoys must be located

one forward, one aft, and one at the access to the gangway. Locating

ring life buoys at these positions ensures that one will be readily

available if a worker falls overboard at any point along the ship's

length. This paragraph, which is based on existing Sec. 1915.154(c)(1),

is essentially identical to the proposed paragraph.

Paragraph (b)(2) requires floating vessels under 200 feet (61 m) in

length to have at least one 30-inch (0.78 m) U.S. Coast Guard approved

ring life buoy with line attached located at the gangway. The proposed

paragraph,

[[Page 26333]]

based on existing Sec. 1915.154(c)(1), was essentially the same.

Paragraph (b)(3) requires that at least one 30-inch (0.78 m) U. S.

Coast Guard approved ring life buoy with a line attached be located on

each staging float alongside the floating vessels from which work is

being performed. The proposed paragraph, which was based on existing

Sec. 1915.154(c)(2), is effectively identical to the final rule's

provision.

Paragraph (b)(4) requires at least 90 feet (27 m) of line to be

attached to each ring life buoy. The proposed requirement, which was

based on existing Sec. 1915.154(c)(3), was effectively identical to the

final rule.

Paragraph (b)(5) requires that at least one portable or permanently

installed ladder be in the vicinity of each floating vessel on which

work is being performed. The provision further requires that the

ladder(s) be of sufficient length to assist employees to reach safety

in the event that they fall into the water. The proposed paragraph,

which was based on existing Sec. 1915.154(c)(4), was effectively

identical to the final rule.

Section 1915.159 Personal Fall Arrest Systems

This section sets performance criteria and other requirements for

the use of personal fall arrest systems.

The Agency has determined that the fall hazards encountered by

shipyard employees correspond to those faced by employees in other

industries, and that it is therefore appropriate for OSHA to consider

the information generated in general industry fall protection PPE

rulemakings when drafting the final rule for shipyard PPE. The fall

protection PPE criteria in proposed Sec. 1915.159 were very similar to

those in the corresponding proposed general industry standard (proposed

Secs. 1910.128 and 1910.129).

The record for the general industry fall protection PPE rulemaking

(Docket S-057) indicated that the Agency should consider revising the

proposed rule to prohibit the use of non-locking snaphooks and to

disallow the use of body belts in personal fall arrest systems. This

record, in turn, is directly relevant as the Agency considers

corresponding changes in proposed Sec. 1915.159.

To provide the public with notice and an opportunity to comment on

the need for such revisions to the shipyard PPE proposed rule, the

Agency solicited input through the July 6, 1994 notice of reopening (59

FR 34586) and the December 13, 1994 meeting notice (59 FR 64173). The

response to those notices is discussed below.

OSHA obtained evidence (Docket S-057) in the General Industry

rulemaking that employees who fall while wearing body belts are not

protected as well as they would be if the fall occurred while the

employee was wearing a body harness, and that the use of body belts has

resulted in injuries to falling employees. A large number of rulemaking

participants (Exs. 9-9, 9-10, 11-7, Tr. p. 23, Tr. pp. 59-61) supported

prohibiting the use of body belts in fall protection systems. For

example, Atlantic Marine (Ex. 9-9) endorsed the use of body harnesses

as a safer method for employees, stating: ``While the cost of body

harnesses is usually twice the amount of the body belts, the added

safety factor to the employee is well worth the money, and in the long

run, will save the company money in case of an accident.''

General Dynamics, Electric Boat Division, (Ex. 9-10) stated that it

utilizes body harnesses for all of its fall protection needs.

Bath Iron Works Corporation/Local S6 (BIWC/Local S6) (Ex. 11-7)

commented that they use only body harnesses in fall arrest systems and

use either body harnesses or body belts in positioning device systems.

BIW/Local S6 stated that it ``fully supports the implementation of the

proposed changes to [part 1915] subpart I.''

The SCA testified (Tr. 23) that its members support the use of body

harnesses in personal fall arrest systems, stating ``many of our yards

already use them. We find them to be very effective, and everybody

seems to certainly feel a lot safer with them.''

In addition, the Engineering and Safety Service (E&S) testified

(Tr. 59-61) that ``body belts have no useful purpose in a personal fall

arrest system. E&S believes that an effective personal fall arrest

system must incorporate a full body harness to protect the worker from

injury and to provide an opportunity for rescue.''

However, NNS (Ex. 9-11) responded as follows:

We reviewed all falls occurring at NNS since January 1, 1991.

None of those occurring involved an injury which could have been

prevented or mitigated by using a harness over a belt. NNS mostly

uses belts with double acting clips. To replace all of our body

belts with harnesses would cost in excess of $570,000. Clearly, this

is another unwarranted cost adversely affecting our global

competitiveness without enhancing the safety of our employees.

The December 13, 1994 notice (59 FR 64173) solicited 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.

In their comments to this notice, NNS stated as follows:

We now understand that OSHA will agree to a phased replacement

of body belts to offset the initial cost of purchasing large

quantities of body harnesses. We will provide life cycle and

replacement information at the January 25 meeting which should help

OSHA to determine what the phased replacement period should be.

NNS subsequently testified (Tr. 34-35):

We see body harnesses coming, and we need a significant period

of phase-in time for this to have a minimal financial impact on our

operations. We've got 4,000 some-odd body belts either on issue or

available for issue. Replacing all of those at once would cost use

some $570,000 * * * [W]e'd like a reasonable period of time to phase

the harnesses in, and that reasonable period of time, based on our

inventory and our estimated useful life of a body belt, is seven

years.

Based on the information in Docket S-057 and the shipyard industry

input discussed above, OSHA has decided to bar the use of body belts in

personal fall arrest systems. OSHA believes, however, that it is

appropriate to allow a phase-out period, ending December 31, 1997,

rather than to establish an immediate prohibition, so that shipyard

employers can continue to use their body belts while they switch over

to body harnesses. OSHA urges employers to phase out the use of body

belts in personal fall arrest systems as soon as possible so that

employees may be spared exposure to the increased risk of injuries from

body belt use. It is important to note that body belts may continue to

be used in positioning device systems even after they have been banned

in fall arrest systems. OSHA has included paragraphs (b)(6)(i),

(c)(1)(i), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(8) in the final rule to provide

criteria for any body belts that are used in personal fall arrest

systems during the phase-out period.

In addition, OSHA has determined that it is appropriate, given the

dangers related to ``roll-out,'' to phase-out the use of non-locking

connectors. The phase-out period will avoid imposing undue hardship on

employers who currently use non-locking snaphooks. As discussed in the

July 6, 1994 notice of reopening, the Agency has concluded that the

same considerations which supported the adoption of such a requirement

in other corresponding OSHA PPE standards apply to personal fall arrest

system components used in shipyard employment. OSHA has

[[Page 26334]]

concluded that compliance with final rule paragraphs (a)(5) and (a)(6)

will effectively minimize any problems related to the use of non-

locking snaphooks during the phase-out period.

The input received in response to the July 6, 1994 reopening notice

(59 FR 345860) and the December 13, 1994 meeting notice (59 FR 64173)

indicated shipyard industry support for a ban on the use of non-locking

snaphooks. For example, General Dynamics, Electric Boat Division (Ex.

9-10) stated that it ``utilizes locking snaphooks and therefore takes

no issue with the proposed * * * language.''

NNS (Tr. 52) and the UBC Health and Safety Fund of North America

(UBC) (Tr. 86) testified that OSHA should require the use of locking

snaphooks. In particular, the UBC stated that ``OSHA should prohibit

the use of non-locking snap hooks because of the recognized danger of

roll-out and the resulting possibility of employee falls.''

Accordingly, Sec. 1915.159 of the final rule bans the use of non-

locking snaphooks in fall arrest systems, effective January 1, 1998.

Final rule paragraph (a) sets criteria for connectors and

anchorages used in personal fall arrest systems. Except where otherwise

indicated, any final rule provisions which were not proposed have been

added to the standard because the Agency has concluded that the same

considerations which supported the adoption of such requirements in

other corresponding PPE standards apply to personal fall arrest systems

and components used in shipyard employment.

Paragraph (a)(1), proposed as paragraph (a)(7), requires that

connectors be made of drop forged, pressed, or formed steel or

materials equivalent in strength. The connectors used in personal fall

arrest systems must be made of steel or equivalent materials to

withstand failure under fall conditions. As discussed above in relation

to the definitions (Sec. 1915.151(b)), OSHA has replaced the proposed

term ``hardware'' with the term ``connector.'' Otherwise, the proposed

and final rule language are identical.

Final rule paragraph (a)(2), proposed as paragraph (a)(8), requires

that connectors have a corrosion-resistant finish and that all surfaces

and edges be smooth to prevent damage to the interfacing parts of the

system. The only difference between the final rule's provision and the

proposed provision is the use of the term ``connector'' instead of

``hardware.''

Final rule paragraph (a)(3), proposed as paragraph (a)(14),

requires that D-rings and snaphooks used in these systems be capable of

sustaining a minimum tensile load of 5,000 pounds (22.2 kN). No

comments were received on this paragraph.

Final rule paragraph (a)(4), which is also a new provision,

requires that D-rings and snaphooks be 100 percent proof tested to a

minimum tensile load of 3,600 pounds (16 Kn) without cracking,

breaking, or being permanently deformed. The provision is included to

ensure the strength of all D-rings and snaphooks.

Paragraph (a)(5), which was not proposed, provides that snaphooks

shall either be sized so as to prevent unintentional disengagement of

the snaphook or shall be of a locking type which is designed and used

to prevent disengagement of the snaphook. This provision has been added

to prevent ``rollout'' conditions in a personal fall arrest system

during the phase-out period for non-locking snaphooks.

Final rule paragraph (a)(6) requires that snaphooks, unless of a

locking type designed and used to prevent disengagement from the

following connections, must not be attached:

(i) Directly to webbing, rope, or wire rope;

(ii) To each other;

(iii) To a D-ring to which another snaphook or other connector is

attached;

(iv) To a horizontal lifeline, or

(v) To any other object that is shaped incompatibly or dimensioned

in relation to the snaphook such that the connected object could

depress the snaphook keeper a sufficient amount for release.

Proposed paragraphs (a)(15), (a)(16), and (a)(17), which set similar

requirements, have been clarified and consolidated in final rule

paragraph (a)(6).

Final rule paragraph (a)(7), which is a new provision, requires

that devices used for connection to the horizontal lifeline on

suspended scaffolds, or to similar work platforms with horizontal

lifelines that may become vertical lifelines, be capable of locking in

any direction on the lifeline. Because a suspended scaffold or platform

could lose its support at either end, the connection device must be

able to lock on the lifeline regardless of which end goes down.

Final rule paragraph (a)(8), requires that anchorages used for the

attachment of personal fall arrest equipment be independent of any

anchorage being used to support or suspend platforms. Final rule

paragraph (a)(9) requires that anchorages either be capable of

supporting at least 5,000 pounds (22.2 Kn) per employee attached or be

designed, installed, and used as part of a complete personal fall

arrest system that maintains a safety factor of at least two, and is

used under the direction and supervision of a qualified person. Both

provisions are based on proposed paragraph (a)(10).

Proposed paragraph (a)(10) required that personal fall arrest

systems be secured to an anchorage capable of supporting at least twice

the potential impact load of an employee's fall. E&S testified (Tr. 63-

64) that it was ``concerned about the safety factor requirements for an

anchorage in the proposed standard * * * [E&S] does not believe the

average worker is capable of determining the safe limits of an

anchorage.'' In the course of subsequent questioning (Tr. 70-71), E&S

agreed that anchorages installed as part of a completely designed

personal fall arrest system, and used under the supervision of a

qualified person, would provide adequate support for employees. This

approach, taken in the corresponding construction and general industry

rulemakings, has been adopted in the shipyard PPE final rule. The final

rule provisions, while reformatted for the sake of clarity, are

essentially the same as the proposed provision.

Final rule paragraph (b) sets criteria for lifelines, lanyards, and

personal fall arrest systems. Paragraph (b)(1) requires that each

employee be provided with a separate lifeline when vertical lifelines

are used. Proposed paragraph (a)(9), which elicited no comments, was

essentially identical to this provision of the final rule.

Final rule paragraph (b)(2) requires vertical lifelines (droplines)

and lanyards to have a minimum breaking strength of 5,000 pounds (22.2

Kn). This provision of the final rule consolidates the strength

requirements contained in proposed paragraphs (a)(11) and (a)(13). The

elements of proposed paragraph (a)(11), which addressed self-retracting

lifelines, have been redesignated final rule paragraphs (b)(3) and

(b)(4), as discussed below. The ``exception'' to the 5000-pound

strength requirements contained in proposed paragraph (a)(13) appears

in the final rule as a separate provision, paragraph (b)(3), to more

clearly express the Agency's intent. OSHA received no comments on the

proposed paragraphs relating to lifelines, lanyards, and personal fall

arrest systems. The Agency has determined that reformatting the

proposed requirements will facilitate compliance efforts for employers

whose employees use vertical lifelines or lanyards.

Final rule paragraph (b)(3) requires that self-retracting lifelines

and lanyards which automatically limit free fall to 2

[[Page 26335]]

feet (0.61 m) or less be capable of sustaining a minimum static tensile

load of 3,000 pounds (13.3 Kn) applied to the device with the lifeline

or lanyard in the fully extended position. Final rule paragraph (b)(4)

requires that self-retracting lifelines and lanyards which do not limit

free fall distances to 2 feet (0.61 m) or less (for example: ripstitch

lanyards, tearing, and deforming lanyards) be capable of sustaining a

minimum tensile load of 5,000 pounds (22.2 Kn) applied to the device

(with the lifeline or lanyard in the fully extended position if such a

condition can occur in use). As discussed above, final rule paragraphs

(b)(3) and (b)(4), which are based on proposed paragraph (a)(11), have

been included in the final rule as separate paragraphs for clarity.

Final rule paragraph (b)(5) (revised from proposed paragraph

(a)(12)) requires that horizontal lifelines to be used as part of a

complete personal fall arrest system be designed and installed under

the supervision of a qualified person and have a safety factor of at

least two. The proposed provision required that horizontal lifelines

have sufficient strength to support a fall impact force of at least

5,000 pounds (22.2 Kn). As discussed above, the Agency has concluded

that the same considerations which supported the adoption of such a

requirement in the other corresponding OSHA standards apply to personal

fall arrest system components used in shipyard employment. OSHA has

revised the final rule accordingly.

Final rule paragraph (b)(6) sets the systems performance criteria

for personal fall arrest systems. These are new requirements, so OSHA

is making this provision effective November 20, 1996 in order to allow

employers a reasonable amount of time to attain compliance. The note to

final rule paragraph (b)(6) indicates that Non-mandatory Appendix B

provides examples of criteria and protocols for designing and testing

personal fall arrest systems that OSHA would consider to comply with

the standard.

Proposed paragraph (a)(4) was similar to final rule paragraph

(b)(6), except that the proposed rule set 1,800 pounds (rather than 900

pounds) as the maximum arresting force limit for systems that used body

belts and required that a system have a strength factor of two (based

on a design weight of 250 pounds per employee). Also, as discussed

below, the proposed requirement that free fall be limited to six feet

has been redesignated as a separate provision, final rule paragraph

(b)(7), for the sake of clarity. The note to proposed paragraph

(a)(4)(iv) is essentially identical to that which appears in the final

rule, except for editorial revisions. As discussed above, in reference

to the July 6, 1994 notice (59 FR 34586), the Agency has concluded that

the same considerations which supported the adoption of such

requirements in the other corresponding OSHA standards apply to

personal fall arrest system components used in shipyard employment.

OSHA has revised the proposed rule accordingly.

Final rule paragraph (b)(7), based on proposed paragraph (a)(4)(i),

requires that personal fall arrest systems be rigged to prevent an

employee from free falling more than 6 feet (1.8 m) or contacting any

lower level.

Final rule paragraph (c) sets criteria for the selection, use and

care of personal fall arrest systems and system components. Paragraph

(c)(1) (proposed as paragraph (a)(5)) of the final rule requires that

the attachment point of a body belt be located in the center of the

wearer's back. The attachment point of a body harness must be in the

center of the wearer's back near shoulder level or above the wearer's

head. The proposed rule provided that the connection point must be

either above the wearer's head or above the waist in the back. Comments

in the other rulemaking records supported allowing an attachment point

at the chest position for limited free fall distances. The final rule,

as regards body harnesses, has been revised accordingly.

Paragraph (c)(2) of the final rule, which is a new provision,

requires that ropes and straps (webbing) used in lanyards, lifelines,

and strength components of body belts and body harnesses be made from

synthetic fibers or wire rope. OSHA has determined, given the

difficulty of evaluating the deterioration of natural fiber rope, that

natural fiber rope is not reliable for use in a personal safety system.

Final rule paragraph (c)(3), also a new provision, requires ropes,

belts, harnesses and lanyards to be compatible with all hardware used.

The use of incompatible equipment may cause a fall, or, during arrest

of a fall, allow arresting forces which cause injury.

Paragraph (c)(4), proposed as paragraph (a)(3), requires that

lifelines and lanyards be protected against cuts, abrasions, burns from

hot work operations, and deterioration by acids, solvents, and other

chemicals. The proposed provision, which did not elicit comments, was

identical.

Final rule paragraph (c)(5), proposed as paragraph (a)(18),

requires that personal fall arrest systems be visually inspected prior

to each use for mildew, wear, damage, and any other deterioration. This

inspection need not involve testing or impact loading of the system. If

there is a reasonable basis to believe that the strength or integrity

of the fall arrest system has been weakened, the employer shall remove

defective or damaged equipment from service. No comments were received

on the proposed provision, which was identical to the provision in the

final rule except for minor editorial changes.

Paragraph (c)(6), which was proposed as paragraph (a)(2), requires

that personal fall arrest systems and components that have been

subjected to impact loading be removed immediately from service and not

be used again for employee protection until inspected and judged

suitable for use by a qualified person. The proposed provision, which

was effectively identical, elicited no comments and has been

promulgated in the final rule with minor editorial changes.

Paragraph (c)(7) of the final rule, a new provision, requires that

the employer provide for prompt rescue of employees in the event of a

fall or ensure that employees who have fallen can rescue themselves.

This provision also appears in the proposed general industry rule and

in the final rule for construction. OSHA anticipates that employers

will evaluate the potential consequences of falls in personal fall

arrest systems in their work environments and choose an appropriate

means of rescue. OSHA recognizes that the rescue requirements for

employees wearing body harnesses and body belts will differ. For

example, the Agency anticipates that self-rescue will be more difficult

for employees using body belts and that the acceptable rescue time for

such employees will be shorter, because falls in body belts typically

result in the employee hanging in a jack-knifed position. When it is

not possible to evaluate the self-rescue capacity of employees in

advance, prudent employers should assume that employees will need

rescue assistance and, accordingly, be prepared to offer it. Paragraph

(c)(8), proposed as paragraph (a)(6), requires that body belts be at

least 1.625 inches (4.1-cm) wide. OSHA has determined that this minimum

width will be acceptable for any body belts that are used in personal

fall arrest systems during the phase-out period. No comments were

received on this provision.

Paragraph (c)(9), proposed as paragraph (a)(1), requires that

personal fall arrest equipment be used exclusively for employee

protection. For example, this equipment may not be used to hoist

materials. This revision is intended to prevent the deterioration

[[Page 26336]]

potentially caused by improper uses and types of loads. The proposed

provision, which was identical, elicited no comments.

Final rule paragraph (d), Training, proposed as paragraph (a)(19),

requires that employees be trained to understand the application limits

of the equipment and the proper hook-up, anchoring, and tie-off

techniques, before using any personal fall arrest equipment. Affected

employees must also be trained so that they can demonstrate the proper

methods of use, inspection, and storage of the equipment. OSHA believes

that employees must know how their fall arrest equipment works in order

to get the appropriate protection from it. No comments were received on

the proposed provision, which was effectively identical to the final

rule.

Section 1915.160 Positioning Device Systems

Positioning device systems prevent falls by holding affected

employees in place while they perform work on vertical surfaces at

elevations. The provisions of proposed Sec. 1915.159(b) have been moved

to final rule Sec. 1915.160, so there is a clear distinction between

the requirements for personal fall arrest systems and those for

positioning device systems.

Final rule paragraph (a) sets criteria for connectors and

anchorages used in positioning device systems. For the same reasons as

provided in the introductory discussion of final rule Sec. 1915.159,

the introductory text of final rule Sec. 1915.160 provides that the use

of non-locking snaphooks will not be acceptable in positioning device

systems after December 31, 1997. OSHA has included paragraph (a)(4) in

the final rule to address any non-locking snaphooks that may remain in

use during the phase-out period.

Paragraph (a)(1), proposed as Sec. 1915.159(b)1), requires that all

hardware have a corrosion-resistant finish and that all surfaces and

edges be smooth to prevent damage to the attached belt or connecting

assembly. Corrosion resistance is essential to retain the integrity of

the hardware, while smooth edges and surfaces prevent cuts, tears, or

other damage to system components. The proposed provision was

identical, except that the proposed term ``hardware'' has been replaced

by the term ``connector.'' As discussed above, OSHA has determined that

it is appropriate to focus attention on the critical load-bearing

hardware by adopting the term ``connector.''

Final rule paragraph (a)(2), proposed as Sec. 1915.159(b)(2),

provides that connecting assemblies, such as snaphooks or D-rings, have

a minimum tensile strength of 5,000 pounds (22.2 Kn). The proposed

provision, which did not elicit comments, was identical.

Final rule paragraph (a)(3), proposed as Sec. 1915.159(b)(3),

requires that anchorages for positioning device systems be capable of

supporting twice the potential impact load of an employee's fall. The

proposed provision, which did not elicit comments, was identical.

Final rule paragraph (a)(4), proposed as Sec. 1915.159(b)(6)(i),

provides that snaphooks, unless of a locking type designed and used to

prevent disengagement, shall not be connected to each other. The

proposed rule simply prohibited the connecting of snaphooks to each

other. As discussed above, in reference to the introductory text of

final rule Sec. 1915.160, the use of non-locking snaphooks is

prohibited after December 31, 1997.

Final rule paragraph (b) sets performance criteria for positioning

device systems. Paragraph (b)(1), proposed as Sec. 1915.159(b)(4),

requires that restraint (tether) lines have a minimum breaking strength

of 3,000 pounds (13.3-Kn). This breaking strength is necessary to

ensure that the line will hold under fall arrest conditions. The

proposed provision, which did not elicit comments, was identical.

Paragraph (b)(2), proposed as Sec. 1915.159(b)(5), provides the

system performance criteria for the different types of positioning

device systems. These are new performance requirements that are not in

OSHA's current shipyard standards. In order to allow employers a

reasonable amount of time to ensure that their equipment meets these

requirements, OSHA is making this provision effective November 20,

1996.

Final rule paragraph (b)(2)(i) provides that window cleaner's

positioning systems must be capable of withstanding a drop test

involving a 6 foot (1.83 m) drop of a 250 pound (113 kg) weight. These

systems must withstand a more rigorous drop test than other positioning

device systems because of their potential for greater free fall

distances.

Final rule paragraph (b)(2)(ii) requires that all positioning

device systems, other than window cleaners' positioning systems, be

capable of withstanding a drop test of 4 feet (1.2 m) with a 250 pound

(113 kg) weight. Positioning device systems which comply with the

provisions of Section 2 of Appendix B will be deemed by OSHA to meet

the requirements of this paragraph. The proposed provision, which

elicited no comments, was identical.

Final rule paragraph (c) sets criteria for the use and care of

positioning device systems. Final rule paragraph (c)(1), proposed as

Sec. 1915.159(b)(7), requires the inspection of positioning device

systems before each workshift for mildew, wear, damage, and other

deterioration. This provision further requires that defective

components identified in such inspections be removed from service. The

proposed language was nearly identical, except that it provided for

removal of defective equipment ``if their functions or strength may

have been adversely affected.'' OSHA has determined that the deletion

of that language will make the rule easier to understand, because

employers will simply remove components from service that are

identified as defective without having to make a specific determination

about strength or function.

Final rule paragraph (c)(2), proposed as Sec. 1915.159(b)(6)(ii),

requires that positioning device systems or components subjected to

impact loading be removed immediately from service and not be used

again for employee protection, unless inspected and determined by a

qualified person to be undamaged and suitable for reuse. This

requirement is necessary to ensure that systems used for employee

protection still meet the performance criteria for such systems before

they are reused for this purpose. The proposed provision, which did not

elicit comments, was identical.

Final rule paragraph (d), Training, proposed as

Sec. 1915.159(b)(6)(iii), provides that employees must be trained in

the application limits, proper hook-up, anchoring, and tie-off

techniques, methods of use, inspection, and storage of positioning

device systems before they may use those systems. This provision

emphasizes the importance of employee training in the safe use of

positioning device systems; for these systems to provide employee

protection, two elements are essential. The systems must be designed

and used in accordance with stated performance criteria, and the

employee(s) using the system must be adequately trained in the safe use

of the system. The proposed provision, which did not elicit comments,

was identical.

Incorporation by Reference

Another action in this document is the consolidation, within part

1915, of OSHA's Incorporation by Reference (IBR) statements of

approval, which indicate clearance by the Office of the Federal

Register, into a single section,

[[Page 26337]]

Sec. 1915.5. Existing section 1915.5 is being updated and revised to

accomplish this consolidation. This approach is consistent with that

taken by other Federal agencies. As amended, Sec. 1915.5 contains the

national consensus standard organizations' addresses and the IBR

approval language. This approach saves text by cross-referencing from

the regulatory text where an IBR is set out to the IBR section. Without

such a section, the addresses of the standards organizations, the OSHA

Docket Office address, and the IBR approval statement would need to be

repeated with each incorporation by reference throughout the shipyard

standards. A consolidated IBR Section will also be easier to update.

Appendices

OSHA is including two non-mandatory appendices to final part 1915

subpart I.

Appendix A

Appendix A provides suggested guidelines for complying with the

requirements for hazard assessment for the selection of personal

protection equipment.

In developing the final rule for this rulemaking, OSHA has

determined that Appendix B of the corresponding General Industry

standard (part 1910, subpart I) contains some useful information that

would be helpful to shipyard employers. Therefore, OSHA has decided to

add a detailed Appendix A to the shipyard PPE standard to provide some

examples of guidelines which an employer may follow in complying with

OSHA's performance-oriented final rule. Those guidelines include

examples of hazard assessments performed by work activity.

Appendix B

Appendix B contains testing methods and other information to assist

employers in complying with the performance-oriented criteria for

personal fall arrest systems and positioning device systems contained

in this standard. Many revisions have been made to this appendix based

on the comments received during the powered platform rulemaking (Docket

No. S-700A). These changes are intended to clarify and simplify the

information presented. A complete discussion of the comments and

reasons for the changes are included in the Powered Platforms for

Building Maintenance final rule (54 FR 31452).

Amendments to Other Subparts of the Shipyard Standards

This final rule also revises cross references in subparts C and H

of the shipyard standards, so that those provisions reference subpart

I. The existing references would no longer identify the correct

paragraphs in subpart I because of the reformatting of Subpart I. These

revisions are editorial in nature and do not substantively change the

current requirements in other subparts.

IV. Summary of Final Economic Analysis, Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis, and Environmental Impact Assessment Summary

In accordance with Executive Order 12866, OSHA has developed a

final economic analysis to support the final standard for personal

protective equipment (PPE) in the shipyard industry. The Agency has

also analyzed the standard's impact on small entities, as required by

the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and its potential to cause adverse

environmental impacts, as required by the National Environmental Policy

Act. The final rule, which will be codified as subpart I of the

shipyard employment standards (29 CFR 1915), covers the use of personal

protective equipment for the head (e.g., hard hats), eyes (e.g.,

goggles), feet and hands (e.g., shoes and gloves), and body (e.g.,

chemical protective clothing), contains the respirator requirements

that have been part of OSHA's shipyard standards since 1971, and adds

requirements for personal fall protection systems and positioning

device systems.

Injuries in the shipyard industry are frequent and severe. The

shipyard industry (SIC 3731) has the second highest rate of lost

workday injuries and illnesses (37.8 per 100 full-time workers),

according to the BLS publication ``Occupational Injuries and Illnesses:

Counts, Rates, and Characteristics, 1992'' (published in April 1995).

The industry also has one of the highest average number of lost

workdays per injury (more than 40 percent of lost workday injuries

involve more than 10 days away from work, according to the same BLS

publication).

To address those shipyard injuries that result from the failure to

use PPE or from the use of inadequate PPE, and to raise the minimum

standard of PPE use in the industry to the level of technology

currently available, OSHA has developed this final rule. The rule

requires employers to meet minimum specifications for PPE employed to

protect the eyes and face, hands and body, and feet, as well as those

for respiratory protection, lifesaving, and personal fall protection

equipment. In addition, the final rule requires employers to conduct

hazard assessments, include specific elements related to PPE in the

training they provide to their workers, document training and hazard

assessments, require the use of body harnesses in place of body belts

after a phase-in period, and ensure the use of locking snaphooks on

personal fall protection equipment. Rulemaking participants from the

shipyard industry report that most employers in the industry are

already in compliance with the requirements of the final standard. For

example, one industry representative stated ``* * * most shipyards

require employees to wear personal protective equipment in all areas

beyond the office doors. * * * We've already identified and protected

our employees and our visitors because of the hazardous work

environment'' [January 25, 1995 public meeting, Transcript page 9].

The economic analysis identifies a number of benefits that

employers and employees will experience as a result of compliance with

the standard. For example, the Agency has concluded that the rule's

requirements for body harnesses and locking snaphooks will reduce the

risk of fatal falls, and these requirements will also reduce the

severity of the injuries resulting from non-fatal falls. In addition,

the final rule is estimated to prevent about 1,550 lost workday

injuries annually and 12,650 non-lost workday injuries caused by the

failure to use PPE or the use of inadequate PPE.

The Agency estimates that employers in the affected industry will

incur estimated annual costs of compliance of $163,000. These costs,

which average about $2 per covered employee, will not impose

substantial economic impacts on affected firms in any size-class. OSHA

has also evaluated the impacts of compliance costs on the average small

shipyard and has determined that, even under a no cost pass through

assumption, worst case impacts on such establishments will average no

more than $100 annually. OSHA has therefore concluded that this

standard will not impose an undue burden on small firms; in addition,

the standard will not have an adverse effect on the environment.

Introduction

Executive Order 12866 requires the Agency to perform an analysis of

the costs, benefits, and regulatory alternatives of its regulatory

actions. If a regulation is deemed ``significant'' by the Administrator

of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

[[Page 26338]]

(OIRA), OIRA reviews the regulation and OSHA's economic analysis. A

regulatory action is considered significant if it imposes annual costs

on the economy of $100 million or more or has an adverse effect on the

economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal

governments or communities. This final rule directly affects only one

well-defined industry, the shipbuilding and ship repair industry, and

the estimated costs of compliance are far below the $100 million

threshold. OSHA has therefore concluded that the promulgation of this

final standard for personal protective equipment in shipyard employment

is not a significant action under the guidelines of E.O. 12866.

As required by the OSH Act and its judicial interpretations, the

Agency must demonstrate that all of its regulations are both

technologically and economically feasible, and specifically that this

is the case for this rule. The Agency has concluded that this standard

meets both tests of feasibility. A summary of the Agency's feasibility

assessment of the final rule is presented in the following section of

the Economic Analysis.

In addition, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.) requires federal agencies to determine whether a regulation

will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of

small entities. The Agency must also review this standard in accordance

with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Guidelines of the Council on

Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR Part 1500), and OSHA's DOL NEPA

Procedures (29 CFR Part 11).

This summary of the economic analysis includes an overview of the

affected industry and employees at risk, the estimated benefits of the

rule, the technological feasibility of the standard, the estimated

compliance costs shipyard employers will incur, the impact of those

costs on firms in the shipyard industry, the results of the regulatory

flexibility and economic analysis, and a discussion of regulatory and

non-regulatory alternatives. The full text of the economic analysis is

in the shipyard PPE docket (Docket S-045).

Industry Profile

The American shipyard industry has been in a long-term decline

since 1981 when the federal government ended subsidies for commercial

ship construction. In the period 1976-1980 the industry built an

average of 64 merchant vessels per year. Only five commercial ships

have been built since 1988. The decline in merchant vessel construction

in the 1980's was partially offset by a large increase in military ship

construction. However, the end of the military competition with the

former U.S.S.R. has resulted in a sharp drop in military ships on

order. The ``bottom-up'' review of the armed forces called for a major

reduction in the number of active combat ships, and consequently has

caused a drop in the number of future orders. U.S. Navy orders, which

averaged 19 per year in the 1980's, are projected to fall to 8 per year

during the period 1994-1999. Ship repair and construction of inland

vessels and barges has remained constant during the past five years.

Recently American shipyards have received new orders for

construction of commercial ships (Wall Street Journal Nov. 15, 1995).

These orders result mainly from a new Federal loan guarantee program

approved by Congress but also are due to exchange rates that have made

American-made products cheaper relative to foreign-produced goods. Wage

rates in American shipyards were already well below those of some

important foreign competitors, such as Germany and Japan, whose

governments heavily subsidize their shipbuilding industries. A new

global trade accord that would end shipbuilding subsidies may be signed

in the near future. This would allow American shipyards to compete

internationally, increase commercial ship construction, and increase

employment levels in the industry. The Agency estimates that employment

in American shipyards will end its decline and level off or increase

slightly for the next two to three years. Future employment levels

depend on funding for the guaranteed loan program, exchange rates and

the relative price of American versus foreign-built ships, foreign

governments' level of subsidy to their shipyards, and the status and

terms of a global accord to end subsidy programs.

Employment in the shipbuilding industry declined from 177,000 in

1984 to about 125,000 by 1987 and remained near that level until 1992.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that employment in the

industry was 106,000 by late 1993. The most recent BLS ``Employment and

Earnings'' (May 1995) estimates the same level of employment and

reports that about 79,000 of these employees are production workers. In

1994, the value of output from American shipyards was approximately

$9.5 billion (1994 Industrial Outlook estimate). Based on Dun &

Bradstreet's estimated mean return for the shipyard industry of 2.9

percent, the industry earned approximately $275 million in 1994.

The Agency estimates that there are approximately 500 firms in SIC

3731, and a majority of these have fewer than 50 employees. Employment

in the shipyard industry is highly concentrated. The ten largest

shipyards employ approximately 70 percent of all shipyard workers, and

only the 100 largest firms have as many as 100 employees each. The

Agency estimates that approximately 300 firms engaged in ship repair

employ fewer than 20 employees. Many of these small firms perform

contracting for larger firms; those that do so already follow the PPE

guidelines of the employing shipyards.

Employees at Risk

Numerous sources confirm that about 75 percent of shipyard

employees are production workers, including the 1987 Census of

Manufactures (Bureau of the Census 1990) and CONSAD Research

Corporation (1986). The Agency thus concludes that an estimated 79,000

production workers in this industry are now exposed to workplace

hazards that may require the use of PPE of the types covered by the

final rule.

Technological Feasibility

Equipment to meet the final PPE standard, such as hard hats,

gloves, and safety shoes, is readily available and widely used

throughout the industry. Off-the-shelf safety programs that include

guidance on the conduct of hazard assessments, as well as training

program materials, are readily available, and these programs are also

well established throughout the industry. ``Hazard assessments are a

standard practice at EBDiv. [Electric Boat Division]'' [Ex. 9-10].

``Shipyards are safety conscious. Every shipyard in the Hampton Roads

area has a safety program and a safety officer * * * STASR shipyards

have safety programs with many of the PPE standards already in place.

The [proposed standard's] PPE training and recordkeeping requirements

are, in some cases, redundant'' [South Tidewater Association of Ship

Repairers, Ex. 9-3].

Training documentation is usually maintained by shipyard employers

in a computer database. The Agency therefore concludes that the final

PPE standard is technologically feasible. The performance-oriented

criteria of the standard should also allow technological innovation to

improve PPE protection in the future.

[[Page 26339]]

Costs

The preliminary cost estimates prepared by OSHA to support the

proposed shipyard PPE standard published in 1988 included compliance

costs that shipyard employers would incur to comply with a number of

proposed requirements for respirator use. However, the final standard

does not include any new respirator requirements, because the Agency

expects to publish a final rule addressing respirator use in all

industries in the near future. Thus, this final rule includes only

those respirator provisions that have been included in OSHA's shipyard

rules since 1971.

In response to the preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (1988),

OSHA received only one comment on the costs of the proposed standard.

Peterson Builders [Ex. 6-14], referring to the proposed requirement for

foot protection in Section 1915.156, stated that buying protective

footwear for all employees--which the commenter interpreted as being

required by the proposed standard--would be costly and unnecessary. The

Agency has recently clarified its policy on the purchase of PPE to make

clear that employers do not have to purchase equipment that may also

have personal use; OSHA believes that the costs of PPE will therefore

be substantially less than this commenter expected. In addition, as

noted above, OSHA's 1988 Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (see

Docket S-045) noted that the use of PPE in shipyards is already

widespread.

On April 6, 1994 OSHA published a final standard for PPE in general

industry (59 Federal Register No. 66). On July 6, 1994, the Agency

reopened the record for the shipyard PPE standard to incorporate the

general industry PPE docket into the shipyard PPE docket and to propose

the addition of several elements from the general industry standard to

the shipyard standard. These elements included requirements for:

certification of workplace hazard assessments; certification of

training; specification of training elements; the phasing out of body

belts in favor of body harnesses; and the replacement of non-locking

snaphooks with locking snaphooks. The Agency's intent in taking this

action was to make the PPE standard consistent where possible in both

shipyards and the general industries. Following the comment period, a

Federal Register notice announcing a public meeting and containing

additional discussion of some of the issues raised by the reopening was

published on December 13, 1994. A public meeting was held on January

25, 1995 to hear testimony about the proposed changes to the shipyard

standard introduced during the reopening of the record.

Representatives of the shipyard industry and industry associations

opposed the new requirements for work place hazard assessments and the

certification of such assessments. First, the industry asserted that

job-related activities in shipyards are unique because a shipyard is

not a fixed ``workplace.'' Instead there is a constant shifting of

trades between work locations as employees move among various shops and

vessels; in addition, in ship repair and overhauling, the vessels being

worked on constantly change. According to these commenters, it is not

possible for designated shipyard employees to continuously assess the

hazards of a ``workplace'' that is constantly changing. According to

one participant, a better approach would be to perform hazard

assessments by trade to determine the level of PPE required [South

Tidewater Association of Ship Repairers, Ex. 9-3]. Numerous commenters

agreed with this view [Exs. 9-1, 9-7 through 9-12].

As discussed above in relation to final rule Sec. 1915.152(b), OSHA

agrees that it is appropriate to allow employers flexibility in

organizing their hazard assessment efforts. The Agency has underscored

the performance-oriented nature of that provision by adding a note to

the final rule which states that hazard assessments conducted according

to the trade or occupation of affected employees are acceptable so long

as they address any PPE-related hazards to which employees are exposed

in the course of their work activities.

The shipyard industry also opposed the requirement for

certification of hazard assessments because, in the opinion of

commenters, certification would require employers to expend resources

for new paperwork activities ``for the convenience of the Agency'' that

would not result in additional safety for production workers [Ex. 9-

11]. Industry commenters also were concerned that certification might

increase their liability when injuries occur. Other shipyards that

currently rely on worker involvement to analyze risks feared that

certification would disrupt that process [January 25, 1995 public

meeting transcript pages 28 and 41-47]. The shipyard industry also

opposed the certification of hazard assessments on the grounds that

these assessments would be redundant, since the industry already

performs many PPE-related hazard assessments for individual health and

safety standards such as hearing conservation, lead, confined spaces,

respirator use, and other OSHA standards.

In its Federal Register notice on December 13, 1994 announcing a

public meeting on shipyard PPE issues, the Agency asked for information

on whether simple documentation would suffice in place of

certification. In testimony at the public meeting and in comments

submitted following the meeting, industry representatives stated that

they did not oppose documentation of hazard assessments. In fact, they

reported that it is routine in the industry to conduct such assessments

and to document them:

* * * hearing conservation, respiratory protection, hazard

communication, lockout/tagout, lead abatement, blood-borne

pathogens, medical surveillance programs * * * [are] programs that

are already in place that [require] us to do hazard assessments of

the workplace in order that we provide PPE * * * Where hazard

assessment does not exist, and it would be hard for me to say where

it doesn't in the shipyard industry, we'd recommend that an annual

assessment be made. [Shipbuilders Council, January 25, 1995 public

meeting transcript page 11].

Commenters within the shipyard industry also opposed the general

industry PPE requirement to certify training, largely for the same

reasons as those noted above for the certification of hazard

assessments--the creation of potential new legal liability and

unnecessary paperwork. In its December 13, 1994 announcement, the

Agency suggested that simple documentation could be used in lieu of

certification, and the final rule requires documentation rather than

certification.

Commenters were generally supportive of the standard's training

requirements and the specific elements of training mandated by the

rule. Commenters stated that the PPE training elements proposed by the

Agency were practiced throughout the shipyard industry, as was the

maintenance of training logs--usually in the form of a computer

database:

We support the general requirement for training as it does serve

to enhance a safer working environment [Shipbuilders' Council [Ex.

9-9]].

We are already complying with this proposed standard [for

training] and we suspect many other shipyards are also complying. *

* * Our new hire orientation programs covers all areas of PPE and

would meet the new requirements proposed in the standard [Tampa

Shipyards, Ex. 9-8].

We'd recommend this documentation [for training] be in the form

of training logs, which most of us already keep on the computer

[Shipbuilders' Council January 25, 1995 public meeting, Transcript

page 13].

[[Page 26340]]

There was widespread support among industry commenters for the use

of body harnesses in place of body belts:

Electric Boat Division utilizes body harnesses for all of its

fall protection needs. * * * [Ex. 9-10].

BIW/Local S6 has implemented a policy which is consistent with

the construction industry standard in that only body harnesses may

be used in fall arrest systems and body belts may be used in

positioning device systems [Bath Iron Works Ex. 11-7].

Without a doubt, the majority of our membership endorses the use

of harnesses. Most of us already have those in place [Shipbuilders'

Council January 25, 1995 public meeting, Transcript page 14].

However, Newport News Shipbuilding (NNS), which employs about 20

percent of all shipyard employees, opposed the phase-out of body belts

in favor of harnesses. NNS relies almost completely on body belts for

fall protection, although the shipyard did report using a small number

of harnesses. Several small yards also still rely on body belts for

fall protection and questioned the utility of changing to body

harnesses since they had experienced no injuries due to the use of body

belts [Exs. 9-1, 9-3 and 9-11]. At the public meeting, NNS stated that

replacing over 4,700 body belts would be a burden and therefore that a

seven-year phase-in period would be needed to reduce the economic

impact. The company reported that a review of several years' accident

records failed to show that falls of employees using body belts

resulted in any severe injuries. NNS did not introduce its data on

falls into the record, however. A cost analysis presented by NNS at the

hearing showed that body belts cost NNS $43 each and, on average,

lasted 7 years; harnesses cost $140 and have a working lifetime of 3

years.

Most other shipyards and industry associations reported that they

had switched to harnesses from belts. These commenters reported that,

although harnesses cost more than belts, they provide greater

protection and are cost effective.

We * * * endorse the use of body harnesses as a safety method

for employees. While the cost of a body harness is usually twice the

amount of body belts, the added safety factor to the employee is

well worth the money, and in the long run will save the company

money is case of an accident [Atlantic Marine Ex. 9-9].

In fact many of our yards already use them [harnesses]. We find

them to be very effective, and everybody seems to certainly feel a

lot safer with them [Shipbuilders' Council January 25, 1995 public

meeting, Transcript page 23].

At the public meeting on January 25, 1995, representatives of the

American Insurance Service [Tr. 59] stated that body harnesses would

prevent injuries that could occur in falls involving employees wearing

body belts. In addition, they said that it is difficult to rescue a

worker in a body belt after a fall since he or she typically is hanging

``nose to toes,'' or upside down. Several falls involving employees (in

other industries) wearing body belts had resulted in fatalities when

the fallen worker had slipped out of his/her body belt. The insurance

representatives also asserted that the cost of harnesses should not

preclude the inclusion of a harness requirement in the rule because

industry has known that the change to harnesses was going to occur,

body belts are usually ``expense'' items, and, if treated as a capital

expense, will have been fully depreciated by the effective date of the

regulation. The association did not provide any data demonstrating that

the injuries associated with falls in body harnesses was less severe

than those in belts. Belts were estimated to cost $35 each and

harnesses $75 each. Harnesses were estimated to last an average of 2 to

4 years.

OSHA agrees with the assessment of most of the commenters from the

shipyard industry and the insurance industry who supported the

requirement for harnesses in lieu of belts, and the final rule thus

contains such a requirement.

Many commenters endorsed the adoption of locking snaphooks over

non-locking snaphooks on lifelines [Ex. 9-10 and January 25, 1995

public meeting, Transcript page 52]. Locking snaphooks are already in

widespread use in shipyards. At the January 25, 1995 public meeting,

representatives from the American Insurance Service demonstrated how,

in a ``roll-out'' situation, lifelines can detach from non-locking

snaphooks. Most industry commenters reported that snaphooks were used

in their shipyard, and none opposed this change to the standard or

raised it as a cost issue.

Based on the record for this rulemaking, the Agency has concluded

that the only provisions of the final PPE standard that will impose

other than negligible costs on shipyard employers are: the replacement

of body belts with body harnesses; the documentation of hazard

assessments; the development of training for body harnesses in

shipyards not already employing harnesses; and employee training for

body harnesses. Only Newport News Shipbuilding (NNS) and a number of

small shipyards reported that they still rely on body belts. (Very

small shipyards specialize in trades and may not use body harnesses or

body belts at all). OSHA has taken the concerns of these commenters

into account in the final rule. NNS stated that it currently uses about

4,700 body belts, although no information was available on the

breakdown between belts used as positioning devices (this would not be

affected by the final rule) and those used for fall protection. To the

extent that some of these belts continue to be used for positioning

devices, the 4700 figure overstates the number of harnesses to acquire.

The Agency estimates that NNS will need to purchase no more than 3,000

harnesses (about 1 for every 5 production workers). The Agency

estimates that, in addition to NNS, some smaller employers in the

industry may need to buy harnesses to replace body belts, and the

Agency estimates that 1,000 harnesses would be purchased by these

employers. Based on evidence in the record and information from

suppliers, the Agency estimates that body belts cost about $50 and

harnesses $100. Body belts are estimated to last an average of 7 years

and harnesses 3 years. Thus, body belts supply fall protection at a

cost of roughly $7 per year ($50/7 years), while harnesses do so at $33

per year ($100/3 years). Harnesses therefore cost roughly $27 more per

year than belts for each affected employee. Since body belts can still

be used as positioning devices, the requirement that harnesses be used

for fall protection will not end the useful life of these belts. Based

on these estimates, OSHA concludes that replacing body belts with

harnesses will result in a new annual cost to the industry of

approximately $128,000 [(3,000 new harnesses for NNS+1,000 new

harnesses for small shipyards) x $27]. Nevertheless, to allow

additional time and reduce any potential impacts, the final rule

permits shipyards to phase-in compliance with the body harness

requirement over two years, which is consistent with the phase-out date

in other OSHA standards.

The hazard assessment documentation required by the standard

consists of a record, either paper or on a computer or other storage

medium, with the date of the hazard assessment, name of person

performing the assessment, occupation or operations covered, and a list

of the PPE required. Shipyards report that they already incorporate

some of this information in their current training materials. The

Agency has estimated that it would take each shipyard about an hour to

develop a computer-based record format for this documentation and

approximately five minutes to record the hazard assessment

[[Page 26341]]

for each occupation covered. Table 3 summarizes this information for

the PPE standard. The total time expended by managers to document

hazard assessments is estimated to be 781 hours, a one-time commitment

of management resources.

Table 3.--Estimate of Amount of Time To Document Hazard Assessments, Develop Training Programs for Body Harnesses, and Train in Use of Body Harnesses

for OSHA's Standard on PPE in Shipyards

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

Hazard assessment Develop training for hamesses Training

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

Number of Time to Time to Total

Firm Size (number of employees) firms in Number of document develop Number of time to Training Management Number of

size hazard hazard training firms who develop sessions time employees

category assessments assessments per firm must do program per firm (hours) trained

(trades) (hours) (hours) so (hours) (hours)

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

1000+........................................... 12 40 36 ......... none 0 150 150 3000

500-999......................................... 12 30 30 8 6 48 4 24 200

100-499......................................... 76 30 190 4 76 304 2 152 400

21-99........................................... 100 10 150 4 100 400 1 100 200

11-20........................................... 100 5 125 2 50 100 1 50 200

1-10............................................ 200 5 250 2 100 200 1 100 150

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

Subtotals (hours)......................... ......... ........... \1\ 781 ......... ......... \1\ 1052 ......... 576 4150

=======================================================================================================

Total one-time, or first year, management

resources for hazard assessments and

development of training........................ ......... ........... ........... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... \2\ 1,833

First year management resources to conduct

training....................................... ......... ........... ........... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... \2\ 576

Total management time........................... ......... ........... ........... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... \2\ 2,409

Total employee time............................. ......... ........... ........... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... \2\ 4,150

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

Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis.

\1\ One-time.

\2\ Hours.

The development of training materials for the use of personal fall

arrest systems (body harnesses) imposes a one-time cost for shipyards

that are not already using harnesses. Some of the very smallest

shipyards who provide specialty trade work will not have or use any

harnesses. All large shipyards already use harnesses to some extent,

and the Agency has concluded that these shipyards also have developed

training materials. Because training videos and written materials on

the use of body harnesses are widely available, the Agency has

concluded that the time required for establishing such a training

program will be small. Table 3 presents the Agency's estimate of the

time that firms will expend to develop training for the use of body

harnesses; the estimate ranges from 8 hours for firms with more than

500 employees to 2 hours for the smallest employers. The total time

required to develop training for body harnesses is estimated to be

1,052 hours of management time.

Firms that do not currently use body harnesses must also train

their employees as harnesses are substituted over time for body belts.

The cost of this training consists of management or trainers' time to

provide training to employees as well as the value of employee wages

foregone while training. The Agency estimates a training session will

take approximately one hour and that as many as 10 to 20 employees can

receive training in a single session. Table 3 presents the Agency's

estimate of the number of sessions by firm size that will be necessary

for training in body harnesses and the number of employees trained. The

Agency estimates that a higher fraction (10 percent or more) of smaller

firms' employees will have to be trained due to the nature of their

business--cleaning tanks, repairs over the ship's side, painting and

maintenance--which require the use of harnesses. Among large firms only

NNS relies primarily on body belts and uses only a few body harnesses.

The Agency estimates that all of NNS's body belts (4,700) will not have

to be replaced with harnesses, since compared with smaller yards less

work conducted at large shipyards or in new ship construction requires

a body harness (rather than a body belt). The Agency has estimated that

NNS will replace 3,000 body belts with harnesses. Data for the cost of

body harness training is included in Table 6. The Agency estimates that

576 hours of management time and 4,150 hours of employee time will be

required for training.

The total one-time cost for documenting hazard assessments,

developing harness training materials, and providing training is 2,409

management hours and 4,150 employee hours. Average hourly employee

wages for SIC 3731 are about $14.00 per hour (``Employment and

Earnings'' Bureau of Labor Statistics October, 1994). The Agency

estimates that the cost of wages plus benefits is $20 per hour for

production employees and $30 per hour for managers.

The total cost of these elements of the standard is approximately

$155,000. Annualized over five years at 7 percent, this cost is about

$35,000 per year. Added to the annual cost of body harnesses of

$128,000, the Agency estimates that the total annualized cost of the

PPE standard is $163,000 per year for the shipyard industry.

Economic Impacts

With industry revenues exceeding $9 billion and an estimated profit

of $275 million in 1994, the annual estimated compliance costs

associated with the standard ($163,000) will not cause a significant

impact on the revenues or profits of firms in the shipyard industry.

[[Page 26342]]

Benefits

The final shipyard PPE standard will reduce the risk of injury or

fatality confronting workers who fall while wearing body belts. After

the phase-in period, shipyard workers who fall while wearing body

harnesses will experience fewer fatalities or severe injuries as a

result of these falls. Although industry and insurance representatives

testified to the beneficial effects of harnesses, data in the record

are not sufficiently detailed to quantify the magnitude of the reduced

risk. Accordingly, OSHA has not quantified this risk reduction or the

productivity gains associated with the use of harnesses compared with

belts. In addition, the use of locking snaphooks, as required by the

final rule, will prevent roll-out thus reducing the risk of fatality or

severe injury.

The Agency has also analyzed the more typical PPE-related injuries

of lesser severity. OSHA estimates that compliance with the final

shipyard personal protective equipment rule will potentially prevent

about 1,550 lost workday injuries (15 percent of all shipyard PPE-

related lost workday injuries) and about 12,650 non-lost workday

injuries (about 46 percent of all shipyard PPE-related non-lost workday

injuries). To develop this estimate, the Agency analyzed a sample of

over 1,700 shipyard injuries reported on OSHA Form 200's that were

collected as part of recent OSHA survey efforts. For each injury or

illness in the sample, OSHA judged whether the injury or illness was

potentially preventable through the use of the appropriate type of

protective equipment. These judgments were based on the injury and

illness descriptions on the Form 200. OSHA considered the following

types of PPE to be applicable: hard hats, safety glasses and goggles,

welding goggles and helmets, face shields, safety shoes, work gloves

and other forms of hand protection, and chemical protective gloves,

aprons, and other clothing.

To develop its estimate, OSHA first divided the sample injuries and

illnesses by severity and estimated the fraction of cases that were

judged to be potentially preventable by PPE use. Next, OSHA applied

these preventability rates to Bureau of Labor Statistics employment

levels for 1994 for the shipyard industry and calculated the number of

cases that might be prevented through PPE use. The results of this

analysis are shown in Table 4. Of 27,317 shipyard injuries and

illnesses without lost-workdays, 12,665 (46.4 percent) were estimated

to be potentially preventable through proper use of PPE. Of 9,876 cases

involving days away from work, OSHA estimated that 1,549 (15.7 percent)

were potentially preventable through compliance with OSHA's PPE

requirements. These estimates indicate that over 10 percent of all

shipyard injuries (both lost-time and non-lost work time) are

potentially preventable through the proper use of safety glasses, while

15 percent are potentially preventable through the use of work gloves

or other appropriate forms of hand protection. This analysis of

``typical'' PPE injuries parallels the benefits analysis performed for

the general industry PPE standard, with one exception. In this shipyard

analysis, the Agency has reduced its estimate of the number of eye

injuries that could be prevented by the use of safety glasses to 50

percent (a figure of about 99 percent was applied in the general

industry analysis), because shipyard representatives and OSHA personnel

report that the use of basic eye protection is standard practice in

shipyards, which are widely recognized as being especially hazardous

environments. The Agency concludes that fewer eye injuries occur in

shipyards than general industry establishments because employees in

shipyards, unlike those in general industry, are routinely required to

wear safety glasses.

Table 4.--Preventability of Shipyard Injuries by Type of PPE (1994)

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

Injuries without lost- Injuries with lost- All injuries

workdays workdays -------------------------

Injury preventability/PPE type ----------------------------------------------------

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

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

Preventable:

Hard hat...................... 753 2.8 133 1.3 886 2.4

Safety glasses \1\............ 3,509 12.8 346 3.5 3,855 10.4

Safety goggles................ 422 1.5 88 0.9 510 1.4

Welding goggles/helmet........ 632 2.3 137 1.4 769 2.1

Face shield................... 1,024 3.7 33 0.3 1,057 2.8

Safety shoes (metatarsal

guard)....................... 392 1.4 237 2.4 628 1.7

Safety shoes (toe protection). 361 1.3 109 1.1 470 1.3

Safety shoes (sole protection) 151 0.6 0 0.0 151 0.4

Work gloves................... 5,120 18.7 406 4.1 5,526 14.9

Chemical protective gloves.... 0 0.0 48 0.5 48 0.1

Chemical protective clothing.. 301 1.1 13 0.1 314 0.8

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

Total preventable........... 12,665 46.4 1,549 15.7 14,214 38.2

Not Preventable................... 14,652 53.6 8,327 84.3 22,979 61.8

All injuries...................... 27,317 100.0 9,876 100.0 37,193 100.0

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

\1\ Rate for eye injuries preventable by safety glasses adjusted downward by 50.0% due to current high rate of

safety glass use in shipyards.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1992. Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses; OSHA estimates based on

analysis of Form 200 Shipyard Injury Database. Estimates of the number of 1992 injuries and illnesses

extrapolated to 1994 based on decline in shipyard employment of 14.4 percent over this period.

OSHA also used data supplied by the BLS describing the distribution

of shipyard lost-workday cases by body part injured to develop

disaggregated estimates of the number of preventable injuries. These

estimates are shown in Table 5. OSHA estimates that 90 percent of the

head, scalp, and toe injuries are potentially preventable. OSHA also

judged PPE to be effective, at lower rates, in preventing face, eye,

foot, hand and finger injuries.

[[Page 26343]]

Table 5.--Preventable Shipyard Injuries and Illnesses by Severity and Body Part

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

Number of Share of

Number of extrapolated injuries Number of

Injury severity/body part 1992 1994 preventable injuries

injuries injuries \3\ \4\ prevented

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(percentage)--------------

Injuries and illnesses without lost workdays\1\......... 31,900 27,317 46.4 12,665

Lost-workday injuries and illnesses:\2\

Head, unspecified................................... 73 63 100.0 63

Ear(s).............................................. 0 0 0.0 0

Eye(s).............................................. 1,080 925 \5\ 61.7 571

Face................................................ 51 44 75.0 33

Scalp............................................... 91 78 \6\ 90.0 70

Neck................................................ 350 300 0.0 0

Arm(s), Unspecified................................. 49 42 0.0 0

Elbow............................................... 265 227 0.0 0

Forearm............................................. 128 110 0.0 0

Wrist............................................... 478 409 12.5 51

Hand(s)............................................. 508 435 38.9 169

Finger(s)........................................... 720 617 37.9 234

Upper extremities, multiple......................... 0 0 0.0 0

Trunk, unspecified.................................. 0 0 \6\ NE 0

Abdomen............................................. 88 75 0.0 0

Back, Unspecified................................... 954 817 0.0 0

Back, lumbar........................................ 1,198 1,026 0.0 0

Back, thoracic.............

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.