# Personal Protective Equipment for Shipyard Employment (PPE)

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A96-12573

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Rule
- **Published:** May 24, 1996
- **Citation:** 61 FR 26322

## Text

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

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A96-12573. Public record. Not legal advice.