26322 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration

29 CFR Part 1915

[Docket No. S–045]

RIN 1218–AA74 (AB06)

Personal Protective Equipment for

Shipyard Employment (PPE)

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health

Administration, Department of Labor.

ACTION: Final Rule.

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

§§ 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 § 1910.134

(respiratory protection) by reference to

replace the less comprehensive

provisions in § 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,
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 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)

(§ 1926.502(d) introductory text) and the

use of non-locking snaphooks in PFAS

(§ 1926.502(d)(5)) and in positioning

systems (§ 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 fulltime 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 lostworkday 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

Body part Number of 1992 injuries (a)

Number of extrapolated 1994 injuries

(b)

Percent (%)

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
26324 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1.—BLS ESTIMATES OF SHIPYARD INJURIES INVOLVING LOST WORKDAYS BY BODY PART—Continued

Body part Number of 1992 injuries (a)

Number of extrapolated 1994 injuries

(b)

Percent (%)

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

Nature of injury Number of 1992 injuries (a)

Number of extrapolated 1994 injuries

(b)

Percent (%)

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 PPErelated 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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 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 (§ 1910.133), head

(§ 1910.135) and foot protection

(§ 1910.136), and added provisions for

hazard assessment, PPE selection,

disposal and training (§ 1910.132 (d)–

(f)), and hand protection (§ 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

(§§ 1910.128, 1910.129, and 1910.131)

and positioning device systems

(§§ 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, § 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 nonlocking 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, § 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 [§ 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 § 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 § 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 (nonshipyard 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,

§ 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

§ 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

§ 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
26326 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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 § 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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 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 labormanagement 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 offsite 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 § 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 (§ 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 § 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 3×5 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
26328 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

extent to which current hazard

assessments performed by trade or

occupation provide the necessary

information for selection of appropriate

PPE’’ and provided examples of tradebased 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 § 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 PPErelated 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,

§ 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 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, § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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.’’
26330 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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

§ 1915.151(c)(1) and Table I–1 in

§ 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, § 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 § 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 § 1915.154 incorporates

existing § 1910.134, Respiratory

protection, by reference, as was

proposed. The shipyard industry has

been complying for years with

§ 1910.134 with regard to its respiratory

protection programs. The two comments

received on proposed § 1915.154 (Exs.

6–1 and 6–2) agreed with OSHA’s

proposal to replace § 1915.152, the

existing shipyard respirator standard,

with § 1910.134. Both comments

expressed the belief that § 1910.134 is

more protective and certainly more

current than § 1915.152.

OSHA has published a proposed

revision of § 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 § 1915.153(a). The national

consensus standard for protective

headgear, ANSI Z89.1, referenced in

final rule § 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 § 1915.152(a)

when such hazards are identified by the

hazard assessment.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 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

(§ 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 § 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 § 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 ProtectionProtective 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
26332 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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 § 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 § 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 § 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

§ 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 § 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 nonfunctioning components) which affect

their strength and buoyancy. Therefore,

the language of existing § 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 § 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,
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 26333

based on existing § 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 § 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 § 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

§ 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 § 1915.159

were very similar to those in the

corresponding proposed general

industry standard (proposed

§§ 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

§ 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
26334 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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, § 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

(§ 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 Drings 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 Drings 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 Drings 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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 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 selfretracting 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 Nonmandatory 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
26336 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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 § 1915.159(b)

have been moved to final rule

§ 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

§ 1915.159, the introductory text of final

rule § 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

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 1915.160, the use of nonlocking snaphooks is prohibited after

December 31, 1997.

Final rule paragraph (b) sets

performance criteria for positioning

device systems. Paragraph (b)(1),

proposed as § 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

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 1915.159(b)(6)(iii),

provides that employees must be trained

in the application limits, proper hookup, 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,
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 26337

§ 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,

§ 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 nonmandatory 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 performanceoriented 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
26338 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

(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 nonregulatory 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 ‘‘bottomup’’ 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 foreignproduced goods. Wage rates in

American shipyards were already well

below those of some important foreign

competitors, such as Germany and

Japan, whose governments heavily

subsidize their shipbuilding industries.

A new global trade accord that would

end shipbuilding subsidies may be

signed in the near future. This would

allow American shipyards to compete

internationally, increase commercial

ship construction, and increase

employment levels in the industry. The

Agency estimates that employment in

American shipyards will end its decline

and level off or increase slightly for the

next two to three years. Future

employment levels depend on funding

for the guaranteed loan program,

exchange rates and the relative price of

American versus foreign-built ships,

foreign governments’ level of subsidy to

their shipyards, and the status and

terms of a global accord to end subsidy

programs.

Employment in the shipbuilding

industry declined from 177,000 in 1984

to about 125,000 by 1987 and remained

near that level until 1992. The Bureau

of Labor Statistics estimates that

employment in the industry was

106,000 by late 1993. The most recent

BLS ‘‘Employment and Earnings’’ (May

1995) estimates the same level of

employment and reports that about

79,000 of these employees are

production workers. In 1994, the value

of output from American shipyards was

approximately $9.5 billion (1994

Industrial Outlook estimate). Based on

Dun & Bradstreet’s estimated mean

return for the shipyard industry of 2.9

percent, the industry earned

approximately $275 million in 1994.

The Agency estimates that there are

approximately 500 firms in SIC 3731,

and a majority of these have fewer than

50 employees. Employment in the

shipyard industry is highly

concentrated. The ten largest shipyards

employ approximately 70 percent of all

shipyard workers, and only the 100

largest firms have as many as 100

employees each. The Agency estimates

that approximately 300 firms engaged in

ship repair employ fewer than 20

employees. Many of these small firms

perform contracting for larger firms;

those that do so already follow the PPE

guidelines of the employing shipyards.

Employees at Risk

Numerous sources confirm that about

75 percent of shipyard employees are

production workers, including the 1987

Census of Manufactures (Bureau of the

Census 1990) and CONSAD Research

Corporation (1986). The Agency thus

concludes that an estimated 79,000

production workers in this industry are

now exposed to workplace hazards that

may require the use of PPE of the types

covered by the final rule.

Technological Feasibility

Equipment to meet the final PPE

standard, such as hard hats, gloves, and

safety shoes, is readily available and

widely used throughout the industry.

Off-the-shelf safety programs that

include guidance on the conduct of

hazard assessments, as well as training

program materials, are readily available,

and these programs are also well

established throughout the industry.

‘‘Hazard assessments are a standard

practice at EBDiv. [Electric Boat

Division]’’ [Ex. 9–10]. ‘‘Shipyards are

safety conscious. Every shipyard in the

Hampton Roads area has a safety

program and a safety officer * * *

STASR shipyards have safety programs

with many of the PPE standards already

in place. The [proposed standard’s] PPE

training and recordkeeping

requirements are, in some cases,

redundant’’ [South Tidewater

Association of Ship Repairers, Ex. 9–3].

Training documentation is usually

maintained by shipyard employers in a

computer database. The Agency

therefore concludes that the final PPE

standard is technologically feasible. The

performance-oriented criteria of the

standard should also allow

technological innovation to improve

PPE protection in the future.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 26339

Costs

The preliminary cost estimates

prepared by OSHA to support the

proposed shipyard PPE standard

published in 1988 included compliance

costs that shipyard employers would

incur to comply with a number of

proposed requirements for respirator

use. However, the final standard does

not include any new respirator

requirements, because the Agency

expects to publish a final rule

addressing respirator use in all

industries in the near future. Thus, this

final rule includes only those respirator

provisions that have been included in

OSHA’s shipyard rules since 1971.

In response to the preliminary

Regulatory Impact Analysis (1988),

OSHA received only one comment on

the costs of the proposed standard.

Peterson Builders [Ex. 6–14], referring to

the proposed requirement for foot

protection in Section 1915.156, stated

that buying protective footwear for all

employees—which the commenter

interpreted as being required by the

proposed standard—would be costly

and unnecessary. The Agency has

recently clarified its policy on the

purchase of PPE to make clear that

employers do not have to purchase

equipment that may also have personal

use; OSHA believes that the costs of PPE

will therefore be substantially less than

this commenter expected. In addition,

as noted above, OSHA’s 1988

Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis

(see Docket S–045) noted that the use of

PPE in shipyards is already widespread.

On April 6, 1994 OSHA published a

final standard for PPE in general

industry (59 Federal Register No. 66).

On July 6, 1994, the Agency reopened

the record for the shipyard PPE standard

to incorporate the general industry PPE

docket into the shipyard PPE docket and

to propose the addition of several

elements from the general industry

standard to the shipyard standard.

These elements included requirements

for: certification of workplace hazard

assessments; certification of training;

specification of training elements; the

phasing out of body belts in favor of

body harnesses; and the replacement of

non-locking snaphooks with locking

snaphooks. The Agency’s intent in

taking this action was to make the PPE

standard consistent where possible in

both shipyards and the general

industries. Following the comment

period, a Federal Register notice

announcing a public meeting and

containing additional discussion of

some of the issues raised by the

reopening was published on December

13, 1994. A public meeting was held on

January 25, 1995 to hear testimony

about the proposed changes to the

shipyard standard introduced during

the reopening of the record.

Representatives of the shipyard

industry and industry associations

opposed the new requirements for work

place hazard assessments and the

certification of such assessments. First,

the industry asserted that job-related

activities in shipyards are unique

because a shipyard is not a fixed

‘‘workplace.’’ Instead there is a constant

shifting of trades between work

locations as employees move among

various shops and vessels; in addition,

in ship repair and overhauling, the

vessels being worked on constantly

change. According to these commenters,

it is not possible for designated shipyard

employees to continuously assess the

hazards of a ‘‘workplace’’ that is

constantly changing. According to one

participant, a better approach would be

to perform hazard assessments by trade

to determine the level of PPE required

[South Tidewater Association of Ship

Repairers, Ex. 9–3]. Numerous

commenters agreed with this view [Exs.

9–1, 9–7 through 9–12].

As discussed above in relation to final

rule § 1915.152(b), OSHA agrees that it

is appropriate to allow employers

flexibility in organizing their hazard

assessment efforts. The Agency has

underscored the performance-oriented

nature of that provision by adding a

note to the final rule which states that

hazard assessments conducted

according to the trade or occupation of

affected employees are acceptable so

long as they address any PPE-related

hazards to which employees are

exposed in the course of their work

activities.

The shipyard industry also opposed

the requirement for certification of

hazard assessments because, in the

opinion of commenters, certification

would require employers to expend

resources for new paperwork activities

‘‘for the convenience of the Agency’’

that would not result in additional

safety for production workers [Ex. 9–

11]. Industry commenters also were

concerned that certification might

increase their liability when injuries

occur. Other shipyards that currently

rely on worker involvement to analyze

risks feared that certification would

disrupt that process [January 25, 1995

public meeting transcript pages 28 and

41–47]. The shipyard industry also

opposed the certification of hazard

assessments on the grounds that these

assessments would be redundant, since

the industry already performs many

PPE-related hazard assessments for

individual health and safety standards

such as hearing conservation, lead,

confined spaces, respirator use, and

other OSHA standards.

In its Federal Register notice on

December 13, 1994 announcing a public

meeting on shipyard PPE issues, the

Agency asked for information on

whether simple documentation would

suffice in place of certification. In

testimony at the public meeting and in

comments submitted following the

meeting, industry representatives stated

that they did not oppose documentation

of hazard assessments. In fact, they

reported that it is routine in the industry

to conduct such assessments and to

document them:

* * * hearing conservation, respiratory

protection, hazard communication, lockout/

tagout, lead abatement, blood-borne

pathogens, medical surveillance programs

* * * [are] programs that are already in place

that [require] us to do hazard assessments of

the workplace in order that we provide PPE

* * * Where hazard assessment does not

exist, and it would be hard for me to say

where it doesn’t in the shipyard industry,

we’d recommend that an annual assessment

be made. [Shipbuilders Council, January 25,

1995 public meeting transcript page 11].

Commenters within the shipyard

industry also opposed the general

industry PPE requirement to certify

training, largely for the same reasons as

those noted above for the certification of

hazard assessments—the creation of

potential new legal liability and

unnecessary paperwork. In its December

13, 1994 announcement, the Agency

suggested that simple documentation

could be used in lieu of certification,

and the final rule requires

documentation rather than certification.

Commenters were generally

supportive of the standard’s training

requirements and the specific elements

of training mandated by the rule.

Commenters stated that the PPE training

elements proposed by the Agency were

practiced throughout the shipyard

industry, as was the maintenance of

training logs—usually in the form of a

computer database:

We support the general requirement for

training as it does serve to enhance a safer

working environment [Shipbuilders’ Council

[Ex. 9–9]].

We are already complying with this

proposed standard [for training] and we

suspect many other shipyards are also

complying. * * * Our new hire orientation

programs covers all areas of PPE and would

meet the new requirements proposed in the

standard [Tampa Shipyards, Ex. 9–8].

We’d recommend this documentation [for

training] be in the form of training logs,

which most of us already keep on the

computer [Shipbuilders’ Council January 25,

1995 public meeting, Transcript page 13].
26340 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

There was widespread support among

industry commenters for the use of body

harnesses in place of body belts:

Electric Boat Division utilizes body

harnesses for all of its fall protection needs.

* * * [Ex. 9–10].

BIW/Local S6 has implemented a policy

which is consistent with the construction

industry standard in that only body

harnesses may be used in fall arrest systems

and body belts may be used in positioning

device systems [Bath Iron Works Ex. 11–7].

Without a doubt, the majority of our

membership endorses the use of harnesses.

Most of us already have those in place

[Shipbuilders’ Council January 25, 1995

public meeting, Transcript page 14].

However, Newport News

Shipbuilding (NNS), which employs

about 20 percent of all shipyard

employees, opposed the phase-out of

body belts in favor of harnesses. NNS

relies almost completely on body belts

for fall protection, although the

shipyard did report using a small

number of harnesses. Several small

yards also still rely on body belts for fall

protection and questioned the utility of

changing to body harnesses since they

had experienced no injuries due to the

use of body belts [Exs. 9–1, 9–3 and 9–

11]. At the public meeting, NNS stated

that replacing over 4,700 body belts

would be a burden and therefore that a

seven-year phase-in period would be

needed to reduce the economic impact.

The company reported that a review of

several years’ accident records failed to

show that falls of employees using body

belts resulted in any severe injuries.

NNS did not introduce its data on falls

into the record, however. A cost

analysis presented by NNS at the

hearing showed that body belts cost

NNS $43 each and, on average, lasted 7

years; harnesses cost $140 and have a

working lifetime of 3 years.

Most other shipyards and industry

associations reported that they had

switched to harnesses from belts. These

commenters reported that, although

harnesses cost more than belts, they

provide greater protection and are cost

effective.

We * * * endorse the use of body

harnesses as a safety method for employees.

While the cost of a body harness is usually

twice the amount of body belts, the added

safety factor to the employee is well worth

the money, and in the long run will save the

company money is case of an accident

[Atlantic Marine Ex. 9–9].

In fact many of our yards already use them

[harnesses]. We find them to be very

effective, and everybody seems to certainly

feel a lot safer with them [Shipbuilders’

Council January 25, 1995 public meeting,

Transcript page 23].

At the public meeting on January 25,

1995, representatives of the American

Insurance Service [Tr. 59] stated that

body harnesses would prevent injuries

that could occur in falls involving

employees wearing body belts. In

addition, they said that it is difficult to

rescue a worker in a body belt after a fall

since he or she typically is hanging

‘‘nose to toes,’’ or upside down. Several

falls involving employees (in other

industries) wearing body belts had

resulted in fatalities when the fallen

worker had slipped out of his/her body

belt. The insurance representatives also

asserted that the cost of harnesses

should not preclude the inclusion of a

harness requirement in the rule because

industry has known that the change to

harnesses was going to occur, body belts

are usually ‘‘expense’’ items, and, if

treated as a capital expense, will have

been fully depreciated by the effective

date of the regulation. The association

did not provide any data demonstrating

that the injuries associated with falls in

body harnesses was less severe than

those in belts. Belts were estimated to

cost $35 each and harnesses $75 each.

Harnesses were estimated to last an

average of 2 to 4 years.

OSHA agrees with the assessment of

most of the commenters from the

shipyard industry and the insurance

industry who supported the

requirement for harnesses in lieu of

belts, and the final rule thus contains

such a requirement.

Many commenters endorsed the

adoption of locking snaphooks over

non-locking snaphooks on lifelines [Ex.

9–10 and January 25, 1995 public

meeting, Transcript page 52]. Locking

snaphooks are already in widespread

use in shipyards. At the January 25,

1995 public meeting, representatives

from the American Insurance Service

demonstrated how, in a ‘‘roll-out’’

situation, lifelines can detach from nonlocking snaphooks. Most industry

commenters reported that snaphooks

were used in their shipyard, and none

opposed this change to the standard or

raised it as a cost issue.

Based on the record for this

rulemaking, the Agency has concluded

that the only provisions of the final PPE

standard that will impose other than

negligible costs on shipyard employers

are: the replacement of body belts with

body harnesses; the documentation of

hazard assessments; the development of

training for body harnesses in shipyards

not already employing harnesses; and

employee training for body harnesses.

Only Newport News Shipbuilding

(NNS) and a number of small shipyards

reported that they still rely on body

belts. (Very small shipyards specialize

in trades and may not use body

harnesses or body belts at all). OSHA

has taken the concerns of these

commenters into account in the final

rule. NNS stated that it currently uses

about 4,700 body belts, although no

information was available on the

breakdown between belts used as

positioning devices (this would not be

affected by the final rule) and those

used for fall protection. To the extent

that some of these belts continue to be

used for positioning devices, the 4700

figure overstates the number of

harnesses to acquire. The Agency

estimates that NNS will need to

purchase no more than 3,000 harnesses

(about 1 for every 5 production

workers). The Agency estimates that, in

addition to NNS, some smaller

employers in the industry may need to

buy harnesses to replace body belts, and

the Agency estimates that 1,000

harnesses would be purchased by these

employers. Based on evidence in the

record and information from suppliers,

the Agency estimates that body belts

cost about $50 and harnesses $100.

Body belts are estimated to last an

average of 7 years and harnesses 3 years.

Thus, body belts supply fall protection

at a cost of roughly $7 per year ($50/7

years), while harnesses do so at $33 per

year ($100/3 years). Harnesses therefore

cost roughly $27 more per year than

belts for each affected employee. Since

body belts can still be used as

positioning devices, the requirement

that harnesses be used for fall protection

will not end the useful life of these

belts. Based on these estimates, OSHA

concludes that replacing body belts with

harnesses will result in a new annual

cost to the industry of approximately

$128,000 [(3,000 new harnesses for

NNS+1,000 new harnesses for small

shipyards)×$27]. Nevertheless, to allow

additional time and reduce any

potential impacts, the final rule permits

shipyards to phase-in compliance with

the body harness requirement over two

years, which is consistent with the

phase-out date in other OSHA

standards.

The hazard assessment

documentation required by the standard

consists of a record, either paper or on

a computer or other storage medium,

with the date of the hazard assessment,

name of person performing the

assessment, occupation or operations

covered, and a list of the PPE required.

Shipyards report that they already

incorporate some of this information in

their current training materials. The

Agency has estimated that it would take

each shipyard about an hour to develop

a computer-based record format for this

documentation and approximately five

minutes to record the hazard assessment
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 26341

for each occupation covered. Table 3

summarizes this information for the PPE

standard. The total time expended by

managers to document hazard

assessments is estimated to be 781

hours, a one-time commitment of

management resources.

TABLE 3.—ESTIMATE OF AMOUNT OF TIME TO DOCUMENT HAZARD ASSESSMENTS, DEVELOP TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR

BODY HARNESSES, AND TRAIN IN USE OF BODY HARNESSES FOR OSHA’S STANDARD ON PPE IN SHIPYARDS

Firm Size (number of employees)

Number

of firms in

size category

Hazard assessment Develop training for hamesses Training

Number

of hazard

assessments

(trades)

Time to

document

hazard

assessments

(hours)

Time to

develop

training

per firm

(hours)

Number

of firms

who must

do so

Total time

to develop

program

(hours)

Training

sessions

per firm

Management time

(hours)

Number

of employees

trained

(hours)

1000+ ............................................. 12 40 36 ................ none 0 150 150 3000

500–999 ......................................... 12 30 30 8 6 48 4 24 200

100–499 ......................................... 76 30 190 4 76 304 2 152 400

21–99 ............................................. 100 10 150 4 100 400 1 100 200

11–20 ............................................. 100 5 125 2 50 100 1 50 200

1–10 ............................................... 200 5 250 2 100 200 1 100 150

Subtotals (hours) ................. ................ ................ 1 781 ................ ................ 1 1052 ................ 576 4150

Total one-time, or first year, management resources for hazard

assessments and development

of training ................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 2 1,833

First year management resources

to conduct training ..................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 2 576

Total management time ................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 2 2,409

Total employee time ...................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 2 4,150

Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis.

1One-time.

2 Hours.

The development of training materials

for the use of personal fall arrest

systems (body harnesses) imposes a onetime cost for shipyards that are not

already using harnesses. Some of the

very smallest shipyards who provide

specialty trade work will not have or

use any harnesses. All large shipyards

already use harnesses to some extent,

and the Agency has concluded that

these shipyards also have developed

training materials. Because training

videos and written materials on the use

of body harnesses are widely available,

the Agency has concluded that the time

required for establishing such a training

program will be small. Table 3 presents

the Agency’s estimate of the time that

firms will expend to develop training

for the use of body harnesses; the

estimate ranges from 8 hours for firms

with more than 500 employees to 2

hours for the smallest employers. The

total time required to develop training

for body harnesses is estimated to be

1,052 hours of management time.

Firms that do not currently use body

harnesses must also train their

employees as harnesses are substituted

over time for body belts. The cost of this

training consists of management or

trainers’ time to provide training to

employees as well as the value of

employee wages foregone while

training. The Agency estimates a

training session will take approximately

one hour and that as many as 10 to 20

employees can receive training in a

single session. Table 3 presents the

Agency’s estimate of the number of

sessions by firm size that will be

necessary for training in body harnesses

and the number of employees trained.

The Agency estimates that a higher

fraction (10 percent or more) of smaller

firms’ employees will have to be trained

due to the nature of their business—

cleaning tanks, repairs over the ship’s

side, painting and maintenance—which

require the use of harnesses. Among

large firms only NNS relies primarily on

body belts and uses only a few body

harnesses. The Agency estimates that all

of NNS’s body belts (4,700) will not

have to be replaced with harnesses,

since compared with smaller yards less

work conducted at large shipyards or in

new ship construction requires a body

harness (rather than a body belt). The

Agency has estimated that NNS will

replace 3,000 body belts with harnesses.

Data for the cost of body harness

training is included in Table 6. The

Agency estimates that 576 hours of

management time and 4,150 hours of

employee time will be required for

training.

The total one-time cost for

documenting hazard assessments,

developing harness training materials,

and providing training is 2,409

management hours and 4,150 employee

hours. Average hourly employee wages

for SIC 3731 are about $14.00 per hour

(‘‘Employment and Earnings’’ Bureau of

Labor Statistics October, 1994). The

Agency estimates that the cost of wages

plus benefits is $20 per hour for

production employees and $30 per hour

for managers.

The total cost of these elements of the

standard is approximately $155,000.

Annualized over five years at 7 percent,

this cost is about $35,000 per year.

Added to the annual cost of body

harnesses of $128,000, the Agency

estimates that the total annualized cost

of the PPE standard is $163,000 per year

for the shipyard industry.

Economic Impacts

With industry revenues exceeding $9

billion and an estimated profit of $275

million in 1994, the annual estimated

compliance costs associated with the

standard ($163,000) will not cause a

significant impact on the revenues or

profits of firms in the shipyard industry.
26342 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Benefits

The final shipyard PPE standard will

reduce the risk of injury or fatality

confronting workers who fall while

wearing body belts. After the phase-in

period, shipyard workers who fall while

wearing body harnesses will experience

fewer fatalities or severe injuries as a

result of these falls. Although industry

and insurance representatives testified

to the beneficial effects of harnesses,

data in the record are not sufficiently

detailed to quantify the magnitude of

the reduced risk. Accordingly, OSHA

has not quantified this risk reduction or

the productivity gains associated with

the use of harnesses compared with

belts. In addition, the use of locking

snaphooks, as required by the final rule,

will prevent roll-out thus reducing the

risk of fatality or severe injury.

The Agency has also analyzed the

more typical PPE-related injuries of

lesser severity. OSHA estimates that

compliance with the final shipyard

personal protective equipment rule will

potentially prevent about 1,550 lost

workday injuries (15 percent of all

shipyard PPE-related lost workday

injuries) and about 12,650 non-lost

workday injuries (about 46 percent of all

shipyard PPE-related non-lost workday

injuries). To develop this estimate, the

Agency analyzed a sample of over 1,700

shipyard injuries reported on OSHA

Form 200’s that were collected as part

of recent OSHA survey efforts. For each

injury or illness in the sample, OSHA

judged whether the injury or illness was

potentially preventable through the use

of the appropriate type of protective

equipment. These judgments were based

on the injury and illness descriptions on

the Form 200. OSHA considered the

following types of PPE to be applicable:

hard hats, safety glasses and goggles,

welding goggles and helmets, face

shields, safety shoes, work gloves and

other forms of hand protection, and

chemical protective gloves, aprons, and

other clothing.

To develop its estimate, OSHA first

divided the sample injuries and

illnesses by severity and estimated the

fraction of cases that were judged to be

potentially preventable by PPE use.

Next, OSHA applied these

preventability rates to Bureau of Labor

Statistics employment levels for 1994

for the shipyard industry and calculated

the number of cases that might be

prevented through PPE use. The results

of this analysis are shown in Table 4. Of

27,317 shipyard injuries and illnesses

without lost-workdays, 12,665 (46.4

percent) were estimated to be

potentially preventable through proper

use of PPE. Of 9,876 cases involving

days away from work, OSHA estimated

that 1,549 (15.7 percent) were

potentially preventable through

compliance with OSHA’s PPE

requirements. These estimates indicate

that over 10 percent of all shipyard

injuries (both lost-time and non-lost

work time) are potentially preventable

through the proper use of safety glasses,

while 15 percent are potentially

preventable through the use of work

gloves or other appropriate forms of

hand protection. This analysis of

‘‘typical’’ PPE injuries parallels the

benefits analysis performed for the

general industry PPE standard, with one

exception. In this shipyard analysis, the

Agency has reduced its estimate of the

number of eye injuries that could be

prevented by the use of safety glasses to

50 percent (a figure of about 99 percent

was applied in the general industry

analysis), because shipyard

representatives and OSHA personnel

report that the use of basic eye

protection is standard practice in

shipyards, which are widely recognized

as being especially hazardous

environments. The Agency concludes

that fewer eye injuries occur in

shipyards than general industry

establishments because employees in

shipyards, unlike those in general

industry, are routinely required to wear

safety glasses.

TABLE 4.—PREVENTABILITY OF SHIPYARD INJURIES BY TYPE OF PPE (1994)

Injury preventability/PPE type

Injuries without lost-workdaysInjuries with lost-workdays All injuries

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Preventable:

Hard hat ..................................................................... 753 2.8 133 1.3 886 2.4

Safety glasses 1 ......................................................... 3,509 12.8 346 3.5 3,855 10.4

Safety goggles ........................................................... 422 1.5 88 0.9 510 1.4

Welding goggles/helmet ............................................ 632 2.3 137 1.4 769 2.1

Face shield ................................................................ 1,024 3.7 33 0.3 1,057 2.8

Safety shoes (metatarsal guard) ............................... 392 1.4 237 2.4 628 1.7

Safety shoes (toe protection) .................................... 361 1.3 109 1.1 470 1.3

Safety shoes (sole protection) ................................... 151 0.6 0 0.0 151 0.4

Work gloves ............................................................... 5,120 18.7 406 4.1 5,526 14.9

Chemical protective gloves ........................................ 0 0.0 48 0.5 48 0.1

Chemical protective clothing ...................................... 301 1.1 13 0.1 314 0.8

Total preventable ................................................... 12,665 46.4 1,549 15.7 14,214 38.2

Not Preventable ................................................................ 14,652 53.6 8,327 84.3 22,979 61.8

All injuries .......................................................................... 27,317 100.0 9,876 100.0 37,193 100.0

1 Rate for eye injuries preventable by safety glasses adjusted downward by 50.0% due to current high rate of safety glass use in shipyards.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1992. Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses; OSHA estimates based on analysis of Form 200 Shipyard Injury Database. Estimates of the number of 1992 injuries and illnesses extrapolated to 1994 based on decline in shipyard employment of

14.4 percent over this period.

OSHA also used data supplied by the

BLS describing the distribution of

shipyard lost-workday cases by body

part injured to develop disaggregated

estimates of the number of preventable

injuries. These estimates are shown in

Table 5. OSHA estimates that 90 percent

of the head, scalp, and toe injuries are

potentially preventable. OSHA also

judged PPE to be effective, at lower

rates, in preventing face, eye, foot, hand

and finger injuries.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 26343

TABLE 5.—PREVENTABLE SHIPYARD INJURIES AND ILLNESSES BY SEVERITY AND BODY PART

Injury severity/body part

Number of

1992 injuries

Number of

extrapolated

1994 injuries 3

Share of injuries preventable 4

(percentage)

Number of

injuries prevented

Injuries and illnesses without lost workdays1 ................................................................... 31,900 27,317 46.4 12,665

Lost-workday injuries and illnesses:2

Head, unspecified ...................................................................................................... 73 63 100.0 63

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

Eye(s) ........................................................................................................................ 1,080 925 5 61.7 571

Face ........................................................................................................................... 51 44 75.0 33

Scalp .......................................................................................................................... 91 78 6 90.0 70

Neck .......................................................................................................................... 350 300 0.0 0

Arm(s), Unspecified ................................................................................................... 49 42 0.0 0

Elbow ......................................................................................................................... 265 227 0.0 0

Forearm ..................................................................................................................... 128 110 0.0 0

Wrist .......................................................................................................................... 478 409 12.5 51

Hand(s) ...................................................................................................................... 508 435 38.9 169

Finger(s) .................................................................................................................... 720 617 37.9 234

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

Trunk, unspecified ..................................................................................................... 0 0 6 NE 0

Abdomen ................................................................................................................... 88 75 0.0 0

Back, Unspecified ...................................................................................................... 954 817 0.0 0

Back, lumbar ............................................................................................................. 1,198 1,026 0.0 0

Back, thoracic ............................................................................................................ 168 144 0.0 0

Chest ......................................................................................................................... 289 247 5.3 13

Hip ............................................................................................................................. 306 262 0.0 0

Shoulder(s) ................................................................................................................ 601 515 0.0 0

Trunk, Multiple parts .................................................................................................. 0 0 0.0 0

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

Leg(s), unspecified .................................................................................................... 59 51 0.0 0

Thighs ........................................................................................................................ 89 76 0.0 0

Knee(s) ...................................................................................................................... 1,073 919 0.0 0

Lower leg(s) ............................................................................................................... 123 105 0.0 0

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

Ankle(s) ..................................................................................................................... 624 534 0.0 0

Foot/feet .................................................................................................................... 488 418 60.0 251

Toe(s) ........................................................................................................................ 123 105 90.0 95

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

Multiple body parts .................................................................................................... 674 577 0.0 0

Lost workday injuries continued:

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

Digestive system ....................................................................................................... 0 0 7NE 0

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

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

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

Body parts, NEC ....................................................................................................... 163 140 7NE 0

Unclassifiable ............................................................................................................ 720 617 0.0 0

Total lost-workday injury ........................................................................................ 11,533 9,876 15.7 1,549

All injuries and Illnesses ................................................................................................... 43,433 37,193 38.2 14,214

1Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1992 Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses.

2Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1992 Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, unpublished data. Injury and illness data by body part available only for cases with lost workdays. 3Estimates of the number of 1992 injuries and illnesses extrapolated to 1994 based on decline in shipyard employment of 14.4 percent over

this period. 4OSHA estimates based on analysis of Form 200 Shipyard Injury Database. Estimate of preventable share for non lost-workday injuries based

on the overall ratio of preventable non-lost-workday cases in the Form 200 database. 5 Rate for eye injuries preventable by safety glasses adjusted downward by 50.0% due to current high rate of safety glass use in shipyards.

6OSHA estimate. No observations for this injury category in Form 200 database.

Regulatory Alternatives

The Agency concludes that the

proposed rule is the most cost-effective

regulatory alternative for this industry.

One alternative considered was to apply

the general industry PPE standard to the

shipyard industry. However, if the

general industry PPE standard (29 CFR

1910.132) were applied to the shipyard

industry in its entirety, it would impose

unnecessary costs in the form of

paperwork because it could require

shipyards to adopt new training and

documentation programs. Shipyards

have long had both comprehensive and

specialized safety programs and their

own databases for maintaining training

logs, accident data, and other

information. The final rule builds on the

tools the industry has already developed

and thus avoids imposing unnecessary

costs and other burdens on shipyard

employers.

Regulatory Flexibility

As required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 (as amended by

Title II, Subtitle D of the Contract with

America Advancement Act of 1996),
26344 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

OSHA assessed the economic burden

faced by small establishments in

complying with this final rule. In

comments to the record for this

standard, no comments specifically

addressed either the Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis or its conclusion

that the standard would impose no

significant impact on small firms. In

that analysis, the Agency identified the

increased use of respirators as the main

source of new costs for all shipyards,

but this element has been dropped in

the final standard.

The Agency has concluded that small

shipyards in the industry have as much

need of additional personal protective

equipment as other shipyards. The

industry has one of the highest injury

and illness rates of any industry. Since

the largest shipyards report injury and

illness rates at or below the industry

average, the Agency has concluded that

the rate of preventable injuries and

illnesses are at least as great in smaller

yards. In addition, many of the

production operations are the same for

larger and smaller shipyards. Since the

standard requires employers to identify

and protect workers from risk by

occupation or trade, the Agency

concludes that the risks for each trade

are similar irrespective of the size of the

shipyard. The objectives of the standard

are to reduce the risk of PPE-preventable

injuries in shipyards.

Although no public comments were

specifically addressed to issues in the

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, many of

the comments applied to situations

faced by smaller shipyards. However,

the Agency believes that smaller yards

are not impacted in a significantly

different manner or scale than larger

shipyards. The comments by smaller

shipyards about feasibility were similar

to the larger yards: questioning the

utility of body harnesses rather than

body belts and the need to certify

hazard assessments and training.

The Agency considered applying the

General Industry PPE standard as an

alternative for small establishments in

the shipyard industry, but testimony

and comments in the docket support the

Agency’s decision that the final

standard will more effectively meet the

risk in shipyards at lowest cost.

As can be seen in Table 3, the Agency

estimates that there are 200 firms in the

shipyard industry with 10 or fewer

employees, 100 firms with 11–20

employees, and 100 firms with 21–99

employees. The Agency believes that for

the shipyard industry, firms with fewer

than 100 employees is a ‘‘small’’ firm.

Therefore, for purposes of this

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, the

Agency estimates that there are

approximately 400 ‘‘smaller’’ businesses

with an estimated 8,000 employees.

From data in Table 3, smaller firms will

require 525 management hours to

document hazard assessments, 250

management hours to develop training

for body harnesses, and 250

management hours to provide training,

and 550 employee hours for training.

Costs for these elements, which are a

one-time cost, total $38,450, which is

equivalent to an $8,700 annual cost

(annualized over 5 years at 7 percent).

Other new annual costs for small firms

are estimated at $13,500 for 500 body

harnesses to replace body belts. Total

annual costs for smaller shipyards are

then an estimated $22,200, or an average

of about $55 per smaller shipyard. The

Agency has provided a phase-in period

of two years to allow smaller shipyards

time to accomplish this shift.

OSHA concludes that this standard

will not impose a significant impact on

a substantial number of small entities,

and that the phase-in for body harnesses

will further alleviate any impacts that

do occur.

International Trade

In accordance with Executive Order

12866, OSHA assessed the effects of the

final standard on international trade.

The shipyard industry actively

competes with foreign shipyards for

ship repair and shipbuilding orders. If

this OSHA regulation significantly

increased the price of products and

services of domestic shipyards, foreign

shipyards could benefit. OSHA believes,

however, that there will be virtually no

effect on the prices of products or

services as a result of this regulation.

Environmental Impact

The shipyard PPE standard has been

reviewed in accordance with the

requirements of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the

regulations of the Council on

Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR

part 1500), and DOL NEPA Procedures

(29 CFR part 11). There will be no

additional incremental release

quantities related to this standard.

Releases of substances regulated under

EPA’s SARA Title III or EPA NESHAP

standards are subject to reporting and

control requirements.

Non-Regulatory Alternatives

The primary objective of OSHA’s

standard for PPE is to minimize the

number of shipyard employee injuries

and risk of fatalities. The Agency

examined non-regulatory approaches for

promoting PPE use, including (1)

incentives created by workers’

compensation programs or the threat of

private suits, and (2) requirements of the

U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard.

Following this review, OSHA

determined that the need for

government regulation arises from the

significant risk of job-related injury or

death. Private markets fail to provide

enough safety and health resources due

to the externalization of part of the

social cost of worker injuries and

deaths. Workers’ compensation systems

do not offer an adequate remedy

because premiums do not reflect

specific workplace risk and liability

claims are restricted by statutes

preventing employees from suing their

employers. The U.S. Navy and U.S.

Coast Guard require shipyards to follow

safe procedures when performing work

for them or when constructing merchant

vessels; however, most firms do not

come under this scrutiny. Thus, OSHA

has determined that a federal standard

is necessary.

References

1. U.S. Department of Commerce.

International Trade Administration. 1994

U.S. Industrial Outlook.

2. U.S. Department of Transportation.

Maritime Administration. Report on

Survey of U.S. Shipbuilding and Repair

Facilities, 1990.

3. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of

the Census. Preliminary Report Industry

Service 1987 Census of Manufactures:

Shipbuilding and Repairing (Industry

3731). Washington, D.C.: Government

Printing Office, 1990.

4. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of

the Census. Preliminary Report Industry

Service 1987 Census of Manufactures:

Shipbuilding and Repairing (Industry

3731). Washington, D.C.: Government

Printing Office, 1989.

5. CONSAD Research Corp. Data to Support

a Regulatory Analysis of the Proposed

Standard for Shipbuilding and

Repairing. Final Report. Prepared for the

U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational

Safety and Health Administration, under

Contract No. J–9–F–4–0024. Pittsburgh:

CONSAD, November 1985.

6. CONSAD Research Corp. Data to Support

A Regulatory Analysis of the Proposed

Standard for Shipbuilding and

Repairing: Subpart B. Prepared for the

U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational

Safety and Health Administration, under

Contract No. J–9–F–4–0024. Pittsburgh:

CONSAD, June 1986.

7. Commission on Merchant Marine and

Defense. First Report of the Commission

of Merchant Marine and Defense,

Appendices. Washington, D.C.,

September 30, 1987.

8. Dun and Bradstreet Financial Data. 1989,

1991, 1994.

9. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment

and Earnings, May, 1995.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 26345

10. Executive Office of the President. OMB.

Standard Industrial Classification

Manual. 1987.

11. Main Hurdman/KGM. Profile of the

Shipbuilding and Repairing Industry.

Prepared for the U.S. Department of

Labor, Occupational Safety and Health

Administration. Washington, D.C.,

October 1984. 62 Pp.

12. Shipyard Council of America. ‘‘Merchant

Shipbuilding’’ September, 1987; ‘‘Naval

Shipbuilding’’ January, 1992; ‘‘Ship

Construction Report’’ July, 1991.

13. American Waterways Shipyard

Conference. 1989 and 1992 Annual

Shipyard Survey. Arlington, Va.

14. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational

Injuries and Illnesses in the U.S. by

Industry 1992.

15. Sulowski, Andrew, ‘‘Selecting Fall

Arresting Systems,’’ National Safety

News, Oct. 1979.

16. Hearon, Bernard F. and Brinkley, James

W., ‘‘Fall Arrest and Post-Fall

Suspension: Literature Review and

Direction for Further Research,’’ Air

Force Aerospace Medical Research

Laboratory, Aerospace Medical Division,

Air Force Systems Command, WrightPatterson Air Force Base, Ohio.

17. United States Technical Advisory Group,

Ex. 9–33 submitted to the Powered

Platform rulemaking, Docket S–700A.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Agency has estimated the

paperwork burden of the shipyard PPE

standard under the guidelines of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

Under that Act, burden is defined as the

total time, effort, or financial resources

expended by persons to generate,

maintain, retain, or disclose or provide

information to or for a Federal Agency.

The Agency has concluded that the

following elements of the shipyard PPE

standard potentially could create a

paperwork burden for the shipyard

industry:

For hazard assessments:

performing a hazard assessment for

each trade; documenting the hazard

assessment;

For PPE training:

developing training materials (or

programs for PPE; training

employees;

documenting employee training.

For personal fall arrest system training:

developing a training program;

training employees.

For positioning device systems training:

developing a training program;

training employees.

For most of these potential sources of

burden, shipyards are already

performing these information collection

or disclosure functions. For these

elements, the final rule will not

therefore require shipyards to expend

additional resources on paperwork.

The Agency has concluded that only

new burdens imposed specifically by

new or revised provisions of a standard

should be considered paperwork

burdens attributable to that standard. In

other words, it would be inappropriate

to count as the burden actions that firms

in the regulated community have

already undertaken voluntarily.

The record shows that shipyards are

already complying with all of the

paperwork burden elements listed

above, except for documenting hazard

assessments, developing training for

personal fall arrest systems (body

harnesses), and providing training to

employees for personal fall arrest

systems. Among large shipyards, only

Newport News Shipbuilding (NNS)

reported that it relies primarily on body

belts rather than body harnesses.

The hazard assessment

documentation required by the standard

consists of a record, either paper or on

a computer or other storage medium,

with the date of the hazard assessment,

name of person performing the

assessment, occupation or operations

covered, and a list of the PPE required.

Shipyards report that they already

incorporate some of this information in

their current training materials. The

Agency has estimated that it would take

each shipyard about an hour to develop

a computer- based record format for this

documentation and approximately five

minutes to record the hazard assessment

for each occupation covered. Table 6

summarizes this information for the PPE

standard.

Development of training materials for

the use of personal fall arrest systems

(body harnesses) is the second potential

burden element. All large shipyards

report that they already use harnesses to

some extent. Because training videos

and written materials on the use of body

harnesses are widely available, the

Agency has concluded that the time

required for establishing such a training

program will be small. Table 6 presents

the Agency’s estimate of the time that

firms will expend to develop training

for the use of body harnesses; the

estimate ranges from 8 hours for firms

with more than 500 employees to 2

hours for the smallest employers.

Firms that do not currently use body

harnesses must also train their

employees as harnesses are substituted

over time for body belts. The paperwork

burden of this training consists of

management or trainers’ time to provide

training to employees. The Agency

estimates a training session will take

approximately one hour and that as

many as 10 to 20 employees can receive

training in a single session. Table 6

presents the Agency’s estimate of the

number of sessions by firm size that will

be necessary for training in body

harnesses. The Agency estimates that a

higher fraction (10 percent or more) of

smaller firms’ employees will have to be

trained due to the nature of their

business—cleaning tanks, repairs over

the ship’s side, painting and

maintenance—which require the use of

harnesses. Among large firms, only NNS

reported that they used very few

harnesses. The Agency estimates that all

of NNS’s body belts (4,700) will not

have to be replaced with harnesses,

since relatively less work at large

shipyards and new ship construction

require a body harness (rather than a

body belt). The Agency has estimated

that NNS will replace 3,000 body belts

with harnesses. Data for the paperwork

burden of providing training to

employees are also presented in Table 6.

Table 6.—ESTIMATE OF BURDEN HOURS TO DOCUMENT HAZARD ASSESSMENTS, TO DEVELOP TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR

BODY HAMESSES, AND TO TRAIN IN USE OF BODY HAMESSES FOR OSHA’S PAGE STANDARD ON PPE IN SHIPYARDS.

Firm size [number of employees]

Number

of firms in

size category

Hazard assessment Develop training for hamessess Training

Number

of hazard

assessments

[occupations]

Time of

document

hazard

assessment’s

[hours]

Time develop

training

per firm

[hours]

Number

of firms

who must

do so

Total time

to develop

program

Training

sessions

per firm

Time to

train

[hours]

1000+ ................................................................. 12 40 36 ................ 0 0 150 150

500–999 ............................................................. 12 30 30 8 6 48 4 24

100–499 ............................................................. 76 30 190 4 76 304 2 152

21–99 ................................................................. 100 10 150 4 100 400 1 100
26346 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Table 6.—ESTIMATE OF BURDEN HOURS TO DOCUMENT HAZARD ASSESSMENTS, TO DEVELOP TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR

BODY HAMESSES, AND TO TRAIN IN USE OF BODY HAMESSES FOR OSHA’S PAGE STANDARD ON PPE IN SHIPYARDS.—Continued

Firm size [number of employees]

Number

of firms in

size category

Hazard assessment Develop training for hamessess Training

Number

of hazard

assessments

[occupations]

Time of

document

hazard

assessment’s

[hours]

Time develop

training

per firm

[hours]

Number

of firms

who must

do so

Total time

to develop

program

Training

sessions

per firm

Time to

train

[hours]

11–20 ................................................................. 100 5 125 2 50 100 1 50

1–10 ................................................................... 200 5 250 2 100 200 1 100

Subtotals (hours) .................................... ................ ................ 781 ................ ................ 1052 ................ 576

Total estimated burden (first-year, one-time) .... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 1 2,409

Estimated annual burden 300 hours.

Source: OSHA’s Office of Regulatory Analysis.

1 Hours.

The Agency estimates that the

shipyard PPE standard will result in

about 2,409 paperwork burden hours

being imposed on the shipyard industry

the first year, most of it due to

developing training materials in the use

of body harnesses. However, these 2,409

hours are only an estimate of the firstyear burden, a one-time claim on

resources, not an annual burden. The

future annual burden beginning in the

second year, is estimated to be

approximately 300 hours per year,

which represents managers’ time to

train new employees resulting from

employee turnover in firms not

currently training employees in the use

of harnesses.

Collections of Information: Request for

Comments

The Department of Labor, as part of its

continuing effort to reduce paperwork

and respondent burden, conducts a

preclearance consultation program to

provide the general public and Federal

agencies with an opportunity to

comment on proposed and/or

continuing collections of information in

accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95)(44

U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program

helps to ensure that requested data can

be provided in the desired format,

reporting burden (time and financial

resources) is minimized, collection

instruments are clearly understood, and

the impact of collection requirements on

respondents can be properly assessed.

Currently, OSHA is soliciting comments

concerning the proposed approval for

the paperwork requirements of 29 CFR

1915, subpart I, Personal Protective

Equipment for Shipyard Employment

(PPE). Written comments should:

• Evaluate whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and

• Minimize the burden of the

collection of information on those who

are to respond, including through the

use of appropriate automated,

electronic, mechanical, or other

technological collection techniques or

other forms of information technology,

e.g., permitting electronic submissions

of responses.

Background

OSHA in its final rule for Personal

Protective Equipment in Shipyard

Employment is including two types of

information collections. The first is a

requirement for the employer to conduct

a hazard assessment relative to PPE

selection, and the second involves

training requirements for PPE.

OSHA believes that the information

collection and documentation of the

hazard assessment as outlined in the

final standard is necessary so that

situations where PPE should be used for

employee protection can be identified,

and the proper PPE selected. In

addition, OSHA believes that the

training requirements and

documentation in the final standard are

essential in providing employees with

the information and practical

knowledge needed to effectively use

PPE. Documentation can be used by the

employer to ensure that all of its

employees using PPE are properly

trained.

Current Actions

This notice requests OMB approval of

the paperwork requirements in Personal

Protective Equipment for Shipyard

Employment (29 CFR 1915, Subpart I).

Type of Review: New.

Agency: Occupational Safety and

Health Administration, U.S. Department

of Labor.

Title: Personal Protective Equipment

for Shipyard Employment (29 CFR 1915,

subpart I).

OMB Number: 1218–AA74

Agency: Docket No. S–045.

Frequency: On occasion.

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit, Federal government, State and

Local governments.

Number of respondents: 500.

Estimated Time Per Respondent:

Varies.

Total Estimated Cost: $72,270 (First

year only), $9,000 annual.

Total Burden Hours: 2,409 (First year

only), 300 annual, recurring.

Comments submitted in response to

this notice will be summarized and/or

included in the request for Office of

Management and Budget approval of the

information collection request: they will

also become a matter of public record.

VI. Statutory Considerations

Introduction

OSHA has described PPE-related

hazards and the measures required to

protect affected employees from those

hazards in Section I, Background;

Section II, Hazards Involved; and

Section III, Summary and Explanation

of the Final Rule, above. The Agency is

providing the following discussion of

the statutory mandate for OSHA

rulemaking activity to explain the legal
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 26347

basis for its determination that the

revised shipyard PPE standard, as

promulgated, is reasonably necessary to

protect affected employees from

significant risks of injury and death.

Section 2(b)(3) of the Occupational

Safety and Health Act authorizes ‘‘the

Secretary of Labor to set mandatory

occupational safety and health

standards applicable to businesses

affecting interstate commerce’’, and

section 5(a)(2) provides that ‘‘[each]

employer shall comply with

occupational safety and health

standards promulgated under this Act’’

(emphasis added). Section 3(8) of the

OSH Act (29 U.S.C. § 652(8)) provides

that ‘‘the term ‘occupational safety and

health standard’ means a standard

which requires conditions, or the

adoption or use of one or more

practices, means, methods, operations,

or processes, reasonably necessary or

appropriate to provide safe or healthful

employment and places of

employment.’’

In two recent cases, reviewing courts

have expressed concern that OSHA’s

interpretation of these provisions of the

OSH Act, particularly of section 3(8) as

it pertains to safety rulemaking, could

lead to overly costly or under-protective

safety standards. In International Union,

UAW v. OSHA, 938 F.2d 1310 (D.C. Cir.

1991), the District of Columbia Circuit

rejected substantive challenges to

OSHA’s lockout/tagout standard and

denied a request that enforcement of

that standard be stayed, but it also

expressed concern that OSHA’s

interpretation of the OSH Act could lead

to safety standards that are very costly

and only minimally protective. The

reviewing court conducted further

proceedings and subsequently held that

the OSH Act provides adequate

constraints on the exercise of OSHA’s

regulatory authority (938 F.3d 1310,

D.C. Cir. 1994).

In National Grain & Feed Ass’n v.

OSHA, 866 F.2d 717 (5th Cir. 1989), the

Fifth Circuit concluded that Congress

gave OSHA considerable discretion in

structuring the costs and benefits of

safety standards but, concerned that the

grain dust standard might be underprotective, directed OSHA to consider

adding a provision that might further

reduce significant risk of fire and

explosion.

OSHA rulemakings involve a

significant degree of agency expertise

and policy-making discretion to which

reviewing courts must defer. (See, for

example, Building & Constr. Trades

Dep’t, AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258,

1266 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Industrial Union

Dep’t, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum

Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 655 n. 62 (1980).) At

the same time, the Agency’s technical

expertise and policy-making authority

must be exercised within discernable

limits. The lockout/tagout and grain

handling standard decisions sought

clarification of the Agency’s view of the

scope of its expertise and authority. In

light of those decisions, the preamble to

this safety standard states OSHA’s views

regarding the limits of its safety

rulemaking authority and explains why

the Agency is confident that its

interpretive views have in the past

avoided regulatory extremes and

continue to do so in this rule.

Stated briefly, the OSH Act requires

that, before promulgating any

occupational safety standard, OSHA

demonstrate based on substantial

evidence in the record as a whole that:

(1) the proposed standard will

substantially reduce a significant risk of

material harm; (2) compliance is

technologically feasible in the sense that

the protective measures being required

already exist, can be brought into

existence with available technology, or

can be created with technology that can

reasonably be developed; (3)

compliance is economically feasible in

the sense that industry can absorb or

pass on the costs without major

dislocation or threat of instability; and

(4) the standard is cost effective in that

it employs the least expensive

protective measures capable of reducing

or eliminating significant risk.

Additionally, proposed safety standards

must be compatible with prior Agency

action, must be responsive to significant

comment in the record, and, to the

extent allowed by statute, must be

consistent with applicable Executive

Orders. These elements limit OSHA’s

regulatory discretion for safety

rulemaking and provide a decisionmaking framework for developing a

rule.

A. Congress concluded that OSHA

regulations are necessary to protect

workers from occupational hazards and

that employers should be required to

reduce or eliminate significant

workplace health and safety threats. At

section 2(a) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C.

§ 651(a)), Congress announced its

determination that occupational injury

and illness should be eliminated as

much as possible: ‘‘The Congress finds

that occupational injury and illness

arising out of work situations impose a

substantial burden upon, and are a

hindrance to, interstate commerce in

terms of lost production, wage loss,

medical expenses, and disability

compensation payments.’’ Congress

therefore declared ‘‘it to be its purpose

and policy * * * to assure so far as

possible every working man and woman

in the Nation safe * * * working

conditions [29 U.S.C. § 651(b)].’’

To that end, Congress instructed the

Secretary of Labor to adopt existing

federal and consensus standards during

the first two years after the OSH Act

became effective and, in the event of

conflict among any such standards, to

‘‘promulgate the standard which assures

the greatest protection of the safety or

health of the affected employees [29

U.S.C. § 655(a)].’’ Congress also directed

the Secretary to set mandatory

occupational safety standards [29 U.S.C.

§ 651(b)(3)], based on a rulemaking

record and substantial evidence [29

U.S.C. § 655(b)(2)], that are ‘‘reasonably

necessary or appropriate to provide safe

* * * employment and places of

employment.’’ When promulgating

permanent safety or health standards

that differ from existing national

consensus standards, the Secretary must

explain ‘‘why the rule as adopted will

better effectuate the purposes of this Act

than the national consensus standard

[29 U.S.C. § 655(b)(8)].’’

Correspondingly, every employer must

comply with OSHA standards and, in

addition, ‘‘furnish to each of his

employees employment and a place of

employment which are free from

recognized hazards that are causing or

are likely to cause death or serious

physical harm to his employees [29

U.S.C. § 654(a)].’’

‘‘Congress understood that the Act

would create substantial costs for

employers, yet intended to impose such

costs when necessary to create a safe

and healthful working environment.

Congress viewed the costs of health and

safety as a cost of doing business * * *.

Indeed, Congress thought that the

financial costs of health and safety

problems in the workplace were as large

as or larger than the financial costs of

eliminating these problems [American

Textile Mfrs. Inst. Inc. v. Donovan, 452

U.S. 490, 519–522 (1981) (ATMI);

emphasis was supplied in original].’’

‘‘[T]he fundamental objective of the Act

[is] to prevent occupational deaths and

serious injuries [Whirlpool Corp. v.

Marshall, 445 U.S. 1, 11 (1980)].’’ ‘‘We

know the costs would be put into

consumer goods but that is the price we

should pay for the 80 million workers

in America [S. Rep. No. 91–1282, 91st

Cong., 2d Sess. (1970); H.R. Rep. No.

91–1291, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970),

reprinted in Senate Committee on Labor

and Public Welfare, Legislative History

of the Occupational Safety and Health

Act of 1970, (Committee Print 1971)

(‘‘Leg. Hist.’’) at 444 (Senator

Yarborough)].’’ ‘‘Of course, it will cost a

little more per item to produce a

washing machine. Those of us who use
26348 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

washing machines will pay for the

increased cost, but it is worth it, to stop

the terrible death and injury rate in this

country [Id. at 324; see also 510–511,

517].’’

[T]he vitality of the Nation’s economy will

be enhanced by the greater productivity

realized through saved lives and useful years

of labor.

When one man is injured or disabled by an

industrial accident or disease, it is he and his

family who suffer the most immediate and

personal loss. However, that tragic loss also

affects each of us. As a result of occupational

accidents and disease, over $1.5 billion in

wages is lost each year [1970 dollars], and the

annual loss to the gross national product is

estimated to be over $8 billion. Vast

resources that could be available for

productive use are siphoned off to pay

workmen’s compensation and medical

expenses * * *.

Only through a comprehensive approach

can we hope to effect a significant reduction

in these job death and casualty figures. [Id.

at 518–19 (Senator Cranston)]

Congress considered uniform

enforcement crucial because it would

reduce or eliminate the disadvantage

that a conscientious employer might

experience where inter-industry or

intra-industry competition is present.

Moreover, ‘‘many employers—

particularly smaller ones—simply

cannot make the necessary investment

in health and safety, and survive

competitively, unless all are compelled

to do so [Leg. Hist. at 144, 854, 1188,

1201].’’

Thus, the statutory text and legislative

history make clear that Congress

conclusively determined that OSHA

regulation is necessary to protect

workers from occupational hazards and

that employers should be required to

reduce or eliminate significant

workplace health and safety threats.

B. As construed by the courts and by

OSHA, the OSH Act sets clear and

reasonable limits for Agency rulemaking

action. OSHA has long followed the

teaching that section 3(8) of the OSH

Act requires that, before it promulgates

‘‘any permanent health or safety

standard, [it must] make a threshold

finding that a place of employment is

unsafe—in the sense that significant

risks are present and can be eliminated

or lessened by a change in practices

[Industrial Union Dep’t, AFL–CIO v.

American Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607,

642 (1980) (plurality) (Benzene);

emphasis was supplied in original].’’

Thus, the national consensus and

existing federal standards that Congress

instructed OSHA to adopt summarily

within two years of the OSH Act’s

inception provide reference points

concerning the least an OSHA standard

should achieve (29 U.S.C. § 655(a)). As

a result, OSHA is precluded from

regulating insignificant risks or from

issuing standards that do not at least

lessen risk in a significant way.

The OSH Act also limits OSHA’s

discretion to issue overly burdensome

rules, as the Agency also has long

recognized that ‘‘any standard that was

not economically or technologically

feasible would a fortiori not be

‘reasonably necessary or appropriate’

under the Act. See Industrial Union

Dep’t v. Hodgson, [499 F.2d 467, 478

(D.C. Cir. 1974)] (‘Congress does not

appear to have intended to protect

employees by putting their employers

out of business.’) [American Textile

Mfrs. Inst. Inc., 452 U.S. at 513 n. 31 (a

standard is economically feasible even if

it portends ‘disaster for some marginal

firms,’ but it is economically infeasible

if it ‘threaten[s] massive dislocation to,

or imperil[s] the existence of,’ the

industry)].’’

By stating the test in terms of ‘‘threat’’

and ‘‘peril,’’ the Supreme Court made

clear in ATMI that economic

unfeasibility begins short of industrywide bankruptcy. OSHA itself has

placed the line considerably below this

level. (See for example, ATMI, 452 U.S.

at 527 n. 50; 43 FR 27,360 (June 23,

1978). Proposed 200 μg/m3 PEL for

cotton dust did not raise serious

possibility of industry-wide bankruptcy,

but impact on weaving sector would be

severe, possibly requiring

reconstruction of 90 percent of all

weave rooms. OSHA concluded that the

200 μg/m3 level was not feasible for

weaving and that 750 μg/m3 was all that

could reasonably be required). See also

54 FR 29,245–246 (July 11, 1989);

American Iron & Steel Institute, 939

F.2d at 1003. OSHA raised engineering

control level for lead in small

nonferrous foundries to avoid the

possibility of bankruptcy for about half

of small foundries even though the

industry as a whole could have survived

the loss of small firms.) All OSHA

standards must also be cost-effective in

the sense that the protective measures

being required must be the least

expensive measures capable of

achieving the desired end (ATMI, at 514

n. 32; Building and Constr. Trades

Dep’t, AFL–CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258,

1269 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). OSHA gives

additional consideration to financial

impact in setting the period of time that

should be allowed for compliance,

allowing as much as ten years for

compliance phase-in. (See United

Steelworkers of Am. v. Marshall, 647

F.2d 1189, 1278 (D.C. Cir. 1980), cert.

denied, 453 U.S. 913 (1981).)

Additionally, OSHA’s enforcement

policy takes account of financial

hardship on an individualized basis.

OSHA’s Field Inspection Reference

Manual provides for setting a

‘‘reasonable abatement date,’’ based on

careful consideration of an employer’s

particular circumstances, by which time

a violation must be corrected (CPL.

2.103, Chapter IV, paragraph A2,

September 26, 1994).

To reach the necessary findings and

conclusions, OSHA conducts

rulemaking in accordance with the

requirements of section 6 of the OSH

Act. The rulemaking process enables the

Agency to determine the qualitative

and, if possible, the quantitative nature

of the risk with (and without)

regulation, the technological feasibility

of compliance, the industry’s profit

history, the industry’s ability to absorb

costs or pass them on to the consumer,

the impact of higher costs on demand,

and the impact on competition with

substitutes and imports. (See ATMI at

2501–2503; American Iron & Steel

Institute generally.) Section 6(f) of the

OSH Act further provides that, if the

validity of a standard is challenged,

OSHA must support its conclusions

with ‘‘substantial evidence in the record

considered as a whole,’’ a standard that

courts have determined requires fairly

close scrutiny of agency action and the

explanation of that action. (See

Steelworkers, 647 F.2d at 1206–1207.)

OSHA’s powers are further

circumscribed by the independent

Occupational Safety and Health Review

Commission, which provides a neutral

forum for employer contests of citations

issued by OSHA for noncompliance

with health and safety standards (29

U.S.C. §§ 659–661; noted as an

additional constraint in Benzene at 652

n. 59). OSHA must also respond

rationally to similarities and differences

among industries or industry sectors.

(See Building and Constr. Trades Dep’t,

AFL–CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258, 1272–

73 (D.C. Cir. 1988).)

OSHA rulemaking is thus constrained

first by the need to demonstrate that the

standard will substantially reduce a

significant risk of material harm, and

then by the requirement that

compliance is technologically capable of

being done and not so expensive as to

threaten economic instability or

dislocation for the industry. Within

these bounds, further constraints such

as the need to find cost-effective

measures and to respond rationally to

all meaningful comment militate against

regulatory extremes.

D. The revised PPE standard complies

with the statutory criteria described

above and is not subject to the

additional constraints applicable to

section 6(b)(5) standards.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 26349

Standards which regulate hazards that

are frequently undetectable because

they are subtle or develop slowly or

after long latency periods, are frequently

referred to as ‘‘health’’ standards.

Standards that regulate hazards, such as

falls, explosions or electrocutions, that

cause immediately noticeable physical

harm, are called ‘‘safety’’ standards. (See

National Grain & Feed Ass’n v. OSHA

(NGFA II), 866 F.2d 717, 731, 733 (5th

Cir. 1989). As noted above, section 3(8)

provides that all OSHA standards must

be ‘‘reasonably necessary or

appropriate.’’ In addition, section 6(b)(5)

requires that OSHA set health standards

which limit significant risk ‘‘to the

extent feasible.’’ OSHA has determined

that the revised PPE standard is a safety

standard, because the revised standard

addresses hazards, such as flying

particles, molten metal, electric shock,

falling objects and falls from elevations

that are immediately dangerous to life or

health, not the longer term, less obvious

hazards subject to section 6(b)(5).

The OSH Act and its legislative

history clearly indicate that Congress

intended for OSHA to distinguish

between safety standards and health

standards. For example, in section

2(b)(6) of the OSH Act, Congress

declared that the goal of assuring safe

and healthful working conditions and

preserving human resources would be

achieved, in part:

* * * by exploring ways to discover latent

diseases, establishing causal connections

between diseases and work in environmental

conditions, and conducting other research

relating to health problems, in recognition of

the fact that occupational health standards

present problems often different from those

involved in occupational safety.

The legislative history makes this

distinction even clearer:

[The Secretary] should take into account

that anyone working in toxic agents and

physical agents which might be harmful may

be subjected to such conditions for the rest

of his working life, so that we can get at

something which might not be toxic now, if

he works in it a short time, but if he works

in it the rest of his life might be very

dangerous; and we want to make sure that

such things are taken into consideration in

establishing standards. [Leg. Hist. at 502–503

(Sen. Dominick), quoted in Benzene at 648–

49]

Additionally, Representative Daniels

distinguished between ‘‘insidious ’silent

killers’ such as toxic fumes, bases, acids,

and chemicals’’ and ‘‘violent physical

injury causing immediate visible

physical harm’’ (Leg. Hist. at 1003), and

Representative Udall contrasted

insidious hazards like carcinogens with

‘‘the more visible and well-known

question of industrial accidents and onthe-job injury’’ (Leg. Hist. at 1004). (See

also, for example, S. Rep. No. 1282, 91st

Cong., 2d Sess 2–3 (1970), U.S. Code

Cong. & Admin. News 1970, pp. 5177,

5179, reprinted in Leg. Hist. at 142–43,

discussing 1967 Surgeon General study

that found that 65 percent of employees

in industrial plants ‘‘were potentially

exposed to harmful physical agents,

such as severe noise or vibration, or to

toxic materials’’; Leg. Hist. at 412; id. at

446; id. at 516; id. at 845; International

Union, UAW at 1315.)

In reviewing OSHA rulemaking

activity, the Supreme Court has held

that section 6(b)(5) requires OSHA to set

‘‘the most protective standard consistent

with feasibility’’ (Benzene at 643 n. 48).

As Justice Stevens observed:

The reason that Congress drafted a special

section for these substances * * * was

because Congress recognized that there were

special problems in regulating health risks as

opposed to safety risks. In the latter case, the

risks are generally immediate and obvious,

while in the former, the risks may not be

evident until a worker has been exposed for

long periods of time to particular substances.

[Benzene, at 649 n. 54.]

Challenges to the grain dust and

lockout/tagout standards included

assertions that grain dust in explosive

quantities and uncontrolled energy

releases that could expose employees to

crushing, cutting, burning or explosion

hazards were harmful physical agents so

that OSHA was required to apply the

criteria of section 6(b)(5) when

determining how to protect employees

from those hazards. Reviewing courts

have uniformly rejected such assertions.

For example, the Court in International

Union, UAW v. OSHA, 938 F.2d 1310

(D.C. Cir. 1991) rejected the view that

section 6(b)(5) provided the statutory

criteria for regulation of uncontrolled

energy, holding that such a ‘‘reading

would obliterate a distinction that

Congress drew between ‘health’ and

‘safety’ risks.’’ The Court also noted that

the language of the OSH Act and the

legislative history supported the OSHA

position (International Union, UAW at

1314). Additionally, the Court stated:

‘‘We accord considerable weight to an

agency’s construction of a statutory

scheme it is entrusted to administer,

rejecting it only if unreasonable’’

(International Union, UAW at 1313,

citing Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC,

467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984)).

The Court reviewing the grain dust

standard also deferred to OSHA’s

reasonable view that the Agency was

not subject to the feasibility mandate of

section 6(b)(5) in regulating explosive

quantities of grain dust (National Grain

& Feed Association v. OSHA (NGFA II),

866 F.2d 717, 733 (5th Cir. 1989)). It

therefore applied the criteria of section

3(8), requiring the Agency to establish

that the standard is ‘‘reasonably

necessary or appropriate’’ to protect

employee safety.

As explained in Section I,

Background, Section III, Summary and

Explanation of the Standard, and in

Section VI, Summary of the Final

Economic Analysis and Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis, above, OSHA has

determined that the failure to protect

employees from PPE-related hazards

poses significant risks to employees and

that the provisions of the final rule are

reasonably necessary to protect affected

employees from those risks. The Agency

estimates that compliance with the

revised PPE standard will cost $163,000

annually and will reduce the risk of the

identified hazards, preventing 14,200

injuries annually (of which 1,550 would

be lost workday injuries and 12,650

would be non-lost workday injuries).

This constitutes a substantial reduction

of significant risk of material harm for

the exposed population of

approximately 79,000 shipyard

production employees.

The rulemaking record indicates that

the measures required by the standard

are already in general use throughout

the shipyard industry. In addition,

OSHA believes that compliance is

economically feasible as documented in

the Economic Analysis.

As detailed in Table 7, below, the

standard’s estimated costs, benefits, and

compliance requirements are consistent

with estimates of other OSHA safety

standards, such as the Hazardous Waste

Operations and Emergency Response

(HAZWOPER) standard.

TABLE 7

Standard (CFR cite) Final rule date (FR cite)

Number of

deaths prevented annually

Number of

Injuries prevented annually

Annual cost

first five yrs

(mill)

Annual cost

next five yrs

(mill)

Grain handling (1910.272) ................... 12–31–87 (52 FR 49622) .................... 18 394 5.9 to 33.4 ...... 5.9 to 33.4.
26350 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 7—Continued

Standard (CFR cite) Final rule date (FR cite)

Number of

deaths prevented annually

Number of

Injuries prevented annually

Annual cost

first five yrs

(mill)

Annual cost

next five yrs

(mill)

HAZWOPER (1910.120) ...................... 3–6–89 (54 FR 9311) .......................... 32 18,700 153 ................. 153.

Excavations (Subpt P) .......................... 10–31–89 (54 FR 45,954) .................... 74 800 306 ................. 306.

Process Safety Mgmt (1910.119) ........ 2–24–92 57 FR 6356 ........................... 330 1,917 880.1 .............. 470.8.

Permit-Required Confined Spaces

(1910.146).

1–14–93 58 FR 4462 ........................... 54 5,041 202.4 .............. 202.4.

OSHA assessed employee risk by

evaluating exposure to PPE- related

hazards throughout the shipyard

industry. The Summary of the Final

Economic Analysis and Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis, Section IV, above,

presents OSHA’s estimate of the costs

and benefits of the revised PPE standard

in terms of the Standard Industrial

Classification (SIC) code for the industry

regulated.

The record indicates clearly that

employees in shipyard employment face

significant risks related to PPE-related

hazards, and that compliance with the

revised PPE standard is reasonably

necessary to protect affected employees

from those risks.

OSHA has considered and responded

to all substantive comments regarding

the proposed Shipyard PPE standard on

their merits in the Section III, Summary

and Explanation of the Standard, earlier

in this preamble. In particular, OSHA

evaluated all suggested changes to the

proposed rule in terms of their impact

on worker safety, their feasibility, their

cost effectiveness, and their consonance

with the OSH Act.

VII. Federalism

This regulation has been reviewed in

accordance with Executive Order 12612

(52 FR 41685, October 30, 1987)

regarding Federalism. This Order

requires that Agencies, to the extent

possible, refrain from limiting state

policy options, consult with states prior

to taking any actions which would

restrict State policy options, and take

such actions only when there is clear

constitutional authority and the

presence of a problem of national scope.

The Order provides for preemption of

state law only if there is clear

Congressional intent for the Agency to

do so. Any such preemption is to be

limited to the extent possible.

Section 18 of the Occupational Safety

and Health Act (OSH Act) expresses

Congress’ clear intent to preempt state

laws relating to issues on which federal

OSHA has promulgated occupational

safety and health standards. Under the

OSH Act, a state can avoid preemption

only if it submits, and obtains Federal

approval of a plan for the development

of such standards and their

enforcement. Occupational safety and

health standards developed by such

states must, among other things, be at

least as effective in providing safe and

healthful employment and places of

employment as the federal standards.

Where such standards are applicable to

products distributed or used in

interstate commerce, they may not

burden commerce unduly and must be

justified by compelling local conditions

(see section 18(c)(2) of the OSH Act).

The Federal standard on personal

protective equipment addresses hazards

which are not unique to any one state

or region of the country. Nonetheless,

states with occupational safety and

health plans approved under section 18,

of the OSH Act, will be able to develop

their own state standards to deal with

any special problems which might be

encountered in a particular state.

Moreover, this standard is written in

general, performance-oriented terms.

There is considerable flexibility for

methods of compliance which are

appropriate to the working conditions

covered by the standard.

In brief, this regulation addresses a

clear national problem related to

occupational safety and health in

shipyard employment. Those states

which have elected to participate under

section 18, of the OSH Act are not

preempted by this standard, and will be

able to deal with any special conditions

within the framework of the Federal

Act, while ensuring that the state

standards are at least as effective as that

standard.

VIII. State Plan Standards

The 25 States and territories having

OSHA-approved occupational safety

and health plans which cover the issues

of maritime safety and health must

revise their existing standards within

six months of the publication date of a

final standard, or show OSHA why

there is no need for action because an

existing state standard covering this area

is already ‘‘at least as effective’’ as the

revised Federal standard. Currently five

states (California, Minnesota, Oregon,

Vermont, and Washington) have their

own state plans which cover the private

sector on-shore maritime activities.

Federal OSHA enforces maritime

standards off shore in all states and

provides on-shore coverage of maritime

activities in Federal OSHA States and in

the following State plan States and

territories: Alaska, Arizona,

Connecticut, (plan covers only State and

local government employees), Hawaii,

Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland,

Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, New

York, (plan covers only State and local

government employees), North Carolina,

Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee,

Utah, Virginia, Virgin Islands, and

Wyoming are All States with State plans

also must extend coverage to state and

local government employees engaged in

maritime activities.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1915

Eye protection, Face protection, Fall

protection, Foot protection, Hazard

assessment, Head protection, Hard hats,

Incorporation by reference, Personal

flotation devices, Marine safety,

Occupational safety and health,

Personal Fall Arrest Systems,

Positioning Device Systems, Protective

equipment, Respirators, Respiratory

protection, Safety, Ship repair,

Shipyards, Snaphooks, and Vessels.

IX. Authority

This document has been prepared

under the direction of Joseph A. Dear,

Assistant Secretary of Labor for

Occupational Safety and Health, U.S.

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution

Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 20210.

Accordingly, pursuant to sections 4,

6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and

Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,

657); section 41, of the Longshore and

Harbor Workers Compensation Act as

amended (33 U.S.C. 941); Section 4 of

the Administrative Procedure Act (5

U.S.C. 553); Secretary of Labor’s Order

No. 1–90 (55 FR 9033); and 29 CFR part

1911, 29 CFR part 1915 is amended as

set forth below.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 26351

Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of

April 1996.

Joseph A. Dear,

Assistant Secretary of Labor.

PART 1915—[AMENDED]

1. The Authority citation for part 1915

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 4, 6, and 8, Occupational

Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653,

655, 657); section 41, Longshore and Harbor

Workers’ Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941),

Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 8–76 (41 FR

25059), No. 9–83 (48 FR 35736), No. 1–90 (55

FR 9033), and 29 CFR part 1911.

2. Section 1915.32 is amended by

revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as

follows:

§ 1915.32 Toxic cleaning solvents.

(a) * * *

(3) Employees shall be protected

against toxic vapors by suitable

respiratory protective equipment in

accordance with the requirements of

subpart I of this Part and, where

necessary, against exposure of skin and

eye contact with toxic solvents and their

vapors by suitable clothing and

equipment.

* * * * *

3. Section 1915.33 is amended by

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 1915.33 Chemical paint and preservative

removers.

(a) Employees shall be protected

against skin contact during the handling

and application of chemical paint and

preservative removers and shall be

protected against eye injury by goggles

or face shields in accordance with the

requirements of subpart I of this part.

* * * * *

4. Section 1915.34 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(4), (b)(1),

(c)(3)(i), (c)(3)(ii), and (c)(3)(iii) to read

as follows:

§ 1915.34 Mechanical paint removers.

(a) * * *

(1) Employees engaged in the removal

of paints, preservatives, rusts, or other

coatings by means of power tools shall

be protected against eye injury by using

goggles or face shields in accordance

with the requirements of subpart I of

this part.

* * * * *

(4) In a confined space, mechanical

exhaust ventilation sufficient to keep

the dust concentration to a minimum

shall be used, or employees shall be

protected by respiratory protective

equipment in accordance with the

requirements of subpart I of this part.

(b) * * *

(1) Hardened preservative coatings

shall not be removed by flame in

enclosed spaces unless the employees

exposed to fumes are protected by air

line respirators in accordance with the

requirements of subpart I. Employees

performing such an operation in the

open air, and those exposed to the

resulting fumes shall be protected by a

fume filter type respirator in accordance

with the requirements of subpart I of

this part.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(3) * * *

(i) Abrasive blasters working in

enclosed spaces shall be protected by

hoods and air line respirators, or by air

helmets of a positive pressure type in

accordance with the requirements of

subpart I of this part.

(ii) Abrasive blasters working in the

open shall be protected as indicated in

paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section except

that when synthetic abrasive containing

less than one percent free silica are

used, filter type respirators approved

jointly by the National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health and the

Mine Safety and Health Administration

for exposure to lead dusts, used in

conjunction with the proper eye, face

and head protection, may be used in

accordance with subpart I of this part.

(iii) Employees, other than blasters,

including machine tenders and abrasive

recovery men, working in areas where

unsafe concentrations of abrasive

materials and dusts are present shall be

protected by eye and respiratory

protective equipment in accordance

with the requirements of subpart I of

this part.

* * * * *

5. Section 1915.35 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii),

(a)(1)(iii), (a)(2), (b)(13), and (b)(14) to

read as follows:

§ 1915.35 Painting.

(a) * * *

(1) * * *

(i) In confined spaces, employees

continuously exposed to such spraying

shall be protected by air line respirators

in accordance with the requirements of

subpart I of this part.

(ii) In tanks or compartments,

employees continuously exposed to

such spraying shall be protected by air

line respirators in accordance with the

requirements of subpart I. Where

mechanical ventilation is provided,

employees shall be protected by

respirators in accordance with the

requirements of subpart I of this part.

(iii) In large and well ventilated areas,

employees exposed to such spraying

shall be protected by respirators in

accordance with the requirements of

subpart I of this part.

(2) Where brush application of paints

with toxic solvents is done in confined

spaces or in other areas where lack of

ventilation creates a hazard, employees

shall be protected by filter respirators in

accordance with the requirements of

subpart I of this part.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(13) All employees continuously in a

compartment in which such painting is

being performed shall be protected by

air line respirators in accordance with

the requirements of Subpart I of this

part and by suitable protective clothing.

Employees entering such compartments

for a limited time shall be protected by

filter cartridge type respirators in

accordance with the requirements of

subpart I of this part.

(14) All employees doing exterior

paint spraying with such paints shall be

protected by suitable filter cartridge

type respirators in accordance with the

requirements of subpart I of this part

and by suitable protective clothing.

6. Section 1915 would be amended by

removing Table I–1 from § 1915.118.

7. Section 1915.134 is amended by

revising paragraph (j) to read as follows:

§ 1915.134 Abrasive wheels.

* * * * *

(j) All employees using abrasive

wheels shall be protected by eye

protection equipment in accordance

with the requirements of Subpart I of

this part except when adequate eye

protection is afforded by eye shields

which are permanently attached to the

bench or floor stand.

8. Section 1915.135 is amended by

revising paragraph (b)(9) to read as

follows:

§ 1915.135 Powder actuated fastening

tools.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(9) Employees using powder actuated

fastening tools shall be protected by

personal protective equipment in

accordance with the requirements of

subpart I of this part.

* * * * *

9. Subpart I of Part 1915 is revised to

read as follows:

Subpart I—Personal Protective Equipment

(PPE)

Sec.

1915.151 Scope, application and

definitions.

1915.152 General requirements.

1915.153 Eye and face protection.

1915.154 Respiratory protection.

1915.155 Head protection.

1915.156 Foot protection.

1915.157 Hand and body protection.

1915.158 Lifesaving equipment.
26352 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

1915.159 Personal fall arrest systems

(PFAS).

1915.160 Positioning device systems.

Appendix A to subpart I—Non-mandatory

Guidelines for Hazard Assessment,

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

Selection, and PPE Training program.

Appendix B to subpart I— General Testing

Conditions and Additional Guidelines

for Personal Fall Protection Systems.

Subpart I—Personal Protective

Equipment (PPE)

§ 1915.151 Scope, application and

definitions.

(a) Scope and application. This

subpart applies to all work in shipyard

employment regardless of geographic

location.

(b) Definitions applicable to this

subpart.

Anchorage means a secure point of

attachment for lifelines, lanyards, or

deceleration devices.

Body belt means a strap with means

for both securing it about the waist and

attaching it to a lanyard, lifeline, or

deceleration device.

Body harness means straps which

may be secured about the employee in

a manner that will distribute the fall

arrest forces over at least the thighs,

shoulders, chest and pelvis with means

for attaching it to other components of

a personal fall arrest system.

Connector means a device which is

used to couple (connect) parts of a

personal fall arrest system or parts of a

positioning device system together. It

may be an independent component of

the system, such as a carabiner, or it

may be an integral component of part of

the system (such as a buckle or D-ring

sewn into a body belt or body harness

or a snaphook spliced or sewn to a

lanyard or self-retracting lanyard).

Deceleration device means any

mechanism, such as a rope grab,

ripstitch lanyard, specially woven

lanyard, tearing or deforming lanyard,

or automatic self-retracting lifeline/

lanyard, which serves to dissipate a

substantial amount of energy during a

fall arrest, or otherwise limit the energy

imposed on an employee during fall

arrest.

Deceleration distance means the

additional vertical distance a falling

employee travels, excluding lifeline

elongation and free fall distance, before

stopping, from the point at which the

deceleration device begins to operate. It

is measured as the distance between the

location of an employee’s body belt or

body harness attachment point at the

moment of activation (at the onset of fall

arrest forces) of the deceleration device

during a fall, and the location of that

attachment point after the employee

comes to a full stop.

Equivalent means alternative designs,

materials, or methods to protect against

a hazard which the employer can

demonstrate will provide an equal or

greater degree of safety for employees

than the method or item specified in the

standard.

Free fall means the act of falling

before a personal fall arrest system

begins to apply force to arrest the fall.

Free fall distance means the vertical

displacement of the fall arrest

attachment point on the employee’s

body belt or body harness between onset

of the fall and just before the system

begins to apply force to arrest the fall.

This distance excludes deceleration

distance, and lifeline/lanyard

elongation, but includes any

deceleration device slide distance or

self-retracting lifeline/lanyard extension

before the device operates and fall arrest

forces occur.

Lanyard means a flexible line of rope,

wire rope, or strap which generally has

a connector at each end for connecting

the body belt or body harness to a

deceleration device, lifeline, or

anchorage.

Lifeline means a component

consisting of a flexible line for

connection to an anchorage at one end

to hang vertically (vertical lifeline), or

for connection to anchorages at both

ends to stretch horizontally (horizontal

lifeline), and which serves as a means

for connecting other components of a

personal fall arrest system to the

anchorage.

Lower levels means those areas or

surfaces to which an employee can fall.

Such areas or surfaces include but are

not limited to ground levels, floors,

ramps, tanks, materials, water,

excavations, pits, vessels, structures, or

portions thereof.

Personal fall arrest system means a

system used to arrest an employee in a

fall from a working level. It consists of

an anchorage, connectors, body belt or

body harness and may include a

lanyard, a deceleration device, a lifeline,

or a suitable combination of these. As of

January 1, 1998, the use of a body belt

for fall arrest is prohibited.

Positioning device system means a

body belt or body harness system rigged

to allow an employee to be supported at

an elevated vertical surface, such as a

wall or window, and to be able to work

with both hands free while leaning.

Qualified person means a person who

by possession of a recognized degree or

certificate of professional standing, or

who, by extensive knowledge, training,

and experience, has successfully

demonstrated the ability to solve or

resolve problems related to the subject

matter and work.

Restraint (tether) line means a line

from an anchorage, or between

anchorages, to which the employee is

secured in such a way as to prevent the

employee from walking or falling off an

elevated work surface. Note: A restraint

line is not necessarily designed to

withstand forces resulting from a fall.

Rope grab means a deceleration

device which travels on a lifeline and

automatically, by friction, engages the

lifeline and locks so as to arrest the fall

of an employee. A rope grab usually

employs the principle of inertial

locking, cam/level locking or both.

§ 1915.152 General requirements.

(a) Provision and use of equipment.

The employer shall provide and shall

ensure that each affected employee uses

the appropriate personal protective

equipment (PPE) for the eyes, face,

head, extremities, torso, and respiratory

system, including protective clothing,

protective shields, protective barriers,

personal fall protection equipment, and

life saving equipment, meeting the

applicable provisions of this subpart,

wherever employees are exposed to

work activity hazards that require the

use of PPE.

(b) Hazard assessment and equipment

selection. The employer shall assess its

work activity to determine whether

there are hazards present, or likely to be

present, which necessitate the

employee’s use of PPE.

Note 1 to paragraph (b): A hazard

assessment conducted according to the trade

or occupation of affected employees will be

considered to comply with paragraph (b) of

this section, if the assessment addresses any

PPE-related hazards to which employees are

exposed in the course of their work activities.

If such hazards are present, or likely to be

present, the employer shall:

(1) Select the type of PPE that will protect

the affected employee from the hazards

identified in the occupational hazard

assessment;

(2) Communicate selection decisions to

affected employees;

(3) Select PPE that properly fits each

affected employee; and

(4) Verify that the required occupational

hazard assessment has been performed

through a document that contains the

following information: occupation, the

date(s) of the hazard assessment, and the

name of the person performing the hazard

assessment.

Note 2 to paragraph (b): Non-mandatory

Appendix A to this subpart contains

examples of procedures that will comply

with the requirement for an occupational

hazard assessment.

(c) Defective and damaged

equipment. Defective or damaged PPE

shall not be used.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 26353

(d) Reissued equipment. The

employer shall ensure that all

unsanitary PPE, including that which

has been used by employees, be cleaned

and disinfected before it is reissued.

(e) Training. (1) The employer shall

provide training to each employee who

is required, by this section, to use PPE

(exception: training in the use of

personal fall arrest systems and

positioning device systems training is

covered in Sections 1915.159 and

1915.160). Each employee shall be

trained to understand at least the

following:

(i) When PPE is necessary;

(ii) What PPE is necessary;

(iii) How to properly don, doff, adjust,

and wear PPE;

(iv) The limitations of the PPE; and,

(v) The proper care, maintenance,

useful life and disposal of the PPE.

(2) The employer shall ensure that

each effected employee demonstrates

the ability to use PPE properly before

being allowed to perform work requiring

the use of PPE.

(3) The employer shall retrain any

employee who does not understand or

display the skills required by paragraph

(e)(2) of this section. Circumstances

where retraining is required include, but

are not limited to, situations where:

(i) Changes in occupation or work

render previous training obsolete; or

(ii) Changes in the types of PPE to be

used render previous training obsolete;

or

(iii) Inadequacies in an affected

employee’s knowledge or use of

assigned PPE indicate that the employee

has not retained the requisite

understanding or skill.

(4) The employer shall verify that

each affected employee has received the

required training through a document

that contains the following information:

name of each employee trained, the

date(s) of training, and type of training

the employee received.

§ 1915.153 Eye and face protection.

(a) General requirements. (1) The

employer shall ensure that each affected

employee uses appropriate eye or face

protection where there are exposures to

eye or face hazards caused by flying

particles, molten metal, liquid

chemicals, acid or caustic liquids,

chemical gases or vapors, or potentially

injurious light radiation.

(2) The employer shall ensure that

each affected employee uses eye or face

protection that provides side protection

when there is a hazard from flying

objects. Detachable side protectors (e.g.,

a clip-on or slide-on side shield)

meeting the pertinent requirements of

this section are acceptable.

(3) The employer shall ensure that

each affected employee who wears

prescription lenses while engaged in

operations that involve eye hazards

wears eye protection that incorporates

the prescription in its design, unless the

employee is protected by eye protection

that can be worn over prescription

lenses without disturbing the proper

position of either the PPE or the

prescription lenses.

(4) The employer shall ensure that

each affected employee uses equipment

with filter lenses that have a shade

number that provides appropriate

protection from injurious light

radiation. Table I–1 is a listing of

appropriate shade numbers for various

operations. If filter lenses are used in

goggles worn under a helmet which has

a lens, the shade number of the lens in

the helmet may be reduced so that the

shade numbers of the two lenses will

equal the value as shown in Table I–1,

§ 1915.153.

TABLE I–1.—FILTER LENSES FOR PROTECTION AGAINST RADIANT ENERGY

Operations Electrode size 1⁄32 in. Arc current

Minimum

protective

shade

Shielded metal arc welding ....................... Less than 3 ............................................... Less than .................................................. 7

3–5 ............................................................ 60 .............................................................. 8

5–8 ............................................................ 60–160 ...................................................... 10

More than 8 .............................................. 160–250 .................................................... 11

................................................................... 250–550 .................................................... ....................

Gas metal arc welding and flux cored arc

welding.

................................................................... Less than .................................................. 7

................................................................... 60 .............................................................. 10

................................................................... 60–160 ...................................................... 10

................................................................... 160–250 .................................................... 10

................................................................... 250–500 .................................................... ....................

Gas Tungsten arc welding ........................ ................................................................... Less than .................................................. 8

................................................................... 50 .............................................................. 8

................................................................... 50–150 ...................................................... 10

................................................................... 150–500 .................................................... ....................

Air carbon .................................................. (Light) ........................................................ Less than .................................................. 10

Arc cutting ................................................. (Heavy) ..................................................... 500 ............................................................ 11

500–1000 .................................................. ....................

Plasma arc welding ................................... ................................................................... Less than .................................................. 6

................................................................... 20 .............................................................. 8

................................................................... 20¥ .......................................................... 10

................................................................... 100 ............................................................ 11

................................................................... 100¥ ........................................................ ....................

................................................................... 400 ............................................................ ....................

................................................................... 400¥ ........................................................ ....................

................................................................... 800 ............................................................ ....................

Plasma arc cutting ..................................... (light)** ...................................................... Less than 300 ........................................... 8

(medium)** ................................................ 300–400 .................................................... 9

(heavy)** ................................................... 400–800 .................................................... 10

Torch brazing ............................................ ................................................................... ................................................................... 3

Torch soldering .......................................... ................................................................... ................................................................... 2

Carbon Arc welding ................................... ................................................................... ................................................................... 14

** These values apply where the actual arc is clearly seen. Lighter filters may be used when the arc is hidden by the workpiece.
26354 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

FILTER LENSES FOR PROTECTION AGAINST RADIANT ENERGY

Operations Plate thickness— inches Plate thickness— mm

Minimum*

protective

shade

Gas welding:

Light .................................................... Under 1⁄8 ................................................... Under 3.2 .................................................. 4

Medium ............................................... 1⁄8 to 1⁄2 ..................................................... 3.2 to 12.7 ................................................ 5

Heavy ................................................. Over 1⁄2 ..................................................... Over 12.7 .................................................. 6

Oxygen cutting

Light .................................................... Under 1 ..................................................... Under 25 ................................................... 3

Medium ............................................... 1 to 6 ........................................................ 25 to 150 .................................................. 4

Heavy ................................................. Over 6 ....................................................... Over 150 ................................................... 5

* As a rule of thumb, start with a shade that is too dark to see the weld zone. Then go to a lighter shade which gives sufficient view of the

weld zone without going below the minimum. In oxyfuel gas welding or cutting where the torch produces a high yellow light, it is desirable to use

a filter lens that absorbs the yellow or sodium line in the visible light of the (spectrum) operation.

(b) Criteria for Protective Eye and

Face Devices

(1) Protective eye and face devices

purchased after (insert effective date of

final rule) shall comply with the

American National Standards Institute,

ANSI Z87.1–1989, ‘‘Practice for

Occupational and Educational Eye and

Face Protection,’’ which is incorporated

by reference as specified in § 1915.5, or

shall be demonstrated by the employer

to be equally effective.

(2) Eye and face protective devices

purchased before (insert effective date of

final rule) shall comply with ‘‘American

National Standard Practice for

Occupational and Educational Eye and

Face Protection, Z87.1 –1979,’’ which is

incorporated by reference as specified in

§ 1915.5, or shall be demonstrated by

the employer to be equally effective.

§ 1915.154 Respiratory protection.

Respiratory protection for shipyard

employment is covered by 29 CFR

1910.134.

§ 1915.155 Head protection.

(a) Use. (1) The employer shall ensure

that each affected employee wears a

protective helmet when working in

areas where there is a potential for

injury to the head from falling objects.

(2) The employer shall ensure that

each affected employee wears a

protective helmet designed to reduce

electrical shock hazards where there is

potential for electric shock or burns due

to contact with exposed electrical

conductors which could contact the

head.

(b) Criteria for protective helmets. (1)

Protective helmets purchased after

August 22, 1996 shall comply with

ANSI Z89.l–1986, ‘‘Personnel

Protection—Protective Headwear for

Industrial Workers-Requirements,’’

which is incorporated by reference, as

specified in § 1915.5, or shall be

demonstrated by the employer to be

equally effective.

(2) Protective helmets purchased

before August 22, 1996 shall comply

with the ‘‘American National Standard

Safety Requirements for Industrial Head

Protection, Z89.1–1969,’’ which is

incorporated by reference as specified in

1915.5, or shall be demonstrated by the

employer to be equally effective.

§ 1915.156 Foot protection.

(a) Use. The employer shall ensure

that each affected employee wears

protective footwear when working in

areas where there is a danger of foot

injuries due to falling or rolling objects

or objects piercing the sole.

(b) Criteria for protective footwear. (1)

Protective footwear purchased after

August 22, 1996 shall comply with

ANSI Z41–1991, ‘‘American National

Standard for Personal ProtectionProtective Footwear,’’ which is

incorporated by reference, as specified

in § 1915.5, or shall be demonstrated by

the employer to be equally as effective.

(2) Protective footwear purchased

before August 22, 1996 shall comply

with the ‘‘American National Standard

for Personal Protection- Protective

Footwear Z41–1983,’’ which is

incorporated by reference, as specified

in § 1915.5, or shall be demonstrated by

the employer to be equally effective.

§ 1915.157 Hand and body protection.

(a) Use. The employer shall ensure

that each affected employee uses

appropriate hand protection and other

protective clothing where there is

exposure to hazards such as skin

absorption of harmful substances, severe

cuts or lacerations, severe abrasions,

punctures, chemical burns, thermal

burns, harmful temperature extremes,

and sharp objects.

(b) Hot work operations. The

employer shall ensure that no employee

wears clothing impregnated or covered

in full or in part with flammable or

combustible materials (such as grease or

oil) while engaged in hot work

operations or working near an ignition

source.

(c) Electrical Protective Devices. The

employer shall ensure that each affected

employee wears protective electrical

insulating gloves and sleeves or other

electrical protective equipment, if that

employee is exposed to electrical shock

hazards while working on electrical

equipment.

§ 1915.158 Lifesaving equipment.

(a) Personal flotation devices. (1)

Personal flotation devices (PFD) (life

preservers, life jackets and work vests)

worn by each affected employee shall be

any United States Coast Guard (USCG)

approved and marked Type I PFD, Type

II PFD, or Type III PFD; or PFDs shall

be a USCG approved Type V PFD which

is marked for use as a work vest, for

commercial use, or for use on vessels.

USCG approval is pursuant to 46 CFR

part 160, subpart Q, Coast Guard

Lifesaving Equipment Specifications.

(2) Prior to each use, personal

floatation devices shall be inspected for

dry rot, chemical damage, or other

defects which may affect their strength

and buoyancy. Defective personal

floatation devices shall not be used.

(b) Ring life buoys and ladders. (1)

When work is being performed on a

floating vessel 200 feet (61 m) or more

in length, at least three 30-inch (0.76 m)

U.S. Coast Guard approved ring life

buoys with lines attached shall be

located in readily visible and accessible

places. Ring life buoys shall be located

one forward, one aft, and one at the

access to the gangway.

(2) On floating vessels under 200 feet

(61 m) in length, at least one 30-inch

(0.76 m) U.S. Coast Guard approved ring

life buoy with line attached shall be

located at the gangway.

(3) At least one 30-inch (0.76 m) U. S.

Coast Guard approved ring life buoy

with a line attached shall be located on

each staging alongside of a floating
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 26355

vessel on which work is being

performed.

(4) At least 90 feet (27 m) of line shall

be attached to each ring life buoy.

(5) There shall be at least one portable

or permanent ladder in the vicinity of

each floating vessel on which work is

being performed. The ladder shall be of

sufficient length to assist employees to

reach safety in the event they fall into

the water.

§ 1915.159 Personal fall arrest systems

(PFAS).

The criteria of this section apply to

PFAS and their use. Effective January 1,

1998, body belts and non-locking

snaphooks are not acceptable as part of

a personal fall arrest system.

(a) Criteria for connectors and

anchorages. (1) Connectors shall be

made of drop forged, pressed, or formed

steel or shall be made of materials with

equivalent strength.

(2) Connectors shall have a corrosionresistant finish, and all surfaces and

edges shall be smooth to prevent

damage to the interfacing parts of the

system.

(3) D-rings and snaphooks shall be

capable of sustaining a minimum tensile

load of 5,000 pounds (22.2 Kn).

(4) D-rings and snaphooks shall be

proof-tested to a minimum tensile load

of 3,600 pounds (16 Kn) without

cracking, breaking, or being

permanently deformed.

(5) Snaphooks shall be sized to be

compatible with the member to which

they are connected to prevent

unintentional disengagement of the

snaphook caused by depression of the

snaphook keeper by the connected

member, or shall be of a locking type

that is designed and used to prevent

disengagement of the snap-hook by

contact of the snaphook keeper by the

connected member.

(6) Snaphooks, unless of a locking

type designed and used to prevent

disengagement from the following

connections, shall not be engaged:

(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 object that is incompatibly

shaped or dimensioned in relation to

the snaphook such that unintentional

disengagement could occur by the

connected object being able to depress

the snaphook keeper and release itself.

(7) On suspended scaffolds or similar

work platforms with horizontal lifelines

that may become vertical lifelines, the

devices used for connection to the

horizontal lifeline shall be capable of

locking in any direction on the lifeline.

(8) Anchorages used for attachment of

personal fall arrest equipment shall be

independent of any anchorage being

used to support or suspend platforms.

(9) Anchorages shall be capable of

supporting at least 5,000 pounds (22.2

Kn) per employee attached, or shall be

designed, installed, and used as follows:

(i) as part of a complete personal fall

arrest system which maintains a safety

factor of at least two; and

(ii) under the direction and

supervision of a qualified person.

(b) Criteria for lifelines, lanyards, and

personal fall arrest systems.

(1) When vertical lifelines are used,

each employee shall be provided with a

separate lifeline.

(2) Vertical lifelines and lanyards

shall have a minimum tensile strength

of 5,000 pounds (22.2 Kn).

(3) Self-retracting lifelines and

lanyards that automatically limit free

fall distances to 2 feet (0.61 m) or less

shall be capable of sustaining a

minimum tensile load of 3000 pounds

(13.3 Kn) applied to a self-retracting

lifeline or lanyard with the lifeline or

lanyard in the fully extended position.

(4) Self-retracting lifelines and

lanyards which do not limit free fall

distance to 2 feet (0.61 m) or less,

ripstitch lanyards and tearing and

deforming lanyards shall be capable of

sustaining a minimum static tensile load

of 5,000 pounds (22.2 Kn) applied to the

device when they are in the fully

extended position.

(5) Horizontal lifelines shall be

designed, installed, and used under the

supervision of a qualified person, and

shall only be used as part of a complete

personal fall arrest system that

maintains a safety factor of at least two.

(6) Effective November 20, 1996,

personal fall arrest systems shall:

(i) limit the maximum arresting force

on a falling employee to 900 pounds (4

Kn) when used with a body belt;

(ii) limit the maximum arresting force

on a falling employee to 1,800 pounds

(8 Kn) when used with a body harness;

(iii) bring a falling employee to a

complete stop and limit the maximum

deceleration distance an employee

travels to 3.5 feet (1.07 m), and

(iv) have sufficient strength to

withstand twice the potential impact

energy of an employee free falling a

distance of 6 feet (1.8 m), or the free fall

distance permitted by the system,

whichever is less;

Note to paragraph (b)(6) of this section: A

personal fall arrest system which meets the

criteria and protocols contained in Appendix

B, is considered to comply with paragraph

(b)(6). If the combined tool and body weight

is 310 pounds (140 kg) or more, systems that

meet the criteria and protocols contained in

Appendix B will be deemed to comply with

the provisions of paragraphs (b)(6) only if

they are modified appropriately to provide

protection for the extra weight of the

employee and tools.

(7) Personal fall arrest systems shall

be rigged such that an employee can

neither free fall more than 6 feet (1.8 m)

nor contact any lower level.

(c) Criteria for selection, use and care

of systems and system components. (1)

Lanyards shall be attached to employees

using personal fall arrest systems, as

follows:

(i) The attachment point of a body

harness shall be located in the center of

the wearer’s back near the shoulder

level, or above the wearer’s head. If the

free fall distance is limited to less than

20 inches, the attachment point may be

located in the chest position; and

(ii) The attachment point of a body

belt shall be located in the center of the

wearer’s back.

(2) Ropes and straps (webbing) used

in lanyards, lifelines and strength

components of body belts and body

harnesses shall be made from synthetic

fibers or wire rope.

(3) Ropes, belts, harnesses, and

lanyards shall be compatible with their

hardware.

(4) Lifelines and lanyards shall be

protected against cuts, abrasions, burns

from hot work operations and

deterioration by acids, solvents, and

other chemicals.

(5) Personal fall arrest systems shall

be inspected prior to each use for

mildew, wear, damage, and other

deterioration. Defective components

shall be removed from service.

(6) Personal fall arrest systems and

components subjected to impact loading

shall be immediately removed from

service and shall not be used again for

employee protection until inspected and

determined by a qualified person to be

undamaged and suitable for reuse.

(7) The employer shall provide for

prompt rescue of employees in the event

of a fall or shall ensure that employees

are able to rescue themselves.

(8) Body belts shall be at least one and

five eighths inches (4.1 cm) wide.

(9) Personal fall arrest systems and

components shall be used only for

employee fall protection and not to

hoist materials.

(d) Training. Before using personal

fall arrest equipment, each affected

employee shall be trained to understand

the application limits of the equipment

and proper hook-up, anchoring, and tieoff techniques. Affected employees shall

also be trained so that they can

demonstrate the proper use, inspection,

and storage of their equipment.
26356 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

§ 1915.160 Positioning device systems.

Positioning device systems and their

use shall conform to the following

provisions:

(a) Criteria for connectors and

anchorages. (1) Connectors shall have a

corrosion-resistant finish, and all

surfaces and edges shall be smooth to

prevent damage to interfacing parts of

this system.

(2) Connecting assemblies shall have

a minimum tensile strength of 5,000

pounds (22.2 Kn).

(3) Positioning device systems shall

be secured to an anchorage capable of

supporting at least twice the potential

impact load of an employee’s fall.

(4) Snaphooks, unless each is of a

locking type designed and used to

prevent disengagement, shall not be

connected to each other. As of January

1, 1998, only locking type snaphooks

shall be used in positioning device

systems.

(b) Criteria for positioning device

systems. (1) Restraint (tether) lines shall

have a minimum breaking strength of

3,000 pounds (13.3 Kn).

(2) The following system performance

criteria for positioning device systems

are effective November 20, 1996:

(i) A window cleaner’s positioning

system shall be capable of withstanding

without failure a drop test consisting of

a 6 foot (1.83 m) drop of a 250 pound

(113 kg) weight. The system shall limit

the initial arresting force to not more

than 2,000 pounds (8.89 Kn), with a

duration not to exceed 2 milliseconds.

The system shall limit any subsequent

arresting forces imposed on the falling

employee to not more than 1,000

pounds (4.45 Kn);

(ii) All other positioning device

systems shall be capable of

withstanding without failure a drop test

consisting of a 4- foot (1.2 m) drop of a

250-pound (113 kg) weight.

Note to paragraph (b)(2) of this section:

Positioning device systems which comply

with the provisions of Section 2 of Nonmandatory Appendix B to this subpart shall

be deemed to meet the requirements of this

paragraph (b)(2).

(c) Criteria for the use and care of

positioning device systems. (1)

Positioning device systems shall be

inspected before each use for mildew,

wear, damage, and other deterioration.

Defective components shall be removed

from service.

(2) A positioning device system or

component subjected to impact loading

shall be immediately removed from

service and shall not be used again for

employee protection, unless inspected

and determined by a qualified person to

be undamaged and suitable for reuse.

(d) Training. Before using a

positioning device system, employees

shall be trained in the application

limits, proper hook-up, anchoring and

tie-off techniques, methods of use,

inspection, and storage of positioning

device systems.

Appendix A to Subpart I—Nonmandatory Guidelines for Hazard

Assessment, Personal Protective

Equipment (PPE) Selection, and PPE

Training Program

This Appendix is intended to provide

compliance assistance for hazard assessment,

selection of personal protective equipment

(PPE) and PPE training. It neither adds to or

detracts from the employer’s responsibility to

comply with the provisions of this subpart.

1. Controlling hazards. Employers and

employees should not rely exclusively on

PPE for protection from hazards. PPE should

be used, where appropriate, in conjunction

with engineering controls, guards, and safe

work practices and procedures.

2. Assessment and selection. Employers

need to consider certain general guidelines

for assessing the hazardous situations that are

likely to arise under foreseeable work activity

conditions and to match employee PPE to the

identified hazards. The employer should

designate a safety officer or some other

qualified person to exercise common sense

and appropriate expertise to assess work

activity hazards and select PPE.

3. Assessment guidelines. In order to assess

the need for PPE the following steps should

be taken:

a. Survey. Conduct a walk-through survey

of the area in question to identify sources of

hazards.

Categories for Consideration:

(1) Impact

(2) Penetration

(3) Compression (roll-over)

(4) Chemical

(5) Heat

(6) Harmful dust

(7) Light (optical) radiation

(8) Drowning

(9) Falling

b. Sources. During the walk-through survey

the safety officer should observe:

(1) Sources of motion; for example,

machinery or processes where any movement

of tools, machine elements or particles could

exist, or movement of personnel that could

result in collision with stationary objects.

(2) Sources of high temperatures that could

result in burns, eye injury or ignition of

protective equipment.

(3) Types of chemical exposures.

(4) Sources of harmful dust.

(5) Sources of light radiation, for instance,

welding, brazing, cutting, heat treating,

furnaces, and high intensity lights.

(6) Sources of falling objects or potential

for dropping objects.

(7) Sources of sharp objects which might

pierce or cut the hands.

(8) Sources of rolling or pinching objects

which could crush the feet.

(9) Layout of work place and location of coworkers.

(10) Any electrical hazards.

(11) Review injury/accident data to help

identify problem areas.

Organize data. Following the walk-through

survey, it is necessary to organize the data

and other information obtained. That

material provides the basis for hazard

assessment that enables the employer to

select the appropriate PPE.

d. Analyze data. Having gathered and

organized data regarding a particular

occupation, employers need to estimate the

potential for injuries. Each of the identified

hazards (see paragraph 3.a.) should be

reviewed and classified as to its type, the

level of risk, and the seriousness of any

potential injury. Where it is foreseeable that

an employee could be exposed to several

hazards simultaneously, the consequences of

such exposure should be considered.

4. Selection guidelines. After completion of

the procedures in paragraph 3, the general

procedure for selection of protective

equipment is to:

(a) become familiar with the potential

hazards and the types of protective

equipment that are available, and what they

can do; for example, splash protection, and

impact protection;

(b) compare the hazards associated with

the environment; for instance, impact

velocities, masses, projectile shapes,

radiation intensities, with the capabilities of

the available protective equipment;

(c) select the protective equipment which

ensures a level of protection greater than the

minimum required to protect employees from

the hazards; and

(d) fit the user with the protective device

and give instructions on care and use of the

PPE. It is very important that users be made

aware of all warning labels and limitations of

their PPE.

5. Fitting the device. Careful consideration

must be given to comfort and fit. The

employee will be most likely to wear the

protective device if it fits comfortably. PPE

that does not fit properly may not provide the

necessary protection, and may create other

problems for wearers. Generally, protective

devices are available in a variety of sizes and

choices. Therefore employers should be

careful to select the appropriate sized PPE.

6. Devices with adjustable features. (a)

Adjustments should be made on an

individual basis so the wearer will have a

comfortable fit that maintains the protective

device in the proper position. Particular care

should be taken in fitting devices for eye

protection against dust and chemical splash

to ensure that the seal is appropriate for the

face.

(b) In addition, proper fitting of hard hats

is important to ensure that the hard hat will

not fall off during work operations. In some

cases a chin strap may be necessary to keep

the hard hat on an employee’s head. (Chin

straps should break at a reasonably low force

to prevent a strangulation hazard). Where

manufacturer’s instructions are available,

they should be followed carefully.

7. Reassessment of hazards. Compliance

with the hazard assessment requirements of

§ 1915.152(b) will involve the reassessment

of work activities where changing

circumstances make it necessary. a. The
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 26357

employer should have a safety officer or

other qualified person reassess the hazards of

the work activity area as necessary. This

reassessment should take into account

changes in the workplace or work practices,

such as those associated with the installation

of new equipment, and the lessons learned

from reviewing accident records, and a

reevaluation performed to determine the

suitability of PPE selected for use.

8. Selection chart guidelines for eye and

face protection. Examples of occupations for

which eye protection should be routinely

considered are carpenters, engineers,

coppersmiths, instrument technicians,

insulators, electricians, machinists, mobile

equipment mechanics and repairers,

plumbers and ship fitters, sheet metal

workers and tinsmiths, grinding equipment

operators, machine operators, welders, boiler

workers, painters, laborers, grit blasters, ship

fitters and burners. This is not a complete list

of occupations that require the use of eye

protection. The following chart provides

general guidance for the proper selection of

eye and face protection to protect against

hazards associated with the listed hazard

‘‘source’’ operations.

EYE AND FACE PROTECTION SELECTION CHART

Source Assessment of hazard Protection

Impact:

Chipping, grinding machining, masonry work,

woodworking, sawing, drilling, chiseling, powered fastening, riveting, and sanding.

Flying fragments, objects, large

chips, particles, sand, dirt, etc.

Spectacles with side protection, goggles, face

shields. See notes (1), (3), (5), (6), (10). For severe exposure, use face shield.

Heat:

Furnace operations, pouring, casting, hot dipping, and welding.Hot sparks ...................................... Face shields, goggles, spectacles with side protection. For severe exposure use face shield. See

notes (1), (2), (3).

Splash from molten metals ............ Face shields worn over goggles. See notes (1), (2),

(3).

High temperature exposure ........... Screen face shields, reflective face shields. See

notes (1), (2), (3).

Chemicals:

Acid and chemicals handling, degreasing, plating.Splash ............................................ Goggles, eyecup and cover types. For severe exposure, use face shield. See notes (3), (11).

Irritating mists ................................ Special-purpose goggles.

Dust:

Woodworking, buffing, general dusty conditions Nuisance dust ................................ Goggles, eyecup and cover types. See note (8).

Light and/or Radiation:

Welding: Electric arc ........................................... Optical radiation ............................. Welding helmets or welding shields. Typical shades:

10–14. See notes (9), (12).

Welding: Gas ....................................................... Optical radiation ............................. Welding goggles or welding face shield. Typical

shades: gas welding 4–8, cutting 3–6, brazing 3–

4. See note (9).

Cutting, Torch brazing, Torch soldering .............. Optical radiation ............................. Spectacles or welding face-shield. Typical shades,

1.5–3. See notes (3), (9).

Glare .................................................................... Poor vision ..................................... Spectacles with shaded or special-purpose lenses,

as suitable. See notes (9), (10).

Notes to Eye and Face Protection Selection

Chart

(a) Care should be taken to recognize the

possibility of multiple and simultaneous

exposure to a variety of hazards. Adequate

protection against the highest level of each of

the hazards should be provided. Protective

devices do not provide unlimited protection.

(b) Operations involving heat may also

involve light radiation. As required by the

standard, protection from both hazards must

be provided.

(c) Face shields should only be worn over

primary eye protection (spectacles or

goggles).

(d) As required by the standard, filter

lenses must meet the requirements for shade

designations in § 1915.153(a)(4). Tinted and

shaded lenses are not filter lenses unless they

are marked or identified as such.

(e) As required by the standard, persons

whose vision requires the use of prescription

(Rx) lenses must wear either protective

devices fitted with prescription (Rx) lenses or

protective devices designed to be worn over

regular prescription (Rx) eye wear.

(f) Wearers of contact lenses must also

wear appropriate eye and face protection

devices in a hazardous environment. It

should be recognized that dusty and/or

chemical environments may represent an

additional hazard to contact lens wearers.

(g) Caution should be exercised in the use

of metal frame protective devices in electrical

hazard areas.

(h) Atmospheric conditions and the

restricted ventilation of the protector can

cause lenses to fog. Frequent cleansing may

be necessary.

(i) Welding helmets or face shields should

be used only over primary eye protection

(spectacles or goggles).

(j) Non-side shield spectacles are available

for frontal protection only, but are not

acceptable eye protection for the sources and

operations listed for ‘‘impact.’’

(k) Ventilation should be adequate, but

well protected from splash entry. Eye and

face protection should be designed and used

so that it provides both adequate ventilation

and protects the wearer from splash entry.

(l) Protection from light radiation is

directly related to filter lens density. See note

(d). Select the darkest shade that allows task

performance.

9. Selection guidelines for head protection.

(a) Hard hats are designed to provide

protection from impact and penetration

hazards caused by falling objects. Head

protection is also available which provides

protection from electric shock and burn.

When selecting head protection, knowledge

of potential electrical hazards is important.

Class A helmets, in addition to impact and

penetration resistance, provide electrical

protection from low-voltage conductors.

(They are proof tested to 2,200 volts.) Class

B helmets, in addition to impact and

penetration resistance, provide electrical

protection from high-voltage conductors.

(They are proof tested to 20,000 volts.) Class

C helmets provide impact and penetration

resistance. (They are usually made of

aluminum, which conducts electricity and

should not be used around electrical

hazards.)

(b) Where falling object hazards are

present, head protection must be worn. Some

examples of exposure include: working

below other workers who are using tools and

materials which could fall; working around

or under conveyor belts which are carrying

parts or materials; working below machinery

or processes which might cause material or

objects to fall; and working on exposed

energized conductors.

(c) Examples of occupations for which

head protection should be considered are:

carpenters, electricians, machinists,

boilermakers, erectors, plumbers,

coppersmiths, ship fitters, welders, laborers

and material handlers.
26358 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

10. Selection guidelines for foot protection.

(a) Safety shoes and boots must meet ANSI

Z41–1991 and provide impact and

compression protection to the foot. Where

necessary, safety shoes can be obtained

which provide puncture protection. In some

work situations, metatarsal protection should

be provided, and in some other special

situations electrical conductive or insulating

safety shoes would be appropriate.

(b) Safety shoes or boots with impact

protection would be required for carrying or

handling materials such as packages, objects,

parts or heavy tools, which could be

dropped, and for other activities where

objects might fall onto the feet. Safety shoes

or boots with compression protection would

be required for work activities involving skid

trucks (manual material handling carts)

around bulk rolls (such as paper rolls) and

around heavy pipes, all of which could

potentially roll over an employees’ feet.

Safety shoes or boots with puncture

protection would be required where sharp

objects such as nails, wire, tacks, screws,

large staples, scrap metal etc., could be

stepped on by employees, causing an injury.

(c) Some occupations (not a complete list)

for which foot protection should be routinely

considered are: shipping and receiving

clerks, stock clerks, carpenters, electricians,

machinists, boiler makers, plumbers, copper

smiths, pipe fitters, ship fitters, burners,

chippers and grinders, erectors, press

operators, welders, laborers, and material

handlers.

11. Selection guidelines for hand

protection. (a) Gloves are often relied upon to

prevent cuts, abrasions, burns, and skin

contact with chemicals that are capable of

causing local or systemic effects following

dermal exposure. OSHA is unaware of any

gloves that provide protection against all

potential hand hazards, and commonly

available glove materials provide only

limited protection against many chemicals.

Therefore, it is important to select the most

appropriate glove for a particular application

and to determine how long it can be worn,

and whether it can be reused.

(b) It is also important to know the

performance characteristics of gloves relative

to the specific hazard anticipated, e.g.,

chemical hazards, cut hazards, and flame

hazards. These performance characteristics

should be assessed by using standard test

procedures. Before purchasing gloves, the

employer should request documentation

from the manufacturer that the gloves meet

the appropriate test standard(s) for the

hazard(s) anticipated.

(c) other general factors to be considered

for glove selection are:

(A) As long as the performance

characteristics are acceptable, in certain

circumstances, it may be more cost effective

to regularly change cheaper gloves than to

reuse more expensive types; and,

(B) The work activities of the employee

should be studied to determine the degree of

dexterity required, the duration, frequency,

and degree of exposure to the hazard, and the

physical stresses that will be applied.

(d) With respect to selection of gloves for

protection against chemical hazards:

(A) The toxic properties of the chemical(s)

must be determined; in particular, the ability

of the chemical to cause local effects on the

skin or to pass through the skin and cause

systemic effects or both;

(B) Generally, any ‘‘chemical resistant’’

glove can be used for dry powders;

(C) For mixtures and formulated products

(unless specific test data are available), a

glove should be selected on the basis of the

chemical component with the shortest

breakthrough time, since it is possible for

solvents to carry active ingredients through

polymeric materials; and,

(D) Employees must be able to remove the

gloves in such a manner as to prevent skin

contamination.

12. Cleaning and maintenance. (a) It is

important that all PPE be kept clean and be

properly maintained. Cleaning is particularly

important for eye and face protection where

dirty or fogged lenses could impair vision.

(b) For the purposes of compliance, PPE

should be inspected, cleaned, and

maintained at regular intervals so that the

PPE provides the requisite protection.

(c) It is important to ensure that

contaminated PPE which cannot be

decontaminated is disposed of in a manner

that protects employees from exposure to

hazards.

13. Examples of work activities, trades and

selection of basic PPE.

Example 1: Welder. Based on an

assessment of the work activity area hazards

to which welders are exposed, the equipment

listed below is the basic PPE required for this

occupation. This does not take into account

a job location in which additional PPE may

be required, such as where the welder works

from an elevated platform without guard

rails. In this situation the welder must also

wear the proper fall protection equipment,

such as a body harness.

—Hard hat

—Welding Shield (Face)

—Welding Gloves

—Safety Glasses

—Safety Shoes

—Welding Sleeves (welding in the overhead

position)

(Signed and dated)

Example 2: Yard Maintenance Worker.

Based on an assessment of the workplace

hazards to which shipyard maintenance

workers are exposed, the equipment listed

below is the basic PPE required for this

occupation. Where maintenance workers are

exposed to other hazards, such as asbestos,

the insulation on a pipe is being repaired,

maintenance workers must be provided with

the appropriate supplemental PPE

(requirements for asbestos PPE are set out in

1915.1001).

—Hard Hat

—Safety Glasses

—Work Gloves

—Safety Shoes

(Signed and Dated)

Example 3: Chipper and Grinder Worker.

Based on an assessment of the workplace

hazards to which shipyard chipper and

grinder workers are exposed, the equipment

listed below is the basic PPE required for this

occupation. Where workers are exposed to

other hazards, such as hazardous dust from

chipping or grinding operations, chipper and

grinder workers must be provided with the

appropriate supplemental PPE.

—Safety Glasses

—Transparent Face Shields

—Hearing Protection

—Foot Protection

—Gloves

(Signed and Dated)

Example 4: Painter. Based on an

assessment of the workplace hazards to

which shipyard painters are exposed, the

equipment listed below is the basic PPE

required for this occupation. Where painters

are exposed to other hazards, such as a fall

from an elevation where no guardrails are

present, painters must be provided with the

appropriate supplemental PPE.

—Hard Hats

—Safety Glasses

—Disposable Clothing

—Gloves

—Respiratory Protection, including Airline

Respirators when working in Confined

Spaces

—Barrier Creams

(Signed and Dated)

Example 5: Tank Cleaner. Tank cleaning

operations and the basic PPE required for

them depend largely upon the type of cargo

shipped in the tank. Therefore, the following

example is given for a tank in which gasoline

has been shipped. Based on an assessment of

the workplace hazards to which shipyard

tank cleaners are exposed, specifically

benzene and flammability hazards, the

equipment listed below is the basic PPE

required for this situation. Other tank

cleaning operations will require variations in

the PPE listed below.

—Respiratory Protection, Airline Respirators

for working in confined spaces or where

personal exposure limits could be

exceeded.

—Chemically resistant clothing

—Face Shields

—Chemically resistant boots

—Chemically resistant gloves

—Fall Protection

—Non sparking tools and equipment

—Explosion-proof Lighting

(Signed and Dated)

Appendix B to Subpart I—General

Testing Conditions and Additional

Guidelines for Personal Fall Protection

Systems (Non-mandatory)

1. Personal fall arrest systems—(a) General

test conditions. (1) Lifelines, lanyards, and

deceleration devices should be attached to an

anchorage and connected to the body-belt or

body harness in the same manner as they

would be when used to protect employees,

except that lanyards should be tested only

when connected directly to the anchorage,

and not when connected to a lifeline.

(2) The anchorage should be rigid, and

should not have a deflection greater than .04

inches (1 cm) when a force of 2,250 pounds

(10 Kn) is applied.

(3) The frequency response of the load

measuring instrumentation should be 100 Hz.

(4) The test weight used in the strength and

force tests should be a rigid, metal cylindrical

or torso-shaped object with a girth of 38
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 26359

inches plus or minus 4 inches (96.5 cm plus

or minus 10 cm).

(5) The lanyard or lifeline used to create

the free fall distance should be the one

supplied with the system, or in its absence,

the least elastic lanyard or lifeline available

to be used by the employee with the system.

(6) The test weight for each test should be

hoisted to the required level and should be

quickly released without having any

appreciable motion imparted to it.

(7) The system’s performance should be

evaluated, taking into account the range of

environmental conditions for which it is

designed to be used.

(8) Following the test, the system need not

be capable of further operation.

(b) Strength test. (1) During the testing of

all systems, a test weight of 300 pounds plus

or minus 5 pounds (136 kg plus or minus

2.27 kg) should be used. (See paragraph (a)(4)

above.)

(2) The test consists of dropping the test

weight once. A new unused system should be

used for each test.

(3) For lanyard systems, the lanyard length

should be 6 feet plus or minus 2 inches (1.83

m plus or minus 5 cm) as measured from the

fixed anchorage to the attachment on the

body belt or harness.

(4) For rope-grab-type deceleration

systems, the length of the lifeline above the

center line of the grabbing mechanism to the

lifeline’s anchorage point should not exceed

2 feet (0.61 m).

(5) For lanyard systems, for systems with

deceleration devices which do not

automatically limit free fall distance to 2 feet

(0.61 m) or less, and for systems with

deceleration devices which have a

connection distance in excess of 1 foot (0.3

m) (measured between the centerline of the

lifeline and the attachment point to the body

belt or harness), the test weight should be

rigged to free fall a distance of 7.5 feet (2.3

m) from a point that is 1.5 feet (46 cm) above

the anchorage point, to its hanging location

(6 feet (1.83 m) below the anchorage). The

test weight should fall without interference,

obstruction, or hitting the floor or the ground

during the test. In some cases, a non-elastic

wire lanyard of sufficient length may need to

be added to the system (for test purposes) to

create the necessary free fall distance.

(6) For deceleration device systems with

integral lifelines or lanyards which

automatically limit free fall distance to 2 feet

(0.61 m) or less, the test weight should be

rigged to free fall a distance of four feet (1.22

m).

(7) Any weight which detaches from the

belt or harness should constitute failure for

the strength test.

(c) Force test general. The test consists of

dropping the respective test weight once. A

new, unused system should be used for each

test.

(1) For lanyard systems. (i) A test weight

of 220 pounds plus or minus three pounds

(100 kg plus or minus 1.6 kg) should be used

(see paragraph (a)(4) above).

(ii) Lanyard length should be 6 feet plus or

minus 2 inches (1.83 m plus or minus 5 cm)

as measured from the fixed anchorage to the

attachment on the body belt or body harness.

(iii) The test weight should fall free from

the anchorage level to its handling location

(a total of 6 feet (1.83 m) free fall distance)

without interference, obstruction, or hitting

the floor or ground during the test.

(2) For all other systems. (i) A test weight

of 220 pounds plus or minus 3 pounds (100

kg plus or minus 1.6 kg) should be used (see

paragraph (a)(4) above).

(ii) The free fall distance to be used in the

test should be the maximum fall distance

physically permitted by the system during

normal use conditions, up to a maximum free

fall distance for the test weight of 6 feet (1.83

m), except as follows:

(A) For deceleration systems which have a

connection link or lanyard, the test weight

should free fall a distance equal to the

connection distance (measured between the

center line of the lifeline and the attachment

point to the body belt or harness).

(B) For deceleration device systems with

integral life lines or lanyards which

automatically limit free fall distance to 2 feet

(0.61 m) or less, the test weight should free

fall a distance equal to that permitted by the

system in normal use. (For example, to test

a system with a self-retracting lifeline or

lanyard, the test weight should be supported

and the system allowed to retract the lifeline

or lanyard as it would in normal use. The test

weight would then be released and the force

and deceleration distance measured.)

(3) Failure. A system fails the force test if

the recorded maximum arresting force

exceeds 1,260 pounds (5.6 Kn) when using a

body belt, or exceeds 2,520 pounds (11.2 Kn)

when using a body harness.

(4) Distances. The maximum elongation

and deceleration distance should be recorded

during the force test.

(d) Deceleration device tests—general. The

device should be evaluated or tested under

the environmental conditions (such as rain,

ice, grease, dirt, type of lifeline, etc.) for

which the device is designed.

(1) Rope-grab-type deceleration devices. (i)

Devices should be moved on a lifeline 1,000

times over the same length of line a distance

of not less than 1 foot (30.5 cm), and the

mechanism should lock each time.

(ii) Unless the device is permanently

marked to indicate the type of lifelines which

must be used, several types (different

diameters and different materials) of lifelines

should be used to test the device.

(2) Other-self-activating-type deceleration

devices. The locking mechanisms of other

self-activating-type deceleration devices

designed for more than one arrest should

lock each of 1,000 times as they would in

normal service.

2. Positioning device systems—(a) Test

Conditions. (1) The fixed anchorage should

be rigid and should not have a deflection

greater than .04 inches (1 cm) when a force

of 2,250 pounds (10 Kn) is applied.

(2) For linemen’s body belt and pole straps,

the body belt should be secured to a 250

pound (113 kg) bag of sand at a point which

simulates the waist of an employee. One end

of the pole strap should be attached to the

rigid anchorage and the other end to the body

belt. The sand bag should be allowed to free

fall a distance of 4 feet (1.2 m). Failure of the

pole strap and body belt should be indicated

by any breakage or slippage sufficient to

permit the bag to fall free to the ground.

(3) For window cleaner’s belts, the

complete belt should withstand a drop test

consisting of a 250 pound (113 kg) weight

falling free for a distance of 6 feet (1.83 m).

The weight should be a rigid object with a

girth of 38 inches plus or minus four inches

(97 cm plus or minus 10 cm). The weight

should be placed in the waistband with the

belt buckle drawn firmly against the weight,

as when the belt is worn by a window

cleaner. One belt terminal should be attached

to a rigid anchor and the other terminal

should hang free. The terminals should be

adjusted to their maximum span. The weight

fastened in the freely suspended belt should

then be lifted exactly 6 feet (1.83 m) above

its ‘‘at rest’’ position and released so as to

permit a free fall of 6 feet (1.83 m) vertically

below the point of attachment of the terminal

anchor. The belt system should be equipped

with devices and instrumentation capable of

measuring the duration and magnitude of the

arrest forces. Any breakage or slippage which

permits the weight to fall free of the system

constitutes failure of the test. In addition, the

initial and subsequent arresting force peaks

should be measured and should not exceed

2,000 pounds (8.9 Kn) for more than 2

milliseconds for the initial impact, nor

exceed 1,000 pounds (4.45 Kn) for the

remainder of the arrest time.

(4) All other positioning device systems

(except for restraint line systems) should

withstand a drop test consisting of a 250

pound (113 kg) weight falling free for a

distance of 4 feet (1.2 m). The weight should

be a rigid object with a girth of 38 inches plus

or minus 4 inches (96 cm plus or minus 10

cm). The body belt or harness should be

affixed to the test weight as it would be to

an employee. The system should be

connected to the rigid anchor in the manner

that the system would be connected in

normal use. The weight should be lifted

exactly 4 feet (1.2 m) above its ‘‘at rest’’

position and released so as to permit a

vertical free fall of 4 feet (1.2 m ). Any

breakage or slippage which permits the

weight to fall free to the ground should

constitute failure of the system.

10. Section § 1915.5 is revised as

follows:

§ 1915.5 Incorporation by reference.

(a) Specifications, standards, and

codes of agencies of the U.S.

Government, to the extent specified in

the text, form a part of the regulations

of this part. In addition, under the

authority vested in the Secretary under

the Act, the specifications, standards,

and codes of organizations which are

not agencies of the U.S. Government, in

effect on the date of the promulgation of

the regulations of this part as listed

below, to the extent specified in the

text, form a part of the regulations of

this part.

(b) The materials listed in paragraph

(d) of this section are incorporated by

reference in the corresponding sections

noted as they exist on the date of the

approval, and a notice of any change in
26360 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

these materials will be published in the

Federal Register. These incorporations

by reference were approved by the

Director of the Federal Register in

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1

CFR part 51.

(c) Copies of the following standards

that are issued by the respective private

standards organizations may be

obtained from the issuing organizations.

The materials are available for purchase

at the corresponding addresses of the

private standards organizations noted

below. In addition, all are available for

inspection at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,

suite 700, Washington DC, and through

the OSHA Docket Office, room N2625,

U.S. Department of Labor, 200

Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC

20210, or any of its regional offices.

(d)(1) The following material is

available for purchase from the

American National Standards Institute,

11 West 42nd Street, New York, NY

10036.

(i) ANSI A14.1–1959 Safety Code for

Portable Wood Ladders, IBR approved

for § 1915.72(a)(6)

(ii) ANSI A14.2–1956 Safety Code for

Portable Metal Ladders, IBR approved

for § 1995.72(a)(4)

(iii) ANSI B7.1–1964 Safety Code for

the Use, Care, and Protection of

Abrasive Wheels, IBR approval for

§ 1915.134(c)

(iv) ANSI Z87.1–1989 Practice for

Occupational and Educational Eye and

Face Protection, IBR approved for

§ 1915.153(b)(1).

(v) ANSI 87.1–1979 Practice for

Occupational and Educational Eye and

Face Protection, IBR approved for

§ 1915.153(b)(2)

(vi) ANSI Z89.1–1986 Personnel

Protection—Protective Headgear for

Industrial Workers Requirements, IBR

approved for § 1915.155(b)(1)

(vii) ANSI Z89.1–1969 Safety

Requirement for Industrial Head

Protection, IBR approved for

§ 1915.155(b)(2).

(viii) ANSI Z41–1991 Personal

Protection—Protective Footwear, IBR

approved for § 1915.156(b)(1)

(ix) ANSI Z41–1983 Personal

Protection—Protective Footwear, IBR

approved for § 1915.156(b)(2).

(2) The following material is available

for purchase from the American Society

of Mechanical Engineers, 345 East 47th

Street, New York, New York 10017:

(i) ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel

Code, Section VIII, Rules for

Construction of Unfired Pressure

Vessels, 1963, IBR approved for

§ 1915.172(a).

(3) The following material is available

for purchase from the American

Conference of Governmental Industrial

Hygienists (ACGIH), 1014 Broadway,

Cincinnati, OH 45202:

(i) Threshold limit values, 1970, IBR

approved for §§ 1915.12(b) and

1915.1000, table Z.

[FR Doc. 96–12573 Filed 5–23–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P