[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 102 (Friday, May 24, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26322-26360]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12573]



      

[[Page 26321]]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Department of Labor





_______________________________________________________________________



Occupational Safety and Health Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



29 CFR Part 1915



Personal Protective Equipment for Shipyard Employment; Final Rule

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

[[Page 26322]]



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 Secs. 1915.152(b), 1915.152(e), 1915.159(d), 1915.160(d), 
will not become effective until an Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) Control number is received and displayed for these ``collections 
of information'' in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The incorporations by reference of certain 
publications listed in this final rule is approved by the Director of 
the Federal Register as of August 22, 1996.
    Other Dates: Written comments on the paperwork requirements of this 
final rule must be submitted on or before July 23, 1996.

ADDRESSES: In compliance with 28 U.S.C. 2112(a), the Agency designates 
the Associate Solicitor for Occupational Safety and Health, Office of 
the Solicitor, Room S-4004, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210 for receipt of petitions for 
review of the standard.
    Comments on the paperwork requirements of this final rule are to be 
submitted to the Docket Office, Docket No. S-045, U.S. Department of 
Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 202l0, 
telephone (202) 219-7894. Written comments limited to 10 pages or less 
in length may also be transmitted by facsimile to (202) 219-5046.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Anne C. Cyr, Acting Director, 
Office of Information, Division of Consumer Affairs, Room N-3647, U.S. 
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20210; Telephone (202) 219-8151.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Workplace Hazards
III. Summary and Explanation of Final Rule
IV. Summary of Final Economic Analysis, Regulatory Flexibility 
Certification, and Environmental Impact Assessment
V. Paperwork Burden
VI. Statutory Considerations
VII. Federalism
VIII. State Plans
IX. Authority

I. Background

    In May 1971, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
(OSHA), under authority granted by section 6(a) of the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655), adopted Federal 
standards issued under section 41 of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' 
Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941), as standards applicable to ship 
repairing (29 CFR part 1915), shipbuilding (29 CFR part 1916), and 
shipbreaking (29 CFR part 1917) operations. OSHA also adopted other 
Federal standards and national consensus standards as general industry 
standards (29 CFR part 1910) and construction industry standards (29 
CFR part 1926), which apply to shipyard hazards and working conditions 
not specifically covered by standards in parts 1915, 1916, or 1917.
    On April 20, 1982 (47 FR 16984), the ship repairing, shipbuilding, 
and shipbreaking standards were consolidated into 29 CFR part 1915 
``Occupational Safety and Health Standards for Shipyard Employment.'' 
The purpose of the consolidation was to eliminate duplicative 
provisions. The consolidation did not alter substantive requirements of 
these standards, nor did it affect the applicability of the general 
industry and construction standards in 29 CFR parts 1910 and 1926, 
respectively, to hazards or conditions in shipyard employment not 
addressed in the consolidated part 1915.
    Later in 1982, the Shipbuilders Council of America (SCA) and the 
American Waterways Shipyard Conference (AWSC) requested that OSHA 
identify the specific provisions of the general industry standards that 
apply to shipyards and then consolidate them into the existing part 
1915 provisions, making one set of shipyard employment standards. OSHA 
agreed that such consolidation was appropriate, and decided to begin 
work on a subpart-by-subpart basis.
    As part of that effort, OSHA published a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register for subpart I of part 1915 
(Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), November 29, 1988, 53 FR 48092). 
In particular, the proposed rule updated the pertinent references to 
national consensus standards, incorporated Sec. 1910.134 (respiratory 
protection) by reference to replace the less comprehensive provisions 
in Sec. 1915.152, and added requirements for hazard assessment, 
training, fall protection systems, and positioning device systems. OSHA 
received 10 comments in response to the NPRM. Those comments are 
discussed in the Summary and Explanation section of this document, 
below.
    A short time after the November 1988 publication of the proposed 
rule on PPE, the Shipyard Employment Standards Advisory Committee 
(SESAC) was established. SESAC was chartered to provide OSHA with 
guidance in revising, consolidating, and modernizing the varying sets 
of regulations that were being applied in the shipyard industry to 
produce a truly vertical standard for all shipyard employment. The 
intended result of this activity was the development of a single set of 
occupational safety and health standards for shipyard employment that 
would cover vessels, vessel sections and related activities. The newly 
developed shipyard employment standards would apply to all shipyard 
employment. SESAC provided OSHA with comments on PPE-related issues, 
and their comments are discussed in the Summary and Explanation below.
    Following publication of the proposed 1915 shipyard PPE standard, 
OSHA initiated two rulemakings to address General Industry Personal 
Protective Equipment (PPE) standards. The first of these PPE 
rulemakings (NPRM at 54 FR 33832, August 16, 1989) covered all PPE 
(such as eye, face, hand, and foot) other than respiratory protection, 
electrical protective equipment, personal protective systems, and 
positioning device systems. The Agency published the final rule for 
this rulemaking on April 6, 1994 (59 FR 16334). The Agency also 
initiated a second general industry rulemaking to add requirements for 
personal fall arrest systems and positioning systems to the general 
industry PPE standards (Docket S-057; NPRM at 55 FR 12323, April 10,

[[Page 26323]]

1990). This rulemaking had not yet been concluded.
    The Agency determined that the information in the above-noted 
rulemaking records was relevant to the issues raised in the Shipyard 
PPE proposal. Accordingly, on July 6, 1994, OSHA reopened the Shipyard 
PPE rulemaking record (59 FR 34586) to incorporate the General Industry 
PPE dockets and to allow the public an opportunity to comment. The 
Agency indicated that it was considering more detailed guidance 
regarding: Adequate training requirements; verification of the proposed 
hazard assessment and training requirements through written 
certification; and prohibition of the use of body belts and non-locking 
snaphooks. OSHA subsequently revised its requirements for fall 
protection in construction (final rule at 59 FR 40672, August 9, 1994). 
The final rule, containing requirements for personal fall protection 
equipment similar to those in the shipyard PPE proposal, prohibited the 
use of body belts in personal fall arrest systems (PFAS) 
(Sec. 1926.502(d) introductory text) and the use of non-locking 
snaphooks in PFAS (Sec. 1926.502(d)(5)) and in positioning systems 
(Sec. 1926.502(e)(7)). Those prohibitions take effect on January 1, 
1998.
    The shipyard PPE reopening comment period ended August 22, 1994. 
OSHA received 13 comments, including one hearing request. Those 
comments are discussed in the Summary and Explanation section below.
    In lieu of a hearing, OSHA agreed to hold an informal public 
meeting (59 FR 64173, December 13, 1994) to allow comments and 
testimony on the issues raised in the reopening. At the public meeting 
on January 25, 1995, there were five oral presentations and five 
written submissions, which are discussed in the Summary and Explanation 
section. The rulemaking record closed on February 28, 1995.

II. Workplace Hazards

    OSHA has determined that employees in shipyards are exposed to a 
significant risk of injury from hazards that can be mitigated by the 
use of suitable personal protective equipment. OSHA has also concluded 
that compliance with the final standard will substantially reduce 
employee exposure to PPE-related hazards.
    The shipyard industry has had one of the highest rates of injuries 
of any industry for many years. In 1992, the shipyard industry, SIC 
3731, had an injury rate of 34.2 per 100 full-time employees 
(``Occupational Injuries and Illnesses: Counts, Rates, and 
Characteristics, 1992,'' published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 
April, 1995). Approximately half of these injuries were severe enough 
to result in lost time from work. These numbers mean that a shipyard 
employee has about a 1 in 3 chance (34 percent) of experiencing an 
injury at work annually and a 1 in 10 chance every year of being 
injured seriously enough to require time away from work to recuperate.
    In comparison, the average annual risk of injury for all employees 
in the United States was about 9 per 100 full-time employees in 1992; 
for the manufacturing sector of the economy, the annual injury rate was 
about 11 per 100 full-time employees.
    Table 1 presents estimates of lost-workday injuries by body part 
based on 1992 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data. These estimates 
are consistent with injury data from a Department of Transportation 
Maritime Administration survey and the Agency's analysis of OSHA 200 
Forms (discussed further in the Benefits section of the summary of the 
Economic Analysis, presented later in this Preamble). Table 2 presents 
BLS lost workday injury data by nature of injury.

                Table 1.--BLS Estimates of Shipyard injuries involving Lost Workdays by Body Part               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of                       
                      Body part                          Number of 1992     extrapolated 1994      Percent (%)  
                                                          injuries (a)         injuries (b)                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head, unspecified...................................                   73                   63               0.6
Ear(s)..............................................                    0                    0               0.0
Eyes(s).............................................                1,080                  925               9.4
Face................................................                   51                   44               0.4
Scalp...............................................                   91                   78               0.8
Neck................................................                  350                  300               3.0
Arm(s) unspecified..................................                   49                   42               0.4
Elbow...............................................                  265                  227               2.3
Forearm.............................................                  128                  110               1.1
Wrist...............................................                  478                  409               4.1
Hand(s).............................................                  508                  435               4.4
Finger(s)...........................................                  720                  617               6.2
Upper extremities, multiple.........................                    0                    0               0.0
Trunk, unspecified..................................                    0                    0               0.0
Abdomen.............................................                   88                   75               0.8
Back, unspecified...................................                  954                  817               8.3
Back, lumbar........................................                1,198                1,026              10.4
Back, thoracic......................................                  168                  144               1.5
Chest...............................................                  289                  247               2.5
Hip.................................................                  306                  262               2.7
Shoulder(s).........................................                  601                  515               5.2
Trunk, multiple parts...............................                    0                    0               0.0
Lower extremities, unspecified......................                    0                    0               0.0
Leg(s), unspecified.................................                   59                   51               0.5
Thighs..............................................                   89                   76               0.8
Knee(s).............................................                1,073                  919               9.3
Lower leg(s)........................................                  123                  105               1.1
Leg(s), multiple....................................                    0                    0               0.0
Ankle(s)............................................                  624                  534               5.4
Foot/feet...........................................                  488                  418               4.2
Toe(s)..............................................                  123                  105               1.1
Lower extremities, multiple.........................                    0                    0               0.0

[[Page 26324]]

                                                                                                                
Multiple body parts.................................                  674                  577               5.8
Circulatory system..................................                    0                    0               0.0
Digestive system....................................                    0                    0               0.0
Excretory system....................................                    0                    0               0.0
Nervous system......................................                    0                    0               0.0
Respiratory system..................................                    0                    0               0.0
Body parts, NEC.....................................                  163                  140               1.4
Not identified by body part.........................                  720                  617               6.2
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
    Total...........................................               11,533                9,876             100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Bureau of Labor Statistics. Survey of Occupational injuries and illnesses, 1                                
(b) Extrapolation based on decline in shipyard employment of 14.4 percent bet 1992 and 1994.                    



            Table 2.--BLS Estimates of Shipyard Injuries Involving Lost Workdays, by Nature of Injury           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of                       
                  Nature of injury                       Number of 1992     extrapolated 1994      Percent (%)  
                                                          injuries (a)         injuries (b)                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amputation..........................................                    0                    0               0.0
Burn (heat).........................................                  410                  351               3.6
Burn (chemical).....................................                   80                   69               0.7
Concussion..........................................                    0                    0               0.0
Infective/parasitic disease.........................                   NA                   NA                NA
Contusion/bruise....................................                2,085                1,785              18.1
Cut/laceration/puncture.............................                  622                  533               5.4
Dermatitis..........................................                    0                    0               0.0
Dislocation, unspecified............................                   88                   75               0.8
Electric shock......................................                    0                    0               0.0
Fracture............................................                  558                  478               4.8
Low temperature exposure............................                   NA                   NA                NA
Hearing loss or impairment..........................                    0                    0               0.0
Inflammation of joints..............................                  114                   98               1.0
Poisoning...........................................                  114                   98               1.0
Radiation effects...................................                  213                  182               1.8
Scratches/abrasions.................................                  728                  623               6.3
Sprains/strains, unspecified........................                5,044                4,319              43.7
Torn ligaments......................................                   NA                   NA                NA
Sprains/strains, NEC................................                   NA                   NA                NA
Multiple injuries...................................                  308                  264               2.7
Circulatory system condition........................                    0                    0               0.0
Eye diseases........................................                    0                    0               0.0
Nervous system condition............................                  255                  218               2.2
Respiratory system condition........................                    0                    0               0.0
Ill-defined condition...............................                    0                    0               0.0
Other injury, NEC...................................                  216                  185               1.9
Not identified by nature............................                  698                  598               6.1
    Total...........................................               11,533                9,876             100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Bureau of Labor Statistics. Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, 19                               
(b) Extrapolation based on decline in shipyard employment of 14.4 percent between 1992 and 1994.                
NA: Not applicable. Nature of injury category not incuded in BLS tabulations.                                   

    Shipyard employment typically involves fabrication and repair of 
large steel plates, beams, and pipes as well as painting and coating 
operations and other outfitting activities such as electrical work, 
ventilation and sheet metal work, and work on propulsion systems. 
Welding is a common production technology, requiring grinding and 
chipping of welds and accounting for many eye injuries. Employees also 
frequently work in awkward positions, out-of-doors throughout the year, 
on scaffolds, and in enclosed or confined spaces. The shipyard 
industry's relatively high employment turnover rate contributes to the 
high rates of injuries, because newly hired workers tend to be less 
well trained and have a higher frequency of accidents.
    The Agency has concluded that PPE-related hazards pose a 
significant risk of serious injury to shipyard employees, and that 
compliance with the PPE standard is needed to substantially reduce that 
risk. The Agency has estimated that compliance with the final PPE 
regulation will significantly reduce the likelihood of an injury--from 
34.2 to 21 per 100 full-time employees per year.
    For a full discussion of the benefits of the final standard see the 
summary of the Economic Analysis presented below in this preamble or 
the full Economic Analysis, which is in the docket.

III. Summary and Explanation of Final Rule

    In this section of the preamble, OSHA explains how the final rule 
relates to the proposed and existing standards, and

[[Page 26325]]

how the comments and testimony presented on each provision influenced 
the drafting of the final rule. This section also addresses issues 
raised in the July 6, 1994, reopening notice and the December 13, 1994, 
public meeting notice. Except where otherwise indicated, proposed 
provisions that did not elicit comments are being promulgated as 
proposed, for reasons stated in the preamble to the proposed rule (53 
FR 48151-48158).
    As discussed above, on April 6, 1994, OSHA issued a final rule for 
its rulemaking on PPE used in general industry (59 FR 16334) (part 
1910, subpart I, Docket S-060). That document updated the regulation of 
PPE for eye and face (Sec. 1910.133), head (Sec. 1910.135) and foot 
protection (Sec. 1910.136), and added provisions for hazard assessment, 
PPE selection, disposal and training (Sec. 1910.132 (d)-(f)), and hand 
protection (Sec. 1910.138). The proposed rule (54 FR 33832, August 16, 
1989) was consistent with the corresponding proposed rule for shipyard 
PPE. However, based on the rulemaking record, OSHA revised the general 
industry proposal to address training and the documentation of 
compliance with the hazard assessment and training requirements in more 
detail. Given the similarity of the PPE used in general industry and 
shipyard employment, OSHA determined that the information generated in 
this general industry rulemaking was relevant to the drafting of the 
shipyard PPE standards, as well.
    Also, proposed part 1910 subpart I, PPE (Fall Protection Systems) 
(55 FR 13423, April 10, 1990) set criteria for the proper selection, 
use and maintenance of personal fall arrest systems (Secs. 1910.128, 
1910.129, and 1910.131) and positioning device systems (Secs. 1910.128 
and 1910.130) in general industry. The part 1910 subpart I proposal 
relied heavily on the approach taken by the Agency in its final rule on 
Powered Platforms for Exterior Building Maintenance, Sec. 1910.66 (54 
FR 31456, July 28, 1989, Docket S-700A). In the Preamble to the 1910 
subpart I proposal, OSHA determined that the requirements for personal 
fall arrest systems used by employees on powered platforms should be 
the same as those for personal fall arrest systems used by employees in 
other occupations (55 FR at 13430).
    Based on the record developed for the general industry fall 
protection PPE rulemaking (Docket S-057), OSHA decided that it was 
appropriate to consider prohibiting the use of non-locking snaphooks in 
personal fall arrest and positioning device systems and to consider 
prohibiting the use of body belts in personal fall arrest systems. 
Recently, the Agency included such prohibitions in the final rule for 
fall protection in construction (59 FR 40672, August 9, 1994). As 
stated above, the Agency has determined that OSHA's fall protection PPE 
standards should be consistent with each other.
    Therefore, based on its policy of promoting consistent regulation 
of PPE across industry lines, the Agency concluded that the information 
generated on PPE in general industry was relevant to the use of that 
PPE in shipyards, as well.
    Accordingly, OSHA incorporated Dockets S-057 and S-060 into the 
shipyard PPE rulemaking record and reopened the comment period for part 
1915 subpart I to provide an opportunity for public comment on the 
newly incorporated materials (59 FR 34586, July 6, 1994). The Agency 
provided additional opportunity for public input on these materials (59 
FR 64173, December 13, 1995) at an informal public meeting on January 
25, 1995.
    In addition, OSHA has added certain personal fall arrest criteria, 
Sec. 1910.159 (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(7), (c)(2), (c)(3) and (c) (7) to the 
final rule, because the need for such requirements has been established 
through the corresponding General Industry and Construction rulemaking 
proceedings. These requirements are discussed further, below.
    OSHA has concluded that the PPE needed in shipyard employment does 
not differ markedly from that needed in general industry or in 
construction, and that the standards covering PPE should not differ 
markedly either. The final rule reflects this determination and 
incorporates OSHA's review of the existing rulemaking record, including 
the materials incorporated from other PPE-related dockets.

Section 1915.151  Scope, Application, and Definitions Applicable to 
This Subpart

    Final rule paragraph (a) sets forth the scope and application of 
Subpart I. This subpart applies to all work in shipyard employment, 
regardless of geographic location. This language is consistent with 
that in recently published part 1915 subpart B [Sec. 1915.11(a)][59 FR 
37816, July 25, 1994].
    Proposed paragraph (a)(1) stated that this subpart would cover PPE 
provided for and used by shipyard workplaces and operations (including 
shipbuilding, ship repairing, and shipbreaking), but would not apply to 
construction operations in shipyards covered by part 1926.
    Newport News Shipbuilding (NNS) stated [Ex. 6-2] that the term 
``provided'' should be changed to ``made available'' because the 
suggested language was consistent with that in existing Sec. 1915.153 
and with current industry practice. However, the Agency has deleted the 
proposed language, ``personal protective equipment to be provided for 
and used by employees'' because it believes that requirements for the 
provision and use of PPE are more appropriately addressed in 
Sec. 1915.152, General Requirements.
    The Shipbuilding Council of America (SCA) (Ex. 6-1) and NNS (Ex. 6-
2) stated that part 1926 (OSHA's construction industry standards) 
should not apply to employees of shipyards who perform construction 
work since one of the objectives of the rulemaking was to bring 
uniformity to the workplace by providing employees and employers with 
one set of safety standards to govern their work. SCA suggested that 
part 1926 apply only to construction work performed in shipyards by 
outside contractors (non-shipyard employees). OSHA believes, however, 
that it is inappropriate to distinguish between shipyard employees and 
contractor employees when setting requirements for worker protection. 
Therefore, OSHA is not making the suggested change.
    The Agency has consistently maintained that construction 
activities, such as the erection of building structures, are covered by 
the construction standards (29 CFR part 1926) and are not subject to 
the requirements of the shipyard standards (29 CFR part 1915). 
Furthermore, Sec. 1926.30, Shipbuilding and ship repairs, explicitly 
provides that shipyard employment is covered exclusively by the 
shipyard standards. Accordingly, the proposed paragraph (a)(1) language 
regarding the application for part 1926 in unnecessary and has been 
deleted.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(2) provided that subpart I of part 1910--
except Sec. 1910.134, Respiratory protection--would not apply to 
shipyard employment. Since OSHA has chosen to view respirators as a 
separate, full rulemaking [59 FR 58884 November 15, 1994] which will 
apply to shipyard employment as well as general industry, the final 
shipyard PPE standard will continue to reference existing Sec. 1910.134 
for respiratory PPE until the shipyard respirator rulemaking is 
complete. In all other respects, subpart I of part 1915 will be a self-
contained set of PPE standards for shipyard employment. It will not be

[[Page 26326]]

supplemented through reference to the General Industry standards.

Paragraph (b), Definitions

    Paragraph (b) defines the terms used in this standard.
    The proposed definitions paragraph did not include a number of 
terms and definitions that OSHA has used, or proposed to use, in other 
standards that address fall protection PPE [e.g., Powered Platforms for 
Building Maintenance 29 CFR 1910.66 (July 28, 1989 54 FR 31408); Fall 
Protection in Construction part 1926, subpart M (51 FR 42718, Aug. 9, 
1994); and General Industry PPE-Fall Protection, proposed 1910.128(b), 
subpart I (55 FR 13423 April 10, 1990)].
    The new terms and definitions included in paragraph (b) are: 
anchorage, connector, deceleration distance, equivalent, free fall, 
free-fall distance, lanyard, lifeline, lower levels, rope grab, and 
self-retracting lifeline/lanyard. Newly defined terms, revised terms, 
and proposed terms that elicited comments are discussed below. OSHA has 
determined that the inclusion of these definitions is appropriate for 
the purpose of clarity and to provide guidance consistent with that set 
in corresponding standards. In addition, as discussed further below, 
OSHA is adding a definition for the term ``qualified person.''
    The proposed term ``capable person'' will be replaced by the more 
familiar term ``qualified person'' in the final rule. SESAC also 
recommended using ``qualified person'' in the regulatory text (Tr. p. 
84-85, SESAC meeting, November 20, 1991).
    ``Deceleration device.'' This term describes equipment such as a 
rope grab, ripstitch lanyard, specially woven lanyard, tearing or 
deforming lanyard, and automatic self-retracting lifeline/lanyard, that 
serves to dissipate a substantial amount of energy during a fall arrest 
or otherwise limit the energy imposed on an employee during fall 
arrest. The proposed definition simply required that the device 
dissipate more energy than does a standard line or strap-webbing 
lanyard. After a careful review of the proposed definition, OSHA has 
revised the definition to indicate the extent to which a deceleration 
device must dissipate the energy imposed on an employee during fall 
arrest.
    ``Personal fall arrest system.'' This term means a system used to 
stop an employee's fall. The proposed definition, which was effectively 
identical, did not elicit comments.
    ``Positioning device system.'' This is a body belt or body harness 
system rigged so that an employee can work on an elevated, vertical 
working surface with both hands free while leaning. The proposed 
definition has been rewritten for clarity. OSHA did not receive any 
comments on the proposed definition.
    The proposed definition of ``strength factor'' has not been carried 
forward into the final rule because this term is not used in the final 
rule.

Section 1915.152  General Requirements

    Paragraph (a) of the final rule, Provision and use of equipment, 
requires that employers provide and ensure that employees use personal 
protective equipment for eyes, face, head, extremities, torso, and 
respiratory system, including such PPE as protective clothing, 
protective shields and barriers, personal fall protection equipment, 
and life saving equipment, whenever such PPE is necessary for employee 
protection. Except for some editorial changes, this provision is 
identical to that in the proposed rule.
    Paragraph (b) requires that employers assess the work activities in 
the shipyard to identify what hazards are present, or are likely to be 
present, which necessitate the use of PPE. OSHA is aware that many 
shipyard employers assess workplace hazards according to the trade or 
occupation of affected employees. The Agency believes that it is 
appropriate to allow employers flexibility in organizing their 
assessment efforts. Therefore, OSHA has added a note to the final rule 
which provides that a hazard assessment conducted according to the 
trade or occupation of affected employees will be considered to comply 
with paragraph (b), if the assessment addresses any PPE-related hazards 
to which employees are exposed in the course of their work activities.
    Where any such hazards are identified, the employer shall select 
the appropriate PPE for each affected employee (both in terms of type 
of PPE and fit), communicate selection decisions to affected employees, 
and document that the hazard assessment has been performed. After the 
assessment has been done, the standard does not expressly require the 
employer to review the hazard assessment on any periodic basis. 
However, it is the Agency's intent that hazard assessments be conducted 
at the intervals and on a schedule dictated by the risks in the 
workplace. For example, when there is a change in technology, 
production operations, or an occupation's task that has the potential 
to affect PPE-related hazards, the employer must review the 
appropriateness of the existing hazard assessment and the PPE being 
used and update the hazard assessment as necessary.
    In the proposal, this paragraph required that employers select PPE 
for their employees based on an assessment of workplace hazards. 
Commenters who responded to the July 6, 1994 notice (59 FR 3486) and 
participants at the January 25, 1995 public hearing stated that the 
term ``workplace'' that appeared in the requirement for hazard 
assessment in proposed section Sec. 1915.152(b) was not appropriate. 
They suggested that OSHA instead use the term ``trade'' or ``work 
activity.''
    For example, the South Tidewater Association of Ship Repairers, 
Inc. (Ex 9-3) recommended that OSHA change ``workplace to ``work 
activity'' or ``trade.'' Tampa Shipyards Incorporated (Ex. 9-8) stated:

    We would definitely agree that PPE used in general industry does 
not differ markedly from PPE used in the shipyards. We would point 
out the fact that work environment in shipyards is substantially and 
drastically different from general industry work environment. Most 
of the general industry work environment is a fixed work 
environment; manufacturing plant with assembly lines, consistent 
work processed, etc. The commercial shipyard work environment 
changes not only on a daily basis but sometimes on an hourly basis 
depending upon the size and configuration of a ship (or workplace) 
and the type of work to be accomplished on board that ship.

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

    We believe that standards should be based on generic and uniform 
nature of the duties performed by specific categories of employees, 
rather than solely by the workplace * * * shipyard workplace that is 
neither fixed, nor constant, nor readily quantifiable like 
workplaces in all other industries.

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

    The general industry standard is specifically targeted toward 
fixed facilities and processes, unlike commercial ship repair and 
ship building. Now the definition of workplace differs greatly from 
a manufacturing environment to a commercial ship repair facility. 
Workplace is used throughout the general industry PPE standard. By 
definition, workplace means, and I quote out of the Webster's 
dictionary, ``a place, shop or factory where work is done.''
    The commercial shipyard work environment changes not only on a 
daily basis * * * And from personal experience I can tell you it 
changes on an hourly basis and on a ship-to-shop basis which varies 
by size and configuration.

    OSHA acknowledges that shipyard employees--unlike general industry

[[Page 26327]]

employees--may work in several worksites during a shift. OSHA agrees 
with the commenters that the term ``workplace'' does not identify the 
appropriate source of PPE-related hazards in shipyards and believes 
that requiring hazard assessments by trade and related work activities 
effectively addresses the PPE-related risks in shipyards.
    The proposal also required employers to select PPE that would 
protect employees from the particular occupational hazards they were 
likely to encounter, to communicate their selection decisions to 
employees who would be obtaining their own PPE, and to have employees 
who obtain their own PPE follow the employers' selection decisions.
    The proposed rule assumed that some employees would be providing 
some of their own PPE. For that reason, OSHA specified, in the 
proposal, that employers would need to provide any such employees with 
PPE selection information and to make sure that their affected 
employees obtained the right PPE. This was intended to ensure that 
employees are properly protected by their PPE, regardless of who 
purchased it.
    Subsequently, the Agency determined that it was appropriate to 
provide additional guidance regarding when employers would be expected 
to pay for PPE and when employees would be expected to pay. On October 
18, 1994, OSHA issued a memorandum to its field offices which stated as 
follows:

    OSHA has interpreted its general PPE standard, as well as 
specific standards, to require employers to provide and to pay for 
personal protective equipment required by the company for the worker 
to do his or her job safely and in compliance with OSHA standards. 
Where equipment is very personal in nature and is usable by workers 
off the job, the matter of payment may be left to labor-management 
negotiations. Examples of PPE that would not normally be used away 
from the worksite include, but are not limited to: welding glasses, 
wire mesh gloves, respirators, hard hats, specialty glasses and 
goggles (designed for laser or ultraviolet radiation protection), 
specialty foot protection (such as metatarsal shoes and linemen's 
shoes with built in gaffs), face shields and rubber gloves, blankets 
and cover-ups and hot sticks and other live-line tools used by power 
generation workers. Examples of PPE that is personal in nature and 
often used away from the worksite include non-specialty safety 
glasses, safety shoes, and cold-weather outer wear of the type worn 
by construction workers. However, shoes or outer wear subject to 
contamination by carcinogens or other toxic or hazardous substances 
which cannot be safely worn off-site must be paid for by the 
employer. Failure of the employer to pay for PPE that is not 
personal and not used away from the job is a violation and shall be 
cited.

Although the equipment used in shipyard employment often differs from 
that mentioned in the October 18 memorandum, the same policy 
considerations apply in the Shipyard PPE context. Therefore, OSHA will 
apply the above-stated policy when determining who pays for the PPE 
required under Sec. 1915.152(a).
    In addition, the Agency has determined, after further 
consideration, that all affected employees need to be informed of PPE 
selection decisions in order to facilitate compliance with the 
standard. The proposed language that distinguishes between employees 
who pay for their own PPE and those who do not has been deleted and the 
provision has been revised accordingly. Paragraph (b) has also been 
editorially revised for clarity.
    In the proposal, paragraph (b) did not specifically address 
documentation of the hazard assessment. The recently revised PPE 
standard for General Industry (Sec. 1910.132(d)(2)), however, requires 
employers to verify through a written certification that a required 
hazard assessment has been performed. OSHA explained its decision (59 
FR 16336) to require such verification as follows:

    OSHA believes that some form of record is needed to provide OSHA 
compliance officers and affected employees with appropriate 
assurance that the required hazard assessment has been performed * * 
* It is not ``necessary for employers to prepare and retain a formal 
written hazard assessment.'' Given the performance-oriented nature 
of this rulemaking, OSHA has determined that the generation and 
review of extensive documentation would be unnecessarily burdensome.
    The Agency has found that a written certification is a 
reasonable means by which to establish accountability for 
compliance.
    Therefore, the Agency has determined that employers can 
adequately verify compliance with Sec. 1910.132(d) of the final rule 
through a written certification which identifies the workplace 
evaluated; the person certifying that the evaluation has been 
performed, the date(s) of the hazard assessment; and which 
identifies the document as a certification of hazard assessment.

    Taking into account the similarities between PPE used in General 
Industry and that used in Shipyard employment, OSHA reopened the 
Shipyard PPE rulemaking record (59 FR 34586, July 6, 1994) to provide 
public notice that the Agency was considering a requirement for 
shipyard employers to verify their compliance with the hazard 
assessment provision through a written certification. The notice of 
reopening solicited comments on the need for and impact of a 
certification requirement.
    The Preamble to the final rule for Fall Protection in Construction 
(part 1926, subpart M) (59 FR at 40721, August 9, 1994) underscored the 
flexibility employers have in complying with certification 
requirements, stating that a ``certification record can be prepared in 
any format an employer chooses, including reprinted forms, computer 
generated lists, or 3 x 5 cards.''
    Commenters to the shipyard PPE record (Exs. 9-3 and 9-7) stated 
that any requirement for the certification of hazard assessment should 
be focused on employee ``work activity'' or ``trade'' rather than on 
the ``workplace.'' For example, the South Tidewater Association of Ship 
Repairers (STASR)(Ex. 9-3) stated that ``[t]here is a constant 
transition of trades moving among various shops and vessels as well as 
a rotation of vessels. It is not feasible for designated shipyard 
employees to monitor continuously a ``workplace'' in constant change.'' 
In addition, STASR observed that it would be advantageous to identify 
``a universal requirement for trade-specific PPE as opposed to {a} 
site-specific requirement, peculiar to one location.'' The SCA (Ex. 9-
7) stated that shipyard work duties, unlike duties undertaken in a 
factory, are neither fixed, constant, nor readily quantifiable.
    Three other commenters (Exs. 9-6, 9-8 and 9-9) were particularly 
concerned that compliance with the certification requirement under 
consideration would necessitate continuous or repeated hazard 
assessment. These commenters, along with several others (Exs. 9-1, 9-4, 
9-5, 9-11 and 9-13), indicated that they have already implemented 
written programs to identify PPE needs, so that certifying performance 
of the hazard assessment would be redundant.
    In addition, commenters (Exs. 9-10 and 9-14) suggested that OSHA 
accept any form of documentation which provides the information needed 
to verify compliance. In particular, General Dynamics Electric Boat 
Division (EBDiv.) (Ex. 9-10) stated ``EBDiv. recommends that OSHA 
continue with its performance oriented approach and allow employers the 
flexibility in determining the most efficient and effective manner for 
documenting hazard assessments.''
    Based on the above-discussed comments, the notice of informal 
public meeting (59 FR 64173, December 13, 1994) solicited input 
regarding the means by which shipyard employers could adequately verify 
compliance with the requirement for hazard assessment. In particular, 
the notice stated that OSHA was ``considering the

[[Page 26328]]

extent to which current hazard assessments performed by trade or 
occupation provide the necessary information for selection of 
appropriate PPE'' and provided examples of trade-based formats (for 
welder and for yard maintenance worker) that the Agency might consider 
to be acceptable.
    In response, commenters (Exs. 11-2, 11-3, 11-6 and 11-8) stated 
that the shipyard industry already adequately documents its hazard 
assessment activities. NNS (Ex. 11-6) also expressed concern that the 
use of the term ``certify'' was unnecessary, stating that certification 
``does not contribute to improved safety and health. We suggest that 
certification should be replaced by a signature.'' In addition, NNS 
testified (Tr. 28-29, January 25, 1995), as follows:

    We still don't understand why the word ``certify'' can't be left 
behind in favor of the word ``document'' or ``signature'' or some 
other type of verbiage. We think that the word ``certify'' carries 
with it some connotations that will thwart, if you will, the 
employee involvement efforts that we're stepping forward trying to 
initiate.

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

    Where hazard assessment is already in place because of existing 
OSHA standards * * * we recommend that these assessments be allowed 
to meet the requirements of the portion of this standard.
    Where hazard assessment does not exist, and it would be hard for 
me to say where it doesn't in the shipyard industry, we'd recommend 
that an annual assessment be made of the affected craft, possibly of 
the machinery or pipefitting departments. Once the hazard assessment 
is conducted for these crafts, we recommend that the company safety 
representative be allowed to make these assessments and sign the 
assessment certifying his or her review and assessment. This 
assessment should be no more than listing the personal protective 
equipment required for that particular craft in all working 
circumstances.

    The UBC Health and Safety Fund of North America (Ex. 12-4) stated 
as follows: ``OSHA should require written certification of hazard 
assessment for employers to select the Personal Protective Equipment 
(PPE) that is necessary for work being performed by trades or 
occupations. This assessment should take into account the PPE necessary 
to protect employees performing specific work tasks.''
    OSHA has concluded that the documentation format described by 
commenters and meeting participants will provide adequate assurance 
that the required hazard assessment has been performed. The Agency 
agrees that a hazard assessment record which conveys the required 
information does not need to be called a ``certification.'' 
Accordingly, the Agency will use the term ``document'' rather than the 
term ``certification'' to describe these minimal written record 
required under final rule Sec. 1915.152(b)(4). Appendix A provides 
several acceptable ways of meeting the requirements, including some 
examples of the trade-based formats.
    Final rule paragraph (c) requires employers to ensure that 
defective or damaged PPE is not used. The proposed paragraph was 
essentially identical. This provision does not preclude the repair and 
reuse of PPE. OSHA recognizes that there are many situations where PPE 
can be removed from service, repaired, and then returned to service. 
There were no comments on the proposed paragraph, and OSHA therefore 
promulgates this provision as proposed, except for minor editorial 
changes.
    Final rule paragraph (d) requires that PPE that has been worn by 
workers and has become unsanitary be cleaned and disinfected before it 
is reissued. There were no comments on the proposed provision, and this 
paragraph is unchanged except for minor editorial changes.
    Final paragraph (e) sets the training requirements for users of 
PPE. OSHA has consistently maintained that employees must be properly 
trained in order to benefit from the use of PPE. The proposed part 1910 
and part 1915 PPE training provisions were identical, requiring simply 
that employees ``be trained in the proper use of their personal 
protective equipment.'' As discussed in the part 1910 subpart I final 
rule preamble (59 FR 16337-40, April 6, 1994), OSHA divided the 
training into four training elements: what affected employees must 
understand about their PPE; what PPE-related skills those employees 
must have; when affected employees would need retraining; and what 
documentation of training was needed.
    OSHA concluded that these training elements should also be 
considered for inclusion in the shipyard standard. Therefore, the July 
6, 1994, shipyard PPE notice discussed the general industry training 
provisions and solicited comments. In order to clarify the requirements 
for the shipyard industry and provide clear guidance for enforcement, 
the Agency has revised this provision (paragraph (e)(2)) to read: ``The 
employer shall ensure that each affected employee demonstrates the 
ability to use PPE properly before being allowed to perform work 
requiring the use of PPE.'' The Agency is not prescribing the means by 
which employers comply with this provision.
    The general industry PPE standard, Sec. 1910.132(f)(4), provides 
that: ``[t]he employer shall verify that each affected employee has 
received and understood the required training through a written 
certification that contains the name of each employee trained, the 
date(s) of training and that identifies the subject of the 
certification.''
    The comments received in response to the July 6 notice opposed a 
requirement for a written certification of compliance. For example, 
STASR (Ex. 9-3) commented that:

    Every shipyard in the Hampton Roads area has a safety program 
and a safety office. Every shipyard mandates usage of safety 
equipment for all employees. Those who do not comply are often sent 
home. STASR shipyards have safety programs with many of the PPE 
standards already in place. The PPE training and recordkeeping 
requirements are, in some cases, redundant.
    When an employee is hired and undergoes initial training, that 
employee can be given a list of equipment to wear while performing a 
specific task. This is far preferable to sending a monitor to 
evaluate a worksite on a continuous basis. The shipyard may then 
certify that an individual has been given the necessary training and 
the employee will certify understanding of the safety requirements 
for his or her trade.

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

    We support the general requirement for training as it does serve 
to enhance a safer working environment * * * we believe that 
training should be focused on trade specific duties of employees 
with the greatest emphasis being placed on orientation training at 
the outset. PPE serves a very useful purpose, and empirical data 
often establishes that causes of accident or occupational injuries 
are attributable to the fact that employees failed to comply with 
company PPE standards * * *. Additionally, documentation of all 
training should be in the form of training logs, which should be 
considered to be the equivalent of ``written certification'' in 
order to avoid the non value added redundance of record keeping.

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

    We are already complying with this proposed standard and we 
suspect many other shipyards are also complying with this standard.
    Verification through written certification should not be 
required if an employer can produce training logs with the 
employee's name, the date the training took place, type of training 
conducted and the name of the instructor. Training logs should be 
interpreted under this standard as ``written certification.''

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

    EBDiv agrees with OSHA that training is an essential element of 
a PPE program but does not agree that ``training'' as specified in 
the standard requires certification.

[[Page 26329]]

    EBDiv firmly believes training is a key and necessary component 
of safety and health programs. EBDiv provides extensive training to 
its employees on a variety of disciplines not mandated by OSHA in 
addition to training mandated by OSHA.

    Based on these comments, OSHA raised the issue of the need for 
documentation of training in the December 13, 1994, meeting notice (59 
FR 64173). AWH Corporation (Ex. 11-3) commented that training is 
provided when the employee is hired and at weekly ``gangbox'' safety 
meetings, and that training is periodically reinforced by including PPE 
as a topic at safety meetings.
    NNS responded (Ex. 11-6) that ``[t]he requirement to certify PPE 
training dictates recording specific information which can later be 
retrieved so as to prove training was conducted. We will provide 
samples of our existing system at the January 25 meeting.'' NNS 
provided copies of training documentation at the meeting (Ex. 12-2) and 
testified (Tr. 29-30) as follows:

    We've provided a recommended definition for the word 
``certify''* * *
    ``Certify'' means to evaluate subjectively, based on appearance 
and available information at that time. The certifying individual in 
a training session, for example, would verify that the trained 
individual was present during the stated training; he would ensure 
that required information was delivered to the target audience in 
what he believed to be an understandable fashion, and he would watch 
individuals perform activities which indicate that they have 
understood the training, and then use his judgment at that time to 
determine whether further instruction was needed or not.

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

    We would request that training certification requirements be met 
in the following manner. Number one, documented new hire orientation 
* * *. Secondly, we request that training certification requirements 
be met as documented annual refresher training.
    We'd recommend this documentation be in the form of training 
logs which many of us already keep on the computer * * *
    Some of our members suggest * * * giving a new employee a list 
of all required safety equipment that he or she should wear at the 
time they go through new-hire orientation, just as a reminder * * * 
this is already being done in many of our yards.

    In response to these submissions, OSHA emphasizes that any 
documentation of training that provides the specified information will 
provide adequate assurance that the training requirements have been 
satisfied. Therefore, Sec. 1915.152(e)(4) of the final rule requires 
employers to verify that each affected employee has received the 
required training with documentation that includes: employee(s) name; 
the date(s) of training, and type of training the employee received. In 
the case of an employee who has already been trained (either prior to 
the effective date of this standard or by another employer), OSHA will 
accept documentation dated as of the time the current employer 
determines that the employee has the requisite proficiency.
    As discussed above, the rulemaking record indicates that most 
shipyard employers are already documenting training in the form of a 
log, computer database, or some type of written document. Examples of 
acceptable documentation would be records of stand-up safety meetings 
and tool box meetings, or a tool room log (where an employee has 
checked out PPE such as safety glasses, hard hat, gloves, face shield). 
OSHA will accept any form of documentation that effectively 
communicates the required information.

Section 1915.153  Eye and Face Protection

    Final rule paragraph (a) sets out requirements for eye and face 
PPE. Paragraph (a)(1) requires employers to ensure that employees use 
eye and face PPE when employees are exposed to eye or face hazards from 
flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acid or caustic 
chemicals, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light 
radiation. This provision is based on the requirements in existing 
Sec. 1915.151 (b)(1) and (c)(1). This provision is essentially 
unchanged from that proposed. OSHA did not receive any comments on this 
provision.
    Final paragraph (a)(2) provides that front and side protection must 
be used when there is a hazard from flying objects. Detachable side 
protectors (for example clip-on or slide-on side shields) meeting the 
pertinent requirements of this section are acceptable.
    OSHA has determined that detachable side shields that meet the 
pertinent criteria (ANSI Z87.1-1989, as referenced by final rule 
Sec. 1915.153 (b)(1) and (b)(2)) will provide adequate protection from 
flying objects. Permitting detachable side shields will allow employers 
the flexibility to use this kind of protection when necessary, based on 
the working conditions at the employee's occupation or trade. The 
Agency has concluded that the same considerations that supported the 
adoption of such a requirement in other corresponding OSHA standards 
are relevant to shipyard employment.
    Employers should be aware that some PPE could create new hazards to 
employees. For example, allowing employees to wear wire-frame glasses 
(plano or prescription safety glasses) around energized electrical 
parts would increase the potential for electric shock.
    In the proposal, paragraph (a)(2) required that eye and face 
protective equipment properly fit employees. In the final rule 
Sec. 1915.152(b)(3) already requires that all PPE properly fit 
employees, and OSHA has therefore not included proposed paragraph 
(a)(2) in the final rule.
    Paragraph (a)(3) addresses appropriate eye PPE for employees who 
wear prescription lenses. This provision requires that employers 
provide each such employee either with eye protection that incorporates 
the prescription in its design or with PPE that can be worn over 
prescription lenses without disturbing the proper position of the 
lenses. The final provision, which is essentially the same as the 
proposed paragraph except for minor editorial changes, elicited no 
comments.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(3) required that protectors with tinted or 
variable tinted lenses not be worn when an employee was required in the 
course of work to pass from a brightly lit area, such as outdoors, into 
a dimly lit area, such as a vessel section. The Agency proposed this 
requirement to reduce the potential for extreme changes in lighting to 
temporarily impair an employee's vision.
    OSHA received four comments on this provision, all addressing the 
same point. The commenters (Exs. 6-5, 6-6, 6-9 and 6-10) opposed any 
prohibition on the use of tinted or variable tint lenses.
    Colonna's Shipyard, for example, stated that:

    The use of the terms ``well lighted'' and ``dimly lighted'' are 
vague. Tinted lenses, that primarily reduce glare, may not 
appreciably reduce the amount of light passing through the lenses. 
As technology improves, variable tint lenses have been shown to 
reduce the time it takes for the lenses to change from full shading 
to minimal shading. In fact, employees coming from an interior 
location into brilliant sunlight can be temporarily blinded by the 
sun's glare.

    In addition, two comments received on proposed subpart B of part 
1915 (Doc. S-505) (Ex. 6-15, Bay Shipbuilding Corp. (BSC) and Ex. 6-36, 
Peterson Builders, Inc. (PBI)), addressed this proposed provision. BSC 
stated that: ``Protectors with tinted or variable tint lenses should 
not be worn when an employee passes from a well lighted area into a 
dimly lighted area. Tinting over #2 shade is too dark, but #2 shade or 
under is felt to be acceptable and safe in most areas.''

[[Page 26330]]

    PBI stated that:

    We need the use of tinted lenses to protect our employees from 
stray ultraviolet rays from weld arc. We presently limit our 
employees to a 1.7 tint on safety glasses. We are also in favor of 
the use of the variable tint lenses. This standard is in 
contradiction to 1915.153A1, which requires us to protect employees 
from injurious light radiation. This has not been a problem for us 
in causing accidents.

    After evaluating the information in the record for this rulemaking 
(Doc. S-045), OSHA has concluded that the proposed requirement was too 
restrictive. The Agency has determined that the employer (for example, 
through the services of the company's safety professional) is in the 
best position to determine when tinted or variable tint lenses should 
be used, based on an awareness of working conditions. This approach is 
consistent with the current ANSI standard (ANSI Z87.1-1989, paragraph 
6.5.2), which is (as discussed below) being incorporated by reference 
in the final rule. Accordingly, proposed paragraph (a)(3) has not been 
retained in the final rule.
    Paragraph (a)(4) is essentially unchanged from the proposed 
paragraph. It requires employers to ensure that affected employees use 
equipment with filter lenses for protection against injurious light 
radiation and that the lenses have a shade number that is appropriate 
for the work being performed. Table I-1--Filter Lenses for Protection 
Against Radiant Energy--lists the necessary shade numbers for various 
operations. These provisions are consistent with other OSHA standards 
(existing Sec. 1915.151(c)(1) and Table I-1 in Sec. 1915.118).
    In addition, a note to this provision states that, when goggle 
lenses and a helmet lens are worn together, the shade value of the two 
lenses can be summed to satisfy the shade requirements of Table I-1, 
Sec. 1915.153. Bath Iron Works Corporation (BIWC) (Ex. 6-7) objected to 
this note, stating that the validity of the additive approach to filter 
lens selection has not been adequately demonstrated and violates 
accepted industry practice. OSHA disagrees with this view, because the 
technical experts responsible for the applicable consensus standard, 
ANSI Z87.1-1989, have indicated that the additive use of lenses is 
protective, provided that the combined values sum to the necessary 
value. Therefore, the note to Table I-1 has been retained.
    Paragraph (b) sets performance criteria for eye and face PPE. 
Paragraph (b)(1) provides that protective eye and face devices 
purchased after August 22, 1996 shall comply with ANSI Z87.1-1989, 
``American National Standard Practice for Occupational and Educational 
Eye and Face Protection,'' which is incorporated by reference, or shall 
be demonstrated by the employer to be equally effective. PPE which 
satisfies the criteria set by subsequent editions of the pertinent ANSI 
standard will be considered to comply with paragraph (b)(1) if the 
updated ANSI criteria are substantively unchanged or provide equivalent 
protection.
    In the proposal, this paragraph, which was designated paragraph 
(b)(1), required that the design of eye and face protection, in 
general, comply with the provisions of ANSI Z87.1-1979, while 
providing, in the alternative, that plano (non-prescription) spectacles 
comply with the performance-oriented criteria set out in proposed 
paragraph (b)(2). Shortly after the NPRM was issued, the 1979 edition 
of Z87.1 was superseded by the current 1989 edition. ANSI Z87.1-1989 is 
effectively identical to ANSI Z87.1-1979, except that the 1989 revision 
deleted design restrictive language that had limited the use of new 
technology in eye and face PPE. OSHA believes that performance-oriented 
regulatory language, such as that referenced from ANSI Z87.1-1989, will 
provide employers with appropriate flexibility to protect their 
employees while taking the particular circumstances of their workplaces 
into account. The Agency further believes that allowing employees to 
rely on the 1989 edition will facilitate compliance with the final 
rule, but will not prevent employers from using PPE that would have 
been allowed under proposed paragraph (b)(1).
    Final rule paragraph (b)(2) requires that eye and face PPE 
purchased before August 22, 1996 comply with ANSI Z87.1-1979 or be 
demonstrated by the employer to be equally effective. OSHA has 
determined that it is appropriate to allow the continued use of such 
PPE in order to avoid imposing unreasonable burdens on employers. As 
noted above, the substantive provisions of the 1979 and 1989 editions 
are effectively identical, so employee safety would not be furthered by 
requiring that employers remove PPE tested under ANSI Z87.1-1979 from 
service. In this way existing stocks of PPE can be depleted, and any 
replacement PPE must satisfy the criteria referenced in ANSI Z87.1-
1989.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would have set performance-oriented 
criteria for plano spectacles, addressing impact protection, optical 
requirements, flammability resistance and radiant energy protection. 
This paragraph was included in the proposal because OSHA had determined 
that the design provisions (such as for minimum lens thickness or frame 
design) of the consensus standard referenced by existing 
Sec. 1915.151(a)(1) (ANSI Z2.1-1959) were outdated. The removal of the 
design restrictive language from ANSI Z87.1 when it was revised in 1989 
eliminated the need to address this problem in the final rule. 
Accordingly, no such provision appears in the final rule.

Section 1915.154  Respiratory Protection

    Final rule Sec. 1915.154 incorporates existing Sec. 1910.134, 
Respiratory protection, by reference, as was proposed. The shipyard 
industry has been complying for years with Sec. 1910.134 with regard to 
its respiratory protection programs. The two comments received on 
proposed Sec. 1915.154 (Exs. 6-1 and 6-2) agreed with OSHA's proposal 
to replace Sec. 1915.152, the existing shipyard respirator standard, 
with Sec. 1910.134. Both comments expressed the belief that 
Sec. 1910.134 is more protective and certainly more current than 
Sec. 1915.152.
    OSHA has published a proposed revision of Sec. 1910.134, 
Respiratory Protection, which covers general industry, construction and 
shipyard employment (59 FR 58884, Nov. 15, 1994). When the revised 
respiratory protection standard becomes a final rule, OSHA will apply 
that rule to shipyard employment.

Section 1915.155  Head Protection

    Final rule paragraph (a) addresses the use of protective helmets. 
Paragraph (a)(1) requires employers to ensure that affected employees 
wear protective helmets when they are working in areas where there is a 
potential for head injury from falling objects. This requirement is 
essentially the same as current Sec. 1915.153(a). The national 
consensus standard for protective headgear, ANSI Z89.1, referenced in 
final rule Sec. 1915.155(b), deals only with the head injury hazards 
posed by falling objects and high-voltage electric shock and burn. 
Therefore, this section of the final rule addresses PPE that is used to 
protect the head from these hazards.
    The proposed rule addressed the use of protective helmets where 
there was potential for injury to the head from falling or moving 
objects. The duty to protect employees from other hazards to the head, 
such as moving objects, may be invoked through the general requirements 
of final rule Sec. 1915.152(a) when such hazards are identified by the 
hazard assessment.

[[Page 26331]]

    Commenting on proposed subpart B of part 1915 (Doc. S-050, Ex. 6-15 
of Docket #S-050), BSC stated: ``The standard should reflect what is 
stated in the ANSI standard for head protection.'' As noted above, the 
ANSI standard addresses falling object, not moving object, hazards and 
proposed paragraph (a)(1) has been revised accordingly.
    Paragraph (a)(2) requires that affected employees wear protective 
helmets designed to reduce electric shock hazards when working in areas 
containing potential electrical hazards or energized conductors. This 
provision is essentially identical to the proposed provision and to 
other corresponding OSHA standards.
    Final rule paragraph (b) sets the performance criteria for 
protective helmets. This paragraph provides that protective helmets 
purchased after August 22, 1996 shall comply with ANSI Z89.1-1986, 
``Personnel Protection--Protective Headwear for Industrial Workers--
Requirements,'' which has been incorporated by reference, or shall be 
demonstrated by the employer to be equally protective. PPE which 
satisfies the criteria set by subsequent editions of the pertinent ANSI 
standard will be considered to comply with paragraph (b) if the updated 
ANSI criteria are substantively unchanged or provide equivalent 
protection. The Agency believes that this performance-oriented approach 
will encourage innovation and the use of improved equipment. The 
proposed rule also referenced the 1986 edition of ANSI Z89.1.
    The consensus standard (ANSI Z.2-1959) referenced by the existing 
rule (Sec. 1915.153(a)) has been superseded several times since the 
existing standards were adopted. OSHA does not expect that much, if 
any, head PPE which was produced to meet the 1959 requirements is still 
in use. Furthermore, the Agency has concluded that ANSI Z.2-1959 does 
not provide adequate guidance regarding the selection of appropriate 
head protection. Therefore, unlike final rule Sec. 1915.153, this 
section does not explicitly ``grandfather'' PPE which complies with the 
existing rule. Employers can continue to have their employees use head 
PPE which was produced to comply with a pre-1986 edition of ANSI Z89.1 
if the employer establishes that the equipment either satisfies the 
performance criteria of ANSI Z89.1-1986 or provides equivalent 
protection.
    The 1969 and 1986 editions of ANSI Z89.1 set essentially the same 
requirements, except with regard to electric insulation for Class B 
helmets. The Agency has concluded that Class B helmets already in use 
which satisfied the criteria set by the 1969 edition would also satisfy 
the 1986 criteria. Accordingly, final rule paragraph (b)(2) allows 
employers to continue to use protective helmets purchased before the 
effective date of the standard being published today provided that such 
helmets meet the criteria of ANSI Z.89.1-1969. This means that 
employers will not be required to replace protective helmets currently 
in use if they meet these criteria.

Section 1915.156  Foot Protection

    Final paragraph (a) requires that affected employees wear 
protective footwear when they are exposed to hazards from falling and 
rolling objects, electrical hazards, and objects that may pierce a shoe 
sole. This is consistent with requirements in other corresponding OSHA 
standards. This language, which is effectively identical to that in the 
proposal, differs from existing Sec. 1915.153(d), which requires 
employers only to make safety shoes available and ``encourage'' their 
use. OSHA believes that requiring employers to have affected employees 
wear protective footwear is necessary to protect their feet from the 
risk of serious injury. The AWSC (Ex. 6-4) commented that it would 
impose a cost burden on employers if they were required to purchase 
safety shoes for their employees. Therefore, they recommended that OSHA 
not require the employer to pay for foot protection, stating as 
follows:

    The current regulatory language concerning foot protection of 
employees requires the employer to encourage the use of and make 
available appropriate foot protection. The new language states that 
the employer ``shall ensure that employees wear protective 
footwear.'' AWSC does not object to the practice of wearing the 
correct protective footwear, and supports the use of this type of 
personal protective equipment. However, the new language indicates a 
dramatic shift from current shipyard operations.
    Shipyard facilities have instituted many different policies to 
provide protective footwear to the employee, including disallowing 
employees to work at the facility unless they are wearing the 
appropriate footwear and providing an allowance to purchase the 
footwear. Lists of available and appropriate suppliers are 
circulated to the employees as a guide.

    OSHA also received a comment on this subject from PBI (Docket S-
050, Ex. 6-36) that stated: ``This requirement is going to be cost 
prohibitive. We presently recommend safety shoes and contribute to 
their purchase. However, this standard would practically make them 
mandatory throughout the shipyard. Our injury experience does not 
indicate a need for mandatory safety shoes.''
    As discussed above in reference to the provision for hazard 
assessment, subpart I requires employers to identify the hazards to 
which their employees may be exposed and have those employees equipped 
accordingly. Therefore, employees would be required to wear protective 
footwear only when such protection was appropriate. In addition, as 
discussed above in reference to OSHA's 1994 Memorandum on PPE, OSHA 
interprets the part 1915 subpart I requirements for employers to 
provide PPE to mean that employers pay for PPE required by the company 
for the worker to do his or her job safely and in compliance with OSHA 
standards. The above discussed policy memorandum specifically indicates 
that employers should expect to pay for specialty foot protection. On 
the other hand, OSHA policy also provides that payment for PPE which is 
personal in nature and useable away from the workplace (such as safety 
shoes) is left to labor-management negotiations.
    Final rule paragraph (b) sets the performance criteria for 
protective footwear. Paragraph (b)(1) provides that protective footwear 
purchased after August 22, 1996 shall comply with ANSI Z41-1991, 
``American National Standard for Personal Protection-Protective 
Footwear,'' or shall be demonstrated by the employer to be equally 
protective.
    In addition, paragraph (b)(2) allows protective footwear purchased 
before August 22, 1996 to continue to comply with ANSI Z41-1983, 
Personal Protection-Protective Footwear, or footwear that the employer 
can demonstrate to be equally protective. PPE which satisfies the 
criteria set by subsequent editions of the pertinent ANSI standard will 
be considered to comply with paragraph (b) if the updated ANSI criteria 
are substantively unchanged or provide equivalent protection. The 
Agency believes that this performance-oriented approach will encourage 
innovation and the use of improved equipment. Proposed paragraph (b) 
referenced the 1983 edition of ANSI Z41 for all protective footwear.
    The 1991 edition of ANSI Z41, which has superseded the 1983 
edition, imposes essentially the same requirements as the 1983 edition, 
except that the 1991 edition provides more specific performance 
requirements for resistance to compressive forces and standardizes the 
puncture resistance testing methods. OSHA believes that referencing 
ANSI Z41-1991 for shoes

[[Page 26332]]

purchased after August 22, 1996 provides appropriate and up-to-date 
criteria for employers and employees seeking to buy protective 
footwear.
    OSHA has determined that it is appropriate to provide explicitly 
for the continued use of foot PPE purchased prior to the effective date 
of the final rule, as long as it complies with the pertinent provisions 
of the ANSI standard (ANSI Z41-1983) referenced by the proposed rule. 
In this way, the Agency avoids imposing unreasonable burdens on 
employers.

Section 1915.157  Hand and Body Protection

    Final rule Sec. 1915.157 addresses hand and body PPE. Paragraph (a) 
requires employers to ensure that affected employees use appropriate 
PPE when their hands or other parts of their bodies are exposed to 
hazards that could lead to injuries. The final rule identifies skin 
absorption of harmful substances, severe cuts or lacerations, severe 
abrasions, punctures, chemical burns, thermal burns, harmful 
temperature extremes, and sharp objects as examples of hazards that 
would require the use of PPE. The proposed provision was essentially 
identical to that in the final rule, except that it identified the 
hazards requiring protection in more general terms.
    Final rule paragraph (b) requires employers to ensure that no 
employee wears clothing impregnated or covered in part with flammable 
or combustible materials (such as grease or oil) while engaged in hot 
work operations or working near an ignition source. This requirement is 
necessary to protect workers in hot work operations from fire hazards.
    The proposed rule stated that employees shall not wear greasy 
clothing when performing hot work operations. Existing Sec. 1915.153(e) 
provides that employees shall not be permitted to wear ``excessively 
greasy'' clothing while performing hot work operations.
    The AWSC recommended (Ex. 6-4) that the word ``excessively'' be 
retained in the regulatory text of the final rule.

    Shipyard work by definition is not a clean activity. Employees' 
clothing will be dirty. However, the clothing may not be ``greasy'' 
or even excessively greasy. Deletion of the descriptive term 
``excessively'' will create rather than diminish compliance 
problems. We do not advocate that employees wear excessively greasy 
clothes when performing hot work operations, but without a proper 
explanation by OSHA as to the rationale for deleting the term, we 
advocate retention of the word ``excessively'' in the proposed 
language.

    In addition, BSC commented (Ex. 6-15 in Docket S-050) that the 
language of the proposed paragraph was unclear. BSC suggested that OSHA 
revise the proposed language to require that employees ``not wear 
clothing impregnated with flammable or combustible materials when 
performing hot work operations.''
    OSHA believes that retention of the term ``excessively,'' as 
suggested by the AWSC, could potentially complicate compliance because 
the Agency has not established a measurable, objective standard for 
determining what is excessive. Moreover, the risk of flammability 
exists when clothing is impregnated, or covered, even impart, with a 
flammable or combustible substance. Therefore, the Agency has concluded 
that it is appropriate to prohibit employees from wearing clothing 
impregnated or covered with a flammable or combustible substance during 
hot work operations. The Agency agrees with the BSC that the standard 
needs to address all flammable and combustible materials, not just 
grease, and that adding the term ``impregnated'' (in the sense of 
permeated, imbued, or saturated) will more clearly express OSHA's 
intent. The provision has been revised accordingly.
    Final rule paragraph (c) requires that the employer have employees 
wear protective electrical insulating gloves and sleeves, or other 
rubber protective equipment that provides equivalent protection when 
the employees are exposed to electrical shock hazards while working on 
electrical equipment. The proposed rule was effectively identical, 
except that it did not provide for the use of ``other electrical 
protective equipment.'' The Agency has determined that the addition of 
this performance-oriented revision will encourage innovation and 
facilitate compliance.

Section 1915.158  Lifesaving Equipment

    This section sets requirements for lifesaving equipment used in 
shipyard employment. Some of the language in the final rule has been 
editorially revised to reflect the language used in the U.S. Coast 
Guard's standard for approved lifesaving equipment (46 CFR part 160). 
OSHA's existing Sec. 1915.154(a) specifies that the above-cited U.S. 
Coast Guard requirements for this equipment shall be followed. The OSHA 
final rule provides clarification of acceptable personal flotation 
devices and uses terminology that is consistent with current Coast 
Guard requirements. Also, for Type IV PFDs, the U.S. Coast Guard 
regulations use the term ``ring life buoys'' rather than the term 
``life rings'' as proposed by OSHA. Therefore, OSHA has replaced ``life 
rings'' with ``ring life buoy'' wherever the term appeared in the 
proposal. The proposed language did not elicit any comments.
    Final rule paragraph (a)(1) requires that personal flotation 
devices (PFDs) worn by employees be approved by the U.S. Coast Guard as 
a Type I PFD, Type II PFD, Type III PFD, or Type V PFD, unless the 
employer provides employee worn equipment that is as effective as the 
types listed (e.g., a Coast Guard approved immersion suit). Any PFD 
which is U.S. Coast Guard approved and marked as a Type I PFD, Type II 
PFD or Type III PFD is acceptable to OSHA for use by employees. A Type 
V PFD, including Type V Hybrid PFDs, is acceptable to OSHA for use by 
employees if it is U.S. Coast Guard approved and marked for use as a 
work vest, for commercial use, or for use on vessels. The language of 
the proposed paragraph, which was based on existing Sec. 1915.154(a), 
has been editorially revised and clarified in the final rule.
    Final rule paragraph (a)(2), addressing the inspection of PFD's, 
was proposed by the Agency for deletion with the intent of covering 
defective PFD equipment under revised general requirements 
Sec. 1915.152(c), ``Defective and damaged equipment.'' After further 
consideration the Agency has concluded that a PFD is critical 
lifesaving equipment which requires specific inspection prior to each 
use for dry rot, chemical damage, or other defects (such as tears, 
punctures, missing or non- functioning components) which affect their 
strength and buoyancy. Therefore, the language of existing 
Sec. 1915.154(b) is being retained in the final rule.
    Paragraph (b) establishes requirements for ring life buoys and 
ladders. Paragraph (b)(1) requires that at least three 30-inch (0.78 m) 
U.S. Coast Guard approved ring life buoys with lines attached be kept 
in readily visible and accessible places when working on a floating 
vessel of 200 or more feet (61 meters). Ring life buoys must be located 
one forward, one aft, and one at the access to the gangway. Locating 
ring life buoys at these positions ensures that one will be readily 
available if a worker falls overboard at any point along the ship's 
length. This paragraph, which is based on existing Sec. 1915.154(c)(1), 
is essentially identical to the proposed paragraph.
    Paragraph (b)(2) requires floating vessels under 200 feet (61 m) in 
length to have at least one 30-inch (0.78 m) U.S. Coast Guard approved 
ring life buoy with line attached located at the gangway. The proposed 
paragraph,

[[Page 26333]]

based on existing Sec. 1915.154(c)(1), was essentially the same.
    Paragraph (b)(3) requires that at least one 30-inch (0.78 m) U. S. 
Coast Guard approved ring life buoy with a line attached be located on 
each staging float alongside the floating vessels from which work is 
being performed. The proposed paragraph, which was based on existing 
Sec. 1915.154(c)(2), is effectively identical to the final rule's 
provision.
    Paragraph (b)(4) requires at least 90 feet (27 m) of line to be 
attached to each ring life buoy. The proposed requirement, which was 
based on existing Sec. 1915.154(c)(3), was effectively identical to the 
final rule.
    Paragraph (b)(5) requires that at least one portable or permanently 
installed ladder be in the vicinity of each floating vessel on which 
work is being performed. The provision further requires that the 
ladder(s) be of sufficient length to assist employees to reach safety 
in the event that they fall into the water. The proposed paragraph, 
which was based on existing Sec. 1915.154(c)(4), was effectively 
identical to the final rule.

Section 1915.159  Personal Fall Arrest Systems

    This section sets performance criteria and other requirements for 
the use of personal fall arrest systems.
    The Agency has determined that the fall hazards encountered by 
shipyard employees correspond to those faced by employees in other 
industries, and that it is therefore appropriate for OSHA to consider 
the information generated in general industry fall protection PPE 
rulemakings when drafting the final rule for shipyard PPE. The fall 
protection PPE criteria in proposed Sec. 1915.159 were very similar to 
those in the corresponding proposed general industry standard (proposed 
Secs. 1910.128 and 1910.129).
    The record for the general industry fall protection PPE rulemaking 
(Docket S-057) indicated that the Agency should consider revising the 
proposed rule to prohibit the use of non-locking snaphooks and to 
disallow the use of body belts in personal fall arrest systems. This 
record, in turn, is directly relevant as the Agency considers 
corresponding changes in proposed Sec. 1915.159.
    To provide the public with notice and an opportunity to comment on 
the need for such revisions to the shipyard PPE proposed rule, the 
Agency solicited input through the July 6, 1994 notice of reopening (59 
FR 34586) and the December 13, 1994 meeting notice (59 FR 64173). The 
response to those notices is discussed below.
    OSHA obtained evidence (Docket S-057) in the General Industry 
rulemaking that employees who fall while wearing body belts are not 
protected as well as they would be if the fall occurred while the 
employee was wearing a body harness, and that the use of body belts has 
resulted in injuries to falling employees. A large number of rulemaking 
participants (Exs. 9-9, 9-10, 11-7, Tr. p. 23, Tr. pp. 59-61) supported 
prohibiting the use of body belts in fall protection systems. For 
example, Atlantic Marine (Ex. 9-9) endorsed the use of body harnesses 
as a safer method for employees, stating: ``While the cost of body 
harnesses is usually twice the amount of the body belts, the added 
safety factor to the employee is well worth the money, and in the long 
run, will save the company money in case of an accident.''
    General Dynamics, Electric Boat Division, (Ex. 9-10) stated that it 
utilizes body harnesses for all of its fall protection needs.
    Bath Iron Works Corporation/Local S6 (BIWC/Local S6) (Ex. 11-7) 
commented that they use only body harnesses in fall arrest systems and 
use either body harnesses or body belts in positioning device systems. 
BIW/Local S6 stated that it ``fully supports the implementation of the 
proposed changes to [part 1915] subpart I.''
    The SCA testified (Tr. 23) that its members support the use of body 
harnesses in personal fall arrest systems, stating ``many of our yards 
already use them. We find them to be very effective, and everybody 
seems to certainly feel a lot safer with them.''
    In addition, the Engineering and Safety Service (E&S) testified 
(Tr. 59-61) that ``body belts have no useful purpose in a personal fall 
arrest system. E&S believes that an effective personal fall arrest 
system must incorporate a full body harness to protect the worker from 
injury and to provide an opportunity for rescue.''
    However, NNS (Ex. 9-11) responded as follows:

    We reviewed all falls occurring at NNS since January 1, 1991. 
None of those occurring involved an injury which could have been 
prevented or mitigated by using a harness over a belt. NNS mostly 
uses belts with double acting clips. To replace all of our body 
belts with harnesses would cost in excess of $570,000. Clearly, this 
is another unwarranted cost adversely affecting our global 
competitiveness without enhancing the safety of our employees.

    The December 13, 1994 notice (59 FR 64173) solicited input 
regarding the extent to which a phased in ban on the use of body belts 
in personal fall arrest systems would be appropriate for shipyard 
employment.
    In their comments to this notice, NNS stated as follows:

    We now understand that OSHA will agree to a phased replacement 
of body belts to offset the initial cost of purchasing large 
quantities of body harnesses. We will provide life cycle and 
replacement information at the January 25 meeting which should help 
OSHA to determine what the phased replacement period should be.

    NNS subsequently testified (Tr. 34-35):

    We see body harnesses coming, and we need a significant period 
of phase-in time for this to have a minimal financial impact on our 
operations. We've got 4,000 some-odd body belts either on issue or 
available for issue. Replacing all of those at once would cost use 
some $570,000 * * * [W]e'd like a reasonable period of time to phase 
the harnesses in, and that reasonable period of time, based on our 
inventory and our estimated useful life of a body belt, is seven 
years.

    Based on the information in Docket S-057 and the shipyard industry 
input discussed above, OSHA has decided to bar the use of body belts in 
personal fall arrest systems. OSHA believes, however, that it is 
appropriate to allow a phase-out period, ending December 31, 1997, 
rather than to establish an immediate prohibition, so that shipyard 
employers can continue to use their body belts while they switch over 
to body harnesses. OSHA urges employers to phase out the use of body 
belts in personal fall arrest systems as soon as possible so that 
employees may be spared exposure to the increased risk of injuries from 
body belt use. It is important to note that body belts may continue to 
be used in positioning device systems even after they have been banned 
in fall arrest systems. OSHA has included paragraphs (b)(6)(i), 
(c)(1)(i), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(8) in the final rule to provide 
criteria for any body belts that are used in personal fall arrest 
systems during the phase-out period.
    In addition, OSHA has determined that it is appropriate, given the 
dangers related to ``roll-out,'' to phase-out the use of non-locking 
connectors. The phase-out period will avoid imposing undue hardship on 
employers who currently use non-locking snaphooks. As discussed in the 
July 6, 1994 notice of reopening, the Agency has concluded that the 
same considerations which supported the adoption of such a requirement 
in other corresponding OSHA PPE standards apply to personal fall arrest 
system components used in shipyard employment. OSHA has

[[Page 26334]]

concluded that compliance with final rule paragraphs (a)(5) and (a)(6) 
will effectively minimize any problems related to the use of non-
locking snaphooks during the phase-out period.
    The input received in response to the July 6, 1994 reopening notice 
(59 FR 345860) and the December 13, 1994 meeting notice (59 FR 64173) 
indicated shipyard industry support for a ban on the use of non-locking 
snaphooks. For example, General Dynamics, Electric Boat Division (Ex. 
9-10) stated that it ``utilizes locking snaphooks and therefore takes 
no issue with the proposed * * * language.''
    NNS (Tr. 52) and the UBC Health and Safety Fund of North America 
(UBC) (Tr. 86) testified that OSHA should require the use of locking 
snaphooks. In particular, the UBC stated that ``OSHA should prohibit 
the use of non-locking snap hooks because of the recognized danger of 
roll-out and the resulting possibility of employee falls.'' 
Accordingly, Sec. 1915.159 of the final rule bans the use of non-
locking snaphooks in fall arrest systems, effective January 1, 1998.
    Final rule paragraph (a) sets criteria for connectors and 
anchorages used in personal fall arrest systems. Except where otherwise 
indicated, any final rule provisions which were not proposed have been 
added to the standard because the Agency has concluded that the same 
considerations which supported the adoption of such requirements in 
other corresponding PPE standards apply to personal fall arrest systems 
and components used in shipyard employment.
    Paragraph (a)(1), proposed as paragraph (a)(7), requires that 
connectors be made of drop forged, pressed, or formed steel or 
materials equivalent in strength. The connectors used in personal fall 
arrest systems must be made of steel or equivalent materials to 
withstand failure under fall conditions. As discussed above in relation 
to the definitions (Sec. 1915.151(b)), OSHA has replaced the proposed 
term ``hardware'' with the term ``connector.'' Otherwise, the proposed 
and final rule language are identical.
    Final rule paragraph (a)(2), proposed as paragraph (a)(8), requires 
that connectors have a corrosion-resistant finish and that all surfaces 
and edges be smooth to prevent damage to the interfacing parts of the 
system. The only difference between the final rule's provision and the 
proposed provision is the use of the term ``connector'' instead of 
``hardware.''
    Final rule paragraph (a)(3), proposed as paragraph (a)(14), 
requires that D-rings and snaphooks used in these systems be capable of 
sustaining a minimum tensile load of 5,000 pounds (22.2 kN). No 
comments were received on this paragraph.
    Final rule paragraph (a)(4), which is also a new provision, 
requires that D-rings and snaphooks be 100 percent proof tested to a 
minimum tensile load of 3,600 pounds (16 Kn) without cracking, 
breaking, or being permanently deformed. The provision is included to 
ensure the strength of all D-rings and snaphooks.
    Paragraph (a)(5), which was not proposed, provides that snaphooks 
shall either be sized so as to prevent unintentional disengagement of 
the snaphook or shall be of a locking type which is designed and used 
to prevent disengagement of the snaphook. This provision has been added 
to prevent ``rollout'' conditions in a personal fall arrest system 
during the phase-out period for non-locking snaphooks.
    Final rule paragraph (a)(6) requires that snaphooks, unless of a 
locking type designed and used to prevent disengagement from the 
following connections, must not be attached:
    (i) Directly to webbing, rope, or wire rope;
    (ii) To each other;
    (iii) To a D-ring to which another snaphook or other connector is 
attached;
    (iv) To a horizontal lifeline, or
    (v) To any other object that is shaped incompatibly or dimensioned 
in relation to the snaphook such that the connected object could 
depress the snaphook keeper a sufficient amount for release.

Proposed paragraphs (a)(15), (a)(16), and (a)(17), which set similar 
requirements, have been clarified and consolidated in final rule 
paragraph (a)(6).
    Final rule paragraph (a)(7), which is a new provision, requires 
that devices used for connection to the horizontal lifeline on 
suspended scaffolds, or to similar work platforms with horizontal 
lifelines that may become vertical lifelines, be capable of locking in 
any direction on the lifeline. Because a suspended scaffold or platform 
could lose its support at either end, the connection device must be 
able to lock on the lifeline regardless of which end goes down.
    Final rule paragraph (a)(8), requires that anchorages used for the 
attachment of personal fall arrest equipment be independent of any 
anchorage being used to support or suspend platforms. Final rule 
paragraph (a)(9) requires that anchorages either be capable of 
supporting at least 5,000 pounds (22.2 Kn) per employee attached or be 
designed, installed, and used as part of a complete personal fall 
arrest system that maintains a safety factor of at least two, and is 
used under the direction and supervision of a qualified person. Both 
provisions are based on proposed paragraph (a)(10).
    Proposed paragraph (a)(10) required that personal fall arrest 
systems be secured to an anchorage capable of supporting at least twice 
the potential impact load of an employee's fall. E&S testified (Tr. 63-
64) that it was ``concerned about the safety factor requirements for an 
anchorage in the proposed standard * * * [E&S] does not believe the 
average worker is capable of determining the safe limits of an 
anchorage.'' In the course of subsequent questioning (Tr. 70-71), E&S 
agreed that anchorages installed as part of a completely designed 
personal fall arrest system, and used under the supervision of a 
qualified person, would provide adequate support for employees. This 
approach, taken in the corresponding construction and general industry 
rulemakings, has been adopted in the shipyard PPE final rule. The final 
rule provisions, while reformatted for the sake of clarity, are 
essentially the same as the proposed provision.
    Final rule paragraph (b) sets criteria for lifelines, lanyards, and 
personal fall arrest systems. Paragraph (b)(1) requires that each 
employee be provided with a separate lifeline when vertical lifelines 
are used. Proposed paragraph (a)(9), which elicited no comments, was 
essentially identical to this provision of the final rule.
    Final rule paragraph (b)(2) requires vertical lifelines (droplines) 
and lanyards to have a minimum breaking strength of 5,000 pounds (22.2 
Kn). This provision of the final rule consolidates the strength 
requirements contained in proposed paragraphs (a)(11) and (a)(13). The 
elements of proposed paragraph (a)(11), which addressed self-retracting 
lifelines, have been redesignated final rule paragraphs (b)(3) and 
(b)(4), as discussed below. The ``exception'' to the 5000-pound 
strength requirements contained in proposed paragraph (a)(13) appears 
in the final rule as a separate provision, paragraph (b)(3), to more 
clearly express the Agency's intent. OSHA received no comments on the 
proposed paragraphs relating to lifelines, lanyards, and personal fall 
arrest systems. The Agency has determined that reformatting the 
proposed requirements will facilitate compliance efforts for employers 
whose employees use vertical lifelines or lanyards.
    Final rule paragraph (b)(3) requires that self-retracting lifelines 
and lanyards which automatically limit free fall to 2

[[Page 26335]]

feet (0.61 m) or less be capable of sustaining a minimum static tensile 
load of 3,000 pounds (13.3 Kn) applied to the device with the lifeline 
or lanyard in the fully extended position. Final rule paragraph (b)(4) 
requires that self-retracting lifelines and lanyards which do not limit 
free fall distances to 2 feet (0.61 m) or less (for example: ripstitch 
lanyards, tearing, and deforming lanyards) be capable of sustaining a 
minimum tensile load of 5,000 pounds (22.2 Kn) applied to the device 
(with the lifeline or lanyard in the fully extended position if such a 
condition can occur in use). As discussed above, final rule paragraphs 
(b)(3) and (b)(4), which are based on proposed paragraph (a)(11), have 
been included in the final rule as separate paragraphs for clarity.
    Final rule paragraph (b)(5) (revised from proposed paragraph 
(a)(12)) requires that horizontal lifelines to be used as part of a 
complete personal fall arrest system be designed and installed under 
the supervision of a qualified person and have a safety factor of at 
least two. The proposed provision required that horizontal lifelines 
have sufficient strength to support a fall impact force of at least 
5,000 pounds (22.2 Kn). As discussed above, the Agency has concluded 
that the same considerations which supported the adoption of such a 
requirement in the other corresponding OSHA standards apply to personal 
fall arrest system components used in shipyard employment. OSHA has 
revised the final rule accordingly.
    Final rule paragraph (b)(6) sets the systems performance criteria 
for personal fall arrest systems. These are new requirements, so OSHA 
is making this provision effective November 20, 1996 in order to allow 
employers a reasonable amount of time to attain compliance. The note to 
final rule paragraph (b)(6) indicates that Non-mandatory Appendix B 
provides examples of criteria and protocols for designing and testing 
personal fall arrest systems that OSHA would consider to comply with 
the standard.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(4) was similar to final rule paragraph 
(b)(6), except that the proposed rule set 1,800 pounds (rather than 900 
pounds) as the maximum arresting force limit for systems that used body 
belts and required that a system have a strength factor of two (based 
on a design weight of 250 pounds per employee). Also, as discussed 
below, the proposed requirement that free fall be limited to six feet 
has been redesignated as a separate provision, final rule paragraph 
(b)(7), for the sake of clarity. The note to proposed paragraph 
(a)(4)(iv) is essentially identical to that which appears in the final 
rule, except for editorial revisions. As discussed above, in reference 
to the July 6, 1994 notice (59 FR 34586), the Agency has concluded that 
the same considerations which supported the adoption of such 
requirements in the other corresponding OSHA standards apply to 
personal fall arrest system components used in shipyard employment. 
OSHA has revised the proposed rule accordingly.
    Final rule paragraph (b)(7), based on proposed paragraph (a)(4)(i), 
requires that personal fall arrest systems be rigged to prevent an 
employee from free falling more than 6 feet (1.8 m) or contacting any 
lower level.
    Final rule paragraph (c) sets criteria for the selection, use and 
care of personal fall arrest systems and system components. Paragraph 
(c)(1) (proposed as paragraph (a)(5)) of the final rule requires that 
the attachment point of a body belt be located in the center of the 
wearer's back. The attachment point of a body harness must be in the 
center of the wearer's back near shoulder level or above the wearer's 
head. The proposed rule provided that the connection point must be 
either above the wearer's head or above the waist in the back. Comments 
in the other rulemaking records supported allowing an attachment point 
at the chest position for limited free fall distances. The final rule, 
as regards body harnesses, has been revised accordingly.
    Paragraph (c)(2) of the final rule, which is a new provision, 
requires that ropes and straps (webbing) used in lanyards, lifelines, 
and strength components of body belts and body harnesses be made from 
synthetic fibers or wire rope. OSHA has determined, given the 
difficulty of evaluating the deterioration of natural fiber rope, that 
natural fiber rope is not reliable for use in a personal safety system.
    Final rule paragraph (c)(3), also a new provision, requires ropes, 
belts, harnesses and lanyards to be compatible with all hardware used. 
The use of incompatible equipment may cause a fall, or, during arrest 
of a fall, allow arresting forces which cause injury.
    Paragraph (c)(4), proposed as paragraph (a)(3), requires that 
lifelines and lanyards be protected against cuts, abrasions, burns from 
hot work operations, and deterioration by acids, solvents, and other 
chemicals. The proposed provision, which did not elicit comments, was 
identical.
    Final rule paragraph (c)(5), proposed as paragraph (a)(18), 
requires that personal fall arrest systems be visually inspected prior 
to each use for mildew, wear, damage, and any other deterioration. This 
inspection need not involve testing or impact loading of the system. If 
there is a reasonable basis to believe that the strength or integrity 
of the fall arrest system has been weakened, the employer shall remove 
defective or damaged equipment from service. No comments were received 
on the proposed provision, which was identical to the provision in the 
final rule except for minor editorial changes.
    Paragraph (c)(6), which was proposed as paragraph (a)(2), requires 
that personal fall arrest systems and components that have been 
subjected to impact loading be removed immediately from service and not 
be used again for employee protection until inspected and judged 
suitable for use by a qualified person. The proposed provision, which 
was effectively identical, elicited no comments and has been 
promulgated in the final rule with minor editorial changes.
    Paragraph (c)(7) of the final rule, a new provision, requires that 
the employer provide for prompt rescue of employees in the event of a 
fall or ensure that employees who have fallen can rescue themselves. 
This provision also appears in the proposed general industry rule and 
in the final rule for construction. OSHA anticipates that employers 
will evaluate the potential consequences of falls in personal fall 
arrest systems in their work environments and choose an appropriate 
means of rescue. OSHA recognizes that the rescue requirements for 
employees wearing body harnesses and body belts will differ. For 
example, the Agency anticipates that self-rescue will be more difficult 
for employees using body belts and that the acceptable rescue time for 
such employees will be shorter, because falls in body belts typically 
result in the employee hanging in a jack-knifed position. When it is 
not possible to evaluate the self-rescue capacity of employees in 
advance, prudent employers should assume that employees will need 
rescue assistance and, accordingly, be prepared to offer it. Paragraph 
(c)(8), proposed as paragraph (a)(6), requires that body belts be at 
least 1.625 inches (4.1-cm) wide. OSHA has determined that this minimum 
width will be acceptable for any body belts that are used in personal 
fall arrest systems during the phase-out period. No comments were 
received on this provision.
    Paragraph (c)(9), proposed as paragraph (a)(1), requires that 
personal fall arrest equipment be used exclusively for employee 
protection. For example, this equipment may not be used to hoist 
materials. This revision is intended to prevent the deterioration

[[Page 26336]]

potentially caused by improper uses and types of loads. The proposed 
provision, which was identical, elicited no comments.
    Final rule paragraph (d), Training, proposed as paragraph (a)(19), 
requires that employees be trained to understand the application limits 
of the equipment and the proper hook-up, anchoring, and tie-off 
techniques, before using any personal fall arrest equipment. Affected 
employees must also be trained so that they can demonstrate the proper 
methods of use, inspection, and storage of the equipment. OSHA believes 
that employees must know how their fall arrest equipment works in order 
to get the appropriate protection from it. No comments were received on 
the proposed provision, which was effectively identical to the final 
rule.

Section 1915.160  Positioning Device Systems

    Positioning device systems prevent falls by holding affected 
employees in place while they perform work on vertical surfaces at 
elevations. The provisions of proposed Sec. 1915.159(b) have been moved 
to final rule Sec. 1915.160, so there is a clear distinction between 
the requirements for personal fall arrest systems and those for 
positioning device systems.
    Final rule paragraph (a) sets criteria for connectors and 
anchorages used in positioning device systems. For the same reasons as 
provided in the introductory discussion of final rule Sec. 1915.159, 
the introductory text of final rule Sec. 1915.160 provides that the use 
of non-locking snaphooks will not be acceptable in positioning device 
systems after December 31, 1997. OSHA has included paragraph (a)(4) in 
the final rule to address any non-locking snaphooks that may remain in 
use during the phase-out period.
    Paragraph (a)(1), proposed as Sec. 1915.159(b)1), requires that all 
hardware have a corrosion-resistant finish and that all surfaces and 
edges be smooth to prevent damage to the attached belt or connecting 
assembly. Corrosion resistance is essential to retain the integrity of 
the hardware, while smooth edges and surfaces prevent cuts, tears, or 
other damage to system components. The proposed provision was 
identical, except that the proposed term ``hardware'' has been replaced 
by the term ``connector.'' As discussed above, OSHA has determined that 
it is appropriate to focus attention on the critical load-bearing 
hardware by adopting the term ``connector.''
    Final rule paragraph (a)(2), proposed as Sec. 1915.159(b)(2), 
provides that connecting assemblies, such as snaphooks or D-rings, have 
a minimum tensile strength of 5,000 pounds (22.2 Kn). The proposed 
provision, which did not elicit comments, was identical.
    Final rule paragraph (a)(3), proposed as Sec. 1915.159(b)(3), 
requires that anchorages for positioning device systems be capable of 
supporting twice the potential impact load of an employee's fall. The 
proposed provision, which did not elicit comments, was identical.
    Final rule paragraph (a)(4), proposed as Sec. 1915.159(b)(6)(i), 
provides that snaphooks, unless of a locking type designed and used to 
prevent disengagement, shall not be connected to each other. The 
proposed rule simply prohibited the connecting of snaphooks to each 
other. As discussed above, in reference to the introductory text of 
final rule Sec. 1915.160, the use of non-locking snaphooks is 
prohibited after December 31, 1997.
    Final rule paragraph (b) sets performance criteria for positioning 
device systems. Paragraph (b)(1), proposed as Sec. 1915.159(b)(4), 
requires that restraint (tether) lines have a minimum breaking strength 
of 3,000 pounds (13.3-Kn). This breaking strength is necessary to 
ensure that the line will hold under fall arrest conditions. The 
proposed provision, which did not elicit comments, was identical.
    Paragraph (b)(2), proposed as Sec. 1915.159(b)(5), provides the 
system performance criteria for the different types of positioning 
device systems. These are new performance requirements that are not in 
OSHA's current shipyard standards. In order to allow employers a 
reasonable amount of time to ensure that their equipment meets these 
requirements, OSHA is making this provision effective November 20, 
1996.
    Final rule paragraph (b)(2)(i) provides that window cleaner's 
positioning systems must be capable of withstanding a drop test 
involving a 6 foot (1.83 m) drop of a 250 pound (113 kg) weight. These 
systems must withstand a more rigorous drop test than other positioning 
device systems because of their potential for greater free fall 
distances.
    Final rule paragraph (b)(2)(ii) requires that all positioning 
device systems, other than window cleaners' positioning systems, be 
capable of withstanding a drop test of 4 feet (1.2 m) with a 250 pound 
(113 kg) weight. Positioning device systems which comply with the 
provisions of Section 2 of Appendix B will be deemed by OSHA to meet 
the requirements of this paragraph. The proposed provision, which 
elicited no comments, was identical.
    Final rule paragraph (c) sets criteria for the use and care of 
positioning device systems. Final rule paragraph (c)(1), proposed as 
Sec. 1915.159(b)(7), requires the inspection of positioning device 
systems before each workshift for mildew, wear, damage, and other 
deterioration. This provision further requires that defective 
components identified in such inspections be removed from service. The 
proposed language was nearly identical, except that it provided for 
removal of defective equipment ``if their functions or strength may 
have been adversely affected.'' OSHA has determined that the deletion 
of that language will make the rule easier to understand, because 
employers will simply remove components from service that are 
identified as defective without having to make a specific determination 
about strength or function.
    Final rule paragraph (c)(2), proposed as Sec. 1915.159(b)(6)(ii), 
requires that positioning device systems or components subjected to 
impact loading be removed immediately from service and not be used 
again for employee protection, unless inspected and determined by a 
qualified person to be undamaged and suitable for reuse. This 
requirement is necessary to ensure that systems used for employee 
protection still meet the performance criteria for such systems before 
they are reused for this purpose. The proposed provision, which did not 
elicit comments, was identical.
    Final rule paragraph (d), Training, proposed as 
Sec. 1915.159(b)(6)(iii), provides that employees must be trained in 
the application limits, proper hook-up, anchoring, and tie-off 
techniques, methods of use, inspection, and storage of positioning 
device systems before they may use those systems. This provision 
emphasizes the importance of employee training in the safe use of 
positioning device systems; for these systems to provide employee 
protection, two elements are essential. The systems must be designed 
and used in accordance with stated performance criteria, and the 
employee(s) using the system must be adequately trained in the safe use 
of the system. The proposed provision, which did not elicit comments, 
was identical.

Incorporation by Reference

    Another action in this document is the consolidation, within part 
1915, of OSHA's Incorporation by Reference (IBR) statements of 
approval, which indicate clearance by the Office of the Federal 
Register, into a single section,

[[Page 26337]]

Sec. 1915.5. Existing section 1915.5 is being updated and revised to 
accomplish this consolidation. This approach is consistent with that 
taken by other Federal agencies. As amended, Sec. 1915.5 contains the 
national consensus standard organizations' addresses and the IBR 
approval language. This approach saves text by cross-referencing from 
the regulatory text where an IBR is set out to the IBR section. Without 
such a section, the addresses of the standards organizations, the OSHA 
Docket Office address, and the IBR approval statement would need to be 
repeated with each incorporation by reference throughout the shipyard 
standards. A consolidated IBR Section will also be easier to update.

Appendices

    OSHA is including two non-mandatory appendices to final part 1915 
subpart I.

Appendix A

    Appendix A provides suggested guidelines for complying with the 
requirements for hazard assessment for the selection of personal 
protection equipment.
    In developing the final rule for this rulemaking, OSHA has 
determined that Appendix B of the corresponding General Industry 
standard (part 1910, subpart I) contains some useful information that 
would be helpful to shipyard employers. Therefore, OSHA has decided to 
add a detailed Appendix A to the shipyard PPE standard to provide some 
examples of guidelines which an employer may follow in complying with 
OSHA's performance-oriented final rule. Those guidelines include 
examples of hazard assessments performed by work activity.

Appendix B

    Appendix B contains testing methods and other information to assist 
employers in complying with the performance-oriented criteria for 
personal fall arrest systems and positioning device systems contained 
in this standard. Many revisions have been made to this appendix based 
on the comments received during the powered platform rulemaking (Docket 
No. S-700A). These changes are intended to clarify and simplify the 
information presented. A complete discussion of the comments and 
reasons for the changes are included in the Powered Platforms for 
Building Maintenance final rule (54 FR 31452).

Amendments to Other Subparts of the Shipyard Standards

    This final rule also revises cross references in subparts C and H 
of the shipyard standards, so that those provisions reference subpart 
I. The existing references would no longer identify the correct 
paragraphs in subpart I because of the reformatting of Subpart I. These 
revisions are editorial in nature and do not substantively change the 
current requirements in other subparts.

IV. Summary of Final Economic Analysis, Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis, and Environmental Impact Assessment Summary

    In accordance with Executive Order 12866, OSHA has developed a 
final economic analysis to support the final standard for personal 
protective equipment (PPE) in the shipyard industry. The Agency has 
also analyzed the standard's impact on small entities, as required by 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and its potential to cause adverse 
environmental impacts, as required by the National Environmental Policy 
Act. The final rule, which will be codified as subpart I of the 
shipyard employment standards (29 CFR 1915), covers the use of personal 
protective equipment for the head (e.g., hard hats), eyes (e.g., 
goggles), feet and hands (e.g., shoes and gloves), and body (e.g., 
chemical protective clothing), contains the respirator requirements 
that have been part of OSHA's shipyard standards since 1971, and adds 
requirements for personal fall protection systems and positioning 
device systems.
    Injuries in the shipyard industry are frequent and severe. The 
shipyard industry (SIC 3731) has the second highest rate of lost 
workday injuries and illnesses (37.8 per 100 full-time workers), 
according to the BLS publication ``Occupational Injuries and Illnesses: 
Counts, Rates, and Characteristics, 1992'' (published in April 1995). 
The industry also has one of the highest average number of lost 
workdays per injury (more than 40 percent of lost workday injuries 
involve more than 10 days away from work, according to the same BLS 
publication).
    To address those shipyard injuries that result from the failure to 
use PPE or from the use of inadequate PPE, and to raise the minimum 
standard of PPE use in the industry to the level of technology 
currently available, OSHA has developed this final rule. The rule 
requires employers to meet minimum specifications for PPE employed to 
protect the eyes and face, hands and body, and feet, as well as those 
for respiratory protection, lifesaving, and personal fall protection 
equipment. In addition, the final rule requires employers to conduct 
hazard assessments, include specific elements related to PPE in the 
training they provide to their workers, document training and hazard 
assessments, require the use of body harnesses in place of body belts 
after a phase-in period, and ensure the use of locking snaphooks on 
personal fall protection equipment. Rulemaking participants from the 
shipyard industry report that most employers in the industry are 
already in compliance with the requirements of the final standard. For 
example, one industry representative stated ``* * * most shipyards 
require employees to wear personal protective equipment in all areas 
beyond the office doors. * * * We've already identified and protected 
our employees and our visitors because of the hazardous work 
environment'' [January 25, 1995 public meeting, Transcript page 9].
    The economic analysis identifies a number of benefits that 
employers and employees will experience as a result of compliance with 
the standard. For example, the Agency has concluded that the rule's 
requirements for body harnesses and locking snaphooks will reduce the 
risk of fatal falls, and these requirements will also reduce the 
severity of the injuries resulting from non-fatal falls. In addition, 
the final rule is estimated to prevent about 1,550 lost workday 
injuries annually and 12,650 non-lost workday injuries caused by the 
failure to use PPE or the use of inadequate PPE.
    The Agency estimates that employers in the affected industry will 
incur estimated annual costs of compliance of $163,000. These costs, 
which average about $2 per covered employee, will not impose 
substantial economic impacts on affected firms in any size-class. OSHA 
has also evaluated the impacts of compliance costs on the average small 
shipyard and has determined that, even under a no cost pass through 
assumption, worst case impacts on such establishments will average no 
more than $100 annually. OSHA has therefore concluded that this 
standard will not impose an undue burden on small firms; in addition, 
the standard will not have an adverse effect on the environment.

Introduction

    Executive Order 12866 requires the Agency to perform an analysis of 
the costs, benefits, and regulatory alternatives of its regulatory 
actions. If a regulation is deemed ``significant'' by the Administrator 
of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

[[Page 26338]]

(OIRA), OIRA reviews the regulation and OSHA's economic analysis. A 
regulatory action is considered significant if it imposes annual costs 
on the economy of $100 million or more or has an adverse effect on the 
economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal 
governments or communities. This final rule directly affects only one 
well-defined industry, the shipbuilding and ship repair industry, and 
the estimated costs of compliance are far below the $100 million 
threshold. OSHA has therefore concluded that the promulgation of this 
final standard for personal protective equipment in shipyard employment 
is not a significant action under the guidelines of E.O. 12866.
    As required by the OSH Act and its judicial interpretations, the 
Agency must demonstrate that all of its regulations are both 
technologically and economically feasible, and specifically that this 
is the case for this rule. The Agency has concluded that this standard 
meets both tests of feasibility. A summary of the Agency's feasibility 
assessment of the final rule is presented in the following section of 
the Economic Analysis.
    In addition, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 
et seq.) requires federal agencies to determine whether a regulation 
will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. The Agency must also review this standard in accordance 
with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Guidelines of the Council on 
Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR Part 1500), and OSHA's DOL NEPA 
Procedures (29 CFR Part 11).
    This summary of the economic analysis includes an overview of the 
affected industry and employees at risk, the estimated benefits of the 
rule, the technological feasibility of the standard, the estimated 
compliance costs shipyard employers will incur, the impact of those 
costs on firms in the shipyard industry, the results of the regulatory 
flexibility and economic analysis, and a discussion of regulatory and 
non-regulatory alternatives. The full text of the economic analysis is 
in the shipyard PPE docket (Docket S-045).

Industry Profile

    The American shipyard industry has been in a long-term decline 
since 1981 when the federal government ended subsidies for commercial 
ship construction. In the period 1976-1980 the industry built an 
average of 64 merchant vessels per year. Only five commercial ships 
have been built since 1988. The decline in merchant vessel construction 
in the 1980's was partially offset by a large increase in military ship 
construction. However, the end of the military competition with the 
former U.S.S.R. has resulted in a sharp drop in military ships on 
order. The ``bottom-up'' review of the armed forces called for a major 
reduction in the number of active combat ships, and consequently has 
caused a drop in the number of future orders. U.S. Navy orders, which 
averaged 19 per year in the 1980's, are projected to fall to 8 per year 
during the period 1994-1999. Ship repair and construction of inland 
vessels and barges has remained constant during the past five years.
    Recently American shipyards have received new orders for 
construction of commercial ships (Wall Street Journal Nov. 15, 1995). 
These orders result mainly from a new Federal loan guarantee program 
approved by Congress but also are due to exchange rates that have made 
American-made products cheaper relative to foreign-produced goods. Wage 
rates in American shipyards were already well below those of some 
important foreign competitors, such as Germany and Japan, whose 
governments heavily subsidize their shipbuilding industries. A new 
global trade accord that would end shipbuilding subsidies may be signed 
in the near future. This would allow American shipyards to compete 
internationally, increase commercial ship construction, and increase 
employment levels in the industry. The Agency estimates that employment 
in American shipyards will end its decline and level off or increase 
slightly for the next two to three years. Future employment levels 
depend on funding for the guaranteed loan program, exchange rates and 
the relative price of American versus foreign-built ships, foreign 
governments' level of subsidy to their shipyards, and the status and 
terms of a global accord to end subsidy programs.
    Employment in the shipbuilding industry declined from 177,000 in 
1984 to about 125,000 by 1987 and remained near that level until 1992. 
The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that employment in the 
industry was 106,000 by late 1993. The most recent BLS ``Employment and 
Earnings'' (May 1995) estimates the same level of employment and 
reports that about 79,000 of these employees are production workers. In 
1994, the value of output from American shipyards was approximately 
$9.5 billion (1994 Industrial Outlook estimate). Based on Dun & 
Bradstreet's estimated mean return for the shipyard industry of 2.9 
percent, the industry earned approximately $275 million in 1994.
    The Agency estimates that there are approximately 500 firms in SIC 
3731, and a majority of these have fewer than 50 employees. Employment 
in the shipyard industry is highly concentrated. The ten largest 
shipyards employ approximately 70 percent of all shipyard workers, and 
only the 100 largest firms have as many as 100 employees each. The 
Agency estimates that approximately 300 firms engaged in ship repair 
employ fewer than 20 employees. Many of these small firms perform 
contracting for larger firms; those that do so already follow the PPE 
guidelines of the employing shipyards.

Employees at Risk

    Numerous sources confirm that about 75 percent of shipyard 
employees are production workers, including the 1987 Census of 
Manufactures (Bureau of the Census 1990) and CONSAD Research 
Corporation (1986). The Agency thus concludes that an estimated 79,000 
production workers in this industry are now exposed to workplace 
hazards that may require the use of PPE of the types covered by the 
final rule.

Technological Feasibility

    Equipment to meet the final PPE standard, such as hard hats, 
gloves, and safety shoes, is readily available and widely used 
throughout the industry. Off-the-shelf safety programs that include 
guidance on the conduct of hazard assessments, as well as training 
program materials, are readily available, and these programs are also 
well established throughout the industry. ``Hazard assessments are a 
standard practice at EBDiv. [Electric Boat Division]'' [Ex. 9-10]. 
``Shipyards are safety conscious. Every shipyard in the Hampton Roads 
area has a safety program and a safety officer * * * STASR shipyards 
have safety programs with many of the PPE standards already in place. 
The [proposed standard's] PPE training and recordkeeping requirements 
are, in some cases, redundant'' [South Tidewater Association of Ship 
Repairers, Ex. 9-3].
    Training documentation is usually maintained by shipyard employers 
in a computer database. The Agency therefore concludes that the final 
PPE standard is technologically feasible. The performance-oriented 
criteria of the standard should also allow technological innovation to 
improve PPE protection in the future.

[[Page 26339]]

Costs

    The preliminary cost estimates prepared by OSHA to support the 
proposed shipyard PPE standard published in 1988 included compliance 
costs that shipyard employers would incur to comply with a number of 
proposed requirements for respirator use. However, the final standard 
does not include any new respirator requirements, because the Agency 
expects to publish a final rule addressing respirator use in all 
industries in the near future. Thus, this final rule includes only 
those respirator provisions that have been included in OSHA's shipyard 
rules since 1971.
    In response to the preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (1988), 
OSHA received only one comment on the costs of the proposed standard. 
Peterson Builders [Ex. 6-14], referring to the proposed requirement for 
foot protection in Section 1915.156, stated that buying protective 
footwear for all employees--which the commenter interpreted as being 
required by the proposed standard--would be costly and unnecessary. The 
Agency has recently clarified its policy on the purchase of PPE to make 
clear that employers do not have to purchase equipment that may also 
have personal use; OSHA believes that the costs of PPE will therefore 
be substantially less than this commenter expected. In addition, as 
noted above, OSHA's 1988 Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (see 
Docket S-045) noted that the use of PPE in shipyards is already 
widespread.
    On April 6, 1994 OSHA published a final standard for PPE in general 
industry (59 Federal Register No. 66). On July 6, 1994, the Agency 
reopened the record for the shipyard PPE standard to incorporate the 
general industry PPE docket into the shipyard PPE docket and to propose 
the addition of several elements from the general industry standard to 
the shipyard standard. These elements included requirements for: 
certification of workplace hazard assessments; certification of 
training; specification of training elements; the phasing out of body 
belts in favor of body harnesses; and the replacement of non-locking 
snaphooks with locking snaphooks. The Agency's intent in taking this 
action was to make the PPE standard consistent where possible in both 
shipyards and the general industries. Following the comment period, a 
Federal Register notice announcing a public meeting and containing 
additional discussion of some of the issues raised by the reopening was 
published on December 13, 1994. A public meeting was held on January 
25, 1995 to hear testimony about the proposed changes to the shipyard 
standard introduced during the reopening of the record.
    Representatives of the shipyard industry and industry associations 
opposed the new requirements for work place hazard assessments and the 
certification of such assessments. First, the industry asserted that 
job-related activities in shipyards are unique because a shipyard is 
not a fixed ``workplace.'' Instead there is a constant shifting of 
trades between work locations as employees move among various shops and 
vessels; in addition, in ship repair and overhauling, the vessels being 
worked on constantly change. According to these commenters, it is not 
possible for designated shipyard employees to continuously assess the 
hazards of a ``workplace'' that is constantly changing. According to 
one participant, a better approach would be to perform hazard 
assessments by trade to determine the level of PPE required [South 
Tidewater Association of Ship Repairers, Ex. 9-3]. Numerous commenters 
agreed with this view [Exs. 9-1, 9-7 through 9-12].
    As discussed above in relation to final rule Sec. 1915.152(b), OSHA 
agrees that it is appropriate to allow employers flexibility in 
organizing their hazard assessment efforts. The Agency has underscored 
the performance-oriented nature of that provision by adding a note to 
the final rule which states that hazard assessments conducted according 
to the trade or occupation of affected employees are acceptable so long 
as they address any PPE-related hazards to which employees are exposed 
in the course of their work activities.
    The shipyard industry also opposed the requirement for 
certification of hazard assessments because, in the opinion of 
commenters, certification would require employers to expend resources 
for new paperwork activities ``for the convenience of the Agency'' that 
would not result in additional safety for production workers [Ex. 9-
11]. Industry commenters also were concerned that certification might 
increase their liability when injuries occur. Other shipyards that 
currently rely on worker involvement to analyze risks feared that 
certification would disrupt that process [January 25, 1995 public 
meeting transcript pages 28 and 41-47]. The shipyard industry also 
opposed the certification of hazard assessments on the grounds that 
these assessments would be redundant, since the industry already 
performs many PPE-related hazard assessments for individual health and 
safety standards such as hearing conservation, lead, confined spaces, 
respirator use, and other OSHA standards.
    In its Federal Register notice on December 13, 1994 announcing a 
public meeting on shipyard PPE issues, the Agency asked for information 
on whether simple documentation would suffice in place of 
certification. In testimony at the public meeting and in comments 
submitted following the meeting, industry representatives stated that 
they did not oppose documentation of hazard assessments. In fact, they 
reported that it is routine in the industry to conduct such assessments 
and to document them:

    * * * hearing conservation, respiratory protection, hazard 
communication, lockout/tagout, lead abatement, blood-borne 
pathogens, medical surveillance programs * * * [are] programs that 
are already in place that [require] us to do hazard assessments of 
the workplace in order that we provide PPE * * * Where hazard 
assessment does not exist, and it would be hard for me to say where 
it doesn't in the shipyard industry, we'd recommend that an annual 
assessment be made. [Shipbuilders Council, January 25, 1995 public 
meeting transcript page 11].

    Commenters within the shipyard industry also opposed the general 
industry PPE requirement to certify training, largely for the same 
reasons as those noted above for the certification of hazard 
assessments--the creation of potential new legal liability and 
unnecessary paperwork. In its December 13, 1994 announcement, the 
Agency suggested that simple documentation could be used in lieu of 
certification, and the final rule requires documentation rather than 
certification.
    Commenters were generally supportive of the standard's training 
requirements and the specific elements of training mandated by the 
rule. Commenters stated that the PPE training elements proposed by the 
Agency were practiced throughout the shipyard industry, as was the 
maintenance of training logs--usually in the form of a computer 
database:

    We support the general requirement for training as it does serve 
to enhance a safer working environment [Shipbuilders' Council [Ex. 
9-9]].
    We are already complying with this proposed standard [for 
training] and we suspect many other shipyards are also complying. * 
* * Our new hire orientation programs covers all areas of PPE and 
would meet the new requirements proposed in the standard [Tampa 
Shipyards, Ex. 9-8].
    We'd recommend this documentation [for training] be in the form 
of training logs, which most of us already keep on the computer 
[Shipbuilders' Council January 25, 1995 public meeting, Transcript 
page 13].


[[Page 26340]]


    There was widespread support among industry commenters for the use 
of body harnesses in place of body belts:

    Electric Boat Division utilizes body harnesses for all of its 
fall protection needs. * * * [Ex. 9-10].
    BIW/Local S6 has implemented a policy which is consistent with 
the construction industry standard in that only body harnesses may 
be used in fall arrest systems and body belts may be used in 
positioning device systems [Bath Iron Works Ex. 11-7].
    Without a doubt, the majority of our membership endorses the use 
of harnesses. Most of us already have those in place [Shipbuilders' 
Council January 25, 1995 public meeting, Transcript page 14].

    However, Newport News Shipbuilding (NNS), which employs about 20 
percent of all shipyard employees, opposed the phase-out of body belts 
in favor of harnesses. NNS relies almost completely on body belts for 
fall protection, although the shipyard did report using a small number 
of harnesses. Several small yards also still rely on body belts for 
fall protection and questioned the utility of changing to body 
harnesses since they had experienced no injuries due to the use of body 
belts [Exs. 9-1, 9-3 and 9-11]. At the public meeting, NNS stated that 
replacing over 4,700 body belts would be a burden and therefore that a 
seven-year phase-in period would be needed to reduce the economic 
impact. The company reported that a review of several years' accident 
records failed to show that falls of employees using body belts 
resulted in any severe injuries. NNS did not introduce its data on 
falls into the record, however. A cost analysis presented by NNS at the 
hearing showed that body belts cost NNS $43 each and, on average, 
lasted 7 years; harnesses cost $140 and have a working lifetime of 3 
years.
    Most other shipyards and industry associations reported that they 
had switched to harnesses from belts. These commenters reported that, 
although harnesses cost more than belts, they provide greater 
protection and are cost effective.

    We * * * endorse the use of body harnesses as a safety method 
for employees. While the cost of a body harness is usually twice the 
amount of body belts, the added safety factor to the employee is 
well worth the money, and in the long run will save the company 
money is case of an accident [Atlantic Marine Ex. 9-9].
    In fact many of our yards already use them [harnesses]. We find 
them to be very effective, and everybody seems to certainly feel a 
lot safer with them [Shipbuilders' Council January 25, 1995 public 
meeting, Transcript page 23].

    At the public meeting on January 25, 1995, representatives of the 
American Insurance Service [Tr. 59] stated that body harnesses would 
prevent injuries that could occur in falls involving employees wearing 
body belts. In addition, they said that it is difficult to rescue a 
worker in a body belt after a fall since he or she typically is hanging 
``nose to toes,'' or upside down. Several falls involving employees (in 
other industries) wearing body belts had resulted in fatalities when 
the fallen worker had slipped out of his/her body belt. The insurance 
representatives also asserted that the cost of harnesses should not 
preclude the inclusion of a harness requirement in the rule because 
industry has known that the change to harnesses was going to occur, 
body belts are usually ``expense'' items, and, if treated as a capital 
expense, will have been fully depreciated by the effective date of the 
regulation. The association did not provide any data demonstrating that 
the injuries associated with falls in body harnesses was less severe 
than those in belts. Belts were estimated to cost $35 each and 
harnesses $75 each. Harnesses were estimated to last an average of 2 to 
4 years.
    OSHA agrees with the assessment of most of the commenters from the 
shipyard industry and the insurance industry who supported the 
requirement for harnesses in lieu of belts, and the final rule thus 
contains such a requirement.
    Many commenters endorsed the adoption of locking snaphooks over 
non-locking snaphooks on lifelines [Ex. 9-10 and January 25, 1995 
public meeting, Transcript page 52]. Locking snaphooks are already in 
widespread use in shipyards. At the January 25, 1995 public meeting, 
representatives from the American Insurance Service demonstrated how, 
in a ``roll-out'' situation, lifelines can detach from non-locking 
snaphooks. Most industry commenters reported that snaphooks were used 
in their shipyard, and none opposed this change to the standard or 
raised it as a cost issue.
    Based on the record for this rulemaking, the Agency has concluded 
that the only provisions of the final PPE standard that will impose 
other than negligible costs on shipyard employers are: the replacement 
of body belts with body harnesses; the documentation of hazard 
assessments; the development of training for body harnesses in 
shipyards not already employing harnesses; and employee training for 
body harnesses. Only Newport News Shipbuilding (NNS) and a number of 
small shipyards reported that they still rely on body belts. (Very 
small shipyards specialize in trades and may not use body harnesses or 
body belts at all). OSHA has taken the concerns of these commenters 
into account in the final rule. NNS stated that it currently uses about 
4,700 body belts, although no information was available on the 
breakdown between belts used as positioning devices (this would not be 
affected by the final rule) and those used for fall protection. To the 
extent that some of these belts continue to be used for positioning 
devices, the 4700 figure overstates the number of harnesses to acquire. 
The Agency estimates that NNS will need to purchase no more than 3,000 
harnesses (about 1 for every 5 production workers). The Agency 
estimates that, in addition to NNS, some smaller employers in the 
industry may need to buy harnesses to replace body belts, and the 
Agency estimates that 1,000 harnesses would be purchased by these 
employers. Based on evidence in the record and information from 
suppliers, the Agency estimates that body belts cost about $50 and 
harnesses $100. Body belts are estimated to last an average of 7 years 
and harnesses 3 years. Thus, body belts supply fall protection at a 
cost of roughly $7 per year ($50/7 years), while harnesses do so at $33 
per year ($100/3 years). Harnesses therefore cost roughly $27 more per 
year than belts for each affected employee. Since body belts can still 
be used as positioning devices, the requirement that harnesses be used 
for fall protection will not end the useful life of these belts. Based 
on these estimates, OSHA concludes that replacing body belts with 
harnesses will result in a new annual cost to the industry of 
approximately $128,000 [(3,000 new harnesses for NNS+1,000 new 
harnesses for small shipyards) x $27]. Nevertheless, to allow 
additional time and reduce any potential impacts, the final rule 
permits shipyards to phase-in compliance with the body harness 
requirement over two years, which is consistent with the phase-out date 
in other OSHA standards.
    The hazard assessment documentation required by the standard 
consists of a record, either paper or on a computer or other storage 
medium, with the date of the hazard assessment, name of person 
performing the assessment, occupation or operations covered, and a list 
of the PPE required. Shipyards report that they already incorporate 
some of this information in their current training materials. The 
Agency has estimated that it would take each shipyard about an hour to 
develop a computer-based record format for this documentation and 
approximately five minutes to record the hazard assessment

[[Page 26341]]

for each occupation covered. Table 3 summarizes this information for 
the PPE standard. The total time expended by managers to document 
hazard assessments is estimated to be 781 hours, a one-time commitment 
of management resources.

  Table 3.--Estimate of Amount of Time To Document Hazard Assessments, Develop Training Programs for Body Harnesses, and Train in Use of Body Harnesses 
                                                         for OSHA's Standard on PPE in Shipyards                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Hazard assessment      Develop training for hamesses               Training            
                                                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Number of                 Time to     Time to                Total                                    
         Firm Size (number of employees)           firms in   Number of     document    develop   Number of   time to    Training  Management  Number of
                                                     size       hazard       hazard     training  firms who   develop    sessions     time     employees
                                                   category  assessments  assessments   per firm   must do    program    per firm    (hours)    trained 
                                                               (trades)     (hours)     (hours)       so      (hours)                           (hours) 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1000+...........................................         12          40           36   .........       none          0        150         150       3000
500-999.........................................         12          30           30           8          6         48          4          24        200
100-499.........................................         76          30          190           4         76        304          2         152        400
21-99...........................................        100          10          150           4        100        400          1         100        200
11-20...........................................        100           5          125           2         50        100          1          50        200
1-10............................................        200           5          250           2        100        200          1         100        150
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotals (hours).........................  .........  ...........     \1\ 781   .........  .........   \1\ 1052  .........         576       4150
                                                 =======================================================================================================
Total one-time, or first year, management                                                                                                               
 resources for hazard assessments and                                                                                                                   
 development of training........................  .........  ...........  ...........  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  \2\ 1,833
First year management resources to conduct                                                                                                              
 training.......................................  .........  ...........  ...........  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........    \2\ 576
Total management time...........................  .........  ...........  ...........  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  \2\ 2,409
Total employee time.............................  .........  ...........  ...........  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  \2\ 4,150
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                        
\1\ One-time.                                                                                                                                           
\2\ Hours.                                                                                                                                              

    The development of training materials for the use of personal fall 
arrest systems (body harnesses) imposes a one-time cost for shipyards 
that are not already using harnesses. Some of the very smallest 
shipyards who provide specialty trade work will not have or use any 
harnesses. All large shipyards already use harnesses to some extent, 
and the Agency has concluded that these shipyards also have developed 
training materials. Because training videos and written materials on 
the use of body harnesses are widely available, the Agency has 
concluded that the time required for establishing such a training 
program will be small. Table 3 presents the Agency's estimate of the 
time that firms will expend to develop training for the use of body 
harnesses; the estimate ranges from 8 hours for firms with more than 
500 employees to 2 hours for the smallest employers. The total time 
required to develop training for body harnesses is estimated to be 
1,052 hours of management time.
    Firms that do not currently use body harnesses must also train 
their employees as harnesses are substituted over time for body belts. 
The cost of this training consists of management or trainers' time to 
provide training to employees as well as the value of employee wages 
foregone while training. The Agency estimates a training session will 
take approximately one hour and that as many as 10 to 20 employees can 
receive training in a single session. Table 3 presents the Agency's 
estimate of the number of sessions by firm size that will be necessary 
for training in body harnesses and the number of employees trained. The 
Agency estimates that a higher fraction (10 percent or more) of smaller 
firms' employees will have to be trained due to the nature of their 
business--cleaning tanks, repairs over the ship's side, painting and 
maintenance--which require the use of harnesses. Among large firms only 
NNS relies primarily on body belts and uses only a few body harnesses. 
The Agency estimates that all of NNS's body belts (4,700) will not have 
to be replaced with harnesses, since compared with smaller yards less 
work conducted at large shipyards or in new ship construction requires 
a body harness (rather than a body belt). The Agency has estimated that 
NNS will replace 3,000 body belts with harnesses. Data for the cost of 
body harness training is included in Table 6. The Agency estimates that 
576 hours of management time and 4,150 hours of employee time will be 
required for training.
    The total one-time cost for documenting hazard assessments, 
developing harness training materials, and providing training is 2,409 
management hours and 4,150 employee hours. Average hourly employee 
wages for SIC 3731 are about $14.00 per hour (``Employment and 
Earnings'' Bureau of Labor Statistics October, 1994). The Agency 
estimates that the cost of wages plus benefits is $20 per hour for 
production employees and $30 per hour for managers.
    The total cost of these elements of the standard is approximately 
$155,000. Annualized over five years at 7 percent, this cost is about 
$35,000 per year. Added to the annual cost of body harnesses of 
$128,000, the Agency estimates that the total annualized cost of the 
PPE standard is $163,000 per year for the shipyard industry.

Economic Impacts

    With industry revenues exceeding $9 billion and an estimated profit 
of $275 million in 1994, the annual estimated compliance costs 
associated with the standard ($163,000) will not cause a significant 
impact on the revenues or profits of firms in the shipyard industry.

[[Page 26342]]

Benefits

    The final shipyard PPE standard will reduce the risk of injury or 
fatality confronting workers who fall while wearing body belts. After 
the phase-in period, shipyard workers who fall while wearing body 
harnesses will experience fewer fatalities or severe injuries as a 
result of these falls. Although industry and insurance representatives 
testified to the beneficial effects of harnesses, data in the record 
are not sufficiently detailed to quantify the magnitude of the reduced 
risk. Accordingly, OSHA has not quantified this risk reduction or the 
productivity gains associated with the use of harnesses compared with 
belts. In addition, the use of locking snaphooks, as required by the 
final rule, will prevent roll-out thus reducing the risk of fatality or 
severe injury.
    The Agency has also analyzed the more typical PPE-related injuries 
of lesser severity. OSHA estimates that compliance with the final 
shipyard personal protective equipment rule will potentially prevent 
about 1,550 lost workday injuries (15 percent of all shipyard PPE-
related lost workday injuries) and about 12,650 non-lost workday 
injuries (about 46 percent of all shipyard PPE-related non-lost workday 
injuries). To develop this estimate, the Agency analyzed a sample of 
over 1,700 shipyard injuries reported on OSHA Form 200's that were 
collected as part of recent OSHA survey efforts. For each injury or 
illness in the sample, OSHA judged whether the injury or illness was 
potentially preventable through the use of the appropriate type of 
protective equipment. These judgments were based on the injury and 
illness descriptions on the Form 200. OSHA considered the following 
types of PPE to be applicable: hard hats, safety glasses and goggles, 
welding goggles and helmets, face shields, safety shoes, work gloves 
and other forms of hand protection, and chemical protective gloves, 
aprons, and other clothing.
    To develop its estimate, OSHA first divided the sample injuries and 
illnesses by severity and estimated the fraction of cases that were 
judged to be potentially preventable by PPE use. Next, OSHA applied 
these preventability rates to Bureau of Labor Statistics employment 
levels for 1994 for the shipyard industry and calculated the number of 
cases that might be prevented through PPE use. The results of this 
analysis are shown in Table 4. Of 27,317 shipyard injuries and 
illnesses without lost-workdays, 12,665 (46.4 percent) were estimated 
to be potentially preventable through proper use of PPE. Of 9,876 cases 
involving days away from work, OSHA estimated that 1,549 (15.7 percent) 
were potentially preventable through compliance with OSHA's PPE 
requirements. These estimates indicate that over 10 percent of all 
shipyard injuries (both lost-time and non-lost work time) are 
potentially preventable through the proper use of safety glasses, while 
15 percent are potentially preventable through the use of work gloves 
or other appropriate forms of hand protection. This analysis of 
``typical'' PPE injuries parallels the benefits analysis performed for 
the general industry PPE standard, with one exception. In this shipyard 
analysis, the Agency has reduced its estimate of the number of eye 
injuries that could be prevented by the use of safety glasses to 50 
percent (a figure of about 99 percent was applied in the general 
industry analysis), because shipyard representatives and OSHA personnel 
report that the use of basic eye protection is standard practice in 
shipyards, which are widely recognized as being especially hazardous 
environments. The Agency concludes that fewer eye injuries occur in 
shipyards than general industry establishments because employees in 
shipyards, unlike those in general industry, are routinely required to 
wear safety glasses.

                       Table 4.--Preventability of Shipyard Injuries by Type of PPE (1994)                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Injuries without lost-      Injuries with lost-          All injuries      
                                            workdays                  workdays         -------------------------
  Injury preventability/PPE type   ----------------------------------------------------                         
                                       Number      Percent       Number      Percent       Number      Percent  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preventable:                                                                                                    
    Hard hat......................          753          2.8          133          1.3          886          2.4
    Safety glasses \1\............        3,509         12.8          346          3.5        3,855         10.4
    Safety goggles................          422          1.5           88          0.9          510          1.4
    Welding goggles/helmet........          632          2.3          137          1.4          769          2.1
    Face shield...................        1,024          3.7           33          0.3        1,057          2.8
    Safety shoes (metatarsal                                                                                    
     guard).......................          392          1.4          237          2.4          628          1.7
    Safety shoes (toe protection).          361          1.3          109          1.1          470          1.3
    Safety shoes (sole protection)          151          0.6            0          0.0          151          0.4
    Work gloves...................        5,120         18.7          406          4.1        5,526         14.9
    Chemical protective gloves....            0          0.0           48          0.5           48          0.1
    Chemical protective clothing..          301          1.1           13          0.1          314          0.8
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total preventable...........       12,665         46.4        1,549         15.7       14,214         38.2
Not Preventable...................       14,652         53.6        8,327         84.3       22,979         61.8
All injuries......................       27,317        100.0        9,876        100.0       37,193        100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Rate for eye injuries preventable by safety glasses adjusted downward by 50.0% due to current high rate of  
  safety glass use in shipyards.                                                                                
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1992. Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses; OSHA estimates based on
  analysis of Form 200 Shipyard Injury Database. Estimates of the number of 1992 injuries and illnesses         
  extrapolated to 1994 based on decline in shipyard employment of 14.4 percent over this period.                

    OSHA also used data supplied by the BLS describing the distribution 
of shipyard lost-workday cases by body part injured to develop 
disaggregated estimates of the number of preventable injuries. These 
estimates are shown in Table 5. OSHA estimates that 90 percent of the 
head, scalp, and toe injuries are potentially preventable. OSHA also 
judged PPE to be effective, at lower rates, in preventing face, eye, 
foot, hand and finger injuries.

[[Page 26343]]



                 Table 5.--Preventable Shipyard Injuries and Illnesses by Severity and Body Part                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Number of      Share of                
                                                           Number of   extrapolated     injuries      Number of 
                Injury severity/body part                     1992         1994        preventable     injuries 
                                                            injuries   injuries \3\        \4\        prevented 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(percentage)--------------
Injuries and illnesses without lost workdays\1\.........       31,900        27,317           46.4        12,665
Lost-workday injuries and illnesses:\2\                                                                         
    Head, unspecified...................................           73            63          100.0            63
    Ear(s)..............................................            0             0            0.0             0
    Eye(s)..............................................        1,080           925       \5\ 61.7           571
    Face................................................           51            44           75.0            33
    Scalp...............................................           91            78       \6\ 90.0            70
    Neck................................................          350           300            0.0             0
    Arm(s), Unspecified.................................           49            42            0.0             0
    Elbow...............................................          265           227            0.0             0
    Forearm.............................................          128           110            0.0             0
    Wrist...............................................          478           409           12.5            51
    Hand(s).............................................          508           435           38.9           169
    Finger(s)...........................................          720           617           37.9           234
    Upper extremities, multiple.........................            0             0            0.0             0
    Trunk, unspecified..................................            0             0         \6\ NE             0
    Abdomen.............................................           88            75            0.0             0
    Back, Unspecified...................................          954           817            0.0             0
    Back, lumbar........................................        1,198         1,026            0.0             0
    Back, thoracic......................................          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          \7\NE             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          \7\NE             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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1992 Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses.                             
\2\ Bureau 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.                                        
\3\ 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.                                                                  
\4\ OSHA 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.                                                                                
\6\ OSHA 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),

[[Page 26344]]

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.

[[Page 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, Wright-
Patterson 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.                                                     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Hazard assessment        Develop training for hamessess        Training      
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Number of                    Time of       Time                                              
             Firm size [number of employees]                firms in    Number of      document     develop   Number of    Total     Training   Time to 
                                                              size        hazard        hazard      training  firms who   time to    sessions    train  
                                                            category   assessments   assessment's   per firm   must do    develop    per firm   [hours] 
                                                                      [occupations]     [hours]     [hours]       so      program                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

[[Page 26346]]

                                                                                                                                                        
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 first-year 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:
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected; and
    <bullet> 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 for-profit, 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

[[Page 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. Sec. 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 under-protective, 
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 decision-making 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. Sec. 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. Sec. 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. Sec. 655(a)].'' Congress also directed the Secretary to set 
mandatory occupational safety standards [29 U.S.C. Sec. 651(b)(3)], 
based on a rulemaking record and substantial evidence [29 U.S.C. 
Sec. 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. Sec. 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. Sec. 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

[[Page 26348]]

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. Sec. 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 industry-wide 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 <greek-m>g/m\3\ 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 <greek-m>g/m\3\ level was not feasible for 
weaving and that 750 <greek-m>g/m\3\ 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. Secs. 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.

[[Page 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 on-the-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                                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Number of    Number of                                         
                               Final rule date     deaths      Injuries    Annual cost first   Annual cost next 
     Standard (CFR cite)          (FR cite)      prevented    prevented     five yrs (mill)     five yrs (mill) 
                                                  annually     annually                                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grain handling (1910.272)....  12-31-87 (52 FR           18          394  5.9 to 33.4.......  5.9 to 33.4.      
                                49622).                                                                         

[[Page 26350]]

                                                                                                                
HAZWOPER (1910.120)..........  3-6-89 (54 FR             32       18,700  153...............  153.              
                                9311).                                                                          
Excavations (Subpt P)........  10-31-89 (54 FR           74          800  306...............  306.              
                                45,954).                                                                        
Process Safety Mgmt            2-24-92 57 FR            330        1,917  880.1.............  470.8.            
 (1910.119).                    6356.                                                                           
Permit-Required Confined       1-14-93 58 FR             54        5,041  202.4.............  202.4.            
 Spaces (1910.146).             4462.                                                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    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.


[[Page 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:


Sec. 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:


Sec. 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:


Sec. 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:


Sec. 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 
Sec. 1915.118.
    7. Section 1915.134 is amended by revising paragraph (j) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 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:


Sec. 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.

[[Page 26352]]

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)


Sec. 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.


Sec. 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.

[[Page 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.


Sec. 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, 
Sec. 1915.153.

                         Table I-1.--Filter Lenses for Protection Against Radiant Energy                        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Minimum  
                Operations                  Electrode size \1/32\ in.           Arc current           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   ...........................  Less than..................            7
 welding.                                                                                                       
                                           ...........................  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.                                                                                             


[[Page 26354]]



                               Filter Lenses for Protection Against Radiant Energy                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Minimum* 
                Operations                   Plate thickness-- inches       Plate thickness-- mm      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 Sec. 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 Sec. 1915.5, or shall be demonstrated by the employer to 
be equally effective.


Sec. 1915.154  Respiratory protection.

    Respiratory protection for shipyard employment is covered by 29 CFR 
1910.134.


Sec. 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 
Sec. 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.


Sec. 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 Protection-Protective 
Footwear,'' which is incorporated by reference, as specified in 
Sec. 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 Sec. 1915.5, or shall be demonstrated by the employer to 
be equally effective.


Sec. 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.


Sec. 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

[[Page 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.


Sec. 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 corrosion-resistant 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 tie-off techniques. 
Affected employees shall also be trained so that they can demonstrate 
the proper use, inspection, and storage of their equipment.

[[Page 26356]]

Sec. 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 Non-
mandatory 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--Non-mandatory 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 co-workers.
    (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 Sec. 1915.152(b) will involve the 
reassessment of work activities where changing circumstances make it 
necessary. a. The

[[Page 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,         Flying fragments, objects,     Spectacles with side protection,       
     masonry work, woodworking, sawing,    large chips, particles,        goggles, face shields. See notes (1), 
     drilling, chiseling, powered          sand, dirt, etc.               (3), (5), (6), (10). For severe       
     fastening, riveting, and sanding.                                    exposure, use face shield.            
Heat:                                                                                                           
    Furnace operations, pouring,          Hot sparks...................  Face shields, goggles, spectacles with 
     casting, hot dipping, and welding.                                   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,          Splash.......................  Goggles, eyecup and cover types. For   
     degreasing, plating.                                                 severe exposure, use face shield. See 
                                                                          notes (3), (11).                      
                                          Irritating mists.............  Special-purpose goggles.               
Dust:                                                                                                           
    Woodworking, buffing, general dusty   Nuisance dust................  Goggles, eyecup and cover types. See   
     conditions.                                                          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         Optical radiation............  Spectacles or welding face-shield.     
     soldering.                                                           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 Sec. 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.

[[Page 26358]]

    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

[[Page 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 Sec. 1915.5 is revised as follows:


Sec. 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

[[Page 26360]]

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 Sec. 1915.72(a)(6)
    (ii) ANSI A14.2-1956 Safety Code for Portable Metal Ladders, IBR 
approved for Sec. 1995.72(a)(4)
    (iii) ANSI B7.1-1964 Safety Code for the Use, Care, and Protection 
of Abrasive Wheels, IBR approval for Sec. 1915.134(c)
    (iv) ANSI Z87.1-1989 Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye 
and Face Protection, IBR approved for Sec. 1915.153(b)(1).
    (v) ANSI 87.1-1979 Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye 
and Face Protection, IBR approved for Sec. 1915.153(b)(2)
    (vi) ANSI Z89.1-1986 Personnel Protection--Protective Headgear for 
Industrial Workers Requirements, IBR approved for Sec. 1915.155(b)(1)
    (vii) ANSI Z89.1-1969 Safety Requirement for Industrial Head 
Protection, IBR approved for Sec. 1915.155(b)(2).
    (viii) ANSI Z41-1991 Personal Protection--Protective Footwear, IBR 
approved for Sec. 1915.156(b)(1)
    (ix) ANSI Z41-1983 Personal Protection--Protective Footwear, IBR 
approved for Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 Secs. 1915.12(b) 
and 1915.1000, table Z.

[FR Doc. 96-12573 Filed 5-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P