[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]
_______________________________________________________________________
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
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,
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.........................
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
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
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
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
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.
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."
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.
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
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,
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
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
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
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,
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
(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.
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].
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
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.
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.
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), 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.
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
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:
Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
Minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submissions of responses.
Background
OSHA in its final rule for Personal Protective Equipment in
Shipyard Employment is including two types of information collections.
The first is a requirement for the employer to conduct a hazard
assessment relative to PPE selection, and the second involves training
requirements for PPE.
OSHA believes that the information collection and documentation of
the hazard assessment as outlined in the final standard is necessary so
that situations where PPE should be used for employee protection can be
identified, and the proper PPE selected. In addition, OSHA believes
that the training requirements and documentation in the final standard
are essential in providing employees with the information and practical
knowledge needed to effectively use PPE. Documentation can be used by
the employer to ensure that all of its employees using PPE are properly
trained.
Current Actions
This notice requests OMB approval of the paperwork requirements in
Personal Protective Equipment for Shipyard Employment (29 CFR 1915,
Subpart I).
Type of Review: New.
Agency: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor.
Title: Personal Protective Equipment for Shipyard Employment (29
CFR 1915, subpart I).
OMB Number: 1218-AA74
Agency: Docket No. S-045.
Frequency: On occasion.
Affected Public: Business or other 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 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 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 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 g/m\3\ level was not feasible for
weaving and that 750 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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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
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
