[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 6, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-16240]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: July 6, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1915

[Docket No. S-045]

 

Personal Protective Equipment for Shipyard Employment

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), 
Department of Labor.

ACTION: Proposed rule; limited reopening of the rulemaking record.

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

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is 
reopening the rulemaking record for the proposed revision of the 
regulation of personal protective equipment for shipyard employment (53 
FR 48150, November 29, 1988) to incorporate the rulemaking record 
developed for the recently revised regulation of personal protective 
equipment for general industry (Docket S-060, final rule published in 
59 FR 16334, April 6, 1994) and the record for the proposed regulation 
of personal protective equipment (fall protection equipment for general 
industry) (Docket S-057, 55 FR 13423, April 10, 1990). While the 
shipyard rulemaking on personal protective equipment (PPE) generated 10 
comments, the general industry rulemakings generated hundreds of 
comments and several thousand pages of hearing testimony regarding PPE 
issues. The Agency believes the regulation of PPE in shipyard and 
general industry employment should be consistent, in order to 
facilitate compliance and effective employee protection. OSHA has 
determined that the information in Dockets S-060 and S-057 is relevant 
to full consideration of the issues raised by the shipyard PPE 
proposal, and that it is appropriate to reopen the record to 
incorporate those materials and to allow the public an opportunity to 
comment. This notice also raises specific PPE issues arising out of the 
general industry rulemakings for public comment.

DATES: Comments on the issues raised in the notice of reopening must be 
postmarked by August 22, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Comments are to be sent to the Docket Office, Docket No. S-
045A, U.S. Department of Labor, room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC 20210.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James F. Foster, Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, room N-
3637, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone 
(202) 219-8148.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    On November 29, 1988, OSHA proposed to revise the personal 
protective equipment (PPE) requirements in the shipyard employment 
standards (part 1915, subpart I) (53 FR 48150). The proposal updated 
references to national consensus standards and added requirements for 
hazard assessment, proper selection and care of PPE, training, 
lifesaving equipment and personal fall protection equipment. The 
written comment period ended on February 27, 1989. The Agency received 
10 comments on the proposed rule. There were no hearing requests.
    On August 16, 1989, OSHA proposed to update the existing general 
industry standards (part 1910, subpart I, Docket S-060) for eye and 
face (Sec. 1910.133), head (Sec. 1910.135) and foot (1910.136) PPE and 
to add generic requirements for hazard assessment, proper selection of 
PPE, prohibition on use of damaged or defective PPE and training in the 
proper use of PPE (Secs. 1910.132 (d) through (f)) (54 FR 33832). The 
proposed general industry revisions were consistent with the 
corresponding provisions of the proposed rule for shipyard employment.
    On April 10, 1990, the Agency proposed to add criteria for personal 
fall arrest equipment (Secs. 1910.128, 1910.129 and 1910.131) and 
positioning device equipment (Secs. 1910.128 and 1910.130) to the 
general industry PPE standards (part 1910, subpart I, Docket S-057) (55 
FR 13423). Again, the criteria proposed for general industry PPE were 
consistent with those proposed for shipyards.
    The two general industry rulemakings generated extensive records, 
including hundreds of comments and several thousand pages of hearing 
testimony. On April 6, 1994, OSHA issued a final rule (59 FR 16334) 
which completed Agency action in the Docket S-060 proceeding. Based on 
the rulemaking record, OSHA made some changes to the proposed rule in 
drafting the final rule. In particular, OSHA revised the proposed 
training requirement so that it provides clear direction regarding what 
constitutes adequate training and what circumstances trigger a 
requirement for retraining. In addition, the final rule added 
requirements for the certification of the hazard assessment 
(Sec. 1910.132(d)(2)) and certification that the required training has 
been provided and understood (Sec. 1910.132(f)(4)).
    Also, based on the rulemaking record for general industry fall 
protection PPE (Docket S-057), the Agency is considering further 
limiting or prohibiting the use of body belts and non-locking snaphooks 
in personal fall arrest systems. In particular, the evidence in the 
record supports the conclusion that an employee who falls while wearing 
a body belt as part of a personal fall arrest system is substantially 
more likely to suffer death or serious injury than would be the case if 
the employee were wearing a full body harness. Furthermore, the 
rulemaking record indicates that locking snaphooks designed to prevent 
``roll out'' (where snaphooks become accidentally disengaged during 
use) provide a higher level of employee protection than single-action 
(non-locking) snaphooks.
    While it is appropriate to facilitate employer access to safety and 
health standards by maintaining separate standards for general industry 
(part 1910) and for the shipyard industry (part 1915), the Agency 
believes that the substance of those standards should be consistent. 
OSHA believes, based on its review of the pertinent rulemaking records, 
that PPE used in shipyards does not differ markedly from PPE used in 
general industry. Therefore, the Agency has determined that the 
information generated in the general industry rulemakings should be 
taken into account as the Agency drafts the final rule for shipyard 
PPE, as well. To this end, OSHA is incorporating the general industry 
PPE rulemaking records (Dockets S-057 and S-060) into the record for 
the shipyards PPE rulemaking. In addition, OSHA is reopening the 
written comment period for the shipyard PPE proposal so the public has 
an opportunity to comment on the newly incorporated materials.

II. Issues

    OSHA is requesting comments on these five specific issues:
    1. Certification of hazard assessment. OSHA believes that a hazard 
assessment is an important element of a PPE program because it produces 
the information needed to select the appropriate PPE for the hazards 
present or likely to be present at particular workplaces. The Agency 
believes that employers are able to determine and evaluate the hazards 
of their particular workplaces and to use this information for proper 
PPE selection.
    Proposed Sec. 1915.152(b) required employers to select the types of 
PPE to be used by employees based on an assessment of the workplace 
hazards relative to PPE. The comments on proposed Sec. 1910.132(d), 
which contained identical language, indicated concern about the level 
of documentation required for hazards assessment (Exs. 3:1 and 3:68). 
In regard to the general industry rulemaking, OSHA concluded 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. Given the performance-oriented nature of 
the rule, the Agency determined that the generation and review of 
extensive documentation would be unnecessarily burdensome.
    OSHA has addressed such situations in other rulemakings (e.g., 
permit-required confined spaces, Sec. 1910.146(g)(4); and the control 
of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout), 1910.147(c)(7)(iv) by requiring 
employers to verify their compliance with a requirement through a 
written certification. The Agency has found that a written 
certification is a reasonable means by which to establish 
accountability for compliance.
    Therefore, OSHA determined that an employer could adequately verify 
compliance with the hazard assessment requirement through a written 
certification which identified the workplace evaluated; the person 
certifying that the hazard assessment had been performed; the date(s) 
of the hazard assessment; and which identified the document as a 
certification of hazard assessment. Accordingly, the Agency added this 
requirement to the final rule as Sec. 1910.132(d)(2).
    OSHA believes that verification through written certification would 
also be appropriate with regard to hazard assessments to be performed 
under proposed Sec. 1915.152(b). Therefore, OSHA solicits comments, 
with supporting information, as to the need for certification of the 
hazard assessment and the anticipated impact of such a requirement on 
the shipyard industry.
    2. Certification of training. Proposed Sec. 1915.152(e) required 
that employees be trained in the proper use of their PPE. Proposed 
Sec. 1910.132(f) contained an identical requirement. Based on comments 
received in relation to proposed Sec. 1910.132(f) (Exs. 3:41, 3:46, 
3:49, 3:62 and 3:129) which expressed concern regarding the level of 
documentation employers would be required to provide for their training 
efforts, OSHA raised Issue 4 in the hearing notice (55 FR 3414, 
February 1, 1990) to elicit additional information on the recordkeeping 
needed to document compliance with the proposed paragraph. The 
commenters (Exs. 7:8, 7:19 and 7:39) generally supported some sort of 
certification for completion of training.
    Based on the rulemaking record and the considerations raised above 
in regard to Reopening Issue 1, OSHA determined that employers could 
adequately verify compliance with proposed Sec. 1910.132(f) through a 
written certification. Accordingly, the Agency revised proposed 
paragraph (f) to add paragraph (f)(4), which requires a certification 
record that identifies each employee trained, the date(s) of training, 
and which identifies the document as a certification of training in the 
use of PPE.
    OSHA believes that verification through written certification would 
also be appropriate with regard to training to be provided under 
proposed Sec. 1915.152(e). Therefore, OSHA solicits comments, with 
supporting information, as to the need for certification of employee 
training and the anticipated impact of such a requirement on the 
shipyard industry.
    3. Training elements. As mentioned above, proposed Sec. 1915.152(e) 
required that employees be trained in the proper use of their PPE, and 
proposed Sec. 1910.132(f) set forth an identical requirement. Based on 
comments and testimony received in relation to proposed 
Sec. 1910.132(f) (Exs. 3:36, 3:41, 3:50, 3:60, 3:73, 3:86, 3:88, 3:116, 
3:128; 7:3, 7:8, 7:11, 7:20, 7:29, 7:38; Tr. 23:24; 4/3, Tr. 272-286; 
4/4) which expressed concern that the proposed language did not provide 
enough detailed guidance regarding what constituted adequate training, 
OSHA determined that more specific guidance should be provided by the 
final requirement. Accordingly, the Agency determined that more 
specific guidance was appropriate and revised proposed Sec. 1910.132(f) 
to require, at a minimum, training in the following areas:

     When PPE is necessary
     What PPE is necessary
     How to properly don, doff, adjust, and wear PPE
     The limitations of the PPE; and
     That proper care, maintenance, useful life and disposal of 
the PPE.

    In addition, many of the above comments and testimony suggested 
that in order to have a successful training program, employers should 
set measurable training objectives and have their employees demonstrate 
that they have reached those objectives. Also, it was suggested that 
retraining be provided, when the employer determined that employees may 
not possess sufficient knowledge about the PPE. Accordingly, the 
following provisions were added to Sec. 1910.132(f) in the final rule:
    (2) Each affected employee shall demonstrate an understanding of 
the training specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section, and the 
ability to use PPE properly, before being allowed to perform work 
requiring the use of PPE.
    (3) When the employer has reason to believe that any affected 
employee who has already been trained does not have the understanding 
and skill required by paragraph (f)(2) of this section, the employer 
shall retrain each such employee. Circumstances where retraining is 
required include, but are not limited to, situations were:
    (i) Changes in the workplace 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.
    OSHA believes that these more specific training requirements would 
also be appropriate with regard to training provided under 
Sec. 1915.152(e). Therefore, OSHA solicits comments, with supporting 
information, as to the need for such requirements and the anticipated 
impact of those requirements on the shipyard industry.
    4. Body belts and harnesses in fall arrest systems. Proposed 
Sec. 1910.129(b) provided the system performance criteria for personal 
fall arrest systems. In particular, the proposed paragraph limited 
maximum arresting force on an employee to 900 pounds (4 kN) when using 
a body belt and 1,800 pounds (8 kN) when using a body harness. The 
corresponding provision for shipyard employment, proposed 
Sec. 1915.159(a)(4)(iii), limited maximum arresting force for either 
belts or harnesses to the lesser of 10 times the employee's weight, or 
1,800 pounds (8 kN). The more protective criteria in proposed 
Sec. 1910.129(b) are based on information obtained after the Shipyard 
PPE proposal was issued (53 FR 48150, Nov. 29, 1988). This information 
is discussed in the General Industry PPE proposal (55 FR 13423, April 
10, 1990).
    Comments and testimony received on proposed Sec. 1910.129(b) (Exs. 
3:22, 3:31; Tr. 240-241 and 1374) indicate that the Agency needs to 
reconsider allowing the use of body belts in fall arrest systems. OSHA 
solicits comments, with supporting information regarding whether or not 
body belts should be permitted for use in fall arrest systems, and the 
anticipated impact on the shipyard industry of any requirement which 
might limit or prohibit their use.
    5. Locking and non-locking snap hooks. Proposed Sec. 1915.159 
(a)(15), (a)(16), and (a)(17) prohibited certain snap hook connections 
(such as, connecting snap hooks to each other) where snap hooks have 
been known to accidentally disengage, allowing an employee to fall. 
Proposed Sec. 1910.129(c)(1) required that snap hooks, unless of the 
locking type, and designed for certain connections (such as to each 
other, to horizontal lifelines, or to incompatibly shaped objects), not 
be used for these connections.
    Comments and testimony received on the general industry provisions 
(Exs. 3:9, 3:12, 3:19; Tr. 210) has led the Agency to consider a 
prohibition on the use of non-locking snap hooks in personal fall 
protection systems.
    OSHA solicits comments, with supporting information, regarding 
whether or not non-locking snap hooks should be permitted for use in 
personal fall protection systems or in positioning device systems, and 
the anticipated impact on the shipyard industry of any requirement 
which might further limit or prohibit their use.

III. Public Participation

    Written comments regarding the materials incorporated into the 
shipyard PPE record through this notice must be postmarked by August 
22, 1994.
    Four copies of these comments must be submitted to the Docket 
Office, Docket S-045A, U.S. Department of Labor, room N-2634, 200 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. (202) 219-7894. All 
materials submitted will be available for inspection and copying at the 
above address. Materials previously submitted to the Docket for this 
rulemaking need not be resubmitted.

IV. Authority

    This document was 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, DC 
20210.
    It is issued under section 6(b) of the Occupational Safety and 
Health Act (29 U.S.C. 655), section 41 of the LHWCA (33 U.S.C. 941) and 
29 CFR part 1911.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of June 1994.
Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. 94-16240 Filed 7-5-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-M