[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 13, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-30518]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: December 13, 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; Request for public participation in public 
meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 
announces an informal public meeting to provide an opportunity for oral 
and written presentations regarding specific issues raised through the 
reopening of the Shipyard Employment Personal Protection Equipment 
(PPE) rulemaking record (59 FR 34586, July 6, 1994) and the 
incorporation of the general industry PPE rulemaking docket (S-060).

DATES: Notices of intention to appear at the public meeting must be 
postmarked by January 11, 1995. The public meeting will be held on 
January 25, 1995 in Washington, D.C.
    Any written information or comments must be received by OSHA no 
later than January 25, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit all notices of intention to appear and written 
comments to Ms. Audrey K. Best, Directorate of Safety Standards 
Programs, Room N-3609, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety 
and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20210. Telephone (202) 219-7225; FAX (202) 219-7477. Please submit four 
copies of all written information.
    Persons with disabilities, who need special accommodations, should 
contact Ms. Audrey Best, by January 11, 1995 at the address above.
    The public meeting will be held in the Frances Perkins Building, 
U.S. Department of Labor, Conference Room N3437(A and B), 200 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of Information and Consumer 
Affairs, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department 
of Labor, room N-3647, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20210. Telephone (202) 219-8148.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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). This 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. The written comment 
period ended on February 27, 1989. The Agency received 10 comments on 
the proposed rule, and one hearing request, which was withdrawn.
    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).
    On April 10, 1990, the Agency proposed to add criteria for personal 
fall arrest equipment (Sec. 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).
    The two general industry rulemakings generated extensive rulemaking 
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 general industry PPE proceeding. Based 
on the rulemaking record, (59 FR 16334, Docket S-050), OSHA made some 
changes to the proposed rule in drafting the final rule. In particular, 
OSHA revised the proposed training requirements to provide clear 
requirements for what is adequate training and what circumstances 
trigger retraining. In addition, the final rule added requirements for 
certification that the required hazard assessment (Sec. 1910.132(d)(2)) 
and training (Secs. 1910.132(f)(4)) had been performed.
    Also, based on the general industry rulemaking record (Docket S-
057), the Agency is considering whether it should revise the proposed 
rule for general industry fall protection PPE to further limit or to 
prohibit the use of body belts and non-locking snap hooks in personal 
fall arrest systems. In a related rulemaking for fall protection in the 
construction industry, OSHA recently issued a final rule (59 FR 40672, 
August 9, 1994) which prohibits the use of body belts and nonlocking 
snap hooks in personal fall arrest systems after December 31, 1997.
    The Agency believes that the substance of the OSHA standards for 
general industry (part 1910), shipyard (part 1915) and construction 
employment (part 1926) should be consistent where possible. OSHA 
believes that PPE used in shipyard employment does not differ markedly 
from PPE used in general industry, and that the standards covering PPE 
use should not differ markedly either.
    While the Agency recognizes that work activities in shipyard 
employment often differ from those in other industries, the Agency 
believes that much of the information generated in the general industry 
rulemakings will help the Agency draft the final rule for shipyard PPE. 
To this end, OSHA formally incorporated the general industry PPE 
rulemaking records (Dockets S-057 and S-060) into the record for the 
shipyard employment PPE rulemaking (59 FR 34586, July 6, 1994).
    In that same notice, OSHA reopened the written comment period for 
the shipyard employment PPE rulemaking to provide the public with an 
opportunity to comment on the newly incorporated general industry 
materials and on five specific issues (certification of hazard 
assessment; certification of training; training elements; body belts 
and body harnesses; and locking and non-locking snaphooks). The comment 
period, which ended August 22, 1994, elicited 13 comments, including 
one hearing request. These comments generally opposed any revision to 
proposed 1915 subpart I based on the 1910 subpart I records.
    Based on these submissions, OSHA is convening a public meeting to 
seek additional input regarding all issues raised therein with emphasis 
on the issues set out below. OSHA solicits further input regarding how 
the incorporation of the provisions discussed in the July 6, 1994 
notice of reopening would impact the shipyard industry. The Agency also 
requests that interested parties provide input regarding any experience 
they have had with the implementation of such provisions.

Issues

Issue 1--Certification of Hazard Assessment

    Proposed part 1915 subpart I would require that employers select 
PPE for their employees based on an assessment of the pertinent 
workplace hazards (proposed Sec. 1915.152(b)). For example, shipyard 
maintenance workers, in general, are required to wear hard hats, safety 
glasses and safety shoes. Maintenance workers who are exposed to 
airborne concentrations of asbestos that exceed the PELs, are also 
required to wear full-body clothing, gloves and foot coverings.
    The proposed provision did not specifically address documentation 
of the hazard assessment. The revised PPE standard for general industry 
requires that affected employers verify that they have assessed 
workplace hazards through a written certification. As discussed in the 
July 6, 1994 notice, the Agency has been considering whether it would 
be appropriate to require written certification of hazard assessments 
in shipyards, as well.
    One commentor (Ex. 9-2) said that such a certification provision 
required the approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 
pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act and the implementing 
regulations. Other comments (Exs. 9-3, 9-7, 9-8 and 9-10) stated that 
OSHA should take a performance-oriented approach to documentation of 
hazard assessments, instead of adopting the general industry written 
certification requirement. In particular, a commentor (Ex. 9-7) stated 
``certification of hazard assessment requirements should be based on 
employees' duties that tend to be constant rather than on the shipyard 
work place that is neither fixed, nor constant, nor readily 
quantifiable like work places in all other industries.''
    In addition, one commentor (Ex. 9-11) stated that hazard 
certification is unnecessary, because that company has ``a good hazard 
assessment program that addresses PPE. A properly trained Compliance 
Officer can make a fair determination concerning PPE.''
    Those commentors indicated that requiring hazard assessments for 
each job, if followed literally, would create considerable costs for 
shipyard employers, without increasing employee safety. Those 
commentors also stated that requiring employers to certify their hazard 
assessment activities would increase shipyard operational costs and 
paperwork burdens, with no safety benefit.
    Based on those comments, OSHA requests input regarding the 
appropriateness of a documentation requirement; the manner in which 
shipyards currently document their hazard assessments; and suggested 
language for a verification requirement that would address concerns 
specific to shipyard employment. In particular, the Agency solicits 
information regarding hazard assessment programs currently in use in 
shipyards and experience concerning the effectiveness of such programs.
    In addition, the Agency is considering the extent to which current 
hazard assessments performed by trade or occupation provide the 
necessary information for selection of appropriate PPE. The following 
are examples of typical trade-based hazard assessment formats that OSHA 
may consider to be acceptable:
Example 1: Welder
    Based on an assessment of the workplace 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 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 exposure where the 
insulation on a pipe is being repaired, the maintenance worker must be 
provided with the appropriate supplemental PPE (requirements for 
asbestos PPE are set out in Sec. 1915.1001).

--Hard Hat
--Safety Glasses
--Work Gloves
--Safety Shoes

(Signed and dated)

Issue 2--Certification of Training and Training Elements

    Proposed Sec. 1915.152(d) required that employees be trained in the 
proper use of their personal protective equipment. The proposal did not 
address certification of training nor did it address specific training 
elements. The revised PPE standard for general industry requires 
employees to be trained and retrained, as necessary, in at least the 
following:

When PPE is necessary;
What PPE is necessary;
How to properly don, doff, adjust, and wear PPE;
The limitations of the PPE; and,
Useful life and disposal of the PPE

    This training may be provided in a variety of ways, such as through 
tool box training or at safety meetings. Once this training has been 
completed, Sec. 1910.132(f)(4) requires employers to verify through a 
written certification that each affected employee has received and 
understood the required training. This certification requirement may be 
satisfied through a training log or other document that the employer 
has already been using to keep track of its training activities. For 
compliance purposes, a record which provides the names of the employees 
who have successfully completed the training, the date of the training, 
the type of certification (that is, completion of PPE training), and 
the signature of a supervisor or trainer would be sufficient. OSHA 
solicits additional information concerning whether it is appropriate to 
clarify the requirements of proposed Sec. 1915.152(d) by incorporating 
the above-noted training elements and whether the Agency should add a 
new requirement for written certification of training.
    In response to the notice of reopening, OSHA received comments 
(Exs. 9-6, 9-8 and 9-9) which stated that training can be satisfied 
during new employee orientation. Another commentor (Ex. 9-7) supported 
OSHA's intent for general requirements for training. The commentor also 
believed that ``documentation of all training should be in the form of 
training logs, which would be the equivalent of ``written 
certification'' to avoid the non-value added redundance of record 
keeping.'' In addition, a commentor (Ex. 9-9) stated that most 
shipyards are already complying with the OSHA PPE training standard 
under consideration. Most of the shipyards that responded to the notice 
of reopening stated that they already have a written certification 
program and a new hire training program in effect. One commentor (Ex. 
9-11) stated that requiring employers to certify their training 
activities would increase shipyard operational costs and paperwork 
burdens, with no safety benefit.

Issue 3--Body Belts and Body Harnesses

    Proposed part 1915 subpart I would allow the use of personal fall 
arrest systems with either body belts or body harnesses, but would 
limit the impact load allowed for body belts to one-half of that 
allowed for body harnesses (900 pounds as opposed to 1800 pounds). The 
July 6, 1994 notice stated that OSHA was considering whether the part 
1915 subpart I final rule should bar the use of body belts for fall 
protection. Some commentors (Exs. 9-1, 9-3, 9-7 and 9-8) suggested that 
there is no basis for barring the use of body belts for fall arrest and 
that the load limits set in the proposed rule were appropriate. In 
particular, the South Tidewater Association of Ship Repairers and 
Newport News Shipbuilding (Exs. 9-3 and 9-11) stated that requiring 
employers to dispose of body belts and to purchase body harnesses would 
impose unreasonable financial burdens. Those commentors also stated 
that a review of their records showed no injuries that would have been 
prevented by having employees wear body harnesses instead of body 
belts; that belts had greater ease of use; and that the cost of 
harnesses was approximately double that of body belts. On the other 
hand, Tampa Shipyard (Ex. 9-8), Atlantic Marine (Ex. 9-9), and General 
Dynamics (Ex. 9-10) stated that they already employ body harnesses in 
their personal fall arrest systems. Tampa Shipyards and Atlantic Marine 
stated that the use of body harnesses was cost effective, even though 
harnesses could cost twice as much as body belts, because the 
additional safety factor provided by harnesses was worth the 
investment. In addition, General Dynamics (Ex. 9-10) stated that its 
systems already comply with the general industry criteria.
    Subsequently, OSHA promulgated a revised fall protection standard 
for construction, part 1926 subpart M (59 FR 40672, August 9, 1994), 
which prohibits the use of body belts in personal fall arrest systems 
after December 31, 1997. After that time, construction employees may 
use body belts only with positioning device systems. The Agency has 
found, as follows:


    The evidence in the record clearly demonstrates that employees 
who fall while wearing a body belt are not afforded the level of 
protection they would be if the fall occurred while the employee was 
wearing a full body harness. In addition, [a commentor] presented 
evidence of injuries resulting from the use of body belts. The best 
available evidence the Agency has at this time indicates that the 
Agency should ban the use of body belts after a reasonable period. 
This will allow employers to phase out their existing inventory.


    OSHA seeks 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. Please provide information on the 
useful life of body belts currently in use or on the market, the impact 
loads imposed on employees who fall while wearing such body belts, the 
cost of the body belts and body harnesses that are currently available, 
along with other data which would help OSHA address this issue.

Public Participation

Public Meeting

    OSHA has scheduled a public meeting in the Frances Perkins 
Building, U.S. Department of Labor, Conference Room N-3437 (A and B), 
200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, on January 25, 1995 to 
provide an informal forum in which interested persons can present oral 
and written comments and information regarding issues raised in the 
July 6, 1994 notice of reopening.
    The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. The presiding officer, who will be 
a representative of OSHA's Directorate of Safety Standards Programs, 
will have the necessary authority to regulate the conduct of the 
meeting.
    OSHA requests that any person wishing to make oral presentations 
notify OSHA in advance. The notice should identify the person and 
organization, the amount of time needed for oral presentation, the 
subject matter, and a brief summary of the intended oral presentation. 
All persons giving written advance notice will have time reserved for 
their oral presentations.
    Persons who wish to make oral presentations, but who have not 
notified OSHA of their intention to appear, may ask for an opportunity 
to speak at the time of the meeting. While the Agency will attempt to 
accommodate ``walk-on'' participants, priority will be given to those 
who submitted timely notices of intention to appear.
    All persons desiring to participate in the public meeting must file 
a notice of intention to appear postmarked by January 11, 1995, 
addressed to Ms. Audrey K. Best, Directorate of Safety Standards 
Programs, Room N3609, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20210.
    All written submissions must be received by OSHA no later than the 
date of the public meeting, January 25, 1995. A subsequent period for 
the submission of additional written materials may be set at the public 
meeting, at the discretion of the presiding officer. The materials 
submitted will be available for inspection and copying at the above 
address. All written and oral submissions, and other information 
gathered by the Agency, will be considered in any action taken.

Authority and Signature

    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 of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655), section 41 of the Longshore and 
Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941), Secretary of Labor's 
Order No. 1-90 (55 FR 9033), and 29 CFR part 1911.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 7th day of December 1994.
Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. 94-30518 Filed 12-12-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P