federal register...1996/05/24 · federal register 26321 friday may 24, 1996 part iii department of...

fede

ral r

egiste

r

26321

FridayMay 24, 1996

Part III

Department of LaborOccupational Safety and HealthAdministration

29 CFR Part 1915Personal Protective Equipment forShipyard Employment; Final Rule

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration

29 CFR Part 1915

[Docket No. S–045]

RIN 1218–AA74 (AB06)

Personal Protective Equipment forShipyard Employment (PPE)

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, Department of Labor.ACTION: Final Rule.

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety andHealth Administration (OSHA) isrevising its standards for PersonalProtective Equipment (PPE) forShipyard Employment, 29 CFR part1915, subpart I. The final rule updates,reorganizes, and simplifies shipyardemployment PPE standards into acomprehensive framework thatencompasses the shipbuilding, shiprepair, and shipbreaking industries.Where appropriate, the final rule deletesexisting specification-orientedprovisions that limit employerinnovation and incorporatesperformance-oriented language.EFFECTIVE DATES: The final rule becomeseffective August 22, 1996 except for§§ 1915.152(b), 1915.152(e),1915.159(d), 1915.160(d), will notbecome effective until an Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) Controlnumber is received and displayed forthese ‘‘collections of information’’ inaccordance with the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.). The incorporations by referenceof certain publications listed in thisfinal rule is approved by the Director ofthe Federal Register as of August 22,1996.

Other Dates: Written comments on thepaperwork requirements of this finalrule must be submitted on or before July23, 1996.ADDRESSES: In compliance with 28U.S.C. 2112(a), the Agency designatesthe Associate Solicitor for OccupationalSafety and Health, Office of theSolicitor, Room S–4004, U.S.Department of Labor, 200 ConstitutionAvenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210for receipt of petitions for review of thestandard.

Comments on the paperworkrequirements of this final rule are to besubmitted to the Docket Office, DocketNo. S–045, U.S. Department of Labor,Room N–2625, 200 Constitution Ave.,NW., Washington, DC 202l0, telephone(202) 219–7894. Written commentslimited 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 ofInformation, Division of ConsumerAffairs, Room N–3647, U.S. Departmentof Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue,N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210;Telephone (202) 219–8151.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of ContentsI. BackgroundII. Workplace HazardsIII. Summary and Explanation of Final RuleIV. Summary of Final Economic Analysis,

Regulatory Flexibility Certification, andEnvironmental Impact Assessment

V. Paperwork BurdenVI. Statutory ConsiderationsVII. FederalismVIII. State PlansIX. Authority

I. Background

In May 1971, the Occupational Safetyand Health Administration (OSHA),under authority granted by section 6(a)of the Occupational Safety and HealthAct of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655), adoptedFederal standards issued under section41 of the Longshore and HarborWorkers’ Compensation Act (33 U.S.C.941), as standards applicable to shiprepairing (29 CFR part 1915),shipbuilding (29 CFR part 1916), andshipbreaking (29 CFR part 1917)operations. OSHA also adopted otherFederal standards and nationalconsensus standards as general industrystandards (29 CFR part 1910) andconstruction industry standards (29 CFRpart 1926), which apply to shipyardhazards and working conditions notspecifically covered by standards inparts 1915, 1916, or 1917.

On April 20, 1982 (47 FR 16984), theship repairing, shipbuilding, andshipbreaking standards wereconsolidated into 29 CFR part 1915‘‘Occupational Safety and HealthStandards for Shipyard Employment.’’The purpose of the consolidation was toeliminate duplicative provisions. Theconsolidation did not alter substantiverequirements of these standards, nor didit affect the applicability of the generalindustry and construction standards in29 CFR parts 1910 and 1926,respectively, to hazards or conditions inshipyard employment not addressed inthe consolidated part 1915.

Later in 1982, the ShipbuildersCouncil of America (SCA) and theAmerican Waterways ShipyardConference (AWSC) requested thatOSHA identify the specific provisions ofthe general industry standards thatapply to shipyards and then consolidate

them into the existing part 1915provisions, making one set of shipyardemployment standards. OSHA agreedthat such consolidation wasappropriate, and decided to begin workon a subpart-by-subpart basis.

As part of that effort, OSHA publisheda Notice of Proposed Rulemaking(NPRM) in the Federal Register forsubpart I of part 1915 (PersonalProtective Equipment (PPE), November29, 1988, 53 FR 48092). In particular,the proposed rule updated the pertinentreferences to national consensusstandards, incorporated § 1910.134(respiratory protection) by reference toreplace the less comprehensiveprovisions in § 1915.152, and addedrequirements for hazard assessment,training, fall protection systems, andpositioning device systems. OSHAreceived 10 comments in response tothe NPRM. Those comments arediscussed in the Summary andExplanation section of this document,below.

A short time after the November 1988publication of the proposed rule on PPE,the Shipyard Employment StandardsAdvisory Committee (SESAC) wasestablished. SESAC was chartered toprovide OSHA with guidance inrevising, consolidating, andmodernizing the varying sets ofregulations that were being applied inthe shipyard industry to produce a trulyvertical standard for all shipyardemployment. The intended result of thisactivity was the development of a singleset of occupational safety and healthstandards for shipyard employment thatwould cover vessels, vessel sections andrelated activities. The newly developedshipyard employment standards wouldapply to all shipyard employment.SESAC provided OSHA with commentson PPE-related issues, and theircomments are discussed in theSummary and Explanation below.

Following publication of the proposed1915 shipyard PPE standard, OSHAinitiated two rulemakings to addressGeneral Industry Personal ProtectiveEquipment (PPE) standards. The first ofthese PPE rulemakings (NPRM at 54 FR33832, August 16, 1989) covered all PPE(such as eye, face, hand, and foot) otherthan respiratory protection, electricalprotective equipment, personalprotective systems, and positioningdevice systems. The Agency publishedthe final rule for this rulemaking onApril 6, 1994 (59 FR 16334). TheAgency also initiated a second generalindustry rulemaking to addrequirements for personal fall arrestsystems and positioning systems to thegeneral industry PPE standards (DocketS–057; NPRM at 55 FR 12323, April 10,

26323Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

1990). This rulemaking had not yet beenconcluded.

The Agency determined that theinformation in the above-notedrulemaking records was relevant to theissues raised in the Shipyard PPEproposal. Accordingly, on July 6, 1994,OSHA reopened the Shipyard PPErulemaking record (59 FR 34586) toincorporate the General Industry PPEdockets and to allow the public anopportunity to comment. The Agencyindicated that it was considering moredetailed guidance regarding: Adequatetraining requirements; verification of theproposed hazard assessment andtraining requirements through writtencertification; and prohibition of the useof body belts and non-lockingsnaphooks. OSHA subsequently revisedits requirements for fall protection inconstruction (final rule at 59 FR 40672,August 9, 1994). The final rule,containing requirements for personalfall protection equipment similar tothose in the shipyard PPE proposal,prohibited the use of body belts inpersonal fall arrest systems (PFAS)(§ 1926.502(d) introductory text) and theuse of non-locking snaphooks in PFAS(§ 1926.502(d)(5)) and in positioningsystems (§ 1926.502(e)(7)). Thoseprohibitions take effect on January 1,1998.

The shipyard PPE reopening commentperiod ended August 22, 1994. OSHAreceived 13 comments, including onehearing request. Those comments arediscussed in the Summary andExplanation section below.

In lieu of a hearing, OSHA agreed tohold an informal public meeting (59 FR64173, December 13, 1994) to allowcomments and testimony on the issuesraised in the reopening. At the publicmeeting on January 25, 1995, there werefive oral presentations and five writtensubmissions, which are discussed in theSummary and Explanation section. Therulemaking record closed on February28, 1995.

II. Workplace HazardsOSHA has determined that employees

in shipyards are exposed to a significantrisk of injury from hazards that can bemitigated by the use of suitable personalprotective equipment. OSHA has alsoconcluded that compliance with thefinal standard will substantially reduceemployee exposure to PPE-relatedhazards.

The shipyard industry has had one ofthe highest rates of injuries of anyindustry for many years. In 1992, theshipyard industry, SIC 3731, had aninjury rate of 34.2 per 100 full-timeemployees (‘‘Occupational Injuries and

Illnesses: Counts, Rates, andCharacteristics, 1992,’’ published by theBureau of Labor Statistics in April,1995). Approximately half of theseinjuries were severe enough to result inlost time from work. These numbersmean that a shipyard employee hasabout a 1 in 3 chance (34 percent) ofexperiencing an injury at work annuallyand a 1 in 10 chance every year of beinginjured seriously enough to require timeaway from work to recuperate.

In comparison, the average annualrisk of injury for all employees in theUnited States was about 9 per 100 full-time employees in 1992; for themanufacturing sector of the economy,the annual injury rate was about 11 per100 full-time employees.

Table 1 presents estimates of lost-workday injuries by body part based on1992 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)data. These estimates are consistentwith injury data from a Department ofTransportation Maritime Administrationsurvey and the Agency’s analysis ofOSHA 200 Forms (discussed further inthe Benefits section of the summary ofthe Economic Analysis, presented laterin this Preamble). Table 2 presents BLSlost workday injury data by nature ofinjury.

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

Body part Number of 1992 in-juries (a)

Number of extrapo-lated 1994 injuries

(b)Percent (%)

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


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

Body part Number of 1992 in-juries (a)


(b)Percent (%)

Multiple body parts ............................................................................................... 674 577 5.8Circulatory system ................................................................................................ 0 0 0.0Digestive system .................................................................................................. 0 0 0.0Excretory system .................................................................................................. 0 0 0.0Nervous system .................................................................................................... 0 0 0.0Respiratory system ............................................................................................... 0 0 0.0Body parts, NEC .................................................................................................. 163 140 1.4Not identified by body part ................................................................................... 720 617 6.2

Total .............................................................................................................. 11,533 9,876 100.0

(a) Bureau of Labor Statistics. Survey of Occupational injuries and illnesses, 1(b) Extrapolation based on decline in shipyard employment of 14.4 percent bet 1992 and 1994.

TABLE 2.—BLS ESTIMATES OF SHIPYARD INJURIES INVOLVING LOST WORKDAYS, BY NATURE OF INJURY

Nature of injury Number of 1992 in-juries (a)


(b)Percent (%)

Amputation ........................................................................................................... 0 0 0.0Burn (heat) ........................................................................................................... 410 351 3.6Burn (chemical) .................................................................................................... 80 69 0.7Concussion ........................................................................................................... 0 0 0.0Infective/parasitic disease .................................................................................... NA NA NAContusion/bruise ................................................................................................... 2,085 1,785 18.1Cut/laceration/puncture ........................................................................................ 622 533 5.4Dermatitis ............................................................................................................. 0 0 0.0Dislocation, unspecified ........................................................................................ 88 75 0.8Electric shock ....................................................................................................... 0 0 0.0Fracture ................................................................................................................ 558 478 4.8Low temperature exposure .................................................................................. NA NA NAHearing loss or impairment .................................................................................. 0 0 0.0Inflammation of joints ........................................................................................... 114 98 1.0Poisoning .............................................................................................................. 114 98 1.0Radiation effects ................................................................................................... 213 182 1.8Scratches/abrasions ............................................................................................. 728 623 6.3Sprains/strains, unspecified ................................................................................. 5,044 4,319 43.7Torn ligaments ...................................................................................................... NA NA NASprains/strains, NEC ............................................................................................ NA NA NAMultiple injuries ..................................................................................................... 308 264 2.7Circulatory system condition ................................................................................ 0 0 0.0Eye diseases ........................................................................................................ 0 0 0.0Nervous system condition .................................................................................... 255 218 2.2Respiratory system condition ............................................................................... 0 0 0.0Ill-defined condition .............................................................................................. 0 0 0.0Other injury, NEC ................................................................................................. 216 185 1.9Not 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 typicallyinvolves fabrication and repair of largesteel plates, beams, and pipes as well aspainting and coating operations andother outfitting activities such aselectrical work, ventilation and sheetmetal work, and work on propulsionsystems. Welding is a commonproduction technology, requiringgrinding and chipping of welds andaccounting for many eye injuries.Employees also frequently work inawkward positions, out-of-doorsthroughout the year, on scaffolds, and in

enclosed or confined spaces. Theshipyard industry’s relatively highemployment turnover rate contributes tothe high rates of injuries, because newlyhired workers tend to be less welltrained and have a higher frequency ofaccidents.

The Agency has concluded that PPE-related hazards pose a significant risk ofserious injury to shipyard employees,and that compliance with the PPEstandard is needed to substantiallyreduce that risk. The Agency hasestimated that compliance with the final

PPE regulation will significantly reducethe likelihood of an injury—from 34.2 to21 per 100 full-time employees per year.

For a full discussion of the benefits ofthe final standard see the summary ofthe Economic Analysis presented belowin this preamble or the full EconomicAnalysis, which is in the docket.

III. Summary and Explanation of FinalRule

In this section of the preamble, OSHAexplains how the final rule relates to theproposed and existing standards, and


how the comments and testimonypresented on each provision influencedthe drafting of the final rule. Thissection also addresses issues raised inthe July 6, 1994, reopening notice andthe December 13, 1994, public meetingnotice. Except where otherwiseindicated, proposed provisions that didnot elicit comments are beingpromulgated as proposed, for reasonsstated in the preamble to the proposedrule (53 FR 48151–48158).

As discussed above, on April 6, 1994,OSHA issued a final rule for itsrulemaking on PPE used in generalindustry (59 FR 16334) (part 1910,subpart I, Docket S–060). Thatdocument updated the regulation of PPEfor eye and face (§ 1910.133), head(§ 1910.135) and foot protection(§ 1910.136), and added provisions forhazard assessment, PPE selection,disposal and training (§ 1910.132 (d)–(f)), and hand protection (§ 1910.138).The proposed rule (54 FR 33832, August16, 1989) was consistent with thecorresponding proposed rule forshipyard PPE. However, based on therulemaking record, OSHA revised thegeneral industry proposal to addresstraining and the documentation ofcompliance with the hazard assessmentand training requirements in moredetail. Given the similarity of the PPEused in general industry and shipyardemployment, OSHA determined that theinformation generated in this generalindustry rulemaking was relevant to thedrafting of the shipyard PPE standards,as well.

Also, proposed part 1910 subpart I,PPE (Fall Protection Systems) (55 FR13423, April 10, 1990) set criteria for theproper selection, use and maintenanceof personal fall arrest systems(§§ 1910.128, 1910.129, and 1910.131)and positioning device systems(§§ 1910.128 and 1910.130) in generalindustry. The part 1910 subpart Iproposal relied heavily on the approachtaken by the Agency in its final rule onPowered Platforms for Exterior BuildingMaintenance, § 1910.66 (54 FR 31456,July 28, 1989, Docket S–700A). In thePreamble to the 1910 subpart I proposal,OSHA determined that the requirementsfor personal fall arrest systems used byemployees on powered platformsshould be the same as those for personalfall arrest systems used by employees inother occupations (55 FR at 13430).

Based on the record developed for thegeneral industry fall protection PPErulemaking (Docket S–057), OSHAdecided that it was appropriate toconsider prohibiting the use of non-locking snaphooks in personal fall arrestand positioning device systems and toconsider prohibiting the use of body

belts in personal fall arrest systems.Recently, the Agency included suchprohibitions in the final rule for fallprotection in construction (59 FR 40672,August 9, 1994). As stated above, theAgency has determined that OSHA’s fallprotection PPE standards should beconsistent with each other.

Therefore, based on its policy ofpromoting consistent regulation of PPEacross industry lines, the Agencyconcluded that the informationgenerated on PPE in general industrywas relevant to the use of that PPE inshipyards, as well.

Accordingly, OSHA incorporatedDockets S–057 and S–060 into theshipyard PPE rulemaking record andreopened the comment period for part1915 subpart I to provide anopportunity for public comment on thenewly incorporated materials (59 FR34586, July 6, 1994). The Agencyprovided additional opportunity forpublic input on these materials (59 FR64173, December 13, 1995) at aninformal public meeting on January 25,1995.

In addition, OSHA has added certainpersonal fall arrest criteria, § 1910.159(a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(7), (c)(2), (c)(3) and (c)(7) to the final rule, because the need forsuch requirements has been establishedthrough the corresponding GeneralIndustry and Construction rulemakingproceedings. These requirements arediscussed further, below.

OSHA has concluded that the PPEneeded in shipyard employment doesnot differ markedly from that needed ingeneral industry or in construction, andthat the standards covering PPE shouldnot differ markedly either. The final rulereflects this determination andincorporates OSHA’s review of theexisting rulemaking record, includingthe materials incorporated from otherPPE-related dockets.

Section 1915.151 Scope, Application,and Definitions Applicable to ThisSubpart

Final rule paragraph (a) sets forth thescope and application of Subpart I. Thissubpart applies to all work in shipyardemployment, regardless of geographiclocation. This language is consistentwith that in recently published part1915 subpart B [§ 1915.11(a)][59 FR37816, July 25, 1994].

Proposed paragraph (a)(1) stated thatthis subpart would cover PPE providedfor and used by shipyard workplacesand operations (including shipbuilding,ship repairing, and shipbreaking), butwould not apply to constructionoperations in shipyards covered by part1926.

Newport News Shipbuilding (NNS)stated [Ex. 6–2] that the term‘‘provided’’ should be changed to ‘‘madeavailable’’ because the suggestedlanguage was consistent with that inexisting § 1915.153 and with currentindustry practice. However, the Agencyhas deleted the proposed language,‘‘personal protective equipment to beprovided for and used by employees’’because it believes that requirements forthe provision and use of PPE are moreappropriately addressed in § 1915.152,General Requirements.

The Shipbuilding Council of America(SCA) (Ex. 6–1) and NNS (Ex. 6–2)stated that part 1926 (OSHA’sconstruction industry standards) shouldnot apply to employees of shipyardswho perform construction work sinceone of the objectives of the rulemakingwas to bring uniformity to theworkplace by providing employees andemployers with one set of safetystandards to govern their work. SCAsuggested that part 1926 apply only toconstruction work performed inshipyards by outside contractors (non-shipyard employees). OSHA believes,however, that it is inappropriate todistinguish between shipyardemployees and contractor employeeswhen setting requirements for workerprotection. Therefore, OSHA is notmaking the suggested change.

The Agency has consistentlymaintained that construction activities,such as the erection of buildingstructures, are covered by theconstruction standards (29 CFR part1926) and are not subject to therequirements of the shipyard standards(29 CFR part 1915). Furthermore,§ 1926.30, Shipbuilding and shiprepairs, explicitly provides thatshipyard employment is coveredexclusively by the shipyard standards.Accordingly, the proposed paragraph(a)(1) language regarding the applicationfor part 1926 in unnecessary and hasbeen deleted.

Proposed paragraph (a)(2) providedthat subpart I of part 1910—except§ 1910.134, Respiratory protection—would not apply to shipyardemployment. Since OSHA has chosen toview respirators as a separate, fullrulemaking [59 FR 58884 November 15,1994] which will apply to shipyardemployment as well as general industry,the final shipyard PPE standard willcontinue to reference existing§ 1910.134 for respiratory PPE until theshipyard respirator rulemaking iscomplete. In all other respects, subpartI of part 1915 will be a self-contained setof PPE standards for shipyardemployment. It will not be


supplemented through reference to theGeneral Industry standards.

Paragraph (b), DefinitionsParagraph (b) defines the terms used

in this standard.The proposed definitions paragraph

did not include a number of terms anddefinitions that OSHA has used, orproposed to use, in other standards thataddress fall protection PPE [e.g.,Powered Platforms for BuildingMaintenance 29 CFR 1910.66 (July 28,1989 54 FR 31408); Fall Protection inConstruction part 1926, subpart M (51FR 42718, Aug. 9, 1994); and GeneralIndustry PPE-Fall Protection, proposed1910.128(b), subpart I (55 FR 13423April 10, 1990)].

The new terms and definitionsincluded in paragraph (b) are:anchorage, connector, decelerationdistance, equivalent, free fall, free-falldistance, lanyard, lifeline, lower levels,rope grab, and self-retracting lifeline/lanyard. Newly defined terms, revisedterms, and proposed terms that elicitedcomments are discussed below. OSHAhas determined that the inclusion ofthese definitions is appropriate for thepurpose of clarity and to provideguidance consistent with that set incorresponding standards. In addition, asdiscussed further below, OSHA isadding a definition for the term‘‘qualified person.’’

The proposed term ‘‘capable person’’will be replaced by the more familiarterm ‘‘qualified person’’ in the finalrule. SESAC also recommended using‘‘qualified person’’ in the regulatory text(Tr. p. 84–85, SESAC meeting,November 20, 1991).

‘‘Deceleration device.’’ This termdescribes equipment such as a ropegrab, ripstitch lanyard, specially wovenlanyard, tearing or deforming lanyard,and automatic self-retracting lifeline/lanyard, that serves to dissipate asubstantial amount of energy during afall arrest or otherwise limit the energyimposed on an employee during fallarrest. The proposed definition simplyrequired that the device dissipate moreenergy than does a standard line orstrap-webbing lanyard. After a carefulreview of the proposed definition,OSHA has revised the definition toindicate the extent to which adeceleration device must dissipate theenergy imposed on an employee duringfall arrest.

‘‘Personal fall arrest system.’’ Thisterm means a system used to stop anemployee’s fall. The proposeddefinition, which was effectivelyidentical, did not elicit comments.

‘‘Positioning device system.’’ This is abody belt or body harness system rigged

so that an employee can work on anelevated, vertical working surface withboth hands free while leaning. Theproposed definition has been rewrittenfor clarity. OSHA did not receive anycomments on the proposed definition.

The proposed definition of ‘‘strengthfactor’’ has not been carried forwardinto the final rule because this term isnot used in the final rule.

Section 1915.152 GeneralRequirements

Paragraph (a) of the final rule,Provision and use of equipment,requires that employers provide andensure that employees use personalprotective equipment for eyes, face,head, extremities, torso, and respiratorysystem, including such PPE asprotective clothing, protective shieldsand barriers, personal fall protectionequipment, and life saving equipment,whenever such PPE is necessary foremployee protection. Except for someeditorial changes, this provision isidentical to that in the proposed rule.

Paragraph (b) requires that employersassess the work activities in theshipyard to identify what hazards arepresent, or are likely to be present,which necessitate the use of PPE. OSHAis aware that many shipyard employersassess workplace hazards according tothe trade or occupation of affectedemployees. The Agency believes that itis appropriate to allow employersflexibility in organizing their assessmentefforts. Therefore, OSHA has added anote to the final rule which providesthat a hazard assessment conductedaccording to the trade or occupation ofaffected employees will be consideredto comply with paragraph (b), if theassessment addresses any PPE-relatedhazards to which employees areexposed in the course of their workactivities.

Where any such hazards areidentified, the employer shall select theappropriate PPE for each affectedemployee (both in terms of type of PPEand fit), communicate selectiondecisions to affected employees, anddocument that the hazard assessmenthas been performed. After theassessment has been done, the standarddoes not expressly require the employerto review the hazard assessment on anyperiodic basis. However, it is theAgency’s intent that hazard assessmentsbe conducted at the intervals and on aschedule dictated by the risks in theworkplace. For example, when there isa change in technology, productionoperations, or an occupation’s task thathas the potential to affect PPE-relatedhazards, the employer must review theappropriateness of the existing hazard

assessment and the PPE being used andupdate the hazard assessment asnecessary.

In the proposal, this paragraphrequired that employers select PPE fortheir employees based on an assessmentof workplace hazards. Commenters whoresponded to the July 6, 1994 notice (59FR 3486) and participants at the January25, 1995 public hearing stated that theterm ‘‘workplace’’ that appeared in therequirement for hazard assessment inproposed section § 1915.152(b) was notappropriate. They suggested that OSHAinstead use the term ‘‘trade’’ or ‘‘workactivity.’’

For example, the South TidewaterAssociation of Ship Repairers, Inc. (Ex9–3) recommended that OSHA change‘‘workplace to ‘‘work activity’’ or‘‘trade.’’ Tampa Shipyards Incorporated(Ex. 9–8) stated:

We would definitely agree that PPE usedin general industry does not differ markedlyfrom PPE used in the shipyards. We wouldpoint out the fact that work environment inshipyards is substantially and drasticallydifferent from general industry workenvironment. Most of the general industrywork environment is a fixed workenvironment; manufacturing plant withassembly lines, consistent work processed,etc. The commercial shipyard workenvironment changes not only on a dailybasis but sometimes on an hourly basisdepending upon the size and configuration ofa ship (or workplace) and the type of workto be accomplished on board that ship.

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

We believe that standards should be basedon generic and uniform nature of the dutiesperformed by specific categories ofemployees, rather than solely by theworkplace * * * shipyard workplace that isneither fixed, nor constant, nor readilyquantifiable like workplaces in all otherindustries.

In addition, the Shipbuilders Councilof America (Tr. pp. 8–9) testified that:

The general industry standard isspecifically targeted toward fixed facilitiesand processes, unlike commercial ship repairand ship building. Now the definition ofworkplace differs greatly from amanufacturing environment to a commercialship repair facility. Workplace is usedthroughout the general industry PPEstandard. By definition, workplace means,and I quote out of the Webster’s dictionary,‘‘a place, shop or factory where work isdone.’’

The commercial shipyard workenvironment changes not only on a dailybasis * * * And from personal experience Ican tell you it changes on an hourly basis andon a ship-to-shop basis which varies by sizeand configuration.

OSHA acknowledges that shipyardemployees—unlike general industry


employees—may work in severalworksites during a shift. OSHA agreeswith the commenters that the term‘‘workplace’’ does not identify theappropriate source of PPE-relatedhazards in shipyards and believes thatrequiring hazard assessments by tradeand related work activities effectivelyaddresses the PPE-related risks inshipyards.

The proposal also required employersto select PPE that would protectemployees from the particularoccupational hazards they were likely toencounter, to communicate theirselection decisions to employees whowould be obtaining their own PPE, andto have employees who obtain their ownPPE follow the employers’ selectiondecisions.

The proposed rule assumed that someemployees would be providing some oftheir own PPE. For that reason, OSHAspecified, in the proposal, thatemployers would need to provide anysuch employees with PPE selectioninformation and to make sure that theiraffected employees obtained the rightPPE. This was intended to ensure thatemployees are properly protected bytheir PPE, regardless of who purchasedit.

Subsequently, the Agency determinedthat it was appropriate to provideadditional guidance regarding whenemployers would be expected to pay forPPE and when employees would beexpected to pay. On October 18, 1994,OSHA issued a memorandum to its fieldoffices which stated as follows:

OSHA has interpreted its general PPEstandard, as well as specific standards, torequire employers to provide and to pay forpersonal protective equipment required bythe company for the worker to do his or herjob safely and in compliance with OSHAstandards. Where equipment is very personalin nature and is usable by workers off the job,the matter of payment may be left to labor-management negotiations. Examples of PPEthat would not normally be used away fromthe worksite include, but are not limited to:welding glasses, wire mesh gloves,respirators, hard hats, specialty glasses andgoggles (designed for laser or ultravioletradiation protection), specialty footprotection (such as metatarsal shoes andlinemen’s shoes with built in gaffs), faceshields and rubber gloves, blankets andcover-ups and hot sticks and other live-linetools used by power generation workers.Examples of PPE that is personal in natureand often used away from the worksiteinclude non-specialty safety glasses, safetyshoes, and cold-weather outer wear of thetype worn by construction workers. However,shoes or outer wear subject to contaminationby carcinogens or other toxic or hazardoussubstances which cannot be safely worn off-site must be paid for by the employer. Failureof the employer to pay for PPE that is not

personal and not used away from the job isa violation and shall be cited.

Although the equipment used inshipyard employment often differs fromthat mentioned in the October 18memorandum, the same policyconsiderations apply in the ShipyardPPE context. Therefore, OSHA willapply the above-stated policy whendetermining who pays for the PPErequired under § 1915.152(a).

In addition, the Agency hasdetermined, after further consideration,that all affected employees need to beinformed of PPE selection decisions inorder to facilitate compliance with thestandard. The proposed language thatdistinguishes between employees whopay for their own PPE and those who donot has been deleted and the provisionhas been revised accordingly. Paragraph(b) has also been editorially revised forclarity.

In the proposal, paragraph (b) did notspecifically address documentation ofthe hazard assessment. The recentlyrevised PPE standard for GeneralIndustry (§ 1910.132(d)(2)), however,requires employers to verify through awritten certification that a requiredhazard assessment has been performed.OSHA explained its decision (59 FR16336) to require such verification asfollows:

OSHA believes that some form of record isneeded to provide OSHA compliance officersand affected employees with appropriateassurance that the required hazardassessment has been performed * * * It isnot ‘‘necessary for employers to prepare andretain a formal written hazard assessment.’’Given the performance-oriented nature ofthis rulemaking, OSHA has determined thatthe generation and review of extensivedocumentation would be unnecessarilyburdensome.

The Agency has found that a writtencertification is a reasonable means by whichto establish accountability for compliance.

Therefore, the Agency has determined thatemployers can adequately verify compliancewith § 1910.132(d) of the final rule througha written certification which identifies theworkplace evaluated; the person certifyingthat the evaluation has been performed, thedate(s) of the hazard assessment; and whichidentifies the document as a certification ofhazard assessment.

Taking into account the similaritiesbetween PPE used in General Industryand that used in Shipyard employment,OSHA reopened the Shipyard PPErulemaking record (59 FR 34586, July 6,1994) to provide public notice that theAgency was considering a requirementfor shipyard employers to verify theircompliance with the hazard assessmentprovision through a writtencertification. The notice of reopening

solicited comments on the need for andimpact of a certification requirement.

The Preamble to the final rule for FallProtection in Construction (part 1926,subpart M) (59 FR at 40721, August 9,1994) underscored the flexibilityemployers have in complying withcertification requirements, stating that a‘‘certification record can be prepared inany format an employer chooses,including reprinted forms, computergenerated lists, or 3×5 cards.’’

Commenters to the shipyard PPErecord (Exs. 9–3 and 9–7) stated that anyrequirement for the certification ofhazard assessment should be focused onemployee ‘‘work activity’’ or ‘‘trade’’rather than on the ‘‘workplace.’’ Forexample, the South TidewaterAssociation of Ship Repairers(STASR)(Ex. 9–3) stated that ‘‘[t]here isa constant transition of trades movingamong various shops and vessels as wellas a rotation of vessels. It is not feasiblefor designated shipyard employees tomonitor continuously a ‘‘workplace’’ inconstant change.’’ In addition, STASRobserved that it would be advantageousto identify ‘‘a universal requirement fortrade-specific PPE as opposed to {a}site-specific requirement, peculiar toone location.’’ The SCA (Ex. 9–7) statedthat shipyard work duties, unlike dutiesundertaken in a factory, are neitherfixed, constant, nor readily quantifiable.

Three other commenters (Exs. 9–6, 9–8 and 9–9) were particularly concernedthat compliance with the certificationrequirement under consideration wouldnecessitate continuous or repeatedhazard assessment. These commenters,along with several others (Exs. 9–1, 9–4, 9–5, 9–11 and 9–13), indicated thatthey have already implemented writtenprograms to identify PPE needs, so thatcertifying performance of the hazardassessment would be redundant.

In addition, commenters (Exs. 9–10and 9–14) suggested that OSHA acceptany form of documentation whichprovides the information needed toverify compliance. In particular, GeneralDynamics Electric Boat Division(EBDiv.) (Ex. 9–10) stated ‘‘EBDiv.recommends that OSHA continue withits performance oriented approach andallow employers the flexibility indetermining the most efficient andeffective manner for documentinghazard assessments.’’

Based on the above-discussedcomments, the notice of informal publicmeeting (59 FR 64173, December 13,1994) solicited input regarding themeans by which shipyard employerscould adequately verify compliancewith the requirement for hazardassessment. In particular, the noticestated that OSHA was ‘‘considering the


extent to which current hazardassessments performed by trade oroccupation provide the necessaryinformation for selection of appropriatePPE’’ and provided examples of trade-based formats (for welder and for yardmaintenance worker) that the Agencymight consider to be acceptable.

In response, commenters (Exs. 11–2,11–3, 11–6 and 11–8) stated that theshipyard industry already adequatelydocuments its hazard assessmentactivities. NNS (Ex. 11–6) alsoexpressed concern that the use of theterm ‘‘certify’’ was unnecessary, statingthat certification ‘‘does not contribute toimproved safety and health. We suggestthat certification should be replaced bya signature.’’ In addition, NNS testified(Tr. 28–29, January 25, 1995), asfollows:

We still don’t understand why the word‘‘certify’’ can’t be left behind in favor of theword ‘‘document’’ or ‘‘signature’’ or someother type of verbiage. We think that theword ‘‘certify’’ carries with it someconnotations that will thwart, if you will, theemployee involvement efforts that we’restepping 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 assessmentsbe allowed to meet the requirements of theportion of this standard.

Where hazard assessment does not exist,and it would be hard for me to say where itdoesn’t in the shipyard industry, we’drecommend that an annual assessment bemade of the affected craft, possibly of themachinery or pipefitting departments. Oncethe hazard assessment is conducted for thesecrafts, we recommend that the companysafety representative be allowed to makethese assessments and sign the assessmentcertifying his or her review and assessment.This assessment should be no more thanlisting the personal protective equipmentrequired for that particular craft in allworking circumstances.

The UBC Health and Safety Fund ofNorth America (Ex. 12–4) stated asfollows: ‘‘OSHA should require writtencertification of hazard assessment foremployers to select the PersonalProtective Equipment (PPE) that isnecessary for work being performed bytrades or occupations. This assessmentshould take into account the PPEnecessary to protect employeesperforming specific work tasks.’’

OSHA has concluded that thedocumentation format described bycommenters and meeting participantswill provide adequate assurance that therequired hazard assessment has beenperformed. The Agency agrees that ahazard assessment record whichconveys the required information doesnot need to be called a ‘‘certification.’’

Accordingly, the Agency will use theterm ‘‘document’’ rather than the term‘‘certification’’ to describe theseminimal written record required underfinal rule § 1915.152(b)(4). Appendix Aprovides several acceptable ways ofmeeting the requirements, includingsome examples of the trade-basedformats.

Final rule paragraph (c) requiresemployers to ensure that defective ordamaged PPE is not used. The proposedparagraph was essentially identical.This provision does not preclude therepair and reuse of PPE. OSHArecognizes that there are manysituations where PPE can be removedfrom service, repaired, and thenreturned to service. There were nocomments on the proposed paragraph,and OSHA therefore promulgates thisprovision as proposed, except for minoreditorial changes.

Final rule paragraph (d) requires thatPPE that has been worn by workers andhas become unsanitary be cleaned anddisinfected before it is reissued. Therewere no comments on the proposedprovision, and this paragraph isunchanged except for minor editorialchanges.

Final paragraph (e) sets the trainingrequirements for users of PPE. OSHAhas consistently maintained thatemployees must be properly trained inorder to benefit from the use of PPE. Theproposed part 1910 and part 1915 PPEtraining provisions were identical,requiring simply that employees ‘‘betrained in the proper use of theirpersonal protective equipment.’’ Asdiscussed in the part 1910 subpart Ifinal rule preamble (59 FR 16337–40,April 6, 1994), OSHA divided thetraining into four training elements:what affected employees mustunderstand about their PPE; what PPE-related skills those employees musthave; when affected employees wouldneed retraining; and whatdocumentation of training was needed.

OSHA concluded that these trainingelements should also be considered forinclusion in the shipyard standard.Therefore, the July 6, 1994, shipyardPPE notice discussed the generalindustry training provisions andsolicited comments. In order to clarifythe requirements for the shipyardindustry and provide clear guidance forenforcement, the Agency has revisedthis provision (paragraph (e)(2)) to read:‘‘The employer shall ensure that eachaffected employee demonstrates theability to use PPE properly before beingallowed to perform work requiring theuse of PPE.’’ The Agency is notprescribing the means by whichemployers comply with this provision.

The general industry PPE standard,§ 1910.132(f)(4), provides that: ‘‘[t]heemployer shall verify that each affectedemployee has received and understoodthe required training through a writtencertification that contains the name ofeach employee trained, the date(s) oftraining and that identifies the subject ofthe certification.’’

The comments received in response tothe July 6 notice opposed a requirementfor a written certification of compliance.For example, STASR (Ex. 9–3)commented that:

Every shipyard in the Hampton Roads areahas a safety program and a safety office.Every shipyard mandates usage of safetyequipment for all employees. Those who donot comply are often sent home. STASRshipyards have safety programs with many ofthe PPE standards already in place. The PPEtraining and recordkeeping requirements are,in some cases, redundant.

When an employee is hired and undergoesinitial training, that employee can be givena list of equipment to wear while performinga specific task. This is far preferable tosending a monitor to evaluate a worksite ona continuous basis. The shipyard may thencertify that an individual has been given thenecessary training and the employee willcertify understanding of the safetyrequirements 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 saferworking environment * * * we believe thattraining should be focused on trade specificduties of employees with the greatestemphasis being placed on orientationtraining at the outset. PPE serves a veryuseful purpose, and empirical data oftenestablishes that causes of accident oroccupational injuries are attributable to thefact that employees failed to comply withcompany PPE standards * * *. Additionally,documentation of all training should be inthe form of training logs, which should beconsidered to be the equivalent of ‘‘writtencertification’’ in order to avoid the non valueadded redundance of record keeping.

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

We are already complying with thisproposed standard and we suspect manyother shipyards are also complying with thisstandard.

Verification through written certificationshould not be required if an employer canproduce training logs with the employee’sname, the date the training took place, typeof training conducted and the name of theinstructor. Training logs should beinterpreted under this standard as ‘‘writtencertification.’’

General Dynamics, Electric BoatDivision (EBDiv) (Ex. 9–10) commentedthat:

EBDiv agrees with OSHA that training is anessential element of a PPE program but doesnot agree that ‘‘training’’ as specified in thestandard requires certification.


EBDiv firmly believes training is a key andnecessary component of safety and healthprograms. EBDiv provides extensive trainingto its employees on a variety of disciplinesnot mandated by OSHA in addition totraining mandated by OSHA.

Based on these comments, OSHAraised the issue of the need fordocumentation of training in theDecember 13, 1994, meeting notice (59FR 64173). AWH Corporation (Ex. 11–3)commented that training is providedwhen the employee is hired and atweekly ‘‘gangbox’’ safety meetings, andthat training is periodically reinforcedby including PPE as a topic at safetymeetings.

NNS responded (Ex. 11–6) that ‘‘[t]herequirement to certify PPE trainingdictates recording specific informationwhich can later be retrieved so as toprove training was conducted. We willprovide samples of our existing systemat the January 25 meeting.’’ NNSprovided copies of trainingdocumentation at the meeting (Ex. 12–2) and testified (Tr. 29–30) as follows:

We’ve provided a recommended definitionfor the word ‘‘certify’’* * *

‘‘Certify’’ means to evaluate subjectively,based on appearance and availableinformation at that time. The certifyingindividual in a training session, for example,would verify that the trained individual waspresent during the stated training; he wouldensure that required information wasdelivered to the target audience in what hebelieved to be an understandable fashion,and he would watch individuals performactivities which indicate that they haveunderstood the training, and then use hisjudgment at that time to determine whetherfurther instruction was needed or not.

The SCA testified (Tr. 13–14, January25, 1995) as follows:

We would request that trainingcertification requirements be met in thefollowing manner. Number one, documentednew hire orientation * * *. Secondly, werequest that training certificationrequirements be met as documented annualrefresher training.

We’d recommend this documentation be inthe form of training logs which many of usalready keep on the computer * * *

Some of our members suggest * * * givinga new employee a list of all required safetyequipment that he or she should wear at thetime they go through new-hire orientation,just as a reminder * * * this is already beingdone in many of our yards.

In response to these submissions,OSHA emphasizes that anydocumentation of training that providesthe specified information will provideadequate assurance that the trainingrequirements have been satisfied.Therefore, § 1915.152(e)(4) of the finalrule requires employers to verify thateach affected employee has received the

required training with documentationthat includes: employee(s) name; thedate(s) of training, and type of trainingthe employee received. In the case of anemployee who has already been trained(either prior to the effective date of thisstandard or by another employer),OSHA will accept documentation datedas of the time the current employerdetermines that the employee has therequisite proficiency.

As discussed above, the rulemakingrecord indicates that most shipyardemployers are already documentingtraining in the form of a log, computerdatabase, or some type of writtendocument. Examples of acceptabledocumentation would be records ofstand-up safety meetings and tool boxmeetings, or a tool room log (where anemployee has checked out PPE such assafety glasses, hard hat, gloves, faceshield). OSHA will accept any form ofdocumentation that effectivelycommunicates the required information.

Section 1915.153 Eye and FaceProtection

Final rule paragraph (a) sets outrequirements for eye and face PPE.Paragraph (a)(1) requires employers toensure that employees use eye and facePPE when employees are exposed to eyeor face hazards from flying particles,molten metal, liquid chemicals, acid orcaustic chemicals, chemical gases orvapors, or potentially injurious lightradiation. This provision is based on therequirements in existing § 1915.151(b)(1) and (c)(1). This provision isessentially unchanged from thatproposed. OSHA did not receive anycomments on this provision.

Final paragraph (a)(2) provides thatfront and side protection must be usedwhen there is a hazard from flyingobjects. Detachable side protectors (forexample clip-on or slide-on sideshields) meeting the pertinentrequirements of this section areacceptable.

OSHA has determined that detachableside shields that meet the pertinentcriteria (ANSI Z87.1–1989, as referencedby final rule § 1915.153 (b)(1) and (b)(2))will provide adequate protection fromflying objects. Permitting detachableside shields will allow employers theflexibility to use this kind of protectionwhen necessary, based on the workingconditions at the employee’s occupationor trade. The Agency has concluded thatthe same considerations that supportedthe adoption of such a requirement inother corresponding OSHA standardsare relevant to shipyard employment.

Employers should be aware that somePPE could create new hazards toemployees. For example, allowing

employees to wear wire-frame glasses(plano or prescription safety glasses)around energized electrical parts wouldincrease the potential for electric shock.

In the proposal, paragraph (a)(2)required that eye and face protectiveequipment properly fit employees. Inthe final rule § 1915.152(b)(3) alreadyrequires that all PPE properly fitemployees, and OSHA has therefore notincluded proposed paragraph (a)(2) inthe final rule.

Paragraph (a)(3) addresses appropriateeye PPE for employees who wearprescription lenses. This provisionrequires that employers provide eachsuch employee either with eyeprotection that incorporates theprescription in its design or with PPEthat can be worn over prescriptionlenses without disturbing the properposition of the lenses. The finalprovision, which is essentially the sameas the proposed paragraph except forminor editorial changes, elicited nocomments.

Proposed paragraph (a)(3) requiredthat protectors with tinted or variabletinted lenses not be worn when anemployee was required in the course ofwork to pass from a brightly lit area,such as outdoors, into a dimly lit area,such as a vessel section. The Agencyproposed this requirement to reduce thepotential for extreme changes in lightingto temporarily impair an employee’svision.

OSHA received four comments onthis provision, all addressing the samepoint. The commenters (Exs. 6–5, 6–6,6–9 and 6–10) opposed any prohibitionon the use of tinted or variable tintlenses.

Colonna’s Shipyard, for example,stated that:

The use of the terms ‘‘well lighted’’ and‘‘dimly lighted’’ are vague. Tinted lenses, thatprimarily reduce glare, may not appreciablyreduce the amount of light passing throughthe lenses. As technology improves, variabletint lenses have been shown to reduce thetime it takes for the lenses to change from fullshading to minimal shading. In fact,employees coming from an interior locationinto brilliant sunlight can be temporarilyblinded by the sun’s glare.

In addition, two comments receivedon proposed subpart B of part 1915(Doc. S–505) (Ex. 6–15, BayShipbuilding Corp. (BSC) and Ex. 6–36,Peterson Builders, Inc. (PBI)), addressedthis proposed provision. BSC statedthat: ‘‘Protectors with tinted or variabletint lenses should not be worn when anemployee passes from a well lightedarea into a dimly lighted area. Tintingover #2 shade is too dark, but #2 shadeor under is felt to be acceptable and safein most areas.’’


PBI stated that:We need the use of tinted lenses to protect

our employees from stray ultraviolet raysfrom weld arc. We presently limit ouremployees to a 1.7 tint on safety glasses. Weare also in favor of the use of the variable tintlenses. This standard is in contradiction to1915.153A1, which requires us to protectemployees from injurious light radiation.This has not been a problem for us in causingaccidents.

After evaluating the information inthe record for this rulemaking (Doc. S–045), OSHA has concluded that theproposed requirement was toorestrictive. The Agency has determinedthat the employer (for example, throughthe services of the company’s safetyprofessional) is in the best position todetermine when tinted or variable tintlenses should be used, based on anawareness of working conditions. Thisapproach is consistent with the currentANSI standard (ANSI Z87.1–1989,paragraph 6.5.2), which is (as discussedbelow) being incorporated by referencein the final rule. Accordingly, proposedparagraph (a)(3) has not been retained inthe final rule.

Paragraph (a)(4) is essentiallyunchanged from the proposedparagraph. It requires employers toensure that affected employees useequipment with filter lenses forprotection against injurious lightradiation and that the lenses have ashade number that is appropriate for thework being performed. Table I–1—FilterLenses for Protection Against RadiantEnergy—lists the necessary shadenumbers for various operations. Theseprovisions are consistent with otherOSHA standards (existing§ 1915.151(c)(1) and Table I–1 in§ 1915.118).

In addition, a note to this provisionstates that, when goggle lenses and ahelmet lens are worn together, the shadevalue of the two lenses can be summedto satisfy the shade requirements ofTable I–1, § 1915.153. Bath Iron WorksCorporation (BIWC) (Ex. 6–7) objectedto this note, stating that the validity ofthe additive approach to filter lensselection has not been adequatelydemonstrated and violates acceptedindustry practice. OSHA disagrees withthis view, because the technical expertsresponsible for the applicable consensusstandard, ANSI Z87.1–1989, haveindicated that the additive use of lensesis protective, provided that thecombined values sum to the necessaryvalue. Therefore, the note to Table I–1has been retained.

Paragraph (b) sets performancecriteria for eye and face PPE. Paragraph(b)(1) provides that protective eye andface devices purchased after August 22,

1996 shall comply with ANSI Z87.1–1989, ‘‘American National StandardPractice for Occupational andEducational Eye and Face Protection,’’which is incorporated by reference, orshall be demonstrated by the employerto be equally effective. PPE whichsatisfies the criteria set by subsequenteditions of the pertinent ANSI standardwill be considered to comply withparagraph (b)(1) if the updated ANSIcriteria are substantively unchanged orprovide equivalent protection.

In the proposal, this paragraph, whichwas designated paragraph (b)(1),required that the design of eye and faceprotection, in general, comply with theprovisions of ANSI Z87.1–1979, whileproviding, in the alternative, that plano(non-prescription) spectacles complywith the performance-oriented criteriaset out in proposed paragraph (b)(2).Shortly after the NPRM was issued, the1979 edition of Z87.1 was supersededby the current 1989 edition. ANSIZ87.1–1989 is effectively identical toANSI Z87.1–1979, except that the 1989revision deleted design restrictivelanguage that had limited the use of newtechnology in eye and face PPE. OSHAbelieves that performance-orientedregulatory language, such as thatreferenced from ANSI Z87.1–1989, willprovide employers with appropriateflexibility to protect their employeeswhile taking the particularcircumstances of their workplaces intoaccount. The Agency further believesthat allowing employees to rely on the1989 edition will facilitate compliancewith the final rule, but will not preventemployers from using PPE that wouldhave been allowed under proposedparagraph (b)(1).

Final rule paragraph (b)(2) requiresthat eye and face PPE purchased beforeAugust 22, 1996 comply with ANSIZ87.1–1979 or be demonstrated by theemployer to be equally effective. OSHAhas determined that it is appropriate toallow the continued use of such PPE inorder to avoid imposing unreasonableburdens on employers. As noted above,the substantive provisions of the 1979and 1989 editions are effectivelyidentical, so employee safety would notbe furthered by requiring that employersremove PPE tested under ANSI Z87.1–1979 from service. In this way existingstocks of PPE can be depleted, and anyreplacement PPE must satisfy thecriteria referenced in ANSI Z87.1–1989.

Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would haveset performance-oriented criteria forplano spectacles, addressing impactprotection, optical requirements,flammability resistance and radiantenergy protection. This paragraph wasincluded in the proposal because OSHA

had determined that the designprovisions (such as for minimum lensthickness or frame design) of theconsensus standard referenced byexisting § 1915.151(a)(1) (ANSI Z2.1–1959) were outdated. The removal of thedesign restrictive language from ANSIZ87.1 when it was revised in 1989eliminated the need to address thisproblem in the final rule. Accordingly,no such provision appears in the finalrule.

Section 1915.154 RespiratoryProtection

Final rule § 1915.154 incorporatesexisting § 1910.134, Respiratoryprotection, by reference, as wasproposed. The shipyard industry hasbeen complying for years with§ 1910.134 with regard to its respiratoryprotection programs. The two commentsreceived on proposed § 1915.154 (Exs.6–1 and 6–2) agreed with OSHA’sproposal to replace § 1915.152, theexisting shipyard respirator standard,with § 1910.134. Both commentsexpressed the belief that § 1910.134 ismore protective and certainly morecurrent than § 1915.152.

OSHA has published a proposedrevision of § 1910.134, RespiratoryProtection, which covers generalindustry, construction and shipyardemployment (59 FR 58884, Nov. 15,1994). When the revised respiratoryprotection standard becomes a finalrule, OSHA will apply that rule toshipyard employment.

Section 1915.155 Head Protection

Final rule paragraph (a) addresses theuse of protective helmets. Paragraph(a)(1) requires employers to ensure thataffected employees wear protectivehelmets when they are working in areaswhere there is a potential for headinjury from falling objects. Thisrequirement is essentially the same ascurrent § 1915.153(a). The nationalconsensus standard for protectiveheadgear, ANSI Z89.1, referenced infinal rule § 1915.155(b), deals only withthe head injury hazards posed by fallingobjects and high-voltage electric shockand burn. Therefore, this section of thefinal rule addresses PPE that is used toprotect the head from these hazards.

The proposed rule addressed the useof protective helmets where there waspotential for injury to the head fromfalling or moving objects. The duty toprotect employees from other hazards tothe head, such as moving objects, maybe invoked through the generalrequirements of final rule § 1915.152(a)when such hazards are identified by thehazard assessment.


Commenting on proposed subpart Bof part 1915 (Doc. S–050, Ex. 6–15 ofDocket #S–050), BSC stated: ‘‘Thestandard should reflect what is stated inthe ANSI standard for head protection.’’As noted above, the ANSI standardaddresses falling object, not movingobject, hazards and proposed paragraph(a)(1) has been revised accordingly.

Paragraph (a)(2) requires that affectedemployees wear protective helmetsdesigned to reduce electric shockhazards when working in areascontaining potential electrical hazardsor energized conductors. This provisionis essentially identical to the proposedprovision and to other correspondingOSHA standards.

Final rule paragraph (b) sets theperformance criteria for protectivehelmets. This paragraph provides thatprotective helmets purchased afterAugust 22, 1996 shall comply withANSI Z89.1–1986, ‘‘PersonnelProtection—Protective Headwear forIndustrial Workers—Requirements,’’which has been incorporated byreference, or shall be demonstrated bythe employer to be equally protective.PPE which satisfies the criteria set bysubsequent editions of the pertinentANSI standard will be considered tocomply with paragraph (b) if theupdated ANSI criteria are substantivelyunchanged or provide equivalentprotection. The Agency believes thatthis performance-oriented approach willencourage innovation and the use ofimproved equipment. The proposed rulealso referenced the 1986 edition of ANSIZ89.1.

The consensus standard (ANSI Z.2–1959) referenced by the existing rule(§ 1915.153(a)) has been supersededseveral times since the existingstandards were adopted. OSHA does notexpect that much, if any, head PPEwhich was produced to meet the 1959requirements is still in use.Furthermore, the Agency has concludedthat ANSI Z.2–1959 does not provideadequate guidance regarding theselection of appropriate head protection.Therefore, unlike final rule § 1915.153,this section does not explicitly‘‘grandfather’’ PPE which complies withthe existing rule. Employers cancontinue to have their employees usehead PPE which was produced tocomply with a pre-1986 edition of ANSIZ89.1 if the employer establishes thatthe equipment either satisfies theperformance criteria of ANSI Z89.1–1986 or provides equivalent protection.

The 1969 and 1986 editions of ANSIZ89.1 set essentially the samerequirements, except with regard toelectric insulation for Class B helmets.The Agency has concluded that Class B

helmets already in use which satisfiedthe criteria set by the 1969 editionwould also satisfy the 1986 criteria.Accordingly, final rule paragraph (b)(2)allows employers to continue to useprotective helmets purchased before theeffective date of the standard beingpublished today provided that suchhelmets meet the criteria of ANSIZ.89.1–1969. This means that employerswill not be required to replaceprotective helmets currently in use ifthey meet these criteria.

Section 1915.156 Foot ProtectionFinal paragraph (a) requires that

affected employees wear protectivefootwear when they are exposed tohazards from falling and rolling objects,electrical hazards, and objects that maypierce a shoe sole. This is consistentwith requirements in othercorresponding OSHA standards. Thislanguage, which is effectively identicalto that in the proposal, differs fromexisting § 1915.153(d), which requiresemployers only to make safety shoesavailable and ‘‘encourage’’ their use.OSHA believes that requiring employersto have affected employees wearprotective footwear is necessary toprotect their feet from the risk of seriousinjury. The AWSC (Ex. 6–4) commentedthat it would impose a cost burden onemployers if they were required topurchase safety shoes for theiremployees. Therefore, theyrecommended that OSHA not requirethe employer to pay for foot protection,stating as follows:

The current regulatory languageconcerning foot protection of employeesrequires the employer to encourage the useof and make available appropriate footprotection. The new language states that theemployer ‘‘shall ensure that employees wearprotective footwear.’’ AWSC does not objectto the practice of wearing the correctprotective footwear, and supports the use ofthis type of personal protective equipment.However, the new language indicates adramatic shift from current shipyardoperations.

Shipyard facilities have instituted manydifferent policies to provide protectivefootwear to the employee, includingdisallowing employees to work at the facilityunless they are wearing the appropriatefootwear and providing an allowance topurchase the footwear. Lists of available andappropriate suppliers are circulated to theemployees as a guide.

OSHA also received a comment onthis subject from PBI (Docket S–050, Ex.6–36) that stated: ‘‘This requirement isgoing to be cost prohibitive. Wepresently recommend safety shoes andcontribute to their purchase. However,this standard would practically makethem mandatory throughout the

shipyard. Our injury experience doesnot indicate a need for mandatory safetyshoes.’’

As discussed above in reference to theprovision for hazard assessment,subpart I requires employers to identifythe hazards to which their employeesmay be exposed and have thoseemployees equipped accordingly.Therefore, employees would be requiredto wear protective footwear only whensuch protection was appropriate. Inaddition, as discussed above inreference to OSHA’s 1994 Memorandumon PPE, OSHA interprets the part 1915subpart I requirements for employers toprovide PPE to mean that employers payfor PPE required by the company for theworker to do his or her job safely andin compliance with OSHA standards.The above discussed policymemorandum specifically indicates thatemployers should expect to pay forspecialty foot protection. On the otherhand, OSHA policy also provides thatpayment for PPE which is personal innature and useable away from theworkplace (such as safety shoes) is leftto labor-management negotiations.

Final rule paragraph (b) sets theperformance criteria for protectivefootwear. Paragraph (b)(1) provides thatprotective footwear purchased afterAugust 22, 1996 shall comply withANSI Z41–1991, ‘‘American NationalStandard for Personal Protection-Protective Footwear,’’ or shall bedemonstrated by the employer to beequally protective.

In addition, paragraph (b)(2) allowsprotective footwear purchased beforeAugust 22, 1996 to continue to complywith ANSI Z41–1983, PersonalProtection-Protective Footwear, orfootwear that the employer candemonstrate to be equally protective.PPE which satisfies the criteria set bysubsequent editions of the pertinentANSI standard will be considered tocomply with paragraph (b) if theupdated ANSI criteria are substantivelyunchanged or provide equivalentprotection. The Agency believes thatthis performance-oriented approach willencourage innovation and the use ofimproved equipment. Proposedparagraph (b) referenced the 1983edition of ANSI Z41 for all protectivefootwear.

The 1991 edition of ANSI Z41, whichhas superseded the 1983 edition,imposes essentially the samerequirements as the 1983 edition, exceptthat the 1991 edition provides morespecific performance requirements forresistance to compressive forces andstandardizes the puncture resistancetesting methods. OSHA believes thatreferencing ANSI Z41–1991 for shoes


purchased after August 22, 1996provides appropriate and up-to-datecriteria for employers and employeesseeking to buy protective footwear.

OSHA has determined that it isappropriate to provide explicitly for thecontinued use of foot PPE purchasedprior to the effective date of the finalrule, as long as it complies with thepertinent provisions of the ANSIstandard (ANSI Z41–1983) referencedby the proposed rule. In this way, theAgency avoids imposing unreasonableburdens on employers.

Section 1915.157 Hand and BodyProtection

Final rule § 1915.157 addresses handand body PPE. Paragraph (a) requiresemployers to ensure that affectedemployees use appropriate PPE whentheir hands or other parts of their bodiesare exposed to hazards that could leadto injuries. The final rule identifies skinabsorption of harmful substances, severecuts or lacerations, severe abrasions,punctures, chemical burns, thermalburns, harmful temperature extremes,and sharp objects as examples ofhazards that would require the use ofPPE. The proposed provision wasessentially identical to that in the finalrule, except that it identified thehazards requiring protection in moregeneral terms.

Final rule paragraph (b) requiresemployers to ensure that no employeewears clothing impregnated or coveredin part with flammable or combustiblematerials (such as grease or oil) whileengaged in hot work operations orworking near an ignition source. Thisrequirement is necessary to protectworkers in hot work operations from firehazards.

The proposed rule stated thatemployees shall not wear greasyclothing when performing hot workoperations. Existing § 1915.153(e)provides that employees shall not bepermitted to wear ‘‘excessively greasy’’clothing while performing hot workoperations.

The AWSC recommended (Ex. 6–4)that the word ‘‘excessively’’ be retainedin the regulatory text of the final rule.

Shipyard work by definition is not a cleanactivity. Employees’ clothing will be dirty.However, the clothing may not be ‘‘greasy’’or even excessively greasy. Deletion of thedescriptive term ‘‘excessively’’ will createrather than diminish compliance problems.We do not advocate that employees wearexcessively greasy clothes when performinghot work operations, but without a properexplanation by OSHA as to the rationale fordeleting the term, we advocate retention ofthe word ‘‘excessively’’ in the proposedlanguage.

In addition, BSC commented (Ex. 6–15 in Docket S–050) that the language ofthe proposed paragraph was unclear.BSC suggested that OSHA revise theproposed language to require thatemployees ‘‘not wear clothingimpregnated with flammable orcombustible materials when performinghot work operations.’’

OSHA believes that retention of theterm ‘‘excessively,’’ as suggested by theAWSC, could potentially complicatecompliance because the Agency has notestablished a measurable, objectivestandard for determining what isexcessive. Moreover, the risk offlammability exists when clothing isimpregnated, or covered, even impart,with a flammable or combustiblesubstance. Therefore, the Agency hasconcluded that it is appropriate toprohibit employees from wearingclothing impregnated or covered with aflammable or combustible substanceduring hot work operations. The Agencyagrees with the BSC that the standardneeds to address all flammable andcombustible materials, not just grease,and that adding the term ‘‘impregnated’’(in the sense of permeated, imbued, orsaturated) will more clearly expressOSHA’s intent. The provision has beenrevised accordingly.

Final rule paragraph (c) requires thatthe employer have employees wearprotective electrical insulating glovesand sleeves, or other rubber protectiveequipment that provides equivalentprotection when the employees areexposed to electrical shock hazardswhile working on electrical equipment.The proposed rule was effectivelyidentical, except that it did not providefor the use of ‘‘other electrical protectiveequipment.’’ The Agency hasdetermined that the addition of thisperformance-oriented revision willencourage innovation and facilitatecompliance.

Section 1915.158 LifesavingEquipment

This section sets requirements forlifesaving equipment used in shipyardemployment. Some of the language inthe final rule has been editoriallyrevised to reflect the language used inthe U.S. Coast Guard’s standard forapproved lifesaving equipment (46 CFRpart 160). OSHA’s existing § 1915.154(a)specifies that the above-cited U.S. CoastGuard requirements for this equipmentshall be followed. The OSHA final ruleprovides clarification of acceptablepersonal flotation devices and usesterminology that is consistent withcurrent Coast Guard requirements. Also,for Type IV PFDs, the U.S. Coast Guardregulations use the term ‘‘ring life

buoys’’ rather than the term ‘‘life rings’’as proposed by OSHA. Therefore, OSHAhas replaced ‘‘life rings’’ with ‘‘ring lifebuoy’’ wherever the term appeared inthe proposal. The proposed languagedid not elicit any comments.

Final rule paragraph (a)(1) requiresthat personal flotation devices (PFDs)worn by employees be approved by theU.S. Coast Guard as a Type I PFD, TypeII PFD, Type III PFD, or Type V PFD,unless the employer provides employeeworn equipment that is as effective asthe types listed (e.g., a Coast Guardapproved immersion suit). Any PFDwhich is U.S. Coast Guard approved andmarked as a Type I PFD, Type II PFD orType III PFD is acceptable to OSHA foruse by employees. A Type V PFD,including Type V Hybrid PFDs, isacceptable to OSHA for use byemployees if it is U.S. Coast Guardapproved and marked for use as a workvest, for commercial use, or for use onvessels. The language of the proposedparagraph, which was based on existing§ 1915.154(a), has been editoriallyrevised and clarified in the final rule.

Final rule paragraph (a)(2), addressingthe inspection of PFD’s, was proposedby the Agency for deletion with theintent of covering defective PFDequipment under revised generalrequirements § 1915.152(c), ‘‘Defectiveand damaged equipment.’’ After furtherconsideration the Agency has concludedthat a PFD is critical lifesavingequipment which requires specificinspection prior to each use for dry rot,chemical damage, or other defects (suchas tears, punctures, missing or non-functioning components) which affecttheir strength and buoyancy. Therefore,the language of existing § 1915.154(b) isbeing retained in the final rule.

Paragraph (b) establishesrequirements for ring life buoys andladders. Paragraph (b)(1) requires that atleast three 30-inch (0.78 m) U.S. CoastGuard approved ring life buoys withlines attached be kept in readily visibleand accessible places when working ona floating vessel of 200 or more feet (61meters). Ring life buoys must be locatedone forward, one aft, and one at theaccess to the gangway. Locating ring lifebuoys at these positions ensures thatone will be readily available if a workerfalls overboard at any point along theship’s length. This paragraph, which isbased on existing § 1915.154(c)(1), isessentially identical to the proposedparagraph.

Paragraph (b)(2) requires floatingvessels under 200 feet (61 m) in lengthto have at least one 30-inch (0.78 m)U.S. Coast Guard approved ring lifebuoy with line attached located at thegangway. The proposed paragraph,


based on existing § 1915.154(c)(1), wasessentially the same.

Paragraph (b)(3) requires that at leastone 30-inch (0.78 m) U. S. Coast Guardapproved ring life buoy with a lineattached be located on each staging floatalongside the floating vessels fromwhich work is being performed. Theproposed paragraph, which was basedon existing § 1915.154(c)(2), iseffectively identical to the final rule’sprovision.

Paragraph (b)(4) requires at least 90feet (27 m) of line to be attached to eachring life buoy. The proposedrequirement, which was based onexisting § 1915.154(c)(3), was effectivelyidentical to the final rule.

Paragraph (b)(5) requires that at leastone portable or permanently installedladder be in the vicinity of each floatingvessel on which work is beingperformed. The provision furtherrequires that the ladder(s) be ofsufficient length to assist employees toreach safety in the event that they fallinto the water. The proposed paragraph,which was based on existing§ 1915.154(c)(4), was effectivelyidentical to the final rule.

Section 1915.159 Personal Fall ArrestSystems

This section sets performance criteriaand other requirements for the use ofpersonal fall arrest systems.

The Agency has determined that thefall hazards encountered by shipyardemployees correspond to those faced byemployees in other industries, and thatit is therefore appropriate for OSHA toconsider the information generated ingeneral industry fall protection PPErulemakings when drafting the final rulefor shipyard PPE. The fall protectionPPE criteria in proposed § 1915.159were very similar to those in thecorresponding proposed generalindustry standard (proposed§§ 1910.128 and 1910.129).

The record for the general industryfall protection PPE rulemaking (DocketS–057) indicated that the Agencyshould consider revising the proposedrule to prohibit the use of non-lockingsnaphooks and to disallow the use ofbody belts in personal fall arrestsystems. This record, in turn, is directlyrelevant as the Agency considerscorresponding changes in proposed§ 1915.159.

To provide the public with notice andan opportunity to comment on the needfor such revisions to the shipyard PPEproposed rule, the Agency solicitedinput through the July 6, 1994 notice ofreopening (59 FR 34586) and theDecember 13, 1994 meeting notice (59

FR 64173). The response to thosenotices is discussed below.

OSHA obtained evidence (Docket S–057) in the General Industry rulemakingthat employees who fall while wearingbody belts are not protected as well asthey would be if the fall occurred whilethe employee was wearing a bodyharness, and that the use of body beltshas resulted in injuries to fallingemployees. A large number ofrulemaking participants (Exs. 9–9, 9–10,11–7, Tr. p. 23, Tr. pp. 59–61) supportedprohibiting the use of body belts in fallprotection systems. For example,Atlantic Marine (Ex. 9–9) endorsed theuse of body harnesses as a safer methodfor employees, stating: ‘‘While the costof body harnesses is usually twice theamount of the body belts, the addedsafety factor to the employee is wellworth the money, and in the long run,will save the company money in case ofan accident.’’

General Dynamics, Electric BoatDivision, (Ex. 9–10) stated that itutilizes body harnesses for all of its fallprotection needs.

Bath Iron Works Corporation/Local S6(BIWC/Local S6) (Ex. 11–7) commentedthat they use only body harnesses in fallarrest systems and use either bodyharnesses or body belts in positioningdevice systems. BIW/Local S6 statedthat it ‘‘fully supports theimplementation of the proposedchanges to [part 1915] subpart I.’’

The SCA testified (Tr. 23) that itsmembers support the use of bodyharnesses in personal fall arrest systems,stating ‘‘many of our yards already usethem. We find them to be very effective,and everybody seems to certainly feel alot safer with them.’’

In addition, the Engineering andSafety Service (E&S) testified (Tr. 59–61)that ‘‘body belts have no useful purposein a personal fall arrest system. E&Sbelieves that an effective personal fallarrest system must incorporate a fullbody harness to protect the worker frominjury and to provide an opportunity forrescue.’’

However, NNS (Ex. 9–11) respondedas follows:

We reviewed all falls occurring at NNSsince January 1, 1991. None of thoseoccurring involved an injury which couldhave been prevented or mitigated by using aharness over a belt. NNS mostly uses beltswith double acting clips. To replace all of ourbody belts with harnesses would cost inexcess of $570,000. Clearly, this is anotherunwarranted cost adversely affecting ourglobal competitiveness without enhancingthe safety of our employees.

The December 13, 1994 notice (59 FR64173) solicited input regarding theextent to which a phased in ban on the

use of body belts in personal fall arrestsystems would be appropriate forshipyard employment.

In their comments to this notice, NNSstated as follows:

We now understand that OSHA will agreeto a phased replacement of body belts tooffset the initial cost of purchasing largequantities of body harnesses. We will providelife cycle and replacement information at theJanuary 25 meeting which should help OSHAto determine what the phased replacementperiod should be.

NNS subsequently testified (Tr. 34–35):

We see body harnesses coming, and weneed a significant period of phase-in time forthis to have a minimal financial impact onour operations. We’ve got 4,000 some-oddbody belts either on issue or available forissue. Replacing all of those at once wouldcost use some $570,000 * * * [W]e’d like areasonable period of time to phase theharnesses in, and that reasonable period oftime, based on our inventory and ourestimated useful life of a body belt, is sevenyears.

Based on the information in DocketS–057 and the shipyard industry inputdiscussed above, OSHA has decided tobar the use of body belts in personal fallarrest systems. OSHA believes,however, that it is appropriate to allowa phase-out period, ending December31, 1997, rather than to establish animmediate prohibition, so that shipyardemployers can continue to use theirbody belts while they switch over tobody harnesses. OSHA urges employersto phase out the use of body belts inpersonal fall arrest systems as soon aspossible so that employees may bespared exposure to the increased risk ofinjuries from body belt use. It isimportant to note that body belts maycontinue to be used in positioningdevice systems even after they havebeen banned in fall arrest systems.OSHA has included paragraphs (b)(6)(i),(c)(1)(i), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(8) in thefinal rule to provide criteria for anybody belts that are used in personal fallarrest systems during the phase-outperiod.

In addition, OSHA has determinedthat it is appropriate, given the dangersrelated to ‘‘roll-out,’’ to phase-out theuse of non-locking connectors. Thephase-out period will avoid imposingundue hardship on employers whocurrently use non-locking snaphooks.As discussed in the July 6, 1994 noticeof reopening, the Agency has concludedthat the same considerations whichsupported the adoption of such arequirement in other correspondingOSHA PPE standards apply to personalfall arrest system components used inshipyard employment. OSHA has


concluded that compliance with finalrule paragraphs (a)(5) and (a)(6) willeffectively minimize any problemsrelated to the use of non-lockingsnaphooks during the phase-out period.

The input received in response to theJuly 6, 1994 reopening notice (59 FR345860) and the December 13, 1994meeting notice (59 FR 64173) indicatedshipyard industry support for a ban onthe use of non-locking snaphooks. Forexample, General Dynamics, ElectricBoat Division (Ex. 9–10) stated that it‘‘utilizes locking snaphooks andtherefore takes no issue with theproposed * * * language.’’

NNS (Tr. 52) and the UBC Health andSafety Fund of North America (UBC)(Tr. 86) testified that OSHA shouldrequire the use of locking snaphooks. Inparticular, the UBC stated that ‘‘OSHAshould prohibit the use of non-lockingsnap hooks because of the recognizeddanger of roll-out and the resultingpossibility of employee falls.’’Accordingly, § 1915.159 of the final rulebans the use of non-locking snaphooksin fall arrest systems, effective January1, 1998.

Final rule paragraph (a) sets criteriafor connectors and anchorages used inpersonal fall arrest systems. Exceptwhere otherwise indicated, any finalrule provisions which were notproposed have been added to thestandard because the Agency hasconcluded that the same considerationswhich supported the adoption of suchrequirements in other correspondingPPE standards apply to personal fallarrest systems and components used inshipyard employment.

Paragraph (a)(1), proposed asparagraph (a)(7), requires thatconnectors be made of drop forged,pressed, or formed steel or materialsequivalent in strength. The connectorsused in personal fall arrest systems mustbe made of steel or equivalent materialsto withstand failure under fallconditions. As discussed above inrelation to the definitions(§ 1915.151(b)), OSHA has replaced theproposed term ‘‘hardware’’ with theterm ‘‘connector.’’ Otherwise, theproposed and final rule language areidentical.

Final rule paragraph (a)(2), proposedas paragraph (a)(8), requires thatconnectors have a corrosion-resistantfinish and that all surfaces and edges besmooth to prevent damage to theinterfacing parts of the system. The onlydifference between the final rule’sprovision and the proposed provision isthe use of the term ‘‘connector’’ insteadof ‘‘hardware.’’

Final rule paragraph (a)(3), proposedas paragraph (a)(14), requires that D-

rings and snaphooks used in thesesystems be capable of sustaining aminimum tensile load of 5,000 pounds(22.2 kN). No comments were receivedon this paragraph.

Final rule paragraph (a)(4), which isalso a new provision, requires that D-rings and snaphooks be 100 percentproof tested to a minimum tensile loadof 3,600 pounds (16 Kn) withoutcracking, breaking, or beingpermanently deformed. The provision isincluded to ensure the strength of all D-rings and snaphooks.

Paragraph (a)(5), which was notproposed, provides that snaphooks shalleither be sized so as to preventunintentional disengagement of thesnaphook or shall be of a locking typewhich is designed and used to preventdisengagement of the snaphook. Thisprovision has been added to prevent‘‘rollout’’ conditions in a personal fallarrest system during the phase-outperiod for non-locking snaphooks.

Final rule paragraph (a)(6) requiresthat snaphooks, unless of a locking typedesigned and used to preventdisengagement from the followingconnections, must not be attached:

(i) Directly to webbing, rope, or wirerope;

(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 relationto the snaphook such that the connectedobject could depress the snaphookkeeper a sufficient amount for release.Proposed paragraphs (a)(15), (a)(16), and(a)(17), which set similar requirements,have been clarified and consolidated infinal rule paragraph (a)(6).

Final rule paragraph (a)(7), which is anew provision, requires that devicesused for connection to the horizontallifeline on suspended scaffolds, or tosimilar work platforms with horizontallifelines that may become verticallifelines, be capable of locking in anydirection on the lifeline. Because asuspended scaffold or platform couldlose its support at either end, theconnection device must be able to lockon the lifeline regardless of which endgoes down.

Final rule paragraph (a)(8), requiresthat anchorages used for the attachmentof personal fall arrest equipment beindependent of any anchorage beingused to support or suspend platforms.Final rule paragraph (a)(9) requires thatanchorages either be capable ofsupporting at least 5,000 pounds (22.2Kn) per employee attached or bedesigned, installed, and used as part of

a complete personal fall arrest systemthat maintains a safety factor of at leasttwo, and is used under the direction andsupervision of a qualified person. Bothprovisions are based on proposedparagraph (a)(10).

Proposed paragraph (a)(10) requiredthat personal fall arrest systems besecured to an anchorage capable ofsupporting at least twice the potentialimpact load of an employee’s fall. E&Stestified (Tr. 63–64) that it was‘‘concerned about the safety factorrequirements for an anchorage in theproposed standard * * * [E&S] doesnot believe the average worker iscapable of determining the safe limits ofan anchorage.’’ In the course ofsubsequent questioning (Tr. 70–71), E&Sagreed that anchorages installed as partof a completely designed personal fallarrest system, and used under thesupervision of a qualified person, wouldprovide adequate support foremployees. This approach, taken in thecorresponding construction and generalindustry rulemakings, has been adoptedin the shipyard PPE final rule. The finalrule provisions, while reformatted forthe sake of clarity, are essentially thesame as the proposed provision.

Final rule paragraph (b) sets criteriafor lifelines, lanyards, and personal fallarrest systems. Paragraph (b)(1) requiresthat each employee be provided with aseparate lifeline when vertical lifelinesare used. Proposed paragraph (a)(9),which elicited no comments, wasessentially identical to this provision ofthe final rule.

Final rule paragraph (b)(2) requiresvertical lifelines (droplines) andlanyards to have a minimum breakingstrength of 5,000 pounds (22.2 Kn). Thisprovision of the final rule consolidatesthe strength requirements contained inproposed paragraphs (a)(11) and (a)(13).The elements of proposed paragraph(a)(11), which addressed self-retractinglifelines, have been redesignated finalrule paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4), asdiscussed below. The ‘‘exception’’ to the5000-pound strength requirementscontained in proposed paragraph (a)(13)appears in the final rule as a separateprovision, paragraph (b)(3), to moreclearly express the Agency’s intent.OSHA received no comments on theproposed paragraphs relating tolifelines, lanyards, and personal fallarrest systems. The Agency hasdetermined that reformatting theproposed requirements will facilitatecompliance efforts for employers whoseemployees use vertical lifelines orlanyards.

Final rule paragraph (b)(3) requiresthat self-retracting lifelines and lanyardswhich automatically limit free fall to 2


feet (0.61 m) or less be capable ofsustaining a minimum static tensile loadof 3,000 pounds (13.3 Kn) applied to thedevice with the lifeline or lanyard in thefully extended position. Final ruleparagraph (b)(4) requires that self-retracting lifelines and lanyards whichdo not limit free fall distances to 2 feet(0.61 m) or less (for example: ripstitchlanyards, tearing, and deforminglanyards) be capable of sustaining aminimum tensile load of 5,000 pounds(22.2 Kn) applied to the device (with thelifeline or lanyard in the fully extendedposition if such a condition can occurin use). As discussed above, final ruleparagraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4), which arebased on proposed paragraph (a)(11),have been included in the final rule asseparate paragraphs for clarity.

Final rule paragraph (b)(5) (revisedfrom proposed paragraph (a)(12))requires that horizontal lifelines to beused as part of a complete personal fallarrest system be designed and installedunder the supervision of a qualifiedperson and have a safety factor of atleast two. The proposed provisionrequired that horizontal lifelines havesufficient strength to support a fallimpact force of at least 5,000 pounds(22.2 Kn). As discussed above, theAgency has concluded that the sameconsiderations which supported theadoption of such a requirement in theother corresponding OSHA standardsapply to personal fall arrest systemcomponents used in shipyardemployment. OSHA has revised thefinal rule accordingly.

Final rule paragraph (b)(6) sets thesystems performance criteria forpersonal fall arrest systems. These arenew requirements, so OSHA is makingthis provision effective November 20,1996 in order to allow employers areasonable amount of time to attaincompliance. The note to final ruleparagraph (b)(6) indicates that Non-mandatory Appendix B providesexamples of criteria and protocols fordesigning and testing personal fall arrestsystems that OSHA would consider tocomply with the standard.

Proposed paragraph (a)(4) was similarto final rule paragraph (b)(6), except thatthe proposed rule set 1,800 pounds(rather than 900 pounds) as themaximum arresting force limit forsystems that used body belts andrequired that a system have a strengthfactor of two (based on a design weightof 250 pounds per employee). Also, asdiscussed below, the proposedrequirement that free fall be limited tosix feet has been redesignated as aseparate provision, final rule paragraph(b)(7), for the sake of clarity. The noteto proposed paragraph (a)(4)(iv) is

essentially identical to that whichappears in the final rule, except foreditorial revisions. As discussed above,in reference to the July 6, 1994 notice(59 FR 34586), the Agency hasconcluded that the same considerationswhich supported the adoption of suchrequirements in the other correspondingOSHA standards apply to personal fallarrest system components used inshipyard employment. OSHA hasrevised the proposed rule accordingly.

Final rule paragraph (b)(7), based onproposed paragraph (a)(4)(i), requiresthat personal fall arrest systems berigged to prevent an employee from freefalling more than 6 feet (1.8 m) orcontacting any lower level.

Final rule paragraph (c) sets criteriafor the selection, use and care ofpersonal fall arrest systems and systemcomponents. Paragraph (c)(1) (proposedas paragraph (a)(5)) of the final rulerequires that the attachment point of abody belt be located in the center of thewearer’s back. The attachment point ofa body harness must be in the center ofthe wearer’s back near shoulder level orabove the wearer’s head. The proposedrule provided that the connection pointmust be either above the wearer’s heador above the waist in the back.Comments in the other rulemakingrecords supported allowing anattachment point at the chest positionfor limited free fall distances. The finalrule, as regards body harnesses, hasbeen revised accordingly.

Paragraph (c)(2) of the final rule,which is a new provision, requires thatropes and straps (webbing) used inlanyards, lifelines, and strengthcomponents of body belts and bodyharnesses be made from synthetic fibersor wire rope. OSHA has determined,given the difficulty of evaluating thedeterioration of natural fiber rope, thatnatural fiber rope is not reliable for usein a personal safety system.

Final rule paragraph (c)(3), also a newprovision, requires ropes, belts,harnesses and lanyards to be compatiblewith all hardware used. The use ofincompatible equipment may cause afall, or, during arrest of a fall, allowarresting forces which cause injury.

Paragraph (c)(4), proposed asparagraph (a)(3), requires that lifelinesand lanyards be protected against cuts,abrasions, burns from hot workoperations, and deterioration by acids,solvents, and other chemicals. Theproposed provision, which did not elicitcomments, was identical.

Final rule paragraph (c)(5), proposedas paragraph (a)(18), requires thatpersonal fall arrest systems be visuallyinspected prior to each use for mildew,wear, damage, and any other

deterioration. This inspection need notinvolve testing or impact loading of thesystem. If there is a reasonable basis tobelieve that the strength or integrity ofthe fall arrest system has beenweakened, the employer shall removedefective or damaged equipment fromservice. No comments were received onthe proposed provision, which wasidentical to the provision in the finalrule except for minor editorial changes.

Paragraph (c)(6), which was proposedas paragraph (a)(2), requires thatpersonal fall arrest systems andcomponents that have been subjected toimpact loading be removed immediatelyfrom service and not be used again foremployee protection until inspected andjudged suitable for use by a qualifiedperson. The proposed provision, whichwas effectively identical, elicited nocomments and has been promulgated inthe final rule with minor editorialchanges.

Paragraph (c)(7) of the final rule, anew provision, requires that theemployer provide for prompt rescue ofemployees in the event of a fall orensure that employees who have fallencan rescue themselves. This provisionalso appears in the proposed generalindustry rule and in the final rule forconstruction. OSHA anticipates thatemployers will evaluate the potentialconsequences of falls in personal fallarrest systems in their workenvironments and choose anappropriate means of rescue. OSHArecognizes that the rescue requirementsfor employees wearing body harnessesand body belts will differ. For example,the Agency anticipates that self-rescuewill be more difficult for employeesusing body belts and that the acceptablerescue time for such employees will beshorter, because falls in body beltstypically result in the employee hangingin a jack-knifed position. When it is notpossible to evaluate the self-rescuecapacity of employees in advance,prudent employers should assume thatemployees will need rescue assistanceand, accordingly, be prepared to offer it.Paragraph (c)(8), proposed as paragraph(a)(6), requires that body belts be at least1.625 inches (4.1–cm) wide. OSHA hasdetermined that this minimum widthwill be acceptable for any body beltsthat are used in personal fall arrestsystems during the phase-out period. Nocomments were received on thisprovision.

Paragraph (c)(9), proposed asparagraph (a)(1), requires that personalfall arrest equipment be usedexclusively for employee protection. Forexample, this equipment may not beused to hoist materials. This revision isintended to prevent the deterioration


potentially caused by improper uses andtypes of loads. The proposed provision,which was identical, elicited nocomments.

Final rule paragraph (d), Training,proposed as paragraph (a)(19), requiresthat employees be trained to understandthe application limits of the equipmentand the proper hook-up, anchoring, andtie-off techniques, before using anypersonal fall arrest equipment. Affectedemployees must also be trained so thatthey can demonstrate the propermethods of use, inspection, and storageof the equipment. OSHA believes thatemployees must know how their fallarrest equipment works in order to getthe appropriate protection from it. Nocomments were received on theproposed provision, which waseffectively identical to the final rule.

Section 1915.160 Positioning DeviceSystems

Positioning device systems preventfalls by holding affected employees inplace while they perform work onvertical surfaces at elevations. Theprovisions of proposed § 1915.159(b)have been moved to final rule§ 1915.160, so there is a clear distinctionbetween the requirements for personalfall arrest systems and those forpositioning device systems.

Final rule paragraph (a) sets criteriafor connectors and anchorages used inpositioning device systems. For thesame reasons as provided in theintroductory discussion of final rule§ 1915.159, the introductory text of finalrule § 1915.160 provides that the use ofnon-locking snaphooks will not beacceptable in positioning devicesystems after December 31, 1997. OSHAhas included paragraph (a)(4) in thefinal rule to address any non-lockingsnaphooks that may remain in useduring the phase-out period.

Paragraph (a)(1), proposed as§ 1915.159(b)1), requires that allhardware have a corrosion-resistantfinish and that all surfaces and edges besmooth to prevent damage to theattached belt or connecting assembly.Corrosion resistance is essential toretain the integrity of the hardware,while smooth edges and surfacesprevent cuts, tears, or other damage tosystem components. The proposedprovision was identical, except that theproposed term ‘‘hardware’’ has beenreplaced by the term ‘‘connector.’’ Asdiscussed above, OSHA has determinedthat it is appropriate to focus attentionon the critical load-bearing hardware byadopting the term ‘‘connector.’’

Final rule paragraph (a)(2), proposedas § 1915.159(b)(2), provides thatconnecting assemblies, such as

snaphooks or D-rings, have a minimumtensile strength of 5,000 pounds (22.2Kn). The proposed provision, which didnot elicit comments, was identical.

Final rule paragraph (a)(3), proposedas § 1915.159(b)(3), requires thatanchorages for positioning devicesystems be capable of supporting twicethe potential impact load of anemployee’s fall. The proposedprovision, which did not elicitcomments, was identical.

Final rule paragraph (a)(4), proposedas § 1915.159(b)(6)(i), provides thatsnaphooks, unless of a locking typedesigned and used to preventdisengagement, shall not be connectedto each other. The proposed rule simplyprohibited the connecting of snaphooksto each other. As discussed above, inreference to the introductory text offinal rule § 1915.160, the use of non-locking snaphooks is prohibited afterDecember 31, 1997.

Final rule paragraph (b) setsperformance criteria for positioningdevice systems. Paragraph (b)(1),proposed as § 1915.159(b)(4), requiresthat restraint (tether) lines have aminimum breaking strength of 3,000pounds (13.3–Kn). This breakingstrength is necessary to ensure that theline will hold under fall arrestconditions. The proposed provision,which did not elicit comments, wasidentical.

Paragraph (b)(2), proposed as§ 1915.159(b)(5), provides the systemperformance criteria for the differenttypes of positioning device systems.These are new performancerequirements that are not in OSHA’scurrent shipyard standards. In order toallow employers a reasonable amount oftime to ensure that their equipmentmeets these requirements, OSHA ismaking this provision effectiveNovember 20, 1996.

Final rule paragraph (b)(2)(i) providesthat window cleaner’s positioningsystems must be capable ofwithstanding a drop test involving a 6foot (1.83 m) drop of a 250 pound (113kg) weight. These systems mustwithstand a more rigorous drop testthan other positioning device systemsbecause of their potential for greater freefall distances.

Final rule paragraph (b)(2)(ii) requiresthat all positioning device systems,other than window cleaners’ positioningsystems, be capable of withstanding adrop test of 4 feet (1.2 m) with a 250pound (113 kg) weight. Positioningdevice systems which comply with theprovisions of Section 2 of Appendix Bwill be deemed by OSHA to meet therequirements of this paragraph. The

proposed provision, which elicited nocomments, was identical.

Final rule paragraph (c) sets criteriafor the use and care of positioningdevice systems. Final rule paragraph(c)(1), proposed as § 1915.159(b)(7),requires the inspection of positioningdevice systems before each workshift formildew, wear, damage, and otherdeterioration. This provision furtherrequires that defective componentsidentified in such inspections beremoved from service. The proposedlanguage was nearly identical, exceptthat it provided for removal of defectiveequipment ‘‘if their functions orstrength may have been adverselyaffected.’’ OSHA has determined thatthe deletion of that language will makethe rule easier to understand, becauseemployers will simply removecomponents from service that areidentified as defective without having tomake a specific determination aboutstrength or function.

Final rule paragraph (c)(2), proposedas § 1915.159(b)(6)(ii), requires thatpositioning device systems orcomponents subjected to impact loadingbe removed immediately from serviceand not be used again for employeeprotection, unless inspected anddetermined by a qualified person to beundamaged and suitable for reuse. Thisrequirement is necessary to ensure thatsystems used for employee protectionstill meet the performance criteria forsuch systems before they are reused forthis purpose. The proposed provision,which did not elicit comments, wasidentical.

Final rule paragraph (d), Training,proposed as § 1915.159(b)(6)(iii),provides that employees must be trainedin the application limits, proper hook-up, anchoring, and tie-off techniques,methods of use, inspection, and storageof positioning device systems beforethey may use those systems. Thisprovision emphasizes the importance ofemployee training in the safe use ofpositioning device systems; for thesesystems to provide employee protection,two elements are essential. The systemsmust be designed and used inaccordance with stated performancecriteria, and the employee(s) using thesystem must be adequately trained inthe safe use of the system. The proposedprovision, which did not elicitcomments, was identical.

Incorporation by ReferenceAnother action in this document is

the consolidation, within part 1915, ofOSHA’s Incorporation by Reference(IBR) statements of approval, whichindicate clearance by the Office of theFederal Register, into a single section,


§ 1915.5. Existing section 1915.5 isbeing updated and revised toaccomplish this consolidation. Thisapproach is consistent with that takenby other Federal agencies. As amended,§ 1915.5 contains the nationalconsensus standard organizations’addresses and the IBR approvallanguage. This approach saves text bycross-referencing from the regulatorytext where an IBR is set out to the IBRsection. Without such a section, theaddresses of the standardsorganizations, the OSHA Docket Officeaddress, and the IBR approval statementwould need to be repeated with eachincorporation by reference throughoutthe shipyard standards. A consolidatedIBR Section will also be easier toupdate.

Appendices

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

Appendix A

Appendix A provides suggestedguidelines for complying with therequirements for hazard assessment forthe selection of personal protectionequipment.

In developing the final rule for thisrulemaking, OSHA has determined thatAppendix B of the correspondingGeneral Industry standard (part 1910,subpart I) contains some usefulinformation that would be helpful toshipyard employers. Therefore, OSHAhas decided to add a detailed AppendixA to the shipyard PPE standard toprovide some examples of guidelineswhich an employer may follow incomplying with OSHA’s performance-oriented final rule. Those guidelinesinclude examples of hazard assessmentsperformed by work activity.

Appendix B

Appendix B contains testing methodsand other information to assistemployers in complying with theperformance-oriented criteria forpersonal fall arrest systems andpositioning device systems contained inthis standard. Many revisions have beenmade to this appendix based on thecomments received during the poweredplatform rulemaking (Docket No. S–700A). These changes are intended toclarify and simplify the informationpresented. A complete discussion of thecomments and reasons for the changesare included in the Powered Platformsfor Building Maintenance final rule (54FR 31452).

Amendments to Other Subparts of theShipyard Standards

This final rule also revises crossreferences in subparts C and H of theshipyard standards, so that thoseprovisions reference subpart I. Theexisting references would no longeridentify the correct paragraphs insubpart I because of the reformatting ofSubpart I. These revisions are editorialin nature and do not substantivelychange the current requirements inother subparts.

IV. Summary of Final EconomicAnalysis, Regulatory FlexibilityAnalysis, and Environmental ImpactAssessment Summary

In accordance with Executive Order12866, OSHA has developed a finaleconomic analysis to support the finalstandard for personal protectiveequipment (PPE) in the shipyardindustry. The Agency has also analyzedthe standard’s impact on small entities,as required by the Regulatory FlexibilityAct, and its potential to cause adverseenvironmental impacts, as required bythe National Environmental Policy Act.The final rule, which will be codified assubpart I of the shipyard employmentstandards (29 CFR 1915), covers the useof personal protective equipment for thehead (e.g., hard hats), eyes (e.g.,goggles), feet and hands (e.g., shoes andgloves), and body (e.g., chemicalprotective clothing), contains therespirator requirements that have beenpart of OSHA’s shipyard standards since1971, and adds requirements forpersonal fall protection systems andpositioning device systems.

Injuries in the shipyard industry arefrequent and severe. The shipyardindustry (SIC 3731) has the secondhighest rate of lost workday injuries andillnesses (37.8 per 100 full-timeworkers), according to the BLSpublication ‘‘Occupational Injuries andIllnesses: Counts, Rates, andCharacteristics, 1992’’ (published inApril 1995). The industry also has oneof the highest average number of lostworkdays per injury (more than 40percent of lost workday injuries involvemore than 10 days away from work,according to the same BLS publication).

To address those shipyard injuriesthat result from the failure to use PPEor from the use of inadequate PPE, andto raise the minimum standard of PPEuse in the industry to the level oftechnology currently available, OSHAhas developed this final rule. The rulerequires employers to meet minimumspecifications for PPE employed toprotect the eyes and face, hands andbody, and feet, as well as those for

respiratory protection, lifesaving, andpersonal fall protection equipment. Inaddition, the final rule requiresemployers to conduct hazardassessments, include specific elementsrelated to PPE in the training theyprovide to their workers, documenttraining and hazard assessments, requirethe use of body harnesses in place ofbody belts after a phase-in period, andensure the use of locking snaphooks onpersonal fall protection equipment.Rulemaking participants from theshipyard industry report that mostemployers in the industry are already incompliance with the requirements of thefinal standard. For example, oneindustry representative stated ‘‘* * *most shipyards require employees towear personal protective equipment inall areas beyond the office doors. * * *We’ve already identified and protectedour employees and our visitors becauseof the hazardous work environment’’[January 25, 1995 public meeting,Transcript page 9].

The economic analysis identifies anumber of benefits that employers andemployees will experience as a result ofcompliance with the standard. Forexample, the Agency has concluded thatthe rule’s requirements for bodyharnesses and locking snaphooks willreduce the risk of fatal falls, and theserequirements will also reduce theseverity of the injuries resulting fromnon-fatal falls. In addition, the final ruleis estimated to prevent about 1,550 lostworkday injuries annually and 12,650non-lost workday injuries caused by thefailure to use PPE or the use ofinadequate PPE.

The Agency estimates that employersin the affected industry will incurestimated annual costs of compliance of$163,000. These costs, which averageabout $2 per covered employee, will notimpose substantial economic impacts onaffected firms in any size-class. OSHAhas also evaluated the impacts ofcompliance costs on the average smallshipyard and has determined that, evenunder a no cost pass throughassumption, worst case impacts on suchestablishments will average no morethan $100 annually. OSHA has thereforeconcluded that this standard will notimpose an undue burden on small firms;in addition, the standard will not havean adverse effect on the environment.

IntroductionExecutive Order 12866 requires the

Agency to perform an analysis of thecosts, benefits, and regulatoryalternatives of its regulatory actions. Ifa regulation is deemed ‘‘significant’’ bythe Administrator of OMB’s Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs


(OIRA), OIRA reviews the regulationand OSHA’s economic analysis. Aregulatory action is consideredsignificant if it imposes annual costs onthe economy of $100 million or more orhas 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 onewell-defined industry, the shipbuildingand ship repair industry, and theestimated costs of compliance are farbelow the $100 million threshold.OSHA has therefore concluded that thepromulgation of this final standard forpersonal protective equipment inshipyard employment is not asignificant action under the guidelinesof E.O. 12866.

As required by the OSH Act and itsjudicial interpretations, the Agencymust demonstrate that all of itsregulations are both technologically andeconomically feasible, and specificallythat this is the case for this rule. TheAgency has concluded that thisstandard meets both tests of feasibility.A summary of the Agency’s feasibilityassessment of the final rule is presentedin the following section of the EconomicAnalysis.

In addition, the Regulatory FlexibilityAct of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)requires federal agencies to determinewhether a regulation will have asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities.The Agency must also review thisstandard in accordance with therequirements of the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA) of1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), theGuidelines of the Council onEnvironmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFRPart 1500), and OSHA’s DOL NEPAProcedures (29 CFR Part 11).

This summary of the economicanalysis includes an overview of theaffected industry and employees at risk,the estimated benefits of the rule, thetechnological feasibility of the standard,the estimated compliance costs shipyardemployers will incur, the impact ofthose costs on firms in the shipyardindustry, the results of the regulatoryflexibility and economic analysis, and adiscussion of regulatory and non-regulatory alternatives. The full text ofthe economic analysis is in the shipyardPPE docket (Docket S–045).

Industry ProfileThe American shipyard industry has

been in a long-term decline since 1981when the federal government endedsubsidies for commercial shipconstruction. In the period 1976–1980

the industry built an average of 64merchant vessels per year. Only fivecommercial ships have been built since1988. The decline in merchant vesselconstruction in the 1980’s was partiallyoffset by a large increase in military shipconstruction. However, the end of themilitary competition with the formerU.S.S.R. has resulted in a sharp drop inmilitary ships on order. The ‘‘bottom-up’’ review of the armed forces calledfor a major reduction in the number ofactive combat ships, and consequentlyhas caused a drop in the number offuture orders. U.S. Navy orders, whichaveraged 19 per year in the 1980’s, areprojected to fall to 8 per year during theperiod 1994–1999. Ship repair andconstruction of inland vessels andbarges has remained constant during thepast five years.

Recently American shipyards havereceived new orders for construction ofcommercial ships (Wall Street JournalNov. 15, 1995). These orders resultmainly from a new Federal loanguarantee program approved byCongress but also are due to exchangerates that have made American-madeproducts cheaper relative to foreign-produced goods. Wage rates inAmerican shipyards were already wellbelow those of some important foreigncompetitors, such as Germany andJapan, whose governments heavilysubsidize their shipbuilding industries.A new global trade accord that wouldend shipbuilding subsidies may besigned in the near future. This wouldallow American shipyards to competeinternationally, increase commercialship construction, and increaseemployment levels in the industry. TheAgency estimates that employment inAmerican shipyards will end its declineand level off or increase slightly for thenext two to three years. Futureemployment levels depend on fundingfor the guaranteed loan program,exchange rates and the relative price ofAmerican versus foreign-built ships,foreign governments’ level of subsidy totheir shipyards, and the status andterms of a global accord to end subsidyprograms.

Employment in the shipbuildingindustry declined from 177,000 in 1984to about 125,000 by 1987 and remainednear that level until 1992. The Bureauof Labor Statistics estimates thatemployment in the industry was106,000 by late 1993. The most recentBLS ‘‘Employment and Earnings’’ (May1995) estimates the same level ofemployment and reports that about79,000 of these employees areproduction workers. In 1994, the valueof output from American shipyards wasapproximately $9.5 billion (1994

Industrial Outlook estimate). Based onDun & Bradstreet’s estimated meanreturn for the shipyard industry of 2.9percent, the industry earnedapproximately $275 million in 1994.

The Agency estimates that there areapproximately 500 firms in SIC 3731,and a majority of these have fewer than50 employees. Employment in theshipyard industry is highlyconcentrated. The ten largest shipyardsemploy approximately 70 percent of allshipyard workers, and only the 100largest firms have as many as 100employees each. The Agency estimatesthat approximately 300 firms engaged inship repair employ fewer than 20employees. Many of these small firmsperform contracting for larger firms;those that do so already follow the PPEguidelines of the employing shipyards.

Employees at Risk

Numerous sources confirm that about75 percent of shipyard employees areproduction workers, including the 1987Census of Manufactures (Bureau of theCensus 1990) and CONSAD ResearchCorporation (1986). The Agency thusconcludes that an estimated 79,000production workers in this industry arenow exposed to workplace hazards thatmay require the use of PPE of the typescovered by the final rule.

Technological Feasibility

Equipment to meet the final PPEstandard, such as hard hats, gloves, andsafety shoes, is readily available andwidely used throughout the industry.Off-the-shelf safety programs thatinclude guidance on the conduct ofhazard assessments, as well as trainingprogram materials, are readily available,and these programs are also wellestablished throughout the industry.‘‘Hazard assessments are a standardpractice at EBDiv. [Electric BoatDivision]’’ [Ex. 9–10]. ‘‘Shipyards aresafety conscious. Every shipyard in theHampton Roads area has a safetyprogram and a safety officer * * *STASR shipyards have safety programswith many of the PPE standards alreadyin place. The [proposed standard’s] PPEtraining and recordkeepingrequirements are, in some cases,redundant’’ [South TidewaterAssociation of Ship Repairers, Ex. 9–3].

Training documentation is usuallymaintained by shipyard employers in acomputer database. The Agencytherefore concludes that the final PPEstandard is technologically feasible. Theperformance-oriented criteria of thestandard should also allowtechnological innovation to improvePPE protection in the future.


CostsThe preliminary cost estimates

prepared by OSHA to support theproposed shipyard PPE standardpublished in 1988 included compliancecosts that shipyard employers wouldincur to comply with a number ofproposed requirements for respiratoruse. However, the final standard doesnot include any new respiratorrequirements, because the Agencyexpects to publish a final ruleaddressing respirator use in allindustries in the near future. Thus, thisfinal rule includes only those respiratorprovisions that have been included inOSHA’s shipyard rules since 1971.

In response to the preliminaryRegulatory Impact Analysis (1988),OSHA received only one comment onthe costs of the proposed standard.Peterson Builders [Ex. 6–14], referring tothe proposed requirement for footprotection in Section 1915.156, statedthat buying protective footwear for allemployees—which the commenterinterpreted as being required by theproposed standard—would be costlyand unnecessary. The Agency hasrecently clarified its policy on thepurchase of PPE to make clear thatemployers do not have to purchaseequipment that may also have personaluse; OSHA believes that the costs of PPEwill therefore be substantially less thanthis commenter expected. In addition,as noted above, OSHA’s 1988Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis(see Docket S–045) noted that the use ofPPE in shipyards is already widespread.

On April 6, 1994 OSHA published afinal standard for PPE in generalindustry (59 Federal Register No. 66).On July 6, 1994, the Agency reopenedthe record for the shipyard PPE standardto incorporate the general industry PPEdocket into the shipyard PPE docket andto propose the addition of severalelements from the general industrystandard to the shipyard standard.These elements included requirementsfor: certification of workplace hazardassessments; certification of training;specification of training elements; thephasing out of body belts in favor ofbody harnesses; and the replacement ofnon-locking snaphooks with lockingsnaphooks. The Agency’s intent intaking this action was to make the PPEstandard consistent where possible inboth shipyards and the generalindustries. Following the commentperiod, a Federal Register noticeannouncing a public meeting andcontaining additional discussion ofsome of the issues raised by thereopening was published on December13, 1994. A public meeting was held on

January 25, 1995 to hear testimonyabout the proposed changes to theshipyard standard introduced duringthe reopening of the record.

Representatives of the shipyardindustry and industry associationsopposed the new requirements for workplace hazard assessments and thecertification of such assessments. First,the industry asserted that job-relatedactivities in shipyards are uniquebecause a shipyard is not a fixed‘‘workplace.’’ Instead there is a constantshifting of trades between worklocations as employees move amongvarious shops and vessels; in addition,in ship repair and overhauling, thevessels being worked on constantlychange. According to these commenters,it is not possible for designated shipyardemployees to continuously assess thehazards of a ‘‘workplace’’ that isconstantly changing. According to oneparticipant, a better approach would beto perform hazard assessments by tradeto determine the level of PPE required[South Tidewater Association of ShipRepairers, Ex. 9–3]. Numerouscommenters agreed with this view [Exs.9–1, 9–7 through 9–12].

As discussed above in relation to finalrule § 1915.152(b), OSHA agrees that itis appropriate to allow employersflexibility in organizing their hazardassessment efforts. The Agency hasunderscored the performance-orientednature of that provision by adding anote to the final rule which states thathazard assessments conductedaccording to the trade or occupation ofaffected employees are acceptable solong as they address any PPE-relatedhazards to which employees areexposed in the course of their workactivities.

The shipyard industry also opposedthe requirement for certification ofhazard assessments because, in theopinion of commenters, certificationwould require employers to expendresources for new paperwork activities‘‘for the convenience of the Agency’’that would not result in additionalsafety for production workers [Ex. 9–11]. Industry commenters also wereconcerned that certification mightincrease their liability when injuriesoccur. Other shipyards that currentlyrely on worker involvement to analyzerisks feared that certification woulddisrupt that process [January 25, 1995public meeting transcript pages 28 and41–47]. The shipyard industry alsoopposed the certification of hazardassessments on the grounds that theseassessments would be redundant, sincethe industry already performs manyPPE-related hazard assessments forindividual health and safety standards

such as hearing conservation, lead,confined spaces, respirator use, andother OSHA standards.

In its Federal Register notice onDecember 13, 1994 announcing a publicmeeting on shipyard PPE issues, theAgency asked for information onwhether simple documentation wouldsuffice in place of certification. Intestimony at the public meeting and incomments submitted following themeeting, industry representatives statedthat they did not oppose documentationof hazard assessments. In fact, theyreported that it is routine in the industryto conduct such assessments and todocument them:

* * * hearing conservation, respiratoryprotection, hazard communication, lockout/tagout, lead abatement, blood-bornepathogens, medical surveillance programs* * * [are] programs that are already in placethat [require] us to do hazard assessments ofthe workplace in order that we provide PPE* * * Where hazard assessment does notexist, and it would be hard for me to saywhere it doesn’t in the shipyard industry,we’d recommend that an annual assessmentbe made. [Shipbuilders Council, January 25,1995 public meeting transcript page 11].

Commenters within the shipyardindustry also opposed the generalindustry PPE requirement to certifytraining, largely for the same reasons asthose noted above for the certification ofhazard assessments—the creation ofpotential new legal liability andunnecessary paperwork. In its December13, 1994 announcement, the Agencysuggested that simple documentationcould be used in lieu of certification,and the final rule requiresdocumentation rather than certification.

Commenters were generallysupportive of the standard’s trainingrequirements and the specific elementsof training mandated by the rule.Commenters stated that the PPE trainingelements proposed by the Agency werepracticed throughout the shipyardindustry, as was the maintenance oftraining logs—usually in the form of acomputer database:

We support the general requirement fortraining as it does serve to enhance a saferworking environment [Shipbuilders’ Council[Ex. 9–9]].

We are already complying with thisproposed standard [for training] and wesuspect many other shipyards are alsocomplying. * * * Our new hire orientationprograms covers all areas of PPE and wouldmeet the new requirements proposed in thestandard [Tampa Shipyards, Ex. 9–8].

We’d recommend this documentation [fortraining] be in the form of training logs,which most of us already keep on thecomputer [Shipbuilders’ Council January 25,1995 public meeting, Transcript page 13].


There was widespread support amongindustry commenters for the use of bodyharnesses in place of body belts:

Electric Boat Division utilizes bodyharnesses for all of its fall protection needs.* * * [Ex. 9–10].

BIW/Local S6 has implemented a policywhich is consistent with the constructionindustry standard in that only bodyharnesses may be used in fall arrest systemsand body belts may be used in positioningdevice systems [Bath Iron Works Ex. 11–7].

Without a doubt, the majority of ourmembership endorses the use of harnesses.Most of us already have those in place[Shipbuilders’ Council January 25, 1995public meeting, Transcript page 14].

However, Newport NewsShipbuilding (NNS), which employsabout 20 percent of all shipyardemployees, opposed the phase-out ofbody belts in favor of harnesses. NNSrelies almost completely on body beltsfor fall protection, although theshipyard did report using a smallnumber of harnesses. Several smallyards also still rely on body belts for fallprotection and questioned the utility ofchanging to body harnesses since theyhad experienced no injuries due to theuse of body belts [Exs. 9–1, 9–3 and 9–11]. At the public meeting, NNS statedthat replacing over 4,700 body beltswould be a burden and therefore that aseven-year phase-in period would beneeded to reduce the economic impact.The company reported that a review ofseveral years’ accident records failed toshow that falls of employees using bodybelts resulted in any severe injuries.NNS did not introduce its data on fallsinto the record, however. A costanalysis presented by NNS at thehearing showed that body belts costNNS $43 each and, on average, lasted 7years; harnesses cost $140 and have aworking lifetime of 3 years.

Most other shipyards and industryassociations reported that they hadswitched to harnesses from belts. Thesecommenters reported that, althoughharnesses cost more than belts, theyprovide greater protection and are costeffective.

We * * * endorse the use of bodyharnesses as a safety method for employees.While the cost of a body harness is usuallytwice the amount of body belts, the addedsafety factor to the employee is well worththe money, and in the long run will save thecompany 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 veryeffective, and everybody seems to certainlyfeel 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 thatbody harnesses would prevent injuriesthat could occur in falls involvingemployees wearing body belts. Inaddition, they said that it is difficult torescue a worker in a body belt after a fallsince he or she typically is hanging‘‘nose to toes,’’ or upside down. Severalfalls involving employees (in otherindustries) wearing body belts hadresulted in fatalities when the fallenworker had slipped out of his/her bodybelt. The insurance representatives alsoasserted that the cost of harnessesshould not preclude the inclusion of aharness requirement in the rule becauseindustry has known that the change toharnesses was going to occur, body beltsare usually ‘‘expense’’ items, and, iftreated as a capital expense, will havebeen fully depreciated by the effectivedate of the regulation. The associationdid not provide any data demonstratingthat the injuries associated with falls inbody harnesses was less severe thanthose in belts. Belts were estimated tocost $35 each and harnesses $75 each.Harnesses were estimated to last anaverage of 2 to 4 years.

OSHA agrees with the assessment ofmost of the commenters from theshipyard industry and the insuranceindustry who supported therequirement for harnesses in lieu ofbelts, and the final rule thus containssuch a requirement.

Many commenters endorsed theadoption of locking snaphooks overnon-locking snaphooks on lifelines [Ex.9–10 and January 25, 1995 publicmeeting, Transcript page 52]. Lockingsnaphooks are already in widespreaduse in shipyards. At the January 25,1995 public meeting, representativesfrom the American Insurance Servicedemonstrated how, in a ‘‘roll-out’’situation, lifelines can detach from non-locking snaphooks. Most industrycommenters reported that snaphookswere used in their shipyard, and noneopposed this change to the standard orraised it as a cost issue.

Based on the record for thisrulemaking, the Agency has concludedthat the only provisions of the final PPEstandard that will impose other thannegligible costs on shipyard employersare: the replacement of body belts withbody harnesses; the documentation ofhazard assessments; the development oftraining for body harnesses in shipyardsnot already employing harnesses; andemployee training for body harnesses.Only Newport News Shipbuilding(NNS) and a number of small shipyardsreported that they still rely on bodybelts. (Very small shipyards specializein trades and may not use bodyharnesses or body belts at all). OSHA

has taken the concerns of thesecommenters into account in the finalrule. NNS stated that it currently usesabout 4,700 body belts, although noinformation was available on thebreakdown between belts used aspositioning devices (this would not beaffected by the final rule) and thoseused for fall protection. To the extentthat some of these belts continue to beused for positioning devices, the 4700figure overstates the number ofharnesses to acquire. The Agencyestimates that NNS will need topurchase no more than 3,000 harnesses(about 1 for every 5 productionworkers). The Agency estimates that, inaddition to NNS, some smalleremployers in the industry may need tobuy harnesses to replace body belts, andthe Agency estimates that 1,000harnesses would be purchased by theseemployers. Based on evidence in therecord and information from suppliers,the Agency estimates that body beltscost about $50 and harnesses $100.Body belts are estimated to last anaverage of 7 years and harnesses 3 years.Thus, body belts supply fall protectionat a cost of roughly $7 per year ($50/7years), while harnesses do so at $33 peryear ($100/3 years). Harnesses thereforecost roughly $27 more per year thanbelts for each affected employee. Sincebody belts can still be used aspositioning devices, the requirementthat harnesses be used for fall protectionwill not end the useful life of thesebelts. Based on these estimates, OSHAconcludes that replacing body belts withharnesses will result in a new annualcost to the industry of approximately$128,000 [(3,000 new harnesses forNNS+1,000 new harnesses for smallshipyards)×$27]. Nevertheless, to allowadditional time and reduce anypotential impacts, the final rule permitsshipyards to phase-in compliance withthe body harness requirement over twoyears, which is consistent with thephase-out date in other OSHAstandards.

The hazard assessmentdocumentation required by the standardconsists of a record, either paper or ona computer or other storage medium,with the date of the hazard assessment,name of person performing theassessment, occupation or operationscovered, and a list of the PPE required.Shipyards report that they alreadyincorporate some of this information intheir current training materials. TheAgency has estimated that it would takeeach shipyard about an hour to developa computer-based record format for thisdocumentation and approximately fiveminutes to record the hazard assessment


for each occupation covered. Table 3summarizes this information for the PPEstandard. The total time expended by

managers to document hazardassessments is estimated to be 781

hours, a one-time commitment ofmanagement resources.

TABLE 3.—ESTIMATE OF AMOUNT OF TIME TO DOCUMENT HAZARD ASSESSMENTS, DEVELOP TRAINING PROGRAMS FORBODY HARNESSES, AND TRAIN IN USE OF BODY HARNESSES FOR OSHA’S STANDARD ON PPE IN SHIPYARDS

Firm Size (number of employees)

Numberof firms insize cat-

egory

Hazard assessment Develop training for hamesses Training

Numberof hazardassess-ments

(trades)

Time todocument

hazardassess-ments(hours)

Time todeveloptrainingper firm(hours)

Numberof firms

who mustdo so

Total timeto de-velop

program(hours)

Trainingsessionsper firm

Manage-ment time

(hours)

Numberof em-ployeestrained(hours)

1000+ ............................................. 12 40 36 ................ none 0 150 150 3000500–999 ......................................... 12 30 30 8 6 48 4 24 200100–499 ......................................... 76 30 190 4 76 304 2 152 40021–99 ............................................. 100 10 150 4 100 400 1 100 20011–20 ............................................. 100 5 125 2 50 100 1 50 2001–10 ............................................... 200 5 250 2 100 200 1 100 150

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

Total one-time, or first year, man-agement resources for hazardassessments and developmentof training ................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 2 1,833

First year management resourcesto conduct training ..................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 2 576

Total management time ................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 2 2,409Total employee time ...................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 2 4,150

Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis.1 One-time.2 Hours.

The development of training materialsfor the use of personal fall arrestsystems (body harnesses) imposes a one-time cost for shipyards that are notalready using harnesses. Some of thevery smallest shipyards who providespecialty trade work will not have oruse any harnesses. All large shipyardsalready use harnesses to some extent,and the Agency has concluded thatthese shipyards also have developedtraining materials. Because trainingvideos and written materials on the useof body harnesses are widely available,the Agency has concluded that the timerequired for establishing such a trainingprogram will be small. Table 3 presentsthe Agency’s estimate of the time thatfirms will expend to develop trainingfor the use of body harnesses; theestimate ranges from 8 hours for firmswith more than 500 employees to 2hours for the smallest employers. Thetotal time required to develop trainingfor body harnesses is estimated to be1,052 hours of management time.

Firms that do not currently use bodyharnesses must also train theiremployees as harnesses are substitutedover time for body belts. The cost of thistraining consists of management ortrainers’ time to provide training toemployees as well as the value ofemployee wages foregone while

training. The Agency estimates atraining session will take approximatelyone hour and that as many as 10 to 20employees can receive training in asingle session. Table 3 presents theAgency’s estimate of the number ofsessions by firm size that will benecessary for training in body harnessesand the number of employees trained.The Agency estimates that a higherfraction (10 percent or more) of smallerfirms’ employees will have to be traineddue to the nature of their business—cleaning tanks, repairs over the ship’sside, painting and maintenance—whichrequire the use of harnesses. Amonglarge firms only NNS relies primarily onbody belts and uses only a few bodyharnesses. The Agency estimates that allof NNS’s body belts (4,700) will nothave to be replaced with harnesses,since compared with smaller yards lesswork conducted at large shipyards or innew ship construction requires a bodyharness (rather than a body belt). TheAgency has estimated that NNS willreplace 3,000 body belts with harnesses.Data for the cost of body harnesstraining is included in Table 6. TheAgency estimates that 576 hours ofmanagement time and 4,150 hours ofemployee time will be required fortraining.

The total one-time cost fordocumenting hazard assessments,developing harness training materials,and providing training is 2,409management hours and 4,150 employeehours. Average hourly employee wagesfor SIC 3731 are about $14.00 per hour(‘‘Employment and Earnings’’ Bureau ofLabor Statistics October, 1994). TheAgency estimates that the cost of wagesplus benefits is $20 per hour forproduction employees and $30 per hourfor managers.

The total cost of these elements of thestandard 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 bodyharnesses of $128,000, the Agencyestimates that the total annualized costof the PPE standard is $163,000 per yearfor the shipyard industry.

Economic Impacts

With industry revenues exceeding $9billion and an estimated profit of $275million in 1994, the annual estimatedcompliance costs associated with thestandard ($163,000) will not cause asignificant impact on the revenues orprofits of firms in the shipyard industry.


Benefits

The final shipyard PPE standard willreduce the risk of injury or fatalityconfronting workers who fall whilewearing body belts. After the phase-inperiod, shipyard workers who fall whilewearing body harnesses will experiencefewer fatalities or severe injuries as aresult of these falls. Although industryand insurance representatives testifiedto the beneficial effects of harnesses,data in the record are not sufficientlydetailed to quantify the magnitude ofthe reduced risk. Accordingly, OSHAhas not quantified this risk reduction orthe productivity gains associated withthe use of harnesses compared withbelts. In addition, the use of lockingsnaphooks, as required by the final rule,will prevent roll-out thus reducing therisk of fatality or severe injury.

The Agency has also analyzed themore typical PPE-related injuries oflesser severity. OSHA estimates thatcompliance with the final shipyardpersonal protective equipment rule willpotentially prevent about 1,550 lostworkday injuries (15 percent of allshipyard PPE-related lost workdayinjuries) and about 12,650 non-lostworkday injuries (about 46 percent of allshipyard PPE-related non-lost workdayinjuries). To develop this estimate, theAgency analyzed a sample of over 1,700

shipyard injuries reported on OSHAForm 200’s that were collected as partof recent OSHA survey efforts. For eachinjury or illness in the sample, OSHAjudged whether the injury or illness waspotentially preventable through the useof the appropriate type of protectiveequipment. These judgments were basedon the injury and illness descriptions onthe Form 200. OSHA considered thefollowing types of PPE to be applicable:hard hats, safety glasses and goggles,welding goggles and helmets, faceshields, safety shoes, work gloves andother forms of hand protection, andchemical protective gloves, aprons, andother clothing.

To develop its estimate, OSHA firstdivided the sample injuries andillnesses by severity and estimated thefraction of cases that were judged to bepotentially preventable by PPE use.Next, OSHA applied thesepreventability rates to Bureau of LaborStatistics employment levels for 1994for the shipyard industry and calculatedthe number of cases that might beprevented through PPE use. The resultsof this analysis are shown in Table 4. Of27,317 shipyard injuries and illnesseswithout lost-workdays, 12,665 (46.4percent) were estimated to bepotentially preventable through properuse of PPE. Of 9,876 cases involvingdays away from work, OSHA estimated

that 1,549 (15.7 percent) werepotentially preventable throughcompliance with OSHA’s PPErequirements. These estimates indicatethat over 10 percent of all shipyardinjuries (both lost-time and non-lostwork time) are potentially preventablethrough the proper use of safety glasses,while 15 percent are potentiallypreventable through the use of workgloves or other appropriate forms ofhand protection. This analysis of‘‘typical’’ PPE injuries parallels thebenefits analysis performed for thegeneral industry PPE standard, with oneexception. In this shipyard analysis, theAgency has reduced its estimate of thenumber of eye injuries that could beprevented by the use of safety glasses to50 percent (a figure of about 99 percentwas applied in the general industryanalysis), because shipyardrepresentatives and OSHA personnelreport that the use of basic eyeprotection is standard practice inshipyards, which are widely recognizedas being especially hazardousenvironments. The Agency concludesthat fewer eye injuries occur inshipyards than general industryestablishments because employees inshipyards, unlike those in generalindustry, are routinely required to wearsafety glasses.

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

Injury preventability/PPE type

Injuries without lost-work-days

Injuries with lost-workdays All injuries

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Preventable:Hard hat ..................................................................... 753 2.8 133 1.3 886 2.4Safety glasses 1 ......................................................... 3,509 12.8 346 3.5 3,855 10.4Safety goggles ........................................................... 422 1.5 88 0.9 510 1.4Welding goggles/helmet ............................................ 632 2.3 137 1.4 769 2.1Face shield ................................................................ 1,024 3.7 33 0.3 1,057 2.8Safety shoes (metatarsal guard) ............................... 392 1.4 237 2.4 628 1.7Safety shoes (toe protection) .................................... 361 1.3 109 1.1 470 1.3Safety shoes (sole protection) ................................... 151 0.6 0 0.0 151 0.4Work gloves ............................................................... 5,120 18.7 406 4.1 5,526 14.9Chemical protective gloves ........................................ 0 0.0 48 0.5 48 0.1Chemical protective clothing ...................................... 301 1.1 13 0.1 314 0.8

Total preventable ................................................... 12,665 46.4 1,549 15.7 14,214 38.2Not Preventable ................................................................ 14,652 53.6 8,327 84.3 22,979 61.8All 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 Ship-

yard Injury Database. Estimates of the number of 1992 injuries and illnesses extrapolated to 1994 based on decline in shipyard employment of14.4 percent over this period.

OSHA also used data supplied by theBLS describing the distribution ofshipyard lost-workday cases by bodypart injured to develop disaggregated

estimates of the number of preventableinjuries. These estimates are shown inTable 5. OSHA estimates that 90 percentof the head, scalp, and toe injuries are

potentially preventable. OSHA alsojudged PPE to be effective, at lowerrates, in preventing face, eye, foot, handand finger injuries.


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

Injury severity/body partNumber of1992 inju-

ries

Number ofextrapolated1994 inju-

ries 3

Share of in-juries pre-ventable 4

(percent-age)

Number ofinjuries pre-

vented

Injuries and illnesses without lost workdays1 ................................................................... 31,900 27,317 46.4 12,665Lost-workday injuries and illnesses:2

Head, unspecified ...................................................................................................... 73 63 100.0 63Ear(s) ......................................................................................................................... 0 0 0.0 0Eye(s) ........................................................................................................................ 1,080 925 5 61.7 571Face ........................................................................................................................... 51 44 75.0 33Scalp .......................................................................................................................... 91 78 6 90.0 70Neck .......................................................................................................................... 350 300 0.0 0Arm(s), Unspecified ................................................................................................... 49 42 0.0 0Elbow ......................................................................................................................... 265 227 0.0 0Forearm ..................................................................................................................... 128 110 0.0 0Wrist .......................................................................................................................... 478 409 12.5 51Hand(s) ...................................................................................................................... 508 435 38.9 169Finger(s) .................................................................................................................... 720 617 37.9 234Upper extremities, multiple ........................................................................................ 0 0 0.0 0Trunk, unspecified ..................................................................................................... 0 0 6 NE 0Abdomen ................................................................................................................... 88 75 0.0 0Back, Unspecified ...................................................................................................... 954 817 0.0 0Back, lumbar ............................................................................................................. 1,198 1,026 0.0 0Back, thoracic ............................................................................................................ 168 144 0.0 0Chest ......................................................................................................................... 289 247 5.3 13Hip ............................................................................................................................. 306 262 0.0 0Shoulder(s) ................................................................................................................ 601 515 0.0 0Trunk, Multiple parts .................................................................................................. 0 0 0.0 0Lower extremities, multiple ........................................................................................ 0 0 0.0 0Leg(s), unspecified .................................................................................................... 59 51 0.0 0Thighs ........................................................................................................................ 89 76 0.0 0Knee(s) ...................................................................................................................... 1,073 919 0.0 0Lower leg(s) ............................................................................................................... 123 105 0.0 0Leg(s), multiple .......................................................................................................... 0 0 0.0 0Ankle(s) ..................................................................................................................... 624 534 0.0 0Foot/feet .................................................................................................................... 488 418 60.0 251Toe(s) ........................................................................................................................ 123 105 90.0 95Lower extremities, multiple ........................................................................................ 0 0 0.0 0Multiple body parts .................................................................................................... 674 577 0.0 0

Lost workday injuries continued:Circulatory system ..................................................................................................... 0 0 0.0 0Digestive system ....................................................................................................... 0 0 7NE 0Excretory system ....................................................................................................... 0 0 0.0 0Nervous system ......................................................................................................... 0 0 0.0 0Respiratory system .................................................................................................... 0 0 0.0 0Body parts, NEC ....................................................................................................... 163 140 7NE 0Unclassifiable ............................................................................................................ 720 617 0.0 0

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

able 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 theproposed rule is the most cost-effectiveregulatory alternative for this industry.One alternative considered was to applythe general industry PPE standard to theshipyard industry. However, if thegeneral industry PPE standard (29 CFR1910.132) were applied to the shipyard

industry in its entirety, it would imposeunnecessary costs in the form ofpaperwork because it could requireshipyards to adopt new training anddocumentation programs. Shipyardshave long had both comprehensive andspecialized safety programs and theirown databases for maintaining traininglogs, accident data, and otherinformation. The final rule builds on the

tools the industry has already developedand thus avoids imposing unnecessarycosts and other burdens on shipyardemployers.

Regulatory Flexibility

As required by the RegulatoryFlexibility Act of 1980 (as amended byTitle II, Subtitle D of the Contract withAmerica Advancement Act of 1996),


OSHA assessed the economic burdenfaced by small establishments incomplying with this final rule. Incomments to the record for thisstandard, no comments specificallyaddressed either the RegulatoryFlexibility Analysis or its conclusionthat the standard would impose nosignificant impact on small firms. Inthat analysis, the Agency identified theincreased use of respirators as the mainsource of new costs for all shipyards,but this element has been dropped inthe final standard.

The Agency has concluded that smallshipyards in the industry have as muchneed of additional personal protectiveequipment as other shipyards. Theindustry has one of the highest injuryand illness rates of any industry. Sincethe largest shipyards report injury andillness rates at or below the industryaverage, the Agency has concluded thatthe rate of preventable injuries andillnesses are at least as great in smalleryards. In addition, many of theproduction operations are the same forlarger and smaller shipyards. Since thestandard requires employers to identifyand protect workers from risk byoccupation or trade, the Agencyconcludes that the risks for each tradeare similar irrespective of the size of theshipyard. The objectives of the standardare to reduce the risk of PPE-preventableinjuries in shipyards.

Although no public comments werespecifically addressed to issues in theRegulatory Flexibility Analysis, many ofthe comments applied to situationsfaced by smaller shipyards. However,the Agency believes that smaller yardsare not impacted in a significantlydifferent manner or scale than largershipyards. The comments by smallershipyards about feasibility were similarto the larger yards: questioning theutility of body harnesses rather thanbody belts and the need to certifyhazard assessments and training.

The Agency considered applying theGeneral Industry PPE standard as analternative for small establishments inthe shipyard industry, but testimonyand comments in the docket support theAgency’s decision that the finalstandard will more effectively meet therisk in shipyards at lowest cost.

As can be seen in Table 3, the Agencyestimates that there are 200 firms in theshipyard industry with 10 or feweremployees, 100 firms with 11–20employees, and 100 firms with 21–99employees. The Agency believes that forthe shipyard industry, firms with fewerthan 100 employees is a ‘‘small’’ firm.Therefore, for purposes of thisRegulatory Flexibility Analysis, theAgency estimates that there are

approximately 400 ‘‘smaller’’ businesseswith an estimated 8,000 employees.From data in Table 3, smaller firms willrequire 525 management hours todocument hazard assessments, 250management hours to develop trainingfor body harnesses, and 250management hours to provide training,and 550 employee hours for training.Costs for these elements, which are aone-time cost, total $38,450, which isequivalent to an $8,700 annual cost(annualized over 5 years at 7 percent).Other new annual costs for small firmsare estimated at $13,500 for 500 bodyharnesses to replace body belts. Totalannual costs for smaller shipyards arethen an estimated $22,200, or an averageof about $55 per smaller shipyard. TheAgency has provided a phase-in periodof two years to allow smaller shipyardstime to accomplish this shift.

OSHA concludes that this standardwill not impose a significant impact ona substantial number of small entities,and that the phase-in for body harnesseswill further alleviate any impacts thatdo occur.

International TradeIn accordance with Executive Order

12866, OSHA assessed the effects of thefinal standard on international trade.The shipyard industry activelycompetes with foreign shipyards forship repair and shipbuilding orders. Ifthis OSHA regulation significantlyincreased the price of products andservices of domestic shipyards, foreignshipyards could benefit. OSHA believes,however, that there will be virtually noeffect on the prices of products orservices as a result of this regulation.

Environmental ImpactThe shipyard PPE standard has been

reviewed in accordance with therequirements of the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA) of1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), theregulations of the Council onEnvironmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFRpart 1500), and DOL NEPA Procedures(29 CFR part 11). There will be noadditional incremental releasequantities related to this standard.Releases of substances regulated underEPA’s SARA Title III or EPA NESHAPstandards are subject to reporting andcontrol requirements.

Non-Regulatory AlternativesThe primary objective of OSHA’s

standard for PPE is to minimize thenumber of shipyard employee injuriesand risk of fatalities. The Agencyexamined non-regulatory approaches forpromoting PPE use, including (1)incentives created by workers’

compensation programs or the threat ofprivate suits, and (2) requirements of theU.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard.Following this review, OSHAdetermined that the need forgovernment regulation arises from thesignificant risk of job-related injury ordeath. Private markets fail to provideenough safety and health resources dueto the externalization of part of thesocial cost of worker injuries anddeaths. Workers’ compensation systemsdo not offer an adequate remedybecause premiums do not reflectspecific workplace risk and liabilityclaims are restricted by statutespreventing employees from suing theiremployers. The U.S. Navy and U.S.Coast Guard require shipyards to followsafe procedures when performing workfor them or when constructing merchantvessels; however, most firms do notcome under this scrutiny. Thus, OSHAhas determined that a federal standardis necessary.

References

1. U.S. Department of Commerce.International Trade Administration. 1994U.S. Industrial Outlook.

2. U.S. Department of Transportation.Maritime Administration. Report onSurvey of U.S. Shipbuilding and RepairFacilities, 1990.

3. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau ofthe Census. Preliminary Report IndustryService 1987 Census of Manufactures:Shipbuilding and Repairing (Industry3731). Washington, D.C.: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1990.

4. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau ofthe Census. Preliminary Report IndustryService 1987 Census of Manufactures:Shipbuilding and Repairing (Industry3731). Washington, D.C.: GovernmentPrinting Office, 1989.

5. CONSAD Research Corp. Data to Supporta Regulatory Analysis of the ProposedStandard for Shipbuilding andRepairing. Final Report. Prepared for theU.S. Department of Labor, OccupationalSafety and Health Administration, underContract No. J–9–F–4–0024. Pittsburgh:CONSAD, November 1985.

6. CONSAD Research Corp. Data to SupportA Regulatory Analysis of the ProposedStandard for Shipbuilding andRepairing: Subpart B. Prepared for theU.S. Department of Labor, OccupationalSafety and Health Administration, underContract No. J–9–F–4–0024. Pittsburgh:CONSAD, June 1986.

7. Commission on Merchant Marine andDefense. First Report of the Commissionof 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, Employmentand Earnings, May, 1995.


10. Executive Office of the President. OMB.Standard Industrial ClassificationManual. 1987.

11. Main Hurdman/KGM. Profile of theShipbuilding and Repairing Industry.Prepared for the U.S. Department ofLabor, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration. Washington, D.C.,October 1984. 62 Pp.

12. Shipyard Council of America. ‘‘MerchantShipbuilding’’ September, 1987; ‘‘NavalShipbuilding’’ January, 1992; ‘‘ShipConstruction Report’’ July, 1991.

13. American Waterways ShipyardConference. 1989 and 1992 AnnualShipyard Survey. Arlington, Va.

14. Bureau of Labor Statistics, OccupationalInjuries and Illnesses in the U.S. byIndustry 1992.

15. Sulowski, Andrew, ‘‘Selecting FallArresting Systems,’’ National SafetyNews, Oct. 1979.

16. Hearon, Bernard F. and Brinkley, JamesW., ‘‘Fall Arrest and Post-FallSuspension: Literature Review andDirection for Further Research,’’ AirForce Aerospace Medical ResearchLaboratory, 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 PoweredPlatform rulemaking, Docket S–700A.

V. Paperwork Reduction ActThe Agency has estimated the

paperwork burden of the shipyard PPEstandard under the guidelines of thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1995.Under that Act, burden is defined as thetotal time, effort, or financial resourcesexpended by persons to generate,maintain, retain, or disclose or provideinformation to or for a Federal Agency.The Agency has concluded that thefollowing elements of the shipyard PPEstandard potentially could create apaperwork burden for the shipyardindustry:For hazard assessments:

performing a hazard assessment foreach trade; documenting the hazardassessment;

For PPE training:developing training materials (or

programs for PPE; trainingemployees;

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 alreadyperforming these information collectionor disclosure functions. For theseelements, the final rule will nottherefore require shipyards to expendadditional resources on paperwork.

The Agency has concluded that onlynew burdens imposed specifically bynew or revised provisions of a standardshould be considered paperworkburdens attributable to that standard. Inother words, it would be inappropriateto count as the burden actions that firmsin the regulated community havealready undertaken voluntarily.

The record shows that shipyards arealready complying with all of thepaperwork burden elements listedabove, except for documenting hazardassessments, developing training forpersonal fall arrest systems (bodyharnesses), and providing training toemployees for personal fall arrestsystems. Among large shipyards, onlyNewport News Shipbuilding (NNS)reported that it relies primarily on bodybelts rather than body harnesses.

The hazard assessmentdocumentation required by the standardconsists of a record, either paper or ona computer or other storage medium,with the date of the hazard assessment,name of person performing theassessment, occupation or operationscovered, and a list of the PPE required.Shipyards report that they alreadyincorporate some of this information intheir current training materials. TheAgency has estimated that it would takeeach shipyard about an hour to developa computer- based record format for thisdocumentation and approximately fiveminutes to record the hazard assessmentfor each occupation covered. Table 6

summarizes this information for the PPEstandard.

Development of training materials forthe use of personal fall arrest systems(body harnesses) is the second potentialburden element. All large shipyardsreport that they already use harnesses tosome extent. Because training videosand written materials on the use of bodyharnesses are widely available, theAgency has concluded that the timerequired for establishing such a trainingprogram will be small. Table 6 presentsthe Agency’s estimate of the time thatfirms will expend to develop trainingfor the use of body harnesses; theestimate ranges from 8 hours for firmswith more than 500 employees to 2hours for the smallest employers.

Firms that do not currently use bodyharnesses must also train theiremployees as harnesses are substitutedover time for body belts. The paperworkburden of this training consists ofmanagement or trainers’ time to providetraining to employees. The Agencyestimates a training session will takeapproximately one hour and that asmany as 10 to 20 employees can receivetraining in a single session. Table 6presents the Agency’s estimate of thenumber of sessions by firm size that willbe necessary for training in bodyharnesses. The Agency estimates that ahigher fraction (10 percent or more) ofsmaller firms’ employees will have to betrained due to the nature of theirbusiness—cleaning tanks, repairs overthe ship’s side, painting andmaintenance—which require the use ofharnesses. Among large firms, only NNSreported that they used very fewharnesses. The Agency estimates that allof NNS’s body belts (4,700) will nothave to be replaced with harnesses,since relatively less work at largeshipyards and new ship constructionrequire a body harness (rather than abody belt). The Agency has estimatedthat NNS will replace 3,000 body beltswith harnesses. Data for the paperworkburden of providing training toemployees are also presented in Table 6.

Table 6.—ESTIMATE OF BURDEN HOURS TO DOCUMENT HAZARD ASSESSMENTS, TO DEVELOP TRAINING PROGRAMS FORBODY HAMESSES, AND TO TRAIN IN USE OF BODY HAMESSES FOR OSHA’S PAGE STANDARD ON PPE IN SHIPYARDS.

Firm size [number of employees]


egory

Hazard assessment Develop training for hamessess Training


[occupa-tions]

Time ofdocument

hazardassess-ment’s[hours]

Time de-velop

trainingper firm[hours]

Numberof firms

who mustdo so


program


Time totrain

[hours]

1000+ ................................................................. 12 40 36 ................ 0 0 150 150500–999 ............................................................. 12 30 30 8 6 48 4 24100–499 ............................................................. 76 30 190 4 76 304 2 15221–99 ................................................................. 100 10 150 4 100 400 1 100


Table 6.—ESTIMATE OF BURDEN HOURS TO DOCUMENT HAZARD ASSESSMENTS, TO DEVELOP TRAINING PROGRAMS FORBODY HAMESSES, AND TO TRAIN IN USE OF BODY HAMESSES FOR OSHA’S PAGE STANDARD ON PPE IN SHIP-YARDS.—Continued

Firm size [number of employees]


egory

Hazard assessment Develop training for hamessess Training


[occupa-tions]

Time ofdocument

hazardassess-ment’s[hours]

Time de-velop

trainingper firm[hours]

Numberof firms

who mustdo so


program


Time totrain

[hours]

11–20 ................................................................. 100 5 125 2 50 100 1 501–10 ................................................................... 200 5 250 2 100 200 1 100

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

Total estimated burden (first-year, one-time) .... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 1 2,409Estimated annual burden 300 hours.

Source: OSHA’s Office of Regulatory Analysis.1 Hours.

The Agency estimates that theshipyard PPE standard will result inabout 2,409 paperwork burden hoursbeing imposed on the shipyard industrythe first year, most of it due todeveloping training materials in the useof body harnesses. However, these 2,409hours are only an estimate of the first-year burden, a one-time claim onresources, not an annual burden. Thefuture annual burden beginning in thesecond year, is estimated to beapproximately 300 hours per year,which represents managers’ time totrain new employees resulting fromemployee turnover in firms notcurrently training employees in the useof harnesses.

Collections of Information: Request forComments

The Department of Labor, as part of itscontinuing effort to reduce paperworkand respondent burden, conducts apreclearance consultation program toprovide the general public and Federalagencies with an opportunity tocomment on proposed and/orcontinuing collections of information inaccordance with the PaperworkReduction Act of 1995 (PRA95)(44U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This programhelps to ensure that requested data canbe provided in the desired format,reporting burden (time and financialresources) is minimized, collectioninstruments are clearly understood, andthe impact of collection requirements onrespondents can be properly assessed.Currently, OSHA is soliciting commentsconcerning the proposed approval forthe paperwork requirements of 29 CFR1915, subpart I, Personal ProtectiveEquipment for Shipyard Employment(PPE). Written comments should:

• Evaluate whether the proposedcollection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of thefunctions of the agency, includingwhether the information will havepractical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of theagency’s estimate of the burden of theproposed collection of information,including the validity of themethodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility, andclarity of the information to becollected; and

• Minimize the burden of thecollection of information on those whoare to respond, including through theuse of appropriate automated,electronic, mechanical, or othertechnological collection techniques orother forms of information technology,e.g., permitting electronic submissionsof responses.

Background

OSHA in its final rule for PersonalProtective Equipment in ShipyardEmployment is including two types ofinformation collections. The first is arequirement for the employer to conducta hazard assessment relative to PPEselection, and the second involvestraining requirements for PPE.

OSHA believes that the informationcollection and documentation of thehazard assessment as outlined in thefinal standard is necessary so thatsituations where PPE should be used foremployee protection can be identified,and the proper PPE selected. Inaddition, OSHA believes that thetraining requirements anddocumentation in the final standard areessential in providing employees withthe information and practicalknowledge needed to effectively usePPE. Documentation can be used by theemployer to ensure that all of its

employees using PPE are properlytrained.

Current ActionsThis notice requests OMB approval of

the paperwork requirements in PersonalProtective Equipment for ShipyardEmployment (29 CFR 1915, Subpart I).

Type of Review: New.Agency: Occupational Safety and

Health Administration, U.S. Departmentof Labor.

Title: Personal Protective Equipmentfor Shipyard Employment (29 CFR 1915,subpart I).

OMB Number: 1218–AA74Agency: Docket No. S–045.Frequency: On occasion.Affected Public: Business or other for-

profit, Federal government, State andLocal 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/orincluded in the request for Office ofManagement and Budget approval of theinformation collection request: they willalso become a matter of public record.

VI. Statutory ConsiderationsIntroduction

OSHA has described PPE-relatedhazards and the measures required toprotect affected employees from thosehazards in Section I, Background;Section II, Hazards Involved; andSection III, Summary and Explanationof the Final Rule, above. The Agency isproviding the following discussion ofthe statutory mandate for OSHArulemaking activity to explain the legal


basis for its determination that therevised shipyard PPE standard, aspromulgated, is reasonably necessary toprotect affected employees fromsignificant risks of injury and death.

Section 2(b)(3) of the OccupationalSafety and Health Act authorizes ‘‘theSecretary of Labor to set mandatoryoccupational safety and healthstandards applicable to businessesaffecting interstate commerce’’, andsection 5(a)(2) provides that ‘‘[each]employer shall comply withoccupational safety and healthstandards promulgated under this Act’’(emphasis added). Section 3(8) of theOSH Act (29 U.S.C. § 652(8)) providesthat ‘‘the term ‘occupational safety andhealth standard’ means a standardwhich requires conditions, or theadoption or use of one or morepractices, means, methods, operations,or processes, reasonably necessary orappropriate to provide safe or healthfulemployment and places ofemployment.’’

In two recent cases, reviewing courtshave expressed concern that OSHA’sinterpretation of these provisions of theOSH Act, particularly of section 3(8) asit pertains to safety rulemaking, couldlead to overly costly or under-protectivesafety standards. In International Union,UAW v. OSHA, 938 F.2d 1310 (D.C. Cir.1991), the District of Columbia Circuitrejected substantive challenges toOSHA’s lockout/tagout standard anddenied a request that enforcement ofthat standard be stayed, but it alsoexpressed concern that OSHA’sinterpretation of the OSH Act could leadto safety standards that are very costlyand only minimally protective. Thereviewing court conducted furtherproceedings and subsequently held thatthe OSH Act provides adequateconstraints on the exercise of OSHA’sregulatory authority (938 F.3d 1310,D.C. Cir. 1994).

In National Grain & Feed Ass’n v.OSHA, 866 F.2d 717 (5th Cir. 1989), theFifth Circuit concluded that Congressgave OSHA considerable discretion instructuring the costs and benefits ofsafety standards but, concerned that thegrain dust standard might be under-protective, directed OSHA to consideradding a provision that might furtherreduce significant risk of fire andexplosion.

OSHA rulemakings involve asignificant degree of agency expertiseand policy-making discretion to whichreviewing courts must defer. (See, forexample, Building & Constr. TradesDep’t, AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258,1266 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Industrial UnionDep’t, AFL-CIO v. American PetroleumInst., 448 U.S. 607, 655 n. 62 (1980).) At

the same time, the Agency’s technicalexpertise and policy-making authoritymust be exercised within discernablelimits. The lockout/tagout and grainhandling standard decisions soughtclarification of the Agency’s view of thescope of its expertise and authority. Inlight of those decisions, the preamble tothis safety standard states OSHA’s viewsregarding the limits of its safetyrulemaking authority and explains whythe Agency is confident that itsinterpretive views have in the pastavoided regulatory extremes andcontinue to do so in this rule.

Stated briefly, the OSH Act requiresthat, before promulgating anyoccupational safety standard, OSHAdemonstrate based on substantialevidence in the record as a whole that:(1) the proposed standard willsubstantially reduce a significant risk ofmaterial harm; (2) compliance istechnologically feasible in the sense thatthe protective measures being requiredalready exist, can be brought intoexistence with available technology, orcan be created with technology that canreasonably be developed; (3)compliance is economically feasible inthe sense that industry can absorb orpass on the costs without majordislocation or threat of instability; and(4) the standard is cost effective in thatit employs the least expensiveprotective measures capable of reducingor eliminating significant risk.Additionally, proposed safety standardsmust be compatible with prior Agencyaction, must be responsive to significantcomment in the record, and, to theextent allowed by statute, must beconsistent with applicable ExecutiveOrders. These elements limit OSHA’sregulatory discretion for safetyrulemaking and provide a decision-making framework for developing arule.

A. Congress concluded that OSHAregulations are necessary to protectworkers from occupational hazards andthat employers should be required toreduce or eliminate significantworkplace health and safety threats. Atsection 2(a) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C.§ 651(a)), Congress announced itsdetermination that occupational injuryand illness should be eliminated asmuch as possible: ‘‘The Congress findsthat occupational injury and illnessarising out of work situations impose asubstantial burden upon, and are ahindrance to, interstate commerce interms of lost production, wage loss,medical expenses, and disabilitycompensation payments.’’ Congresstherefore declared ‘‘it to be its purposeand policy * * * to assure so far aspossible every working man and woman

in the Nation safe * * * workingconditions [29 U.S.C. § 651(b)].’’

To that end, Congress instructed theSecretary of Labor to adopt existingfederal and consensus standards duringthe first two years after the OSH Actbecame effective and, in the event ofconflict among any such standards, to‘‘promulgate the standard which assuresthe greatest protection of the safety orhealth of the affected employees [29U.S.C. § 655(a)].’’ Congress also directedthe Secretary to set mandatoryoccupational safety standards [29 U.S.C.§ 651(b)(3)], based on a rulemakingrecord and substantial evidence [29U.S.C. § 655(b)(2)], that are ‘‘reasonablynecessary or appropriate to provide safe* * * employment and places ofemployment.’’ When promulgatingpermanent safety or health standardsthat differ from existing nationalconsensus standards, the Secretary mustexplain ‘‘why the rule as adopted willbetter effectuate the purposes of this Actthan the national consensus standard[29 U.S.C. § 655(b)(8)].’’Correspondingly, every employer mustcomply with OSHA standards and, inaddition, ‘‘furnish to each of hisemployees employment and a place ofemployment which are free fromrecognized hazards that are causing orare likely to cause death or seriousphysical harm to his employees [29U.S.C. § 654(a)].’’

‘‘Congress understood that the Actwould create substantial costs foremployers, yet intended to impose suchcosts when necessary to create a safeand healthful working environment.Congress viewed the costs of health andsafety as a cost of doing business * * *.Indeed, Congress thought that thefinancial costs of health and safetyproblems in the workplace were as largeas or larger than the financial costs ofeliminating these problems [AmericanTextile Mfrs. Inst. Inc. v. Donovan, 452U.S. 490, 519–522 (1981) (ATMI);emphasis was supplied in original].’’‘‘[T]he fundamental objective of the Act[is] to prevent occupational deaths andserious injuries [Whirlpool Corp. v.Marshall, 445 U.S. 1, 11 (1980)].’’ ‘‘Weknow the costs would be put intoconsumer goods but that is the price weshould pay for the 80 million workersin America [S. Rep. No. 91–1282, 91stCong., 2d Sess. (1970); H.R. Rep. No.91–1291, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970),reprinted in Senate Committee on Laborand Public Welfare, Legislative Historyof the Occupational Safety and HealthAct of 1970, (Committee Print 1971)(‘‘Leg. Hist.’’) at 444 (SenatorYarborough)].’’ ‘‘Of course, it will cost alittle more per item to produce awashing machine. Those of us who use


washing machines will pay for theincreased cost, but it is worth it, to stopthe terrible death and injury rate in thiscountry [Id. at 324; see also 510–511,517].’’

[T]he vitality of the Nation’s economy willbe enhanced by the greater productivityrealized through saved lives and useful yearsof labor.

When one man is injured or disabled by anindustrial accident or disease, it is he and hisfamily who suffer the most immediate andpersonal loss. However, that tragic loss alsoaffects each of us. As a result of occupationalaccidents and disease, over $1.5 billion inwages is lost each year [1970 dollars], and theannual loss to the gross national product isestimated to be over $8 billion. Vastresources that could be available forproductive use are siphoned off to payworkmen’s compensation and medicalexpenses * * *.

Only through a comprehensive approachcan we hope to effect a significant reductionin these job death and casualty figures. [Id.at 518–19 (Senator Cranston)]

Congress considered uniformenforcement crucial because it wouldreduce or eliminate the disadvantagethat a conscientious employer mightexperience where inter-industry orintra-industry competition is present.Moreover, ‘‘many employers—particularly smaller ones—simplycannot make the necessary investmentin health and safety, and survivecompetitively, unless all are compelledto do so [Leg. Hist. at 144, 854, 1188,1201].’’

Thus, the statutory text and legislativehistory make clear that Congressconclusively determined that OSHAregulation is necessary to protectworkers from occupational hazards andthat employers should be required toreduce or eliminate significantworkplace health and safety threats.

B. As construed by the courts and byOSHA, the OSH Act sets clear andreasonable limits for Agency rulemakingaction. OSHA has long followed theteaching that section 3(8) of the OSHAct requires that, before it promulgates‘‘any permanent health or safetystandard, [it must] make a thresholdfinding that a place of employment isunsafe—in the sense that significantrisks are present and can be eliminatedor 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 andexisting federal standards that Congressinstructed OSHA to adopt summarilywithin two years of the OSH Act’sinception provide reference pointsconcerning the least an OSHA standardshould achieve (29 U.S.C. § 655(a)). As

a result, OSHA is precluded fromregulating insignificant risks or fromissuing standards that do not at leastlessen risk in a significant way.

The OSH Act also limits OSHA’sdiscretion to issue overly burdensomerules, as the Agency also has longrecognized that ‘‘any standard that wasnot economically or technologicallyfeasible would a fortiori not be‘reasonably necessary or appropriate’under the Act. See Industrial UnionDep’t v. Hodgson, [499 F.2d 467, 478(D.C. Cir. 1974)] (‘Congress does notappear to have intended to protectemployees by putting their employersout of business.’) [American TextileMfrs. Inst. Inc., 452 U.S. at 513 n. 31 (astandard is economically feasible even ifit portends ‘disaster for some marginalfirms,’ but it is economically infeasibleif it ‘threaten[s] massive dislocation to,or imperil[s] the existence of,’ theindustry)].’’

By stating the test in terms of ‘‘threat’’and ‘‘peril,’’ the Supreme Court madeclear in ATMI that economicunfeasibility begins short of industry-wide bankruptcy. OSHA itself hasplaced the line considerably below thislevel. (See for example, ATMI, 452 U.S.at 527 n. 50; 43 FR 27,360 (June 23,1978). Proposed 200 µg/m3 PEL forcotton dust did not raise seriouspossibility of industry-wide bankruptcy,but impact on weaving sector would besevere, possibly requiringreconstruction of 90 percent of allweave rooms. OSHA concluded that the200 µg/m3 level was not feasible forweaving and that 750 µg/m3 was all thatcould reasonably be required). See also54 FR 29,245–246 (July 11, 1989);American Iron & Steel Institute, 939F.2d at 1003. OSHA raised engineeringcontrol level for lead in smallnonferrous foundries to avoid thepossibility of bankruptcy for about halfof small foundries even though theindustry as a whole could have survivedthe loss of small firms.) All OSHAstandards must also be cost-effective inthe sense that the protective measuresbeing required must be the leastexpensive measures capable ofachieving the desired end (ATMI, at 514n. 32; Building and Constr. TradesDep’t, AFL–CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258,1269 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). OSHA givesadditional consideration to financialimpact in setting the period of time thatshould be allowed for compliance,allowing as much as ten years forcompliance phase-in. (See UnitedSteelworkers of Am. v. Marshall, 647F.2d 1189, 1278 (D.C. Cir. 1980), cert.denied, 453 U.S. 913 (1981).)Additionally, OSHA’s enforcementpolicy takes account of financial

hardship on an individualized basis.OSHA’s Field Inspection ReferenceManual provides for setting a‘‘reasonable abatement date,’’ based oncareful consideration of an employer’sparticular circumstances, by which timea violation must be corrected (CPL.2.103, Chapter IV, paragraph A2,September 26, 1994).

To reach the necessary findings andconclusions, OSHA conductsrulemaking in accordance with therequirements of section 6 of the OSHAct. The rulemaking process enables theAgency to determine the qualitativeand, if possible, the quantitative natureof the risk with (and without)regulation, the technological feasibilityof compliance, the industry’s profithistory, the industry’s ability to absorbcosts or pass them on to the consumer,the impact of higher costs on demand,and the impact on competition withsubstitutes and imports. (See ATMI at2501–2503; American Iron & SteelInstitute generally.) Section 6(f) of theOSH Act further provides that, if thevalidity of a standard is challenged,OSHA must support its conclusionswith ‘‘substantial evidence in the recordconsidered as a whole,’’ a standard thatcourts have determined requires fairlyclose scrutiny of agency action and theexplanation of that action. (SeeSteelworkers, 647 F.2d at 1206–1207.)

OSHA’s powers are furthercircumscribed by the independentOccupational Safety and Health ReviewCommission, which provides a neutralforum for employer contests of citationsissued by OSHA for noncompliancewith health and safety standards (29U.S.C. §§ 659–661; noted as anadditional constraint in Benzene at 652n. 59). OSHA must also respondrationally to similarities and differencesamong 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 constrainedfirst by the need to demonstrate that thestandard will substantially reduce asignificant risk of material harm, andthen by the requirement thatcompliance is technologically capable ofbeing done and not so expensive as tothreaten economic instability ordislocation for the industry. Withinthese bounds, further constraints suchas the need to find cost-effectivemeasures and to respond rationally toall meaningful comment militate againstregulatory extremes.

D. The revised PPE standard complieswith the statutory criteria describedabove and is not subject to theadditional constraints applicable tosection 6(b)(5) standards.


Standards which regulate hazards thatare frequently undetectable becausethey are subtle or develop slowly orafter long latency periods, are frequentlyreferred to as ‘‘health’’ standards.Standards that regulate hazards, such asfalls, explosions or electrocutions, thatcause immediately noticeable physicalharm, are called ‘‘safety’’ standards. (SeeNational Grain & Feed Ass’n v. OSHA(NGFA II), 866 F.2d 717, 731, 733 (5thCir. 1989). As noted above, section 3(8)provides that all OSHA standards mustbe ‘‘reasonably necessary orappropriate.’’ In addition, section 6(b)(5)requires that OSHA set health standardswhich limit significant risk ‘‘to theextent feasible.’’ OSHA has determinedthat the revised PPE standard is a safetystandard, because the revised standardaddresses hazards, such as flyingparticles, molten metal, electric shock,falling objects and falls from elevationsthat are immediately dangerous to life orhealth, not the longer term, less obvioushazards subject to section 6(b)(5).

The OSH Act and its legislativehistory clearly indicate that Congressintended for OSHA to distinguishbetween safety standards and healthstandards. For example, in section2(b)(6) of the OSH Act, Congressdeclared that the goal of assuring safeand healthful working conditions andpreserving human resources would beachieved, in part:

* * * by exploring ways to discover latentdiseases, establishing causal connectionsbetween diseases and work in environmentalconditions, and conducting other researchrelating to health problems, in recognition ofthe fact that occupational health standardspresent problems often different from thoseinvolved in occupational safety.

The legislative history makes thisdistinction even clearer:

[The Secretary] should take into accountthat anyone working in toxic agents andphysical agents which might be harmful maybe subjected to such conditions for the restof his working life, so that we can get atsomething which might not be toxic now, ifhe works in it a short time, but if he worksin it the rest of his life might be verydangerous; and we want to make sure thatsuch things are taken into consideration inestablishing standards. [Leg. Hist. at 502–503(Sen. Dominick), quoted in Benzene at 648–49]

Additionally, Representative Danielsdistinguished between ‘‘insidious ’silentkillers’ such as toxic fumes, bases, acids,

and chemicals’’ and ‘‘violent physicalinjury causing immediate visiblephysical harm’’ (Leg. Hist. at 1003), andRepresentative Udall contrastedinsidious hazards like carcinogens with‘‘the more visible and well-knownquestion of industrial accidents and on-the-job injury’’ (Leg. Hist. at 1004). (Seealso, for example, S. Rep. No. 1282, 91stCong., 2d Sess 2–3 (1970), U.S. CodeCong. & Admin. News 1970, pp. 5177,5179, reprinted in Leg. Hist. at 142–43,discussing 1967 Surgeon General studythat found that 65 percent of employeesin industrial plants ‘‘were potentiallyexposed to harmful physical agents,such as severe noise or vibration, or totoxic materials’’; Leg. Hist. at 412; id. at446; id. at 516; id. at 845; InternationalUnion, UAW at 1315.)

In reviewing OSHA rulemakingactivity, the Supreme Court has heldthat section 6(b)(5) requires OSHA to set‘‘the most protective standard consistentwith feasibility’’ (Benzene at 643 n. 48).As Justice Stevens observed:

The reason that Congress drafted a specialsection for these substances * * * wasbecause Congress recognized that there werespecial problems in regulating health risks asopposed to safety risks. In the latter case, therisks are generally immediate and obvious,while in the former, the risks may not beevident until a worker has been exposed forlong periods of time to particular substances.[Benzene, at 649 n. 54.]

Challenges to the grain dust andlockout/tagout standards includedassertions that grain dust in explosivequantities and uncontrolled energyreleases that could expose employees tocrushing, cutting, burning or explosionhazards were harmful physical agents sothat OSHA was required to apply thecriteria of section 6(b)(5) whendetermining how to protect employeesfrom those hazards. Reviewing courtshave uniformly rejected such assertions.For example, the Court in InternationalUnion, UAW v. OSHA, 938 F.2d 1310(D.C. Cir. 1991) rejected the view thatsection 6(b)(5) provided the statutorycriteria for regulation of uncontrolledenergy, holding that such a ‘‘readingwould obliterate a distinction thatCongress drew between ‘health’ and‘safety’ risks.’’ The Court also noted thatthe language of the OSH Act and thelegislative history supported the OSHAposition (International Union, UAW at

1314). Additionally, the Court stated:‘‘We accord considerable weight to anagency’s construction of a statutoryscheme 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 duststandard also deferred to OSHA’sreasonable view that the Agency wasnot subject to the feasibility mandate ofsection 6(b)(5) in regulating explosivequantities of grain dust (National Grain& Feed Association v. OSHA (NGFA II),866 F.2d 717, 733 (5th Cir. 1989)). Ittherefore applied the criteria of section3(8), requiring the Agency to establishthat the standard is ‘‘reasonablynecessary or appropriate’’ to protectemployee safety.

As explained in Section I,Background, Section III, Summary andExplanation of the Standard, and inSection VI, Summary of the FinalEconomic Analysis and RegulatoryFlexibility Analysis, above, OSHA hasdetermined that the failure to protectemployees from PPE-related hazardsposes significant risks to employees andthat the provisions of the final rule arereasonably necessary to protect affectedemployees from those risks. The Agencyestimates that compliance with therevised PPE standard will cost $163,000annually and will reduce the risk of theidentified hazards, preventing 14,200injuries annually (of which 1,550 wouldbe lost workday injuries and 12,650would be non-lost workday injuries).This constitutes a substantial reductionof significant risk of material harm forthe exposed population ofapproximately 79,000 shipyardproduction employees.

The rulemaking record indicates thatthe measures required by the standardare already in general use throughoutthe shipyard industry. In addition,OSHA believes that compliance iseconomically feasible as documented inthe Economic Analysis.

As detailed in Table 7, below, thestandard’s estimated costs, benefits, andcompliance requirements are consistentwith estimates of other OSHA safetystandards, such as the Hazardous WasteOperations and Emergency Response(HAZWOPER) standard.

TABLE 7

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

Number ofdeaths pre-vented an-

nually

Number ofInjuries pre-vented an-

nually

Annual costfirst five yrs

(mill)

Annual costnext five yrs

(mill)

Grain handling (1910.272) ................... 12–31–87 (52 FR 49622) .................... 18 394 5.9 to 33.4 ...... 5.9 to 33.4.


TABLE 7—Continued

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

Number ofdeaths pre-vented an-

nually

Number ofInjuries pre-vented an-

nually

Annual costfirst five yrs

(mill)

Annual costnext five yrs

(mill)

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

(1910.146).1–14–93 58 FR 4462 ........................... 54 5,041 202.4 .............. 202.4.

OSHA assessed employee risk byevaluating exposure to PPE- relatedhazards throughout the shipyardindustry. The Summary of the FinalEconomic Analysis and RegulatoryFlexibility Analysis, Section IV, above,presents OSHA’s estimate of the costsand benefits of the revised PPE standardin terms of the Standard IndustrialClassification (SIC) code for the industryregulated.

The record indicates clearly thatemployees in shipyard employment facesignificant risks related to PPE-relatedhazards, and that compliance with therevised PPE standard is reasonablynecessary to protect affected employeesfrom those risks.

OSHA has considered and respondedto all substantive comments regardingthe proposed Shipyard PPE standard ontheir merits in the Section III, Summaryand Explanation of the Standard, earlierin this preamble. In particular, OSHAevaluated all suggested changes to theproposed rule in terms of their impacton worker safety, their feasibility, theircost effectiveness, and their consonancewith the OSH Act.

VII. FederalismThis regulation has been reviewed in

accordance with Executive Order 12612(52 FR 41685, October 30, 1987)regarding Federalism. This Orderrequires that Agencies, to the extentpossible, refrain from limiting statepolicy options, consult with states priorto taking any actions which wouldrestrict State policy options, and takesuch actions only when there is clearconstitutional authority and thepresence of a problem of national scope.The Order provides for preemption ofstate law only if there is clearCongressional intent for the Agency todo so. Any such preemption is to belimited to the extent possible.

Section 18 of the Occupational Safetyand Health Act (OSH Act) expressesCongress’ clear intent to preempt statelaws relating to issues on which federalOSHA has promulgated occupationalsafety and health standards. Under theOSH Act, a state can avoid preemptiononly if it submits, and obtains Federal

approval of a plan for the developmentof such standards and theirenforcement. Occupational safety andhealth standards developed by suchstates must, among other things, be atleast as effective in providing safe andhealthful employment and places ofemployment as the federal standards.Where such standards are applicable toproducts distributed or used ininterstate commerce, they may notburden commerce unduly and must bejustified by compelling local conditions(see section 18(c)(2) of the OSH Act).

The Federal standard on personalprotective equipment addresses hazardswhich are not unique to any one stateor region of the country. Nonetheless,states with occupational safety andhealth plans approved under section 18,of the OSH Act, will be able to developtheir own state standards to deal withany special problems which might beencountered in a particular state.Moreover, this standard is written ingeneral, performance-oriented terms.There is considerable flexibility formethods of compliance which areappropriate to the working conditionscovered by the standard.

In brief, this regulation addresses aclear national problem related tooccupational safety and health inshipyard employment. Those stateswhich have elected to participate undersection 18, of the OSH Act are notpreempted by this standard, and will beable to deal with any special conditionswithin the framework of the FederalAct, while ensuring that the statestandards are at least as effective as thatstandard.

VIII. State Plan StandardsThe 25 States and territories having

OSHA-approved occupational safetyand health plans which cover the issuesof maritime safety and health mustrevise their existing standards withinsix months of the publication date of afinal standard, or show OSHA whythere is no need for action because anexisting state standard covering this areais already ‘‘at least as effective’’ as therevised Federal standard. Currently fivestates (California, Minnesota, Oregon,

Vermont, and Washington) have theirown state plans which cover the privatesector on-shore maritime activities.

Federal OSHA enforces maritimestandards off shore in all states andprovides on-shore coverage of maritimeactivities in Federal OSHA States and inthe following State plan States andterritories: Alaska, Arizona,Connecticut, (plan covers only State andlocal government employees), Hawaii,Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland,Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, NewYork, (plan covers only State and localgovernment employees), North Carolina,Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee,Utah, Virginia, Virgin Islands, andWyoming are All States with State plansalso must extend coverage to state andlocal government employees engaged inmaritime activities.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1915

Eye protection, Face protection, Fallprotection, Foot protection, Hazardassessment, Head protection, Hard hats,Incorporation by reference, Personalflotation devices, Marine safety,Occupational safety and health,Personal Fall Arrest Systems,Positioning Device Systems, Protectiveequipment, Respirators, Respiratoryprotection, Safety, Ship repair,Shipyards, Snaphooks, and Vessels.

IX. Authority

This document has been preparedunder the direction of Joseph A. Dear,Assistant Secretary of Labor forOccupational Safety and Health, U.S.Department of Labor, 200 ConstitutionAvenue NW., Washington, D.C. 20210.

Accordingly, pursuant to sections 4,6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety andHealth Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,657); section 41, of the Longshore andHarbor Workers Compensation Act asamended (33 U.S.C. 941); Section 4 ofthe Administrative Procedure Act (5U.S.C. 553); Secretary of Labor’s OrderNo. 1–90 (55 FR 9033); and 29 CFR part1911, 29 CFR part 1915 is amended asset forth below.


Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day ofApril 1996.Joseph A. Dear,Assistant Secretary of Labor.

PART 1915—[AMENDED]

1. The Authority citation for part 1915continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 4, 6, and 8, OccupationalSafety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653,655, 657); section 41, Longshore and HarborWorkers’ Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941),Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 8–76 (41 FR25059), No. 9–83 (48 FR 35736), No. 1–90 (55FR 9033), and 29 CFR part 1911.

2. Section 1915.32 is amended byrevising paragraph (a)(3) to read asfollows:

§ 1915.32 Toxic cleaning solvents.(a) * * *(3) Employees shall be protected

against toxic vapors by suitablerespiratory protective equipment inaccordance with the requirements ofsubpart I of this Part and, wherenecessary, against exposure of skin andeye contact with toxic solvents and theirvapors by suitable clothing andequipment.* * * * *

3. Section 1915.33 is amended byrevising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 1915.33 Chemical paint and preservativeremovers.

(a) Employees shall be protectedagainst skin contact during the handlingand application of chemical paint andpreservative removers and shall beprotected against eye injury by gogglesor face shields in accordance with therequirements of subpart I of this part.* * * * *

4. Section 1915.34 is amended byrevising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(4), (b)(1),(c)(3)(i), (c)(3)(ii), and (c)(3)(iii) to readas follows:

§ 1915.34 Mechanical paint removers.(a) * * *(1) Employees engaged in the removal

of paints, preservatives, rusts, or othercoatings by means of power tools shallbe protected against eye injury by usinggoggles or face shields in accordancewith the requirements of subpart I ofthis part.* * * * *

(4) In a confined space, mechanicalexhaust ventilation sufficient to keepthe dust concentration to a minimumshall be used, or employees shall beprotected by respiratory protectiveequipment in accordance with therequirements of subpart I of this part.

(b) * * *(1) Hardened preservative coatings

shall not be removed by flame in

enclosed spaces unless the employeesexposed to fumes are protected by airline respirators in accordance with therequirements of subpart I. Employeesperforming such an operation in theopen air, and those exposed to theresulting fumes shall be protected by afume filter type respirator in accordancewith the requirements of subpart I ofthis part.* * * * *

(c) * * *(3) * * *(i) Abrasive blasters working in

enclosed spaces shall be protected byhoods and air line respirators, or by airhelmets of a positive pressure type inaccordance with the requirements ofsubpart I of this part.

(ii) Abrasive blasters working in theopen shall be protected as indicated inparagraph (c)(3)(i) of this section exceptthat when synthetic abrasive containingless than one percent free silica areused, filter type respirators approvedjointly by the National Institute forOccupational Safety and Health and theMine Safety and Health Administrationfor exposure to lead dusts, used inconjunction with the proper eye, faceand head protection, may be used inaccordance with subpart I of this part.

(iii) Employees, other than blasters,including machine tenders and abrasiverecovery men, working in areas whereunsafe concentrations of abrasivematerials and dusts are present shall beprotected by eye and respiratoryprotective equipment in accordancewith the requirements of subpart I ofthis part.* * * * *

5. Section 1915.35 is amended byrevising paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii),(a)(1)(iii), (a)(2), (b)(13), and (b)(14) toread as follows:

§ 1915.35 Painting.(a) * * *(1) * * *(i) In confined spaces, employees

continuously exposed to such sprayingshall be protected by air line respiratorsin accordance with the requirements ofsubpart I of this part.

(ii) In tanks or compartments,employees continuously exposed tosuch spraying shall be protected by airline respirators in accordance with therequirements of subpart I. Wheremechanical ventilation is provided,employees shall be protected byrespirators in accordance with therequirements of subpart I of this part.

(iii) In large and well ventilated areas,employees exposed to such sprayingshall be protected by respirators inaccordance with the requirements ofsubpart I of this part.

(2) Where brush application of paintswith toxic solvents is done in confinedspaces or in other areas where lack ofventilation creates a hazard, employeesshall be protected by filter respirators inaccordance with the requirements ofsubpart I of this part.* * * * *

(b) * * *(13) All employees continuously in a

compartment in which such painting isbeing performed shall be protected byair line respirators in accordance withthe requirements of Subpart I of thispart and by suitable protective clothing.Employees entering such compartmentsfor a limited time shall be protected byfilter cartridge type respirators inaccordance with the requirements ofsubpart I of this part.

(14) All employees doing exteriorpaint spraying with such paints shall beprotected by suitable filter cartridgetype respirators in accordance with therequirements of subpart I of this partand by suitable protective clothing.

6. Section 1915 would be amended byremoving Table I–1 from § 1915.118.

7. Section 1915.134 is amended byrevising paragraph (j) to read as follows:

§ 1915.134 Abrasive wheels.

* * * * *(j) All employees using abrasive

wheels shall be protected by eyeprotection equipment in accordancewith the requirements of Subpart I ofthis part except when adequate eyeprotection is afforded by eye shieldswhich are permanently attached to thebench or floor stand.

8. Section 1915.135 is amended byrevising paragraph (b)(9) to read asfollows:

§ 1915.135 Powder actuated fasteningtools.

* * * * *(b) * * *(9) Employees using powder actuated

fastening tools shall be protected bypersonal protective equipment inaccordance with the requirements ofsubpart I of this part.* * * * *

9. Subpart I of Part 1915 is revised toread 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 TestingConditions and Additional Guidelinesfor Personal Fall Protection Systems.

Subpart I—Personal ProtectiveEquipment (PPE)

§ 1915.151 Scope, application anddefinitions.

(a) Scope and application. Thissubpart applies to all work in shipyardemployment regardless of geographiclocation.

(b) Definitions applicable to thissubpart.

Anchorage means a secure point ofattachment for lifelines, lanyards, ordeceleration devices.

Body belt means a strap with meansfor both securing it about the waist andattaching it to a lanyard, lifeline, ordeceleration device.

Body harness means straps whichmay be secured about the employee ina manner that will distribute the fallarrest forces over at least the thighs,shoulders, chest and pelvis with meansfor attaching it to other components ofa personal fall arrest system.

Connector means a device which isused to couple (connect) parts of apersonal fall arrest system or parts of apositioning device system together. Itmay be an independent component ofthe system, such as a carabiner, or itmay be an integral component of part ofthe system (such as a buckle or D-ringsewn into a body belt or body harnessor a snaphook spliced or sewn to alanyard or self-retracting lanyard).

Deceleration device means anymechanism, such as a rope grab,ripstitch lanyard, specially wovenlanyard, tearing or deforming lanyard,or automatic self-retracting lifeline/lanyard, which serves to dissipate asubstantial amount of energy during afall arrest, or otherwise limit the energyimposed on an employee during fallarrest.

Deceleration distance means theadditional vertical distance a fallingemployee travels, excluding lifelineelongation and free fall distance, beforestopping, from the point at which thedeceleration device begins to operate. Itis measured as the distance between thelocation of an employee’s body belt orbody harness attachment point at themoment of activation (at the onset of fallarrest forces) of the deceleration deviceduring a fall, and the location of that

attachment point after the employeecomes to a full stop.

Equivalent means alternative designs,materials, or methods to protect againsta hazard which the employer candemonstrate will provide an equal orgreater degree of safety for employeesthan the method or item specified in thestandard.

Free fall means the act of fallingbefore a personal fall arrest systembegins to apply force to arrest the fall.

Free fall distance means the verticaldisplacement of the fall arrestattachment point on the employee’sbody belt or body harness between onsetof the fall and just before the systembegins to apply force to arrest the fall.This distance excludes decelerationdistance, and lifeline/lanyardelongation, but includes anydeceleration device slide distance orself-retracting lifeline/lanyard extensionbefore the device operates and fall arrestforces occur.

Lanyard means a flexible line of rope,wire rope, or strap which generally hasa connector at each end for connectingthe body belt or body harness to adeceleration device, lifeline, oranchorage.

Lifeline means a componentconsisting of a flexible line forconnection to an anchorage at one endto hang vertically (vertical lifeline), orfor connection to anchorages at bothends to stretch horizontally (horizontallifeline), and which serves as a meansfor connecting other components of apersonal fall arrest system to theanchorage.

Lower levels means those areas orsurfaces to which an employee can fall.Such areas or surfaces include but arenot limited to ground levels, floors,ramps, tanks, materials, water,excavations, pits, vessels, structures, orportions thereof.

Personal fall arrest system means asystem used to arrest an employee in afall from a working level. It consists ofan anchorage, connectors, body belt orbody harness and may include alanyard, a deceleration device, a lifeline,or a suitable combination of these. As ofJanuary 1, 1998, the use of a body beltfor fall arrest is prohibited.

Positioning device system means abody belt or body harness system riggedto allow an employee to be supported atan elevated vertical surface, such as awall or window, and to be able to workwith both hands free while leaning.

Qualified person means a person whoby possession of a recognized degree orcertificate of professional standing, orwho, by extensive knowledge, training,and experience, has successfullydemonstrated the ability to solve or

resolve problems related to the subjectmatter and work.

Restraint (tether) line means a linefrom an anchorage, or betweenanchorages, to which the employee issecured in such a way as to prevent theemployee from walking or falling off anelevated work surface. Note: A restraintline is not necessarily designed towithstand forces resulting from a fall.

Rope grab means a decelerationdevice which travels on a lifeline andautomatically, by friction, engages thelifeline and locks so as to arrest the fallof an employee. A rope grab usuallyemploys the principle of inertiallocking, cam/level locking or both.

§ 1915.152 General requirements.(a) Provision and use of equipment.

The employer shall provide and shallensure that each affected employee usesthe appropriate personal protectiveequipment (PPE) for the eyes, face,head, extremities, torso, and respiratorysystem, including protective clothing,protective shields, protective barriers,personal fall protection equipment, andlife saving equipment, meeting theapplicable provisions of this subpart,wherever employees are exposed towork activity hazards that require theuse of PPE.

(b) Hazard assessment and equipmentselection. The employer shall assess itswork activity to determine whetherthere are hazards present, or likely to bepresent, which necessitate theemployee’s use of PPE.

Note 1 to paragraph (b): A hazardassessment conducted according to the tradeor occupation of affected employees will beconsidered to comply with paragraph (b) ofthis section, if the assessment addresses anyPPE-related hazards to which employees areexposed in the course of their work activities.If such hazards are present, or likely to bepresent, the employer shall:

(1) Select the type of PPE that will protectthe affected employee from the hazardsidentified in the occupational hazardassessment;

(2) Communicate selection decisions toaffected employees;

(3) Select PPE that properly fits eachaffected employee; and

(4) Verify that the required occupationalhazard assessment has been performedthrough a document that contains thefollowing information: occupation, thedate(s) of the hazard assessment, and thename of the person performing the hazardassessment.

Note 2 to paragraph (b): Non-mandatoryAppendix A to this subpart containsexamples of procedures that will complywith the requirement for an occupationalhazard assessment.

(c) Defective and damagedequipment. Defective or damaged PPEshall not be used.


(d) Reissued equipment. Theemployer shall ensure that allunsanitary PPE, including that whichhas been used by employees, be cleanedand disinfected before it is reissued.

(e) Training. (1) The employer shallprovide training to each employee whois required, by this section, to use PPE(exception: training in the use ofpersonal fall arrest systems andpositioning device systems training iscovered in Sections 1915.159 and1915.160). Each employee shall betrained to understand at least thefollowing:

(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 demonstratesthe ability to use PPE properly beforebeing allowed to perform work requiringthe use of PPE.

(3) The employer shall retrain anyemployee who does not understand ordisplay the skills required by paragraph(e)(2) of this section. Circumstances

where retraining is required include, butare not limited to, situations where:

(i) Changes in occupation or workrender previous training obsolete; or

(ii) Changes in the types of PPE to beused render previous training obsolete;or

(iii) Inadequacies in an affectedemployee’s knowledge or use ofassigned PPE indicate that the employeehas not retained the requisiteunderstanding or skill.

(4) The employer shall verify thateach affected employee has received therequired training through a documentthat contains the following information:name of each employee trained, thedate(s) of training, and type of trainingthe employee received.

§ 1915.153 Eye and face protection.(a) General requirements. (1) The

employer shall ensure that each affectedemployee uses appropriate eye or faceprotection where there are exposures toeye or face hazards caused by flyingparticles, molten metal, liquidchemicals, acid or caustic liquids,chemical gases or vapors, or potentiallyinjurious light radiation.

(2) The employer shall ensure thateach affected employee uses eye or face

protection that provides side protectionwhen there is a hazard from flyingobjects. Detachable side protectors (e.g.,a clip-on or slide-on side shield)meeting the pertinent requirements ofthis section are acceptable.

(3) The employer shall ensure thateach affected employee who wearsprescription lenses while engaged inoperations that involve eye hazardswears eye protection that incorporatesthe prescription in its design, unless theemployee is protected by eye protectionthat can be worn over prescriptionlenses without disturbing the properposition of either the PPE or theprescription lenses.

(4) The employer shall ensure thateach affected employee uses equipmentwith filter lenses that have a shadenumber that provides appropriateprotection from injurious lightradiation. Table I–1 is a listing ofappropriate shade numbers for variousoperations. If filter lenses are used ingoggles worn under a helmet which hasa lens, the shade number of the lens inthe helmet may be reduced so that theshade numbers of the two lenses willequal the value as shown in Table I–1,§ 1915.153.

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

Operations Electrode size 1⁄32 in. Arc currentMinimumprotective

shade

Shielded metal arc welding ....................... Less than 3 ............................................... Less than .................................................. 73–5 ............................................................ 60 .............................................................. 85–8 ............................................................ 60–160 ...................................................... 10More than 8 .............................................. 160–250 .................................................... 11................................................................... 250–550 .................................................... ....................

Gas metal arc welding and flux cored arcwelding.

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

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

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

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

................................................................... 250–500 .................................................... ....................Gas Tungsten arc welding ........................ ................................................................... Less than .................................................. 8

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

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

................................................................... 150–500 .................................................... ....................Air carbon .................................................. (Light) ........................................................ Less than .................................................. 10Arc 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 ............................................ ................................................................... ................................................................... 3Torch soldering .......................................... ................................................................... ................................................................... 2Carbon 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

Operations Plate thickness— inches Plate thickness— mmMinimum*protective

shade

Gas welding:Light .................................................... Under 1⁄8 ................................................... Under 3.2 .................................................. 4Medium ............................................... 1⁄8 to 1⁄2 ..................................................... 3.2 to 12.7 ................................................ 5Heavy ................................................. Over 1⁄2 ..................................................... Over 12.7 .................................................. 6

Oxygen cuttingLight .................................................... Under 1 ..................................................... Under 25 ................................................... 3Medium ............................................... 1 to 6 ........................................................ 25 to 150 .................................................. 4Heavy ................................................. 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 theweld zone without going below the minimum. In oxyfuel gas welding or cutting where the torch produces a high yellow light, it is desirable to usea filter lens that absorbs the yellow or sodium line in the visible light of the (spectrum) operation.

(b) Criteria for Protective Eye andFace Devices

(1) Protective eye and face devicespurchased after (insert effective date offinal rule) shall comply with theAmerican National Standards Institute,ANSI Z87.1–1989, ‘‘Practice forOccupational and Educational Eye andFace Protection,’’ which is incorporatedby reference as specified in § 1915.5, orshall be demonstrated by the employerto be equally effective.

(2) Eye and face protective devicespurchased before (insert effective date offinal rule) shall comply with ‘‘AmericanNational Standard Practice forOccupational and Educational Eye andFace Protection, Z87.1 –1979,’’ which isincorporated by reference as specified in§ 1915.5, or shall be demonstrated bythe employer to be equally effective.

§ 1915.154 Respiratory protection.

Respiratory protection for shipyardemployment is covered by 29 CFR1910.134.

§ 1915.155 Head protection.

(a) Use. (1) The employer shall ensurethat each affected employee wears aprotective helmet when working inareas where there is a potential forinjury to the head from falling objects.

(2) The employer shall ensure thateach affected employee wears aprotective helmet designed to reduceelectrical shock hazards where there ispotential for electric shock or burns dueto contact with exposed electricalconductors which could contact thehead.

(b) Criteria for protective helmets. (1)Protective helmets purchased afterAugust 22, 1996 shall comply withANSI Z89.l–1986, ‘‘PersonnelProtection—Protective Headwear forIndustrial Workers-Requirements,’’which is incorporated by reference, asspecified in § 1915.5, or shall bedemonstrated by the employer to beequally effective.

(2) Protective helmets purchasedbefore August 22, 1996 shall complywith the ‘‘American National StandardSafety Requirements for Industrial HeadProtection, Z89.1–1969,’’ which isincorporated by reference as specified in1915.5, or shall be demonstrated by theemployer to be equally effective.

§ 1915.156 Foot protection.

(a) Use. The employer shall ensurethat each affected employee wearsprotective footwear when working inareas where there is a danger of footinjuries due to falling or rolling objectsor objects piercing the sole.

(b) Criteria for protective footwear. (1)Protective footwear purchased afterAugust 22, 1996 shall comply withANSI Z41–1991, ‘‘American NationalStandard for Personal Protection-Protective Footwear,’’ which isincorporated by reference, as specifiedin § 1915.5, or shall be demonstrated bythe employer to be equally as effective.

(2) Protective footwear purchasedbefore August 22, 1996 shall complywith the ‘‘American National Standardfor Personal Protection- ProtectiveFootwear Z41–1983,’’ which isincorporated by reference, as specifiedin § 1915.5, or shall be demonstrated bythe employer to be equally effective.

§ 1915.157 Hand and body protection.

(a) Use. The employer shall ensurethat each affected employee usesappropriate hand protection and otherprotective clothing where there isexposure to hazards such as skinabsorption of harmful substances, severecuts or lacerations, severe abrasions,punctures, chemical burns, thermalburns, harmful temperature extremes,and sharp objects.

(b) Hot work operations. Theemployer shall ensure that no employeewears clothing impregnated or coveredin full or in part with flammable orcombustible materials (such as grease oroil) while engaged in hot work

operations or working near an ignitionsource.

(c) Electrical Protective Devices. Theemployer shall ensure that each affectedemployee wears protective electricalinsulating gloves and sleeves or otherelectrical protective equipment, if thatemployee is exposed to electrical shockhazards while working on electricalequipment.

§ 1915.158 Lifesaving equipment.

(a) Personal flotation devices. (1)Personal flotation devices (PFD) (lifepreservers, life jackets and work vests)worn by each affected employee shall beany United States Coast Guard (USCG)approved and marked Type I PFD, TypeII PFD, or Type III PFD; or PFDs shallbe a USCG approved Type V PFD whichis marked for use as a work vest, forcommercial use, or for use on vessels.USCG approval is pursuant to 46 CFRpart 160, subpart Q, Coast GuardLifesaving Equipment Specifications.

(2) Prior to each use, personalfloatation devices shall be inspected fordry rot, chemical damage, or otherdefects which may affect their strengthand buoyancy. Defective personalfloatation devices shall not be used.

(b) Ring life buoys and ladders. (1)When work is being performed on afloating vessel 200 feet (61 m) or morein length, at least three 30-inch (0.76 m)U.S. Coast Guard approved ring lifebuoys with lines attached shall belocated in readily visible and accessibleplaces. Ring life buoys shall be locatedone forward, one aft, and one at theaccess 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 ringlife buoy with line attached shall belocated at the gangway.

(3) At least one 30-inch (0.76 m) U. S.Coast Guard approved ring life buoywith a line attached shall be located oneach staging alongside of a floating


vessel on which work is beingperformed.

(4) At least 90 feet (27 m) of line shallbe attached to each ring life buoy.

(5) There shall be at least one portableor permanent ladder in the vicinity ofeach floating vessel on which work isbeing performed. The ladder shall be ofsufficient length to assist employees toreach safety in the event they fall intothe water.

§ 1915.159 Personal fall arrest systems(PFAS).

The criteria of this section apply toPFAS and their use. Effective January 1,1998, body belts and non-lockingsnaphooks are not acceptable as part ofa personal fall arrest system.

(a) Criteria for connectors andanchorages. (1) Connectors shall bemade of drop forged, pressed, or formedsteel or shall be made of materials withequivalent strength.

(2) Connectors shall have a corrosion-resistant finish, and all surfaces andedges shall be smooth to preventdamage to the interfacing parts of thesystem.

(3) D-rings and snaphooks shall becapable of sustaining a minimum tensileload of 5,000 pounds (22.2 Kn).

(4) D-rings and snaphooks shall beproof-tested to a minimum tensile loadof 3,600 pounds (16 Kn) withoutcracking, breaking, or beingpermanently deformed.

(5) Snaphooks shall be sized to becompatible with the member to whichthey are connected to preventunintentional disengagement of thesnaphook caused by depression of thesnaphook keeper by the connectedmember, or shall be of a locking typethat is designed and used to preventdisengagement of the snap-hook bycontact of the snaphook keeper by theconnected member.

(6) Snaphooks, unless of a lockingtype designed and used to preventdisengagement from the followingconnections, shall not be engaged:

(i) directly to webbing, rope or wirerope;

(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 tothe snaphook such that unintentionaldisengagement could occur by theconnected object being able to depressthe snaphook keeper and release itself.

(7) On suspended scaffolds or similarwork platforms with horizontal lifelinesthat may become vertical lifelines, thedevices used for connection to thehorizontal lifeline shall be capable oflocking in any direction on the lifeline.

(8) Anchorages used for attachment ofpersonal fall arrest equipment shall beindependent of any anchorage beingused to support or suspend platforms.

(9) Anchorages shall be capable ofsupporting at least 5,000 pounds (22.2Kn) per employee attached, or shall bedesigned, installed, and used as follows:

(i) as part of a complete personal fallarrest system which maintains a safetyfactor of at least two; and

(ii) under the direction andsupervision of a qualified person.

(b) Criteria for lifelines, lanyards, andpersonal fall arrest systems.

(1) When vertical lifelines are used,each employee shall be provided with aseparate lifeline.

(2) Vertical lifelines and lanyardsshall have a minimum tensile strengthof 5,000 pounds (22.2 Kn).

(3) Self-retracting lifelines andlanyards that automatically limit freefall distances to 2 feet (0.61 m) or lessshall be capable of sustaining aminimum tensile load of 3000 pounds(13.3 Kn) applied to a self-retractinglifeline or lanyard with the lifeline orlanyard in the fully extended position.

(4) Self-retracting lifelines andlanyards which do not limit free falldistance to 2 feet (0.61 m) or less,ripstitch lanyards and tearing anddeforming lanyards shall be capable ofsustaining a minimum static tensile loadof 5,000 pounds (22.2 Kn) applied to thedevice when they are in the fullyextended position.

(5) Horizontal lifelines shall bedesigned, installed, and used under thesupervision of a qualified person, andshall only be used as part of a completepersonal fall arrest system thatmaintains a safety factor of at least two.

(6) Effective November 20, 1996,personal fall arrest systems shall:

(i) limit the maximum arresting forceon a falling employee to 900 pounds (4Kn) when used with a body belt;

(ii) limit the maximum arresting forceon a falling employee to 1,800 pounds(8 Kn) when used with a body harness;

(iii) bring a falling employee to acomplete stop and limit the maximumdeceleration distance an employeetravels to 3.5 feet (1.07 m), and

(iv) have sufficient strength towithstand twice the potential impactenergy of an employee free falling adistance of 6 feet (1.8 m), or the free falldistance permitted by the system,whichever is less;

Note to paragraph (b)(6) of this section: Apersonal fall arrest system which meets thecriteria and protocols contained in AppendixB, is considered to comply with paragraph(b)(6). If the combined tool and body weightis 310 pounds (140 kg) or more, systems thatmeet the criteria and protocols contained in

Appendix B will be deemed to comply withthe provisions of paragraphs (b)(6) only ifthey are modified appropriately to provideprotection for the extra weight of theemployee and tools.

(7) Personal fall arrest systems shallbe rigged such that an employee canneither free fall more than 6 feet (1.8 m)nor contact any lower level.

(c) Criteria for selection, use and careof systems and system components. (1)Lanyards shall be attached to employeesusing personal fall arrest systems, asfollows:

(i) The attachment point of a bodyharness shall be located in the center ofthe wearer’s back near the shoulderlevel, or above the wearer’s head. If thefree fall distance is limited to less than20 inches, the attachment point may belocated in the chest position; and

(ii) The attachment point of a bodybelt shall be located in the center of thewearer’s back.

(2) Ropes and straps (webbing) usedin lanyards, lifelines and strengthcomponents of body belts and bodyharnesses shall be made from syntheticfibers or wire rope.

(3) Ropes, belts, harnesses, andlanyards shall be compatible with theirhardware.

(4) Lifelines and lanyards shall beprotected against cuts, abrasions, burnsfrom hot work operations anddeterioration by acids, solvents, andother chemicals.

(5) Personal fall arrest systems shallbe inspected prior to each use formildew, wear, damage, and otherdeterioration. Defective componentsshall be removed from service.

(6) Personal fall arrest systems andcomponents subjected to impact loadingshall be immediately removed fromservice and shall not be used again foremployee protection until inspected anddetermined by a qualified person to beundamaged and suitable for reuse.

(7) The employer shall provide forprompt rescue of employees in the eventof a fall or shall ensure that employeesare able to rescue themselves.

(8) Body belts shall be at least one andfive eighths inches (4.1 cm) wide.

(9) Personal fall arrest systems andcomponents shall be used only foremployee fall protection and not tohoist materials.

(d) Training. Before using personalfall arrest equipment, each affectedemployee shall be trained to understandthe application limits of the equipmentand proper hook-up, anchoring, and tie-off techniques. Affected employees shallalso be trained so that they candemonstrate the proper use, inspection,and storage of their equipment.


§ 1915.160 Positioning device systems.

Positioning device systems and theiruse shall conform to the followingprovisions:

(a) Criteria for connectors andanchorages. (1) Connectors shall have acorrosion-resistant finish, and allsurfaces and edges shall be smooth toprevent damage to interfacing parts ofthis system.

(2) Connecting assemblies shall havea minimum tensile strength of 5,000pounds (22.2 Kn).

(3) Positioning device systems shallbe secured to an anchorage capable ofsupporting at least twice the potentialimpact load of an employee’s fall.

(4) Snaphooks, unless each is of alocking type designed and used toprevent disengagement, shall not beconnected to each other. As of January1, 1998, only locking type snaphooksshall be used in positioning devicesystems.

(b) Criteria for positioning devicesystems. (1) Restraint (tether) lines shallhave a minimum breaking strength of3,000 pounds (13.3 Kn).

(2) The following system performancecriteria for positioning device systemsare effective November 20, 1996:

(i) A window cleaner’s positioningsystem shall be capable of withstandingwithout failure a drop test consisting ofa 6 foot (1.83 m) drop of a 250 pound(113 kg) weight. The system shall limitthe initial arresting force to not morethan 2,000 pounds (8.89 Kn), with aduration not to exceed 2 milliseconds.The system shall limit any subsequentarresting forces imposed on the fallingemployee to not more than 1,000pounds (4.45 Kn);

(ii) All other positioning devicesystems shall be capable ofwithstanding without failure a drop testconsisting of a 4- foot (1.2 m) drop of a250-pound (113 kg) weight.

Note to paragraph (b)(2) of this section:Positioning device systems which complywith the provisions of Section 2 of Non-mandatory Appendix B to this subpart shallbe deemed to meet the requirements of thisparagraph (b)(2).

(c) Criteria for the use and care ofpositioning device systems. (1)Positioning device systems shall beinspected before each use for mildew,wear, damage, and other deterioration.Defective components shall be removedfrom service.

(2) A positioning device system orcomponent subjected to impact loadingshall be immediately removed fromservice and shall not be used again foremployee protection, unless inspectedand determined by a qualified person tobe undamaged and suitable for reuse.

(d) Training. Before using apositioning device system, employeesshall be trained in the applicationlimits, proper hook-up, anchoring andtie-off techniques, methods of use,inspection, and storage of positioningdevice systems.

Appendix A to Subpart I—Non-mandatory Guidelines for HazardAssessment, Personal ProtectiveEquipment (PPE) Selection, and PPETraining Program

This Appendix is intended to providecompliance assistance for hazard assessment,selection of personal protective equipment(PPE) and PPE training. It neither adds to ordetracts from the employer’s responsibility tocomply with the provisions of this subpart.

1. Controlling hazards. Employers andemployees should not rely exclusively onPPE for protection from hazards. PPE shouldbe used, where appropriate, in conjunctionwith engineering controls, guards, and safework practices and procedures.

2. Assessment and selection. Employersneed to consider certain general guidelinesfor assessing the hazardous situations that arelikely to arise under foreseeable work activityconditions and to match employee PPE to theidentified hazards. The employer shoulddesignate a safety officer or some otherqualified person to exercise common senseand appropriate expertise to assess workactivity hazards and select PPE.

3. Assessment guidelines. In order to assessthe need for PPE the following steps shouldbe taken:

a. Survey. Conduct a walk-through surveyof the area in question to identify sources ofhazards.

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 surveythe safety officer should observe:

(1) Sources of motion; for example,machinery or processes where any movementof tools, machine elements or particles couldexist, or movement of personnel that couldresult in collision with stationary objects.

(2) Sources of high temperatures that couldresult in burns, eye injury or ignition ofprotective 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 potentialfor dropping objects.

(7) Sources of sharp objects which mightpierce or cut the hands.

(8) Sources of rolling or pinching objectswhich 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 dataand other information obtained. Thatmaterial provides the basis for hazardassessment that enables the employer toselect the appropriate PPE.

d. Analyze data. Having gathered andorganized data regarding a particularoccupation, employers need to estimate thepotential for injuries. Each of the identifiedhazards (see paragraph 3.a.) should bereviewed and classified as to its type, thelevel of risk, and the seriousness of anypotential injury. Where it is foreseeable thatan employee could be exposed to severalhazards simultaneously, the consequences ofsuch exposure should be considered.

4. Selection guidelines. After completion ofthe procedures in paragraph 3, the generalprocedure for selection of protectiveequipment is to:

(a) become familiar with the potentialhazards and the types of protectiveequipment that are available, and what theycan do; for example, splash protection, andimpact protection;

(b) compare the hazards associated withthe environment; for instance, impactvelocities, masses, projectile shapes,radiation intensities, with the capabilities ofthe available protective equipment;

(c) select the protective equipment whichensures a level of protection greater than theminimum required to protect employees fromthe hazards; and

(d) fit the user with the protective deviceand give instructions on care and use of thePPE. It is very important that users be madeaware of all warning labels and limitations oftheir PPE.

5. Fitting the device. Careful considerationmust be given to comfort and fit. Theemployee will be most likely to wear theprotective device if it fits comfortably. PPEthat does not fit properly may not provide thenecessary protection, and may create otherproblems for wearers. Generally, protectivedevices are available in a variety of sizes andchoices. Therefore employers should becareful to select the appropriate sized PPE.

6. Devices with adjustable features. (a)Adjustments should be made on anindividual basis so the wearer will have acomfortable fit that maintains the protectivedevice in the proper position. Particular careshould be taken in fitting devices for eyeprotection against dust and chemical splashto ensure that the seal is appropriate for theface.

(b) In addition, proper fitting of hard hatsis important to ensure that the hard hat willnot fall off during work operations. In somecases a chin strap may be necessary to keepthe hard hat on an employee’s head. (Chinstraps should break at a reasonably low forceto prevent a strangulation hazard). Wheremanufacturer’s instructions are available,they should be followed carefully.

7. Reassessment of hazards. Compliancewith the hazard assessment requirements of§ 1915.152(b) will involve the reassessmentof work activities where changingcircumstances make it necessary. a. The


employer should have a safety officer orother qualified person reassess the hazards ofthe work activity area as necessary. Thisreassessment should take into accountchanges in the workplace or work practices,such as those associated with the installationof new equipment, and the lessons learnedfrom reviewing accident records, and areevaluation performed to determine thesuitability of PPE selected for use.

8. Selection chart guidelines for eye andface protection. Examples of occupations forwhich eye protection should be routinelyconsidered are carpenters, engineers,coppersmiths, instrument technicians,insulators, electricians, machinists, mobileequipment mechanics and repairers,plumbers and ship fitters, sheet metalworkers and tinsmiths, grinding equipmentoperators, machine operators, welders, boiler

workers, painters, laborers, grit blasters, shipfitters and burners. This is not a complete listof occupations that require the use of eyeprotection. The following chart providesgeneral guidance for the proper selection ofeye and face protection to protect againsthazards associated with the listed hazard‘‘source’’ operations.

EYE AND FACE PROTECTION SELECTION CHART

Source Assessment of hazard Protection

Impact:Chipping, grinding machining, masonry work,

woodworking, sawing, drilling, chiseling, pow-ered fastening, riveting, and sanding.

Flying fragments, objects, largechips, particles, sand, dirt, etc.

Spectacles with side protection, goggles, faceshields. See notes (1), (3), (5), (6), (10). For se-vere exposure, use face shield.

Heat:Furnace operations, pouring, casting, hot dip-

ping, and welding.Hot sparks ...................................... Face shields, goggles, spectacles with side protec-

tion. For severe exposure use face shield. Seenotes (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. Seenotes (1), (2), (3).

Chemicals:Acid and chemicals handling, degreasing, plat-

ing.Splash ............................................ Goggles, eyecup and cover types. For severe expo-

sure, use face shield. See notes (3), (11).Irritating mists ................................ Special-purpose goggles.

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

Light and/or Radiation:Welding: Electric arc ........................................... Optical radiation ............................. Welding helmets or welding shields. Typical shades:

10–14. See notes (9), (12).Welding: Gas ....................................................... Optical radiation ............................. Welding goggles or welding face shield. Typical

shades: gas welding 4–8, cutting 3–6, brazing 3–4. See note (9).

Cutting, Torch brazing, Torch soldering .............. Optical radiation ............................. Spectacles or welding face-shield. Typical shades,1.5–3. See notes (3), (9).

Glare .................................................................... Poor vision ..................................... Spectacles with shaded or special-purpose lenses,as suitable. See notes (9), (10).

Notes to Eye and Face Protection SelectionChart

(a) Care should be taken to recognize thepossibility of multiple and simultaneousexposure to a variety of hazards. Adequateprotection against the highest level of each ofthe hazards should be provided. Protectivedevices do not provide unlimited protection.

(b) Operations involving heat may alsoinvolve light radiation. As required by thestandard, protection from both hazards mustbe provided.

(c) Face shields should only be worn overprimary eye protection (spectacles orgoggles).

(d) As required by the standard, filterlenses must meet the requirements for shadedesignations in § 1915.153(a)(4). Tinted andshaded lenses are not filter lenses unless theyare marked or identified as such.

(e) As required by the standard, personswhose vision requires the use of prescription(Rx) lenses must wear either protectivedevices fitted with prescription (Rx) lenses orprotective devices designed to be worn overregular prescription (Rx) eye wear.

(f) Wearers of contact lenses must alsowear appropriate eye and face protectiondevices in a hazardous environment. Itshould be recognized that dusty and/or

chemical environments may represent anadditional hazard to contact lens wearers.

(g) Caution should be exercised in the useof metal frame protective devices in electricalhazard areas.

(h) Atmospheric conditions and therestricted ventilation of the protector cancause lenses to fog. Frequent cleansing maybe necessary.

(i) Welding helmets or face shields shouldbe used only over primary eye protection(spectacles or goggles).

(j) Non-side shield spectacles are availablefor frontal protection only, but are notacceptable eye protection for the sources andoperations listed for ‘‘impact.’’

(k) Ventilation should be adequate, butwell protected from splash entry. Eye andface protection should be designed and usedso that it provides both adequate ventilationand protects the wearer from splash entry.

(l) Protection from light radiation isdirectly related to filter lens density. See note(d). Select the darkest shade that allows taskperformance.

9. Selection guidelines for head protection.(a) Hard hats are designed to provideprotection from impact and penetrationhazards caused by falling objects. Headprotection is also available which providesprotection from electric shock and burn.

When selecting head protection, knowledgeof potential electrical hazards is important.Class A helmets, in addition to impact andpenetration resistance, provide electricalprotection from low-voltage conductors.(They are proof tested to 2,200 volts.) ClassB helmets, in addition to impact andpenetration resistance, provide electricalprotection from high-voltage conductors.(They are proof tested to 20,000 volts.) ClassC helmets provide impact and penetrationresistance. (They are usually made ofaluminum, which conducts electricity andshould not be used around electricalhazards.)

(b) Where falling object hazards arepresent, head protection must be worn. Someexamples of exposure include: workingbelow other workers who are using tools andmaterials which could fall; working aroundor under conveyor belts which are carryingparts or materials; working below machineryor processes which might cause material orobjects to fall; and working on exposedenergized conductors.

(c) Examples of occupations for whichhead protection should be considered are:carpenters, electricians, machinists,boilermakers, erectors, plumbers,coppersmiths, ship fitters, welders, laborersand material handlers.


10. Selection guidelines for foot protection.(a) Safety shoes and boots must meet ANSIZ41–1991 and provide impact andcompression protection to the foot. Wherenecessary, safety shoes can be obtainedwhich provide puncture protection. In somework situations, metatarsal protection shouldbe provided, and in some other specialsituations electrical conductive or insulatingsafety shoes would be appropriate.

(b) Safety shoes or boots with impactprotection would be required for carrying orhandling materials such as packages, objects,parts or heavy tools, which could bedropped, and for other activities whereobjects might fall onto the feet. Safety shoesor boots with compression protection wouldbe required for work activities involving skidtrucks (manual material handling carts)around bulk rolls (such as paper rolls) andaround heavy pipes, all of which couldpotentially roll over an employees’ feet.Safety shoes or boots with punctureprotection would be required where sharpobjects such as nails, wire, tacks, screws,large staples, scrap metal etc., could bestepped on by employees, causing an injury.

(c) Some occupations (not a complete list)for which foot protection should be routinelyconsidered are: shipping and receivingclerks, stock clerks, carpenters, electricians,machinists, boiler makers, plumbers, coppersmiths, pipe fitters, ship fitters, burners,chippers and grinders, erectors, pressoperators, welders, laborers, and materialhandlers.

11. Selection guidelines for handprotection. (a) Gloves are often relied upon toprevent cuts, abrasions, burns, and skincontact with chemicals that are capable ofcausing local or systemic effects followingdermal exposure. OSHA is unaware of anygloves that provide protection against allpotential hand hazards, and commonlyavailable glove materials provide onlylimited protection against many chemicals.Therefore, it is important to select the mostappropriate glove for a particular applicationand to determine how long it can be worn,and whether it can be reused.

(b) It is also important to know theperformance characteristics of gloves relativeto the specific hazard anticipated, e.g.,chemical hazards, cut hazards, and flamehazards. These performance characteristicsshould be assessed by using standard testprocedures. Before purchasing gloves, theemployer should request documentationfrom the manufacturer that the gloves meetthe appropriate test standard(s) for thehazard(s) anticipated.

(c) other general factors to be consideredfor glove selection are:

(A) As long as the performancecharacteristics are acceptable, in certaincircumstances, it may be more cost effectiveto regularly change cheaper gloves than toreuse more expensive types; and,

(B) The work activities of the employeeshould be studied to determine the degree ofdexterity required, the duration, frequency,and degree of exposure to the hazard, and thephysical stresses that will be applied.

(d) With respect to selection of gloves forprotection 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 theskin or to pass through the skin and causesystemic 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), aglove should be selected on the basis of thechemical component with the shortestbreakthrough time, since it is possible forsolvents to carry active ingredients throughpolymeric materials; and,

(D) Employees must be able to remove thegloves in such a manner as to prevent skincontamination.

12. Cleaning and maintenance. (a) It isimportant that all PPE be kept clean and beproperly maintained. Cleaning is particularlyimportant for eye and face protection wheredirty or fogged lenses could impair vision.

(b) For the purposes of compliance, PPEshould be inspected, cleaned, andmaintained at regular intervals so that thePPE provides the requisite protection.

(c) It is important to ensure thatcontaminated PPE which cannot bedecontaminated is disposed of in a mannerthat protects employees from exposure tohazards.

13. Examples of work activities, trades andselection of basic PPE.

Example 1: Welder. Based on anassessment of the work activity area hazardsto which welders are exposed, the equipmentlisted below is the basic PPE required for thisoccupation. This does not take into accounta job location in which additional PPE maybe required, such as where the welder worksfrom an elevated platform without guardrails. In this situation the welder must alsowear 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 workplacehazards to which shipyard maintenanceworkers are exposed, the equipment listedbelow is the basic PPE required for thisoccupation. Where maintenance workers areexposed to other hazards, such as asbestos,the insulation on a pipe is being repaired,maintenance workers must be provided withthe appropriate supplemental PPE(requirements for asbestos PPE are set out in1915.1001).—Hard Hat—Safety Glasses—Work Gloves—Safety Shoes(Signed and Dated)

Example 3: Chipper and Grinder Worker.Based on an assessment of the workplacehazards to which shipyard chipper andgrinder workers are exposed, the equipmentlisted below is the basic PPE required for thisoccupation. Where workers are exposed toother hazards, such as hazardous dust fromchipping or grinding operations, chipper and

grinder workers must be provided with theappropriate supplemental PPE.—Safety Glasses—Transparent Face Shields—Hearing Protection—Foot Protection—Gloves(Signed and Dated)

Example 4: Painter. Based on anassessment of the workplace hazards towhich shipyard painters are exposed, theequipment listed below is the basic PPErequired for this occupation. Where paintersare exposed to other hazards, such as a fallfrom an elevation where no guardrails arepresent, painters must be provided with theappropriate supplemental PPE.—Hard Hats—Safety Glasses—Disposable Clothing—Gloves—Respiratory Protection, including Airline

Respirators when working in ConfinedSpaces

—Barrier Creams(Signed and Dated)

Example 5: Tank Cleaner. Tank cleaningoperations and the basic PPE required forthem depend largely upon the type of cargoshipped in the tank. Therefore, the followingexample is given for a tank in which gasolinehas been shipped. Based on an assessment ofthe workplace hazards to which shipyardtank cleaners are exposed, specificallybenzene and flammability hazards, theequipment listed below is the basic PPErequired for this situation. Other tankcleaning operations will require variations inthe PPE listed below.—Respiratory Protection, Airline Respirators

for working in confined spaces or wherepersonal exposure limits could beexceeded.

—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—GeneralTesting Conditions and AdditionalGuidelines for Personal Fall ProtectionSystems (Non-mandatory)

1. Personal fall arrest systems—(a) Generaltest conditions. (1) Lifelines, lanyards, anddeceleration devices should be attached to ananchorage and connected to the body-belt orbody harness in the same manner as theywould be when used to protect employees,except that lanyards should be tested onlywhen connected directly to the anchorage,and not when connected to a lifeline.

(2) The anchorage should be rigid, andshould not have a deflection greater than .04inches (1 cm) when a force of 2,250 pounds(10 Kn) is applied.

(3) The frequency response of the loadmeasuring instrumentation should be 100 Hz.

(4) The test weight used in the strength andforce tests should be a rigid, metal cylindricalor torso-shaped object with a girth of 38


inches plus or minus 4 inches (96.5 cm plusor minus 10 cm).

(5) The lanyard or lifeline used to createthe free fall distance should be the onesupplied with the system, or in its absence,the least elastic lanyard or lifeline availableto be used by the employee with the system.

(6) The test weight for each test should behoisted to the required level and should bequickly released without having anyappreciable motion imparted to it.

(7) The system’s performance should beevaluated, taking into account the range ofenvironmental conditions for which it isdesigned to be used.

(8) Following the test, the system need notbe capable of further operation.

(b) Strength test. (1) During the testing ofall systems, a test weight of 300 pounds plusor minus 5 pounds (136 kg plus or minus2.27 kg) should be used. (See paragraph (a)(4)above.)

(2) The test consists of dropping the testweight once. A new unused system should beused for each test.

(3) For lanyard systems, the lanyard lengthshould be 6 feet plus or minus 2 inches (1.83m plus or minus 5 cm) as measured from thefixed anchorage to the attachment on thebody belt or harness.

(4) For rope-grab-type decelerationsystems, the length of the lifeline above thecenter line of the grabbing mechanism to thelifeline’s anchorage point should not exceed2 feet (0.61 m).

(5) For lanyard systems, for systems withdeceleration devices which do notautomatically limit free fall distance to 2 feet(0.61 m) or less, and for systems withdeceleration devices which have aconnection distance in excess of 1 foot (0.3m) (measured between the centerline of thelifeline and the attachment point to the bodybelt or harness), the test weight should berigged to free fall a distance of 7.5 feet (2.3m) from a point that is 1.5 feet (46 cm) abovethe anchorage point, to its hanging location(6 feet (1.83 m) below the anchorage). Thetest weight should fall without interference,obstruction, or hitting the floor or the groundduring the test. In some cases, a non-elasticwire lanyard of sufficient length may need tobe added to the system (for test purposes) tocreate the necessary free fall distance.

(6) For deceleration device systems withintegral lifelines or lanyards whichautomatically limit free fall distance to 2 feet(0.61 m) or less, the test weight should berigged to free fall a distance of four feet (1.22m).

(7) Any weight which detaches from thebelt or harness should constitute failure forthe strength test.

(c) Force test general. The test consists ofdropping the respective test weight once. Anew, unused system should be used for eachtest.

(1) For lanyard systems. (i) A test weightof 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 orminus 2 inches (1.83 m plus or minus 5 cm)as measured from the fixed anchorage to theattachment on the body belt or body harness.

(iii) The test weight should fall free fromthe anchorage level to its handling location

(a total of 6 feet (1.83 m) free fall distance)without interference, obstruction, or hittingthe floor or ground during the test.

(2) For all other systems. (i) A test weightof 220 pounds plus or minus 3 pounds (100kg plus or minus 1.6 kg) should be used (seeparagraph (a)(4) above).

(ii) The free fall distance to be used in thetest should be the maximum fall distancephysically permitted by the system duringnormal use conditions, up to a maximum freefall distance for the test weight of 6 feet (1.83m), except as follows:

(A) For deceleration systems which have aconnection link or lanyard, the test weightshould free fall a distance equal to theconnection distance (measured between thecenter line of the lifeline and the attachmentpoint to the body belt or harness).

(B) For deceleration device systems withintegral life lines or lanyards whichautomatically limit free fall distance to 2 feet(0.61 m) or less, the test weight should freefall a distance equal to that permitted by thesystem in normal use. (For example, to testa system with a self-retracting lifeline orlanyard, the test weight should be supportedand the system allowed to retract the lifelineor lanyard as it would in normal use. The testweight would then be released and the forceand deceleration distance measured.)

(3) Failure. A system fails the force test ifthe recorded maximum arresting forceexceeds 1,260 pounds (5.6 Kn) when using abody belt, or exceeds 2,520 pounds (11.2 Kn)when using a body harness.

(4) Distances. The maximum elongationand deceleration distance should be recordedduring the force test.

(d) Deceleration device tests—general. Thedevice should be evaluated or tested underthe environmental conditions (such as rain,ice, grease, dirt, type of lifeline, etc.) forwhich the device is designed.

(1) Rope-grab-type deceleration devices. (i)Devices should be moved on a lifeline 1,000times over the same length of line a distanceof not less than 1 foot (30.5 cm), and themechanism should lock each time.

(ii) Unless the device is permanentlymarked to indicate the type of lifelines whichmust be used, several types (differentdiameters and different materials) of lifelinesshould be used to test the device.

(2) Other-self-activating-type decelerationdevices. The locking mechanisms of otherself-activating-type deceleration devicesdesigned for more than one arrest shouldlock each of 1,000 times as they would innormal service.

2. Positioning device systems—(a) TestConditions. (1) The fixed anchorage shouldbe rigid and should not have a deflectiongreater than .04 inches (1 cm) when a forceof 2,250 pounds (10 Kn) is applied.

(2) For linemen’s body belt and pole straps,the body belt should be secured to a 250pound (113 kg) bag of sand at a point whichsimulates the waist of an employee. One endof the pole strap should be attached to therigid anchorage and the other end to the bodybelt. The sand bag should be allowed to freefall a distance of 4 feet (1.2 m). Failure of thepole strap and body belt should be indicatedby any breakage or slippage sufficient topermit the bag to fall free to the ground.

(3) For window cleaner’s belts, thecomplete belt should withstand a drop testconsisting of a 250 pound (113 kg) weightfalling free for a distance of 6 feet (1.83 m).The weight should be a rigid object with agirth of 38 inches plus or minus four inches(97 cm plus or minus 10 cm). The weightshould be placed in the waistband with thebelt buckle drawn firmly against the weight,as when the belt is worn by a windowcleaner. One belt terminal should be attachedto a rigid anchor and the other terminalshould hang free. The terminals should beadjusted to their maximum span. The weightfastened in the freely suspended belt shouldthen be lifted exactly 6 feet (1.83 m) aboveits ‘‘at rest’’ position and released so as topermit a free fall of 6 feet (1.83 m) verticallybelow the point of attachment of the terminalanchor. The belt system should be equippedwith devices and instrumentation capable ofmeasuring the duration and magnitude of thearrest forces. Any breakage or slippage whichpermits the weight to fall free of the systemconstitutes failure of the test. In addition, theinitial and subsequent arresting force peaksshould be measured and should not exceed2,000 pounds (8.9 Kn) for more than 2milliseconds for the initial impact, norexceed 1,000 pounds (4.45 Kn) for theremainder of the arrest time.

(4) All other positioning device systems(except for restraint line systems) shouldwithstand a drop test consisting of a 250pound (113 kg) weight falling free for adistance of 4 feet (1.2 m). The weight shouldbe a rigid object with a girth of 38 inches plusor minus 4 inches (96 cm plus or minus 10cm). The body belt or harness should beaffixed to the test weight as it would be toan employee. The system should beconnected to the rigid anchor in the mannerthat the system would be connected innormal use. The weight should be liftedexactly 4 feet (1.2 m) above its ‘‘at rest’’position and released so as to permit avertical free fall of 4 feet (1.2 m ). Anybreakage or slippage which permits theweight to fall free to the ground shouldconstitute failure of the system.

10. Section § 1915.5 is revised asfollows:

§ 1915.5 Incorporation by reference.

(a) Specifications, standards, andcodes of agencies of the U.S.Government, to the extent specified inthe text, form a part of the regulationsof this part. In addition, under theauthority vested in the Secretary underthe Act, the specifications, standards,and codes of organizations which arenot agencies of the U.S. Government, ineffect on the date of the promulgation ofthe regulations of this part as listedbelow, to the extent specified in thetext, form a part of the regulations ofthis part.

(b) The materials listed in paragraph(d) of this section are incorporated byreference in the corresponding sectionsnoted as they exist on the date of theapproval, and a notice of any change in


these materials will be published in theFederal Register. These incorporationsby reference were approved by theDirector of the Federal Register inaccordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1CFR part 51.

(c) Copies of the following standardsthat are issued by the respective privatestandards organizations may beobtained from the issuing organizations.The materials are available for purchaseat the corresponding addresses of theprivate standards organizations notedbelow. In addition, all are available forinspection at the Office of the FederalRegister, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,suite 700, Washington DC, and throughthe OSHA Docket Office, room N2625,U.S. Department of Labor, 200Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC20210, or any of its regional offices.

(d)(1) The following material isavailable for purchase from theAmerican National Standards Institute,11 West 42nd Street, New York, NY10036.

(i) ANSI A14.1–1959 Safety Code forPortable Wood Ladders, IBR approvedfor § 1915.72(a)(6)

(ii) ANSI A14.2–1956 Safety Code forPortable Metal Ladders, IBR approvedfor § 1995.72(a)(4)

(iii) ANSI B7.1–1964 Safety Code forthe Use, Care, and Protection ofAbrasive Wheels, IBR approval for§ 1915.134(c)

(iv) ANSI Z87.1–1989 Practice forOccupational and Educational Eye andFace Protection, IBR approved for§ 1915.153(b)(1).

(v) ANSI 87.1–1979 Practice forOccupational and Educational Eye andFace Protection, IBR approved for§ 1915.153(b)(2)

(vi) ANSI Z89.1–1986 PersonnelProtection—Protective Headgear forIndustrial Workers Requirements, IBRapproved for § 1915.155(b)(1)

(vii) ANSI Z89.1–1969 SafetyRequirement for Industrial HeadProtection, IBR approved for§ 1915.155(b)(2).

(viii) ANSI Z41–1991 PersonalProtection—Protective Footwear, IBRapproved for § 1915.156(b)(1)

(ix) ANSI Z41–1983 PersonalProtection—Protective Footwear, IBRapproved for § 1915.156(b)(2).

(2) The following material is availablefor purchase from the American Societyof Mechanical Engineers, 345 East 47thStreet, New York, New York 10017:

(i) ASME Boiler and Pressure VesselCode, Section VIII, Rules forConstruction of Unfired PressureVessels, 1963, IBR approved for§ 1915.172(a).

(3) The following material is availablefor purchase from the AmericanConference of Governmental IndustrialHygienists (ACGIH), 1014 Broadway,Cincinnati, OH 45202:

(i) Threshold limit values, 1970, IBRapproved for §§ 1915.12(b) and1915.1000, table Z.

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

federal register...1996/05/24 · federal register 26321 friday may 24, 1996 part iii department of...

Documents