96-12573. Personal Protective Equipment for Shipyard Employment (PPE)  

  • [Federal Register Volume 61, Number 102 (Friday, May 24, 1996)]
    [Rules and Regulations]
    [Pages 26322-26360]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 96-12573]
    
    
    
          
    
    [[Page 26321]]
    
    
    _______________________________________________________________________
    
    Part III
    
    
    
    
    
    Department of Labor
    
    
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________________________________
    
    
    
    Occupational Safety and Health Administration
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________________________________
    
    
    
    29 CFR Part 1915
    
    
    
    Personal Protective Equipment for Shipyard Employment; Final Rule
    
    Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Rules 
    and Regulations
    
    [[Page 26322]]
    
    
    
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
    
    Occupational Safety and Health Administration
    
    29 CFR Part 1915
    
    [Docket No. S-045]
    RIN 1218-AA74 (AB06)
    
    
    Personal Protective Equipment for Shipyard Employment (PPE)
    
    AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of 
    Labor.
    
    ACTION: Final Rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is 
    revising its standards for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for 
    Shipyard Employment, 29 CFR part 1915, subpart I. The final rule 
    updates, reorganizes, and simplifies shipyard employment PPE standards 
    into a comprehensive framework that encompasses the shipbuilding, ship 
    repair, and shipbreaking industries. Where appropriate, the final rule 
    deletes existing specification-oriented provisions that limit employer 
    innovation and incorporates performance-oriented language.
    
    EFFECTIVE DATES: The final rule becomes effective August 22, 1996 
    except for Secs. 1915.152(b), 1915.152(e), 1915.159(d), 1915.160(d), 
    will not become effective until an Office of Management and Budget 
    (OMB) Control number is received and displayed for these ``collections 
    of information'' in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
    (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The incorporations by reference of certain 
    publications listed in this final rule is approved by the Director of 
    the Federal Register as of August 22, 1996.
        Other Dates: Written comments on the paperwork requirements of this 
    final rule must be submitted on or before July 23, 1996.
    
    ADDRESSES: In compliance with 28 U.S.C. 2112(a), the Agency designates 
    the Associate Solicitor for Occupational Safety and Health, Office of 
    the Solicitor, Room S-4004, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 
    Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210 for receipt of petitions for 
    review of the standard.
        Comments on the paperwork requirements of this final rule are to be 
    submitted to the Docket Office, Docket No. S-045, U.S. Department of 
    Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 202l0, 
    telephone (202) 219-7894. Written comments limited to 10 pages or less 
    in length may also be transmitted by facsimile to (202) 219-5046.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Anne C. Cyr, Acting Director, 
    Office of Information, Division of Consumer Affairs, Room N-3647, U.S. 
    Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
    20210; Telephone (202) 219-8151.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    Table of Contents
    
    I. Background
    II. Workplace Hazards
    III. Summary and Explanation of Final Rule
    IV. Summary of Final Economic Analysis, Regulatory Flexibility 
    Certification, and Environmental Impact Assessment
    V. Paperwork Burden
    VI. Statutory Considerations
    VII. Federalism
    VIII. State Plans
    IX. Authority
    
    I. Background
    
        In May 1971, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
    (OSHA), under authority granted by section 6(a) of the Occupational 
    Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655), adopted Federal 
    standards issued under section 41 of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' 
    Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941), as standards applicable to ship 
    repairing (29 CFR part 1915), shipbuilding (29 CFR part 1916), and 
    shipbreaking (29 CFR part 1917) operations. OSHA also adopted other 
    Federal standards and national consensus standards as general industry 
    standards (29 CFR part 1910) and construction industry standards (29 
    CFR part 1926), which apply to shipyard hazards and working conditions 
    not specifically covered by standards in parts 1915, 1916, or 1917.
        On April 20, 1982 (47 FR 16984), the ship repairing, shipbuilding, 
    and shipbreaking standards were consolidated into 29 CFR part 1915 
    ``Occupational Safety and Health Standards for Shipyard Employment.'' 
    The purpose of the consolidation was to eliminate duplicative 
    provisions. The consolidation did not alter substantive requirements of 
    these standards, nor did it affect the applicability of the general 
    industry and construction standards in 29 CFR parts 1910 and 1926, 
    respectively, to hazards or conditions in shipyard employment not 
    addressed in the consolidated part 1915.
        Later in 1982, the Shipbuilders Council of America (SCA) and the 
    American Waterways Shipyard Conference (AWSC) requested that OSHA 
    identify the specific provisions of the general industry standards that 
    apply to shipyards and then consolidate them into the existing part 
    1915 provisions, making one set of shipyard employment standards. OSHA 
    agreed that such consolidation was appropriate, and decided to begin 
    work on a subpart-by-subpart basis.
        As part of that effort, OSHA published a Notice of Proposed 
    Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register for subpart I of part 1915 
    (Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), November 29, 1988, 53 FR 48092). 
    In particular, the proposed rule updated the pertinent references to 
    national consensus standards, incorporated Sec. 1910.134 (respiratory 
    protection) by reference to replace the less comprehensive provisions 
    in Sec. 1915.152, and added requirements for hazard assessment, 
    training, fall protection systems, and positioning device systems. OSHA 
    received 10 comments in response to the NPRM. Those comments are 
    discussed in the Summary and Explanation section of this document, 
    below.
        A short time after the November 1988 publication of the proposed 
    rule on PPE, the Shipyard Employment Standards Advisory Committee 
    (SESAC) was established. SESAC was chartered to provide OSHA with 
    guidance in revising, consolidating, and modernizing the varying sets 
    of regulations that were being applied in the shipyard industry to 
    produce a truly vertical standard for all shipyard employment. The 
    intended result of this activity was the development of a single set of 
    occupational safety and health standards for shipyard employment that 
    would cover vessels, vessel sections and related activities. The newly 
    developed shipyard employment standards would apply to all shipyard 
    employment. SESAC provided OSHA with comments on PPE-related issues, 
    and their comments are discussed in the Summary and Explanation below.
        Following publication of the proposed 1915 shipyard PPE standard, 
    OSHA initiated two rulemakings to address General Industry Personal 
    Protective Equipment (PPE) standards. The first of these PPE 
    rulemakings (NPRM at 54 FR 33832, August 16, 1989) covered all PPE 
    (such as eye, face, hand, and foot) other than respiratory protection, 
    electrical protective equipment, personal protective systems, and 
    positioning device systems. The Agency published the final rule for 
    this rulemaking on April 6, 1994 (59 FR 16334). The Agency also 
    initiated a second general industry rulemaking to add requirements for 
    personal fall arrest systems and positioning systems to the general 
    industry PPE standards (Docket S-057; NPRM at 55 FR 12323, April 10,
    
    [[Page 26323]]
    
    1990). This rulemaking had not yet been concluded.
        The Agency determined that the information in the above-noted 
    rulemaking records was relevant to the issues raised in the Shipyard 
    PPE proposal. Accordingly, on July 6, 1994, OSHA reopened the Shipyard 
    PPE rulemaking record (59 FR 34586) to incorporate the General Industry 
    PPE dockets and to allow the public an opportunity to comment. The 
    Agency indicated that it was considering more detailed guidance 
    regarding: Adequate training requirements; verification of the proposed 
    hazard assessment and training requirements through written 
    certification; and prohibition of the use of body belts and non-locking 
    snaphooks. OSHA subsequently revised its requirements for fall 
    protection in construction (final rule at 59 FR 40672, August 9, 1994). 
    The final rule, containing requirements for personal fall protection 
    equipment similar to those in the shipyard PPE proposal, prohibited the 
    use of body belts in personal fall arrest systems (PFAS) 
    (Sec. 1926.502(d) introductory text) and the use of non-locking 
    snaphooks in PFAS (Sec. 1926.502(d)(5)) and in positioning systems 
    (Sec. 1926.502(e)(7)). Those prohibitions take effect on January 1, 
    1998.
        The shipyard PPE reopening comment period ended August 22, 1994. 
    OSHA received 13 comments, including one hearing request. Those 
    comments are discussed in the Summary and Explanation section below.
        In lieu of a hearing, OSHA agreed to hold an informal public 
    meeting (59 FR 64173, December 13, 1994) to allow comments and 
    testimony on the issues raised in the reopening. At the public meeting 
    on January 25, 1995, there were five oral presentations and five 
    written submissions, which are discussed in the Summary and Explanation 
    section. The rulemaking record closed on February 28, 1995.
    
    II. Workplace Hazards
    
        OSHA has determined that employees in shipyards are exposed to a 
    significant risk of injury from hazards that can be mitigated by the 
    use of suitable personal protective equipment. OSHA has also concluded 
    that compliance with the final standard will substantially reduce 
    employee exposure to PPE-related hazards.
        The shipyard industry has had one of the highest rates of injuries 
    of any industry for many years. In 1992, the shipyard industry, SIC 
    3731, had an injury rate of 34.2 per 100 full-time employees 
    (``Occupational Injuries and Illnesses: Counts, Rates, and 
    Characteristics, 1992,'' published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 
    April, 1995). Approximately half of these injuries were severe enough 
    to result in lost time from work. These numbers mean that a shipyard 
    employee has about a 1 in 3 chance (34 percent) of experiencing an 
    injury at work annually and a 1 in 10 chance every year of being 
    injured seriously enough to require time away from work to recuperate.
        In comparison, the average annual risk of injury for all employees 
    in the United States was about 9 per 100 full-time employees in 1992; 
    for the manufacturing sector of the economy, the annual injury rate was 
    about 11 per 100 full-time employees.
        Table 1 presents estimates of lost-workday injuries by body part 
    based on 1992 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data. These estimates 
    are consistent with injury data from a Department of Transportation 
    Maritime Administration survey and the Agency's analysis of OSHA 200 
    Forms (discussed further in the Benefits section of the summary of the 
    Economic Analysis, presented later in this Preamble). Table 2 presents 
    BLS lost workday injury data by nature of injury.
    
                    Table 1.--BLS Estimates of Shipyard injuries involving Lost Workdays by Body Part               
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Number of                       
                          Body part                          Number of 1992     extrapolated 1994      Percent (%)  
                                                              injuries (a)         injuries (b)                     
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Head, unspecified...................................                   73                   63               0.6
    Ear(s)..............................................                    0                    0               0.0
    Eyes(s).............................................                1,080                  925               9.4
    Face................................................                   51                   44               0.4
    Scalp...............................................                   91                   78               0.8
    Neck................................................                  350                  300               3.0
    Arm(s) unspecified..................................                   49                   42               0.4
    Elbow...............................................                  265                  227               2.3
    Forearm.............................................                  128                  110               1.1
    Wrist...............................................                  478                  409               4.1
    Hand(s).............................................                  508                  435               4.4
    Finger(s)...........................................                  720                  617               6.2
    Upper extremities, multiple.........................                    0                    0               0.0
    Trunk, unspecified..................................                    0                    0               0.0
    Abdomen.............................................                   88                   75               0.8
    Back, unspecified...................................                  954                  817               8.3
    Back, lumbar........................................                1,198                1,026              10.4
    Back, thoracic......................................                  168                  144               1.5
    Chest...............................................                  289                  247               2.5
    Hip.................................................                  306                  262               2.7
    Shoulder(s).........................................                  601                  515               5.2
    Trunk, multiple parts...............................                    0                    0               0.0
    Lower extremities, unspecified......................                    0                    0               0.0
    Leg(s), unspecified.................................                   59                   51               0.5
    Thighs..............................................                   89                   76               0.8
    Knee(s).............................................                1,073                  919               9.3
    Lower leg(s)........................................                  123                  105               1.1
    Leg(s), multiple....................................                    0                    0               0.0
    Ankle(s)............................................                  624                  534               5.4
    Foot/feet...........................................                  488                  418               4.2
    Toe(s)..............................................                  123                  105               1.1
    Lower extremities, multiple.........................                    0                    0               0.0
    
    [[Page 26324]]
    
                                                                                                                    
    Multiple body parts.................................                  674                  577               5.8
    Circulatory system..................................                    0                    0               0.0
    Digestive system....................................                    0                    0               0.0
    Excretory system....................................                    0                    0               0.0
    Nervous system......................................                    0                    0               0.0
    Respiratory system..................................                    0                    0               0.0
    Body parts, NEC.....................................                  163                  140               1.4
    Not identified by body part.........................                  720                  617               6.2
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------
        Total...........................................               11,533                9,876             100.0
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (a) Bureau of Labor Statistics. Survey of Occupational injuries and illnesses, 1                                
    (b) Extrapolation based on decline in shipyard employment of 14.4 percent bet 1992 and 1994.                    
    
    
    
                Table 2.--BLS Estimates of Shipyard Injuries Involving Lost Workdays, by Nature of Injury           
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Number of                       
                      Nature of injury                       Number of 1992     extrapolated 1994      Percent (%)  
                                                              injuries (a)         injuries (b)                     
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Amputation..........................................                    0                    0               0.0
    Burn (heat).........................................                  410                  351               3.6
    Burn (chemical).....................................                   80                   69               0.7
    Concussion..........................................                    0                    0               0.0
    Infective/parasitic disease.........................                   NA                   NA                NA
    Contusion/bruise....................................                2,085                1,785              18.1
    Cut/laceration/puncture.............................                  622                  533               5.4
    Dermatitis..........................................                    0                    0               0.0
    Dislocation, unspecified............................                   88                   75               0.8
    Electric shock......................................                    0                    0               0.0
    Fracture............................................                  558                  478               4.8
    Low temperature exposure............................                   NA                   NA                NA
    Hearing loss or impairment..........................                    0                    0               0.0
    Inflammation of joints..............................                  114                   98               1.0
    Poisoning...........................................                  114                   98               1.0
    Radiation effects...................................                  213                  182               1.8
    Scratches/abrasions.................................                  728                  623               6.3
    Sprains/strains, unspecified........................                5,044                4,319              43.7
    Torn ligaments......................................                   NA                   NA                NA
    Sprains/strains, NEC................................                   NA                   NA                NA
    Multiple injuries...................................                  308                  264               2.7
    Circulatory system condition........................                    0                    0               0.0
    Eye diseases........................................                    0                    0               0.0
    Nervous system condition............................                  255                  218               2.2
    Respiratory system condition........................                    0                    0               0.0
    Ill-defined condition...............................                    0                    0               0.0
    Other injury, NEC...................................                  216                  185               1.9
    Not identified by nature............................                  698                  598               6.1
        Total...........................................               11,533                9,876             100.0
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (a) Bureau of Labor Statistics. Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, 19                               
    (b) Extrapolation based on decline in shipyard employment of 14.4 percent between 1992 and 1994.                
    NA: Not applicable. Nature of injury category not incuded in BLS tabulations.                                   
    
        Shipyard employment typically involves fabrication and repair of 
    large steel plates, beams, and pipes as well as painting and coating 
    operations and other outfitting activities such as electrical work, 
    ventilation and sheet metal work, and work on propulsion systems. 
    Welding is a common production technology, requiring grinding and 
    chipping of welds and accounting for many eye injuries. Employees also 
    frequently work in awkward positions, out-of-doors throughout the year, 
    on scaffolds, and in enclosed or confined spaces. The shipyard 
    industry's relatively high employment turnover rate contributes to the 
    high rates of injuries, because newly hired workers tend to be less 
    well trained and have a higher frequency of accidents.
        The Agency has concluded that PPE-related hazards pose a 
    significant risk of serious injury to shipyard employees, and that 
    compliance with the PPE standard is needed to substantially reduce that 
    risk. The Agency has estimated that compliance with the final PPE 
    regulation will significantly reduce the likelihood of an injury--from 
    34.2 to 21 per 100 full-time employees per year.
        For a full discussion of the benefits of the final standard see the 
    summary of the Economic Analysis presented below in this preamble or 
    the full Economic Analysis, which is in the docket.
    
    III. Summary and Explanation of Final Rule
    
        In this section of the preamble, OSHA explains how the final rule 
    relates to the proposed and existing standards, and
    
    [[Page 26325]]
    
    how the comments and testimony presented on each provision influenced 
    the drafting of the final rule. This section also addresses issues 
    raised in the July 6, 1994, reopening notice and the December 13, 1994, 
    public meeting notice. Except where otherwise indicated, proposed 
    provisions that did not elicit comments are being promulgated as 
    proposed, for reasons stated in the preamble to the proposed rule (53 
    FR 48151-48158).
        As discussed above, on April 6, 1994, OSHA issued a final rule for 
    its rulemaking on PPE used in general industry (59 FR 16334) (part 
    1910, subpart I, Docket S-060). That document updated the regulation of 
    PPE for eye and face (Sec. 1910.133), head (Sec. 1910.135) and foot 
    protection (Sec. 1910.136), and added provisions for hazard assessment, 
    PPE selection, disposal and training (Sec. 1910.132 (d)-(f)), and hand 
    protection (Sec. 1910.138). The proposed rule (54 FR 33832, August 16, 
    1989) was consistent with the corresponding proposed rule for shipyard 
    PPE. However, based on the rulemaking record, OSHA revised the general 
    industry proposal to address training and the documentation of 
    compliance with the hazard assessment and training requirements in more 
    detail. Given the similarity of the PPE used in general industry and 
    shipyard employment, OSHA determined that the information generated in 
    this general industry rulemaking was relevant to the drafting of the 
    shipyard PPE standards, as well.
        Also, proposed part 1910 subpart I, PPE (Fall Protection Systems) 
    (55 FR 13423, April 10, 1990) set criteria for the proper selection, 
    use and maintenance of personal fall arrest systems (Secs. 1910.128, 
    1910.129, and 1910.131) and positioning device systems (Secs. 1910.128 
    and 1910.130) in general industry. The part 1910 subpart I proposal 
    relied heavily on the approach taken by the Agency in its final rule on 
    Powered Platforms for Exterior Building Maintenance, Sec. 1910.66 (54 
    FR 31456, July 28, 1989, Docket S-700A). In the Preamble to the 1910 
    subpart I proposal, OSHA determined that the requirements for personal 
    fall arrest systems used by employees on powered platforms should be 
    the same as those for personal fall arrest systems used by employees in 
    other occupations (55 FR at 13430).
        Based on the record developed for the general industry fall 
    protection PPE rulemaking (Docket S-057), OSHA decided that it was 
    appropriate to consider prohibiting the use of non-locking snaphooks in 
    personal fall arrest and positioning device systems and to consider 
    prohibiting the use of body belts in personal fall arrest systems. 
    Recently, the Agency included such prohibitions in the final rule for 
    fall protection in construction (59 FR 40672, August 9, 1994). As 
    stated above, the Agency has determined that OSHA's fall protection PPE 
    standards should be consistent with each other.
        Therefore, based on its policy of promoting consistent regulation 
    of PPE across industry lines, the Agency concluded that the information 
    generated on PPE in general industry was relevant to the use of that 
    PPE in shipyards, as well.
        Accordingly, OSHA incorporated Dockets S-057 and S-060 into the 
    shipyard PPE rulemaking record and reopened the comment period for part 
    1915 subpart I to provide an opportunity for public comment on the 
    newly incorporated materials (59 FR 34586, July 6, 1994). The Agency 
    provided additional opportunity for public input on these materials (59 
    FR 64173, December 13, 1995) at an informal public meeting on January 
    25, 1995.
        In addition, OSHA has added certain personal fall arrest criteria, 
    Sec. 1910.159 (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(7), (c)(2), (c)(3) and (c) (7) to the 
    final rule, because the need for such requirements has been established 
    through the corresponding General Industry and Construction rulemaking 
    proceedings. These requirements are discussed further, below.
        OSHA has concluded that the PPE needed in shipyard employment does 
    not differ markedly from that needed in general industry or in 
    construction, and that the standards covering PPE should not differ 
    markedly either. The final rule reflects this determination and 
    incorporates OSHA's review of the existing rulemaking record, including 
    the materials incorporated from other PPE-related dockets.
    
    Section 1915.151  Scope, Application, and Definitions Applicable to 
    This Subpart
    
        Final rule paragraph (a) sets forth the scope and application of 
    Subpart I. This subpart applies to all work in shipyard employment, 
    regardless of geographic location. This language is consistent with 
    that in recently published part 1915 subpart B [Sec. 1915.11(a)][59 FR 
    37816, July 25, 1994].
        Proposed paragraph (a)(1) stated that this subpart would cover PPE 
    provided for and used by shipyard workplaces and operations (including 
    shipbuilding, ship repairing, and shipbreaking), but would not apply to 
    construction operations in shipyards covered by part 1926.
        Newport News Shipbuilding (NNS) stated [Ex. 6-2] that the term 
    ``provided'' should be changed to ``made available'' because the 
    suggested language was consistent with that in existing Sec. 1915.153 
    and with current industry practice. However, the Agency has deleted the 
    proposed language, ``personal protective equipment to be provided for 
    and used by employees'' because it believes that requirements for the 
    provision and use of PPE are more appropriately addressed in 
    Sec. 1915.152, General Requirements.
        The Shipbuilding Council of America (SCA) (Ex. 6-1) and NNS (Ex. 6-
    2) stated that part 1926 (OSHA's construction industry standards) 
    should not apply to employees of shipyards who perform construction 
    work since one of the objectives of the rulemaking was to bring 
    uniformity to the workplace by providing employees and employers with 
    one set of safety standards to govern their work. SCA suggested that 
    part 1926 apply only to construction work performed in shipyards by 
    outside contractors (non-shipyard employees). OSHA believes, however, 
    that it is inappropriate to distinguish between shipyard employees and 
    contractor employees when setting requirements for worker protection. 
    Therefore, OSHA is not making the suggested change.
        The Agency has consistently maintained that construction 
    activities, such as the erection of building structures, are covered by 
    the construction standards (29 CFR part 1926) and are not subject to 
    the requirements of the shipyard standards (29 CFR part 1915). 
    Furthermore, Sec. 1926.30, Shipbuilding and ship repairs, explicitly 
    provides that shipyard employment is covered exclusively by the 
    shipyard standards. Accordingly, the proposed paragraph (a)(1) language 
    regarding the application for part 1926 in unnecessary and has been 
    deleted.
        Proposed paragraph (a)(2) provided that subpart I of part 1910--
    except Sec. 1910.134, Respiratory protection--would not apply to 
    shipyard employment. Since OSHA has chosen to view respirators as a 
    separate, full rulemaking [59 FR 58884 November 15, 1994] which will 
    apply to shipyard employment as well as general industry, the final 
    shipyard PPE standard will continue to reference existing Sec. 1910.134 
    for respiratory PPE until the shipyard respirator rulemaking is 
    complete. In all other respects, subpart I of part 1915 will be a self-
    contained set of PPE standards for shipyard employment. It will not be
    
    [[Page 26326]]
    
    supplemented through reference to the General Industry standards.
    
    Paragraph (b), Definitions
    
        Paragraph (b) defines the terms used in this standard.
        The proposed definitions paragraph did not include a number of 
    terms and definitions that OSHA has used, or proposed to use, in other 
    standards that address fall protection PPE [e.g., Powered Platforms for 
    Building Maintenance 29 CFR 1910.66 (July 28, 1989 54 FR 31408); Fall 
    Protection in Construction part 1926, subpart M (51 FR 42718, Aug. 9, 
    1994); and General Industry PPE-Fall Protection, proposed 1910.128(b), 
    subpart I (55 FR 13423 April 10, 1990)].
        The new terms and definitions included in paragraph (b) are: 
    anchorage, connector, deceleration distance, equivalent, free fall, 
    free-fall distance, lanyard, lifeline, lower levels, rope grab, and 
    self-retracting lifeline/lanyard. Newly defined terms, revised terms, 
    and proposed terms that elicited comments are discussed below. OSHA has 
    determined that the inclusion of these definitions is appropriate for 
    the purpose of clarity and to provide guidance consistent with that set 
    in corresponding standards. In addition, as discussed further below, 
    OSHA is adding a definition for the term ``qualified person.''
        The proposed term ``capable person'' will be replaced by the more 
    familiar term ``qualified person'' in the final rule. SESAC also 
    recommended using ``qualified person'' in the regulatory text (Tr. p. 
    84-85, SESAC meeting, November 20, 1991).
        ``Deceleration device.'' This term describes equipment such as a 
    rope grab, ripstitch lanyard, specially woven lanyard, tearing or 
    deforming lanyard, and automatic self-retracting lifeline/lanyard, that 
    serves to dissipate a substantial amount of energy during a fall arrest 
    or otherwise limit the energy imposed on an employee during fall 
    arrest. The proposed definition simply required that the device 
    dissipate more energy than does a standard line or strap-webbing 
    lanyard. After a careful review of the proposed definition, OSHA has 
    revised the definition to indicate the extent to which a deceleration 
    device must dissipate the energy imposed on an employee during fall 
    arrest.
        ``Personal fall arrest system.'' This term means a system used to 
    stop an employee's fall. The proposed definition, which was effectively 
    identical, did not elicit comments.
        ``Positioning device system.'' This is a body belt or body harness 
    system rigged so that an employee can work on an elevated, vertical 
    working surface with both hands free while leaning. The proposed 
    definition has been rewritten for clarity. OSHA did not receive any 
    comments on the proposed definition.
        The proposed definition of ``strength factor'' has not been carried 
    forward into the final rule because this term is not used in the final 
    rule.
    
    Section 1915.152  General Requirements
    
        Paragraph (a) of the final rule, Provision and use of equipment, 
    requires that employers provide and ensure that employees use personal 
    protective equipment for eyes, face, head, extremities, torso, and 
    respiratory system, including such PPE as protective clothing, 
    protective shields and barriers, personal fall protection equipment, 
    and life saving equipment, whenever such PPE is necessary for employee 
    protection. Except for some editorial changes, this provision is 
    identical to that in the proposed rule.
        Paragraph (b) requires that employers assess the work activities in 
    the shipyard to identify what hazards are present, or are likely to be 
    present, which necessitate the use of PPE. OSHA is aware that many 
    shipyard employers assess workplace hazards according to the trade or 
    occupation of affected employees. The Agency believes that it is 
    appropriate to allow employers flexibility in organizing their 
    assessment efforts. Therefore, OSHA has added a note to the final rule 
    which provides that a hazard assessment conducted according to the 
    trade or occupation of affected employees will be considered to comply 
    with paragraph (b), if the assessment addresses any PPE-related hazards 
    to which employees are exposed in the course of their work activities.
        Where any such hazards are identified, the employer shall select 
    the appropriate PPE for each affected employee (both in terms of type 
    of PPE and fit), communicate selection decisions to affected employees, 
    and document that the hazard assessment has been performed. After the 
    assessment has been done, the standard does not expressly require the 
    employer to review the hazard assessment on any periodic basis. 
    However, it is the Agency's intent that hazard assessments be conducted 
    at the intervals and on a schedule dictated by the risks in the 
    workplace. For example, when there is a change in technology, 
    production operations, or an occupation's task that has the potential 
    to affect PPE-related hazards, the employer must review the 
    appropriateness of the existing hazard assessment and the PPE being 
    used and update the hazard assessment as necessary.
        In the proposal, this paragraph required that employers select PPE 
    for their employees based on an assessment of workplace hazards. 
    Commenters who responded to the July 6, 1994 notice (59 FR 3486) and 
    participants at the January 25, 1995 public hearing stated that the 
    term ``workplace'' that appeared in the requirement for hazard 
    assessment in proposed section Sec. 1915.152(b) was not appropriate. 
    They suggested that OSHA instead use the term ``trade'' or ``work 
    activity.''
        For example, the South Tidewater Association of Ship Repairers, 
    Inc. (Ex 9-3) recommended that OSHA change ``workplace to ``work 
    activity'' or ``trade.'' Tampa Shipyards Incorporated (Ex. 9-8) stated:
    
        We would definitely agree that PPE used in general industry does 
    not differ markedly from PPE used in the shipyards. We would point 
    out the fact that work environment in shipyards is substantially and 
    drastically different from general industry work environment. Most 
    of the general industry work environment is a fixed work 
    environment; manufacturing plant with assembly lines, consistent 
    work processed, etc. The commercial shipyard work environment 
    changes not only on a daily basis but sometimes on an hourly basis 
    depending upon the size and configuration of a ship (or workplace) 
    and the type of work to be accomplished on board that ship.
    
        The Shipbuilders Council of America (Ex. 9-7) stated:
    
        We believe that standards should be based on generic and uniform 
    nature of the duties performed by specific categories of employees, 
    rather than solely by the workplace * * * shipyard workplace that is 
    neither fixed, nor constant, nor readily quantifiable like 
    workplaces in all other industries.
    
        In addition, the Shipbuilders Council of America (Tr. pp. 8-9) 
    testified that:
    
        The general industry standard is specifically targeted toward 
    fixed facilities and processes, unlike commercial ship repair and 
    ship building. Now the definition of workplace differs greatly from 
    a manufacturing environment to a commercial ship repair facility. 
    Workplace is used throughout the general industry PPE standard. By 
    definition, workplace means, and I quote out of the Webster's 
    dictionary, ``a place, shop or factory where work is done.''
        The commercial shipyard work environment changes not only on a 
    daily basis * * * And from personal experience I can tell you it 
    changes on an hourly basis and on a ship-to-shop basis which varies 
    by size and configuration.
    
        OSHA acknowledges that shipyard employees--unlike general industry
    
    [[Page 26327]]
    
    employees--may work in several worksites during a shift. OSHA agrees 
    with the commenters that the term ``workplace'' does not identify the 
    appropriate source of PPE-related hazards in shipyards and believes 
    that requiring hazard assessments by trade and related work activities 
    effectively addresses the PPE-related risks in shipyards.
        The proposal also required employers to select PPE that would 
    protect employees from the particular occupational hazards they were 
    likely to encounter, to communicate their selection decisions to 
    employees who would be obtaining their own PPE, and to have employees 
    who obtain their own PPE follow the employers' selection decisions.
        The proposed rule assumed that some employees would be providing 
    some of their own PPE. For that reason, OSHA specified, in the 
    proposal, that employers would need to provide any such employees with 
    PPE selection information and to make sure that their affected 
    employees obtained the right PPE. This was intended to ensure that 
    employees are properly protected by their PPE, regardless of who 
    purchased it.
        Subsequently, the Agency determined that it was appropriate to 
    provide additional guidance regarding when employers would be expected 
    to pay for PPE and when employees would be expected to pay. On October 
    18, 1994, OSHA issued a memorandum to its field offices which stated as 
    follows:
    
        OSHA has interpreted its general PPE standard, as well as 
    specific standards, to require employers to provide and to pay for 
    personal protective equipment required by the company for the worker 
    to do his or her job safely and in compliance with OSHA standards. 
    Where equipment is very personal in nature and is usable by workers 
    off the job, the matter of payment may be left to labor-management 
    negotiations. Examples of PPE that would not normally be used away 
    from the worksite include, but are not limited to: welding glasses, 
    wire mesh gloves, respirators, hard hats, specialty glasses and 
    goggles (designed for laser or ultraviolet radiation protection), 
    specialty foot protection (such as metatarsal shoes and linemen's 
    shoes with built in gaffs), face shields and rubber gloves, blankets 
    and cover-ups and hot sticks and other live-line tools used by power 
    generation workers. Examples of PPE that is personal in nature and 
    often used away from the worksite include non-specialty safety 
    glasses, safety shoes, and cold-weather outer wear of the type worn 
    by construction workers. However, shoes or outer wear subject to 
    contamination by carcinogens or other toxic or hazardous substances 
    which cannot be safely worn off-site must be paid for by the 
    employer. Failure of the employer to pay for PPE that is not 
    personal and not used away from the job is a violation and shall be 
    cited.
    
    Although the equipment used in shipyard employment often differs from 
    that mentioned in the October 18 memorandum, the same policy 
    considerations apply in the Shipyard PPE context. Therefore, OSHA will 
    apply the above-stated policy when determining who pays for the PPE 
    required under Sec. 1915.152(a).
        In addition, the Agency has determined, after further 
    consideration, that all affected employees need to be informed of PPE 
    selection decisions in order to facilitate compliance with the 
    standard. The proposed language that distinguishes between employees 
    who pay for their own PPE and those who do not has been deleted and the 
    provision has been revised accordingly. Paragraph (b) has also been 
    editorially revised for clarity.
        In the proposal, paragraph (b) did not specifically address 
    documentation of the hazard assessment. The recently revised PPE 
    standard for General Industry (Sec. 1910.132(d)(2)), however, requires 
    employers to verify through a written certification that a required 
    hazard assessment has been performed. OSHA explained its decision (59 
    FR 16336) to require such verification as follows:
    
        OSHA believes that some form of record is needed to provide OSHA 
    compliance officers and affected employees with appropriate 
    assurance that the required hazard assessment has been performed * * 
    * It is not ``necessary for employers to prepare and retain a formal 
    written hazard assessment.'' Given the performance-oriented nature 
    of this rulemaking, OSHA has determined that the generation and 
    review of extensive documentation would be unnecessarily burdensome.
        The Agency has found that a written certification is a 
    reasonable means by which to establish accountability for 
    compliance.
        Therefore, the Agency has determined that employers can 
    adequately verify compliance with Sec. 1910.132(d) of the final rule 
    through a written certification which identifies the workplace 
    evaluated; the person certifying that the evaluation has been 
    performed, the date(s) of the hazard assessment; and which 
    identifies the document as a certification of hazard assessment.
    
        Taking into account the similarities between PPE used in General 
    Industry and that used in Shipyard employment, OSHA reopened the 
    Shipyard PPE rulemaking record (59 FR 34586, July 6, 1994) to provide 
    public notice that the Agency was considering a requirement for 
    shipyard employers to verify their compliance with the hazard 
    assessment provision through a written certification. The notice of 
    reopening solicited comments on the need for and impact of a 
    certification requirement.
        The Preamble to the final rule for Fall Protection in Construction 
    (part 1926, subpart M) (59 FR at 40721, August 9, 1994) underscored the 
    flexibility employers have in complying with certification 
    requirements, stating that a ``certification record can be prepared in 
    any format an employer chooses, including reprinted forms, computer 
    generated lists, or 3 x 5 cards.''
        Commenters to the shipyard PPE record (Exs. 9-3 and 9-7) stated 
    that any requirement for the certification of hazard assessment should 
    be focused on employee ``work activity'' or ``trade'' rather than on 
    the ``workplace.'' For example, the South Tidewater Association of Ship 
    Repairers (STASR)(Ex. 9-3) stated that ``[t]here is a constant 
    transition of trades moving among various shops and vessels as well as 
    a rotation of vessels. It is not feasible for designated shipyard 
    employees to monitor continuously a ``workplace'' in constant change.'' 
    In addition, STASR observed that it would be advantageous to identify 
    ``a universal requirement for trade-specific PPE as opposed to {a} 
    site-specific requirement, peculiar to one location.'' The SCA (Ex. 9-
    7) stated that shipyard work duties, unlike duties undertaken in a 
    factory, are neither fixed, constant, nor readily quantifiable.
        Three other commenters (Exs. 9-6, 9-8 and 9-9) were particularly 
    concerned that compliance with the certification requirement under 
    consideration would necessitate continuous or repeated hazard 
    assessment. These commenters, along with several others (Exs. 9-1, 9-4, 
    9-5, 9-11 and 9-13), indicated that they have already implemented 
    written programs to identify PPE needs, so that certifying performance 
    of the hazard assessment would be redundant.
        In addition, commenters (Exs. 9-10 and 9-14) suggested that OSHA 
    accept any form of documentation which provides the information needed 
    to verify compliance. In particular, General Dynamics Electric Boat 
    Division (EBDiv.) (Ex. 9-10) stated ``EBDiv. recommends that OSHA 
    continue with its performance oriented approach and allow employers the 
    flexibility in determining the most efficient and effective manner for 
    documenting hazard assessments.''
        Based on the above-discussed comments, the notice of informal 
    public meeting (59 FR 64173, December 13, 1994) solicited input 
    regarding the means by which shipyard employers could adequately verify 
    compliance with the requirement for hazard assessment. In particular, 
    the notice stated that OSHA was ``considering the
    
    [[Page 26328]]
    
    extent to which current hazard assessments performed by trade or 
    occupation provide the necessary information for selection of 
    appropriate PPE'' and provided examples of trade-based formats (for 
    welder and for yard maintenance worker) that the Agency might consider 
    to be acceptable.
        In response, commenters (Exs. 11-2, 11-3, 11-6 and 11-8) stated 
    that the shipyard industry already adequately documents its hazard 
    assessment activities. NNS (Ex. 11-6) also expressed concern that the 
    use of the term ``certify'' was unnecessary, stating that certification 
    ``does not contribute to improved safety and health. We suggest that 
    certification should be replaced by a signature.'' In addition, NNS 
    testified (Tr. 28-29, January 25, 1995), as follows:
    
        We still don't understand why the word ``certify'' can't be left 
    behind in favor of the word ``document'' or ``signature'' or some 
    other type of verbiage. We think that the word ``certify'' carries 
    with it some connotations that will thwart, if you will, the 
    employee involvement efforts that we're stepping forward trying to 
    initiate.
    
        The SCA testified (Tr. 11-12) that:
    
        Where hazard assessment is already in place because of existing 
    OSHA standards * * * we recommend that these assessments be allowed 
    to meet the requirements of the portion of this standard.
        Where hazard assessment does not exist, and it would be hard for 
    me to say where it doesn't in the shipyard industry, we'd recommend 
    that an annual assessment be made of the affected craft, possibly of 
    the machinery or pipefitting departments. Once the hazard assessment 
    is conducted for these crafts, we recommend that the company safety 
    representative be allowed to make these assessments and sign the 
    assessment certifying his or her review and assessment. This 
    assessment should be no more than listing the personal protective 
    equipment required for that particular craft in all working 
    circumstances.
    
        The UBC Health and Safety Fund of North America (Ex. 12-4) stated 
    as follows: ``OSHA should require written certification of hazard 
    assessment for employers to select the Personal Protective Equipment 
    (PPE) that is necessary for work being performed by trades or 
    occupations. This assessment should take into account the PPE necessary 
    to protect employees performing specific work tasks.''
        OSHA has concluded that the documentation format described by 
    commenters and meeting participants will provide adequate assurance 
    that the required hazard assessment has been performed. The Agency 
    agrees that a hazard assessment record which conveys the required 
    information does not need to be called a ``certification.'' 
    Accordingly, the Agency will use the term ``document'' rather than the 
    term ``certification'' to describe these minimal written record 
    required under final rule Sec. 1915.152(b)(4). Appendix A provides 
    several acceptable ways of meeting the requirements, including some 
    examples of the trade-based formats.
        Final rule paragraph (c) requires employers to ensure that 
    defective or damaged PPE is not used. The proposed paragraph was 
    essentially identical. This provision does not preclude the repair and 
    reuse of PPE. OSHA recognizes that there are many situations where PPE 
    can be removed from service, repaired, and then returned to service. 
    There were no comments on the proposed paragraph, and OSHA therefore 
    promulgates this provision as proposed, except for minor editorial 
    changes.
        Final rule paragraph (d) requires that PPE that has been worn by 
    workers and has become unsanitary be cleaned and disinfected before it 
    is reissued. There were no comments on the proposed provision, and this 
    paragraph is unchanged except for minor editorial changes.
        Final paragraph (e) sets the training requirements for users of 
    PPE. OSHA has consistently maintained that employees must be properly 
    trained in order to benefit from the use of PPE. The proposed part 1910 
    and part 1915 PPE training provisions were identical, requiring simply 
    that employees ``be trained in the proper use of their personal 
    protective equipment.'' As discussed in the part 1910 subpart I final 
    rule preamble (59 FR 16337-40, April 6, 1994), OSHA divided the 
    training into four training elements: what affected employees must 
    understand about their PPE; what PPE-related skills those employees 
    must have; when affected employees would need retraining; and what 
    documentation of training was needed.
        OSHA concluded that these training elements should also be 
    considered for inclusion in the shipyard standard. Therefore, the July 
    6, 1994, shipyard PPE notice discussed the general industry training 
    provisions and solicited comments. In order to clarify the requirements 
    for the shipyard industry and provide clear guidance for enforcement, 
    the Agency has revised this provision (paragraph (e)(2)) to read: ``The 
    employer shall ensure that each affected employee demonstrates the 
    ability to use PPE properly before being allowed to perform work 
    requiring the use of PPE.'' The Agency is not prescribing the means by 
    which employers comply with this provision.
        The general industry PPE standard, Sec. 1910.132(f)(4), provides 
    that: ``[t]he employer shall verify that each affected employee has 
    received and understood the required training through a written 
    certification that contains the name of each employee trained, the 
    date(s) of training and that identifies the subject of the 
    certification.''
        The comments received in response to the July 6 notice opposed a 
    requirement for a written certification of compliance. For example, 
    STASR (Ex. 9-3) commented that:
    
        Every shipyard in the Hampton Roads area has a safety program 
    and a safety office. Every shipyard mandates usage of safety 
    equipment for all employees. Those who do not comply are often sent 
    home. STASR shipyards have safety programs with many of the PPE 
    standards already in place. The PPE training and recordkeeping 
    requirements are, in some cases, redundant.
        When an employee is hired and undergoes initial training, that 
    employee can be given a list of equipment to wear while performing a 
    specific task. This is far preferable to sending a monitor to 
    evaluate a worksite on a continuous basis. The shipyard may then 
    certify that an individual has been given the necessary training and 
    the employee will certify understanding of the safety requirements 
    for his or her trade.
    
        The SCA (Ex. 9-7) commented that:
    
        We support the general requirement for training as it does serve 
    to enhance a safer working environment * * * we believe that 
    training should be focused on trade specific duties of employees 
    with the greatest emphasis being placed on orientation training at 
    the outset. PPE serves a very useful purpose, and empirical data 
    often establishes that causes of accident or occupational injuries 
    are attributable to the fact that employees failed to comply with 
    company PPE standards * * *. Additionally, documentation of all 
    training should be in the form of training logs, which should be 
    considered to be the equivalent of ``written certification'' in 
    order to avoid the non value added redundance of record keeping.
    
        Tampa Shipyards Incorporated (Ex. 9-8) stated that:
    
        We are already complying with this proposed standard and we 
    suspect many other shipyards are also complying with this standard.
        Verification through written certification should not be 
    required if an employer can produce training logs with the 
    employee's name, the date the training took place, type of training 
    conducted and the name of the instructor. Training logs should be 
    interpreted under this standard as ``written certification.''
    
        General Dynamics, Electric Boat Division (EBDiv) (Ex. 9-10) 
    commented that:
    
        EBDiv agrees with OSHA that training is an essential element of 
    a PPE program but does not agree that ``training'' as specified in 
    the standard requires certification.
    
    [[Page 26329]]
    
        EBDiv firmly believes training is a key and necessary component 
    of safety and health programs. EBDiv provides extensive training to 
    its employees on a variety of disciplines not mandated by OSHA in 
    addition to training mandated by OSHA.
    
        Based on these comments, OSHA raised the issue of the need for 
    documentation of training in the December 13, 1994, meeting notice (59 
    FR 64173). AWH Corporation (Ex. 11-3) commented that training is 
    provided when the employee is hired and at weekly ``gangbox'' safety 
    meetings, and that training is periodically reinforced by including PPE 
    as a topic at safety meetings.
        NNS responded (Ex. 11-6) that ``[t]he requirement to certify PPE 
    training dictates recording specific information which can later be 
    retrieved so as to prove training was conducted. We will provide 
    samples of our existing system at the January 25 meeting.'' NNS 
    provided copies of training documentation at the meeting (Ex. 12-2) and 
    testified (Tr. 29-30) as follows:
    
        We've provided a recommended definition for the word 
    ``certify''* * *
        ``Certify'' means to evaluate subjectively, based on appearance 
    and available information at that time. The certifying individual in 
    a training session, for example, would verify that the trained 
    individual was present during the stated training; he would ensure 
    that required information was delivered to the target audience in 
    what he believed to be an understandable fashion, and he would watch 
    individuals perform activities which indicate that they have 
    understood the training, and then use his judgment at that time to 
    determine whether further instruction was needed or not.
    
        The SCA testified (Tr. 13-14, January 25, 1995) as follows:
    
        We would request that training certification requirements be met 
    in the following manner. Number one, documented new hire orientation 
    * * *. Secondly, we request that training certification requirements 
    be met as documented annual refresher training.
        We'd recommend this documentation be in the form of training 
    logs which many of us already keep on the computer * * *
        Some of our members suggest * * * giving a new employee a list 
    of all required safety equipment that he or she should wear at the 
    time they go through new-hire orientation, just as a reminder * * * 
    this is already being done in many of our yards.
    
        In response to these submissions, OSHA emphasizes that any 
    documentation of training that provides the specified information will 
    provide adequate assurance that the training requirements have been 
    satisfied. Therefore, Sec. 1915.152(e)(4) of the final rule requires 
    employers to verify that each affected employee has received the 
    required training with documentation that includes: employee(s) name; 
    the date(s) of training, and type of training the employee received. In 
    the case of an employee who has already been trained (either prior to 
    the effective date of this standard or by another employer), OSHA will 
    accept documentation dated as of the time the current employer 
    determines that the employee has the requisite proficiency.
        As discussed above, the rulemaking record indicates that most 
    shipyard employers are already documenting training in the form of a 
    log, computer database, or some type of written document. Examples of 
    acceptable documentation would be records of stand-up safety meetings 
    and tool box meetings, or a tool room log (where an employee has 
    checked out PPE such as safety glasses, hard hat, gloves, face shield). 
    OSHA will accept any form of documentation that effectively 
    communicates the required information.
    
    Section 1915.153  Eye and Face Protection
    
        Final rule paragraph (a) sets out requirements for eye and face 
    PPE. Paragraph (a)(1) requires employers to ensure that employees use 
    eye and face PPE when employees are exposed to eye or face hazards from 
    flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acid or caustic 
    chemicals, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light 
    radiation. This provision is based on the requirements in existing 
    Sec. 1915.151 (b)(1) and (c)(1). This provision is essentially 
    unchanged from that proposed. OSHA did not receive any comments on this 
    provision.
        Final paragraph (a)(2) provides that front and side protection must 
    be used when there is a hazard from flying objects. Detachable side 
    protectors (for example clip-on or slide-on side shields) meeting the 
    pertinent requirements of this section are acceptable.
        OSHA has determined that detachable side shields that meet the 
    pertinent criteria (ANSI Z87.1-1989, as referenced by final rule 
    Sec. 1915.153 (b)(1) and (b)(2)) will provide adequate protection from 
    flying objects. Permitting detachable side shields will allow employers 
    the flexibility to use this kind of protection when necessary, based on 
    the working conditions at the employee's occupation or trade. The 
    Agency has concluded that the same considerations that supported the 
    adoption of such a requirement in other corresponding OSHA standards 
    are relevant to shipyard employment.
        Employers should be aware that some PPE could create new hazards to 
    employees. For example, allowing employees to wear wire-frame glasses 
    (plano or prescription safety glasses) around energized electrical 
    parts would increase the potential for electric shock.
        In the proposal, paragraph (a)(2) required that eye and face 
    protective equipment properly fit employees. In the final rule 
    Sec. 1915.152(b)(3) already requires that all PPE properly fit 
    employees, and OSHA has therefore not included proposed paragraph 
    (a)(2) in the final rule.
        Paragraph (a)(3) addresses appropriate eye PPE for employees who 
    wear prescription lenses. This provision requires that employers 
    provide each such employee either with eye protection that incorporates 
    the prescription in its design or with PPE that can be worn over 
    prescription lenses without disturbing the proper position of the 
    lenses. The final provision, which is essentially the same as the 
    proposed paragraph except for minor editorial changes, elicited no 
    comments.
        Proposed paragraph (a)(3) required that protectors with tinted or 
    variable tinted lenses not be worn when an employee was required in the 
    course of work to pass from a brightly lit area, such as outdoors, into 
    a dimly lit area, such as a vessel section. The Agency proposed this 
    requirement to reduce the potential for extreme changes in lighting to 
    temporarily impair an employee's vision.
        OSHA received four comments on this provision, all addressing the 
    same point. The commenters (Exs. 6-5, 6-6, 6-9 and 6-10) opposed any 
    prohibition on the use of tinted or variable tint lenses.
        Colonna's Shipyard, for example, stated that:
    
        The use of the terms ``well lighted'' and ``dimly lighted'' are 
    vague. Tinted lenses, that primarily reduce glare, may not 
    appreciably reduce the amount of light passing through the lenses. 
    As technology improves, variable tint lenses have been shown to 
    reduce the time it takes for the lenses to change from full shading 
    to minimal shading. In fact, employees coming from an interior 
    location into brilliant sunlight can be temporarily blinded by the 
    sun's glare.
    
        In addition, two comments received on proposed subpart B of part 
    1915 (Doc. S-505) (Ex. 6-15, Bay Shipbuilding Corp. (BSC) and Ex. 6-36, 
    Peterson Builders, Inc. (PBI)), addressed this proposed provision. BSC 
    stated that: ``Protectors with tinted or variable tint lenses should 
    not be worn when an employee passes from a well lighted area into a 
    dimly lighted area. Tinting over #2 shade is too dark, but #2 shade or 
    under is felt to be acceptable and safe in most areas.''
    
    [[Page 26330]]
    
        PBI stated that:
    
        We need the use of tinted lenses to protect our employees from 
    stray ultraviolet rays from weld arc. We presently limit our 
    employees to a 1.7 tint on safety glasses. We are also in favor of 
    the use of the variable tint lenses. This standard is in 
    contradiction to 1915.153A1, which requires us to protect employees 
    from injurious light radiation. This has not been a problem for us 
    in causing accidents.
    
        After evaluating the information in the record for this rulemaking 
    (Doc. S-045), OSHA has concluded that the proposed requirement was too 
    restrictive. The Agency has determined that the employer (for example, 
    through the services of the company's safety professional) is in the 
    best position to determine when tinted or variable tint lenses should 
    be used, based on an awareness of working conditions. This approach is 
    consistent with the current ANSI standard (ANSI Z87.1-1989, paragraph 
    6.5.2), which is (as discussed below) being incorporated by reference 
    in the final rule. Accordingly, proposed paragraph (a)(3) has not been 
    retained in the final rule.
        Paragraph (a)(4) is essentially unchanged from the proposed 
    paragraph. It requires employers to ensure that affected employees use 
    equipment with filter lenses for protection against injurious light 
    radiation and that the lenses have a shade number that is appropriate 
    for the work being performed. Table I-1--Filter Lenses for Protection 
    Against Radiant Energy--lists the necessary shade numbers for various 
    operations. These provisions are consistent with other OSHA standards 
    (existing Sec. 1915.151(c)(1) and Table I-1 in Sec. 1915.118).
        In addition, a note to this provision states that, when goggle 
    lenses and a helmet lens are worn together, the shade value of the two 
    lenses can be summed to satisfy the shade requirements of Table I-1, 
    Sec. 1915.153. Bath Iron Works Corporation (BIWC) (Ex. 6-7) objected to 
    this note, stating that the validity of the additive approach to filter 
    lens selection has not been adequately demonstrated and violates 
    accepted industry practice. OSHA disagrees with this view, because the 
    technical experts responsible for the applicable consensus standard, 
    ANSI Z87.1-1989, have indicated that the additive use of lenses is 
    protective, provided that the combined values sum to the necessary 
    value. Therefore, the note to Table I-1 has been retained.
        Paragraph (b) sets performance criteria for eye and face PPE. 
    Paragraph (b)(1) provides that protective eye and face devices 
    purchased after August 22, 1996 shall comply with ANSI Z87.1-1989, 
    ``American National Standard Practice for Occupational and Educational 
    Eye and Face Protection,'' which is incorporated by reference, or shall 
    be demonstrated by the employer to be equally effective. PPE which 
    satisfies the criteria set by subsequent editions of the pertinent ANSI 
    standard will be considered to comply with paragraph (b)(1) if the 
    updated ANSI criteria are substantively unchanged or provide equivalent 
    protection.
        In the proposal, this paragraph, which was designated paragraph 
    (b)(1), required that the design of eye and face protection, in 
    general, comply with the provisions of ANSI Z87.1-1979, while 
    providing, in the alternative, that plano (non-prescription) spectacles 
    comply with the performance-oriented criteria set out in proposed 
    paragraph (b)(2). Shortly after the NPRM was issued, the 1979 edition 
    of Z87.1 was superseded by the current 1989 edition. ANSI Z87.1-1989 is 
    effectively identical to ANSI Z87.1-1979, except that the 1989 revision 
    deleted design restrictive language that had limited the use of new 
    technology in eye and face PPE. OSHA believes that performance-oriented 
    regulatory language, such as that referenced from ANSI Z87.1-1989, will 
    provide employers with appropriate flexibility to protect their 
    employees while taking the particular circumstances of their workplaces 
    into account. The Agency further believes that allowing employees to 
    rely on the 1989 edition will facilitate compliance with the final 
    rule, but will not prevent employers from using PPE that would have 
    been allowed under proposed paragraph (b)(1).
        Final rule paragraph (b)(2) requires that eye and face PPE 
    purchased before August 22, 1996 comply with ANSI Z87.1-1979 or be 
    demonstrated by the employer to be equally effective. OSHA has 
    determined that it is appropriate to allow the continued use of such 
    PPE in order to avoid imposing unreasonable burdens on employers. As 
    noted above, the substantive provisions of the 1979 and 1989 editions 
    are effectively identical, so employee safety would not be furthered by 
    requiring that employers remove PPE tested under ANSI Z87.1-1979 from 
    service. In this way existing stocks of PPE can be depleted, and any 
    replacement PPE must satisfy the criteria referenced in ANSI Z87.1-
    1989.
        Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would have set performance-oriented 
    criteria for plano spectacles, addressing impact protection, optical 
    requirements, flammability resistance and radiant energy protection. 
    This paragraph was included in the proposal because OSHA had determined 
    that the design provisions (such as for minimum lens thickness or frame 
    design) of the consensus standard referenced by existing 
    Sec. 1915.151(a)(1) (ANSI Z2.1-1959) were outdated. The removal of the 
    design restrictive language from ANSI Z87.1 when it was revised in 1989 
    eliminated the need to address this problem in the final rule. 
    Accordingly, no such provision appears in the final rule.
    
    Section 1915.154  Respiratory Protection
    
        Final rule Sec. 1915.154 incorporates existing Sec. 1910.134, 
    Respiratory protection, by reference, as was proposed. The shipyard 
    industry has been complying for years with Sec. 1910.134 with regard to 
    its respiratory protection programs. The two comments received on 
    proposed Sec. 1915.154 (Exs. 6-1 and 6-2) agreed with OSHA's proposal 
    to replace Sec. 1915.152, the existing shipyard respirator standard, 
    with Sec. 1910.134. Both comments expressed the belief that 
    Sec. 1910.134 is more protective and certainly more current than 
    Sec. 1915.152.
        OSHA has published a proposed revision of Sec. 1910.134, 
    Respiratory Protection, which covers general industry, construction and 
    shipyard employment (59 FR 58884, Nov. 15, 1994). When the revised 
    respiratory protection standard becomes a final rule, OSHA will apply 
    that rule to shipyard employment.
    
    Section 1915.155  Head Protection
    
        Final rule paragraph (a) addresses the use of protective helmets. 
    Paragraph (a)(1) requires employers to ensure that affected employees 
    wear protective helmets when they are working in areas where there is a 
    potential for head injury from falling objects. This requirement is 
    essentially the same as current Sec. 1915.153(a). The national 
    consensus standard for protective headgear, ANSI Z89.1, referenced in 
    final rule Sec. 1915.155(b), deals only with the head injury hazards 
    posed by falling objects and high-voltage electric shock and burn. 
    Therefore, this section of the final rule addresses PPE that is used to 
    protect the head from these hazards.
        The proposed rule addressed the use of protective helmets where 
    there was potential for injury to the head from falling or moving 
    objects. The duty to protect employees from other hazards to the head, 
    such as moving objects, may be invoked through the general requirements 
    of final rule Sec. 1915.152(a) when such hazards are identified by the 
    hazard assessment.
    
    [[Page 26331]]
    
        Commenting on proposed subpart B of part 1915 (Doc. S-050, Ex. 6-15 
    of Docket #S-050), BSC stated: ``The standard should reflect what is 
    stated in the ANSI standard for head protection.'' As noted above, the 
    ANSI standard addresses falling object, not moving object, hazards and 
    proposed paragraph (a)(1) has been revised accordingly.
        Paragraph (a)(2) requires that affected employees wear protective 
    helmets designed to reduce electric shock hazards when working in areas 
    containing potential electrical hazards or energized conductors. This 
    provision is essentially identical to the proposed provision and to 
    other corresponding OSHA standards.
        Final rule paragraph (b) sets the performance criteria for 
    protective helmets. This paragraph provides that protective helmets 
    purchased after August 22, 1996 shall comply with ANSI Z89.1-1986, 
    ``Personnel Protection--Protective Headwear for Industrial Workers--
    Requirements,'' which has been incorporated by reference, or shall be 
    demonstrated by the employer to be equally protective. PPE which 
    satisfies the criteria set by subsequent editions of the pertinent ANSI 
    standard will be considered to comply with paragraph (b) if the updated 
    ANSI criteria are substantively unchanged or provide equivalent 
    protection. The Agency believes that this performance-oriented approach 
    will encourage innovation and the use of improved equipment. The 
    proposed rule also referenced the 1986 edition of ANSI Z89.1.
        The consensus standard (ANSI Z.2-1959) referenced by the existing 
    rule (Sec. 1915.153(a)) has been superseded several times since the 
    existing standards were adopted. OSHA does not expect that much, if 
    any, head PPE which was produced to meet the 1959 requirements is still 
    in use. Furthermore, the Agency has concluded that ANSI Z.2-1959 does 
    not provide adequate guidance regarding the selection of appropriate 
    head protection. Therefore, unlike final rule Sec. 1915.153, this 
    section does not explicitly ``grandfather'' PPE which complies with the 
    existing rule. Employers can continue to have their employees use head 
    PPE which was produced to comply with a pre-1986 edition of ANSI Z89.1 
    if the employer establishes that the equipment either satisfies the 
    performance criteria of ANSI Z89.1-1986 or provides equivalent 
    protection.
        The 1969 and 1986 editions of ANSI Z89.1 set essentially the same 
    requirements, except with regard to electric insulation for Class B 
    helmets. The Agency has concluded that Class B helmets already in use 
    which satisfied the criteria set by the 1969 edition would also satisfy 
    the 1986 criteria. Accordingly, final rule paragraph (b)(2) allows 
    employers to continue to use protective helmets purchased before the 
    effective date of the standard being published today provided that such 
    helmets meet the criteria of ANSI Z.89.1-1969. This means that 
    employers will not be required to replace protective helmets currently 
    in use if they meet these criteria.
    
    Section 1915.156  Foot Protection
    
        Final paragraph (a) requires that affected employees wear 
    protective footwear when they are exposed to hazards from falling and 
    rolling objects, electrical hazards, and objects that may pierce a shoe 
    sole. This is consistent with requirements in other corresponding OSHA 
    standards. This language, which is effectively identical to that in the 
    proposal, differs from existing Sec. 1915.153(d), which requires 
    employers only to make safety shoes available and ``encourage'' their 
    use. OSHA believes that requiring employers to have affected employees 
    wear protective footwear is necessary to protect their feet from the 
    risk of serious injury. The AWSC (Ex. 6-4) commented that it would 
    impose a cost burden on employers if they were required to purchase 
    safety shoes for their employees. Therefore, they recommended that OSHA 
    not require the employer to pay for foot protection, stating as 
    follows:
    
        The current regulatory language concerning foot protection of 
    employees requires the employer to encourage the use of and make 
    available appropriate foot protection. The new language states that 
    the employer ``shall ensure that employees wear protective 
    footwear.'' AWSC does not object to the practice of wearing the 
    correct protective footwear, and supports the use of this type of 
    personal protective equipment. However, the new language indicates a 
    dramatic shift from current shipyard operations.
        Shipyard facilities have instituted many different policies to 
    provide protective footwear to the employee, including disallowing 
    employees to work at the facility unless they are wearing the 
    appropriate footwear and providing an allowance to purchase the 
    footwear. Lists of available and appropriate suppliers are 
    circulated to the employees as a guide.
    
        OSHA also received a comment on this subject from PBI (Docket S-
    050, Ex. 6-36) that stated: ``This requirement is going to be cost 
    prohibitive. We presently recommend safety shoes and contribute to 
    their purchase. However, this standard would practically make them 
    mandatory throughout the shipyard. Our injury experience does not 
    indicate a need for mandatory safety shoes.''
        As discussed above in reference to the provision for hazard 
    assessment, subpart I requires employers to identify the hazards to 
    which their employees may be exposed and have those employees equipped 
    accordingly. Therefore, employees would be required to wear protective 
    footwear only when such protection was appropriate. In addition, as 
    discussed above in reference to OSHA's 1994 Memorandum on PPE, OSHA 
    interprets the part 1915 subpart I requirements for employers to 
    provide PPE to mean that employers pay for PPE required by the company 
    for the worker to do his or her job safely and in compliance with OSHA 
    standards. The above discussed policy memorandum specifically indicates 
    that employers should expect to pay for specialty foot protection. On 
    the other hand, OSHA policy also provides that payment for PPE which is 
    personal in nature and useable away from the workplace (such as safety 
    shoes) is left to labor-management negotiations.
        Final rule paragraph (b) sets the performance criteria for 
    protective footwear. Paragraph (b)(1) provides that protective footwear 
    purchased after August 22, 1996 shall comply with ANSI Z41-1991, 
    ``American National Standard for Personal Protection-Protective 
    Footwear,'' or shall be demonstrated by the employer to be equally 
    protective.
        In addition, paragraph (b)(2) allows protective footwear purchased 
    before August 22, 1996 to continue to comply with ANSI Z41-1983, 
    Personal Protection-Protective Footwear, or footwear that the employer 
    can demonstrate to be equally protective. PPE which satisfies the 
    criteria set by subsequent editions of the pertinent ANSI standard will 
    be considered to comply with paragraph (b) if the updated ANSI criteria 
    are substantively unchanged or provide equivalent protection. The 
    Agency believes that this performance-oriented approach will encourage 
    innovation and the use of improved equipment. Proposed paragraph (b) 
    referenced the 1983 edition of ANSI Z41 for all protective footwear.
        The 1991 edition of ANSI Z41, which has superseded the 1983 
    edition, imposes essentially the same requirements as the 1983 edition, 
    except that the 1991 edition provides more specific performance 
    requirements for resistance to compressive forces and standardizes the 
    puncture resistance testing methods. OSHA believes that referencing 
    ANSI Z41-1991 for shoes
    
    [[Page 26332]]
    
    purchased after August 22, 1996 provides appropriate and up-to-date 
    criteria for employers and employees seeking to buy protective 
    footwear.
        OSHA has determined that it is appropriate to provide explicitly 
    for the continued use of foot PPE purchased prior to the effective date 
    of the final rule, as long as it complies with the pertinent provisions 
    of the ANSI standard (ANSI Z41-1983) referenced by the proposed rule. 
    In this way, the Agency avoids imposing unreasonable burdens on 
    employers.
    
    Section 1915.157  Hand and Body Protection
    
        Final rule Sec. 1915.157 addresses hand and body PPE. Paragraph (a) 
    requires employers to ensure that affected employees use appropriate 
    PPE when their hands or other parts of their bodies are exposed to 
    hazards that could lead to injuries. The final rule identifies skin 
    absorption of harmful substances, severe cuts or lacerations, severe 
    abrasions, punctures, chemical burns, thermal burns, harmful 
    temperature extremes, and sharp objects as examples of hazards that 
    would require the use of PPE. The proposed provision was essentially 
    identical to that in the final rule, except that it identified the 
    hazards requiring protection in more general terms.
        Final rule paragraph (b) requires employers to ensure that no 
    employee wears clothing impregnated or covered in part with flammable 
    or combustible materials (such as grease or oil) while engaged in hot 
    work operations or working near an ignition source. This requirement is 
    necessary to protect workers in hot work operations from fire hazards.
        The proposed rule stated that employees shall not wear greasy 
    clothing when performing hot work operations. Existing Sec. 1915.153(e) 
    provides that employees shall not be permitted to wear ``excessively 
    greasy'' clothing while performing hot work operations.
        The AWSC recommended (Ex. 6-4) that the word ``excessively'' be 
    retained in the regulatory text of the final rule.
    
        Shipyard work by definition is not a clean activity. Employees' 
    clothing will be dirty. However, the clothing may not be ``greasy'' 
    or even excessively greasy. Deletion of the descriptive term 
    ``excessively'' will create rather than diminish compliance 
    problems. We do not advocate that employees wear excessively greasy 
    clothes when performing hot work operations, but without a proper 
    explanation by OSHA as to the rationale for deleting the term, we 
    advocate retention of the word ``excessively'' in the proposed 
    language.
    
        In addition, BSC commented (Ex. 6-15 in Docket S-050) that the 
    language of the proposed paragraph was unclear. BSC suggested that OSHA 
    revise the proposed language to require that employees ``not wear 
    clothing impregnated with flammable or combustible materials when 
    performing hot work operations.''
        OSHA believes that retention of the term ``excessively,'' as 
    suggested by the AWSC, could potentially complicate compliance because 
    the Agency has not established a measurable, objective standard for 
    determining what is excessive. Moreover, the risk of flammability 
    exists when clothing is impregnated, or covered, even impart, with a 
    flammable or combustible substance. Therefore, the Agency has concluded 
    that it is appropriate to prohibit employees from wearing clothing 
    impregnated or covered with a flammable or combustible substance during 
    hot work operations. The Agency agrees with the BSC that the standard 
    needs to address all flammable and combustible materials, not just 
    grease, and that adding the term ``impregnated'' (in the sense of 
    permeated, imbued, or saturated) will more clearly express OSHA's 
    intent. The provision has been revised accordingly.
        Final rule paragraph (c) requires that the employer have employees 
    wear protective electrical insulating gloves and sleeves, or other 
    rubber protective equipment that provides equivalent protection when 
    the employees are exposed to electrical shock hazards while working on 
    electrical equipment. The proposed rule was effectively identical, 
    except that it did not provide for the use of ``other electrical 
    protective equipment.'' The Agency has determined that the addition of 
    this performance-oriented revision will encourage innovation and 
    facilitate compliance.
    
    Section 1915.158  Lifesaving Equipment
    
        This section sets requirements for lifesaving equipment used in 
    shipyard employment. Some of the language in the final rule has been 
    editorially revised to reflect the language used in the U.S. Coast 
    Guard's standard for approved lifesaving equipment (46 CFR part 160). 
    OSHA's existing Sec. 1915.154(a) specifies that the above-cited U.S. 
    Coast Guard requirements for this equipment shall be followed. The OSHA 
    final rule provides clarification of acceptable personal flotation 
    devices and uses terminology that is consistent with current Coast 
    Guard requirements. Also, for Type IV PFDs, the U.S. Coast Guard 
    regulations use the term ``ring life buoys'' rather than the term 
    ``life rings'' as proposed by OSHA. Therefore, OSHA has replaced ``life 
    rings'' with ``ring life buoy'' wherever the term appeared in the 
    proposal. The proposed language did not elicit any comments.
        Final rule paragraph (a)(1) requires that personal flotation 
    devices (PFDs) worn by employees be approved by the U.S. Coast Guard as 
    a Type I PFD, Type II PFD, Type III PFD, or Type V PFD, unless the 
    employer provides employee worn equipment that is as effective as the 
    types listed (e.g., a Coast Guard approved immersion suit). Any PFD 
    which is U.S. Coast Guard approved and marked as a Type I PFD, Type II 
    PFD or Type III PFD is acceptable to OSHA for use by employees. A Type 
    V PFD, including Type V Hybrid PFDs, is acceptable to OSHA for use by 
    employees if it is U.S. Coast Guard approved and marked for use as a 
    work vest, for commercial use, or for use on vessels. The language of 
    the proposed paragraph, which was based on existing Sec. 1915.154(a), 
    has been editorially revised and clarified in the final rule.
        Final rule paragraph (a)(2), addressing the inspection of PFD's, 
    was proposed by the Agency for deletion with the intent of covering 
    defective PFD equipment under revised general requirements 
    Sec. 1915.152(c), ``Defective and damaged equipment.'' After further 
    consideration the Agency has concluded that a PFD is critical 
    lifesaving equipment which requires specific inspection prior to each 
    use for dry rot, chemical damage, or other defects (such as tears, 
    punctures, missing or non- functioning components) which affect their 
    strength and buoyancy. Therefore, the language of existing 
    Sec. 1915.154(b) is being retained in the final rule.
        Paragraph (b) establishes requirements for ring life buoys and 
    ladders. Paragraph (b)(1) requires that at least three 30-inch (0.78 m) 
    U.S. Coast Guard approved ring life buoys with lines attached be kept 
    in readily visible and accessible places when working on a floating 
    vessel of 200 or more feet (61 meters). Ring life buoys must be located 
    one forward, one aft, and one at the access to the gangway. Locating 
    ring life buoys at these positions ensures that one will be readily 
    available if a worker falls overboard at any point along the ship's 
    length. This paragraph, which is based on existing Sec. 1915.154(c)(1), 
    is essentially identical to the proposed paragraph.
        Paragraph (b)(2) requires floating vessels under 200 feet (61 m) in 
    length to have at least one 30-inch (0.78 m) U.S. Coast Guard approved 
    ring life buoy with line attached located at the gangway. The proposed 
    paragraph,
    
    [[Page 26333]]
    
    based on existing Sec. 1915.154(c)(1), was essentially the same.
        Paragraph (b)(3) requires that at least one 30-inch (0.78 m) U. S. 
    Coast Guard approved ring life buoy with a line attached be located on 
    each staging float alongside the floating vessels from which work is 
    being performed. The proposed paragraph, which was based on existing 
    Sec. 1915.154(c)(2), is effectively identical to the final rule's 
    provision.
        Paragraph (b)(4) requires at least 90 feet (27 m) of line to be 
    attached to each ring life buoy. The proposed requirement, which was 
    based on existing Sec. 1915.154(c)(3), was effectively identical to the 
    final rule.
        Paragraph (b)(5) requires that at least one portable or permanently 
    installed ladder be in the vicinity of each floating vessel on which 
    work is being performed. The provision further requires that the 
    ladder(s) be of sufficient length to assist employees to reach safety 
    in the event that they fall into the water. The proposed paragraph, 
    which was based on existing Sec. 1915.154(c)(4), was effectively 
    identical to the final rule.
    
    Section 1915.159  Personal Fall Arrest Systems
    
        This section sets performance criteria and other requirements for 
    the use of personal fall arrest systems.
        The Agency has determined that the fall hazards encountered by 
    shipyard employees correspond to those faced by employees in other 
    industries, and that it is therefore appropriate for OSHA to consider 
    the information generated in general industry fall protection PPE 
    rulemakings when drafting the final rule for shipyard PPE. The fall 
    protection PPE criteria in proposed Sec. 1915.159 were very similar to 
    those in the corresponding proposed general industry standard (proposed 
    Secs. 1910.128 and 1910.129).
        The record for the general industry fall protection PPE rulemaking 
    (Docket S-057) indicated that the Agency should consider revising the 
    proposed rule to prohibit the use of non-locking snaphooks and to 
    disallow the use of body belts in personal fall arrest systems. This 
    record, in turn, is directly relevant as the Agency considers 
    corresponding changes in proposed Sec. 1915.159.
        To provide the public with notice and an opportunity to comment on 
    the need for such revisions to the shipyard PPE proposed rule, the 
    Agency solicited input through the July 6, 1994 notice of reopening (59 
    FR 34586) and the December 13, 1994 meeting notice (59 FR 64173). The 
    response to those notices is discussed below.
        OSHA obtained evidence (Docket S-057) in the General Industry 
    rulemaking that employees who fall while wearing body belts are not 
    protected as well as they would be if the fall occurred while the 
    employee was wearing a body harness, and that the use of body belts has 
    resulted in injuries to falling employees. A large number of rulemaking 
    participants (Exs. 9-9, 9-10, 11-7, Tr. p. 23, Tr. pp. 59-61) supported 
    prohibiting the use of body belts in fall protection systems. For 
    example, Atlantic Marine (Ex. 9-9) endorsed the use of body harnesses 
    as a safer method for employees, stating: ``While the cost of body 
    harnesses is usually twice the amount of the body belts, the added 
    safety factor to the employee is well worth the money, and in the long 
    run, will save the company money in case of an accident.''
        General Dynamics, Electric Boat Division, (Ex. 9-10) stated that it 
    utilizes body harnesses for all of its fall protection needs.
        Bath Iron Works Corporation/Local S6 (BIWC/Local S6) (Ex. 11-7) 
    commented that they use only body harnesses in fall arrest systems and 
    use either body harnesses or body belts in positioning device systems. 
    BIW/Local S6 stated that it ``fully supports the implementation of the 
    proposed changes to [part 1915] subpart I.''
        The SCA testified (Tr. 23) that its members support the use of body 
    harnesses in personal fall arrest systems, stating ``many of our yards 
    already use them. We find them to be very effective, and everybody 
    seems to certainly feel a lot safer with them.''
        In addition, the Engineering and Safety Service (E&S) testified 
    (Tr. 59-61) that ``body belts have no useful purpose in a personal fall 
    arrest system. E&S believes that an effective personal fall arrest 
    system must incorporate a full body harness to protect the worker from 
    injury and to provide an opportunity for rescue.''
        However, NNS (Ex. 9-11) responded as follows:
    
        We reviewed all falls occurring at NNS since January 1, 1991. 
    None of those occurring involved an injury which could have been 
    prevented or mitigated by using a harness over a belt. NNS mostly 
    uses belts with double acting clips. To replace all of our body 
    belts with harnesses would cost in excess of $570,000. Clearly, this 
    is another unwarranted cost adversely affecting our global 
    competitiveness without enhancing the safety of our employees.
    
        The December 13, 1994 notice (59 FR 64173) solicited input 
    regarding the extent to which a phased in ban on the use of body belts 
    in personal fall arrest systems would be appropriate for shipyard 
    employment.
        In their comments to this notice, NNS stated as follows:
    
        We now understand that OSHA will agree to a phased replacement 
    of body belts to offset the initial cost of purchasing large 
    quantities of body harnesses. We will provide life cycle and 
    replacement information at the January 25 meeting which should help 
    OSHA to determine what the phased replacement period should be.
    
        NNS subsequently testified (Tr. 34-35):
    
        We see body harnesses coming, and we need a significant period 
    of phase-in time for this to have a minimal financial impact on our 
    operations. We've got 4,000 some-odd body belts either on issue or 
    available for issue. Replacing all of those at once would cost use 
    some $570,000 * * * [W]e'd like a reasonable period of time to phase 
    the harnesses in, and that reasonable period of time, based on our 
    inventory and our estimated useful life of a body belt, is seven 
    years.
    
        Based on the information in Docket S-057 and the shipyard industry 
    input discussed above, OSHA has decided to bar the use of body belts in 
    personal fall arrest systems. OSHA believes, however, that it is 
    appropriate to allow a phase-out period, ending December 31, 1997, 
    rather than to establish an immediate prohibition, so that shipyard 
    employers can continue to use their body belts while they switch over 
    to body harnesses. OSHA urges employers to phase out the use of body 
    belts in personal fall arrest systems as soon as possible so that 
    employees may be spared exposure to the increased risk of injuries from 
    body belt use. It is important to note that body belts may continue to 
    be used in positioning device systems even after they have been banned 
    in fall arrest systems. OSHA has included paragraphs (b)(6)(i), 
    (c)(1)(i), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(8) in the final rule to provide 
    criteria for any body belts that are used in personal fall arrest 
    systems during the phase-out period.
        In addition, OSHA has determined that it is appropriate, given the 
    dangers related to ``roll-out,'' to phase-out the use of non-locking 
    connectors. The phase-out period will avoid imposing undue hardship on 
    employers who currently use non-locking snaphooks. As discussed in the 
    July 6, 1994 notice of reopening, the Agency has concluded that the 
    same considerations which supported the adoption of such a requirement 
    in other corresponding OSHA PPE standards apply to personal fall arrest 
    system components used in shipyard employment. OSHA has
    
    [[Page 26334]]
    
    concluded that compliance with final rule paragraphs (a)(5) and (a)(6) 
    will effectively minimize any problems related to the use of non-
    locking snaphooks during the phase-out period.
        The input received in response to the July 6, 1994 reopening notice 
    (59 FR 345860) and the December 13, 1994 meeting notice (59 FR 64173) 
    indicated shipyard industry support for a ban on the use of non-locking 
    snaphooks. For example, General Dynamics, Electric Boat Division (Ex. 
    9-10) stated that it ``utilizes locking snaphooks and therefore takes 
    no issue with the proposed * * * language.''
        NNS (Tr. 52) and the UBC Health and Safety Fund of North America 
    (UBC) (Tr. 86) testified that OSHA should require the use of locking 
    snaphooks. In particular, the UBC stated that ``OSHA should prohibit 
    the use of non-locking snap hooks because of the recognized danger of 
    roll-out and the resulting possibility of employee falls.'' 
    Accordingly, Sec. 1915.159 of the final rule bans the use of non-
    locking snaphooks in fall arrest systems, effective January 1, 1998.
        Final rule paragraph (a) sets criteria for connectors and 
    anchorages used in personal fall arrest systems. Except where otherwise 
    indicated, any final rule provisions which were not proposed have been 
    added to the standard because the Agency has concluded that the same 
    considerations which supported the adoption of such requirements in 
    other corresponding PPE standards apply to personal fall arrest systems 
    and components used in shipyard employment.
        Paragraph (a)(1), proposed as paragraph (a)(7), requires that 
    connectors be made of drop forged, pressed, or formed steel or 
    materials equivalent in strength. The connectors used in personal fall 
    arrest systems must be made of steel or equivalent materials to 
    withstand failure under fall conditions. As discussed above in relation 
    to the definitions (Sec. 1915.151(b)), OSHA has replaced the proposed 
    term ``hardware'' with the term ``connector.'' Otherwise, the proposed 
    and final rule language are identical.
        Final rule paragraph (a)(2), proposed as paragraph (a)(8), requires 
    that connectors have a corrosion-resistant finish and that all surfaces 
    and edges be smooth to prevent damage to the interfacing parts of the 
    system. The only difference between the final rule's provision and the 
    proposed provision is the use of the term ``connector'' instead of 
    ``hardware.''
        Final rule paragraph (a)(3), proposed as paragraph (a)(14), 
    requires that D-rings and snaphooks used in these systems be capable of 
    sustaining a minimum tensile load of 5,000 pounds (22.2 kN). No 
    comments were received on this paragraph.
        Final rule paragraph (a)(4), which is also a new provision, 
    requires that D-rings and snaphooks be 100 percent proof tested to a 
    minimum tensile load of 3,600 pounds (16 Kn) without cracking, 
    breaking, or being permanently deformed. The provision is included to 
    ensure the strength of all D-rings and snaphooks.
        Paragraph (a)(5), which was not proposed, provides that snaphooks 
    shall either be sized so as to prevent unintentional disengagement of 
    the snaphook or shall be of a locking type which is designed and used 
    to prevent disengagement of the snaphook. This provision has been added 
    to prevent ``rollout'' conditions in a personal fall arrest system 
    during the phase-out period for non-locking snaphooks.
        Final rule paragraph (a)(6) requires that snaphooks, unless of a 
    locking type designed and used to prevent disengagement from the 
    following connections, must not be attached:
        (i) Directly to webbing, rope, or wire rope;
        (ii) To each other;
        (iii) To a D-ring to which another snaphook or other connector is 
    attached;
        (iv) To a horizontal lifeline, or
        (v) To any other object that is shaped incompatibly or dimensioned 
    in relation to the snaphook such that the connected object could 
    depress the snaphook keeper a sufficient amount for release.
    
    Proposed paragraphs (a)(15), (a)(16), and (a)(17), which set similar 
    requirements, have been clarified and consolidated in final rule 
    paragraph (a)(6).
        Final rule paragraph (a)(7), which is a new provision, requires 
    that devices used for connection to the horizontal lifeline on 
    suspended scaffolds, or to similar work platforms with horizontal 
    lifelines that may become vertical lifelines, be capable of locking in 
    any direction on the lifeline. Because a suspended scaffold or platform 
    could lose its support at either end, the connection device must be 
    able to lock on the lifeline regardless of which end goes down.
        Final rule paragraph (a)(8), requires that anchorages used for the 
    attachment of personal fall arrest equipment be independent of any 
    anchorage being used to support or suspend platforms. Final rule 
    paragraph (a)(9) requires that anchorages either be capable of 
    supporting at least 5,000 pounds (22.2 Kn) per employee attached or be 
    designed, installed, and used as part of a complete personal fall 
    arrest system that maintains a safety factor of at least two, and is 
    used under the direction and supervision of a qualified person. Both 
    provisions are based on proposed paragraph (a)(10).
        Proposed paragraph (a)(10) required that personal fall arrest 
    systems be secured to an anchorage capable of supporting at least twice 
    the potential impact load of an employee's fall. E&S testified (Tr. 63-
    64) that it was ``concerned about the safety factor requirements for an 
    anchorage in the proposed standard * * * [E&S] does not believe the 
    average worker is capable of determining the safe limits of an 
    anchorage.'' In the course of subsequent questioning (Tr. 70-71), E&S 
    agreed that anchorages installed as part of a completely designed 
    personal fall arrest system, and used under the supervision of a 
    qualified person, would provide adequate support for employees. This 
    approach, taken in the corresponding construction and general industry 
    rulemakings, has been adopted in the shipyard PPE final rule. The final 
    rule provisions, while reformatted for the sake of clarity, are 
    essentially the same as the proposed provision.
        Final rule paragraph (b) sets criteria for lifelines, lanyards, and 
    personal fall arrest systems. Paragraph (b)(1) requires that each 
    employee be provided with a separate lifeline when vertical lifelines 
    are used. Proposed paragraph (a)(9), which elicited no comments, was 
    essentially identical to this provision of the final rule.
        Final rule paragraph (b)(2) requires vertical lifelines (droplines) 
    and lanyards to have a minimum breaking strength of 5,000 pounds (22.2 
    Kn). This provision of the final rule consolidates the strength 
    requirements contained in proposed paragraphs (a)(11) and (a)(13). The 
    elements of proposed paragraph (a)(11), which addressed self-retracting 
    lifelines, have been redesignated final rule paragraphs (b)(3) and 
    (b)(4), as discussed below. The ``exception'' to the 5000-pound 
    strength requirements contained in proposed paragraph (a)(13) appears 
    in the final rule as a separate provision, paragraph (b)(3), to more 
    clearly express the Agency's intent. OSHA received no comments on the 
    proposed paragraphs relating to lifelines, lanyards, and personal fall 
    arrest systems. The Agency has determined that reformatting the 
    proposed requirements will facilitate compliance efforts for employers 
    whose employees use vertical lifelines or lanyards.
        Final rule paragraph (b)(3) requires that self-retracting lifelines 
    and lanyards which automatically limit free fall to 2
    
    [[Page 26335]]
    
    feet (0.61 m) or less be capable of sustaining a minimum static tensile 
    load of 3,000 pounds (13.3 Kn) applied to the device with the lifeline 
    or lanyard in the fully extended position. Final rule paragraph (b)(4) 
    requires that self-retracting lifelines and lanyards which do not limit 
    free fall distances to 2 feet (0.61 m) or less (for example: ripstitch 
    lanyards, tearing, and deforming lanyards) be capable of sustaining a 
    minimum tensile load of 5,000 pounds (22.2 Kn) applied to the device 
    (with the lifeline or lanyard in the fully extended position if such a 
    condition can occur in use). As discussed above, final rule paragraphs 
    (b)(3) and (b)(4), which are based on proposed paragraph (a)(11), have 
    been included in the final rule as separate paragraphs for clarity.
        Final rule paragraph (b)(5) (revised from proposed paragraph 
    (a)(12)) requires that horizontal lifelines to be used as part of a 
    complete personal fall arrest system be designed and installed under 
    the supervision of a qualified person and have a safety factor of at 
    least two. The proposed provision required that horizontal lifelines 
    have sufficient strength to support a fall impact force of at least 
    5,000 pounds (22.2 Kn). As discussed above, the Agency has concluded 
    that the same considerations which supported the adoption of such a 
    requirement in the other corresponding OSHA standards apply to personal 
    fall arrest system components used in shipyard employment. OSHA has 
    revised the final rule accordingly.
        Final rule paragraph (b)(6) sets the systems performance criteria 
    for personal fall arrest systems. These are new requirements, so OSHA 
    is making this provision effective November 20, 1996 in order to allow 
    employers a reasonable amount of time to attain compliance. The note to 
    final rule paragraph (b)(6) indicates that Non-mandatory Appendix B 
    provides examples of criteria and protocols for designing and testing 
    personal fall arrest systems that OSHA would consider to comply with 
    the standard.
        Proposed paragraph (a)(4) was similar to final rule paragraph 
    (b)(6), except that the proposed rule set 1,800 pounds (rather than 900 
    pounds) as the maximum arresting force limit for systems that used body 
    belts and required that a system have a strength factor of two (based 
    on a design weight of 250 pounds per employee). Also, as discussed 
    below, the proposed requirement that free fall be limited to six feet 
    has been redesignated as a separate provision, final rule paragraph 
    (b)(7), for the sake of clarity. The note to proposed paragraph 
    (a)(4)(iv) is essentially identical to that which appears in the final 
    rule, except for editorial revisions. As discussed above, in reference 
    to the July 6, 1994 notice (59 FR 34586), the Agency has concluded that 
    the same considerations which supported the adoption of such 
    requirements in the other corresponding OSHA standards apply to 
    personal fall arrest system components used in shipyard employment. 
    OSHA has revised the proposed rule accordingly.
        Final rule paragraph (b)(7), based on proposed paragraph (a)(4)(i), 
    requires that personal fall arrest systems be rigged to prevent an 
    employee from free falling more than 6 feet (1.8 m) or contacting any 
    lower level.
        Final rule paragraph (c) sets criteria for the selection, use and 
    care of personal fall arrest systems and system components. Paragraph 
    (c)(1) (proposed as paragraph (a)(5)) of the final rule requires that 
    the attachment point of a body belt be located in the center of the 
    wearer's back. The attachment point of a body harness must be in the 
    center of the wearer's back near shoulder level or above the wearer's 
    head. The proposed rule provided that the connection point must be 
    either above the wearer's head or above the waist in the back. Comments 
    in the other rulemaking records supported allowing an attachment point 
    at the chest position for limited free fall distances. The final rule, 
    as regards body harnesses, has been revised accordingly.
        Paragraph (c)(2) of the final rule, which is a new provision, 
    requires that ropes and straps (webbing) used in lanyards, lifelines, 
    and strength components of body belts and body harnesses be made from 
    synthetic fibers or wire rope. OSHA has determined, given the 
    difficulty of evaluating the deterioration of natural fiber rope, that 
    natural fiber rope is not reliable for use in a personal safety system.
        Final rule paragraph (c)(3), also a new provision, requires ropes, 
    belts, harnesses and lanyards to be compatible with all hardware used. 
    The use of incompatible equipment may cause a fall, or, during arrest 
    of a fall, allow arresting forces which cause injury.
        Paragraph (c)(4), proposed as paragraph (a)(3), requires that 
    lifelines and lanyards be protected against cuts, abrasions, burns from 
    hot work operations, and deterioration by acids, solvents, and other 
    chemicals. The proposed provision, which did not elicit comments, was 
    identical.
        Final rule paragraph (c)(5), proposed as paragraph (a)(18), 
    requires that personal fall arrest systems be visually inspected prior 
    to each use for mildew, wear, damage, and any other deterioration. This 
    inspection need not involve testing or impact loading of the system. If 
    there is a reasonable basis to believe that the strength or integrity 
    of the fall arrest system has been weakened, the employer shall remove 
    defective or damaged equipment from service. No comments were received 
    on the proposed provision, which was identical to the provision in the 
    final rule except for minor editorial changes.
        Paragraph (c)(6), which was proposed as paragraph (a)(2), requires 
    that personal fall arrest systems and components that have been 
    subjected to impact loading be removed immediately from service and not 
    be used again for employee protection until inspected and judged 
    suitable for use by a qualified person. The proposed provision, which 
    was effectively identical, elicited no comments and has been 
    promulgated in the final rule with minor editorial changes.
        Paragraph (c)(7) of the final rule, a new provision, requires that 
    the employer provide for prompt rescue of employees in the event of a 
    fall or ensure that employees who have fallen can rescue themselves. 
    This provision also appears in the proposed general industry rule and 
    in the final rule for construction. OSHA anticipates that employers 
    will evaluate the potential consequences of falls in personal fall 
    arrest systems in their work environments and choose an appropriate 
    means of rescue. OSHA recognizes that the rescue requirements for 
    employees wearing body harnesses and body belts will differ. For 
    example, the Agency anticipates that self-rescue will be more difficult 
    for employees using body belts and that the acceptable rescue time for 
    such employees will be shorter, because falls in body belts typically 
    result in the employee hanging in a jack-knifed position. When it is 
    not possible to evaluate the self-rescue capacity of employees in 
    advance, prudent employers should assume that employees will need 
    rescue assistance and, accordingly, be prepared to offer it. Paragraph 
    (c)(8), proposed as paragraph (a)(6), requires that body belts be at 
    least 1.625 inches (4.1-cm) wide. OSHA has determined that this minimum 
    width will be acceptable for any body belts that are used in personal 
    fall arrest systems during the phase-out period. No comments were 
    received on this provision.
        Paragraph (c)(9), proposed as paragraph (a)(1), requires that 
    personal fall arrest equipment be used exclusively for employee 
    protection. For example, this equipment may not be used to hoist 
    materials. This revision is intended to prevent the deterioration
    
    [[Page 26336]]
    
    potentially caused by improper uses and types of loads. The proposed 
    provision, which was identical, elicited no comments.
        Final rule paragraph (d), Training, proposed as paragraph (a)(19), 
    requires that employees be trained to understand the application limits 
    of the equipment and the proper hook-up, anchoring, and tie-off 
    techniques, before using any personal fall arrest equipment. Affected 
    employees must also be trained so that they can demonstrate the proper 
    methods of use, inspection, and storage of the equipment. OSHA believes 
    that employees must know how their fall arrest equipment works in order 
    to get the appropriate protection from it. No comments were received on 
    the proposed provision, which was effectively identical to the final 
    rule.
    
    Section 1915.160  Positioning Device Systems
    
        Positioning device systems prevent falls by holding affected 
    employees in place while they perform work on vertical surfaces at 
    elevations. The provisions of proposed Sec. 1915.159(b) have been moved 
    to final rule Sec. 1915.160, so there is a clear distinction between 
    the requirements for personal fall arrest systems and those for 
    positioning device systems.
        Final rule paragraph (a) sets criteria for connectors and 
    anchorages used in positioning device systems. For the same reasons as 
    provided in the introductory discussion of final rule Sec. 1915.159, 
    the introductory text of final rule Sec. 1915.160 provides that the use 
    of non-locking snaphooks will not be acceptable in positioning device 
    systems after December 31, 1997. OSHA has included paragraph (a)(4) in 
    the final rule to address any non-locking snaphooks that may remain in 
    use during the phase-out period.
        Paragraph (a)(1), proposed as Sec. 1915.159(b)1), requires that all 
    hardware have a corrosion-resistant finish and that all surfaces and 
    edges be smooth to prevent damage to the attached belt or connecting 
    assembly. Corrosion resistance is essential to retain the integrity of 
    the hardware, while smooth edges and surfaces prevent cuts, tears, or 
    other damage to system components. The proposed provision was 
    identical, except that the proposed term ``hardware'' has been replaced 
    by the term ``connector.'' As discussed above, OSHA has determined that 
    it is appropriate to focus attention on the critical load-bearing 
    hardware by adopting the term ``connector.''
        Final rule paragraph (a)(2), proposed as Sec. 1915.159(b)(2), 
    provides that connecting assemblies, such as snaphooks or D-rings, have 
    a minimum tensile strength of 5,000 pounds (22.2 Kn). The proposed 
    provision, which did not elicit comments, was identical.
        Final rule paragraph (a)(3), proposed as Sec. 1915.159(b)(3), 
    requires that anchorages for positioning device systems be capable of 
    supporting twice the potential impact load of an employee's fall. The 
    proposed provision, which did not elicit comments, was identical.
        Final rule paragraph (a)(4), proposed as Sec. 1915.159(b)(6)(i), 
    provides that snaphooks, unless of a locking type designed and used to 
    prevent disengagement, shall not be connected to each other. The 
    proposed rule simply prohibited the connecting of snaphooks to each 
    other. As discussed above, in reference to the introductory text of 
    final rule Sec. 1915.160, the use of non-locking snaphooks is 
    prohibited after December 31, 1997.
        Final rule paragraph (b) sets performance criteria for positioning 
    device systems. Paragraph (b)(1), proposed as Sec. 1915.159(b)(4), 
    requires that restraint (tether) lines have a minimum breaking strength 
    of 3,000 pounds (13.3-Kn). This breaking strength is necessary to 
    ensure that the line will hold under fall arrest conditions. The 
    proposed provision, which did not elicit comments, was identical.
        Paragraph (b)(2), proposed as Sec. 1915.159(b)(5), provides the 
    system performance criteria for the different types of positioning 
    device systems. These are new performance requirements that are not in 
    OSHA's current shipyard standards. In order to allow employers a 
    reasonable amount of time to ensure that their equipment meets these 
    requirements, OSHA is making this provision effective November 20, 
    1996.
        Final rule paragraph (b)(2)(i) provides that window cleaner's 
    positioning systems must be capable of withstanding a drop test 
    involving a 6 foot (1.83 m) drop of a 250 pound (113 kg) weight. These 
    systems must withstand a more rigorous drop test than other positioning 
    device systems because of their potential for greater free fall 
    distances.
        Final rule paragraph (b)(2)(ii) requires that all positioning 
    device systems, other than window cleaners' positioning systems, be 
    capable of withstanding a drop test of 4 feet (1.2 m) with a 250 pound 
    (113 kg) weight. Positioning device systems which comply with the 
    provisions of Section 2 of Appendix B will be deemed by OSHA to meet 
    the requirements of this paragraph. The proposed provision, which 
    elicited no comments, was identical.
        Final rule paragraph (c) sets criteria for the use and care of 
    positioning device systems. Final rule paragraph (c)(1), proposed as 
    Sec. 1915.159(b)(7), requires the inspection of positioning device 
    systems before each workshift for mildew, wear, damage, and other 
    deterioration. This provision further requires that defective 
    components identified in such inspections be removed from service. The 
    proposed language was nearly identical, except that it provided for 
    removal of defective equipment ``if their functions or strength may 
    have been adversely affected.'' OSHA has determined that the deletion 
    of that language will make the rule easier to understand, because 
    employers will simply remove components from service that are 
    identified as defective without having to make a specific determination 
    about strength or function.
        Final rule paragraph (c)(2), proposed as Sec. 1915.159(b)(6)(ii), 
    requires that positioning device systems or components subjected to 
    impact loading be removed immediately from service and not be used 
    again for employee protection, unless inspected and determined by a 
    qualified person to be undamaged and suitable for reuse. This 
    requirement is necessary to ensure that systems used for employee 
    protection still meet the performance criteria for such systems before 
    they are reused for this purpose. The proposed provision, which did not 
    elicit comments, was identical.
        Final rule paragraph (d), Training, proposed as 
    Sec. 1915.159(b)(6)(iii), provides that employees must be trained in 
    the application limits, proper hook-up, anchoring, and tie-off 
    techniques, methods of use, inspection, and storage of positioning 
    device systems before they may use those systems. This provision 
    emphasizes the importance of employee training in the safe use of 
    positioning device systems; for these systems to provide employee 
    protection, two elements are essential. The systems must be designed 
    and used in accordance with stated performance criteria, and the 
    employee(s) using the system must be adequately trained in the safe use 
    of the system. The proposed provision, which did not elicit comments, 
    was identical.
    
    Incorporation by Reference
    
        Another action in this document is the consolidation, within part 
    1915, of OSHA's Incorporation by Reference (IBR) statements of 
    approval, which indicate clearance by the Office of the Federal 
    Register, into a single section,
    
    [[Page 26337]]
    
    Sec. 1915.5. Existing section 1915.5 is being updated and revised to 
    accomplish this consolidation. This approach is consistent with that 
    taken by other Federal agencies. As amended, Sec. 1915.5 contains the 
    national consensus standard organizations' addresses and the IBR 
    approval language. This approach saves text by cross-referencing from 
    the regulatory text where an IBR is set out to the IBR section. Without 
    such a section, the addresses of the standards organizations, the OSHA 
    Docket Office address, and the IBR approval statement would need to be 
    repeated with each incorporation by reference throughout the shipyard 
    standards. A consolidated IBR Section will also be easier to update.
    
    Appendices
    
        OSHA is including two non-mandatory appendices to final part 1915 
    subpart I.
    
    Appendix A
    
        Appendix A provides suggested guidelines for complying with the 
    requirements for hazard assessment for the selection of personal 
    protection equipment.
        In developing the final rule for this rulemaking, OSHA has 
    determined that Appendix B of the corresponding General Industry 
    standard (part 1910, subpart I) contains some useful information that 
    would be helpful to shipyard employers. Therefore, OSHA has decided to 
    add a detailed Appendix A to the shipyard PPE standard to provide some 
    examples of guidelines which an employer may follow in complying with 
    OSHA's performance-oriented final rule. Those guidelines include 
    examples of hazard assessments performed by work activity.
    
    Appendix B
    
        Appendix B contains testing methods and other information to assist 
    employers in complying with the performance-oriented criteria for 
    personal fall arrest systems and positioning device systems contained 
    in this standard. Many revisions have been made to this appendix based 
    on the comments received during the powered platform rulemaking (Docket 
    No. S-700A). These changes are intended to clarify and simplify the 
    information presented. A complete discussion of the comments and 
    reasons for the changes are included in the Powered Platforms for 
    Building Maintenance final rule (54 FR 31452).
    
    Amendments to Other Subparts of the Shipyard Standards
    
        This final rule also revises cross references in subparts C and H 
    of the shipyard standards, so that those provisions reference subpart 
    I. The existing references would no longer identify the correct 
    paragraphs in subpart I because of the reformatting of Subpart I. These 
    revisions are editorial in nature and do not substantively change the 
    current requirements in other subparts.
    
    IV. Summary of Final Economic Analysis, Regulatory Flexibility 
    Analysis, and Environmental Impact Assessment Summary
    
        In accordance with Executive Order 12866, OSHA has developed a 
    final economic analysis to support the final standard for personal 
    protective equipment (PPE) in the shipyard industry. The Agency has 
    also analyzed the standard's impact on small entities, as required by 
    the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and its potential to cause adverse 
    environmental impacts, as required by the National Environmental Policy 
    Act. The final rule, which will be codified as subpart I of the 
    shipyard employment standards (29 CFR 1915), covers the use of personal 
    protective equipment for the head (e.g., hard hats), eyes (e.g., 
    goggles), feet and hands (e.g., shoes and gloves), and body (e.g., 
    chemical protective clothing), contains the respirator requirements 
    that have been part of OSHA's shipyard standards since 1971, and adds 
    requirements for personal fall protection systems and positioning 
    device systems.
        Injuries in the shipyard industry are frequent and severe. The 
    shipyard industry (SIC 3731) has the second highest rate of lost 
    workday injuries and illnesses (37.8 per 100 full-time workers), 
    according to the BLS publication ``Occupational Injuries and Illnesses: 
    Counts, Rates, and Characteristics, 1992'' (published in April 1995). 
    The industry also has one of the highest average number of lost 
    workdays per injury (more than 40 percent of lost workday injuries 
    involve more than 10 days away from work, according to the same BLS 
    publication).
        To address those shipyard injuries that result from the failure to 
    use PPE or from the use of inadequate PPE, and to raise the minimum 
    standard of PPE use in the industry to the level of technology 
    currently available, OSHA has developed this final rule. The rule 
    requires employers to meet minimum specifications for PPE employed to 
    protect the eyes and face, hands and body, and feet, as well as those 
    for respiratory protection, lifesaving, and personal fall protection 
    equipment. In addition, the final rule requires employers to conduct 
    hazard assessments, include specific elements related to PPE in the 
    training they provide to their workers, document training and hazard 
    assessments, require the use of body harnesses in place of body belts 
    after a phase-in period, and ensure the use of locking snaphooks on 
    personal fall protection equipment. Rulemaking participants from the 
    shipyard industry report that most employers in the industry are 
    already in compliance with the requirements of the final standard. For 
    example, one industry representative stated ``* * * most shipyards 
    require employees to wear personal protective equipment in all areas 
    beyond the office doors. * * * We've already identified and protected 
    our employees and our visitors because of the hazardous work 
    environment'' [January 25, 1995 public meeting, Transcript page 9].
        The economic analysis identifies a number of benefits that 
    employers and employees will experience as a result of compliance with 
    the standard. For example, the Agency has concluded that the rule's 
    requirements for body harnesses and locking snaphooks will reduce the 
    risk of fatal falls, and these requirements will also reduce the 
    severity of the injuries resulting from non-fatal falls. In addition, 
    the final rule is estimated to prevent about 1,550 lost workday 
    injuries annually and 12,650 non-lost workday injuries caused by the 
    failure to use PPE or the use of inadequate PPE.
        The Agency estimates that employers in the affected industry will 
    incur estimated annual costs of compliance of $163,000. These costs, 
    which average about $2 per covered employee, will not impose 
    substantial economic impacts on affected firms in any size-class. OSHA 
    has also evaluated the impacts of compliance costs on the average small 
    shipyard and has determined that, even under a no cost pass through 
    assumption, worst case impacts on such establishments will average no 
    more than $100 annually. OSHA has therefore concluded that this 
    standard will not impose an undue burden on small firms; in addition, 
    the standard will not have an adverse effect on the environment.
    
    Introduction
    
        Executive Order 12866 requires the Agency to perform an analysis of 
    the costs, benefits, and regulatory alternatives of its regulatory 
    actions. If a regulation is deemed ``significant'' by the Administrator 
    of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
    
    [[Page 26338]]
    
    (OIRA), OIRA reviews the regulation and OSHA's economic analysis. A 
    regulatory action is considered significant if it imposes annual costs 
    on the economy of $100 million or more or has an adverse effect on the 
    economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 
    environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal 
    governments or communities. This final rule directly affects only one 
    well-defined industry, the shipbuilding and ship repair industry, and 
    the estimated costs of compliance are far below the $100 million 
    threshold. OSHA has therefore concluded that the promulgation of this 
    final standard for personal protective equipment in shipyard employment 
    is not a significant action under the guidelines of E.O. 12866.
        As required by the OSH Act and its judicial interpretations, the 
    Agency must demonstrate that all of its regulations are both 
    technologically and economically feasible, and specifically that this 
    is the case for this rule. The Agency has concluded that this standard 
    meets both tests of feasibility. A summary of the Agency's feasibility 
    assessment of the final rule is presented in the following section of 
    the Economic Analysis.
        In addition, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 
    et seq.) requires federal agencies to determine whether a regulation 
    will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
    small entities. The Agency must also review this standard in accordance 
    with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
    of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Guidelines of the Council on 
    Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR Part 1500), and OSHA's DOL NEPA 
    Procedures (29 CFR Part 11).
        This summary of the economic analysis includes an overview of the 
    affected industry and employees at risk, the estimated benefits of the 
    rule, the technological feasibility of the standard, the estimated 
    compliance costs shipyard employers will incur, the impact of those 
    costs on firms in the shipyard industry, the results of the regulatory 
    flexibility and economic analysis, and a discussion of regulatory and 
    non-regulatory alternatives. The full text of the economic analysis is 
    in the shipyard PPE docket (Docket S-045).
    
    Industry Profile
    
        The American shipyard industry has been in a long-term decline 
    since 1981 when the federal government ended subsidies for commercial 
    ship construction. In the period 1976-1980 the industry built an 
    average of 64 merchant vessels per year. Only five commercial ships 
    have been built since 1988. The decline in merchant vessel construction 
    in the 1980's was partially offset by a large increase in military ship 
    construction. However, the end of the military competition with the 
    former U.S.S.R. has resulted in a sharp drop in military ships on 
    order. The ``bottom-up'' review of the armed forces called for a major 
    reduction in the number of active combat ships, and consequently has 
    caused a drop in the number of future orders. U.S. Navy orders, which 
    averaged 19 per year in the 1980's, are projected to fall to 8 per year 
    during the period 1994-1999. Ship repair and construction of inland 
    vessels and barges has remained constant during the past five years.
        Recently American shipyards have received new orders for 
    construction of commercial ships (Wall Street Journal Nov. 15, 1995). 
    These orders result mainly from a new Federal loan guarantee program 
    approved by Congress but also are due to exchange rates that have made 
    American-made products cheaper relative to foreign-produced goods. Wage 
    rates in American shipyards were already well below those of some 
    important foreign competitors, such as Germany and Japan, whose 
    governments heavily subsidize their shipbuilding industries. A new 
    global trade accord that would end shipbuilding subsidies may be signed 
    in the near future. This would allow American shipyards to compete 
    internationally, increase commercial ship construction, and increase 
    employment levels in the industry. The Agency estimates that employment 
    in American shipyards will end its decline and level off or increase 
    slightly for the next two to three years. Future employment levels 
    depend on funding for the guaranteed loan program, exchange rates and 
    the relative price of American versus foreign-built ships, foreign 
    governments' level of subsidy to their shipyards, and the status and 
    terms of a global accord to end subsidy programs.
        Employment in the shipbuilding industry declined from 177,000 in 
    1984 to about 125,000 by 1987 and remained near that level until 1992. 
    The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that employment in the 
    industry was 106,000 by late 1993. The most recent BLS ``Employment and 
    Earnings'' (May 1995) estimates the same level of employment and 
    reports that about 79,000 of these employees are production workers. In 
    1994, the value of output from American shipyards was approximately 
    $9.5 billion (1994 Industrial Outlook estimate). Based on Dun & 
    Bradstreet's estimated mean return for the shipyard industry of 2.9 
    percent, the industry earned approximately $275 million in 1994.
        The Agency estimates that there are approximately 500 firms in SIC 
    3731, and a majority of these have fewer than 50 employees. Employment 
    in the shipyard industry is highly concentrated. The ten largest 
    shipyards employ approximately 70 percent of all shipyard workers, and 
    only the 100 largest firms have as many as 100 employees each. The 
    Agency estimates that approximately 300 firms engaged in ship repair 
    employ fewer than 20 employees. Many of these small firms perform 
    contracting for larger firms; those that do so already follow the PPE 
    guidelines of the employing shipyards.
    
    Employees at Risk
    
        Numerous sources confirm that about 75 percent of shipyard 
    employees are production workers, including the 1987 Census of 
    Manufactures (Bureau of the Census 1990) and CONSAD Research 
    Corporation (1986). The Agency thus concludes that an estimated 79,000 
    production workers in this industry are now exposed to workplace 
    hazards that may require the use of PPE of the types covered by the 
    final rule.
    
    Technological Feasibility
    
        Equipment to meet the final PPE standard, such as hard hats, 
    gloves, and safety shoes, is readily available and widely used 
    throughout the industry. Off-the-shelf safety programs that include 
    guidance on the conduct of hazard assessments, as well as training 
    program materials, are readily available, and these programs are also 
    well established throughout the industry. ``Hazard assessments are a 
    standard practice at EBDiv. [Electric Boat Division]'' [Ex. 9-10]. 
    ``Shipyards are safety conscious. Every shipyard in the Hampton Roads 
    area has a safety program and a safety officer * * * STASR shipyards 
    have safety programs with many of the PPE standards already in place. 
    The [proposed standard's] PPE training and recordkeeping requirements 
    are, in some cases, redundant'' [South Tidewater Association of Ship 
    Repairers, Ex. 9-3].
        Training documentation is usually maintained by shipyard employers 
    in a computer database. The Agency therefore concludes that the final 
    PPE standard is technologically feasible. The performance-oriented 
    criteria of the standard should also allow technological innovation to 
    improve PPE protection in the future.
    
    [[Page 26339]]
    
    Costs
    
        The preliminary cost estimates prepared by OSHA to support the 
    proposed shipyard PPE standard published in 1988 included compliance 
    costs that shipyard employers would incur to comply with a number of 
    proposed requirements for respirator use. However, the final standard 
    does not include any new respirator requirements, because the Agency 
    expects to publish a final rule addressing respirator use in all 
    industries in the near future. Thus, this final rule includes only 
    those respirator provisions that have been included in OSHA's shipyard 
    rules since 1971.
        In response to the preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (1988), 
    OSHA received only one comment on the costs of the proposed standard. 
    Peterson Builders [Ex. 6-14], referring to the proposed requirement for 
    foot protection in Section 1915.156, stated that buying protective 
    footwear for all employees--which the commenter interpreted as being 
    required by the proposed standard--would be costly and unnecessary. The 
    Agency has recently clarified its policy on the purchase of PPE to make 
    clear that employers do not have to purchase equipment that may also 
    have personal use; OSHA believes that the costs of PPE will therefore 
    be substantially less than this commenter expected. In addition, as 
    noted above, OSHA's 1988 Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (see 
    Docket S-045) noted that the use of PPE in shipyards is already 
    widespread.
        On April 6, 1994 OSHA published a final standard for PPE in general 
    industry (59 Federal Register No. 66). On July 6, 1994, the Agency 
    reopened the record for the shipyard PPE standard to incorporate the 
    general industry PPE docket into the shipyard PPE docket and to propose 
    the addition of several elements from the general industry standard to 
    the shipyard standard. These elements included requirements for: 
    certification of workplace hazard assessments; certification of 
    training; specification of training elements; the phasing out of body 
    belts in favor of body harnesses; and the replacement of non-locking 
    snaphooks with locking snaphooks. The Agency's intent in taking this 
    action was to make the PPE standard consistent where possible in both 
    shipyards and the general industries. Following the comment period, a 
    Federal Register notice announcing a public meeting and containing 
    additional discussion of some of the issues raised by the reopening was 
    published on December 13, 1994. A public meeting was held on January 
    25, 1995 to hear testimony about the proposed changes to the shipyard 
    standard introduced during the reopening of the record.
        Representatives of the shipyard industry and industry associations 
    opposed the new requirements for work place hazard assessments and the 
    certification of such assessments. First, the industry asserted that 
    job-related activities in shipyards are unique because a shipyard is 
    not a fixed ``workplace.'' Instead there is a constant shifting of 
    trades between work locations as employees move among various shops and 
    vessels; in addition, in ship repair and overhauling, the vessels being 
    worked on constantly change. According to these commenters, it is not 
    possible for designated shipyard employees to continuously assess the 
    hazards of a ``workplace'' that is constantly changing. According to 
    one participant, a better approach would be to perform hazard 
    assessments by trade to determine the level of PPE required [South 
    Tidewater Association of Ship Repairers, Ex. 9-3]. Numerous commenters 
    agreed with this view [Exs. 9-1, 9-7 through 9-12].
        As discussed above in relation to final rule Sec. 1915.152(b), OSHA 
    agrees that it is appropriate to allow employers flexibility in 
    organizing their hazard assessment efforts. The Agency has underscored 
    the performance-oriented nature of that provision by adding a note to 
    the final rule which states that hazard assessments conducted according 
    to the trade or occupation of affected employees are acceptable so long 
    as they address any PPE-related hazards to which employees are exposed 
    in the course of their work activities.
        The shipyard industry also opposed the requirement for 
    certification of hazard assessments because, in the opinion of 
    commenters, certification would require employers to expend resources 
    for new paperwork activities ``for the convenience of the Agency'' that 
    would not result in additional safety for production workers [Ex. 9-
    11]. Industry commenters also were concerned that certification might 
    increase their liability when injuries occur. Other shipyards that 
    currently rely on worker involvement to analyze risks feared that 
    certification would disrupt that process [January 25, 1995 public 
    meeting transcript pages 28 and 41-47]. The shipyard industry also 
    opposed the certification of hazard assessments on the grounds that 
    these assessments would be redundant, since the industry already 
    performs many PPE-related hazard assessments for individual health and 
    safety standards such as hearing conservation, lead, confined spaces, 
    respirator use, and other OSHA standards.
        In its Federal Register notice on December 13, 1994 announcing a 
    public meeting on shipyard PPE issues, the Agency asked for information 
    on whether simple documentation would suffice in place of 
    certification. In testimony at the public meeting and in comments 
    submitted following the meeting, industry representatives stated that 
    they did not oppose documentation of hazard assessments. In fact, they 
    reported that it is routine in the industry to conduct such assessments 
    and to document them:
    
        * * * hearing conservation, respiratory protection, hazard 
    communication, lockout/tagout, lead abatement, blood-borne 
    pathogens, medical surveillance programs * * * [are] programs that 
    are already in place that [require] us to do hazard assessments of 
    the workplace in order that we provide PPE * * * Where hazard 
    assessment does not exist, and it would be hard for me to say where 
    it doesn't in the shipyard industry, we'd recommend that an annual 
    assessment be made. [Shipbuilders Council, January 25, 1995 public 
    meeting transcript page 11].
    
        Commenters within the shipyard industry also opposed the general 
    industry PPE requirement to certify training, largely for the same 
    reasons as those noted above for the certification of hazard 
    assessments--the creation of potential new legal liability and 
    unnecessary paperwork. In its December 13, 1994 announcement, the 
    Agency suggested that simple documentation could be used in lieu of 
    certification, and the final rule requires documentation rather than 
    certification.
        Commenters were generally supportive of the standard's training 
    requirements and the specific elements of training mandated by the 
    rule. Commenters stated that the PPE training elements proposed by the 
    Agency were practiced throughout the shipyard industry, as was the 
    maintenance of training logs--usually in the form of a computer 
    database:
    
        We support the general requirement for training as it does serve 
    to enhance a safer working environment [Shipbuilders' Council [Ex. 
    9-9]].
        We are already complying with this proposed standard [for 
    training] and we suspect many other shipyards are also complying. * 
    * * Our new hire orientation programs covers all areas of PPE and 
    would meet the new requirements proposed in the standard [Tampa 
    Shipyards, Ex. 9-8].
        We'd recommend this documentation [for training] be in the form 
    of training logs, which most of us already keep on the computer 
    [Shipbuilders' Council January 25, 1995 public meeting, Transcript 
    page 13].
    
    
    [[Page 26340]]
    
    
        There was widespread support among industry commenters for the use 
    of body harnesses in place of body belts:
    
        Electric Boat Division utilizes body harnesses for all of its 
    fall protection needs. * * * [Ex. 9-10].
        BIW/Local S6 has implemented a policy which is consistent with 
    the construction industry standard in that only body harnesses may 
    be used in fall arrest systems and body belts may be used in 
    positioning device systems [Bath Iron Works Ex. 11-7].
        Without a doubt, the majority of our membership endorses the use 
    of harnesses. Most of us already have those in place [Shipbuilders' 
    Council January 25, 1995 public meeting, Transcript page 14].
    
        However, Newport News Shipbuilding (NNS), which employs about 20 
    percent of all shipyard employees, opposed the phase-out of body belts 
    in favor of harnesses. NNS relies almost completely on body belts for 
    fall protection, although the shipyard did report using a small number 
    of harnesses. Several small yards also still rely on body belts for 
    fall protection and questioned the utility of changing to body 
    harnesses since they had experienced no injuries due to the use of body 
    belts [Exs. 9-1, 9-3 and 9-11]. At the public meeting, NNS stated that 
    replacing over 4,700 body belts would be a burden and therefore that a 
    seven-year phase-in period would be needed to reduce the economic 
    impact. The company reported that a review of several years' accident 
    records failed to show that falls of employees using body belts 
    resulted in any severe injuries. NNS did not introduce its data on 
    falls into the record, however. A cost analysis presented by NNS at the 
    hearing showed that body belts cost NNS $43 each and, on average, 
    lasted 7 years; harnesses cost $140 and have a working lifetime of 3 
    years.
        Most other shipyards and industry associations reported that they 
    had switched to harnesses from belts. These commenters reported that, 
    although harnesses cost more than belts, they provide greater 
    protection and are cost effective.
    
        We * * * endorse the use of body harnesses as a safety method 
    for employees. While the cost of a body harness is usually twice the 
    amount of body belts, the added safety factor to the employee is 
    well worth the money, and in the long run will save the company 
    money is case of an accident [Atlantic Marine Ex. 9-9].
        In fact many of our yards already use them [harnesses]. We find 
    them to be very effective, and everybody seems to certainly feel a 
    lot safer with them [Shipbuilders' Council January 25, 1995 public 
    meeting, Transcript page 23].
    
        At the public meeting on January 25, 1995, representatives of the 
    American Insurance Service [Tr. 59] stated that body harnesses would 
    prevent injuries that could occur in falls involving employees wearing 
    body belts. In addition, they said that it is difficult to rescue a 
    worker in a body belt after a fall since he or she typically is hanging 
    ``nose to toes,'' or upside down. Several falls involving employees (in 
    other industries) wearing body belts had resulted in fatalities when 
    the fallen worker had slipped out of his/her body belt. The insurance 
    representatives also asserted that the cost of harnesses should not 
    preclude the inclusion of a harness requirement in the rule because 
    industry has known that the change to harnesses was going to occur, 
    body belts are usually ``expense'' items, and, if treated as a capital 
    expense, will have been fully depreciated by the effective date of the 
    regulation. The association did not provide any data demonstrating that 
    the injuries associated with falls in body harnesses was less severe 
    than those in belts. Belts were estimated to cost $35 each and 
    harnesses $75 each. Harnesses were estimated to last an average of 2 to 
    4 years.
        OSHA agrees with the assessment of most of the commenters from the 
    shipyard industry and the insurance industry who supported the 
    requirement for harnesses in lieu of belts, and the final rule thus 
    contains such a requirement.
        Many commenters endorsed the adoption of locking snaphooks over 
    non-locking snaphooks on lifelines [Ex. 9-10 and January 25, 1995 
    public meeting, Transcript page 52]. Locking snaphooks are already in 
    widespread use in shipyards. At the January 25, 1995 public meeting, 
    representatives from the American Insurance Service demonstrated how, 
    in a ``roll-out'' situation, lifelines can detach from non-locking 
    snaphooks. Most industry commenters reported that snaphooks were used 
    in their shipyard, and none opposed this change to the standard or 
    raised it as a cost issue.
        Based on the record for this rulemaking, the Agency has concluded 
    that the only provisions of the final PPE standard that will impose 
    other than negligible costs on shipyard employers are: the replacement 
    of body belts with body harnesses; the documentation of hazard 
    assessments; the development of training for body harnesses in 
    shipyards not already employing harnesses; and employee training for 
    body harnesses. Only Newport News Shipbuilding (NNS) and a number of 
    small shipyards reported that they still rely on body belts. (Very 
    small shipyards specialize in trades and may not use body harnesses or 
    body belts at all). OSHA has taken the concerns of these commenters 
    into account in the final rule. NNS stated that it currently uses about 
    4,700 body belts, although no information was available on the 
    breakdown between belts used as positioning devices (this would not be 
    affected by the final rule) and those used for fall protection. To the 
    extent that some of these belts continue to be used for positioning 
    devices, the 4700 figure overstates the number of harnesses to acquire. 
    The Agency estimates that NNS will need to purchase no more than 3,000 
    harnesses (about 1 for every 5 production workers). The Agency 
    estimates that, in addition to NNS, some smaller employers in the 
    industry may need to buy harnesses to replace body belts, and the 
    Agency estimates that 1,000 harnesses would be purchased by these 
    employers. Based on evidence in the record and information from 
    suppliers, the Agency estimates that body belts cost about $50 and 
    harnesses $100. Body belts are estimated to last an average of 7 years 
    and harnesses 3 years. Thus, body belts supply fall protection at a 
    cost of roughly $7 per year ($50/7 years), while harnesses do so at $33 
    per year ($100/3 years). Harnesses therefore cost roughly $27 more per 
    year than belts for each affected employee. Since body belts can still 
    be used as positioning devices, the requirement that harnesses be used 
    for fall protection will not end the useful life of these belts. Based 
    on these estimates, OSHA concludes that replacing body belts with 
    harnesses will result in a new annual cost to the industry of 
    approximately $128,000 [(3,000 new harnesses for NNS+1,000 new 
    harnesses for small shipyards) x $27]. Nevertheless, to allow 
    additional time and reduce any potential impacts, the final rule 
    permits shipyards to phase-in compliance with the body harness 
    requirement over two years, which is consistent with the phase-out date 
    in other OSHA standards.
        The hazard assessment documentation required by the standard 
    consists of a record, either paper or on a computer or other storage 
    medium, with the date of the hazard assessment, name of person 
    performing the assessment, occupation or operations covered, and a list 
    of the PPE required. Shipyards report that they already incorporate 
    some of this information in their current training materials. The 
    Agency has estimated that it would take each shipyard about an hour to 
    develop a computer-based record format for this documentation and 
    approximately five minutes to record the hazard assessment
    
    [[Page 26341]]
    
    for each occupation covered. Table 3 summarizes this information for 
    the PPE standard. The total time expended by managers to document 
    hazard assessments is estimated to be 781 hours, a one-time commitment 
    of management resources.
    
      Table 3.--Estimate of Amount of Time To Document Hazard Assessments, Develop Training Programs for Body Harnesses, and Train in Use of Body Harnesses 
                                                             for OSHA's Standard on PPE in Shipyards                                                        
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Hazard assessment      Develop training for hamesses               Training            
                                                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Number of                 Time to     Time to                Total                                    
             Firm Size (number of employees)           firms in   Number of     document    develop   Number of   time to    Training  Management  Number of
                                                         size       hazard       hazard     training  firms who   develop    sessions     time     employees
                                                       category  assessments  assessments   per firm   must do    program    per firm    (hours)    trained 
                                                                   (trades)     (hours)     (hours)       so      (hours)                           (hours) 
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1000+...........................................         12          40           36   .........       none          0        150         150       3000
    500-999.........................................         12          30           30           8          6         48          4          24        200
    100-499.........................................         76          30          190           4         76        304          2         152        400
    21-99...........................................        100          10          150           4        100        400          1         100        200
    11-20...........................................        100           5          125           2         50        100          1          50        200
    1-10............................................        200           5          250           2        100        200          1         100        150
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotals (hours).........................  .........  ...........     \1\ 781   .........  .........   \1\ 1052  .........         576       4150
                                                     =======================================================================================================
    Total one-time, or first year, management                                                                                                               
     resources for hazard assessments and                                                                                                                   
     development of training........................  .........  ...........  ...........  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  \2\ 1,833
    First year management resources to conduct                                                                                                              
     training.......................................  .........  ...........  ...........  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........    \2\ 576
    Total management time...........................  .........  ...........  ...........  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  \2\ 2,409
    Total employee time.............................  .........  ...........  ...........  .........  .........  .........  .........  ..........  \2\ 4,150
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                            
    \1\ One-time.                                                                                                                                           
    \2\ Hours.                                                                                                                                              
    
        The development of training materials for the use of personal fall 
    arrest systems (body harnesses) imposes a one-time cost for shipyards 
    that are not already using harnesses. Some of the very smallest 
    shipyards who provide specialty trade work will not have or use any 
    harnesses. All large shipyards already use harnesses to some extent, 
    and the Agency has concluded that these shipyards also have developed 
    training materials. Because training videos and written materials on 
    the use of body harnesses are widely available, the Agency has 
    concluded that the time required for establishing such a training 
    program will be small. Table 3 presents the Agency's estimate of the 
    time that firms will expend to develop training for the use of body 
    harnesses; the estimate ranges from 8 hours for firms with more than 
    500 employees to 2 hours for the smallest employers. The total time 
    required to develop training for body harnesses is estimated to be 
    1,052 hours of management time.
        Firms that do not currently use body harnesses must also train 
    their employees as harnesses are substituted over time for body belts. 
    The cost of this training consists of management or trainers' time to 
    provide training to employees as well as the value of employee wages 
    foregone while training. The Agency estimates a training session will 
    take approximately one hour and that as many as 10 to 20 employees can 
    receive training in a single session. Table 3 presents the Agency's 
    estimate of the number of sessions by firm size that will be necessary 
    for training in body harnesses and the number of employees trained. The 
    Agency estimates that a higher fraction (10 percent or more) of smaller 
    firms' employees will have to be trained due to the nature of their 
    business--cleaning tanks, repairs over the ship's side, painting and 
    maintenance--which require the use of harnesses. Among large firms only 
    NNS relies primarily on body belts and uses only a few body harnesses. 
    The Agency estimates that all of NNS's body belts (4,700) will not have 
    to be replaced with harnesses, since compared with smaller yards less 
    work conducted at large shipyards or in new ship construction requires 
    a body harness (rather than a body belt). The Agency has estimated that 
    NNS will replace 3,000 body belts with harnesses. Data for the cost of 
    body harness training is included in Table 6. The Agency estimates that 
    576 hours of management time and 4,150 hours of employee time will be 
    required for training.
        The total one-time cost for documenting hazard assessments, 
    developing harness training materials, and providing training is 2,409 
    management hours and 4,150 employee hours. Average hourly employee 
    wages for SIC 3731 are about $14.00 per hour (``Employment and 
    Earnings'' Bureau of Labor Statistics October, 1994). The Agency 
    estimates that the cost of wages plus benefits is $20 per hour for 
    production employees and $30 per hour for managers.
        The total cost of these elements of the standard is approximately 
    $155,000. Annualized over five years at 7 percent, this cost is about 
    $35,000 per year. Added to the annual cost of body harnesses of 
    $128,000, the Agency estimates that the total annualized cost of the 
    PPE standard is $163,000 per year for the shipyard industry.
    
    Economic Impacts
    
        With industry revenues exceeding $9 billion and an estimated profit 
    of $275 million in 1994, the annual estimated compliance costs 
    associated with the standard ($163,000) will not cause a significant 
    impact on the revenues or profits of firms in the shipyard industry.
    
    [[Page 26342]]
    
    Benefits
    
        The final shipyard PPE standard will reduce the risk of injury or 
    fatality confronting workers who fall while wearing body belts. After 
    the phase-in period, shipyard workers who fall while wearing body 
    harnesses will experience fewer fatalities or severe injuries as a 
    result of these falls. Although industry and insurance representatives 
    testified to the beneficial effects of harnesses, data in the record 
    are not sufficiently detailed to quantify the magnitude of the reduced 
    risk. Accordingly, OSHA has not quantified this risk reduction or the 
    productivity gains associated with the use of harnesses compared with 
    belts. In addition, the use of locking snaphooks, as required by the 
    final rule, will prevent roll-out thus reducing the risk of fatality or 
    severe injury.
        The Agency has also analyzed the more typical PPE-related injuries 
    of lesser severity. OSHA estimates that compliance with the final 
    shipyard personal protective equipment rule will potentially prevent 
    about 1,550 lost workday injuries (15 percent of all shipyard PPE-
    related lost workday injuries) and about 12,650 non-lost workday 
    injuries (about 46 percent of all shipyard PPE-related non-lost workday 
    injuries). To develop this estimate, the Agency analyzed a sample of 
    over 1,700 shipyard injuries reported on OSHA Form 200's that were 
    collected as part of recent OSHA survey efforts. For each injury or 
    illness in the sample, OSHA judged whether the injury or illness was 
    potentially preventable through the use of the appropriate type of 
    protective equipment. These judgments were based on the injury and 
    illness descriptions on the Form 200. OSHA considered the following 
    types of PPE to be applicable: hard hats, safety glasses and goggles, 
    welding goggles and helmets, face shields, safety shoes, work gloves 
    and other forms of hand protection, and chemical protective gloves, 
    aprons, and other clothing.
        To develop its estimate, OSHA first divided the sample injuries and 
    illnesses by severity and estimated the fraction of cases that were 
    judged to be potentially preventable by PPE use. Next, OSHA applied 
    these preventability rates to Bureau of Labor Statistics employment 
    levels for 1994 for the shipyard industry and calculated the number of 
    cases that might be prevented through PPE use. The results of this 
    analysis are shown in Table 4. Of 27,317 shipyard injuries and 
    illnesses without lost-workdays, 12,665 (46.4 percent) were estimated 
    to be potentially preventable through proper use of PPE. Of 9,876 cases 
    involving days away from work, OSHA estimated that 1,549 (15.7 percent) 
    were potentially preventable through compliance with OSHA's PPE 
    requirements. These estimates indicate that over 10 percent of all 
    shipyard injuries (both lost-time and non-lost work time) are 
    potentially preventable through the proper use of safety glasses, while 
    15 percent are potentially preventable through the use of work gloves 
    or other appropriate forms of hand protection. This analysis of 
    ``typical'' PPE injuries parallels the benefits analysis performed for 
    the general industry PPE standard, with one exception. In this shipyard 
    analysis, the Agency has reduced its estimate of the number of eye 
    injuries that could be prevented by the use of safety glasses to 50 
    percent (a figure of about 99 percent was applied in the general 
    industry analysis), because shipyard representatives and OSHA personnel 
    report that the use of basic eye protection is standard practice in 
    shipyards, which are widely recognized as being especially hazardous 
    environments. The Agency concludes that fewer eye injuries occur in 
    shipyards than general industry establishments because employees in 
    shipyards, unlike those in general industry, are routinely required to 
    wear safety glasses.
    
                           Table 4.--Preventability of Shipyard Injuries by Type of PPE (1994)                      
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Injuries without lost-      Injuries with lost-          All injuries      
                                                workdays                  workdays         -------------------------
      Injury preventability/PPE type   ----------------------------------------------------                         
                                           Number      Percent       Number      Percent       Number      Percent  
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Preventable:                                                                                                    
        Hard hat......................          753          2.8          133          1.3          886          2.4
        Safety glasses \1\............        3,509         12.8          346          3.5        3,855         10.4
        Safety goggles................          422          1.5           88          0.9          510          1.4
        Welding goggles/helmet........          632          2.3          137          1.4          769          2.1
        Face shield...................        1,024          3.7           33          0.3        1,057          2.8
        Safety shoes (metatarsal                                                                                    
         guard).......................          392          1.4          237          2.4          628          1.7
        Safety shoes (toe protection).          361          1.3          109          1.1          470          1.3
        Safety shoes (sole protection)          151          0.6            0          0.0          151          0.4
        Work gloves...................        5,120         18.7          406          4.1        5,526         14.9
        Chemical protective gloves....            0          0.0           48          0.5           48          0.1
        Chemical protective clothing..          301          1.1           13          0.1          314          0.8
                                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total preventable...........       12,665         46.4        1,549         15.7       14,214         38.2
    Not Preventable...................       14,652         53.6        8,327         84.3       22,979         61.8
    All injuries......................       27,317        100.0        9,876        100.0       37,193        100.0
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Rate for eye injuries preventable by safety glasses adjusted downward by 50.0% due to current high rate of  
      safety glass use in shipyards.                                                                                
    Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1992. Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses; OSHA estimates based on
      analysis of Form 200 Shipyard Injury Database. Estimates of the number of 1992 injuries and illnesses         
      extrapolated to 1994 based on decline in shipyard employment of 14.4 percent over this period.                
    
        OSHA also used data supplied by the BLS describing the distribution 
    of shipyard lost-workday cases by body part injured to develop 
    disaggregated estimates of the number of preventable injuries. These 
    estimates are shown in Table 5. OSHA estimates that 90 percent of the 
    head, scalp, and toe injuries are potentially preventable. OSHA also 
    judged PPE to be effective, at lower rates, in preventing face, eye, 
    foot, hand and finger injuries.
    
    [[Page 26343]]
    
    
    
                     Table 5.--Preventable Shipyard Injuries and Illnesses by Severity and Body Part                
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Number of      Share of                
                                                               Number of   extrapolated     injuries      Number of 
                    Injury severity/body part                     1992         1994        preventable     injuries 
                                                                injuries   injuries \3\        \4\        prevented 
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(percentage)--------------
    Injuries and illnesses without lost workdays\1\.........       31,900        27,317           46.4        12,665
    Lost-workday injuries and illnesses:\2\                                                                         
        Head, unspecified...................................           73            63          100.0            63
        Ear(s)..............................................            0             0            0.0             0
        Eye(s)..............................................        1,080           925       \5\ 61.7           571
        Face................................................           51            44           75.0            33
        Scalp...............................................           91            78       \6\ 90.0            70
        Neck................................................          350           300            0.0             0
        Arm(s), Unspecified.................................           49            42            0.0             0
        Elbow...............................................          265           227            0.0             0
        Forearm.............................................          128           110            0.0             0
        Wrist...............................................          478           409           12.5            51
        Hand(s).............................................          508           435           38.9           169
        Finger(s)...........................................          720           617           37.9           234
        Upper extremities, multiple.........................            0             0            0.0             0
        Trunk, unspecified..................................            0             0         \6\ NE             0
        Abdomen.............................................           88            75            0.0             0
        Back, Unspecified...................................          954           817            0.0             0
        Back, lumbar........................................        1,198         1,026            0.0             0
        Back, thoracic......................................          168           144            0.0             0
        Chest...............................................          289           247            5.3            13
        Hip.................................................          306           262            0.0             0
        Shoulder(s).........................................          601           515            0.0             0
        Trunk, Multiple parts...............................            0             0            0.0             0
        Lower extremities, multiple.........................            0             0            0.0             0
        Leg(s), unspecified.................................           59            51            0.0             0
        Thighs..............................................           89            76            0.0             0
        Knee(s).............................................        1,073           919            0.0             0
        Lower leg(s)........................................          123           105            0.0             0
        Leg(s), multiple....................................            0             0            0.0             0
        Ankle(s)............................................          624           534            0.0             0
        Foot/feet...........................................          488           418           60.0           251
        Toe(s)..............................................          123           105           90.0            95
        Lower extremities, multiple.........................            0             0            0.0             0
        Multiple body parts.................................          674           577            0.0             0
    Lost workday injuries continued:                                                                                
        Circulatory system..................................            0             0            0.0             0
        Digestive system....................................            0             0          \7\NE             0
        Excretory system....................................            0             0            0.0             0
        Nervous system......................................            0             0            0.0             0
        Respiratory system..................................            0             0            0.0             0
        Body parts, NEC.....................................          163           140          \7\NE             0
        Unclassifiable......................................          720           617            0.0             0
                                                             -------------------------------------------------------
          Total lost-workday injury.........................       11,533         9,876           15.7         1,549
    All injuries and Illnesses..............................       43,433        37,193           38.2        14,214
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1992 Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses.                             
    \2\ Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1992 Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, unpublished data. Injury and
      illness data by body part available only for cases with lost workdays.                                        
    \3\ Estimates of the number of 1992 injuries and illnesses extrapolated to 1994 based on decline in shipyard    
      employment of 14.4 percent over this period.                                                                  
    \4\ OSHA estimates based on analysis of Form 200 Shipyard Injury Database. Estimate of preventable share for non
      lost-workday injuries based on the overall ratio of preventable non-lost-workday cases in the Form 200        
      database.                                                                                                     
    \5\ Rate for eye injuries preventable by safety glasses adjusted downward by 50.0% due to current high rate of  
      safety glass use in shipyards.                                                                                
    \6\ OSHA estimate. No observations for this injury category in Form 200 database.                               
    
    Regulatory Alternatives
    
        The Agency concludes that the proposed rule is the most cost-
    effective regulatory alternative for this industry. One alternative 
    considered was to apply the general industry PPE standard to the 
    shipyard industry. However, if the general industry PPE standard (29 
    CFR 1910.132) were applied to the shipyard industry in its entirety, it 
    would impose unnecessary costs in the form of paperwork because it 
    could require shipyards to adopt new training and documentation 
    programs. Shipyards have long had both comprehensive and specialized 
    safety programs and their own databases for maintaining training logs, 
    accident data, and other information. The final rule builds on the 
    tools the industry has already developed and thus avoids imposing 
    unnecessary costs and other burdens on shipyard employers.
    
    Regulatory Flexibility
    
        As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (as amended 
    by Title II, Subtitle D of the Contract with America Advancement Act of 
    1996),
    
    [[Page 26344]]
    
    OSHA assessed the economic burden faced by small establishments in 
    complying with this final rule. In comments to the record for this 
    standard, no comments specifically addressed either the Regulatory 
    Flexibility Analysis or its conclusion that the standard would impose 
    no significant impact on small firms. In that analysis, the Agency 
    identified the increased use of respirators as the main source of new 
    costs for all shipyards, but this element has been dropped in the final 
    standard.
        The Agency has concluded that small shipyards in the industry have 
    as much need of additional personal protective equipment as other 
    shipyards. The industry has one of the highest injury and illness rates 
    of any industry. Since the largest shipyards report injury and illness 
    rates at or below the industry average, the Agency has concluded that 
    the rate of preventable injuries and illnesses are at least as great in 
    smaller yards. In addition, many of the production operations are the 
    same for larger and smaller shipyards. Since the standard requires 
    employers to identify and protect workers from risk by occupation or 
    trade, the Agency concludes that the risks for each trade are similar 
    irrespective of the size of the shipyard. The objectives of the 
    standard are to reduce the risk of PPE-preventable injuries in 
    shipyards.
        Although no public comments were specifically addressed to issues 
    in the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, many of the comments applied to 
    situations faced by smaller shipyards. However, the Agency believes 
    that smaller yards are not impacted in a significantly different manner 
    or scale than larger shipyards. The comments by smaller shipyards about 
    feasibility were similar to the larger yards: questioning the utility 
    of body harnesses rather than body belts and the need to certify hazard 
    assessments and training.
        The Agency considered applying the General Industry PPE standard as 
    an alternative for small establishments in the shipyard industry, but 
    testimony and comments in the docket support the Agency's decision that 
    the final standard will more effectively meet the risk in shipyards at 
    lowest cost.
        As can be seen in Table 3, the Agency estimates that there are 200 
    firms in the shipyard industry with 10 or fewer employees, 100 firms 
    with 11-20 employees, and 100 firms with 21-99 employees. The Agency 
    believes that for the shipyard industry, firms with fewer than 100 
    employees is a ``small'' firm. Therefore, for purposes of this 
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, the Agency estimates that there are 
    approximately 400 ``smaller'' businesses with an estimated 8,000 
    employees. From data in Table 3, smaller firms will require 525 
    management hours to document hazard assessments, 250 management hours 
    to develop training for body harnesses, and 250 management hours to 
    provide training, and 550 employee hours for training. Costs for these 
    elements, which are a one-time cost, total $38,450, which is equivalent 
    to an $8,700 annual cost (annualized over 5 years at 7 percent). Other 
    new annual costs for small firms are estimated at $13,500 for 500 body 
    harnesses to replace body belts. Total annual costs for smaller 
    shipyards are then an estimated $22,200, or an average of about $55 per 
    smaller shipyard. The Agency has provided a phase-in period of two 
    years to allow smaller shipyards time to accomplish this shift.
        OSHA concludes that this standard will not impose a significant 
    impact on a substantial number of small entities, and that the phase-in 
    for body harnesses will further alleviate any impacts that do occur.
    
    International Trade
    
        In accordance with Executive Order 12866, OSHA assessed the effects 
    of the final standard on international trade. The shipyard industry 
    actively competes with foreign shipyards for ship repair and 
    shipbuilding orders. If this OSHA regulation significantly increased 
    the price of products and services of domestic shipyards, foreign 
    shipyards could benefit. OSHA believes, however, that there will be 
    virtually no effect on the prices of products or services as a result 
    of this regulation.
    
    Environmental Impact
    
        The shipyard PPE standard has been reviewed in accordance with the 
    requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 
    (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the regulations of the Council on 
    Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR part 1500), and DOL NEPA Procedures 
    (29 CFR part 11). There will be no additional incremental release 
    quantities related to this standard. Releases of substances regulated 
    under EPA's SARA Title III or EPA NESHAP standards are subject to 
    reporting and control requirements.
    
    Non-Regulatory Alternatives
    
        The primary objective of OSHA's standard for PPE is to minimize the 
    number of shipyard employee injuries and risk of fatalities. The Agency 
    examined non-regulatory approaches for promoting PPE use, including (1) 
    incentives created by workers' compensation programs or the threat of 
    private suits, and (2) requirements of the U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast 
    Guard. Following this review, OSHA determined that the need for 
    government regulation arises from the significant risk of job-related 
    injury or death. Private markets fail to provide enough safety and 
    health resources due to the externalization of part of the social cost 
    of worker injuries and deaths. Workers' compensation systems do not 
    offer an adequate remedy because premiums do not reflect specific 
    workplace risk and liability claims are restricted by statutes 
    preventing employees from suing their employers. The U.S. Navy and U.S. 
    Coast Guard require shipyards to follow safe procedures when performing 
    work for them or when constructing merchant vessels; however, most 
    firms do not come under this scrutiny. Thus, OSHA has determined that a 
    federal standard is necessary.
    
    References
    
    1. U.S. Department of Commerce. International Trade Administration. 
    1994 U.S. Industrial Outlook.
    2. U.S. Department of Transportation. Maritime Administration. 
    Report on Survey of U.S. Shipbuilding and Repair Facilities, 1990.
    3. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Preliminary 
    Report Industry Service 1987 Census of Manufactures: Shipbuilding 
    and Repairing (Industry 3731). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing 
    Office, 1990.
    4. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Preliminary 
    Report Industry Service 1987 Census of Manufactures: Shipbuilding 
    and Repairing (Industry 3731). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing 
    Office, 1989.
    5. CONSAD Research Corp. Data to Support a Regulatory Analysis of 
    the Proposed Standard for Shipbuilding and Repairing. Final Report. 
    Prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and 
    Health Administration, under Contract No. J-9-F-4-0024. Pittsburgh: 
    CONSAD, November 1985.
    6. CONSAD Research Corp. Data to Support A Regulatory Analysis of 
    the Proposed Standard for Shipbuilding and Repairing: Subpart B. 
    Prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and 
    Health Administration, under Contract No. J-9-F-4-0024. Pittsburgh: 
    CONSAD, June 1986.
    7. Commission on Merchant Marine and Defense. First Report of the 
    Commission of Merchant Marine and Defense, Appendices. Washington, 
    D.C., September 30, 1987.
    8. Dun and Bradstreet Financial Data. 1989, 1991, 1994.
    9. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, May, 1995.
    
    [[Page 26345]]
    
    10. Executive Office of the President. OMB. Standard Industrial 
    Classification Manual. 1987.
    11. Main Hurdman/KGM. Profile of the Shipbuilding and Repairing 
    Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational 
    Safety and Health Administration. Washington, D.C., October 1984. 62 
    Pp.
    12. Shipyard Council of America. ``Merchant Shipbuilding'' 
    September, 1987; ``Naval Shipbuilding'' January, 1992; ``Ship 
    Construction Report'' July, 1991.
    13. American Waterways Shipyard Conference. 1989 and 1992 Annual 
    Shipyard Survey. Arlington, Va.
    14. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Injuries and Illnesses 
    in the U.S. by Industry 1992.
    15. Sulowski, Andrew, ``Selecting Fall Arresting Systems,'' National 
    Safety News, Oct. 1979.
    16. Hearon, Bernard F. and Brinkley, James W., ``Fall Arrest and 
    Post-Fall Suspension: Literature Review and Direction for Further 
    Research,'' Air Force Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, 
    Aerospace Medical Division, Air Force Systems Command, Wright-
    Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.
    17. United States Technical Advisory Group, Ex. 9-33 submitted to 
    the Powered Platform rulemaking, Docket S-700A.
    
    V. Paperwork Reduction Act
    
        The Agency has estimated the paperwork burden of the shipyard PPE 
    standard under the guidelines of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 
    Under that Act, burden is defined as the total time, effort, or 
    financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, 
    or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal Agency. The 
    Agency has concluded that the following elements of the shipyard PPE 
    standard potentially could create a paperwork burden for the shipyard 
    industry:
    For hazard assessments:
        performing a hazard assessment for each trade; documenting the 
    hazard assessment;
    For PPE training:
        developing training materials (or programs for PPE; training 
    employees;
        documenting employee training.
    For personal fall arrest system training:
        developing a training program; training employees.
    
    For positioning device systems training:
        developing a training program; training employees.
    
        For most of these potential sources of burden, shipyards are 
    already performing these information collection or disclosure 
    functions. For these elements, the final rule will not therefore 
    require shipyards to expend additional resources on paperwork.
        The Agency has concluded that only new burdens imposed specifically 
    by new or revised provisions of a standard should be considered 
    paperwork burdens attributable to that standard. In other words, it 
    would be inappropriate to count as the burden actions that firms in the 
    regulated community have already undertaken voluntarily.
        The record shows that shipyards are already complying with all of 
    the paperwork burden elements listed above, except for documenting 
    hazard assessments, developing training for personal fall arrest 
    systems (body harnesses), and providing training to employees for 
    personal fall arrest systems. Among large shipyards, only Newport News 
    Shipbuilding (NNS) reported that it relies primarily on body belts 
    rather than body harnesses.
        The hazard assessment documentation required by the standard 
    consists of a record, either paper or on a computer or other storage 
    medium, with the date of the hazard assessment, name of person 
    performing the assessment, occupation or operations covered, and a list 
    of the PPE required. Shipyards report that they already incorporate 
    some of this information in their current training materials. The 
    Agency has estimated that it would take each shipyard about an hour to 
    develop a computer- based record format for this documentation and 
    approximately five minutes to record the hazard assessment for each 
    occupation covered. Table 6 summarizes this information for the PPE 
    standard.
        Development of training materials for the use of personal fall 
    arrest systems (body harnesses) is the second potential burden element. 
    All large shipyards report that they already use harnesses to some 
    extent. Because training videos and written materials on the use of 
    body harnesses are widely available, the Agency has concluded that the 
    time required for establishing such a training program will be small. 
    Table 6 presents the Agency's estimate of the time that firms will 
    expend to develop training for the use of body harnesses; the estimate 
    ranges from 8 hours for firms with more than 500 employees to 2 hours 
    for the smallest employers.
        Firms that do not currently use body harnesses must also train 
    their employees as harnesses are substituted over time for body belts. 
    The paperwork burden of this training consists of management or 
    trainers' time to provide training to employees. The Agency estimates a 
    training session will take approximately one hour and that as many as 
    10 to 20 employees can receive training in a single session. Table 6 
    presents the Agency's estimate of the number of sessions by firm size 
    that will be necessary for training in body harnesses. The Agency 
    estimates that a higher fraction (10 percent or more) of smaller firms' 
    employees will have to be trained due to the nature of their business--
    cleaning tanks, repairs over the ship's side, painting and 
    maintenance--which require the use of harnesses. Among large firms, 
    only NNS reported that they used very few harnesses. The Agency 
    estimates that all of NNS's body belts (4,700) will not have to be 
    replaced with harnesses, since relatively less work at large shipyards 
    and new ship construction require a body harness (rather than a body 
    belt). The Agency has estimated that NNS will replace 3,000 body belts 
    with harnesses. Data for the paperwork burden of providing training to 
    employees are also presented in Table 6.
    
     Table 6.--Estimate of Burden Hours to Document Hazard Assessments, to Develop Training Programs for Body Hamesses, and to Train in Use of Body Hamesses
                                                          for OSHA's page Standard on PPE in Shipyards.                                                     
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Hazard assessment        Develop training for hamessess        Training      
                                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Number of                    Time of       Time                                              
                 Firm size [number of employees]                firms in    Number of      document     develop   Number of    Total     Training   Time to 
                                                                  size        hazard        hazard      training  firms who   time to    sessions    train  
                                                                category   assessments   assessment's   per firm   must do    develop    per firm   [hours] 
                                                                          [occupations]     [hours]     [hours]       so      program                       
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1000+....................................................         12           40             36   .........          0          0        150        150
    500-999..................................................         12           30             30           8          6         48          4         24
    100-499..................................................         76           30            190           4         76        304          2        152
    21-99....................................................        100           10            150           4        100        400          1        100
    
    [[Page 26346]]
    
                                                                                                                                                            
    11-20....................................................        100            5            125           2         50        100          1         50
    1-10.....................................................        200            5            250           2        100        200          1        100
                                                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotals (hours)..................................  .........  .............          781   .........  .........       1052  .........        576
                                                              ==============================================================================================
    Total estimated burden (first-year, one-time)............  .........  .............  ............  .........  .........  .........  .........  \1\ 2,409
    Estimated annual burden 300 hours.                                                                                                                      
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: OSHA's Office of Regulatory Analysis.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                            
    \1\ Hours.                                                                                                                                              
    
    
        The Agency estimates that the shipyard PPE standard will result in 
    about 2,409 paperwork burden hours being imposed on the shipyard 
    industry the first year, most of it due to developing training 
    materials in the use of body harnesses. However, these 2,409 hours are 
    only an estimate of the first-year burden, a one-time claim on 
    resources, not an annual burden. The future annual burden beginning in 
    the second year, is estimated to be approximately 300 hours per year, 
    which represents managers' time to train new employees resulting from 
    employee turnover in firms not currently training employees in the use 
    of harnesses.
    Collections of Information: Request for Comments
        The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce 
    paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation 
    program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an 
    opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of 
    information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
    (PRA95)(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps to ensure that 
    requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden 
    (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are 
    clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on 
    respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, OSHA is soliciting 
    comments concerning the proposed approval for the paperwork 
    requirements of 29 CFR 1915, subpart I, Personal Protective Equipment 
    for Shipyard Employment (PPE). Written comments should:
         Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is 
    necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, 
    including whether the information will have practical utility;
         Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the 
    burden of the proposed collection of information, including the 
    validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
         Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
    information to be collected; and
         Minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
    those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate 
    automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection 
    techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting 
    electronic submissions of responses.
    Background
        OSHA in its final rule for Personal Protective Equipment in 
    Shipyard Employment is including two types of information collections. 
    The first is a requirement for the employer to conduct a hazard 
    assessment relative to PPE selection, and the second involves training 
    requirements for PPE.
        OSHA believes that the information collection and documentation of 
    the hazard assessment as outlined in the final standard is necessary so 
    that situations where PPE should be used for employee protection can be 
    identified, and the proper PPE selected. In addition, OSHA believes 
    that the training requirements and documentation in the final standard 
    are essential in providing employees with the information and practical 
    knowledge needed to effectively use PPE. Documentation can be used by 
    the employer to ensure that all of its employees using PPE are properly 
    trained.
    Current Actions
        This notice requests OMB approval of the paperwork requirements in 
    Personal Protective Equipment for Shipyard Employment (29 CFR 1915, 
    Subpart I).
        Type of Review: New.
        Agency: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. 
    Department of Labor.
        Title: Personal Protective Equipment for Shipyard Employment (29 
    CFR 1915, subpart I).
        OMB Number: 1218-AA74
        Agency: Docket No. S-045.
        Frequency: On occasion.
        Affected Public: Business or other for-profit, Federal government, 
    State and Local governments.
        Number of respondents: 500.
        Estimated Time Per Respondent: Varies.
        Total Estimated Cost: $72,270 (First year only), $9,000 annual.
        Total Burden Hours: 2,409 (First year only), 300 annual, recurring.
        Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized 
    and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget 
    approval of the information collection request: they will also become a 
    matter of public record.
    
    VI. Statutory Considerations
    Introduction
        OSHA has described PPE-related hazards and the measures required to 
    protect affected employees from those hazards in Section I, Background; 
    Section II, Hazards Involved; and Section III, Summary and Explanation 
    of the Final Rule, above. The Agency is providing the following 
    discussion of the statutory mandate for OSHA rulemaking activity to 
    explain the legal
    
    [[Page 26347]]
    
    basis for its determination that the revised shipyard PPE standard, as 
    promulgated, is reasonably necessary to protect affected employees from 
    significant risks of injury and death.
        Section 2(b)(3) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 
    authorizes ``the Secretary of Labor to set mandatory occupational 
    safety and health standards applicable to businesses affecting 
    interstate commerce'', and section 5(a)(2) provides that ``[each] 
    employer shall comply with occupational safety and health standards 
    promulgated under this Act'' (emphasis added). Section 3(8) of the OSH 
    Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 652(8)) provides that ``the term `occupational 
    safety and health standard' means a standard which requires conditions, 
    or the adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods, 
    operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to 
    provide safe or healthful employment and places of employment.''
        In two recent cases, reviewing courts have expressed concern that 
    OSHA's interpretation of these provisions of the OSH Act, particularly 
    of section 3(8) as it pertains to safety rulemaking, could lead to 
    overly costly or under-protective safety standards. In International 
    Union, UAW v. OSHA, 938 F.2d 1310 (D.C. Cir. 1991), the District of 
    Columbia Circuit rejected substantive challenges to OSHA's lockout/
    tagout standard and denied a request that enforcement of that standard 
    be stayed, but it also expressed concern that OSHA's interpretation of 
    the OSH Act could lead to safety standards that are very costly and 
    only minimally protective. The reviewing court conducted further 
    proceedings and subsequently held that the OSH Act provides adequate 
    constraints on the exercise of OSHA's regulatory authority (938 F.3d 
    1310, D.C. Cir. 1994).
        In National Grain & Feed Ass'n v. OSHA, 866 F.2d 717 (5th Cir. 
    1989), the Fifth Circuit concluded that Congress gave OSHA considerable 
    discretion in structuring the costs and benefits of safety standards 
    but, concerned that the grain dust standard might be under-protective, 
    directed OSHA to consider adding a provision that might further reduce 
    significant risk of fire and explosion.
        OSHA rulemakings involve a significant degree of agency expertise 
    and policy-making discretion to which reviewing courts must defer. 
    (See, for example, Building & Constr. Trades Dep't, AFL-CIO v. Brock, 
    838 F.2d 1258, 1266 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Industrial Union Dep't, AFL-CIO 
    v. American Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 655 n. 62 (1980).) At the 
    same time, the Agency's technical expertise and policy-making authority 
    must be exercised within discernable limits. The lockout/tagout and 
    grain handling standard decisions sought clarification of the Agency's 
    view of the scope of its expertise and authority. In light of those 
    decisions, the preamble to this safety standard states OSHA's views 
    regarding the limits of its safety rulemaking authority and explains 
    why the Agency is confident that its interpretive views have in the 
    past avoided regulatory extremes and continue to do so in this rule.
        Stated briefly, the OSH Act requires that, before promulgating any 
    occupational safety standard, OSHA demonstrate based on substantial 
    evidence in the record as a whole that: (1) the proposed standard will 
    substantially reduce a significant risk of material harm; (2) 
    compliance is technologically feasible in the sense that the protective 
    measures being required already exist, can be brought into existence 
    with available technology, or can be created with technology that can 
    reasonably be developed; (3) compliance is economically feasible in the 
    sense that industry can absorb or pass on the costs without major 
    dislocation or threat of instability; and (4) the standard is cost 
    effective in that it employs the least expensive protective measures 
    capable of reducing or eliminating significant risk. Additionally, 
    proposed safety standards must be compatible with prior Agency action, 
    must be responsive to significant comment in the record, and, to the 
    extent allowed by statute, must be consistent with applicable Executive 
    Orders. These elements limit OSHA's regulatory discretion for safety 
    rulemaking and provide a decision-making framework for developing a 
    rule.
        A. Congress concluded that OSHA regulations are necessary to 
    protect workers from occupational hazards and that employers should be 
    required to reduce or eliminate significant workplace health and safety 
    threats. At section 2(a) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 651(a)), 
    Congress announced its determination that occupational injury and 
    illness should be eliminated as much as possible: ``The Congress finds 
    that occupational injury and illness arising out of work situations 
    impose a substantial burden upon, and are a hindrance to, interstate 
    commerce in terms of lost production, wage loss, medical expenses, and 
    disability compensation payments.'' Congress therefore declared ``it to 
    be its purpose and policy * * * to assure so far as possible every 
    working man and woman in the Nation safe * * * working conditions [29 
    U.S.C. Sec. 651(b)].''
        To that end, Congress instructed the Secretary of Labor to adopt 
    existing federal and consensus standards during the first two years 
    after the OSH Act became effective and, in the event of conflict among 
    any such standards, to ``promulgate the standard which assures the 
    greatest protection of the safety or health of the affected employees 
    [29 U.S.C. Sec. 655(a)].'' Congress also directed the Secretary to set 
    mandatory occupational safety standards [29 U.S.C. Sec. 651(b)(3)], 
    based on a rulemaking record and substantial evidence [29 U.S.C. 
    Sec. 655(b)(2)], that are ``reasonably necessary or appropriate to 
    provide safe * * * employment and places of employment.'' When 
    promulgating permanent safety or health standards that differ from 
    existing national consensus standards, the Secretary must explain ``why 
    the rule as adopted will better effectuate the purposes of this Act 
    than the national consensus standard [29 U.S.C. Sec. 655(b)(8)].'' 
    Correspondingly, every employer must comply with OSHA standards and, in 
    addition, ``furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of 
    employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or 
    are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees [29 
    U.S.C. Sec. 654(a)].''
        ``Congress understood that the Act would create substantial costs 
    for employers, yet intended to impose such costs when necessary to 
    create a safe and healthful working environment. Congress viewed the 
    costs of health and safety as a cost of doing business * * *. Indeed, 
    Congress thought that the financial costs of health and safety problems 
    in the workplace were as large as or larger than the financial costs of 
    eliminating these problems [American Textile Mfrs. Inst. Inc. v. 
    Donovan, 452 U.S. 490, 519-522 (1981) (ATMI); emphasis was supplied in 
    original].'' ``[T]he fundamental objective of the Act [is] to prevent 
    occupational deaths and serious injuries [Whirlpool Corp. v. Marshall, 
    445 U.S. 1, 11 (1980)].'' ``We know the costs would be put into 
    consumer goods but that is the price we should pay for the 80 million 
    workers in America [S. Rep. No. 91-1282, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970); 
    H.R. Rep. No. 91-1291, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970), reprinted in Senate 
    Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Legislative History of the 
    Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, (Committee Print 1971) 
    (``Leg. Hist.'') at 444 (Senator Yarborough)].'' ``Of course, it will 
    cost a little more per item to produce a washing machine. Those of us 
    who use
    
    [[Page 26348]]
    
    washing machines will pay for the increased cost, but it is worth it, 
    to stop the terrible death and injury rate in this country [Id. at 324; 
    see also 510-511, 517].''
    
        [T]he vitality of the Nation's economy will be enhanced by the 
    greater productivity realized through saved lives and useful years 
    of labor.
        When one man is injured or disabled by an industrial accident or 
    disease, it is he and his family who suffer the most immediate and 
    personal loss. However, that tragic loss also affects each of us. As 
    a result of occupational accidents and disease, over $1.5 billion in 
    wages is lost each year [1970 dollars], and the annual loss to the 
    gross national product is estimated to be over $8 billion. Vast 
    resources that could be available for productive use are siphoned 
    off to pay workmen's compensation and medical expenses * * *.
        Only through a comprehensive approach can we hope to effect a 
    significant reduction in these job death and casualty figures. [Id. 
    at 518-19 (Senator Cranston)]
    
        Congress considered uniform enforcement crucial because it would 
    reduce or eliminate the disadvantage that a conscientious employer 
    might experience where inter-industry or intra-industry competition is 
    present. Moreover, ``many employers--particularly smaller ones--simply 
    cannot make the necessary investment in health and safety, and survive 
    competitively, unless all are compelled to do so [Leg. Hist. at 144, 
    854, 1188, 1201].''
        Thus, the statutory text and legislative history make clear that 
    Congress conclusively determined that OSHA regulation is necessary to 
    protect workers from occupational hazards and that employers should be 
    required to reduce or eliminate significant workplace health and safety 
    threats.
        B. As construed by the courts and by OSHA, the OSH Act sets clear 
    and reasonable limits for Agency rulemaking action. OSHA has long 
    followed the teaching that section 3(8) of the OSH Act requires that, 
    before it promulgates ``any permanent health or safety standard, [it 
    must] make a threshold finding that a place of employment is unsafe--in 
    the sense that significant risks are present and can be eliminated or 
    lessened by a change in practices [Industrial Union Dep't, AFL-CIO v. 
    American Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 642 (1980) (plurality) 
    (Benzene); emphasis was supplied in original].'' Thus, the national 
    consensus and existing federal standards that Congress instructed OSHA 
    to adopt summarily within two years of the OSH Act's inception provide 
    reference points concerning the least an OSHA standard should achieve 
    (29 U.S.C. Sec. 655(a)). As a result, OSHA is precluded from regulating 
    insignificant risks or from issuing standards that do not at least 
    lessen risk in a significant way.
        The OSH Act also limits OSHA's discretion to issue overly 
    burdensome rules, as the Agency also has long recognized that ``any 
    standard that was not economically or technologically feasible would a 
    fortiori not be `reasonably necessary or appropriate' under the Act. 
    See Industrial Union Dep't v. Hodgson, [499 F.2d 467, 478 (D.C. Cir. 
    1974)] (`Congress does not appear to have intended to protect employees 
    by putting their employers out of business.') [American Textile Mfrs. 
    Inst. Inc., 452 U.S. at 513 n. 31 (a standard is economically feasible 
    even if it portends `disaster for some marginal firms,' but it is 
    economically infeasible if it `threaten[s] massive dislocation to, or 
    imperil[s] the existence of,' the industry)].''
        By stating the test in terms of ``threat'' and ``peril,'' the 
    Supreme Court made clear in ATMI that economic unfeasibility begins 
    short of industry-wide bankruptcy. OSHA itself has placed the line 
    considerably below this level. (See for example, ATMI, 452 U.S. at 527 
    n. 50; 43 FR 27,360 (June 23, 1978). Proposed 200 g/m\3\ PEL 
    for cotton dust did not raise serious possibility of industry-wide 
    bankruptcy, but impact on weaving sector would be severe, possibly 
    requiring reconstruction of 90 percent of all weave rooms. OSHA 
    concluded that the 200 g/m\3\ level was not feasible for 
    weaving and that 750 g/m\3\ was all that could reasonably be 
    required). See also 54 FR 29,245-246 (July 11, 1989); American Iron & 
    Steel Institute, 939 F.2d at 1003. OSHA raised engineering control 
    level for lead in small nonferrous foundries to avoid the possibility 
    of bankruptcy for about half of small foundries even though the 
    industry as a whole could have survived the loss of small firms.) All 
    OSHA standards must also be cost-effective in the sense that the 
    protective measures being required must be the least expensive measures 
    capable of achieving the desired end (ATMI, at 514 n. 32; Building and 
    Constr. Trades Dep't, AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258, 1269 (D.C. Cir. 
    1988)). OSHA gives additional consideration to financial impact in 
    setting the period of time that should be allowed for compliance, 
    allowing as much as ten years for compliance phase-in. (See United 
    Steelworkers of Am. v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1278 (D.C. Cir. 1980), 
    cert. denied, 453 U.S. 913 (1981).) Additionally, OSHA's enforcement 
    policy takes account of financial hardship on an individualized basis. 
    OSHA's Field Inspection Reference Manual provides for setting a 
    ``reasonable abatement date,'' based on careful consideration of an 
    employer's particular circumstances, by which time a violation must be 
    corrected (CPL. 2.103, Chapter IV, paragraph A2, September 26, 1994).
        To reach the necessary findings and conclusions, OSHA conducts 
    rulemaking in accordance with the requirements of section 6 of the OSH 
    Act. The rulemaking process enables the Agency to determine the 
    qualitative and, if possible, the quantitative nature of the risk with 
    (and without) regulation, the technological feasibility of compliance, 
    the industry's profit history, the industry's ability to absorb costs 
    or pass them on to the consumer, the impact of higher costs on demand, 
    and the impact on competition with substitutes and imports. (See ATMI 
    at 2501-2503; American Iron & Steel Institute generally.) Section 6(f) 
    of the OSH Act further provides that, if the validity of a standard is 
    challenged, OSHA must support its conclusions with ``substantial 
    evidence in the record considered as a whole,'' a standard that courts 
    have determined requires fairly close scrutiny of agency action and the 
    explanation of that action. (See Steelworkers, 647 F.2d at 1206-1207.)
        OSHA's powers are further circumscribed by the independent 
    Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, which provides a 
    neutral forum for employer contests of citations issued by OSHA for 
    noncompliance with health and safety standards (29 U.S.C. Secs. 659-
    661; noted as an additional constraint in Benzene at 652 n. 59). OSHA 
    must also respond rationally to similarities and differences among 
    industries or industry sectors. (See Building and Constr. Trades Dep't, 
    AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258, 1272-73 (D.C. Cir. 1988).)
        OSHA rulemaking is thus constrained first by the need to 
    demonstrate that the standard will substantially reduce a significant 
    risk of material harm, and then by the requirement that compliance is 
    technologically capable of being done and not so expensive as to 
    threaten economic instability or dislocation for the industry. Within 
    these bounds, further constraints such as the need to find cost-
    effective measures and to respond rationally to all meaningful comment 
    militate against regulatory extremes.
        D. The revised PPE standard complies with the statutory criteria 
    described above and is not subject to the additional constraints 
    applicable to section 6(b)(5) standards.
    
    [[Page 26349]]
    
        Standards which regulate hazards that are frequently undetectable 
    because they are subtle or develop slowly or after long latency 
    periods, are frequently referred to as ``health'' standards. Standards 
    that regulate hazards, such as falls, explosions or electrocutions, 
    that cause immediately noticeable physical harm, are called ``safety'' 
    standards. (See National Grain & Feed Ass'n v. OSHA (NGFA II), 866 F.2d 
    717, 731, 733 (5th Cir. 1989). As noted above, section 3(8) provides 
    that all OSHA standards must be ``reasonably necessary or 
    appropriate.'' In addition, section 6(b)(5) requires that OSHA set 
    health standards which limit significant risk ``to the extent 
    feasible.'' OSHA has determined that the revised PPE standard is a 
    safety standard, because the revised standard addresses hazards, such 
    as flying particles, molten metal, electric shock, falling objects and 
    falls from elevations that are immediately dangerous to life or health, 
    not the longer term, less obvious hazards subject to section 6(b)(5).
        The OSH Act and its legislative history clearly indicate that 
    Congress intended for OSHA to distinguish between safety standards and 
    health standards. For example, in section 2(b)(6) of the OSH Act, 
    Congress declared that the goal of assuring safe and healthful working 
    conditions and preserving human resources would be achieved, in part:
    
        * * * by exploring ways to discover latent diseases, 
    establishing causal connections between diseases and work in 
    environmental conditions, and conducting other research relating to 
    health problems, in recognition of the fact that occupational health 
    standards present problems often different from those involved in 
    occupational safety.
        The legislative history makes this distinction even clearer:
        [The Secretary] should take into account that anyone working in 
    toxic agents and physical agents which might be harmful may be 
    subjected to such conditions for the rest of his working life, so 
    that we can get at something which might not be toxic now, if he 
    works in it a short time, but if he works in it the rest of his life 
    might be very dangerous; and we want to make sure that such things 
    are taken into consideration in establishing standards. [Leg. Hist. 
    at 502-503 (Sen. Dominick), quoted in Benzene at 648-49]
    
        Additionally, Representative Daniels distinguished between 
    ``insidious 'silent killers' such as toxic fumes, bases, acids, and 
    chemicals'' and ``violent physical injury causing immediate visible 
    physical harm'' (Leg. Hist. at 1003), and Representative Udall 
    contrasted insidious hazards like carcinogens with ``the more visible 
    and well-known question of industrial accidents and on-the-job injury'' 
    (Leg. Hist. at 1004). (See also, for example, S. Rep. No. 1282, 91st 
    Cong., 2d Sess 2-3 (1970), U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 1970, pp. 
    5177, 5179, reprinted in Leg. Hist. at 142-43, discussing 1967 Surgeon 
    General study that found that 65 percent of employees in industrial 
    plants ``were potentially exposed to harmful physical agents, such as 
    severe noise or vibration, or to toxic materials''; Leg. Hist. at 412; 
    id. at 446; id. at 516; id. at 845; International Union, UAW at 1315.)
        In reviewing OSHA rulemaking activity, the Supreme Court has held 
    that section 6(b)(5) requires OSHA to set ``the most protective 
    standard consistent with feasibility'' (Benzene at 643 n. 48). As 
    Justice Stevens observed:
    
        The reason that Congress drafted a special section for these 
    substances * * * was because Congress recognized that there were 
    special problems in regulating health risks as opposed to safety 
    risks. In the latter case, the risks are generally immediate and 
    obvious, while in the former, the risks may not be evident until a 
    worker has been exposed for long periods of time to particular 
    substances. [Benzene, at 649 n. 54.]
    
        Challenges to the grain dust and lockout/tagout standards included 
    assertions that grain dust in explosive quantities and uncontrolled 
    energy releases that could expose employees to crushing, cutting, 
    burning or explosion hazards were harmful physical agents so that OSHA 
    was required to apply the criteria of section 6(b)(5) when determining 
    how to protect employees from those hazards. Reviewing courts have 
    uniformly rejected such assertions. For example, the Court in 
    International Union, UAW v. OSHA, 938 F.2d 1310 (D.C. Cir. 1991) 
    rejected the view that section 6(b)(5) provided the statutory criteria 
    for regulation of uncontrolled energy, holding that such a ``reading 
    would obliterate a distinction that Congress drew between `health' and 
    `safety' risks.'' The Court also noted that the language of the OSH Act 
    and the legislative history supported the OSHA position (International 
    Union, UAW at 1314). Additionally, the Court stated: ``We accord 
    considerable weight to an agency's construction of a statutory scheme 
    it is entrusted to administer, rejecting it only if unreasonable'' 
    (International Union, UAW at 1313, citing Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 
    467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984)).
        The Court reviewing the grain dust standard also deferred to OSHA's 
    reasonable view that the Agency was not subject to the feasibility 
    mandate of section 6(b)(5) in regulating explosive quantities of grain 
    dust (National Grain & Feed Association v. OSHA (NGFA II), 866 F.2d 
    717, 733 (5th Cir. 1989)). It therefore applied the criteria of section 
    3(8), requiring the Agency to establish that the standard is 
    ``reasonably necessary or appropriate'' to protect employee safety.
        As explained in Section I, Background, Section III, Summary and 
    Explanation of the Standard, and in Section VI, Summary of the Final 
    Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, above, OSHA has 
    determined that the failure to protect employees from PPE-related 
    hazards poses significant risks to employees and that the provisions of 
    the final rule are reasonably necessary to protect affected employees 
    from those risks. The Agency estimates that compliance with the revised 
    PPE standard will cost $163,000 annually and will reduce the risk of 
    the identified hazards, preventing 14,200 injuries annually (of which 
    1,550 would be lost workday injuries and 12,650 would be non-lost 
    workday injuries). This constitutes a substantial reduction of 
    significant risk of material harm for the exposed population of 
    approximately 79,000 shipyard production employees.
        The rulemaking record indicates that the measures required by the 
    standard are already in general use throughout the shipyard industry. 
    In addition, OSHA believes that compliance is economically feasible as 
    documented in the Economic Analysis.
        As detailed in Table 7, below, the standard's estimated costs, 
    benefits, and compliance requirements are consistent with estimates of 
    other OSHA safety standards, such as the Hazardous Waste Operations and 
    Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) standard.
    
                                                         Table 7                                                    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of    Number of                                         
                                   Final rule date     deaths      Injuries    Annual cost first   Annual cost next 
         Standard (CFR cite)          (FR cite)      prevented    prevented     five yrs (mill)     five yrs (mill) 
                                                      annually     annually                                         
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Grain handling (1910.272)....  12-31-87 (52 FR           18          394  5.9 to 33.4.......  5.9 to 33.4.      
                                    49622).                                                                         
    
    [[Page 26350]]
    
                                                                                                                    
    HAZWOPER (1910.120)..........  3-6-89 (54 FR             32       18,700  153...............  153.              
                                    9311).                                                                          
    Excavations (Subpt P)........  10-31-89 (54 FR           74          800  306...............  306.              
                                    45,954).                                                                        
    Process Safety Mgmt            2-24-92 57 FR            330        1,917  880.1.............  470.8.            
     (1910.119).                    6356.                                                                           
    Permit-Required Confined       1-14-93 58 FR             54        5,041  202.4.............  202.4.            
     Spaces (1910.146).             4462.                                                                           
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    
        OSHA assessed employee risk by evaluating exposure to PPE- related 
    hazards throughout the shipyard industry. The Summary of the Final 
    Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Section IV, 
    above, presents OSHA's estimate of the costs and benefits of the 
    revised PPE standard in terms of the Standard Industrial Classification 
    (SIC) code for the industry regulated.
        The record indicates clearly that employees in shipyard employment 
    face significant risks related to PPE-related hazards, and that 
    compliance with the revised PPE standard is reasonably necessary to 
    protect affected employees from those risks.
        OSHA has considered and responded to all substantive comments 
    regarding the proposed Shipyard PPE standard on their merits in the 
    Section III, Summary and Explanation of the Standard, earlier in this 
    preamble. In particular, OSHA evaluated all suggested changes to the 
    proposed rule in terms of their impact on worker safety, their 
    feasibility, their cost effectiveness, and their consonance with the 
    OSH Act.
    
    VII. Federalism
    
        This regulation has been reviewed in accordance with Executive 
    Order 12612 (52 FR 41685, October 30, 1987) regarding Federalism. This 
    Order requires that Agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from 
    limiting state policy options, consult with states prior to taking any 
    actions which would restrict State policy options, and take such 
    actions only when there is clear constitutional authority and the 
    presence of a problem of national scope. The Order provides for 
    preemption of state law only if there is clear Congressional intent for 
    the Agency to do so. Any such preemption is to be limited to the extent 
    possible.
        Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) 
    expresses Congress' clear intent to preempt state laws relating to 
    issues on which federal OSHA has promulgated occupational safety and 
    health standards. Under the OSH Act, a state can avoid preemption only 
    if it submits, and obtains Federal approval of a plan for the 
    development of such standards and their enforcement. Occupational 
    safety and health standards developed by such states must, among other 
    things, be at least as effective in providing safe and healthful 
    employment and places of employment as the federal standards. Where 
    such standards are applicable to products distributed or used in 
    interstate commerce, they may not burden commerce unduly and must be 
    justified by compelling local conditions (see section 18(c)(2) of the 
    OSH Act).
        The Federal standard on personal protective equipment addresses 
    hazards which are not unique to any one state or region of the country. 
    Nonetheless, states with occupational safety and health plans approved 
    under section 18, of the OSH Act, will be able to develop their own 
    state standards to deal with any special problems which might be 
    encountered in a particular state. Moreover, this standard is written 
    in general, performance-oriented terms. There is considerable 
    flexibility for methods of compliance which are appropriate to the 
    working conditions covered by the standard.
        In brief, this regulation addresses a clear national problem 
    related to occupational safety and health in shipyard employment. Those 
    states which have elected to participate under section 18, of the OSH 
    Act are not preempted by this standard, and will be able to deal with 
    any special conditions within the framework of the Federal Act, while 
    ensuring that the state standards are at least as effective as that 
    standard.
    
    VIII. State Plan Standards
    
        The 25 States and territories having OSHA-approved occupational 
    safety and health plans which cover the issues of maritime safety and 
    health must revise their existing standards within six months of the 
    publication date of a final standard, or show OSHA why there is no need 
    for action because an existing state standard covering this area is 
    already ``at least as effective'' as the revised Federal standard. 
    Currently five states (California, Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont, and 
    Washington) have their own state plans which cover the private sector 
    on-shore maritime activities.
        Federal OSHA enforces maritime standards off shore in all states 
    and provides on-shore coverage of maritime activities in Federal OSHA 
    States and in the following State plan States and territories: Alaska, 
    Arizona, Connecticut, (plan covers only State and local government 
    employees), Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, 
    Nevada, New Mexico, New York, (plan covers only State and local 
    government employees), North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, 
    Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Virgin Islands, and Wyoming are All States 
    with State plans also must extend coverage to state and local 
    government employees engaged in maritime activities.
    
    List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1915
    
        Eye protection, Face protection, Fall protection, Foot protection, 
    Hazard assessment, Head protection, Hard hats, Incorporation by 
    reference, Personal flotation devices, Marine safety, Occupational 
    safety and health, Personal Fall Arrest Systems, Positioning Device 
    Systems, Protective equipment, Respirators, Respiratory protection, 
    Safety, Ship repair, Shipyards, Snaphooks, and Vessels.
    
    IX. Authority
    
        This document has been prepared under the direction of Joseph A. 
    Dear, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 
    U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 
    20210.
        Accordingly, pursuant to sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational 
    Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); section 41, of 
    the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act as amended (33 U.S.C. 
    941); Section 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553); 
    Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-90 (55 FR 9033); and 29 CFR part 1911, 
    29 CFR part 1915 is amended as set forth below.
    
    
    [[Page 26351]]
    
    
        Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of April 1996.
    Joseph A. Dear,
    Assistant Secretary of Labor.
    
    PART 1915--[AMENDED]
    
        1. The Authority citation for part 1915 continues to read as 
    follows:
    
        Authority: Secs. 4, 6, and 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act 
    of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); section 41, Longshore and Harbor 
    Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941), Secretary of Labor's 
    Order No. 8-76 (41 FR 25059), No. 9-83 (48 FR 35736), No. 1-90 (55 
    FR 9033), and 29 CFR part 1911.
    
        2. Section 1915.32 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read 
    as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 1915.32  Toxic cleaning solvents.
    
        (a) * * *
        (3) Employees shall be protected against toxic vapors by suitable 
    respiratory protective equipment in accordance with the requirements of 
    subpart I of this Part and, where necessary, against exposure of skin 
    and eye contact with toxic solvents and their vapors by suitable 
    clothing and equipment.
    * * * * *
        3. Section 1915.33 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
    follows:
    
    
    Sec. 1915.33  Chemical paint and preservative removers.
    
        (a) Employees shall be protected against skin contact during the 
    handling and application of chemical paint and preservative removers 
    and shall be protected against eye injury by goggles or face shields in 
    accordance with the requirements of subpart I of this part.
    * * * * *
        4. Section 1915.34 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), 
    (a)(4), (b)(1), (c)(3)(i), (c)(3)(ii), and (c)(3)(iii) to read as 
    follows:
    
    
    Sec. 1915.34  Mechanical paint removers.
    
        (a) * * *
        (1) Employees engaged in the removal of paints, preservatives, 
    rusts, or other coatings by means of power tools shall be protected 
    against eye injury by using goggles or face shields in accordance with 
    the requirements of subpart I of this part.
    * * * * *
        (4) In a confined space, mechanical exhaust ventilation sufficient 
    to keep the dust concentration to a minimum shall be used, or employees 
    shall be protected by respiratory protective equipment in accordance 
    with the requirements of subpart I of this part.
        (b) * * *
        (1) Hardened preservative coatings shall not be removed by flame in 
    enclosed spaces unless the employees exposed to fumes are protected by 
    air line respirators in accordance with the requirements of subpart I. 
    Employees performing such an operation in the open air, and those 
    exposed to the resulting fumes shall be protected by a fume filter type 
    respirator in accordance with the requirements of subpart I of this 
    part.
    * * * * *
        (c) * * *
        (3) * * *
        (i) Abrasive blasters working in enclosed spaces shall be protected 
    by hoods and air line respirators, or by air helmets of a positive 
    pressure type in accordance with the requirements of subpart I of this 
    part.
        (ii) Abrasive blasters working in the open shall be protected as 
    indicated in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section except that when 
    synthetic abrasive containing less than one percent free silica are 
    used, filter type respirators approved jointly by the National 
    Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the Mine Safety and 
    Health Administration for exposure to lead dusts, used in conjunction 
    with the proper eye, face and head protection, may be used in 
    accordance with subpart I of this part.
        (iii) Employees, other than blasters, including machine tenders and 
    abrasive recovery men, working in areas where unsafe concentrations of 
    abrasive materials and dusts are present shall be protected by eye and 
    respiratory protective equipment in accordance with the requirements of 
    subpart I of this part.
    * * * * *
        5. Section 1915.35 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i), 
    (a)(1)(ii), (a)(1)(iii), (a)(2), (b)(13), and (b)(14) to read as 
    follows:
    
    
    Sec. 1915.35  Painting.
    
        (a) * * *
        (1) * * *
        (i) In confined spaces, employees continuously exposed to such 
    spraying shall be protected by air line respirators in accordance with 
    the requirements of subpart I of this part.
        (ii) In tanks or compartments, employees continuously exposed to 
    such spraying shall be protected by air line respirators in accordance 
    with the requirements of subpart I. Where mechanical ventilation is 
    provided, employees shall be protected by respirators in accordance 
    with the requirements of subpart I of this part.
        (iii) In large and well ventilated areas, employees exposed to such 
    spraying shall be protected by respirators in accordance with the 
    requirements of subpart I of this part.
        (2) Where brush application of paints with toxic solvents is done 
    in confined spaces or in other areas where lack of ventilation creates 
    a hazard, employees shall be protected by filter respirators in 
    accordance with the requirements of subpart I of this part.
    * * * * *
        (b) * * *
        (13) All employees continuously in a compartment in which such 
    painting is being performed shall be protected by air line respirators 
    in accordance with the requirements of Subpart I of this part and by 
    suitable protective clothing. Employees entering such compartments for 
    a limited time shall be protected by filter cartridge type respirators 
    in accordance with the requirements of subpart I of this part.
        (14) All employees doing exterior paint spraying with such paints 
    shall be protected by suitable filter cartridge type respirators in 
    accordance with the requirements of subpart I of this part and by 
    suitable protective clothing.
        6. Section 1915 would be amended by removing Table I-1 from 
    Sec. 1915.118.
        7. Section 1915.134 is amended by revising paragraph (j) to read as 
    follows:
    
    
    Sec. 1915.134   Abrasive wheels.
    
    * * * * *
        (j) All employees using abrasive wheels shall be protected by eye 
    protection equipment in accordance with the requirements of Subpart I 
    of this part except when adequate eye protection is afforded by eye 
    shields which are permanently attached to the bench or floor stand.
        8. Section 1915.135 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(9) to read 
    as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 1915.135   Powder actuated fastening tools.
    
    * * * * *
        (b) * * *
        (9) Employees using powder actuated fastening tools shall be 
    protected by personal protective equipment in accordance with the 
    requirements of subpart I of this part.
    * * * * *
        9. Subpart I of Part 1915 is revised to read as follows:
    
    Subpart I--Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
    
    Sec.
    1915.151  Scope, application and definitions.
    1915.152  General requirements.
    1915.153  Eye and face protection.
    1915.154  Respiratory protection.
    1915.155  Head protection.
    1915.156  Foot protection.
    1915.157  Hand and body protection.
    1915.158  Lifesaving equipment.
    
    [[Page 26352]]
    
    1915.159  Personal fall arrest systems (PFAS).
    1915.160  Positioning device systems.
    
    Appendix A to subpart I--Non-mandatory Guidelines for Hazard 
    Assessment, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Selection, and PPE 
    Training program.
    Appendix B to subpart I-- General Testing Conditions and Additional 
    Guidelines for Personal Fall Protection Systems.
    
    Subpart I--Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
    
    
    Sec. 1915.151   Scope, application and definitions.
    
        (a) Scope and application. This subpart applies to all work in 
    shipyard employment regardless of geographic location.
        (b) Definitions applicable to this subpart.
        Anchorage means a secure point of attachment for lifelines, 
    lanyards, or deceleration devices.
        Body belt means a strap with means for both securing it about the 
    waist and attaching it to a lanyard, lifeline, or deceleration device.
        Body harness means straps which may be secured about the employee 
    in a manner that will distribute the fall arrest forces over at least 
    the thighs, shoulders, chest and pelvis with means for attaching it to 
    other components of a personal fall arrest system.
        Connector means a device which is used to couple (connect) parts of 
    a personal fall arrest system or parts of a positioning device system 
    together. It may be an independent component of the system, such as a 
    carabiner, or it may be an integral component of part of the system 
    (such as a buckle or D-ring sewn into a body belt or body harness or a 
    snaphook spliced or sewn to a lanyard or self-retracting lanyard).
        Deceleration device means any mechanism, such as a rope grab, 
    ripstitch lanyard, specially woven lanyard, tearing or deforming 
    lanyard, or automatic self-retracting lifeline/lanyard, which serves to 
    dissipate a substantial amount of energy during a fall arrest, or 
    otherwise limit the energy imposed on an employee during fall arrest.
        Deceleration distance means the additional vertical distance a 
    falling employee travels, excluding lifeline elongation and free fall 
    distance, before stopping, from the point at which the deceleration 
    device begins to operate. It is measured as the distance between the 
    location of an employee's body belt or body harness attachment point at 
    the moment of activation (at the onset of fall arrest forces) of the 
    deceleration device during a fall, and the location of that attachment 
    point after the employee comes to a full stop.
        Equivalent means alternative designs, materials, or methods to 
    protect against a hazard which the employer can demonstrate will 
    provide an equal or greater degree of safety for employees than the 
    method or item specified in the standard.
        Free fall means the act of falling before a personal fall arrest 
    system begins to apply force to arrest the fall.
        Free fall distance means the vertical displacement of the fall 
    arrest attachment point on the employee's body belt or body harness 
    between onset of the fall and just before the system begins to apply 
    force to arrest the fall. This distance excludes deceleration distance, 
    and lifeline/lanyard elongation, but includes any deceleration device 
    slide distance or self-retracting lifeline/lanyard extension before the 
    device operates and fall arrest forces occur.
        Lanyard means a flexible line of rope, wire rope, or strap which 
    generally has a connector at each end for connecting the body belt or 
    body harness to a deceleration device, lifeline, or anchorage.
        Lifeline means a component consisting of a flexible line for 
    connection to an anchorage at one end to hang vertically (vertical 
    lifeline), or for connection to anchorages at both ends to stretch 
    horizontally (horizontal lifeline), and which serves as a means for 
    connecting other components of a personal fall arrest system to the 
    anchorage.
        Lower levels means those areas or surfaces to which an employee can 
    fall. Such areas or surfaces include but are not limited to ground 
    levels, floors, ramps, tanks, materials, water, excavations, pits, 
    vessels, structures, or portions thereof.
        Personal fall arrest system means a system used to arrest an 
    employee in a fall from a working level. It consists of an anchorage, 
    connectors, body belt or body harness and may include a lanyard, a 
    deceleration device, a lifeline, or a suitable combination of these. As 
    of January 1, 1998, the use of a body belt for fall arrest is 
    prohibited.
        Positioning device system means a body belt or body harness system 
    rigged to allow an employee to be supported at an elevated vertical 
    surface, such as a wall or window, and to be able to work with both 
    hands free while leaning.
        Qualified person means a person who by possession of a recognized 
    degree or certificate of professional standing, or who, by extensive 
    knowledge, training, and experience, has successfully demonstrated the 
    ability to solve or resolve problems related to the subject matter and 
    work.
        Restraint (tether) line means a line from an anchorage, or between 
    anchorages, to which the employee is secured in such a way as to 
    prevent the employee from walking or falling off an elevated work 
    surface. Note: A restraint line is not necessarily designed to 
    withstand forces resulting from a fall.
        Rope grab means a deceleration device which travels on a lifeline 
    and automatically, by friction, engages the lifeline and locks so as to 
    arrest the fall of an employee. A rope grab usually employs the 
    principle of inertial locking, cam/level locking or both.
    
    
    Sec. 1915.152   General requirements.
    
        (a) Provision and use of equipment. The employer shall provide and 
    shall ensure that each affected employee uses the appropriate personal 
    protective equipment (PPE) for the eyes, face, head, extremities, 
    torso, and respiratory system, including protective clothing, 
    protective shields, protective barriers, personal fall protection 
    equipment, and life saving equipment, meeting the applicable provisions 
    of this subpart, wherever employees are exposed to work activity 
    hazards that require the use of PPE.
        (b) Hazard assessment and equipment selection. The employer shall 
    assess its work activity to determine whether there are hazards 
    present, or likely to be present, which necessitate the employee's use 
    of PPE.
    
        Note 1 to paragraph (b): A hazard assessment conducted according 
    to the trade or occupation of affected employees will be considered 
    to comply with paragraph (b) of this section, if the assessment 
    addresses any PPE-related hazards to which employees are exposed in 
    the course of their work activities. If such hazards are present, or 
    likely to be present, the employer shall:
        (1) Select the type of PPE that will protect the affected 
    employee from the hazards identified in the occupational hazard 
    assessment;
        (2) Communicate selection decisions to affected employees;
        (3) Select PPE that properly fits each affected employee; and
        (4) Verify that the required occupational hazard assessment has 
    been performed through a document that contains the following 
    information: occupation, the date(s) of the hazard assessment, and 
    the name of the person performing the hazard assessment.
    
        Note 2 to paragraph (b): Non-mandatory Appendix A to this 
    subpart contains examples of procedures that will comply with the 
    requirement for an occupational hazard assessment.
    
        (c) Defective and damaged equipment. Defective or damaged PPE shall 
    not be used.
    
    [[Page 26353]]
    
        (d) Reissued equipment. The employer shall ensure that all 
    unsanitary PPE, including that which has been used by employees, be 
    cleaned and disinfected before it is reissued.
        (e) Training. (1) The employer shall provide training to each 
    employee who is required, by this section, to use PPE (exception: 
    training in the use of personal fall arrest systems and positioning 
    device systems training is covered in Sections 1915.159 and 1915.160). 
    Each employee shall be trained to understand at least the following:
        (i) When PPE is necessary;
        (ii) What PPE is necessary;
        (iii) How to properly don, doff, adjust, and wear PPE;
        (iv) The limitations of the PPE; and,
        (v) The proper care, maintenance, useful life and disposal of the 
    PPE.
        (2) The employer shall ensure that each effected employee 
    demonstrates the ability to use PPE properly before being allowed to 
    perform work requiring the use of PPE.
        (3) The employer shall retrain any employee who does not understand 
    or display the skills required by paragraph (e)(2) of this section. 
    Circumstances where retraining is required include, but are not limited 
    to, situations where:
        (i) Changes in occupation or work render previous training 
    obsolete; or
        (ii) Changes in the types of PPE to be used render previous 
    training obsolete; or
        (iii) Inadequacies in an affected employee's knowledge or use of 
    assigned PPE indicate that the employee has not retained the requisite 
    understanding or skill.
        (4) The employer shall verify that each affected employee has 
    received the required training through a document that contains the 
    following information: name of each employee trained, the date(s) of 
    training, and type of training the employee received.
    
    
    Sec. 1915.153   Eye and face protection.
    
        (a) General requirements. (1) The employer shall ensure that each 
    affected employee uses appropriate eye or face protection where there 
    are exposures to eye or face hazards caused by flying particles, molten 
    metal, liquid chemicals, acid or caustic liquids, chemical gases or 
    vapors, or potentially injurious light radiation.
        (2) The employer shall ensure that each affected employee uses eye 
    or face protection that provides side protection when there is a hazard 
    from flying objects. Detachable side protectors (e.g., a clip-on or 
    slide-on side shield) meeting the pertinent requirements of this 
    section are acceptable.
        (3) The employer shall ensure that each affected employee who wears 
    prescription lenses while engaged in operations that involve eye 
    hazards wears eye protection that incorporates the prescription in its 
    design, unless the employee is protected by eye protection that can be 
    worn over prescription lenses without disturbing the proper position of 
    either the PPE or the prescription lenses.
        (4) The employer shall ensure that each affected employee uses 
    equipment with filter lenses that have a shade number that provides 
    appropriate protection from injurious light radiation. Table I-1 is a 
    listing of appropriate shade numbers for various operations. If filter 
    lenses are used in goggles worn under a helmet which has a lens, the 
    shade number of the lens in the helmet may be reduced so that the shade 
    numbers of the two lenses will equal the value as shown in Table I-1, 
    Sec. 1915.153.
    
                             Table I-1.--Filter Lenses for Protection Against Radiant Energy                        
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           Minimum  
                    Operations                  Electrode size \1/32\ in.           Arc current           protective
                                                                                                            shade   
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Shielded metal arc welding...............  Less than 3................  Less than..................            7
                                               3-5........................  60.........................            8
                                               5-8........................  60-160.....................           10
                                               More than 8................  160-250....................           11
                                               ...........................  250-550....................  ...........
    Gas metal arc welding and flux cored arc   ...........................  Less than..................            7
     welding.                                                                                                       
                                               ...........................  60.........................           10
                                               ...........................  60-160.....................           10
                                               ...........................  160-250....................           10
                                               ...........................  250-500....................  ...........
    Gas Tungsten arc welding.................  ...........................  Less than..................            8
                                               ...........................  50.........................            8
                                               ...........................  50-150.....................           10
                                               ...........................  150-500....................  ...........
    Air carbon...............................  (Light)....................  Less than..................           10
    Arc cutting..............................  (Heavy)....................  500........................           11
                                                                            500-1000...................  ...........
    Plasma arc welding.......................  ...........................  Less than..................            6
                                               ...........................  20.........................            8
                                               ...........................  20-........................           10
                                               ...........................  100........................           11
                                               ...........................  100-.......................  ...........
                                               ...........................  400........................  ...........
                                               ...........................  400-.......................  ...........
                                               ...........................  800........................  ...........
    Plasma arc cutting.......................  (light)**..................  Less than 300..............            8
                                               (medium)**.................  300-400....................            9
                                               (heavy)**..................  400-800....................           10
    Torch brazing............................  ...........................  ...........................            3
    Torch soldering..........................  ...........................  ...........................            2
    Carbon Arc welding.......................  ...........................  ...........................          14 
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ** These values apply where the actual arc is clearly seen. Lighter filters may be used when the arc is hidden  
      by the workpiece.                                                                                             
    
    
    [[Page 26354]]
    
    
    
                                   Filter Lenses for Protection Against Radiant Energy                              
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           Minimum* 
                    Operations                   Plate thickness-- inches       Plate thickness-- mm      protective
                                                                                                            shade   
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Gas welding:                                                                                                    
        Light................................  Under \1/8\................  Under 3.2..................            4
        Medium...............................  \1/8\ to \1/2\.............  3.2 to 12.7................            5
        Heavy................................  Over \1/2\.................  Over 12.7..................            6
    Oxygen cutting                                                                                                  
        Light................................  Under 1....................  Under 25...................            3
        Medium...............................  1 to 6.....................  25 to 150..................            4
        Heavy................................  Over 6.....................  Over 150...................           5 
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * As a rule of thumb, start with a shade that is too dark to see the weld zone. Then go to a lighter shade which
      gives sufficient view of the weld zone without going below the minimum. In oxyfuel gas welding or cutting     
      where the torch produces a high yellow light, it is desirable to use a filter lens that absorbs the yellow or 
      sodium line in the visible light of the (spectrum) operation.                                                 
    
        (b) Criteria for Protective Eye and Face Devices
        (1) Protective eye and face devices purchased after (insert 
    effective date of final rule) shall comply with the American National 
    Standards Institute, ANSI Z87.1-1989, ``Practice for Occupational and 
    Educational Eye and Face Protection,'' which is incorporated by 
    reference as specified in Sec. 1915.5, or shall be demonstrated by the 
    employer to be equally effective.
        (2) Eye and face protective devices purchased before (insert 
    effective date of final rule) shall comply with ``American National 
    Standard Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face 
    Protection, Z87.1 -1979,'' which is incorporated by reference as 
    specified in Sec. 1915.5, or shall be demonstrated by the employer to 
    be equally effective.
    
    
    Sec. 1915.154  Respiratory protection.
    
        Respiratory protection for shipyard employment is covered by 29 CFR 
    1910.134.
    
    
    Sec. 1915.155  Head protection.
    
        (a) Use. (1) The employer shall ensure that each affected employee 
    wears a protective helmet when working in areas where there is a 
    potential for injury to the head from falling objects.
        (2) The employer shall ensure that each affected employee wears a 
    protective helmet designed to reduce electrical shock hazards where 
    there is potential for electric shock or burns due to contact with 
    exposed electrical conductors which could contact the head.
        (b) Criteria for protective helmets. (1) Protective helmets 
    purchased after August 22, 1996 shall comply with ANSI Z89.l-1986, 
    ``Personnel Protection--Protective Headwear for Industrial Workers-
    Requirements,'' which is incorporated by reference, as specified in 
    Sec. 1915.5, or shall be demonstrated by the employer to be equally 
    effective.
        (2) Protective helmets purchased before August 22, 1996 shall 
    comply with the ``American National Standard Safety Requirements for 
    Industrial Head Protection, Z89.1-1969,'' which is incorporated by 
    reference as specified in 1915.5, or shall be demonstrated by the 
    employer to be equally effective.
    
    
    Sec. 1915.156  Foot protection.
    
        (a) Use. The employer shall ensure that each affected employee 
    wears protective footwear when working in areas where there is a danger 
    of foot injuries due to falling or rolling objects or objects piercing 
    the sole.
        (b) Criteria for protective footwear. (1) Protective footwear 
    purchased after August 22, 1996 shall comply with ANSI Z41-1991, 
    ``American National Standard for Personal Protection-Protective 
    Footwear,'' which is incorporated by reference, as specified in 
    Sec. 1915.5, or shall be demonstrated by the employer to be equally as 
    effective.
        (2) Protective footwear purchased before August 22, 1996 shall 
    comply with the ``American National Standard for Personal Protection- 
    Protective Footwear Z41-1983,'' which is incorporated by reference, as 
    specified in Sec. 1915.5, or shall be demonstrated by the employer to 
    be equally effective.
    
    
    Sec. 1915.157  Hand and body protection.
    
        (a) Use. The employer shall ensure that each affected employee uses 
    appropriate hand protection and other protective clothing where there 
    is exposure to hazards such as skin absorption of harmful substances, 
    severe cuts or lacerations, severe abrasions, punctures, chemical 
    burns, thermal burns, harmful temperature extremes, and sharp objects.
        (b) Hot work operations. The employer shall ensure that no employee 
    wears clothing impregnated or covered in full or in part with flammable 
    or combustible materials (such as grease or oil) while engaged in hot 
    work operations or working near an ignition source.
        (c) Electrical Protective Devices. The employer shall ensure that 
    each affected employee wears protective electrical insulating gloves 
    and sleeves or other electrical protective equipment, if that employee 
    is exposed to electrical shock hazards while working on electrical 
    equipment.
    
    
    Sec. 1915.158  Lifesaving equipment.
    
        (a) Personal flotation devices. (1) Personal flotation devices 
    (PFD) (life preservers, life jackets and work vests) worn by each 
    affected employee shall be any United States Coast Guard (USCG) 
    approved and marked Type I PFD, Type II PFD, or Type III PFD; or PFDs 
    shall be a USCG approved Type V PFD which is marked for use as a work 
    vest, for commercial use, or for use on vessels. USCG approval is 
    pursuant to 46 CFR part 160, subpart Q, Coast Guard Lifesaving 
    Equipment Specifications.
        (2) Prior to each use, personal floatation devices shall be 
    inspected for dry rot, chemical damage, or other defects which may 
    affect their strength and buoyancy. Defective personal floatation 
    devices shall not be used.
        (b) Ring life buoys and ladders. (1) When work is being performed 
    on a floating vessel 200 feet (61 m) or more in length, at least three 
    30-inch (0.76 m) U.S. Coast Guard approved ring life buoys with lines 
    attached shall be located in readily visible and accessible places. 
    Ring life buoys shall be located one forward, one aft, and one at the 
    access to the gangway.
        (2) On floating vessels under 200 feet (61 m) in length, at least 
    one 30-inch (0.76 m) U.S. Coast Guard approved ring life buoy with line 
    attached shall be located at the gangway.
        (3) At least one 30-inch (0.76 m) U. S. Coast Guard approved ring 
    life buoy with a line attached shall be located on each staging 
    alongside of a floating
    
    [[Page 26355]]
    
    vessel on which work is being performed.
        (4) At least 90 feet (27 m) of line shall be attached to each ring 
    life buoy.
        (5) There shall be at least one portable or permanent ladder in the 
    vicinity of each floating vessel on which work is being performed. The 
    ladder shall be of sufficient length to assist employees to reach 
    safety in the event they fall into the water.
    
    
    Sec. 1915.159  Personal fall arrest systems (PFAS).
    
        The criteria of this section apply to PFAS and their use. Effective 
    January 1, 1998, body belts and non-locking snaphooks are not 
    acceptable as part of a personal fall arrest system.
        (a) Criteria for connectors and anchorages. (1) Connectors shall be 
    made of drop forged, pressed, or formed steel or shall be made of 
    materials with equivalent strength.
        (2) Connectors shall have a corrosion-resistant finish, and all 
    surfaces and edges shall be smooth to prevent damage to the interfacing 
    parts of the system.
        (3) D-rings and snaphooks shall be capable of sustaining a minimum 
    tensile load of 5,000 pounds (22.2 Kn).
        (4) D-rings and snaphooks shall be proof-tested to a minimum 
    tensile load of 3,600 pounds (16 Kn) without cracking, breaking, or 
    being permanently deformed.
        (5) Snaphooks shall be sized to be compatible with the member to 
    which they are connected to prevent unintentional disengagement of the 
    snaphook caused by depression of the snaphook keeper by the connected 
    member, or shall be of a locking type that is designed and used to 
    prevent disengagement of the snap-hook by contact of the snaphook 
    keeper by the connected member.
        (6) Snaphooks, unless of a locking type designed and used to 
    prevent disengagement from the following connections, shall not be 
    engaged:
        (i) directly to webbing, rope or wire rope;
        (ii) to each other;
        (iii) to a D-ring to which another snaphook or other connector is 
    attached;
        (iv) to a horizontal lifeline; or
        (v) to any object that is incompatibly shaped or dimensioned in 
    relation to the snaphook such that unintentional disengagement could 
    occur by the connected object being able to depress the snaphook keeper 
    and release itself.
        (7) On suspended scaffolds or similar work platforms with 
    horizontal lifelines that may become vertical lifelines, the devices 
    used for connection to the horizontal lifeline shall be capable of 
    locking in any direction on the lifeline.
        (8) Anchorages used for attachment of personal fall arrest 
    equipment shall be independent of any anchorage being used to support 
    or suspend platforms.
        (9) Anchorages shall be capable of supporting at least 5,000 pounds 
    (22.2 Kn) per employee attached, or shall be designed, installed, and 
    used as follows:
        (i) as part of a complete personal fall arrest system which 
    maintains a safety factor of at least two; and
        (ii) under the direction and supervision of a qualified person.
        (b) Criteria for lifelines, lanyards, and personal fall arrest 
    systems.
        (1) When vertical lifelines are used, each employee shall be 
    provided with a separate lifeline.
        (2) Vertical lifelines and lanyards shall have a minimum tensile 
    strength of 5,000 pounds (22.2 Kn).
        (3) Self-retracting lifelines and lanyards that automatically limit 
    free fall distances to 2 feet (0.61 m) or less shall be capable of 
    sustaining a minimum tensile load of 3000 pounds (13.3 Kn) applied to a 
    self-retracting lifeline or lanyard with the lifeline or lanyard in the 
    fully extended position.
        (4) Self-retracting lifelines and lanyards which do not limit free 
    fall distance to 2 feet (0.61 m) or less, ripstitch lanyards and 
    tearing and deforming lanyards shall be capable of sustaining a minimum 
    static tensile load of 5,000 pounds (22.2 Kn) applied to the device 
    when they are in the fully extended position.
        (5) Horizontal lifelines shall be designed, installed, and used 
    under the supervision of a qualified person, and shall only be used as 
    part of a complete personal fall arrest system that maintains a safety 
    factor of at least two.
        (6) Effective November 20, 1996, personal fall arrest systems 
    shall:
        (i) limit the maximum arresting force on a falling employee to 900 
    pounds (4 Kn) when used with a body belt;
        (ii) limit the maximum arresting force on a falling employee to 
    1,800 pounds (8 Kn) when used with a body harness;
        (iii) bring a falling employee to a complete stop and limit the 
    maximum deceleration distance an employee travels to 3.5 feet (1.07 m), 
    and
        (iv) have sufficient strength to withstand twice the potential 
    impact energy of an employee free falling a distance of 6 feet (1.8 m), 
    or the free fall distance permitted by the system, whichever is less;
    
        Note to paragraph (b)(6) of this section: A personal fall arrest 
    system which meets the criteria and protocols contained in Appendix 
    B, is considered to comply with paragraph (b)(6). If the combined 
    tool and body weight is 310 pounds (140 kg) or more, systems that 
    meet the criteria and protocols contained in Appendix B will be 
    deemed to comply with the provisions of paragraphs (b)(6) only if 
    they are modified appropriately to provide protection for the extra 
    weight of the employee and tools.
    
        (7) Personal fall arrest systems shall be rigged such that an 
    employee can neither free fall more than 6 feet (1.8 m) nor contact any 
    lower level.
        (c) Criteria for selection, use and care of systems and system 
    components. (1) Lanyards shall be attached to employees using personal 
    fall arrest systems, as follows:
        (i) The attachment point of a body harness shall be located in the 
    center of the wearer's back near the shoulder level, or above the 
    wearer's head. If the free fall distance is limited to less than 20 
    inches, the attachment point may be located in the chest position; and
        (ii) The attachment point of a body belt shall be located in the 
    center of the wearer's back.
        (2) Ropes and straps (webbing) used in lanyards, lifelines and 
    strength components of body belts and body harnesses shall be made from 
    synthetic fibers or wire rope.
        (3) Ropes, belts, harnesses, and lanyards shall be compatible with 
    their hardware.
        (4) Lifelines and lanyards shall be protected against cuts, 
    abrasions, burns from hot work operations and deterioration by acids, 
    solvents, and other chemicals.
        (5) Personal fall arrest systems shall be inspected prior to each 
    use for mildew, wear, damage, and other deterioration. Defective 
    components shall be removed from service.
        (6) Personal fall arrest systems and components subjected to impact 
    loading shall be immediately removed from service and shall not be used 
    again for employee protection until inspected and determined by a 
    qualified person to be undamaged and suitable for reuse.
        (7) The employer shall provide for prompt rescue of employees in 
    the event of a fall or shall ensure that employees are able to rescue 
    themselves.
        (8) Body belts shall be at least one and five eighths inches (4.1 
    cm) wide.
        (9) Personal fall arrest systems and components shall be used only 
    for employee fall protection and not to hoist materials.
        (d) Training. Before using personal fall arrest equipment, each 
    affected employee shall be trained to understand the application limits 
    of the equipment and proper hook-up, anchoring, and tie-off techniques. 
    Affected employees shall also be trained so that they can demonstrate 
    the proper use, inspection, and storage of their equipment.
    
    [[Page 26356]]
    
    Sec. 1915.160  Positioning device systems.
    
        Positioning device systems and their use shall conform to the 
    following provisions:
        (a) Criteria for connectors and anchorages. (1) Connectors shall 
    have a corrosion-resistant finish, and all surfaces and edges shall be 
    smooth to prevent damage to interfacing parts of this system.
        (2) Connecting assemblies shall have a minimum tensile strength of 
    5,000 pounds (22.2 Kn).
        (3) Positioning device systems shall be secured to an anchorage 
    capable of supporting at least twice the potential impact load of an 
    employee's fall.
        (4) Snaphooks, unless each is of a locking type designed and used 
    to prevent disengagement, shall not be connected to each other. As of 
    January 1, 1998, only locking type snaphooks shall be used in 
    positioning device systems.
        (b) Criteria for positioning device systems. (1) Restraint (tether) 
    lines shall have a minimum breaking strength of 3,000 pounds (13.3 Kn).
        (2) The following system performance criteria for positioning 
    device systems are effective November 20, 1996:
        (i) A window cleaner's positioning system shall be capable of 
    withstanding without failure a drop test consisting of a 6 foot (1.83 
    m) drop of a 250 pound (113 kg) weight. The system shall limit the 
    initial arresting force to not more than 2,000 pounds (8.89 Kn), with a 
    duration not to exceed 2 milliseconds. The system shall limit any 
    subsequent arresting forces imposed on the falling employee to not more 
    than 1,000 pounds (4.45 Kn);
        (ii) All other positioning device systems shall be capable of 
    withstanding without failure a drop test consisting of a 4- foot (1.2 
    m) drop of a 250-pound (113 kg) weight.
    
        Note to paragraph (b)(2) of this section: Positioning device 
    systems which comply with the provisions of Section 2 of Non-
    mandatory Appendix B to this subpart shall be deemed to meet the 
    requirements of this paragraph (b)(2).
    
        (c) Criteria for the use and care of positioning device systems. 
    (1) Positioning device systems shall be inspected before each use for 
    mildew, wear, damage, and other deterioration. Defective components 
    shall be removed from service.
        (2) A positioning device system or component subjected to impact 
    loading shall be immediately removed from service and shall not be used 
    again for employee protection, unless inspected and determined by a 
    qualified person to be undamaged and suitable for reuse.
        (d) Training. Before using a positioning device system, employees 
    shall be trained in the application limits, proper hook-up, anchoring 
    and tie-off techniques, methods of use, inspection, and storage of 
    positioning device systems.
    
    Appendix A to Subpart I--Non-mandatory Guidelines for Hazard 
    Assessment, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Selection, and PPE 
    Training Program
    
        This Appendix is intended to provide compliance assistance for 
    hazard assessment, selection of personal protective equipment (PPE) 
    and PPE training. It neither adds to or detracts from the employer's 
    responsibility to comply with the provisions of this subpart.
        1. Controlling hazards. Employers and employees should not rely 
    exclusively on PPE for protection from hazards. PPE should be used, 
    where appropriate, in conjunction with engineering controls, guards, 
    and safe work practices and procedures.
        2. Assessment and selection. Employers need to consider certain 
    general guidelines for assessing the hazardous situations that are 
    likely to arise under foreseeable work activity conditions and to 
    match employee PPE to the identified hazards. The employer should 
    designate a safety officer or some other qualified person to 
    exercise common sense and appropriate expertise to assess work 
    activity hazards and select PPE.
        3. Assessment guidelines. In order to assess the need for PPE 
    the following steps should be taken:
        a. Survey. Conduct a walk-through survey of the area in question 
    to identify sources of hazards.
        Categories for Consideration:
    
    (1) Impact
    (2) Penetration
    (3) Compression (roll-over)
    (4) Chemical
    (5) Heat
    (6) Harmful dust
    (7) Light (optical) radiation
    (8) Drowning
    (9) Falling
    
        b. Sources. During the walk-through survey the safety officer 
    should observe:
        (1) Sources of motion; for example, machinery or processes where 
    any movement of tools, machine elements or particles could exist, or 
    movement of personnel that could result in collision with stationary 
    objects.
        (2) Sources of high temperatures that could result in burns, eye 
    injury or ignition of protective equipment.
        (3) Types of chemical exposures.
        (4) Sources of harmful dust.
        (5) Sources of light radiation, for instance, welding, brazing, 
    cutting, heat treating, furnaces, and high intensity lights.
        (6) Sources of falling objects or potential for dropping 
    objects.
        (7) Sources of sharp objects which might pierce or cut the 
    hands.
        (8) Sources of rolling or pinching objects which could crush the 
    feet.
        (9) Layout of work place and location of co-workers.
        (10) Any electrical hazards.
        (11) Review injury/accident data to help identify problem areas.
        Organize data. Following the walk-through survey, it is 
    necessary to organize the data and other information obtained. That 
    material provides the basis for hazard assessment that enables the 
    employer to select the appropriate PPE.
        d. Analyze data. Having gathered and organized data regarding a 
    particular occupation, employers need to estimate the potential for 
    injuries. Each of the identified hazards (see paragraph 3.a.) should 
    be reviewed and classified as to its type, the level of risk, and 
    the seriousness of any potential injury. Where it is foreseeable 
    that an employee could be exposed to several hazards simultaneously, 
    the consequences of such exposure should be considered.
        4. Selection guidelines. After completion of the procedures in 
    paragraph 3, the general procedure for selection of protective 
    equipment is to:
        (a) become familiar with the potential hazards and the types of 
    protective equipment that are available, and what they can do; for 
    example, splash protection, and impact protection;
        (b) compare the hazards associated with the environment; for 
    instance, impact velocities, masses, projectile shapes, radiation 
    intensities, with the capabilities of the available protective 
    equipment;
        (c) select the protective equipment which ensures a level of 
    protection greater than the minimum required to protect employees 
    from the hazards; and
        (d) fit the user with the protective device and give 
    instructions on care and use of the PPE. It is very important that 
    users be made aware of all warning labels and limitations of their 
    PPE.
        5. Fitting the device. Careful consideration must be given to 
    comfort and fit. The employee will be most likely to wear the 
    protective device if it fits comfortably. PPE that does not fit 
    properly may not provide the necessary protection, and may create 
    other problems for wearers. Generally, protective devices are 
    available in a variety of sizes and choices. Therefore employers 
    should be careful to select the appropriate sized PPE.
        6. Devices with adjustable features. (a) Adjustments should be 
    made on an individual basis so the wearer will have a comfortable 
    fit that maintains the protective device in the proper position. 
    Particular care should be taken in fitting devices for eye 
    protection against dust and chemical splash to ensure that the seal 
    is appropriate for the face.
        (b) In addition, proper fitting of hard hats is important to 
    ensure that the hard hat will not fall off during work operations. 
    In some cases a chin strap may be necessary to keep the hard hat on 
    an employee's head. (Chin straps should break at a reasonably low 
    force to prevent a strangulation hazard). Where manufacturer's 
    instructions are available, they should be followed carefully.
        7. Reassessment of hazards. Compliance with the hazard 
    assessment requirements of Sec. 1915.152(b) will involve the 
    reassessment of work activities where changing circumstances make it 
    necessary. a. The
    
    [[Page 26357]]
    
    employer should have a safety officer or other qualified person 
    reassess the hazards of the work activity area as necessary. This 
    reassessment should take into account changes in the workplace or 
    work practices, such as those associated with the installation of 
    new equipment, and the lessons learned from reviewing accident 
    records, and a reevaluation performed to determine the suitability 
    of PPE selected for use.
        8. Selection chart guidelines for eye and face protection. 
    Examples of occupations for which eye protection should be routinely 
    considered are carpenters, engineers, coppersmiths, instrument 
    technicians, insulators, electricians, machinists, mobile equipment 
    mechanics and repairers, plumbers and ship fitters, sheet metal 
    workers and tinsmiths, grinding equipment operators, machine 
    operators, welders, boiler workers, painters, laborers, grit 
    blasters, ship fitters and burners. This is not a complete list of 
    occupations that require the use of eye protection. The following 
    chart provides general guidance for the proper selection of eye and 
    face protection to protect against hazards associated with the 
    listed hazard ``source'' operations.
    
                                         Eye and Face Protection Selection Chart                                    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Source                        Assessment of hazard                     Protection              
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Impact:                                                                                                         
        Chipping, grinding machining,         Flying fragments, objects,     Spectacles with side protection,       
         masonry work, woodworking, sawing,    large chips, particles,        goggles, face shields. See notes (1), 
         drilling, chiseling, powered          sand, dirt, etc.               (3), (5), (6), (10). For severe       
         fastening, riveting, and sanding.                                    exposure, use face shield.            
    Heat:                                                                                                           
        Furnace operations, pouring,          Hot sparks...................  Face shields, goggles, spectacles with 
         casting, hot dipping, and welding.                                   side protection. For severe exposure  
                                                                              use face shield. See notes (1), (2),  
                                                                              (3).                                  
                                              Splash from molten metals....  Face shields worn over goggles. See    
                                                                              notes (1), (2), (3).                  
                                              High temperature exposure....  Screen face shields, reflective face   
                                                                              shields. See notes (1), (2), (3).     
    Chemicals:                                                                                                      
        Acid and chemicals handling,          Splash.......................  Goggles, eyecup and cover types. For   
         degreasing, plating.                                                 severe exposure, use face shield. See 
                                                                              notes (3), (11).                      
                                              Irritating mists.............  Special-purpose goggles.               
    Dust:                                                                                                           
        Woodworking, buffing, general dusty   Nuisance dust................  Goggles, eyecup and cover types. See   
         conditions.                                                          note (8).                             
    Light and/or Radiation:                                                                                         
        Welding: Electric arc...............  Optical radiation............  Welding helmets or welding shields.    
                                                                              Typical shades: 10-14. See notes (9), 
                                                                              (12).                                 
        Welding: Gas........................  Optical radiation............  Welding goggles or welding face shield.
                                                                              Typical shades: gas welding 4-8,      
                                                                              cutting 3-6, brazing 3-4. See note    
                                                                              (9).                                  
        Cutting, Torch brazing, Torch         Optical radiation............  Spectacles or welding face-shield.     
         soldering.                                                           Typical shades, 1.5-3. See notes (3), 
                                                                              (9).                                  
        Glare...............................  Poor vision..................  Spectacles with shaded or special-     
                                                                              purpose lenses, as suitable. See notes
                                                                              (9), (10).                            
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Notes to Eye and Face Protection Selection Chart
    
        (a) Care should be taken to recognize the possibility of 
    multiple and simultaneous exposure to a variety of hazards. Adequate 
    protection against the highest level of each of the hazards should 
    be provided. Protective devices do not provide unlimited protection.
        (b) Operations involving heat may also involve light radiation. 
    As required by the standard, protection from both hazards must be 
    provided.
        (c) Face shields should only be worn over primary eye protection 
    (spectacles or goggles).
        (d) As required by the standard, filter lenses must meet the 
    requirements for shade designations in Sec. 1915.153(a)(4). Tinted 
    and shaded lenses are not filter lenses unless they are marked or 
    identified as such.
        (e) As required by the standard, persons whose vision requires 
    the use of prescription (Rx) lenses must wear either protective 
    devices fitted with prescription (Rx) lenses or protective devices 
    designed to be worn over regular prescription (Rx) eye wear.
        (f) Wearers of contact lenses must also wear appropriate eye and 
    face protection devices in a hazardous environment. It should be 
    recognized that dusty and/or chemical environments may represent an 
    additional hazard to contact lens wearers.
        (g) Caution should be exercised in the use of metal frame 
    protective devices in electrical hazard areas.
        (h) Atmospheric conditions and the restricted ventilation of the 
    protector can cause lenses to fog. Frequent cleansing may be 
    necessary.
        (i) Welding helmets or face shields should be used only over 
    primary eye protection (spectacles or goggles).
        (j) Non-side shield spectacles are available for frontal 
    protection only, but are not acceptable eye protection for the 
    sources and operations listed for ``impact.''
        (k) Ventilation should be adequate, but well protected from 
    splash entry. Eye and face protection should be designed and used so 
    that it provides both adequate ventilation and protects the wearer 
    from splash entry.
        (l) Protection from light radiation is directly related to 
    filter lens density. See note (d). Select the darkest shade that 
    allows task performance.
        9. Selection guidelines for head protection. (a) Hard hats are 
    designed to provide protection from impact and penetration hazards 
    caused by falling objects. Head protection is also available which 
    provides protection from electric shock and burn. When selecting 
    head protection, knowledge of potential electrical hazards is 
    important. Class A helmets, in addition to impact and penetration 
    resistance, provide electrical protection from low-voltage 
    conductors. (They are proof tested to 2,200 volts.) Class B helmets, 
    in addition to impact and penetration resistance, provide electrical 
    protection from high-voltage conductors. (They are proof tested to 
    20,000 volts.) Class C helmets provide impact and penetration 
    resistance. (They are usually made of aluminum, which conducts 
    electricity and should not be used around electrical hazards.)
        (b) Where falling object hazards are present, head protection 
    must be worn. Some examples of exposure include: working below other 
    workers who are using tools and materials which could fall; working 
    around or under conveyor belts which are carrying parts or 
    materials; working below machinery or processes which might cause 
    material or objects to fall; and working on exposed energized 
    conductors.
        (c) Examples of occupations for which head protection should be 
    considered are: carpenters, electricians, machinists, boilermakers, 
    erectors, plumbers, coppersmiths, ship fitters, welders, laborers 
    and material handlers.
    
    [[Page 26358]]
    
        10. Selection guidelines for foot protection. (a) Safety shoes 
    and boots must meet ANSI Z41-1991 and provide impact and compression 
    protection to the foot. Where necessary, safety shoes can be 
    obtained which provide puncture protection. In some work situations, 
    metatarsal protection should be provided, and in some other special 
    situations electrical conductive or insulating safety shoes would be 
    appropriate.
        (b) Safety shoes or boots with impact protection would be 
    required for carrying or handling materials such as packages, 
    objects, parts or heavy tools, which could be dropped, and for other 
    activities where objects might fall onto the feet. Safety shoes or 
    boots with compression protection would be required for work 
    activities involving skid trucks (manual material handling carts) 
    around bulk rolls (such as paper rolls) and around heavy pipes, all 
    of which could potentially roll over an employees' feet. Safety 
    shoes or boots with puncture protection would be required where 
    sharp objects such as nails, wire, tacks, screws, large staples, 
    scrap metal etc., could be stepped on by employees, causing an 
    injury.
        (c) Some occupations (not a complete list) for which foot 
    protection should be routinely considered are: shipping and 
    receiving clerks, stock clerks, carpenters, electricians, 
    machinists, boiler makers, plumbers, copper smiths, pipe fitters, 
    ship fitters, burners, chippers and grinders, erectors, press 
    operators, welders, laborers, and material handlers.
        11. Selection guidelines for hand protection. (a) Gloves are 
    often relied upon to prevent cuts, abrasions, burns, and skin 
    contact with chemicals that are capable of causing local or systemic 
    effects following dermal exposure. OSHA is unaware of any gloves 
    that provide protection against all potential hand hazards, and 
    commonly available glove materials provide only limited protection 
    against many chemicals. Therefore, it is important to select the 
    most appropriate glove for a particular application and to determine 
    how long it can be worn, and whether it can be reused.
        (b) It is also important to know the performance characteristics 
    of gloves relative to the specific hazard anticipated, e.g., 
    chemical hazards, cut hazards, and flame hazards. These performance 
    characteristics should be assessed by using standard test 
    procedures. Before purchasing gloves, the employer should request 
    documentation from the manufacturer that the gloves meet the 
    appropriate test standard(s) for the hazard(s) anticipated.
        (c) other general factors to be considered for glove selection 
    are:
        (A) As long as the performance characteristics are acceptable, 
    in certain circumstances, it may be more cost effective to regularly 
    change cheaper gloves than to reuse more expensive types; and,
        (B) The work activities of the employee should be studied to 
    determine the degree of dexterity required, the duration, frequency, 
    and degree of exposure to the hazard, and the physical stresses that 
    will be applied.
        (d) With respect to selection of gloves for protection against 
    chemical hazards:
        (A) The toxic properties of the chemical(s) must be determined; 
    in particular, the ability of the chemical to cause local effects on 
    the skin or to pass through the skin and cause systemic effects or 
    both;
        (B) Generally, any ``chemical resistant'' glove can be used for 
    dry powders;
        (C) For mixtures and formulated products (unless specific test 
    data are available), a glove should be selected on the basis of the 
    chemical component with the shortest breakthrough time, since it is 
    possible for solvents to carry active ingredients through polymeric 
    materials; and,
        (D) Employees must be able to remove the gloves in such a manner 
    as to prevent skin contamination.
        12. Cleaning and maintenance. (a) It is important that all PPE 
    be kept clean and be properly maintained. Cleaning is particularly 
    important for eye and face protection where dirty or fogged lenses 
    could impair vision.
        (b) For the purposes of compliance, PPE should be inspected, 
    cleaned, and maintained at regular intervals so that the PPE 
    provides the requisite protection.
        (c) It is important to ensure that contaminated PPE which cannot 
    be decontaminated is disposed of in a manner that protects employees 
    from exposure to hazards.
        13. Examples of work activities, trades and selection of basic 
    PPE.
        Example 1: Welder. Based on an assessment of the work activity 
    area hazards to which welders are exposed, the equipment listed 
    below is the basic PPE required for this occupation. This does not 
    take into account a job location in which additional PPE may be 
    required, such as where the welder works from an elevated platform 
    without guard rails. In this situation the welder must also wear the 
    proper fall protection equipment, such as a body harness.
    
    --Hard hat
    --Welding Shield (Face)
    --Welding Gloves
    --Safety Glasses
    --Safety Shoes
    --Welding Sleeves (welding in the overhead position)
    (Signed and dated)
    
        Example 2: Yard Maintenance Worker. Based on an assessment of 
    the workplace hazards to which shipyard maintenance workers are 
    exposed, the equipment listed below is the basic PPE required for 
    this occupation. Where maintenance workers are exposed to other 
    hazards, such as asbestos, the insulation on a pipe is being 
    repaired, maintenance workers must be provided with the appropriate 
    supplemental PPE (requirements for asbestos PPE are set out in 
    1915.1001).
    
    --Hard Hat
    --Safety Glasses
    --Work Gloves
    --Safety Shoes
    (Signed and Dated)
    
        Example 3: Chipper and Grinder Worker. Based on an assessment of 
    the workplace hazards to which shipyard chipper and grinder workers 
    are exposed, the equipment listed below is the basic PPE required 
    for this occupation. Where workers are exposed to other hazards, 
    such as hazardous dust from chipping or grinding operations, chipper 
    and grinder workers must be provided with the appropriate 
    supplemental PPE.
    
    --Safety Glasses
    --Transparent Face Shields
    --Hearing Protection
    --Foot Protection
    --Gloves
    (Signed and Dated)
    
        Example 4: Painter. Based on an assessment of the workplace 
    hazards to which shipyard painters are exposed, the equipment listed 
    below is the basic PPE required for this occupation. Where painters 
    are exposed to other hazards, such as a fall from an elevation where 
    no guardrails are present, painters must be provided with the 
    appropriate supplemental PPE.
    
    --Hard Hats
    --Safety Glasses
    --Disposable Clothing
    --Gloves
    --Respiratory Protection, including Airline Respirators when working 
    in Confined Spaces
    --Barrier Creams
    (Signed and Dated)
    
        Example 5: Tank Cleaner. Tank cleaning operations and the basic 
    PPE required for them depend largely upon the type of cargo shipped 
    in the tank. Therefore, the following example is given for a tank in 
    which gasoline has been shipped. Based on an assessment of the 
    workplace hazards to which shipyard tank cleaners are exposed, 
    specifically benzene and flammability hazards, the equipment listed 
    below is the basic PPE required for this situation. Other tank 
    cleaning operations will require variations in the PPE listed below.
    
    --Respiratory Protection, Airline Respirators for working in 
    confined spaces or where personal exposure limits could be exceeded.
    --Chemically resistant clothing
    --Face Shields
    --Chemically resistant boots
    --Chemically resistant gloves
    --Fall Protection
    --Non sparking tools and equipment
    --Explosion-proof Lighting
    (Signed and Dated)
    
    Appendix B to Subpart I--General Testing Conditions and Additional 
    Guidelines for Personal Fall Protection Systems (Non-mandatory)
    
        1. Personal fall arrest systems--(a) General test conditions. 
    (1) Lifelines, lanyards, and deceleration devices should be attached 
    to an anchorage and connected to the body-belt or body harness in 
    the same manner as they would be when used to protect employees, 
    except that lanyards should be tested only when connected directly 
    to the anchorage, and not when connected to a lifeline.
        (2) The anchorage should be rigid, and should not have a 
    deflection greater than .04 inches (1 cm) when a force of 2,250 
    pounds (10 Kn) is applied.
        (3) The frequency response of the load measuring instrumentation 
    should be 100 Hz.
        (4) The test weight used in the strength and force tests should 
    be a rigid, metal cylindrical or torso-shaped object with a girth of 
    38
    
    [[Page 26359]]
    
    inches plus or minus 4 inches (96.5 cm plus or minus 10 cm).
        (5) The lanyard or lifeline used to create the free fall 
    distance should be the one supplied with the system, or in its 
    absence, the least elastic lanyard or lifeline available to be used 
    by the employee with the system.
        (6) The test weight for each test should be hoisted to the 
    required level and should be quickly released without having any 
    appreciable motion imparted to it.
        (7) The system's performance should be evaluated, taking into 
    account the range of environmental conditions for which it is 
    designed to be used.
        (8) Following the test, the system need not be capable of 
    further operation.
        (b) Strength test. (1) During the testing of all systems, a test 
    weight of 300 pounds plus or minus 5 pounds (136 kg plus or minus 
    2.27 kg) should be used. (See paragraph (a)(4) above.)
        (2) The test consists of dropping the test weight once. A new 
    unused system should be used for each test.
        (3) For lanyard systems, the lanyard length should be 6 feet 
    plus or minus 2 inches (1.83 m plus or minus 5 cm) as measured from 
    the fixed anchorage to the attachment on the body belt or harness.
        (4) For rope-grab-type deceleration systems, the length of the 
    lifeline above the center line of the grabbing mechanism to the 
    lifeline's anchorage point should not exceed 2 feet (0.61 m).
        (5) For lanyard systems, for systems with deceleration devices 
    which do not automatically limit free fall distance to 2 feet (0.61 
    m) or less, and for systems with deceleration devices which have a 
    connection distance in excess of 1 foot (0.3 m) (measured between 
    the centerline of the lifeline and the attachment point to the body 
    belt or harness), the test weight should be rigged to free fall a 
    distance of 7.5 feet (2.3 m) from a point that is 1.5 feet (46 cm) 
    above the anchorage point, to its hanging location (6 feet (1.83 m) 
    below the anchorage). The test weight should fall without 
    interference, obstruction, or hitting the floor or the ground during 
    the test. In some cases, a non-elastic wire lanyard of sufficient 
    length may need to be added to the system (for test purposes) to 
    create the necessary free fall distance.
        (6) For deceleration device systems with integral lifelines or 
    lanyards which automatically limit free fall distance to 2 feet 
    (0.61 m) or less, the test weight should be rigged to free fall a 
    distance of four feet (1.22 m).
        (7) Any weight which detaches from the belt or harness should 
    constitute failure for the strength test.
        (c) Force test general. The test consists of dropping the 
    respective test weight once. A new, unused system should be used for 
    each test.
        (1) For lanyard systems. (i) A test weight of 220 pounds plus or 
    minus three pounds (100 kg plus or minus 1.6 kg) should be used (see 
    paragraph (a)(4) above).
        (ii) Lanyard length should be 6 feet plus or minus 2 inches 
    (1.83 m plus or minus 5 cm) as measured from the fixed anchorage to 
    the attachment on the body belt or body harness.
        (iii) The test weight should fall free from the anchorage level 
    to its handling location (a total of 6 feet (1.83 m) free fall 
    distance) without interference, obstruction, or hitting the floor or 
    ground during the test.
        (2) For all other systems. (i) A test weight of 220 pounds plus 
    or minus 3 pounds (100 kg plus or minus 1.6 kg) should be used (see 
    paragraph (a)(4) above).
        (ii) The free fall distance to be used in the test should be the 
    maximum fall distance physically permitted by the system during 
    normal use conditions, up to a maximum free fall distance for the 
    test weight of 6 feet (1.83 m), except as follows:
        (A) For deceleration systems which have a connection link or 
    lanyard, the test weight should free fall a distance equal to the 
    connection distance (measured between the center line of the 
    lifeline and the attachment point to the body belt or harness).
        (B) For deceleration device systems with integral life lines or 
    lanyards which automatically limit free fall distance to 2 feet 
    (0.61 m) or less, the test weight should free fall a distance equal 
    to that permitted by the system in normal use. (For example, to test 
    a system with a self-retracting lifeline or lanyard, the test weight 
    should be supported and the system allowed to retract the lifeline 
    or lanyard as it would in normal use. The test weight would then be 
    released and the force and deceleration distance measured.)
        (3) Failure. A system fails the force test if the recorded 
    maximum arresting force exceeds 1,260 pounds (5.6 Kn) when using a 
    body belt, or exceeds 2,520 pounds (11.2 Kn) when using a body 
    harness.
        (4) Distances. The maximum elongation and deceleration distance 
    should be recorded during the force test.
        (d) Deceleration device tests--general. The device should be 
    evaluated or tested under the environmental conditions (such as 
    rain, ice, grease, dirt, type of lifeline, etc.) for which the 
    device is designed.
        (1) Rope-grab-type deceleration devices. (i) Devices should be 
    moved on a lifeline 1,000 times over the same length of line a 
    distance of not less than 1 foot (30.5 cm), and the mechanism should 
    lock each time.
        (ii) Unless the device is permanently marked to indicate the 
    type of lifelines which must be used, several types (different 
    diameters and different materials) of lifelines should be used to 
    test the device.
        (2) Other-self-activating-type deceleration devices. The locking 
    mechanisms of other self-activating-type deceleration devices 
    designed for more than one arrest should lock each of 1,000 times as 
    they would in normal service.
        2. Positioning device systems--(a) Test Conditions. (1) The 
    fixed anchorage should be rigid and should not have a deflection 
    greater than .04 inches (1 cm) when a force of 2,250 pounds (10 Kn) 
    is applied.
        (2) For linemen's body belt and pole straps, the body belt 
    should be secured to a 250 pound (113 kg) bag of sand at a point 
    which simulates the waist of an employee. One end of the pole strap 
    should be attached to the rigid anchorage and the other end to the 
    body belt. The sand bag should be allowed to free fall a distance of 
    4 feet (1.2 m). Failure of the pole strap and body belt should be 
    indicated by any breakage or slippage sufficient to permit the bag 
    to fall free to the ground.
        (3) For window cleaner's belts, the complete belt should 
    withstand a drop test consisting of a 250 pound (113 kg) weight 
    falling free for a distance of 6 feet (1.83 m). The weight should be 
    a rigid object with a girth of 38 inches plus or minus four inches 
    (97 cm plus or minus 10 cm). The weight should be placed in the 
    waistband with the belt buckle drawn firmly against the weight, as 
    when the belt is worn by a window cleaner. One belt terminal should 
    be attached to a rigid anchor and the other terminal should hang 
    free. The terminals should be adjusted to their maximum span. The 
    weight fastened in the freely suspended belt should then be lifted 
    exactly 6 feet (1.83 m) above its ``at rest'' position and released 
    so as to permit a free fall of 6 feet (1.83 m) vertically below the 
    point of attachment of the terminal anchor. The belt system should 
    be equipped with devices and instrumentation capable of measuring 
    the duration and magnitude of the arrest forces. Any breakage or 
    slippage which permits the weight to fall free of the system 
    constitutes failure of the test. In addition, the initial and 
    subsequent arresting force peaks should be measured and should not 
    exceed 2,000 pounds (8.9 Kn) for more than 2 milliseconds for the 
    initial impact, nor exceed 1,000 pounds (4.45 Kn) for the remainder 
    of the arrest time.
        (4) All other positioning device systems (except for restraint 
    line systems) should withstand a drop test consisting of a 250 pound 
    (113 kg) weight falling free for a distance of 4 feet (1.2 m). The 
    weight should be a rigid object with a girth of 38 inches plus or 
    minus 4 inches (96 cm plus or minus 10 cm). The body belt or harness 
    should be affixed to the test weight as it would be to an employee. 
    The system should be connected to the rigid anchor in the manner 
    that the system would be connected in normal use. The weight should 
    be lifted exactly 4 feet (1.2 m) above its ``at rest'' position and 
    released so as to permit a vertical free fall of 4 feet (1.2 m ). 
    Any breakage or slippage which permits the weight to fall free to 
    the ground should constitute failure of the system.
    
        10. Section Sec. 1915.5 is revised as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 1915.5  Incorporation by reference.
    
        (a) Specifications, standards, and codes of agencies of the U.S. 
    Government, to the extent specified in the text, form a part of the 
    regulations of this part. In addition, under the authority vested in 
    the Secretary under the Act, the specifications, standards, and codes 
    of organizations which are not agencies of the U.S. Government, in 
    effect on the date of the promulgation of the regulations of this part 
    as listed below, to the extent specified in the text, form a part of 
    the regulations of this part.
        (b) The materials listed in paragraph (d) of this section are 
    incorporated by reference in the corresponding sections noted as they 
    exist on the date of the approval, and a notice of any change in
    
    [[Page 26360]]
    
    these materials will be published in the Federal Register. These 
    incorporations by reference were approved by the Director of the 
    Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
        (c) Copies of the following standards that are issued by the 
    respective private standards organizations may be obtained from the 
    issuing organizations. The materials are available for purchase at the 
    corresponding addresses of the private standards organizations noted 
    below. In addition, all are available for inspection at the Office of 
    the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, 
    Washington DC, and through the OSHA Docket Office, room N2625, U.S. 
    Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20210, 
    or any of its regional offices.
        (d)(1) The following material is available for purchase from the 
    American National Standards Institute, 11 West 42nd Street, New York, 
    NY 10036.
        (i) ANSI A14.1-1959 Safety Code for Portable Wood Ladders, IBR 
    approved for Sec. 1915.72(a)(6)
        (ii) ANSI A14.2-1956 Safety Code for Portable Metal Ladders, IBR 
    approved for Sec. 1995.72(a)(4)
        (iii) ANSI B7.1-1964 Safety Code for the Use, Care, and Protection 
    of Abrasive Wheels, IBR approval for Sec. 1915.134(c)
        (iv) ANSI Z87.1-1989 Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye 
    and Face Protection, IBR approved for Sec. 1915.153(b)(1).
        (v) ANSI 87.1-1979 Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye 
    and Face Protection, IBR approved for Sec. 1915.153(b)(2)
        (vi) ANSI Z89.1-1986 Personnel Protection--Protective Headgear for 
    Industrial Workers Requirements, IBR approved for Sec. 1915.155(b)(1)
        (vii) ANSI Z89.1-1969 Safety Requirement for Industrial Head 
    Protection, IBR approved for Sec. 1915.155(b)(2).
        (viii) ANSI Z41-1991 Personal Protection--Protective Footwear, IBR 
    approved for Sec. 1915.156(b)(1)
        (ix) ANSI Z41-1983 Personal Protection--Protective Footwear, IBR 
    approved for Sec. 1915.156(b)(2).
        (2) The following material is available for purchase from the 
    American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 345 East 47th Street, New 
    York, New York 10017:
        (i) ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Rules for 
    Construction of Unfired Pressure Vessels, 1963, IBR approved for 
    Sec. 1915.172(a).
        (3) The following material is available for purchase from the 
    American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), 1014 
    Broadway, Cincinnati, OH 45202:
        (i) Threshold limit values, 1970, IBR approved for Secs. 1915.12(b) 
    and 1915.1000, table Z.
    
    [FR Doc. 96-12573 Filed 5-23-96; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 4510-26-P