Federal Registers - Table of Contents Federal Registers - Table of Contents
• Publication Date: 12/20/2007
• Publication Type: Proposed Rules
• Fed Register #: 72:72451-72520
• Standard Number: 1910; 1915
• Title: General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment

[Federal Register: December 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 244)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 72451-72520]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20de07-28]                         

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

Part II


Department of Labor


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

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

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


29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1915


General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment; Proposed Rule


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1915

[Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675 (formerly OSHA Docket No. S-049)]
RIN 1218-AB50

 
General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment

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

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA proposes to revise the standards on general working 
conditions in shipyard employment. The proposed revisions would update 
existing requirements to reflect advances in industry practices and 
technology. The proposal also would cross reference general industry 
standards either that are already applicable to shipyard employment or 
that OSHA intends to apply. Finally, OSHA proposes to add provisions 
that would provide protection from hazards not addressed by existing 
standards, including provisions on the control of hazardous energy 
(lockout/tagout).

DATES: Comments and requests for hearings must be submitted 
(postmarked, sent or received) by March 19, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. OSHA-S049-
2006-0675, by any of the following methods:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments 
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions on-line for making 
electronic submissions.
    Fax: If your comments, including attachments, do not exceed 10 
pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger or courier service: 
You must submit three copies of your comments and attachments to the 
OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675, U.S. Department of 
Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; 
telephone (202) 693-2350 (OSHA's TTY number is (877) 889-5627). 
Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger and courier service) are 
accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal 
business hours, 8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the 
docket number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675). All 
comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in 
the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions you about 
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and 
birthdates. For further information on submitting comments, plus 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the "Public 
Participation" heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 
this document.
    Docket: To read or download comments and materials submitted in 
response to this Federal Register notice, go to Docket No. OSHA-S049-
2006-0675 at http://regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at the 
address above. All comments and submissions in response to this Federal 
Register notice are listed in the http://regulations.gov index; 
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly 
available to read or download through the Web page. All comments and 
submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for 
inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
    For information on reading or downloading exhibits referenced in 
this Federal Register notice, see the "References and exhibits" and 
"Public Participation" headings in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
section of this document.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register document are available 
at http://www.regulations.gov. This document, as well as news releases 
and other relevant information, also are available at OSHA's Web page 
at http://www.osha.gov


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    Press inquiries: Kevin Ropp, OSHA, Office of Communications, Room 
N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-1999.
    For general and technical information: Dorothy Dougherty, Director, 
OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Room N-3718, U.S. 
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20210; telephone (202) 693-2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Regulatory History
III. Pertinent Legal Authority
IV. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard
V. Summary of the Preliminary Economic and Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analyses
VI. Environmental Assessment
VII. Federalism
VIII. Unfunded Mandates
IX. OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
X. State Plan Standards
XI. Public Participation
XII. Authority and Signature
XIII. The Proposed Standard

References and Exhibits

    In this Federal Register notice, OSHA references documents in 
Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675 (formerly OSHA Docket No. S-049) as well 
as documents in the following OSHA rulemakings and advisory committee 
proceedings, which OSHA is incorporating by reference into the docket 
of this rulemaking:
     The proceedings of the Shipyard Employment Standards 
Advisory Committee (SESAC) (Docket Nos. SESAC-1988 through SESAC-1993);
     The proceedings of the Maritime Advisory Committee for 
Occupational Safety and Health (Docket Nos. MACOSH-1995 through MACOSH-
2005);
     The General Industry Lockout/Tagout rulemaking record 
(Docket Nos. S-012, S-012A and S-012B;
     The Shipyard Employment Standards rulemaking record 
(Docket No. S-024); and
     The Field Sanitation rulemaking record (Docket No. H-308).
    References to documents in Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675. In this 
Federal Register notice, references to documents in Docket No. OSHA-
S049-2006-0675 (formerly OSHA Docket No. S-049) are given as "Ex." 
followed by the number of the document. These exhibits are posted in 
both Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675 (which is available at http://www.regulations.gov)
and OSHA Docket No. S-049 (which is available at 
http://dockets.osha.gov). The referenced exhibits are also available 
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office (see ADDRESSES 
section).
    References to documents in the dockets incorporated by reference. 
In this Federal Register notice, references to documents in the dockets 
listed above that OSHA is incorporating by reference are given as the 
docket number followed by the document number. Thus, the reference to 
"Docket H-308, Ex. 1" means Exhibit 1 in the Field Sanitation 
rulemaking docket. For access to exhibits in OSHA Docket H-308 and the 
other dockets above that OSHA is incorporating by reference, go to 
dockets.osha.gov or the OSHA Docket Office (see ADDRESSES section).

I. Background

    OSHA is proposing to revise and update the existing standards in 
subpart F of 29 CFR part 1915 that address hazardous working conditions 
in shipyard employment. These standards cover many diverse working 
conditions in shipyard employment, including housekeeping, lighting, 
utilities, work in confined or isolated spaces, lifeboats, sanitation 
and medical services and first aid.
    OSHA also proposes to add new requirements to subpart F to protect 
employees from hazardous working conditions not currently addressed by 
subpart F. These proposed additions include the control of hazardous 
energy (lockout/tagout), safe operation and maintenance of vehicles, 
accident prevention signs and tags and servicing of multi-piece and 
single piece rim wheels.
    OSHA adopted the existing subpart F standards in 1972 (37 FR 22458 
(10/19/1972)) pursuant to section 6(a) of the Occupational Safety and 
Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.). Section 6(a) 
permitted OSHA, within two years of the passage of the OSH Act, to 
adopt as an occupational safety or health standard any national 
consensus and established Federal standards. The provisions in subpart 
F were adopted from existing Federal regulations promulgated under 
Section 41 of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act 
(LHWCA) (33 U.S.C. 941) as well as national consensus standards.
    OSHA believes the revisions and additions to subpart F that it 
proposes are necessary and appropriate to protect the safety and health 
of shipyard employees. OSHA's reasons for the necessity of the proposed 
standard are discussed below.

Hazards

    Working in shipyards is one of the riskiest occupations in the 
United States. Shipyard employees are at risk due to the nature of 
their work, which includes a wide variety of industrial operations, 
such as steel fabrication, welding, abrasive blasting, burning, 
electrical work, pipefitting, rigging and stripping and coating 
applications. They also operate complex or heavy equipment such as 
cranes and powered industrial trucks. The hazards associated with these 
work activities are heightened because they are often performed 
outdoors in all kinds of weather, onboard vessels, in confined or 
enclosed spaces below deck, on scaffolds and on busy and crowded docks 
filled with equipment and material. The safe coordination of these work 
activities is also complicated by the fact that most shipyards are 
multi-employer worksites where shipyard employees, ship's crew, 
contractors and subcontractors work side-by-side and often on the same 
ship's systems at the same time. The combination of these hazards 
presents a significant risk of injury to shipyard employees whether 
they are working on vessels or at landside operations. As this section 
illustrates, OSHA believes the proposed rule will significantly reduce 
those risks.

Accident, Fatality and Injury Data

    OSHA examined several data sources to identify and characterize the 
risks shipyard employees face from the hazards this proposal addresses. 
These data show, for example, that the shipyard industry has one of the 
highest rates and severity of workplace injury of all private sector 
industries.
    Fatalities. To identify shipyard fatalities, OSHA reviewed accident 
data from OSHA's Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) 
accident database (fatal and serious injury requiring hospitalization) 
and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Census of Fatal Occupational 
Injuries (CFOI). According to the IMIS data, there were 231 fatal 
shipyard accidents during the years 1987-2002, which is an average of 
15 shipyard fatalities each year (Ex. 13). This estimate is consistent 
with CFOI, which reported 155 shipyard fatalities from 1992-2002 or an 
average of 14 fatalities per year. According to CFOI data, during most 
of those years the fatality rate in shipyard employment was about twice 
the rate for all private industry combined, which further demonstrates 
the hazardous nature of work in shipyard employment. As discussed 
below, many of those shipyard fatalities involved the types of hazards 
this rulemaking addresses.
    Injuries and illnesses. To estimate the number of shipyard injuries 
and illnesses, OSHA used the BLS annual survey of employers, which 
produces statistical estimates of occupational injuries and illnesses 
by industry and specific characteristics (http://www.bls.gov). From 1992-2002, 
BLS data show that the occupational injury and illness rate for 
shipyard employment declined from 34.2 per 100 full-time employees in 
1992 to 16.6 in 2002. Lost workday injury and illness rates showed a 
similar trend, declining from 16.9 in 1993 to 9.3 in 2002 (See Table 
1). However, despite these improvements, the industry's injury and 
illness rates continue to be more than three times the average private 
sector rate of 5.3 for injuries and illnesses combined and 2.8 for lost 
workday cases (Table 1).
    Using the median number of days away from work per case as an 
indicator of severity, the injuries and illnesses shipyard employees 
experienced were, on average, more severe than those in the private 
sector as a whole as well as in the manufacturing and construction 
sectors. In 2002, for example, the median days away from work in the 
shipbuilding and repair industry was 15 days per lost workday case, 
more than double the private sector median of seven (Table 1). In 
addition, a higher percentage of lost workday cases in shipyards 
involved lengthy recovery periods. For example, more than one-third 
(34%) of shipyard lost workday cases resulted in more than 30 days away 
from work compared to one-quarter of private sector cases (Table 1).

                                                   Table 1.--2002 Injury and Illness Data Comparisons
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Lost workday                        Percentage of     Percentage of
                                                                   Injury and     (LWD) injury and                        LWD cases         LWD cases
                           Industry                             illness rate per  illness rate per  Median days away   involving more    involving more
                                                                  100 full-time     100 full-time       from work     than 5 days away    than 30 days
                                                                    employees         employees                           from work      away from work
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipbuilding and Repair.......................................              16.6               9.3                15              62.2              34.1
Total Private Sector..........................................               5.3               2.8                 7              55.2              25.1
Manufacturing.................................................               7.2               4.1                 8              56.7              26.0
Construction..................................................               7.1               3.8                10              58.4              28.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


(Source: BLS)

Need for Agency Action

    A detailed examination of OSHA and BLS databases indicates that a 
significant percentage of shipyard fatalities and injuries have 
resulted from the types of hazardous working conditions the proposed 
rule addresses, particularly hazardous energy. OSHA believes that 
eliminating or controlling these hazardous conditions will reduce the 
risks that shipyard employees face on a daily basis. This section 
discusses the types of fatalities and injuries that could have been 
prevented if the proposed additions and revisions to subpart F had been 
in place. OSHA's preliminary economic analysis, summarized in Section 
V, estimates that the proposed rule would have prevented at least 17.8 
of the fatalities reported in the IMIS database from 1987 through 2002.
    Lockout/tagout. The most extensive provisions in the proposal 
address the control of hazardous energy. Exposure to hazardous energy 
has resulted in many injuries to shipyard employees. According to a 
study by the National Shipbuilding Research Program (NSRP), during a 
five-year period there were 10 hazardous energy-related injuries 
annually at the seven participating shipyards. (See Ex. 11, NSRP 
"Review of Current and Best Practices for Hazardous Energy Control 
(Tagout) in Shipyards.") The report concluded that in almost every 
case, the injury was the result of multiple failures in the system, 
such as failure to identify all hazardous energy sources and to 
properly verify deenergization of all sources (Ex. 11, p. 6). This 
report suggests that the proposed comprehensive lockout/tagout program 
and energy control procedures would be effective in preventing these 
types of injuries.
    Hazardous energy exposure also has resulted in the death of a 
number of shipyard employees. According to BLS data for 1992-2002, 
almost one-quarter of shipyard fatalities were types that are often 
associated with hazardous energy. BLS CFOI data showed that at least 10 
shipyard fatalities (6.3%) resulted from contact with electrical 
current and 24 fatalities (16%) occurred because of contact with 
objects and equipment, such as being caught in equipment that suddenly 
starts up. BLS injury data showed that an even greater percentage of 
injuries were associated with those types of accidents. In 2002, for 
instance, 30 percent of shipyard injuries involving days away from work 
resulted from contact with an object or equipment and almost two 
percent resulted from being caught in equipment.
    OSHA's IMIS fatal accidents database also confirms that a 
significant number of shipyard deaths have resulted from hazardous 
energy. From 1987-2002, the IMIS data reported 14 (6%) shipyard 
fatalities related to the sudden release of hazardous energy. (See 
also, Ex. 11, National Shipbuilding Research Program (NSRP), "Review 
of Current and Best Practices for Hazardous Energy Control (Tagout) in 
Shipyards.") A review of the IMIS shipyard fatality abstracts 
indicates that the proposed lockout/tagout provisions could have 
prevented the vast majority (9) of those hazardous energy deaths (see 
Section V). The following are some of the shipyard fatalities that the 
proposed lockout/tagout provisions could have prevented. (The summary 
and explanation of proposed Sec.  1915.89 also discusses a number of 
fatalities that could have been prevented by the proposed lockout/
tagout provisions).
    A shipyard employee working on a 480-volt distribution center was 
fatally electrocuted when the circuit was not properly deenergized and 
locked out before the task was started. In a similar case, an employee 
was electrocuted installing a fan on an HVAC chiller because the fan 
circuit was not deenergized. Instead of verifying that the circuit was 
deenergized, the employee had relied on a helper to open the circuit 
breaker to deenergize the unit. However, the helper opened the wrong 
breaker. In both cases, there was no indication in the IMIS abstract 
that the employer had a lockout/tagout program or had established 
written energy control procedures, such as procedures for deenergizing 
power sources and verifying isolation. The lockout/tagout proposal 
would have required both.
    In another case in the IMIS database, an employee, who was assigned 
to perform maintenance on a high-voltage electric transformer, was 
fatally electrocuted when an oil switch to the transformer was left 
open. According to a NIOSH Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation 
Program (FACE) investigation of the accident, the high-voltage 
transformer provided power to numerous shipboard activities, but the 
employee's electrical experience had been primarily on low-voltage 
equipment (Ex. 14). The investigation revealed that the power panels 
were not labeled and no signs, tags or locks had been used on either 
the oil switch or circuit breaker. In addition, there may have been 
stored energy remaining in the conductors, but no tests were conducted 
to verify deenergization. Under the proposed lockout/tagout provisions, 
this employer would have been required to have an energy control 
program and control procedures in place to ensure that employees 
properly deenergize circuits, verify isolation and apply lockout or 
tagout systems before starting work (proposed Sec.  1915.89(b)(1), (2) 
and (4)).
    The investigation also found that, although employees received 
general safety training, there was no indication that the victim had 
received training on servicing high-voltage equipment and the 
supervisor had no electrical training. Moreover, even when the victim 
accidentally turned off the wrong power source earlier in the 
workshift, leaving the dry dock in the dark, the employee was not 
provided with refresher training. Had the proposed lockout/tagout 
provisions been in place, it would have ensured that any shipyard 
employee servicing high-voltage equipment was an "authorized 
employee" who had been trained to recognize hazardous energy sources 
and know the specific means and procedures necessary to isolate and 
control such energy safely (proposed Sec.  1915.89(b)(7)). The proposed 
provisions also would have ensured that employees receive additional 
training "whenever the employer has reason to believe, that there are 
* * * deficiencies in the employee's knowledge or use of the energy 
control procedures" (proposed Sec.  1915.89(b)(7)(iii)).
    The proposed lockout/tagout provisions addressing multiple employer 
worksites (proposed Sec.  1915.89(e)(2)) and group lockout/tagout 
(proposed Sec.  1915.89(e)(3)) also could have prevented several 
shipyard fatalities reported in the IMIS database. In one of those 
cases, an electrician who was modifying a switchboard was fatally 
electrocuted when a ship's crew member, who was not familiar with the 
operation of the switchboard breaker, inadvertently energized the 
circuit. The proposed provisions would have ensured that the shipyard 
employer and ship's officer or master shared information about their 
respective lockout/tagout programs. The proposal also would have 
ensured that when more than one person is servicing equipment on a 
system, that a primary authorized employee is designated to ascertain 
the exposure status of individual group members and coordinate affected 
work forces to ensure that each member of the group is fully protected 
(proposed Sec.  1915.89(e)(3)).
    Finally, the lockout/tagout section of this proposal includes an 
in-depth discussion of the application of the lockout/tagout standard while 
servicing commercial vessels, such as fish processing vessels.
    Motor vehicle safety equipment, operation and maintenance. OSHA is 
proposing several provisions aimed at reducing the number of shipyard 
employees killed and injured in motor vehicle incidents. According to 
CFOI data, 27 shipyard employees were killed in transportation 
incidents (highway and non-highway) from 1992-2002, which represents 
18.5 percent of all fatalities during that period. OSHA's IMIS fatal 
accidents data indicated that 12 employees were killed in motor vehicle 
incidents in shipyards from 1987-2002. Motor vehicle accidents also 
account for a significant number of injuries. From 1992-2001, for 
instance, BLS reported that 208 shipyard employees were injured in 
transportation accidents that were serious enough to involve days away 
from work.
    OSHA believes that the proposed motor vehicle safety provisions 
could have prevented a significant number of those deaths and injuries. 
For example, a review of the IMIS database shows that the proposed 
safety belt requirement (proposed Sec.  1915.93(b)(1) and (2)) could 
have prevented the death of a shipyard employee who was operating a 
mobile crane to lift metal plates from a floating dock. The employee 
was killed when the crane overturned and he fell from the cab into the 
river and drowned. Had the employee been wearing a safety belt, as the 
proposed rule requires, he would have remained safely within the cab 
when it overturned. OSHA also believes the proposed safety belt 
provision would prevent employees from being crushed or pinned trying 
to jump free of a tipping vehicle, one of the major causes of 
industrial vehicle fatalities. In 2001, for example, BLS reported that 
28 percent (35) of all private industry forklift fatalities (123) 
involved tipovers or falls from a moving forklift.
    The proposed provisions to protect pedestrians and bicyclists in 
shipyards from being hit by motor vehicles (proposed Sec.  
1915.93(c)(3)) could have prevented several shipyard fatalities and 
injuries reported in the IMIS database. For example, a shipyard 
employee riding a bicycle as part of "his regularly assigned tasks" 
was killed when a bus traveling on the same shipyard road collided with 
him. A shipyard employee walking on a pier was killed when a straddle 
lift truck ran over him. While pulling onto the main road on the pier, 
the lift truck driver made a wide arc in order to avoid hitting a 
forklift truck moving a large container and hit a pedestrian who he had 
not seen. In another incident, a shipyard employee suffered fractured 
ribs and had to have his spleen removed when he was hit by a forklift 
as he was walking along the side of the road in the shipyard. All of 
these accidents may have been prevented if the employers had 
established dedicated pedestrian/bicycle lanes or provided employees 
with reflective vests, two of the options the proposal includes to 
protect employees walking and bicycling in shipyards from being hit by 
motor vehicles (proposed Sec.  1915.93(c)(3)(i) and (ii)).
    Medical services and first aid. The proposed rule includes 
revisions to the existing provisions on medical services and first aid, 
including revisions addressing the content of first aid training and 
location of first aid providers and kits in shipyards (proposed Sec.  
1915.88). OSHA believes that the proposed provisions will improve the 
chances that injured shipyard employees will survive if an accident or 
health crisis (e.g., cardiac or respiratory failure) occurs and are 
necessary to reduce fatality rates in the shipyard industry. A review 
of the IMIS database for 1987-2002 indicates that as many as 13 
fatalities involving cardiac or respiratory arrest may have been 
prevented had the proposed first aid provisions been in place.
    Accounting for employees at the end of workshifts. Existing 
shipyard standards require that employers frequently check on employees 
who are working in confined spaces or alone in an isolated work 
location (Sec.  1915.94). The proposal adds to the existing standard a 
provision requiring employers also to account for these employees at 
the end of the workshift (proposed Sec.  1915.84(b)). The purpose of 
both the existing and proposed provisions is to ensure that employees 
remain safe, go home safe at the end of their workshifts and are 
promptly rescued if they are injured. OSHA believes it is necessary to 
account for these employees at the end of their workshifts, in part, 
because shipyards are commonly comprised of many work locations that 
often are spread out over a large area. If an employee is injured while 
working alone at a distant work location, he may not be able to summon 
help. If the employer does not account for an injured employee at the 
end of the workshift, that employee could die from his injuries. The 
IMIS database includes a number of fatalities in which the employees' 
bodies were not discovered until hours or days later.
    A review of the IMIS database, from 1987 to 2002, indicates that 
there were at least 13 fatalities that may have been prevented had the 
proposed provisions been in effect. The following are a few cases from 
that IMIS database. At approximately 10 p.m. during an evening 
workshift, a shipyard employee using a forklift truck to move a heavy 
tool box on a wet dock is presumed to have fallen through an opening in 
the dock and drowned when he got out of the forklift to check on the 
load. According to the abstract there were no eye witnesses to the 
accident. There is also no indication as to when the employer first 
noticed the employee was missing. However, the abstract says that the 
employee's body was not removed from the water until the next day.
    In another case, the employee was working alone applying a patch 
over a pipe opening prior to the time he went missing. There is no 
indication as to when the employer discovered the employee was missing 
and no indication whether the employee was checked on during or at the 
end of his workshift. Approximately one week later his body was 
discovered under the water adjacent to the vessel on which he had been 
working.
    Finally, a shipyard employee was working on an accommodation ladder 
on the MV Cape Henry at Pier 27 in San Francisco. It is presumed that 
he fell off the ladder or the vessel into the water. Nine days later 
his body was discovered floating in Fisherman's Wharf. Again, there is 
no indication in the abstract whether the employer regularly checked on 
employees or accounted for them at the end of the workshift.
    Clarifications. In addition to the shipyard fatalities and injuries 
discussed above, OSHA believes that other provisions in the proposal 
could also prevent employees from being injured or killed. A number of 
proposed provisions clarify existing requirements, which may help 
increase employer understanding of and compliance with those 
requirements and thereby reduce employee exposure to serious hazards.
    Based on the data and discussion above and other information in the 
rulemaking record, OSHA believes that there continues to be a 
significant risk of death and injury due to hazardous working 
conditions in shipyards. As discussed, OSHA believes that the proposed 
revisions, additions and clarifications of subpart F are reasonable and 
necessary and will substantially reduce that risk for shipyard 
employees.

II. Regulatory History

    The standards in subpart F have remained essentially unchanged 
since they were adopted in 1972 from established Federal occupational 
safety and health standards issued under the LHWCA (33 U.S.C. 941).
    In 1982, the Shipbuilders Council of America and the American 
Waterways Shipyard Conference requested that OSHA: (1) revise and 
update the existing shipyard standards, including subpart F; and (2) 
consolidate into a single set of shipyard standards those general 
industry standards that apply to shipyards, particularly landside 
operations. In response to these recommendations, OSHA established the 
Shipyard Employment Standards Advisory Committee (SESAC) in November 
1988. The purpose of SESAC, which included representatives from 
industry, labor and professionals in the maritime community, was to 
provide guidance and technical expertise to OSHA about revising the 
shipyard standards. SESAC met from 1988 until 1993 to develop 
recommendations and provide technical expertise in developing draft 
regulatory language for revising the shipyard safety standards. On 
April 29, 1993, SESAC unanimously approved final draft recommendations 
for revising subpart F to submit to OSHA. (Docket SESAC 1993-2, Ex. 
102X, p. 257) (Detailed discussion on SESAC comments and specific 
recommendations are presented in the Summary and Explanation section 
below.)
    In 1995, OSHA established the Maritime Advisory Committee for 
Occupational Safety and Health (MACOSH) under section 7 of the OSH Act 
(29 U.S.C. 656) to advise the Agency on issues relating to occupational 
safety and health standards in the shipyard and marine cargo handling 
(longshore) industries. On September 8, 1995, MACOSH discussed and 
approved the recommendations and draft regulatory language that SESAC 
developed and made additional recommendations, which are discussed in 
the Summary and Explanation section below (Docket MACOSH 1995-1, Exs. 
2; 102X, pp. 25, 26).
    While OSHA is continuing to move toward a single set of standards 
for the shipyard industry, OSHA has included in part 1915 cross 
references to applicable general industry standards rather than 
reprinting those standards in this part. The proposal, for instance, 
includes cross references to general industry standards addressing 
accident signs and tags and servicing multi-piece and single piece 
wheels.

III. Pertinent Legal Authority

    The purpose of the OSH Act is to "assure so far as possible every 
working man and woman in the nation safe and healthful working 
conditions and to preserve our human resources" (29 U.S.C. 651(b)). To 
achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor to issue 
and enforce occupational safety and health standards. (See 29 U.S.C. 
655(a) (authorizing summary adoption of existing consensus and federal 
standards within two years of the OSH Act's enactment); 655(b) 
(authorizing promulgation of standards pursuant to notice and comment); 
and 654(d)(2) (requiring employers to comply with OSHA standards)). A 
safety or health standard is 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 or places of employment" (29 
U.S.C. 652(8)).
    A standard is reasonably necessary or appropriate within the 
meaning of section 3(8) of the OSH Act if it substantially reduces or 
eliminates significant risk; is economically feasible; is 
technologically feasible; is cost effective; is consistent with prior 
Agency action or is a justified departure; is supported by substantial 
evidence; and is better able to effectuate the Act's purposes than any 
national consensus standard it supersedes (29 U.S.C. 652). (See 58 FR 
16612, 16616 (3/30/1993)).
    A standard is technologically feasible if the protective measures 
it requires already exist, can be brought into existence with available 
technology, or can be created with technology that can reasonably be 
expected to be developed. American Textile Mfrs. Institute v. OSHA 
(ATMI), 452 U.S. 490, 513 (1981); American Iron and Steel Institute v. 
OSHA (AISI), 939 F.2d 975, 980 (D.C. Cir 1991).
    A standard is economically feasible if industry can absorb or pass 
on the cost of compliance without threatening its long term 
profitability or competitive structure. See ATMI, 452 U.S. at 530 n. 
55; AISI, 939 F.2d at 980. A standard is cost effective if the 
protective measures it requires are the least costly of the available 
alternatives that achieve the same level of protection. ATMI, 453 U.S. 
at 514 n. 32; International Union, UAW v. OSHA ("LOTO II"), 37 F.3d 
665, 668 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
    Section 6(b)(7) of the OSH Act authorizes OSHA to include among a 
standard's requirements labeling, monitoring, medical testing and other 
information gathering and transmittal provisions (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7)).
    All safety standards must be highly protective. (See, 58 FR 16614-
16615; LOTO II, 37 F.3d at 668.) Finally, whenever practical, standards 
shall "be expressed in terms of objective criteria and of the 
performance desired" (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5)).

IV. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard

    As mentioned above, OSHA proposes to revise and update the 
standards in subpart F to reflect advances in technology and industry 
practice and to add requirements that would provide employees with 
protection from hazardous working conditions not currently addressed by 
the existing OSHA standards. This section explains the revisions and 
additions OSHA proposes, including what action these revisions would 
require or prohibit and how they differ from the existing standards. 
This section also discusses the purposes for these changes and why they 
are necessary, and how they will provide employees with protection from 
hazardous working conditions in shipyards.
    Many of the provisions OSHA proposes were recommended by SESAC. 
They represent, to a large extent, industry best practices at the time 
SESAC reviewed subpart F. However, where changes in industry practices 
and technology have occurred since SESAC finished its review, OSHA has 
updated the proposed provisions to reflect those advances. In addition, 
the Agency has added or amended some provisions for easier 
comprehension and to better protect employees.
    A number of the provisions in subpart F were adopted in 1972 from 
existing Federal and national consensus standards in effect at the time 
(e.g., housekeeping, sanitation, medical services and first aid). Since 
then, those consensus standards have been revised and updated, several 
times in some cases. OSHA has carefully reviewed the relevant consensus 
standards and, where appropriate, proposes to incorporate applicable 
requirements of updated and revised standards.
    OSHA proposes to consolidate a number of provisions to more clearly 
indicate that they apply to shipyard employment and to make them easier 
to understand and follow. First, the proposal consolidates requirements 
in part 1915 (e.g., housekeeping, sanitation, medical services and 
first aid) for which there are also requirements in general industry 
(part 1910) that shipyard employers must follow. Although as a general 
rule part 1915 standards prevail over any different general industry 
standard, general industry standards apply to shipyard employment where 
part 1915 standards do not address a particular hazard or condition. For 
example, a number of provisions in the general industry sanitation standard 
(e.g., potable water, toilet facilities, vermin control) apply to shipyard 
employment because the shipyard sanitation standard (Sec.  1915.97) does 
not address these issues. OSHA believes that putting all of the sanitation 
requirements applicable to shipyard employment into one section will make it 
easier for employers to understand and comply with the requirements.
    Second, the proposal cross references several general industry 
standards that already apply to shipyard employment (e.g., Sec.  
1910.144 Safety Color Code for Marking Physical Hazards). Finally, the 
proposal consolidates into one section (Sec.  1915.80) the scope and 
application provisions for subpart F and clarifies that the proposal 
intends to apply the general working condition provisions to all 
sectors of shipyard employment (i.e., ship repair, shipbuilding, 
shipbreaking and related employment).
    As a result of the consolidation, the section numbers in subpart F 
would be changed. To prevent confusion, the following table (Table 2) 
lists the proposed and corresponding existing provisions, if there is 
one that applies:

    Table 2.--Table of Proposed Provisions and Corresponding Existing
                               Provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Existing rule
       Title of provision           Proposed rule       applicable to
                                                     shipyard employment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope and application...........    Sec.   1915.80  Each section of
                                                     subpart F has a
                                                     scope and
                                                     application
                                                     provision
Housekeeping....................    Sec.   1915.81  Sec.   1915.91 and
                                                     Sec.   1910.141
Lighting........................    Sec.   1915.82  Sec.   1915.92
Utilities.......................    Sec.   1915.83  Sec.   1915.93
Work in confined or isolated        Sec.   1915.84  Sec.   1915.94
 spaces.
Vessel radar and radio              Sec.   1915.85  Sec.   1915.95
 transmitters.
Lifeboats.......................    Sec.   1915.86  Sec.   1915.96
Medical services and first aid..    Sec.   1915.87  Sec.   1915.98 and
                                                     Sec.   1910.151
Sanitation......................    Sec.   1915.88  Sec.   1915.97 and
                                                     Sec.   1910.141
Control of hazardous energy         Sec.   1915.89  Sec.   1910.145
 (lockout/tagout).
Safety color code for marking       Sec.   1915.90  Sec.   1910.144
 physical hazards.
Accident prevention signs and       Sec.   1915.91  No existing rule
 tags.
Retention of DOT markings,          Sec.   1915.92  Sec.   1915.100
 placards and labels.
Motor vehicle safety equipment,     Sec.   1915.93  No existing rule
 maintenance, and operation.
Servicing multi-piece and single-   Sec.   1915.94  No existing rule
 piece rim wheels.
Definitions.....................    Sec.   1915.95  No existing rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA proposes to retain a number of provisions from the existing 
standards with only minor editorial and technical changes. OSHA 
believes, and SESAC agreed, that these provisions are necessary to 
provide employees with adequate protection from certain hazardous 
working conditions in shipyards. This section does not address those 
provisions at length. Rather, the discussion in this section focuses on 
the proposed revisions and additions, one of the most important being 
the control of hazardous energy.
    Finally, OSHA proposes to delete some provisions from subpart F, in 
most cases because the hazards these requirements address are not 
present in shipyard employment. For example, the existing provision 
Sec.  1910.141(f) requires that where working clothes are provided by 
the employer and get wet or are washed between shifts, the employer 
must ensure that the clothing is dry before reuse. However, information 
indicates that the provision is no longer necessary for shipyard 
employment because employers now provide disposable protective 
clothing.
    Where possible, OSHA has expressed the proposed requirements in 
performance language. In many cases, OSHA replaced outdated 
specifications with language that provides employers with greater 
flexibility in determining the most effective strategies for 
controlling the hazards in question. The proposal provides employers 
with objective criteria, where appropriate, to assist them in complying 
with the proposed requirements. For example, OSHA proposes to replace 
the list of items that first aid kits must contain, which was adopted 
more than 30 years ago and which SESAC said in 1993 was outdated, with 
flexible performance-based language and criteria employers must 
consider in determining the adequacy of those supplies. OSHA believes 
this approach contemplates changes in control strategy and allows for 
advances in technology and industry practice, thereby reducing the need 
to revise the standard when those changes occur.
    OSHA requests comment on all aspects of the proposed rule. In order 
to develop the most thorough and useful record possible, OSHA requests 
interested persons to provide comments on the questions raised 
throughout the preamble and to provide data and reasons to support 
those comments.

Section 1915.80 Scope and Application

    Each section in existing subpart F contains its own scope and 
application provision. Although most of those provisions indicate that 
the section applies to shipbuilding, ship repairing, and shipbreaking, 
some state that the section, or part(s) of it, is limited to certain 
shipyard operations. OSHA proposes to eliminate duplication of these 
provisions by consolidating them into one scope and application section 
that is applicable to the entire subpart. In addition, as SESAC 
recommended (Docket SESAC 1992-1, Ex. 100X, pp. 110-112), OSHA proposes 
to apply every section of subpart F uniformly to all of shipyard 
employment. "Shipyard employment" is defined in Sec.  1915.4(i) to 
mean "ship repairing, shipbuilding, shipbreaking, and related 
employment."
    The proposal also adds language to clarify OSHA's longstanding 
position that subpart F applies to shipyard employment "regardless of 
geographic location" of the shipyard activity. OSHA believes this is 
necessary to ensure that shipyard employers fully understand that the 
proposed subpart F requirements apply wherever employees are performing 
"shipyard employment" activities. (OSHA recently added the same 
language to the Fire Protection in Shipyards Standard, Sec.  
1915.501(b) (69 FR 55668 (9/15/2004)). Thus, if employees are 
performing shipyard employment activities, including but
not limited to performing them onboard vessels and vessel sections and 
in landside facilities on navigable waters, the proposed requirements 
would apply. Likewise, if employees are performing shipyard employment 
activities at a location that is not contiguous to a vessel, the 
proposed requirements also would apply.
    The proposal also clarifies that subpart F applies to any employer, 
regardless of whether the employer owns the vessel or shipyard, whose 
employees perform shipyard employment activities. The existing policy 
will continue to apply under the revised rule. OSHA notes that the 
proposed change does not affect the Agency's existing multi-employer 
policy. Thus, if a contractor or subcontractor is hired to perform 
shipyard employment activities, the proposed provision would apply when 
employees are performing those activities. On the other hand, the 
proposal would not apply where the contractor's employees perform non-
shipyard employment activities. For example, the proposal would apply 
to a contractor whose employees are installing ductwork on vessel 
sections or fabricating sheet metal in a shipyard facility, but would 
not extend to duct or sheet metal work done for other employers and 
customers (e.g., installing heating ductwork for an employer commercial 
building). Similarly, the proposal does not extend to outside 
contractors or employers who are at the shipyard but not performing 
shipyard employment activities, such as vending equipment suppliers or 
companies servicing portable toilet facilities. OSHA also notes that 
the proposal is not intended to cover inland manufacturing of boats or 
manufacturing of parts used to perform shipyard employment activities, 
which are more accurately characterized as general industry 
manufacturing activities covered by Part 1910 standards (Exs. 16-9, 
OSHA Shipyard Employment "Tool Bag" Directive, CPL 02-00-142; Ex. 19, 
Letter to John McKnight, National Marine Manufacturers Association (8/
3/2001)).
    The proposed consolidation of the scope provisions will simplify 
the subpart. It eliminates duplicative provisions and allows OSHA to 
remove from each section references to specific shipyard operations. 
(This discussion of the consolidation of the scope and application 
provisions eliminates the need to repeat, in the Preamble discussion of 
each section, that the scope and application provisions are being 
deleted from each section). It also ensures that employees will be 
provided necessary protection wherever the hazards that the proposed 
requirements are intended to address are present. To the extent that 
the hazard is not present in a particular area of shipyard employment, 
the proposed requirement would not apply. For example, the provisions 
in proposed Sec.  1915.85 Vessel Radar and Radio Transmitters would not 
apply if a vessel's radar is not being repaired or does not emit any 
radiation.
    The revisions OSHA proposes would make this subpart consistent with 
the scope and application of other subparts in part 1915 that OSHA has 
revised, including subpart I Personal Protective Equipment in Shipyard 
Employment (61 FR 26322 (05/24/1996)) and subpart B Confined and 
Enclosed Spaces and Other Dangerous Atmospheres in Shipyard Employment 
(59 FR 37816 (07/25/1994)).

Section 1915.81 Housekeeping

    OSHA proposes to retain and combine the housekeeping requirements 
applicable to shipyards (Sec.  1910.141(a)(3) and Sec.  1915.91) and 
proposes to reorganize and simplify the provisions to make them easier 
to understand. For example, the proposal groups together similar 
requirements. The proposal also simplifies the language in the existing 
housekeeping section. Throughout the proposed section OSHA uses the 
term "walking and working surfaces" in place of the list of the 
specific areas and surfaces contained in the existing section. In 
proposed Sec.  1915.95, OSHA defines "walking and working surfaces" 
to mean any surface on which employees gain access or perform their job 
duties or upon which employees are required or allowed to walk or work 
in the workplace. The definition contains examples of areas and 
surfaces that the term "walking and working surfaces" covers and 
includes all of the areas and surfaces listed in the existing 
housekeeping section. OSHA believes that using the umbrella term should 
make the housekeeping section easier to understand.
    Proposed paragraphs (a) through (i) establish specific requirements 
to ensure walking and working surfaces are free of hazards while 
paragraphs (j) and (k) minimize the risk of fire or combustion in 
shipyard work areas. OSHA also proposes to add requirements to this 
section including provisions on housekeeping procedures and combustible 
scrap.
    Paragraph (a)--In paragraph (a) OSHA proposes to retain the 
existing requirement that the employer maintain good housekeeping 
conditions to ensure that walking and working surfaces do not create a 
hazard for employees and that these conditions are maintained at all 
times. Because of the numerous hazardous materials and substances in 
use in shipyard operations, OSHA believes it is necessary to require 
shipyard employers to develop and implement good housekeeping practices 
to protect employees from harm. As noted above, shipyards experience 
many injuries, such as slips and falls, which an effective housekeeping 
program will help to reduce.
    Paragraphs (b) and (c)--In paragraph (b) OSHA proposes to retain, 
with minor editorial revisions, the existing requirement (Sec.  
1915.91(a)) that employers ensure that walking and working surfaces 
have adequate space for work and passage. To ensure that space is 
adequate, OSHA proposes in paragraph (c) to retain the existing 
requirement (Sec.  1915.91(a)) that employers ensure walking and 
working surfaces such as aisles and passageways be kept clear of tools, 
materials and equipment not in use. Specifically, the proposal requires 
that equipment not necessary to perform the job in progress not be 
stored or located in an area that could interfere with walking and 
working surfaces. This provision is consistent with a SESAC 
recommendation (Docket SESAC 1992-3, Ex. 104X, pp. 110-112) that only 
tools, materials, and equipment "necessary to complete the job in 
progress" be allowed to be kept out. OSHA agrees with SESAC that all 
other tools, materials, and equipment need to be stored or located so 
that they do not interfere with walking and working surfaces and create 
hazards such as tripping, slipping or falling. MACOSH also supported 
the proposed addition (Docket MACOSH 1995-1, Ex. 100X, pp. 63-64). 
Slips, trips and falls frequently result in injuries in shipyards. As 
stated above, according to the BLS data for 2002, slips, trips and 
falls accounted for 19 percent of all injuries and illnesses involving 
days away from work in ship and boat building and repairing. In 
addition, floors, walkways, or ground surfaces were cited as the source 
for 801 injuries.
    Paragraph (d)--In proposed paragraph (d), OSHA is retaining the 
existing requirement (Sec.  1910.141(a)(3)(ii)) that employers ensure 
that the floor or deck of every work area is maintained, so far as 
practicable, in a dry condition. Where wet processes are used, OSHA is 
also retaining the existing requirement that drainage be maintained and 
that employers provide false floors, platforms, mats or other dry 
standing places. Shipyard employment involves many wet processes, 
including gas-freeing, painting, hydroblasting and cleaning. This provision 
is necessary to prevent employees from being exposed to contaminated water 
and from standing for prolonged periods of time in water, both of which may 
result in adverse health effects. However, OSHA also recognizes that in some 
instances it may not be possible for employers to provide a dry standing place. 
Therefore, OSHA proposes to retain the existing language that employers need 
only provide dry standing places to the extent that it is practicable to do 
so. Where it is not, the proposal retains the existing requirement that 
employers are responsible to provide any waterproof footgear that may 
be necessary for performing wet processes. Wearing waterproof boots 
while performing wet processes will protect employees from hazards 
associated with working in standing water that may contain contaminants 
and will help to prevent slips and falls.
    Paragraph (e)--In paragraph (e), OSHA proposes to combine and 
simplify four existing requirements to keep walking and working 
surfaces clear of debris, including solid or liquid wastes, and other 
objects that may create a safety or health hazard for employees, such 
as protruding nails, splinters, loose boards, and unnecessary holes and 
openings. Existing Sec.  1915.91(a) requires that staging platforms, 
ramps, stairways, walkways, aisles and passageways on vessels or dry 
docks be kept clear of debris. Existing Sec.  1915.91(b) requires that 
working areas on and immediately surrounding vessels, dry docks, 
graving docks and marine railways be kept free of debris. Existing 
Sec.  1910.141(a)(4)(ii) requires that all sweepings, solid or liquid 
wastes, refuse, and garbage shall be removed in such a manner as to 
avoid creating a menace to health and as often as necessary or 
appropriate to maintain the place of employment in a sanitary 
condition. In addition, existing Sec.  1910.141(a)(3)(iii) requires 
that in order to facilitate cleaning, every floor, working place, and 
passageway shall be kept free from protruding nails, splinters, loose 
boards, and unnecessary holes and openings. The proposal, by using the 
term "walking and working surfaces", ensures that all areas in the 
shipyard are kept clear. Keeping walking and working surfaces clear 
will also help to ensure that employees have adequate room to move 
safely to and from work areas and throughout the workplace. OSHA 
intends that the term "debris" continue to include bolts, nuts, and 
welding rod tips as well as other objects and material that could 
create a safety or health hazard to employees, such as scrap metal, 
broken equipment, liquid wastes, tools, and empty containers.
    Paragraph (f)--In paragraph (f) OSHA is proposing to retain, with 
only minor changes, the existing requirement (Sec.  1915.91(d)) that 
the employer maintain free access to exits, fire-alarm boxes, and fire-
fighting equipment. OSHA proposes to add fire-call stations to this 
list based on SESAC's recommendation that access to this equipment is 
also essential for the protection and safe evacuation of employees 
(SESAC 1992-3, Ex. 104X, p. 117).
    Paragraph (g)--In paragraph (g) OSHA is proposing to retain the 
existing requirement (Sec.  1915.91(c)) that slippery conditions on 
walkways or working surfaces shall be eliminated as they occur. The 
proposal also makes more explicit OSHA's position that ice and snow are 
included among the types of slippery conditions that employers must 
eliminate under the existing standard by adding language that such 
accumulations must be removed as they occur. OSHA believes this 
clarifying language is important since members of SESAC raised 
questions about whether the existing standard covers these conditions 
(Docket SESAC 1992-3, Ex. 104X, pp. 117-119). OSHA requests comment on 
this issue.
    Paragraph (h)--In paragraph (h) OSHA proposes to retain the 
existing provision (Sec.  1915.91(b)) that construction material be 
stacked in a manner that does not create a hazard (e.g., trip) to 
employees. The proposal includes only non-substantive editorial 
changes.
    Paragraph (i)--In paragraph (i) OSHA is proposing to retain the 
existing requirement (Sec.  1915.91(a)) that hoses and electrical 
service cords be hung over or placed under walking and working 
surfaces, or be covered by crossovers to prevent injury to employees 
and damage to the hoses and cords. The proposal contains only minor 
editorial changes for clarity.
    Paragraph (j)--In paragraph (j) OSHA proposes to retain the 
existing requirements (Sec.  1915.91(e)) that flammable substances such 
as paint thinners, solvents, rags and waste be stored in covered fire-
resistant containers when not in use.
    Paragraph (k)--Proposed paragraph (k) adds a requirement that 
combustible scrap be removed from the work area as soon as possible to 
reduce fire hazards. Shipyards have many small fires that are often due 
to the accumulation of combustible scrap materials. If combustible 
scrap is allowed to accumulate in areas where hot work such as welding 
and cutting are performed, sparks generated by that work could ignite 
the scrap. Fire prevention helps eliminate the hazards created by the 
presence of combustible materials. OSHA recently published a fire 
prevention standard (29 CFR Part 1915, subpart P) that contains fire 
prevention measures that must be taken before and during hot work (69 
FR 55668-55708, (9/15/2004)). The proposed requirement would reduce 
fire hazards further and improve fire protection in shipyards.

Section 1915.82--Lighting

    This section proposes minimum requirements for illumination 
throughout shipyard employment. Many of the proposed provisions are 
retained from the existing requirements in Sec.  1915.92. However, the 
proposal reorganizes them for clarity into the following three 
paragraphs: (a) General Requirements; (b) Temporary Lights; and (c) 
Handheld Portable Lights.
    Paragraph (a) General Requirements--Proposed paragraph (a) sets 
forth requirements that apply to lighting in all areas of shipyard 
employment. The proposed general requirements would apply regardless of 
whether permanent or temporary lights are used. The lighting intensity 
levels that would be required by table F-1 would not apply to emergency 
lighting or portable handheld lights.
    In paragraph (a)(1) OSHA is proposing to establish minimum 
illumination requirements for specific areas and work activities in 
shipyard employment to ensure that employers have lighting that allows 
employees to safely perform work tasks. For instance, proposed Table F-
1 specifies that general landside areas such as corridors and walkways 
that employees pass through would be required to have an illumination 
intensity of at least five lumens (foot candles). However, OSHA 
believes that higher illumination levels (i.e., 10 lumens) are 
necessary to work safely in landside areas such as machine and 
carpentry shops. In these areas employees may be using hazardous tools 
and equipment and performing precision work. Likewise, higher 
illumination levels (i.e., 10 lumens) are necessary in warehouses since 
it may be necessary for employees to read warning labels on flammable 
or hazardous substances and to safely operate lift trucks and other 
equipment.
    According to the IMIS database, there have been four fatalities 
that may have been prevented had the employees been working in an area 
that was provided with adequate illumination. In one incident, an 
employee stepped into an unguarded opening in the floor of a dark cargo 
deck and fell almost 20 feet to his death at the bottom of the cargo hold. 
At the time of the accident, the employee was walking across the dark deck 
towards an open doorway, which provided the only illumination of the area. 
In another case, an employee climbing down a ladder in an elevator shaft 
that was dimly lit, fell 50 feet to his death. It is unclear whether the 
employee could even see the bottom of the 130-foot shaft as he was 
descending. In another case, an employee was electrocuted when he was 
performing electrical repair work at night in a poorly illuminated 
area. An accident investigation found there was "inadequate lighting" 
at the location where the employee was working (Ex. 14). Although the 
investigation confirmed that the controlling circuit breaker was 
closed, another switch was found in an open position, possibly because 
there was not enough light to read the switch. The existing rule 
specifies that work areas must be "adequately illuminated" (Sec.  
1915.92(a)). The proposed rule clarifies the existing requirement by 
setting forth specific illumination levels for various shipyard work 
locations (proposed Sec.  1915.82 Table F-1). Had the employee's work 
location been lit to the proposed levels, the employee may have been 
able to see that the oil switch was still open and close it prior to 
starting his repair work.
    SESAC recommended that OSHA add specific illumination requirements 
to this section (Docket SESAC-1992-1, Ex. 100X, 1992, p. 113), and the 
Agency agrees that the table provides useful and simple assistance for 
employers. The illumination specifications in proposed Table F-1 are 
drawn from illumination tables in the Construction Illumination (Sec.  
1926.56) and Hazardous Waste Operations (Sec.  1910.120) standards, and 
in the national consensus standard for industrial lighting (Ex. 3-8, 
ANSI/IESNA RP-9-01-2001 Recommended Practice for Lighting in Industrial 
Facilities). The proposal revises and simplifies the tables from those 
standards to make Table F-1 more applicable to shipyard employment 
conditions and activities.
    OSHA is proposing that each area of the workplace be illuminated 
according to the following intensities. In general areas, such as 
exits, accessways, stairs and walkways, the area must be illuminated 
with at least 3 lumens on vessels and vessel sections and 5 lumens on 
landside. In areas such as landside tunnels, shafts, vaults, pumping 
stations and underground work areas, and all assigned work areas on any 
vessel or vessel section, the area must be illuminated to at least 5 
lumens. Landside work areas such as machine shops, electrical equipment 
rooms, carpenter shops, lofts, tool rooms, warehouses, outdoor work 
areas, changing rooms, showers, sewered toilet facilities and all 
eating, drinking and break areas must be illuminated to 10 lumens. 
First aid stations, infirmaries and offices must be illuminated to 30 
lumens.
    OSHA notes that the Longshoring standard, 29 CFR 1918.92(a), 
requires generally that illumination for cargo transfer operations be 
of a minimum light intensity of five lumens. Where work tasks require 
more light to be performed safely, supplemental lighting must be 
provided. That approach does not provide the guidance that SESAC 
requested while proposed Table F-1 provides for those situations in 
which supplemental lighting may be necessary. OSHA does not intend to 
require that employers provide additional lighting where natural light 
provides the necessary illumination level. However, where natural light 
does not provide the required level (e.g., at dusk), the employer must 
provide additional lighting and Table F-1 specifies the appropriate 
minimum levels of illumination.
    OSHA solicits comments on the proposal as well as alternative 
approaches such as the one used in the Longshoring Standard or the 
requirements of the ANSI/IESNA standard. Are the proposed lighting 
intensities adequate? Does the table adequately address all areas of 
shipyard employment? If not, what areas need to be added?
    In paragraph (a)(2), OSHA proposes to retain unchanged the existing 
requirement (Sec.  1915.92(e)) that matches and open flame devices may 
not be used as sources of light. OSHA proposes to place this provision 
with the general requirements to reinforce its intent that matches and 
open flames are not to be used for light for any purpose, including 
emergencies, or anywhere in the shipyard, regardless of whether 
permanent, temporary or handheld portable lighting is available. Using 
matches and open flame devices, such as burning torches, for lighting 
or heat is not safe or practical for a number of reasons. They are 
unreliable, could be blown out easily, could endanger employees by 
creating a fire hazard, and do not provide adequate lighting 
intensities.
    SESAC also recommended adding a requirement that only a "qualified 
person" be permitted to replace or cap unguarded, damaged bulbs that 
have exposed filaments (Docket SESAC 1991, Ex. 100X, p. 84). OSHA has 
not adopted this suggestion, because the Agency believes that the 
existing and other proposed standards address this hazard. The existing 
and proposed provisions requiring temporary lights to be either 
completely recessed or equipped with guards reduces the electrical 
hazard created by an exposed light bulb filament, and the electrical 
safe work practices of Sec.  1910 subpart S that apply to temporary 
lights powered from landside sources address the hazards to employees 
repairing the temporary lights.
    OSHA requests comment on this recommendation, and whether it is 
needed, in light of other existing and proposed regulatory provisions 
that deal with lighting, electrical safety, and guarding of temporary 
lights.
    Paragraph (b) Temporary Lights--Proposed paragraph (b) retains, 
with minor editorial changes, the existing provisions on temporary 
lights (Sec.  1915.92(f)), including light guards, grounding, 
insulation, and splicing.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(1) is similar to the existing requirement 
(Sec.  1915.92(b)(1)) that temporary lights that do not have bulbs that 
are "deeply" recessed must have guards to prevent accidental contact. 
Guarding of non-recessed bulbs is necessary to protect employees from 
being burned, or cut by broken bulbs, and to prevent combustible 
materials from igniting. However, paragraph (b)(1) proposes to require 
that temporary lights be guarded if they are not "completely" 
recessed. The existing provision only requires guarding if lights are 
not "deeply" recessed. Unless a temporary light is completely 
recessed, there is a risk that the light could be damaged or broken, 
thus creating a hazard for employees (e.g., electrical, laceration, 
burn). A guard is necessary to control those hazards. OSHA believes the 
proposed language provides employers with clearer and more accurate 
guidance on when the hazards this provision addresses are present and 
must be controlled. OSHA requests comment on the proposed provision. 
What is your current practice? Should OSHA require that all temporary 
lights be guarded?
    Paragraph (b)(2) proposes that employers equip temporary lights 
with electric cords "with sufficient capacity to carry the electric 
load." The existing standard (Sec.  1915.92(b)(2)) requires the use of 
"heavy duty" electric cords. The OSHA Construction Electrical 
standards are similar to the existing standard, requiring that cords 
for portable tools and appliances be designed for "hard or extra-hard 
usage" (Sec.  1926.405(a)(2)(j)). The construction standard includes a
note listing various types of hard or extra-hard cords that meet the 
National Electrical Code (ANSI/NEPA 70, Article 400, Table 400-4).
    OSHA believes the proposed language more accurately identifies the 
type of cord employers must provide to ensure employees are not exposed 
to electrical hazards, and thus, provides greater protection for 
employees. The fact that a cord is "heavy duty" does not necessarily 
mean that it has sufficient capacity to carry the electric load. In 
addition, OSHA believes the proposal provides employers with greater 
flexibility in meeting the requirements of the standard. The proposal 
ensures that employers may use whatever type of cord is sufficient to 
safely carry the electric load.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(3) retains unchanged the existing 
requirements (Sec.  1915.92(b)(2)) that connections and insulation used 
on temporary lights be maintained in a safe condition. Implicit in this 
provision is the requirement that the employer check to see that 
connections and insulation are in proper working order and replace them 
when they are broken, cracked or damaged.
    In paragraph (b)(4), OSHA proposes to clarify the existing 
requirement (Sec.  1915.92(b)(2)) to prohibit temporary light 
stringers, as well as temporary lights, from being suspended solely by 
their electric cords, unless they are designed by the manufacturer to 
be used in that way. When any type of lights and wiring are not 
suspended properly, placing them under tension the manufacturer did not 
design the electric cord to take, the cord can fray, break, or become 
damaged.
    Proposed paragraphs (b)(5) and (6) retain, with non-substantive 
changes, the existing requirements in Sec.  1915.92(f). Proposed 
paragraph (b)(5) requires that lighting stringers not overload branch 
circuits. Proposed paragraph (b)(6) requires that branch circuits be 
equipped with over-current protection whose capacity does not exceed 
the rated current carrying capacity of the cord used. OSHA believes 
that both measures are necessary to provide an adequate measure of 
safety from electrical and fire hazards associated with circuit 
overloading.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(7) revises the existing standard by 
requiring that splices have insulation that "exceeds" that of the 
cable. The existing provision allows the use of splices where the 
insulation is "equal" to that of the cable. OSHA believes the 
revisions are necessary to ensure that employees are fully protected 
from electrical hazards if splices are used. When a splice is necessary 
on an electrical cord, the current may create a surplus of energy or 
"hot spot" at the splice junction that is greater than the current 
for which the cord was designed. Requiring that the rated capacity of 
the insulation exceed the capacity of the cable ensures that employees 
will be protected if they touch or come into contact with the splice. 
The additional insulation capacity also ensures that hot spots do not 
start burning or ignite combustible materials in the area.
    OSHA requests comment on the proposed revision. Does the proposed 
requirement provide sufficient protection for employees? Is weather a 
factor in determining what insulation to use? In your establishment and 
industry, what practices are followed regarding insulation of splices? 
Should OSHA propose a more specific requirement, for example that 
splices have insulation at 1\1/2\ times greater than that of the cable?
    Proposed paragraph (b)(8) retains the existing requirement (Sec.  
1915.92(c)) that exposed, non-current-carrying metal parts of temporary 
lights be grounded. It also retains the requirement that grounding be 
provided either through a third wire in the cable that contains the 
circuit conductors or through a separate wire that is grounded at the 
source of the current. OSHA also proposes to include the existing 
provision requiring that grounding be done in accordance with the 
requirements of Sec.  1915.132(b) subpart H, Tools and Related 
Equipment.
    Paragraph (c) Handheld Portable Lights--Proposed paragraph (c) 
addresses the use of handheld portable lights in work areas that do not 
have permanent or temporary lighting or such lighting is not working or 
is not readily accessible.
    To ensure that employees do not enter unlighted or dark areas, 
paragraph (c)(1) requires that the employer provide employees with 
handheld portable lights and ensure that such lights are used whenever 
employees enter those areas. The proposal simplifies the current 
requirements (Sec.  1915.92(d) and (e)), by combining them into one 
provision and clarifying that the requirement is applicable to all 
unlighted areas in shipyards, regardless of whether they are on 
vessels, vessel sections or landside.
    In response to a MACOSH recommendation (Ex. 1-2), proposed 
paragraph (c)(1) also clarifies in objective terms the existing 
prohibition that employees not enter "dark spaces" without handheld 
portable lights. The proposal replaces that term with the requirement 
that employers provide and ensure handheld portable lights are used to 
enter or work in any area that (1) does not have permanent or temporary 
lighting, (2) where such lighting is not working, or (3) where such 
lighting is not readily accessible. "Readily accessible," for 
purposes of this provision, means that the light switch or other means 
of activation is located in close proximity to the entrance to the 
area. For example, where an employee would have to travel across a long 
work area or climb steps in the dark to turn on permanent lights, those 
lights are not readily accessible. In such cases, the employee would 
have to use a handheld portable light to enter the area. OSHA requests 
comment on the proposed provision. In your establishment, when are 
employees provided with and required to use handheld portable lights to 
enter an area? Are there other situations where handheld portable 
lights are needed?
    In three different fatalities reported in the IMIS database, 
employees who were working in areas where the lighting was not working, 
fell to their deaths walking in dark areas. In one instance, an 
employee who was trying to restore power to the temporary lighting 
stepped off of the coaming and fell approximately 25 feet to the bottom 
of the hold.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(2) is similar to the existing requirement 
(Sec.  1915.92(d)) that where temporary lighting from sources outside 
the vessel or vessel section is the only means of illumination, the 
employer shall ensure that handheld portable lights are available to 
provide illumination for safe movement of employees. This provision is 
needed because temporary lighting could fail, making it difficult and 
hazardous for employees exiting an area of the vessel. The proposal 
requires that the employer ensure that the portable lights are handheld 
so employees are able to take the lights with them to light their way 
as they move about and exit the space safely. The proposal also makes 
explicit that the employer must ensure that handheld portable lights 
are readily available in the immediate area where employees are 
working. Implicit in the proposal is the obligation that the employer 
provide handheld portable lights in numbers that are adequate to ensure 
that all employees are able to move about and exit the area safely. 
OSHA requests comment on the proposed provision. Should OSHA apply this 
provision to any area where landside or shore-based lighting provides 
the only illumination? Should OSHA include an exception to the rule 
when natural sunlight suffices?
    Proposed paragraph (c)(3) retains and simplifies the existing 
requirement (Sec.  1915.92(e)) on the use of handheld portable lights 
in any area that is not gas-free. In such areas, the proposal would 
require that the employer ensure that only "explosion-proof, self-
contained" handheld portable lights are used (or other equipment 
approved by a nationally recognized testing laboratory (NRTL)). 
Although the existing standard requires the same, stakeholders must go 
to another section of part 1915 (Sec.  1915.13(b)(9)) to find out what 
type of lights they must provide when the area is not gas-free. The 
proposal adds the language from the cross-referenced section, thus 
eliminating the need to look to the other section. The proposal also 
carries forward the note to existing Sec.  1915.13(b)(9) that equipment 
approved by a NRTL for the class and division of the location to be 
used will meet the requirements of this paragraph. (OSHA notes that the 
proposed requirement would apply in non-gas-free areas regardless of 
whether proposed paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) also apply.)

Section 1915.83 Utilities

    The proposed section on utilities retains, with minor 
clarifications, the existing requirements of Sec.  1915.93 and 
reorganizes them for clarity into four paragraphs: (a) Steam supply 
systems; (b) Steam hoses; (c) Electric shore power; and (d) Heat lamps. 
SESAC recommended retaining these provisions and did not propose any 
changes (Docket SESAC 1992-3, Ex. 104X, pp. 88-96). The Agency agrees 
that these provisions are necessary to protect employees from hazards 
associated with unchecked release of steam and with excessive wearing, 
tearing, and chafing of steam hoses that could compromise the integrity 
of components.
    Paragraph (a) Steam Supply System--Proposed paragraph (a) requires 
that the employer ensure that the vessel's steam piping system has a 
safe working pressure prior to supplying steam from an outside source 
to the vessel.
    In paragraph (a) OSHA proposes to delete the existing requirement 
that employers must ascertain the steam system working pressure from 
"responsible vessel's representatives, having knowledge of the 
condition of the plant." In its place, OSHA proposes to provide 
employers with greater flexibility in determining the most effective 
way to meet the requirements of this provision, while keeping employers 
responsible for ensuring that the steam system is safe before supplying 
steam from an outside source. Employers are free to ascertain the 
critical information from a responsible vessel's representative, a 
contractor or any other person who is qualified by training, knowledge 
or experience to make that determination.
    In paragraphs (a)(1) through (3), OSHA proposes to simplify the 
existing requirements (Sec.  1915.93(a)(1)) for outside systems that 
supply steam to a vessel's steam piping system. Proposed paragraph 
(a)(1) requires that a pressure gauge and a relief valve be installed 
at the point where the steam hose of the outside steam source joins a 
vessel's steam piping system. Proposed paragraph (a)(2) requires that 
the relief valves of outside steam systems be set to relieve excess 
steam and be capable of relieving steam at a pressure that does not 
exceed the safe working pressure of the vessel's steam piping system in 
its present condition. Proposed paragraph (a)(3) requires that there 
must not be any means of disconnecting the relief valve from the system 
that it protects.
    In paragraph (a)(4), OSHA proposes to revise the existing 
requirement (Sec.  1915.93(a)(1)) on visibility and accessibility of 
pressure gauges and relief valves of steam supply systems by adding a 
requirement that such gauges and valves also be "kept in legible 
condition." OSHA believes this addition will address concerns SESAC 
members raised that gauges and valves often cannot be read because they 
are too dirty to be readable or the print is too small (Docket SESAC 
1992-2, Ex. 102X, pp. 94-96). OSHA agrees that gauges must be visible, 
accessible and legible in order to determine accurately whether the 
working pressure of the steam supply system is safe.
    In paragraph (a)(5), OSHA proposes to add a requirement that relief 
valves be positioned or placed in a location where they will not cause 
injury if they are activated. For example, orienting or positioning the 
relief valve to vent away from employees is one way to protect them 
from being scalded and burned if a valve is tripped by high pressure.
    Paragraph (b) Steam Hoses--Proposed paragraph (b) retains, with 
some revisions, the existing requirements for steam hoses (Sec.  
1915.93(a)(2)-(4)). Proposed paragraph (b)(1) requires that the 
employer ensure that all steam hoses and fittings have a safety factor 
of at least five--which is the same safety factor as in the existing 
standard (Sec.  1915.93(a)(2)).
    In paragraph (b)(2), OSHA proposes to revise the existing 
requirement (Sec.  1915.93(a)(3)) on hanging steam hoses in bights. The 
existing rule requires that the weight of the steam hoses must be 
"relieved by appropriate lines" to prevent chafing. The proposal 
requires that "short bights" be used when hanging steam hoses. OSHA 
believes the proposed language more clearly and directly specifies the 
measures necessary to prevent chafing and reduce tension on the hose 
and its fittings. SESAC recommended this change (Docket SESAC 1992-3, 
Ex. 104X, p. 123) because they said the use of short bights better 
protects steam hoses from damage.
    Proposed paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) retain and divide into 
separate provisions the existing requirements to protect steam hoses 
from damage and to protect employees from injury from steam hoses 
(Sec.  1915.93(a)(4)). In paragraph (b)(3), OSHA proposes that steam 
hoses be protected from damage. Steam hoses can be damaged when 
equipment and material are moved through walking and working areas. 
Employees could be seriously injured if a damaged hose suddenly 
releases steam.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(4) revises the existing requirement that 
steam hoses and temporary piping passing through walking or working 
areas be shielded to protect employees from injury due to accidental 
contact. The existing provisions only require shielding of steam hoses 
and piping that pass through "normal work areas" (Sec.  
1915.93(a)(4)). The proposed language expands coverage and provides 
employees with greater protection because it ensures that hoses and 
piping passing through areas and spaces where employees walk or pass 
through to reach work areas are also shielded to protect employees.
    Paragraph (c) Electric Shore Power--In paragraph (c) the Agency 
proposes to retain, with minor revisions, the existing requirements 
(Sec.  1915.93(b)) addressing the actions employers must take prior to 
energizing a vessel's circuits when electricity is supplied from a 
landside power source. OSHA believes that the proposed performance 
language improves the clarity of the requirements. For example, the 
proposal changes the paragraph title to "Electric Shore Power" from 
"Electric Power" to emphasize that the provisions address the actions 
that are necessary to protect employees from the hazards of remote 
power carried by electric cables or wires onto a vessel, which differ 
from other electrical hazards such as hand-held powered tools.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(1) retains unchanged the existing 
requirement (Sec.  1915.93(b)(1)(i)) that, prior to energizing the 
vessel's circuits, employers ensure the vessel is grounded if it is in 
dry dock.
    In paragraph (c)(2), OSHA proposes to revise the existing 
requirement (Sec.  1915.93(b)(1)(ii)) to require that, prior to 
energization, employers ensure that circuits are in safe condition. The 
proposal also deletes the existing language requirement that employers 
ascertain such information from a "responsible vessel's 
representative." OSHA believes the proposal provides employers with 
greater flexibility to determine the most effective procedure for 
checking the safety of circuits.
    In paragraph (c)(3), OSHA proposes to retain unchanged the existing 
requirement (Sec.  1915.93(b)(1)(iii)) that circuits to be energized 
must be equipped with overcurrent protection that does not exceed the 
rated current-carrying capacity of the conductors.
    Paragraph (d) Heat Lamps--Proposed paragraph (d) would require that 
all heat lamps, including the face, be equipped with surround-type 
guards to prevent contact with the bulb, which could result in employee 
burns or the igniting of combustible material. The proposal expands the 
existing requirement (Sec.  1915.93(c)), which is limited to infrared 
heat lamps and does not fully address contact hazards since it does not 
require that the lamp face be guarded. OSHA believes these changes are 
necessary because shipyards use a variety of heat lamps and because 
fires are a significant source of accidents onboard vessels. In 
addition, employees can be seriously burned if they come in contact 
with a lamp face, which the guarding will prevent.

Section 1915.84 Work in Confined or Isolated Spaces

    The proposal retains, with revisions, the existing requirements 
(Sec.  1915.94) to protect employees working in confined spaces or 
alone in isolated locations. The proposal also retains the existing 
exception in Sec.  1915.51(c)(3) for welding, cutting and heating in 
confined spaces where, under certain conditions, an employee must be 
stationed outside the confined space to maintain communication and 
render aid if necessary. After reviewing the existing rule, SESAC 
recommended retaining the requirements (Docket SESAC 1992-2, Ex. 102X, 
p. 99). OSHA agrees with SESAC that these provisions are necessary to 
reduce employee deaths in shipyard employment.
    Since 1987, thirteen fatalities have been reported in the OSHA IMIS 
database where employees were working alone in isolated areas in 
shipyards and were not discovered until after they had died from their 
injuries (Ex. 13). Following are some of those incidents.
     In 2002, an employee was working alone in the plenum on 
the starboard side of the A/B deck on a Navy vessel. Management stated 
that no one had checked on him often enough to notice he was missing 
until someone noticed his body floating in the water nearby.
     In 2000, an employee was working on the accommodation 
ladder on the MV Cape Henry when he apparently fell and drowned. He was 
not found for 11 days.
     In 2000, a crew was working on a cargo transfer crane 
barge welding metal grommets under the crane tracks on the deck of the 
barge. One employee climbed into a hold and was overcome by lack of 
oxygen. The employee was eventually found and later died.
     In 1998, a five-man crew was working on a barge, refitting 
it for use on the Panama Canal. One of the employees was working alone 
on the port side of the vessel installing the pilot house when he fell 
into the water. The remainder of the crew did not know that the 
employee had been missing until they found him dead in the water at a 
later time.
     In 1995, an employee was working alone as a shipyard dock 
watchman when he apparently fell from the gangway between the ship and 
the dock wall to the bottom of the dry dock. The unconscious employee 
was not found until the relief watchman came on duty and summoned help. 
The emergency team who arrived found the employee suffering from head 
and limb fractures and internal injuries. The employee later died of 
those injuries.
     In 1993, an employee was killed working alone while 
welding an overhead lap of steel plate to the underside of a vessel in 
dry dock. While standing on a concrete dry dock apron, approximately 14 
feet wide by 49 feet long, the employee apparently walked off the end 
of it into the water and drowned. A coworker had gone home to take care 
of personal business, and there was no one there to rescue the 
employee.
     In 1992, two employees were cutting bulkheads using a 
torch in a small compartment on a drilling rig. The hose failed just 
inside the manways and ignited, trapping both employees inside the 
compartment until the end of the shift, about one hour. There were no 
scheduled checks on these employees, and one employee died as a result.
    Paragraph (a)--Proposed paragraph (a) retains the requirement that 
the employer make frequent checks during each workshift to ensure the 
safety of any employee working in a confined space or alone in an 
isolated location. There are many ways employers can comply with this 
requirement. One method is using two-way radios. Another is frequent 
visits by the employer or employer's designee to the confined space or 
the isolated area. If visits to the work area are used, it is essential 
that the employer have a visual check of the employee rather than 
relying on power tool noise. Some power tools can continue to run even 
after an employee is injured or disabled.
    Paragraph (b)--In paragraph (b) OSHA proposes to add a new 
requirement that the employer, at the end of each shift, account for 
each employee who is working in a confined space or alone in an 
isolated location. This provision would ensure that employers ascertain 
that each employee has returned safely from working in those areas, and 
if not, to take immediate action to locate the missing employee to 
render first aid or any other needed assistance. OSHA added this 
provision after reviewing shipyard fatality reports that indicated some 
injured employees were not discovered until long after their shifts had 
ended. OSHA recognizes that this provision may not prevent every 
fatality associated with confined spaces and isolated work areas, but 
the Agency believes it will help to increase survivability when an 
accident or injury occurs.
    OSHA requests comment on the proposed provision. Specifically, OSHA 
requests comment on whether the section should be limited to employees 
working alone in either a confined or isolated space. Should OSHA 
address the hazards associated with working in confined spaces in 
subpart B confined and enclosed spaces instead of subpart F? In your 
establishment and industry, are employees working in confined spaces or 
alone in isolated spaces checked frequently during the workshift and 
accounted for at the end of the workshift? OSHA requests data and 
information on any injuries, fatalities, or near-misses that have 
occurred during the last five years due to an employee working in a 
confined space or alone in an isolated area. If any incidents have 
occurred, what measures have been instituted to ensure that employees 
working in these areas are safe?
    OSHA also requests comment on whether the section should require 
that employers establish a system or some form of a signal to indicate 
when a single employee enters a confined space or a cofferdam to 
perform work. For example, should OSHA require employers to have a 
system where employees leave their picture identification (or some 
other easily identifiable flag) outside the entrance to alert other 
employees that someone is inside working?

Section 1915.85 Vessel Radar and Radio Transmitters

    The proposed section retains, with minor revisions, the existing 
requirements in Sec.  1915.95 to protect employees from hazards (e.g., 
hazardous energy, radiation) associated with radar and radio 
transmitters onboard vessels. Although the scope of the proposed 
section is expanded to apply to shipbreaking, OSHA notes that it is 
very unlikely that radar and other radiation emitting equipment are 
still operational when shipbreaking operations are performed. 
Therefore, if the hazards this section seeks to address are not 
present, the requirements would not apply.
    Paragraph (a)--Proposed paragraph (a) revises the existing 
requirement (Sec.  1915.95(a)) to ensure that no employee, whether 
radio repair technician or other employee, is allowed to work on the 
radar, radio transmitter, mast, king post, or other area closely 
located, unless the radar and radio transmitter are secured and made 
incapable of releasing hazardous energy or emitting radiation. Although 
the existing provision prohibits work in areas near the radar or radio 
transmitter unless the equipment is made incapable of emitting 
radiation, the provision does not address all the hazards of radio and 
radar transmitters including the energization of equipment. For 
example, an employee working aloft on a mast could be injured or even 
killed if a rotating radio antenna moves and strikes the employee.
    Paragraph (b)--Proposed paragraph (b) revises the existing 
provision to require that prior to servicing, repairing or testing any 
radar or radio transmitter, the employer must ensure that hazardous 
energy is controlled in accordance with the proposed requirements of 
Sec.  1915.89 Control of Hazardous Energy. The existing provision only 
requires that the equipment be "appropriately tagged" (Sec.  
1915.95(a)). However, OSHA believes that more detailed lockout/tagout 
procedures are needed to ensure that employees are fully protected from 
the movement or start up of equipment and the release of hazardous 
energy. Tagging the equipment without complying with the rest of the 
proposed lockout/tagout program and procedures does not ensure that 
employees will be fully protected, especially those working in multi-
employer worksites or in situations where ship's crew are present.
    The additional protections in proposed paragraphs (a) and (b) are 
necessary for two reasons. First, any employee, including a repair 
technician, could be injured or killed if the radar or radio 
transmitter releases energy or if radiation is emitted from the radar 
system while the employee is working on or near that equipment. The 
proposed revision provides uniform protection for all employees working 
on or near such equipment. Second, this revision would ensure that 
employees servicing radar systems and radio transmitters follow the 
procedures for controlling hazardous energy sources (lockout/tagout) in 
proposed Sec.  1915.89 to protect themselves and other employees 
working in the area. The Agency believes that shipyards generally 
follow these precautions currently, and thus this provision would not 
alter work practices in this area.
    Paragraph (c)--Proposed paragraph (c) retains unchanged the 
existing provision (Sec.  1915.95(b)) requiring that the employer 
schedule testing of radar or radio at a time when (1) no work is in 
progress aloft, or (2) personnel can be cleared a "minimum safe 
distance" from the danger area. The proposal also retains the 
requirement that the employer follow the minimum safe distance 
established for the type, model, and power of the equipment. SESAC 
recommended retaining the existing provisions (Docket SESAC 1992-1, Ex. 
100X, pp. 118-130; Docket SESAC 1992-2, Ex. 102X, pp. 97-99).
    SESAC also recommended that OSHA include sonar testing and repair 
in this section (Docket SESAC 1992-1, Ex. 100X, pp. 118-130). OSHA 
requests comments on whether the testing and repair of sonar should be 
included. What are the potential hazards to employees in testing and 
repairing sonar? In your establishment and industry, have employees 
been injured, killed, or exposed to radiation while testing, repairing 
or working near sonar equipment? What precautions are taken to ensure 
that employees are protected from these hazards?

Section 1915.86 Lifeboats

    The proposed section retains and revises the existing requirements 
(Sec.  1915.96) for working in or on lifeboats. Several lifeboat 
fatalities have occurred in the shipbuilding and repair industry. In 
1993, for example, two employees being hoisted in a lifeboat were 
thrown into a river and drowned because the boat was not adequately 
secured. When the boat was released the hoist lines were not sufficient 
to bear the weight and shock of the falling lifeboat. In 2004, three 
employees being lifted onto a newly-constructed floating oil rig were 
dropped when the rig's sternhook failed, killing one employee and 
seriously injuring the two others. The proposal prohibits hoisting 
employees in lifeboats under any circumstances. Such a requirement 
would have prevented these accidents.
    Paragraph (a)--Proposed paragraph (a) simplifies the existing 
provision (Sec.  1915.96(a)) to emphasize that the employer must ensure 
that before employees work in or on a lifeboat, either in a stowed or 
suspended position, that the lifeboat is secured independently of the 
releasing gear. Securing the lifeboat prevents it from falling if the 
releasing gear is accidentally tripped or the davits move. It also 
prevents lifeboats that are stowed on chocks from capsizing.
    Paragraph (b)--Proposed paragraph (b) expands the protection 
afforded by the existing provision (Sec.  1915.96(b)) by prohibiting 
employees from being in a lifeboat at any time while it is being 
hoisted. The existing requirement only prohibits employees from being 
in lifeboats when they are hoisted "into the final stowed position." 
As the discussion of fatal shipyard accidents shows, the hazards 
associated with the hoisting of lifeboats (e.g., falling) are present 
any time they are hoisted. The proposed provision will provide 
employees with protection whenever the hazard is present. OSHA requests 
comments on the proposed revision.
    Paragraph (c)--Proposed paragraph (c) retains the existing 
requirement (Sec.  1915.96(c)) that the employer not permit employees 
to work on the outboard side of any lifeboat that is stowed on its 
chocks unless the lifeboat is secured to prevent it from swinging 
outboard. If the lifeboat is not secured prior to employees working on 
the outboard side of it, the lifeboat could swing out and strike the 
employee, causing him or her to fall.

Section 1915.87 Medical Services and First Aid

    Proposed Sec.  1915.87 sets out requirements for medical services, 
first aid, and lifesaving equipment. Shipyard employment has high 
accident rates. The provisions in this section are intended to prevent 
workplace accidents from resulting in fatality and serious injury by 
increasing the survivability of life-threatening injuries and 
mitigating the severity of injuries.
    The proposal combines and revises, where necessary, the existing 
standards on medical services and first aid that are applicable to 
shipyards (Sec. Sec.  1910.151 and 1915.98). OSHA adopted both 
standards, pursuant to section 6(a) of the OSH Act, from the 
established Federal occupational safety and health standards in effect 
at the time. (The provisions in Sec.  1910.151 apply to shipyards to the 
extent that the section addresses hazards and working conditions that 
Sec.  1915.98 does not. See Ex.16-9, OSHA's Tool Bag Directive.)
    Paragraph (a) General Requirement--In paragraph (a), OSHA proposes 
a general requirement that employers ensure that medical services and 
first aid for employees are "readily accessible." For purposes of 
this section, readily accessible means that medical services and first 
aid are capable of being reached quickly when employees need them, or 
medical service and first aid can be brought quickly to the employee, 
and there are no obstacles to gaining quick access.
    The purpose of this provision is twofold. First, it would establish 
uniform criteria applicable to all of the first aid and medical 
services specified in the section, ensuring that these services are 
available and close enough to the injured employee so effective 
intervention can be provided. Second, in the case of serious or life-
threatening injury, it would require employers to have steps in place 
to ensure that additional emergency medical intervention is readily 
accessible. The provision also addresses SESAC's concerns that first 
aid providers be able to reach injured employees quickly enough to 
render effective assistance.
    Uniform criteria for all first aid and medical services are 
necessary because their components, primarily first aid providers and 
first aid supplies, are interrelated. They both must be readily 
accessible for intervention to be effective. It is not effective to 
require that first aid kits be situated at every work location without 
a parallel requirement to have trained employees at the work location 
who are capable of using those supplies. Conversely, on-site trained 
first aid providers cannot provide effective assistance if first aid 
supplies are too far away to be accessed quickly. Thus, establishing 
uniform criteria will help to ensure that the needed components of 
first aid and medical services are in place to provide effective 
intervention when needed. Uniform provisions will also help to simplify 
the section and make it easier to understand and comply with. Finally, 
the uniform criterion addresses inconsistency concerns that SESAC 
suggested exist in the current requirements. SESAC pointed out that the 
existing standard establishes different criteria for different types of 
first aid and medical services (Docket SESAC 1993-1, Ex. 100X, pp. 167-
173). For example, SESAC pointed out that in existing Sec.  1915.98(a) 
first aid rooms, qualified attendants and trained first aid providers 
must be "close at hand" to any area of the shipyard while the first 
aid kits provision only requires that kits be furnished for and kept 
close to each vessel.
    OSHA notes that employers will need to consider various workplace 
factors in determining whether first aid and medical services are 
readily accessible, such as the size and position of each work 
location; the number of employees working at the work location; the 
nature of the hazards to which employees may be exposed; and the 
distance between work locations and clinics (on-site or off-site), 
hospitals and rescue squads.
    Applying these factors, accidents resulting in severe bleeding or 
electrical shock resulting in heart or breath stoppage must be treated 
within a very short time (optimally within three to four minutes) to 
increase the chances of a positive outcome. To the extent that these 
types of accident risks are present in shipyards, such as servicing 
electrical systems where there is a risk of energization or start up, 
the employer must ensure that necessary first aid is close enough to 
maximize the injured employee's survivability. For example, where 
employees are at risk of electrical shock, it is necessary to have 
first aid providers located in that work area so cardiopulmonary 
resuscitation (CPR) can be started quickly.
    With regard to the second purpose, the proposed provision would 
require employers to ensure ready accessibility to additional medical 
services such as rescue squads and ambulances. OSHA notes that some 
shipyards, primarily larger ones, already have taken these steps by 
establishing their own on-site medical clinics and ambulance or rescue 
squads. The proposed provision does not require shipyard employers to 
have on-site clinics, ambulance or rescue squads, but at a minimum, it 
requires employers to implement a system to ensure that emergency 
services such as local rescue squads or ambulance services are readily 
accessible when needed. The employer's plan needs to factor in 
reasonably foreseeable delays, such as railroad tracks near the 
shipyard entrance that could be blocked when rescue squads need to 
access injured employees in the shipyard.
    OSHA requests comment on this provision. In your establishment and 
industry, what measures are in place to ensure that first aid and 
medical services are readily accessible? Should the final standard 
specify a maximum time within which first aid and medical services must 
be available? For example, should the final standard specify that 
employers must ensure that first aid and medical services are initiated 
within three to five minutes of the discovery or report of an injury?
    Paragraph (b) Advice and Consultation--In paragraph (b), OSHA 
proposes to retain, with technical changes, the existing requirement in 
Sec.  1910.151(a) that employers ensure that health care professionals 
are readily available for advice and consultation on matters of 
workplace health.
    OSHA is proposing to replace two terms in the existing requirement. 
The term "plant health" would be changed to "workplace health," to 
make the provision more appropriate to shipyards, and "health care 
professionals" would replace the term "medical personnel." OSHA 
proposes to define health care professional to mean a physician or any 
other health care provider whose legally permitted scope of practice 
allows the provider to independently provide or be delegated the 
responsibility to provide some or all of the advice or consultation 
this section requires. The proposal would allow employers to consult 
with any health care professional (e.g., physician, osteopath, 
physician's assistant, nurse, EMT, etc.) whose license, registration or 
certificate authorizes them to provide such assistance and advice. In 
some instances, a nurse or physician's assistant at an on-site clinic 
may be able to provide the requested advice and consultation. Employers 
are also free to use local medical clinics or specialists. The key is 
that the health care professional must be readily available to provide 
advice and consultation when needed.
    Paragraph (c) First Aid Providers--Proposed paragraph (c)(1) 
revises the existing provisions (Sec.  1915.98(a)) on the required 
number and location of first aid providers and updates the requirements 
on their qualifications to more fully address the needs and conditions 
present in shipyards. OSHA proposes that employers ensure there are 
adequate numbers of employees to render first aid at each work location 
during each workshift. Section 1915.98(a) currently requires that where 
a first aid room with a qualified attendant is not "close at hand," 
there must be at least one employee "close at hand" to administer 
first aid. SESAC raised two concerns about this provision. They said 
the language "close at hand" was too vague. In addition, they 
expressed concern that first aid providers would not be able to reach 
injured employees quickly enough if they were not located at shipyard 
work locations. For example, some SESAC members said local emergency 
services can be delayed in reaching shipyards due to traffic situations, 
such as being stopped at train crossings. To resolve these concerns, SESAC 
recommended that there be first aid providers at shipyard work 
locations regardless of whether first aid rooms or hospitals are 
located nearby (Docket SESAC 1993-1, Ex. 100X, pp. 166-173).
    Based on SESAC's recommendation, OSHA proposes in paragraph (c)(1) 
that employers ensure that there are employees qualified to provide 
first aid at each work location during each workshift. OSHA agrees with 
SESAC that the proposed provision is necessary and will be effective in 
ensuring that first aid is provided quickly enough to maximize 
survivability and prevent permanent injury. The sooner life-threatening 
conditions are treated, the more likely that the outcome will be 
positive. The American Heart Association (AHA) found that when 
resuscitation and automatic external defibrillation are delivered 
within three to five minutes, reported survival rates from sudden 
cardiac arrest are as high as 48 to 74 percent (Ex. 8). Studies have 
shown that for each minute sudden cardiac arrest is not treated, the 
probability of reviving the heart decreases by 7 to 10 percent (Exs. 7, 
8). These data indicate that having responders at the work location 
could significantly increase the survival rates for injured employees.
    Having first aid providers at the work location can also "buy 
time" until off-site rescuers arrive. For example, performing CPR 
immediately can help to preserve heart and brain function until local 
emergency services are able to provide complete medical treatment, such 
as providing oxygen or using an automated external defibrillator (AED) 
to restore normal heart rhythm. According to IMIS, there were 13 
fatalities in shipyards that were deemed "heart attack" or 
"coronary" within a 15 year period. Out of those 13, only 4 reports 
documented any basic life support, such as CPR or first aid, prior to 
rescue squads arriving on the scene. Even for injuries that are not 
immediately life threatening, timely first aid can reduce further 
injury and significantly aid recovery by, for example, immobilizing 
fractures, reducing blood loss or providing warmth for shock.
    For example, the proposed provisions requiring trained employees at 
each work location to render first aid, including cardiopulmonary 
resuscitation (CPR), may have prevented the following shipyard 
fatalities. In one case, a shipyard employee was electrocuted while 
troubleshooting a portable outlet box. The IMIS abstract indicates that 
coworkers summoned emergency medical personnel to the worksite, which 
appears to suggest that there was no one at the worksite trained to 
provide CPR to "buy time" until offsite emergency personnel arrived. 
There also is no indication how long it took for emergency personnel to 
arrive. When the personnel did arrive, they transported the injured 
employee to a hospital, but he died. Had the proposed provisions been 
in place, there would have been first aid providers at that work 
location to begin CPR immediately to preserve the employee's brain and 
heart function during those critical first minutes while offsite 
emergency personnel are summoned (proposed Sec.  1915.88(c)(1)). 
Studies show that for each minute sudden cardiac care is not treated, 
the probability of reviving the heart decreases by as much as 10 
percent (Ex. 7).
    In another case, an employee began experiencing chest pain after 
climbing down a scaffolding stair tower for his lunch break. When he 
asked coworkers for help, they began walking him along the pier, 
presumably to an on-site infirmary. The employee collapsed while he was 
walking and died of a heart attack. Under the proposed provisions, 
there would have been trained employees who would have known to have 
the employee lie down rather walk to an infirmary. Moreover, these 
employees would have been able to start CPR, which would have maximized 
the employee's survivability potential. Similarly, a shipyard employee 
who collapsed while he was working in the engine room of a large ship 
may have survived had other employees working in the engine room or on 
the vessel been trained to render first aid. There is no indication in 
the IMIS abstract whether there were any trained first aid providers in 
the engine room or on the vessel to perform CPR.
    The proposed requirement to ensure that during each workshift there 
are an adequate number of first aid providers (proposed Sec.  
1915.88(c)(1)) also may have prevented shipyard fatalities reported in 
the IMIS database. For example, during a "graveyard" shift, a 
shipyard employee working in the bottom of a vessel cofferdam died 
after he suffered cardiac arrest. There is no indication in the 
abstract whether any first aid providers attempted resuscitation or 
indeed whether there were any first aid providers at the shipyard 
during that workshift.
    For purposes of this provision, the meaning of a shipyard "work 
location" will depend on the size, nature and location of the 
shipyard. OSHA does not intend the term to mean a single work area. A 
shipyard may have hundreds of work areas and only one or a few 
employees may work in any one area. Rather, OSHA intends a shipyard 
work location to refer to a group of work areas that are clustered 
together and in near proximity to each other. For instance, work areas 
in a small, concentrated shipyard may constitute a single work 
location, even though some may be located on a vessel and others on 
landside. By contrast, a large shipyard that has multiple piers, docks, 
large vessels, and landside facilities is likely to be considered to 
have multiple work locations. This is because shipyard work areas are 
more likely to be spread across a large area, possibly miles apart, and 
some may be remotely located. In these shipyards, it is unlikely that a 
first aid provider located in one work area would be able to reach all 
work areas within the shipyard quickly enough to provide effective 
intervention. Accordingly, OSHA believes that each group of clustered 
work areas must have an adequate number of first aid providers to 
ensure that timely intervention is provided for employees working at a 
work area within that group. By contrast, a single work area distantly 
located from other work areas may, of necessity, be considered a work 
location because first aid providers in other work areas would not be 
able to reach the area quickly enough to effectively aid an injured 
employee.
    Additionally, OSHA is proposing to add a requirement that employers 
ensure the work location has first aid providers during each workshift. 
Many shipyards have multiple workshifts and employers must ensure that 
employees working in any of these workshifts will have effective first 
aid intervention if an injury occurs. Having first aid providers at 
each work location is especially important during those hours when on-
site and off-site infirmaries and clinics are not open.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(1) also includes the following objective 
factors employers must consider in determining how many providers are 
needed at each work location:
     The sizes and location of work locations in the shipyard;
     The number of employees at each work location;
     The nature of the hazards present at each work location; 
and
     The distance of each shipyard work location from clinics 
(on-site or off-site), rescue squads and hospitals.
    OSHA believes that the addition of the objective factors not only 
will make the requirement easier for employers to understand and comply 
with, but also will address SESAC's concern about the vagueness of the current 
language (Docket SESAC 1993-1, Ex. 100X, pp. 167-173). (A more detailed 
explanation of the objective factors is included below in the 
discussion of first aid supplies).
    OSHA believes the proposed revision should not pose significant new 
burdens for shipyard employers since many already have multiple 
employees at each work location who are qualified to provide first aid. 
For instance, one SESAC member said that a significant number of 
employees in Boston area shipyards already receive first aid training:

    [T]he employer would pick employees to go to the first aid 
training center, and after the training was over, he'd go back to 
the shop and other people would go, and it was a continual thing, 
and they'd be certified (SESAC 1992-2, Ex. 102X, p. 161).

    OSHA requests comment on the proposed provision. In your 
establishment and industry, how many employees are trained to provide 
first aid? Are there trained providers at each work location and during 
all workshifts? Are the objective factors in the proposed standard 
appropriate for determining how many first aid providers employers 
should have at each work location? What additional factors, if any, 
should employers consider?
    OSHA has recently developed and published a Best Practices Guide: 
Fundamentals of a Workplace First-Aid Program (Ex. 18). This document 
provides a discussion on the basics of assessing the risks and 
designing a first aid program that is specific to the worksite. 
Although this document addresses some basics, while developing a first 
aid program, employers need to keep in mind the additional factors 
specified in the proposal.
    First aid provider training/qualifications. The importance of first 
aid training is immeasurable. Although some shipyard employees may have 
received training in the past, appropriate and up-to-date training is 
necessary to ensure that injured employees receive correct 
intervention. Lack of training can also result in a lack of treatment 
when it is needed. For example, in 2002, as an employee was standing on 
a scaffold to bolt a motor onto a crane located off of the main house. 
After descending from the scaffolding for his lunch break, the employee 
complained of chest pains and asked coworkers for help. They proceeded 
to walk the employee along the pier. The employee collapsed while he 
was walking and died of a heart attack. Had the coworkers been trained 
in first aid and CPR, they would have known the correct steps to follow 
when an employee experiences the early signs and symptoms of a cardiac 
event.
    Section 1915.98(a) currently requires that any person administering 
first aid be "qualified," but does not define the term. In paragraph 
(c)(2), OSHA proposes to make this intent clearer by stating that 
employees designated to provide first aid must have a "valid first aid 
certificate." The proposed language is drawn from a similar 
requirement in the Longshoring standard, which OSHA updated in 1997 
(Sec.  1918.97(b)).
    The proposal is designed to give employers maximum flexibility in 
developing a first aid training program that is appropriate for the 
types of working conditions and hazards in their workplaces. With one 
exception, CPR training, the proposal does not establish the specific 
content of the required first aid training program that employers must 
follow. As long as the certificate is issued by a responsible 
organization, such as the American Red Cross, the American Heart 
Association, or other equivalent organization, which requires 
successful course completion as evidence of qualification, the 
requirements of the proposal would be met. Likewise, the proposal does 
not specify a frequency for first aid refresher training. Whatever 
frequency the certifying organization requires for retaining 
certification, usually three years, would be allowed.
    OSHA is considering including an appendix on the requirements of a 
first aid training program to ensure that employees are fully trained 
by qualified instructors. This appendix could be similar to that found 
in the Logging Operations standard (Sec.  1910.266), which includes a 
mandatory appendix that specifies the minimally acceptable first aid 
training program that employers must follow. Some of the required 
topics include respiratory arrest, cardiac arrest, lacerations/
abrasions, shock, burns and loss of consciousness. Similarly, the 
Longshoring first aid standard (Sec.  1918.97) includes a non-mandatory 
appendix that lists the basic elements of a first aid training program. 
Along with topic areas such as shock, bleeding, poisoning and burns, 
this appendix also specifies the manner in which employees must receive 
training. For example, it recommends that trainees develop hands-on 
skills through the use of manikins, a course workbook, and adequate 
time for emphasis on situations likely to be encountered in the 
particular workplace.
    OSHA requests comment on the proposed first aid training 
requirement. Should the final standard require that first aid providers 
have a valid first aid and CPR certificate? Should the final rule 
specify the areas in which first aid providers must be trained? Should 
OSHA include an appendix similar to that in Sec.  1910.266 or 1918.97 
in the final rule? If not, why not? If so, what should the program 
include? Should the program include hands-on exercises? Should the 
final rule include a requirement that whatever first aid training 
program and trainer/provider the employer uses, that the program and/or 
trainer be certified by a nationally recognized first aid organization? 
Please explain.
    In your establishment and/or industry, what training and 
certification do first aid providers have and does it include CPR 
training? What organizations, if any, conduct the first aid training 
and certification? How frequently do first aid providers have refresher 
training?
    Paragraph (d)--First Aid Supplies--In paragraph (d), OSHA proposes 
to revise the existing requirement on first aid supplies (Sec.  
1915.98(b)). The proposed changes give employers more flexibility and 
assistance in tailoring the type, amount and location of supplies to 
the specific needs of their workplace. The proposal includes objective 
criteria, which are the same as those proposed for first aid providers, 
to assist employers in meeting the requirement. A non-mandatory 
appendix to this section references the most recent consensus standards 
regarding first aid supplies, consistent with the recently revised 
general industry standard (Sec.  1910.151).
    Location of first aid supplies. In paragraph (d)(1), OSHA proposes 
to revise the existing standard to require that first aid supplies be 
provided "at each work location." (In proposed paragraph (d)(2), OSHA 
identifies objective criteria to assist employers in determining where 
to locate supplies in each work location so they will be readily 
accessible when needed). The existing standard requires that, under 
certain circumstances, first aid kits be furnished "for each vessel on 
which work is being performed" and be kept "close to the vessel" 
(Sec.  1915.98(a)). The general industry standard, which was revised in 
1998, specifies that first aid supplies must be "readily available" 
(Sec.  1910.151(b); 63 FR 33450 (6/19/1998)).
    The proposed revision gives employers more flexibility and guidance 
about where supplies need to be located. In addition, the proposal
clarifies OSHA's intent that first aid supplies need to be located at 
all work locations throughout the shipyard, those onboard and near 
vessels as well as those at landside work locations.
    OSHA requests comment on this provision. In your industry and 
establishment, where are first aid kits located and what factors do you 
consider in determining where to locate them?
    Number of first aid supplies. The existing standard (Sec.  
1915.98(b)) requires that employers provide "sufficient" quantities 
of first aid supplies, but does not define the term. In paragraph 
(d)(1), OSHA proposes to revise the existing rule to require that 
employers provide "adequate" first aid supplies at each work 
location, and adds, in proposed paragraph (d)(2), objective criteria 
employers must follow in determining whether they have provided enough 
supplies to meet the needs of that work location. Of particular 
importance in determining the number of supplies is the number of 
employees who will be working at the specific location. OSHA requests 
comment on this provision. In your industry and establishment, how many 
first aid kits are provided and what factors do you consider in 
determining how many are needed?
    Proposed paragraph (d)(1) also requires that employers maintain 
their first aid supplies so they remain adequate. This means that 
employers must ensure that not only are the number of first aid 
supplies adequate, but also that exhausted supplies are replaced. For 
purposes of this provision, maintain also means that first aid supplies 
must be kept in serviceable condition. A more detailed explanation of 
the proposed maintenance requirement is included below along with the 
discussion of the inspection of first aid supplies.
    Contents of first aid kits. In paragraph (d)(2), OSHA proposes to 
revise the existing requirements on the contents of first aid kits 
(Sec.  1915.98(b)). The existing provision specifies a list of items 
that first aid kits must contain, a list that SESAC said was outdated 
(Docket 1992-1, Ex. 100X, pp. 161, 162). Based on SESAC's 
recommendation, in paragraph (d)(2), OSHA proposes to replace the list 
with a performance based approach.
    The list of supplies in Sec.  1915.98(b) was adopted more than 30 
years ago, prior to adoption of the 1978 ANSI Z308.1 standard on 
workplace first aid kits and is inconsistent with the current ANSI 
standard (Ex. 3-2, ANSI Z308.1 (1998) Minimum Requirements for 
Workplace First Aid Kits). The list in Sec.  1915.98(b) does not 
include all of the minimum content requirements for basic first aid 
kits specified in the current ANSI standard and includes items that 
ANSI no longer recommends for general workplace kits (i.e., tourniquets 
and forceps) (Ex. 3-2, Table 5-1).
    OSHA believes that adopting a performance-based approach on the 
contents of first aid kits will give employers maximum flexibility in 
tailoring their first aid supplies to the conditions and hazards 
present in their workplace. Adding objective criteria that employers 
must consider in determining the content of first aid kits provides a 
framework for assuring that first aid supplies will be appropriate and 
adequate for the shipyard work location.
    Objective criteria. In paragraph (d)(2), OSHA proposes to add 
objective criteria to assist employers in determining whether the 
location, content and amount of first aid supplies are adequate and 
appropriate for shipyard work locations. The proposal includes the 
following four criteria that employers must consider:
     The size and location of each shipyard work location. The 
size of the shipyard work location is an important consideration. It is 
likely that large work locations are spread out and, as such, more 
first aid kits may be necessary to ensure they are readily accessible 
if an employee gets injured. Employers also need to consider the 
location of where employees are working throughout shipyards when 
determining the number, content and positioning of first aid kits. For 
example, remote work locations or other shipyard work locations that 
are farther away from rescue squads or hospitals may need to have more 
first aid supplies or a broader range of supplies to care for an 
injured employee until additional help arrives or the employee can be 
transported for more advanced care. Work locations that may be cut off 
by passing railcars also may need more first aid supplies in case 
access roads are blocked when an injury occurs. In addition, it would 
be necessary for vessels that are underway to have adequate first aid 
supplies onboard.
     The number of employees at each work location. In general, 
when there are more employees at a work location the employer would 
need to provide more first aid supplies to prepare for the possibility 
that an accident could result in multiple employee injuries, or that 
several accidents could occur within a short period of time.
     The nature of hazards present at each work location. 
Employers need to assess the specific needs and the nature of the 
hazards present in each work location to ensure that first aid kits 
contain the types and quantity of supplies needed to effectively treat 
the injuries and illnesses that could be expected. For example, in 
shops where hot work is performed first aid supplies for burns would be 
necessary, and in outdoor areas first aid items for insect or animal 
bites may be needed.
     The distance of each work location from hospitals, 
clinics, and rescue squads. The distance--and therefore the time 
needed--to get to hospitals or clinics (on-site or off-site), and for 
rescue squads to respond is also an important factor in determining the 
location, amount and type of first aid supplies employers need to 
provide. A single first aid kit may be adequate for small work 
locations that are close to on-site infirmaries or local emergency 
services. However, additional kits and types of supplies may be 
necessary when medical services are farther away.
    OSHA requests comment on the proposed provisions, including the 
objective factors employers would need to consider in determining the 
location, amount and types of first aid supplies to provide. What 
additional factors, if any, should employers consider? In your 
establishment and industry, what factors do you use in making 
determinations about first aid supplies?
    Non-mandatory appendix. Section 1910.151 includes a recently 
revised non-mandatory appendix to provide information on the contents 
of first aid kits (70 FR 1112, 1141 (1/5/2005)). OSHA proposes to 
incorporate the Sec.  1910.151 appendix, with revisions that update the 
appendix. The proposed appendix provides guidance to employers on the 
contents of first aid kits, assessing workplace risks, and OSHA's 
requirements for protecting first aid providers from possible exposure 
to bloodborne pathogens. In the proposal, OSHA is updating the 
reference to the ANSI Z308.1 standard on minimum requirements for 
workplace first aid kits. The proposed appendix references the 2003 
ANSI standard (Ex. 3-16). The appendix to Sec.  1915.87, which OSHA 
added in 1998 (70 FR 1141 (6/18/1998)), references the 1998 ANSI 
standard (Ex. 3-2). OSHA requests comment on whether the non-mandatory 
appendix should include other information on first aid supplies. If so, 
what should it include?
    Maintenance and inspection of first aid supplies. In paragraphs 
(d)(1) and (3), OSHA proposes to revise the existing requirements on 
the maintenance and inspection of first aid supplies (Sec.  1915.98(b) 
and (c)). OSHA proposes to replace the existing maintenance and 
inspection provisions with more flexible performance language.
    With regard to maintenance of first aid supplies, the existing 
standard requires that first aid kits have a weatherproof container and 
that supplies are in individually sealed packages. Read together, 
proposed paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(3) require that first aid supplies 
be maintained in "dry, sterile and serviceable condition." For 
purposes of this provision, OSHA would define serviceable condition to 
mean the state or ability of a device to operate as it was intended by 
the manufacturer to operate (proposed Sec.  1915.95).
    OSHA believes the proposed language provides employers with greater 
flexibility in tailoring the maintenance and packaging of first aid 
supplies to the specific conditions present in their work locations 
while at the same time ensuring that supplies remain useable. For 
example, first aid kits for use in outdoor and mobile work locations 
may need weatherproof containers to keep supplies dry, sterile and 
serviceable, but the same may not be necessary for first aid kits used 
in enclosed facilities. OSHA notes that individually packaged first aid 
supplies stored in weatherproof containers would typically be 
considered in compliance with the proposed requirements as would 
supplies maintained in accordance with the current ANSI Z308.1 standard 
(Ex. 3-2).
    As mentioned, OSHA proposes to require that first aid supplies be 
kept in "serviceable condition." The purpose of the provision is to 
ensure that the first aid supplies remain effective. To ensure first 
aid supplies remain serviceable, employers would need to store them in 
accordance with manufacturer instructions (e.g., out of direct 
sunlight, not above a certain temperature) and replace supplies when 
their use date expires. Supplies that are maintained and operated in 
accordance with manufacturer instructions and recommendations would 
generally be considered in compliance with the serviceable condition 
requirement. Inherent in the proposed requirement to ensure that first 
aid supplies are in proper condition is the employer's obligation to 
replace supplies that are found to be deficient.
    In regard to inspection of first aid supplies, the existing 
standard requires that first aid supplies be checked before being sent 
out on a job and at least weekly thereafter to ensure that expended 
items are replaced (Sec.  1915.98(c)). In paragraph (d)(3), OSHA 
proposes to replace that language with performance language that would 
require employers to inspect first aid supplies at intervals that 
ensure they remain in "dry, sterile and serviceable condition." The 
proposal gives employers greater flexibility to determine what 
inspection procedures would be most effective for ensuring that 
supplies remain in appropriate condition and adequately replenished. 
For example, it would allow employers to opt for stocking work 
locations with a larger supply of first aid supplies and establish 
something other than a weekly maintenance and inspection schedule. It 
also would allow employers to use smaller, portable first aid kits, 
such as for mobile work crews, which may need to be inspected and 
restocked more frequently.
    OSHA requests comment on the proposed maintenance and inspection 
requirements. In your establishment and industry, what maintenance and 
inspection procedures are followed to ensure that first aid supplies 
are in adequate supply and serviceable condition?
    Paragraph (e)--Quick Drenching/Flushing Facilities--Section 
1910.151(c) currently requires that quick drenching or flushing 
facilities ("quick drench facilities") be provided within the work 
area for immediate emergency use where the eyes or body may be exposed 
to "injurious corrosive materials." OSHA proposes in paragraph (e) to 
retain and expand the existing provision to require that quick drench 
facilities be provided where employees could be splashed with hazardous 
or toxic substances. Shipyard employees involved in operations such as 
cleaning, painting, and stripping operations are at risk of being 
splashed with solvents or other chemicals. Although these substances 
may not necessarily be corrosives, they can injure or burn the skin or 
eyes or be absorbed rapidly through the skin causing harmful effects.
    The expanded coverage of the proposed provision is consistent with 
the scope of the current ANSI Z358.1 standard (Ex. 3-4, ANSI Z358.1 
(1998)), American National Standard for Emergency Eyewash and Shower 
Equipment). The ANSI standard establishes minimum requirements for 
emergency eyewashes and showers for persons who have been exposed to 
"injurious" or "hazardous materials," which the standard defines as 
"any substance or compound that has the capability of producing 
adverse effects on the health and safety of humans."
    Location of quick drench facilities. In paragraph (e), OSHA 
proposes to retain the existing requirement (Sec.  1910.151(c)) that a 
quick drenching facility be located within each work area for immediate 
emergency use. For purposes of this paragraph, OSHA does not intend 
"work area" to mean the entire work location or workplace. Rather, 
work area means the immediate area where employees are working and 
potentially exposed to hazardous or toxic materials. Having quick 
drench facilities as close as possible to the hazard is necessary to 
ensure that hazardous substances can be removed quick enough to prevent 
injury or absorption and that facilities are directly accessible in 
those situations where the employee may be blinded by a hazardous 
substance. For example, where employees working in a paint shop are 
routinely exposed to solvents and other chemicals during mixing or 
cleaning operations, a quick drench facility needs to be located within 
the shop so employees do not have to go to another area in the shipyard 
to reach a quick drench facility.
    In those work areas where it is impracticable to place permanent 
(i.e., plumbed) quick drench facilities, such as confined spaces, the 
employer would need to provide portable facilities. OSHA does not 
believe this should pose a problem for employers since many already 
have these portable facilities. The ANSI Z358.1 standard includes 
specifications for self-contained eyewash equipment as well as personal 
quick drench equipment that could be used in such locations (Ex. 3-3, 
ANSI Z358.1).
    OSHA requests comment on whether the final rule should adopt the 
approach in the ANSI standard that quick drench facilities be located 
within a maximum distance (e.g., distance traveled in 10 seconds) of 
the hazard. In your establishment and industry, where are quick drench 
facilities located? How close to the immediate work areas are they 
located and generally how long does it take an injured employee to 
reach them? What type of quick drench facilities are provided for use 
in areas where a permanent (plumbed) facility cannot be placed?
    Paragraph (f)--Basket Stretchers--In paragraph (f), OSHA is 
altering the requirements for basket stretchers. Paragraph (f) proposes 
that an adequate number of basket stretchers, or the equivalent, be 
readily accessible. OSHA also proposes that they be equipped with 
permanent lifting bridles that enable the stretcher to be attached to 
hoisting gear and be capable of lifting at least 5,000 pounds. In 
addition, these basket stretchers must be capable of securely 
restraining the injured employee and provide a blanket or other 
suitable covering. Finally, the basket stretchers must be stored in a 
clearly-marked location, be protected from damage and be inspected to 
ensure they remain in a safe and serviceable condition.
    Number of basket stretchers. In paragraph (f)(1), OSHA proposes to 
revise the existing requirements (Sec.  1915.98(d)) on the required 
number of basket stretchers used to remove injured employees from 
vessels. Section 1915.98(d) currently requires that employers provide 
at least one basket stretcher (or equivalent) "for each vessel on 
which ten (10) or more employees are working," but does not require 
the employer to provide more than two stretchers "on each job 
location." Employers are exempted from this requirement where 
ambulance services carry such stretchers. Where basket stretchers are 
required, they must be equipped with lifting bridles and a blanket, and 
kept close to the vessel.
    SESAC members raised a number of concerns about the existing 
section. Members said the provision was unclear about whether a basket 
stretcher must be dedicated solely to a vessel or whether it could be 
used for all vessels located within a specific area (e.g., on the same 
pier) (Docket SESAC 1993-1, Ex. 100X, pp. 147-167). SESAC also said it 
was unclear what the term "job location" refers to (e.g., a pier, a 
vessel, or a work area onboard a vessel).
    Several SESAC members said it was burdensome and unnecessary to 
require that basket stretchers be dedicated solely to one vessel and 
that there was no reason to provide more stretchers than were capable 
of being hoisted. SESAC members pointed out that since many shipyard 
locations have only one crane, and only one basket stretcher can be 
moved at one time, only one basket stretcher should be required. 
(Docket SESAC 1992-2, Ex. 104X, pp. 146--147; Docket SESAC 1993-1, Ex. 
100X, pp. 155-158).
    Other SESAC members said the provision was not protective enough. 
Specifically, they were concerned that the provision did not appear to 
require basket stretchers if fewer than 10 employees worked onboard a 
vessel, a cutoff that appeared arbitrary to them. They also said that 
OSHA should make explicit that the provision applies to vessel sections 
in addition to vessels (Docket SESAC 1993-1, Ex. 100X, pp. 142-143, 
147).
    Location of basket stretchers. In paragraph (f)(1), OSHA proposes a 
performance-based provision requiring that employers provide basket 
stretchers so they are readily accessible when work is being performed 
onboard a vessel or vessel section. The proposed requirement recognizes 
that, in some situations, having just one basket stretcher at a 
location where work is being performed on vessels or vessel sections 
may be adequate to ensure ready accessibility. For example, as SESAC 
members stated, if a crane is capable of hoisting a basket stretcher 
from any one of several barges docked together, one stretcher may 
provide ready accessibility for that group of vessels. Likewise, where 
a shipyard crane mounted on railtracks can move back and forth to hoist 
a basket stretcher from one of several vessels or vessel sections, one 
stretcher may be adequate to remove injured employees from any of those 
vessels or vessel sections (Docket SESAC 1993-1, Ex. 100X, p. 155).
    In other situations, however, one basket stretcher may not be 
adequate to ensure that one is readily accessible. In very large 
shipyards that have several work locations with hundreds, if not 
thousands, of employees working far apart on vessels and vessel 
sections, more than one basket stretcher may be needed to ensure that 
one is readily accessible to each work location. Some SESAC members 
also said additional stretchers should be provided where it is 
necessary to speed up removal of injured employees (Docket SESAC 1993-
1, Ex. 100X, p. 159). Having additional stretchers allows first aid 
providers to ready other injured employees for removal while the first 
employee is being lifted to shore.
    OSHA believes the proposed revision is a reasonable approach that 
will provide effective protection for employees. In certain 
circumstances, basket stretchers will need to be provided even when 
fewer than 10 employees are working onboard a vessel, an issue that 
concerned SESAC (Docket SESAC 1993-1, Ex. 100X, p. 147). At the same 
time, it gives employers flexibility to tailor their efforts to the 
specific conditions and equipment present at the work area.
    OSHA requests comment on the proposed provision. In your 
establishment how many basket stretchers are provided and where are 
they located? Are basket stretchers provided for vessel sections and 
when fewer than 10 employees are working onboard a vessel or vessel 
section? If not, what measures are used to ensure that injured 
employees are removed safely and quickly in these situations?
    Exception. In paragraph (f)(1), OSHA proposes to delete language in 
the existing rule (Sec.  1915.98(d)) stating that the requirement to 
provide basket stretchers does not apply where ambulance services are 
available and carry such stretchers. OSHA believes this language is no 
longer necessary since the proposed language in paragraph (f)(1) 
ensures that basket stretchers are "readily accessible." The proposal 
gives employers flexibility to provide their own stretchers or utilize 
the stretchers provided by local emergency squads if they are readily 
accessible. OSHA requests comment on whether local emergency squads are 
readily accessible to vessel work locations and whether they have 
basket stretchers that meet the proposed requirements. To what extent 
do shipyard employers rely on local emergency squads to provide basket 
stretchers?
    Specifications for basket stretchers. In paragraph (f)(2), OSHA 
proposes to retain, with revisions, the existing specification 
requirements for basket stretchers (Sec.  1915.98(d)). Proposed 
paragraph (f)(2)(i) retains the existing requirement that basket 
stretchers have permanent lifting bridles to enable the stretcher to be 
attached to hoisting gear. OSHA proposes to add a strength requirement 
that basket stretcher bridles be capable of lifting at least 5,000 
pounds (2,270 kg), which provides a safety factor of five. The proposed 
addition is based on requirements in the Marine Terminals and 
Longshoring standards, which were updated in 1997 (Sec. Sec.  
1917.26(d) and 1918.97(d)).
    In paragraph (f)(2)(ii) OSHA proposes to add a requirement that 
basket stretchers have restraints that are capable of securely holding 
the injured employee while the stretcher is lifted or moved. This 
addition is also based on the Marine Terminals and Longshoring 
standards (Sec. Sec.  1917.26(d)(4) and 1918.97(d)(4)). OSHA believes 
it is appropriate to apply the Marine Terminals and Longshoring 
provisions to shipyard employment because the use of basket stretchers 
and the working conditions are similar. The proposed changes should not 
pose a problem for shipyard employers because most basket stretchers 
already meet those criteria.
    Finally, in paragraph (f)(2)(iii) OSHA proposes to retain the 
existing requirement that each basket stretcher have a blanket or other 
suitable covering to cover injured employees and protect them from 
environmental conditions.
    OSHA requests comment on the proposed specifications for basket 
stretchers. The Marine Terminals and Longshoring standards also have 
specifications for stretchers and bridles to make vertical patient 
lifts (Sec. Sec.  1917.26(d)(5) and 1918.97(d)(5)). OSHA requests 
comment on whether the final standard should include those additional 
specifications.
    Storage of basket stretchers. In paragraph (f)(3), OSHA proposes to 
add a requirement that basket stretchers be stored in a clearly-marked 
location and in a manner that prevents damage and provides protection 
from environmental conditions. The proposed language is based on 
similar requirements in the Marine Terminals and Longshoring standards 
(1917.26(d)(7) and 1918.97(d)(7)).
    The addition of this provision would accomplish two goals. First, 
requiring storage areas to be clearly marked helps to ensure that 
stretchers are easy to locate when they are needed. Second, storing 
stretchers so they are protected from damage and environmental 
conditions prevents deterioration of the equipment. OSHA requests 
comment on the proposed provision. In your establishment and industry, 
how are basket stretchers stored to protect them from damage and 
environmental conditions? How are storage areas marked to ensure easy 
access?
    Inspection. Proposed paragraph (f)(4) would require the employer to 
inspect stretchers at intervals that ensure they remain in safe and 
serviceable condition. This is a flexible, performance-based measure 
similar to the requirement to inspect first aid supplies to ensure they 
are adequate. This proposed measure will assure that lifesaving 
equipment functions properly when needed in an emergency and is 
particularly important if basket stretchers are not used frequently.

Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs)

    OSHA is raising for discussion the issue of whether shipyards 
should be required to have Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs). 
According to the American Heart Association, over 300,000 individuals 
die from cardiac arrest each year, with most occurring outside 
hospitals (Ex. 8). In 2001 and 2002, there were 6,628 work-related 
fatalities reported to OSHA--1,216 of these deaths were from heart 
attack, 354 from electric shock, and 267 from asphyxia (Ex. 6). 
Survival rates for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest are only one to five 
percent, but treatment of ventricular fibrillation (i.e., chaotic 
beating of the heart) with immediate defibrillation (i.e., within one 
minute) has achieved survival rates as high as 90 percent (Ex. 7). Fast 
and immediate defibrillation is the most critical step in treatment of 
cardiac arrest because it is the definitive therapy for ventricular 
fibrillation.
    AEDs restore normal heart rhythm with electrical shock 
(defibrillation). AEDs have been shown to significantly increase 
survival rates where they are used immediately (i.e., within three to 
five minutes). For example, in the first 10 months after Chicago's 
O'Hare and Midway Airports installed AEDs, 9 of 14 (64 percent) cardiac 
victims were revived and survived (Ex. 7).
    In the past decade, there have been significant advances in AED 
technology, including advances in miniaturization and improvements in 
their reliability and safety. Today, AEDs are small, lightweight units 
in portable carriers; run on rechargeable batteries; analyze the heart 
rhythm; and automatically indicate when to shock with easy-to-follow 
audio prompts. These improvements have also greatly minimized the 
training needed to operate them. Many studies have shown that AEDs are 
nearly error-free and effective when used by non-medical first aid 
responders in the workplace (Ex. 7). The costs of AEDs have dropped 
dramatically in recent years. In 2001, for instance, AEDs cost $3,000-
$4,500 on average. Now they are widely available for less than $1,500 
(Ex. 5). OSHA anticipates that AED costs will continue to decline as 
the use of AEDs increases.
    OSHA's existing medical services and first aid standards do not 
require that AEDs be provided in workplaces or that employees be 
trained in their operation. However, many employers, concerned that 
local emergency services cannot respond quickly enough, have been 
equipping their workplaces with AEDs and training employees in their 
use.
    OSHA requests comment on whether shipyards should be required to 
have AEDs as part of their first aid and medical services. If not, why 
not? If so, should the requirement apply to all shipyards or be limited 
to certain types of work or work locations (e.g., remote work areas, 
work where employees are exposed to electrical hazards, shiftwork)? 
What criteria should employers use to determine whether and how many 
AEDs should be provided and where they should be located? In your 
establishment and industry are AEDs provided? If not, why not? If so, 
how many are provided and what criteria were considered in making that 
determination? Who is trained and authorized to operate the AEDs?

Section 1915.88 Sanitation

    Sanitation in shipyards is currently covered by a shipyard 
standard, Sec.  1915.97, and is supplemented by a general industry 
standard, Sec.  1910.141. (See Ex. 16-9, OSHA's Tool Bag Directive.) As 
part of its overall efforts to incorporate comprehensive shipyard 
requirements into Part 1915, the Agency is proposing to consolidate and 
update these provisions in a new standard on sanitation, Sec.  1915.88. 
The new proposed section carries forward many provisions that have 
applied to shipyards for several decades. At the same time, it reflects 
improvements in workplace sanitation that have been developed since the 
earlier standards were adopted.
    Adverse health effects associated with the lack of appropriate 
sanitation facilities are well recognized and documented. They include 
communicable diseases, heat-related illness, health effects related to 
delay of urination and defecation, and effects associated with 
ingestion or absorption of hazardous or toxic substances. These health 
hazards were discussed at length in the preamble to the final Field 
Sanitation standard (52 FR 16050, 5/1/87). OSHA has updated this 
discussion and placed it in the docket as a reference document (Ex. 
12).
    OSHA recognizes that working conditions in shipyards are often less 
than ideal for sanitation. For example, some shipyards are in remote 
locations, without adequate piped water and sewer facilities. Much 
shipyard work is also performed outdoors, often in high temperatures 
and humidity. OSHA has previously developed sanitation standards to 
address these types of working conditions in marine terminals (Sec.  
1917.127), field sanitation (Sec.  1928.110), longshoring (Sec.  
1918.95), and construction (Sec.  1926.51). The Agency has used these 
standards as source documents for the present proposal. In addition to 
these sources, OSHA has also reviewed the most recent applicable ANSI 
sanitation standards--in particular, ANSI Z4.1-1995 (Ex. 3-6) and Z4.3-
1995 (Ex. 3-7)--and incorporated relevant provisions into the proposed 
standard. (ANSI Z4.1 addresses general sanitation in workplaces, while 
ANSI Z4.3 covers non-sewered waste disposal systems.)
    Most of the changes being proposed in Sec.  1915.88 reflect changes 
in technology and sanitation practices that have developed since the 
original standards were adopted. For example, the proposal specifically 
addresses portable toilets and other portable sanitation facilities. 
The proposed standard is also more performance-oriented and flexible 
than the existing requirements.
    As Table 3 makes clear, many of the changes being incorporated into 
proposed Sec.  1915.88 are editorial in nature. This reflects the 
Agency's effort to merge most of the current requirements of Sec.  
1910.141 and Sec.  1915.97 into a single set of sanitation requirements 
for shipyards. Table 3 provides an overview of the new proposed Sec.  
1915.88, a comparison to the existing requirements, and a brief explanation 
of all proposed changes. The preamble discussion following Table 3 focuses 
on the relatively few substantive changes being proposed, the Agency's 
rationale for these changes, and related issues. In addition, the discussion 
includes responses to various SESAC recommendations, as appropriate.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20DE07.000

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20DE07.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20DE07.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20DE07.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20DE07.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20DE07.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20DE07.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20DE07.007

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C

    Most of the changes in this proposal are adequately discussed in 
Table 3. However, some provisions require additional discussion and 
explanation. The following section provides additional discussion 
concerning these elements of the proposal and raises specific issues 
for public comment.
    Paragraph (a)--General Requirements--Paragraph (a) incorporates a 
series of general requirements for the accessibility, adequacy, and 
maintenance of sanitation facilities in shipyards. It simplifies the 
existing standards and makes them apply more uniformly throughout the 
shipyard. The proposal also uses a new term, "sanitation facilities" 
(defined in Sec.  1915.95), to cover the wide range of elements that 
employers provide for the "health and personal needs of employees." 
Sanitation facilities include drinking water, toilets, handcleaning 
facilities, showers, changing rooms, and eating and drinking areas. The 
term also includes the supplies for those facilities, such as drinking 
cups, toilet paper, towels, soap, and waterless cleaning agents.
    A sanitation facility cannot meet the employee's health needs 
unless it meets all the requirements addressing accessibility, adequacy 
and maintenance. For instance, if toilets are provided but are all 
located too far away, employees may have to refrain from using 
facilities, or from drinking during the workshift so they will not need 
to use them. Employees may do the same thing if toilets, particularly 
portable ones, are dirty, not serviced regularly, or require a long 
wait. These actions can result in significant adverse health effects 
(Ex. 12).
    Proposed paragraph (a)(1) requires that sanitation facilities be 
(1) readily accessible, and (2) adequate for the number of employees at 
the work premises. Employers must provide sanitation facilities that 
meet both requirements in order to be considered in compliance.
    Readily accessible. Unlike the sanitation standards for marine 
terminals, longshoring, and field sanitation (Sec. Sec.  1917.127, 
1918.127, 1928.110, respectively), the current sanitation standards for 
shipyards do not directly address the accessibility of sanitation 
facilities. Paragraph (a)(1) of proposed Sec.  1915.88 remedies this 
omission, using performance-oriented language. Ready access to 
sanitation facilities helps to protect employee health and reduce the 
risk of adverse health effects. For example, lack of ready access to 
drinking water can result in dehydration, which can be fatal, 
especially in hot and humid working conditions. Ready access to 
sanitation facilities will also increase the likelihood of their use, 
reducing the risks associated with delayed use.
    In order for sanitation facilities to be considered "readily 
accessible," employees must be able to reach the facilities quickly 
whenever they need to use them, and there must be no obstacles to 
gaining quick access. OSHA recognizes that whether sanitation 
facilities are readily accessible depends on the type of sanitation 
facility, the sizes and locations of worksites, and physical 
characteristics of the shipyard. In small shipyards, sanitation 
facilities may be readily accessible if they are located in one area. 
However, where worksites are large and spread out, toilets, handwashing 
facilities and drinking water located in only one location would likely 
not be considered readily accessible.
    Sanitation facilities also must be readily accessible to shipyard 
employees who work onboard vessels. Where employees work on a small 
vessel, sanitation facilities may be readily accessible if they are 
located dockside. However, where employees work on a large vessel, they 
may not be able to get to facilities quickly enough if such facilities 
are located only on the dock. Sanitation facilities may need to be 
located on deck or in various places throughout the vessel to ensure 
employees have ready access when they need to use them. When the ship's 
toilet and handwashing facilities are not available to shipyard 
employees working onboard vessels (e.g., the ship is being built or 
systems are turned off during repair) the employer needs to make other 
arrangements to ensure that such facilities are readily accessible.
    Whether sanitation facilities are readily accessible is also 
related to how frequently they must be used during a workshift. For 
example, drinking water supplies, especially during hot and humid 
summer weather, must be at or close to the employee's immediate work 
area. Employees who perform heavy manual labor, work with heat-
producing equipment, or must spend time in spaces that are not well 
ventilated or air-conditioned need to have enough drinking water close 
at hand to prevent dehydration. On the other hand, changing rooms and 
eating areas that are used only once or twice during a workshift may 
not need to be as close to the work area.
    OSHA notes that other sanitation standards specify maximum 
distances for locating sanitation facilities relative to employee work 
areas. For example, the OSHA Field Sanitation standard requires that 
toilet facilities be located within a one-quarter-mile walk of each 
employee's place of work (Sec.  1928.110(c)(2)(iii)). ANSI Z4.1 
requires that potable water and sewered toilet facilities be located 
within 200 feet of any place where employees are regularly engaged in 
work (Ex. 3-6, Sec. Sec.  5.1.1 and 6.1.2).
    On July 29, 1998, a shipyard employee was finishing up a workshift 
where he was operating grinding and sanding equipment on two decks of a 
ship. He clocked out at 2:30 p.m., got a ride to his supervisor's 
office to get some information, and was driven back to the wet dock. He 
was walking to the bike area when he became dizzy and fell to his 
knees. His supervisor picked him up and gave him water and a cold 
compress. He was transported to the first aid station, where he was 
given oxygen and ice packs were placed on his head and under his arms. 
When he later collapsed, emergency medical technicians ventilated and 
defibrillated him. He died later at a hospital from heat exhaustion and 
heat stroke, possibly from not having enough drinking water readily 
accessible at his work location. The existing drinking water 
requirements specify that employers provide potable water "in all 
places of employment" (Sec.  1910.141(b)(1)), but do not identify 
where water supplies must be located in those workplaces. The proposed 
rule clarifies the existing requirements by specifying that employers 
must provide adequate and "readily accessible" drinking water in 
amounts that meet the health and personal needs of each employee at the 
worksite (proposed Sec.  1915.87(a)(1) and (b)(2)). In the summary and 
explanation of Sec.  1915.87, OSHA also identifies factors that 
employers need to consider in determining how much drinking water they 
must supply and where it must be located. These factors include size 
and location of worksites, frequency of use, and environmental 
conditions such as hot weather. Had the proposed clarifications been in 
place, it would have been clearer that the shipyard employer needed to 
ensure that the employee had adequate drinking water accessible at 
their work location on the vessel.
    OSHA requests comment on the proposed requirement for location of 
sanitation facilities. In particular, OSHA requests comment on whether 
the final rule should contain more specific requirements for the 
location of sanitation facilities, especially toilet facilities. For 
example, should the final rule specify maximum distances, maximum 
walking times (e.g., 5 or 10 minutes), or other objective criteria for 
determining where sanitation facilities must be located in the workplace? 
Should different specifications be developed for specific types of sanitation 
facilities? OSHA seeks information on where sanitation facilities are 
located and what criteria are used to make this determination.
    Serviceable Condition. Paragraph (a)(2) proposes to add language 
making more explicit OSHA's longstanding policy that employers supply 
and maintain sanitation facilities in clean, sanitary and serviceable 
condition. The current general industry standard specifies that 
employers must keep all places of employment clean (Sec.  
1910.141(a)(3)(i)). The proposal clarifies that this requirement 
applies to sanitation facilities at workplaces. The proposal also 
retains existing language on maintaining sanitary conditions from the 
current lavatory requirements (Sec.  1910.141(d)(1)).
    Paragraph (a)(2), adds a proposed requirement for employers to 
maintain sanitation facilities in "serviceable condition," which OSHA 
proposes to define (in Sec.  1915.95) as the state or ability of a 
device to operate as it was intended by the manufacturer to operate. 
OSHA is including this new proposed provision primarily because the 
proposed rule allows the use of portable toilet facilities. Portable 
toilet facilities that are not properly serviced can become unsanitary 
and overflow, thereby exposing employees to contaminants or causing 
them to avoid using the facilities. While OSHA is not specifying 
detailed servicing requirements in the proposed rule, the Agency notes 
that ANSI Z4.3 contains useful information on servicing practices for 
portable toilets (Ex. 3-7).
    OSHA requests comment on this provision. OSHA seeks information on 
the measures in place to ensure that sanitation facilities and supplies 
are maintained in clean, sanitary and serviceable condition. How often 
are sanitation facilities inspected, cleaned, and restocked? Are there 
different procedures and/or schedules for portable toilet facilities as 
opposed to other sanitation facilities?
    Paragraph (b) Potable water--Proposed Sec.  1915.88(b)(3) would 
expand the existing rule to allow employers to provide drinking water 
in single use bottles. OSHA requests comment on the proposal. Where and 
to what extent are single use drinking water bottles used in your 
shipyard?
    OSHA is also considering adding a requirement to the final standard 
requiring employers to ensure that drinking water is "suitably cool," 
a requirement from OSHA's Field Sanitation standard (Sec.  
1928.110(c)(1)(ii)). The preamble to that standard explained that when 
employees work in hot and humid temperatures, the temperature of 
drinking water needs to be low enough to encourage them to drink and to 
cool their core body temperature (52 FR 16087). Some shipyard employees 
also work in very hot and humid environments. Cool water could help 
promote adequate hydration and reduce the risk of heat-related 
illnesses. OSHA requests comment on this issue. OSHA seeks information 
on the measures that have been implemented to ensure that drinking 
water is cool, especially for employees working on board vessels or in 
hot and humid weather.
    Paragraph (d) Toilet Facilities--Proposed paragraph (d) adopts the 
existing requirements on sewered toilets and as noted in Table 3, the 
proposal would add a new paragraph (d)(3) to cover portable toilet 
facilities, which are not addressed by Sec.  1910.141(c).
    Because of the proposed additions for portable toilets, OSHA 
proposes to replace the existing term "toilet facility" with the 
terms "sewered toilet facility" and "portable toilet facility." 
These terms are used in the current ANSI Z4.1 and Z4.3 standards, 
respectively (Ex. 3-6, Sec.  2.4; Ex. 3-7, Sec. Sec.  2 and 5). OSHA 
proposes to define these terms in Sec.  1915.95. "Sewered toilet 
facility" would be defined to mean a fixture that is connected to a 
sanitary sewer, septic tank, holding tank (e.g., bilge), or on-site 
sewage disposal treatment facility and that is flushed with water. In 
contrast, "portable toilet facility" would be defined to mean a non-
sewered toilet that may be either non-flushable, or flushable with 
water or a non-water flushing solution. Most portable toilet facilities 
used in shipyards are non-flush chemical toilet facilities.
    Paragraph (d)(2) Sewered toilet facilities--Minimum number of 
sewered toilet facilities. Proposed paragraph (d)(2) would retain the 
existing requirements of Sec.  1910.141 for the minimum number of 
sewered toilet facilities employers must provide for men and women. 
While the required numbers of facilities vary depending on the total 
number of employees at the work site, the basic requirement is commonly 
referred to as a ratio of one toilet for every 15 employees, and OSHA 
will use that terminology. OSHA adopted this requirement (Table J-1 of 
Sec.  1910.141) from the 1968 ANSI Z4.1 standard through notice and 
comment rulemaking in 1973 (38 FR 10930, 10931 (5/3/1973)). It has been 
part of the general industry standards since that time. By contrast to 
the OSHA standard, the current ANSI standard has a different table of 
ratios (Table 4, ANSI Z4.1-1995), with a basic ratio of 1 toilet per 9 
employees. In the three decades since OSHA adopted its standard, nearly 
90 percent of the States, at either the State or local level, have 
adopted the 2003 International Plumbing Code (IPC 2003), which 
incorporates the requirements of the ANSI Z4.1-1995 standard (one 
toilet per 9 employees).

                        Table 4.--ANSI Z4.1-1995
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Number of employees               Minimum number of stools
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 to 9....................................  1.
10 to 24..................................  2.
25 to 49..................................  3.
50 to 74..................................  4.
75 to 100.................................  5.
Over 100..................................  1 for each additional 30
                                             persons.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA requests comment on the proposal to retain the 1:15 toilet 
ratio from the existing standard. Should OSHA adopt the 1:9 ratio in 
the current ANSI Z4.1 and IPC 2003 standards? Would such adoption 
significantly improve OSHA's protection of employee health, and in what 
manner? What costs, if any, would result? If OSHA were to adopt the 
ANSI/IPC table, should its application be limited in any way, such as 
to facilities built after a certain date (e.g., the date the ANSI or 
IPC standards were adopted)?
    Questions have been raised about whether toilet facilities are 
distributed adequately throughout shipyards. As noted earlier, the 
field sanitation and ANSI standards establish more specific 
requirements for location of toilet facilities relative to the location 
of the employee, 1/4 mile and 200 feet, respectively (Sec.  
1928.110(c)(2)(iii); ANSI Z4.1, Sec.  5.1.1 (Ex. 3-6)). OSHA requests 
comment on whether the final rule should contain specific requirements 
for the location of toilet facilities in shipyards. If not, why not? If 
so, what specifications should OSHA use? Should the same or different 
specifications apply for both sewered and portable toilets? Please 
explain.
    Portable toilet facilities. As discussed in Table 3, proposed Sec.  
1915.88(d)(3) would allow employers to supplement the required numbers 
of sewered toilet facilities with either sewered or portable toilet 
facilities. OSHA's Marine Terminals, Longshoring, Construction, and 
Field Sanitation standards all permit the use of portable toilet 
facilities (Sec. Sec.  1917.127(a)(1)(iv); 1918.95(a)(1)(iv); 
1926.51(c)(3); 1928.110(b); see also ANSI Z4.1 Sec. Sec.  2.9 and 6.4).
    OSHA believes that allowing the use of portable toilet facilities 
in this manner will enhance employee safety and health and will not 
result in any adverse effects. This provision is justified by the 
significant improvements in portable toilet technology in recent years. 
Portable toilet facilities now contain the type of equipment necessary 
to provide for employee health needs at levels approaching that of the 
existing standard. For example, many portable toilet facilities are now 
manufactured with handwashing facilities that include hand towels, 
waste receptacles, and either running water or waterless cleaning 
agents. In addition, some portable facilities have flushable toilets 
(Ex. 2-3).
    Allowing the use of portable toilet facilities will encourage 
employers to provide more facilities than the minimum required by the 
standard. It will enable them to provide such additional facilities 
without incurring construction expenses and inconvenience. OSHA 
believes that by allowing employers to also provide portable toilets, 
employers would be more likely to provide toilets in numbers that are 
closer to the 1 to 9 ratio in the ANSI Z4.1 and Z4.3 standards (Exs. 3-
6; 3-7).
    Permitting the use of portable toilets would allow and encourage 
employers to provide facilities in those work locations where it is 
extremely difficult if not impracticable to have sewage carriage 
systems. For example, employers could provide them on vessels, in dry 
docks, and in work locations where local plumbing or building codes 
prohibit installation of sewage systems. Allowing the use of portable 
toilet facilities also gives employers more flexibility in responding 
to changing workplace conditions. For example, it allows employers to 
respond quickly when work moves from location to location within the 
shipyard.
    Finally, OSHA believes that allowing portable toilet facilities 
will enhance employee safety and health because it makes these 
facilities more accessible and thus more likely to be used. As 
mentioned, this is particularly important in work areas onboard 
vessels, where a significant portion of shipyard employees work and 
where sewered facilities may not be practicable.
    OSHA requests comment on the proposed requirements for portable 
toilet facilities. What additional requirements, if any, should the 
final rule include in order to ensure that portable toilet facilities 
provide a level of service close to that provided by sewered toilet 
facilities?
    OSHA is considering adding a provision that would require employers 
to provide portable toilet facilities in certain areas where it is 
unlikely sewered facilities could be installed such as in those areas 
of the workplace where there is a lack of water or the temporary nature 
of the work makes installing sewered toilet facilities impracticable. 
These work areas may include work onboard vessels and vessel sections 
and in dry docks. OSHA requests comment on whether the final rule 
should require employers to provide portable toilet facilities in these 
types of situations. If not, why not? If so, in what situations should 
they be required? How many portable toilets, at a minimum, should 
employers be required to provide? For instance, should OSHA adopt the 
ratios (i.e., toilets per employees) established in the ANSI Z4.3 
standard?
    OSHA requests comment on the use of portable toilet facilities in 
shipyards. When and where are portable toilet facilities used? What 
factors determine how many to provide and when and where to provide 
them?
    Exemption. In paragraphs (d)(4) and (e)(3), OSHA proposes to 
combine and retain provisions exempting employers from providing toilet 
and handwashing facilities for mobile crews and for employees working 
in normally unattended worksites, provided that these employees have 
immediately available transportation to readily accessible sanitation 
facilities that meet the requirements of this section. The availability 
of vehicles at a worksite does not necessarily mean that the employees 
at that worksite are a "mobile crew." OSHA has interpreted the term 
"mobile crew" to be limited to employees who continually or 
frequently move from jobsite to jobsite on a daily or hourly basis and 
to exclude employees who report to a worksite for days, weeks, or 
longer (Ex. 2-21; OSHA letter of interpretation to Nicolas Mertz, June 
7, 2002).
    For the purposes of these exceptions, "immediately available 
transportation" means that the vehicle is already at the specific 
worksite or can be summoned quickly enough so employees are able to get 
to facilities quickly. OSHA has interpreted "nearby" facilities as 
being within ten minutes of the employees work area (Ex. 2-21). Nearby 
toilet facilities must be in clean, sanitary and serviceable condition, 
and adequate for the number of employees who need to use them. Nearby 
handwashing facilities would have to be equipped with waterless 
cleaning agents or soap, water (i.e., hot and cold or lukewarm), and 
hand towels or warm air blowers.
    OSHA requests comment on the proposed exemption. Should OSHA limit 
these exemptions in any way? For example, with the increasing 
availability of waterless cleaning agents, should OSHA require that 
mobile crews be provided with such supplies? What measures do shipyards 
currently use to ensure that mobile crews have immediate access to 
transportation to nearby toilet facilities?
    Paragraph (e) Handwashing Facilities--Location of handwashing 
facilities. In paragraph (e)(1), OSHA proposes to add a requirement 
that handwashing facilities be located "at or adjacent to each toilet 
facility," sewered and portable toilet facilities alike. This 
provision is necessary, in major part, to ensure that employees' health 
needs are met in those worksites where portable toilet facilities are 
or will be used. Some portable toilet facilities are not equipped with 
handwashing facilities and separate or stand-alone facilities are not 
always placed next to or close to portable toilets. This is 
particularly true onboard vessels and vessel sections. Often, employees 
must go to landside facilities, which may be located a significant 
distance away, to clean their hands. As a result, employees may not 
clean their hands when they are exposed to contaminants, after using a 
portable toilet, or before eating, drinking, or smoking, which puts 
them at risk of adverse health effects.
    OSHA believes the proposed performance language gives employers 
flexibility in complying and should not pose problems, even at 
worksites where there is a lack of piped water or sewer lines. Many 
portable toilet facilities manufactured today contain either 
handwashing facilities or waterless cleaning agents. In addition, 
portable, stand-alone hand cleaning facilities are available and can be 
placed adjacent to portable toilet facilities. A single stand-alone 
handwashing facility may be able to serve several portable toilet 
facilities that are placed in one location. OSHA requests comment on 
the proposal.
    Hand cleaning agents. OSHA proposes in paragraph (e)(2) to revise 
the existing requirements (Sec.  1910.141(d)(2)(ii) and (iii)) to allow 
handwashing facilities to be equipped with either (1) soap and hot and 
cold or lukewarm running water, or (2) waterless cleaning agents. The 
existing standard, as well as most of OSHA's other sanitation 
standards, requires that handwashing facilities have soap and running 
water (Sec. Sec.  1910.141(d)(2)(ii) and (iii), 1910.142(f)(3), 
1917.127(a)(1)(i) and (ii), 1918.95(a)(1)(i) and (ii), 1928.110(b)). 
However, the Bloodborne Pathogens standard permits the use of alternatives 
(e.g., antiseptic hand cleaners) in limited circumstances (Sec.  
1910.1030(d)(2)(iii) and (iv)).
    OSHA has not proposed that the use of waterless cleaning agents be 
limited to those situations in which the lack of water or the temporary 
nature of the installation makes running water impracticable. OSHA does 
not believe the limitation is necessary since it is likely that 
waterless agents will be used most often in conjunction with portable 
toilet facilities. Whatever cleaning agents are used, the employer will 
be responsible for ensuring that they are effective in disinfecting the 
skin or removing the contaminants to which employees are exposed. In 
addition, the employer must select waterless agents that will not 
result in absorption of contaminants, sensitization of the skin, or 
other adverse health effects.
    In OSHA's rulemaking on Bloodborne Pathogens, a number of 
organizations, including the Association for Professionals in Infection 
Control (APIC), the American Red Cross, Johns Hopkins University, and 
the American Society of Microbiology, supported allowing the use of 
waterless cleaners in those situations in which water was not available 
(56 FR 64004, 64116-17 (12/6/1991)). The National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) said antiseptic hand cleaners 
and disposable disinfectant towelettes also were effective alternatives 
for soap and water for employees working in areas where there is a lack 
of running water (56 FR 64116). Based on the evidence in the record, 
OSHA accepted the use of alternative hand cleaning methods as an 
interim measure when soap and water are not feasible (e.g., 
firefighters, EMTs, police, paramedics). As noted in Table 3 above, the 
present record contains several studies conducted since that time, all 
of which further support the efficacy of waterless cleansers. Recent 
studies also show that waterless cleaners such as alcohol-based hand 
rubs reduce the number of bacteria on the hand more effectively than 
soap and water (Ex. 2-24). Alcohol gels, for instance, have been found 
to have excellent immediate antimicrobial effects and may reduce skin 
irritation that can occur from frequent washing with soap and water 
(Ex. 2-22). However, in certain circumstances they may accelerate the 
absorption of contaminants through the skin.
    A number of shipyard operations are done at worksites where it may 
be difficult to provide running water and soap. Therefore, based on 
recent information and evidence, OSHA believes there is a practical 
need to allow the use of waterless cleaning and decontamination 
products in shipyards.
    OSHA requests comment on the proposal to allow the optional use of 
waterless cleaning agents. In your establishment, to what extent are 
waterless cleaning agents used? If waterless cleaners are used, have 
they been received favorably by employees, and have employees 
experienced any problems with the cleaners (e.g., allergic reaction)?
    Paragraph (j) Vermin control--OSHA proposes to revise the 
application of the existing requirement (Sec.  1910.141(a)(5)) on 
vermin control to make the provision more appropriate to shipyard 
employment. The existing requirement to clean and maintain the 
workplace in a manner that prevents the harborage of vermin only 
applies to "enclosed" workplaces. Proposed paragraph (j)(1) would 
extend its application by requiring the employer to take those steps 
necessary to control vermin throughout the shipyard. Thus, employers 
would need to expand their vermin control efforts to include outdoor 
worksites. Evidence in the record shows that employees working at 
outdoor worksites, as well as in enclosed spaces, need to be protected 
from the hazards associated with exposure to vermin (Ex. 2-12). For 
example, employees working near water are at risk of disease if 
mosquito populations are not adequately controlled. In addition, birds 
and rodents can transmit disease directly and through their feces (see 
http://www.hhs.gov and http://www.cdc.gov for information on vermin 
related diseases).
    At the same time, OSHA recognizes that it is not possible to 
prevent all vermin, especially birds and insects, from entering outdoor 
worksites. Therefore, the proposal retains the existing provision 
requiring employers to take only those steps that are "reasonably 
practicable" to prevent the harborage of vermin.
    In paragraph (j)(2), OSHA proposes to retain unchanged the existing 
requirement (Sec.  1910.141(a)(5)) that employers implement and 
maintain an effective control program where vermin are detected. OSHA 
proposes to define "vermin" to include insects, birds, and other 
animals, such as rodents and feral cats (proposed Sec.  1915.95).
    OSHA requests comment on the proposed vermin control provisions. 
What vermin are present and what types of controls are used to prevent 
their harborage in shipyard worksites?

Section 1915.89 Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout)

    In Sec.  1915.89, OSHA proposes to add requirements addressing the 
control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout) during the servicing of 
machines, equipment and systems. The approach OSHA is proposing to 
adopt is that of the general industry standard (Sec.  1910.147), with 
minor revisions. (The general industry standard does not apply to 
shipyard employment.) The following discussion covers the need for a 
comprehensive lockout/tagout rule in shipyards, why OSHA is proposing 
to adopt the general industry approach, the requirements of the general 
industry standard, and the differences between proposed Sec.  1915.89 
and Sec.  1910.147. In addition, this section includes an in-depth 
discussion of the application of the lockout/tagout standard while 
servicing commercial vessels, such as fish processing vessels. While 
OSHA welcomes comments on any and all aspects of the proposed standard, 
the discussion also includes specific issues for which OSHA is seeking 
comment on the proposal.
    The need for a comprehensive lockout/tagout standard in shipyards. 
OSHA believes that a comprehensive rule protecting shipyard employees 
from hazardous energy during servicing, maintenance and repair 
operations is needed for several reasons. First, information in the 
record indicates that potential hazardous energy exposures are present 
throughout shipyard employment, on vessels and vessel sections as well 
as in landside operations (Exs. 9, 11). Servicing operations, which 
include activities such as constructing, installing and repairing 
equipment, are some of the riskiest operations in shipyard employment. 
For example, employees servicing ship's systems face considerable risk 
of injury from energization of those systems because they are often 
large and complex, and frequently have multiple power sources. That 
risk is compounded further when ships' crews and outside contractors 
also work onboard the vessel, which is a common occurrence.
    There are numerous injuries and fatalities in shipyard employment 
that would be prevented by an effective lockout/tagout program. 
According to 2002 data from the BLS annual survey of occupational 
injuries and illnesses, in 30.3 percent of the shipyard injury and 
illness cases involving days away from work, the case resulted from 
contact with an object or equipment, and 1.8 percent of the cases 
resulted from being caught in equipment. According to BLS CFOI data 
from 1993-2002, 10 shipyard fatalities (6.3%) resulted from 
contact with electrical current and 31 fatalities (19.5%) occurred 
because of contact with objects and equipment. OSHA's IMIS database 
also indicates that there have been numerous fatalities in shipyards 
that the proposed (lockout/tagout) provisions could prevent. Some of 
these fatalities are discussed below.
     In 2000, one employee was killed when he was crushed by a 
steering mechanism. Four employees were repairing the steering 
mechanism on a tow boat, which functions from electricity and 
hydraulics. The electricity was deenergized and secured, but the 
residual energy from the hydraulics was not relieved and rendered safe. 
The proposed provisions for stored energy may have prevented this 
fatality.
     In 1999, an employee installing a support cable was 
electrocuted when he came into contact with the energized high-voltage 
line that he was servicing. A secondary switch that should have been 
locked open to deenergize an electrical panel had been left closed. The 
proposed procedures to isolate and verify deenergization may have 
prevented this accident.
     In 1998, a shipyard employee was killed and another 
seriously injured when an elevator was energized while they were 
working under the edge of the flight deck on an aircraft carrier. 
Movement of the elevator during servicing could have been prevented if 
the elevator energy isolating device had been locked or tagged out.
     In 1996, an employee was killed and another was burned 
while checking a hydraulic power unit. The hose of the test gauge came 
in contact with an exposed, energized conductor in the motor start 
panel, which caused the hose to rupture and ignite the hydraulic fluid. 
Under the proposed lockout/tagout provisions, this accident could have 
been prevented because all systems would have been deenergized and 
deenergization would have been verified.
     In 1996, an employee was killed while working inside a 
480-volt electrical cabinet. The disconnecting means for the cabinet 
were not properly identified, and the cabinet was not tested before 
work began. By following the proposed provisions for applying lockout/
tagout devices and verification of isolation, this fatality may have 
been prevented.
     In 1990, an employee was killed while replacing an 
electric motor on a crane because the crane's brake was not locked. 
When the crane motor was unbolted, its drum and gear started spinning 
due to stored energy in the crane's cables and weights. The employee 
was struck with flying parts and killed. The proposed provisions would 
have ensured that before beginning work the energy would have been 
isolated, the machine deenergized, and the deenergization verified.
    Second, the proposal is needed because the comprehensive general 
industry lockout/tagout standard exempts "maritime employment" from 
its scope (Sec.  1910.147(a)(1)(ii)). In the preamble to the final 
general industry standard, OSHA explained that shipyard employment was 
excluded not because working conditions were less hazardous, which the 
discussion above demonstrates, but rather because the unique nature of 
this industry and the means to minimize injury to employees required 
additional analysis and consideration, which had not been adequately 
addressed during the lockout/tagout rulemaking (FR 36644, 36657-58 (9/
1/1989)). As a result, OSHA had insufficient information about 
hazardous energy in shipyard employment and about whether the general 
industry approach would address those hazards effectively. OSHA said it 
would continue to review information on hazardous energy in shipyard 
employment, evaluate the need to initiate rulemaking, and determine 
whether the general industry rule, or an appropriate modification of 
that rule, would provide optimal protection for shipyard employees. 
OSHA also said the Agency would present these matters to SESAC for 
consideration as part of the committee's review of shipyard standards. 
In 1993, after discussing the issues at length, SESAC recommended that 
OSHA adopt a comprehensive lockout/tagout standard (Docket SESAC 1993-
3, Ex. 104X).
    Third, a lockout/tagout rule is needed because the existing 
lockout/tagout provisions currently applicable to shipyard employment 
(Sec. Sec.  1910.331-.335, 1915.162-.164, 1915.181) do not provide 
comprehensive or adequate protection for shipyard employees. For 
example, most of the existing provisions in part 1915 only address a 
limited number of servicing operations onboard vessels and do not 
address hazardous energy in landside operations. Conversely, the 
applicable general industry electrical safety requirements (Sec. Sec.  
1910.331-.335) apply only to landside operations and when shore-based 
electrical installations provide power for use aboard vessels, and do 
not cover qualified persons working on a vessel's permanently installed 
electrical system.
    The requirements in the existing applicable provisions also are not 
as protective as the comprehensive procedures and requirements in the 
general industry standard. The existing provisions in part 1915 
establish specific, but isolated, practices for controlling hazardous 
energy and none establish a comprehensive program for addressing those 
risks. For example, none of the existing part 1915 provisions require 
written lockout/tagout procedures, employee training, verification of 
deenergization or isolation, or periodic inspection, all of which the 
general industry standard requires (see Table 5).
    The existing applicable lockout/tagout provisions also do not 
provide a consistent approach. As Table 5 shows, the provisions have a 
range of different approaches for shutting off, isolating and securing 
or otherwise protecting employees from reenergization. For example, 
when employees work on ship's boilers they must tagout and provide a 
second isolation of the energy, while employees working on electrical 
machinery must tagout and check the energy at the point of work. The 
proposed shipyard lockout/tagout standard would establish uniform 
minimum procedures that shipyard employers would have to follow in all 
shipyard servicing operations to protect their employees.


                                                                             Table 5.--Comparison of General Industry and Shipyard Lockout/Tagout Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Source/standard                     Means required to    Second isolation        Layers of           Number of        Deenergization     Required to check   Employee training   Written procedure       Periodic
                                                         secure energy       required when         isolation        isolations under      verification      energy at point        required?           required?           inspection
                                                       isolating device      tagout device          required            employee           required?            of work?                                                   required?
                                                                                 used?                               "control" *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   1910.147** General        Lockout Program...  Lock...............  Not Applicable....  1.................  1.................  Yes...............  Yes...............  Yes...............  Yes...............  Yes.
 Industry lockout tagout.
                                 Tagout Program....  Tag................  Usually...........  Usually 2.........  0 Or 1............  Yes...............  Yes...............  Yes...............  Yes...............  Yes.
Part 1910 Subpart S Electrical.  ..................  Tag................  Yes...............  2.................  1.................  Yes...............  Yes...............  Yes...............  No................  No.
Sec.   1915.162 Ship's Boilers.  Bolted Valves.....  Tag................  Yes...............  2.................  1.................  No................  No................  No................  No................  No.
                                 Welded Valves.....  Lock & Tag.........  Yes...............  2.................  2.................  No................  No................  No................  No................  No.
Sec.   1915.163 Ship's Piping    ..................  Tag................  Yes...............  2.................  2.................  No................  No................  No................  No................  No.
 Systems.
Sec.   1915.164 Ships'           Steam.............  Lock & Tag.........  Yes...............  1.................  1.................  No................  No................  No................  No................  No.
 Propulsion Machinery.
                                 Electrical Breaker  Tag................  Yes...............  1.................  1.................  No................  No................  No................  No................  No.
                                 Electrical Fuse...  Tag................  Yes...............  2.................  1.................  No................  No................  No................  No................  No.
Sec.   1915.181 Subpart L        ..................  Tag................  Yes...............  1.................  2.................  Yes...............  Yes...............  No................  No................  No.
 Electrical Machinery.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Employee "control" means either a lock or an employee-made isolation layer.
** Only Sec.   1910.147, which exempts maritime employment, requires a comprehensive lockout/tagout program.

    Why OSHA is proposing to adopt the general industry approach? Based 
on a review of the information and consultations with SESAC, the Agency 
is proposing to adopt, with limited modifications, the same approach 
and requirements as the general industry lockout/tagout standard. OSHA 
believes this approach is appropriate for several reasons. First, the 
general industry standard has provided effective protection for 
affected employees. A lookback review of the general industry standard, 
conducted pursuant to Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and Section 5 of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 
concluded that the standard had been effective in reducing fatalities 
(65 FR 38302 (6/20/2002)). The review also concluded that the standard 
did not impose a significant impact on small business.
    In addition to these analyses, commenters who participated in the 
lookback review, including companies (e.g., Bell Atlantic and Kodak), 
unions (e.g., United Auto Workers, United Steel Workers of America, and 
the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers), employer groups 
(e.g., Organization Resources Counselors, Inc.), and professional 
societies (e.g., the American Society of Safety Engineers), stated that 
the standard had been effective in saving lives and preventing 
injuries. Most comments supported continuation of the standard because 
it had been effective in achieving its employee protection goals (65 FR 
38304).
    Second, many shipyard employers already have implemented lockout/
tagout programs modeled on the general industry standard, and have 
reported that these programs have been effective in reducing the risk 
of harm associated with servicing operations. In addition, SESAC 
recommended using the proposed general industry approach as the 
framework for a recommended lockout/tagout rule for shipyards (Docket 
SESAC 1993-3, Ex. 104X, p).
    Third, OSHA believes that the comprehensive energy control 
procedures, which are the cornerstone of the general industry standard, 
are particularly appropriate for addressing the types of workplace 
conditions and hazardous energy that are present in shipyard 
employment. The comprehensive procedures consist primarily of steps for 
deenergization, isolation of equipment from energy sources, and 
verification of deenergization before servicing operations are begun. 
OSHA believes that isolation of equipment from the energy sources in 
combination with adherence to established deenergization and 
energization procedures, and not just the application of locks or tags, 
is what ensures that employees are adequately protected (54 FR 36655). 
Locks and tags are applied after machines or equipment have been 
isolated. If equipment is not properly isolated and the procedures for 
deenergization and verification are not followed, neither application 
of a lock nor a tag will fully ensure employees are protected. This is 
especially true where systems, such as ship's systems, are complex, 
have several energy sources, or are serviced at the same time by many 
employees or crews who may work for different employers.
    The comprehensive isolation and deenergization procedures in the 
general industry standard are also important where systems are not 
capable of being locked out, which is the situation for many ship's 
systems since shipyard employers do not own the ship's systems they 
service. In addition, the procedures the standard requires address 
conditions that are commonly present in shipyards, including multiple 
employer worksites and group servicing operations by multiple crews. 
Because of the range of workplace factors present in shipyard servicing 
operations, OSHA believes the comprehensive energy procedures in the 
general industry standard are necessary and appropriate to ensure that 
shipyard employees are adequately protected. Moreover, adopting the 
standard's employee training requirements will help to ensure that 
employees understand and adhere to the energy control procedures.
    Fourth, OSHA believes that the general industry standard is 
appropriate because shipyard employment also includes landside 
operations, which are quite similar to general industry worksites. 
Landside facilities, such as metal fabrication shops, machine shops, 
electrical shops, sheet metal shops, and paint shops, are analogous to 
general industry shops performing the same types of work. Thus, the 
general industry requirements are readily applicable and appropriate 
for those operations.
    Fifth, OSHA believes the general industry standard will be 
effective in controlling hazardous energy in complex shipyard work 
environments and in servicing complex ship's systems because the 
standard has proven effective under the same types of complex 
conditions found in general industry. The general industry lockout/
tagout standard has been applied to approximately one million 
facilities, including complex chemical plants, petroleum refineries, 
nuclear power plants and motor vehicle assembly operations (65 FR 
38303). The standard has been used to protect employees manufacturing 
sophisticated transportation equipment, such as train locomotives, 
aircraft and space vehicles. The general industry standard has also 
been applied in the manufacturing of complex military equipment, such 
as tanks, weapons systems and guided missiles.
    Similar to ship's systems, some equipment and systems used in 
general industry have multiple sources and types of energy, back-up 
energy sources, and separate circuits for critical power needs (e.g., 
lighting). In addition, servicing operations in various general 
industry workplaces involve systems that may be located far away from 
system energy sources, just as energy sources of ship's systems are 
often located landside. Both general industry and shipyard servicing 
operations often involve contractors, work on equipment and systems the 
employer does not own, and have great variations in the equipment and 
systems being serviced.
    Even though there may be some unique conditions in shipyards, OSHA 
believes that the flexibility of the general industry standard ensures 
that it will be effective in controlling hazardous energy in shipyard 
servicing operations. OSHA requests comment on the proposal to apply 
the general industry lockout/tagout standard to shipyard employment. 
Are there any unique conditions in shipyards that make the general 
industry standard incompatible or inapplicable to shipyard employment? 
If so, please describe those conditions. The performance-based approach 
of the general industry standard gives employers flexibility in 
determining the type of energy control procedures that would most 
effectively protect shipyard employees who are servicing particular 
machines, equipment and systems. This flexibility will also allow 
shipyard employers to tailor their energy control procedures so they 
adequately address specific conditions that may have unique 
applications in shipyard servicing operations.
    Adopting a lockout/tagout rule for shipyards that is consistent 
with the general industry requirements has several advantages. Colleges 
and safety and health training providers have trained large numbers of 
safety and health professionals on the general industry standard. 
Having similar standards for shipyards would help to ensure that there 
are adequate numbers of trained safety and health professionals 
available to help shipyard employers as they implement the
standard. It would also ensure that the numerous lockout/tagout 
publications and outreach materials OSHA has developed for the general 
industry standard are useable and immediately available to help 
shipyards comply with the provisions and protect their employees. 
Moreover, it would mean that the materials NIOSH, the states, and 
private organizations have developed for the general industry standard 
could be easily applied to shipyards.
    Control of Hazardous Energy Onboard Commercial Vessels. OSHA 
proposes to include language in both proposed Sec.  1915.89 and 
existing Sec.  1910.147 to clarify several issues concerning the 
application of the hazardous energy standards to servicing operations 
onboard commercial vessels. In large part, these proposed additions are 
in response to recent events that have raised concerns about how OSHA 
covers the serious hazards associated with servicing of equipment and 
systems on fish processing vessels.
    Fish processing vessels, often called "floating fish factories," 
are commercial vessels that eviscerate, clean and prepare fresh, frozen 
and canned seafood. Generally, fish processing vessels perform the same 
operations and use the same types of equipment as landside fish 
processing plants; they just do so at sea. These vessels usually set 
anchor in fishing grounds for weeks or months at a time, processing 
fish and seafood that fishing boats unload onto them (Ex. 16-1). Some 
vessels, known as catcher/processors, also catch the seafood they 
process (Exs.16-1 through 16-3). Fish processing equipment onboard 
these vessels, as in landside facilities, is specific to the type of 
seafood being processed. Thus, at the end of each fishing season when 
the vessel returns to port new equipment is installed to process fish 
that will be caught during the next fishing season (Ex. 16-2).
    OSHA estimates that there are about 200 U.S. fish processing 
vessels operating in and traveling through U.S. territorial waters 
(Exs. 16-1; 16-4). While the number of employees working on fish 
processing vessels is difficult to ascertain, OSHA estimates that each 
vessel employs about 100 to 120 processing employees, who live on the 
vessel throughout the season, for a total of approximately 2,500 
employees (Ex. 16-2).
    The need to address the hazards associated with servicing fish 
processing equipment was brought to OSHA's attention by a serious 
accident onboard a fish processing vessel working in the Bering Sea. On 
October 16, 2005, an employee, who was cleaning a vat used to process 
fish paste onboard a fish processing vessel, was seriously injured when 
the augers at the bottom of the vat suddenly started up. The churning 
augers trapped the employee's feet and legs and drew them into the 
machinery. It took coworkers two hours to free the employee from the 
machinery and another half day for a helicopter to arrive and airlift 
her off the vessel. The employee was flown to a hospital in Anchorage, 
Alaska, where her legs had to be amputated below the knees (Ex. 16-3).
    Recently published injury statistics on the commercial fishing 
industry also support the need to address hazardous energy during 
servicing operations onboard floating fish factories. A study of 
serious injuries from 1991-98, collected by the Alaska Trauma Registry, 
determined that injuries related to fish processing equipment onboard 
vessels were the leading cause of injury in the industry (Ex. 16-5). 
These injuries accounted for more than one half of all injuries 
reported and many could have been prevented by implementing programs to 
control hazardous energy and applying lockout/tagout systems during 
servicing.
    In light of these incidents, OSHA proposes to change its existing 
policy on the coverage of servicing and maintenance activities onboard 
commercial vessels, particularly fish processing vessels. In short, 
OSHA proposes adding language to Sec.  1915.89 and Sec.  1910.147 
specifying that:
     Proposed Sec.  1915.89 applies to the servicing of ship's 
systems by any employee, including but not limited to, ship's officers 
and crew of the vessel (see proposed Sec.  1915.89(a)(2)(i)(A));
     Proposed Sec.  1915.89 applies to the servicing of 
machines, equipment and systems that employees use in the course of 
performing shipyard employment operations (see proposed Sec.  
1915.89(a)(2)(i)(B)); and
     Existing Sec.  1910.147, and not proposed Sec.  1915.89, 
applies to the servicing of equipment onboard vessels that is used for 
inherently general industry operations such as fish processing (see 
Sec.  1910.147(a) and proposed Sec.  1915.89(a)(2)(iii)(C)).
    Background and current policy. In order to fully explain OSHA's 
proposed changes, it is important to understand OSHA's current policy 
on the coverage of commercial vessels. This section discusses OSHA and 
U.S. Coast Guard authority over vessels, OSHA's current exemption of 
maritime employment from Sec.  1910.147, and OSHA's current policy 
concerning application of Sec.  1910.147 to floating fish processors.
    Coast Guard/OSHA authority over vessels. Both OSHA and the U.S. 
Coast Guard have authority for the safety and health of employees 
onboard vessels. The Coast Guard has statutory authority to prescribe 
and enforce regulations affecting safety and health onboard inspected 
vessels and has exercised that authority. Therefore, OSHA does not have 
authority over those vessels (29 U.S.C. 653(b)(1); Chao v. Mallard Bay 
Drilling, Inc. (Mallard Bay), 534 U.S. 235 (2002); Ex. 16-6; CPL 02-01-
020 Coast Guard/OSHA Authority Over Vessels, 11/8/1996). However, OSHA 
does have authority over uninspected vessels (hereafter "commercial 
vessels") to the extent that the U.S. Coast Guard has not regulated a 
specific hazard or working condition (Mallard Bay, 534 U.S. at 244-45; 
Ex. 16-6). Almost all vessels used in the fish processing industry are 
uninspected, therefore they are within OSHA's authority (Ex. 16-6). 
Moreover, to date, the Coast Guard has not regulated the control of 
hazardous energy during the servicing and maintenance of equipment on 
commercial vessels. Therefore, OSHA has authority to regulate hazardous 
energy onboard commercial vessels. (OSHA notes that the Coast Guard has 
issued a limited regulation on machine guarding during production 
operations. See 46 CFR 28.215; 56 FR 40364, 40374 (8/14/1991) 
("Running machinery is required to have hand covers, guards or 
railings to reduce the chance of personnel being inured while working 
around the moving gears, belts, and chains").
    Where OSHA has authority over commercial vessels, the Agency 
generally has applied part 1910 standards to control hazardous working 
conditions (Ex. 16-6). However, OSHA has applied part 1915, and not the 
general industry lockout/tagout standard, to controlling hazardous 
energy during "ship repair" operations onboard commercial vessels. 
Ship repair is defined at Sec.  1915.4(j) as "any repair of a vessel 
including, but not restricted to, alterations, conversions, 
installations, cleaning, painting, and maintenance work." Pursuant to 
that definition, OSHA has interpreted ship repair as including the 
servicing of all equipment and systems on commercial vessels, 
regardless of who performs the operation or whether the equipment is a 
permanent or inherent part of the vessel or a temporary fixture 
unrelated to the vessel's core navigation functions (Exs. 16-7; 16-8).
    "Maritime employment" exemption. OSHA's current policy has been 
derived from language in the general industry lockout/tagout standard 
(Sec.  1910.147, 54 FR 36644) and Agency interpretations of it. The general
industry lockout/tagout standard explicitly exempts "maritime employment" 
from coverage (Sec.  1910.147(a)(1)(ii)(A)). Although the standard and its 
preamble do not define maritime employment, in the preamble OSHA 
pointed to shipyard employment, longshoring and marine terminals as 
examples (54 FR 36655, 36657-36659).
    The preamble cited several reasons for excluding maritime 
employment. OSHA said that including maritime employment, with its 
"unique situations and work practices * * * would unduly complicate 
development of a generic energy control standard for general industry" 
(54 FR 36657). OSHA also said a lockout/tagout standard likely could be 
applied quite differently in maritime than in general industry. As a 
result, the general industry rule might need to be modified 
considerably in order to provide optimal protection for maritime 
employees. However, the process of examining maritime employment and 
modifying the rule to address those issues would delay providing needed 
protection for millions of general industry employees. OSHA also 
explained that it did not have adequate information in the lockout/
tagout record on hazardous energy hazards in shipyard employment, 
marine terminals and longshoring to support including them in the 
standard.
    In exempting maritime employment, OSHA noted that part 1915 has 
provisions that address deenergization during the servicing of certain 
vessel systems and equipment (54 FR 36657). Those provisions, in 
subparts J and L, pertain to ship's systems and machinery (e.g., Sec.  
1915.162 Ship's boilers; Sec.  1915.163 Ship's piping systems; Sec.  
1915.163 Ship's propulsion machinery) and electrical circuits and 
distribution boards (Sec.  1915.181). Although part 1915 does not 
define "ship's systems," generally the term is used to describe 
systems and equipment that are an inherent and permanent part of a 
vessel. The provisions in subparts J and L do not address the servicing 
of other types of equipment onboard vessels, such as fish processing 
equipment, and there are no other part 1915 standards addressing 
hazardous energy during the servicing of such equipment.
    Interpretation of Sec.  1910.147. After OSHA issued the general 
industry lockout/tagout standard, the Agency received two inquiries 
about its application to commercial vessels, specifically fish 
processing vessels. The first inquiry, in 1991, asked OSHA to clarify 
whether Sec.  1910.147 applies to servicing "the factory portion of 
floating fish processors" (Ex. 16-7). OSHA responded that the 
maintenance of "any equipment" onboard vessels is included in the 
maritime exemption from Sec.  1910.147. OSHA explained that the 
maritime employment exemption applies to "shipyard employment," which 
includes "ship repair" (Sec. Sec.  1910.15(a), 1915.4(i)). The Agency 
concluded that the definition of ship repair ("any repair of a vessel 
including, but not restricted to, alterations, conversions, 
installations, cleaning, painting, and maintenance work") was broad 
enough to include maintenance work on "any equipment on a vessel, 
including fish processing equipment" (Ex. 16-7).
    In the second inquiry, from the Arctic Alaska Fisheries Corporation 
in 1994, OSHA confirmed its previous interpretation of the maritime 
employment exemption, again concluding that part 1915 applies to 
maintenance of any equipment onboard "all commercial vessels" (Ex. 
16-8). (See also, Ex. 16-9, OSHA's Shipyard "Tool Bag" Directive CPL 
02-00-142, confirming the earlier interpretations.) The current OSHA 
policy embedded in these interpretations is that fish processing or 
other equipment installed on vessels for any purpose is considered part 
of the vessel; accordingly, repair of that equipment is ship repair 
under part 1915.
    Proposed additions and changes. The most significant of the 
additions that OSHA proposes, Sec.  1915.89(a)(2)(iii)(C) and Sec.  
1910.147(a)(1)(ii)(B), clarify how the Agency, in the future, intends 
to cover the control of hazardous energy onboard commercial vessels 
during the servicing of equipment used for fish processing and other 
inherently general industry operations. There are two options: (1) 
follow the existing policy of classifying such servicing operations as 
"ship repair" and continue to cover them under proposed Sec.  
1915.89, or (2) classify such servicing as general industry operations 
and cover them under the general industry lockout/tagout standard 
(Sec.  1910.147).
    The first option, applying proposed Sec.  1915.89 to all equipment 
onboard commercial vessels, would result in a single standard for 
servicing operations onboard vessels. The single standard would apply 
regardless of whether the servicing involves ship's systems or fish 
processing equipment or whether it is done at a shipyard or at sea. In 
other respects, however, this option would result in the application of 
different standards to fish processing employees and employers, which 
might result in confusion. For fish processing employees, it would mean 
that part 1910 standards would apply when they process fish and operate 
the equipment for production, but proposed Sec.  1915.89 would apply 
when they clean or perform maintenance work on that same equipment. For 
employers who have both landside operations and floating fish 
processing facilities, it also would mean that proposed Sec.  1915.89 
would apply to servicing fish processing equipment on vessels, but 
Sec.  1910.147 would apply to servicing the same equipment at landside 
facilities.
    The second option, applying Sec.  1910.147 to the servicing of fish 
processing and other inherently general industry equipment onboard 
vessels, will result in more uniform application of standards to fish 
processing and other general industry operations onboard commercial 
vessels. To illustrate, this option means that fish processing 
employees, who operate the processing equipment for production and 
perform the vast majority of all servicing of that equipment, will be 
uniformly covered by part 1910 standards during both the production and 
servicing operations. And for fish processing employers, part 1910 
standards, including Sec.  1910.147, would apply at both their landside 
and vessel-based fish processing operations.
    The second option, however, will not result in completely uniform 
application of standards onboard vessels. Under option two, proposed 
Sec.  1915.89 would apply to the servicing of ship's systems (i.e., 
systems and equipment that are an inherent and permanent part of the 
vessel), while Sec.  1910.147 would apply to the servicing of 
inherently general industry equipment such as fish processing 
equipment. To determine which lockout/tagout standard applies, fish 
processing employers would have to determine first whether the 
equipment or system is an inherent and permanent part of the vessel 
(e.g., propulsion, navigation, electrical, ballast systems) or is used 
for performing inherently general industry operations.
    For several reasons, OSHA believes it is appropriate to apply Sec.  
1910.147, and not proposed Sec.  1915.89, to the servicing of 
inherently general industry equipment onboard vessels. First, fish 
processing and other general industry equipment are not core components 
of a vessel, but rather equipment placed on a vessel after the core 
vessel is built. In many cases general industry equipment may only be a 
temporary fixture on a vessel. As mentioned, fish processing equipment 
is changed typically at the end of every fishing season (Ex. 16-2). 
Given that, OSHA does not believe the equipment used to perform 
inherently general industry operations is part of the "vessel" or that 
those servicing operations constitute the repair of it.
    Second, fish processing and other inherently general industry 
operations onboard vessels are more closely associated with landside 
general industry operations than with shipbuilding, ship repairing, 
shipbreaking and related employment. For example, fish processing 
equipment onboard vessels is serviced almost exclusively by fish 
processing employees and not shipyard employees or others who regularly 
service ship's systems. This is true regardless of where the equipment 
is serviced--at sea, at port, or off the vessel. Rarely, if ever, do 
shipyard employees service fish processing or other inherently general 
industry equipment. When they do, the servicing is done as part of an 
overhaul of the entire vessel. At this point, the entire vessel, 
including the general industry equipment, is out of commission and the 
only operations being performed on or to the vessel are repair and 
maintenance. The proposal includes language covering this situation; 
specifying that when general industry equipment onboard vessels is 
serviced as part of an overhaul of the entire vessel proposed Sec.  
1915.89 will apply.
    OSHA requests comment on the proposal to apply Sec.  1910.147 to 
the servicing of fish processing and other equipment onboard vessels 
that is used for performing inherently general industry operations. 
What are the advantages and disadvantages of this proposed approach? 
Who services equipment onboard vessels that is used to perform 
inherently general industry operations? How frequently, if ever, do 
shipyard employees service general industry equipment onboard vessels 
and when does such servicing occur? What equipment onboard vessels, 
other than fish processing equipment, should OSHA classify as being 
used to perform inherently general industry operations? Should Sec.  
1915.89 or Sec.  1910.147 apply to the servicing of inherently general 
industry equipment during an overhaul of the entire vessel? Please 
explain.
    Servicing of "ship's systems." OSHA proposes that part 1915 will 
continue to cover the servicing of all "ship's systems" (proposed 
Sec.  1915.89(a)(2)(i)(A)). Proposed Sec.  1915.95 defines ship's 
systems as machines, equipment and systems that are a permanent or 
inherent part of a vessel. These systems, which are numerous, include 
navigation, propulsion, power (e.g., electrical, hydraulic, steam), 
piping, ventilation, communication, waste, ballast, structural systems 
and systems to care for the crew of the vessel. Essentially, ship's 
systems are those systems that ensure the vessel's basic operational 
and navigational capability.
    OSHA considers the servicing of ship's systems to be precisely the 
type of operation that the term "ship repair" was intended to cover. 
Servicing of ship's systems entails the repair and maintenance of core 
components of vessels. If these components are not maintained in proper 
working order, it is unlikely that the vessel will be fully operational 
or able to navigate properly. OSHA believes servicing ship's systems is 
at the very heart of shipyard employment and proposed Sec.  1915.89 
needs to apply.
    OSHA notes that the language in proposed Sec.  1915.89(a)(2)(i)(A) 
does not limit coverage to servicing ship's systems in certain 
locations. OSHA intends that Sec.  1915.89 will apply to the servicing 
of ship's systems regardless of where such servicing occurs (e.g., on a 
commercial vessel at sea, at a commercial dock, in a shipyard) or who 
performs it (e.g., shipyard employees, contractors, fish processing 
employees, ship's crew). (See discussion of ship's crew below.)
    OSHA believes it is necessary that part 1915 cover the servicing of 
all ship's systems in order to ensure that employees performing those 
operations are adequately protected from hazardous energy. Part 1915 
was established and its standards are designed to address the 
"unique" hazards and working conditions associated with working on 
ship's systems, equipment and machinery. The hazards associated with 
ship's systems are particularly serious because these systems can be 
large, complex, and have multiple power sources and isolating devices. 
The hazards exist regardless of who services the ship's systems or 
where the servicing is done. OSHA believes that employees servicing 
ship's systems can best be protected from hazards if such servicing is 
covered by the standards designed to address the unique hazards and 
complexity of those systems.
    Applying proposed Sec.  1915.89 to the servicing of all ship's 
systems establishes a uniform set of standards for these systems, which 
is particularly necessary to ensure the protection of employees 
involved in multiple-employee or multiple-employer servicing 
operations. OSHA notes that the proposal includes additional procedures 
to further reduce the risk of harm for employees performing those types 
of servicing operations. However, these additional procedures will 
reduce that risk only if all employees working on the system are 
required to follow them. Applying proposed Sec.  1915.89 to all 
employers and employees working on ship's systems will accomplish that.
    Applying proposed Sec.  1915.89 to the servicing of all ship's 
systems will also ensure that employees performing those operations 
have the most effective protection possible. These employees will have 
the protections of not only Sec.  1915.89, but also the additional 
energy control requirements in subparts J and L. Those provisions 
establish specific steps that must be taken when servicing certain 
ship's systems and power sources, such as blanking piping systems, 
locking or removing fuses, and posting conspicuous warning signs where 
employees are working. Neither the general industry lockout/tagout 
standard, nor the part 1910 electrical standards in subpart S, includes 
requirements directed to specific vessel systems (54 FR 36657). OSHA 
believes the system-specific protections in subparts J and L are 
necessary for all employees working on ship's systems to prevent death 
or serious injury from the direct escape of high temperature mediums 
used to power the systems (e.g., steam, water or oil) or from powerful 
electrical currents.
    Finally, including the issue of servicing of ship's systems in this 
rulemaking will ensure that the unique hazards those operations pose 
are fully examined and discussed. It also enables OSHA to properly 
consider the interrelationship between the proposed lockout/tagout 
provisions and the specific provisions in subparts J and L, action that 
OSHA said was necessary in the lockout/tagout rulemaking (54 FR 36657). 
OSHA requests comment on applying proposed Sec.  1915.89 to the 
servicing of all ship's systems. Who services ship's systems when the 
vessel is at sea? What protection and benefits will result from 
applying proposed Sec.  1915.89 to the servicing of all ship's systems?
    OSHA also asks for comment on its proposed definition of ship's 
systems. What machines, equipment and systems should the definition 
include? Does the proposed definition adequately distinguish between 
systems that are part of a vessel and equipment that is used for 
inherently general industry operations? Are there other approaches that 
would more clearly differentiate between those types of equipment and 
systems? Please explain.
    Machines and equipment used to perform shipyard employment 
operations. In proposed Sec.  1915.89(a)(2)(i)(B), OSHA simply codifies 
its existing policy that part 1915 applies to the servicing of machines 
and equipment used during the course of performing shipyard employment 
operations. OSHA considers these servicing operations to be "related 
employment" specified in the definition of shipyard employment 
(Sec.  1915.4(i)). For example, the proposal covers the servicing of 
shore-based power systems used in the construction of ships, automated 
blasting equipment to remove paint from vessels, and equipment (e.g., 
metal working equipment) in shipyard shops that is used to make or 
modify vessel components (e.g., plates, piping).
    Ship's crew. Proposed Sec.  1915.89(a)(2)(i)(A) specifies that 
Sec.  1915.89 applies to all servicing of ship's systems regardless of 
who performs it. This means that proposed Sec.  1915.89 applies to 
ship's officers, crew of commercial vessels, and contractors that 
commercial vessel owners and operators hire to service ship's systems 
(collectively referred to as "ship's crew").
    The proposed provision explicitly clarifies longstanding OSHA 
policy that part 1915 applies whenever ship's crew performs ship 
repairing operations. That said, OSHA is including the issue in this 
rulemaking in order to address concerns that certain courts have raised 
about part 1915's coverage provisions.
    Although Sec.  1910.15(a) specifies that part 1915 applies to 
"every employment and place of employment of every employee engaged in 
ship repairing, shipbreaking, and shipbuilding, or related 
employment," some language in part 1915 suggests that the part does 
not cover certain shipyard employment activities or employees. 
Specifically, Sec.  1915.4(d) states:

    The term employee means any person engaged in ship repairing, 
shipbuilding, shipbreaking or related employments * * * other than 
the master, ship's officers, crew of the vessel, or any person 
engaged by the master to repair any vessel under 18 net tons.

    Section 1915.4 was brought over from the Longshore and Harbor 
Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) (33 U.S.C. 901 et seq.), which, along 
with the OSH Act, provides OSHA with rulemaking authority over shipyard 
employment. Prior to enactment of the OSH Act, the Secretary of Labor, 
pursuant to authority under LHWCA, promulgated occupational safety and 
health standards for shipbuilding to protect the life, health and 
safety of shipyard employees (33 U.S.C. 941(a)).
    When Congress enacted the OSH Act in 1970, they authorized OSHA, 
within the first two years after the effective date of the OSH Act, to 
promulgate as occupational safety and health standards any established 
Federal standard (29 U.S.C. 655(a)). Pursuant to this authority, OSHA 
adopted all established Federal workplace safety and health standards 
in effect as of April 28, 1971, that pertained to employers, employees 
and employment covered by the OSH Act (Sec.  1910.11(a), 36 FR 10466 
(5/29/1971)). This included the safety and health standards enacted 
under the LHWCA.
    Since OSH Act coverage, which extends to employers engaged in 
business affecting interstate commerce, is broader than LHWCA coverage, 
OSHA consistently has held that the Agency is not bound by the coverage 
limitations in the LHWCA standards. To clarify this position, OSHA 
amended its incorporation by reference of established Federal standards 
(37 FR 26008 (12/7/1972)). Specifically, OSHA added paragraph (b) to 
Sec.  1910.11 specifying that the Agency was incorporating "only 
substantive rules affecting safety and health" from established 
Federal standards (37 FR 26008). "The incorporations by reference of 
Parts 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918 * * * are not intended to include the 
discussion in those parts of the coverage of the Longshoremen's and 
Harbor Workers' Compensation Act * * * " (Sec.  1910.11(b)). OSHA 
explained that when it adopted the LHWCA safety and health rules the 
Agency had "no intention of incorporating [into OSHA rules] * * * any 
other rules having special applicability under the laws under which the 
`established Federal standards' were initially adopted" (37 FR 26008). 
OSHA reiterated its position when the Agency consolidated the ship 
repairing, shipbuilding and shipbreaking standards into part 1915 
Shipyard Employment (47 FR 16984, 16986 (4/20/1982)).
    The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission accepted the 
approach OSHA delineated in Sec.  1910.11(b) (Dravo Corporation, 7 
O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 2089 (1980)). OSHA also has taken this position in 
the courts of appeals, however, three circuits have rejected OSHA's 
approach and applied the more restrictive language and limitations of 
the LHWCA provisions to cases arising under the OSH Act. Tidewater 
Pacific, Inc. v. Herman, 160 F.3d 1239 (9th Cir. 1998); Kopcynski v. 
The Jacqueline, 742 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1984); Clary v. Ocean Drilling 
and Exploration Co., 609 F.2d 1120 (5th Cir. 1980); Dravo Corporation 
v. OSHRC, 613 F.2d 1227 (3rd Cir. 1980).
    The court of appeals held in Dravo that, notwithstanding Sec.  
1910.11(b), OSHA would be held to the plain language meaning of its 
part 1915 standards, including the coverage standards carried over from 
the LHWCA. Dravo, 613 F.2d at 1232-3. The language at issue in Dravo 
concerned the location of shipyard employment activities, that is, 
whether part 1915 covered shipbuilding activities performed at a 
waterfront fabrication shop on an island in the Ohio River. The court 
looked to the definitions of "employer" and "employee" in Sec.  
1915.4, which indicate the terms are limited to persons engaged in 
shipyard employment "on the navigable waters of the United States, 
including dry docks, graving docks and marine railways" (Sec.  
1915.4(c) and (d)). (A dry dock is a narrow basin or vessel that can be 
flooded to allow a vessel to be floated in and then drained so the 
vessel comes to rest on a dry platform. A graving dock is a type of dry 
dock.) The court said the plain meaning of the definitions did not 
include fabrication shops ("they include only water, docks, and marine 
railways" Id.), and declined to construe the definitions more broadly:

    [A]n occupational safety and health standard must give an 
employer fair warning of the conduct it prohibits or requires * * * 
To strain the plain and natural meaning of words for the purpose of 
alleviating a perceived safety hazard is to delay the day when the 
occupational safety and health regulations will be written in clear 
and concise language so that employers will be better able to 
understand and observe them * * * The responsibility to promulgate 
clear and unambiguous standards is upon the Secretary. The test is 
not what he might possibly have intended, but what he said. Id.

    The Dravo court concluded that if OSHA intends a different coverage 
scheme, the Agency must amend part 1915 through rulemaking. Id. 
Although OSHA disagrees with the Dravo decision, to avoid confusion 
OSHA is expressly stating the applicability of proposed Sec.  1915.89. 
Specifically, proposed Sec.  1915.89 will apply to the servicing of 
ship's systems by any employee, including ship's officers and crew of 
the vessel (Sec.  1915.89(a)(2)(i)(A)). (Similarly, in the proposal 
OSHA also has clarified that subpart F applies "regardless of 
geographic location," even though the language of Sec.  1915.4 limits 
"employer" to persons engaged in shipyard employment "on the 
navigable waters.")
    The reasons for applying Sec.  1915.89 to ship's crew have been 
discussed above and need not be repeated. OSHA believes that applying 
Sec.  1915.89 to ship's crew should not come as a surprise to employers 
since OSHA has consistently applied part 1915 whenever ship's crew engage 
in shipyard employment (Ex. 16-9). Moreover, OSHA believes that the proposal 
to apply consistent coverage to ship's crew should reduce any confusion 
related to the split in the courts. OSHA requests comment on the proposed
provision.
    Clarification of "maritime employment" exemption in Sec.  
1910.147. OSHA proposes two technical revisions to the scope and 
application section of Sec.  1910.147. The revisions clarify the 
meaning of the maritime employment exemption and provide notification 
of the proposed additions and policy changes discussed above. As 
mentioned, the general industry lockout/tagout standard exempted 
"maritime employment" (Sec.  1910.147(a)(1)(ii)(A)). Although the 
standard did not define maritime employment, OSHA has traditionally 
used the term as shorthand for the employment covered by parts 1915, 
1917 and 1918. To eliminate possible confusion, OSHA proposes in Sec.  
1910.147(a)(1)(ii)(B) to replace the shorthand term with reference to 
the specific parts.
    To clarify the exclusion from part 1915 of servicing of inherently 
general industry equipment, OSHA proposes to add the following note to 
Sec.  1910.147(a)(1)(ii)(B):

    Section 1910.147 applies to the servicing of equipment onboard 
vessels that is used for inherently general industry operations such 
as fish processing. However, if such servicing is part of a general 
overhaul and repair of the entire vessel, part 1915 applies.

    The proposed revisions do not affect the substantive requirements 
of Sec.  1910.147. OSHA requests comment.
    Economic analysis. OSHA notes that its preliminary economic 
analysis, a summary of which is included in this preamble, includes 
compliance costs for shipyards and shipyard contractors to implement 
proposed Sec.  1915.89. It does not include the costs of fish 
processing employers to comply with proposed Sec.  1915.89. This is 
because the economic analysis for the general industry lockout/tagout 
rulemaking included the compliance costs for implementing the standard 
in activities other than shipyard employment. It included compliance 
costs for the fish processing industry, which includes fish processing 
onboard vessels. OSHA invites comment on whether there are additional 
costs for controlling hazardous energy on fish processing vessels that 
the economic analysis for Sec.  1910.147 may not have included. If so, 
please explain what those costs involve.
    The requirements of the proposed Sec.  1915.89 standard. OSHA is 
proposing to apply the general industry standard to shipyard employment 
in the same manner as it applies to general industry, except for the 
proposed changes described below. The preamble to the general industry 
lockout/tagout standard includes a detailed explanation of each of the 
standard's specific requirements, how they apply, and why they were 
adopted (54 FR 36654-83). OSHA is incorporating that document and the 
record of that rulemaking into this record. Therefore, OSHA will not 
repeat that discussion and instead will provide a short overview of the 
general industry requirements.
    The general industry standard establishes minimum performance 
requirements for the control of hazardous energy. The rule requires 
that, before service or maintenance is performed, machinery and 
equipment must be turned off and disconnected from the energy source, 
the energy-isolating device must be either locked or tagged out, and 
the deenergization must be verified.
    Scope and application (Sec.  1910.147(a), proposed Sec.  
1915.89(a)). The general industry Lockout/Tagout standard "covers the 
servicing and maintenance of machines and equipment in which the 
unexpected energization or start up of the machines or equipment, or 
release of stored energy could cause injury to employees" (Sec.  
1910.147(a)(1)(i)). In proposed Sec.  1915.89(a), OSHA is adopting this 
scope and application with a few changes. The proposal does not include 
the term "unexpected" that is used in describing the energization and 
startup the general industry standard covers. The proposal also makes 
more explicit that the standard also applies to "systems." (These 
changes are discussed below in the section on the differences between 
proposed Sec.  1915.89 and Sec.  1910.147.)
    The standard defines "servicing and/or maintenance" (hereafter 
collectively referred to as "servicing") as workplace activities such 
as constructing, installing, setting up, adjusting, inspecting, 
modifying, maintaining, and servicing machines, equipment and systems 
(hereafter collectively referred to as "equipment")(Sec.  1910.147(b) 
and proposed Sec.  1915.95). Servicing and maintenance activities are a 
necessary part of the industrial process. They are needed to maintain 
the ability of machines, equipment, systems and processes to perform 
their intended functions. Additionally, installation, construction, 
set-up, changeover, and dismantling are necessary and continuous 
industrial processes. The standard covers these types of operations 
because they also can expose employees to hazardous energy. The 
standard does not apply in the following situations:
     Servicing or maintaining cord and plug connected 
electrical equipment, provided that the hazards are capable of being 
controlled by unplugging the equipment from the energy source and the 
plug being under the exclusive control of the employee performing the 
service and/or maintenance;
     Hot tap operations that involve transmission and 
distribution systems for gas, steam, water, or petroleum products when 
they are performed on pressurized pipelines, provided that continuity 
of service is essential, shutdown of the system is impractical, 
documented procedures are followed, and employees are provided with 
alternative protection that is equally effective; and
     Servicing or maintaining machines, equipment or systems 
onboard vessels that are inherently general industry operations. This 
would include operations such as fish processing (proposed Sec.  
1915.89(a)(3)(iii)).
    As discussed earlier, proposed Sec.  1915.89 will now also cover 
all ship's systems and all employees.
    Normal production operations (proposed Sec.  1915.89(a)(2)(ii)). 
Although OSHA recognizes that machines and equipment present many 
hazardous situations during normal production operations (i.e., 
whenever machines and equipment are used to perform their usual 
production function), the scope of the standard is servicing and 
maintenance operations. Hazards associated with normal production are 
covered by rules in other general industry and shipyard standards, such 
as the requirements for general machine guarding (Sec.  1910.212), 
guarding power transmission apparatus (Sec.  1910.219), and guarding 
tools and related equipment used in shipyard employment (Sec. Sec.  
1915.131 and 1915.134).
    OSHA recognizes that some servicing activities that occur during 
normal production, such as making fine adjustments to equipment, must 
be performed with the power on. This may include certain aspects of 
troubleshooting, for example, checking to ensure that the source of a 
production problem has been corrected. The standard exempts from 
coverage these servicing activities during normal production, provided 
that they are routine, repetitive and integral to the use of the 
production equipment. However, the employer must provide employees with 
alternative means of protection while performing these activities and 
follow the standard's lockout/tagout procedures when servicing occurs 
with the power off.
    In certain circumstances, however, some hazards encountered during 
normal production operations may be covered by the lockout/tagout rule. 
Servicing and maintenance performed during or as part of normal 
production operations (e.g., lubricating, cleaning or unjamming 
machines and equipment) are covered by the lockout/tagout standard when 
any of the following conditions occurs:
     The employee must either remove or bypass machine guards 
or other safety devices, resulting in exposure to hazards at the point 
of operation;
     The employee is required to place any part of his or her 
body in contact with the point of operation of the operational machine 
or piece of equipment; or
     The employee is required to place any part of his or her 
body into a danger zone associated with the operating cycle of the 
equipment.
    Energy control program (Sec.  1910.147(c), proposed Sec.  
1915.89(b)). The lockout/tagout standard requires that the employer 
establish an energy control program to ensure that equipment is 
isolated and inoperative before any employee performs service or 
maintenance where the energization, start up, or release of stored 
energy could occur and cause injury. The program must include (1) 
documented energy control procedures; (2) an employee training program; 
and, (3) periodic inspections of the energy control procedures. 
Employers have the flexibility to develop a program and procedures that 
meet the needs of their particular workplace and the particular types 
of equipment being maintained or serviced.
    Although the energy control program applies to all employees, it is 
directed primarily at those who have the greatest exposure to hazardous 
energy--authorized and affected employees. The standard defines 
"authorized employees" as those employees who apply lockout/tagout 
devices and who perform servicing operations (Sec.  1910.147(b), 
proposed Sec.  1915.95).
    "Affected employees" include employees who operate, for normal 
production, the machines or equipment on which service is being 
performed as well as those employees whose job duties require them to 
work in the area where the servicing is being performed. The definition 
also specifies that an affected employee becomes an authorized employee 
when he performs servicing operations on the equipment.
    Written energy control procedures (Sec.  1910.147(c)(4), proposed 
Sec.  1915.89(b)(4)). The standard requires that written energy control 
procedures be developed, documented, and used to control potentially 
hazardous energy sources whenever employees perform activities covered 
by the standard. The written procedures must identify the information 
that employees must know in order to control hazardous energy during 
servicing.
    The energy control procedures must outline the scope, purpose, 
authorization, rules and techniques that will be used to control 
hazardous energy sources, as well as the means that will be used to 
enforce compliance. At a minimum, each procedure must include the 
following elements:
     A statement on how the procedure will be used;
     The procedural steps needed to shut down, isolate, block, 
and secure equipment;
     The steps designating the placement, removal, and transfer 
of lockout/tagout devices, and who has the responsibility for them; and
     The specific requirements for testing equipment to 
determine and verify the effectiveness of locks, tags, and other energy 
control measures.
    The standard requires that employers develop clear and specific 
written energy control procedures that have the level of detail 
necessary to ensure that employees know what steps and techniques they 
must follow to be protected from hazardous energy. Although procedures 
must be written in detail, the standard does not require separate 
procedures be written for each and every piece of equipment (54 FR 
36670). Thus, if the procedures and information are the same for 
various equipment or if other logical groupings exist, then a single 
set of procedures may be sufficient. However, if equipment is not the 
same or other conditions are present that require specific 
consideration, such as multiple energy sources or different means of 
connection, then the employer must develop specific energy control 
procedures to address them and ensure employees are protected. For 
example, if a system requires that a unique shutdown sequence be 
followed, specific energy control procedures will be required for that 
system.
    The standard includes an exception to the requirement to have 
written control procedures for particular equipment. A written 
procedure is not required for equipment if all of the following exist: 
(1) The machine, equipment or system has no potential for stored or 
residual energy or reaccumulation of stored energy after shut down that 
could endanger employees; (2) the machine, equipment or system has a 
single energy source which can be readily identified and isolated; (3) 
the isolation and locking out of that energy source will completely 
deenergize and deactivate the machine, equipment or system; (4) the 
machine, equipment or system is isolated from that energy source and 
locked out during servicing or maintenance; (5) a single lockout device 
will achieve a locked-out condition; (6) the lockout device is under 
the exclusive control of the authorized employee performing the 
servicing or maintenance; (7) the servicing or maintenance does not 
create hazards for other employees; and (8) the employer, in utilizing 
this exception, has had no accidents involving the activation or 
reenergization of the machine, equipment or system during servicing or 
maintenance.
    Energy-isolating devices (locks and tags) (Sec.  1910.147(c)(2) and 
(3), proposed Sec.  1915.89(b)(2) and (3)). A primary tool for 
providing protection under the standard is the energy-isolating device, 
the mechanism that prevents the transmission or release of energy and 
to which locks or tags are attached. This device guards against 
equipment start-up or re-energization of equipment during servicing. 
There are two types of energy-isolating devices: Those that are capable 
of being locked and those that are not.
    When the energy-isolating device cannot be locked, the standard 
requires that the employer use a tagout system. A tagout system 
consists of the required energy control procedures and extensive 
initial and periodic reinforcement training, including training on the 
limitation of tags (see training discussion below). However, where an 
energy-isolating device is lockable, the standard requires that lockout 
be used unless the employer can show that the use of a tagout system 
provides "full employee protection" equivalent to that obtained by 
using a lockout program (54 FR 36655).
    "Full employee protection" means that the employer affixes the 
tagout device at the same location that the lock would have been 
attached and demonstrates that the tagout program provides equivalent 
protection. To demonstrate that equivalent protection is provided, the 
employer must demonstrate full compliance with all tagout-related 
provisions, including the additional tagout training requirements, and 
implement "additional elements as are necessary to provide equivalent 
safety." This might include removing an isolating circuit element, 
blocking a controlling switch, opening an extra disconnecting device, 
or removing a valve handle to reduce the potential for any inadvertent 
energization.
    The standard requires that whenever major replacement, repair, 
renovation or modification of equipment is performed, and whenever new 
equipment is installed, the employer must ensure that energy-isolating 
devices are designed to accept locks. In the preamble to the general 
industry rule, OSHA explained that such modifications are most 
effectively and efficiently made as part of the normal equipment 
replacement or renovation cycle (54 FR 36656). (The proposed shipyard 
rule makes clear that this requirement would only apply to machines, 
equipment and systems the shipyard employer owns (proposed Sec.  
1915.89(b)(2)(iii)).
    Requirements for lockout/tagout devices (protective materials and 
hardware) (Sec.  1910.147(c)(5), proposed Sec.  1915.89(b)(5)). When 
attached to an energy-isolating device, both lockout and tagout devices 
are tools that the employer can use to help protect employees from 
hazardous energy. A "lockout device," as defined in the standard, 
provides protection by holding the energy-isolating device in the safe 
position, thus preventing the equipment from becoming energized (Sec.  
1910.147(b), proposed Sec.  1915.95). The "tagout device" is a 
prominent warning device that provides protection by identifying the 
energy-isolating device as a source of potential danger. The tagout 
device indicates that the energy-isolating device and the equipment 
being controlled may not be operated until the tagout device is 
removed. Whichever device is used, the standard requires that it must 
be provided by the employer, be singularly identified, be the only 
device used for controlling hazardous energy and not be used for other 
purposes. Locks and tags must also meet the following requirements:
     Durable--Lockout and tagout devices must be able to 
withstand the environment to which they are exposed for the maximum 
duration of the expected exposure. Tagout devices, including tags, must 
be constructed and printed so that they do not deteriorate or become 
illegible in wet or damp environments, or when used in environments 
where corrosives (e.g., acid and alkali chemicals) are used or stored;
     Standardized--Both lockout and tagout devices must be 
standardized according to color, shape, or size so they are readily 
recognized and associated with the control of hazardous energy. Tagout 
devices must also be standardized according to print and format;
     Substantial--Lockout and tagout devices must be 
substantial enough to prevent inadvertent or accidental removal. Locks 
must be substantial enough to prevent removal except by excessive force 
or by special tools such as bolt cutters or other metal cutting tools. 
The device for attaching the tag must be non-reusable, attachable by 
hand, self-locking and non-releasable. It must also have a minimum 
unlocking strength of no less than 50 pounds and have general design 
and basic characteristics equivalent to a one-piece nylon cable tie 
that will withstand all environments; and
     Identifiable--Locks and tags must clearly identify the 
employee who applies them. Tags must also warn against hazardous 
conditions if the machine or equipment is energized and must include a 
legend such as the following: DO NOT START; DO NOT OPEN; DO NOT CLOSE; 
DO NOT ENERGIZE; DO NOT OPERATE.
    Periodic inspections (Sec.  1910.147(c)(6), proposed Sec.  
1915.89(b)(6)). The standard requires that the employer perform 
periodic inspections at least annually to ensure that energy control 
procedures are working properly. The inspection must be able to 
determine four things: (1) Whether the steps in the energy control 
procedures are being followed, (2) whether the employees involved know 
their responsibilities under the procedures, (3) whether the procedures 
are adequate to provide the necessary protection, and (4) what changes, 
if any, are needed to correct identified deficiencies (54 FR 36673). 
The inspection must be performed by an authorized employee, other than 
the employee utilizing the energy control procedures being inspected.
    The periodic inspection must contain two components: an inspection 
of each energy control procedure and a review of each employee's 
responsibilities under the energy control procedure being inspected. 
Where a tagout system is used, the inspector's review of employee 
responsibilities also extends to affected employees because of the 
increased importance of their role in avoiding accidental or 
inadvertent energization (54 FR 36673). In addition, when a tagout 
system is used, the inspection must include a review with authorized 
and affected employees about the limitations of tags.
    The standard requires that each energy control procedure must be 
separately inspected. However, that does not mean the employer must 
inspect each piece of equipment under the same energy control procedure 
or observe each employee the procedure covers. The employer may inspect 
a representative sample of the equipment the procedure covers and 
authorized employees who implement the procedure on that equipment. 
Equipment that has the same type and magnitude of hazardous energy and 
has the same or similar type of controls may be grouped together and 
inspected by the type of procedure (Ex. 2-26, Letter to Thomas J. 
Civic, 3/9/2004). Moreover, a grouping of detailed individual 
procedures would be considered a single procedure for the purposes of 
periodic inspection, provided all of the procedures have the same or 
similar:
     Intended equipment use;
     Procedural steps for applying controls (i.e., shut down, 
isolation, blocking, and securing equipment);
     Procedural steps for placement, removal and transfer of 
lockout/tagout devices and responsibility for them; and
     Requirements for testing to verify the effectiveness of 
lockout/tagout devices and other control measures (Ex. 2-25 Letter to 
Lawrence P. Halprin, 9/19/1995).
    In 1993, prior to the Agency interpretations, SESAC raised similar 
concerns about the percentage of equipment that employers must inspect 
in order to determine whether the energy control procedures are working 
properly and employees understand their responsibilities under the 
procedures (Docket SESAC 1993-3, Ex. 104X, pp. 164-169). OSHA believes 
the interpretations incorporated and discussed above address SESAC's 
concerns.
    Employee training (Sec.  1910.147(c)(7), proposed Sec.  
1915.89(b)(7)). The standard requires that the employer provide 
effective initial training as well as retraining as necessary to ensure 
that employees understand the purpose and function of the energy 
control program and acquire the knowledge and skills necessary for the 
safe application, use and removal of the energy controls. The details 
of the training (e.g., amount and type of training) may vary depending 
on factors such as the employee's job duties under the energy control 
program and the complexity of the equipment or lockout/tagout 
procedures (54 FR 36673). The relative degree of knowledge that 
authorized, affected and other employees must acquire also varies, with 
authorized employees demanding the most extensive training because of 
their responsibility for implementing energy control procedures (i.e., 
applying lockout and tagout devices) and performing servicing 
operations. For example, the training for authorized employees must 
cover at least:
     Recognition of applicable hazardous energy sources;
     The type and magnitude of the energy available in the 
workplace; and
     The means and methods necessary for energy isolation and 
control.
    Affected employees, because they operate or use the equipment that 
authorized employees are servicing, must be trained in the purpose and 
use of the energy control procedures. Finally, other employees who may 
work or be in an area where energy control procedures are in use need 
to be instructed about the procedure in use and, most importantly, 
about the prohibition against attempting to start or energize machines 
or equipment that are locked out or tagged out.
    As mentioned, when a tagout system is used the standard requires 
that employers also train employees in the limitations of tags, 
including at least:
     Tags are essentially warning devices affixed to energy 
isolating devices and do not provide the physical restraint of a lock;
     When a tag is attached to an energy isolating device, it 
is not to be removed without authorization of the authorized person 
responsible for it, and it is never to be bypassed, ignored or 
otherwise defeated;
     To be effective, tags must be legible and understandable 
by all authorized employees, affected employees and all other employees 
whose work operations are or may be in the area;
     Tags and their means of attachment must be made of 
materials that will withstand the environmental conditions encountered 
in the workplace;
     Tags may evoke a false sense of security. They are only 
one part of an overall energy control program; and
     Tags must be securely attached to an energy isolating 
device so they cannot be inadvertently or accidentally detached during 
use.
    The standard also requires the employer to provide retraining to 
authorized and affected employees when the energy control procedures 
are changed, when a change in job assignment occurs or when a change in 
equipment presents a new hazard. Additional retraining must also be 
provided when an inspection reveals or the employer has reason to 
believe that there are deviations from or inadequacies in the 
employee's knowledge or use of the energy control procedures. Finally, 
the retraining must reestablish employee proficiency and describe any 
new or revised control methods and procedures, if needed. The standard 
requires that employers certify that training and retraining has been 
provided and is current.
    Application of controls (Sec.  1910.147(d), proposed Sec.  
1915.89(c)). The standard establishes procedures that authorized 
employees must follow for applying energy controls. The energy control 
procedures must include the following elements implemented in this 
sequence:
    (1) Prepare for shutdown, ensuring authorized employee has 
knowledge in the type and magnitude of the energy, the hazards to be 
controlled and the methods to control energy;
    (2) Shut down the equipment using the procedures established for 
that equipment;
    (3) Isolate the equipment from the energy sources;
    (4) Apply lockout or tagout devices to energy isolating device in a 
manner that holds the energy isolating devices in a safe or off 
(lockout) position or indicates that operation or movement of the 
energy isolating device is prohibited (tagout). Where a tag cannot be 
affixed directly to the energy isolating device, the standard requires 
that it must be placed as close as safely possible to the device, and 
in a position that will be immediately obvious to anyone attempting to 
operate the device or equipment;
    (5) Relieve or render safe all stored or residual energy. If there 
is a possibility of stored or residual energy reaccumulating, the 
verification of isolation must be continued until the servicing is 
completed or the risk no longer exists; and
    (6) Verify isolation and deenergization of equipment before 
beginning servicing.
    The standard requires that applying energy controls be performed 
only by the authorized employee performing the servicing and only after 
affected employees are notified that energy controls are being applied 
(or being removed) (Sec.  1910.147(c)(8) and (9), proposed Sec.  
1915.89(b)(8) and (9)).
    Release from lockout or tagout (Sec.  1910.147(e), proposed Sec.  
1915(d)). The standard also establishes procedures that authorized 
employees must follow when releasing lockout and tagout applications. 
Before lockout or tagout devices are removed (i.e., the equipment is 
being released from the lockout or tagout status) and energy is 
restored to the equipment, the authorized employee must take the 
following actions in this sequence:
    (1) Inspect the work area to ensure that non-essential items have 
been removed and that equipment components are intact and capable of 
operating properly;
    (2) Check the work area to ensure that all employees have been 
safely positioned or removed;
    (3) Notify affected employees after removing locks or tags and 
before starting equipment; and
    (4) Make sure that locks and tags are removed only by the 
authorized employees who attached them. In the very few instances when 
this is not possible, the device may be removed by another employee who 
is also an authorized employee and is working at the direction of the 
employer, provided that the employer has:
     Implemented specific procedures and training that address 
the situation; and
     Demonstrated that the procedures provide equivalent 
safety.
    Furthermore, the procedure must include the following:
     A verification that the employee who applied the lockout/
tagout device is not at the facility;
     Reasonable efforts have been made to contact the 
authorized employee to inform him or her that the device has been 
removed; and
     Assurance that the absent authorized employee knows about 
the removal before he or she returns and resumes work.
    Additional safety requirements (Sec.  1910.147(f), proposed Sec.  
1915.89(e)). The standard includes additional requirements when certain 
circumstances may pose an increased risk of harm. These circumstances 
are: (1) Testing or positioning equipment during servicing; (2) the 
presence of outside (contractor) personnel at the worksite who are 
engaged in servicing operations; (3) servicing or maintenance performed 
by a group (rather than one specific person); and (4) changes in 
workshifts or personnel.
    Testing or positioning of machines, equipment, systems or their 
components (Sec.  1910.147(f)(1), proposed Sec.  1915(e)(1)). The 
standard allows the temporary removal of locks or tags and the re-
energization of equipment during the limited time when power is needed 
for the testing or positioning of them or their components. The 
reenergization must be conducted in accordance with the sequence of 
steps listed below to ensure employees' safety when they take equipment 
from a deenergized to energized condition and back again:
    (1) Clear the equipment of tools and materials;
    (2) Remove employees from the equipment area;
    (3) Remove the lockout or tagout devices in accordance with the 
required removal procedures;
    (4) Energize the equipment and proceed with testing or positioning;
    (5) When testing or positioning is complete, deenergize all systems 
and isolate the equipment from the energy source; and
    (6) Reapply lockout or tagout devices in accordance with the 
required control application procedures.
    Outside personnel (contractors, ship's crew, etc.) (Sec.  
1910.147(f)(2), proposed Sec.  1915(e)(2)). When outside personnel 
perform servicing operations at the worksite, the standard requires 
that the onsite employer and the outside employer must inform each 
other of their respective lockout or tagout procedures. The onsite 
employer must ensure that his or her personnel understand and comply 
with all restrictions and/or prohibitions of the outside employer's 
energy control program. The proposed rule makes it clear that outside 
personnel include ship's crew and contractors hired by the ship owner.
    The following accident highlights the need for employers to 
coordinate their lockout/tagout program. In 1987, a fatality occurred 
aboard a grain-carrying ship that was equipped with wing tanks on each 
side of the ship. A screw conveyor ran through each wing tank. At the 
time of the accident, two of the wing tanks were being washed. 
Simultaneously, a Marine Chemist and a shipyard employee were inside 
another wing tank that was not being washed. The shipyard employee was 
standing on the conveyor when it was turned on by a member of the 
ship's crew who was unaware the employee and the chemist were inside 
the other wing tank. The screw conveyor crushed the shipyard employee 
to death. Although a lockout procedure was in effect for the employees 
washing the tanks, this information was not provided to the other 
employees, nor was there any coordination between employers or tasks.
    Group lockout or tagout (Sec.  1910.147(f)(3), proposed Sec.  
1915(e)(3)). The standard requires that when servicing is performed by 
a crew or other group, the employer must utilize procedures that afford 
employees a level of protection equivalent to the use of a personal 
lockout or tagout device. The group lockout/tagout procedures must be 
in accord with the employer's energy control procedures, including at 
least the following specific requirements:
     Each group working under a group lockout/tagout must have 
an authorized employee who is vested with primary responsibility for 
the group;
     The authorized employee must ascertain the exposure status 
of each member of the group;
     Each authorized employee must affix a personal lockout or 
tagout device when he or she begins work and remove it when work is 
completed; and
     If more than one crew or group is involved in servicing, 
an authorized employee must be designated to coordinate the affected 
groups and ensure continuity of protection.
    Shift or personnel changes (Sec.  1910.147(f)(4), proposed Sec.  
1915(e)(4)). The standard requires that the employer's energy control 
program include specific procedures to ensure the continuity of lockout 
or tagout protection during the workshift or personnel changes.
    Appendix A (Non-mandatory). The standard also includes a non-
mandatory appendix as a guideline to help employers and employees 
comply with the requirements of the standard. The appendix also 
provides other helpful information on the control of hazardous energy.
    The differences between proposed Sec.  1915.89 and Sec.  1910.147. 
As mentioned, in most respects, OSHA is proposing to apply the general 
industry lockout/tagout standard to shipyards in the same manner as it 
applies to general industry. However, in certain places OSHA is 
proposing to modify the language of the standard to make the rule more 
directly applicable to shipyard employment. Most of the proposed 
modifications are strictly technical, for example, changes in the 
effective date and references to applicable standards in Part 1915. A 
few proposed changes address specific working conditions and 
circumstances in shipyards.
     "Unexpected." The proposal does not include the term 
"unexpected," which the general industry Lockout/Tagout standard uses 
in describing equipment energization and startup that the standard 
covers (Sec.  1910.147(a)(1)(i)). OSHA interpreted "unexpected 
energization or startup" to mean energization or startup of equipment 
that is unintended or unplanned. OSHA believes that energization or 
startup that occurs while the employee is servicing the equipment and 
before the employee intends to activate it is unintended and unplanned. 
This includes any steps toward reenergization that are taken without 
the servicing employee's knowledge. Such startup is clearly outside the 
energy control plan and procedures, and could result in injury if the 
energy involved is strong enough. Thus, determining whether employees 
could be injured if the equipment is energized or starts up during the 
servicing operation is a key inquiry for employers. Thus, OSHA believes 
preventing energization or startup during servicing that could cause 
injury is necessary to fully effectuate the standard's purpose and the 
provisions designed to protect employees from injury during servicing 
operations.
    In Reich v. General Motors Corp., the Commission and Court of 
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit did not accept OSHA's interpretation of 
"unexpected" energization or startup in the general industry Lockout/
Tagout standard. Reich v. General Motors Corp., 17 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 
1673 (1995); 89 F.3d 313 (6th Cir. 1996). Although the Agency disagrees 
with their decisions in that case, to avoid any confusion OSHA is not 
using the term "unexpected" in this proposal. OSHA believes this 
change further clarifies the Agency's intent that the proposal covers 
all servicing activities in which the equipment being serviced could 
energize, start up or release energy while the employee is servicing 
it, and such action could cause injury.
    Systems. OSHA proposes to add the word "systems" to the 
"machines and equipment" the general industry standard covers. The 
hazards on vessels often involve working on ship's systems that create 
and distribute power--not only the machines or equipment that are 
driven by it. There are several reasons for explicitly identifying 
systems in the application of the shipyard standard. First, the 
language of shipbuilding and repair revolves around systems. The 
functional components of a ship are commonly known as ship's systems, 
such as electrical, propulsion, guidance, fuel, or radar systems. 
Adding systems to the standard makes it more directly applicable to 
shipyard employment, and makes it clear that the standard applies to 
systems as a whole, not merely the individual components of such 
systems.
    Second, including systems also makes it clear that pipes, 
electrical cables, and like components are included in the equipment 
and processes to which lockout/tagout must be applied, and that a 
holistic approach may be needed to ensure employees are protected. In 
some cases, pipes, power cables, and control systems need to be 
considered when working on a specific piece of equipment, and adding 
the systems term helps to ensure that holistic approach is followed.
    Scope--exemptions. The shipyard lockout/tagout proposal (Sec.  
1915.89(a)(1)) does not carry over the exemptions from coverage 
contained in the scope section of the general industry standard (Sec.  
1910.147(a)(1)(ii)). The reasons are obvious. The exemptions include 
the maritime industry or address hazards and activities that are not 
present in shipyard employment (e.g., agriculture, oil and gas well 
drilling and servicing). The proposal (Sec.  1915.80 and .89) makes 
clear that the entirety of subpart F applies to shipyard employment, 
including landside operations and work on board vessels and vessel sections.
    The proposal also does not include the exemption that SESAC 
recommended:

    Note: This standard does not apply on vessel sections, 
equipment, and machines which are under the control of a Federal 
government agency (e.g., the U.S. Navy), and where the agency 
exercises control over hazardous energy sources by its lockout or 
tagout procedures. Those procedures shall supersede these 
regulations (Docket SESAC 1993-3, Ex. 104X, p. 48).

    It is unclear to whom SESAC intends that the proposed exemption 
would apply--the ship, Federal civilian employees, military personnel, 
shipyard owners or Federal contract employers and employees. At the 
outset, OSHA notes that its standards apply to employers and not 
vessels. Assuming, however, that SESAC intends the exemption to apply 
to shipyard owners and Federal contractors who perform servicing 
onboard government vessels, such an exemption is inconsistent with the 
OSH Act and case law interpreting it. The OSH Act does not exclude 
Federal contractors from coverage (29 U.S.C. 653(b)(2)). The case law 
is well-settled that employees of private contractors performing work 
under Federal contracts are covered under the OSH Act. Ensign-Bickford 
Co. v. OSHRC, 717 F.2d 1419, 1421, cert. denied, 466 U.S. 937 (1984). 
In addition, the provisions in 29 CFR part 1960 (Elements for Federal 
Employee Occupational Safety and Health Programs) stress that the OSH 
Act covers Federal contractors and their employees. In particular, 
Sec.  1960.1(f) provides that Federal contract employees are assured 
protection under the OSH Act and no provision of part 1960 "shall be 
construed in any manner to relieve any private employer, including 
Federal contractors, or their employees of any rights or 
responsibilities under the provisions of the Act."
    OSHA is preempted from covering Federal contractors and their 
employees only where another Federal agency has statutory authority to 
prescribe and enforce occupational safety and health standards on the 
contract employers and exercises that authority. Ensign-Bickford, 717 
F.2d at 1421. A contractual obligation to comply with a Federal 
agency's safety procedures or manual does not constitute an exercise of 
statutory authority sufficient to justify preemption under section 
4(b)(1) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 653). Id. Preemption is appropriate 
only where a Federal agency implements and enforces the regulatory 
apparatus necessary to replace those safeguards the OSH Act requires. 
Id.
    With regard to Federal civilian employees, the SESAC's proposed 
exemption also is inconsistent with the OSH Act, Executive Order (E.O.) 
12196 and 28 CFR 1960. Those provisions, which require that each 
Federal agency provide safe and healthful places and conditions of 
employment for Federal employees, are meant to ensure that Federal 
civilian employees have the same protections as private sector 
employees have under the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 668(a)(1); E.O. 12196 Sec.  
1-201 (1980); 29 CFR 1960.1(a)). To effectuate this, section 1-201(d) 
of Executive Order 12196 and 29 CFR 1960.16 require Federal agencies to 
comply with all standards issued under section 6 the OSH Act. There is 
no evidence in the record that the hazardous energy to which Federal 
civilian employees may be exposed during onboard servicing operations 
is any different from those that private sector employees face onboard 
vessels. Therefore, OSHA believes excluding Federal employees is not 
appropriate.
    With regard to military personnel, OSHA notes that E.O. 12196 
excludes from coverage "military personnel and uniquely military 
equipment, systems, and operations" (E.O. 12196 Sec.  1-101). 
Accordingly, the exemption SESAC recommends is not necessary to exclude 
military personnel from the proposed lockout/tagout standard.
    Scope--application and purpose. The general industry standard 
specifies that it does not apply to "normal production operations," 
except in certain limited situations (Sec.  1910.147(a)(2)(ii)). The 
standard and its preamble explain that equipment hazards during those 
operations are covered by subpart O of Part 1910. The requirements of 
subpart O generally apply to shipyard employment. However, certain 
provisions are not applicable to shipyard employment because the 
specific requirements in subpart H of part 1915 apply (e.g., Sec. Sec.  
1915.131 and .134). Accordingly, OSHA is proposing to revise the 
regulatory language to indicate that standards addressing normal 
production operations in shipyard employment are found in the 
applicable requirements contained in "subpart O of 29 CFR part 1910 
and subpart H of 29 CFR part 1915."
    Similarly, Sec.  1910.147(a)(3)(ii) requires employers to use the 
general industry standard to supplement lockout/tagout provisions in 
other standards in part 1910. The proposed rule modifies this language 
to include part 1915 as well as part 1910. As mentioned, the part 1915 
standards that contain lockout/tagout requirements include Sec.  
1915.162 Ship's Boilers, Sec.  1915.163 Ship's Piping Systems, Sec.  
1915.164 Ship's Propulsion Machinery, andSec.  1915.181 Electrical 
circuits and distribution boards. Part 1910 standards that currently 
contain lockout/tagout related requirements that may apply, with some 
exceptions, to shipyards include: Sec.  1910.178 Power Industrial 
Trucks; Sec.  1910.179 Overhead and Gantry Cranes; Sec.  1910.181 
Derricks; Sec.  1910.213 Woodworking Machinery; Sec.  1910.217 
Mechanical Power Presses; Sec.  1910.218 Forging Machines; Sec.  
1910.252 Welding, Cutting and Brazing; and Sec.  1910.305 Electrical.
    Definitions. The proposed standard uses the same definitions as 
paragraph (b) of Sec.  1910.147. The proposed definitions contain some 
technical changes, primarily to make the definitions more directly 
applicable to shipyard employment. In addition, the lockout/tagout 
definitions have been moved to the definitions section for subpart F, 
(proposed Sec.  1915.95). As a result, the paragraph numbers in the 
proposed Sec.  1915.89 do not correspond with the numbers in the 
general industry standard.
    Installing lockable energy-isolating devices during replacement and 
overhaul. Paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of the general industry standard 
requires employers to install lockable energy-isolating devices when 
replacing or overhauling machines or equipment. In the preamble to the 
final standard, OSHA said that it was "much more effective and 
protective" to design a locking capability into equipment during 
normal replacement and overhaul cycles (54 FR 36656). The proposed 
lockout/tagout standard for shipyards also contains this requirement 
(proposed Sec.  1915.89(b)(2)(iii)). However, the general industry 
provision assumes that the employer owns, and therefore, has the 
ability to make changes to equipment. This frequently is not the case 
in shipyard employment, particularly with regard to ship's systems. As 
mentioned, shipyard employers ordinarily do not own the ships that they 
service. Accordingly, the Agency proposes to include the following 
exception to Sec.  1915.89(b)(2)(iii): "This requirement does not 
apply to a machine, equipment or system that the employer does not 
own."
    However, OSHA believes that shipyard employees, ship's crews, and 
contractor employees would be safer if vessel owners installed lockout 
systems, and some owners already are implementing this safety measure. 
For example, the Military Sealift Command (MSC) operates over 100 
civilian-crewed ships providing ocean transportation of equipment, 
fuel, supplies, and ammunition to sustain U.S. military forces 
worldwide (Ex. 9). The MSC lockout/tagout program requires both a tag 
and a locking device with a padlock to secure an energy source whenever 
possible, which protects shipyard employees as well as ship's crews 
during lockout/tagout applications (Ex. 9). OSHA asks for comment on 
how the Agency or shipyards can encourage ship owners to install 
lockable systems during the design and overhaul process. Finally, the 
Agency is also proposing to change paragraph (b)(2)(iii) to reference 
the effective date of the revised 1915 subpart F.
    Outside personnel (contractors, ship's crew, etc.) proposed Sec.  
1915.89(e)(2)). OSHA is requesting comment on what language to adopt in 
the final rule that best and most clearly explains the requirement to 
coordinate the activities of the various employers that might be 
involved in servicing operations at shipyards. The proposed language, 
which is consistent with the language of Sec.  1910.147(f)(2) reads as 
follows:

    (2) Outside personnel (contractors, ship's crew, etc.). (i) 
Whenever outside servicing personnel such as contractors or ship's 
crew are to be engaged in activities covered by the scope and 
application of this standard, the on-site employer and the outside 
employer shall inform each other of their respective lockout or 
tagout procedures.
    (ii) The on-site employer shall ensure that his/her employees 
understand and comply with the restrictions and prohibitions of the 
outside employer's energy control program.

    Several shipyard employment standards require employers to 
coordinate safety and health activities. For example, the part 1915 
Subpart P Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment standards require 
contract employers in shipyard employment to have a fire safety plan 
that complies with the host employers fire safety plan (Sec.  
1915.502(e)). In OSHA's experience, such coordination is commonly 
achieved by the contract employers adopting the safety and health 
policies and procedures of the shipyard. For example, as explained in 
the preamble to the fire protection rulemaking, OSHA finds it 
acceptable for a contractor to adopt the host employer's fire safety 
plan if that plan includes the fire hazards the contract employees will 
encounter (69 FR 55674, (9/15/2004)).
    OSHA is concerned that the language of paragraph (ii) requiring the 
on-site employer to ensure that his/her employees understand and comply 
with the restrictions and prohibitions of the outside employer's energy 
control program may appear to run counter to the common practice of 
contractors following the host employer's programs. OSHA does not 
believe that this is actually the case, because contract employers who 
adopt the host employer's energy control procedures would implement the 
required coordination and both employers would be in compliance. 
However, to avoid potential confusion on this matter, OSHA is 
considering alternative language used in a similar requirement found in 
Sec.  1910.269(d)(8)(iv) of the general industry electric power 
generation, transmission and distribution standard, which reads as 
follows:

    Whenever outside servicing personnel are to be engaged in 
activities covered by paragraph (d) of this section, the on-site 
employer and the outside employer shall inform each other of their 
respective lockout or tagout procedures, and each employer shall 
ensure that his or her personnel understand and comply with 
restrictions and prohibitions of the energy control procedures being 
used.

    OSHA requests comment on the best language to use for this 
provision. Is the alternative language easier to understand? Does it 
improve or alter employee protections? Does it provide more flexibility 
by allowing the employers to decide among themselves which procedures 
are more appropriate? Should the final standard require the employer to 
adopt the most protective procedures, regardless of which employer has 
them?
    Issues for which OSHA is seeking comment on the lockout/tagout 
proposal. Although OSHA is proposing to adopt the Sec.  1910.147 
provisions with minor revision, the Agency is also considering whether 
to add additional measures to further tailor the standard to the 
shipyard industry and to provide additional protection for shipyard 
employees. Therefore, OSHA asks for comment on the following issues.
    Current shipyard lockout/tagout programs. OSHA asks for information 
on current hazardous energy control programs used by shipyard employers 
and how they differ from OSHA's general industry approach. Please 
describe your lockout/tagout program and submit copies of your programs 
to the record. OSHA is also interested in learning about the 
effectiveness, costs, and cost savings associated with different 
hazardous energy approaches. Please submit any information on program 
effectiveness, injury reduction, costs, cost savings, and other 
benefits associated with your lockout/tagout efforts.
    Compatibility of general industry approach for shipyard employment. 
At the beginning of the discussion of the proposed lockout/tagout 
standard, OSHA outlined the reasons why the Agency proposes to adopt 
the general industry lockout/tagout approach for shipyard employment. 
OSHA requests comment on the proposed approach. Specifically, OSHA 
requests comment on whether the proposed approach, as is, would 
adequately protect employees against hazardous energy in shipyard 
employment. Please explain what additional modifications to the 
standard, if any, may be needed to protect shipyard employees from 
hazardous energy. OSHA is aware that a number of shipyard employers 
have implemented lockout/tagout programs that are based on the general 
industry standard. Please describe your lockout/tagout program and 
submit a copy of it for the record. Why did your establishment 
implement the general industry approach? What type of revisions, if 
any, did you make to the general industry energy control program so it 
would be compatible and effective in your workplace?
    Some members of SESAC urged that OSHA, instead of proposing to 
apply the general industry lockout/tagout standard to shipyards, to 
develop a different plain language lockout/tagout standard tailored 
specifically to shipyard employment. OSHA requests comment on whether a 
different standard, not based on the general industry standard, is 
necessary to control hazardous energy in shipyard employment. If not, 
why not? If so, what should such a standard contain? What types of 
problems and costs, if any, would adopting a separate shipyard lockout/
tagout standard pose for shipyard employers who already have 
implemented a lockout/tagout program based on the general industry 
standard?
    Incident investigation. SESAC recommended that a shipyard lockout/
tagout standard include a provision requiring the employer to conduct 
incident investigations when accidents or near misses occur (Docket 
SESAC 1993-3, Ex. 8, p. 7). They recommended that incident 
investigations be conducted to identify deficiencies in the lockout/
tagout program and then to correct any problems or deficiencies in the 
program. OSHA requests input on whether the standard should include an
incident investigation requirement. Does your shipyard or industry 
routinely conduct such investigations? If not, why not? If so, has the 
approach been successful in identifying and resolving lockout/tagout 
problems? If OSHA adopts an incident investigation provision, what 
requirements should it include (e.g., the qualifications of staff 
performing the investigation; the promptness of the investigation; the 
quality of the investigation, documentation, and corrective action)?
    Additional measures. As discussed, the general industry standard 
only allows an employer to use a tagout device on a lockable energy 
isolating device when the employer can demonstrate that the tagout 
system will provide "full employee protection," that is, when the 
employer demonstrates that the tagout program provides a level of 
safety equivalent to that obtained by using a lock. To demonstrate that 
the required level of protection is achieved the employer must 
demonstrate full compliance with all tagout provisions and implement 
additional safety measures as necessary. Some of the additional 
measures the standard identifies are removal of isolating circuit 
elements or valve handles and blocking control switches.
    The general industry standard and this proposed rule do not apply 
the requirement of full employee protection and additional measures to 
energy isolating devices that are not capable of being locked. OSHA 
decided against extending the requirement to non-lockable energy 
isolating devices in the general industry rule because the Agency 
determined that such devices could not provide protection equivalent to 
that obtained by using a lock. In addition, OSHA observed that, in 
general industry, the number of non-lockable energy isolating devices 
was small, less than 10 percent of all equipment. Moreover, OSHA 
predicted that their number would rapidly decline and eventually 
disappear when the requirement to make energy isolating devices 
lockable during replacement or major repair was implemented.
    Although the situation for shipyard landside operations is similar 
to that of general industry, the situation onboard vessels is almost 
the opposite. OSHA estimates that more than 90 percent of equipment and 
systems onboard vessels are not capable of being locked (see 
Preliminary Economic Analysis below). Some cannot be locked because the 
system is too complex or because locking the system would result in 
shutting down all operations throughout the vessel. In addition, a 
number of vessel systems are not designed or built to allow locks and 
shipyard employers cannot attach or retrofit them because they do not 
own the vessel. In recognition of this, OSHA is proposing to exempt 
shipyard employers from the requirement to make systems on vessels 
lockable during replacement and repair if the employer does not own the 
vessel. Therefore, for machines, equipment and systems onboard vessels, 
it is unlikely that the number of non-lockable systems will decrease 
significantly without action by ship owners. At the same time, OSHA is 
aware that many shipyard employers use additional measures whenever a 
tagout system is used, regardless of whether the energy isolating 
device is capable of being locked (Docket SESAC 1993-3, Ex. 104X, p. 
73). OSHA requests comment on whether the standard should require 
shipyard employers to implement additional safety measures whenever a 
tagout system is used, regardless of whether the energy isolating 
device is capable of being locked. Does your establishment currently 
use additional safety measures whenever a tagout system is utilized? If 
not, why not? If so, what measures do you use and why?
    A related issue is what additional measures employers may use when 
tagout systems are utilized. In addition to using the measures 
identified in the general industry standard, some shipyard employers 
use administrative means, such as posting authorized employees as 
attendants at the energy isolating device or power source to help 
ensure that no one removes the tagout device or starts up the equipment 
while servicing is still in progress. OSHA requests comment on whether 
the Agency should include posting of an attendant as an example of the 
additional measures employers may use. What additional measures does 
your shipyard and industry use to provide added protection when tagout 
systems are used? Please explain how these measures work and why they 
are used.
    Group lockout/tagout. The general industry standard (Sec.  
1910.147(f)(3)(iii)(D)) and the proposed standard require that the 
employer ensure that each authorized employee affix a personal lockout 
or tagout device to the group mechanism before beginning work and 
remove the device when work ends. This provision, along with others in 
the standard, ensures that each employee has a degree of control over 
his or her protection. SESAC recommended that a shipyard lockout/tagout 
standard include a provision allowing shipyard employers to use 
administrative or other means to control access to locked or tagged 
machines or equipment when a group of employees are servicing the same 
equipment (Docket SESAC 1993-3, Ex. 104X, pp. 134-158). OSHA requests 
comment on other "equivalent methods" for group lockout/tagout that 
the Agency should consider. What methods does your shipyard or industry 
use to control access in group lockout/tagout situations? Do they 
result in any other advantages or disadvantages?
    It is OSHA's view that the group lockout/tagout provisions apply 
whether the employees in the group work for only one employer, or if 
they work for multiple employers. In your establishment or industry, 
are group lockout/tagout procedures used for multi-employer groups? If 
so, what safety measures do you use to assure that consistent 
procedures are used by the employers and employees involved?
    Non-mandatory appendix. OSHA proposes to adopt the non-mandatory 
appendix from the general industry standard. The appendix, which 
provides an example of a typical minimum lockout procedure, will help 
shipyard employers comply with the standard. OSHA requests comment on 
whether the appendix should be revised to further tailor it to shipyard 
employers.

Section 1915.90 Safety Color Code for Marking Physical Hazards

    OSHA proposes to incorporate by reference the general industry 
standard on safety color coding for marking physical hazards (Sec.  
1910.144). The standard already is applicable to shipyard employment, 
both on vessels and on shore. The existing standard requires that the 
color red shall be the basic color for the identification of dangerous 
conditions such as containers of flammable liquids, lights at 
barricades and temporary obstructions and danger signs. The standard 
also specifies that red shall be the color for emergency stop buttons, 
electric switches, and machine stop bars. In addition, the standard 
requires that yellow shall be the basic color for designating caution 
and marking physical hazards such as slip, trip and fall hazards.

Section 1915.91 Accident Prevention Signs and Tags

    OSHA is proposing to incorporate by reference the general industry 
Accident Prevention Signs and Tags standard (1910.145). The standard's 
requirements on the classification, design and wording of accident 
prevention signs apply to shipyard employment (on vessels and on 
shore)(Sec.  1910.145(a) through (e)); however, the standard's 
requirements on accident prevention tags do not (Sec.  
1910.145(f)(ii)). Part 1915 does not have comprehensive, uniform 
requirements on the design, application and use of such tags. Part 
1915 contains only limited requirements for accident signs and labels, 
such as provisions on the posting of warning signs and labels to comply 
with the shipyard confined and enclosed spaces standard (Sec.  1915.16).
    The general industry provisions on accident prevention tags require 
that they be used where employees are exposed to potentially hazardous 
conditions, equipment or operations that are "out of the ordinary, 
unexpected or not readily apparent" (Sec.  1910.145(f)(3)). The 
provisions also require that tags meet uniform criteria for message, 
legibility, positioning/affixing, and comprehensibility (Sec.  
1910.145(f)(4)).
    Incorporating the general industry standard is necessary to provide 
consistent protection wherever shipyard employees are exposed to 
potentially hazardous conditions. It also ensures that important 
warning and danger signs and tags are uniform in their design and use, 
which OSHA believes will increase their effectiveness. The proposed 
requirements should not pose problems for shipyard employers since the 
general industry requirements are universally recognized and the use of 
signs and tags as specified in Sec.  1910.145 are already common 
shipyard practice.
    To eliminate any possible confusion, the proposal also amends Sec.  
1910.145 to remove from the scope provisions the exclusions for 
"marine regulations" and "maritime" (Sec.  1910.145(a)(1) and 
(f)(1)(ii)). As discussed in the proposed lockout/tagout section, a 
potential for confusion may exist because the terms "maritime" and 
"marine" have sometimes been used as shorthand for shipyard 
employment, marine terminals and longshoring. Removing those terms 
eliminates that potential ambiguity. (OSHA notes that removing the 
terms does not change the scope and application of Sec.  1910.145 vis a 
vis marine terminals and longshoring; that is, removing the language 
excluding maritime and marine regulations does not now make the 
standard applicable to marine terminals and longshoring. General 
industry standards apply to marine terminals and longshoring only to 
the extent they are specifically incorporated by reference in parts 
1917 and 1918. Section 1910.145 is not incorporated into either part; 
therefore, it does not apply.)
    OSHA requests comment on the proposed requirements. Should OSHA 
propose that accident prevention signs be understandable to employees 
(existing paragraph 1910.145(f)(4)(iv)) and that employees be provided 
with information as to their meaning (existing paragraph 
1910.145(f)(5)(v)) as already required for accident prevention tags? 
(Section 1915.16 contains similar requirements, but they are for 
warning signs and labels for confined and enclosed spaces.) If not, why 
not? If so, what should those requirements include?

Section 1915.92 Retention of DOT Markings, Placards, and Labels

    OSHA proposes to retain, with minor editorial changes, the existing 
requirements (Sec.  1915.100) on the retention of DOT markings, 
placards and labels on hazardous materials the shipyard receives. 
Proposed paragraphs (a) and (b) require that employers not remove 
labels and markings on any hazardous materials or freight containers, 
rail freight cars, motor vehicles, or transportation vehicles that the 
U.S. Department of Transportation regulations require to be marked 
until the hazardous materials are removed, and that any residue is 
cleaned and any vapors are purged to prevent potential hazards. This 
would apply regardless of how the shipyard receives the hazardous 
material packages (e.g., single packages, in bulk).
    Proposed paragraph (c) requires that the markings, placards and 
labels on the hazardous materials be maintained so that they are 
"readily visible." Proposed paragraph (d) states that employers are 
considered in compliance with this section if the markings/labels on 
non-bulk packages that will not be reshipped are affixed in accordance 
with the Hazard Communication standard Sec.  1915.1200. Finally, 
proposed paragraph (e) specifies that the definition of "hazardous 
materials" and other undefined terms have the same definition as the 
U.S. Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 
CFR parts 171 through 180). OSHA requests comment on whether paragraph 
(e), which cross-references the DOT hazardous materials regulations (as 
does the general industry standard), is necessary for employers to 
understand the standard or whether it should be deleted in the final 
rule.

Section 1915.93 Motor Vehicle Safety Equipment, Operation, and 
Maintenance

    OSHA proposes to add a new section addressing the hazards 
associated with the use of motor vehicles at shipyards. The proposed 
section sets forth requirements addressing motor vehicle safety 
equipment and the safe operation and maintenance of motor vehicles. 
According to the BLS CFOI database, over an 11-year period (1993-2003), 
27 shipyard employees were killed in transportation accidents, 
accounting for 17 percent of the deaths during that time. OSHA believes 
that the proposed motor vehicle safety provisions will help reduce the 
incidence of motor vehicle related fatalities.
    In Sec.  1915.95, OSHA is proposing to define "motor vehicle" to 
mean any motor-driven vehicle operated by an employee that is used to 
transport employees, materials, or property. Motor vehicles would 
include passenger cars, light trucks (e.g., pickup trucks), vans, all-
terrain vehicles, powered industrial trucks, and other similar 
vehicles.
    OSHA believes the proposed requirements are necessary because 
vehicle accidents continue to result in employee deaths in shipyard 
employment. As discussed above, a high proportion of shipyard employee 
fatalities are caused by motor vehicle-related accidents. Motor vehicle 
accidents are also a significant cause of employee injury in shipyards. 
According to BLS, since 1998 an estimated 225 shipyard employees have 
suffered motor vehicle-related injuries serious enough to involve days 
away from work. In 2002, 63 shipyard employees suffered injuries 
involving days away from work in transportation accidents.
    Paragraph (a)--Application. In paragraph (a)(1), OSHA proposes to 
apply this section to any motor vehicle used to transport employees, 
materials or property at shipyards. The provision also makes clear that 
the section would not apply to motor vehicle operation on public 
streets and highways. OSHA believes that Federal, State and local laws 
and regulations such as safety belt and vehicle inspection laws, 
already provide adequate protection on public roads. Thus, the proposal 
is directed to where those laws and regulations may not apply to motor 
vehicles used on shipyard property (e.g., transporting employees 
between worksites, moving materials). Nonetheless, OSHA believes the 
proposal's benefits will extend beyond motor vehicle operation at 
shipyard worksites. For example, an employee who is required to wear a 
safety belt while riding in a motor vehicle on shipyard property is 
more likely to continue to wear it when the vehicle leaves the 
shipyard. Likewise, a motor vehicle that is maintained in safe 
operating condition for use in shipyard employment will also be safe 
when it is used on public roads.
    In paragraph (a)(2), OSHA proposes to limit application of most of 
the provisions of the section to motor vehicles the employer provides. 
However, because some employers allow employees to use their own motor 
vehicles to transport themselves, other employees and materials within 
the shipyard, OSHA proposes that three provisions in this section also
would apply to motor vehicles provided by employees. Those provisions 
are the requirements that employees use safety belts (Sec.  1915.93(b)(2)), 
that motor vehicles have seats for each employee being transported 
(Sec.  1915.93(b)(4)), and that tools and materials transported by motor 
vehicles be firmly secured (Sec.  1915.93(c)(2)).
    Proposed paragraph (a)(3) states that only motor vehicle safety 
equipment requirements in paragraph (b)(1) through (b)(3) would apply 
to the operation of powered industrial trucks in shipyards. The seating 
requirements in paragraph (b)(4) would not apply to powered industrial 
trucks manufactured for operation in a standing position, because they 
are not equipped with seats. In addition, the Power Industrial Trucks 
standard prohibits unauthorized personnel from riding on powered 
industrial trucks and requires that a safe place to ride be provided 
where riding is allowed (Sec.  1910.178(m)(3)).
    Proposed paragraph (a)(3) also provides that the motor vehicle 
operation and maintenance requirements in this section would not apply 
to powered industrial trucks. Proposed paragraph (a)(3) makes clear 
that employers must continue to comply with the maintenance, 
inspection, operation, and training requirements for powered industrial 
trucks in Sec.  1910.178. Those requirements are more comprehensive and 
provide more specific protection than the more general motor vehicle 
operation and maintenance requirements proposed here.
    Paragraph (b)--Motor vehicle safety equipment--Paragraph (b) 
proposes requirements for equipping motor vehicles with safety 
equipment and using it while motor vehicles are operated.
    OSHA proposes in paragraph (b)(1) to require that each motor 
vehicle the employer acquires or puts in service for the first time 
after the final rule becomes effective be equipped with safety belts 
for each employee operating or riding in the vehicle. The Agency 
believes this requirement is necessary and appropriate because, as 
mentioned above, shipyard employees have been injured and killed in 
motor vehicle-related accidents, and it is well documented that safety 
belts reduce the risk of injury and death (Exs. 2-2; 2-4, p. 61: 2-5, 
p. 6; 2-6; 2-7; 2-8; 2-11; 2-18). There have been injuries and 
fatalities in shipyard employment, as well as other industries, 
directly related to employees not using safety belts, including while 
operating powered industrial trucks (e.g., forklifts) and other off-
road vehicles (Ex. 2-9). Recognition of the hazard of operating motor 
vehicles without safety belts is also evidenced by the national 
consensus standards that require motor vehicles to be equipped with 
operator restraints and specify that operators and passengers use them 
(Ex. 3-13, SAE J386, Operator Restraint Systems for Off-Road Work 
Machines, November 1997; Ex. 3-10, ANSI/ASME B56.1-2000 Safety Standard 
for Low Lift and High Lift Trucks). The proposal would make subpart F 
consistent with those standards.
    OSHA is aware that the powered industrial truck standard (Sec.  
1910.178) does not require those motor vehicles to be equipped with 
safety belts. Much of the standard was promulgated pursuant to section 
6(a) and was taken from the ANSI standard on low lift and high lift 
trucks that was in effect at the time, ANSI B56.1-1969. The 1969 ANSI 
standard did not have a safety belt requirement. However, when the ANSI 
standard was revised in 1993, provisions were added requiring that 
powered industrial trucks manufactured after 1992 be equipped with 
safety belts and requiring that operators use them. The current ANSI/
ASME standard continues to require this. In issuing its 5(a)(1) 
enforcement policy regarding operator restraint systems for powered 
industrial trucks, OSHA said that the provisions in the revised 
national consensus standard evidence "recognition of the hazard of 
powered industrial truck tipover and the need for the use of an 
operator restraint system" (Ex. 2-15, Memorandum dated October 9, 
1996, to Regional Administrators from John Miles).
    Proposed paragraph (b)(1) would not require employers to retrofit 
those motor vehicles that they are already using with safety belts. 
OSHA is proposing to limit application of the requirement to motor 
vehicles put into service by the employer for the first time after the 
final rule becomes effective. Although OSHA anticipates that the vast 
majority of motor vehicles shipyard employers put into service after 
the effective date will be new vehicles that have been manufactured 
with safety belts, the proposed language also addresses used motor 
vehicles employers acquire and use for the first time after the final 
rule becomes effective. Applying the standard to both groups of motor 
vehicles would ensure that employers consider the safety of employees 
whenever they acquire motor vehicles. The proposal includes an 
exception to the safety belt requirement for those motor vehicles that 
were not originally manufactured with them (e.g., buses). However, if 
the motor vehicle was manufactured with safety belts and they have been 
removed or are not operational, the employer would have to ensure the 
motor vehicle has operational safety belts before it is used for the 
first time in the shipyard.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2) requires the employer to ensure that 
employees use safety belts at all times while operating or riding in a 
motor vehicle. As mentioned, motor vehicle accidents are a significant 
cause of employee injury and death and safety belts have been shown to 
reduce that risk. OSHA notes that the proposed requirement applies to 
all motor vehicles used at shipyards including powered industrial 
trucks. Forklifts are particularly susceptible to tipovers if they run 
over uneven ground, potholes, sand, or railways; turn corners sharply; 
or if the mast strikes an object. These situations and conditions are 
often found in shipyards. In many forklift tipover accidents, operators 
have been injured or killed because they were thrown from the forklift, 
or struck or crushed by the forklift when they tried to jump free. In 
2001, BLS reported that across private industry 35 of 123 forklift 
fatalities (28 percent) involved tipovers or falling from a moving 
forklift. In contrast, where forklift operators were wearing safety 
belts in many cases the injuries were more limited. In one tipping 
accident, where an OSHA inspector noted that the operator was wearing a 
safety belt, the injuries were limited to four fingers on one hand.
    OSHA is aware of concerns that some forklift operators have about 
using operator restraints near water. The Agency has heard some 
operators say they do not wear safety belts because they need to be 
able to jump free of the forklift if it goes off the dock. However, 
OSHA is not aware of any reports of powered industrial trucks running 
off a shipyard dock. OSHA requests comment, especially any data and 
other information on this issue.
    OSHA is also aware of arguments that the safety belt provision is 
unnecessary since states have mandatory seat belt laws. However, those 
laws only apply to motor vehicles operated on public streets and 
highways and do not apply to off-road industrial vehicles such as 
powered industrial trucks. As mentioned, shipyard employees have been 
injured and killed in off-road motor vehicle accidents, which may have 
been prevented if they had been using safety belts. OSHA believes that
where employers inform employees about the safety belt requirement and 
require their use that safety belt usage will be significantly higher.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2) also requires that the employer ensure 
that employees wear safety belts securely and tightly at all times they 
are operating or riding in a motor vehicle. OSHA believes this language 
is necessary because the safety belt or operator restraint system may 
not restrain the employee within the vehicle compartment in the event 
of an accident or tipover if the belt is not fastened tightly.
    As mentioned above, the safety belt requirement would apply to both 
employer and employee provided motor vehicles used to transport 
employees, materials and equipment on shipyard property. The risk of 
injury exists regardless of whether employees are operating or riding 
in employer or employee provided motor vehicles. Applying the proposed 
provision to employee provided motor vehicles will ensure that 
employees riding in those vehicles will have the same protections as 
those riding in employer provided motor vehicles.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(3) would require that employers ensure that 
motor vehicle safety equipment is not removed from employer provided 
vehicles and replace equipment that is removed. For purposes of this 
paragraph, motor vehicle safety equipment includes items such as safety 
belts, airbags, lights, brakes, mirrors, horns, windshields and 
windshield wipers. This provision must be read in conjunction with 
proposed paragraph (c)(1) requiring that employers equip motor vehicles 
with safety equipment that is in serviceable and safe operating 
condition.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(4) requires that motor vehicles used to 
transport employees have a firmly secured seat for each employee being 
transported. It also requires the employer to ensure that employees use 
the seat when they are being transported. This requirement is necessary 
because some shipyards transport employees from one worksite to another 
in the back of pickup trucks that do not have seats, and these 
employees are at risk of injury from falling out of or being thrown 
from the vehicle when traveling in the back of pickup trucks, even at 
low speeds. In 2001, for instance, a construction employee riding in 
the back of a pick-up while placing cones on a highway fell out and was 
killed even though the truck was traveling only 10 to 15 mph, which is 
the speed limit in most shipyards.
    To address this hazard, it is OSHA's intent that employees have a 
safe seat to sit in when they are transported in shipyards, and that 
they use those seats to ride from one location to another. OSHA is not 
requiring that employers retrofit their motor vehicles with seats. 
Rather, employers need to ensure that transportation used to move 
employees throughout the shipyard has seats for every employee 
transported. OSHA believes the provision should not pose a problem for 
employers since many shipyard employers already use vans, small buses, 
and automobiles to transport employees.
    As mentioned, OSHA also proposes to apply this provision to 
employee provided motor vehicles. This will ensure that every vehicle 
transporting employees in shipyards provides the same protection. OSHA 
notes that this provision would not apply to powered industrial trucks 
manufactured for operation in a standing position and do not have 
operator seats.
    The Agency seeks comments on this proposed requirement. In your 
establishment and industry, how are employees transported from one 
worksite to another and what measures are in place to ensure that they 
are safely transported?
    Paragraph (c) Motor vehicle maintenance and operation--Paragraph 
(c) proposes new requirements for the maintenance and operation of 
motor vehicles used in shipyards.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(1) requires that employers ensure that each 
vehicle is maintained in a "serviceable and safe operating 
condition." Safe operating condition refers to the condition of 
equipment that directly affects the safe operation of the vehicle. For 
example, the proposal would require that motor vehicle safety equipment 
such as visibility and warning devices, headlights, taillights, horns, 
windshield wipers, defogging or defrosting devices and safety belts be 
in safe working order. In Sec.  1915.95, OSHA proposes to define 
"serviceable condition" to mean the state or ability of a vehicle to 
operate as it was intended by the manufacturer to operate. Accordingly, 
motor vehicles that are operated in accordance with manufacturer's 
instructions and recommendations would be considered in compliance with 
this provision.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would also require that motor vehicles be 
removed from service if they are not in serviceable and safe operating 
condition. It is OSHA's intent that the motor vehicle could not be used 
for shipyard employment until the problem or damage is repaired.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would require that tools or equipment be 
secured while being transported to prevent unsafe movement. This will 
reduce the risk of injury due to heavy or sharp tools or equipment 
sliding into or hitting operators or passengers. This provision does 
not require that all materials be secured, only those that may pose a 
hazard to employees. Items that do not pose a hazard to the driver or 
passengers could be transported in the vehicle cab or back of a pickup 
truck without being secured. As mentioned, this requirement would also 
apply to employee provided motor vehicles used at shipyards.
    In paragraph (c)(3), OSHA proposes to address motor vehicle 
problems associated with the intermingling of pedestrian, bicycle and 
motor vehicle traffic in shipyards. When pedestrians, bicyclists and 
motor vehicles share shipyard roadways there is potential for 
accidents. Often accidents occur because the motor vehicle operator 
does not see the pedestrian or bicyclist in time to avoid hitting them. 
Due to the size of many shipyards, roads may be narrow or unmarked, and 
parking space may be limited. As a result, many employers provide 
bicycles or allow employees to use their own to get from one location 
to another. As the use of bicycles has grown, so too have the reports 
of accidents. For example, an employee riding a bicycle to perform 
regularly assigned work tasks in a Mississippi shipyard was killed when 
he collided with a motor vehicle (Ex. 2-1). It is OSHA's intention to 
ensure that employees riding bicycles and walking can be seen by motor 
vehicle operators and protected from injury.
    Paragraph (c)(3) would require that employers implement measures to 
ensure motor vehicle operators can see and avoid hitting pedestrians 
and bicyclist traveling in shipyards. The proposal identifies some 
measures employers may implement. For example, the employer may 
establish dedicated travel lanes for pedestrians and bicyclists and 
install crosswalks and traffic control devices (e.g., stop signs, 
pavement markings) to control pedestrian and bicycle traffic across 
roadways. Using physical barriers to separate the travel lanes will 
also help to prevent injury. For travel lanes to be effective, the 
employer must ensure that the dedicated lanes are wide enough. For 
example, motor vehicle lanes need to be wide enough so they do not 
interfere with pedestrian/bicycle lanes and pedestrian/bicycle lanes 
need to be wide enough for safe passage of both pedestrian and bicyclists.
    The employer may also comply with the proposed provision by 
providing pedestrians and bicyclists with equipment such as reflective 
vests, reflectors or lights. OSHA believes this measure should not pose 
problems for employers since bicycles are manufactured with reflectors 
and lights. In addition, many shipyard employers already provide 
reflective vests so employees are visible to equipment operators.
    The Agency seeks comment on the proposed provisions to reduce 
injuries related to the intermingling of pedestrian, bicycle and motor 
vehicle traffic in shipyards. OSHA also requests comments on the safe 
operation of motor vehicles. What does your company do to ensure that 
employees operate motor vehicles safely? Do you have requirements for 
employees driving in your facilities or using company vehicles?

Section 1915.94 Servicing Multi-Piece and Single Piece Rim Wheels

    OSHA proposes to incorporate by reference the general industry 
standard (Sec.  1910.177) and non-mandatory appendices on servicing 
multi-piece and single piece rim wheels. The general industry standard 
currently exempts shipyard employment (Sec.  1910.177(a)(2)). (To avoid 
any confusion, OSHA also proposes to amend Sec.  1910.177 to delete the 
exemption as it applies to shipyard employment.)
    OSHA decided that this gap in coverage should be remedied by 
applying the general industry standard to shipyard employment after a 
preventable fatality was reported in 1999 at a special trade contractor 
site during rim servicing.
    The general industry standard applies to servicing large vehicles 
such as trucks, tractors, trailers, buses and off-road machines, all of 
which are used in shipyard employment. The standard does not apply to 
servicing rim wheels on automobiles or on pickup trucks and vans using 
"LT" (light trucks) tires (1910.177(a)(1)).
    The standard establishes requirements addressing four major areas: 
(1) Training for all tire servicing employees (Sec.  1910.177(c)); (2) 
the use of proper equipment such as clip-on chucks, restraining 
devices, or barriers to retain the wheel components in the event of an 
incident during the inflation of tires (Sec.  1910.177(d)); (3) the use 
of compatible components (Sec.  1910.177(e)); and (4) the use of safe 
operating procedures for servicing multi-piece and single-piece rim 
wheels (Sec.  1910.177(f) and (g)). The Agency believes that applying 
the general industry standard to shipyard employment should not pose a 
problem for employers because many shipyards that service the tires of 
their own vehicles are aware of and adhere to the safety provisions of 
Sec.  1910.177.
    OSHA requests comment on the proposed provision. To what extent do 
shipyards service multi-piece and single piece rim wheels? What safety 
precautions are followed to ensure employees are not injured during 
these tasks?

Section 1915.95 Definitions

    In Sec.  1915.95, OSHA proposes to add definitions for terms used 
in subpart F. The Agency believes that defining key terms in the 
regulatory text will make the standards easier to understand and to 
comply with. OSHA is not including a discussion of the terms that apply 
to the control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout) in proposed Sec.  
1915.89. Most of those terms are discussed throughout the preamble 
section for Sec.  1915.89 above. The terms are affected employee, 
authorized employee, capable of being locked out, energized, energy 
isolating device, energy source, hot tap, lockout, lockout device, 
normal production operations, servicing and/or maintenance, setting up, 
and ship's systems.
    Hazardous or toxic substances. OSHA proposes to define hazardous or 
toxic substances to include any of the following: any material listed 
in the U.S. DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR part 172), any 
substance regulated by subpart Z of 29 CFR part 1910, any atmosphere 
with an oxygen content of less than 19.5%, or any corrosive substance 
or environmental contaminant that may expose employees to injury, 
illness or disease. Harmful environmental contaminants would include 
coliform and fecal matter.
    Health care professional is proposed to mean a physician or any 
other health care provider whose legally permitted scope of practice 
allows the provider to independently provide or be delegated the 
responsibility to provide some or all of the advice or consultation 
this subpart requires. (See Sec.  1915.87(b) for further discussion.)
    Motor vehicle is proposed to mean any motor-driven vehicle operated 
by an employee that is used to transport employees, passengers, or 
property. For the purposes of this subpart, motor vehicles would 
include, but are not limited to, passenger cars, light trucks, vans, 
motorcycles, all terrain vehicles, powered industrial trucks, and other 
similar types of vehicles. The proposed definition excludes boats and 
vehicles operated exclusively on a rail(s).
    Portable toilet facility is proposed to mean a non-sewered facility 
in which urine and defecation is collected and contained. Portable 
toilet facilities may be flushable, with water or another flushing 
agent. They also may be non-flushable, such as facilities that use 
chemicals or biological agents to treat waste. The proposed definition 
does not include privies, which are unlikely to be found in shipyards 
because many State and local regulations prohibit them near shorelines.
    Potable water is proposed to mean water (1) approved for drinking 
by the State or local authority having jurisdiction, or (2) meeting the 
quality standards prescribed by the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency's National Primary Water Regulations (40 CFR part 141). 
Requiring that drinking water meet those requirements ensures that it 
will be free of environmental contaminants and toxic materials.
    The proposed definition, for purposes of subpart F, updates the 
existing definition in Sec.  1910.141(a)(2) to reflect that the EPA 
regulations have replaced the U.S. Public Health Service Drinking Water 
Standards. SESAC recommended that OSHA delete the reference to Federal 
drinking water regulations as a way to simplify the definition. 
However, OSHA believes that the reference needs to be retained to 
ensure that employee drinking water at least meets a uniform national 
quality baseline and that there will not be a gap in protection in 
areas where there may not be State or local drinking water regulations 
or jurisdiction. OSHA requests comment on whether the reference to 
Federal drinking water regulations should be retained.
    Sanitation facilities is proposed to mean facilities provided for 
employee health and personal needs such as potable drinking water, 
toilet facilities, handwashing and drying facilities, showers 
(including quick drench/flush), changing rooms, eating and food 
preparation areas, first aid stations, on-site medical service areas 
and waste disposal. The proposed definition also includes supplies for 
sanitation facilities such as soap, toilet paper, towels, and drinking 
cups. OSHA notes that the proposed rule does not require employers to 
provide certain sanitation facilities such as on-site eating and 
drinking areas. However, where such facilities are provided they would 
have to meet the sanitation requirements OSHA proposes.
    Serviceable condition means the state or ability of a tool, 
machine, vehicle, or other device to operate as it was
intended by the manufacturer to operate. For tools, machines and 
vehicles to be considered in serviceable condition, they must be 
maintained in good working condition. OSHA notes that if these devices 
are maintained and operated in accordance with manufacturer 
instructions and recommendations they would be considered to be in 
compliance with the requirement to be in serviceable condition.
    Sewered toilet facility means a fixture maintained for the purpose 
of urination and defecation that is connected to a sewer, septic tank, 
holding tank (bilge), or on-site sewage disposal treatment facility and 
that is flushed with water. For purposes of this subpart, toilet 
facilities that are a permanent fixture onboard a vessel or vessel 
section would be considered to be sewered toilet facilities.
    Vehicle safety equipment is proposed to mean those systems and 
devices installed on a motor vehicle for the purposes of effecting the 
safe operation of the vehicle such as safety belts, airbags, 
headlights, tail lights, emergency hazard lights, windshield wipers, 
brakes, horn, mirrors, windshields and other windows, and locks.
    Vermin is proposed to mean any insects, birds, and other animals, 
such as rodents and feral cats, which may create safety and health 
hazards for employees.
    Walking and working surfaces is proposed to mean any surface on or 
through which employees gain access to or perform job tasks. Walking 
and working surfaces also include any surface upon or through which 
employees are required or allowed to walk or work in the workplace. 
Walking and working surfaces include, but are not limited to, work 
areas, accessways, aisles, exits, gangways, ladders, passageways, 
stairs, steps, ramps, and walkways. This definition is drawn from the 
proposed rule for walking and working surfaces, subpart D of part 1910 
(55 FR 13360 (04/10/1990)). OSHA believes that using this term in place 
of the list of specific working and walking areas will help to simplify 
subpart F.
Proposed Deletions
    OSHA proposes not to include in revised subpart F the following 
provisions that are currently applicable to shipyard employment. The 
hazards and working conditions these provisions address are not present 
in the shipyard industry.
    Section 1910.141(f)--OSHA is proposing not to retain the existing 
requirement to provide facilities to dry work clothing (i.e., 
protective clothing) before it is worn again. Information from site 
visits and industry meetings indicates that the provision may not be 
necessary because shipyards almost exclusively provide disposable 
protective clothing. OSHA requests comments or information about 
whether this provision is still needed in the shipyard industry.
    Section 1910.141(h)--OSHA is proposing not to retain the existing 
requirements addressing food handling. OSHA believes that existing 
State and local health codes provide adequate protection for the 
hazards this section is intended to address. OSHA requests comment.
    Section 1915.97(a)--OSHA is proposing not to retain the existing 
requirement on controls and personal protective equipment (PPE). This 
provision was adopted 30 years ago, prior to promulgation of standards 
addressing specific hazards and the PPE requirements in subpart I of 
part 1915. Those standards identify and require the controls and PPE 
this section addresses.
    Section 1915.97(e)--OSHA is proposing to delete the existing 
prohibition that minors under 18 years of age not be employed in 
shipbreaking or related equipment. The prohibition is the only OSHA 
rule that regulates the working activities allowed for youth employees. 
States have numerous rules regulating work conditions for youth 
employees. At the Federal level, OSHA's sister agency in the Department 
of Labor, the Employment Standards Administration regulates youth 
working conditions under the authority of the Fair Labor Standards Act 
(FLSA). To protect young employees from hazardous employment, the FLSA 
provides for a minimum age of 18 years in occupations found and 
declared by the Secretary to be particularly hazardous or detrimental 
to the health or well-being of minors 16 and 17 years of age. The 
Secretary has issued 17 orders, published at 29 CFR part 570 subpart E, 
listing the occupations where persons less than 18 years of age are 
prohibited from working. Order 15 of the Part 570 subpart E prohibits 
minors from working in all occupations in wrecking, demolition, and 
shipbreaking operations, which are defined as "all work, including 
clean-up and salvage work, performed at the site of the total or 
partial razing, demolishing, or dismantling of a building, bridge, 
steeple, tower, chimney, other structure, ship or other vessel" (Sec.  
570.66). OSHA believes that the Sec.  1915.97(e) prohibitions are 
duplicative of the part 570 prohibitions, therefore, the Agency is 
proposing to delete the section.
    OSHA asks for comment on the extent to which youth employees are 
employed in the shipyard industries, what occupations they work in, 
data on work-related injuries and illnesses occurring to youth 
employees, and whether the Sec.  1915.97(e) prohibition is needed to 
protect youth employees.

V. Executive Summary of the Preliminary Economic and Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Screening Analysis

    Introduction. OSHA's Preliminary Economic and Regulatory 
Flexibility Screening Analysis (PEA) addresses issues related to the 
costs, benefits, technological feasibility, and economic feasibility 
(including small business impacts) of the Agency's proposed revision of 
29 CFR 1915 subpart F on General Working Conditions in Shipyard 
Employment. This analysis also evaluates the non-regulatory 
alternatives to the proposal.
    OSHA has determined that this proposal is not an economically 
significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 and not a major rule 
under the Congressional Review provisions of the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 609). As required 
by section 6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 12866, OSHA has provided OMB's Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs with an assessment of the costs, 
benefits, and alternatives of this proposal, which are summarized 
below. E.O. 12866 requires regulatory agencies to conduct an economic 
analysis for rules that meet certain criteria. The most frequently used 
criterion under E.O. 12866 is that the rule will impose annual costs on 
the economy of $100 million or more. Neither the benefits nor the costs 
of this proposed rule exceed $100 million.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.), as amended in 1996, requires OSHA to determine whether the 
Agency's regulatory actions will have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. OSHA's Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis indicates that the proposal will not have significant impacts 
on a substantial number of small entities. OSHA's PEA and Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis include: A description of the industries 
potentially affected by the proposal; an evaluation of the risks the 
proposal addresses; an assessment of the benefits attributable to the 
proposal; a determination of the technological feasibility of the 
proposed requirements; an estimate of the costs employers would incur 
to comply with the proposal; a determination of the economic 
feasibility of compliance with the proposal; and an analysis of the 
economic and other impacts associated with this rulemaking, including 
those on small businesses. The executive summary of the PEA is presented 
here and the full analysis has been placed in the rulemaking docket (Ex. 17).
    OSHA's preliminary analysis estimates that the proposal will affect 
approximately 639 establishments and 86,764 employees in the shipyard 
employment industry. OSHA estimates that the proposal will prevent 1.1 
deaths and 142.2 injuries and cost employers about $1 million per year 
to implement. The Agency estimates $7.1 million in monetized benefits 
from these prevented injuries. Following OMB guidelines to monetize all 
benefits, OSHA estimates the value of a statistical life of 1.1 
prevented deaths at $8.3 million. Monetized benefits, therefore, would 
total $15.4 million annually.
    Affected Establishments and Employees. The proposal will affect all 
establishments in shipyard employment, which consists of shipbuilding, 
shipbreaking, ship repair and related employment. For purposes of this 
analysis, OSHA incorporated the following three definitions of "small 
firms" and provided separate analyses for each: (1) Firms with fewer 
than 1,000 employees (the Small Business Administration (SBA) 
definition of small businesses in this sector); (2) firms with fewer 
than 250 employees (the definition of small business recommended by the 
Shipyard Fire Protection Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee); and 
(3) firms with fewer than 20 employees. OSHA based its estimates of the 
number of firms, establishments, employment, and wages on BLS and U.S. 
Census Bureau data for North American Industrial Classification (NAIC) 
industry sector 336611. Also, OSHA used firm data from SBA in this 
analysis. Profit rates are based on data from the Internal Revenue 
Service's 2001 Corporation Source Book of Statistics of Income. Table 6 
shows the total number of establishments, number of firms, employment, 
revenues and payroll per establishment affected by the proposed rule. 
As the table shows, there are 614 firms with 639 establishments in the 
affected industry. The industry employs 86,764 employees, of whom 72 
percent are estimated to be production employees.

                                                 Table 6.--Industrial Profile for the Proposed Standard
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                  Annual (1,000)
                                         Size class            Firms      Establishments     Employees      Production   -------------------------------
                                                                                                             employees        Payroll        Revenues
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipyards.........................  1,000 & Up..........               4               9          59,456          42,808      $2,402,689      $8,650,079
                                    500-999.............               7              12           9,075           6,534         310,743       1,191,169
                                    250-499.............              19              21           5,813           4,185         276,533         923,357
                                    100-249.............              43              49           5,813           4,189         305,522         925,760
                                    20-99...............              50              53           2,793           2,011         139,667         459,032
Off-Site..........................  20-99...............              76              80           1,957           1,409          94,511         354,512
                                    1-19................             415             415           1,852           1,333          98,717         310,665
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................  ....................             614             639          86,764          62,470       3,628,382      12,814,574
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis.

    Evaluation of Risk and Potential Benefits. OSHA's risk profile for 
exposure to the hazards the proposal addresses is based on data from 
the CFOI database and the BLS Survey of Occupational Injuries and 
Illnesses, as well as an analysis of OSHA fatality/catastrophe 
inspection data obtained from the Agency's IMIS database.
    OSHA anticipates that the proposal will significantly reduce the 
number of shipyard accidents involving electrical contacts, being 
caught in machinery, and being struck by motor vehicles and their 
resulting injuries and fatalities. OSHA believes that the proposed 
requirements for controlling hazardous energy (i.e., energy control 
procedures, training, inspections) and motor vehicle safety will help 
to save lives and prevent injuries in the shipyard workforce. OSHA also 
believes that the new proposed CPR requirements for first aid providers 
will help to save lives and reduce the severity of injuries that do 
occur. OSHA estimates that compliance with the proposal would annually 
prevent 1.1 fatalities, 49.9 cases involving days away from work 
injuries, and 92.3 non-lost workday injuries, as stated in Chapter IV 
of the PEA Ex. 17.
    In addition to saving lives and reducing injuries in shipyards, 
OSHA believes that compliance with the proposal would yield substantial 
cost savings to parties within and connected with the shipyard 
employment industry and ultimately to society as a whole. These 
monetized benefits take the form of willingness to pay estimates to 
avoid an injury or death. OSHA estimates monetized benefits of $7.1 
million from the 142.2 avoided injuries from compliance with the 
proposal. When the monetized benefit of 1.1 avoided deaths ($8.3 
million) is added, total annual monetized benefits equal $15.4 million.
    Technological Feasibility and Compliance Costs (including Net 
Benefits). Consistent with the legal framework established by the OSH 
Act and court decisions, OSHA has determined that the proposal is 
technologically feasible. The proposal does not require any practices 
not already undertaken in many shipyards today. For example, a number 
of shipyard employers already are training their employees about the 
release of hazardous energy in servicing operations.
    Annualized compliance cost estimates are annualized costs to 
employers using a 7 percent discount rate and a ten year life for one-
time expenses. These proposed estimates are based on the employment and 
establishment counts in Chapter II (Industrial Profile) of the PEA, 
(Ex. 17) and the dollar costs needed to comply. These estimates also 
consider non-compliance rates to account for establishments that have 
already complied with the requirements.
    To develop the proposed cost estimates, OSHA first examined the 
extent to which shipyard employers were already in compliance with 
existing and proposed OSHA requirements, with rules of other parties 
(such as the U.S. Navy in some shipyards), and with voluntary codes and 
best practices. Identifying provisions for which there is already 
substantial or full compliance, OSHA arrived at a list of activities for
which shipyard employers would incur costs, shown in Table 7. Table 7 
presents the total annualized costs of the proposal, by major provision, 
which total $1,010,778. Most of the costs are associated with the requirements 
for controlling hazardous energy (Lockout/Tagout).

   Table 7.--Estimated Total Annualized Compliance Costs by Provision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Total annualized
                     Requirement                             costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanitation:
    Handwashing Facilities...........................           $254,540
Medical Services and First Aid:
    CPR Training.....................................            136,442
Lockout/Tagout:
    Energy Control Program...........................            107,857
    Full Employee Protection.........................            330,373
    Protective Materials & Hardware..................             16,069
    Training and Communication.......................            132,622
    Periodic Inspections & Certification.............             20,006
                                                      ------------------
      Subtotal.......................................            606,927
                                                      ------------------
Vehicle Safety:
    Reinstalling Safety Equipment....................             12,762
    Rim Wheel Training...............................                107
                                                      ------------------
      Subtotal.......................................             12,869
                                                      ------------------
        Total........................................          1,010,778
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis, OSHA.

    Net Benefits. For informational purposes, the Agency compared the 
estimated costs of compliance to the monetized benefits of the proposed 
standard. The Agency estimates monetized death benefits of $8.3 million 
dollars and monetized injury benefits of $7.1 million annually (see 
Chapter IV of the PEA). This yields total monetized benefits of $15.4 
million annually. When the costs of compliance are compared to these 
estimates, the Agency concludes that the annualized net benefits of the 
proposed standard equal $14.4 million.
    Economic Impacts. OSHA analyzed the impacts of these compliance 
costs on firms in the shipyard employment sector by comparing costs as 
a percentage of revenues and costs as a percentage of profits. These 
two measures (in percentages) correspond to two assumptions used by 
economists to set bounds for the range of possible impacts. One 
assumption is no-cost pass-through (i.e., that employers will be unable 
to pass any of the costs of compliance forward to their customers). 
This corresponds to compliance costs as a percentage of profits. The 
second assumption is full-cost pass-through (i.e., that employers will 
be able to pass all of the costs of compliance forward to their 
customers). This corresponds to compliance costs as a percentage of 
revenues. As summarized in Table 8, OSHA estimates that if affected 
establishments in the shipyard employment sector were forced to absorb 
these compliance costs entirely from profits (a highly unlikely 
scenario), profits would be reduced by an average of 0.14 percent. At 
the other extreme, if affected establishments were able to pass all of 
these compliance costs forward to their customers, OSHA projects that 
the price (revenue) increase required to pay for these costs would be 
less than 0.01 percent. Given the minimal potential impact on both 
prices and profits, OSHA concludes that the proposed regulation is 
economically feasible.

                                           Table 8.--Economic Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Per         Compliance cost   Compliance cost
                                                              establishment       as a % of         as a % of
                                                             compliance cost      revenues           profits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size Class:
    1-19..................................................               $56              0.01              0.20
    1-250.................................................               422              0.01              0.16
    1-1,000...............................................               749              0.01              0.20
    All...................................................             1,582              0.01              0.14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis.

    Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis. The RFA requires 
regulatory agencies to determine whether regulatory actions will 
adversely affect small entities. For employers in NAIC 336611, small 
firms are defined by SBA as those with less than 1,000 employees. As 
shown in Table 9, for firms with less than 1,000 employees, proposed 
costs are 0.20 percent of profits and 0.01 percent of revenues. OSHA 
also examined costs as a percentage of profits and revenues for firms 
with less than 250 employees, a definition of "small entity" 
recommended by the Shipyard Fire Protection Negotiated Rulemaking 
Advisory Committee and for firms with less than 20 employees to see 
whether there might be significant impacts on the very smallest firms. 
For firms with less than 250 employees, proposed costs were 0.16 percent 
of profits and 0.01 percent of revenues. For firms with less than 20 
employees, proposed costs were 0.20 percent of profits and 0.01 percent 
of revenues. The major source of the small variation in impacts is the 
low estimated compliance costs incurred by the small firms.

                                          Table 9.--Small Firm Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Compliance cost   Compliance cost
                                                                Per firm          as a % of         as a % of
                                                             compliance cost      revenues           profits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size Class:
    1-19..................................................               $59              0.01              0.20
    1-250.................................................               432              0.01              0.16
    1-1,000...............................................               768              0.01              0.20
    All...................................................             1,645              0.01              0.14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis

    OSHA has set the criteria that if costs exceed one percent of 
revenues or five percent of profits, then the impact on small entities 
is considered significant for purposes of complying with the RFA. For 
all of the classes of affected small firms in the shipyard employment 
industry, the costs of the proposal would be less than one percent of 
revenues and five percent of profits. OSHA therefore certifies that 
this proposal will not have an economically significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    Non-Regulatory Alternatives. OSHA concludes that economic and 
social alternatives to a federal workplace standard fail to adequately 
protect employees in the shipyard employment industry from the hazards 
the proposal addresses. Tort liability laws and workers' compensation 
provide some protection, but institutional factors limit effective 
means of addressing the significant costs of occupational injuries and 
illnesses. Therefore, OSHA finds that this proposal will provide the 
necessary remedy.

VI. Environmental Assessment

    The proposed 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). The provisions of the standard focus on the reduction 
and avoidance of accidents occurring in shipyard employment. 
Consequently, no major negative impact is foreseen on air, water or 
soil quality, plant or animal life, the use of land or other aspects of 
the environment.

VII. Federalism

    OSHA has reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with E.O. 13132 
(64 FR 43255 (8/10/1999)) 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 that 
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 a clear constitutional authority and the presence of a 
problem of national scope. Additionally, the Order provides for 
preemption of State law only if there is a clear Congressional intent 
for the Agency to do so. Any such preemption is to be limited to the 
extent possible.
    Section 18 of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 667) expresses Congress' clear 
intent to preempt State laws relating to issues on which Federal OSHA 
has promulgated occupational safety or health standards. Under the OSH 
Act, a State can avoid preemption on issues covered by Federal 
standards 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 State Plan 
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 unduly burden commerce or 
must be justified by compelling local conditions (see section 
18(c)(2)). The Federal standards on shipyard employment operations 
address hazards that are not unique to any one State or region of the 
country.
    Subject to these requirements, States with occupational safety and 
health plans approved under section 18 of the OSH Act are free to 
develop and enforce under State law their own requirements for safety 
and health standards. A State Plan State can develop its own State 
standards to deal with any special problems that might be encountered 
in a particular State. Moreover, because this standard is written, to 
the extent possible, in general performance-oriented terms, there is 
considerable flexibility for State Plans to require, and for employers 
to use, methods of compliance which are appropriate to the working 
conditions covered by the standard. However, most shipyards even in 
State Plan States remain subject to Federal OSHA jurisdiction as only a 
few States (California, Minnesota, Vermont and Washington) have elected 
to cover shipyards and other maritime employment.
    The Agency concludes that this proposed rule complies with E.O. 
13132. In States without OSHA-approved State Plans, Congress expressly 
provides for OSHA standards to preempt State job safety and health 
rules in areas addressed by Agency standards; in these States, the 
proposed rule would limit State policy options in the same manner as 
every OSHA standard. In States with OSHA-approved State Plans, this 
action would not significantly limit State policy options; these States 
will be able to address any special conditions within the framework of 
the OSH Act while ensuring that their standards are at least as 
effective as the Federal standard. State comments are invited on this 
proposal and will be fully considered prior to promulgation of a final 
rule.

VIII. Unfunded Mandates

    For the purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 
U.S.C. 1501, et seq.), as well as E.O. 12875, this rule does not 
include any Federal mandate that may result in increased expenditures 
by State, local, and tribal governments, or increased expenditures by 
the private sector of more than $100 million.

IX. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The proposed standard for General Working Conditions in Shipyard 
Employment contains collection-of-information (paperwork) requirements 
that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
and OMB regulations (5 CFR part 1320). The PRA-95 defines "collection of 
information" as "the obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting, or 
requiring the disclosure to third parties or the public of facts or opinions 
by or for an agency regardless of form or format * * *" (44 U.S.C. 
3502(3)(A)).
    The collection-of-information requirements identified in the NPRM 
have been submitted to OMB for review (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). OSHA 
solicits comments on the collection-of-information requirements and the 
estimated burden hours associated with these collections including 
comment on the following:
     Whether the proposed collection-of-information 
requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's 
functions, including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and 
costs) of the collection-of-information requirements, including the 
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information 
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply, 
for example, by using automated or other technological information 
collection and transmission techniques.
    The title, description of the need for and proposed use of the 
information, summary of the collections of information, description of 
respondents, and frequency of response of the information collection 
are described below, along with an estimate of the annual reporting 
burden and cost as required by 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) and 1320.8(d)(2).
    Title: General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment (29 CFR 
part 1915, subpart F).

Description and Proposed Use of the Collection-of-Information 
Requirements

    OSHA is proposing to revise and update the existing standards in 
subpart F of 29 CFR part 1915 that address hazardous working conditions 
in shipyard employment. These standards cover many diverse working 
conditions in shipyard employment, including housekeeping, lighting, 
utilities, work in confined or isolated spaces, lifeboats, sanitation, 
and medical services and first aid.
    OSHA also proposes to add new requirements to protect employees 
from hazardous working conditions that subpart F does not currently 
address. These proposed additions include the control of hazardous 
energy (lockout/tagout); motor vehicle safety equipment, operation and 
maintenance; accident prevention tags; and servicing multi-piece and 
single piece rim wheels.
    OSHA adopted the existing subpart F standards in 1972 (37 FR 22458 
(10/19/1972)) pursuant to section 6(a) of the Occupational Safety and 
Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.). Section 6(a) 
permitted OSHA, within two years of the passage of the OSH Act, to 
adopt as an occupational safety or health standard any national 
consensus and established Federal standards (29 U.S.C. 655(a)). The 
provisions in subpart F were adopted from existing Federal regulations 
promulgated under Section 41 of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' 
Compensation Act (LHWCA) (33 U.S.C. 941), as well as national consensus 
standards.
    OSHA believes the proposed revisions and additions to subpart F are 
necessary and reasonable to protect the safety and health of shipyard 
employees.
    The following table identifies and describes the need for the new 
collection-of-information requirements contained in the proposed 
standard.

   Table 10.--Collection of Information Requirements Contained in the
                            Proposed Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Collection-of-Information Requirements Contained in the Proposed
                                Standard
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   1915.87(f)(3): The employer shall store stretchers in a clearly-
 marked location in a manner that prevents damage and protects them from
 environmental conditions.
Marking the location of the stretchers ensures that they will be easily
 located in the event of an emergency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   1915.89(b)(4)(i): Energy control procedures. (i) Procedures shall
 be developed, documented and utilized for the control of potentially
 hazardous energy when employees are engaged in the activities covered
 by this section.
Employers use this information as the basis for effectively identifying
 operations and processes in the workplace that require energy control
 procedures; ensuring the safe application, use and removal of energy
 controls; and providing information and training to employees about the
 purpose and function of energy-control procedures. These procedures
 ensure that employees are protected while working on machines,
 equipment or systems that potentially contain hazardous energy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   1915.89(b)(6)(i): The employer shall conduct a periodic
 inspection of each energy control procedure at least annually to ensure
 that the procedures and the requirements of this standard are being
 followed and to correct any deficiencies.
This information will be used as a basis for employee retraining and to
 determine whether employers need to revise their energy control
 procedures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   1915.89(b)(6)(ii): The employer shall certify that the periodic
 inspections have been performed. The certification shall identify the
 machine, equipment or system on which the energy control procedure was
 being utilized, the date of the inspection, the employees included in
 the inspection and the person performing the inspection.
Certifying the inspections assures that the employer has performed a
 periodic inspection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   1915.89(b)(7)(iv): Certification. The employer shall certify that
 employee training has been accomplished and is being kept up to date.
 The certification shall contain each employee's name and dates of
 training.
Written certification assures the employer that employees receive the
 training specified by the Standard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   1915.89(b)(9): Notification of employees. Affected employees
 shall be notified by the employer or authorized employee of the
 application and removal of lockout devices or tagout devices.
 Notification shall be given before the controls are applied, and after
 they are removed from the machine, equipment or system.
Sec.   1915.89(d)(2)(ii): After lockout or tagout devices have been
 removed and before a machine equipment or system is started, affected
 employees shall be notified that the lockout or tagout device(s) have
 been removed.
OSHA is not taking a paperwork burden for this specification because it
 does not add burden to the notification requirement in paragraph
 (b)(9).
Sec.   1915.89(d)(3)(ii): Lockout or tagout devices removal. Each
 lockout or tagout device shall be removed from each energy isolating
 device by the employee who applied the device.

Exception to paragraph (d)(3): When the authorized employee who applied
 the lockout or tagout device is not available to remove it, that device
 may be removed under the direction of the employer, provided that
 specific procedures and training for such removal have been developed,
 documented and incorporated into the employer's energy control program.
 The employer shall demonstrate that the specific procedure provides
 equivalent safety to the removal of the device by the authorized
 employee who applied it. The specific procedures shall include at least
 the following elements:
    (ii) Making all reasonable efforts to contact the authorized
     employee to inform he or she that his or her lockout or tagout
     device has been removed; and
    (iii) Ensuring that the authorized employee has this knowledge
     before he/she resumes work at that facility.
Such notification informs employees of the impending interruption of the
 normal production operations, and serves as a reminder of the
 restrictions imposed on them by the energy-control program. In
 addition, this requirement ensures that employees do not attempt to
 reactivate a machine or piece of equipment after an authorized employee
 isolates its energy source and renders it inoperative. Notifying
 employees after removing an energy-control device alerts them that the
 machines and equipment are no longer safe for servicing, maintenance,
 and repair.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   1915.89(e)(2)(i): Outside personnel (contractors, ship's crew,
 etc.) Whenever outside servicing personnel such as contractors or
 ship's crew are to be engaged in activities covered by the scope and
 application of this standard, the on-site employer and the outside
 employer shall inform each other of their respective lockout or tagout
 procedures.
This provision ensures that each employer knows about the unique energy-
 control procedures used by the other employer preventing any
 misunderstanding regarding the implementation of lockout or tagout
 procedures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   1915.94 Servicing multi-piece and single piece rim wheels.
Sec.   1910.177(d)(5): Current charts or rim manuals containing
 instructions for the type of wheels being serviced shall be available
 in the service area.
Paragraph (d)(3)(iv) requires that when restraining devices and barriers
 are removed from service because they are defective, they shall not be
 returned to service until they are repaired and reinspected. If the
 repair is structural, the manufacturer or a Registered Professional
 Engineer must certify that the strength requirements specified in
 (d)(3)(i) of the Standard have been met.
The certification records are used to assure that equipment has been
 repaired properly. The certification records also provide the most
 efficient means for OSHA compliance officers to determine that an
 employer is complying with the Standard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Control Number: 1218 0NEW.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.
    Number of Respondents: 639.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Average Time per response: Time per response ranges from 15 seconds 
for affected employees to be notified of the application and removal of 
lockout and tagout devices to 80 hours for large shipyards (shipyards 
employing more than 250 employees) to develop energy control 
procedures.
    Estimated Total Burden hours: 10,491.
    Estimated Costs (Operation and Maintenance): 0.
    Interested parties who wish to comment on the collection-of-
information requirements contained in this proposal must send their 
written comments regarding the burden hour and cost estimates or other 
aspects of the information collection request to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for OSHA 
(RIN 1218-AB50), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. The Agency also encourages 
commenters to submit their comments on these collection-of-information 
requirements to OSHA, along with their comments on the proposed rule. 
(See ADDRESSES section.). Persons are not required to respond to the 
collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB number.
    To read or download the complete ICR, go to http://www.regulations.gov
(Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675) or http://www.dockets.osha.gov
(Docket No. S-049). You also may obtain an electronic copy of the complete 
ICR at http://www.reginfo.gov. Click on "Inventory of Approved Information 
Collection Collections, Collection Under Review, Recently Approved/Expired," 
then scroll under "Currently Under Review" to Department of Labor (DOL) to 
view all of DOL's ICRs, including those ICRS submitted for proposed rulemakings. 
For further information, contact Mr. Todd Owen, OSHA, Directorate of 
Standards and Guidance, OSHA, Room N-3609, U.S. Department of Labor, 
200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 
693-2222.

X. State Plan States

    When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or standards amendment 
which imposes additional or more stringent requirements than an 
existing standard, the 26 States and U.S. Territories with their own 
OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plans must revise their 
standards to reflect the new standard or amendment, or show the Agency 
why such action is unnecessary (e.g., because an existing State 
standard covering this area already is at least as effective as the new 
Federal standard or amendment) (29 U.S.C. 553.5(a)). The State standard 
must be at least as effective as the final Federal rule, must be 
applicable to both the private and public (i.e., State and local 
government employees) sectors, and must be completed within six months 
of the publication date of the final Federal rule. When OSHA 
promulgates a new standard or amendment that does not impose additional 
or more stringent requirements than an existing standard, States are 
not required to revise their standards, although the Agency may 
encourage them to do so. The 26 States and Territories with OSHA-
approved State Plans are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana, 
Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, 
North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, 
Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. Connecticut, New Jersey, 
New York, and the Virgin Islands have OSHA-approved State Plans that 
apply to State and local government employees only.
    Since this proposed rule imposes additional or more stringent 
requirements, State Plans that cover maritime issues and/or have public 
employees working in the maritime industries covered by this standard 
would be required to revise their standard appropriately within six 
months of publication of the final rule.

XI. Public Participation

Submission of Comments and Access to Docket

    OSHA invites comments on all aspects of the proposed rule. 
Throughout this document OSHA has invited comment on specific issues 
and requested information and data about practices at your 
establishment and in your industry. OSHA will carefully review and 
evaluate these comments, information and data, as well as all other 
information in the rulemaking record, to determine how to proceed.
    You may submit comments in response to this document (1) 
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (FAX); or (3) by hard copy. All 
comments, attachments and other material must identify the Agency name 
and the OSHA docket number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-S049-
2006-0675). You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading 
document files electronically. If, instead, you wish to mail additional 
materials in reference to an electronic or fax submission, you must 
submit three copies to the OSHA Docket Office (see ADDRESSES section). 
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments 
by name, date, and docket number so OSHA can attach them to your 
comments.
    Because of security-related procedures, the use of regular mail may 
cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information 
about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, 
express delivery, messenger or courier service, please contact the OSHA 
Docket Office at (202) 693-2350 (TTY (877) 889-5627).
    Comments and submissions in response to this Federal Register 
notice are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov (Docket 
No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675--). Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about 
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and 
date of birth.
    Exhibits referenced in this Federal Register document are posted at 
http://www.regulations.gov (Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675) and/or at 
http://dockets.osha.gov (OSHA Docket Nos. S-049, SESAC-1988 through 
SESAC-1993, MACOSH-1995 through MACOSH-2005, S-012, S-012A, S-012B, S-
024, H-308).
    Although all submissions in response to this Federal Register 
notice and exhibits referenced in this Federal Register notice are 
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov and/or http://dockets.osha.gov 
indexes, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly 
available to read or download through those Webpages. All submissions 
and exhibits, including copyrighted material, are available for 
inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using 
http://www.regulations.gov to submit comments and access dockets is 
available at the Webpage's User Tips link. Contact the OSHA Docket 
Office for information about materials not available through the 
Webpage and for assistance in using the Internet to locate docket 
submissions.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register document are available 
at http://www.regulations.gov. This document, as well as news releases 
and other relevant information, also are available at OSHA's Webpage at 
http://www.osha.gov.

Requests for Informal Public Hearings

    Under section 6(b)(3) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 655) and 29 CFR 
1911.11, interested parties may request an informal public hearing. 
Hearing requests must be submitted to the OSHA Docket Office at the 
address above and must comply with the following:
    (1) The hearing requests must include the name and address of the 
person submitting them;
    (2) The hearing requests must be submitted (postmarked or sent) by 
March 19, 2008.
    (3) The hearing requests must specify with particularity the 
provision of the proposed rule to which each objection is taken and the 
basis for the objection;
    (4) Each hearing request must be separately stated and numbered; 
and
    (5) The hearing requests must be accompanied by a detailed summary 
of the evidence proposed to be presented at the requested hearing.

List of Subjects

29 CFR Part 1910

    Hazardous substances, Occupational safety and health, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, and Vessels.

29 CFR Part 1915

    Hazardous substances, Longshore and harbor workers, Occupational 
safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and 
Vessels.

XII. Authority and Signature

    This document was prepared under the direction of Edwin G. Foulke, 
Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20210. It is issued under sections 4, 6 and 8 of the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), section 941 of 
the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 901 et 
seq.), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), and 29 CFR 
part 1911.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 7th day of December, 2007.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

XIII. The Proposed Standard

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, OSHA proposes to amend 
29 CFR parts 1910 and 1915 as follows:

PART 1910--[AMENDED]

    Part 1910 of title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulation is hereby 
proposed to be amended as follows:

Subpart J--[Amended]

    1. The authority citation for subpart J of 29 CFR part 1910 is 
revised to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 
(36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 
9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008) 
or 5-2007 (72 FR 31159) as applicable.
    Section 1910.145 also issued under 29 CFR part 1911.

    2. In Sec.  1910.145, paragraphs (a)(1) and (f)(1)(ii) are revised 
to read as follows:


Sec.  1910.145  Specifications for accident prevention signs and tags.

    (a) Scope. (1) These specifications apply to the design, 
application, and use of signs or symbols (as included in paragraphs (c) 
through (e) of this section) intended to indicate and, insofar as 
possible, to define specific hazards of a nature such that failure to 
designate them may lead to accidental injury to workers or the public, 
or both, or to property damage. These specifications are intended to 
cover all safety signs except those designed for streets, highways, and 
railroads. These specifications do not apply to plant bulletin boards 
or to safety posters.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) This paragraph (f) does not apply to construction or 
agriculture.
* * * * *
    3. In Sec.  1910.147, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as 
follows:

Sec.  1910.147  The control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout).

    (a) Scope, application, and purpose--(1) Scope.
    (i) This standard covers the servicing and maintenance of machines 
and equipment in which the unexpected energization or start up of the 
machines or equipment, or release of stored energy could cause injury 
to employees. This standard establishes minimum performance 
requirements for the control of such hazardous energy.
    (ii) This standard does not cover the following:
    (A) Construction and agriculture employment; and
    (B) Employment covered by parts 1915, 1917, and 1918 of this title.

    Note to paragraph (a)(1): Section 1910.147 applies to the 
servicing of equipment onboard vessels that is used for inherently 
general industry operations such as fish processing. However, if 
such servicing is part of a general overhaul and repair of the 
entire vessel, part 1915 applies.

* * * * *

Subpart N--[Amended]

    4. The authority citation for subpart N of 29 CFR part 1910 is 
revised to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 
(36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 
9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008) 
or 5-2007 (72 FR 31159) as applicable.
    Section 1910.177 also issued under 29 CFR part 1911.

    5. In Sec.  1910.177, paragraph (a)(2) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1910.177  Servicing multi-piece and single piece rim wheels.

    (a) * * *
    (2) This section does not apply to employers and places of 
employment regulated under the Longshoring Standards, 29 CFR part 1918, 
Construction Safety Standards, 29 CFR part 1926; or Agriculture 
Standards, 29 CFR part 1928.
* * * * *

PART 1915--[AMENDED]

    6. The authority citation for part 1915 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Sec. 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation 
Act (33 U.S.C. 941); secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health 
Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order 
No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 
(55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 
65008) or 5-2007 (72 FR 31159) as applicable; 29 CFR part 1911.

Subpart F--[Amended]

    7. Subpart F of 29 CFR part 1915 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart F--General Working Conditions
Sec.
1915.80 Scope and application.
1915.81 Housekeeping.
1915.82 Lighting.
1915.83 Utilities.
1915.84 Work in confined or isolated spaces.
1915.85 Vessel radar and radio transmitters.
1915.86 Lifeboats.
1915.87 Medical services and first aid.
1915.88 Sanitation.
1915.89 Control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout).
1915.90 Safety color code for marking physical hazards.
1915.91 Accident prevention signs and tags.
1915.92 Retention of DOT markings, placards, and labels.
1915.93 Motor vehicle safety equipment, operation, and maintenance.
1915.94 Servicing multi-piece and single-piece rim wheels.
1915.95 Definitions.

Subpart F--General Working Conditions


Sec.  1915.80  Scope and application.

    The provisions of this subpart apply to general working conditions 
in shipyard employment, regardless of geographic location, including 
work onboard vessels, vessel sections, and landside operations.


Sec.  1915.81  Housekeeping.

    (a) The employer shall maintain good housekeeping conditions to 
ensure that walking and working surfaces do not create a hazard for 
employees. The employer shall ensure that these conditions are 
maintained at all times.
    (b) The employer shall ensure that walking and working surfaces 
provide adequate space for work and passage.
    (c) The employer shall ensure that only tools, materials, and 
equipment necessary to perform the job in progress are kept on walking 
and working surfaces. All other tools, materials, and equipment shall 
be stored or located in an area that does not interfere with walking 
and working surfaces.
    (d) The employer shall ensure that the floor or deck of every work 
area shall be maintained, so far as practicable, in a dry condition. 
Where wet processes are used, drainage shall be maintained and the 
employer shall provide false floors, platforms, mats or other dry 
standing places. Where this is not practicable, the employer shall 
provide appropriate waterproof footgear, such as rubber overboots, in 
accordance with Sec.  1915.152.
    (e) The employer shall ensure that walking and working surfaces are 
kept clear of debris, including solid and liquid wastes, and other 
objects that may create a safety or health hazard to employees, such as 
protruding nails, splinters, loose boards, and unnecessary holes and 
openings.
    (f) The employer shall ensure that free access is maintained to 
exits, firealarm boxes, fire call stations, and firefighting equipment.
    (g) The employer shall ensure that slippery conditions, such as 
snow and ice, on walking and working surfaces are eliminated as they 
occur.
    (h) The employer shall ensure that construction materials are 
stacked in a manner that does not create a hazard to employees.
    (i) The employer shall ensure that hoses and electrical service 
cords are hung over or placed under walking and working surfaces or 
covered by crossovers to prevent injury to employees and damage to the 
hoses and cords.
    (j) The employer shall ensure that flammable substances, such as 
paint thinners, solvents, rags and waste, are stored in covered fire-
resistant containers when not in use.
    (k) The employer shall ensure that combustible scrap is removed 
from work areas as soon as possible.


Sec.  1915.82  Lighting.

    (a) General Requirements. (1) The employer shall ensure that each 
area of the workplace is illuminated to at least the intensities in 
Table 1 whenever an employee is present. The requirement to provide 
illumination in accordance with Table 1 applies to permanent and 
temporary lighting.

                       Table 1 to Subpart F.--Minimum Lighting Intensities in Foot-Candles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Lumens  (foot-candles)                                      Area or operation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3...............................  General areas on vessels and vessel sections such as accessways, exits,
                                   gangways, stairs, and walkways.
5...............................  General landside areas such as corridors, exits, stairs, and walkways.
5...............................  All assigned work areas on any vessel or vessel section. Landside tunnels,
                                   shafts, vaults, pumping stations, and underground work areas.
10..............................  Landside work areas such as machine shops, electrical equipment rooms,
                                   carpenter shops, lofts, tool rooms, warehouses, and outdoor work areas.
10..............................  Changing rooms, showers, sewered toilet facilities, and eating, drinking, and
                                   break areas.
30..............................  First aid stations, infirmaries, and offices.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Note to Table 1: The values in table 1 do not apply to emergency 
or handheld portable lights.

    (2) The employer shall ensure that matches and open flame devices 
are not used for lighting.
    (b) Temporary lights. The employer shall ensure that temporary 
lights meet the following requirements:
    (1) Lights with bulbs that are not completely recessed are equipped 
with guards to prevent accidental contact;
    (2) Lights are equipped with electric cords designed with 
sufficient capacity to safely carry the electric load;
    (3) Connections and insulation are maintained in a safe condition;
    (4) Lights and lighting stringers are not suspended solely by their 
electric cords unless they are designed by the manufacturer to be 
suspended in this way;
    (5) Lighting stringers do not overload branch circuits;
    (6) Branch circuits are equipped with over-current protection whose 
capacity does not exceed the rated current-carrying capacity of the 
cord used;
    (7) Splices have insulation with a capacity that exceeds that of 
the cable; and
    (8) Exposed, non-current-carrying metal parts of lights are 
grounded. The employer shall ensure that grounding is provided either 
through a third wire in the cable containing the circuit conductors or 
through a separate wire that is grounded at the source of the current. 
Grounding shall be done in accordance with the requirements of Sec.  
1915.132(b).
    (c) Handheld portable lights. (1) In any dark area that does not 
have permanent or temporary lights, where lights are not working, or 
are not readily accessible, the employer shall provide handheld 
portable lights and ensure that employees do not enter those areas 
without such lights.
    (2) Where temporary lighting from sources outside the vessel or 
vessel section is the only means of illumination, the employer shall 
ensure that handheld portable lights are available in the immediate 
work area to provide illumination so each employee is able to move 
safely if the temporary lights fail.
    (3) The employer shall ensure that only explosion-proof, self-
contained handheld portable lights are used in areas that are not gas-
free, or other electric equipment approved by a nationally recognized 
testing laboratory (NRTL). Handheld portable lights bearing the 
approval of a NRTL for the class and division of the location in which 
they are used are considered to meet the requirements of this 
paragraph.


Sec.  1915.83  Utilities.

    (a) Steam supply system. The employer shall ensure that the 
vessel's steam piping system, including hoses, has a safe working 
pressure prior to supplying steam from an outside source. The employer 
shall ensure that each steam supply system meets the following:
    (1) A pressure gauge and a relief valve are installed at the point 
where the temporary steam hose joins the vessel's steam piping system;
    (2) Each relief valve is set and is capable of relieving steam at a 
pressure that does not exceed the safe working pressure of the system 
in its present condition;
    (3) There are no means of disconnecting any relief valve from the 
system that it protects;
    (4) Each pressure gauge and relief valve is kept in legible 
condition and located so it is visible and readily accessible; and
    (5) The relief valve is positioned or placed in a location where it 
is not likely to cause injury if it is activated.
    (b) Steam hoses. The employer shall ensure that each steam hose 
meets the following:
    (1) The steam hose and its fittings have a safety factor of at 
least five (5);
    (2) The steam hose is hung with short bights to prevent chafing and 
to reduce tension on the hose and its fittings;
    (3) Each steam hose is protected from damage; and
    (4) Each steam hose or temporary piping passing through a walking 
or working area is shielded to protect employees from contact.
    (c) Electric shore power. When a vessel is supplied with electric 
shore power, the employer shall ensure the following precautions are 
taken prior to energizing the vessel's circuits:
    (1) The vessel is grounded if it is in dry dock;
    (2) Circuits to be energized are in a safe condition; and
    (3) Circuits to be energized are equipped with over-current 
protection that does not exceed the rated current-carrying capacity of 
the conductors.
    (d) Heat lamps. The employer shall ensure that heat lamps, 
including the face, are equipped with surround-type guards to prevent 
contact with the lamp and bulb.


Sec.  1915.84  Work in confined or isolated spaces.

    Except as provided in Sec.  1915.51(c)(3) of this part, whenever an 
employee is working in a confined space or alone in an isolated 
location, the employer shall ensure that each employee is:
    (a) Checked frequently during each workshift to ensure the 
employee's safety; and
    (b) Accounted for at the end of each workshift.


Sec.  1915.85  Vessel radar and radio transmitters.

    (a) The employer shall secure each radar and radio transmitter so 
it is incapable of energizing or emitting radiation before any employee 
begins to work on it or on a mast, king post, or other area near the 
radar or radio transmitter.
    (b) The employer shall ensure that hazardous energy is controlled 
in accordance with Sec.  1915.89 Control of Hazardous Energy prior to 
servicing, repairing or testing any vessel radar or radio transmitter.
    (c) The employer shall schedule the testing of radar or radio 
transmitter at a time when no work is in progress aloft or when 
personnel can be cleared a minimum safe distance from the danger area. 
The employer shall follow minimum safe distances established for the 
type, model, and power of the equipment being tested.

Sec.  1915.86  Lifeboats.

    (a) The employer shall ensure that before any employee works in or 
on a lifeboat, either in a stowed or suspended position, that the 
lifeboat is secured independently of the releasing gear to prevent it 
from falling or capsizing.
    (b) The employer shall not permit any employee to be in a lifeboat 
while it is being hoisted.
    (c) The employer shall not permit any employee to work on the 
outboard side of a lifeboat that is stowed on chocks unless the 
lifeboat is secured by gripes or another device that prevents it from 
swinging outboard.


Sec.  1915.87  Medical services and first aid.

    (a) General Requirement. The employer shall ensure that medical 
services and first aid are readily accessible.
    (b) Advice and consultation. The employer shall ensure that health 
care professionals are readily available for advice and consultation on 
matters of workplace health.
    (c) First aid providers. (1) The employer shall ensure that there 
are an adequate number of employees at each work location during each 
workshift who are qualified to render first aid, including 
cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The employer shall consider the 
following factors in determining the number of employees who must have 
first aid training: Size and location of each shipyard work location; 
the number of employees at each work location; the nature of the 
hazards present at each work location; and the distance of each work 
location from hospitals, clinics, and rescue squads.
    (2) The employer shall ensure that any employee designated to 
provide first aid has a valid first aid certificate, such as is issued 
by the Red Cross, American Heart Association, or other equivalent 
organization.
    (d) First aid supplies.(1) The employer shall provide and maintain 
adequate first aid supplies at each work location.
    (2) The employer shall ensure that the placement, content, and 
amount of first aid supplies are adequate for the size and location of 
each work location, the number of employees at each work location, the 
nature of the hazards present at each work location, and the distance 
of each work location from hospitals, clinics, and rescue squads.
    (3) The employer shall inspect first aid supplies at intervals that 
ensure supplies are in dry, sterile and serviceable condition.
    (e) Quick drenching/flushing facilities. Where there is a 
possibility that an employee could be injured if splashed with 
hazardous or toxic substances, the employer shall provide facilities 
for quick drenching or flushing the eyes and body. The employer shall 
ensure that a facility is located within each work area for immediate 
emergency use.
    (f) Basket stretchers. (1) The employer shall ensure there are an 
adequate number of basket stretchers, or the equivalent, readily 
accessible where work is being performed onboard a vessel or vessel 
section.
    (2) The employer shall ensure each stretcher is equipped with:
    (i) Permanent lifting bridles that enable the stretcher to be 
attached to hoisting gear and that are capable of lifting at least 
5,000 pounds (2,270 kg);
    (ii) Restraints that are capable of securely holding the injured 
employee while the stretcher is lifted or moved; and
    (iii) A blanket or other suitable covering for the injured 
employee.
    (3) The employer shall store stretchers in a clearly-marked 
location in a manner that prevents damage and protects them from 
environmental conditions.
    (4) The employer shall inspect stretchers at intervals that ensure 
they remain in a safe and serviceable condition.

Appendix A to Sec.  1915.87--First Aid Kits (Non-Mandatory)

    1. First aid supplies are required to be adequate and readily 
accessible under paragraphs Sec.  1915.88(a) and (d). An example of 
the minimal contents of a generic first aid kit for workplace 
settings is described in American National Standard (ANSI) Z308.1-
2003 "Minimum Requirements for Workplace First Aid Kits." The 
contents of the kit listed in the ANSI standard should be adequate 
for small work locations. When larger operations or multiple 
operations are being conducted at the same location, employers 
should determine the need for additional first aid kits at the work 
location, additional types of first aid equipment and supplies, and 
additional quantities and types of supplies and equipment in the 
first aid kits.
    2. In a similar fashion, employers who have unique or changing 
first aid needs in their workplace may need to enhance their first 
aid kits. The employer can use the OSHA 300 Log, OSHA 301's or other 
reports to identify these unique problems. Consultation from the 
local fire/rescue department, appropriate healthcare professional, 
or local emergency room may be helpful to employers in these 
circumstances. By assessing the specific needs of their workplace, 
employers can ensure that reasonably anticipated supplies are 
available. Employers should assess the specific needs of their 
worksite periodically and augment first aid kits appropriately.
    3. If it is reasonably anticipated that employees will be 
exposed to blood or other potentially infectious materials while 
using first aid supplies, employers are required to provide 
appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) in compliance with 
the provisions of the Occupational Exposure to Bloodborne Pathogens 
standard, Sec.  1910.1030(d)(3) (56 FR 64175). This standard lists 
appropriate PPE for this type of exposure, such as gloves, gowns, 
face shields, masks, and eye protection.


Sec.  1915.88  Sanitation

    (a) General Requirements. (1) The employer shall provide adequate 
and readily accessible sanitation facilities.
    (2) The employer shall supply and maintain each sanitation facility 
in a clean, sanitary, and serviceable condition.
    (b) Potable water. (1) The employer shall provide potable water for 
all employee health and personal needs and ensure that only potable 
water is used for these purposes.
    (2) The employer shall provide potable drinking water in amounts 
that are adequate to meet the health and personal needs of each 
employee.
    (3) The employer shall dispense drinking water from a fountain, a 
covered container with single-use drinking cups stored in a sanitary 
receptacle, or single-use bottles. The employer shall prohibit the use 
of shared drinking cups, dippers, and water bottles.
    (c) Non-potable water. (1) The employer may use non-potable water 
for other purposes such as firefighting and cleaning outdoor premises 
so long as it does not contain chemicals, fecal matter, coliform or 
other substances at levels that may create a hazard for employees.
    (2) The employer shall clearly mark non-potable water supplies and 
outlets as "not safe for health or personal use."
    (d) Toilet facilities--(1) General requirements. The employer shall 
ensure that sewered and portable toilet facilities:
    (i) Are separate for each sex, except as provided in paragraph 
(d)(1)(i)(B) of this section;
    (A) The number of toilet facilities provided for each sex shall be 
based on the maximum number of employees of that sex present at the 
workplace at any one time during a workshift. A single occupancy toilet 
room shall be counted as one toilet regardless of the number of toilets 
it contains;
    (B) The employer does not have to provide separate toilet 
facilities for each sex where they will not be occupied by more than 
one employee at a time, can be locked from the inside, and contain at 
least one toilet; and
    (ii) Ensure privacy at all times. Where a toilet room contains more 
than one toilet, each toilet shall occupy a separate compartment with a 
door and walls or partitions between them that are sufficiently high to 
ensure privacy.
    (2) Sewered toilet facilities. The employer shall provide at least 
the following number of sewered toilet facilities for each sex.

                          Table 2 to Subpart F
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Minimum number of toilet
      Number of employees of each sex                facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 to 15...................................  1
16 to 35..................................  2
36 to 55..................................  3
56 to 80..................................  4
81 to 110.................................  5
111 to 150................................  6
Over 150..................................  1 additional toilet facility
                                             for each additional 40
                                             employees.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Note to Table 2. Where toilet facilities will only be used by 
men, urinals may be provided instead of toilet facilities, except 
that the number of toilets in such cases shall not be reduced to 
less than \2/3\rds of the minimum specified.

    (3) Portable toilet facilities. In addition to the required number 
of sewered toilet facilities, the employer may also provide portable 
toilet facilities. The employer shall ensure that each portable toilet 
facility is maintained in a clean, sanitary and serviceable condition, 
equipped with adequate venting and, as necessary, lighting and heating.
    (4) Exception for normally unattended work locations. The 
requirement to provide toilet facilities does not apply to normally 
unattended work locations and mobile work crews, provided that the 
employer ensures that employees have immediately available 
transportation to readily accessible sanitation facilities that are 
maintained in a clean, sanitary and serviceable condition and meet the 
requirements of this section.
    (e) Handwashing facilities. (1) The employer shall provide 
handwashing facilities at or adjacent to each toilet facility.
    (2) The employer shall ensure that each handwashing facility:
    (i) Is equipped with either hot and cold or lukewarm running water 
and soap, or with waterless skin cleansing agents that are capable of 
disinfecting the skin or neutralizing the contaminants to which the 
employee may be exposed; and
    (ii) If the facility uses soap and water, it is supplied with 
clean, single-use hand towels stored in a sanitary container and a 
sanitary means for disposing of them, clean individual sections of 
continuous cloth toweling, or an air blower.
    (3) Exception for normally unattended work locations. The 
requirement to provide handwashing facilities does not apply to 
normally unattended work locations and mobile work crews, provided that 
the employer ensures that employees have immediately available 
transportation to readily accessible sanitation facilities that are 
maintained in a clean, sanitary and serviceable condition and meet the 
requirements of paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(2) of this section.
    (4) The employer shall inform each employee engaged in the 
application of paints or coatings or in other operations where 
hazardous or toxic substances can be ingested or absorbed about the 
need for removing surface contaminants by thorough washing of hands and 
face at the end of the workshift and prior to eating, drinking, or 
smoking.
    (f) Showers. (1) When showers are required by an OSHA standard, the 
employer shall provide one shower for each 10, or fraction of 10 
employees of each sex, who are required to shower during the same 
workshift.
    (2) The employer shall ensure that each shower is equipped with 
soap, hot and cold water, and clean towels for each employee who uses 
the shower.
    (g) Changing rooms. When an employer provides protective clothing 
to prevent employee exposure to hazardous or toxic substances, the 
employer shall provide the following:
    (1) Changing rooms that provide privacy for each sex; and
    (2) Storage facilities for street clothes and separate storage 
facilities for protective clothing.
    (h) Eating, drinking and break areas. The employer shall ensure 
that food, beverages and tobacco products are not consumed or stored in 
any area where hazardous or toxic substances may be present.
    (i) Waste disposal. (1) The employer shall provide waste 
receptacles that meet the following requirements:
    (i) Each receptacle is constructed of materials that are corrosion 
resistant, leak-proof and easily cleaned or disposable;
    (ii) Each receptacle is equipped with a solid tight-fitting cover, 
unless it can be kept in clean, sanitary and serviceable condition 
without the use of a cover;
    (iii) Receptacles are provided in numbers, sizes and locations that 
encourage their use; and
    (iv) Each receptacle is emptied as often as necessary to prevent it 
from overfilling and in a manner that does not create a hazard for 
employees. Waste receptacles for food shall be emptied at least every 
day, unless unused.
    (2) The employer shall not permit employees to work in the 
immediate vicinity of uncovered garbage that could endanger their 
safety and health.
    (3) The employer shall ensure that employees working beneath or on 
the outboard side of a vessel are not contaminated by drainage or waste 
from overboard discharges.
    (j) Vermin control. (1) To the extent reasonably practicable, the 
employer shall clean and maintain the workplace in a manner that 
prevents the harborage of vermin such as rodents, insects and birds.
    (2) Where vermin are detected, the employer shall implement and 
maintain an effective control program.


Sec.  1915.89  Control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout).

    (a) Scope, application and purpose--(1) Scope. This standard covers 
the servicing and maintenance of machines, equipment and systems in 
which the energization or start up of the machines, equipment, systems, 
or release of stored energy, could cause injury to employees. This 
standard establishes minimum performance requirements for the control 
of such hazardous energy.
    (2) Application. (i) This standard applies to the control of 
hazardous energy during servicing and maintenance of machines, 
equipment and systems, including those onboard vessels and vessel 
sections, including:
    (A) Servicing of ship's systems by any employee, including, but not 
limited to, ship's officers or crew of the vessel; and
    (B) Servicing of machines, equipment and systems that employees use 
in the course of shipyard employment.
    (ii) Normal production operations are not covered by this standard 
(See subpart O of 29 CFR part 1910 and subpart H of this part for 
machine guarding). Servicing and/or maintenance which takes place 
during normal production operations is covered by this standard only 
if:
    (A) An employee is required to remove or bypass a guard or other 
safety device; or
    (B) An employee is required to place any part of his or her body 
into an area on a machine, piece of equipment or system where work is 
actually performed upon the material being processed (point of 
operation) or where an associated danger zone exists during an 
operating cycle.

    Note to paragraph (a)(2(ii): Exception. Minor tool changes and 
adjustments, and other minor servicing activities, which take
place during normal production operations, are not covered by this 
standard if they are routine, repetitive, and integral to the use of 
the machine, equipment or system for production, provided that the 
work is performed using alternative measures which provide effective 
protection (See subpart O of 29 CFR part 1910).

    (iii) This standard does not apply to the following:
    (A) Work on cord and plug connected electric machines or equipment 
provided that energization or start up is controlled by the unplugging 
of the machines or equipment from the energy source and by the plug 
being under the exclusive control of the employee performing the 
servicing or maintenance;
    (B) Hot tap operations involving transmission and distribution 
systems for substances such as gas, steam, water or petroleum products 
when they are performed on pressurized pipelines, provided that the 
employer demonstrates that continuity of service is essential; shutdown 
is impractical; and documented procedures are followed, and special 
equipment is used that will provide proven effective protection for 
employees; and
    (C) The servicing and maintenance of machines, equipment and 
systems onboard vessels that are used for inherently general industry 
operations such as fish processing.
    (3) Purpose. (i) This section requires employers to establish a 
program and utilize procedures for affixing appropriate lockout devices 
or tagout devices to energy isolating devices and to otherwise disable 
machines, equipment or systems to prevent energization, start up or 
release of stored energy in order to prevent injury to employees.
    (ii) When other standards in this part or applicable standards in 
part 1910 require the use of lockout or tagout, they shall be used and 
supplemented by the procedural and training requirements of this 
section.
    (b) General--(1) Energy control program. The employer shall 
establish a program consisting of energy control procedures, employee 
training and periodic inspections to ensure that before any employee 
performs any servicing or maintenance where the energizing, startup or 
release of stored energy could occur and cause injury, the machine, 
equipment or system shall be isolated from the energy source and 
rendered inoperative.
    (2) Lockout/tagout. (i) If an energy isolating device is not 
capable of being locked out, the employer's energy control program 
under paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall utilize a tagout system.
    (ii) If an energy isolating device is capable of being locked out, 
the employer's energy control program under paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section shall utilize lockout, unless the employer can demonstrate that 
the utilization of a tagout system will provide full employee 
protection as set forth in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
    (iii) After [Insert Date 90 Days After Publication of a Final Rule 
in the Federal Register], whenever replacement or major repair, 
renovation or modification of a machine, equipment or system is 
performed, and whenever a new machine, equipment or system is 
installed, the employer shall ensure that energy isolating devices for 
the machine, equipment or system are designed to accept a lockout 
device. This requirement does not apply to a machine, equipment or 
system that is part of a vessel or vessel section the shipyard employer 
does not own.
    (3) Full employee protection. (i) When a tagout device is used on 
an energy isolating device that is capable of being locked out, the 
tagout device shall be attached at the same location that the lockout 
device would have been attached, and the employer shall demonstrate 
that the tagout program will provide a level of safety equivalent to 
that obtained by using a lockout program.
    (ii) In demonstrating that a level of safety is achieved in the 
tagout program that is equivalent to the level of safety obtained by 
using a lockout program, the employer shall demonstrate full compliance 
with all tagout-related provisions of this standard together with such 
additional elements as are necessary to provide the equivalent safety 
available from the use of a lockout device. Additional means to be 
considered as part of the demonstration of full employee protection 
shall include the implementation of additional safety measures, such as 
the removal of an isolating circuit element, blocking of a controlling 
switch, opening of an extra disconnecting device, or the removal of a 
valve handle to reduce the likelihood of inadvertent energization.
    (4) Energy control procedures. (i) Procedures shall be developed, 
documented and utilized for the control of potentially hazardous energy 
when employees are engaged in the activities covered by this section.

    Note to paragraph (b)(4)(i): Exception. The employer need not 
document the required procedure for a particular machine, equipment 
or system when all of the following elements exist: (1) The machine, 
equipment or system has no potential for stored or residual energy 
or reaccumulation of stored energy after shut down that could 
endanger employees; (2) the machine, equipment or system has a 
single energy source which can be readily identified and isolated; 
(3) the isolation and locking out of that energy source will 
completely deenergize and deactivate the machine, equipment or 
system; (4) the machine, equipment or system is isolated from that 
energy source and locked out during servicing or maintenance; (5) a 
single lockout device will achieve a locked-out condition; (6) the 
lockout device is under the exclusive control of the authorized 
employee performing the servicing or maintenance; (7) the servicing 
or maintenance does not create hazards for other employees; and (8) 
the employer, in utilizing this exception, has had no accidents 
involving the activation or reenergization of the machine, equipment 
or system during servicing or maintenance.

    (ii) Each procedure shall clearly and specifically outline the 
scope, purpose, authorization, rules and techniques to be utilized for 
the control of hazardous energy and the means to enforce compliance 
including, but not limited to, the following:
    (A) A specific statement of the intended use of the procedure;
    (B) Specific procedural steps for shutting down, isolating, 
blocking and securing machines, equipment or systems to control 
hazardous energy;
    (C) Specific procedural steps for the placement, removal and 
transfer of lockout devices or tagout devices and the responsibility 
for them; and
    (D) Specific requirements for testing a machine, equipment or 
system to determine and verify the effectiveness of lockout devices, 
tagout devices and other energy control measures.
    (5) Protective materials and hardware. (i) Locks, tags, chains, 
wedges, key blocks, adapter pins, self-locking fasteners, or other 
hardware shall be provided by the employer for isolating, securing or 
blocking of machines, equipment or systems from energy sources.
    (ii) Lockout devices and tagout devices shall be singularly 
identified; shall be the only devices(s) used for controlling energy; 
shall not be used for other purposes; and shall meet the following 
requirements:
    (A) Durable. (1) Lockout and tagout devices shall be capable of 
withstanding the environment to which they are exposed for the maximum 
period of time that exposure is expected.
    (2) Tagout devices shall be constructed and printed so that 
exposure to weather conditions or wet and damp locations will not cause 
the tag to deteriorate or the message on the tag to become illegible.
    (3) Tags shall not deteriorate when used in corrosive environments 
such as areas where acid and alkali chemicals are handled and stored.
    (B) Standardized. Lockout and tagout devices shall be standardized 
within the facility in at least one of the following criteria: Color; 
shape; or size; and additionally, in the case of tagout devices, print 
and format shall be standardized.
    (C) Substantial--(1) Lockout devices. Lockout devices shall be 
substantial enough to prevent removal without the use of excessive 
force or unusual techniques, such as with the use of bolt cutters or 
other metal cutting tools.
    (2) Tagout devices. Tagout devices, including their means of 
attachment, shall be substantial enough to prevent inadvertent or 
accidental removal. Tagout device attachment means shall be of a non-
reusable type, attachable by hand, self-locking and non-releasable with 
a minimum unlocking strength of no less than 50 pounds and having the 
general design and basic characteristics of being at least equivalent 
to a one-piece, all environment-tolerant nylon cable tie.
    (D) Identifiable. Lockout devices and tagout devices shall indicate 
the identity of the employee applying the device(s).
    (iii) Tagout devices shall warn against hazardous conditions if the 
machine, equipment or system is energized and shall include a legend 
such as the following: Do Not Start; Do Not Open; Do Not Close; Do Not 
Energize; Do Not Operate.
    (6) Periodic Inspection. (i) The employer shall conduct a periodic 
inspection of each energy control procedure at least annually to ensure 
that the procedures and the requirements of this standard are being 
followed and to correct any deficiencies.
    (A) The periodic inspection shall be performed by an authorized 
employee other than the employees(s) utilizing the energy control 
procedure being inspected.
    (B) Where lockout is used for energy control, the periodic 
inspection shall include a review between the inspector and each 
authorized employee of that employee's responsibilities under the 
energy control procedure being inspected.
    (C) Where tagout is used for energy control, the periodic 
inspection shall include a review between the inspector and each 
authorized and affected employee of that employee's responsibilities 
under the energy control procedure being inspected and the elements set 
forth in paragraph (b)(7)(ii) of this section.
    (ii) The employer shall certify that the periodic inspections have 
been performed. The certification shall identify the machine, equipment 
or system on which the energy control procedure was being utilized, the 
date of the inspection, the employees included in the inspection and 
the person performing the inspection.
    (7) Training and communication. (i) General. The employer shall 
provide training to ensure that the purpose and function of the energy 
control program are understood by employees and that the knowledge and 
skills required for the safe application, usage and removal of the 
energy controls are acquired by employees. The training shall include 
the following:
    (A) Each authorized employee shall receive training in the 
recognition of applicable hazardous energy sources, the type and 
magnitude of the energy available in the workplace and the methods and 
means necessary for energy isolation and control.
    (B) Each affected employee shall be instructed in the purpose and 
use of the energy control procedure.
    (C) Each affected employee and all other employees whose work 
operations are or may be in an area where energy control procedures may 
be utilized shall be instructed about the procedure and about the 
prohibition relating to attempts to restart or reenergize machines, 
equipment or system which are locked out or tagged out.
    (ii) Tagout System Training. When tagout systems are used, 
employees shall also be trained in the following limitations of tags:
    (A) Tags are essentially warning devices affixed to energy 
isolating devices and do not provide the physical restraint on those 
devices that is provided by a lock;
    (B) When a tag is attached to an energy isolating means, it is not 
to be removed without authorization of the authorized person 
responsible for it and it is never to be bypassed, ignored, or 
otherwise defeated;
    (C) Tags must be legible and understandable by all authorized 
employees, affected employees and all other employees whose work 
operations are or may be in the area;
    (D) Tags and their means of attachment must be made of materials 
which will withstand the environmental conditions encountered in the 
workplace;
    (E) Tags may evoke a false sense of security and their meaning 
needs to be understood as part of the overall energy control program; 
and
    (F) Tags must be securely attached to energy isolating devices so 
that they cannot be inadvertently or accidentally detached during use.
    (iii) Employee retraining. (A) Retraining shall be provided for all 
authorized and affected employees whenever there is a change in their 
job assignments; a change in machines, equipment, systems or processes 
that present a new hazard; or when there is a change in the energy 
control procedures.
    (B) Additional retraining shall also be conducted whenever a 
periodic inspection under paragraph (b)(6) of this section reveals, or 
whenever the employer has reason to believe, that there are deviations 
from or inadequacies in the employee's knowledge or use of the energy 
control procedures.
    (C) The retraining shall reestablish employee proficiency and 
introduce new or revised control methods and procedures, as necessary.
    (iv) Certification. The employer shall certify that employee 
training has been accomplished and is being kept up to date. The 
certification shall contain each employee's name and dates of training.
    (8) Energy isolation. Lockout or tagout shall be performed only by 
the authorized employees who are performing the servicing or 
maintenance.
    (9) Notification of employees. Affected employees shall be notified 
by the employer or authorized employee of the application and removal 
of lockout devices or tagout devices. Notification shall be given 
before the controls are applied and after they are removed from the 
machine, equipment or system.
    (c) Application of control. The established procedures for the 
application of energy control (the lockout or tagout procedures) shall 
cover the following elements and actions and shall be done in the 
following sequence:
    (1) Preparation for shutdown. Before an authorized or affected 
employee turns off a machine, equipment or system, the authorized 
employee shall have knowledge of the type and magnitude of the energy, 
the hazards of the energy to be controlled and the method or means to 
control the energy.
    (2) Machine, equipment or system shutdown. The machine, equipment 
or system shall be turned off or shut down using the procedures 
established for the machine, equipment or system. An orderly shutdown 
must be utilized to avoid any additional or increased hazard(s) to 
employees as a result of the equipment stoppage.
    (3) Machine, equipment or system isolation. All energy isolating 
devices that are needed to control the energy to the machine, equipment or 
system shall be physically located and operated in such a manner as to 
isolate the machine, equipment or system from the energy source(s).
    (4) Lockout or tagout device application. (i) Lockout or tagout 
devices shall be affixed to each energy isolating device by authorized 
employees.
    (ii) Lockout devices, where used, shall be affixed in a manner that 
will hold the energy isolating devices in a "safe" or "off" 
position.
    (iii) Tagout devices, where used, shall be affixed in such a manner 
as will clearly indicate that the operation or movement of energy 
isolating devices from the "safe" or "off" position is prohibited.
    (A) Where tagout devices are used with energy isolating devices 
designed with the capability of being locked, the tag attachment shall 
be fastened at the same point at which the lock would have been 
attached.
    (B) Where a tag cannot be affixed directly to the energy isolating 
device, the tag shall be located as close as safely possible to the 
device, in a position that will be immediately obvious to anyone 
attempting to operate the device.
    (5) Stored energy. (i) Following the application of lockout or 
tagout devices to energy isolating devices, all potentially hazardous 
stored or residual energy shall be relieved, disconnected, restrained 
and otherwise rendered safe.
    (ii) If there is a possibility of reaccumulation of stored energy 
to a hazardous level, verification of isolation shall be continued 
until the servicing or maintenance is completed, or until the 
possibility of such accumulation no longer exists.
    (6) Verification of isolation. Prior to starting work on machines, 
equipment or system that have been locked out or tagged out, the 
authorized employee shall verify that isolation and deenergization of 
the machine, equipment or system have been accomplished.
    (d) Release from lockout or tagout. Before lockout or tagout 
devices are removed and energy is restored to the machine, equipment or 
system, procedures shall be followed and actions taken by the 
authorized employee(s) to ensure the following:
    (1) The machine, equipment or system. The work area shall be 
inspected to ensure that nonessential items have been removed and to 
ensure that machine, equipment or system components are operationally 
intact.
    (2) Employees. (i) The work area shall be checked to ensure that 
all employees have been safely positioned or removed.
    (ii) After lockout or tagout devices have been removed and before a 
machine, equipment or system is started, affected employees shall be 
notified that the lockout or tagout device(s) have been removed.
    (3) Lockout or tagout devices removal. Each lockout or tagout 
device shall be removed from each energy isolating device by the 
employee who applied the device.

    Note to paragraph (d)(3): Exception. When the authorized 
employee who applied the lockout or tagout device is not available 
to remove it, that device may be removed under the direction of the 
employer, provided that specific procedures and training for such 
removal have been developed, documented and incorporated into the 
employer's energy control program. The employer shall demonstrate 
that the specific procedure provides equivalent safety to the 
removal of the device by the authorized employee who applied it. The 
specific procedure shall include at least the following elements:
    (i) Verification by the employer that the authorized employee 
who applied the device is not at the facility;
    (ii) Making all reasonable efforts to contact the authorized 
employee to inform he or she that his or her lockout or tagout 
device has been removed; and
    (iii) Ensuring that the authorized employee has this knowledge 
before he/she resumes work at that facility.

    (e) Additional requirements--(1) Testing or positioning of 
machines, equipment, systems, or their components. In situations in 
which lockout or tagout devices must be temporarily removed from the 
energy isolating device and the machine, equipment or system energized 
to test or position it, the following sequence of actions shall be 
followed:
    (i) Clear the machine, equipment, or system of tools and materials 
in accordance with paragraph (d)(1) of this section;
    (ii) Remove employees from the machine, equipment or system area in 
accordance with paragraph (d)(2) of this section;
    (iii) Remove the lockout or tagout devices as specified in 
paragraph (d)(3) of this section;
    (iv) Energize and proceed with testing or positioning; and
    (v) Deenergize all systems and reapply energy control measures in 
accordance with paragraph (c) of this section to continue the servicing 
and/or maintenance.
    (2) Outside personnel (contractors, ship's crew, etc.). (i) 
Whenever outside servicing personnel such as contractors or ship's crew 
are to be engaged in activities covered by the scope and application of 
this standard, the on-site employer and the outside employer shall 
inform each other of their respective lockout or tagout procedures.
    (ii) The on-site employer shall ensure that his/her employees 
understand and comply with the restrictions and prohibitions of the 
outside employer's energy control program.
    (3) Group lockout or tagout. (i) When servicing and/or maintenance 
is performed by a crew, craft, department or other group, they shall 
utilize a procedure which affords the employees a level of protection 
equivalent to that provided by the implementation of a personal lockout 
or tagout device.
    (ii) Group lockout or tagout devices shall be used in accordance 
with the procedures required by paragraph (b)(4) of this section 
including, but not necessarily limited to, the following specific 
requirements:
    (A) Primary responsibility is vested in an authorized employee for 
a set number of employees working under the protection of a group 
lockout or tagout device (such as an operations lock);
    (B) Provision for the authorized employee to ascertain the exposure 
status of individual group members with regard to the lockout or tagout 
of the machine, equipment or system;
    (C) When more than one crew, craft, department, etc., is involved, 
assignment of overall job-associated lockout or tagout control 
responsibility to an authorized employee designated to coordinate 
affected work forces and ensure continuity of protection; and
    (D) Each authorized employee shall affix a personal lockout or 
tagout device to the group lockout device, group lockbox, or comparable 
mechanism when he or she begins work and shall remove those devices 
when he or she stops working on the machine, equipment or system being 
serviced or maintained.
    (4) Shift or personnel changes. Specific procedures shall be 
utilized during shift or personnel changes to ensure the continuity of 
lockout or tagout protection, including provision for the orderly 
transfer of lockout or tagout device protection between off-going and 
oncoming employees, to minimize exposure to hazards from the 
energization or start-up of the machine, equipment or system, or the 
release of stored energy.

    Note to Sec.  1915.89: The following appendix A to Sec.  1915.89 
serves as a non-mandatory guideline to assist employers and 
employees in complying with the requirements of this section, as 
well as to provide other helpful information. Nothing in the 
appendix adds to or detracts from any of the requirements of this section.

Appendix A to Sec.  1915.89, Typical Minimal Lockout Procedures

General

Lockout Procedure

Lockout Procedure for
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    (Name of Company for single procedure or identification of 
machine, equipment or system, if multiple procedures are used).

Purpose

    This procedure establishes the minimum requirements for the 
lockout of energy isolating devices whenever maintenance or 
servicing is done on machines, equipment or systems. It shall be 
used to ensure that the machine, equipment or system is stopped, 
isolated from all potentially hazardous energy sources and locked 
out before employees perform any servicing or maintenance where the 
energization or start-up of the machine, equipment or system or 
release of stored energy could cause injury.

Compliance With This Program

    All employees are required to comply with the restrictions and 
limitations imposed upon them during the use of lockout. The 
authorized employees are required to perform the lockout in 
accordance with this procedure. All employees, upon observing a 
machine, equipment, or system that is locked out to perform 
servicing or maintenance shall not attempt to start, energize, or 
use that machine, equipment or system.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Type of compliance enforcement to be taken for violation of the 
above.

Sequence of Lockout

    (1) Notify all affected employees that servicing or maintenance 
is required on a machine, equipment or system and that it must be 
shut down and locked out to perform the servicing or maintenance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Name(s)/Job Title(s) of affected employees and how to notify.
    (2) The authorized employee shall refer to the company procedure 
to identify the type and magnitude of the energy that the machine, 
equipment or system utilizes, shall understand the hazards of the 
energy and shall know the methods to control the energy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Type(s) and magnitude(s) of energy, its hazards and the methods 
to control the energy.
    (3) If the machine, equipment or system is operating, shut it 
down by the normal stopping procedure (depress the stop button, open 
switch, close valve, etc.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Type(s) and location(s) of machine, equipment or system 
operating controls.
    (4) De-activate the energy isolating device(s) so that the 
machine, equipment or system is isolated from the energy source(s).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Type(s) and location(s) of energy isolating devices.
    (5) Lock out the energy isolating device(s) with assigned 
individual lock(s).
    (6) Stored or residual energy (such as that in capacitors, 
springs, elevated machine members, rotating flywheels, hydraulic 
systems and air, gas, steam, or water pressure, etc.) must be 
dissipated or restrained by methods such as grounding, 
repositioning, blocking, bleeding down, etc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Type(s) of stored energy--methods to dissipate or restrain.
    (7) Ensure that the machine, equipment or system is disconnected 
from the energy source(s) by first checking that no personnel are 
exposed, then verify the isolation of the machine, equipment or 
system by operating the push button or other normal operating 
control(s) or by testing to make certain it will not operate.
    CAUTION: Return operating control(s) to neutral or "off" 
position after verifying the isolation of the machine, equipment or 
system.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Method of verifying the isolation of the machine, equipment or 
system.
    (8) The machine, equipment or system is now locked out.
    Restoring Machine, Equipment or System to Service. When the 
servicing or maintenance is completed and the machine, equipment or 
system is ready to return to normal operating condition, the 
following steps shall be taken.
    (1) Check the machine, equipment or system and the immediate 
area around the machine to ensure that nonessential items have been 
removed and that the machine, equipment or system components are 
operationally intact.
    (2) Check the work area to ensure that all employees have been 
safely positioned or removed from the area.
    (3) Verify that the controls are in neutral.
    (4) Remove the lockout devices and reenergize the machine, 
equipment or system.

    Note: The removal of some forms of blocking may require 
reenergization of the machine, equipment or system before safe 
removal.

    (5) Notify affected employees that the servicing or maintenance 
is completed and the machine, equipment or system is ready for use.


Sec.  1915.90  Safety color code for marking physical hazards.

    The requirements applicable to shipyard employment under this 
section are identical to those set forth at Sec.  1910.144 of this 
chapter.


Sec.  1915.91  Accident prevention signs and tags.

    The requirements applicable to shipyard employment under this 
section are identical to those set forth at Sec.  1910.145 of this 
chapter.


Sec.  1915.92  Retention of DOT markings, placards and labels.

    (a) Any employer who receives a package of hazardous material that 
is required to be marked, labeled, or placarded in accordance with the 
U.S. Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations shall 
retain those markings, labels and placards on the package until the 
packaging is sufficiently cleaned of residue and purged of vapors to 
remove any potential hazards.
    (b) Any employer who receives a freight container, rail freight 
car, motor vehicle, or transport vehicle that is required to be marked 
or placarded in accordance with the U.S. Department of Transportation 
Hazardous Materials Regulations shall retain those markings and 
placards on the freight container, rail freight car, motor vehicle, or 
transport vehicle until the hazardous materials are sufficiently 
removed to prevent any potential hazards.
    (c) The employer shall maintain markings, placards and labels in a 
manner that ensures that they are readily visible.
    (d) For non-bulk packages that will not be reshipped, the 
requirements of this section are met if a label or other acceptable 
marking is affixed in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1200 Hazard 
Communication.
    (e) For the purposes of this section, the term "hazardous 
material" and any other terms not defined in this section have the 
same definition as in the U.S. Department of Transportation Hazardous 
Materials Regulations (49 CFR parts 171 through 180).


Sec.  1915.93  Motor vehicle safety equipment, operation and 
maintenance.

    (a) Application. (1) This section applies to any vehicle used to 
transport employees, materials, or property at shipyards. This section 
does not apply to motor vehicle operation on public streets and 
highways.
    (2) The requirements of this section apply to employer provided 
motor vehicles. The requirements of paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(4) and 
(c)(2) of this section also apply to employee provided motor vehicles.
    (3) Only the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) apply 
to powered industrial trucks, as defined in Sec.  1910.178. The 
maintenance, inspection, operation and training requirements in 29 CFR 
1910.178 continue to apply to powered industrial trucks used for 
shipyard employment.
    (b) Motor vehicle safety equipment. (1) The employer shall ensure 
that each motor vehicle acquired or initially used after February 19, 
2008 is equipped with a safety belt for each employee operating or riding 
in the motor vehicle. This requirement does not apply to any motor vehicle 
that was not equipped with safety belts at the time of manufacture.
    (2) The employer shall ensure that each employee uses the safety 
belt, securely and tightly fastened, at all times while operating or 
riding in a motor vehicle.
    (3) The employer shall ensure that vehicle safety equipment is not 
removed from any employer-provided vehicle. The employer shall replace 
safety equipment that is removed.
    (4) The employer shall ensure that each motor vehicle used to 
transport an employee has firmly secured seats that are adequate for 
each employee being transported and shall ensure that all employees who 
are being transported are using seats.
    (c) Motor vehicle maintenance and operation. (1) The employer shall 
ensure that each motor vehicle is maintained in a serviceable and safe 
operating condition and removed from service if it is not in such 
condition.
    (2) The employer shall ensure that before a motor vehicle is 
operated, any tools and materials being transported are secured if 
their movements may create a hazard for employees.
    (3) The employer shall implement measures to ensure that motor 
vehicle operators are able to see and avoid injuring pedestrians and 
bicyclists at shipyards. Measures that employers may implement to 
comply with this requirement include:
    (i) Establishing dedicated travel lanes for motor vehicles, 
bicyclists and pedestrians;
    (ii) Installing crosswalks and traffic control devices such as stop 
signs or physical barriers to separate travel lanes;
    (iii) Providing reflective vests or other gear so pedestrians and 
bicyclists are clearly visible to motor vehicle operators; and
    (iv) Ensuring that bicycles have reflectors, lights or other 
equipment to maximize visibility of the bicyclist.


Sec.  1915.94  Servicing multi-piece and single piece rim wheels.

    The requirements applicable to shipyard employment under this 
section are identical to those set forth at 29 CFR 1910.177.


Sec.  1915.95  Definitions.

    The following definitions are applicable to this subpart:
    Affected employee. An employee whose job requires operation or use 
of a machine, equipment or system on which servicing or maintenance is 
being performed under lockout or tagout, or whose job requires work in 
an area in which such servicing or maintenance is being performed.
    Authorized employee. A person who locks out or tags out machines, 
equipment, or systems in order to perform servicing or maintenance. An 
affected employee becomes an authorized employee when that employee's 
duties include performing servicing or maintenance covered under this 
section.
    Capable of being locked out. An energy isolating device is capable 
of being locked out if it has a hasp or other means of attachment to 
which, or through which, a lock can be affixed, or it has a locking 
mechanism built into it. Other energy isolating devices are capable of 
being locked out, if lockout can be achieved without the need to 
dismantle, rebuild, or replace the energy isolating device or 
permanently alter its energy control capability.
    Energized. Connected to an energy source or containing residual or 
stored energy.
    Energy isolating device. A mechanical device that physically 
prevents the transmission or release of energy, including but not 
limited to the following: manually operated electrical circuit breaker; 
a disconnect switch; a manually operated switch by which the conductors 
of a circuit can be disconnected from all ungrounded supply conductors 
and, in addition, no pole can be operated independently; a line valve; 
a block; and any similar device used to block or isolate energy. Push 
buttons, selector switches and other control circuit type devices are 
not energy isolating devices.
    Energy source. Any source of electrical, mechanical, hydraulic, 
pneumatic, chemical, thermal, or other energy.
    Hazardous or toxic substances. Hazardous or toxic substances mean:
    (1) Any substance regulated by subpart Z of part 1915;
    (2) Any material listed in the U.S. Depart of Transportation 
Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR parts 171 through 180);
    (3) Any atmosphere with an oxygen content of less than 19.5%;
    (4) Any corrosive substance; or
    (5) Any environmental contaminant that may expose employees to 
injury, illness or disease.
    Health care professional. A physician or any other health care 
provider whose legally permitted scope of practice allows the provider 
to independently provide or be delegated the responsibility to provide 
some or all of the advice or consultation this subpart requires.
    Hot tap. A procedure used in the repair, maintenance and services 
activities which involves welding on a piece of equipment (pipelines, 
vessels or tanks) under pressure, in order to install connections or 
appurtenances. It is commonly used to replace or add sections of 
pipeline without the interruption of service for air, gas, water, steam 
and petrochemical distribution systems.
    Lockout. The placement of a lockout device on an energy isolating 
device, in accordance with an established procedure, ensuring that the 
energy isolating device and the equipment being controlled cannot be 
operated until the lockout device is removed.
    Lockout device. A device that utilizes a positive means such as a 
lock, either key or combination type, to hold an energy isolating 
device in the safe position and prevent energization or startup. 
Included are blank flanges and bolted slip blinds.
    Motor vehicle. Any motor-driven vehicle operated by an employee 
that is used to transport employees, material, or property. For the 
purposes of this subpart, motor vehicles include passenger cars, light 
trucks, vans, motorcycles, all-terrain-vehicles, powered industrial 
trucks and other similar vehicles. Motor vehicle does not include boats 
or vehicles operated exclusively on a rail or rails.
    Normal production operations. The utilization of a machine, 
equipment or system to perform its intended production function.
    Portable toilet facility. A non-sewered facility for collecting and 
containing urine and feces. A portable toilet facility may be either 
flushable or non-flushable. For purposes of this section, portable 
toilet facilities do not include privies.
    Potable water. Water that meets the standards for drinking purposes 
of the state or local authority having jurisdiction, or water that 
meets the quality standards prescribed by the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency's National Primary Water Regulations (40 CFR part 
141).
    Sanitation facilities. Facilities, including supplies, maintained 
for employee personal and health needs such as potable drinking water, 
toilet facilities, handwashing and drying facilities, showers 
(including quick drenching/flushing) and changing rooms, food 
preparation and eating areas, first aid stations and on-site medical 
service areas. Sanitation supplies include soap, waterless cleaning 
agents, single-use drinking cups, drinking water containers, toilet 
paper and towels.
    Serviceable condition. The state or ability of a tool, machine, 
vehicle, or other device, to operate as it was intended by the 
manufacturer to operate.
    Servicing and/or maintenance. Workplace activities such as 
constructing, installing, setting up, adjusting, inspecting, modifying, 
repairing, maintaining and servicing machines, equipment or systems. 
These activities include lubricating, cleaning, unjamming and making 
adjustments or tool changes.
    Setting up. Any work performed to prepare a machine, equipment or 
system to perform its normal production operation.
    Sewered toilet facility. A fixture maintained for the purpose of 
urination and defecation that is connected to a sanitary sewer, septic 
tank, holding tank (bilge), or on-site sewage disposal treatment 
facility and that is flushed with water.
    Ship's systems. Machines, equipment and systems that are a 
permanent or inherent part of a vessel. Such systems include, but are 
not limited to, systems that ensure the vessel's operational 
capability, such as propulsion, navigation, radar, electrical, water, 
steering, ballast, structural systems and systems to care for the crew. 
Ship's systems do not include inherently general industry operations 
onboard vessels such as fish processing equipment.
    Tagout. The placement of a tagout device on an energy isolating 
device, in accordance with an established procedure, to indicate that 
the energy isolating device and the equipment being controlled may not 
be operated until the tagout device is removed.
    Tagout device. A prominent warning device, such as a tag and a 
means of attachment, which can be securely fastened to an energy 
isolating device in accordance with an established procedure, to 
indicate that the energy isolating device and the equipment being 
controlled may not be operated until the tagout device is removed.
    Vehicle safety equipment. Those systems and devices installed on a 
motor vehicle for the purposes of effecting the safe operation of the 
vehicle such as safety belts, airbags, headlights, tail lights, 
emergency hazard lights, windshield wipers, brakes, horn, mirrors, 
windshields and other windows and locks.
    Vermin. Includes insects, birds and other animals, such as rodents 
and feral cats, which may create safety and health hazards for 
employees.
    Walking and working surfaces. Any surface on or through which 
employees gain access to or perform job tasks. Walking and working 
surfaces also include any surface upon or through which employees are 
required or allowed to walk or work in the workplace. Walking and 
working surfaces include, but are not limited to, work areas, 
accessways, aisles, exits, gangways, ladders, ramps, stairs, steps and 
walkways.

Subpart J--[Amended]

    8. In Sec.  1915.162, paragraph (a)(1) is revised as follows:


Sec.  1915.162  Ship's boilers.

    (a) * * *
    (1) The employer shall ensure that the isolation and shutoff valves 
connecting the dead boiler with the live system or systems are secured, 
blanked and locked or tagged, in accordance with Sec.  1915.89 Control 
of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout), indicating that employees are 
working on the boiler. This lock or tag shall not be removed nor the 
valves unblanked until it is determined that this may be done without 
creating a hazard to the employees working on the boiler, or until the 
work on the boiler is completed. Where valves are welded instead of 
bolted, at least two isolation and shutoff valves connecting the dead 
boiler with the live system or systems shall be secured and locked or 
tagged, in accordance with Sec.  1915.89 Control of Hazardous Energy 
(Lockout/Tagout).
* * * * *
    9. In Sec.  1915.163, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1915.163  Ship's Piping Systems.

    (a) * * *
    (1) The employer shall ensure that the isolation and shutoff valves 
connecting the dead system with the live system or systems are secured, 
blanked and locked or tagged, in accordance with Sec.  1915.89 Control 
of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout), indicating that employees are 
working on the systems. The lock or tag shall not be removed or the 
valves unblanked until it is determined that this may be done without 
creating a hazard to the employees working on the system, or until the 
work on the system is completed. Where valves are welded instead of 
bolted, at least two isolation and shutoff valves connecting the dead 
system with the live system or systems shall be secured, locked, or 
tagged, in accordance with Sec.  1915.89.
* * * * *
    10. In Sec.  1915.164, paragraph (a)(2) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1915.164  Ship's propulsion machinery.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (2) If the jacking gear is steam driven, the employer shall ensure 
that the stop valves to the jacking gear are secured and locked or 
tagged in accordance with Sec.  1915.89 Control of Hazardous Energy 
(Lockout/Tagout).
    (3) If the jacking gear is electrically driven, the employer shall 
ensure that the circuit controlling the jacking gear is deenergized by 
tripping the circuit breaker, opening the switch or removing the fuse, 
whichever is appropriate and locked or tagged in accordance with Sec.  
1915.89.

Subpart l--[Amended]

    11. In Sec.  1915.181, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  1915.181  Electrical circuits and distribution boards.

* * * * *
    (c) The employer shall ensure that deenergizing the circuit is 
accomplished by opening the circuit breaker, opening the switch, or 
removing the fuse, whichever method is appropriate. The circuit 
breaker, switch, or fuse location shall be locked out or tagged in 
accordance with Sec.  1915.89 Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/
Tagout). Such locks or tags shall not be removed nor the circuit 
energized until it is determined definitely that the work on the 
circuit has been completed.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-24073 Filed 12-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

Federal Registers - Table of Contents Federal Registers - Table of Contents