Federal Registers - Table of Contents Federal Registers - Table of Contents
• Publication Date: 05/02/2011
• Publication Type: Final Rules
• Fed Register #: 76: 24575-24711
• Standard Number: 1910; 1915
• Title: General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment; Final Rule

[Federal Register: May 2, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 84)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 24575-24711]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02my11-20]                         


Vol. 76    No. 84

Monday, May 2, 2011

Part II

Department of Labor



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


Occupational Safety and Health Administration


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


29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1915


General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment; Final Rule


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1915

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

 
General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is 
revising its standards on general working conditions in shipyard 
employment. These revisions update existing requirements to reflect 
advances in industry practices and technology, consolidate some general 
safety and health requirements into a single subpart, and provide 
protection from hazards not addressed by existing standards, including 
the control of hazardous energy.

DATES: Effective date: This final rule becomes effective and 
enforceable on August 1, 2011, except for the provisions in Sec.  
1915.89, which become effective and enforceable on October 31, 2011.
    Information Collections: The collection of information requirements 
are contained in paragraphs Sec.  1915.83, Sec.  1915.87, Sec.  
1915.88, and Sec.  1915.89 (See section VIII Office of Management and 
Budget Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995). 
Notwithstanding the general date of applicability that applies to all 
other requirements contained in the final rule, affected parties do not 
have to comply with the collection of information requirements until 
the Department of Labor publishes a separate notice in the Federal 
Register announcing the Office of Management and Budget has approved 
them under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
    Incorporation by reference: The incorporation by reference of 
certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of 
the Federal Register as of August 1, 2011.

ADDRESSES: In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 2112(a)(2), OSHA designates 
Joseph M. Woodward, Associate Solicitor of Labor for Occupational 
Safety and Health, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, 
Room S-4004, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, to 
receive petitions for review of the final rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Press inquiries: Camilla F. McArthur, 
Office of Communications, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3647, 
200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 
693-1999.
    General information and technical inquiries: Joseph V. Daddura, 
Director, Office of Maritime, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, 
OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3621, 200 Constitution Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-2222.
    Additional copies of this Federal Register notice: OSHA, Office of 
Publications, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3101, 200 Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-1888. Electronic 
copies of this Federal Register notice are also available at 
http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking Portal. This notice, as 
well as news releases and other relevant documents, also is available 
at OSHA's Web site at http://www.osha.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

    The following table of contents identifies the major sections of 
the preamble to the final rule on General Working Conditions in 
Shipyard Employment:

I. Background
    A. References and Exhibits
    B. Introduction
    C. Events Leading to the Final Rule
    D. Hazards
II. Pertinent Legal Authority
III. Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule
IV. Final Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    A. Introduction
    B. Industrial Profile
    C. Technological Feasibility
    D. Benefits
    E. Cost of Compliance
    F. Economic Impact, Feasibility, and Regulatory Flexibility 
Screening Analysis
V. Environmental Impact
VI. Federalism
VII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VIII. Office of Management and Budget Review Under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995
IX. State Plan Requirements
X. Effective Date
XI. List of Subjects
XII. Authority and Signature
XIII. Amendments to Standards

I. Background

    A. References and Exhibits. In this Federal Register notice, OSHA 
references documents in Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675, which was 
formerly OSHA Docket No. S-049. In addition, OSHA references documents 
in the following dockets, which the Agency incorporates by reference 
into 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-
2008;
     The General Industry Lockout/Tagout rulemaking record--
OSHA Docket Nos. S-012, S-012A, and S-012B;
     The Shipyard Employment Standards rulemaking record--OSHA 
Docket No. S-024; and
     The Field Sanitation rulemaking record--OSHA Docket No. H-
308.
    References to documents in Docket No. OSHA-S-049-2006-0675. 
References to documents in Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675 are given as 
"Ex." followed by the last sequence of numbers in the Document ID 
Number and, in the case of the hearing transcripts, the page number. 
Thus, Ex. 88 is Document Number OSHA-S049-2006-0675-0088, and will 
appear in this document as (Ex. 88).
    The exhibits in this docket (Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675), 
including public comments, supporting materials, hearing transcripts, 
and other documents, can be found at http://www.regulations.gov, the 
Federal eRulemaking Portal, by searching the docket number. All 
exhibits are listed, but some exhibits (for example, copyrighted 
material) are not available to read or download from that Web page. All 
exhibits are available for inspection and, if permissible, copying at 
the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675, Room N-2625, 
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20210; telephone (202) 693-2350.
    References to other dockets incorporated by reference. In this 
notice, references to documents in other dockets incorporated by 
reference are given as the docket number followed by the exhibit number 
for the document in that docket. For example, a reference to "OSHA 
Docket H-308 Ex. 1" means Exhibit 1 in the Field Sanitation rulemaking 
docket. Referenced documents in those dockets are available for 
inspection and, if permissible, copying at the OSHA Docket Office.

B. Introduction

    OSHA is revising and updating standards in subpart F of 29 CFR part 
1915 that address hazards in general working conditions in shipyard 
employment. These revisions update existing requirements to reflect 
advances in industry practices and technology, consolidate certain 
safety and health requirements into a single subpart, and provide 
protection from hazards not previously addressed, including the control 
of hazardous energy.
    This final rule covers diverse working conditions in shipyard 
employment, including sanitation, medical services and first aid, motor 
vehicle and pedestrian safety, lighting, housekeeping, and hazardous 
energy.
    OSHA has determined that the rulemaking record supports the need 
for the revisions and additions to subpart F to protect the safety and 
health of workers performing shipyard employment operations.
    The OSH Act requires OSHA to make certain findings with respect to 
standards. One of these findings, specified by section 3(8) of the OSH 
Act, requires an OSHA standard to address a significant risk and to 
reduce this risk significantly (See Industrial Union Dep't v. American 
Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607 (1980)). As discussed in other 
sections of the preamble, OSHA has determined that the hazards 
addressed by this rule represent a significant risk, and estimates that 
the final standard will prevent 1.2 fatalities and 348.4 injuries 
annually. In accordance with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the 
OSH Act, OSHA has determined that this standard is both technologically 
and economically feasible.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, as amended) requires 
that OSHA determine whether a standard will have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small firms. As discussed in Section 
IV of the preamble, OSHA examined the effects of this standard on small 
firms and certifies that the standard will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small firms.
    In accordance with Executive Orders 13563 and 12866, OSHA has 
estimated the benefits, costs, and net benefits of this standard. As 
shown in the table below, the annual benefits of this standard are 
significantly in excess of the standard's annualized compliance costs. 
It should be noted that these monetized estimates of net benefits are 
for informational purposes only. In accordance with the OSH Act, OSHA 
does not use the magnitude of net benefits as the decision-making 
criterion in determining what standards to promulgate.

Table for Net Benefits and Cost Effectiveness of the Final General Working Conditions in Shipyards Standard

C. Events Leading to the Final Rule

    OSHA adopted the existing standards in subpart F in 1972 (37 FR 
22458, Oct. 19, 1972) pursuant to section 6(a) of the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651, 655). Section 
6(a) permitted OSHA, during the first two years following passage of 
the OSH Act, to adopt as occupational safety and health standards any 
established Federal standards and national consensus standards. OSHA 
adopted the existing provisions in subpart F from 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 (for example, ANSI sanitation standards).
    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 employment 
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 and submitted to OSHA final draft recommendations 
for revising subpart F (Docket SESAC 1993-2, Ex. 102X, p. 257; detailed 
discussion on SESAC comments and specific recommendations are presented 
in Section III, 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 
(longshoring) industries. On September 8, 1995, MACOSH discussed and 
approved the recommendations and draft regulatory language that SESAC 
developed and made additional recommendations, including that OSHA do a 
separate rulemaking on the control of hazardous energy (Docket MACOSH 
1995-1, Exs. 2; 102X, pp. 25, 26).
    OSHA published the proposed rule on December 20, 2007 (72 FR 
72452). The Agency requested public comment by March 19, 2008, on the 
proposed rule, the preliminary economic analysis, and the issues the 
Agency raised in the proposal. The Agency received comments on the 
proposed rule from employees, employers, trade associations, 
consultants, and government agencies (Exs. 88 through 132.1). In 
addition, a number of stakeholders requested an informal public hearing 
and an extension of the 60-day comment period (Exs. 93 through 99). 
OSHA granted the requests to hold a hearing in two locations (73 FR 
54340, Sept. 19, 2008; 73 FR 36823, June 30, 2008), and denied the 
request to extend the comment period.
    After publishing notice of an informal public hearing (73 FR 36823, 
June 30, 2008; 73 FR 54340, Sept. 19, 2008), OSHA convened the hearing 
on September 9, 2008, in Washington, DC, with Administrative Law Judge 
Stephen Purcell presiding (Ex. 168). The hearing continued October 21 
and 22, 2008, in Seattle, WA, where Administrative Law Judge Jennifer 
Gee presided (Exs. 198; 199). Thirty-five stakeholders presented oral 
testimony at the public hearing.
    Pursuant to OSHA's recommendation, on September 9, 2008, Judge 
Purcell ordered that after the close of the hearing on October 22, 
2008, the hearing record would remain open for an additional 60 days, 
until December 22, 2008, for the submission of new factual information 
and data relevant to the hearings (Ex. 169). Judge Purcell also ordered 
that the record would remain open until February 20, 2009, for the 
submission of final written comments, arguments, summations, and briefs 
(Exs. 197 and 200 through 206.1). OSHA's recommendation for a 120-day 
post-hearing comment period was in response to comments from some 
stakeholders who said the 60-day pre-hearing comment period had not 
provided stakeholders with sufficient time to submit comments (for 
example, Ex. 119.1).
    On August 25, 2009, Judge Purcell issued an order closing the 
record of the public hearing on the Proposed Rule to Update OSHA's 
Standards on General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment and 
certifying the record to the Assistant Secretary of Labor for 
Occupational Safety and Health.
    As required by the OSH Act, this final rule is based on careful 
analysis and consideration of the rulemaking record as a whole, 
including materials discussed or relied upon in the proposed rule, 
written comments and exhibits received, and the record of the public 
hearing.

D. Hazards

    Shipyard employment is a risky occupation that exposes workers to a 
number of different hazards. Shipyard-employment workers are at risk 
due to the nature of their work, which includes a variety of industrial 
operations such as steel fabrication, welding, abrasive blasting, 
electrical work, pipefitting, rigging, stripping, and coating 
applications. Shipyard-employment workers also operate and service 
complex machinery and equipment such as powered industrial trucks, 
cranes, and vessel systems. Several stakeholders said that vessel 
systems, in particular, present "unique complexity" (Ex. 132.2).
    The hazards associated with these operations and equipment are 
heightened because they are often performed outdoors in all kinds of 
weather. Gerry Merrigan, of Prowler LLC and Ocean Prowler LLC, 
commented on the risks of working outdoors and on vessels: "The 
predictability of shoreside operations is not often found at sea (for 
example, ice accumulation on vessels)," and that "Almost everyday so 
far this fishing season in the Bering Sea had freezing spray warning" 
(Ex. 100). A number of other stakeholders also said that working in 
rain, ice, and snow is common in shipyard employment (Exs. 101.1; 
105.1; 121.1; 124; 128).
    Yaniv Zagagi, of Atlantic Marine Florida, also addressed the range 
of environmental conditions that shipyard workers face:

    With outdoor work a common practice on vessels under 
construction and repair, maintaining dry work surfaces at all times 
in all area[s], since work areas cannot be delineated, is not 
possible. In this region, rainfall averages 6 inches per month, with 
an inch or more common for a single rain event (Ex. 115.1).

    The nature of work spaces in shipyard employment also poses risks 
for employees. Shipyard employment activities are performed aboard 
vessels, in confined or enclosed spaces below deck, on scaffolds, and 
on busy, crowded docks. James Thornton, of Northrop Grumman--Newport 
News, commented: "Shipbuilding and repair, by nature, requires 
employees to access numerous small, awkward spaces, such as catapult 
wing voids on aircraft carriers and vertical launch silos on 
submarines; therefore, working space is inherently limited" (Ex. 
116.2).
    The safe coordination of shipyard employment activities also is 
complicated by the fact that most shipyards are multi-employer 
worksites where shipyard workers, ship's crew, contractors, and 
subcontractors work side-by-side and often on the same vessel system at 
the same time.
    The combination of these hazards puts workers at risk of injury, 
regardless of whether they are working on vessels or at landside 
operations.
    The proposed rule examined in detail the fatalities and injuries 
associated with the hazards this rule addresses (72 FR 72453-55, Dec. 
20, 2007). Since OSHA did not receive any objections on its fatality 
and injury analysis, the Agency does not see a need to repeat the 
analysis here. In addition, section IV of this preamble discusses the 
fatalities and injuries the final rule is estimated to prevent.

II. 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 to 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 effective date); 655(b) 
(authorizing promulgation of standards pursuant to notice and comment); 
and 654(a)(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 materially reduces a 
significant risk to workers; is economically feasible; is 
technologically feasible; is cost effective; is consistent with prior 
Agency action or is a justified departure; adequately responds to any 
contrary evidence and argument in the rulemaking record; and 
effectuates the Act's purposes at least as well as any national 
consensus standard it supersedes. See 29 U.S.C. 652; 58 FR 16612, 
16616, Mar. 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. See Pub. Citizen Health Research Group v. 
U.S. Dep't of Labor, 557 F.3d 165, 170-71 (3rd Cir. 2009); Am. Iron and 
Steel Inst. v. OSHA, 939 F.2d 975, 980 (D.C. Cir. 1991) ("AISI"); 
United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO-CLC v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 
1272 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
    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 Am. Textile Mfrs. Inst. v. 
Donovan, 452 U.S. 490, 530 n.55 (1981) ("ATMI"); 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. Int'l Union, United Auto., 
Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am., UAW v. OSHA, 37 F.3d 665, 
668 (D.C. Cir 1994) ("LOTO III"). See also ATMI, 452 U.S. at 514 n.32 
(suggesting that the "reasonably necessary or appropriate" language 
of Section 3(8) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 652(8)) might require OSHA to 
select the less expensive of two equally effective measures).
    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, Mar. 30, 1993; LOTO III, 37 F.3d at 668. Finally, whenever 
practicable, standards shall "be expressed in terms of objective 
criteria and of the performance desired." 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5).

III. Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule

    This section of the preamble discusses the requirements of the 
final standard and explains the purpose of the requirements and the 
reasons supporting them. This section also discusses and resolves 
issues raised during the comment period, significant comments received 
as part of the rulemaking record, and any substantive changes from the 
proposed rule.
    As mentioned, OSHA adopted many of the provisions in subpart F in 
1972 from existing Federal occupational safety and health standards and 
national consensus standards (for example, sanitation, medical services 
and first aid, housekeeping). Since then, those national consensus 
standards have been updated and revised. OSHA carefully reviewed the 
updated standards and, when they encompassed new technology and 
requirements to provide greater workplace safety and health, has 
incorporated those changes in the final rule.
    SESAC recommended many of the provisions in the final rule as 
representing industry best practices. To the extent that such practices 
and technology have changed since SESAC made its recommendations, OSHA 
has updated those recommendations accordingly.
    In the final rule, OSHA has consolidated a number of provisions to 
more clearly indicate that they apply to shipyard employment. For 
example, both existing general industry (part 1910) and shipyard 
employment (part 1915) standards address housekeeping, sanitation, and 
medical services and first aid. General industry standards apply to 
shipyard employment when part 1915 standards do not address a 
particular hazard or working condition. To make the applicable 
requirements easier to understand and follow, the final rule 
consolidated the sets of standards into one section. To illustrate, 
Sec.  1910.141 and Sec.  1915.97 contain requirements on sanitation 
that are applicable to shipyard employment. The final rule has combined 
all of the sanitation requirements in both standards that are 
applicable to shipyard employment in Sec.  1915.88.
    The consolidation of some standards, and the addition of new 
sections, has resulted in a renumbering of the sections in subpart F. 
Table 1 lists the section numbers of the final rule and the existing 
section(s), if any, from which they were derived.

   Table 1--Proposed Provisions and Corresponding Existing Provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Existing rule
     Title of provision            Final rule           applicable to
                                                     shipyard employment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope, application, and       Sec.   1915.80......  Each section of
 definitions.                                        subpart F has a
                                                     scope and
                                                     application
                                                     provision. No
                                                     existing section
                                                     for definitions.
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.
Working alone...............  Sec.   1915.84......  Sec.   1915.94.
Vessel radar and              Sec.   1915.85......  Sec.   1915.95.
 communication systems.
Lifeboats...................  Sec.   1915.86......  Sec.   1915.96.
Medical services and first    Sec.   1915.87......  Sec.   1915.98 and
 aid.                                                Sec.   1910.151.
Sanitation..................  Sec.   1915.88......  Sec.   1915.97 and
                                                     Sec.   1910.141.
Control of hazardous energy   Sec.   1915.89......  No existing rule.
 (lockout/tagout).
Safety color code for         Sec.   1915.90......  Sec.   1910.144.
 marking physical hazards.
Accident prevention signs     Sec.   1915.91......  Sec.   1910.145.
 and tags.
Retention of DOT markings,    Sec.   1915.92......  Sec.   1915.100.
 placards and labels.
Motor vehicle safety          Sec.   1915.93......  No existing rule.
 equipment, maintenance, and
 operation.
Servicing multi-piece and     Sec.   1915.94......  No existing rule.
 single-piece rim wheels.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the extent possible, OSHA has expressed the final rule in 
performance language; that is, the requirements are "expressed in 
terms of objective criteria and of the performance desired." 29 U.S.C. 
655(b)(5). Some stakeholders, particularly larger establishments, 
supported this approach and urged OSHA to adopt a flexible approach in 
the final rule (Exs. 116.1; 120.1). Other stakeholders, particularly 
smaller businesses, urged OSHA to provide more specific language in the 
final rule (Exs. 104.1; 107; 121.1; 125; 198, p. 56). For example, 
Philip Dovinh, of Sound Testing, Inc., said that vague or "open-
ended" language "leaves ample room for erroneous misinterpretations" 
(Ex. 121.1).
    OSHA believes that the performance-based approach in the final rule 
provides employers with maximum flexibility in determining the most 
effective strategies for controlling hazards and protecting their 
workers. At the same time, OSHA believes that the objective criteria 
the final rule incorporates will assist employers, particularly small 
businesses, with complying with the final rule. In addition, as 
stakeholders requested, OSHA has defined a number of additional terms 
used in the final rule (Exs. 121.1; 129.1). OSHA believes this approach 
also will help employers understand and comply with the final rule 
while providing flexibility for the range of employers the final rule 
covers.

Section 1915.80--Scope, Application, and Definitions

Paragraph (a)--Scope and Application
    Paragraph (a) specifies that the provisions in subpart F apply to 
general working conditions:
     In shipyard employment;
     At landside operations and on vessels and vessel sections; 
and
     Regardless of geographic location.
    Final paragraph (a) consolidates the individual scope provisions 
contained in each section of existing subpart F into one section. 
Paragraph (a) also applies subpart F to all operations constituting 
shipyard employment. Some of the existing scope provisions, which were 
part of the LHWCA standards that OSHA adopted in 1972, applied only to 
certain sectors of shipyard employment. However, OSHA's intention 
always has been that part 1915 standards apply to all of shipyard 
employment, which Sec.  1915.4(i) defines as "ship repairing, 
shipbuilding, shipbreaking and related employments." As OSHA stated in 
the proposed rule, this consolidation eliminates duplication. Finally, 
the consolidation also makes the scope and application section 
consistent with other subparts of 29 CFR part 1915 that OSHA has 
revised (for example, subpart B--Confined and Enclosed Spaces and Other 
Dangerous Atmospheres in Shipyard Employment (59 FR 37816, Jul. 25, 
1994); subpart I--Personal Protective Equipment in Shipyard Employment 
(61 FR 26322, May 24, 1966); and subpart P--Fire Protection in Shipyard 
Employment (69 FR 55702, Oct. 15, 2004). OSHA did not receive any 
comments on the proposed consolidation.
    Paragraph (a) of the final rule adopts the proposed language that 
subpart F applies to shipyard-employment work on vessels and vessel 
sections and at landside operations. With regard to vessels, this means 
that the requirements of subpart F apply to the extent that OSHA has 
authority over the vessel. OSHA's instruction titled, "OSHA Authority 
over Vessels and Facilities on or Adjacent to U.S. Navigable Waters and 
the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)," provides current Agency policy, 
information, and guidance on OSHA's authority to regulate working 
conditions on certain vessels (inspected vessels, commercial 
uninspected fishing vessels, and other uninspected vessels) (CPL-02-01-
047, Feb. 22, 2010). The instruction is available to read and download 
on OSHA's Web site at http://www.osha.gov.
    Paragraph (a) also adopts language from the proposed rule 
clarifying OSHA's longstanding position that subpart F applies to 
shipyard employment "regardless of geographic location" of the 
shipyard activity. OSHA included the phrase "regardless of geographic 
location" in the scope so that protection is afforded to employees 
whenever they engage in shipyard employment: On vessels, on vessel 
sections, at landside facilities, or at any other location where they 
perform shipyard employment. This has been the Agency's longstanding 
policy on shipyard employment, and is included in the scope of subpart 
B--Confined and Enclosed Spaces and Other Dangerous Atmospheres, 
subpart I--Personal Protective Equipment, and subpart P--Fire 
Protection.
    Shipyard employment also occurs on vessels and vessel sections 
within the navigable waters of the United States, and includes work on 
a vessel or part of a vessel that is being constructed, or repaired, 
whether it is in the shipyard or dockside, at anchor, or underway for 
testing. The requirements in this subpart will apply to all vessels 
within OSHA's jurisdictional boundaries.
    Several commenters requested that OSHA define "navigable waters" 
in the final rule (Exs. 101.1; 124; 126; 128; 132.2). Since the final 
rule does not use the term "navigable waters," OSHA does not believe 
there is a need to include a definition in the rule. In any event, the 
U.S. Coast Guard, not OSHA, is the Federal agency responsible for 
making determinations about whether a body of water is considered 
"U.S. navigable waters." The Coast Guard definition of navigable 
waters and other associated terms are contained at 33 CFR part 2, which 
is available at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html.
    One stakeholder urged OSHA to exempt from the rule vessels under 
200 gross weight tons or vessels that do not process seafood (Ex. 
197.1). Karen Conrad of the North Pacific Fishing Vessel Owners' 
Association commented:

    [T]hese regulations would apply to all uninspected vessels and 
that would include "tens of thousands" of vessels of all kinds. 
OSHA needs to consider that these vessels do ongoing maintenance 
work, not just at the dock, but while they move to other locations. 
We suggest that OSHA communicate with the Coast Guard and industry 
to identify which vessels need this regulation and best to scale 
down this regulation to cover the sector of vessels that should be 
covered (Ex. 197.1).

    OSHA does not agree with the stakeholder's position and has not 
exempted small vessels from the final rule. OSHA regulates hazardous 
working conditions where they are found. To the extent that the 
hazardous working conditions addressed in subpart F are present, OSHA 
believes employees are at risk of injury and death and need protection. 
Of course, OSHA has authority only to the extent that the hazard, 
employer, and vessel are within the Agency's geographical authority.
Paragraph (b)--Definitions
    Paragraph (b) of the final rule sets forth definitions that are 
applicable to subpart F. As mentioned, OSHA believes that defining key 
terms makes the final rule easier to understand and, therefore, will 
increase compliance.
    OSHA has moved the definitions to the beginning of subpart F from 
the final section of the proposed rule (Sec.  1915.95). Two 
stakeholders urged OSHA to move the definitions forward (Exs. 119.1; 
121.1). Philip Dovinh of Sound Testing, Inc. commented:

    Definitions are an extremely important part of any successful 
regulation. OSHA may have misled the reader that their set of 
definitions is just an incomplete afterthought as represented in the 
current Proposed Rule. Section 1915.95 Definitions, is awkwardly 
buried in the last section of Subpart F-General Working Conditions. 
Why not be consistent and place it immediately following Sec.  
1915.80 Scope and application--as in the rest of the other OSHA 
regulations? By having the definitions located immediately at the 
front of the Proposed Rule, they will grab the attention of the 
reader and become much more beneficial (Ex. 121.1).

    OSHA agrees with the commenter that prominently placing the 
definitions for this subpart immediately after the Scope and 
Application section will assist the employer and employees in 
understanding the provisions in subpart F.
    Many of the proposed definitions have been carried forward 
unchanged, or with editorial changes, to better clarify the term. Some 
of the clarification, additions, and modifications have been made in 
response to stakeholder comments, which provided helpful and useful 
language to improve the clarity of terms used in the final rule. OSHA 
also has added new definitions to the final rule, many of which help to 
explain and clarify OSHA's revised approach to the control of hazardous 
energy. Definitions that have been added to the final rule, or 
substantially clarified or modified from the proposal, are described 
below.
    Additional safety measure. A definition for "additional safety 
measure" was added to the final rule to more fully explain and clarify 
the tags-plus system described in Sec.  1915.89, Control of hazardous 
energy. "Additional safety measure" is defined as a component of the 
tags-plus system that provides an impediment (in addition to the 
energy-isolating device) to the release of hazardous energy or the 
energization or startup of the machinery, equipment, or system being 
serviced. Examples include, but are not limited, to removing an 
isolating circuit element; blocking a control switch; blocking, 
blanking, or bleeding lines; removing a valve handle or wiring it in 
place; or opening an extra disconnecting device.
    Authorized employee. Paragraph (b)(3) of Sec.  1915.80 specifies 
that an "authorized employee" is an employee who performs one or more 
of the following lockout/tagout responsibilities:
     Executes the lockout/tagout procedures;
     Installs a lock or tagout system on any machinery, 
equipment, or system that is to be serviced; or
     Services any machinery, equipment, or system that is under 
a lockout/tagout application.

The final definition specifies clearly and more directly than the 
proposed definition the role of authorized employees in lockout/tagout 
situations. In addition, the final definition retains the sentence 
clarifying that affected employees become authorized employees if their 
duties include servicing machinery, equipment, or systems under a 
lockout/tagout application.
    Contract employer. OSHA has added a new definition for "contract 
employer." OSHA determined that this definition was needed to clarify 
the requirements in Sec.  1915.89(l), Multi-employer worksites. The 
definition is currently included in subpart P, Fire Protection for 
Shipyard Employment, and has been carried over into subpart F in this 
final rule. A "contract employer" is an employer who performs 
shipyard employment-related services or work under contract to the host 
employer or to another employer who is under contract to the host 
employer when the work or services takes place at the host employer's 
worksite. Services a contract employer may provide include painting, 
joinery, carpentry, or scaffolding. The definition excludes any 
employer who provides services that are not directly related to 
shipyard employment, such as mail delivery, office-supply, or food 
vending services.
    Dummy load. In Sec.  1915.85, Vessel radar and communication 
systems, paragraph (b)(2) was revised at the suggestion of Northrop 
Grumman Shipbuilding--Newport News (Ex. 116.2) to require protection 
for employees working on a system with a dummy load. OSHA defines 
"dummy load" as a device used in place of an antenna to aid in the 
testing of a radio transmitter that converts transmitted energy into 
heat to minimize energy radiating outward or reflecting back to its 
source during testing.
    Hazardous energy. "Hazardous energy" was defined to ensure that 
employers understand that Sec.  1915.89, Control of hazardous energy, 
applies to any source or type of energy, including mechanical (for 
example, power transmission apparatus, counterbalances, springs, 
pressure, and gravity), pneumatic, hydraulic, electrical, chemical, and 
thermal (for example, high or low temperature), that could cause injury 
to employees. These energy sources may be active, residual, or stored. 
Because this definition encompasses the various types of energy, it was 
not necessary to define separately the phrase "energy source," so 
OSHA deleted the phrase as its own defined term.
    Hazardous substances. In the proposal, OSHA defined "hazardous and 
toxic substances" broadly as used in Sec.  1915.87, Medical services 
and first aid. Several commenters stated that this definition was not 
appropriate, was economically infeasible, or was too broad (Exs. 104.1; 
107.1; 105.2; 106.1; 112.1). OSHA has replaced "hazardous and toxic 
substances" with "hazardous substances" in the final standard, which 
are defined as substances that may cause injury, illness, or disease, 
or otherwise harm an employee by reason of being explosive, flammable, 
poisonous, corrosive, oxidizing, irritating, or otherwise harmful. OSHA 
has concluded that this definition adequately sets forth the hazards 
that have the potential to occur in shipyard employment. This 
definition will assist employers to address the hazards in their 
particular workplaces by providing, for example, quick-drench 
facilities and other first aid or emergency medical equipment.
    Host employer. OSHA added a new definition for "host employer" in 
the final rule. OSHA determined that this definition was needed to 
clarify the requirements in Sec.  1915.89(l), Procedures for multi-
employer worksites. The definition is currently included in subpart P, 
Fire Protection for Shipyard Employment, and has been carried over into 
subpart F in this final rule. "Host employer" is an employer who is 
in charge of coordinating the shipyard-employment work of other 
employers, or who hires other employers to perform shipyard-employment 
work or to provide shipyard employment-related services at a multi-
employer worksite.
    Isolated location. For purposes of Sec.  1915.84, Working alone, 
OSHA has added a new definition for "isolated location," as requested 
by many commenters (Exs. 101.1; 104.1; 105.1; 114.1; 115.1; 118.1; 124; 
125; 126; 128; 130.1; 198, p. 73). "Isolated location" is defined as 
an area where employees are working alone or with little assistance 
from others due to the type, time, or location of their work. Isolated 
locations include remote locations or other work areas where employees 
are not in close proximity to each other. Examples of isolated 
locations include an employee working alone on a job task at the far 
end of a vessel, vessel section, or shipyard; an employee working alone 
in a hold, sonar space, or tank; or an employee working in a confined 
space. OSHA intends to include situations where co-workers may be near 
an employee working alone but are not participating in the work of the 
lone worker. For example, an isolated location exists when two 
employees are working on either side of a metal partition, or when one 
employee performs hot work and a firewatch is on the other side of the 
bulkhead.
    Lock. OSHA has shortened the phrase "lockout device" from 
proposed Sec.  1915.89, Control of hazardous energy, by removing the 
word "device," since "device" is not needed to explain what a lock 
is. A lock is self explanatory, although OSHA retained the definition 
of the term in this final rule. Throughout the standard, when the 
proposal required the employer to affix a "lockout device," OSHA has 
simplified the term to "lock." The term is defined as a device that 
utilizes a positive means, either a key or combination lock, to hold 
an energy-isolating device in a "safe" position that prevents the 
release of energy and the startup or energization of the machinery, 
equipment, or system to be serviced.
    Lockout/tags-plus coordinator. OSHA has added a new requirement in 
Sec.  1915.89, Control of hazardous energy, to designate a lockout/
tagout coordinator in certain situations to verify each lockout/tagout 
system. Thus, OSHA has added the term "lockout/tags-plus coordinator" 
to the definition section. The lockout/tags-plus coordinator is an 
employee designated by the employer to coordinate all lockout and tags-
plus applications on vessels or vessel sections and at landside 
facilities when employees are performing multiple servicing operations 
on the same equipment at the same time, or on vessels and vessel 
sections when employees are servicing multiple machines, equipment, or 
systems at the same time. As explained in the summary and explanation 
of Sec.  1915.89, the employer may have more than one lockout/tags-plus 
coordinator, depending on the size of the shipyard and the scope of 
work being performed at any given time. The coordinator will also be 
responsible for maintaining a lockout/tagout log for each worksite.
    Lockout/tags-plus materials and hardware. A new definition for 
"lockout/tags-plus materials and hardware" was added to clarify the 
requirements for controlling hazardous energy in Sec.  1915.89. This 
hardware includes locks, chains, wedges, blanks, key blocks, adapter 
pins, self-locking fasteners, or other hardware used to isolate, block, 
or secure machinery, equipment, or systems to prevent the release of 
energy or the startup or energization of the machinery, equipment, or 
system.
    Navy ship's force. A new term for "Navy ship's force" was added 
to clarify situations when naval vessels are in shipyards and the 
ship's force will maintain control of the lockout/tagout applications 
under Sec.  1915.89. "Navy ship's force" is the crew of a vessel, 
owned and operated by the U.S. Navy, other than a time- or voyage-
chartered vessel, that is under the control of a Commanding Officer or 
Master.
    Normal production operations. The term "normal production 
operations" was modified from proposed Sec.  1915.89 to include 
several examples of machinery or equipment that OSHA intends this 
phrase to encompass. These machines or types of equipment may include, 
but are not limited to, punch presses, bending presses, shears, lathes, 
keel press rollers, or automated burning machines.
    Readily accessible/available. In Sec.  1915.82, Lighting, Sec.  
1915.83, Utilities, Sec.  1915.87, Medical services and first aid, and 
Sec.  1915.88, Sanitation, OSHA uses the term "readily accessible." 
Several commenters requested that OSHA clarify the term "readily 
accessible" for this final rule (Exs. 105.1; 121.1). OSHA agrees, and 
has defined "readily accessible/available" to mean capable of being 
reached quickly enough by an employee to ensure, for example, that 
medical services and first aid can be rendered effectively, or that 
employees can reach sanitation facilities in time to meet their health 
and personal needs.
    Servicing. The proposed term "servicing and/or maintenance" in 
Sec.  1915.89, Control of hazardous energy, has been shortened in the 
final rule to "servicing" because "maintenance" has been 
incorporated into the definition as one of the workplace activities 
that the term "servicing" encompasses. The definition now clarifies 
that servicing covers workplace activities that involve constructing, 
installing, adjusting, inspecting, modifying, testing, and repairing 
machinery, equipment or systems. Servicing also includes maintaining 
machines, equipment, or systems when performing these services would 
expose the employee to harm from the start-up or energization of the 
system being serviced or the release of hazardous energy. Servicing 
would not include the inspection of a space since that is not an 
inspection of a machine, piece of equipment or a system.
    Shield. As used in Sec.  1915.83, Utilities, "shield" means to 
install a covering, protective layer, or other effective measure on or 
around a steam hose or temporary steam-piping system, including metal 
fittings and couplings, to protect employees from coming into contact 
with hot surfaces or elements. This action would protect the employee, 
as well as the piping or hose. OSHA received comments requesting that 
this definition be added to the final rule (Exs. 106.1; 117.1).
    Short bight. In Sec.  1915.83 of the final rule, Utilities, OSHA 
added the new term "short bight." NIOSH commented: "[I]t would be 
useful to define the term 'short bights"' (Ex. 129.1). OSHA agrees 
with this comment. "Short bight" is the loop that is created in a 
line or rope that is used to tie back or fasten hoses, wiring, or 
fittings. A short bight is not the rope, or the act of fastening the 
hose, but the loop in the rope that is being used.
    Tag. OSHA has shortened the phrase "tagout device" from proposed 
Sec.  1915.89, Control of hazardous energy, by removing the word 
"device," since "device" is not needed to explain what a tag is. 
The term "tag" is self explanatory, although OSHA retained the 
definition of this term in this final rule. Throughout the standard, 
when the proposal required the employer to affix a "tagout device," 
OSHA has simplified the term to "tag" for the final rule. The term is 
defined as a prominent warning device that includes a means of 
attachment that 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 must not be 
operated until the tag is removed by an authorized employee.
    Tags-plus system. A definition for "tags-plus system" was added 
to clarify the requirements of Sec.  1915.89, Control of hazardous 
energy. Although similar to the proposed "tagout" definition, it 
needed to be revised to be consistent with requirements in the final 
standard. Tags-plus is a system for controlling hazardous energy that 
is comprised of: An energy-isolating device with a tag affixed to it 
and an additional safety measure. It is imperative that employers and 
employees understand that the system is made up of two parts; without 
both components, employers will not meet the tags-plus requirements, 
and employees will not be fully protected.
    Verification of isolation. In Sec.  1915.89 of the final rule, a 
new term, "verification of isolation," was added for clarification. 
The term refers to the means necessary to detect the presence of 
hazardous energy, which may involve the use of a test instrument, such 
as a voltmeter, a visual inspection, or a deliberate attempt to start-
up the machinery, equipment, or system. For electric shock protection, 
employers may not use a visual inspection or a deliberate attempt to 
start-up the machinery, equipment or system.
    Walkway. In Sec.  1915.81, Housekeeping OSHA included a single 
definition for "walking and working surfaces" in the proposal. Based 
on comments, that section was amended for clarity. As explained in the 
summary and explanation of Sec.  1915.81, OSHA split the requirements 
for walkways and working surfaces into separate provisions and added 
definitions for both of these terms in this final rule. A "walkway" 
is any surface where employees walk or pass through to perform their 
job tasks. This may be a vertical, slanted, or horizontal surface, and 
may include access ways, designated walkways, aisles, exits, gangways, 
ladders, ramps, stairs, and passageways. In addition, if an employer has 
instructed employees to use an area such as a scaffold to gain access to 
other locations, the scaffold will also be considered a walkway.
    Work area. OSHA has defined two new terms--"work area" and 
"worksite"--that are used throughout this subpart. These terms were 
added in response to the number of commenters asking for such 
definitions (Exs. 101.1; 104.1; 107.1; 124; 126; 128; 130). Richard 
Webster from Marine Industries Northwest testified: "Work area is also 
an awkward definition. You've got work location and work area, but you 
really don't define what it is. * * * So it would be helpful to have 
work area * * * much better defined than it is right now" (Ex. 198, p. 
195). The Agency agrees that defining terms will assist employers to 
better understand the intent of the provisions where the terms occur. 
Thus, a "work area" is defined as a specific area, such as a 
fabrication area, machine shop, tank, space, or hold, where one or more 
employees are working.
    Working surface. A "working surface," as used in Sec.  1915.81, 
Housekeeping, encompasses any surface where work is occurring or any 
area where tools, materials, and equipment are being staged for 
performing work. This definition does not include storage areas where 
tools, materials, and equipment have been stored out of walkways, but 
it may include a walkway that is now being used to stage tools, 
materials, and equipment for a job in progress.
    Worksite. As discussed previously, this term was added in response 
to the number of commenters asking for a definition (Exs. 101.1; 104.1; 
107.1; 124; 126; 128; 130). A "worksite" is a general work location 
where employees are performing work, such as a shipyard, pier, vessel, 
vessel section, or barge.
Terms Not Defined and Definitions Deleted by OSHA
    The Agency has decided not to define "adequate" or "adequate 
number," as used primarily in Sec.  1915.87, Medical services and 
first aid. Richard Webster of Marine Industries Northwest stated, "You 
use the terminology over and over again, adequate, adequate. Adequate 
number of first aid kits, adequate number of--adequate supplies. * * * 
The term is just begging for [a] definition" (Ex. 198, p. 194). Other 
commenters stressed the need to define "adequate" (Exs. 101.1; 124; 
126; 128; 130.1). OSHA believes that the employer, by considering the 
factors required in Sec.  1915.87(c)(3), will be able to determine the 
number of first aid providers they will need at their facility. These 
factors include the size and location of each shipyard worksite, the 
number of employees at each worksite, and the nature of the hazards 
present at each worksite. To determine first aid and CPR needs, 
employers must also consider the distance of each worksite from on-site 
infirmaries or clinics, or off-site hospitals. For sanitation 
facilities, employers must take into account the distance of each 
worksite from the sanitation facilities.
    OSHA has also deleted the following proposed definitions from the 
final rule: "Energized," "energy source," "hot tap," and "ship's 
systems." While no comments were received on these definitions, 
Electric Boat Corp. noted that proposed Sec.  1915.89(a)(2)(iii)(B) 
referred to "hot-tapping" even though 29 CFR 1915.14 "requires a 
Marine Chemist certificate for hot work on pipelines that contain or 
have contained flammable or combustible liquids" (Ex. 108.1). 
Furthermore, Electric Boat Corp. noted:

    NFPA Standard 306 (Control of Gas Hazards on Marine Vessels) 
does not permit the Marine Chemist to authorize hot tapping except 
in emergency situations where the vessel is in peril. If this work 
cannot be authorized in the marine environment why include it in the 
proposed standard. The practice of hot tapping in a shipyard should 
be removed to eliminate any confusion (Ex. 108.2).

OSHA agrees with the commenter and understands that hot tapping is an 
uncommon practice in shipyard employment. Therefore, the definition and 
related provisions have been removed from this final rule.
    The terms "energized," "energy source," and "ship's systems" 
are no longer used in the regulatory text of Sec.  1915.89 of this 
final rule and, therefore, need not be defined.
Definitions Included Without Change or With Minor Editorial Changes
    OSHA did not receive comments on the remaining definitions, and 
believes that all of the terms used in this subpart are "terms of 
art" in the industry and are universally recognized by shipyard 
employees and employers. In addition, some terms were carried forward 
into the final standard with only minor editorial changes. These terms 
include "affected employee," "capable of being locked out," 
"energy-isolating device," "healthcare provider," "lockout," 
"motor vehicle," "portable toilet," "potable water," "sanitation 
facility," "serviceable condition," "sewered toilet," "tagout," 
"vehicle safety equipment," and "vermin."

Section 1915.81--Housekeeping

    This section of the final rule covers housekeeping issues that are 
found throughout shipyard employment that, unless adequately addressed, 
can add to an already hazardous environment. The final rule, like the 
proposed rule, consolidates, revises, and reorganizes the housekeeping 
requirements applicable to shipyards (Sec.  1910.141(a)(3) and Sec.  
1915.91). However, in the final rule OSHA has changed the approach to, 
and the organization of, the housekeeping requirements.
    In the proposed rule, OSHA applied the housekeeping requirements 
uniformly to all "walking and working surfaces" rather than treating 
walking surfaces and working surfaces as two distinct areas having 
unique characteristics and warranting separate safety considerations 
and requirements. As mentioned in the discussion of Sec.  1915.80(b), 
the proposed rule defined walking and working surfaces as "any surface 
on or through which employees gain access to or perform their job 
duties or upon or through which employees are required or allowed to 
walk or work in their workplace." The proposed definition also 
specified that the term included work areas, accessways, aisles, exits, 
gangways, ladders, ramps, stairs, steps, and walkways. OSHA applied 
this umbrella term to all of the housekeeping requirements in an 
attempt to make this section easier to understand.
    However, many commenters expressed concern that combining walking 
and working surfaces created a term that was too broad (Exs. 106.1; 
108.2; 117.1). For example, Electric Boat stated: "Every location in a 
shipyard and on a vessel has the potential to be a working surface" 
(Ex. 108.2). Bath Iron Works added that the term walking and working 
surfaces is so broad that it "will include every square foot of a 
shipyard" (Ex. 106.1).
    Stakeholders also said combining walking and working surfaces as 
one term could result in confusion since walking surfaces sometimes 
became working surfaces and vice versa (Exs. 121.1; 199, p. 102). 
Manitowoc Marine Group commented: "During the construction and repair 
of a vessel, many operations take place simultaneously, and it could be 
easily very difficult to discriminate what is and what is not 
considered, quote, a 'work area' " (Ex. 168, p. 68). Commenters from 
the American Shipbuilding Association and the North Pacific Fishing 
Vessel Owners' Association requested that OSHA establish separate 
definitions for walkways and working surfaces to eliminate potential 
confusion (Exs. 117.1; 197).

    Northrop Grumman--Newport News pointed to the uniqueness of working 
surfaces in shipyard employment to support dividing walking and working 
surfaces into separate terms:

    Shipbuilding and repair, by nature, requires employees to access 
numerous small, awkward spaces, such as the catapult wing voids on 
aircraft carriers and vertical launch silos on submarines; 
therefore, working space is inherently limited even under the very 
best housekeeping practices (Exs. 116.2; 120.1).

    Based on the comments received and testimony heard, OSHA has 
decided to separate "walking and working surfaces" into two terms: 
"walkways" and "working surfaces." Section 1915.80(b)(35) of the 
final rule defines a "walkway" as any surface on which employees 
walk, including areas that employees pass through, to perform their job 
tasks. Walkways include, but are not limited to, accessways, designated 
walkways, aisles, exits, gangways, ladders, ramps, stairs, steps, 
passageways, and scaffolding. If an area is used or is intended to be 
used, to gain access to other locations, it is a walkway within the 
meaning of the final rule.
    The final rule defines "working surface" as any surface where 
work is occurring or any area where tools, material, and equipment are 
being staged for performing work (Sec.  1915.80(b)(37)).
    To make the distinction between walkways and working surfaces, OSHA 
has reorganized Sec.  1915.81 of the final standard into three 
paragraphs. Paragraph (a) covers general requirements that apply to 
both walkways and working surfaces; paragraph (b) includes specific 
requirements for walkways; and paragraph (c) includes specific 
requirements for working surfaces.
Paragraph (a)--General Requirements
    Paragraph (a)(1) requires the employer to establish and maintain 
good housekeeping practices to eliminate hazards to employees to the 
extent practicable. Proposed Sec.  1915.81(a) required that the 
employer maintain good housekeeping conditions "at all times" to 
ensure that walking and working surfaces "do not create a hazard for 
employees." American Seafoods Company commented that this requirement 
was "vague and impractical in that maintenance and cleaning operations 
at times necessitate that the walking and working surfaces be lifted 
from their frames" (Ex. 105.1). In addition, the U.S. Navy stated that 
the term " '[g]ood housekeeping' adds an ambiguity without apparent 
benefit" (Ex. 132.2). Other stakeholders said that in shipyard 
employment it is not always possible to maintain good housekeeping 
conditions at all times (Exs. 99; 104.1; 107). For example, Steven 
Labreque of Electric Boat Corp. said: "Maintaining a clean and dry 
condition in all these locations is simply not feasible" (Ex. 108.2).
    After considering stakeholder comments and other information in the 
record, OSHA has modified the language in Sec.  1915.81(a) of the final 
rule in two ways. First, the final rule requires that employers 
establish good housekeeping practices. OSHA's intention in including a 
general housekeeping requirement has always been to ensure that 
shipyard employers develop and implement procedures for regular and 
systematic housekeeping to minimize hazards and protect employees from 
harm. In particular, OSHA believes that requiring employers to 
establish regular housekeeping practices will be effective in helping 
to reduce the large number of slip, trip, and fall injuries that occur 
in shipyard employment. As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule 
(72 FR 72458, December 20, 2007), 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 (Ex. 69).
    Second, OSHA has revised the language in paragraph (a)(1) to 
require that employer housekeeping practices eliminate hazards to 
employees "to the extent practicable." The proposed rule would have 
required that employers ensure that they maintain good housekeeping 
conditions at all times in their workplaces so no hazard is created for 
employees. The revised language recognizes that, due to unique 
conditions inherent in shipyard employment, it may not be possible to 
maintain good housekeeping conditions in shipyard-employment workplaces 
at all times or ensure that workplace conditions never present a 
hazard. However, the rule requires employers to implement and maintain 
rigorous housekeeping conditions unless it is impracticable.
    Paragraph (a)(2) specifies that employers must eliminate slippery 
conditions on walkways and working surfaces "as necessary." This 
provision, proposed as paragraph (g), would have required that slippery 
conditions, including snow and ice, be eliminated "as they occur."
    Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding--Newport News supported the proposal: 
"[E]liminating slippery conditions, including those associated with 
snow and ice, are important to minimizing the risk of an employee 
slipping and being injured" (Exs. 116.2; 120.1). However, a number of 
other commenters were opposed to the proposed requirement. Trident 
Seafoods Corporation, the U.S. Navy, Bath Iron Works, the Shipbuilders 
Council of America, American Shipbuilding Association, and Sound 
Testing, Inc., said it is extremely difficult in shipyard-employment 
worksites to ensure that snow and ice are immediately eliminated (Exs. 
104.1; 106.1; 107.1; 114.1; 115.1; 117.1; 118.1; 119.1; 121.1; 125; 
132.2; 168, p. 68; 199, pp. 55, 80-83). For instance, Atlantic Marine 
said: "It is not practical to eliminate snow and ice as they occur" 
(Exs. 115.1; 118.1). Roy Martin testified that the proposed requirement 
"represents an unrealistic expectation. Removing snow and ice as they 
occur is not practical, considering, as I well know [from] firsthand 
experience on the Great Lakes, conditions such as this may last several 
days, making constant attention a major burden, if not infeasible" 
(Ex. 168, p. 57). Dale Myer of Arctic Storm Management Group testified 
that requiring employers to clean slippery conditions as they occur 
would be impossible because such conditions were "almost impossible to 
define. When is a surface slippery? * * * So is one flake going to be 
snow occurred? Is one inch going to be snow occurred? Is a trace of 
snow going to be as it occurs?" (Ex. 199, p. 82).
    Stakeholders suggested alternative approaches. Atlantic Marine 
suggested that OSHA allow "a practical amount of time" to remove snow 
and ice (Exs. 115.1; 118.1). Dale Myer recommended:

    I believe that the phrases that you have in subsection D 
[proposed paragraph (d)], which talks about the dry conditions, as 
it reads it says, maintain so far as practical in dry conditions. I 
think that phrase, 'so far as practical,' should actually be 
incorporated into G [proposed paragraph (g)] (Ex. 199, p. 83).

    To address stakeholders' concerns, OSHA has revised the language of 
the final rule to require that employers eliminate slippery conditions 
"as necessary." OSHA intends "as necessary" to mean that conditions 
are such that they can pose a hazard to employees. The revised language 
gives employers flexibility in determining whether the particular 
conditions may pose a hazard to employees or have deteriorated such 
that action is necessary. In addition, the performance-based approach 
gives employers flexibility in determining what method of eliminating 
slippery conditions will work most effectively for them.
    During the hearings, participants described some of the methods and 
procedures they use at their shipyard facilities. For instance, Roy 
Martin described how Manitowoc Marine Group deals with ice and snow:

    We will have someone come in the moment we do have an event, and 
they will start the cleanup process, as much as feasible. They will 
clean the main thoroughfares, and they will sand-salt as they are 
cleaning as well. We do have areas around the vessels which we train 
our employees to help utilize the salt-sand buckets, for lack of [a] 
better phrase, at these areas as well. We utilize a lot of employee 
assistance in that, because, as you well know, there are instances 
where we have days of extensive weather (Ex. 168, p. 93).

    Some stakeholders stated that, in certain severe weather 
conditions, it was not always possible to eliminate slippery conditions 
(Exs. 115.1; 116.1; 118.1). The final rule recognizes that, in some 
circumstances, weather conditions may make it impracticable for 
employers to eliminate slippery conditions. In such cases, employers 
must take alternative action to ensure that employees are not injured. 
Accordingly, the final rule specifies that when it is impracticable for 
employers to eliminate slippery conditions, they must either (1) 
restrict employees to designated walkways and working surfaces where 
the employer has been able to eliminate slippery conditions, or (2) 
provide employees with slip-resistant footwear. This footwear must be 
provided in accordance with 29 CFR part 1915, subpart I. In particular, 
Sec.  1915.152(f) specifies whether the employer must provide personal 
protective equipment (PPE) at no cost to employees.
    OSHA does not think that employers will have difficulty in 
complying with the alternative methods. For example, Dale Myer stated 
that their company already has incorporated slip-resistant footwear in 
their housekeeping program:

    Another thing that we do is we have bought our crew slip-on, you 
know, we call them toggles. What they are is they're just, they slip 
right over the rubber boots and stuff like that. They're like 
grippers. And when we have been working on the dock and the dock is 
slippery, we provide those to our crew members (Ex. 199, pp. 87-88).

    Paragraph (a)(3) requires that employers store materials in a 
manner that does not create a hazard for employees. Proposed Sec.  
1915.91(h) would have required that "construction materials" be 
stacked in a manner that does not create a hazard to employees. 
Information in the record, including site visits to shipyards and on 
fishing vessels (Ex. 207), support expanding the final rule to cover 
more than construction materials and address additional storage 
methods. Shipyard employment activities involve large amounts of 
materials, including construction materials, drums filled with 
hydraulic fluid, pallets (empty and full), and equipment such as 
welding machinery. If any of these materials are not properly stored or 
stacked, they could create a hazard for employees. For instance, if 
hydraulic drums are not properly stacked, they could topple over and 
injure workers. Scaffolding material could cause trips and falls if 
they are not stored properly when not in use. Therefore, the final rule 
expands the scope of this provision to cover all materials used in 
shipyard employment, including materials for constructing or repairing 
vessels and vessel sections, as well as any materials used in daily 
shipyard operations.
    In addition, the final rule specifies that the employer must 
"store" materials safely, which is more comprehensive than the 
proposed requirement to "stack" materials safely. OSHA believes that 
requiring materials to be stored safely will protect employees from 
injury no matter whether the employer chooses to stack them or use 
another storage method.
    Paragraph (a)(4) requires that employers maintain easy and open 
access to fire alarm boxes, fire call stations, all fire-fighting 
equipment, and exits, including ladders, staircases, scaffolds, and 
gangways. Proposed Sec.  1915.81(f) contained a similar requirement, 
but the provision referred generally to maintaining easy access to 
"exits." In shipyard-employment workplaces, there are many types of 
exits and methods of egress, including gangways, ladders, staircases, 
and scaffolds. OSHA believes that employees must have immediate access 
to all means of egress in the event of an emergency. Therefore, the 
final rule clarifies additional types of exits in shipyard-employment 
workplaces to which the employer must maintain easy and open access.
    Paragraph (a)(5) requires that all flammable and combustible 
substances, such as paint thinners, solvents, rags, scrap, and waste, 
be disposed of or stored in covered fire-resistant containers. The 
final rule combines proposed paragraphs (j) and (k) into one provision. 
Proposed Sec.  1915.81(j) would have required that all oils, paint 
thinners, solvents, waste, soaked rags, or other flammable substances 
be kept in fire-resistant covered containers when not in use. 
Similarly, proposed Sec.  1915.81(k) would have required that 
combustible scrap be removed from work areas as soon as possible.
    Several commenters, including Bath Iron Works, the Shipbuilders 
Council of America, and Atlantic Marine, recommended that OSHA delete 
both proposed paragraphs (j) and (k), saying 29 CFR part 1915, subpart 
P, Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment, covers these issues (Exs. 
106.1; 108.2; 114.1; 115.1; 117.1; 118.1). To the extent that subpart P 
covers the hazards of flammable and combustible substances, the 
requirements only apply to work areas where hot work is performed. 
Section 1915.81(a)(5), on the other hand, addresses flammable and 
combustible substances wherever they are used, located, or stored in 
shipyard-employment worksites. Therefore, OSHA believes it is necessary 
to retain the proposed requirements in the final rule. The Agency 
believes that the removal or proper storage of flammable and 
combustible substances is important to ensure that employees have safe 
working conditions.
    Paragraph (a)(5) also requires that flammable and combustible 
substances be disposed of or stored at the completion of a job or end 
of a workshift, whichever occurs first. Proposed Sec.  1915.81(j) would 
have required that flammable substances be stored "when not in use," 
while proposed Sec.  1915.81(j) would have required that combustible 
scrap be removed from work areas "as soon as possible."
    Trident Seafoods Corporation raised concerns about when employers 
must store or dispose of substances (Exs. 104.1; 107.1; 199, pp. 136-
137):

    Does 'when not in use' mean that closed paint thinner cans must 
be placed in covered fire resistant containers during short breaks? 
It would be better if this requirement read along the lines of 'at 
the end of the shift, when no longer needed for [on] the particular 
portion of the job being performed or end of the work day whichever 
comes first' (Exs. 104.1; 107.1).

OSHA agrees with the commenter's recommendation. OSHA did not intend to 
require that employers store flammable substances while employees are 
at lunch or on break. OSHA used performance-based language in proposed 
paragraphs (j) and (k) to give employers flexibility in how to best 
comply with the requirements. OSHA believes the commenter's 
recommendation provides clearer direction to employers, while ensuring 
adequate protection for employees. Accordingly, the final rule requires 
that employers dispose of or store flammable and combustible substances 
at the end of each workshift or when the job is completed, whichever 
occurs first.

Paragraph (b)--Walkways
    Paragraph (b) sets forth requirements to protect employees from 
hazards when they are using walkways. OSHA has included in paragraph 
(b) those requirements from the proposed rule that were intended to 
apply primarily to walkways, as well as requirements that address 
issues that are unique to walkways.
    Paragraph (b)(1)(i) requires that all walkways provide adequate 
passage. The proposed rule contained a similar requirement (proposed 
Sec.  1915.81(b)). This requirement is intended to be read in 
conjunction with paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)-(iv), which address keeping 
walkways clear of debris, materials, hoses, and cords. Taken together, 
these provisions provide employers with directions for ensuring that 
walkways provide safe and adequate passage.
    Paragraph (b)(1)(ii) requires that walkways be clear of debris, 
including solid and liquid wastes, that may create a hazard for 
employees. The proposal included a similar provision (Sec.  
1915.81(e)). Sound Testing, Inc., requested that OSHA define "solid 
and liquid waste" (Ex. 121.1). OSHA believes that employers understand 
that "solid and liquid waste" includes any materials unused and 
rejected as unwanted, such as trash, used materials, scraps, studs, 
welding rod tips, nuts or bolts, broken equipment, empty containers, or 
other items that will be thrown away. OSHA intends that the term have 
only the normal definition of "waste"; therefore, the Agency does not 
believe it is necessary to add a definition to the regulatory text.
    Paragraph (b)(1)(iii) specifies that employers ensure walkways are 
free from tools, materials, equipment, and other objects that may cause 
a hazard to employees. Proposed Sec.  1915.81(c) would have required 
that only tools, materials, and equipment necessary to perform the job 
in progress may be kept on walking and working surfaces, and that all 
other tools, materials, and equipment be stored or located in an area 
that does not interfere with walking and working surfaces.
    General Dynamics Electric Boat and Sound Testing, Inc., recommended 
that the provision be applied only to walkways, not working surfaces 
(Exs. 108.2; 121.1). For example, Phil Dovinh, of Sound Testing, Inc., 
stated:

    Walking surfaces should be kept clear of all tools and equipment 
at all times--portable welding machines, generators, blowers and 
ventilation equipment, gas cylinders and fire extinguishers, welding 
leads, cables and hoses, pressure washers, pumps, etc * * * all are 
necessary during hot work, repair or maintenance operations, and 
could easily block a walkway--hence potentially hindering an 
emergency escape. A walking surface can become a working surface 
when the repair is required--only then tools and equipment may be 
placed on the walking surfaces as needed to successfully complete 
the job (Ex. 121.1).

    OSHA believes that walkways must be clear from tools, materials, 
and equipment at all times. If materials and equipment are placed in 
walkways, employees passing through the area are at risk of injury. 
OSHA recognizes that workers need to have the necessary tools, 
materials, and equipment at hand to perform their jobs. However, if 
employees place materials or equipment in a walkway, that walkway 
becomes a working surface and the employer must prevent the area from 
being used as a walkway (see discussion of paragraph (b)(2)).
    Paragraph (b)(1)(iv) requires that walkways be clear of hoses and 
electrical service cords, and identifies acceptable means to meet that 
requirement. The purpose of the proposed and final provisions is to 
prevent injury to employees and damage to the hoses and cords.
    The proposed rule (proposed Sec.  1915.81(i)) contained a similar 
requirement, but it did not include a general provision allowing 
employers to use other suitable means to keep hoses and cords out of 
walkways. Stakeholders suggested that OSHA allow employers to use 
additional methods to prevent employee contact with hoses and cords. 
For example, Trident Seafood Corporation recommended "the option of 
ensuring that hoses and electrical cords are kept to the side of a 
walkway or working surface provided they are not trip hazards or in 
danger of being damaged" (Exs. 104.1; 107.1). General Dynamics NASSCO 
recommended that:

    Hoses, cords and leads shall be routed in a manner that prevents 
employee exposure to trip hazards and damage to the hoses, cords, 
and leads. Walkways shall be kept free of trip hazards by routing 
hoses, cords and leads overhead, through crossovers or by other 
suitable means (Ex. 119.1).

    OSHA agrees with the commenters' statements that there are 
additional safe ways to protect employees from contact with hoses and 
cords in walkways. Accordingly, OSHA has modified paragraph (b)(1)(iv) 
to provide employers alternatives to comply with this provision. 
Employers may either place hoses and cords above walkways, underneath 
walkways, or on walkways, provided they are covered by crossovers or 
other means. In addition, OSHA has added a performance-based 
alternative that allows the employer to protect each hose and cord by 
another suitable means, provided that the "suitable means" provides 
equivalent protection for employees and prevents damage to the hoses 
and cords. OSHA believes that this revision gives employers greater 
flexibility in complying with the requirement of paragraph (b)(1)(iv).
    Several commenters raised an issue about applying this provision to 
both walking and working surfaces. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding--
Newport News argued that the provision was not feasible for working 
surfaces: "Employees may perform job tasks in tight, confined or 
otherwise awkward areas on ships where there is limited overhead to 
hang a line or room to cover the line" (Exs. 116.2; 120.1). Based on 
these comments, the Agency has changed the final rule so it applies 
only to walkways.
    In paragraph (b)(2) of the final rule, OSHA is adding a new 
requirement that specifies what action employers must take if they use 
a walkway as a working surface. Paragraph (b)(2) requires that 
employers cordon off any portion of a walkway they are using as a 
working surface to prevent the area from being used as a walkway.
    As mentioned, many stakeholders said using walkways as working 
surfaces is a common occurrence in shipyard employment (Exs. 108.2; 
121.1; 199, p. 122). Philip Dovinh, from Sound Testing, Inc., 
commented: "A walking surface can become a working surface when repair 
is required--only then tools and equipment may be placed on the walking 
surfaces as needed to successfully complete the job" (Ex. 121.1).
    The new requirement ensures that this common occurrence in shipyard 
employment does not injure or endanger workers. If workers are allowed 
to walk through a walkway that is also being used as a working surface, 
they could bump into employees working in the area or disturb equipment 
or materials that are being used to perform the job in that area. OSHA 
believes that this new requirement protects not only workers who 
otherwise would use the walkway as a thoroughfare, but also employees 
who are working in the cordoned-off section.
    OSHA notes that even if the employer uses a portion of a walkway as 
a working surface, the employer is still required to ensure that each 
walkway provides adequate passage (Sec.  1915.81(b)(1)(i)). If the 
remaining portion of the walkway does not provide adequate passage, the 
employer must provide other means of access.

Paragraph (c)--Working Surfaces
    Paragraph (c) specifies the requirements that employers must 
follow, in addition to those in paragraph (a), to protect employees on 
working surfaces. Paragraph (c)(1) requires that employers ensure that 
each working surface is cleared of tools, materials, and equipment that 
are not necessary to perform the job in progress. The proposed rule 
contained a similar requirement (proposed Sec.  1915.81(c)). OSHA 
understands that some jobs may require a large amount of tools, 
materials, or equipment, and that workers should be able to access 
these items as they are needed. However, excess tools, materials, and 
equipment pose a risk of slips, trips, falls, or other injuries. In 
addition, excess materials take up precious space in what stakeholders 
say are small, tight working areas in shipyard employment (Ex. 116.2; 
120.1). OSHA did not receive any comments opposing this requirement as 
it applies to working surfaces.
    Paragraph (c)(2) requires employers to ensure that each working 
surface is cleared of debris, including solid and liquid waste, at the 
end of each workshift or job, whichever occurs first. Proposed Sec.  
1915.81(e) would have required that both walking and working surfaces 
be kept clear of debris at all times. OSHA has modified that 
requirement as it applies to working surfaces in this final rule. In 
active work areas, OSHA recognizes that the job may produce debris. 
OSHA did not intend to require employers to stop the job to clear the 
area every time debris is produced. Rather, OSHA intended that at the 
end of each workshift, the employer shall clean up and remove debris 
from the work area. If a job is completed before a workshift ends, the 
final rule requires that the employer clear debris from the work area 
at that time. The Agency believes that the revised language in 
paragraph (c)(2) provides greater clarity than the proposal.
    Paragraph (c)(3) specifies that each working surface be maintained, 
so far as practicable, in a dry condition. When wet processes are used, 
the final rule requires that the employer implement measures so workers 
have dry standing places. If that is not practicable, the final rule 
requires that the employer provide footgear that protects the employee 
from the wet process. Proposed Sec.  1915.81(d) contained a similar 
requirement.
    A number of commenters said the language in the proposed rule 
implied that employers would be required to provide waterproof footgear 
to all workers any time the floor or deck of a work area became wet. 
Atlantic Marine stated that:

    The way this paragraph reads, employers would have to provide 
waterproof foot gear every time it rains because the surface may not 
dry immediately. Atlantic Marine assumes that OSHA did not intend 
rain gear to be required PPE since it is specifically excluded in 
the recent payment for PPE final rule; however, the way that this 
section is worded, it becomes required PPE. Please remove or reword 
this section (Exs. 115.1; 118.1).

American Shipbuilding Association added:

    Paragraph (d) is problematic due to the breadth of its scope[;] 
however[,] the proposal retains the existing requirement that 
employers must provide waterproof boots to workers in every work 
area where wet processes take place if keeping the floor or deck of 
that work area dry is not practicable. Because every location in a 
shipyard and on a vessel is a potential working area and many of 
those areas are located outdoors, the proposal should be more 
specific in defining work areas and should explicitly exclude 
walking areas. Otherwise, it could be interpreted to mean that 
employers must provide waterproof boots to all employees in the 
event of rain at the facility. Among wet processes, the proposal 
explicitly includes painting and cleaning. Those two processes 
should be removed as examples because waterproof footgear does not 
necessarily provide the best protection when painting and cleaning. 
Many waterproof rubbers will dissolve in solvents used in the 
painting process. Cleaning a tank containing acid, for example, 
requires more than waterproof footgear for adequate protection (Ex. 
117.1).

Other commenters raised the same concerns (Exs. 104.1; 106.1; 107.1; 
199, pp. 80-81, 106).
    OSHA believes it is important for employers to maintain working 
surfaces in dry condition when possible to protect employees from 
injury. Keeping working surfaces dry will help to prevent slips, trips, 
and falls, which constitute a significant portion of injuries in 
shipyard employment (Ex. 69). Therefore, OSHA is retaining this general 
provision in the final rule.
    Paragraph (c)(3) also requires that employers take additional 
actions if they cannot keep working surfaces in a dry condition. 
However, these additional actions only apply in work areas where 
employers are using wet processes. Shipyard employment involves various 
wet processes, including hydroblasting, gas-freeing, and cleaning. 
Employers do not have to implement the additional actions in non-wet 
processes or operations or where working surfaces are wet because of 
weather conditions. OSHA has revised the language in paragraph (c)(3) 
to clarify that the additional actions only apply in work areas where 
wet processes are used.
    If employers cannot keep working surfaces in a dry condition when 
using wet processes, they will need to maintain drainage and implement 
measures, such as false floors, platforms, mats, or other types of dry 
standing places, to prevent employees from being exposed to 
contaminated water or from standing for prolonged periods of time in 
water, both of which may result in adverse health effects.
    When the employer demonstrates that this procedures is not 
practicable to implement measures in wet processes that will provide 
dry standing places for workers, paragraph (c)(3) requires that 
employers provide footgear that protects employees from exposure to 
contaminants (for example, standing in water to perform job tasks). 
Paragraph (c)(3) also requires employers to provide protective footgear 
in accordance with the requirements of subpart I. Among other 
requirements in subpart I, Sec.  1915.152(f) establishes requirements 
for when employers must provide personal protective equipment at no 
cost to the employee.
    In addition, OSHA has revised the language in paragraph (c)(3) 
specifying what type of footgear employers must provide when it is not 
practicable for the employer to keep the working surface dry. The final 
rule requires employers to provide "protective footgear" in such 
cases. The proposed rule, on the other hand, would have required that 
employers provide "waterproof footgear, such as rubber overboots." As 
noted earlier, one stakeholder pointed out a problem with the proposed 
requirement to provide waterproof or rubber boots in certain wet 
processes:

    Among wet processes, the proposal explicitly includes painting 
and cleaning. Those two processes should be removed as examples 
because waterproof footgear does not necessarily provide the best 
protection when painting and cleaning. Many waterproof rubbers will 
dissolve in solvents used in the painting process. Cleaning a tank 
containing acid, for example, requires more than waterproof footgear 
for adequate protection (Ex. 117.1).

    OSHA believes that the revised language in the final rule addresses 
the commenters' issue and ensures that employers provide the type of 
footgear that will protect employees in the particular wet process they 
are using or working.

Section 1915.82--Lighting

    This section sets forth lighting requirements in shipyard-
employment workplaces. OSHA reorganized this section into four 
paragraphs: (1) General requirements; (2) temporary lights; 
(3) portable lights; and (4) explosion-proof, self-contained lights.
Paragraph (a)--General Requirements
    Paragraph (a) establishes general lighting requirements that apply 
in all areas of shipyard employment, regardless of whether permanent or 
temporary lights are used. Adequately lit workplaces are essential in 
preventing employees from being injured or killed because they can't 
see and avoid hazards that might be present. As discussed in the 
preamble to the proposed rule, there have been fatalities in shipyard 
employment that may have been prevented if the employer had provided 
adequate lighting (72 FR 72452, 72459-60, Dec. 20, 2007). In one case, 
an employee was electrocuted while performing repair work in a poorly 
lighted area. In another case, an employee was killed when he stepped 
into a dark cargo deck and fell through an opening in the floor to the 
bottom of the cargo hold. These types of worker fatalities clearly 
indicate that employers need to provide lighting that is sufficient for 
employees to see where they are, where they are going, and what job 
tasks they are performing.
    Paragraph (a)(1) requires that employers adequately illuminate each 
work area and walkway whenever a worker is present. This requirement is 
the same general requirement as the existing rule and the proposed 
rule. OSHA received no comments opposing this requirement and, 
therefore, is retaining the requirement in the final rule.
    In paragraph (a)(2), OSHA carries over from the proposal the table 
of lighting intensity levels (Table F-1) for landside areas. For 
vessels and vessel sections, paragraph (a)(3) allows employers either 
to provide lighting that achieves the levels in Table F-1 or to meet 
the requirements of ANSI/IESNA RP-7-01, "Recommended Practice for 
Lighting Industrial Facilities" (incorporated by reference as set 
forth in Sec.  1915.5). The proposed rule would have required employers 
to provide lighting on vessels and vessel sections that meets the 
levels in Table F-1.
    Table F-1 sets forth the minimum illumination requirements for 
designated areas in shipyard employment. For instance, Table F-1 
specifies that general landside areas, such as corridors and walkways 
that employees pass through, must have an illumination intensity of at 
least five lumens (foot candles). Higher illumination levels (for 
example, 10 lumens) are required for landside areas such as machine and 
carpentry shops where employees use hazardous tools and equipment and 
perform precision work. Likewise, higher illumination levels are 
required in warehouses, where employees read signs and warning labels 
and operate forklift trucks and other heavy equipment where controls or 
instructions must be seen and understood. OSHA developed the 
illumination levels in Table F-1 from the requirements in its 
Construction Illumination (Sec.  1926.56) and Hazardous Waste 
Operations (Sec.  1910.120) standards, and from the American National 
Standards Institute (ANSI) standard, Recommended Practice for Lighting 
Industrial Facilities (ANSI/IESNA RP-7-01) (Ex. 38). The Agency 
believes illumination requirements at these levels will help to ensure 
that workers have sufficient lighting to safely move about and perform 
work tasks.
    Table F-1 of the final rule includes a note indicating that the 
required illumination levels in the table do not apply to emergency or 
portable lighting. The final rule carries over the note in proposed 
Table F-1 with minor revisions. OSHA did not receive any comments on 
the note.
    OSHA developed proposed Table F-1, in large part, because SESAC 
recommended that OSHA revise the lighting standards to include specific 
illumination levels (Docket SESAC-1992-1, Ex. 100X, 1992, p. 113). Some 
stakeholders, such as General Dynamics NASSCO, generally agreed with 
requiring employers to meet the illumination levels in Table F-1 (Ex. 
119.1). However, OSHA also received mixed reaction to the proposed 
Table F-1. During the hearing John Killingsworth, representing the 
Puget Sound Shipbuilders Association, testified:

    [T]he numbers in this table on lumens for specific work areas 
are somewhat reasonable and they're achievable. But in my 43 years 
of work experience, I've never had to carry a light meter into any 
work area I've been in. In order to comply with this section, 
however, I guess I'll have to. Will it reduce risk? I don't think so 
(Ex. 198, p. 86).

    OSHA also received several comments opposing the application of 
proposed Table F-1 on vessels (Exs. 105.1; 112.1; 131.1; 132.2; 168, 
pp. 286-287; 198, pp. 20-22). For instance, Northrop Grumman 
Shipbuilding--Newport News stated:

    We agree that adequate lighting is important to ensure employees 
can access and perform work safely. However, we have conducted 
numerous lighting measurements on ships and do not believe that a 
prescriptive table of lighting intensities is practical. Our 
findings indicate that it is extremely difficult to obtain uniform 
lighting due to interferences associated with ship's components and 
materials. Our results indicate that passageways and decks, in 
general, are visible at lighting levels below those listed in the 
table. We recommend that Table [F-1] be removed and that 
performance-oriented language be provided along with a non-mandatory 
reference to ANSI/IESNA [RP-7-01-2001]. We recommend the following 
or similar language, 'The employer shall ensure that areas where 
employees will work or must pass through to access their work are 
adequately illuminated.' ANSI/IESNA [RP-7-01-2001] should be used as 
a non-mandatory reference to assist in determining the adequacy of 
lighting (Exs. 116.2; 120.1).

    The American Shipbuilding Association (ASA) stated:

    Our findings indicate that it is extremely difficult to obtain 
uniform lighting [on vessels] due to the variety of shipboard 
configurations encountered. Equipment and smaller internal 
compartments obstruct lighting and cause shadows even in the best-
lit work environments. Unlike in buildings, where lighting is 
usually level with the ceiling or only slightly recessed, on ships, 
lighting is often not the lowest fixture in the overhead. It is 
therefore often subject to obstruction by other ship's structures 
(Ex. 204.1).

    In sum, many commenters found the illumination levels in proposed 
Table F-1 problematic for vessels and vessel sections.
    Although OSHA believes that the minimum levels specified in Table 
F-1 provide useful and clear assistance for employers, the Agency also 
is persuaded by stakeholders who expressed that it may be difficult for 
them to maintain uniform lighting levels on vessels and vessel sections 
using permanent lighting, particularly when the vessel is old or when 
the employer does not own the vessel. Therefore, in final paragraph 
(a)(3), OSHA is allowing employers to either follow the illumination 
levels set forth in Table F-1 for lighting vessels and vessel sections 
or comply with the appropriate values specified in ANSI/IESNA RP-7-01 
(2001). For example, an employer could follow Table F-1 or ANSI/IESNA 
RP-7-01 (2001) for a fabrication area in a shipyard. By following Table 
F-1, the employer would be required to ensure that the area was 
illuminated to 10 fc. Figure A2-2, Recommended Illuminance Values for 
Industrial Areas/Activities--Outdoor, in ANSI/IESNA RP-7-01 requires 30 
fc for the same area. Additionally, for changing rooms (locker rooms) 
Table F-1 would require the employer to ensure that the area was 
illuminated to 10 fc, while Figure A2-1, Recommended Illuminance Values 
for Industrial Areas/Activities--Interior, in ANSI/IESNA RP-7-01 
requires 7 fc for the same area.
    OSHA believes that paragraph (a)(3) gives employers greater 
flexibility in providing lighting that is adequate for workers to 
safely move and work on vessels and vessel sections. OSHA also believes 
that allowing employers the option of complying with Table F-1 or the 
values specified in the ANSI standard will help alleviate stakeholder 
concerns that the proposed rule would require them to obtain costly 
personnel and equipment to verify lighting levels (Exs. 116.2; 120.1). 
In particular, stakeholders were concerned about the costs associated 
with verifying lighting levels, particularly on vessels undergoing 
constant change during construction and repair (Ex. 204.1). (See 
Section IV, Final Economic Analysis, for further discussion.)
    Based on the record and site visits, OSHA recognizes that permanent 
lighting on vessels and vessel sections may be limited. In some 
circumstances and areas, it may not be possible for employers to 
install permanent lighting that meets the required illumination levels. 
This may be particularly true for older vessels. To address this issue, 
OSHA added a new requirement (paragraph (a)(4)) specifying that, when 
it is impracticable for employers to provide permanent lighting on 
vessels or vessel sections that meets the requirements in paragraphs 
(a)(2) and (a)(3), employers must supplement the permanent lighting 
with temporary lights. OSHA believes this additional requirement is 
necessary to ensure that employees have adequate lighting to move about 
and work safely, while giving employers additional flexibility in 
meeting the lighting requirements.
    In paragraph (a)(5), OSHA carries over from the proposed and 
existing rules the provision prohibiting the use of matches and open-
flame devices for lighting, including during emergencies. OSHA believes 
that matches and open flames can never be a safe method to light a dark 
area. This rule requires that employers provide employees with portable 
lights to ensure safe movement when there is no lighting, or when 
lights are not working (1915.82(c)(1)).
Paragraph (b)--Temporary Lights
    Paragraph (b) sets forth the requirements for temporary lighting, 
including light guards, grounding, insulation, and splicing. For the 
most part, the final rule carries forward the requirements in proposed 
Sec.  1915.82(b).
    Several commenters suggested that the provisions in paragraph (b) 
more properly belong in 29 CFR part 1910 subpart S, Electrical (Exs. 
106.1; 108.2; 114.1; 168, p. 75). However, others requested that OSHA 
have one standard on temporary lighting dedicated to the maritime 
industry (Ex. 105.1). Although some of the requirements in paragraph 
(b) address electrical issues, they only address electrical issues to 
the extent they are associated with temporary lighting. The electrical 
standards in part 1910, on the other hand, are much more comprehensive 
and focus primarily on more complex electrical issues. As such, OSHA 
believes that including the requirements in Sec.  1915.82(b) ensures 
that the provisions receive appropriate focus.
    Paragraph (b)(1) requires that temporary lights be guarded if they 
do not have "completely" recessed bulbs to prevent employees from 
accidentally coming into contact with the hot bulb. The final rule is 
identical to the proposed provision. As noted in the preamble to the 
proposed standard, 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 (for example, electrical shock, 
laceration, burn) (72 FR 72460). The requirement to have guards or 
completely recessed lights will prevent employees from accidentally 
contacting the hot bulb. These safeguards also will help to prevent 
combustible materials from igniting.
    Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding--Newport News supported the proposed 
provision (Exs. 116.2; 120.1). One stakeholder suggested that OSHA more 
clearly define what is meant by "completely recessed" and recommended 
that OSHA replace the term with the following language: "extend beyond 
the plane of the lighting fixture opening" (Ex. 132.2). OSHA believes 
that the term "completely recessed" is clear and self-explanatory, 
and that the recommended language would add unnecessary complexity 
without providing significant additional benefit or clarity.
    Paragraph (b)(2), like the proposed rule, requires that employers 
equip temporary lights with electric cords "designed with sufficient 
capacity to carry the electric load." The final rule updates the 
existing standard requiring employers to use "heavy duty" electrical 
cords. OSHA believes that the language in the final rule more clearly 
and accurately identifies the type of cord employers must provide to 
ensure that employees are protected from electrical, fire, and other 
hazards. OSHA recognizes that heavy-duty, hard, and extra-hard cords 
have accepted meanings in industry standards; however, the use of a 
heavy-duty cord does not ensure that it has sufficient capacity to 
carry the particular electric load. OSHA believes the final rule 
provides clearer direction while giving employers flexibility in 
choosing what type of cord to use so long as it can safely carry the 
electric load.
    Paragraph (b)(3), like the proposed rule, specifies that 
connections and insulation for electric cords for temporary lights must 
be "maintained in a safe condition." To ensure that connections and 
insulation are "maintained in a safe condition," employers must check 
insulation and connections to determine whether they continue to be in 
proper working order and replace those that are broken, cracked, or 
damaged. If insulation and connections are damaged, workers can be 
exposed to electrical, fire, and other hazards. OSHA remains convinced 
that this maintenance requirement is necessary for employee safety. 
OSHA did not receive comments opposing the requirement.
    Paragraph (b)(4) prohibits temporary lights and light stringers 
from being suspended solely by their cords unless the manufacturer has 
designed them to be hung that way. Improper suspension of lights by 
their electric cords places the cords under tension that they were not 
designed to withstand. Such tension could cause the cords to fray, 
break, or become damaged and expose employees to electrical and other 
hazards. The only change the final rule makes in the existing rule is 
to clarify that lights may only be suspended by the cord if the 
manufacturer designs the cord to be used that way. OSHA did not receive 
any comments opposing the proposed change.
    Paragraph (b)(5) specifies that lighting stringers must not 
overload branch circuits, while paragraph (b)(6) requires that branch 
circuits be equipped with over-current protection with a capacity that 
does not exceed the rated current-carrying capacity of the cord used. 
Both provisions were contained in the proposed and existing rules. OSHA 
believes that both measures are necessary to provide an adequate 
measure of safety from electrical and fire hazards associated with 
circuit overloading. Stakeholders did not oppose the proposed 
requirements.
    Paragraph (b)(7) specifies that splices must have insulation that 
"exceeds" that of the original insulation of the cord. 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 new insulation exceed the capacity of the cord's 
insulation ensures that employees will be protected if they touch or 
come into contact with the cord at the splice. The additional 
insulation capacity also ensures that hot spots do not start burning or 
ignite combustible materials in the area.
    In the proposal, OSHA requested comment on paragraph (b)(7), 
including whether the Agency should require a more specific 
requirement. In particular, OSHA requested comment on whether OSHA 
should require splices to have insulation that is 1\1/2\ times greater 
than that of the cord. NIOSH expressed a preference for such language, 
saying such a requirement "could be objectively evaluated and may 
facilitate compliance and enforcement" (Ex. 129.1). Trident Seafoods 
Corporation made two recommendations. First, they recommended that OSHA 
provide guidance on determining when splice insulation "exceeds" the 
original insulation. They also said that OSHA should reference a 
"recognized standard for determining appropriate splices insulation 
such as NFPA [National Fire Protection Association] NC70" standard 
(Ex. 198, p. 72). On the other hand, the U.S. Navy said that the 
existing rule requiring that splices have insulation "equal" to that 
of the cord was adequate, and that it complies with the requirements on 
splices in the NFPA NC70 national consensus standard (Ex. 132.2).
    OSHA decided to adopt the proposed requirement for two reasons. 
First, OSHA believes that requiring splice insulation to exceed the 
capacity rating of the insulation on the original cord ensures that 
employees are fully protected from electrical and other hazards. OSHA 
notes that employers who use splices with insulation that is 1\1/2\ 
times greater than the original will be in compliance with the final 
rule.
    Second, OSHA believes that the performance-based language in the 
final rule will give employers greater flexibility. OSHA believes that 
providing employers with such flexibility will be beneficial, 
especially since different capacities of splice insulation may be 
needed depending on the use and location of each temporary light cord.
    Paragraph (b)(8) requires that exposed, non-current-carrying metal 
parts of temporary lights be grounded. It also requires that grounding 
be provided either through a third wire in the cord that contains the 
circuit conductors, or through a separate wire that is grounded at the 
source of the current. In addition, it requires that grounding be done 
in accordance with the electrical standards in 29 CFR part 1910, 
subpart S. The proposed rule would have required that grounding be done 
in accordance with the requirements of Sec.  1915.132(b) (subpart H, 
Tools and Related Equipment). Since publication of the proposal, OSHA 
promulgated 29 CFR 1910, subpart S, which supersedes Sec.  1915.132(b). 
Therefore, OSHA updated the reference in the final rule. No comments 
were received that opposed paragraph (b)(8).
Paragraph (c)--Portable Lights
    Paragraph (c) sets forth requirements for providing and using 
portable lights, including emergency lights. The proposed rule referred 
to "handheld" portable lights. A number of stakeholders urged OSHA 
either to define the term "handheld portable lights" used in proposed 
paragraph (c), or replace it with either "portable light" or the 
common term "flashlight" (Exs. 101.1; 121.1; 124; 126; 128; 130.1; 
168, pp. 72, 353; 198, pp. 86-87). Several stakeholders pointed out 
that there are various types of portable lights available and used in 
the industry, not all of which are handheld. For example, some 
employers provide portable lights affixed to head protection; one 
stakeholder strings emergency lighting through the vessel in case of a 
power outage; and another has a generator linked with permanent 
lighting systems that transfers power in the event that a power outage 
occurs (Ex. 168, p. 242).
    OSHA's intention in the proposed rule was to ensure that workers do 
not enter unlighted areas or do not have to move about in dark spaces 
if lights stop working. OSHA believes stakeholder recommendations that 
employers be permitted to supply employees with other types of portable 
lights, as well as handheld ones, will provide greater flexibility 
while ensuring that workers are protected. Accordingly, the final rule 
allows employers to use handheld lights as well as other types of 
portable lights.
    Paragraph (c)(1) requires that employers provide, and ensure that 
employees use, portable lights before they enter a dark area if that 
area does not have permanent or temporary lights, if the lights do not 
work, or if permanent or temporary lights are not readily accessible. 
OSHA believes that workers are at great risk of harm when they enter 
dark areas, especially on vessels. The IMIS database reports several 
fatalities in shipyard employment in which workers fell to their deaths 
in dark areas on vessels (72 FR 72452, 72459-60, Dec. 20, 2007).
    For purposes of paragraph (c)(1), the term "not readily 
accessible" means that fixtures for turning on permanent or temporary 
lights are not located at, or in close proximity to, the entrance to 
the dark area. For example, when an employee would have to walk across 
a dark work area or climb steps in the dark to turn on the lights, OSHA 
would not consider such lights to be readily accessible. In such cases, 
the employer would have to provide, and ensure that the employee uses, 
a portable light to enter the area.
    OSHA does not believe that employers will have difficulty complying 
with this requirement. Some stakeholders said it was "common 
practice" to provide flashlights to workers (Ex. 114.1). Other 
stakeholders commented that they already require that workers have 
portable lights when they go below deck on vessels or enter any area 
where they cannot see the walking surface (Exs. 116.2; 120.1).
    Paragraph (c)(2) requires employers to provide portable or 
emergency lights for the safe movement of employees on a vessel or 
vessel section when the only means of illumination comes from off-
vessel light sources. The proposed rule contained a similar 
requirement. Like paragraph (c)(1), this provision is needed because 
off-vessel lighting could fail, making it hazardous for employees to 
move around or exit a dark area on the vessel or vessel section. If 
off-vessel lights stop working when employees are working below deck on 
a vessel, the workers could be injured or killed if they try to move 
around or exit the space.
    Final paragraph (c)(2) changes the proposed rule in two respects. 
First, the final rule allows employers to provide either emergency or 
portable lights. The proposed rule would have required employers to 
provide portable lights. OSHA is expanding the final rule because some 
stakeholders said they use back-up generators that activate if off-
vessel lights go out (Ex. 168, p. 243).
    Second, the final rule deletes the proposed language requiring that 
employers ensure that portable lights are available in "the immediate 
work area." Some stakeholders questioned what the immediate work area 
is when lights go out and asked OSHA to define the term in the final 
rule (Ex. 168, p. 297). After reviewing the record, OSHA finds that 
what constitutes an immediate work area on a vessel varies based on 
factors such as the size of the vessel and its work areas, the number 
of employees working on the vessel and in specific work areas, and the 
type of portable or emergency lights being provided. OSHA believes 
employers need to examine those factors to determine where portable and 
emergency lights need to be located to ensure each employee is able to 
move safely.
    Also implicit in paragraph (c)(2) is the requirement that employers 
provide an adequate number of portable or emergency lights to ensure 
that each employee is able to move about and exit the dark areas 
safely. The factors employers use to determine where portable lights 
need to be located are the same factors for determining the number of 
portable or emergency lights necessary to ensure that each worker can 
safely move about if the lights go out.
    A number of commenters, including Puget Sound Shipbuilders 
Association, American Seafoods Company, Trident Seafoods Corporation, 
and Bath Iron Works, also questioned whether OSHA was requiring each 
worker to carry a flashlight or portable light at all times (Exs. 
104.1; 105.1; 106.1; 107.1; 124). OSHA is not requiring that every 
worker have a portable light when working on a vessel. For instance, if 
a number of employees work in the same area on a vessel, one portable 
light may be sufficient to allow them to move around safely and exit 
the vessel. However, when an employee is working alone, especially in 
an isolated area or confined space, the employer must ensure that the 
worker has a portable or emergency light.
    OSHA does not believe that employers will have difficulty complying 
with this provision. A number of stakeholders commented that they 
already provide portable or emergency lights to employees working on 
vessels so they can move safely if the lights go out (Exs. 99; 104.1; 
107.1; 114.1; 116.2; 120.1).
    Some stakeholders said that they have other procedures they follow 
when power outages occur on vessels, including having workers stay in 
place in the dark area until lights are reenergized or someone comes 
with portable or emergency lights (Exs. 119.1; 125; 168, pp. 242-43). 
These stakeholders said their "stand fast" policies were safe and 
adequate, and they should be allowed to continue those practices 
instead of following paragraph (c)(2) (Exs. 119.1; 125). OSHA does not 
consider such a practice, by itself, to be sufficient to ensure the 
safety of workers. For example, it could take hours for lights to be 
restored, making it difficult for workers to stand fast in dark areas. 
In addition, if lights have gone off because a situation requires 
workers to evacuate the vessel immediately, a stand-fast policy could 
endanger not only the workers waiting in dark areas on the vessel, but 
also any worker who comes with a light to help them exit the vessel.
    The American Shipbuilding Association requested an exception to 
paragraph (c)(2) when natural sunlight provides sufficient illumination 
(Ex. 117.1). OSHA's intention was to require that employers provide 
portable or emergency lights to help workers exit dark areas if off-
vessel lights go out. If natural sunlight is sufficient to allow a 
worker to move safely or exit the vessel, employers do not have to 
provide portable or emergency lights. The Agency has included language 
in paragraph (c)(2) clarifying this point.
Paragraph (d)--Explosion-Proof, Self-Contained Lights
    Paragraph (d) specifies what type of portable lights employers must 
provide for use in areas that are not gas-free. The final rule, like 
proposed paragraph (c)(3), requires employers to ensure that only 
"explosion-proof, self-contained" portable lights or other electrical 
equipment approved by a nationally recognized testing laboratory (NRTL) 
are used. Existing provision Sec.  1915.92(e) also sets forth the same 
requirements for lights in non-gas-free areas, but does so by 
referencing Sec.  1915.13(b)(9). Both the proposal and the final rule 
added the pertinent language from Sec.  1915.13(b)(9) to paragraph (d) 
thus eliminating the need for employers to reference another standard.
    Several stakeholders requested OSHA to clarify that the provision 
applies to areas with the potential for a flammable atmosphere (Exs. 
112.1; 116.2; 120.1; 121.1; 198, pp. 87, 162). OSHA agrees that it is 
important that employers clearly understand the types of atmospheres in 
which explosion-proof, self-contained portable and temporary lights are 
needed. Therefore, OSHA added language to paragraph (d) stating that 
explosion-proof, self-contained lights are required in any area where 
the atmosphere is determined to contain a concentration of flammable 
vapors that are at or above 10 percent of the lower explosive limit, as 
specified in part 1915, subparts B and C.

Section 1915.83--Utilities

    Section 1915.83 of the final rule addresses requirements to protect 
workers from hazards associated with the unchecked release of steam or 
electricity, excessive wear and tear of steam hoses that could 
compromise their integrity, and burns and fires from unguarded heat 
lamps.
Paragraph (a)--Steam Supply System
    Paragraph (a)(1) requires that employers ensure that the vessel's 
steam piping system, including hoses, is designed to safely handle the 
working pressure prior to supplying steam from an outside source to the 
vessel. Paragraph (a)(1) revises the term "responsible vessel's 
representative" in the existing provision (Sec.  1915.93(a)(1)) to 
"responsible vessel's representative, contractor, or any other person 
who is qualified by training, knowledge, or experience," and requires 
this individual to determine whether the working pressure is safe.
    The proposed rule would have required employers to ensure that the 
steam supply system has a safe working pressure, but did not carry 
forward the existing requirement to ascertain that information from a 
vessel's representative. Instead, the proposed rule would have given 
employers flexibility in determining the most effective way to ensure 
that the steam system's working pressure is safe before supplying steam 
from an outside source.
    In the preamble to the proposal, OSHA explained that its intention 
in proposing to revise the requirement for a vessel's representative 
was to give employers greater flexibility in determining who they could 
use to ascertain whether the working pressure was safe--for example, a 
vessel's representative, contractor, or any other person qualified to 
make such a determination (72 FR 72452, 72462, Dec. 20, 2007). Trident 
Seafoods Corporation requested that OSHA make this point clear by 
adding the preamble language to the final regulatory text (Exs. 104.1; 
107.1; 198, p. 73). OSHA agrees with the commenter that including the 
preamble language in the regulatory text will provide employers with 
clear and useful information about the various qualified persons whom 
they can use to comply with the requirement to ensure that the working 
pressure of the steam system is safe. OSHA also believes that requiring 
employers to ascertain from a qualified person whether the working 
pressure is safe will enhance worker safety because it builds regular 
safety checks into the process.
    Atlantic Marine expressed concerns that paragraph (a)(1) would 
require employers to have written documentation that steam supply 
systems have safe working pressure and that other requirements in 
paragraph (a) have been met (Exs. 115.1; 118.1). OSHA does not intend 
to require employers to document in writing that a qualified person has 
determined that the working pressure of the steam supply system is safe. 
Hence, the Agency has revised the language in paragraphs (a)(1) and (c)(3) 
to clarify that employers do not have to maintain written documentation.
    Paragraph (a)(2) sets forth several requirements regarding relief 
valves and pressure gauges for a steam supply connected to the vessel's 
steam system. Several commenters asked OSHA to clarify in paragraph 
(a)(2) whether "each steam supply system" is limited to those systems 
connected to a vessel's steam piping system (Exs. 106.1; 115.1; 117.1; 
118.1). OSHA intended that the requirements in paragraph (a)(2) apply 
only to outside steam supply systems connected to the vessel's steam 
piping system, and has added language to the final rule to clarify that 
intention.
    Paragraph (a)(2) carries over a number of the requirements from the 
existing rule. Paragraph (a)(2)(i) requires that both the pressure 
gauge and relief valve be installed at the point where the steam pipe 
or hose from an outside steam source joins a vessel's steam piping 
system. Paragraph (a)(2)(ii) 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. 
Paragraph (a)(2)(iii) requires that there be no means of inadvertently 
disconnecting the relief valve from the system that it protects. OSHA 
did not receive any comments on these provisions.
    Paragraph (a)(2)(iv) specifies that pressure gauges and relief 
valves of steam supply systems be legible and located so that they are 
visible and readily accessible. This additional language will address 
SESAC's concerns that workers cannot read gauges and valves because 
they are too dirty or the print is too small (Docket SESAC 1992-2, Ex. 
102X, pp. 94-96). OSHA believes that illegible pressure gauges can be 
hazardous. Employees working in or walking through the area need to be 
able to readily identify whether pressure is increasing to a hazardous 
level or continues to be at a safe level. Therefore, OSHA has retained 
the proposed requirement that pressure gauges be visible, accessible, 
and legible to allow employers and employees to determine accurately 
whether the working pressure of the steam supply system is safe.
    Paragraph (a)(2)(v) requires that relief valves be positioned so 
they will not be likely to cause injury if steam is released. The 
proposed rule (paragraph (a)(5)) would have required that relief valves 
be "located or positioned" where workers would not be injured if 
steam were released.
    One commenter suggested that the provision in proposed paragraph 
(a)(5) (paragraph (a)(2)(i) of the final rule), requiring pressure 
gauges and relief valves to be installed at the connection point 
between the outside steam hose and the vessel's steam piping system, 
would not work. Sound Testing, Inc., stated:

    The requirement of having a relief valve installed right next to 
the pressure gauge might endanger the worker each time he or she 
approaches to check the pressure. If the pressure were too high, and 
the pressure relief valve ruptured just as the worker was reading 
the gauge, the superheated steam would burn his or her face 
instantly. The pressure gauge and the relief valve should be located 
at least 15 to 20 feet apart (Ex. 121.1).

    OSHA believes it is the positioning of the relief valve that 
protects workers against injury if steam is released. For example, the 
relief valve should not be positioned so that, if an employee is 
walking by and the steam is released, the employee would be injured. 
Therefore, in the final rule OSHA requires the employer to position the 
relief valve so that it is not likely to cause injury if steam is 
released, regardless of where the valve is located.
Paragraph (b)--Steam Hoses
    Paragraph (b)(1) requires that employers ensure that steam hoses 
and their fittings are used in accordance with manufacturers' 
specifications. The proposed rule (proposed paragraph (b)(1)), similar 
to the existing standard (Sec.  1915.93(a)(2)), would have required 
that the employer ensure that all steam hoses and fittings have a 
safety factor of at least five.
    Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding--Newport News and Alaska Ship and 
Drydock opposed the proposed requirement and recommended that OSHA 
specify that steam hoses and their fittings be used in accordance with 
manufacturers' specifications (Exs. 116.1; 120.1). They pointed out 
that manufacturers use a safety factor of 4, not the 5 as OSHA 
proposed. Northrop Grumman added that there are issues in addition to 
safety factors that are important in ensuring that steam hoses and 
fittings are safe. For example, manufacturers also specify the 
temperatures, in addition to pressure ratings, that must not be 
exceeded (Exs. 116.1; 120.1).
    Kim Hodne, of Alaska Ship and Drydock, testified that his company 
contacted vendors and found that steam hoses for feed lines with a 
safety factor of 5 do not exist, and that all of the hoses his facility 
uses are rated at 250 psi (Ex. 198, pp. 111-112).
    In light of these comments, OSHA has modified final paragraph 
(b)(1) to require that steam hoses and their fittings be used in 
accordance with manufacturers' specifications. The change gives 
employers flexibility, and ensures that steam hoses meet all critical 
specifications necessary to protect employees from injury.
    Paragraph (b)(2) requires that employers hang steam hoses tightly 
with short bights to prevent chafing and to reduce tension on the hose 
and its fittings. The proposed rule contained an identical requirement.
    Commenters requested that OSHA define the term "short bight" 
(Exs. 129.1; 132.2). For example, the U.S. Navy recommended defining 
the term to mean "when a steam hose is hung in a bight or bights, the 
weight shall be received by appropriate lines that are spaced not to 
exceed eight feet maximum along the entire run" (Ex. 132.2). In 
response, OSHA defined "short bight" in the final rule (Sec.  
1915.80(b)) as a loop made in a line or rope that is used to tie back 
or fasten hoses, piping, wiring, or fittings. OSHA did not adopt the 
Navy's recommendation that bights not be spaced further than eight feet 
apart along the entire run (Ex. 132.2). In this regard, OSHA believes 
that the performance-based requirement in paragraph (b) adequately 
ensures that bights will be placed so they "prevent chafing and reduce 
tension," while giving employers flexibility in determining how best 
to space the bights so they prevent damage to hoses. Moreover, the Navy 
did not provide any information or explanation demonstrating that a 
maximum distance of eight feet between bights was appropriate and would 
adequately protect hoses on vessels.
    Paragraph (b)(3) requires that steam hoses be protected from 
damage. The proposed rule contained an identical provision. OSHA 
believes that preventing damage to steam hoses is necessary to protect 
employees working or walking near steam hoses. In walking and work 
areas, steam hoses can be damaged when equipment and materials are 
moved or operated nearby. Employees could be seriously injured if a 
damaged hose suddenly releases steam. Stakeholders did not submit 
comments on the proposed provision.
    Paragraph (b)(4) requires that employers shield steam hoses and 
temporary steam piping, including metal fittings and couplings 
(hereafter collectively referred to as "hoses"), if they pass through 
walkways or work areas. OSHA believes that shielding hoses is necessary 
to protect workers from accidentally contacting hot elements and getting 
burned. The proposed rule (proposed Sec.  1915.83(a)(4)) contained a 
similar requirement that would have updated the existing rule, which 
only required that hoses be shielded if they passed through "normal work 
areas," but did not require shielding for hoses passing through other 
work areas or walkways.
    Several commenters opposed the shielding provision and suggested 
various revisions (Exs. 106.1; 116.1; 117.1; 120.1). For instance, Bath 
Iron Works opposed the requirement because vessels contain thousands of 
feet of steam hoses and "installing shielding the entire run isn't 
practical" (Ex. 106.1). They also said shielding was "not a good 
practice" because it would compromise the physical integrity of the 
hoses, which "tend to become brittle when they are not allowed to 
breathe" (Ex. 106.1).
    OSHA does not find that either of these arguments supports deleting 
or revising paragraph (b)(4) (proposed Sec.  1915.83(a)(2)(iv)). First, 
although OSHA agrees that vessels contain thousands of feet of steam 
hoses, not all of them pass through walkways or work areas. In fact, 
Bath Iron Works said they try to re-route hoses so they will not be in 
walkways or work areas (Ex. 106.1). As such, only a portion of the 
hose, not the entire run, will need to be shielded. Second, the final 
rule gives employers flexibility in determining what types of shielding 
to use or install. The only requirement is that the shielding protects 
workers from contacting hot steam hoses. Employers are free to select 
shielding that protects against contact while still allowing the hoses 
to "breathe."
    American Shipbuilding Association (ASA) said OSHA should revise 
paragraph (b)(4) to allow shipyards to re-route hoses as an alternative 
to shielding them (Ex. 117.1). Paragraph (b)(4) does not prohibit 
employers from protecting workers from contact with hoses by re-routing 
the hoses and piping so they do not pass through walkways or work 
areas. The intention of paragraph (b)(4) is to prevent workers from 
getting burned by accidentally contacting hot steam hoses. Paragraph 
(b)(4) gives employers flexibility in determining how best to meet the 
requirement. If employers elect to re-route hoses so they do not pass 
through walkways or working areas, the requirement will be met, and 
workers will not come into contact with hot steam hoses. In this 
instance, the hoses will not pass through walkways or working areas, 
and employers will not be required to shield them. Accordingly, since 
ASA's recommended method of preventing contact with steam hoses is 
permitted under paragraph (b)(4), there is no need to revise the 
provision.
    Paragraph (b)(4) also would allow employers to comply by re-routing 
walkways and work areas away from the hoses. Once again, if workers do 
not pass through or work in areas where steam hoses are present, 
paragraph (b)(4) would not require employers to shield those hoses. To 
ensure that employees are fully protected from accidental contact with 
hot steam hoses, employers could block or cordon off areas where 
unshielded steam hoses are present, post appropriate warning signs, or 
instruct workers that they are prohibited from entering the blocked-off 
areas.
    Some commenters recommended that OSHA limit the requirement for 
shielding hoses to those areas where "contact is likely" (Exs. 106.1; 
117.1; 168, pp. 299-300). The commenters do not contend, or explain why 
this recommendation would increase protection of workers. OSHA 
believes, to the contrary, that this recommendation may increase the 
risk of injury to workers from contact with hot elements. Limiting 
shielding to areas where contact with hoses is likely may leave workers 
unprotected if the employer does not shield hoses when changes in work 
or the workplace occur. For example, if a walkway needs to be used as a 
temporary work space and the walkway must be reconfigured or re-routed, 
workers could be at risk of injury if the hoses and piping in the 
temporary walkway are not shielded. In addition, determining whether 
and when "contact is likely" adds complexity and ambiguity to the 
provision. By contrast, the requirement to shield hoses that pass 
through walkways or work areas is clear and unambiguous. In conclusion, 
OSHA believes the requirement in paragraph (b)(4) is necessary because 
the potential for worker injury from contact with hot steam hoses is 
great, especially in light of the number of tight and confined areas on 
vessels (Ex. 116.1).
    Finally, some stakeholders recommended that OSHA also require 
"metal fittings and couplings" on steam hoses to be shielded (Exs. 
106.1; 117.1; 168, pp. 300-301). ASA said that metal couplings are "a 
much more serious burn hazard" than steam hoses or piping (Ex. 117.1). 
Bath Iron Works added that "the temperature on a coupling is somewhere 
between 210 to 230 degrees, which is very, very hot versus the outer 
shielding [of hoses], which * * * is roughly 120 to 150 degrees" (Ex. 
168, p. 300). As mentioned, Bath Iron Works tries to re-route steam 
hoses to prevent workers from getting burned by metal parts (Ex. 
106.1). OSHA intended that paragraph (b)(4) carry over the existing 
shielding requirement for steam hoses and piping systems, which OSHA 
has interpreted to include the fittings and coupling for those systems. 
However, to clarify paragraph (b)(4), OSHA added "metal fittings and 
couplings" to those items that employers must shield if they pass 
through walking or working areas.
Paragraph (c)--Electric Shore Power
    Paragraph (c) addresses precautions employers must take prior to 
energizing a vessel's circuits when electricity is supplied from a 
landside power source. The required actions will 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 the hazards 
associated with hand-held powered tools.
    Paragraph (c)(1) requires employers to ensure that vessels are 
grounded prior to energizing any of the vessel's circuits. The proposed 
and existing rules would have required that vessels be grounded only 
when in dry dock, which is a standard practice in shipyards. However, 
OSHA believes that a vessel should be grounded whether or not it is in 
dry dock, such as when the vessel is on a marine railway or pierside. 
OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposed rule. The language in 
the final rule simply clarifies that a vessel should always be grounded 
prior to energizing its circuits.
    Paragraph (c)(2) requires that, prior to energizing any vessel 
circuit, employers equip the circuit to be energized with over-current 
protection that does not exceed the rated current-carrying capacity of 
the conductors. Proposed Sec.  1915.83(c)(3) and existing Sec.  
1915.93(b)(1)(iii) contain the same requirement, which also is standard 
practice in shipyards. OSHA notes that the existing rule requires that 
the over-current protection not exceed the rated current-carrying 
capacity of the "cord." In the proposed and final rules, OSHA changed 
"cord" to "conductors" to make the provision more inclusive and 
protective. Conductors include connections in addition to cords. OSHA 
did not receive any comments on the proposed provision.
    Paragraph (c)(3) requires employers to ensure that vessel circuits 
are in a safe condition prior to energizing any circuit with landside 
power. Employers must obtain a determination that vessel circuits are 
in a safe condition from a responsible vessel's representative, a contractor, 
or any other person qualified by training, knowledge, or experience to make 
that determination. Paragraph (c)(3) expands the flexibility of the existing 
rule, which requires that employers ascertain that circuits are in safe 
condition from "responsible vessel's representatives" (existing Sec.  
1915.93(b)(1)(ii)).
    To make the requirement more flexible, OSHA proposed to eliminate 
the existing requirement in Sec.  1915.93(b)(1)(ii) that employers 
consult with a person qualified to determine that vessel circuits are 
in safe condition (proposed Sec.  1915.83(c)(3)). In the preamble to 
the proposed rule, OSHA explained that eliminating the existing 
requirement to ascertain the information from vessel's representatives 
would allow employers to obtain the information from other persons who 
were qualified to make a determination about the condition of vessel 
circuits (72 FR 72452, 72462, Dec. 20, 2007). Commenters requested that 
OSHA make its purpose clear in the text of the final rule (Exs. 104.1; 
107.1); therefore, OSHA included the preamble language in the final 
rule.
    Several commenters, including Lake Union Drydock Company, Puget 
Sound Shipbuilders Association, and Dakota Creek Industries, said that 
the proposed requirement was too vague and appeared to require that all 
junction boxes and panels on each vessel be covered before providing 
shore power (Exs. 101.1; 124; 126; 128; 130.1). OSHA believes that the 
proposed and final requirement is clear--only circuits "to be 
energized" need to be checked to determine whether they are in a safe 
condition. Therefore, if shore power will be supplied to only a portion 
of the vessel, the final rule requires employers to ascertain that only 
the circuits affected by the energization are in a safe condition. A 
good safety practice would be to check the wires and connectors on the 
vessel to ensure that they are not damaged before providing landside 
power to the vessel. Since landside power has high amperage, energizing 
wires and connectors that are damaged could cause an explosion or 
electric arc that could electrocute or burn workers on the vessel.
Paragraph (d)--Heat lamps
    Paragraph (d), as did the proposed rule, requires that employers 
ensure that heat lamps, including the face, be equipped with surround-
type guards to prevent contact with the lamp and bulb. Heat lamps 
present risks of burns and fire if employees or combustible materials 
come into contact with the hot elements and surfaces. Fires are a 
hazard in shipyard employment, especially onboard vessels. Accordingly, 
paragraph (d), as did the proposed rule, expanded the existing rule in 
two ways. First, paragraph (d) applies to all heat lamps used in 
shipyard employment. The existing rule only applied to "infrared 
electrical heat lamps" (Sec.  1915.93(c)) even though other types of 
heat lamps also are used in shipyard employment. The revision ensures 
that these contact hazards are addressed so employees are fully 
protected from being burned by accidental contact, and the risk of 
igniting combustible materials is reduced.
    Second, paragraph (d) requires that the entire heat lamp, including 
the face, be guarded to prevent contact with hot surfaces of the heat 
lamp. The existing rule did not require that the face be guarded. The 
face of heat lamps, as with other parts of heat lamps, can become 
extremely hot. Contacting the lamp face can burn workers and ignite 
combustible materials. Guarding the face of the lamp will control these 
hazards. OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposed requirement, 
including the language expanding the existing provision to make it more 
protective.

Section 1915.84--Working Alone

    Section Sec.  1915.84 addresses the hazards associated with working 
alone, such as in isolated or confined spaces. As discussed in the 
preamble of the proposed rule, between 1987-2002 there were 13 
fatalities reported in the OSHA IMIS system involving employees working 
alone and not discovered until after they had died from their injuries 
(72 FR 72452, 72463, Dec. 20, 2007). The purpose of Sec.  1915.84 is to 
ensure that employers account for employees working alone, thereby 
enhancing the safety of these employees. However, if an injury occurs, 
OSHA believes the requirements in Sec.  1915.84 will reduce the 
severity of the injury and increase survivability because the 
requirements will ensure rapid detection and treatment of the injury.
    OSHA revised the scope of the final rule to focus on the hazards 
associated with an employee working alone in an area where others 
cannot see or hear if the employee is safe or needs assistance. The 
proposed and existing rules (existing Sec.  1915.94) cover: (1) 
Employees working in confined spaces, and (2) employees working alone 
in isolated spaces.
    A number of commenters said the rule should only cover employees 
working alone, while others said the rule should not apply to confined 
spaces (Exs. 106.1; 115.1; 117.1; 118.1; 132.2; 198, p. 73). With 
regard to confined spaces, some commenters said the rule was not 
necessary because they rarely assigned employees to work alone in 
confined spaces (Exs. 115.1; 118.1; p. 168, pp. 81-84). Other 
commenters said they use a "buddy system" to ensure that workers are 
constantly monitored and provided with immediate assistance if an 
injury or other problem occurs. The U.S. Navy also said the confined 
space requirements in Sec.  1915.84 were not needed because 29 CFR 
1915, subpart B, Confined and Enclosed Spaces and Other Dangerous 
Atmospheres, adequately addresses the same hazards (Ex. 132.2).
    Electric Boat Corporation added that the requirements in Sec.  
1915.84 pertaining to confined spaces should be moved to subpart B (Ex. 
108.2). They stated, "This confined space requirement [in Sec.  
1915.84] is often overlooked in its current location and moving it to 
subpart B would consolidate the maritime confined space regulations in 
one area" (Ex. 108.2). On the other hand, Bath Iron Works said that 
the requirements in Sec.  1915.84 "have been known to reside in the 
General Working Conditions section," and, therefore, there was no need 
to address them in subpart B (Ex. 106.1).
    Subpart B addresses work conducted in dangerous atmospheres and in 
spaces that are confined and enclosed, regardless of the number of 
employees entering and conducting work in those areas (Sec.  
1915.11(a)). Its primary purpose is to protect workers from atmospheric 
hazards associated with confined spaces and dangerous atmospheres, 
including exposure to atmospheric hazards such as toxic or oxygen-
deficient atmospheres. Subpart B is narrower in scope and more specific 
regarding the hazards it addresses than Sec.  1915.84. By contrast, the 
confined space hazards that Sec.  1915.84 addressed in the proposal, 
and now in this final, are broader than the hazards addressed by 
subpart B. Section 1915.84 covers the hazards of employees working 
alone in confined spaces, regardless of whether atmospheric hazards are 
present. To ensure that an employee working alone is protected against 
all of the hazards associated with confined spaces, OSHA believes it is 
necessary to retain coverage of the confined spaces provisions in Sec.  
1915.84.
    That said, OSHA agrees with stakeholders that the primary focus of 
Sec.  1915.84 is to address the hazards of employees becoming injured 
or ill working alone in areas where others cannot see or hear them, 
such as in a confined space or isolated location.

Because of this danger, some stakeholders said they use a "buddy 
system" for work in confined spaces, which involves assigning two 
workers for the confined space task--one employee who works in the 
confined space and the another worker who remains outside the confined 
space and maintains constant communication with the employee inside the 
space. Using buddy systems, which some stakeholders refer to as "tank 
watchers" or "hole watchers," serves to emphasize the need to 
monitor an employee who is in a confined or isolated space and is 
working alone as specified by Sec.  1915.84 (Exs. 108.1; 202.1). 
Accordingly, OSHA notes that the buddy system described above is an 
effective and reliable method employers can use to meet the 
requirements of Sec.  1915.84. OSHA does not believe employers in 
shipyard employment should have trouble complying with this requirement 
because many already use this method to monitor employees working alone 
in confined or isolated spaces (Exs. 108.1; 202.1).
    Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding--Newport News said the focus of Sec.  
1915.84 should be on work in isolated or confined spaces on vessels and 
should not apply to landside facilities and office areas. They added 
that working in isolated and confined spaces at landside locations 
"do[es] not present the same risk as shipboard work" (Ex. 116.1). 
OSHA's existing rule at Sec.  1915.94, which has been in place since 
1972, applies to isolated and confined spaces both on vessels and 
landside. OSHA believes it is necessary for the final rule to apply 
wherever the hazards of working alone in isolated or confined spaces 
may occur. OSHA's IMIS data includes reports of many fatalities 
involving employees working alone in isolated landside locations (Ex. 
69). Employees working alone in isolated work locations, whether they 
are on the end of a distant pier or working in the hold of a vessel, 
may not be able to summon help if they are injured. In both cases, 
these workers are at risk of harm if they are not accounted for during, 
and at the end of the workshift or job. Therefore, the final rule 
continues to apply to employees working alone, including working in 
isolated or confined spaces landside or on vessels.
    A number of commenters said the rule was not clear about what 
constitutes an "isolated location," and asked OSHA to define and give 
examples of the term in the final rule (Exs. 101.1; 105.2; 114.1; 
115.1; 118.1; 124; 126; 128; 130.1; 198, p. 73). To address 
stakeholders' concerns, in Sec.  1915.80(b) OSHA defined "isolated 
location" as "an area in which employees are working alone or with 
little assistance from others due to the type, time, or location of 
their work. Such locations include remote locations or other work areas 
where employees are not in close proximity to others." The following 
examples describe work that OSHA considers to be in isolated locations: 
A lone oiler checking a forward bilge on a vessel; an employee working 
alone "below deck" or "in the bowels of the ship"; and an employee 
working alone in a side or ballast tank (Exs. 168, pp. 102-103).
    Section Sec.  1915.84 retains the language in the existing rule 
specifying that the provision does not apply to Sec.  1915.51(c)(3). 
Section 1915.51(c)(3), which addresses welding, cutting, or heating in 
a confined space when sufficient ventilation cannot be maintained 
without blocking its means of access, requires that an employee be 
stationed outside the confined space to maintain communication with the 
employee inside the confined space to provide aid in an emergency. OSHA 
believes that the serious hazards that such working conditions present 
warrant the specific requirements in Sec.  1915.51(c)(3). OSHA did not 
receive any comments on the exception.
Paragraph (a)
    Paragraph (a) requires that employers account for each employee 
working alone (1) at regular intervals throughout the workshift, and 
(2) at the end of the job assignment or at the end of the workshift, 
whichever occurs first. The proposed rule would have required that 
employees be "checked frequently." In the final rule, OSHA replaced 
this term with the term "account for" because OSHA believes that 
employers may misinterpret checking employees frequently as limiting 
them only to a visual check. In this regard, OSHA added new language to 
the final rule that allows employers to account for each employee 
working alone either by a visual check or through verbal communication. 
Therefore, OSHA used the term "account for" in this provision of the 
final rule, which it believes will avoid misinterpretation by more 
accurately describing the additional means available to employers for 
monitoring these employees than the term "checked frequently" does.
    Paragraph (a)(1) requires that employers account for employees 
working alone, such as in a confined space or at an isolated location, 
throughout the workshift at "regular intervals appropriate to the job 
assignment" to ensure the employees' safety and health. Proposed 
paragraph (a) would have required that employers check on employees 
"frequently during each workshift."
    A number of stakeholders stressed the importance of checking 
throughout the workshift on employees working alone (Exs. 114.1; 115.1; 
118.1; 125). Other commenters said the requirement to "frequently" 
monitor employees was too subjective (Exs. 101.1; 124; 126; 128; 198, 
pp. 73, 99-100; 199, pp. 137-38). Sound Testing, Inc., commented:

    How often is 'frequently'? How often should we check during each 
work shift? Is the inspection of the confined or isolated spaces 
performed each work shift or each day by the Shipyard Competent 
Person 'frequently' enough? (Ex. 121.1).

    Some stakeholders said the requirement to frequently check 
employees posed foreseeable enforcement difficulties stating: "[H]ow 
do we convince an enforcement officer that we are conducting checks 
frequently enough?" (Ex. 101.1; 124; 126; 128; 130.1), and "We'll be 
required to convince an OSHA field inspector that our frequently is as 
good as or better than his or her concept of frequently?" (Ex. 199, 
pp. 137-38).
    Stakeholders also said the frequency with which they check on 
employees working alone depends on various factors, including whether 
the employee is working in a confined space or isolated location, the 
type of isolated or confined space in which the employee is working, 
and the type of work the employee is performing (Exs. 168, pp. 97-103, 
303-306; 198, pp. 19-20). For example, Roy Martin, of the Shipbuilders 
Council of America and Manitowoc Marine Group, testified:

    [I]f we are talking about general cargo holds and things of that 
nature, they are checking on it at least on an hourly basis. If they 
are in an area which is isolated, such as some of these older 
vessels, in their side tanks and what have you, they will check on 
them more frequently, within a 30-minute time frame (Ex. 168, pp. 
97-98).

    When employees work alone in confined spaces, Bath Iron Works said 
they may check on the employee as often as every 15 minutes (Ex. 168, 
p. 305). John Killingworth of Dakota Creek Industries added, "In our 
case we can pretty much check on employees four times a day, but in 
confined spaces * * * the need is to be very diligent and perhaps more 
frequently would be adequate" (Ex. 198, p. 100).
    Stakeholders' comments indicate that the proposed rule's approach 
to the frequency of accounting for employees that are working alone may 
not be the most protective approach. The stakeholders' comments and 
discussion of their practices convince OSHA that requiring employers to 
account for employees at intervals that are appropriate for the job being 
performed provides better protection for employees. It ensures that 
employers will consider all relevant factors in determining what frequency 
is appropriate for specific jobs requiring employees to work alone, such 
as in isolated or confined spaces. Accordingly, OSHA revised the final 
rule so it requires employers to make an individualized, job-specific 
determination as to what intervals or frequency of monitoring will be 
adequate to ensure the safety and health of the employee working alone. 
The factors discussed above will assist employers in making this 
determination.
    OSHA believes that employers will not have difficulty complying 
with the final rule. The existing rule already requires employers to 
conduct frequent checks on employees working in confined spaces and 
alone in isolated locations. Moreover, the record indicates that a 
number of employers in shipyard employment already are performing job-
specific assessments for determining monitoring frequency (Exs. 114.1; 
115.1; 118.1; 125; 168, pp. 97-98, 305; 198, p. 100).
    Paragraph (a)(2) requires that employers account for each employee 
working alone at the end of a job assignment or at the end of the 
workshift, whichever comes first. The proposed rule would have required 
that employers account for each employee at the end of the workshift 
(proposed Sec.  1915.84(b)).
    Several stakeholders commented that OSHA should revise Sec.  
1915.84 to require employers to account for employees at the end of an 
assignment (Exs. 114.1; 115.1; 118.1; 125; 168, p. 74). For example, 
Shipbuilders Council of America said:

    Given the nature of this work, accounting for employees is an 
extremely important procedure. * * * [W]ork in confined space 
sometimes does not last the span of an entire workshift. * * * 
Workers should be accounted for when they leave a confined space, 
which may occur well before the end of a designated shift (Ex. 
114.1).

Atlantic Marine Florida said, "[I]f employees are working alone, they 
are assigned a supervisor, even if he/she is from another craft, to 
report to when they complete their task and are no longer working 
alone" (Ex. 115.1).
    Stakeholders' comments clearly demonstrate the safety and health 
benefit of requiring employers to account for employees at the end of 
any job assignment that involves working alone. This requirement 
provides employers with timely information that employees working alone 
are safe, as well as timely warning that they may be injured and need 
assistance. Because end-of-assignment checks are common practice in 
shipyard employment, OSHA believes that employers will comply readily 
with this requirement.
    When job tasks extend beyond a workshift, paragraph (a)(2) requires 
employers to check on employees who are working alone at the end of 
such a workshift. In the preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA explained 
that this provision would ensure that employers ascertain that each 
employee working alone has returned safely. If this is not the case the 
employer must take immediate action to locate the missing employee (72 
FR 72452, 72463, Dec. 20, 2007). Review of shipyard employment fatality 
data indicates that some employees working alone were not discovered 
until long after their shifts ended and the time for effective medical 
intervention had passed. Id. Requiring an end-of-workshift check if the 
job assignment has not been completed will ensure that employees who 
are assigned to work alone will not be unintentionally deserted at the 
end of their workshift if they are injured and need help.
Paragraph (b)
    Final paragraph (b) adds the requirement that the employer account 
for each employee by sight or verbal communication. Neither the 
proposal nor the existing rule has such a requirement. Through comments 
submitted and testimony heard, the Agency received information that 
stressed the importance of communication methods used in accounting for 
employees that are working alone, such as in a confined space or an 
isolated location. Electric Boat stated that "a verbal response from a 
worker inside a confined space to a person checking on them should be 
an acceptable method to verify an employee's safety" (Ex. 108.2).
    In proposed Sec.  1915.84, OSHA requested information pertaining to 
specific methods for checking on employees who are working alone. The 
regulated community responded with many examples (Exs. 106.1; 108.2; 
114.1; 115.1; 116.2; 117.1; 118.1; 119.1; 120.1; 129.1; 168, pp. 101-
103, 234-235, 304-305; 198, pp. 19-20, 50-51, 101-102, 114-115; 202.1). 
Similar to other commenters, Electric Boat explained that at one of 
their facilities, "tank monitors in combination with a radio type 
system is used to monitor tank entrants" (Ex. 108.2). Both the tank 
monitor and the entrant are issued hand-held radios, which the entrant 
uses to not only notify the monitor that they entered the space, but to 
respond to frequent checks at twenty-minute intervals. Similar to 
Electric Boat, Atlantic Marine uses verbal radio communication to 
verify the safety of its employees, or has employees physically climb 
into the space to observe employees who are working alone (Exs. 115.1; 
118.1). Manitowoc Marine Group explained that they use a combination of 
verbal checks through radio communication, as well as visual checks 
during muster held at the end of each job assignment or workshift (Ex. 
168, pp. 98-100).
    Alternative methods of communication that have low reliability, 
such as noise from power tools, whistles, or tapping on tank walls, 
bulkheads, or decks, would not comply with paragraph (b). To 
illustrate, if a supervisor accounting for an employee in a confined 
space hears power-tool noise coming from the confined space, that noise 
cannot be relied on to verify that the employee is safe. The tool noise 
may indicate that the employee is safe or it might mean that the 
employee is unconscious or injured, and the power tool is still 
running. Hence, OSHA has determined that, when employers use verbal 
communication to check on employees working alone, communication must 
include both parties speaking.
    In the proposed rule, OSHA requested comment on whether the Agency 
should add a provision to Sec.  1915.84 requiring employees to 
establish a system of leaving a picture identification or other signal 
(for example, a flag) outside the entrance of a confined space, to 
indicate when an employee enters a confined space alone to perform work 
(72 FR 72463-72464, Dec. 20, 2007). A few stakeholders have such a 
system or support having one (Exs. 118.1; 129.1; 198, pp. 100-101). 
However, the majority of stakeholders who commented on this issue did 
not support adding that requirement to the final rule (Exs. 106.1; 
114.1; 115.1; 116.1; 117.1; 120.1; 125; 132.2; 198, p. 101).
    Some stakeholders said a photo identification or signal system 
would not be effective (Exs. 106.1; 108.1; 132.2). Electric Boat said 
that "badges or picture identification left at the entrance [of a 
confined space] may not be the best method due to their small size" 
(Ex. 108.1). American Shipbuilding Association agreed, saying that when 
"a single employee has to enter an isolated or confined space, there 
is usually no one else there to notice a flag, picture, or signal 
anyway, thus negating the purpose of such a requirement" (Ex. 117.1). 
The Navy added that it believed frequent checks and proper supervision 
are an adequate and a more practical solution than a picture identification 
system (Ex. 132.2). John Killingsworth, of Dakota Creek Industries, raised 
a similar objection stating: "Personally, as [a Shipyard Competent 
Person], I'm going to tanks alone. It may be 20 [confined] spaces on a 
vessel that I visit every single day. I'm not going to hang a tag at 
every hatch as I go in and come out. That would be impractical" (Ex. 
196, pp. 100-101).
    Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding--Newport News said it evaluated 
whether to implement such a system but determined it was not desirable, 
noting:

    Many spaces have multiple means of access and it is not feasible 
or desirable to require an employee to use the same opening for 
access and egress. In particular, in the event of an emergency, 
employees are taught to use the closest means of safe egress. If 
this is not the same access as their "identifiable flag", an 
emergency responder may falsely believe someone is in the space and 
be placed in danger looking for the individual. We have found the 
combination of frequent checks and end of shift checks to be 
adequate (Exs. 116.1; 120.1).

    After reviewing the record as a whole, OSHA decided not to require 
employers to establish a picture or signal identification system at 
entrances of confined and isolated spaces where employees are working 
alone. Rather, the Agency concluded that employers must account for 
each employee by either sight or verbal communication to ensure their 
safety.
    Finally, OSHA reminds employers to ensure that, when employees 
discover a non-responsive employee in a confined space or isolated 
location, no one enters the area without taking appropriate precautions 
in accordance with 29 CFR part 1915, subpart B and other applicable 
existing OSHA standards. Paragraph (b) of the final rule requires that 
employers must account for each employee by sight or verbal 
communication, but safe entry practices set forth in other OSHA 
standards, such as 29 CFR 1915, subpart B, still apply when employers 
face an emergency rescue situation.

Section 1915.85--Vessel Radar and Communication Systems

    Section 1915.85 specifies requirements to protect employees working 
on or near vessel radar and communication systems. If precautions are 
not taken, these workers may be exposed to radiation (for example, 
radio frequency radiation). They also may be electrocuted or struck by 
the antennas or other components if the system activates, energizes, or 
releases hazardous energy.
    The final rule, like the proposed provisions, expands the scope of 
the existing rule, which solely addressed radiation hazards, to cover 
both radiation and other energy hazards. OSHA believes this change is 
necessary to ensure that employees are protected from other serious 
hazards associated with operating and servicing radar and communication 
systems. For example, employees working aloft on a system's antenna 
could be injured or killed if the system activates and the antenna 
moves, striking an employee and causing the employee to fall.
    The proposed rule referred to radars and radio transmitters. For 
example, proposed paragraph (a) requires the employer to "secure each 
radar and radio transmitter so it is incapable of energizing or 
emitting radiation before any employee begins to work on it." Some 
stakeholders commented that the terms "radar" and "radio 
transmitter" were not clearly explained (Exs. 101.1; 121.1; 124; 126; 
128; 130.1). For example, Philip Dovinh of Sound Testing, Inc. said:

    Are the little two-way handheld radios, CB radios, or heavy duty 
radars and sonar equipment capable of transmitting and receiving 
communication signals, such as those installed on large [fish 
processing vessels], container vessels, Navy and [U.S. Coast Guard] 
vessels all applicable under the requirements of this section? (Ex. 
121.1).

    American Seafoods Company and Northrop Grumman--Newport News were 
unclear whether proposed Sec.  1915.85 also applied to hazards 
associated with sonar (Exs. 105.1; 116.2). Northrop Grumman recommended 
that Sec.  1915.85 should not apply to sonar because sonar and radar 
are different technologies: "Sonar does not pose a radiation hazard. 
Sonar repair and testing may involve electrical or acoustical hazards" 
(Ex. 116.2; 120.1).
    In response to stakeholder comments, OSHA has revised the language 
of Sec.  1915.85 to more clearly indicate that this section addresses 
the radiation, electrical, and struck-by hazards associated with 
operating and servicing radar and communication systems. It is these 
system components, particularly antennas and transmitters, that emit 
radiation, may electrocute employees, or may move and strike employees 
working on or near them. However, if these components cannot emit 
radiation at levels that could injure workers in the vicinity, or 
cannot electrocute or strike workers if the system suddenly activates, 
the requirements of Sec.  1915.85 would not apply. In addition, this 
section does not apply to sonar. OSHA agrees that the hazards 
associated with sonar are not the same as hazards associated with radar 
and communication systems.
    Although the scope of Sec.  1915.85 covers shipbreaking operations, 
OSHA notes that it is unlikely that radar and communication systems 
would be operational when workers perform shipbreaking operations. If 
the hazards associated with radar and communication systems are not 
present in these operations, then Sec.  1915.85 does not apply. 
However, to the extent that radiation hazards or hazardous energy are 
present in shipbreaking operations, the employer must protect workers 
from the risk of injury.
Paragraph (a)
    Paragraph (a) requires that employers service vessel radar and 
communication systems in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 
1915.89, the lockout/tags-plus standard for shipyard employment. Under 
final Sec.  1915.89, employers must implement a lockout/tags-plus 
program for all servicing operations when machinery, equipment, or 
systems could activate. Such a program requires the use of lockout/
tagout applications; implementation of procedures for the safe 
servicing of machinery, equipment, and systems; and employer training 
of employees. In addition, final Sec.  1915.89(a)(3) specifies that, 
when other standards in part 1915, and applicable standards in part 
1910, require the use of a lock or tag to protect workers from the risk 
of equipment activation or energization, employers are required to 
supplement such protections with the procedural and training 
requirements in final Sec.  1915.89.
    The proposed rule contained the same requirement (proposed Sec.  
1915.85(b)). The existing rule, on the other hand, only required that 
employers put tags on radar and communication-system components prior 
to starting work. OSHA believes that requiring compliance with the 
procedural and training requirements of final Sec.  1915.89 will 
provide greater protection for workers than the existing rule. It will 
require employers to use energy-isolating measures that provide a 
physical barrier to the hazards of equipment activation and also will 
ensure that all employees involved in the servicing operations follow 
consistent and uniform procedures in all servicing operations. As OSHA 
said in the preamble to the proposed rule:

    [M]ore detailed [control of hazardous energy] 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 
[control of hazardous energy] 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 
(72 FR 72452, 72464, Dec. 20, 2007).

    OSHA simplified the language in paragraph (a) by using the term 
"servicing" in place of the proposed language (for example, 
"servicing, repairing, or testing"). OSHA made the same revision in 
final Sec.  1915.89(a). As discussed in the summary and explanation of 
final Sec.  1915.80(b), OSHA defines "servicing" to include a variety 
of activities including testing and repairing machinery, equipment, or 
systems, that may expose employees to the risk of injury from the 
startup, energization, or the release of hazardous energy. OSHA 
believes that using consistent language in Sec.  1915.85 and Sec.  
1915.89 will make the provisions easier for employers to understand and 
facilitate compliance.
Paragraph (b)
    Paragraph (b) requires employers to secure each radar and 
communication system so it is incapable of energizing or emitting 
radiation before an employee begins work:
     On or in the vicinity of the system (paragraph (b)(1));
     On or in the vicinity of a system equipped with a dummy 
load (paragraph(b)(2)); or
     Aloft, such as on a mast or king post (paragraph (b)(3)).
    The proposed rule (paragraph (a)) contained a similar requirement. 
The existing rule is similar but only pertains to radiation hazards.
    Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding--Newport News recommended that OSHA 
revise paragraph (b) to require that employers secure a system that is 
equipped with a "dummy load" prior to beginning work on or near the 
vicinity of the system's antenna (Exs. 116.2; 120.1). A dummy load is a 
device used in place of an antenna to aid in testing radio 
transmitters. It is substituted for the antenna that is being tested so 
that the transmitter does not interfere with other radio transmitters 
during the adjustments. The dummy load converts transmitted energy into 
heat so that little to no energy radiates outward or reflects back to 
its source during testing. Northrop Grumman explained:

    Certain radar systems are designed to redirect energy into a 
dummy load in order to make adjustments to the system without 
emitting to free space. This is a necessary step in the maintenance 
of radar systems and this safety feature is built into the system to 
allow it to be performed safely (Exs. 116.2; 120.1).

Although dummy loads are designed to minimize radiation emissions, they 
still may emit some radiation. Therefore, OSHA agrees with Northrop 
Grumman that employers also need to secure systems equipped with dummy 
loads before employees begin work on or in the vicinity of these 
systems.
Paragraph (c)
    Paragraph (c) requires that, when a vessel's radar or communication 
system is operated, serviced, repaired, or tested, employers must 
ensure that (1) no other work is in progress aloft, and (2) no employee 
is closer to the system's antenna or transmitter than the 
manufacturer's "minimum safe distance" for the type, model, and power 
of the equipment. The proposed and existing rules both require that 
employers schedule testing of radar and communication systems when no 
work is in progress aloft or when personnel are cleared to a minimum 
safe distance from the danger area, with employers following the 
minimum safe distances established for the type, model, and power of 
the equipment by the manufacturers of the equipment.
    One stakeholder implied that the term "minimum safe distance" is 
vague and subject to misinterpretation. Philip Dovinh of Sound Testing, 
Inc., said:

    Which safety parameters should be used in making the 
determination of minimum safe distance? "Minimum safe distance" in 
one operation may not be sufficient in another. Not only that, 
applying "minimum safe distance" alone does not guarantee complete 
worker safety (Ex. 121.1).

    Many stakeholders recommended that OSHA revise paragraph (c) to 
require employers to follow the minimum safe distance established by 
the manufacturer for the particular type, model, and power of the 
vessel radar or radio-frequency-emitting system being operated or 
serviced (Exs. 101.1; 104.1; 105.1; 107.1; 124; 126; 128; 130.1; 199, 
p. 138). The Agency is persuaded that requiring employers to follow 
manufacturer's specifications on safe distances will provide greater 
protection for workers. The requirement will ensure that the safe 
distance that must be maintained will be specific and designed for the 
equipment installed. It also will guarantee that safe distances 
represent current manufacturing practices. In addition, the requirement 
establishes objective criteria, which should be easier for employers to 
understand and follow.
Paragraph (d)
    OSHA is adding a new provision to Sec.  1915.85 that requires 
employers to ensure that no worker enters an area designated hazardous 
by the manufacturer's specifications while a radar or communication 
system is capable of emitting radiation. OSHA added this provision in 
response to stakeholder comments that language in proposed Sec.  
1915.85 was unclear, ambiguous, and open-ended (Exs. 104.1; 105.1; 
107.1; 121.1; 199, p. 138). For example, American Seafoods Company 
commented: " 'Near' is a subjective term; it would be better to 
specify that we follow the minimum safe working distance established by 
the manufacturer for the particular type, model and power of the 
equipment being worked on as is done in paragraph (c)" (Ex. 105.1).
    Other stakeholders made a similar recommendation (Exs. 101.1; 
104.1; 120.1; 124; 126; 128; 130.1). For the reasons specified above in 
the discussion of paragraph (c) of this section, OSHA believes that 
requiring employers to keep all employees outside the area designated 
as hazardous by the manufacturer's specifications until the systems are 
rendered incapable of emitting radiation will enhance worker 
protection.
Paragraph (e)
    OSHA added a new paragraph (e) to the final rule to clarify that 
the requirements of this section do not apply when a radar or 
communication system is incapable of emitting radiation at levels that 
could injure workers in the vicinity of the system, or when the radar 
or communication system is incapable of energizing in a manner that 
could injure employees working on or in the vicinity of the system. 
This paragraph responds to comments noting that some small 
communication systems, such as two-way handheld radios or CB radios, 
may not expose employees to the hazards this section addresses (Ex. 
121.1). This provision also makes clear that employers need not comply 
with this section when radar systems are inoperative, such as radar 
systems aboard vessels being dismantled, as discussed above.
Section 1915.86--Lifeboats

Paragraph (a)

    Paragraph (a) requires the employer to ensure that, before 
employees work in or on a stowed or suspended lifeboat, the lifeboat is 
secured independently of the releasing gear to prevent it from falling 
or capsizing. Securing the lifeboat in such a manner will prevent 
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. The proposed and existing rules contained the same 
requirement, and OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposal.
Paragraph (b)
    Paragraph (b) requires that employers prohibit employees from being 
inside a lifeboat while it is hoisted or lowered. The final rule also 
adds two exceptions to the prohibition. Employees may be in a lifeboat 
that is being hoisted or lowered (1) when the employer demonstrates 
that it is necessary to conduct operational tests or drills over water, 
or (2) in the event of an emergency. Proposed paragraph (b) did not 
include any exceptions to the prohibition against employees being in a 
lifeboat while it is being hoisted. The existing rule at Sec.  
1915.96(b) only prohibits employees from being in lifeboats when they 
are hoisted into the "final stowed position," which allows employees 
to be in lifeboats while they conduct sea trials and drills over water.
    Many commenters, including Trident Seafoods Corporation, American 
Seafoods Company, Northrop Grumman--Newport News, Lake Union Drydock 
Company, and Sound Testing, Inc., said that the complete prohibition in 
proposed paragraph (b) was impractical because there may be times when 
workers need to perform tasks in a lifeboat while it is being hoisted 
or lowered. For example, stakeholders said employees may need to be in 
lifeboats during sea trials and drills over water, particularly when 
the hoisting and lowering mechanism is inside the lifeboat, and during 
emergencies (Exs. 101.1; 104.1; 105.1; 107.1; 116.2; 120.1; 121.1; 124; 
126; 128; 130.1; 199, pp. 274-275).
    OSHA believes that there is an inherent danger in allowing 
employees to be in lifeboats when they are hoisted or lowered, and not 
just when they are hoisted into the final stowed position. As noted in 
the preamble to the proposal, several fatalities and serious injuries 
occurred when employees were working in lifeboats (72 FR 72452, 72464, 
Dec. 20, 2007). That said, the Agency recognizes that there may be some 
limited situations when employees need to be inside lifeboats as they 
are raised or lowered. However, OSHA believes that any exceptions to 
the prohibition must be specific and narrow. Therefore, the final rule 
provides an exception, but only for the limited situations of 
conducting operational tests or drills over water or in the event of an 
emergency.
Paragraph (c)
    Paragraph (c) requires that employers prohibit employees from 
working on the outboard side of any lifeboat that is stowed on its 
chocks unless the lifeboat is secured to prevent it from swinging. As 
noted in the preamble to the proposed standard, if the lifeboat is not 
secured prior to employees working on its outboard side, the lifeboat 
could swing out and strike an employee, causing the employee to fall 
(72 FR 72452, 72464, Dec. 20, 2007). The proposed and existing rule 
contained the same requirement, and OSHA did not receive any comments 
on the proposal.

Section 1915.87--Medical Services and First Aid

    This section sets out requirements for medical services, first aid, 
and lifesaving equipment. Shipyard employment involves many workplace 
activities that are inherently dangerous, some of which take place on 
moving vessels or outdoors during harsh weather conditions. The 
potential for severe or even fatal injuries is supported by data of 
actual injuries and fatalities, described in the preamble to the 
proposal (72 FR 72452, 72453, Dec. 20, 2007). The provisions in this 
section will ensure that workplace accidents are responded to in a 
manner that mitigates the severity and increases survival from life-
threatening injuries/illnesses.
    The final rule combines, as necessary, the existing standards on 
medical services and first aid that are applicable to shipyards (Sec.  
1910.151 and current Sec.  1915.98). OSHA adopted both standards in 
1971, pursuant to section 6(a) of the OSH Act, from the established 
Federal occupational safety and health standards in effect at the time. 
Medical services, first aid practices, and related supplies and 
equipment have changed over the last four decades. Therefore, a 
revision of the current standards was necessary. The provisions in 
Sec.  1910.151 apply to shipyards to the extent that those provisions 
address hazards and working conditions that this final rule does not 
(see Ex. 81, OSHA's "Shipyard Employment 'Tool Bag' Directive").
Paragraph (a)--General Requirement
    Paragraph (a) requires employers to ensure that emergency medical 
services and first aid for employees are readily accessible. The 
purpose of this provision is twofold. First, it establishes 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/ill employee so that appropriate 
intervention can be provided. Second, in the case of a serious or life-
threatening injury/illness, it requires 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.
    For this final rule, OSHA has included requirements for employers 
to deliver first aid or medical services in the event of illnesses as 
well as injuries. OSHA recognizes that first aid and medical services 
may be required at a worksite to treat not just work-related injuries 
but also acute illnesses that are often work-related, such as asthma 
attacks, heart attacks, heat-related illnesses, or severe reactions to 
contaminants or fumes.
    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 worksite without a 
parallel requirement to have trained employees at the worksite 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 ensures that the components of first aid and medical services 
are in place to provide effective intervention when needed. Uniform 
provisions simplify the section and make understanding and compliance 
easier for employers.
    With regard to the second purpose, the provision requires employers 
to ensure that additional emergency medical services such as rescue 
squads and ambulances are readily accessible. OSHA notes that some 
shipyards, primarily larger ones such as Northrop Grumman 
Shipbuilding--Newport News, Manitowoc Marine Group, and Bath Iron 
Works, already have taken these steps by establishing their own on-site 
medical clinics and ambulance or rescue squads (Exs. 116.2; 120.1; 168, 
pp. 87-89, 258-261). This provision does not require shipyard employers 
to have on-site clinics, ambulances or rescue squads, but it does 
require employers to implement a system to ensure that emergency 
medical services such as local rescue squads or ambulance services are 
readily accessible when needed. The employer, in determining how to 
meet the requirements of Sec.  1915.87, needs to factor in reasonably 
foreseeable delays, such as railroad tracks that could be blocked when 
rescue squads need to access injured/ill employees in the shipyard.
    Comments were received on proposed paragraph (a) requesting a 
definition for "readily accessible" (Exs. 105.1; 115.1; 118.1; 121.1; 
199, pp. 138, 263, 272). In response to those comments, and for 
purposes of this section, "readily accessible" is defined in final 
Sec.  1915.80(b)(23) as capable of being reached quickly enough to 
ensure that medical services and first aid interventions are effective. 
Whether originating in the shipyard or provided by an outside service, 
medical services and first aid must be provided in a timeframe that 
will ensure their effectiveness in treating an injured or ill employee. 
Medical services that can be delivered quickly enough to the employee 
to be effective would be considered readily accessible.
Paragraph (b)--Advice and Consultation
    Paragraph (b), which carries over the same language from the 
proposal, requires employers to ensure that healthcare professionals 
are readily available for advice and consultation to the employer on 
matters of workplace health. Implicit in this provision is the 
necessity for employers to fully understand what hazards are present in 
their workplace. For example, employers must understand that some 
materials that their employees work with may contain hazardous 
components. Although material safety data sheets (MSDSs) provide the 
employer with an abundance of health-related information on various 
materials that employees may be working with, this provision ensures 
that if the employer has any questions that cannot be answered by MSDSs 
or similar resources, they will have a healthcare professional at their 
disposal with whom to discuss specific workplace health issues. OSHA 
received limited comments on this provision and is carrying the 
provision forward in this final standard as proposed.
    American Seafoods Company requested a clear definition for 
"healthcare professional" (Ex. 105.2). The Agency believes that the 
definition of "healthcare professional" provided in the "Scope, 
application, and definitions" section of this subpart (Sec.  
1915.80(b)) clarifies whom employers should consult. As defined, 
"healthcare professional" means a physician or other licensed 
healthcare 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. This definition includes doctors, nurses, nurse 
practitioners, osteopaths, EMTs, or other health care providers whose 
license, registration, or certification authorizes them to provide such 
assistance and advice. A safety professional, unless he or she was also 
a licensed healthcare provider, would not meet the criteria set forth 
in this definition. The key to meeting this requirement is that the 
healthcare professional must be readily available to provide advice and 
consultation when needed.
    American Seafoods Company also questioned what kind of consultative 
availability OSHA expects of the healthcare professional (Ex. 105.2). 
Rather than impose prescriptive requirements on employers, this 
provision allows employers to seek the information from the appropriate 
source in a timely manner, given the circumstances. For instance, if an 
employee complained about headaches and dizziness at the workplace 
while working with a chemical compound, and the MSDS sheet for that 
compound did not address the particular symptoms, the provision ensures 
that the employer would have a readily available healthcare 
professional to consult for additional advice.
    The employer should not wait until the need arises before beginning 
the search for a healthcare professional. A facility that has an on-
site medical service staffed by a healthcare professional could consult 
with that individual. Facilities that do not have on-site healthcare 
providers may consult with local physicians who have knowledge of 
workplace health issues, contact their insurance companies, or request 
assistance from organizations such as medical schools or state 
departments of health to locate a healthcare professional who is 
familiar with workplace health hazards. The employer should acquaint 
the healthcare professional with the particular conditions of the 
workplace, including the size of the facility, the types of materials 
employees are using, and potential health hazards that are present.
Paragraph (c)--First Aid Providers
    Paragraph (c) sets forth the requirements for the number and 
availability of first aid providers; training; and certification.
    Paragraph (c)(1) requires an adequate number of employees trained 
in first aid at each worksite on each workshift unless the employer 
either (a) has an on-site clinic or infirmary that is staffed with 
first aid providers during each shift, or (b) can demonstrate that 
outside first aid providers can reach the worksite within five minutes 
of a reported injury or illness.
    The final rule uses the word "worksite" rather than the proposed 
term "work location." The Agency received many comments that the term 
"work location" was vague and/or undefined (Exs. 101.1; 105.2; 114.1; 
115.1; 118.1; 121.1; 124; 125; 126; 128; 130.1). In response to these 
concerns, and to clarify the terms used in the final rule, OSHA has 
adopted the term "worksite" and defined it to mean a general location 
where one or more employees are performing work, such as a shipyard, 
pier, barge, vessel or vessel section (Sec.  1915.80(b)(38)). The term 
does not mean a single "work area," which is also defined in the 
final rule and means a specific area such as a machine shop, 
engineering space, or fabrication area where one or more employees are 
performing job tasks. A shipyard may have hundreds of work areas, with 
only one or a few employees working in any one of those areas. In this 
final rule, a shipyard "worksite" refers to a group of work areas 
that are in near proximity to each other. For instance, all of the work 
areas in a small, concentrated shipyard may constitute a single 
worksite, even though some areas may be located on a vessel and others 
landside. By contrast, a large shipyard that has multiple piers, docks, 
large vessels, and landside facilities that are spread across a wide 
area would be considered to have multiple worksites. In these 
shipyards, it is unlikely that a first aid provider located in one 
worksite would be able to reach all worksites within the shipyard 
quickly enough to provide effective intervention. Accordingly, OSHA 
believes that each worksite must have an adequate number of first aid 
providers to ensure that timely intervention is provided to injured/ill 
employees working at a work area within that worksite. By comparison, a 
single work area distantly located from other work areas may, of 
necessity, be considered a worksite because first aid providers in 
other work areas would not be able to reach the area quickly enough to 
effectively aid an injured/ill employee.
    Several commenters questioned the meaning of "adequate number" 
(Exs. 104.1; 105.1; 107.1; 115.1; 118.1; 125). As Trident Seafoods 
stated, "The term 'adequate number' is subjective. What is adequate to 
one group may not be to another" (Exs. 104.1; 107.1). In contrast, 
another commenter, speaking about the word "adequate," stated: "I do 
like the word adequate. It gives us a leeway of making some determination 
of what we feel is right for our particular situation" (Ex. 198, p. 228).
    This final rule provides employers with guidance on how to make 
that determination rather than prescriptively require them to follow a 
formula. To that end, paragraph (c)(3), which was carried over 
unchanged from proposed paragraph (c)(1), sets forth several objective 
factors for employers to consider that should assist them in making a 
determination of how many trained first aid providers would be needed 
at their worksite. These factors are:
     The size and location of each shipyard worksite;
     The number of employees at each worksite;
     The hazards present at each worksite; and
     The distance of each worksite from hospitals, clinics, and 
rescue squads.
    Employers applying these factors should bear in mind that accidents 
involving electrical shock resulting in heart or breath stoppage must 
be treated within a short time (optimally within three to five minutes) 
to increase the chances of a positive outcome. To the extent that these 
types of accident risks are present in shipyards, such as when 
servicing electrical systems where there is a risk of electrical shock, 
it is necessary to have first aid providers located at the worksite so 
cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) can be started quickly. Similarly, 
when work tasks involve a risk of injury that could result in severe 
bleeding, first aid must be quickly administered to maximize the 
injured employee's survivability. OSHA believes that while the list of 
factors provided in this provision of the regulatory text is not an 
exhaustive one, it should assist employers in determining an adequate 
number of first aid providers.
    The Agency received several comments from employers regarding the 
number of employees trained in first aid. Roy Martin testified that 
approximately 35 of 600 employees at the Manitowoc Marine Group are 
trained in first aid (Ex. 168, p. 150). James Thornton testified that, 
at the Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding--Newport News facility, 
approximately 1,000 of 20,000 employees are trained to provide first 
aid (Ex. 168, pp. 356-357). Kim Hodne from Alaska Ship and Drydock 
testified that "probably 15 to 20 percent of our workforce is first 
aid/CPR trained" (Ex. 198, p. 103). Doug Dixon of Pacific Fishermen 
Shipyard and Electric, LLC, noted that his shipyard, which employs 50 
to 70 union and 17 non-union workers, has 15 first aid providers (Exs. 
168, pp. 162-163; 198, p. 232). OSHA does not mean for these numbers to 
represent a preferred percentage of employees who should be trained in 
first aid. Rather, these examples illustrate that, even under the 
current Sec.  1915.98(a) rule requiring a single first aid provider, 
shipyards have assessed their needs for first aid providers, and have 
trained multiple employees accordingly.
    The final rule adds flexibility to proposed paragraph (c)(1), which 
required employers simply to ensure that each work location and each 
shift have an adequate number of employees qualified to render first 
aid, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Paragraph (c)(1)(i) 
permits the employer to have an on-site clinic or infirmary with first 
aid providers during each workshift as an alternative to the 
requirement to have an adequate number of employees trained in first 
aid.
    Several large shipyards described their on-site medical facilities 
and their capacity to deliver first aid and other medical services. 
Bath Iron Works testified:

    We have an on-site physician that is there 40 hours a week along 
with six nurses. We also have a physical therapy ward along with two 
physical therapists on site. We have five emergency medical 
technicians that are trained on site in the facility, and I have got 
two on night shift and three on day shift. We have an ambulance on 
site. We also have a fire department, we have 35 fire brigades, 
employees that provide support if need be (Ex. 168, pp. 258-259).

Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding--Newport News stated that, in addition to 
having first aid-trained employees:

    We operate an onsite medical clinic with licensed medical 
practitioners, as well as a 24/7 emergency medical and fire response 
organization equipped with ambulances and Advanced Cardiac 
Lifesaving equipment (Ex. 116.2; 120.1).

    OSHA recognizes that this alternative to having an adequate number 
of first aid-trained employees is, for the most part, practical only 
for larger shipyards that have the physical space and budget to provide 
an on-site clinic or infirmary. For smaller shipyards, or any shipyard 
that does not have an on-site clinic or infirmary staffed by 
individuals able to provide first aid, paragraph (c)(1)(ii) permits 
employers to demonstrate that outside first aid providers can reach the 
worksite within five minutes of a report of injury/illness. The 
employer is also required to take appropriate steps to ascertain that 
emergency medical services will be readily available if an injury/
illness occurs. These conditions are a shipyard employer's second 
alternative to ensuring an adequate number of first aid-trained 
employees.
    Several employers commented that they either rely solely on outside 
emergency medical services or use a combination of first aid-trained 
employees and outside emergency medical services. Fishing Vessel Owners 
Marine Ways, Inc. testified:

    Yes, when we rely on 911, we have dock 1 [and] 2 and 3 is the 
cement dock on the left, dock 4 is the one next to it on the left. 
At the end of that dock is a fire department, and that's the 
proximity of medical services for us, emergency medical services 
(Ex. 198, p. 212).

    Petersburg Shipwrights, Inc., stated: "At least half of our staff 
are trained in first aid [and] CPR" (Ex. 198, p. 212). This employer 
also described an accident where they called in the local fire 
department: "They were at the site within three minutes. A person with 
a cell phone on the dock called immediately. * * * He's fine. He's 
pretty well stitched up * * * He's got a nice little slice on his neck 
from a grinder" (Ex. 198, p. 213).
    The proposed rule did not require arrival of first aid services 
within a set timeframe. However, the proposal discussed the types of 
severe injuries, such as electrical shock resulting in heart or breath 
stoppage, that require near-immediate treatment. Thus, the Agency 
solicited comments regarding the sufficiency or appropriateness of a 
maximum response time, such as three to five minutes, after discovery 
or report of an injury (72 FR 72452, 72465, Dec. 20, 2007).
    Several commenters described their experiences with the response 
time of off-site services. Bath Iron Works reported that, while they 
rely on an on-site ambulance staffed with EMTs to provide emergency 
treatment during the first and second shift, "During the 3rd shift, 
BIW relies on a city ambulance that responds to emergencies within 3 to 
5 minutes" (Ex. 106.1). Kim Hodne of Alaska Ship and Drydock testified 
that it takes less than three minutes for the closest EMT facility to 
respond to calls from the shipyard (Ex. 198, p. 128). John 
Killingsworth of Dakota Creek Industries stated that it takes five or 
six minutes for the EMT responders to reach a victim located on the 
bottom deck of the largest vessel (Ex. 198, p. 129). Dick Webster from 
Petersburg Shipwrights noted that it could take up to 10 minutes for a 
responder just to reach an injured employee if, for example, the 
employee was in the bottom of a 400-foot barge that required crossing 
18-inch beams every six feet (Ex. 198, pp. 235-236).

    To allow for the occasional difficulty of reaching an injured/ill 
employee below deck or in a confined space, the final rule sets a five-
minute limit for off-site responders to reach the worksite, not the 
victim. This provision acknowledges that, even under the best of 
circumstances with an EMT service located within a few blocks of the 
shipyard, there are times when it would be impossible for the off-site 
service to reach an injured/ill employee within five minutes. Dakota 
Creek Industries described a system of working with off-site responders 
when an employee is injured in a confined space on a vessel:

    We've come to an agreement [with off-site responders] that the 
shipyard will, through its, you might say its confined space rescue 
team, handle the victim, as it were, from the vessel to the ground, 
and then we would rely on the paramedics to provide the victim care 
during that period. When the victim hits the ground, however, the 
paramedics take over using their own equipment and provide whatever 
is necessary from there (Ex. 198, p. 105).

    Notwithstanding the leeway that OSHA gives employers by requiring 
off-site first aid providers to reach the worksite, rather than the 
victim, within five minutes, paragraph (c)(2) states that employers 
must ensure that a first aid provider is able to reach an injured 
employee within five minutes of a report of serious injury/illness, 
such as one involving cardiac arrest, acute breathing problems, 
uncontrolled bleeding, suffocation, electrocution, or amputation. 
Prompt, properly administered first aid may mean the difference between 
rapid or prolonged recovery, temporary or permanent disability, and 
even life or death. For example, the American Heart Association 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. 58). 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. 57; 58). These data indicate that having responders at the 
worksite promptly could significantly increase the survival rates for 
injured/ill employees. Thus, if there is a possibility of a life-
threatening injury/illness occurring somewhere in the shipyard, 
including aboard vessels, where the injured/ill employee could not be 
reached by an off-site responder or first aid providers from the 
employer's on-site infirmary within five minutes, the employer must 
ensure that another first aid responder could reach the victim within 
five minutes of the injury being reported to assist the victim until 
other emergency personnel, who will have more expertise in treating 
emergencies, arrive.
    For example, performing CPR immediately can help to preserve heart 
and brain function until local emergency services are able to provide 
further medical treatment, such as administering oxygen or using an 
automated external defibrillator (AED) to restore normal heart rhythm. 
According to OSHA's Integrated Management Information System (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, 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 victims.
    The five-minute response time is consistent with an OSHA letter of 
interpretation (Ex. 212; OSHA letter of interpretation to Charles F. 
Brogan, Jan. 16, 2007) that explained what "reasonably accessible" 
means with regard to off-site emergency-response services:

    [T]he requirements that emergency medical services must be 
"reasonably accessible" or "in near proximity to the workplace" 
are stated only in general terms. * * * While the standards do not 
prescribe a number of minutes, OSHA has long interpreted the term 
"near proximity" to mean that emergency care must be available 
within no more than 3-4 minutes from the workplace, an 
interpretation that has been upheld by the Occupational Safety and 
Health Review Commission and by federal courts.

    Paragraph (c)(3), listing the factors that an employer must use in 
determining the number and location of employees who must have first 
aid training, is discussed above under paragraph (c)(1).
    Paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5) require the employer to ensure that 
its first aid providers are trained to render first aid, including 
cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), and maintain current first aid and 
CPR certification from the Red Cross, American Heart Association, or 
other equivalent organization. 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, since lack of training can also result in a lack of 
treatment when it is needed.
    This provision 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 standard 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 that requires successful 
course completion as evidence of qualification, the requirements of the 
final rule would be met. Likewise, the final rule does not specify a 
frequency for first aid refresher training. The employer must comply 
with the frequency the certifying organization requires for retaining 
certification, usually two years.
    In the proposal (72 FR 72452, 72467, Dec. 20, 2007) OSHA requested 
comments on whether the Agency should include in the final rule an 
appendix on the requirements of a first aid training program, similar 
to that in Sec.  1910.266 or 1918.97, to ensure that employees are 
fully trained by qualified instructors. Topics under consideration 
included respiratory arrest, cardiac arrest, lacerations/abrasions, 
shock, burns, and loss of consciousness. Only the U.S. Navy commented 
on this issue: "A non-mandatory appendix outlining basic first aid 
training in CPR, assessing and stabilizing injured personnel[,] and 
wound treatment would be helpful" (Ex. 132.2). Due to the minimal 
comments received on this issue and the requirement in this final 
standard that employers must ensure that first aid providers are 
trained to render first aid (including CPR), as well as maintain 
current first aid and CPR certifications such as those issued by the 
Red Cross, American Heart Association, or other equivalent 
organization, an appendix will not be included in the final standard. 
These organizations (for example, Red Cross and American Heart 
Association) already have specific training modules in place that the 
Agency believes are effective, and that offer the same guidance that an 
appendix would provide.
Paragraph (d)--First Aid Supplies
    Paragraph (d)(1) requires employers to provide and maintain 
adequate first aid supplies that are readily accessible to each 
worksite. The rule also specifies that an employer's on-site infirmary 
or clinic containing first aid supplies that are readily accessible to 
each worksite will comply with this requirement.

    OSHA received many comments on using the term "adequate" as a 
modifier. For example, Trident Seafoods Corporation commented:

    The term "adequate first aid supplies" is a subjective term. 
What may seem adequate to us may not seem adequate in the eyes of 
others regardless of the objective factors considered. We work with 
our suppliers to stock the 1st aid kits with items appropriate for a 
given work location (Exs. 104.1; 107.1).

    Because first aid needs can vary from worksite to worksite, an 
employer must be able to decide what is needed at each worksite. For 
example, while a small first aid kit might be all that a small shipyard 
or vessel needs, it might be completely insufficient for a large 
facility. OSHA has concluded that requiring "adequate" supplies will 
give employers the flexibility of determining which first aid supplies 
they need for their particular worksites. To assist employers in 
determining what is "adequate," OSHA is bringing forward the criteria 
set forth in proposed paragraph (d)(2) for determining the adequacy of 
first aid supplies. Those same criteria are specified in paragraph 
(c)(3) to help employers determine an adequate number of first aid 
providers.
    Comments were received from several employers expressing a concern 
that requiring that first aid supplies be available for employees would 
lead to ineffective self-treatment. Atlantic Marine Florida, LLC, 
stated:

    [We maintain] first aid supplies on our in-house medical cart 
staffed by EMTs, and at our Medical treatment facility. The medical 
cart has less than a 3 minute response time throughout the shipyard. 
We do not provide first aid kits at each work location inside the 
shipyard, since this tends to support self-treatment, which can lead 
to larger issues if employees treat themselves incorrectly (Ex. 
115.1).

    The American Shipbuilding Association had similar concerns, 
stating:

    Paragraph (d)(1) proposes to revise existing requirements for 
first aid supplies. We are concerned that making it mandatory to 
have first aid kits at each work location would promote self-
treatment on the part of employee[s] and enable treatment by 
untrained individuals. Such a mandate would also discourage 
employees from reporting minor injuries. We request that OSHA 
consider adding an exemption to this section if a shipyard utilizes 
an in-house ambulance service or has access to immediate response 
from an external ambulance service (Ex. 117.1).

    In contrast, several commenters stated that, while they have in-
house medical services, they also utilize first aid kits throughout 
their worksites. Manitowoc Marine Group explained that they have "a 
full medical facility on both sides. And there are some areas, some of 
the buildings, that will have smaller first aid kits for minor 
injuries, illnesses" (Ex. 168, pp. 106-107). When asked if they had 
first aid kits in their shipyard, Todd Pacific Shipyard confirmed that 
they did have first aid kits throughout their worksite. They explained 
that they allow employees to use the first aid kits as needed:

    Our injury program requires that any injuries more than a Band-
Aid, the employee, the affected employee and his supervisor must 
both come to the medical facility and fill out our accident reports. 
The medical officer determines what the classification is, what the 
necessary treatment is and if we need any additional support at that 
time.
    But yes, we do have the first aid kits out there, and yes, they 
can put a band-aid on (Ex. 198, p. 49).

    OSHA agrees that employers should use in-house medical services as 
a first resort if those services can be accessed in a timely manner, 
given the circumstances. However, there may be times when an employee 
is injured/ill at a shipyard when there is no on-site clinic, first aid 
providers are not readily available, or a first aid provider needs 
ready access to supplies. At such times, employees should have access 
to adequate first aid supplies. These supplies must be readily 
accessible to each worksite. This revision gives employers more 
flexibility and guidance about where first aid supplies need to be 
located. In addition, this provision clarifies that first aid supplies 
need to be located at all worksites throughout the shipyard, which 
include worksites on and near vessels, as well as those landside. 
Employers who have on-site medical facilities have the choice to 
maintain all first aid supplies at the medical facility, or to place 
them throughout the worksite. Employers who rely solely on outside 
medical assistance are required to provide first aid supplies so they 
are readily accessible to each worksite. OSHA concluded that, by 
requiring employers to provide first aid supplies through the worksite, 
employees would have access to these supplies until a trained first aid 
provider or healthcare provider arrives to assist them.
    The Agency received several comments requesting that it provide 
employers flexibility in tailoring the type, amount, and location of 
supplies to the specific needs of the workplace (Exs. 104.1; 107.1; 
113; 115.1; 118.1). Paragraph (d)(2), which carries forward the same 
language from the proposal, lists four objective factors, which are 
identical to those factors specified for determining the number and 
location of first aid providers. These factors will assist employers in 
meeting the requirements for placement, content, and amount of first 
aid supplies without prescribing a specific parameter. The four factors 
include:
 The Size and Location of Each Worksite
    The size of the shipyard worksite is an important consideration. It 
is likely that large worksites contain many work areas that are spread 
out and, as such, need more first aid kits to ensure they are readily 
accessible if an employee gets injured. Employers also need to consider 
the locations of where employees are working throughout shipyards when 
determining the number, content, and positioning of first aid kits. For 
example, remote work areas or other shipyard work areas that are far 
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/ill 
employee until additional help arrives or the employee can be 
transported for advanced care. Work areas that may be cut off by 
passing railcars also may need more first aid supplies in case access 
roads are blocked when an injury/illness occurs.
 The Number of Employees at Each Worksite
    The employer needs to evaluate the ratio of employees to first aid 
kits and ensure that there are sufficient supplies for all employees. 
In general, when there are a great number of employees, or a surge in 
contract or temporary workers at a worksite, the employer would need to 
provide more first aid supplies to prepare for the possibility of 
multiple employee injuries/illnesses, or that several accidents could 
occur within a short period of time.
 Hazards Present at Each Worksite
    Employers must assess the hazards present in each worksite 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 these hazards. 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 Worksite From Hospitals, Clinics, and 
Rescue Squads
    The distance from, and the time needed to get to, hospitals or 
clinics (on-site or off-site), and the time needed for rescue squads to 
respond, are also important factors 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 worksites 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.
    In addition to the four factors described above, non-mandatory 
Appendix A, "First aid kits and automated external defibrillators," 
has been added to the final rule. Appendix A references the most recent 
consensus standards regarding first aid supplies, consistent with the 
recently revised general industry standard (Sec.  1910.151). For 
example, Appendix A refers readers to ANSI/ISEA Z308.1-2009, "Minimum 
Requirements for Workplace First Aid Kits and Supplies" (incorporated 
by reference as specified in Sec.  1915.5), for assistance in 
purchasing or assembling first aid kits that would be adequate for 
small worksites. The appendix also gives guidance to employers having 
large or multiple operations, or unique needs. OSHA believes that 
adopting a performance-based approach on the contents of first aid kits 
will give employers flexibility in tailoring their first aid supplies 
to the conditions and hazards present in their workplace and to 
changing the supplies as warranted by new developments in first aid.
    Paragraph (d)(3) requires that first aid supplies be placed in a 
weatherproof container. Paragraph (d)(4) specifies that employers must 
maintain first aid supplies in a dry, sterile, and serviceable 
condition. The proposal included only the requirements of paragraph 
(d)(4). Taken together, paragraphs (d)(3) and (d)(4) require that any 
first aid kit that may be used at any time outside a clinic-type 
setting must be protected from the elements.
    Although comments were not received about this particular 
requirement, OSHA believes that first aid supplies should be kept in a 
weatherproof container. While discussing the provisions in Sec.  
1915.81, Housekeeping, that specifically referenced weather, for 
example, Sec.  1915.81(a)(2), OSHA heard testimony regarding some of 
the weather conditions in shipyards. Atlantic Marine stated: "In this 
region, rainfall averages 6 inches per month, with an inch or more 
common for a single rain event" (Exs. 115.1; 118.1). While discussing 
snow and ice conditions, Manitowoc Marine Group stated: "[A]s I well 
know [from] firsthand experience on the Great Lakes, conditions such as 
this may last several days" (Ex. 168, pp. 68-69). Given that shipyard 
employment often takes place outdoors, sometimes in wet conditions, and 
that injuries could occur under those conditions, OSHA believes that 
adding a requirement for first aid supplies to be in waterproof 
containers is reasonable. In addition, most industrial or commercial 
type first aid kits are constructed of weatherproof materials.
    Further, some first aid supplies may degrade if exposed to the 
elements (sun, hot temperatures, extreme cold, and humidity), dirt, 
exhaust, grease, paint, solvents, and other contaminants common to 
shipyard work. Thus, OSHA is retaining the proposed requirement that 
first aid supplies be kept in a dry, sterile, and serviceable 
condition. For purposes of this provision, OSHA defines "serviceable 
condition" to mean the state or ability of supplies or goods to be 
used as intended by the manufacturer. Thus, if the first aid supplies 
contain instructions from the manufacturer on how to store them, the 
employer should comply with those instructions to ensure that the 
supplies remain effective for use.
    Paragraph (d)(5) requires the employer to replenish first aid 
supplies as necessary to ensure an adequate supply when needed. This 
requirement was not expressly stated in the proposal, although it was 
implicit in proposed paragraph (d)(1) requiring the employer to provide 
and maintain adequate first aid supplies at each work location, and in 
proposed paragraph (d)(3) requiring the employer to ensure that first 
aid supplies are in a dry, sterile, and serviceable condition. 
Explicitly requiring replenishment of first aid supplies as necessary 
will protect workers by ensuring that there will be an adequate number 
of serviceable first aid supplies available in the event of an injury. 
That is, employers have an obligation to replace supplies that are 
found to be deficient or missing. This requirement also responds to the 
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health's (NIOSH) 
suggestion that OSHA "add a sentence stating that any supplies that 
have been utilized shall be replaced as soon as possible" (Ex. 129.1).
    Paragraph (d)(6) requires employers to inspect first aid supplies 
at sufficient intervals to ensure that the supplies are adequate and in 
a serviceable condition. This paragraph is nearly identical to proposed 
paragraph (d)(3), which would have required employers to inspect first 
aid supplies at intervals that ensure the supplies remain in a "dry, 
sterile and serviceable condition." This provision gives employers the 
flexibility to determine what inspection procedures would be most 
effective for ensuring that supplies remain in a serviceable condition 
and adequately replenished. For example, it allows employers to opt for 
stocking worksites with an appropriately sized supply of first aid 
supplies and to establish a maintenance and inspection schedule that is 
suitable for the particular shipyard, whether it be weekly or monthly. 
It also allows employers to stock a variety of suitably sized kits, 
such as small portable first aid kits for mobile work crews. Depending 
on the size of the first aid kits, they may need to be inspected and 
replenished frequently or, for larger, stationary kits assigned to a 
particular shop or location, less frequently.
    NIOSH commented: "It would be useful for the written safety plan 
to state explicitly the first aid supply inspection interval" (Ex. 
129.1). OSHA agrees that employers who establish a set inspection 
interval will be able to determine when depleted or defective supplies 
need to be replenished. However, OSHA believes that employers are in 
the best position to know what interval supplies should be replenished 
at their worksites and thus did not include an explicit inspection 
interval in the final standard.
Paragraph (e)--Quick-Drenching and Flushing Facilities
    Paragraph (e) requires employers to provide quick-drenching or 
flushing facilities when the potential exists for an employee to be 
splashed with a substance that could result in an acute or serious 
injury. Under this paragraph, the employer must ensure that the quick-
drenching or flushing facility is located for immediate emergency use 
within close proximity to the operations where such substances are 
being used. Proposed paragraph (e) would have required that quick-
drenching or flushing facilities be provided where employees could be 
injured from being splashed with "hazardous or toxic substances" and 
that the facilities be "located within each work area for immediate 
use." Proposed Sec.  1915.95 defines "hazardous or toxic substances" 
to include substances regulated by subpart Z of 29 CFR part 1915; 
materials listed in the Department of Transportation's hazardous 
materials regulations (49 CFR parts 171 through 180); any corrosive 
substance; or any environmental contaminant that could expose employees 
to injury, illness, or disease. OSHA reasoned that shipyard employees 
involved in operations such as cleaning, painting, and stripping were 
at risk of being splashed with solvents or other chemicals. Although 
these substances may not necessarily be corrosive, they can injure or 
burn the skin or eyes or be absorbed rapidly through the skin, causing 
harmful surface and internal health effects (72 FR 72452, 72469, Dec. 20, 
2007).
    OSHA received many comments on the proposed provision and on the 
proposed definition of "hazardous or toxic substances." Several 
employers, including American Seafoods Company, the U.S. Navy, Bath 
Iron Works, Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding--Newport News, the American 
Shipbuilding Association, and International Safety Equipment 
Association, commented that the proposed language was too broad and 
would require an inordinate number of quick-drenching facilities in a 
shipyard (Exs. 105.2; 106.1; 116.2; 117.1; 120.1; 132.2). Atlantic 
Marine commented: "It can be inferred that a quick-drench facility 
would be required anywhere painting is occurring. Since painting occurs 
all over the shipyard, providing quick-drench facilities at these 
locations is not practical" (Exs. 115.1; 118.1). Trident Seafoods 
stated:


    Installing quick-drenching/flushing facilities wherever 
hazardous or toxic substances are located is not economically 
feasible when following the proposed definition of "hazardous or 
toxic substances" in the proposed rule 1915.95. This is a change 
from the current requirement of providing quick drenching or 
flushing stations where corrosives are used. It seems shipyards, 
vessel maintenance facilities, and vessels will be required to 
purchase numerous portable quick-drenching/flushing facilities in 
order to comply (Exs. 104.1; 107.1).

The Shipbuilders Council of America commented:

    Using the language toxic or hazardous substances greatly 
broadens the scope of applicability, and would include paint 
operations into the proposed rule jurisdiction, which we hold is 
unnecessary. Exposure to hazardous material within a paint shop can 
vary, especially considering the amount of [personal protective 
equipment] worn to prevent such exposures (Ex. 114.1).

Although Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding--Gulf Coast provides emergency 
flushing facilities for employees performing cleaning, painting, and 
stripping operations, the company stated:

    NGSB-GC believes the proposed definition is exceedingly broad 
and offers the employer minimal guidance in providing effective 
employee protection against contact/absorption hazards. * * * As 
written, 1915.87(e) would require quick drenching facilities at 
virtually every work area since even common commodities, such as 
copier cartridges and household-variety cleaners and disinfectants 
contain ingredients legally classified as "hazardous" (Ex. 112.1).

    OSHA has considered these comments and, in the final rule, limited 
the requirement for quick-drenching and flushing facilities to those 
instances when employees may potentially be splashed by substances that 
could cause an acute or serious injury. Thus, if paints or other 
materials used by the shipyard could not cause an acute or serious 
injury if splashed on an employee, either because of the chemical 
components of the material or because the employee is wearing PPE that 
would eliminate the risk of splashes to the eyes or body, the employer 
need not provide quick-drenching or flushing facilities pursuant to 
paragraph (e). However, if PPE is not worn, and any material being used 
could cause an acute or serious injury if splashed on the employee, the 
employer must provide a quick-drenching or flushing facility within 
close proximity to where the work involving the material is occurring. 
Furthermore, the facility must be available for immediate emergency 
use; that is, it should work as soon as it is activated and should not 
require replenishment of water at the time of the emergency.
    In work areas where it is impracticable to place permanent (for 
example, plumbed) quick-drenching facilities, such as confined spaces, 
the employer would need to provide portable facilities. OSHA does not 
believe this requirement should pose a problem for employers since many 
employers already have these portable facilities. The ANSI Z358.1 
standard includes specifications for self-contained eyewash equipment, 
as well as personal quick-drenching equipment that could be used in 
such locations (Ex. 38, ANSI Z358.1-2009, "Emergency Eyewash and 
Shower Equipment," incorporated by reference as specified at Sec.  
1915.5). OSHA believes the requirement to have quick-drenching 
facilities within close proximity to workers using substances that 
could cause acute or serious injury is appropriate. Employees who may 
be splashed must be able to reach a quick-drenching or flushing 
facility in time to prevent an acute or serious injury from occurring. 
OSHA believes that this language will provide employers with 
flexibility in determining the number and location of quick-drenching 
or flushing facilities while addressing their concerns that some 
substances that may have been included in the definition of hazardous 
or toxic substances did not warrant the use of a quick-drenching or 
flushing facility.
    The North Pacific Fishing Vessel Owners' Association (Ex. 197.1) 
suggested that OSHA permit the use of water from bottles or hoses in 
confined spaces or hazardous locations or in freezing temperatures. The 
Agency has considered this suggestion for times when it may be 
impossible for an injured employee to get out of a confined space or 
hazardous location in time to treat a splash injury at a quick-
drenching or flushing facility. During the few situations when an 
employee would be working in a location where it would be impracticable 
to provide quick-drenching facilities and employees would be exposed to 
hazardous or toxic substances, an appropriate option would be for the 
employer to provide water bottles or a hose.
    Several employers commented about the costs for installing quick-
drenching or flushing facilities pursuant to proposed paragraph (e). 
American Seafoods Company stated:

    As difficult as it is for a shoreside facility to meet the 
requirements for volume and pressure, it is far more difficult and 
costly on ships and commercial fishing vessels that are designed 
from the outset to conserve potable water as much as possible. 30 
gallons per minute for even the largest vessels can be an expensive 
challenge (Ex. 105.1).

    Bath Iron Works commented: "OSHA's proposal will provide 
additional cost to employers to comply with this regulation adjustment, 
which is in opposition to Table [2] of the regulatory analysis" (Ex. 
106.1). Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding--Newport News noted: "Costs 
associated with purchasing, transporting and maintaining significantly 
more eyewash and drenching facilities are not included in the 
Preliminary Economic and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (PEA)" (Ex. 
120.1).
    OSHA believes that the revisions to the final rule that limit the 
types of materials requiring quick-drenching or flushing facilities in 
close proximity to these materials should not impose additional costs. 
Shipyard employers already must provide such facilities, pursuant to 
Sec.  1910.151(c), which requires these facilities when employees may 
be injured by "corrosive materials."
Paragraph (f)--Basket Stretchers
    Paragraph (f) requires that an adequate number of basket 
stretchers, or the equivalent, be readily accessible. It also requires 
that this equipment have permanent lifting bridles that enable the 
stretcher to be attached to hoisting gear that is capable of lifting at 
least 5,000 pounds. In addition, these basket stretchers must be 
capable of securely restraining the injured employee and must 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.
    Paragraph (f)(1) is a performance-based provision requiring that 
employers provide an adequate number of basket stretchers or the 
equivalent that are readily accessible to locations where work is being 
performed on a vessel or vessel section. Employers have several ways to 
comply with this provision. The 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. A SESAC member stated that, if a crane is 
available to hoist a basket stretcher from any one of several barges 
docked together, then one stretcher may provide ready accessibility for 
that group of vessels (Docket SESAC 1993-1, Ex. 100x, p. 155). OSHA 
also believes that when a shipyard crane mounted on rail tracks 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.
    In other situations, however, one basket stretcher may not be 
adequate. In large shipyards that have several work areas 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 area. Some SESAC 
members also said additional stretchers should be provided when 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 prepare other injured employees for removal while another 
employee is being lifted to shore.
    OSHA believes that paragraph (f)(1) is a reasonable approach for 
providing effective protection for employees. In some circumstances, 
basket stretchers must be provided even when fewer than 10 employees 
are working on 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.
    In paragraph (f)(1), OSHA permits the use of basket stretchers "or 
the equivalent." Several commenters requested that OSHA include 
Skeds[reg] in this provision because they believed Sked[reg] stretchers 
are more useful on ships than other types of stretchers (Exs. 101.1; 
104.1; 105.1; 107.1; 124; 126; 128; 130.1). A Sked[reg] is a stretcher 
used for confined space, high-angle, or technical rescue, or for 
landside applications. For purposes of paragraph (f), OSHA concludes 
that a Sked[reg] would be the equivalent of a basket stretcher.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The approval of this or any other product for purposes of 
this standard does not constitute an endorsement by OSHA of the 
product. The variable working conditions at jobsites and possible 
alterations or misapplication of an otherwise safe product could 
easily create a hazardous condition beyond the control of the 
manufacturer. However, when appropriate, OSHA provides guidance to 
help employers assess whether products are appropriate to use in 
light of Agency requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (f)(1) contains an exception to employer-provided 
stretchers or equivalent if an emergency response service has the 
stretchers or equivalent that otherwise meet the requirements of 
paragraph (f). Proposed paragraph (f)(1) deleted language in existing 
Sec.  1915.98(d) stating that the requirement to provide basket 
stretchers does not apply when ambulance services are available and 
carry such stretchers. OSHA believes this language was no longer 
necessary since the proposed language in paragraph (f)(1) requires that 
basket stretchers be "readily accessible." This term gives employers 
flexibility to provide their own stretchers or rely on stretchers 
provided by local emergency squads if they are readily accessible.
    Two commenters questioned OSHA's removal of this exception from 
paragraph (f)(1). Trident Seafoods stated: "The allowance to count 
local emergency squad basket stretchers as being 'readily [accessible]' 
should be included in the regulation not only in the preamble" (Exs. 
104.1; 107.1). Sound Testing, Inc., requested: "Could the requirements 
of Sec.  1915.87(f) be substituted with the availability of a public 
professional emergency responder, such as the local fire department, 
paramedics, or HazMat response team?" (Ex. 121.1).
    OSHA requested comment on whether local emergency squads are 
readily accessible to vessel worksites and whether they have basket 
stretchers that meet the proposed requirements. Many commenters 
explained that their local emergency medical services will not use the 
shipyard's basket stretchers, but instead will only use their own 
stretchers (Exs. 101.1; 121.1; 124; 126; 128; 130.1 198, pp. 81-82, 
105-106). Seven Seas Fishing Company noted:

    For transporting employees off the ship, most medical service 
providers want to use their stretchers to move the injured off the 
ship. Also, if our stretcher is used, it may be difficult to get it 
back due to the distance the employee is transported away from the 
vessel and the logistics of getting that stretcher returned (Ex. 
199, p. 206).

    American Seafoods stated: "No outside agency will use our Basket 
Stretchers. Not the USCG, not any professional (paid or volunteer) fire 
department. Since they will never trust our equipment to lift an 
injured worker, how much should be invested for this type of 
equipment?" (Ex. 105.1). OSHA acknowledges that these comments have 
merit. Thus, the final rule clarifies that employers may provide their 
own basket stretchers (or equivalent), or they may rely on emergency 
response services to provide them. This exception applies to both in-
house responders and outside responders, so long as the basket 
stretchers or equivalents are "readily accessible."
    Paragraph (f)(2)(i) requires that basket stretchers, or the 
equivalent, have permanent lifting bridles that enable the stretcher or 
equivalent to be attached to hoisting gear capable of lifting at least 
5,000 pounds (2,270 kg). Paragraph (f)(2)(ii) requires that basket 
stretchers, or equivalent, have restraints that are capable of securely 
holding the injured/ill employee while the stretcher is lifted or 
moved. These paragraphs are based on the Marine Terminals and 
Longshoring standards (Sec. Sec.  1917.26(d)(4) and 1918.97(d)(4)) and 
are carried over unchanged from the proposal. OSHA deems it appropriate 
to apply the Marine Terminals and Longshoring provisions to shipyard 
employment because the use of basket stretchers and the working 
conditions are similar in all three industries. These requirements 
should not pose a problem for shipyard employers because most, if not 
all, basket stretchers or equivalents already meet the specified 
criteria. No comments were received on these two provisions.
    Paragraph (f)(2)(iii) requires that each basket stretcher or 
equivalent have a blanket or other suitable covering to cover injured 
employees, thus protecting them from environmental conditions. General 
Dynamics NASSCO requested that this provision not be a requirement, but 
instead be added to Non-Mandatory Appendix A, stating, "Storage that 
prevents damage to a stretcher and bridle may not be sufficient to keep 
a blanket in a condition that is appropriate for use during a medical 
emergency" (Ex. 119.1). The Agency agrees with this commenter but, 
rather than moving this provision to Non-Mandatory Appendix A, has 
added a requirement to paragraph (f)(3) of the final rule to ensure 
that basket stretchers, or the equivalent, and related equipment (for 
example, blankets) are protected from the environment. OSHA concluded 
that equipment related to the use of basket stretchers must be kept with 
the basket stretcher to ensure quick access to, and efficient use of, the 
entire system in the event of an injury, and that all parts of the system 
should be protected when stored. Thus, paragraph (f)(2)(iii) is retained 
as proposed.
    Paragraph (f)(3) requires that basket stretchers, or the 
equivalent, and related equipment be stored in a clearly marked 
location in a manner that prevents damage and provides protection from 
environmental conditions. This language is based on similar 
requirements in the Marine Terminals and Longshoring standards 
(Sec. Sec.  1917.26(d)(7) and 1918.97(d)(7)). 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. 
As Atlantic Marine pointed out, "Mounting stretchers on or near 
drydocks and piers exposes them to paint and the elements which break 
down the material that the stretcher is constructed of" (Exs. 115.1; 
118.1). OSHA believes that, by requiring related equipment to be stored 
with the basket stretcher, deterioration or damage will be reduced 
significantly. For example, related equipment such as blankets and 
lifting bridles may deteriorate or become damaged if exposed to weather 
or impact. Thus, for this final standard, paragraph (f)(3) requires 
that basket stretchers and related equipment be stored to prevent 
damage and to protect them from environmental conditions.
    Paragraph (f)(4) requires the employer to inspect stretchers and 
related equipment at intervals that ensure this equipment remains in a 
safe and serviceable condition, but at least once a year. General 
Dynamics NASSCO agreed with the need for inspection and suggested that 
this paragraph should read: "The employer shall inspect emergency 
baskets, stretchers and related lifting bridles at intervals that 
ensure they remain in [a] safe condition" (Ex. 119.1). Although the 
Agency is giving employers the flexibility to inspect stretchers and 
related equipment at intervals to ensure they are adequate in terms of 
safety and service, OSHA believes that the inclusion of the one-year 
interval is necessary, as basket stretchers are not used nearly as 
often as first aid kits, and, in fact, might not be used for over a 
year. This provision will ensure that lifesaving equipment functions 
properly when needed in an emergency and is particularly important if 
basket stretchers are not used frequently. In response to the comments 
received, OSHA retained the proposed language, but added the 
requirement that related equipment also must be inspected. Thus, OSHA 
is requiring that the employer inspect the basket stretcher and related 
equipment at intervals, but at least once a year, to ensure the 
equipment remains in a safe and serviceable condition. OSHA believes 
that this requirement will ensure that, in the event of an emergency, 
all of this equipment will be in a serviceable condition and ready to 
be used.
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, Jan. 5, 2005). OSHA is incorporating the Sec.  1910.151 appendix, 
with revisions, and a new paragraph (4) on AEDs. The appendix provides 
guidance to employers on the contents of first aid kits, assessing 
workplace risks, OSHA's requirements for protecting first aid providers 
from possible exposure to bloodborne pathogens, and the use of AEDs. 
The appendix references the ANSI standard Z308.1-2009, "Minimum 
Requirements for Workplace First Aid Kits" (incorporated by reference 
as specified at Sec.  1915.5) (Ex. 213). The ANSI standard should be of 
assistance to employers seeking guidance on classification and 
performance of containers, appropriate contents, and recommendations 
and cautions regarding the use and maintenance of first aid kits. The 
Agency has concluded that this non-mandatory guidance will help 
employers comply with first aid requirements.
    The proposed Appendix referenced ANSI Z308.1-2003 (Ex. 84). 
However, since publication of the proposal, this ANSI standard has been 
updated. The Agency has determined that the most current version of 
ANSI Z308.1-2009 is as effective as the 2003 version, and will be 
incorporating this most recent version for this final rule.
    Although OSHA received no comments on the proposed appendix, quite 
a few employers responded to the Agency's request for comments on 
whether shipyards should be required to have AEDs as part of their 
first aid and medical services (72 FR 72452, 72471, Dec. 20, 2007). 
These comments are discussed below. Based on those comments, OSHA has 
added a new paragraph (4) to the non-mandatory appendix to provide 
information and guidance to employers who are currently using AEDs and 
those who are contemplating installing them.
    According to the American Heart Association, over 300,000 
individuals die from cardiac arrest each year, with most occurring 
outside hospitals (Ex. 58). 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. 56). 
Survival rates for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest are only one to five 
percent, but treatment of ventricular fibrillation (for example, 
chaotic beating of the heart) with immediate defibrillation (for 
example, within one minute) has achieved survival rates as high as 90 
percent (Ex. 57). Therefore, fast and immediate defibrillation is the 
most critical step in the 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 after the event (for 
example, 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. 57).
    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. 57).
    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 to medical 
emergencies, have been equipping their workplaces with AEDs and 
training employees in their use. While the cost of AEDs has dropped 
dramatically in recent years, it is still a significant cost. In 2001, 
for instance, AEDs cost $3,000-$4,500 on average. Now they are widely 
available for less than $1,500 (Ex. 55). OSHA anticipates that AED 
costs will continue to decline as the use of AEDs increases.
    The Agency received several comments on this subject, both in 
support of and in disagreement with the requirement to have AEDs in 
shipyard employment. Trident Seafoods stated:

    Shipyards should not be required to have AEDs as part of their 
1st aid and medical services. While it is a good practice to have 
AEDs available, and many of us do, it should not be mandatory. Small 
independently owned vessels and maintenance facilities may not be 
able to afford AEDs. While the price may have decreased for AEDs 
constructed for use inside office spaces and controlled climates, it 
remains fairly expensive to purchase models designed to withstand 
exposure to the elements (Exs. 104.1; 107.1).

    Several employers, including Bath Iron Works, Foss Maritime, 
Manitowoc Marine Group, Northrop Grumman--Newport News, Pacific 
Fishermen Shipyard, Todd Pacific Shipyard, and Trident Seafoods 
testified that they currently have AEDs at their facilities or on their 
vessels (Exs. 168, p. 313; 198, p. 10; 168, p. 58; 168, pp. 87-88; 168, 
p. 315; 198, p. 45; 198, p. 74; 199, pp. 195-196). Other commenters 
stated that AEDs, while useful, should not be mandatory. The U.S. Navy 
stated: "The Navy does not believe that AEDs should be 'required' as 
part of their first aid and medical services. Rather, Naval Shipyards 
have the discretion to decide whether AEDs should be installed at their 
shore facilities" (Ex. 132.2). Similarly, American Seafoods testified: 
"At this point we would encourage OSHA not to require AEDs and perhaps 
to recommend and suggest that they be considered. The industry is 
actually getting into this on its own" (Ex. 199, p. 267).
    Despite the benefits of AEDs, the Agency has determined that costs 
may be overly burdensome to some, especially small, employers. However, 
since many employers, especially large and medium-sized shipyards, 
stated that they are currently using them, OSHA is addressing the use 
of AEDs in the non-mandatory Appendix A. Employers should use the same 
objective criteria listed in Sec.  1915.87(c)(3) to determine if they 
need AEDs at their facility. In fact, Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding--
Newport News advocated a similar approach:

    NGSB-NN believes shipyards should include provisions for the use 
of AEDs in their assessment of requirements for medical and first 
aid services. The proximity to outside emergency medical services, 
demographics, and types of work performed all need to be considered 
when determining the need for AED[s] (Ex. 116.2).

    While OSHA believes that providing AEDs at all worksites, including 
shipyards, is an excellent safety precaution that can save lives, it is 
not requiring that employers provide them at this time. There is 
significant medical evidence that supports the use of AEDs. Employers 
who have AEDs should designate who will use AEDs and provide training 
to those designated employees. Proper training will ensure that the 
designated employees use the AEDs correctly. In addition, AEDs should 
be located so they can be used within three to five minutes of a report 
of an accident or injury, and they should be used, inspected, tested, 
and maintained in accordance with manufacturers' specifications. OSHA 
encourages all employers, large and small, to consider voluntarily 
providing AEDs.

Section 1915.88--Sanitation

    In this section, OSHA updates and consolidates sanitation 
requirements applicable to shipyard employment. OSHA recognizes that, 
due to unique working conditions in shipyard employment, ensuring that 
sanitation needs and requirements are met may be somewhat difficult. 
For example, some work areas are in remote locations, without adequate 
piped water and sewer facilities. Also, much shipyard work is performed 
outdoors, often in extreme conditions.
    OSHA believes that the sanitation needs of workers must be met in 
shipyard employment because the 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 the delay of urination and defecation, and 
effects associated with ingestion or absorption of hazardous 
substances. These health hazards were discussed at length in the 
preamble to the final field sanitation standard for agriculture (52 FR 
16050, May 1, 1987). OSHA updated that discussion and placed it in the 
docket of this rulemaking (Ex. 62). Although the adverse health effects 
associated with sanitation hazards may be more difficult to quantify 
than some other hazards, OSHA IMIS data has reported the death of a 
shipyard worker from heat exhaustion and heat stroke possibly due to 
not having enough drinking water readily accessible at his worksite (72 
FR 72452, 72481, Dec. 20, 2007).
    In developing the final rule, OSHA has carefully considered the 
working conditions observed during site visits, the comments received, 
and other information in the record in developing requirements that 
will take into account that workers need to have ready access to 
adequate and properly maintained sanitation facilities.
    The final rule consolidates into Sec.  1915.88 the existing 
sanitation requirements in Sec.  1915.97 and the applicable general 
industry sanitation requirements in Sec.  1910.141 (see Ex. 81, OSHA's 
Tool Bag Directive). The applicable Sec.  1910.141 requirements cover 
those conditions that the existing 29 CFR part 1915 sanitation 
standards did not address. OSHA adopted both sections in 1972 pursuant 
to section 6(a) of the OSHA Act (29 U.S.C. 655(a)), and they have not 
been significantly updated since. Therefore, in addition to 
consolidating the applicable sanitation requirements, the final rule 
updates the sanitation requirements to reflect improvements in 
workplace sanitation that have been developed, such as single-use 
bottled water and waterless handwashing agents.
    OSHA drew some of the updated requirements from sanitation 
standards the Agency developed for other industries, such as marine 
terminals (Sec.  1917.127), agriculture (Sec.  1928.110), and 
longshoring (Sec.  1918.95). In addition, pursuant to section 6(b)(8) 
of the OSHA Act (20 U.S.C. 655(b)(8)), OSHA also reviewed the ANSI 
national consensus standards on sanitation (ANSI Z4.1-1995 and Z4.3-
1995 (Ex. 38 at Ex. 3-6 and 3-8)), and incorporated relevant provisions 
into proposed Sec.  1915.88. ANSI Z4.1 addresses general sanitation in 
workplaces, while ANSI Z4.3 covers non-sewered waste disposal systems.
    As mentioned, most of the changes in Sec.  1915.88 reflect changes 
in technology and sanitation practices that have developed since the 
original standards were adopted. Further, the standard is designed to 
be more flexible than the existing requirements. The final rule also 
introduces a new term, "sanitation facilities" (defined in Sec.  
1915.80), to cover the wide range of facilities that employers must 
provide to ensure that employees' "health and personal needs" are 
met. 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 toilet paper, towels, soap, and waterless cleaning 
agents.
Paragraph (a)--General Requirements
    Paragraph (a) incorporates a series of general requirements on the 
accessibility, adequacy, and maintenance of sanitation facilities in 
shipyards. It simplifies the existing standards, and makes them apply 
more uniformly throughout the shipyard.
    A sanitation facility cannot meet employees' health needs unless it 
is accessible, adequate, and properly maintained. For instance, if toilets 
are provided but are located far away from the worksite, employees may 
have to refrain from using the facilities or from drinking an adequate 
amount of liquids during the workshift. Employees may refrain from 
using toilets, particularly portable ones, that are dirty, not serviced 
regularly, or require a long wait. These actions can result in 
significant adverse health effects (Ex. 62).
    Paragraph (a)(1), like the proposed rule, requires that sanitation 
facilities be (a) adequate and (b) readily accessible. Employers must 
provide sanitation facilities that meet both requirements in order to 
be considered in compliance with this paragraph.
    Adequate sanitation facilities. This final standard at Sec.  
1915.88 specifies a general requirement regarding the minimum number of 
facilities that employers must provide (for example, 1 toilet for every 
15 employees per sex, 1 shower for every 10 employees per sex, 
handwashing facilities at each toilet facility). OSHA included this 
general requirement in the final standard for several reasons. First, 
employers will be in compliance with the requirement to provide 
sanitation facilities only if they provide facilities that are adequate 
for the number of employees in the workplace. Second, as discussed in 
Sec.  1915.80, the definition of "sanitation facilities" includes 
supplies for those facilities, such as toilet paper, towels, soap, and 
waterless cleaning agents. Paragraph (a)(1) reinforces the requirement 
that supplies for sanitation facilities also must be adequate. Third, 
sanitation facilities must be clean and well maintained to be 
considered adequate for the use of workers. This requirement for 
adequate sanitation facilities covers, generally, the specific 
requirements that are described in more detail below.
    Readily accessible. Ready access to sanitation facilities helps to 
protect employee health and reduce the risk of adverse health effects 
by increasing the likelihood that workers will use the facilities. For 
example, a lack of ready access to drinking water can result in 
dehydration, which can be fatal, especially in hot and humid working 
conditions.
    The existing sanitation rules that are applicable to shipyard 
employment, unlike the sanitation standards for marine terminals, 
longshoring, and agriculture (Sec. Sec.  1917.127, 1918.127, 1928.110), 
do not directly address the accessibility of sanitation facilities. 
Paragraph (a)(1) remedies this omission with a performance-based 
requirement.
    For sanitation facilities to be considered "readily accessible," 
employees must be able to reach the facilities quickly without facing 
obstacles. OSHA recognizes that ready accessibility depends on the type 
of sanitation facility, the sizes and locations of worksites, and the 
physical characteristics of the shipyard. In small shipyards, 
sanitation facilities may be readily accessible if they are located in 
one area. However, in cases where worksites are large and spread out, 
sanitation facilities (for example, toilets, handwashing facilities, 
drinking water) located in only one location likely would not be 
considered readily accessible.
    Sanitation facilities also must be readily accessible to employees 
who work on vessels as well as landside. When employees work on small 
vessels, sanitation facilities may be readily accessible if they are 
located dockside. However, when 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 
that 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 on vessels (for example, 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.
    A number of stakeholders said they make sanitation facilities 
readily accessible to employees working on vessels, particularly when 
workers are not able to use the vessel's plumbed facilities (Exs. 
101.1; 119.1; 124; 126; 128; 130.1). General Dynamics, for instance, 
said their "long standing practice is to provide portable toilets 
aboard ships" (Ex. 119.1). Other stakeholders said they provide 
portable toilets on vessels "precisely because we can't use the 
plumbed systems onboard a vessel" (Exs. 101.1; 105.1; 124; 126; 128; 
130.1). Allen Rainsberger of Foss Maritime said that, to ensure toilet 
facilities are readily accessible for employees working on vessels, 
especially when vessel plumbing is tagged out, they provide portable 
toilets "out on the piers that are away from the main facility where 
the majority of toilets are" (Ex. 198, pp. 22-23).
    Determining whether sanitation facilities are readily accessible is 
also related to how frequently they must be used during a workshift. 
For example, 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. 
By contrast, drinking water should be located at or in close proximity 
to the employee's immediate work area, especially during hot and humid 
weather. 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. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding--Newport 
News said that they make special arrangements to ensure employees 
working in insolated areas have enough drinking water:

    Ensuring * * * water is available and consumed by employees is 
an important factor in preventing heat-related injuries. * * * For 
more isolated work or jobs with a greater heat burden, we provide 
large thermoses for ice and water from onsite commercial sized ice 
makers and potable water sources (Exs. 116.2; 120.1).

    As mentioned, the requirements in paragraph (a)(1) are stated in 
performance-based language. One stakeholder said the language in this 
provision was unclear and ambiguous and requested that OSHA define 
"readily accessible" (Ex. 121.1). However, when OSHA requested 
comment on whether the final rule should contain more specific 
requirements for the location of sanitation facilities such as the \1/
4\-mile maximum distance for portable toilets in the field sanitation 
standard for agriculture (29 CFR 1928.110(c)(2)(iii)) or the 200-foot 
requirements in the ANSI Z4.1 standard (Ex. 38, Sec. Sec.  5.1.1 and 
6.1.2), only the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health 
supported that approach (Ex. 129.1). Other stakeholders, including 
Northrop Grumman--Newport News, stated that OSHA should not specify 
locations or travel distances for sanitation facilities, such as 
toilets:

    Toilets are already installed per local and state building and 
plumbing codes. In the case of non-fixed facilities, such as ships 
and modules, toilets are located as close to where employees are 
working as feasible.* * * We recommend that OSHA maintain 
performance based language relative to placement * * * of toilet[s] 
(both sewered and portable) (Exs. 116.2; 120.1).

    After reviewing the record and considering the comments received, 
OSHA believes that the performance-based approach will enable 
employers, who are in the best position to assess the needs of their 
particular worksites, to determine where to install sanitation 
facilities so that they are readily accessible. Thus, OSHA decided not 
to specify a minimum time or distance to sanitation facilities.
    Paragraph (a)(2) clarifies OSHA's longstanding policy that 
employers must supply and maintain sanitation facilities at the 
worksite in a clean, sanitary, and serviceable condition. OSHA defines 
"serviceable condition" in Sec.  1915.80 as the state or ability of a 
device to operate as prescribed by the manufacturer. Obviously, toilets 
that do not flush, water faucets that do not turn on, and water 
fountains that do not dispense a suitable stream for drinking are 
examples of facilities that are not in a "serviceable condition." The 
current general industry standard specifies that employers must keep 
all places of employment clean (Sec.  1910.141(a)(3)(i)). Paragraph 
(a)(2) incorporates the existing general industry language that 
lavatories must be maintained in a sanitary condition (Sec.  
1910.141(d)(1)). Paragraph (a)(2) also adds the requirement for 
employers to maintain sanitation facilities in a serviceable condition.
    Regarding how often sanitation facilities are serviced, the U.S. 
Navy stated:

    The frequency of servicing and cleaning varies from daily to 
weekly, based on the type of facility, number of employees serviced 
and location and is addressed via contracts with janitorial services 
and portable toilet vendors (Ex. 132.2).

Sound Testing, Inc., stated:

    It's a fact that the toilets in any institution, facility or 
industry may become 'unclean' or 'un-sanitary' after one use! We 
hope that OSHA doesn't intend to require the employers be 
responsible for cleaning these toilets immediately after each use, 
or each time they become not 'clean' or not 'sanitary'. It's more 
practical and applicable to encourage the employers to maintain a 
regular housekeeping schedule of some sort (Ex. 121.1).

    OSHA considered the above comments from the U.S. Navy and Sound 
Testing, Inc., and revised the language in paragraph (a)(2) to require 
that employers establish and implement a schedule for servicing, 
cleaning, and supplying each facility to ensure that it is maintained 
in a clean, sanitary, and serviceable condition. Sanitation facilities, 
especially toilet facilities, will become unsanitary if cleanings are 
spaced too far apart. Thus, employers need to ensure that they 
establish cleaning schedules sufficient to provide employees with clean 
and sanitary facilities. This requirement may mean adjusting schedules 
to add cleaning if the sanitation facility receives an increased level 
of usage. The Agency believes that a non-prescriptive approach that 
permits each employer to determine the necessary cleaning schedule is 
entirely appropriate, given that employers are in the best position to 
know how often and to what degree their sanitation facilities are used 
and, thus, how often they need to be cleaned, whether by in-house staff 
or an outside janitorial service.
Paragraph (b)--Potable Water
    The current requirements found in the general industry standard at 
Sec.  1910.141(b)(1) have been simplified and incorporated into subpart 
F in paragraph (b), which requires that employers provide adequate 
potable water from sanitary dispensers at all worksites. Paragraph 
(b)(1) of this final rule requires that employers provide potable water 
for all employee health and personal needs. In addition, the employer 
must ensure that only potable water is used for these purposes. 
Paragraph (b)(2) requires the employer to provide an adequate amount of 
potable water for all employees' health and personal needs. Paragraph 
(b)(3) requires that employers dispense drinking water from a fountain, 
a covered container with single-use drinking cups stored in a sanitary 
receptacle, or single-use bottles. Further, the employer must not 
permit the use of shared drinking cups, dippers, or water bottles.
    Since the adoption of the general industry standard for potable 
water, the use of single-use water bottles has become commonplace. OSHA 
understands that some employers provide bottled water in single-use 
size for employees who work in mobile crews or in areas where it is not 
possible to install water fountains, such as on vessels and vessel 
sections. Provided that bottles of water are not shared among 
employees, OSHA believes this method of dispensing water is at least as 
effective in preventing contamination as dispensing water from water 
fountains or covered containers. The U.S. Navy supported the addition 
of using single-use bottles:

    Single use drinking water bottles should be a recognized option. 
Single use drinking water bottles are provided to supplement 
permanent facilities on a case by case basis as needed (for example, 
in remote locations during dry-docking evolutions during summer 
months) (Ex. 132.2).

    OSHA believes that allowing employers to provide single bottles of 
water gives them greater flexibility in complying with the potable 
water requirement and, therefore, is carrying forward the language as 
proposed.
    OSHA considered adding a provision to the final standard requiring 
employers to ensure that drinking water is "suitably cool," a 
requirement from OSHA's field sanitation standard for agricultural work 
(Sec.  1928.110(c)(1)(ii)). The preamble to that standard explained 
that, in hot and humid conditions, the temperature of drinking water 
needs to be low enough to encourage employees to drink and cool their 
core body temperature (52 FR 16050, 16087, May 1, 1987). Some shipyard 
employees also work in extremely hot and humid environments. Cool water 
could help promote adequate hydration and reduce the risk of heat-
related illnesses. OSHA requested comment on this issue in the 
proposal, and three stakeholders responded. Northrop Grumman 
Shipbuilding--Newport News stated:

    Ensuring cool water is available and consumed by employees is an 
important factor in preventing heat-related injuries. We utilize 
plumbed drinking water fountains that provide cool water. For more 
isolated work or jobs with a greater heat burden, we provide large 
thermoses for ice and water from onsite commercial sized ice makers 
and potable water sources. Employees use individual containers to 
obtain water from these thermoses. Employees are also encouraged to 
bring and consume personal drinks, such as water and sports drinks. 
We hold an emergency contract for bottled water in the event of a 
power outage (Exs. 116.2; 120.1).

    The U.S. Navy commented: "The term 'suitably cool' is too 
subjective and should not be part of the requirement. Water is supplied 
for fluids replenishment and is kept shaded or in thermal coolers to 
prevent overheating prior to use" (Ex. 132.2). NIOSH commented: "It 
would be useful to include in this rule the definition for 'suitably 
cool' " (Ex. 129.1).
    While there is little doubt that water should be "suitably cool" 
for health and palatability reasons, OSHA believes that employers are 
already providing cool water or have a means to keep water cool for 
their employees working in hot or humid conditions. Therefore, OSHA is 
not adding a specific requirement that drinking water be maintained 
suitably cool. No other comments were received regarding paragraph (b).
Paragraph (c)--Non-Potable Water
    Paragraph (c) combines and simplifies the current general industry 
provisions on non-potable water, found in Sec. Sec.  1910.141(b)(2)(i) 
and (iii). OSHA condensed and incorporated these current provisions 
into subpart F as Sec. Sec.  1915.88(c)(1) and (2). OSHA will not carry 
forward Sec.  1910.141(b)(2)(ii), which addresses the construction of 
non-potable water systems, since State and local codes currently 
address this issue.
    Paragraph (c)(1) permits employers to use non-potable water for 
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. Sound Testing, 
Inc., commented:

    Non-potable water used for other purposes such as firefighting 
and cleaning outdoor premises might be pumped up from rivers, lakes, 
ponds, canals, bayous, bays, etc. * * * (Some city ordinances, USCG, 
and state environmental laws do not permit this practice.) The water 
from many of these sources most likely contains low doses of various 
kinds of chemicals, drugs, hormones, heavy metals, organics, FOGs, 
and possibly fecal matter and coliform from humans or animals. 
Hence, the term non-potable water.
    The contaminants in these waters may vary by the minute. It 
might be costly if the employers were not allowed to use these 
waters in non-potable operations. It would definitely be more costly 
and almost impossible for the employers to have to test for all of 
the contaminants in the water prior to each use.
    Would you consider allowing the use of gloves, or appropriate 
PPEs and the use of proper decontamination for those employees 
affected? We believe it would be much more effective, feasible, and 
realistic (Ex. 121.1).

    OSHA recognizes that contaminants may be found in water pumped from 
rivers and lakes and that the use of PPE, in accordance with 29 CFR 
1915 subpart I, Personal Protective Equipment, would be a good safety 
and health practice that employers should adopt when working with non-
potable water. In fact, employees who are using non-potable water are 
most likely already utilizing PPE. During firefighting activities, for 
example, firefighting gear offers protection from both heat and 
exposure to potentially hazardous substances in non-potable water used 
to extinguish fires. However, while the use of PPE may protect the 
employees using the non-potable water, there is no guarantee that other 
affected employees will be protected as well. Should water particles 
become airborne, such as during a fire response, or if there is residue 
from contaminated water used to clean a surface where employees will be 
working, the potential still exists for those employees to be exposed 
to a hazardous substance present in the non-potable water. Therefore, 
to protect all employees engaged in shipyard employment, OSHA is 
carrying paragraph (c)(1) forward in this final standard as proposed.
    Paragraph (c)(2) requires that the employer clearly mark non-
potable water supplies and outlets as "not safe for health or personal 
use." The existing general industry standard that is applicable to 
shipyard employment, Sec.  1910.141(b)(2)(i), requires that outlets for 
non-potable water, such as water for industrial or firefighting 
purposes, be posted or otherwise marked to clearly indicate that the 
water is unsafe and is not to be used for drinking, cooking, or washing 
the following items: people, clothes, food, cooking or eating utensils, 
food preparation or processing premises, and personal service rooms. 
This requirement is similar to some State and local laws that require 
the labeling of non-potable water. No comments were received on this 
paragraph. OSHA concluded that marking non-potable water supplies and 
outlets as "not safe for health or personal use" is necessary to 
protect workers from inadvertent ingestion of or exposure to 
contaminants in non-potable water and is therefore carrying this 
language forward as proposed.
Paragraph (d)--Toilets
    Paragraph (d) adopts the existing requirements on sewered toilets 
found in the general industry standards, Sec.  1910.141(c)(1)(i) and 
(ii), which are applicable to shipyard employment and which have been 
reorganized for clarity in this paragraph (d). In addition, and as 
proposed, OSHA included paragraph (d)(3), covering portable toilets, 
which are not addressed in the general industry standard.
    Due to the addition of portable toilets in paragraph (d)(3), OSHA 
proposed to replace the existing term "toilet facility" with the 
terms "sewered toilet facility" and "portable toilet facility." 
However, this final standard adopts the simpler terminology "sewered 
toilet" and "portable toilet." These terms are used in the current 
ANSI Z4.1 and Z4.3 standards, respectively (Exs. 38 at Ex. 3-6, Sec. 
2.4, and Ex. 3-7, Secs. 2 and 5). OSHA defines these terms in Sec.  
1915.80 as follows: a "sewered toilet" is "a fixture that is 
connected to a sanitary sewer, septic tank, holding tank (for example, 
bilge), or on-site sewage disposal treatment facility, and that is 
flushed with water," while a "portable toilet" is "a non-sewered 
portable facility that may be either flushable or non-flushable." In 
the final standard, toilet requirements are separated into four 
paragraphs: (d)(1) includes the general requirements that will be 
applicable to both sewered and portable toilets; (d)(2) includes the 
requirements for the number of toilets; (d)(3) covers the requirements 
for portable toilets; and (d)(4) includes an exception to provide 
toilets at normally unattended worksites.
    Paragraph (d)(1)(i), which was proposed as (d)(1)(ii), requires the 
employer to ensure that both sewered and portable toilets provide 
privacy at all times. When a toilet facility contains more than one 
toilet, each toilet shall occupy a separate compartment with a door and 
either walls or partitions that are sufficiently high to ensure 
privacy. Paragraph (d)(1)(ii) requires that the toilets be separate for 
each sex, except as provided in (d)(1)(ii)(B). In paragraph 
(d)(1)(ii)(A), the number of toilets provided for each sex is based on 
the maximum number of employees of that sex present at the worksite at 
any one time during a workshift. A single-occupancy toilet room is 
counted as one toilet regardless of the number of toilets it contains. 
Paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(B) specifies that an employer does not have to 
provide separate toilets facilities for each sex if 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. The requirements of paragraph 
(d)(1) are noncontroversial and do not represent a departure from 
current regulations in shipyard employment. They simply codify privacy 
and convenience conditions that have become well established in the 
workplace and contribute to employees' health and well-being. 
Therefore, these requirements are being carried forward in this final 
standard.
    The Agency is adding a provision to this paragraph that requires 
the employer to establish and implement a schedule for maintaining 
toilets in a clean, sanitary, and serviceable condition. This 
requirement is included in paragraph (a)(2) but applies to all 
sanitation facilities. For emphasis, OSHA repeated this requirement for 
toilets in paragraph (d)(1)(iii). This provision requires each employer 
to set up and carry out a cleaning schedule to meet employees' health 
needs. Portable toilets that are not properly serviced can become 
unsanitary and foul, thereby exposing employees to contaminants or 
causing them to avoid using the facilities. OSHA believes this 
requirement will not impose an unreasonable burden on employers who are 
already cleaning toilets on a regular basis. Furthermore, it reinforces 
the employer's duty to maintain sanitary conditions for employees who 
must use the workplace toilet facilities.
    Paragraph (d)(2) specifies, in Table F-2, the minimum number of 
toilets for each sex and allows for urinals to reduce the number of 
required toilets in men's facilities. Proposed paragraph (d)(2) 
retained the existing requirements of the general industry standard for 
the minimum number of sewered toilets employers must provide for each 
sex (see Table J-1 of Sec.  1910.141). This provision raises two 
issues: first, the ratio of 1 toilet for every 15 employees; and second, 
the proposed ratio being for sewered toilets only.
    Regarding the first issue, the proposed provision required a basic 
ratio of 1:15 sewered toilets to employees. While the ratio slightly 
decreases with the number of employees at the worksite (see Table F-2 
of paragraph (d)(2)), the basic requirement is commonly referred to as 
a ratio of 1 toilet for every 15 employees, and OSHA will use that 
convention. OSHA adopted the 1:15 ratio (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 May 3, 1973). It has been the general 
industry standard since that time. In contrast, ANSI has revised the 
ratio to one toilet for every nine employees (ANSI Z4.1-1995).
    In the proposal, OSHA requested comment on whether the Agency 
should retain the 1:15 toilet ratio from the existing standard, or 
adopt the 1:9 ratio from the current ANSI Z4.1 and IPC 2003 standards. 
The U.S. Navy stated that:

    In general, facilities (including industrial and support areas 
to which the standard applies * * * ) are designed to meet or exceed 
the current version of the international plumbing code (IPC) and are 
upgraded accordingly during normal renovation cycles (Ex. 132.2).

The American Shipbuilding Association argued that OSHA should reference 
State or local codes:

    State or local building or plumbing codes should be utilized 
instead of the [1:9 toilet-to-employee ratio] proposed. This 
involves sewer and plumbing systems infrastructure. It is not just a 
matter of buying more toilets (Ex. 168, p. 236).

    Other employers supported OSHA's current ratio. For example, Todd 
Pacific Shipyard testified that they believed the ratio of 1:15 was 
sufficient (Ex. 198, p. 31). Northrop Grumman-Newport News stated:

    Our review of this issue indicates that the existing number of 
toilets in 29 CFR 1910.141 and proposed Table [F-2] to Subpart F is 
adequate to meet employee needs. * * * Adopting the ANSI Z4.1 ratio 
would result in a 25 percent increase in toilets. This could pose 
significant costs in infrastructure, space utilization, and 
maintenance costs (Exs. 116.2; 120.1).

    OSHA recognizes that State and local plumbing codes may differ from 
OSHA requirements. If those codes are more stringent than OSHA's 
regulations, employers may have a duty to comply with the more 
stringent requirements. However, where State or local codes are silent 
on the issue of toilet ratios, or where these codes are less stringent 
than OSHA's 1:15 ratio, employers must comply with OSHA's requirements. 
OSHA concluded that Table F-2 in paragraph (d)(2) sets forth the 
appropriate number of toilets for shipyard employment. These numbers 
have been the standard for nearly four decades, and OSHA did not 
receive any comments strongly disagreeing that the 1:15 ratio is 
inadequate. Thus, employers will be required to follow Table F-2 in 
subpart F to ensure that the minimum number of toilets is provided for 
employees. In addition, a note has been added to Table F-2 that 
clarifies that, when toilets will be used only by men, urinals may be 
provided instead of toilets. However, the number of toilets may not be 
reduced to less than two-thirds of the minimum specified. No comments 
were received on this note to Table F-2.
    The second issue was that the proposal included only sewered 
toilets in the minimum number of toilets. Many employers challenged the 
Agency's proposal to limit the minimum number of required toilets to 
only sewered toilets. Further, commenters provided examples of 
situations in which the requirement for a fixed number of sewered 
toilets would be infeasible or impracticable, including: (1) 
Fluctuations in employee populations, making it difficult to plan for 
an adequate number of sewered toilets (Exs. 119.1; 132.2; 168, p. 236; 
198, p. 202); (2) remote locations, such as graving or dry docks, 
piers, or other locations where it would be impracticable to run proper 
piping to install sewered toilets (Exs. 105.2; 168, p. 153; 198, p. 
23); (3) ship's sewage systems that may be unavailable to workers 
because they are shut down for repair, use of the ship's sewage system 
would result in the discharge of waste directly overboard in violation 
of environmental laws, or employees are at a location on a vessel that 
is far from a working sewered toilet (Exs. 99; 107; 104.1; 116.1; 
120.1; 198, p. 23); and (4) fishing vessels that do not have sewage 
holding tanks or adequate tank capacity for human waste, and that do 
not have moorages with sewered facilities, thereby requiring the vessel 
to discharge sewage directly over the side (Exs. 105.2; 199 p. 261).
    Nearly all employers that commented or testified advocated 
flexibility for employers to provide portable toilets for employees 
when the installation of sewered toilets is infeasible or 
impracticable. General Dynamics commented:

    Sewered toilets can often not be placed in a position that is 
considered readily available on board ships in the water. The long 
standing practice is to provide portable toilets aboard ships. * * * 
Furthermore, the use of portable toilets accommodates the movement 
of employees within the shipyard (Ex. 119.1).

American Seafoods Corporation explained:

    For many small and medium vessels [meeting the minimum number of 
sewered toilets] is impossible as many moorages do not offer sewer 
connections, and the vessels do not have adequate tank capacity to 
store sewage and waste water onboard (Ex. 199, p. 261).

American Seafoods further commented:

    The reason ships, ship yards, ship repair facilities and fishing 
vessels use PORTABLE Toilet Facilities is that the "Sewered 
Facilities" are either shut down for repair or shut down because 
they are not permitted to be used due to environmental discharge 
issues. Many smaller vessels do not have sewage holding tanks and do 
not have the ability to connect to dockside sewer connections, 
should any such connections exist. Therefore the only "Sewered 
Facilities" available at what are often Municipal Docks are 
frequently a considerable distance away from the vessel (they tend 
to be built on shore). Portable toilets are used precisely because 
we cannot use the plumbed systems on a vessel (Ex. 105.1).

    Todd Pacific Shipyard testified: "There are some [portable 
toilets] available out on the piers that are away from the main 
facility where the majority of the toilets are" (Ex. 198, p. 23).
    OSHA's standards for marine terminals, longshoring, construction, 
and agricultural field sanitation 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. 2.9 and 6.4). In 
addition, OSHA issued an interpretation letter on May 18, 1999, 
indicating that the Agency would regard the substitution of portable 
toilets for water closets as a de minimis departure from Sec.  
1910.141(c)(1)(i) if the following circumstances were met: (1) The lack 
of water or the temporary nature of the installation makes water 
carriage systems impracticable; (2) the portable toilets are readily 
accessible by employees; (3) the portable toilets have adequate 
lighting, are secure, and have heating as necessary; and (4) they are 
well-maintained and properly serviced (Ex. 23; OSHA letter of 
interpretation to Michael G. Connors, May 18, 1999).
    Based on comments and testimony in this rulemaking, as well as OSHA 
regulations and policy for other workplaces, the Agency amended 
proposed paragraph (d)(2) by including both sewered and portable 
toilets within the minimum requirements for toilets. Sewered toilets that 
are already installed, such as in facilities and shops, must be maintained 
as long as the worksite is still in operation. It is not the purpose of 
this final rule to allow the employer to provide only portable toilets. 
In addition, shipyard employers should periodically reevaluate the number 
of employees using sewered toilets to determine if the number of toilets 
needs to be adjusted. For example, if employees on their way to a pier 
walk through a shop that has sewered toilets and use those facilities, 
the employer must accommodate any increased use of those toilets.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(3) permitted employers to provide portable 
toilets in addition to the requirements for sewered toilets in Table F-2. 
However, several employers objected to this language, arguing, as 
discussed above, that there are times when it is not possible to 
install sewered toilets. For example, American Seafoods Company 
suggested, "Perhaps this section should read [,] 'In Lieu of the 
required sewered toilet facilities' instead of 'in addition to'?" (Ex. 
105.1). Based on the many comments and testimony on the issue of 
portable toilets in shipyards, proposed paragraph (d)(3) has been 
revised and reorganized into two subparagraphs. Paragraph (d)(3)(i) 
requires that, any time the employer demonstrates that it is infeasible 
to install sewered toilets, or when there is a temporary increase in 
the number of employees for a short duration, the employer provide 
portable toilets to meet the minimum number of required toilets listed 
in paragraph (d)(2)(i) and table F-2 of this section. Such situations 
might arise when work is being performed at piers, on ships, in dry 
docks, or at remote work areas. Other circumstances might include when 
employers have an influx of temporary employees, where temporary 
employees are those employed for a limited time only, or whose 
performance is contemplated for a particular piece of work, usually of 
short duration. OSHA concluded that allowing the use of portable 
toilets when an employer demonstrates that it is infeasible to install 
sewered toilets in shipyard employment will enhance employee health and 
well-being because these sanitation facilities will be more accessible 
and, thus, more likely to be used. This option is particularly 
important in work areas on vessels, where a significant portion of 
shipyard employees work and where sewered facilities for workers may 
not be practicable. Therefore, new paragraph (d)(3)(i) will be carried 
forward in this final standard to require the employer to provide 
portable toilets when the employer demonstrates that it is not feasible 
to provide sewered toilets, or when there is a temporary increase in 
the number of employees.
    This provision is further justified by the significant improvements 
in portable toilet technology in recent years. Portable toilets now 
contain the type of equipment necessary to provide for employee health 
needs at levels close to that of the existing standard for sewered 
toilets. For example, many portable toilets 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. 13). Allowing employers 
to provide portable toilets in certain situations will ensure adequate 
and readily accessible facilities without adding construction expenses 
and inconvenience.
    Paragraph (d)(3)(ii) has been modified from proposed (d)(3), and 
requires that employers ensure that each portable toilet is vented and 
equipped, as necessary, with lighting. In the proposal, OSHA specified 
that portable toilets were required to be equipped with adequate 
venting and, as necessary, lighting and heating. The American 
Shipbuilding Association testified, "When is it necessary to provide 
heating and lighting in a portable toilet facility? I cannot recall 
ever seeing such a facility that is equipped to provide either heating 
or lighting" (Exs. 104.1; 107.1). American Seafood Corporation also 
objected to the venting and heating requirements for portable toilets:

    Adequate Venting?--We personally have never met a Portable 
Toilet Facility that was "Adequately Vented" and there were years 
of "Portable Toilet Facility Experience" in the rooms during the 
discussions. Adequate Lighting?--Again, we have personally never 
seen Portable Toilet Facilities that had extra lighting. Heating?--
Again we are at a loss. What supplier provides pristine portable 
toilet facilities that have reading lights, vent fans, and 
heaters?" (Ex. 105.1).

While there are portable toilets that do have venting systems, heat, 
air conditioning, and lighting, they are expensive. Fishing Vessel 
Owners Marine Ways, Inc., testified:

    [T]he cost associated with portable toilets is a difference of 
$85 per week for a toilet that is unheated and equipped with hand 
sanitizer which includes regular inspections and servicing needs as 
compared to greater than $2000 a week for portable facilities 
equipped with heat and running water, plus additional costs for 
servicing (Ex. 198, p. 202).

    OSHA will not impose these costs on employers or require that this 
type of facility be used in the workplace. Based on the comments 
received, OSHA revised this provision by eliminating the requirement 
for employers to ensure that portable toilets are equipped with 
heating. However, paragraph (d)(3)(ii) requires employers to provide 
portable toilets that are vented and equipped, as necessary, with 
lighting. Lighting would be necessary during workshifts occurring at 
night, or in areas where there is not sufficient lighting. While the 
standard does not require exhaust fans in portable toilets, some 
venting is necessary (for example, ceiling louvers and stovepipe vents) 
for employee comfort, health, and well-being.
Exception
    Proposed paragraphs (d)(4) and (e)(3) exempted 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. Final paragraph (d)(4) retains the exemption for toilet 
facilities. This exemption implicitly extends to handwashing facilities 
in paragraph (e)(1), which requires employers to provide handwashing 
facilities at each toilet facility. The availability of vehicles at a 
worksite does not necessarily mean that the employees at that worksite 
are a "mobile crew." OSHA interprets 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 single worksite for days, weeks, or longer (Ex. 31; OSHA letter of 
interpretation to Nicolas Mertz, June 7, 2002).
    For 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 interprets "nearby" facilities as being 
within ten minutes of the employee's work area (Ex. 31). Nearby toilets 
must be in clean, sanitary, and serviceable condition, and adequate for 
the number of employees who need to use them. Nearby handwashing 
facilities must be equipped with waterless cleaning agents or soap, 
water (for example, hot and cold, or lukewarm), and hand towels or air 
blowers.
    The U.S. Navy supported this provision, stating, "The proposed 
exemptions are adequate" (Ex. 132.2). No other comments were received. 
OSHA has carried forward paragraph (d)(4) in the final standard.
Paragraph (e)--Handwashing Facilities
    Paragraph (e)(1) requires that handwashing facilities be located at 
or adjacent to each toilet facility, sewered and portable toilets 
alike. This provision is necessary, in major part, to ensure that 
employees' health needs are met in those worksites where portable 
toilets are or will be used. Some portable toilets are not equipped 
with handwashing facilities, and separate or stand-alone facilities are 
not always placed next to or close to portable toilets, particularly on 
vessels and vessel sections. Often, employees must go to landside 
facilities, which may be located a significant distance from the work 
area, to clean their hands. As a result, employees may not be able to 
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 use of performance-based language gives employers 
compliance flexibility, even at worksites where there is a lack of 
piped water or sewer lines. As stated previously, many portable toilets 
manufactured today contain either handwashing facilities or waterless 
cleaning agents. In addition, portable, stand-alone hand-cleaning 
facilities are readily available and can be placed adjacent to portable 
toilets. A single stand-alone handwashing facility may be able to serve 
several portable toilets that are placed in one location. The U.S. Navy 
supported this provision: "We agree that requiring provisions of 
handwashing facilities at or adjacent to toilet facilities is 
reasonable and appropriate" (Ex. 132.2). No other comments were 
received. OSHA has carried forward paragraph (e)(1) in this final 
standard as proposed.
    Paragraph (e)(2)(i) requires employers to equip handwashing 
facilities with (1) soap and either hot and cold or lukewarm running 
water; or (2) waterless cleaning agents that can disinfect the skin or 
neutralize contaminants. Most of OSHA's other sanitation standards 
require 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 (BBP) standard permits the use of 
alternatives (for example, antiseptic hand cleaners) in limited 
circumstances (Sec. Sec.  1910.1030(d)(2)(iii) and (iv)).
    Unlike the BBP standard, paragraph (e)(2)(i) does not restrict the 
use of waterless cleaning agents to situations in which the lack of 
water or the temporary status of the installation makes running water 
infeasible. Work covered by the BBP standard, which in some instances 
can require sterile conditions, is quite different from shipyard 
employment. OSHA does not believe the limitations in the BBP standard 
are necessary for this standard. Nearly all sewered toilets have 
handwashing facilities with running water, while waterless agents are 
usually used in conjunction with portable toilets. Moreover, whatever 
cleaning agents are used, the employer will be responsible for ensuring 
that the agents are effective in disinfecting the skin or removing the 
contaminants to which employees are exposed. In addition, the employer 
should select waterless agents that will not result in absorption of 
contaminants, sensitization of the skin, or other adverse health 
effects.
    A number of shipyard operations are performed at worksites where it 
may be difficult to provide running water and soap. Therefore, OSHA 
believes there is a practical need to allow the use of waterless 
cleaning and decontamination products in shipyards. Northrop Grumman--
Newport News supported this addition: "Waterless cleaners are provided 
whenever non-plumbed portable toilets are present. They have been 
received favorably and we have noted no problems" (Exs. 116.1; 120.1). 
In addition, the U.S. Navy stated: "The use of waterless cleaning 
agents is a viable option, enabling the provision of handwashing 
facilities at all toilet facilities. Some waterless hand cleaners are 
in limited use in the shipyards, but data is not currently available on 
employee's acceptance of this alternative" (Ex. 132.1). OSHA concluded 
that waterless cleaners have become widely accepted and used in 
workplaces across many industries, and their antibacterial qualities 
protect workers from health hazards when water and soap are not 
available. Therefore, the Agency is carrying this provision forward as 
proposed.
    Paragraph (e)(2)(ii), identical to the proposal, requires that if 
the handwashing facility is equipped with soap and water, the employer 
must provide clean, single-use hand towels. These towels must be stored 
in a sanitary container, and the employer must provide a sanitary means 
for disposing of them. Alternatively, the employer may supply clean 
individual sections of continuous cloth toweling or an air blower. No 
comments were received on this paragraph. Because the requirements of 
this provision are noncontroversial, and are standard hygiene practice 
in shipyards pursuant to compliance with the general industry standards 
at Sec.  1910.141(d)(2)(iv), OSHA is carrying paragraph (e)(2)(ii) 
forward with no changes.
    Proposed paragraph (e)(3), an exception to providing handwashing 
facilities for mobile crews and at normally unattended work locations, 
has been deleted from the final regulation. As noted above, paragraph 
(d)(4) exempts employers from having to provide toilets for mobile 
crews or at normally unattended worksites. Because handwashing 
facilities must be provided at or adjacent to each toilet facility, any 
exception to the requirement to provide toilets automatically extends 
to handwashing facilities.
    Paragraph (e)(3) in the final rule requires employers to inform 
each employee who is engaged in the application of paints or coatings, 
or in other operations in which hazardous or toxic substances can be 
ingested or absorbed, about the need for removing surface contaminants 
from their skin by thoroughly washing their hands and face at the end 
of the workshift and prior to eating, drinking, or smoking. This 
provision was proposed as paragraph (e)(4), but since proposed (e)(3) 
was omitted from the final rule, OSHA renumbered this paragraph as 
(e)(3). No comments were received on this provision. Because shipyard 
employment can require workers to handle various hazardous or toxic 
substances, OSHA continues to believe that employees must be informed 
of the need to wash their hands and faces after working with certain 
surface contaminants so they can protect themselves from dermal 
exposure or exposure through ingestion. Thus, OSHA is carrying forward 
this requirement as proposed.
Paragraph (f)--Showers
    OSHA has set forth the requirements for showers in paragraph (f), 
which is substantially identical to the general industry standard found 
at 29 CFR 1910.141(d)(3). Paragraph (f)(1) specifies that when showers 
are required by an OSHA standard, the employer must provide one shower 
for each 10, or fraction of 10, employees of each sex who are required 
to shower during the same workshift. Paragraph (f)(2) requires the 
employer to ensure that each shower is equipped with soap, hot and cold 
water, and clean towels for each employee using the shower. No comments 
were received on either provision. OSHA has concluded that the shower 
requirements are necessary for employee safety and health and have been 
a requirement for shipyards through the general industry standard. Carrying 
these requirements forward in the final standard thus responds to the 
shipyard employment industry's request to consolidate requirements for 
general working conditions in shipyard employment into one subpart.
Paragraph (g)--Changing Rooms
    Paragraph (g) sets forth the requirements for changing rooms. When 
an employer provides protective clothing to employees to prevent 
exposure to hazardous or toxic substances, the employer must provide: A 
changing room that offers privacy for each sex (paragraph (g)(1)), and 
storage facilities for street clothes, as well as separate storage 
facilities for protective clothes (paragraph (g)(2)). Paragraph (g)(1) 
is a new requirement, but the provisions in (g)(2) are identical to the 
general industry standard, Sec.  1910.141(e), which has applied to 
shipyard employment. No comments were received on these provisions. 
Therefore, OSHA concluded that the new provision for privacy for each 
sex is necessary for workers' health and well-being, as well as 
personal comfort and dignity. The rest of paragraph (g) addresses the 
shipyard employment industry's preference to consolidate requirements 
for general working conditions in shipyard employment into one subpart. 
Thus, OSHA is carrying these provisions forward in this final standard.
Paragraph (h)--Eating, Drinking, and Break Areas
    Currently, there are five requirements that address eating, 
drinking, and break areas (Sec. Sec.  1910.141(g), (g)(1), (g)(2), and 
(g)(4), and Sec.  1915.97(c)). OSHA combined these requirements into a 
single provision in subpart F, and simplified the provision to prohibit 
food, beverages, and tobacco products from being consumed or stored in 
any area where employees may be exposed to hazardous substances. 
Proposed paragraph (h) prohibited food, beverages, and tobacco products 
from being consumed or stored in any area where hazardous or toxic 
substances may be present.
    Many commenters argued that prohibiting eating, drinking, or using 
tobacco products whenever hazardous or toxic substances may be present 
unreasonably increased the number of areas where employees would not be 
able to eat, drink, or smoke (Exs. 105.2; 106.1; 112.1; 121; 101.1; 
124; 126; 130.1; 125; 168, pp. 57-58, 245-247). OSHA responded to this 
concern in two ways. First, the Agency revised the definition of 
hazardous substances in the final rule to mean a substance that may 
cause injury, illness, or disease, or otherwise harm an employee by 
reason of being explosive, flammable, poisonous, corrosive, oxidizing, 
irritating, or otherwise harmful. The proposed definition was much 
broader, and raised concerns that eating or drinking would be 
prohibited near generally innocuous, but potentially harmful, 
substances such as common household cleaning products or copier 
cartridges (Ex. 112.1). The narrower definition that was adopted in the 
final rule substantially limits the universe of substances that would 
trigger the restrictions of this paragraph.
    Second, OSHA deleted the proposed phrase "where hazardous or toxic 
substances may be present," and replaced it with "where employees may 
be exposed to hazardous or toxic substances." The change in wording 
was in response to commenters pointing out that, even if a toxic 
substance is present, it is not necessarily a hazard. For example, 
American Seafoods Company commented: "If an employee cannot smoke 
anywhere 'hazardous chemicals are present' does that mean employees 
cannot smoke in the same room in which there is a sealed can of some 
chemical?" (Ex. 105.1). The Shipbuilders Council of America commented:

    The proposed language directs that food, beverages, tobacco and 
etcetera may not be consumed or stored in areas where hazardous or 
toxic materials may be present. SCA believes this is too general. 
The nature of a shipyard is such that there is small potential that 
every location within the grounds may contain small levels of 
hazardous or toxic substances. * * * We believe OSHA should 
acknowledge this and alter the language in the section, for 
instance, that the employer shall ensure that food, beverages, and 
tobacco products are not consumed or stored in any area where 
hazardous or toxic substances exists in such a concentration that 
they have the ability to harm employees (Ex. 168, pp. 69-70).

    Several other commenters agreed with adding language similar to 
that suggested by SCA, including Bath Iron Works, Atlantic Marine 
Florida, Atlantic Marine Alabama, American Shipbuilding Association, 
and Manitowoc Marine Group (Exs. 106.1; 115.1; 117.1; 118.1; 125). It 
is not OSHA's intent to prohibit employees from eating, drinking, or 
smoking in areas where unopened cans or containers of hazardous 
substances are present. However, employees should not be eating, 
drinking, or smoking in areas where they could consume, inhale, or 
otherwise ingest hazardous substances. The final provision requires 
employers to ensure that employees do not eat, drink, or smoke, or 
store food, beverages, or tobacco products in any area where employees 
or these items may be exposed to a hazardous substance that is 
airborne, on an eating surface, in a refrigerator or other food storage 
container, spilled on the floor, or in another similar state or 
condition.
Paragraph (i)--Waste Disposal
    Paragraph (i) addresses waste disposal, including the construction 
of receptacles, the number of required receptacles, and employees 
working around uncovered garbage. The current general industry 
provisions that are applicable to shipyard employment, found in 
Sec. Sec.  1910.141(a)(4), (a)(4)(i), and (g)(3), have been combined 
and reorganized into the following final provisions. Paragraph (i) 
requires that the employer provide waste receptacles that are corrosion 
resistant, leak-proof, and easily cleaned or disposable (paragraph 
(i)(1)(i)); fitted with a solid, tight-fitting cover (paragraph 
(i)(1)(ii)); provided throughout the worksite in numbers, sizes, and 
locations that promote their use (paragraph (i)(1)(iii)); and emptied 
often enough to prevent overfilling, and in a manner that does not 
create a hazard for employees, with waste receptacles for food emptied 
at least daily unless the receptacles have not been used (paragraph 
(i)(1)(iv)).
    Although there were no comments on the specific requirements for 
waste receptacles, several commenters questioned who was responsible 
for providing waste receptacles, including Lake Union Drydock Company, 
Puget Sound Shipbuilders, Dakota Creek Industries, North Pacific 
Fishing Vessel Owners Association, and iWorkWise (Exs. 101.1; 124; 126; 
128; 130.1). Trident Seafoods questioned, "Is the shipyard or 
maintenance facility responsible for the ship's crew waste 
receptacles?" (Exs. 104.1; 107.1). Similarly, American Seafoods 
Corporation asked, "Is the shipyard responsible for garbage cans on 
ships in their yard?" (Ex. 105.1).
    OSHA's Multi-Employer Citation Policy directive (CPL 2-0.124), 
which applies to shipyard employment, specifies that on multi-employer 
worksites, more than one employer may be responsible and citable for 
hazardous conditions that violate OSHA standards. The directive spells 
out a two-step process for determining whether more than one is 
responsible and citable. Step one involves determining the role of each 
employer at a specific multi-employer worksite and whether they fall into 
one of the categories (for example, creating, exposing, correcting, or 
controlling employer) that has obligations with respect to OSHA requirements. 
Step two is determining whether employers' actions are sufficient to meet the 
obligations of the applicable employer category.
    Multi-employer worksites engaged in shipyard employment can vary 
widely in the categories of employers that may be present and the 
factors that may affect the responsibilities of various employers (for 
example, whether contract provisions establish control over specific 
safety and health issues at the worksite). The directive includes 
examples and scenarios of various common workplace situations to help 
employers understand their responsibilities in a specific type of 
multi-employer worksite. OSHA believes that these examples will provide 
useful guidance for determining who is responsible for garbage cans on 
vessels in specific situations and specific multi-employer worksites.
    Paragraph (i)(2) specifies that employees are not to work in the 
immediate vicinity of uncovered garbage that could endanger their 
safety and health. Sound Testing, Inc., commented:

    Please define the terms 'uncovered garbage' or 'garbage.' There 
are many instances in Shipyard Employment when workers may be 
working on, near, or in the vicinity of 'uncovered garbage.' The 
difficulty is in the differentiation of what may look like 'garbage' 
and what constitutes actual garbage (Ex. 121.1).

    OSHA does not believe that defining garbage is necessary. The 
provision requires that when uncovered waste could endanger employee's 
safety and health, they should not work in the vicinity of the waste. 
If there is no substance in the receptacle that might endanger them, 
they can work near the waste. OSHA is retaining this paragraph with no 
changes from the proposal.
    Paragraph (i)(3), identical to the proposal, requires employers to 
ensure that employees working beneath or on the outboard side of a 
vessel are not contaminated by drainage or waste from overboard 
discharges. This paragraph protects employees working in dry docks, or 
on piers or decks, from overhead discharge. No comments were received 
on this paragraph. The Agency believes that it is common practice in 
shipyards not to discharge drainage and waste from above the worksite 
onto employees working at the worksite below.
Paragraph (j)--Vermin Control
    OSHA proposed to revise the application of the existing general 
industry requirement (Sec.  1910.141(a)(5)) on vermin control to make 
the provision more appropriate to shipyard employment. The existing 
requirement, Sec.  1910.141(a)(5), specifies that employers clean and 
maintain the workplace in a manner that prevents the infestation of 
vermin in "enclosed workplaces." Paragraph (j)(1) extends this 
application by requiring the employer to take those steps necessary to 
control vermin throughout the shipyard. Thus, to comply with this 
requirement, employers need to expand their vermin control efforts to 
include outdoor worksites. "Vermin" is defined in Sec.  1915.80 as 
"insects, birds, and other animals, such as rodents and feral cats, 
that may create safety and health hazards for employees." Sound 
Testing, Inc., questioned, "Does this definition include animal 
species regarded as pests or nuisances and especially to those 
associated with the carrying of disease?" (Ex. 121.1). While OSHA 
recognizes that many types of animals may be found on shipyard 
property, the concern is with animals that are safety and health 
hazards. 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. 22). 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, as well as through their feces 
(see http://www.hhs.gov and http://www.cdc.gov for information on 
vermin-related diseases). Sound Testing, Inc., commented:

    Many of these 'vermin' are often detected in Shipyard 
Employment, some are even considered as 'friends' to the employees! 
To 'implement and maintain an effective control program' as required 
in this section would probably be very expensive, near impossible or 
even illegal * * * [S]eagulls and eagles are 'frequent fliers' at 
fish processing plants, packing plants, canneries, and fish 
processors * * * (Ex. 121.1).

    OSHA recognizes that it is not possible to prevent all vermin, 
especially birds and insects, from entering outdoor worksites. 
Therefore, the provision retains the existing requirement that 
employers take only those steps that are "reasonably practicable" to 
prevent vermin infestation.
    Paragraph (j)(2) retains unchanged the existing general industry 
requirement applicable to shipyard employment (Sec.  1910.141(a)(5)) 
that employers implement and maintain an effective vermin-control 
program when vermin are detected. OSHA believes that such programs are 
necessary to protect workers from the health and safety hazards 
associated with uncontrolled vermin. Including this general industry 
requirement in the final standard responds to the shipyard employment 
industry's request to consolidate requirements for general working 
conditions in shipyard employment into one subpart.

Section 1915.89--Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tags-Plus).

    In Sec.  1915.89, OSHA establishes the requirements for the control 
of hazardous energy during the servicing of machinery, equipment, and 
systems in shipyard employment. OSHA proposed to incorporate the 
general industry standard (Sec.  1910.147), with minor revisions, into 
subpart F, since maritime employment is exempt from the general 
industry standard (Sec.  1910.147(a)(1)(ii)(A)). In the preamble to the 
subpart F proposal, OSHA discussed the need for a comprehensive 
lockout/tagout rule in shipyards, why OSHA was proposing to adopt the 
general industry approach, the requirements of the general industry 
standard, and the differences between Sec.  1910.147 and proposed Sec.  
1915.89. The preamble to the proposal also included an in-depth 
discussion of the application of the lockout/tagout standard while 
servicing commercial vessels (72 FR 72452, 72484, Dec. 20, 2007).
    The Agency received many comments regarding the adoption of Sec.  
1910.147 for shipyard employment, most of which were not in favor of 
adopting the general industry requirements verbatim. After considering 
the many informative comments and testimony OSHA received during the 
comment period, the Agency decided to develop a final rule that 
includes the substance of the general industry lockout/tagout 
provisions, while adding provisions that are more compatible with 
protecting workers in shipyard employment. In addition, the 
requirements in the final rule have been organized and set forth 
differently than the general industry standard due to the unique 
conditions in shipyard employment, both on land, and on vessels, 
including fish-processing vessels.
    This final standard addresses the control of hazardous energy 
through the use of locks and tags-plus applications, employee training, 
written program and procedures, and program audits, as well as other 
requirements. The provisions in this final rule are based on the Agency's 
detailed review and analysis of the entire rulemaking record, which 
included all pre-hearing and post-hearing comments from the public, as 
well as testimony obtained at the public hearings. The Agency believes 
the final approach developed from this information and data resulted in 
regulations that are compatible with providing optimal safety in shipyard 
employment.
    The following discussion covers the need for a comprehensive 
lockout/tags-plus standard in shipyard employment. Further, the 
discussion addresses why OSHA has adopted in this final rule a standard 
that, while similar to the general industry standard, differs in ways 
that protect workers in the unique environment of shipyard employment. 
An in-depth discussion of commercial fishing vessels is included in the 
scope and application section of this lockout/tags-plus standard (see 
summary and explanation of Sec.  1915.89(a)).
The Need for a Comprehensive Lockout/Tags-Plus Standard in Shipyards
    OSHA believes that a comprehensive rule protecting shipyard 
employees from hazardous energy during servicing, maintenance, and 
repair operations is needed. In the proposal, OSHA listed the following 
three reasons why shipyard employment needs a comprehensive lockout/
tagout program (72 FR 72452, 72484, Dec. 20, 2007):
    1. Potential hazardous energy exposures are present throughout 
shipyard employment, on vessels and vessel sections, and in landside 
facilities (Exs. 9; 11). Employees servicing ships' systems face 
considerable risk of injury or death from the energization of those 
systems because they are often large and complex, and frequently have 
multiple power sources. That risk is compounded when ships' crews and 
outside contractors also work onboard the vessel. According to 2002 
data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) annual survey of 
occupational injuries and illnesses, 30.3 percent of the shipyard 
injury and illness cases involving days away from work resulted from 
contact with an object or equipment, and 1.8 percent of the cases 
resulted from being caught in equipment (72 FR 72452, 72484, Dec. 20, 
2007). BLS Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries data from 1993-2002 
show that 10 shipyard fatalities (6.3% of shipyard work-related 
fatalities) resulted from contact with electrical current, and 31 
fatalities (19.5%) occurred because of contact with objects and 
equipment (72 FR 72484-85).
    2. The general industry lockout/tagout standard specifically 
exempts "maritime employment" from its scope (Sec.  
1910.147(a)(1)(ii)(A)). In the preamble to the final general industry 
standard, OSHA explained that shipyard employment was excluded because 
of the unique conditions present in this industry; further, the means 
to minimize injuries and fatalities to maritime workers required 
additional analysis and consideration, which had not been undertaken 
during the lockout/tagout rulemaking (54 FR 36644, 36657-58, Sept. 1, 
1989). As a result, OSHA had insufficient information about hazardous 
energy in shipyard employment to conclude that 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.
    3. The existing lockout/tagout provisions applicable to shipyard 
employment (Sec. Sec.  1910.331-.335, 1915.162-.164, 1915.181) do not 
provide comprehensive or adequate protection for shipyard employees. 
The existing provisions in 29 CFR 1915 establish specific, but 
isolated, practices for controlling hazardous energy, and no provisions 
establish a comprehensive program for addressing those risks. For 
example, none of the existing part 1915 provisions requires written 
lockout/tagout procedures, employee training, verification of 
deenergization or isolation, or periodic inspection.
    Commenters supported the reasoning in OSHA's discussion in the 
preamble to the proposal regarding the need for a comprehensive 
lockout/tagout standard. Several employers stated: "We agree with OSHA 
that comprehensive energy control procedures are important and support 
OSHA in applying the 'cornerstone' part of the rules to ship repair" 
and that "positively securing all energy sources before servicing 
equipment and verifying that the energy control has been achieved is an 
obvious way to save lives and prevent injury" (Exs. 100.1; 101.1; 
105.1; 123; 124; 126; 128; 130.1).
    Some commenters confirmed that shipyard employers, as well as 
commercial vessels, are already utilizing a version of lockout, tagout, 
or tags-plus in their facilities, and have done so for a number of 
years. Manitowoc Marine Group testified that:

    [A]s far as the land base, we do follow the general industry 
standard on lockout/tagout. * * * [For vessel and vessel sections] 
we have tried to somewhat model the general industry to a point. We 
will identify the energy sources as best we can with the crew (Ex. 
168, pp. 109-111).

    Northrop Grumman-Newport News, Bath Iron Works, American Seafoods 
Company, Foss Maritime, Trident Seafoods, and several other commenters 
also confirmed that they use lockout, tagout, or tags-plus in some 
fashion for both their landside facilities, and vessels and vessel 
sections (Exs. 99; 100; 104.1; 105.1; 107.1; 116.1; 120.1). American 
Seafoods Company stated: "Many vessels have implemented some form of 
lockout procedures even though maritime has been exempted by OSHA for 
the past 18 years" (Ex. 105.1). Arctic Storm Management Group 
testified:

    All three vessels have lockout/tagout programs. All three of 
them have been tailored to the vessels, because they're different 
sizes in different places. I have worked with my engineering staff 
and electricians to design the programs, but they are vessel 
specific (Ex. 199, p. 90).

    OSHA believes that a comprehensive hazardous-energy control program 
is essential for shipyard employment for the reasons listed above, and 
as explained in the proposal (72 FR 72452, 72484-85, Dec. 20, 2007). As 
discussed below, OSHA is adopting a lockout/tags-plus program, which is 
a modified version of the general industry lockout/tagout program. The 
shipyard employment lockout/tags-plus standard will establish uniform 
minimum procedures that shipyard employers must follow in all shipyard 
servicing operations to protect employees on land and on vessels and 
vessel sections.
Why OSHA Developed a Modified Version of the General Industry Standard
    In the proposal, OSHA discussed how it determined to follow the 
general industry lockout/tagout standard. The Agency listed the 
following five reasons, with an in-depth discussion of each reason, in 
the proposed rule (72 FR 72452, 72487, Dec. 20, 2007): (1) The general 
industry standard has provided effective protection for affected 
employees; (2) many shipyard employers have already implemented 
lockout/tagout programs modeled on the general industry standard, and 
have reported that these programs are effective in reducing the risk of 
harm associated with servicing operations; (3) the comprehensive 
energy-control procedures, that are the cornerstone of the general 
industry standard, are particularly appropriate for addressing 
the types of workplace conditions and hazardous energy present in 
shipyard employment; (4) shipyard employment also includes landside 
operations, which are similar to general industry worksites; and (5) 
the requirements of the general industry standard would 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 similar complex conditions in general industry sectors.
    Almost uniformly, the comments on the proposed hazardous-energy 
standard disagreed with OSHA's justifications for adopting the general 
industry standard for shipyard employment in Sec.  1915.89. As an 
example of a recurring concern, Northrop Grumman-Newport News stated: 
"The proposed standard is essentially identical to the existing 
General Industry standard and does not adequately address the 
uniqueness of Shipyard Employment" (Exs. 116.1; 120.1). DeWitt Davis 
stated:

    [Section 1910.147] works well when [t]here is one source of 
energy and in an assembly line process. Assembly lines are rare in 
shipyard construction. * * * [A] cookbook approach [cannot] be 
applied to multi-hazardous-energy-source work space (Ex. 122).

    American Seafoods Company pointed out that, in contrast to general 
industry operations, shipyard work changes with each new vessel that 
needs repair work:

    The complexity in a shipyard does not just arise from the fact 
that there are many complex systems but that in large part, the 
equipment and systems in a facility completely leave and are 
replaced with entirely new ones dozens to hundreds of times per year 
(Ex. 105.1).

Moreover, as Northrop Grumman-Newport News discussed, systems on large 
vessels are extremely complex and interrelated, may involve thousands 
of workers, and may be relatively inaccessible:

    A significant number of energy-isolating devices or authorized 
individuals are involved. Overhaul of a nuclear-powered aircraft 
carrier typically involves 75,000 energy-isolating device(s) and 
over 3,000 authorized employees on a daily basis. * * *
    The energy-isolating device(s) are relatively inaccessible. Many 
isolating devices are located remotely from the area of actual work 
or are in areas where access is restricted to certain groups of 
employees.
    There is interdependence and interrelationship of the system 
components. Navy vessels, and to a lesser extent other vessels, are 
designed for survivability. As a result, they are designed and 
constructed with redundancy in mind. Isolation of components must 
take this redundancy into consideration, requiring an extensive 
effort to understand, identify, and account for all sources of 
energy (Exs. 116.2; 120.1).

Other commenters noted the complexity of vessels' energy systems and 
the difficulty that workers, including contractors, have in making 
sense of those systems:

    The employees or contractors who perform work on a particular 
system are unlikely to have the capability of identifying all energy 
sources, either initially based on engineering drawings and 
schematics or physically on the ship.
    The employees who perform the work on a particular system are 
unlikely to have the capability of coordinating the interface 
between multiple jobs that have overlapping points of isolation (Ex. 
105.1).

Difficulties in deciphering a vessel's energy system may stem from the 
fact that schematics may be outdated:

    Inaccurate or no drawings or schematics--older ships, 
particularly commercial or foreign, may no longer have ship's 
drawings. Even newer ships may not have been constructed exactly as 
indicated on the drawing or the engineering drawings may not have 
been updated to reflect alterations.
    Failure to label components--a part of ship construction 
includes labeling of the components. Components should be labeled 
before they become live. In other cases, labels may be missing, 
damaged, or worn (Ex. 105.1).

    At the Washington, DC, public hearing, Northrop Grumman-Newport 
News gave a further explanation about the challenges of adopting the 
Sec.  1910.147 general industry standard for shipyard employment:

    I think, number one, is the complexity on an aircraft carrier, 
for example, you may have 75,000 devices that you are isolating at 
any one time. You may have 3,000 people that are engaged in some way 
of that lockout/tagout process, so I think sheer volume is one, 
complexity is another. It is one thing to talk about lockout and 
tagout of an engine lathe in a machine shop, and it is another to 
talk about a complex tagout of an electrical system on a nuclear-
powered aircraft carrier. There is just no comparison in the breadth 
and depth of those systems (Ex. 168, pp. 250-251).

    Manitowoc Marine Group gave examples of some of the complexities 
that they encountered on older vessels it repairs:

    But some of these older vessels actually use belting systems 
which will--you will have gates and a cargo hold that will dump the 
product on the gate as it is moving, and this belt will eventually 
sandwich into another belt, bring it up to the open deck of the 
vessel, and into a chute which will unload. So you have got a lot of 
complex equipment and motors and drives that [have] to be 
identified. And there may be a situation where one energy source may 
drive this motor, but you may have another energy source hooked to 
it as well, because it has an additional system which drives it (Ex. 
168, pp. 113-114).

    Commenters also confirmed that employers who were using the general 
industry lockout/tagout standard were struggling in various ways. 
American Seafoods Company stated:

    In response to recent accidents, many fishing industry vessels 
have reexamined their lockout/tagout procedures and worked to 
improve them. Some have used OSHA general industry regulation as a 
framework. As a result, they have struggled with application of the 
general industry rules to their equipment installations, and 
application of those rules to the unique circumstances of work 
aboard ships. Unfortunately, the general industry approach is not 
one size fits all and has not worked well. The principles are 
valuable, while the details of implementation have been difficult 
(Ex. 105.1).

    iWorkWise explained how various fishing vessel owners were 
attempting to apply Sec.  1910.147 to their vessels but were running 
into difficulties:

    [On] some vessels it's with a few specific pieces of equipment, 
and some vessels * * * the problem is throughout the whole vessel. 
So people are doing the best they can with it, and trying to use 
1910 and trying to make it fit, because it's really all anyone has 
it for is a guideline. * * * They try to use 1910 until they get to 
the point where, oh, it won't work here. Now what? And that happens 
I think on every vessel in this industry (Ex. 199, p. 166).

Prowler LLC and Ocean Prowler LLC, as well as American Seafoods 
Company, stated:

    We agree with OSHA that comprehensive energy control procedures 
are important and support OSHA in applying the 'cornerstone' part of 
the rules to ship repair, however we believe that there is much in 
the OSHA standard that is not 'cornerstone' material. OSHA should 
minimize the requirements that are not performance oriented energy 
control procedures to allow employer's real flexibility in creating 
effective lockout programs, as well as training programs, that 
achieve full energy control (Exs. 100; 105.1).

    Several of the commercial vessel operators and owners at the 
Seattle public hearing described their current hazardous-energy-control 
procedures. Dave Fraser of FV Muir Milach stated:

    We have remote starts on the bridge for the engine that we use 
to drive the hydraulics. So if the chief was going to work on that, 
you know, service it, he'd come up, and he'd take a piece of, if 
nothing else, duct tape, put it over the starter switch and write on 
it, 'Do not start. I'm working on the generator' (Ex. 199, p. 62).

    Supreme Alaska Seafoods described how its Sec.  1910.147 lockout/
tagout program is not meeting its needs:

    We have basically a full-blown lockout/tagout program [modeled 
after Sec.  1910.147] onboard the boat. * * * It doesn't take into 
consideration the ship's systems. Some areas you can't access it. 
We have--electrical is my biggest problem right now. I have panels 
that weren't designed with that in mind. When this vessel was designed, 
it was considered adequate enough to shut the breaker off and put a 
little tag or something on it, and everybody was supposed to know better. 
It's no longer acceptable. So it won't take a blockout device. * * * So 
[Sec.  1910.147] doesn't meet our needs, all right? And the thing 
is--the first thing someone says is, well, can you change it? Yeah, 
we can change it. But there's so much of this throughout the boat * 
* * to do it in one blanket-type process (Ex. 199, pp. 161-163).

    Amy Duz of iWork Wise testified: "I don't know of any vessel 
that's following 1910 a hundred percent, not even one. And the 
reasons--the first reason is probably that they just can't physically 
lock everything out, so it gets more complicated" (Ex. 199, p. 166). 
Icicle Seafoods, Inc., testified:

    At Icicle we have a lockout/tagout program on every vessel and 
every land plant. I guess before you ask specifically, it's loosely 
modeled after 1910. I wish I could say that we're actually a hundred 
percent compliant, and every single time a situation arises we're 
doing exactly what we need to do. That doesn't happen. We're not in 
compliance with 1910, and we can't be (Ex. 199, p. 231).

    OSHA also received comments and testimony from shipyard employers 
who had concerns over using the general industry lockout/tagout 
standard as an industry-wide approach. Manitowoc Marine Group explained 
that, on landside, it is using the Sec.  1910 lockout/tagout standard. 
However, it commented that vessels present special circumstances:

    [J]ust with the different vessels that come in, ranging [from] 
very, very old vessels--I mean, we are talking vessels that were 
built in the '20s and '30s that are actually still operational--it 
is a little more difficult, but we do try to use safe practices and 
develop a procedure that will protect them from energy sources (Ex. 
168, pp. 84-85).

    OSHA maintains that the shipyard industry needs a comprehensive 
hazardous-energy control program, for landside facilities as well as 
vessels and vessel sections. However, it is apparent from the comments 
made by large and small employers that applying the general industry 
lockout/tagout standard verbatim would present many challenges for this 
industry. The comments and testimony, which the Agency carefully 
reviewed and considered, convinced OSHA that a modified version of the 
general industry standard is necessary to protect workers who confront 
the unique conditions and complex situations of shipyard employment.
    OSHA is adopting lockout/tags-plus requirements for shipyard 
employment due to the complexity of the worksite; the large number of 
workers involved in the work force; the involvement of multiple 
employers; and the vast array of machinery, equipment, and systems that 
employees may be servicing. These requirements build on the general 
industry lockout/tagout standard, but offer shipyard employers some 
flexibility in choosing the best method to control hazardous energy, 
given their special circumstances. The American Shipbuilding 
Association (ASA) argued that due to the complexity of shipboard system 
operations, the imposition of traditional general industry standards 
would increase an employee's risk exposure (Ex. 168, pp. 194-195). OSHA 
agrees with this and other similar comments, and revised the final rule 
to address the industry's concerns while ensuring that shipyard 
employees working under Sec.  1915.89 are protected at least as well as 
their counterparts in general industry working under Sec.  1910.147.
    The change from lockout/tagout to lockout/tags-plus is one of 
clarification. Currently, Sec.  1910.147 requires that, when an 
employer uses a tagout system on an energy-isolating device that is 
capable of being locked out, the tagout system must provide full 
employee protection. That full-employee protection provision requires 
that an additional safety measure be used in conjunction with all of 
the tagout requirements: essentially, a tags-plus system requires an 
additional safety measure. This final rule simplifies and clarifies 
that requirement by changing the definition and more explicitly 
specifying those particular requirements. In addition, when possible, 
OSHA has revised the language in the provisions to clarify the 
requirements, without changing the substantive requirements of 
Sec. Sec.  1910.147 and 1910.269. For example, Sec.  1910.147(c)(3) has 
two requirements written into one paragraph. Without changing the 
substantive provisions, Sec.  1915.89(c)(6) separates those 
requirements into two paragraphs, and adds additional clarifying 
language. The Agency believes that the maritime industry will embrace 
the clarified language in the provisions, and be better able to 
understand and comply with the provisions in this section.
    Due to the number of regulatory text changes that OSHA made from 
the proposed rule, this section of the preamble will explain the final 
regulatory text language, rather than track subsequent changes from the 
proposal, as is typically done in OSHA preamble discussions. OSHA will 
explain how the changes came about, and provide explanations and 
examples, when appropriate, for specific provisions. OSHA believes that 
this approach will assist employers in understanding the requirements 
in the final standard. In addition, this preamble references two tables 
that list the specific provisions OSHA revised between the proposed and 
final rules. Table 2 of this preamble (see below) is a side-by-side 
listing of sections and headings in both the final standard and the 
proposal. Table 3, found at Ex. 215, is a side-by-side table that 
compares the final regulatory language to the language in the proposal 
for the revised provisions. (The purpose of Table 3 is to assist the 
regulated community in understanding the revisions made to these 
provisions, and is not to be relied upon for regulatory language.)

      Table 2--Control of Hazardous Energy Side-by-Side Comparison
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Final regulatory text               Proposed regulatory text
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Scope and application..............  (a) Scope
    (1) Scope..........................     (1) Scope
    (2) Application....................     (2) Application
    (4) Exceptions.....................     (3) Purpose
(b) Lockout/tags-plus program..........  (b) General
(c) General requirements...............     (1) Energy control program
    (6) Full employee protection.......     (2) Lockout/tagout
    (7) Lockout/tags-plus coordination.     (3) Full employee protection
(d) Lockout/tags-plus written               (4) Energy control
 procedures.                                 procedures
(e) Procedures for shutdown and             (5) Protective materials/
 isolation.                                  hardware
(f) Procedures for applying lockout/        (6) Periodic inspection
 tags-plus systems.
(g) Procedures for verification of          (7) Training
 deenergization and isolation.
(h) Procedures for testing.............     (8) Energy isolation
(i) Procedures for removal of lockout/      (9) Employee notification
 tags-plus systems.
(j) Procedures for startup.............  (c) Application of control
(k) Procedures for group lockout/tags-      (1) Preparation
 plus.
    (1) Primary authorized employee....     (2) Shutdown
    (2) Authorized employees...........     (3) Isolation
(l) Procedures for multi-employer           (4) LLOTO application
 worksites.
    (2) Host employer responsibilities.     (5) Stored energy
    (3) Contract employer                   (6) Verification
     responsibilities.
(m) Procedures for shift or personnel    (d) Release from lockout/tagout
 changes.
(n) Lockout/tags-plus materials and         (1) Machine/equip./system
 hardware.
    (i) Durable........................     (2) Employees
    (ii) Standardized..................     (3) Lockout/tagout removal
    (iii) Substantial..................  (e) Additional requirements
    (iv) Identifiable..................     (1) Testing
(o) Information and training...........     (2) Outside personnel
    (1) Initial training...............     (3) Group lockout/tagout
    (2) General training content.......     (4) Shift change
    (3) Additional training
     requirements for affected
     employees.
    (4) Additional training
     requirements for authorized
     employees.
    (5) Additional training for lockout/
     tags-plus coordinator.
    (6) Employee retraining............
(p) Incident investigation.............
(q) Program audits.....................
(r) Recordkeeping......................
(s) Appendices.........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Special provisions apply to repairs to Navy vessels. When the Navy 
conducts repairs on its vessels, the Navy ship's force maintains 
control of the vessels' machinery, equipment, and systems, and performs 
the procedures for controlling hazardous energy. To a large extent, the 
Navy's system is consistent with OSHA's final rule on lockout/tags-
plus. However, differences between the Navy's system and the final rule 
required the agencies to work together to craft exceptions to the final 
rule to accommodate the operational needs of the Navy regarding its 
ships that are under repair.
    OSHA recognizes that Navy vessels and vessel systems undergoing 
repair may have to become operational quickly for purposes of national 
security. Furthermore, in its comments to the proposal (Ex. 132.2), the 
Navy described how its energy-control system is applied to vessel 
systems that are uniquely complex:

    The Navy vessels' expert based tags plus system under the 
control of the ship Commanding Officer provides the Commanding 
Officer ultimate control of what is happening aboard his/her ship in 
accordance with U.S. Navy Regulations.* * * Our group Tags Plus 
expert-based hazardous energy control program involves an 
interaction of expert systems operators [the ship's force] and 
shipyard maintenance personnel. Maintenance is used differently in 
shipyards it should be changed to repair or remove it altogether 
here!
    * * *
    The Navy has developed shipboard energy control process 
requirements codified in formal Naval Instructions. These 
instructions were specifically designed to provide for work safety 
when dealing with energy control of complex systems which require 
specialized system qualification, knowledge and experience as well 
as multi-layered technical reviews to ensure proper isolation of 
work areas is established. Work isolation is often directly linked 
to maintaining combat system requirements and ship safety (fire 
protection, list, trim, buoyancy, should be: hotel systems, 
ventilation, lighting etc.) on combat ships with redundant systems. 
This required the development of an energy control process that 
utilizes system experts and trained work control professionals. * * 
* Placing responsibility for adequate isolation and system 
conditions in the hands of personnel performing work [shipyard 
maintenance personnel] is unsafe when the equipment and systems are 
so complicated that workers could not be reasonably expected to 
correctly determine safe isolation or it's affect [sic] on critical 
ship systems.

    Because of these factors, the Navy ship's force always maintains 
control over vessels and vessel systems undergoing repair, and 
exercises control of hazardous energy in these vessels and vessel 
systems, even when private-sector contract employers provide the 
workforce that performs the servicing operations. The Navy asserts that 
its hazardous-energy control program provides employees, including 
contractor employees, with a sufficient level of protection from 
hazardous energy, while permitting it to retain control of the vessels 
under repair should operational needs arise. For these reasons, OSHA 
provided several exceptions to the provisions of its lockout/tags-plus 
standard (see the notes to paragraphs (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(7), (e), (f), 
(h), (i), (j), (k)(2), and (l) of this section); the preamble below 
discusses these exceptions more fully. OSHA believes that contractors 
performing servicing operations onboard U.S. Navy-owned and -operated 
vessels already are coordinating with the Navy ship's force during 
these operations, as required by these notes. Thus, the notes codify 
practices that already exist in situations when the Navy has control 
over its vessels and the vessel's machinery, equipment, and systems 
during servicing operations. These notes also apply to the servicing of 
machinery, equipment, or systems that takes place during new 
construction of naval vessels once the ship's force takes control of 
those machines, equipment, or systems. While these exceptions to the 
final lockout/tags-plus requirements accommodate the Navy's need to 
exercise control over the machinery, equipment, and systems of its 
vessels that are undergoing repair, OSHA nevertheless continues to 
exercise authority over private-sector employers, under contract with 
the Navy, performing repair work on Navy vessels. Those employers still 
must protect their employees to the full extent required by the remainder 
of the lockout/tags-plus rule. For example, paragraph (q) addresses 
program audits. Even those employers who service vessels and vessel 
systems that are under the control of Navy ships' force are required to 
conduct audits. OSHA does not require or expect the employer to audit the 
Navy's lockout/tags-plus system. However, during the audit of its own 
participation in the Navy's program, the employer may identify deficiencies 
in the implementation of the program or may identify ways that a procedure 
could be improved. In those instances, the employer should coordinate with 
the Navy to address such concerns.
    Finally, the exceptions in Sec.  1915.89 that apply to Navy vessels 
do not amend the requirements of any other OSHA standard that regulates 
the control of hazardous energy.
 Paragraph (a)--Scope and Application
Paragraph (a)(1)--Scope
    Paragraph (a)(1) specifies that the lockout/tags-plus section 
covers the servicing of machinery, equipment, and systems when an 
employee could be injured if the machinery, equipment, or system is 
energized, is started up, or releases hazardous energy. The scope of 
the final rule is the same as the proposed rule with minor 
clarifications and streamlining to address stakeholder comments that 
the language should be more self-explanatory and less confusing (Ex. 
121.1).
    As mentioned in the discussion to Sec.  1915.80, OSHA made changes 
to two terms in paragraph (a) of this section. First, to streamline 
paragraph (a)(1), OSHA states that the lockout/tags-plus section covers 
"servicing" operations, instead of using the "servicing and 
maintenance" terminology from the proposed rule. The definition of 
"servicing" includes the maintenance, as well as the construction, 
installation, adjustment, inspection, modification, testing, repairing, 
and servicing, of machines, equipment, or systems. (See definitions, 
Sec.  1915.80(b)(26).) Thus, there is no need to pair the term 
"maintenance" with "servicing."
    Second, OSHA replaced "release of stored energy" with "release 
of hazardous energy," a term that covers all energy that could be 
released, not just stored energy. In response to stakeholder comments 
(Exs. 121.1; 199, p. 152), OSHA also added a definition of "hazardous 
energy" to the final rule (see definitions, Sec.  1915.80(b)(8)). OSHA 
defines "hazardous energy" as "[a]ny energy source, including 
mechanical (for example, power transmission apparatus, counterbalances, 
springs, pressure, gravity), pneumatic, hydraulic, electrical, 
chemical, and thermal (for example, high or low temperature) energies, 
that could cause injury to employees." Forms of hazardous energy 
include active, residual, and stored energy. This definition is 
consistent with the one OSHA uses in general industry (CPL 02-00-147, 
2/1/2001). As such, many shipyard employers will be familiar with the 
definition because they have implemented the general industry lockout/
tagout standard in their landside facilities, and some have used a form 
of the general industry standards on vessels (see preamble discussion 
above). Adopting this definition both clarifies and emphasizes that 
many servicing operations in shipyard employment involve multiple types 
and sources of energy, and that the lockout/tags-plus section covers 
all of those types and sources of energy when the energization or 
startup of machinery, equipment, or systems, or the release of energy, 
may occur. Requiring that all releases of hazardous energy be 
controlled will provide more protection to workers than if they were 
simply protected from the release of stored energy.
    Paragraph (a)(2)--Application
    After considering all the comments received in response to OSHA's 
questions in the preamble to the proposed standard (72 FR 72452, 72498, 
Dec. 20, 2007), and analyzing the record, the Agency determined that 
the record supports changing the application of the lockout/tags-plus 
section. The final standard is a complete standard for all shipyard 
employment.
    Paragraph (a)(2) of the final rule applies the lockout/tags-plus 
section to any servicing operation that is performed:
     In any landside facility that performs shipyard employment 
work; and
     On any vessel or vessel section.

In addition, if such servicing is conducted on a vessel, the standard 
applies to any employee on a vessel, including, but not limited to, the 
ship's officers and crew, unless such application is preempted by the 
regulations of another federal agency.
    The proposal would have required employers to control hazardous 
energy by complying with the following provisions: Section 1915.89 when 
servicing machinery, equipment, and systems on vessels and vessel 
sections (proposed paragraph (a)(2)(i)); and Sec.  1910.147 for 
"inherently general industry operations" performed aboard vessels, 
such as fish processing (proposed paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(C)) (72 FR 
72452, 72489-93, Dec. 20, 2007).
    OSHA received many concerns from stakeholders describing the unique 
situations in shipyard employment in which the application of different 
standards for controlling hazardous energy in shipyard work would be 
impracticable (Exs. 100.1; 101.1; 124; 126; 128; 130.1; 168, pp. 368-
369; 199, pp. 149-150). Some stakeholders (Prowler LLC and Ocean 
Prowler LLC; American Seafoods Company; and the U.S. Navy) said OSHA 
should apply the general industry lockout/tagout standard (Sec.  
1910.147) to landside facilities (Exs. 100.1; 105.1; 132.2). Other 
commenters referred to the 2004 National Shipbuilding Research Program 
(NSRP) report, "Review of Current and Best Practices for Hazardous 
Energy Control (Tagout) in Shipyards," which stated that shipyards 
have, in most cases, adopted Sec.  1910.147 for land-based operations 
(Ex. 105.2). For example, American Seafoods Company, citing the NSRP 
report, commented that land-based servicing operations at shipyards 
were conducive to the general industry standard because, compared to 
shipboard servicing jobs, land-based jobs are usually of shorter 
duration and involve a single authorized employee, have means of 
isolation that generally can be readily identified, and have employees 
who perform servicing are capable of identifying the energy sources and 
applying energy-control devices (Ex. 105.1). In addition, a number of 
stakeholders said they have implemented the general industry standard 
in their landside operations (Exs. 116.2; 120.1; 132.2).
    In contrast to the commenters mentioned above, Northrop Grumman--
Newport News expressed a preference for one hazardous-energy control 
standard that applies to all servicing operations, on landside and on 
vessels and vessel sections (Ex. 168, pp. 263-264). Northrop Grumman 
stated that it favored a single hazardous-energy control standard in 
part because its employees work both aboard vessels and in landside 
shops:

    [Employees] do go onboard and often the workload shifts, we will 
bring work into the shops and we will work in the shops, and we will 
take it back [on the vessel] and reinstall it, so there is some 
movement back and forth between shop and ship (Ex. 168, pp. 221-
222).

    Northrop Grumman also said that having a single hazardous-energy 
control standard for landside and vessel-servicing operations would 
make it easier for the company to move employees between Northrop 
Grumman's shipyards without having to retrain them (Ex. 168, pp. 222).
    The International Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC) noted 
that problems could arise when a vessel in active operation is 
undergoing repairs by both the ship's crew and shipyard workers because 
the two groups could potentially be working under different standards 
for controlling hazardous energy:

    It is IADC's view that the lockout/tagout program on a vessel 
should generally be administered by the vessel's owner (represented 
by the ship's Chief Engineer)--this is particularly the case on a 
vessel that remains in active operation while undergoing repairs or 
when repairs are being undertaken concurrently by ship's crew and 
'shipyard workers.'* * * The shipyard lockout/tagout program must be 
subordinate to that of the ship's lockout/tagout program when the 
ship remains in service (Ex. 103.1).

    Amy Duz of iWorkWise testified about the value of having shipyard 
employees and a ship's crew using one standard for controlling 
hazardous energy:

    The proposed two-standard approach creates more questions and 
problems than it attempts to solve. One hazardous energy control 
standard should be applied to the fishing industry * * * [T]hese 
vessels will be in shipyards and ships and shipyard personnel need 
to interface. This interface will be more seamless, making people 
safer if everyone is accustomed to using the same standard (Ex. 168, 
p. 373).

    Based on its analysis of the record, OSHA believes that applying a 
single lockout/tags-plus rule to all servicing operations, both 
landside and on vessels and vessel sections, will ensure that employers 
have a cohesive strategy to protect employees from hazardous energy. A 
single standard responds to the comments of Northrop Grumman--Newport 
News and the IADC. It will require shipyard workers to have knowledge 
of only one hazardous-energy standard, whether the employees are 
working on vessels or in a landside facility, and regardless of the 
shipyard involved. In addition, it ensures that a ships' crew follow 
the same rules as shipyard workers, thereby avoiding conflict or 
confusion when repairs to a vessel's equipment are being conducted by 
both groups. In sum, OSHA believes that having one standard will 
facilitate employer implementation and maintenance of an effective 
lockout/tags-plus program, and will ensure that employees understand 
and follow the program.
    OSHA added language to paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A) to clarify that the 
final lockout/tags-plus section only applies to servicing equipment at 
landside facilities that "perform shipyard employment work," that is, 
those facilities that perform shipbuilding, ship repair, shipbreaking, 
or other related employment. OSHA added this language to clarify the 
limited scope of this regulation with regard to the two industry 
sectors. First, the final lockout/tags-plus section, as in the proposed 
rule, does not apply to servicing equipment at facilities that 
manufacture components and parts used in shipyard employment when these 
manufacturers do not perform shipyard employment work at these 
facilities. These manufacturers are covered by the general industry 
lockout/tagout standard. (See, also, summary and explanation of Sec.  
1915.80, Scope, application, and definitions.) Second, the final rule 
does not extend to landside fish-processing facilities. Fish processing 
at landside factories is general industry manufacturing, not shipyard 
employment. This position is consistent with OSHA policy that fish 
processors on land must follow the general industry lockout/tagout 
standard (see CPL 02-01-047, 2/22/2010); thus, the general industry 
lockout/tagout standard continues to apply to servicing operations on 
equipment at land-based fish-processing facilities.
    OSHA also deleted the exemption in proposed paragraph (a)(2)(ii) 
for "normal production operations," defined at Sec.  1915.80(b)(20) 
as "the use of machinery or equipment, including, but not limited to, 
punch presses, bending presses, shears, lathes, keel press rollers, and 
automated burning machines, to perform a shipyard-employment production 
process." The proposal exempted servicing that takes place during 
"normal production operations" unless an employee would be required 
to (a) remove or bypass a guard or other safety device, or (b) 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, or where an associated danger zone exists during an 
operating cycle. OSHA believes that deleting the exemption for "normal 
production operations," including the exceptions to the exemption, 
clarifies that the lockout/tags-plus standard for shipyard employment 
applies to all servicing operations on any machine, equipment, or 
system that is used in shipyard employment, whether at a landside 
location, or on a vessel or vessel section. This application is 
consistent with other subparts of Sec.  1915, which apply a single 
standard for vessels and vessel sections, and on landside operations, 
regardless of where the work is performed. (See 29 CFR part 1915, 
subpart B, Confined and Enclosed Spaces and Other Dangerous Atmospheres 
in Shipyard Employment; 29 CFR part 1915, subpart I, Personal 
Protective Equipment; and 29 CFR part 1915, subpart P, Fire Protection 
in Shipyard Employment.)
    Paragraph (a)(2)(i)(B) of the final rule specifies that the 
lockout/tags-plus section applies to servicing of all machinery, 
equipment, and systems on vessels and vessel sections. This application 
includes servicing shipboard equipment that is used for processing 
fish. Proposed Sec.  1915.89 would have applied to servicing ships' 
systems (i.e., systems and equipment that are "an inherent and 
permanent part of the vessel") (72 FR 72542, 72489, Dec. 20, 2007), 
while Sec.  1910.147 would have applied to the servicing of 
"inherently general industry equipment such as fish-processing 
equipment" (Id.). In the proposed rule, OSHA acknowledged that this 
approach would not result in a completely uniform application of 
standards onboard vessels. Nevertheless, OSHA preliminarily concluded 
that the proposed approach was appropriate under the assumption that 
equipment such as fish-processing equipment is not a core component of 
vessels, and that activities involving such equipment are more closely 
associated with general industry manufacturing operations than with 
shipbuilding, ship repair, shipbreaking, and related employment. Id. 
Further, the Agency opined that servicing such equipment aboard vessels 
is performed by production employees, and not by employees who service 
ships' systems. Id.
    Stakeholders uniformly opposed OSHA's proposed two-standard 
approach (Exs. 100; 101.1; 104.1; 105.2; 107.1; 121.1; 123; 124; 126; 
128; 130.1; 132.2; 168, pp. 194-195, 309-313), expressing their concern 
that applying two different standards for controlling hazardous energy 
on vessels would cause confusion (Exs. 130.1; 132.2). Icicle Seafoods 
Inc., stated:

    The proposed standards approach to lock and tagout will be 
confusing * * * Having to flip flop between two standards will only 
breed indifference and non-compliance. Asking an engineer to first 
determine what system he's working on before he's deciding how it 
should be locked out is asking too much. This is like asking my 
grandmother to follow one set of traffic laws on the weekend, and 
drive by a completely different set of laws during the week (Ex. 
199, pp. 213-214).

    Prowler LLC and Ocean Prowler LLC also agreed that the two-standard 
approach would be confusing for employees working on fish-processing 
vessels: "It would mean that part 1910 standards would apply when 
[fish-processing employees] process fish and operate the equipment 
for production, but proposed 1915.89 would apply when they clean up 
or perform maintenance work on that same equipment" (Ex. 100).
    iWorkwise also commented that OSHA's approach was confusing: "This 
approach can be summed up as follows: * * * 1915.89 applies to all the 
people, but only to part of the equipment and only for some of the 
time, but to all of the equipment for the rest of the time" (Ex. 
130.1). iWorkwise elaborated on this issue at the informal public 
hearing:

    Two [lockout/tagout] standards will not make a single person 
more safe. It will introduce confusion and burden that will very 
likely make people less safe. Not a single vessel or fleet owner 
that I am aware of support this two-standard approach. * * * The 
two-standard approach begins by asking the impossible. * * * For 
example, when a ship's hydraulic system powers both processing and 
fishing equipment, where will one standard end and the other begin, 
or if processing equipment, such as a grinder sump pump is critical 
to keeping the ship afloat, is that ship's equipment or processing 
equipment, or when panels provide power for engineering and 
processing needs, what standard will be followed? (Ex. 168, pp. 368-
369).

Prowler LLC and Ocean Prowler LLC raised the same concerns, saying that 
OSHA's proposed two-standard approach is confusing and arbitrary (Ex. 
100). American Seafood Company agreed: "Application of general 
industry rules to one part of the ship, some of the time is folly. As 
is switching between two different standards for the same maintenance 
on the same equipment" (Ex. 105.1).
    A number of stakeholders said the reasons OSHA provided in support 
of the two-standard approach were based on faulty assumptions about 
fish-processing operations. For example, several stakeholders said OSHA 
was incorrect in saying that fish-processing equipment is not "an 
inherent and permanent part of the vessel," in the way that, for 
instance, propulsion or navigation systems are (Ex. 168, pp. 369-370). 
American Seafood Company commented:

    The ship's purpose is processing, therefore processing is an 
essential ship function; the equipment is as essential to the ship's 
purpose as a dredge is to a dredging ship. We find the division of 
ship and ship's equipment on fish processing vessels by OSHA 
arbitrary (Ex. 105.1).

    Stakeholders also said that OSHA's determination that most 
employers replace the fish-processing equipment on vessels at the end 
of each fishing season was inaccurate. At the informal public hearing, 
OSHA heard testimony from iWorkwise, stating that only a "minority of 
vessels change out their processing equipment between seasons" (Ex. 
168, pp. 371-372). Although Trident Seafood Corporation said that their 
vessels replace processing equipment each season, the company added 
that they only replace some components, not the entire fish-processing 
system (Ex. 199, pp. 172-173). Trident Seafood Corporation also stated 
that the new equipment is plugged into the same electrical or hydraulic 
power sources that power the rest of the vessel (Ex. 199, p. 173).
    Some stakeholders pointed out that OSHA was incorrect in stating 
that employees who service fish-processing equipment on a vessel do not 
service the ship's systems and vice versa (Exs. 104.1; 107.1; 168, p. 
371; 199, pp.176-178). For example, Trident Seafoods Corporation 
commented, "Electricians, engineers and other technicians can and do 
work in various areas throughout the vessel" (Ex. 107.1). iWorkwise 
concurred, saying:

    In the vast majority of cases, [maintenance of fish-processing 
equipment] is done by the [ship's] engineer. It is a ship--the 
person works on everything. On some vessels, they will have factory 
technicians who will handle, for instance, a filet machine, but they 
will also help out the ship's engineer and engineering when they are 
not busy watching their machine (Ex. 168, p. 410).

Supreme Alaska Seafoods agreed:

    All personnel onboard ship are sailors first and foremost. 
Regardless of department, rank, or time at sea, all personnel are 
responsible for maintaining the ship. The term ship encompasses her 
hull, all machinery and its cargo. Some sailors are more skilled 
than others, but those of less skill will be used as helpers on the 
same machinery or systems. Furthermore, personnel from different 
departments will be called upon to work in other spaces on other 
machinery, or transferred to other departments as the needs of the 
ship dictate. This practice is not exclusive to the fishing 
industry, but it is standard and common practice in the maritime 
world (Ex. 199, pp. 148-149).

    FV Muir Milach said that interchanging jobs between servicing 
ships' systems and fish-processing equipment is also prevalent on small 
vessels: "[E]verybody, including the engineer, is going to spend the 
majority of their time on the fishing end of things" (Ex. 199, p. 61). 
FV Muir Milach added that interchanging jobs is particularly prevalent 
when the vessel is at sea: "Our fishing seasons are fairly lengthy and 
discrete. * * * So from the vessel owner's perspective, the duties of 
crew are as broad as their skills" (Ex. 199, pp. 64-65).
    After considering stakeholder comments and testimony, as well as 
analyzing the record as a whole, OSHA is convinced that having a single 
standard for vessels will best protect employees from injury due to 
energization, startup, or the release of hazardous energy anywhere on a 
vessel. Accordingly, OSHA incorporated that change into paragraph 
(a)(2)(i), and deleted proposed paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(C), which would 
have excluded servicing fish-processing machinery, equipment, or 
systems on vessels from the lockout/tags-plus section. Thus, Sec.  
1915.89 will apply to servicing fish-processing equipment aboard 
vessels. However, as noted above, the general industry lockout/tagout 
standard (Sec.  1910.147) continues to apply to servicing operations at 
landside fish-processing facilities, which is consistent with the 
similarity of those plants to other general industry facilities, 
current practice in the landside fish-processing industry, and OSHA 
policy (CPL 02-01-047).
    Paragraph (a)(2)(ii) applies the final lockout/tags-plus section to 
any employee, including ships' officers and crew, who services 
equipment used during shipyard employment, unless the application of 
the lockout/tags-plus standard is preempted by the regulations of 
another federal agency. The proposed lockout/tagout section contained a 
similar provision (proposed Sec.  1915.89(a)(2)(i)(A)).
    The language in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) clarifies longstanding OSHA 
policy that part 1915 applies whenever a ship's crew performs ship-
repairing operations. OSHA included this issue in this rulemaking to 
address concerns that some courts have raised about the scope and 
coverage provisions in part 1915, subpart A, General 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) implies that part 1915 does not apply to some employees 
who perform shipyard employment activities:

    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 taken 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 the LHWCA, promulgated occupational safety 
and health standards for shipbuilding to protect the life, health, and 
safety of shipyard employees (33 CFR 941(a)).
    When Congress enacted the OSH Act in 1970, it authorized OSHA, 
within the first two years after the effective date of the Act, to 
promulgate as occupational safety and health standards any established 
Federal standard without following normal rulemaking requirements (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 (29 CFR 1910.11(a); 36 FR 10466, May 
29, 1971), including the safety and health standards enacted under the 
LHWCA.
    OSH Act coverage, which extends to employers engaged in a business 
affecting interstate commerce, is broader than LHWCA coverage. As such, 
OSHA has consistently asserted that the Agency is not bound by the 
coverage limitations in the LHWCA standards. To clarify this position, 
OSHA issued an interpretive rule amending its incorporation of 
established Federal standards (37 FR 26008, Dec. 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. Id. "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 has taken this position before the Occupational Safety and 
Health Review Commission (OSHRC) and the Federal courts of appeal. 
OSHRC accepted OSHA's approach as delineated in Sec.  1910.11(b) (Dravo 
Corporation, 7 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 2089 (1980)), but this provision has 
not been universally accepted. See Dravo Corp.v. OSHRC, 613 F.2d 1227 
(3rd Cir. 1980).
    In Dravo, the court said 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 1232-33. The language at issue in Dravo 
concerned the location of covered 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 that 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)). The court said the plain meaning of the definitions 
did not include fabrication shops ("they include only waters, docks, 
and marine railways," Dravo, 613 F.2d at 1232), and declined to 
construe the definitions more broadly.
    The Dravo court concluded that if OSHA intends a different coverage 
scheme, the Agency must amend part 1915 through rulemaking. Id. Thus, 
in accord with the Dravo court and to avoid confusion, OSHA proposed to 
change the coverage of Sec.  1915.89 to apply to servicing performed by 
any employee, including ships' officers and crew of the vessel 
(proposed Sec.  1915.89(a)(2)(i)(A)). OSHA did not receive any comments 
opposing this language. As OSHA said in the proposed rule, this change 
should not come as a surprise to employers, since OSHA has consistently 
applied part 1915 whenever a ship's crew performs shipyard employment 
work (Ex. 81; see also CPL 02-01-047). OSHA believes that this 
provision will reduce any confusion related to the split in the courts 
and the language in Sec.  1915.4.
    To address a question posed by the International Association of 
Drilling Contractors (Ex. 103.1), OSHA is clarifying that the final 
lockout/tags-plus section also applies, in certain circumstances, to 
seamen who perform servicing operations on vessels. CPL 02-01-047 
outlines OSHA's authority over seamen. The Coast Guard exercises full 
authority over the safety and health of seamen onboard inspected 
vessels; therefore, with the exception of OSHA recordkeeping 
requirements (29 CFR part 1904), OSHA may not enforce the OSH Act with 
respect to the working conditions of seamen on those vessels.
    On commercial uninspected fishing industry vessels and other 
uninspected vessels, however, OSHA has authority over the working 
conditions of seamen that are not addressed by Coast Guard regulations. 
Chao v. Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc., 534 U.S. 235 (2002). The Coast 
Guard has not regulated the hazards addressed by Sec.  1915.89 on 
uninspected vessels. Accordingly, the final lockout/tags-plus section 
applies to seamen performing servicing operations on commercial 
uninspected fishing-industry vessels and other uninspected vessels. 
However, as paragraph (a)(2)(ii) states, the lockout/tags-plus standard 
is not applicable if such application is preempted by the regulations 
of another federal agency. Thus, the standard does not apply to the 
working conditions of seamen aboard inspected vessels since the Coast 
Guard regulates that area.
    Paragraph (a)(3) adopts the proposed requirement that when other 
standards in part 1915, or applicable standards in part 1910, require 
the use of a lock or tag, employers shall follow those requirements and 
supplement them with the procedural and training requirements specified 
by final Sec.  1915.89, Control of hazardous energy (lockout/tags-
plus).
    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. The part 1915 standards that contain 
requirements for locks or tags include Sec.  1915.162 Ship's Boilers; 
Sec.  1915.163 Ship's Piping Systems; Sec.  1915.164 Ship's Propulsion 
Machinery; and Sec.  1915.181 Electrical circuits and distribution 
boards. The regulatory language for the 1915 standards has been 
modified to incorporate the requirements of this final rule, which 
modifications have been carried over from the proposal with minor 
changes for purposes of clarification and consistency. OSHA received no 
comments on these proposed modifications. Therefore, the Agency is 
retaining the proposed revisions, which it believes will bring 
consistency to the lockout/tags-plus requirements across the various 
sections of part 1915 and will afford employees increased protection 
compared to the existing requirements.
    For example, an employee working on a ship's main engine, engaging 
the electrically driven jacking gear, currently would follow Sec.  1915.164 
that requires that the circuit controlling the jacking gear be deenergized 
by tripping the circuit breaker, opening the switch, or removing the fuse, 
and then applying a tag at the breaker, switch, or fuse panel. With this 
final rule, the employer will now implement the additional requirements in 
Sec.  1915.89 to ensure that all employees are protected while servicing 
machinery, equipment, or systems. Alternatively, an employee cleaning a 
space that has electrical wiring or the fire-suppression system running 
through it will not need to follow Sec.  1915.89 since the employee is 
not servicing the wiring or fire-suppression system, but is merely 
cleaning the space. However, other 29 CFR 1915 standards may apply, and 
should be considered when working on machinery, equipment, or systems 
on vessels and vessel sections.
Exceptions
    Paragraph (a)(4) lists exceptions from the final lockout/tags-plus 
section for two types of operations: Work on electric equipment that is 
connected with a cord and plug, and minor servicing activities 
performed during normal production operations. OSHA did not receive any 
opposition to these two exemptions, which were included in the 
proposal. The exceptions for electric plug-in equipment and minor 
servicing are the same as the proposal with only minor, non-substantive 
editorial revisions.
    The exception in paragraph (a)(4)(i) refers to work on machinery, 
equipment, or systems that are connected by a cord and plug. When 
equipment is unplugged and under the exclusive control of the employee 
performing the servicing, the risk of the equipment starting up or 
hazardous energy being released no longer exists.
    In paragraph (a)(4)(ii), OSHA recognizes that some servicing 
activities that occur during normal production operations, such as 
making fine adjustments to equipment, must be performed with the power 
on. This activity may include certain aspects of troubleshooting--for 
example, checking to ensure that the source of a production problem has 
been corrected. The final lockout/tags-plus rule exempts these 
servicing activities during normal production operations, provided 
these activities are routine, repetitive, and integral to the use of 
the equipment. However, the employer is required to provide employees 
with effective means of protection from the energization, startup, or 
the release of hazardous energy when they perform these activities. If 
employees are conducting other-than-minor servicing, they must follow 
the lockout/tags-plus procedures.
Proposed Sec.  1915.89(a) Provisions Not in the Final Rule
    In addition to deleting proposed paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(C), which 
would have removed fish-processing on vessels from Sec.  1915.89 
coverage, OSHA deleted three other provisions in proposed paragraph 
(a). All three provisions were taken from the general industry lockout/
tagout standard.
    OSHA did not include in the final rule the exception specified by 
proposed paragraph (a)(2)(ii). This proposed provision exempted 
"normal production operations" from the lockout/tags-plus standard. 
As explained in the summary and explanation of paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A), 
not including the exception for "normal production operations" 
results in uniform application of the final standard across all 
shipyard employment.
    OSHA also excluded from the final rule the proposed paragraph 
(a)(2)(iii)(B) exception for hot-tap operations on transmission or 
distribution systems for substances such as gas, steam, water, and 
petroleum products. Bath Iron Works, Electric Boat Corporation, and the 
American Shipbuilding Association said the exemption was not necessary 
(Exs. 106.1; 108.2; 117.1). These stakeholders pointed out that Sec.  
1915.14 requires marine chemist certification for workers performing 
hot work on pipelines that contain or have contained flammable or 
combustible materials. Moreover, these stakeholders noted that National 
Fire Protection Association's 306 standard for the Control of Hazardous 
Gas on Vessels states, "Marine Chemists are not permitted to authorize 
hot tapping except in emergency situations where a vessel is in peril" 
(Exs. 106.1; 108.2; 117.1). OSHA agrees with the stakeholders that 29 
CFR 1915, subpart B, fully covers hot-tap operations, and that 
including language in the final rule about such operations is 
unnecessary and may cause confusion.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(3)(i) was not included in the final rule to 
simplify the lockout/tags-plus section. The Agency believes that this 
provision, which described the purpose of the lockout/tags-plus 
section, is unnecessary because paragraph (b) of the final lockout/
tags-plus section provides the same information.
Paragraph (b)--Lockout/Tags-Plus Program
    This final standard requires that the employer establish and 
implement a written program and procedures to control hazardous energy 
during the servicing of any machinery, equipment, or system. OSHA 
separated the requirements into paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(6). The 
written energy-control procedures proposed in paragraph (b)(4) were 
moved to paragraph (d), Lockout/tags-plus written procedures, in this 
final standard.
    Although the energy-control program applies to all employees, it is 
directed primarily at those workers who have the greatest exposure to 
hazardous energy, which include authorized and affected employees. The 
final standard defines "authorized employees" as those employees who 
execute the lockout/tags-plus procedures, install the lock or tags-plus 
system, or service any machine, equipment, or system under a lockout/
tags-plus application (final Sec.  1915.80(b)(3)). "Affected 
employees" include employees who normally operate the machinery 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 (final Sec.  1915.80(b)(2)). The 
definition also specifies that affected employees become authorized 
employees when they perform servicing operations on the equipment under 
a lockout/tags-plus application.
    Paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(6) specify the components of the 
employer's written lockout/tags-plus program: General procedures for 
the use of lockout or tags-plus systems in accordance with paragraph 
(c); procedures for protecting employees involved in servicing 
operations in accordance with paragraphs (d)-(m); specification for 
locks or tagout hardware in accordance with paragraph (n); employee 
training procedures in accordance with paragraph (o); incident 
investigations procedures in accordance with paragraph (p); and program 
audit procedures in accordance with paragraph (q). These procedures are 
more fully explained below.
    The employer's program is required to be written. OSHA concludes 
that, because the requirements in the lockout/tags-plus standard are 
comprehensive, the employer's program must be in writing to assist both 
employers and employees in implementing the standard's many provisions, 
and to give those groups ready access to all of the requirements. OSHA 
believes this is standard industry practice, and that it is essential 
for employee safety. No comments were received on the requirement that 
the program be in writing. OSHA is retaining this requirement in final 
paragraph (b).
Paragraph (c)--General Requirements
    Paragraph (c)(1), proposed as Sec.  1915.89(b)(2), requires that, 
before any authorized employee performs servicing when energization or 
startup, or the release of hazardous energy, may occur, all energy 
sources be identified and isolated, and the machinery, equipment, or 
system rendered inoperative. This requirement means that, prior to 
servicing, each source of energy must have a lock or tags-plus system 
applied to it. While this is a new paragraph in the final standard, it 
is not a new concept in lockout/tags-plus. Failure to identify an 
energy source prior to servicing could result in serious injury and 
death. For example, 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 (Ex. 69). A secondary switch that should 
have been locked open to deenergize an electric panel had been left 
closed. Procedures to isolate all hazardous-energy sources may have 
prevented this accident (72 FR 72452, 72485, Dec. 20, 2007). No 
comments were received disputing the fact that machinery, equipment, or 
systems need a lock or tagout application before servicing.
    A primary tool for providing protection under the standard is the 
energy-isolating device, which is the mechanism that prevents the 
transmission or release of energy and to which locks or tags are 
attached. The energy-isolating device guards against equipment startup 
or reenergization of equipment during servicing. For purposes of this 
final standard, there are two types of energy-isolating devices: Those 
that are capable of being locked, and those that are not. How energy 
must be controlled depends on whether the energy-isolating device can 
accommodate a lock.
    The term "capable of being locked out" is being retained from the 
proposal, and is defined at Sec.  1915.80(b)(4). An energy-isolating 
device is considered "capable of being locked out" if it: Has a 
locking mechanism built into it; has a hasp or other means of 
attachment to which, or through which, a lock can be affixed (for 
example, a lockable electric disconnect switch); or can be locked 
without dismantling, rebuilding, or replacing the energy-isolating 
device, or permanently altering its energy-control capability (such as 
using a lock/chain assembly on a pipeline valve, a lockable valve 
cover, circuit-breaker lockout, or fuse block-out devices).
    As discussed in the major issues section of this preamble, OSHA 
recognizes that there are many important elements of any energy-control 
program, and that the choice of lockout versus tagout is just one of 
these elements. Further, OSHA also acknowledges that, in isolation, the 
attachment of a lockout device to an energy-isolating device will 
provide greater protection against reactivation than the attachment of 
a tag. Thus, in final paragraph (c)(2), OSHA requires that when an 
energy-isolating device is capable of being locked, a lock must be used 
unless the employer can demonstrate that the use of a tags-plus system 
will provide "full employee protection" equivalent to the protection 
obtained by using a lock. This requirement was proposed as Sec.  
1915.89(b)(2)(ii), and is being included in the final rule.
    During the public hearing for this rulemaking, Amy Duz of iWorkWise 
stated: "I have a general preference for locks, but I realize they 
can't always be used" (Ex. 199, p. 186). When asked whether he would 
support locks for fishing vessels, Chris Kline of Icicle Seafoods, 
Inc., responded: "I would absolutely. It's the only real way to 
[ensure safety when] you have individuals working around equipment" 
(Ex. 199, p. 246). Asked the same question, Alan Davis of American 
Seafoods Company stated: "Yes. When I'm climbing into a piece of 
equipment, I want to make sure my lock is on it, because it is a very 
sure way of making sure that someone can't activate it without a 
willful act of malice" (Ex. 199, pp. 302-303). Allen Rainsberger of 
Puget Sound Shipbuilder's Association agreed: "Whenever it's capable 
of being locked up, that's the preferred method, yes." After 
considering these employers' comments, OSHA has concluded that applying 
a lock will provide workers with the most efficient means of protection 
and the highest degree of confidence in their personal safety.
    However, there are also data in the record on programs that 
effectively use tags-plus systems. Northrop Grumman--Newport News and 
Bath Iron Works stated that they believe their tags-plus systems are 
"as effective" as locks (Ex. 168, p. 340). While OSHA has 
historically preferred locks over tags, the Agency will defer to 
employers who use the latter, as long as they can demonstrate that 
their tags-plus system offers full employee protection equivalent to 
that provided by a lock.
    In evaluating whether to implement lockout or tags-plus systems, 
the employer should use the following clarifications. First, as a 
general rule, lockout must be implemented as part of the overall 
energy-control program for machinery, equipment, or systems that are 
"capable of being locked out." Machinery, equipment, or systems that 
have a hasp or other attachment capable of accepting a lock, or that 
incorporate a locking mechanism, are obviously considered to be 
"capable of being locked out." However, other equipment without such 
a locking capability may still be considered "capable of being locked 
out," but only if lockout can be achieved without the need to 
dismantle, rebuild, or replace the energy isolating device, or 
permanently alter its energy-control capability.
    Second, for machinery, equipment, or systems that are capable of 
being locked out, OSHA recognizes that employers may, nonetheless, 
prefer to implement a tagout program instead of lockout. OSHA will 
allow the use of tagout programs as an alternative to locks only if the 
employer can demonstrate that its complete tagout program will provide 
full employee protection. In most cases, for OSHA to consider a tagout 
program to be sufficiently protective, the elements of such a program 
will need to be detailed and intensive, and will necessitate far more 
commitment and day-to-day vigilance to make it effective than will a 
lockout program. This approach is necessary because a tag serves only 
as a warning and not as a positive restraint on hazardous energy. The 
final rule establishes criteria that OSHA will evaluate in determining 
whether a given tagout program does, in fact, provide full employee 
protection. Thus, when machinery, equipment, or systems are capable of 
being locked out, OSHA believes it will be easier for employers to use 
that capability than to bypass it in favor of a tagout program.
    Paragraph (c)(3) states that a tags-plus system must be used when 
the energy-isolating devices are not capable of being locked out. If 
the employer wishes to perform modifications of the equipment to 
accommodate a locking device, OSHA encourages, but does not require, 
such modifications.
    New provisions in paragraph (c)(4) describe the basic components of 
the tags-plus system. As required by paragraph (c)(4)(i), a tags-plus 
system includes an energy-isolating device, which is a mechanical 
device on a machine, equipment, or system that physically prevents the 
release or transmission of energy. Examples of energy-isolating devices 
are manually operated electrical circuit breakers, disconnect switches, 
line valves, blocks, or similar devices, but do not include push 
buttons, selector switches, or other types of control-circuit devices. 
Each energy-isolating device must have a tag affixed to it. The second 
component, required in paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of the tags-plus system, is 
at least one additional safety measure. This additional measure 
provides an impediment (in additional to the energy-isolating device) 
to the energization or startup of the equipment being serviced, or the 
release of hazardous energy. Some examples of additional safety 
measures include, but are not limited to:
     Removing an isolating circuit element, such as removing a 
fuse;
     Blocking a control switch, including blocking a circuit 
breaker with clips;
     Opening an extra disconnecting switch;
     Using a blocking device, such as a tie wire on a valve 
handle;
     Blocking, blanking, or bleeding a line; including bolting 
a blank flange on a line;
     Removing a valve handle or wiring it in place; or
     Shutting a second valve (double-valve isolation).
    As a last-resort option, an employer could choose to use an 
attendant as an additional safety measure. While this would not be a 
preferred method, this could be used should an employer not be able to 
identify an additional safety measure that would be feasible at that 
time. Phil Dovinh of Sound Testing, Inc., presented a long list of 
additional measures that he called "positive measures" in his 
testimony:

    When shipyard industry refers to lockout and tagout, we normally 
mean a positive measure of some kind is to be used, not only just to 
lockout or tagout, but also closing valves, removing handles, splash 
zoning, blanking, plugging, ballooning, stuffing with a rag, 
wedging, capping, drill, tap, plug, bandaging, securing manholes, 
closing doors and hatches, shutting portholes and ventilation ducts, 
tying ropes, duct-taping, guarding machinery, posting signs in 
confined space entry when hot work remains, reenergize, disconnect, 
pull the plug, tank cleaning, isolation, building containment, jerry 
rigging, hanging fire blankets, water blanketing, et cetera (Ex. 
198, pp. 150-151).

    While not endorsing all of the suggested "positive measures" 
listed by Mr. Dovinh as acceptable additional safety measures, OSHA 
appreciates the numerous ways that extra precautions can be taken 
during servicing operations. In addition, Sound Testing, Inc., 
confirmed that most employers are taking extra precautions, and are 
proactive in protecting their employees, including while they are 
performing servicing operations. Moreover, testimony from several 
commenters advocated taking an extra step, regardless of whether locks 
or tags were being used (Exs. 168, pp. 100-101; 198, pp. 39-40, 150-
151; 199, p. 248). OSHA appreciates these comments, and believes that 
these additional provisions will not be burdensome for employers to 
implement.
    A note \2\ has been added to paragraph (c)(4) to explain that when 
the Navy ship's force maintains control of the machinery, equipment, or 
systems on a vessel and has implemented such additional measures it 
determines are necessary, the provisions of paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of 
this section do not apply, provided that the employer complies with the 
verification procedures in paragraph (g) of this section. Following the 
deenergization, isolation, and application of a lock or tag of any 
machinery, equipment, or system, the authorized employee must verify 
deenergization and isolation prior to beginning the servicing 
operation. In a group servicing situation, the employer's primary 
authorized employee must verify, and all of the employer's authorized 
employees must be given the option to verify, deenergization and 
isolation prior to beginning the servicing operation. This procedure 
will ensure that the employees who are not in control of the machinery, 
equipment, or system, are protected from the uncontrolled release of 
hazardous energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See rationale for this note in the summary and explanation 
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (c)(5), which was carried over from proposed paragraph 
(b)(2)(iii), requires the employer to ensure that each energy-isolating 
device is designed to accept a lock whenever the machinery, equipment, 
or system undergoes extensive repairs, renovation, or modification, or 
whenever new machinery, equipment, or systems are installed. 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 (72 FR 72452, 72494, 
Dec. 20, 2007).
    American Seafood Company expressed concern over this requirement:

    It is also unlikely that [shipyards] will be able to insist that 
their customers perform a complete Hazardous Energy Control Plan and 
retrofit prior to getting serviced in a shipyard. * * * While all 
agree that as overhauls and replacements occurs it makes sense to 
upgrade to Lockable Disconnects, the scope and enormity of 
attempting to do so in anything other than a major refitting of a 
ship's system is financially daunting (Ex. 105.1).

    However, Manitowoc Marine Group testified that they are already 
moving toward updating equipment during repairs:

    No, that is exactly what we do going forward. We have an 
electric superintendent. He has pretty much taken the job of the 
electrical technician for the new vessels, and he does the work and 
testing on some of the older vessels as well. And his main priority 
is to align ourselves with the up-to-date material and equipment, 
and so that we are in compliance going forward, for the vessel, for 
us, when we actually do the work (Ex. 168, pp. 119-120).

    Atlantic Marine raised the following issue regarding shipyards that 
do not own the vessel under construction:

    It is typical for ownership of a vessel under construction to be 
the shipyard's until delivery of the vessel or some other 
contractually agreed-upon date. Many of these machines, equipment, 
and systems are owner furnished materials. How does an employer 
comply with this paragraph if the customer does not want a lockable 
system on the vessel? (Exs. 115.1; 118.1).

    OSHA understands that, in some situations, shipyard employers do 
not control the equipment to the extent that they can have locks 
installed as the main energy-isolating device. The proposed rule, in 
paragraph Sec.  1915.89(b)(2)(iii), made clear that this requirement 
would only apply to machines, equipment, and systems the shipyard 
employer owns. OSHA agrees that compliance with the requirement to 
install locks may not be possible when the shipyard employer does not 
own the machines, equipment, or systems, and is including this 
exception in paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this final rule. In addition, the 
Agency included a second exception, paragraph (c)(5)(ii), specifying 
that the requirement for installing or converting to lockable systems 
does not apply when a shipyard employer builds or services a vessel or 
vessel section according to customer specifications. Both Bath Iron 
Works and Northrop Grumman--Newport News testified that they must 
purchase materials and equipment for the vessels on which they perform 
construction. The vessel owners, who may not be subject to OSHA's 
authority, could specify that they do not want lockable systems. OSHA 
acknowledges this dilemma, and concludes that the two exceptions to 
installing locks are appropriate, especially since the tagout 
requirement will cover all systems that cannot be locked. By setting 
forth these exceptions in this final standard, shipyard employers will 
know when they are not required to modify energy-isolating devices to 
be lockable. In all other circumstances, however, the requirement in 
paragraph Sec.  1915.89(c)(5) for lockable energy-isolating devices must 
be followed.
Paragraph (c)(6)--Full Employee Protection
    Final paragraph (c)(6) clarifies the requirements when employers 
use a tags-plus system in lieu of a lock when a machine, piece of 
equipment, or system is capable of being locked. These provisions, 
proposed under Sec.  1915.89(b)(3)(i) and (ii), are organized in this 
final rule to eliminate any misunderstanding of what OSHA requires for 
"full employee protection" under the control of hazardous energy.
    Paragraph (c)(6)(i) requires that when a tag is affixed to an 
energy-isolating device instead of a lock, the tag must be attached at 
the same location that the lock would have been attached. As discussed, 
tags are prominent warning devices that provide protection by 
identifying the energy-isolating device as a source of potential 
danger. Improper placement of a tag could result in a serious injury.
    Final paragraph (c)(6)(ii), which was proposed as paragraph 
(b)(3)(ii), requires an employer to demonstrate that a tags-plus system 
will provide a level of protection equivalent to that of a lock. 
Paragraph (c)(6)(ii)(A) requires that employers demonstrate full 
compliance with all tagout-related provisions of this subpart. 
Paragraph (c)(6)(ii)(B) requires that employers also implement such 
additional safety measures as are necessary to provide the equivalent 
safety available from using a lock.
    The requirement for an additional safety measure(s) is a key 
element in demonstrating that the tagout program provides equivalent 
protection to a lockout program. In other words, at least one added 
safety measure must be used in addition to tagging the energy-isolating 
device to prevent unexpected reenergization. This independent, 
additional measure protects an employee from injury or death through 
the inadvertent activation of an energy-isolating device caused by 
human error, inadvertent contact, the loss or detachment of a tag, or 
from any other limitation of tags. As discussed above, additional 
safety measures might include, but are not limited to: Closing a second 
in-line valve (for example, double block and bleed); removing a valve 
handle to minimize the possibility that machines or equipment might be 
inadvertently energized or started; removing an additional isolating 
circuit element (for example, fuse); opening an extra disconnecting 
device (for example, disconnecting switch; circuit breaker); opening 
and then racking out a circuit breaker; grounding an electrical circuit 
if the grounding practice protects the employee should the tagged 
isolating device be activated; or locking, blocking, or barricading a 
controlling switch.
    Any additional safety measure used must be integrated into an 
energy-control program through sound hazard-specific analyses on a 
case-by-case basis. For example, blocking a control switch as an 
additional safety measure to tagging an electrical disconnect may be an 
effective second layer of protection for preventing the mechanical 
activation of a machine, but this block may be an inadequate additional 
safety measure for the same machine's hydraulic or pneumatic hazardous-
energy sources. In short, this additional control measure provides the 
authorized employee using a tagout program with a "second layer of 
protection" in the event the tagout device for the primary isolating 
device is defeated.
    In paragraph (c)(6), a note \3\ has been included to explain that 
when the Navy ship's force maintains control of the machinery, 
equipment, or systems on a vessel and has implemented such additional 
measures it determines are necessary, the provisions of paragraph 
(c)(6)(ii)(B) of this section do not apply, provided that the employer 
complies with the verification procedures in paragraph (g) of this 
section. Following the deenergization, isolation, and application of a 
lock or tag of any machinery, equipment, or system, the authorized 
employee must verify deenergization and isolation prior to beginning 
the servicing operation. In a group servicing situation, the employer's 
primary authorized employee must verify, and all of the employer's 
authorized employees must be given the option to verify, deenergization 
and isolation prior to beginning the servicing operation. This 
procedure will ensure that the employees who are not in control of the 
machinery, equipment, or system, are protected from the uncontrolled 
release of hazardous energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See rationale for this note in the summary and explanation 
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paragraph (c)(7)--Lockout/Tags-Plus Coordination
    Paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(C) of the proposal assigned responsibility to 
an authorized employee to coordinate affected work forces and ensure 
continuity of protection in a group lockout/tags-plus situation (that 
is, when servicing is performed by a crew, craft, department, or other 
group). During the comment period and at the public hearings, OSHA 
learned that shipyard employers use different, more comprehensive 
approaches such as a tiered approach, systems experts, or databases to 
provide coordination in extremely complex shipboard environments. 
iWorkWise stated:

    What a tiered approach to me is, the more complicated it gets, 
maybe the more qualified or the more people that need to be 
involved. So if I am going to lock out a pump and the pump has one 
220 breaker, that is pretty simple, and it says Pump 1. You know, 
almost anyone can be trained to do that. But when you start getting 
back into the engine rooms and the control panels of these places, 
there * * * [are] going to have to be multiple people involved or a 
system expert, I should say, and when you are pulling in contractors 
and shipyard employees, there has to be a lot of coordination. So I 
think of it almost like the incident command system (Ex. 168, pp. 
416-417).

Bath Iron Works uses a tiered approach when using a tag system:

    Every one of the tags, Joe, once a system's expert decides to 
tagout a system, we use a three-part carbon copy, so each tag has 
multiple copies, if you will. One goes to the supervisor, one goes 
into a log box that is transferred over to an administrator, who 
logs in all those tags, whatever information is on it, date, time, 
specific reason why we are tagging out, puts onto a log sheet that 
is reviewed at the operation level. The reverse is the same, when 
you go to take them off (Ex. 168, pp. 276-277).

When questioned about their log system, Bath Iron Works stated:

    The tag itself has a carbon copy, it is snapped off, put into a 
box. That box is sent up to an administrative clerk who enters all 
that information into a database. So, anytime, at that point, if 
someone has to get into that system or either secure it or non-
secure it, has to go back to the supervisor, and they have logs of 
who has got the thing tagged out, and follow through that way (Ex. 
168, p. 277).

    In addition, a National Shipbuilding Research Program study (NSRP 
Study (Ex. 61)) entitled, "Review of Current and Best Practices for 
Hazardous Energy Control (Tagout) in Shipyards, June 30, 2004," which 
advocates a systems-expert approach, notes that a general industry-type 
lockout/tags-plus program does not work in shipyard environments 
because:
     The means of isolation are typically complex involving 
many points of isolation and types of energy. The points of isolation 
may require modification during the course of the work (roll back or 
roll forward).
     The employees who perform the work on a particular system 
are unlikely to have the capability of identifying all energy sources, 
either initially based on engineering drawings and schematics or physically 
on the ship.
     The employees who perform the work on a particular system 
are unlikely to have the capability of coordinating the interface 
between multiple jobs that have overlapping points of isolation (Ex. 
61).
The NSRP Study also stated:

    Due to the complexity of shipboard systems, system experts are 
relied upon to identify and isolate systems to permit the safe work 
by non-system expert employees. * * * This process of using system 
experts is similar to the use of competent persons for a variety of 
other hazards (Ex. 61).

    OSHA finds these comments and testimony persuasive, and concluded 
that employers must be given a different, more comprehensive method to 
coordinate servicing in complex conditions. Based on the information in 
the comments above, the findings of the NSRP Study, and OSHA's own 
expertise, the Agency added a requirement for a lockout/tags-plus 
coordinator and log in two situations: (1) When multiple employees 
service the same machinery, equipment, or system at the same time on 
vessels, in vessel sections, or at landside facilities; and (2) when 
employees service multiple machinery, equipment, or systems at the same 
time on the same vessel or vessel section.
    Final paragraph (c)(7)(i)(A) requires the coordination of all 
lockout/tags-plus applications when employees are servicing multiple 
machinery, equipment, or systems at the same time on vessels and in 
vessel sections. This requirement for a lockout/tags-plus coordinator 
(hereafter referred to as "coordinator) applies when employees, 
whether contract or host employees, are performing separate, but 
concurrent, servicing operations on different machinery, equipment, or 
systems. Because of the complexity of machinery, equipment, and systems 
used in vessels and vessel sections, as well as the existence of shared 
and redundant energy sources, the Agency concluded that a requirement 
for coordination would heighten employee protection. For example, a 
generator aboard a U.S. Navy combatant vessel may supply power to the 
vessel's weapons system and to the lighting system for a particular 
part of a vessel. If the generator is secured for the servicing of both 
these systems, and the employee servicing the weapons system restores 
power to the generator for testing or troubleshooting, an employee 
servicing the lighting system at the same time would be at risk of 
electrocution. The presence of a coordinator, who would oversee removal 
of the lockout/tags-plus system for the two operations, would eliminate 
such a possibility.
    Paragraph (c)(7)(i)(A) does not require that a coordinator be used 
when servicing multiple machinery, equipment, or systems at the same 
time at landside facilities. The Agency concluded that machinery, 
equipment, and systems at landside facilities do not have the same 
complexities and redundant or shared energy sources as those aboard 
vessels and in vessel sections. Further, machinery, equipment, or 
systems at landside locations often have their own individual 
disconnect or cutoff mechanisms that completely isolate them from other 
machinery, equipment, or systems. In such cases, a coordinator is not 
necessary because hazardous energy to a machine, piece of equipment, or 
system can be controlled through a single source that will not affect 
other machinery, equipment, or systems.
    Paragraph (c)(7)(i)(B) requires a coordinator when employees, 
whether employed by the host employer or a contract employer, are 
performing multiple servicing operations on the same machinery, 
equipment, or systems at the same time on vessels, in vessel sections, 
and at landside facilities. Such a situation might arise during 
landside servicing operations, for example, when an electrician secures 
the power on a portable crane so that a machinist can inspect the 
crane's wire rope while ironworkers repair the crane's structural 
members. Another situation, while servicing is being performed on a 
vessel, could occur when two or more sets of employees work on high-
pressure steam lines. In such a situation, the energy source would be 
secured, possibly using a single blank, in order for the piping to be 
repaired in one location, such as the forward location of a machinery 
space, while additional repairs are being performed in another separate 
location (i.e., aft location of the machinery space two levels below 
the forward location). By complying with the requirement to have a 
coordinator, who would be aware of the status of each separate 
servicing operation, the employer can avoid situations when an employee 
servicing one part of a system is injured because another employee 
working on another part of the system, without knowledge of the first 
employee, restores power to that system.
    As defined in Sec.  1915.80, the lockout/tags-plus coordinator is 
an employee designated by the employer to coordinate and oversee all 
lockout/tags-plus applications for (a) multiple servicing operations on 
the same machinery, equipment, or system at the same time, whether on 
vessels, in vessel sections, or at landside facilities, and (b) 
servicing operations on multiple machinery, equipment, or systems on 
the same vessel or vessel section at the same time (Sec.  
1915.80(b)(15)). Paragraph (c)(7)(ii) requires that the coordination 
process include both the lockout/tags-plus coordinator and a lockout/
tags-plus log. In addition, the lockout/tags-plus log must be specific 
to each vessel, vessel section, or landside work area. The specific 
requirements for the lockout/tags-plus log are discussed below in 
paragraph (c)(7)(iv).
    OSHA has not specified the number of servicing operations that must 
be taking place or the number of employees performing the servicing 
before a coordinator must be designated, nor does the Agency specify 
that the coordinator may only be responsible for the lockout/tags-plus 
coordination and log. By not including such specifications, OSHA is 
giving employers the flexibility to make decisions based on the need in 
their facilities to ensure employee protection. OSHA believes employers 
are in the best position to assess this need. However, employers must 
base this application on the complexity of vessels under construction 
or repair. For example, a large vessel that is undergoing extensive 
repairs and upgrades, with multiple contract employers and multiple 
servicing operations, will likely have one employee with the sole 
responsibility to be the lockout/tags-plus coordinator for that 
particular vessel. On the other hand, if an employer has two smaller 
vessels on adjacent piers with minimal servicing operations, that 
employer may choose to either have one coordinator for both vessels, or 
have an employee on each vessel with the collateral duty to serve as 
the lockout/tags-plus coordinator.
    In paragraphs (c)(7)(iii)(A), (B), and (C), OSHA specified several 
responsibilities of the lockout/tags-plus coordinator. These three 
provisions require, respectively, the coordinator to oversee and 
approve: The application of each lockout and tags-plus system; the 
verification of hazardous-energy isolation prior to any servicing 
performed on any machinery, equipment, or system; and the removal of 
each lockout or tags-plus system. This requirement ensures that one 
coordinator is responsible for approving these three phases of the 
lockout/tags-plus process.
    Paragraphs (c)(7)(iii)(A), (B), and (C) requires the coordinator to 
oversee and approve the application of each lockout/tags-plus system, 
the verification of hazardous energy isolation before servicing begins, 
and the removal of each lockout/tags-plus system. This oversight and approval 
authority will require the coordinator to work closely with the authorized 
person for each lockout/tags-plus application. The coordinator will review 
the authorized person's plan and either approve or deny the request. Once 
the coordinator approves a request, the authorized person, in consultation 
with the coordinator, will apply the lock or tags-plus system, verify isolation 
of the hazardous energy, and remove the lockout/tags-plus system.
    In addition to coordinating all lockout/tags-plus applications, the 
coordinator must maintain the lockout/tags-plus log. In paragraph 
(c)(7)(iv), OSHA specified six items that the coordinator must maintain 
in the log, including: The location and the type of the machinery, 
equipment, or system (paragraphs (c)(7)(iv)(A) and (B)); the name of 
the authorized employee applying the lockout/tag-plus system (paragraph 
(c)(7)(iv)(C)); the date that the lockout/tags-plus system was applied 
(paragraph (c)(7)(iv)(D)); the name of the authorized person removing 
the lock or tags-plus system (paragraph (c)(7)(iv)(E)); and the date 
that the lockout/tags-plus system was removed (c)(7)(iv)(F)). This 
information is needed so that the lockout/tags-plus coordinator can 
effectively oversee all lockout/tags-plus applications prior to 
servicing operations to ensure the safety of each authorized and 
affected employee. Inclusion of this information in the log will permit 
the coordinator to know, at all times, which systems are under lockout/
tags-plus and which authorized person is responsible for each lockout/
tags-plus application.
    As stated previously, the Agency is aware of cases in which the 
U.S. Navy will designate its ship's force to coordinate and/or apply 
the lock or tags-plus systems on Navy vessels being serviced in a 
private-sector shipyard, and also to maintain control of the lockout/
tags-plus log, rather than a shipyard-assigned employee. In those 
instances, OSHA believes that having a Navy-designated coordinator and 
authorized person who applies the lockout/tags-plus systems fulfills 
certain requirements as set forth in "Notes" in the applicable 
sections of the regulatory text and achieves the level of protection 
required by this section. In paragraph (c)(7), a note \4\ has been 
included to explain that when the Navy ship's force is the lockout/
tags-plus coordinator and maintains control of the lockout/tags-plus 
log, the employer will be in compliance with paragraph (c)(7) of this 
section when coordination occurs between the ship's force and the 
employer to ensure that applicable lockout/tags-plus procedures are 
followed and documented. Here, the term "employer" refers to the host 
employer, any of its contractors, or any employer contracted directly 
by the military. In these cases, all employers performing servicing 
work must coordinate all aspects of the lockout/tags-plus program with 
the Navy ship's force. The host employer should perform this 
coordination for all host employer personnel and for contractors and 
other personnel hired by the host employer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See rationale for this note in the summary and explanation 
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paragraph (d)--Lockout/Tags-Plus Written Procedures
    Paragraph (d), Lockout/tags-plus written procedures, is a departure 
from the proposal (Sec.  1915.89(b)(4)), which was based on the general 
industry standard. Changes from the proposal primarily involve the 
recognition that servicing machinery, equipment, and systems in the 
shipyard environment often entails complexities that require a 
different approach regarding documentation of procedures.
    Paragraph (d)(1) requires that employers establish and implement 
written energy-control procedures to prevent energization or startup, 
or the release of hazardous energy, during the servicing of machinery, 
equipment, or systems. This provision was proposed as paragraph 
(b)(4)(i). The written procedures must include all information 
employees must know in order to control hazardous energy during 
servicing.
    OSHA received several comments requesting clarification whether 
OSHA was proposing to require a written procedure for every machine, 
piece of equipment, or system. Accordingly, a group of commenters, 
including Lake Union Drydock Company, American Seafoods Company, Puget 
Sound Shipbuilders, Dakota Creek Industries, North Pacific Fishing 
Vessel Owners Association, and iWorkWise, inquired: "How are they to 
require or generate such written procedures for all equipment when as 
shipyards they will not work on most of it, and they have no control 
over the existing equipment installations?" (Exs. 101.1; 105.1; 124; 
126; 128; 130.1). Prowler LLC and Ocean Prowler LLC commented: "Will 
[ship]yards have to write procedures for every piece of equipment they 
work on?" (Ex. 100).
    As OSHA stated in the proposal the standard does not require 
separate procedures to be written for each and every piece of equipment 
(72 FR 72452, 72493, Dec. 20, 2007). Similar machines and/or equipment 
(such as those using the same type and magnitude of energy) that have 
the same or similar types of controls can be covered with a single 
procedure. For example, employers may develop one set of procedures for 
all steering gear systems, ship's lighting systems, ship's 
refrigeration systems, fire-suppression systems, grinders, or lathes if 
the type and magnitude of energy and type of controls are the same or 
similar for the particular systems, and as long as the procedure 
satisfactorily addresses hazards and the steps that must be taken to 
control these hazards. However, if unique conditions are present, such 
as multiple energy sources or different means of connection, then the 
employer must develop specific energy-control procedures to address 
these conditions to ensure that 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.
    OSHA added a note to paragraph (d)(1), specifically addressing this 
issue, which explains that employers only need to develop a single 
procedure for a group of similar machines, equipment, and systems if 
the machines, equipment, or systems have the same type and magnitude of 
energy and the same or similar type of controls, and if a single 
procedure can satisfactorily address the hazards and the steps to be 
taken. Under those circumstances, a separate procedure need not be 
written for each and every machine or piece of equipment.
    Prowler LLC and Ocean Prowler LLC asked the following question: 
"If the ship has not clearly labeled their equipment or disconnects, 
will the [ship] yard then have to write a procedure prior to working on 
it as they are not 'readily identifiable'?" (Ex. 100). OSHA believes 
that whether a vessel undergoing repair is in a shipyard for a few 
weeks, a few months, or a few years, it is the responsibility of the 
shipyard employer to develop procedures that will cover all machinery, 
equipment, or systems on which it will perform servicing operations. 
OSHA understands that vessels typically do not return for repairs to 
the shipyards in which they were built, and that some vessels, 
particularly foreign-built vessels, may have components that are 
difficult to identify. However, the release of hazardous energy is a 
serious hazard, and OSHA concludes that employers must not exclude any 
machinery, equipment, or systems from their lockout/tags-plus programs. 
In this regard, it is the employer's responsibility to correctly identify 
all energy sources and the means to control them. When the shipyard employer 
cannot identify and control all energy sources, the entire systems may need 
to be shut down.
    Manitowoc Marine Group described how its employees assist in this 
process:

    What we have tried to do is we have tried to somewhat model the 
general industry to a point. We will identify the energy sources as 
best we can with the crew. We usually have the crew members with us, 
walking through the processes. And what we try to do with this is, 
we identify a "boat boss," for lack of better phrase. He will 
actually shut the entire systems down, because in most cases, we are 
not working with the systems. We are doing physical repair of the 
vessel. All of these complex systems and beltings are all locked out 
physically, from pneumatics, hydraulics, whatever the case may be, 
identified, and placement of the locks (Ex. 168, pp. 110-111).

    Paragraph (d)(1)(i) requires that the written energy control 
procedures include a clear and specific outline of the scope and 
purpose of the lockout/tags-plus procedures. As proposed (proposed 
paragraph (b)(4)(ii)), this provision would have required the procedure 
to have an outline of the scope, purpose, authorization, rules, 
techniques used to control hazardous energy, and the means to enforce 
compliance. After reviewing accident reports, comments, and testimony 
on conditions in shipyard employment, OSHA concluded that requiring 
documentation of the authorization and rules regarding the control of 
hazardous energy is not necessary or appropriate (see preamble 
discussion above). However, because the consequences of the release of 
hazardous energy can be serious, the Agency included the provision 
requiring a means of enforcement in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this final 
rule; this paragraph addresses the employer's enforcement 
responsibility. This requirement does not specify how an employer must 
enforce employee compliance with the lockout/tags-plus program and 
procedures, only that the employer must do so. OSHA made this 
requirement performance-based, allowing employers to establish 
disciplinary programs that will be effective under the unique 
conditions of each shipyard. OSHA believes this requirement will ensure 
that employers and employees understand the importance of following the 
established lockout/tags-plus procedures. At the same time, this 
provision will provide employers with flexibility to tailor their 
enforcement programs to their shipyard conditions.
    Paragraph (d)(1)(iii) requires employers to provide the steps 
employees must follow when using each of the procedures specified by 
paragraphs (d)(1)(iii)(A) through (I). OSHA included paragraphs (A) 
through (E) in the proposal. These paragraphs specify, respectively, 
the following procedures: Preparations for shutting down and isolating 
the machinery, equipment, or system to be serviced in accordance with 
paragraph (e) of this section; application of the lockout/tags-plus 
system in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section; verification 
of isolation in accordance with paragraph (g); testing the machinery, 
equipment, or system in accordance with paragraph (h); and removing 
lockout/tags-plus systems in accordance with paragraph (i).
    In addition to these procedures, OSHA added the procedures 
specified by paragraphs (d)(1)(iii)(F) through (I) to the final 
standard. Accordingly, employers are to provide the steps employees 
must follow when using each of these procedures. Paragraphs (F) through 
(I) specify: Starting up the machinery, equipment, or system in 
accordance with paragraph (j) of this section; applying lockout/tags-
plus systems in group servicing operations in accordance with paragraph 
(k); addressing multi-employer worksites involved in servicing 
machinery, equipment, or systems in accordance with paragraph (l); and 
addressing shift or personnel changes during servicing operations in 
accordance with paragraph (m).
    During the Washington, DC public hearing, Northrop Grumman--Newport 
News emphasized the benefit of training employees on their procedures, 
further illustrating how important a single set of standards can be:

    They [land-side employees] do go on-board and often the workload 
shifts, we will bring work into the shops and we will work in the 
shops, and we will take it back and reinstall it, so there is some 
movement back and forth between shop and ship, so it's not like 
there is never the twain shall meet. Furthermore, as there has been 
integration, for example, Newport News has been integrated with our 
Gulf Coast yards, and we are moving people back and forth between 
the Gulf yards and Newport News, and we think it is important, if we 
can get there, to have a consistent set of standard or standards 
that would apply across the board, so I don't have to retrain Gulf 
employees in my procedures and/or vice versa (Ex. 168, pp. 264-265).

    OSHA agrees that, by establishing procedures that include all of 
the steps necessary for identifying each source of hazardous energy, 
applying the lockout/tags-plus system, releasing the energy, testing 
the equipment, removing the lockout/tags-plus system, and starting up 
the machinery, equipment, or system, the employer will have a 
comprehensive and easy-to-administer lockout/tags-plus program. In 
addition, employers will be able to establish the basic provisions of a 
lockout/tags-plus program throughout their facilities and with the 
entire workforce, which OSHA believes will enable employees to better 
protect themselves.
    OSHA acknowledges that circumstances may arise when an employer 
must develop specific procedures that apply to only one work situation. 
Manitowoc Marine Group testified on a recent procedure it developed:

    We just recently developed a lockout procedure specifically for 
a self-unloading belt system, because of a potential that we did 
discover. But that is only as good as that system for that vessel. 
And that is where I guess where we struggle the most is the 
different types of exotic systems that come in here, identifying and 
developing the procedures. It will be wonderful if we identify all 
of these vessels and have all these procedures in place, and they 
would come back year after year. But as you well know, those things 
change season to season (Ex. 168, p. 111).

    Paragraph (d)(2) provides an exception to the requirement to have 
written control procedures for particular machinery, equipment, and 
systems. In the proposal, OSHA specified the conditions limiting 
application of the exceptions in a note to paragraph (b)(4)(i). The 
note was lengthy, detailed, and composed of small print. To promote 
easy access to, and improve understanding of, these exceptions, OSHA 
included them in the text of paragraph (d)(2) of this final standard. 
Under these exceptions, employers need not have a written procedure for 
equipment when all of the following conditions exist: (1) The machine, 
equipment, or system has no potential for the release or re-
accumulation of hazardous energy after shutting down or restoring 
energy; (2) the machine, equipment, or system has a single energy 
source that can be readily identified and isolated; (3) the isolation 
and locking out of the energy source will completely deenergize and 
deactivate the machine, equipment, or system, with no potential for re-
accumulation of energy; (4) the machine, equipment, or system is 
isolated from that energy source and secured during servicing; (5) a 
single lock will achieve a locked-out condition; (6) the lock is under 
the exclusive control of the authorized employee performing the servicing; 
(7) the servicing 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 this type of machinery, 
equipment, or system during servicing. The exception is the same as the 
proposed exception, and OSHA continues to believe it is warranted as 
there is little or no risk to employees when applied correctly. To 
require a written procedure under these conditions would divert 
resources from other, high-risk, situations. OSHA believes that this 
exception will primarily apply to landside facilities, not ship's 
machinery, equipment, or systems, due to the latter's complex nature.
Paragraphs (e)--(j) Procedures for Lockout/Tags-Plus
    These paragraphs establish procedures that authorized employees 
must follow when applying energy controls. The energy-control 
procedures must include procedures for:
     Shutdown and isolation (paragraph (e));
     Application of lockout/tags-plus systems (paragraph (f));
     Verification of deenergization and isolation (paragraph 
(g));
     Testing (paragraph (h));
     Removing lockout/tags-plus systems (paragraph (i)); and
     Startup (paragraph (j)).
Paragraph (e)--Procedures for Shutdown and Isolation
    Paragraph (e) establishes the provisions for the safe shutdown of, 
and the isolation of hazardous energy to, machinery, equipment, or 
systems. The procedures for shutdown and isolation were proposed as 
Sec. Sec.  1915.89(c)(1)-(c)(3). Final paragraph (e)(1)(i) requires 
that, before any authorized employee shuts down any machinery, 
equipment, or system, the authorized employee must have knowledge of 
the source, type, and magnitude of the hazards associated with 
energization or startup of the machinery, equipment, or system; the 
hazards associated with the release of hazardous energy; and the means 
to control those hazards. American Seafoods Company stated: "The 
employee(s) performing the work typically [do] not have the expertise 
to determine all types and magnitudes of hazardous energy" (Ex. 
105.1). OSHA understands that the machinery, equipment, and systems on 
vessels and vessel sections are complex and sometimes have multiple 
sources of energy. Under such conditions, the release of hazardous 
energy presents a grave risk to employees. This risk is the primary 
reason why OSHA retained the training requirements in paragraphs 
(o)(4)(i) and (o)(4)(ii): All authorized employees must have training 
so they know the types of energy sources and the magnitude of the 
energy present at the worksite. In addition, all authorized employees 
must know the means and methods necessary for effective isolation and 
control of hazardous energy. OSHA believes that authorized employees 
must have this knowledge prior to servicing operations to protect 
themselves and other employees. Therefore, OSHA is retaining this 
language for the final standard.
    Paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of the final rule retains the proposed 
requirement (proposed Sec.  1915.89(b)(9)) to notify affected employees 
when machinery, equipment, or systems are being shut down and a 
lockout/tags-plus system is being applied. OSHA has moved this 
requirement into the procedures for shutdown and isolation to emphasize 
the importance of this step in the process of safely shutting down and 
isolating machinery, equipment, or systems that are going to be 
serviced. OSHA has concluded that notification is necessary to protect 
affected employees who may not be aware that shutdown will take place 
and that the machine, equipment, or system they normally work on will 
be taken out of service for a period of time. When affected employees 
\5\ are not aware of the shutdown condition, they may take actions that 
are not consistent with safe practices, such as attempting to restore 
power to the system. For example, some systems may run the length of 
the vessel and pass through several decks, or span several spaces 
within the vessel. Affected employees may be working on a system in 
various locations, or they may be working near where the servicing is 
taking place. These affected employees must be notified of the lockout/
tags-plus application to ensure that they are aware that they must not 
energize or start up the machinery, equipment, or system because it is 
being serviced, that they must not remove or disable the lockout/tags-
plus application, and that they cannot use the machinery, equipment, or 
system to perform their regular job until after they are notified that 
the lockout/tags-plus application has been removed. Without such 
notification, affected employees may inadvertently energize or start a 
piece of machinery, equipment, or system, thus endangering any 
authorized employee performing servicing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As a reminder, affected employees are those employees who 
either normally operate the machinery, equipment, or system that is 
being serviced, or who work in the area where the servicing is 
taking place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (e)(2) requires that the machinery, equipment, or system 
be shut down according to the written procedures that the employer 
established pursuant to paragraph (d). This action is the starting 
point for all subsequent steps necessary to put the machinery, 
equipment, or system in a state that will allow employees to work on or 
near it safely. As discussed above, the employer must establish and 
implement procedures for all machinery, equipment, or systems. The 
authorized employee must follow these procedures. Paragraph (e)(3) 
requires that an orderly shutdown be used to prevent exposing any 
employee to additional or increased hazards resulting from the release 
of energy. Paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3) were proposed as paragraph 
(c)(2). OSHA received no comments on the proposed requirement to shut 
down machinery, equipment, or systems in an orderly manner. OSHA is 
therefore retaining these critical first steps in the shutdown process 
in this final rule.
    Paragraph (e)(4), which was proposed as paragraph (c)(5), requires 
the employer to ensure that the authorized employee relieves, 
disconnects, restrains, or otherwise renders safe all potentially 
hazardous energy that is connected to the machinery, equipment, or 
system that will be serviced. This requirement emphasizes that the 
authorized employee must ensure that every possible source of energy to 
the machinery, equipment, or system being serviced is deenergized. Thus 
if a system is deactivated but stored, residual, or otherwise hazardous 
energy remains, the authorized employee must relieve or disconnect that 
energy to fully protect the employees who will be servicing the system. 
Paragraph (e)(1)(i) is, of course, a prerequisite to paragraph (e)(4), 
since the authorized employee must fully understand all sources of 
potential energy associated with the machinery, equipment, or system 
that will be serviced. No comments were received on this provision, and 
OSHA retained it in the final rule.
    A note \6\ has been added to paragraph (e) describing that, when a 
Navy ship's force shuts down machinery, equipment, or systems and 
relieves, disconnects, restrains, or otherwise renders safe all 
potentially hazardous energy connected to the machinery, equipment, 
or system, the employer will be in compliance with paragraph 
(e) when the employer's authorized employee verifies that the 
machinery, equipment, or system being serviced has been properly 
shutdown, isolated, and deenergized. Here, the term "employer" refers 
to the host employer, any of its contractors, or any employer 
contracted directly by the military.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See rationale for this note at the summary and explanation 
of the note to paragraph (c)(7), above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paragraph (f)--Procedures for Applying Lockout/Tags-Plus systems
    Once the machinery, equipment, or system has been shutdown, the 
next step is to apply the lock or tags-plus system. These procedures 
were proposed in Sec.  1915.89(c)(4). The lock or tags-plus system 
(which is a tag attached to the energy-isolating device and an 
additional safety measure) must be located and applied in such a manner 
as to isolate the machinery, equipment, or systems from all energy 
source(s).
    Paragraph (f)(1) requires that only the authorized employee apply 
the lock or tags-plus system. This provision was proposed as paragraph 
(c)(4)(i). Paragraph (f)(2), proposed as paragraph (c)(4)(ii), requires 
that when a lock is used, the authorized employee must affix the lock 
so that the energy-isolating device is held in a safe or off position. 
Paragraphs (f)(3) and (f)(4), which were proposed as paragraphs 
(c)(4)(iii)(A) and (B), specify the requirements for the use of tags. 
When a tags-plus system is used, tags must be affixed by the authorized 
employee directly to the energy-isolating device. The placement of 
these tags must clearly indicate that the removal of the device from 
the safe or off position is prohibited. When a tag cannot be affixed 
directly to the energy-isolating device, it must be located as close as 
possible to the device in a safe and obvious position. These 
requirements also are included in the training of both affected and 
authorized employees, as discussed in paragraph (o) below. OSHA did not 
receive any comments opposing the requirements in paragraphs (f)(3) and 
(f)(4). OSHA is retaining the language as proposed for this final 
standard because these steps constitute safe practices that are common 
and essential to all effective lockout/tags-plus programs.
    Paragraph (f)(5), proposed as paragraph (c)(3), contains the 
requirements for energy-isolating devices. The employer is required to 
ensure that these devices control the energy to the machinery, 
equipment, or systems, and ensure that the device is effective in 
isolating the machinery, equipment, or system from all potentially 
hazardous-energy sources. The purpose of lockout/tags-plus is to 
eliminate or control hazardous energy, and the devices used to do so 
are critical to the success of the employer's program. Hazardous energy 
includes stored or residual energy. This type of energy presents a 
unique hazard to employees when, for example, the energy becomes 
trapped in a system or develops from gravity exerting pressure on 
spring-loaded components. As stated in the preamble to the general 
industry standard, such stored or residual energy cannot be turned on 
or off; it must be dissipated or controlled (54 FR 36677, Sept. 1, 
1989). Nevertheless, there are ways to render this energy harmless. To 
control this potentially hazardous energy, the authorized employee may 
need to use blanks, blocks, bleed valves, or other physical components. 
Finding, and rendering safe, all potentially hazardous energy sources 
with appropriate energy-isolating devices and additional safety 
measures is essential to the success of all lockout/tags-plus programs. 
No comments were received on this provision; therefore, OSHA is 
retaining the language in this final standard.
    As stated above there are instances when the Navy ship's force 
maintains control of the lockout/tags-plus program. For these 
instances, OSHA has included a note \7\ to paragraph (f) that explains 
that when the Navy ship's force applies the lock or tag, instead of the 
employer's authorized employee, the employer will be in compliance with 
paragraph (f) of this section when the employer's authorized employee 
verifies the application of the lockout/tags-plus system or device. 
Here, the term "employer" refers to the host employer, any of its 
contractors, or any employer contracted directly by the Navy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See rationale for this note in the summary and explanation 
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paragraph (g)--Procedures for Verification of Deenergization and 
Isolation
    Paragraph (g)(1), which was proposed as paragraph (c)(6), requires 
that, after the application of locks or a tags-plus system, the 
authorized employee, or the primary authorized employee in a group 
lockout/tags-plus application, must verify that the machinery, 
equipment, or system is deenergized, and that the hazardous energy has 
been isolated, before starting the servicing operation. Northrop 
Grumman-Newport News agreed with this provision, stating that this was 
currently a step of their lockout/tagout program. They indicated that 
their "Employees are required to know how to check for residual or 
potential energy when first entering into equipment or systems isolated 
as a secondary check following the expert based assessment and 
deenergization of systems" (Ex. 120.1). In addition, Foss Maritime 
confirmed that their procedures include provisions to ensure that all 
energy has been released: "I think the most important [action] that 
you can do is bleed the system out to make sure there is no energy 
left" (Ex. 198, p. 27). The U.S. Navy recommended that OSHA "delete 
the words 'Following the application of lockout or tagout devices to 
energy-isolating devices.' This leaves the key requirement that all 
stored energy must be relieved, but without a required order of 
performance which is not always possible" (Ex. 132.2). The Navy gave 
no examples of when verification cannot be conducted. OSHA disagrees 
with this commenter and believes that verification is always possible, 
needs to take place after the lock or tags-plus system has been applied 
to the energy-isolating device, and is necessary to ensure 
deenergization. Therefore, OSHA is retaining this provision in the 
final rule. OSHA added clarifying language that addresses group 
lockout/tags-plus applications (see Sec.  1915.89(k)). For those 
instances when there is a group lockout/tags-plus application 
occurring, the primary authorized employee, rather than all of the 
authorized employees working in the group application, would verify 
that the machinery, equipment, or systems have been deenergized and all 
energy sources isolated.
    Paragraph (g)(2) retains and expands the proposed requirement 
(proposed Sec.  1915.89(c)(5)(ii)) to continue verification of 
isolation. The proposed rule specified that, if there is a possibility 
of reaccumulation of stored energy, verification must be continued 
until servicing is completed or the possibility of reaccumulation no 
longer exists. The final rule expands the verification of isolation 
requirement so it is continued throughout the servicing operation. 
Commenters, including Foss Maritime, said they already require 
employees to verify that the system continues to be deenergized and 
isolated prior to starting servicing on any machinery, equipment, or 
system (Ex. 198, p. 27). OSHA believes this good industry practice 
needs to be part of employers' lockout/tags-plus program and 
procedures. Continuous verification of isolation will ensure the 
ongoing protection of employees, particularly when a servicing 
operation cannot be accomplished quickly or during a single workshift. 
As stated above, OSHA included clarifying language that addresses group 
lockout/tags-plus applications. For those instances 
when there is a group lockout/tags-plus application occurring, the 
primary authorized employee would continue the verification of 
deenergization and isolation during servicing operations.
    For this final rule, OSHA added paragraph (g)(3) to ensure that 
each employee working in a group lockout/tags-plus servicing operation 
is offered the option to verify the deenergization and isolation of 
machinery, equipment, or systems. Each employee will have this option 
even when the primary authorized employee verifies isolation for the 
group. This requirement has been OSHA's policy for general industry 
lockout/tagout and for lockout/tagout in the electric power generation 
industry. See www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/electric_power/hazardous_energy_control_loto.html
and www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=PREAMBLES&p_id=1149. 
Paragraph (g)(3) simply codifies, in subpart F, that longstanding policy 
as an additional protective element for authorized employees servicing 
machines, equipment, or systems in a group lockout/tags-plus situation. 
The option for all authorized employees to verify also applies when the 
Navy ship's force controls the application of lockout/tags-plus 
systems. In 1996, a shipyard employee was working on a Navy vessel. It 
was the Navy's policy at the time that military personnel, not the 
shipyard's authorized person, apply all tags. In this case, the 
authorized person did not verify isolation of a 480-volt electrical 
cabinet prior to beginning work. As a result, the disconnecting means 
were not properly identified, and the circuits in the cabinet had not 
been tested. The employee came into contact with energized parts in the 
cabinet, was electrocuted, and died (Ex. 38). This death could have 
been avoided had the shipyard's authorized person verified the 
isolation.
Paragraph (h)--Procedures for Testing
    The standard allows for the temporary removal of locks or tags-plus 
systems and the reenergization of equipment during the limited time 
when power is needed for testing the equipment or positioning of its 
components. The procedures were proposed in Sec.  1915.89(e)(1)(i) 
through (v). The re-start operation must be conducted by the authorized 
employee in accordance with the following sequence of steps to ensure 
employees' safety when they transition equipment from a deenergized to 
an energized condition, and then return to a deenergized condition: (1) 
Clear the work area of tools and materials; (2) remove non-essential 
employees from the work area; (3) remove the lock or tags-plus system 
in accordance with the required removal procedures (see paragraph (i) 
of this section); (4) energize the machinery, equipment, or system and 
proceed with testing or positioning; and (5) when testing or 
positioning is completed, deenergize and shut down the machinery, 
equipment, or system, and reapply the locks or tags-plus systems in 
accordance with the required control application procedures (see 
paragraphs (e) through (h) of this section). Machine guarding or other 
safety equipment need not be replaced before energizing the system for 
testing, unless the employer establishes such a requirement in the 
lockout/tags-plus program and procedures. However, when servicing is 
completed, the safety equipment, including restraints and guarding, 
must be fully restored prior to reenergization.
    OSHA added a note \8\ to paragraph (h), similar to the notes for 
paragraphs (c), (e), and (f), that clarifies the employer's role when 
the Navy ship's force serves as the lockout/tags-plus coordinator, 
performs the testing, and maintains control over the lockout/tags-plus 
applications. During testing, the employer will be in compliance with 
paragraph (h) when the employer's authorized employee acknowledges to 
the lockout/tags-plus coordinator that the employer's personnel and 
tools are clear and the machinery, equipment, or system being serviced 
is ready for testing; and upon completion of the testing, verifies the 
reapplication of the lockout/tags-plus systems. Here, the term 
"employer" refers to the host employer, any of its contractors, or 
any employer contracted directly by the military.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See rationale for this note in the summary and explanation 
above. See rationale for this note at the summary and explanation of 
the note to paragraph (c)(7), above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA received no comments on any of the provisions in paragraphs 
(h)(1) through (h)(5), which the Agency believes are necessary for the 
safe testing of machinery, equipment, and systems. These provisions 
permit the employer to conduct interim testing and still protect 
employees by ensuring that the procedures are orderly and complete. 
Therefore, OSHA is retaining these provisions in paragraphs (h)(1) 
through (h)(5) in this final standard.
Paragraph (i)--Procedures for Removal of Lockout and Tags-Plus Systems
    Paragraph (i) establishes the procedures that authorized employees 
must follow when removing locks or tags-plus systems (i.e., when the 
equipment is being released from lockout or tagout status). These 
procedures will assist the employer in returning the machinery, 
equipment, or system to an effective operating condition without 
exposing employees to the risk of injury while the lockout/tag-plus 
system is being removed or when the machinery, equipment, or system is 
reenergized. With the exception of minor editorial changes, the 
provisions in final paragraph (i) are the same as proposed paragraph 
(d).
    Paragraph (i)(1) requires the employer to ensure that, before the 
lock or tags-plus system is removed and energy restored to the 
machinery, equipment, or system, the authorized employee takes three 
specific steps. The first step, set forth in paragraph (i)(1)(i), 
requires the authorized employee to notify all other authorized and 
affected employees in the work area that the lockout/tags-plus system 
will be removed. This provision was proposed as paragraph (d)(2)(ii), 
which required that the affected and authorized employees be notified 
after the lockout or tagout devices were removed but prior to starting 
the equipment. OSHA modified the language in the final standard to 
simplify the requirements and to clarify that the notification must 
take place prior to the lock or tags-plus system being removed.
    Paragraph (i)(1)(ii), the second step, requires the authorized 
employee to ensure that all employees in the work area have been safely 
positioned or removed. This step is critical to guaranteeing that these 
employees are not harmed when the equipment is reenergized. Examples of 
methods employers may use to alert employees that they need to either 
be safely positioned or leave the work area may include conducting 
visual inspections, or using buzzers, bells, alarms, or whistles.
    The final step, set forth in paragraph (i)(1)(iii), requires the 
authorized employee to inspect the work area to ensure that 
nonessential items have been removed and that the equipment components 
are operationally intact. A visual inspection may be sufficient to meet 
this requirement; however, the employer may choose to use a checklist, 
depending on the complexity of the equipment.
    Paragraph (i)(2), proposed as (d)(3), requires that the lock or 
tags-plus system be removed by the authorized employee who applied it. 
This requirement ensures that the authorized employee, who is in direct 
control of the lockout/tags-plus device, and who also is exposed to 
potential injury while servicing operations are in progress, remains 
in full operational control of the machinery, equipment, or system. 
Ensuring that the authorized employee who applied the device is the only 
employee permitted to remove it emphasizes the importance of the authorized 
employee and the employer's lockout/tags-plus program. Further, this 
provision will help prevent other employees from removing the device, 
either intentionally or accidentally.
    Paragraph (i)(3) specifies that when the authorized employee who 
applied the lockout/tags-plus system is not available to remove it, the 
lockout/tags-plus system may be removed by another employee who is an 
authorized employee and is working under the direction of the employer. 
However, the employer must take specific actions prior to removal of 
the system by another authorized employee. As stated in the proposal, 
and now in paragraph (i)(3) of this final standard, the employer must 
develop and incorporate specific procedures and training in the 
lockout/tags-plus program that address removal of the system by another 
authorized employee. In addition, the employer must demonstrate that 
the procedures provide a level of safety that is equivalent to removal 
by the initial authorized employee.
    Paragraphs (i)(3)(i) through (iii) establish the sequence of events 
that must take place prior to the removal of the lockout/tags-plus 
system by another authorized employee. As required in (i)(3)(i), the 
employer must first verify that the authorized employee who applied the 
lockout/tags-plus system is not in the facility. Paragraph (i)(3)(ii) 
requires the employer to make all reasonable efforts to contact the 
absent authorized employee to inform him/her that the lockout/tags-plus 
system has been removed. Finally, paragraph (i)(3)(iii) requires the 
employer to ensure that the absent authorized employee who applied the 
lock or tags-plus system knows that the lock or tags-plus system has 
been removed prior to the authorized employee resuming work. This 
provision does not apply to an absent authorized employee who is simply 
on a break, is using a sanitation facility, or is temporarily doing 
other work. In addition, the substitution of another authorized 
employee should not occur just because the original authorized employee 
left at the end of his/her workshift. Employers may apply this 
provision only in emergency situations, or when the absent authorized 
employee is on vacation or will not be returning to the worksite for an 
extended period of time (for example, employee is sick and is not able 
to return for the next assigned workshift). Finally, substitution of 
one authorized employee for another would not be a typical occurrence 
but, rather, would be a rare event. These provisions were proposed in 
paragraph (d)(3)(i) through (iii).
    OSHA has added a note \9\ to paragraph (i), similar to the notes 
for paragraphs (c), (e), (f), and (h), that clarifies the employer's 
role when the Navy ship's force acts as lockout/tags-plus coordinator 
and removes the locks or tags-plus systems. The employer will be in 
compliance with all of the provisions in paragraph (i) when the 
employer's authorized employee informs the lockout/tags-plus 
coordinator that the procedures in paragraph (i)(1) of this section 
have been performed. Here, the term "employer" refers to the host 
employer, any of its contractors, or any employer contracted directly 
by the military. It is imperative for employee protection that the 
lockout/tags-plus coordinator be informed that all employees servicing 
the machinery, equipment, or system have been notified, all employees 
are safely positioned or removed, and the work area is clear of 
nonessential items before the Navy ship's force removes the lockout/
tags-plus system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See rationale for this note in the summary and explanation 
above. See rationale for this note at the summary and explanation of 
the note to paragraph (c)(7), above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated earlier, this final paragraph (i) was proposed as 
paragraph (d). No comments were received on any of the proposed 
provisions. OSHA concludes that, because the employer needs to be able 
to remove a lockout/tags-plus application in the event that the 
authorized employee is unavailable to remove it, the requirements in 
paragraph (i) are necessary for the safety of employees. OSHA is 
retaining the provisions as proposed with only minor editorial changes 
in final paragraph (i).
Paragraph (j)--Procedures for Startup
    For this final standard, OSHA added a new paragraph that 
establishes the procedures for startup of machinery, equipment, or 
systems. OSHA believes that paragraph (j) will assist employers and 
authorized employees to understand how to safely restart machinery, 
equipment, or systems after servicing operations are completed. Some of 
these provisions, which were implicit in the proposal, are similar to 
those described in paragraph (i), Procedures for removal of lockout/
tags-plus systems. OSHA concludes that setting forth the procedures 
required for each step involved in servicing equipment safely will 
assist employers in developing programs that represent all actions that 
must be taken from start to finish in lockout/tags-plus applications.
    Paragraph (j)(1) requires that, after servicing is completed and 
before an authorized employee turns on or reenergizes any machinery, 
equipment, or system, the authorized employee understand the source, 
type, and magnitude of all hazards associated with the energization 
process, and the means to control these hazards. This requirement 
specifies an important duty of the authorized employee; this 
requirement is integral with paragraphs (o)(4)(ii) and (iii), which 
provide that the authorized employee must be trained to know this 
information prior to the start of servicing operations.
    Paragraph (j)(2) requires that an orderly startup must be 
implemented to prevent or minimize any additional or increased hazards 
to employees. As described previously, authorized employees may be 
servicing complex or large systems while other employees are in the 
area. An orderly startup will ensure that all of these employees are 
safe when the machinery, equipment, or system is reenergized.
    Startup must consist of at least the following three steps, as 
specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (iii): (i) Tools and 
materials must be cleared from the work area; (ii) all non-essential 
employees must be removed from the work area; and (iii) the machinery, 
equipment, or system must be started according to the detailed 
procedures the employer established for that machinery, equipment, or 
system. The employer must comply with the first two requirements either 
by using a checklist or by having supervisors or foremen ensure, by 
inspection or any other effective means, that the work area is cleared 
of all tools, materials, and non-essential employees. OSHA did not 
include a provision in this paragraph that required that all guards be 
replaced prior to reenergization. The Agency believes that such a 
requirement is not necessary since employers know that having 
operationally intact machinery, equipment, or system means that the 
machine guarding or other safety components must be replaced. In 
addition, this condition is covered by other applicable provisions (29 
CFR Sec.  1910, subpart O) that address machine guarding. Therefore, 
OSHA concludes that these procedures for start-up are necessary to 
protect employees while reenergizing machinery, equipment, or systems.
    OSHA has added a note \10\ to paragraph (j), similar to the notes 
for paragraphs (c), (e), (f), (h) and (i), that clarifies the 
employer's role when the Navy ship's force serves as the lockout/tags-
plus coordinator and maintains control over lockout/tags-plus during 
startup of the machinery, equipment, or systems, and the employer is 
prohibited from starting up the machinery, equipment, or system, the 
employer will be in compliance with all of the provisions in paragraph 
(j) provided that the employer's authorized employee informs the 
lockout/tags-plus coordinator that the procedures in paragraph 
(j)(2)(i) and (j)(2)(ii) of this section have been performed. Here, the 
term "employer" refers to the host employer, any of its contractors, 
or any employer contracted directly by the Navy. It is imperative for 
employee protection that the employer's authorized employee ensures, 
and communicates to the Navy's lockout/tags-plus coordinator, that the 
work area is clear of tools, materials, and nonessential employees 
before the machinery, equipment, or system is restarted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See rationale for this note in the summary and explanation 
above. See rationale for this note at the summary and explanation of 
the note to paragraph (c)(7), above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paragraph (k)--Procedures for Group Lockout/Tags-Plus
    Paragraph (k) establishes the provisions for group lockout/tags-
plus. Group lockout/tags-plus occurs when more than one employee is 
working on the same machinery, equipment, or system simultaneously. The 
term "employee" encompasses ship's crew, different yard crafts or 
departments, or employees from another employer (i.e., contract 
employees). These group lockout/tags-plus procedures were proposed as 
paragraph (e)(3) and required that the employer designate an authorized 
employee to coordinate affected work forces (proposed paragraph 
(e)(3)(ii)(C)), and that each authorized employee affix a personal lock 
or tag to a group lockout device, group lockbox, or comparable 
mechanism (proposed paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(D)).
    Several commenters expressed concerns with the group lockout/tags-
plus proposal. Electric Boat commented on the impracticality of having 
each authorized employee attach his or her own tag to the energy-
isolating device:

    This is one instance where trying to apply a general industry 
standard to the shipbuilding and repair industry does not make sense 
or increase safety. Electric Boat requests that OSHA consider 
changing or removing this requirement where each person working on a 
tagged system must place an individual tag(s) on the system. This 
proposed method would not provide any additional safety to a proven 
system and would present a substantial increase in the cost of 
repair, installation and testing for shipyards (Ex. 108.2).

    OSHA received comments that several employers are using "systems 
experts" to perform a function similar to the group's authorized 
employee, and they would like to continue this practice. Trident 
Seafoods testified:

    It wouldn't make sense to have 10, 15 processors trudging 
someplace else in the vessel to go do a lockout, and then come back 
when we have system experts that can guarantee they're locked out. 
They go back in before they let people work and make sure 
everything's secured. They can push any button, turn any valve they 
want that may energize to assure themselves that it is locked out. 
And then they let them do their cleanup, do the work if it's on a 
dock side maintenance job, do their work. And then when they come 
back, get ready to reenergize, it has to go back to the system 
expert to reenergize and redo things (Ex. 199, p. 160).

    Manitowoc Marine Group agreed, and noted that they also use one 
individual for multiple group lockout/tags-plus systems:

    The SCA member shipyard requires that the authorized employee, 
because of his or her training and designation, must interface with 
the authorized operator of said energized system to ensure that all 
energy is contained prior to commencing work on that job. This is 
far more effective at ensuring the safety of a group of employees 
such as laborers, who know nothing of those systems, to affect a 
lockout in an area such as a thruster tunnel (Ex. 125).

    During his testimony, Roy Martin described how Manitowoc Marine 
Group performs group lockout/tag-plus on both construction and repair 
jobs:

    Well, on the construction or the repair side of it, we usually 
take leaders and supervision in each department as the vessels come 
in. And they all meet, they talk about the different types of work 
that they will be doing. Each one of those will place a lock on that 
system prior to any work taking place. And once again, as work 
progresses--and obviously, the reason for doing that is, as someone 
finished and they removed their locks, it is still physically locked 
out. So as far as the repair side of it goes, there is a group 
locking procedure, to where we actually have representatives from 
each one of the different departments place their locks on it (Ex. 
168, pp. 128-129).

    The U.S. Navy commented: "When using an expert representative as 
the authorized employee for group tagout applications, these experts 
will require training on ship's systems and equipments, and the energy 
control process, including device and tag attachment applications" 
(Ex. 132.2).
    Based on the comments and testimony received, OSHA made several 
changes to this paragraph in the final standard, including reorganizing 
the provisions for clarity. This section has been divided into two 
sections: primary authorized employees and authorized employees.
    Paragraph (k)(1) specifies the procedures for primary authorized 
employees that must be implemented in group lockout/tags-plus 
operations. First, paragraph (k)(1)(i) requires that the employer 
assign responsibility to one authorized employee (the primary 
authorized employee) for each group of authorized employees working on 
the same machinery, equipment, or system. For example, if three groups 
of employees are working on the fire-suppression system, there must be 
three primary authorized employees--one for each group. Each primary 
authorized employee will ensure that the members of the group have 
applied their own locks, have signed a group tag, or have otherwise 
complied with the employer's procedures for group servicing operations. 
This requirement was proposed as paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(A).
    Second, paragraph (k)(1)(ii) requires the employer to develop and 
implement procedures for determining the safe exposure status of 
individual group member, and for taking appropriate measures to control 
or limit that exposure. This requirement was proposed as paragraph 
(e)(3)(ii)(B). The primary authorized employee, whether he or she has 
been called an expert representative or systems expert, must be 
designated the primary authorized employee and meet all the 
requirements in this standard for a primary authorized employee, 
including determining potential exposures to hazardous energy of the 
group's employees, regardless of the size or complexity of a worksite. 
If work needs to be conducted on a ship's system with which the primary 
authorized employee has no experience, it is the employer's 
responsibility to ensure that, prior to any servicing operation, the 
primary authorized employee receives the necessary training in 
accordance with paragraph (o)(4) of this standard. Knowledge of 
systems, and the ability to determine whether fellow employees are 
exposed to hazardous energy during servicing, are critical skills 
needed by the individual whom the employer designates as the primary 
authorized employee.
    Third, paragraph (k)(1)(iii) is a requirement that recognizes the 
responsibilities and duties of the lockout/tags-plus coordinators and 
the role they play in group lockout/tags-plus applications. This 
paragraph differs from proposed paragraphs (e)(3)(ii)(C), which 
required that one authorized employee be assigned control of the 
overall job-associated lockout/tags-plus process, and to coordinate 
efforts among all of the groups. OSHA believes that, when there are 
multiple groups or individuals performing servicing operations on the 
same machinery, equipment, or system at the same time, which is a 
common occurrence in shipyards, a lockout/tags-plus coordinator, who 
approves each group's lockout/tags-plus system, will be more effective 
in managing all lockout/tags-plus systems. Each primary authorized 
employee must obtain approval from the lockout/tags-plus coordinator 
before applying and removing each lock or tags-plus system when 
required by paragraph (c)(7)(i) of this section. In addition, paragraph 
(k)(1)(iv) requires that the primary authorized employee coordinates 
each servicing operation with the coordinator. Involvement of the 
coordinator will ensure that the safety of other authorized employees 
who are servicing equipment is taken into account, which is critical 
when an energy source that has been, or will be, isolated provides 
power to more systems than the one being serviced.
    Paragraph (k)(2) includes the provisions for the authorized 
employees working in a group lockout/tag-plus operation. The provision 
specifies that, when servicing is performed by multiple authorized 
employees, the employer must either (i) have each authorized employee 
apply a personal lockout or tags-plus system, or (ii) use a procedure 
that the employer can demonstrate affords each authorized employee a 
level of protection equivalent to the protection provided by having 
each authorized employee apply a personal lockout/tags-plus system. 
These procedures must incorporate a means for each authorized employee 
to have personal control of, and accountability for, his or her own 
protection. This is similar to proposed (e)(3)(i). OSHA believes that 
the final language makes clear that employers have two options when 
more than one employee is working on the same machinery, equipment, or 
system at the same time: either each authorized employee applies his/
her own lock or tags-plus system, or the employees must use another 
method that is just as protective as each authorized employee applying 
a personal lockout/tags-plus system.
    Proposed paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(D) required each authorized employee 
to affix a personal lockout/tags-plus device to the group lock when 
they began work, or to use a group lockbox. Bath Iron Works gave an 
example of how they used lockboxes at their facility:

    On a group lockout/tagout, we were using multiple clips. I will 
give an example. If we do a substation lockdown for a weekend where 
we check all the substations out, it typically happens twice a year. 
On a group lockout we have had these clips, sometimes you would have 
25 locks on these things. We have gone to a lockbox now, put the 
locks inside the box and have one authorized person doing that, so 
we have evolved into that (Ex. 168, p. 278).

    During the public comment period, OSHA received testimony that 
employers would have difficulty complying with the group lockout 
requirements as proposed. Trident Seafoods Corporation explained why 
following a lockout/tagout program that was modeled after the general 
industry standard would be inappropriate:

    It's very difficult to meet the group lockout/tagout, whether 
it's working on our dock side on some of the vessels, or whether 
it's doing cleanups for the processing decks. * * * Some of the 
breaker boxes and isolation points for hydraulics are located in 
other areas. So it wouldn't make sense to have 10, 15 processors 
trudging someplace else in the vessel to go do a lockout * * * (Ex. 
199, pp 159-160).

    OSHA determined that, in certain situations, the safety of the 
servicing employees will be maximized if each employee in the group 
affixes his/her personal lockout or tags-plus system device as part of 
the group lockout. First, the placement of a personal lockout or tags-
plus system device gives the employee a degree of control over his/her 
own protection. Second, the presence of an employee's lockout or tags-
plus system will inform all other persons, including the other 
servicing employees and supervisors, that the employee is still working 
on the machinery, equipment, or system. Third, as long as the device 
remains attached, the primary authorized employee in charge of the 
group lockout or tagout knows that the job is not completed and that it 
is not safe to reenergize the machinery, equipment, or system. Fourth, 
the servicing employee will continue to be protected by the presence of 
his/her device until he/she removes it. The primary authorized employee 
is not to remove the group lockout device until each employee in the 
group has removed his/her personal device, indicating that employees 
are no longer exposed to the hazards from the servicing operation.
    However, OSHA acknowledges that it is not always possible for each 
authorized employee to affix his or her own lock or tag to an energy-
isolating device, especially when multiple employees are working on a 
highly complex system. Therefore, OSHA has clarified, in paragraph 
(k)(2)(ii), that the employer, as an alternative to having each 
employee apply a personal lockout/tags-plus system, may use a procedure 
that the employer can demonstrate affords each authorized employee a 
level of protection equivalent to that provided by having each 
authorized employee apply a personal lockout or tags-plus system. This 
level of protection requires each employee to take some sort of 
affirmative step, such as, but not limited to, a master or group 
lockbox or a group tag signed by each authorized employee, before 
servicing is started (sign-on) and after servicing is completed (sign-
off).
    If a single lock or set of lockout devices are used to isolate the 
machinery, equipment, or system from the energy sources, each 
authorized employee is afforded a means to utilize his/her personal 
lockout or tagout device so that no one employee has control of the 
means to remove the group lockout or tagout devices while employees are 
still servicing the machinery, equipment, or system. This requirement 
can be accomplished by the use of a group lockbox or other similar 
appliance. Once the machinery, equipment, or system is locked out, the 
key is placed into the lockbox, and each authorized employee places 
his/her lockout or tagout device on the box. When each individual 
authorized employee completes their portion of the work, they remove 
their lockout or tagout device from the group lockbox. After all of the 
personal lockout or tagout devices have been removed, the key for the 
group lockout devices for the machinery, equipment, or system can be 
used to remove the group lockout device. This method provides 
protection for all employees working under a particular group lockout/
tags-plus device.
    For employers who choose to implement a group tags-plus system 
using a group tag, such a system works similarly to the group lockout 
system in the sense that all authorized employees must take the 
affirmative action of signing the group tag. After the tag is properly 
placed, the employer must ensure that each authorized employee "signs 
on" by signing the tag. As each authorized employee completes his/her 
portion of the servicing, he/she will "sign off" by initialing or 
signing the tag. Once all employees have signed off, the primary authorized 
employee will be able to proceed with removing the tag.
    OSHA notes that paragraph (k)(2)(ii) gives employees flexibility to 
develop a system equivalent to the group lockout/tags-plus systems 
described above by including paragraphs (k)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) as 
examples of how employers can implement this system. The Agency 
included as examples signing a group tag or tag equivalent, attaching a 
personal identification device to a group lockout device, or performing 
some comparable action before servicing is started. Following the 
servicing operation, employees must then sign off the group tag or 
equivalent, detach their personal identification devices, or perform a 
comparable action that signifies they completed their work. Some 
employers may choose to use work permits or other systems for providing 
protection to employees in group servicing situations. Employers who 
elect that option must be able to demonstrate that their systems 
protect each authorized employee to the same degree as a personal lock 
or personal tags-plus system. That level of protection is significant; 
thus, the employer would need to develop well-designed and carefully 
monitored procedures that include "sign on" and "sign off" by each 
authorized employee, and provide thorough training to all authorized 
employees and lockout/tags-plus coordinators.
    A note \11\ to paragraph (k)(2) was added for those situations when 
the Navy ship's force maintains control of the machinery, equipment, or 
systems on a vessel and prohibits the employer from applying or 
removing the lockout/tags-plus system or starting up the machinery, 
equipment, or systems being serviced. In these specific instances, the 
shipyard employer is in compliance with the requirements in paragraphs 
(k)(1)(iii) and (k)(2) provided that the employer ensures that the 
primary authorized employee takes the following steps in the following 
order: (1) Before servicing begins and after deenergization, (a) 
verifies the safe exposure status of each authorized employee, and (b) 
signs a group tag (or a group tag equivalent) or performs a comparable 
action; and (2) after servicing is complete and before reenergization, 
(a) verifies the safe exposure status of each authorized employee, and 
(b) signs off the group tag (or the group tag equivalent) or performs a 
comparable action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See rationale for this note in the summary and explanation 
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The U.S. Navy uses a system that incorporates procedures from the 
Navy's Tagout User's Manual (TUM) and Work Authorization Form (WAF) for 
controlling hazardous energy during servicing. This system requires the 
employer's primary authorized employee, but not each authorized 
employee, to sign the WAF. As discussed above, the Navy ship's force 
maintains control of the machinery, equipment, and systems during 
servicing, which removes control from the individual shipyard 
employers. Since it is the shipyard employer's authorized employees who 
perform the servicing operations and who are thus exposed, it remains 
the responsibility of the shipyard employer to ensure the safety of the 
authorized employees.
    The requirement in this final standard for affirmative steps to be 
taken by each authorized employee in a group lockout/tags-plus 
situation duplicates requirements in OSHA's lockout/tags-plus standards 
for general industry and the electric power industry. As OSHA noted in 
the preamble to the final electric power generation standard, the 
fundamental premise of lockout or tagout is "personal protection." 59 
FR 4319, 4360, Jan. 31, 1994. However, the Agency agreed that some 
"modification of the general rule" for employees to apply their own 
personal locks or tags is warranted under specific circumstances, 
including, to a limited extent, in group lockout or tagout situations. 
59 FR at 4360. Accordingly, OSHA promulgated Sec.  1910.269(d)(8)(ii), 
which includes the following provision:

    (8) Additional requirements.
    * * *
    (ii) When servicing or maintenance is performed by a crew, 
craft, department, or other group, they shall use a procedure which 
affords the employees a level of protection equivalent to that 
provided by the implementation of a personal lockout or tagout 
device. Group lockout or tagout devices shall be used in accordance 
with the procedures required by paragraphs (d)(2)(iii) and 
(d)(2)(iv) of this section including, but not limited to, the 
following specific requirements:
    * * *
    (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 or 
equipment being serviced or maintained.

Sec.  1910.269(d)(8)(ii)(D) (emphasis added).

    In the preamble to the final electric power generation standard, 
OSHA explicitly rejected a system that did not specify the use of 
individual locks or tags by the individual employees of a group but, 
rather, accorded to a single authorized employee the responsibility for 
all employees in the group. 59 FR at 4361. OSHA acknowledged the 
difficulty of addressing LOTO when complex equipment is serviced by 
numerous employees extending across multiple workshifts. Id. 
Nonetheless, the Agency stressed its basic approach of requiring 
individual responsibility for application and removal of lockout or 
tagout devices, stating:

    (1) [I]rrespective of the situation, the requirements of the 
final rule specify that each employee performing maintenance or 
servicing activities be in control of hazardous energy during his or 
her period of exposure.
    (2) The procedures must ensure that each authorized employee is 
protected from the unexpected release of hazardous energy by 
personal lockout or tagout devices. No employee may affix the 
personal lockout or tagout device of another employee.
    (3) The use of such devices as master lock and tags are 
permitted and can serve to simplify group lockout/tags-plus 
procedures.* * * In a tagging system, a master tag may be used, as 
long as each employee personally signs on and signs off on it and as 
long as the tag clearly identifies each authorized employee who is 
being protected by it.

Id. at 4261-62.

    The Occupational Safety and Health Commission addressed the group 
lockout/tags-plus provisions in the electric power generation standard 
in Exelon Generating Corp., 2005 OSHRC No. 17 (Apr. 26, 2005). There, 
the Commission upheld a citation issued to Exelon for Exelon's failure 
to require each employee to affix a personal lock or tag to a group 
lockout/tags-plus device or sign on/off a master tag. Id., slip op. at 
1. As the Commission noted:

    Beginning with the general industry standard and carried forward 
into the power generation standard, the core concept of lockout/
tags-plus is personal protection, that each individual worker 
controls his/her own lock or tag. This fundamental requirement does 
not convert the standard from performance oriented to a 
specification standard. Rather, individual control over the lockout/
tags-plus devices constitutes a core performance requirement of the 
standard.

Id. at 5 (emphasis in original). Accordingly, the Commission rejected 
Exelon's contention that OSHA agreed to substitute verbal notification 
of the application and removal of LOTO protection for the requirement 
of individual worker sign on/off. Id. at 6. The Commission also 
referred to OSHA's compliance directive, which approved the use of a 
work permit or master tag in a group LOTO situation, provided each 
employee takes the physical step of personally signing on and off the 
job. Id. at 7.

    OSHA developed compliance directives for the control of hazardous 
energy both in general industry (CPL 02-00-147, Feb. 11, 2008) and in 
electric power generation, transmission, and distribution (CPL 2-1.38, 
June 18, 2003). Both directives describe alternatives to individual 
locks or tags in group situations. Whether a shipyard employer adopts 
an alternative system described in a compliance directive, or develops 
its own, the employer must demonstrate that the control and 
accountability procedures provide a level of protection to authorized 
employees that is at least equivalent to the protection afforded to 
them when they affix their own lock to the energy-isolating device. 
Such a system would comply with the group lockout/tags-plus provisions 
in shipyard employment.
Paragraph (l)--Procedures for Multi-Employer Worksites
    Paragraph (l) of Sec.  1915.89 sets forth requirements for 
exchanging information and coordinating responsibilities for a lockout/
tags-plus program among host and contract employers.\12\ These 
requirements are fundamental to any effective and safe lockout/tags-
plus program on a multi-employer worksite.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ OSHA also replaced the proposed terms "outside employer" 
and "on-site employer" with "contract employer" and "host 
employer," respectively. These terms are used throughout the 
industry and in other OSHA regulations. To assist employers and 
workers, the Agency added definitions in Sec.  1915.80(b) for both 
contract and host employers. For purposes of this subpart, a 
"contract employer" is often a subcontractor with employees who 
provide specialized trade services to the shipyard such as painting, 
joinery, carpentry, or scaffolding. The contract employer is under 
contract to the host employer, or to another employer under contract 
to the host employer at the host employer's worksite. This 
definition excludes employers providing incidental services not 
related to shipyard employment (such as mail delivery or office 
supply services). A "host employer" is an employer in charge of 
coordinating work or hiring other employers to perform shipyard-
related work or to provide shipyard-related services at a multi-
employer worksite.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The multi-employer requirements are necessary because the existence 
of additional employers and their employees at a workplace makes 
addressing safety and health conditions at the workplace complex. For 
example, one employer may introduce hazards into the workplace where 
employees of other employers are exposed. Because these situations 
cannot be prevented, the host employer must establish and implement 
procedures that will protect all workers. All employers need 
information about relevant hazards present at the worksite to enable 
them to fulfill their obligations to protect workers. For these 
reasons, communication and coordination among employers are essential.
    The following accident description highlights the need for 
employers to understand and follow a host employer's energy control 
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 that the 
employee and 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 conveyed to the other employees, nor was there any 
coordination between employers or tasks (72 FR 72452, 72496, Dec. 20, 
2007).
    Such tragic events, and the increased reliance on contractors 
throughout the shipyard industry, led OSHA to conclude that 
responsibilities for the control of hazardous energy must be assigned 
to all employers, and all employers must be held accountable for 
discharging those responsibilities properly. It is common practice to 
hire contractors for non-routine, specialized work, or as workloads 
fluctuate. Shipyard employers provided testimony on the use and number 
of contractors hired by shipyards. For example, Roy Martin of Manitowoc 
Marine Group testified:

    [Just] in my experience, you know, it can range as small as two 
different types of subcontractors up to four or five, just depending 
on the type of work, especially when you are discussing new 
construction versus repair, you will see a lot of multi-employer[s] 
in the repair end of the business (Ex. 168, p. 81).

Similarly, Trident Seafoods commented that it "employ[s] over 190 
subcontractors at various times throughout the year at both locations" 
(Ex. 198, p. 70).

    As a result of its analysis of the entire rulemaking record, OSHA 
made several changes to the proposed provisions affecting multi-
employer worksites. Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(i) required that, when 
outside personnel, such as contractors or ship's crew, perform 
servicing operations at a worksite, the on-site employer and the 
outside employer must inform each other of their respective lockout or 
tagout procedures. Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(ii) required the on-site 
employer to ensure that his/her employees and contractors understand, 
and comply with, all restrictions and prohibitions of the outside 
employer's energy-control program. The purpose of the proposal was to 
ensure that each employer at a multi-employer worksite be responsible 
for the control of hazardous energy according to that employer's own 
lockout or tagout procedures, and communicate those procedures to other 
employers at the worksite. However, echoing the comments of other 
employers, American Seafoods Company stated that the host employer, and 
not the contract employer, should be responsible for lockout/tags-plus: 
"The employees or contractors who perform work on a particular system 
are unlikely to have the capability of identifying all energy sources, 
either initially based on engineering drawings and schematics or 
physically on the ship" (Ex. 105.1). OSHA finds American Seafoods' 
argument persuasive, and concludes that the control of hazardous energy 
must be assigned to the host employer, not outside employers. Thus, 
OSHA modified this section to place control of hazardous energy under 
the on-site, or host, employer. In response to comments requesting 
clarification of the roles of shipyard employers and contractors in 
lockout/tags-plus situations, OSHA added new provisions to paragraph 
(l) that specify, and differentiate between, the responsibilities of 
the host employer and the contract employer. Paragraph (l)(1) requires 
that the host employer establish and implement procedures to protect 
employees from hazardous energy in multi-employer worksites. The 
procedures must specify the responsibilities for both the host employer 
and the contract employer(s). The responsibilities of the host employer 
are established in Sec.  1915.89(l)(2). Paragraph (l)(2)(i) requires 
the host employer to inform each contract employer about the contents 
of the host employer's lockout/tags-plus program and procedures, which 
may also include training. The host employer, in conjunction with the 
contract employers, must decide which employees to train. Manitowoc 
Marine Group testified that it will train employees of contract 
employers when necessary:

    And I have even seen cases where you will have another company--
this is really important about the multi-employer work site where 
you actually have to deal with these other employees so that they 
know there are other ways--even if you lockout, there are other ways to 
bypass some of these older systems and energize. So it is very 
important that we not only train our employees and safeguard them 
against the energies, we have to come in and train the contractors 
and actually get them, with our supervision, to understand what they 
are doing, what their processes are, and put in place our best 
practices (Ex. 168, pp. 113-114).

    Paragraph (l)(2)(ii) requires that the host employer instruct each 
contract employer to follow the host employer's lockout/tags-plus 
program and procedures. Shipyard employers provided testimony on how 
they are already implementing this requirement at their facilities. 
Foss Maritime testified: "Subcontractors go through our supervision to 
do the lockout/tags-plus measures" (Ex. 198, p. 14). Trident Seafoods 
described how contract employers working on Trident vessels follow 
Trident's hazardous-energy control program:

    We've developed a set of contractor safety guidelines that we 
have our subcontractors sign, and in that they have to follow, for 
instance, on like a tagout specifically, they have to come on and 
actually use the lockout/tagout on Rule 1910.1[4]7 on our vessels 
when they perform work for us (Ex. 198, p. 90)

    Paragraph (l)(2)(iii) requires the host employer to ensure that the 
lockout/tags-plus coordinator knows about all servicing operations and 
communicates with each contract employer. This communication must 
involve each contract employer with employees servicing machinery, 
equipment, or systems, or working in an area where servicing is being 
performed. The lockout/tags-plus coordinator should communicate with 
contractors about the host employer's lockout/tags-plus program and 
procedures and the role of the lockout/tags-plus coordinator. 
Establishing open lines of communication between the lockout/tags-plus 
coordinator and contractors is important because the contractor is 
responsible for alerting the employer (i.e., lockout/tags-plus 
coordinator) of any new lockout/tags-plus hazards the coordinator 
identifies.
    Bath Iron Works explained how contract employers must comply with 
Bath Iron Works' program, and report to Bath's system experts to apply 
a lock or tags-plus system:

    Under our program at Bath * * * we have contractors come in, but 
they follow our standard, we have systems experts located within a 
facility on those halls that control hazardous energy. For example, 
our electricians, we have 500 electricians in the plant. Only 50 of 
those, 45 or 50 are what we call system experts. So, anytime anybody 
works on those ships, whether it is our own employees, contractors, 
vendors, anybody, they have to follow the guideline and the 
authority of that particular ship system expert. So, we lockout, we 
will tagout that particular system for that contractor. He validates 
it, so do we (Ex. 168, p. 252).

    The comments and testimony cited above demonstrate that some 
shipyards are already successfully controlling hazardous energy by 
requiring contractors to follow the host employer's procedures. These 
and other comments in the record convinced OSHA that having contractors 
follow the host employer's lockout/tags-plus program and procedures is 
appropriate and provides the most reliable protection for all workers. 
Therefore, in paragraphs (l)(1) and (l)(2) of the final rule OSHA 
revised the multi-employer worksite procedures to now require 
contractors to follow the host employer's program rather than the 
reverse, as OSHA proposed (proposed Sec.  1915.89(e)(2)).
    Paragraphs (l)(3)(i) through (iii) set forth the requirements for 
contract employers. Under paragraph (l)(3)(i), the contract employer 
must follow the host employer's lockout/tags-plus program and 
procedures. As stated previously, OSHA believes that the ultimate 
responsibility for lockout/tags-plus must remain with the host 
employer. However, the contract employer has the important 
responsibility to ensure that its employees know and understand the 
host employer's lockout/tags-plus program and procedures. Adherence to 
the program will result in contract employees protecting themselves and 
others during potentially dangerous work involving hazardous energy.
    Paragraph (l)(3)(ii) requires the contract employer to inform the 
host employer about any lockout/tags-plus hazards associated with the 
contract employer's work, and any abatement steps being taken by the 
contract employer to correct such hazards. Manitowoc Marine Group 
provided testimony regarding how it interacts with contract employers, 
and particularly how its shipyards obtains information regarding the 
work the contractor employer will perform, when it first arrives at the 
worksite:

    When they come on site, we have a quick orientation with 
everybody that steps in the facility, myself or any of my staff will 
actually, once the general orientation is over with, try to get a 
grasp of what their work scope is, to identify the different 
processes. And if it is identified that there will be a lockout 
procedure or work near equipment that has been locked out, we will 
go through our process, what we expect, and ensure that they follow 
our procedure (Ex. 168, p. 124).

    OSHA added paragraph (l)(3)(iii) to require that contract employers 
inform host employers (i.e., lockout/tags-plus coordinators) of any 
previously unidentified lockout/tags-plus hazards the contractor 
employer and employees identify at the worksite. As commenters 
explained, servicing operations on vessels are often complex, involving 
many employees and multiple employers. This provision ensures that the 
host employer is alerted and takes appropriate precautions if 
contractors discover new hazards during the servicing operation. OSHA 
believes this requirement is necessary to ensure that all employees, 
regardless of their employer, are protected from hazardous energy 
during servicing operations. Although OSHA did not propose this 
requirement, the Agency believes it is responsive to comments received 
during the rulemaking.
    Finally, OSHA added two notes to paragraph (l) for clarification. 
The first note explains that the host employer may include provisions 
for the contract employer to have more control over the lockout/tags-
plus program when those provisions would provide an equivalent level of 
safety for both the host and contract employers' employees. There may 
be situations when it is preferable for contract employees to comply 
with their own employer's lockout/tags-plus program when working at a 
host employer's worksite. The note acknowledges these situations, and 
gives employers flexibility in how they interact with their 
contractors.
    The second note to paragraph (l) clarifies that when the U.S. Navy 
contracts directly with a contract employer, and the Navy ship's force 
maintains control of the lockout/tags-plus systems or devices, the 
contract employer shall consider the Navy to be the host employer for 
purposes of Sec.  1915.89(l)(3). There are situations when the Navy 
will contract directly with a subcontract employer instead of the 
shipyard. As defined in Sec.  1915.80, a host employer is in charge of 
coordinating work or hires other employers to perform shipyard-related 
work, or provide shipyard-related services. During these situations, 
that contract employer would follow the Navy lockout/tags-plus program 
and procedures, inform the Navy ship's force of any lockout/tags-plus 
hazards associated with their work, and inform the Navy ship's force of 
any previously unidentified hazards.
Paragraph (m)--Procedures for Shift or Personnel Changes
    The standard requires that the employer's lockout/tags-plus program 
include specific procedures to ensure the continuity of lockout or 
tagout protection during workshift and personnel changes. In final 
paragraph (m), OSHA adopted proposed paragraph (e)(4), and added a new 
requirement.
    OSHA is cognizant that this standard covers servicing of complex 
machinery, equipment, and systems, and that work can extend across 
several workshifts. Under the basic approach of this standard, each 
authorized employee is responsible for the application and removal of 
his/her own lockout or tagout device. However, servicing of some of the 
larger vessels may take weeks or months, and require that hundreds or 
thousands of lockout/tags-plus devices to be used.
    Paragraph (m) of this final rule requires that specific procedures 
be utilized to ensure the continuity of lockout/tags-plus protection 
for employees during shift or personnel changes. Paragraph (m)(1), 
which is adopted from the proposed rule, requires that the employer 
establish procedures for the orderly transfer of lockout/tags-plus 
systems between authorized employees when starting and ending their 
workshifts, and when there are personnel changes. It is essential that 
locks or tags-plus systems be maintained on energy-isolating devices 
through transition periods involving shift or personnel changes so that 
no employee is exposed to uncontrolled energy hazards associated with 
servicing machinery, equipment, or systems.
    In paragraph (m)(2), OSHA clarified and expanded the application of 
proposed Sec.  1915.89 (e)(4). Paragraph (m)(2) requires, for workshift 
or personnel changes, there be an orderly transfer of lockout/tags-plus 
protection between authorized employees coming onto, and leaving, a 
workshift. Paragraph (m)(2) specifies what basic steps must be included 
to ensure that workshift changes ensure continuity of lockout/tags-plus 
protection.
    This provision was written in performance-based language so that 
the employer can conduct shift or personnel transitions in any manner 
that the employer determines is appropriate, safe, and effective. As 
stated in the preamble to the general industry standard, the transfer 
of responsibility can be accomplished by the on-coming shift's 
authorized employee accepting the control of the machinery, equipment, 
or system involved prior to the off-going authorized employee 
relinquishing such control (54 FR 36682, Sept. 1, 1989). Some employers 
may choose to have only one shift conduct work on any particular 
machinery, equipment, or system so that there will be no transfer of 
responsibility. Although such a restriction may not be practical for 
shipyards having at least two work shifts, it may be a reasonable 
alternative for some employers.
    An alternative means of transfer may involve the on-coming 
authorized employee accompanying the off-going authorized employee to 
inspect and verify isolation, and to ensure that the lock or tags-plus 
system is still intact. This alternative provides the on-coming 
authorized person the assurance that the machinery, equipment, or 
system has been deenergized prior to work. The oncoming authorized 
employee may also initial the lockout/tags-plus log and tag after 
verifying isolation, or apply his/her own lock or tags-plus system. 
This action will inform all authorized employees who are working on the 
machinery, equipment, or system of the change in personnel.
    There may be occasions when the authorized employee who applied the 
lock or tags-plus system is not the employee who completes the job. 
Because the authorized employee applying the lock or tags-plus system 
is being protected by that device or system, it is important that the 
device or system not be removed by anybody else. However, if removal by 
another authorized employee occurs at anytime, including during another 
workshift, the employer must comply with the requirements of paragraphs 
(i)(3)(i) through (i)(3)(iii) of this section.
    Many shipyard employment employers commented that their lockout/
tags-plus programs already include procedures for the orderly transfer 
of lockout/tags-plus systems and verification of isolation during 
workshift and personnel changes (Exs. 105.1; 116.2; 120.1). These 
comments indicate that employers consider such procedures to be 
essential to fully protect employees involved in servicing operations. 
Therefore, the final rule includes these procedures.
Paragraph (n)--Lockout/Tags-Plus Materials and Hardware
    Paragraph (n) addresses the locks and tags-plus system hardware 
used to isolate, secure, or block hazardous- energy sources to any 
machinery, equipment, or system. When attached to energy-isolating 
devices, both locks and tags are tools that protect employees from 
hazardous energy. A "lock" (proposed as "lockout device"), as 
defined in the final standard, provides protection by holding the 
energy-isolating device in a safe position, thus preventing the release 
of energy and the startup or energization of the machinery, equipment, 
or system (Sec.  1915.80(b)(13)). A tag (proposed as "tagout device") 
is a prominent warning device that provides protection by identifying 
the energy-isolating device as a source of potential danger (Sec.  
1915.80(b)(30)). The tag is used to indicate that the energy-isolating 
device, and the equipment being controlled by such device, may not be 
activated until the tag is removed by an authorized employee. An 
additional safety measure provides a barrier to the release of energy 
(Sec.  1915.80(b)(1)). When the use of tags is combined with an energy-
isolating device and an additional safety measure, a tags-plus system 
is established (see the summary and explanation for paragraph (c)(4) 
above).
    Whether a lock or tags-plus system is used, paragraph (n)(1) 
requires that the employer provide materials and hardware to block 
hazardous energy. With the exception of minor editorial changes, this 
requirement is the same as the requirement proposed in Sec.  
1915.89(b)(5)(i). OSHA removed the examples of such materials and 
hardware from proposed paragraph (b)(5)(i), and added them to the 
definition of "lockout/tags-plus materials and hardware" (Sec.  
1915.80(b)(16)). These examples are not exhaustive; rather, they 
exemplify hardware and materials that currently exist. Employers may 
use other hardware or materials that effectively isolate hazardous 
energy from the machinery, equipment, or systems being serviced.
    Final paragraph (n)(2) retains the same provision as proposed 
(b)(5)(ii), which required that each lock and tag be uniquely 
identified for lockout/tags-plus applications. One way for employers to 
comply with this requirement would be to use the same color lock, or 
tag, for all lockout/tags-plus applications. For example, the employer 
could select red locks for lockout applications only. This measure also 
would meet the requirements of paragraph (n)(3)(ii) that each lock be 
standardized in either color, shape, or size. Use of, for example, red 
locks will assist employees and contractors in a shipyard facility to 
immediately recognize that servicing is taking place under a lockout 
application. In addition, all employees and contractors would recognize 
that they are not to use red locks for any other purpose while in the 
shipyard. No comments were received on these provisions, and the final 
rule retains this practice to protect employees.
    The remainder of paragraph (n) specifies the requirements for locks 
and tags. These requirements specify that these items must be durable, 
standardized, substantial, and identifiable.
    Durable--Paragraph (n)(3)(i)(A), proposed Sec.  
1915.89(b)(5)(ii)(A)(1), requires that locks and tags be able to 
withstand the environmental conditions to which they are exposed for 
the maximum duration of expected exposure. Proposed paragraphs 
(b)(5)(ii)(A)(2) and (3) were combined in this final standard as 
paragraph (n)(3)(i)(B), which states that each tag must be constructed 
and printed so that it does not deteriorate or become illegible in wet 
or damp environments, or when used in environments where corrosives 
(for example, acid and alkali chemicals) are used or stored. OSHA 
believes that combining these provisions into one paragraph simplifies 
the requirements for tags. No comments were received on either of these 
provisions, and OSHA is retaining the requirements in this final 
standard.
    Standardized--Paragraph (n)(3)(ii) requires that locks and tags be 
standardized. Both locks and tags must be standardized in at least 
color, shape, or size so they are readily recognized and associated 
with the control of hazardous energy. As described above, an employer 
could elect to use red locks only for lockout and train employees in 
such use, thus meeting the requirements of Sec. Sec.  1915.89(n)(2), 
(n)(3)(ii)(A) and (o)(2)(ii). In addition, tags must be standardized in 
print and format (paragraph (n)(3)(ii)(B)).
    Several commenters stated that standardizing locks and tags would 
be difficult to accomplish in a shipyard (Exs. 101.1; 105.1; 117.1; 
124; 126; 128; 130.1). American Seafoods Company and Lake Union Drydock 
Company asked: "How will shipyards ensure that [LOTO] devices are 
standardized within the facility in at least color, shape or size when 
working with hundreds of vessel crews and contractors? Wouldn't it be 
more appropriate and just as effective to ensure all devices are 
distinctive, [and] readily identifiable?" (Exs. 105.1; 101.1). Both 
Northrop Grumman-Gulf Coast and the American Shipbuilding Association 
stated: "[T]he lockout device standardization requirement * * * [is] 
an undue impediment to selecting the most effective devices for 
controlling hazardous energy" (Exs. 112.1; 117.1). The Agency 
disagrees with these commenters. The shipyard employer has control over 
work performed in its facility, and should never permit the use of 
unsafe tools or work practices. The requirement for standardized locks 
and tags enhances safety in shipyards, which may have hundreds, or even 
thousands, of employees. These employees, who may include ship's crew 
and contractors, will best be served if they can immediately recognize, 
by seeing standardized locks or tags, that the machinery, equipment, or 
system is being serviced.
    Substantial--For this final standard, proposed paragraphs 
(c)(5)(ii)(C)(1) and (2) were divided into four provisions, 
(n)(3)(iii)(A) through (D), for clarity. Paragraph (n)(3)(iii)(A) 
requires that each lock be sturdy enough to prevent removal without the 
use of excessive force or special tools such as bolt cutters or other 
metal-cutting tools. Paragraph (n)(3)(iii)(B) requires that each tag 
and tag attachment be sturdy enough to prevent inadvertent or 
accidental removal. Paragraph (n)(3)(iii)(C) requires that the tag 
attachment have the general design and basic safety characteristics 
equivalent to a one-piece nylon cable tie that will withstand all 
environmental conditions, and paragraph (n)(3)(iii)(D) requires that 
the tag attachment be non-reusable, attachable by hand, self-locking, 
and non-releasable. It must also have a minimum unlocking strength of 
50 pounds. Paragraphs (n)(3)(iii)(B) through (D), discussed above, were 
proposed as paragraph (c)(5)(C)(2). No comments were received on these 
provisions. OSHA continues to believe that all lockout/tags-plus system 
hardware and materials must be durable enough to prevent inadvertent 
removal and, therefore, has retained the requirements in this final 
standard.
    Identifiable--Paragraph (n)(3)(iv), proposed (c)(5)(D), requires 
that each lock and tag clearly identify the authorized employee who 
applied it. Paragraph (n)(3)(v) (proposed paragraph (c)(5)(ii)) 
requires that tags warn of hazardous conditions that could arise if the 
machine or equipment is energized, and include a legend such as one of 
the following: DO NOT START; DO NOT OPEN; DO NOT CLOSE; DO NOT 
ENERGIZE; DO NOT OPERATE. Stamping the authorized employee's name or 
identification number on the lock will allow individuals to quickly 
identify who applied the lock. Manitowoc Marine Group testified that 
employees' names are on the locks (Ex. 168, p. 129). If an employer 
chooses not to have names, identification numbers, or other employee 
identifiers on the lock, the employee must apply a tag to the lock that 
contains identifying information. In such a case, the authorized 
employee's name or identification number may be written in indelible 
ink or with any medium that will withstand the conditions to which the 
tag will be exposed. No comments were received on these two provisions. 
OSHA believes that having the authorized employee's name or 
identification number on the lock or tag is necessary for the 
protection of all involved employees. Therefore OSHA retained this 
requirement in the final standard.
Paragraph (o)--Information and Training
    Paragraph (o) sets forth the lockout/tags-plus training 
requirements. OSHA revised the training requirements to address the 
incorporation of the lockout/tags-plus approach to the final rule. The 
revisions also ensure that employees have adequate training targeted 
for their level of exposure and responsibilities under the lockout/
tags-plus program. These new training provisions are as equally 
important whether the employee(s) involved in the servicing of 
machinery, equipment, or systems are employees of the host or contract 
employer. In the event that a contract employee is involved in the 
servicing of machinery, equipment, or systems, it is the contract 
employer's responsibility to provide the necessary training for the 
control of hazardous energy in accordance with the host employer's 
lockout/tags-plus program.
    Commenters said that many employers in shipyard employment already 
have implemented hazardous-energy training. For example, Amy Duz of 
iWorkWise described lockout/tags-plus training programs are set up for 
fishing vessels:

    The training basically consists of orienting to whatever the 
procedure is used on the boat, whatever those procedures are within 
the scope of what their job is. So, for instance, you know, training 
for an engineer would be a little bit different. There'd be some 
hands on, some on-the-job training, as well as some initial 
orientation and, you know, going over drawings and what not, and a 
processing employee would only, you know, would be trained to the 
affected employee level, and if it is in their procedures that they 
would perform lockout, then they would be trained what to do in that 
regard. Getting them, for instance, to verify that energy has been 
disabled is a trick because they don't know what they are doing [or] 
working on (Ex. 168, pp. 428-429).

    Roy Martin described Manitowoc Marine Group's lockout/tagout 
training program:

    It is a video portion--we actually do the video--but after the 
conclusion of a video, we will take out the lockout/tagout 
procedures that we have, the facility procedures, as well as the 
ones that we have developed on some of the vessels, especially if we 
are getting close to the repair time frame, and we will go through 
these procedures pretty much line item by line item, so they 
understand exactly what we need to do. We will actually present them 
with the entire booklet of all the machine specifics that are in the 
facility itself. And then we will look at our lockout/tagout devices 
and ensure that they understand that and there are no issues. There 
will be a question-and-answer period, a general discussion, and at that 
point, pretty shortly after that, we will start our process of annual 
review to ensure that they are following the procedures. And we identify 
just specific people that are authorized lockout/tagout personnel (Ex. 
168. pp. 122-123).

    These and other comments discussing lockout/tags-plus training 
substantiate the importance of including lockout/tags-plus training in 
this final rule.
    Paragraph (o)(1) specifies when employers must provide lockout/
tags-plus initial training. It requires that employers complete initial 
lockout/tags-plus training for employees no later than 180 days after 
the effective date of this final rule (i.e., 180 days after publication 
of the final rule in the Federal Register). A number of commenters said 
that it would take time for them to develop lockout/tags-plus programs 
and procedures, and to provide training to all affected employees, 
authorized employees, and lockout/tags-plus coordinators. OSHA believes 
that allowing employers 180 days to accomplish lockout/tags-plus 
training for employees will ensure that all employers, including small 
employers, have sufficient time to develop a training program.
    OSHA believes training for new employees is common in shipyard 
employment. For instance, Dakota Creek Industries commented on its 
initial and ongoing training of employees:

    It depends on the new crew that might be coming in. But for 
anybody new coming into the yard, they go through an orientation 
process in general which touches on that, and at the craft level 
they do regular monthly training sessions as needed as new people 
come in and join the staff (Ex. 198, p. 110).

    In paragraphs (o)(2) through (o)(5), OSHA identified four 
categories of employees who must receive lockout/tags-plus training: 
Employees whose work operations are or may be in an area where a 
lockout/tags-plus system is in effect, affected employees, authorized 
employees, and lockout/tags-plus coordinators. With the exception of 
the lockout/tags-plus coordinator, these are the same categories that 
OSHA included in the proposed rule (proposed paragraphs (b)(7)(i)-
(iii)).
    Paragraphs (o)(2) through (o)(5) establish tiered training 
requirements for each employee category based on employees' level of 
exposure to hazardous energy and their duties and responsibilities 
under the employer's lockout/tags-plus program. All employees whose 
work operations are or may be in a lockout/tags-plus area receive the 
first level of training (paragraph (o)(2)). Since the work operations 
of affected employees, authorized employees, and lockout/tags-plus 
coordinators also are in a lockout/tags-plus area, they also must 
receive first-tier training. Northrop Grumman-Newport News supported 
this approach: "We concur with the need to provide a robust training 
program for all employees who work directly with or in the vicinity of 
isolated systems/equipment" (Exs. 116.2; 120.1).
    In addition to first-level training, affected employees must have 
second-level of training (paragraph (o)(3)). Authorized employees 
receive the first, second, and third levels of training (paragraph 
(o)(4)); and lockout/tags-plus coordinators receive all four levels of 
training (paragraph (o)(5)). The relative degree of knowledge that 
authorized, affected, and other employees must acquire varies. The 
lockout/tags-plus coordinator and authorized employees need the most 
extensive training because of their responsibilities, respectively, for 
the entire lockout/tags-plus program and procedures, and for 
implementing energy control procedures (for example, shutting down and 
isolating energy sources, applying and removing locks and tags-plus 
systems) to perform servicing operations.
    The U.S. Navy suggested the idea of tailoring training to 
employees' job duties under the lockout/tags-plus program:

    Warship shipboard hazardous energy control program requires 
specific training of all personnel who execute process steps. It 
also requires general training for all workers on generic energy 
control issues which could be affected by any worker. Requiring all 
workers to be trained in aspects of the program for which they have 
no involvement or authority to apply is cumbersome (Ex. 132.2).

    The U.S. Navy also recommended limiting the amount of training 
depending on the employees' duties. For example, in reference to 
training on attaching tags, the Navy said that "only personnel 
authorized to attach tags should require this training" (Ex. 132.2). 
OSHA agrees that focusing training on the information that is most 
essential to the employee's specific job duties will help to increase 
employees' proficiency in the work practices that are necessary to 
ensure they are able to safely perform their jobs and not expose others 
to hazardous energy.
    To illustrate, the final rule requires that all affected employees 
and employees whose job requires them to pass through or briefly visit 
a lockout/tags-plus area be trained about the prohibitions against 
applying, tampering, or removing any lockout/tags-plus system and 
against starting up machinery, equipment, or a system that is under 
lockout/tags-plus. This information is critical for their protection, 
as well as the protection of authorized employees performing the 
servicing. However, in contrast to the proposal, the final rule does 
not require that those employees be trained so they know that tags and 
their means of attachment be made of materials that can withstand 
environmental conditions or be securely attached so they cannot be 
accidentally or inadvertently removed. Only authorized employees and 
lockout/tags-plus coordinators are authorized to apply tags; therefore, 
only they need to know what type of materials must be used for tags or 
how they must be attached. It is much more critical that all affected 
employees and employees passing through or briefly visiting a lockout/
tags-plus area know and correctly follow the prohibition against 
applying or removing any lockout/tags-plus system, or starting 
equipment that is being serviced.
    Similarly, the training requirements have been revised so they are 
more directly applicable to the lockout/tags-plus approach OSHA 
incorporated in the final rule. For example, since the final rule 
requires that employers use lockout/tags-plus systems, it is essential 
that employees be trained about the three basic components of those 
systems. At the same time, it reduces the need to train employees who 
work in a lockout/tags-plus area that tags may evoke a false sense of 
security because the final rule prohibits employers from using tagout 
alone.
    As mentioned earlier, paragraph (o)(2) specifies the training 
requirements for all employees who are, or may be, in an area where a 
lockout/tags-plus system is used. As indicated by the phrase "all 
employees who are, or may be, in an area," this provision applies to 
employees who are incidentally exposed to a lockout/tags-plus system, 
as well as affected employees, authorized employees, and lockout/tags-
plus coordinators; for example, employees passing through, or briefly 
visiting, an area where such a system is being, or may be, applied are 
covered by this provision. Each of these employees must know (i) The 
purpose and function of the employer's lockout/tags-plus program and 
procedures; (ii) the unique identity of the locks and tags that will be 
used, as well as the standardized shape, size, or color of these 
devices; (iii) that tags-plus systems are comprised of an energy-isolating 
device with a tag affixed, and an additional safety measure; (iv) that 
lockout/tags-plus applications are not to be tampered with or removed; 
and (v) that machinery, equipment, and systems are not to be restarted 
or reenergized while being serviced.
    Most of the training elements in paragraph (o)(2) were in the 
proposed rule, but OSHA also expanded, added, and deleted some 
requirements. For example, the proposed rule required that employees be 
trained that tags must be legible and understandable to employees. The 
final rule (paragraph (o)(2)(ii)) expands that provision to require 
that employees be trained in the unique identity of locks and tags used 
in lockout/tags-plus applications. Such training ensures that employees 
know what energy-control locks and tags look like versus other types of 
locks and tags, thereby ensuring that they know which locks and tags 
they must not remove. Training employees in the identity of locks and 
tags also will ensure that they have a better understanding of the 
components of tags-plus systems and their purpose in the overall 
lockout/tags-plus program.
    OSHA also replaced the proposed requirement that employees be 
trained that tags may evoke a false sense of security, and that tags 
need to be understood as part of an overall energy-control program. 
Instead, the final rule (paragraph (o)(2)(iii)) requires that employees 
be trained that a tags-plus system includes an energy-isolating device 
with a tag affixed and at least one additional safety measure. OSHA 
made this change so the training requirements in the final rule would 
better address the types of measures employers must use to control 
hazardous energy. Moreover, since the hazardous-energy program in the 
final rule does not permit the use of tags alone, there is less need to 
train employees about the limitations of tags.
    OSHA added a requirement in the final rule that employees working 
in or passing through a lockout/tags-plus area be trained that they are 
prohibited from starting or energizing any machinery, equipment, or 
system under lockout/tags-plus. This requirement reinforces the concept 
that only authorized employees, not employees working in or passing 
through the lockout/tags-plus area, are authorized to activate 
machinery, equipment, or systems that are under lockout/tags-plus. OSHA 
believes that this requirement, along with the prohibition against 
removing a lockout/tags-plus system, are the two most critical work 
practices that these employees must understand and follow.
    Finally, as explained above, OSHA deleted three training 
requirements (proposed Sec.  1915.89(b)(7)(ii)(A), (E), and (F)) that 
focused on tags-plus systems rather than lockout/tags-plus systems. 
OSHA believes it is more important for employees to know all components 
of the lockout/tags-plus systems being used rather than the limitations 
of tags in tags-plus systems, especially since the use of tags alone is 
not allowed in this final rule.
    OSHA believes the training components in paragraph (o)(2) are 
important to ensure employees' complete understanding of the lockout/
tags-plus program and procedures, as well as their awareness of what is 
occurring around their work areas so that they can protect themselves.
    Paragraph (o)(3) sets forth additional training requirements for 
affected employees. An affected employee is any employee who normally 
operates, for production purposes, the machinery, equipment, or system 
that is going to be serviced. Working in a lockout/tags-plus area 
increases exposure to hazardous energy. Since the definition of 
affected employee also includes an employee whose job requires working 
in a servicing area, the training requirements for affected employees 
are almost identical to those of employees whose work operations are, 
or may be, in the lockout/tags-plus area. In addition to being trained 
in the requirements in paragraph (o)(2), paragraph (o)(3) also requires 
that affected employees be trained in the use of the employer's 
lockout/tags-plus program and procedures, which was in the proposed 
rule (proposed Sec.  1915.89(b)(7)(i)(B)). OSHA believes that affected 
employees need to know the essential components of the employer's 
lockout/tags-plus program and how they work so they know that 
machinery, equipment, or systems are not to be operated while under a 
lockout/tags-plus application. Affected employees also need to 
understand which activities are servicing operations covered by Sec.  
1915.89, which of these servicing activities must be left to authorized 
employees, and which servicing activities they can perform.
    Paragraphs (o)(3)(ii) and (iii) require that affected employees be 
trained to understand that they may not apply or remove lockout/tags-
plus systems, and that lockout/tags-plus systems are not to be 
bypassed, ignored, or otherwise defeated. These two requirements are 
the most critical ones that affected employees need to understand to 
ensure their safety, as well as the safety of the authorized employees 
servicing the particular machinery, equipment, or system.
    Paragraph (o)(4) specifies the training authorized employees must 
receive in addition to the training in paragraphs (o)(2) and (o)(3). 
Most of these training requirements were in the proposed rule.
    Paragraph (o)(4)(i) (proposed Sec.  1915.89(b)(7)(i)) requires that 
authorized employees be trained in the steps that are necessary for the 
safe application, use, and removal of lockout/tags-plus systems. Since 
authorized employees apply and remove locks or tags-plus systems, it is 
crucial that they fully understand the procedures and steps they must 
follow to safely accomplish those tasks. Paragraph (o)(4)(ii), which 
was in the proposed rule, requires that authorized employees be trained 
in the type of energy sources, and the magnitude of the energy 
available, in the workplace. Both of these provisions are particularly 
important for servicing operations onboard vessels, where several types 
of energy may be present (for example, electrical, steam, hydraulic), 
and where energy may be provided by off-vessel sources. The presence of 
multiple energy sources and multiple locations of energy sources 
heightens the potential for exposure to hazardous energy, and adds 
complexity to servicing operations. As such, OSHA believes that 
authorized employees need to understand the types, sources, and 
magnitude of available energy to successfully execute the necessary 
steps to prevent energization, startup, or the release of hazardous 
energy.
    Paragraph (o)(4)(iii), which also was in the proposed rule, 
specifies that authorized employees be trained in the means and methods 
necessary for effective isolation and control of hazardous energy. OSHA 
retained this provision because the final rule now requires authorized 
employees to lock machinery, equipment, or systems that are capable of 
being locked, as well as apply both energy-isolating devices and 
additional safety measures if the machinery, equipment, or system 
cannot be locked. It is important that authorized employees understand 
this new control framework to ensure that employees are protected from 
hazardous energy during servicing operations.
    Paragraph (o)(4)(iv), which is a new provision, requires that the 
authorized employee designated as a group's primary authorized employee 
be trained to know the means for determining the exposure status of 
other employees in the group. Since both the proposed and final rules 
require that the primary authorized employee determine the exposure 
status for those employees in the group, OSHA believes that primary 
authorized employees need to receive training in this task to ensure 
their assessments are accurate. The training needs to provide the primary 
authorized employee with information necessary to understand how to 
determine whether, how, and to what extent employees in the servicing 
group are exposed to hazardous energy. This is a critical skill that 
primary authorized employees must possess because they have responsibility 
for the employees in the group, and for coordinating the lockout/tags-plus 
application with the lockout/tags-plus coordinator. If primary authorized 
employees are not trained to accurately determine the exposure status for 
the employees performing the servicing operation, their determinations may 
be incomplete, thereby leaving employees exposed to hazardous energy.
    Paragraph (o)(4)(v), which was in the proposed rule (proposed Sec.  
1915.89 (b)(7)(ii)(C)), requires that authorized employees be trained 
so they know that tags must be written so as to be legible and 
understandable to all employees. Authorized employees are responsible 
for writing the information on the tags, and this requirement will 
ensure that they carefully write the information so other employees can 
read and understand the tag, thereby increasing the protection afforded 
to employees performing servicing operations. OSHA did not receive any 
comments on this provision, but the Navy generally suggested that 
training on other similar provisions be limited to authorized employees 
and lockout/tags-plus coordinators (Ex. 132.2), which the final rule 
does.
    Paragraph (o)(4)(vi), which was in the proposed rule (proposed 
Sec.  1915.89(b)(7)(ii)(D)), requires that authorized employees be 
trained so they know that tags must be made of materials which will 
withstand the environmental conditions encountered in the workplace. 
Tags must be constructed so that they do not deteriorate or become 
illegible in wet or damp environments, or when used in environments 
where corrosives are used or stored.
    Paragraph (o)(4)(vii), which also was in the proposed rule 
(proposed Sec.  1915.89(b)(7)(ii)(F)), requires that authorized 
employees be trained so they know they must securely attach tags to 
energy-isolating devices to prevent them from becoming detached during 
servicing. This training is particularly important in shipyard 
employment, where servicing operations may take place in all types of 
weather and environmental conditions. If tags are not firmly attached, 
they may fall off if there are strong winds. Also, many servicing 
operations in shipyard employment take place in tight and confined 
spaces where employees passing by a tag could knock it off if it is not 
firmly attached. Since it is the authorized employee's responsibility 
to ensure that the tag is attached, OSHA believes that they are the 
employees who must receive such training.
    Paragraph (o)(4)(viii) requires authorized employees to be trained 
that tags are warning devices and do not provide the same physical 
barrier against the energization or startup or the release of hazardous 
energy that locks or additional safety measures provide. Similarly, 
paragraph (o)(4)(ix) requires authorized employees to understand that, 
because tags may evoke a false sense of security, they must be used in 
conjunction with energy-isolating devices. Both provisions were in the 
proposed rule. Once again, OSHA is limiting training on these 
provisions to authorized employees (and lockout/tags-plus coordinators) 
since they are the employees who apply lockout/tags-plus systems. OSHA 
believes they need to understand why OSHA is requiring employers to use 
lockout/tags-plus systems instead of tags alone. OSHA did not receive 
any comments opposing the proposed provisions.
    Finally, paragraph (o)(4)(ix) requires that authorized employees be 
trained so they know that tags must be used in conjunction with energy-
isolating devices to prevent energization, startup, or release of 
hazardous energy. OSHA proposed a similar provision, but revised it to 
better address the lockout/tags-plus system that the final rule 
requires. OSHA did not receive any comments opposing this provision.
    Paragraph (o)(5) addresses the training that lockout/tags-plus 
coordinators must have in addition to the training in paragraphs 
(o)(2), (o)(3), and (o)(4). The requirements in paragraph (o)(5) are 
new provisions that apply to the lockout/tags-plus coordinator position 
that OSHA added to the final rule. The job of lockout/tags-plus 
coordinator is critical because it directly affects the safety of 
employees working in complex shipyard environments. The position 
requires a high degree of skill and expertise. The lockout/tags-plus 
coordinator is responsible for overseeing all servicing operations and 
lockout/tags-plus applications in those operations. As such, the 
lockout/tags-plus coordinator must have a thorough working knowledge of 
the employer's lockout/tags-plus program and procedures, as well as the 
available energy sources. In addition, the coordinator needs to have a 
full understanding of the machinery, equipment, and systems that 
employees are servicing, including the energy-isolating devices and 
additional safety measures that will need lockout/tags-plus 
applications. This coordination job will necessitate being able to read 
plans and schematics of the machinery, equipment, and systems to ensure 
that all sources of energy are identified. Once sources of energy are 
identified, the coordinator also must know the means of isolation that 
will be needed. To ensure that the coordinator has the critical 
knowledge and is proficient in all of the steps necessary to protect 
employees from hazardous energy, the final rule requires that the 
coordinator receive all tiers of lockout/tags-plus training that other 
employees must receive, plus training geared specifically to the 
coordinator position.
    Paragraph (o)(5)(i) requires that lockout/tags-plus coordinators be 
trained so they know how to identify and isolate any machinery, 
equipment, or system that is being serviced. As mentioned previously, 
machinery, equipment, and systems used in shipyard employment may 
involve several different energy sources. The coordinator must be able 
to identify all of the energy sources so the sources can be shutdown 
and isolated. If any sources are missed, employees performing the 
servicing operation may be exposed to hazardous energy. Therefore, the 
coordinator must be able to accurately identify all energy sources, 
because they will be overseeing and authorizing, and possibly applying, 
the lockout/tags-plus systems necessary to protect authorized 
employees.
    Paragraph (o)(5)(ii) requires the coordinator to be trained so he/
she knows how to accurately document the lockout/tags-plus system and 
maintain the lockout/tags-plus log. Whatever methods and procedures the 
employer has established for the lockout/tags-plus log, the coordinator 
will need to be trained in them so the log is accurate. For example, if 
the employer uses an electronic log, the coordinator will need to be 
trained to operate that program.
    In this final standard, paragraph (o)(6) specifies when employees 
must be retrained or receive additional training. The employer must 
retrain each employee applicable whenever:
     A change in the employee's job assignment presents a new 
hazard or requires a greater degree of knowledge about the employer's 
program or procedures (paragraph (o)(6)(i)(A));
     A change in machinery, equipment, or systems presents a new hazard for 
which the employee has not received training (paragraph (o)(6)(i)(B));
     A change is made in the employer's lockout/tags-plus 
program or procedures (paragraph (o)(6)(i)(C)); and
     It is necessary to maintain the employee's proficiency 
(paragraph (o)(6)(i)(D)).
    OSHA did not receive any comments opposing lockout/tags-plus 
retraining in general, and some commenters support the need for it. 
Northrup Grumman's--Newport News' comments were representative of 
stakeholders: "Periodic retraining ensures that lessons learned are 
shared with all employees" (Ex. 116.2).
    In the final rule, OSHA clarified and expanded the scope of the 
proposed retraining requirements. The final rule states that paragraph 
(o)(6)(i) requires employers to retrain "employees as applicable." 
The proposed rule limited these retraining requirements to affected and 
authorized employees. The final rule clarifies that retraining must be 
provided to those employees whose jobs, tasks, or responsibilities may 
be affected by the changes. Thus, if changes in the lockout/tags-plus 
program or procedures affect any employee whose work operations are, or 
may be, in a lockout/tags-plus area, then all four categories of 
employees would need to be retrained. However, if the program or 
procedure changes pertain only to authorized employees and lockout/
tags-plus coordinators, such as changes in communication procedures 
between these employees, then the retraining can be limited to those 
two categories of employees. OSHA believes these changes will assist 
employers to appropriately direct their retraining efforts.
    The proposed rule (proposed Sec.  1915.89(b)(7)(iii)(A)) required 
that employees be retrained whenever there was any change in their job 
assignment. Northrop Grumman--Newport News commented opposing that 
approach:

    [W]e do not believe it is feasible or necessary to retrain 
employees whenever there is a change in job assignment or equipment. 
By nature, vessel construction and repair is a dynamic environment 
and equipment and job assignments change regularly. We believe 
initial and periodic refresher training is the most practical and 
beneficial means to maintain employee proficiency and knowledge. 
Periodic training ensures that lessons learned are shared with all 
employees, not just those that had a job assignment (Exs. 116.2; 
120.1).

    The U.S. Navy raised similar concerns: "In the re-training section 
the words 'whenever there is a change to their job assignment' is too 
ambiguous. Recommend adding to this--whenever there is a change to 
their job assignment that changes their role or responsibility in 
performance of the energy program" (Ex. 132.2).
    OSHA recognizes that there may be some changes in job assignments 
for which it may not be necessary to retrain employees. For example, if 
authorized employees are assigned to service the same types of 
machinery, equipment, or systems on a different vessel, they may not 
need to be retrained. In this case, additional program knowledge 
appears not to be required, and it does not appear that the employees 
will be exposed to new energy-release hazards. Likewise, if authorized 
employees are assigned to work on similar machinery, equipment, or 
systems in another area of the vessel, their current training may be 
sufficient.
    Based on the record, OSHA modified the final language to specify 
that employers provide retraining when a new job assignment presents a 
new energy-release hazard or requires a greater degree of knowledge 
about the employer's lockout/tags-plus program or procedures. For 
example, if an affected employee is newly assigned to be an authorized 
employee, it is clear that the employee would need additional training 
because the new tasks and responsibilities require greater knowledge of 
the employer's lockout/tags-plus program. In addition, the job likely 
also would involve additional hazards as the employee's new 
responsibilities would include shutting down and isolating energy 
sources, applying lockout/tags-plus systems, and performing servicing 
on machinery, equipment, or systems that are under a lockout/tags-plus 
system.
    Paragraph (o)(6)(i)(B), like the proposed rule, requires that 
employers retrain employees as applicable when there is a change in 
machinery, equipment, or systems that presents a new hazard. As with 
changes in job assignment, some changes in machinery, equipment, or 
systems are minor, and the hazards those jobs pose are within the scope 
of the employee's previous training. In such cases retraining may not 
be necessary. However, when there are substantial changes in the 
machinery, equipment, or systems being serviced, or the employee is 
unfamiliar with the new machinery, equipment, or system, retraining is 
necessary to prevent exposure of employees to hazardous energy.
    Paragraph (o)(6)(i)(C) requires that employers retrain employees as 
applicable when there is a change in the employer's lockout/tags-plus 
program or procedures. The proposed rule included this provision.
    In paragraph (o)(6)(i)(D), OSHA added a requirement that employers 
must retrain employees as "necessary" to maintain proficiency. 
Commenters generally supported retraining to maintain employee 
proficiency. Some commenters said they provide annual energy-control 
retraining. For example, Bath Iron Works and Northrop Grumman-Newport 
News stated that they provide annual lockout/tags-plus training (Ex. 
168, p. 349). In addition, James Thornton explained that Northrop 
Grumman disseminates "reminders," and conducts refresher training on 
an as-needed basis:

    For example, during the year, if we have seen a lot of near 
misses, we might put out to the yard for general distribution, a 
communication that says okay, we saw a number of these kinds of 
things, be sensitive to this particular operation, and so it is not 
just the formal training, but it is also refresher training and a 
reminder if we have had near-misses and that sort of thing (Ex. 168, 
p. 349).

    That said, OSHA notes that this provision is not a requirement to 
provide annual retraining. Rather, employers must provide retraining 
when it is necessary so their employees maintain proficiency. OSHA 
understands that many shipyard employees have long careers, and that it 
is not unusual for employees to continue in the same craft during their 
entire career. These employees may have been implementing lockout/tags-
plus procedures for an extended period of time. It is likely that these 
employees maintain a high degree of expertise and proficiency based on 
their long experience. However, to the extent that routine and habit 
may lead to risky shortcuts or missed steps in procedures, this 
provision requires retraining to restore and refresh the high degree of 
proficiency essential to prevent employees from being exposed to 
hazardous energy during servicing operations. Therefore, employers will 
need to assess their workplaces and workforce to determine the 
appropriate retraining frequency necessary to maintain employee 
proficiency.
    In sum, OSHA believes that the specific frequencies of training and 
retraining required in the final rule, as opposed to annual retraining, 
are correlated with the key times and situations in which employees 
need lockout/tags-plus training. Requiring annual retraining may not be 
adequate to ensure that employees have the critical information at the 
time they need it to perform their jobs safely. For shipyard employment 
worksites where servicing operations change frequently, it may be possible 
that employees will receive training more frequently than once a year.
    Paragraph (o)(6)(ii) requires retraining employees as applicable 
when an incident investigation or audit indicates there are deviations 
from or deficiencies in the lockout/tags-plus program or procedures, 
and when there are inadequacies in an employee's knowledge or use of 
the lockout/tags-plus program or procedures. The proposed rule 
(proposed Sec.  1915.89(b)(7)(iii)(B)) required that employees receive 
retraining when a periodic inspection reveals, or the employer has 
reason to believe, that there are deviations or inadequacies in the 
employee's knowledge or use of energy-control procedures. The final 
rule expands the requirement to require retraining when an employer's 
lockout/tags-plus program or procedures, as opposed to employees, have 
deficiencies. Requiring retraining when either employee knowledge or 
employer programs or procedures are deficient is necessary to 
adequately protect workers during servicing operations.
    OSHA believes that the retraining requirement in paragraph 
(o)(6)(ii) implicitly requires employers to implement the corrective 
actions identified in incident investigations and program audits. In 
many cases, the appropriate corrective action will be retraining.
    Paragraph (o)(6)(iii), as with the proposal (proposed Sec.  
1915.89(b)(7)(iii)(C)), requires the employer to ensure that retraining 
establishes employee knowledge and proficiency in the employer's 
lockout/tags-plus program and procedures, and in any new or revised 
procedures. This performance-based requirement gives employers 
flexibility to determine effective methods and means to attain employee 
efficiency. For example, employers could test employee proficiency, or 
have employees demonstrate safe practices, before they begin or resume 
servicing activities.
    Also implicit in this provision is the requirement that employers 
provide retraining using methods and language that employees are able 
to understand. The Agency recognizes that workers in the shipyard 
employment industry have different backgrounds, languages, ethnicities, 
and literacy levels. The employer will need to tailor the training to 
the particular demographics of their employees to ensure that the 
retraining establishes employee knowledge.
    Throughout paragraph (o), OSHA specifically states that employers 
must train or retrain employees so they know or understand the required 
content (see, for example, paragraph (o)(6)(iii)). This requirement 
means that employers must ensure that training is provided in ways that 
enable their employees to understand the information, know its meaning, 
and use that information to ensure their safety under hazardous-energy 
conditions. There are many ways employers can provide effective and 
understandable training to a diverse workforce. iWorkWise explained how 
fishing-vessel operators ensure that their Spanish-speaking employees 
understand training:

    It might be conducting the training in both English and Spanish, 
for instance, although there are a lot of other languages [besides] 
Spanish on fishing vessels. It might be, you know, watching them do 
it the first time, showing them how to do it physically. All of 
those things, I think, are used by every vessel, quite well. I mean, 
that is how they are able to do their job at all and show up when 
they are supposed to. So everything possible, I guess, is the 
answer, and I have seen it employed in a training program to get 
people to understand what they need to do (Ex. 168, p. 430).

    Bath Iron Works commented on how it ensures training is 
understandable to all employees:

    On our end, for the most part, they are all English-speaking, 
but we also do a validation exam, make sure they understand the 
material, and then we go through the answers to make sure everybody 
understands that. * * * Sometimes we have had some folks who are 
illiterate, and we have done some one-on-one training with those 
folks, so they understand (Ex. 168, pp. 350-351).

    Finally, paragraph (o)(7), like the proposal, requires the employer 
to keep a record that training has been accomplished and is current. 
OSHA revised this paragraph to require that the employer include at 
least the employee's name, date(s) of the training, and the subject of 
the training. The proposed rule only required that the record include 
the employee's name and date of training. OSHA believes that the record 
also must include the subject of the training to be a useful record. 
Employers are free to determine the form of the record. For example, 
some employers may retain training course sign-in sheets while other 
employers may maintain individual employee training records.
Paragraph (p)--Incident Investigation
    In paragraph (p), OSHA added provisions requiring employers to 
investigate each incident that resulted in, or reasonably could have 
resulted in, the energization or startup, or the release of hazardous 
energy. SESAC recommended that a shipyard lockout/tags-plus standard 
require the employer to conduct incident investigations when accidents 
or near-misses occur (Docket SESAC 1993-3, Ex. 8, p. 7). SESAC also 
recommended that employers conduct such investigations to identify 
deficiencies in the lockout/tags-plus program, and then correct any 
problems or deficiencies in the program.
    In the proposal, OSHA requested input from shipyard employers as to 
whether Sec.  1915.89 should include an incident-investigation 
requirement. Northrop Grumman--Newport News, the U.S. Navy, and Puget 
Sound Shipbuilder's Association agreed that such a requirement would be 
an important, if not critical, component of a lockout/tags-plus program 
(Exs. 116.2; 132.2; 168 p. 392). Northrop Grumman stated:

    A best practices study on hazardous energy control in shipyards 
noted that most successful programs included a provision for 
incident investigation. This provision was determined to be one of 
several strengths typically found in Shipyard Employment hazardous 
energy programs, which are absent from the General Industry 
standard. The investigation should be documented, including a cause 
analysis and corrective actions (Ex. 116.2).

    The U.S. Navy stated that it agrees "that [the requirement for] 
incident investigation[s] is an appropriate requirement to be included 
in the standard * * * [i]n order to maintain a level of quality and 
frankness necessary to assist in the continuation of a successful 
proactive program" (Ex. 132.2). In addition, Puget Sound Shipbuilder's 
Association testified: "The essential elements listed on this slide 
are the foundation for a new hazardous-energy control standard that 
will serve the employees in the shipyard industry well. * * * [Element] 
nine [addresses] incident investigations and regular inspections" (Ex. 
168, pp. 390-392).
    It is long-standing OSHA policy to encourage, and in some instances 
to require, incident reports, accident assessments, and other types of 
reports that document an investigation of an incident that could, or 
does, compromise safety. According to an OSHA Safety and Health 
Management System fact sheet entitled "Accident/incident 
Investigation":

    Near miss reporting and investigation allow you to identify and control 
hazards before they cause a more serious incident. Accident/incident investigations 
are a tool for uncovering hazards that either were missed earlier or have 
managed to slip out of the controls planned for them. It is useful only when 
done with the aim of discovering every contributing factor to the accident/incident 
to "foolproof" the condition and/or activity and prevent future occurrences. In 
other words, your objective is to identify root causes, not to primarily set blame. 
(See http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/safetyhealth/mod4_factsheets_accinvest.html.)

    OSHA believes that requiring shipyard employers to implement 
incident investigations will result in a decrease in incidents and 
near-misses. Based on the Agency's expertise and existing policy, and 
the comments from SESAC and members of the regulated community 
addressing the importance of incident investigation and reports, OSHA 
added paragraph (p), Incident investigation, to this final standard.
    Paragraph (p)(1) requires the employer to investigate each incident 
that resulted in, or could reasonably have resulted in, energization or 
startup, or the release of hazardous energy. OSHA believes that 
investigating "near misses" in addition to actual incidents is an 
important proactive measure to maintain an effective lockout/tags-plus 
program. Investigating near misses can prevent incidents and keep small 
or minor problems from becoming major problems. Further, successfully 
identifying and addressing root causes of incidents is the most 
effective way to prevent fatalities and injuries from occurring.
    Paragraph (p)(2) requires that, within 24 hours of the incident, 
the employer initiate the investigation and notify each employee who 
was, or could reasonably have been, affected by the incident. Paragraph 
(p)(3) requires that the investigation be conducted by at least one 
employee who has knowledge of, and experience in, the employer's 
lockout/tags-plus program and procedures. This employee also must have 
knowledge of, and experience in, investigating and analyzing incidents 
involving the release of hazardous energy. OSHA understands that some 
employers use outside safety and health consultants to perform various 
services, such as inspections, program development, and incident 
investigations. Thus, paragraph (p)(3) permits employers to use 
additional individuals to participate in incident investigations. Such 
individuals may include co-workers, outside consultants, or other 
ship's forces or crafts. However, the responsibility for the incident 
investigation rests with the employer, regardless of whom the employer 
may designate to assist with the task.
    Paragraph (p)(4) specifies that the employer prepare a written 
report of the investigation. This report must include the following 
seven items (paragraphs (p)(4)(i) through (vii)): the date and time of 
the incident; the date and time the incident investigation began; the 
location of the incident; a description of the incident; the factors 
that contributed to the incident; a copy of any lockout/tags-plus log 
that was current at the time of the incident; and any corrective 
actions that the employer must take as a result of the incident. OSHA 
believes that all of these items will assist the employer in 
identifying causes of the incident, as well as unsafe practices. In 
this regard, the U.S. Navy stated:

    The Navy has a robust program for formal investigations of 
energy control problems on board Navy vessels. * * * It is this 
intense focus on and formal resolution of smaller problems that 
results in the elimination of more serious problems. All safety 
programs need to include a formal investigation process which should 
include documented problem definition, cause analysis and corrective 
action determination (Ex. 132.2).

    OSHA believes that incidents or near misses may occur as a result 
of procedural mistakes, lack of knowledge, or employee error. It is 
from examining incidents that the employer can determine which 
corrective actions to take so that such incidents do not recur.
    Paragraph (p)(5) requires that the employer review the written 
incident report with each employee having job tasks related to the 
findings of the incident investigation. This review must include 
contract employees, when applicable. This review will provide employers 
with an opportunity to discuss and reinforce the importance of 
corrective actions and to identify any training or other deficiencies 
not included in the written report.
    Paragraph (p)(6) requires that the investigation and report be 
completed, and any necessary corrective actions taken, within 30 days 
of the incident. OSHA believes that 30 days is ample time for employers 
to assess the incident and, in most cases, implement corrective 
measures. Otherwise, the employer runs the risk of a repeat incident. 
However, there will be some situations that cannot be corrected within 
30 days. In those situations, paragraph (p)(7) requires the employer to 
prepare a written abatement plan that explains the circumstances of the 
delay, a proposed timeline for corrective actions to be implemented, 
and a summary of the interim steps that the employer will take to 
protect employees. Thus, when the employer cannot take corrective 
actions within 30 days of the incident, the employer must take positive 
steps to do so in a timely manner.
Paragraph (q)--Program Audits (Proposed Sec.  1915.89(b)(6))
    The standard requires that the employer perform periodic audits at 
least annually to ensure that energy-control procedures are working 
properly. OSHA explained in the preamble to the proposed standard that 
the audit (referred to as "inspection" in the proposal) must make 
four findings: (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 (72 FR 72452, 72494, 
Dec. 20, 2007).
    OSHA proposed this section as "periodic inspection," but changed 
the title to "program audits" for this final standard since many 
commenters referred to the inspections as audits. OSHA proposed that 
periodic inspections of "each" energy-control procedure be conducted 
at least annually, to ensure that the procedures were being followed, 
and to correct any deficiencies. OSHA received several comments 
regarding the change from Sec.  1910.147(c)(6) that required an 
inspection of "the" energy-control procedure (Exs. 105.1; 116.2; 
120.1). American Seafoods Company commented:

    It is not clear why OSHA has added the language, "conduct a 
periodic inspection of each procedure." This is a change from the 
General Industry standard which requires a periodic inspection of 
"the energy control procedure" [1910.147(c)(6)]. How will a 
facility inspect each procedure? For instance, if a facility has 200 
procedures, and not all of them are used every year, it is not 
reasonable for an employer to have to make someone perform each 
procedure just so they can inspect it. Indeed, it would be 
exceedingly onerous to [expect someone to perform] each procedure 
each year for a shipyard, ship repair facility, or vessel that has 
hundreds of procedures even if they were performed at least once 
(Ex. 105.1).

    Similarly, Northrop Grumman-Newport News also stated:

    This section requires annual inspection of each energy control 
procedure and a review of certain information and responsibilities 
with each authorized employee. For instance, in our Facilities-based 
program alone we have approximately 10,000 energy control procedures 
(because very few pieces of equipment/systems have a single source 
of energy) and approximately 1,300 authorized employees.
    There are thousands of jobs on a single aircraft carrier each 
day that require isolation of hazardous energy. As indicated above, 
once the work is complete, the procedure (work permit and support 
expert based assessment) are obsolete. Performing an inspection of 
obsolete procedures annually makes no sense and the number of 
distinct procedures (work permits) are too great to accomplish a full 
inspection even if the procedures were not obsolete. We recommend that 
this section be deleted and a section requiring an annual Hazardous 
Energy Control audit be added (Ex. 116.2).

    OSHA acknowledges the validity of these concerns, and modified the 
final standard in two ways. First, final paragraph (q)(1) clarifies 
that the required audits apply to program and procedures currently in 
use. Thus, if an energy-control program was implemented at some point 
during the previous year, but the servicing has been completed and the 
program discontinued, the employer need not audit the discontinued 
program. Second, in final paragraph (q)(1), OSHA deleted the proposed 
requirement for auditing "each" energy-control program. The employer 
instead may inspect a representative sample of the equipment the 
procedure cover, and consult with the authorized employees who 
implement the procedure on that equipment. Accordingly, 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 
type of procedure (Ex. 36, Letter to Thomas J. Civic, Mar. 9, 2004). 
Moreover, as stated by OSHA in an interpretation letter regarding the 
general industry requirement for periodic inspections (Ex. 35, Letter 
to Lawrence P. Halprin, Sept. 19, 1995), a group of detailed individual 
procedures are considered a single procedure for the purposes of 
periodic inspection, provided all of the procedures have the same:
     Planned equipment use;
     Procedures for applying controls (i.e., shut down, 
isolation, blocking, and securing equipment);
     Procedures for placing, removing and transferring lockout/
tags-plus devices, and identifying who has responsibility for these 
procedures; and
     Requirements for testing the machinery, equipment, or 
system and verifying the effectiveness of lockout/tags-plus devices and 
other control measures.
    In 1993, prior to the above-mentioned Agency interpretations, SESAC 
raised similar concerns about the large percentage of equipment that 
employers must inspect to determine whether the energy-control 
procedures are working properly and whether employees understand their 
responsibilities under the procedures (Docket SESAC 1993-3, Ex. 104X, 
pp. 164-169). OSHA believes the interpretations incorporated and 
discussed herein address SESAC's concerns, and the concerns of the 
commenters.
    Under final paragraph (d) of this section, OSHA requires procedures 
to be developed for the control of hazardous energy during servicing of 
any machinery, equipment, or system. However, OSHA does not require 
employers to develop a procedure for every single machine, equipment, 
or system for each type or class of vessel. In the Note to paragraph 
(d)(1) of this section, OSHA clearly stated that employers must develop 
procedures only for types of machinery, equipment, or systems. 
Paragraph (d)(2) provides an exemption to the requirement for written 
procedures under specified conditions. The Agency recognizes the large 
number of servicing operations that occur on a large vessel such as an 
aircraft carrier, and, therefore, does not require in this final 
standard that employers have a procedure, or conduct an audit of every 
procedure, for every servicing operation.
    A properly conducted program audit will determine whether an 
employer's lockout/tags-plus program and procedures are effective, and 
whether the employer is implementing the program and procedures 
properly. In addition, audits will ensure that employees implementing 
the program and procedures remain familiar with their responsibilities, 
whether they are affected employees, authorized employees, or employees 
working on the same vessel while servicing operations are being 
performed. The audit will also ensure that the employer identifies any 
deficiencies in the program and procedures, as well as in employee 
training.
    Comments and testimony confirmed that employers already are 
performing annual audits of hazardous-energy control programs and 
procedures. Northrop Grumman-Newport News testified regarding audit 
procedures at its landside operations:

    [A]ll of our procedures that are formal shipyard procedures 
enter into what we call our quality control system, so each of those 
systems is spelled out. If there is an annual requirement for 
review, updating, and inspection, that is automatic, so, in other 
words, we will get a trigger from the quality system that says 
procedure Y1022 is now up for review, and that stimulates us then to 
go and even if we have forgotten, to go and perform that review and 
analysis of that procedure consistent with the requirement, our 
quality control system. So, yes, even though we have a large number 
of procedures, we check them out (Ex. 168, p. 324).

Foss Maritime testified that it also perform annual audits:

    At least annually. We try to do it twice a year. * * * It's 
something that I do twice a year walking our facility. For my walks, 
I would generate other questions. But the electricians and the 
pipefitters who are probably the ones who are involved in lockout/
tags-plus are the ones I go to and let them audit the programs (Ex. 
198, p. 32).

    Based on these comments stating that periodic audits are accepted 
practice in some shipyards, and on OSHA's experience with periodic 
audits in other industries, OSHA is retaining the requirement that 
annual audits be conducted.
    Final paragraph (q)(2)(i) (proposed paragraph (b)(6)(A)) requires 
that the audit be performed by an authorized employee other than the 
employee using the energy-control procedures being reviewed. As an 
alternative to paragraph (q)(2)(i), OSHA added final paragraph 
(q)(2)(ii) to the final standard, which allows employers to perform the 
required audit using other individuals knowledgeable about the 
employer's lockout/tags-plus program and procedures and the machinery, 
equipment, or systems being reviewed. OSHA specified a similar 
alternative in final paragraph (p)(3), which allows employers to employ 
outside consultants, such as safety and health professionals, to 
participate in incident investigations. OSHA concludes that having such 
an outside consultant is a reasonable alternative to having an employee 
conduct the audit, especially since the consultant may provide a fresh 
perspective on the review process. However, this individual must be 
knowledgeable about the employer's program and procedures, as well as 
knowledgeable about the machinery, equipment, or systems that are being 
serviced on vessels and in landside facilities. OSHA did not receive 
any comments on the requirements of paragraph (q)(2)(i) (proposed as 
Sec.  1915.89(b)(6)(i)(A)), and is retaining these provisions, along 
with the new (q)(2)(ii), in this final standard.
    In proposed paragraph (b)(6)(i)(B), OSHA required the inspection of 
energy-control procedures to include a review, conducted between the 
inspector and each authorized employee, of the authorized employee's 
responsibilities under the energy-control program. In proposed 
paragraph (b)(6)(i)(C), if the employer used a tags-plus system, the 
inspector's review of employee responsibilities would include affected 
employees. OSHA also proposed, for tags-plus systems, that the 
inspection include a review, with authorized and affected employees, of 
the limitations of tags. Northrop Grumman-Newport News stated:

    We recommend that the periodic inspection be modified to require 
'a review of a statistically significant sample of procedures annually 
by a person knowledgeable of the operation and energy control 
procedures.' We recommend that the review of responsibilities and 
other information with authorized employees be moved to a 
performance-based requirement in the training section to ensure 
employees are knowledgeable of their responsibilities (Exs. 116.1; 
120.1).

    After reviewing the record, OSHA decided not to include these 
proposed provisions in the final standard. However, similar 
requirements for authorized employees are provided in the training 
section of the final standard. OSHA believes that these training 
requirements cover the responsibilities of the authorized employees, as 
well as other crucial training elements. (See summary and explanation 
of Sec.  1915.89(o)(4) above.)
    In paragraph (q)(3), OSHA revised the specifications for the 
program audit. Although the proposed rule included a requirement to 
review the energy-control program procedures (proposed Sec.  
1915.89(b)(6)), it did not specify what records the employer needed to 
review as part of the audit. The final rule identifies what records the 
employer must examine as part of the audit.
    Paragraph (q)(3)(i) requires that the auditor review the written 
lockout/tags-plus program and procedures. This requirement will ensure 
that the employer addresses all of the machinery, equipment, and 
systems and the specific procedures for energy control in the worksite, 
as well as confirm that the employer is in compliance with paragraph 
(b) of this section. Paragraphs (q)(3)(ii) and (iii) require the 
auditor to review the current lockout/tags-plus log and verify its 
accuracy. By reviewing the log, the auditor will determine if it is up 
to date, if all possible sources of hazardous energy supplied to 
machinery, equipment, or systems have been properly isolated, and if 
the lockout/tags-plus coordinator is properly approving and authorizing 
each lock or tagout application. Finally, under paragraph (q)(3)(iv), 
the auditor must review any incident reports that have been completed 
since the last audit. By reviewing the incident reports, the auditor 
will analyze information that could lead to further incidents. This 
review also will ensure that the employer implements any corrective 
actions identified in the incident report, and that the employer 
conducts any necessary retraining. Reviewing this information will 
allow the auditor to determine whether the corrective actions were 
appropriate and effective in decreasing the possibility of future near-
misses. Paragraphs (q)(3)(v) and (vi), like proposed paragraphs 
(b)(6)(i)(B) and (C), require employees to ensure that the auditor 
reviews with authorized employees their responsibilities under the 
lockout systems being audited, and with affected and authorized 
employees their responsibilities under the tags-plus systems being 
audited. These requirements are essential to the auditor's 
understanding of whether the employer's lockout/tags-plus procedures 
are understood and being followed by the applicable employees.
    Paragraph (q)(4) of the final rule requires the employer to prepare 
a written audit report that includes, among other things, audit 
findings and recommendations for corrective actions. The final rule 
expands the requirement in the proposed rule, which was limited to 
certifying the date of the inspection, the equipment inspected, the 
employees included in the inspection, and the person performing it. The 
proposed rule did not require that the certification include the 
inspection findings and recommendations for corrective action, which 
OSHA believes to be the heart of the audit. OSHA believes the final 
rule provides more useful information to employers and will assist them 
to maintain an effective lockout/tags-plus program. For example, if a 
more detailed audit report is available, employers can refer to it when 
investigating subsequent incidents or near misses. A detailed report 
also provides employers with information that will assist them to 
determine, during the next program audit, whether they have improved 
the effectiveness of their lockout/tags-plus program. Finally, 
requiring a detailed audit report also ensures that the employer uses a 
systematic approach in evaluating the lockout/tags-plus program.
    Paragraphs (q)(4)(i) and (ii) require the employer to ensure that 
the auditors prepare, and deliver to the employer, a written audit 
report that includes the date of the audit and the identity of the 
individual(s) performing the audit. The auditors must prepare and 
deliver the report within 15 days after completing the audit. Paragraph 
(q)(4)(iii) requires that the written report contain the identity of 
the procedure, and the applicable machinery, equipment, or system, 
being audited. Paragraph (q)(4)(iv) requires the written audit report 
to contain the findings of the program audit and all recommendations 
for correcting deviations or deficiencies identified during the audit. 
Paragraph (q)(4)(v) specifies that the written audit report also must 
contain any incident-investigation reports prepared since the previous 
audit (see Sec.  1915.89(p)). Finally, paragraph (q)(4)(vi) requires 
the report to contain a description of any corrective actions that the 
employer performed in response to the findings and recommendations of 
any incident reports prepared since the previous audit.
    Paragraphs (q)(5) and (q)(6) require that the employer promptly 
communicate the audit report findings and recommendations to each 
employee having a job task that may be affected by the audit and, 
within 15 days following receipt of the audit report, correct any 
deviations or inadequacies in the lockout/tags-plus program. These two 
paragraphs are new in the final standard. OSHA believes that it is 
important for employers to promptly communicate the findings of the 
report to employees, and to have a set period of time in which to 
correct the deviations and deficiencies, thereby protecting workers 
from the release of hazardous energy. OSHA designed the program audits 
to provide feedback to employers on hazardous-energy control programs 
so that the employers will correct promptly any deviations or 
deficiencies found in the lockout/tags-plus program. These audits also 
serve to ensure that employers are implementing the procedures 
properly, and that all employees receive information about the status 
of the program and procedures. OSHA believes that program audits permit 
employers to monitor significant safety procedures, and ensure 
compliance with the requirements of this section.
Paragraph (r)--Recordkeeping
    Paragraph (r), which is a new paragraph in the final standard, 
consolidates in a single location the records in this section that 
employers must retain, and the period of time they must retain these 
records. Table 3 to subpart F, "Retention of Records Required by Sec.  
1915.89," provides a summary of these recordkeeping requirements. OSHA 
discussed each of these records in the respective sections of the 
summary and explanation. In developing these recordkeeping 
requirements, OSHA balanced the need to review records relating to the 
employer's lockout/tags-plus program with the burden of retaining 
outdated records.
    As required by final paragraphs (b) and (d), the employer must 
establish and implement a written lockout/tags-plus program and 
procedures. OSHA concluded that employers must maintain these documents 
until they are replaced by updated programs or procedures. Employers 
should have no difficulty meeting this requirement as it does not impose 
a significant document maintenance burden. Rather, it ensures that 
documentation of the employer's lockout/tags-plus program, and the resulting 
safety to employees, continues uninterrupted, even if the program and/or 
procedures change. Paragraph (o)(7) requires the employer to maintain 
records that employees accomplished training on lockout/tags-plus, and 
that this training is current. The employer must maintain these records 
until replaced by updated records for each type of training. Paragraph 
(o)(1) requires that employees receive initial training at whatever 
level they are working (i.e., employee, affected employee, authorized 
employee, or coordinator), and paragraph (o)(6) requires retraining as 
necessary. Over the course of an employee's career, he/she may 
participate in numerous training sessions. OSHA concluded that 
employers need to document various types and levels of training that 
employees receive pursuant to the lockout/tags-plus standard to prevent 
any omission in training required for an employee. This requirement 
will also aid employers to determine when retraining is necessary. This 
requirement should not impose an undue burden on employees since the 
standard, at final paragraph (o)(7), requires only that the training 
record contain the employees' names, dates of training, and the subject 
of training received.
    Paragraph (p)(4) requires the employer to prepare a written 
incident-investigation report. The employer must maintain this report 
at least until completing the next program audit. This requirement will 
aid auditors in determining whether the employer successfully adopted 
the corrective actions recommended in the investigation report. 
Furthermore, paragraph (q)(4)(v) specifically requires that audit 
reports include, among other information, incident-investigation 
reports generated since the previous audit. To comply with paragraph 
(q)(4)(v), the employer must retain all investigation reports prepared 
since the previous audit.
    Finally, paragraph (q)(4) requires that the employer prepare a 
written audit report. OSHA concluded that employers must maintain this 
report for at least 12 months after being replaced by the next audit 
report. Since audits must be conducted at least once a year, the 
retention of audit reports for one year after being replaced by the 
next audit report provides the employer with at least two audit reports 
at any one time. Inspection of these reports will give the employer an 
indication of safety trends in the workplace, as well as information 
about components of the employer's lockout/tags-plus program that may 
need improvement.
Paragraph (s)--Appendices
    This final standard includes a non-mandatory appendix that 
employers and employees can use to implement the requirements of this 
section. The appendix also provides other information on the control of 
hazardous energy. OSHA included this appendix in the proposal. In this 
final standard, OSHA updated the appendix to include changes to the 
final lockout/tags-plus provisions. None of the information in this 
appendix adds or detracts from any of the requirements of this section.

Appendix A to Sec.  1915.89 (Non-Mandatory)--Typical Minimal Lockout/
Tags-plus Procedures

General

Lockout/Tags-Plus Procedure

Lockout/Tags-plus Procedure for
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Name of company for single procedure or identification of 
machinery, equipment, or system if multiple procedures used.]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Purpose

    This procedure establishes the minimum requirements for the 
lockout/tags-plus application of energy-isolating devices on vessels 
and vessel sections, and for landside facilities whenever servicing 
is done on machinery, equipment, or systems in shipyards. This 
procedure shall be used to ensure that all potentially hazardous-
energy sources have been isolated and the machinery, equipment, or 
system to be serviced has been rendered inoperative through the use 
of lockout or tags-plus procedures before employees perform any 
servicing when the energization or start-up of the machinery, 
equipment, or system, or the release hazardous energy could cause 
injury.

Compliance with This Program

    All employees are required to comply with the restrictions and 
limitations imposed on them during the use of lockout or tags-plus 
applications. Authorized employees are required to perform each 
lockout or tags-plus application in accordance with this procedure. 
No employee, upon observing that machinery, equipment, or systems 
are secured using lockout or tags-plus applications, shall attempt 
to start, open, close, energize, or operate that machinery, 
equipment, or system.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Procedures for Lockout/Tags-plus Systems

    (1) Notify each affected employee that servicing is required on 
the machinery, equipment, or system, and that it must be isolated 
and rendered inoperative using a lockout or tags-plus system.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Method of notifying all affected employees.
    (2) The authorized employee shall refer to shipyard employer's 
procedures to identify the type and magnitude of the energy 
source(s) that the machinery, equipment, or system uses, shall 
understand the hazards of the energy, and shall know the methods to 
control the energy source(s).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Type(s) and magnitude(s) of energy, its hazards and the methods to 
control the energy.
    (3) If the machinery, equipment, or system is operating, shut it 
down in accordance with the written procedures (depress the stop 
button, open switch, close valve, etc.) established by the employer.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Type(s) and location(s) of machinery, equipment, or system operating 
controls.
    (4) Secure each energy-isolating device(s) through the use of a 
lockout or tags-plus system (for instance, disconnecting, blanking, 
and affixing tags) so that the energy source is isolated and the 
machinery, equipment, or system rendered inoperative.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Type(s) and location(s) of energy-isolating devices.
    (5) Lockout System. Affix a lock to each energy-isolating 
device(s) with assigned individual lock(s) that will hold the 
energy-isolating device(s) in a safe or off position. Potentially 
hazardous energy (such as that found in capacitors, springs, 
elevated machine members, rotating flywheels, hydraulic systems, and 
air, gas, steam, or water pressure, etc.) must be controlled by 
methods such as grounding, repositioning, blocking, bleeding down, 
etc.
    (6) Tags-plus System. Affix a tag to each energy-isolating 
device and provide at least one additional safety measure that 
clearly indicates that removal of the device from the safe or off 
position is prohibited. Potentially hazardous energy (such as that 
found in capacitors, springs, elevated machine members, rotating 
flywheels, hydraulic systems and air, gas, steam, or water pressure, 
etc.) must be controlled by methods such as grounding, 
repositioning, blocking, bleeding down, etc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Type(s) of hazardous energy--methods used to control them.
    (7) Ensure that the machinery, equipment, or system is relieved, 
disconnected, restrained, or rendered safe from the release of all 
potentially hazardous energy by checking that no personnel are 
exposed, and then verifying the isolation of energy to 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 the safe or off position 
after verifying the isolation of the machinery, equipment, or 
system.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Method of verifying the isolation of the machinery, equipment, or 
system.
    (8) The machinery, equipment, or system is now secured by a 
lockout or tags-plus system, and servicing by the authorized person 
may be performed.

Procedures for Removal of Lockout/Tags-plus Systems

    When servicing is complete and the machinery, equipment, or 
system is ready to return to normal operating condition, the 
following steps shall be taken:
    (1) Notify each authorized and affected employee(s) that the 
lockout/tags-plus system will be removed and the machinery, 
equipment, or system reenergized.
    (2) Inspect the work area to ensure that all employees have been 
safely positioned or removed.
    (3) Inspect the machinery, equipment, or system and the 
immediate area around the machinery, equipment, or system to ensure 
that nonessential items have been removed and that the machinery, 
equipment, or system components are operationally intact.
    (4) Reconnect the necessary components, remove the lockout/tags-
plus material and hardware, and reenergize the machinery, equipment, 
or system through the established detailed procedures determined by 
the employer.
    (5) Notify all affected employees that servicing is complete and 
the machinery, equipment, or system is ready for testing or use.

Section 1915.90--Safety Color Code for Marking Physical Hazards

    Section 1915.90 of the final rule, like the proposal, incorporates 
by reference 29 CFR 1910.144, the general industry standard on safety 
color-coding for marking physical hazards.
    The provisions of Sec.  1910.144, which already apply to shipyard 
employment, both onshore and on vessels, require that the color red 
shall be the basic color for the identification of dangerous conditions 
such as red paint used for containers of flammable liquids, red lights 
at barricades and temporary obstructions, and red danger signs. The 
general industry standard also specifies that red shall be the color 
used for emergency stop buttons, electric switches, and machine stop 
bars. In addition, the standard requires that yellow be used as the 
basic color for designating caution and marking physical hazards such 
as slip, trip, and fall hazards.
    Some stakeholders raised questions about the application of the 
provision on vessels (Exs. 101.1; 105.1; 124; 126; 128; 130.1; 132.2). 
For instance, American Seafoods Company requested clarification about 
whether employers, specifically shipyard and ship-repair employers, 
would be required to color-code physical hazards on vessels undergoing 
repair and maintenance in shipyards (Ex. 105.1). Other stakeholders 
questioned whether shipyard employers would have to color-code physical 
hazards on vessels that they do not own before they begin work (Exs. 
101.1; 124; 126; 128; 130.1). One stakeholder recommended that OSHA 
limit application of the provision to landside facilities and temporary 
systems placed onboard vessels during repair (Ex. 132.2).
    As discussed in section I(D), "Hazards," of this preamble to the 
final rule, work on vessels involves many serious hazards and dangerous 
conditions. If these hazards are not marked in a uniform and readily 
apparent way that is recognizable to all workers, those workers may be 
at risk of serious harm. The OSH Act requires that employers provide 
employees with employment and a place of employment that is free from 
recognized hazards (29 U.S.C. 654). This means that shipyard employers 
must ensure that their employees are protected from physical hazards 
wherever they work, including onboard any vessel undergoing repair and 
maintenance. Therefore, whenever the potential exists for employees to 
be exposed to a physical hazard on shore or onboard any vessel, 
shipyards and repair facilities are required to color-code all physical 
hazards on vessels undergoing repair and maintenance.
    This standard has been applicable to shipyard employment, including 
work on vessels, since OSHA adopted it pursuant to section 6(a) of the 
OSH Act. Therefore, OSHA does not believe that employers should have 
difficulty complying with it. In addition, the standard gives employers 
flexibility in determining what methods or material they use to color-
code physical hazards. For example, employers would be free to color-
code hazards using tape, paint, ties, or other similar methods.
    American Seafoods Company indicated that OSHA should add the 
requirements in Sec. Sec.  1910.144 and 1910.145 (discussed in Sec.  
1915.91 of this preamble) to part 1915, subpart F, because they think 
that it is "onerous" for employers to have to refer to both part 1915 
and part 1910 to determine what standards are applicable to shipyard 
employment (Ex. 105.1). OSHA believes that simply stating that 
Sec. Sec.  1910.144 and 1910.145 apply to shipyard employment addresses 
the stakeholder's concern. By specifically referencing Sec. Sec.  
1910.144 and 1910.145 in Sec. Sec.  1915.90 and 1915.91, respectively, 
shipyard employers will instantly know that those general industry 
sections are applicable to them. It eliminates what the stakeholder 
calls an "onerous" step of having to examine whether any or all of 
the provisions in Sec. Sec.  1910.144 and 1910.145 apply. Moreover, the 
ready availability of OSHA standards on the OSHA Web site makes it easy 
for employers to obtain copies of any standards that apply to shipyard 
employment, whether they are in part 1910 or part 1915.

Section 1915.91--Accident Prevention Signs and Tags

    Section 1915.91 of the final rule, like the proposed rule, 
incorporates by reference the general industry standard on accident 
prevention signs and tags, 29 CFR 1910.145. Section 1910.145 
requirements address the classification, design, and wording of 
accident prevention signs and tags. OSHA believes that incorporating 
the general industry standard is necessary to provide consistent 
protection whenever shipyard employees are exposed to potentially 
hazardous conditions. It also ensures that important warning and danger 
signs and tags are uniform in design and use, which OSHA believes will 
increase their effectiveness.
    The provisions addressing accident prevention signs are already 
applicable to shipyard employment on vessels and on shore (Sec.  
1910.145(a) through (e)). The general industry provisions also require 
that accident prevention tags be used when 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)). Tags are required to be uniform for message, legibility, 
positioning/affixing, and comprehensibility. However, as explained in 
the proposed rule, the general industry standard expressly excludes the 
application of accident prevention "tags" to maritime (Sec.  
1910.145(f)(ii)). OSHA believes that applying the requirements on 
accident prevention tags to shipyard employment provides needed 
protection since part 1915 does not have comprehensive, uniform 
requirements for the application and use of such tags. The final rule 
ensures that all of Sec.  1910.145 is applicable to shipyard 
employment.
    To eliminate any confusion, the final rule both incorporates by 
reference Sec.  1910.145, and removes the maritime exclusions from that 
section (for example, "marine regulations" (Sec.  1910.145(a)(1)) and 
"maritime" (Sec.  1910.145(f)(ii)). OSHA recognizes that the terms 
"maritime" and "marine" sometimes collectively refer to shipyard 
employment, marine terminals, and longshoring. Removing the maritime 
and marine references from these general industry sections does not 
make the general industry standard applicable to marine terminals and 
longshoring. In this regard, Sec. Sec.  1910.16, 1917.1(a)(2), and 
1918.1(b) exclude marine terminals (29 CFR part 1917) and longshoring 
(29 CFR part 1918) from coverage under Sec.  1910.145 because Sec.  
1910.145 is not incorporated into Sec. Sec.  1910.16, 1917.1(a)(2) or 
1918.1(b) and, therefore, does not apply to marine terminals or 
longshoring.
    OSHA believes that incorporating the general industry requirements 
should not pose problems for shipyard employers since accident-
prevention tags are universally recognized. Moreover, the use of both 
accident-prevention signs and tags, specified in Sec.  1910.145, is 
already applicable to shipyard employment.
    Several commenters questioned whether the shipyard or repair 
facility is responsible for posting signs on vessels that are 
undergoing repairs or maintenance (Exs. 99; 101.1; 104.1; 107.1; 124; 
126; 128; 130.1). Shipyard employers are responsible for posting 
accident prevention signs and tags to identify hazards on vessels on 
which their employees perform repair or maintenance work. This includes 
applying accident prevention signs and tags to protect workers from 
identified hazards in their work and at the workplace, regardless of 
who owns the vessel on which they may be working. Therefore, whenever 
there is a potential for employees to be exposed to a hazard, either on 
a vessel or shoreside, the shipyard employer must post accident 
prevention signs and tags to prevent potential injury, illness, or 
fatality.

Section 1915.92--Retention of DOT Markings, Placards, and Labels

    In Sec.  1915.92, OSHA is retaining, with minor editorial changes, 
the existing requirements in Sec.  1915.100 on the retention of DOT 
markings, placards, and labels on hazardous materials the shipyard 
receives. This final standard includes minor editorial changes from the 
proposed rule.
    Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section 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 
employers clean any residue and purge any vapors to prevent potential 
hazards. These requirements apply regardless of how the shipyard 
receives the hazardous material packages (for example, single packages, 
in bulk).
    Paragraph (c) requires that the markings, placards, and labels on 
the hazardous materials be maintained so that they are "readily 
visible." Paragraph (d) states that employers are considered in 
compliance with this section if the markings or labels on non-bulk 
packages that will not be reshipped are affixed in accordance with the 
Hazard Communication standard, Sec.  1910.1200. 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 did not receive any comments on proposed Sec.  1915.92. The 
Agency concludes that DOT markings, placards, and labels on hazardous 
materials need to be visible to workers for as long as a hazard is 
present so workers can protect themselves and others. Therefore, OSHA 
retained these provisions in the final standard with no change.

Section 1915.93--Vehicle Safety Equipment, Operation, and Maintenance

    The purpose of this section is to address the hazards associated 
with the use of motor vehicles at worksites engaged in shipyard 
employment by setting forth requirements for motor vehicle safety 
equipment, and for the safe operation and maintenance of motor 
vehicles. Statistics provided in the proposal, collected from the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries 
database, reported that 27 shipyard employees were killed in 
transportation accidents over an 11-year period (1993-2003) (Ex. 69). 
These fatalities accounted for 17 percent of the deaths during that 
time. The BLS data also reveal that since 1998, an estimated 225 
shipyard employees have suffered motor vehicle-related injuries serious 
enough to involve days away from work. In 2002 alone, 63 shipyard 
employees suffered injuries involving days away from work in 
transportation accidents (72 FR 72500-72501, Dec. 20, 2007). Due to the 
significant number of reported fatalities and injuries involving 
transportation accidents among shipyard employees, OSHA concluded that 
the motor vehicle safety provisions are necessary, and that the 
requirements set forth in Sec.  1915.93 will reduce the number of motor 
vehicle-related fatalities and injuries.
Paragraph (a)--Application.
    In proposed Sec.  1915.95, OSHA defined the term "motor vehicle" 
to mean any motor-driven vehicle operated by an employee that is used 
to transport employees, materials, or property. The proposed definition 
of "motor vehicles" included passenger cars, light trucks, vans, 
motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, powered industrial trucks, and other 
similar vehicles. During the hearing, two shipyard employers testified 
that they use MulesTM, which are small utility vehicles 
comparable to large golf carts, for transporting employees, materials, 
or property in shipyards. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding-Newport News 
stated:

    We have experimented with some things that we affectionately 
call mules that [I] think is a trade name. It's a little motorized 
kind of a small scooter with a little cargo box in the back, and we 
have a few of those, so those are some examples of how employees get 
around (Ex. 168, p. 296).

    Bath Iron Works also provided information on these vehicles, 
stating: "We have recently introduced what they call the mule, the 4-
wheel drive, caboose cab with seat belts and a little place to put 
material in the back to haul to job sites" (Ex. 168, p. 297). Based on 
these comments, the Agency added to the final rule the phrase "small 
utility vehicles" to the definition of "motor vehicle."
    Proposed paragraph (a)(1) limited the scope of this section to any 
motor vehicle used to transport employees, materials, or property at 
shipyards; however, the purpose of this provision was to apply to all 
worksites engaged in shipyard employment. Thus, OSHA changed the scope 
of this section in the final rule for clarity to include any motor 
vehicle used to transport employees, materials, or property at 
worksites engaged in shipyard employment. Paragraph (a)(1) also makes 
clear that the requirements set forth in Sec.  1915.93 do not apply to 
the operation of motor vehicles on public streets and highways. This 
provision was carried over from the proposal to the final rule with no 
change. OSHA did not receive any comments on this proposed provision.
    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, this section is directed to 
conditions where those laws and regulations may not apply to motor 
vehicles used in shipyard employment (for example, on shipyard property 
when transporting employees between work areas or worksites, or when 
moving materials or property). Nonetheless, OSHA believes the rule's 
benefits will extend beyond motor vehicle operation at shipyard 
worksites by fostering good safety, driving, and vehicle-maintenance 
habits. For example, OSHA believes that an employee who is required by 
an employer 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, even if the employee leaves the shipyard in a private 
motor vehicle. 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.
    Paragraph (a)(2), which is carried over unchanged from the 
proposal, limits most of the requirements of this 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, paragraph (a)(2) 
specifies that three provisions in this section also apply to motor 
vehicles that employees provide. Those provisions are the requirements 
that each worker riding in a motor vehicle 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)). 
OSHA did not receive any comments on proposed paragraph (a)(2).
    OSHA concludes that these safety provisions are necessary to 
protect workers using or riding in motor vehicles during shipyard 
employment. The requirements ensure that employers are providing their 
workers with safe and serviceable motor vehicles. In addition, this 
section enhances the safety of workers using their own vehicles on the 
job by requiring employers to ensure safe driving practices while those 
employees are on shipyard property.
    Paragraph (a)(3) specifies that the motor vehicle safety equipment 
requirements in paragraph (b)(1) through (b)(3) apply to the operation 
of powered industrial trucks (for example, forklifts) in shipyards. 
Employers must ensure that powered industrial trucks used in shipyard 
employment be equipped with safety belts (paragraph (b)(1)); that 
employees use safety belts while operating powered industrial trucks 
(paragraph (b)(2)); and that safety equipment is not removed from 
powered industrial trucks (paragraph (b)(3)). In addition, employers 
must replace safety equipment that is removed from any powered 
industrial truck (paragraph (b)(3)). OSHA did not receive any comments 
on proposed paragraph (a)(3).
    The provisions in paragraph (b)(1) through (b)(3) supplement 
requirements in the general industry standard on powered industrial 
trucks (29 CFR 1910.178) that are applicable to shipyard employment 
through 29 CFR 1910.5(c)(2). Section 1910.178 does not require powered 
industrial trucks to be equipped with safety belts. Much of the general 
industry standard was promulgated pursuant to section 6(a) of the OSH 
Act (29 U.S.C. 655(a)), which permitted OSHA in the first two years 
after the effective date of the OSH Act (April 28, 1971) to adopt as 
OSHA standards any established Federal occupational safety and health 
standards or national consensus standards. The OSHA powered industrial 
truck standard was drawn from the ANSI standard on low-lift and high-
lift trucks in effect at the time (ANSI B56.1-1969). The 1969 ANSI 
standard did not have a safety belt requirement, but when the ANSI 
standard was revised in 1993, provisions were added to it requiring 
that powered industrial trucks manufactured after 1992 be equipped with 
safety belts, and also requiring that operators use them. The current 
ANSI/ASME standard has the same requirements. Although the general 
industry standard has not been updated to include safety belt 
requirements, OSHA, when issuing its 5(a)(1) enforcement policy, said 
that the provisions in ANSI/ASME B56.1-1992 demonstrate "recognition 
of the hazard of powered industrial truck tipover and the need for the 
use of an operator restraint system" (Ex. 25, Memorandum dated October 
9, 1996, to Regional Administrators from John Miles). Paragraph (a)(3) 
codifies OSHA's enforcement policy. OSHA believes that applying 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) to powered industrial trucks used in 
shipyard employment supplements applicable general industry 
requirements with important protection for workers.
    Paragraph (a)(3) indicates that the seating requirements in 
paragraph (b)(4) do not apply to powered industrial trucks since some 
powered industrial trucks are manufactured to operate in a standing 
position and are not equipped with seats. In addition, paragraph (m)(3) 
of Sec.  1910.178 already requires that a safe place to ride be 
provided in situations in which riding is permitted.
    Paragraph (a)(3) also makes clear that employers must continue to 
comply with the maintenance, inspection, operation, and training 
requirements for powered industrial trucks in Sec.  1910.178; 
therefore, the motor vehicle operation and maintenance requirements in 
this section do not apply to powered industrial trucks. The 
requirements in Sec.  1910.178 are more comprehensive and provide more 
specific protection to employees using powered industrial trucks than 
the more general motor vehicle operation and maintenance requirements 
described in Sec.  1915.93 (see 29 CFR 1910.5(c)(1)).
Paragraph (b)--Motor Vehicle Safety Equipment
    Paragraph (b) of the final rule requires employers to ensure that 
motor vehicles used in shipyard employment are equipped with motor 
vehicle safety equipment and that the safety equipment is used while 
motor vehicles are operated.
    Paragraph (b)(1), which is identical to the proposed rule, requires 
that employers ensure that each motor vehicle acquired by the employer 
or put in service for the first time after the final rule becomes 
effective is equipped with a safety belt for each employee operating or 
riding in the vehicle. It is well documented that safety belts reduce 
the risk of injury and death; therefore, OSHA believes this requirement 
is necessary and appropriate (Exs. 12; 14, p. 61; 15, p. 6; 16; 17; 18; 
21; 28). There have been injuries and fatalities in shipyard employment 
and in other industries resulting from not using safety belts while 
operating or riding in motor vehicles, including powered industrial 
trucks and other off-road vehicles (Ex. 19). Recognition of the hazards 
of operating motor vehicles without safety belts is also shown by the 
national consensus standards that require motor vehicles to be equipped 
with operator restraints, and that specify that operators and 
passengers use them (Ex. 38 at Ex. 3-13, SAE J386--1997, Operator 
Restraint Systems for Off-Road Work Machines, and Ex. 3-10, ANSI/ASME 
B56.1-2000, Safety Standard For Low Lift and High Lift Trucks). 
Requiring the use of safety belts makes this section consistent with 
those standards.
    Paragraph (b)(1) limits the application of this requirement to 
motor vehicles acquired or put into initial service by the employer 
after the final rule becomes effective. Although OSHA believes that the 
vast majority of motor vehicles acquired or put into initial service 
after the effective date of the final rule will be new vehicles 
manufactured with safety belts, paragraph (b)(1) also requires that any 
used motor vehicle that an employer acquires and uses for the first 
time after the effective date also must have safety belts. Uniformly 
applying this section to all motor vehicles acquired or used for the 
first time after the effective date ensures that employees operating 
these vehicles will have full protection regardless of which motor vehicle 
they operate or ride in.
    Several stakeholders said they already require the use of safety 
belts in motor vehicles, including powered industrial trucks used in 
shipyard employment at their facilities. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding-
Newport News stated: "Seatbelts are required and worn when operating 
forklifts and other mobile equipment" (Exs. 116.2; 120.1). Todd 
Pacific Shipyards Corporation testified that it requires workers to use 
safety belts when operating forklifts and battery-powered carts at its 
facility (Ex. 198, pp. 53-54). Additionally, Trident Seafoods 
Corporation commented that workers who operate forklifts must wear 
seatbelts. Trident's enforcement policies are described as:

    We have a progressive system in place there that our shipyard 
competent person at our facility and manager, and any manager at 
that facility is encouraged to support, [and] that [is] if you see 
someone not wearing a seatbelt, we have a chit system where we write 
them up and put [the write-ups] in their files (Ex. 198 p. 135).

    OSHA believes that the record supports including the safety belt 
requirement in the final rule, and that employers will not have any 
difficulty meeting these provisions. Therefore, the Agency believes the 
requirements set forth in paragraph (b)(1) are necessary and will 
prevent workers from being injured or killed if they are in a motor 
vehicle accident while working.
    Paragraph (b)(1) includes an exception to the safety belt 
requirement for those motor vehicles not originally manufactured with 
them (for example, buses). This exception relieves employers of the 
burden of retrofitting those motor vehicles, already in service, that 
were not originally manufactured with safety belts. However, if safety 
belts have been removed from any motor vehicle manufactured with them, 
the employer must replace the safety belts or remove the motor vehicle 
from service.
    Paragraph (b)(2) of the final rule is a companion to (b)(1). 
Identical to the proposed rule, it requires the employer to ensure that 
employees use safety belts at all times while operating or riding in a 
motor vehicle. As mentioned above, 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 requirement in 
paragraph (b)(2) applies to all motor vehicles used at shipyards, 
including powered industrial trucks and motor vehicles that workers 
provide. Forklift trucks, for example, are particularly susceptible to 
tipovers if they are operated on uneven ground, sand, or railways; hit 
potholes; turn corners sharply; or strike objects with their mast. 
These 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 were 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, in many cases 
when forklift operators were wearing safety belts, the injuries were 
more limited. In one tipping accident, an OSHA inspector noted that the 
operator was wearing a safety belt, and the injuries were limited to 
four fingers on one hand (Ex. 69).
    In the preamble for the proposed rule, OSHA requested comment on 
concerns that some forklift operators have raised about using safety 
belts when operating the trucks near water (72 FR 72500-72501, Dec. 20, 
2007). Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding-Newport News said it was not aware 
of such concerns, and requires the use of safety belts when operating 
forklifts (Exs. 116.2; 120.1). Similarly, other stakeholders who 
commented on this section said they require the use of safety belts 
when operating powered industrial trucks (Exs. 135; 198, pp. 53-54). 
Accordingly, OSHA is specifying in this final rule that the 
requirements in paragraph (b)(2) apply whenever powered industrial 
trucks are used in shipyard employment.
    Paragraph (b)(2) also requires the employer to ensure that 
employees wear safety belts securely and tightly fastened at all times 
while operating or riding in motor vehicles. The proposed rule 
contained an identical requirement. OSHA believes this language is 
necessary because, if the safety belt is not properly fastened, it may 
not hold or restrain the employee within the motor vehicle compartment 
in the event of an accident or tipover.
    As stated above, the safety belt requirement applies to both 
employer- and employee-provided motor vehicles used to transport 
employees, materials, or property on shipyard premises. The risk of 
injury exists regardless of whether employees operate or ride in 
employer- or employee-provided motor vehicles on shipyard property. 
Applying this provision to all motor vehicles used in shipyard 
employment will ensure that employees have full and uniform protection 
any time they are in a motor vehicle during shipyard employment. OSHA 
did not receive any comments opposing paragraph (b)(2).
    Paragraph (b)(3), which is identical to the proposal, requires 
employers to ensure that motor vehicle safety equipment is not removed 
from employer-provided vehicles and, if such equipment is removed, the 
employer must replace it. For purposes of this paragraph, motor vehicle 
safety equipment is defined in Sec.  1915.80(b) to include items such 
as safety belts, airbags, headlights, tail lights, emergency/hazard 
lights, windshield wipers, defogging or defrosting devices, brakes, 
mirrors, horns, windshields and other windows, and locks. This 
provision must be read in conjunction with paragraph (c)(1), discussed 
below, which requires that employers equip motor vehicles with safety 
equipment that is in serviceable and safe operating condition. OSHA did 
not receive any comments on proposed paragraph (b)(3).
    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. OSHA is aware that some 
shipyards transport employees from one worksite to another in the back 
of pickup trucks that are not equipped with seats. For example, 
Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding-Newport News stated:

    Employees are permitted to ride seated in the bed of pickups, in 
addition [to] riding in passenger vehicle seats. We enforce a 
maximum speed limit of 15 mph in the shipyard. We prefer to continue 
this practice within our shipyard. There have been no accidents or 
injuries associated with this practice in the history of the 
shipyard (Exs. 116.2, 120.1).

However, other stakeholders recognized that transporting workers in 
open areas of motor vehicles without appropriate seating poses a risk 
of injury or death. For instance, Bath Iron Works testified: "We don't 
allow anybody riding in the back of pickups" (Ex. 168, p. 297). The 
Agency believes that the practice of allowing employees to ride in the 
back of pickup trucks places employees at risk of injury from falling 
out of or being thrown from the vehicle, 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 
many shipyards that have established speed limits.

    OSHA believes that ensuring that employers use motor vehicles 
equipped with safe seating to transport workers in shipyards will 
protect them from possible injury or death. Thus, employers need to 
ensure that motor vehicles used to move employees throughout the 
shipyard have seats for each employee transported, and to prohibit 
motor vehicles that do not have such seating from being used to transport 
employees. As mentioned earlier, OSHA is applying this provision to 
employee-provided motor vehicles, as well as employer-provided motor 
vehicles. This requirement will ensure that every vehicle transporting 
employees in shipyards provides the same protection to employees.
    Paragraph (b)(4), as in the proposal, also requires that the 
seating be firmly secured. Portable seating that is not firmly attached 
to the motor vehicle would not be permitted as a means to comply with 
this provision. OSHA believes that employers should not have problems 
complying with this provision since several shipyard employers already 
use vans and automobiles that have firmly secured seats to transport 
employees (Exs. 168, p. 328; 198, pp. 17-18).
Paragraph (c)--Motor Vehicle Maintenance and Operation
    Paragraph (c) covers requirements for the maintenance and operation 
of motor vehicles used in shipyard employment.
    Paragraph (c)(1), which is identical to the proposal, requires 
employers to 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, motor vehicle safety equipment, which is defined 
in Sec.  1915.80(b) to include items such as safety belts, airbags, 
headlights, tail lights, emergency/hazard lights, windshield wipers, 
defogging or defrosting devices, brakes, mirrors, horns, windshields 
and other windows, and locks must be in safe working order. The term 
"serviceable condition" is defined as the state or ability of a 
vehicle to operate as prescribed by the manufacturer. Accordingly, 
motor vehicles maintained and operated in accordance with 
manufacturers' instructions and recommendations are considered to be in 
compliance with this provision.
    Paragraph (c)(1) also requires that motor vehicles be removed from 
service if they are not in a serviceable and safe operating condition. 
The motor vehicle may not be used for shipyard employment until the 
problem is resolved or the damage repaired. OSHA does not believe 
employers will have difficulty complying with this provision. In this 
regard, the Shipbuilders Council of America commented that motor 
vehicles used by shipbuilders "are frequently inspected by in-house 
Maintenance departments to ensure all functions of the vehicles are 
working properly" (Exs. 202.1; see also 116.2; 120.1).
    OSHA believes that properly functioning and maintained safety 
equipment in motor vehicles is essential to protect all workers who may 
come in contact with the vehicle. A vehicle that is not maintained in a 
serviceable and safe operating condition presents a danger to 
operators, passengers, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Therefore, the 
requirements of paragraph (c)(1) will protect employees from injury or 
death in shipyard-employment workplaces.
    Paragraph (c)(2) requires that tools or equipment being transported 
in a motor vehicle, whether employer- or employee-provided, must be 
secured to prevent unsafe movement of the tools or equipment that could 
endanger employees. This provision will help to reduce the risk of 
injury due to heavy or sharp tools or equipment sliding into or hitting 
operators or passengers. It will also prevent tools and materials from 
falling or being thrown from a motor vehicle and striking workers who 
may be in the area. No comments were received on this paragraph. OSHA 
has included paragraph (c)(2) into the final standard with no change 
from the proposal.
    Paragraph (c)(3) addresses hazards associated with intermingling 
pedestrian, bicycle, and motor vehicle traffic in shipyard employment. 
When pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles share shipyard 
roadways, collisions may occur if motor vehicle operators do not see 
pedestrians or bicyclists in time to avoid hitting them. Depending on 
the size and configuration of the shipyard employment work areas or 
worksites, there may be a significant mixture of motor vehicle, 
bicycle, and pedestrian traffic. Narrow or unmarked roads between work 
areas and worksites are likely to increase the risk of collision.
    Many employers provide bicycles or allow employees to use their own 
to get from one work location to another (Exs. 116.2; 120.1; 168, p. 
296). As the use of bicycles has grown, so too have reports of 
collisions. 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. 11). With the intermingling of 
traffic in shipyards, OSHA believes it is important to ensure that 
employees riding bicycles and walking can be seen by motor vehicle 
operators so they will not be injured or killed.
    Paragraph (c)(3), as proposed, required that employers implement 
measures to ensure that motor vehicle operators can see and avoid 
hitting pedestrians and bicyclists traveling in shipyards. The proposal 
identified examples of some measures that employers may implement to 
comply with the requirement. Proposed paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through 
(c)(3)(vi) identified the following examples that employers might use 
to protect pedestrians and bicyclists: Establishing dedicated travel 
lanes for motor vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians; installing 
crosswalks and traffic control devices such as stop signs or physical 
barriers; establishing speed limits and "no drive" times; providing 
reflective vests or similar gear to pedestrians and bicyclists; and 
ensuring that bicycles have equipment, such as reflectors and lights, 
to maximize visibility.
    Many stakeholders said that they have already implemented a number 
of these measures. In addition, several stakeholders recommended that 
OSHA include additional measures in the final rule. Although the 
measures in proposed paragraph (c)(3) were not a complete listing of 
examples, some stakeholders believed that adding additional examples 
would give employers greater flexibility in protecting pedestrians and 
bicyclists. For example Electric Boat stated:

    Electric Boat agrees that pedestrian safety should be addressed 
in the final rule; however a performance-based regulation should be 
established due to the wide range of motor vehicles used in the 
facility and the site configuration. A combination of training, 
procedures, barriers, and signage should be allowed to meet the goal 
of pedestrian safety (Ex. 108.2).

The Shipbuilders Council of America commented:

    Shipyards are dynamic environments, and it is not uncommon for 
employees to be in roadways and vehicles to be in 'walkways.' SCA 
recommends some flexibility with shipyard specific operational 
controls, such as 'right of way' rules, to ensure the safety of 
employees (Ex. 114.1).

General Dynamics NASSCO added:

    Shipyards are dynamic environments, and it is not uncommon for 
employees to be in roadways and vehicles to be in walkways. Rather 
than requiring an unattainable standard, some flexibility is 
recommended with shipyard specific operational controls to augment 
engineering controls to ensure the safety of employees. NASSCO would 
offer the following language[:]
    Establishing dedicated travel lanes or "right of way" rules 
for motor vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians [Emphasis in 
original](Ex. 119.1).

In addition, ASA provided several additional examples of effective ways 
to protect pedestrians and bicyclists:

    Some of our facilities have crosswalks at high volume crossing 
points and walkways in some areas. However, due to the age of some 
facilities many buildings border roadways, and there is little or no 
room for separate pedestrian paths. Rigorous control of speed, use 
of mirrors at blind spots, operator training, and general awareness 
training are the primary means used to minimize the risk of 
pedestrian and vehicular collisions. These measures have proved 
effective over many years of experience (Ex. 204.1).

    Further, Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding-Newport News and Bath Iron 
Works said that they have established speed limits for all motor 
vehicles, and "no drive" times to allow for the safe movement of 
pedestrians (Exs. 116.2; 120.1; 168, pp. 294-295). Northrop Grumman 
said: "We have a speed limit of 15 mph, reduced to 10 mph in certain 
areas of the shipyard" (Exs. 116.2; 120.1). They also testified:

    [A]t shift change, and at lunch, we have no drive periods that 
are 10 minutes around the beginning of the shift, lunch, and then 
the end of the shift that all vehicular traffic stops so as to allow 
pedestrians time * * * to transit, to come and go from the yard. 
Also, around lunchtime so if * * * they are moving throughout that 
yard to get a sandwich or something, they can do so and minimize the 
risk (Ex. 168, pp. 294-295).

    OSHA agrees that implementation of the measures provided by the 
stakeholders will control the hazards associated with motor vehicles, 
bicyclists, and pedestrians sharing accessways in the shipyard. 
Therefore, the Agency included these measures in final paragraphs 
(c)(3). Specifically, paragraph (c)(3)(ii) adds mirrors at blind 
intersections to the examples of traffic-control devices. Establishing 
speed limits for motor vehicles and "no drive" times are included in 
paragraphs (c)(3)(iii) and (c)(3)(iv), respectively. That said, OSHA 
stresses that the list of measures in the final rule that employers may 
use to protect pedestrians and bicyclists is not exhaustive. Thus, new 
paragraph (c)(3)(vii) states that employers may also use other 
effective measures to protect pedestrians and bicyclists from being 
injured by motor vehicles, as long as the employer can demonstrate that 
those measures are as effective as the ones specified in paragraphs 
(c)(3)(i) through (vi).
    In addition to these new measures, OSHA is including in the final 
rule all of the measures mentioned above that were proposed in 
paragraph (c)(3). OSHA believes employers should not have difficulty 
implementing these measures since employers already are using similar 
measures and have found them to be effective.
    The International Safety Equipment Association recommended that 
OSHA require that high-visibility safety apparel comply with "ANSI/
ISEA 107-2004, American National Standard for High Visibility Safety 
Apparel and Headwear" (Ex. 113.1). OSHA decided to retain a 
performance-based approach for the examples of safety measures included 
in paragraph (c)(3) of the final rule. Whether employers elect to use 
reflective vests or other apparel, they must ensure that motor vehicle 
operators are able to see and avoid pedestrians and bicyclists. This 
performance-based approach also means that employers may need to 
implement more than one type of safety measure to ensure that the 
required performance is met.

Section 1915.94--Servicing Multi-Piece and Single-Piece Rim Wheels

    Section 1915.94 of the final rule, like the proposal, incorporates 
the general industry standard and non-mandatory appendices on servicing 
multi-piece and single-piece rim wheels, 29 CFR 1910.177. The standard 
applies to servicing multi-piece and single-piece rim wheels on 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 pick-up 
trucks or vans using either automobile or "LT" (light truck) tires 
(see Sec.  1910.177(a)(1)). Also, the standard establishes requirements 
for the following 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. Sec.  
1910.177(f) and (g)).
    The general industry standard exempted shipyard employment. 
However, OSHA understands that shipyards use many large motor vehicles, 
and was concerned that workers could be injured or killed if shipyards 
were servicing the tires on those vehicles. Northrop Grumman 
Shipbuilding-Newport News commented that it services multi-piece and 
single-piece rim wheels, and added that it already follows the 
requirements set forth in the general industry standard (Exs. 116.2; 
120.1). Northrop Grumman's practice supports what OSHA noted in the 
preamble to the proposed provision: shipyards that service the tires on 
their vehicles are likely to be aware of and follow the safety 
provisions in Sec.  1910.177. As such, OSHA believes that applying the 
general industry standard to shipyards should not pose a problem for 
shipyard employers.
    To avoid confusion, OSHA also amended Sec.  1910.177 to remove the 
shipyard-employment exemption.

Deletions

    OSHA proposed to not 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 proposed not to retain the existing 
requirement to provide facilities to dry work clothing (for example, 
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 requested comments or information about 
whether this provision was still needed in the shipyard industry. No 
comments were received on this provision; therefore, it will be deleted 
from 29 CFR part 1910.
    Section 1910.141(h)--OSHA proposed 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 intended to address. OSHA requested comments as to 
whether this provision was still needed. No comments were received on 
this provision; therefore, it will be deleted from 29 CFR 1910.
    Section 1915.97(a)--OSHA proposed 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. No comments were received on this provision; 
therefore, it will be deleted from 29 CFR part 1915.
    Section 1915.97(e)--OSHA proposed to delete the existing 
prohibition that minors under 18 years of age not be employed in 
shipbreaking or related employments. This prohibition is the only OSHA 
rule that regulates the working activities allowed for youth employees 
and is duplicative of OSHA's sister agency in the Department of Labor, 
the Employment Standards Administration (ESA) order 15 of the Part 570 
subpart E, which prohibits minors from working in all occupations in 
wrecking, demolition, and shipbreaking operations. These operations 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).
    In addition to regulations set by ESA, States also have numerous 
rules regulating work conditions for youth employees. OSHA asked for 
comments on the provisions of this section as to the extent to which 
youth employees are working 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 was needed to protect youth employees. No comments were 
received on this provision. However, after further reexamination by the 
Agency, OSHA believes it worthwhile to retain this provision to ensure 
that the regulations set by ESA are widely understood and followed. 
Therefore, the provision in Sec.  1915.97(e) will be retained in the 
final standard with no change.

IV. Final Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

A. Introduction

    The OSH Act requires OSHA to demonstrate the technological and 
economic feasibility of its rules. Executive Order (EO) 12866 and the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended in 1996 (5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.), require Federal agencies to analyze the costs, benefits, and 
other consequences and impacts, including small business impacts, of 
their rules. Consistent with these requirements, OSHA prepared a Final 
Economic Analysis (FEA) and RFA analysis for the final rule.
    OSHA determined that this rule is not an economically "significant 
regulatory action" under EO 12866 or the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1532(a)), or a "major rule" under the 
Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). Although some 
stakeholders said the final rule would "exceed by far the $100 million 
threshold" that triggers additional scrutiny under the EO and UMRA 
(Ex. 168.1), OSHA's analysis estimates that the final rule imposes far 
less than $100 million in annual costs on the economy and does not meet 
any other criteria specified for a significant regulatory action or 
major rule under the EO, UMRA, or CRA.
    The purpose of this analysis is to identify the establishments and 
industries that the final rule affects; evaluate its costs, benefits, 
and economic impacts; and assess the technological and economic 
feasibility of the rule for the affected industries. In accordance with 
the RFA, this analysis identifies and estimates the impacts of the rule 
on small businesses, using the Small Business Administration's (SBA's) 
industry-specific definitions of small businesses, plus an alternate 
definition of small businesses developed by OSHA. Also, OSHA assessed 
the impacts of the rule on very small businesses (those with fewer than 
20 employees). Based on this analysis, OSHA determined that the final 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    This final rule updates current requirements to reflect advances in 
industry practices and technology, consolidates and streamlines some 
existing safety and health requirements into single sections, and 
provides protection from hazards not addressed by existing standards, 
including requirements regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) 
training for first aid providers, the control of hazardous energy, 
servicing single- and multi-piece rim wheels, and motor-vehicle safety. 
The costs and benefits of the final rule are driven by the new 
requirements. OSHA believes the new provisions will reduce the risk of 
injury and death, and increase the survivability of employees if a 
serious accident or injury occurs. OSHA believes that the benefits of 
the final rule will have a positive impact on affected employers and 
employees, and increase awareness of employee safety and health in the 
workplace.
    The justification for imposing appropriate occupational safety and 
health standards, and for adopting these changes into the standard for 
general working conditions in shipyard employment in particular, is 
that, without these requirements, fatality and injury risks to 
employees would remain unacceptably high. Workplace risks and resulting 
injuries and costs would be too high from a moral- and social-
preference perspective. In addition, risks would be too high in terms 
of imposing large net costs (both pecuniary and non-pecuniary) on 
society, producing an inefficient allocation of resources, and reducing 
overall social welfare. By passing the Occupational Safety and Health 
Act, Congress demonstrated that it believes that workplace risks are 
too high and that government intervention is needed to achieve a 
morally and socially optimal level of workplace safety and health.
    Market failure is a term used by economists to describe when the 
allocation of goods and services by a market is not efficient, in the 
sense that it is possible for at least one person to be made better off 
without making anyone else worse off (termed "Pareto efficiency"). 
One common cause of market failure is that the person responsible for a 
decision does not bear the full costs or consequences of that decision. 
When this situation occurs, the person responsible for the decision 
will not fully consider all of the costs involved, and, as a result, 
may arrive at an inappropriate decision. In the case of occupational 
injuries, the employer has the primary decision-making responsibility, 
and does not bear the full costs of occupational injuries. As a result, 
employers tend to allocate fewer resources to occupational safety and 
health than would be efficient if all costs of occupational injuries 
and illnesses were considered.
    Who bears the costs of an employee injury or illness, which include 
loss of income, medical care costs, the non-monetary burdens the injury 
or illness imposes, and other outcomes? Some of these costs, 
particularly medical costs and a portion of income loss, are paid for 
through workers' compensation. While some employers self insure, and 
pay the workers' compensation costs directly, the overwhelming majority 
of employers purchase (and are required to purchase) workers' 
compensation insurance. Thus, in most cases, employers do not directly 
pay for workers' compensation to the injured worker. The remainder of 
the costs of the injury or illness is normally borne by the employee, 
though some of the costs may be borne by the government in the form of 
welfare. In almost all states, workers' compensation is an exclusive 
remedy, meaning that an employee may not sue his employer for a work-
related injury.
    In principle, both employees and insurers could contract with 
employers for payment in advance for the risks incurred. Insurers 
charge premiums for their insurance. Workers could, in theory, demand 
increased pay for increased risk. In this situation, there is not an 
externality, which is defined as damage to an outside party who is not 
party to a market agreement. There are, however, several informational 
and institutional problems that prevent an ideal set of payments for 
risks incurred.
    The first requirement for reasonable evaluation of risk in 
transfers of risk between parties is that the risk be known. Further, for 
the estimate of risk to affect the behavior of employers, it is necessary 
that employees and insurers be able to differentiate the risk among 
different employers, not just be able to assess the risk across all 
employers in an industry. When accidents are relatively rare, simply 
looking at the past record will not provide much useful information 
concerning relative risk among employers. The employers themselves may 
be equally uncertain about the risks associated with their practices.
    Even if such information on past performance were available, there 
is no guarantee that future performance will be identical to past 
performance. Different management, or even the same management with 
different objectives, financial performance, or schedule, may act 
differently than they have in the past. Further, once the risk has been 
transferred by contract to employees and insurers, the employer has 
reduced incentives to maintain a low level of risk. This phenomenon is 
a constant problem in insurance, where it is known as a moral hazard--
the tendency of the insured to act with less care as a result of having 
insurance. In addition, workers' compensation insurance uses, and in 
most states is required by law to use, a class rating system. Class 
rating bases the premium on the risk experiences for all persons with 
similar occupations to those the firm employs. This information is 
sometimes combined with the actual experience of the firm in the past 
three years. For very small firms, this means that, in practice, the 
individual firm's record has no impact on their insurance premium. Even 
quite large firms pay, through insurance premium increases, less than 
the full costs of accidents. Further, the use of class rating makes it 
difficult for insurers to make use of information from monitoring and 
inspection of safety practices, even if they had such information.
    Employees also have problems obtaining and using this information. 
First, employees may simply be unacquainted with safe. Second, 
information on safety is commonly not available before taking a job. 
Third, wages are sometimes determined by industry contracts, with no 
room for added risk premiums for individual employers. Finally, there 
are significant costs in many cases to leaving a job, which means that 
even if the employee realizes a job is less safe than some other 
available jobs, the employee may be reluctant to leave the job.
    In summary, the market failure in workplace safety is that 
employers commonly transfer the costs of job safety to other parties, 
which, in combination of informational and institutional constraints, 
prevents the costs of the transfer from actually reflecting the risk to 
the individual employer; instead, employers pay to transfer the risk at 
a cost closer to the average costs for the occupation rather than their 
own costs reflecting their own risks. As a result, employers do not pay 
the full costs if they have above-average risks or poor safety 
practices. Under these circumstances, the need for regulation is 
established by the significant risk present in shipyard employment.

Table for Net Benefits and Cost Effectiveness of the Final General Working Conditions in Shipyards Standard

Provisions in the Standard Without Major Cost Impacts
    There are several provisions in the final rule that the Agency 
estimates will not impose additional compliance costs on employers. 
Table 4 identifies these provisions and the reasons supporting OSHA's 
determination. These determinations were presented as part of the PEA, 
and OSHA solicited comment on the issues. No objections were raised 
except where noted.

   Table 4--Revisions and New Requirements With No Major Cost Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subpart F revisions and new
            requirements                        OSHA analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   1915.81 Housekeeping          The revisions to the existing
Sec.   1915.81(a)(2)(i) and (ii)      housekeeping requirements (Sec.
(a)(2) The employer must eliminate    1915.91, Sec.   1910.22, Sec.
 slippery conditions, such as snow    1910.141) simply consolidate,
 and ice, on walkways and working     streamline, and clarify existing
 surfaces as necessary. If it is      provisions. They do not impose new
 not practicable for the employer     obligations or costs. To the
 to remove slippery conditions, the   extent that the employer must
 employer either must: (i) Restrict   provide and pay for protective
 employees to designated walkways     footgear for wet processes, the
 and working surfaces where the       rulemaking on PPE payment already
 employer has eliminated slippery     has figured those costs.
 conditions; or
(ii) Provide slip-resistant
 footwear in accordance with 29 CFR
 part 1915, subpart I.
Sec.   1915.82 Lighting              The standard adopts and adapts the
Sec.   1915.82(a)(1), (a)(2), and     illumination intensities in Table
 (a)(3)                               F-1 from the Hazardous Waste
(a)(1) The employer must ensure       Operations (Sec.   1910.120) and
 that each work area and walkway is   construction (Sec.   1926.56)
 adequately lighted whenever an       standards, as well as national
 employee is present.                 consensus standards that have been
(a)(2) For landside areas, the        in effect for more than 40 years.
 employer must provide illumination   The lighting levels in Table F-1
 that meets the levels set forth in   are minimum requirements, and OSHA
 Table F-1.                           believes that lighting levels in
(a)(3) For vessels and vessel         shipyards already meets or exceeds
 sections, the employer must          these levels. The final rule
 provide illumination that meets      differs in paragraph (a)(3) from
 the levels set forth in Table F-1    the proposal by allowing employers
 or meet ANSI/IESNA RP-7-01           to either meet the illumination
 (incorporated by reference, see      levels in Table F-1 or ANSI/IESNA
 1915.5).                             RP-7-01 for vessels and vessel
                                      sections. Therefore, with the
                                      flexibility OSHA provided to
                                      employers, the Agency estimates
                                      the rule should not impose new
                                      costs.
Sec.   1915.82(b)(1)                 The provision is similar to
The employer must ensure that         existing Sec.   1915.92(b)(1),
 temporary lights with bulbs that     which requires guarding if bulbs
 are not "completely" recessed      in temporary lights are not
 are equipped with guards to          "deeply" recessed. OSHA assumes
 prevent accidental contact with      that shipyards already equip
 the bulb.                            lights with guards when the bulb
                                      is not fully recessed; therefore,
                                      the rule should not impose new
                                      costs.
Sec.   1915.82(b)(2)                 The standard is similar to the
Temporary lights must be equipped     existing requirement to use
 with electric cords designed with    "heavy duty" electric cords with
 sufficient capacity to carry the     temporary lights (Sec.
 electric load.                       1915.92(b)(2)). The rule simply
                                      provides employers with greater
                                      flexibility in meeting the
                                      existing requirement. Thus, the
                                      standard should not impose new
                                      costs.
Sec.   1915.82(b)(7)                 The existing provision requires
Splices on temporary lights must      that splices on temporary lights
 have insulation with a capacity      have insulation that is "equal"
 that "exceeds" that of the         to that of the cable (Sec.
 original insulation of the cord.     1915.92(b)(2)). Although OSHA is
                                      requiring that the insulation
                                      capacity "exceed" that of the
                                      original insulation of the cord,
                                      in this final rule, there should
                                      be no new costs associated with
                                      this change.
Sec.   1915.82(c)(1)                 The existing provision prohibits
In any dark area that does not have   employees from entering dark
 permanent or temporary lights,       spaces without a portable light
 where lights are not working, or     (Sec.   1915.92(e)). Due to
 where lights are not readily         comments received and testimony
 accessible, the employer shall       heard, OSHA modified the final
 provide portable or emergency        provision to allow employers to
 lights and ensure that employees     provide portable or emergency
 do not enter those areas without     lights in any dark area that
 such lights.                         doesn't have permanent or
                                      temporary lighting. OSHA believes
                                      that employers already provide, at
                                      a minimum, portable lights to
                                      employees in such instances. In
                                      addition, allowing emergency
                                      lights, such as a generator linked
                                      with a lighting system, affords
                                      employers the option to determine
                                      which type of backup lighting is
                                      best. Therefore, the standard
                                      should not impose new costs.
Sec.   1915.82(c)(2)                 The standard clarifies the existing
When the only means of illumination   requirement to provide portable
 on a vessel or vessel section are    lighting and adds the use of
 from lighting sources that are not   emergency lights for "safe
 part of the vessel or vessel         movement of employees" to ensure
 section, the employer must provide   that work areas have adequate
 portable or emergency lights for     lighting. OSHA estimates that
 the safe movement of each            employers provide work areas with
 employee. If natural sunlight        portable or emergency lighting
 provides sufficient illumination,    while employees are working or
 portable or emergency lights are     moving in areas where there is no
 not required.                        onboard lighting source.
                                      Therefore, the rule should not
                                      impose new costs.
Sec.   1915.83 Utilities             The provision deletes the existing
Sec.   1915.83(a)                     requirement to have the pressure
The employer must ensure that the     check performed by a "responsible
 vessel's steam piping system,        vessel's representative" (Sec.
 including hoses, is designed to      1915.93(a)(1)). Instead, the
 safely handle the working pressure   employer may determine this
 prior to supplying steam from an     information from a responsible
 outside source.                      vessel's representative, a
                                      contractor, or any other person
                                      who is qualified by training,
                                      knowledge, or experience to make
                                      such determination. Thus, the rule
                                      does not impose additional costs,
                                      but rather provides employers with
                                      greater flexibility in meeting the
                                      existing requirement.
Sec.   1915.83(a)(2)(iv)             The provision adds to existing Sec.
The employer must ensure that each      1915.93(a)(1) a requirement that
 pressure gauge and relief valve is   pressure gauges and relief valves
 legible and located so it is         be easily readable (e.g., writing
 visible and readily accessible.      is large enough to read). Since
                                      OSHA estimates that employers
                                      currently use gauges and valves
                                      that are legible, this requirement
                                      should add no new costs.
Sec.   1915.83(b)(4)                 The standard expands coverage of
The employer must ensure that each    existing Sec.   1915.93(a)(4) from
 steam hose or temporary steam        "normal work areas" to include
 piping system, including metal       areas where employees may walk or
 fittings and couplings that pass     pass through to get to work areas.
 through a "walking or working       OSHA estimates that shipyard
 area," is shielded to protect       employers shield hoses and piping
 employees from contact.              wherever employees may be present;
                                      therefore, the rule should not
                                      impose new costs.
Sec.   1915.83(c)(3)                 The provision deletes the existing
When a vessel is supplied with        requirement to have circuits
 electric shore power, the employer   checked by a "responsible
 must ensure that vessel circuits     vessel's representative" (Sec.
 to be energized are in a safe        1915.93(b)(1)(ii)). The rule does
 condition prior to energizing        not impose new costs, but rather
 them. This information must be       provides employers with greater
 determined by a "responsible        flexibility in meeting the
 vessel's representative," a         existing requirement.
 contractor, or any other person
 who is qualified by training,
 knowledge, or experience.
Sec.   1915.83(d)                    The standard expands the existing
The employer must ensure that heat    Sec.   1915.93(c) to include all
 lamps, including the face, are       heat lamps, not just infrared
 equipped with surround-type guards   electric lamps, and requires that
 to prevent contact with the lamp     the lamp face also be guarded to
 and bulb.                            prevent contact. Existing Sec.
                                      1915. 93(c) also provides an
                                      exception for the lamp face. OSHA
                                      believes that all heat lamps
                                      currently in use in shipyards have
                                      guarding that completely surrounds
                                      the lamp, including the face;
                                      therefore, the rule should not
                                      impose new costs.
Sec.   1915.84 Working alone         The standard adds a requirement to
Sec.   1915.84(a)(1) and (a)(2),      account for employees employees,
 and (b)                              either by sight or verbal
(a)Whenever an employee is working    communication, at regular
 alone, such as in a confined space   intervals appropriate to the job
 or isolated location, the employer   assignment and at the end of each
 must account for each employee:      job assignment or workshift if
(1) Throughout each workshift at      they are working alone, such as in
 regular intervals appropriate to     confined space or isolated
 the job assignment to ensure the     location. This provision expands
 employee's safety and health; and    on the current requirement (Sec.
(2) At the end of the job             1915.94) to frequently check on
 assignment or at the end of the      these employees. OSHA estimates
 workshift, whichever occurs first.   that shipyard employers already
(b) The employer must account for     account for employees who work
 each employee by sight or verbal     alone. Therefore, the rule should
 communication.                       not impose new costs.
Sec.   1915.85 Vessel radar and      The standard expands existing Sec.
 communication systems                 1915.95(a), which cover workers
Sec.   1915.85(b)                     repairing the radar or radio
The employer must secure each         systems. OSHA believes that the
 vessel's radar and communication     revision should not impose new
 system so it is incapable of         costs since employers already are
 energizing or emitting radiation     required to have procedures in
 before any employee begins work:     place for protecting workers,
(1) On or in the vicinity of the      other than radar or radio repair
 system;                              technicians.
(2) On or in the vicinity of a
 system equipped with a dummy load;
 or
(3) Aloft, such as on a mast or
 king post.
Sec.   1915.86 Lifeboats             The standard expands the existing
Sec.   1915.86(b)                     prohibition (Sec.   1915.96(b))
The employer must not permit any      against employees riding in
 employee to be in a lifeboat while   lifeboats being hoisted into final
 it is being hoisted or lowered,      stowed position by prohibiting
 except when necessary to conduct     employees from riding in lifeboats
 operational tests or drills over     while being hoisted or lowered,
 water, or in the event of an         unless it is deemed necessary to
 emergency.                           conduct operational tests or
                                      drills over water, or in the event
                                      of an emergency. OSHA believes
                                      that expanding this work practice
                                      requirement to a more flexible
                                      provision should not impose any
                                      additional costs to employers.
Sec.   1915.87 Medical services and  The standard combines existing Sec.
 first aid                              1910.151(b) and Sec.
Sec.   1915.87(d)(1)                  1915.98(a) and clarifies that
In the absence of an on-site          first aid supplies must be
 infirmary or clinic that maintains   provided and maintained, and be
 first aid supplies, the employer     readily accessible to each
 must provide and maintain adequate   worksite when needed. The standard
 first aid supplies that are          also revises existing Sec.
 readily accessible to each           1915.98(b), which contains a list
 worksite.                            of items that first aid kits must
                                      contain. The standard replaces
                                      that list with factors that
                                      employers must consider in
                                      determining the content, amount,
                                      and location of first aid kits and
                                      supplies they must provide. The
                                      standard provides employers with
                                      greater flexibility in meeting the
                                      requirement; therefore, the
                                      standard should not impose
                                      additional costs.
Sec.   1915.87(e)                    The standard expands existing Sec.
Where the potential exists for an      1910.151(c), which requires quick
 employee to be splashed with a       drenching or flushing facilities
 substance that may result in an      where employees may be injured by
 acute or serious injury, the         "corrosive materials." The
 employer must provide facilities     standard requires such facilities
 for quick-drenching or flushing      when employees may be exposed to
 the eyes and body. The employer      receiving an acute or serious
 must ensure that such a facility     injury, as defined in the
 is located for immediate emergency   standard. The standard should not
 use within close proximity to        impose additional costs since
 operations where such substances     employers already are required to
 are being used.                      provide quick drench/flushing
                                      facilities in the work area for
                                      immediate use.
Sec.   1915.87(f)(1)                 1915.87(f)(1) modifies existing
The employer must provide an          Sec.   1915.98(d), which requires
 adequate number of basket            that a minimum of 2 stretchers be
 stretchers, or the equivalent,       located at any shipyard work
 readily accessible to where work     location. The final provision
 is being performed on a vessel or    gives employers more flexibility
 vessel section. The employer is      by allowing basket stretchers, or
 not required to provide basket       the equivalent, provided by
 stretchers or the equivalent where   emergency-response services to
 emergency response services have     meet the "adequate number"
 basket stretchers or the             requirement for work performed on
 equivalent that meet the             vessels and vessel sections. OSHA
 requirements of this paragraph.      estimates that the standard should
                                      not impose additional costs
                                      because the existing standard
                                      already requires employers to
                                      provide a minimum of 2 stretchers
                                      at any shipyard work location. In
                                      addition, the standard gives
                                      employers greater flexibility in
                                      meeting the "adequate number"
                                      requirement because it allows them
                                      to rely on any readily accessible
                                      emergency-response services (i.e.,
                                      offsite rescue) that have basket
                                      stretchers.
Sec.   1915.87(f)(2)(i)              The standard adds to existing Sec.
The employer must ensure that each     1915.98(d) specifications for
 stretcher is equipped with           lifting bridles. OSHA estimates
 permanent lifting bridles that       that shipyards already have
 enable the basket stretcher to be    stretchers that meet the
 attached to hoisting gear that are   specifications; therefore, the
 capable of lifting at least 5,000    standard should not impose new
 pounds.                              costs.
Sec.   1915.88 Sanitation            The standard expands existing Sec.
Sec.   1915.88(b)(3)                   1910.141(b)(1)(iii) to also allow
The employer must dispense drinking   employers to provide potable water
 water from a fountain, a covered     in single-use bottles. The
 container with single-use drinking   standard should not impose
 cups stored in a sanitary            additional costs; rather, it
 receptacle, or single-use bottles.   provides employers with greater
 The employer must prohibit the use   flexibility in meeting the
 of shared drinking cups, dippers,    existing requirement.
 and water bottles.
Sec.   1915.88(d)(3)                 The standard does not change the
The employer must provide portable    number of sewered toilet
 toilets, pursuant to paragraph       facilities shipyard employers must
 (d)(2)(i) of this section, only      provide. The standard allows, but
 when the employer demonstrates       does not require, employers to
 that it is not feasible to provide   provide portable toilets to
 sewered toilets, or when there is    supplement the required number of
 a temporary increase in the number   sewered toilets. Therefore, the
 of employees.                        standard should not impose new
                                      costs.
Sec.   1915.88(g)                    The standard expands existing Sec.
When an employer provides              1910.141(e), which requires
 protective clothing to prevent       changing rooms whenever another
 employee exposure to hazardous or    OSHA standard requires that the
 toxic substances, the employer       employer provide protective
 must provide changing rooms that     clothing, to require that
 provide privacy for each sex; and    employers provide change rooms
 storage facilities for street        whenever they provide protective
 clothes, as well as separate         clothing. OSHA estimates the
 storage facilities for protective    standard should not impose any
 clothing.                            costs because shipyards already
                                      have changing rooms.
Sec.   1915.88(h)                    The standard expands the existing
The employer must ensure that food,   prohibitions (Sec.   1910.141(g)
 beverages, and tobacco products      and Sec.   1915.97(c)) on eating
 are not consumed or stored in any    and drinking to include
 area where employees may be          prohibitions on eating, drinking,
 exposed to hazardous or toxic        and smoking in areas where
 substances.                          hazardous or toxic substances may
                                      be present. "Hazardous and toxic
                                      substances" is defined in the
                                      final rule as any corrosive
                                      substance, or any environmental
                                      contaminant that may expose
                                      employees to injury, illness, or
                                      disease. OSHA estimates that
                                      prohibiting these activities in
                                      such areas should not impose
                                      additional costs on employers.
Sec.   1915.88(j)(1)                 The standard expands the existing
To the extent reasonably              Sec.   1910.141(a)(5) to cover
 practicable, the employer must       outdoor shipyard areas. OSHA
 clean and maintain the workplace     estimates that employers currently
 in a manner that prevents vermin     control vermin in all shipyard
 infestation.                         areas to ensure that vermin do not
Sec.   1915.88(j)(2)                  get into enclosed spaces;
Where vermin are detected, the        therefore, the standard should not
 employer shall implement and         impose new costs.
 maintain an effective control
 program.
Sec.   1915.90 safety color code     The standard simply incorporates by
 for marking physical hazards         reference a general industry
                                      standard (Sec.   1910.144) that
                                      already is applicable to
                                      shipyards; therefore, the standard
                                      does not impose new costs.
Sec.   1915.91 Accident prevention   The standard simply incorporates by
 signs and tags                       reference the existing general
All new and replacement danger,       industry standard (Sec.
 caution, and safety instruction      1910.145) on signs and tags that
 signs shall meet design and          is already applicable to
 wording specifications.              shipyards; therefore, the standard
Injury/illness prevention tags        does not impose new costs.
 shall be used where employees are
 exposed to hazardous conditions,
 equipment, operations that are
 unexpected, out of the ordinary or
 not readily apparent and remain in
 place until the hazard is
 eliminated or the hazardous
 operation is completed. Tags shall
 meet general criteria
 requirements.
Sec.   1915.92 Retention of DOT      OSHA is retaining the existing Sec.
 markings, placards, and labels         1915.100 requirements, with
                                      minor editorial changes, on the
                                      retention of DOT markings,
                                      placards, and labels on hazardous
                                      materials the shipyard receives.
                                      Therefore, this section should not
                                      impose any new costs.
Sec.   1915.93 Motor vehicle safety  The standard adds a new safety belt
 equipment, operation, and            requirement; however, the
 maintenance                          requirement should not impose
Sec.   1915.93(b)(1)                  costs on existing facilities
The employer must ensure that each    because it applies only
 motor vehicle acquired or            prospectively.
 initially used after 180 days       (The economic analysis includes
 after the final rule is published    costs for Sec.   1915.93(b)(3),
 is equipped with a safety belt for   which requires employers to
 each employee operating or riding    replace safety equipment (e.g.,
 in a motor vehicle. This             safety belts) that have been
 requirement does not apply to any    removed from employer-provided
 motor vehicle that was not           vehicles.)
 equipped with safety belts at the   The standard adds a requirement
 time of manufacture.                 that all employees being
Sec.   1915.93(b)(4)                  transported in a vehicle be seated
The employer must ensure that each    in firmly secured seats. This will
 motor vehicle used to transport an   require some employers to change
 employee has firmly secured seats    their methods of transporting
 for each employee being              workers which may involve costs to
 transported and that all employees   the employer. OSHA does not
 being transported are using such     believe that this will be a
 seats.                               significant cost and therefore has
                                      not included the costs that may be
                                      associated with this requirement
                                      in this analysis.
Sec.   1915.93(c)(1)                 The standard adds a new
The employer must ensure that each    requirement; however, OSHA
 motor vehicle is maintained in a     estimates that shipyard employers
 serviceable and safe operating       already maintain motor vehicles
 condition and removed from service   that employers provide. Therefore,
 if it is not in such condition.      the standard should not impose new
                                      costs.
Sec.   1915.93(c)(2)                 The standard adds a new
The employer must ensure that         requirement. OSHA estimates that
 before a motor vehicle is            tools and materials are secured if
 operated, any tools and materials    their movement could pose a hazard
 being transported are secured if     for employees; therefore, the
 their movement may create a hazard   standard should not impose new
 for employees.                       costs.
Sec.   1915.93(c)(3)                 The standard adds a new
The employer must implement           requirement. OSHA estimates that
 measures to ensure that motor        shipyard employers already have
 vehicle operators are able to see    implemented bike and pedestrian
 and avoid injuring pedestrians and   safety measures as a good practice
 bicyclists at shipyards.             in shipyards; therefore, the
                                      standard should not impose new
                                      costs.
Sec.   1915.94 Servicing multi-      The standard adds general industry
 piece and single-piece rim wheels    requirements on servicing rim
The employer shall furnish a          wheels, including requirements to
 restraining device for inflating     furnish tire servicing equipment
 tires on multi-piece and single-     (Sec.   1910.177(d)). OSHA
 piece rim wheels. The requirements   estimates that shipyards that
 applicable to shipyard employment    currently service rim wheels on
 under this section are identical     large vehicles already have
 to the requirements set forth at     servicing equipment; therefore,
 29 CFR 1910.177.                     the standard should not impose
                                      additional costs. (However, this
                                      FEA includes costs for training
                                      employees to service rim wheels.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: OSHA Office of Regulatory Analysis.

    Some stakeholders said that several of the requirements discussed 
above would impose significant costs. For example, Doug Dixon, of 
Pacific Fisherman Shipyard and Electric, LLC, said the revisions to the 
current lighting requirements would increase costs (Ex. 131.1). The 
lighting requirements have been in existence since OSHA adopted them 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the OSH Act, and OSHA believes that all 
affected employers are in compliance with them. The clarifications and 
updates to those lighting requirements that OSHA incorporated in the 
final rule do not substantially change the existing requirements; 
therefore, OSHA believes that they will not impose major costs. Some 
requirements may result in minor costs to some establishments; for 
example, the final rule has a provision requiring that temporary lights 
have insulation capacity that exceeds that of the original insulation 
of the cord while the current provision requires that the insulation 
capacity is "equal" to that of the cable. In this analysis, OSHA took 
explicit costs only for provisions that could impose sizable costs on 
establishments and evaluated explicit benefits for provisions that 
would result in a measurable reduction in injuries or fatalities. It is 
not always possible, nor is it necessary in terms of establishing 
feasibility, to account for extremely small changes in costs or 
benefits.
    Northrop Grumman--Newport News said that the sanitation provisions 
would require a 25 percent increase in the number of toilets they 
provide, at a cost of $7.5 million for the Newport News, VA, shipyard 
alone (Ex. 120.1). However, Northrop Grumman did not provide any 
information explaining how they derived the costs; therefore, OSHA 
cannot ascertain the basis for the costs or analyze whether they are 
representative of affected establishments.

Provisions in the Standard With Major Cost Impacts

Section 1915.8 Medical Services and First Aid
    The final rule requires that employers ensure that there are an 
adequate number of qualified employees at each work location during 
each workshift to render first aid, including cardiopulmonary 
resuscitation (CPR). The Agency estimates that some shipyards will need 
to train additional first aid providers for this purpose. Commercial 
vessels have long-standing first aid standards established by the U.S. 
Coast Guard (USCG), and OSHA believes that employees on commercial 
vessels--even those that are not USCG inspected and certified--are 
currently complying with the OSHA standard. However, the Agency 
estimated that some commercial vessels would need additional employees 
trained to administer first aid, including CPR. Employees properly 
trained to administer first aid and CPR could reduce the number of 
deaths that occur in the workplace.
Section 1910.88 Sanitation
    Paragraph (e)(1) requires that employers provide handwashing 
facilities adjacent to each toilet facility. Paragraph (e)(2) requires 
that employers ensure that each handwashing facility 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. The Agency estimates that employers in the shipbuilding, ship 
repair, and shipbreaking industry (hereafter referred to as shipyards) 
already have handwashing facilities at sewered toilets, but not at all 
portable toilets. To comply with this provision, OSHA assumed that 
employers will provide waterless skin cleansing agents at portable 
toilet facilities as the simplest and least expensive way to comply 
with this requirement. This provision applies only to shipyards and 
will not impose any additional requirements on commercial vessels, 
which OSHA concludes have adequate sanitation facilities onboard.
Section 1915.89 Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tags-Plus).
    The final rule adds requirements for the control of hazardous 
energy in servicing operations in shipyard employment, including 
servicing operations in landside facilities, as well as on vessels and 
vessel sections. The lockout/tags-plus requirements comprise the major 
portion of the costs of the final rule.
Section 1915.89(b) Lockout/Tags-Plus Program
    The standard requires that employers establish a program to protect 
employees from energization or startup, or release of hazardous energy, 
during the servicing of machinery, equipment, and systems in shipyard 
employment. This program would have to include: (1) Procedures for 
lockout/tags-plus systems, including a lockout/tags-plus coordination 
process (Sec.  1915.89(b)-(c)); (2) procedures for protecting employees 
involved in servicing (Sec.  1915.89(d)-(m)); (3) specification for 
locks and tags-plus hardware (Sec.  1915.89(n)); (4) employee training 
(Sec.  1915.89(o)); (5) incident investigations (Sec.  1915.89(p)); and 
(6) program audits (Sec.  1915.89(q)). Only the time and costs to 
actually develop the program (the written lockout/tags-plus procedures) 
and the lockout/tags-plus coordination process are considered in this 
section.
    The final lockout/tags-plus rule adds a requirement that employers 
establish and implement lockout/tags-plus coordination (1) when 
employees on vessels and in vessel sections are servicing multiple 
machinery, equipment, or systems at the same time; and (2) when 
employees on vessels, in vessel sections, and at landside facilities are 
performing multiple servicing operations on the same machinery, equipment, 
or system at the same time.
    The lockout/tags-plus coordination process requires that employers 
have a lockout/tags-plus coordinator and a lockout/tags-plus log. The 
coordinator is responsible for overseeing and approving the application 
of each lockout/tags-plus system, verification of isolation of 
hazardous energy before servicing is started, and removal of each 
lockout/tags-plus system. The coordinator will also maintain and 
administer the lockout/tags-plus log.
    The lockout/tags-plus log must contain the following information on 
each lockout/tags-plus system: (1) Location of machinery, equipment, or 
system to be serviced; (2) type of machinery, equipment, or system to 
be serviced; (3) name of the authorized employee applying lockout/tags-
plus system; (4) date the lockout/tags-plus system is applied; (5) name 
of the authorized employee removing the lockout/tags-plus system; and 
(6) date the lockout/tags-plus system is removed.
Section 1915.89 (c)-(m) Procedures for Securing Energy Sources
    The final rule requires that, before any servicing is performed, 
all energy sources are identified and isolated, and the machinery, 
equipment, or system is rendered inoperative (Sec.  1915.89(c)(1)). It 
also requires that employers implement measures to prevent hazards by 
following certain procedures for shutting down equipment, isolating 
power sources, verifying deenergization, and applying lockout or tags-
plus devices (Sec.  1915.89(d)-(m)).
    The final rule requires that, when energy-isolating devices are 
capable of being locked, the employer must use a lock to prevent 
energization or startup, or the release of hazardous energy, before 
beginning servicing, unless the employer can demonstrate that the 
utilization of a tags-plus system will provide full employee protection 
(Sec.  1915.89(c)(2)). When energy-isolating devices are not capable of 
being locked, the final rule requires that the employer apply a tags-
plus system to prevent energization or startup, or the release of 
hazardous energy, before starting servicing (Sec.  1915.89(c)(3)). The 
tags-plus system shall consist of at least one energy-isolating device 
with a tag affixed to it; and at least one additional safety measure 
that will provide the equivalent safety available from the use of a 
lock (Sec.  1915.89(c)(4)). Additional safety measures include, but are 
not limited to, the removal of an isolating circuit element, the 
blocking of a controlling switch, the opening of an extra disconnecting 
device, the removal or wiring in place of a valve handle (Sec.  
1915.80(b)(1)).
    These provisions include as costs the time necessary to implement 
the lockout/tags-plus procedures, apply locks or tags-plus systems, 
implement additional safety measures, and notify affected employees of 
the lockout/tags-plus application. These costs do not include the time 
to find the circuit, as OSHA considers this a part of existing duties.
Section 1915.89(n) Specifications for Locks and Tags-Plus Materials and 
Hardware
    The rule requires employers to provide locks and tags-plus system 
hardware used for isolating, securing, or blocking any machinery, 
equipment, or system that is to be serviced. The final rule addresses 
the specific characteristics of these devices with regard to 
durability, color, shape, and size uniformity throughout the 
establishment. Also, the rule states that locks and tags-plus devices 
must be singularly identified, must be the only devices used for 
controlling energy, and must not be used for other purposes. OSHA 
attributed to this paragraph the costs for the time to choose and 
purchase the appropriate locks and tags-plus materials and hardware and 
the costs of that material and hardware.
Section 1915.89(o) Information and Training
    The final rule requires employers to provide training to ensure 
that the purpose and function of the lockout/tags-plus program are 
understood by employees, and that the knowledge and skills required for 
the safe application, usage, and removal of lockout/tags-plus systems 
are acquired by employees. The rule requires training for employees who 
are, or may be, in an area where the lockout/tags-plus systems are 
being used so they know the (1) Purpose and function of the employer's 
lockout/tags-plus program and procedures; (2) unique identity and 
standardization of locks and tags used in the lockout/tags-plus system; 
(3) three basic components of the tags-plus system; (4) prohibition 
against removing or tampering with any lockout/tags-plus system; and 
(5) prohibition against reenergizing or restarting any machinery, 
equipment, or system that is being serviced under a lockout/tags-plus 
system.
    Affected employees also must be trained in the following: (1) The 
use of the employer's lockout/tags-plus program and procedures; (2) the 
prohibition against affected employees applying or removing any 
lockout/tags-plus system; and (3) the prohibition against them 
bypassing, ignoring, or defeating a lockout/tags-plus system.
    In addition to the training requirements for general employees and 
affected employees, authorized employees must be trained so they know: 
(1) The steps necessary for the safe application, use, and removal of 
lockout/tags-plus systems; (2) the types and magnitudes of energy 
sources at the worksite; (3) the means and methods for isolating and 
controlling hazardous energy; (4) the means for determining exposure 
status of employees in a servicing group for which the authorized 
employee is in charge; (5) the requirement that tags be legible and 
understandable; (6) the requirement that tags and their means of 
attachment be made of materials that will withstand environmental 
conditions; (7) the requirements that tags be securely attached so they 
cannot be accidentally removed; (8) the knowledge that tags are simply 
warning devices, and alone do not provide a physical barrier against 
energization; and (9) that tags must be used in conjunction with 
energy-isolating devices and measures.
    Finally, lockout/tags-plus coordinators, in addition to receiving 
the general employee, affected employee, and authorized employee 
training, must be trained in the following: (1) How to identify and 
isolate any machinery, equipment, or system that is being serviced; and 
(2) how to accurately document lockout/tags-plus systems and maintain 
the lockout/tags-plus log.
    In addition to the required initial training, the final rule 
requires employers to provide retraining when: (1) There is a change in 
the employee's job that presents new hazards or requires a greater 
degree of knowledge about the lockout/tags-plus program or procedures; 
(2) there is a change in machinery, equipment, or systems that presents 
a new hazard; (3) there is a change in the employer's lockout/tags-plus 
program or procedures; (4) it is necessary to maintain the employee's 
proficiency; and (5) an incident investigation or program audit reveals 
deficiencies in the lockout/tags-plus program or procedures or in the 
employee's knowledge of it.
    The rule also requires employers to maintain records that employee 
training has been accomplished and is being kept up to date. The 
training records would have to contain each employee's name, dates of 
the training, and subject of training. OSHA attributed to this paragraph 
all costs associated with training.
Section 1915.89(p) Incident Investigations
    The final rule requires employers to promptly investigate each 
incident that resulted in, or could have resulted in, energization or 
startup, or the release of hazardous energy. The incident investigation 
must be conducted by at least one employee who has knowledge and 
experience in the employer's lockout/tags-plus program and procedures, 
as well as in investigating and analyzing incidents involving the 
release of hazardous energy.
    The rule requires that a written incident report be prepared that 
includes: (1) The date and time of the incident; (2) date and time the 
investigation began; (3) incident location; (4) description of the 
incident; (5) factors contributing to the incident; (6) a copy of the 
current lockout/tags-plus log; and (7) corrective actions needed. The 
incident investigation, the written report, and corrective actions must 
be completed with 30 days following the incident. If corrective actions 
cannot be implemented within 30 days, the employer must prepare a 
written abatement plan that includes an explanation for the delay, an 
abatement timetable, and a summary of interim steps the employer is 
taking to protect employees from hazardous energy while servicing 
machinery, equipment, or systems.
Section 1915.89(q) Program Audits
    The final rule requires that employers conduct a program audit of 
the current lockout/tags-plus program and procedures at least annually 
to ensure that the procedures and the requirements of the rule are 
being followed, and to correct any deficiencies. The program audit must 
be performed by an authorized employee other than the one(s) using the 
energy-control procedure being reviewed, or other persons knowledgeable 
about the employer's lockout/tags-plus program and procedures and the 
machinery, equipment, or systems being reviewed. The program audit 
shall include a review of the lockout/tags-plus program and procedures, 
the current lockout/tags-plus log, and the incident reports since the 
last audit; and verification of the accuracy of the lockout/tags-plus 
log.
    The final rule requires that the written audit report be delivered 
to the employer within 15 days after completion of the audit and 
include: (1) The audit date; (2) the persons performing the audit; (3) 
the procedure and machinery, equipment, or system being audited; (4) 
the audit findings and recommendations; (5) previous incident 
investigation report; and (6) description of corrective actions taken 
in response to incident investigation finding. Finally, the final rule 
also requires that the employer promptly communicate audit findings and 
recommendations to each employee whose jobs tasks may be affected. OSHA 
assumed that all employers would incur the costs necessary to implement 
this provision.
Section 1915.93 Motor Vehicle Safety Equipment, Operation, and 
Maintenance
    The final rule requires employers to ensure that motor vehicle 
safety equipment is not removed from any employer-provided vehicle. The 
employer would have to replace safety equipment that is removed. The 
Agency believes that employers engaged in shipyard employment are 
generally in compliance with the rule as it applies to safety equipment 
on new motor vehicles, and that motor vehicle equipment is not being 
used onboard commercial vessels. The Agency estimated that employers 
may sometimes remove safety equipment from older vehicles. Thus, 
employers would need to reinstall this safety equipment.
Section 1915.94 Servicing Multi-Piece and Single-Piece Rim Wheels
    The standard incorporates by reference the requirement set forth in 
29 CFR 1910.177. This section applies to the servicing of multi-piece 
and single-piece rim wheels used on large vehicles such as trucks, 
tractors, trailers, buses, and off-road machines, and requires that 
employers train employees who will perform the servicing. It does not 
apply to servicing rim wheels used on automobiles, or on pickup trucks 
and vans using automobile tires or trucks tires designated "LT." The 
Agency believes that servicing rim wheels in shipyards is similar to 
such servicing in general industry. OSHA estimates that the costs 
associated with this servicing are limited to training time for initial 
training and additional training as necessary.

B. Industrial Profile

    OSHA's final rule affects those establishments within OSHA's 
authority that are engaged in shipyard employment operations onboard 
vessels, on vessel sections, and at landside operations, regardless of 
geographic location. This category of establishments includes employers 
engaged in shipyard-employment operations onboard commercial vessels 
not inspected by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG).
    Some stakeholders commented that OSHA's preliminary economic 
analysis (PEA) underestimated the number of vessels the rule would 
affect. For example, Gerry Mulligan of Prowler LLC and Ocean Prowler 
LLC said:

    OSHA's [preliminary] estimate of a total of 639 establishments 
effected by the rule significantly underestimates the economic 
impacts of the rule. * * * [T]his rule will impact the more than 
2500 uninspected vessels working in Washington and Alaska on which 
the ship's crews performs repairs. * * * Clearly the rule affects 
many more entities than just shipyards, most of which do not seem to 
be addressed in the economic impact statements (Ex. 100.1; see also 
Ex. 123).

    Based on stakeholder comments and other information in the record, 
OSHA added to the FEA industries with commercial vessels not inspected 
by the USCG. The final rule applies to the extent that these 
establishments are performing shipyard-employment operations, such as 
servicing machinery, equipment, or systems, onboard vessels. The PEA 
did not include these industries; however, OSHA determined that these 
employers are within OSHA's authority and perform shipyard-employment 
operations. Thus, the FEA is including these industries in the 
analysis.
Affected Establishments and Employees
    This section describes OSHA's method for estimating the number of 
affected establishments and employees engaged in shipyard employment, 
which includes shipbuilding, ship repair and shipbreaking 
establishments (NAICS 336611), and establishments in industries 
involving commercial vessels, including commercial fishing (NAICS 
11411), fish processing onboard vessels (included in NAICS 311712), tug 
and towing boats (included in NAICS 488330), coastal and Great Lakes 
passenger transportation (NAICS 483114), and inland water passenger 
transportation (NAICS 483212).
    The Agency derived estimates of the number of affected 
establishments and employees primarily from 2006 Small Business 
Administration (SBA) data on establishments, employees, and annual 
payroll, and from 2007 U.S. Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) data 
on value of shipments (revenues). The Agency used the SBA data because 
they contain a detailed breakdown by establishment and employment size 
classes. The PEA used Census Bureau data, but inadequate detail on size 
class for transportation industries and a lack of available 2007 Economic 
Census data for some industries led OSHA to update and expand estimates 
in the FEA using 2006 SBA data, which provided adequate size class detail 
and which are the most current data available.
    OSHA assumed that the final rule would affect all establishments 
engaged in shipbuilding, ship repair, and shipbreaking, and those 
establishments engaged in shipyard-employment operations in commercial 
fishing establishments, on processing vessels in the fish-processing 
and -packaging industry, in establishments with tug and towing boats 
(other than seagoing tugs and towboats), and in establishments with 
some very small non-seagoing passenger vessels (those vessels carrying 
fewer than 6 passengers). The Agency estimated that 90 percent of tow 
and tugboat establishments employ non-seagoing vessels and non-Great 
Lakes barges. The Agency also estimated that 33 percent of passenger 
vessels operating on the Great Lakes and inland waterways carry fewer 
than 6 passengers for hire; thus, they are not USCG-inspected.
    The final rule does not affect establishments with USCG-inspected 
vessels, including freight vessels, nautical-school vessels, offshore-
supply vessels, ferries and other passenger vessels, sailing-school 
vessels, seagoing barges, seagoing motor vessels, small passenger 
vessels, steam vessels, tank vessels, fish-processing vessels (more 
than 5,000 gross tons), fish-tender vessels (more than 500 gross tons), 
Great Lakes barges, and oil-spill response vessels.
    For the purposes of illustrating a clear industrial profile, OSHA 
used the following employment size classes: 1-19, 20-99, 100-199, 200-
499, 500-999, and 1,000 and more employees (Table 5). In NAICS 336611, 
which includes shipbuilding, ship repair, and shipbreaking, OSHA 
estimated that all establishments with 100 or more employees are 
shipyards; that about 73 percent of establishments with 20-99 employees 
are contractors who work at shipyards or off-site establishments that 
perform shipyard employment operations; and that all very small 
establishments with fewer than 20 employees are contractors or off-site 
establishments.

Table 5 - Industrial Profile for the Final Rule

    Comment in the record questioned OSHA's estimated affected 
establishments saying "[t]he U.S. Coast Guard lists 79,565 commercial 
fishing vessels and acknowledges that number is not complete" (Ex. 
199, p. 257) and questioned whether OSHA's estimate of 2,090 commercial 
vessels establishments underestimated the industry being regulated. 
OSHA develops an industrial profile on an establishment basis and, in 
some cases, one establishment in a commercial vessel industry will have 
more than one vessel, which means there is not a one-to-one translation 
from USCG-reported vessels and Census Bureau-reported establishments. 
There are also approximately 65,000 nonemployer establishments (those 
with no employees and taxable revenue) in the commercial fishing 
industry according to data from the Census Bureau's Economic Census. 
Establishments with no employees do not fall within OSHA jurisdiction and 
therefore are not included in the profile of affected industries.
    For this analysis, OSHA assumes that most small and all very small 
establishments in NAICS 336611 are contractors working at shipyards, 
and are not shipyards. These contract employers, in most cases, will 
not incur the full cost of compliance due to either their adherence to 
the host employer's programs or the type of work they perform at 
shipyards. For example, if a contractor provides electrical services to 
shipyards, the contractor likely would have its employees follow the 
host employer's program for the control of hazardous energy, and may 
not incur the full cost to develop a program. Moreover, to the extent 
that these contractors also perform services for companies in general 
industry, they already may have implemented a lockout/tagout program 
and incurred some startup costs. In the PEA, the Agency estimated that 
contractors primarily exist in two size classifications: 1-19 employees 
and 20-99 employees. OSHA did not receive any comments indicating that 
its estimate of the number of contractors and off-site employers was 
inaccurate, or that some of these establishments should be considered 
shipyards. The record also does not indicate that contractors and off-
site employers will incur greater costs to develop and implement a 
lockout/tags-plus program than was estimated in the PEA.
    The estimates presented in Table 5 are derived from 2006 SBA data. 
Shipyards and off-site shipyards are classified as NAICS 336611, 
commercial fishing as NAICS 11411, fish-processing onboard vessels as 
part of NAICS 311712, tug and towing vessels as part of NAICS 488330, 
and passenger vessels as NAICS 483114 and NAICS 483212. Complete firm 
and establishment data were largely available from SBA, but OSHA had to 
make some estimates for shipyards; establishments with fish-processing 
factories aboard ships; and establishments with tug and towing boats. 
OSHA estimates that there are 200 floating fish factories currently in 
operation. The Agency assumes that those factories are distributed 
across employment size classes in a manner identical to the 
establishment size distribution in the industry (NAICS 311712) as a 
whole. Allen Rainsberger, of the Puget Sound Shipbuilder's Association, 
commented that OSHA's preliminary estimate of 2,500 employees working 
on fish processing vessels was not accurate. Quoting OSHA, he wrote:

    "OSHA estimates there are about 200 fish processing vessels 
operating in * * * US territorial waters. * * * OSHA estimates that 
each vessel employs about 100-120 processing employees * * * for a 
total of 2,500 employees." There is an error in this equation as 
200 x 100 = 20,000 employees. In the North Pacific there are about 
85-90 vessels that process fish, with crews anywhere from 10 to 200 
employees each (Ex. 124).

    By estimating employment and size class distribution based on the 
characteristics of the fish processing industry as a whole, the Agency 
eliminated this error. OSHA made similar assumptions for tug and 
towboat industries, distributing the 722 tug and towing boat 
establishments reported in the 2007 Economic Census across employment-
size classes using the same ratios reported for the industry under 
which they were classified in the 2006 SBA data.
    The firm estimates for shipyards presented in Table 6 are derived 
by using a firm-to-establishment ratio from 1997 SBA data. To maintain 
consistency in the data from the preliminary to the final analysis, 
OSHA used the estimation method employed in the PEA with updated data 
for establishments from the 2006 SBA. In the PEA, OSHA applied a 
"firms-per-establishment" ratio (developed using 1997 SBA data) to 
the Census Bureau establishment estimates to develop the estimated 
number of firms. This process is illustrated in Table 6. For example, 
2002 SBA data reported that there are 27 firms in NAICS 336611 with 500 
or more employees. However, Census Bureau data report that there are 
only 21 establishments with 500 or more employees for the same year. 
OSHA used a ratio of firms-to-establishments to reconcile the two data 
sets.

Table 6 - Derivation of Firms Using 2006 SBA Data and 1997 SBA Percentages

    Table 7 presents the total number of affected establishments and 
employees. In this table, OSHA used a 32.5 percent turnover rate 
estimated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS, 2006) to estimate the 
number of new employees and new production employees affected by the 
final rule in any given year. Production employees were estimated to be 
84 percent of total employees, based on Census Bureau data. Since the 
large firms in these industries employ most of the employees, the 
Agency assumed that most large firms (using the alternate definition of 
200 or more employees) have full-time safety and health professionals; 
thus, they have in-house expertise to help the establishment to comply 
with the final rule. OSHA did not receive any comments indicating that 
large firms do not have full-time safety and health professionals, or 
that OSHA was incorrect in reaching this conclusion.

Table 7 - Affected Establishments and Employees

Employment
    OSHA used SBA data to estimate total employment in the affected 
industries. SBA reported employment for most, but not all, size classes 
and industries. When SBA data did not disclose employment, the Agency 
estimated employment by assuming firm employment averaged to the 
midpoint of each size class, and multiplying that estimated employment 
per firm by the SBA-reported number of firms for each size class. For 
example, if there were 2 firms in the 30-34 employees size class, the 
Agency assumed an average of 32 employees at each firm, for a total of 
64 employees in the 30-34 employees size class. When employment 
estimated in this manner exceeded the reported total industry 
employment, OSHA reduced assumed average employment to the lowest value 
in a given size class.
    OSHA acknowledges that not every employee in the affected 
industries will be affected by this rule. Many employees in affected 
industries do not perform shipyard-employment operations, and, 
therefore, the industries in which they are employed will incur 
compliance costs for only a fraction of these employees. However, to 
develop a complete representation of the affected industries, the 
Agency presents the total employment in the affected industries in this 
profile, and addresses the scope of affected employees in the Costs of 
Compliance section of this FEA.
    In 2006, employment in NAICS 336611 was estimated at 88,121. About 
75 percent of these employees work in the largest shipyards--those with 
1,000 or more employees. Another 6 percent work in shipyards with 500-
999 employees. Establishments with fewer than 200 employees account for 
only 20 percent of total employment, and shipyard contractors account 
for less than one-half (about 45 percent) of the 20 percent.
    Among the 9,161 commercial fishing employees and 17,470 fish-
processing employees, 55 percent and 57 percent of these employees, 
respectively, work for employers with 1,000 or more employees, while 11 
percent and 6 percent, respectively, work for employers with 500-999 
employees. Establishments with fewer than 200 employees account for 31 
percent of commercial fishing employees, and 24 percent of employees 
are involved in fish-processing onboard commercial vessels.
    The total employment for passenger vessel industries is 13,280, but 
many of these employees work onboard USCG-inspected vessels; therefore, 
they are not affected by this rule. OSHA estimates that 969 employees 
working on passenger vessels will be affected by this rule, all of whom 
work at establishments with fewer than 100 employees. Thirty-one 
percent of employees working aboard tug or towing boats work for 
employers with 1,000 or more employees, with an additional 25 percent 
working for employers having between 500-999 employees. Establishments 
with fewer than 200 employees account for 44 percent of employment in the 
tug and towboat industry.
Payroll
    Based on the 2006 SBA data, annual payroll for all industries 
affected by this final rule was about $5.3 billion. Of this amount, 
commercial fishing had an annual payroll of $225 million, or an average 
of $24,562 per employee. Fish processing vessels had an annual payroll 
of $384 million or an average of $21,975 per employee. The affected 
commercial passenger transportation industries had an annual payroll of 
$38.8 million, or an average of $40,090 per employee. The payroll for 
shipyards was an average of $46,071 per employee for a total payroll of 
$4.1 billion. Tug and towboat industries had annual payroll expenses of 
$567 million, or an average of $34,715 per employee.
    Overall, the payroll of the affected industries averaged $39,943 
per employee. For a full year, this is equivalent to an hourly wage of 
$19.20. The payroll per employee did not show any consistent pattern 
across employment size classes.
Wages
    Taking the ratio of total payroll (from SBA) to total employment, 
OSHA calculated an average annual salary of $39,943 per employee for 
all affected industries combined. The average annual salary estimate 
includes both production and non-production employees.
    The average employee in the shipyard industry earned $46,071. The 
average salary for water-transportation employees, which includes tug 
and towing services and passenger vessels, was $40,090, while the 
average tug and towing-boat employee earned $34,715. The average salary 
for commercial fishing and fish processing was $35,550. These estimates 
of average salaries include both production and non-production 
employees.
    OSHA compared the $39,943 annual salary estimate, which was based 
on payroll data, with a salary estimate based on weekly earnings 
reported by BLS (Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current 
Employment Survey, 2006). In 2006, BLS reported weekly earnings of 
$862.46 for a production or non-supervisory water-transportation 
employee, and $800.61 for an employee working in the shipyard industry. 
The annual salaries for employees in these two industries, calculated 
from BLS, reported weekly earnings of $44,848 and $41,632 (fringe 
benefits not included), respectively. The salary estimates based on the 
BLS data differ from the salary estimates based on payroll data. The 
Agency chose to rely on the BLS data for this analysis because it 
includes breakdowns of different employment categories and wage and 
salary information for industries such as commercial fishing. OSHA 
estimated, for the PEA, that the supervisors' wage rate is 25 percent 
higher than the average wage rate for production employees. OSHA did 
not receive any objections.
    The wage estimates for employees in the affected industries include 
base rate, cost-of-living allowances, guaranteed pay, hazardous-duty 
pay, incentive pay (including commissions and production bonuses), on-
call pay, and tips. The estimates exclude back pay, jury-duty pay, 
overtime pay, severance pay, shift differentials, non-production 
bonuses, and tuition reimbursements (BLS, 2000). To produce a total 
wage that realistically reflects total compensation for employees in 
affected industries, OSHA adjusted the average base wage to include 
fringe benefits. The BLS reports total employee compensation, based on 
survey data for aggregate worker categories (BLS, 2002). In this 
analysis, OSHA used an average fringe benefits rate of 38 percent based 
on data from the BLS Employer Costs for Employee Compensation survey.

C. Technological Feasibility

    The OSH Act mandates that OSHA, when promulgating standards for 
protecting workers, consider the feasibility of the new workplace 
rules. Court decisions have subsequently clarified "feasibility" in 
economic and technological terms. Consistent with the legal framework 
established by the OSH Act and court decisions, OSHA assessed the 
technological feasibility of the final rule. The rule addresses various 
workplace hazards in shipyard employment, including control of 
hazardous energy and motor vehicle safety. The final rule does not 
require technology that is not already in use in many affected 
establishments. For example, OSHA received comments stating that many 
employers engaged in shipyard employment already have implemented 
effective programs for the control of hazardous energy (Exs. 108.1; 
114.1; 116.1; 121.1; 123; 132.2; 168, pp.70, 192, 322-24). Similarly, 
several stakeholders offered examples of practices they currently use 
to protect workers, including pedestrians, from motor-vehicle accidents 
at their worksites (Exs. 116.1; 119.1; 121.1; 168, pp. 71-73, 247-48). 
Many of the requirements involve implementing work-practice controls 
that can be communicated to employees through training, which some 
stakeholders said they currently provide (Exs. 116.1; 120.1). In 
addition, some stakeholders said they already provide CPR training for 
their on-site first aid providers (Exs. 116.1; 120.1; 168, pp. 87-89, 
259, 260, 299). Based on current industry practice and OSHA's findings, 
the Agency determined that the rule is technologically feasible.

D. Benefits

    E.O. 12866 requires that Federal agencies assess both the costs and 
benefits of any regulation and make a "reasoned determination that the 
benefits * * * justify its costs" (E.O. 12866, Section 1(b)(6)). 
Agencies are to base regulatory decisions on "the best reasonably 
obtainable scientific, technical, economic, and other information 
concerning the need for, and consequences of, the intended regulation" 
(E.O. 12866 Section 1(b)(7)).
    This chapter reviews the population at risk of occupational injury, 
illness, or death in affected establishments and industries, and 
assesses the potential benefits associated with the final rule. OSHA 
believes that compliance with the rule will yield substantial benefits 
in terms of lives saved, injuries avoided, and accident-related cost 
savings. In assessing the benefits of the final rule, OSHA focused on 
the rule's primary and substantial new requirements: (1) CPR training 
for first aid providers; (2) the control of hazardous energy during 
servicing operations (lockout/tags-plus); (3) motor vehicle safety, 
including pedestrian safety at shipyards; and (4) servicing multi-piece 
and single-piece rim wheels. Although the final rule also includes 
other provisions, they primarily update, consolidate, and clarify 
existing requirements. Although OSHA believes that all provisions in 
the final rule will help to increase safety and health in shipyard 
employment, the Agency is only estimating quantitative benefits for the 
new provisions listed above (refer to the Non-quantified Benefits 
section below for a further discussion of the non-monetized benefits). 
OSHA believes that compliance with these new provisions will decrease 
the number of injuries and fatalities which, in turn, will reduce 
expenditures for medical care, rehabilitation, death benefits, lost-
work time, and repairs to damaged facilities and equipment.
    To assess the benefits, the Agency used OSHA and BLS data to 
conduct a historical analysis of the frequency of fatalities and 
injuries among employees engaged in shipyard employment landside and 
onboard commercial vessels. These data were used to calculate the 
frequency of accidents caused by improperly controlling hazardous energy 
during maintenance operations, and while operating motor vehicles. The 
Agency did not identify any injuries or fatalities relating to servicing 
rim wheels, and did not receive any reports of such injuries or fatalities 
from industry in the docket. The following sections estimate the number of 
fatalities and injuries OSHA expects the rule to prevent, and describes 
the methodology used to develop these estimates.
Fatality Benefits
    OSHA's analysis of the number of fatalities estimated to be averted 
by the final rule proceeds in two steps: (1) Determine the number of 
fatalities currently occurring and the types and causes of these 
fatalities; and (2) determine the rule's effectiveness in averting 
various types of fatalities (assuming full compliance). Only those 
fatalities that would have been prevented through compliance with the 
new provisions noted above were estimated in this benefits analysis.
    In 1995, OSHA analyzed fatalities in shipbuilding and repair (SIC 
3731) that occurred from 1974 to 1995. OSHA concluded that, of the 
total number of fatalities (314), electrocutions accounted for 8.6 
percent (or 27). More recently, OSHA reviewed 248 abstracts of fatal 
accidents from the OSHA Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) 
database from 1987 to 2002, to determine if any shipyard-employment 
accidents were the result of, or caused by, hazardous energy, motor 
vehicles, lack of medical services and first aid, and servicing rim 
wheels. Review of these 248 fatal accidents led OSHA to conclude that 
38 (15.3 percent) were related to hazards the final rule addresses. 
Included in the 38 deaths were 10 fatalities that resulted from heart 
attacks for which the abstract did not note a history of cardiovascular 
disease. Of the 38 fatalities, 13 (34 percent) were deaths that the 
final rule could have prevented. Of the 10 heart-attack deaths, OSHA 
believes that 2 deaths (20 percent) could have been averted by the 
final rule. While OSHA's analysis of heart-attack deaths focused on 
those deaths that were work related, the Agency notes that the 
requirements for CPR-trained first aid providers may also reduce 
mortality due to non-work-related heart attacks that occur in the work 
environment. As a result, OSHA believes that the benefits of this 
provision may be greatly underestimated.
    To determine an annual estimate of the number of fatalities in 
shipyard employment that the final rule would prevent, OSHA used 11 
years (1992-2002) of BLS Census of Fatal Occupational Injury (CFOI) 
data. That data showed, on average, 14.6 worker deaths occurred in SIC 
3731 (shipbuilding and repair industry, which includes shipbreaking) 
per year. OSHA multiplied that average by 15.3 percent (the percentage 
of IMIS deaths related to hazards covered by the rule) to reach a total 
of 2.2 deaths per year related to hazards covered by the rule. Then, 
OSHA multiplied the 2.2 deaths by 39.5 percent (percentage of IMIS 
fatalities estimated to be prevented by the rule) to reach 0.9 deaths 
in shipyards (SIC 3731/NAICS 336611) that could be prevented by the 
rule (avoidable deaths).
    To determine the annual estimate of the number of fatalities aboard 
covered commercial vessels that the rule would prevent, OSHA used 17 
years (2002-2008) of BLS CFOI data. That data showed, on average, 47 
worker deaths per year in the commercial vessels industries, a majority 
of those deaths being in the commercial fishing industry. OSHA 
multiplied that average by 0.9 percent, which was the percentage of 
IMIS deaths related to hazards covered by the rule, multiplied by the 
ratio of fish-processing vessels to total fish processing 
establishments. This calculation accounted for, and removed from the 
estimate, those fatalities that occurred at land-based fish-processing 
facilities. Based on this calculation, OSHA reached an estimate of 0.4 
deaths per year onboard commercial vessels that were related to hazards 
covered by the final rule. OSHA estimated that 66 percent of the deaths 
related to hazards covered by the rule could have been prevented for a 
total of 0.3 avoidable deaths per year onboard commercial vessels. OSHA 
estimates that, in total, 1.2 deaths (0.9 deaths in shipyards plus 0.3 
onboard commercial vessels covered by the rule) per year could be 
prevented by the final rule (see Table 8).

Table 8 - Estimated Fatality Benefits Attributed to the Final Rule

Injury Benefits
    The numbers and characteristics of injuries in SIC 3731 (NAICS 
336611), SIC 0910 (NAICS 11411), SIC 2092 (NAICS 311712), SIC 4499 
(NAICS 488330), and SIC 4489 (NAICS 483114 and NAICS 483212) are 
outlined in the BLS Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and 
Illnesses. This survey is based on employer injury and illness reports 
(OSHA Form 200 or 300) collected by state agencies and BLS from roughly 
250,000 private establishments. The survey compiles demographic information, 
data on employee occupation, length-of-service statistics, employee hours 
worked, the employer's principal products or services, selected injury or 
illness characteristics, and the severity of the accident (in terms of 
lost workdays). Thus, data from the BLS injury and illness survey can be 
used to develop a profile of the risks facing employee groups, such as those 
engaged in shipyard-employment activities. Unfortunately, this BLS database 
does not characterize injuries that do not involve days away from work in a 
way that would permit OSHA to determine causality. OSHA notes that, in most 
sectors, the number of injuries and illnesses that do not involve days away 
from work equals or exceeds the number of cases involving days away from 
work.
    According to BLS data from 1992 to 2001, in SIC 3731 there were an 
average of 6,088 injuries per year involving days away from work. BLS 
publishes certain broad categories of injuries and illnesses by source 
for all SICs, and now for NAICS.
    To estimate the number of injuries due to the absence or inadequacy 
of procedures for the control of hazardous energy, OSHA multiplied the 
number of total cases involving days away from work by the percentage 
of cases estimated to be caused by the absence or inadequacy of 
protection against hazardous energy. In the general industry lockout/
tagout standard, OSHA determined that 2 percent of all injuries were 
related to hazardous energy (OSHA, 1989). OSHA multiplied the product 
by 39.5 percent (the percentage of IMIS fatalities estimated to be 
prevented by the final rule). The results are presented in Table 9. 
OSHA then used the 2 percent figure to estimate the non-lost workday 
injuries resulting from the lockout/tagout activities. This product was 
also multiplied by 39.5 percent (the percentage of IMIS fatalities 
estimated to be prevented by the final rule). This calculation results 
in 48.1 lost workday and 89.1 non-lost workday lockout/tagout injury 
cases.
    According to the BLS data from 1992-2001, there were an average of 
1,800 injuries per year in the fish-processing industry involving days 
away from work. Based on IMIS accident reports, the Agency estimated 
that 28 percent of injuries in the fish-processing industry were 
related to inadequacy or absence of controls to protect employees from 
hazardous energy. These injuries were generally serious (often 
amputations). OSHA estimated lost workdays related to hazardous-energy 
injuries for the fish-processing industry by multiplying the injury 
cases involving days away from work by the percent of injuries related 
to lockout/tagout (28 percent). OSHA concluded that injuries onboard 
floating fish-processing factories were occurring in the same 
proportion to injuries at land-based fish-processing factories. To 
estimate the number of hazardous-energy injuries onboard fish-
processing vessels, OSHA multiplied the number of hazardous energy 
injury cases involving days away by 36 percent (the ratio of fish-
processing vessels (200) to total fish-processing establishments 
(552)). The Agency concluded that the final rule would prevent all of 
those injuries, resulting in an estimated 184.3 avoidable lockout/tags-
plus injury cases per year involving days away from work.
    The injuries related to motor vehicle operation and maintenance 
were calculated by applying the 15.3 percent (the percentage of IMIS 
deaths related to the rule used in the fatality estimates) to the BLS 
estimates for motor vehicle-related injuries (lost workday and non-lost 
workday estimates), and then multiplying this product by 39.5 percent 
(the percentage of IMIS fatalities estimated to be prevented by the 
rule); this calculation results in 9.5 lost workday and 17.4 non-lost 
workday injuries related to motor vehicles. This injury category 
includes injuries while operating or riding in motor vehicles, as well 
as being struck by motor vehicles in the workplace. This estimate, 
combined with the hazardous-energy injury reductions, totals of 348.4 
avoidable injury cases (which includes both cases involving days away 
from work and non-lost workday cases) that the final rule would prevent 
(see Table 9). The available data did not allow OSHA to identify 
injuries related to the absence, or inadequate training, of CPR 
providers, nor injuries that occurred while servicing rim wheels.

Table 9 - Estimated Injury Benefits Attributed to the Final Rule

Monetized Benefits
    For informational purposes, the Agency monetized both avoidable 
fatalities and injuries based on willingness-to-pay (WTP) values of 
$8.7 million per death and $67,000 per injury. In estimating the value 
of preventing a fatality, OSHA followed the approach established by the 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA's Guidelines for 
Preparing Economic Analyses provides a detailed review of the methods 
for estimating mortality risk values, and summarizes the values 
obtained in the literature (EPA, 2000). Synthesizing the results from 
26 relevant studies, EPA arrived at a mean value of a statistical life 
(VSL) of $4.8 million (in 1990 dollars). EPA recommends this central 
estimate, updated for inflation (the value is $8.7 million in 2010 
dollars), for application in regulatory analyses. This VSL estimate 
also is within the range of the substantial majority of such estimates 
in the literature ($1 million to $10 million per statistical life), as 
discussed in OMB Circular A-4 (OMB, 2003). Applying a VSL of $8.7 
million to the estimated number of prevented fatalities, OSHA estimates 
that the dollar value of the prevented deaths resulting from compliance 
with the final rule will be $10.4 million annually.
    OSHA also reviewed the available research literature regarding the 
dollar value of preventing an injury. Kip Viscusi and Joseph Aldy 
conducted a critical review of 39 studies estimating the value of a 
statistical injury (Viscusi and Aldy, 2003, Ex. 9). In their published 
article, Viscusi and Aldy reviewed the available WTP literature to 
identify a suitable range of estimates. Using WTP to value non-fatal 
injuries is the approach OMB recommends in OMB Circular A-4.
    Viscusi and Aldy found that most studies resulted in estimates in 
the range of $20,000 to $70,000 per injury, although several studies 
resulted in even higher estimates. This range of values is partly 
explained by the fact that some studies used an overall injury rate, 
and others used only injuries resulting in lost workdays. The injuries 
that would be prevented by this final rule often involve 
hospitalization and, therefore, are likely to be more severe than the 
majority of injuries involving days away from work.
    Thus, it is reasonable to believe that the value of a statistical 
injury for this rulemaking will be in the upper part of the reported 
range of estimates. Nevertheless, OSHA used an estimate of $67,000 in 
2010 dollars to assess monetized benefits for this analysis. Thus, with 
348.4 injuries (injuries involving days away from work and non-lost 
workday injuries) a year potentially prevented by the final rule, OSHA 
estimates that the dollar value of prevented injuries through 
compliance with the rule will total $23.4 million annually.
    The total monetized benefits for prevented deaths and injuries are 
estimated to be $33.8 million in total monetized benefits.
Non-Quantified Benefits
    OSHA believes that non-quantified benefits also are likely to 
result from the final rule; therefore, the 1.2 prevented fatalities and 
348.4 avoided injuries each year should be considered minimum estimates. 
For example, the provisions for accounting for employees at the end of the 
workshift, lifeboat safety, housekeeping, rim-wheel repair, lighting, and 
utilities are expected to result in safer working conditions that will 
reduce fatalities and injuries. The revision of the sanitation and vermin-control 
standard also are expected to result in fewer heat-, hydration-, and 
sanitation-related deaths and illnesses. However, these cases are difficult 
to quantify as they are commonly unreported or not recognized as 
work-related cases.
    The provisions for improved first aid and medical treatment, along 
with the requirement to account for working-alone employees at the end 
of the job assignment or workshift (whichever occurs first), are 
expected to result in benefits due to improved survivability from an 
injury, and fewer medical complications resulting from delayed or 
ineffective treatment. Also, OSHA believes that employers and employees 
will benefit from the reorganization and plain-language features of the 
final rule, which will make it easier for employers to comply with the 
rule and, thus, improve safety and health in general working conditions 
in shipyard employment.
Appendix
    In estimating the preventable fatalities under the final rule, the 
Agency reviewed accident abstracts from OSHA's IMIS database from the 
years 1992-2008 (16 years). The table of accidents (by accident 
numbers) below gives a brief description of the accidents and provides 
OSHA's determination on the provisions that could have prevented the 
accident. The table does not include examples of the 20 percent of 
heart-attack deaths that are estimated to be preventable if the 
requirements of this rule are followed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Accident number         Brief description          OSHA's findings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
014337851...........  While attempting to repair   Control of Hazardous
                       a hoist, the employee did    Energy.
                       not check the brake to
                       ensure that it was locked
                       in. He had removed all but
                       one bolt when the drum and
                       gear started freewheeling.
                       The paw and spring broke
                       off. The two large gears
                       on the opposite side
                       jammed and the motor shaft
                       started turning. The hub
                       flew off the shaft and
                       stuck the employee in the
                       chest, killing him.
101350262...........  Employees were working in    Control of Hazardous
                       an aerial lift basket on     Energy.
                       an elevator platform
                       (hanger deck level) with
                       the boom extended to the
                       underside of the flight
                       deck. The employees had
                       finished their work and
                       were lowering themselves
                       to hanger deck level, when
                       the elevator unexpectedly
                       ascended towards the
                       flight deck. Both
                       employees were crushed
                       under the lip of the
                       flight deck, while in the
                       basket.
200840650...........  Employees were working on a  Control of Hazardous
                       steering mechanism           Energy.
                       belonging to a tow boat.
                       The electricity was turned
                       off and secured, but the
                       residual energy belonging
                       to the hydraulics was not.
                       A component of this
                       steering mechanism shifted
                       without warning killing
                       one employee.
170611206...........  Employee was electrocuted    Control of Hazardous
                       while working alone on a     Energy.
                       transformer. He seemed to
                       be manually cleaning the
                       ceramic terminals and
                       checking them for cracks.
                       The oil switch to the
                       mound was purportedly in
                       the open position;
                       however, the panel lights
                       indicated that the circuit
                       breaking controlling
                       electric power to the
                       mound was closed. No
                       signs, tags, or locks had
                       been used.
014534143...........  While an electrician was     Control of Hazardous
                       working on a switchboard,    Energy.
                       which was de-energized and
                       tagged, a ship's crew
                       member inadvertently
                       energized the circuit. He
                       was electrocuted.
014509350...........  Employees, conducting valve  Control of Hazardous
                       repair operations on a       Energy.
                       steam piping system, were
                       burned when scalded by
                       stored steam.
302101134...........  Employees came in contact    Control of Hazardous
                       with 4160 volts coming       Energy.
                       from a secondary switch
                       which had not been locked
                       open to de-energize the
                       high voltage going to the
                       load side of panel ZZ4020
                       and ZZ4025.
014436075...........  Accidental energization      Control of Hazardous
                       occurred when an employee    Energy.
                       was standing in the
                       conveyor when one of the
                       ship's crew turned the
                       conveyor on. The ship's
                       crewman was unaware of the
                       other employees' presence.
                       There was no lockout
                       procedure in effect.
200552248...........  A pickup truck with          Motor Vehicle Safety.
                       automatic transmission
                       began to roll back and
                       apparently the victim
                       tried to reach through the
                       driver's side window to
                       put the truck gear in park
                       when he fell and the front
                       driver's side tire rolled
                       over him.
201580073...........  The driver of a straddle     Motor Vehicle Safety.
                       lift truck struck and
                       killed an employee who had
                       been walking on the pier.
000603621...........  An employee was riding a     Motor Vehicle Safety.
                       bicycle while performing
                       regularly assigned tasks
                       when he was hit by a bus.
200550820...........  While standing near the      Control of Hazardous
                       right rear tire, employee    Energy.
                       was operating a battery
                       charger and pushing the
                       loader's button when he
                       apparently contacted a
                       control that caused the
                       machine to suddenly move
                       forward. He was run over
                       by the large rear tire and
                       was killed.
000648550...........  While an employee was        Motor Vehicle Safety.
                       hammering wood wedges in
                       the seal where the floor
                       meets the wall, a bobcat
                       operator backed over him
                       pinning him between the
                       bobcat and the dry dock
                       wall. The employee later
                       died at the hospital after
                       this accident.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Occupational Safety and Health Administration Integrated
  Management Information System Database.

E. Costs of Compliance

    This chapter presents OSHA's estimate of the rule's costs of 
compliance for affected establishments and industries. OSHA based the 
costs on the profile of affected employers and workers presented in the 
Industrial Profile section of this FEA, on estimates based on data 
provided by the "General Industry Lockout/Tagout Regulatory Impact 
Analysis" (OSHA, 1989), and on the "Supporting Statement for the 
Information Collection Requirements in the Control of Hazardous Energy 
(Lockout/Tagout) rule" \13\ (29 CFR 1910.147, OMB Control Number 1218-
0150 (June 2004)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The purpose of the Supporting Statement is to analyze and 
describe burden hours and cost associated with provisions of this 
standard that contain paperwork requirements. The Supporting 
Statement does not provide information or guidance on how to comply 
with, or how to enforce, these provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This chapter is organized into three sections. The first section 
reviews the methodology and describes the type of costs. The second 
section presents OSHA's baseline data and analytical assumptions used 
to estimate costs. The final section summarizes the costs of compliance 
by establishment and provision.
Methodology
    To estimate the compliance costs that the final rule would impose 
on employers, it was necessary to assess the extent to which current 
industry practice already meets the rule's requirements. Based on that 
assessment, the Agency identified five areas in the final rule that 
would generate new costs: sanitation, medical services and first aid, 
control of hazardous energy, motor-vehicle safety, and servicing multi-
piece and single-piece rim wheels. For the purposes of this FEA, OSHA 
assumed that affected firms will seek to minimize their compliance 
costs and, thus, calculated the least-cost option to comply with the 
provisions of the rule. All cost estimates assume employers will fully 
comply with the final rule. Costs are reported as annualized costs, 
with capital or one-time costs based on a 7 percent discount rate (as 
recommended by OMB) for costs in future years. All one-time costs are 
assumed to have a 10-year life.
    This cost analysis does not account for any changes in production 
methods, investment effects, or macroeconomic effects of the rule. 
Taking into account all of these effects could increase or decrease the 
cost estimate presented, although the macroeconomic effects of any rule 
with costs as low as these are likely to be minimal. OSHA believes that 
this approach, determining the benefits and costs of the final rule for 
industry as it is today, is the most reliable and least speculative way 
of presenting them.
Baseline Data and Analytical Assumptions
    This section presents the technical specifications, unit costs, and 
analytical assumptions underlying OSHA's cost analysis. For those 
provisions in the final rule that simply update, consolidate, or 
clarify existing requirements, OSHA assumes that no new costs will be 
imposed. The Agency did not receive any comments indicating that the 
provisions that update, consolidate, or clarify existing requirements 
would impose new costs.
    The Agency solicited comment in the record on whether these 
provisions imposed new additional costs, and received comments that the 
sanitation standard would require a 25 percent increase in toilets at a 
cost of $7.5 million for the Newport News, VA, shipyard (James 
Thornton, Northrop Grumman, Ex. 120.1), and that the lighting 
requirements and housekeeping requirements would increase costs without 
increasing safety (Doug Dixon, Pacific Fisherman Shipyard and Electric, 
LLC, Ex. 131.1). The Agency considered these comments and concluded 
that firms would not incur costs to comply with these provisions if 
they were currently complying with the existing shipyard standards.
Section 1915.87 Medical Services and First Aid
    Paragraph (c)(1) requires employers to ensure that there is an 
adequate number of employees trained as first aid providers at each 
worksite during each work shift to render first aid, including CPR. The 
Agency estimates that 2 percent of employees will serve as first aid 
providers, and that 50 percent of those employees will need to be 
trained or retrained to provide adequate care. According to American 
Red Cross data, the cost per person for first aid (including CPR) 
training ranges from $35 to $80 plus 4 hours of employee time to 
receive the training (ARC, 2010). The Agency is using the median cost 
of $55 for this analysis. The per-employee time cost to receive this 
training is 4 hours multiplied by the employee's hourly wage rate of 
$26.51 for shipyard employees; $28.61 for tug and towing-boat and 
passenger-vessel employees; $31.62 for fish-processing vessel 
employees; and $16.30 for commercial fishing employees. The total 
training cost is $55 times the number of employees needing training.
    First aid equipment and first aid and CPR training on certain 
uninspected commercial fishing vessels are regulated by the USCG (46 
CFR 28.210). The Agency was unable to obtain data to adequately 
estimate the number of commercial fishing vessels subject to USCG first 
aid and CPR requirements. Therefore, OSHA estimated costs as if they 
would apply to all commercial fishing vessels. This approach likely 
will overstate costs for first aid training including CPR training in 
the commercial fishing industry. Due to the presence of USCG first aid 
training regulations, OSHA believes that commercial vessels already 
have an adequate number of first aid providers onboard. The Agency 
estimated the total cost related to this provision at $418,349. Table 
10 outlines the total annual costs for first aid training including CPR 
training.

Table 10 - Annual CPR Training for First Aid Providers

Section 1915.88 Sanitation
    Paragraph (e)(1) requires that employers provide handwashing 
facilities at, or adjacent to, each toilet facility. Paragraph 
(e)(2)(i) requires employers to ensure that each handwashing facility 
is equipped with either hot and cold or lukewarm running water and 
soap, or, when it is impracticable to provide running water, with 
waterless skin cleansing agents that are capable of disinfecting the 
skin and neutralizing the contaminants to which the employee may be 
exposed.
    For shipbuilding and repair establishments, OSHA concluded that 
they already have handwashing facilities at sewered toilets, but not at 
all portable toilets. Thus, they would incur costs for providing 
additional handwashing facilities. The Agency also concluded that 
commercial vessels have adequate toilet and handwashing facilities 
onboard vessels. As such, commercial vessel employers would not have to 
provide portable toilet facilities or additional handwashing facilities 
to meet employee health and personal needs.
    To comply with the requirement to provide handwashing facilities at 
portable toilets, OSHA calculated the least-cost option, which is to 
supply each portable toilet with waterless skin cleansing agents. OSHA 
assumes that employers in the shipyard industry already are providing 
lockable, unisex portable toilets, especially when work is being 
performed onboard vessels. OSHA estimates that about one-third of 
employees at each shipyard establishment might need to use portable 
toilets. OSHA also estimates that employers will provide portable 
toilets using the same formula they would use in determining the 
adequate number of sewered toilets (Table F-2 in Sec.  1915.88(d)(2)).
    OSHA estimates that waterless cleaning agents for each portable 
toilet will be refilled each time the toilet is serviced, which OSHA 
assumes will be at least weekly. Further, the Agency estimates that 
each bottle of cleanser costs $5 and that the annual cost of cleanser 
for each portable toilet is $260 ($5 per bottle times 52 weeks). This 
is the annual unit cost. The total annual cost to comply is the unit 
cost multiplied by the total number of portable toilets that employers 
on each size class will provide, multiplied by the number of 
establishments in that size class. Table 11 outlines the costs 
associated with this requirement which are estimated to be $748,709. 
Note that for this analysis, the Agency assumed for the baseline that 
establishments in the shipyard industry currently do not provide 
handwashing products at portable toilets. To the extent that employers 
are providing such services or products, the final cost estimates may 
be lower. Moreover, if an establishment operates on only a seasonal 
basis or is shutdown at any time during the year, the costs also may be 
lower. OSHA did not receive any comments indicating that the costs the 
Agency estimated for providing waterless cleansing agents were 
understated.

Table 11 - Annual Costs for Waterless Cleaning Agents

Section 1915.89 Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tags-plus)
    These provisions apply to the servicing of machinery, equipment, 
and systems, including servicing machinery, equipment, and systems 
onboard vessels and vessel sections. This also applies to the extent 
that other sections in subpart F and part 1915 either involve servicing 
operations or require the use of lockout/tags-plus applications. There 
are several areas in which employers will incur costs, which are 
discussed below.
    The standard requires that employers establish a program to protect 
employees from energization, startup, or release of hazardous energy 
during the servicing of machinery, equipment and systems in shipyard 
employment. This program would have to include: (1) Procedures for 
lockout/tags-plus systems, including a lockout/tags-plus coordination 
process; (2) procedures for protecting employees involved in servicing; 
(3) specification for locks and tags-plus hardware; (4) employee 
training; (5) incident investigations; and (6) program audits.
    In estimating the costs for complying with various lockout/tags-
plus applications, OSHA used the following parameters:
     Affected employers were categorized as large (500 
employees or more), medium (100-499 employees), small (20-99 
employees); and very small (fewer than 20 employees);
     Employment categories and wages used were:
    [cir] Supervisors ($32.98 per hour for shipyard establishments, 
$44.13 per hour for water transportation, $33.53 per hour for fish-
processing vessels, $20.37 per hour for commercial fishing)--to develop 
the lockout/tags-plus program and procedures, coordinate lockout/tags-
plus applications, and perform training and retraining;
    [cir] Authorized employees ($23.72 per hour for shipyard 
establishments, $46.46 per hour for water transportation, $31.78 per 
hour for fish-processing vessels, $16.30 for commercial fishing)--to 
perform operations involving locking, tagging, and isolation of 
hazardous energy sources; to perform servicing; and to conduct incident 
investigations and program audits; and
    [cir] Affected employees ($19.51 per hour for shipbuilding and 
repair establishments, $30.58 per hour for water transportation, $18.09 
per hour for fish-processing vessels, and $16.30 per hour for 
commercial fishing)--to adapt their work routine because of lockout/
tags-plus applications.
     Lockout/Tags-plus Program Costs:
    [cir] Time to develop and maintain lockout/tags-plus program and 
procedures by employer size;

0
 Large--the Agency concluded, based on comment in the record, that all 
large employers already have a written lockout/tags-plus program and 
will not incur costs related to the development of a program. However, 
OSHA estimates that large employers will require 20 hours initially to 
update their programs to comply with the final rule, and 20 hours each 
year thereafter to update the program;
0
 Medium--40 hours initially to develop a lockout/tags-plus program, and 
12 hours annually thereafter to update the program;
0
 Small--12 hours initially, and 4 hours thereafter; and
0
 Very Small--2 hours initially, and 30 minutes thereafter.
    Based on the supervisor's wage rate, the Agency estimated the 
annualized costs to develop the lockout/tags-plus program and 
procedures at $91,890, as shown in Table 12, with recurring annual 
costs of $275,116 shown in Table 12a. The Agency concluded that 
employers will have to update their lockout/tags-plus programs and 
procedures at least annually due to the changes at the workplace or in 
machinery, equipment, or systems being serviced. OSHA received no 
comment in the docket indicating that the estimated number of hours 
required to develop and maintain a lockout/tags-plus program were 
understated.
    In addition to the costs for shipyard establishments, many other 
establishments or contractors engaged in shipyard-employment operations 
also would have to develop lockout/tags-plus programs. In the PEA, the 
Agency estimated that there are four types of these establishments: (1) 
Establishments that do not perform the type of activities requiring 
them to develop and implement a lockout/tags-plus program (10%); (2) 
establishments using a shipyard's program (15%); (3) establishments 
developing their own program (50%); and (4) establishments developing a 
joint program with a shipyard (25%). While the final rule requires 
contractors working for a host employer to follow that host employer's 
lockout/tags-plus program, OSHA maintained some costs for contractors 
and other establishments because the Agency believes that they will 
spend some time on program development, familiarization, or 
implementation.

Table 12 - Lockout/Tags-plus Program Costs by Establishment Size

Table 12a - Recurring Annual Costs for Lockout/Tags-plus Program Updates

    Numerous stakeholders asserted that OSHA understated the costs 
associated with developing and implementing a lockout/tags-plus 
program. Cynthia Brown of the American Shipbuilding Association (ASA) 
said that ASA conservatively estimated that the lockout/tagout 
provisions would cost "well over $200 million." She also said that 
the first-year costs for the Newport News shipyard to implement the 
lockout/tagout requirements were $85 million, with recurring annual 
costs of $79 million (Ex. 204.1). John H. James, Jr., Executive 
Director of Logistics, Maintenance, and Industrial Operations for the 
Navy, said that it would cost each shipyard over $30 million to 
implement a lockout/tagout program (Ex. 132.2). Stacy Ballow, of ASA, 
testified at the hearing in Washington, DC, regarding the cost of the 
proposed hazardous-energy requirements:

    [T]he proposed [lockout/tagout] rule will result in a cost to 
the American taxpayers well over $200 million. This figure is based 
on an estimated cost of approximately [$]100 million for the six ASA 
member shipyards in addition to the Navy's [$]120 million cost 
estimate for its four nuclear shipyards. The largest contributor to 
this estimate is the proposal's required individual employee 
involvement in group lockout/tagout (Ex. 168, p. 238).

    James Thornton, Director of Environmental Health and Safety for 
Northrop Grumman (Ex. 120.1), concurred that the proposed group 
lockout/tagout provisions would pose the greatest costs, which he 
estimated would be at least $19 million annually for the Newport News 
shipyard. None of these commenters provided the Agency with specific or 
background information on their cost models. Thus, OSHA cannot fully 
address their cost concerns. The record for this rule includes evidence 
that individual shipyards have successfully implemented lockout/tags-
plus programs similar to the general industry lockout/tagout standard. 
This indicates that it is feasible and not overly burdensome for 
shipyards to comply with a hazardous energy control program.
    The rule requires that employers follow certain procedures to: 
shutdown machinery, equipment or systems; deenergize machinery, 
equipment or systems; isolate and secure power sources; verify 
isolation; and apply locks or tags-plus systems. The costs for this 
subsection include: (1) The time to implement the required procedures; 
(2) the time to apply lockout/tags-plus applications to power sources 
or energy-isolating devices; (3) the time to implement additional safety 
measures; (4) the time to apply tags to the energy-isolating device; 
and (5) the time to complete the required lockout/tags-plus log.
    The power sources considered in this analysis include electrical 
(primary), air, hydraulic, and steam (primary); electrical (secondary); 
air, hydraulic, and steam (secondary); and all non-vessel sources (for 
example, electrical panel boxes in buildings and in off-site 
establishments) to which locks or tags-plus systems are applied. The 
unit costs are presented in Table 13, and are based on the following 
estimates:
     Large shipyards and commercial vessels industries (those 
with 500 or more employees) are already employing some form of energy 
control when performing work on electrical systems or equipment. OSHA 
estimates that those shipyards and commercial-vessel industries will 
not incur any additional costs associated with applying a lockout or 
tags-plus system. This estimate is consistent with evidence presented 
in the rulemaking record.
     OSHA estimates that medium, small, and very small 
shipyards and commercial-vessel industries (those with fewer than 500 
employees) do not currently employ any form of lockout or tags-plus 
system when performing electrical work other than as required by 29 CFR 
1915, subpart J (Ship's Machinery and Piping Systems), and subpart L 
(Electrical Machinery). Additional costs will include the time to go to 
the system, tag it, and attach a clip. Also included is the cost of the 
required hardware. The labor-time estimate includes the time to notify 
the affected employees of the application and removal of lockout or 
tags-plus devices.
    [cir] OSHA estimates that the cost of the tag is $1.00 \14\ and the 
cost of a tie is $0.03. Tags can be used an estimated 7 times, so that 
the cost per use is $0.14. There may be some additional hardware costs, 
but the unit cost per use is very low, and additional hardware costs 
will not affect the feasibility of compliance with the final rule. The 
labor cost is 2 minutes of time at an authorized employee's wage rate. 
The total unit cost of securing a primary electric power source is 
$1.07 for shipyards, $0.53 for commercial fishing, $1.20 for fish-
processing vessels, and $1.69 for water transportation. The unit cost 
for securing hydraulic or air-powered power sources is estimated at 
$24.69 for shipyards, $12.77 for commercial fishing, $32.74 for fish-
processing vessels, and $47.42 for water transportation. OSHA estimates 
that 1 hour of authorized employee time is needed to secure air and 
hydraulic power sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ This estimate is taken from the General Industry Regulatory 
Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of 29 CFR 1910.147 
"Control of Hazardous Energy Sources (Lockout/Tagout)" standard. 
In reviewing the cost of a tag, the Agency found that tags average 
from $0.88 to $1.24 each. Thus, the estimate of $1.00 per tag seems 
reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Agency is retaining the estimates from the PEA of the 
cost to provide full employee protection which includes implementing an 
additional safety measures to reduce the likelihood of inadvertent 
energization so that a tags-plus system provides the equivalent safety 
available from the use of a lock. OSHA estimated 6 lockouts or tags-
plus systems applied per authorized employee per year to secure backup 
electrical systems, and 1 lockout or tags-plus system applied per year 
per authorized employee to secure air or hydraulic secondary systems, 
except for contract employees and off-site employees, who will perform 
20 such lockout or tags-plus activities per year of backup electrical 
systems. Current regulations do not cover back-up power systems, nor 
are they generally isolated and/or locked or tagged under current 
practice. OSHA believes that all establishments will incur costs to 
comply with this requirement, and that the same procedure will be used 
for securing back-up systems as for primary systems with the same type 
of power. The additional costs to comply with this requirement will 
include the time to go to the system and implement the additional 
safety measure which OSHA estimates will take 2 minutes for electrical 
back-up power sources and 1 hour for air and hydraulic power sources. 
Estimates of the number of secondary or multiple-source lockouts or 
tags-plus applications are presented in Table 14.
     OSHA estimated that small and very small contractors and 
off-site establishments in the shipyards industry will install, on 
average, one lockout or tags-plus system per week, that medium 
shipyards will install five lockout or tags-plus systems per day, and 
that commercial vessels will install five lockout or tags-plus systems 
per year.
     OSHA estimated that half of the activities that require 
lockout or tags-plus systems are already covered under 29 CFR 1915, 
subparts L and J, and that subpart F will only require lockout or tags-
plus systems to be applied in half of the cases estimated above.
     The Agency also estimates that one out of every twenty 
lockout or tags-plus applications will be installed on air or hydraulic 
systems, and that the rest of the applications will be on electrical 
systems.
    OSHA estimated that 10 percent of production workers would be 
considered authorized employees. The Agency presented this estimate in 
the PEA, and did not receive any comments in the record indicating that 
the estimate of authorized employees was understated. The number of 
affected employees was estimated in the PEA to be 20 percent of 
production workers. Comment in the record from Cynthia Brown of the ASA 
(Ex. 204.1) expressed concern that estimates of affected employees may 
not be capturing all employees affected by lockout/tags-plus 
applications. Ms. Brown reported that an estimate of affected employees 
used in a project to assess the costs of implementing lockout/tags-plus 
for Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding-Newport News may have excluded 
personnel in trades other than primary trades and, therefore, 
underestimated costs. OSHA concludes that personnel, other than those 
servicing machinery, equipment, or systems, may be affected by lockout/
tags-plus applications by their proximity to those machines, equipment, 
or systems, but believes that employers can reduce the number of 
affected employees by removing nonessential personnel from the area 
where servicing in lockout/tags-plus is being performed. The Agency 
also believes that all employees currently receive an introduction to 
lockout/tags-plus procedures during the general workplace orientation 
which provides adequate training for employees affected only by their 
proximity to work being performed on electrical equipment or systems. 
OSHA estimated the total costs of securing energy sources to be 
$513,406.

Table 13 - Annual Costs of Securing Energy Sources by Establishment Size

Table 14 - Multiple or Secondary Energy Sources Secured Per Year by Establishment Size

    The final rule requires a lockout/tags-plus coordinator to complete 
a lockout/tags-plus log that contains the location and type of 
machinery, equipment, or system to be serviced, the name of the 
authorized employee who is applying the lockout/tags-plus system, the 
date the system is applied, the name of the authorized employee 
removing the lock or tags-plus system, and the date the system is 
removed. The Agency estimated that it would take 5 minutes of the 
lockout/tags-plus coordinator's time (at the authorized employee's wage 
rate) to complete the lockout/tags-plus log per lockout/tags-plus 
application. The number of lockout/tags-plus activities per year is 
based on the estimates presented above. Table 15 outlines the total 
costs related to creating the lockout/tags-plus log which OSHA 
estimates to be $264,763.

Table 15 - Costs of Creating the Lockout/Tags-plus Log by Establishment Size

Lockout/Tags-Plus Material and Hardware Sec.  1915.89(n)
    OSHA anticipates that clips, tags, ties, and any other necessary 
equipment will be procured and maintained by a supervisor ($32.98 per 
hour for shipyards, $44.13 per hour for water transportation, $33.53 
per hour for fish-processing vessels, $20.37 per hour for commercial 
fishing). The Agency estimates that an initial procurement of this 
equipment will occur per establishment, and that it will take longer 
initially due to time needed for employers to research the unique 
characteristics of the devices outlined in the rule. The Agency 
concluded that less time is needed to reorder these items. These costs 
are outlined in Table 16. For example, the initial cost for a large 
shipyard is $263.84 ($32.98 times 8 hours). When this cost is 
annualized, the unit cost is $37.57. The Agency estimates that 
employers would spend some time annually to reorder protective 
materials and hardware. For large establishments (having more than 
1,000 employees), OSHA estimates that, annually, establishments will 
spend 4 hours each of a supervisor's time to reorder materials and 
hardware. The estimated times required for selection, purchase, and 
distribution of lockout and tags-plus equipment in different sized 
establishments are:
     Large--8 hours initially, and 4 hours annually thereafter;
     Medium--5 hours initially, and 2 hours annually 
thereafter; and
     Small--3 hours initially, and 1 hour annually thereafter.

The cost of the materials themselves are accounted for as part of the 
unit cost of performing a lockout or tags-plus application and are not 
considered in this section.
Off-Site Establishments
    OSHA estimates that off-site establishments will incur much smaller 
costs of procuring equipment than shipyards. In particular, OSHA 
estimates that it will take 20 minutes for a supervisor initially to 
select the lock and chain, and five minutes annually to reorder these 
items. Based on the estimated wage rate for a supervisor, off-site 
establishments will incur unit costs of $1.55 (initially), and unit 
costs of $2.64 thereafter. The Agency estimated these costs as if 
employers are not currently performing this function, thus assigning a 
baseline of zero. Final costs may be lower if employers already are 
ordering and storing this equipment.
    OSHA estimated the total costs associated with procuring lockout/
tags-plus hardware and materials to be $135,503.

Table 16 - Lockout/Tags-plus Materials and Hardware by Establishment Size

Incident Investigations Sec.  1915.89(p)
    The final rule requires employers to investigate each incident that 
resulted in, or could reasonably have resulted in, energization or 
startup, or the release of hazardous energy. The employee conducting 
the investigation is required to complete a written report of the 
findings from the investigation that includes the date and time of the 
incident, and when the incident investigation began; the location, 
description, and factors that contributed to the event; a copy of any 
lockout/tags-plus log that was current at the time of the incident; and 
any corrective actions that need to be taken as a result of the 
incident. OSHA estimates that incident investigations will be required 
in one percent of all lockout/tags-plus events, which are estimated 
based on figures presented in the Cost of Compliance section above. It 
is estimated that the incident investigation and written report will 
take five workdays (40 hours) of authorized employee time to complete. 
These costs, which are estimated to be $1,056,202, are presented in 
Table 17.

Table 17 - Incident Investigations Costs

Program Audits [se'ct] 1915.89(q)(1)
    The rule requires employers to conduct an audit of the lockout/
tags-plus program and procedures at least annually to ensure that the 
procedures and the requirements of this standard are being followed, 
and to correct any deficiencies. OSHA estimates that the audit itself 
will take 30 minutes each of a supervisor's and authorized employee's 
time. An additional 20 minutes of supervisor time is needed to prepare 
the certification record. Also, each inspection will consist of follow-
up training of an estimated five authorized employees and five affected 
employees for 15 minutes each performed by the supervisor. OSHA 
presented these estimates in the PEA and did not receive any comments 
in the record indicating that the estimated time requirements for 
program audits (referred to as periodic inspections in the proposal) 
were understated.
    For off-site establishments and shipyard contractors, OSHA believes 
that the costs of program audits will be minimal, as most of these 
activities will be incorporated into routine supervision. However, 
because of the paperwork involved, OSHA estimates that twenty 
additional minutes of supervisor time will be required annually for 
each establishment. Table 18 presents the total annual cost of $254,191 
relating to program audits.

Table 18 - Program Audits Costs

Information and Training Sec.  1915.89(o)
    OSHA estimates that employers will incur training costs under the 
rule. The rule requires that employers train authorized employees, 
affected employees, and employees who will serve as the lockout/tags-
plus coordinator.
Training Authorized Employees
    Under the rule, the number of authorized employees who must be 
trained (Table 19) is estimated as those who engage in lockout/tags-
plus applications. The unit-cost estimate for training authorized 
employees consists of one hour of preparation time plus two hours of 
delivery time for a supervisor, and two hours per employee to attend 
the training, except for very small employers who OSHA estimates will 
only require one hour of authorized employee time to complete the 
training. This time estimate also includes the time needed to develop 
the training record, estimated at three minutes of administrative time 
per employee. The Agency estimates that each training class will have 
10 employees. The cost of training is then annualized. Using a turnover 
rate of 32.5 percent for the shipyard industry and fish-processing 
vessels, and 43 percent for water transportation and commercial 
fishing, 3 shipyard and fish-processing vessel employees and 4 water-
transportation and commercial fishing employees must be trained each 
year for every class of 10 that was initially trained. Thus, the cost 
for retraining these employees annually is the total cost of the class 
divided by 10, then multiplied by the number of employees being trained 
(3 or 4). Two hours of supervisory time cost is added to get the 
recurring unit cost. An estimate of the number of off-site authorized 
employees who need training also is included. OSHA estimates the total 
cost to train authorized employees to be $147,275.

Table 19 - Annualized Information and Training Costs by Establishment - Authorized Employees

Training Affected Employees
    The number of affected employees in Table 20 represents a 
proportion of total employees that are impacted by lockout/tags-plus. 
In the PEA, this number was estimated to be twice the number of 
authorized employees. The Agency received no comment suggesting this 
number was incorrect. OSHA estimates that training consists of thirty 
minutes of preparation time plus one hour of delivery time for a 
supervisor, and one hour per affected employee to attend the training; 
and that each training class will have 10 employees. The cost is then 
annualized and estimated on a per-employee basis. An additional three 
minutes of secretarial time per employee is included to prepare and 
maintain the training record. Using a turnover rate of 32.5 percent for 
the shipyard industry and fish-processing vessels, and 43 percent for 
water transportation and commercial fishing, three or four employees 
must be re-trained each year for every class of ten that was initially 
trained. Thus, the cost for re-training these employees is the total 
cost per class divided by 10, then multiplied by the number of 
employees being trained (3 or 4). The supervisory time cost is added to 
get the recurring unit cost. An estimate of the number of off-site 
affected employees working in shipyards that need training is also 
included. The total cost associated with training affected employees is 
$117,756.

Table 20 - Annualized Information and Training Costs by Establishment - Affected Employees

Training Lockout/Tags-Plus Coordinators
    The number of lockout/tags-plus coordinators who will need to be 
trained as a result of this final rule, and the costs that will be 
incurred due to that training, are presented in Table 21. OSHA 
estimates that half of those employees trained as authorized employees 
will also be trained as lockout/tags-plus coordinators. The Agency 
estimates that it will take two hours of supervisor time to prepare the 
training, four hours to deliver the training, and four hours of 
authorized employee time to receive the training. It is estimated that 
10 employees will attend each session. The cost is then annualized and 
estimated on a per-employee basis. An additional three minutes of 
secretarial time per trained employee is included to prepare and 
maintain the training record. Using a turnover rate of 32.5 percent for 
the shipyard industry and fish-processing vessels, and 43 percent for 
water transportation and commercial fishing, three or four employees 
must be re-trained each year for every class of ten that was initially 
trained. Thus, the cost for re-training these employees is the total 
cost per class divided by 10, then multiplied by the number of 
employees being trained (3 or 4). The supervisory time cost is added to 
get the recurring unit cost. OSHA estimates the total cost to train the 
lockout/tags-plus coordinator to be $148,294.

Table 21 - Annualized Information and Training Costs by Establishment - Lockout/Tags-plus Coordinator

Section 1915.93 Motor-Vehicle Safety Equipment, Operation, and 
Maintenance
    The motor-vehicle safety provisions apply to vehicles used to 
transport employees, materials, or property at worksites engaged in 
shipyard employment. OSHA estimates that employers in the shipyard 
industry will incur costs in complying with the requirement to 
reinstall safety equipment that has been removed from motor vehicles. 
This provision only applies to employer-provided vehicles. OSHA 
believes that shipyards are generally in compliance with the 
requirement that new motor vehicles must be equipped with seat belts, 
and the Agency did not receive any comments indicating that this is not 
the case. The final rule requires that safety equipment not be removed 
from motor vehicles; however, if safety equipment is removed, it must 
be re-installed. OSHA estimates that it will take an hour of 
transportation maintenance and repair technician time, at $21.61 per 
hour (including benefits), to replace vehicle safety equipment. This is 
a one-time cost. In the PEA, the Agency used an estimate of 5 percent 
of the number of employees (per size class) to determine the number of 
instances per size class when a maintenance and repair technician would 
need to reinstall previously removed safety equipment. OSHA did not 
receive any comment indicating that the estimate of the cost of 
reinstalling safety equipment was misstated. Table 22 presents 
estimates of these costs which total $13,557.

Table 22 - Reinstalling Safety Equipment Costs by Establishment

Section 1915.94 Servicing Multi-Piece and Single-Piece Rim Wheels
    The provisions for servicing multi-piece and single-piece rim 
wheels are identical to those in the general industry standard (29 CFR 
1910.177). The rule applies to servicing multi-piece and single-piece 
rim wheels used on large motor vehicles such as trucks, tractors, 
trailers, buses, and off-road vehicles. It does not apply to servicing 
rim wheels used on automobiles or on pickup trucks and vans equipped 
with automobile tires or truck tires designated "LT." OSHA assumed 
that no servicing of rim wheels takes place on commercial vessels.
    OSHA believes affected employers already are using the servicing 
practices that Sec.  1910.77 requires, or could adopt them with no real 
change in cost; therefore, the only new cost the provision would impose 
is employee training. OSHA estimates that training time is limited to 
startup training for existing employees and, thereafter, retraining as 
needed if an evaluation indicates than an employee is not retaining 
proficiency, as well as initial training for new employees who perform 
this servicing.
    The Agency believes that only large shipyards perform this type of 
rim-wheel maintenance, and that other establishments engaged in 
shipyard employment contract out this task. OSHA estimates that each 
transportation maintenance and repair technician will receive a 30-
minute training class (\1/2\ hour of employee time at $21.61 per hour = 
$10.80). The supervisor who teaches the class is estimated to spend 15 
minutes preparing for the class (\1/4\ hour of supervisor time at 
$32.98 per hour = $8.24), and 30 minutes delivering the training (\1/2\ 
hour of supervisor time at $32.98 per hour = $16.49). OSHA presented 
these cost estimates in the PEA, and solicited comment regarding these 
estimates for servicing rim wheels. The Agency did not receive any 
comments indicating that the estimates of costs were understated, or 
suggesting improvements to the cost estimates for this provision. The 
costs for training employees in servicing multi-piece and single-piece 
rim wheels which the Agency estimates to total $330 are presented in 
Table 23.

Table 23 - Single & Multi-piece Rim Wheels Training Costs by Establishment

Estimated Total Industry Compliance Costs
    Estimated costs of the final rule are both directly and indirectly 
functions of type, size, and number of affected establishments. In 
addition, they are a function of the number of first aid providers who 
require CPR training, the number of authorized and affected employees 
for lockout/tags-plus, the number of motor vehicles requiring re-
installation of motor-vehicle safety equipment, and the amount of rim-
wheel servicing performed. Table 24 shows the estimated cost of the 
final rule by provision. The Agency estimates that compliance with the 
rule will cost $4,185,342 (total annualized) annually for the affected 
establishments and industries combined. The lockout/tags-plus 
provisions account for the largest portion (about 75 percent) of these 
costs.

Table 24 - Total Annualized Compliance Costs by Provision

    Table 25 outlines the estimated total annualized compliance costs 
per establishment. Larger establishments have greater annualized 
compliance costs. The economic impacts of these costs are presented in 
section F of this FEA.

Table 25 - Estimated Total Annualized Compliance Costs Per Establihment

Net Benefits
    In accordance with EO 12866 and OMB policy, and for informational 
purposes, the Agency compared the estimated costs of compliance to the 
monetized benefits of the final rule. The Agency estimates monetized 
death benefits of $10.4 million and monetized injury benefits of $23.4 
million annually (see the Benefits section of this FEA), for total 
monetized benefits of $33.8 million. When the total annualized 
compliance costs are compared to these estimates (total monetized 
benefits), the Agency concludes that the net benefits of the final rule 
will total about $29.6 million.

F. Economic Impacts, Feasibility, and Regulatory Flexibility Screening 
Analysis

    OSHA determined that the costs of complying with the final rule 
will not impose significant economic impacts on employers in the 
affected industries; therefore, OSHA concludes that the rule is 
economically feasible. The rule imposes modest costs, and the increased 
safety and reduction in injuries and fatalities associated with the 
final rule will reduce employers' direct and indirect costs. This 
analysis of economic impacts is based on the industry data presented in 
the Industrial Profile section, and the cost estimates presented in the 
Costs of Compliance section of this FEA.
Economic Impacts
    To determine whether the rule's projected costs of compliance would 
raise issues of economic feasibility for affected employers and would 
alter the competitive structure of the affected industries, OSHA 
compared quantitative estimates of the compliance costs (section D of 
this FEA) with industry revenues and profits. After accounting for 
current industry practice with regard to general working conditions in 
shipyard employment and the costs of compliance under the final rule, 
OSHA estimated that the annualized incremental (new) compliance costs 
of the rule will be $4,185,342.
    Compliance with the rule will not involve large up-front 
investments. The major costs of the final rule involve the control of 
hazardous energy. As mentioned earlier, many establishments engaged in 
shipyard employment already have developed and implemented written 
programs for the control of hazardous energy, including most large 
and very large establishments. For many of these establishments, 
their energy-control programs cover servicing operations both at 
landside facilities and aboard vessels. Other establishments have, at a 
minimum, energy-control programs for servicing operations performed 
landside. Most costs related to the lockout/tags-plus requirements in 
the final rule, including written programs and procedures, hazard 
prevention, and training, are proportional to the number of workers and 
employers and revenues earned. The same is true for the costs related 
to implementing the first aid, including CPR, training and handwashing 
requirements in the final rule.
Economic Feasibility
    To assess the standard's potential economic impacts, OSHA compared 
the anticipated costs of achieving compliance against revenues and 
profits of the affected entities. OSHA compared baseline financial data 
with total annualized costs of compliance by computing compliance costs 
as a percentage of revenues and as a percentage of pre-tax profits. 
This impact assessment is presented in Table 26 for the shipbuilding, 
ship-repair and shipbreaking sectors combined (and collectively 
referred to as "shipyards"), and for commercial fishing, fish 
processing on board vessels, tug and towing boats, and passenger 
vessels combined (collectively referred to as "commercial vessels"). 
This screening analysis is used to determine whether the compliance 
costs associated with the final rule would lead to significant impacts 
on affected establishments. The actual impact on profits and revenues 
in a given industry will depend on the price elasticity of demand for 
the services sold by establishments in that industry.

Table 26 - Economic Impacts of the Standard

    Price elasticity refers to the relationship between the price 
charged for a service and the demand for that service. The more elastic 
the relationship, the less able an establishment is to pass the costs 
of compliance through to its customers in the form of a price increase, 
and the more it will have to absorb the costs of compliance from its 
profits. When demand is inelastic, establishments can recover all the 
costs of compliance simply by raising the prices they charge for that 
service. Under this scenario, profits are untouched.
    However, when demand is elastic, establishments cannot recover all 
the costs simply by passing the cost increase to customers in the form 
of a price increase. Instead, they must absorb some of the increase 
from their profits. In general, "[w]hen an industry is subjected to a 
higher cost, it does not simply swallow it; it raises its price and 
reduces its output, and in this way shifts a part of the cost to its 
consumers and a part to its suppliers" (American Dental Ass'n v. 
Martin, 984 F.2d 823, 829 (7th Cir. 1993)).
    If demand is completely inelastic (i.e., price elasticity is 0), 
then the impact of compliance costs that amount to 1 percent of 
revenues would be a 1 percent increase in the price of the product or 
service, with no decline in demand or in profits. Such a situation 
would most likely occur when there are few, if any, substitutes for the 
product or service offered by the affected sector, or if the products 
or services of the affected sector account only for a small portion of 
the income of its consumers. By contrast, if the demand is perfectly 
elastic (the price elasticity is infinitely large), then no increase in 
price is possible, and before-tax profits would be reduced by an amount 
equal to the compliance costs (minus any savings resulting from 
improved worker safety and health and reduced worker compensation 
insurance costs). Under this scenario, if the costs of compliance 
represent a large percentage of the sector's profits, some 
establishments might be forced to close. However, this scenario is 
highly unlikely to occur. It can only arise when there are other goods 
and services that are, in the eye of the consumer, perfect substitutes 
for the goods and services the affected establishments produce or 
provide.
    A more likely or common scenario would be a price elasticity of 1. 
In this situation, if the costs of compliance amount to 1 percent of 
revenues, then production would decline by 1 percent and prices would 
rise by 1 percent. In this situation, the sector would remain in 
business and have the same revenues as before the rule became 
effective. In many instances, depending on the supply curve, the sector 
also would have approximately the same profits as before, but would 
produce 1 percent less of its services. Consumers would effectively 
absorb the costs through a combination of increased prices and reduced 
consumption, which the court in American Dental Ass'n, 984 F.2d at 829, 
indicated is the more typical case.
    In the case of this final rule, if costs are completely passed on 
to consumers, prices would increase by 0.01 to 0.03 percent, a 
consequence unlikely to have an effect on the viability of the affected 
industries. Alternatively, with no price increase, profits would 
decrease 0.33 percent for shipyards and 0.38 percent for commercial-
vessel industries, a decrease that would have no effect on the economic 
viability of these industries. Therefore, OSHA concludes that this rule 
is economically feasible.
    One commenter noted the precarious financial situation of the 
fishing and fish-processing industry, stating:

    A large part of Shipyard Employment in the Pacific Northwest 
hinges closely on to the success or failure of the fishing and fish 
processing industry. Because the fishing industry in our area is 
cyclical, one "bad" year or even a single "loss" season of 
fishing may in turn result in two or three abominable years for the 
rest of Shipyard Employment.
    The "minimal potential impact on both prices and profits" as 
stated in your report may not be applicable to the Shipyard 
Employment in the Pacific Northwest because both prices and profits 
do not remain constant in our region. In fact, they do vary greatly 
from year to year, and from season to season, and sometimes day to 
day.
    Hence, the conclusion made by OSHA "that the proposed 
regulation is economically feasible" definitely may not be 
appropriate or applicable to our region (Ex. 121.1).

    OSHA understands the situation of the industries affected by this 
rule, and recognizes that profits are not consistent and are affected 
by a sometimes volatile marketplace. That said, the overall economic 
impacts of the final rule on profits in these industries are 
negligible, even in the case of an occasional poor season. The Agency 
also was unable to identify a regional variation in the impacts of the 
final rule, and believes that it will be not be more burdensome on 
affected establishments in the Pacific Northwest than on establishments 
in other parts of the country.
Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis
    The RFA requires Federal agencies to determine whether their 
regulatory actions will have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Pursuant to the RFA, OSHA assessed the small-
business impact of the final rule. On the basis of a regulatory 
flexibility screening assessment and the underlying data, summarized 
above, OSHA certifies that the rule will not have a significant impact 
on a substantial number of small entities.
    The RFA procedures require that OSHA examine costs as a percentage 
of revenues and profits. OSHA guidelines consider an impact potentially 
significant if any size class in any industry has compliance costs 
greater than 1 percent of revenues or costs greater than 5 percent of 
profits.
    In the analysis of impacts, OSHA estimates the costs of compliance 
by dividing the per-establishment compliance cost by the per-
establishment revenues, reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. In this 
case, the compliance costs as a percentage of revenues are estimated at 
0.02 percent of revenues for all establishment size group in shipyards, 
and 0.01 percent of revenues for all establishment size groups in 
commercial-vessel industries (Table 27). Thus, when examined in the 
context of total revenues for the affected sectors, OSHA judges that 
the impact of the compliance costs on prices will not be significant. 
Even when examined by individual NAICS industry and size class, the 
costs of compliance as a percent of revenues does not rise to a level 
that is close to significant for any industry or size class.
    OSHA also estimated the compliance costs as a percentage of pre-tax 
profits. Profits were estimated using total receipts and net income 
data published in the Corporation Source Book of Statistics of Income 
(IRS, 2006). As presented in Table 27, the average decline in profits 
for shipyards under this worst-case scenario would range from 0.33 
percent (all employment size classifications) to 0.63 percent (1-19 
employment size classifications). The worst-case scenario for 
commercial vessel industries would range from 0.38 percent (all 
employment-size classifications) to 0.96 percent (1-19 employment-size 
classification). Such declines would not have an effect on the 
competitive structure of any of the affected industries. Even when 
examined by individual NAICS industry and size class, the costs of 
compliance as a percent of profits does not rise to a level that is 
close to significant for any industry or size class. Although the 
Agency only presents economic impacts for the 1-19, 1-200, 1-1,000 
employment-size classifications, as well as all firm categories 
combined, OSHA also estimated compliance costs for the following size 
classes: 100-199, 200-499, 500-1,000, and 1,000 and up (see the Costs 
of Compliance section of this FEA).

Table 27 - Small Firm Impacts

    OSHA believes that, prior to the generation of the cost savings 
projected to accrue from implementation of the final rule, most 
affected establishments will respond to the increase in direct costs by 
increasing prices somewhat, and absorbing the remaining costs from 
profits. Commercial-fishing vessel establishments may absorb a greater 
amount of the cost increase from their profits because the market price 
they can command for their product likely cannot be influenced by the 
employers. However, the worst-case scenario reduction is still a very 
small percentage of profits, and the Agency does not believe that this 
will impose an undue burden on the industry. OSHA believes that most 
affected employers will experience little economic impact after the 
final rule is implemented. OSHA estimates that cost savings will soon 
offset any price and profit impacts.
References

American Red Cross [ARC, 2005], Health and Safety Services. 
Retrieved July 26, 2005, from the Internet at 
http://www.redcross.org/services/hss/courses/adultcpraed.html.
Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS, 2006], Current Employment Survey, 
April 2006. Description obtained from BLS webpage at 
http://www.bls.gov/ces/home.htm.
Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS, 2006], Employer Costs for Employee 
Compensation. Available at the BLS webpage at 
http://www.bls.gov/ncs/home.htm.
Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS, 2003], Employment & Earnings, 
January 2003.
Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS, 2002], "Lost worktime injuries and 
illnesses: characteristics and resulting time away from work, 
2000." Available at the BLS webpage at 
http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/case/osnr0015.pdf.
Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS, 2000], National Occupational 
Employment and Wage Estimates. Available at the BLS webpage at 
http://www.bls.gov/oes/2000/oes131073.htm.
Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS, 2010], New Monthly Date Series of 
Job Openings and Labor Turnover Announced by BLS. Available at the 
BLS webpage at http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm.
Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS, 2000], Occupational fatalities in 
1992- 2002. Available at the BLS webpage at 
http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshcfoi1.htm.
Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS, 2000], Occupational injuries and 
illness data in 1992-2001. Available at the BLS webpage at 
http://www.bls.gov/iif/home.htm.
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA, 2000], Guidelines for 
Preparing Economic Analyses, 2002.
Internal Revenue Service [IRS, 2006], Corporation Source Book of 
Statistics of Income, 2006.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA, 2006], 
Integrated Management Information System Occupational Fatality 
abstracts, 2006. Available at the OSHA webpage at www.osha.gov.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA, 2002], 
Preliminary Economic and Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis 
for the Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment Proposed Rule (OSHA 
Docket No. S-051, x.. 15). Available at the OSHA webpage at http://
www.osha.gov.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA, 1989], 
Regulatory Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of 29 CFR 
1910.147 (The Control of Hazardous Energy Sources--Lockout/Tagout), 
(OSHA Docket No. S-012A, Ex. 71). Available on the OSHA Webpage at 
http://www.osha.gov.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA, 2004], 
Supporting Statement for the Information Collection Request for the 
standard on the Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout) (29 CFR 
1910.147 (OMB Control Number 1218-0150), June, 2004.
Office of Mangement and Budget, Executive Office of the President 
[OMB, 1987], Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1987.
U.S. Census Bureau [CB, 2007], 2007 Economic Census. Available on 
USCB webpage at http://www.census.gov/econ/census07/.
U.S. Small Business Administration [SBA, 1996], Table of Size 
Standards, 1996.
U.S. Small Business Administration [SBA, 2006], 1990-1998 all 
industries data
Available at the SBA webpage at 
http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/data.html#us.
Viscusi, Kip and Aldy, Joseph [Viscusi and Aldy, 2003], "The Value 
of a Statistical Life: A Critical Review of Market Estimates 
Throughout the World," 27 Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1, 5-76, 
2003.

V. Environmental Impact

    OSHA has reviewed the final rule on general working conditions in 
shipyard employment 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 (40 CFR part 1500 
et seq.), and OSHA's DOL NEPA procedures (29 CFR Part 11). Based on 
this review, OSHA has determined that this final rule will have no 
significant effect on air, water, or soil quality; plant or animal 
life; use of land; or other aspects of the environment.

VI. Federalism

    OSHA has reviewed this final rule in accordance with the Executive 
Order 13132 on Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This E.O. 
requires that Federal agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from 
limiting State or local policymaking discretion, consult with State and 
local officials prior to taking any actions that would restrict State 
or local policymaking discretion, and take such actions only when clear 
constitutional and statutory authority exists for the action, and where 
there is a problem of national significance. The E.O. allows Federal 
agencies to preempt State law only where the statute contains an 
express preemption provision or there is some other clear evidence that 
Congress intended preemption of State law, or where the exercise of 
State authority conflicts with the exercise of Federal authority under 
the Federal statute. Any such preemption is to be limited to the extent 
possible.
    In Section 18 of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 667) Congress expressly 
provides that States may adopt, with Federal OSHA approval, a plan for 
the development and enforcement of occupational safety and health 
standards. States that obtain Federal approval for such plans are 
referred to as "State-Plan States" (29 U.S.C. 667). Occupational 
safety and health standards developed by such State-Plan States, among 
other things, must be at least as effective in providing safe and 
healthful employment and places of employment as Federal OSHA 
standards. Subject to these requirements, State-Plan States are free to 
develop and enforce under State law their own requirements for 
occupational safety and health standards.
    This final rule complies with E.O. 13132. In States that do not 
have OSHA-approved State Plans, this rule limits State policy options 
in the same manner as all OSHA standards. In States with OSHA-approved 
State Plans, this action does not significantly limit State policy 
options.

VII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    OSHA reviewed this final rule in accordance with the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 
1501 et seq.) and Executive Order 12875 (58 FR 58093, October 28, 
1993). As discussed above in section IV of this preamble ("Final 
Economic and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis"), the final rule does 
not include any Federal mandate that may result in increased 
expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, and OSHA 
estimates that compliance with the rule will require expenditures by 
affected private employers of considerably less than $100 million per 
year. Therefore, this rule is not a "significant regulatory action" 
within the meaning of the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1532) and is not subject to 
review of the budgetary effects of the final standard on the private 
sector (2 U.S.C. 1532(a)). OSHA standards do not apply to State, local, 
or tribal governments except in States that have voluntarily elected to 
adopt a State Plan approved by the Agency. Consequently, this final rule 
does not meet the definition of a "Federal intergovernmental mandate" 
(see sec. 421(5) of UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 658(5))). In sum, this action does 
not mandate that State, local, and tribal governments adopt new, unfunded 
regulatory obligations.

VIII. Office of Management and Budget Review Under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995

    The final General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment 
Standard contains collection of information requirements (paperwork) 
that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB). In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95) 
(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)), the proposed regulation solicited public 
comments on the General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment (29 
CFR 1915, subpart F) Information Collection Request (ICR) (paperwork 
burden hour and cost analysis) for the proposal. The Department also 
submitted this ICR to OMB for review in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 
3507(d) on December 20, 2007. On February 15, 2008, OMB informed the 
Department of Labor to use OMB Control Number 1218-0259 in future 
paperwork submissions involving this rulemaking. OMB also commented, 
"This OMB action is not an approval to conduct or sponsor an 
information collection under the Paperwork Reduction At of 1995." OMB 
also stated that "OMB will review the proposed collection again in 
parallel with the final regulation prior to approval."
    OSHA received no public comments on the General Working Conditions 
in Shipyard Employment (29 CFR 1915, subpart F) ICR. A number of 
comments, described earlier in this preamble, contained information 
relevant to the burden hour and costs analysis that OSHA considered 
when it developed the revised ICR associated with this final rule.
    The Department of Labor submitted the final ICR to OMB for 
approval. A copy of the ICR is available at http://www.reginfo.gov. 
OSHA will publish a separate notice in the Federal Register that will 
announce the results of that review. The Department of Labor notes that 
a Federal agency cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information 
unless it is approved by OMB under the PRA-95, and displays a currently 
valid OMB control number. Also, notwithstanding any other provision of 
law, no employer shall be subject to penalty for failing to comply with 
a collection of information if the collection of information does not 
display a currently valid OMB control number.
    The following paragraphs identify the collection of information 
requirements contained in the final rule.

Section 1915.83 Utilities

    Paragraph (a)(1) requires employers to obtain a written or oral 
determination from a responsible vessel's representative, a contractor, 
or any other person who is qualified by training, knowledge, or 
experience to make such a determination, that the working pressure of 
the vessel's steam piping system is safe. Similarly paragraph (c)(3) 
requires employers to obtain a written or oral determination from a 
responsible vessel's representative, a contractor, or any other person 
who is qualified by training, knowledge, or experience to make such 
determination, that each circuit to be energized is in a safe 
condition. These collection of information requirements were not 
included in the proposal's ICR.

Section 1915.87 Medical Services and First Aid

    Paragraph (f)(3) requires employers to store basket stretchers, or 
the equivalent, as well as related equipment, in a clearly marked 
location in a manner that prevents damage and protects them from 
environmental conditions. This requirement remains unchanged from the 
proposal's ICR.

Section 1915.88 Sanitation

    Paragraph (e)(3) requires the employer to 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 from their 
skins surface by thoroughly washing their hands and face at the end of 
the workshift and prior to eating, drinking, or smoking. OSHA maintains 
the proposal's determination that this requirement is a longstanding 
usual and customary practice on shipyard employment. OSHA adopted this 
requirement in 1972 pursuant to section 6(a) of the OSH Act, which 
allowed the Agency in the first two years after enactment of the Act to 
adopt as OSHA standards existing Federal and national consensus 
standards (37 FR 22458 (10/19/1972)). OSHA adopted this provision from 
safety standards promulgated under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' 
Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941).

Section 1915.89 Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tags-Plus)

    The proposal's ICR estimated burden hours and costs for "lockout/
tagout" programs. The final ICR calculates burden hours and costs for 
"lockout/tags-plus" programs.
Developing Lockout/Tags-Plus Procedures
    The proposal's ICR referenced developing procedures for the control 
of hazardous energy during the servicing of machinery, equipment, and 
systems as part of developing a lockout/tagout program. The final ICR 
provides additional details regarding the content of these procedures. 
Paragraph (b) requires the employer to establish and implement a 
written program and procedures for lockout and tags-plus systems to 
control hazardous energy during the servicing of any machinery, 
equipment, or system in shipyard employment. The program must cover: 
(1) Procedures for lockout/tags-plus systems while servicing machinery, 
equipment, or systems in accordance with paragraph (c); (2) procedures 
for protecting employees involved in servicing any machinery, 
equipment, or system in accordance with paragraphs (d) through (m); (3) 
specifications for locks and tags-plus hardware in accordance with 
paragraph (n); (4) employee information and training in accordance with 
paragraph (o); incident investigations in accordance with paragraph 
(p); and (6) program audits in accordance with paragraph (q).
Lockout/Tags-Plus Log
    This collection of information requirement was not contained in the 
proposal's ICR. Paragraph (c)(7)(iv) requires that the employer ensure 
that the lockout/tags-plus coordinator maintains and administers a 
continuous log of each lockout and tags-plus system.
Lockout/Tags-Plus Written Procedures
    Paragraph (d)(1) requires the employer to establish and implement 
written procedures to prevent energization or startup, or the release 
of hazardous energy, while authorized employees are servicing any 
machinery, equipment, or system.
Notification of Employees
    Paragraph (e)(1)(ii) requires employers to notify each affected 
employee that the machinery, equipment, or system will be shutdown and 
deenergized before applying a lockout/tags-plus system and beginning 
servicing. In addition, paragraph (i)(1)(i) requires the authorized 
employee to notify all other authorized and affected employees that 
the lockout/tags-plus system will be removed before any lockout/tags-plus 
system is removed and the machinery, equipment, or system restored to use.
Communication With Outside Personnel (Contractors, Ship Crew, etc.)
    Paragraph (l)(2) requires the host employer to establish and 
implement procedures for the lockout/tags-plus program to protect 
workers from hazardous energy in multi-employer worksites. The host 
employer is responsible for informing each contract employer about the 
content of the host employer's lockout/tags-plus program and 
procedures, and instructing each contract employer to follow the host 
employer's lockout/tags-plus program and procedures. Also, the host 
employer must ensure that the lockout/tags-plus coordinator knows about 
all servicing operations and communicates this information with each 
contract employer who performs servicing or works in an area where 
servicing is being conducted.
    Paragraph (l)(3) requires the contract employer, when working in a 
multi-employer worksite, to follow the host employer's lockout/tags-
plus program and procedures, and to ensure that the host employer knows 
about the lockout-tags plus hazards associated with the contract 
employer's work, and what the contract employer is doing to address 
them. The contract employer also must inform the host employer of any 
previously unidentified lockout/tags-plus hazards that the contract 
employer identifies at the multi-employer worksite.
Lockout Tags-Plus Materials and Hardware
    Paragraphs (n)(3)(iv) and (v) require that each lock and tag 
indicate the identity of the authorized employee applying it; and that 
each tag warns against hazardous conditions that could arise if the 
machinery, equipment, or system is energized, and that it include a 
legend such as one of the following: "Do Not Start," "Do Not Open," 
"Do Not Energize," or "Do Not Operate." The proposal's ICR stated 
that the identity of the employee applying the device is exempt from 
the definition of "information" under 5 CFR 1320.3(h). Further, since 
the regulation provides specific language to the employer for public 
disclosure on the tag, this is not a collection of information under 5 
CFR 1320.3(c)(2). Therefore, the ICR did not have burden hour or costs 
associated with this information collection requirement. However, since 
the tag must also warn against hazardous conditions if the machine, 
equipment, or system is energized, OSHA has taken the burden for 
employers to tag a system, and the cost for employers to purchase a 
tag, in the final ICR.
Information and Training
    Paragraph (o)(7) requires the employer to maintain records that 
employee training has been accomplished and is current. The training 
records must contain at least the employee's name, date of training, 
and subject of training.
Incident Investigations
    The proposal's ICR did not contain collection of information 
requirements for incident investigations.
    Paragraph (p)(2) requires the employer to promptly initiate an 
incident investigation and notify each authorized and affected employee 
who was, or could reasonably have been, affected by the incident.
    Paragraph (p)(4) requires the employer to prepare a written report 
of the incident investigation. The written report must include: (1) The 
date and time of the incident; (2) the date and time the incident 
investigation began; (3) the location of the incident; (4) a 
description of the incident; (5) the factors that contributed to the 
incident; (6) a copy of any lockout/tags-plus log that was current at 
the time of the incident; and (7) any corrective actions that need to 
be taken as a result of the incident.
    Paragraph (p)(6) requires the employer to complete the incident 
investigation and written report, and implement corrective actions, 
within 30 days following the incident.
    Paragraph (p)(7) requires the employer to prepare a written 
abatement plan if it is infeasible to implement all of the corrective 
actions within 30 days. The abatement plan must contain an explanation 
of the circumstances causing the delay, a proposed timetable for 
abatement, and a summary of the steps the employer is taking in the 
interim to protect employees from hazardous energy while servicing 
machinery, equipment, or systems.
Auditing Energy-Control Procedures
    The following collection of information requirements were not 
included in the proposed ICR. However, these collection of information 
requirements are similar to those contained in the proposal's 
Inspection and Certification Control procedures, which are not included 
in the final ICR.
    Paragraph (q)(1) requires the employer to conduct, an audit, at 
least annually, of the lockout/tags-plus programs and procedures that 
are currently in use.
    Paragraph (q)(4) requires, within 15 days of the completion of an 
audit, the employer to prepare and deliver a written audit report that 
includes at least: (1) The date of the audit; (2) the names of the 
individual(s) who performed the audit; (3) the identity of the 
procedure, and the machinery, equipment, or system, being audited; (4) 
the findings of the program audit and recommended actions to correct 
deviations or deficiencies identified during the audit; (5) incident 
investigation reports compiled since the previous audit; and (6) 
corrective actions the employer has taken in response to the audit. 
Conducting an audit of the energy-control procedures will ensure that 
the procedures in place are working properly and help to identify any 
deviations or inadequacies with the current procedures.

Section 1915.92 Retention of DOT Markings, Placards and Labels; Sec.  
1915.93 Motor Vehicle Safety Equipment, Operation and Maintenance; and 
Sec.  1915.94 Servicing Multi-piece and Single Piece Rim Wheels

    OSHA maintained that the Agency would incur no additional burden 
hours or costs for the collections of information requirements 
contained in the above mention of sections.
    The final rule imposes program change increase of 99,645 initial 
new burden hours to 2,725 shipyard-employment establishments after the 
effective date of the final standard. Table 28 summarizes the burden 
hours and costs (Capital Costs and Maintenance) associated with each 
collection of information requirement contained in the final rule.

   Table 28--General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment (29 CFR 1915, subpart F) Information Collection
                                                  Request (ICR)
                                       [Summary of Burden Hours and Costs]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Number of
            Collection of information             Initial burden     Recurring    Cost (tags and      initial
                                                       hours       burden hours        ties)         responses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marking Location of Stretchers (Sec.                           3               3               0              18
 1915.87(f)(3)).................................
Developing Lockout/tags-plus Procedures (Sec.             18,988           7,846          $3,065           2,725
 1915.89 (b), (l)(1), and (l)(3))...............
Lockout/tag-plus Log (Sec.   1915.89 (c)(7)(iv))          10,090          10,090               0         126,127
Notification of the Application and Removal of             6,368           6,368               0         124,149
 the Lockout or Tags-plus System for the
 Electrical Devices (Sec.   1915.89 (e)(1),
 (l)(2), (n)(3)(iv), and (i)(1)(i)).............
Notification of the Application and Removal of            14,464          14,464               0          14,464
 the Lockout or Tags-plus System for the Air and
 Hydraulic Power Sources (Sec.   1915.89 (e)(1),
 (l)(2), and (i)(1)(i)).........................
Preparing Written Reports of the Incident                 44,097          44,097               0           1,102
 Investigation (Sec.   1915.89 (p)(4))..........
Auditing of Energy Control Procedures (Sec.                3,625           3,625               0           2,725
 1915.89(q)(4)).................................
Employee Training and Training Certification               2,007             667               0          38,853
 (Sec.   1915.89(o)(7)).........................
Disclosure of Records to OSHA (Sec.   1915.89                  3               3               0              38
 (r)(2))........................................
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................          99,645          87,163          $3,065         310,181
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IX. State Plan Requirements

    When Federal OSHA promulgates a new rule or more stringent 
amendment to an existing rule, the 27 States and U.S. territories with 
their own OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plans (State-
Plan States) must revise their standards to reflect the new rule or 
amendment, or show OSHA why there is no need for action (for example, 
because an existing State standard covering this area is already "at 
least as effective" as the new Federal standard or amendment) (29 CFR 
1953.5(a)). The State rule must be at least as effective as the final 
Federal rule, must be applicable to both the private and public (State 
and local government) sectors, and must be promulgated within six 
months of the promulgation date of the final Federal rule. When OSHA 
promulgates a new rule or amendment that does not impose additional or 
more stringent requirements than an existing rule, States are not 
required to revise their standards, although OSHA may encourage them to 
do so.
    Since this final rule will impose additional or more stringent 
requirements, those States that cover maritime issues and/or have 
public employees working in the industries the final rule covers will 
be required to revise their standards appropriately within six months 
of the promulgation date of this final rule unless they demonstrate 
that such amendments are not necessary because their existing standards 
are at least as effective in protecting workers as this final rule. 
Until such time as a State standard is promulgated, Federal OSHA will 
provide interim enforcement assistance, as appropriate, in those States 
that cover private-sector maritime activities.
    Currently, only four States with their own State Plans (California, 
Minnesota, Vermont and Washington) cover private-sector onshore 
maritime activities. Federal OSHA enforces maritime standards offshore 
in all States and provides onshore coverage of maritime activities in 
Federal OSHA States and in all the other State-Plan States: Alaska, 
Arizona, Connecticut (plan covers only State and local government 
employees), Hawaii, Illinois (plan covers only State and local 
government employees), Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, 
Nevada, New Jersey (plan covers only State and local government 
employees), New Mexico, New York (plan covers only State and local 
government employees), North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South 
Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virgin Islands (plan covers only territorial 
government employees), Virginia, and Wyoming.

X. Effective Dates

    As discussed in Section I of this preamble ("Background"), OSHA 
is revising and updating the standards on general working conditions in 
shipyard employment to reflect advances in industry practices and 
technology, consolidating certain safety and health requirements into a 
single provision, and providing protection from hazards not previously 
addressed, including the control of hazardous energy. Due to comments 
received and testimony heard, OSHA significantly revised several 
provisions in the proposal, including the requirements for the control 
of hazardous energy.
    The rulemaking record supports the need for the revisions and 
additions to subpart F to protect the safety and health of workers 
engaged in shipyard employment. OSHA currently requires, and shipyard 
employers implemented, many of the provisions in this subpart (for 
example, housekeeping and sanitation requirements). However, OSHA is 
aware that some employers (for example, small shipyards, fishing 
vessels) may need additional time to implement all of the requirements 
in the final rule for the control of hazardous energy. For example, 
they may need additional time to develop and implement or revise their 
lockout/tags-plus programs and procedures and complete all required 
initial training. Therefore, all sections of the final rule except for 
Sec.  1915.89 will become effective and enforceable 90 days from the 
publication of this final rule. To ensure that employers have ample 
time to modify their lockout/tags-plus programs and practices, OSHA is 
allowing 180 days from the date of publication of this final rule for 
the lockout/tags-plus section to become effective and enforceable.

XI. 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, Vessels, 
and Incorporation by reference.

XII. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, PhD, MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational 
Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC 20210, directed the preparation of this notice. The 
Agency is issuing this final rule under Sections 4, 6(b), and 8(g) of 
the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 
657); Section 41 of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act 
(33 U.S.C. 941); Secretary of Labor's Order 5-2007 (72 FR 31160, June 
5, 2007); and 29 CFR 1911.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on April 14, 2011.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

XIII. Amendments to Standards

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

PART 1910--[AMENDED]

    Part 1910 of title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations is hereby 
amended as follows:

Subpart J--[Amended]

0
1. The authority citation for subpart J of 29 CFR part 1910 is revised 
to read as follows:

    Authority:  Secs. 4, 6, and 8 of the 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), 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), or 4-2010 (75 FR 55355) 
as applicable.
     Section 1910.145, also issued under 29 CFR 1911.2.


0
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) that indicate and, insofar as possible, 
define specific hazards that could harm 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.
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  1910.147, paragraphs (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 energization or start up of the machines or 
equipment, or release of stored energy, could harm 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;
    (B) Employment covered by parts 1915, 1917, and 1918 of this title;
    (C) Installations under the exclusive control of electric utilities 
for the purpose of power generation, transmission and distribution, 
including related equipment for communication or metering;
    (D) Exposure to electrical hazards from work on, near, or with 
conductors or equipment in electric-utilization installations, which is 
covered by subpart S of this part; and
    (E) Oil and gas well drilling and servicing.
* * * * *

Subpart N--[Amended]

0
4. The authority citation for subpart N of 29 CFR part 1910 is revised 
to read as follows:

    Authority:  Secs. 4, 6, and 8 of the 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), 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), or 4-2010 (75 FR 55355) 
as applicable.
    Section 1910.177, also issued under 29 CFR part 1911.


Sec.  1910.77  [Amended]

0
5. In Sec.  1910.177, paragraph (a)(2) is revised to read as follows:
    (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]

0
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, and 8 of the 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), 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), or 4-2010 (75 FR 
55355) as applicable; 29 CFR part 1911.

0
7. In Sec.  1915.5, add paragraph (d)(1)(xii) and (d)(1)(xiii) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  1915.5  Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (xii) ANSI/IESNA RP-7-01, Recommended Practice for Lighting 
Industrial Facilities, ANSI approved July 26, 2001, IBR approved for 
Sec.  1915.82(a)(3).
    (xiii) ANSI/ISEA Z308.1-2009, Revision of ANSI Z308.1-2003, Minimum 
Requirements for Workplace First Aid Kits and Supplies, ANSI approved 
May 8, 2009, IBR approved for Sec.  1915.87 Appendix A.
* * * * *

Subpart F--[Amended]

0
8. Subpart F of 29 CFR part 1915 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart F--General Working Conditions
Sec.
1915.80 Scope, application, definitions and effective dates.
1915.81 Housekeeping.
1915.82 Lighting.
1915.83 Utilities.
1915.84 Working alone.
1915.85 Vessel radar and communication systems.
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 of multi-piece and single-piece rim wheels.

Subpart F--General Working Conditions


Sec.  1915.80  Scope, application, definitions, and effective dates.

    (a) The provisions of this subpart apply to general working 
conditions in shipyard employment, including work on vessels, on vessel 
sections, and at landside operations, regardless of geographic 
location.
    (b) Definitions applicable to this subpart.
    (1) Additional safety measure. A component of the tags-plus system 
that provides an impediment (in addition to the energy-isolating 
device) to the release of energy or the energization or startup of the 
machinery, equipment, or system being serviced. Examples of additional 
safety measures include, but are not limited to, removing an isolating 
circuit element; blocking a controlling switch; blocking, blanking, or 
bleeding lines; removing a valve handle or wiring it in place; opening 
an extra disconnecting device.
    (2) Affected employee. An employee who normally operates or uses 
the machinery, equipment, or system that is going to be serviced under 
lockout/tags-plus or who is working in the area where servicing is 
being performed under lockout/tags-plus. An affected employee becomes 
an authorized employee when the employer assigns the employee to 
service any machine, equipment, or system under a lockout/tags-plus 
application.
    (3) Authorized employee. (i) An employee who performs one or more 
of the following lockout/tags-plus responsibilities:
    (A) Executes the lockout/tags-plus procedures;
    (B) Installs a lock or tags-plus system on machinery, equipment, or 
systems; or
    (C) Services any machine, equipment, or system under lockout/tags-
plus application.
    (ii) An affected employee becomes an authorized employee when the 
employer assigns the employee to service any machine, equipment, or 
system under a lockout/tags-plus application.
    (4) Capable of being locked out. An energy-isolating device is 
capable of being locked out if it has a locking mechanism built into 
it, or it has a hasp or other means of attachment to which, or through 
which, a lock can be affixed. 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.
    (5) Contract employer. An employer, such as a painting, joinery, 
carpentry, or scaffolding subcontractor, that performs shipyard-related 
services or work under contract to the host employer or to another 
employer under contract to the host employer at the host employer's 
worksite. This excludes employers who provide services that are not 
directly related to shipyard employment, such as mail delivery, office 
supply, and food vending services.
    (6) Dummy load. A device used in place of an antenna to aid in the 
testing of a radio transmitter that converts transmitted energy into 
heat to minimize energy radiating outward or reflecting back to its 
source during testing.
    (7) Energy-isolating device. A mechanical device that, when 
utilized or activated, physically prevents the release or transmission 
of energy. Energy-isolating devices include, but are not limited to, 
manually operated electrical circuit breakers; disconnect switches; 
line valves; blocks; and any similar device used to block or isolate 
energy. Control-circuit devices (for example, push buttons, selector 
switches) are not considered energy-isolating devices.
    (8) Hazardous energy. Any energy source, including mechanical (for 
example, power transmission apparatus, counterbalances, springs, 
pressure, gravity), pneumatic, hydraulic, electrical, chemical, and 
thermal (for example, high or low temperature) energies, that could 
cause injury to employees.
    (9) Hazardous substances. A substance that may cause injury, 
illness, or disease, or otherwise harm an employee by reason of being 
explosive, flammable, poisonous, corrosive, oxidizing, irritating, or 
otherwise harmful.
    (10) Health care professional. A physician or any other healthcare 
professional 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.
    (11) Host employer. An employer that is in charge of coordinating 
shipyard-related work, or that hires other employers to perform 
shipyard-related work or to provide shipyard-related services, at a 
multi-employer worksite.
    (12) Isolated location. An area in which employees are working 
alone or with little assistance from others due to the type, time, or 
location of their work. Such locations include remote locations or 
other work areas where employees are not in close proximity to others.
    (13) Lock. A device that utilizes a positive means, either a key or 
combination lock, to hold an energy-isolating device in a "safe" 
position that prevents the release of energy and the startup or 
energization of the machinery, equipment, or system to be serviced.
    (14) Lockout. The placement of a lock on an energy-isolating device 
in accordance with an established procedure, thereby ensuring that the 
energy-isolating device and the equipment being controlled cannot be 
operated until the lock is removed.
    (15) Lockout/tags-plus coordinator. An employee whom the employer 
designates to coordinate and oversee all lockout and tags-plus 
applications on vessels or vessel sections and at landside work areas 
when employees are performing multiple servicing operations on the same 
machinery, equipment, or systems at the same time, and when employees 
are servicing multiple machinery, equipment, or systems on the same 
vessel or vessel section at the same time. The lockout/tags-plus 
coordinator also maintains the lockout/tags-plus log.
    (16) Lockout/tags-plus materials and hardware. Locks, chains, 
wedges, blanks, key blocks, adapter pins, self-locking fasteners, or 
other hardware used for isolating, blocking, or securing machinery, 
equipment, or systems to prevent the release of energy or the startup 
or energization of machinery, equipment, or systems to be serviced.
    (17) 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, small 
utility trucks, powered industrial trucks, and other similar vehicles. 
Motor vehicles do not include boats, or vehicles operated exclusively 
on a rail or rails.
    (18) Motor vehicle safety equipment. Systems and devices integral 
to or installed on a motor vehicle for the purpose of effecting the 
safe operation of the vehicle, and consisting of such systems or 
devices as safety belts, airbags, headlights, tail lights, emergency/
hazard lights, windshield wipers, defogging or defrosting devices, 
brakes, horns, mirrors, windshields and other windows, and locks.
    (19) Navy ship's force. The crew of a vessel that is owned or 
operated by the U.S. Navy, other than a time- or voyage-chartered 
vessel, that is under the control of a Commanding Officer or Master.
    (20) Normal production operations. The use of machinery or 
equipment, including, but not limited to, punch presses, bending 
presses, shears, lathes, keel press rollers, and automated burning 
machines, to perform a shipyard-employment production process.
    (21) Portable toilet. A non-sewered portable facility for 
collecting and containing urine and feces. A portable toilet may be 
either flushable or non-flushable. For purposes of this section, portable 
toilets do not include privies.
    (22) 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).
    (23) Readily accessible/available. Capable of being reached quickly 
enough to ensure, for example, that emergency medical services and 
first aid intervention are appropriate or that employees can reach 
sanitation facilities in time to meet their health and personal needs.
    (24) Sanitation facilities. Facilities, including supplies, 
maintained for employee personal and health needs such as potable 
drinking water, toilet facilities, hand-washing and -drying facilities, 
showers (including quick-drenching or flushing) and changing rooms, 
eating and drinking 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.
    (25) Serviceable condition. The state or ability of supplies or 
goods, or of a tool, machine, vehicle, or other device, to be used or 
to operate in the manner prescribed by the manufacturer.
    (26) Servicing. Workplace activities that involve the construction, 
installation, adjustment, inspection, modification, testing, or repair 
of machinery, equipment, or systems. Servicing also includes 
maintaining machines, equipment, or systems when performing these 
activities would expose the employee to harm from the start-up or 
energization of the system being serviced, or the release of hazardous 
energy.
    (27) Sewered toilet. 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.
    (28) Shield. To install a covering, protective layer, or other 
effective measure on or around steam hoses or temporary steam-piping 
systems, including metal fittings and couplings, to protect employees 
from contacting hot surfaces or elements.
    (29) Short bight. A loop created in a line or rope that is used to 
tie back or fasten objects such as hoses, wiring, and fittings.
    (30) Tag. A prominent warning device that includes a means of 
attachment that 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 must not be 
operated until the tag is removed by an authorized employee.
    (31) Tags-plus system. A system to control hazardous energy that 
consists of an energy-isolating device with a tag affixed to it, and at 
least one additional safety measure.
    (32) Verification of isolation. The means necessary to detect the 
presence of hazardous energy, which may involve the use of a test 
instrument (for example, a voltmeter), and, for other than electric 
shock protection, a visual inspection, or a deliberate attempt to 
start-up the machinery, equipment, or system.
    (33) Vermin. Insects, birds, and other animals, such as rodents and 
feral cats, that may create safety and health hazards for employees.
    (34) Vessel section. A subassembly, module, or other component of a 
vessel being built or repaired.
    (35) Walkway. Any surface, whether vertical, slanted, or 
horizontal, on which employees walk, including areas that employees 
pass through, to perform their job tasks. Walkways include, but are not 
limited to, access ways, designated walkways, aisles, exits, gangways, 
ladders, ramps, stairs, steps, passageways, and scaffolding. If an area 
is, or could be, used to gain access to other locations, it is to be 
considered a walkway.
    (36) Work area. A specific area, such as a machine shop, 
engineering space, or fabrication area, where one or more employees are 
performing job tasks.
    (37) Working surface. Any surface where work is occurring, or areas 
where tools, materials, and equipment are being staged for performing 
work.
    (38) Worksite. A general work location where one or more employees 
are performing work, such as a shipyard, pier, barge, vessel, or vessel 
section.
    (c) Effective dates. This final rule becomes effective and 
enforceable on August 1, 2011, except for the provisions in Sec.  
1915.89, which become effective and enforceable on October 31, 2011.


Sec.  1915.81  Housekeeping.

    (a) General requirements.
    (1) The employer shall establish and maintain good housekeeping 
practices to eliminate hazards to employees to the extent practicable.
    (2) The employer shall eliminate slippery conditions, such as snow 
and ice, on walkways and working surfaces as necessary. If it is not 
practicable for the employer to remove slippery conditions, the 
employer either shall:
    (i) Restrict employees to designated walkways and working surfaces 
where the employer has eliminated slippery conditions; or
    (ii) Provide slip-resistant footwear in accordance with 29 CFR part 
1915, subpart I.
    (3) The employer shall store materials in a manner that does not 
create a hazard for employees.
    (4) The employer shall maintain easy and open access to each fire-
alarm box, fire-call station, fire-fighting equipment, and each exit, 
including ladders, staircases, scaffolds, and gangways.
    (5) The employer shall dispose of flammable and combustible 
substances, such as paint thinners, solvents, rags, scrap, and waste, 
or store them in covered fire-resistant containers at the end of each 
workshift or when the job is completed, whichever occurs first.
    (b) Walkways.
    (1) In addition to the requirements in paragraph (a), the employer 
also shall ensure that each walkway:
    (i) Provides adequate passage;
    (ii) Is clear of debris, including solid and liquid wastes, that 
may create a hazard for employees;
    (iii) Is clear of tools, materials, equipment, and other objects 
that may create a hazard for employees; and
    (iv) Is clear of hoses and electrical service cords. The employer 
shall:
    (A) Place each hose and cord above walkways in a location that will 
prevent injury to employees and damage to the hoses and cords;
    (B) Place each hose and cord underneath walkways;
    (C) Place each hose and cord on walkways, provided the hoses and 
cords are covered by crossovers or other means that will prevent injury 
to employees and damage to the hoses and cords; or
    (D) Protect each hose and cord by other suitable means.
    (2) While a walkway or part of a walkway is being used as a working 
surface, the employer shall cordon off that portion to prevent it from 
being used as a walkway.
    (c) Working surfaces. In addition to the requirements in paragraph 
(a), the employer also shall ensure that each working surface:
    (1) Is cleared of tools, materials, and equipment that are not 
necessary to perform the job in progress;
    (2) Is cleared of debris, including solid and liquid wastes, at the 
end of each workshift or job, whichever occurs first;
    (3) Is maintained, so far as practicable, in a dry condition. When 
a wet process is used, the employer shall maintain drainage and provide false 
floors, platforms, mats, or other dry standing places. When the employer 
demonstrates that this procedure is not practicable, the employer shall 
provide each employee working in the wet process with protective 
footgear, in accordance with 29 CFR part 1915, subpart I.


Sec.  1915.82  Lighting.

    (a) General Requirements. (1) The employer shall ensure that each 
work area and walkway is adequately lighted whenever an employee is 
present.
    (2) For landside areas, the employer shall provide illumination 
that meets the levels set forth in Table F-1 to Sec.  1915.82.

   Table F-1 to Sec.   1915.82--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.
5............................  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 toilets,
                                and eating, drinking, and break areas.
30...........................  First aid stations, infirmaries, and
                                offices.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Note to table F-1 to Sec.  1915.82:  The required illumination 
levels in this table do not apply to emergency or portable lights.

    (3) For vessels and vessel sections, the employer shall provide 
illumination that meets the levels set forth in the table to paragraph 
(a)(2) or meet ANSI/IESNA RP-7-01 (incorporated by reference, see 
1915.5).
    (4) When adequate illumination is not obtainable by permanent 
lighting sources, temporary lighting may be used as supplementation.
    (5) The employer shall ensure that neither matches nor open-flame 
devices are 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 with the bulb;
    (2) Lights are equipped with electric cords designed with 
sufficient capacity to safely carry the electric load;
    (3) Connections and insulation on electric cords 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 with 
a capacity that does not exceed the rated current-carrying capacity of 
the cord used;
    (7) Splices have insulation with a capacity that exceeds that of 
the original insulation of the cord; 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 cord 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 29 CFR 
1910, subpart S.
    (c) Portable lights. (1) In any dark area that does not have 
permanent or temporary lights, where lights are not working, or where 
lights are not readily accessible, the employer shall provide portable 
or emergency lights and ensure that employees do not enter those areas 
without such lights.
    (2) Where the only means of illumination on a vessel or vessel 
section are from lighting sources that are not part of the vessel or 
vessel section, the employer shall provide portable or emergency lights 
for the safe movement of each employee. If natural sunlight provides 
sufficient illumination, portable or emergency lights are not required.
    (d) Explosion-proof, self-contained lights. The employer shall 
provide and ensure that each employee uses only explosion-proof, self-
contained temporary and portable lights, approved for hazardous 
conditions by a nationally recognized testing laboratory (NRTL), in any 
area that the atmosphere is determined to contain a concentration of 
flammable vapors that are at or above 10 percent of the lower explosive 
limit (LEL) as specified in 29 CFR part 1915, subparts B and C.


Sec.  1915.83  Utilities.

    (a) Steam supply system. (1) The employer shall ensure that the 
vessel's steam piping system, including hoses, is designed to safely 
handle the working pressure prior to supplying steam from an outside 
source. The employer shall obtain a written or oral determination from 
a responsible vessel's representative, a contractor, or any other 
person who is qualified by training, knowledge, or experience to make 
such determination that the working pressure of the vessel's steam 
piping system is safe.
    (2) The employer shall ensure that each outside steam supply 
connected to a vessel's steam piping system meets the following 
requirements:
    (i) A pressure gauge and a relief valve are installed at the point 
where the temporary steam hose joins the vessel's steam piping system;
    (ii) Each relief valve is set to relieve excess steam at, and is 
capable of relieving steam at, a pressure that does not exceed the safe 
working pressure of the system in its present condition;
    (iii) There are no means of inadvertently disconnecting any relief 
valve from the system that it protects;
    (iv) Each pressure gauge and relief valve is legible and located so 
it is visible and readily accessible; and
    (v) Each relief valve is positioned so it is not likely to cause 
injury if steam is released.
    (b) Steam hoses. The employer shall ensure that each steam hose 
meets the following requirements:
    (1) The steam hose and its fittings are used in accordance with 
manufacturer's specifications;
    (2) Each steam hose is hung tightly with short bights that 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 steam piping, including metal 
fittings and couplings, that pass 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 take the following precautions prior to 
energizing any of the vessel's circuits:
    (1) Ensure that the vessel is grounded;
    (2) Equip each circuit to be energized with over-current protection 
that does not exceed the rated current-carrying capacity of the 
conductors; and
    (3) Ensure that each circuit to be energized is in a safe 
condition. The employer must obtain a determination of the safe 
condition, either orally or in writing, from a responsible vessel's 
representative, a contractor, or any other person who is qualified by 
training, knowledge, or experience to make such determination.
    (d) Heat lamps. The employer shall ensure that each heat lamp, 
including the face, is equipped with surround-type guards to prevent 
contact with the lamp and bulb.


Sec.  1915.84  Working alone.

    (a) Except as provided in Sec.  1915.51(c)(3) of this part, 
whenever an employee is working alone, such as in a confined space or 
isolated location, the employer shall account for each employee:
    (1) Throughout each workshift at regular intervals appropriate to 
the job assignment to ensure the employee's safety and health; and
    (2) At the end of the job assignment or at the end of the 
workshift, whichever occurs first.
    (b) The employer shall account for each employee by sight or verbal 
communication.


Sec.  1915.85  Vessel radar and communication systems.

    (a) The employer shall service each vessel's radar and 
communication systems in accordance with 29 CFR 1915.89, Control of 
Hazardous Energy.
    (b) The employer shall secure each vessel's radar and communication 
system so it is incapable of energizing or emitting radiation before 
any employee begins work:
    (1) On or in the vicinity of the system;
    (2) On or in the vicinity of a system equipped with a dummy load; 
or
    (3) Aloft, such as on a mast or king post.
    (c) When a vessel's radar or communication system is operated, 
serviced, repaired, or tested, the employer shall ensure that:
    (1) There is no other work in progress aloft; and
    (2) No employee is closer to the system's antenna or transmitter 
than the manufacturer's specified safe minimum distance for the type, 
model, and power of the equipment.
    (d) The employer shall ensure that no employee enters an area 
designated as hazardous by manufacturers' specifications while a radar 
or communication system is capable of emitting radiation.
    (e) The requirements of this section do not apply when a radar or 
communication system is incapable of emitting radiation at levels that 
could injure workers in the vicinity of the system, or if the radar or 
communication system is incapable of energizing in a manner than could 
injure workers working on or in the vicinity of the system.


Sec.  1915.86  Lifeboats.

    (a) Before any employee works in or on a stowed or suspended 
lifeboat, the employer shall secure the lifeboat independently from 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 or lowered, except when the employer 
demonstrates that it is necessary to conduct operational tests or 
drills over water, or in the event of an emergency.
    (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.


Sec.  1915.87  Medical services and first aid.

    (a) General requirement. The employer shall ensure that emergency 
medical services and first aid are readily accessible.
    (b) Advice and consultation. The employer shall ensure that 
healthcare professionals are readily available for advice and 
consultation on matters of workplace health.
    (c) First aid providers. (1) The employer shall ensure that there 
is an adequate number of employees trained as first aid providers at 
each worksite during each workshift unless:
    (i) There is an on-site clinic or infirmary with first aid 
providers during each workshift; or
    (ii) The employer can demonstrate that outside first aid providers 
(i.e., emergency medical services) can reach the worksite within five 
(5) minutes of a report of injury or illness. The employer must take 
appropriate steps to ascertain that emergency medical assistance will 
be readily available promptly if an injury or illness occurs.
    (2) The employer shall ensure that a first aid provider is able to 
reach an injured/ill employee within five (5) minutes of a report of a 
serious injury, illness, or accident such as one involving cardiac 
arrest, acute breathing problems, uncontrolled bleeding, suffocation, 
electrocution, or amputation.
    (3) The employer shall use the following factors in determining the 
number and location of employees who must have first aid training: size 
and location of each worksite; the number of employees at each 
worksite; the hazards present at each worksite; and the distance of 
each worksite from hospitals, clinics, and rescue squads.
    (4) The employer shall ensure that first aid providers are trained 
to render first aid, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).
    (5) The employer shall ensure that each first aid provider 
maintains current first aid and CPR certifications, such as 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 that are readily accessible to each 
worksite. An employer's on-site infirmary or clinic containing first 
aid supplies that are readily accessible to each worksite complies with 
this requirement.
    (2) The employer shall ensure that the placement, content, and 
amount of first aid supplies are adequate for the size and location of 
each worksite, the number of employees at each worksite, the hazards 
present at each worksite, and the distance of each worksite from 
hospitals, clinics, and rescue squads.
    (3) The employer shall ensure that first aid supplies are placed in 
a weatherproof container.
    (4) The employer shall maintain first aid supplies in a dry, 
sterile, and serviceable condition.
    (5) The employer shall replenish first aid supplies as necessary to 
ensure that there is an adequate supply when needed.
    (6) The employer shall inspect first aid supplies at sufficient 
intervals to ensure that they are adequate and in a serviceable 
condition.
    (e) Quick-drenching and flushing facilities. Where the potential 
exists for an employee to be splashed with a substance that may result 
in an acute or serious injury, the employer shall provide facilities 
for quick-drenching or flushing the eyes and body. The employer shall 
ensure that such a facility is located for immediate emergency use 
within close proximity to operations where such substances are being 
used.
    (f) Basket stretchers. (1) The employer shall provide an adequate 
number of basket stretchers, or the equivalent, readily accessible to 
where work is being performed on a vessel or vessel section. The 
employer is not required to provide basket stretchers or the equivalent 
where emergency response services have basket stretchers or the equivalent 
that meet the requirements of this paragraph.
    (2) The employer shall ensure each basket stretcher, or the 
equivalent, is equipped with:
    (i) Permanent lifting bridles that enable the basket stretcher, or 
the equivalent, to be attached to hoisting gear capable of lifting at 
least 5,000 pounds (2,270 kg);
    (ii) Restraints that are capable of securely holding the injured/
ill employee while the basket stretcher, or the equivalent, is lifted 
or moved; and
    (iii) A blanket or other suitable covering for the injured/ill 
employee.
    (3) The employer shall store basket stretchers, or the equivalent, 
and related equipment (i.e., restraints, blankets) in a clearly marked 
location in a manner that prevents damage and protects the equipment 
from environmental conditions.
    (4) The employer shall inspect stretchers, or the equivalent, and 
related equipment at intervals that ensure the equipment remains in a 
safe and serviceable condition, but at least once a year.

Appendix A to Sec.  1915.87--First Aid Kits and Automated External 
Defibrillators (Non-Mandatory)

    1. First aid supplies are required to be adequate and readily 
accessible under paragraphs Sec.  1915.87(a) and (d). An example of 
the minimal contents of a generic first aid kit for workplace 
settings is described in ANSI/ISEA Z308.1-2009, "Minimum 
Requirements for Workplace First Aid Kits and Supplies" 
(incorporated by reference as specified in Sec.  1915.5). The 
contents of the kit listed in this ANSI standard should be adequate 
for small worksites. When larger operations or multiple operations 
are being conducted at the same worksite, employers should determine 
the need for additional first aid kits, 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 that have unique or changing 
first aid needs at their worksite may need to enhance their first 
aid kits. The employer can use the OSHA 300 Log, OSHA 301 Incident 
Report form, or other reports to identify these unique problems. 
Consultation from the local fire or rescue department, appropriate 
healthcare professional or local emergency room may be helpful to 
employers in these circumstances. By assessing the specific needs of 
their worksite, 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 must provide appropriate 
personal protective equipment (PPE) in compliance with the 
provisions of the Occupational Exposure to Bloodborne Pathogens 
standard, Sec.  1910.1030(d)(3). This standard lists appropriate PPE 
for this type of exposure, such as gloves, gowns, face shields, 
masks, and eye protection.
    4. Employers who provide automated external defibrillators 
(AEDs) at their workplaces should designate who will use AEDs and 
train those employees so they know how to correctly use the AEDs. 
Although a growing number of AEDs are now designed to be used by any 
person, even without training, training reinforces proper use and 
promotes the usefulness of AEDs as part of an effective 
cardiopulmonary resuscitation plan. For AEDs to be effective, 
employers should:
    a. Ensure that AEDs are located so they can be utilized within 
three to five minutes of a report of an accident or injury;
    b. Ensure that employees use AEDs in accordance with 
manufacturers' specifications; and
    c. Inspect, test, and maintain AEDs in accordance with 
manufacturers' specifications.


Sec.  1915.88  Sanitation.

    (a) General requirements. (1) The employer shall provide adequate 
and readily accessible sanitation facilities.
    (2) The employer shall establish and implement a schedule for 
servicing, cleaning, and supplying each facility to ensure it is 
maintained 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) Toilets. (1) General requirements. The employer shall ensure 
that sewered and portable toilets:
    (i) Provide privacy at all times. When a toilet facility contains 
more than one toilet, each toilet shall occupy a separate compartment 
with a door and walls or partitions that are sufficiently high to 
ensure privacy; and
    (ii) Are separate for each sex, except as provided in (d)(1)(ii)(B) 
of this section;
    (A) The number of toilets provided for each sex shall be based on 
the maximum number of employees of that sex present at the worksite 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; and
    (B) The employer does not have to provide separate toilet 
facilities for each sex when 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.
    (iii) The employer shall establish and implement a schedule to 
ensure that each sewered and portable toilet is maintained in a clean, 
sanitary, and serviceable condition.
    (2) Minimum number of toilets. (i) The employer shall provide at 
least the following number of toilets for each sex. Portable toilets 
that meet the requirements of paragraph (d)(3) of this section may be 
included in the minimum number of toilets.

                       Table F-2 to Sec.   1915.88
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Minimum number of toilets
      Number of employees of each sex                  per sex
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 for each
                                             additional 40 employees.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note to Table F-2 of Sec.   1915.88: When toilets will only be used by
  men, urinals may be provided instead of toilets, except that the
  number of toilets in such cases shall not be reduced to less than two-
  thirds of the minimum specified.

    (3) Portable toilets. (i) The employer shall provide portable 
toilets, pursuant to paragraph (d)(2)(i) and Table to paragraph (d)(2) 
of this section, only when the employer demonstrates that it is not 
feasible to provide sewered toilets, or when there is a temporary 
increase in the number of employees for a short duration of time.
    (ii) The employer shall ensure that each portable toilet is vented 
and equipped, as necessary, with lighting.
    (4) Exception for normally unattended worksites and mobile work 
crews. The requirement to provide toilets does not apply to normally 
unattended worksites 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 other 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 a hand-drying air blower.
    (3) The employer shall inform each employee engaged in the 
application of paints or coatings or in other operations in which 
hazardous or toxic substances can be ingested or absorbed about the 
need for removing surface contaminants from their skins surface by 
thoroughly washing their 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, as well as 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 employees may be exposed to hazardous or toxic 
substances.
    (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 vermin infestation.
    (2) Where vermin are detected, the employer shall implement and 
maintain an effective vermin-control program.


Sec.  1915.89  Control of hazardous energy (lockout/tags-plus).

    (a) Scope, application, and effective dates . (1) Scope. This 
section covers the servicing of machinery, equipment, and systems when 
the energization or startup of machinery, equipment, or systems, or the 
release of hazardous energy, could endanger an employee.
    (2) Application. (i) This section applies to the servicing of any 
machinery, equipment, or system that employees use in the course of 
shipyard employment work and that is conducted:
    (A) In any landside facility that performs shipyard employment 
work; and
    (B) On any vessel or vessel section.
    (ii) This section applies to such servicing conducted on a vessel 
by any employee including, but not limited to, the ship's officers and 
crew unless such application is preempted by the regulations of another 
federal agency.
    (3) When other standards in 29 CFR part 1915 and applicable 
standards in 29 CFR part 1910 require the use of a lock or tag, the 
employer shall use and supplement them with the procedural and training 
requirements specified in this section.
    (4) Exceptions. This section does not apply to:
    (i) Work on cord-and-plug-connected machinery, equipment, or 
system, provided the employer ensures that the machinery, equipment, or 
system is unplugged and the plug is under the exclusive control of the 
employee performing the servicing;
    (ii) Minor servicing activities performed during normal production 
operations, including minor tool changes and adjustments, that are 
routine, repetitive, and integral to the use of the machinery, 
equipment, or system, provided the employer ensures that the work is 
performed using measures that provide effective protection from 
energization, startup, or the release of hazardous energy.
    (b) Lockout/tags-plus program. The employer shall establish and 
implement a written program and procedures for lockout and tags-plus 
systems to control hazardous energy during the servicing of any 
machinery, equipment, or system in shipyard employment. The program 
shall cover:
    (1) Procedures for lockout/tags-plus systems while servicing 
machinery, equipment, or systems in accordance with paragraph (c) of 
this section;
    (2) Procedures for protecting employees involved in servicing any 
machinery, equipment, or system in accordance with paragraphs (d) 
through (m) of this section;
    (3) Specifications for locks and tags-plus hardware in accordance 
with paragraph (n) of this section;
    (4) Employee information and training in accordance with paragraph 
(o) of this section;
    (5) Incident investigations in accordance with paragraph (p) of 
this section; and
    (6) Program audits in accordance with paragraph (q) of this 
section.
    (c) General requirements. (1) The employer shall ensure that, 
before any authorized employee performs servicing when energization or 
startup, or the release of hazardous energy, may occur, all energy 
sources are identified and isolated, and the machinery, equipment, or 
system is rendered inoperative.
    (2) If an energy-isolating device is capable of being locked, the 
employer shall ensure the use of a lock to prevent energization or 
startup, or the release of hazardous energy, before any servicing is 
started, unless the employer can demonstrate that the utilization of a 
tags-plus system will provide full employee protection as set forth in 
paragraph (c)(6) of this section.
    (3) If an energy-isolating device is not capable of being locked, 
the employer shall ensure the use of a tags-plus system to prevent 
energization or startup, or the release of hazardous energy, before any 
servicing is started.
    (4) Each tags-plus system shall consist of:
    (i) At least one energy-isolating device with a tag affixed to it; 
and
    (ii) At least one additional safety measure that, along with the 
energy-isolating device and tag required in (c)(4)(i) of this section, 
will provide the equivalent safety available from the use of a lock.

    Note to paragraph (c)(4) of this section:  When the Navy ship's 
force maintains control of the machinery, equipment, or systems on a 
vessel and has implemented such additional measures it determines 
are necessary, the provisions of paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of this 
section shall not apply, provided that the employer complies with 
the verification procedures in paragraph (g) of this section.

    (5) After October 31, 2011, the employer shall ensure that each 
energy-isolating device for any machinery, equipment, or system is 
designed to accept a lock whenever the machinery, equipment, or system 
is extensively repaired, renovated, modified, or replaced, or whenever 
new machinery, equipment, or systems are installed. This requirement 
does not apply when a shipyard employer:
    (i) Does not own the machinery, equipment, or system; or
    (ii) Builds or services a vessel or vessel section according to 
customer specifications.
    (6) Full employee protection. (i) When a tag is used on an energy-
isolating device that is capable of being locked out, the tag shall be 
attached at the same location that the lock would have been attached, 
and;
    (ii) The employer shall demonstrate that the use of a tags-plus 
system will provide a level of safety equivalent to that obtained by 
using a lock. In demonstrating that an equivalent level of safety is 
achieved, the employer shall:
    (A) Demonstrate full compliance with all tags-plus-related 
provisions of this standard; and
    (B) Implement such additional safety measures as are necessary to 
provide the equivalent safety available from the use of a lock.

    Note to paragraph (c)(6) of this section:  When the Navy ship's 
force maintains control of the machinery, equipment, or systems on a 
vessel and has implemented such additional measures it determines 
are necessary, the provisions of paragraph (c)(6)(ii)(B) of this 
section do not apply, provided that the employer complies with the 
verification procedures in paragraph (g) of this section.

    (7) Lockout/tags-plus coordination. (i) The employer shall 
establish and implement lockout/tags-plus coordination when:
    (A) Employees on vessels and in vessel sections are servicing 
multiple machinery, equipment, or systems at the same time; or
    (B) Employees on vessels, in vessel sections, and at landside 
facilities are performing multiple servicing operations on the same 
machinery, equipment, or system at the same time.
    (ii) The coordination process shall include a lockout/tags-plus 
coordinator and a lockout/tags-plus log. Each log shall be specific to 
each vessel, vessel section, and landside work area.
    (iii) The employer shall designate a lockout/tags-plus coordinator 
who is responsible for overseeing and approving:
    (A) The application of each lockout and tags-plus system;
    (B) The verification of hazardous-energy isolation before the 
servicing of any machinery, equipment, or system begins; and
    (C) The removal of each lockout and tags-plus system.
    (iv) The employer shall ensure that the lockout/tags-plus 
coordinator maintains and administers a continuous log of each lockout 
and tags-plus system. The log shall contain:
    (A) Location of machinery, equipment, or system to be serviced;
    (B) Type of machinery, equipment, or system to be serviced;
    (C) Name of the authorized employee applying the lockout/tags-plus 
system;
    (D) Date that the lockout/tags-plus system is applied;
    (E) Name of authorized employee removing the lock or tags-plus 
system; and
    (F) Date that lockout/tags-plus system is removed.

    Note to paragraph (c)(7) of this section:  When the Navy ship's 
force serves as the lockout/tags-plus coordinator and maintains 
control of the lockout/tags-plus log, the employer will be in 
compliance with the requirements in paragraph (c)(7) of this section 
when coordination between the ship's force and the employer occurs 
to ensure that applicable lockout/tags-plus procedures are followed 
and documented.

    (d) Lockout/tags-plus written procedures. (1) The employer shall 
establish and implement written procedures to prevent energization or 
startup, or the release of hazardous energy, during the servicing of 
any machinery, equipment, or system. Each procedure shall include:
    (i) A clear and specific outline of the scope and purpose of the 
lockout/tags-plus procedure;
    (ii) The means the employer will use to enforce compliance with the 
lockout/tags-plus program and procedures; and
    (iii) The steps that must be followed for:
    (A) Preparing for shutting down and isolating of the machinery, 
equipment, or system to be serviced, in accordance with paragraph (e) 
of this section;
    (B) Applying the lockout/tags-plus system, in accordance with 
paragraph (f) of this section;
    (C) Verifying isolation, in accordance with paragraph (g) of this 
section;
    (D) Testing the machinery, equipment, or system, in accordance with 
paragraph (h) of this section;
    (E) Removing lockout/tags-plus systems, in accordance with 
paragraph (i) of this section;
    (F) Starting up the machinery, equipment, or system that is being 
serviced, in accordance with paragraph (j) of this section;
    (G) Applying lockout/tags-plus systems in group servicing 
operations, in accordance with paragraph (k) of this section;
    (H) Addressing multi-employer worksites involved in servicing any 
machinery, equipment, or system, in accordance with paragraph (l) of 
this section; and
    (I) Addressing shift or personnel changes during servicing 
operations, in accordance with paragraph (m) of this section.

    Note to paragraph (d)(1) of this section: The employer need only 
develop a single procedure for a group of similar machines, 
equipment, or systems if the machines, equipment, or systems have 
the same type and magnitude of energy and the same or similar types 
of controls, and if a single procedure can satisfactorily address 
the hazards and the steps to be taken to control these hazards.

    (2) The employer's lockout procedures do not have to be in writing 
for servicing machinery, equipment, or systems, provided that all of 
the following conditions are met:
    (i) There is no potential for hazardous energy to be released (or 
to reaccumulate) after shutting down, or restoring energy to, the 
machinery, equipment, or system;
    (ii) The machinery, equipment, or system has a single energy source 
that can be readily identified and isolated;
    (iii) The isolation and lock out of that energy source will result 
in complete de-energization and deactivation of the machinery, 
equipment, or system, and there is no potential for reaccumulation of 
energy;
    (iv) The energy source is isolated and secured from the machinery, 
equipment, or system during servicing;
    (v) Only one lock is necessary for isolating the energy source;
    (vi) The lock is under the exclusive control of the authorized 
employee performing the servicing;
    (vii) The servicing does not create a hazard for any other 
employee; and
    (viii) The employer, in utilizing this exception, has not had any 
accidents or incidents involving the activation or reenergization of 
this type of machinery, equipment, or system during servicing.
    (e) Procedures for shutdown and isolation. (1) Before an authorized 
employee shuts down any machinery, equipment, or system, the employer 
shall:
    (i) Ensure that the authorized employee has knowledge of:
    (A) The source, type, and magnitude of the hazards associated with 
energization or startup of the machine, equipment, or system;
    (B) The hazards associated with the release of hazardous energy; 
and
    (C) The means to control these hazards; and
    (ii) Notify each affected employee that the machinery, equipment, 
or system will be shut down and deenergized prior to servicing, and 
that a lockout/tags-plus system will be implemented.
    (2) The employer shall ensure that the machinery, equipment, or 
system is shut down according to the written procedures the employer 
established.
    (3) The employer shall use an orderly shutdown to prevent exposing 
any employee to risks associated with hazardous energy.
    (4) The employer shall ensure that the authorized employee 
relieves, disconnects, restrains, or otherwise renders safe all 
potentially hazardous energy that is connected to the machinery, 
equipment, or system.

    Note to paragraph (e) of this section:  When the Navy ship's 
force shuts down any machinery, equipment, or system, and relieves, 
disconnects, restrains, or otherwise renders safe all potentially 
hazardous energy that is connected to the machinery, equipment, or 
system, the employer will be in compliance with the requirements in 
paragraph (e) of this section when the employer's authorized 
employee verifies that the machinery, equipment, or system being 
serviced has been properly shut down, isolated, and deenergized.

    (f) Procedures for applying lockout/tags-plus systems. (1) The 
employer shall ensure that only an authorized employee applies a 
lockout/tags-plus system.
    (2) When using lockout systems, the employer shall ensure that the 
authorized employee affixes each lock in a manner that will hold the 
energy-isolating device in a safe or off position.
    (3) When using tags-plus systems, the employer shall ensure that 
the authorized employee affixes a tag directly to the energy-isolating 
device that clearly indicates that the removal of the device from a 
safe or off position is prohibited.
    (4) When the tag cannot be affixed directly to the energy-isolating 
device the employer shall ensure that the authorized employee locates 
it as close as safely possible to the device, in a safe and immediately 
obvious position.
    (5) The employer shall ensure that each energy-isolating device 
that controls energy to the machinery, equipment, or system is 
effective in isolating the machinery, equipment, or system from all 
potentially hazardous energy source(s).

    Note to paragraph (f) of this section:  When the Navy ship's 
force applies the lockout/tags-plus systems or devices, the employer 
will be in compliance with the requirements in paragraph (f) of this 
section when the employer's authorized employee verifies the 
application of the lockout/tags-plus systems or devices.

    (g) Procedures for verification of deenergization and isolation. 
(1) Before servicing machinery, equipment, or a system that has a 
lockout/tags-plus system, the employer shall ensure that the authorized 
employee, or the primary authorized employee in a group lockout/tags-
plus application, verifies that the machinery, equipment, or system is 
deenergized and all energy sources isolated.
    (2) The employer shall ensure that the authorized employee, or the 
primary authorized employee in a group lockout/tags-plus application, 
continues verifying deenergization and isolation while servicing the 
machinery, equipment, or system.
    (3) Each authorized employee in a group lockout/tags-plus 
application who will be servicing the machinery, equipment, or system 
must be given the option to verify that the machinery, equipment, or 
system is deenergized and all energy sources isolated, even when 
verification is performed by the primary authorized employee.
    (h) Procedures for testing. In each situation in which a lockout/
tags-plus system must be removed temporarily and the machinery, 
equipment, or system restarted to test it or to position a component, 
the employer shall ensure that the authorized employee does the 
following in sequence:
    (1) Clears tools and materials from the work area;
    (2) Removes nonessential employees from the work area;
    (3) Removes each lockout/tags-plus system in accordance with 
paragraph (i) of this section;
    (4) Restarts the machinery, equipment, or system and then proceeds 
with testing or positioning; and
    (5) After completing testing or positioning, deenergizes and shuts 
down the machinery, equipment, or system and reapplies all lockout/
tags-plus systems in accordance with paragraphs (e)-(g) of this section 
to continue servicing.

    Note to paragraph (h) of this section:  When the Navy ship's 
force serves as the lockout/tags-plus coordinator, performs the 
testing, and maintains control of the lockout/tags-plus systems or 
devices during testing, the employer is in compliance with paragraph 
(h) when the employer's authorized employee acknowledges to the 
lockout/tags-plus coordinator that the employer's personnel and 
tools are clear and the machinery, equipment, or system being 
serviced is ready for testing, and upon completion of the testing, 
verifies the reapplication of the lockout/tags-plus systems.

    (i) Procedures for removal of lockout and tags-plus systems. (1) 
Before removing any lockout/tags-plus system and restoring the 
machinery, equipment, or system to use, the employer shall ensure that 
the authorized employee does the following:
    (i) Notifies all other authorized and affected employees that the 
lockout/tags-plus system will be removed;
    (ii) Ensures that all employees in the work area have been safely 
positioned or removed; and
    (iii) Inspects the work area to ensure that nonessential items have 
been removed and machinery, equipment, or system components are 
operationally intact.
    (2) The employer shall ensure that each lock or tags-plus system is 
removed by the authorized employee who applied it.
    (3) When the authorized employee who applied the lockout/tags-plus 
system is not available to remove it, the employer may direct removal 
by another authorized employee, provided the employer developed and 
incorporated into the lockout/tags-plus program the specific procedures 
and training that address such removal, and demonstrates that the 
specific procedures used provide a level of employee safety that is at 
least as effective in protecting employees as removal of the system by 
the authorized employee who applied it. After meeting these 
requirements, the employer shall do the following in sequence:
    (i) Verify that the authorized employee who applied the lockout/
tags-plus system is not in the facility;
    (ii) Make all reasonable efforts to contact the authorized employee 
to inform him/her that the lockout/tags-plus system has been removed; and
    (iii) Ensure that the authorized employee who applied the lock or 
tags-plus system has knowledge of the removal before resuming work on 
the affected machinery, equipment, or system.

    Note to paragraph (i) of this section: When the Navy ship's 
force serves as lockout/tags-plus coordinator and removes the 
lockout/tags-plus systems or devices, the employer is in compliance 
with the requirements in paragraph (i) of this section when the 
employer's authorized employee informs the lockout/tags-plus 
coordinator that the procedures in paragraph (i)(1) of this section 
have been performed.

    (j) Procedures for startup. (1) Before an authorized employee turns 
on any machinery, equipment, or system after servicing is completed, 
the employer shall ensure that the authorized employee has knowledge of 
the source, type, and magnitude of the hazards associated with 
energization or startup, and the means to control these hazards.
    (2) The employer shall execute an orderly startup to prevent or 
minimize any additional or increased hazard(s) to employees. The 
employer shall perform the following tasks before starting up the 
machinery, equipment, or system:
    (i) Clear tools and materials from the work area;
    (ii) Remove any non-essential employees from the work area; and
    (iii) Start up the machinery, equipment, or system according to the 
detailed procedures the employer established for that machinery, 
equipment, or system.

    Note to paragraph (j) of this section:  When the Navy ship's 
force serves as lockout/tags-plus coordinator and maintains control 
of the lockout/tags-plus systems or devices during startup, and the 
employer is prohibited from starting up the machinery, equipment, or 
system, the employer is in compliance with the requirements in 
paragraph (j) of this section when the employer's authorized 
employee informs the lockout/tags-plus coordinator the procedures in 
paragraphs (j)(2)(i) and (j)(2)(ii) of this section have been 
performed.

    (k) Procedures for group lockout/tags-plus. When more than one 
authorized employee services the same machinery, equipment, or system 
at the same time, the following procedures shall be implemented:
    (1) Primary authorized employee. The employer shall:
    (i) Assign responsibility to one primary authorized employee for 
each group of authorized employees performing servicing on the same 
machinery, equipment, or system;
    (ii) Ensure that the primary authorized employee determines the 
safe exposure status of each authorized employee in the group with 
regard to the lockout/tags-plus system;
    (iii) Ensure that the primary authorized employee obtains approval 
from the lockout/tags-plus coordinator to apply and remove the lockout/
tags-plus system; and
    (iv) Ensure that the primary authorized employee coordinates the 
servicing operation with the coordinator when required by paragraph 
(c)(7)(i) of this section.
    (2) Authorized employees. The employer shall either:
    (i) Have each authorized employee apply a personal lockout/tags-
plus system; or
    (ii) Use a procedure that the employer can demonstrate affords each 
authorized employee a level of protection equivalent to the protection 
provided by having each authorized employee apply a personal lockout/
tags-plus system. Such procedures shall incorporate a means for each 
authorized employee to have personal control of, and accountability 
for, his or her protection such as, but not limited to, having each 
authorized employee:
    (A) Sign a group tag (or a group tag equivalent), attach a personal 
identification device to a group lockout device, or performs a 
comparable action before servicing is started; and
    (B) Sign off the group tag (or the group tag equivalent), remove 
the personal identification device, or perform a comparable action when 
servicing is finished.

    Note to paragraph (k)(2) of this section:  When the Navy ship's 
force maintains control of the machinery, equipment, or systems on a 
vessel and prohibits the employer from applying or removing the 
lockout/tags-plus system or starting up the machinery, equipment, or 
systems being serviced, the employer is in compliance with the 
requirements in paragraphs (k)(1)(iii) and (k)(2), provided that the 
employer ensures that the primary authorized employee takes the 
following steps in the following order: (1) Before servicing begins 
and after deenergization, (a) verifies the safe exposure status of 
each authorized employee, and (b) signs a group tag (or a group tag 
equivalent) or performs a comparable action; and (2) after servicing 
is complete and before reenergization, (a) verifies the safe 
exposure status of each authorized employee, and (b) signs off the 
group tag (or the group tag equivalent) or performs a comparable 
action.

    (l) Procedures for multi-employer worksites. (1) The host employer 
shall establish and implement procedures to protect employees from 
hazardous energy in multi-employer worksites. The procedures shall 
specify the responsibilities for host and contract employers.
    (2) Host employer responsibilities. The host employer shall carry 
out the following responsibilities in multi-employer worksites:
    (i) Inform each contract employer about the content of the host 
employer's lockout/tags-plus program and procedures;
    (ii) Instruct each contract employer to follow the host employer's 
lockout/tags-plus program and procedures; and
    (iii) Ensure that the lockout/tags-plus coordinator knows about all 
servicing operations and communicates with each contract employer who 
performs servicing or works in an area where servicing is being 
conducted.
    (3) Contract employer responsibilities. Each contract employer 
shall perform the following duties when working in a multi-employer 
worksite:
    (i) Follow the host employer's lockout/tags-plus program and 
procedures;
    (ii) Ensure that the host employer knows about the lockout/tags-
plus hazards associated with the contract employer's work and what the 
contract employer is doing to address these hazards; and
    (iii) Inform the host employer of any previously unidentified 
lockout/tags-plus hazards that the contract employer identifies at the 
multi-employer worksite.

    Note 1 to paragraph (l) of this section:  The host employer may 
include provisions in its contract with the contract employer for 
the contract employer to have more control over the lockout/tags-
plus program if such provisions will provide an equivalent level of 
protection for the host employer's and contract employer's employees 
as that provided by paragraph (l) of this section.


    Note 2 to paragraph (l) of this section:  When the U.S Navy 
contracts directly with a contract employer and the Navy ship's 
force maintains control of the lockout/tags-plus systems or devices, 
that contract employer shall consider the Navy to be the host 
employer for the purposes of Sec.  1915.89(l)(3).

    (m) Procedures for shift or personnel changes. (1) The employer 
shall establish and implement specific procedures for shift or 
personnel changes to ensure the continuity of lockout/tags-plus 
protection.
    (2) The employer shall establish and implement provisions for the 
orderly transfer of lockout/tags-plus systems between authorized 
employees when they are starting and ending their workshifts, or when 
personnel changes occur during a workshift, to prevent energization or 
startup of the machinery, equipment, or system being serviced or the 
release of hazardous energy.
    (n) Lockout/tags-plus materials and hardware. (1) The employer 
shall provide locks and tags-plus system hardware used for isolating, 
securing, or blocking machinery, equipment, or systems from all 
hazardous-energy sources.
    (2) The employer shall ensure that each lock and tag is uniquely 
identified for the purpose of controlling hazardous energy and is not 
used for any other purpose.
    (3) The employer shall ensure that each lock and tag meets the 
following requirements:
    (i) Durable. (A) Each lock and tag is capable of withstanding the 
existing environmental conditions for the maximum period of time that 
servicing is expected to last;
    (B) Each tag is made so that weather conditions, wet or damp 
conditions, corrosive substances, or other conditions in the work area 
where the tag is used or stored will not cause it to deteriorate or 
become illegible;
    (ii) Standardized. (A) Each lock and tag is standardized in at 
least one of the following areas: color, shape, or size; and
    (B) Each tag is standardized in print and format;
    (iii) Substantial. (A) Each lock is sturdy enough to prevent 
removal without the use of extra force or unusual techniques, such as 
bolt cutters or other metal-cutting tools;
    (B) Each tag and tag attachment is sturdy enough to prevent 
inadvertent or accidental removal;
    (C) Each tag attachment has the general design and basic safety 
characteristics of a one-piece, all-environment-tolerant nylon tie;
    (D) Each tag attachment is non-reusable, attachable by hand, self-
locking, and non-releasable, and has a minimum unlocking strength of 50 
pounds;
    (iv) Identifiable. Each lock and tag indicates the identity of the 
authorized employee applying it; and
    (v) Each tag warns of hazardous conditions that could arise if the 
machinery, equipment, or system is energized and includes a legend such 
as one of the following: "Do Not Start," "Do Not Open," "Do Not 
Close," "Do Not Energize," or "Do Not Operate."
    (o) Information and training. (1) Initial training. The employer 
shall train each employee in the applicable requirements of this 
section no later than October 31, 2011.
    (2) General training content. The employer shall train each 
employee who is, or may be, in an area where lockout/tags-plus systems 
are being used so they know:
    (i) The purpose and function of the employer's lockout/tags-plus 
program and procedures;
    (ii) The unique identity of the locks and tags to be used in the 
lockout/tags-plus system, as well as the standardized color, shape or 
size of these devices;
    (iii) The basic components of the tags-plus system: an energy-
isolating device with a tag affixed to it and an additional safety 
measure;
    (iv) The prohibition against tampering with or removing any 
lockout/tags-plus system; and
    (v) The prohibition against restarting or reenergizing any 
machinery, equipment, or system being serviced under a lockout/tags-
plus system.
    (3) Additional training requirements for affected employees. In 
addition to training affected employees in the requirements in 
paragraph (o)(2) of this section, the employer also shall train each 
affected employee so he/she knows:
    (i) The use of the employer's lockout/tags-plus program and 
procedures;
    (ii) That affected employees are not to apply or remove any 
lockout/tags-plus system; and
    (iii) That affected employees are not to bypass, ignore, or 
otherwise defeat any lockout/tags-plus system.
    (4) Additional training requirements for authorized employees. In 
addition to training authorized employees in the requirements in 
paragraphs (o)(2) and (o)(3) of this section, the employer also shall 
train each authorized employee so he/she knows:
    (i) The steps necessary for the safe application, use, and removal 
of lockout/tags-plus systems to prevent energization or startup or the 
release of hazardous energy during servicing of machinery, equipment, 
or systems;
    (ii) The type of energy sources and the magnitude of the energy 
available at the worksite;
    (iii) The means and methods necessary for effective isolation and 
control of hazardous energy;
    (iv) The means for determining the safe exposure status of other 
employees in a group when the authorized employee is working as a 
group's primary authorized employee.
    (v) The requirement for tags to be written so they are legible and 
understandable to all employees;
    (vi) The requirement that tags and their means of attachment be 
made of materials that will withstand the environmental conditions 
encountered in the workplace;
    (vii) The requirement that tags be securely attached to energy-
isolating devices so they cannot be accidentally removed while 
servicing machinery, equipment, or systems;
    (viii) That tags are warning devices, and alone do not provide 
physical barriers against energization or startup, or the release of 
hazardous energy, provided by locks, and energy-isolating devices; and
    (ix) That tags must be used in conjunction with an energy-isolating 
device to prevent energization or startup or the release of hazardous 
energy.
    (5) Additional training for lockout/tags-plus coordinator. In 
addition to training lockout/tags-plus coordinators in the requirements 
in paragraphs (o)(2), (o)(3), and (o)(4) of this section, the employer 
shall train each lockout/tags-plus coordinator so he/she knows:
    (i) How to identify and isolate any machinery, equipment, or system 
that is being serviced; and
    (ii) How to accurately document lockout/tags-plus systems and 
maintain the lockout/tags-plus log.
    (6) Employee retraining.
    (i) The employer shall retrain each employee, as applicable, 
whenever:
    (A) There is a change in his/her job assignment that presents new 
hazards or requires a greater degree of knowledge about the employer's 
lockout/tags-plus program or procedures;
    (B) There is a change in machinery, equipment, or systems to be 
serviced that presents a new energy-control hazard;
    (C) There is a change in the employer's lockout/tags-plus program 
or procedures; or
    (D) It is necessary to maintain the employee's proficiency.
    (ii) The employer also shall retrain each employee, as applicable, 
whenever an incident investigation or program audit indicates that 
there are:
    (A) Deviations from, or deficiencies in, the employer's lockout/
tags-plus program or procedures; or
    (B) Inadequacies in an employee's knowledge or use of the lockout/
tags-plus program or procedures.
    (iii) The employer shall ensure that retraining establishes the 
required employee knowledge and proficiency in the employer's lockout/
tags-plus program and procedures and in any new or revised energy-
control procedures.
    (7) Upon completion of employee training, the employer shall keep a 
record that the employee accomplished the training, and that this 
training is current. The training record shall contain at least the 
employee's name, date of training, and the subject of the training.
    (p) Incident investigation. (1) The employer shall investigate each 
incident that resulted in, or could reasonably have resulted in, 
energization or startup, or the release of hazardous energy,
while servicing machinery, equipment, or systems.
    (2) Promptly but not later than 24 hours following the incident, 
the employer shall initiate an incident investigation and notify each 
employee who was, or could reasonably have been, affected by the 
incident.
    (3) The employer shall ensure that the incident investigation is 
conducted by at least one employee who has the knowledge of, and 
experience in, the employer's lockout/tags-plus program and procedures, 
and in investigating and analyzing incidents involving the release of 
hazardous energy. The employer may also use additional individuals to 
participate in investigating the incident.
    (4) The employer shall ensure that the individual(s) conducting the 
investigation prepare(s) a written report of the investigation that 
includes:
    (i) The date and time of the incident;
    (ii) The date and time the incident investigation began;
    (iii) Location of the incident;
    (iv) A description of the incident;
    (v) The factors that contributed to the incident;
    (vi) A copy of any lockout/tags-plus log that was current at the 
time of the incident; and
    (vii) Any corrective actions that need to be taken as a result of 
the incident.
    (5) The employer shall review the written incident report with each 
employee whose job tasks are relevant to the incident investigation 
findings, including contract employees when applicable.
    (6) The employer shall ensure that the incident investigation and 
written report are completed, and all corrective actions implemented, 
within 30 days following the incident.
    (7) If the employer demonstrates that it is infeasible to implement 
all of the corrective actions within 30 days, the employer shall 
prepare a written abatement plan that contains an explanation of the 
circumstances causing the delay, a proposed timetable for the 
abatement, and a summary of the steps the employer is taking in the 
interim to protect employees from hazardous energy while servicing 
machinery, equipment, or systems.
    (q) Program audits. (1) The employer shall conduct an audit of the 
lockout/tags-plus program and procedures currently in use at least 
annually to ensure that the procedures and the requirements of this 
section are being followed and to correct any deficiencies.
    (2) The employer shall ensure that the audit is performed by:
    (i) An authorized employee other than the one(s) currently using 
the energy-control procedure being reviewed; or
    (ii) Individuals other than an authorized employee who are 
knowledgeable about the employer's lockout/tags-plus program and 
procedures and the machinery, equipment, or systems being audited.
    (3) The employer shall ensure that the audit includes:
    (i) A review of the written lockout/tags-plus program and 
procedures;
    (ii) A review of the current lockout/tags-plus log;
    (iii) Verification of the accuracy of the lockout/tags-plus log;
    (iv) A review of incident reports since the last audit;
    (v) A review conducted between the auditor and authorized employees 
regarding the authorized employees' responsibilities under the lockout 
systems being audited; and
    (vi) A review conducted between the auditor and affected and 
authorized employees regarding their responsibilities under the tags-
plus systems being audited.
    (4) The employer shall ensure that, within 15 days after completion 
of the audit, the individual(s) who conducted the audit prepare and 
deliver to the employer a written audit report that includes at least:
    (i) The date of the audit;
    (ii) The identity of the individual(s) who performed the audit;
    (iii) The identity of the procedure and machinery, equipment, or 
system that were audited;
    (iv) The findings of the program audit and recommendations for 
correcting deviations or deficiencies identified during the audit;
    (v) Any incident investigation reports since the previous audit; 
and
    (vi) Descriptions of corrective actions the employer has taken in 
response to the findings and recommendations of any incident 
investigation reports prepared since the previous audit.
    (5) The employer shall promptly communicate the findings and 
recommendations in the written audit report to each employee having a 
job task that may be affected by such findings and recommendations.
    (6) The employer shall correct the deviations or inadequacies in 
the lockout/tags-plus program within 15 days after receiving the 
written audit report.
    (r) Recordkeeping. (1) Table to paragraph (r)(1) of this section 
specifies what records the employer must retain and how long the 
employer must retain them:

Table to Paragraph (r)(1) of This Section--Retention of Records Required
                            by Sec.   1915.89
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  The employer must keep the following
             records . . .                      For at least . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Current lockout/tags-plus program    Until replaced by updated
 and procedures.                          program and procedures.
(ii) Training records..................  Until replaced by updated
                                          records for each type of
                                          training.
(iii) Incident investigation reports...  Until the next program audit is
                                          completed.
(iv) Program audit report..............  12 months after being replaced
                                          by the next audit report.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) The employer shall make all records required by this section 
available to employees, their representatives, and the Assistant 
Secretary in accordance with the procedures and time periods specified 
in 29 CFR 1910.1020(e)(1) and (e)(3).
    (s) Appendices. Non-mandatory Appendix A to this section is a 
guideline to assist employers and employees in complying with the 
requirements of this section, and to provide them with other useful 
information. The information in Appendix A does not add to, or in any 
way revise, the requirements of this section.

Appendix A to Sec.  1915.89 (Non-Mandatory)--Typical Minimal Lockout/
Tags-Plus Procedures

General

Lockout/Tags-Plus Procedure

Lockout/Tags-Plus Procedure for
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Name of company for single procedure or identification of 
machinery, equipment, or system if multiple procedures used.]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Purpose

    This procedure establishes the minimum requirements for the 
lockout/tags-plus application of energy-isolating devices on vessels 
and vessel sections, and for landside facilities whenever servicing 
is done on machinery, equipment, or systems in shipyards. This 
procedure shall be used to ensure that all potentially hazardous-energy 
sources have been isolated and the machinery, equipment, or system to be 
serviced has been rendered inoperative through the use of lockout or 
tags-plus procedures before employees perform any servicing when the 
energization or start-up of the machinery, equipment, or system, or 
the release of hazardous energy could cause injury.

Compliance With This Program

    All employees are required to comply with the restrictions and 
limitations imposed on them during the use of lockout or tags-plus 
applications. Authorized employees are required to perform each 
lockout or tags-plus application in accordance with this procedure. 
No employee, upon observing that machinery, equipment, or systems 
are secured using lockout or tags-plus applications, shall attempt 
to start, open, close, energize, or operate that machinery, 
equipment, or system.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Procedures for Lockout/Tags-Plus Systems

    (1) Notify each affected employee that servicing is required on 
the machinery, equipment, or system, and that it must be isolated 
and rendered inoperative using a lockout or tags-plus system.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Method of notifying all affected employees.

    (2) The authorized employee shall refer to shipyard employer's 
procedures to identify the type and magnitude of the energy 
source(s) that the machinery, equipment, or system uses, shall 
understand the hazards of the energy, and shall know the methods to 
control the energy source(s).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Type(s) and magnitude(s) of energy, its hazards and the methods to 
control the energy.

    (3) If the machinery, equipment, or system is operating, shut it 
down in accordance with the written procedures (depress the stop 
button, open switch, close valve, etc.) established by the employer.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Type(s) and location(s) of machinery, equipment, or system operating 
controls.

    (4) Secure each energy-isolating device(s) through the use of a 
lockout or tags-plus system (for instance, disconnecting, blanking, 
and affixing tags) so that the energy source is isolated and the 
machinery, equipment, or system is rendered inoperative.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Type(s) and location(s) of energy-isolating devices.

    (5) Lockout System. Affix a lock to each energy-isolating 
device(s) with assigned individual lock(s) that will hold the 
energy-isolating device(s) in a safe or off position. Potentially 
hazardous energy (such as that found in capacitors, springs, 
elevated machine members, rotating flywheels, hydraulic systems, and 
air, gas, steam, or water pressure, etc.) must be controlled by 
methods such as grounding, repositioning, blocking, bleeding down, 
etc.
    (6) Tags-Plus System. Affix a tag to each energy-isolating 
device and provide at least one additional safety measure that 
clearly indicates that removal of the device from the safe or off 
position is prohibited. Potentially hazardous energy (such as that 
found in capacitors, springs, elevated machine members, rotating 
flywheels, hydraulic systems and air, gas, steam, or water pressure, 
etc.) must be controlled by methods such as grounding, 
repositioning, blocking, bleeding down, etc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Type(s) of hazardous energy--methods used to control them.

    (7) Ensure that the machinery, equipment, or system is relieved, 
disconnected, restrained, or rendered safe from the release of all 
potentially hazardous energy by checking that no personnel are 
exposed, and then verifying the isolation of energy to 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 the safe or off position 
after verifying the isolation of the machinery, equipment, or 
system.

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

Method of verifying the isolation of the machinery, equipment, or 
system.

    (8) The machinery, equipment, or system is now secured by a 
lockout or tags-plus system, and servicing by the authorized person 
may be performed.

Procedures for Removal of Lockout/Tags-Plus Systems

    When servicing is complete and the machinery, equipment, or 
system is ready to return to normal operating condition, the 
following steps shall be taken:
    (1) Notify each authorized and affected employee(s) that the 
lockout/tags-plus system will be removed and the machinery, 
equipment, or system reenergized.
    (2) Inspect the work area to ensure that all employees have been 
safely positioned or removed.
    (3) Inspect the machinery, equipment, or system and the 
immediate area around the machinery, equipment, or system to ensure 
that nonessential items have been removed and that the machinery, 
equipment or system components are operationally intact.
    (4) Reconnect the necessary components, remove the lockout/tags-
plus material and hardware, and reenergize the machinery, equipment, 
or system through the established detailed procedures determined by 
the employer.
    (5) Notify all affected employees that servicing is complete and 
the machinery, equipment, or system is ready for testing or use.


Sec.  1915.90  Safety color code for marking physical hazards.

    The requirements applicable to shipyard employment under this 
section are identical to the requirements set forth at 29 CFR 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 the requirements set forth at 29 CFR 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 (49 
CFR parts 171 through 180) 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 specified in the U.S. Department of Transportation 
Hazardous Materials Regulations.


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

    (a) Application. (1) This section applies to any motor vehicle used 
to transport employees, materials, or property at worksites engaged in 
shipyard employment. 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 August 1, 2011 
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 a 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 for each employee being 
transported and that all employees being transported are using such 
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 harming, 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, mirrors at blind spots, or physical barriers to separate travel 
lanes;
    (iii) Establishing appropriate speed limits for all motor vehicles;
    (iv) Establishing "no drive" times to allow for safe movement of 
pedestrians;
    (v) Providing reflective vests or other gear so pedestrians and 
bicyclists are clearly visible to motor vehicle operators;
    (vi) Ensuring that bicycles have reflectors, lights, or other 
equipment to maximize visibility of the bicyclist; or
    (vii) Other measures that the employer can demonstrate are as 
effective in protecting pedestrians and bicyclists as those measures 
specified in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through (c)(3)(vi) of this section.


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

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

Subpart J--[Amended]

0
9. In Sec.  1915.162, paragraph (a)(1) is revised as follows:


Sec.  1915.162  Ship's boilers.

    (a) * * *
    (1) The isolation and shutoff valves connecting the dead boiler 
with the live system or systems shall be secured, blanked, and then 
locked or tagged, in accordance with Sec.  1915.89, 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, in accordance 
with Sec.  1915.89. When 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 then locked or tagged, in 
accordance with Sec.  1915.89.
* * * * *
0
10. In Sec.  1915.163, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  1915.163  Ship's piping systems.

    (a) * * *
    (1) The isolation and shutoff valves connecting the dead system 
with the live system or systems shall be secured, blanked, and then 
locked or tagged, in accordance with Sec.  1915.89, 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, in accordance with Sec.  
1915.89. When 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, and then locked or tagged, in 
accordance with Sec.  1915.89.
* * * * *

0
11. In Sec.  1915.164, paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) are revised to read 
as follows:


Sec.  1915.164  Ship's propulsion machinery.

    (a) * * *
    (2) If the jacking gear is steam driven, the employer shall ensure 
that the stop valves to the jacking gear are secured, and then locked 
or tagged, in accordance with Sec.  1915.89.
    (3) If the jacking gear is electrically driven, the circuit 
controlling the jacking gear shall be de-energized by tripping the 
circuit breaker, opening the switch, or removing the fuse, whichever is 
appropriate, and then locked or tagged in accordance with Sec.  
1915.89.
* * * * *

0
12. In Sec.  1915.181, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  1915.181  Electric circuits and distribution boards.

* * * * *
    (c) De-energizing the circuit shall be 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 then be locked out or tagged in accordance with Sec.  1915.89.
[FR Doc. 2011-9567 Filed 4-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
________________________________________________________________________________
Accessibility Assistance: Contact the OSHA Directorate of Standards and Guidance 
at (202) 693-1713 for assistance accessing PDF materials.

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