General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1915

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

RIN 1218-AB50

General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment

AGENCY:

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

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

DATES:

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

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675, by any of the following methods:

Electronically:

You may submit comments and attachments electronically at

http://www.regulations.gov

, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions on-line for making electronic submissions.

Fax:

If your comments, including attachments, do not exceed 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-1648.

Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger or courier service:

You must submit three copies of your comments and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2350 (OSHA's TTY number is (877) 889-5627). Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger and courier service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., e.t.

Instructions:

All submissions must include the Agency name and the docket number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675). All comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket without change and may be made available online at

http://www.regulations.gov

. Therefore, OSHA cautions you about submitting personal information such as social security numbers and birthdates. For further information on submitting comments, plus additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Participation” heading in the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document.

Docket:

To read or download comments and materials submitted in response to this

Federal Register

notice, go to Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675 at

http://regulations.gov

or the OSHA Docket Office at the address above. All comments and submissions in response to this

Federal Register

notice are listed in the

http://regulations.gov

index; however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download through the Web page. All comments and submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.

For information on reading or downloading exhibits referenced in this

Federal Register

notice, see the “References and exhibits” and “Public Participation” headings in the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document.

Electronic copies of this

Federal Register

document are available at

http://www.regulations.gov

. This document, as well as news releases and other relevant information, also are available at OSHA's Web page at

http://www.osha.gov

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Press inquiries:

Kevin Ropp, OSHA, Office of Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-1999.

For general and technical information:

Dorothy Dougherty, Director, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Room N-3718, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background

II. Regulatory History

III. Pertinent Legal Authority

IV. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard

V. Summary of the Preliminary Economic and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses

VI. Environmental Assessment

VII. Federalism

VIII. Unfunded Mandates

IX. OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

X. State Plan Standards

XI. Public Participation

XII. Authority and Signature

XIII. The Proposed Standard

References and Exhibits

In this

Federal Register

notice, OSHA references documents in Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675 (formerly OSHA Docket No. S-049) as well as documents in the following OSHA rulemakings and advisory committee proceedings, which OSHA is incorporating by reference into the docket of this rulemaking:

• The proceedings of the Shipyard Employment Standards Advisory Committee (SESAC) (Docket Nos. SESAC-1988 through SESAC-1993);

• The proceedings of the Maritime Advisory Committee for Occupational Safety and Health (Docket Nos. MACOSH-1995 through MACOSH-2005);

• The General Industry Lockout/Tagout rulemaking record (Docket Nos. S-012, S-012A and S-012B;

• The Shipyard Employment Standards rulemaking record (Docket No. S-024); and

• The Field Sanitation rulemaking record (Docket No. H-308).

References to documents in Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675. In this

Federal Register

notice, references to documents in Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675 (formerly OSHA Docket No. S-049) are given as “Ex.” followed by the number of the document. These exhibits are posted in both Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675 (which is available at

http://www.regulations.gov

) and OSHA Docket No. S-049 (which is available at

http://dockets.osha.gov

). The referenced exhibits are also available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office (see

ADDRESSES

section).

References to documents in the dockets incorporated by reference. In this

Federal Register

notice, references to documents in the dockets listed above that OSHA is incorporating by reference are given as the docket number followed by the document number. Thus, the reference to “Docket H-308, Ex. 1” means Exhibit 1 in the Field Sanitation rulemaking docket. For access to exhibits in OSHA Docket H-308 and the other dockets above that OSHA is incorporating by reference, go to OSHA's Webpage at

http://

dockets.osha.gov

or the OSHA Docket Office (see

ADDRESSES

section).

I. Background

OSHA is proposing to revise and update the existing standards in subpart F of 29 CFR part 1915 that address hazardous working conditions in shipyard employment. These standards cover many diverse working conditions in shipyard employment, including housekeeping, lighting, utilities, work in confined or isolated spaces, lifeboats, sanitation and medical services and first aid.

OSHA also proposes to add new requirements to subpart F to protect employees from hazardous working conditions not currently addressed by subpart F. These proposed additions include the control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout), safe operation and maintenance of vehicles, accident prevention signs and tags and servicing of multi-piece and single piece rim wheels.

OSHA adopted the existing subpart F standards in 1972 (37 FR 22458 (10/19/1972)) pursuant to section 6(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651

et seq.

). Section 6(a) permitted OSHA, within two years of the passage of the OSH Act, to adopt as an occupational safety or health standard any national consensus and established Federal standards. The provisions in subpart F were adopted from existing Federal regulations promulgated under Section 41 of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) (33 U.S.C. 941) as well as national consensus standards.

OSHA believes the revisions and additions to subpart F that it proposes are necessary and appropriate to protect the safety and health of shipyard employees. OSHA's reasons for the necessity of the proposed standard are discussed below.

Hazards

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

Accident, Fatality and Injury Data

OSHA examined several data sources to identify and characterize the risks shipyard employees face from the hazards this proposal addresses. These data show, for example, that the shipyard industry has one of the highest rates and severity of workplace injury of all private sector industries.

Fatalities.

To identify shipyard fatalities, OSHA reviewed accident data from OSHA's Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) accident database (fatal and serious injury requiring hospitalization) and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI). According to the IMIS data, there were 231 fatal shipyard accidents during the years 1987-2002, which is an average of 15 shipyard fatalities each year (Ex. 13). This estimate is consistent with CFOI, which reported 155 shipyard fatalities from 1992-2002 or an average of 14 fatalities per year. According to CFOI data, during most of those years the fatality rate in shipyard employment was about twice the rate for all private industry combined, which further demonstrates the hazardous nature of work in shipyard employment. As discussed below, many of those shipyard fatalities involved the types of hazards this rulemaking addresses.

Injuries and illnesses.

To estimate the number of shipyard injuries and illnesses, OSHA used the BLS annual survey of employers, which produces statistical estimates of occupational injuries and illnesses by industry and specific characteristics (

www.bls.gov

). From 1992-2002, BLS data show that the occupational injury and illness rate for shipyard employment declined from 34.2 per 100 full-time employees in 1992 to 16.6 in 2002. Lost workday injury and illness rates showed a similar trend, declining from 16.9 in 1993 to 9.3 in 2002 (See Table 1). However, despite these improvements, the industry's injury and illness rates continue to be more than three times the average private sector rate of 5.3 for injuries and illnesses combined and 2.8 for lost workday cases (Table 1).

Using the median number of days away from work per case as an indicator of severity, the injuries and illnesses shipyard employees experienced were, on average, more severe than those in the private sector as a whole as well as in the manufacturing and construction sectors. In 2002, for example, the median days away from work in the shipbuilding and repair industry was 15 days per lost workday case, more than double the private sector median of seven (Table 1). In addition, a higher percentage of lost workday cases in shipyards involved lengthy recovery periods. For example, more than one-third (34%) of shipyard lost workday cases resulted in more than 30 days away from work compared to one-quarter of private sector cases (Table 1).

Table 1.—2002 Injury and Illness Data Comparisons

Industry

Injury and illness rate per 100 full-time employees

Lost workday (LWD) injury and illness rate per 100 full-time

employees

Median days away from work

Percentage of LWD cases

involving more than 5 days away from work

Percentage of LWD cases

involving more than 30 days away from work

Shipbuilding and Repair

16.6

9.3

15

62.2

34.1

Total Private Sector

5.3

2.8

7

55.2

25.1

Manufacturing

7.2

4.1

8

56.7

26.0

Construction

7.1

3.8

10

58.4

28.9

(Source: BLS)

Need for Agency Action

A detailed examination of OSHA and BLS databases indicates that a significant percentage of shipyard fatalities and injuries have resulted from the types of hazardous working conditions the proposed rule addresses, particularly hazardous energy. OSHA believes that eliminating or controlling these hazardous conditions will reduce the risks that shipyard employees face on a daily basis. This section discusses the types of fatalities and injuries that could have been prevented if the proposed additions and revisions to subpart F had been in place. OSHA's preliminary economic analysis, summarized in Section V, estimates that the proposed rule would have prevented at least 17.8 of the fatalities reported in the IMIS database from 1987 through 2002.

Lockout/tagout

. The most extensive provisions in the proposal address the control of hazardous energy. Exposure to hazardous energy has resulted in many injuries to shipyard employees. According to a study by the National Shipbuilding Research Program (NSRP), during a five-year period there were 10 hazardous energy-related injuries annually at the seven participating shipyards. (See Ex. 11, NSRP “Review of Current and Best Practices for Hazardous Energy Control (Tagout) in Shipyards.”) The report concluded that in almost every case, the injury was the result of multiple failures in the system, such as failure to identify all hazardous energy sources and to properly verify deenergization of all sources (Ex. 11, p. 6). This report suggests that the proposed comprehensive lockout/tagout program and energy control procedures would be effective in preventing these types of injuries.

Hazardous energy exposure also has resulted in the death of a number of shipyard employees. According to BLS data for 1992-2002, almost one-quarter of shipyard fatalities were types that are often associated with hazardous energy. BLS CFOI data showed that at least 10 shipyard fatalities (6.3%) resulted from contact with electrical current and 24 fatalities (16%) occurred because of contact with objects and equipment, such as being caught in equipment that suddenly starts up. BLS injury data showed that an even greater percentage of injuries were associated with those types of accidents. In 2002, for instance, 30 percent of shipyard injuries involving days away from work resulted from contact with an object or equipment and almost two percent resulted from being caught in equipment.

OSHA's IMIS fatal accidents database also confirms that a significant number of shipyard deaths have resulted from hazardous energy. From 1987-2002, the IMIS data reported 14 (6%) shipyard fatalities related to the sudden release of hazardous energy. (See also, Ex. 11, National Shipbuilding Research Program (NSRP), “Review of Current and Best Practices for Hazardous Energy Control (Tagout) in Shipyards.”) A review of the IMIS shipyard fatality abstracts indicates that the proposed lockout/tagout provisions could have prevented the vast majority (9) of those hazardous energy deaths (see Section V). The following are some of the shipyard fatalities that the proposed lockout/tagout provisions could have prevented. (The summary and explanation of proposed § 1915.89 also discusses a number of fatalities that could have been prevented by the proposed lockout/tagout provisions).

A shipyard employee working on a 480-volt distribution center was fatally electrocuted when the circuit was not properly deenergized and locked out before the task was started. In a similar case, an employee was electrocuted installing a fan on an HVAC chiller because the fan circuit was not deenergized. Instead of verifying that the circuit was deenergized, the employee had relied on a helper to open the circuit breaker to deenergize the unit. However, the helper opened the wrong breaker. In both cases, there was no indication in the IMIS abstract that the employer had a lockout/tagout program or had established written energy control procedures, such as procedures for deenergizing power sources and verifying isolation. The lockout/tagout proposal would have required both.

In another case in the IMIS database, an employee, who was assigned to perform maintenance on a high-voltage electric transformer, was fatally electrocuted when an oil switch to the transformer was left open. According to a NIOSH Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation Program (FACE) investigation of the accident, the high-voltage transformer provided power to numerous shipboard activities, but the employee's electrical experience had been primarily on low-voltage equipment (Ex. 14). The investigation revealed that the power panels were not labeled and no signs, tags or locks had been used on either the oil switch or circuit breaker. In addition, there may have been stored energy remaining in the conductors, but no tests were conducted to verify deenergization. Under the proposed lockout/tagout provisions, this employer would have been required to have an energy control program and control procedures in place to ensure that employees properly deenergize circuits, verify isolation and apply lockout or tagout systems before starting work (proposed § 1915.89(b)(1), (2) and (4)).

The investigation also found that, although employees received general safety training, there was no indication that the victim had received training on servicing high-voltage equipment and the supervisor had no electrical training. Moreover, even when the victim accidentally turned off the wrong power source earlier in the workshift, leaving the dry dock in the dark, the employee was not provided with refresher training. Had the proposed lockout/tagout provisions been in place, it would have ensured that any shipyard employee servicing high-voltage equipment was an “authorized employee” who had been trained to recognize hazardous energy sources and know the specific means and procedures necessary to isolate and control such energy safely (proposed § 1915.89(b)(7)). The proposed provisions also would have ensured that employees receive additional training “whenever the employer has reason to believe, that there are * * * deficiencies in the employee's knowledge or use of the energy control procedures” (proposed § 1915.89(b)(7)(iii)).

The proposed lockout/tagout provisions addressing multiple employer worksites (proposed § 1915.89(e)(2)) and group lockout/tagout (proposed § 1915.89(e)(3)) also could have prevented several shipyard fatalities reported in the IMIS database. In one of those cases, an electrician who was modifying a switchboard was fatally electrocuted when a ship's crew member, who was not familiar with the operation of the switchboard breaker, inadvertently energized the circuit. The proposed provisions would have ensured that the shipyard employer and ship's officer or master shared information about their respective lockout/tagout programs. The proposal also would have ensured that when more than one person is servicing equipment on a system, that a primary authorized employee is designated to ascertain the exposure status of individual group members and coordinate affected work forces to ensure that each member of the group is fully protected (proposed § 1915.89(e)(3)).

Finally, the lockout/tagout section of this proposal includes an in-depth

discussion of the application of the lockout/tagout standard while servicing commercial vessels, such as fish processing vessels.

Motor vehicle safety equipment, operation and maintenance

. OSHA is proposing several provisions aimed at reducing the number of shipyard employees killed and injured in motor vehicle incidents. According to CFOI data, 27 shipyard employees were killed in transportation incidents (highway and non-highway) from 1992-2002, which represents 18.5 percent of all fatalities during that period. OSHA's IMIS fatal accidents data indicated that 12 employees were killed in motor vehicle incidents in shipyards from 1987-2002. Motor vehicle accidents also account for a significant number of injuries. From 1992-2001, for instance, BLS reported that 208 shipyard employees were injured in transportation accidents that were serious enough to involve days away from work.

OSHA believes that the proposed motor vehicle safety provisions could have prevented a significant number of those deaths and injuries. For example, a review of the IMIS database shows that the proposed safety belt requirement (proposed § 1915.93(b)(1) and (2)) could have prevented the death of a shipyard employee who was operating a mobile crane to lift metal plates from a floating dock. The employee was killed when the crane overturned and he fell from the cab into the river and drowned. Had the employee been wearing a safety belt, as the proposed rule requires, he would have remained safely within the cab when it overturned. OSHA also believes the proposed safety belt provision would prevent employees from being crushed or pinned trying to jump free of a tipping vehicle, one of the major causes of industrial vehicle fatalities. In 2001, for example, BLS reported that 28 percent (35) of all private industry forklift fatalities (123) involved tipovers or falls from a moving forklift.

The proposed provisions to protect pedestrians and bicyclists in shipyards from being hit by motor vehicles (proposed § 1915.93(c)(3)) could have prevented several shipyard fatalities and injuries reported in the IMIS database. For example, a shipyard employee riding a bicycle as part of “his regularly assigned tasks” was killed when a bus traveling on the same shipyard road collided with him. A shipyard employee walking on a pier was killed when a straddle lift truck ran over him. While pulling onto the main road on the pier, the lift truck driver made a wide arc in order to avoid hitting a forklift truck moving a large container and hit a pedestrian who he had not seen. In another incident, a shipyard employee suffered fractured ribs and had to have his spleen removed when he was hit by a forklift as he was walking along the side of the road in the shipyard. All of these accidents may have been prevented if the employers had established dedicated pedestrian/bicycle lanes or provided employees with reflective vests, two of the options the proposal includes to protect employees walking and bicycling in shipyards from being hit by motor vehicles (proposed § 1915.93(c)(3)(i) and (ii)).

Medical services and first aid

. The proposed rule includes revisions to the existing provisions on medical services and first aid, including revisions addressing the content of first aid training and location of first aid providers and kits in shipyards (proposed § 1915.88). OSHA believes that the proposed provisions will improve the chances that injured shipyard employees will survive if an accident or health crisis (e.g., cardiac or respiratory failure) occurs and are necessary to reduce fatality rates in the shipyard industry. A review of the IMIS database for 1987-2002 indicates that as many as 13 fatalities involving cardiac or respiratory arrest may have been prevented had the proposed first aid provisions been in place.

Accounting for employees at the end of workshifts

. Existing shipyard standards require that employers frequently check on employees who are working in confined spaces or alone in an isolated work location (§ 1915.94). The proposal adds to the existing standard a provision requiring employers also to account for these employees at the end of the workshift (proposed § 1915.84(b)). The purpose of both the existing and proposed provisions is to ensure that employees remain safe, go home safe at the end of their workshifts and are promptly rescued if they are injured. OSHA believes it is necessary to account for these employees at the end of their workshifts, in part, because shipyards are commonly comprised of many work locations that often are spread out over a large area. If an employee is injured while working alone at a distant work location, he may not be able to summon help. If the employer does not account for an injured employee at the end of the workshift, that employee could die from his injuries. The IMIS database includes a number of fatalities in which the employees' bodies were not discovered until hours or days later.

A review of the IMIS database, from 1987 to 2002, indicates that there were at least 13 fatalities that may have been prevented had the proposed provisions been in effect. The following are a few cases from that IMIS database. At approximately 10 p.m. during an evening workshift, a shipyard employee using a forklift truck to move a heavy tool box on a wet dock is presumed to have fallen through an opening in the dock and drowned when he got out of the forklift to check on the load. According to the abstract there were no eye witnesses to the accident. There is also no indication as to when the employer first noticed the employee was missing. However, the abstract says that the employee's body was not removed from the water until the next day.

In another case, the employee was working alone applying a patch over a pipe opening prior to the time he went missing. There is no indication as to when the employer discovered the employee was missing and no indication whether the employee was checked on during or at the end of his workshift. Approximately one week later his body was discovered under the water adjacent to the vessel on which he had been working.

Finally, a shipyard employee was working on an accommodation ladder on the MV Cape Henry at Pier 27 in San Francisco. It is presumed that he fell off the ladder or the vessel into the water. Nine days later his body was discovered floating in Fisherman's Wharf. Again, there is no indication in the abstract whether the employer regularly checked on employees or accounted for them at the end of the workshift.

Clarifications

. In addition to the shipyard fatalities and injuries discussed above, OSHA believes that other provisions in the proposal could also prevent employees from being injured or killed. A number of proposed provisions clarify existing requirements, which may help increase employer understanding of and compliance with those requirements and thereby reduce employee exposure to serious hazards.

Based on the data and discussion above and other information in the rulemaking record, OSHA believes that there continues to be a significant risk of death and injury due to hazardous working conditions in shipyards. As discussed, OSHA believes that the proposed revisions, additions and clarifications of subpart F are reasonable and necessary and will substantially reduce that risk for shipyard employees.

II. Regulatory History

The standards in subpart F have remained essentially unchanged since

they were adopted in 1972 from established Federal occupational safety and health standards issued under the LHWCA (33 U.S.C. 941).

In 1982, the Shipbuilders Council of America and the American Waterways Shipyard Conference requested that OSHA: (1) revise and update the existing shipyard standards, including subpart F; and (2) consolidate into a single set of shipyard standards those general industry standards that apply to shipyards, particularly landside operations. In response to these recommendations, OSHA established the Shipyard Employment Standards Advisory Committee (SESAC) in November 1988. The purpose of SESAC, which included representatives from industry, labor and professionals in the maritime community, was to provide guidance and technical expertise to OSHA about revising the shipyard standards. SESAC met from 1988 until 1993 to develop recommendations and provide technical expertise in developing draft regulatory language for revising the shipyard safety standards. On April 29, 1993, SESAC unanimously approved final draft recommendations for revising subpart F to submit to OSHA. (Docket SESAC 1993-2, Ex. 102X, p. 257) (Detailed discussion on SESAC comments and specific recommendations are presented in the Summary and Explanation section below.)

In 1995, OSHA established the Maritime Advisory Committee for Occupational Safety and Health (MACOSH) under section 7 of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 656) to advise the Agency on issues relating to occupational safety and health standards in the shipyard and marine cargo handling (longshore) industries. On September 8, 1995, MACOSH discussed and approved the recommendations and draft regulatory language that SESAC developed and made additional recommendations, which are discussed in the Summary and Explanation section below (Docket MACOSH 1995-1, Exs. 2; 102X, pp. 25, 26).

While OSHA is continuing to move toward a single set of standards for the shipyard industry, OSHA has included in part 1915 cross references to applicable general industry standards rather than reprinting those standards in this part. The proposal, for instance, includes cross references to general industry standards addressing accident signs and tags and servicing multi-piece and single piece wheels.

III. Pertinent Legal Authority

The purpose of the OSH Act is to “assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the nation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources” (29 U.S.C. 651(b)). To achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor to issue and enforce occupational safety and health standards. (See 29 U.S.C. 655(a) (authorizing summary adoption of existing consensus and federal standards within two years of the OSH Act's enactment); 655(b) (authorizing promulgation of standards pursuant to notice and comment); and 654(d)(2) (requiring employers to comply with OSHA standards)). A safety or health standard is a standard “which requires conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods, operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment or places of employment” (29 U.S.C. 652(8)).

A standard is reasonably necessary or appropriate within the meaning of section 3(8) of the OSH Act if it substantially reduces or eliminates significant risk; is economically feasible; is technologically feasible; is cost effective; is consistent with prior Agency action or is a justified departure; is supported by substantial evidence; and is better able to effectuate the Act's purposes than any national consensus standard it supersedes (29 U.S.C. 652). (See 58 FR 16612, 16616 (3/30/1993)).

A standard is technologically feasible if the protective measures it requires already exist, can be brought into existence with available technology, or can be created with technology that can reasonably be expected to be developed.

American Textile Mfrs. Institute

v.

OSHA (ATMI),

452 U.S. 490, 513 (1981);

American Iron and Steel Institute

v.

OSHA (AISI),

939 F.2d 975, 980 (D.C. Cir 1991).

A standard is economically feasible if industry can absorb or pass on the cost of compliance without threatening its long term profitability or competitive structure. See

ATMI,

452 U.S. at 530 n. 55;

AISI,

939 F.2d at 980. A standard is cost effective if the protective measures it requires are the least costly of the available alternatives that achieve the same level of protection.

ATMI,

453 U.S. at 514 n. 32;

International Union, UAW

v.

OSHA (“LOTO II”),

37 F.3d 665, 668 (D.C. Cir. 1994).

Section 6(b)(7) of the OSH Act authorizes OSHA to include among a standard's requirements labeling, monitoring, medical testing and other information gathering and transmittal provisions (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7)).

All safety standards must be highly protective. (See, 58 FR 16614-16615;

LOTO II,

37 F.3d at 668.) Finally, whenever practical, standards shall “be expressed in terms of objective criteria and of the performance desired” (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5)).

IV. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard

As mentioned above, OSHA proposes to revise and update the standards in subpart F to reflect advances in technology and industry practice and to add requirements that would provide employees with protection from hazardous working conditions not currently addressed by the existing OSHA standards. This section explains the revisions and additions OSHA proposes, including what action these revisions would require or prohibit and how they differ from the existing standards. This section also discusses the purposes for these changes and why they are necessary, and how they will provide employees with protection from hazardous working conditions in shipyards.

Many of the provisions OSHA proposes were recommended by SESAC. They represent, to a large extent, industry best practices at the time SESAC reviewed subpart F. However, where changes in industry practices and technology have occurred since SESAC finished its review, OSHA has updated the proposed provisions to reflect those advances. In addition, the Agency has added or amended some provisions for easier comprehension and to better protect employees.

A number of the provisions in subpart F were adopted in 1972 from existing Federal and national consensus standards in effect at the time (e.g., housekeeping, sanitation, medical services and first aid). Since then, those consensus standards have been revised and updated, several times in some cases. OSHA has carefully reviewed the relevant consensus standards and, where appropriate, proposes to incorporate applicable requirements of updated and revised standards.

OSHA proposes to consolidate a number of provisions to more clearly indicate that they apply to shipyard employment and to make them easier to understand and follow. First, the proposal consolidates requirements in part 1915 (e.g., housekeeping, sanitation, medical services and first aid) for which there are also requirements in general industry (part 1910) that shipyard employers must follow. Although as a general rule part 1915 standards prevail over any different general industry standard, general industry standards apply to shipyard employment where part 1915 standards do not address a particular

hazard or condition. For example, a number of provisions in the general industry sanitation standard (e.g., potable water, toilet facilities, vermin control) apply to shipyard employment because the shipyard sanitation standard (§ 1915.97) does not address these issues. OSHA believes that putting all of the sanitation requirements applicable to shipyard employment into one section will make it easier for employers to understand and comply with the requirements.

Second, the proposal cross references several general industry standards that already apply to shipyard employment (e.g., § 1910.144 Safety Color Code for Marking Physical Hazards). Finally, the proposal consolidates into one section (§ 1915.80) the scope and application provisions for subpart F and clarifies that the proposal intends to apply the general working condition provisions to all sectors of shipyard employment (i.e., ship repair, shipbuilding, shipbreaking and related employment).

As a result of the consolidation, the section numbers in subpart F would be changed. To prevent confusion, the following table (Table 2) lists the proposed and corresponding existing provisions, if there is one that applies:

Table 2.—Table of Proposed Provisions and Corresponding Existing Provisions

Title of provision

Proposed rule

Existing rule applicable to shipyard employment

Scope and application

§ 1915.80

Each section of subpart F has a scope and application provision

Housekeeping

§ 1915.81

§ 1915.91 and § 1910.141

Lighting

§ 1915.82

§ 1915.92

Utilities

§ 1915.83

§ 1915.93

Work in confined or isolated spaces

§ 1915.84

§ 1915.94

Vessel radar and radio transmitters

§ 1915.85

§ 1915.95

Lifeboats

§ 1915.86

§ 1915.96

Medical services and first aid

§ 1915.87

§ 1915.98 and § 1910.151

Sanitation

§ 1915.88

§ 1915.97 and § 1910.141

Control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout)

§ 1915.89

§ 1910.145

Safety color code for marking physical hazards

§ 1915.90

§ 1910.144

Accident prevention signs and tags

§ 1915.91

No existing rule

Retention of DOT markings, placards and labels

§ 1915.92

§ 1915.100

Motor vehicle safety equipment, maintenance, and operation

§ 1915.93

No existing rule

Servicing multi-piece and single-piece rim wheels

§ 1915.94

No existing rule

Definitions

§ 1915.95

No existing rule

OSHA proposes to retain a number of provisions from the existing standards with only minor editorial and technical changes. OSHA believes, and SESAC agreed, that these provisions are necessary to provide employees with adequate protection from certain hazardous working conditions in shipyards. This section does not address those provisions at length. Rather, the discussion in this section focuses on the proposed revisions and additions, one of the most important being the control of hazardous energy.

Finally, OSHA proposes to delete some provisions from subpart F, in most cases because the hazards these requirements address are not present in shipyard employment. For example, the existing provision § 1910.141(f) requires that where working clothes are provided by the employer and get wet or are washed between shifts, the employer must ensure that the clothing is dry before reuse. However, information indicates that the provision is no longer necessary for shipyard employment because employers now provide disposable protective clothing.

Where possible, OSHA has expressed the proposed requirements in performance language. In many cases, OSHA replaced outdated specifications with language that provides employers with greater flexibility in determining the most effective strategies for controlling the hazards in question. The proposal provides employers with objective criteria, where appropriate, to assist them in complying with the proposed requirements. For example, OSHA proposes to replace the list of items that first aid kits must contain, which was adopted more than 30 years ago and which SESAC said in 1993 was outdated, with flexible performance-based language and criteria employers must consider in determining the adequacy of those supplies. OSHA believes this approach contemplates changes in control strategy and allows for advances in technology and industry practice, thereby reducing the need to revise the standard when those changes occur.

OSHA requests comment on all aspects of the proposed rule. In order to develop the most thorough and useful record possible, OSHA requests interested persons to provide comments on the questions raised throughout the preamble and to provide data and reasons to support those comments.

Section 1915.80 Scope and Application

Each section in existing subpart F contains its own scope and application provision. Although most of those provisions indicate that the section applies to shipbuilding, ship repairing, and shipbreaking, some state that the section, or part(s) of it, is limited to certain shipyard operations. OSHA proposes to eliminate duplication of these provisions by consolidating them into one scope and application section that is applicable to the entire subpart. In addition, as SESAC recommended (Docket SESAC 1992-1, Ex. 100X, pp. 110-112), OSHA proposes to apply every section of subpart F uniformly to all of shipyard employment. “Shipyard employment” is defined in § 1915.4(i) to mean “ship repairing, shipbuilding, shipbreaking, and related employment.”

The proposal also adds language to clarify OSHA's longstanding position that subpart F applies to shipyard employment “regardless of geographic location” of the shipyard activity. OSHA believes this is necessary to ensure that shipyard employers fully understand that the proposed subpart F requirements apply wherever employees are performing “shipyard employment” activities. (OSHA recently added the same language to the Fire Protection in Shipyards Standard, § 1915.501(b) (69 FR 55668 (9/15/2004)). Thus, if employees are performing shipyard employment activities, including but

not limited to performing them onboard vessels and vessel sections and in landside facilities on navigable waters, the proposed requirements would apply. Likewise, if employees are performing shipyard employment activities at a location that is not contiguous to a vessel, the proposed requirements also would apply.

The proposal also clarifies that subpart F applies to any employer, regardless of whether the employer owns the vessel or shipyard, whose employees perform shipyard employment activities. The existing policy will continue to apply under the revised rule. OSHA notes that the proposed change does not affect the Agency's existing multi-employer policy. Thus, if a contractor or subcontractor is hired to perform shipyard employment activities, the proposed provision would apply when employees are performing those activities. On the other hand, the proposal would not apply where the contractor's employees perform non-shipyard employment activities. For example, the proposal would apply to a contractor whose employees are installing ductwork on vessel sections or fabricating sheet metal in a shipyard facility, but would not extend to duct or sheet metal work done for other employers and customers (e.g., installing heating ductwork for an employer commercial building). Similarly, the proposal does not extend to outside contractors or employers who are at the shipyard but not performing shipyard employment activities, such as vending equipment suppliers or companies servicing portable toilet facilities. OSHA also notes that the proposal is not intended to cover inland manufacturing of boats or manufacturing of parts used to perform shipyard employment activities, which are more accurately characterized as general industry manufacturing activities covered by Part 1910 standards (Exs. 16-9, OSHA Shipyard Employment “Tool Bag” Directive, CPL 02-00-142; Ex. 19, Letter to John McKnight, National Marine Manufacturers Association (8/3/2001)).

The proposed consolidation of the scope provisions will simplify the subpart. It eliminates duplicative provisions and allows OSHA to remove from each section references to specific shipyard operations. (This discussion of the consolidation of the scope and application provisions eliminates the need to repeat, in the Preamble discussion of each section, that the scope and application provisions are being deleted from each section). It also ensures that employees will be provided necessary protection wherever the hazards that the proposed requirements are intended to address are present. To the extent that the hazard is not present in a particular area of shipyard employment, the proposed requirement would not apply. For example, the provisions in proposed § 1915.85 Vessel Radar and Radio Transmitters would not apply if a vessel's radar is not being repaired or does not emit any radiation.

The revisions OSHA proposes would make this subpart consistent with the scope and application of other subparts in part 1915 that OSHA has revised, including subpart I Personal Protective Equipment in Shipyard Employment (61 FR 26322 (05/24/1996)) and subpart B Confined and Enclosed Spaces and Other Dangerous Atmospheres in Shipyard Employment (59 FR 37816 (07/25/1994)).

Section 1915.81 Housekeeping

OSHA proposes to retain and combine the housekeeping requirements applicable to shipyards (§ 1910.141(a)(3) and § 1915.91) and proposes to reorganize and simplify the provisions to make them easier to understand. For example, the proposal groups together similar requirements. The proposal also simplifies the language in the existing housekeeping section. Throughout the proposed section OSHA uses the term “walking and working surfaces” in place of the list of the specific areas and surfaces contained in the existing section. In proposed § 1915.95, OSHA defines “walking and working surfaces” to mean any surface on which employees gain access or perform their job duties or upon which employees are required or allowed to walk or work in the workplace. The definition contains examples of areas and surfaces that the term “walking and working surfaces” covers and includes all of the areas and surfaces listed in the existing housekeeping section. OSHA believes that using the umbrella term should make the housekeeping section easier to understand.

Proposed paragraphs (a) through (i) establish specific requirements to ensure walking and working surfaces are free of hazards while paragraphs (j) and (k) minimize the risk of fire or combustion in shipyard work areas. OSHA also proposes to add requirements to this section including provisions on housekeeping procedures and combustible scrap.

Paragraph (a)—In paragraph (a) OSHA proposes to retain the existing requirement that the employer maintain good housekeeping conditions to ensure that walking and working surfaces do not create a hazard for employees and that these conditions are maintained at all times. Because of the numerous hazardous materials and substances in use in shipyard operations, OSHA believes it is necessary to require shipyard employers to develop and implement good housekeeping practices to protect employees from harm. As noted above, shipyards experience many injuries, such as slips and falls, which an effective housekeeping program will help to reduce.

Paragraphs (b) and (c)—In paragraph (b) OSHA proposes to retain, with minor editorial revisions, the existing requirement (§ 1915.91(a)) that employers ensure that walking and working surfaces have adequate space for work and passage. To ensure that space is adequate, OSHA proposes in paragraph (c) to retain the existing requirement (§ 1915.91(a)) that employers ensure walking and working surfaces such as aisles and passageways be kept clear of tools, materials and equipment not in use. Specifically, the proposal requires that equipment not necessary to perform the job in progress not be stored or located in an area that could interfere with walking and working surfaces. This provision is consistent with a SESAC recommendation (Docket SESAC 1992-3, Ex. 104X, pp. 110-112) that only tools, materials, and equipment “necessary to complete the job in progress” be allowed to be kept out. OSHA agrees with SESAC that all other tools, materials, and equipment need to be stored or located so that they do not interfere with walking and working surfaces and create hazards such as tripping, slipping or falling. MACOSH also supported the proposed addition (Docket MACOSH 1995-1, Ex. 100X, pp. 63-64). Slips, trips and falls frequently result in injuries in shipyards. As stated above, according to the BLS data for 2002, slips, trips and falls accounted for 19 percent of all injuries and illnesses involving days away from work in ship and boat building and repairing. In addition, floors, walkways, or ground surfaces were cited as the source for 801 injuries.

Paragraph (d)—In proposed paragraph (d), OSHA is retaining the existing requirement (§ 1910.141(a)(3)(ii)) that employers ensure that the floor or deck of every work area is maintained, so far as practicable, in a dry condition. Where wet processes are used, OSHA is also retaining the existing requirement that drainage be maintained and that employers provide false floors, platforms, mats or other dry standing places. Shipyard employment involves many wet processes, including gas-freeing, painting, hydroblasting and

cleaning. This provision is necessary to prevent employees from being exposed to contaminated water and from standing for prolonged periods of time in water, both of which may result in adverse health effects. However, OSHA also recognizes that in some instances it may not be possible for employers to provide a dry standing place. Therefore, OSHA proposes to retain the existing language that employers need only provide dry standing places to the extent that it is practicable to do so. Where it is not, the proposal retains the existing requirement that employers are responsible to provide any waterproof footgear that may be necessary for performing wet processes. Wearing waterproof boots while performing wet processes will protect employees from hazards associated with working in standing water that may contain contaminants and will help to prevent slips and falls.

Paragraph (e)—In paragraph (e), OSHA proposes to combine and simplify four existing requirements to keep walking and working surfaces clear of debris, including solid or liquid wastes, and other objects that may create a safety or health hazard for employees, such as protruding nails, splinters, loose boards, and unnecessary holes and openings. Existing § 1915.91(a) requires that staging platforms, ramps, stairways, walkways, aisles and passageways on vessels or dry docks be kept clear of debris. Existing § 1915.91(b) requires that working areas on and immediately surrounding vessels, dry docks, graving docks and marine railways be kept free of debris. Existing § 1910.141(a)(4)(ii) requires that all sweepings, solid or liquid wastes, refuse, and garbage shall be removed in such a manner as to avoid creating a menace to health and as often as necessary or appropriate to maintain the place of employment in a sanitary condition. In addition, existing § 1910.141(a)(3)(iii) requires that in order to facilitate cleaning, every floor, working place, and passageway shall be kept free from protruding nails, splinters, loose boards, and unnecessary holes and openings. The proposal, by using the term “walking and working surfaces”, ensures that all areas in the shipyard are kept clear. Keeping walking and working surfaces clear will also help to ensure that employees have adequate room to move safely to and from work areas and throughout the workplace. OSHA intends that the term “debris” continue to include bolts, nuts, and welding rod tips as well as other objects and material that could create a safety or health hazard to employees, such as scrap metal, broken equipment, liquid wastes, tools, and empty containers.

Paragraph (f)—In paragraph (f) OSHA is proposing to retain, with only minor changes, the existing requirement (§ 1915.91(d)) that the employer maintain free access to exits, fire-alarm boxes, and fire-fighting equipment. OSHA proposes to add fire-call stations to this list based on SESAC's recommendation that access to this equipment is also essential for the protection and safe evacuation of employees (SESAC 1992-3, Ex. 104X, p. 117).

Paragraph (g)—In paragraph (g) OSHA is proposing to retain the existing requirement (§ 1915.91(c)) that slippery conditions on walkways or working surfaces shall be eliminated as they occur. The proposal also makes more explicit OSHA's position that ice and snow are included among the types of slippery conditions that employers must eliminate under the existing standard by adding language that such accumulations must be removed as they occur. OSHA believes this clarifying language is important since members of SESAC raised questions about whether the existing standard covers these conditions (Docket SESAC 1992-3, Ex. 104X, pp. 117-119). OSHA requests comment on this issue.

Paragraph (h)—In paragraph (h) OSHA proposes to retain the existing provision (§ 1915.91(b)) that construction material be stacked in a manner that does not create a hazard (e.g., trip) to employees. The proposal includes only non-substantive editorial changes.

Paragraph (i)—In paragraph (i) OSHA is proposing to retain the existing requirement (§ 1915.91(a)) that hoses and electrical service cords be hung over or placed under walking and working surfaces, or be covered by crossovers to prevent injury to employees and damage to the hoses and cords. The proposal contains only minor editorial changes for clarity.

Paragraph (j)—In paragraph (j) OSHA proposes to retain the existing requirements (§ 1915.91(e)) that flammable substances such as paint thinners, solvents, rags and waste be stored in covered fire-resistant containers when not in use.

Paragraph (k)—Proposed paragraph (k) adds a requirement that combustible scrap be removed from the work area as soon as possible to reduce fire hazards. Shipyards have many small fires that are often due to the accumulation of combustible scrap materials. If combustible scrap is allowed to accumulate in areas where hot work such as welding and cutting are performed, sparks generated by that work could ignite the scrap. Fire prevention helps eliminate the hazards created by the presence of combustible materials. OSHA recently published a fire prevention standard (29 CFR Part 1915, subpart P) that contains fire prevention measures that must be taken before and during hot work (69 FR 55668-55708, (9/15/2004)). The proposed requirement would reduce fire hazards further and improve fire protection in shipyards.

Section 1915.82—Lighting

This section proposes minimum requirements for illumination throughout shipyard employment. Many of the proposed provisions are retained from the existing requirements in § 1915.92. However, the proposal reorganizes them for clarity into the following three paragraphs: (a) General Requirements; (b) Temporary Lights; and (c) Handheld Portable Lights.

Paragraph (a) General Requirements—Proposed paragraph (a) sets forth requirements that apply to lighting in all areas of shipyard employment. The proposed general requirements would apply regardless of whether permanent or temporary lights are used. The lighting intensity levels that would be required by table F-1 would not apply to emergency lighting or portable handheld lights.

In paragraph (a)(1) OSHA is proposing to establish minimum illumination requirements for specific areas and work activities in shipyard employment to ensure that employers have lighting that allows employees to safely perform work tasks. For instance, proposed Table F-1 specifies that general landside areas such as corridors and walkways that employees pass through would be required to have an illumination intensity of at least five lumens (foot candles). However, OSHA believes that higher illumination levels (i.e., 10 lumens) are necessary to work safely in landside areas such as machine and carpentry shops. In these areas employees may be using hazardous tools and equipment and performing precision work. Likewise, higher illumination levels (i.e., 10 lumens) are necessary in warehouses since it may be necessary for employees to read warning labels on flammable or hazardous substances and to safely operate lift trucks and other equipment.

According to the IMIS database, there have been four fatalities that may have been prevented had the employees been working in an area that was provided with adequate illumination. In one incident, an employee stepped into an

unguarded opening in the floor of a dark cargo deck and fell almost 20 feet to his death at the bottom of the cargo hold. At the time of the accident, the employee was walking across the dark deck towards an open doorway, which provided the only illumination of the area. In another case, an employee climbing down a ladder in an elevator shaft that was dimly lit, fell 50 feet to his death. It is unclear whether the employee could even see the bottom of the 130-foot shaft as he was descending. In another case, an employee was electrocuted when he was performing electrical repair work at night in a poorly illuminated area. An accident investigation found there was “inadequate lighting” at the location where the employee was working (Ex. 14). Although the investigation confirmed that the controlling circuit breaker was closed, another switch was found in an open position, possibly because there was not enough light to read the switch. The existing rule specifies that work areas must be “adequately illuminated” (§ 1915.92(a)). The proposed rule clarifies the existing requirement by setting forth specific illumination levels for various shipyard work locations (proposed § 1915.82 Table F-1). Had the employee's work location been lit to the proposed levels, the employee may have been able to see that the oil switch was still open and close it prior to starting his repair work.

SESAC recommended that OSHA add specific illumination requirements to this section (Docket SESAC-1992-1, Ex. 100X, 1992, p. 113), and the Agency agrees that the table provides useful and simple assistance for employers. The illumination specifications in proposed Table F-1 are drawn from illumination tables in the Construction Illumination (§ 1926.56) and Hazardous Waste Operations (§ 1910.120) standards, and in the national consensus standard for industrial lighting (Ex. 3-8, ANSI/IESNA RP-9-01-2001 Recommended Practice for Lighting in Industrial Facilities). The proposal revises and simplifies the tables from those standards to make Table F-1 more applicable to shipyard employment conditions and activities.

OSHA is proposing that each area of the workplace be illuminated according to the following intensities. In general areas, such as exits, accessways, stairs and walkways, the area must be illuminated with at least 3 lumens on vessels and vessel sections and 5 lumens on landside. In areas such as landside tunnels, shafts, vaults, pumping stations and underground work areas, and all assigned work areas on any vessel or vessel section, the area must be illuminated to at least 5 lumens. Landside work areas such as machine shops, electrical equipment rooms, carpenter shops, lofts, tool rooms, warehouses, outdoor work areas, changing rooms, showers, sewered toilet facilities and all eating, drinking and break areas must be illuminated to 10 lumens. First aid stations, infirmaries and offices must be illuminated to 30 lumens.

OSHA notes that the Longshoring standard, 29 CFR 1918.92(a), requires generally that illumination for cargo transfer operations be of a minimum light intensity of five lumens. Where work tasks require more light to be performed safely, supplemental lighting must be provided. That approach does not provide the guidance that SESAC requested while proposed Table F-1 provides for those situations in which supplemental lighting may be necessary. OSHA does not intend to require that employers provide additional lighting where natural light provides the necessary illumination level. However, where natural light does not provide the required level (e.g., at dusk), the employer must provide additional lighting and Table F-1 specifies the appropriate minimum levels of illumination.

OSHA solicits comments on the proposal as well as alternative approaches such as the one used in the Longshoring Standard or the requirements of the ANSI/IESNA standard. Are the proposed lighting intensities adequate? Does the table adequately address all areas of shipyard employment? If not, what areas need to be added?

In paragraph (a)(2), OSHA proposes to retain unchanged the existing requirement (§ 1915.92(e)) that matches and open flame devices may not be used as sources of light. OSHA proposes to place this provision with the general requirements to reinforce its intent that matches and open flames are not to be used for light for any purpose, including emergencies, or anywhere in the shipyard, regardless of whether permanent, temporary or handheld portable lighting is available. Using matches and open flame devices, such as burning torches, for lighting or heat is not safe or practical for a number of reasons. They are unreliable, could be blown out easily, could endanger employees by creating a fire hazard, and do not provide adequate lighting intensities.

SESAC also recommended adding a requirement that only a “qualified person” be permitted to replace or cap unguarded, damaged bulbs that have exposed filaments (Docket SESAC 1991, Ex. 100X, p. 84). OSHA has not adopted this suggestion, because the Agency believes that the existing and other proposed standards address this hazard. The existing and proposed provisions requiring temporary lights to be either completely recessed or equipped with guards reduces the electrical hazard created by an exposed light bulb filament, and the electrical safe work practices of § 1910 subpart S that apply to temporary lights powered from landside sources address the hazards to employees repairing the temporary lights.

OSHA requests comment on this recommendation, and whether it is needed, in light of other existing and proposed regulatory provisions that deal with lighting, electrical safety, and guarding of temporary lights.

Paragraph (b) Temporary Lights—Proposed paragraph (b) retains, with minor editorial changes, the existing provisions on temporary lights (§ 1915.92(f)), including light guards, grounding, insulation, and splicing.

Proposed paragraph (b)(1) is similar to the existing requirement (§ 1915.92(b)(1)) that temporary lights that do not have bulbs that are “deeply” recessed must have guards to prevent accidental contact. Guarding of non-recessed bulbs is necessary to protect employees from being burned, or cut by broken bulbs, and to prevent combustible materials from igniting. However, paragraph (b)(1) proposes to require that temporary lights be guarded if they are not “completely” recessed. The existing provision only requires guarding if lights are not “deeply” recessed. Unless a temporary light is completely recessed, there is a risk that the light could be damaged or broken, thus creating a hazard for employees (e.g., electrical, laceration, burn). A guard is necessary to control those hazards. OSHA believes the proposed language provides employers with clearer and more accurate guidance on when the hazards this provision addresses are present and must be controlled. OSHA requests comment on the proposed provision. What is your current practice? Should OSHA require that all temporary lights be guarded?

Paragraph (b)(2) proposes that employers equip temporary lights with electric cords “with sufficient capacity to carry the electric load.” The existing standard (§ 1915.92(b)(2)) requires the use of “heavy duty” electric cords. The OSHA Construction Electrical standards are similar to the existing standard, requiring that cords for portable tools and appliances be designed for “hard or extra-hard usage” (§ 1926.405(a)(2)(j)). The construction standard includes a

note listing various types of hard or extra-hard cords that meet the National Electrical Code (ANSI/NEPA 70, Article 400, Table 400-4).

OSHA believes the proposed language more accurately identifies the type of cord employers must provide to ensure employees are not exposed to electrical hazards, and thus, provides greater protection for employees. The fact that a cord is “heavy duty” does not necessarily mean that it has sufficient capacity to carry the electric load. In addition, OSHA believes the proposal provides employers with greater flexibility in meeting the requirements of the standard. The proposal ensures that employers may use whatever type of cord is sufficient to safely carry the electric load.

Proposed paragraph (b)(3) retains unchanged the existing requirements (§ 1915.92(b)(2)) that connections and insulation used on temporary lights be maintained in a safe condition. Implicit in this provision is the requirement that the employer check to see that connections and insulation are in proper working order and replace them when they are broken, cracked or damaged.

In paragraph (b)(4), OSHA proposes to clarify the existing requirement (§ 1915.92(b)(2)) to prohibit temporary light stringers, as well as temporary lights, from being suspended solely by their electric cords, unless they are designed by the manufacturer to be used in that way. When any type of lights and wiring are not suspended properly, placing them under tension the manufacturer did not design the electric cord to take, the cord can fray, break, or become damaged.

Proposed paragraphs (b)(5) and (6) retain, with non-substantive changes, the existing requirements in § 1915.92(f). Proposed paragraph (b)(5) requires that lighting stringers not overload branch circuits. Proposed paragraph (b)(6) requires that branch circuits be equipped with over-current protection whose capacity does not exceed the rated current carrying capacity of the cord used. OSHA believes that both measures are necessary to provide an adequate measure of safety from electrical and fire hazards associated with circuit overloading.

Proposed paragraph (b)(7) revises the existing standard by requiring that splices have insulation that “exceeds” that of the cable. The existing provision allows the use of splices where the insulation is “equal” to that of the cable. OSHA believes the revisions are necessary to ensure that employees are fully protected from electrical hazards if splices are used. When a splice is necessary on an electrical cord, the current may create a surplus of energy or “hot spot” at the splice junction that is greater than the current for which the cord was designed. Requiring that the rated capacity of the insulation exceed the capacity of the cable ensures that employees will be protected if they touch or come into contact with the splice. The additional insulation capacity also ensures that hot spots do not start burning or ignite combustible materials in the area.

OSHA requests comment on the proposed revision. Does the proposed requirement provide sufficient protection for employees? Is weather a factor in determining what insulation to use? In your establishment and industry, what practices are followed regarding insulation of splices? Should OSHA propose a more specific requirement, for example that splices have insulation at 1

1/2

times greater than that of the cable?

Proposed paragraph (b)(8) retains the existing requirement (§ 1915.92(c)) that exposed, non-current-carrying metal parts of temporary lights be grounded. It also retains the requirement that grounding be provided either through a third wire in the cable that contains the circuit conductors or through a separate wire that is grounded at the source of the current. OSHA also proposes to include the existing provision requiring that grounding be done in accordance with the requirements of § 1915.132(b) subpart H, Tools and Related Equipment.

Paragraph (c) Handheld Portable Lights—Proposed paragraph (c) addresses the use of handheld portable lights in work areas that do not have permanent or temporary lighting or such lighting is not working or is not readily accessible.

To ensure that employees do not enter unlighted or dark areas, paragraph (c)(1) requires that the employer provide employees with handheld portable lights and ensure that such lights are used whenever employees enter those areas. The proposal simplifies the current requirements (§ 1915.92(d) and (e)), by combining them into one provision and clarifying that the requirement is applicable to all unlighted areas in shipyards, regardless of whether they are on vessels, vessel sections or landside.

In response to a MACOSH recommendation (Ex. 1-2), proposed paragraph (c)(1) also clarifies in objective terms the existing prohibition that employees not enter “dark spaces” without handheld portable lights. The proposal replaces that term with the requirement that employers provide and ensure handheld portable lights are used to enter or work in any area that (1) does not have permanent or temporary lighting, (2) where such lighting is not working, or (3) where such lighting is not readily accessible. “Readily accessible,” for purposes of this provision, means that the light switch or other means of activation is located in close proximity to the entrance to the area. For example, where an employee would have to travel across a long work area or climb steps in the dark to turn on permanent lights, those lights are not readily accessible. In such cases, the employee would have to use a handheld portable light to enter the area. OSHA requests comment on the proposed provision. In your establishment, when are employees provided with and required to use handheld portable lights to enter an area? Are there other situations where handheld portable lights are needed?

In three different fatalities reported in the IMIS database, employees who were working in areas where the lighting was not working, fell to their deaths walking in dark areas. In one instance, an employee who was trying to restore power to the temporary lighting stepped off of the coaming and fell approximately 25 feet to the bottom of the hold.

Proposed paragraph (c)(2) is similar to the existing requirement (§ 1915.92(d)) that where temporary lighting from sources outside the vessel or vessel section is the only means of illumination, the employer shall ensure that handheld portable lights are available to provide illumination for safe movement of employees. This provision is needed because temporary lighting could fail, making it difficult and hazardous for employees exiting an area of the vessel. The proposal requires that the employer ensure that the portable lights are handheld so employees are able to take the lights with them to light their way as they move about and exit the space safely. The proposal also makes explicit that the employer must ensure that handheld portable lights are readily available in the immediate area where employees are working. Implicit in the proposal is the obligation that the employer provide handheld portable lights in numbers that are adequate to ensure that all employees are able to move about and exit the area safely. OSHA requests comment on the proposed provision. Should OSHA apply this provision to any area where landside or shore-based lighting provides the only illumination? Should OSHA include an exception to the rule when natural sunlight suffices?

Proposed paragraph (c)(3) retains and simplifies the existing requirement (§ 1915.92(e)) on the use of handheld portable lights in any area that is not gas-free. In such areas, the proposal would require that the employer ensure that only “explosion-proof, self-contained” handheld portable lights are used (or other equipment approved by a nationally recognized testing laboratory (NRTL)). Although the existing standard requires the same, stakeholders must go to another section of part 1915 (§ 1915.13(b)(9)) to find out what type of lights they must provide when the area is not gas-free. The proposal adds the language from the cross-referenced section, thus eliminating the need to look to the other section. The proposal also carries forward the note to existing § 1915.13(b)(9) that equipment approved by a NRTL for the class and division of the location to be used will meet the requirements of this paragraph. (OSHA notes that the proposed requirement would apply in non-gas-free areas regardless of whether proposed paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) also apply.)

Section 1915.83 Utilities

The proposed section on utilities retains, with minor clarifications, the existing requirements of § 1915.93 and reorganizes them for clarity into four paragraphs: (a) Steam supply systems; (b) Steam hoses; (c) Electric shore power; and (d) Heat lamps. SESAC recommended retaining these provisions and did not propose any changes (Docket SESAC 1992-3, Ex. 104X, pp. 88-96). The Agency agrees that these provisions are necessary to protect employees from hazards associated with unchecked release of steam and with excessive wearing, tearing, and chafing of steam hoses that could compromise the integrity of components.

Paragraph (a) Steam Supply System—Proposed paragraph (a) requires that the employer ensure that the vessel's steam piping system has a safe working pressure prior to supplying steam from an outside source to the vessel.

In paragraph (a) OSHA proposes to delete the existing requirement that employers must ascertain the steam system working pressure from “responsible vessel's representatives, having knowledge of the condition of the plant.” In its place, OSHA proposes to provide employers with greater flexibility in determining the most effective way to meet the requirements of this provision, while keeping employers responsible for ensuring that the steam system is safe before supplying steam from an outside source. Employers are free to ascertain the critical information from a responsible vessel's representative, a contractor or any other person who is qualified by training, knowledge or experience to make that determination.

In paragraphs (a)(1) through (3), OSHA proposes to simplify the existing requirements (§ 1915.93(a)(1)) for outside systems that supply steam to a vessel's steam piping system. Proposed paragraph (a)(1) requires that a pressure gauge and a relief valve be installed at the point where the steam hose of the outside steam source joins a vessel's steam piping system. Proposed paragraph (a)(2) requires that the relief valves of outside steam systems be set to relieve excess steam and be capable of relieving steam at a pressure that does not exceed the safe working pressure of the vessel's steam piping system in its present condition. Proposed paragraph (a)(3) requires that there must not be any means of disconnecting the relief valve from the system that it protects.

In paragraph (a)(4), OSHA proposes to revise the existing requirement (§ 1915.93(a)(1)) on visibility and accessibility of pressure gauges and relief valves of steam supply systems by adding a requirement that such gauges and valves also be “kept in legible condition.” OSHA believes this addition will address concerns SESAC members raised that gauges and valves often cannot be read because they are too dirty to be readable or the print is too small (Docket SESAC 1992-2, Ex. 102X, pp. 94-96). OSHA agrees that gauges must be visible, accessible and legible in order to determine accurately whether the working pressure of the steam supply system is safe.

In paragraph (a)(5), OSHA proposes to add a requirement that relief valves be positioned or placed in a location where they will not cause injury if they are activated. For example, orienting or positioning the relief valve to vent away from employees is one way to protect them from being scalded and burned if a valve is tripped by high pressure.

Paragraph (b) Steam Hoses—Proposed paragraph (b) retains, with some revisions, the existing requirements for steam hoses (§ 1915.93(a)(2)-(4)). Proposed paragraph (b)(1) requires that the employer ensure that all steam hoses and fittings have a safety factor of at least five—which is the same safety factor as in the existing standard (§ 1915.93(a)(2)).

In paragraph (b)(2), OSHA proposes to revise the existing requirement (§ 1915.93(a)(3)) on hanging steam hoses in bights. The existing rule requires that the weight of the steam hoses must be “relieved by appropriate lines” to prevent chafing. The proposal requires that “short bights” be used when hanging steam hoses. OSHA believes the proposed language more clearly and directly specifies the measures necessary to prevent chafing and reduce tension on the hose and its fittings. SESAC recommended this change (Docket SESAC 1992-3, Ex. 104X, p. 123) because they said the use of short bights better protects steam hoses from damage.

Proposed paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) retain and divide into separate provisions the existing requirements to protect steam hoses from damage and to protect employees from injury from steam hoses (§ 1915.93(a)(4)). In paragraph (b)(3), OSHA proposes that steam hoses be protected from damage. Steam hoses can be damaged when equipment and material are moved through walking and working areas. Employees could be seriously injured if a damaged hose suddenly releases steam.

Proposed paragraph (b)(4) revises the existing requirement that steam hoses and temporary piping passing through walking or working areas be shielded to protect employees from injury due to accidental contact. The existing provisions only require shielding of steam hoses and piping that pass through “normal work areas” (§ 1915.93(a)(4)). The proposed language expands coverage and provides employees with greater protection because it ensures that hoses and piping passing through areas and spaces where employees walk or pass through to reach work areas are also shielded to protect employees.

Paragraph (c) Electric Shore Power—In paragraph (c) the Agency proposes to retain, with minor revisions, the existing requirements (§ 1915.93(b)) addressing the actions employers must take prior to energizing a vessel's circuits when electricity is supplied from a landside power source. OSHA believes that the proposed performance language improves the clarity of the requirements. For example, the proposal changes the paragraph title to “Electric Shore Power” from “Electric Power” to emphasize that the provisions address the actions that are necessary to protect employees from the hazards of remote power carried by electric cables or wires onto a vessel, which differ from other electrical hazards such as hand-held powered tools.

Proposed paragraph (c)(1) retains unchanged the existing requirement (§ 1915.93(b)(1)(i)) that, prior to energizing the vessel's circuits, employers ensure the vessel is grounded if it is in dry dock.

In paragraph (c)(2), OSHA proposes to revise the existing requirement (§ 1915.93(b)(1)(ii)) to require that, prior to energization, employers ensure that circuits are in safe condition. The proposal also deletes the existing language requirement that employers ascertain such information from a “responsible vessel's representative.” OSHA believes the proposal provides employers with greater flexibility to determine the most effective procedure for checking the safety of circuits.

In paragraph (c)(3), OSHA proposes to retain unchanged the existing requirement (§ 1915.93(b)(1)(iii)) that circuits to be energized must be equipped with overcurrent protection that does not exceed the rated current-carrying capacity of the conductors.

Paragraph (d) Heat Lamps—Proposed paragraph (d) would require that all heat lamps, including the face, be equipped with surround-type guards to prevent contact with the bulb, which could result in employee burns or the igniting of combustible material. The proposal expands the existing requirement (§ 1915.93(c)), which is limited to infrared heat lamps and does not fully address contact hazards since it does not require that the lamp face be guarded. OSHA believes these changes are necessary because shipyards use a variety of heat lamps and because fires are a significant source of accidents onboard vessels. In addition, employees can be seriously burned if they come in contact with a lamp face, which the guarding will prevent.

Section 1915.84 Work in Confined or Isolated Spaces

The proposal retains, with revisions, the existing requirements (§ 1915.94) to protect employees working in confined spaces or alone in isolated locations. The proposal also retains the existing exception in § 1915.51(c)(3) for welding, cutting and heating in confined spaces where, under certain conditions, an employee must be stationed outside the confined space to maintain communication and render aid if necessary. After reviewing the existing rule, SESAC recommended retaining the requirements (Docket SESAC 1992-2, Ex. 102X, p. 99). OSHA agrees with SESAC that these provisions are necessary to reduce employee deaths in shipyard employment.

Since 1987, thirteen fatalities have been reported in the OSHA IMIS database where employees were working alone in isolated areas in shipyards and were not discovered until after they had died from their injuries (Ex. 13). Following are some of those incidents.

• In 2002, an employee was working alone in the plenum on the starboard side of the A/B deck on a Navy vessel. Management stated that no one had checked on him often enough to notice he was missing until someone noticed his body floating in the water nearby.

• In 2000, an employee was working on the accommodation ladder on the MV Cape Henry when he apparently fell and drowned. He was not found for 11 days.

• In 2000, a crew was working on a cargo transfer crane barge welding metal grommets under the crane tracks on the deck of the barge. One employee climbed into a hold and was overcome by lack of oxygen. The employee was eventually found and later died.

• In 1998, a five-man crew was working on a barge, refitting it for use on the Panama Canal. One of the employees was working alone on the port side of the vessel installing the pilot house when he fell into the water. The remainder of the crew did not know that the employee had been missing until they found him dead in the water at a later time.

• In 1995, an employee was working alone as a shipyard dock watchman when he apparently fell from the gangway between the ship and the dock wall to the bottom of the dry dock. The unconscious employee was not found until the relief watchman came on duty and summoned help. The emergency team who arrived found the employee suffering from head and limb fractures and internal injuries. The employee later died of those injuries.

• In 1993, an employee was killed working alone while welding an overhead lap of steel plate to the underside of a vessel in dry dock. While standing on a concrete dry dock apron, approximately 14 feet wide by 49 feet long, the employee apparently walked off the end of it into the water and drowned. A coworker had gone home to take care of personal business, and there was no one there to rescue the employee.

• In 1992, two employees were cutting bulkheads using a torch in a small compartment on a drilling rig. The hose failed just inside the manways and ignited, trapping both employees inside the compartment until the end of the shift, about one hour. There were no scheduled checks on these employees, and one employee died as a result.

Paragraph (a)—Proposed paragraph (a) retains the requirement that the employer make frequent checks during each workshift to ensure the safety of any employee working in a confined space or alone in an isolated location. There are many ways employers can comply with this requirement. One method is using two-way radios. Another is frequent visits by the employer or employer's designee to the confined space or the isolated area. If visits to the work area are used, it is essential that the employer have a visual check of the employee rather than relying on power tool noise. Some power tools can continue to run even after an employee is injured or disabled.

Paragraph (b)—In paragraph (b) OSHA proposes to add a new requirement that the employer, at the end of each shift, account for each employee who is working in a confined space or alone in an isolated location. This provision would ensure that employers ascertain that each employee has returned safely from working in those areas, and if not, to take immediate action to locate the missing employee to render first aid or any other needed assistance. OSHA added this provision after reviewing shipyard fatality reports that indicated some injured employees were not discovered until long after their shifts had ended. OSHA recognizes that this provision may not prevent every fatality associated with confined spaces and isolated work areas, but the Agency believes it will help to increase survivability when an accident or injury occurs.

OSHA requests comment on the proposed provision. Specifically, OSHA requests comment on whether the section should be limited to employees working alone in either a confined or isolated space. Should OSHA address the hazards associated with working in confined spaces in subpart B confined and enclosed spaces instead of subpart F? In your establishment and industry, are employees working in confined spaces or alone in isolated spaces checked frequently during the workshift and accounted for at the end of the workshift? OSHA requests data and information on any injuries, fatalities, or near-misses that have occurred during the last five years due to an employee working in a confined space or alone in an isolated area. If any incidents have occurred, what measures have been instituted to ensure that employees working in these areas are safe?

OSHA also requests comment on whether the section should require that employers establish a system or some form of a signal to indicate when a single employee enters a confined space or a cofferdam to perform work. For example, should OSHA require employers to have a system where employees leave their picture identification (or some other easily identifiable flag) outside the entrance to

alert other employees that someone is inside working?

Section 1915.85 Vessel Radar and Radio Transmitters

The proposed section retains, with minor revisions, the existing requirements in § 1915.95 to protect employees from hazards (e.g., hazardous energy, radiation) associated with radar and radio transmitters onboard vessels. Although the scope of the proposed section is expanded to apply to shipbreaking, OSHA notes that it is very unlikely that radar and other radiation emitting equipment are still operational when shipbreaking operations are performed. Therefore, if the hazards this section seeks to address are not present, the requirements would not apply.

Paragraph (a)—Proposed paragraph (a) revises the existing requirement (§ 1915.95(a)) to ensure that no employee, whether radio repair technician or other employee, is allowed to work on the radar, radio transmitter, mast, king post, or other area closely located, unless the radar and radio transmitter are secured and made incapable of releasing hazardous energy or emitting radiation. Although the existing provision prohibits work in areas near the radar or radio transmitter unless the equipment is made incapable of emitting radiation, the provision does not address all the hazards of radio and radar transmitters including the energization of equipment. For example, an employee working aloft on a mast could be injured or even killed if a rotating radio antenna moves and strikes the employee.

Paragraph (b)—Proposed paragraph (b) revises the existing provision to require that prior to servicing, repairing or testing any radar or radio transmitter, the employer must ensure that hazardous energy is controlled in accordance with the proposed requirements of § 1915.89 Control of Hazardous Energy. The existing provision only requires that the equipment be “appropriately tagged” (§ 1915.95(a)). However, OSHA believes that more detailed lockout/tagout procedures are needed to ensure that employees are fully protected from the movement or start up of equipment and the release of hazardous energy. Tagging the equipment without complying with the rest of the proposed lockout/tagout program and procedures does not ensure that employees will be fully protected, especially those working in multi-employer worksites or in situations where ship's crew are present.

The additional protections in proposed paragraphs (a) and (b) are necessary for two reasons. First, any employee, including a repair technician, could be injured or killed if the radar or radio transmitter releases energy or if radiation is emitted from the radar system while the employee is working on or near that equipment. The proposed revision provides uniform protection for all employees working on or near such equipment. Second, this revision would ensure that employees servicing radar systems and radio transmitters follow the procedures for controlling hazardous energy sources (lockout/tagout) in proposed § 1915.89 to protect themselves and other employees working in the area. The Agency believes that shipyards generally follow these precautions currently, and thus this provision would not alter work practices in this area.

Paragraph (c)—Proposed paragraph (c) retains unchanged the existing provision (§ 1915.95(b)) requiring that the employer schedule testing of radar or radio at a time when (1) no work is in progress aloft, or (2) personnel can be cleared a “minimum safe distance” from the danger area. The proposal also retains the requirement that the employer follow the minimum safe distance established for the type, model, and power of the equipment. SESAC recommended retaining the existing provisions (Docket SESAC 1992-1, Ex. 100X, pp. 118-130; Docket SESAC 1992-2, Ex. 102X, pp. 97-99).

SESAC also recommended that OSHA include sonar testing and repair in this section (Docket SESAC 1992-1, Ex. 100X, pp. 118-130). OSHA requests comments on whether the testing and repair of sonar should be included. What are the potential hazards to employees in testing and repairing sonar? In your establishment and industry, have employees been injured, killed, or exposed to radiation while testing, repairing or working near sonar equipment? What precautions are taken to ensure that employees are protected from these hazards?

Section 1915.86 Lifeboats

The proposed section retains and revises the existing requirements (§ 1915.96) for working in or on lifeboats. Several lifeboat fatalities have occurred in the shipbuilding and repair industry. In 1993, for example, two employees being hoisted in a lifeboat were thrown into a river and drowned because the boat was not adequately secured. When the boat was released the hoist lines were not sufficient to bear the weight and shock of the falling lifeboat. In 2004, three employees being lifted onto a newly-constructed floating oil rig were dropped when the rig's sternhook failed, killing one employee and seriously injuring the two others. The proposal prohibits hoisting employees in lifeboats under any circumstances. Such a requirement would have prevented these accidents.

Paragraph (a)—Proposed paragraph (a) simplifies the existing provision (§ 1915.96(a)) to emphasize that the employer must ensure that before employees work in or on a lifeboat, either in a stowed or suspended position, that the lifeboat is secured independently of the releasing gear. Securing the lifeboat prevents it from falling if the releasing gear is accidentally tripped or the davits move. It also prevents lifeboats that are stowed on chocks from capsizing.

Paragraph (b)—Proposed paragraph (b) expands the protection afforded by the existing provision (§ 1915.96(b)) by prohibiting employees from being in a lifeboat at any time while it is being hoisted. The existing requirement only prohibits employees from being in lifeboats when they are hoisted “into the final stowed position.” As the discussion of fatal shipyard accidents shows, the hazards associated with the hoisting of lifeboats (e.g., falling) are present any time they are hoisted. The proposed provision will provide employees with protection whenever the hazard is present. OSHA requests comments on the proposed revision.

Paragraph (c)—Proposed paragraph (c) retains the existing requirement (§ 1915.96(c)) that the employer not permit employees to work on the outboard side of any lifeboat that is stowed on its chocks unless the lifeboat is secured to prevent it from swinging outboard. If the lifeboat is not secured prior to employees working on the outboard side of it, the lifeboat could swing out and strike the employee, causing him or her to fall.

Section 1915.87 Medical Services and First Aid

Proposed § 1915.87 sets out requirements for medical services, first aid, and lifesaving equipment. Shipyard employment has high accident rates. The provisions in this section are intended to prevent workplace accidents from resulting in fatality and serious injury by increasing the survivability of life-threatening injuries and mitigating the severity of injuries.

The proposal combines and revises, where necessary, the existing standards on medical services and first aid that are applicable to shipyards (§§ 1910.151 and 1915.98). OSHA adopted both standards, pursuant to section 6(a) of the OSH Act, from the established Federal occupational safety and health

standards in effect at the time. (The provisions in § 1910.151 apply to shipyards to the extent that the section addresses hazards and working conditions that § 1915.98 does not. See Ex.16-9, OSHA's Tool Bag Directive.)

Paragraph (a) General Requirement—In paragraph (a), OSHA proposes a general requirement that employers ensure that medical services and first aid for employees are “readily accessible.” For purposes of this section, readily accessible means that medical services and first aid are capable of being reached quickly when employees need them, or medical service and first aid can be brought quickly to the employee, and there are no obstacles to gaining quick access.

The purpose of this provision is twofold. First, it would establish uniform criteria applicable to all of the first aid and medical services specified in the section, ensuring that these services are available and close enough to the injured employee so effective intervention can be provided. Second, in the case of serious or life-threatening injury, it would require employers to have steps in place to ensure that additional emergency medical intervention is readily accessible. The provision also addresses SESAC's concerns that first aid providers be able to reach injured employees quickly enough to render effective assistance.

Uniform criteria for all first aid and medical services are necessary because their components, primarily first aid providers and first aid supplies, are interrelated. They both must be readily accessible for intervention to be effective. It is not effective to require that first aid kits be situated at every work location without a parallel requirement to have trained employees at the work location who are capable of using those supplies. Conversely, on-site trained first aid providers cannot provide effective assistance if first aid supplies are too far away to be accessed quickly. Thus, establishing uniform criteria will help to ensure that the needed components of first aid and medical services are in place to provide effective intervention when needed. Uniform provisions will also help to simplify the section and make it easier to understand and comply with. Finally, the uniform criterion addresses inconsistency concerns that SESAC suggested exist in the current requirements. SESAC pointed out that the existing standard establishes different criteria for different types of first aid and medical services (Docket SESAC 1993-1, Ex. 100X, pp. 167-173). For example, SESAC pointed out that in existing § 1915.98(a) first aid rooms, qualified attendants and trained first aid providers must be “close at hand” to any area of the shipyard while the first aid kits provision only requires that kits be furnished for and kept close to each vessel.

OSHA notes that employers will need to consider various workplace factors in determining whether first aid and medical services are readily accessible, such as the size and position of each work location; the number of employees working at the work location; the nature of the hazards to which employees may be exposed; and the distance between work locations and clinics (on-site or off-site), hospitals and rescue squads.

Applying these factors, accidents resulting in severe bleeding or electrical shock resulting in heart or breath stoppage must be treated within a very short time (optimally within three to four minutes) to increase the chances of a positive outcome. To the extent that these types of accident risks are present in shipyards, such as servicing electrical systems where there is a risk of energization or start up, the employer must ensure that necessary first aid is close enough to maximize the injured employee's survivability. For example, where employees are at risk of electrical shock, it is necessary to have first aid providers located in that work area so cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) can be started quickly.

With regard to the second purpose, the proposed provision would require employers to ensure ready accessibility to additional medical services such as rescue squads and ambulances. OSHA notes that some shipyards, primarily larger ones, already have taken these steps by establishing their own on-site medical clinics and ambulance or rescue squads. The proposed provision does not require shipyard employers to have on-site clinics, ambulance or rescue squads, but at a minimum, it requires employers to implement a system to ensure that emergency services such as local rescue squads or ambulance services are readily accessible when needed. The employer's plan needs to factor in reasonably foreseeable delays, such as railroad tracks near the shipyard entrance that could be blocked when rescue squads need to access injured employees in the shipyard.

OSHA requests comment on this provision. In your establishment and industry, what measures are in place to ensure that first aid and medical services are readily accessible? Should the final standard specify a maximum time within which first aid and medical services must be available? For example, should the final standard specify that employers must ensure that first aid and medical services are initiated within three to five minutes of the discovery or report of an injury?

Paragraph (b) Advice and Consultation—In paragraph (b), OSHA proposes to retain, with technical changes, the existing requirement in § 1910.151(a) that employers ensure that health care professionals are readily available for advice and consultation on matters of workplace health.

OSHA is proposing to replace two terms in the existing requirement. The term “plant health” would be changed to “workplace health,” to make the provision more appropriate to shipyards, and “health care professionals” would replace the term “medical personnel.” OSHA proposes to define health care professional to mean a physician or any other health care provider whose legally permitted scope of practice allows the provider to independently provide or be delegated the responsibility to provide some or all of the advice or consultation this section requires. The proposal would allow employers to consult with any health care professional (e.g., physician, osteopath, physician's assistant, nurse, EMT, etc.) whose license, registration or certificate authorizes them to provide such assistance and advice. In some instances, a nurse or physician's assistant at an on-site clinic may be able to provide the requested advice and consultation. Employers are also free to use local medical clinics or specialists. The key is that the health care professional must be readily available to provide advice and consultation when needed.

Paragraph (c) First Aid Providers—Proposed paragraph (c)(1) revises the existing provisions (§ 1915.98(a)) on the required number and location of first aid providers and updates the requirements on their qualifications to more fully address the needs and conditions present in shipyards. OSHA proposes that employers ensure there are adequate numbers of employees to render first aid at each work location during each workshift. Section 1915.98(a) currently requires that where a first aid room with a qualified attendant is not “close at hand,” there must be at least one employee “close at hand” to administer first aid. SESAC raised two concerns about this provision. They said the language “close at hand” was too vague. In addition, they expressed concern that first aid providers would not be able to reach injured employees quickly enough if they were not located at shipyard work locations. For example, some SESAC members said local emergency services

can be delayed in reaching shipyards due to traffic situations, such as being stopped at train crossings. To resolve these concerns, SESAC recommended that there be first aid providers at shipyard work locations regardless of whether first aid rooms or hospitals are located nearby (Docket SESAC 1993-1, Ex. 100X, pp. 166-173).

Based on SESAC's recommendation, OSHA proposes in paragraph (c)(1) that employers ensure that there are employees qualified to provide first aid at each work location during each workshift. OSHA agrees with SESAC that the proposed provision is necessary and will be effective in ensuring that first aid is provided quickly enough to maximize survivability and prevent permanent injury. The sooner life-threatening conditions are treated, the more likely that the outcome will be positive. The American Heart Association (AHA) found that when resuscitation and automatic external defibrillation are delivered within three to five minutes, reported survival rates from sudden cardiac arrest are as high as 48 to 74 percent (Ex. 8). Studies have shown that for each minute sudden cardiac arrest is not treated, the probability of reviving the heart decreases by 7 to 10 percent (Exs. 7, 8). These data indicate that having responders at the work location could significantly increase the survival rates for injured employees.

Having first aid providers at the work location can also “buy time” until off-site rescuers arrive. For example, performing CPR immediately can help to preserve heart and brain function until local emergency services are able to provide complete medical treatment, such as providing oxygen or using an automated external defibrillator (AED) to restore normal heart rhythm. According to IMIS, there were 13 fatalities in shipyards that were deemed “heart attack” or “coronary” within a 15 year period. Out of those 13, only 4 reports documented any basic life support, such as CPR or first aid, prior to rescue squads arriving on the scene. Even for injuries that are not immediately life threatening, timely first aid can reduce further injury and significantly aid recovery by, for example, immobilizing fractures, reducing blood loss or providing warmth for shock.

For example, the proposed provisions requiring trained employees at each work location to render first aid, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), may have prevented the following shipyard fatalities. In one case, a shipyard employee was electrocuted while troubleshooting a portable outlet box. The IMIS abstract indicates that coworkers summoned emergency medical personnel to the worksite, which appears to suggest that there was no one at the worksite trained to provide CPR to “buy time” until offsite emergency personnel arrived. There also is no indication how long it took for emergency personnel to arrive. When the personnel did arrive, they transported the injured employee to a hospital, but he died. Had the proposed provisions been in place, there would have been first aid providers at that work location to begin CPR immediately to preserve the employee's brain and heart function during those critical first minutes while offsite emergency personnel are summoned (proposed § 1915.88(c)(1)). Studies show that for each minute sudden cardiac care is not treated, the probability of reviving the heart decreases by as much as 10 percent (Ex. 7).

In another case, an employee began experiencing chest pain after climbing down a scaffolding stair tower for his lunch break. When he asked coworkers for help, they began walking him along the pier, presumably to an on-site infirmary. The employee collapsed while he was walking and died of a heart attack. Under the proposed provisions, there would have been trained employees who would have known to have the employee lie down rather walk to an infirmary. Moreover, these employees would have been able to start CPR, which would have maximized the employee's survivability potential. Similarly, a shipyard employee who collapsed while he was working in the engine room of a large ship may have survived had other employees working in the engine room or on the vessel been trained to render first aid. There is no indication in the IMIS abstract whether there were any trained first aid providers in the engine room or on the vessel to perform CPR.

The proposed requirement to ensure that during each workshift there are an adequate number of first aid providers (proposed § 1915.88(c)(1)) also may have prevented shipyard fatalities reported in the IMIS database. For example, during a “graveyard” shift, a shipyard employee working in the bottom of a vessel cofferdam died after he suffered cardiac arrest. There is no indication in the abstract whether any first aid providers attempted resuscitation or indeed whether there were any first aid providers at the shipyard during that workshift.

For purposes of this provision, the meaning of a shipyard “work location” will depend on the size, nature and location of the shipyard. OSHA does not intend the term to mean a single work area. A shipyard may have hundreds of work areas and only one or a few employees may work in any one area. Rather, OSHA intends a shipyard work location to refer to a group of work areas that are clustered together and in near proximity to each other. For instance, work areas in a small, concentrated shipyard may constitute a single work location, even though some may be located on a vessel and others on landside. By contrast, a large shipyard that has multiple piers, docks, large vessels, and landside facilities is likely to be considered to have multiple work locations. This is because shipyard work areas are more likely to be spread across a large area, possibly miles apart, and some may be remotely located. In these shipyards, it is unlikely that a first aid provider located in one work area would be able to reach all work areas within the shipyard quickly enough to provide effective intervention. Accordingly, OSHA believes that each group of clustered work areas must have an adequate number of first aid providers to ensure that timely intervention is provided for employees working at a work area within that group. By contrast, a single work area distantly located from other work areas may, of necessity, be considered a work location because first aid providers in other work areas would not be able to reach the area quickly enough to effectively aid an injured employee.

Additionally, OSHA is proposing to add a requirement that employers ensure the work location has first aid providers during each workshift. Many shipyards have multiple workshifts and employers must ensure that employees working in any of these workshifts will have effective first aid intervention if an injury occurs. Having first aid providers at each work location is especially important during those hours when on-site and off-site infirmaries and clinics are not open.

Proposed paragraph (c)(1) also includes the following objective factors employers must consider in determining how many providers are needed at each work location:

• The sizes and location of work locations in the shipyard;

• The number of employees at each work location;

• The nature of the hazards present at each work location; and

• The distance of each shipyard work location from clinics (on-site or off-site), rescue squads and hospitals.

OSHA believes that the addition of the objective factors not only will make the requirement easier for employers to understand and comply with, but also

will address SESAC's concern about the vagueness of the current language (Docket SESAC 1993-1, Ex. 100X, pp. 167-173). (A more detailed explanation of the objective factors is included below in the discussion of first aid supplies).

OSHA believes the proposed revision should not pose significant new burdens for shipyard employers since many already have multiple employees at each work location who are qualified to provide first aid. For instance, one SESAC member said that a significant number of employees in Boston area shipyards already receive first aid training:

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

OSHA requests comment on the proposed provision. In your establishment and industry, how many employees are trained to provide first aid? Are there trained providers at each work location and during all workshifts? Are the objective factors in the proposed standard appropriate for determining how many first aid providers employers should have at each work location? What additional factors, if any, should employers consider?

OSHA has recently developed and published a Best Practices Guide: Fundamentals of a Workplace First-Aid Program (Ex. 18). This document provides a discussion on the basics of assessing the risks and designing a first aid program that is specific to the worksite. Although this document addresses some basics, while developing a first aid program, employers need to keep in mind the additional factors specified in the proposal.

First aid provider training/qualifications

. The importance of first aid training is immeasurable. Although some shipyard employees may have received training in the past, appropriate and up-to-date training is necessary to ensure that injured employees receive correct intervention. Lack of training can also result in a lack of treatment when it is needed. For example, in 2002, as an employee was standing on a scaffold to bolt a motor onto a crane located off of the main house. After descending from the scaffolding for his lunch break, the employee complained of chest pains and asked coworkers for help. They proceeded to walk the employee along the pier. The employee collapsed while he was walking and died of a heart attack. Had the coworkers been trained in first aid and CPR, they would have known the correct steps to follow when an employee experiences the early signs and symptoms of a cardiac event.

Section 1915.98(a) currently requires that any person administering first aid be “qualified,” but does not define the term. In paragraph (c)(2), OSHA proposes to make this intent clearer by stating that employees designated to provide first aid must have a “valid first aid certificate.” The proposed language is drawn from a similar requirement in the Longshoring standard, which OSHA updated in 1997 (§ 1918.97(b)).

The proposal is designed to give employers maximum flexibility in developing a first aid training program that is appropriate for the types of working conditions and hazards in their workplaces. With one exception, CPR training, the proposal does not establish the specific content of the required first aid training program that employers must follow. As long as the certificate is issued by a responsible organization, such as the American Red Cross, the American Heart Association, or other equivalent organization, which requires successful course completion as evidence of qualification, the requirements of the proposal would be met. Likewise, the proposal does not specify a frequency for first aid refresher training. Whatever frequency the certifying organization requires for retaining certification, usually three years, would be allowed.

OSHA is considering including an appendix on the requirements of a first aid training program to ensure that employees are fully trained by qualified instructors. This appendix could be similar to that found in the Logging Operations standard (§ 1910.266), which includes a mandatory appendix that specifies the minimally acceptable first aid training program that employers must follow. Some of the required topics include respiratory arrest, cardiac arrest, lacerations/abrasions, shock, burns and loss of consciousness. Similarly, the Longshoring first aid standard (§ 1918.97) includes a non-mandatory appendix that lists the basic elements of a first aid training program. Along with topic areas such as shock, bleeding, poisoning and burns, this appendix also specifies the manner in which employees must receive training. For example, it recommends that trainees develop hands-on skills through the use of manikins, a course workbook, and adequate time for emphasis on situations likely to be encountered in the particular workplace.

OSHA requests comment on the proposed first aid training requirement. Should the final standard require that first aid providers have a valid first aid and CPR certificate? Should the final rule specify the areas in which first aid providers must be trained? Should OSHA include an appendix similar to that in § 1910.266 or 1918.97 in the final rule? If not, why not? If so, what should the program include? Should the program include hands-on exercises? Should the final rule include a requirement that whatever first aid training program and trainer/provider the employer uses, that the program and/or trainer be certified by a nationally recognized first aid organization? Please explain.

In your establishment and/or industry, what training and certification do first aid providers have and does it include CPR training? What organizations, if any, conduct the first aid training and certification? How frequently do first aid providers have refresher training?

Paragraph (d)—First Aid Supplies—In paragraph (d), OSHA proposes to revise the existing requirement on first aid supplies (§ 1915.98(b)). The proposed changes give employers more flexibility and assistance in tailoring the type, amount and location of supplies to the specific needs of their workplace. The proposal includes objective criteria, which are the same as those proposed for first aid providers, to assist employers in meeting the requirement. A non-mandatory appendix to this section references the most recent consensus standards regarding first aid supplies, consistent with the recently revised general industry standard (§ 1910.151).

Location of first aid supplies

. In paragraph (d)(1), OSHA proposes to revise the existing standard to require that first aid supplies be provided “at each work location.” (In proposed paragraph (d)(2), OSHA identifies objective criteria to assist employers in determining where to locate supplies in each work location so they will be readily accessible when needed). The existing standard requires that, under certain circumstances, first aid kits be furnished “for each vessel on which work is being performed” and be kept “close to the vessel” (§ 1915.98(a)). The general industry standard, which was revised in 1998, specifies that first aid supplies must be “readily available” (§ 1910.151(b); 63 FR 33450 (6/19/1998)).

The proposed revision gives employers more flexibility and guidance about where supplies need to be located. In addition, the proposal

clarifies OSHA's intent that first aid supplies need to be located at all work locations throughout the shipyard, those onboard and near vessels as well as those at landside work locations.

OSHA requests comment on this provision. In your industry and establishment, where are first aid kits located and what factors do you consider in determining where to locate them?

Number of first aid supplies

. The existing standard (§ 1915.98(b)) requires that employers provide “sufficient” quantities of first aid supplies, but does not define the term. In paragraph (d)(1), OSHA proposes to revise the existing rule to require that employers provide “adequate” first aid supplies at each work location, and adds, in proposed paragraph (d)(2), objective criteria employers must follow in determining whether they have provided enough supplies to meet the needs of that work location. Of particular importance in determining the number of supplies is the number of employees who will be working at the specific location. OSHA requests comment on this provision. In your industry and establishment, how many first aid kits are provided and what factors do you consider in determining how many are needed?

Proposed paragraph (d)(1) also requires that employers maintain their first aid supplies so they remain adequate. This means that employers must ensure that not only are the number of first aid supplies adequate, but also that exhausted supplies are replaced. For purposes of this provision, maintain also means that first aid supplies must be kept in serviceable condition. A more detailed explanation of the proposed maintenance requirement is included below along with the discussion of the inspection of first aid supplies.

Contents of first aid kits

. In paragraph (d)(2), OSHA proposes to revise the existing requirements on the contents of first aid kits (§ 1915.98(b)). The existing provision specifies a list of items that first aid kits must contain, a list that SESAC said was outdated (Docket 1992-1, Ex. 100X, pp. 161, 162). Based on SESAC's recommendation, in paragraph (d)(2), OSHA proposes to replace the list with a performance based approach.

The list of supplies in § 1915.98(b) was adopted more than 30 years ago, prior to adoption of the 1978 ANSI Z308.1 standard on workplace first aid kits and is inconsistent with the current ANSI standard (Ex. 3-2, ANSI Z308.1 (1998) Minimum Requirements for Workplace First Aid Kits). The list in § 1915.98(b) does not include all of the minimum content requirements for basic first aid kits specified in the current ANSI standard and includes items that ANSI no longer recommends for general workplace kits (i.e., tourniquets and forceps) (Ex. 3-2, Table 5-1).

OSHA believes that adopting a performance-based approach on the contents of first aid kits will give employers maximum flexibility in tailoring their first aid supplies to the conditions and hazards present in their workplace. Adding objective criteria that employers must consider in determining the content of first aid kits provides a framework for assuring that first aid supplies will be appropriate and adequate for the shipyard work location.

Objective criteria

. In paragraph (d)(2), OSHA proposes to add objective criteria to assist employers in determining whether the location, content and amount of first aid supplies are adequate and appropriate for shipyard work locations. The proposal includes the following four criteria that employers must consider:

•

The size and location of each shipyard work location

. The size of the shipyard work location is an important consideration. It is likely that large work locations are spread out and, as such, more first aid kits may be necessary to ensure they are readily accessible if an employee gets injured. Employers also need to consider the location of where employees are working throughout shipyards when determining the number, content and positioning of first aid kits. For example, remote work locations or other shipyard work locations that are farther away from rescue squads or hospitals may need to have more first aid supplies or a broader range of supplies to care for an injured employee until additional help arrives or the employee can be transported for more advanced care. Work locations that may be cut off by passing railcars also may need more first aid supplies in case access roads are blocked when an injury occurs. In addition, it would be necessary for vessels that are underway to have adequate first aid supplies onboard.

•

The number of employees at each work location

. In general, when there are more employees at a work location the employer would need to provide more first aid supplies to prepare for the possibility that an accident could result in multiple employee injuries, or that several accidents could occur within a short period of time.

•

The nature of hazards present at each work location

. Employers need to assess the specific needs and the nature of the hazards present in each work location to ensure that first aid kits contain the types and quantity of supplies needed to effectively treat the injuries and illnesses that could be expected. For example, in shops where hot work is performed first aid supplies for burns would be necessary, and in outdoor areas first aid items for insect or animal bites may be needed.

•

The distance of each work location from hospitals, clinics, and rescue squads

. The distance—and therefore the time needed—to get to hospitals or clinics (on-site or off-site), and for rescue squads to respond is also an important factor in determining the location, amount and type of first aid supplies employers need to provide. A single first aid kit may be adequate for small work locations that are close to on-site infirmaries or local emergency services. However, additional kits and types of supplies may be necessary when medical services are farther away.

OSHA requests comment on the proposed provisions, including the objective factors employers would need to consider in determining the location, amount and types of first aid supplies to provide. What additional factors, if any, should employers consider? In your establishment and industry, what factors do you use in making determinations about first aid supplies?

Non-mandatory appendix.

Section 1910.151 includes a recently revised non-mandatory appendix to provide information on the contents of first aid kits (70 FR 1112, 1141 (1/5/2005)). OSHA proposes to incorporate the § 1910.151 appendix, with revisions that update the appendix. The proposed appendix provides guidance to employers on the contents of first aid kits, assessing workplace risks, and OSHA's requirements for protecting first aid providers from possible exposure to bloodborne pathogens. In the proposal, OSHA is updating the reference to the ANSI Z308.1 standard on minimum requirements for workplace first aid kits. The proposed appendix references the 2003 ANSI standard (Ex. 3-16). The appendix to § 1915.87, which OSHA added in 1998 (70 FR 1141 (6/18/1998)), references the 1998 ANSI standard (Ex. 3-2). OSHA requests comment on whether the non-mandatory appendix should include other information on first aid supplies. If so, what should it include?

Maintenance and inspection of first aid supplies.

In paragraphs (d)(1) and (3), OSHA proposes to revise the existing requirements on the maintenance and inspection of first aid supplies (§ 1915.98(b) and (c)). OSHA proposes to replace the existing maintenance and inspection provisions

with more flexible performance language.

With regard to maintenance of first aid supplies, the existing standard requires that first aid kits have a weatherproof container and that supplies are in individually sealed packages. Read together, proposed paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(3) require that first aid supplies be maintained in “dry, sterile and serviceable condition.” For purposes of this provision, OSHA would define serviceable condition to mean the state or ability of a device to operate as it was intended by the manufacturer to operate (proposed § 1915.95).

OSHA believes the proposed language provides employers with greater flexibility in tailoring the maintenance and packaging of first aid supplies to the specific conditions present in their work locations while at the same time ensuring that supplies remain useable. For example, first aid kits for use in outdoor and mobile work locations may need weatherproof containers to keep supplies dry, sterile and serviceable, but the same may not be necessary for first aid kits used in enclosed facilities. OSHA notes that individually packaged first aid supplies stored in weatherproof containers would typically be considered in compliance with the proposed requirements as would supplies maintained in accordance with the current ANSI Z308.1 standard (Ex. 3-2).

As mentioned, OSHA proposes to require that first aid supplies be kept in “serviceable condition.” The purpose of the provision is to ensure that the first aid supplies remain effective. To ensure first aid supplies remain serviceable, employers would need to store them in accordance with manufacturer instructions (e.g., out of direct sunlight, not above a certain temperature) and replace supplies when their use date expires. Supplies that are maintained and operated in accordance with manufacturer instructions and recommendations would generally be considered in compliance with the serviceable condition requirement. Inherent in the proposed requirement to ensure that first aid supplies are in proper condition is the employer's obligation to replace supplies that are found to be deficient.

In regard to inspection of first aid supplies, the existing standard requires that first aid supplies be checked before being sent out on a job and at least weekly thereafter to ensure that expended items are replaced (§ 1915.98(c)). In paragraph (d)(3), OSHA proposes to replace that language with performance language that would require employers to inspect first aid supplies at intervals that ensure they remain in “dry, sterile and serviceable condition.” The proposal gives employers greater flexibility to determine what inspection procedures would be most effective for ensuring that supplies remain in appropriate condition and adequately replenished. For example, it would allow employers to opt for stocking work locations with a larger supply of first aid supplies and establish something other than a weekly maintenance and inspection schedule. It also would allow employers to use smaller, portable first aid kits, such as for mobile work crews, which may need to be inspected and restocked more frequently.

OSHA requests comment on the proposed maintenance and inspection requirements. In your establishment and industry, what maintenance and inspection procedures are followed to ensure that first aid supplies are in adequate supply and serviceable condition?

Paragraph (e)—Quick Drenching/Flushing Facilities—Section 1910.151(c) currently requires that quick drenching or flushing facilities (“quick drench facilities”) be provided within the work area for immediate emergency use where the eyes or body may be exposed to “injurious corrosive materials.” OSHA proposes in paragraph (e) to retain and expand the existing provision to require that quick drench facilities be provided where employees could be splashed with hazardous or toxic substances. Shipyard employees involved in operations such as cleaning, painting, and stripping operations are at risk of being splashed with solvents or other chemicals. Although these substances may not necessarily be corrosives, they can injure or burn the skin or eyes or be absorbed rapidly through the skin causing harmful effects.

The expanded coverage of the proposed provision is consistent with the scope of the current ANSI Z358.1 standard (Ex. 3-4, ANSI Z358.1 (1998)), American National Standard for Emergency Eyewash and Shower Equipment). The ANSI standard establishes minimum requirements for emergency eyewashes and showers for persons who have been exposed to “injurious” or “hazardous materials,” which the standard defines as “any substance or compound that has the capability of producing adverse effects on the health and safety of humans.”

Location of quick drench facilities.

In paragraph (e), OSHA proposes to retain the existing requirement (§ 1910.151(c)) that a quick drenching facility be located within each work area for immediate emergency use. For purposes of this paragraph, OSHA does not intend “work area” to mean the entire work location or workplace. Rather, work area means the immediate area where employees are working and potentially exposed to hazardous or toxic materials. Having quick drench facilities as close as possible to the hazard is necessary to ensure that hazardous substances can be removed quick enough to prevent injury or absorption and that facilities are directly accessible in those situations where the employee may be blinded by a hazardous substance. For example, where employees working in a paint shop are routinely exposed to solvents and other chemicals during mixing or cleaning operations, a quick drench facility needs to be located within the shop so employees do not have to go to another area in the shipyard to reach a quick drench facility.

In those work areas where it is impracticable to place permanent (i.e., plumbed) quick drench facilities, such as confined spaces, the employer would need to provide portable facilities. OSHA does not believe this should pose a problem for employers since many already have these portable facilities. The ANSI Z358.1 standard includes specifications for self-contained eyewash equipment as well as personal quick drench equipment that could be used in such locations (Ex. 3-3, ANSI Z358.1).

OSHA requests comment on whether the final rule should adopt the approach in the ANSI standard that quick drench facilities be located within a maximum distance (e.g., distance traveled in 10 seconds) of the hazard. In your establishment and industry, where are quick drench facilities located? How close to the immediate work areas are they located and generally how long does it take an injured employee to reach them? What type of quick drench facilities are provided for use in areas where a permanent (plumbed) facility cannot be placed?

Paragraph (f)—Basket Stretchers—In paragraph (f), OSHA is altering the requirements for basket stretchers. Paragraph (f) proposes that an adequate number of basket stretchers, or the equivalent, be readily accessible. OSHA also proposes that they be equipped with permanent lifting bridles that enable the stretcher to be attached to hoisting gear and be capable of lifting at least 5,000 pounds. In addition, these basket stretchers must be capable of securely restraining the injured employee and provide a blanket or other suitable covering. Finally, the basket

stretchers must be stored in a clearly-marked location, be protected from damage and be inspected to ensure they remain in a safe and serviceable condition.

Number of basket stretchers.

In paragraph (f)(1), OSHA proposes to revise the existing requirements (§ 1915.98(d)) on the required number of basket stretchers used to remove injured employees from vessels. Section 1915.98(d) currently requires that employers provide at least one basket stretcher (or equivalent) “for each vessel on which ten (10) or more employees are working,” but does not require the employer to provide more than two stretchers “on each job location.” Employers are exempted from this requirement where ambulance services carry such stretchers. Where basket stretchers are required, they must be equipped with lifting bridles and a blanket, and kept close to the vessel.

SESAC members raised a number of concerns about the existing section. Members said the provision was unclear about whether a basket stretcher must be dedicated solely to a vessel or whether it could be used for all vessels located within a specific area (e.g., on the same pier) (Docket SESAC 1993-1, Ex. 100X, pp. 147-167). SESAC also said it was unclear what the term “job location” refers to (e.g., a pier, a vessel, or a work area onboard a vessel).

Several SESAC members said it was burdensome and unnecessary to require that basket stretchers be dedicated solely to one vessel and that there was no reason to provide more stretchers than were capable of being hoisted. SESAC members pointed out that since many shipyard locations have only one crane, and only one basket stretcher can be moved at one time, only one basket stretcher should be required. (Docket SESAC 1992-2, Ex. 104X, pp. 146—147; Docket SESAC 1993-1, Ex. 100X, pp. 155-158).

Other SESAC members said the provision was not protective enough. Specifically, they were concerned that the provision did not appear to require basket stretchers if fewer than 10 employees worked onboard a vessel, a cutoff that appeared arbitrary to them. They also said that OSHA should make explicit that the provision applies to vessel sections in addition to vessels (Docket SESAC 1993-1, Ex. 100X, pp. 142-143, 147).

Location of basket stretchers.

In paragraph (f)(1), OSHA proposes a performance-based provision requiring that employers provide basket stretchers so they are readily accessible when work is being performed onboard a vessel or vessel section. The proposed requirement recognizes that, in some situations, having just one basket stretcher at a location where work is being performed on vessels or vessel sections may be adequate to ensure ready accessibility. For example, as SESAC members stated, if a crane is capable of hoisting a basket stretcher from any one of several barges docked together, one stretcher may provide ready accessibility for that group of vessels. Likewise, where a shipyard crane mounted on railtracks can move back and forth to hoist a basket stretcher from one of several vessels or vessel sections, one stretcher may be adequate to remove injured employees from any of those vessels or vessel sections (Docket SESAC 1993-1, Ex. 100X, p. 155).

In other situations, however, one basket stretcher may not be adequate to ensure that one is readily accessible. In very large shipyards that have several work locations with hundreds, if not thousands, of employees working far apart on vessels and vessel sections, more than one basket stretcher may be needed to ensure that one is readily accessible to each work location. Some SESAC members also said additional stretchers should be provided where it is necessary to speed up removal of injured employees (Docket SESAC 1993-1, Ex. 100X, p. 159). Having additional stretchers allows first aid providers to ready other injured employees for removal while the first employee is being lifted to shore.

OSHA believes the proposed revision is a reasonable approach that will provide effective protection for employees. In certain circumstances, basket stretchers will need to be provided even when fewer than 10 employees are working onboard a vessel, an issue that concerned SESAC (Docket SESAC 1993-1, Ex. 100X, p. 147). At the same time, it gives employers flexibility to tailor their efforts to the specific conditions and equipment present at the work area.

OSHA requests comment on the proposed provision. In your establishment how many basket stretchers are provided and where are they located? Are basket stretchers provided for vessel sections and when fewer than 10 employees are working onboard a vessel or vessel section? If not, what measures are used to ensure that injured employees are removed safely and quickly in these situations?

Exception.

In paragraph (f)(1), OSHA proposes to delete language in the existing rule (§ 1915.98(d)) stating that the requirement to provide basket stretchers does not apply where ambulance services are available and carry such stretchers. OSHA believes this language is no longer necessary since the proposed language in paragraph (f)(1) ensures that basket stretchers are “readily accessible.” The proposal gives employers flexibility to provide their own stretchers or utilize the stretchers provided by local emergency squads if they are readily accessible. OSHA requests comment on whether local emergency squads are readily accessible to vessel work locations and whether they have basket stretchers that meet the proposed requirements. To what extent do shipyard employers rely on local emergency squads to provide basket stretchers?

Specifications for basket stretchers.

In paragraph (f)(2), OSHA proposes to retain, with revisions, the existing specification requirements for basket stretchers (§ 1915.98(d)). Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(i) retains the existing requirement that basket stretchers have permanent lifting bridles to enable the stretcher to be attached to hoisting gear. OSHA proposes to add a strength requirement that basket stretcher bridles be capable of lifting at least 5,000 pounds (2,270 kg), which provides a safety factor of five. The proposed addition is based on requirements in the Marine Terminals and Longshoring standards, which were updated in 1997 (§§ 1917.26(d) and 1918.97(d)).

In paragraph (f)(2)(ii) OSHA proposes to add a requirement that basket stretchers have restraints that are capable of securely holding the injured employee while the stretcher is lifted or moved. This addition is also based on the Marine Terminals and Longshoring standards (§§ 1917.26(d)(4) and 1918.97(d)(4)). OSHA believes it is appropriate to apply the Marine Terminals and Longshoring provisions to shipyard employment because the use of basket stretchers and the working conditions are similar. The proposed changes should not pose a problem for shipyard employers because most basket stretchers already meet those criteria.

Finally, in paragraph (f)(2)(iii) OSHA proposes to retain the existing requirement that each basket stretcher have a blanket or other suitable covering to cover injured employees and protect them from environmental conditions.

OSHA requests comment on the proposed specifications for basket stretchers. The Marine Terminals and Longshoring standards also have specifications for stretchers and bridles to make vertical patient lifts (§§ 1917.26(d)(5) and 1918.97(d)(5)). OSHA requests comment on whether the final standard should include those additional specifications.

Storage of basket stretchers.

In paragraph (f)(3), OSHA proposes to add a requirement that basket stretchers be stored in a clearly-marked location and in a manner that prevents damage and provides protection from environmental conditions. The proposed language is based on similar requirements in the Marine Terminals and Longshoring standards (1917.26(d)(7) and 1918.97(d)(7)).

The addition of this provision would accomplish two goals. First, requiring storage areas to be clearly marked helps to ensure that stretchers are easy to locate when they are needed. Second, storing stretchers so they are protected from damage and environmental conditions prevents deterioration of the equipment. OSHA requests comment on the proposed provision. In your establishment and industry, how are basket stretchers stored to protect them from damage and environmental conditions? How are storage areas marked to ensure easy access?

Inspection.

Proposed paragraph (f)(4) would require the employer to inspect stretchers at intervals that ensure they remain in safe and serviceable condition. This is a flexible, performance-based measure similar to the requirement to inspect first aid supplies to ensure they are adequate. This proposed measure will assure that lifesaving equipment functions properly when needed in an emergency and is particularly important if basket stretchers are not used frequently.

Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs)

OSHA is raising for discussion the issue of whether shipyards should be required to have Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs). According to the American Heart Association, over 300,000 individuals die from cardiac arrest each year, with most occurring outside hospitals (Ex. 8). In 2001 and 2002, there were 6,628 work-related fatalities reported to OSHA—1,216 of these deaths were from heart attack, 354 from electric shock, and 267 from asphyxia (Ex. 6). Survival rates for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest are only one to five percent, but treatment of ventricular fibrillation (i.e., chaotic beating of the heart) with immediate defibrillation (i.e., within one minute) has achieved survival rates as high as 90 percent (Ex. 7). Fast and immediate defibrillation is the most critical step in treatment of cardiac arrest because it is the definitive therapy for ventricular fibrillation.

AEDs restore normal heart rhythm with electrical shock (defibrillation). AEDs have been shown to significantly increase survival rates where they are used immediately (i.e., within three to five minutes). For example, in the first 10 months after Chicago's O'Hare and Midway Airports installed AEDs, 9 of 14 (64 percent) cardiac victims were revived and survived (Ex. 7).

In the past decade, there have been significant advances in AED technology, including advances in miniaturization and improvements in their reliability and safety. Today, AEDs are small, lightweight units in portable carriers; run on rechargeable batteries; analyze the heart rhythm; and automatically indicate when to shock with easy-to-follow audio prompts. These improvements have also greatly minimized the training needed to operate them. Many studies have shown that AEDs are nearly error-free and effective when used by non-medical first aid responders in the workplace (Ex. 7). The costs of AEDs have dropped dramatically in recent years. In 2001, for instance, AEDs cost $3,000-$4,500 on average. Now they are widely available for less than $1,500 (Ex. 5). OSHA anticipates that AED costs will continue to decline as the use of AEDs increases.

OSHA's existing medical services and first aid standards do not require that AEDs be provided in workplaces or that employees be trained in their operation. However, many employers, concerned that local emergency services cannot respond quickly enough, have been equipping their workplaces with AEDs and training employees in their use.

OSHA requests comment on whether shipyards should be required to have AEDs as part of their first aid and medical services. If not, why not? If so, should the requirement apply to all shipyards or be limited to certain types of work or work locations (e.g., remote work areas, work where employees are exposed to electrical hazards, shiftwork)? What criteria should employers use to determine whether and how many AEDs should be provided and where they should be located? In your establishment and industry are AEDs provided? If not, why not? If so, how many are provided and what criteria were considered in making that determination? Who is trained and authorized to operate the AEDs?

Section 1915.88 Sanitation

Sanitation in shipyards is currently covered by a shipyard standard, § 1915.97, and is supplemented by a general industry standard, § 1910.141. (See Ex. 16-9, OSHA's Tool Bag Directive.) As part of its overall efforts to incorporate comprehensive shipyard requirements into Part 1915, the Agency is proposing to consolidate and update these provisions in a new standard on sanitation, § 1915.88. The new proposed section carries forward many provisions that have applied to shipyards for several decades. At the same time, it reflects improvements in workplace sanitation that have been developed since the earlier standards were adopted.

Adverse health effects associated with the lack of appropriate sanitation facilities are well recognized and documented. They include communicable diseases, heat-related illness, health effects related to delay of urination and defecation, and effects associated with ingestion or absorption of hazardous or toxic substances. These health hazards were discussed at length in the preamble to the final Field Sanitation standard (52 FR 16050, 5/1/87). OSHA has updated this discussion and placed it in the docket as a reference document (Ex. 12).

OSHA recognizes that working conditions in shipyards are often less than ideal for sanitation. For example, some shipyards are in remote locations, without adequate piped water and sewer facilities. Much shipyard work is also performed outdoors, often in high temperatures and humidity. OSHA has previously developed sanitation standards to address these types of working conditions in marine terminals (§ 1917.127), field sanitation (§ 1928.110), longshoring (§ 1918.95), and construction (§ 1926.51). The Agency has used these standards as source documents for the present proposal. In addition to these sources, OSHA has also reviewed the most recent applicable ANSI sanitation standards—in particular, ANSI Z4.1-1995 (Ex. 3-6) and Z4.3-1995 (Ex. 3-7)—and incorporated relevant provisions into the proposed standard. (ANSI Z4.1 addresses general sanitation in workplaces, while ANSI Z4.3 covers non-sewered waste disposal systems.)

Most of the changes being proposed in § 1915.88 reflect changes in technology and sanitation practices that have developed since the original standards were adopted. For example, the proposal specifically addresses portable toilets and other portable sanitation facilities. The proposed standard is also more performance-oriented and flexible than the existing requirements.

As Table 3 makes clear, many of the changes being incorporated into proposed § 1915.88 are editorial in nature. This reflects the Agency's effort to merge most of the current requirements of § 1910.141 and § 1915.97 into a single set of sanitation requirements for shipyards. Table 3 provides an overview of the new proposed § 1915.88, a comparison to the

existing requirements, and a brief explanation of all proposed changes. The preamble discussion following Table 3 focuses on the relatively few substantive changes being proposed, the Agency's rationale for these changes, and related issues. In addition, the discussion includes responses to various SESAC recommendations, as appropriate.

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

EP20DE07.000

EP20DE07.001

EP20DE07.002

EP20DE07.003

EP20DE07.004

EP20DE07.005

EP20DE07.006

EP20DE07.007

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C

Most of the changes in this proposal are adequately discussed in Table 3. However, some provisions require additional discussion and explanation. The following section provides additional discussion concerning these elements of the proposal and raises specific issues for public comment.

Paragraph (a)—General Requirements—Paragraph (a) incorporates a series of general requirements for the accessibility, adequacy, and maintenance of sanitation facilities in shipyards. It simplifies the existing standards and makes them apply more uniformly throughout the shipyard. The proposal also uses a new term, “sanitation facilities” (defined in § 1915.95), to cover the wide range of elements that employers provide for the “health and personal needs of employees.” Sanitation facilities include drinking water, toilets, handcleaning facilities, showers, changing rooms, and eating and drinking areas. The term also includes the supplies for those facilities, such as drinking cups, toilet paper, towels, soap, and waterless cleaning agents.

A sanitation facility cannot meet the employee's health needs unless it meets all the requirements addressing accessibility, adequacy and maintenance. For instance, if toilets are provided but are all located too far away, employees may have to refrain from using facilities, or from drinking during the workshift so they will not need to use them. Employees may do the same thing if toilets, particularly portable ones, are dirty, not serviced regularly, or require a long wait. These actions can result in significant adverse health effects (Ex. 12).

Proposed paragraph (a)(1) requires that sanitation facilities be (1) readily accessible, and (2) adequate for the number of employees at the work premises. Employers must provide sanitation facilities that meet both requirements in order to be considered in compliance.

Readily accessible.

Unlike the sanitation standards for marine terminals, longshoring, and field sanitation (§§ 1917.127, 1918.127, 1928.110, respectively), the current sanitation standards for shipyards do not directly address the accessibility of sanitation facilities. Paragraph (a)(1) of proposed § 1915.88 remedies this omission, using performance-oriented language. Ready access to sanitation facilities helps to protect employee health and reduce the risk of adverse health effects. For example, lack of ready access to drinking water can result in dehydration, which can be fatal, especially in hot and humid working conditions. Ready access to sanitation facilities will also increase the likelihood of their use, reducing the risks associated with delayed use.

In order for sanitation facilities to be considered “readily accessible,” employees must be able to reach the facilities quickly whenever they need to use them, and there must be no obstacles to gaining quick access. OSHA recognizes that whether sanitation facilities are readily accessible depends on the type of sanitation facility, the sizes and locations of worksites, and physical characteristics of the shipyard. In small shipyards, sanitation facilities may be readily accessible if they are located in one area. However, where worksites are large and spread out, toilets, handwashing facilities and drinking water located in only one location would likely not be considered readily accessible.

Sanitation facilities also must be readily accessible to shipyard employees who work onboard vessels. Where employees work on a small vessel, sanitation facilities may be readily accessible if they are located dockside. However, where employees work on a large vessel, they may not be able to get to facilities quickly enough if such facilities are located only on the dock. Sanitation facilities may need to be located on deck or in various places throughout the vessel to ensure employees have ready access when they need to use them. When the ship's toilet and handwashing facilities are not available to shipyard employees working onboard vessels (e.g., the ship is being built or systems are turned off during repair) the employer needs to make other arrangements to ensure that such facilities are readily accessible.

Whether sanitation facilities are readily accessible is also related to how frequently they must be used during a workshift. For example, drinking water supplies, especially during hot and humid summer weather, must be at or close to the employee's immediate work area. Employees who perform heavy manual labor, work with heat-producing equipment, or must spend time in spaces that are not well ventilated or air-conditioned need to have enough drinking water close at hand to prevent dehydration. On the other hand, changing rooms and eating areas that are used only once or twice during a workshift may not need to be as close to the work area.

OSHA notes that other sanitation standards specify maximum distances for locating sanitation facilities relative to employee work areas. For example, the OSHA Field Sanitation standard requires that toilet facilities be located within a one-quarter-mile walk of each employee's place of work (§ 1928.110(c)(2)(iii)). ANSI Z4.1 requires that potable water and sewered toilet facilities be located within 200 feet of any place where employees are regularly engaged in work (Ex. 3-6, §§ 5.1.1 and 6.1.2).

On July 29, 1998, a shipyard employee was finishing up a workshift where he was operating grinding and sanding equipment on two decks of a ship. He clocked out at 2:30 p.m., got a ride to his supervisor's office to get some information, and was driven back to the wet dock. He was walking to the bike area when he became dizzy and fell to his knees. His supervisor picked him up and gave him water and a cold compress. He was transported to the first aid station, where he was given oxygen and ice packs were placed on his head and under his arms. When he later collapsed, emergency medical technicians ventilated and defibrillated him. He died later at a hospital from heat exhaustion and heat stroke, possibly from not having enough drinking water readily accessible at his work location. The existing drinking water requirements specify that employers provide potable water “in all places of employment” (§ 1910.141(b)(1)), but do not identify where water supplies must be located in those workplaces. The proposed rule clarifies the existing requirements by specifying that employers must provide adequate and “readily accessible” drinking water in amounts that meet the health and personal needs of each employee at the worksite (proposed § 1915.87(a)(1) and (b)(2)). In the summary and explanation of § 1915.87, OSHA also identifies factors that employers need to consider in determining how much drinking water they must supply and where it must be located. These factors include size and location of worksites, frequency of use, and environmental conditions such as hot weather. Had the proposed clarifications been in place, it would have been clearer that the shipyard employer needed to ensure that the employee had adequate drinking water accessible at their work location on the vessel.

OSHA requests comment on the proposed requirement for location of sanitation facilities. In particular, OSHA requests comment on whether the final rule should contain more specific requirements for the location of sanitation facilities, especially toilet facilities. For example, should the final rule specify maximum distances, maximum walking times (e.g., 5 or 10

minutes), or other objective criteria for determining where sanitation facilities must be located in the workplace? Should different specifications be developed for specific types of sanitation facilities? OSHA seeks information on where sanitation facilities are located and what criteria are used to make this determination.

Serviceable Condition.

Paragraph (a)(2) proposes to add language making more explicit OSHA's longstanding policy that employers supply and maintain sanitation facilities in clean, sanitary and serviceable condition. The current general industry standard specifies that employers must keep all places of employment clean (§ 1910.141(a)(3)(i)). The proposal clarifies that this requirement applies to sanitation facilities at workplaces. The proposal also retains existing language on maintaining sanitary conditions from the current lavatory requirements (§ 1910.141(d)(1)).

Paragraph (a)(2), adds a proposed requirement for employers to maintain sanitation facilities in “serviceable condition,” which OSHA proposes to define (in § 1915.95) as the state or ability of a device to operate as it was intended by the manufacturer to operate. OSHA is including this new proposed provision primarily because the proposed rule allows the use of portable toilet facilities. Portable toilet facilities that are not properly serviced can become unsanitary and overflow, thereby exposing employees to contaminants or causing them to avoid using the facilities. While OSHA is not specifying detailed servicing requirements in the proposed rule, the Agency notes that ANSI Z4.3 contains useful information on servicing practices for portable toilets (Ex. 3-7).

OSHA requests comment on this provision. OSHA seeks information on the measures in place to ensure that sanitation facilities and supplies are maintained in clean, sanitary and serviceable condition. How often are sanitation facilities inspected, cleaned, and restocked? Are there different procedures and/or schedules for portable toilet facilities as opposed to other sanitation facilities?

Paragraph (b) Potable water—Proposed § 1915.88(b)(3) would expand the existing rule to allow employers to provide drinking water in single use bottles. OSHA requests comment on the proposal. Where and to what extent are single use drinking water bottles used in your shipyard?

OSHA is also considering adding a requirement to the final standard requiring employers to ensure that drinking water is “suitably cool,” a requirement from OSHA's Field Sanitation standard (§ 1928.110(c)(1)(ii)). The preamble to that standard explained that when employees work in hot and humid temperatures, the temperature of drinking water needs to be low enough to encourage them to drink and to cool their core body temperature (52 FR 16087). Some shipyard employees also work in very hot and humid environments. Cool water could help promote adequate hydration and reduce the risk of heat-related illnesses. OSHA requests comment on this issue. OSHA seeks information on the measures that have been implemented to ensure that drinking water is cool, especially for employees working on board vessels or in hot and humid weather.

Paragraph (d) Toilet Facilities—Proposed paragraph (d) adopts the existing requirements on sewered toilets and as noted in Table 3, the proposal would add a new paragraph (d)(3) to cover portable toilet facilities, which are not addressed by § 1910.141(c).

Because of the proposed additions for portable toilets, OSHA proposes to replace the existing term “toilet facility” with the terms “sewered toilet facility” and “portable toilet facility.” These terms are used in the current ANSI Z4.1 and Z4.3 standards, respectively (Ex. 3-6, § 2.4; Ex. 3-7, §§ 2 and 5). OSHA proposes to define these terms in § 1915.95. “Sewered toilet facility” would be defined to mean a fixture that is connected to a sanitary sewer, septic tank, holding tank (e.g., bilge), or on-site sewage disposal treatment facility and that is flushed with water. In contrast, “portable toilet facility” would be defined to mean a non-sewered toilet that may be either non-flushable, or flushable with water or a non-water flushing solution. Most portable toilet facilities used in shipyards are non-flush chemical toilet facilities.

Paragraph (d)(2) Sewered toilet facilities—

Minimum number of sewered toilet facilities.

Proposed paragraph (d)(2) would retain the existing requirements of § 1910.141 for the minimum number of sewered toilet facilities employers must provide for men and women. While the required numbers of facilities vary depending on the total number of employees at the work site, the basic requirement is commonly referred to as a ratio of one toilet for every 15 employees, and OSHA will use that terminology. OSHA adopted this requirement (Table J-1 of § 1910.141) from the 1968 ANSI Z4.1 standard through notice and comment rulemaking in 1973 (38 FR 10930, 10931 (5/3/1973)). It has been part of the general industry standards since that time. By contrast to the OSHA standard, the current ANSI standard has a different table of ratios (Table 4, ANSI Z4.1-1995), with a basic ratio of 1 toilet per 9 employees. In the three decades since OSHA adopted its standard, nearly 90 percent of the States, at either the State or local level, have adopted the 2003 International Plumbing Code (IPC 2003), which incorporates the requirements of the ANSI Z4.1-1995 standard (one toilet per 9 employees).

Table 4.—ANSI Z4.1-1995

Number of employees

Minimum number of stools

1 to 9

1.

10 to 24

2.

25 to 49

3.

50 to 74

4.

75 to 100

5.

Over 100

1 for each additional 30 persons.

OSHA requests comment on the proposal to retain the 1:15 toilet ratio from the existing standard. Should OSHA adopt the 1:9 ratio in the current ANSI

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.