References to documents in Docket No. OSHAS04920060675. In this Federal Register notice, references to documents in Docket No. OSHA S04920060675 (formerly OSHA Docket No. S049) are given as ``Ex.'' followed by the number of the document. These exhibits are posted in both Docket No. OSHAS04920060675 (which is available at http://www.regulations.gov ) and OSHA Docket No. S049 (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 H308, Ex. 1'' means Exhibit 1 in the Field Sanitation rulemaking docket. For access to exhibits in OSHA Docket H308 and the other dockets above that OSHA is incorporating by reference, go to [[Page 72453]]
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 multipiece 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 multiemployer worksites where shipyard employees, ship's crew, contractors and subcontractors work sidebyside 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 19872002, which is an average of 15 shipyard fatalities each year (Ex. 13). This estimate is consistent with CFOI, which reported 155 shipyard fatalities from 19922002 or an average of 14 fatalities per year. According to CFOI data, during most of those years the fatality rate in shipyard employment was about twice the rate for all private industry combined, which further demonstrates the hazardous nature of work in shipyard employment. As discussed below, many of those shipyard fatalities involved the types of hazards this rulemaking addresses.

Injuries and illnesses. To estimate the number of shipyard injuries and illnesses, OSHA used the BLS annual survey of employers, which produces statistical estimates of occupational injuries and illnesses by industry and specific characteristics (http://www.bls.gov). From 19922002, BLS data show that the occupational injury and illness rate for shipyard employment declined from 34.2 per 100 fulltime 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 onethird (34%) of shipyard lost workday cases resulted in more than 30 days away from work compared to onequarter of private sector cases (Table 1). Table 1.2002 Injury and Illness Data Comparisons Lost workday Percentage of Percentage of Injury and (LWD) injury and LWD cases LWD cases Industry illness rate per illness rate per Median days away involving more involving more 100 fulltime 100 fulltime from work than 5 days away than 30 days employees employees from work away from work Shipbuilding and Repair....................................... 16.6 9.3 15 62.2 34.1 Total Private Sector.......................................... 5.3 2.8 7 55.2 25.1 Manufacturing................................................. 7.2 4.1 8 56.7 26.0 Construction.................................................. 7.1 3.8 10 58.4 28.9 [[Page 72454]]
(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 fiveyear period there were 10 hazardous energyrelated 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 19922002, almost onequarter 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 19872002, the IMIS data reported 14 (6%) shipyard fatalities related to the sudden release of hazardous energy. (See also, Ex. 11, National Shipbuilding Research Program (NSRP), ``Review of Current and Best Practices for Hazardous Energy Control (Tagout) in Shipyards.'') A review of the IMIS shipyard fatality abstracts indicates that the proposed lockout/tagout provisions could have prevented the vast majority (9) of those hazardous energy deaths (see Section V). The following are some of the shipyard fatalities that the proposed lockout/tagout provisions could have prevented. (The summary and explanation of proposed Sec. 1915.89 also discusses a number of fatalities that could have been prevented by the proposed lockout/ tagout provisions).

A shipyard employee working on a 480volt 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 highvoltage 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 highvoltage transformer provided power to numerous shipboard activities, but the employee's electrical experience had been primarily on lowvoltage equipment (Ex. 14). The investigation revealed that the power panels were not labeled and no signs, tags or locks had been used on either the oil switch or circuit breaker. In addition, there may have been stored energy remaining in the conductors, but no tests were conducted to verify deenergization. Under the proposed lockout/tagout provisions, this employer would have been required to have an energy control program and control procedures in place to ensure that employees properly deenergize circuits, verify isolation and apply lockout or tagout systems before starting work (proposed Sec. 1915.89(b)(1), (2) and (4)).

The investigation also found that, although employees received general safety training, there was no indication that the victim had received training on servicing highvoltage 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 highvoltage equipment was an ``authorized employee'' who had been trained to recognize hazardous energy sources and know the specific means and procedures necessary to isolate and control such energy safely (proposed Sec. 1915.89(b)(7)). The proposed provisions also would have ensured that employees receive additional training ``whenever the employer has reason to believe, that there are * * * deficiencies in the employee's knowledge or use of the energy control procedures'' (proposed Sec. 1915.89(b)(7)(iii)).

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

Finally, the lockout/tagout section of this proposal includes an indepth
[[Page 72455]]
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 nonhighway) from 19922002, 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 19872002. Motor vehicle accidents also account for a significant number of injuries. From 19922001, for instance, BLS reported that 208 shipyard employees were injured in transportation accidents that were serious enough to involve days away from work.

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

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

Medical services and first aid. The proposed rule includes revisions to the existing provisions on medical services and first aid, including revisions addressing the content of first aid training and location of first aid providers and kits in shipyards (proposed Sec. 1915.88). OSHA believes that the proposed provisions will improve the chances that injured shipyard employees will survive if an accident or health crisis (e.g., cardiac or respiratory failure) occurs and are necessary to reduce fatality rates in the shipyard industry. A review of the IMIS database for 19872002 indicates that as many as 13 fatalities involving cardiac or respiratory arrest may have been prevented had the proposed first aid provisions been in place.

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

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

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

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

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

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

II. Regulatory History

The standards in subpart F have remained essentially unchanged since
[[Page 72456]]
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 19932, 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 19951, 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 multipiece 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
[[Page 72457]]
hazard or condition. For example, a number of provisions in the general industry sanitation standard (e.g., potable water, toilet facilities, vermin control) apply to shipyard employment because the shipyard sanitation standard (Sec. 1915.97) does not address these issues. OSHA believes that putting all of the sanitation requirements applicable to shipyard employment into one section will make it easier for employers to understand and comply with the requirements.

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

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

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

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

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

Where possible, OSHA has expressed the proposed requirements in performance language. In many cases, OSHA replaced outdated specifications with language that provides employers with greater flexibility in determining the most effective strategies for controlling the hazards in question. The proposal provides employers with objective criteria, where appropriate, to assist them in complying with the proposed requirements. For example, OSHA proposes to replace the list of items that first aid kits must contain, which was adopted more than 30 years ago and which SESAC said in 1993 was outdated, with flexible performancebased 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 19921, Ex. 100X, pp. 110112), OSHA proposes to apply every section of subpart F uniformly to all of shipyard employment. ``Shipyard employment'' is defined in Sec. 1915.4(i) to mean ``ship repairing, shipbuilding, shipbreaking, and related employment.''

The proposal also adds language to clarify OSHA's longstanding position that subpart F applies to shipyard employment ``regardless of geographic location'' of the shipyard activity. OSHA believes this is necessary to ensure that shipyard employers fully understand that the proposed subpart F requirements apply wherever employees are performing ``shipyard employment'' activities. (OSHA recently added the same language to the Fire Protection in Shipyards Standard, Sec. 1915.501(b) (69 FR 55668 (9/15/2004)). Thus, if employees are performing shipyard employment activities, including but
[[Page 72458]]
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 multiemployer 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. 169, OSHA Shipyard Employment ``Tool Bag'' Directive, CPL 0200142; Ex. 19, Letter to John McKnight, National Marine Manufacturers Association (8/ 3/2001)).

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

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

Section 1915.81 Housekeeping

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

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

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

Paragraphs (b) and (c)In paragraph (b) OSHA proposes to retain, with minor editorial revisions, the existing requirement (Sec. 1915.91(a)) that employers ensure that walking and working surfaces have adequate space for work and passage. To ensure that space is adequate, OSHA proposes in paragraph (c) to retain the existing requirement (Sec. 1915.91(a)) that employers ensure walking and working surfaces such as aisles and passageways be kept clear of tools, materials and equipment not in use. Specifically, the proposal requires that equipment not necessary to perform the job in progress not be stored or located in an area that could interfere with walking and working surfaces. This provision is consistent with a SESAC recommendation (Docket SESAC 19923, Ex. 104X, pp. 110112) 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 19951, Ex. 100X, pp. 6364). Slips, trips and falls frequently result in injuries in shipyards. As stated above, according to the BLS data for 2002, slips, trips and falls accounted for 19 percent of all injuries and illnesses involving days away from work in ship and boat building and repairing. In addition, floors, walkways, or ground surfaces were cited as the source for 801 injuries.

Paragraph (d)In proposed paragraph (d), OSHA is retaining the existing requirement (Sec. 1910.141(a)(3)(ii)) that employers ensure that the floor or deck of every work area is maintained, so far as practicable, in a dry condition. Where wet processes are used, OSHA is also retaining the existing requirement that drainage be maintained and that employers provide false floors, platforms, mats or other dry standing places. Shipyard employment involves many wet processes, including gasfreeing, painting, hydroblasting and
[[Page 72459]]
cleaning. This provision is necessary to prevent employees from being exposed to contaminated water and from standing for prolonged periods of time in water, both of which may result in adverse health effects. However, OSHA also recognizes that in some instances it may not be possible for employers to provide a dry standing place. Therefore, OSHA proposes to retain the existing language that employers need only provide dry standing places to the extent that it is practicable to do so. Where it is not, the proposal retains the existing requirement that employers are responsible to provide any waterproof footgear that may be necessary for performing wet processes. Wearing waterproof boots while performing wet processes will protect employees from hazards associated with working in standing water that may contain contaminants and will help to prevent slips and falls.

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

Paragraph (f)In paragraph (f) OSHA is proposing to retain, with only minor changes, the existing requirement (Sec. 1915.91(d)) that the employer maintain free access to exits, firealarm boxes, and fire fighting equipment. OSHA proposes to add firecall 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 19923, Ex. 104X, p. 117).

Paragraph (g)In paragraph (g) OSHA is proposing to retain the existing requirement (Sec. 1915.91(c)) that slippery conditions on walkways or working surfaces shall be eliminated as they occur. The proposal also makes more explicit OSHA's position that ice and snow are included among the types of slippery conditions that employers must eliminate under the existing standard by adding language that such accumulations must be removed as they occur. OSHA believes this clarifying language is important since members of SESAC raised questions about whether the existing standard covers these conditions (Docket SESAC 19923, Ex. 104X, pp. 117119). OSHA requests comment on this issue.

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

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

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

Paragraph (k)Proposed paragraph (k) adds a requirement that combustible scrap be removed from the work area as soon as possible to reduce fire hazards. Shipyards have many small fires that are often due to the accumulation of combustible scrap materials. If combustible scrap is allowed to accumulate in areas where hot work such as welding and cutting are performed, sparks generated by that work could ignite the scrap. Fire prevention helps eliminate the hazards created by the presence of combustible materials. OSHA recently published a fire prevention standard (29 CFR Part 1915, subpart P) that contains fire prevention measures that must be taken before and during hot work (69 FR 5566855708, (9/15/2004)). The proposed requirement would reduce fire hazards further and improve fire protection in shipyards. Section 1915.82Lighting

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

Paragraph (a) General RequirementsProposed 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 F1 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
[[Page 72460]]
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 130foot shaft as he was descending. In another case, an employee was electrocuted when he was performing electrical repair work at night in a poorly illuminated area. An accident investigation found there was ``inadequate lighting'' at the location where the employee was working (Ex. 14). Although the investigation confirmed that the controlling circuit breaker was closed, another switch was found in an open position, possibly because there was not enough light to read the switch. The existing rule specifies that work areas must be ``adequately illuminated'' (Sec. 1915.92(a)). The proposed rule clarifies the existing requirement by setting forth specific illumination levels for various shipyard work locations (proposed Sec. 1915.82 Table F1). 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 SESAC19921, 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 F1 are drawn from illumination tables in the Construction Illumination (Sec. 1926.56) and Hazardous Waste Operations (Sec. 1910.120) standards, and in the national consensus standard for industrial lighting (Ex. 38, ANSI/IESNA RP9012001 Recommended Practice for Lighting in Industrial Facilities). The proposal revises and simplifies the tables from those standards to make Table F1 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 F1 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 F1 specifies the appropriate minimum levels of illumination.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paragraph (b)(2) proposes that employers equip temporary lights with electric cords ``with sufficient capacity to carry the electric load.'' The existing standard (Sec. 1915.92(b)(2)) requires the use of ``heavy duty'' electric cords. The OSHA Construction Electrical standards are similar to the existing standard, requiring that cords for portable tools and appliances be designed for ``hard or extrahard usage'' (Sec. 1926.405(a)(2)(j)). The construction standard includes a [[Page 72461]]
note listing various types of hard or extrahard cords that meet the National Electrical Code (ANSI/NEPA 70, Article 400, Table 4004).

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

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

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

Proposed paragraphs (b)(5) and (6) retain, with nonsubstantive changes, the existing requirements in Sec. 1915.92(f). Proposed paragraph (b)(5) requires that lighting stringers not overload branch circuits. Proposed paragraph (b)(6) requires that branch circuits be equipped with overcurrent 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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

Press inquiries: Kevin Ropp, OSHA, Office of Communications, Room N3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 6931999.

For general and technical information: Dorothy Dougherty, Director, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Room N3718, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 6932222.