incorporate the Sec.  1910.151 appendix, with revisions that update the
appendix. The proposed appendix provides guidance to employers on the
contents of first aid kits, assessing workplace risks, and OSHA's
requirements for protecting first aid providers from possible exposure
to bloodborne pathogens. In the proposal, OSHA is updating the
reference to the ANSI Z308.1 standard on minimum requirements for
workplace first aid kits. The proposed appendix references the 2003
ANSI standard (Ex. 3-16). The appendix to Sec.  1915.87, which OSHA
added in 1998 (70 FR 1141 (6/18/1998)), references the 1998 ANSI
standard (Ex. 3-2). OSHA requests comment on whether the non-mandatory
appendix should include other information on first aid supplies. If so,
what should it include?
    Maintenance and inspection of first aid supplies. In paragraphs
(d)(1) and (3), OSHA proposes to revise the existing requirements on
the maintenance and inspection of first aid supplies (Sec.  1915.98(b)
and (c)). OSHA proposes to replace the existing maintenance and
inspection provisions

with more flexible performance language.
    With regard to maintenance of first aid supplies, the existing
standard requires that first aid kits have a weatherproof container and
that supplies are in individually sealed packages. Read together,
proposed paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(3) require that first aid supplies
be maintained in ``dry, sterile and serviceable condition.'' For
purposes of this provision, OSHA would define serviceable condition to
mean the state or ability of a device to operate as it was intended by
the manufacturer to operate (proposed Sec.  1915.95).
    OSHA believes the proposed language provides employers with greater
flexibility in tailoring the maintenance and packaging of first aid
supplies to the specific conditions present in their work locations
while at the same time ensuring that supplies remain useable. For
example, first aid kits for use in outdoor and mobile work locations
may need weatherproof containers to keep supplies dry, sterile and
serviceable, but the same may not be necessary for first aid kits used
in enclosed facilities. OSHA notes that individually packaged first aid
supplies stored in weatherproof containers would typically be
considered in compliance with the proposed requirements as would
supplies maintained in accordance with the current ANSI Z308.1 standard
(Ex. 3-2).
    As mentioned, OSHA proposes to require that first aid supplies be
kept in ``serviceable condition.'' The purpose of the provision is to
ensure that the first aid supplies remain effective. To ensure first
aid supplies remain serviceable, employers would need to store them in
accordance with manufacturer instructions (e.g., out of direct
sunlight, not above a certain temperature) and replace supplies when
their use date expires. Supplies that are maintained and operated in
accordance with manufacturer instructions and recommendations would
generally be considered in compliance with the serviceable condition
requirement. Inherent in the proposed requirement to ensure that first
aid supplies are in proper condition is the employer's obligation to
replace supplies that are found to be deficient.
    In regard to inspection of first aid supplies, the existing
standard requires that first aid supplies be checked before being sent
out on a job and at least weekly thereafter to ensure that expended
items are replaced (Sec.  1915.98(c)). In paragraph (d)(3), OSHA
proposes to replace that language with performance language that would
require employers to inspect first aid supplies at intervals that
ensure they remain in ``dry, sterile and serviceable condition.'' The
proposal gives employers greater flexibility to determine what
inspection procedures would be most effective for ensuring that
supplies remain in appropriate condition and adequately replenished.
For example, it would allow employers to opt for stocking work
locations with a larger supply of first aid supplies and establish
something other than a weekly maintenance and inspection schedule. It
also would allow employers to use smaller, portable first aid kits,
such as for mobile work crews, which may need to be inspected and
restocked more frequently.
    OSHA requests comment on the proposed maintenance and inspection
requirements. In your establishment and industry, what maintenance and
inspection procedures are followed to ensure that first aid supplies
are in adequate supply and serviceable condition?
    Paragraph (e)--Quick Drenching/Flushing Facilities--Section
1910.151(c) currently requires that quick drenching or flushing
facilities (``quick drench facilities'') be provided within the work
area for immediate emergency use where the eyes or body may be exposed
to ``injurious corrosive materials.'' OSHA proposes in paragraph (e) to
retain and expand the existing provision to require that quick drench
facilities be provided where employees could be splashed with hazardous
or toxic substances. Shipyard employees involved in operations such as
cleaning, painting, and stripping operations are at risk of being
splashed with solvents or other chemicals. Although these substances
may not necessarily be corrosives, they can injure or burn the skin or
eyes or be absorbed rapidly through the skin causing harmful effects.
    The expanded coverage of the proposed provision is consistent with
the scope of the current ANSI Z358.1 standard (Ex. 3-4, ANSI Z358.1
(1998)), American National Standard for Emergency Eyewash and Shower
Equipment). The ANSI standard establishes minimum requirements for
emergency eyewashes and showers for persons who have been exposed to
``injurious'' or ``hazardous materials,'' which the standard defines as
``any substance or compound that has the capability of producing
adverse effects on the health and safety of humans.''
    Location of quick drench facilities. In paragraph (e), OSHA
proposes to retain the existing requirement (Sec.  1910.151(c)) that a
quick drenching facility be located within each work area for immediate
emergency use. For purposes of this paragraph, OSHA does not intend
``work area'' to mean the entire work location or workplace. Rather,
work area means the immediate area where employees are working and
potentially exposed to hazardous or toxic materials. Having quick
drench facilities as close as possible to the hazard is necessary to
ensure that hazardous substances can be removed quick enough to prevent
injury or absorption and that facilities are directly accessible in
those situations where the employee may be blinded by a hazardous
substance. For example, where employees working in a paint shop are
routinely exposed to solvents and other chemicals during mixing or
cleaning operations, a quick drench facility needs to be located within
the shop so employees do not have to go to another area in the shipyard
to reach a quick drench facility.
    In those work areas where it is impracticable to place permanent
(i.e., plumbed) quick drench facilities, such as confined spaces, the
employer would need to provide portable facilities. OSHA does not
believe this should pose a problem for employers since many already
have these portable facilities. The ANSI Z358.1 standard includes
specifications for self-contained eyewash equipment as well as personal
quick drench equipment that could be used in such locations (Ex. 3-3,
ANSI Z358.1).
    OSHA requests comment on whether the final rule should adopt the
approach in the ANSI standard that quick drench facilities be located
within a maximum distance (e.g., distance traveled in 10 seconds) of
the hazard. In your establishment and industry, where are quick drench
facilities located? How close to the immediate work areas are they
located and generally how long does it take an injured employee to
reach them? What type of quick drench facilities are provided for use
in areas where a permanent (plumbed) facility cannot be placed?
    Paragraph (f)--Basket Stretchers--In paragraph (f), OSHA is
altering the requirements for basket stretchers. Paragraph (f) proposes
that an adequate number of basket stretchers, or the equivalent, be
readily accessible. OSHA also proposes that they be equipped with
permanent lifting bridles that enable the stretcher to be attached to
hoisting gear and be capable of lifting at least 5,000 pounds. In
addition, these basket stretchers must be capable of securely
restraining the injured employee and provide a blanket or other
suitable covering. Finally, the basket

stretchers must be stored in a clearly-marked location, be protected
from damage and be inspected to ensure they remain in a safe and
serviceable condition.
    Number of basket stretchers. In paragraph (f)(1), OSHA proposes to
revise the existing requirements (Sec.  1915.98(d)) on the required
number of basket stretchers used to remove injured employees from
vessels. Section 1915.98(d) currently requires that employers provide
at least one basket stretcher (or equivalent) ``for each vessel on
which ten (10) or more employees are working,'' but does not require
the employer to provide more than two stretchers ``on each job
location.'' Employers are exempted from this requirement where
ambulance services carry such stretchers. Where basket stretchers are
required, they must be equipped with lifting bridles and a blanket, and
kept close to the vessel.
    SESAC members raised a number of concerns about the existing
section. Members said the provision was unclear about whether a basket
stretcher must be dedicated solely to a vessel or whether it could be
used for all vessels located within a specific area (e.g., on the same
pier) (Docket SESAC 1993-1, Ex. 100X, pp. 147-167). SESAC also said it
was unclear what the term ``job location'' refers to (e.g., a pier, a
vessel, or a work area onboard a vessel).
    Several SESAC members said it was burdensome and unnecessary to
require that basket stretchers be dedicated solely to one vessel and
that there was no reason to provide more stretchers than were capable
of being hoisted. SESAC members pointed out that since many shipyard
locations have only one crane, and only one basket stretcher can be
moved at one time, only one basket stretcher should be required.
(Docket SESAC 1992-2, Ex. 104X, pp. 146--147; Docket SESAC 1993-1, Ex.
100X, pp. 155-158).
    Other SESAC members said the provision was not protective enough.
Specifically, they were concerned that the provision did not appear to
require basket stretchers if fewer than 10 employees worked onboard a
vessel, a cutoff that appeared arbitrary to them. They also said that
OSHA should make explicit that the provision applies to vessel sections
in addition to vessels (Docket SESAC 1993-1, Ex. 100X, pp. 142-143,
147).
    Location of basket stretchers. In paragraph (f)(1), OSHA proposes a
performance-based provision requiring that employers provide basket
stretchers so they are readily accessible when work is being performed
onboard a vessel or vessel section. The proposed requirement recognizes
that, in some situations, having just one basket stretcher at a
location where work is being performed on vessels or vessel sections
may be adequate to ensure ready accessibility. For example, as SESAC
members stated, if a crane is capable of hoisting a basket stretcher
from any one of several barges docked together, one stretcher may
provide ready accessibility for that group of vessels. Likewise, where
a shipyard crane mounted on railtracks can move back and forth to hoist
a basket stretcher from one of several vessels or vessel sections, one
stretcher may be adequate to remove injured employees from any of those
vessels or vessel sections (Docket SESAC 1993-1, Ex. 100X, p. 155).
    In other situations, however, one basket stretcher may not be
adequate to ensure that one is readily accessible. In very large
shipyards that have several work locations with hundreds, if not
thousands, of employees working far apart on vessels and vessel
sections, more than one basket stretcher may be needed to ensure that
one is readily accessible to each work location. Some SESAC members
also said additional stretchers should be provided where it is
necessary to speed up removal of injured employees (Docket SESAC 1993-
1, Ex. 100X, p. 159). Having additional stretchers allows first aid
providers to ready other injured employees for removal while the first
employee is being lifted to shore.
    OSHA believes the proposed revision is a reasonable approach that
will provide effective protection for employees. In certain
circumstances, basket stretchers will need to be provided even when
fewer than 10 employees are working onboard a vessel, an issue that
concerned SESAC (Docket SESAC 1993-1, Ex. 100X, p. 147). At the same
time, it gives employers flexibility to tailor their efforts to the
specific conditions and equipment present at the work area.
    OSHA requests comment on the proposed provision. In your
establishment how many basket stretchers are provided and where are
they located? Are basket stretchers provided for vessel sections and
when fewer than 10 employees are working onboard a vessel or vessel
section? If not, what measures are used to ensure that injured
employees are removed safely and quickly in these situations?
    Exception. In paragraph (f)(1), OSHA proposes to delete language in
the existing rule (Sec.  1915.98(d)) stating that the requirement to
provide basket stretchers does not apply where ambulance services are
available and carry such stretchers. OSHA believes this language is no
longer necessary since the proposed language in paragraph (f)(1)
ensures that basket stretchers are ``readily accessible.'' The proposal
gives employers flexibility to provide their own stretchers or utilize
the stretchers provided by local emergency squads if they are readily
accessible. OSHA requests comment on whether local emergency squads are
readily accessible to vessel work locations and whether they have
basket stretchers that meet the proposed requirements. To what extent
do shipyard employers rely on local emergency squads to provide basket
stretchers?
    Specifications for basket stretchers. In paragraph (f)(2), OSHA
proposes to retain, with revisions, the existing specification
requirements for basket stretchers (Sec.  1915.98(d)). Proposed
paragraph (f)(2)(i) retains the existing requirement that basket
stretchers have permanent lifting bridles to enable the stretcher to be
attached to hoisting gear. OSHA proposes to add a strength requirement
that basket stretcher bridles be capable of lifting at least 5,000
pounds (2,270 kg), which provides a safety factor of five. The proposed
addition is based on requirements in the Marine Terminals and
Longshoring standards, which were updated in 1997 (Sec. Sec.
1917.26(d) and 1918.97(d)).
    In paragraph (f)(2)(ii) OSHA proposes to add a requirement that
basket stretchers have restraints that are capable of securely holding
the injured employee while the stretcher is lifted or moved. This
addition is also based on the Marine Terminals and Longshoring
standards (Sec. Sec.  1917.26(d)(4) and 1918.97(d)(4)). OSHA believes
it is appropriate to apply the Marine Terminals and Longshoring
provisions to shipyard employment because the use of basket stretchers
and the working conditions are similar. The proposed changes should not
pose a problem for shipyard employers because most basket stretchers
already meet those criteria.
    Finally, in paragraph (f)(2)(iii) OSHA proposes to retain the
existing requirement that each basket stretcher have a blanket or other
suitable covering to cover injured employees and protect them from
environmental conditions.
    OSHA requests comment on the proposed specifications for basket
stretchers. The Marine Terminals and Longshoring standards also have
specifications for stretchers and bridles to make vertical patient
lifts (Sec. Sec.  1917.26(d)(5) and 1918.97(d)(5)). OSHA requests
comment on whether the final standard should include those additional
specifications.

    Storage of basket stretchers. In paragraph (f)(3), OSHA proposes to
add a requirement that basket stretchers be stored in a clearly-marked
location and in a manner that prevents damage and provides protection
from environmental conditions. The proposed language is based on
similar requirements in the Marine Terminals and Longshoring standards
(1917.26(d)(7) and 1918.97(d)(7)).
    The addition of this provision would accomplish two goals. First,
requiring storage areas to be clearly marked helps to ensure that
stretchers are easy to locate when they are needed. Second, storing
stretchers so they are protected from damage and environmental
conditions prevents deterioration of the equipment. OSHA requests
comment on the proposed provision. In your establishment and industry,
how are basket stretchers stored to protect them from damage and
environmental conditions? How are storage areas marked to ensure easy
access?
    Inspection. Proposed paragraph (f)(4) would require the employer to
inspect stretchers at intervals that ensure they remain in safe and
serviceable condition. This is a flexible, performance-based measure
similar to the requirement to inspect first aid supplies to ensure they
are adequate. This proposed measure will assure that lifesaving
equipment functions properly when needed in an emergency and is
particularly important if basket stretchers are not used frequently.

Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs)

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

Section 1915.88 Sanitation

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

existing requirements, and a brief explanation of all proposed changes.
The preamble discussion following Table 3 focuses on the relatively few
substantive changes being proposed, the Agency's rationale for these
changes, and related issues. In addition, the discussion includes
responses to various SESAC recommendations, as appropriate.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20DE07.000

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20DE07.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20DE07.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20DE07.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20DE07.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20DE07.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20DE07.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20DE07.007

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C

    Most of the changes in this proposal are adequately discussed in
Table 3. However, some provisions require additional discussion and
explanation. The following section provides additional discussion
concerning these elements of the proposal and raises specific issues
for public comment.
    Paragraph (a)--General Requirements--Paragraph (a) incorporates a
series of general requirements for the accessibility, adequacy, and
maintenance of sanitation facilities in shipyards. It simplifies the
existing standards and makes them apply more uniformly throughout the
shipyard. The proposal also uses a new term, ``sanitation facilities''
(defined in Sec.  1915.95), to cover the wide range of elements that
employers provide for the ``health and personal needs of employees.''
Sanitation facilities include drinking water, toilets, handcleaning
facilities, showers, changing rooms, and eating and drinking areas. The
term also includes the supplies for those facilities, such as drinking
cups, toilet paper, towels, soap, and waterless cleaning agents.
    A sanitation facility cannot meet the employee's health needs
unless it meets all the requirements addressing accessibility, adequacy
and maintenance. For instance, if toilets are provided but are all
located too far away, employees may have to refrain from using
facilities, or from drinking during the workshift so they will not need
to use them. Employees may do the same thing if toilets, particularly
portable ones, are dirty, not serviced regularly, or require a long
wait. These actions can result in significant adverse health effects
(Ex. 12).
    Proposed paragraph (a)(1) requires that sanitation facilities be
(1) readily accessible, and (2) adequate for the number of employees at
the work premises. Employers must provide sanitation facilities that
meet both requirements in order to be considered in compliance.
    Readily accessible. Unlike the sanitation standards for marine
terminals, longshoring, and field sanitation (Sec. Sec.  1917.127,
1918.127, 1928.110, respectively), the current sanitation standards for
shipyards do not directly address the accessibility of sanitation
facilities. Paragraph (a)(1) of proposed Sec.  1915.88 remedies this
omission, using performance-oriented language. Ready access to
sanitation facilities helps to protect employee health and reduce the
risk of adverse health effects. For example, lack of ready access to
drinking water can result in dehydration, which can be fatal,
especially in hot and humid working conditions. Ready access to
sanitation facilities will also increase the likelihood of their use,
reducing the risks associated with delayed use.
    In order for sanitation facilities to be considered ``readily
accessible,'' employees must be able to reach the facilities quickly
whenever they need to use them, and there must be no obstacles to
gaining quick access. OSHA recognizes that whether sanitation
facilities are readily accessible depends on the type of sanitation
facility, the sizes and locations of worksites, and physical
characteristics of the shipyard. In small shipyards, sanitation
facilities may be readily accessible if they are located in one area.
However, where worksites are large and spread out, toilets, handwashing
facilities and drinking water located in only one location would likely
not be considered readily accessible.
    Sanitation facilities also must be readily accessible to shipyard
employees who work onboard vessels. Where employees work on a small
vessel, sanitation facilities may be readily accessible if they are
located dockside. However, where employees work on a large vessel, they
may not be able to get to facilities quickly enough if such facilities
are located only on the dock. Sanitation facilities may need to be
located on deck or in various places throughout the vessel to ensure
employees have ready access when they need to use them. When the ship's
toilet and handwashing facilities are not available to shipyard
employees working onboard vessels (e.g., the ship is being built or
systems are turned off during repair) the employer needs to make other
arrangements to ensure that such facilities are readily accessible.
    Whether sanitation facilities are readily accessible is also
related to how frequently they must be used during a workshift. For
example, drinking water supplies, especially during hot and humid
summer weather, must be at or close to the employee's immediate work
area. Employees who perform heavy manual labor, work with heat-
producing equipment, or must spend time in spaces that are not well
ventilated or air-conditioned need to have enough drinking water close
at hand to prevent dehydration. On the other hand, changing rooms and
eating areas that are used only once or twice during a workshift may
not need to be as close to the work area.
    OSHA notes that other sanitation standards specify maximum
distances for locating sanitation facilities relative to employee work
areas. For example, the OSHA Field Sanitation standard requires that
toilet facilities be located within a one-quarter-mile walk of each
employee's place of work (Sec.  1928.110(c)(2)(iii)). ANSI Z4.1
requires that potable water and sewered toilet facilities be located
within 200 feet of any place where employees are regularly engaged in
work (Ex. 3-6, Sec. Sec.  5.1.1 and 6.1.2).
    On July 29, 1998, a shipyard employee was finishing up a workshift
where he was operating grinding and sanding equipment on two decks of a
ship. He clocked out at 2:30 p.m., got a ride to his supervisor's
office to get some information, and was driven back to the wet dock. He
was walking to the bike area when he became dizzy and fell to his
knees. His supervisor picked him up and gave him water and a cold
compress. He was transported to the first aid station, where he was
given oxygen and ice packs were placed on his head and under his arms.
When he later collapsed, emergency medical technicians ventilated and
defibrillated him. He died later at a hospital from heat exhaustion and
heat stroke, possibly from not having enough drinking water readily
accessible at his work location. The existing drinking water
requirements specify that employers provide potable water ``in all
places of employment'' (Sec.  1910.141(b)(1)), but do not identify
where water supplies must be located in those workplaces. The proposed
rule clarifies the existing requirements by specifying that employers
must provide adequate and ``readily accessible'' drinking water in
amounts that meet the health and personal needs of each employee at the
worksite (proposed Sec.  1915.87(a)(1) and (b)(2)). In the summary and
explanation of Sec.  1915.87, OSHA also identifies factors that
employers need to consider in determining how much drinking water they
must supply and where it must be located. These factors include size
and location of worksites, frequency of use, and environmental
conditions such as hot weather. Had the proposed clarifications been in
place, it would have been clearer that the shipyard employer needed to
ensure that the employee had adequate drinking water accessible at
their work location on the vessel.
    OSHA requests comment on the proposed requirement for location of
sanitation facilities. In particular, OSHA requests comment on whether
the final rule should contain more specific requirements for the
location of sanitation facilities, especially toilet facilities. For
example, should the final rule specify maximum distances, maximum
walking times (e.g., 5 or 10

minutes), or other objective criteria for determining where sanitation
facilities must be located in the workplace? Should different
specifications be developed for specific types of sanitation
facilities? OSHA seeks information on where sanitation facilities are
located and what criteria are used to make this determination.
    Serviceable Condition. Paragraph (a)(2) proposes to add language
making more explicit OSHA's longstanding policy that employers supply
and maintain sanitation facilities in clean, sanitary and serviceable
condition. The current general industry standard specifies that
employers must keep all places of employment clean (Sec.
1910.141(a)(3)(i)). The proposal clarifies that this requirement
applies to sanitation facilities at workplaces. The proposal also
retains existing language on maintaining sanitary conditions from the
current lavatory requirements (Sec.  1910.141(d)(1)).
    Paragraph (a)(2), adds a proposed requirement for employers to
maintain sanitation facilities in ``serviceable condition,'' which OSHA
proposes to define (in Sec.  1915.95) as the state or ability of a
device to operate as it was intended by the manufacturer to operate.
OSHA is including this new proposed provision primarily because the
proposed rule allows the use of portable toilet facilities. Portable
toilet facilities that are not properly serviced can become unsanitary
and overflow, thereby exposing employees to contaminants or causing
them to avoid using the facilities. While OSHA is not specifying
detailed servicing requirements in the proposed rule, the Agency notes
that ANSI Z4.3 contains useful information on servicing practices for
portable toilets (Ex. 3-7).
    OSHA requests comment on this provision. OSHA seeks information on
the measures in place to ensure that sanitation facilities and supplies
are maintained in clean, sanitary and serviceable condition. How often
are sanitation facilities inspected, cleaned, and restocked? Are there
different procedures and/or schedules for portable toilet facilities as
opposed to other sanitation facilities?
    Paragraph (b) Potable water--Proposed Sec.  1915.88(b)(3) would
expand the existing rule to allow employers to provide drinking water
in single use bottles. OSHA requests comment on the proposal. Where and
to what extent are single use drinking water bottles used in your
shipyard?
    OSHA is also considering adding a requirement to the final standard
requiring employers to ensure that drinking water is ``suitably cool,''
a requirement from OSHA's Field Sanitation standard (Sec.
1928.110(c)(1)(ii)). The preamble to that standard explained that when
employees work in hot and humid temperatures, the temperature of
drinking water needs to be low enough to encourage them to drink and to
cool their core body temperature (52 FR 16087). Some shipyard employees
also work in very hot and humid environments. Cool water could help
promote adequate hydration and reduce the risk of heat-related
illnesses. OSHA requests comment on this issue. OSHA seeks information
on the measures that have been implemented to ensure that drinking
water is cool, especially for employees working on board vessels or in
hot and humid weather.
    Paragraph (d) Toilet Facilities--Proposed paragraph (d) adopts the
existing requirements on sewered toilets and as noted in Table 3, the
proposal would add a new paragraph (d)(3) to cover portable toilet
facilities, which are not addressed by Sec.  1910.141(c).
    Because of the proposed additions for portable toilets, OSHA
proposes to replace the existing term ``toilet facility'' with the
terms ``sewered toilet facility'' and ``portable toilet facility.''
These terms are used in the current ANSI Z4.1 and Z4.3 standards,
respectively (Ex. 3-6, Sec.  2.4; Ex. 3-7, Sec. Sec.  2 and 5). OSHA
proposes to define these terms in Sec.  1915.95. ``Sewered toilet
facility'' would be defined to mean a fixture that is connected to a
sanitary sewer, septic tank, holding tank (e.g., bilge), or on-site
sewage disposal treatment facility and that is flushed with water. In
contrast, ``portable toilet facility'' would be defined to mean a non-
sewered toilet that may be either non-flushable, or flushable with
water or a non-water flushing solution. Most portable toilet facilities
used in shipyards are non-flush chemical toilet facilities.
    Paragraph (d)(2) Sewered toilet facilities--Minimum number of
sewered toilet facilities. Proposed paragraph (d)(2) would retain the
existing requirements of Sec.  1910.141 for the minimum number of
sewered toilet facilities employers must provide for men and women.
While the required numbers of facilities vary depending on the total
number of employees at the work site, the basic requirement is commonly
referred to as a ratio of one toilet for every 15 employees, and OSHA
will use that terminology. OSHA adopted this requirement (Table J-1 of
Sec.  1910.141) from the 1968 ANSI Z4.1 standard through notice and
comment rulemaking in 1973 (38 FR 10930, 10931 (5/3/1973)). It has been
part of the general industry standards since that time. By contrast to
the OSHA standard, the current ANSI standard has a different table of
ratios (Table 4, ANSI Z4.1-1995), with a basic ratio of 1 toilet per 9
employees. In the three decades since OSHA adopted its standard, nearly
90 percent of the States, at either the State or local level, have
adopted the 2003 International Plumbing Code (IPC 2003), which
incorporates the requirements of the ANSI Z4.1-1995 standard (one
toilet per 9 employees).

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

    OSHA requests comment on the proposal to retain the 1:15 toilet
ratio from the existing standard. Should OSHA adopt the 1:9 ratio in
the current ANSI Z4.1 and IPC 2003 standards? Would such adoption
significantly improve OSHA's protection of employee health, and in what
manner? What costs, if any, would result? If OSHA were to adopt the
ANSI/IPC table, should its application be limited in any way, such as
to facilities built after a certain date (e.g., the date the ANSI or
IPC standards were adopted)?
    Questions have been raised about whether toilet facilities are
distributed adequately throughout shipyards. As noted earlier, the
field sanitation and ANSI standards establish more specific
requirements for location of toilet facilities relative to the location
of the employee, 1/4 mile and 200 feet, respectively (Sec.
1928.110(c)(2)(iii); ANSI Z4.1, Sec.  5.1.1 (Ex. 3-6)). OSHA requests
comment on whether the final rule should contain specific requirements
for the location of toilet facilities in shipyards. If not, why not? If
so, what specifications should OSHA use? Should the same or different
specifications apply for both sewered and portable toilets? Please
explain.
    Portable toilet facilities. As discussed in Table 3, proposed Sec.
1915.88(d)(3) would allow employers to supplement the required numbers
of sewered toilet facilities with either sewered or portable toilet
facilities. OSHA's Marine Terminals, Longshoring, Construction, and
Field Sanitation standards all permit the use of portable toilet
facilities (Sec. Sec.  1917.127(a)(1)(iv); 1918.95(a)(1)(iv);
1926.51(c)(3);

1928.110(b); see also ANSI Z4.1 Sec. Sec.  2.9 and 6.4).
    OSHA believes that allowing the use of portable toilet facilities
in this manner will enhance employee safety and health and will not
result in any adverse effects. This provision is justified by the
significant improvements in portable toilet technology in recent years.
Portable toilet facilities now contain the type of equipment necessary
to provide for employee health needs at levels approaching that of the
existing standard. For example, many portable toilet facilities are now
manufactured with handwashing facilities that include hand towels,
waste receptacles, and either running water or waterless cleaning
agents. In addition, some portable facilities have flushable toilets
(Ex. 2-3).
    Allowing the use of portable toilet facilities will encourage
employers to provide more facilities than the minimum required by the
standard. It will enable them to provide such additional facilities
without incurring construction expenses and inconvenience. OSHA
believes that by allowing employers to also provide portable toilets,
employers would be more likely to provide toilets in numbers that are
closer to the 1 to 9 ratio in the ANSI Z4.1 and Z4.3 standards (Exs. 3-
6; 3-7).
    Permitting the use of portable toilets would allow and encourage
employers to provide facilities in those work locations where it is
extremely difficult if not impracticable to have sewage carriage
systems. For example, employers could provide them on vessels, in dry
docks, and in work locations where local plumbing or building codes
prohibit installation of sewage systems. Allowing the use of portable
toilet facilities also gives employers more flexibility in responding
to changing workplace conditions. For example, it allows employers to
respond quickly when work moves from location to location within the
shipyard.
    Finally, OSHA believes that allowing portable toilet facilities
will enhance employee safety and health because it makes these
facilities more accessible and thus more likely to be used. As
mentioned, this is particularly important in work areas onboard
vessels, where a significant portion of shipyard employees work and
where sewered facilities may not be practicable.
    OSHA requests comment on the proposed requirements for portable
toilet facilities. What additional requirements, if any, should the
final rule include in order to ensure that portable toilet facilities
provide a level of service close to that provided by sewered toilet
facilities?
    OSHA is considering adding a provision that would require employers
to provide portable toilet facilities in certain areas where it is
unlikely sewered facilities could be installed such as in those areas
of the workplace where there is a lack of water or the temporary nature
of the work makes installing sewered toilet facilities impracticable.
These work areas may include work onboard vessels and vessel sections
and in dry docks. OSHA requests comment on whether the final rule
should require employers to provide portable toilet facilities in these
types of situations. If not, why not? If so, in what situations should
they be required? How many portable toilets, at a minimum, should
employers be required to provide? For instance, should OSHA adopt the
ratios (i.e., toilets per employees) established in the ANSI Z4.3
standard?
    OSHA requests comment on the use of portable toilet facilities in
shipyards. When and where are portable toilet facilities used? What
factors determine how many to provide and when and where to provide
them?
    Exemption. In paragraphs (d)(4) and (e)(3), OSHA proposes to
combine and retain provisions exempting employers from providing toilet
and handwashing facilities for mobile crews and for employees working
in normally unattended worksites, provided that these employees have
immediately available transportation to readily accessible sanitation
facilities that meet the requirements of this section. The availability
of vehicles at a worksite does not necessarily mean that the employees
at that worksite are a ``mobile crew.'' OSHA has interpreted the term
``mobile crew'' to be limited to employees who continually or
frequently move from jobsite to jobsite on a daily or hourly basis and
to exclude employees who report to a worksite for days, weeks, or
longer (Ex. 2-21; OSHA letter of interpretation to Nicolas Mertz, June
7, 2002).
    For the purposes of these exceptions, ``immediately available
transportation'' means that the vehicle is already at the specific
worksite or can be summoned quickly enough so employees are able to get
to facilities quickly. OSHA has interpreted ``nearby'' facilities as
being within ten minutes of the employees work area (Ex. 2-21). Nearby
toilet facilities must be in clean, sanitary and serviceable condition,
and adequate for the number of employees who need to use them. Nearby
handwashing facilities would have to be equipped with waterless
cleaning agents or soap, water (i.e., hot and cold or lukewarm), and
hand towels or warm air blowers.
    OSHA requests comment on the proposed exemption. Should OSHA limit
these exemptions in any way? For example, with the increasing
availability of waterless cleaning agents, should OSHA require that
mobile crews be provided with such supplies? What measures do shipyards
currently use to ensure that mobile crews have immediate access to
transportation to nearby toilet facilities?
    Paragraph (e) Handwashing Facilities--Location of handwashing
facilities. In paragraph (e)(1), OSHA proposes to add a requirement
that handwashing facilities be located ``at or adjacent to each toilet
facility,'' sewered and portable toilet facilities alike. This
provision is necessary, in major part, to ensure that employees' health
needs are met in those worksites where portable toilet facilities are
or will be used. Some portable toilet facilities are not equipped with
handwashing facilities and separate or stand-alone facilities are not
always placed next to or close to portable toilets. This is
particularly true onboard vessels and vessel sections. Often, employees
must go to landside facilities, which may be located a significant
distance away, to clean their hands. As a result, employees may not
clean their hands when they are exposed to contaminants, after using a
portable toilet, or before eating, drinking, or smoking, which puts
them at risk of adverse health effects.
    OSHA believes the proposed performance language gives employers
flexibility in complying and should not pose problems, even at
worksites where there is a lack of piped water or sewer lines. Many
portable toilet facilities manufactured today contain either
handwashing facilities or waterless cleaning agents. In addition,
portable, stand-alone hand cleaning facilities are available and can be
placed adjacent to portable toilet facilities. A single stand-alone
handwashing facility may be able to serve several portable toilet
facilities that are placed in one location. OSHA requests comment on
the proposal.
    Hand cleaning agents. OSHA proposes in paragraph (e)(2) to revise
the existing requirements (Sec.  1910.141(d)(2)(ii) and (iii)) to allow
handwashing facilities to be equipped with either (1) soap and hot and
cold or lukewarm running water, or (2) waterless cleaning agents. The
existing standard, as well as most of OSHA's other sanitation
standards, requires that handwashing facilities have soap and running
water (Sec. Sec.  1910.141(d)(2)(ii) and

(iii), 1910.142(f)(3), 1917.127(a)(1)(i) and (ii), 1918.95(a)(1)(i) and
(ii), 1928.110(b)). However, the Bloodborne Pathogens standard permits
the use of alternatives (e.g., antiseptic hand cleaners) in limited
circumstances (Sec.  1910.1030(d)(2)(iii) and (iv)).
    OSHA has not proposed that the use of waterless cleaning agents be
limited to those situations in which the lack of water or the temporary
nature of the installation makes running water impracticable. OSHA does
not believe the limitation is necessary since it is likely that
waterless agents will be used most often in conjunction with portable
toilet facilities. Whatever cleaning agents are used, the employer will
be responsible for ensuring that they are effective in disinfecting the
skin or removing the contaminants to which employees are exposed. In
addition, the employer must select waterless agents that will not
result in absorption of contaminants, sensitization of the skin, or
other adverse health effects.
    In OSHA's rulemaking on Bloodborne Pathogens, a number of
organizations, including the Association for Professionals in Infection
Control (APIC), the American Red Cross, Johns Hopkins University, and
the American Society of Microbiology, supported allowing the use of
waterless cleaners in those situations in which water was not available
(56 FR 64004, 64116-17 (12/6/1991)). The National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) said antiseptic hand cleaners
and disposable disinfectant towelettes also were effective alternatives
for soap and water for employees working in areas where there is a lack
of running water (56 FR 64116). Based on the evidence in the record,
OSHA accepted the use of alternative hand cleaning methods as an
interim measure when soap and water are not feasible (e.g.,
firefighters, EMTs, police, paramedics). As noted in Table 3 above, the
present record contains several studies conducted since that time, all
of which further support the efficacy of waterless cleansers. Recent
studies also show that waterless cleaners such as alcohol-based hand
rubs reduce the number of bacteria on the hand more effectively than
soap and water (Ex. 2-24). Alcohol gels, for instance, have been found
to have excellent immediate antimicrobial effects and may reduce skin
irritation that can occur from frequent washing with soap and water
(Ex. 2-22). However, in certain circumstances they may accelerate the
absorption of contaminants through the skin.
    A number of shipyard operations are done at worksites where it may
be difficult to provide running water and soap. Therefore, based on
recent information and evidence, OSHA believes there is a practical
need to allow the use of waterless cleaning and decontamination
products in shipyards.
    OSHA requests comment on the proposal to allow the optional use of
waterless cleaning agents. In your establishment, to what extent are
waterless cleaning agents used? If waterless cleaners are used, have
they been received favorably by employees, and have employees
experienced any problems with the cleaners (e.g., allergic reaction)?
    Paragraph (j) Vermin control--OSHA proposes to revise the
application of the existing requirement (Sec.  1910.141(a)(5)) on
vermin control to make the provision more appropriate to shipyard
employment. The existing requirement to clean and maintain the
workplace in a manner that prevents the harborage of vermin only
applies to ``enclosed'' workplaces. Proposed paragraph (j)(1) would
extend its application by requiring the employer to take those steps
necessary to control vermin throughout the shipyard. Thus, employers
would need to expand their vermin control efforts to include outdoor
worksites. Evidence in the record shows that employees working at
outdoor worksites, as well as in enclosed spaces, need to be protected
from the hazards associated with exposure to vermin (Ex. 2-12). For
example, employees working near water are at risk of disease if
mosquito populations are not adequately controlled. In addition, birds
and rodents can transmit disease directly and through their feces (see
http://www.hhs.gov and http://www.cdc.gov for information on vermin
related diseases).
    At the same time, OSHA recognizes that it is not possible to
prevent all vermin, especially birds and insects, from entering outdoor
worksites. Therefore, the proposal retains the existing provision
requiring employers to take only those steps that are ``reasonably
practicable'' to prevent the harborage of vermin.
    In paragraph (j)(2), OSHA proposes to retain unchanged the existing
requirement (Sec.  1910.141(a)(5)) that employers implement and
maintain an effective control program where vermin are detected. OSHA
proposes to define ``vermin'' to include insects, birds, and other
animals, such as rodents and feral cats (proposed Sec.  1915.95).
    OSHA requests comment on the proposed vermin control provisions.
What vermin are present and what types of controls are used to prevent
their harborage in shipyard worksites?

Section 1915.89 Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout)

    In Sec.  1915.89, OSHA proposes to add requirements addressing the
control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout) during the servicing of
machines, equipment and systems. The approach OSHA is proposing to
adopt is that of the general industry standard (Sec.  1910.147), with
minor revisions. (The general industry standard does not apply to
shipyard employment.) The following discussion covers the need for a
comprehensive lockout/tagout rule in shipyards, why OSHA is proposing
to adopt the general industry approach, the requirements of the general
industry standard, and the differences between proposed Sec.  1915.89
and Sec.  1910.147. In addition, this section includes an in-depth
discussion of the application of the lockout/tagout standard while
servicing commercial vessels, such as fish processing vessels. While
OSHA welcomes comments on any and all aspects of the proposed standard,
the discussion also includes specific issues for which OSHA is seeking
comment on the proposal.
    The need for a comprehensive lockout/tagout standard in shipyards.
OSHA believes that a comprehensive rule protecting shipyard employees
from hazardous energy during servicing, maintenance and repair
operations is needed for several reasons. First, information in the
record indicates that potential hazardous energy exposures are present
throughout shipyard employment, on vessels and vessel sections as well
as in landside operations (Exs. 9, 11). Servicing operations, which
include activities such as constructing, installing and repairing
equipment, are some of the riskiest operations in shipyard employment.
For example, employees servicing ship's systems face considerable risk
of injury from energization of those systems because they are often
large and complex, and frequently have multiple power sources. That
risk is compounded further when ships' crews and outside contractors
also work onboard the vessel, which is a common occurrence.
    There are numerous injuries and fatalities in shipyard employment
that would be prevented by an effective lockout/tagout program.
According to 2002 data from the BLS annual survey of occupational
injuries and illnesses, in 30.3 percent of the shipyard injury and
illness cases involving days away from work, the case resulted from
contact with an object or equipment, and 1.8 percent of the cases
resulted from being caught in equipment. According to BLS

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

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

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

    Why OSHA is proposing to adopt the general industry approach? Based
on a review of the information and consultations with SESAC, the Agency
is proposing to adopt, with limited modifications, the same approach
and requirements as the general industry lockout/tagout standard. OSHA
believes this approach is appropriate for several reasons. First, the
general industry standard has provided effective protection for
affected employees. A lookback review of the general industry standard,
conducted pursuant to Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and Section 5 of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
concluded that the standard had been effective in reducing fatalities
(65 FR 38302 (6/20/2002)). The review also concluded that the standard
did not impose a significant impact on small business.
    In addition to these analyses, commenters who participated in the
lookback review, including companies (e.g., Bell Atlantic and Kodak),
unions (e.g., United Auto Workers, United Steel Workers of America, and
the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers), employer groups
(e.g., Organization Resources Counselors, Inc.), and professional
societies (e.g., the American Society of Safety Engineers), stated that
the standard had been effective in saving lives and preventing
injuries. Most comments supported continuation of the standard because
it had been effective in achieving its employee protection goals (65 FR
38304).
    Second, many shipyard employers already have implemented lockout/
tagout programs modeled on the general industry standard, and have
reported that these programs have been effective in reducing the risk
of harm associated with servicing operations. In addition, SESAC
recommended using the proposed general industry approach as the
framework for a recommended lockout/tagout rule for shipyards (Docket
SESAC 1993-3, Ex. 104X, p).
    Third, OSHA believes that the comprehensive energy control
procedures, which are the cornerstone of the general industry standard,
are particularly appropriate for addressing the types of workplace
conditions and hazardous energy that are present in shipyard
employment. The comprehensive procedures consist primarily of steps for
deenergization, isolation of equipment from energy sources, and
verification of deenergization before servicing operations are begun.
OSHA believes that isolation of equipment from the energy sources in
combination with adherence to established deenergization and
energization procedures, and not just the application of locks or tags,
is what ensures that employees are adequately protected (54 FR 36655).
Locks and tags are applied after machines or equipment have been
isolated. If equipment is not properly isolated and the procedures for
deenergization and verification are not followed, neither application
of a lock nor a tag will fully ensure employees are protected. This is
especially true where systems, such as ship's systems, are complex,
have several energy sources, or are serviced at the same time by many
employees or crews who may work for different employers.
    The comprehensive isolation and deenergization procedures in the
general industry standard are also important where systems are not
capable of being locked out, which is the situation for many ship's
systems since shipyard employers do not own the ship's systems they
service. In addition, the procedures the standard requires address
conditions that are commonly present in shipyards, including multiple
employer worksites and group servicing operations by multiple crews.
Because of the range of workplace factors present in shipyard servicing
operations, OSHA believes the comprehensive energy procedures in the
general industry standard are necessary and appropriate to ensure that
shipyard employees are adequately protected. Moreover, adopting the
standard's employee training requirements will help to ensure that
employees understand and adhere to the energy control procedures.
    Fourth, OSHA believes that the general industry standard is
appropriate because shipyard employment also includes landside
operations, which are quite similar to general industry worksites.
Landside facilities, such as metal fabrication shops, machine shops,
electrical shops, sheet metal shops, and paint shops, are analogous to
general industry shops performing the same types of work. Thus, the
general industry requirements are readily applicable and appropriate
for those operations.
    Fifth, OSHA believes the general industry standard will be
effective in controlling hazardous energy in complex shipyard work
environments and in servicing complex ship's systems because the
standard has proven effective under the same types of complex
conditions found in general industry. The general industry lockout/
tagout standard has been applied to approximately one million
facilities, including complex chemical plants, petroleum refineries,
nuclear power plants and motor vehicle assembly operations (65 FR
38303). The standard has been used to protect employees manufacturing
sophisticated transportation equipment, such as train locomotives,
aircraft and space vehicles. The general industry standard has also
been applied in the manufacturing of complex military equipment, such
as tanks, weapons systems and guided missiles.
    Similar to ship's systems, some equipment and systems used in
general industry have multiple sources and types of energy, back-up
energy sources, and separate circuits for critical power needs (e.g.,
lighting). In addition, servicing operations in various general
industry workplaces involve systems that may be located far away from
system energy sources, just as energy sources of ship's systems are
often located landside. Both general industry and shipyard servicing
operations often involve contractors, work on equipment and systems the
employer does not own, and have great variations in the equipment and
systems being serviced.
    Even though there may be some unique conditions in shipyards, OSHA
believes that the flexibility of the general industry standard ensures
that it will be effective in controlling hazardous energy in shipyard
servicing operations. OSHA requests comment on the proposal to apply
the general industry lockout/tagout standard to shipyard employment.
Are there any unique conditions in shipyards that make the general
industry standard incompatible or inapplicable to shipyard employment?
If so, please describe those conditions. The performance-based approach
of the general industry standard gives employers flexibility in
determining the type of energy control procedures that would most
effectively protect shipyard employees who are servicing particular
machines, equipment and systems. This flexibility will also allow
shipyard employers to tailor their energy control procedures so they
adequately address specific conditions that may have unique
applications in shipyard servicing operations.
    Adopting a lockout/tagout rule for shipyards that is consistent
with the general industry requirements has several advantages. Colleges
and safety and health training providers have trained large numbers of
safety and health professionals on the general industry standard.
Having similar standards for shipyards would help to ensure that there
are adequate numbers of trained safety and health professionals
available to help shipyard employers as they implement the

standard. It would also ensure that the numerous lockout/tagout
publications and outreach materials OSHA has developed for the general
industry standard are useable and immediately available to help
shipyards comply with the provisions and protect their employees.
Moreover, it would mean that the materials NIOSH, the states, and
private organizations have developed for the general industry standard
could be easily applied to shipyards.
    Control of Hazardous Energy Onboard Commercial Vessels. OSHA
proposes to include language in both proposed Sec.  1915.89 and
existing Sec.  1910.147 to clarify several issues concerning the
application of the hazardous energy standards to servicing operations
onboard commercial vessels. In large part, these proposed additions are
in response to recent events that have raised concerns about how OSHA
covers the serious hazards associated with servicing of equipment and
systems on fish processing vessels.
    Fish processing vessels, often called ``floating fish factories,''
are commercial vessels that eviscerate, clean and prepare fresh, frozen
and canned seafood. Generally, fish processing vessels perform the same
operations and use the same types of equipment as landside fish
processing plants; they just do so at sea. These vessels usually set
anchor in fishing grounds for weeks or months at a time, processing
fish and seafood that fishing boats unload onto them (Ex. 16-1). Some
vessels, known as catcher/processors, also catch the seafood they
process (Exs.16-1 through 16-3). Fish processing equipment onboard
these vessels, as in landside facilities, is specific to the type of
seafood being processed. Thus, at the end of each fishing season when
the vessel returns to port new equipment is installed to process fish
that will be caught during the next fishing season (Ex. 16-2).
    OSHA estimates that there are about 200 U.S. fish processing
vessels operating in and traveling through U.S. territorial waters
(Exs. 16-1; 16-4). While the number of employees working on fish
processing vessels is difficult to ascertain, OSHA estimates that each
vessel employs about 100 to 120 processing employees, who live on the
vessel throughout the season, for a total of approximately 2,500
employees (Ex. 16-2).
    The need to address the hazards associated with servicing fish
processing equipment was brought to OSHA's attention by a serious
accident onboard a fish processing vessel working in the Bering Sea. On
October 16, 2005, an employee, who was cleaning a vat used to process
fish paste onboard a fish processing vessel, was seriously injured when
the augers at the bottom of the vat suddenly started up. The churning
augers trapped the employee's feet and legs and drew them into the
machinery. It took coworkers two hours to free the employee from the
machinery and another half day for a helicopter to arrive and airlift
her off the vessel. The employee was flown to a hospital in Anchorage,
Alaska, where her legs had to be amputated below the knees (Ex. 16-3).
    Recently published injury statistics on the commercial fishing
industry also support the need to address hazardous energy during
servicing operations onboard floating fish factories. A study of
serious injuries from 1991-98, collected by the Alaska Trauma Registry,
determined that injuries related to fish processing equipment onboard
vessels were the leading cause of injury in the industry (Ex. 16-5).
These injuries accounted for more than one half of all injuries
reported and many could have been prevented by implementing programs to
control hazardous energy and applying lockout/tagout systems during
servicing.
    In light of these incidents, OSHA proposes to change its existing
policy on the coverage of servicing and maintenance activities onboard
commercial vessels, particularly fish processing vessels. In short,
OSHA proposes adding language to Sec.  1915.89 and Sec.  1910.147
specifying that:
     Proposed Sec.  1915.89 applies to the servicing of ship's
systems by any employee, including but not limited to, ship's officers
and crew of the vessel (see proposed Sec.  1915.89(a)(2)(i)(A));
     Proposed Sec.  1915.89 applies to the servicing of
machines, equipment and systems that employees use in the course of
performing shipyard employment operations (see proposed Sec.
1915.89(a)(2)(i)(B)); and
     Existing Sec.  1910.147, and not proposed Sec.  1915.89,
applies to the servicing of equipment onboard vessels that is used for
inherently general industry operations such as fish processing (see
Sec.  1910.147(a) and proposed Sec.  1915.89(a)(2)(iii)(C)).
    Background and current policy. In order to fully explain OSHA's
proposed changes, it is important to understand OSHA's current policy
on the coverage of commercial vessels. This section discusses OSHA and
U.S. Coast Guard authority over vessels, OSHA's current exemption of
maritime employment from Sec.  1910.147, and OSHA's current policy
concerning application of Sec.  1910.147 to floating fish processors.
    Coast Guard/OSHA authority over vessels. Both OSHA and the U.S.
Coast Guard have authority for the safety and health of employees
onboard vessels. The Coast Guard has statutory authority to prescribe
and enforce regulations affecting safety and health onboard inspected
vessels and has exercised that authority. Therefore, OSHA does not have
authority over those vessels (29 U.S.C. 653(b)(1); Chao v. Mallard Bay
Drilling, Inc. (Mallard Bay), 534 U.S. 235 (2002); Ex. 16-6; CPL 02-01-
020 Coast Guard/OSHA Authority Over Vessels, 11/8/1996). However, OSHA
does have authority over uninspected vessels (hereafter ``commercial
vessels'') to the extent that the U.S. Coast Guard has not regulated a
specific hazard or working condition (Mallard Bay, 534 U.S. at 244-45;
Ex. 16-6). Almost all vessels used in the fish processing industry are
uninspected, therefore they are within OSHA's authority (Ex. 16-6).
Moreover, to date, the Coast Guard has not regulated the control of
hazardous energy during the servicing and maintenance of equipment on
commercial vessels. Therefore, OSHA has authority to regulate hazardous
energy onboard commercial vessels. (OSHA notes that the Coast Guard has
issued a limited regulation on machine guarding during production
operations. See 46 CFR 28.215; 56 FR 40364, 40374 (8/14/1991)
(''Running machinery is required to have hand covers, guards or
railings to reduce the chance of personnel being inured while working
around the moving gears, belts, and chains'').
    Where OSHA has authority over commercial vessels, the Agency
generally has applied part 1910 standards to control hazardous working
conditions (Ex. 16-6). However, OSHA has applied part 1915, and not the
general industry lockout/tagout standard, to controlling hazardous
energy during ``ship repair'' operations onboard commercial vessels.
Ship repair is defined at Sec.  1915.4(j) as ``any repair of a vessel
including, but not restricted to, alterations, conversions,
installations, cleaning, painting, and maintenance work.'' Pursuant to
that definition, OSHA has interpreted ship repair as including the
servicing of all equipment and systems on commercial vessels,
regardless of who performs the operation or whether the equipment is a
permanent or inherent part of the vessel or a temporary fixture
unrelated to the vessel's core navigation functions (Exs. 16-7; 16-8).
    ``Maritime employment'' exemption. OSHA's current policy has been
derived from language in the general industry lockout/tagout standard
(Sec.  1910.147, 54

FR 36644) and Agency interpretations of it. The general industry
lockout/tagout standard explicitly exempts ``maritime employment'' from
coverage (Sec.  1910.147(a)(1)(ii)(A)). Although the standard and its
preamble do not define maritime employment, in the preamble OSHA
pointed to shipyard employment, longshoring and marine terminals as
examples (54 FR 36655, 36657-36659).
    The preamble cited several reasons for excluding maritime
employment. OSHA said that including maritime employment, with its
``unique situations and work practices * * * would unduly complicate
development of a generic energy control standard for general industry''
(54 FR 36657). OSHA also said a lockout/tagout standard likely could be
applied quite differently in maritime than in general industry. As a
result, the general industry rule might need to be modified
considerably in order to provide optimal protection for maritime
employees. However, the process of examining maritime employment and
modifying the rule to address those issues would delay providing needed
protection for millions of general industry employees. OSHA also
explained that it did not have adequate information in the lockout/
tagout record on hazardous energy hazards in shipyard employment,
marine terminals and longshoring to support including them in the
standard.
    In exempting maritime employment, OSHA noted that part 1915 has
provisions that address deenergization during the servicing of certain
vessel systems and equipment (54 FR 36657). Those provisions, in
subparts J and L, pertain to ship's systems and machinery (e.g., Sec.
1915.162 Ship's boilers; Sec.  1915.163 Ship's piping systems; Sec.
1915.163 Ship's propulsion machinery) and electrical circuits and
distribution boards (Sec.  1915.181). Although part 1915 does not
define ``ship's systems,'' generally the term is used to describe
systems and equipment that are an inherent and permanent part of a
vessel. The provisions in subparts J and L do not address the servicing
of other types of equipment onboard vessels, such as fish processing
equipment, and there are no other part 1915 standards addressing
hazardous energy during the servicing of such equipment.
    Interpretation of Sec.  1910.147. After OSHA issued the general
industry lockout/tagout standard, the Agency received two inquiries
about its application to commercial vessels, specifically fish
processing vessels. The first inquiry, in 1991, asked OSHA to clarify
whether Sec.  1910.147 applies to servicing ``the factory portion of
floating fish processors'' (Ex. 16-7). OSHA responded that the
maintenance of ``any equipment'' onboard vessels is included in the
maritime exemption from Sec.  1910.147. OSHA explained that the
maritime employment exemption applies to ``shipyard employment,'' which
includes ``ship repair'' (Sec. Sec.  1910.15(a), 1915.4(i)). The Agency
concluded that the definition of ship repair (``any repair of a vessel
including, but not restricted to, alterations, conversions,
installations, cleaning, painting, and maintenance work'') was broad
enough to include maintenance work on ``any equipment on a vessel,
including fish processing equipment'' (Ex. 16-7).
    In the second inquiry, from the Arctic Alaska Fisheries Corporation
in 1994, OSHA confirmed its previous interpretation of the maritime
employment exemption, again concluding that part 1915 applies to
maintenance of any equipment onboard ``all commercial vessels'' (Ex.
16-8). (See also, Ex. 16-9, OSHA's Shipyard ``Tool Bag'' Directive CPL
02-00-142, confirming the earlier interpretations.) The current OSHA
policy embedded in these interpretations is that fish processing or
other equipment installed on vessels for any purpose is considered part
of the vessel; accordingly, repair of that equipment is ship repair
under part 1915.
    Proposed additions and changes. The most significant of the
additions that OSHA proposes, Sec.  1915.89(a)(2)(iii)(C) and Sec.
1910.147(a)(1)(ii)(B), clarify how the Agency, in the future, intends
to cover the control of hazardous energy onboard commercial vessels
during the servicing of equipment used for fish processing and other
inherently general industry operations. There are two options: (1)
follow the existing policy of classifying such servicing operations as
``ship repair'' and continue to cover them under proposed Sec.
1915.89, or (2) classify such servicing as general industry operations
and cover them under the general industry lockout/tagout standard
(Sec.  1910.147).
    The first option, applying proposed Sec.  1915.89 to all equipment
onboard commercial vessels, would result in a single standard for
servicing operations onboard vessels. The single standard would apply
regardless of whether the servicing involves ship's systems or fish
processing equipment or whether it is done at a shipyard or at sea. In
other respects, however, this option would result in the application of
different standards to fish processing employees and employers, which
might result in confusion. For fish processing employees, it would mean
that part 1910 standards would apply when they process fish and operate
the equipment for production, but proposed Sec.  1915.89 would apply
when they clean or perform maintenance work on that same equipment. For
employers who have both landside operations and floating fish
processing facilities, it also would mean that proposed Sec.  1915.89
would apply to servicing fish processing equipment on vessels, but
Sec.  1910.147 would apply to servicing the same equipment at landside
facilities.
    The second option, applying Sec.  1910.147 to the servicing of fish
processing and other inherently general industry equipment onboard
vessels, will result in more uniform application of standards to fish
processing and other general industry operations onboard commercial
vessels. To illustrate, this option means that fish processing
employees, who operate the processing equipment for production and
perform the vast majority of all servicing of that equipment, will be
uniformly covered by part 1910 standards during both the production and
servicing operations. And for fish processing employers, part 1910
standards, including Sec.  1910.147, would apply at both their landside
and vessel-based fish processing operations.
    The second option, however, will not result in completely uniform
application of standards onboard vessels. Under option two, proposed
Sec.  1915.89 would apply to the servicing of ship's systems (i.e.,
systems and equipment that are an inherent and permanent part of the
vessel), while Sec.  1910.147 would apply to the servicing of
inherently general industry equipment such as fish processing
equipment. To determine which lockout/tagout standard applies, fish
processing employers would have to determine first whether the
equipment or system is an inherent and permanent part of the vessel
(e.g., propulsion, navigation, electrical, ballast systems) or is used
for performing inherently general industry operations.
    For several reasons, OSHA believes it is appropriate to apply Sec.
1910.147, and not proposed Sec.  1915.89, to the servicing of
inherently general industry equipment onboard vessels. First, fish
processing and other general industry equipment are not core components
of a vessel, but rather equipment placed on a vessel after the core
vessel is built. In many cases general industry equipment may only be a
temporary fixture on a vessel. As mentioned, fish processing equipment
is changed typically at the end of every fishing season (Ex. 16-2).
Given that, OSHA does not believe the equipment used to perform
inherently

general industry operations is part of the ``vessel'' or that those
servicing operations constitute the repair of it.
    Second, fish processing and other inherently general industry
operations onboard vessels are more closely associated with landside
general industry operations than with shipbuilding, ship repairing,
shipbreaking and related employment. For example, fish processing
equipment onboard vessels is serviced almost exclusively by fish
processing employees and not shipyard employees or others who regularly
service ship's systems. This is true regardless of where the equipment
is serviced--at sea, at port, or off the vessel. Rarely, if ever, do
shipyard employees service fish processing or other inherently general
industry equipment. When they do, the servicing is done as part of an
overhaul of the entire vessel. At this point, the entire vessel,
including the general industry equipment, is out of commission and the
only operations being performed on or to the vessel are repair and
maintenance. The proposal includes language covering this situation;
specifying that when general industry equipment onboard vessels is
serviced as part of an overhaul of the entire vessel proposed Sec.
1915.89 will apply.
    OSHA requests comment on the proposal to apply Sec.  1910.147 to
the servicing of fish processing and other equipment onboard vessels
that is used for performing inherently general industry operations.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of this proposed approach?
Who services equipment onboard vessels that is used to perform
inherently general industry operations? How frequently, if ever, do
shipyard employees service general industry equipment onboard vessels
and when does such servicing occur? What equipment onboard vessels,
other than fish processing equipment, should OSHA classify as being
used to perform inherently general industry operations? Should Sec.
1915.89 or Sec.  1910.147 apply to the servicing of inherently general
industry equipment during an overhaul of the entire vessel? Please
explain.
    Servicing of ``ship's systems.'' OSHA proposes that part 1915 will
continue to cover the servicing of all ``ship's systems'' (proposed
Sec.  1915.89(a)(2)(i)(A)). Proposed Sec.  1915.95 defines ship's
systems as machines, equipment and systems that are a permanent or
inherent part of a vessel. These systems, which are numerous, include
navigation, propulsion, power (e.g., electrical, hydraulic, steam),
piping, ventilation, communication, waste, ballast, structural systems
and systems to care for the crew of the vessel. Essentially, ship's
systems are those systems that ensure the vessel's basic operational
and navigational capability.
    OSHA considers the servicing of ship's systems to be precisely the
type of operation that the term ``ship repair'' was intended to cover.
Servicing of ship's systems entails the repair and maintenance of core
components of vessels. If these components are not maintained in proper
working order, it is unlikely that the vessel will be fully operational
or able to navigate properly. OSHA believes servicing ship's systems is
at the very heart of shipyard employment and proposed Sec.  1915.89
needs to apply.
    OSHA notes that the language in proposed Sec.  1915.89(a)(2)(i)(A)
does not limit coverage to servicing ship's systems in certain
locations. OSHA intends that Sec.  1915.89 will apply to the servicing
of ship's systems regardless of where such servicing occurs (e.g., on a
commercial vessel at sea, at a commercial dock, in a shipyard) or who
performs it (e.g., shipyard employees, contractors, fish processing
employees, ship's crew). (See discussion of ship's crew below.)
    OSHA believes it is necessary that part 1915 cover the servicing of
all ship's systems in order to ensure that employees performing those
operations are adequately protected from hazardous energy. Part 1915
was established and its standards are designed to address the
``unique'' hazards and working conditions associated with working on
ship's systems, equipment and machinery. The hazards associated with
ship's systems are particularly serious because these systems can be
large, complex, and have multiple power sources and isolating devices.
The hazards exist regardless of who services the ship's systems or
where the servicing is done. OSHA believes that employees servicing
ship's systems can best be protected from hazards if such servicing is
covered by the standards designed to address the unique hazards and
complexity of those systems.
    Applying proposed Sec.  1915.89 to the servicing of all ship's
systems establishes a uniform set of standards for these systems, which
is particularly necessary to ensure the protection of employees
involved in multiple-employee or multiple-employer servicing
operations. OSHA notes that the proposal includes additional procedures
to further reduce the risk of harm for employees performing those types
of servicing operations. However, these additional procedures will
reduce that risk only if all employees working on the system are
required to follow them. Applying proposed Sec.  1915.89 to all
employers and employees working on ship's systems will accomplish that.
    Applying proposed Sec.  1915.89 to the servicing of all ship's
systems will also ensure that employees performing those operations
have the most effective protection possible. These employees will have
the protections of not only Sec.  1915.89, but also the additional
energy control requirements in subparts J and L. Those provisions
establish specific steps that must be taken when servicing certain
ship's systems and power sources, such as blanking piping systems,
locking or removing fuses, and posting conspicuous warning signs where
employees are working. Neither the general industry lockout/tagout
standard, nor the part 1910 electrical standards in subpart S, includes
requirements directed to specific vessel systems (54 FR 36657). OSHA
believes the system-specific protections in subparts J and L are
necessary for all employees working on ship's systems to prevent death
or serious injury from the direct escape of high temperature mediums
used to power the systems (e.g., steam, water or oil) or from powerful
electrical currents.
    Finally, including the issue of servicing of ship's systems in this
rulemaking will ensure that the unique hazards those operations pose
are fully examined and discussed. It also enables OSHA to properly
consider the interrelationship between the proposed lockout/tagout
provisions and the specific provisions in subparts J and L, action that
OSHA said was necessary in the lockout/tagout rulemaking (54 FR 36657).
OSHA requests comment on applying proposed Sec.  1915.89 to the
servicing of all ship's systems. Who services ship's systems when the
vessel is at sea? What protection and benefits will result from
applying proposed Sec.  1915.89 to the servicing of all ship's systems?
    OSHA also asks for comment on its proposed definition of ship's
systems. What machines, equipment and systems should the definition
include? Does the proposed definition adequately distinguish between
systems that are part of a vessel and equipment that is used for
inherently general industry operations? Are there other approaches that
would more clearly differentiate between those types of equipment and
systems? Please explain.
    Machines and equipment used to perform shipyard employment
operations. In proposed Sec.  1915.89(a)(2)(i)(B), OSHA simply codifies
its existing policy that part

1915 applies to the servicing of machines and equipment used during the
course of performing shipyard employment operations. OSHA considers
these servicing operations to be ``related employment'' specified in
the definition of shipyard employment (Sec.  1915.4(i)). For example,
the proposal covers the servicing of shore-based power systems used in
the construction of ships, automated blasting equipment to remove paint
from vessels, and equipment (e.g., metal working equipment) in shipyard
shops that is used to make or modify vessel components (e.g., plates,
piping).
    Ship's crew. Proposed Sec.  1915.89(a)(2)(i)(A) specifies that
Sec.  1915.89 applies to all servicing of ship's systems regardless of
who performs it. This means that proposed Sec.  1915.89 applies to
ship's officers, crew of commercial vessels, and contractors that
commercial vessel owners and operators hire to service ship's systems
(collectively referred to as ``ship's crew'').
    The proposed provision explicitly clarifies longstanding OSHA
policy that part 1915 applies whenever ship's crew performs ship
repairing operations. That said, OSHA is including the issue in this
rulemaking in order to address concerns that certain courts have raised
about part 1915's coverage provisions.
    Although Sec.  1910.15(a) specifies that part 1915 applies to
``every employment and place of employment of every employee engaged in
ship repairing, shipbreaking, and shipbuilding, or related
employment,'' some language in part 1915 suggests that the part does
not cover certain shipyard employment activities or employees.
Specifically, Sec.  1915.4(d) states:

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

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

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

    The Dravo court concluded that if OSHA intends a different coverage
scheme, the Agency must amend part 1915 through rulemaking. Id.
Although OSHA disagrees with the Dravo decision, to avoid confusion
OSHA is expressly stating the applicability of proposed Sec.  1915.89.
Specifically, proposed Sec.  1915.89 will apply to the servicing of
ship's systems by any employee, including ship's officers and crew of
the vessel (Sec.  1915.89(a)(2)(i)(A)). (Similarly, in the proposal
OSHA also has clarified that subpart F applies ``regardless of
geographic location,'' even though the language of Sec.  1915.4 limits
``employer'' to persons engaged in shipyard employment ``on the
navigable waters.'')
    The reasons for applying Sec.  1915.89 to ship's crew have been
discussed above and need not be repeated. OSHA believes that applying
Sec.  1915.89 to ship's crew should not come as a surprise to employers
since OSHA has consistently applied part 1915

whenever ship's crew engage in shipyard employment (Ex. 16-9).
Moreover, OSHA believes that the proposal to apply consistent coverage
to ship's crew should reduce any confusion related to the split in the
courts. OSHA requests comment on the proposed provision.
    Clarification of ``maritime employment'' exemption in Sec.
1910.147. OSHA proposes two technical revisions to the scope and
application section of Sec.  1910.147. The revisions clarify the
meaning of the maritime employment exemption and provide notification
of the proposed additions and policy changes discussed above. As
mentioned, the general industry lockout/tagout standard exempted
``maritime employment'' (Sec.  1910.147(a)(1)(ii)(A)). Although the
standard did not define maritime employment, OSHA has traditionally
used the term as shorthand for the employment covered by parts 1915,
1917 and 1918. To eliminate possible confusion, OSHA proposes in Sec.
1910.147(a)(1)(ii)(B) to replace the shorthand term with reference to
the specific parts.
    To clarify the exclusion from part 1915 of servicing of inherently
general industry equipment, OSHA proposes to add the following note to
Sec.  1910.147(a)(1)(ii)(B):

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

    The proposed revisions do not affect the substantive requirements
of Sec.  1910.147. OSHA requests comment.
    Economic analysis. OSHA notes that its preliminary economic
analysis, a summary of which is included in this preamble, includes
compliance costs for shipyards and shipyard contractors to implement
proposed Sec.  1915.89. It does not include the costs of fish
processing employers to comply with proposed Sec.  1915.89. This is
because the economic analysis for the general industry lockout/tagout
rulemaking included the compliance costs for implementing the standard
in activities other than shipyard employment. It included compliance
costs for the fish processing industry, which includes fish processing
onboard vessels. OSHA invites comment on whether there are additional
costs for controlling hazardous energy on fish processing vessels that
the economic analysis for Sec.  1910.147 may not have included. If so,
please explain what those costs involve.
    The requirements of the proposed Sec.  1915.89 standard. OSHA is
proposing to apply the general industry standard to shipyard employment
in the same manner as it applies to general industry, except for the
proposed changes described below. The preamble to the general industry
lockout/tagout standard includes a detailed explanation of each of the
standard's specific requirements, how they apply, and why they were
adopted (54 FR 36654-83). OSHA is incorporating that document and the
record of that rulemaking into this record. Therefore, OSHA will not
repeat that discussion and instead will provide a short overview of the
general industry requirements.
    The general industry standard establishes minimum performance
requirements for the control of hazardous energy. The rule requires
that, before service or maintenance is performed, machinery and
equipment must be turned off and disconnected from the energy source,
the energy-isolating device must be either locked or tagged out, and
the deenergization must be verified.
    Scope and application (Sec.  1910.147(a), proposed Sec.
1915.89(a)). The general industry Lockout/Tagout standard ``covers the
servicing and maintenance of machines and equipment in which the
unexpected energization or start up of the machines or equipment, or
release of stored energy could cause injury to employees'' (Sec.
1910.147(a)(1)(i)). In proposed Sec.  1915.89(a), OSHA is adopting this
scope and application with a few changes. The proposal does not include
the term ``unexpected'' that is used in describing the energization and
startup the general industry standard covers. The proposal also makes
more explicit that the standard also applies to ``systems.'' (These
changes are discussed below in the section on the differences between
proposed Sec.  1915.89 and Sec.  1910.147.)
    The standard defines ``servicing and/or maintenance'' (hereafter
collectively referred to as ``servicing'') as workplace activities such
as constructing, installing, setting up, adjusting, inspecting,
modifying, maintaining, and servicing machines, equipment and systems
(hereafter collectively referred to as ``equipment'')(Sec.  1910.147(b)
and proposed Sec.  1915.95). Servicing and maintenance activities are a
necessary part of the industrial process. They are needed to maintain
the ability of machines, equipment, systems and processes to perform
their intended functions. Additionally, installation, construction,
set-up, changeover, and dismantling are necessary and continuous
industrial processes. The standard covers these types of operations
because they also can expose employees to hazardous energy. The
standard does not apply in the following situations:
     Servicing or maintaining cord and plug connected
electrical equipment, provided that the hazards are capable of being
controlled by unplugging the equipment from the energy source and the
plug being under the exclusive control of the employee performing the
service and/or maintenance;
     Hot tap operations that involve transmission and
distribution systems for gas, steam, water, or petroleum products when
they are performed on pressurized pipelines, provided that continuity
of service is essential, shutdown of the system is impractical,
documented procedures are followed, and employees are provided with
alternative protection that is equally effective; and
     Servicing or maintaining machines, equipment or systems
onboard vessels that are inherently general industry operations. This
would include operations such as fish processing (proposed Sec.
1915.89(a)(3)(iii)).
    As discussed earlier, proposed Sec.  1915.89 will now also cover
all ship's systems and all employees.
    Normal production operations (proposed Sec.  1915.89(a)(2)(ii)).
Although OSHA recognizes that machines and equipment present many
hazardous situations during normal production operations (i.e.,
whenever machines and equipment are used to perform their usual
production function), the scope of the standard is servicing and
maintenance operations. Hazards associated with normal production are
covered by rules in other general industry and shipyard standards, such
as the requirements for general machine guarding (Sec.  1910.212),
guarding power transmission apparatus (Sec.  1910.219), and guarding
tools and related equipment used in shipyard employment (Sec. Sec.
1915.131 and 1915.134).
    OSHA recognizes that some servicing activities that occur during
normal production, such as making fine adjustments to equipment, must
be performed with the power on. This may include certain aspects of
troubleshooting, for example, checking to ensure that the source of a
production problem has been corrected. The standard exempts from
coverage these servicing activities during normal production, provided
that they are routine, repetitive and integral to the use of the
production equipment. However, the employer must provide employees with
alternative means of protection while performing these

activities and follow the standard's lockout/tagout procedures when
servicing occurs with the power off.
    In certain circumstances, however, some hazards encountered during
normal production operations may be covered by the lockout/tagout rule.
Servicing and maintenance performed during or as part of normal
production operations (e.g., lubricating, cleaning or unjamming
machines and equipment) are covered by the lockout/tagout standard when
any of the following conditions occurs:
     The employee must either remove or bypass machine guards
or other safety devices, resulting in exposure to hazards at the point
of operation;
     The employee is required to place any part of his or her
body in contact with the point of operation of the operational machine
or piece of equipment; or
     The employee is required to place any part of his or her
body into a danger zone associated with the operating cycle of the
equipment.
    Energy control program (Sec.  1910.147(c), proposed Sec.
1915.89(b)). The lockout/tagout standard requires that the employer
establish an energy control program to ensure that equipment is
isolated and inoperative before any employee performs service or
maintenance where the energization, start up, or release of stored
energy could occur and cause injury. The program must include (1)
documented energy control procedures; (2) an employee training program;
and, (3) periodic inspections of the energy control procedures.
Employers have the flexibility to develop a program and procedures that
meet the needs of their particular workplace and the particular types
of equipment being maintained or serviced.
    Although the energy control program applies to all employees, it is
directed primarily at those who have the greatest exposure to hazardous
energy--authorized and affected employees. The standard defines
``authorized employees'' as those employees who apply lockout/tagout
devices and who perform servicing operations (Sec.  1910.147(b),
proposed Sec.  1915.95).
    ``Affected employees'' include employees who operate, for normal
production, the machines or equipment on which service is being
performed as well as those employees whose job duties require them to
work in the area where the servicing is being performed. The definition
also specifies that an affected employee becomes an authorized employee
when he performs servicing operations on the equipment.
    Written energy control procedures (Sec.  1910.147(c)(4), proposed
Sec.  1915.89(b)(4)). The standard requires that written energy control
procedures be developed, documented, and used to control potentially
hazardous energy sources whenever employees perform activities covered
by the standard. The written procedures must identify the information
that employees must know in order to control hazardous energy during
servicing.
    The energy control procedures must outline the scope, purpose,
authorization, rules and techniques that will be used to control
hazardous energy sources, as well as the means that will be used to
enforce compliance. At a minimum, each procedure must include the
following elements:
     A statement on how the procedure will be used;
     The procedural steps needed to shut down, isolate, block,
and secure equipment;
     The steps designating the placement, removal, and transfer
of lockout/tagout devices, and who has the responsibility for them; and
     The specific requirements for testing equipment to
determine and verify the effectiveness of locks, tags, and other energy
control measures.
    The standard requires that employers develop clear and specific
written energy control procedures that have the level of detail
necessary to ensure that employees know what steps and techniques they
must follow to be protected from hazardous energy. Although procedures
must be written in detail, the standard does not require separate
procedures be written for each and every piece of equipment (54 FR
36670). Thus, if the procedures and information are the same for
various equipment or if other logical groupings exist, then a single
set of procedures may be sufficient. However, if equipment is not the
same or other conditions are present that require specific
consideration, such as multiple energy sources or different means of
connection, then the employer must develop specific energy control
procedures to address them and ensure employees are protected. For
example, if a system requires that a unique shutdown sequence be
followed, specific energy control procedures will be required for that
system.
    The standard includes an exception to the requirement to have
written control procedures for particular equipment. A written
procedure is not required for equipment if all of the following exist:
(1) The machine, equipment or system has no potential for stored or
residual energy or reaccumulation of stored energy after shut down that
could endanger employees; (2) the machine, equipment or system has a
single energy source which can be readily identified and isolated; (3)
the isolation and locking out of that energy source will completely
deenergize and deactivate the machine, equipment or system; (4) the
machine, equipment or system is isolated from that energy source and
locked out during servicing or maintenance; (5) a single lockout device
will achieve a locked-out condition; (6) the lockout device is under
the exclusive control of the authorized employee performing the
servicing or maintenance; (7) the servicing or maintenance does not
create hazards for other employees; and (8) the employer, in utilizing
this exception, has had no accidents involving the activation or
reenergization of the machine, equipment or system during servicing or
maintenance.
    Energy-isolating devices (locks and tags) (Sec.  1910.147(c)(2) and
(3), proposed Sec.  1915.89(b)(2) and (3)). A primary tool for
providing protection under the standard is the energy-isolating device,
the mechanism that prevents the transmission or release of energy and
to which locks or tags are attached. This device guards against
equipment start-up or re-energization of equipment during servicing.
There are two types of energy-isolating devices: Those that are capable
of being locked and those that are not.
    When the energy-isolating device cannot be locked, the standard
requires that the employer use a tagout system. A tagout system
consists of the required energy control procedures and extensive
initial and periodic reinforcement training, including training on the
limitation of tags (see training discussion below). However, where an
energy-isolating device is lockable, the standard requires that lockout
be used unless the employer can show that the use of a tagout system
provides ``full employee protection'' equivalent to that obtained by
using a lockout program (54 FR 36655).
    ``Full employee protection'' means that the employer affixes the
tagout device at the same location that the lock would have been
attached and demonstrates that the tagout program provides equivalent
protection. To demonstrate that equivalent protection is provided, the
employer must demonstrate full compliance with all tagout-related
provisions, including the additional tagout training requirements, and
implement ``additional elements as are necessary to provide equivalent
safety.'' This might include removing an isolating circuit element,
blocking a

controlling switch, opening an extra disconnecting device, or removing
a valve handle to reduce the potential for any inadvertent
energization.
    The standard requires that whenever major replacement, repair,
renovation or modification of equipment is performed, and whenever new
equipment is installed, the employer must ensure that energy-isolating
devices are designed to accept locks. In the preamble to the general
industry rule, OSHA explained that such modifications are most
effectively and efficiently made as part of the normal equipment
replacement or renovation cycle (54 FR 36656). (The proposed shipyard
rule makes clear that this requirement would only apply to machines,
equipment and systems the shipyard employer owns (proposed Sec.
1915.89(b)(2)(iii)).
    Requirements for lockout/tagout devices (protective materials and
hardware) (Sec.  1910.147(c)(5), proposed Sec.  1915.89(b)(5)). When
attached to an energy-isolating device, both lockout and tagout devices
are tools that the employer can use to help protect employees from
hazardous energy. A ``lockout device,'' as defined in the standard,
provides protection by holding the energy-isolating device in the safe
position, thus preventing the equipment from becoming energized (Sec.
1910.147(b), proposed Sec.  1915.95). The ``tagout device'' is a
prominent warning device that provides protection by identifying the
energy-isolating device as a source of potential danger. The tagout
device indicates that the energy-isolating device and the equipment
being controlled may not be operated until the tagout device is
removed. Whichever device is used, the standard requires that it must
be provided by the employer, be singularly identified, be the only
device used for controlling hazardous energy and not be used for other
purposes. Locks and tags must also meet the following requirements:
     Durable--Lockout and tagout devices must be able to
withstand the environment to which they are exposed for the maximum
duration of the expected exposure. Tagout devices, including tags, must
be constructed and printed so that they do not deteriorate or become
illegible in wet or damp environments, or when used in environments
where corrosives (e.g., acid and alkali chemicals) are used or stored;
     Standardized--Both lockout and tagout devices must be
standardized according to color, shape, or size so they are readily
recognized and associated with the control of hazardous energy. Tagout
devices must also be standardized according to print and format;
     Substantial--Lockout and tagout devices must be
substantial enough to prevent inadvertent or accidental removal. Locks
must be substantial enough to prevent removal except by excessive force
or by special tools such as bolt cutters or other metal cutting tools.
The device for attaching the tag must be non-reusable, attachable by
hand, self-locking and non-releasable. It must also have a minimum
unlocking strength of no less than 50 pounds and have general design
and basic characteristics equivalent to a one-piece nylon cable tie
that will withstand all environments; and
     Identifiable--Locks and tags must clearly identify the
employee who applies them. Tags must also warn against hazardous
conditions if the machine or equipment is energized and must include a
legend such as the following: DO NOT START; DO NOT OPEN; DO NOT CLOSE;
DO NOT ENERGIZE; DO NOT OPERATE.
    Periodic inspections (Sec.  1910.147(c)(6), proposed Sec.
1915.89(b)(6)). The standard requires that the employer perform
periodic inspections at least annually to ensure that energy control
procedures are working properly. The inspection must be able to
determine four things: (1) Whether the steps in the energy control
procedures are being followed, (2) whether the employees involved know
their responsibilities under the procedures, (3) whether the procedures
are adequate to provide the necessary protection, and (4) what changes,
if any, are needed to correct identified deficiencies (54 FR 36673).
The inspection must be performed by an authorized employee, other than
the employee utilizing the energy control procedures being inspected.
    The periodic inspection must contain two components: an inspection
of each energy control procedure and a review of each employee's
responsibilities under the energy control procedure being inspected.
Where a tagout system is used, the inspector's review of employee
responsibilities also extends to affected employees because of the
increased importance of their role in avoiding accidental or
inadvertent energization (54 FR 36673). In addition, when a tagout
system is used, the inspection must include a review with authorized
and affected employees about the limitations of tags.
    The standard requires that each energy control procedure must be
separately inspected. However, that does not mean the employer must
inspect each piece of equipment under the same energy control procedure
or observe each employee the procedure covers. The employer may inspect
a representative sample of the equipment the procedure covers and
authorized employees who implement the procedure on that equipment.
Equipment that has the same type and magnitude of hazardous energy and
has the same or similar type of controls may be grouped together and
inspected by the type of procedure (Ex. 2-26, Letter to Thomas J.
Civic, 3/9/2004). Moreover, a grouping of detailed individual
procedures would be considered a single procedure for the purposes of
periodic inspection, provided all of the procedures have the same or
similar:
     Intended equipment use;
     Procedural steps for applying controls (i.e., shut down,
isolation, blocking, and securing equipment);
     Procedural steps for placement, removal and transfer of
lockout/tagout devices and responsibility for them; and
     Requirements for testing to verify the effectiveness of
lockout/tagout devices and other control measures (Ex. 2-25 Letter to
Lawrence P. Halprin, 9/19/1995).
    In 1993, prior to the Agency interpretations, SESAC raised similar
concerns about the percentage of equipment that employers must inspect
in order to determine whether the energy control procedures are working
properly and employees understand their responsibilities under the
procedures (Docket SESAC 1993-3, Ex. 104X, pp. 164-169). OSHA believes
the interpretations incorporated and discussed above address SESAC's
concerns.
    Employee training (Sec.  1910.147(c)(7), proposed Sec.
1915.89(b)(7)). The standard requires that the employer provide
effective initial training as well as retraining as necessary to ensure
that employees understand the purpose and function of the energy
control program and acquire the knowledge and skills necessary for the
safe application, use and removal of the energy controls. The details
of the training (e.g., amount and type of training) may vary depending
on factors such as the employee's job duties under the energy control
program and the complexity of the equipment or lockout/tagout
procedures (54 FR 36673). The relative degree of knowledge that
authorized, affected and other employees must acquire also varies, with
authorized employees demanding the most extensive training because of
their responsibility for implementing energy control procedures (i.e.,
applying lockout and tagout devices) and performing servicing
operations. For example, the

training for authorized employees must cover at least:
     Recognition of applicable hazardous energy sources;
     The type and magnitude of the energy available in the
workplace; and
     The means and methods necessary for energy isolation and
control.
    Affected employees, because they operate or use the equipment that
authorized employees are servicing, must be trained in the purpose and
use of the energy control procedures. Finally, other employees who may
work or be in an area where energy control procedures are in use need
to be instructed about the procedure in use and, most importantly,
about the prohibition against attempting to start or energize machines