[Federal Register: December 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 244)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 72451-72520]
[DOCID:fr20de07-28]

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

Part II

Department of Labor

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

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

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

29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1915

General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment; Proposed Rule

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1915

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

General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment

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

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. OSHA-S049-
2006-0675, by any of the following methods:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal

eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions on-line for making
electronic submissions.
    Fax: If your comments, including attachments, do not exceed 10
pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger or courier service:
You must submit three copies of your comments and attachments to the
OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> (OSHA's TTY number is<PHONE_NUMBER>).
Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger and courier service) are
accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal
business hours, 8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675). All
comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions you about

submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
birthdates. For further information on submitting comments, plus
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public
Participation'' heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
    Docket: To read or download comments and materials submitted in
response to this Federal Register notice, go to Docket No. OSHA-S049-
2006-0675 at http://regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at the

address above. All comments and submissions in response to this Federal
Register notice are listed in the http://regulations.gov index;

however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the Web page. All comments and
submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for
inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
    For information on reading or downloading exhibits referenced in
this Federal Register notice, see the ``References and exhibits'' and
``Public Participation'' headings in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register document are available
at http://www.regulations.gov. This document, as well as news releases

and other relevant information, also are available at OSHA's Web page
at http://www.osha.gov

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

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

References and Exhibits

    In this Federal Register notice, OSHA references documents in
Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675 (formerly OSHA Docket No. S-049) as well
as documents in the following OSHA rulemakings and advisory committee
proceedings, which OSHA is incorporating by reference into the docket
of this rulemaking:
     The proceedings of the Shipyard Employment Standards
Advisory Committee (SESAC) (Docket Nos. SESAC-1988 through SESAC-1993);
     The proceedings of the Maritime Advisory Committee for
Occupational Safety and Health (Docket Nos. MACOSH-1995 through MACOSH-
2005);
     The General Industry Lockout/Tagout rulemaking record
(Docket Nos. S-012, S-012A and S-012B;
     The Shipyard Employment Standards rulemaking record
(Docket No. S-024); and
     The Field Sanitation rulemaking record (Docket No. H-308).
    References to documents in Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675. In this
Federal Register notice, references to documents in Docket No. OSHA-
S049-2006-0675 (formerly OSHA Docket No. S-049) are given as ``Ex.''
followed by the number of the document. These exhibits are posted in
both Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675 (which is available at http://www.regulations.gov
) and OSHA Docket No. S-049 (which is available at

http://dockets.osha.gov). The referenced exhibits are also available

for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office (see ADDRESSES
section).
    References to documents in the dockets incorporated by reference.
In this Federal Register notice, references to documents in the dockets
listed above that OSHA is incorporating by reference are given as the
docket number followed by the document number. Thus, the reference to
``Docket H-308, Ex. 1'' means Exhibit 1 in the Field Sanitation
rulemaking docket. For access to exhibits in OSHA Docket H-308 and the
other dockets above that OSHA is incorporating by reference, go to

dockets.osha.gov or the OSHA Docket Office (see ADDRESSES section).

I. Background

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

Hazards

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

Accident, Fatality and Injury Data

    OSHA examined several data sources to identify and characterize the
risks shipyard employees face from the hazards this proposal addresses.
These data show, for example, that the shipyard industry has one of the
highest rates and severity of workplace injury of all private sector
industries.
    Fatalities. To identify shipyard fatalities, OSHA reviewed accident
data from OSHA's Integrated Management Information System (IMIS)
accident database (fatal and serious injury requiring hospitalization)
and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Census of Fatal Occupational
Injuries (CFOI). According to the IMIS data, there were 231 fatal
shipyard accidents during the years 1987-2002, which is an average of
15 shipyard fatalities each year (Ex. 13). This estimate is consistent
with CFOI, which reported 155 shipyard fatalities from 1992-2002 or an
average of 14 fatalities per year. According to CFOI data, during most
of those years the fatality rate in shipyard employment was about twice
the rate for all private industry combined, which further demonstrates
the hazardous nature of work in shipyard employment. As discussed
below, many of those shipyard fatalities involved the types of hazards
this rulemaking addresses.
    Injuries and illnesses. To estimate the number of shipyard injuries
and illnesses, OSHA used the BLS annual survey of employers, which
produces statistical estimates of occupational injuries and illnesses
by industry and specific characteristics (http://www.bls.gov). From 1992-2002,

BLS data show that the occupational injury and illness rate for
shipyard employment declined from 34.2 per 100 full-time employees in
1992 to 16.6 in 2002. Lost workday injury and illness rates showed a
similar trend, declining from 16.9 in 1993 to 9.3 in 2002 (See Table
1). However, despite these improvements, the industry's injury and
illness rates continue to be more than three times the average private
sector rate of 5.3 for injuries and illnesses combined and 2.8 for lost
workday cases (Table 1).
    Using the median number of days away from work per case as an
indicator of severity, the injuries and illnesses shipyard employees
experienced were, on average, more severe than those in the private
sector as a whole as well as in the manufacturing and construction
sectors. In 2002, for example, the median days away from work in the
shipbuilding and repair industry was 15 days per lost workday case,
more than double the private sector median of seven (Table 1). In
addition, a higher percentage of lost workday cases in shipyards
involved lengthy recovery periods. For example, more than one-third
(34%) of shipyard lost workday cases resulted in more than 30 days away
from work compared to one-quarter of private sector cases (Table 1).

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

(Source: BLS)

Need for Agency Action

    A detailed examination of OSHA and BLS databases indicates that a
significant percentage of shipyard fatalities and injuries have
resulted from the types of hazardous working conditions the proposed
rule addresses, particularly hazardous energy. OSHA believes that
eliminating or controlling these hazardous conditions will reduce the
risks that shipyard employees face on a daily basis. This section
discusses the types of fatalities and injuries that could have been
prevented if the proposed additions and revisions to subpart F had been
in place. OSHA's preliminary economic analysis, summarized in Section
V, estimates that the proposed rule would have prevented at least 17.8
of the fatalities reported in the IMIS database from 1987 through 2002.
    Lockout/tagout. The most extensive provisions in the proposal
address the control of hazardous energy. Exposure to hazardous energy
has resulted in many injuries to shipyard employees. According to a
study by the National Shipbuilding Research Program (NSRP), during a
five-year period there were 10 hazardous energy-related injuries
annually at the seven participating shipyards. (See Ex. 11, NSRP
``Review of Current and Best Practices for Hazardous Energy Control
(Tagout) in Shipyards.'') The report concluded that in almost every
case, the injury was the result of multiple failures in the system,
such as failure to identify all hazardous energy sources and to
properly verify deenergization of all sources (Ex. 11, p. 6). This
report suggests that the proposed comprehensive lockout/tagout program
and energy control procedures would be effective in preventing these
types of injuries.
    Hazardous energy exposure also has resulted in the death of a
number of shipyard employees. According to BLS data for 1992-2002,
almost one-quarter of shipyard fatalities were types that are often
associated with hazardous energy. BLS CFOI data showed that at least 10
shipyard fatalities (6.3%) resulted from contact with electrical
current and 24 fatalities (16%) occurred because of contact with
objects and equipment, such as being caught in equipment that suddenly
starts up. BLS injury data showed that an even greater percentage of
injuries were associated with those types of accidents. In 2002, for
instance, 30 percent of shipyard injuries involving days away from work
resulted from contact with an object or equipment and almost two
percent resulted from being caught in equipment.
    OSHA's IMIS fatal accidents database also confirms that a
significant number of shipyard deaths have resulted from hazardous
energy. From 1987-2002, the IMIS data reported 14 (6%) shipyard
fatalities related to the sudden release of hazardous energy. (See
also, Ex. 11, National Shipbuilding Research Program (NSRP), ``Review
of Current and Best Practices for Hazardous Energy Control (Tagout) in
Shipyards.'') A review of the IMIS shipyard fatality abstracts
indicates that the proposed lockout/tagout provisions could have
prevented the vast majority (9) of those hazardous energy deaths (see
Section V). The following are some of the shipyard fatalities that the
proposed lockout/tagout provisions could have prevented. (The summary
and explanation of proposed Sec.  1915.89 also discusses a number of
fatalities that could have been prevented by the proposed lockout/
tagout provisions).
    A shipyard employee working on a 480-volt distribution center was
fatally electrocuted when the circuit was not properly deenergized and
locked out before the task was started. In a similar case, an employee
was electrocuted installing a fan on an HVAC chiller because the fan
circuit was not deenergized. Instead of verifying that the circuit was
deenergized, the employee had relied on a helper to open the circuit
breaker to deenergize the unit. However, the helper opened the wrong
breaker. In both cases, there was no indication in the IMIS abstract
that the employer had a lockout/tagout program or had established
written energy control procedures, such as procedures for deenergizing
power sources and verifying isolation. The lockout/tagout proposal
would have required both.
    In another case in the IMIS database, an employee, who was assigned
to perform maintenance on a high-voltage electric transformer, was
fatally electrocuted when an oil switch to the transformer was left
open. According to a NIOSH Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation
Program (FACE) investigation of the accident, the high-voltage
transformer provided power to numerous shipboard activities, but the
employee's electrical experience had been primarily on low-voltage
equipment (Ex. 14). The investigation revealed that the power panels
were not labeled and no signs, tags or locks had been used on either
the oil switch or circuit breaker. In addition, there may have been
stored energy remaining in the conductors, but no tests were conducted
to verify deenergization. Under the proposed lockout/tagout provisions,
this employer would have been required to have an energy control
program and control procedures in place to ensure that employees
properly deenergize circuits, verify isolation and apply lockout or
tagout systems before starting work (proposed Sec.  1915.89(b)(1), (2)
and (4)).
    The investigation also found that, although employees received
general safety training, there was no indication that the victim had
received training on servicing high-voltage equipment and the
supervisor had no electrical training. Moreover, even when the victim
accidentally turned off the wrong power source earlier in the
workshift, leaving the dry dock in the dark, the employee was not
provided with refresher training. Had the proposed lockout/tagout
provisions been in place, it would have ensured that any shipyard
employee servicing high-voltage equipment was an ``authorized
employee'' who had been trained to recognize hazardous energy sources
and know the specific means and procedures necessary to isolate and
control such energy safely (proposed Sec.  1915.89(b)(7)). The proposed
provisions also would have ensured that employees receive additional
training ``whenever the employer has reason to believe, that there are
* * * deficiencies in the employee's knowledge or use of the energy
control procedures'' (proposed Sec.  1915.89(b)(7)(iii)).
    The proposed lockout/tagout provisions addressing multiple employer
worksites (proposed Sec.  1915.89(e)(2)) and group lockout/tagout
(proposed Sec.  1915.89(e)(3)) also could have prevented several
shipyard fatalities reported in the IMIS database. In one of those
cases, an electrician who was modifying a switchboard was fatally
electrocuted when a ship's crew member, who was not familiar with the
operation of the switchboard breaker, inadvertently energized the
circuit. The proposed provisions would have ensured that the shipyard
employer and ship's officer or master shared information about their
respective lockout/tagout programs. The proposal also would have
ensured that when more than one person is servicing equipment on a
system, that a primary authorized employee is designated to ascertain
the exposure status of individual group members and coordinate affected
work forces to ensure that each member of the group is fully protected
(proposed Sec.  1915.89(e)(3)).
    Finally, the lockout/tagout section of this proposal includes an
in-depth

discussion of the application of the lockout/tagout standard while
servicing commercial vessels, such as fish processing vessels.
    Motor vehicle safety equipment, operation and maintenance. OSHA is
proposing several provisions aimed at reducing the number of shipyard
employees killed and injured in motor vehicle incidents. According to
CFOI data, 27 shipyard employees were killed in transportation
incidents (highway and non-highway) from 1992-2002, which represents
18.5 percent of all fatalities during that period. OSHA's IMIS fatal
accidents data indicated that 12 employees were killed in motor vehicle
incidents in shipyards from 1987-2002. Motor vehicle accidents also
account for a significant number of injuries. From 1992-2001, for
instance, BLS reported that 208 shipyard employees were injured in
transportation accidents that were serious enough to involve days away
from work.
    OSHA believes that the proposed motor vehicle safety provisions
could have prevented a significant number of those deaths and injuries.
For example, a review of the IMIS database shows that the proposed
safety belt requirement (proposed Sec.  1915.93(b)(1) and (2)) could
have prevented the death of a shipyard employee who was operating a
mobile crane to lift metal plates from a floating dock. The employee
was killed when the crane overturned and he fell from the cab into the
river and drowned. Had the employee been wearing a safety belt, as the
proposed rule requires, he would have remained safely within the cab
when it overturned. OSHA also believes the proposed safety belt
provision would prevent employees from being crushed or pinned trying
to jump free of a tipping vehicle, one of the major causes of
industrial vehicle fatalities. In 2001, for example, BLS reported that
28 percent (35) of all private industry forklift fatalities (123)
involved tipovers or falls from a moving forklift.
    The proposed provisions to protect pedestrians and bicyclists in
shipyards from being hit by motor vehicles (proposed Sec.
1915.93(c)(3)) could have prevented several shipyard fatalities and
injuries reported in the IMIS database. For example, a shipyard
employee riding a bicycle as part of ``his regularly assigned tasks''
was killed when a bus traveling on the same shipyard road collided with
him. A shipyard employee walking on a pier was killed when a straddle
lift truck ran over him. While pulling onto the main road on the pier,
the lift truck driver made a wide arc in order to avoid hitting a
forklift truck moving a large container and hit a pedestrian who he had
not seen. In another incident, a shipyard employee suffered fractured
ribs and had to have his spleen removed when he was hit by a forklift
as he was walking along the side of the road in the shipyard. All of
these accidents may have been prevented if the employers had
established dedicated pedestrian/bicycle lanes or provided employees
with reflective vests, two of the options the proposal includes to
protect employees walking and bicycling in shipyards from being hit by
motor vehicles (proposed Sec.  1915.93(c)(3)(i) and (ii)).
    Medical services and first aid. The proposed rule includes
revisions to the existing provisions on medical services and first aid,
including revisions addressing the content of first aid training and
location of first aid providers and kits in shipyards (proposed Sec.
1915.88). OSHA believes that the proposed provisions will improve the
chances that injured shipyard employees will survive if an accident or
health crisis (e.g., cardiac or respiratory failure) occurs and are
necessary to reduce fatality rates in the shipyard industry. A review
of the IMIS database for 1987-2002 indicates that as many as 13
fatalities involving cardiac or respiratory arrest may have been
prevented had the proposed first aid provisions been in place.
    Accounting for employees at the end of workshifts. Existing
shipyard standards require that employers frequently check on employees
who are working in confined spaces or alone in an isolated work
location (Sec.  1915.94). The proposal adds to the existing standard a
provision requiring employers also to account for these employees at
the end of the workshift (proposed Sec.  1915.84(b)). The purpose of
both the existing and proposed provisions is to ensure that employees
remain safe, go home safe at the end of their workshifts and are
promptly rescued if they are injured. OSHA believes it is necessary to
account for these employees at the end of their workshifts, in part,
because shipyards are commonly comprised of many work locations that
often are spread out over a large area. If an employee is injured while
working alone at a distant work location, he may not be able to summon
help. If the employer does not account for an injured employee at the
end of the workshift, that employee could die from his injuries. The
IMIS database includes a number of fatalities in which the employees'
bodies were not discovered until hours or days later.
    A review of the IMIS database, from 1987 to 2002, indicates that
there were at least 13 fatalities that may have been prevented had the
proposed provisions been in effect. The following are a few cases from
that IMIS database. At approximately 10 p.m. during an evening
workshift, a shipyard employee using a forklift truck to move a heavy
tool box on a wet dock is presumed to have fallen through an opening in
the dock and drowned when he got out of the forklift to check on the
load. According to the abstract there were no eye witnesses to the
accident. There is also no indication as to when the employer first
noticed the employee was missing. However, the abstract says that the
employee's body was not removed from the water until the next day.
    In another case, the employee was working alone applying a patch
over a pipe opening prior to the time he went missing. There is no
indication as to when the employer discovered the employee was missing
and no indication whether the employee was checked on during or at the
end of his workshift. Approximately one week later his body was
discovered under the water adjacent to the vessel on which he had been
working.
    Finally, a shipyard employee was working on an accommodation ladder
on the MV Cape Henry at Pier 27 in San Francisco. It is presumed that
he fell off the ladder or the vessel into the water. Nine days later
his body was discovered floating in Fisherman's Wharf. Again, there is
no indication in the abstract whether the employer regularly checked on
employees or accounted for them at the end of the workshift.
    Clarifications. In addition to the shipyard fatalities and injuries
discussed above, OSHA believes that other provisions in the proposal
could also prevent employees from being injured or killed. A number of
proposed provisions clarify existing requirements, which may help
increase employer understanding of and compliance with those
requirements and thereby reduce employee exposure to serious hazards.
    Based on the data and discussion above and other information in the
rulemaking record, OSHA believes that there continues to be a
significant risk of death and injury due to hazardous working
conditions in shipyards. As discussed, OSHA believes that the proposed
revisions, additions and clarifications of subpart F are reasonable and
necessary and will substantially reduce that risk for shipyard
employees.

II. Regulatory History

    The standards in subpart F have remained essentially unchanged
since

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

III. Pertinent Legal Authority

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

IV. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard

    As mentioned above, OSHA proposes to revise and update the
standards in subpart F to reflect advances in technology and industry
practice and to add requirements that would provide employees with
protection from hazardous working conditions not currently addressed by
the existing OSHA standards. This section explains the revisions and
additions OSHA proposes, including what action these revisions would
require or prohibit and how they differ from the existing standards.
This section also discusses the purposes for these changes and why they
are necessary, and how they will provide employees with protection from
hazardous working conditions in shipyards.
    Many of the provisions OSHA proposes were recommended by SESAC.
They represent, to a large extent, industry best practices at the time
SESAC reviewed subpart F. However, where changes in industry practices
and technology have occurred since SESAC finished its review, OSHA has
updated the proposed provisions to reflect those advances. In addition,
the Agency has added or amended some provisions for easier
comprehension and to better protect employees.
    A number of the provisions in subpart F were adopted in 1972 from
existing Federal and national consensus standards in effect at the time
(e.g., housekeeping, sanitation, medical services and first aid). Since
then, those consensus standards have been revised and updated, several
times in some cases. OSHA has carefully reviewed the relevant consensus
standards and, where appropriate, proposes to incorporate applicable
requirements of updated and revised standards.
    OSHA proposes to consolidate a number of provisions to more clearly
indicate that they apply to shipyard employment and to make them easier
to understand and follow. First, the proposal consolidates requirements
in part 1915 (e.g., housekeeping, sanitation, medical services and
first aid) for which there are also requirements in general industry
(part 1910) that shipyard employers must follow. Although as a general
rule part 1915 standards prevail over any different general industry
standard, general industry standards apply to shipyard employment where
part 1915 standards do not address a particular

hazard or condition. For example, a number of provisions in the general
industry sanitation standard (e.g., potable water, toilet facilities,
vermin control) apply to shipyard employment because the shipyard
sanitation standard (Sec.  1915.97) does not address these issues. OSHA
believes that putting all of the sanitation requirements applicable to
shipyard employment into one section will make it easier for employers
to understand and comply with the requirements.
    Second, the proposal cross references several general industry
standards that already apply to shipyard employment (e.g., Sec.
1910.144 Safety Color Code for Marking Physical Hazards). Finally, the
proposal consolidates into one section (Sec.  1915.80) the scope and
application provisions for subpart F and clarifies that the proposal
intends to apply the general working condition provisions to all
sectors of shipyard employment (i.e., ship repair, shipbuilding,
shipbreaking and related employment).
    As a result of the consolidation, the section numbers in subpart F
would be changed. To prevent confusion, the following table (Table 2)
lists the proposed and corresponding existing provisions, if there is
one that applies:

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

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

Section 1915.80 Scope and Application

    Each section in existing subpart F contains its own scope and
application provision. Although most of those provisions indicate that
the section applies to shipbuilding, ship repairing, and shipbreaking,
some state that the section, or part(s) of it, is limited to certain
shipyard operations. OSHA proposes to eliminate duplication of these
provisions by consolidating them into one scope and application section
that is applicable to the entire subpart. In addition, as SESAC
recommended (Docket SESAC 1992-1, Ex. 100X, pp. 110-112), OSHA proposes
to apply every section of subpart F uniformly to all of shipyard
employment. ``Shipyard employment'' is defined in Sec.  1915.4(i) to
mean ``ship repairing, shipbuilding, shipbreaking, and related
employment.''
    The proposal also adds language to clarify OSHA's longstanding
position that subpart F applies to shipyard employment ``regardless of
geographic location'' of the shipyard activity. OSHA believes this is
necessary to ensure that shipyard employers fully understand that the
proposed subpart F requirements apply wherever employees are performing
``shipyard employment'' activities. (OSHA recently added the same
language to the Fire Protection in Shipyards Standard, Sec.
1915.501(b) (69 FR 55668 (9/15/2004)). Thus, if employees are
performing shipyard employment activities, including but

not limited to performing them onboard vessels and vessel sections and
in landside facilities on navigable waters, the proposed requirements
would apply. Likewise, if employees are performing shipyard employment
activities at a location that is not contiguous to a vessel, the
proposed requirements also would apply.
    The proposal also clarifies that subpart F applies to any employer,
regardless of whether the employer owns the vessel or shipyard, whose
employees perform shipyard employment activities. The existing policy
will continue to apply under the revised rule. OSHA notes that the
proposed change does not affect the Agency's existing multi-employer
policy. Thus, if a contractor or subcontractor is hired to perform
shipyard employment activities, the proposed provision would apply when
employees are performing those activities. On the other hand, the
proposal would not apply where the contractor's employees perform non-
shipyard employment activities. For example, the proposal would apply
to a contractor whose employees are installing ductwork on vessel
sections or fabricating sheet metal in a shipyard facility, but would
not extend to duct or sheet metal work done for other employers and
customers (e.g., installing heating ductwork for an employer commercial
building). Similarly, the proposal does not extend to outside
contractors or employers who are at the shipyard but not performing
shipyard employment activities, such as vending equipment suppliers or
companies servicing portable toilet facilities. OSHA also notes that
the proposal is not intended to cover inland manufacturing of boats or
manufacturing of parts used to perform shipyard employment activities,
which are more accurately characterized as general industry
manufacturing activities covered by Part 1910 standards (Exs. 16-9,
OSHA Shipyard Employment ``Tool Bag'' Directive, CPL 02-00-142; Ex. 19,
Letter to John McKnight, National Marine Manufacturers Association (8/
3/2001)).
    The proposed consolidation of the scope provisions will simplify
the subpart. It eliminates duplicative provisions and allows OSHA to
remove from each section references to specific shipyard operations.
(This discussion of the consolidation of the scope and application
provisions eliminates the need to repeat, in the Preamble discussion of
each section, that the scope and application provisions are being
deleted from each section). It also ensures that employees will be
provided necessary protection wherever the hazards that the proposed
requirements are intended to address are present. To the extent that
the hazard is not present in a particular area of shipyard employment,
the proposed requirement would not apply. For example, the provisions
in proposed Sec.  1915.85 Vessel Radar and Radio Transmitters would not
apply if a vessel's radar is not being repaired or does not emit any
radiation.
    The revisions OSHA proposes would make this subpart consistent with
the scope and application of other subparts in part 1915 that OSHA has
revised, including subpart I Personal Protective Equipment in Shipyard
Employment (61 FR 26322 (05/24/1996)) and subpart B Confined and
Enclosed Spaces and Other Dangerous Atmospheres in Shipyard Employment
(59 FR 37816 (07/25/1994)).

Section 1915.81 Housekeeping

    OSHA proposes to retain and combine the housekeeping requirements
applicable to shipyards (Sec.  1910.141(a)(3) and Sec.  1915.91) and
proposes to reorganize and simplify the provisions to make them easier
to understand. For example, the proposal groups together similar
requirements. The proposal also simplifies the language in the existing
housekeeping section. Throughout the proposed section OSHA uses the
term ``walking and working surfaces'' in place of the list of the
specific areas and surfaces contained in the existing section. In
proposed Sec.  1915.95, OSHA defines ``walking and working surfaces''
to mean any surface on which employees gain access or perform their job
duties or upon which employees are required or allowed to walk or work
in the workplace. The definition contains examples of areas and
surfaces that the term ``walking and working surfaces'' covers and
includes all of the areas and surfaces listed in the existing
housekeeping section. OSHA believes that using the umbrella term should
make the housekeeping section easier to understand.
    Proposed paragraphs (a) through (i) establish specific requirements
to ensure walking and working surfaces are free of hazards while
paragraphs (j) and (k) minimize the risk of fire or combustion in
shipyard work areas. OSHA also proposes to add requirements to this
section including provisions on housekeeping procedures and combustible
scrap.
    Paragraph (a)--In paragraph (a) OSHA proposes to retain the
existing requirement that the employer maintain good housekeeping
conditions to ensure that walking and working surfaces do not create a
hazard for employees and that these conditions are maintained at all
times. Because of the numerous hazardous materials and substances in
use in shipyard operations, OSHA believes it is necessary to require
shipyard employers to develop and implement good housekeeping practices
to protect employees from harm. As noted above, shipyards experience
many injuries, such as slips and falls, which an effective housekeeping
program will help to reduce.
    Paragraphs (b) and (c)--In paragraph (b) OSHA proposes to retain,
with minor editorial revisions, the existing requirement (Sec.
1915.91(a)) that employers ensure that walking and working surfaces
have adequate space for work and passage. To ensure that space is
adequate, OSHA proposes in paragraph (c) to retain the existing
requirement (Sec.  1915.91(a)) that employers ensure walking and
working surfaces such as aisles and passageways be kept clear of tools,
materials and equipment not in use. Specifically, the proposal requires
that equipment not necessary to perform the job in progress not be
stored or located in an area that could interfere with walking and
working surfaces. This provision is consistent with a SESAC
recommendation (Docket SESAC 1992-3, Ex. 104X, pp. 110-112) that only
tools, materials, and equipment ``necessary to complete the job in
progress'' be allowed to be kept out. OSHA agrees with SESAC that all
other tools, materials, and equipment need to be stored or located so
that they do not interfere with walking and working surfaces and create
hazards such as tripping, slipping or falling. MACOSH also supported
the proposed addition (Docket MACOSH 1995-1, Ex. 100X, pp. 63-64).
Slips, trips and falls frequently result in injuries in shipyards. As
stated above, according to the BLS data for 2002, slips, trips and
falls accounted for 19 percent of all injuries and illnesses involving
days away from work in ship and boat building and repairing. In
addition, floors, walkways, or ground surfaces were cited as the source
for 801 injuries.
    Paragraph (d)--In proposed paragraph (d), OSHA is retaining the
existing requirement (Sec.  1910.141(a)(3)(ii)) that employers ensure
that the floor or deck of every work area is maintained, so far as
practicable, in a dry condition. Where wet processes are used, OSHA is
also retaining the existing requirement that drainage be maintained and
that employers provide false floors, platforms, mats or other dry
standing places. Shipyard employment involves many wet processes,
including gas-freeing, painting, hydroblasting and

cleaning. This provision is necessary to prevent employees from being
exposed to contaminated water and from standing for prolonged periods
of time in water, both of which may result in adverse health effects.
However, OSHA also recognizes that in some instances it may not be
possible for employers to provide a dry standing place. Therefore, OSHA
proposes to retain the existing language that employers need only
provide dry standing places to the extent that it is practicable to do
so. Where it is not, the proposal retains the existing requirement that
employers are responsible to provide any waterproof footgear that may
be necessary for performing wet processes. Wearing waterproof boots
while performing wet processes will protect employees from hazards
associated with working in standing water that may contain contaminants
and will help to prevent slips and falls.
    Paragraph (e)--In paragraph (e), OSHA proposes to combine and
simplify four existing requirements to keep walking and working
surfaces clear of debris, including solid or liquid wastes, and other
objects that may create a safety or health hazard for employees, such
as protruding nails, splinters, loose boards, and unnecessary holes and
openings. Existing Sec.  1915.91(a) requires that staging platforms,
ramps, stairways, walkways, aisles and passageways on vessels or dry
docks be kept clear of debris. Existing Sec.  1915.91(b) requires that
working areas on and immediately surrounding vessels, dry docks,
graving docks and marine railways be kept free of debris. Existing
Sec.  1910.141(a)(4)(ii) requires that all sweepings, solid or liquid
wastes, refuse, and garbage shall be removed in such a manner as to
avoid creating a menace to health and as often as necessary or
appropriate to maintain the place of employment in a sanitary
condition. In addition, existing Sec.  1910.141(a)(3)(iii) requires
that in order to facilitate cleaning, every floor, working place, and
passageway shall be kept free from protruding nails, splinters, loose
boards, and unnecessary holes and openings. The proposal, by using the
term ``walking and working surfaces'', ensures that all areas in the
shipyard are kept clear. Keeping walking and working surfaces clear
will also help to ensure that employees have adequate room to move
safely to and from work areas and throughout the workplace. OSHA
intends that the term ``debris'' continue to include bolts, nuts, and
welding rod tips as well as other objects and material that could
create a safety or health hazard to employees, such as scrap metal,
broken equipment, liquid wastes, tools, and empty containers.
    Paragraph (f)--In paragraph (f) OSHA is proposing to retain, with
only minor changes, the existing requirement (Sec.  1915.91(d)) that
the employer maintain free access to exits, fire-alarm boxes, and fire-
fighting equipment. OSHA proposes to add fire-call stations to this
list based on SESAC's recommendation that access to this equipment is
also essential for the protection and safe evacuation of employees
(SESAC 1992-3, Ex. 104X, p. 117).
    Paragraph (g)--In paragraph (g) OSHA is proposing to retain the
existing requirement (Sec.  1915.91(c)) that slippery conditions on
walkways or working surfaces shall be eliminated as they occur. The
proposal also makes more explicit OSHA's position that ice and snow are
included among the types of slippery conditions that employers must
eliminate under the existing standard by adding language that such
accumulations must be removed as they occur. OSHA believes this
clarifying language is important since members of SESAC raised
questions about whether the existing standard covers these conditions
(Docket SESAC 1992-3, Ex. 104X, pp. 117-119). OSHA requests comment on
this issue.
    Paragraph (h)--In paragraph (h) OSHA proposes to retain the
existing provision (Sec.  1915.91(b)) that construction material be
stacked in a manner that does not create a hazard (e.g., trip) to
employees. The proposal includes only non-substantive editorial
changes.
    Paragraph (i)--In paragraph (i) OSHA is proposing to retain the
existing requirement (Sec.  1915.91(a)) that hoses and electrical
service cords be hung over or placed under walking and working
surfaces, or be covered by crossovers to prevent injury to employees
and damage to the hoses and cords. The proposal contains only minor
editorial changes for clarity.
    Paragraph (j)--In paragraph (j) OSHA proposes to retain the
existing requirements (Sec.  1915.91(e)) that flammable substances such
as paint thinners, solvents, rags and waste be stored in covered fire-
resistant containers when not in use.
    Paragraph (k)--Proposed paragraph (k) adds a requirement that
combustible scrap be removed from the work area as soon as possible to
reduce fire hazards. Shipyards have many small fires that are often due
to the accumulation of combustible scrap materials. If combustible
scrap is allowed to accumulate in areas where hot work such as welding
and cutting are performed, sparks generated by that work could ignite
the scrap. Fire prevention helps eliminate the hazards created by the
presence of combustible materials. OSHA recently published a fire
prevention standard (29 CFR Part 1915, subpart P) that contains fire
prevention measures that must be taken before and during hot work (69
FR 55668-55708, (9/15/2004)). The proposed requirement would reduce
fire hazards further and improve fire protection in shipyards.

Section 1915.82--Lighting

    This section proposes minimum requirements for illumination
throughout shipyard employment. Many of the proposed provisions are
retained from the existing requirements in Sec.  1915.92. However, the
proposal reorganizes them for clarity into the following three
paragraphs: (a) General Requirements; (b) Temporary Lights; and (c)
Handheld Portable Lights.
    Paragraph (a) General Requirements--Proposed paragraph (a) sets
forth requirements that apply to lighting in all areas of shipyard
employment. The proposed general requirements would apply regardless of
whether permanent or temporary lights are used. The lighting intensity
levels that would be required by table F-1 would not apply to emergency
lighting or portable handheld lights.
    In paragraph (a)(1) OSHA is proposing to establish minimum
illumination requirements for specific areas and work activities in
shipyard employment to ensure that employers have lighting that allows
employees to safely perform work tasks. For instance, proposed Table F-
1 specifies that general landside areas such as corridors and walkways
that employees pass through would be required to have an illumination
intensity of at least five lumens (foot candles). However, OSHA
believes that higher illumination levels (i.e., 10 lumens) are
necessary to work safely in landside areas such as machine and
carpentry shops. In these areas employees may be using hazardous tools
and equipment and performing precision work. Likewise, higher
illumination levels (i.e., 10 lumens) are necessary in warehouses since
it may be necessary for employees to read warning labels on flammable
or hazardous substances and to safely operate lift trucks and other
equipment.
    According to the IMIS database, there have been four fatalities
that may have been prevented had the employees been working in an area
that was provided with adequate illumination. In one incident, an
employee stepped into an

unguarded opening in the floor of a dark cargo deck and fell almost 20
feet to his death at the bottom of the cargo hold. At the time of the
accident, the employee was walking across the dark deck towards an open
doorway, which provided the only illumination of the area. In another
case, an employee climbing down a ladder in an elevator shaft that was
dimly lit, fell 50 feet to his death. It is unclear whether the
employee could even see the bottom of the 130-foot shaft as he was
descending. In another case, an employee was electrocuted when he was
performing electrical repair work at night in a poorly illuminated
area. An accident investigation found there was ``inadequate lighting''
at the location where the employee was working (Ex. 14). Although the
investigation confirmed that the controlling circuit breaker was
closed, another switch was found in an open position, possibly because
there was not enough light to read the switch. The existing rule
specifies that work areas must be ``adequately illuminated'' (Sec.
1915.92(a)). The proposed rule clarifies the existing requirement by
setting forth specific illumination levels for various shipyard work
locations (proposed Sec.  1915.82 Table F-1). Had the employee's work
location been lit to the proposed levels, the employee may have been
able to see that the oil switch was still open and close it prior to
starting his repair work.
    SESAC recommended that OSHA add specific illumination requirements
to this section (Docket SESAC-1992-1, Ex. 100X, 1992, p. 113), and the
Agency agrees that the table provides useful and simple assistance for
employers. The illumination specifications in proposed Table F-1 are
drawn from illumination tables in the Construction Illumination (Sec.
1926.56) and Hazardous Waste Operations (Sec.  1910.120) standards, and
in the national consensus standard for industrial lighting (Ex. 3-8,
ANSI/IESNA RP-9-01-2001 Recommended Practice for Lighting in Industrial
Facilities). The proposal revises and simplifies the tables from those
standards to make Table F-1 more applicable to shipyard employment
conditions and activities.
    OSHA is proposing that each area of the workplace be illuminated
according to the following intensities. In general areas, such as
exits, accessways, stairs and walkways, the area must be illuminated
with at least 3 lumens on vessels and vessel sections and 5 lumens on
landside. In areas such as landside tunnels, shafts, vaults, pumping
stations and underground work areas, and all assigned work areas on any
vessel or vessel section, the area must be illuminated to at least 5
lumens. Landside work areas such as machine shops, electrical equipment
rooms, carpenter shops, lofts, tool rooms, warehouses, outdoor work
areas, changing rooms, showers, sewered toilet facilities and all
eating, drinking and break areas must be illuminated to 10 lumens.
First aid stations, infirmaries and offices must be illuminated to 30
lumens.
    OSHA notes that the Longshoring standard, 29 CFR 1918.92(a),
requires generally that illumination for cargo transfer operations be
of a minimum light intensity of five lumens. Where work tasks require
more light to be performed safely, supplemental lighting must be
provided. That approach does not provide the guidance that SESAC
requested while proposed Table F-1 provides for those situations in
which supplemental lighting may be necessary. OSHA does not intend to
require that employers provide additional lighting where natural light
provides the necessary illumination level. However, where natural light
does not provide the required level (e.g., at dusk), the employer must
provide additional lighting and Table F-1 specifies the appropriate
minimum levels of illumination.
    OSHA solicits comments on the proposal as well as alternative
approaches such as the one used in the Longshoring Standard or the
requirements of the ANSI/IESNA standard. Are the proposed lighting
intensities adequate? Does the table adequately address all areas of
shipyard employment? If not, what areas need to be added?
    In paragraph (a)(2), OSHA proposes to retain unchanged the existing
requirement (Sec.  1915.92(e)) that matches and open flame devices may
not be used as sources of light. OSHA proposes to place this provision
with the general requirements to reinforce its intent that matches and
open flames are not to be used for light for any purpose, including
emergencies, or anywhere in the shipyard, regardless of whether
permanent, temporary or handheld portable lighting is available. Using
matches and open flame devices, such as burning torches, for lighting
or heat is not safe or practical for a number of reasons. They are
unreliable, could be blown out easily, could endanger employees by
creating a fire hazard, and do not provide adequate lighting
intensities.
    SESAC also recommended adding a requirement that only a ``qualified
person'' be permitted to replace or cap unguarded, damaged bulbs that
have exposed filaments (Docket SESAC 1991, Ex. 100X, p. 84). OSHA has
not adopted this suggestion, because the Agency believes that the
existing and other proposed standards address this hazard. The existing
and proposed provisions requiring temporary lights to be either
completely recessed or equipped with guards reduces the electrical
hazard created by an exposed light bulb filament, and the electrical
safe work practices of Sec.  1910 subpart S that apply to temporary
lights powered from landside sources address the hazards to employees
repairing the temporary lights.
    OSHA requests comment on this recommendation, and whether it is
needed, in light of other existing and proposed regulatory provisions
that deal with lighting, electrical safety, and guarding of temporary
lights.
    Paragraph (b) Temporary Lights--Proposed paragraph (b) retains,
with minor editorial changes, the existing provisions on temporary
lights (Sec.  1915.92(f)), including light guards, grounding,
insulation, and splicing.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(1) is similar to the existing requirement
(Sec.  1915.92(b)(1)) that temporary lights that do not have bulbs that
are ``deeply'' recessed must have guards to prevent accidental contact.
Guarding of non-recessed bulbs is necessary to protect employees from
being burned, or cut by broken bulbs, and to prevent combustible
materials from igniting. However, paragraph (b)(1) proposes to require
that temporary lights be guarded if they are not ``completely''
recessed. The existing provision only requires guarding if lights are
not ``deeply'' recessed. Unless a temporary light is completely
recessed, there is a risk that the light could be damaged or broken,
thus creating a hazard for employees (e.g., electrical, laceration,
burn). A guard is necessary to control those hazards. OSHA believes the
proposed language provides employers with clearer and more accurate
guidance on when the hazards this provision addresses are present and
must be controlled. OSHA requests comment on the proposed provision.
What is your current practice? Should OSHA require that all temporary
lights be guarded?
    Paragraph (b)(2) proposes that employers equip temporary lights
with electric cords ``with sufficient capacity to carry the electric
load.'' The existing standard (Sec.  1915.92(b)(2)) requires the use of
``heavy duty'' electric cords. The OSHA Construction Electrical
standards are similar to the existing standard, requiring that cords
for portable tools and appliances be designed for ``hard or extra-hard
usage'' (Sec.  1926.405(a)(2)(j)). The construction standard includes a

note listing various types of hard or extra-hard cords that meet the
National Electrical Code (ANSI/NEPA 70, Article 400, Table 400-4).
    OSHA believes the proposed language more accurately identifies the
type of cord employers must provide to ensure employees are not exposed
to electrical hazards, and thus, provides greater protection for
employees. The fact that a cord is ``heavy duty'' does not necessarily
mean that it has sufficient capacity to carry the electric load. In
addition, OSHA believes the proposal provides employers with greater
flexibility in meeting the requirements of the standard. The proposal
ensures that employers may use whatever type of cord is sufficient to
safely carry the electric load.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(3) retains unchanged the existing
requirements (Sec.  1915.92(b)(2)) that connections and insulation used
on temporary lights be maintained in a safe condition. Implicit in this
provision is the requirement that the employer check to see that
connections and insulation are in proper working order and replace them
when they are broken, cracked or damaged.
    In paragraph (b)(4), OSHA proposes to clarify the existing
requirement (Sec.  1915.92(b)(2)) to prohibit temporary light
stringers, as well as temporary lights, from being suspended solely by
their electric cords, unless they are designed by the manufacturer to
be used in that way. When any type of lights and wiring are not
suspended properly, placing them under tension the manufacturer did not
design the electric cord to take, the cord can fray, break, or become
damaged.
    Proposed paragraphs (b)(5) and (6) retain, with non-substantive
changes, the existing requirements in Sec.  1915.92(f). Proposed
paragraph (b)(5) requires that lighting stringers not overload branch
circuits. Proposed paragraph (b)(6) requires that branch circuits be
equipped with over-current protection whose capacity does not exceed
the rated current carrying capacity of the cord used. OSHA believes
that both measures are necessary to provide an adequate measure of
safety from electrical and fire hazards associated with circuit
overloading.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(7) revises the existing standard by
requiring that splices have insulation that ``exceeds'' that of the
cable. The existing provision allows the use of splices where the
insulation is ``equal'' to that of the cable. OSHA believes the
revisions are necessary to ensure that employees are fully protected
from electrical hazards if splices are used. When a splice is necessary
on an electrical cord, the current may create a surplus of energy or
``hot spot'' at the splice junction that is greater than the current
for which the cord was designed. Requiring that the rated capacity of
the insulation exceed the capacity of the cable ensures that employees
will be protected if they touch or come into contact with the splice.
The additional insulation capacity also ensures that hot spots do not
start burning or ignite combustible materials in the area.
    OSHA requests comment on the proposed revision. Does the proposed
requirement provide sufficient protection for employees? Is weather a
factor in determining what insulation to use? In your establishment and
industry, what practices are followed regarding insulation of splices?
Should OSHA propose a more specific requirement, for example that
splices have insulation at 1\1/2\ times greater than that of the cable?
    Proposed paragraph (b)(8) retains the existing requirement (Sec.
1915.92(c)) that exposed, non-current-carrying metal parts of temporary
lights be grounded. It also retains the requirement that grounding be
provided either through a third wire in the cable that contains the
circuit conductors or through a separate wire that is grounded at the
source of the current. OSHA also proposes to include the existing
provision requiring that grounding be done in accordance with the
requirements of Sec.  1915.132(b) subpart H, Tools and Related
Equipment.
    Paragraph (c) Handheld Portable Lights--Proposed paragraph (c)
addresses the use of handheld portable lights in work areas that do not
have permanent or temporary lighting or such lighting is not working or
is not readily accessible.
    To ensure that employees do not enter unlighted or dark areas,
paragraph (c)(1) requires that the employer provide employees with
handheld portable lights and ensure that such lights are used whenever
employees enter those areas. The proposal simplifies the current
requirements (Sec.  1915.92(d) and (e)), by combining them into one
provision and clarifying that the requirement is applicable to all
unlighted areas in shipyards, regardless of whether they are on
vessels, vessel sections or landside.
    In response to a MACOSH recommendation (Ex. 1-2), proposed
paragraph (c)(1) also clarifies in objective terms the existing
prohibition that employees not enter ``dark spaces'' without handheld
portable lights. The proposal replaces that term with the requirement
that employers provide and ensure handheld portable lights are used to
enter or work in any area that (1) does not have permanent or temporary
lighting, (2) where such lighting is not working, or (3) where such
lighting is not readily accessible. ``Readily accessible,'' for
purposes of this provision, means that the light switch or other means
of activation is located in close proximity to the entrance to the
area. For example, where an employee would have to travel across a long
work area or climb steps in the dark to turn on permanent lights, those
lights are not readily accessible. In such cases, the employee would
have to use a handheld portable light to enter the area. OSHA requests
comment on the proposed provision. In your establishment, when are
employees provided with and required to use handheld portable lights to
enter an area? Are there other situations where handheld portable
lights are needed?
    In three different fatalities reported in the IMIS database,
employees who were working in areas where the lighting was not working,
fell to their deaths walking in dark areas. In one instance, an
employee who was trying to restore power to the temporary lighting
stepped off of the coaming and fell approximately 25 feet to the bottom
of the hold.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(2) is similar to the existing requirement
(Sec.  1915.92(d)) that where temporary lighting from sources outside
the vessel or vessel section is the only means of illumination, the
employer shall ensure that handheld portable lights are available to
provide illumination for safe movement of employees. This provision is
needed because temporary lighting could fail, making it difficult and
hazardous for employees exiting an area of the vessel. The proposal
requires that the employer ensure that the portable lights are handheld
so employees are able to take the lights with them to light their way
as they move about and exit the space safely. The proposal also makes
explicit that the employer must ensure that handheld portable lights
are readily available in the immediate area where employees are
working. Implicit in the proposal is the obligation that the employer
provide handheld portable lights in numbers that are adequate to ensure
that all employees are able to move about and exit the area safely.
OSHA requests comment on the proposed provision. Should OSHA apply this
provision to any area where landside or shore-based lighting provides
the only illumination? Should OSHA include an exception to the rule
when natural sunlight suffices?

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

Section 1915.83 Utilities

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

    In paragraph (c)(2), OSHA proposes to revise the existing
requirement (Sec.  1915.93(b)(1)(ii)) to require that, prior to
energization, employers ensure that circuits are in safe condition. The
proposal also deletes the existing language requirement that employers
ascertain such information from a ``responsible vessel's
representative.'' OSHA believes the proposal provides employers with
greater flexibility to determine the most effective procedure for
checking the safety of circuits.
    In paragraph (c)(3), OSHA proposes to retain unchanged the existing
requirement (Sec.  1915.93(b)(1)(iii)) that circuits to be energized
must be equipped with overcurrent protection that does not exceed the
rated current-carrying capacity of the conductors.
    Paragraph (d) Heat Lamps--Proposed paragraph (d) would require that
all heat lamps, including the face, be equipped with surround-type
guards to prevent contact with the bulb, which could result in employee
burns or the igniting of combustible material. The proposal expands the
existing requirement (Sec.  1915.93(c)), which is limited to infrared
heat lamps and does not fully address contact hazards since it does not
require that the lamp face be guarded. OSHA believes these changes are
necessary because shipyards use a variety of heat lamps and because
fires are a significant source of accidents onboard vessels. In
addition, employees can be seriously burned if they come in contact
with a lamp face, which the guarding will prevent.

Section 1915.84 Work in Confined or Isolated Spaces

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

alert other employees that someone is inside working?

Section 1915.85 Vessel Radar and Radio Transmitters

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

Section 1915.86 Lifeboats

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

Section 1915.87 Medical Services and First Aid

    Proposed Sec.  1915.87 sets out requirements for medical services,
first aid, and lifesaving equipment. Shipyard employment has high
accident rates. The provisions in this section are intended to prevent
workplace accidents from resulting in fatality and serious injury by
increasing the survivability of life-threatening injuries and
mitigating the severity of injuries.
    The proposal combines and revises, where necessary, the existing
standards on medical services and first aid that are applicable to
shipyards (Sec. Sec.  1910.151 and 1915.98). OSHA adopted both
standards, pursuant to section 6(a) of the OSH Act, from the
established Federal occupational safety and health

standards in effect at the time. (The provisions in Sec.  1910.151
apply to shipyards to the extent that the section addresses hazards and
working conditions that Sec.  1915.98 does not. See Ex.16-9, OSHA's
Tool Bag Directive.)
    Paragraph (a) General Requirement--In paragraph (a), OSHA proposes
a general requirement that employers ensure that medical services and
first aid for employees are ``readily accessible.'' For purposes of
this section, readily accessible means that medical services and first
aid are capable of being reached quickly when employees need them, or
medical service and first aid can be brought quickly to the employee,
and there are no obstacles to gaining quick access.
    The purpose of this provision is twofold. First, it would establish
uniform criteria applicable to all of the first aid and medical
services specified in the section, ensuring that these services are
available and close enough to the injured employee so effective
intervention can be provided. Second, in the case of serious or life-
threatening injury, it would require employers to have steps in place
to ensure that additional emergency medical intervention is readily
accessible. The provision also addresses SESAC's concerns that first
aid providers be able to reach injured employees quickly enough to
render effective assistance.
    Uniform criteria for all first aid and medical services are
necessary because their components, primarily first aid providers and
first aid supplies, are interrelated. They both must be readily
accessible for intervention to be effective. It is not effective to
require that first aid kits be situated at every work location without
a parallel requirement to have trained employees at the work location
who are capable of using those supplies. Conversely, on-site trained
first aid providers cannot provide effective assistance if first aid
supplies are too far away to be accessed quickly. Thus, establishing
uniform criteria will help to ensure that the needed components of
first aid and medical services are in place to provide effective
intervention when needed. Uniform provisions will also help to simplify
the section and make it easier to understand and comply with. Finally,
the uniform criterion addresses inconsistency concerns that SESAC
suggested exist in the current requirements. SESAC pointed out that the
existing standard establishes different criteria for different types of
first aid and medical services (Docket SESAC 1993-1, Ex. 100X, pp. 167-
173). For example, SESAC pointed out that in existing Sec.  1915.98(a)
first aid rooms, qualified attendants and trained first aid providers
must be ``close at hand'' to any area of the shipyard while the first
aid kits provision only requires that kits be furnished for and kept
close to each vessel.
    OSHA notes that employers will need to consider various workplace
factors in determining whether first aid and medical services are
readily accessible, such as the size and position of each work
location; the number of employees working at the work location; the
nature of the hazards to which employees may be exposed; and the
distance between work locations and clinics (on-site or off-site),
hospitals and rescue squads.
    Applying these factors, accidents resulting in severe bleeding or
electrical shock resulting in heart or breath stoppage must be treated
within a very short time (optimally within three to four minutes) to
increase the chances of a positive outcome. To the extent that these
types of accident risks are present in shipyards, such as servicing
electrical systems where there is a risk of energization or start up,
the employer must ensure that necessary first aid is close enough to
maximize the injured employee's survivability. For example, where
employees are at risk of electrical shock, it is necessary to have
first aid providers located in that work area so cardiopulmonary
resuscitation (CPR) can be started quickly.
    With regard to the second purpose, the proposed provision would
require employers to ensure ready accessibility to additional medical
services such as rescue squads and ambulances. OSHA notes that some
shipyards, primarily larger ones, already have taken these steps by
establishing their own on-site medical clinics and ambulance or rescue
squads. The proposed provision does not require shipyard employers to
have on-site clinics, ambulance or rescue squads, but at a minimum, it
requires employers to implement a system to ensure that emergency
services such as local rescue squads or ambulance services are readily
accessible when needed. The employer's plan needs to factor in
reasonably foreseeable delays, such as railroad tracks near the
shipyard entrance that could be blocked when rescue squads need to
access injured employees in the shipyard.
    OSHA requests comment on this provision. In your establishment and
industry, what measures are in place to ensure that first aid and
medical services are readily accessible? Should the final standard
specify a maximum time within which first aid and medical services must
be available? For example, should the final standard specify that
employers must ensure that first aid and medical services are initiated
within three to five minutes of the discovery or report of an injury?
    Paragraph (b) Advice and Consultation--In paragraph (b), OSHA
proposes to retain, with technical changes, the existing requirement in
Sec.  1910.151(a) that employers ensure that health care professionals
are readily available for advice and consultation on matters of
workplace health.
    OSHA is proposing to replace two terms in the existing requirement.
The term ``plant health'' would be changed to ``workplace health,'' to
make the provision more appropriate to shipyards, and ``health care
professionals'' would replace the term ``medical personnel.'' OSHA
proposes to define health care professional to mean a physician or any
other health care provider whose legally permitted scope of practice
allows the provider to independently provide or be delegated the
responsibility to provide some or all of the advice or consultation
this section requires. The proposal would allow employers to consult
with any health care professional (e.g., physician, osteopath,
physician's assistant, nurse, EMT, etc.) whose license, registration or
certificate authorizes them to provide such assistance and advice. In
some instances, a nurse or physician's assistant at an on-site clinic
may be able to provide the requested advice and consultation. Employers
are also free to use local medical clinics or specialists. The key is
that the health care professional must be readily available to provide
advice and consultation when needed.
    Paragraph (c) First Aid Providers--Proposed paragraph (c)(1)
revises the existing provisions (Sec.  1915.98(a)) on the required
number and location of first aid providers and updates the requirements
on their qualifications to more fully address the needs and conditions
present in shipyards. OSHA proposes that employers ensure there are
adequate numbers of employees to render first aid at each work location
during each workshift. Section 1915.98(a) currently requires that where
a first aid room with a qualified attendant is not ``close at hand,''
there must be at least one employee ``close at hand'' to administer
first aid. SESAC raised two concerns about this provision. They said
the language ``close at hand'' was too vague. In addition, they
expressed concern that first aid providers would not be able to reach
injured employees quickly enough if they were not located at shipyard
work locations. For example, some SESAC members said local emergency
services

can be delayed in reaching shipyards due to traffic situations, such as
being stopped at train crossings. To resolve these concerns, SESAC
recommended that there be first aid providers at shipyard work
locations regardless of whether first aid rooms or hospitals are
located nearby (Docket SESAC 1993-1, Ex. 100X, pp. 166-173).
    Based on SESAC's recommendation, OSHA proposes in paragraph (c)(1)
that employers ensure that there are employees qualified to provide
first aid at each work location during each workshift. OSHA agrees with
SESAC that the proposed provision is necessary and will be effective in
ensuring that first aid is provided quickly enough to maximize
survivability and prevent permanent injury. The sooner life-threatening
conditions are treated, the more likely that the outcome will be
positive. The American Heart Association (AHA) found that when
resuscitation and automatic external defibrillation are delivered
within three to five minutes, reported survival rates from sudden
cardiac arrest are as high as 48 to 74 percent (Ex. 8). Studies have
shown that for each minute sudden cardiac arrest is not treated, the
probability of reviving the heart decreases by 7 to 10 percent (Exs. 7,
8). These data indicate that having responders at the work location
could significantly increase the survival rates for injured employees.
    Having first aid providers at the work location can also ``buy
time'' until off-site rescuers arrive. For example, performing CPR
immediately can help to preserve heart and brain function until local
emergency services are able to provide complete medical treatment, such
as providing oxygen or using an automated external defibrillator (AED)
to restore normal heart rhythm. According to IMIS, there were 13
fatalities in shipyards that were deemed ``heart attack'' or
``coronary'' within a 15 year period. Out of those 13, only 4 reports
documented any basic life support, such as CPR or first aid, prior to
rescue squads arriving on the scene. Even for injuries that are not
immediately life threatening, timely first aid can reduce further
injury and significantly aid recovery by, for example, immobilizing
fractures, reducing blood loss or providing warmth for shock.
    For example, the proposed provisions requiring trained employees at
each work location to render first aid, including cardiopulmonary
resuscitation (CPR), may have prevented the following shipyard
fatalities. In one case, a shipyard employee was electrocuted while
troubleshooting a portable outlet box. The IMIS abstract indicates that
coworkers summoned emergency medical personnel to the worksite, which
appears to suggest that there was no one at the worksite trained to
provide CPR to ``buy time'' until offsite emergency personnel arrived.
There also is no indication how long it took for emergency personnel to
arrive. When the personnel did arrive, they transported the injured
employee to a hospital, but he died. Had the proposed provisions been
in place, there would have been first aid providers at that work
location to begin CPR immediately to preserve the employee's brain and
heart function during those critical first minutes while offsite
emergency personnel are summoned (proposed Sec.  1915.88(c)(1)).
Studies show that for each minute sudden cardiac care is not treated,
the probability of reviving the heart decreases by as much as 10
percent (Ex. 7).
    In another case, an employee began experiencing chest pain after
climbing down a scaffolding stair tower for his lunch break. When he
asked coworkers for help, they began walking him along the pier,
presumably to an on-site infirmary. The employee collapsed while he was
walking and died of a heart attack. Under the proposed provisions,
there would have been trained employees who would have known to have
the employee lie down rather walk to an infirmary. Moreover, these
employees would have been able to start CPR, which would have maximized
the employee's survivability potential. Similarly, a shipyard employee
who collapsed while he was working in the engine room of a large ship
may have survived had other employees working in the engine room or on
the vessel been trained to render first aid. There is no indication in
the IMIS abstract whether there were any trained first aid providers in
the engine room or on the vessel to perform CPR.
    The proposed requirement to ensure that during each workshift there
are an adequate number of first aid providers (proposed Sec.
1915.88(c)(1)) also may have prevented shipyard fatalities reported in
the IMIS database. For example, during a ``graveyard'' shift, a
shipyard employee working in the bottom of a vessel cofferdam died
after he suffered cardiac arrest. There is no indication in the
abstract whether any first aid providers attempted resuscitation or
indeed whether there were any first aid providers at the shipyard
during that workshift.
    For purposes of this provision, the meaning of a shipyard ``work
location'' will depend on the size, nature and location of the
shipyard. OSHA does not intend the term to mean a single work area. A
shipyard may have hundreds of work areas and only one or a few
employees may work in any one area. Rather, OSHA intends a shipyard
work location to refer to a group of work areas that are clustered
together and in near proximity to each other. For instance, work areas
in a small, concentrated shipyard may constitute a single work
location, even though some may be located on a vessel and others on
landside. By contrast, a large shipyard that has multiple piers, docks,
large vessels, and landside facilities is likely to be considered to
have multiple work locations. This is because shipyard work areas are
more likely to be spread across a large area, possibly miles apart, and
some may be remotely located. In these shipyards, it is unlikely that a
first aid provider located in one work area would be able to reach all
work areas within the shipyard quickly enough to provide effective
intervention. Accordingly, OSHA believes that each group of clustered
work areas must have an adequate number of first aid providers to
ensure that timely intervention is provided for employees working at a
work area within that group. By contrast, a single work area distantly
located from other work areas may, of necessity, be considered a work
location because first aid providers in other work areas would not be
able to reach the area quickly enough to effectively aid an injured
employee.
    Additionally, OSHA is proposing to add a requirement that employers
ensure the work location has first aid providers during each workshift.
Many shipyards have multiple workshifts and employers must ensure that
employees working in any of these workshifts will have effective first
aid intervention if an injury occurs. Having first aid providers at
each work location is especially important during those hours when on-
site and off-site infirmaries and clinics are not open.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(1) also includes the following objective
factors employers must consider in determining how many providers are
needed at each work location:
     The sizes and location of work locations in the shipyard;
     The number of employees at each work location;
     The nature of the hazards present at each work location;
and
     The distance of each shipyard work location from clinics
(on-site or off-site), rescue squads and hospitals.
    OSHA believes that the addition of the objective factors not only
will make the requirement easier for employers to understand and comply
with, but also

will address SESAC's concern about the vagueness of the current
language (Docket SESAC 1993-1, Ex. 100X, pp. 167-173). (A more detailed
explanation of the objective factors is included below in the
discussion of first aid supplies).
    OSHA believes the proposed revision should not pose significant new
burdens for shipyard employers since many already have multiple
employees at each work location who are qualified to provide first aid.
For instance, one SESAC member said that a significant number of
employees in Boston area shipyards already receive first aid training:

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

    OSHA requests comment on the proposed provision. In your
establishment and industry, how many employees are trained to provide
first aid? Are there trained providers at each work location and during
all workshifts? Are the objective factors in the proposed standard
appropriate for determining how many first aid providers employers
should have at each work location? What additional factors, if any,
should employers consider?
    OSHA has recently developed and published a Best Practices Guide:
Fundamentals of a Workplace First-Aid Program (Ex. 18). This document
provides a discussion on the basics of assessing the risks and
designing a first aid program that is specific to the worksite.
Although this document addresses some basics, while developing a first
aid program, employers need to keep in mind the additional factors
specified in the proposal.
    First aid provider training/qualifications. The importance of first
aid training is immeasurable. Although some shipyard employees may have
received training in the past, appropriate and up-to-date training is
necessary to ensure that injured employees receive correct
intervention. Lack of training can also result in a lack of treatment
when it is needed. For example, in 2002, as an employee was standing on
a scaffold to bolt a motor onto a crane located off of the main house.
After descending from the scaffolding for his lunch break, the employee
complained of chest pains and asked coworkers for help. They proceeded
to walk the employee along the pier. The employee collapsed while he
was walking and died of a heart attack. Had the coworkers been trained
in first aid and CPR, they would have known the correct steps to follow
when an employee experiences the early signs and symptoms of a cardiac
event.
    Section 1915.98(a) currently requires that any person administering
first aid be ``qualified,'' but does not define the term. In paragraph
(c)(2), OSHA proposes to make this intent clearer by stating that
employees designated to provide first aid must have a ``valid first aid
certificate.'' The proposed language is drawn from a similar
requirement in the Longshoring standard, which OSHA updated in 1997
(Sec.  1918.97(b)).
    The proposal is designed to give employers maximum flexibility in
developing a first aid training program that is appropriate for the
types of working conditions and hazards in their workplaces. With one
exception, CPR training, the proposal does not establish the specific
content of the required first aid training program that employers must
follow. As long as the certificate is issued by a responsible
organization, such as the American Red Cross, the American Heart
Association, or other equivalent organization, which requires
successful course completion as evidence of qualification, the
requirements of the proposal would be met. Likewise, the proposal does
not specify a frequency for first aid refresher training. Whatever
frequency the certifying organization requires for retaining
certification, usually three years, would be allowed.
    OSHA is considering including an appendix on the requirements of a
first aid training program to ensure that employees are fully trained
by qualified instructors. This appendix could be similar to that found
in the Logging Operations standard (Sec.  1910.266), which includes a
mandatory appendix that specifies the minimally acceptable first aid
training program that employers must follow. Some of the required
topics include respiratory arrest, cardiac arrest, lacerations/
abrasions, shock, burns and loss of consciousness. Similarly, the
Longshoring first aid standard (Sec.  1918.97) includes a non-mandatory
appendix that lists the basic elements of a first aid training program.
Along with topic areas such as shock, bleeding, poisoning and burns,
this appendix also specifies the manner in which employees must receive
training. For example, it recommends that trainees develop hands-on
skills through the use of manikins, a course workbook, and adequate
time for emphasis on situations likely to be encountered in the
particular workplace.
    OSHA requests comment on the proposed first aid training
requirement. Should the final standard require that first aid providers
have a valid first aid and CPR certificate? Should the final rule
specify the areas in which first aid providers must be trained? Should
OSHA include an appendix similar to that in Sec.  1910.266 or 1918.97
in the final rule? If not, why not? If so, what should the program
include? Should the program include hands-on exercises? Should the
final rule include a requirement that whatever first aid training
program and trainer/provider the employer uses, that the program and/or
trainer be certified by a nationally recognized first aid organization?
Please explain.
    In your establishment and/or industry, what training and
certification do first aid providers have and does it include CPR
training? What organizations, if any, conduct the first aid training
and certification? How frequently do first aid providers have refresher
training?
    Paragraph (d)--First Aid Supplies--In paragraph (d), OSHA proposes
to revise the existing requirement on first aid supplies (Sec.
1915.98(b)). The proposed changes give employers more flexibility and
assistance in tailoring the type, amount and location of supplies to
the specific needs of their workplace. The proposal includes objective
criteria, which are the same as those proposed for first aid providers,
to assist employers in meeting the requirement. A non-mandatory
appendix to this section references the most recent consensus standards
regarding first aid supplies, consistent with the recently revised
general industry standard (Sec.  1910.151).
    Location of first aid supplies. In paragraph (d)(1), OSHA proposes
to revise the existing standard to require that first aid supplies be
provided ``at each work location.'' (In proposed paragraph (d)(2), OSHA
identifies objective criteria to assist employers in determining where
to locate supplies in each work location so they will be readily
accessible when needed). The existing standard requires that, under
certain circumstances, first aid kits be furnished ``for each vessel on
which work is being performed'' and be kept ``close to the vessel''
(Sec.  1915.98(a)). The general industry standard, which was revised in
1998, specifies that first aid supplies must be ``readily available''
(Sec.  1910.151(b); 63 FR 33450 (6/19/1998)).
    The proposed revision gives employers more flexibility and guidance
about where supplies need to be located. In addition, the proposal

clarifies OSHA's intent that first aid supplies need to be located at
all work locations throughout the shipyard, those onboard and near
vessels as well as those at landside work locations.
    OSHA requests comment on this provision. In your industry and
establishment, where are first aid kits located and what factors do you
consider in determining where to locate them?
    Number of first aid supplies. The existing standard (Sec.
1915.98(b)) requires that employers provide ``sufficient'' quantities
of first aid supplies, but does not define the term. In paragraph
(d)(1), OSHA proposes to revise the existing rule to require that
employers provide ``adequate'' first aid supplies at each work
location, and adds, in proposed paragraph (d)(2), objective criteria
employers must follow in determining whether they have provided enough
supplies to meet the needs of that work location. Of particular
importance in determining the number of supplies is the number of
employees who will be working at the specific location. OSHA requests
comment on this provision. In your industry and establishment, how many
first aid kits are provided and what factors do you consider in
determining how many are needed?
    Proposed paragraph (d)(1) also requires that employers maintain
their first aid supplies so they remain adequate. This means that
employers must ensure that not only are the number of first aid
supplies adequate, but also that exhausted supplies are replaced. For
purposes of this provision, maintain also means that first aid supplies
must be kept in serviceable condition. A more detailed explanation of
the proposed maintenance requirement is included below along with the
discussion of the inspection of first aid supplies.
    Contents of first aid kits. In paragraph (d)(2), OSHA proposes to
revise the existing requirements on the contents of first aid kits
(Sec.  1915.98(b)). The existing provision specifies a list of items
that first aid kits must contain, a list that SESAC said was outdated
(Docket 1992-1, Ex. 100X, pp. 161, 162). Based on SESAC's
recommendation, in paragraph (d)(2), OSHA proposes to replace the list
with a performance based approach.
    The list of supplies in Sec.  1915.98(b) was adopted more than 30
years ago, prior to adoption of the 1978 ANSI Z308.1 standard on
workplace first aid kits and is inconsistent with the current ANSI
standard (Ex. 3-2, ANSI Z308.1 (1998) Minimum Requirements for
Workplace First Aid Kits). The list in Sec.  1915.98(b) does not
include all of the minimum content requirements for basic first aid
kits specified in the current ANSI standard and includes items that
ANSI no longer recommends for general workplace kits (i.e., tourniquets
and forceps) (Ex. 3-2, Table 5-1).
    OSHA believes that adopting a performance-based approach on the
contents of first aid kits will give employers maximum flexibility in
tailoring their first aid supplies to the conditions and hazards
present in their workplace. Adding objective criteria that employers
must consider in determining the content of first aid kits provides a
framework for assuring that first aid supplies will be appropriate and
adequate for the shipyard work location.
    Objective criteria. In paragraph (d)(2), OSHA proposes to add
objective criteria to assist employers in determining whether the
location, content and amount of first aid supplies are adequate and
appropriate for shipyard work locations. The proposal includes the
following four criteria that employers must consider:
     The size and location of each shipyard work location. The
size of the shipyard work location is an important consideration. It is
likely that large work locations are spread out and, as such, more
first aid kits may be necessary to ensure they are readily accessible
if an employee gets injured. Employers also need to consider the
location of where employees are working throughout shipyards when
determining the number, content and positioning of first aid kits. For
example, remote work locations or other shipyard work locations that
are farther away from rescue squads or hospitals may need to have more
first aid supplies or a broader range of supplies to care for an
injured employee until additional help arrives or the employee can be
transported for more advanced care. Work locations that may be cut off
by passing railcars also may need more first aid supplies in case
access roads are blocked when an injury occurs. In addition, it would
be necessary for vessels that are underway to have adequate first aid
supplies onboard.
     The number of employees at each work location. In general,
when there are more employees at a work location the employer would
need to provide more first aid supplies to prepare for the possibility
that an accident could result in multiple employee injuries, or that
several accidents could occur within a short period of time.
     The nature of hazards present at each work location.
Employers need to assess the specific needs and the nature of the
hazards present in each work location to ensure that first aid kits
contain the types and quantity of supplies needed to effectively treat
the injuries and illnesses that could be expected. For example, in
shops where hot work is performed first aid supplies for burns would be
necessary, and in outdoor areas first aid items for insect or animal
bites may be needed.
     The distance of each work location from hospitals,
clinics, and rescue squads. The distance--and therefore the time
needed--to get to hospitals or clinics (on-site or off-site), and for
rescue squads to respond is also an important factor in determining the
location, amount and type of first aid supplies employers need to
provide. A single first aid kit may be adequate for small work
locations that are close to on-site infirmaries or local emergency
services. However, additional kits and types of supplies may be
necessary when medical services are farther away.
    OSHA requests comment on the proposed provisions, including the
objective factors employers would need to consider in determining the
location, amount and types of first aid supplies to provide. What
additional factors, if any, should employers consider? In your
establishment and industry, what factors do you use in making
determinations about first aid supplies?
    Non-mandatory appendix. Section 1910.151 includes a recently
revised non-mandatory appendix to provide information on the contents
of first aid kits (70 FR 1112, 1141 (1/5/2005)). OSHA proposes to