employers from protecting workers from contact with hoses by re-routing
the hoses and piping so they do not pass through walkways or work
areas. The intention of paragraph (b)(4) is to prevent workers from
getting burned by accidentally contacting hot steam hoses. Paragraph
(b)(4) gives employers flexibility in determining how best to meet the
requirement. If employers elect to re-route hoses so they do not pass
through walkways or working areas, the requirement will be met, and
workers will not come into contact with hot steam hoses. In this
instance, the hoses will not pass through walkways or working areas,
and employers will not be required to shield them. Accordingly, since
ASA's recommended method of preventing contact with steam hoses is
permitted under paragraph (b)(4), there is no need to revise the
provision.
    Paragraph (b)(4) also would allow employers to comply by re-routing
walkways and work areas away from the hoses. Once again, if workers do
not pass through or work in areas where steam hoses are present,
paragraph (b)(4) would not require employers to shield those hoses. To
ensure that employees are fully protected from accidental contact with
hot steam hoses, employers could block or cordon off areas where
unshielded steam hoses are present, post appropriate warning signs, or
instruct workers that they are prohibited from entering the blocked-off
areas.
    Some commenters recommended that OSHA limit the requirement for
shielding hoses to those areas where ``contact is likely'' (Exs. 106.1;
117.1; 168, pp. 299-300). The commenters do not contend, or explain why
this recommendation would increase protection of workers. OSHA
believes, to the contrary, that this recommendation may increase the
risk of injury to workers from contact with hot elements. Limiting
shielding to areas where contact with hoses is likely may leave workers
unprotected if the employer does not shield hoses when changes in work
or the workplace occur. For example, if a walkway needs to be used as a
temporary work space and the walkway must be reconfigured or re-routed,
workers could be at risk of injury if the hoses and piping in the
temporary walkway are not shielded. In addition, determining whether
and when ``contact is likely'' adds complexity and ambiguity to the
provision. By contrast, the requirement to shield hoses that pass
through walkways or work areas is clear and unambiguous. In conclusion,
OSHA believes the requirement in paragraph (b)(4) is necessary because
the potential for worker injury from contact with hot steam hoses is
great, especially in light of the number of tight and confined areas on
vessels (Ex. 116.1).
    Finally, some stakeholders recommended that OSHA also require
``metal fittings and couplings'' on steam hoses to be shielded (Exs.
106.1; 117.1; 168, pp. 300-301). ASA said that metal couplings are ``a
much more serious burn hazard'' than steam hoses or piping (Ex. 117.1).
Bath Iron Works added that ``the temperature on a coupling is somewhere
between 210 to 230 degrees, which is very, very hot versus the outer
shielding [of hoses], which * * * is roughly 120 to 150 degrees'' (Ex.
168, p. 300). As mentioned, Bath Iron Works tries to re-route steam
hoses to prevent workers from getting burned by metal parts (Ex.
106.1). OSHA intended that paragraph (b)(4) carry over the existing
shielding requirement for steam hoses and piping systems, which OSHA
has interpreted to include the fittings and coupling for those systems.
However, to clarify paragraph (b)(4), OSHA added ``metal fittings and
couplings'' to those items that employers must shield if they pass
through walking or working areas.
Paragraph (c)--Electric Shore Power
    Paragraph (c) addresses precautions employers must take prior to
energizing a vessel's circuits when electricity is supplied from a
landside power source. The required actions will protect employees from
the hazards of remote power carried by electric cables or wires onto a
vessel, which differ from other electrical hazards such as the hazards
associated with hand-held powered tools.
    Paragraph (c)(1) requires employers to ensure that vessels are
grounded prior to energizing any of the vessel's circuits. The proposed
and existing rules would have required that vessels be grounded only
when in dry dock, which is a standard practice in shipyards. However,
OSHA believes that a vessel should be grounded whether or not it is in
dry dock, such as when the vessel is on a marine railway or pierside.
OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposed rule. The language in
the final rule simply clarifies that a vessel should always be grounded
prior to energizing its circuits.
    Paragraph (c)(2) requires that, prior to energizing any vessel
circuit, employers equip the circuit to be energized with over-current
protection that does not exceed the rated current-carrying capacity of
the conductors. Proposed Sec.  1915.83(c)(3) and existing Sec.
1915.93(b)(1)(iii) contain the same requirement, which also is standard
practice in shipyards. OSHA notes that the existing rule requires that
the over-current protection not exceed the rated current-carrying
capacity of the ``cord.'' In the proposed and final rules, OSHA changed
``cord'' to ``conductors'' to make the provision more inclusive and
protective. Conductors include connections in addition to cords. OSHA
did not receive any comments on the proposed provision.
    Paragraph (c)(3) requires employers to ensure that vessel circuits
are in a safe condition prior to energizing any circuit with landside
power. Employers must obtain a determination that vessel circuits are
in a safe condition from a

responsible vessel's representative, a contractor, or any other person
qualified by training, knowledge, or experience to make that
determination. Paragraph (c)(3) expands the flexibility of the existing
rule, which requires that employers ascertain that circuits are in safe
condition from ``responsible vessel's representatives'' (existing Sec.
1915.93(b)(1)(ii)).
    To make the requirement more flexible, OSHA proposed to eliminate
the existing requirement in Sec.  1915.93(b)(1)(ii) that employers
consult with a person qualified to determine that vessel circuits are
in safe condition (proposed Sec.  1915.83(c)(3)). In the preamble to
the proposed rule, OSHA explained that eliminating the existing
requirement to ascertain the information from vessel's representatives
would allow employers to obtain the information from other persons who
were qualified to make a determination about the condition of vessel
circuits (72 FR 72452, 72462, Dec. 20, 2007). Commenters requested that
OSHA make its purpose clear in the text of the final rule (Exs. 104.1;
107.1); therefore, OSHA included the preamble language in the final
rule.
    Several commenters, including Lake Union Drydock Company, Puget
Sound Shipbuilders Association, and Dakota Creek Industries, said that
the proposed requirement was too vague and appeared to require that all
junction boxes and panels on each vessel be covered before providing
shore power (Exs. 101.1; 124; 126; 128; 130.1). OSHA believes that the
proposed and final requirement is clear--only circuits ``to be
energized'' need to be checked to determine whether they are in a safe
condition. Therefore, if shore power will be supplied to only a portion
of the vessel, the final rule requires employers to ascertain that only
the circuits affected by the energization are in a safe condition. A
good safety practice would be to check the wires and connectors on the
vessel to ensure that they are not damaged before providing landside
power to the vessel. Since landside power has high amperage, energizing
wires and connectors that are damaged could cause an explosion or
electric arc that could electrocute or burn workers on the vessel.
Paragraph (d)--Heat lamps
    Paragraph (d), as did the proposed rule, requires that employers
ensure that heat lamps, including the face, be equipped with surround-
type guards to prevent contact with the lamp and bulb. Heat lamps
present risks of burns and fire if employees or combustible materials
come into contact with the hot elements and surfaces. Fires are a
hazard in shipyard employment, especially onboard vessels. Accordingly,
paragraph (d), as did the proposed rule, expanded the existing rule in
two ways. First, paragraph (d) applies to all heat lamps used in
shipyard employment. The existing rule only applied to ``infrared
electrical heat lamps'' (Sec.  1915.93(c)) even though other types of
heat lamps also are used in shipyard employment. The revision ensures
that these contact hazards are addressed so employees are fully
protected from being burned by accidental contact, and the risk of
igniting combustible materials is reduced.
    Second, paragraph (d) requires that the entire heat lamp, including
the face, be guarded to prevent contact with hot surfaces of the heat
lamp. The existing rule did not require that the face be guarded. The
face of heat lamps, as with other parts of heat lamps, can become
extremely hot. Contacting the lamp face can burn workers and ignite
combustible materials. Guarding the face of the lamp will control these
hazards. OSHA did not receive any comments on the proposed requirement,
including the language expanding the existing provision to make it more
protective.

Section 1915.84--Working Alone

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

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

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

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

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

    When employees work alone in confined spaces, Bath Iron Works said
they may check on the employee as often as every 15 minutes (Ex. 168,
p. 305). John Killingworth of Dakota Creek Industries added, ``In our
case we can pretty much check on employees four times a day, but in
confined spaces * * * the need is to be very diligent and perhaps more
frequently would be adequate'' (Ex. 198, p. 100).
    Stakeholders' comments indicate that the proposed rule's approach
to the frequency of accounting for employees that are working alone may
not be the most protective approach. The stakeholders' comments and
discussion of their practices convince OSHA that

requiring employers to account for employees at intervals that are
appropriate for the job being performed provides better protection for
employees. It ensures that employers will consider all relevant factors
in determining what frequency is appropriate for specific jobs
requiring employees to work alone, such as in isolated or confined
spaces. Accordingly, OSHA revised the final rule so it requires
employers to make an individualized, job-specific determination as to
what intervals or frequency of monitoring will be adequate to ensure
the safety and health of the employee working alone. The factors
discussed above will assist employers in making this determination.
    OSHA believes that employers will not have difficulty complying
with the final rule. The existing rule already requires employers to
conduct frequent checks on employees working in confined spaces and
alone in isolated locations. Moreover, the record indicates that a
number of employers in shipyard employment already are performing job-
specific assessments for determining monitoring frequency (Exs. 114.1;
115.1; 118.1; 125; 168, pp. 97-98, 305; 198, p. 100).
    Paragraph (a)(2) requires that employers account for each employee
working alone at the end of a job assignment or at the end of the
workshift, whichever comes first. The proposed rule would have required
that employers account for each employee at the end of the workshift
(proposed Sec.  1915.84(b)).
    Several stakeholders commented that OSHA should revise Sec.
1915.84 to require employers to account for employees at the end of an
assignment (Exs. 114.1; 115.1; 118.1; 125; 168, p. 74). For example,
Shipbuilders Council of America said:

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

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

purpose of such a requirement'' (Ex. 117.1). The Navy added that it
believed frequent checks and proper supervision are an adequate and a
more practical solution than a picture identification system (Ex.
132.2). John Killingsworth, of Dakota Creek Industries, raised a
similar objection stating: ``Personally, as [a Shipyard Competent
Person], I'm going to tanks alone. It may be 20 [confined] spaces on a
vessel that I visit every single day. I'm not going to hang a tag at
every hatch as I go in and come out. That would be impractical'' (Ex.
196, pp. 100-101).
    Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding--Newport News said it evaluated
whether to implement such a system but determined it was not desirable,
noting:

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

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

Section 1915.85--Vessel Radar and Communication Systems

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

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

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

    [M]ore detailed [control of hazardous energy] procedures are
needed to ensure that employees are fully protected from the
movement or start up of equipment and the

release of hazardous energy. Tagging the equipment without complying
with the rest of the proposed [control of hazardous energy] program
and procedures does not ensure that employees will be fully
protected, especially those working in multi-employer worksites or
in situations where ship's crew are present (72 FR 72452, 72464,
Dec. 20, 2007).

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

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

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

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

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

Paragraph (a)

    Paragraph (a) requires the employer to ensure that, before
employees work in or on a stowed or suspended lifeboat, the lifeboat is
secured independently of the releasing gear to prevent it from falling
or capsizing. Securing the lifeboat in such a manner will prevent

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

Section 1915.87--Medical Services and First Aid

    This section sets out requirements for medical services, first aid,
and lifesaving equipment. Shipyard employment involves many workplace
activities that are inherently dangerous, some of which take place on
moving vessels or outdoors during harsh weather conditions. The
potential for severe or even fatal injuries is supported by data of
actual injuries and fatalities, described in the preamble to the
proposal (72 FR 72452, 72453, Dec. 20, 2007). The provisions in this
section will ensure that workplace accidents are responded to in a
manner that mitigates the severity and increases survival from life-
threatening injuries/illnesses.
    The final rule combines, as necessary, the existing standards on
medical services and first aid that are applicable to shipyards (Sec.
1910.151 and current Sec.  1915.98). OSHA adopted both standards in
1971, pursuant to section 6(a) of the OSH Act, from the established
Federal occupational safety and health standards in effect at the time.
Medical services, first aid practices, and related supplies and
equipment have changed over the last four decades. Therefore, a
revision of the current standards was necessary. The provisions in
Sec.  1910.151 apply to shipyards to the extent that those provisions
address hazards and working conditions that this final rule does not
(see Ex. 81, OSHA's ``Shipyard Employment `Tool Bag' Directive'').
Paragraph (a)--General Requirement
    Paragraph (a) requires employers to ensure that emergency medical
services and first aid for employees are readily accessible. The
purpose of this provision is twofold. First, it establishes uniform
criteria applicable to all of the first aid and medical services
specified in the section, ensuring that these services are available
and close enough to the injured/ill employee so that appropriate
intervention can be provided. Second, in the case of a serious or life-
threatening injury/illness, it requires employers to have steps in
place to ensure that additional emergency medical intervention is
readily accessible. The provision also addresses SESAC's concerns that
first aid providers be able to reach injured employees quickly enough
to render effective assistance.
    For this final rule, OSHA has included requirements for employers
to deliver first aid or medical services in the event of illnesses as
well as injuries. OSHA recognizes that first aid and medical services
may be required at a worksite to treat not just work-related injuries
but also acute illnesses that are often work-related, such as asthma
attacks, heart attacks, heat-related illnesses, or severe reactions to
contaminants or fumes.
    Uniform criteria for all first aid and medical services are
necessary because their components, primarily first aid providers and
first aid supplies, are interrelated. They both must be readily
accessible for intervention to be effective. It is not effective to
require that first aid kits be situated at every worksite without a
parallel requirement to have trained employees at the worksite who are
capable of using those supplies. Conversely, on-site trained first aid
providers cannot provide effective assistance if first aid supplies are
too far away to be accessed quickly. Thus, establishing uniform
criteria ensures that the components of first aid and medical services
are in place to provide effective intervention when needed. Uniform
provisions simplify the section and make understanding and compliance
easier for employers.
    With regard to the second purpose, the provision requires employers
to ensure that additional emergency medical services such as rescue
squads and ambulances are readily accessible. OSHA notes that some
shipyards, primarily larger ones such as Northrop Grumman
Shipbuilding--Newport News, Manitowoc Marine Group, and Bath Iron
Works, already have taken these steps by establishing their own on-site
medical clinics and ambulance or rescue squads (Exs. 116.2; 120.1; 168,
pp. 87-89, 258-261). This provision does not require shipyard employers
to have on-site clinics, ambulances or rescue squads, but it does
require employers to implement a system to ensure that emergency
medical services such as local rescue squads or ambulance services are
readily accessible when needed. The employer, in determining how to
meet the

requirements of Sec.  1915.87, needs to factor in reasonably
foreseeable delays, such as railroad tracks that could be blocked when
rescue squads need to access injured/ill employees in the shipyard.
    Comments were received on proposed paragraph (a) requesting a
definition for ``readily accessible'' (Exs. 105.1; 115.1; 118.1; 121.1;
199, pp. 138, 263, 272). In response to those comments, and for
purposes of this section, ``readily accessible'' is defined in final
Sec.  1915.80(b)(23) as capable of being reached quickly enough to
ensure that medical services and first aid interventions are effective.
Whether originating in the shipyard or provided by an outside service,
medical services and first aid must be provided in a timeframe that
will ensure their effectiveness in treating an injured or ill employee.
Medical services that can be delivered quickly enough to the employee
to be effective would be considered readily accessible.
Paragraph (b)--Advice and Consultation
    Paragraph (b), which carries over the same language from the
proposal, requires employers to ensure that healthcare professionals
are readily available for advice and consultation to the employer on
matters of workplace health. Implicit in this provision is the
necessity for employers to fully understand what hazards are present in
their workplace. For example, employers must understand that some
materials that their employees work with may contain hazardous
components. Although material safety data sheets (MSDSs) provide the
employer with an abundance of health-related information on various
materials that employees may be working with, this provision ensures
that if the employer has any questions that cannot be answered by MSDSs
or similar resources, they will have a healthcare professional at their
disposal with whom to discuss specific workplace health issues. OSHA
received limited comments on this provision and is carrying the
provision forward in this final standard as proposed.
    American Seafoods Company requested a clear definition for
``healthcare professional'' (Ex. 105.2). The Agency believes that the
definition of ``healthcare professional'' provided in the ``Scope,
application, and definitions'' section of this subpart (Sec.
1915.80(b)) clarifies whom employers should consult. As defined,
``healthcare professional'' means a physician or other licensed
healthcare provider whose legally permitted scope of practice allows
the provider to independently provide, or be delegated the
responsibility to provide, some or all of the advice or consultation
this subpart requires. This definition includes doctors, nurses, nurse
practitioners, osteopaths, EMTs, or other health care providers whose
license, registration, or certification authorizes them to provide such
assistance and advice. A safety professional, unless he or she was also
a licensed healthcare provider, would not meet the criteria set forth
in this definition. The key to meeting this requirement is that the
healthcare professional must be readily available to provide advice and
consultation when needed.
    American Seafoods Company also questioned what kind of consultative
availability OSHA expects of the healthcare professional (Ex. 105.2).
Rather than impose prescriptive requirements on employers, this
provision allows employers to seek the information from the appropriate
source in a timely manner, given the circumstances. For instance, if an
employee complained about headaches and dizziness at the workplace
while working with a chemical compound, and the MSDS sheet for that
compound did not address the particular symptoms, the provision ensures
that the employer would have a readily available healthcare
professional to consult for additional advice.
    The employer should not wait until the need arises before beginning
the search for a healthcare professional. A facility that has an on-
site medical service staffed by a healthcare professional could consult
with that individual. Facilities that do not have on-site healthcare
providers may consult with local physicians who have knowledge of
workplace health issues, contact their insurance companies, or request
assistance from organizations such as medical schools or state
departments of health to locate a healthcare professional who is
familiar with workplace health hazards. The employer should acquaint
the healthcare professional with the particular conditions of the
workplace, including the size of the facility, the types of materials
employees are using, and potential health hazards that are present.
Paragraph (c)--First Aid Providers
    Paragraph (c) sets forth the requirements for the number and
availability of first aid providers; training; and certification.
    Paragraph (c)(1) requires an adequate number of employees trained
in first aid at each worksite on each workshift unless the employer
either (a) has an on-site clinic or infirmary that is staffed with
first aid providers during each shift, or (b) can demonstrate that
outside first aid providers can reach the worksite within five minutes
of a reported injury or illness.
    The final rule uses the word ``worksite'' rather than the proposed
term ``work location.'' The Agency received many comments that the term
``work location'' was vague and/or undefined (Exs. 101.1; 105.2; 114.1;
115.1; 118.1; 121.1; 124; 125; 126; 128; 130.1). In response to these
concerns, and to clarify the terms used in the final rule, OSHA has
adopted the term ``worksite'' and defined it to mean a general location
where one or more employees are performing work, such as a shipyard,
pier, barge, vessel or vessel section (Sec.  1915.80(b)(38)). The term
does not mean a single ``work area,'' which is also defined in the
final rule and means a specific area such as a machine shop,
engineering space, or fabrication area where one or more employees are
performing job tasks. A shipyard may have hundreds of work areas, with
only one or a few employees working in any one of those areas. In this
final rule, a shipyard ``worksite'' refers to a group of work areas
that are in near proximity to each other. For instance, all of the work
areas in a small, concentrated shipyard may constitute a single
worksite, even though some areas may be located on a vessel and others
landside. By contrast, a large shipyard that has multiple piers, docks,
large vessels, and landside facilities that are spread across a wide
area would be considered to have multiple worksites. In these
shipyards, it is unlikely that a first aid provider located in one
worksite would be able to reach all worksites within the shipyard
quickly enough to provide effective intervention. Accordingly, OSHA
believes that each worksite must have an adequate number of first aid
providers to ensure that timely intervention is provided to injured/ill
employees working at a work area within that worksite. By comparison, a
single work area distantly located from other work areas may, of
necessity, be considered a worksite because first aid providers in
other work areas would not be able to reach the area quickly enough to
effectively aid an injured/ill employee.
    Several commenters questioned the meaning of ``adequate number''
(Exs. 104.1; 105.1; 107.1; 115.1; 118.1; 125). As Trident Seafoods
stated, ``The term `adequate number' is subjective. What is adequate to
one group may not be to another'' (Exs. 104.1; 107.1). In contrast,
another commenter, speaking about the word ``adequate,'' stated: ``I do
like the

word adequate. It gives us a leeway of making some determination of
what we feel is right for our particular situation'' (Ex. 198, p. 228).
    This final rule provides employers with guidance on how to make
that determination rather than prescriptively require them to follow a
formula. To that end, paragraph (c)(3), which was carried over
unchanged from proposed paragraph (c)(1), sets forth several objective
factors for employers to consider that should assist them in making a
determination of how many trained first aid providers would be needed
at their worksite. These factors are:
     The size and location of each shipyard worksite;
     The number of employees at each worksite;
     The hazards present at each worksite; and
     The distance of each worksite from hospitals, clinics, and
rescue squads.
    Employers applying these factors should bear in mind that accidents
involving electrical shock resulting in heart or breath stoppage must
be treated within a short time (optimally within three to five minutes)
to increase the chances of a positive outcome. To the extent that these
types of accident risks are present in shipyards, such as when
servicing electrical systems where there is a risk of electrical shock,
it is necessary to have first aid providers located at the worksite so
cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) can be started quickly. Similarly,
when work tasks involve a risk of injury that could result in severe
bleeding, first aid must be quickly administered to maximize the
injured employee's survivability. OSHA believes that while the list of
factors provided in this provision of the regulatory text is not an
exhaustive one, it should assist employers in determining an adequate
number of first aid providers.
    The Agency received several comments from employers regarding the
number of employees trained in first aid. Roy Martin testified that
approximately 35 of 600 employees at the Manitowoc Marine Group are
trained in first aid (Ex. 168, p. 150). James Thornton testified that,
at the Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding--Newport News facility,
approximately 1,000 of 20,000 employees are trained to provide first
aid (Ex. 168, pp. 356-357). Kim Hodne from Alaska Ship and Drydock
testified that ``probably 15 to 20 percent of our workforce is first
aid/CPR trained'' (Ex. 198, p. 103). Doug Dixon of Pacific Fishermen
Shipyard and Electric, LLC, noted that his shipyard, which employs 50
to 70 union and 17 non-union workers, has 15 first aid providers (Exs.
168, pp. 162-163; 198, p. 232). OSHA does not mean for these numbers to
represent a preferred percentage of employees who should be trained in
first aid. Rather, these examples illustrate that, even under the
current Sec.  1915.98(a) rule requiring a single first aid provider,
shipyards have assessed their needs for first aid providers, and have
trained multiple employees accordingly.
    The final rule adds flexibility to proposed paragraph (c)(1), which
required employers simply to ensure that each work location and each
shift have an adequate number of employees qualified to render first
aid, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Paragraph (c)(1)(i)
permits the employer to have an on-site clinic or infirmary with first
aid providers during each workshift as an alternative to the
requirement to have an adequate number of employees trained in first
aid.
    Several large shipyards described their on-site medical facilities
and their capacity to deliver first aid and other medical services.
Bath Iron Works testified:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Notwithstanding the leeway that OSHA gives employers by requiring
off-site first aid providers to reach the worksite, rather than the
victim, within five minutes, paragraph (c)(2) states that employers
must ensure that a first aid provider is able to reach an injured
employee within five minutes of a report of serious injury/illness,
such as one involving cardiac arrest, acute breathing problems,
uncontrolled bleeding, suffocation, electrocution, or amputation.
Prompt, properly administered first aid may mean the difference between
rapid or prolonged recovery, temporary or permanent disability, and
even life or death. For example, the American Heart Association found
that when resuscitation and automatic external defibrillation are
delivered within three to five minutes, reported survival rates from
sudden cardiac arrest are as high as 48 to 74 percent (Ex. 58). Studies
have shown that for each minute sudden cardiac arrest is not treated,
the probability of reviving the heart decreases by 7 to 10 percent
(Exs. 57; 58). These data indicate that having responders at the
worksite promptly could significantly increase the survival rates for
injured/ill employees. Thus, if there is a possibility of a life-
threatening injury/illness occurring somewhere in the shipyard,
including aboard vessels, where the injured/ill employee could not be
reached by an off-site responder or first aid providers from the
employer's on-site infirmary within five minutes, the employer must
ensure that another first aid responder could reach the victim within
five minutes of the injury being reported to assist the victim until
other emergency personnel, who will have more expertise in treating
emergencies, arrive.
    For example, performing CPR immediately can help to preserve heart
and brain function until local emergency services are able to provide
further medical treatment, such as administering oxygen or using an
automated external defibrillator (AED) to restore normal heart rhythm.
According to OSHA's Integrated Management Information System (IMIS),
there were 13 fatalities in shipyards that were deemed ``heart attack''
or ``coronary'' within a 15-year period. Out of those 13, only 4
reports documented any basic life support, such as CPR, prior to rescue
squads arriving on the scene. Even for injuries that are not
immediately life-threatening, timely first aid can reduce further
injury and significantly aid recovery by, for example, immobilizing
fractures, reducing blood loss, or providing warmth for shock victims.
    The five-minute response time is consistent with an OSHA letter of
interpretation (Ex. 212; OSHA letter of interpretation to Charles F.
Brogan, Jan. 16, 2007) that explained what ``reasonably accessible''
means with regard to off-site emergency-response services:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The American Shipbuilding Association had similar concerns,
stating:

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

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

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

    OSHA agrees that employers should use in-house medical services as
a first resort if those services can be accessed in a timely manner,
given the circumstances. However, there may be times when an employee
is injured/ill at a shipyard when there is no on-site clinic, first aid
providers are not readily available, or a first aid provider needs
ready access to supplies. At such times, employees should have access
to adequate first aid supplies. These supplies must be readily
accessible to each worksite. This revision gives employers more
flexibility and guidance about where first aid supplies need to be
located. In addition, this provision clarifies that first aid supplies
need to be located at all worksites throughout the shipyard, which
include worksites on and near vessels, as well as those landside.
Employers who have on-site medical facilities have the choice to
maintain all first aid supplies at the medical facility, or to place
them throughout the worksite. Employers who rely solely on outside
medical assistance are required to provide first aid supplies so they
are readily accessible to each worksite. OSHA concluded that, by
requiring employers to provide first aid supplies through the worksite,
employees would have access to these supplies until a trained first aid
provider or healthcare provider arrives to assist them.
    The Agency received several comments requesting that it provide
employers flexibility in tailoring the type, amount, and location of
supplies to the specific needs of the workplace (Exs. 104.1; 107.1;
113; 115.1; 118.1). Paragraph (d)(2), which carries forward the same
language from the proposal, lists four objective factors, which are
identical to those factors specified for determining the number and
location of first aid providers. These factors will assist employers in
meeting the requirements for placement, content, and amount of first
aid supplies without prescribing a specific parameter. The four factors
include:
 The Size and Location of Each Worksite
    The size of the shipyard worksite is an important consideration. It
is likely that large worksites contain many work areas that are spread
out and, as such, need more first aid kits to ensure they are readily
accessible if an employee gets injured. Employers also need to consider
the locations of where employees are working throughout shipyards when
determining the number, content, and positioning of first aid kits. For
example, remote work areas or other shipyard work areas that are far
away from rescue squads or hospitals may need to have more first aid
supplies or a broader range of supplies to care for an injured/ill
employee until additional help arrives or the employee can be
transported for advanced care. Work areas that may be cut off by
passing railcars also may need more first aid supplies in case access
roads are blocked when an injury/illness occurs.
 The Number of Employees at Each Worksite
    The employer needs to evaluate the ratio of employees to first aid
kits and ensure that there are sufficient supplies for all employees.
In general, when there are a great number of employees, or a surge in
contract or temporary workers at a worksite, the employer would need to
provide more first aid supplies to prepare for the possibility of
multiple employee injuries/illnesses, or that several accidents could
occur within a short period of time.
 Hazards Present at Each Worksite
    Employers must assess the hazards present in each worksite to
ensure that first aid kits contain the types and quantity of supplies
needed to effectively treat the injuries and illnesses that could be
expected for these hazards. For example, in shops where hot work is
performed, first aid supplies for burns would be necessary, and in
outdoor areas, first aid items for insect or animal bites may be
needed.
 The Distance of Each Worksite From Hospitals, Clinics, and
Rescue Squads
    The distance from, and the time needed to get to, hospitals or
clinics (on-site or off-site), and the time needed for rescue squads to
respond, are also important factors in determining the location,
amount, and type of first aid

supplies employers need to provide. A single first aid kit may be
adequate for small worksites that are close to on-site infirmaries or
local emergency services. However, additional kits and types of
supplies may be necessary when medical services are farther away.
    In addition to the four factors described above, non-mandatory
Appendix A, ``First aid kits and automated external defibrillators,''
has been added to the final rule. Appendix A references the most recent
consensus standards regarding first aid supplies, consistent with the
recently revised general industry standard (Sec.  1910.151). For
example, Appendix A refers readers to ANSI/ISEA Z308.1-2009, ``Minimum
Requirements for Workplace First Aid Kits and Supplies'' (incorporated
by reference as specified in Sec.  1915.5), for assistance in
purchasing or assembling first aid kits that would be adequate for
small worksites. The appendix also gives guidance to employers having
large or multiple operations, or unique needs. OSHA believes that
adopting a performance-based approach on the contents of first aid kits
will give employers flexibility in tailoring their first aid supplies
to the conditions and hazards present in their workplace and to
changing the supplies as warranted by new developments in first aid.
    Paragraph (d)(3) requires that first aid supplies be placed in a
weatherproof container. Paragraph (d)(4) specifies that employers must
maintain first aid supplies in a dry, sterile, and serviceable
condition. The proposal included only the requirements of paragraph
(d)(4). Taken together, paragraphs (d)(3) and (d)(4) require that any
first aid kit that may be used at any time outside a clinic-type
setting must be protected from the elements.
    Although comments were not received about this particular
requirement, OSHA believes that first aid supplies should be kept in a
weatherproof container. While discussing the provisions in Sec.
1915.81, Housekeeping, that specifically referenced weather, for
example, Sec.  1915.81(a)(2), OSHA heard testimony regarding some of
the weather conditions in shipyards. Atlantic Marine stated: ``In this
region, rainfall averages 6 inches per month, with an inch or more
common for a single rain event'' (Exs. 115.1; 118.1). While discussing
snow and ice conditions, Manitowoc Marine Group stated: ``[A]s I well
know [from] firsthand experience on the Great Lakes, conditions such as
this may last several days'' (Ex. 168, pp. 68-69). Given that shipyard
employment often takes place outdoors, sometimes in wet conditions, and
that injuries could occur under those conditions, OSHA believes that
adding a requirement for first aid supplies to be in waterproof
containers is reasonable. In addition, most industrial or commercial
type first aid kits are constructed of weatherproof materials.
    Further, some first aid supplies may degrade if exposed to the
elements (sun, hot temperatures, extreme cold, and humidity), dirt,
exhaust, grease, paint, solvents, and other contaminants common to
shipyard work. Thus, OSHA is retaining the proposed requirement that
first aid supplies be kept in a dry, sterile, and serviceable
condition. For purposes of this provision, OSHA defines ``serviceable
condition'' to mean the state or ability of supplies or goods to be
used as intended by the manufacturer. Thus, if the first aid supplies
contain instructions from the manufacturer on how to store them, the
employer should comply with those instructions to ensure that the
supplies remain effective for use.
    Paragraph (d)(5) requires the employer to replenish first aid
supplies as necessary to ensure an adequate supply when needed. This
requirement was not expressly stated in the proposal, although it was
implicit in proposed paragraph (d)(1) requiring the employer to provide
and maintain adequate first aid supplies at each work location, and in
proposed paragraph (d)(3) requiring the employer to ensure that first
aid supplies are in a dry, sterile, and serviceable condition.
Explicitly requiring replenishment of first aid supplies as necessary
will protect workers by ensuring that there will be an adequate number
of serviceable first aid supplies available in the event of an injury.
That is, employers have an obligation to replace supplies that are
found to be deficient or missing. This requirement also responds to the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health's (NIOSH)
suggestion that OSHA ``add a sentence stating that any supplies that
have been utilized shall be replaced as soon as possible'' (Ex. 129.1).
    Paragraph (d)(6) requires employers to inspect first aid supplies
at sufficient intervals to ensure that the supplies are adequate and in
a serviceable condition. This paragraph is nearly identical to proposed
paragraph (d)(3), which would have required employers to inspect first
aid supplies at intervals that ensure the supplies remain in a ``dry,
sterile and serviceable condition.'' This provision gives employers the
flexibility to determine what inspection procedures would be most
effective for ensuring that supplies remain in a serviceable condition
and adequately replenished. For example, it allows employers to opt for
stocking worksites with an appropriately sized supply of first aid
supplies and to establish a maintenance and inspection schedule that is
suitable for the particular shipyard, whether it be weekly or monthly.
It also allows employers to stock a variety of suitably sized kits,
such as small portable first aid kits for mobile work crews. Depending
on the size of the first aid kits, they may need to be inspected and
replenished frequently or, for larger, stationary kits assigned to a
particular shop or location, less frequently.
    NIOSH commented: ``It would be useful for the written safety plan
to state explicitly the first aid supply inspection interval'' (Ex.
129.1). OSHA agrees that employers who establish a set inspection
interval will be able to determine when depleted or defective supplies
need to be replenished. However, OSHA believes that employers are in
the best position to know what interval supplies should be replenished
at their worksites and thus did not include an explicit inspection
interval in the final standard.
Paragraph (e)--Quick-Drenching and Flushing Facilities
    Paragraph (e) requires employers to provide quick-drenching or
flushing facilities when the potential exists for an employee to be
splashed with a substance that could result in an acute or serious
injury. Under this paragraph, the employer must ensure that the quick-
drenching or flushing facility is located for immediate emergency use
within close proximity to the operations where such substances are
being used. Proposed paragraph (e) would have required that quick-
drenching or flushing facilities be provided where employees could be
injured from being splashed with ``hazardous or toxic substances'' and
that the facilities be ``located within each work area for immediate
use.'' Proposed Sec.  1915.95 defines ``hazardous or toxic substances''
to include substances regulated by subpart Z of 29 CFR part 1915;
materials listed in the Department of Transportation's hazardous
materials regulations (49 CFR parts 171 through 180); any corrosive
substance; or any environmental contaminant that could expose employees
to injury, illness, or disease. OSHA reasoned that shipyard employees
involved in operations such as cleaning, painting, and stripping were
at risk of being splashed with solvents or other chemicals. Although
these substances may not necessarily be corrosive, they can injure or
burn the skin or eyes or be absorbed rapidly through the skin, causing
harmful

surface and internal health effects (72 FR 72452, 72469, Dec. 20,
2007).
    OSHA received many comments on the proposed provision and on the
proposed definition of ``hazardous or toxic substances.'' Several
employers, including American Seafoods Company, the U.S. Navy, Bath
Iron Works, Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding--Newport News, the American
Shipbuilding Association, and International Safety Equipment
Association, commented that the proposed language was too broad and
would require an inordinate number of quick-drenching facilities in a
shipyard (Exs. 105.2; 106.1; 116.2; 117.1; 120.1; 132.2). Atlantic
Marine commented: ``It can be inferred that a quick-drench facility
would be required anywhere painting is occurring. Since painting occurs
all over the shipyard, providing quick-drench facilities at these
locations is not practical'' (Exs. 115.1; 118.1). Trident Seafoods
stated:

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

The Shipbuilders Council of America commented:

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

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

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

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

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

    Bath Iron Works commented: ``OSHA's proposal will provide
additional cost to employers to comply with this regulation adjustment,
which is in opposition to Table [2] of the regulatory analysis'' (Ex.
106.1). Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding--Newport News noted: ``Costs
associated with purchasing, transporting and maintaining significantly
more eyewash and drenching facilities are not included in the
Preliminary Economic and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (PEA)'' (Ex.
120.1).
    OSHA believes that the revisions to the final rule that limit the
types of materials requiring quick-drenching or flushing facilities in
close proximity to these materials should not impose additional costs.
Shipyard employers already must provide such facilities, pursuant to
Sec.  1910.151(c), which requires these facilities when employees may
be injured by ``corrosive materials.''
Paragraph (f)--Basket Stretchers
    Paragraph (f) requires that an adequate number of basket
stretchers, or the equivalent, be readily accessible. It also requires
that this equipment have permanent lifting bridles that enable the
stretcher to be attached to hoisting gear that is capable of lifting at
least 5,000 pounds. In addition, these basket stretchers must be
capable of securely restraining the injured employee and must provide a
blanket or other suitable covering. Finally, the basket stretchers must
be stored in a clearly marked location, be protected from damage, and

be inspected to ensure they remain in a safe and serviceable condition.
    Paragraph (f)(1) is a performance-based provision requiring that
employers provide an adequate number of basket stretchers or the
equivalent that are readily accessible to locations where work is being
performed on a vessel or vessel section. Employers have several ways to
comply with this provision. The requirement recognizes that, in some
situations, having just one basket stretcher at a location where work
is being performed on vessels or vessel sections may be adequate to
ensure ready accessibility. A SESAC member stated that, if a crane is
available to hoist a basket stretcher from any one of several barges
docked together, then one stretcher may provide ready accessibility for
that group of vessels (Docket SESAC 1993-1, Ex. 100x, p. 155). OSHA
also believes that when a shipyard crane mounted on rail tracks can
move back and forth to hoist a basket stretcher from one of several
vessels or vessel sections, one stretcher may be adequate to remove
injured employees from any of those vessels or vessel sections.
    In other situations, however, one basket stretcher may not be
adequate. In large shipyards that have several work areas with
hundreds, if not thousands, of employees working far apart on vessels
and vessel sections, more than one basket stretcher may be needed to
ensure that one is readily accessible to each work area. Some SESAC
members also said additional stretchers should be provided when it is
necessary to speed up removal of injured employees (Docket SESAC 1993-
1, Ex. 100X, p. 159). Having additional stretchers allows first aid
providers to prepare other injured employees for removal while another
employee is being lifted to shore.
    OSHA believes that paragraph (f)(1) is a reasonable approach for
providing effective protection for employees. In some circumstances,
basket stretchers must be provided even when fewer than 10 employees
are working on a vessel, an issue that concerned SESAC (Docket SESAC
1993-1, Ex. 100X, p. 147). At the same time, it gives employers
flexibility to tailor their efforts to the specific conditions and
equipment present at the work area.
    In paragraph (f)(1), OSHA permits the use of basket stretchers ``or
the equivalent.'' Several commenters requested that OSHA include
Skeds[reg] in this provision because they believed Sked[reg] stretchers
are more useful on ships than other types of stretchers (Exs. 101.1;
104.1; 105.1; 107.1; 124; 126; 128; 130.1). A Sked[reg] is a stretcher
used for confined space, high-angle, or technical rescue, or for
landside applications. For purposes of paragraph (f), OSHA concludes
that a Sked[reg] would be the equivalent of a basket stretcher.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    American Seafoods stated: ``No outside agency will use our Basket
Stretchers. Not the USCG, not any professional (paid or volunteer) fire
department. Since they will never trust our equipment to lift an
injured worker, how much should be invested for this type of
equipment?'' (Ex. 105.1). OSHA acknowledges that these comments have
merit. Thus, the final rule clarifies that employers may provide their
own basket stretchers (or equivalent), or they may rely on emergency
response services to provide them. This exception applies to both in-
house responders and outside responders, so long as the basket
stretchers or equivalents are ``readily accessible.''
    Paragraph (f)(2)(i) requires that basket stretchers, or the
equivalent, have permanent lifting bridles that enable the stretcher or
equivalent to be attached to hoisting gear capable of lifting at least
5,000 pounds (2,270 kg). Paragraph (f)(2)(ii) requires that basket
stretchers, or equivalent, have restraints that are capable of securely
holding the injured/ill employee while the stretcher is lifted or
moved. These paragraphs are based on the Marine Terminals and
Longshoring standards (Sec. Sec.  1917.26(d)(4) and 1918.97(d)(4)) and
are carried over unchanged from the proposal. OSHA deems it appropriate
to apply the Marine Terminals and Longshoring provisions to shipyard
employment because the use of basket stretchers and the working
conditions are similar in all three industries. These requirements
should not pose a problem for shipyard employers because most, if not
all, basket stretchers or equivalents already meet the specified
criteria. No comments were received on these two provisions.
    Paragraph (f)(2)(iii) requires that each basket stretcher or
equivalent have a blanket or other suitable covering to cover injured
employees, thus protecting them from environmental conditions. General
Dynamics NASSCO requested that this provision not be a requirement, but
instead be added to Non-Mandatory Appendix A, stating, ``Storage that
prevents damage to a stretcher and bridle may not be sufficient to keep
a blanket in a condition that is appropriate for use during a medical
emergency'' (Ex. 119.1). The Agency agrees with this commenter but,
rather than moving this provision to Non-Mandatory Appendix A, has
added a requirement to paragraph (f)(3) of the final rule to ensure
that basket stretchers, or the equivalent, and related equipment (for
example, blankets) are protected from the environment. OSHA concluded
that equipment related to the use of basket

stretchers must be kept with the basket stretcher to ensure quick
access to, and efficient use of, the entire system in the event of an
injury, and that all parts of the system should be protected when
stored. Thus, paragraph (f)(2)(iii) is retained as proposed.
    Paragraph (f)(3) requires that basket stretchers, or the
equivalent, and related equipment be stored in a clearly marked
location in a manner that prevents damage and provides protection from
environmental conditions. This language is based on similar
requirements in the Marine Terminals and Longshoring standards
(Sec. Sec.  1917.26(d)(7) and 1918.97(d)(7)). This provision would
accomplish two goals. First, requiring storage areas to be clearly
marked helps to ensure that stretchers are easy to locate when they are
needed. Second, storing stretchers so they are protected from damage
and environmental conditions prevents deterioration of the equipment.
As Atlantic Marine pointed out, ``Mounting stretchers on or near
drydocks and piers exposes them to paint and the elements which break
down the material that the stretcher is constructed of'' (Exs. 115.1;
118.1). OSHA believes that, by requiring related equipment to be stored
with the basket stretcher, deterioration or damage will be reduced
significantly. For example, related equipment such as blankets and
lifting bridles may deteriorate or become damaged if exposed to weather
or impact. Thus, for this final standard, paragraph (f)(3) requires
that basket stretchers and related equipment be stored to prevent
damage and to protect them from environmental conditions.
    Paragraph (f)(4) requires the employer to inspect stretchers and
related equipment at intervals that ensure this equipment remains in a
safe and serviceable condition, but at least once a year. General
Dynamics NASSCO agreed with the need for inspection and suggested that
this paragraph should read: ``The employer shall inspect emergency
baskets, stretchers and related lifting bridles at intervals that
ensure they remain in [a] safe condition'' (Ex. 119.1). Although the
Agency is giving employers the flexibility to inspect stretchers and
related equipment at intervals to ensure they are adequate in terms of
safety and service, OSHA believes that the inclusion of the one-year
interval is necessary, as basket stretchers are not used nearly as
often as first aid kits, and, in fact, might not be used for over a
year. This provision will ensure that lifesaving equipment functions
properly when needed in an emergency and is particularly important if
basket stretchers are not used frequently. In response to the comments
received, OSHA retained the proposed language, but added the
requirement that related equipment also must be inspected. Thus, OSHA
is requiring that the employer inspect the basket stretcher and related
equipment at intervals, but at least once a year, to ensure the
equipment remains in a safe and serviceable condition. OSHA believes
that this requirement will ensure that, in the event of an emergency,
all of this equipment will be in a serviceable condition and ready to
be used.
Non-Mandatory Appendix
    Section 1910.151 includes a recently revised non-mandatory appendix
to provide information on the contents of first aid kits (70 FR 1112,
1141, Jan. 5, 2005). OSHA is incorporating the Sec.  1910.151 appendix,
with revisions, and a new paragraph (4) on AEDs. The appendix provides
guidance to employers on the contents of first aid kits, assessing
workplace risks, OSHA's requirements for protecting first aid providers
from possible exposure to bloodborne pathogens, and the use of AEDs.
The appendix references the ANSI standard Z308.1-2009, ``Minimum
Requirements for Workplace First Aid Kits'' (incorporated by reference
as specified at Sec.  1915.5) (Ex. 213). The ANSI standard should be of
assistance to employers seeking guidance on classification and
performance of containers, appropriate contents, and recommendations
and cautions regarding the use and maintenance of first aid kits. The
Agency has concluded that this non-mandatory guidance will help
employers comply with first aid requirements.
    The proposed Appendix referenced ANSI Z308.1-2003 (Ex. 84).
However, since publication of the proposal, this ANSI standard has been
updated. The Agency has determined that the most current version of
ANSI Z308.1-2009 is as effective as the 2003 version, and will be
incorporating this most recent version for this final rule.
    Although OSHA received no comments on the proposed appendix, quite
a few employers responded to the Agency's request for comments on
whether shipyards should be required to have AEDs as part of their
first aid and medical services (72 FR 72452, 72471, Dec. 20, 2007).
These comments are discussed below. Based on those comments, OSHA has
added a new paragraph (4) to the non-mandatory appendix to provide
information and guidance to employers who are currently using AEDs and
those who are contemplating installing them.
    According to the American Heart Association, over 300,000
individuals die from cardiac arrest each year, with most occurring
outside hospitals (Ex. 58). In 2001 and 2002, there were 6,628 work-
related fatalities reported to OSHA--1,216 of these deaths were from
heart attack, 354 from electric shock, and 267 from asphyxia (Ex. 56).
Survival rates for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest are only one to five
percent, but treatment of ventricular fibrillation (for example,
chaotic beating of the heart) with immediate defibrillation (for
example, within one minute) has achieved survival rates as high as 90
percent (Ex. 57). Therefore, fast and immediate defibrillation is the
most critical step in the treatment of cardiac arrest because it is the
definitive therapy for ventricular fibrillation.
    AEDs restore normal heart rhythm with electrical shock
(defibrillation). AEDs have been shown to significantly increase
survival rates where they are used immediately after the event (for
example, within three to five minutes). For example, in the first 10
months after Chicago's O'Hare and Midway Airports installed AEDs, 9 of
14 (64 percent) cardiac victims were revived and survived (Ex. 57).
    In the past decade, there have been significant advances in AED
technology, including advances in miniaturization and improvements in
their reliability and safety. Today, AEDs are small, lightweight units
in portable carriers; run on rechargeable batteries; analyze the heart
rhythm; and automatically indicate when to shock with easy-to-follow
audio prompts. These improvements have also greatly minimized the
training needed to operate them. Many studies have shown that AEDs are
nearly error free and effective when used by non-medical first aid
responders in the workplace (Ex. 57).
    OSHA's existing medical services and first aid standards do not
require that AEDs be provided in workplaces or that employees be
trained in their operation. However, many employers, concerned that
local emergency services cannot respond quickly enough to medical
emergencies, have been equipping their workplaces with AEDs and
training employees in their use. While the cost of AEDs has dropped
dramatically in recent years, it is still a significant cost. In 2001,
for instance, AEDs cost $3,000-$4,500 on average. Now they are widely
available for less than $1,500 (Ex. 55). OSHA anticipates that AED
costs will continue to decline as the use of AEDs increases.
    The Agency received several comments on this subject, both in

support of and in disagreement with the requirement to have AEDs in
shipyard employment. Trident Seafoods stated:

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

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

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

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

Section 1915.88--Sanitation

    In this section, OSHA updates and consolidates sanitation
requirements applicable to shipyard employment. OSHA recognizes that,
due to unique working conditions in shipyard employment, ensuring that
sanitation needs and requirements are met may be somewhat difficult.
For example, some work areas are in remote locations, without adequate
piped water and sewer facilities. Also, much shipyard work is performed
outdoors, often in extreme conditions.
    OSHA believes that the sanitation needs of workers must be met in
shipyard employment because the adverse health effects associated with
the lack of appropriate sanitation facilities are well recognized and
documented. They include communicable diseases, heat-related illness,
health effects related to the delay of urination and defecation, and
effects associated with ingestion or absorption of hazardous
substances. These health hazards were discussed at length in the
preamble to the final field sanitation standard for agriculture (52 FR
16050, May 1, 1987). OSHA updated that discussion and placed it in the
docket of this rulemaking (Ex. 62). Although the adverse health effects
associated with sanitation hazards may be more difficult to quantify
than some other hazards, OSHA IMIS data has reported the death of a
shipyard worker from heat exhaustion and heat stroke possibly due to
not having enough drinking water readily accessible at his worksite (72
FR 72452, 72481, Dec. 20, 2007).
    In developing the final rule, OSHA has carefully considered the
working conditions observed during site visits, the comments received,
and other information in the record in developing requirements that
will take into account that workers need to have ready access to
adequate and properly maintained sanitation facilities.
    The final rule consolidates into Sec.  1915.88 the existing
sanitation requirements in Sec.  1915.97 and the applicable general
industry sanitation requirements in Sec.  1910.141 (see Ex. 81, OSHA's
Tool Bag Directive). The applicable Sec.  1910.141 requirements cover
those conditions that the existing 29 CFR part 1915 sanitation
standards did not address. OSHA adopted both sections in 1972 pursuant
to section 6(a) of the OSHA Act (29 U.S.C. 655(a)), and they have not
been significantly updated since. Therefore, in addition to
consolidating the applicable sanitation requirements, the final rule
updates the sanitation requirements to reflect improvements in
workplace sanitation that have been developed, such as single-use
bottled water and waterless handwashing agents.
    OSHA drew some of the updated requirements from sanitation
standards the Agency developed for other industries, such as marine
terminals (Sec.  1917.127), agriculture (Sec.  1928.110), and
longshoring (Sec.  1918.95). In addition, pursuant to section 6(b)(8)
of the OSHA Act (20 U.S.C. 655(b)(8)), OSHA also reviewed the ANSI
national consensus standards on sanitation (ANSI Z4.1-1995 and Z4.3-
1995 (Ex. 38 at Ex. 3-6 and 3-8)), and incorporated relevant provisions
into proposed Sec.  1915.88. ANSI Z4.1 addresses general sanitation in
workplaces, while ANSI Z4.3 covers non-sewered waste disposal systems.
    As mentioned, most of the changes in Sec.  1915.88 reflect changes
in technology and sanitation practices that have developed since the
original standards were adopted. Further, the standard is designed to
be more flexible than the existing requirements. The final rule also
introduces a new term, ``sanitation facilities'' (defined in Sec.
1915.80), to cover the wide range of facilities that employers must
provide to ensure that employees' ``health and personal needs'' are
met. Sanitation facilities include drinking water, toilets,
handcleaning facilities, showers, changing rooms, and eating and
drinking areas. The term also includes the supplies for those
facilities, such as toilet paper, towels, soap, and waterless cleaning
agents.
Paragraph (a)--General Requirements
    Paragraph (a) incorporates a series of general requirements on the
accessibility, adequacy, and maintenance of sanitation facilities in
shipyards. It simplifies the existing standards, and makes them apply
more uniformly throughout the shipyard.
    A sanitation facility cannot meet employees' health needs unless it
is

accessible, adequate, and properly maintained. For instance, if toilets
are provided but are located far away from the worksite, employees may
have to refrain from using the facilities or from drinking an adequate
amount of liquids during the workshift. Employees may refrain from
using toilets, particularly portable ones, that are dirty, not serviced
regularly, or require a long wait. These actions can result in
significant adverse health effects (Ex. 62).
    Paragraph (a)(1), like the proposed rule, requires that sanitation
facilities be (a) adequate and (b) readily accessible. Employers must
provide sanitation facilities that meet both requirements in order to
be considered in compliance with this paragraph.
    Adequate sanitation facilities. This final standard at Sec.
1915.88 specifies a general requirement regarding the minimum number of
facilities that employers must provide (for example, 1 toilet for every
15 employees per sex, 1 shower for every 10 employees per sex,
handwashing facilities at each toilet facility). OSHA included this
general requirement in the final standard for several reasons. First,
employers will be in compliance with the requirement to provide
sanitation facilities only if they provide facilities that are adequate
for the number of employees in the workplace. Second, as discussed in
Sec.  1915.80, the definition of ``sanitation facilities'' includes
supplies for those facilities, such as toilet paper, towels, soap, and
waterless cleaning agents. Paragraph (a)(1) reinforces the requirement
that supplies for sanitation facilities also must be adequate. Third,
sanitation facilities must be clean and well maintained to be
considered adequate for the use of workers. This requirement for
adequate sanitation facilities covers, generally, the specific
requirements that are described in more detail below.
    Readily accessible. Ready access to sanitation facilities helps to
protect employee health and reduce the risk of adverse health effects
by increasing the likelihood that workers will use the facilities. For
example, a lack of ready access to drinking water can result in
dehydration, which can be fatal, especially in hot and humid working
conditions.
    The existing sanitation rules that are applicable to shipyard
employment, unlike the sanitation standards for marine terminals,
longshoring, and agriculture (Sec. Sec.  1917.127, 1918.127, 1928.110),
do not directly address the accessibility of sanitation facilities.
Paragraph (a)(1) remedies this omission with a performance-based
requirement.
    For sanitation facilities to be considered ``readily accessible,''
employees must be able to reach the facilities quickly without facing
obstacles. OSHA recognizes that ready accessibility depends on the type
of sanitation facility, the sizes and locations of worksites, and the
physical characteristics of the shipyard. In small shipyards,
sanitation facilities may be readily accessible if they are located in
one area. However, in cases where worksites are large and spread out,
sanitation facilities (for example, toilets, handwashing facilities,
drinking water) located in only one location likely would not be
considered readily accessible.
    Sanitation facilities also must be readily accessible to employees
who work on vessels as well as landside. When employees work on small
vessels, sanitation facilities may be readily accessible if they are
located dockside. However, when employees work on a large vessel, they
may not be able to get to facilities quickly enough if such facilities
are located only on the dock. Sanitation facilities may need to be
located on deck, or in various places throughout the vessel, to ensure
that employees have ready access when they need to use them. When the
ship's toilet and handwashing facilities are not available to shipyard
employees working on vessels (for example, the ship is being built or
systems are turned off during repair), the employer needs to make other
arrangements to ensure that such facilities are readily accessible.
    A number of stakeholders said they make sanitation facilities
readily accessible to employees working on vessels, particularly when
workers are not able to use the vessel's plumbed facilities (Exs.
101.1; 119.1; 124; 126; 128; 130.1). General Dynamics, for instance,
said their ``long standing practice is to provide portable toilets
aboard ships'' (Ex. 119.1). Other stakeholders said they provide
portable toilets on vessels ``precisely because we can't use the
plumbed systems onboard a vessel'' (Exs. 101.1; 105.1; 124; 126; 128;
130.1). Allen Rainsberger of Foss Maritime said that, to ensure toilet
facilities are readily accessible for employees working on vessels,
especially when vessel plumbing is tagged out, they provide portable
toilets ``out on the piers that are away from the main facility where
the majority of toilets are'' (Ex. 198, pp. 22-23).
    Determining whether sanitation facilities are readily accessible is
also related to how frequently they must be used during a workshift.
For example, changing rooms and eating areas that are used only once or
twice during a workshift may not need to be as close to the work area.
By contrast, drinking water should be located at or in close proximity
to the employee's immediate work area, especially during hot and humid
weather. Employees who perform heavy manual labor, work with heat-
producing equipment, or must spend time in spaces that are not well
ventilated or air conditioned need to have enough drinking water close
at hand to prevent dehydration. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding--Newport
News said that they make special arrangements to ensure employees
working in insolated areas have enough drinking water:

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

    As mentioned, the requirements in paragraph (a)(1) are stated in
performance-based language. One stakeholder said the language in this
provision was unclear and ambiguous and requested that OSHA define
``readily accessible'' (Ex. 121.1). However, when OSHA requested
comment on whether the final rule should contain more specific
requirements for the location of sanitation facilities such as the \1/
4\-mile maximum distance for portable toilets in the field sanitation
standard for agriculture (29 CFR 1928.110(c)(2)(iii)) or the 200-foot
requirements in the ANSI Z4.1 standard (Ex. 38, Sec. Sec.  5.1.1 and
6.1.2), only the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health