or equipment that are locked out or tagged out.
    As mentioned, when a tagout system is used the standard requires
that employers also train employees in the limitations of tags,
including at least:
     Tags are essentially warning devices affixed to energy
isolating devices and do not provide the physical restraint of a lock;
     When a tag is attached to an energy isolating device, it
is not to be removed without authorization of the authorized person
responsible for it, and it is never to be bypassed, ignored or
otherwise defeated;
     To be effective, tags must be legible and understandable
by all authorized employees, affected employees and all other employees
whose work operations are or may be in the area;
     Tags and their means of attachment must be made of
materials that will withstand the environmental conditions encountered
in the workplace;
     Tags may evoke a false sense of security. They are only
one part of an overall energy control program; and
     Tags must be securely attached to an energy isolating
device so they cannot be inadvertently or accidentally detached during
use.
    The standard also requires the employer to provide retraining to
authorized and affected employees when the energy control procedures
are changed, when a change in job assignment occurs or when a change in
equipment presents a new hazard. Additional retraining must also be
provided when an inspection reveals or the employer has reason to
believe that there are deviations from or inadequacies in the
employee's knowledge or use of the energy control procedures. Finally,
the retraining must reestablish employee proficiency and describe any
new or revised control methods and procedures, if needed. The standard
requires that employers certify that training and retraining has been
provided and is current.
    Application of controls (Sec.  1910.147(d), proposed Sec.
1915.89(c)). The standard establishes procedures that authorized
employees must follow for applying energy controls. The energy control
procedures must include the following elements implemented in this
sequence:
    (1) Prepare for shutdown, ensuring authorized employee has
knowledge in the type and magnitude of the energy, the hazards to be
controlled and the methods to control energy;
    (2) Shut down the equipment using the procedures established for
that equipment;
    (3) Isolate the equipment from the energy sources;
    (4) Apply lockout or tagout devices to energy isolating device in a
manner that holds the energy isolating devices in a safe or off
(lockout) position or indicates that operation or movement of the
energy isolating device is prohibited (tagout). Where a tag cannot be
affixed directly to the energy isolating device, the standard requires
that it must be placed as close as safely possible to the device, and
in a position that will be immediately obvious to anyone attempting to
operate the device or equipment;
    (5) Relieve or render safe all stored or residual energy. If there
is a possibility of stored or residual energy reaccumulating, the
verification of isolation must be continued until the servicing is
completed or the risk no longer exists; and
    (6) Verify isolation and deenergization of equipment before
beginning servicing.
    The standard requires that applying energy controls be performed
only by the authorized employee performing the servicing and only after
affected employees are notified that energy controls are being applied
(or being removed) (Sec.  1910.147(c)(8) and (9), proposed Sec.
1915.89(b)(8) and (9)).
    Release from lockout or tagout (Sec.  1910.147(e), proposed Sec.
1915(d)). The standard also establishes procedures that authorized
employees must follow when releasing lockout and tagout applications.
Before lockout or tagout devices are removed (i.e., the equipment is
being released from the lockout or tagout status) and energy is
restored to the equipment, the authorized employee must take the
following actions in this sequence:
    (1) Inspect the work area to ensure that non-essential items have
been removed and that equipment components are intact and capable of
operating properly;
    (2) Check the work area to ensure that all employees have been
safely positioned or removed;
    (3) Notify affected employees after removing locks or tags and
before starting equipment; and
    (4) Make sure that locks and tags are removed only by the
authorized employees who attached them. In the very few instances when
this is not possible, the device may be removed by another employee who
is also an authorized employee and is working at the direction of the
employer, provided that the employer has:
     Implemented specific procedures and training that address
the situation; and
     Demonstrated that the procedures provide equivalent
safety.
    Furthermore, the procedure must include the following:
     A verification that the employee who applied the lockout/
tagout device is not at the facility;
     Reasonable efforts have been made to contact the
authorized employee to inform him or her that the device has been
removed; and
     Assurance that the absent authorized employee knows about
the removal before he or she returns and resumes work.
    Additional safety requirements (Sec.  1910.147(f), proposed Sec.
1915.89(e)). The standard includes additional requirements when certain
circumstances may pose an increased risk of harm. These circumstances
are: (1) Testing or positioning equipment during servicing; (2) the
presence of outside (contractor) personnel at the worksite who are
engaged in servicing operations; (3) servicing or maintenance performed
by a group (rather than one specific person); and (4) changes in
workshifts or personnel.
    Testing or positioning of machines, equipment, systems or their
components (Sec.  1910.147(f)(1), proposed Sec.  1915(e)(1)). The
standard allows the temporary removal of locks or tags and the re-
energization of equipment during the limited time when power is needed
for the testing or positioning of them or their components. The
reenergization must be conducted in accordance with the sequence of
steps listed below to ensure employees' safety when they take equipment
from a deenergized to energized condition and back again:
    (1) Clear the equipment of tools and materials;
    (2) Remove employees from the equipment area;
    (3) Remove the lockout or tagout devices in accordance with the
required removal procedures;

    (4) Energize the equipment and proceed with testing or positioning;
    (5) When testing or positioning is complete, deenergize all systems
and isolate the equipment from the energy source; and
    (6) Reapply lockout or tagout devices in accordance with the
required control application procedures.
    Outside personnel (contractors, ship's crew, etc.) (Sec.
1910.147(f)(2), proposed Sec.  1915(e)(2)). When outside personnel
perform servicing operations at the worksite, the standard requires
that the onsite employer and the outside employer must inform each
other of their respective lockout or tagout procedures. The onsite
employer must ensure that his or her personnel understand and comply
with all restrictions and/or prohibitions of the outside employer's
energy control program. The proposed rule makes it clear that outside
personnel include ship's crew and contractors hired by the ship owner.
    The following accident highlights the need for employers to
coordinate their lockout/tagout program. In 1987, a fatality occurred
aboard a grain-carrying ship that was equipped with wing tanks on each
side of the ship. A screw conveyor ran through each wing tank. At the
time of the accident, two of the wing tanks were being washed.
Simultaneously, a Marine Chemist and a shipyard employee were inside
another wing tank that was not being washed. The shipyard employee was
standing on the conveyor when it was turned on by a member of the
ship's crew who was unaware the employee and the chemist were inside
the other wing tank. The screw conveyor crushed the shipyard employee
to death. Although a lockout procedure was in effect for the employees
washing the tanks, this information was not provided to the other
employees, nor was there any coordination between employers or tasks.
    Group lockout or tagout (Sec.  1910.147(f)(3), proposed Sec.
1915(e)(3)). The standard requires that when servicing is performed by
a crew or other group, the employer must utilize procedures that afford
employees a level of protection equivalent to the use of a personal
lockout or tagout device. The group lockout/tagout procedures must be
in accord with the employer's energy control procedures, including at
least the following specific requirements:
     Each group working under a group lockout/tagout must have
an authorized employee who is vested with primary responsibility for
the group;
     The authorized employee must ascertain the exposure status
of each member of the group;
     Each authorized employee must affix a personal lockout or
tagout device when he or she begins work and remove it when work is
completed; and
     If more than one crew or group is involved in servicing,
an authorized employee must be designated to coordinate the affected
groups and ensure continuity of protection.
    Shift or personnel changes (Sec.  1910.147(f)(4), proposed Sec.
1915(e)(4)). The standard requires that the employer's energy control
program include specific procedures to ensure the continuity of lockout
or tagout protection during the workshift or personnel changes.
    Appendix A (Non-mandatory). The standard also includes a non-
mandatory appendix as a guideline to help employers and employees
comply with the requirements of the standard. The appendix also
provides other helpful information on the control of hazardous energy.
    The differences between proposed Sec.  1915.89 and Sec.  1910.147.
As mentioned, in most respects, OSHA is proposing to apply the general
industry lockout/tagout standard to shipyards in the same manner as it
applies to general industry. However, in certain places OSHA is
proposing to modify the language of the standard to make the rule more
directly applicable to shipyard employment. Most of the proposed
modifications are strictly technical, for example, changes in the
effective date and references to applicable standards in Part 1915. A
few proposed changes address specific working conditions and
circumstances in shipyards.
     ``Unexpected.'' The proposal does not include the term
``unexpected,'' which the general industry Lockout/Tagout standard uses
in describing equipment energization and startup that the standard
covers (Sec.  1910.147(a)(1)(i)). OSHA interpreted ``unexpected
energization or startup'' to mean energization or startup of equipment
that is unintended or unplanned. OSHA believes that energization or
startup that occurs while the employee is servicing the equipment and
before the employee intends to activate it is unintended and unplanned.
This includes any steps toward reenergization that are taken without
the servicing employee's knowledge. Such startup is clearly outside the
energy control plan and procedures, and could result in injury if the
energy involved is strong enough. Thus, determining whether employees
could be injured if the equipment is energized or starts up during the
servicing operation is a key inquiry for employers. Thus, OSHA believes
preventing energization or startup during servicing that could cause
injury is necessary to fully effectuate the standard's purpose and the
provisions designed to protect employees from injury during servicing
operations.
    In Reich v. General Motors Corp., the Commission and Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit did not accept OSHA's interpretation of
``unexpected'' energization or startup in the general industry Lockout/
Tagout standard. Reich v. General Motors Corp., 17 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA)
1673 (1995); 89 F.3d 313 (6th Cir. 1996). Although the Agency disagrees
with their decisions in that case, to avoid any confusion OSHA is not
using the term ``unexpected'' in this proposal. OSHA believes this
change further clarifies the Agency's intent that the proposal covers
all servicing activities in which the equipment being serviced could
energize, start up or release energy while the employee is servicing
it, and such action could cause injury.
    Systems. OSHA proposes to add the word ``systems'' to the
``machines and equipment'' the general industry standard covers. The
hazards on vessels often involve working on ship's systems that create
and distribute power--not only the machines or equipment that are
driven by it. There are several reasons for explicitly identifying
systems in the application of the shipyard standard. First, the
language of shipbuilding and repair revolves around systems. The
functional components of a ship are commonly known as ship's systems,
such as electrical, propulsion, guidance, fuel, or radar systems.
Adding systems to the standard makes it more directly applicable to
shipyard employment, and makes it clear that the standard applies to
systems as a whole, not merely the individual components of such
systems.
    Second, including systems also makes it clear that pipes,
electrical cables, and like components are included in the equipment
and processes to which lockout/tagout must be applied, and that a
holistic approach may be needed to ensure employees are protected. In
some cases, pipes, power cables, and control systems need to be
considered when working on a specific piece of equipment, and adding
the systems term helps to ensure that holistic approach is followed.
    Scope--exemptions. The shipyard lockout/tagout proposal (Sec.
1915.89(a)(1)) does not carry over the exemptions from coverage
contained in the scope section of the general industry standard (Sec.
1910.147(a)(1)(ii)). The reasons are

obvious. The exemptions include the maritime industry or address
hazards and activities that are not present in shipyard employment
(e.g., agriculture, oil and gas well drilling and servicing). The
proposal (Sec.  1915.80 and .89) makes clear that the entirety of
subpart F applies to shipyard employment, including landside operations
and work on board vessels and vessel sections.
    The proposal also does not include the exemption that SESAC
recommended:

    Note: This standard does not apply on vessel sections,
equipment, and machines which are under the control of a Federal
government agency (e.g., the U.S. Navy), and where the agency
exercises control over hazardous energy sources by its lockout or
tagout procedures. Those procedures shall supersede these
regulations (Docket SESAC 1993-3, Ex. 104X, p. 48).

    It is unclear to whom SESAC intends that the proposed exemption
would apply--the ship, Federal civilian employees, military personnel,
shipyard owners or Federal contract employers and employees. At the
outset, OSHA notes that its standards apply to employers and not
vessels. Assuming, however, that SESAC intends the exemption to apply
to shipyard owners and Federal contractors who perform servicing
onboard government vessels, such an exemption is inconsistent with the
OSH Act and case law interpreting it. The OSH Act does not exclude
Federal contractors from coverage (29 U.S.C. 653(b)(2)). The case law
is well-settled that employees of private contractors performing work
under Federal contracts are covered under the OSH Act. Ensign-Bickford
Co. v. OSHRC, 717 F.2d 1419, 1421, cert. denied, 466 U.S. 937 (1984).
In addition, the provisions in 29 CFR part 1960 (Elements for Federal
Employee Occupational Safety and Health Programs) stress that the OSH
Act covers Federal contractors and their employees. In particular,
Sec.  1960.1(f) provides that Federal contract employees are assured
protection under the OSH Act and no provision of part 1960 ``shall be
construed in any manner to relieve any private employer, including
Federal contractors, or their employees of any rights or
responsibilities under the provisions of the Act.''
    OSHA is preempted from covering Federal contractors and their
employees only where another Federal agency has statutory authority to
prescribe and enforce occupational safety and health standards on the
contract employers and exercises that authority. Ensign-Bickford, 717
F.2d at 1421. A contractual obligation to comply with a Federal
agency's safety procedures or manual does not constitute an exercise of
statutory authority sufficient to justify preemption under section
4(b)(1) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 653). Id. Preemption is appropriate
only where a Federal agency implements and enforces the regulatory
apparatus necessary to replace those safeguards the OSH Act requires.
Id.
    With regard to Federal civilian employees, the SESAC's proposed
exemption also is inconsistent with the OSH Act, Executive Order (E.O.)
12196 and 28 CFR 1960. Those provisions, which require that each
Federal agency provide safe and healthful places and conditions of
employment for Federal employees, are meant to ensure that Federal
civilian employees have the same protections as private sector
employees have under the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 668(a)(1); E.O. 12196 Sec.
1-201 (1980); 29 CFR 1960.1(a)). To effectuate this, section 1-201(d)
of Executive Order 12196 and 29 CFR 1960.16 require Federal agencies to
comply with all standards issued under section 6 the OSH Act. There is
no evidence in the record that the hazardous energy to which Federal
civilian employees may be exposed during onboard servicing operations
is any different from those that private sector employees face onboard
vessels. Therefore, OSHA believes excluding Federal employees is not
appropriate.
    With regard to military personnel, OSHA notes that E.O. 12196
excludes from coverage ``military personnel and uniquely military
equipment, systems, and operations'' (E.O. 12196 Sec.  1-101).
Accordingly, the exemption SESAC recommends is not necessary to exclude
military personnel from the proposed lockout/tagout standard.
    Scope--application and purpose. The general industry standard
specifies that it does not apply to ``normal production operations,''
except in certain limited situations (Sec.  1910.147(a)(2)(ii)). The
standard and its preamble explain that equipment hazards during those
operations are covered by subpart O of Part 1910. The requirements of
subpart O generally apply to shipyard employment. However, certain
provisions are not applicable to shipyard employment because the
specific requirements in subpart H of part 1915 apply (e.g., Sec. Sec.
1915.131 and .134). Accordingly, OSHA is proposing to revise the
regulatory language to indicate that standards addressing normal
production operations in shipyard employment are found in the
applicable requirements contained in ``subpart O of 29 CFR part 1910
and subpart H of 29 CFR part 1915.''
    Similarly, Sec.  1910.147(a)(3)(ii) requires employers to use the
general industry standard to supplement lockout/tagout provisions in
other standards in part 1910. The proposed rule modifies this language
to include part 1915 as well as part 1910. As mentioned, the part 1915
standards that contain lockout/tagout requirements include Sec.
1915.162 Ship's Boilers, Sec.  1915.163 Ship's Piping Systems, Sec.
1915.164 Ship's Propulsion Machinery, andSec.  1915.181 Electrical
circuits and distribution boards. Part 1910 standards that currently
contain lockout/tagout related requirements that may apply, with some
exceptions, to shipyards include: Sec.  1910.178 Power Industrial
Trucks; Sec.  1910.179 Overhead and Gantry Cranes; Sec.  1910.181
Derricks; Sec.  1910.213 Woodworking Machinery; Sec.  1910.217
Mechanical Power Presses; Sec.  1910.218 Forging Machines; Sec.
1910.252 Welding, Cutting and Brazing; and Sec.  1910.305 Electrical.
    Definitions. The proposed standard uses the same definitions as
paragraph (b) of Sec.  1910.147. The proposed definitions contain some
technical changes, primarily to make the definitions more directly
applicable to shipyard employment. In addition, the lockout/tagout
definitions have been moved to the definitions section for subpart F,
(proposed Sec.  1915.95). As a result, the paragraph numbers in the
proposed Sec.  1915.89 do not correspond with the numbers in the
general industry standard.
    Installing lockable energy-isolating devices during replacement and
overhaul. Paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of the general industry standard
requires employers to install lockable energy-isolating devices when
replacing or overhauling machines or equipment. In the preamble to the
final standard, OSHA said that it was ``much more effective and
protective'' to design a locking capability into equipment during
normal replacement and overhaul cycles (54 FR 36656). The proposed
lockout/tagout standard for shipyards also contains this requirement
(proposed Sec.  1915.89(b)(2)(iii)). However, the general industry
provision assumes that the employer owns, and therefore, has the
ability to make changes to equipment. This frequently is not the case
in shipyard employment, particularly with regard to ship's systems. As
mentioned, shipyard employers ordinarily do not own the ships that they
service. Accordingly, the Agency proposes to include the following
exception to Sec.  1915.89(b)(2)(iii): ``This requirement does not
apply to a machine, equipment or system that the employer does not
own.''

    However, OSHA believes that shipyard employees, ship's crews, and
contractor employees would be safer if vessel owners installed lockout
systems, and some owners already are implementing this safety measure.
For example, the Military Sealift Command (MSC) operates over 100
civilian-crewed ships providing ocean transportation of equipment,
fuel, supplies, and ammunition to sustain U.S. military forces
worldwide (Ex. 9). The MSC lockout/tagout program requires both a tag
and a locking device with a padlock to secure an energy source whenever
possible, which protects shipyard employees as well as ship's crews
during lockout/tagout applications (Ex. 9). OSHA asks for comment on
how the Agency or shipyards can encourage ship owners to install
lockable systems during the design and overhaul process. Finally, the
Agency is also proposing to change paragraph (b)(2)(iii) to reference
the effective date of the revised 1915 subpart F.
    Outside personnel (contractors, ship's crew, etc.) proposed Sec.
1915.89(e)(2)). OSHA is requesting comment on what language to adopt in
the final rule that best and most clearly explains the requirement to
coordinate the activities of the various employers that might be
involved in servicing operations at shipyards. The proposed language,
which is consistent with the language of Sec.  1910.147(f)(2) reads as
follows:

    (2) Outside personnel (contractors, ship's crew, etc.). (i)
Whenever outside servicing personnel such as contractors or ship's
crew are to be engaged in activities covered by the scope and
application of this standard, the on-site employer and the outside
employer shall inform each other of their respective lockout or
tagout procedures.
    (ii) The on-site employer shall ensure that his/her employees
understand and comply with the restrictions and prohibitions of the
outside employer's energy control program.

    Several shipyard employment standards require employers to
coordinate safety and health activities. For example, the part 1915
Subpart P Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment standards require
contract employers in shipyard employment to have a fire safety plan
that complies with the host employers fire safety plan (Sec.
1915.502(e)). In OSHA's experience, such coordination is commonly
achieved by the contract employers adopting the safety and health
policies and procedures of the shipyard. For example, as explained in
the preamble to the fire protection rulemaking, OSHA finds it
acceptable for a contractor to adopt the host employer's fire safety
plan if that plan includes the fire hazards the contract employees will
encounter (69 FR 55674, (9/15/2004)).
    OSHA is concerned that the language of paragraph (ii) requiring the
on-site employer to ensure that his/her employees understand and comply
with the restrictions and prohibitions of the outside employer's energy
control program may appear to run counter to the common practice of
contractors following the host employer's programs. OSHA does not
believe that this is actually the case, because contract employers who
adopt the host employer's energy control procedures would implement the
required coordination and both employers would be in compliance.
However, to avoid potential confusion on this matter, OSHA is
considering alternative language used in a similar requirement found in
Sec.  1910.269(d)(8)(iv) of the general industry electric power
generation, transmission and distribution standard, which reads as
follows:

    Whenever outside servicing personnel are to be engaged in
activities covered by paragraph (d) of this section, the on-site
employer and the outside employer shall inform each other of their
respective lockout or tagout procedures, and each employer shall
ensure that his or her personnel understand and comply with
restrictions and prohibitions of the energy control procedures being
used.

    OSHA requests comment on the best language to use for this
provision. Is the alternative language easier to understand? Does it
improve or alter employee protections? Does it provide more flexibility
by allowing the employers to decide among themselves which procedures
are more appropriate? Should the final standard require the employer to
adopt the most protective procedures, regardless of which employer has
them?
    Issues for which OSHA is seeking comment on the lockout/tagout
proposal. Although OSHA is proposing to adopt the Sec.  1910.147
provisions with minor revision, the Agency is also considering whether
to add additional measures to further tailor the standard to the
shipyard industry and to provide additional protection for shipyard
employees. Therefore, OSHA asks for comment on the following issues.
    Current shipyard lockout/tagout programs. OSHA asks for information
on current hazardous energy control programs used by shipyard employers
and how they differ from OSHA's general industry approach. Please
describe your lockout/tagout program and submit copies of your programs
to the record. OSHA is also interested in learning about the
effectiveness, costs, and cost savings associated with different
hazardous energy approaches. Please submit any information on program
effectiveness, injury reduction, costs, cost savings, and other
benefits associated with your lockout/tagout efforts.
    Compatibility of general industry approach for shipyard employment.
At the beginning of the discussion of the proposed lockout/tagout
standard, OSHA outlined the reasons why the Agency proposes to adopt
the general industry lockout/tagout approach for shipyard employment.
OSHA requests comment on the proposed approach. Specifically, OSHA
requests comment on whether the proposed approach, as is, would
adequately protect employees against hazardous energy in shipyard
employment. Please explain what additional modifications to the
standard, if any, may be needed to protect shipyard employees from
hazardous energy. OSHA is aware that a number of shipyard employers
have implemented lockout/tagout programs that are based on the general
industry standard. Please describe your lockout/tagout program and
submit a copy of it for the record. Why did your establishment
implement the general industry approach? What type of revisions, if
any, did you make to the general industry energy control program so it
would be compatible and effective in your workplace?
    Some members of SESAC urged that OSHA, instead of proposing to
apply the general industry lockout/tagout standard to shipyards, to
develop a different plain language lockout/tagout standard tailored
specifically to shipyard employment. OSHA requests comment on whether a
different standard, not based on the general industry standard, is
necessary to control hazardous energy in shipyard employment. If not,
why not? If so, what should such a standard contain? What types of
problems and costs, if any, would adopting a separate shipyard lockout/
tagout standard pose for shipyard employers who already have
implemented a lockout/tagout program based on the general industry
standard?
    Incident investigation. SESAC recommended that a shipyard lockout/
tagout standard include a provision requiring the employer to conduct
incident investigations when accidents or near misses occur (Docket
SESAC 1993-3, Ex. 8, p. 7). They recommended that incident
investigations be conducted to identify deficiencies in the lockout/
tagout program and then to correct any problems or deficiencies in the
program. OSHA requests input on whether the standard should include an

incident investigation requirement. Does your shipyard or industry
routinely conduct such investigations? If not, why not? If so, has the
approach been successful in identifying and resolving lockout/tagout
problems? If OSHA adopts an incident investigation provision, what
requirements should it include (e.g., the qualifications of staff
performing the investigation; the promptness of the investigation; the
quality of the investigation, documentation, and corrective action)?
    Additional measures. As discussed, the general industry standard
only allows an employer to use a tagout device on a lockable energy
isolating device when the employer can demonstrate that the tagout
system will provide ``full employee protection,'' that is, when the
employer demonstrates that the tagout program provides a level of
safety equivalent to that obtained by using a lock. To demonstrate that
the required level of protection is achieved the employer must
demonstrate full compliance with all tagout provisions and implement
additional safety measures as necessary. Some of the additional
measures the standard identifies are removal of isolating circuit
elements or valve handles and blocking control switches.
    The general industry standard and this proposed rule do not apply
the requirement of full employee protection and additional measures to
energy isolating devices that are not capable of being locked. OSHA
decided against extending the requirement to non-lockable energy
isolating devices in the general industry rule because the Agency
determined that such devices could not provide protection equivalent to
that obtained by using a lock. In addition, OSHA observed that, in
general industry, the number of non-lockable energy isolating devices
was small, less than 10 percent of all equipment. Moreover, OSHA
predicted that their number would rapidly decline and eventually
disappear when the requirement to make energy isolating devices
lockable during replacement or major repair was implemented.
    Although the situation for shipyard landside operations is similar
to that of general industry, the situation onboard vessels is almost
the opposite. OSHA estimates that more than 90 percent of equipment and
systems onboard vessels are not capable of being locked (see
Preliminary Economic Analysis below). Some cannot be locked because the
system is too complex or because locking the system would result in
shutting down all operations throughout the vessel. In addition, a
number of vessel systems are not designed or built to allow locks and
shipyard employers cannot attach or retrofit them because they do not
own the vessel. In recognition of this, OSHA is proposing to exempt
shipyard employers from the requirement to make systems on vessels
lockable during replacement and repair if the employer does not own the
vessel. Therefore, for machines, equipment and systems onboard vessels,
it is unlikely that the number of non-lockable systems will decrease
significantly without action by ship owners. At the same time, OSHA is
aware that many shipyard employers use additional measures whenever a
tagout system is used, regardless of whether the energy isolating
device is capable of being locked (Docket SESAC 1993-3, Ex. 104X, p.
73). OSHA requests comment on whether the standard should require
shipyard employers to implement additional safety measures whenever a
tagout system is used, regardless of whether the energy isolating
device is capable of being locked. Does your establishment currently
use additional safety measures whenever a tagout system is utilized? If
not, why not? If so, what measures do you use and why?
    A related issue is what additional measures employers may use when
tagout systems are utilized. In addition to using the measures
identified in the general industry standard, some shipyard employers
use administrative means, such as posting authorized employees as
attendants at the energy isolating device or power source to help
ensure that no one removes the tagout device or starts up the equipment
while servicing is still in progress. OSHA requests comment on whether
the Agency should include posting of an attendant as an example of the
additional measures employers may use. What additional measures does
your shipyard and industry use to provide added protection when tagout
systems are used? Please explain how these measures work and why they
are used.
    Group lockout/tagout. The general industry standard (Sec.
1910.147(f)(3)(iii)(D)) and the proposed standard require that the
employer ensure that each authorized employee affix a personal lockout
or tagout device to the group mechanism before beginning work and
remove the device when work ends. This provision, along with others in
the standard, ensures that each employee has a degree of control over
his or her protection. SESAC recommended that a shipyard lockout/tagout
standard include a provision allowing shipyard employers to use
administrative or other means to control access to locked or tagged
machines or equipment when a group of employees are servicing the same
equipment (Docket SESAC 1993-3, Ex. 104X, pp. 134-158). OSHA requests
comment on other ``equivalent methods'' for group lockout/tagout that
the Agency should consider. What methods does your shipyard or industry
use to control access in group lockout/tagout situations? Do they
result in any other advantages or disadvantages?
    It is OSHA's view that the group lockout/tagout provisions apply
whether the employees in the group work for only one employer, or if
they work for multiple employers. In your establishment or industry,
are group lockout/tagout procedures used for multi-employer groups? If
so, what safety measures do you use to assure that consistent
procedures are used by the employers and employees involved?
    Non-mandatory appendix. OSHA proposes to adopt the non-mandatory
appendix from the general industry standard. The appendix, which
provides an example of a typical minimum lockout procedure, will help
shipyard employers comply with the standard. OSHA requests comment on
whether the appendix should be revised to further tailor it to shipyard
employers.

Section 1915.90 Safety Color Code for Marking Physical Hazards

    OSHA proposes to incorporate by reference the general industry
standard on safety color coding for marking physical hazards (Sec.
1910.144). The standard already is applicable to shipyard employment,
both on vessels and on shore. The existing standard requires that the
color red shall be the basic color for the identification of dangerous
conditions such as containers of flammable liquids, lights at
barricades and temporary obstructions and danger signs. The standard
also specifies that red shall be the color for emergency stop buttons,
electric switches, and machine stop bars. In addition, the standard
requires that yellow shall be the basic color for designating caution
and marking physical hazards such as slip, trip and fall hazards.

Section 1915.91 Accident Prevention Signs and Tags

    OSHA is proposing to incorporate by reference the general industry
Accident Prevention Signs and Tags standard (1910.145). The standard's
requirements on the classification, design and wording of accident
prevention signs apply to shipyard employment (on vessels and on
shore)(Sec.  1910.145(a) through (e)); however, the standard's
requirements on accident prevention tags do not (Sec.
1910.145(f)(ii)). Part 1915

does not have comprehensive, uniform requirements on the design,
application and use of such tags. Part 1915 contains only limited
requirements for accident signs and labels, such as provisions on the
posting of warning signs and labels to comply with the shipyard
confined and enclosed spaces standard (Sec.  1915.16).
    The general industry provisions on accident prevention tags require
that they be used where employees are exposed to potentially hazardous
conditions, equipment or operations that are ``out of the ordinary,
unexpected or not readily apparent'' (Sec.  1910.145(f)(3)). The
provisions also require that tags meet uniform criteria for message,
legibility, positioning/affixing, and comprehensibility (Sec.
1910.145(f)(4)).
    Incorporating the general industry standard is necessary to provide
consistent protection wherever shipyard employees are exposed to
potentially hazardous conditions. It also ensures that important
warning and danger signs and tags are uniform in their design and use,
which OSHA believes will increase their effectiveness. The proposed
requirements should not pose problems for shipyard employers since the
general industry requirements are universally recognized and the use of
signs and tags as specified in Sec.  1910.145 are already common
shipyard practice.
    To eliminate any possible confusion, the proposal also amends Sec.
1910.145 to remove from the scope provisions the exclusions for
``marine regulations'' and ``maritime'' (Sec.  1910.145(a)(1) and
(f)(1)(ii)). As discussed in the proposed lockout/tagout section, a
potential for confusion may exist because the terms ``maritime'' and
``marine'' have sometimes been used as shorthand for shipyard
employment, marine terminals and longshoring. Removing those terms
eliminates that potential ambiguity. (OSHA notes that removing the
terms does not change the scope and application of Sec.  1910.145 vis a
vis marine terminals and longshoring; that is, removing the language
excluding maritime and marine regulations does not now make the
standard applicable to marine terminals and longshoring. General
industry standards apply to marine terminals and longshoring only to
the extent they are specifically incorporated by reference in parts
1917 and 1918. Section 1910.145 is not incorporated into either part;
therefore, it does not apply.)
    OSHA requests comment on the proposed requirements. Should OSHA
propose that accident prevention signs be understandable to employees
(existing paragraph 1910.145(f)(4)(iv)) and that employees be provided
with information as to their meaning (existing paragraph
1910.145(f)(5)(v)) as already required for accident prevention tags?
(Section 1915.16 contains similar requirements, but they are for
warning signs and labels for confined and enclosed spaces.) If not, why
not? If so, what should those requirements include?

Section 1915.92 Retention of DOT Markings, Placards, and Labels

    OSHA proposes to retain, with minor editorial changes, the existing
requirements (Sec.  1915.100) on the retention of DOT markings,
placards and labels on hazardous materials the shipyard receives.
Proposed paragraphs (a) and (b) require that employers not remove
labels and markings on any hazardous materials or freight containers,
rail freight cars, motor vehicles, or transportation vehicles that the
U.S. Department of Transportation regulations require to be marked
until the hazardous materials are removed, and that any residue is
cleaned and any vapors are purged to prevent potential hazards. This
would apply regardless of how the shipyard receives the hazardous
material packages (e.g., single packages, in bulk).
    Proposed paragraph (c) requires that the markings, placards and
labels on the hazardous materials be maintained so that they are
``readily visible.'' Proposed paragraph (d) states that employers are
considered in compliance with this section if the markings/labels on
non-bulk packages that will not be reshipped are affixed in accordance
with the Hazard Communication standard Sec.  1915.1200. Finally,
proposed paragraph (e) specifies that the definition of ``hazardous
materials'' and other undefined terms have the same definition as the
U.S. Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations (49
CFR parts 171 through 180). OSHA requests comment on whether paragraph
(e), which cross-references the DOT hazardous materials regulations (as
does the general industry standard), is necessary for employers to
understand the standard or whether it should be deleted in the final
rule.

Section 1915.93 Motor Vehicle Safety Equipment, Operation, and
Maintenance

    OSHA proposes to add a new section addressing the hazards
associated with the use of motor vehicles at shipyards. The proposed
section sets forth requirements addressing motor vehicle safety
equipment and the safe operation and maintenance of motor vehicles.
According to the BLS CFOI database, over an 11-year period (1993-2003),
27 shipyard employees were killed in transportation accidents,
accounting for 17 percent of the deaths during that time. OSHA believes
that the proposed motor vehicle safety provisions will help reduce the
incidence of motor vehicle related fatalities.
    In Sec.  1915.95, OSHA is proposing to define ``motor vehicle'' to
mean any motor-driven vehicle operated by an employee that is used to
transport employees, materials, or property. Motor vehicles would
include passenger cars, light trucks (e.g., pickup trucks), vans, all-
terrain vehicles, powered industrial trucks, and other similar
vehicles.
    OSHA believes the proposed requirements are necessary because
vehicle accidents continue to result in employee deaths in shipyard
employment. As discussed above, a high proportion of shipyard employee
fatalities are caused by motor vehicle-related accidents. Motor vehicle
accidents are also a significant cause of employee injury in shipyards.
According to BLS, since 1998 an estimated 225 shipyard employees have
suffered motor vehicle-related injuries serious enough to involve days
away from work. In 2002, 63 shipyard employees suffered injuries
involving days away from work in transportation accidents.
    Paragraph (a)--Application. In paragraph (a)(1), OSHA proposes to
apply this section to any motor vehicle used to transport employees,
materials or property at shipyards. The provision also makes clear that
the section would not apply to motor vehicle operation on public
streets and highways. OSHA believes that Federal, State and local laws
and regulations such as safety belt and vehicle inspection laws,
already provide adequate protection on public roads. Thus, the proposal
is directed to where those laws and regulations may not apply to motor
vehicles used on shipyard property (e.g., transporting employees
between worksites, moving materials). Nonetheless, OSHA believes the
proposal's benefits will extend beyond motor vehicle operation at
shipyard worksites. For example, an employee who is required to wear a
safety belt while riding in a motor vehicle on shipyard property is
more likely to continue to wear it when the vehicle leaves the
shipyard. Likewise, a motor vehicle that is maintained in safe
operating condition for use in shipyard employment will also be safe
when it is used on public roads.
    In paragraph (a)(2), OSHA proposes to limit application of most of
the provisions of the section to motor

vehicles the employer provides. However, because some employers allow
employees to use their own motor vehicles to transport themselves,
other employees and materials within the shipyard, OSHA proposes that
three provisions in this section also would apply to motor vehicles
provided by employees. Those provisions are the requirements that
employees use safety belts (Sec.  1915.93(b)(2)), that motor vehicles
have seats for each employee being transported (Sec.  1915.93(b)(4)),
and that tools and materials transported by motor vehicles be firmly
secured (Sec.  1915.93(c)(2)).
    Proposed paragraph (a)(3) states that only motor vehicle safety
equipment requirements in paragraph (b)(1) through (b)(3) would apply
to the operation of powered industrial trucks in shipyards. The seating
requirements in paragraph (b)(4) would not apply to powered industrial
trucks manufactured for operation in a standing position, because they
are not equipped with seats. In addition, the Power Industrial Trucks
standard prohibits unauthorized personnel from riding on powered
industrial trucks and requires that a safe place to ride be provided
where riding is allowed (Sec.  1910.178(m)(3)).
    Proposed paragraph (a)(3) also provides that the motor vehicle
operation and maintenance requirements in this section would not apply
to powered industrial trucks. Proposed paragraph (a)(3) makes clear
that employers must continue to comply with the maintenance,
inspection, operation, and training requirements for powered industrial
trucks in Sec.  1910.178. Those requirements are more comprehensive and
provide more specific protection than the more general motor vehicle
operation and maintenance requirements proposed here.
    Paragraph (b)--Motor vehicle safety equipment--Paragraph (b)
proposes requirements for equipping motor vehicles with safety
equipment and using it while motor vehicles are operated.
    OSHA proposes in paragraph (b)(1) to require that each motor
vehicle the employer acquires or puts in service for the first time
after the final rule becomes effective be equipped with safety belts
for each employee operating or riding in the vehicle. The Agency
believes this requirement is necessary and appropriate because, as
mentioned above, shipyard employees have been injured and killed in
motor vehicle-related accidents, and it is well documented that safety
belts reduce the risk of injury and death (Exs. 2-2; 2-4, p. 61: 2-5,
p. 6; 2-6; 2-7; 2-8; 2-11; 2-18). There have been injuries and
fatalities in shipyard employment, as well as other industries,
directly related to employees not using safety belts, including while
operating powered industrial trucks (e.g., forklifts) and other off-
road vehicles (Ex. 2-9). Recognition of the hazard of operating motor
vehicles without safety belts is also evidenced by the national
consensus standards that require motor vehicles to be equipped with
operator restraints and specify that operators and passengers use them
(Ex. 3-13, SAE J386, Operator Restraint Systems for Off-Road Work
Machines, November 1997; Ex. 3-10, ANSI/ASME B56.1-2000 Safety Standard
for Low Lift and High Lift Trucks). The proposal would make subpart F
consistent with those standards.
    OSHA is aware that the powered industrial truck standard (Sec.
1910.178) does not require those motor vehicles to be equipped with
safety belts. Much of the standard was promulgated pursuant to section
6(a) and was taken from the ANSI standard on low lift and high lift
trucks that was in effect at the time, ANSI B56.1-1969. The 1969 ANSI
standard did not have a safety belt requirement. However, when the ANSI
standard was revised in 1993, provisions were added requiring that
powered industrial trucks manufactured after 1992 be equipped with
safety belts and requiring that operators use them. The current ANSI/
ASME standard continues to require this. In issuing its 5(a)(1)
enforcement policy regarding operator restraint systems for powered
industrial trucks, OSHA said that the provisions in the revised
national consensus standard evidence ``recognition of the hazard of
powered industrial truck tipover and the need for the use of an
operator restraint system'' (Ex. 2-15, Memorandum dated October 9,
1996, to Regional Administrators from John Miles).
    Proposed paragraph (b)(1) would not require employers to retrofit
those motor vehicles that they are already using with safety belts.
OSHA is proposing to limit application of the requirement to motor
vehicles put into service by the employer for the first time after the
final rule becomes effective. Although OSHA anticipates that the vast
majority of motor vehicles shipyard employers put into service after
the effective date will be new vehicles that have been manufactured
with safety belts, the proposed language also addresses used motor
vehicles employers acquire and use for the first time after the final
rule becomes effective. Applying the standard to both groups of motor
vehicles would ensure that employers consider the safety of employees
whenever they acquire motor vehicles. The proposal includes an
exception to the safety belt requirement for those motor vehicles that
were not originally manufactured with them (e.g., buses). However, if
the motor vehicle was manufactured with safety belts and they have been
removed or are not operational, the employer would have to ensure the
motor vehicle has operational safety belts before it is used for the
first time in the shipyard.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2) requires the employer to ensure that
employees use safety belts at all times while operating or riding in a
motor vehicle. As mentioned, motor vehicle accidents are a significant
cause of employee injury and death and safety belts have been shown to
reduce that risk. OSHA notes that the proposed requirement applies to
all motor vehicles used at shipyards including powered industrial
trucks. Forklifts are particularly susceptible to tipovers if they run
over uneven ground, potholes, sand, or railways; turn corners sharply;
or if the mast strikes an object. These situations and conditions are
often found in shipyards. In many forklift tipover accidents, operators
have been injured or killed because they were thrown from the forklift,
or struck or crushed by the forklift when they tried to jump free. In
2001, BLS reported that across private industry 35 of 123 forklift
fatalities (28 percent) involved tipovers or falling from a moving
forklift. In contrast, where forklift operators were wearing safety
belts in many cases the injuries were more limited. In one tipping
accident, where an OSHA inspector noted that the operator was wearing a
safety belt, the injuries were limited to four fingers on one hand.
    OSHA is aware of concerns that some forklift operators have about
using operator restraints near water. The Agency has heard some
operators say they do not wear safety belts because they need to be
able to jump free of the forklift if it goes off the dock. However,
OSHA is not aware of any reports of powered industrial trucks running
off a shipyard dock. OSHA requests comment, especially any data and
other information on this issue.
    OSHA is also aware of arguments that the safety belt provision is
unnecessary since states have mandatory seat belt laws. However, those
laws only apply to motor vehicles operated on public streets and
highways and do not apply to off-road industrial vehicles such as
powered industrial trucks. As mentioned, shipyard employees have been
injured and killed in off-road motor vehicle accidents, which may have
been prevented if they had been

using safety belts. OSHA believes that where employers inform employees
about the safety belt requirement and require their use that safety
belt usage will be significantly higher.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2) also requires that the employer ensure
that employees wear safety belts securely and tightly at all times they
are operating or riding in a motor vehicle. OSHA believes this language
is necessary because the safety belt or operator restraint system may
not restrain the employee within the vehicle compartment in the event
of an accident or tipover if the belt is not fastened tightly.
    As mentioned above, the safety belt requirement would apply to both
employer and employee provided motor vehicles used to transport
employees, materials and equipment on shipyard property. The risk of
injury exists regardless of whether employees are operating or riding
in employer or employee provided motor vehicles. Applying the proposed
provision to employee provided motor vehicles will ensure that
employees riding in those vehicles will have the same protections as
those riding in employer provided motor vehicles.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(3) would require that employers ensure that
motor vehicle safety equipment is not removed from employer provided
vehicles and replace equipment that is removed. For purposes of this
paragraph, motor vehicle safety equipment includes items such as safety
belts, airbags, lights, brakes, mirrors, horns, windshields and
windshield wipers. This provision must be read in conjunction with
proposed paragraph (c)(1) requiring that employers equip motor vehicles
with safety equipment that is in serviceable and safe operating
condition.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(4) requires that motor vehicles used to
transport employees have a firmly secured seat for each employee being
transported. It also requires the employer to ensure that employees use
the seat when they are being transported. This requirement is necessary
because some shipyards transport employees from one worksite to another
in the back of pickup trucks that do not have seats, and these
employees are at risk of injury from falling out of or being thrown
from the vehicle when traveling in the back of pickup trucks, even at
low speeds. In 2001, for instance, a construction employee riding in
the back of a pick-up while placing cones on a highway fell out and was
killed even though the truck was traveling only 10 to 15 mph, which is
the speed limit in most shipyards.
    To address this hazard, it is OSHA's intent that employees have a
safe seat to sit in when they are transported in shipyards, and that
they use those seats to ride from one location to another. OSHA is not
requiring that employers retrofit their motor vehicles with seats.
Rather, employers need to ensure that transportation used to move
employees throughout the shipyard has seats for every employee
transported. OSHA believes the provision should not pose a problem for
employers since many shipyard employers already use vans, small buses,
and automobiles to transport employees.
    As mentioned, OSHA also proposes to apply this provision to
employee provided motor vehicles. This will ensure that every vehicle
transporting employees in shipyards provides the same protection. OSHA
notes that this provision would not apply to powered industrial trucks
manufactured for operation in a standing position and do not have
operator seats.
    The Agency seeks comments on this proposed requirement. In your
establishment and industry, how are employees transported from one
worksite to another and what measures are in place to ensure that they
are safely transported?
    Paragraph (c) Motor vehicle maintenance and operation--Paragraph
(c) proposes new requirements for the maintenance and operation of
motor vehicles used in shipyards.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(1) requires that employers ensure that each
vehicle is maintained in a ``serviceable and safe operating
condition.'' Safe operating condition refers to the condition of
equipment that directly affects the safe operation of the vehicle. For
example, the proposal would require that motor vehicle safety equipment
such as visibility and warning devices, headlights, taillights, horns,
windshield wipers, defogging or defrosting devices and safety belts be
in safe working order. In Sec.  1915.95, OSHA proposes to define
``serviceable condition'' to mean the state or ability of a vehicle to
operate as it was intended by the manufacturer to operate. Accordingly,
motor vehicles that are operated in accordance with manufacturer's
instructions and recommendations would be considered in compliance with
this provision.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would also require that motor vehicles be
removed from service if they are not in serviceable and safe operating
condition. It is OSHA's intent that the motor vehicle could not be used
for shipyard employment until the problem or damage is repaired.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would require that tools or equipment be
secured while being transported to prevent unsafe movement. This will
reduce the risk of injury due to heavy or sharp tools or equipment
sliding into or hitting operators or passengers. This provision does
not require that all materials be secured, only those that may pose a
hazard to employees. Items that do not pose a hazard to the driver or
passengers could be transported in the vehicle cab or back of a pickup
truck without being secured. As mentioned, this requirement would also
apply to employee provided motor vehicles used at shipyards.
    In paragraph (c)(3), OSHA proposes to address motor vehicle
problems associated with the intermingling of pedestrian, bicycle and
motor vehicle traffic in shipyards. When pedestrians, bicyclists and
motor vehicles share shipyard roadways there is potential for
accidents. Often accidents occur because the motor vehicle operator
does not see the pedestrian or bicyclist in time to avoid hitting them.
Due to the size of many shipyards, roads may be narrow or unmarked, and
parking space may be limited. As a result, many employers provide
bicycles or allow employees to use their own to get from one location
to another. As the use of bicycles has grown, so too have the reports
of accidents. For example, an employee riding a bicycle to perform
regularly assigned work tasks in a Mississippi shipyard was killed when
he collided with a motor vehicle (Ex. 2-1). It is OSHA's intention to
ensure that employees riding bicycles and walking can be seen by motor
vehicle operators and protected from injury.
    Paragraph (c)(3) would require that employers implement measures to
ensure motor vehicle operators can see and avoid hitting pedestrians
and bicyclist traveling in shipyards. The proposal identifies some
measures employers may implement. For example, the employer may
establish dedicated travel lanes for pedestrians and bicyclists and
install crosswalks and traffic control devices (e.g., stop signs,
pavement markings) to control pedestrian and bicycle traffic across
roadways. Using physical barriers to separate the travel lanes will
also help to prevent injury. For travel lanes to be effective, the
employer must ensure that the dedicated lanes are wide enough. For
example, motor vehicle lanes need to be wide enough so they do not
interfere with pedestrian/bicycle lanes and pedestrian/bicycle lanes
need to be

wide enough for safe passage of both pedestrian and bicyclists.
    The employer may also comply with the proposed provision by
providing pedestrians and bicyclists with equipment such as reflective
vests, reflectors or lights. OSHA believes this measure should not pose
problems for employers since bicycles are manufactured with reflectors
and lights. In addition, many shipyard employers already provide
reflective vests so employees are visible to equipment operators.
    The Agency seeks comment on the proposed provisions to reduce
injuries related to the intermingling of pedestrian, bicycle and motor
vehicle traffic in shipyards. OSHA also requests comments on the safe
operation of motor vehicles. What does your company do to ensure that
employees operate motor vehicles safely? Do you have requirements for
employees driving in your facilities or using company vehicles?

Section 1915.94 Servicing Multi-Piece and Single Piece Rim Wheels

    OSHA proposes to incorporate by reference the general industry
standard (Sec.  1910.177) and non-mandatory appendices on servicing
multi-piece and single piece rim wheels. The general industry standard
currently exempts shipyard employment (Sec.  1910.177(a)(2)). (To avoid
any confusion, OSHA also proposes to amend Sec.  1910.177 to delete the
exemption as it applies to shipyard employment.)
    OSHA decided that this gap in coverage should be remedied by
applying the general industry standard to shipyard employment after a
preventable fatality was reported in 1999 at a special trade contractor
site during rim servicing.
    The general industry standard applies to servicing large vehicles
such as trucks, tractors, trailers, buses and off-road machines, all of
which are used in shipyard employment. The standard does not apply to
servicing rim wheels on automobiles or on pickup trucks and vans using
``LT'' (light trucks) tires (1910.177(a)(1)).
    The standard establishes requirements addressing four major areas:
(1) Training for all tire servicing employees (Sec.  1910.177(c)); (2)
the use of proper equipment such as clip-on chucks, restraining
devices, or barriers to retain the wheel components in the event of an
incident during the inflation of tires (Sec.  1910.177(d)); (3) the use
of compatible components (Sec.  1910.177(e)); and (4) the use of safe
operating procedures for servicing multi-piece and single-piece rim
wheels (Sec.  1910.177(f) and (g)). The Agency believes that applying
the general industry standard to shipyard employment should not pose a
problem for employers because many shipyards that service the tires of
their own vehicles are aware of and adhere to the safety provisions of
Sec.  1910.177.
    OSHA requests comment on the proposed provision. To what extent do
shipyards service multi-piece and single piece rim wheels? What safety
precautions are followed to ensure employees are not injured during
these tasks?

Section 1915.95 Definitions

    In Sec.  1915.95, OSHA proposes to add definitions for terms used
in subpart F. The Agency believes that defining key terms in the
regulatory text will make the standards easier to understand and to
comply with. OSHA is not including a discussion of the terms that apply
to the control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout) in proposed Sec.
1915.89. Most of those terms are discussed throughout the preamble
section for Sec.  1915.89 above. The terms are affected employee,
authorized employee, capable of being locked out, energized, energy
isolating device, energy source, hot tap, lockout, lockout device,
normal production operations, servicing and/or maintenance, setting up,
and ship's systems.
    Hazardous or toxic substances. OSHA proposes to define hazardous or
toxic substances to include any of the following: any material listed
in the U.S. DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR part 172), any
substance regulated by subpart Z of 29 CFR part 1910, any atmosphere
with an oxygen content of less than 19.5%, or any corrosive substance
or environmental contaminant that may expose employees to injury,
illness or disease. Harmful environmental contaminants would include
coliform and fecal matter.
    Health care professional is proposed to mean a physician or any
other health care provider whose legally permitted scope of practice
allows the provider to independently provide or be delegated the
responsibility to provide some or all of the advice or consultation
this subpart requires. (See Sec.  1915.87(b) for further discussion.)
    Motor vehicle is proposed to mean any motor-driven vehicle operated
by an employee that is used to transport employees, passengers, or
property. For the purposes of this subpart, motor vehicles would
include, but are not limited to, passenger cars, light trucks, vans,
motorcycles, all terrain vehicles, powered industrial trucks, and other
similar types of vehicles. The proposed definition excludes boats and
vehicles operated exclusively on a rail(s).
    Portable toilet facility is proposed to mean a non-sewered facility
in which urine and defecation is collected and contained. Portable
toilet facilities may be flushable, with water or another flushing
agent. They also may be non-flushable, such as facilities that use
chemicals or biological agents to treat waste. The proposed definition
does not include privies, which are unlikely to be found in shipyards
because many State and local regulations prohibit them near shorelines.
    Potable water is proposed to mean water (1) approved for drinking
by the State or local authority having jurisdiction, or (2) meeting the
quality standards prescribed by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's National Primary Water Regulations (40 CFR part 141).
Requiring that drinking water meet those requirements ensures that it
will be free of environmental contaminants and toxic materials.
    The proposed definition, for purposes of subpart F, updates the
existing definition in Sec.  1910.141(a)(2) to reflect that the EPA
regulations have replaced the U.S. Public Health Service Drinking Water
Standards. SESAC recommended that OSHA delete the reference to Federal
drinking water regulations as a way to simplify the definition.
However, OSHA believes that the reference needs to be retained to
ensure that employee drinking water at least meets a uniform national
quality baseline and that there will not be a gap in protection in
areas where there may not be State or local drinking water regulations
or jurisdiction. OSHA requests comment on whether the reference to
Federal drinking water regulations should be retained.
    Sanitation facilities is proposed to mean facilities provided for
employee health and personal needs such as potable drinking water,
toilet facilities, handwashing and drying facilities, showers
(including quick drench/flush), changing rooms, eating and food
preparation areas, first aid stations, on-site medical service areas
and waste disposal. The proposed definition also includes supplies for
sanitation facilities such as soap, toilet paper, towels, and drinking
cups. OSHA notes that the proposed rule does not require employers to
provide certain sanitation facilities such as on-site eating and
drinking areas. However, where such facilities are provided they would
have to meet the sanitation requirements OSHA proposes.
    Serviceable condition means the state or ability of a tool,
machine, vehicle, or other device to operate as it was

intended by the manufacturer to operate. For tools, machines and
vehicles to be considered in serviceable condition, they must be
maintained in good working condition. OSHA notes that if these devices
are maintained and operated in accordance with manufacturer
instructions and recommendations they would be considered to be in
compliance with the requirement to be in serviceable condition.
    Sewered toilet facility means a fixture maintained for the purpose
of urination and defecation that is connected to a sewer, septic tank,
holding tank (bilge), or on-site sewage disposal treatment facility and
that is flushed with water. For purposes of this subpart, toilet
facilities that are a permanent fixture onboard a vessel or vessel
section would be considered to be sewered toilet facilities.
    Vehicle safety equipment is proposed to mean those systems and
devices installed on a motor vehicle for the purposes of effecting the
safe operation of the vehicle such as safety belts, airbags,
headlights, tail lights, emergency hazard lights, windshield wipers,
brakes, horn, mirrors, windshields and other windows, and locks.
    Vermin is proposed to mean any insects, birds, and other animals,
such as rodents and feral cats, which may create safety and health
hazards for employees.
    Walking and working surfaces is proposed to mean any surface on or
through which employees gain access to or perform job tasks. Walking
and working surfaces also include any surface upon or through which
employees are required or allowed to walk or work in the workplace.
Walking and working surfaces include, but are not limited to, work
areas, accessways, aisles, exits, gangways, ladders, passageways,
stairs, steps, ramps, and walkways. This definition is drawn from the
proposed rule for walking and working surfaces, subpart D of part 1910
(55 FR 13360 (04/10/1990)). OSHA believes that using this term in place
of the list of specific working and walking areas will help to simplify
subpart F.
Proposed Deletions
    OSHA proposes not to include in revised subpart F the following
provisions that are currently applicable to shipyard employment. The
hazards and working conditions these provisions address are not present
in the shipyard industry.
    Section 1910.141(f)--OSHA is proposing not to retain the existing
requirement to provide facilities to dry work clothing (i.e.,
protective clothing) before it is worn again. Information from site
visits and industry meetings indicates that the provision may not be
necessary because shipyards almost exclusively provide disposable
protective clothing. OSHA requests comments or information about
whether this provision is still needed in the shipyard industry.
    Section 1910.141(h)--OSHA is proposing not to retain the existing
requirements addressing food handling. OSHA believes that existing
State and local health codes provide adequate protection for the
hazards this section is intended to address. OSHA requests comment.
    Section 1915.97(a)--OSHA is proposing not to retain the existing
requirement on controls and personal protective equipment (PPE). This
provision was adopted 30 years ago, prior to promulgation of standards
addressing specific hazards and the PPE requirements in subpart I of
part 1915. Those standards identify and require the controls and PPE
this section addresses.
    Section 1915.97(e)--OSHA is proposing to delete the existing
prohibition that minors under 18 years of age not be employed in
shipbreaking or related equipment. The prohibition is the only OSHA
rule that regulates the working activities allowed for youth employees.
States have numerous rules regulating work conditions for youth
employees. At the Federal level, OSHA's sister agency in the Department
of Labor, the Employment Standards Administration regulates youth
working conditions under the authority of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA). To protect young employees from hazardous employment, the FLSA
provides for a minimum age of 18 years in occupations found and
declared by the Secretary to be particularly hazardous or detrimental
to the health or well-being of minors 16 and 17 years of age. The
Secretary has issued 17 orders, published at 29 CFR part 570 subpart E,
listing the occupations where persons less than 18 years of age are
prohibited from working. Order 15 of the Part 570 subpart E prohibits
minors from working in all occupations in wrecking, demolition, and
shipbreaking operations, which are defined as ``all work, including
clean-up and salvage work, performed at the site of the total or
partial razing, demolishing, or dismantling of a building, bridge,
steeple, tower, chimney, other structure, ship or other vessel'' (Sec.
570.66). OSHA believes that the Sec.  1915.97(e) prohibitions are
duplicative of the part 570 prohibitions, therefore, the Agency is
proposing to delete the section.
    OSHA asks for comment on the extent to which youth employees are
employed in the shipyard industries, what occupations they work in,
data on work-related injuries and illnesses occurring to youth
employees, and whether the Sec.  1915.97(e) prohibition is needed to
protect youth employees.

V. Executive Summary of the Preliminary Economic and Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Screening Analysis

    Introduction. OSHA's Preliminary Economic and Regulatory
Flexibility Screening Analysis (PEA) addresses issues related to the
costs, benefits, technological feasibility, and economic feasibility
(including small business impacts) of the Agency's proposed revision of
29 CFR 1915 subpart F on General Working Conditions in Shipyard
Employment. This analysis also evaluates the non-regulatory
alternatives to the proposal.
    OSHA has determined that this proposal is not an economically
significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 and not a major rule
under the Congressional Review provisions of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 609). As required
by section 6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 12866, OSHA has provided OMB's Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs with an assessment of the costs,
benefits, and alternatives of this proposal, which are summarized
below. E.O. 12866 requires regulatory agencies to conduct an economic
analysis for rules that meet certain criteria. The most frequently used
criterion under E.O. 12866 is that the rule will impose annual costs on
the economy of $100 million or more. Neither the benefits nor the costs
of this proposed rule exceed $100 million.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), as amended in 1996, requires OSHA to determine whether the
Agency's regulatory actions will have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities. OSHA's Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis indicates that the proposal will not have significant impacts
on a substantial number of small entities. OSHA's PEA and Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis include: A description of the industries
potentially affected by the proposal; an evaluation of the risks the
proposal addresses; an assessment of the benefits attributable to the
proposal; a determination of the technological feasibility of the
proposed requirements; an estimate of the costs employers would incur
to comply with the proposal; a determination of the economic
feasibility of compliance with

the proposal; and an analysis of the economic and other impacts
associated with this rulemaking, including those on small businesses.
The executive summary of the PEA is presented here and the full
analysis has been placed in the rulemaking docket (Ex. 17).
    OSHA's preliminary analysis estimates that the proposal will affect
approximately 639 establishments and 86,764 employees in the shipyard
employment industry. OSHA estimates that the proposal will prevent 1.1
deaths and 142.2 injuries and cost employers about $1 million per year
to implement. The Agency estimates $7.1 million in monetized benefits
from these prevented injuries. Following OMB guidelines to monetize all
benefits, OSHA estimates the value of a statistical life of 1.1
prevented deaths at $8.3 million. Monetized benefits, therefore, would
total $15.4 million annually.
    Affected Establishments and Employees. The proposal will affect all
establishments in shipyard employment, which consists of shipbuilding,
shipbreaking, ship repair and related employment. For purposes of this
analysis, OSHA incorporated the following three definitions of ``small
firms'' and provided separate analyses for each: (1) Firms with fewer
than 1,000 employees (the Small Business Administration (SBA)
definition of small businesses in this sector); (2) firms with fewer
than 250 employees (the definition of small business recommended by the
Shipyard Fire Protection Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee); and
(3) firms with fewer than 20 employees. OSHA based its estimates of the
number of firms, establishments, employment, and wages on BLS and U.S.
Census Bureau data for North American Industrial Classification (NAIC)
industry sector 336611. Also, OSHA used firm data from SBA in this
analysis. Profit rates are based on data from the Internal Revenue
Service's 2001 Corporation Source Book of Statistics of Income. Table 6
shows the total number of establishments, number of firms, employment,
revenues and payroll per establishment affected by the proposed rule.
As the table shows, there are 614 firms with 639 establishments in the
affected industry. The industry employs 86,764 employees, of whom 72
percent are estimated to be production employees.

                                                 Table 6.--Industrial Profile for the Proposed Standard
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Annual (1,000)
                                         Size class            Firms      Establishments     Employees      Production   -------------------------------
                                                                                employees        Payroll        Revenues
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipyards.........................  1,000 & Up..........               4               9          59,456          42,808      $2,402,689      $8,650,079
                                    500-999.............               7              12           9,075           6,534         310,743       1,191,169
                                    250-499.............              19              21           5,813           4,185         276,533         923,357
                                    100-249.............              43              49           5,813           4,189         305,522         925,760
                                    20-99...............              50              53           2,793           2,011         139,667         459,032
Off-Site..........................  20-99...............              76              80           1,957           1,409          94,511         354,512
                                    1-19................             415             415           1,852           1,333          98,717         310,665
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................  ....................             614             639          86,764          62,470       3,628,382      12,814,574
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis.

    Evaluation of Risk and Potential Benefits. OSHA's risk profile for
exposure to the hazards the proposal addresses is based on data from
the CFOI database and the BLS Survey of Occupational Injuries and
Illnesses, as well as an analysis of OSHA fatality/catastrophe
inspection data obtained from the Agency's IMIS database.
    OSHA anticipates that the proposal will significantly reduce the
number of shipyard accidents involving electrical contacts, being
caught in machinery, and being struck by motor vehicles and their
resulting injuries and fatalities. OSHA believes that the proposed
requirements for controlling hazardous energy (i.e., energy control
procedures, training, inspections) and motor vehicle safety will help
to save lives and prevent injuries in the shipyard workforce. OSHA also
believes that the new proposed CPR requirements for first aid providers
will help to save lives and reduce the severity of injuries that do
occur. OSHA estimates that compliance with the proposal would annually
prevent 1.1 fatalities, 49.9 cases involving days away from work
injuries, and 92.3 non-lost workday injuries, as stated in Chapter IV
of the PEA Ex. 17.
    In addition to saving lives and reducing injuries in shipyards,
OSHA believes that compliance with the proposal would yield substantial
cost savings to parties within and connected with the shipyard
employment industry and ultimately to society as a whole. These
monetized benefits take the form of willingness to pay estimates to
avoid an injury or death. OSHA estimates monetized benefits of $7.1
million from the 142.2 avoided injuries from compliance with the
proposal. When the monetized benefit of 1.1 avoided deaths ($8.3
million) is added, total annual monetized benefits equal $15.4 million.
    Technological Feasibility and Compliance Costs (including Net
Benefits). Consistent with the legal framework established by the OSH
Act and court decisions, OSHA has determined that the proposal is
technologically feasible. The proposal does not require any practices
not already undertaken in many shipyards today. For example, a number
of shipyard employers already are training their employees about the
release of hazardous energy in servicing operations.
    Annualized compliance cost estimates are annualized costs to
employers using a 7 percent discount rate and a ten year life for one-
time expenses. These proposed estimates are based on the employment and
establishment counts in Chapter II (Industrial Profile) of the PEA,
(Ex. 17) and the dollar costs needed to comply. These estimates also
consider non-compliance rates to account for establishments that have
already complied with the requirements.
    To develop the proposed cost estimates, OSHA first examined the
extent to which shipyard employers were already in compliance with
existing and proposed OSHA requirements, with rules of other parties
(such as the U.S. Navy in some shipyards), and with voluntary codes and
best practices. Identifying provisions for which there is already
substantial or full compliance, OSHA

arrived at a list of activities for which shipyard employers would
incur costs, shown in Table 7. Table 7 presents the total annualized
costs of the proposal, by major provision, which total $1,010,778. Most
of the costs are associated with the requirements for controlling
hazardous energy (Lockout/Tagout).

   Table 7.--Estimated Total Annualized Compliance Costs by Provision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Total annualized
                     Requirement                             costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanitation:
    Handwashing Facilities...........................           $254,540
Medical Services and First Aid:
    CPR Training.....................................            136,442
Lockout/Tagout:
    Energy Control Program...........................            107,857
    Full Employee Protection.........................            330,373
    Protective Materials & Hardware..................             16,069
    Training and Communication.......................            132,622
    Periodic Inspections & Certification.............             20,006
                                                      ------------------
      Subtotal.......................................            606,927
                                                      ------------------
Vehicle Safety:
    Reinstalling Safety Equipment....................             12,762
    Rim Wheel Training...............................                107
                                                      ------------------
      Subtotal.......................................             12,869
                                                      ------------------
        Total........................................          1,010,778
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis, OSHA.

    Net Benefits. For informational purposes, the Agency compared the
estimated costs of compliance to the monetized benefits of the proposed
standard. The Agency estimates monetized death benefits of $8.3 million
dollars and monetized injury benefits of $7.1 million annually (see
Chapter IV of the PEA). This yields total monetized benefits of $15.4
million annually. When the costs of compliance are compared to these
estimates, the Agency concludes that the annualized net benefits of the
proposed standard equal $14.4 million.
    Economic Impacts. OSHA analyzed the impacts of these compliance
costs on firms in the shipyard employment sector by comparing costs as
a percentage of revenues and costs as a percentage of profits. These
two measures (in percentages) correspond to two assumptions used by
economists to set bounds for the range of possible impacts. One
assumption is no-cost pass-through (i.e., that employers will be unable
to pass any of the costs of compliance forward to their customers).
This corresponds to compliance costs as a percentage of profits. The
second assumption is full-cost pass-through (i.e., that employers will
be able to pass all of the costs of compliance forward to their
customers). This corresponds to compliance costs as a percentage of
revenues. As summarized in Table 8, OSHA estimates that if affected
establishments in the shipyard employment sector were forced to absorb
these compliance costs entirely from profits (a highly unlikely
scenario), profits would be reduced by an average of 0.14 percent. At
the other extreme, if affected establishments were able to pass all of
these compliance costs forward to their customers, OSHA projects that
the price (revenue) increase required to pay for these costs would be
less than 0.01 percent. Given the minimal potential impact on both
prices and profits, OSHA concludes that the proposed regulation is
economically feasible.

                                           Table 8.--Economic Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Per         Compliance cost   Compliance cost
                                                              establishment       as a % of         as a % of
                                                             compliance cost      revenues           profits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size Class:
    1-19..................................................               $56              0.01              0.20
    1-250.................................................               422              0.01              0.16
    1-1,000...............................................               749              0.01              0.20
    All...................................................             1,582              0.01              0.14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis.

    Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis. The RFA requires
regulatory agencies to determine whether regulatory actions will
adversely affect small entities. For employers in NAIC 336611, small
firms are defined by SBA as those with less than 1,000 employees. As
shown in Table 9, for firms with less than 1,000 employees, proposed
costs are 0.20 percent of profits and 0.01 percent of revenues. OSHA
also examined costs as a percentage of profits and revenues for firms
with less than 250 employees, a definition of ``small entity''
recommended by the Shipyard Fire Protection Negotiated Rulemaking
Advisory Committee and for firms with less than 20 employees to see
whether there might be significant impacts on the very smallest firms.
For firms with less than 250 employees,

proposed costs were 0.16 percent of profits and 0.01 percent of
revenues. For firms with less than 20 employees, proposed costs were
0.20 percent of profits and 0.01 percent of revenues. The major source
of the small variation in impacts is the low estimated compliance costs
incurred by the small firms.

                                          Table 9.--Small Firm Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Compliance cost   Compliance cost
                                                                Per firm          as a % of         as a % of
                                                             compliance cost      revenues           profits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size Class:
    1-19..................................................               $59              0.01              0.20
    1-250.................................................               432              0.01              0.16
    1-1,000...............................................               768              0.01              0.20
    All...................................................             1,645              0.01              0.14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis

    OSHA has set the criteria that if costs exceed one percent of
revenues or five percent of profits, then the impact on small entities
is considered significant for purposes of complying with the RFA. For
all of the classes of affected small firms in the shipyard employment
industry, the costs of the proposal would be less than one percent of
revenues and five percent of profits. OSHA therefore certifies that
this proposal will not have an economically significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    Non-Regulatory Alternatives. OSHA concludes that economic and
social alternatives to a federal workplace standard fail to adequately
protect employees in the shipyard employment industry from the hazards
the proposal addresses. Tort liability laws and workers' compensation
provide some protection, but institutional factors limit effective
means of addressing the significant costs of occupational injuries and
illnesses. Therefore, OSHA finds that this proposal will provide the
necessary remedy.

VI. Environmental Assessment

    The proposed standard has been reviewed in accordance with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the regulations of the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR part 1500), and DOL NEPA Procedures
(29 CFR part 11). The provisions of the standard focus on the reduction
and avoidance of accidents occurring in shipyard employment.
Consequently, no major negative impact is foreseen on air, water or
soil quality, plant or animal life, the use of land or other aspects of
the environment.

VII. Federalism

    OSHA has reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with E.O. 13132
(64 FR 43255 (8/10/1999)) regarding Federalism. This Order requires
that agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from limiting State
policy options, consult with States prior to taking any actions that
would restrict State policy options, and take such actions only when
there is clear constitutional authority and the presence of a problem
of national scope. The Order provides for preemption of State law only
if there is a clear constitutional authority and the presence of a
problem of national scope. Additionally, the Order provides for
preemption of State law only if there is a clear Congressional intent
for the Agency to do so. Any such preemption is to be limited to the
extent possible.
    Section 18 of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 667) expresses Congress' clear
intent to preempt State laws relating to issues on which Federal OSHA
has promulgated occupational safety or health standards. Under the OSH
Act, a State can avoid preemption on issues covered by Federal
standards only if it submits, and obtains Federal approval of, a plan
for the development of such standards and their enforcement.
Occupational safety and health standards developed by such State Plan
States must, among other things, be at least as effective in providing
safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the Federal
standards. Where such standards are applicable to products distributed
or used in interstate commerce, they may not unduly burden commerce or
must be justified by compelling local conditions (see section
18(c)(2)). The Federal standards on shipyard employment operations
address hazards that are not unique to any one State or region of the
country.
    Subject to these requirements, States with occupational safety and
health plans approved under section 18 of the OSH Act are free to
develop and enforce under State law their own requirements for safety
and health standards. A State Plan State can develop its own State
standards to deal with any special problems that might be encountered
in a particular State. Moreover, because this standard is written, to
the extent possible, in general performance-oriented terms, there is
considerable flexibility for State Plans to require, and for employers
to use, methods of compliance which are appropriate to the working
conditions covered by the standard. However, most shipyards even in
State Plan States remain subject to Federal OSHA jurisdiction as only a
few States (California, Minnesota, Vermont and Washington) have elected
to cover shipyards and other maritime employment.
    The Agency concludes that this proposed rule complies with E.O.
13132. In States without OSHA-approved State Plans, Congress expressly
provides for OSHA standards to preempt State job safety and health
rules in areas addressed by Agency standards; in these States, the
proposed rule would limit State policy options in the same manner as
every OSHA standard. In States with OSHA-approved State Plans, this
action would not significantly limit State policy options; these States
will be able to address any special conditions within the framework of
the OSH Act while ensuring that their standards are at least as
effective as the Federal standard. State comments are invited on this
proposal and will be fully considered prior to promulgation of a final
rule.

VIII. Unfunded Mandates

    For the purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2
U.S.C. 1501, et seq.), as well as E.O. 12875, this rule does not
include any Federal mandate that may result in increased expenditures
by State, local, and tribal governments, or increased expenditures by
the private sector of more than $100 million.

IX. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The proposed standard for General Working Conditions in Shipyard
Employment contains collection-of-

information (paperwork) requirements that are subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and OMB regulations (5 CFR
part 1320). The PRA-95 defines ``collection of information'' as ``the
obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the
disclosure to third parties or the public of facts or opinions by or
for an agency regardless of form or format * * *'' (44 U.S.C.
3502(3)(A)).
    The collection-of-information requirements identified in the NPRM
have been submitted to OMB for review (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). OSHA
solicits comments on the collection-of-information requirements and the
estimated burden hours associated with these collections including
comment on the following:
     Whether the proposed collection-of-information
requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's
functions, including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the collection-of-information requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply,
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.
    The title, description of the need for and proposed use of the
information, summary of the collections of information, description of
respondents, and frequency of response of the information collection
are described below, along with an estimate of the annual reporting
burden and cost as required by 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) and 1320.8(d)(2).
    Title: General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment (29 CFR
part 1915, subpart F).

Description and Proposed Use of the Collection-of-Information
Requirements

    OSHA is proposing to revise and update the existing standards in
subpart F of 29 CFR part 1915 that address hazardous working conditions
in shipyard employment. These standards cover many diverse working
conditions in shipyard employment, including housekeeping, lighting,
utilities, work in confined or isolated spaces, lifeboats, sanitation,
and medical services and first aid.
    OSHA also proposes to add new requirements to protect employees
from hazardous working conditions that subpart F does not currently
address. These proposed additions include the control of hazardous
energy (lockout/tagout); motor vehicle safety equipment, operation and
maintenance; accident prevention tags; and servicing multi-piece and
single piece rim wheels.
    OSHA adopted the existing subpart F standards in 1972 (37 FR 22458
(10/19/1972)) pursuant to section 6(a) of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.). Section 6(a)
permitted OSHA, within two years of the passage of the OSH Act, to
adopt as an occupational safety or health standard any national
consensus and established Federal standards (29 U.S.C. 655(a)). The
provisions in subpart F were adopted from existing Federal regulations
promulgated under Section 41 of the Longshore and Harbor Workers'
Compensation Act (LHWCA) (33 U.S.C. 941), as well as national consensus
standards.
    OSHA believes the proposed revisions and additions to subpart F are
necessary and reasonable to protect the safety and health of shipyard
employees.
    The following table identifies and describes the need for the new
collection-of-information requirements contained in the proposed
standard.

   Table 10.--Collection of Information Requirements Contained in the
                            Proposed Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Collection-of-Information Requirements Contained in the Proposed
                                Standard
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   1915.87(f)(3): The employer shall store stretchers in a clearly-
 marked location in a manner that prevents damage and protects them from
 environmental conditions.
Marking the location of the stretchers ensures that they will be easily
 located in the event of an emergency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   1915.89(b)(4)(i): Energy control procedures. (i) Procedures shall
 be developed, documented and utilized for the control of potentially
 hazardous energy when employees are engaged in the activities covered
 by this section.
Employers use this information as the basis for effectively identifying
 operations and processes in the workplace that require energy control
 procedures; ensuring the safe application, use and removal of energy
 controls; and providing information and training to employees about the
 purpose and function of energy-control procedures. These procedures
 ensure that employees are protected while working on machines,
 equipment or systems that potentially contain hazardous energy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   1915.89(b)(6)(i): The employer shall conduct a periodic
 inspection of each energy control procedure at least annually to ensure
 that the procedures and the requirements of this standard are being
 followed and to correct any deficiencies.
This information will be used as a basis for employee retraining and to
 determine whether employers need to revise their energy control
 procedures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   1915.89(b)(6)(ii): The employer shall certify that the periodic
 inspections have been performed. The certification shall identify the
 machine, equipment or system on which the energy control procedure was
 being utilized, the date of the inspection, the employees included in
 the inspection and the person performing the inspection.
Certifying the inspections assures that the employer has performed a
 periodic inspection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   1915.89(b)(7)(iv): Certification. The employer shall certify that
 employee training has been accomplished and is being kept up to date.
 The certification shall contain each employee's name and dates of
 training.
Written certification assures the employer that employees receive the
 training specified by the Standard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   1915.89(b)(9): Notification of employees. Affected employees
 shall be notified by the employer or authorized employee of the
 application and removal of lockout devices or tagout devices.
 Notification shall be given before the controls are applied, and after
 they are removed from the machine, equipment or system.
Sec.   1915.89(d)(2)(ii): After lockout or tagout devices have been
 removed and before a machine equipment or system is started, affected
 employees shall be notified that the lockout or tagout device(s) have
 been removed.
OSHA is not taking a paperwork burden for this specification because it
 does not add burden to the notification requirement in paragraph
 (b)(9).
Sec.   1915.89(d)(3)(ii): Lockout or tagout devices removal. Each
 lockout or tagout device shall be removed from each energy isolating
 device by the employee who applied the device.

Exception to paragraph (d)(3): When the authorized employee who applied
 the lockout or tagout device is not available to remove it, that device
 may be removed under the direction of the employer, provided that
 specific procedures and training for such removal have been developed,
 documented and incorporated into the employer's energy control program.
 The employer shall demonstrate that the specific procedure provides
 equivalent safety to the removal of the device by the authorized
 employee who applied it. The specific procedures shall include at least
 the following elements:
    (ii) Making all reasonable efforts to contact the authorized
     employee to inform he or she that his or her lockout or tagout
     device has been removed; and
    (iii) Ensuring that the authorized employee has this knowledge
     before he/she resumes work at that facility.
Such notification informs employees of the impending interruption of the
 normal production operations, and serves as a reminder of the
 restrictions imposed on them by the energy-control program. In
 addition, this requirement ensures that employees do not attempt to
 reactivate a machine or piece of equipment after an authorized employee
 isolates its energy source and renders it inoperative. Notifying
 employees after removing an energy-control device alerts them that the
 machines and equipment are no longer safe for servicing, maintenance,
 and repair.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   1915.89(e)(2)(i): Outside personnel (contractors, ship's crew,
 etc.) Whenever outside servicing personnel such as contractors or
 ship's crew are to be engaged in activities covered by the scope and
 application of this standard, the on-site employer and the outside
 employer shall inform each other of their respective lockout or tagout
 procedures.
This provision ensures that each employer knows about the unique energy-
 control procedures used by the other employer preventing any
 misunderstanding regarding the implementation of lockout or tagout
 procedures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   1915.94 Servicing multi-piece and single piece rim wheels.
Sec.   1910.177(d)(5): Current charts or rim manuals containing
 instructions for the type of wheels being serviced shall be available
 in the service area.
Paragraph (d)(3)(iv) requires that when restraining devices and barriers
 are removed from service because they are defective, they shall not be
 returned to service until they are repaired and reinspected. If the
 repair is structural, the manufacturer or a Registered Professional
 Engineer must certify that the strength requirements specified in
 (d)(3)(i) of the Standard have been met.
The certification records are used to assure that equipment has been
 repaired properly. The certification records also provide the most
 efficient means for OSHA compliance officers to determine that an
 employer is complying with the Standard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Control Number: 1218 0NEW.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.
    Number of Respondents: 639.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Average Time per response: Time per response ranges from 15 seconds
for affected employees to be notified of the application and removal of
lockout and tagout devices to 80 hours for large shipyards (shipyards
employing more than 250 employees) to develop energy control
procedures.
    Estimated Total Burden hours: 10,491.
    Estimated Costs (Operation and Maintenance): 0.
    Interested parties who wish to comment on the collection-of-
information requirements contained in this proposal must send their
written comments regarding the burden hour and cost estimates or other
aspects of the information collection request to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for OSHA
(RIN 1218-AB50), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. The Agency also encourages
commenters to submit their comments on these collection-of-information
requirements to OSHA, along with their comments on the proposed rule.
(See ADDRESSES section.). Persons are not required to respond to the
collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB number.
    To read or download the complete ICR, go to http://www.regulations.gov (Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675) or http://

http://www.dockets.osha.gov (Docket No. S-049). You also may obtain an

electronic copy of the complete ICR at http://www.reginfo.gov. Click on

``Inventory of Approved Information Collection Collections, Collection
Under Review, Recently Approved/Expired,'' then scroll under
``Currently Under Review'' to Department of Labor (DOL) to view all of
DOL's ICRs, including those ICRS submitted for proposed rulemakings.
For further information, contact Mr. Todd Owen, OSHA, Directorate of
Standards and Guidance, OSHA, Room N-3609, U.S. Department of Labor,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202)
693-2222.

X. State Plan States

    When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or standards amendment
which imposes additional or more stringent requirements than an
existing standard, the 26 States and U.S. Territories with their own
OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plans must revise their
standards to reflect the new standard or amendment, or show the Agency
why such action is unnecessary (e.g., because an existing State
standard covering this area already is at least as effective as the new
Federal standard or amendment) (29 U.S.C. 553.5(a)). The State standard
must be at least as effective as the final Federal rule, must be
applicable to both the private and public (i.e., State and local
government employees) sectors, and must be completed within six months
of the publication date of the final Federal rule. When OSHA
promulgates a new standard or amendment that does not impose additional
or more stringent requirements than an existing standard, States are
not required to revise their standards, although the Agency may
encourage them to do so. The 26 States and Territories with OSHA-
approved State Plans are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana,
Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico,
North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah,
Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. Connecticut, New Jersey,
New York, and the Virgin Islands have OSHA-approved State Plans that
apply to State and local government employees only.
    Since this proposed rule imposes additional or more stringent
requirements, State Plans that cover maritime issues and/or have public
employees working in the maritime industries covered by this standard
would be required to revise their standard appropriately within six
months of publication of the final rule.

XI. Public Participation

Submission of Comments and Access to Docket

    OSHA invites comments on all aspects of the proposed rule.
Throughout this document OSHA has invited comment on specific issues
and requested information and data about practices at your
establishment and in your industry. OSHA will carefully review and
evaluate these comments, information and data, as well as all other
information in the rulemaking record, to determine how to proceed.
    You may submit comments in response to this document (1)
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal

eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (FAX); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-S049-
2006-0675). You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading
document files electronically. If, instead, you wish to mail additional
materials in reference to an electronic or fax submission, you must
submit three copies to the OSHA Docket Office (see ADDRESSES section).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by name, date, and docket number so OSHA can attach them to your
comments.
    Because of security-related procedures, the use of regular mail may
cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information
about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger or courier service, please contact the OSHA
Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions in response to this Federal Register
notice are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov (Docket

No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675--). Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth.
    Exhibits referenced in this Federal Register document are posted at
http://www.regulations.gov (Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675) and/or at

http://dockets.osha.gov (OSHA Docket Nos. S-049, SESAC-1988 through

SESAC-1993, MACOSH-1995 through MACOSH-2005, S-012, S-012A, S-012B, S-
024, H-308).
    Although all submissions in response to this Federal Register
notice and exhibits referenced in this Federal Register notice are
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov and/or http://dockets.osha.gov
indexes, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through those Webpages. All submissions
and exhibits, including copyrighted material, are available for
inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using
http://www.regulations.gov to submit comments and access dockets is

available at the Webpage's User Tips link. Contact the OSHA Docket
Office for information about materials not available through the
Webpage and for assistance in using the Internet to locate docket
submissions.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register document are available
at http://www.regulations.gov. This document, as well as news releases

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

Requests for Informal Public Hearings

    Under section 6(b)(3) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 655) and 29 CFR
1911.11, interested parties may request an informal public hearing.
Hearing requests must be submitted to the OSHA Docket Office at the
address above and must comply with the following:
    (1) The hearing requests must include the name and address of the
person submitting them;
    (2) The hearing requests must be submitted (postmarked or sent) by
March 19, 2008.
    (3) The hearing requests must specify with particularity the
provision of the proposed rule to which each objection is taken and the
basis for the objection;
    (4) Each hearing request must be separately stated and numbered;
and
    (5) The hearing requests must be accompanied by a detailed summary
of the evidence proposed to be presented at the requested hearing.

List of Subjects

29 CFR Part 1910

    Hazardous substances, Occupational safety and health, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Vessels.

29 CFR Part 1915

    Hazardous substances, Longshore and harbor workers, Occupational
safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and
Vessels.

XII. Authority and Signature

    This document was prepared under the direction of Edwin G. Foulke,
Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210. It is issued under sections 4, 6 and 8 of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), section 941 of
the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 901 et
seq.), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), and 29 CFR
part 1911.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 7th day of December, 2007.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

XIII. The Proposed Standard

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, OSHA proposes to amend
29 CFR parts 1910 and 1915 as follows:

PART 1910--[AMENDED]

    Part 1910 of title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulation is hereby
proposed to be amended as follows:

Subpart J--[Amended]

    1. The authority citation for subpart J of 29 CFR part 1910 is
revised to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71
(36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR
9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008)
or 5-2007 (72 FR 31159) as applicable.
    Section 1910.145 also issued under 29 CFR part 1911.

    2. In Sec.  1910.145, paragraphs (a)(1) and (f)(1)(ii) are revised
to read as follows:

Sec.  1910.145  Specifications for accident prevention signs and tags.

    (a) Scope. (1) These specifications apply to the design,
application, and use of signs or symbols (as included in paragraphs (c)
through (e) of this section) intended to indicate and, insofar as
possible, to define specific hazards of a nature such that failure to
designate them may lead to accidental injury to workers or the public,
or both, or to property damage. These specifications are intended to
cover all safety signs except those designed for streets, highways, and
railroads. These specifications do not apply to plant bulletin boards
or to safety posters.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) This paragraph (f) does not apply to construction or
agriculture.
* * * * *
    3. In Sec.  1910.147, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as
follows:

Sec.  1910.147  The control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout).

    (a) Scope, application, and purpose--(1) Scope.
    (i) This standard covers the servicing and maintenance of machines
and equipment in which the unexpected energization or start up of the
machines or equipment, or release of stored energy could cause injury
to employees. This standard establishes minimum performance
requirements for the control of such hazardous energy.
    (ii) This standard does not cover the following:
    (A) Construction and agriculture employment; and
    (B) Employment covered by parts 1915, 1917, and 1918 of this title.

    Note to paragraph (a)(1): Section 1910.147 applies to the
servicing of equipment onboard vessels that is used for inherently
general industry operations such as fish processing. However, if
such servicing is part of a general overhaul and repair of the
entire vessel, part 1915 applies.

* * * * *

Subpart N--[Amended]

    4. The authority citation for subpart N of 29 CFR part 1910 is
revised to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71
(36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR
9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008)
or 5-2007 (72 FR 31159) as applicable.
    Section 1910.177 also issued under 29 CFR part 1911.

    5. In Sec.  1910.177, paragraph (a)(2) is revised to read as
follows:

Sec.  1910.177  Servicing multi-piece and single piece rim wheels.

    (a) * * *
    (2) This section does not apply to employers and places of
employment regulated under the Longshoring Standards, 29 CFR part 1918,
Construction Safety Standards, 29 CFR part 1926; or Agriculture
Standards, 29 CFR part 1928.
* * * * *

PART 1915--[AMENDED]

    6. The authority citation for part 1915 is revised to read as
follows:

    Authority: Sec. 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation
Act (33 U.S.C. 941); secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order
No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90
(55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR
65008) or 5-2007 (72 FR 31159) as applicable; 29 CFR part 1911.

Subpart F--[Amended]

    7. Subpart F of 29 CFR part 1915 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart F--General Working Conditions
Sec.
1915.80 Scope and application.
1915.81 Housekeeping.
1915.82 Lighting.
1915.83 Utilities.
1915.84 Work in confined or isolated spaces.
1915.85 Vessel radar and radio transmitters.
1915.86 Lifeboats.
1915.87 Medical services and first aid.
1915.88 Sanitation.
1915.89 Control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout).
1915.90 Safety color code for marking physical hazards.
1915.91 Accident prevention signs and tags.
1915.92 Retention of DOT markings, placards, and labels.
1915.93 Motor vehicle safety equipment, operation, and maintenance.
1915.94 Servicing multi-piece and single-piece rim wheels.
1915.95 Definitions.

Subpart F--General Working Conditions

Sec.  1915.80  Scope and application.

    The provisions of this subpart apply to general working conditions
in shipyard employment, regardless of geographic location, including
work onboard vessels, vessel sections, and landside operations.

Sec.  1915.81  Housekeeping.

    (a) The employer shall maintain good housekeeping conditions to
ensure that walking and working surfaces do not create a hazard for
employees. The employer shall ensure that these conditions are
maintained at all times.
    (b) The employer shall ensure that walking and working surfaces
provide adequate space for work and passage.
    (c) The employer shall ensure that only tools, materials, and
equipment necessary to perform the job in progress are kept on walking
and working surfaces. All other tools, materials, and equipment shall
be stored or located in an area that does not interfere with walking
and working surfaces.
    (d) The employer shall ensure that the floor or deck of every work
area shall be maintained, so far as practicable, in a dry condition.
Where wet processes are used, drainage shall be maintained and the
employer shall provide false floors, platforms, mats or other dry
standing places. Where this is not practicable, the employer shall
provide appropriate waterproof footgear, such as rubber overboots, in
accordance with Sec.  1915.152.
    (e) The employer shall ensure that walking and working surfaces are
kept clear of debris, including solid and liquid wastes, and other
objects that may create a safety or health hazard to employees, such as
protruding nails, splinters, loose boards, and unnecessary holes and
openings.
    (f) The employer shall ensure that free access is maintained to
exits, firealarm boxes, fire call stations, and firefighting equipment.
    (g) The employer shall ensure that slippery conditions, such as
snow and ice, on walking and working surfaces are eliminated as they
occur.
    (h) The employer shall ensure that construction materials are
stacked in a manner that does not create a hazard to employees.
    (i) The employer shall ensure that hoses and electrical service
cords are hung over or placed under walking and working surfaces or
covered by crossovers to prevent injury to employees and damage to the
hoses and cords.
    (j) The employer shall ensure that flammable substances, such as
paint thinners, solvents, rags and waste, are stored in covered fire-
resistant containers when not in use.
    (k) The employer shall ensure that combustible scrap is removed
from work areas as soon as possible.

Sec.  1915.82  Lighting.

    (a) General Requirements. (1) The employer shall ensure that each
area of the workplace is illuminated to at least the intensities in
Table 1 whenever an employee is present. The requirement to provide
illumination in accordance with Table 1 applies to permanent and
temporary lighting.

                       Table 1 to Subpart F.--Minimum Lighting Intensities in Foot-Candles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Lumens  (foot-candles)                                      Area or operation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3...............................  General areas on vessels and vessel sections such as accessways, exits,
                                   gangways, stairs, and walkways.
5...............................  General landside areas such as corridors, exits, stairs, and walkways.

5...............................  All assigned work areas on any vessel or vessel section. Landside tunnels,
                                   shafts, vaults, pumping stations, and underground work areas.
10..............................  Landside work areas such as machine shops, electrical equipment rooms,
                                   carpenter shops, lofts, tool rooms, warehouses, and outdoor work areas.
10..............................  Changing rooms, showers, sewered toilet facilities, and eating, drinking, and
                                   break areas.
30..............................  First aid stations, infirmaries, and offices.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note to Table 1: The values in table 1 do not apply to emergency
or handheld portable lights.

    (2) The employer shall ensure that matches and open flame devices
are not used for lighting.
    (b) Temporary lights. The employer shall ensure that temporary
lights meet the following requirements:
    (1) Lights with bulbs that are not completely recessed are equipped
with guards to prevent accidental contact;
    (2) Lights are equipped with electric cords designed with
sufficient capacity to safely carry the electric load;
    (3) Connections and insulation are maintained in a safe condition;
    (4) Lights and lighting stringers are not suspended solely by their
electric cords unless they are designed by the manufacturer to be
suspended in this way;
    (5) Lighting stringers do not overload branch circuits;
    (6) Branch circuits are equipped with over-current protection whose
capacity does not exceed the rated current-carrying capacity of the
cord used;
    (7) Splices have insulation with a capacity that exceeds that of
the cable; and
    (8) Exposed, non-current-carrying metal parts of lights are
grounded. The employer shall ensure that grounding is provided either
through a third wire in the cable containing the circuit conductors or
through a separate wire that is grounded at the source of the current.
Grounding shall be done in accordance with the requirements of Sec.
1915.132(b).
    (c) Handheld portable lights. (1) In any dark area that does not
have permanent or temporary lights, where lights are not working, or
are not readily accessible, the employer shall provide handheld
portable lights and ensure that employees do not enter those areas
without such lights.
    (2) Where temporary lighting from sources outside the vessel or
vessel section is the only means of illumination, the employer shall
ensure that handheld portable lights are available in the immediate
work area to provide illumination so each employee is able to move
safely if the temporary lights fail.
    (3) The employer shall ensure that only explosion-proof, self-
contained handheld portable lights are used in areas that are not gas-
free, or other electric equipment approved by a nationally recognized
testing laboratory (NRTL). Handheld portable lights bearing the
approval of a NRTL for the class and division of the location in which
they are used are considered to meet the requirements of this
paragraph.

Sec.  1915.83  Utilities.

    (a) Steam supply system. The employer shall ensure that the
vessel's steam piping system, including hoses, has a safe working
pressure prior to supplying steam from an outside source. The employer
shall ensure that each steam supply system meets the following:
    (1) A pressure gauge and a relief valve are installed at the point
where the temporary steam hose joins the vessel's steam piping system;
    (2) Each relief valve is set and is capable of relieving steam at a
pressure that does not exceed the safe working pressure of the system
in its present condition;
    (3) There are no means of disconnecting any relief valve from the
system that it protects;
    (4) Each pressure gauge and relief valve is kept in legible
condition and located so it is visible and readily accessible; and
    (5) The relief valve is positioned or placed in a location where it
is not likely to cause injury if it is activated.
    (b) Steam hoses. The employer shall ensure that each steam hose
meets the following: