[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 84 (Monday, May 2, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24576-24711]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9567]

Vol. 76

Monday,

No. 84

May 2, 2011

Part II

Department of Labor

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

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

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

29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1915

 General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 84 / Monday, May 2, 2011 / Rules and
Regulations

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1915

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

General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is
revising its standards on general working conditions in shipyard
employment. These revisions update existing requirements to reflect
advances in industry practices and technology, consolidate some general
safety and health requirements into a single subpart, and provide
protection from hazards not addressed by existing standards, including
the control of hazardous energy.

DATES: Effective date: This final rule becomes effective and
enforceable on August 1, 2011, except for the provisions in Sec.
1915.89, which become effective and enforceable on October 31, 2011.
    Information Collections: The collection of information requirements
are contained in paragraphs Sec.  1915.83, Sec.  1915.87, Sec.
1915.88, and Sec.  1915.89 (See section VIII Office of Management and
Budget Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995).
Notwithstanding the general date of applicability that applies to all
other requirements contained in the final rule, affected parties do not
have to comply with the collection of information requirements until
the Department of Labor publishes a separate notice in the Federal
Register announcing the Office of Management and Budget has approved
them under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
    Incorporation by reference: The incorporation by reference of
certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of
the Federal Register as of August 1, 2011.

ADDRESSES: In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 2112(a)(2), OSHA designates
Joseph M. Woodward, Associate Solicitor of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor,
Room S-4004, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, to
receive petitions for review of the final rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Press inquiries: Camilla F. McArthur,
Office of Communications, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3647,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202)
693-1999.
    General information and technical inquiries: Joseph V. Daddura,
Director, Office of Maritime, Directorate of Standards and Guidance,
OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3621, 200 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Additional copies of this Federal Register notice: OSHA, Office of
Publications, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3101, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. Electronic
copies of this Federal Register notice are also available at http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking Portal. This notice, as
well as news releases and other relevant documents, also is available
at OSHA's Web site at http://www.osha.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

    The following table of contents identifies the major sections of
the preamble to the final rule on General Working Conditions in
Shipyard Employment:

I. Background
    A. References and Exhibits
    B. Introduction
    C. Events Leading to the Final Rule
    D. Hazards
II. Pertinent Legal Authority
III. Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule
IV. Final Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    A. Introduction
    B. Industrial Profile
    C. Technological Feasibility
    D. Benefits
    E. Cost of Compliance
    F. Economic Impact, Feasibility, and Regulatory Flexibility
Screening Analysis
V. Environmental Impact
VI. Federalism
VII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VIII. Office of Management and Budget Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995
IX. State Plan Requirements
X. Effective Date
XI. List of Subjects
XII. Authority and Signature
XIII. Amendments to Standards

I. Background

    A. References and Exhibits. In this Federal Register notice, OSHA
references documents in Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675, which was
formerly OSHA Docket No. S-049. In addition, OSHA references documents
in the following dockets, which the Agency incorporates by reference
into this rulemaking:
     The proceedings of the Shipyard Employment Standards
Advisory Committee (SESAC)--Docket Nos. SESAC-1988 through SESAC-1993;
     The proceedings of the Maritime Advisory Committee for
Occupational Safety and Health--Docket Nos. MACOSH-1995 through MACOSH-
2008;
     The General Industry Lockout/Tagout rulemaking record--
OSHA Docket Nos. S-012, S-012A, and S-012B;
     The Shipyard Employment Standards rulemaking record--OSHA
Docket No. S-024; and
     The Field Sanitation rulemaking record--OSHA Docket No. H-
308.
    References to documents in Docket No. OSHA-S-049-2006-0675.
References to documents in Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675 are given as
``Ex.'' followed by the last sequence of numbers in the Document ID
Number and, in the case of the hearing transcripts, the page number.
Thus, Ex. 88 is Document Number OSHA-S049-2006-0675-0088, and will
appear in this document as (Ex. 88).
    The exhibits in this docket (Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675),
including public comments, supporting materials, hearing transcripts,
and other documents, can be found at http://www.regulations.gov, the
Federal eRulemaking Portal, by searching the docket number. All
exhibits are listed, but some exhibits (for example, copyrighted
material) are not available to read or download from that Web page. All
exhibits are available for inspection and, if permissible, copying at
the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675, Room N-2625,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    References to other dockets incorporated by reference. In this
notice, references to documents in other dockets incorporated by
reference are given as the docket number followed by the exhibit number
for the document in that docket. For example, a reference to ``OSHA
Docket H-308 Ex. 1'' means Exhibit 1 in the Field Sanitation rulemaking
docket. Referenced documents in those dockets are available for
inspection and, if permissible, copying at the OSHA Docket Office.

B. Introduction

    OSHA is revising and updating standards in subpart F of 29 CFR part
1915 that address hazards in general working conditions in shipyard
employment. These revisions update existing requirements to reflect
advances in industry practices and technology, consolidate certain
safety and health requirements into a single subpart, and provide
protection from hazards not previously addressed, including the control
of hazardous energy.
    This final rule covers diverse working conditions in shipyard
employment, including sanitation, medical services and first aid, motor
vehicle and pedestrian safety, lighting, housekeeping, and hazardous
energy.
    OSHA has determined that the rulemaking record supports the need
for the revisions and additions to subpart F to protect the safety and
health of workers performing shipyard employment operations.
    The OSH Act requires OSHA to make certain findings with respect to
standards. One of these findings, specified by section 3(8) of the OSH
Act, requires an OSHA standard to address a significant risk and to
reduce this risk significantly (See Industrial Union Dep't v. American
Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607 (1980)). As discussed in other
sections of the preamble, OSHA has determined that the hazards
addressed by this rule represent a significant risk, and estimates that
the final standard will prevent 1.2 fatalities and 348.4 injuries
annually. In accordance with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
OSH Act, OSHA has determined that this standard is both technologically
and economically feasible.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, as amended) requires
that OSHA determine whether a standard will have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small firms. As discussed in Section
IV of the preamble, OSHA examined the effects of this standard on small
firms and certifies that the standard will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small firms.
    In accordance with Executive Orders 13563 and 12866, OSHA has
estimated the benefits, costs, and net benefits of this standard. As
shown in the table below, the annual benefits of this standard are
significantly in excess of the standard's annualized compliance costs.
It should be noted that these monetized estimates of net benefits are
for informational purposes only. In accordance with the OSH Act, OSHA
does not use the magnitude of net benefits as the decision-making
criterion in determining what standards to promulgate.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02MY11.000

C. Events Leading to the Final Rule

    OSHA adopted the existing standards in subpart F in 1972 (37 FR
22458, Oct. 19, 1972) pursuant to section 6(a) of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651, 655). Section
6(a) permitted OSHA, during the first two years following passage of
the OSH Act, to adopt as occupational safety and health standards any
established Federal standards and national consensus standards. OSHA
adopted the existing provisions in subpart F from 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 (for example, ANSI sanitation standards).
    In 1982, the Shipbuilders Council of America and the American
Waterways Shipyard Conference requested that OSHA: (1) Revise and
update the existing shipyard standards, including subpart F; and (2)
consolidate into a single set of shipyard standards those general
industry standards that apply to shipyards, particularly landside
operations.
    In response to these recommendations, OSHA established the Shipyard
Employment Standards Advisory Committee (SESAC) in November 1988. The
purpose of SESAC, which included representatives from industry, labor,
and professionals in the maritime community, was to provide guidance
and technical expertise to OSHA about revising the shipyard employment
standards. SESAC met from 1988 until 1993 to develop recommendations
and provide technical expertise in developing draft regulatory language
for revising the shipyard safety standards. On April 29, 1993, SESAC
unanimously approved and submitted to OSHA final draft recommendations
for revising subpart F (Docket SESAC 1993-2, Ex. 102X, p. 257; detailed
discussion on SESAC comments and specific recommendations are presented
in Section III, the Summary and Explanation section below).
    In 1995, OSHA established the Maritime Advisory Committee for

Occupational Safety and Health (MACOSH) under section 7 of the OSH Act
(29 U.S.C. 656) to advise the Agency on issues relating to occupational
safety and health standards in the shipyard and marine cargo-handling
(longshoring) industries. On September 8, 1995, MACOSH discussed and
approved the recommendations and draft regulatory language that SESAC
developed and made additional recommendations, including that OSHA do a
separate rulemaking on the control of hazardous energy (Docket MACOSH
1995-1, Exs. 2; 102X, pp. 25, 26).
    OSHA published the proposed rule on December 20, 2007 (72 FR
72452). The Agency requested public comment by March 19, 2008, on the
proposed rule, the preliminary economic analysis, and the issues the
Agency raised in the proposal. The Agency received comments on the
proposed rule from employees, employers, trade associations,
consultants, and government agencies (Exs. 88 through 132.1). In
addition, a number of stakeholders requested an informal public hearing
and an extension of the 60-day comment period (Exs. 93 through 99).
OSHA granted the requests to hold a hearing in two locations (73 FR
54340, Sept. 19, 2008; 73 FR 36823, June 30, 2008), and denied the
request to extend the comment period.
    After publishing notice of an informal public hearing (73 FR 36823,
June 30, 2008; 73 FR 54340, Sept. 19, 2008), OSHA convened the hearing
on September 9, 2008, in Washington, DC, with Administrative Law Judge
Stephen Purcell presiding (Ex. 168). The hearing continued October 21
and 22, 2008, in Seattle, WA, where Administrative Law Judge Jennifer
Gee presided (Exs. 198; 199). Thirty-five stakeholders presented oral
testimony at the public hearing.
    Pursuant to OSHA's recommendation, on September 9, 2008, Judge
Purcell ordered that after the close of the hearing on October 22,
2008, the hearing record would remain open for an additional 60 days,
until December 22, 2008, for the submission of new factual information
and data relevant to the hearings (Ex. 169). Judge Purcell also ordered
that the record would remain open until February 20, 2009, for the
submission of final written comments, arguments, summations, and briefs
(Exs. 197 and 200 through 206.1). OSHA's recommendation for a 120-day
post-hearing comment period was in response to comments from some
stakeholders who said the 60-day pre-hearing comment period had not
provided stakeholders with sufficient time to submit comments (for
example, Ex. 119.1).
    On August 25, 2009, Judge Purcell issued an order closing the
record of the public hearing on the Proposed Rule to Update OSHA's
Standards on General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment and
certifying the record to the Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health.
    As required by the OSH Act, this final rule is based on careful
analysis and consideration of the rulemaking record as a whole,
including materials discussed or relied upon in the proposed rule,
written comments and exhibits received, and the record of the public
hearing.

D. Hazards

    Shipyard employment is a risky occupation that exposes workers to a
number of different hazards. Shipyard-employment workers are at risk
due to the nature of their work, which includes a variety of industrial
operations such as steel fabrication, welding, abrasive blasting,
electrical work, pipefitting, rigging, stripping, and coating
applications. Shipyard-employment workers also operate and service
complex machinery and equipment such as powered industrial trucks,
cranes, and vessel systems. Several stakeholders said that vessel
systems, in particular, present ``unique complexity'' (Ex. 132.2).
    The hazards associated with these operations and equipment are
heightened because they are often performed outdoors in all kinds of
weather. Gerry Merrigan, of Prowler LLC and Ocean Prowler LLC,
commented on the risks of working outdoors and on vessels: ``The
predictability of shoreside operations is not often found at sea (for
example, ice accumulation on vessels),'' and that ``Almost everyday so
far this fishing season in the Bering Sea had freezing spray warning''
(Ex. 100). A number of other stakeholders also said that working in
rain, ice, and snow is common in shipyard employment (Exs. 101.1;
105.1; 121.1; 124; 128).
    Yaniv Zagagi, of Atlantic Marine Florida, also addressed the range
of environmental conditions that shipyard workers face:

    With outdoor work a common practice on vessels under
construction and repair, maintaining dry work surfaces at all times
in all area[s], since work areas cannot be delineated, is not
possible. In this region, rainfall averages 6 inches per month, with
an inch or more common for a single rain event (Ex. 115.1).

    The nature of work spaces in shipyard employment also poses risks
for employees. Shipyard employment activities are performed aboard
vessels, in confined or enclosed spaces below deck, on scaffolds, and
on busy, crowded docks. James Thornton, of Northrop Grumman--Newport
News, commented: ``Shipbuilding and repair, by nature, requires
employees to access numerous small, awkward spaces, such as catapult
wing voids on aircraft carriers and vertical launch silos on
submarines; therefore, working space is inherently limited'' (Ex.
116.2).
    The safe coordination of shipyard employment activities also is
complicated by the fact that most shipyards are multi-employer
worksites where shipyard workers, ship's crew, contractors, and
subcontractors work side-by-side and often on the same vessel system at
the same time.
    The combination of these hazards puts workers at risk of injury,
regardless of whether they are working on vessels or at landside
operations.
    The proposed rule examined in detail the fatalities and injuries
associated with the hazards this rule addresses (72 FR 72453-55, Dec.
20, 2007). Since OSHA did not receive any objections on its fatality
and injury analysis, the Agency does not see a need to repeat the
analysis here. In addition, section IV of this preamble discusses the
fatalities and injuries the final rule is estimated to prevent.

II. Pertinent Legal Authority

    The purpose of the OSH Act is to ``assure so far as possible every
working man and woman in the nation safe and healthful working
conditions and to preserve our human resources.'' 29 U.S.C. 651(b). To
achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor to issue
and to enforce occupational safety and health standards. See 29 U.S.C.
655(a) (authorizing summary adoption of existing consensus and Federal
standards within two years of the OSH Act's effective date); 655(b)
(authorizing promulgation of standards pursuant to notice and comment);
and 654(a)(2) (requiring employers to comply with OSHA standards).
    A safety or health standard is a standard ``which requires
conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more practices, means,
methods, operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate
to provide safe or healthful employment or places of employment'' 29
U.S.C. 652(8).
    A standard is reasonably necessary or appropriate within the
meaning of section 3(8) of the OSH Act if it materially reduces a
significant risk to workers; is economically feasible; is
technologically feasible; is cost effective; is consistent with prior

Agency action or is a justified departure; adequately responds to any
contrary evidence and argument in the rulemaking record; and
effectuates the Act's purposes at least as well as any national
consensus standard it supersedes. See 29 U.S.C. 652; 58 FR 16612,
16616, Mar. 30, 1993.
    A standard is technologically feasible if the protective measures
it requires already exist, can be brought into existence with available
technology, or can be created with technology that can reasonably be
expected to be developed. See Pub. Citizen Health Research Group v.
U.S. Dep't of Labor, 557 F.3d 165, 170-71 (3rd Cir. 2009); Am. Iron and
Steel Inst. v. OSHA, 939 F.2d 975, 980 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (``AISI'');
United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO-CLC v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189,
1272 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
    A standard is economically feasible if industry can absorb or pass
on the cost of compliance without threatening its long-term
profitability or competitive structure. See Am. Textile Mfrs. Inst. v.
Donovan, 452 U.S. 490, 530 n.55 (1981) (``ATMI''); AISI, 939 F.2d at
980. A standard is cost effective if the protective measures it
requires are the least costly of the available alternatives that
achieve the same level of protection. Int'l Union, United Auto.,
Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am., UAW v. OSHA, 37 F.3d 665,
668 (D.C. Cir 1994) (``LOTO III''). See also ATMI, 452 U.S. at 514 n.32
(suggesting that the ``reasonably necessary or appropriate'' language
of Section 3(8) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 652(8)) might require OSHA to
select the less expensive of two equally effective measures).
    Section 6(b)(7) of the OSH Act authorizes OSHA to include among a
standard's requirements labeling, monitoring, medical testing, and
other information-gathering and transmittal provisions. 29 U.S.C.
655(b)(7).
    All safety standards must be highly protective. See 58 FR 16614-
16615, Mar. 30, 1993; LOTO III, 37 F.3d at 668. Finally, whenever
practicable, standards shall ``be expressed in terms of objective
criteria and of the performance desired.'' 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5).

III. Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule

    This section of the preamble discusses the requirements of the
final standard and explains the purpose of the requirements and the
reasons supporting them. This section also discusses and resolves
issues raised during the comment period, significant comments received
as part of the rulemaking record, and any substantive changes from the
proposed rule.
    As mentioned, OSHA adopted many of the provisions in subpart F in
1972 from existing Federal occupational safety and health standards and
national consensus standards (for example, sanitation, medical services
and first aid, housekeeping). Since then, those national consensus
standards have been updated and revised. OSHA carefully reviewed the
updated standards and, when they encompassed new technology and
requirements to provide greater workplace safety and health, has
incorporated those changes in the final rule.
    SESAC recommended many of the provisions in the final rule as
representing industry best practices. To the extent that such practices
and technology have changed since SESAC made its recommendations, OSHA
has updated those recommendations accordingly.
    In the final rule, OSHA has consolidated a number of provisions to
more clearly indicate that they apply to shipyard employment. For
example, both existing general industry (part 1910) and shipyard
employment (part 1915) standards address housekeeping, sanitation, and
medical services and first aid. General industry standards apply to
shipyard employment when part 1915 standards do not address a
particular hazard or working condition. To make the applicable
requirements easier to understand and follow, the final rule
consolidated the sets of standards into one section. To illustrate,
Sec.  1910.141 and Sec.  1915.97 contain requirements on sanitation
that are applicable to shipyard employment. The final rule has combined
all of the sanitation requirements in both standards that are
applicable to shipyard employment in Sec.  1915.88.
    The consolidation of some standards, and the addition of new
sections, has resulted in a renumbering of the sections in subpart F.
Table 1 lists the section numbers of the final rule and the existing
section(s), if any, from which they were derived.

   Table 1--Proposed Provisions and Corresponding Existing Provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Existing rule
     Title of provision            Final rule           applicable to
                                                     shipyard employment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope, application, and       Sec.   1915.80......  Each section of
 definitions.                                        subpart F has a
                                                     scope and
                                                     application
                                                     provision. No
                                                     existing section
                                                     for definitions.
Housekeeping................  Sec.   1915.81......  Sec.   1915.91 and
                                                     Sec.   1910.141.
Lighting....................  Sec.   1915.82......  Sec.   1915.92.
Utilities...................  Sec.   1915.83......  Sec.   1915.93.
Working alone...............  Sec.   1915.84......  Sec.   1915.94.
Vessel radar and              Sec.   1915.85......  Sec.   1915.95.
 communication systems.
Lifeboats...................  Sec.   1915.86......  Sec.   1915.96.
Medical services and first    Sec.   1915.87......  Sec.   1915.98 and
 aid.                                                Sec.   1910.151.
Sanitation..................  Sec.   1915.88......  Sec.   1915.97 and
                                                     Sec.   1910.141.
Control of hazardous energy   Sec.   1915.89......  No existing rule.
 (lockout/tagout).
Safety color code for         Sec.   1915.90......  Sec.   1910.144.
 marking physical hazards.
Accident prevention signs     Sec.   1915.91......  Sec.   1910.145.
 and tags.
Retention of DOT markings,    Sec.   1915.92......  Sec.   1915.100.
 placards and labels.
Motor vehicle safety          Sec.   1915.93......  No existing rule.
 equipment, maintenance, and
 operation.
Servicing multi-piece and     Sec.   1915.94......  No existing rule.
 single-piece rim wheels.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the extent possible, OSHA has expressed the final rule in
performance language; that is, the requirements are ``expressed in
terms of objective criteria and of the performance desired.'' 29 U.S.C.
655(b)(5). Some stakeholders, particularly larger establishments,
supported this approach and urged OSHA to adopt a flexible approach in
the final rule (Exs. 116.1; 120.1). Other stakeholders, particularly
smaller businesses, urged OSHA to provide more specific language in the
final rule (Exs. 104.1; 107; 121.1; 125; 198, p. 56). For example,
Philip Dovinh, of Sound Testing, Inc., said that vague or ``open-
ended'' language ``leaves ample room for

erroneous misinterpretations'' (Ex. 121.1).
    OSHA believes that the performance-based approach in the final rule
provides employers with maximum flexibility in determining the most
effective strategies for controlling hazards and protecting their
workers. At the same time, OSHA believes that the objective criteria
the final rule incorporates will assist employers, particularly small
businesses, with complying with the final rule. In addition, as
stakeholders requested, OSHA has defined a number of additional terms
used in the final rule (Exs. 121.1; 129.1). OSHA believes this approach
also will help employers understand and comply with the final rule
while providing flexibility for the range of employers the final rule
covers.

Section 1915.80--Scope, Application, and Definitions

Paragraph (a)--Scope and Application
    Paragraph (a) specifies that the provisions in subpart F apply to
general working conditions:
     In shipyard employment;
     At landside operations and on vessels and vessel sections;
and
     Regardless of geographic location.
    Final paragraph (a) consolidates the individual scope provisions
contained in each section of existing subpart F into one section.
Paragraph (a) also applies subpart F to all operations constituting
shipyard employment. Some of the existing scope provisions, which were
part of the LHWCA standards that OSHA adopted in 1972, applied only to
certain sectors of shipyard employment. However, OSHA's intention
always has been that part 1915 standards apply to all of shipyard
employment, which Sec.  1915.4(i) defines as ``ship repairing,
shipbuilding, shipbreaking and related employments.'' As OSHA stated in
the proposed rule, this consolidation eliminates duplication. Finally,
the consolidation also makes the scope and application section
consistent with other subparts of 29 CFR part 1915 that OSHA has
revised (for example, subpart B--Confined and Enclosed Spaces and Other
Dangerous Atmospheres in Shipyard Employment (59 FR 37816, Jul. 25,
1994); subpart I--Personal Protective Equipment in Shipyard Employment
(61 FR 26322, May 24, 1966); and subpart P--Fire Protection in Shipyard
Employment (69 FR 55702, Oct. 15, 2004). OSHA did not receive any
comments on the proposed consolidation.
    Paragraph (a) of the final rule adopts the proposed language that
subpart F applies to shipyard-employment work on vessels and vessel
sections and at landside operations. With regard to vessels, this means
that the requirements of subpart F apply to the extent that OSHA has
authority over the vessel. OSHA's instruction titled, ``OSHA Authority
over Vessels and Facilities on or Adjacent to U.S. Navigable Waters and
the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS),'' provides current Agency policy,
information, and guidance on OSHA's authority to regulate working
conditions on certain vessels (inspected vessels, commercial
uninspected fishing vessels, and other uninspected vessels) (CPL-02-01-
047, Feb. 22, 2010). The instruction is available to read and download
on OSHA's Web site at http://www.osha.gov.
    Paragraph (a) also adopts language from the proposed rule
clarifying OSHA's longstanding position that subpart F applies to
shipyard employment ``regardless of geographic location'' of the
shipyard activity. OSHA included the phrase ``regardless of geographic
location'' in the scope so that protection is afforded to employees
whenever they engage in shipyard employment: On vessels, on vessel
sections, at landside facilities, or at any other location where they
perform shipyard employment. This has been the Agency's longstanding
policy on shipyard employment, and is included in the scope of subpart
B--Confined and Enclosed Spaces and Other Dangerous Atmospheres,
subpart I--Personal Protective Equipment, and subpart P--Fire
Protection.
    Shipyard employment also occurs on vessels and vessel sections
within the navigable waters of the United States, and includes work on
a vessel or part of a vessel that is being constructed, or repaired,
whether it is in the shipyard or dockside, at anchor, or underway for
testing. The requirements in this subpart will apply to all vessels
within OSHA's jurisdictional boundaries.
    Several commenters requested that OSHA define ``navigable waters''
in the final rule (Exs. 101.1; 124; 126; 128; 132.2). Since the final
rule does not use the term ``navigable waters,'' OSHA does not believe
there is a need to include a definition in the rule. In any event, the
U.S. Coast Guard, not OSHA, is the Federal agency responsible for
making determinations about whether a body of water is considered
``U.S. navigable waters.'' The Coast Guard definition of navigable
waters and other associated terms are contained at 33 CFR part 2, which
is available at  http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html.
    One stakeholder urged OSHA to exempt from the rule vessels under
200 gross weight tons or vessels that do not process seafood (Ex.
197.1). Karen Conrad of the North Pacific Fishing Vessel Owners'
Association commented:

    [T]hese regulations would apply to all uninspected vessels and
that would include ``tens of thousands'' of vessels of all kinds.
OSHA needs to consider that these vessels do ongoing maintenance
work, not just at the dock, but while they move to other locations.
We suggest that OSHA communicate with the Coast Guard and industry
to identify which vessels need this regulation and best to scale
down this regulation to cover the sector of vessels that should be
covered (Ex. 197.1).

    OSHA does not agree with the stakeholder's position and has not
exempted small vessels from the final rule. OSHA regulates hazardous
working conditions where they are found. To the extent that the
hazardous working conditions addressed in subpart F are present, OSHA
believes employees are at risk of injury and death and need protection.
Of course, OSHA has authority only to the extent that the hazard,
employer, and vessel are within the Agency's geographical authority.
Paragraph (b)--Definitions
    Paragraph (b) of the final rule sets forth definitions that are
applicable to subpart F. As mentioned, OSHA believes that defining key
terms makes the final rule easier to understand and, therefore, will
increase compliance.
    OSHA has moved the definitions to the beginning of subpart F from
the final section of the proposed rule (Sec.  1915.95). Two
stakeholders urged OSHA to move the definitions forward (Exs. 119.1;
121.1). Philip Dovinh of Sound Testing, Inc. commented:

    Definitions are an extremely important part of any successful
regulation. OSHA may have misled the reader that their set of
definitions is just an incomplete afterthought as represented in the
current Proposed Rule. Section 1915.95 Definitions, is awkwardly
buried in the last section of Subpart F-General Working Conditions.
Why not be consistent and place it immediately following Sec.
1915.80 Scope and application--as in the rest of the other OSHA
regulations? By having the definitions located immediately at the
front of the Proposed Rule, they will grab the attention of the
reader and become much more beneficial (Ex. 121.1).

    OSHA agrees with the commenter that prominently placing the
definitions for this subpart immediately after the Scope and
Application section will assist the employer and employees in
understanding the provisions in subpart F.

    Many of the proposed definitions have been carried forward
unchanged, or with editorial changes, to better clarify the term. Some
of the clarification, additions, and modifications have been made in
response to stakeholder comments, which provided helpful and useful
language to improve the clarity of terms used in the final rule. OSHA
also has added new definitions to the final rule, many of which help to
explain and clarify OSHA's revised approach to the control of hazardous
energy. Definitions that have been added to the final rule, or
substantially clarified or modified from the proposal, are described
below.
    Additional safety measure. A definition for ``additional safety
measure'' was added to the final rule to more fully explain and clarify
the tags-plus system described in Sec.  1915.89, Control of hazardous
energy. ``Additional safety measure'' is defined as a component of the
tags-plus system that provides an impediment (in addition to the
energy-isolating device) to the release of hazardous energy or the
energization or startup of the machinery, equipment, or system being
serviced. Examples include, but are not limited, to removing an
isolating circuit element; blocking a control switch; blocking,
blanking, or bleeding lines; removing a valve handle or wiring it in
place; or opening an extra disconnecting device.
    Authorized employee. Paragraph (b)(3) of Sec.  1915.80 specifies
that an ``authorized employee'' is an employee who performs one or more
of the following lockout/tagout responsibilities:
     Executes the lockout/tagout procedures;
     Installs a lock or tagout system on any machinery,
equipment, or system that is to be serviced; or
     Services any machinery, equipment, or system that is under
a lockout/tagout application.

The final definition specifies clearly and more directly than the
proposed definition the role of authorized employees in lockout/tagout
situations. In addition, the final definition retains the sentence
clarifying that affected employees become authorized employees if their
duties include servicing machinery, equipment, or systems under a
lockout/tagout application.
    Contract employer. OSHA has added a new definition for ``contract
employer.'' OSHA determined that this definition was needed to clarify
the requirements in Sec.  1915.89(l), Multi-employer worksites. The
definition is currently included in subpart P, Fire Protection for
Shipyard Employment, and has been carried over into subpart F in this
final rule. A ``contract employer'' is an employer who performs
shipyard employment-related services or work under contract to the host
employer or to another employer who is under contract to the host
employer when the work or services takes place at the host employer's
worksite. Services a contract employer may provide include painting,
joinery, carpentry, or scaffolding. The definition excludes any
employer who provides services that are not directly related to
shipyard employment, such as mail delivery, office-supply, or food
vending services.
    Dummy load. In Sec.  1915.85, Vessel radar and communication
systems, paragraph (b)(2) was revised at the suggestion of Northrop
Grumman Shipbuilding--Newport News (Ex. 116.2) to require protection
for employees working on a system with a dummy load. OSHA defines
``dummy load'' as a device used in place of an antenna to aid in the
testing of a radio transmitter that converts transmitted energy into
heat to minimize energy radiating outward or reflecting back to its
source during testing.
    Hazardous energy. ``Hazardous energy'' was defined to ensure that
employers understand that Sec.  1915.89, Control of hazardous energy,
applies to any source or type of energy, including mechanical (for
example, power transmission apparatus, counterbalances, springs,
pressure, and gravity), pneumatic, hydraulic, electrical, chemical, and
thermal (for example, high or low temperature), that could cause injury
to employees. These energy sources may be active, residual, or stored.
Because this definition encompasses the various types of energy, it was
not necessary to define separately the phrase ``energy source,'' so
OSHA deleted the phrase as its own defined term.
    Hazardous substances. In the proposal, OSHA defined ``hazardous and
toxic substances'' broadly as used in Sec.  1915.87, Medical services
and first aid. Several commenters stated that this definition was not
appropriate, was economically infeasible, or was too broad (Exs. 104.1;
107.1; 105.2; 106.1; 112.1). OSHA has replaced ``hazardous and toxic
substances'' with ``hazardous substances'' in the final standard, which
are defined as substances that may cause injury, illness, or disease,
or otherwise harm an employee by reason of being explosive, flammable,
poisonous, corrosive, oxidizing, irritating, or otherwise harmful. OSHA
has concluded that this definition adequately sets forth the hazards
that have the potential to occur in shipyard employment. This
definition will assist employers to address the hazards in their
particular workplaces by providing, for example, quick-drench
facilities and other first aid or emergency medical equipment.
    Host employer. OSHA added a new definition for ``host employer'' in
the final rule. OSHA determined that this definition was needed to
clarify the requirements in Sec.  1915.89(l), Procedures for multi-
employer worksites. The definition is currently included in subpart P,
Fire Protection for Shipyard Employment, and has been carried over into
subpart F in this final rule. ``Host employer'' is an employer who is
in charge of coordinating the shipyard-employment work of other
employers, or who hires other employers to perform shipyard-employment
work or to provide shipyard employment-related services at a multi-
employer worksite.
    Isolated location. For purposes of Sec.  1915.84, Working alone,
OSHA has added a new definition for ``isolated location,'' as requested
by many commenters (Exs. 101.1; 104.1; 105.1; 114.1; 115.1; 118.1; 124;
125; 126; 128; 130.1; 198, p. 73). ``Isolated location'' is defined as
an area where employees are working alone or with little assistance
from others due to the type, time, or location of their work. Isolated
locations include remote locations or other work areas where employees
are not in close proximity to each other. Examples of isolated
locations include an employee working alone on a job task at the far
end of a vessel, vessel section, or shipyard; an employee working alone
in a hold, sonar space, or tank; or an employee working in a confined
space. OSHA intends to include situations where co-workers may be near
an employee working alone but are not participating in the work of the
lone worker. For example, an isolated location exists when two
employees are working on either side of a metal partition, or when one
employee performs hot work and a firewatch is on the other side of the
bulkhead.
    Lock. OSHA has shortened the phrase ``lockout device'' from
proposed Sec.  1915.89, Control of hazardous energy, by removing the
word ``device,'' since ``device'' is not needed to explain what a lock
is. A lock is self explanatory, although OSHA retained the definition
of the term in this final rule. Throughout the standard, when the
proposal required the employer to affix a ``lockout device,'' OSHA has
simplified the term to ``lock.'' The term is defined as a device that
utilizes a positive

means, either a key or combination lock, to hold an energy-isolating
device in a ``safe'' position that prevents the release of energy and
the startup or energization of the machinery, equipment, or system to
be serviced.
    Lockout/tags-plus coordinator. OSHA has added a new requirement in
Sec.  1915.89, Control of hazardous energy, to designate a lockout/
tagout coordinator in certain situations to verify each lockout/tagout
system. Thus, OSHA has added the term ``lockout/tags-plus coordinator''
to the definition section. The lockout/tags-plus coordinator is an
employee designated by the employer to coordinate all lockout and tags-
plus applications on vessels or vessel sections and at landside
facilities when employees are performing multiple servicing operations
on the same equipment at the same time, or on vessels and vessel
sections when employees are servicing multiple machines, equipment, or
systems at the same time. As explained in the summary and explanation
of Sec.  1915.89, the employer may have more than one lockout/tags-plus
coordinator, depending on the size of the shipyard and the scope of
work being performed at any given time. The coordinator will also be
responsible for maintaining a lockout/tagout log for each worksite.
    Lockout/tags-plus materials and hardware. A new definition for
``lockout/tags-plus materials and hardware'' was added to clarify the
requirements for controlling hazardous energy in Sec.  1915.89. This
hardware includes locks, chains, wedges, blanks, key blocks, adapter
pins, self-locking fasteners, or other hardware used to isolate, block,
or secure machinery, equipment, or systems to prevent the release of
energy or the startup or energization of the machinery, equipment, or
system.
    Navy ship's force. A new term for ``Navy ship's force'' was added
to clarify situations when naval vessels are in shipyards and the
ship's force will maintain control of the lockout/tagout applications
under Sec.  1915.89. ``Navy ship's force'' is the crew of a vessel,
owned and operated by the U.S. Navy, other than a time- or voyage-
chartered vessel, that is under the control of a Commanding Officer or
Master.
    Normal production operations. The term ``normal production
operations'' was modified from proposed Sec.  1915.89 to include
several examples of machinery or equipment that OSHA intends this
phrase to encompass. These machines or types of equipment may include,
but are not limited to, punch presses, bending presses, shears, lathes,
keel press rollers, or automated burning machines.
    Readily accessible/available. In Sec.  1915.82, Lighting, Sec.
1915.83, Utilities, Sec.  1915.87, Medical services and first aid, and
Sec.  1915.88, Sanitation, OSHA uses the term ``readily accessible.''
Several commenters requested that OSHA clarify the term ``readily
accessible'' for this final rule (Exs. 105.1; 121.1). OSHA agrees, and
has defined ``readily accessible/available'' to mean capable of being
reached quickly enough by an employee to ensure, for example, that
medical services and first aid can be rendered effectively, or that
employees can reach sanitation facilities in time to meet their health
and personal needs.
    Servicing. The proposed term ``servicing and/or maintenance'' in
Sec.  1915.89, Control of hazardous energy, has been shortened in the
final rule to ``servicing'' because ``maintenance'' has been
incorporated into the definition as one of the workplace activities
that the term ``servicing'' encompasses. The definition now clarifies
that servicing covers workplace activities that involve constructing,
installing, adjusting, inspecting, modifying, testing, and repairing
machinery, equipment or systems. Servicing also includes maintaining
machines, equipment, or systems when performing these services would
expose the employee to harm from the start-up or energization of the
system being serviced or the release of hazardous energy. Servicing
would not include the inspection of a space since that is not an
inspection of a machine, piece of equipment or a system.
    Shield. As used in Sec.  1915.83, Utilities, ``shield'' means to
install a covering, protective layer, or other effective measure on or
around a steam hose or temporary steam-piping system, including metal
fittings and couplings, to protect employees from coming into contact
with hot surfaces or elements. This action would protect the employee,
as well as the piping or hose. OSHA received comments requesting that
this definition be added to the final rule (Exs. 106.1; 117.1).
    Short bight. In Sec.  1915.83 of the final rule, Utilities, OSHA
added the new term ``short bight.'' NIOSH commented: ``[I]t would be
useful to define the term `short bights''' (Ex. 129.1). OSHA agrees
with this comment. ``Short bight'' is the loop that is created in a
line or rope that is used to tie back or fasten hoses, wiring, or
fittings. A short bight is not the rope, or the act of fastening the
hose, but the loop in the rope that is being used.
    Tag. OSHA has shortened the phrase ``tagout device'' from proposed
Sec.  1915.89, Control of hazardous energy, by removing the word
``device,'' since ``device'' is not needed to explain what a tag is.
The term ``tag'' is self explanatory, although OSHA retained the
definition of this term in this final rule. Throughout the standard,
when the proposal required the employer to affix a ``tagout device,''
OSHA has simplified the term to ``tag'' for the final rule. The term is
defined as a prominent warning device that includes a means of
attachment that can be securely fastened to an energy-isolating device
in accordance with an established procedure to indicate that the
energy-isolating device and the equipment being controlled must not be
operated until the tag is removed by an authorized employee.
    Tags-plus system. A definition for ``tags-plus system'' was added
to clarify the requirements of Sec.  1915.89, Control of hazardous
energy. Although similar to the proposed ``tagout'' definition, it
needed to be revised to be consistent with requirements in the final
standard. Tags-plus is a system for controlling hazardous energy that
is comprised of: An energy-isolating device with a tag affixed to it
and an additional safety measure. It is imperative that employers and
employees understand that the system is made up of two parts; without
both components, employers will not meet the tags-plus requirements,
and employees will not be fully protected.
    Verification of isolation. In Sec.  1915.89 of the final rule, a
new term, ``verification of isolation,'' was added for clarification.
The term refers to the means necessary to detect the presence of
hazardous energy, which may involve the use of a test instrument, such
as a voltmeter, a visual inspection, or a deliberate attempt to start-
up the machinery, equipment, or system. For electric shock protection,
employers may not use a visual inspection or a deliberate attempt to
start-up the machinery, equipment or system.
    Walkway. In Sec.  1915.81, Housekeeping OSHA included a single
definition for ``walking and working surfaces'' in the proposal. Based
on comments, that section was amended for clarity. As explained in the
summary and explanation of Sec.  1915.81, OSHA split the requirements
for walkways and working surfaces into separate provisions and added
definitions for both of these terms in this final rule. A ``walkway''
is any surface where employees walk or pass through to perform their
job tasks. This may be a vertical, slanted, or horizontal surface, and
may include access ways, designated walkways, aisles, exits, gangways,
ladders, ramps, stairs, and passageways. In addition, if an

employer has instructed employees to use an area such as a scaffold to
gain access to other locations, the scaffold will also be considered a
walkway.
    Work area. OSHA has defined two new terms--``work area'' and
``worksite''--that are used throughout this subpart. These terms were
added in response to the number of commenters asking for such
definitions (Exs. 101.1; 104.1; 107.1; 124; 126; 128; 130). Richard
Webster from Marine Industries Northwest testified: ``Work area is also
an awkward definition. You've got work location and work area, but you
really don't define what it is. * * * So it would be helpful to have
work area * * * much better defined than it is right now'' (Ex. 198, p.
195). The Agency agrees that defining terms will assist employers to
better understand the intent of the provisions where the terms occur.
Thus, a ``work area'' is defined as a specific area, such as a
fabrication area, machine shop, tank, space, or hold, where one or more
employees are working.
    Working surface. A ``working surface,'' as used in Sec.  1915.81,
Housekeeping, encompasses any surface where work is occurring or any
area where tools, materials, and equipment are being staged for
performing work. This definition does not include storage areas where
tools, materials, and equipment have been stored out of walkways, but
it may include a walkway that is now being used to stage tools,
materials, and equipment for a job in progress.
    Worksite. As discussed previously, this term was added in response
to the number of commenters asking for a definition (Exs. 101.1; 104.1;
107.1; 124; 126; 128; 130). A ``worksite'' is a general work location
where employees are performing work, such as a shipyard, pier, vessel,
vessel section, or barge.
Terms Not Defined and Definitions Deleted by OSHA
    The Agency has decided not to define ``adequate'' or ``adequate
number,'' as used primarily in Sec.  1915.87, Medical services and
first aid. Richard Webster of Marine Industries Northwest stated, ``You
use the terminology over and over again, adequate, adequate. Adequate
number of first aid kits, adequate number of--adequate supplies. * * *
The term is just begging for [a] definition'' (Ex. 198, p. 194). Other
commenters stressed the need to define ``adequate'' (Exs. 101.1; 124;
126; 128; 130.1). OSHA believes that the employer, by considering the
factors required in Sec.  1915.87(c)(3), will be able to determine the
number of first aid providers they will need at their facility. These
factors include the size and location of each shipyard worksite, the
number of employees at each worksite, and the nature of the hazards
present at each worksite. To determine first aid and CPR needs,
employers must also consider the distance of each worksite from on-site
infirmaries or clinics, or off-site hospitals. For sanitation
facilities, employers must take into account the distance of each
worksite from the sanitation facilities.
    OSHA has also deleted the following proposed definitions from the
final rule: ``Energized,'' ``energy source,'' ``hot tap,'' and ``ship's
systems.'' While no comments were received on these definitions,
Electric Boat Corp. noted that proposed Sec.  1915.89(a)(2)(iii)(B)
referred to ``hot-tapping'' even though 29 CFR 1915.14 ``requires a
Marine Chemist certificate for hot work on pipelines that contain or
have contained flammable or combustible liquids'' (Ex. 108.1).
Furthermore, Electric Boat Corp. noted:

    NFPA Standard 306 (Control of Gas Hazards on Marine Vessels)
does not permit the Marine Chemist to authorize hot tapping except
in emergency situations where the vessel is in peril. If this work
cannot be authorized in the marine environment why include it in the
proposed standard. The practice of hot tapping in a shipyard should
be removed to eliminate any confusion (Ex. 108.2).

OSHA agrees with the commenter and understands that hot tapping is an
uncommon practice in shipyard employment. Therefore, the definition and
related provisions have been removed from this final rule.
    The terms ``energized,'' ``energy source,'' and ``ship's systems''
are no longer used in the regulatory text of Sec.  1915.89 of this
final rule and, therefore, need not be defined.
Definitions Included Without Change or With Minor Editorial Changes
    OSHA did not receive comments on the remaining definitions, and
believes that all of the terms used in this subpart are ``terms of
art'' in the industry and are universally recognized by shipyard
employees and employers. In addition, some terms were carried forward
into the final standard with only minor editorial changes. These terms
include ``affected employee,'' ``capable of being locked out,''
``energy-isolating device,'' ``healthcare provider,'' ``lockout,''
``motor vehicle,'' ``portable toilet,'' ``potable water,'' ``sanitation
facility,'' ``serviceable condition,'' ``sewered toilet,'' ``tagout,''
``vehicle safety equipment,'' and ``vermin.''

Section 1915.81--Housekeeping

    This section of the final rule covers housekeeping issues that are
found throughout shipyard employment that, unless adequately addressed,
can add to an already hazardous environment. The final rule, like the
proposed rule, consolidates, revises, and reorganizes the housekeeping
requirements applicable to shipyards (Sec.  1910.141(a)(3) and Sec.
1915.91). However, in the final rule OSHA has changed the approach to,
and the organization of, the housekeeping requirements.
    In the proposed rule, OSHA applied the housekeeping requirements
uniformly to all ``walking and working surfaces'' rather than treating
walking surfaces and working surfaces as two distinct areas having
unique characteristics and warranting separate safety considerations
and requirements. As mentioned in the discussion of Sec.  1915.80(b),
the proposed rule defined walking and working surfaces as ``any surface
on or through which employees gain access to or perform their job
duties or upon or through which employees are required or allowed to
walk or work in their workplace.'' The proposed definition also
specified that the term included work areas, accessways, aisles, exits,
gangways, ladders, ramps, stairs, steps, and walkways. OSHA applied
this umbrella term to all of the housekeeping requirements in an
attempt to make this section easier to understand.
    However, many commenters expressed concern that combining walking
and working surfaces created a term that was too broad (Exs. 106.1;
108.2; 117.1). For example, Electric Boat stated: ``Every location in a
shipyard and on a vessel has the potential to be a working surface''
(Ex. 108.2). Bath Iron Works added that the term walking and working
surfaces is so broad that it ``will include every square foot of a
shipyard'' (Ex. 106.1).
    Stakeholders also said combining walking and working surfaces as
one term could result in confusion since walking surfaces sometimes
became working surfaces and vice versa (Exs. 121.1; 199, p. 102).
Manitowoc Marine Group commented: ``During the construction and repair
of a vessel, many operations take place simultaneously, and it could be
easily very difficult to discriminate what is and what is not
considered, quote, a `work area' '' (Ex. 168, p. 68). Commenters from
the American Shipbuilding Association and the North Pacific Fishing
Vessel Owners' Association requested that OSHA establish separate
definitions for walkways and working surfaces to eliminate potential
confusion (Exs. 117.1; 197).

    Northrop Grumman--Newport News pointed to the uniqueness of working
surfaces in shipyard employment to support dividing walking and working
surfaces into separate terms:

    Shipbuilding and repair, by nature, requires employees to access
numerous small, awkward spaces, such as the catapult wing voids on
aircraft carriers and vertical launch silos on submarines;
therefore, working space is inherently limited even under the very
best housekeeping practices (Exs. 116.2; 120.1).

    Based on the comments received and testimony heard, OSHA has
decided to separate ``walking and working surfaces'' into two terms:
``walkways'' and ``working surfaces.'' Section 1915.80(b)(35) of the
final rule defines a ``walkway'' as any surface on which employees
walk, including areas that employees pass through, to perform their job
tasks. Walkways include, but are not limited to, accessways, designated
walkways, aisles, exits, gangways, ladders, ramps, stairs, steps,
passageways, and scaffolding. If an area is used or is intended to be
used, to gain access to other locations, it is a walkway within the
meaning of the final rule.
    The final rule defines ``working surface'' as any surface where
work is occurring or any area where tools, material, and equipment are
being staged for performing work (Sec.  1915.80(b)(37)).
    To make the distinction between walkways and working surfaces, OSHA
has reorganized Sec.  1915.81 of the final standard into three
paragraphs. Paragraph (a) covers general requirements that apply to
both walkways and working surfaces; paragraph (b) includes specific
requirements for walkways; and paragraph (c) includes specific
requirements for working surfaces.
Paragraph (a)--General Requirements
    Paragraph (a)(1) requires the employer to establish and maintain
good housekeeping practices to eliminate hazards to employees to the
extent practicable. Proposed Sec.  1915.81(a) required that the
employer maintain good housekeeping conditions ``at all times'' to
ensure that walking and working surfaces ``do not create a hazard for
employees.'' American Seafoods Company commented that this requirement
was ``vague and impractical in that maintenance and cleaning operations
at times necessitate that the walking and working surfaces be lifted
from their frames'' (Ex. 105.1). In addition, the U.S. Navy stated that
the term `` `[g]ood housekeeping' adds an ambiguity without apparent
benefit'' (Ex. 132.2). Other stakeholders said that in shipyard
employment it is not always possible to maintain good housekeeping
conditions at all times (Exs. 99; 104.1; 107). For example, Steven
Labreque of Electric Boat Corp. said: ``Maintaining a clean and dry
condition in all these locations is simply not feasible'' (Ex. 108.2).
    After considering stakeholder comments and other information in the
record, OSHA has modified the language in Sec.  1915.81(a) of the final
rule in two ways. First, the final rule requires that employers
establish good housekeeping practices. OSHA's intention in including a
general housekeeping requirement has always been to ensure that
shipyard employers develop and implement procedures for regular and
systematic housekeeping to minimize hazards and protect employees from
harm. In particular, OSHA believes that requiring employers to
establish regular housekeeping practices will be effective in helping
to reduce the large number of slip, trip, and fall injuries that occur
in shipyard employment. As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule
(72 FR 72458, December 20, 2007), according to the BLS data for 2002,
slips, trips, and falls accounted for 19 percent of all injuries and
illnesses involving days away from work in ship and boat building and
repairing (Ex. 69).
    Second, OSHA has revised the language in paragraph (a)(1) to
require that employer housekeeping practices eliminate hazards to
employees ``to the extent practicable.'' The proposed rule would have
required that employers ensure that they maintain good housekeeping
conditions at all times in their workplaces so no hazard is created for
employees. The revised language recognizes that, due to unique
conditions inherent in shipyard employment, it may not be possible to
maintain good housekeeping conditions in shipyard-employment workplaces
at all times or ensure that workplace conditions never present a
hazard. However, the rule requires employers to implement and maintain
rigorous housekeeping conditions unless it is impracticable.
    Paragraph (a)(2) specifies that employers must eliminate slippery
conditions on walkways and working surfaces ``as necessary.'' This
provision, proposed as paragraph (g), would have required that slippery
conditions, including snow and ice, be eliminated ``as they occur.''
    Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding--Newport News supported the proposal:
``[E]liminating slippery conditions, including those associated with
snow and ice, are important to minimizing the risk of an employee
slipping and being injured'' (Exs. 116.2; 120.1). However, a number of
other commenters were opposed to the proposed requirement. Trident
Seafoods Corporation, the U.S. Navy, Bath Iron Works, the Shipbuilders
Council of America, American Shipbuilding Association, and Sound
Testing, Inc., said it is extremely difficult in shipyard-employment
worksites to ensure that snow and ice are immediately eliminated (Exs.
104.1; 106.1; 107.1; 114.1; 115.1; 117.1; 118.1; 119.1; 121.1; 125;
132.2; 168, p. 68; 199, pp. 55, 80-83). For instance, Atlantic Marine
said: ``It is not practical to eliminate snow and ice as they occur''
(Exs. 115.1; 118.1). Roy Martin testified that the proposed requirement
``represents an unrealistic expectation. Removing snow and ice as they
occur is not practical, considering, as I well know [from] firsthand
experience on the Great Lakes, conditions such as this may last several
days, making constant attention a major burden, if not infeasible''
(Ex. 168, p. 57). Dale Myer of Arctic Storm Management Group testified
that requiring employers to clean slippery conditions as they occur
would be impossible because such conditions were ``almost impossible to
define. When is a surface slippery? * * * So is one flake going to be
snow occurred? Is one inch going to be snow occurred? Is a trace of
snow going to be as it occurs?'' (Ex. 199, p. 82).
    Stakeholders suggested alternative approaches. Atlantic Marine
suggested that OSHA allow ``a practical amount of time'' to remove snow
and ice (Exs. 115.1; 118.1). Dale Myer recommended:

    I believe that the phrases that you have in subsection D
[proposed paragraph (d)], which talks about the dry conditions, as
it reads it says, maintain so far as practical in dry conditions. I
think that phrase, `so far as practical,' should actually be
incorporated into G [proposed paragraph (g)] (Ex. 199, p. 83).

    To address stakeholders' concerns, OSHA has revised the language of
the final rule to require that employers eliminate slippery conditions
``as necessary.'' OSHA intends ``as necessary'' to mean that conditions
are such that they can pose a hazard to employees. The revised language
gives employers flexibility in determining whether the particular
conditions may pose a hazard to employees or have deteriorated such
that action is necessary. In addition, the performance-based approach
gives employers flexibility in determining what method of eliminating
slippery conditions will work most effectively for them.
    During the hearings, participants described some of the methods and

procedures they use at their shipyard facilities. For instance, Roy
Martin described how Manitowoc Marine Group deals with ice and snow:

    We will have someone come in the moment we do have an event, and
they will start the cleanup process, as much as feasible. They will
clean the main thoroughfares, and they will sand-salt as they are
cleaning as well. We do have areas around the vessels which we train
our employees to help utilize the salt-sand buckets, for lack of [a]
better phrase, at these areas as well. We utilize a lot of employee
assistance in that, because, as you well know, there are instances
where we have days of extensive weather (Ex. 168, p. 93).

    Some stakeholders stated that, in certain severe weather
conditions, it was not always possible to eliminate slippery conditions
(Exs. 115.1; 116.1; 118.1). The final rule recognizes that, in some
circumstances, weather conditions may make it impracticable for
employers to eliminate slippery conditions. In such cases, employers
must take alternative action to ensure that employees are not injured.
Accordingly, the final rule specifies that when it is impracticable for
employers to eliminate slippery conditions, they must either (1)
restrict employees to designated walkways and working surfaces where
the employer has been able to eliminate slippery conditions, or (2)
provide employees with slip-resistant footwear. This footwear must be
provided in accordance with 29 CFR part 1915, subpart I. In particular,
Sec.  1915.152(f) specifies whether the employer must provide personal
protective equipment (PPE) at no cost to employees.
    OSHA does not think that employers will have difficulty in
complying with the alternative methods. For example, Dale Myer stated
that their company already has incorporated slip-resistant footwear in
their housekeeping program:

    Another thing that we do is we have bought our crew slip-on, you
know, we call them toggles. What they are is they're just, they slip
right over the rubber boots and stuff like that. They're like
grippers. And when we have been working on the dock and the dock is
slippery, we provide those to our crew members (Ex. 199, pp. 87-88).

    Paragraph (a)(3) requires that employers store materials in a
manner that does not create a hazard for employees. Proposed Sec.
1915.91(h) would have required that ``construction materials'' be
stacked in a manner that does not create a hazard to employees.
Information in the record, including site visits to shipyards and on
fishing vessels (Ex. 207), support expanding the final rule to cover
more than construction materials and address additional storage
methods. Shipyard employment activities involve large amounts of
materials, including construction materials, drums filled with
hydraulic fluid, pallets (empty and full), and equipment such as
welding machinery. If any of these materials are not properly stored or
stacked, they could create a hazard for employees. For instance, if
hydraulic drums are not properly stacked, they could topple over and
injure workers. Scaffolding material could cause trips and falls if
they are not stored properly when not in use. Therefore, the final rule
expands the scope of this provision to cover all materials used in
shipyard employment, including materials for constructing or repairing
vessels and vessel sections, as well as any materials used in daily
shipyard operations.
    In addition, the final rule specifies that the employer must
``store'' materials safely, which is more comprehensive than the
proposed requirement to ``stack'' materials safely. OSHA believes that
requiring materials to be stored safely will protect employees from
injury no matter whether the employer chooses to stack them or use
another storage method.
    Paragraph (a)(4) requires that employers maintain easy and open
access to fire alarm boxes, fire call stations, all fire-fighting
equipment, and exits, including ladders, staircases, scaffolds, and
gangways. Proposed Sec.  1915.81(f) contained a similar requirement,
but the provision referred generally to maintaining easy access to
``exits.'' In shipyard-employment workplaces, there are many types of
exits and methods of egress, including gangways, ladders, staircases,
and scaffolds. OSHA believes that employees must have immediate access
to all means of egress in the event of an emergency. Therefore, the
final rule clarifies additional types of exits in shipyard-employment
workplaces to which the employer must maintain easy and open access.
    Paragraph (a)(5) requires that all flammable and combustible
substances, such as paint thinners, solvents, rags, scrap, and waste,
be disposed of or stored in covered fire-resistant containers. The
final rule combines proposed paragraphs (j) and (k) into one provision.
Proposed Sec.  1915.81(j) would have required that all oils, paint
thinners, solvents, waste, soaked rags, or other flammable substances
be kept in fire-resistant covered containers when not in use.
Similarly, proposed Sec.  1915.81(k) would have required that
combustible scrap be removed from work areas as soon as possible.
    Several commenters, including Bath Iron Works, the Shipbuilders
Council of America, and Atlantic Marine, recommended that OSHA delete
both proposed paragraphs (j) and (k), saying 29 CFR part 1915, subpart
P, Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment, covers these issues (Exs.
106.1; 108.2; 114.1; 115.1; 117.1; 118.1). To the extent that subpart P
covers the hazards of flammable and combustible substances, the
requirements only apply to work areas where hot work is performed.
Section 1915.81(a)(5), on the other hand, addresses flammable and
combustible substances wherever they are used, located, or stored in
shipyard-employment worksites. Therefore, OSHA believes it is necessary
to retain the proposed requirements in the final rule. The Agency
believes that the removal or proper storage of flammable and
combustible substances is important to ensure that employees have safe
working conditions.
    Paragraph (a)(5) also requires that flammable and combustible
substances be disposed of or stored at the completion of a job or end
of a workshift, whichever occurs first. Proposed Sec.  1915.81(j) would
have required that flammable substances be stored ``when not in use,''
while proposed Sec.  1915.81(j) would have required that combustible
scrap be removed from work areas ``as soon as possible.''
    Trident Seafoods Corporation raised concerns about when employers
must store or dispose of substances (Exs. 104.1; 107.1; 199, pp. 136-
137):

    Does `when not in use' mean that closed paint thinner cans must
be placed in covered fire resistant containers during short breaks?
It would be better if this requirement read along the lines of `at
the end of the shift, when no longer needed for [on] the particular
portion of the job being performed or end of the work day whichever
comes first' (Exs. 104.1; 107.1).

OSHA agrees with the commenter's recommendation. OSHA did not intend to
require that employers store flammable substances while employees are
at lunch or on break. OSHA used performance-based language in proposed
paragraphs (j) and (k) to give employers flexibility in how to best
comply with the requirements. OSHA believes the commenter's
recommendation provides clearer direction to employers, while ensuring
adequate protection for employees. Accordingly, the final rule requires
that employers dispose of or store flammable and combustible substances
at the end of each workshift or when the job is completed, whichever
occurs first.

Paragraph (b)--Walkways
    Paragraph (b) sets forth requirements to protect employees from
hazards when they are using walkways. OSHA has included in paragraph
(b) those requirements from the proposed rule that were intended to
apply primarily to walkways, as well as requirements that address
issues that are unique to walkways.
    Paragraph (b)(1)(i) requires that all walkways provide adequate
passage. The proposed rule contained a similar requirement (proposed
Sec.  1915.81(b)). This requirement is intended to be read in
conjunction with paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)-(iv), which address keeping
walkways clear of debris, materials, hoses, and cords. Taken together,
these provisions provide employers with directions for ensuring that
walkways provide safe and adequate passage.
    Paragraph (b)(1)(ii) requires that walkways be clear of debris,
including solid and liquid wastes, that may create a hazard for
employees. The proposal included a similar provision (Sec.
1915.81(e)). Sound Testing, Inc., requested that OSHA define ``solid
and liquid waste'' (Ex. 121.1). OSHA believes that employers understand
that ``solid and liquid waste'' includes any materials unused and
rejected as unwanted, such as trash, used materials, scraps, studs,
welding rod tips, nuts or bolts, broken equipment, empty containers, or
other items that will be thrown away. OSHA intends that the term have
only the normal definition of ``waste''; therefore, the Agency does not
believe it is necessary to add a definition to the regulatory text.
    Paragraph (b)(1)(iii) specifies that employers ensure walkways are
free from tools, materials, equipment, and other objects that may cause
a hazard to employees. Proposed Sec.  1915.81(c) would have required
that only tools, materials, and equipment necessary to perform the job
in progress may be kept on walking and working surfaces, and that all
other tools, materials, and equipment be stored or located in an area
that does not interfere with walking and working surfaces.
    General Dynamics Electric Boat and Sound Testing, Inc., recommended
that the provision be applied only to walkways, not working surfaces
(Exs. 108.2; 121.1). For example, Phil Dovinh, of Sound Testing, Inc.,
stated:

    Walking surfaces should be kept clear of all tools and equipment
at all times--portable welding machines, generators, blowers and
ventilation equipment, gas cylinders and fire extinguishers, welding
leads, cables and hoses, pressure washers, pumps, etc * * * all are
necessary during hot work, repair or maintenance operations, and
could easily block a walkway--hence potentially hindering an
emergency escape. A walking surface can become a working surface
when the repair is required--only then tools and equipment may be
placed on the walking surfaces as needed to successfully complete
the job (Ex. 121.1).

    OSHA believes that walkways must be clear from tools, materials,
and equipment at all times. If materials and equipment are placed in
walkways, employees passing through the area are at risk of injury.
OSHA recognizes that workers need to have the necessary tools,
materials, and equipment at hand to perform their jobs. However, if
employees place materials or equipment in a walkway, that walkway
becomes a working surface and the employer must prevent the area from
being used as a walkway (see discussion of paragraph (b)(2)).
    Paragraph (b)(1)(iv) requires that walkways be clear of hoses and
electrical service cords, and identifies acceptable means to meet that
requirement. The purpose of the proposed and final provisions is to
prevent injury to employees and damage to the hoses and cords.
    The proposed rule (proposed Sec.  1915.81(i)) contained a similar
requirement, but it did not include a general provision allowing
employers to use other suitable means to keep hoses and cords out of
walkways. Stakeholders suggested that OSHA allow employers to use
additional methods to prevent employee contact with hoses and cords.
For example, Trident Seafood Corporation recommended ``the option of
ensuring that hoses and electrical cords are kept to the side of a
walkway or working surface provided they are not trip hazards or in
danger of being damaged'' (Exs. 104.1; 107.1). General Dynamics NASSCO
recommended that:

    Hoses, cords and leads shall be routed in a manner that prevents
employee exposure to trip hazards and damage to the hoses, cords,
and leads. Walkways shall be kept free of trip hazards by routing
hoses, cords and leads overhead, through crossovers or by other
suitable means (Ex. 119.1).

    OSHA agrees with the commenters' statements that there are
additional safe ways to protect employees from contact with hoses and
cords in walkways. Accordingly, OSHA has modified paragraph (b)(1)(iv)
to provide employers alternatives to comply with this provision.
Employers may either place hoses and cords above walkways, underneath
walkways, or on walkways, provided they are covered by crossovers or
other means. In addition, OSHA has added a performance-based
alternative that allows the employer to protect each hose and cord by
another suitable means, provided that the ``suitable means'' provides
equivalent protection for employees and prevents damage to the hoses
and cords. OSHA believes that this revision gives employers greater
flexibility in complying with the requirement of paragraph (b)(1)(iv).
    Several commenters raised an issue about applying this provision to
both walking and working surfaces. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding--
Newport News argued that the provision was not feasible for working
surfaces: ``Employees may perform job tasks in tight, confined or
otherwise awkward areas on ships where there is limited overhead to
hang a line or room to cover the line'' (Exs. 116.2; 120.1). Based on
these comments, the Agency has changed the final rule so it applies
only to walkways.
    In paragraph (b)(2) of the final rule, OSHA is adding a new
requirement that specifies what action employers must take if they use
a walkway as a working surface. Paragraph (b)(2) requires that
employers cordon off any portion of a walkway they are using as a
working surface to prevent the area from being used as a walkway.
    As mentioned, many stakeholders said using walkways as working
surfaces is a common occurrence in shipyard employment (Exs. 108.2;
121.1; 199, p. 122). Philip Dovinh, from Sound Testing, Inc.,
commented: ``A walking surface can become a working surface when repair
is required--only then tools and equipment may be placed on the walking
surfaces as needed to successfully complete the job'' (Ex. 121.1).
    The new requirement ensures that this common occurrence in shipyard
employment does not injure or endanger workers. If workers are allowed
to walk through a walkway that is also being used as a working surface,
they could bump into employees working in the area or disturb equipment
or materials that are being used to perform the job in that area. OSHA
believes that this new requirement protects not only workers who
otherwise would use the walkway as a thoroughfare, but also employees
who are working in the cordoned-off section.
    OSHA notes that even if the employer uses a portion of a walkway as
a working surface, the employer is still required to ensure that each
walkway provides adequate passage (Sec.  1915.81(b)(1)(i)). If the
remaining portion of the walkway does not provide adequate passage, the
employer must provide other means of access.

Paragraph (c)--Working Surfaces
    Paragraph (c) specifies the requirements that employers must
follow, in addition to those in paragraph (a), to protect employees on
working surfaces. Paragraph (c)(1) requires that employers ensure that
each working surface is cleared of tools, materials, and equipment that
are not necessary to perform the job in progress. The proposed rule
contained a similar requirement (proposed Sec.  1915.81(c)). OSHA
understands that some jobs may require a large amount of tools,
materials, or equipment, and that workers should be able to access
these items as they are needed. However, excess tools, materials, and
equipment pose a risk of slips, trips, falls, or other injuries. In
addition, excess materials take up precious space in what stakeholders
say are small, tight working areas in shipyard employment (Ex. 116.2;
120.1). OSHA did not receive any comments opposing this requirement as
it applies to working surfaces.
    Paragraph (c)(2) requires employers to ensure that each working
surface is cleared of debris, including solid and liquid waste, at the
end of each workshift or job, whichever occurs first. Proposed Sec.
1915.81(e) would have required that both walking and working surfaces
be kept clear of debris at all times. OSHA has modified that
requirement as it applies to working surfaces in this final rule. In
active work areas, OSHA recognizes that the job may produce debris.
OSHA did not intend to require employers to stop the job to clear the
area every time debris is produced. Rather, OSHA intended that at the
end of each workshift, the employer shall clean up and remove debris
from the work area. If a job is completed before a workshift ends, the
final rule requires that the employer clear debris from the work area
at that time. The Agency believes that the revised language in
paragraph (c)(2) provides greater clarity than the proposal.
    Paragraph (c)(3) specifies that each working surface be maintained,
so far as practicable, in a dry condition. When wet processes are used,
the final rule requires that the employer implement measures so workers
have dry standing places. If that is not practicable, the final rule
requires that the employer provide footgear that protects the employee
from the wet process. Proposed Sec.  1915.81(d) contained a similar
requirement.
    A number of commenters said the language in the proposed rule
implied that employers would be required to provide waterproof footgear
to all workers any time the floor or deck of a work area became wet.
Atlantic Marine stated that:

    The way this paragraph reads, employers would have to provide
waterproof foot gear every time it rains because the surface may not
dry immediately. Atlantic Marine assumes that OSHA did not intend
rain gear to be required PPE since it is specifically excluded in
the recent payment for PPE final rule; however, the way that this
section is worded, it becomes required PPE. Please remove or reword
this section (Exs. 115.1; 118.1).

American Shipbuilding Association added:

    Paragraph (d) is problematic due to the breadth of its scope[;]
however[,] the proposal retains the existing requirement that
employers must provide waterproof boots to workers in every work
area where wet processes take place if keeping the floor or deck of
that work area dry is not practicable. Because every location in a
shipyard and on a vessel is a potential working area and many of
those areas are located outdoors, the proposal should be more
specific in defining work areas and should explicitly exclude
walking areas. Otherwise, it could be interpreted to mean that
employers must provide waterproof boots to all employees in the
event of rain at the facility. Among wet processes, the proposal
explicitly includes painting and cleaning. Those two processes
should be removed as examples because waterproof footgear does not
necessarily provide the best protection when painting and cleaning.
Many waterproof rubbers will dissolve in solvents used in the
painting process. Cleaning a tank containing acid, for example,
requires more than waterproof footgear for adequate protection (Ex.
117.1).

Other commenters raised the same concerns (Exs. 104.1; 106.1; 107.1;
199, pp. 80-81, 106).
    OSHA believes it is important for employers to maintain working
surfaces in dry condition when possible to protect employees from
injury. Keeping working surfaces dry will help to prevent slips, trips,
and falls, which constitute a significant portion of injuries in
shipyard employment (Ex. 69). Therefore, OSHA is retaining this general
provision in the final rule.
    Paragraph (c)(3) also requires that employers take additional
actions if they cannot keep working surfaces in a dry condition.
However, these additional actions only apply in work areas where
employers are using wet processes. Shipyard employment involves various
wet processes, including hydroblasting, gas-freeing, and cleaning.
Employers do not have to implement the additional actions in non-wet
processes or operations or where working surfaces are wet because of
weather conditions. OSHA has revised the language in paragraph (c)(3)
to clarify that the additional actions only apply in work areas where
wet processes are used.
    If employers cannot keep working surfaces in a dry condition when
using wet processes, they will need to maintain drainage and implement
measures, such as false floors, platforms, mats, or other types of dry
standing places, to prevent employees from being exposed to
contaminated water or from standing for prolonged periods of time in
water, both of which may result in adverse health effects.
    When the employer demonstrates that this procedures is not
practicable to implement measures in wet processes that will provide
dry standing places for workers, paragraph (c)(3) requires that
employers provide footgear that protects employees from exposure to
contaminants (for example, standing in water to perform job tasks).
Paragraph (c)(3) also requires employers to provide protective footgear
in accordance with the requirements of subpart I. Among other
requirements in subpart I, Sec.  1915.152(f) establishes requirements
for when employers must provide personal protective equipment at no
cost to the employee.
    In addition, OSHA has revised the language in paragraph (c)(3)
specifying what type of footgear employers must provide when it is not
practicable for the employer to keep the working surface dry. The final
rule requires employers to provide ``protective footgear'' in such
cases. The proposed rule, on the other hand, would have required that
employers provide ``waterproof footgear, such as rubber overboots.'' As
noted earlier, one stakeholder pointed out a problem with the proposed
requirement to provide waterproof or rubber boots in certain wet
processes:

    Among wet processes, the proposal explicitly includes painting
and cleaning. Those two processes should be removed as examples
because waterproof footgear does not necessarily provide the best
protection when painting and cleaning. Many waterproof rubbers will
dissolve in solvents used in the painting process. Cleaning a tank
containing acid, for example, requires more than waterproof footgear
for adequate protection (Ex. 117.1).

    OSHA believes that the revised language in the final rule addresses
the commenters' issue and ensures that employers provide the type of
footgear that will protect employees in the particular wet process they
are using or working.

Section 1915.82--Lighting

    This section sets forth lighting requirements in shipyard-
employment

workplaces. OSHA reorganized this section into four paragraphs: (1)
General requirements; (2) temporary lights; (3) portable lights; and
(4) explosion-proof, self-contained lights.
Paragraph (a)--General Requirements
    Paragraph (a) establishes general lighting requirements that apply
in all areas of shipyard employment, regardless of whether permanent or
temporary lights are used. Adequately lit workplaces are essential in
preventing employees from being injured or killed because they can't
see and avoid hazards that might be present. As discussed in the
preamble to the proposed rule, there have been fatalities in shipyard
employment that may have been prevented if the employer had provided
adequate lighting (72 FR 72452, 72459-60, Dec. 20, 2007). In one case,
an employee was electrocuted while performing repair work in a poorly
lighted area. In another case, an employee was killed when he stepped
into a dark cargo deck and fell through an opening in the floor to the
bottom of the cargo hold. These types of worker fatalities clearly
indicate that employers need to provide lighting that is sufficient for
employees to see where they are, where they are going, and what job
tasks they are performing.
    Paragraph (a)(1) requires that employers adequately illuminate each
work area and walkway whenever a worker is present. This requirement is
the same general requirement as the existing rule and the proposed
rule. OSHA received no comments opposing this requirement and,
therefore, is retaining the requirement in the final rule.
    In paragraph (a)(2), OSHA carries over from the proposal the table
of lighting intensity levels (Table F-1) for landside areas. For
vessels and vessel sections, paragraph (a)(3) allows employers either
to provide lighting that achieves the levels in Table F-1 or to meet
the requirements of ANSI/IESNA RP-7-01, ``Recommended Practice for
Lighting Industrial Facilities'' (incorporated by reference as set
forth in Sec.  1915.5). The proposed rule would have required employers
to provide lighting on vessels and vessel sections that meets the
levels in Table F-1.
    Table F-1 sets forth the minimum illumination requirements for
designated areas in shipyard employment. For instance, Table F-1
specifies that general landside areas, such as corridors and walkways
that employees pass through, must have an illumination intensity of at
least five lumens (foot candles). Higher illumination levels (for
example, 10 lumens) are required for landside areas such as machine and
carpentry shops where employees use hazardous tools and equipment and
perform precision work. Likewise, higher illumination levels are
required in warehouses, where employees read signs and warning labels
and operate forklift trucks and other heavy equipment where controls or
instructions must be seen and understood. OSHA developed the
illumination levels in Table F-1 from the requirements in its
Construction Illumination (Sec.  1926.56) and Hazardous Waste
Operations (Sec.  1910.120) standards, and from the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) standard, Recommended Practice for Lighting
Industrial Facilities (ANSI/IESNA RP-7-01) (Ex. 38). The Agency
believes illumination requirements at these levels will help to ensure
that workers have sufficient lighting to safely move about and perform
work tasks.
    Table F-1 of the final rule includes a note indicating that the
required illumination levels in the table do not apply to emergency or
portable lighting. The final rule carries over the note in proposed
Table F-1 with minor revisions. OSHA did not receive any comments on
the note.
    OSHA developed proposed Table F-1, in large part, because SESAC
recommended that OSHA revise the lighting standards to include specific
illumination levels (Docket SESAC-1992-1, Ex. 100X, 1992, p. 113). Some
stakeholders, such as General Dynamics NASSCO, generally agreed with
requiring employers to meet the illumination levels in Table F-1 (Ex.
119.1). However, OSHA also received mixed reaction to the proposed
Table F-1. During the hearing John Killingsworth, representing the
Puget Sound Shipbuilders Association, testified:

    [T]he numbers in this table on lumens for specific work areas
are somewhat reasonable and they're achievable. But in my 43 years
of work experience, I've never had to carry a light meter into any
work area I've been in. In order to comply with this section,
however, I guess I'll have to. Will it reduce risk? I don't think so
(Ex. 198, p. 86).

    OSHA also received several comments opposing the application of
proposed Table F-1 on vessels (Exs. 105.1; 112.1; 131.1; 132.2; 168,
pp. 286-287; 198, pp. 20-22). For instance, Northrop Grumman
Shipbuilding--Newport News stated:

    We agree that adequate lighting is important to ensure employees
can access and perform work safely. However, we have conducted
numerous lighting measurements on ships and do not believe that a
prescriptive table of lighting intensities is practical. Our
findings indicate that it is extremely difficult to obtain uniform
lighting due to interferences associated with ship's components and
materials. Our results indicate that passageways and decks, in
general, are visible at lighting levels below those listed in the
table. We recommend that Table [F-1] be removed and that
performance-oriented language be provided along with a non-mandatory
reference to ANSI/IESNA [RP-7-01-2001]. We recommend the following
or similar language, `The employer shall ensure that areas where
employees will work or must pass through to access their work are
adequately illuminated.' ANSI/IESNA [RP-7-01-2001] should be used as
a non-mandatory reference to assist in determining the adequacy of
lighting (Exs. 116.2; 120.1).

    The American Shipbuilding Association (ASA) stated:

    Our findings indicate that it is extremely difficult to obtain
uniform lighting [on vessels] due to the variety of shipboard
configurations encountered. Equipment and smaller internal
compartments obstruct lighting and cause shadows even in the best-
lit work environments. Unlike in buildings, where lighting is
usually level with the ceiling or only slightly recessed, on ships,
lighting is often not the lowest fixture in the overhead. It is
therefore often subject to obstruction by other ship's structures
(Ex. 204.1).

    In sum, many commenters found the illumination levels in proposed
Table F-1 problematic for vessels and vessel sections.
    Although OSHA believes that the minimum levels specified in Table
F-1 provide useful and clear assistance for employers, the Agency also
is persuaded by stakeholders who expressed that it may be difficult for
them to maintain uniform lighting levels on vessels and vessel sections
using permanent lighting, particularly when the vessel is old or when
the employer does not own the vessel. Therefore, in final paragraph
(a)(3), OSHA is allowing employers to either follow the illumination
levels set forth in Table F-1 for lighting vessels and vessel sections
or comply with the appropriate values specified in ANSI/IESNA RP-7-01
(2001). For example, an employer could follow Table F-1 or ANSI/IESNA
RP-7-01 (2001) for a fabrication area in a shipyard. By following Table
F-1, the employer would be required to ensure that the area was
illuminated to 10 fc. Figure A2-2, Recommended Illuminance Values for
Industrial Areas/Activities--Outdoor, in ANSI/IESNA RP-7-01 requires 30
fc for the same area. Additionally, for changing rooms (locker rooms)
Table F-1 would require the employer to ensure that the area was
illuminated to 10 fc, while Figure A2-1, Recommended Illuminance Values

for Industrial Areas/Activities--Interior, in ANSI/IESNA RP-7-01
requires 7 fc for the same area.
    OSHA believes that paragraph (a)(3) gives employers greater
flexibility in providing lighting that is adequate for workers to
safely move and work on vessels and vessel sections. OSHA also believes
that allowing employers the option of complying with Table F-1 or the
values specified in the ANSI standard will help alleviate stakeholder
concerns that the proposed rule would require them to obtain costly
personnel and equipment to verify lighting levels (Exs. 116.2; 120.1).
In particular, stakeholders were concerned about the costs associated
with verifying lighting levels, particularly on vessels undergoing
constant change during construction and repair (Ex. 204.1). (See
Section IV, Final Economic Analysis, for further discussion.)
    Based on the record and site visits, OSHA recognizes that permanent
lighting on vessels and vessel sections may be limited. In some
circumstances and areas, it may not be possible for employers to
install permanent lighting that meets the required illumination levels.
This may be particularly true for older vessels. To address this issue,
OSHA added a new requirement (paragraph (a)(4)) specifying that, when
it is impracticable for employers to provide permanent lighting on
vessels or vessel sections that meets the requirements in paragraphs
(a)(2) and (a)(3), employers must supplement the permanent lighting
with temporary lights. OSHA believes this additional requirement is
necessary to ensure that employees have adequate lighting to move about
and work safely, while giving employers additional flexibility in
meeting the lighting requirements.
    In paragraph (a)(5), OSHA carries over from the proposed and
existing rules the provision prohibiting the use of matches and open-
flame devices for lighting, including during emergencies. OSHA believes
that matches and open flames can never be a safe method to light a dark
area. This rule requires that employers provide employees with portable
lights to ensure safe movement when there is no lighting, or when
lights are not working (1915.82(c)(1)).
Paragraph (b)--Temporary Lights
    Paragraph (b) sets forth the requirements for temporary lighting,
including light guards, grounding, insulation, and splicing. For the
most part, the final rule carries forward the requirements in proposed
Sec.  1915.82(b).
    Several commenters suggested that the provisions in paragraph (b)
more properly belong in 29 CFR part 1910 subpart S, Electrical (Exs.
106.1; 108.2; 114.1; 168, p. 75). However, others requested that OSHA
have one standard on temporary lighting dedicated to the maritime
industry (Ex. 105.1). Although some of the requirements in paragraph
(b) address electrical issues, they only address electrical issues to
the extent they are associated with temporary lighting. The electrical
standards in part 1910, on the other hand, are much more comprehensive
and focus primarily on more complex electrical issues. As such, OSHA
believes that including the requirements in Sec.  1915.82(b) ensures
that the provisions receive appropriate focus.
    Paragraph (b)(1) requires that temporary lights be guarded if they
do not have ``completely'' recessed bulbs to prevent employees from
accidentally coming into contact with the hot bulb. The final rule is
identical to the proposed provision. As noted in the preamble to the
proposed standard, unless a temporary light is completely recessed,
there is a risk that the light could be damaged or broken, thus
creating a hazard for employees (for example, electrical shock,
laceration, burn) (72 FR 72460). The requirement to have guards or
completely recessed lights will prevent employees from accidentally
contacting the hot bulb. These safeguards also will help to prevent
combustible materials from igniting.
    Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding--Newport News supported the proposed
provision (Exs. 116.2; 120.1). One stakeholder suggested that OSHA more
clearly define what is meant by ``completely recessed'' and recommended
that OSHA replace the term with the following language: ``extend beyond
the plane of the lighting fixture opening'' (Ex. 132.2). OSHA believes
that the term ``completely recessed'' is clear and self-explanatory,
and that the recommended language would add unnecessary complexity
without providing significant additional benefit or clarity.
    Paragraph (b)(2), like the proposed rule, requires that employers
equip temporary lights with electric cords ``designed with sufficient
capacity to carry the electric load.'' The final rule updates the
existing standard requiring employers to use ``heavy duty'' electrical
cords. OSHA believes that the language in the final rule more clearly
and accurately identifies the type of cord employers must provide to
ensure that employees are protected from electrical, fire, and other
hazards. OSHA recognizes that heavy-duty, hard, and extra-hard cords
have accepted meanings in industry standards; however, the use of a
heavy-duty cord does not ensure that it has sufficient capacity to
carry the particular electric load. OSHA believes the final rule
provides clearer direction while giving employers flexibility in
choosing what type of cord to use so long as it can safely carry the
electric load.
    Paragraph (b)(3), like the proposed rule, specifies that
connections and insulation for electric cords for temporary lights must
be ``maintained in a safe condition.'' To ensure that connections and
insulation are ``maintained in a safe condition,'' employers must check
insulation and connections to determine whether they continue to be in
proper working order and replace those that are broken, cracked, or
damaged. If insulation and connections are damaged, workers can be
exposed to electrical, fire, and other hazards. OSHA remains convinced
that this maintenance requirement is necessary for employee safety.
OSHA did not receive comments opposing the requirement.
    Paragraph (b)(4) prohibits temporary lights and light stringers
from being suspended solely by their cords unless the manufacturer has
designed them to be hung that way. Improper suspension of lights by
their electric cords places the cords under tension that they were not
designed to withstand. Such tension could cause the cords to fray,
break, or become damaged and expose employees to electrical and other
hazards. The only change the final rule makes in the existing rule is
to clarify that lights may only be suspended by the cord if the
manufacturer designs the cord to be used that way. OSHA did not receive
any comments opposing the proposed change.
    Paragraph (b)(5) specifies that lighting stringers must not
overload branch circuits, while paragraph (b)(6) requires that branch
circuits be equipped with over-current protection with a capacity that
does not exceed the rated current-carrying capacity of the cord used.
Both provisions were contained in the proposed and existing rules. OSHA
believes that both measures are necessary to provide an adequate
measure of safety from electrical and fire hazards associated with
circuit overloading. Stakeholders did not oppose the proposed
requirements.
    Paragraph (b)(7) specifies that splices must have insulation that
``exceeds'' that of the original insulation of the cord. When a splice
is necessary on an electrical cord, the current may create a surplus of
energy or ``hot spot'' at the splice junction that is greater than the
current for which the cord was designed. Requiring that the rated

capacity of the new insulation exceed the capacity of the cord's
insulation ensures that employees will be protected if they touch or
come into contact with the cord at the splice. The additional
insulation capacity also ensures that hot spots do not start burning or
ignite combustible materials in the area.
    In the proposal, OSHA requested comment on paragraph (b)(7),
including whether the Agency should require a more specific
requirement. In particular, OSHA requested comment on whether OSHA
should require splices to have insulation that is 1\1/2\ times greater
than that of the cord. NIOSH expressed a preference for such language,
saying such a requirement ``could be objectively evaluated and may
facilitate compliance and enforcement'' (Ex. 129.1). Trident Seafoods
Corporation made two recommendations. First, they recommended that OSHA
provide guidance on determining when splice insulation ``exceeds'' the
original insulation. They also said that OSHA should reference a
``recognized standard for determining appropriate splices insulation
such as NFPA [National Fire Protection Association] NC70'' standard
(Ex. 198, p. 72). On the other hand, the U.S. Navy said that the
existing rule requiring that splices have insulation ``equal'' to that
of the cord was adequate, and that it complies with the requirements on
splices in the NFPA NC70 national consensus standard (Ex. 132.2).
    OSHA decided to adopt the proposed requirement for two reasons.
First, OSHA believes that requiring splice insulation to exceed the
capacity rating of the insulation on the original cord ensures that
employees are fully protected from electrical and other hazards. OSHA
notes that employers who use splices with insulation that is 1\1/2\
times greater than the original will be in compliance with the final
rule.
    Second, OSHA believes that the performance-based language in the
final rule will give employers greater flexibility. OSHA believes that
providing employers with such flexibility will be beneficial,
especially since different capacities of splice insulation may be
needed depending on the use and location of each temporary light cord.
    Paragraph (b)(8) requires that exposed, non-current-carrying metal
parts of temporary lights be grounded. It also requires that grounding
be provided either through a third wire in the cord that contains the
circuit conductors, or through a separate wire that is grounded at the
source of the current. In addition, it requires that grounding be done
in accordance with the electrical standards in 29 CFR part 1910,
subpart S. The proposed rule would have required that grounding be done
in accordance with the requirements of Sec.  1915.132(b) (subpart H,
Tools and Related Equipment). Since publication of the proposal, OSHA
promulgated 29 CFR 1910, subpart S, which supersedes Sec.  1915.132(b).
Therefore, OSHA updated the reference in the final rule. No comments
were received that opposed paragraph (b)(8).
Paragraph (c)--Portable Lights
    Paragraph (c) sets forth requirements for providing and using
portable lights, including emergency lights. The proposed rule referred
to ``handheld'' portable lights. A number of stakeholders urged OSHA
either to define the term ``handheld portable lights'' used in proposed
paragraph (c), or replace it with either ``portable light'' or the
common term ``flashlight'' (Exs. 101.1; 121.1; 124; 126; 128; 130.1;
168, pp. 72, 353; 198, pp. 86-87). Several stakeholders pointed out
that there are various types of portable lights available and used in
the industry, not all of which are handheld. For example, some
employers provide portable lights affixed to head protection; one
stakeholder strings emergency lighting through the vessel in case of a
power outage; and another has a generator linked with permanent
lighting systems that transfers power in the event that a power outage
occurs (Ex. 168, p. 242).
    OSHA's intention in the proposed rule was to ensure that workers do
not enter unlighted areas or do not have to move about in dark spaces
if lights stop working. OSHA believes stakeholder recommendations that
employers be permitted to supply employees with other types of portable
lights, as well as handheld ones, will provide greater flexibility
while ensuring that workers are protected. Accordingly, the final rule
allows employers to use handheld lights as well as other types of
portable lights.
    Paragraph (c)(1) requires that employers provide, and ensure that
employees use, portable lights before they enter a dark area if that
area does not have permanent or temporary lights, if the lights do not
work, or if permanent or temporary lights are not readily accessible.
OSHA believes that workers are at great risk of harm when they enter
dark areas, especially on vessels. The IMIS database reports several
fatalities in shipyard employment in which workers fell to their deaths
in dark areas on vessels (72 FR 72452, 72459-60, Dec. 20, 2007).
    For purposes of paragraph (c)(1), the term ``not readily
accessible'' means that fixtures for turning on permanent or temporary
lights are not located at, or in close proximity to, the entrance to
the dark area. For example, when an employee would have to walk across
a dark work area or climb steps in the dark to turn on the lights, OSHA
would not consider such lights to be readily accessible. In such cases,
the employer would have to provide, and ensure that the employee uses,
a portable light to enter the area.
    OSHA does not believe that employers will have difficulty complying
with this requirement. Some stakeholders said it was ``common
practice'' to provide flashlights to workers (Ex. 114.1). Other
stakeholders commented that they already require that workers have
portable lights when they go below deck on vessels or enter any area
where they cannot see the walking surface (Exs. 116.2; 120.1).
    Paragraph (c)(2) requires employers to provide portable or
emergency lights for the safe movement of employees on a vessel or
vessel section when the only means of illumination comes from off-
vessel light sources. The proposed rule contained a similar
requirement. Like paragraph (c)(1), this provision is needed because
off-vessel lighting could fail, making it hazardous for employees to
move around or exit a dark area on the vessel or vessel section. If
off-vessel lights stop working when employees are working below deck on
a vessel, the workers could be injured or killed if they try to move
around or exit the space.
    Final paragraph (c)(2) changes the proposed rule in two respects.
First, the final rule allows employers to provide either emergency or
portable lights. The proposed rule would have required employers to
provide portable lights. OSHA is expanding the final rule because some
stakeholders said they use back-up generators that activate if off-
vessel lights go out (Ex. 168, p. 243).
    Second, the final rule deletes the proposed language requiring that
employers ensure that portable lights are available in ``the immediate
work area.'' Some stakeholders questioned what the immediate work area
is when lights go out and asked OSHA to define the term in the final
rule (Ex. 168, p. 297). After reviewing the record, OSHA finds that
what constitutes an immediate work area on a vessel varies based on
factors such as the size of the vessel and its work areas, the number
of employees working on the vessel and in specific work areas, and the
type of portable or emergency lights being provided. OSHA believes
employers

need to examine those factors to determine where portable and emergency
lights need to be located to ensure each employee is able to move
safely.
    Also implicit in paragraph (c)(2) is the requirement that employers
provide an adequate number of portable or emergency lights to ensure
that each employee is able to move about and exit the dark areas
safely. The factors employers use to determine where portable lights
need to be located are the same factors for determining the number of
portable or emergency lights necessary to ensure that each worker can
safely move about if the lights go out.
    A number of commenters, including Puget Sound Shipbuilders
Association, American Seafoods Company, Trident Seafoods Corporation,
and Bath Iron Works, also questioned whether OSHA was requiring each
worker to carry a flashlight or portable light at all times (Exs.
104.1; 105.1; 106.1; 107.1; 124). OSHA is not requiring that every
worker have a portable light when working on a vessel. For instance, if
a number of employees work in the same area on a vessel, one portable
light may be sufficient to allow them to move around safely and exit
the vessel. However, when an employee is working alone, especially in
an isolated area or confined space, the employer must ensure that the
worker has a portable or emergency light.
    OSHA does not believe that employers will have difficulty complying
with this provision. A number of stakeholders commented that they
already provide portable or emergency lights to employees working on
vessels so they can move safely if the lights go out (Exs. 99; 104.1;
107.1; 114.1; 116.2; 120.1).
    Some stakeholders said that they have other procedures they follow
when power outages occur on vessels, including having workers stay in
place in the dark area until lights are reenergized or someone comes
with portable or emergency lights (Exs. 119.1; 125; 168, pp. 242-43).
These stakeholders said their ``stand fast'' policies were safe and
adequate, and they should be allowed to continue those practices
instead of following paragraph (c)(2) (Exs. 119.1; 125). OSHA does not
consider such a practice, by itself, to be sufficient to ensure the
safety of workers. For example, it could take hours for lights to be
restored, making it difficult for workers to stand fast in dark areas.
In addition, if lights have gone off because a situation requires
workers to evacuate the vessel immediately, a stand-fast policy could
endanger not only the workers waiting in dark areas on the vessel, but
also any worker who comes with a light to help them exit the vessel.
    The American Shipbuilding Association requested an exception to
paragraph (c)(2) when natural sunlight provides sufficient illumination
(Ex. 117.1). OSHA's intention was to require that employers provide
portable or emergency lights to help workers exit dark areas if off-
vessel lights go out. If natural sunlight is sufficient to allow a
worker to move safely or exit the vessel, employers do not have to
provide portable or emergency lights. The Agency has included language
in paragraph (c)(2) clarifying this point.
Paragraph (d)--Explosion-Proof, Self-Contained Lights
    Paragraph (d) specifies what type of portable lights employers must
provide for use in areas that are not gas-free. The final rule, like
proposed paragraph (c)(3), requires employers to ensure that only
``explosion-proof, self-contained'' portable lights or other electrical
equipment approved by a nationally recognized testing laboratory (NRTL)
are used. Existing provision Sec.  1915.92(e) also sets forth the same
requirements for lights in non-gas-free areas, but does so by
referencing Sec.  1915.13(b)(9). Both the proposal and the final rule
added the pertinent language from Sec.  1915.13(b)(9) to paragraph (d)
thus eliminating the need for employers to reference another standard.
    Several stakeholders requested OSHA to clarify that the provision
applies to areas with the potential for a flammable atmosphere (Exs.
112.1; 116.2; 120.1; 121.1; 198, pp. 87, 162). OSHA agrees that it is
important that employers clearly understand the types of atmospheres in
which explosion-proof, self-contained portable and temporary lights are
needed. Therefore, OSHA added language to paragraph (d) stating that
explosion-proof, self-contained lights are required in any area where
the atmosphere is determined to contain a concentration of flammable
vapors that are at or above 10 percent of the lower explosive limit, as
specified in part 1915, subparts B and C.

Section 1915.83--Utilities

    Section 1915.83 of the final rule addresses requirements to protect
workers from hazards associated with the unchecked release of steam or
electricity, excessive wear and tear of steam hoses that could
compromise their integrity, and burns and fires from unguarded heat
lamps.
Paragraph (a)--Steam Supply System
    Paragraph (a)(1) requires that employers ensure that the vessel's
steam piping system, including hoses, is designed to safely handle the
working pressure prior to supplying steam from an outside source to the
vessel. Paragraph (a)(1) revises the term ``responsible vessel's
representative'' in the existing provision (Sec.  1915.93(a)(1)) to
``responsible vessel's representative, contractor, or any other person
who is qualified by training, knowledge, or experience,'' and requires
this individual to determine whether the working pressure is safe.
    The proposed rule would have required employers to ensure that the
steam supply system has a safe working pressure, but did not carry
forward the existing requirement to ascertain that information from a
vessel's representative. Instead, the proposed rule would have given
employers flexibility in determining the most effective way to ensure
that the steam system's working pressure is safe before supplying steam
from an outside source.
    In the preamble to the proposal, OSHA explained that its intention
in proposing to revise the requirement for a vessel's representative
was to give employers greater flexibility in determining who they could
use to ascertain whether the working pressure was safe--for example, a
vessel's representative, contractor, or any other person qualified to
make such a determination (72 FR 72452, 72462, Dec. 20, 2007). Trident
Seafoods Corporation requested that OSHA make this point clear by
adding the preamble language to the final regulatory text (Exs. 104.1;
107.1; 198, p. 73). OSHA agrees with the commenter that including the
preamble language in the regulatory text will provide employers with
clear and useful information about the various qualified persons whom
they can use to comply with the requirement to ensure that the working
pressure of the steam system is safe. OSHA also believes that requiring
employers to ascertain from a qualified person whether the working
pressure is safe will enhance worker safety because it builds regular
safety checks into the process.
    Atlantic Marine expressed concerns that paragraph (a)(1) would
require employers to have written documentation that steam supply
systems have safe working pressure and that other requirements in
paragraph (a) have been met (Exs. 115.1; 118.1). OSHA does not intend
to require employers to document in writing that a qualified person has
determined that

the working pressure of the steam supply system is safe. Hence, the
Agency has revised the language in paragraphs (a)(1) and (c)(3) to
clarify that employers do not have to maintain written documentation.
    Paragraph (a)(2) sets forth several requirements regarding relief
valves and pressure gauges for a steam supply connected to the vessel's
steam system. Several commenters asked OSHA to clarify in paragraph
(a)(2) whether ``each steam supply system'' is limited to those systems
connected to a vessel's steam piping system (Exs. 106.1; 115.1; 117.1;
118.1). OSHA intended that the requirements in paragraph (a)(2) apply
only to outside steam supply systems connected to the vessel's steam
piping system, and has added language to the final rule to clarify that
intention.
    Paragraph (a)(2) carries over a number of the requirements from the
existing rule. Paragraph (a)(2)(i) requires that both the pressure
gauge and relief valve be installed at the point where the steam pipe
or hose from an outside steam source joins a vessel's steam piping
system. Paragraph (a)(2)(ii) requires that the relief valves of outside
steam systems be set to relieve excess steam, and be capable of
relieving steam, at a pressure that does not exceed the safe working
pressure of the vessel's steam piping system in its present condition.
Paragraph (a)(2)(iii) requires that there be no means of inadvertently
disconnecting the relief valve from the system that it protects. OSHA
did not receive any comments on these provisions.
    Paragraph (a)(2)(iv) specifies that pressure gauges and relief
valves of steam supply systems be legible and located so that they are
visible and readily accessible. This additional language will address
SESAC's concerns that workers cannot read gauges and valves because
they are too dirty or the print is too small (Docket SESAC 1992-2, Ex.
102X, pp. 94-96). OSHA believes that illegible pressure gauges can be
hazardous. Employees working in or walking through the area need to be
able to readily identify whether pressure is increasing to a hazardous
level or continues to be at a safe level. Therefore, OSHA has retained
the proposed requirement that pressure gauges be visible, accessible,
and legible to allow employers and employees to determine accurately
whether the working pressure of the steam supply system is safe.
    Paragraph (a)(2)(v) requires that relief valves be positioned so
they will not be likely to cause injury if steam is released. The
proposed rule (paragraph (a)(5)) would have required that relief valves
be ``located or positioned'' where workers would not be injured if
steam were released.
    One commenter suggested that the provision in proposed paragraph
(a)(5) (paragraph (a)(2)(i) of the final rule), requiring pressure
gauges and relief valves to be installed at the connection point
between the outside steam hose and the vessel's steam piping system,
would not work. Sound Testing, Inc., stated:

    The requirement of having a relief valve installed right next to
the pressure gauge might endanger the worker each time he or she
approaches to check the pressure. If the pressure were too high, and
the pressure relief valve ruptured just as the worker was reading
the gauge, the superheated steam would burn his or her face
instantly. The pressure gauge and the relief valve should be located
at least 15 to 20 feet apart (Ex. 121.1).

    OSHA believes it is the positioning of the relief valve that
protects workers against injury if steam is released. For example, the
relief valve should not be positioned so that, if an employee is
walking by and the steam is released, the employee would be injured.
Therefore, in the final rule OSHA requires the employer to position the
relief valve so that it is not likely to cause injury if steam is
released, regardless of where the valve is located.
Paragraph (b)--Steam Hoses
    Paragraph (b)(1) requires that employers ensure that steam hoses
and their fittings are used in accordance with manufacturers'
specifications. The proposed rule (proposed paragraph (b)(1)), similar
to the existing standard (Sec.  1915.93(a)(2)), would have required
that the employer ensure that all steam hoses and fittings have a
safety factor of at least five.
    Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding--Newport News and Alaska Ship and
Drydock opposed the proposed requirement and recommended that OSHA
specify that steam hoses and their fittings be used in accordance with
manufacturers' specifications (Exs. 116.1; 120.1). They pointed out
that manufacturers use a safety factor of 4, not the 5 as OSHA
proposed. Northrop Grumman added that there are issues in addition to
safety factors that are important in ensuring that steam hoses and
fittings are safe. For example, manufacturers also specify the
temperatures, in addition to pressure ratings, that must not be
exceeded (Exs. 116.1; 120.1).
    Kim Hodne, of Alaska Ship and Drydock, testified that his company
contacted vendors and found that steam hoses for feed lines with a
safety factor of 5 do not exist, and that all of the hoses his facility
uses are rated at 250 psi (Ex. 198, pp. 111-112).
    In light of these comments, OSHA has modified final paragraph
(b)(1) to require that steam hoses and their fittings be used in
accordance with manufacturers' specifications. The change gives
employers flexibility, and ensures that steam hoses meet all critical
specifications necessary to protect employees from injury.
    Paragraph (b)(2) requires that employers hang steam hoses tightly
with short bights to prevent chafing and to reduce tension on the hose
and its fittings. The proposed rule contained an identical requirement.
    Commenters requested that OSHA define the term ``short bight''
(Exs. 129.1; 132.2). For example, the U.S. Navy recommended defining
the term to mean ``when a steam hose is hung in a bight or bights, the
weight shall be received by appropriate lines that are spaced not to
exceed eight feet maximum along the entire run'' (Ex. 132.2). In
response, OSHA defined ``short bight'' in the final rule (Sec.
1915.80(b)) as a loop made in a line or rope that is used to tie back
or fasten hoses, piping, wiring, or fittings. OSHA did not adopt the
Navy's recommendation that bights not be spaced further than eight feet
apart along the entire run (Ex. 132.2). In this regard, OSHA believes
that the performance-based requirement in paragraph (b) adequately
ensures that bights will be placed so they ``prevent chafing and reduce
tension,'' while giving employers flexibility in determining how best
to space the bights so they prevent damage to hoses. Moreover, the Navy
did not provide any information or explanation demonstrating that a
maximum distance of eight feet between bights was appropriate and would
adequately protect hoses on vessels.
    Paragraph (b)(3) requires that steam hoses be protected from
damage. The proposed rule contained an identical provision. OSHA
believes that preventing damage to steam hoses is necessary to protect
employees working or walking near steam hoses. In walking and work
areas, steam hoses can be damaged when equipment and materials are
moved or operated nearby. Employees could be seriously injured if a
damaged hose suddenly releases steam. Stakeholders did not submit
comments on the proposed provision.
    Paragraph (b)(4) requires that employers shield steam hoses and
temporary steam piping, including metal fittings and couplings
(hereafter collectively referred to as ``hoses''), if they pass through
walkways or work

areas. OSHA believes that shielding hoses is necessary to protect
workers from accidentally contacting hot elements and getting burned.
The proposed rule (proposed Sec.  1915.83(a)(4)) contained a similar
requirement that would have updated the existing rule, which only
required that hoses be shielded if they passed through ``normal work
areas,'' but did not require shielding for hoses passing through other
work areas or walkways.
    Several commenters opposed the shielding provision and suggested
various revisions (Exs. 106.1; 116.1; 117.1; 120.1). For instance, Bath
Iron Works opposed the requirement because vessels contain thousands of
feet of steam hoses and ``installing shielding the entire run isn't
practical'' (Ex. 106.1). They also said shielding was ``not a good
practice'' because it would compromise the physical integrity of the
hoses, which ``tend to become brittle when they are not allowed to
breathe'' (Ex. 106.1).
    OSHA does not find that either of these arguments supports deleting
or revising paragraph (b)(4) (proposed Sec.  1915.83(a)(2)(iv)). First,
although OSHA agrees that vessels contain thousands of feet of steam
hoses, not all of them pass through walkways or work areas. In fact,
Bath Iron Works said they try to re-route hoses so they will not be in
walkways or work areas (Ex. 106.1). As such, only a portion of the
hose, not the entire run, will need to be shielded. Second, the final
rule gives employers flexibility in determining what types of shielding
to use or install. The only requirement is that the shielding protects
workers from contacting hot steam hoses. Employers are free to select
shielding that protects against contact while still allowing the hoses
to ``breathe.''
    American Shipbuilding Association (ASA) said OSHA should revise
paragraph (b)(4) to allow shipyards to re-route hoses as an alternative
to shielding them (Ex. 117.1). Paragraph (b)(4) does not prohibit