General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment, 72452-72520 [E7-24073]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
• Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 244 (Thursday, December 20, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72452-72520]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-24073]



[[Page 72451]]

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

Part II





Department of Labor





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



Occupational Safety and Health Administration



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



29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1915



General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 244 / Thursday, December 20, 2007 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 72452]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1915

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


General Working Conditions in Shipyard Employment

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

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. OSHA-S049-
2006-0675, by any of the following methods:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments 
electronically at https://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions on-line for making 
electronic submissions.
    Fax: If your comments, including attachments, do not exceed 10 
pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger or courier service: 
You must submit three copies of your comments and attachments to the 
OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675, U.S. Department of 
Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; 
telephone (202) 693-2350 (OSHA's TTY number is (877) 889-5627). 
Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger and courier service) are 
accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal 
business hours, 8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the 
docket number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675). All 
comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in 
the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
https://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions you about 
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and 
birthdates. For further information on submitting comments, plus 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public 
Participation'' heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 
this document.
    Docket: To read or download comments and materials submitted in 
response to this Federal Register notice, go to Docket No. OSHA-S049-
2006-0675 at https://regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at the 
address above. All comments and submissions in response to this Federal 
Register notice are listed in the https://regulations.gov index; 
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly 
available to read or download through the Web page. All comments and 
submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for 
inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
    For information on reading or downloading exhibits referenced in 
this Federal Register notice, see the ``References and exhibits'' and 
``Public Participation'' headings in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
section of this document.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register document are available 
at https://www.regulations.gov. This document, as well as news releases 
and other relevant information, also are available at OSHA's Web page 
at https://www.osha.gov

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    Press inquiries: Kevin Ropp, OSHA, Office of Communications, Room 
N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-1999.
    For general and technical information: Dorothy Dougherty, Director, 
OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Room N-3718, U.S. 
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20210; telephone (202) 693-2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

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

References and Exhibits

    In this Federal Register notice, OSHA references documents in 
Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675 (formerly OSHA Docket No. S-049) as well 
as documents in the following OSHA rulemakings and advisory committee 
proceedings, which OSHA is incorporating by reference into the docket 
of this rulemaking:
     The proceedings of the Shipyard Employment Standards 
Advisory Committee (SESAC) (Docket Nos. SESAC-1988 through SESAC-1993);
     The proceedings of the Maritime Advisory Committee for 
Occupational Safety and Health (Docket Nos. MACOSH-1995 through MACOSH-
2005);
     The General Industry Lockout/Tagout rulemaking record 
(Docket Nos. S-012, S-012A and S-012B;
     The Shipyard Employment Standards rulemaking record 
(Docket No. S-024); and
     The Field Sanitation rulemaking record (Docket No. H-308).
    References to documents in Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675. In this 
Federal Register notice, references to documents in Docket No. OSHA-
S049-2006-0675 (formerly OSHA Docket No. S-049) are given as ``Ex.'' 
followed by the number of the document. These exhibits are posted in 
both Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675 (which is available at https://
www.regulations.gov) and OSHA Docket No. S-049 (which is available at 
https://dockets.osha.gov). The referenced exhibits are also available 
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office (see ADDRESSES 
section).
    References to documents in the dockets incorporated by reference. 
In this Federal Register notice, references to documents in the dockets 
listed above that OSHA is incorporating by reference are given as the 
docket number followed by the document number. Thus, the reference to 
``Docket H-308, Ex. 1'' means Exhibit 1 in the Field Sanitation 
rulemaking docket. For access to exhibits in OSHA Docket H-308 and the 
other dockets above that OSHA is incorporating by reference, go to 
OSHA's Webpage at https://

[[Page 72453]]

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

I. Background

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

Hazards

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

Accident, Fatality and Injury Data

    OSHA examined several data sources to identify and characterize the 
risks shipyard employees face from the hazards this proposal addresses. 
These data show, for example, that the shipyard industry has one of the 
highest rates and severity of workplace injury of all private sector 
industries.
    Fatalities. To identify shipyard fatalities, OSHA reviewed accident 
data from OSHA's Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) 
accident database (fatal and serious injury requiring hospitalization) 
and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Census of Fatal Occupational 
Injuries (CFOI). According to the IMIS data, there were 231 fatal 
shipyard accidents during the years 1987-2002, which is an average of 
15 shipyard fatalities each year (Ex. 13). This estimate is consistent 
with CFOI, which reported 155 shipyard fatalities from 1992-2002 or an 
average of 14 fatalities per year. According to CFOI data, during most 
of those years the fatality rate in shipyard employment was about twice 
the rate for all private industry combined, which further demonstrates 
the hazardous nature of work in shipyard employment. As discussed 
below, many of those shipyard fatalities involved the types of hazards 
this rulemaking addresses.
    Injuries and illnesses. To estimate the number of shipyard injuries 
and illnesses, OSHA used the BLS annual survey of employers, which 
produces statistical estimates of occupational injuries and illnesses 
by industry and specific characteristics (www.bls.gov). From 1992-2002, 
BLS data show that the occupational injury and illness rate for 
shipyard employment declined from 34.2 per 100 full-time employees in 
1992 to 16.6 in 2002. Lost workday injury and illness rates showed a 
similar trend, declining from 16.9 in 1993 to 9.3 in 2002 (See Table 
1). However, despite these improvements, the industry's injury and 
illness rates continue to be more than three times the average private 
sector rate of 5.3 for injuries and illnesses combined and 2.8 for lost 
workday cases (Table 1).
    Using the median number of days away from work per case as an 
indicator of severity, the injuries and illnesses shipyard employees 
experienced were, on average, more severe than those in the private 
sector as a whole as well as in the manufacturing and construction 
sectors. In 2002, for example, the median days away from work in the 
shipbuilding and repair industry was 15 days per lost workday case, 
more than double the private sector median of seven (Table 1). In 
addition, a higher percentage of lost workday cases in shipyards 
involved lengthy recovery periods. For example, more than one-third 
(34%) of shipyard lost workday cases resulted in more than 30 days away 
from work compared to one-quarter of private sector cases (Table 1).

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


[[Page 72454]]

(Source: BLS)

Need for Agency Action

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

[[Page 72455]]

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

II. Regulatory History

    The standards in subpart F have remained essentially unchanged 
since

[[Page 72456]]

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

III. Pertinent Legal Authority

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

IV. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard

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

[[Page 72457]]

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

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

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

Section 1915.80 Scope and Application

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

[[Page 72458]]

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

Section 1915.81 Housekeeping

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

[[Page 72459]]

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

Section 1915.82--Lighting

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

[[Page 72460]]

unguarded opening in the floor of a dark cargo deck and fell almost 20 
feet to his death at the bottom of the cargo hold. At the time of the 
accident, the employee was walking across the dark deck towards an open 
doorway, which provided the only illumination of the area. In another 
case, an employee climbing down a ladder in an elevator shaft that was 
dimly lit, fell 50 feet to his death. It is unclear whether the 
employee could even see the bottom of the 130-foot shaft as he was 
descending. In another case, an employee was electrocuted when he was 
performing electrical repair work at night in a poorly illuminated 
area. An accident investigation found there was ``inadequate lighting'' 
at the location where the employee was working (Ex. 14). Although the 
investigation confirmed that the controlling circuit breaker was 
closed, another switch was found in an open position, possibly because 
there was not enough light to read the switch. The existing rule 
specifies that work areas must be ``adequately illuminated'' (Sec.  
1915.92(a)). The proposed rule clarifies the existing requirement by 
setting forth specific illumination levels for various shipyard work 
locations (proposed Sec.  1915.82 Table F-1). Had the employee's work 
location been lit to the proposed levels, the employee may have been 
able to see that the oil switch was still open and close it prior to 
starting his repair work.
    SESAC recommended that OSHA add specific illumination requirements 
to this section (Docket SESAC-1992-1, Ex. 100X, 1992, p. 113), and the 
Agency agrees that the table provides useful and simple assistance for 
employers. The illumination specifications in proposed Table F-1 are 
drawn from illumination tables in the Construction Illumination (Sec.  
1926.56) and Hazardous Waste Operations (Sec.  1910.120) standards, and 
in the national consensus standard for industrial lighting (Ex. 3-8, 
ANSI/IESNA RP-9-01-2001 Recommended Practice for Lighting in Industrial 
Facilities). The proposal revises and simplifies the tables from those 
standards to make Table F-1 more applicable to shipyard employment 
conditions and activities.
    OSHA is proposing that each area of the workplace be illuminated 
according to the following intensities. In general areas, such as 
exits, accessways, stairs and walkways, the area must be illuminated 
with at least 3 lumens on vessels and vessel sections and 5 lumens on 
landside. In areas such as landside tunnels, shafts, vaults, pumping 
stations and underground work areas, and all assigned work areas on any 
vessel or vessel section, the area must be illuminated to at least 5 
lumens. Landside work areas such as machine shops, electrical equipment 
rooms, carpenter shops, lofts, tool rooms, warehouses, outdoor work 
areas, changing rooms, showers, sewered toilet facilities and all 
eating, drinking and break areas must be illuminated to 10 lumens. 
First aid stations, infirmaries and offices must be illuminated to 30 
lumens.
    OSHA notes that the Longshoring standard, 29 CFR 1918.92(a), 
requires generally that illumination for cargo transfer operations be 
of a minimum light intensity of five lumens. Where work tasks require 
more light to be performed safely, supplemental lighting must be 
provided. That approach does not provide the guidance that SESAC 
requested while proposed Table F-1 provides for those situations in 
which supplemental lighting may be necessary. OSHA does not intend to 
require that employers provide additional lighting where natural light 
provides the necessary illumination level. However, where natural light 
does not provide the required level (e.g., at dusk), the employer must 
provide additional lighting and Table F-1 specifies the appropriate 
minimum levels of illumination.
    OSHA solicits comments on the proposal as well as alternative 
approaches such as the one used in the Longshoring Standard or the 
requirements of the ANSI/IESNA standard. Are the proposed lighting 
intensities adequate? Does the table adequately address all areas of 
shipyard employment? If not, what areas need to be added?
    In paragraph (a)(2), OSHA proposes to retain unchanged the existing 
requirement (Sec.  1915.92(e)) that matches and open flame devices may 
not be used as sources of light. OSHA proposes to place this provision 
with the general requirements to reinforce its intent that matches and 
open flames are not to be used for light for any purpose, including 
emergencies, or anywhere in the shipyard, regardless of whether 
permanent, temporary or handheld portable lighting is available. Using 
matches and open flame devices, su