[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 11, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76214-76253]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-30405]



[[Page 76213]]

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

Part II





Department of Labor





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



Occupational Safety and Health Administration



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



29 CFR Part 1915



Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 11, 2002 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 76214]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1915

[Docket S-051]
RIN 1218-AB51


Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), U.S. 
Department of Labor.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is 
proposing fire protection standards for shipyard employment that were 
developed through a negotiated rulemaking process. This proposed 
standard is based on the recommendations of the Fire Protection in 
Shipyard Employment Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee and is a 
comprehensive standard for the protection of shipyard employment 
workers from the hazards of fire on land side and on board vessels. The 
proposed standard reflects new technologies and current national 
consensus standards. The proposal collects all fire-related safety 
practices into a single subpart, which will make them more accessible 
and more easily understood by employers and employees. The standard 
will provide increased protection of shipyard employment workers from 
fire hazards.

DATES: Comments must be submitted by the following dates:
    Hard Copy: Your comments must be submitted (postmarked or sent) by 
March 11, 2003.
    Facsimile and electronic transmission: Your comments must be sent 
by March 11, 2003. (Please see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION provided 
below for additional information on submitting comments.)

ADDRESSES: Regular mail, express delivery, hand-delivery, and messenger 
service: You must submit three copies of your comments and attachments 
to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. H-011G, Room N-2625, U.S. 
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 
20210. OSHA Docket Office and Department of Labor hours of operation 
are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.s.t.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including any attachments, are 10 
pages or fewer, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 
693-1648. You must include the docket number of this notice, Docket No. 
H-011G, in your comments.
    Electronic: You may submit comments through the Internet at http://ecomments.osha.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information and press 
inquiries, contact Ms. Bonnie Friedman, OSHA, Office of Information and 
Consumer Affairs, N-3647, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20210; telephone: (202) 693-1999. For additional copies of this Federal 
Register notice, contact OSHA, Office of Publications, U.S. Department 
of Labor, Room N-3101, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 
20210; telephone (202) 693-1888. Electronic copies of this Federal 
Register notice, as well as news releases and other relevant documents, 
are available at OSHA's web page on the Internet at http://www.osha.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Submission of Comments on This Notice and Internet Access to Comments 
and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this notice by (1) hard 
copy, or (2) FAX transmission (facsimile), or (3) electronically 
through the OSHA Webpage. Please note that you cannot attach materials, 
such as studies or journal articles, to electronic comments. If you 
have additional materials, you must submit three copies of them to the 
OSHA Docket Office at the address above. The additional materials must 
clearly identify your electronic comments by name, date, subject and 
docket number so we can attach them to your comments. Because of 
security-related problems there may be a significant delay in the 
receipt of comments by regular mail. Please contact the OSHA Docket 
Office at (202)-693-2350 for information about security procedures 
concerning the delivery of materials by express delivery, hand delivery 
and messenger service. All comments and submissions will be available 
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office at the address 
above. Comments and submissions posted on OSHA's Webpage are available 
at http://www.osha.gov. OSHA cautions you about submitting personal 
information such as social security numbers and birth dates. Contact 
the OSHA Docket Office at (202)-693-2350 for information about 
materials not available through the OSHA Webpage and for assistance in 
using the Webpage to locate docket submissions.

Table of Contents

    This Preamble to the proposed standard is organized into the 
following sections:

I. Background
II. The Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment Negotiated Rulemaking 
Advisory Committee
III. Pertinent Legal Authority
IV. Summary and Explanation of Proposal
V. Summary of the Preliminary Economic and Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Screening Analyses
VI. OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
VII. Public Participation
VIII State Plan Standards
IX. Federalism
X. Unfunded Mandates
XI. Authority and Signature

I. Background

    Employees in shipyard employment are subject to a high risk of 
injury and death from fires and explosions during ship repair, 
shipbuilding, shipbreaking, and related work activities as well as 
firefighting activities. Many of the basic tasks involved in shipyard 
employment (also referred to as just ``shipyards'' hereafter), such as 
welding, grinding, and cutting metal with torches, provide an ignition 
source for fires. There are also many combustible sources on vessels 
and in shipyards, including flammable fuels and cargo on vessels, wood 
structures, building materials, and litter. When cutting torches are 
used in enclosed or confined spaces, accidental oxygen-enriched 
atmospheres can cause normally fire resistant-materials to readily 
burn. When fires do occur, employees are often working in confined or 
enclosed spaces that may make escape difficult or impossible, and 
result in atmospheres of combustible gases, toxic fumes, or oxygen-
depleted air.
    Shipyard employees are therefore at risk from fires that can result 
in burns, death, explosions, toxic gases and fumes, and asphyxiation 
from a lack of oxygen. Based on data collected by the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, there is an annual average of one fatality, 110 lost-
workday ``heat/burn'' injuries, and more than three times that many 
total injuries (Ex. 15).
    In addition, employees are also at special risk when fighting fires 
in shipyards. Fighting fires at shoreside facilities in shipyards can 
be similar to structural firefighting at typical industrial 
manufacturing facilities. The usual firefighting hazards encountered 
include compressed gas cylinders, flammable liquid processes and 
storage, high-voltage electric switches and transformers, and high-
density combustible materials storage.

[[Page 76215]]

Structures at shipyards can range from single-story office buildings to 
warehouses to massive fabrication shops. Fires can also be encountered 
in tunnel sections, rail cars, vessel components, and similar units 
under construction, repair, or demolition at the shipyard site.
    However, firefighting on board vessels can be considerably 
different from structural firefighting. When traditional structural 
firefighting techniques are used on vessel fires, the result can be 
catastrophic. The potential is much greater for serious injury to 
firefighting personnel when tactics do not reflect the unique nature of 
ship firefighting. For example, there may be little or no ability to 
ventilate the heat, smoke, and gases produced by a fire. Typically, in 
structural firefighting, immediate steps are taken to open up the 
structure, vertically and horizontally, to remove smoke and heat. Hose 
lines are then used to attack the fire. When fighting a ship fire, one 
of the first steps that may be taken is to shut down ventilation 
systems to close off the fire's progression and starve it of oxygen. 
Hose lines are used to cool down surrounding metal decks and bulkheads. 
A defensive fire-fighting option for large or intense structural fires 
is to ``surround and drown'; that is, position hose lines outside the 
structure and apply voluminous amounts of water until the fire goes 
out. Strategic options for vessel fires are very limited and nearly 
always require an aggressive interior attack. Small shipyards have 
outside fire responders. These municipal or other fire departments may 
not have much experience in fighting fires in shipyards or, especially, 
on vessels. Proper coordination, familiarization, and training is 
necessary to ensure the safety of outside firefighters who respond to 
shipyard fires.
    Vessel fires are also more complicated because, in most cases, 
outside firefighters seldom have the opportunity to learn the layout of 
the vessel. Vessels under construction or modification have constantly 
changing structures. Firefighters, operating under adverse conditions 
caused by heat and smoke, can easily become disoriented or confused. 
Access to the vessel may be restricted by its location, such as within 
a dry dock, meaning that firefighters boarding the ship will have to 
converge on one or two access locations. This can lead to congestion of 
personnel and delays in locating and extinguishing the fire. Access can 
also be restricted by equipment, tools, vessel components, and 
structures. Staging platforms, scaffolding or rigging, cranes, and even 
mooring lines can hamper deploying hose lines and positioning 
apparatus, again causing delays and confusion. Even with unrestricted 
access to the vessel, deploying hose lines can be time-consuming and 
labor intensive. To attack a fire deep within a ship, firefighting 
hoses may have to be stretched hundreds of feet, a task that requires 
time and a lot of people.
    Maintaining an adequate supply of air is another tactical problem 
for firefighting operations on ships. Firefighters will usually be 
equipped with self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) that optimally 
provide a 30-minute supply, after which the compressed air bottle will 
have to be refilled or replaced. Ship fire-fighting operations can last 
many hours; firefighters have to be rotated frequently to resupply 
their SCBA and counteract fatigue.
    Ships' fires also present a problem firefighters do not often have 
to think about--introducing a large amount of water into the vessel, so 
much so that the vessel can become unstable and possibly capsize or 
sink. This potential problem requires consultation with experts (such 
as naval architects or U.S. Coast Guard engineers) to assure vessel 
stability.
    Radio communication is another complicating factor common to 
fighting ship fires. Steel bulkheads and many compartments in ships 
effectively block and limit radio signal transmissions. To compensate, 
firefighters have to relay messages from within the ship by stationing 
personnel with radios close enough that transmissions can be sent and 
received. Other alternatives include using runners or deploying hard-
wire communications systems. All possible solutions to this problem 
involve additional personnel, delays in establishing command and 
control, and increase the potential for mishaps.
    Fires in shipyard employment present significant, serious hazards 
to those who work to control them. These hazards can be found in 
shipbuilding, as well as in shipbreaking and ship repair. Because 
firefighters must function on both land side and on board vessels, they 
need a single set of standards and training to do so safely. Likewise, 
other shipyard employees move from ship to shore frequently and need a 
single standard and training on alarms, evacuation, and the many other 
response actions.
    OSHA's general industry standards for fire protection are in 
subpart L, CFR 1910.155 through 1910.165. The application of subpart L, 
CFR 1910.155(b), exempts maritime employments from coverage. Subpart L 
addresses typical land-side fire prevention and firefighting conditions 
(fire extinguishers, fixed extinguishing systems, etc.). OSHA 
compliance policy, set out in OSHA Instruction STD.2 addresses typical 
land-side fire hazards in shipyards. Since the Agency has no specific 
standards that address the risks of fire on board vessels and vessel 
sections, OSHA has used the General Duty Clause section 5 (a)(1) of the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act to cite fire safety hazards on both 
land-side facilities and on board vessels and vessel sections (also 
referred to as just ``vessels'' hereafter). To enforce the General Duty 
Clause, OSHA must show the existence of a hazard, that the hazard is 
recognized, that the hazard is causing, or is likely to cause serious 
physical harm to employees, and that a feasible means exists to abate 
the hazard. To demonstrate industry recognition and feasible abatement 
measures, OSHA has relied upon standards published by the Coast Guard 
and other branches of the Federal Government to identify hazards and 
abatement steps as well as guidelines developed by professional 
associations such as the National Fire Protection Association and the 
Marine Chemists Association.
    The lack of a clear OSHA standard for fire protection on vessels, 
and the multiplicity of guidelines and standards from other sources 
that potentially apply to shipyards can result in uncertainty about, 
and gaps in, the safety requirements for employers in the shipyard 
industry. The Agency has preliminarily concluded that codifying 
relevant issues for fire protection in shipyards into a single subpart 
in CFR part 1915 will substantially clarify an employer's 
responsibilities in protecting shipyard employees from fire hazards. 
The Agency believes that this, in turn, will lead to better protection 
for these employees.
    Simply extending application of the current general industry 
standards to shipyards would not be appropriate. First, most of the 
provisions in the general industry standards have been in effect since 
1980. They would need revision to take into account technological 
advances that could improve fire protection in shipyard employment. 
These advances are recognized in the proposed new subpart P. Secondly, 
shipyard employment encompasses many tasks and worksites that are 
unique to the maritime industry. Employers, labor representatives and 
professional and trade associations have repeatedly asked OSHA to allow 
all shipyard employment to be covered by a single set of standards. 
They point out that the

[[Page 76216]]

work situations found within shipyard employment have more in common 
with each other than with those in general industry, and that the 
hazards and methods of controlling the hazards are similar throughout 
the shipyard. Finally, they point out that the work on land and aboard 
the vessels is located within the same area and performed by the same 
workforce. Fire protection services are usually provided by the same 
in-yard plant or out-of-yard fire crews to all areas of shipyard 
employment. OSHA's Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for subpart 
P (hereafter ``the Committee'') concluded that when fire response crews 
find shipyard employment sites following the same standard, the crews 
are more effective in their fire response activities. OSHA agrees and 
has preliminarily concluded that a single new standard addressing fire 
hazards for all shipyard employment, on land and on board vessels, is 
reasonably necessary and appropriate to protect shipyard employees.
    The Agency has also preliminarily concluded that there is a 
significant risk to employees of material impairment from fires, 
explosions, and fire-related accidents causing death, burns, and 
injuries related to fire and fighting fires. OSHA further concludes 
that the proposal's requirements for inspections before beginning hot 
work, fire watches, fire planning, training, and other provisions will 
help save lives and prevent injuries. Proposed subpart P will 
substantially reduce this risk of fire by recognizing and, in some 
cases, requiring new technology.
    OSHA established the Shipyard Employment Standards Advisory 
Committee (SESAC) in 1990. SESAC was formed to guide OSHA in revising, 
consolidating, and modernizing the varying sets of rules that were 
being applied in the shipyard employment industry into what would 
ultimately become a single comprehensive set of standards for all 
shipyard employment. The new shipyard employment standards would apply 
to all shipyard employment, regardless of geographic location. In 1991 
SESAC began work on standards on fire protection for all shipyard 
employment. The SESAC Subcommittee on Fire Protection, after reviewing 
pertinent federal regulations and guidelines issued by professional 
associations, drafted a shipyard employment fire protection standard 
(SESAC, Ex. 9). However, not all of its provisions were written in 
regulatory language and the provisions did not address all of the 
issues that need to be considered in an OSHA rulemaking.
    The shipyard employment workgroup of the Maritime Advisory 
Committee on Occupational Safety and Health (MACOSH) briefly discussed 
fire protection and negotiated rulemaking at its September 1995 meeting 
in New Orleans, Louisiana. Members urged OSHA to proceed with a fire 
protection standard, although some members suggested the MACOSH 
shipyard employment workgroup take up the fire protection issues if 
OSHA was unable to do a fire protection negotiated rulemaking.
    On June 6, 1996, OSHA announced its intent to establish a Fire 
Protection in Shipyard Employment Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory 
Committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the 
Negotiated Rulemaking Act (NRA)(61 FR 28824). The Committee would 
negotiate issues associated with developing a notice of proposed 
rulemaking to regulate fire hazards in shipyard employment. The 
Committee would be made up of representatives of the parties interested 
in, or affected by, the outcome of the proposed rule. OSHA asked 
interested parties to submit their nominations for membership or 
request representation on the Committee. The Agency planned public 
meetings for the Committee along the United States coastlines in an 
effort to provide small employers with the access they needed to 
participate in this rulemaking effort.

II. The Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment Negotiated Rulemaking 
Advisory Committee

    Negotiated rulemaking is a process by which a proposed rule is 
developed through negotiation among a committee composed of 
representatives of all the interests that will be significantly 
affected by the rule. Negotiation allows interested parties to discuss 
possible approaches to various issues and arrive at jointly agreed or 
acceptable provisions for a standard. The negotiation process involves 
a mutual education of the parties on the reasons for different 
positions on the issues as well as on the concerns about the practical 
impact of various approaches.
    The process is started by the Agency's identification of all 
interests potentially affected by the rulemaking under consideration. 
To help in this identification process, the Agency publishes a notice 
in the Federal Register, called ``an intent to negotiate,'' which 
identifies a preliminary list of interests and requests public comment. 
Also included in this notice is a statement that the Agency intends to 
negotiate and develop a proposed rule; a description of the subject and 
scope of the rule to be developed and the issues to be considered; a 
proposed agenda and schedule for completing the work of the committee; 
and even a possible list of persons who may be nominated.
    After receiving comment, the Agency chooses an advisory committee 
of those nominated to represent these various interests. Representation 
on the committee may be direct, that is, each member represents a 
specific interest, or indirect, through coalitions of parties formed 
for this purpose. An Agency representative is a member of the 
committee, representing the Federal government's own set of interests. 
The negotiated rulemaking advisory committee is chaired by a mediator, 
who facilitates the negotiation process.
    Once a negotiated rulemaking committee reaches consensus on the 
provisions of a proposed rule, the Agency, consistent with its legal 
obligations, uses this as the basis of its proposed standard, which is 
published in the Federal Register. This provides the required public 
notice and allows for a public comment period. Other participants and 
other interested parties retain their rights to comment, participate in 
an informal hearing (if requested), and seek judicial review. OSHA 
anticipates, however, that the pre-proposal consensus reached by the 
Committee will effectively narrow the number of controversial issues in 
the subsequent rulemaking.
    The Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 (5 U.S.C. 561 et seq.) (NRA) 
allows OSHA to establish a negotiated rulemaking committee if it is 
determined that using the negotiated rulemaking procedure is in the 
public interest. As noted above, OSHA has made this determination for 
this rulemaking activity. Each committee member participates in 
resolving the interests and concerns of other members instead of 
leaving it up to OSHA to bridge different points of view. A key 
principle of negotiated rulemaking is that agreement is reached by 
consensus of all the interests. The NRA defines consensus as unanimous 
concurrence among the interests represented on a negotiated rulemaking 
committee, unless the committee itself unanimously agrees to use a 
different definition of consensus.
    The Agency determined that the selection criteria listed in the NRA 
were met, and that there was a need to issue fire protection 
requirements that would apply to all shipyard employment. Finally, 
parties representing significant interests requested that OSHA use the 
negotiated rulemaking process on subpart P and acknowledged the need 
for a new standard.

[[Page 76217]]

    The members of the Committee are: Chris Myskowski, U.S. Coast 
Guard; Paul Jensen, NIOSH; Joseph V. Daddura, Office of Maritime 
Standards, Occupational Safety and Health Administration; G. F. Hurley, 
Norfolk Naval Shipyard; Richard Duffy, International Association of 
Firefighters (AFL-CIO, CLC); E.P. Kaiser , South Tidewater Association 
of Ship Repairs, Inc.; Guy Colonna, National Fire Protection 
Association; Russ Sill, Portland Fire Bureau; Alton Glass, United Steel 
Workers of America (AFL-CIO, CLC), who was later replaced by John 
Molovich; George Broussard, Bollinger's Shipbuilding and Ship Repair, 
who was later replaced by Mark Duley, Walker Boat Yard, Inc.; Glenn 
Harris, Ingalls Shipbuilding; Donald Mozick, Atlantic Marine, who was 
later replaced by Terry Guidry, Bollinger's Shipbuilding and Ship 
Repair; Michael Buchet, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of 
America, who was later replaced by Joseph Durst; J.D. Paulson, National 
Steel & Shipbuilding Co., Peter Schmidt, Office of Specialty Compliance 
Programs, Washington State Department of Labor and Industry.
    The first meeting of the Committee was held in Portland, Oregon, on 
October 15, 16, and 17, 1996, and was open to the public, as were all 
subsequent meetings. (All minutes and documents from the Committee 
meetings can be found in Exs. 5-1 through 5-. Minutes were recorded by 
OSHA staff for the Committee.) During this organizational meeting, the 
members were charged with their duties and procedural matters were 
addressed. The members adopted ground rules for the Committee and set 
forth substantive issues that needed to be resolved. The rulemaking 
process was explained in depth to the Committee members, so that they 
would understand their role in the process. SESAC's proposal on fire 
protection in shipyards was given to the Committee.
    Several examples of firefighting were given by members of the 
Committee and discussions were held after each example, including how 
small businesses contact outside fire departments for assistance with 
firefighting. Workgroups were established for the following areas: Fire 
Watch, Safe Work Practices, Fire Response, and Fire Protection. These 
workgroups were charged with producing a draft regulatory text and 
rationale for their parts of the safety standard. These drafts were to 
include definitions and several options in areas where the members of 
the workgroup did not agree. The Committee agreed to include sea trials 
in the scope of this regulation. Also at this meeting, an overview and 
history of the SESAC Draft Proposed Standard for Fire Protection was 
presented by a member of SESAC's workgroup. The draft, text, and 
rationale of SESAC's recommendations were reviewed. As was to become 
routine at meetings, the Committee and other participants toured nearby 
shipyards. They were MarCom Inc., Vancouver, Washington (small 
shipyard); Diversified Marine Incorporated, Portland, Oregon (small 
shipyard); and Cascade General, Portland, Oregon (large shipyard).
    The second Committee meeting was held in Jacksonville, Florida on 
February 4, 5, and 6, 1997. The Committee discussed several key issues: 
Should subpart P--Fire Protection for Shipyard Employment--apply to all 
shipyard employment? How will the standard affect out-of-yard/plant 
firefighters such as those employed by a municipal fire department? 
What controls and work practices will provide adequate protection for 
workers? Should OSHA require hot work permits? Should OSHA require 
training for all firefighters? Should OSHA incorporate U.S. Coast Guard 
regulations in this standard? Is there any difference in controls and 
work practices on land-side verses on board vessels and vessel 
sections? Should OSHA require the employer to secure (deactivate) all 
firefighting systems on board vessels when they arrive in the yard? 
Should OSHA require each shipyard to have an in-yard/plant fire 
brigade? Should OSHA require written fire plans for land side and on 
board vessels? If so, what provisions need to be included in the plans? 
Should OSHA include a requirement for de-watering (removal of 
firefighting water from the vessel) of vessels when fighting a fire on 
board a vessel? What advances in fire technology have occurred since 
OSHA's general industry standards were published that should be 
incorporated into the shipyard employment standard? Should OSHA include 
technical information in an appendix or appendices? If so, should 
appendices be mandatory?
    The Committee had a lengthy discussion about OSHA's jurisdiction. 
OSHA has no jurisdiction over municipal firefighters, but states and 
territories with OSHA-approved State Plans are required to have 
standards for state, county, and local government entities that are at 
least as protective as Federal OSHA's.
    Small employer representatives included: T.L. James & Company, 
Houma, Louisiana; Halter Marine, New Orleans, Louisiana; and Alabama 
Shipyard/Atlantic Marine, Mobile Alabama. A Chicago municipal 
firefighter also attended. Committee members and the public 
participants at this meeting took a tour of Atlantic Marine (small 
shipyard).
    A Fire Watch section workgroup met at Charleston, South Carolina, 
on March 18, 1997. The workgroup was tasked with developing proposals 
to be presented to the full Committee. Discussions included the Navy's 
NAVSEA 00907 Fire Prevention and Housekeeping standard of September 13, 
1996. The workgroup agreed that NAVSEA 00907 was not applicable to the 
safety of workers because its focus was on the protection of property. 
The workgroup also agreed on two proposals to present to the full 
Committee: That an employee performing hot work should never be his or 
her own fire watch, and that training requirements should be 
performance oriented. For example, for training employers could use 
stand-up tool-box safety meetings or written training documents as a 
basis for appropriate training sessions. Suggestions for identifying a 
fire watch included: Stickers on hats, arm bands, and vests. The topic 
of live-fire training was raised as an issue for the full Committee to 
consider.
    The third public meeting of the Committee was held in Lockport, 
Louisiana, on April 8, 9, and 10, 1997 (Ex. 5-3). The Committee's 
workgroups continued working on the issues of scope and application, 
controls and work practices, fire brigades, written fire plans, 
technological advances in fire protection, costs of fire protection, 
and appendices. There were discussions about small employer 
difficulties and on Coast Guard jurisdiction over vessels during sea 
trials. Preliminary drafts of proposed changes and preamble language 
were circulated among committee members for review and comment. At this 
meeting the Committee decided that issues upon which general agreement 
could not be reached would be raised for public comment in the 
proposal's preamble. By doing so, an issue, such as live fire training, 
would be considered by the public and OSHA and could become part of a 
final rule. Small employer representatives in attendance were: Walker 
Boat Yard; Halter Marine; Leevac Shipyard; Boland Marine; and Bollinger 
Shipyard. The Committee members and other participants toured the 
Bollinger Lockport facility and two other Bollinger facilities in the 
area (small shipyards).
    The fourth public meeting of the Committee was held in Baltimore, 
Maryland on July 15, 16, and 17, 1997

[[Page 76218]]

(Ex. 5-6). During this meeting the Committee broke out into its 
workgroups and continued to develop proposed preamble and regulatory 
text on the issues that were identified in previous meetings. OSHA 
staff explained the economic feasibility issues that are brought into 
rulemaking and gave a briefing on ``plain language.'' Carryover 
discussion items from the previous meeting were OSHA's lack of 
jurisdiction over civilian guests on board vessels during sea trials, 
municipal fire departments, and volunteers. The discussions produced 
several examples of current practices from members of the Committee.
    There was a discussion about the hazards of fixed extinguishing 
systems and members gave examples of current practices. A large West 
Coast shipyard disconnects the vessel's system because they do not want 
it to be accidentally activated. A representative from small shipyard 
on the inland waterways noted that he prefers not to deactivate a 
vessel's fixed extinguishing system, especially for a short-term repair 
job. For this type of short-term repair job, the Committee agreed that 
there are two options: Disconnect the entire system or train employees. 
Some members indicated that on some manned Navy vessels, deactivating 
the fixed extinguishing system is not an option. It was also noted 
that, on U.S. flag vessels the U.S. Coast Guard requires a time delay 
on fixed systems to allow employees to evacuate before the 
extinguishing agent is released or automatic locking doors are 
activated. There was an incident in Spain where a small fire on board a 
vessel was under control locally when another employee pulled the fixed 
fire system, causing fatalities. A presentation was given on a fire 
aboard the Melvin H. Baker II, which occurred during a hot work 
operation and caused a fatality.
    There was also a discussion of how a fire watch can alert others 
before he or she exits the dangerous areas, which fire watch duties 
should be included in safe work practices, and the important role of 
the fire watch in preventing fires and loss of life. A workgroup was 
established to work on the definitions section of the standard. Small 
employers were represented by: Bollingers Shipyard, Lockport, 
Louisiana, and the National Shipbuilders Association, Arlington, 
Virginia.
    The fifth meeting of the Committee was held in Paducah, Kentucky, 
on October 7, 8, and 9, 1997 (Ex. 5-4). At the request of the 
Shipbuilders Council of America (SCA), OSHA staff held a preliminary 
meeting on October 6. This meeting was open to the public and SCA 
invited small employers to be present. OSHA staff made presentations on 
the negotiated rulemaking process, OSHA's standards writing process, 
and the intent of the proposed Fire Protection standard. The OSHA 
Project Attorney reviewed the ground rules for negotiated rulemaking 
procedures, and answered more specific questions that the Committee had 
raised, such as regulating small businesses. Some workgroups presented 
their draft documents for discussion and approval by the full 
Committee. Those documents that were approved by the Committee were 
delivered to OSHA for further action. Some of the other topics of 
discussion were: Sliding/rolling fire doors, inadvertent activation of 
a ship's CO2 system, and live fire training. Small employer 
representatives in attendance were: Bollinger's Shipyard, Lockport, 
Louisiana; James Marine, Inc., Paducah, Kentucky; Cascade General, 
Inc., Portland, Oregon; Newpark Shipbuilding & Repair, Houston, Texas; 
Missouri Dry Dock, Cape Girardeau, Missouri; Mid South Towing, 
Metropolis, Illinois; Sea River Maritime; and American Commercial 
Marine Service Co. Unions representatives were present from Firefighter 
Local 168, Paducah, Kentucky and IBEW Local 733, Pascagoula, 
Mississippi. Committee members and the public participants toured two 
small shipyards, Walker Boatyard and James Marine, Inc., Paducah, 
Kentucky.
    The sixth public meeting of the Committee was held in San Diego, 
California, on February 24, 25, and 26, 1998 (Ex. 5-5). Discussions at 
this meeting included the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act (SBREFA), the general industry (29 CFR part 1910) 
regulations that apply to landside operations, and live fire training 
for fire watches. During this meeting, the Committee approved the 
regulatory text on hot work. Small employer representatives at this 
meeting included: Bollinger's Shipyard, Louisiana; Walker Boat Yard, 
Kentucky; Sea River Maritime; and South Tidewater Association of Ship 
Repairers (STASR), Hampton Roads, Virginia. The Committee member 
representing STASR noted that the negotiated rulemaking issues and 
products are shared by the member with 121 STASR members, who are 
mostly small employers. Committee members and the public participants 
at this meeting took a tour of the NASSCO and the NAVAL shipyards.
    The seventh meeting of the Committee was held in Linthicum, 
Maryland on June 15, 16, and 17, 1998 (Ex. 5-9). The Committee decided 
that since MACOSH has supported the Committee and intends to review its 
products, the Committee's recommendation for a proposed standard will 
be made available to them. A lengthy discussion was held on shipboard 
fixed fire protection systems, during which the Committee members 
learned that only CO2 systems have caused fatalities. This 
led to further discussion about whether or not an employer would rely 
on a vessel's fixed system as the primary source of fire protection., 
and prompted a page-by-page review of the fire response section. Topics 
discussed included the term ``qualified instructor,'' personal 
protective equipment, hose testing, and how long records must be kept.
    During the second day of this meeting, the Acting Director of 
OSHA's Office of Regulatory Analysis presented an overview of what 
requirements OSHA's economic analysis must meet. A representative from 
the Small Business Administration (SBA), Office of Advocacy also 
answered questions from the Committee and public on issues related to 
small businesses. After a review, the Committee voted to accept the 
preamble of shipboard fixed systems. The Committee further agreed to 
not bring sections of 29 CFR part 1910 over into 29 CFR part 1915 for 
land-side fixed systems, because members prefer that fire 
extinguishers, stand pipes, or sprinklers conform to NFPA 10, Standard 
for Portable fire Extinguishers, 1998 Edition (Ex. 20-1) rather than 
the older OSHA general industry standards for this type of equipment.
    The issue of records retention was reviewed. It was agreed that the 
proposal will state that records must be kept and made available for 
one year; however, an issue will be raised on one year versus three 
years retention. Large shipyards typically keep their records 
indefinitely, but in the opinion of several of their representatives, 
they would rather not be told how long records must be kept.
    Small employer representatives at this meeting included: 
Bollinger's Shipyard, Louisiana; Walker Boat Yard, Kentucky; and South 
Tidewater Association of Ship Repairers, Hampton Roads, Virginia. A 
representative from National Shipbuilders Association, Arlington, 
Virginia, also attended.
    The eighth meeting of the Committee was held in Biloxi, 
Mississippi, on September 9, 10, and 11, 1998 (Ex. 5-7). Topics of 
discussion included the progress that the definitions workgroup was 
making and the outreach programs previously completed. The public was 
polled about their expectations from

[[Page 76219]]

this negotiated rulemaking on fire protection. Other discussions were 
held on what to do with burning torches, what the extent of the 
standard was, where fire watches are not needed, and how to ensure that 
the 29 CFR part 1910 requirements are updated and that they cover the 
same work as subpart P.
    The following list of issues was distributed and discussed by the 
Committee: Can a fire response count as a drill? Is the inspection 
required in the proposal's section 504(a) and (b) already covered in 
1915.14, or does the proposal mandate that all areas--other than those 
that require a Marine Chemist or Shipyard Competent Person's 
inspection--be inspected before hot work? In section 505, Fire 
Response, should OSHA require proximity firefighting protective 
clothing for all yards and fire departments? Should an employee have 
the right to stop work if the employee felt he or she was placed in a 
dangerous situation? Does the committee want to require the employer to 
instruct on-site contractors on their fire plans? What is an 
``authorized area?'' Is a welding shop, sheet metal shop, fabricating 
shop, or subassembly area to be considered an authorized area? If so, 
does the Committee want the employer to post signs to notify employees? 
How does the employer determine the authorized area? Is it the 
Committee's understanding that the employer is to survey his shipyard 
to determine and label all working areas? How is the issue of municipal 
fire departments' response to shipyard fires to be explained in the 
preamble? How can the Committee ensure that the public understands that 
this standard does not apply to state, county, or municipal fire 
departments?
    Other issues discussed included: Proximity suits; a model training 
program for fire watches; employee participation; fire watch training; 
the requirements of subpart B, Confined and Enclosed Spaces and Other 
Dangerous Atmospheres in Shipyard Employment, that could apply in the 
hot work section; training requirements for all shipyard employees 
versus training only fire watches; liaisons between shipyards and 
outside fire responders; and the proposed requirement that all fire 
hoses used by the employer being labeled, tested, and maintained in 
accordance with NFPA 1962-1998 Standard for the Care, Use, and Service 
Testing of Fire Hose Including Couplings and Nozzles, 1998 Edition (Ex. 
20-2). The Committee agreed on the regulatory text of proposed 
Sec. Sec.  1915.505 and 1915.506.
    A small shipyard representative requested that OSHA have an 
extended compliance date for employers with 250 or fewer employees. 
Shipyards with more than 250 employees typically have a full-time 
designated safety and health professional, based on the experience of 
the National Shipbuilders Association. A labor representative opposed 
the request for a delay in implementation for small employers. It was 
suggested that OSHA review the issue for its proposal.
    Small employers were represented at this meeting by Bollinger 
Machine Shop & Shipyard, Inc., Louisiana; Walker Boat Yard, Kentucky, 
South Tidewater Association of Ship Repairers, Hampton Roads, Virginia; 
National Shipbuilders Association, Arlington, Virginia; First Wave 
Marine, Houston, Texas; Bender Shipbuilding, Mobile, AL; and Omega 
Shipyard, Moss Point, Mississippi.
    The ninth meeting of the Committee was held in Houston, Texas, on 
February 5-7, 2002 (Ex. 5-8 ). OSHA staff incorporated the agreed upon 
changes made during this meeting into the Committee's working document. 
A motion was made for a full Committee vote on the document. The 
Committee unanimously approved, agreeing on all the issues and topics. 
A reworked package of the regulatory text including section number 
changes with training in its own section was mailed to the Committee 
March 2002.
    Small employers were represented at this meeting by Bollinger 
Machine Shop & Shipyard, Inc., Louisiana and Texas; Walker Boat Yard, 
Kentucky; South Tidewater Association of Ship Repairers, Hampton Roads, 
Virginia; National Shipbuilders Council, Washington, D.C.; First Wave 
Marine, Houston, Texas; Trinity Marine Products; Moon Engineering, Co., 
Portsmouth, Virginia; and Atlantic Marine/Alabama Shipyard.
    Informal meeting minutes were provided by OSHA staff for all 
meetings. These minutes were approved by the Committee and included in 
OSHA's Docket S-051 (Ex. 5). The Agency has taken the Committee's 
recommendations for a proposal for fire protection in shipyard 
employment and editorially revised them into the proposed standard that 
follows this preamble.

III. Pertinent Legal Authority

    The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. 
651 et seq. (``the 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 Act's enactment), 655(b) (authorizing 
promulgation of standards pursuant to notice and comment), 654(b) 
(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 652(8) if it substantially reduces or eliminates 
significant risk; is economically feasible; technologically feasible; 
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. See 58 FR 16612-16616 (March 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 452 
U.S. 490, 513 (1981) (``ATMI''), American Iron and Steel Institute v. 
OSHA, 939 F.2d 975, 980 (D.C. Cir 1991) (``AISI'').
    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, 37 F.3d 665, 668 (D.C. 
Cir. 1994) (``LOTO II'').
    Section 6(b)(7) 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 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.'' Id.

[[Page 76220]]

IV. Summary and Explanation of Proposal Rule

Section 1915.501 General Provisions

    In paragraph (a), OSHA states that the purpose of this standard is 
to require employers to protect all employees from fire hazards in 
shipyard employment, including employees engaged in fire response 
activities.
    Paragraph (b) describes the scope of the proposal, which is all 
shipyard employment work, including work on vessels and vessel sections 
and land-side operations, regardless of geographic location. The scope 
of this subpart is consistent with that in the maritime standards' 
subpart B Confined and Enclosed Spaces and Other Dangerous Atmospheres 
in Shipyard Employment and subpart I Personal Protective Equipment for 
Shipyard Employment. Fire response provided by the employer's workers, 
whether they be part of a fire brigade, shipyard fire department, or 
simply designated by the employer, is within the scope of this 
standard. There are several reasons for including all shipyard 
employment in the scope of this standard: (1) The requirements are 
tailored to the unique risks in shipyard employment; (2) subpart P will 
provide a single source of standards for fire protection that will be 
easier for training and to understand than multiple sources or sets of 
rules; (3) a comprehensive standard, referencing part 1910 where 
necessary, will be applicable throughout shipyard employment addressing 
hazards associated with fire watch situations, ship fire suppression 
systems, fire response procedures and landside fire operations.
    OSHA has preliminarily concluded, and the Committee agrees, that a 
comprehensive standard applying to all shipyard employment operations 
will be highly protective of shipyard employment workers working on 
vessels, vessel sections, or landside operations and offer the best 
protection against fire hazards.
    Shipyard employment can consist of shipbuilding, ship conversion, 
ship repairing or shipbreaking, and related employments. Shipyards may 
be dedicated to one type of work, such as new ship construction, or a 
shipyard may perform any or all types of shipyard work. The 
construction of a new vessel may be a single project or may involve 
separate fabrication of key components which are then joined together. 
Vessel sections may be fabricated on land within the shipyard, or may 
be built in specialty facilities inland of the shipyard and then 
transported to the yard. The scope must have broad coverage because 
shipyard employers increasingly engage in non-traditional shipyard 
employment such as steel fabrication of products not directly related 
to ships. This could include work such as construction of railroad 
cars, bridges, tunnel sections, smoke stacks, and boilers. It could 
also include operations performed during the final outfitting of 
vessels under construction or repair. Examples of such operations 
include technical support from the providers of shipboard electronic 
equipment as well as suppliers of internal furnishings. It does not 
include shoreside support services, such as those provided by vending 
equipment and mail delivery companies. The Agency is also proposing 
that any fire brigade, shipyard fire department, contracted outside 
fire response organization, or federal fire response organization be 
covered by this subpart if the responder is located at or responds to 
shipyard employment facilities. OSHA recognizes that a number of small 
employers perform vessel repair in non-traditional shipyards and 
intends to cover them.
    Ship repair work could involve replacing damaged hull sections, 
outdated systems or components, or modifying a vessel to increase its 
capacity or change its designed purpose.
    Shipbreaking could consist of the partial removal of vessel 
components or it could be the complete dismantling of a vessel (also 
known as ``scrapping'') for the salvage value of its parts.
    Shipyard employment can also consist of support operations 
necessary for vessel construction and repair. Metal fabrication, 
machine shops, electrical and paint shops are typical facilities that 
can be found within a shipyard. Many vessel sections and vessel 
components are built in these shops more easily than they can be built 
on board a vessel. The materials are the same and often the hazards 
encountered are similar.
    Shipyard employment also occurs on vessels and vessel sections 
within the navigable waters of the United States. The provisions of the 
Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA), 33 U.S.C. 901 
et seq., only applied to shipyards. Under the OSH Act, jurisdiction was 
extended to include workers wherever they were working.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 29 CFR 1910.11(b). The LHWCA limitations on coverage 
that appear in the maritime standards were not adopted under section 
6(a) of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 655(a). See also the preamble for the 
rulemaking in which the shipyard employment standards were 
consolidated, 47 FR 16986 (April 20, 1982). This OSHA policy was 
accepted by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission in 
Dravo Corporation, 10 BNA OSHC 1655 (No. 14818, 1982.) Contra Dravo 
Corporation v. OSHRC & Marshall, 613 F.2d 1227 (3rd Cir. 1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA has included the phrase ``regardless of geographic location'' 
in the scope so that protection is afforded employees wherever they 
work: On vessels, vessel sections, land side, or any other location 
they are sent to by their employers. This has been Agency policy on 
shipyard employment and is in the scope of both subparts B and I.
    The Committee also urged OSHA to cover work in the traditional 
shipyard and dock as well as on vessels during sea trials or at anchor. 
At the Portland, Oregon, meeting, the Committee noted that most ships 
on sea trials are still under construction with shipyard workers on 
board. At the Baltimore, Maryland, meeting, Committee members reviewed 
OSHA Instruction CPL 2-1.20, ``OSHA/U.S. Coast Guard Authority Over 
Vessels,'' dated November 8, 1996. Particular attention was given to 
paragraph I which delineated geographical considerations for 
enforcement over all vessels. The CPL states that ``OSHA only has 
authority over vessels when they are operating within the limits of 
State territorial waters.'' It goes on to define those waters as 
extending three nautical miles seaward from the coast line of coastal 
States, ``except for the Gulf Coast of Florida, Texas and Puerto Rico 
where the territorial waters extend for 3 marine leagues (approximately 
9 nautical miles).''
    The Committee concluded that the fire hazard exposure to workers is 
significant, whether a vessel or part is being constructed, repaired, 
or broken up and whether it is in the shipyard or dockside, at anchor, 
or underway for testing. Therefore, the requirements proposed in this 
subpart would apply broadly, including vessels underway within OSHA's 
jurisdictional boundaries, or at anchor, dockside, in dry dock, or on 
land.
    In paragraph (c) of Sec.  1915.501, OSHA seeks to encourage 
employee participation in shipyard safety and health program 
activities. OSHA proposes that the employer must provide ways for 
employees and employee representatives to participate in developing and 
periodically reviewing programs and policies adopted to comply with 
this standard. At the September 10, 1998, meeting held in Biloxi, 
Mississippi, the Committee recommended regulatory text regarding 
employee participation and involvement. The Committee saw this as a 
crucial component of the

[[Page 76221]]

proposed standard and OSHA agrees. This proposal is consistent with the 
Department of Labor's policy to involve employees in decision-making 
processes affecting safety and health at their worksites.
    Paragraph (d) of the proposed fire protection rule sets minimum 
requirements for exchanging information and coordinating 
responsibilities for fire protection among host and contract employers. 
These requirements are fundamental to any effective fire safety program 
on a multi-employer worksite.
    A multi-employer workplace is defined for the purposes of this rule 
as a workplace where there is a host employer and at least one contract 
employer. This proposed requirement is necessary because the existence 
of additional employers and their employees at a workplace makes 
addressing safety and health conditions at the workplace more complex. 
For example, at a multi-employer worksite, one employer may introduce 
hazards into the workplace that employees of other employers may not 
know about. All employers need information about hazards present at the 
worksite to enable them to fulfill their obligations to protect 
workers. For these reasons, communication and coordination among 
employers are essential.
    Failure to communicate about hazards between employers and their 
employees can be tragic. For example, the 1989 explosion at a Phillips 
66 chemical complex in Houston, which killed 23 people and injured more 
than 100 workers, resulted largely from the failure to coordinate 
safety and health activities on a multi-employer worksite. A Department 
of Labor/OSHA 1990 report to the President concerning this catastrophe 
concluded:

    The catastrophe at the Phillips Complex not only emphasized the 
need for effective implementation of good safety management systems 
in the petrochemical industry but also raised questions about 
diffused responsibility for employee safety at worksites where one 
or more contractors are engaged in work for a company. OSHA had 
addressed this issue at construction sites, but not at petrochemical 
plants like the Phillips Complex, where a contractor was regularly 
employed to perform key maintenance operations and was directly 
involved in the October 1989 disaster (Ex. 10-5).

    Events like the Phillips explosion and the increased reliance on 
using contractors throughout the shipyard industry have led OSHA to 
conclude that responsibility for fire safety must be specifically 
assigned to all employers, who must then be held accountable for 
discharging those responsibilities.
    The need for and benefits of coordinating activities and exchanging 
information on multi-employer worksites are widely recognized, and 
requirements such as those being proposed here have been implemented in 
many workplaces throughout general industry, construction, and maritime 
industries. For example, the Chemical Manufacturers Association (now 
the American Chemistry Council) and the American Petroleum Institute 
state that improved occupational safety and health performance is one 
benefit that occurs when owners and contractors work together to 
enhance the management of contractor-related safety and health 
programs. Similarly, the National Safety Council has observed that ``a 
strong partnership between [host and contract employers] can reduce or 
eliminate risks, injury, and illnesses; help control health and 
insurance costs; and improve employee production and morale.'' In the 
shipyard industry it is common practice to hire contractors for 
nonroutine or specialized work situations. For example, painters, 
joiners, carpenters and scaffolding contractors are routinely used in 
shipyard employment.
    The requirement for host and contract employer coordination and for 
the exchange of information about safety and health conditions on 
multi-employer worksites is consistent with Congress' desire that 
employees be informed of the hazards to which they are exposed. 
(Sections 6(b)(7) and 8(c)(1) of the OSH Act.) Employees can only be 
informed of the hazards to which they are exposed if information about 
such hazards is communicated among employers on multi-employer 
worksites. Such an exchange of information is also necessary to make 
sure that all hazards in the workplace are identified and that the 
responsibility for controlling them and protecting employees can be 
appropriately allocated among all employers on the site.
    Under the proposal host employers must inform all employers at the 
work site about the contents of the host's fire safety plan--including 
hazards, controls, and emergency procedures--and assign any appropriate 
responsibilities for fire safety to other employers. The Committee is 
in agreement with this approach to multi-employer worksites (Ex. 5-8). 
The employer representatives on the Committee felt that the shipyard 
should not be responsible for training contractors.
    In Sec.  1915.509 Definitions, the host employer is defined as an 
employer who is in charge of coordinating work or hiring other 
employers to perform work at a multi-employer worksite. Proposed Sec.  
1915.501(d)(1) establishes the responsibilities of host employers. 
First, host employers must make sure that information about fire 
hazards, controls, safety and health rules, and emergency procedures is 
given to all the contract employers. The information includes whatever 
a contract employer must have to carry out his or her own duties as an 
employer under this rule. Contract employers need to inform employees 
of the fire hazards to which they are exposed at that worksite, the 
controls in place to reduce or eliminate those fire hazards, the safety 
and health procedures to be followed, and the steps to be taken in a 
fire emergency. Second, host employers must ensure appropriate fire 
safety and health responsibilities are assigned to contract employers 
at the worksite.
    Contract employers must know about other hazards related to fire 
their employees may encounter at the workplace. Such knowledge allows 
contract employers to effectively plan and safely carry out their work 
and understand procedures, such as what to do when a fire alarm is 
sounded to evacuate a vessel. This information lessens the likelihood 
that accidents will occur. A host employer's workplace may have fire 
hazards of many kinds: toxic chemical, flammable or combustible liquids 
or dusts, electrical hazards, fall hazards, pressurized systems, 
confined spaces, and many more. Under this standard host employers must 
inform contract employers of the hazards related to fire they are 
likely to encounter to enable them, in turn, to protect their 
employees.
    The Committee recognized that in the event of a fire emergency, 
contract employers must be able to take appropriate actions to protect 
their employees. Therefore, OSHA requires the host employer to make 
sure that all appropriate information about fire safety and evacuation 
procedures is conveyed to all contract employers working in shipyard 
employment.
    OSHA is also requiring in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) that the host 
employer make sure that fire protection responsibilities are 
specifically assigned to the various employers working at a multi-
employer worksite. The host employer must make sure that fire safety 
and health responsibilities are assigned as appropriate to other 
employers at the worksite. Some of these responsibilities include fire 
hazard abatement, informing employees of fire hazards before exposure, 
and stopping work because of an imminent danger

[[Page 76222]]

situation. A host employer might assign a contract employer the 
responsibility of preventing employees (other than the contract 
employer's employees) from being exposed to a hazard generated by the 
contract employer. For example, the host employer might require the 
contract employer to control the area around a painter to ensure that 
hot work is not permitted while painting is in progress. More 
generally, the host employer must, in conjunction with the contract 
employers, decide who is to train employees and control which hazards. 
The need to coordinate across organizational lines on a multi-employer 
worksite makes the clear assignment of responsibilities across those 
lines essential to achieve the overall goal of reducing employee 
exposure to potential fire hazards.
    The proposed definition of ``contract employer'' in Sec.  1915.509 
Definitions is an employer who performs work under contract for a host 
employer or to another employer under contract to the host employer at 
the worksite. This definition specifically excludes employers who 
provide incidental services that do not influence shipyard employment 
(such as mail delivery or office supply services). The Agency 
recognizes that many vendors who work under contract to host employers 
do not engage in work that exposes their employees to the job-related 
hazards present at the site and do not themselves introduce new hazards 
to the site. This definition also makes sure, however, that contract 
employees engaged in work operations that do place them at risk, such 
as temporary labor (e.g. tank cleaners), blasting, and paint 
contractors are protected by the proposed provisions regarding multi-
employer worksites.
    As noted in this discussion, OSHA has provided additional 
definitions of ``host employer'' and ``contractor employer'' in order 
to help clarify multi-employer worksite provisions. In other places, 
the term ``employer,'' which is already defined in 29 CFR part 1915, is 
used to describe duties that are generally the host employer's as the 
employer with control of the overall worksite. We believe the intent of 
this approach is clear. The host employer has overall responsibility 
for fire protection at the worksite. However, in order to have 
effective fire protection, all employees on the site need to be aware 
of the hazards and the procedures established to deal with fires, 
regardless of who employs them. And all of the hazards on the site need 
to be identified and controlled, regardless of which employer has 
introduced the hazard to the workplace. Thus the provisions of the 
standard anticipate that an exchange of information will be required to 
ensure that fire protection is handled in a comprehensive and effective 
manner, and any necessary coordination of activities will occur. The 
Agency invites input on these terms and the way they are used in the 
proposed rule. Is it clear which employer is responsible in all of the 
proposed provisions? Is there another way to define or clarify which 
employer has responsibility for implementing the requirements?
    The Agency is considering dropping the phrase ``safety and health 
rules,'' in paragraph (d)(i) that refers to the contents of the fire 
safety plan and dropping the phrase ``safety and health'' in reference 
to contract employers' responsibilities for fire protection activities 
in paragraph (d)(ii). The Agency has concluded that the reference to 
``health'' or ``safety and health'' rules or responsibilities is 
confusing and vague in the fire safety proposal and that the scope of 
issues should be confined to fire safety.
    Paragraph (d)(2) of Sec.  1915.501, sets forth the proposed 
responsibilities for contract employer's. The contract employer must 
inform the host employer of any fire hazards that could be created by 
the work being performed by his or her employees, and what steps the 
contract employer must take to address those hazards. In addition, OSHA 
proposes that any hazards that were not identified by the host 
employer, but were identified by the contract employer, must be shared 
with the host employer.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(i) requires contract employers to make 
sure that the host employer is aware of the fire related hazards 
presented by the contract employer's work and how the contract employer 
is addressing them. The work performed by contract employers is 
commonly beyond the knowledge and expertise of the host employer and 
typically is not a part of the host employer's routine work. Contract 
employers are often hired precisely because they have special 
expertise. They offer a wide range of services, such as equipment 
repair and maintenance, blasting, painting, atmospheric testing of 
spaces, tank cleaning, and selected scaffold erection. Consequently, 
their work can present a set of hazards that are unfamiliar to the host 
employer. For these reasons, OSHA believes that the proposed rule must 
include minimum requirements for contract employers on multi-employer 
workplaces to report fire hazards to host employers. Proposed paragraph 
(d)(2)(ii) requires that contract employers advise host employers of 
any fire hazards unidentified by the host employer. In the course of 
his or her work, the contract employer may create or uncover fire 
hazards. The host employer must be made aware of all of the hazards, 
regardless of who created them, to enable him or her to coordinate the 
management of safety and health at a given multi-employer worksite.

Section 1915.502 Fire Safety Plan

    The requirements for fire safety plans contained in this section 
were developed by the Committee based upon their combined professional 
experience and current industry practices. OSHA concurs with these 
recommendations. OSHA does not have any requirements for fire safety 
plans in its current standards.
    The Committee recommended a program that would establish the 
location, type, and capacity of firefighting equipment such as 
extinguishers, fire hose and stand pipes, smoke detectors, automatic 
sprinklers, and other fixed firefighting systems in accordance with 
applicable fire codes. The plan must provide for the routine 
inspection, maintenance, and replacement of this equipment and mandate 
training for new workers and refresher training for all shipyard 
employment workers. Routine fire prevention inspections would be 
conducted by knowledgeable personnel with authority to correct 
deficiencies. The program would establish: Effective fire prevention 
measures for control of flammable and non-flammable compressed gases; 
identification and the control of ignition sources; the control of 
combustible materials; welding and hot work procedures and designated 
locations covering all operations (in addition to locations where hot 
work is authorized); and designated emergency evacuation routes and 
procedures.
    The Committee felt that such a plan must be written. A written plan 
would enable employers and employees to see how the employer intends to 
protect workers; enable employers to readily exchange information; 
provide continuity of procedures; and would provide a practical means 
of communication to fire response organizations. Updating the plan to 
reflect changing fire control technology or changing the plan to 
reflect different fire hazards in different work situations is readily 
accomplished with a written plan. The Committee rejected the notion of 
verbal exchange as the equivalent of an established written fire safety 
plan.
    In paragraph (a) of Sec.  1915.502, OSHA proposes that the employer 
develop and implement a written fire safety plan that covers all the 
actions that employers

[[Page 76223]]

and employees must take to ensure employee safety in the event of a 
fire. OSHA is also proposing to include a note to the paragraph 
referring readers to a model fire safety plan that is included as 
Appendix A, a non-mandatory appendix to this subpart.
    Appendix A contains a suggested outline for a model fire safety 
plan that employers could follow. Members of the small business 
community who participated in Committee negotiations strongly 
recommended that OSHA offer guidance for developing a fire safety plan. 
The purpose of the proposed appendix is to give guidance to any 
employers who may not have the expertise available to develop their own 
plan. If an employer chooses to use the model plan for a specific 
worksite, following the outline and addressing particular conditions at 
his or her specific worksite would meet the minimum requirements of 
this section.
    In paragraph (b) of Sec.  1915.502, OSHA sets forth the elements 
that the employer must include in the fire safety plan. They are: The 
identification of significant potential fire risks; procedures for 
recognizing and reporting unsafe conditions; alarm procedures; 
procedures for notifying employees of a fire emergency; procedures for 
notifying fire response organizations of a fire emergency; procedures 
for evacuation; procedures to account for all employees after an 
evacuation; and the names, job titles, or departments for individuals 
who can be contacted for further information about the plan. The 
Committee identified these elements as essential components that every 
effective plan must have. The Committee was particularly anxious for 
the alarm procedures to address the distinctive signaling devices and 
how they will be used to alert employers of fire and evacuation in a 
particular shipyard. The Committee and OSHA recognized that each 
shipyard may have its own unique alarm systems (e.g., steam whistles, 
intercom, bells).
    In paragraph (c) of Sec.  1915.502, OSHA proposes that the employer 
must review the fire safety plan with each affected employee within 90 
days of the effective date of this standard for employees who are 
currently working; upon initial assignment for new employees; and 
whenever the actions the employee must take under the plan change 
because of a change in duties or a change in the plan.
    Paragraph (d) of Sec.  1915.502 reflects the recommendations of the 
Committee. Consistent with that, OSHA proposes that the employer must 
also keep the plan readily accessible for review by employees, their 
representatives, and OSHA; review and update the plan whenever 
necessary but at least annually; certify in writing that each affected 
employee has been informed of the plan; and give a copy of the plan to 
any outside fire response organization that the employer expects to 
respond to fires at a worksite, regardless of geographic location. 
These requirements are necessary in order for the plan to be effective 
in protecting employees.
    In paragraph (e) of Sec.  1915.502, OSHA proposes as additional 
responsibilities for contract employers, compliance with the host 
employer's fire safety program. At any given time, because of the 
nature of the work, there may be many employers within one particular 
shipyard. The additional employers and employees cause an increase in 
safety and health hazards in the worksite. OSHA's intent with this 
paragraph is that all employers take responsible actions to reduce 
these hazards when possible, and to alert other employers when hazards 
exists. Recognition of hazards and response to emergencies in a safe 
manner requires all employers on the site to follow the host employer's 
fire safety plan.

Section 1915.503 Precautions for Hot Work

    The purpose of this section is to reduce the potential of fire 
hazards and to reduce the frequency and severity of any fires resulting 
from hot work. Three elements are normally present for a fire to occur: 
an ignition source, oxygen, and a fuel source. If one element is 
removed, then a fire will not occur. The proposed requirements in this 
paragraph are intended to prevent the combination of these three 
elements from occurring at the same time.
    The Committee's proposal focused on reducing the hazards associated 
with both the fuel sources as well as the ignition sources for fires. 
The Committee advocated removing any fuel source from the area where 
hot work was to be performed. If that is not possible, then isolating 
the fuels, using protection (shielding), or posting a fire watch can be 
used to comply with the provision. These requirements reflect current 
industry practices and the requirements associated with Sec.  1915.14 
for flammable and combustible materials within confined and enclosed 
spaces and other dangerous atmospheres. The Committee also identified 
other materials that may be present that have properties that may 
increase the hazards associated with a fire, such as oxidizers and 
water reactive chemicals. The Committee's proposal would require the 
employer to perform a hazard assessment as part of the decision-making 
process in authorizing hot work. The Committee concluded that fires 
resulting from hot work can be prevented through an authorization 
procedure and proper inspection of the worksite before hot work. This 
would involve identifying fire hazards and implementing appropriate 
control measures that include removing hazards, inerting spaces, 
shielding combustibles, or posting fire watches. The Committee believed 
this would be an innovative approach that protects shipyard workers 
from fire hazards while reflecting the best practices of the industry.
    Following the Committee's recommendations, OSHA proposes that the 
requirements of this standard apply to all hot work operations in 
shipyard employment except those covered in subpart B of this part. The 
purpose of OSHA's proposed requirement is to make sure that the 
employer identifies all fire hazards in a hot work area. This section 
is also based upon requirements adapted from the existing Sec.  1915.52 
Fire Prevention, Sec.  1910.252 Welding, Cutting and Brazing, and from 
an industry consensus standard, NFPA 51B-1998, Standard for Fire 
Prevention in Use of Cutting and Welding Processes (Ex. 20-3).
    In paragraph (a)(1) of Sec.  1915.503, OSHA is proposing that the 
employer, in designating areas for hot work, must determine that such 
areas do not contain potential fire hazards. The Committee recognized 
that there are areas within the shipyard that may not require an 
inspection before each hot work operation. These areas may, in fact, be 
designed for hot work. They include fabricating shops, sub-assembly 
areas, and welding and burning areas within shops, such as pipe, 
boiler, and sheet metal shops. These areas are examples of what the 
Committee considered to be ``Designated Areas'' along with certain 
areas on board vessels and vessel sections. In ``designated areas'' the 
hot work operations are regular and continuous as opposed to incidental 
operations occurring throughout the yard. Nonetheless, such areas must 
be initially inspected to establish them as ``designated areas'' and 
then maintained as such, as proposed in paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section.
    The requirement for authorization of hot work in nondesignated 
areas is addressed in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. In paragraph 
(a)(2)(i) of Sec.  1915.503, OSHA proposes that before authorizing hot 
work in non-designated area, the employer must visually inspect the 
area where hot work is to be performed, including adjacent spaces, to

[[Page 76224]]

identify potential fire hazards, unless a Marine Chemist's certificate 
or shipyard Competent Person's log is used for the authorization. The 
Committee recommended that this section include any area not covered by 
subpart B of this part. As mentioned earlier, OSHA is not addressing 
hot work in areas covered by subpart B Confined and Enclosed Spaces and 
Other Dangerous Atmospheres in Shipyard Employment. This subpart 
already covers the hazards of performing hot work in these areas. 
Addressing them again in this subpart would be duplicative. OSHA 
believes that by requiring authorization before hot work in the non-
designated areas, the employer will pre-plan the operation and thereby 
identify and control the hazards associated with hot work.
    OSHA notes that although Marine Chemists and Shipyard Competent 
Persons have specific functions to perform under subpart B, this 
paragraph recognizes that the employer may also use them to assess and 
inspect both designated and nondesignated hot-work areas for potential 
fire hazards.
    The Committee considered whether the authorization of hot work 
issued by the employer should be in a written form or whether a verbal 
authorization would give equivalent safety. Currently all shipyards 
handling repair or overhaul-type U.S. Navy contracts have written 
authorization procedures because Navy work requires authorization (hot 
work permits) as a standard item. On the other hand, shipyards that do 
not handle Navy contracts allow employees to perform hot work following 
either verbal or written authorizations. The Committee decided that 
shipyard employers should have the flexibility to decide what type of 
authorization is best suited for their hot-work operations. For 
example, in many cases associated with new construction, hot work is 
done with an authorization specifying that no special precautions are 
required and no written authorization (permit) is issued. The intent 
here is to enable the employer to perform the steps and to assess the 
hazard each time before authorizing the hot work, but not necessarily 
introduce the specification that requires a formal written permit. 
Therefore, in this paragraph OSHA does not specify what form of 
authorization must be issued.
    In paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of Sec.  1915.503, OSHA proposes that the 
employer be allowed to authorize employees to do hot work only in areas 
that have been visually inspected and found to be free of fire hazards 
or in inspected areas where fire hazards are controlled by physical 
isolation, fire watches, or other positive means such as inerting.
    In developing the proposed language above, the Committee discussed 
under what circumstances the employer may authorize hot work on board 
vessels and vessel sections. Everyone on the Committee agreed that 
decisions about authorizing hot work on board vessels and vessel 
sections must be based on the inspection. When the inspection shows 
that there are no uncontrolled combustible or flammable materials in 
the area, then authorization for hot work is appropriate. The Committee 
also recognized that most of the mid-to large-size yards pre-outfit 
ship sections with electrical cables and fixtures, insulation, and 
other combustible materials requiring the employer to decide for each 
section what type of fire protection should be provided when hot work 
is to be done.
    The likelihood of the hot work areas containing combustible 
materials during ship repair is greater than in shipbuilding. During 
ship repair, as in other work the employer must control the fire 
hazards prior to authorizing the hot work. Control, as required in 
paragraph (a)(2)(ii), can be by physical isolation, posting fire 
watches, or other positive means. For example, an employer can achieve 
physical isolation of combustibles by simply moving them to an area at 
least 35 feet away from the hot work (see definition of ``physical 
isolation''). The Committee discussed the 35-foot vertical and 
horizontal distance and found it to be consistent with current industry 
practice. Where combustibles can not be moved or otherwise physically 
isolated, the employer can post a fire watch to control the fire 
hazard. Additionally, when flammable atmospheres are found adjacent to 
the hot work area, the employer can control the fire hazard by inerting 
the adjacent space with a non-reactive substance that will not support 
combustion. For further information on controlling spaces (flammable 
atmospheres) adjacent to where hot work is being performed, see subpart 
B of this part.
    Members of the public and shipyard representatives on the Committee 
commented during negotiations that the individual performing the hot 
work is usually expected to conduct his or her own final visual survey 
of the hot work area to make sure that conditions are safe for hot 
work. This is a common practice whether identified on a written permit 
or as part of the verbal authorization/assignment to the work. If the 
survey discovers unsafe conditions (e.g., appreciable combustibles in 
an area, leaking lines of combustible liquids--hydraulic fluid, oil), 
then the worker will not initiate the work and will contact the 
individual authorizing the work for further instruction. It is also 
expected that work would not start until the situation was corrected. 
As explained by a Committee member, the employer is ultimately 
responsible for making sure that areas are inspected before hot work 
and that safe conditions are maintained throughout the hot work area. 
This may be done by requiring frequent inspection, training, or warning 
signs even when the employer has delegated the responsibilities for the 
inspections. OSHA has not proposed to require the hot worker to conduct 
a survey as the Agency believes the employer has the responsibility for 
determining if the area is safe. An employer may, of course, have such 
a survey as part of his or her work practices.
    While subpart B has a requirement that a record be prepared by the 
Marine Chemist, Coast Guard Authorized Person, or Shipyard Competent 
Person allowing the hot work to be authorized as defined by Sec.  
1915.14, not all hot work areas need to be certified by a Marine 
Chemist or inspected by a Coast Guard Authorized Person or Shipyard 
Competent Person before the employer's authorization for hot work to 
begin. The employer may assign the authorization responsibility to 
other individuals who are knowledgeable in the hazards associated with 
hot work.
    In paragraph (b) of Sec.  1915.503, OSHA is proposing that the 
employer keep all hot work areas free of hazards that may cause or 
contribute to the spread of fire. This proposed paragraph summarizes 
the Committee's belief that fires cannot occur if the hazards 
contributing to them are controlled. This requirement is to prevent the 
introduction of combustible or flammable materials during the 
performance of hot work. Often, safe conditions exist at the start of 
the hot work process; however, over the duration of the work, these 
materials may be brought to the site thereby creating a fire hazard. 
For example, one worker may be performing hot work at the same time 
another worker from another job introduces combustible or flammable 
materials within 35 feet of the hot work operation. The worker's safety 
can be further compromised by the fact that the worker doing the hot 
work is wearing a face shield that obstructs vision, preventing that 
worker from seeing the entrance of the second worker. It is the intent 
of this requirement that hazard assessment be a continual process and 
not a singular, one-time event. Therefore any measures

[[Page 76225]]

used by the employer to control fire hazards must be maintained.
    Fuel gas and oxygen burning lines and torches are typically used in 
shipyard employment as follows. A burner (an employee engaged in 
burning or brazing) is trained and becomes qualified in the safe 
operation and testing of his equipment; namely the burning torch, 
gauges, care and use of the fuel gas and oxygen hose lines and proper 
connection to the supply manifold. Only qualified employees are issued 
this equipment from the tool room. After being issued his equipment, a 
burner working on a vessel will proceed to the manifold on the fantail 
of the vessel. Assigned to work in the lower level of the machinery 
space (enclosed space) 200 feet from the manifold, he will connect four 
50 foot sections of hose together and to his torch. Next, he will 
connect this assembly to the gauges that he, in turn, attaches to the 
supply manifold. He then charges the entire burning rig by opening the 
oxygen and fuel supply lines. He then tests the torch and lines for 
compression integrity using his gauges first having turned off the 
supply valves. If the gauges indicate compromised integrity, the burner 
will then re-tighten all of the connections and test again. Once the 
integrity of the burning rig is established, he then proceeds to roll 
out the lines on the deck to his assigned worksite. Upon reaching his 
worksite, he then returns to the supply manifold, energizes the system, 
and proceeds to secure his hose lines elevated and out of walkways to 
eliminate tripping hazards. Finally, he returns to his worksite and 
begins burning.
    In paragraph (b)(2)(i) OSHA proposes that the employer must make 
sure that no unattended fuel gas and oxygen hose lines or torches are 
left in confined spaces. The proposed language in this paragraph has 
been adapted from 29 CFR 1910.252; Sec.  1915.52; and NFPA 312-2000, 
Standard for Protection of Vessels During Construction, Repair, and 
Lay-up (Ex. 20-4). The Committee and participants from the public 
attending the Committee's meetings agreed with the proposed requirement 
in paragraph (b)(2)(i). This requirement reflects the current practice 
in the industry.
    The potential danger associated with unattended fuel gas and oxygen 
hoses or torches in confined spaces is apparent and universally 
accepted. Leaking fuel gas and oxygen from unattended hoses or torches 
can accumulate rapidly in confined spaces leading to several hazardous 
conditions such as increased fire hazards, oxygen-enriched atmospheres, 
explosive atmospheres, and similar conditions. This proposed paragraph 
seeks to eliminate the hazards associated with unattended fuel gas and 
oxygen hoses or torches in confined spaces.
    In paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of Sec.  1915.503, OSHA is proposing that 
employers must not allow unattended charged fuel gas and oxygen hose 
lines or torches in enclosed spaces for more than 15 minutes. The 
proposed language in this paragraph has also been adapted from 29 CFR 
1910.252; Sec.  1915.52; and NFPA 312-2000, Standard for Protection of 
Vessels During Construction, Repair, and Lay-up (Ex. 20-4). The 
Committee agreed with this proposed requirement following extensive 
discussion and analysis. They felt that the potential for fire or 
explosion caused by unattended charged lines in enclosed spaces far 
outweighs the burden of pulling to open air or disconnecting.
    In paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of Sec.  1915.503, OSHA is proposing that 
the employer must disconnect all fuel gas and oxygen hoses at the 
supply manifold at the end of each shift. The fact that paragraph 
(b)(2)(iii) does not propose a hose removal requirement needs to be 
further discussed in rulemaking. The Agency seeks comment on this 
subject. Some shipyard employers indicated that at shift change fuel 
gas and oxygen hoses are rolled back to the manifold and disconnected 
at the supply end, while other shipyard employers found this to be 
impractical. They noted that at a large shipyard work can be done on a 
vessel as long as 800 feet with as many as seven decks. For this work, 
employees need to connect burning rigs on the fantail supply manifold 
and string 700 feet of fuel gas and oxygen hose lines through a number 
of enclosed spaces to reach a worksite. Adding more lines to this 
supply manifold with additional manifolds also located on the fantail 
creates the problem of unstringing and rolling back literally miles of 
hose lines to disconnect them. The potential for confusion exists when 
these lines are disconnected and then need to be reconnected. The 
Committee agreed that the hoses should be removed from the confined 
spaces, but there remained a question about whether this was necessary 
for enclosed spaces.
    The concern is not necessarily about leaking hoses and their 
potential for creating a hazardous space. Rather, the bigger concern 
seems to be with the possibility of hooking up, at the supply manifold, 
a different (wrong) hose whose torch end was left hanging in an 
enclosed space. Because it is the wrong hose, it may now be dispensing 
gas (oxygen and fuel gas) into an space without anyone knowing, a space 
that is not involved in the intended work. The contaminated space may 
not be discovered until much later, thus creating a fire/explosion 
hazard. Additionally, leaking fuel gas and oxygen may create a 
flammable or oxygen-enriched atmosphere that may reach an ignition 
source.
    OSHA deals with these hazards in proposed paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(A) 
and (B) of Sec.  1915.503. When fuel gas and oxygen lines are to be 
disconnected, the employer has two options. One is to completely roll 
the lines back to the supply manifold (open air) and then disconnect 
the torch. The other is, where a positive means of identification on 
the fuel gas and oxygen hose lines has been given before rolling out or 
extending the line, the employee can leave the lines extended, 
disconnect them at the supply manifold, and then disconnect the torch. 
This would assure that, not only would the proper extended lines be 
disconnected, but also that the proper lines will be reconnected, thus 
eliminating the hazards discussed above. Also, because the torch must 
be removed from the enclosed space after disconnecting the extended 
line from the supply manifold, the potential for the build-up of a 
hazardous atmosphere is greatly reduced.
    Selecting the positive means of identification for the fuel gas and 
oxygen hose lines is left, by this performance type requirement, to the 
discretion of the employer. Examples of the positive means of 
identification include stenciling both ends of the line, color coding, 
stamped brass tags, and so forth. It is clear however, that the lines 
must be identified at both ends regardless of how many sections are 
joined, creating the run.
    The Committee felt that extended lines could be reconnected safely 
provided that certain measures were followed: positively identifying 
hose line ends and maintaining the integrity of the complete burning 
rig. The former has already been discussed. The Committee recognized 
that maintaining the integrity of the burning rig can be accomplished 
in a number of ways. The preferred way is the drop test using gauges 
which has already been discussed. Another way is the use of a lockout 
device (Ex. 16b). Still another is testing a pressurized system, using 
soapy water at all connections. The Committee concluded--and OSHA 
agrees-- that using such performance language as an alternative to 
specifications will help to nurture developing technology in these 
areas.

[[Page 76226]]

Section 1915.504 Fire Watches

    The requirements of this section, as recommended by the Committee, 
apply to fire watch activity designated by the employer in shipyard 
employment. The requirements are proposed in three parts: (a) the 
employer's written policy on fire watches, (b) the posting of a fire 
watch, and (c) fire watch assignments.
    The existing subpart in Sec.  1915.52 Fire Prevention in Welding, 
Cutting and Heating is a 35-year-old standard. It was identified by 
SESAC in 1992 as needing updating and extension of its scope to cover 
all the situations in shipyard employment regardless of geographic 
location. The Committee has recommended, and OSHA agrees, that the 
existing requirements in Sec.  1915 that address fire protection be 
replaced by the proposed requirements of this subpart.
    Paragraph (a) of Sec.  1915.504 requires employers to create and 
keep current a written policy on fire watches specifying the 
requirements for the training, duties, equipment, and PPE necessary for 
fire watches in the workplace. The PPE that fire watches will need is 
specified in to 29 CFR subpart I Personal Protective Equipment. No 
specific format is proposed for the written policy. The Committee 
determined the employer was in the best position to determine how the 
requirement can be met, and OSHA agreed. OSHA recognizes that the 
employer needs the discretion to tailor the plan to his or her 
workplace.
    Paragraph (b) of Sec.  1915.504 proposes that the employer must 
determine the need for and post a fire watch if during hot work: (1) 
Slag, weld splatter, or sparks might pass through an opening and cause 
a fire; (2) fire-resistant guards or curtains are not used to prevent 
ignition of combustible materials during work on or near decks, 
bulkheads, partitions, or overheads; (3) combustible material closer 
than 35 ft. (10.7m) horizontally and vertically cannot be removed, 
protected with flame-proof covers, or otherwise shielded with metal or 
fire-resistant guards or curtains, so that the material will not be 
ignited by the hot work; (4) on or near insulation, combustible 
coatings, or sandwich-type construction on either side cannot be 
shielded, cut back, or the materials removed. In the latter case, if 
removal is impracticable, the space affected by the hot work must be 
inerted; if that cannot be done, then a fire watch must be posted. A 
fire watch must also be posted when: (5) Combustible materials adjacent 
to the opposite sides of bulkheads, decks, overheads, metal partitions, 
or of sandwich-type construction may be ignited by heat conduction or 
radiation; (6) hot work on pipes or other metal is close enough to 
cause ignition through heat radiation or conduction if contact is made 
with insulation, combustible coatings, or combustible decks, bulkheads, 
partitions, or overheads; (7) hot work is close enough to unprotected 
combustible pipe or cable runs to cause ignition from exposure to the 
hot work; or (8) a watch is required by a Marine Chemist, a Coast Guard 
authorized person, or a shipyard Competent Person. The Committee 
identified these eight probable cases where a fire watch is needed for 
any size shipyard employment. OSHA's proposed requirements for this 
paragraph are based on their recommendations.
    Paragraph (b)(1) of Sec.  1915.504 proposes controlling ignition 
sources for work processes that generate slag, weld splatter, or sparks 
that might pass through an opening and cause a fire. It has been 
adapted from NFPA 51B-1999, Standard for Fire Prevention in Use of 
Cutting and Welding Processes (Ex. 19-3) and 1910.252(a)(2)(iii)(A)(3). 
During the meetings, the Committee discussed the size of the openings. 
The Committee considered whether the size needs to be specified. The 
provision's intent as proposed is to leave the requirement performance 
oriented. If a spark can get through an opening and cause a fire, then 
the area should be protected. The Committee preferred to not be 
specific, but to leave it to the employer to determine which openings 
need to be protected.
    Paragraph (b)(2) of Sec.  1915.504 proposes to recognize that 
ignition sources can be controlled through the use of fire-resistant 
guards or curtains. Where the combustible materials cannot be protected 
from a possible ignition source, the employer must post a fire watch. 
The Committee recognized that combustible materials can be protected 
through the use of fire-resistant guards or curtains. For example, a 
sandwich-type bulkhead could be safely protected from ignition of the 
combustible materials during hot work by using a fire-resistant guard 
or curtain.
    Paragraph (b)(3) of Sec.  1915.504 reflects the 35 ft. requirement 
(minimum distance of combustible materials from hot work) from the 
1910.252(a)(2)(vii), subpart Q Welding, Cutting and Brazing and NFPA 
51B-1999, Standard for Fire Prevention in Use of Cutting and Welding 
Processes (Ex. 19-3). In this paragraph OSHA proposes to require that 
an employer post a fire watch unless combustible materials are 
relocated to at least 35 feet beyond the hot work area or are protected 
by shielding. The Committee discussed the 35-foot distance at length 
during the course of the meetings and agreed that if the possibility 
exists that hot work materials could make contact with the combustible 
material in any way, a fire watch must be posted. No specific reasons 
or evidence to change the distance was suggested by any of the members 
or representatives from the public. The Committee's proposal kept the 
35-foot distance. The Committee believes that the distance has been in 
regulatory requirements and national consensus standards for many years 
and reflects the current industry practice. The Agency concurs that 
such protection is reasonable and necessary.
    Paragraph (b)(4) of Sec.  1915.504 addresses the hazards associated 
with combustible coatings, sandwich-type construction, or other 
insulating materials. Besides shielding, cutting back, removing the 
materials and posting a fire watch, an industry practice for the 
acoustic foams that are commonly found in inaccessible voids is to 
inert the areas to make them safe for hot work. Industry practice, in 
these situation, has been to also provide charged fire hoses or 
portable extinguishers as fire protection measures for fire watches. 
Polyurethane and other organic foams are increasingly used on vessels 
because of their excellent insulating and lightweight properties. When 
properly installed and protected against fire, organic foams present no 
more fire hazard than other combustible materials. However, when 
organic foams (including those described as self-extinguishing, non-
burning, fire resistant, flame resistant, and by similar terms) are 
exposed to fire or heat, they may ignite and burn with rapid flame 
spread, high temperatures, toxic gases, and voluminous quantities of 
smoke.
    Paragraph (b)(5) of Sec.  1915.504 addresses the potential hazards 
of adjacent spaces. This paragraph is adapted from Sec.  1915.52(a)(3). 
It is an important part of the hazard assessment ``since direct 
penetration of sparks or heat transfer may introduce a fire hazard to 
an adjacent compartment, the same precautions shall be taken on the 
opposite side as are taken on the side on which the welding is 
performed.'' During hot work on or near insulation, combustible 
coatings, or sandwich-type construction on either side, if the employer 
cannot cut back or remove the materials or inert the space, a fire 
watch must also be posted on the opposite side of the hot work. This 
requirement is intended to address the increased fire hazard potential 
(noted in the explanation above for paragraph (b)(4))

[[Page 76227]]

that results from hot work conducted in areas with or adjacent to 
polyurethane or other organic foams.
    In cases where hot material from hot work could involve more than 
one level, as in trunks and machinery spaces, a fire watch must be 
stationed at each affected level unless positive means are available to 
prevent the spread or fall of hot material. Positive means could be 
accomplished by placing barriers or by physically isolating an area. 
The same is true for adjacent spaces; a fire watch must be stationed at 
each affected work area.
    Paragraph (b)(6) of Sec.  1915.504 requires a fire watch during hot 
work when performed on pipes or other metal in contact with insulation, 
combustible coatings or combustible materials on or near decks, 
bulkheads, partitions, or overheads if the work is close enough to 
cause ignition by radiation or conduction. The fire watch workgroup 
discussed at length the term ``bulkhead and deck.'' Because the scope 
of subpart P is for shipyard employment, the subgroup discussed the 
fact that bulkheads and decks refer to vessels and vessel sections and 
although these terms could be used for structures and buildings, that 
is not the norm. Normally on landside structures the terms ``walls and 
floors'' are commonly used. Would use of ``bulkhead and deck'' in this 
provision cause confusion as to the applicability throughout shipyard 
employment, both on land side and aboard vessels? The Agency invites 
comment on this issue.
    Paragraph (b)(7) of Sec.  1915.504 requires a fire watch if hot 
work is conducted close enough to combustible pipe or cable runs to 
cause ignition (unless the pipe or cable runs are protected from 
exposure to the hot work). This provision takes into account the large 
amount of cable runs through vessel compartments. Although these cables 
must be tested to low flame spread and smoke production rates, they are 
still combustible and have been responsible for the spread of fire in 
many cases. Also, the use of combustible piping is increasing, and 
although required to meet strict flame spread and smoke production 
criteria, the potential for fire spread through pipe runs is the same 
as through cable runs and should therefore be safeguarded.
    Paragraph (b)(8) of Sec.  1915.504 proposes to add a provision for 
posting a fire watch when required by a Marine Chemist, a Coast Guard 
authorized person, or a shipyard Competent Person. These individuals 
are trained to know when a fire hazard requiring a fire watch exists 
even in circumstances not set forth in paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(7) 
above. In one of the areas of biggest concern-where flammable and 
combustible liquids are present, for example, in vessel construction-- 
the regulations already require a competent individual to determine 
where a fire watch will be required. An employer is already required to 
designate a shipyard Competent Person in accordance with applicable 
requirements of 29 CFR 1915.7. These requirements, coupled with the 
time-tested recommendations of NFPA 51B-1999 and 29 CFR 1915 subpart B, 
were considered adequate by the Committee.
    Paragraph (c) of Sec.  1915.504 outlines the assignment of fire 
watch duty. Originally, the Committee's Fire Watch Workgroup had 
recommended language for this paragraph that specifically states that 
the employer is responsible for a worker's assignment to fire watch 
duty. However, the Committee felt that this should be understood 
throughout the regulations that the employer is ultimately responsible 
for workplace fire safety, and thus it does not need to be repeated. 
OSHA agrees.
    Paragraph (c)(1) of Sec.  1915.504 states that an employee must not 
be assigned other duties when designated as fire watch by the employer. 
The Committee wanted to be very clear on this requirement, because 
although fire watch as an exclusive assignment is recognized as 
industry practice, the fire watch posting is crucial to maintaining 
safe working areas. For example, welders with their shields down rely 
totally on the fire watch's observations. This watch should not be 
distracted by having other duties assigned at the same time.
    The provision in paragraph (c)(2)(i) requires that a fire watch 
must have a clear view of all areas assigned. This requirement 
effectively precludes a worker acting as his or her own fire watch. The 
workgroup told the Committee that if hot work workers, i.e., welders 
and burners, were, in fact, acting as their own fire watch, the 
requirement for a clear view of those areas affected could not be met. 
They noted that when a welder's shield is down, the immediate area 
where the arc hits is the only area the welder is concentrating on, and 
the welder is oblivious to the surrounding work area affected. The 
Committee agreed and wanted to note specially that a worker performing 
hot work, such as a welder, cannot be his or her own fire watch under 
any circumstances.
    The Committee was concerned that a fire watch be able to do his or 
her job. This means that a fire watch must be physically capable of 
accessing the necessary area and wearing the appropriate PPE. For 
example, a fire watch may have to climb ladders to access tanks or 
other structures, carry fire extinguishers, pull hoses, see the 
assigned area, pull alarm stations, and communicate the alarm verbally. 
Although there was much discussion, the Committee did not include a 
requirement stating that the employer must make sure that personnel who 
are expected to stand fire watch will perform and are capable of 
carrying out the duties of fire watch. The logic, after discussions, 
was that the employer would be the best judge of physical capability 
and mental alertness of the fire watch.
    Paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of Sec.  1915.504 proposes that employees 
assigned to fire watch duty must be able to communicate with workers 
exposed to hot work. As addressed later in the preamble for paragraph 
(c)(2)(x) of Sec.  1915.508 Training, there was considerable discussion 
within the workgroup about current industry practices for the fire 
watch's contact with other workers. The Committee decided that 
communication is important because a fire watch may not be able to see 
a hot worker when, for example, the fire watch is on the other side of 
a compartment from the hot worker. The Committee did not want to limit 
the means of communication. For example, in the case of a fire watch on 
the other side of the bulkhead from the employee doing hot work, the 
means may be as simple as tapping on the bulkhead to signal whether the 
hot worker can continue or must stop, or it could be a more electronic 
communication system such as radio communication.
    Paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of Sec.  1915.504 specifies that the fire 
watch must remain in the hot work area at least 30 minutes after hot 
work is completed. A provision has been added that permits the fire 
watch to be relieved sooner if the employer or the employer's 
representative surveys the exposed areas, conducts a post-work hazard 
assessment, and determines that no further fire hazard exists. 
Obviously, this determination can only be made after a hazard 
assessment is completed. The fire watch workgroup carried forth this 
requirement from SESAC's recommendation that the NFPA and industry-
accepted practice be used as the rationale for the 30 minute 
requirement unless the employer surveys the affected work area(s) and 
determines that there is no further fire hazard. The workgroup 
recommended to the Committee that when the work area was protected 
before the hot work was done, the employer or the

[[Page 76228]]

employer's representative could resurvey the affected area and 
determine the area was safe from fire hazards without the need for a 
fire watch for 30 minutes after completion of the hot work. The 
Committee agreed. The intent of this provision is to encourage 
employers or their representative to use the hazard assessment process 
throughout the work--beginning, middle (to see if conditions change), 
and at the end (to determine how long the fire watch may be needed).
    OSHA invites comment on whether the fire watch remaining in the hot 
work area for at least 30 minutes after completion of the hot work is 
the equivalent to the employer's immediate survey of the exposed area 
to making a determination that there is no further fire hazard.
    Paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of Sec.  1915.504 proposes that the employer 
must ensure that employees assigned to fire watch duty are trained to 
detect fires that occur in areas exposed to the hot work. (For a 
further explanation, see the Training section at Sec.  1915.508.)
    Paragraph (c)(2)(v) of Sec.  1915.504 requires that the fire watch 
must attempt to extinguish any incipient stage fires in the assigned 
work area that are within the available equipment's capacity and within 
the fire watch's training qualifications as defined in 1915.508 
Training. The term ``incipient stage fire'' is defined in the General 
Industry Fire Protection Standard Sec.  1910.155(c)(26): Incipient 
stage fire means a fire which is in the initial or beginning stage and 
which can be controlled or extinguished by portable fire extinguishers, 
class II standpipe or small hose systems without the need for 
protective clothing or breathing apparatus. Although the maritime 
industry asked for a single standard, this definition is an example 
where the general industry standard is referenced to reduce regulatory 
duplication. OSHA seeks comment on whether the definition needs to be 
included in this standard.
    Paragraph (c)(2)(vi) of Sec.  1915.504 proposes the requirement 
that the fire watch alert employees of any fire that goes beyond the 
incipient stage. The method the fire watch uses to alert other 
employees is not specified. The fire watch can alert in the way most 
suited to the worksite and conditions. Whether this is accomplished by 
shouting, waving of arms, or hand signals is left up to the employer to 
instruct the fire watch. In a noisy working environment, it might be 
most appropriate to tap hot workers on the shoulder and then motion to 
them to follow or exit the area. In a smokey situation, vocal 
communication would be more appropriate.
    Paragraph (c)(2)(vii) of Sec.  1915.504 provides that if fire 
watches are unable to extinguish fire in the areas exposed to the hot 
work, they must activate the alarm and start the evacuation procedure 
as trained according to Sec.  1915.508(c)(2)(xi) and the employer's 
fire safety plan, Sec.  1915.502.

Section 1915.505 Fire Response

    In this section OSHA proposes specific requirements for fire 
response in shipyard employment. At present, OSHA does not have any 
specific requirements for fire response in shipyard employment.
    Responders to shipyard fires encounter a complex set of fire 
hazards involving buildings, vessels in dry-dock or on ways, afloat, or 
alongside a quay. Fire responders need to be prepared to suppress a 
wide range of fire scenarios from a flammable liquid storage room in a 
shipyard building to oil-soaked rags in an engine room on a ship. Types 
of fires could include ordinary combustible materials (such as wood, 
paper or cloth), flammable or combustible liquids (such as oil, fuels, 
paints or chemicals), insulation and other materials that give off 
toxic gases and smoke, electrical fires (involving energized motors, 
circuit controls, transformers or wiring) or even a rare combustible 
metal fire (such as magnesium or titanium).
    Shipyard firefighting as defined in section 1915.509 Definitions 
may be provided by:
    1. Members of a fire brigade established by the shipyard, 
consisting of employees who have primary duties other than 
firefighting;
    2. Workers of the shipyard employed as full-time firefighters; or
    3. Public, private, governmental, or military units providing 
rescue, firefighting, and other related services.
    As expressed by one Committee member, when firefighters respond to 
a shipyard fire, the safety of the shipyard workers rests with those 
firefighters; therefore, that member noted, the safety of all 
firefighters should be addressed by this standard and these rules 
should apply to them as well. In fact, the Committee expressed concern 
that whoever provides fire response to shipyard employment must meet 
certain minimum standards. The Committee's consensus was that 
designated workers (whether employed by the shipyard or by another 
employer) must be trained and equipped to fight fires in shipyard 
employment as safely as possible to reduce worker deaths or injuries 
related to these fires.
    To ensure that this happens when firefighters are not shipyard 
workers, the Committee decided to require a liaison be established 
between the shipyard employer and the outside organization providing 
response services. Consistent with the recommendations of the 
Committee, OSHA is proposing that the shipyard liaison's communication 
with an outside fire response organization must include addressing 
facility and layout familiarization and coordination protocols. Public 
fire departments in those states with approved section 18b State Plans 
that respond to shipyard facilities will be covered by similar 
requirements through their respective states. Federal OSHA does not 
have jurisdiction over state and municipal fire departments or 
volunteers. Federal firefighters are covered under Executive Order No. 
12291. OSHA believes that the safety of all firefighters is a major 
concern and intends the broadest coverage possible under the Act 
regardless of the shipyard employer's fire response arrangements. The 
Committee was in full agreement that anyone responding to a shipyard 
employment fire to actually extinguish a fire should be covered by this 
proposed rule to the extent possible. The proposed coverage of this 
standard, for fire responders has to exclude state and municipal fire 
departments and volunteers even though they will benefit from the 
requirement to establish a liaison with them.
    Shipyard fire responders do not include support personnel 
responding at or near fires who have only limited support functions to 
perform. The Committee agreed that the shipyard employment workers who 
might respond to provide support services but are not exposed to the 
hazards of the fire, should not be covered. Such support services 
include electricians, utility workers, and facility management 
representatives. As explained by one Committee member, the requirements 
of this proposal are not intended to apply to employees responding to a 
shipyard employment fire to open or close valves, turn off electric 
service, or disconnect gas supplies. ``Support personnel,'' as the 
Committee called them, are designated persons not put into harm's way 
but performing such tasks as shutting down or isolating gas lines and 
disconnecting electrical service. They are not fire response personnel 
since they are not exposed to the hazards of firefighting. Members of 
the public, including Vincent Galattli from Bender Shipbuilding and 
Michael Davis from Halter Marine, noted that some shipyard

[[Page 76229]]

employment workers join community fire departments as volunteers. These 
volunteers are sometimes used in shipyard employment to pull hoses but 
do not fight fires. Committee member Buck Hurley from the Norfolk Naval 
Shipyard noted that crane operators could be used to provide supplies, 
water, or chemicals, but not perform actual firefighting.
    This proposed section consolidates the requirements of 29 CFR 
1910.156 Fire Brigades with some of the provisions in NFPA 1500-2002, 
Fire Department Occupational Safety and Health Program (Ex. 20-5), 
creating a standard that specifically addressees shipyard fire 
response.
    A Committee workgroup consisting of representatives of the fire 
service, government, labor, and employers developed the initial 
proposed language for this section. In addition to using the SESAC 
recommended proposal and current industry practice, the workgroup 
relied heavily on NFPA 1500-2002. The workgroup also discussed and 
reviewed NFPA 600-2000, Standard on Industrial Fire Brigades (Ex. 20-
6).
    NFPA completely revised NFPA 600 in 2000 to be consistent with 
OSHA's Fire Brigade Standard. In 2000, NFPA further revised the 
document to include industrial fire departments that were previously 
covered in NFPA 1500.
    The workgroup chose to rely more heavily on NFPA 1500-2002 rather 
than NFPA 600-2000 because of the need to make sure that response from 
outside the yard would be compatible with response from inside the 
yard. In many communities, particularly where there are small 
employers, the shipyard must rely on and coordinate fire response with 
the local fire authority. Through this section, OSHA intends to assure 
the coordination between the yard and the outside fire response 
organization so that they can work together safely.
    There is one general distinction that OSHA wants to make clear with 
respect to fire response in shipyard employment. As recommended to OSHA 
by the Committee, shipyard support personnel are not considered members 
of the shipyard fire brigade or fire department when they respond to 
fires on board vessels or vessel sections. The Committee agreed that 
additional shipyard personnel, usually yard maintenance or temporary 
service employees, can and do react to fire alarms on board vessels and 
vessel sections. However, when these employees respond to the fire 
location, they do so with the understanding that they will not put 
themselves at risk by attempting to fight fires. Rather, their only 
responsibility is to offer skilled support to fire brigade or fire 
department responders by securing certain utilities (i.e., electrical, 
ventilation, compressed air, and oxy-fuel lines suppling the vessel or 
vessel section) when necessary during fire suppression activities. 
Because they have detailed knowledge of the vessel's or vessel 
section's layout of temporary services and the locations within the 
yard for controlling these services, they can also serve as an 
information resource for firefighters responding to the fire.
    For example: A large cargo ship is tied up at a pier. Manifolds 
provide fuel gas and oxygen for hot work located on the main deck of 
the vessel. The manifolds are fed from the pier. A fire is discovered 
below decks and the fire alarm sounds throughout the vessel. The 
employees leave their work stations and proceed off the vessel to a 
waiting area. The yard's fire brigade arrives and boards the vessel. 
The outside or municipal fire department is alerted and initiates its 
response plan. As part of the yard's fire safety plan, the temporary 
service and yard maintenance departments respond to the pier alongside 
the vessel. Representatives of the yard's fire brigade meet with the 
temporary service employees and they communicate with the firefighters 
on board the vessel to identify the location of the fire. Based upon 
the information received from the firefighters on board the vessel, the 
temporary service employees will begin to secure utilities that provide 
service to the fire area. Once the utilities have been secured to 
prevent hazards to the firefighters, the temporary service employees 
will return to the staging area and await further requests from the 
yard's fire brigade.
    In this scenario, the temporary service employees did not enter the 
vessel's compartments with the intent to fight the fire. They responded 
to give skilled, technical support to the responding fire departments. 
OSHA wants to make it clear that in shipyard employment, the shipyard 
support personnel, such as temporary service employees, are not 
considered part of the shipyard's fire brigade or fire response 
department. Shipyard fire response department or brigade employees who 
participate in the actual role of fire suppression and control are the 
only employees covered by this section. These employees must be trained 
for the duties and functions they are expected to perform. The shipyard 
employees who are not part of the shipyard's fire brigade or fire 
department, including skilled support employees, are not covered by 
this section. Their protection is provided by other standards in this 
part.
    In paragraph (a)(1) of Sec.  1915.505, the shipyard employer is 
required to determine who will perform fire response in the shipyard 
and what type of response will be provided. The Committee recommended 
this approach based on the diverse fire response capabilities it found 
throughout the industry. Some shipyard employers, those with very large 
facilities, employ full-time shipyard firefighters and provide them 
with response apparatus and equipment. At the other end of the spectrum 
are the employers at small shipyards who must rely totally on public 
fire protection. One Committee member indicated that his shipyard fire 
response personnel constitute the superior fire protection expertise in 
his community. This is with regard not only to shipyard fires but also 
to the fire response operations of the local public fire department to 
which he offers support and back-up. Yet, at another meeting, a public 
fire official indicated his department provides all of the fire 
protection for the shipyards located in his district. The Committee 
consensus is that the deciding factors are so many and so varied that 
each shipyard employer must take responsibility for determining who 
will provide fire response services and what those services will be.
    OSHA proposes in paragraph (a)(2) of Sec.  1915.505 that the 
employer must create and maintain an updated written statement or 
policy that describes the internal and outside fire response 
organizations that the employer will use. In complete agreement with 
the Committee, OSHA is promoting the idea of pre-planning throughout 
this proposed fire response section.
    Paragraph (a)(3) of Sec.  1915.505 proposes that the employer 
create, maintain, and update a written statement or policy that defines 
what evacuation procedures employees must follow if the employer 
chooses to require a total or partial evacuation of the worksite at the 
time of a fire.
    The Committee stated strongly that once the shipyard employer 
decides how to protect employees from the hazards of fire, the methods 
of protection must be pre-planned and documented regardless of the type 
of response the employer chooses. Accordingly, in paragraph (b) of 
Sec.  1915.505, OSHA proposes the information that must be included in 
the written policy statement required by this section. These written 
policy statements should set forth the basis for operating a fire 
response service. A key point is to set out clearly the specific

[[Page 76230]]

functions the fire response service is authorized and expected to 
perform. Employers must assert their authority to set the specific 
functions and the limits of the functions the fire response service 
will provide. The employer also must furnish the necessary resources 
for delivering the designated services. Such services might include 
structural fire response, emergency medical services, hazardous 
materials response, high-angle rescue, heavy rescue, and others.
    OSHA proposes in paragraph (b)(1) of Sec.  1915.505 that, if the 
employer chooses to provide internal fire response, then the employer 
must create, maintain, and update a written statement or policy that 
defines the fire response to be provided. The information would include 
the organizational structure of the fire response service; the number 
of trained fire response employees; the minimum number of fire response 
employees necessary, the number and types of apparatus, and a 
description of the fire suppression operations established by written 
standard operating procedures for each type of fire response at the 
employer's facility; training requirements; expected functions that may 
need to be carried out; and procedures for use of protective clothing 
and equipment. Spelling out the specific parameters of services to be 
provided allows the fire response service to plan, staff, equip, train, 
and deploy members to perform these duties.
    Similarly, OSHA proposes in paragraph (b)(2) of Sec.  1915.505 that 
if the employer chooses to use an outside fire response organization, 
then the employer must include specific information in the employer's 
policy statement. The policy statement should include the following: 
(1) The types of fire suppression incidents to which the fire response 
organization is expected to respond at the employer's facility or 
worksite; (2) the liaison which would presumably be by individual name 
or job title, between the employer and the outside fire response 
organization; (3) a plan for fire response functions that discusses 
using or getting help from other organizations, and familiarizes the 
external fire response organization with the layout of the employer's 
facility or worksite, including access routes to controlled areas, and 
site-specific operations, occupancies, vessels or vessel sections, and 
hazards; and how hose and coupling connection threads are to be made 
compatible and where the adapter couplings are kept; or have a 
statement saying that they will not allow the use of incompatible hose 
connections.
    OSHA further proposes in paragraph (b)(3) of Sec.  1915.505 that if 
the employer chooses to use a combination of an internal and an outside 
fire response organization, then the employer must define the fire 
response services in addition to the requirements in (b)(1) and (2) 
above, that will be provided by each fire response organization. 
Specifically, the following information must be included: The basic 
organizational structure of the combined fire response; the number of 
combined trained fire responders; the fire response functions that need 
to be carried out; the minimum number of fire response employees 
necessary, the number and types of apparatus, and a description of the 
fire suppression operations established by written standard operating 
procedures for each particular type of fire response at the worksite; 
and the type, amount, and frequency of joint training that must be 
given to fire response employees.
    As an alternative to providing active fire response, the Committee 
recognized in paragraph (b)(4) of Sec.  1915.505, OSHA's longstanding 
policy that employers may also ensure employee safety in case of fire 
through the means of evacuation. Accordingly, paragraph (b)(4) of Sec.  
1915.505 would require that the employer's evacuation policy statement 
include the following: Emergency escape procedures; procedures to be 
followed by employees who may remain longer in the worksite to perform 
critical shipyard operations before they evacuate; procedures to 
account for all employees after emergency evacuation is completed; the 
preferred means of reporting fires and other emergencies; and names or 
job titles of the employees or departments who may be contacted for 
further information or explanation of duties. These requirements are 
based on similar requirements found in employee emergency plans and 
fire prevention plans (29 CFR 1910.38).
    Emergency escape procedures in shipyard employment can vary greatly 
depending upon whether the worksite is located on a vessel or vessel 
section or in a landside facility. For example, on a vessel at 
anchorage, escape routes from the vessel may be more difficult to 
identify than those found in a landside machine shop, carpenter's shop, 
welding shop, cafeteria, employment office, or similar worksite. This 
paragraph also requires procedures to protect employees who must remain 
behind to perform critical shipyard operations before they evacuate. 
Critical shipyard operations may include shutting down a vessel's power 
plant, securing utilities to the fire area, or similar activities. 
Additionally, accountability procedures for all employees following 
emergency evacuation must be established. For example, employees could 
be directed to report to a specific location after evacuation. Another 
important element of the evacuation policy is the preferred means of 
reporting fires or other emergencies. Examples include telephone or 
radio communications, fire alarms, steam whistles, verbal 
communication, or other tactile, visual, or audible means of 
communication at the employer's discretion. Finally, as a means to 
administer the evacuation policy effectively, the statement must 
indicate the key individuals by name, job title, or department to be 
contacted for further information or explanation of duties under the 
policy.
    In paragraph (b)(5) OSHA is proposing a requirement that the 
employer must include a description of the emergency rescue procedures 
and names or job titles of the employees who are assigned to perform 
rescue and emergency response. The Committee recommended this 
requirement and OSHA agrees.
    In paragraph (c) of Sec.  1915.505, OSHA, following the 
recommendation of the Committee, proposes the physical and medical 
qualifications shipyard employees must meet to be a part of the fire 
response. In paragraph (c)(1) of Sec.  1915.505, OSHA requires that all 
fire response employees receive medical examinations to assure that 
they are physically and medically fit for the duties they are expected 
to perform. This approach is consistent with NFPA 600-2000, NFPA 1500-
2002, and other OSHA standards, such as in 29 CFR 1910.156 and 29 CFR 
1910.120. OSHA recognizes that firefighting is one of the most 
hazardous occupations and that those who perform fire response 
activities must be able to perform them properly without jeopardizing 
the safety and health of themselves and other firefighters. Of 
particular concern to OSHA are such conditions as emphysema, heart 
disease, and epilepsy. While these conditions do not preclude 
participation in fire response, they may preclude participation in 
certain fire response activities. For that reason, OSHA proposes to 
require the employee's physical and mental fitness be in accord with 
the duties the employee will perform.
    In paragraph (c)(2) of Sec.  1915.505, OSHA is proposing that fire 
response employees who are required to wear respirators while 
performing their duties must meet the medical requirements of 29 CFR 
1915.154 Respiratory protection. This

[[Page 76231]]

requirement is consistent with the language of 29 CFR 1910.134 (c)(1) 
that requires employers whose employees use respirators to develop and 
implement a respiratory protection program. One of the elements of a 
respiratory protection program is implementing medical evaluation for 
employees who use respirators. Paragraphs (g)(3) and (g)(4) of 29 CFR 
1910.134 require firefighters who perform interior structural 
firefighting or who enter atmospheres that are immediately dangerous to 
life and health ( IDLH atmospheres) to wear self-contained breathing 
apparatus.
    In paragraph (c)(3) of Sec.  1915.505, OSHA proposes to require 
that the employer make sure that all fire response employees have an 
annual medical examination. Further, in paragraph (c)(4), medical 
records of fire response employees must be kept according to 29 CFR 
1915.1020 Access to Employee Exposures and Medical records. These 
proposed requirements are consistent with existing regulations found in 
29 CFR 1910.156 and 29 CFR 1910.134.
    In paragraph (d) of Sec.  1915.505, OSHA addresses the procedures 
the employer would have to follow for organizing internal fire response 
functions. Paragraph (d)(1) proposes that the employer must organize 
the employer's fire response functions to make sure that there are 
enough resources to safely conduct emergency operations at the site. 
This language is consistent with the goals and language of paragraph 
4.1.1 of NFPA 1500-2002 addressing the fire department's organizational 
statement. The Committee believes organization of the internal fire 
response functions is critical to its success in a fire emergency.
    In paragraph (d)(2) of Sec.  1915.505, OSHA proposes that the 
employer must set up written administrative regulations, standard 
operating procedures, and departmental orders for fire response 
functions. This proposed language is also consistent with the language 
of Chapter 4 in NFPA 1500-2002 addressing the organization of fire 
response providers.
    In paragraph (d)(3) of Sec.  1915.505, OSHA proposes that the 
employer must set up an Incident Management System (IMS) to coordinate 
and direct fire response functions. It is proposed that this system 
must include specific fire emergency responsibilities; how the employer 
will account for all fire response employees during an emergency 
operation; and what resources would be offered by outside 
organizations. This proposal is consistent with the goals and language 
found in paragraph 8.1 of NFPA 1500-2002. The IMS is an improved fire 
department management and control system, based on actual experience 
with the Incident Command System (ICS) recognized in other OSHA 
standards such as 29 CFR 1910.156 Fire Brigades and 29 CFR 1910.120 
Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response. Incident command is 
now a subset of incident management. The new system recognizes that 
command at an incident is only part of the overall management necessary 
to safely respond to emergency situations.
    In paragraph (d)(4) of Sec.  1915.505, OSHA proposes that employers 
provide this information (of paragraph (d)) the outside fire response 
organization to be used. The Committee believes that providing this 
information will improve coordination and ease pre-planning efforts to 
ensure a safe overall fire response. These proposed provisions are 
consistent with existing OSHA requirements (29 CFR 1910.156 Fire 
brigades and 29 CFR 1910.120 Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency 
Response).
    Paragraph (e)(1) of Sec.  1915.505, addresses the personal 
protective equipment of fire response employees. OSHA proposes the 
employer must provide hazard specific personal protective clothing and 
equipment, at no cost, to fire response employees. It is also proposed 
that the employer must make sure that each employee wears the personal 
protective clothing and equipment that offers protection from the 
hazards to which that employee is likely to be exposed. This general 
requirement was recommended by the Committee and is consistent with the 
language found in chapter 7 of NFPA 1500-2002. It is specifically 
consistent with existing OSHA standards and with paragraph 7.1.2 of 
NFPA 1500-2002.
    In paragraph (e)(2) of Sec.  1915.505, OSHA proposes the 
requirements for protective clothing's thermal stability and flame 
resistance. It is proposed in paragraph (e)(2)(i) that the employer 
would have to make sure that each fire response employee exposed to the 
hazards of flame does not wear clothing that, when exposed to flames, 
could increase the extent of injury that the fire response employee 
would sustain. Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(ii) specifically prohibits 
wearing clothing made from acetate, nylon, or polyester, either alone 
or in blends, unless it could be shown that the fabric can withstand 
the flammability hazard that could be encountered, or that the clothing 
is worn in such a way to eliminate the flammability hazard that may be 
encountered. This language is consistent with the language in existing 
OSHA standards and in paragraph 7.1.6 of NFPA 1500-2002.
    In paragraph (e)(3) of Sec.  1915.505, OSHA proposes the 
requirements for respiratory protection for shipyard fire response 
employees. The proposed requirements in paragraph (e)(3) are consistent 
with current industry practice as discussed by the Committee.
    In paragraph (e)(3)(i) of Sec.  1915.505, OSHA proposes that the 
employer provide self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) to all 
shipyard fire response employees who are involved in emergency 
operations in an atmosphere that is immediately dangerous to life or 
health (IDLH), may become IDLH, or is unknown. This language is 
consistent with existing OSHA standards and paragraph 7.8.7 of NFPA 
1500-2002.
    In paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of Sec.  1915.505, OSHA proposes that the 
employer provide SCBA to fire response employees performing emergency 
operations during hazardous chemical emergencies that will expose them 
to known chemicals in vapor form or to unknown chemicals. OSHA 
recognizes that there may be a potential for employee exposure to 
hazardous chemicals during fire response emergencies due to the nature 
of shipyard employment. As proposed, this requirement would limit 
employers to the use of SCBAs for this type of chemical exposure.
    In paragraph (e)(3)(iii) of Sec.  1915.505, it is proposed that the 
employer must provide either SCBA or respiratory protective devices. 
The SCBA or respiratory device must be certified by NIOSH under 42 CFR 
part 84 as suitable for the specific chemical environment, to fire 
response employees who perform or support emergency operations that 
will expose them to chemicals in liquid form. In this proposal, OSHA 
recognizes that the hazard to employees because of liquid chemical 
exposure is such that respirators other than SCBAs, such as cartridge 
respirators, may provide appropriate protection and be less costly to 
provide and maintain.
    In paragraph (e)(3)(iv) of Sec.  1915.505, OSHA also proposes that 
the employer must ensure that additional outside air supplies used in 
conjunction with SCBA be positive pressure systems and certified by 
NIOSH under 42 CFR part 84. Again, this proposal is consistent with 
existing OSHA standards and paragraph 7.10.1.1 of NFPA 1500-2002.
    In paragraph (e)(3)(v) of Sec.  1915.505, OSHA proposes that the 
employer must provide only SCBA that meets the requirements of NFPA 
1981-1997, Standard on Open-Circuit Self-

[[Page 76232]]

Contained Breathing Apparatus for Firefighters (Ex. 20-7). The fire 
response members of the committee, stated that this has been a long 
standing recommendation and has become standard equipment for all fire 
response organizations throughout the country.
    In paragraph (e)(3)(vi) of Sec.  1915.505, OSHA proposes that the 
employer establish a respiratory protection program and use respiratory 
protective equipment according to 29 CFR 1915.154 Respiratory 
Protection. The Committee based this proposal on the language found in 
29 CFR 1910.156, and 29 CFR 1910.134(g).
    In paragraph (e)(4) of Sec.  1915.505, OSHA proposes that the 
employer must supply at no cost to all fire response employees who are 
exposed to the hazards of interior structural firefighting within 
shipyard employment, either protective coats and trousers, or 
protective coveralls; helmets; gloves; footwear; and protective hoods 
that meet the applicable requirements of NFPA 1971-2000, Standard on 
Protective Clothing Ensemble for Structural Firefighting (Ex. 20-8). 
This proposal is based upon chapter 7 of NFPA 1500-2002.
    In paragraph (e)(5) of Sec.  1915.505, OSHA proposes that the 
employer must supply, at no cost to all fire response employees who are 
exposed to the hazards of proximity firefighting, the appropriate 
protective proximity clothing that would have to meet the applicable 
requirements of NFPA 1976-2000, Standard on Protective Clothing for 
Proximity Firefighting (Ex. 20-9).
    It is the intent of this section to require that only the shipyard 
employees who will be engaged in operations that will expose them to 
the intense radiant heat of a proximity firefighting incident (the 
proximity hot zone) be equipped with specialized proximity firefighting 
protective clothing.
    Employee protection from the hazards of proximity firefighting 
situations should be viewed in a similar manner to hazardous materials 
operations. That is, employees must be fully encapsulated to protect 
them from the unique hazards associated with both situations. The 
employer should know the locations where such potential exposure to 
high radiant heat hazards exists, such as bulk flammable liquid or bulk 
flammable gas facilities. By determining what operations employees 
could undertake and what the potential exposure will be for those 
employees conducting fire response operations, the employer will know 
which employees need proximity firefighting clothing.
    At an incident, the employer must establish the boundaries of the 
proximity hot zone for that incident and require all who must operate 
within those boundaries to be protected from the intense radiant heat. 
Intense radiant heat may cause injury to the employees or damage or 
destroy their structural firefighting protective clothing. The employer 
could make the decision to evacuate the area and protect employees from 
such exposures. Then the employer can summon mutual aid that is 
equipped with the appropriate equipment and proximity protective 
clothing to handle the proximity hot zone of the incident. The employer 
could also use fixed protection systems available at the facility to 
apply extinguishing agents (master streams, water deluge, foam, etc.) 
into the proximity hot zone. Alternatively, the employer could train 
and equip his or her own response employees to be able to fully deal 
with these incidents.
    Not every employee needs to be included in the proximity hot zone 
operations unless the employer's written statement or policy requires 
these resources. For example, the employer may plan fire response 
operations that would contain and control the fire without the need for 
employees' operating within the proximity hot zone. Therefore, the 
employer would not need to provide proximity firefighting protective 
clothing. Using other protective strategies (including but not limited 
to physical shields or barriers, or large volume water stream 
applications that are sustained over the entire duration of the 
incident) could protect employees who otherwise would need proximity 
firefighting protective clothing. This language is consistent with the 
language in paragraph 7.3 of NFPA 1500-2002.
    In paragraph (e)(6) of Sec.  1915.505, OSHA proposes that the 
employer provide a Personal Alert Safety System (PASS) device to each 
fire response employee involved in firefighting operations. The PASS 
devices must meet the requirements of NFPA 1982-1998, Standard on 
Personal Alert Safety Systems (PASS) for Firefighters (Ex. 19-10). This 
language is consistent with the language in paragraph 7.13.1 of NFPA 
1500-2002.
    A PASS is a device that is attached to or is an integral part of 
self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA). It automatically sounds a 
distinctive alarm (some units also display a flashing strobe light) if 
a fire response employee becomes immobile for a pre-determined period 
of time (usually 30-40 seconds). For example, the device would be 
activated in the event a fire responder becomes incapacitated from 
structural collapse or runs out of breathing air. It can also be 
activated manually by the fire response employee. Fire response 
employees who might become trapped or lost, but are not unconscious, 
can also activate the device to help searchers locate them. The shrill 
alarm allows rescuers to locate the wearer quickly in dark or heavy 
smoke conditions. The alerting sound of a PASS can easily be 
distinguished from a low air supply alarm emitted by a SCBA. The 
Committee agreed that it is every fire fighter's nightmare to be in a 
fire situation and hear both alarms coming from a comrade's position. 
This means the comrade has run out of air and is motionless. All 
incidental fire response activities will immediately stop until the 
disabled fire fighter is located and pulled to safety. PASS devices are 
now considered standard issue and are recommended by NFPA Standard No. 
1982-1998. It is also industry practice.
    Section 1915.505(e)(7) addresses life safety ropes, body harnesses, 
and hardware. The workgroup, based on their experience, proposed this 
requirement to the Committee. Their recommendation is consistent with 
current practice in the fire service. The committee accepted the 
workgroups recommendations.
    In paragraph (e)(7)(i) of Sec.  1915.505, OSHA proposes that all 
life safety ropes, body harnesses, and hardware used by fire response 
employees for emergency operations must meet the applicable 
requirements of NFPA 1983-2001, Standard on Fire Service Life Safety 
Rope, Harnesses, and Hardware (Ex. 19-11). This is consistent with 
subpart I of this part and paragraph 7.14.1 of NFPA 1500-2002.
    In paragraph (e)(7)(ii) of Sec.  1915.505, OSHA proposes that only 
class I body harnesses may be used to attach fire response employees to 
ladders and aerial devices. This is consistent with NFPA 1983-2001.
    In paragraph (e)(7)(iii) of Sec.  1915.505, OSHA proposes that only 
class II and class III body harnesses may be used by fire response 
employees for fall arrest and repelling operations. This is consistent 
with NFPA 1983-2001.
    In paragraph (f) of Sec.  1915.505, OSHA addresses equipment 
maintenance.
    In paragraph (f)(1) of Sec.  1915.505, OSHA proposes that the 
employer must inspect and maintain personal protective equipment used 
to protect fire response employees to make sure that it provides the 
intended protection. Such inspection and maintenance is consistent with 
OSHA's personal protective equipment standards.

[[Page 76233]]

    In paragraph (f)(2) of Sec.  1915.505, OSHA addresses the 
maintenance of fire response equipment. The requirements for testing 
and maintaining fire response equipment are consistent with sound 
safety practices and the requirements for tools and equipment found in 
chapter 7 of NFPA 1500-2002.
    In paragraph (f)(2)(i) of Sec.  1915.505, the employer is required 
to keep fire response equipment in a state of readiness.
    In paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of Sec.  1915.505, OSHA proposes that the 
employer must make sure that all fire hose coupling and connection 
threads are standardized throughout the facility and on vessels and 
vessel sections by providing the same type of hose coupling and 
connection threads for hoses of the same or similar diameter. It is 
important to stress the need for standardized or compatible threads in 
couplings and connections. The Committee heard testimony from fire 
department personnel stressing the need for compatibility and 
standardization. Those fire department representatives indicated for 
example, that many 1\1/2\-inch hoses have threads that look very 
similar but cannot be connected.
    In paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of Sec.  1915.505, OSHA proposes that if 
the employer uses an outside fire organization for fire response and 
the employer expects them to use the employer's facility's or vessel's 
or vessel section's fire response equipment, then the employer must 
make sure that either all the facility's or vessel's or vessel 
section's hose and coupling connection threads are the same as those 
used by the outside fire authority or that suitable adapter couplings 
are supplied. This language is consistent with the language found in 
paragraph 9.3 of NFPA 14-2000 (Ex. 20-12).

Section 1915.506 Hazards of Fixed Extinguishing Systems on Board 
Vessels and Vessel Sections

    This section addresses the hazards associated with fixed 
extinguishing systems on board vessels and vessel sections that could 
create a hazardous atmosphere when activated in shipyard employment, 
regardless of geographic location. Of particular concern is the 
incorrect or inadvertent activation of these systems. Fixed fire 
extinguishing systems found on land side are covered by the next 
section of this proposed subpart, Sec.  1915.507 Land side Fire 
Protection Systems.
    The hazards associated with the use of fixed extinguishing systems 
on board vessels and vessel sections have long been recognized by the 
United States Coast Guard (USCG) as evidenced by Coast Guard Commandant 
Notices and Instructions that date to 1978. The International Maritime 
Organization \2\ (IMO) has also addressed this issue by issuing 
regulations that are part of the International Convention for the 
Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The International Maritime Organization is the United 
Nations' specialized agency responsible for improving maritime 
safety and preventing pollution from ships.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Testing these ships' fixed extinguishing systems has led to several 
fatalities. In October, 1996, aboard the Italian flag liquid natural 
gas (LNG) carrier SNAM PORTVENERE, an American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) 
surveyor and five shipyard technicians were killed when carbon dioxide 
(CO2) was released accidently from a fixed fire 
extinguishing system that was being tested. On May 3, 1993, aboard the 
M/V CAPE DIAMOND, while a contractor was testing a low pressure 
CO2 system that protected the ship's engine room, 
CO2 was discharged accidently, causing the deaths of a Coast 
Guard marine inspector and a shipyard contractor. Additionally, an 
intentional activation of a manual CO2 extinguishing system 
aboard the Australian naval vessel HMS APPLELEAF, caused the death of 
four persons. These incidents were attributed to human error in which 
the discharge of CO2 extinguishing systems protecting spaces 
aboard vessels was allowed to occur while employees were working 
inside.
    The Committee recognized and OSHA agrees that although the casualty 
history reveals problems with only CO2 systems, the 
potential exists for the use of new extinguishing agents and 
application methods to produce hazards similar to CO2. 
Therefore, the proposed employer's responsibilities in paragraph (a) of 
Sec.  1915.506 apply to all fixed extinguishing systems aboard vessels 
and vessel sections, regardless of geographic location, that may result 
in a hazardous atmosphere if discharged. It is very likely that the 
only systems that may be affected by this regulation will be those that 
employ gaseous or two-phase (gaseous/liquid) extinguishing agents. 
However, by including all systems that may create a hazardous 
atmosphere when activated, the Committee believes that the regulation 
will be broad enough to cover future systems and/or extinguishing 
agents that are currently unforeseen. Examples of future possibilities 
include systems employing dry chemical extinguishing agents (these 
systems currently exist but are not typically installed on vessels), 
combination dual water/dry chemical systems, or systems using Halon 
alternative agents.
    While developing this proposal, the Committee discussed whether to 
include requirements for other systems that do not cause hazardous 
atmospheres when activated, such as foam and automatic water sprinkler 
systems. After extensive discussion, the Committee decided that a 
standard for these systems was not necessary because they are not 
typically relied upon on board vessels and vessel sections, and they do 
not pose a significant safety and health threat to employees.
    In proposed paragraph (b) of Sec.  1915.506, the Committee agreed 
to require that systems, whether designed to be activated automatically 
or manually, be physically isolated or be provided with other positive 
means to prevent discharge of the systems before any work is done in a 
space equipped with fixed extinguishing systems. The Committee 
recognized the increased hazard posed by systems that are activated by 
either pneumatic, electronic, or other means, with no human action 
necessary to set them into operation. However, even if a system also 
has a manual means of activation, it would have to be physically 
isolated or provided with other positive means to prevent discharge. 
Examples of other positive means can be found in paragraph (c) of this 
section. Systems that are activated automatically are normally located 
in typically unoccupied spaces such as paint lockers and storage 
lockers, but can also be found in normally occupied spaces such as 
engine rooms and pump rooms.
    In paragraphs (b), (d), and (e) of Sec.  1915.506, the term 
physically isolated refers to physically preventing the extinguishing 
agent from entering the work area. This is typically done by installing 
a blank (a flat piece of metal between two flanges) in the supply line 
of the extinguishing system so that the extinguishing agent can not 
possibly be released into the protected area.
    Paragraph (b) of Sec.  1915.506 sets forth the provisions that must 
be completed before any work is done in a space equipped with such 
fixed fire extinguishing systems. In paragraph (b)(1) of Sec.  
1915.506, OSHA proposes that systems must be physically isolated or 
have other positive means to prevent discharge.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2) of Sec.  1915.506 requires employee 
training to ensure recognition of systems discharge and evacuation 
alarms, and recognition of the appropriate escape routes. This training 
consists of making sure that employees recognize the discharge and

[[Page 76234]]

evacuation alarms and escape routes in accordance with Sec.  1915.508 
of this subpart.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(3) of Sec.  1915.506 was included as a 
result of Coast Guard information about a casualty at sea. The United 
States Coast Guard recognized the need to ensure adequate means of 
escape from spaces protected by CO2 systems. In this 
incident, the chief engineer inadvertently discharged CO2 
into a space with an inward opening door. Members of the crew were 
unable to open the door until pressure in the space subsided. During 
that time some crew members were asphyxiated. As a result of this 
incident the Coast Guard recommended that during inspections, 
CO2 storage provisions and means of escape should be 
evaluated. The Coast Guard stated further that protective measures 
should be provided, such as making sure that doors open outward, that 
there are kick-out panels in doors or bulkheads, that doors are blocked 
open when the space is occupied, or that there are sufficient vent 
openings to the atmosphere. These recommendations are also recognized 
in COMDTINST 16000.7, MSM, Vol. II (Ex. 17) and SOLAS 74/78 (Ex. 18) 
which require outward opening access doors in CO2 protected spaces 
aboard vessels.
    Proposed Sec.  1915.506(b)(4) addresses the Committee's concern 
with inward opening doors, hatches, scuttles, and other potential 
barriers that may close off escape routes as a result of system 
activation. The Committee recognized that fully opening or removing 
doors may cause unacceptable exposures of equipment or employees to the 
elements (e.g. freezing, precipitation, etc.) and, therefore, proposed 
that this concern may be satisfied by placing a blocking device between 
the door and door frame to make sure that in the event of system 
discharge escape routes will not be impaired.
    OSHA recognizes that placing a blocking device in a fire door is 
normally an unacceptable practice. However, in this case, because of 
the hazard of asphyxiation, OSHA would allow the doors to be blocked 
open, as long as the blocks are removed before the system is relied 
upon to provide fire protection.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(5) of Sec.  1915.506 requires employee 
training in the hazards associated with extinguishing systems, such as 
how to avoid disturbing system components and equipment that are 
located within spaces. Such components and equipment include piping, 
cables, linkages, detection devices, activation devices, and alarm 
devices. Typically in shipyard employment, employees rig materials and 
equipment in and out of vessel and vessel sections, using chain falls 
and come-alongs. Employees untrained about the dangers of disturbing 
system components could accidently activate the system while in the 
process of rigging.
    The Committee recognized that the majority of current 
CO2 systems are not equipped with components and 
instrumentation that would allow a simple method for physically 
isolating the system. Therefore, the Committee proposed paragraph (c) 
of 1915.506 to allow work in a space protected by a system activated 
solely by manual means without the need to physically isolate. Although 
the safest method is to physically isolate the system, OSHA believes 
that the requirements included in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of 
Sec.  1915.506 provide an acceptable level of safety. One reason for 
these options is the impracticality of physically isolating the system 
for routine and short-duration maintenance and repairs. The Committee 
wanted to encourage manufacturers, standards writing agencies, and end 
users to work to develop a simple and practical means for physically 
isolating existing and future systems.
    Proposed paragraph (c) of Sec.  1915.506 is intended to minimize 
the risk of intentional or accidental activation of a manual system 
during sea trials by requiring that all activation stations, whether 
remote or local, must be secured under lock and key or an attendant 
posted. The intent is to prevent unauthorized persons access to the 
activation controls of a manual system.
    Proposed paragraphs (d) and (e) of Sec.  1915.506 address system 
testing and system maintenance operations. These have been demonstrated 
to be the most likely causes of accidental system activation. The Coast 
Guard currently requires fixed fire extinguishing systems to be 
disconnected when undergoing any testing or maintenance. The need for 
these requirements is demonstrated clearly by the fatalities that 
occurred while testing the fixed system on the M/V CAPE DIAMOND 
mentioned above. As a result of this incident the Coast Guard 
recommended that personnel in spaces protected by CO2 
systems be evacuated during testing, unless suitable safeguards are 
instituted, such as isolating the CO2 supply from the 
protected space or providing personnel with self-contained breathing 
apparatus (SCBA).
    The Committee considered the Coast Guard recommendation for 
employees doing testing to have the option of using SCBAs or using 
emergency escape breathing devices (EEBD). But the Committee concluded 
that, because the potential for accidental discharge is so great during 
testing and maintenance of the system, it is necessary to physically 
isolate the system during testing and maintenance. The Committee 
further proposed requiring evacuation of the space by all personnel not 
directly involved in testing. The reason for proposing both to 
physically isolate the system and to evacuate non-essential personnel 
during testing is that testing of the system typically results in alarm 
activation and discharge of extinguishing agent. Therefore all 
indications of a test gone awry may be ignored as a false or nuisance 
alarm by non-essential employees until it is too late to evacuate the 
space safety. OSHA agreed that the proposal to evacuate all personnel 
not involved in testing the system best protects the safety of shipyard 
employees.
    Several members of the Committee noted that during sea trials, the 
employer may expect employees to rely on the on board fixed 
extinguishing system in the event of a fire. In proposed paragraph (f) 
of Sec.  1915.506, OSHA addresses the hazards associated with using 
fixed fire extinguishing systems by proposing that employees be trained 
and designated as necessary to operate and activate the system 
properly. Further, OSHA proposes that all employees be evacuated from 
protected spaces, affected areas, and accounted for before the 
discharge of the system.
    Two serious incidents resulting in ten fatalities were caused by 
intentional activation of a manual CO2 extinguishing system 
protecting an engine room while personnel were trapped inside. One 
incident occurred on the SNAM PORTOVENERE. Lloyd's Register reported on 
November 7, 1996, that ``an autopsy on the victims revealed that carbon 
dioxide was the cause of death, rather than the fire or smoke from the 
blaze which had been reported in the engine room. Sources said the fire 
was small and was being put out with hand extinguishers when the carbon 
dioxide plant was activated, saturating about 85% of the engine room 
within 2 minutes, according to one of the technicians who survived the 
incident.'' (Ex. 10-1). OSHA therefore proposes in paragraph (f)(1) of 
Sec.  1915.506 to require that employees be trained and designated to 
operate fixed manual systems when the employer expects these systems to 
be relied on in the event of a fire.
    As reported in the London Guardian, the second incident occurred 
aboard the

[[Page 76235]]

HMS APPLELEAF, when, ``an Australian naval captain ordered that the 
engine room be sealed off and the compartment flooded with carbon 
dioxide--with four crew members inside.'' (Ex. 10-2). Although the 
report was not clear as to whether or not the cause of the deaths in 
this case was from asphyxiation by the carbon dioxide or from fire and 
smoke exposure, the incident illustrates the hazards associated with 
discharging a lethal concentration of an extinguishing agent into an 
occupied, enclosed space. The Committee strongly recommended and OSHA 
agreed to propose in paragraph (f)(2) of Sec.  1915.506 to require that 
the protected space and affected areas must be evacuated completely and 
all employees accounted for before discharge of the fixed manual 
extinguishing system.

Section 1915.507 Land Side Fire Protection Systems

    While developing these provisions, the Committee examined existing 
OSHA regulations for fire protection. Currently there are several OSHA 
requirements for land side portable and fixed fire protection systems 
in part 1915. For flammable liquids, Sec.  1915.36(a)(6) requires 
``Suitable fire extinguishing equipment shall be immediately available 
in the work area and shall be maintained in a state of readiness for 
instant use.'' For welding, cutting and heating operations, Sec.  
1915.52(a)(2) requires, ``If the object to be welded, cut or heated 
cannot be moved and if all the fire hazards including combustible 
cargoes cannot be removed, positive means shall be taken to confine the 
heat, sparks, and slag, and to protect the immovable fire hazards from 
them.'' For all hot work Sec.  1915.52(b)(2) requires ``Suitable fire 
extinguishing equipment shall be immediately available in the work area 
and shall be maintained in a state of readiness for instant use.'' For 
all hot work Sec.  1915.52(b)(4) requires that ``Vaporizing liquid 
extinguishers shall not be used in enclosed spaces.''
    Additionally, for ship breaking operations only, Sec.  1915.52(c) 
requires ``In all cases, suitable fire extinguishing equipment shall be 
immediately available in the work area and shall be maintained in a 
state of readiness for instant use. Personnel assigned to contain fires 
within controllable limits shall be instructed as to the specific 
anticipated fire hazards and how the firefighting equipment provided is 
to be used.'' For general working conditions, Sec.  1915.91(d) 
requires, ``Free access shall be maintained at all times to all exits 
and to all fire alarm boxes or fire extinguishing equipment.'' While 
these standards apply specifically to fire protection in shipyard 
employment, the Committee recognized that there are also additional 
standards in the part 1910 General Industry Standards that are 
currently used as guidelines in shipyard employment and are accepted 
industry practice. The Committee has recommended, and OSHA agrees, that 
the existing requirements in Sec.  1915 that address fire protection 
will be replaced by the requirements of this subpart.
    Subpart L of part 1910 contains the general industry standards for 
portable and fixed fire suppression systems. The specific types of 
equipment and systems regulated include portable fire extinguishers, 
standpipe and hose systems, automatic sprinkler systems, and fixed 
extinguishing systems using liquid, solid, or gaseous extinguishing 
agents. There are also requirements for fire detection and fire alarm 
systems. The current standards in subpart L were developed in 1980 (45 
FR 60710) as a major revision to the original 6(a) standards adopted in 
May, 1971. While subpart L of part 1910 does not apply to the maritime 
industry (29 CFR 1910.155), many of these standards are used 
voluntarily as guidelines to control hazards to shipyard employees 
working in shipyard employment.
    In addition to reviewing current OSHA standards, the Committee also 
considered applicable national consensus standards and codes developed 
by NFPA. The NFPA codes and standards are the recommendations of the 
NFPA consumers, property owners, fire authorities, federal agencies, 
insurance companies, and other persons interested in providing fire 
safety to life and property. The NFPA codes and standards are purely 
advisory documents so far as the NFPA is concerned. They become an 
influential force for the public when adopted by governmental 
authority. Many of the NFPA standards were adopted under the section 6 
(a) of Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.
    The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, through its 
standards, uses NFPA codes and standards in two ways: In most cases, 
the codes or standards are incorporated by reference, citing a 
particular edition. This may not be the latest edition published by the 
Association. In other cases, the OSHA standards actually extract some 
or all of the text from NFPA codes and standards and include it in the 
regulatory text of the OSHA rule.
    With respect to this section (land side fire protection systems) of 
the proposal, the Committee recommended that OSHA incorporate by 
reference, the most current edition of an NFPA code or standard rather 
than extract the NFPA text and publish it as the OSHA rule. OSHA 
proposes, in this section, to follow the Committee's recommendation and 
incorporate by reference the necessary NFPA codes and standards. The 
standards proposed in this notice are based upon the current and 
applicable OSHA and NFPA codes and standards reviewed by the Committee.
    In paragraph (a) of Sec.  1915.507, OSHA proposes to establish the 
employer's responsibilities under the section. Under the proposed rule, 
the employer would be responsible for ensuring that all fixed and 
portable fire protection systems installed to meet a particular OSHA 
standard comply with the appropriate proposed requirements of this 
section. The proposed rules in this section do not apply to fixed or 
portable fire protection systems the employer has installed to meet 
requirements other than OSHA's.
    This proposal is consistent with the philosophy adopted in part 
1910 for regulating fixed and portable fire extinguishing systems. OSHA 
found during the development of the general industry requirements for 
fixed and portable fire protection systems that some employers may opt 
to take property protection systems out of service rather than upgrade 
them to meet OSHA standards, an action that is contrary to basic fire 
prevention policy and property protection concepts. Therefore, rather 
than risk the loss of property, and the associated economic impact of 
such losses, OSHA decided in 1980 to regulate only those systems it 
requires. (See 45 FR 60710.) Fire protection systems installed to meet 
other codes or standards would not be regulated by OSHA.
    In paragraph (b) of Sec.  1915.507, OSHA proposes to regulate the 
use of portable fire extinguishers and hose systems. By proposing to 
incorporate by reference NFPA 10-1998, Standard for Portable Fire 
Extinguishers (Ex. 20-1) in paragraph (b) of this section, the employer 
may replace up to one-half of the required complement of fire 
extinguishers by uniformly spaced 1\1/2\-inch (3.8 cm) hose stations. 
If the employer chooses to use hose systems, then the employer would 
have to meet the requirements of NFPA 14-2000, Standard for the 
Installation of Standpipe Systems (Ex. 20-12). This is consistent with 
current OSHA practice under 29 CFR 1910.157 and 1910.158. The 
incorporation by reference here, in paragraph (b)(1) of Sec.  1915.507, 
should impose no greater burden on employers. Rather, it will permit 
some flexibility in

[[Page 76236]]

offering protection for incipient stage fires.
    In paragraph (b)(2) of this section, OSHA is proposing that the 
employer may use hose lines attached to class II or class III standpipe 
systems in place of portable fire extinguishers if those hose systems 
meet the applicable selection, installation, inspection, maintenance, 
and testing requirements of NFPA 14-2000 (Ex. 19-12), Standard for the 
Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems.
    OSHA proposes in paragraph (c) of Sec.  1915.507 to address the 
general requirements of fixed extinguishing systems the employer must 
install to meet a particular OSHA standard. In paragraph (c)(1) OSHA 
requires that all fixed extinguishing systems required by OSHA must be 
approved for their use by a National Recognized Testing Laboratory 
(NRTL). This is consistent with OSHA's current practice of requiring 
that all fire protection equipment and systems be approved for their 
purpose and design by a NRTL.
    In paragraph (c)(2) of Sec.  1915.507, OSHA proposes, as the 
Committee recommended, that employers must notify employees and take 
the necessary precautions to protect employees when a fire 
extinguishing system becomes inoperable.
    In paragraph (c)(3) of Sec.  1915.507, OSHA also requires that any 
inoperable system be repaired by a qualified technician or mechanic. 
This proposal is consistent with and taken from current, fire 
protection standards (29 CFR 1910.160 and NFPA 12-2000).
    OSHA proposes in paragraph (c)(4) of Sec.  1915.507 that when an 
area remains hazardous to employee safety or health as a result of the 
discharge of an extinguishing agent, personal protective equipment must 
be provided to employees who enter the discharge area or effective 
safeguards must be provided to warn employees not to enter the 
discharge area. This proposal is consistent with the requirements in 
Sec.  1910.160(c).
    This paragraph is necessary because some systems must be designed 
to discharge extinguishing agents in concentrations greater than what 
is safe for humans. These systems, with the potential for creating a 
hazard to employees, need special consideration and control. OSHA 
proposes to carry the current requirement in Sec.  1910.160(c) over to 
the proposal, recognizing that the hazards of such systems need to be 
identified and controlled in shipyard employment. This is particularly 
true of systems using carbon dioxide and some of the newer Halon 
replacement agents. OSHA is also proposing a note to this paragraph 
directing the reader to Sec.  1915.12, Precautions and the order of 
testing before entering confined and enclosed spaces and other 
dangerous atmospheres, for additional requirements for entry into 
dangerous atmospheres that may be created by the discharge of certain 
extinguishing agents.
    In paragraph (c)(5) of Sec.  1915.507, OSHA proposes to require the 
employer to post hazard warning or caution signs at both the entrance 
to and inside of areas protected by fixed systems that could discharge 
extinguishing agents in concentrations that are known to be hazardous 
to employee safety or health. This proposal is consistent with 
paragraph (b)(5) of 29 CFR 1910.160.
    In paragraph (c)(6) of Sec.  1915.507, OSHA proposes, as 
recommended by the Committee, that the employer must select, install, 
inspect, maintain, and test all automatic fire detection systems and 
emergency alarms according to the NFPA 72-1999, National Fire Alarm 
Code (Ex. 19-13). Presently, OSHA requires only that those fire 
detection systems and emergency alarms required to meet a specific OSHA 
standard meet the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.164 and 1910.165. OSHA's 
current standards in Sec. Sec.  1910.164 and 1910.165 were based upon 
existing standards and technology available in the 1970s when OSHA 
developed the standard. Since that time, several technological 
advancements have occurred in both fire detection and fire alarm 
technology.
    As a result, the NFPA consensus committee responsible for 
developing fire detection and alarm standards and codes made extensive 
changes to NFPA 72. The most recent edition of their consensus 
standard, the 1999 edition, recognizes many changes that have taken 
place in the detection and alarm industry, such as those required by 
the Americans with Disabilities Act, software testing, fire modeling, 
and communication technology. OSHA believes, as the Committee 
recommended, that incorporating by reference, NFPA 72-1999 as the OSHA 
standard for designing and installing all fire detection and alarm 
systems will provide employees with protections consistent with 
protections provided by other codes and standards used by local 
authorities having jurisdiction.
    OSHA, in paragraph (d) of this section, addresses the selection, 
installation, maintenance, inspection, and testing requirements for 
specific types of fixed fire extinguishing systems the employer uses to 
meet a particular OSHA standard. In paragraph (d)(1) OSHA proposes, as 
recommended by the Committee, that standpipe and hose systems in land 
side facilities follow NFPA 14-2000.
    In paragraph (d)(2) of Sec.  1915.507, OSHA proposes to incorporate 
by reference, NFPA 13-1999, Standard for the Installation of Automatic 
Sprinkler Systems (Ex. 19-14); NFPA 750-2000, Standard on Water Mist 
Extinguishing Systems (Ex. 19-15); and NFPA 25-2002, Standard for the 
Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-based Fire Protection 
Systems (Ex. 19-16), as the OSHA standard for installing OSHA-required 
automatic sprinkler systems in land side facilities. As above, this 
standard is being incorporated by reference at the recommendation of 
the Committee. OSHA does not believe that there is any increased burden 
placed upon employers by incorporating by reference this newer edition 
of the standard OSHA used in developing 29 CFR 1910.159. One of OSHA's 
goals with this proposal is to update outdated standards used as source 
standards in previous OSHA rules.
    OSHA is also proposing a new standard in paragraph (d)(2) that 
would address installing fixed extinguishing systems that use water 
mist as the extinguishing agent. OSHA proposes to incorporate by 
reference NFPA 750-2000, Standard on Water Mist Extinguishing Systems 
(Ex. 19-15), as the OSHA standard for installing this type of system. 
The systems are found land side in places such as flammable liquid 
storage facilities and electrical equipment spaces.
    In paragraph (d)(3) of Sec.  1915.507, OSHA proposes to incorporate 
by reference several NFPA standards for fixed extinguishing systems 
that use water spray or foam for the extinguishing agent. OSHA proposes 
to incorporate by reference: the NFPA 11-2000, Standard for Low-
Expansion Foam (Ex. 19-17); the NFPA 11A-1999, Standard for Medium- and 
High-Expansion Foam (Ex. 19-18); and NFPA 15-2002, Standard for Water 
Spray Fixed Systems for Fire Protection (Ex. 19-19) as the OSHA 
standards for installing fixed foam extinguishing systems. The 
provisions of this proposed incorporation by reference differentiate 
between the various expansion densities of foam discharges.
    Current OSHA standards in part 1910 address foam extinguishing 
systems in general rather than specific terms. As stated above, one of 
OSHA's goals is to incorporate current standards in this proposal. 
Therefore, OSHA is proposing to incorporate by reference both NFPA 11-
2000 and NFPA 11A-1999 to recognize current technologies and the 
possible use of low-, medium-, and high-expansion foam systems in

[[Page 76237]]

shipyard employment. OSHA believes this incorporation by reference will 
offer greater guidance and flexibility to those employers who choose to 
use fixed foam extinguishing systems to meet OSHA's standards.
    In paragraph (d)(4) of Sec.  1915.507, OSHA proposes to incorporate 
by reference the current edition of NFPA 17-1998, Standard for Dry 
Chemical Extinguishing Systems (Ex. 20-20), as the OSHA standard for 
installing fixed extinguishing systems using dry chemical extinguishing 
agents. Again, this proposed paragraph would apply only to those fixed 
dry chemical extinguishing systems the employer chooses to install to 
meet a particular OSHA standard. OSHA's proposal is based upon the 
Committee's recommendation.
    In paragraph (d)(5) of Sec.  1915.507, OSHA proposes to incorporate 
by reference the current edition of NFPA standards that address fixed 
extinguishing systems using gas as the extinguishing agent. 
Specifically, for standards for designing and installing fixed 
extinguishing systems, OSHA references NFPA 12-2000, Standard on Carbon 
Dioxide Extinguishing Systems (Ex. 20-21); NFPA 12A-1997, Standard on 
Halon 1301 Extinguishing Systems (Ex. 20-22); and NFPA 2001-2000, 
Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems (Ex. 20-23).
    OSHA recognizes that the fire extinguishing agent Halon 1301 is 
being phased out because of environmental concerns. However, for 
economic reasons, existing Halon 1301 systems may remain in service 
until such time as they are replaced by an alternative agent. 
Recognizing that existing Halon 1301 systems that remain in service, 
OSHA proposes to continue regulating their design and installation to 
ensure employee safety. For the systems that will replace Halon, OSHA 
is proposing for the first time that the employer meet NFPA 2001-2000 
for their design and installation. This new proposal is based upon the 
Committee's recommendation that OSHA incorporate by reference the most 
recent edition of applicable NFPA standards to protect employees from 
hazards in the workplace.

Section 1915.508 Training

    The Committee unanimously recognized the importance of employee 
training in combating the hazards of fire throughout shipyard 
employment. Specific emphasis is placed on hazard recognition, fire 
watch, and fire response. This is consistent with OSHA's long held 
philosophy that an adequately trained employee is a safe employee. OSHA 
is proposing the Committee's full recommendations regarding training. 
Also, OSHA's proposal extends the training requirement beyond ship 
breaking operations to include all activities in shipyard employment 
regardless of geographic location. This would include operations 
involving shipbuilding and ship repair activities as well as other 
activities engaged in by shipyard workers.
    Under paragraph (a) of Sec.  1915.508, the employer must train 
employees expected to perform incipient stage firefighting on board 
vessels, in vessel sections, and in land side facilities. Such training 
must be conducted initially upon employment and when necessary to keep 
them proficient in the following: (1) The general principles of using 
fire extinguishers or hose lines, the hazards involved with incipient 
firefighting, and the procedures used to reduce these hazards; (2) the 
hazards associated with fixed and portable fire protection systems that 
they may use or to which they may be exposed during discharge of those 
systems; (3) the activation and operations of fixed and portable fire 
protection systems provided for their use in the workplace; (4) the 
emergency alarm signals, including system discharge and employee 
evacuation alarms; and (5) the primary and secondary evacuation routes 
they must use in the event of a fire in the workplace.
    At the Houston meeting held in February, 2002, the Committee agreed 
to add a note to paragraph (a) of Sec.  1915.508 stating that while all 
vessels and vessel sections have a primary evacuation route, not all 
will have a secondary evacuation route. This language was added as 
clarification to paragraph (a)(5) because although this fire protection 
standard applies to all of shipyard employment, the uniqueness of 
vessels and vessel sections in comparison to buildings or structures 
should be noted.
    OSHA's proposal is consistent with the current training 
requirements found in part 1915 for ship breaking activities and in 
part 1910 for other shipyard activities. The requirement to train and 
retrain selected employees is based upon the current requirements found 
in 29 CFR 1910.157.
    In paragraph (b) of Sec.  1915.508, OSHA addresses training 
requirements for fire response employees and the training requirement 
found in existing paragraph (c) of Sec.  1915.52. That paragraph 
requires that, only for ship breaking operations, all personnel 
assigned to contain fires within controllable limits must be instructed 
about the specific anticipated fire hazards and how the firefighting 
equipment provided is to be used.
    In paragraph (b)(1) of Sec.  1915.508, OSHA proposes that the 
employer must have a written training policy, as part of the Fire 
Safety Plan (Sec.  1915.502) of this part, stating that fire response 
employees are to be trained and capable of carrying out their duties 
and responsibilities at all times. This is consistent with the 
requirements found in 29 CFR 1910.156 and NFPA 1500-2002.
    In paragraph (b)(2), OSHA proposes that the employer keep written 
standard operating procedures (SOPs) that address anticipated emergency 
operations and update these procedures as necessary. The Committee 
concluded, and OSHA agrees, that written standard operating procedures 
are standard training tools that represent the best practice in the 
industry. This is consistent with the language in paragraphs 3-1.5 and 
3-1.8 of NFPA 1500-2001.
    In paragraph (b)(3) of Sec.  1915.508, OSHA proposes that the 
employer review, in advance, all training programs and hands-on 
sessions to make sure that fire response employees are protected from 
training accidents. This proposal is based on a recommendation from the 
workgroup with full Committee approval and not from any established 
standard. The proposal requires a review of all training programs to 
make sure that the procedure will not expose trainees and their 
instructors to hazardous training conditions. The proposal should 
prevent the occurrence of accidents resulting from unexpected events 
such as flare-ups, collapses, entrapments, and stress-induced injuries 
during training evolutions.
    In paragraph (b)(4) of Sec.  1915.508, OSHA proposes that all fire 
response employees receive adequate training for carrying out their 
duties and responsibilities under the employer's standard operating 
procedures. This training program must make sure that these employees 
remain competent to respond to a fire. For example, the employee must 
know how to respond to a fire on board a vessel, where the pier hook-
ups are located, how to gain access to the vessel, the location of the 
fire within the vessel, and the type of fire.
    In paragraph (b)(5) of Sec.  1915.508, OSHA proposes that the 
employer make sure that new fire response service employees are trained 
before they engage in emergency duties so that they can work safely and 
effectively at a fire scene. This language is consistent with the 
language in paragraph 3-1.3 of NFPA 1500-2002. The purpose of this 
proposal is to make sure that employees are trained to perform the 
duties

[[Page 76238]]

expected of them. If they have not been trained in a particular skill, 
they would not be permitted to perform any duty involving that skill. 
However, they may respond and perform duties for which they have been 
trained even if they have not received the entire training module for 
their position.
    In paragraph (b)(6) of Sec.  1915.508, OSHA proposes that the 
employer provide training for firefighters at least quarterly, 
according to the employer's written operational procedures. The 
Committee recommended that quarterly training is for actual 
firefighters, not necessarily for other fire response personnel who 
usually have just one function, such as connecting hoses to fire mains, 
starting fire pumps, or directing traffic. This language is consistent 
with the current requirement in 29 CFR 1910.156(c)(2) which requires 
annual training for all fire brigade members and quarterly training for 
those fire brigade members who may perform interior structural 
firefighting operations. The workgroup believed that the quarterly 
training requirement was appropriate because most fire response 
operations in shipyard employment, whether on the vessel or in land 
side facilities, would be beyond the incipient stage and most likely 
involve an interior attack.
    In paragraph (b)(7) of Sec.  1915.508, OSHA proposes that all fire 
response operations training must be conducted by qualified 
instructors. The Committee recognized, as does OSHA, the importance of 
using qualified instructors in all training provisions required by this 
section. This language is consistent with the language in paragraph 
5.2.11 of NFPA 1500-2002.
    In paragraph (b)(8) of Sec.  1915.508, OSHA proposes that any 
training the employer does that involves live fire-fighting exercises 
would have to be done according to NFPA 1403-2002, Standard on Live 
Fire Training Evolutions (Ex. 19-24). This language is consistent with 
paragraphs 4.9.4 and 5.2.10 of NFPA 1500-2001.
    In paragraph (b)(9) of Sec.  1915.508, OSHA proposes that the 
employer must provide semiannual drills that cover site-specific 
operations, occupancies, buildings, vessels and vessel sections, and 
hazards, according to the employer's written operational procedures. 
The semiannual requirement for drills is consistent with the 
recommended frequency found in paragraph 5.3 of NFPA 1500-2002.
    The Committee had some concerns about the requirement for the 
shipyard employment's fire department to perform two training drills 
within a one-year period. Some members of the Committee requested that 
OSHA count a fire response as one training drill. Most of the members 
did not want to count a fire response as a training drill citing that 
the drill is to be used for assessing and improving operational or 
deployment procedures. When an alarm is sounded and the shipyard fire 
department responds, the on-scene command is coordinating the scene and 
cannot simultaneously evaluate the response. The commander's primary 
responsibility is to ensure that their employees respond safely. The 
Committee understands that at the end of the response, the fire 
department's employees evaluate their deployment tactics, site-specific 
approach (buildings, shops, vessels and vessel sections), and hazards. 
This is usual and customary throughout the country and is not to be 
considered a training drill. Drills are used for the sole purpose of 
training, and fire response is for saving lives and property. OSHA 
agrees that fire responses are not to be considered drills for the 
purposes of this paragraph.
    In paragraph (b)(10) of Sec.  1915.508, OSHA proposes that the 
employer must not use smoke generating devices that could create a 
hazardous atmosphere in training exercises. This includes training done 
on vessels and vessels sections as well as in buildings and other 
structures. This language is consistent with paragraph 8.3.2 of NFPA 
1500-2002. According to the NFPA Committee that developed NFPA 1500-
2002, several accidents have occurred where smoke bombs or other smoke-
generating devices that produce a toxic atmosphere have been used for 
training exercises. Where the employer must simulate emergency 
conditions, smoke-generating devices that do not create a hazard must 
be used.
    Paragraph (c) of Sec.  1915.503 sets forth the training 
requirements for fire watch duty. The Committee recommended that OSHA 
propose specific language stating when a shipyard employer should train 
workers as fire watches.
    In paragraph (c)(1) of Sec.  1915.508, OSHA proposes that the 
employer make sure the worker has been trained: (i) Before beginning 
the fire watch; (ii) when there is a change in operations that presents 
a hazard for which the worker has not been previously trained; or (iii) 
when the employer determines that the fire watch employee needs to be 
trained.
    The Committee urged OSHA to include in the requirements for fire 
watch training a basic understanding of fire behavior that covers such 
elements as awareness, anticipation of different classes of fire in 
combination with different physical work areas, and extinguishing 
agents and their uses. The Committee recognizes that the fire watch's 
role is important in protecting lives and preventing fires within 
shipyard employment. To be able to evaluate a work area and to consider 
both the physical conditions and possible adverse effects of a fire in 
that area are also important skills that a fire watch needs to have. 
The Committee did not want to specify a particular course that must be 
used to train fire watches. OSHA has followed the recommendation by 
proposing these requirements in a performance-oriented manner to allow 
the employer to train workers in the most efficient and feasible manner 
for his or her shipyard employment environment. The hazards associated 
with each type of cargo must be taken into consideration. For example, 
repairing chemical barges has been concentrated in the Gulf and the 
inland waters of the Gulf. Therefore, fire watches in the Gulf area 
would likely be trained to deal with fires involving chemicals that are 
shipped by barge. Another consideration is the regional difference in 
temperatures that could affect the ignition and spread of fire. OSHA 
agrees with the Committee that individual employers are best suited to 
develop their fire watch training geared to specific shipyard 
employment operations.
    In paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of Sec.  1915.508, based on the Committee's 
recommendation, the Agency proposes that the employer must retrain fire 
watches annually. The Committee recognized fire watches as the first 
line of defense against the spread of fire, as discussed above under 
paragraph (c)(1) of Sec.  1915.504. Annual training is an industry 
practice. In addition, according to the Committee, annual training is 
required on Navy contracts throughout the country, and it is not viewed 
as an additional requirement burden.
    In paragraph (c)(2) of Sec.  1915.508, the Agency proposes that 
each employee who stands a fire watch duty be trained. The training 
would include how to anticipate and be aware of the hazards that may be 
faced while performing fire watch duties. Such hazards may include 
limited egress or possible changes in atmospheric conditions. For the 
training requirement for fire watches to recognize the adverse health 
effects that may be caused by the exposure to fire, the Committee noted 
that workers have to be familiar with the OSHA standard for Hazard 
Communication, 29 CFR 1910.1200, and its requirements related to the 
products the workers are using in their work and the Material Safety 
Data Sheets (MSDSs) for those products, and where appropriate, for the 
last three

[[Page 76239]]

products carried in this space or the coatings that were applied to the 
steel before hot work. It was explained to the committee that workers 
exposed to hazardous chemicals are already covered by the OSHA Hazard 
Communication standard. The Committee noted that the workers need to be 
knowledgeable about fire prevention practices so they can correctly 
react to changes in the hot work area environment that introduce 
hazards not identified at the start of hot work. Examples are 
deterioration of housekeeping or introduction of combustible or 
flammable materials.
    Paragraph (c)(2)(i) of Sec.  1915.508 requires the employer to 
train a fire watch on the basics of fire behavior, the classes of 
fires, extinguishing agents and stages of fire, and methods of 
extinguishment. The basics of fire behavior usually include the 
definition of the fire triangle and tetrahedron as set forth by NFPA 
1001-1997--Standard for Fire Fighter Professional Qualification (Ex. 
19-25). Extinguishing agents commonly used in shipyard employment are 
dry chemical, water, and CO2. Methods of extinguishing 
require removing one or more of the following: heat (ignition), oxygen, 
fuel, or chemical chain reactions. Members of the Committee suggested 
that the selection of a fire extinguisher used on certain materials 
may, in fact, present a hazard in itself. Even though the worker is 
trained to be able to identify, select, and use the appropriate 
extinguishing agent, such training does not relieve the employer from 
the responsibility to assess the hot work area hazards and make the 
correct extinguishing agents available. The Committee noted that 
particular extinguishing agents may vary and that in some yards, 
according to one employer, workers are forbidden to use CO2 
extinguishers in confined spaces.
    The Committee raised a number of issues when reviewing paragraph 
(c)(2)(ii) of Sec.  915.508 Training Requirements For Fire Watch Duty. 
One issue discussed was whether the employer should require live fire 
training for all fire watches. The Committee found that there were 
different requirements and restrictions across the country. Some 
members thought that how fire watch personnel are trained should be 
left up to the yard and not this Committee. Others stated that the only 
way a fire watch can learn the proper procedure is for that individual 
to have hands-on training on attacking a fire. One member stated that 
classroom training is the only way he could train employees because of 
his state's strict emissions standards. Another member stated that 
although the State of California has a ban on open-burning, the 
Department of Air Quality for the State of California does issue an 
annual permit for open fire burning for this type of training. Some 
members stated that the only way to train employees on how to properly 
use a fire extinguisher or fire hose is to put the trainees in a 
realistic situation. The training exercise would be a controlled burn 
and would teach the trainee the proper way to approach the fire. 
Initially, the Committee could not reach a full consensus on the issue 
of live versus classroom (lecture/video) training. During 
deliberations, one committee member from a large shipyard located on 
the Gulf Coast had not considered live-fire training but was persuaded 
by the discussion and is currently building a facility within the 
shipyard to perform this training. The Committee noted that there are 
various apparatuses available for live fire training that are either 
fabricated within the shipyard or commercially available. After lengthy 
discussions, a recommendation was unanimously agreed upon by the 
Committee and added by OSHA as proposed Sec.  1915.508(c)(2)(ii). In 
this paragraph, the employer must ensure that each fire watch is 
trained using live fire scenarios whenever allowed by law.
    Paragraphs (c)(2)(iii), (iv), and (v) propose, respectively, that 
employees who stand fire watch duty must be able to recognize the 
adverse health effects that may be caused by exposure to fire; be 
familiar with the physical characteristics of the hot work area; and be 
able to anticipate and understand the hazards associated with fire 
watch duties.
    Paragraphs (c)(2) (vi) and (vii) of Sec.  1915.508 require training 
on personal protective equipment (PPE), including what PPE is 
appropriate in a particular situation, as well as how to use it. The 
Committee noted that a fire watch may need the same or different items 
of PPE, and even PPE providing a different level of protection, from 
that used by a hot worker. The Committee further pointed out that the 
fire watch(es) could be assigned to an isolated or confined space and, 
therefore, would need the additional protection that is required under 
other sections of part 1915.
    Paragraph (c)(2)(viii) of Sec.  1915.508 proposes that an employee 
who stands fire watch duty must be trained to be able to select and 
operate fire extinguishers and fire hoses likely to be used. As in the 
case of fire extinguishers, whenever a fire watch may be expected to 
use a fire hose, the fire watch must be trained in its use. The 
Committee noted that fire hoses 1\1/2\-inches in diameter are used by 
fire watches in some yards but not in others. For example, a Marine 
Chemist's instructions on a certificate may specify that a fire watch 
be placed inside a tank with a charged 1\1/2\-inch fire hose. A fire 
watch who has been trained with a fire extinguisher does not 
necessarily understand how to use a 1\1/2\ inch fire hose. The 
Committee strongly recommended, and OSHA agrees, that fire watches need 
particular training if they must deal with this equipment within their 
shipyard employment.
    The Agency proposes that a fire watch be trained to select and 
operate the different types of fire extinguishers and 1\1/2\-inch fire 
hoses likely to be used by fire watches in the area. In paragraphs 
(g)(1) and (g)(2) of 29 CFR 1910.157, OSHA requires the employer to 
train any employee who has been designated to use portable fire 
extinguishers or, as proposed in paragraph (c)(2)(viii) of this 
section, fire hose, and to be familiar with the general principles of 
fire extinguisher use and the hazards of fighting incipient stage 
fires. Again, OSHA does not believe that adopting this training 
requirement from part 1910 imposes any new burden on shipyard employers 
than what currently exists.
    Paragraph (c)(2)(ix) of Sec.  1915.508 states that fire watch 
personnel be trained to be aware of the location and use of barriers 
that are part of the employer's fire protection program. Throughout the 
maritime industry, where partial cleaning has been performed, barriers 
are placed to ensure that product is not returned to the hot work area. 
Barriers are also used to contain molten metal or sparks from traveling 
to unclean areas. However, the Committee recognized that barriers can 
create hazards by blocking an employee's egress or by suppressing 
ventilation to the point where fumes or vapors can accumulate. A worker 
who stands fire watch must understand how barriers are used. OSHA is 
recommending that this provision be included in the training of fire 
watch personnel.
    In paragraph (c)(2)(x) of Sec.  1915.508, OSHA proposes to require 
that the fire watch be trained in the means of communicating with each 
worker performing hot work. There was considerable discussion within 
the Committee workgroup about current industry practices for the fire 
watch's contact with other workers. One member suggested OSHA 
incorporate NAVSEA's 009-07 Fire Prevention and Housekeeping (September 
13, 1996). However, other workgroup members pointed out that this Navy 
Standard

[[Page 76240]]

Item was written primarily to protect property and that only the parts 
that addressed the safety of workers would be appropriate for the OSHA 
proposal. Therefore, the workgroup committee took only certain 
provisions relating to the safety of workers, including the requirement 
that the fire watches have a clear view and immediate access to the 
areas they are watching, from NAVSEA 009-07. However, the workgroup 
decided that requiring a clear view and access would not adequately 
protect workers, without also requiring a means of communication 
between the fire watch and the hot worker. As one member pointed out, 
communication is important because a fire watch may not be able to see 
a hot worker when, for example, the fire watch is on the other side of 
a compartment from the hot worker. In this case, the means may be as 
simple as tapping on the bulkhead to signal whether the hot worker can 
continue or must stop, or an electronic communication system such as a 
two-way radio. The phrase, ``with a clear view and immediate access to 
the area(s) affected by the hot work,'' was eventually dropped from the 
training requirements, but substantively added to the duty requirement 
in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of 1915.504 Fire Watches.
    In paragraphs (c)(2)(xi) and (xii) of Sec.  1915.508, OSHA proposes 
to require that fire watches be trained to know when and how to 
initiate fire alarm procedures and to be familiar with the shipyard's 
evacuation plan. OSHA recognizes that fire watch work assignments may 
change from vessel or vessel sections to a land side facility and that 
each may have different alarm systems, evacuation plans, and exit 
routes. For example, the alarm/evacuation systems found in vessels vary 
significantly among vessels types. The alarm system installed and 
procedures established on an oiler are far more sophisticated from 
those found on a VLCC (very large crude carrier). Evacuation procedures 
and alarm systems will be different in a land side paint facility or 
machine shop where flammable coatings or cutting oils pose a hazard. 
However, the Committee concluded that regardless of the system, a 
primary responsibility of a fire watch must be to recognize when to 
initiate a fire alarm procedure and begin evacuation. A fire watch 
needs to know when a fire has progressed beyond the incipient stage, 
when a fire alarm should be activated, and when evacuation should be 
initiated. The Committee decided and OSHA agrees not to specify a 
particular type of alarm system. Both noted that the employers are in 
the best position to develop their own alarm systems but that fire 
watches need to be familiar with what the employer has developed or 
what is already in place in the case of a ship or barge. For example, a 
yard in the southern area of California could have a Navy vessel, a 
cruise liner, and a tug under repair at the same time, all with 
different alarm systems. OSHA believes that the employer must make sure 
that fire watches are familiar with the type of alarm systems being 
used on the vessel where they are working. Obviously, if assigned to 
all three vessels, the fire watch must be familiar with each particular 
alarm and evacuation scenario.
    Paragraph (c)(3) of Sec.  1915.508 continues with fire watch 
personnel training, specifically, the employer must ensure that each 
fire watch is trained to alert others to exit the work area whenever: 
(i) The fire watch perceives an unsafe condition associated with hot 
work; (ii) the fire watch perceives that a hot worker is in danger; 
(iii) evacuation is ordered by the employer or designated 
representative; or (iv) an evacuation signal such as an alarm is 
activated. A labor union committee member requested that language be 
added as item (i) to address a situation where an employee perceives an 
unsafe condition either before beginning work when originally surveying 
the work area or perhaps when changes in conditions occur during work. 
The employee should be trained to report the unsafe conditions. The 
Committee agreed to recommend this requirement.
    In shipyard employment, some employers hire contract workers as 
needed for the sole purpose of fire watch. The employer is ultimately 
responsible for ensuring that these fire watches are appropriately 
trained as proposed in Sec.  1915.508(c). One way to do this is for the 
employer to have a written evaluation of the contractor's training 
program that the employer could review and thereby ensure compliance 
with the OSHA standard. Again, OSHA wants to make clear that it is the 
employer's responsibility to make sure that all fire watches are 
properly trained.
    In paragraph (d) of Sec.  1915.508, OSHA proposes that the employer 
document that the training required by paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) has 
been accomplished.
    In paragraph (d)(1) of Sec.  1915.508, OSHA proposes to require 
that the employer document the worker's training by keeping a record of 
the worker's name, the name of the trainer, the type of training, and 
the date(s) of the training.
    In addition, OSHA proposes in paragraph (d)(2) of Sec.  1915.508 
that the employer keep the documentation for at least one year, and, 
consistent with other OSHA standards, the record must be available for 
inspection and copying by OSHA personnel on request.
    These requirements were fully supported by the members of this 
Committee. Representatives of management, labor, government, and 
professional organizations agreed that a training record, because it 
represents assurance that the worker standing fire watch has been 
trained, is essential to the safety of the fire watch, the worker doing 
hot work, and other personnel in the area. Despite the trend toward 
less recordkeeping, employer representatives believed that making and 
keeping the training record would not be burdensome and that any 
resources needed to comply with the recordkeeping would be well spent. 
Several members noted that fire watch was a very important duty that 
must be performed by trained personnel. A written record was necessary 
so that the employer and the workers would be able to find out that the 
fire watch had been trained and when the training occurred.
    The record that must be kept is minimal and need contain only the 
worker's name, the name of the trainer, the type of training, and the 
date(s) of the training. It can be kept as part of the worker's 
personnel file, in a master file of training, or in any other format 
the employer chooses. A record in an electronic file or database is 
sufficient. However, regardless of how the record is kept, it must be 
available for inspection by the persons authorized to see it. To be 
available means that it can be easily found, so the employer must first 
decide how the record is to be kept, and then make certain there is 
access to it, possibly requiring a note or index pointing the searcher 
toward the information.
    The record must be kept until it is replaced by the worker's new 
training record or for one year from when the record was made in the 
case of a worker who leaves the workplace or whose duties no longer 
include fire watch. Representatives of shipyard employers stated that 
there was no reason to keep records longer. The only important 
information in the record was that the training had occurred within the 
required time frame, the type of training, when the training was 
carried out, and who had given it. For the worker who is separated from 
the shipyard, OSHA is proposing to require the employer to keep the 
record for one year from the time it was made. Even

[[Page 76241]]

after a worker is no longer a fire watch, the information may be 
relevant to determining whether the employer's fire watch training 
program was adequate and for research on the effectiveness of the 
standard. In addition, the employee or worker representative may need 
this time to access the records.
    OSHA seeks comment on whether the requirement for training record 
retention should be one or three years.

Section 1915.509 Definitions

    OSHA proposes in Sec.  1915.509 to define the terms that OSHA uses 
in this proposed subpart. Words that OSHA uses only in this subpart 
that require a definition are included. Terms that OSHA uses in other 
subparts of part 1915 Occupational Safety and Health Standards for 
Shipyard Employment, are also included in this section until a new 
definition section for all of part 1915 is established. At that time, 
all of the definitions in part 1915 will be combined into one section. 
The Committee believed that it was necessary to propose these 
definitions at this time so that readers would understand the proposed 
regulations clearly.
    The Committee formed a work group to develop the definitions for 
the terms they believed needed to be defined. The work group first met 
during the July 1997, meeting in Baltimore, MD. The discussion that 
follows explains the key definitions the work group developed. Not all 
of the definitions that OSHA proposes in this subpart are discussed. 
OSHA believes some of the terms have been long understood by employees 
and employers. However, OSHA encourages the public to comment on any of 
the definitions.
    The Committee agreed that the following terms used in this subpart 
have definitions that are the same or similar to the definitions found 
in either parts 1915 or 1910. Therefore, OSHA is not discussing them at 
this time. These terms are: ``confined space'; ``dangerous atmosphere'' 
(see 29 CFR 1915.11); ``flammable liquid'' (29 CFR 1910.106); 
``incipient stage fire'' (29 CFR 1910.155 (c)(26)); and ``hot work'' 
(29 CFR 1915.11).
    The Committee proposed to define the term ``designated areas'' as 
an area established for hot work after an assessment of fire hazard 
potential of facilities, vessels, or vessel sections. The Committee 
discussed and came to agreement on this definition during the meeting 
held in Houston, Texas, in February 2002.
    OSHA proposes to define the term ``contract employer'' as an 
employer who performs work for a host employer at the host employer's 
workplace. The Committee discussed and agreed that this definition is 
not intended to include employers who provide incidental services that 
do not directly influence shipyard employment (e.g., mail delivery or 
office supply services). There are several employee populations that 
may visit the shipyard for brief periods of time and who have only 
incidental levels of exposure to hazards that other contract employees 
may have. The Committee did not want to regulate these populations.
    The Committee developed the definition for ``fire response 
employee'' based upon the definitions used by NFPA in NFPA 1500-2002 
and by OSHA in 29 CFR 1910.156, Fire Brigades. OSHA proposes to define 
the term ``fire response employee'' as a shipyard employee who carries 
out duties and responsibilities of shipyard firefighting in accordance 
with the fire safety plan. A fire response employee may be a full-time 
employee, may occupy any position or rank within the shipyard, and may 
engage in fire emergency operations.
    The Committee adapted the definition for ``fixed extinguishing 
system'' from the current definition in 29 CFR 1910.155. The Committee 
discussed and changed the definition because they believed it did not 
adequately define systems used both in land side facilities and aboard 
vessels and vessel sections where components may be remotely located 
from the space where the system will discharge. OSHA is proposing to 
change the definition to encompass all parts of a fixed extinguishing 
system regardless of location.
    The Committee adapted the definition for ``physically isolated'' 
from three sources: A proposed change to NFPA 12-2000, Carbon Dioxide 
Extinguishing Systems (Ex. 20-21); from Coast Guard guidance published 
in COMDTINST 16000.7, Marine Safety Manual, Volume II, Material 
Inspection; and from Coast Guard recommendations published in the 
March/April, 1996, NFPA Journal. (Ex. 20-26). In discussing and 
developing this definition, the Committee considered the different 
types of fixed extinguishing systems, including two-phase gaseous/
liquid type high pressure systems where the extinguishing agent is 
stored in cylinders, and low-pressure systems where the agents are 
refrigerated and stored in large pressure vessels.
    OSHA believes that all of the other definitions proposed in this 
section are ``terms of the industry'' that are universally recognized 
by shipyard employees and employers. OSHA welcomes comment or questions 
submitted to the record about definitions for these terms.

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

Introduction

    OSHA has determined that this proposal is a not economically 
significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 and not a major rule 
under the Congressional Review provisions of the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. Because this rule has been listed 
as significant for other reasons in the Regulatory Agenda, OSHA has 
provided the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs with an 
assessment of the costs, benefits and alternatives, as required by 
section 6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 12866, which is summarized below.
    Executive Order (EO) 12866 requires regulatory agencies to conduct 
an economic analysis for rules that meet certain criteria. The most 
frequently used criterion under EO 12866 is that the rule will impose 
annual costs on the economy of $100 million or more. Neither the 
benefits nor the costs of this rule exceed $100 million.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended in 1996, 
requires OSHA to determine whether the Agency's regulatory actions will 
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Making such a determination for this proposal required OSHA to perform 
a screening analysis to identify any such impacts. OSHA's screening 
analysis indicated that the proposed rule will not have significant 
impacts on a substantial number of small entities.
    OSHA's Preliminary Economic Analysis (PEA) and initial regulatory 
flexibility screening analysis include: A description of the industries 
potentially affected by the standard; an evaluation of the risks 
addressed; an assessment of the benefits attributable to the proposed 
standard; a determination of the technological feasibility of the 
requirements of the standard; an estimate of the costs employers will 
incur to comply with the standard; a determination of the economic 
feasibility of compliance with the standard; and an analysis of the 
economic and other impacts associated with this rulemaking, including 
those on small businesses. The PEA has been provided to the docket as 
(Ex. 15) This section of the preamble summarizes the results of that 
analysis.
Affected Industries
    The proposed Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment standard will

[[Page 76242]]

affect all establishments in the ship building, ship breaking and 
repair industry. These include large shipyards, government shipyards 
and shipyards operated under Navy contracts, operations owning a dock 
or drydock, and the vast majority of small firms that perform 
shipbuilding and repair work, such as metal fabricators, painters, 
asbestos removal, etc., who do not own or rent docks. For purposes of 
this analysis OSHA has defined small firms as: (1) Firms with fewer 
than 1,000 employees (the SBA definition of small businesses in this 
sector); (2) firms with fewer than 250 employees (the definition of 
small business recommended by the negotiated rulemaking committee); and 
(3) firms with fewer than 20 employees. OSHA has based its estimates of 
number of firms, establishments, employment and wages on general BLS 
and Department of Commerce data for the standard industrial 
classification (SIC) codes for ship building 3731 and ship breaking 
4499. OSHA has based its estimates concerning revenues of firms on SBA 
data, and concerning profit rates on Robert Morris Associates data. 
Table V-1 shows the total number of establishments, number of firms, 
employment, and revenues and profits per firm affected by the rule. As 
the table shows there are 717 establishments owned by 669 firms in the 
industries. The industries employ 97,822 workers, of whom 70 percent 
are production employees.

                         Table V-1.--Industrial Profile of Employees and Establishments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Entire
    Industry characteristic     1-19 Employees       1-250          1-1,000     1,000     affected
                                                   Employees       Employees        Employees        industry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Establishments..........             412             621             697               20              717
Total Firms...................             412             607             660                9              669
Employees.....................           2,305          14,774          39,063           58,759           97,822
Revenues Per Firm ($1,000's)..            $653          $2,353          $5,907         $718,166          $15,540
Profits Per Firm ($1,000).....             $24             $85            $213          $25,854            $559
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis, OSHA.

Evaluation of Risk and Potential Benefits
    For this Preliminary Economic Analysis, OSHA developed a profile of 
the risks facing workers in shipyards that might be affected by the 
standard. OSHA's risk profile for exposure to fire based risks in 
shipyards is based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' 
National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, data from the Bureau's 
Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, and an analysis of OSHA 
fatality/catastrophe inspection data obtained from the Agency's 
Integrated Management Information System.
    OSHA anticipates that the proposed standard will significantly 
reduce the number of fire and explosion related incidents and resulting 
injuries and fatalities currently reported in the shipyard industry. 
OSHA believes that the proposed standard's requirements for inspection 
prior to hot work, fire watches, planning and training will help to 
save lives and prevent injuries in the shipyard workforce. OSHA 
estimates that approximately 1 fatality, 110 injuries involving days 
away from work and 204 injuries not involving days away from work occur 
annually among shipyard workers due to fire and explosions; this is the 
current industry risk baseline used in this analysis. OSHA projects 
that full compliance with the proposed standard would annually prevent 
0.88 fatalities, 102 of these injuries involving days away from work, 
and 190 of the injuries not involving days away from work.
    In addition to saving lives and improving overall safety in 
shipyards, OSHA believes that full compliance with the proposed 
standard would yield substantial cost savings to parties within and 
connected with the industry and ultimately to society as a whole. These 
monetized benefits take the form of reductions in employer and insurer 
accident-related costs in several areas: Value of lost output 
associated with temporary total disabilities and permanent partial 
disabilities, an income-based measure derived from estimates of 
workers' compensation indemnity payments; reductions in accident-
related medical costs; administrative expenses incurred by workers' 
compensation insurers; and indirect costs related to productivity 
losses, work stoppages, and accident investigations and reports. 
Applying data from the construction and insurance industries on the 
direct costs of accidents and data from the literature on the indirect 
costs of accidents and other administrative-related costs to OSHA's 
preliminary estimate of avoided injuries, the Agency monetized the 
value of the cost savings employers and society will accrue by avoiding 
these injuries. OSHA estimates that annual costs savings of $6.2 
million will result from compliance with the proposed rule. These 
savings are those associated with injuries due to fires. OSHA did not 
attempt to quantify the cost savings resulting from reduced fire damage 
to property and reduced need to respond to fires.
    Thus, OSHA estimates that the proposed standard will prevent 292 
injuries and one death per year. As a result of prevention of the 
injuries, OSHA estimates that there will be direct cost savings of $6.2 
million per year, excluding savings associated with reduced property 
damage and reduced fire response costs.
    Only some of these direct cost savings accrue directly to employers 
in the form of reduced workers' compensation payments and 
administrative cost. Other cost savings represent increased income to 
employees and greater tax collections by the government. Even the 
portion of direct cost savings that accrue directly to employers may 
not be a saving to the employer of the injured employee because of the 
risk spreading effects of workers' compensation insurance. The issue of 
the extent to which the direct cost savings are an economic motivation 
for employers is discussed in detail in the final chapter of the 
Preliminary Economic and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Screening 
Analysis.
Technological Feasibility and Compliance Costs
    Consistent with the legal framework established by the OSH Act, 
Executive Order 12866 and court decisions, OSHA has assessed the 
technological feasibility of the proposed fire protection in shipyards 
standard. The standard does not require any practices not already 
undertaken in many shipyards today. Moreover, the proposed standard is 
based on a consensus draft recommended to the Agency by a negotiated 
rulemaking committee consisting of representatives from labor, 
government, industry in particular divergent industry interests, 
including small employers, who would

[[Page 76243]]

be affected by any changes to the maritime regulations. The committee 
reached consensus on the language of the draft, thereby implicitly 
acknowledging the feasibility of the proposed revisions to the 
standard. Therefore, based on the fact that many firms in the industry 
are already implementing the controls and practices required by the 
proposed standard and that the negotiated rulemaking committee reached 
consensus on the draft underlying the proposed revisions, OSHA has 
preliminarily determined that the proposed fire protection in shipyards 
standard is technologically feasible.
    OSHA developed estimates of the costs of compliance for shipyard 
employers subject to the proposed standard. To develop these estimates 
OSHA first examined the extent to which shipyard employers were already 
in compliance with the requirements of the standard as a result of 
existing OSHA requirements, compliance with rules of other parties 
(such as the U.S. Navy in some shipyards) and compliance with voluntary 
codes and good practices. Eliminating provisions for which there is 
already substantial compliance, OSHA arrived at the list of activities 
for which shipyard employers would incur costs shown in Table V-2. 
Table V-2 shows that the annualized costs of the proposed standard are 
$4.3 million per year. Ninety-one percent of the costs are associated 
with fire watch-related provisions; most of these costs are for posting 
additional fire watch personnel in situations in which fire watches are 
not currently being posted.

   Table V-2. Total Annualized Compliance Cost per Requirement for the
                            Proposed Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Annualized
                       Requirement                             cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posting Fire Watches....................................      $3,789,057
Safe Work Practices.....................................         245,839
Fire Watch Written Program..............................          36,546
Fire Response Policy....................................          11,630
Fire Safety Plan........................................          36,546
Fire Watch Training.....................................          95,204
Fire Safety Plan Review/General Training................          37,327
Fire Protection Systems Training........................           9,642
Fire Response Training..................................          49,430
                                                         ---------------
  Total.................................................      4,261,222
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numbers do not total due to rounding.
Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis, OSHA.

Economic Impacts
    OSHA analyzed the impacts of these compliance costs on firms in the 
shipbuilding sector. In order to do this, OSHA determined costs as a 
percentage of revenues and costs as a percentage of profits. These two 
measures (in percent) correspond to two assumptions used by economists 
to bound the range of possible impacts: the assumption of no-cost pass-
through, i.e., that employers will be unable to pass any of the costs 
of compliance forward to their customers (compliance costs as a 
percentage of profits), and the assumption of full-cost pass-through 
(compliance costs as a percentage of revenues), i.e., that employers 
will be able to pass all of the costs of compliance forward to their 
customers. As summarized in Table V-3, below, OSHA estimates that, if 
affected firms in the ship building sector were forced to absorb these 
compliance costs entirely from profits (a highly unlikely scenario), 
profits would be reduced by an average of 1.14 percent. If, at the 
other extreme, affected firms were able to pass all of these compliance 
costs forward to their customers, OSHA projects that the price 
(revenue) increase required to pay for these costs would be less than 
0.1 percent (0.04 percent). Given the minimal impact on both prices and 
profits, OSHA preliminarily concludes that the regulation is 
economically feasible.

          Table V-3. Economic Impacts for the Proposed Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Compliance   Compliance
                                                 costs as a   costs as a
                   Firm size                     percentage   percentage
                                                of revenues   of profits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Firms.....................................         0.04         1.14
1-19 Employees................................         0.11         3.09
1-250 employees...............................         0.07         1.83
1-1000 Employees (SBA Definition).............         0.06        1.61
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis, OSHA.

Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended in 1996 (5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), requires regulatory agencies to determine whether 
regulatory actions will adversely affect small entities. The Small 
Business Administration (SBA) defines small entities, or ``concerns,'' 
in terms of number of employees or annual receipts. For employers in 
SIC 3731, small firms are defined by SBA as those with less than 1,000 
employees. As shown in Table VI-3, for firms with less than 1,000 
employees, costs are 1.61 percent of profits and 0.06 percent of 
revenues. OSHA also examined costs as a percentage of profits and 
revenues for firms with less than 250 employees, as recommended by the 
negotiated rulemaking committee, and for firms with less than 20 
employees to see whether there might be significant impacts on the very 
smallest firms. For firms with less than 250 employees, costs were 1.83 
percent of profits and 0.07 percent of revenues. For firms with less 
than 20 employees, costs were 3.09 percent of profits and 0.11 percent 
of revenues.
    A major source of these disparate impacts is lower levels of 
baseline compliance by small firms. Although the economic impacts on 
the smallest size class of employers are low, they are somewhat higher 
than for larger employers. The Agency is interested in hearing from 
smaller employers about disparate impacts on small employers. Do small 
employers believe there will be a greater impact on them than on larger 
employers? Is there a way to reduce these impacts?
    OSHA has set the criteria that if costs exceed one percent of 
revenues or five percent of profits, then the impact on small entities 
is considered significant for purposes of complying with the RFA. For 
all of the classes of affected small firms in the shipbuilding and 
repair and shipbreaking sectors, costs were less than one percent of 
revenues and five percent of profits. OSHA therefore certifies that 
this regulation will not have an economically significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

VI. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The proposed rule for Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment 
contains several collections of information (paperwork) requirements 
that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq., and its regulation at 5 CFR 1320. OMB is currently reviewing 
OSHA's request for approval of the proposed collections. OSHA solicits 
comments on the collection of information requirements and the 
estimated burden hours associated with these collections, including 
comment on the following:
    [sbull] Whether the proposed information-collection requirements 
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, 
including whether the information is useful;
    [sbull] The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and 
costs) of the information-collection requirements, including the 
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

[[Page 76244]]

    [sbull] The quality, utility, and clarity of the information 
collected; and
    [sbull] Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; 
for example, by using automated or other technological information-
collection and -transmission techniques.
    OSHA estimates the total burden hours associated with all of the 
collection of information requirements at 5,625 burden hours in the 
first year and 5,241 burden hours in the second and subsequent years. A 
collection of information is defined in PRA-95 to mean, ``the 
obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the 
disclosure to third parties or the public of facts or opinions by or 
for an agency regardless of form or format.'' (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)). 
Each of the collections is summarized below.

[sbull] 1915.501--General Provisions

    Paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section requires the host employer on 
multi-employer worksites to inform all employers (contract employers) 
at the worksite about the content of the host employer's fire safety 
plan.
    Paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section requires that contract 
employers make sure the host employer is aware of fire hazards 
associated with the contract work and how the contract employer will 
address those hazards. In addition, paragraph (d)(2)(ii) requires the 
contract employer to identify hazards that arise during the course of 
work that were not identified as part of the information transfer 
required by paragraph (d)(2)(i) described above.

[sbull] 1915.502--Fire Safety Plan

    Paragraph (a) of this section requires the employer to develop a 
written fire safety program covering the elements listed in paragraph 
(b), including the following information:
    (1) The identification of the significant potential fire risks;
    (2) Procedures for recognizing and reporting unsafe conditions;
    (3) Alarm procedures;
    (4) Procedures for notifying employees of a fire emergency;
    (5) Procedures for notifying fire response organizations of a fire 
emergency;
    (6) Procedures for evacuation;
    (7) Procedures to account for all employees after an evacuation; 
and
    (8) Names, job titles, or department for individuals who can be 
contacted for further information about the plan.
    Paragraph (c) requires the employer to review the fire safety plan 
with each affected employee at the following times:
    (1) Within 90 days of the effective date of the standard;
    (2) Upon initial assignment for new employees; and
    (3) When there is a change in the plan or a change of the 
employee's duties.
    Paragraph (d) specifies the following:
    (1) The plan be kept accessible to employees, employer 
representatives, and to OSHA;
    (2) The plan be updated when necessary, but no less than annually;
    (3) The employer certify in writing that each employee was informed 
about the plan; and
    (4) A copy of the plan be given to outside fire response 
organizations who may be expected to respond to fires at the employer's 
worksite.

[sbull] 1915.504--Fire Watches

    Paragraph (a) requires the employer to prepare and keep current, a 
written policy specifying the following information:
    (1) The training employees must be given;
    (2) The duties employees are to perform;
    (3) The equipment employees must be given; and
    (4) The personal protective equipment (PPE) employees must be given 
as required in 29 CFR part 1915, subpart I, Personal Protective 
Equipment.

[sbull] 1915.505--Fire Response

    Paragraph (a)(2) requires employers to create, maintain, and update 
a written statement or policy that describes the internal and outside 
fire response organizations that the employer will use.
    Paragraph (b)(1) lists the information to be included in the 
statement or policy if internal fire response is to be used. The 
information includes the following:
    (1) The basic structure of the fire response organization;
    (2) The number of trained fire response employees;
    (3) The fire response functions that may need to be carried out;
    (4) The minimum number of fire response employees necessary, the 
number and types of apparatus, and a description of the fire 
suppression operations established by written standard operating 
procedures for each type of fire response at the employer's facility;
    (5) The type, amount, and frequency of training that must be given 
to fire response employees; and
    (6) The procedure for use of protective clothing and equipment.
    Paragraph (b)(2) lists the information to be included in the 
statement or policy if outside fire response is to be used. The 
information includes the following:
    (1) The types of fire suppression incidents to which the fire 
response organization is expected to respond at the employer's facility 
or worksite;
    (2) The liaisons between the employer and the outside fire response 
organization; and
    (3) A plan for fire response functions that:
    (A) Addresses procedures for obtaining assistance from other fire 
response organizations;
    (B) Familiarizes the outside fire response organization with the 
layout of the employer's facility or worksite, including access routes 
to controlled areas, and site-specific operations, occupancies, vessels 
or vessel sections, and hazards;
    (C) Sets forth how hose and coupling connection threads are to be 
made compatible and includes where the adapter couplings are kept; or
    (D) States that the employer will not allow the use of incompatible 
hose connections.
    Paragraph (b)(3) lists the information to be included in the 
statement or policy where a combination of internal and outside fire 
response is to be used. The information includes all the information 
from paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) as listed above and the following 
information:
    (1) The basic organizational structure of the combined fire 
response;
    (2) The number of combined trained fire responders;
    (3) The fire response functions that need to be carried out;
    (4) The minimum number of fire response employees necessary, the 
number and types of apparatus, and a description of the fire 
suppression operations established by written standard operating 
procedures for each particular type of fire response at the worksite; 
and,
    (5) The type, amount, and frequency of joint training that must be 
given to fire response employees.
    Paragraph (a)(3) requires employers to create, maintain, and update 
a written statement or policy that defines the evacuation procedures 
employees must follow, if the employer chooses to require a total or 
partial evacuation of the worksite at the time of a fire. Paragraph 
(b)(4) prescribes the employee evacuation information that must be 
included in the employer's policy statement required by (a)(3). That 
information includes the following:
    (1) Emergency escape procedures;
    (2) Procedures to be followed by employees who may remain longer at 
the worksite to perform critical shipyard employment operations during 
the evacuation;
    (3) Procedures to account for all employees after emergency 
evacuation is completed;

[[Page 76245]]

    (4) The preferred means of reporting fires and other emergencies; 
and
    (5) Names or job titles of the employees or departments to be 
contacted for further information or explanation of duties.
    Paragraph (b)(5) prescribes the rescue and emergency response 
information that must also be included in the employer's policy 
statement required in paragraph (a)(3). That information includes the 
following:
    (1) A description of the emergency rescue procedures; and
    (2) Names or job titles of the employees who are assigned to 
perform them.
    Paragraph (c)(2) requires that fire response employees who are 
required to wear respirators meet the medical requirements of the 
Respiratory Protection Program Standard in 1915.154. The paperwork 
burden for the respiratory protection requirements has been approved 
under OMB Control Number 1218-0099.
    Paragraph (c)(3) requires annual medical exams for all fire 
response employees. There is no burden or cost for these medical exams 
because all employees affected, as a usual and customary practice, are 
now receiving the medical exams.
    Paragraph (c)(5) requires that the medical records of fire response 
employees be kept as required in 1915.1020. The paperwork burden for 
access to medical records is approved under OMB Control Number 1218-
0065.
    Paragraph (d)(2) requires the employer to set up written:
    (1) Administrative regulations;
    (2) Operating procedures; and
    (3) Departmental orders for fire response functions
    Paragraph (d)(3) requires the employer to set up an incident 
management system (IMS) to coordinate and direct fire response 
functions, including the following:
    (1) Specific fire emergency responsibilities;
    (2) Accountability for all fire response employees participating in 
an emergency operation; and,
    (3) Resources offered by outside organizations.
    Paragraph (d)(4) requires the employer to provide the information 
[required by (d)(2) and (d)(3)] to the outside fire response 
organization to be used.

[sbull] 1915.506--Hazards of Fixed Extinguishing Systems on Board 
Vessels and Vessel Sections

    Paragraph (b)(2) requires certain employers (those who have 
employees exposed to fixed extinguishing systems that could create a 
hazardous atmosphere when activated aboard vessels and vessel sections) 
to ensure that employees are trained to recognize systems discharge and 
evacuation alarms and to recognize the appropriate escape routes.

[sbull] 1915.507--Landside Fire Protection Systems

    Paragraph (c)(2) requires employers to notify employees and take 
the necessary precautions to make sure employees are safe from fire if 
for any reason a fire extinguishing system stops working, until the 
system is working again.
    Paragraph (c)(5) requires the employer to post hazard warning or 
caution signs at both the entrances to and inside of areas protected by 
fixed extinguishing systems that use extinguishing agents in 
concentrations known to be hazardous to employee safety or health.

[sbull] 1915.508--Training

    Paragraph (a) of this section requires the employer to train 
affected employees when they first start working and also when 
necessary to maintain proficiency in the five specific areas listed in 
paragraph (a)(1) to (a)(5).
    Paragraph (b) of this section specifies the training requirements 
for employees designated to perform fire response activities.
    Paragraph (b)(1) requires the employer to have a written training 
policy stating that fire response employees are to be trained and 
capable of carrying out their duties and responsibilities at all times. 
Because OSHA specifies the wording for the training policy, there is no 
burden associated with this collection of information requirement.
    Paragraph (b)(2) requires the employer to keep written standard 
operating procedures that address anticipated emergency operations and 
to update these procedures as necessary. Note that operating procedures 
are also required in 1915.505(d)(2).
    Paragraph (b)(4) requires the employer to provide training for fire 
response employees that ensures they are capable of carrying out their 
duties and responsibilities under the employer's standard operating 
procedures (see (b)(2) above).
    Paragraph (b)(5) requires employers to train new fire response 
employees before they engage in emergency operations and paragraph 
(b)(6) requires employers to train fire response employees who are 
expected to fight fires according to the written operating procedures 
(see (b)(2) above) at least quarterly.
    Paragraphs (b)(7) to (b)(10) specifies criteria for the instructors 
and the training methods.
    Paragraph (c) specifies requirements related to the training of 
employees assigned to fire watch duty. Paragraph (c)(1)(i) to (iv) 
specify the intervals of training, including:
    (1) Before being assigned to fire watch duty;
    (2) Whenever there is a change in operation that presents a new or 
different hazards;
    (3) Whenever the employer has reason to believe that the fire 
watch's knowledge or understanding of the training previously provided 
is inadequate; and,
    (4) Re-training annually.
    Paragraph (c)(2) specifies 12 areas on which the fire watch must be 
trained.
    Paragraph (c)(3) specifies 4 additional areas on which the fire 
watch must be trained.
    Paragraph (d) requires that employers keep records that demonstrate 
that employees have been trained as required by paragraphs (a), (b), 
and (c). The records must include the following information:
    (1) The employee's name;
    (2) The trainer's name;
    (3) The types of training, and
    (4) The date(s) on which the training took place.
    Paragraph (d)(2) requires the employer to keep each training record 
for one year from the time it was made or until it is replaced, 
whichever is shorter, and to make it available for inspection and 
copying by OSHA personnel on request.
    OSHA will use the records developed in response to this Standard to 
determine compliance with the safety and health provisions of the 
Standard. The employer's failure to generate and disclose the 
information required in this Standard will affect significantly OSHA's 
effort to control and reduce injuries and fatalities related to fires 
in shipyard employment.
    Interested persons may submit comments regarding the burden 
estimates or other aspects of this collection of information to the 
OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. S-051, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC 20210, and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 
10235, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 (Attn: OSHA Desk 
Officer (RIN 1218-AB51)).
    The complete Information Collection Request (ICR), including the 
supporting

[[Page 76246]]

rationale is available for inspection and copying in the OSHA Docket 
Office or the ICR can be mailed to persons who request a copy by 
telephoning Todd Owen at (202) 693-1941 or Theda Kenney at (202) 693-
2044.

VII. Public Participation

    Interested persons are requested to submit written data, views, and 
arguments concerning this proposal. These comments must be received by 
March 11, 2003, and submitted in triplicate to the Docket Office; 
Docket No. S-051, Room N2624, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration; 200 Constitution Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20210.
    All written comments received within the specified comment period 
will be made a part of the record and will be available for public 
inspection and copying at the above Docket Office address.
    Additionally, under section 6(b)(3) of the OSH Act and 29 CFR 
1911.11, interested persons may file objections to the proposal and 
request an informal hearing. The objections and hearing requests should 
be submitted in triplicate to the Docket office at the above address 
and must comply with the following conditions:
    1. The objection must include the name and address of the objector;
    2. The objections must be received by March 11, 2003;
    3. The objections must specify with particularity grounds upon 
which the objection is based;
    4. Each objection must be separately numbered; and
    5. The objections must be accompanied by a detailed summary of the 
evidence proposed to be adduced at the requested hearing.
    Interested persons who have objections to various provisions or 
have changes to recommend may, of course, make those objections and 
their recommendations in their comments and OSHA will fully consider 
them. There is only need to file formal ``objections'' separately if 
the interested person requests a public hearing.
    OSHA recognizes that there may be interested persons who, through 
their knowledge of safety or their experience in the operations 
involved, would wish to endorse or support certain provisions in the 
standard. OSHA welcomes such supportive comments, including any 
pertinent accident data or cost information that may be available, in 
order that the record of this rulemaking will present a complete 
picture of the public response on the issues involved.

VIII. State Plan Standards

    This Federal Register document issues a proposal for new and 
revised rules addressing fire protection in shipyard employment 
regulated in 29 CFR 1915. The rules when final will be codified into 
the applicable section of the Code of Federal Regulations.
    The 26 states or U.S. Territories with their own OSHA approved 
occupational safety and health plans must develop a comparable standard 
applicable to both the private and public (state and local government 
employees) sectors within six months of the publication date of a 
permanent final Federal rule or show OSHA why there is no need for 
action, e.g. because an existing state standard covering this area is 
already ``at least as effective as'' the new Federal standard. Three 
states and territories cover only the public sector (Connecticut, New 
York, and New Jersey).
    Currently five states (California, Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont and 
Washington) with their own state plans cover private sector onshore 
maritime activities. Federal OSHA enforces maritime standards offshore 
in all states and provides onshore coverage of maritime activities in 
Federal OSHA states and in the following State Plan states: Alaska, 
Arizona, Connecticut (plan covers only state and local government 
employees), Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, 
Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey (plan covers only state and local 
government employees), New Mexico, New York (plan covers only state and 
local government employees), North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South 
Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington, and 
Wyoming. Until such time as a State standard is promulgated, Federal 
OSHA will provide interim enforcement assistance, as appropriate, in 
those States.

IX. Federalism

    The standard has been reviewed in accordance with Executive order 
13132 (64 FR 43255; August 10, 1999) regarding Federalism. This Order 
requires that agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from limiting 
State policy options, consult with States before taking any actions 
that would restrict State policy options, and take such actions only 
when there is clear constitutional authority and the presence of a 
problem of national scope. The Order provides for preemption of State 
law only if there is a clear Congressional intent for the agency to do 
so. Any such preemption is to be limited to the extent possible.
    Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act), 
expresses Congress' clear intent to preempt State laws relating to 
issues with respect to which Federal OSHA has promulgated occupational 
safety or health standards. Under the OSH Act a State can avoid 
preemption only if it submits, and obtains Federal approval of, a plan 
for the development of such standards and their enforcement. 
Occupational safety and health standards developed by such Plan-States 
must, among other things, be at least as effective in providing safe 
and healthful employment and places of employment as the Federal 
standards.
    The Federal standards on shipyard employment operations address 
hazards which are not unique to any one state or region of the country. 
Nonetheless, those States that have elected to participate under 
section 18 of the OSH Act would not be preempted by this final 
regulation and would be able to deal with special, local conditions 
within the framework provided by this performance-oriented standard 
while ensuring that their standards are at least as effective as the 
Federal standard.

X. Unfunded Mandates

    For the purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, as 
well as Executive Order 12875, this rule does not include any federal 
mandate that may result in increased expenditures by State, local, and 
tribal governments, or increased expenditures by the private sector of 
more than $100 million.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR 1915

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

XI. Authority and Signature

    This document was prepared under the direction of John L. Henshaw, 
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. 
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20210. The proposed sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Ocupational Safety and 
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's 
Order No 3-2000 (65 FR 50017); and 29 CFR part 1915.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 25th day of November 2002.
John L. Henshaw,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, OSHA proposes to amend 
29 CFR chapter XVII as follows:

[[Page 76247]]

PART 1915--[AMENDED]

Subpart D--[Amended]

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

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


Sec.  1915.52  [Removed]


Sec.  1915.55  [Amended]

    2. Subpart D--Welding, Cutting and Heating of part 1915 is amended 
by removing Sec.  1915.52, and by removing and reserving Sec.  
1915.55(d),(f), and (g).
    3. Part 1915 is amended by adding a new subpart, subpart P to read 
as follows:
Subpart P--Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment.
Sec.
1915.501 General provisions.
1915.502 Fire safety plan.
1915.503 Precautions for hot work.
1915.504 Fire watches.
1915.505 Fire response.
1915.506 Hazards of fixed extinguishing systems on board vessels and 
vessel sections.
1915.507 Land side fire protection systems.
1915.508 Training.
1915.509 Definitions applicable to this subpart.


Sec.  1915.501  General provisions.

    (a) Purpose. The purpose of the standard in this subpart is to 
require employers to protect all employees from fire hazards in 
shipyard employment, including employees engaged in fire response 
activities.
    (b) Scope. This subpart covers employers with employees engaged in 
shipyard employment aboard vessels, vessel sections, or on land side 
operations regardless of geographic location.
    (c) Employee participation. The employer must provide ways for 
employees and employee representatives to participate in developing and 
periodically reviewing programs and policies adopted to comply with 
this subpart.
    (d) Multi-employer worksites. (1) Host employer responsibilities. 
The host employer's responsibilities are to:
    (i) Inform all employers at the worksite about the content of the 
fire safety plan including hazards, controls, fire safety and health 
rules, emergency procedures; and
    (ii) Make sure the safety and health responsibilities for fire 
protection are assigned as appropriate to other employers at the 
worksite.
    (2) Contract employer responsibilities. The contract employer's 
responsibilities are to:
    (i) Make sure that the host employer knows about the fire related 
hazards associated with the contract employer's work and what the 
contract employer is doing to address them; and
    (ii) Advise the host employer of any previously unidentified fire 
related hazards that the contract employer identifies at the worksite.


Sec.  1915.502  Fire safety plan.

    (a) Employer responsibilities. The employer must develop and 
implement a written fire safety plan that covers all the actions that 
employers and employees must take to ensure employee safety in the 
event of a fire.

    Note to paragraph (a): See appendix A to this subpart for a 
Model Fire Safety Plan.

    (b) Plan elements. The employer must include the following 
information in the Fire Safety Plan:
    (1) Identification of the significant potential fire risks;
    (2) Procedures for recognizing and reporting unsafe conditions;
    (3) Alarm procedures;
    (4) Procedures for notifying employees of a fire emergency;
    (5) Procedures for notifying fire response organizations of a fire 
emergency;
    (6) Procedures for evacuation;
    (7) Procedures to account for all employees after an evacuation; 
and
    (8) Names, job titles, or departments for individuals who can be 
contacted for further information about the plan.
    (c) Reviewing the plan with employees. The employer must review the 
plan with each affected employee at the following times:
    (1) Within 90 days of the effective date of this subpart for 
employees who are currently working;
    (2) Upon initial assignment for new employees; and
    (3) When the actions the employee must take under the plan change 
because of a change in duties or a change in the plan.
    (d) Additional employer requirements. The employer also must:
    (1) Keep the plan accessible to employees, employee 
representatives, and OSHA;
    (2) Review and update the plan whenever necessary, but at least 
annually;
    (3) Certify in writing that each affected employee has been 
informed about the plan as required by paragraph (c) of this section; 
and
    (4) Give a copy of the plan to any outside fire response 
organization that the employer expects to respond to fires at the 
employer's worksite, regardless of geographic location of that 
worksite.
    (e) Contract employers. Contract employers in shipyard employment 
must have a fire safety plan for their employees, and this plan must 
comply with the host employer's fire safety plan.


Sec.  1915.503  Precautions for hot work.

    (a) General requirements--(1) Designated Areas. The employer may 
only designate areas for hot work in sites such as vessels and vessel 
section area, fabricating shops, and subassembly areas that do not 
contain potential fire hazards.
    (2) Non-designated Areas--(i) Before authorizing hot work, the 
employer must visually inspect the area where hot work is to be 
performed, including adjacent spaces, to identify potential fire 
hazards, unless a Marine Chemist's certificate or shipyard Competent 
Person's log is used for the authorization.
    (ii) The employer shall authorize employees to perform hot work 
only in areas that are free of fire hazards, or that have been 
controlled by physical isolation, fire watches, or other positive 
means.

    Note to paragraph (a)(2): The requirements of this standard 
apply to all hot work operations in shipyard employment except those 
covered in subpart B of this part.

    (b) Specific requirements--(1) Maintaining fire hazard-free 
conditions. The employer must keep all hot work areas free of hazards 
that may cause or contribute to the spread of fire.

    Note to paragraph (b)(1): Unexpected energizing and energy 
release are covered by 29 CFR 1915.181, subpart L. Exposure to toxic 
and hazardous substances is covered in 29 CFR 1915.1000-1915.1450, 
subpart Z.

    (2) Fuel gas and oxygen supply lines and torches. The employer must 
make sure that:
    (i) No unattended fuel gas and oxygen hose lines or torches are in 
confined spaces;
    (ii) No unattended charged fuel gas and oxygen hose lines or 
torches are in enclosed spaces for more than 15 minutes;
    (iii) All fuel gas and oxygen hose lines are disconnected at the 
supply manifold at the end of each shift; and
    (A) All disconnected fuel gas and oxygen hose lines are rolled back 
to the supply manifold or to open air to disconnect the torch; or
    (B) Extended fuel gas and oxygen hose lines are not reconnected at 
the supply

[[Page 76248]]

manifold unless the lines are given a positive means of identification 
when they were first connected and a drop test is done using gauges or 
other positive means to ensure the integrity of fuel gas and oxygen 
burning system.


Sec.  1915.504  Fire watches.

    (a) Written fire watch policy. The employer must create and keep 
current a written policy that specifies the following requirements for 
employees performing fire watch in the workplace:
    (1) The training employees must be given;
    (2) The duties employees are to perform;
    (3) The equipment employees must be given; and
    (4) The personal protective equipment (PPE) employees must be given 
as required in 29 CFR Part 1915, subpart I.
    (b) Posting fire watches. The employer must post a fire watch if 
during hot work:
    (1) Slag, weld splatter, or sparks might pass through an opening 
and cause a fire;
    (2) Fire-resistant guards or curtains are not used to prevent 
ignition of combustible materials on or near decks, bulkheads, 
partitions, or overheads;
    (3) Combustible material closer than 35 ft. (10.7m) to the hot work 
in either the horizontal or vertical direction cannot be removed, 
protected with flame-proof covers, or otherwise shielded with metal or 
fire-resistant guards or curtains, so that the material will not be 
ignited by the hot work;
    (4) On or near insulation, combustible coatings or sandwich-type 
construction on either side cannot be shielded, cut back or removed, or 
the space inerted;
    (5) Combustible materials adjacent to the opposite sides of 
bulkheads, decks, overheads, metal partitions, or of sandwich-type 
construction may be ignited by conduction or radiation;
    (6) The hot work is close enough to cause ignition through heat 
radiation or conduction on the following:
    (i) Insulated pipes, bulkheads, decks, partitions, or overheads; or
    (ii) Combustible materials and/or coatings.
    (7) The work is close enough to unprotected combustible pipe or 
cable runs to cause ignition; or
    (8) A Marine Chemist, a Coast Guard-authorized person, or a 
shipyard Competent Person, as defined in 29 CFR part 1915, subpart B, 
requires that a fire watch be posted.
    (c) Assigning employees to fire watch duty. (1) The employer must 
not assign other duties to an employee assigned to fire watch;
    (2) Employers must ensure that employees assigned to fire watch 
duty:
    (i) Have a clear view of and immediate access to all areas included 
in the fire watch;
    (ii) Are able to communicate with workers exposed to hot work, if 
necessary;
    (iii) Remain in the hot work area for at least 30 minutes after 
completion of the hot work, unless the employer or his or her 
representative surveys the exposed area and makes a determination that 
there is no further fire hazard;
    (iv) Are trained to detect fires that occur in areas exposed to the 
hot work;
    (v) Attempt to extinguish any incipient stage fires in the hot work 
area that are within the capability of available equipment and within 
the fire watch's training qualifications, as defined in Sec.  1915.508 
of this Part;
    (vi) Alert employees of any fire beyond the incipient stage; and
    (vii) If unable to extinguish fire in the areas exposed to the hot 
work, activate the alarm to start the evacuation procedure in 
accordance with the employer's fire prevention plan.


Sec.  1915.505  Fire response.

    (a) Employer responsibilities. The employer must:
    (1) Decide what type of response will be provided and who will 
provide it;
    (2) Create, maintain, and update a written statement or policy that 
describes the internal and outside fire response organizations that the 
employer will use; and
    (3) Create, maintain, and update a written statement or policy that 
defines what evacuation procedures employees must follow, if the 
employer chooses to require a total or partial evacuation of the 
worksite at the time of a fire.
    (b) Required written policy statement information. (1) Internal 
fire response. If an internal fire response is to be used, the 
following information must be included in the employer's policy 
statement:
    (i) The basic structure of the fire response organization;
    (ii) The number of trained fire response employees;
    (iii) The fire response functions that may need to be carried out;
    (iv) The minimum number of fire response employees necessary, the 
number and types of apparatus, and a description of the fire 
suppression operations established by written standard operating 
procedures for each type of fire response at the employer's facility;
    (v) The type, amount, and frequency of training that must be given 
to fire response employees; and
    (vi) The procedure for use of protective clothing and equipment.
    (2) Outside fire response. If an outside fire response organization 
is used, the following information must be included in the employer's 
policy statement:
    (i) The types of fire suppression incidents to which the fire 
response organization is expected to respond at the employer's facility 
or worksite;
    (ii) The liaisons between the employer and the outside fire 
response organizations;
    (iii) A plan for fire response functions that:
    (A) Addresses procedures for obtaining assistance from other fire 
response organizations;
    (B) Familiarizes the outside fire response organization with the 
layout of the employer's facility or worksite, including access routes 
to controlled areas, and site-specific operations, occupancies, vessels 
or vessel sections, and hazards; and
    (C) Sets forth how hose and coupling connection threads are to be 
made compatible and includes where the adapter couplings are kept; or
    (D) States that the employer will not allow the use of incompatible 
hose connections.
    (3) A combination of internal and outside fire response. If a 
combination of internal and outside fire response is to be used, the 
following information, in addition to the requirements in paragraphs 
(b)(1) and (2) of this section, must be included in the employer's 
policy statement:
    (i) The basic organizational structure of the combined fire 
response;
    (ii) The number of combined trained fire responders;
    (iii) The fire response functions that need to be carried out;
    (iv) The minimum number of fire response employees necessary, the 
number and types of apparatus, and a description of the fire 
suppression operations established by written standard operating 
procedures for each particular type of fire response at the worksite;
    (v) The type, amount, and frequency of joint training that must be 
given to fire response employees;
    (4) Employee evacuation. The employer must include the following 
information in the employer's policy statement:
    (i) Emergency escape procedures;
    (ii) Procedures to be followed by employees who may remain longer 
at the worksite to perform critical shipyard employment operations 
during the evacuation;
    (iii) Procedures to account for all employees after emergency 
evacuation is completed;
    (iv) The preferred means of reporting fires and other emergencies; 
and

[[Page 76249]]

    (v) Names or job titles of the employees or departments to be 
contacted for further information or explanation of duties.
    (5) Rescue and emergency response. The employer must include the 
following information in the employer's policy statement:
    (i) A description of the emergency rescue procedures; and
    (ii) Names or job titles of the employees who are assigned to 
perform them.
    (c) Medical requirements for shipyard fire response employees. The 
employer must make sure that:
    (1) All fire response employees receive medical examinations to 
assure that they are physically and medically fit for the duties they 
are expected to perform;
    (2) Fire response employees who are required to wear respirators in 
performing their duties meet the medical requirements of 29 CFR 
1915.154;
    (3) Each fire response employee has an annual medical examination;
    (4) The medical records of fire response employees are kept in 
accordance with 29 CFR 1915.1020.
    (d) Organization of internal fire response functions. The employer 
must:
    (1) Organize fire response functions to ensure enough resources to 
conduct emergency operations safely;
    (2) Set up written administrative regulations, standard operating 
procedures, and departmental orders for fire response functions; and
    (3) Set up an incident management system (IMS) to coordinate and 
direct fire response functions, including:
    (i) Specific fire emergency responsibilities;
    (ii) Accountability for all fire response employees participating 
in an emergency operation; and
    (iii) Resources offered by outside organizations.
    (4) Provide this information to the outside fire response 
organization to be used.
    (e) Personal protective clothing and equipment for fire response 
employees.--(1) General requirements. The employer must:
    (i) Supply to all fire response employees, at no cost, the 
appropriate personal protective clothing and equipment they may need to 
perform expected duties; and
    (ii) Make sure that fire response employees wear the appropriate 
personal protective clothing and use the equipment when necessary, to 
protect them from hazardous exposures.
    (2) Thermal stability and flame resistance. The employer must:
    (i) Make sure that each fire response employee exposed to the 
hazards of flame does not wear clothing that could increase the extent 
of injury that could be sustained; and
    (ii) Prohibit wearing clothing made from acetate, nylon, or 
polyester, either alone or in blends, unless it can be shown:
    (A) That the fabric will withstand the flammability hazard that may 
be encountered; or
    (B) That the clothing will be worn in such a way to eliminate the 
flammability hazard that may be encountered.
    (3) Respiratory protection. The employer must:
    (i) Provide self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) to all fire 
response employees involved in an emergency operation in an atmosphere 
that is immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH), potentially 
IDLH, or unknown:
    (ii) Provide self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) to fire 
response employees performing emergency operations during hazardous 
chemical emergencies that will expose them to known chemicals in vapor 
form or to unknown chemicals;
    (iii) Provide fire response employees who perform or support 
emergency operations that will expose them to chemicals in liquid form, 
either:
    (A) Self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA), or
    (B) Respiratory protective devices certified by NIOSH under 42 CFR 
part 84 as suitable for the specific chemical environment.
    (iv) Ensure that additional outside air supplies used in 
conjunction with SCBA result in positive pressure systems that are 
certified by NIOSH under 42 CFR part 84;
    (v) Provide only SCBA that meet the requirements of NFPA 1981-1997, 
Standard on Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus for 
Firefighters (incorporated by reference in Sec.  1915.5); \1\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the final rule, OSHA will amend Sec.  1915.5 to reflect 
the incorporation by reference of the NFPA standards referenced in 
this subpart.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (vi) Ensure that the respiratory protection program and all 
respiratory protection equipment comply with 29 CFR 1915.154.
    (4) Interior structural firefighting operations. The employer must:
    (i) Supply at no cost to all fire response employees exposed to the 
hazards of shipyard fire response, a protective coat and trousers or a 
protective coverall along with a helmet, gloves, footwear, and 
protective hoods; and
    (ii) Ensure that this equipment meets the applicable requirements 
of NFPA 1971-2000, Standard on Protective Clothing Ensemble for 
Structural Firefighting (incorporated by reference in Sec.  1915.5).
    (5) Proximity firefighting operations. The employer must: Provide, 
at no cost, to all fire response employees who are exposed to the 
hazards of proximity firefighting, appropriate protective proximity 
clothing meets the applicable requirements of NFPA 1976-2000, Standard 
on Protective Clothing for Proximity Firefighting (incorporated by 
reference in Sec.  1915.5).
    (6) Personal Alert Safety System (PASS) devices. The employer must:
    (i) Provide each fire response employee involved in firefighting 
operations with a PASS device; and
    (ii) Ensure that each PASS device meets the requirements of NFPA 
1982-1998, Standard on Personal Alert Safety Systems (PASS) for 
Firefighters (incorporated by reference in Sec.  1915.5).
    (7) Life safety ropes, body harnesses, and hardware. The employer 
must ensure:
    (i) That all life safety ropes, body harnesses, and hardware used 
by fire response employees for emergency operations meet the applicable 
requirements of NFPA 1983-2001, Standard on Fire Service Life Safety 
Rope, Harnesses, and Hardware (incorporated by reference in Sec.  
1915.5);
    (ii) That fire response employees use only class I body harnesses 
to attach to ladders and aerial devices; and
    (iii) That fire response employees use only class II and class III 
body harnesses for fall arrest and repelling operations.
    (f) Equipment maintenance. (1) Personal protective equipment. The 
employer must inspect and maintain personal protective equipment used 
to protect fire response employees to ensure that it provides the 
intended protection.
    (2) Fire response equipment. The employer must:
    (i) Keep fire response equipment in a state of readiness;
    (ii) Standardize all fire hose coupling and connection threads 
throughout the facility and on vessels and vessel sections by providing 
the same type of hose coupling and connection threads for hoses of the 
same or similar diameter; and
    (iii) Ensure that either all fire hoses and coupling connection 
threads are the same within a facility or vessel or vessel section as 
those used by the outside fire response organization, or supply 
suitable adapter couplings if such an organization is expected to use 
the fire

[[Page 76250]]

response equipment within a facility or vessel or vessel section.


Sec.  1915.506  Hazards of fixed extinguishing systems on board vessels 
and vessel sections.

    (a) Employer responsibilities. The employer must comply with the 
provisions of this section whenever employees are exposed to fixed 
extinguishing systems that could create a hazardous atmosphere when 
activated aboard vessels and vessel sections, regardless of geographic 
location.
    (b) Requirements for automatic and manual systems. Before any work 
is done in a space equipped with fixed extinguishing systems:
    (1) The employer must either physically isolate the systems or have 
other positive means to prevent the systems' discharge; or
    (2) Ensure employees are trained to recognize systems discharge and 
evacuation alarms, and to recognize the appropriate escape routes;
    (3) Protective measures must be taken to ensure that all doors, 
hatches, scuttles, and other exit openings remain working and 
accessible for escape in the event the systems are activated; and
    (4) If systems activation could result in a positive pressure in 
the protected spaces, all inward opening doors, hatches, scuttles, and 
other potential barriers to safe exit must be removed, locked open, 
braced, or otherwise secured so that they remain open and accessible 
for escape; and
    (5) Employees must be trained to recognize hazards associated with 
the extinguishing systems and agents including the dangers of 
disturbing system components and equipment such as, piping, cables, 
linkages, detection devices, activation devices, and alarm devices.
    (c) Additional Requirement for manual systems. Before any work is 
done in a space equipped with fixed extinguishing systems that are 
activated only manually, the employer must ensure that during trials 
all pull stations and other activation stations, whether remote or 
local, must be secured either under lock and key or by posting an 
attendant, so that they cannot be accessed by unauthorized persons.
    (d) Testing the system. The employer must make sure that the system 
is physically isolated and that all employees not directly involved in 
testing it are evacuated from the protected spaces and affected areas 
on board any vessel or vessel sections, before testing any fixed 
extinguishing system.
    (e) Conducting system maintenance. Before conducting maintenance on 
a fixed extinguishing system the employer must make sure that the 
system is physically isolated.
    (f) Using fixed manual extinguishing systems for fire protection. 
If fixed manual extinguishing systems are used to provide fire 
protection for protected spaces, the employer must ensure that:
    (1) Employees are trained and designated to operate and activate 
the systems; and
    (2) All employees are evacuated from the protected spaces and 
affected areas and accounted for, before the fixed manual extinguishing 
system is activated.


Sec.  1915.507  Land side fire protection systems.

    (a) Employer responsibilities. All fixed and portable fire 
protection systems the employer installs to meet an OSHA standard for 
employee life safety or employee protection from fire hazards in land 
side facilities, including, but not limited to, buildings, structures, 
and equipment must meet the requirements of this section.
    (b) Portable fire extinguishers and hose systems. (1) The employer 
must select, install, inspect, maintain, and test all portable fire 
extinguishers according to NFPA 10-2002, Standard for Portable 
Extinguishers (incorporated by reference in Sec.  1915.5).
    (2) The employer shall be permitted to use class II or class III 
hose systems, in accordance with NFPA 10-2002, as portable fire 
extinguishers if the employer selects, installs, inspects, maintains, 
and tests those systems according to the specific requirements in NFPA 
14-2000, Standard for the Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems 
(incorporated by reference in Sec.  1915.5).
    (c) General requirements for fixed extinguishing systems. The 
employer must:
    (1) Ensure that any fixed extinguishing system component or 
extinguishing agent be approved by an OSHA Nationally Recognized 
Testing Laboratory (NRTL), meeting the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7, 
for use on the specific hazards the employer expects it to control or 
extinguish;
    (2) Notify employees and take the necessary precautions to make 
sure employees are safe from fire if for any reason a fire 
extinguishing system stops working, until the system is working again;
    (3) Make sure that all repairs to fire extinguishing systems and 
equipment are done by a qualified technician or mechanic;
    (4) When the atmosphere remains hazardous to employee safety or 
health, provide proper personal protective equipment when employees 
enter discharge areas or provide safeguards to prevent employees from 
entering those areas.

    Note to paragraph (c)(4): See Sec.  1915.12 for additional 
requirements applicable to safe entry into spaces containing 
dangerous atmospheres.

    (5) Post hazard warning or caution signs at both the entrance to 
and inside of areas protected by fixed extinguishing systems that use 
extinguishing agents in concentrations known to be hazardous to 
employee safety or health; and
    (6) Select, install, inspect, maintain, and test all automatic fire 
detection systems and emergency alarms according to NFPA 72-1999, 
National Fire Alarm Code (incorporated by reference in Sec.  1915.5).
    (d) Fixed extinguishing systems. The employer must select, install, 
maintain, inspect, and test all fixed systems required by OSHA as 
follows:
    (1) Standpipe and hose systems according to NFPA 14-2000, Standard 
for the Installation of Standpipe Systems (incorporated by reference in 
Sec.  1915.5);
    (2) Automatic sprinkler systems according to NFPA 13-1999, Standard 
for the Installation of Automatic Sprinkler Systems or NFPA 750-2000, 
Standard on Water Mist Extinguishing Systems, and NFPA 25-2002 Standard 
for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-based Fire 
Protection Systems (incorporated by reference in Sec.  1915.5);
    (3) Fixed extinguishing systems that use water or foam as the 
extinguishing agent according to NFPA 15-2001, Standard for Water Spray 
Fixed Systems for Fire Protection, NFPA 11-2000, Standard for Low-
Expansion Foam, and NFPA 11A-1999, Standard for Medium- and High-
Expansion Foam Systems (incorporated by reference in Sec.  1915.5);
    (4) Fixed extinguishing systems using dry chemical as the 
extinguishing agent, according to NFPA 17-1998, Standard for Dry 
Chemical Extinguishing Systems (incorporated by reference in Sec.  
1915.5); and
    (5) Fixed extinguishing systems using gas as the extinguishing 
agent, according to NFPA 12-2000, Standard on Carbon Dioxide 
Extinguishing Systems, NFPA 12A-1997, Standard on Halon 1301 Fire 
Extinguishing Systems, and NFPA 2001-2000, Standard on Clean Agent Fire 
Extinguishing Systems (incorporated by reference in Sec.  1915.5).


Sec.  1915.508  Training

    (a) Employee training. The employer must train affected employees 
when

[[Page 76251]]

they first start working and also when necessary to maintain 
proficiency in the following:
    (1) The general principles of using fire extinguishers or hose 
lines, the hazards involved with incipient firefighting, and the 
procedures used to reduce these hazards;
    (2) The hazards associated with fixed and portable fire protection 
systems that employees may use or to which they may be exposed during 
discharge of those systems;
    (3) The activation and operation of fixed and portable fire 
protection systems that the employer expects employees to use in the 
workplace;
    (4) The emergency alarm signals including system discharge and 
employee evacuation alarms; and
    (5) The primary and secondary evacuation routes that employees must 
use in the event of a fire in the workplace.

    Note to paragraph (a)(5): While all vessels and vessel sections 
have a primary evacuation route, not all will have a secondary 
evacuation route.

    (b) Training requirements for shipyard employees designated for 
fire response. The employer must:
    (1) Have a written training policy stating that fire response 
employees are to be trained and capable of carrying out their duties 
and responsibilities at all times;
    (2) Keep written standard operating procedures that address 
anticipated emergency operations and update these procedures as 
necessary;
    (3) Review fire response employee training programs and hands-on 
sessions before they are used in fire response training to make sure 
that fire response employees are protected from hazards associated with 
fire response training;
    (4) Provide training for fire response employees that ensures they 
are capable of carrying out their duties and responsibilities under the 
employer's standard operating procedures;
    (5) Train new fire response employees before they engage in 
emergency operations;
    (6) At least quarterly, provide training on the written operating 
procedures to fire response employees who are expected to fight fires;
    (7) Use qualified instructors to conduct the training;
    (8) Conduct any training that involves live fire response exercises 
in accordance with NFPA 1403-2002, Standard on Live Fire Training 
Evolutions (incorporated by reference in Sec.  1915.5) (Ex. 19-24);
    (9) Conduct semi-annual drills for fire response employees that 
cover site-specific operations, occupancies, buildings, vessels and 
vessel sections, and hazards according to the employer's written 
procedures; and
    (10) Not use smoke generating devices that create a hazardous 
atmosphere in training exercises.
    (c) Training requirements for fire watch duty. (1) The employer 
must ensure that each fire watch is trained as follows:
    (i) Before being assigned to fire watch duty;
    (ii) Whenever there is a change in operations that presents a new 
or different hazard;
    (iii) Whenever the employer has reason to believe that the fire 
watch's knowledge or understanding of the training previously provided 
is inadequate; and
    (iv) Receives annual retraining.
    (2) The employer must ensure that each employee who stands fire 
watch duty is trained in:
    (i) The basics of fire behavior, the different classes of fire and 
of extinguishing agents, the stages of fire, and methods for 
extinguishing fires;
    (ii) Extinguishing live fire scenarios whenever allowed by local 
and federal law;
    (iii) The recognition of the adverse health effects that may be 
caused by exposure to fire;
    (iv) The physical characteristics of the hot work area;
    (v) The hazards associated with fire watch duties;
    (vi) The personal protective equipment (PPE) needed to perform fire 
watch duties safely;
    (vii) How to use the PPE;
    (viii) How to select and use any fire extinguishers and fire hoses 
likely to be used by a fire watch in the work area;
    (ix) The location and use of barriers;
    (x) The means of communication designated by the employer for fire 
watches;
    (xi) When and how to start fire alarm procedures; and
    (xii) The employer's evacuation plan.
    (3) The employer must ensure that each fire watch is trained to 
alert others to exit the space whenever:
    (i) The fire watch perceives an unsafe condition;
    (ii) The fire watch perceives that a worker performing hot work is 
in danger;
    (iii) The employer or a representative of the employer orders an 
evacuation; or
    (iv) An evacuation signal, such as an alarm, is activated.
    (d) Records. The employer must keep records that demonstrate that 
employees have been trained as required by paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) 
of this section.
    (1) The records must include:
    (i) The employee's name;
    (ii) The trainer's name;
    (iii) The type of training; and
    (iv) The date(s) on which the training took place.
    (2) The employer must keep each training record for one year from 
the time it was made or until it is replaced with a new training 
record, whichever is shorter, and make it available for inspection and 
copying by OSHA personnel on request.


Sec.  1915.509  Definitions applicable to this subpart.

    Affected employee--an employee whose job requires him or her to 
perform hot work or to work in an area or space exposed to hazards 
associated with the hot work that is being performed.
    Alarm--a signal or message from a person or device that indicates 
that there is a fire, medical emergency, or other situation that 
requires emergency response or evacuation. This may be called an 
``incident'' or a ``call for service.''
    Alarm system--a system that warns all employees at the worksite of 
danger.
    Body harness--straps that may be secured about the employee in a 
manner that will distribute the fall arrest forces over at least the 
thighs, shoulders, chest, and pelvis, with means for attaching it to 
other components of a personal fall arrest system.
    Contract employer--an employer, such as a painter, joiner, 
carpenter, or scaffolding sub-contractor, who performs work under 
contract to the host employer or to another employer under contract to 
the host employer at the host employer's worksite. Excludes employers 
who provide incidental services that do not influence shipyard 
employment (such as mail delivery or office supply services).
    Dangerous atmosphere--an atmosphere that may expose employees to 
the risk of death, incapacitation, injury, acute illness, or impairment 
of ability to self-rescue (i.e., escape unaided from a confined or 
enclosed space).
    Designated area--an area established for hot work after an 
assessment of fire hazard potential of facilities, vessels, or vessel 
sections such as a fabrication shop.
    Emergency operations--activities performed by a fire response 
organization that are related to:
    (1) Rescue;
    (2) Fire suppression;
    (3) Emergency medical care; and
    (4) Special operations such as hazardous materials response

[[Page 76252]]

(HAZMAT), HAZMAT release mitigation, standby for flight operations 
where needed, protection of structures exposed to nearby, off-site 
fires, mutual-aid at other workplaces, etc. These activities include 
responding to the scene of an incident, and all activities performed at 
that scene.
    Fire hazard--a condition or material that may start or contribute 
to the spread of fire.
    Fire protection--methods of providing fire prevention, response, 
detection, control, extinguishment, and engineering.
    Fire response--the activity taken by the employer at the time of an 
emergency incident involving a fire at the worksite, including fire 
suppression activities carried out by internal or external resources or 
a combination of both, or total or partial employee evacuation of the 
area exposed to the fire.
    Fire response employee--a shipyard employee who performs shipyard 
employment firefighting.
    Fire response organization--an organized group knowledgeable, 
trained, and skilled in shipyard firefighting operations who respond to 
shipyard fire emergencies, including:
    (1) Fire brigades;
    (2) Shipyard fire departments;
    (3) Private or contractual fire departments; and
    (4) Municipal fire departments.
    Fire suppression--the activities involved in controlling and 
extinguishing fires. Fire suppression includes all activities performed 
at the scene of a fire incident or training exercise that expose fire 
response employees to the following dangers:
    (1) Heat;
    (2) Flame;
    (3) Smoke;
    (4) Other products of combustion;
    (5) Explosion;
    (6) Structural collapse; or
    (7) Hazardous materials.
    Fire watch--the activity of observing and responding to the fire 
hazards associated with hot work in shipyard employment, and the 
employees designated to do so.
    Fixed extinguishing system--a permanently installed fire protection 
system that either extinguishes or controls fire occurring in the space 
it protects.
    Flammable liquid--any liquid having a flashpoint below 100[deg]F. 
(37.8[deg]C.), except any mixture having components with flashpoints of 
100[deg]F. (37.8[deg]C.) or higher, the total of which make up 99 
percent or more of the total volume of the mixture.
    Hazardous atmosphere--an atmosphere that may expose employees to 
the risk of death, incapacitation, injury, acute illness, or impairment 
of ability to self-rescue (that is, escape unaided from a permit 
space), from one or more of the following causes:
    (1) Flammable gas, vapor, or mist in excess of 10 percent of its 
lower flammable limit (LFL);
    (2) Airborne combustible dust at a concentration that meets or 
exceeds its LFL;
    (3) Atmospheric oxygen concentration below 19.5 percent or above 
22.5 percent;
    (4) Atmospheric concentration of any substance for which a dose or 
a permissible exposure limit is published in 29 CFR 1910, subpart G, 
Occupational Health and Environmental Control, or in 29 CFR 1915, 
subpart Z, Toxic and Hazardous Substances of this part, and that could 
result in employee exposure in excess of its dose or permissible 
exposure limit;
    (5) Any other atmospheric condition that is immediately dangerous 
to life or health (IDLH). Hazardous substance--a substance likely to 
cause injury by reason of being explosive, flammable, poisonous, 
corrosive, oxidizing, an irritant, or otherwise harmful.
    Hose systems--fire protection systems consisting of a water supply, 
approved fire hose, and a means to control the flow of water at the 
output end of the hose.
    Host employer--an employer who is in charge of coordinating work or 
hiring other employers to perform work at a multi-employer workplace.
    Hot work--any activity involving riveting, welding, burning, using 
explosive actuated power tools, or similar fire-producing operations. 
Grinding, drilling, abrasive blasting, or similar spark-producing 
operations also are considered hot work, except when these operations 
are physically removed from any atmosphere containing more than 10 
percent of the lower explosive limit of a flammable or combustible 
substance.
    Incident management system--an organized system of roles, 
responsibilities, and standard operating procedures used to manage 
emergency operations. Such systems are often called ``Incident Command 
Systems'' (ICS).
    Inerting--the displacement of the atmosphere in a permit space by 
noncombustible gas (such as nitrogen) to such an extent that the 
resulting atmosphere is noncombustible. This procedure produces an IDLH 
oxygen-deficient atmosphere.
    Interior Structural Firefighting Operations--the physical activity 
of fire response, rescue, or both, inside of buildings, enclosed 
structures, vessels, and vessel sections that are involved in a fire 
beyond the incipient stage.
    Multi-employer workplace--a workplace where there is a host 
employer and at least one contract employer.
    Personal Alert Safety System (PASS)--a device that sounds a loud 
signal if the wearer becomes immobilized or is motionless for 30 
seconds or more.
    Physical isolation--the elimination of a fire hazard by removing 
the hazard from the work area (at least 35 feet for combustibles), by 
covering or shielding the hazard with a fire-resistant material, or 
physically preventing the hazard from entering the work area.
    Physically isolated--positive isolation of the supply from the 
distribution piping of a fixed extinguishing system. Examples of ways 
of physically isolating include: Removing a spool piece and installing 
a blank flange; providing a double block and bleed valve system; or 
completely disconnecting valves and piping from all cylinders or other 
pressure vessels containing extinguishing agents.
    Protected space--any compartment where a fixed extinguishing system 
discharges.
    Proximity firefighting--specialized fire-fighting operations that 
require specialized thermal protection and may include the activities 
of rescue, fire suppression, and property conservation at incidents 
involving fires producing very high levels of conductive, convective, 
and radiant heat such as aircraft fires, bulk flammable gas fires, and 
bulk flammable liquid fires. Proximity firefighting operations usually 
are exterior operations but may be combined with structural 
firefighting operations. Proximity firefighting is not entry 
firefighting.
    Qualified instructor--a person with specific knowledge, training, 
and experience in fire response organizations, operations, and 
deployment.
    Rescue--locating endangered persons at an emergency incident, 
removing those persons from danger, treating the injured, and 
transporting the injured to an appropriate health care facility.
    Shipyard employment--ship repairing, shipbuilding, shipbreaking, 
and related employments, including vessels, vessel sections, and on 
land-side operations regardless of geographic location.
    Shipyard firefighting--the activity of rescue, fire suppression, 
and property conservation involving buildings, enclosed structures, 
vehicles, vessels, aircraft, or similar properties involved

[[Page 76253]]

in a fire or emergency situation. Shipyard firefighting includes any 
fire that requires a fire attack hose line of 1-\1/2\ inch diameter or 
larger to fight, and self-contained breathing apparatus by responders.
    Standpipe--a fixed fire protection system consisting of piping and 
hose connections used to supply water to approved hose lines or 
sprinkler systems. The hose may or may not be connected to the system.

Appendix A to Subpart P--Model Fire Safety Plan

Model Fire Safety Plan

Table of Contents

I. Purpose.
II. Work site fire hazards and how to properly control them.
III. The preferred way to report fires and other emergencies.
IV. How to evacuate in different emergency situations.
V. Rescue and medical duties for those employees who perform them.
VI. Employee awareness.

I. Purpose

    The purpose of this fire safety plan is to inform our employees 
of how we will control and reduce the possibility of fire in the 
workplace and to specify what equipment employees may use in case of 
fire.

II. Work Site Fire Hazards and How To Properly Control Them

    A. Measures to contain fires.
    B. Teaching selected employees how to use fire protection 
equipment.
    C. What to do if you discover a fire.
    D. Potential ignition sources for fires and how to control them.
    E. Types of fire protection equipment and systems that can 
control a fire.
    F. The level of firefighting capability present in the facility.
    G. Description of the personnel responsible for maintaining 
equipment, alarms and systems that are installed to prevent or 
control fire ignition sources, and to control fuel source hazards.

III. The Preferred Way To Report Fires and Other Emergencies

    A. A demonstration of alarm procedures, if more than one type 
exists.
    B. The work site emergency alarm system.
    C. Immediately notifying fire or police departments.

IV. How To Evacuate in Different Emergency Situations

    A. Emergency escape procedures and route assignments.
    B. Procedures to account for all employees after completing an 
emergency evacuation.
    C. What type of evacuation is needed and what the employee's 
role is in carrying out the plan.
    D. How to identify and recognize fire exits.
    E. Helping physically impaired employees.

V. Rescue and Medical Duties for Those Employees Who Perform Them

    A. Regular and after-hours work conditions.

VI. Employee Awareness

    Names, job titles, or departments of individuals who can be 
contacted for further information about this plan.

[FR Doc. 02-30405 Filed 12-10-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P