[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 15, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55668-55708]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-20608]



[[Page 55667]]

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

Part II





Department of Labor





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



Occupational Safety and Health Administration



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



29 CFR Part 1915



Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2004 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 55668]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1915

[Docket No. S-051]
[RIN No. 1218-AB51]


Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: By this rule, OSHA promulgates a fire protection standard for 
shipyard employment. The proposed rule was developed through a 
negotiated rulemaking process. The final standard provides increased 
protection for shipyard employment workers from the hazards of fire on 
vessels and vessel sections and at land-side facilities. The standard 
reflects new technologies and current national consensus standards. It 
also gathers all fire-related safety practices for shipyard employment 
into a single subpart, which will make them more accessible and 
understandable for employers and employees.

DATES: The final rule becomes effective December 14, 2004. The 
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule 
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 14, 
2004. However, affected parties are not required to respond to the 
information collection (paperwork) requirements until OMB approves 
those requirements and OSHA announces that approval in the Federal 
Register.

ADDRESSES: In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 2112(a), the Agency designates 
the Associate Solicitor of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 
Office of the Solicitor of Labor, Room S4004, U.S. Department of Labor, 
200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, to receive 
petitions for review of the final rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information and press 
inquiries, contact the OSHA Office of Communications, Room N-3647, 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of 
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: 
(202) 693-1999. For technical information, contact Jim Maddux, 
Director, Office of Maritime Standards, N-3609, Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-2222. For 
additional copies of this Federal Register document, contact: Office of 
Publications, Room N-3103, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-1888. For electronic copies 
of this Federal Register document, as well as news releases, fact 
sheets, and other relevant documents, visit OSHA's homepage at http://www.osha.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

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

I. Background
II. Pertinent Legal Authority
III. Summary and Explanation of the Final Standard
IV. Summary of the Final Economic and Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis
V. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
VI. Environmental Impact Assessment
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
VIII. Unfunded Mandates
IX. Federalism
X. State-Plan States
XI. Authority and Signature

I. Background

Fire Hazards in Shipyard Employment

    The purpose of this standard is to increase the protection of 
shipyard employment workers from fire hazards. Such workers 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, such as welding, grinding, and cutting metal with 
torches, provide an ignition source for fires. There are also many 
combustible materials on vessels and in shipyards, including flammable 
fuels, cargo, wood structures, building materials, and litter. When 
cutting torches are used in enclosed or confined spaces, accidentally 
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. Fires in such confined or enclosed spaces can also result 
in atmospheres of combustible gases, toxic fumes, or oxygen-depleted 
air.
    Shipyard employees are therefore at risk from fires, explosions, 
toxic gases, and fumes that can result in burns, death, and 
asphyxiation from a lack of oxygen. Based on data collected by the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, for a workforce totaling 97,822, there is 
an annual average of one fatality, 110 lost-workday ``heat/burn'' 
injuries, and more than three times that many total injuries due to 
shipyard fires (Ex. 15).
    Employees are also at special risk when fighting fires in 
shipyards. Fighting fires at land-side facilities in shipyards can be 
similar to traditional 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. 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 is considerably different 
from structural firefighting. When traditional structural firefighting 
techniques are used on a vessel fire, the result can be ineffective and 
even catastrophic. The potential is much greater for serious injury to 
firefighting personnel when tactics do not reflect the unique nature of 
firefighting on vessels. 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 vessel fire, there may be little or no 
ability to ventilate the heat, smoke, and gases produced by a 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. 
For large or intense structural fires, a defensive fire-fighting option 
is to ``surround and drown.'' This means that hose lines are positioned 
outside the structure and voluminous amounts of water are applied until 
the fire goes out. Strategic options for vessel fires, on the other 
hand, are very limited and nearly always require an aggressive interior 
attack.
    While larger shipyards may have their own fire responders, smaller 
shipyards use outside fire responders, typically the local fire 
department. These municipal or other fire departments may have little 
experience in fighting fires in shipyards, especially on vessels. 
Proper coordination, familiarization, and training are necessary to 
ensure the safety of outside firefighters who respond to shipyard 
fires.
    Fighting vessel fires may also be more complicated than traditional 
firefighting because outside firefighters seldom have

[[Page 55669]]

the opportunity to learn the layout of the vessel. Vessels under 
construction or modification may have constantly changing structures. 
Firefighters operating on vessels 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, 
causing firefighters boarding the ship to converge on one or two access 
locations. This can lead to congestion of personnel and delay in 
locating and extinguishing the fire. Equipment, tools, and vessel 
components and structures can also restrict access. Staging platforms, 
scaffolding, rigging, cranes, and even mooring lines can hamper 
deploying hose lines and positioning firefighting 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 many trained 
personnel.
    Maintaining an adequate supply of air is another tactical problem 
for firefighting operations on ships. Firefighters are usually equipped 
with self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) that optimally provide a 
30-minute supply, after which the compressed air bottle has to be 
refilled or replaced. Vessel firefighting operations can last many 
hours so firefighters have to be rotated frequently to resupply their 
SCBA and counteract fatigue.
    Vessel fires may 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 may become unstable and possibly 
capsize or sink. This potential problem may require 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 vessel fires. Steel bulkheads and compartments in ships block 
or limit radio signal transmissions. To compensate, firefighters have 
to relay messages from within the ship by stationing personnel with 
radios close enough to allow transmissions. Other alternatives include 
using runners or deploying hard-wire communications systems. All 
possible solutions to this problem involve additional personnel and 
delays in establishing command and control, which may increase the 
potential for mishaps.
    Fires in shipyards present serious hazards to those who work to 
control them. Fire response employees are exposed to dangers such as 
heat, flame, smoke, explosion, structural collapse, and hazardous 
materials. 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 standard to 
cover both these situations. Likewise, other shipyard employees can 
benefit from a single fire protection standard for all aspects of 
shipyard employment by having fires extinguished more rapidly and 
effectively.
    OSHA's general industry standards for fire protection are in 
Subpart L, 29 CFR Part 1910.155 through 1910.165, but Sec.  1910.155(b) 
exempts maritime employments from coverage. Subpart L addresses fire 
prevention and firefighting methods typically used by general industry. 
OSHA compliance policy, set out in OSHA Instruction CPL 02-00-133, 
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 (also referred to as just ``vessels'' 
hereafter), OSHA has used the General Duty Clause Section 5(a)(1) of 
the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act or Act) to cite fire 
safety hazards at land-side facilities at shipyards and on board 
vessels and vessel sections. Because enforcement under the General Duty 
Clause requires OSHA to show, on a case by case basis, the existence of 
a hazard, that the hazard is recognized, that the hazard is causing or 
likely to cause serious physical harm to employees, and that a feasible 
means exists to abate the hazard, employers have not been given clear 
regulatory requirements to follow and enforcement has been difficult.
    The Agency has concluded that codifying relevant issues for fire 
protection in shipyards into a single subpart in 29 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 the 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. 
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 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 work at land-side facilities and aboard vessels is located within 
the same general 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. The Fire 
Protection in Shipyard Employment Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory 
Committee concluded that when fire response crews find shipyards 
following a single fire protection standard on vessels and land-side 
facilities, the crews are more effective in their fire response 
activities. OSHA agrees and has concluded that a single new standard 
addressing fire hazards for all shipyard employment, land-side and on 
board vessels, is reasonably necessary and appropriate to protect 
shipyard employees.
    The Agency has concluded that fire and firefighting activities in 
shipyard employment pose a significant risk to employees that can 
result in death, burns and other serious fire-related injuries. OSHA 
further concludes that the standard's requirements relating to fire 
hazards will help save lives and prevent injuries. The Agency has also 
concluded that the standard is technologically and economically 
feasible as well as cost-effective. It will substantially reduce the 
risk from fire hazards by recognizing and, in some cases, requiring new 
fire protection technologies.

Advisory Committees and Procedural History

    OSHA relied on the involvement of several advisory committees to 
develop this shipyard fire protection standard. The committees are the 
Shipyard Employment Standards Advisory Committee (SESAC), the 
predecessor of the Maritime Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety 
and Health (MACOSH), which, after reviewing pertinent federal 
regulations and guidelines issued by professional associations, drafted 
a shipyard employment fire protection standard (SESAC, Ex. 9); MACOSH, 
which urged OSHA to proceed with a fire protection

[[Page 55670]]

standard in 1995; and the Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment 
Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee (hereafter referred to as 
``the Committee''), formed in 1996 under the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (61 FR 28824).
    The members of the Committee were: Chris Myskowski, U.S. Coast 
Guard; Paul Jensen, National Institute for Occupational Safety and 
Health (NIOSH); Joseph V. Daddura, Office of Maritime Standards, OSHA; 
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 (NFPA); 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; Jim Paulson, National Steel & Shipbuilding Co.; and Peter 
Schmidt, Office of Specialty Compliance Programs, Washington State 
Department of Labor and Industry. The Agency wishes to thank all of the 
Committee members for their time, effort, and patience in helping to 
develop the draft proposed standard.
    The Committee met nine times between October 1996 and February 2002 
(Ex. 5). At its final meeting, the Committee unanimously approved a 
recommended standard for fire protection in shipyards. With minor 
editorial revisions, the Agency published the recommendations as a 
proposed standard on December 11, 2002 (67 FR 76213). A comment period 
to the proposed rule of 90 days ended on March 11, 2003. OSHA received 
31 comments. The final standard continues to reflect most of the 
Committee's recommendations, with minor modifications made in response 
to the comments received from the public. The comments and 
modifications are discussed in the Summary and Explanation of the final 
standard below.
    Some commenters expressed support for the proposed standard. 
Shipbuilders Council of America (SCA), Southwest Shipyard, Detyens 
Shipyards, Inc., and Gladding-Hearn Shipbuilding commended ``OSHA for 
recognizing the fact that day-to-day shipyard operations differ 
considerably from general industry and that an industry specific 
guideline is needed to address shipyard fire hazards'' (Exs. 21-5; 21-
6; 21-7; 21-13). In addition, these commenters stated ``[t]hat the 
Negotiated Rulemaking Committee (Neg Reg) process that was used to 
draft the Shipyard Fire Protection NPRM was overall beneficial'' (Exs. 
21-4; 21-5; 21-6; 21-7; 21-13). SCA, Detyens Shipyards, and Gladding-
Hearn went further to state that they ``[R]ecommend using the Neg Reg 
for industry-specific issues that may develop in the future.'' (Exs. 
21-5; 21-7; 21-13). Trinity Industries also stated that it was 
``[p]leased with the Shipyard Fire Protection NPRM'' (Ex. 21-4). Puget 
Sound Shipbuilders Association stated:

    With a few exceptions, I find this document follows what the 
Seattle Fire Department Administrative Regulation 49.1 mandates for 
hotwork in shipyard, boatyard, and water front operations. The 
Seattle Fire Department regulation has made a major and positive 
impact on the overall safety of hot-work operations within their 
areas of responsibility''. Areas of Incident Command, interagency 
training and communication are key elements to successfully resolve 
issues prior to an emergency at a facility. These issues may be new 
to some facilities and I would encourage those who need assistance 
to contact the local Fire or Emergency Services Department. Many of 
these agencies will provide training at little or no expense. We in 
Puget Sound Shipyard are fortunate to have Safety Staff experienced 
in these elements and conduct annual training with the Seattle Fire 
Department. Areas of Confined Space Rescue, Pre-fire tours/planning, 
as well as the annual facility inspection enhance our report with 
the fire department. Complying with the PPE requirements should be 
of no strain to any maritime industry. Respirator fit testing and 
such is an ongoing event. Those facilities that have an ``in house'' 
Fire Department or Fire Brigade should already be complying with the 
current OSHA regulations as well as NFPA recommendations (Ex. 21-2).

II. Pertinent Legal Authority

    The purpose of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq., 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, and 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.'' 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5).

III. Summary and Explanation of the Final Standard

    The comments OSHA received on the proposed standard supported the 
Committee's general approach to the issues, as well as the need for the 
standard. There were suggestions related to specific provisions, and 
these are addressed below in the discussion of

[[Page 55671]]

each section. OSHA has revised the proposed regulatory text where 
appropriate in response to comments, and has also made minor editorial 
revisions to better clarify the final regulatory text.
    In this rule, OSHA is incorporating by reference 19 National Fire 
Protection Association (NFPA) consensus standards. In keeping with past 
practice, the consensus standards are listed in Sec.  1915.5, 
Incorporation by Reference (IBR). There are ten additional NFPA 
standards referenced in the preamble, but they are not incorporated by 
reference. Reliance on national consensus standards such as those 
referenced in Subpart P is a longstanding U.S. government policy. The 
U.S. Office of Management and Budget, in Circular A-119, directs 
federal agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in lieu of 
government-unique standards except where inconsistent with law or 
otherwise impractical. The majority of these consensus standards are 
referenced in Sec.  1915.505, Fire Response, and Sec.  1915.507, Land-
side Fire Protection systems.
    In the proposed rule, there were several incorrect references to 
NFPA standards that OSHA has identified and corrected in this final 
rule. These errors were minor and the correct referenced versions of 
the NFPA standards can be found in OSHA docket S-051. The following 
table lists the NFPA standards incorrectly cited in the proposal along 
with the correct citation used in the final rule:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Incorrect citations                   Correct citations                   NPRM page location
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NFPA 10-2002 Standard for Portable Fire   NFPA 10-1998 Standard for        76250 (2 locations).
 Extinguishers.                            Portable Fire Extinguishers.
NFPA 11-2000 Standard for Low-Expansion   NFPA 11-1998 Standard for Low-   76236, 76250.
 Foam.                                     Expansion Foam.
NFPA 15-2002 Standard for Water Spray     NFPA 15-2001 Standard for Water  76236.
 Fixed Systems for Fire Protection (Ex.    Spray Fixed Systems for Fire
 20-19).                                   Protection (Ex. 19-19).
NFPA 17-1998 Standard for Dry Chemical    NFPA 17-2002 Standard for Dry    76237, 76250.
 Extinguishing Systems (Ex. 19-20).        Chemical Extinguishing Systems
                                           (Ex. 19-20).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPRM, OSHA proposed to delete section 1915.52, Fire 
prevention, which is located in Subpart D Welding, Cutting and Heating, 
because it is superceded by the comprehensive fire protection 
requirements in the new Subpart P. Section 1915.52 included the fire 
prevention standards for welding and burning in shipyard employment, 
and was the basis for many of the requirements now found in Subpart P, 
Section 1915.503--Precautions for hot work. No comments were received 
and OSHA is therefore deleting this section as proposed. Section 
1915.52 will be listed as ``reserved'' to avoid any need to renumber 
subsequent sections, and it will be available for future use, if 
needed.
    OSHA also proposed to delete paragraphs (d), (f), and (g) of Sec.  
1915.55, Gas welding and heating, in the NPRM. These paragraphs 
included provisions for the ``Use of fuel gas,'' ``Hose,'' and 
``Torches,'' respectively. After re-examining this proposed deletion, 
OSHA has found it is necessary to retain these paragraphs. Without 
them, the final standard would not address potentially hazardous 
situations. Thus, to ensure the continued protection of workers while 
welding, cutting, and heating, OSHA will not delete the paragraphs.

Section 1915.501 General Provisions

Purpose
    In Sec.  1915.501(a), OSHA states the purpose of the standard is to 
require employers to protect all employees from fire hazards in 
shipyard employment, including employees engaged in fire response 
activities.
Scope
    Paragraph (b) of Sec.  1915.501 describes the scope of the final 
standard, which is all shipyard employment work, including work on 
vessels and vessel sections and at land-side operations, regardless of 
geographic location. The final requirement is nearly identical to the 
proposed requirement. The only change is to replace ``and/or'' with 
``and.'' The scope of this subpart is consistent with that in Subpart 
B, Confined and Enclosed Spaces and Other Dangerous Atmospheres in 
Shipyard Employment, and Subpart I, Personal Protective Equipment for 
Shipyard Employment. It is also consistent with OSHA's previous policy 
concerning the scope of the Part 1915 standards.
    The scope of this standard includes all fire response provided by 
the employers' workers, whether they are part of a fire brigade, 
shipyard fire department, or simply designated by the employer. 
Shipyard employment includes shipbuilding, ship conversion, ship 
repairing, shipbreaking, and related employments. It also includes 
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.
    The scope of the standard has broad coverage because shipyard 
employers are increasingly engaged 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.
    Shipyard employment also includes support operations necessary for 
vessel construction and repair. Such support operations include metal 
fabrication, machine shops, electrical shops, and paint shops, which 
are facilities typically 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 to fabrication on a vessel.
    OSHA has included the phrase ``regardless of geographic location'' 
in the scope so that protection is afforded to employees wherever they 
engage in shipyard employment: on vessels, on vessel sections, at land-
side facilities, or at any other location where they perform shipyard 
employment. This has been the Agency's long-standing policy on shipyard 
employment, and is the scope of both Subparts B and I.
    Shipyard employment also occurs on vessels and vessel sections 
within the navigable waters of the United States, and includes work on 
a vessel or part of a vessel that is being constructed, repaired, or 
broken up, or whether it is in the shipyard or dockside, at anchor, or 
underway for testing. The requirements in this subpart will apply to 
all vessels within OSHA's jurisdictional boundaries.
    Several commenters recommended a revision of paragraph (b) (Exs. 
21-10; 21-15; 21-16; 22-1; 22-2; 22-3; 22-4; 22-5; 22-6; 22-7; 22-8; 
22-9; 22-10; 22-11; 22-13). They suggested that the phrase ``or on 
land-side operations regardless of geographic location'' be

[[Page 55672]]

replaced with ``or at facilities where vessels or vessel sections are 
located.'' The commenters were concerned about the application of the 
standard to off-site suppliers and contractors, such as a metal shop 
not engaged in shipyard employment that supplies duct work to a 
shipyard. The commenters did not think it would be appropriate for 
Subpart P to apply to such establishments that only supply materials or 
subcomponents to be installed on a vessel or used in a shipyard.
    OSHA has carried forward the proposed scope language in the final 
rule. However, in order to address the concerns raised, the Agency 
wants to clarify the degree to which it intends to regulate contract 
employers at shipyards. Contractors who engage in work outside of 
shipyards do not have to follow Subpart P within their own facilities. 
For example, Subpart P would not cover the metal shop described above. 
However, when the metal shop employees are engaged in shipyard 
activities within the shipyard, they must comply with Subpart P. The 
scope of Subpart P does not include shore side support services, such 
as those provided by vending equipment and mail delivery companies.
    The scope of the final rule includes all employees doing shipyard-
related work wherever that work takes place. For instance, whether the 
work is in the employers' shipyard, on a ship at anchor, or at a ship 
at a dock several miles away, it is considered shipyard employment. 
When subcontractors perform work in a shipyard, they must follow the 
standards of 29 CFR Part 1915.
Employee Involvement
    In Sec.  1915.501(c), OSHA requires employee participation in 
shipyard safety and health program activities. OSHA requires the 
employer to provide for the participation of employees and employee 
representatives in the development and review of programs and policies 
adopted to comply with this standard. The Committee also recommended 
that such employee participation and involvement be included in the 
standard.
    Several commenters suggested that OSHA replace the word ``and'' 
with ``and/or'' in Sec.  1915.501(c).

    In large companies it may not be feasible to include employees 
as well as employee representatives in the development of programs 
and policies. It is more likely that the employee representatives 
will participate in the development process and solicit input from 
their respective constituents. A large company may depend on labor 
union stewards or safety committee members to represent the labor 
force. In either case employee input is obtained. Recommendation: 
Make this an ``and/or'' situation. ``The employer must provide ways 
for the employees and/or employee representatives * * *'' (Exs. 21-
3; 21-10; 21-15; 21-16; 22-1; 22-6; 22-7; 22-8; 22-9; 22-10; 22-11; 
22-14).

Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) commented that

    The size of the organization/facility may limit its ability to 
include employees and employee representatives in the development of 
programs and policies. Employee representatives and/or safety 
boards/committees will be more likely to participate in the 
development process, and solicit input from their respective 
constituents (Ex. 22-15).

    The comments raised the issue that it may not be practical for both 
employees and their representative to participate. The Committee and 
OSHA viewed the employee involvement requirement as crucial. However, 
the Agency agrees with these commenters that the participation of 
either employees or employee representatives in the development or 
review of programs or policies is sufficient. Examples of employee 
representatives include employee safety boards and committees or labor 
union stewards. The Agency has altered the final language will read 
``employees, employee representatives, or both to participate'' to 
allow for employees, their representatives, or both to participate in 
developing and periodically reviewing programs and policies.
Multi-Employer Worksites
    Paragraph (d) of Sec.  1915.501 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.
    The multi-employer requirements are 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 about which employees of other employers are 
unaware. All employers need information about relevant 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 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. Such tragic events and 
the increased reliance on 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. In the shipyard 
industry, it is common practice to hire contractors for non-routine or 
specialized work situations. For example, painting, joining, carpentry, 
and scaffolding contractors are routinely used in shipyard employment.
    In the final standard, OSHA has retained in paragraph (d)(1)(i) and 
(ii) the proposed provisions that 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.
    OSHA specifically requested input from the public on the use of the 
terms ``host employer'' and ``contract employer'' and whether it is 
clear which employer is responsible under the provisions, and whether 
there is another way to define or clarify which employer is responsible 
for implementing the requirements. Northrop Grumman/ Newport News 
Shipyard (NGNN) submitted the only comment on this issue:

    The rule should be clarified to reflect the fact that there is 
typically more than one host employer at a shipyard work site or on 
board a vessel. For example, a ship owner may conduct work on its 
own vessel, or hire other contractors that are not under contract to 
or supervised by the shipyard where the vessel is temporarily 
located. Additionally, each ``host employer'' will have its own 
subcontractors and its specific work for the safety of which it 
should be responsible. The various host employers should be able to 
allocate among themselves in manners suitable to the individual 
circumstances (Ex. 21-8).

    It was the clear intent of the proposal that a single shipyard 
employer have responsibility for acquainting every employer on site of 
the contents of the fire safety plan and emergency procedures. However, 
OSHA agrees

[[Page 55673]]

with Newport News Shipyard that there may be circumstances where a 
vessel owner may also be a host employer. Therefore, OSHA is adding a 
new provision, paragraph (d)(1)(iii), which also has a clarifying 
sentence to ensure that all employers are communicating and following 
their fire safety plans (see discussion below).
    The definition of ``host employer'' in Sec.  1915.509 Definitions 
is an employer who is in charge of coordinating work or who hires other 
employers to perform work at a multi-employer workplace. The definition 
of ``contract employer'' is an employer who performs work under 
contract to 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 responsibilities of host employers are established in Sec.  
1915.501(d)(1). In paragraph (d)(1)(i), OSHA requires the host 
employers to ensure that information about fire hazards, controls, 
safety and health rules, and emergency procedures is given to all 
contract employers. The information includes whatever a contract 
employer must have to carry out its own duties as an employer under 
this rule.
    OSHA is requiring in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) that the host employer 
make sure that fire protection responsibilities are specifically 
assigned to the various employers and contractors working at a multi-
employer worksite. Some of these responsibilities include fire hazard 
abatement, informing employees of fire hazards before exposure, and 
stopping work because of an imminent danger situation. The host 
employer must, in conjunction with the contract employers, decide who 
is to train employees and control which hazards.
    Contract employers must know (from the host employer) about other 
hazards related to fire which their employees might encounter at the 
workplace. Such knowledge allows contract employers to plan 
effectively, safely carry out their work, and understand procedures, 
such as what to do when a fire alarm is sounded to evacuate a vessel. 
Contract employers also 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. This information lessens the likelihood that accidents will 
occur.
    To further clarify the roles of the host employer, the Agency has 
added a new provision, Sec.  1915.501(d)(1)(iii), to ensure that when 
there is more than one host employer, each host employer must 
communicate to other host employers relevant information about fire-
related hazards. In addition, OSHA is adding a clarifying sentence as 
follows: ``When a vessel owner or operator (temporarily) becomes a host 
shipyard employer, by directing the work of ships' crews on repair or 
modification of the vessel or hiring other contractors directly, the 
vessel owner or operator must also comply with these provisions for 
host employers.''
    Paragraph (d)(2) of Sec.  1915.501 states the responsibilities for 
contract employers. The contract employer must inform the host employer 
of any fire hazards that could be created by the work being performed 
by its employees, and what steps the contract employer must take to 
address those hazards. In addition, OSHA requires that any hazards that 
were not previously identified by the host employer, but were 
identified by the contract employer, must be shared with the host 
employer. No comments were received on paragraph (d)(2) and OSHA has 
carried it forward in the final standard.

Section 1915.502 Fire Safety Plan

    The final standard includes requirements for an overall 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. The plan must include procedures for the 
control of fire hazards, such as flammable and non-flammable compressed 
gases, ignition sources, combustible materials, and welding and hot 
work operations, and must include procedures for evacuation.
Employer Responsibilities
    In Sec.  1915.502(a), OSHA is requiring the employer to 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. A written plan enables employers and employees to see 
how the employer intends to protect workers; enables employers to 
readily exchange information; provides continuity of procedures; and 
provides 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.
    In Sec.  1915.502(a), OSHA refers readers to an outline for a model 
fire safety plan, Appendix A, a non-mandatory appendix to this subpart. 
The purpose of Appendix A 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, the 
employer meets the minimum requirements of this section, provided the 
employer's plan correctly follows the model outline and appropriately 
addresses the particular conditions at the employer's specific 
worksite.
    Several comments were received regarding Sec.  1915.502(a) (Exs. 
21-4; 21-5; 21-6; 21-7; 21-13; 22-2). They questioned whether an 
employer that already has an integrated emergency action plan has to 
also have a separate fire safety plan. And if so, they wanted to know 
if the ``fire safety plan'' is meant to supersede all provisions under 
Sec. Sec.  1910.38 and 1910.39 (Emergency Action Plans and Fire 
Prevention Plans). Atlantic Marine recommended that a provision be 
added which would accept an existing emergency action plan in place of 
a fire safety plan if it already met the requirements of both Sec.  
1910.38 and Sec.  1915.502(a) (Ex. 21-17-1-1).
    OSHA notes that while the Agency was developing the Part 1915 
subpart F standard, OSHA also revised Part 1910, Subpart E, Exit 
Routes, Emergency Action Plans, and Fire Prevention Plans (67 FR 67949-
67965 (11/07/2002)), which apply to general industry workplaces as well 
as shipyard employers. In the Part 1910 Subpart E rulemaking, OSHA 
revised the previous requirements for exit routes using clearer 
language so they are easier to understand by employers, employees, and 
others who use them. In addition, these revisions reorganized the text, 
removed inconsistencies among sections, and eliminated duplicative 
requirements.
    The employee emergency plans and fire prevention plans that are 
covered by Sec. Sec.  1910.38 and .39 are similar to the fire safety 
plans required by Sec.  1915.502. However, there are a few key 
differences. Section 1910.38 requires the employer to plan for all 
emergencies, not just fire emergencies. Therefore, the Sec.  1915.502 
fire safety plan provisions do not adequately replace the Sec.  1910.38 
requirements and shipyard employers will still be required to comply 
with Sec.  1910.38. For Sec.  1910.39 Fire protection

[[Page 55674]]

plans, OSHA has determined that paragraphs (a), (b), and (d) are 
covered by Sec.  1915.502, and shipyard employers are no longer 
required to comply with these provisions of Sec.  1910.39. However, 
paragraph Sec.  1910.39(c) contains provisions requiring employers to 
identify and control certain fire hazards. These provisions are not 
adequately addressed by Sec.  1915.502, so OSHA has determined that 
shipyard employers will continue to be required to comply with the 
Sec.  1910.39(c) provisions.
    The Agency understands that shipyard employers who are currently 
complying with Sec. Sec.  1910.38 and 1910.39 will now also be required 
to comply with the additional requirements of Sec.  1915.502. However, 
there is no need to produce three separate plans, unless the employer 
wishes to do so. OSHA does not require employers to have separate plans 
as long as the unified plan covers the applicable general industry 
employee emergency plan and fire prevention plan provisions, as well as 
the shipyard employment fire safety plan. OSHA will accept one unified 
plan that meets all of the requirements in Sec. Sec.  1910.38, 1910.39, 
and 1915.502.
Plan Elements
    In Sec.  1915.502(b), OSHA sets forth the elements that the 
employer must include in the fire safety plan. These are the 
identification of significant fire hazards; 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, and departments for individuals who can be contacted 
for further information about the plan.
Reviewing the Plan With Employees
    In Sec.  1915.502(c), OSHA requires the employer to review the fire 
safety plan with each employee within 90 days of the effective date of 
this standard for employees who are currently working. It also requires 
employers to review the fire safety plan with new employees upon 
initial assignment and whenever the actions the employee must take 
under the plan change because of a change in duties or a change in the 
plan. Employees include those employees who perform hot work and fire 
watches, fire responders, and all other employees who are in the 
shipyard.
Additional Employer Requirements
    In Sec.  1915.502(d), OSHA requires the employer to keep the plan 
readily accessible for review by employees, their representatives, and 
OSHA; review and update the plan whenever necessary but at least 
annually; document that affected employees have been informed of the 
plan; and give a copy of the plan to any outside fire response 
organization that the employer expects may respond to fires at a 
worksite.
    NAVSEA commented on this paragraph:

    The standard requiring a ``readily accessible'' ``updated'' fire 
safety plan is vague. For example, will maintenance of training 
records suffice as a fire safety plan? Recommend revising the 
standard to better define the requirements of the fire safety plan. 
(Ex. 22-15).

    The Agency has used the terms ``readily accessible'' and 
``updated'' in numerous OSHA standards. Definitions of ``readily 
accessible'' include that in Sec.  1910.1200(f)(8) (``as long as no 
barriers to immediate employee access exist'') and Sec.  1910.399 
(``Capable of being reached quickly for operation, renewal, or 
inspections, without requiring those to whom ready access is requisite 
to climb over or remove obstacles or to resort to portable ladders, 
chairs, etc.''). Employees must be able to access the fire safety plan 
at any time during the work shift. The plan may be in a notebook, on a 
computer, or in any other appropriate format. The employer may have one 
or more locations for all safety plans and related information. 
Employees must know where to go to access this information and must be 
able to obtain the information in a timely manner. The Agency believes 
that the term ``readily accessible'' both in its plain meaning and 
other applications in OSHA regulations is sufficiently clear that no 
additional definition in Sec.  1915.509 is necessary.
    Updating the plan when necessary would include when there is a 
change in the system, the process, or in technology. This ensures that 
the fire safety plan will be effective for the work that is being 
performed at any given facility at any given time. OSHA understands 
that a shipyard may be working on several types of vessels during a 
year, and that each vessel may involve different hazards. The plan may 
need to be updated to cover those changes as well. For instance, if a 
shipyard only repairs barges, employees should be aware of the hazards 
associated with that particular vessel. However, if a ferry is in the 
shipyard for modifications or repair, the elements of the fire safety 
plan may need revision to address the different fire hazards associated 
with such a vessel. The employer must review and update the plan when 
necessary but at least annually. Should the process, system, and 
technology remain the same after one year, no update is needed. 
However, the employer must review the plan to ensure that no changes 
are needed. OSHA believes that the meaning of ``update the plan'' in 
Sec.  1915.502(d)(2) is clear and this provision has been included in 
the final standard.
    In Sec.  1915.502(d)(3) of the proposed rule, OSHA proposed that 
employers certify in writing that each employee has been informed about 
the plan. Numerous commenters replied that this paragraph was not 
justified. In addition, they believed that adding a certification 
requirement adds no substantive protection for employees and is 
inconsistent with the recommendation of the Committee, which 
specifically approved a ``recordkeeping'' mechanism for ensuring 
compliance (Exs. 21-10; 21-15; 21-16; 22-1; 22-6; 22-7; 22-8; 22-9; 22-
10; 22-11). Bath Iron Works stated that: ``The request for a company to 
`certify in writing * * *' is unclear. Is the standard calling for a 
record to be maintained and does an electronic data base of training 
records meet the intent of the standards?'' (Ex. 21-3). All of these 
commenters recommended revising this paragraph and using terms such as 
``maintain records,'' ``maintain training documentation,'' or 
``document training records.''
    Additionally, NGNN stated that:

    We do not believe that electronic media or other equally 
effective means should be excluded as methods that an employer may 
use to demonstrate to OSHA that all affected employees are informed 
or trained on the fire safety plan. It is impractical for the 
employer to be continually issuing a new ``certification'' each time 
an employee is hired. Training records or other means may be used 
more efficiently and without creating a redundant need for a 
separate ``certification.'' OSHA should not dictate the method but 
rather make it incumbent upon the employer to demonstrate that 
employees have been informed of the plan. (Ex. 21-8).

    It recommended that the paragraph read: ``[A]ssure that each 
affected employee has been informed about the plan as required by 
paragraph (c) of this section; and * * *.'' (Id.)
    OSHA's intent was to require the employer to certify that its 
employees have been informed, not to require a new certification for 
each employee. However, OSHA agrees with the commenters that the 
proposed language was unclear, and has changed the language to require 
that the employer: ``[D]ocument that affected employees have been 
informed * * *.'' Many employers have developed databases that track 
the training that each

[[Page 55675]]

employee has completed. This form of documentation is acceptable, as is 
any other effective method of documenting that all affected employees 
have received the training.
    In paragraph (d)(4), OSHA requires that the employer provide a copy 
of the plan to any outside fire response organization that the employer 
expects to respond to fires at its worksite. No comments were received 
on this requirement. OSHA made minor editorial changes to this 
paragraph in the final standard.
Contract Employers
    In Sec.  1915.502(e), OSHA requires a contract employer's fire 
safety plan to be in compliance with the host employer's fire safety 
program. Because of the nature of the work at any given time, there may 
be many employers within one particular shipyard. Safety and health 
hazards may increase at such multi-employer worksites. 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 exist. The successful recognition of fire hazards and response 
to fire emergencies requires all employers on the site to follow the 
host employer's fire safety plan.
    Several identical comments were received on this paragraph. The 
concern was that the wording implied that there must be two distinct 
and separate plans. ``The same degree of contractor safety can be 
achieved if the contractor agrees, in writing if necessary, to comply 
with the host employer's fire safety plan. This would ease the burden 
on the contractor and promote consistency within the shipyard.'' (Exs. 
21-3; 21-10; 21-15; 21-16; 22-1; 22-6; 22-7; 22-8; 22-9; 22-10; 22-11; 
22-14). OSHA agrees with these comments. If the host employer's plan 
includes the fire hazards the contract employer's employees will 
encounter, it is acceptable for a sub-contractor to simply adopt or 
follow the host employer's fire safety plan.
    The Agency's intent was for contractor and sub-contractor employees 
to be provided the same level of protection as the host employer's 
employees while on site. It is also important that contractor employees 
respond as effectively as other employees to evacuations. For example, 
to follow the host employer's fire safety plan would include following 
all of Sec.  1915.502, including reviewing the plan with employees, 
keeping the plan accessible and updated, and certifying that all 
employees have been informed of the plan. Recognizing hazards, 
communicating about developing hazards and responding to emergencies in 
a safe manner require 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 final rule focuses on reducing 
the hazards associated with fuel sources and ignition sources by 
removing any fuel source from the area where hot work is to be 
performed. If that is not possible, then isolating the fuels by using 
protection (shielding), posting a fire watch, or other positive means 
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. Other materials may 
also be present that have properties that may increase the hazards 
associated with a fire, such as oxidizers and water reactive chemicals. 
The Agency concludes that fires resulting from hot work can be 
prevented through an authorization procedure and proper inspection of 
the worksite before hot work. This involves identifying fire hazards 
and implementing appropriate control measures that include removing 
hazards, inerting spaces, shielding combustibles, or posting fire 
watches. The Agency believes this approach will better protect shipyard 
workers from fire hazards associated with hot work while also 
reflecting the best practices of the industry.
    The purpose of OSHA's requirement is to make sure that the employer 
identifies all fire hazards in a hot work area and takes appropriate 
action to prevent fires. This section relies heavily upon requirements 
adapted from the existing Sec. 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. 19-3).
General Requirements
    Paragraph (a) makes clear that the requirements cover all hot work 
except for operations covered by Subpart B Confined and Enclosed Spaces 
and Other Dangerous Atmospheres in Shipyard Employment. Subpart B 
already covers the hazards of performing hot work in these areas. 
Addressing them again in Subpart P would be duplicative and 
unnecessary.
    Paragraph (a)(1) allows the employer to designate certain areas for 
hot work. In designating such areas, the employer must determine 
through an inspection, that they are free from fire hazards. These 
areas are typically designed for hot work, and include fabricating 
shops, sub-assembly areas, and welding and burning areas within shops, 
such as pipe, boiler, and sheet metal shops. In ``designated areas,'' 
hot work operations are regular and continuous as opposed to incidental 
hot work operations occurring throughout the yard. Nonetheless, such 
areas must be initially inspected to establish them as ``designated 
areas'' and then maintained as such, as required in paragraph (b)(1) of 
this section.
    OSHA received comments relating to paragraph (a)(1). One group of 
commenters argued that the word ``only'' should be removed from: 
``[t]he employer may only designate areas for hot work'' because it 
implies that an employer is limited to designating areas for hot work 
(Exs. 21-4; 21-5; 21-6; 21-8; 21-13). OSHA agrees with these commenters 
and has deleted ``only'' from the requirement.
    Several comments were received objecting to the term ``potential 
fire hazard.'' (Exs. 21-8; 21-10; 21-15; 21-16; 21-17-1; 22-1; 22-6; 
22-7 through 22-11; 22-14) The commenters felt that this terminology 
was too broad and vague, could be improperly interpreted in the field, 
and should be clearly defined or changed. One suggestion was to 
substitute the term with ``free of fire hazards,'' which would be 
consistent with language used in Sec. Sec.  1915.503(a)(2)(ii) and 
(b)(1). Another comment on this term was that: ``The use of the word 
``potential'' is confusing and could be improperly interpreted in the 
field. Either an area has a ``fire hazard'' or it does not.'' (Exs. 21-
10; 21-15; 21-16; 22-1; 22-6; 22-7 through 22-11). OSHA agrees with 
these commenters that using the phrase ``potential fire hazards'' could 
be misconstrued. Therefore, OSHA has changed the language to read 
``free of fire hazards.''
    Alabama Shipyard and Atlantic Marine-Mobile noted that the rule 
does not specify how such areas should be designated, such as by 
posting signs, inclusion in the fire safety plan, or some other 
mechanism (Ex. 22-2). In response, OSHA notes that the Agency is 
allowing employers flexibility in determining how to designate these 
hot

[[Page 55676]]

work areas, and only requires that they do so in an effective manner.
    Paragraph (a)(2) of this section contains the requirements for 
authorization of hot work in non-designated areas. In Sec.  
1915.503(a)(2)(i), OSHA requires that, before authorizing hot work in a 
non-designated area, the employer must visually inspect the area where 
hot work is to be performed, including adjacent spaces, to ensure that 
the area is free of fire hazards, unless a Marine Chemist's certificate 
or Shipyard Competent Person's log is used for the authorization. OSHA 
believes that by requiring authorization before hot work is performed 
in a non-designated area, the employer will pre-plan the operation and 
thereby identify and control the hazards associated with hot work.
    OSHA recognizes that, although Marine Chemists and Shipyard 
Competent Persons have specific functions to perform under Subpart B, 
the employer may also use them to assess whether designated and non-
designated hot work areas are free from fire hazards. However, the 
employer is not required to do so. In a related comment, Bath Iron 
Works remarked that:

    Using the term `[the employer] must' implies that no one else 
can do the inspection. A trained mechanic may be more effective than 
a supervisor to perform such an inspection. Can the employer utilize 
employees to perform the inspection prior to hot work if it is part 
of their internal procedures and the employees are trained to do so? 
(Ex. 21-3).

    OSHA does not intend for the words ``employer must'' to be 
interpreted to mean that a supervisory individual must conduct the 
visual inspection. A supervisor, the hot worker, a fire watch, or some 
other employee who is capable of performing the inspection may be 
delegated to do the inspection. Of course, it remains the employer's 
responsibility to ensure the area is free of fire hazards.
    The paragraph requires that the inspection be performed to make 
sure the area is free of fire hazards. If during the inspection, 
combustible materials, (e.g., lunch bags, newspapers, coffee cups, or 
rags) are within 35 feet of the hot work area, the employer can do a 
number of things. The employer can remove the combustible materials 
from the area, use barriers to safely isolate the combustible 
materials, post a fire watch, or not perform the intended hot work.
    Similarly, as OSHA explained in the proposal (67 FR 76224), the 
employer is not required to produce a written authorization. While some 
employers will choose to produce written authorizations, such as those 
required by U.S. Navy contracts, others will choose to use verbal 
authorizations. The Agency's intent is to enable the employer to 
perform the steps and to assess the hazard each time it authorizes hot 
work, but not to require a formal written permit. Therefore, in this 
paragraph OSHA does not specify what form of authorization must be 
used.
    In Sec.  1915.503(a)(2), the employer can only authorize employees 
to do hot work in areas that are free of fire hazards or where fire 
hazards are controlled by physical isolation, fire watches, or other 
positive means such as inerting. Decisions about authorizing hot work 
must be based on an inspection by the employer, a Marine Chemist, or a 
Shipyard Competent Person. Authorization for hot work is appropriate 
only when such an inspection has shown that there are no uncontrolled 
combustible or flammable materials in the area.
    The note to paragraph (a)(2) states: ``[T]he requirements of 
paragraph (a)(2) apply to all hot work operations in shipyard 
employment except those covered by Sec.  1915.14.'' This note is a 
reminder to employers that there are instances when a Marine Chemist, a 
U.S. Coast Guard Authorized Person, or a Shipyard Competent Person, is 
required to inspect a work area prior to hot work. Under these 
circumstances, the employer would not need to re-inspect the same work 
area. Conversely, the employer's inspection will not be accepted in 
lieu of an inspection by a Marine Chemist, a U.S. Coast Guard 
Authorized Person, or a Shipyard Competent Person when required by 
Sec.  1915.14.
    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 performing the hot work. As required in paragraph 
(a)(2)(ii), control of fire hazards can be by physical isolation, 
posting fire watches, or other positive means. For example, an employer 
can achieve physical isolation of combustibles by shielding them or 
moving them to an area at least 35 feet away from the hot work (see 
definition of ``physical isolation''). The 35-foot vertical and 
horizontal distance is consistent with current industry practice. Where 
combustibles cannot 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.]
    The Connecticut Department of Labor submitted the following 
questions in regard to these requirements:

    Pertaining to Sec.  1915.503, what is the covered employer's 
responsibility regarding hot work and maintaining fire hazard free 
conditions when the outside contractor is on covered property? * * * 
How is such an outside contractor/employer treated through the 
entire scenario under the standard for example, does this employer 
need to be covered by the plan? (Ex. 22-4).

    As discussed in the Scope section, contractors who perform work at 
shipyards are required to comply with the OSHA shipyard standards, 
including the requirements regarding hot work.
    NAVSEA recommended that two classes of hot work be identified. 
These would include most hazardous (stick welding and oxyfuel cutting) 
and less hazardous hot work (grinding, brazing, and TIG welding) (Ex. 
22-15). By separating these two, there would be separate fire watch 
requirements. This commenter further stated that:

    The hot worker may serve as his/her own fire watch for less 
hazardous hot work with the supervisor's approval. In addition, they 
must have an extinguisher and fire watch training. Recommend 
differentiating between `aggressive' hot work and `other' hot work. 
Two definitions of hot work would legitimize minor incidental gas 
igniters in areas that are safe to enter, but not safe for 
`aggressive' industrial hot work. (Id.)

    OSHA has not incorporated this suggestion into the final rule. The 
Agency believes that a single approach to ensuring safe hot work is 
simple and effective, and that for any hot work where the area has not 
been cleared of fire hazards, the employer must control the fire hazard 
with physical isolation, fire watches, or other positive means. 
Allowing the employer to designate particular areas for hot work 
addresses many of the concerns expressed by NAVSEA. In addition, the 
Agency does not allow the hot worker to also be the fire watch. Fire 
watch issues are discussed below.
Specific Requirements
    In Sec.  1915.503(b)(1), OSHA requires employers to keep all hot 
work areas free of hazards that may cause or contribute to the spread 
of fire. This requirement prevents the introduction of combustible or 
flammable materials during the performance of hot work.

[[Page 55677]]

Even though safe conditions often exist at the start of the hot work 
process, over the duration of the work, materials may be brought to the 
site, creating a fire hazard. For example, one worker may be performing 
hot work at the same time a worker from another job introduces 
combustible or flammable materials within 35 feet of the hot work 
operation. It is the intent of Sec.  1915.503(b)(1) that hazard 
assessment be a continual process and not a singular, one-time event. 
Therefore, after authorizing hot work, the employer must continue to 
maintain a fire hazard free area. A note has been added to refer the 
reader to Sec.  1915.181, Subpart L, for unexpected energizing and 
energy release. In addition, the reader should refer to Sec. Sec.  
1915.1000 to .1450, Subpart Z, for exposure to toxic and hazardous 
substances. No comments were received on this paragraph, and the 
proposed language is carried forward in the final rule.
    Paragraph (b)(2) deals with fire safety issues related to fuel gas 
and oxygen supply lines and torches that are typically used for cutting 
and brazing. Paragraph (b)(2)(i) requires the employer to make sure 
that no unattended fuel gas and oxygen hose lines or torches are left 
in confined spaces. The final language in paragraph (b)(2)(i) has been 
adapted from 29 CFR Parts 1910.252 and Sec.  1915.52 and NFPA 312-2000 
Standard for Protection of Vessels During Construction, Repair, and 
Lay-up (Ex. 20-4). This requirement reflects the current practice in 
the industry, and was recommended by the Committee.
    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 paragraph seeks to 
eliminate the hazards associated with unattended fuel gas and oxygen 
hoses or torches in confined spaces.
    A number of comments were received on Sec.  1915.503(b)(2), stating 
that these paragraphs were not the intent of the Committee (Exs. 21-4; 
21-5; 21-6; 21-7; 21-13; 21-17-1-1; 22-2). Some commenters stated that 
the Committee intended these requirements only for charged lines, not 
lines in general. (Exs. 21-8; 21-17; 21-17-1). These commenters stated 
that (b)(2)(i) would require the burner to leave someone to attend his 
or her torch while the burner returned to the supply manifold to turn 
on the gas. Two of these commenters raised the question of what OSHA's 
practice will be with the ``no unattended * * * lines'' wording (Exs. 
21-7; 21-13). Other than minor editorial changes, the requirement in 
Sec.  1915.503(b)(2) is the language voted upon and approved 
unanimously by the Committee. In addition, this will eliminate the 
hazard of leaving leaking lines in a confined space. The provision does 
not require two employees because the burner can turn on the gas and 
transport the torch with a charged line to the confined space. If the 
burner leaves the confined space, the burner can take the torch to an 
enclosed space, where it can be left unattended for 15 minutes. The 
final standard maintains the provision as proposed.
    In Sec.  1915.503(b)(2)(ii), OSHA requires employers to prohibit 
unattended charged fuel gas and oxygen hose lines or torches in 
enclosed spaces for more than 15 minutes. The language in this 
paragraph was adapted from 29 CFR Sec.  1910.252 and Sec.  1915.52 and 
NFPA 312-2000 Standard for Protection of Vessels During Construction, 
Repair, and Lay-up (Ex. 19-4). 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.
    Paragraph (b)(2)(ii) received a number of comments related to what 
would be considered ``charged.'' NGNN stated that:

    NGNN considers the word ``charged'' to mean that the gas is shut 
off at the supply manifold or cylinder and that the hose is not 
required to be disconnected so as to maintain the integrity of the 
original drop test. We are concerned that the proposed language in 
1915.503(b)(2)(ii), if interpreted to mean that the line must be 
disconnected during unattended periods of 15 minutes or more, would 
permit the re-connection of the hose without positive verification 
of line integrity and thus create the potential for gas to be 
released in an enclosed space. Furthermore, we believe re-connecting 
and performing a drop test with the hose and torch left in place 
below deck is poor practice and even unsafe since gas could be 
released while the torch operator is determining that the line is 
open or leaking. Proven and equally or more protective alternative 
methods, such as described below, are currently used that minimize 
the risk in the event that hose integrity is compromised. (Ex. 21-
8).

    In addition, NGNN recommended that the standard be revised to read: 
``No unattended fuel gas or oxygen hose lines or torches are in 
enclosed spaces for more than 15 minutes unless the gas supply manifold 
or cylinder valves are closed and the hose lines are inspected or a 
positive means is used to verify there is no gas leakage, prior to re-
opening the manifold or cylinder supply valves.'' (Id.)
    Other commenters considered lines to be uncharged when:

    [T]he gas supply [is] turned off at the manifold valve and/or 
cylinder valve only, and hose connection [is] not disconnected from 
the supply. This would allow the hose to not be charged with 
pressure supplied by the manifold, or cylinder, only the pressure of 
a drop test. The hose should not be disconnected, interfering with 
the integrity of the original drop test, and requiring that the drop 
test be redone. Disconnection of the hose could result in the 
possibility of mistaken connections (Exs. 21-10; 22-1; 22-6; 22-13).

    OSHA's interpretation of ``charged line'' is any line that is 
connected to the manifold and filled with gas. Until all of the 
contents are discharged from the lines, there is the potential of a 
leak, a cut line, or a disconnection, all of which could contribute to 
a fire. Therefore, we do not agree with NGNN's recommendation and are 
maintaining this interpretation in the final rule.
    OSHA finds that fuel gas or oxygen in charged hose lines has the 
potential to empty into an enclosed space and create a fire hazard. 
Therefore, the final rule includes the provision as proposed, which is 
consistent with the Committee's recommendation, consensus standards, 
and sound fire safety practice.
    In paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of Sec.  1915.503, the employer must 
ensure that employees disconnect all fuel gas and oxygen hoses at the 
supply manifold at the end of each shift. This reduces the possibility 
of releasing gas into an enclosed space and creating a fire hazard. 
However, this procedure requires the employer to make sure that hoses 
are safely reconnected. As described in the preamble to the proposed 
rule (67 FR 76225), OSHA is concerned about the possibility of hooking 
up at the supply manifold a different (wrong) hose whose torch end was 
left hanging in an enclosed space. If the wrong hose is reconnected, it 
may dispense oxygen and fuel gas into a space without anyone knowing, 
thus creating a fire or explosion hazard.
    OSHA deals with this potential problem in paragraph (b)(2)(iv) 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 or to open air and then disconnect the torch. 
The other is to use a positive means of identification on the fuel gas 
and oxygen hose lines before rolling out or extending the line to 
assure that the proper extended lines are disconnected and that the 
proper lines

[[Page 55678]]

will be reconnected, thus eliminating the hazard. Selecting the 
positive means of identification for the fuel gas and oxygen hose lines 
is left to the discretion of the employer. Examples of the positive 
means of identification include color coding, stamped brass tags, and 
stenciling of both ends of the line. Using performance language as an 
alternative to requiring specific methods to identify the lines 
provides employers with flexibility and will help to nurture developing 
technology in these areas.
    In an identical comment, several commenters objected to proposed 
paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(A) and (B), as follows:

    The preamble on pages 76225, paragraph 9 misrepresents current 
industry practice with regard to the use of gauges to test for 
compression integrity. Only one or two shipyards use gauges for the 
integrity test. The implied necessity of gauges imposes a large cost 
for many shipyards, and leaving the existing language in the final 
rule makes it incumbent on the shipyard to demonstrate that their 
practice exceeds a gauge as a means of ensuring integrity. Further, 
the ``locking'' system described in the preamble ensures positive 
identification, but does nothing to ensure integrity as implied in 
the discussion. As a result, we recommend that the language in the 
proposed rule be changed to:
    ``Extended fuel gas and oxygen hose lines are not reconnected at 
the supply manifold unless the lines are given a positive means of 
identification when they were first connected and positive means to 
insure the integrity of fuel gas and oxygen burning system is 
identified in employer fire plan'' (Exs. 21-4; 21-5; 21-6; 21-7; 21-
13; 22-2).

    OSHA disagrees with these comments. As discussed above, the 
employer could use stenciling of both ends of the line, color coding, 
stamped brass tags, and so forth to identify the lines. Of course, the 
lines must be identified at both ends regardless of how many sections 
are joined to create the run. While the preferred way to maintain 
integrity of the lines is the drop test using gauges, the employer may 
use other methods such as testing a pressurized system by using soapy 
water at all connections. The use of gauges may also be avoided 
entirely by rolling hoses back to open air.
    Therefore, apart from the minor editorial changes, the only 
difference between the provisions of the final rule and the proposed 
rule is that the sections have been renumbered from Sec.  
1915.503(b)(iii)(A) and (B) to Sec.  1915.503(b)(iii) and (iv). Thus, 
paragraph (iii) clarifies that the hoses must be disconnected, and 
paragraph (iv) makes clear that two options are available to the 
employer to assure that hoses are properly reconnected. The employer 
may roll the lines back to the supply manifold or to open air and then 
disconnect the torch, or the employer may keep the lines in place, 
identify the hose lines to assure that the proper lines are reconnected 
and check them for integrity. OSHA has also added a definition of 
``drop test'' to the rule, as discussed in the definitions section 
below.

Section 1915.504 Fire Watches

    The fire watch requirements of this section are divided into three 
parts: (a) The employer's written policy on fire watches; (b) the 
posting of a fire watch; and (c) fire watch assignments.
Written Fire Watch Policy
    Paragraph (a) of Sec.  1915.504 requires employers to create and 
keep current a written policy on fire watches. This written policy must 
specify the training that fire watches must receive (paragraph (a)(1)); 
the duties that they will perform (paragraph (a)(2)); the equipment 
that they will be given (paragraph (a)(3)); and the personal protective 
equipment (PPE) necessary for fire watches in the workplace (paragraph 
(a)(4)). The PPE that fire watches will need is specified in 29 CFR 
Part 1915 Subpart I Personal Protective Equipment. OSHA did not propose 
a specific format for the written policy, and none has been included in 
the final rule. OSHA recognizes that the employer needs the discretion 
to tailor the policy to its workplace.
    No comments were received on the proposed text in paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (a)(3); OSHA is adopting them in this final rule without 
changes. One comment was received regarding paragraph (a)(4) of Sec.  
1915.504. Atlantic Marine recommended that: ``[T]he wording of this 
proposed rule be changed from `must be given' to `must be made 
available' to ensure consistency with 29 CFR 1915.152(a)--Provision and 
use of [personal protective] equipment'' (Ex. 21-17-1). Proposed 
paragraph (a)(4) stated that employees ``must be given'' PPE as 
required in Subpart I, and Sec.  1915.152(a) states that the employer 
shall provide and shall ensure that each affected employee uses the 
appropriate PPE. OSHA agrees with this comment and has revised this 
provision to read: ``The personal protective equipment (PPE) must be 
made available and worn as required by 29 CFR Part 1915, Subpart I.'' 
With this wording, the employer has an obligation to provide the proper 
PPE to all fire watch employees. In addition, the employer must ensure 
that employees are wearing and utilizing each piece of PPE 
appropriately as required in Sec.  1915.152(a).
Posting Fire Watches
    Paragraph (b) of Sec.  1915.504 requires the employer to post a 
fire watch during hot work if any one of eight specific conditions is 
present (each condition is discussed in detail below). OSHA's 
requirements for this paragraph are based on the Committee's 
recommendations.
    Comments received stated that: ``There is a question of whether 
this is an `and' or an `or' listing of fire hazards.'' These commenters 
recommended changing the language to read: ``The employer must post a 
fire watch if during hot work any of the following apply:'' (Exs. 21-3; 
21-10; 21-15; 21-16; 22-1; 22-6; 22-7 through 22-11). OSHA agrees and 
the regulatory text has been changed to read: ``The employer must post 
a fire watch if during hot work any of the following conditions are 
present.''
    Atlantic Marine stated that the proposed rule ``[i]s cost 
burdensome to small and medium-sized shipyards.'' (Ex. 21-17-1). It 
requested that the eight conditions listed in Sec.  1915.504(b) be 
replaced with the following language: ``An employer must post a fire 
watch if a Marine Chemist, a Coast Guard-authorized person, or a 
Shipyard Competent Person, as defined in 29 CFR 1915 Subpart B, 
requires that a fire watch be posted.'' (Id.)
    OSHA disagrees with this commenter. Paragraph (b) is a compilation 
of conditions that could, according to the Committee, arise in any size 
shipyard employment, including small, medium, and large shipyards. The 
current Sec.  1915.52(b)(3) requires:

    When the welding, cutting, or heating operation is such that 
normal fire prevention precautions are not sufficient, additional 
personnel shall be assigned to guard against fire while the actual 
welding, cutting, or heating operation is being performed and for a 
sufficient period of time after completion of the work to insure 
that no possibility of fire exists. Such personnel shall be 
instructed as to the specific anticipated fire hazards and how the 
fire fighting equipment provided is to be used.

    The new requirements for fire watches should not therefore pose any 
additional burdens on employers, and will provide additional guidance 
for employers to help them determine when a fire watch is necessary. 
OSHA has concluded that these provisions are necessary and has included 
them in the final standard.
    Paragraph (b)(1) of Sec.  1915.504 requires 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

[[Page 55679]]

Standard for Fire Prevention During Welding, Cutting, and Other Hot 
Work, (Ex. 19-3) and Sec.  1910.252(a)(2)(iii)(A)(3). The intent is to 
have a performance oriented requirement. If a spark can get through an 
opening and cause a fire, then the area must be protected. No change 
has been made to this provision in the final rule.
    Paragraph (b)(2) of Sec.  1915.504 recognizes 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. 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. No comments were received on 
this paragraph. OSHA has adopted this paragraph without change.
    Paragraph (b)(3) of Sec.  1915.504 includes the 35-foot 
requirements (minimum distance of combustible materials from hot work) 
from the Sec.  1910.252(a)(2)(vii) Subpart Q, Welding, Cutting and 
Brazing and NFPA 51B-1999 Standard for Fire During Welding, Cutting, 
and Other Hot Work (Ex. 19-3). In this paragraph, OSHA requires 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.
    Numerous commenters objected to the 35 foot limit in this paragraph 
(Exs. 21-10; 21-15; 21-16; 22-1; 22-6 through 22-11; 22-14). In a 
representative comment, Bath Iron Works stated:

    In many cases hot work can be safely performed within 35 feet 
from unprotected, unshielded combustible materials because the 
ignition source cannot physically reach the combustible material. 
The material is considered to be protected by location. For 
instance: The overhead of a space contains combustible insulation. A 
welder needs to weld a deck penetration in the space. The welder's 
sparks cannot physically reach the combustible materials on the 
overhead because of their location. This is considered to be guarded 
or shielded by location. It meets the intent of the standard by 
adequately preventing fires. The standard does not explain that if 
there is no potential for the hot work to ignite the combustible 
material then the 35-foot rule is not applicable (Ex. 21-3).

    NGNN added:

    [W]e recommend performance oriented language that requires the 
employer to ensure that combustibles are removed or protected when 
they could be ignited by the intended hot work. Removing or 
shielding combustible materials for a distance of 35 feet when it is 
not necessary to prevent ignition places a significant financial 
burden on the employer with no added degree of safety. We estimate 
that the current language will cost NGNN approximately $28 million 
dollars annually in labor alone. (Ex. 21-8).

    NGNN recommended that paragraph (b)(3) be changed to read: 
``Combustible materials that could be affected by the intended hot work 
must be removed, protected with flame proof covers, or otherwise 
shielded with metal or fire resistant guards or curtains so that 
material will not be ignited by the hot work.'' (Ex. 21-8).
    The Committee discussed the 35-foot distance at length and agreed 
that if hot work is within 35 feet of combustible material in any way, 
a fire watch must be posted. The 35-foot distance has been in 
regulatory requirements and national consensus standards for many years 
and reflects the current industry practice. The Agency has concluded 
that such protection is reasonable and necessary, and has included the 
35-foot rule in the final standard.
    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 within 
sandwich type construction is to inert the areas to make them safe for 
hot work. Industry practice in these situations has been to also 
provide fire watches with charged fire hoses or portable extinguishers 
as fire protection measures.
    OSHA received many comments on this paragraph expressing a concern 
with the practice of inerting spaces (Exs. 21-8; 21-10; 21-15; 21-16; 
22-1; 22-7 through 22-11). In a representative comment, Bath Iron Works 
stated:

    The Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Rule further 
complicates matters by stating that ``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.'' OSHA should correct 
this statement as it falsely implies that the employer can inert 
flammable atmospheres. This promotes employers to prepare spaces 
that contain flammable atmospheres without seeking a Marine 
Chemist's assistance. This is a recipe for disaster if performed by 
an unqualified individual. Flammable atmospheres are covered under 
Subpart B where a Marine Chemist certificate is required for hot 
work. NFPA 306, Standard for the Control of Gas Hazards on Vessels, 
states that ``The Marine Chemist will approve the use of the 
inerting medium and personally supervise introduction of the 
inerting medium into the space being inerted, except in situations 
where an inerting medium has been introduced prior to the vessel's 
arrival at the repair facility.'' It recognizes the hazards 
associated with the inerting process and places the responsibility 
with the Marine Chemist. It would be in OSHA's best interest to 
maintain this status quo (Ex. 21-3).

    Recommendations for revising paragraph (b)(4) in the proposed 
standard from several commenters included (1) removing the language 
``or the space inerted;'' (2) adding the words ``or the space inerted 
by a Marine Chemist or Coast Guard authorized person;'' and (3) adding 
the words ``or the space inerted by a qualified individual'' and 
identifying who is qualified. In addition, Bath Iron Works stated that 
``[T]he summary and Explanation should be corrected as it improperly 
states that employers can inert flammable atmospheres.'' (Ex. 21-3).
    OSHA agrees with these commenters that inerting a space is an 
activity that requires strict procedures to assure worker safety during 
the operation. However, it was not OSHA's intent to imply that the 
inerting of any space was an alternative. It was OSHA's intent to only 
allow inerting within the inaccessible space inside a sandwich type 
construction, not in any other confined or enclosed space. When an 
employer is dealing with a confined or enclosed space, the requirements 
for the use of a marine chemist under Subpart B continue to apply. To 
make it clear that the inerting allowed in Sec.  1915.504 only applies 
in limited circumstances, OSHA has reworded the Sec.  1915.504(b)(4) 
requirements as follows: ``On or near insulation, combustible coatings, 
or sandwich-type construction, that cannot be shielded, cut back or 
removed, or on a space within a sandwich type construction that cannot 
be inerted.''
    Paragraph (b)(5) of Sec.  1915.504 addresses the potential hazards 
of adjacent spaces. This paragraph is adapted from existing Sec.  
1915.52(a)(3), which states: ``[S]ince 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 within the sandwich type construction, a fire watch 
must also be

[[Page 55680]]

posted on the opposite side of the hot work. This requirement is 
intended to address the increased fire hazard potential 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 spread or fall over 
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. In these instances, two or more 
employees may be needed to perform the fire watch. OSHA received no 
comments on this paragraph; it is carried forward in the final rule 
without change.
    Paragraph (b)(6) of Sec.  1915.504 requires a fire watch during hot 
work when it is 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 Agency requested 
information from the industry on the use of the term ``bulkhead'' and 
``deck'' since they refer only to vessels and vessel sections. Bath 
Iron Works stated that these terms ``[a]re well known by the vast 
majority of shipyard employees.'' From a large shipyard's view point, 
bulkhead and deck is the proper method of identifying these 
structures.'' (Ex. 21-3-1). OSHA agrees and has maintained these terms 
in the final standard. No other comments were received on this 
paragraph and OSHA has carried it forward in the final rule.
    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. This provision takes into account the large number of 
cable runs through vessel compartments. Although these cables must have 
low flame spread and smoke production rates, they are still combustible 
and have been responsible for the spread of fires. 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.
    In the one comment received on this paragraph, Bath Iron Works 
stated that:

    Paragraphs (b)(5), (b)(6) and (b)(7) can be rolled into 
paragraph (b)(4). They all address the potential for hot work to 
ignite combustible materials and the prevention methods are already 
listed in (b)(4), which are shielding, removal or inerting. It is 
unclear why these 4 paragraphs were treated separately as they 
appear to address the same hazard (Ex. 21-3).

    Paragraph (b)(4) contains a general requirement to post a fire 
watch when hot work is being performed on or near insulation, 
combustible coatings, or sandwich type construction that cannot be 
protected, while the three following paragraphs provide detailed 
guidance for specific situations. Paragraph (b)(5) requires a fire 
watch when there is a fire danger caused by combustible material on the 
opposite side of the object on which hot work is being performed. 
Paragraph (b)(6) requires a fire watch when hot work is being performed 
in proximity to insulated materials and combustible materials or 
coatings, and paragraph (b)(7) requires a fire watch when hot work is 
being performed near unprotected combustible pipe or cable runs. OSHA 
believes that these paragraphs provide additional information 
describing the specific circumstances when a fire watch is needed, and 
will be of value for employers, employees, and safety professionals who 
are determining when a fire watch is required. OSHA has therefore 
maintained the regulatory language in the final standard.
Assigning Employees To Fire Watch Duty
    Paragraph (c) of Sec.  1915.504 outlines the assignment of fire 
watch duty. Proposed paragraph (c)(1) of Sec.  1915.504 stated that the 
employer must not assign other duties to an employee assigned to fire 
watch. OSHA has further clarified in the final standard that an 
employee must not be assigned other duties when designated as fire 
watch by the employer while hot work is in progress. 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. The watch should not be distracted by having other duties 
assigned at the same time.
    Two commenters stated that:

    [T]here are a variety of other duties that can be accomplished 
by a fire watch that will not interfere with his/her ability to 
perform their duties as a fire watch, and in some cases may serve as 
a means of fire prevention, including activities such as removal and 
management of potentially combustible material generated during the 
hot work operations, assisting with welding lead and burning line 
management, positioning of local area ventilation, etc. We suggest 
that the language in Sec.  1915.504 (c)(1) be amended to read; ``The 
employer may only assign other duties to an employee assigned to 
fire watch, that will not interfere with the performance of a fire 
watch's primary duty;''* * *. (Exs. 21-17-1; 22-2).

    Another recommendation was: ``The employer may only assign other 
duties to an employee assigned to fire watch, while the hot work is 
[not] in progress.'' (Exs. 21-4; 21-5; 21-6).
    A group of commenters stated:

    [T]his entire section defines the duties of a fire watch. It 
specifically states that the employer cannot assign any additional 
duties to this employee. It appears to have been written with a 
focus on a fire watch's reactions to a fire, rather than a fire 
watch helping to prevent and/or eliminate the potential for fire. 
Assigning a fire watch implies that a fire hazard exists and someone 
has determined it is necessary to implement additional controls. The 
proposed standard's description of a fire watch's duty must provide 
latitude for the employer to permit the fire watch to maintain safe 
conditions. Duties such as keeping fire resistant guards or curtains 
wet, ensuring that fire resistant guards or curtains are maintained 
in their original position and general housekeeping must be 
permitted. Preventing fires should be an integral part of a fire 
watch's duty. In the preamble, OSHA recognized the importance of 
maintaining conditions. Recommendation: Rewrite Sec.  1915.504(c)(1) 
``The employer must not assign other duties to an employee assigned 
to fire watch that would prevent him or her from performing their 
fire watch duties. Fire watch duties may include, for example, 
watching for and extinguishing incipient fires, ensuring that fire 
resistant guards or curtains are maintained in their original 
position, general housekeeping and maintaining the conditions of the 
area to eliminate combustible hazards' (Exs. 21-10; 21-15; 21-16; 
22-1; 22-6; 22-7 through 22-11).

    OSHA does not agree that fire watches should have other duties, 
such as those mentioned in the comments, while hot work is in progress. 
Fire watches must not have any distractions while performing their 
duties. The point is not that they only react to actual fires, but that 
they observe incipient fires as soon as possible. Accidents and 
fatalities have occurred where fire watches have been busy with other 
tasks or not directly observing employees performing hot work. It is 
crucial that a fire watch have only one task at hand `` to watch for 
and respond to fire hazards that occur during hot work. Should that 
employee be distracted in any way by performing another task, the 
safety of other employees is at risk.
    OSHA does agree with the comments that under certain conditions the 
fire watch should be able to assist with fire prevention duties. In 
order to effectively carry out the fire watch duties, the fire watch 
must not perform other duties during hot work. After the hot work is

[[Page 55681]]

completed, however, the fire watch must remain in the area for at least 
30 minutes to assure that there is no further fire hazard, unless the 
employer or its representative surveys the area and determines that 
there is no further fire hazard. During this 30-minute period, the fire 
watch can perform other fire prevention duties. When hot work is not 
being performed, there is no longer a fire watch, and the fire watch 
can perform other work.
    If the employer has authorized hot work under Sec.  1915.503, the 
area must be free of fire hazards and deemed safe for the hot work. 
Therefore, the employer only needs to address a change in the original 
conditions, such as combustible material or an out of position fire 
curtain. Immediate action to maintain fire hazard free conditions under 
Sec.  1915.503(b)(1) is required. In this situation, the fire watch is 
allowed to stop the hot work and assist with fire prevention 
activities, such as wetting down a fire blanket, repositioning a fire 
curtain, and removing combustible debris that has entered the area. 
OSHA has modified the language of Sec.  1915.504(c)(1) to prohibit the 
assignment of other duties ``while hot work is in progress,'' and has 
added a requirement in Sec.  1915.504(c)(2)(iii), (discussed below) for 
the employer to authorize the fire watch to stop work, if necessary, 
and restore safe conditions in the area.
    Paragraph (c)(2)(i) requires that a fire watch must have a clear 
view of all areas assigned. Depending on the specific circumstances, 
two or more employees may be required in the fire watch to assure that 
all areas are within view. For example, a fire watch employee may be 
needed on each side of a bulkhead on which hot work is being performed. 
This requirement also effectively precludes a hot work employee acting 
as his or her own fire watch.
    Paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of Sec.  1915.504 requires the employer to 
ensure that employees assigned to fire watch duty can communicate with 
workers exposed to hot work. Communication is important because a fire 
watch employee may not be able to see a hot worker when, for example, 
the fire watch employee is on the other side of a bulkhead from the hot 
worker (a situation that may require two or more employees to perform 
the fire watch). OSHA does not want to limit the means of 
communication. For example, in the case of a fire watch employee 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 an electronic 
communication system such as radio communication.
    NGNN commented that an additional provision should be included in 
this paragraph:

    Duties of fire watch and hot workers should include maintaining 
and reestablishing safe conditions if conditions are altered during 
their absence. Recommend: that a new paragraph (2)(iii) be added: 
``Ensures that safe conditions are maintained within the area 
affected by the hot work.'' (Ex. 21-8).

    OSHA agrees that this is a useful addition to the paragraph. In 
addition to detecting potential fires, the fire watch should also 
ensure safe conditions. Fire watches are trained to detect fires and 
can attempt to extinguish any fire in the area if they are qualified 
and able to do so. If they are not qualified or able to extinguish the 
fire, they then must alert employees and activate the alarm, which will 
start the evacuation procedures. All of these factors qualify as 
ensuring safe conditions. As discussed above, OSHA agrees with the 
above recommendation of adding a provision that would ensure that safe 
conditions are maintained. This does not impose any additional 
requirements on the employer, and is consistent with the remaining 
provisions in Sec.  1915.504(c). Therefore, OSHA has added the 
following provision at (c)(2)(iii) requiring the employer to assure 
that employees assigned to fire watch duty: ``Are authorized to stop 
hot work, if necessary, and restore safe conditions within the work 
area.'' The remaining provisions in Sec.  1915.504(c) have been 
renumbered.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of Sec.  1915.504 specified that the 
fire watch must remain in the hot work area at least 30 minutes after 
hot work is completed. The fire watch can 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 intent of this provision is 
to encourage employers or their representative to use the hazard 
assessment process throughout the work--at the beginning, middle (to 
see if conditions have changed), and at the end (to determine how long 
the fire watch may be needed). No comments were received on the 
proposed provision and OSHA has carried it forward in the final rule 
renumbered as (c)(2)(iv).
    Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of Sec.  1915.504 required that the 
employer ensure that employees assigned to fire watch duty are trained 
to detect fires that occur in areas exposed to hot work. (For a further 
explanation, see the Training section at Sec.  1915.508.) Proposed 
paragraph (c)(2)(v) of Sec.  1915.504 required 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 Sec.  1915.508 
Training. The term ``incipient stage fire'' is defined in the general 
industry fire protection standard 29 CFR 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.'' In its proposal, OSHA 
specifically asked whether this definition needed to be in the final 
standard (67 FR 76228). No comments were received on this subject. 
However, the Agency has added this term into the definitions (see Sec.  
1915.509 for discussion). Proposed paragraphs (c)(2)(iv) and (v) have 
been carried forward unchanged in the final standard but have been re-
numbered as (c)(2)(v) and (c)(2)(vi).
    Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(vi) of Sec.  1915.504 required 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, 
radioing across bulkheads, waving of arms, or making hand signals is 
left up to the employer who will have 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 smoky situation, vocal communication would be more 
appropriate. Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(vii) of Sec.  1915.504 stated 
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. No comments were received 
on these paragraphs, and they have been carried forward in the final 
standard re-numbered as (c)(2)(vii) and (c)(2)(viii).
    Paragraph (c)(3) of Sec.  1915.504 requires the employer to ensure 
that employees assigned to fire watch are physically capable of 
performing these duties.

[[Page 55682]]

During the Committee meetings, there was a concern that each member of 
a fire watch be able to do his or her job. Although there was much 
discussion on the issue, the Committee did not include a requirement 
stating that the employer must make sure that personnel who are 
expected to stand fire watch be capable of carrying out the duties of 
fire watch. The Committee members believed that the employer would be 
the best judge of physical capability and mental alertness of the fire 
watch. OSHA, therefore, did not include such a requirement in its 
proposal. Nevertheless, Bath Iron Works commented that:

    There are no physical requirements for the fire watch to comply 
with. This has been a common Labor/management conflict and a cause 
for concern.* * * Management may select employees on ``light duty'' 
(not capable of lifting an extinguisher) to act as a fire watch, or 
choose not to hire others that cannot perform the function as a 
result of a physical limitation. In either case, only employees that 
are physically capable of utilizing the fire extinguishing equipment 
in a variety of scenarios such as: lugging an extinguisher down 
inclined ladders or up vertical ladders, hauling hoses, etc. should 
be assigned to this duty. By spelling out this requirement in the 
standard we can be assured that employees performing this critical 
function are those that are capably fit to do so. Recommend: Add a 
new paragraph (c)(4) The employer shall ensure that each fire watch 
is physically capable to carry out his/her expected functions (Ex. 
21-3).

    Although it is the employer's responsibility to select an 
appropriate fire watch, OSHA feels that in performing this duty, the 
employer must assure that the employee be in good enough physical 
condition to fulfill his or her duties. For instance, an employee would 
need to have the use of both arms to lift and correctly use a fire 
extinguisher; be able to evacuate the work area if needed; and be able 
to communicate adequately in the event of a fire. If an employee cannot 
physically perform all of the duties of fire watch, the employer should 
not put that employee in such a work situation. Therefore, an 
additional requirement is being added to Sec.  1915.504(c). Paragraph 
(c)(3) requires that: ``The employer must ensure that employees 
assigned to fire watch are physically capable of performing these 
duties.''

Section 1915.505 Fire Response

    At present, OSHA does not have any specific requirements in Part 
1915 for fire response in shipyard employment. This new section creates 
a standard that addresses shipyard fire response and is derived from 
the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.156 Fire brigades and from some of the 
provisions in NFPA 1500-2002 Standard on Fire Department Occupational 
Safety and Health Program (Ex. 19-5).
    Responders to shipyard fires encounter a complex set of fire 
hazards involving buildings, as well as vessels in dry-dock, underway, 
afloat, or docked alongside a quay. Fire responders need to be prepared 
to safely and successfully handle a wide range of fire scenarios, from 
a flammable liquid storage room in a shipyard building to oil-soaked 
rags in the engine room of a ship. The 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 may give off toxic 
gases and smoke during a fire, electrical fires (involving energized 
motors, circuit controls, transformers, or wiring), or even a rare 
combustible metal fire (involving metals such as magnesium, or 
titanium).
    A fire response organization, as defined in section 1915.509 
Definitions, may be provided by: (1) Fire brigades; (2) shipyard fire 
departments; (3) private or contractual fire departments; and (4) 
municipal fire departments.
    Consistent with the recommendations of the Committee, OSHA is 
requiring that the shipyard liaison's communication with an outside 
fire response organization address facility and layout familiarization 
and coordination protocols. Federal OSHA does not have jurisdiction 
over state and municipal fire departments or volunteers so the standard 
does not cover them. However, OSHA intends to promote coordination 
between the shipyard and the outside fire response organization so they 
can work together safely. OSHA believes that any fire response 
organization that expects to respond to shipyard fires will benefit 
from the coordination activities required by this standard, and will be 
able to respond to fires faster, more effectively, and with greater 
safety for the shipyard workers and their own fire response members.
    OSHA also wants to be clear that shipyard fire responders do not 
include support personnel responding at or near fires who have only 
limited support functions to perform. These support functions may 
include providing information to fire responders, and securing 
utilities, such as electrical, ventilation, and compressed air and oxy-
fuel lines. These support personnel are not expected to fight fires but 
to perform such tasks as shutting down gas lines or disconnecting 
electrical service that support the fire response personnel.
    NFPA submitted a statement in support of this provision.

    NFPA also supports the proposed requirements in Sec.  1915.505 
pertaining to Fire Response. The negotiated rulemaking committee 
highlighted a number of issues during its deliberations related to 
the complex fire hazards that could be encountered by any fire 
response unit, whether shipyard personnel or outside fire response 
organization. Shipyard fires could involve structural fires 
associated with the shipyard buildings or the fires could occur on 
the vessels during construction or repair. This fact about the 
potential locations for fires demonstrates the complex nature of the 
task facing any response unit. The Committee relied on OSHA's Fire 
Brigade requirements from 29 CFR 1910.156 and those requirements 
from NFPA 1500, Fire Department Occupational Safety and Health 
Program to develop a comprehensive standard that specifically 
addresses the shipyard fire response structure and function. NFPA 
commends OSHA for using voluntary consensus standards where 
applicable in this proposed standard. (Ex. 21-14).
Employer Responsibilities
    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. Some shipyard employers, 
typically 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 employers at small shipyards who must 
rely largely on public fire protection. Because fire response 
capabilities vary widely within the shipyard industry, each shipyard 
employer must take responsibility for determining who will provide fire 
response services and what those services will be.
    Paragraph (a)(2)(i) of Sec.  1915.505 requires the employer to 
create and maintain a written policy that describes the internal and 
outside fire response organizations that the employer will use. In the 
proposal, OSHA required a ``written statement or policy'' (67 FR 76248) 
in Sec.  1915.505. Upon further review, OSHA was concerned that this 
would cause some confusion with other requirements in subpart P. 
Therefore, the Agency decided to alter the language in Sec.  1915.505 
to read ``written policy'' in all requirements that were proposed as 
``written statement or policy.'' This word change can be found in 
paragraphs (a)(2(i) and (ii), (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), and 
(b)(5) of Sec.  1915.505.
    Paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of Sec.  1915.505 requires the employer to 
create, maintain, and update a written policy that defines what 
evacuation procedures

[[Page 55683]]

employees must follow if the employer chooses to require a total or 
partial evacuation of the worksite at the time of a fire. No comments 
were received on paragraphs (a)(1) to (a)(3), and OSHA is carrying them 
forward in the final rule.
Required Written Policy Information
    Paragraph (b) of Sec.  1915.505 describes the information that must 
be included in the written policy required by this section. The written 
policy must set forth the basis for operating an internal fire response 
service, working with an outside fire response service, or using a 
combination of internal and outside fire response. A key point is to 
set out clearly the specific functions the fire response service is 
authorized and expected to perform. Employers must establish the 
specific functions that 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, and heavy rescue.
    OSHA requires 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 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 apparatuses; a description 
of the fire suppression operations at the employer's facility; training 
requirements; expected fire response 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 requires 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 written policy. The policy must include the following: 
The types of fire suppression incidents to which the fire response 
organization is expected to respond at the employer's facility or 
worksite (paragraph (b)(2)(i)); the liaison between the employer and 
the outside fire response organization (paragraph (b)(2)(ii)); and a 
plan for fire response functions (paragraph (b)(2)(iii)). This plan for 
fire response functions must include procedures for obtaining help from 
other fire response organizations (paragraph(b)(2)(iii)(A)), 
familiarizing 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 (paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B)). The plan must 
also set forth how hose and coupling connection threads are to be made 
compatible and where the adapter couplings are kept (paragraph 
(b)(2)(iii)(C)), or, as an alternative, must state that the employer 
will not allow the use of incompatible hose connections (paragraph 
(b)(2)(iii)(D)).
    OSHA further requires 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 paragraphs 
(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 
with the outside fire response organizations if given to fire response 
employees (paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (v)).
    Paragraph (b)(3) requires that the employer develop a written 
policy that describes joint training activities if such training is 
part of the employers plan. However, OSHA is not requiring fire 
responders from an outside fire response organization to participate in 
joint training because the standard does not apply to such outside fire 
organizations. The employer must make sure that the internal and 
external fire responses are coordinated so that the fire response is 
safe and effective. It would be sensible and responsible to coordinate 
training efforts between the two groups of fire responders. OSHA 
strongly recommends that internal and outside fire responders 
participate in joint training. In addition, it would be responsible to 
have the outside fire response organizations involved in the 
development of the written policy.
    Paragraph (b)(4) of Sec.  1915.505 addresses OSHA's longstanding 
policy that employers must ensure employee safety through evacuation in 
case of fire. The employer's evacuation policy must 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 the general industry standards for 
employee emergency plans and fire prevention plans (29 CFR 1910.38 and 
.39).
    Paragraph (b)(4)(i) requires that emergency escape procedures be 
included in the written policy. 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 land-side facility. For 
example, on a vessel at anchorage, escape routes from the vessel may be 
more difficult to identify than those found in land-side facilities, 
such as a machine shop, welding shop, cafeteria, employment office, or 
similar worksite. Paragraph (b)(4)(ii) 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, as set forth in paragraph (b)(4)(iii). For example, 
employees could be directed to report to a specific location after 
evacuation. Another important element of the evacuation policy, found 
in paragraph (b)(4)(iv), 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 written policy must indicate the key individuals by name, job 
title, or department to be contacted for further information or 
explanation of duties under the policy, paragraph (b)(4)(v).
    Paragraph (b)(5) requires that the employer include a description 
of the

[[Page 55684]]

emergency rescue procedures and names or job titles of the employees 
who are assigned to perform rescue and emergency response. OSHA 
received no comments on any of the requirements in Sec.  1915.505(b), 
and is carrying them forward in the final standard.
Medical Requirements for Shipyard Fire Response Employees
    Paragraph (c) of Sec.  1915.505 addresses the physical and medical 
provisions for shipyard fire response employees. 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 (Ex. 19-6) and NFPA 1500-2002 (Ex. 19-5), 
and with other OSHA standards, such as 29 CFR 1910.120 and 29 CFR 
1910.156. Employees who perform fire response activities must be able 
to perform them properly without jeopardizing the safety and health of 
themselves and other firefighters. Fighting fires is a very hazardous 
and strenuous job. Some employees may not be physically able to engage 
in a fire response situation that would require hours of difficult and 
heavy-duty work. OSHA is requiring the employee's physical and mental 
fitness be in accord with the duties the employee will perform.
    Paragraph (c)(2) of Sec.  1915.505 requires that fire response 
employees who are required to wear respirators while performing their 
duties meet the medical requirements of Sec.  1915.154 Respiratory 
protection. This requirement is consistent with 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 providing medical evaluations for 
employees who use respirators.
    Paragraph (c)(3) of Sec.  1915.505 requires that the employer 
provide all fire response employees with an annual medical examination. 
Further, in paragraph (c)(4), medical records of fire response 
employees must be kept according to Sec.  1915.1020 Access to employee 
exposure and medical records. These proposed requirements are 
consistent with existing regulations found in 29 CFR 1910.156 and 29 
CFR 1910.134.
    NGNN questioned the proposed requirements:

    Does OSHA mean that a medical examination should be conducted to 
identify any condition that may interfere with a fire fighter doing 
his or her job, or does OSHA intend that shipyard fire fighters also 
meet certain physical fitness standards? OSHA needs to address how 
the medical examination/physical standards requirement applies to 
shipyards that are unionized and have collective bargaining 
agreements in place. Can implementation be delayed for the remainder 
of the current agreement's term? Or until a fixed date, or are 
employers and unions required to reopen and negotiate impact and 
implementation of the new standards? This requirement should receive 
much more detailed consideration. (Ex. 21-8).

    The employer is responsible for ensuring that employees are 
qualified for the fire response activities. The fire response employees 
must be able to perform their duties and not create another hazard by 
jeopardizing the safety and health of themselves or others. OSHA has 
not set specific physical fitness standards that the fire response 
worker must meet. It is up to the employer to determine the physical 
fitness level that will be needed to keep each fire response person 
safe. This will depend upon the duties each of them is assigned.
    Likewise, OSHA has not included any provisions to account for 
existing union agreements. The employer is responsible for addressing 
any issues related to union bargaining agreements. Employees must be 
protected equally under the standard, whether or not a union contract 
is in effect. In summary, without an annual examination, the employer 
can not be sure that the fire responder is able to do the job at hand. 
Therefore, OSHA has adopted this provision as proposed.
Organization of Internal Fire Response Functions
    Paragraph (d)(1) of Sec.  1915.505 requires the employer to 
organize its fire response functions to ensure 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 (Ex. 19-5) addressing the fire department's 
organizational statement. No comments were received on paragraph (d)(1) 
and OSHA has included it in the final rule as it was proposed.
    In paragraph (d)(2) of Sec.  1915.505, OSHA proposed that the 
employer: ``[s]et up written administrative regulations, standard 
operating procedures, and departmental orders for fire response 
functions.'' The proposed language was based on Chapter 4 of NFPA 1500-
2002 addressing the organization of fire response providers and Chapter 
2.1 of NFPA 600-2001 addressing the general administration of 
industrial fire brigades.
    No comments were received on paragraph (d)(2). However, upon 
reconsideration, OSHA has decided that the requirement was not easily 
understood, and it was unclear how it differed from the written policy 
requirements for internal fire response proposed at Sec.  
1915.505(b)(1). Therefore, OSHA has modified Sec.  1915.505(d)(2) using 
NFPA 600-2001 to require employers to: ``Establish lines of authority 
and assign responsibilities to ensure that the components of the 
internal fire response are accomplished.'' This language provides a 
clearer description of the provision's requirements than the terms 
``administrative regulations'' and ``departmental orders.'' There is no 
need to include a requirement for ``standard operating procedures,'' as 
they are already required in Sec.  1915.505(b)(1).
    In paragraph (d)(3) of Sec.  1915.505, OSHA requires the employer 
to set up an Incident Management System (IMS) to coordinate and direct 
fire response functions. 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 is consistent with the 
goals and language found in paragraph 8.1 of NFPA 1500-2002.
    The Connecticut Department of Labor raised a question regarding the 
provision, asking: ``Why does the proposed standard change the 
customary verbiage of incident command system to incident management 
system? Will this confuse fire departments that will also be involved 
in the firefighting?'' (Ex. 22-4).
    While the Incident Command System (ICS) term is customary language 
often used by firefighting professionals, OSHA proposed to use the IMS 
term to be consistent with the terms currently in use by firefighting 
organizations and training institutions. The most recent NFPA standards 
use the IMS term, including NFPA 1500-2002 Fire Department Occupational 
Safety and Health Program, NFPA 600-2000 Requirements for All 
Industrial Fire Brigades, and NFPA 1561-2000 Emergency Services 
Incident Management System. In addition, the IMS term is commonly used 
by organizations that train firefighters. For example, individual 
courses on incident management are currently offered by the Maryland 
Fire and Rescue Institute (http://apps.mfri.orrg) and the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency National Fire Academy (http://www.usfa.fema.gov/fire-service/nfa/nfa.shtm). Because the IMS is the

[[Page 55685]]

preferred term, OSHA is using the IMS term in the final rule.
    OSHA is also modifying the proposed definition of IMS in Sec.  
1915.509 to match the definition used by NFPA in NFPA 1500-2002, which 
is: ``A system that defines the roles and responsibilities to be 
assumed by personnel and the operating procedures to be used in the 
management and direction of emergency operations; the system is also 
referred to as an incident command system (ICS).'' This modification 
does not change the meaning or intent of the proposed term, and is more 
consistent with the NFPA's use of IMS.
    Paragraph (d)(4) of Sec.  1915.505 requires that employers provide 
specified information to the outside fire response organization to be 
used. These provisions are consistent with existing OSHA requirements 
(29 CFR 1910.120 Hazardous waste operations and emergency response and 
29 CFR 1910.156 Fire brigades). No comments were received on paragraph 
(d)(4), and it is included in the final standard.
Personal Protective Clothing and Equipment for Fire Response Employees
    Paragraph (e) of Sec.  1915.505 contains the requirements for 
providing personal protective clothing and personal protective 
equipment for shipyard fire response personnel. Paragraph (e)(1) 
requires that the employer must provide fire response employees with 
hazard specific personal protective clothing and equipment at no cost 
to the employees. The employer must also make sure that each employee 
wears the appropriate personal protective clothing and equipment that 
offers protection from the hazards to which that employee is likely to 
be exposed. This is consistent with the language found in Chapter 7 of 
NFPA 1500-2002 (Ex. 19-5). It is also consistent with existing OSHA 
standards.
    In Sec.  1915.505(e)(2), OSHA states the requirements for thermal 
stability and flame resistance or protective clothing. Paragraph 
(e)(2)(i) requires the employer to make sure that each fire response 
employee exposed to flame hazards wears clothing that minimizes the 
extent of injury that the fire response employee would sustain. 
Paragraph (e)(2)(ii) specifically prohibits the wearing of clothing 
made from acetate, nylon, or polyester, either alone or in blends, 
unless it can 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 (Ex. 19-5).
    Paragraph (e)(3) of Sec.  1915.505 addresses respiratory protection 
for shipyard fire response employees. Under paragraph (e)(3)(i), the 
employer must provide self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) to all 
shipyard fire response employees who are involved in emergency 
operations in an atmosphere that is or may become immediately dangerous 
to life or health (IDLH), or is unknown. This language is consistent 
with existing OSHA standards and paragraph 7.8.7 of NFPA 1500-2002 (Ex. 
19-5).
    Under paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of Sec.  1915.505, the employer must 
provide SCBAs to fire response employees performing emergency 
operations during hazardous chemical emergencies that will expose them 
to airborne 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. This requirement 
would limit employers to the use of SCBAs for this type of chemical 
exposure.
    Under paragraph (e)(3)(iii) of Sec.  1915.505, the employer must 
provide either SCBA or respiratory protective devices to fire response 
employees who perform or support emergency operations that will expose 
them to hazardous chemicals. The SCBA or respiratory device must be 
certified as required in Sec.  1910.134, and as required by NIOSH under 
42 CFR Part 84 as suitable for the specific chemical environment.
    Under paragraph (e)(3)(iv) of Sec.  1915.505, the employer must 
ensure that additional outside air supplies used in conjunction with 
respirators be positive pressure systems and certified by NIOSH under 
42 CFR Part 84. Again, this is consistent with existing OSHA standards 
and paragraph 7.10.1.1 of NFPA 1500-2002 (Ex. 19-5). No comments were 
received on paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (e)(3)(iv) and OSHA has 
adopted them as proposed.
    Under paragraph (e)(3)(v) of Sec.  1915.505, the employer must 
provide SCBAs that meet the requirements of NFPA 1981-1997, Standard on 
Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus for the Fire Service 
(Ex. 19-7). This is standard equipment for all fire response 
organizations throughout the country.
    NAVSEA stated that: ``The latest version of National Fire 
Protection Association (NFPA) 1981, Standard on Open-Circuit Self-
Contained Breathing Apparatus for Fire and Emergency Services is 2002 
versus 1997.'' (Ex. 22-15). In the proposed rule (67 FR 76231). OSHA 
proposed using the 1997 version. Thus, adequate notice and comment on 
updating to the 2002 version has not been provided. As a result, the 
1997 version is referenced in Sec.  1915.505(e)(3)(v) in the final 
standard. With publication of this document, OSHA recognizes that 
several of the NFPA standards have been revised since the proposed rule 
was published. OSHA intends to publish a direct final rule to update 
the references to the most recent NFPA standards in the near future.
    In Sec.  1915.505(e)(3)(vi), OSHA requires that the employer ensure 
that the establishment of a respiratory protection program and use of 
respiratory protective equipment is in compliance with Sec.  1915.154 
Respiratory protection. Similar requirements are found in 29 CFR 
1910.134, and 29 CFR 1910.156 for general industry. The Connecticut 
Department of Labor raised the following:

    Sec.  1915.505(e)(3)(vi) mandates compliance with 29 CFR 
1915.154, which in turn incorporates by reference 29 CFR 1910.134. 
Does the language of this subsection of the proposed section which 
mandates compliance with the respiratory protection program of Sec.  
1910.134, include the procedures for IDLH atmospheres referenced in 
Sec.  1910.134(g)(3) and (4) of the respiratory standard, including 
the requirement for what's known as two in and two out? (Ex. 22-4).

    As the State of Connecticut points out, OSHA states in Sec.  
1915.154 that respiratory protection for shipyards is covered under 29 
CFR 1910.134. Therefore, shipyard employment is covered by the entire 
section, which would include Sec.  1910.134(g) as well as all other 
provisions of Sec.  1910.134.
    Paragraph (e)(4) of Sec.  1915.505 addresses personal protective 
equipment for fire response employees who are exposed to the hazards of 
interior structural firefighting within shipyard employment. The 
employer must provide, at no cost to the employee, helmets, gloves, 
footwear, and protective hoods, and either protective coats and 
trousers, or protective coveralls that meet the applicable 
recommendations in NFPA 1971-2000 Standard on Protective Ensemble for 
Structural Fire Fighting (Ex. 19-8). Paragraph (e)(4) is based upon 
Chapter 7 of NFPA 1500-2002 (Ex. 19-5). OSHA received no comments on 
this paragraph, and the proposed language is carried forward in the 
final standard.
    Under paragraph (e)(5), the employer must, at no cost to employees, 
supply all fire response employees who are exposed to the hazards of 
proximity

[[Page 55686]]

firefighting with the appropriate protective proximity clothing that 
meets the applicable requirements of NFPA 1976-2000, Standard on 
Protective Ensemble for Proximity Fire Fighting (Ex.19-9). Only 
shipyard employees who engage in operations that expose them to the 
intense radiant heat of a proximity firefighting incident (the 
proximity hot zone) must be equipped with specialized proximity 
firefighting protective clothing. No comments were received on this 
provision and OSHA has adopted it as proposed.
    Under paragraph (e)(6) of Sec.  1915.505, the employer must provide 
a Personal Alert Safety System (PASS) device to each fire response 
employee involved in firefighting operations. The PASS devices must 
meet the recommendations in NFPA 1982-1998 Standard on Personal Alert 
Safety Systems (PASS) (Ex. 19-10). This requirement is consistent with 
paragraph 7.13.1 of NFPA 1500-2002 (Ex. 19-5) and no comments were 
received. The provision is adopted as proposed.
    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. Fire response 
employees who might become trapped or lost can also activate the device 
manually 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. PASS devices are now 
considered standard issue for fire fighters and are recommended by NFPA 
1982-1998. (Ex. 19-10).
    Section 1915.505(e)(7) addresses life safety ropes, body harnesses, 
and hardware. No comments were received on these provisions and they 
are being adopted as proposed. Under paragraph (e)(7)(i), OSHA requires 
all life safety ropes, body harnesses, and hardware used by fire 
response employees for emergency operations to meet the applicable 
requirements of NFPA 1983-2001, Standard on Fire Service Life Safety 
Rope and System Components (Ex. 19-11). This is consistent with Subpart 
I of this Part and paragraph 7.14.1 of NFPA 1500-2002 (Ex. 19-5). Under 
paragraph (e)(7)(ii) of Sec.  1915.505, the employer may allow only 
Class I body harnesses to be used to attach fire response employees to 
ladders and aerial devices. This is consistent with NFPA 1983-2001 (Ex. 
19-11). Under paragraph (e)(7)(iii), the employer may only allow Class 
II and Class III body harnesses to be used by fire response employees 
for fall arrest and rappelling operations. This is consistent with NFPA 
1983-2001 (Ex. 19-11). No comments were received on paragraph (e)(7) 
and OSHA has carried it forward in the final rule.
Equipment Maintenance
    Paragraph (f) of Sec.  1915.505 addresses the maintenance of 
personal protective equipment and fire response equipment. Under 
paragraph (f)(1), the employer must inspect and maintain personal 
protective equipment used to protect fire response employees to ensure 
that it provides the intended protection. Such inspection and 
maintenance is consistent with OSHA's personal protective equipment 
standards, Sec.  1910.132.
    Under paragraph (f)(2), the employer must test and maintain fire 
response equipment consistent with sound safety practices and the 
requirements for tools and equipment found in Chapter 7 of NFPA 1500-
2002 (Ex. 19-5). Paragraph (f)(2)(i) requires the employer to keep fire 
response equipment in a state of readiness. In paragraph (f)(2)(ii), 
the employer must make sure that all fire hose coupling and connection 
threads are standardized throughout a 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.
    If the employer uses an outside fire organization for fire 
response, and the employer expects them to use the fire response 
equipment belonging to the employer, then under paragraph (f)(2)(iii), 
the employer must ensure that either all of its facility'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 
requirement is consistent with paragraph 9.3 of NFPA 14-2000 (Ex. 19-
12). The Agency did not receive any comments on this paragraph, and the 
provisions are being adopted as proposed.

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 vessels and vessel sections that could create 
a dangerous atmosphere when such systems are activated. Of particular 
concern is the incorrect or inadvertent activation of these systems. 
Fixed fire extinguishing systems at land-side facilities 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 vessels and vessel sections have long been recognized by the United 
States Coast Guard as evidenced by Coast Guard Commandant Notices and 
Instructions that date from 1978. The International Maritime 
Organization (the United Nations' specialized agency responsible for 
improving maritime safety and preventing pollution from ships) has also 
addressed this issue by issuing regulations that are part of the 
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS).
    Testing vessels' fixed extinguishing systems has led to several 
fatalities. In October 1996, aboard the Italian flag ship SNAM 
PORTVENERE, an American Bureau of Shipping surveyor and five shipyard 
technicians were killed when carbon dioxide (CO2) was 
released accidentally from a fixed fire extinguishing system that was 
being tested. On May 3, 1993, while a contractor was testing a low-
pressure CO2 system aboard the M/V CAPE DIAMOND that 
protected the ship's engine room, CO2 was discharged 
accidentally, 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 accidental 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.
    This section has gone through some modifications since the 
proposal. The section has been modified in several areas to address 
concerns raised by commenters, and to assure that the section 
adequately addresses the hazards associated with fixed extinguishing 
systems on board vessels and vessel sections.
Employer Responsibilities
    The Committee recognized, and OSHA agrees, that although the 
casualty history reveals problems only with CO2 systems, 
similar hazards exist for the use of new extinguishing agents and 
application methods. Therefore, the employer's responsibilities under 
paragraph (a) of Sec.  1915.506 apply to all fixed extinguishing 
systems on vessels

[[Page 55687]]

and vessel sections that may result in a dangerous atmosphere if 
discharged. It is very likely that the only systems that may be 
affected by this standard will be those that employ gaseous or two-
phase (gaseous/liquid) extinguishing agents. However, by including all 
systems that may create a dangerous atmosphere when activated, the 
standard is broad enough to cover future systems and extinguishing 
agents. 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, and systems using Halon alternative agents.
    Several comments were received on paragraph (a) of Sec.  1915.506, 
including:

    The proposed standard does not recognize differences between 
fire suppression systems and different extinguishing agents. 
Alternatives to CO2 often do not present the same hazards 
as fixed CO2 systems. * * * Rewrite 1915.506(a) ``* * * 
The employer must comply with the provisions of this section 
whenever employees are exposed to fixed extinguishing systems 
charged with materials that could create hazardous atmosphere when 
activated aboard vessels and vessels sections, regardless of 
geographic location. Fixed systems that do not cause hazardous 
atmospheres when activated, including those charged with foam, inert 
materials, or water sprinklers, are not subject to this section.'' 
(Exs. 21-10, 21-15, 21-16, 22-1, 22-6, 22-7 through 22-11).

NGNN stated:

    NGNN agrees with the need to address controls required for 
working in spaces with fixed extinguishing systems. We believe that 
systems should remain armed only when the risk to the vessel and 
workers outweighs the risk if the system were to be inadvertently 
activated by the work being performed. Therefore, NGNN has 
instituted procedures and training to ensure work can be safely 
performed in those rare cases when a system must remain armed. 
However, our procedures recognize the greater risk posed by a carbon 
dioxide system versus less hazardous extinguishing media, such as 
halon. We recommend that OSHA consider the differences in various 
shipboard fire suppression systems that do not present the same risk 
as carbon dioxide systems. Some systems use the same compounds used 
in computer rooms across the country and present far less risk than 
carbon dioxide systems. (Ex. 21-8).

Great Lakes stated that:

    Sec.  1915.506 (a) of the proposed rule introduces ambiguity. 
The rule should be clarified so that ``exposure to fixed 
extinguishing systems that could create a hazardous atmosphere'' 
refers to the properties of the agent itself and not to by-products 
of the combustion process or extinguishment. Actual fire events 
should be treated separately and require crew egress from the 
affected space prior to extinguishing system discharge, as required 
by fire standards. Section 1-6.1.2 of NFPA 2001 standard for clean 
agent fire extinguishing systems deals with the issue of human 
exposure to the agent itself. While exposure to any clean agent 
should be minimized, the standard does specify safe human exposure 
times to clean agents at various design concentrations in normally 
occupied spaces. In the case of HFC-227ea (the active ingredient in 
FM-200 brand clean agent) the standards allow for installation of 
systems in occupied spaces up to the LOAEL (Lowest Observable 
Adverse Effect Level) of 10.5% v/v. In Table 1-6.1.2.18 of NFPA 
2001, the recommended exposure time to HFC-227ea for concentrations 
of 10.5% v/v or less is five minutes. It should also be noted that 
HFC-227ea is approved by U.S. FDA as a replacement for ozone-
depleting CFC propellants in asthma inhalers. In contrast, the 
standard for carbon dioxide extinguishing agent (NFPA 12) prohibits 
human exposure to the agent due to its inherent lethality. The time 
limit for safe human exposure is determined by the toxicological 
profile of each agent. Therefore, we recommend the proposed rule be 
revised to base worker exposure to any fire extinguishing agent on 
the agent's human safety profile. We also recommend the proposed 
rule direct shipyard employers to follow safety procedures contained 
in the NFPA standard for their chosen fire suppression agent. (Ex. 
22-5).

    While developing this standard, the Committee discussed whether to 
include requirements for other systems that do not cause dangerous 
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. The 
Agency agreed and proposed to cover only systems that could create a 
hazardous atmosphere when activated. Both NGNN and Great Lakes 
supported the provision not applying when the extinguishing agent is 
not hazardous. OSHA continues to believe that this is the proper 
approach and has not altered this provision in the final standard. It 
is up to the employer to determine when a dangerous atmosphere will be 
created, either by the properties of the extinguishing agent, or the 
byproducts that may be produced when it is used. If a dangerous 
atmosphere will be created, the employer must take action under Sec.  
1915.506 to protect its employees.
Requirements for Automatic and Manual Systems
    Under paragraph (b) of Sec.  1915.506, the employer must protect 
its employees who may be exposed to a dangerous atmosphere by a fixed 
fire extinguishing system by taking one of two actions. First, the 
employer may physically isolate the system by disconnecting or 
blanking, or by using other positive means to prevent the system's 
discharge. This is possible for most types of shipyard work, and is the 
preferable method of protection because when the system is isolated, 
employees cannot be exposed to a dangerous atmosphere. However, OSHA 
recognizes that some shipyard work must be conducted with the system 
activated. In those situations, the employer must take the second form 
of action by ensuring that employees are trained to recognize the 
system's discharge and evacuation alarms and the appropriate evacuation 
routes, and by ensuring that they are knowledgeable about the 
extinguishing system, its components, and its hazards.
    In paragraphs (b), (e), and (f) 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.
    Several comments were received on proposed Paragraph 1915.505(b). 
Bath Iron Works stated:

    There is confusion as to how the five paragraphs in this section 
fit together. The section addresses work in a space equipped with 
fixed extinguishing systems. It mandates that the system be 
physically isolated (para 1) or that employees be trained to 
recognize systems discharge, evacuation alarms and escape routes 
(para 2). It appears that there are three additional requirements 
(para 3, 4 and 5) to the options listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 and 
that all three must occur, as they are separated by the word 
``and.'' If the system is isolated, as in paragraph 1, paragraphs 2-
5 should not apply? After all there cannot be a discharge if the 
system is isolated. If employees are trained, as in paragraph 2, 
then all the following paragraphs should apply because the system is 
still energized and represents a potential hazard if activated. It 
appears that the word ``and'' was left off the end of paragraph 2. 
Recommend: Add the word ``and'' to the end of paragraph (b)(2). (Ex. 
21-3).

    OSHA agrees with Bath Iron Works that the proposed regulatory text 
was confusing because it combined ``and'' statements and ``or'' 
statements in a way that was difficult to follow. Therefore, the Agency 
has changed the regulatory text to clarify the requirements. Paragraph 
(b) of the final rule only includes the requirements for physical 
isolation of the system, or employee training, as discussed above. 
Paragraph

[[Page 55688]]

(b) now contains the provisions that were proposed as paragraphs 
(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(5). Paragraph (d) includes the actions that 
must be taken if activation of the system could result in a positive 
pressure in the protected space. Paragraph (d) now contains the 
provisions that were proposed as paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4). The 
remaining paragraphs of section 1915.506 have been renumbered 
consecutively.
    Bath Iron Works stated:

    It is not fully understood why work cannot be accomplished in a 
space that is protected by a fixed extinguishing system. The systems 
are installed to protect employees and equipment and there is 
``work'' that does not pose a threat of an extinguishing system 
being activated. On the other hand, it is clearly understood that 
work that has the potential to activate an extinguishing system 
poses a real threat. If there is no threat why should any of the 
requirements in this section apply? The term ``work'' needs to be 
expanded to qualify it as ``work that has the potential to cause 
system activation'' or some other qualifying phrase. To expect the 
system to be physically isolated when routine work is to be 
performed in the space, without qualifying the type of work is 
unrealistic. Example: Prior to the vessel going to sea/sea trials 
all systems are operational, including fixed extinguishing systems. 
Typical work assignments at this stage of construction are to touch 
up paint that has been disturbed, or stencil piping systems. With 
all systems up and running, the protection of the fire extinguishing 
system is a safety feature that should not be eliminated. This 
section requires that it be deactivated, or that paragraphs 2 
through 5 are complied with. Neither is feasible, nor do they 
provide additional protection to the employee''. * * * Revise 
paragraph (b) to further define the intent of work. `Before any work 
that has the potential to cause systems activation * * * (Ex. 21-3).

    NASSCO stated: ``The term `any work' does not consider the work 
done during sea trials and other test activities that would not 
activate the system. We recommend that the paragraph read: `any work 
that could activate the system' or `any hot work.' '' (Ex. 22-14).
    OSHA believes that this comment relates to the confusion caused by 
the construction of the proposed regulatory text. The Agency concludes 
that the qualification in paragraph (a) limits the applicability of 
this section only to systems that create hazards. In addition, the 
employer may conduct work with the system activated, so long as 
employees are trained pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(i) of Sec.  
1915.506. As discussed above, the employer must take one of two courses 
of action. First, the employer could physically isolate the system or 
have other positive means to prevent the system from discharging. 
Second, the employer could train employees on the system's discharge 
and the associated hazards, and the evacuation alarms and routes.
    If the employer chooses the second option, paragraph (b)(2)(i) of 
Sec.  1915.506 requires employees to be trained to recognize fire 
extinguishing systems' discharge and evacuation alarms, and to 
recognize the appropriate escape routes. This training consists of 
making sure that employees, including the employees of contractors, 
recognize the discharge and evacuation alarms and escape routes in 
accordance with Sec.  1915.508 of this subpart. Paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of 
Sec.  1915.506, which was proposed as Sec.  1915.506(b)(5), requires 
that employees be trained on the hazards of the fixed extinguishing 
system and the dangers associated with disturbing system components. 
Such components and equipment include piping, cables, linkages, 
detection devices, activation devices, and alarm devices. Employees in 
shipyards typically rig materials and equipment in and out of vessels 
and vessel sections using chain falls and come-alongs. Employees 
unaware of the dangers of disturbing system components could 
accidentally activate the system while in the process of rigging.
Sea and Dock Trials
    Paragraph 1915.506(c) of the final rule requires employers to 
ensure that fire extinguishing systems are activated during sea and 
dock trials, which is a different requirement from proposed paragraph 
(c). The hazards that were addressed in the proposed paragraph (c) are 
now addressed in paragraphs (b) and (g). The proposed paragraph (c) 
addressed the risk of intentional or accidental activation of a manual 
system during sea or dock trials by requiring that all activation 
stations, whether remote or local, be secured under lock and key or an 
attendant posted. The intent was to prevent unauthorized persons access 
to the activation controls of a manual system because a manual system 
that is activated while employees are in the protected space may result 
in fatalities. During trials many persons are present who may not be 
completely familiar with the ship's operation, and OSHA believes that 
only authorized persons should have the authority and ability to 
manually activate the systems when employees are working in the 
protected spaces.
    Bath Iron Works stated:

    The intent of this paragraph needs to be clarified or the 
paragraph deleted. Does it pertain only to sea trials or are dock 
trials included? What constitutes work? Many spaces protected by 
fixed manual systems are manned spaces. The personnel assigned to 
these spaces perform ``work'' of various types. The space should be 
protected by a fire extinguishing system especially during sea 
trials. If employees are trained, as is required by proposed 
paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(5), they will not activate the system 
unless it is necessary because they know the hazards associated with 
it. To keep the pull stations under lock and key prohibits immediate 
use if the need presented itself. If an unauthorized person wanted 
to activate the system, a lock is not going to stop him, nor is a 
guard. * * * Delete this entire paragraph as it does not increase 
the level of safety for employees and the hazard has been addressed 
in previous paragraphs. (Ex. 21-3).

    Several commenters stated: ``This paragraph should be deleted from 
the proposed rule because it was written before paragraph (b) contained 
all of the sub-paragraphs as it currently does. Therefore, paragraphs 
(b)(1) and (2) provide the same coverage as paragraph (c).'' (Exs. 21-
4; 21-5; 21-6; 21-7; 21-13; 22-2).
    NGNN recommended that:

    [O]SHA delete this paragraph. No Captain, Vessel Owner, or 
employer should put the safety of their vessel and personnel in 
peril by locking out the fire suppression system if it is the 
designated means of fire protection for the compartment. We have not 
experienced malicious activation of a fire suppression system and 
believe it sends the wrong message to lock out or otherwise prevent 
the use of a fire suppression manual activation device. If a system 
is to be disarmed, then it should be properly isolated, not by 
locking out the manual pulls. If it is determined that the risks of 
disarming the system outweigh the risks of leaving it armed then the 
manual pulls should be left available for use and workers should be 
trained on the proper actions to take in the event the system is 
activated. (21-8).

    Several commenters stated:

    While a vessel is on sea trials, the extinguishing system must 
remain operational and ready for activation to protect the vessel in 
the event of a fire. A tag would be sufficient to inform that 
personnel are in the space. Recommendation: 1915.506(c) be reworded 
`Before any work * * *, the employer must ensure that during sea 
trials activation stations are tagged, informing personnel they are 
in the protected space.' '' (Exs. 21-10; 21-15; 21-16; 22-1; 22-6; 
22-7 through 22-11).

    OSHA agrees with these commenters, and has deleted the requirement 
to lock the manual fire suppression system. Although the intent of the 
proposal was to prevent accidental activation of the system, it also 
may have prevented employees from activating the system when needed in 
an emergency situation. In its place, OSHA has added a provision to 
require the systems to be operational during sea and dock trails, which 
is consistent with the views of

[[Page 55689]]

the commenters that these systems should always be available for use 
during trials. While on a sea trial, the shipyard fire response 
employees, or outside fire response, would not be able to access the 
vessel. Therefore, the extinguishing systems must be operational at all 
times. While OSHA does not agree that paragraph (b) alone provides 
sufficient protection from the hazard posed by manually activating a 
system while employees are within the protected space, OSHA has 
determined that the hazard is adequately addressed by the combined 
provisions of paragraphs (b) and (g). Paragraph (g) covers the use of 
fixed manual extinguishing systems, and is discussed below.
Doors and Hatches
    Paragraph (d) of Sec.  1915.506 was proposed as paragraphs (b)(3) 
and (b)(4). This section was included as a result of United States 
Coast Guard information about a casualty at sea. (67 FR 76233) 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, crewmembers trapped in the space 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 the United States Coast Guard Marine Safety Manual, 
COMDTINST 16000.7, Vol. II (Ex. 17) and SOLAS 74/78 (Ex.18), which 
require outward opening access doors in CO2 protected spaces 
aboard vessels.
    Paragraph Sec.  1915.506(d)(1) addresses the concerns about inward 
opening doors, hatches, scuttles, and other potential barriers that may 
close off escape routes as a result of system activation. The paragraph 
requires that, when employees are working in a space with inward 
opening doors, the doors must be removed, locked open, braced, or 
otherwise secured so they will not close and trap employees in the 
space. OSHA recognizes that placing a blocking device in a fire door is 
normally an unacceptable practice. However, in order to comply with the 
requirements of Sec.  1915.506(d)(1), because of the hazard of 
asphyxiation, OSHA will allow a fire door to be blocked open, as long 
as the blocks are removed when the employees are no longer working in 
the protected space.
    Paragraph (d)(2) of Sec.  1915.506 (proposed paragraph (b)(4)) 
requires that 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. This is to ensure that, in the event of the systems' activation 
that could result in a positive pressure in the protected spaces that 
all employees would be able to safely escape.
    Great Lakes stated that:

    [T]o operate a vessel at sea with doors, hatches and scuttles in 
the closed position ensures the fire suppression system operates as 
designed, but violates the proposed rule. To operate the vessel with 
doors, hatches and scuttles locked in the open position complies 
with the proposed rule, but places the ship in grave danger should a 
fire break out. To isolate, lock out or otherwise render an 
extinguishing system inoperable while under way, or to keep all 
doors, hatches and scuttles locked open ensures that the agent will 
fail to reach its extinguishing concentration and hold time. Gaseous 
agents such as FM-200 (HFC-227ea) depend on achieving a specific 
design concentration in the protected space and maintaining that 
concentration until it is determined that the fire has been 
successfully suppressed. The inability to maintain the agent's 
design concentration (e.g., open doors and hatches) can quickly lead 
to an uncontrollable fire, severe damage and a potentially life-
threatening situation. (Ex. 22-5).

    Several other commenters recommended that: ``1915.506 (b)(3) be 
changed by inserting the language ``[I]n the protected spaces, the 
emergency exit route doors, hatches or scuttles remain open and 
accessible,'' [and] 1915.506 (b)(4) insert the language: ``[I]n the 
protected spaces, the emergency exit route doors, hatches, scuttles or 
other potential barriers to safe exit must be removed. * *' '' (Exs. 
21-10; 21-15; 21-16; 22-1; 22-6; 22-7 through 22-11).
    Bath Iron Works stated:

    OSHA needs to define positive pressure or clarify the intent of 
this paragraph. Many naval ships are designed to maintain positive 
pressure in spaces, including machinery spaces, via their 
ventilation system. Positive pressure is only an issue if it is 
great enough to prevent escape via inward opening doors. To mandate 
that these be removed, or locked open, prevents the halon fire 
extinguishing system from extinguishing the fire because compartment 
integrity has been compromised. A greater hazard has been created in 
complying with the standard. * * * Revise the paragraph to show that 
the requirements apply only if the positive pressure is great enough 
to prevent the opening of inward opening doors. This can be achieved 
by the following revision: ``If systems activation could result in a 
positive pressure great enough to prevent the opening of doors in 
the protected spaces, all inward opening doors, hatches, scuttles * 
* *.'' (Ex. 21-3).

    The purpose of this section is to protect employees who might be 
exposed to hazardous conditions when they are trapped by doors that are 
sealed by positive pressure within the space. If the fire suppression 
system will not create a pressure sufficient to seal an inward opening 
door, the paragraph does not apply. This section specifically protects 
the lives of employees working in protected spaces while a fixed 
extinguishing system is activated. For example, employees working in a 
shaft alley are in a confined space. Should the alarm be activated, the 
door(s) will shut automatically, creating a trapping situation for 
those employees. Although some vessels may have an escape hatch, not 
all vessels have such hatches. In this circumstance, employees must be 
trained to block open those doors when entering the space to conduct 
work. Should the system be activated, the alarm will sound and the 
employees will leave the space immediately. Upon their exit, they 
should remove the blocks and shut the door behind them, thus allowing 
the fire suppression system to perform as designed. By training 
employees to block those doors open, the trapping hazard is then 
abated. The Coast Guard, the Committee, and OSHA agree that this 
section will save lives.
Testing the System and Conducting System Maintenance
    Paragraphs (e) and (f) (formerly (d) and (e)) of Sec.  1915.506 
address system testing and system maintenance operations. Testing and 
maintenance 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).
    OSHA proposed to both physically isolate the system and to evacuate 
non-essential personnel during testing because testing of such a system

[[Page 55690]]

typically results in alarm activation and could result in a discharge 
of the extinguishing agent, putting any employees in the space in 
danger of death or injury.
    Bath Iron Works stated:

    The paragraph mandates both ``physically isolating'' the system 
and evacuation of employees not directly involved in ``testing the 
system.'' The standard does not explain what ``testing the system'' 
means. Judging from the summary and explanation the concern is 
during a system's concentration test when extinguishing media is 
actually discharged into the space so the concentration can be 
measured. This really confuses the intent of this paragraph for the 
following reasons. (1) You cannot test a physically isolated system 
because the definition of physically isolated in this standard 
prevents the system from being hooked to a supply, (2) If the system 
is physically isolated there is no potential for discharge so 
evacuation is unnecessary and (3) If there was a potential for the 
discharge of extinguishing media into a space, then all personnel 
should be evacuated not just those, ``not involved in the testing.'' 
This paragraph is extremely confusing. * * * Assuming that the 
committee's intent is to protect employees during a concentration 
test, revise the paragraph to read ``The employer will ensure that 
the protected space and affected adjacent spaces are evacuated 
during system's testing that could result in the discharge of 
extinguishing media into the space.''

    Note: There is no need to specify vessels and vessel sections as 
it is the title of this part. (Ex. 21-3).


    NGNN commented:

    Does this mean that it is acceptable for personnel directly 
involved in testing to remain in the compartment during actual 
discharge? * * * Delete the words, ``not directly involved in 
testing it.'' The modified paragraph will then read, ``The employer 
must make sure that the system is isolated and that all employees 
are evacuated from the protected spaces when levels of extinguishant 
can prevent self rescue, before testing any fixed extinguishing 
system'' (Ex. 21-8).

    These commenters are correct in noting that there are two types of 
tests that are performed on automatic fire extinguishing systems. One 
method involves the total release of extinguishing medium into a space 
(total flooding), while the other does not. As noted by the commenters, 
the proposed rule did not address the hazards caused by each type of 
test, making the proposed rule confusing, and providing inadequate 
protections for testing involving total flooding. To make the 
requirement clearer, and to make sure that appropriate protections are 
in place for employees who may be exposed to hazards by each type of 
test, OSHA has revised paragraph (e) to address both types of testing.
    Paragraph Sec.  1915.506(e)(1) addresses the first test in which 
the system is intentionally activated to determine whether or not it 
will introduce sufficient fire extinguishing material to be effective. 
In this case, the final standard requires the employer to ensure that 
all employees are evacuated from the space and that no employees remain 
in the space during the discharge, as recommended by the commenters. 
OSHA is requiring that, after the discharge of the extinguishing medium 
into the space, the employer must ensure that the atmosphere is safe 
for employees to reenter. OSHA is requiring the employer to follow the 
requirements found in Sec.  1915.12, Precautions and the order of 
testing before entering confined and enclosed spaces and other 
dangerous atmospheres. OSHA is adding these requirements to eliminate 
confusion. Paragraph Sec.  1915.506(e)(2) addresses the second, and 
more common type of test, which involves the use of air or nitrogen as 
a replacement for the extinguishing medium so that sensors, valves, and 
heads can be tested individually for their proper operation. This type 
of testing is commonly performed during ship repair and maintenance 
work. To perform the test, technicians physically isolate the system's 
extinguishing medium and then activate individual components to verify 
proper function. Fire alarms are activated during this testing, and 
other employees in the area will not know if the alarm is part of the 
test, or if it is a real alarm. Therefore, the final standard requires 
the employer to physically isolate the system to assure that the system 
does not introduce extinguishing medium into the space, and to assure 
that any employees not directly involved in the testing are evacuated. 
This evacuation is a reasonable safety precaution because a real alarm 
may be ignored as a false or nuisance alarm by non-essential employees 
until it is too late to evacuate the space safely.
    Paragraph (f) (proposed paragraph (e)) requires that the employer 
ensure that the system is physically isolated before conduction 
maintenance on a fixed extinguishing system. OSHA did not receive 
comment on this paragraph and has included it in the final rule without 
revision.
Using Fixed Manual Extinguishing Systems for Fire Protection
    In paragraph (g) (formerly paragraph (f)) of Sec.  1915.506, OSHA 
addresses the hazards associated with using fixed fire extinguishing 
systems by requiring that employees be trained and designated as 
necessary to operate and activate the system properly. Further, OSHA 
requires that all employees be evacuated from spaces, and accounted for 
before the discharge of the system. As described in the preamble to the 
proposed rule, these requirements are necessary to prevent fatalities 
from overexposures to carbon dioxide (67 FR 76234).
    Paragraph (g)(1) requires that only authorized employees be allowed 
to activate fixed manual extinguishing systems. This is based on the 
proposed requirement that would have required employers to lock out the 
manual pull stations or post an attendant at them. While OSHA 
determined that the systems should not be locked out, additional 
regulatory language was needed to clarify that not all employees should 
be able to activate a manual fixed extinguishing system. An authorized 
person must be available to activate the system, if necessary, 
following the evacuation of the employees who are working in the space. 
The authorized person or persons should be the only person to activate 
the system. This will alleviate the possibility of someone activating 
the system who has not been trained, or does not know what hazards are 
involved with the activation of the system.
    OSHA is not instructing the employer on who should be an authorized 
person, or on the number of authorized persons they must train. These 
are determinations that need to be made by each employer. Authorized 
employees are required to be trained. Therefore, the employer must make 
the determination of the number of employees that will be authorized to 
activate the system. Should an employer desire to have all employees 
designated as authorized, those employees must be trained. Conversely, 
an employer may designate foremen, or senior employees, as authorized, 
and train those few employees.
    Paragraph (g)(2) requires that authorized employees be trained to 
operate fixed manual systems when the employer expects these systems to 
be relied on in the event of a fire. This was proposed as paragraphs 
(f)(1), and OSHA has modified this provision to ensure that only 
authorized employees are trained to operate and activate the system. As 
proposed, the provision allowed for employees to be trained and 
designated. OSHA wanted to ensure that only authorized employees, 
rather then designated, would have access to activate the system. NGNN 
stated:

    The paragraph could be interpreted to require us to designate 
and train our

[[Page 55691]]

employees to operate ship's fixed fire extinguishing systems. 
Current work practices on U.S. Navy vessels do not permit this 
action by non-Navy personnel. Responsibilities for fire response are 
established via contract, memorandum of understanding or other means 
depending on the stage of construction or repair. Similarly, other 
employers at a host site may not have authority to operate a 
particular fire extinguishing system, but should ensure their 
personnel understand their required actions in the event of a fire. 
Recommend: 1915.506 (f)(1) be changed to read as follows: 
``Employees are instructed on the appropriate actions to be taken in 
the event of fire or activation of the fire extinguishing system 
within the compartment. (Ex. 21-8).

    OSHA does not agree with this commenter's suggested revision. The 
employer is responsible for making sure that someone is present who is 
designated to operate the manual fire suppression system and is trained 
to do so safely. Not all employees have the right or authorization to 
activate a system. The designation of employees to activate the system 
should come from an agreement with the shipyard, the vessel owner, and 
the captain to designate a person or persons. The person or persons who 
are selected need to be trained to operate and activate the system. In 
addition, Paragraph (g)(3) requires that all other employees need to be 
evacuated from the protected spaces and accounted for before the system 
is activated.
    Paragraph (g)(3) of Sec.  1915.506, proposed as (f)(2), requires 
that the protected space be evacuated completely and all employees 
accounted for before discharge of the fixed manual extinguishing 
system. OSHA received no comments on this provision, and it is included 
in the final rule as it was proposed.

Section 1915.507 Land-Side Fire Protection Systems

    This section consolidates various existing requirements as well as 
providing references to current applicable national consensus 
standards. (See the proposal to the NPRM for a discussion of existing 
requirements (67 FR 76235).
Employer Responsibilities
    Under paragraph (a) of Sec.  1915.507, the employer must ensure 
that all fixed and portable fire protection systems installed to meet a 
particular OSHA standard comply with the appropriate requirements of 
this section. The provisions in this section do not apply to fixed or 
portable fire protection systems the employer has installed to meet 
requirements other than OSHA's, such as local requirements, or ships 
systems.
Portable Fire Extinguishers and Host Systems
    In Sec.  1915.507(b), OSHA regulates the use of portable fire 
extinguishers and hose systems. By incorporating by reference NFPA 10-
1998 Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers (Ex. 19-1) 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-inch 
(3.8 cm) hose stations. If the employer chooses to use hose systems, 
then the employer must meet the recommendations of NFPA 14-2000 
Standard for the Installation of Standpipe, Private Hydrant, and Hose 
Systems (Ex. 19-12). This is consistent with current OSHA practice 
under 29 CFR 1910.157 and 1910.158. The incorporation by reference in 
Sec.  1915.507(b)(1) will permit some flexibility in offering 
protection for incipient stage fires.
    In paragraph (b)(2) of this section, OSHA is allowing the employer 
to 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 Standard for the Installation of 
Standpipe, Private Hydrant, and Hose Systems (Ex. 19-12).
    Several commenters were concerned about incorporating NFPA 
standards by reference:

    This section requires installation, maintenance and testing in 
accordance with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 
standards. NFPA is not required to seek non-member participation in 
the development of standards. Also, these standards are not 
available free of cost to employers. These consensus standards have 
been a problem for the shipyard community because once they are 
incorporated by reference; the NFPA can change or impose a new 
regulation on industry without industry participation in the 
process. If OSHA incorporates these standards by reference, OSHA 
should provide the version that will be enforced to the regulated 
community, and ensure public participation in additional rulemaking 
that may result from changes to the standards (Exs. 21-4; 21-5; 21-
6; 21-7; 21-13).

    Reliance on national consensus standards such as those referenced 
here is a U.S. government policy. The U.S. Office of Management and 
Budget in Circular A-119 directs federal agencies to use voluntary 
consensus standards in lieu of government-unique standards except where 
inconsistent with law or otherwise impractical. The NFPA also includes 
the public during the process of developing new codes and standards, 
and when NFPA standards are revised. OSHA incorporates consensus 
standards by reference only in the notice and comment rulemaking 
process, such as here. OSHA proposed incorporation, received public 
comment, analyzed the comments, and only then determined if the 
specific NFPA consensus standard would be incorporated.
    NFPA does not provide free copies of their standards to the public. 
They must be purchased. Due to legal restrictions, OSHA cannot publish 
another agency or association's standards when OSHA incorporates them 
by reference into an OSHA standard. However, when OSHA does incorporate 
by reference, that particular standard or code is submitted to the 
Federal Register and to the OSHA Docket Office. As set forth in Sec.  
1915.5, the materials may be purchased from the organization that 
publishes them, and are available for inspection at the Federal 
Register, the OSHA Docket Office, or in OSHA regional offices. Apart 
from minor editorial changes, paragraphs (a) and (b) in Sec.  1915.507 
are carried forward unchanged in the final standard.
General Requirements for Fixed Extinguishing Systems
    Under Sec.  1915.507(c), OSHA addresses the general requirements of 
fixed extinguishing systems the employer must install to meet a 
particular OSHA standard. In paragraph (c)(1), OSHA requires the use of 
fixed extinguishing systems that have been approved by a National 
Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL). This is consistent with OSHA's 
current practice of requiring that all fire protection equipment and 
systems are approved for their purpose and design by a NRTL.
    In paragraph (c)(2) of Sec.  1915.507, OSHA requires that employers 
notify employees and take the necessary precautions to protect 
employees when a fire extinguishing system becomes inoperable. 
Precautions must remain in place until the system is working again.
    In paragraph (c)(3) of Sec.  1915.507, OSHA also requires that a 
qualified technician or mechanic repair any inoperable system. This 
requirement is consistent with current fire protection standards (29 
CFR 1910.160 and NFPA 12-2000).
    OSHA requires in Sec.  1915.507(c)(4) that when an area remains 
hazardous to employee safety or health as a result of the discharge of 
an extinguishing agent, effective safeguards must be provided to warn 
employees not to enter the discharge area. This is consistent with the 
requirements in Sec.  1910.160(b). Should an employee need to enter 
this

[[Page 55692]]

discharge area for emergency reasons, personal protective equipment 
must be provided. An emergency could include the rescue of another 
employee or to shut down equipment or processes to ensure that 
additional conditions do not arise.
    This paragraph is necessary because some systems are designed to 
discharge extinguishing agents in concentrations greater than is safe 
for humans. These systems have the potential to create a hazard to 
employees and need special consideration and control. OSHA has 
incorporated the requirements in Sec.  1910.160(b) in this final 
standard, 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 adding a sentence 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 created by the discharge of certain extinguishing 
agents.
    In paragraph (c)(5) of Sec.  1915.507, OSHA requires the employer 
to post hazard warning or caution signs at both the entrance to and 
inside of areas protected by fixed extinguishing systems that could 
discharge extinguishing agents in concentrations that are known to be 
hazardous to employee safety or health. This is consistent with 
paragraph (b)(5) of 29 CFR 1910.160.
    In Sec.  1915.507(c)(6), OSHA requires the employer to select, 
install, inspect, maintain, and test all automatic fire detection 
systems and emergency alarms according to NFPA 72-1999, National Fire 
Alarm Code (Ex. 19-13). Several technological advancements have 
occurred in both fire detection and fire alarm technology in recent 
years. Incorporating 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 
or other building codes. No comments were received on paragraph (c), 
and OSHA is carrying it forward in the final standard.
Fixed Extinguishing Systems
    In Sec.  1915.507(d), OSHA requires that the selection, 
installation, maintenance, inspection, and testing of specific types of 
fixed fire extinguishing systems meet the requirements of particular 
NFPA standards. The Agency received no comments on this paragraph and 
has adopted it in the final standard.
    In paragraph (d)(1), OSHA requires that standpipe and hose systems 
in land-side facilities follow the requirements in NFPA 14-2000 
Standard for the Installation of Standpipe, Private Hydrant, and Hose 
Systems (Ex. 19-12).
    In Sec.  1915.507(d)(2), OSHA is incorporating by reference NFPA 
13-1999 Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems (Ex. 19-14); 
NFPA 750-2000 Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection Systems (Ex. 19-
15); and NFPA 25-2002 Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and 
Maintenance of Water-based Fire Protection Systems (Ex. 19-16), to 
address the installation of OSHA-required automatic sprinkler systems 
in land-side facilities. NFPA 13-1999 and NFPA 750-2000 provide, 
respectively, requirements for automatic sprinklers and automatic mist 
systems. NFPA 25-5002 has maintenance and inspection requirements for 
both of these water systems.
    In paragraph (d)(3) of Sec.  1915.507, OSHA is incorporating by 
reference several NFPA standards with specifications for fixed 
extinguishing systems that use water spray or foam for the 
extinguishing agent. These include the NFPA 11-1998 Standard for Low-
Expansion Foam (Ex. 19-17); NFPA 11A-1999 Standard for Medium- and 
High-Expansion Foam Systems (Ex. 19-18); and NFPA 15-2001 Standard for 
Water Spray Fixed Systems for Fire Protection (Ex. 19-19). In paragraph 
(d)(4) of Sec.  1915.507, OSHA is incorporating by reference NFPA 17-
2002 Standard for Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems (Ex. 19-20) for 
fixed extinguishing systems using dry chemical as the extinguishing 
agent.
    In paragraph (d)(5) of Sec.  1915.507, OSHA is incorporating by 
reference the current edition of NFPA standards that address fixed 
extinguishing systems using gas as the extinguishing agent. 
Specifically, OSHA is referencing NFPA 12-2000 Standard on Carbon 
Dioxide Extinguishing Systems (Ex. 19-21); NFPA 12A-1997 Standard on 
Halon 1301 Extinguishing Systems (Ex. 19-22); and NFPA 2001-2000 
Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems (Ex. 19-23).
    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 an alternative agent replaces them. Therefore, OSHA 
is promulgating the requirements in Sec.  1915.507(d)(5) for the design 
and installation of Halon 1301 systems to ensure employee safety. For 
the systems that will replace Halon, OSHA is requiring that the 
employer meet NFPA 12-2000 Standard on Carbon Dioxide Extinguishing 
Systems (Ex. 19-21) or NFPA 2001-2000 Standard on Clean Agent Fire 
Extinguishing Systems (Ex. 19-23) for their design and installation. No 
comments were received on paragraph (d), and OSHA is carrying it 
forward in the final standard.

Section 1915.508 Training

    Employee training is a critical element of an employer's program in 
combating the hazards of fire in shipyard employment. The proposed 
standard placed a specific emphasis on hazard recognition, fire watch, 
and fire response. This final standard has been reformatted and edited 
to provide clearer guidance for training employees who are required to 
evacuate during an emergency, expected to fight an incipient stage 
fire, designated as fire watch workers, or designated as fire response 
employees.
    First, all employees need training on alarms and proper evacuation 
procedures. In some cases, employers may want some or all employees to 
evacuate the work area during a fire emergency and not respond to the 
fire, so limited training is needed. Second, the employer may decide to 
designate certain employees to fight incipient stage fires. For 
example, an employer may designate and train all shift supervisors, or 
security personnel, on fighting incipient stage fires, while the 
remaining employees evacuate the work area. These employees need basic 
knowledge of fire extinguishing equipment and the hazards they may 
face. Third, fire watch workers who are more likely to actually fight 
an incipient stage fire require additional training to allow them to 
perform this duty safely. Finally, fire response employees may be 
called upon to fight fires that have advanced beyond the incipient 
stage, and need advanced firefighting knowledge to perform this 
inherently dangerous work. This section has been reformatted and 
renumbered from the proposed standard to reflect the additional 
training requirements required for each type of employee.
    Regardless of the amount of training that employees will receive, 
they must be trained within the time restrictions that are required in 
paragraph (a). Proposed paragraph (a) required that affected employees 
be trained when they first start working, or as necessary to maintain 
proficiency on the following: (1) The general principles of

[[Page 55693]]

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.
    In the final standard, this paragraph has been divided into three 
new paragraphs. The final requirement in paragraph (a) requires that 
all employees be trained within 90 days from the effective date of this 
standard for employees currently working, upon initial assignment for 
new employees, and when necessary to maintain proficiency for employees 
previously trained. Under the proposed language, it was not 
sufficiently clear that the training requirements apply to both current 
and new employees. This final language is consistent with Sec.  
1915.502(c) to provide training for current and new employees. The 
requirement to train and retrain selected employees is based upon the 
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.157.
Employee Training
    Proposed paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) have been divided into 
two new paragraphs and renumbered. Proposed paragraphs (a)(4) and 
(a)(5) are now required for all employees in paragraph (b), regardless 
of their level of participation in fire response. Paragraph (b) 
requires that all employees be trained on the emergency alarm signals, 
including system discharge alarms and employee evacuation alarms, and 
the primary and secondary evacuation routes. OSHA has determined that 
all employees must be trained on these two basic fire safety issues to 
protect lives.
    In proposed paragraph Sec.  1915.508(a)(5), now paragraph (b)(2), 
regarding training on the primary and secondary evacuation routes a 
fire watch employee must use in the event of a fire in the workplace, 
OSHA proposed a note stating that vessels and vessel sections may not 
always have a secondary evacuation route (67 FR 76237). In the final 
rule, in paragraph (b)(2), OSHA has incorporated this note into the 
regulatory text and modified it to read: ``While all vessels and vessel 
sections must have a primary evacuation route, a secondary evacuation 
route is not required when impracticable.'' This change reflects OSHA's 
view that multiple evacuation routes provide a greater degree of safety 
for employees, and that the employer must provide a secondary route 
unless it is impracticable. The change is also compatible with the 
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.36, which requires two or more exit routes 
for buildings and other structures at the shipyard, with certain 
exceptions. Similar to the Sec.  1910.36 standard, OSHA recognizes that 
there are circumstances where a second evacuation route is not 
practicable. In those situations, the employer must train employees 
only on the primary evacuation route. This change remains consistent 
with the recommendations of the Committee to recognize the uniqueness 
of vessels and vessel sections in comparison to buildings and other 
land-side structures, while providing greater clarity on the need for 
safe evacuation procedures.
    Additionally, comments received on paragraph (a) stated: ``This 
section should include an additional paragraph, which allows for a 
combined training session that incorporates all emergency training into 
one session'' (Exs. 21-4; 21-5; 21-6; 21-7; 21-13; 22-2). The employer 
is already free to incorporate all training into one session, or to 
train all employees at the same time as long as all requirements are 
met. This requirement is performance-oriented. OSHA indicates what 
training is required and allows the employer to decide the best way to 
comply with all of the requirements,
Additional Training Requirements for Employees Expected To Fight 
Incipient Stage Fires
    Proposed paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) have been moved and are 
now included in the training requirements for those employees 
designated to fight fires in paragraph (c). These employees will be 
designated by the employer as employees who attempt to extinguish an 
incipient stage fire. Paragraph (c)(1) requires that these employees be 
trained on the hazards involved with incipient stage firefighting, and 
the procedures used to reduce these hazards, as well as the principles 
of using fire extinguishers or hose lines. In addition, paragraphs 
(c)(2) and (c)(3) require these employees to be trained on 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, as well as the activation and operation of fixed and portable 
fire protection systems that the employer expects them to use. Proposed 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) have been carried forward in the final 
rule.
Additional Training Requirements for Shipyard Employees Designated for 
Fire Response
    These requirements were proposed as paragraphs (b)(1) through 
(b)(10), and have been renumbered as (d)(1) through (d)(10). In Sec.  
1915.508(d), OSHA addresses the additional training requirements for 
fire response employees and the training requirement that will replace 
paragraph (c) of Sec.  1915.52. Fire response employees may be exposed 
to many hazards associated with fire suppression, including heat, 
flame, smoke, explosion, structural collapse, or hazardous materials. 
It is important that these employees are provided with training 
specific to what they might encounter. No comments were received on 
proposed paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(8), and they are carried forward 
renumbered as (d)(1) through (d)(8).
    In paragraph (d)(1) of Sec.  1915.508, OSHA requires that the 
employer have a written training policy stating that fire response 
employees must 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 (Ex. 19-5).
    In paragraph (d)(2), OSHA requires the employer to keep written 
standard operating procedures that address anticipated emergency 
operations and to update these procedures as necessary. Emergency 
operations are activities, such as rescue, fire suppression, and 
emergency medical care that are performed by a fire response 
organization. In some incidents, these emergency operations may include 
special operations, such as hazardous materials response (HAZMAT), 
HAZMAT release mitigation, standby for flight operations, protection of 
structures exposed to nearby off-site fires, or mutual-aid at other 
workplaces. Written standard operating procedures are training tools 
and represent the best practice in the industry. This is consistent 
with the language in paragraphs 3-1.5 and 3-1.8 of NFPA 1500-2002 (Ex. 
19-5).
    In Sec.  1915.508(d)(3), OSHA requires the employer to review fire 
response employee training programs and hands-on sessions before they 
are used to make sure that fire response employees are protected from 
hazardous training conditions. This should help to prevent the 
occurrence of training accidents resulting from unexpected events such 
as flare-ups, collapses, entrapments, and stress-induced injuries.

[[Page 55694]]

    In paragraph (d)(4) of Sec.  1915.508, OSHA requires all fire 
response employees to be adequately trained to carry out their duties 
and responsibilities under the employer's standard operating 
procedures. This training program must provide the information 
necessary to ensure that these employees are competent to respond 
appropriately to a fire. For example, the fire response 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, and how to determine 
the location and type of fire within the vessel.
    In Sec.  1915.508(d)(5), OSHA requires the employer to train new 
fire response employees before they engage in emergency duties so that 
they can work safely and effectively at a fire scene. This language is 
consistent with paragraph 3-1.3 of NFPA 1500-2002 (Ex. 19-5).
    In paragraph (d)(6) of Sec.  1915.508, the employer must provide 
training for firefighters at least quarterly on the employer's written 
operational procedures. Because of the complexity of hazards involved 
in shipyard firefighting, the quarterly training requirement is 
appropriate. In addition, most fire response operations in shipyard 
employment, whether on a vessel or in land-side facilities, go beyond 
the incipient stage and most likely involve an interior attack.
    In paragraph (d)(7) of Sec.  1915.508, OSHA requires that all fire 
response operations training be conducted by qualified instructors. 
This language is consistent with paragraph 5.2.11 of NFPA 1500-2002 
(Ex. 19-5).
    In Sec.  1915.508(d)(8), OSHA requires any live firefighting 
training exercises to follow NFPA 1403-2002 Standard on Live Fire 
Training Evolutions (Ex. 19-24). This is consistent with paragraphs 
4.9.4 and 5.2.10 of NFPA 1500-2002 (Ex. 19-5).
    In paragraph (d)(9) of Sec.  1915.508, the employer must provide 
semiannual drills that cover site-specific operations, occupancies, 
buildings, vessels and vessel sections, and fire-related 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 (Ex. 19-5).
    Bath Iron Works stated:

    OSHA does not state that an actual fire response qualifies as 
meeting the requirement of a drill. To maintain consistency with 29 
CFR 1915.12(e) which allows an actual confined space rescue to 
qualify as meeting the training requirements the paragraph should be 
revised. Recommendation: Add the following text: ``Conduct semi 
annual drills unless the team performs an actual fire response 
during the 6 month period.'' (Ex. 21-3).

    OSHA disagrees with Bath Iron works and is convinced that fire 
responses are not adequate substitutes for training drills. A training 
drill is intended to be used for assessing and improving operational or 
deployment procedures. Actual fires provide useful learning 
experiences, and it is usual and customary to evaluate fires for this 
purpose, but they do not provide the same training opportunity as 
drills. When an actual alarm is sounded and the shipyard fire 
department responds, the on-scene command is coordinating the scene and 
ensuring that firefighters respond safety and effectively. They cannot 
effectively observe, document, and evaluate the response at the same 
time. Drills are used for the sole purpose of training, while fire 
response is focused on saving lives and property. This issue was 
discussed during the negotiated rulemaking process and Committee 
members had varying positions. OSHA was convinced by the position of 
most of the Committee members that the rule should require semiannual 
drills without regard to actual fire responses for the above reasons. 
The Agency has not received compelling reasons to change its position. 
Therefore, this paragraph has not been changed for the final standard.
    In paragraph (d)(10) of Sec.  1915.508, OSHA prohibits the employer 
from using smoke generating devices that could create a dangerous 
atmosphere in training exercises. This includes training done on 
vessels and vessel sections as well as in buildings and other 
structures. This requirement is consistent with paragraph 8.3.2 of NFPA 
1500-2002 (Ex. 19-5). Where the employer must simulate emergency 
conditions that require smoke generation, smoke-generating devices that 
do not create a hazard must be used. OSHA received no comments on 
proposed paragraph (b)(10), and it has been carried forward in the 
final rule as (d)(10).
Additional Training Requirements for Fire Watch Duty
    Proposed paragraph (c) of Sec.  1915.508, which has been renumbered 
as paragraph (e), sets forth the additional training requirements for 
any person assigned to fire watch duty. 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 trained in accordance with Sec.  1915.508(f). One way 
to do this is for the employer to have a written evaluation of the 
contractor's training program that the employer can 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 trained.
    In paragraph (e)(1) of Sec.  1915.508, OSHA requires the employer 
to make sure the fire watch 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; (iii) when 
the employer determines that the fire watch employee needs to be 
trained; and (iv) annually.
    Marine Chemist Services, Inc. submitted the following comment on 
the training of fire watches:

    Unlike the requirement in paragraph 1915.508(b)(7) Training 
requirements for shipyard employees designated for fire response to 
``(u)se qualified instructors to conduct the training'', there is no 
similar requirement for fire watch training instructors. As a 
result, literally anyone will be able train fire watches. 
Consequently, the fire watch training program will contain as much 
or as little detail as the trainer is knowledgeable (through 
education and experience) and/or has time. * * * Recommendation: add 
the words ``in an approved fire watch training course taught by a 
qualified instructor'' (Ex. 22-12).

    OSHA agrees with this comment. Although most shipyard employers 
would use a qualified instructor, one could interpret this standard 
incorrectly, and employees could be trained incompletely or 
inadequately. Therefore, OSHA is changing the regulatory text of Sec.  
1915.508(e)(1) to read: ``The employer must ensure that each fire watch 
is trained by an instructor with adequate fire watch knowledge and 
experience to cover the items as follows:'
    Marine Chemist Services also stated:

    It is agreed that a fire watch's knowledge and understanding 
must be adequate in order for him or her to properly perform fire 
watch duties; but so, too, must be one's skill. Even the requirement 
to extinguish live fire scenarios seems to suggest the importance of 
one's skill, both in terms of physical (e.g. strength) and mental 
(e.g. remaining calm) abilities. Therefore, knowledge and skill and 
understanding are needed here. Recommendation: insert ``skill'' as 
follows: Whenever the employer has reason to believe that the fire 
watch's knowledge, skill or understanding of the training previously 
provided is inadequate. (Ex. 22-12).


    OSHA agrees that skills are an important component of the training 
requirements, as are the knowledge and understanding of the duties to 
be

[[Page 55695]]

performed, and has included the word ``skills'' in Sec.  
1915.508(e)(1)(iii) as suggested by Marine Chemist Services.
    Under paragraph (e)(1)(iv) of Sec.  1915.508, employers must 
retrain fire watches annually. Annual training is an industry practice. 
In addition, annual training is already required by Navy contracts 
throughout the country.
    NAVSEA stated: ``Recommend modifying this requirement as follows: 
`Annual refresher training to include discussion of the types of fires 
seen recently in operations that the fire watch may encounter in the 
next year.' '' (Ex. 22-15). OSHA agrees that it would be prudent for 
any shipyard that has an incident to discuss the incident during the 
annual retraining, and encourages shipyards to do so if the discussion 
will add to the knowledge and understanding of fire watches. However, 
OSHA has concluded that the employer is in the best position to 
determine if a discussion of past fires would always be useful or 
necessary for its fire watch workers. Therefore, OSHA does not believe 
modification of this provision is necessary and has not modified the 
standard.
    Paragraph (e)(2) of Sec.  1915.508 contains 12 items the employer 
must include in fire watch training. The training includes how to 
anticipate and be aware of the hazards that may be faced while 
performing fire watch duties, such as limited egress or possible 
changes in atmospheric conditions. To recognize the adverse health 
effects that may be caused by exposure to fire, employees have to be 
trained under OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200. 
Workers need to be knowledgeable about fire prevention practices so 
they can correctly react to changes in the hot work 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 (e)(2)(i) of Sec.  1915.508 requires the employer to 
train a fire watch on the basics of fire behavior, classes of fires, 
extinguishing agents, 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 chemicals, water, 
and CO2. Methods of extinguishing require removing one or 
more of the following: heat (ignition), oxygen, fuel, or chemical chain 
reactions. OSHA received no comments on this paragraph, and it is 
carried forward as proposed.
    Paragraph (e)(2)(ii) requires that each fire watch be trained using 
live fire scenarios whenever allowed by law. The training exercise 
would be a controlled burn and would teach the trainee the proper way 
to approach the fire. There are different requirements and restrictions 
across the country in this regard.
    Numerous comments were received on this issue.

    We believe it is unnecessary to create a hazard with a live fire 
exercise, employees can demonstrate proper operation of a fire 
extinguisher with other equipment. Use of charged extinguishers and 
live fires is costly and may add little reality to the training. 
Employers should have the option to use alternative instructional 
methods and equipment for fire watches. (Exs. 21-10; 21-15; 21-16; 
22-1; 22-6; 22-7 through 22-11).

    In addition, National Steel and Shipbuilding Company stated: ``Live 
fire scenarios are not required to demonstrate the ability to use a 
fire extinguisher. Employees can be effectively trained without the 
need to extinguish live fire scenarios. We recommend that the 
requirement be for live fire scenarios be removed.'' (Ex. 22-14).
    NGNN recommended that this paragraph be deleted:

    [P]aragraph (c)(2)(viii) requires the employer to instruct 
employees assigned to fire watch on how to select and use fire 
extinguishing equipment and this is sufficient. * * * Our current 
practice of providing practical hands-on use of the various 
extinguishers without the presence or a live fire has proven 
effective at our facility as evidenced by our fire safety record 
described in our cover letter. * * * We strongly encourage OSHA to 
use performance-oriented language, such as in paragraph 
(c)(2)(viii), rather than prescriptive language in this regard. (Ex. 
21-8).

    There are some localities that prohibit burning due to smog or 
clean air provisions. If this is the case, then live fire training 
should not be used. If this is not the case, live fire scenarios must 
be used and employees are expected to use fire extinguishers on such 
fires. Learning the different types of fires and appropriate fire 
extinguishers is more effective when live fire scenarios are used. In 
addition, fire watches need to know and be able to demonstrate that 
they can adequately use a fire extinguisher to extinguish a fire. The 
Committee was unanimous in its support of live fire training as the 
most effective means to train fire watches for their duties, because it 
provides the best simulation of actual firefighting technique. The 
Agency agrees that this is the case, and finds the comments that live 
fire training is unnecessary unpersuasive. Therefore, this provision is 
being included in the final standard as proposed. The only exception is 
for situations where a state or local law prohibits open burning and 
the employer is unable to obtain an exception for the training. In this 
case, the Agency does not wish to put the employer in the position of 
violating a local fire rule to comply with the OSHA standard.
    Paragraphs (e)(2)(iii), (iv), and (v) require, respectively, that 
employees who stand fire watch duty must be knowledgeable of the 
adverse health effects that may be caused by exposure to fire, the 
physical characteristics of the hot work area, and the hazards 
associated with fire watch duties.
    Paragraphs (e)(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. A fire 
watch may need the same or different items of PPE from that used by a 
hot worker. The fire watch 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 (e)(2)(viii) of Sec.  1915.508 requires that an employee 
who stands fire watch duty be trained to select and operate fire 
extinguishers and fire hoses likely to be used by the fire watch. As in 
the case of fire extinguishers, whenever a fire watch is expected to 
use a fire hose, the fire watch must be trained in its use. A fire 
watch who has been trained with a fire extinguisher but not a fire hose 
does not necessarily understand how to use a fire hose. Fire watches 
need targeted training if they may have to deal with these different 
types of equipment within their shipyard employment.
    The Agency requires that a fire watch be trained to select and 
operate the different types of fire extinguishers and fire hoses likely 
to be used by fire watches in the area. These requirements are similar 
to those found in 29 CFR 1910.157 in which OSHA requires the employer 
to train any employee who has been designated to use portable fire 
extinguishers (or, as stated in paragraph (e)(2)(viii) of this section, 
fire hoses), and for these employees to be familiar with the general 
principles of fire extinguisher use and the hazards of fighting 
incipient stage fires. OSHA does not believe that adopting this 
training requirement from Part 1910 imposes any new burden on shipyard 
employers beyond what currently exists.

[[Page 55696]]

    Paragraph (e)(2)(ix) of Sec.  1915.508 requires fire watch 
personnel to be trained to know the location and use of barriers that 
are part of the employer's fire protection program. It is a common 
shipyard practice to use barriers to prevent molten metal or sparks 
from traveling to uncleaned areas where flammable materials may be 
ignited. However, such barriers can also create hazards by blocking an 
employee's evacuation route or by suppressing ventilation to the point 
where fumes or vapors can accumulate. Therefore, a worker who stands 
fire watch must understand how to use the barriers safely.
    In Sec.  1915.508(e)(2)(x), OSHA requires that the fire watch be 
trained in the means of communicating with each worker performing hot 
work to ensure the safety of workers. Effective communication is 
especially important when a fire watch can not see a hot worker 
because, for example, the fire watch is on the other side of a 
compartment from the hot worker. In this case, the means of 
communication 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.
    In paragraphs (e)(2)(xi) and (xii) of Sec.  1915.508, OSHA requires 
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 
between vessels or vessel sections and land-side facilities and that 
each may have different alarm systems, evacuation plans, and exit 
routes. For example, a shipyard may be performing repair work on a Navy 
vessel, a cruise liner, and a tug at the same time, all with different 
alarm systems.
    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 employer must make sure that 
fire watches are familiar with the type of alarm systems being used on 
the vessel where they are working.
    OSHA received no comment on proposed paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) through 
(c)(2)(xii) of Sec.  1915.508 and they are being adopted as paragraphs 
(e)(2)(iii) through (e)(2)(xii).
    Proposed paragraph (c)(3) of Sec.  1915.508, now (e)(3), requires 
the employer to 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. OSHA received no comment on these provisions, and 
they are carried forward in the final rule renumbered.
Records
    Proposed paragraph (d) of Sec.  1915.508, now renumbered as (f), 
requires that the employer document that the training required by 
paragraphs (a) through (e) has been accomplished. In Sec.  
1915.508(f)(1), OSHA requires the employer to 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. As 
proposed, this requirement was separated into four separate provisions, 
paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (iv). In this final standard, OSHA has 
collapsed all of these requirements into one provision, paragraph 
(f)(1), in order to make them easier to read. No comments were received 
on these four requirements, and OSHA is carrying them forward as 
proposed, with the exception of the renumbering.
    In addition, OSHA requires in paragraph (f)(2) of Sec.  1915.508 
that the employer keep the documentation for at least one year and, 
consistent with other OSHA standards, make the record available for 
inspection and copying by OSHA personnel on request. The record that 
must be kept is minimal. 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 
easy access to it.
    This record must be kept until it is replaced by a worker's new 
training record, or for one year from when the record was made, 
whichever is longest. In the case of a worker who will no longer 
perform fire watch duties, or is no longer employed at the shipyard, 
OSHA requires the employer to keep that employee's training record for 
one year. This information may be relevant in determining whether the 
employer's fire watch training program was adequate, and for research 
on the effectiveness of the standard. OSHA sought comment on whether 
the requirement for training record retention should be one or three 
years. No comments were received on this issue, or any other aspect of 
recordkeeping in this paragraph. Therefore, OSHA has renumbered the 
proposed paragraphs, and carried them forward in the final standard.

Section 1915.509 Definitions

    Most of the definitions in OSHA's proposed standard have been 
carried forward unchanged in the final standard. Additions or 
modifications have been made in response to various comments, and to 
provide appropriate definitions for the new terms used in the final 
standard. The following section discusses the terms for which comments 
were received, the definitions added to the rule, the definitions OSHA 
has modified to improve clarity, and the terms that have been included 
in the final rule without change.
Comments on the Proposed Definitions
    OSHA's proposed definition for ``fire response employee'' was ``a 
shipyard employee who performs shipyard employment firefighting.'' 
Atlantic Marine submitted a comment stating that the proposed 
definition was too broad (Ex. 21-17-1). ``This definition could mean 
any employee that discharges a fire extinguisher at the shipyard, 
including office and administrative personnel.'' OSHA agrees that the 
term could be misinterpreted as defined. OSHA has modified the 
definition of ``fire response employee'' in the final standard to read 
``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.''
    Several commenters submitted comments on the definition of 
``hazardous atmosphere'' (Exs. 21-3; 21-8; 21-14; 22-4; 22-15). NFPA 
commented that the definition of ``hazardous atmosphere'' was taken 
from a general industry standard (29 CFR 1910.146 Permit required 
confined spaces) and inappropriately applied to a maritime industry 
context in the proposed standard (Ex. 21-14). In addition, there was 
concern that the use of the term ``dangerous atmosphere'' in addition 
to ``hazardous atmosphere'' was unnecessary and could cause confusion 
(Exs. 21-14; 22-4). The term ``dangerous atmosphere'' was used in the 
proposed standard in the note to Sec.  1915.507(c)(4) and was defined 
in

[[Page 55697]]

Sec.  1915.509. The term ``hazardous atmosphere'' was used in 
Sec. Sec.  1915.506(a) and .508(b)(10) and defined in Sec.  1915.509. 
OSHA agrees with these commenters. The term ``hazardous atmosphere'' in 
Sec. Sec.  1915.506(a) and .508(b)(10) in the final standard has been 
replaced with the term ``dangerous atmosphere'' and the definition of 
``hazardous atmosphere'' in Sec.  1915.509 has been deleted. The 
proposed definition of ``dangerous atmosphere'' has been carried 
forward unchanged into the final standard.
    The Connecticut Department of Labor raised a question regarding the 
term ``incident management system'' (IMS), asking: ``Why does the 
proposed standard change the customary verbiage of incident command 
system to incident management system? Will this confuse fire 
departments that will also be involved in the firefighting?'' (Ex. 22-
4)
    While the Incident Command System (ICS) term is customary language 
often used by firefighting professionals, OSHA proposed to use the IMS 
term to be consistent with the terms currently in use by firefighting 
organizations and training institutions. However, OSHA is modifying the 
proposed definition of IMS in Sec.  1915.509 to match the definition 
used in NFPA 1500-2002, which is: ``A system that defines the roles and 
responsibilities to be assumed by personnel and the operating 
procedures to be used in the management and direction of emergency 
operations; the system is also referred to as an incident command 
system (ICS)''. This modification does not change the meaning or intent 
of the proposed term, and is more consistent with the NFPA's use of the 
term IMS. For more discussion, see Sec.  1915.505(d)(3) above.
Definitions Added to the Final Rule
    Marine Chemist Services, Inc. suggested that a new definition be 
added for ``approved fire watch training course.'' As addressed in the 
discussion of Sec.  1915.508 above, OSHA will be altering Sec.  
1915.508(c)(1) to require training to be given by a qualified 
instructor. OSHA believes that there is no need for an additional 
definition for ``approved fire watch training course'' and has not 
added this term to the definition section of the final standard.
    NGNN suggested that OSHA add a description or a definition for 
``drop test'' in order to clarify the term (Ex. 21-8). Drop test is a 
term found in Sec.  1915.503(b)(2)(iv) ``* * * and a drop test is done 
using gauges or other positive means. * * *'' NGNN's suggested 
definition was:

    Method utilizing gauges to ensure the integrity of an oxygen 
fuel gas system. Prior to lighting a torch, but after all 
connections have been safely made, adjust the operating pressures by 
turning the adjusting screws clockwise. The pressure at the 
regulators should be set slightly higher than the required tip 
pressures. Close the manifold or cylinder supply valves and watch 
the gauges for at least sixty (60) seconds. Any drop in pressure 
indicates a leak. Do not turn on the supply valve again until the 
leak has been repaired. Other than pressure testing gas lines while 
submerged in water at test shops, only the use of pressure gauges 
provides a positive measure of line integrity.

    OSHA agrees with NGNN that a definition would be appropriate. 
However, OSHA has modified the definition of ``drop test'' in the final 
standard to read:

    * * * [M]ethod utilizing gauges to ensure the integrity of an 
oxygen fuel gas burning system. The method requires that the burning 
torch is installed to one end of the oxygen and fuel gas lines and 
then the gauges are attached to the other end of the hoses. The 
manifold or cylinder supply valve is opened and the system is 
pressurized. The manifold or cylinder supply valve is then closed 
and the gauges are watched for at least sixty (60) seconds. Any drop 
in pressure indicates a leak. * * *

    The final sentences of the NGNN suggestion are procedural rather 
than part of the definition and are therefore unnecessary.
    OSHA has added three additional new definitions to the final 
standard. The definitions of ``class II standpipe system,'' ``incipient 
stage fire,'' and ``small hose system'' have been added for clarity. 
These definitions are identical to the definitions used in 29 CFR 
1910.155(c). In the NPRM (67 FR 76241), OSHA referred to ``incipient 
stage fire'' as a definition used in Part 1910 that would also be 
utilized for this subpart. There were no comments received on this 
definition, nor any objections to using this definition from Part 1910. 
OSHA has also included ``class II standpipe system'' and ``small hose 
system'' in this final standard because they are technical terms used 
within the definition of incipient stage fire. Including these 
definitions in the final standard provides greater clarity and reduces 
the need to reference Part 1910 standards in the final standard.
Definitions Modified by OSHA
    In order to be more compatible with the regulatory text, and the 
remainder of Part 1915, OSHA has revised the following definitions for 
clarity and uniformity. The proposed rule defined a ``designated area'' 
as ``an area established for hot work after an assessment of fire 
hazard potential of facilities, vessels, or vessel sections such as a 
fabrication shop.'' OSHA has simplified this definition to define a 
designated area as ``an area established for ongoing hot work after an 
inspection has determined that the area is free of fire hazards.''
    The proposed definition of ``emergency operations'' defined the 
activities performed by a fire response organization. The last portion 
of the definition included examples of special operations that may be 
performed, such as HAZMAT release mitigation, standby for flight 
operations and off-site fires. Because special operations could include 
any number of activities in addition to these examples, and the 
examples did not add clarity to the definition, they have been removed.
    ``Fire suppression'' defines the activities involved in controlling 
and extinguishing fires. The proposed definition included a list of the 
hazards associated with fire suppression. OSHA realizes that the act of 
fire suppression creates many hazards, and that employees must be 
protected from those hazards. However, the Agency has deleted examples 
of these hazards from the definition since they are not a necessary 
part of the definition of fire suppression.
    ``Shipyard firefighting'' is the activity of rescue, fire 
suppression, and property conservation in all shipyard workplaces. The 
proposed definition included the sentence: ``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.'' OSHA did not want to imply that the definition of 
shipyard firefighting was limited to the use of specific equipment. 
Therefore, the final definition does not include examples of specific 
equipment.
Definitions Deleted by OSHA
    OSHA has deleted three proposed definitions from the final 
standard; the terms ``affected employee,'' ``hot work,'' and ``shipyard 
employment.'' No comments were received on these definitions. The 
Agency decided to not define ``affected employees'' since employers can 
make the determination of who is affected. The terms ``hot work'' and 
``shipyard employment'' are both currently defined in Sec.  1915.4 for 
the entire part 1915. OSHA has concluded it is unnecessary to define 
them again for this subpart.
Definitions Included Without Change
    OSHA did not receive comments on the remaining definitions and 
believes that all of the terms used in this subpart are ``terms of the 
industry'' and are universally recognized by shipyard employees and 
employers. These terms

[[Page 55698]]

include ``alarm,'' ``alarm system,'' ``body harness,'' ``contract 
employer,'' ``designated area,'' ``fire hazard,'' ``fire protection,'' 
``fire response,'' ``fire response organization,'' ``fire watch,'' 
``fixed extinguishing system,'' ``flammable liquid,'' ``hazardous 
substance,'' ``hose systems,'' ``host employer,'' ``inerting,'' 
``interior structural firefighting operations,'' ``multi-employer 
workplace,'' ``personal alert safety system,'' ``physically isolated,'' 
``physical isolation,'' ``protected space,'' ``proximity 
firefighting,'' ``qualified instructor,'' ``rescue,'' and 
``standpipe.'' Therefore, OSHA has adopted these proposed definitions 
in this final standard.

IV. Summary of the Final Economic and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Introduction

    OSHA's Final Economic and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis addresses 
issues related to the costs, benefits, technological feasibility, and 
economic impacts (including small business impacts) of the Agency's 
``Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment'' standard. This analysis also 
evaluates the non-regulatory alternatives to this standard.
    The final standard will affect approximately 669 employers and 
about 98,000 employees in the shipbuilding, ship repair and 
shipbreaking industries. OSHA estimates that the final standard will 
prevent 1 death and 292 workplace injuries (102 lost workday injuries 
and 190 non-lost workday injuries) annually. The Agency estimates 
approximately $6.2 million in cost savings from these 292 injuries.
    OSHA has determined that this final standard is not an economically 
significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 and not a major rule 
under the Congressional Review provisions of the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 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 (RFA), as amended in 1996, 
requires OSHA to determine whether the Agency's regulatory actions will 
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
OSHA's analysis indicates that the final rule will not have significant 
impacts on a substantial number of small entities. OSHA's Final 
Economic Analysis (FEA) and regulatory flexibility 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 final 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 FEA has 
been provided to the docket as Ex. 23. This section of the preamble 
summarizes the results of that analysis.

Affected Industries

    The final Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment standard will 
affect all establishments in the shipbuilding, shipbreaking, and ship 
repair industries. These include large shipyards, government shipyards, 
and shipyards operated under Navy contracts, operations owning a dock 
or dry dock, 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 Small Business Administration (SBA) 
definition of small businesses in this sector); (2) firms with fewer 
than 250 employees (the definition of small business recommended by the 
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 Bureau of Labor 
Statistics (BLS) and Department of Commerce data for the standard 
industrial classification (SIC) codes for shipbuilding and ship repair 
3731 and shipbreaking 4499. OSHA has based its estimates concerning 
revenues of firms on SBA data, and concerning profit rates on Robert 
Morris Associate's data. Table IV-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.
    The Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) commented that there may be 
considerably more employers with ``[n]o more than 250 employees who 
have employees engaged in ``shipyard employment'' but that are not 
included in the government's shipbuilding and shipbreaking 
categories.'' (Ex. 21-9). PVA further stated: ``If your estimate of 621 
affected companies with no more than 250 employees is too low, as we 
suspect it is, then you have underestimated the total costs and 
economic impacts of the proposed standard.'' OSHA derived the estimate 
of establishments having less than 250 employees (alternate definition 
of a small firm) from a manipulation of the SBA and Bureau of the 
Census (BOC) County Business Patterns data. This involved OSHA applying 
the distribution of County Business Patterns for the categories of 100-
249 employees and 250-499 employees to the profile data for the SBA 
100-499 size classification. Having thus estimated SBA profile data for 
the firm size classification of 250-499 employees, OSHA subtracted 
these data totals from the totals for the size classification 1-500 
employees presented in Table II-1 in the FEA; this calculation yielded 
SBA totals for a size category of 1-250 employees shown in Column 9 in 
Table II-2 in the FEA. (Ex. 23). This was necessary because neither 
data source publishes establishment counts using this size 
classification. PVA did not supply OSHA with the necessary data to 
refute the Agency's findings, thus OSHA is continuing to use its 
mathematical method of estimation with the SBA data using the BOC 
distribution percentages. In summary, OSHA has used the best available 
data for the purpose of estimating the number of affected entities. It 
is possible that these data omit some firms that engaged in 
shipbuilding, shipbreaking and ship repair--particularly establishments 
that do this as only a small part of their total work. However, there 
are no data available on the number of such establishments. Conversely, 
OSHA may have overestimated the costs by including some employees as 
working in establishments that are primarily engaged in shipbuilding, 
shipbreaking, and repair when they actually work in other industries.

[[Page 55699]]



                         Table IV-1.--Industrial Profile of Employees and Establishments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Entire
     Industry characteristic           1-19            1-250          1-1,000         >1,000         affected
                                     Employees       Employees       Employees       Employees       industry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Establishments............             412             621             697              20             717
Total Firms.....................             412             607             660               9             669
Total 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 Final Economic Analysis, OSHA used the same approach as in 
the Preliminary Economic Analysis (PEA) used in the proposed rule. The 
PEA involved developing 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 
BLS' National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, data from the BLS' 
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 final 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 final 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 injuries involving days away from work, 
and 190 injuries not involving days away from work. No comments were 
received regarding these estimated benefits.
    In addition to saving lives and improving overall safety in 
shipyards, OSHA believes that full compliance with the final 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 insurance 
industry 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 final 
standard. 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.
    Some commenters questioned: ``[H]ow can there be a general savings 
for the shipyards if they are spending more money on both training and 
equipment in order to meet the new requirements of the proposed rule?'' 
[Exs. 21-4, 21-5, 21-6, 21-7, 21-13, 21-16, 22-1, and 22-2]. This 
general savings (or cost savings) estimate is based on the estimated 
reduction in injury-related costs due to the standard (developed in the 
Benefits chapter). This estimate includes indemnity payments, lost 
income, medical costs, and administrative costs for both temporary 
total disability and permanent partial disability injuries. These cost 
savings accrue partially to individual employers, partially to the 
industry as a whole, partially to the government in the form of reduced 
taxes, and partially to injured employees. Thus, the cost savings are 
not necessarily savings to employers, but savings to society as a 
whole.
    On the other hand, the annualized compliance costs estimates are 
annualized costs to employers, discounted using a 7 percent rate over 
ten years, which the employer is projected to spend to comply with the 
standard. These estimates are based on the employment and establishment 
counts in the Industrial Profile and the dollar costs needed to comply 
with the standard. In addition to the employment and establishment 
counts, these estimates also include non-compliance rates to account 
for establishments that have already complied with the requirements.
    Thus, OSHA estimates that the final standard will prevent 
approximately 292 injuries and one death per year. As a result of 
prevention of the injuries, OSHA estimates that there will be direct 
cost savings to society of $6.2 million per year, excluding savings 
associated with reduced property damage and reduced fire response 
costs. For informational purposes, OSHA also estimates $6.3 million in 
cost savings from the 1 prevented death, for a total of $12.5 million 
in monetized benefits.

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 fire protection in shipyards standard. 
The standard does not require any practices not already undertaken in 
many shipyards today. Moreover, the final standard is based on a 
consensus draft recommended to the Agency by a negotiated rulemaking 
committee (the Committee) consisting of representatives from labor, 
government, and industry. These representatives included small 
employers who would be affected by 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 standard and that the Committee reached consensus on the 
proposed revisions, OSHA has determined that the final fire protection

[[Page 55700]]

in shipyard employment standard is technologically feasible.
    OSHA developed estimates of the costs of compliance for shipyard 
employers subject to the final 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 IV-2. Table IV-2 shows that the annualized costs of the final 
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.
    Many commenters stated that: ``[T]he analysis estimates that for 
the industry as a whole, the average cost per employee for training is 
around $1.'' (Exs. 21-4, 21-5, 21-6, 21-7, 21-13, 22-1, 22-2). These 
same commenters state that the additional requirements for annual fire 
safety and fire watch training would increase the training time from 
0.5 hours to 1 hour per employee, suggesting a far greater additional 
cost than $1 per employee. One commenter stated that it employs 117 
employees with a training cost of $850 per employee (Ex. 21-13). OSHA 
assumed that large establishments are in compliance with the training 
requirements, thus they would not incur new training cost burdens. Even 
in smaller size establishments, OSHA estimated that some employers now 
comply with these training requirements. (Table V-1 on page V-4 of the 
FEA (Ex. 23)). Further, not all employees need fire watch training. 
Finally, OSHA computed an annualized cost in which it assumed that most 
training occurs in the initial year and would not need to be repeated 
for all workers. These costs only apply to small and medium size 
establishments that were estimated to not be in compliance with the 
final standard. Therefore, the similarity between the estimate for Fire 
Watch Training ($95,204) in Table V-2 of the proposed rule and the 
number of estimated employees (97,822) in Table V-1 of the proposed 
rule is merely coincidence (67 FR 76242-76243).
    In regard to the provisions on training and use of fire watches, 
the majority of shipbuilding and repair activity is for the U.S. Navy. 
The Navy already requires its shipyard contractors to employ fire 
watches for hot work. The Agency also received comment on the cost of 
supplying pressure gauges for drop tests of fuel gas and oxygen hoses 
(Exs. 21-4; 21-5; 21-6; 21-7; 21-13; 21-17; 22-2). The final standard 
does not require employers to perform drop tests with gauges, since 
hoses can simply be rolled back to the supply manifold. Since this is 
the least cost alternative, the Agency did not include estimates of 
costs for gauges.

  Table IV-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 and repair 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 IV-3 below, OSHA estimates 
that, if affected firms in the shipbuilding 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 concludes that the regulation is economically 
feasible. To the contrary, NNGN stated in its comments that it has 
serious concerns with several aspects of the proposed rule that will 
result in more than $35 million annually to its company with little to 
no added benefit to its health and safety program or the industry at 
large (Ex. 21-8). NGNN is a large shipyard with ``845 trained and 
qualified fire wardens whose primary responsibilities are fire 
prevention and emergency evacuation and 3,325 fire watch qualified 
employees whose primary responsibility is fire prevention and response 
in support of a specific hot work job.'' (Id.) In addition, the company 
reports that it has ``long-standing fire safety practices that in many 
cases go beyond that required in existing regulations, as well as the 
proposed standard.'' OSHA is perplexed by NGNN's assertion that the 
rule will result in costs of more than $35 million annually to this 
company. The Agency assumed that this firm was in compliance with the 
requirements of the final standard, which seems to be validated by its 
comments. Thus, this company would not incur a high compliance cost 
burden and its economic impact would be minimal.

          Table IV-3.--Economic Impacts for the Final 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 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. SBA defines 
small entities in terms of number of employees or annual receipts. For 
employers in SIC 3731 (shipbuilding and repair), small firms are 
defined by SBA as those with fewer than 1,000 employees. As shown in 
Table IV-3, for firms with fewer than 1,000 employees, costs are 1.61 
percent

[[Page 55701]]

of profits and 0.06 percent of revenues. OSHA also examined costs as a 
percentage of profits and revenues for firms with fewer than 250 
employees, as recommended by the Committee, and for firms with fewer 
than 20 employees to see whether there might be significant impacts on 
the very smallest firms. For firms with fewer than 250 employees, costs 
were 1.83 percent of profits and 0.07 percent of revenues. For firms 
with fewer 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.
    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. The Agency did not receive any 
substantive comments on this portion of the analysis.
Non-Regulatory Alternatives
    OSHA concludes that economic and social alternatives to a federal 
workplace standard fail to adequately protect workers from the hazards 
associated with fires in the shipbuilding and repair and shipbreaking 
industries. Tort liability laws and workers' compensation provide some 
protection, but institutional factors limit effective means of 
addressing the significant costs of occupational injuries and 
illnesses. Therefore, OSHA finds that this final standard will provide 
the necessary remedy.

V. Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    In accord with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, OSHA has examined 
the regulatory requirements of the final rule to determine if it will 
have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small 
entities. As indicated in the previous section of this preamble, the 
final standard does not increase employers' compliance costs, and may 
even reduce the regulatory burden on all affected employers, both large 
and small. Accordingly, the Agency certifies that the final standard 
does not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of 
small entities.

VI. Environmental Impact Assessment

    In accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), Council on 
Environmental Quality regulations (40 U.S.C. part 1500 et seq.), and 
the Department of Labor's NEPA regulations (29 CFR part 11), the 
Assistant Secretary has determined that this final rule will not have a 
significant impact on the external environment.

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule 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. A 
collection of information is defined in PRA[n x dash]95 to 
mean ``the obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring 
the disclosure to third parties or the pubic of facts or opinions by or 
for an agency regardless of form or format.'' (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A).
    In the preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA asked for comment on 
each of the paperwork requirements in Subpart P (67 FR 76243-76246). 
OSHA received no comments on the paperwork burdens or OSHA's estimation 
of those burdens. Therefore, the Agency has made no changes to the 
paperwork package. OSHA estimates the total burden hours associated 
with all of the collection of information requirements at 5,344 burden 
hours in the first year and 4,788 burden hours in the second and 
subsequent years.
    Potential respondents are not required to respond to the 
information collection requirements until they have been approved by 
OMB, and a currently valid OMB control number is displayed. OMB is 
currently reviewing OSHA's request for approval of the 29 CFR Part 1915 
Subpart P information collections. OSHA will publish a subsequent 
Federal Register document when OMB takes further action on the 
information collection requirements in the shipyard fire protection 
rule.

VIII. Unfunded Mandates

    For the purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 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 in any 
year.

IX. Federalism

    OSHA has reviewed this final rule in accordance with the Executive 
Order on Federalism (Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255) which requires 
that agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from limiting state 
policy options, consult with states prior to taking any actions that 
would restrict state policy options, and take such actions only when 
there is clear constitutional authority and the presence of a problem 
of national scope. The Order provides for preemption of State law only 
if there is a clear Congressional intent for the Agency to do so. Any 
such preemption is to be limited to the extent possible.
    Section 18 of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) expresses 
Congress' intent to preempt state laws where OSHA has promulgated 
occupational safety and health standards. Under the OSH Act, a state 
can avoid preemption on issues covered by Federal standards only if it 
submits, and obtains Federal approval of, a plan for the development of 
such standards and their enforcement (State-Plan state). 29 U.S.C. 667. 
Occupational safety and health standards developed by such State-Plan 
states must, among other things, be at least as effective in providing 
safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the Federal 
standards. As Congress has expressed a clear intent for OSHA standards 
to preempt State job safety and health rules in areas addressed by OSHA 
standards, in States without OSHA-approved State plans, this rule 
limits State policy options only to the extent required by law. In 
States with OSHA-approved State Plans, this action does not 
significantly limit State policy options.

X. State-Plan States

    The 26 States or U.S. Territories with their own OSHA approved 
occupational safety and health plans must revise their standards to 
reflect this final standard 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. The 
state standard must be at least as effective as this final standard, 
must be applicable to both the private and public (State and local 
government employees) sectors, and must be completed within six months 
of the publication date of this final Federal rule.
    Currently only five States (California, Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont, 
and Washington) with their own State plans cover private sector onshore 
maritime activities in whole or in part. Federal OSHA enforces maritime 
standards

[[Page 55702]]

offshore in all States and provides onshore coverage of maritime 
activities in Federal OSHA States, in the five States above, to the 
extent not covered by them, and in all the other State Plan States: 
Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut (plan covers only State and local 
government employees), Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, 
Michigan, 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, Puerto Rico, South 
Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Virgin Islands (plan covers only 
territorial government employees), and Wyoming. All State Plans must 
also extend protection to any public sector workers engaged in maritime 
activities.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1915

    Fire protection, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, 
Longshore and harbor workers, Occupational safety and health, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements, Shipyards, 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. It is issued pursuant to sections 4, 6, and 8 of the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); 
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR 65008); and 29 Part 1911.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 7th day of September, 2004.
John L. Henshaw,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.

0
OSHA amends 29 CFR Part 1915 as follows:

PART 1915--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 1915 is revised as follows:

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

0
2. In Sec.  1915.5, add paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  1915.5  Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *
    (d)(4) The following material is available for purchase from the 
National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, PO Box 9101, 
Quincy, MA 02269-9101:
    (i) NFPA 1981-1997, Standard on Open-Circuit Self-Contained 
Breathing Apparatus for the Fire Service, IBR approved for Sec.  
1915.505(e)(3)(v).
    (ii) NFPA 1971-2000, Standard on Protective Ensemble for Structural 
Fire Fighting, IBR approved for Sec.  1915.505(e)(4)(ii).
    (iii) NFPA 1976-2000, Standard on Protective Ensemble for Proximity 
Fire Fighting, IBR approved for Sec.  1915.505(e)(5).
    (iv) NFPA 1982-1998, Standard on Personal Alert Safety Systems 
(PASS), IBR approved for Sec.  1915.505(e)(6)(ii).
    (v) NFPA 1983-2001, Standard on Fire Service Life Safety Rope and 
System Components, IBR approved for Sec.  1915.505(e)(7)(i).
    (vi) NFPA 10-1998, Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers, IBR 
approved for Sec.  1915.507(b)(1).
    (vii) NFPA 14-2000, Standard for the Installation of Standpipe, 
Private Hydrant, and Hose Systems, IBR approved for Sec.  
1915.507(b)(2) and (d)(1).
    (viii) NFPA 72-1999, National Fire Alarm Code, IBR approved for 
Sec.  1915.507(c)(6).
    (ix) NFPA 13-1999, Installation of Sprinkler Systems, IBR approved 
for Sec.  1915.507(d)(2).
    (x) NFPA 750-2000, Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection Systems, 
IBR approved for Sec.  1915.507(d)(2).
    (xi) NFPA 25-2002, Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-
Based Fire Protection Systems, IBR approved for Sec.  1915.507(d)(2).
    (xii) NFPA 15-2001, Standard for Water Spray Fixed Systems for Fire 
Protection, IBR approved for Sec.  1915.507(d)(3).
    (xiii) NFPA 11-1998, Standard for Low-Expansion Foam, IBR approved 
for Sec.  1915.507(d)(3).
    (xiv) NFPA 11A-1999, Standard for Medium- and High-Expansion Foam 
Systems, IBR approved for Sec.  1915.507(d)(3).
    (xv) NFPA 17-2002, Standard for Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems, 
IBR approved for Sec.  1915.507(d)(4).
    (xvi) NFPA 12-2000, Standard on Carbon Dioxide Extinguishing 
Systems, IBR approved for Sec.  1915.507(d)(5).
    (xvii) NFPA 12A-1997, Standard on Halon 1301 Fire Extinguishing 
Systems, IBR approved for Sec.  1915.507(d)(5).
    (xviii) NFPA 2001-2000, Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing 
Systems, IBR approved for Sec.  1915.507(d)(5).
    (xix) NFPA 1403-2002, Standard on Live Fire Training Evolutions, 
IBR approved for Sec.  1915.508(d)(8).

0
3. Sec.  1915.52 [Removed]
    Remove Sec.  1915.52.

0
4. 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.
Appendix A to Subpart P--Model Fire Safety Plan (Non-Mandatory)


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 and vessel sections, and on land-
side operations regardless of geographic location.
    (c) Employee participation. The employer must provide ways for 
employees or employee representatives, or both 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, and emergency procedures;
    (ii) Make sure the safety and health responsibilities for fire 
protection are assigned as appropriate to other employers at the 
worksite; and
    (iii) If there is more than one host employer, each host employer 
must communicate relevant information about fire-related hazards to 
other host employers. When a vessel owner or operator (temporarily) 
becomes a host shipyard employer by directing the work of ships' crews 
on repair or modification of the vessel or by hiring other contractors 
directly, the vessel owner or operator must also comply with these 
provisions for host employers.

[[Page 55703]]

    (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. (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 fire hazards;
    (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 employee at the following times:
    (1) Within 90 days of December 14, 2004, 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) Document that affected employees have been informed about the 
plan as required by paragraph (c) of this section; and
    (4) Ensure any outside fire response organization that the employer 
expects to respond to fires at the employer's worksite has been given a 
copy of the current plan.
    (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 
designate areas for hot work in sites such as vessels, vessel sections, 
fabricating shops, and subassembly areas that are free of fire hazards.
    (2) Non-designated Areas. (i) Before authorizing hot work in a non-
designated area, the employer must visually inspect the area where hot 
work is to be performed, including adjacent spaces, to ensure the area 
is free of fire hazards, unless a Marine Chemist's certificate or 
Shipyard Competent Person's log is used for 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 paragraph (a)(2) 
apply to all hot work operations in shipyard employment except those 
covered by Sec.  1915.14.

    (b) Specific requirements. (1) Maintaining fire hazard-free 
conditions. The employer must keep all hot work areas free of new 
hazards that may cause or contribute to the spread of fire. 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 through 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; and
    (iii) All fuel gas and oxygen hose lines are disconnected at the 
supply manifold at the end of each shift;
    (iv) All disconnected fuel gas and oxygen hose lines are rolled 
back to the supply manifold or to open air to disconnect the torch; or 
extended fuel gas and oxygen hose lines are not reconnected at the 
supply manifold unless the lines are given a positive means of 
identification when they were first connected and the lines are tested 
using a drop test 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 (Sec.  1915.508(c) 
contains detailed fire watch training requirements);
    (2) The duties employees are to perform;
    (3) The equipment employees must be given; and
    (4) The personal protective equipment (PPE) that must be made 
available and worn as required by 29 CFR Part 1915, Subpart I.
    (b) Posting fire watches. The employer must post a fire watch if 
during hot work any of the following conditions are present:
    (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;
    (4) The hot work is carried out on or near insulation, combustible 
coatings, or sandwich-type construction that cannot be shielded, cut 
back, or removed, or in a space within a sandwich type construction 
that cannot be inerted;
    (5) Combustible materials adjacent to the opposite sides of 
bulkheads, decks, overheads, metal partitions, or 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 a fire watch while the hot work is in 
progress.

[[Page 55704]]

    (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;
    (iii) Are authorized to stop work if necessary and restore safe 
conditions within the hot work area;
    (iv) Remain in the hot work area for at least 30 minutes after 
completion of the hot work, unless the employer or its representative 
surveys the exposed area and makes a determination that there is no 
further fire hazard;
    (v) Are trained to detect fires that occur in areas exposed to the 
hot work;
    (vi) 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;
    (vii) Alert employees of any fire beyond the incipient stage; and
    (viii) If unable to extinguish fire in the areas exposed to the hot 
work, activate the alarm.
    (3) The employer must ensure that employees assigned to fire watch 
are physically capable of performing these duties.


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; and
    (2) Create, maintain, and update a written policy that:
    (i) Describes the internal and outside fire response organizations 
that the employer will use; and
    (ii) 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 information. (1) Internal fire 
response. If an internal fire response is to be used, the employer must 
include the following information in the employer's written policy:
    (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 apparatuses, 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 procedures for using protective clothing and equipment.
    (2) Outside fire response. If an outside fire response organization 
is used, the employer must include the following information in the 
written policy:
    (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; and
    (iii) A plan for fire response functions that:
    (A) Addresses procedures for obtaining assistance from the outside 
fire response organization;
    (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 
employer must include the following information, in addition to the 
requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section, in the 
written policy:
    (i) The basic organizational structure of the combined fire 
response;
    (ii) The number of combined trained fire responders;
    (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 apparatuses, 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
    (v) The type, amount, and frequency of joint training with outside 
fire response organizations if given to fire response employees.
    (4) Employee evacuation. The employer must include the following 
information in the employer's written policy:
    (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
    (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 written policy:
    (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 ensure 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 Sec.  
1915.154;
    (3) Each fire response employee has an annual medical examination; 
and
    (4) The medical records of fire response employees are kept in 
accordance with Sec.  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) Establish lines of authority and assign responsibilities to 
ensure that the components of the internal fire response are 
accomplished;
    (3) Set up an incident management system 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; and
    (4) Provide the information required in this paragraph (d) 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) Ensure that fire response employees wear the appropriate

[[Page 55705]]

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) Ensure 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 that:
    (A) The fabric will withstand the flammability hazard that may be 
encountered; or
    (B) 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 SCBA to fire response employees performing emergency 
operations during hazardous chemical emergencies that will expose them 
to known hazardous chemicals in vapor form or to unknown chemicals;
    (iii) Provide fire response employees who perform or support 
emergency operations that will expose them to hazardous chemicals in 
liquid form either:
    (A) SCBA, or
    (B) Respiratory protective devices certified by the National 
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (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 the 
Fire Service (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  1915.5); and
    (vi) Ensure that the respiratory protection program and all 
respiratory protection equipment comply with Sec.  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 helmet, gloves, footwear, and 
protective hoods, and either a protective coat and trousers or a 
protective coverall; and
    (ii) Ensure that this equipment meets the applicable 
recommendations in NFPA 1971-2000 Standard on Protective Ensemble for 
Structural Fire Fighting (incorporated by reference, see 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 recommendations in NFPA 1976-2000 
Standard on Protective Ensemble for Proximity Fire Fighting 
(incorporated by reference, see 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 recommendations in NFPA 
1982-1998 Standard on Personal Alert Safety Systems (PASS), 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  1915.5).
    (7) Life safety ropes, body harnesses, and hardware. The employer 
must ensure that:
    (i) All life safety ropes, body harnesses, and hardware used by 
fire response employees for emergency operations meet the applicable 
recommendations in NFPA 1983-2001, Standard on Fire Service Life Safety 
Rope and System Components (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
1915.5);
    (ii) Fire response employees use only Class I body harnesses to 
attach to ladders and aerial devices; and
    (iii) Fire response employees use only Class II and Class III body 
harnesses for fall arrest and rappelling 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 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 dangerous atmosphere when 
activated in 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, the 
employer must either:
    (1) Physically isolate the systems or use other positive means to 
prevent the systems' discharge; or
    (2) Ensure employees are trained to recognize:
    (i) Systems' discharge and evacuation alarms and the appropriate 
escape routes; and
    (ii) 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) Sea and dock trials. During trials, the employer must ensure 
that all systems shall remain operational.
    (d) Doors and hatches. The employer must:
    (1) Take protective measures 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
    (2) Ensure that all inward opening doors, hatches, scuttles, and 
other potential barriers to safe exit are removed, locked open, braced, 
or otherwise secured so that they remain open and accessible for escape 
if systems' activation could result in a positive pressure in the 
protected spaces sufficient to impede escape.
    (e) Testing the system. (1) When testing a fixed extinguishing 
system involves a total discharge of extinguishing medium into a space, 
the employer must evacuate all employees from the space and assure that 
no employees remain in the space during the discharge. The employer 
must retest the atmosphere in accordance with Sec.  1915.12 to ensure 
that the oxygen levels are safe for employees to enter.
    (2) When testing a fixed extinguishing system does not involve a 
total discharge of the systems extinguishing medium, the employer must 
make sure that the system's extinguishing medium

[[Page 55706]]

is physically isolated and that all employees not directly involved in 
the testing are evacuated from the protected space.
    (f) Conducting system maintenance. Before conducting maintenance on 
a fixed extinguishing system, the employer must ensure that the system 
is physically isolated.
    (g) Using fixed manual extinguishing systems for fire protection. 
If fixed manual extinguishing systems are used to provide fire 
protection for spaces in which the employees are working, the employer 
must ensure that:
    (1) Only authorized employees are allowed to activate the system;
    (2) Authorized employees are trained to operate and activate the 
systems; and
    (3) All employees are evacuated from the protected spaces, and 
accounted for, before the fixed manual extinguishing system is 
activated.


Sec.  1915.507  Land-side fire protection systems.

    (a) Employer responsibilities. The employer must ensure all fixed 
and portable fire protection systems needed to meet an OSHA standard 
for employee safety or employee protection from fire hazards in land-
side facilities, including, but not limited to, buildings, structures, 
and equipment, 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 10-1998 Standard for Portable Fire 
Extinguishers (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  1915.5).
    (2) The employer is permitted to use Class II or Class III hose 
systems, in accordance with NFPA 10-1998, as portable fire 
extinguishers if the employer selects, installs, inspects, maintains, 
and tests those systems according to the specific recommendations in 
NFPA 14-2000 Standard for the Installation of Standpipe, Private 
Hydrant, and Hose Systems (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
1915.5).
    (c) General requirements for fixed extinguishing systems. The 
employer must:
    (1) Ensure that any fixed extinguishing system component or 
extinguishing agent is approved by an OSHA Nationally Recognized 
Testing Laboratory, 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 ensure 
employees are safe from fire if for any reason a fire extinguishing 
system stops working, until the system is working again;
    (3) Ensure all repairs to fire extinguishing systems and equipment 
are done by a qualified technician or mechanic;
    (4) Provide and ensure employees use proper personal protective 
equipment when entering discharge areas in which the atmosphere remains 
hazardous to employee safety or health, or provide safeguards to 
prevent employees from entering those areas. 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, see 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, Private Hydrant, and Hose Systems 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  1915.5);
    (2) Automatic sprinkler systems according to NFPA 25-2002 Standard 
for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-based Fire 
Protection Systems, (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  1915.5), and 
either NFPA 13-1999 Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  1915.5) or NFPA 750-2000 Standard 
on Water Mist Fire Protection Systems (incorporated by reference, see 
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 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
1915.5); NFPA 11-1998 Standard for Low-Expansion Foam (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  1915.5); and NFPA 11A-1999 Standard for Medium- 
and High-Expansion Foam Systems (incorporated by reference, see 
1915.5);
    (4) Fixed extinguishing systems using dry chemical as the 
extinguishing agent according to NFPA 17-2002 Standard for Dry Chemical 
Extinguishing Systems (incorporated by reference, see 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 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  1915.5); 
NFPA 12A-1997 Standard on Halon 1301 Fire Extinguishing Systems 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  1915.5); and NFPA 2001-2000 
Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  1915.5).


Sec.  1915.508  Training.

    (a) The employer must train employees in the applicable 
requirements of this section:
    (1) Within 90 days of December 14, 2004, for employees currently 
working;
    (2) Upon initial assignment for new employees; and
    (3) When necessary to maintain proficiency for employees previously 
trained.
    (b) Employee training. The employer must ensure that all employees 
are trained on:
    (1) The emergency alarm signals, including system discharge alarms 
and employee evacuation alarms; and
    (2) The primary and secondary evacuation routes that employees must 
use in the event of a fire in the workplace. While all vessels and 
vessel sections must have a primary evacuation route, a secondary 
evacuation route is not required when impracticable.
    (c) Additional training requirements for employees expected to 
fight incipient stage fires. The employer must ensure that employees 
expected to fight incipient stage fires are trained on 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; and
    (3) The activation and operation of fixed and portable fire 
protection systems that the employer expects employees to use in the 
workplace.
    (d) Additional training requirements for shipyard employees 
designated for fire response. The employer must:
    (1) Have a written training policy stating that fire response 
employees must be trained and capable of carrying out their duties and 
responsibilities at all times;
    (2) Keep written standard operating procedures that address 
anticipated

[[Page 55707]]

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, see Sec.  1915.5);
    (9) Conduct semi-annual drills according to the employer's written 
procedures for fire response employees that cover site-specific 
operations, occupancies, buildings, vessels and vessel sections, and 
fire-related hazards; and
    (10) Prohibit the use of smoke generating devices that create a 
dangerous atmosphere in training exercises.
    (e) Additional training requirements for fire watch duty. (1) The 
employer must ensure that each fire watch is trained by an instructor 
with adequate fire watch knowledge and experience to cover the items 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, skills, or understanding of the training previously 
provided is inadequate; and
    (iv) Annually.
    (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) The use of PPE;
    (viii) The selection and use of 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.
    (f) Records. The employer must keep records that demonstrate that 
employees have been trained as required by paragraphs (a) through (e) 
of this section.
    (1) The employer must ensure that the records include the 
employee's name; the trainer's name; the type of training; and 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 on request.


Sec.  1915.509  Definitions applicable to this subpart.

    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. At some shipyards, this may 
be called an ``incident'' or a ``call for service.''
    Alarm system--a system that warns employees at the worksite of 
danger.
    Body harness--a system of 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.
    Class II standpipe system--a 1\1/2\ inch (3.8 cm) hose system which 
provides a means for the control or extinguishment of incipient stage 
fires.
    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. This 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 
inspection that is free of fire hazards.
    Drop Test--a method utilizing gauges to ensure the integrity of an 
oxygen fuel gas burning system. The method requires that the burning 
torch is installed to one end of the oxygen and fuel gas lines and then 
the gauges are attached to the other end of the hoses. The manifold or 
cylinder supply valve is opened and the system is pressurized. The 
manifold or cylinder supply valve is then closed and the gauges are 
watched for at least sixty (60) seconds. Any drop in pressure indicates 
a leak.
    Emergency operations--activities performed by fire response 
organizations that are related to: rescue, fire suppression, emergency 
medical care, and special operations or activities that 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 carries out the 
duties and responsibilities of shipyard firefighting in accordance with 
the fire safety plan.
    Fire response organization--an organized group knowledgeable, 
trained, and skilled in shipyard firefighting operations that responds 
to shipyard fire emergencies, including: fire brigades, shipyard fire 
departments,

[[Page 55708]]

private or contractual fire departments, and municipal fire 
departments.
    Fire suppression--the activities involved in controlling and 
extinguishing fires.
    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 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 
who hires other employers to perform work at a multi-employer 
workplace.
    Incident management system--a system that defines the roles and 
responsibilities to be assumed by personnel and the operating 
procedures to be used in the management and direction of emergency 
operations; the system is also referred to as an ``incident command 
system'' (ICS).
    Incipient stage fire--a fire, in the initial or beginning stage, 
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.
    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 involving a fire beyond the incipient 
stage inside of buildings, enclosed structures, vessels, and vessel 
sections.
    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 
to physically isolate 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 space into which a fixed extinguishing system 
can discharge.
    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 or fire watch activities to cover the 
material found in Sec.  1915.508(b) or (c).
    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 firefighting--the activity of rescue, fire suppression, 
and property conservation involving buildings, enclosed structures, 
vehicles, vessels, aircraft, or similar properties involved in a fire 
or emergency situation.
    Small hose system--a system of hoses ranging in diameter from \5/
8\'' (1.6 cm) up to 1\1/2\'' (3.8 cm) which is for the use of employees 
and which provides a means for the control and extinguishment of 
incipient stage fires.
    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 (Non-Mandatory)

Model Fire Safety Plan

    Note: This appendix is non-mandatory and provides guidance to 
assist employers in establishing a Fire Safety Plan as required in 
Sec.  1915.502.

Table of Contents

I. Purpose.
II. Work site fire hazards and how to properly control them.
III. Alarm systems and how to report fires.
IV. How to evacuate in different emergency situations.
V. 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, 
vessel, or vessel section.
    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. Alarm Systems and How To Report Fires

    A. A demonstration of alarm procedures, if more than one type 
exists.
    B. The work site emergency alarm system.
    C. Procedures for reporting fires.

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. Helping physically impaired employees.

V. Employee Awareness

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

[FR Doc. 04-20608 Filed 9-14-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P