**Navy Response to OSHA's Request for Comments**

**[Section 1915.81: Housekeeping]{.underline}**

1.  OSHA requests comment on the extent to which shipyard employers
    currently pay for waterproof footgear, how much such footgear costs
    to purchase and maintain, and whether OSHA should include a specific
    employer payment requirement in the final rule.**(Page 72459)**

**Navy Response:** Waterproof footgear is provided when job assignment
warrants. Cost varies significantly with type of footgear provided. For
this reason we recommend that footgear be provided to personnel as
necessary in lieu of cash payments or allowances. Footgear is purchased
from multiple sources and in various lots. Cost figures are not
currently available.

**[Section 1915.82: Lighting]{.underline}**

1.  OSHA solicits comments on the proposal as well as alternative
    approaches such as the one used in the Longshoring Standard or the
    requirements of the ANSI/IESNA standard. Are the proposed lighting
    intensities adequate? Does the table adequately address all areas of
    shipyard employment? If not, what areas need to be added? **(Page
    72460)**

**Navy Response:** The proposed lighting intensities is considered to be
adequate for suitable aisles and routine work areas but consider
specifying minimum lighting requirements for all \"walking and working
surfaces\" in shipyards to be unnecessarily burdensome and costly. The
light intensity levels listed in Table F-1 for General landside walkways
(5 FC) are not achievable. It is recommended that this requirement be
removed from Table F-1.

2.  SESAC also recommended adding a requirement that only a "qualified
    person" be permitted to replace or cap unguarded, damaged bulbs that
    have exposed filaments (Docket SESAC 1991, Ex. 100X, p. 84). OSHA
    has not adopted this suggestion, because the Agency believes that
    the existing and other proposed standards address this hazard. OSHA
    requests comment on this recommendation, and whether it is needed,
    in light of other existing and proposed regulatory provisions that
    deal with lighting, electrical safety, and guarding of temporary
    lights. **(page 72460)**

**Navy Response:** We agree with OSHA. Existing requirements adequately
address this requirement and do not need to be addressed in Subpart F.

Proposed paragraph (b)(7) revises the existing standard by requiring
that splices have insulation that \"exceeds" that of the cable. The
existing provision allows the use of splices where the insulation is
\"equal\" to that of the cable. OSHA requests comment on

the proposed revision. Does the proposed requirement provide sufficient
protection for employees? Is weather a factor in determining what
insulation to use? In your establishment and industry, what practices
are followed regarding insulation of splices? Should OSHA propose a more
specific requirement, for example that splices have insulation at 1-½
times greater than that of the cable? **(Page 72461)**

**Navy Response:** The existing standard 1915.92(b)(2) is adequate. This
standard currently complies with the NFPA, NEC 70, Article 400.9
Splices. This article allows splicing of hard-service and junior
hard-service cords 14 AWG and larger that comply with Article 110.14(B)
and the completed splice retains the insulation, outer sheath
properties, and usage characteristics of the cord being spliced. Article
110.14(B) requires both mechanical and electrical securing of the cord.
Increasing the insulation value provides no added value to employee
protection. Weather plays no factor in determining the insulation used.
We comply with the NEC for splicing. OSHA should not propose a specific
requirement for the reasons listed above.

3.  Proposed paragraph (c) addresses the use of handheld portable lights
    in work areas that do not have permanent or temporary lighting or
    such lighting is not working or is not readily accessible. OSHA
    requests comment on the proposed provision. In your establishment,
    when are employees provided with and required to use handheld
    portable lights to enter an area? Are there other situations where
    handheld portable lights are needed? **(Page 72461)**

**Navy Response:** Handheld portable lights are provided when conditions
warrant and/or as requested by employees. They are always available for
distribution as needed. Handheld portable lights are also used for tank
inspections.

5\. The proposal also makes explicit that the employer must ensure that
handheld portable lights are readily available in the immediate area
where employees are working. Implicit in the proposal is the obligation
that the employer provide handheld portable lights in numbers that are
adequate to ensure that all employees are able to move about and exit
the area safely. OSHA requests comment on the proposed provision. Should
OSHA apply this provision to any area where landside or shore-based
lighting provides the only illumination? Should OSHA include an
exception to the rule when natural sunlight suffices? **(Page 72461)**

**Navy Response:** Ships are inherently dark and the use of handheld
portable lights is beneficial. Landside or shore based lighting is
provided to work areas outside of industrial areas ashore to include
office spaces. It is felt that providing handheld portable lights in
these areas should not be required. We also agree that there should be
an exception to the rule where natural sunlight provides adequate
illumination.

**[Section 1915.84: Work in Confined and Isolated Spaces]{.underline}**

1.  Specifically, OSHA requests comment on whether the section should be
    limited to employees working alone in either a confined or isolated
    space. Should OSHA address the hazards associated with working in
    confined spaces in subpart B confined and enclosed spaces instead of
    subpart F? In your establishment and industry, are employees working
    in confined spaces or alone in isolated spaces checked frequently
    during the work shift and accounted for at the end of the work
    shift? OSHA requests data and information on any injuries,
    fatalities, or near-misses that have occurred during the last five
    years due to an employee working in a confined space or alone in an
    isolated area. If any incidents have occurred, what measures have
    been instituted to ensure that employees working in these areas are
    safe? **(Page 72463)**

**Navy Response:** This section should be limited to personnel working
alone in (non-enclosed/non-confined) isolated spaces. We also believe
that enclosed/confined space requirements as contained in Subpart B
adequately address those issues and do not need to be included in
Subpart F. Periodicity of checks is based on supervisory judgment and
personnel are accounted for at the end of the shift. Routine periodic
checks and supervisory oversight have proven adequate to meet this
requirement.

2.  OSHA also requests comment on whether the section should require
    that employers establish a system or some form of a signal to
    indicate when a single employee enters a confined space or a
    cofferdam to perform work. For example, should OSHA require
    employers to have a system where employees leave their picture
    identification (or some other easily identifiable flag) outside the
    entrance to alert other employees that someone is inside working?
    **(Page 72463)**

**Navy Response:** We believe frequent checks and proper supervision are
adequate protection for employees, and are a more practical solution
than adopting the suggested system.. Some isolated spaces have multiple
access points requiring a signal device at all entrance/exit points.
When leaving the area all signals would have to be removed. This could
result in two possible failures; 1) False negatives: A little used
access point is missed when posting \"signal flags\" indicating falsely
that the spaces is unoccupied or; 2) False positives: One of the many
\"signal flags\" is not removed when the space is emptied indicating
that someone is not accounted for.

**[Section 1915.87 Medical and First Aid Services]{.underline}**

1.  OSHA requests comment on this provision. In your establishment and
    industry, what measures are in place to ensure that first aid and
    medical services are readily accessible? Should the final standard
    specify a maximum time within which first aid and medical services
    must be available? For example, should the final standard specify
    that employers must ensure that first aid and medical services are
    initiated within three to five minutes of the discovery or report of
    an injury? **(Page 72465)**

**Navy Response:** Do not set a pre-determined time by which first aid
must be available. There are numerous circumstances that can arise to
slow response; however, backup response plans are established. Setting a
maximum time will require additional resources to train/hire first aid
responders as 'backups' to established Navy first responders.

2.  OSHA requests comment on the proposed first aid training
    requirement. Should the final standard require that first aid
    providers have a valid first aid and CPR certificate? Should the
    final rule specify the areas in which first aid providers must be
    trained? Should OSHA include an appendix similar to that in
    §1910.266 or 1918.97 in the final rule? If not, why not? If so, what
    should the program include? Should the program include hands-on
    exercises? Should the final rule include a requirement that whatever
    first aid training program and trainer/provider the employer uses,
    that the program and/or trainer be certified by a nationally
    recognized first aid organization? Please explain. In your
    establishment and/or industry, what training and certification do
    first aid providers have and does it include CPR training? What
    organizations, if any, conduct the first aid training and
    certification? How frequently do first aid providers have refresher
    training? **(Page 72466)**

**Navy Response:** Revision should say something to the effect of
"ensure there are employees qualified to provide first aid at each work
location if medical services are not readily available." Emergency
Medical Services are believed to meet the definition of supplying
qualified employees at each work site. First aid requirements and thus
the content of a qualified training program to meet these requirements
will vary greatly. A non-mandatory appendix outlining basic first aid
training in CPR, assessing and stabilizing injured personnel and wound
treatment would be helpful.

3\. OSHA proposed to revise the existing standard to require that first
aid supplies be provided "at each work location." **(Page 72467)**

**Navy Response**: Fire Emergency Services are considered to be the
"first aid providers." Unless ship first aid kits meet the intent,
personnel would have to carry a first aid kit with them, unless kits
were placed at multiple locations on each pier. Revision should say
something to the effect of "if medical services are not readily
available, first aid kits will be readily available to each work
location."

4\. OSHA requests comment on whether shipyards should be required to
have AEDs as part of their first aid and medical services. If not, why
not? If so, should the requirement apply to all shipyards or be limited
to certain types of work or work locations (e.g., remote work areas,
work where employees are exposed to electrical hazards, shift work)?
What criteria should employers use to determine whether and how many
AEDs should be provided and where they should be located? In your
establishment and industry are AEDs provided? If not, why not? If so,
how many are provided and what criteria were considered in making that
determination? Who is trained and authorized to operate the AEDs?
**(Page 72471)**

**Navy Response:** The Navy does not believe AEDs should be "required"
as part of their first aid and medical services. Rather, Naval Shipyards
have the discretion to decide whether AEDs should be installed at their
shore facilities because: (1) this approach follows Congressional intent
plainly stated in the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act of 2000 (CASA, 42
U.S.C. 238p(a) & 238q(c)(1)(A)) whereby Congress expressly does not
require Federal agencies to place AEDs in Federal facilities; (2) in
CASA, Congress tasked the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS)
to issue the guidelines for Public Access Defibrillator Programs in
Federal facilities consistent with the statute; and (3) relevant factors
at each Naval Shipyard vary, which may affect the decision whether to
install AEDs.

To determine whether and how many AEDs should be installed, the Navy
believes a needs assessment should be conducted that includes but is not
necessarily limited to the following factors: adequacy of emergency
response time, demographics of the workforce, history of incidence of
cardiac episodes, the type of work performed, and the physical layout of
the Naval shipyard. These factors are consistent with the "Guidelines
for Public Access Defibrillation Programs in Federal Facilities" (66
Fed. Reg. 28495 (May 23, 2001)) promulgated by HHS and the General
Services Administration under CASA.

Portsmouth, Norfolk, Puget Sound and Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyards
already completed a needs assessment for installation of AEDs at their
shore facilities. Presently, AEDs have been installed in at least one
shore facility. The decision to install AEDs at the remaining Navy
shipyard shore facilities will be made based on the results of their
needs assessments.

**[Section 1915.88: Sanitation]{.underline}**

1.  OSHA requests comment on the proposed requirement for location of
    sanitation facilities. In particular, OSHA requests comment on
    whether the final rule should contain more specific requirements for
    the location of sanitation facilities, especially toilet facilities.
    For example, should the final rule specify maximum distances,
    maximum walking times (e.g., 5 or 10 minutes), or other objective
    criteria for determining where sanitation facilities must be located
    in the workplace? Should different specifications be developed for
    specific types of sanitation facilities? OSHA seeks information on
    where sanitation facilities are located and what criteria are used
    to make this determination. **(Page 72481)**

**Navy Response:** We do not believe more prescriptive requirements are
needed. Labor/Management negotiations and productivity issues results in
ample facilities being provided.

2\. OSHA requests comment on this provision. OSHA seeks information on
the measures in place to ensure that sanitation facilities and supplies
are maintained in clean, sanitary and serviceable condition. How often
are sanitation facilities inspected, cleaned,

and restocked? Are there different procedures and/or schedules for
portable toilet facilities as opposed to other sanitation facilities?
**(Page 72482)**

**Navy Response:** The frequency of servicing and cleaning varies from
daily to weekly, based on the type of facility, number of employees
serviced and location and is addressed via contracts with janitorial
services and portable toilet vendors. Contract requirements are
established, reviewed and enforced by regional contracting
organizations.

3\. OSHA requests comment on the proposal. Where and to what extent is
single use drinking water bottles used in your shipyard? **(Page
72482)**

**Navy Response:** Single use drinking water bottles should be a
recognized option. Single use drinking water bottles are provided to
supplement permanent facilities on a case by case basis as needed (e.g.
in remote locations during dry-docking evolutions during summer months).

4\. OSHA is also considering adding a requirement to the final standard
requiring employers to ensure that drinking water is "suitably cool."
OSHA requests comment on this issue. OSHA seeks information on the
measures that have been implemented to ensure that drinking water is
cool, especially for employees working on board vessels or in hot and
humid weather. **(Page 72482)**

**Navy Response:** The term \"suitably cool\" is too subjective and
should not be part of the requirement. Water is supplied for fluids
replenishment and is kept shaded or in thermal coolers to prevent
overheating prior to use.

5\. OSHA requests comment on the proposal to retain the 1:15 toilet
ratio from the existing standard. Should OSHA adopt the 1:9 ratio in the
current ANSI Z4.1 and IPC 2003 standards? Would such adoption
significantly improve OSHA's protection of employee health, and in what
manner? What costs, if any, would result? If OSHA were to adopt the
ANSI/IPC table, should its application be limited in any way, such as to
facilities built after a certain date (e.g., the date the ANSI or IPC
standards were adopted)? **(Page 72482)**

**Navy Response:** In general, facilities (including industrial and
support areas to which the standard applies and other areas (e.g.
housing) to which it does not) are designed to meet or exceed the
current version of the international plumbing code (IPC) and are
upgraded accordingly during normal renovation cycles. Therefore no
significant cost/impact would be expected from proposed change.

Recommend, however, the standard reference the international plumbing
code versus providing specific requirements and be clear that immediate
retroactive compliance is not intended. Cost estimates for upgrading
facilities are not currently available.

6\. OSHA requests comment on whether the final rule should contain
specific requirements for the location of toilet facilities in
shipyards. If not, why not? If so, what specifications should OSHA use?
Should the same or different specifications apply for both sewered and
portable toilets? Please explain. **(Page 72482)**

**Navy Response:** We do not believe more prescriptive requirements are
needed. Labor/Management negotiations and productivity issues results in
ample facilities at our shipyards.

7\. OSHA requests comment on the proposed requirements for portable
toilet facilities. What additional requirements, if any, should the
final rule include in order to ensure that portable toilet facilities
provide a level of service close to that provided by sewered toilet
facilities? **(Page 72483)**

**Navy Response:** We believe the proposed requirements are adequate.

8\. OSHA requests comment on whether the final rule should require
employers to provide portable toilet facilities in these types of
situations. If not, why not? If so, in what situations should they be
required? How many portable toilets, at a minimum, should employers be
required to provide? For instance, should OSHA adopt the ratios (i.e.,
toilets per employees) established in the ANSI Z4.1 standard?

OSHA requests comment on the use of portable toilet facilities in
shipyards. When and where are portable toilet facilities used? What
factors determine how many to provide and when and where to provide
them? **(Page 72483)**

**Navy Response:** Portable toilets are used to handle the flux in the
number personnel related to increases and decreases in shipyard activity
at different locations and ship\'s availability to supplement sewered
facilities. The numbers provided are based on the ANSI Z4.1 and IPC
standards.

9\. OSHA requests comment on the proposed exemption. Should OSHA limit
these exemptions in any way? For example, with the increasing
availability of waterless cleaning agents, should OSHA require that
mobile crews be provided with such supplies? What measures do shipyards
currently use to ensure that mobile crews have immediate access to
transportation to nearby toilet facilities? **(Page 72483)**

**Navy Response:** We believe the proposed exemptions are adequate.

10\. In paragraph (e)(1), OSHA proposes to add a requirement that hand
washing facilities be located \"at or adjacent to each toilet
facility,\" sewered and portable toilet facilities alike. OSHA requests
comment on the proposal. **(Page 72484)**

**Navy Response:** We agree that requiring provision of hand washing
facilities at or adjacent to toilet facilities is reasonable and
appropriate.

11\. OSHA requests comment on the proposal to allow the optional use of
waterless cleaning agents. In your establishment, to what extent are
waterless cleaning agents used? If waterless cleaners are used, have
they been received favorably by employees, and have employees
experienced any problems with the cleaners (e.g., allergic reaction)?
**(Page 72484)**

**Navy Response:** The use of waterless cleaning agents is a viable
option, enabling the provision of hand washing facilities at all toilet
facilities. Some waterless hand cleaners are in limited use in the
shipyards, but data is not currently available on employee's acceptance
of this alternative.

**[Sections 1915.89 and 1910.147, Control of Hazardous Energy
(Lockout/Tagout)]{.underline}**

1\. ''Shipyard employment'' is defined in § 1915.4(i) to mean ''ship
repairing, shipbuilding, shipbreaking, and related employment.'' The
proposal also adds language to clarify OSHA's longstanding position that
subpart F applies to shipyard employment ''regardless of geographic
location'' of the shipyard activity. Thus, if employees are performing
shipyard employment activities, including but not limited to performing
them onboard vessels and vessel sections and in landside facilities on
navigable waters, the proposed requirements would apply. Likewise, if
employees are performing shipyard employment activities at a location
that is not contiguous to a vessel, the proposed requirements also would
apply. The proposal also clarifies that subpart F applies to any
employer, regardless of whether the employer owns the vessel or
shipyard, whose employees perform shipyard employment activities. The
existing policy will continue to apply under the revised rule.

Recently published injury statistics on the commercial fishing industry
also support the need to address hazardous energy during servicing
operations onboard floating fish factories. In light of these incidents,
OSHA proposes to change its existing policy on the coverage of servicing
and maintenance activities onboard commercial vessels, particularly fish
processing vessels. In short, OSHA proposes adding language to § 1915.89
and § 1910.147 specifying that: • Proposed § 1915.89 applies to the
servicing of ship's systems by any employee, including but not limited
to, ship's officers and crew of the vessel (see proposed §
1915.89(a)(2)(i)(A)); • Proposed § 1915.89 applies to the servicing of
machines, equipment and systems that employees use in the course of
performing shipyard employment operations (see proposed §
1915.89(a)(2)(i)(B)); and • Existing § 1910.147, and not proposed §
1915.89, applies to the servicing of equipment onboard vessels that is
used for inherently general industry operations such as fish processing
(see § 1910.147(a) and proposed § 1915.89(a)(2)(iii)(C)).

Background and current policy.

In order to fully explain OSHA's proposed changes, it is important to
understand OSHA's current policy on the coverage of commercial vessels.
This section discusses OSHA and U.S. Coast Guard authority over vessels,
OSHA's current exemption of maritime employment from § 1910.147, and
OSHA's current policy concerning application of § 1910.147 to floating
fish processors.

Coast Guard/OSHA authority over vessels.

Both OSHA and the U.S. Coast Guard have authority for the safety and
health of employees onboard vessels. The Coast Guard has statutory
authority to prescribe and enforce regulations affecting safety and
health onboard inspected vessels and has exercised that authority.
Therefore, OSHA does not have authority over those vessels\...; however,
OSHA does have authority over uninspected vessels (hereafter
''commercial vessels'') to the extent that the U.S. Coast Guard has not
regulated a specific hazard or working condition .... Moreover, to date,
the Coast Guard has not regulated the control of hazardous energy during
the servicing and maintenance of equipment on commercial vessels.
Therefore, OSHA has authority to regulate hazardous energy onboard
commercial vessels. **(Page 72488)**

**Navy Response:** Navy vessels are not regulated by the U.S. Coast
Guard, and are not commercial vessels**.** Further, the Navy has
reservations about the statement that the Proposed Rule applies to
shipyard employment ''regardless of geographic location'' because of the
potential for the regulation to infringe on the authority of a
Commanding Officer of a Navy vessel during a military operation.

2\. Interpretation of § 1910.147. OSHA requests comment on the proposal
to apply § 1910.147 to the servicing of fish processing and other
equipment onboard vessels that is used for performing inherently general
industry operations. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this
proposed approach? Who services equipment onboard vessels that is used
to perform inherently general industry operations? How frequently, if
ever, do shipyard employees service general industry equipment onboard
vessels and when does such servicing occur? What equipment onboard
vessels, other than fish processing equipment, should OSHA classify as
being used to perform inherently general industry operations? Should §
1915.89 or § 1910.147 apply to the servicing of inherently general
industry equipment during an overhaul of the entire vessel? Please
explain. **(Page 72490)**

**Navy Response:** The term "commercial" is not used under the §
1910.147 proposed rule, yet the term is used under the § 1915.89
proposal. This would mean that the standard would apply to all U.S.
Coast Guard inspected and un-inspected (commercial) vessels. When Navy
vessels are engaged in what could be considered general industry
operations, such as, humanitarian relief or homeland mine
countermeasures, all equipment and systems are still considered ship
systems. The use of two OSHA standards aboard ships would mean two LOTO
programs aboard ship, contrary to OSHA's rules for one employer system
-- intended not to confuse employees. To minimize risk and confusion,
all equipment on Navy vessels is controlled using one program. The use
of two hazardous energy control systems on ships would increase risk by
increasing confusion. Therefore, recommend the use of a single standard,
CFR 1915.89, for servicing operations on all shipboard systems and
equipment.

3\. OSHA asks for comment on the proposed definition of ship\'s systems.
What machines, equipment and systems should the definition include? Does
the proposed definition adequately distinguish between systems that are
part of a vessel and equipment that is used for inherently general
industry operations? Are there other approaches that would more clearly
differentiate between those types of equipment and systems? **(Page
72490)**

**Navy Response:** On Navy vessels, galley systems, waste processing,
machinery repair shops, intermediate maintenance depots, temporary
alterations, non-permanent mission modules, etc. are inherently
shipboard vice general industry. Some additional Warship's specific
systems to be included are weapons, surveillance, plastic waste
processing, medical/dental facilities, motor rewind shops, etc.
Detachments and expeditionary forces which are not considered part of
the crew are provided the same care as the crew. If the Warship's
operational mission changes to \"general industry\" humanitarian, such
as, providing for the care of refugees aboard, and electrical power and
drinking water ashore, it is not prudent to change system definitions to
general industry systems. To minimize risk and confusion, all equipment
on Navy vessels is controlled using one program.

4\. 2^nd^ Column OSHA question whether to use electric power generation
transmission and distribution standard 1910.269 to avoid confusion over
whether outside contractors could bring their own energy control
program. **(Page 72498)**

**Navy Response:** Recommend using the electric power generation
transmission and distribution standard wording. This provides one single
standard method on board Navy vessels to decrease confusion and risk.
Recommend using the 1910.269 words in this area.

5\. Bottom of 3^rd^ Column, OSHA questions the compatibility of the
general industry approach for shipyard employment (Shipboard), vice a
different plain language standard that is specifically tailored to
shipyard employment (shipboard). **(Page 72498)**

**Navy Response:** OSHA has used language in many interpretations under
the electric power generation transmission and distribution standard
1910.269 that allows a tagout program, as long as "Tags Plus" is in
affect. The Navy vessels' expert based tags plus system under the
control of the ship Commanding Officer provides the Commanding Officer
ultimate control of what is happening aboard his/her ship in accordance
with U. S. Navy Regulations. Navy vessels want to keep the hazardous
energy control procedure standard and as simple as possible for the
military sailors aboard ship by maintaining a single standard, which
should flow from one OSHA rule. Our group Tags Plus expert -based
hazardous energy control program involves an interaction of expert
systems operators and shipyard maintenance personnel. The responsibility
for hazardous energy control rests with both the ship's crew and with
the shipyard employed hazardous energy control expert(s). The shipyard
servicing personnel (e.g., craftsmen, tradesmen) are not systems
experts. This is similar to the electric power generation transmission
and

distribution model under 1910.269, with operators providing the
isolation for the maintenance personnel.

Recommend OSHA provide a section for this standard (as well as all LOTO
standards) to provide detailed requirements for a "Tags Plus" Hazardous
Energy Control Program.

6\. Bottom of 3^rd^ Column, OSHA questions if incident investigation
should be required. **(Page 72498)**

**Navy Response:** The Navy has a robust program for formal
investigation of energy control problems on board Navy vessels. In
addition to general Navy requirements for detailed investigation, cause
analysis, and determination of corrective actions for problems resulting
in injuries, Naval shipyards have implemented formal investigation of
process errors which indicate significant weakness in the execution of
energy control processes. It is this intense focus on and formal
resolution of smaller problems that results in the elimination of more
serious problems. All safety programs need to include a formal
investigation process which should include documented problem
definition, cause analysis and corrective action determination. The Navy
agrees that incident investigation is an appropriate requirement to be
included in the standard. In order to maintain the level of quality and
frankness necessary to assist in the continuation of a successful
proactive program, the Navy will continue to maintain the information as
privileged information.

**[Section V., Executive Summary of the Preliminary Economic and Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis]{.underline}**

1\. Economic analysis - Neither the benefits nor the cost of this
proposed rule exceed \$100 million. OSHA estimates that the proposal
will cost employers in the shipyard employment industry about \$0.6
million annually to implement. **(Pages 72504, 72506)**

**Navy Response:** When proposing new regulations, OSHA performs an
industry cost impact assessment. Each US Navy program with a ship under
contract is likely to get a large bill when these regulations are put
into effect. The Portsmouth and Norfolk Naval Shipyards, and Puget Sound
and Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyards and IMFs provided estimated cost impact
to change from the current Warship shipboard expert based group Tags
Plus system to a LOTO program with off-the-shelf procedures for civilian
maintenance personnel to lock out their own isolations. This worst case
estimate was that over \$30 million per shipyard per year would be
required. This estimate alone exceeds the annual \$100 million threshold
at these four shipyards. Therefore, we disagree that the costs
associated with the rule will not exceed \$100 million nationwide, and
disagree that the cost per shipyard is only about \$0.6 million
annually.

2\. OSHA examined several data sources to identify and characterize the
risks shipyard employees face from the hazards this proposal addresses.
These data show, for

example, that the shipyard industry has one of the highest rates and
severity of workplace injury of all private sector industries. **(Page
72505)**

**Navy Response:** Public sector (Naval Industrial Activities) data was
not included, yet this proposal is being applied to the public sector as
well as the private sector. The US Navy has many authorized civilian
employees servicing Commissioned Ships. This includes over 24,000 at
Portsmouth and Norfolk Naval Shipyards, and Puget Sound and Pearl Harbor
Naval Shipyards and IMFs and thousands from other Naval/Defense
Commands. Also, hundreds of Naval/contractor alteration installation
teams and other System Specialists, who have not previously been
considered "shipyard" employers, would now be related shipyard
employers.

**Navy Comments on Proposed Changes to Subpart F**

The Navy in general is supportive of the Proposed Rule, with the changes
or interpretations provided below.

**[Section 1915.80: Scope and Application; other General
Areas]{.underline}**

1\. "The provisions of this subpart apply to general working conditions
in shipyard employment, regardless of geographic location, including
work onboard vessels, vessel sections, and landside operations." **(Page
72511)**

**Navy Response**: Due to the unique complexity of systems on Navy
vessels, shipboard energy control should be excluded from application.
The Navy has developed shipboard energy control process requirements
codified in formal Naval Instructions. These instructions were
specifically designed to provide for work safety when dealing with
energy control of complex systems which require specialized system
qualification, knowledge and experience as well as multi-layered
technical reviews to ensure proper isolation of work areas is
established. Work isolation is often directly linked to maintaining
combat system requirements and ship safety (fire protection, list, trim,
buoyancy, etc) on combat ships with redundant systems. This required the
development of an energy control process that utilizes system experts
and trained work control professionals. The lockout/tagout guidance of
this proposed rule, if applied as written to Navy vessels, would degrade
the safety of shipboard work. Placing responsibility for adequate
isolation and system conditions in the hands of personnel performing
work is unsafe when the equipment and systems are so complicated that
workers could not be reasonably expected to correctly determine safe
isolation or it's affect on critical ship systems.

The point might be made that some systems and equipment on Navy vessels
are less complicated than others and therefore this rule could be
applied in those areas. While this is true, it would lead to having two
fundamentally different energy control processes being executed by the
same crew and workforce depending on which system or equipment was
involved. This would lead to confusion and errors that would degrade
safety.

While the current Warship process meets and in most ways exceeds the
requirements in this proposed rule, the fundamental approach where an
authorized employee (servicing personnel) applies personalized locking
devices to shipboard components is different enough that making this
rule applicable to Navy vessels may require cumbersome changes to the
Navy process with no associated benefits in worker safety. Such changes
would encumber proven and very successful Navy work and energy control
processes leading to inefficiency and increased risk of process errors
resulting in degraded safety.

Recommend 1915.80 be modified to say "The provisions of this subpart do
not apply to energy control for any work performed on Navy vessels (new
construction and decommissioned included) where such work is covered by
Warship work control and tag-out procedures."

**[Section 1915.81: Housekeeping]{.underline}**

1\. Throughout the proposed section OSHA uses the term "walking and
working surfaces" in place of the list of the specific areas and
surfaces contained in the existing section. In proposed §1915.95, OSHA
defines "walking and working surfaces" to mean any surface on or through
which employees gain access to or perform job tasks. Walking and working
surfaces also include any surface upon or through which employees are
required or allowed to walk or work in the workplace. Walking and
working surfaces include, but are not limited to, work areas, access
ways, aisles, exits, gangways, ladders, ramps, stairs, steps and
walkways. Paragraph 1915.81 (a) reads; "The employer shall maintain good
housekeeping conditions to ensure that walking and working surfaces do
not create a hazard for employees. The employer shall ensure that these
conditions are maintained [at all times]{.underline}. **(Page 72511)**

**Navy Response**: Replace "at all times" with \"as necessary to provide
hazard free access". This would allow temporary services to lie on decks
and floors as long as adequate aisles and walkways are provided and
maintained**.**

Delete \"maintain good housekeeping.\" Rather than \"maintain good
housekeeping conditions,\" the Navy recommends that the standard more
simply read "maintain conditions to ensure walking working surfaces do
not create a hazard for employees.\" \"Good housekeeping\" adds an
ambiguity without apparent benefit.

2.  Proposed paragraph (k) adds a requirement that combustible scrap be
    removed from the work area as soon as possible to reduce fire
    hazards. **(Page 72511)**

**Navy Response**: Paragraph (k) need only apply to areas where hot work
is performed. Hot work requirements are covered elsewhere and this
paragraph should be removed from subpart F or should clearly indicate it
applies only to work areas where hot work is being performed.

3\. Paragraph (g): The employer shall ensure that slippery conditions,
such as snow and ice, on walking and working surfaces are eliminated as
they occur. **(Page 72511)**

**Navy Response**: Add "as soon as practicable" in place of \"as they
occur\". In northern climates, elimination of snow and ice cannot be
reasonably removed as it occurs.

**[Section 1915.82: Lighting]{.underline}**

1.  Proposed paragraph (a) sets forth requirements that apply to
    lighting in all areas of shipyard employment. The proposed general
    requirements would apply regardless of whether permanent or
    temporary lights are used. The lighting intensity levels that would
    be required by table F-1 would not apply to emergency lighting or
    portable handheld lights. **(Page 72511)**

**Navy Response**: We have large facilities that are comprised of many
types of non-working areas such as parking lots, recreational facilities
and outdoor walkways. The light intensity levels listed in Table F-1 are
not achievable for General landside walkways. It is recommended that
this general walking area requirement be removed from Table F-1.

2\. Paragraph (b) [Temporary lights]{.underline}. The employer shall
ensure that temporary lights meet the following requirements:

\(1\) Lights with bulbs that are not completely recessed are equipped
with guards to prevent accidental contact. **(Page 72512)**

**Navy Response**: The term "completely recessed" needs to be more
clearly defined. We recommend to change "are not completely recessed" be
changed to "extend beyond the plane of the lighting fixture opening."

3\. Proposed paragraph (b)(7) revises the existing standard by requiring
that splices have insulation that \"exceeds" that of the cable. The
existing provision allows the use of splices where the insulation is
\"equal\" to that of the cable. **(Page 72512)**

**Navy Response:** The existing standard 1915.92(b)(2), equal to that of
the cable, is adequate. This standard currently complies with the NFPA,
NEC 70, and Article 400.9 Splices. This article allows splicing of
hard-service and junior hard-service cords 14 AWG and larger that
comply. Article 110.14(B) and the completed splice retain the
insulation, outer sheath properties, and usage characteristics of the
cord being spliced. Article 110.14(B) requires both mechanical and
electrical securing of the cord.

4\. Proposed paragraph (c)(3) retains and simplifies the existing
requirement (§1915.92(e)) on the use of handheld portable lights in any
area that is not gas-free. In such areas, the proposal would require
that the employer ensure that only "explosion-

proof, self-contained" handheld portable lights are used (or other
equipment approved by a nationally recognized testing laboratory
(NRTL)). **(Page 72512)**

**Navy Response**: Concur. Only on rare occasions, in an emergency,
would anyone enter a confined space that is not certified gas free. This
would typically be emergency

response personnel (Fire Department), who would use appropriate lights.
We do not believe that the intent of this paragraph would apply to a
Navy Competent person who inspect and certify spaces gas free. These
personnel test the atmosphere before entering and continue to test ahead
of themselves. They do not enter spaces, or sections of spaces, that do
not meet the criteria of Safe for Entry.

**[Section 1915.83: Utilities]{.underline}**

1\. Proposed paragraph (b) revises the requirement that 'short bights'
be used when hanging steam hoses to reduce chafing and tension on Steam
hoses which are hung overhead. **(Page 72512)**

**Navy Response**: Recommend "short bight["]{.underline} be more
precisely defined by providing wording such as, "\"When steam hose is
hung in a bight or bights, the weight shall be relieved by appropriate
lines that are spaced not to exceed 8 feet maximum along the entire
run\", so that definitive guidance can be developed and promulgated to
workers.

2\. Proposed paragraph (b)(4) revises the existing requirement that
steam hoses and temporary piping passing through walking or working
areas be shielded to protect employees from injury due to accidental
contact. **(Page 72512)**

**Navy Response**: This requirement, coupled with the expanded
definition of "walking and working surfaces", would require the
shielding of all steam hoses and temporary piping in our facilities. We
feel that this is not practical.

Recommend that paragraph 1915.83 (b)(4) be revised to read: "Each steam
hose or temporary piping passing within close proximity to routine
walking or working area is shielded to protect employees from contact."
"Close proximity" should be determined by the local facility.

**[Section 1915.87: Medical Services and First Aid]{.underline}**

1\. OSHA proposes in paragraph (e) to retain and expand the existing
provision to require that quick drench facilities be provided where
employees could be splashed with hazardous or toxic substances. **(Page
72513)**

**Navy Response**: ANSI Z358.1 2004 establishes minimum performance and
use requirements for eyewash and shower equipment for the emergency
treatment of the eyes or body of a person who has been exposed to
injurious materials.

Recommend that paragraph (e) be revised to incorporate requirements and
language that is not more restrictive than the ANSI Z358.1 2004 standard
for quick drenching or flushing the eyes and body.

**[Section 1915.89 of Proposed Subpart F, Control of Hazardous Energy
(Lockout/Tagout)]{.underline}**

1\. 1915.89 (a)(2)(iii)(C) Exception for inherently general industry
operations equipment servicing to use a 1910.147 process. **(Page
72515)**

**Navy Response:** Delete this exclusion. Excluding inherently general
industry operations creates a situation where two different standards
are applied by the same personnel on the same ship. Requiring personnel
to apply different standards based on which equipment they are working
on increases risk of confusion.

2\. 1915.89 (b)(2)(iii) Whenever the owner performs replacement, major
repair or modification, the owner shall ensure that replacement is
designed to accept a lockout device. **(Page 72515)**

**Navy Response:** Under this provision all executed Warship work would
require significant redesign and material modification to allow
installation of locking mechanisms. This would not be required for the
same work executed at Private Shipyards. The Navy Tags Plus system has
been highly successful without the use of locking devices due to the
unique operational controls in effect on board Navy vessels. Only
trained and qualified crew members and civilian system experts are
allowed to operate ship's equipment. Equipment is operated in strict
compliance with formal operating instructions and under the oversight
and direction of their chain of command. For those systems which do not
readily accept a lock, the Navy would have to research, specify, procure
and stock, readily available lock-out devices per component. In addition
to shipyard employers who do not own vessels being serviced, this
requirement should not apply to Navy vessels. Recommend add the
following to the end of this paragraph "or to Navy vessels".

3\. 1915.89 (b)(3)(ii) Tagout Program equivalent safety measures.
**(Page 72515)**

**Navy Response:** The examples provided for achieving a level of safety
with a tag-out program that is equivalent to a lockout program all
relate only to physical modifications such as extra isolation points or
hand wheel removal. Such language could lead to an interpretation that
only additional physical controls would suffice to meet this standard.
The Warship program has demonstrated that a Tags Plus system can meet
safety levels equivalent to lockout programs using measures such as
restricting operational authority to only trained crew or shipyard
operators, and thoroughly training the workforce to not violate Danger
Tags.

Recommend OSHA provide additional examples of measures that can be used
to meet the equivalency standard. The examples may include non-hardware
related controls. Some examples that the Navy vessels already use are
two valve tagged isolations for high energy, single valve tested, tagged
and locked for high energy with operator

representative approval, and the electric power generation transmission
and distribution industry use of single tagged valve with a telltale
drain/vent path opened.

4\. 1915.89 (b)(4)(i) Energy Control Procedures. **(Pages 72510, 72511,
72514 - 72518)**

**Navy Response:** Warship systems and equipment are extremely complex
with multiple energy sources. The servicing requirements vary
considerably based on the nature and extent of repairs required. To
support this, the Navy Tags Plus and work authorization processes
require the development of specific isolation and deenergization plans
within prescribed standards which match the specific work scope and
requirement. It is not practical to maintain procedures for every piece
of equipment, portion of a system, and maintenance scenario. Doing so
would be costly both for initial development and maintenance. The
electrical power industry under CFR 1910.269 is allowed to have a
similar process to develop specific plans for each work order. The Navy
uses a combination of documents to control hazardous energy. The final
procedures include a Work Authorization Form (WAF) linked to a Technical
Work Document (TWD) and an associated Tag-out Record Sheet or Tag-out
Line Item. These WAFs and TWDs depend on procedures derived from the
Tag-out Users Manual, Naval Ships\' Technical Manual Chapters,
Engineering Plant Manuals, Vendor Manuals, Engineering Operating
Sequencing Systems, Combat System Operating Sequencing Systems, and
other technical direction for proper operation, isolation, & testing.
The Navy asserts that the collection of the documents listed above
constitutes the totality of and fulfills the need for energy control
procedures.

5\. 1915.89(b)(5)(ii) Protective Materials (Danger Tags) singularly
identified and not used for other purposes. **(Page 72515)**

**Navy Response:** There is one standard Navy Danger Tag approved for
shipboard use. It is used to isolate energy for specific work items with
authorized employees, and also to maintain safe ship conditions without
specific work items. The Navy asserts that a ship and ship equipment may
present a danger (fire, flooding, overspeed, overheating, inadvertent
movement, etc.) to any shipboard personnel, and therefore anyone on or
in the ship may be an affected employee even if there is no authorized
employee for that tag-out. Therefore, Navy Danger Tags are only used for
the stated purpose of controlling energy to prevent injury to
(authorized and/or affected) employees.

6\. 1915.89 (b)(5)(ii)(B) Standardized tagout devices within the
facility. **(Page 72516)**

**Navy Response:** The Navy considers ship and base/shipyard as two
separate facilities. For a ship within a drydock at a Naval shipyard, a
tagout (Navy group tags-plus) system is used on the shipboard facility,
while a general industry lockout/tagout system is used for maintenance
on the Naval shipyard facility (piers, drydocks, buildings, etc.).
Different Naval shipyards currently use lockout devices per Navy
requirement ashore for the control of hazardous energy, which are
intended to meet the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.147, general industry
standard. Similarly, a private shipyard may have a lockout/tagout
program in shops, but aboard vessels, the Navy vessels tagout program is
used. To avoid confusion in the workforce, and create a clear visible
indication of which process is being applied, the Naval shipyard
utilizes different devices/tags for each

program. Where a significant process difference is needed to safely
execute work, the use of different devices/tags should be allowed to
reduce the risk of personnel executing to the wrong process controls.
Shipboard and shipyard should be considered separate facilities, and
standard devices allowed for a particular shipyard hazardous energy
control program may follow 29 CFR Part 1910.

7\. 1915.89(b)(5) (ii) (C) (2) Durability of tag attachments device.
**(Page 72516)**

**Navy Response:** The Navy agrees; however, the standard must be
adjusted due to circumstances where alternate means of attachment will
be required as stated under 1910.269. The Navy will change Warship
Danger Tag attachment device from waxed twine to one piece nylon cable
tie or similar. Relief for circuit breaker eyelets should be provided in
the shipyard employment standard. Note that the electric power
generation, transmission and distribution standard interpretations allow
a smaller cable tie with lower strength requirements -- the best
strength that can be accomplished as a non-citable violation.

8\. 1915.89 (b)(6) Periodic inspection. **(Page 72516)**

**Navy Response:** Periodic compliance inspections are warranted and the
Navy processes currently involve routine auditing. However, the details
contained within this standard address a simple work model which
involves a specific procedure written for a specific component and
worked on repeatedly by the same work team or group of authorized and
affected employees. The Navy updates/validates the hazardous energy
control procedure - procedure as clarified in our comments to Page
72515, 1915.89 (b)(4)(i) - annually OR prior to each use. The Navy
training is not specific to the particular isolation, however, affected
and authorized employees are briefed that they have the right to
question and be shown the specific isolation for their job.

Recommend modify the standard to allow for audits and inspections of
general process application when applicable in lieu of annual
inspections. Regarding inspecting the use

of energy control procedures, the standard should allow a general
sampling surveillance and interview of authorized and affected employees
found aboard ship by the organizations Quality, Safety, or other
Hazardous Energy Control Experts as part of routine auditing. Routine
auditing can be prescribed as required per corrective actions.

9\. 1915.89 (b)(7)(i)-(iii) Tagout System Training. **(Page 72516)**

**Navy Response:** Warship shipboard hazardous energy control program
requires specific training of all personnel who execute process steps.
It also requires general training for all workers on generic energy
control issues which could be affected by any worker.

Requiring all workers to be trained in aspects of the program for which
they have no involvement or authority to apply is cumbersome. Examples
would be:

1\) tag selection, material, and legibility requirements -- the Navy
employs standard tags which employees do not have authority to affect.

2\) Secure attachment requirements -- only personnel authorized to
attach tags should require this training.

Also requiring training on tags evoking a false sense of security is
inappropriate in that it implies that a tag based system is not safe.

10\. 1915.89 (b)(7)(ii)(A) ; (iii) Expert authorized employee training;
Retraining. **(Page 72516)**

**Navy Response:** Recommend add: When using an expert representative as
the authorized employee for group tags-plus applications, these experts
will require training on ship's systems and equipments, and the energy
control process, including device and tag attachment applications. To
maintain an expert based authorized employee as qualified, re-training
of these elements must occur every two years at minimum.

In the re-training section the words "whenever there is a change to
their job assignment" is too ambiguous. Recommend adding to this --
whenever there is a change to their job assignment that changes their
role or responsibility in performance of the energy program.

11\. 1915.89 (b)(8) Energy Isolation by those who service/maintain.
**(Page 72516)**

**Navy Response:** Due to the complexity of systems and work
requirements on Navy vessels, the safe execution of the Tags Plus
program requires the application of Ship's Force qualified system
experts and full time shipyard work control professionals to communicate
work scope versus ship system status requirements, and safely determine
and execute the required conditions. Note that the electric power
generation, transmission and distribution industry operators provide the
isolation for the servicing personnel. The operators are similar to the
shipyard expert authorized employee. The servicing employee has the
right and is given the opportunity to review their isolations. On a
large ship, this could mean several decks, spaces, and bulkheads --
which may be more confusing than value added. There is no value added
for accounting for people on a

shiftly basis tied to several work authorizations/tag-outs. Workers are
assigned several work locations based upon availability of worksites,
due to site interference management of other workers. Recommend the
standard allow system operators and work control experts to perform
these functions when necessary due to system and work complexity.

12\. 1915.89 (b)(9) Notification of employees of application or removal
of tagout devices. **(Page 72516)**

**Navy Response:** The requirement to notify employees prior to the
attachment of tag-out devices is inappropriate. This would only be
appropriate if the employee had direct control of the associated
equipment and needed to be involved in the decision to disable

that equipment. There is also no merit in notification of employees
after such devices have been removed since this would imply that there
would be a period in time when such devices had been removed but before
an affected employee was notified. This is an unsafe order in that it
would risk unprotected work from the time the first tags or devices were
removed until the notification was completed. Employees need to know
when

lock-out/tag-out has been established and that they can now work safely.
They also need to know when they are no longer allowed to work and
energy is to be restored to machine, equipment or system.

Recommend adding \"Ship's Departments and/or the authorized employee
representative (s) make(s) a determination that needs to know about the
shift in isolation and any precautions that need to be taken."

13\. 1915.89 (c)(5)(i) Stored Energy removal sequence. **(Page 72517)**

**Navy Response:** Due to the arrangement of systems, it is often not
possible to remove stored energy after tag-out devices are applied.

Recommend delete the words "Following the application of lockout or
tagout devices to energy isolating devices,". This leaves the key
requirement that all stored energy must be relieved, but without a
required order of performance which is not always possible.

14\. 1915.89 (d)(3) , (e)(2)(ii), and (e)(3)(ii)(D) Tagout devices
removal by the same employee who applied the tag. **(Page 72517)**

**Navy Response:** A qualified repair activity person representing
authorized employees shall concur with the removal of tagout devices
prior to removal by qualified operators. Due to the complexity of
Warship systems, often with multiple affected employees performing
maintenance and/or testing on interfacing/inter-connected systems, an
expert based group tagout process is warranted. The system knowledge
level to correctly secure and isolate complex ship's equipment is often
beyond the capability of servicing personnel that perform work on the
equipment. Due to this complexity, even the expert group tagout approach
of the Navy does not rely on the expertise of only one individual.

The Warship process requires multiple layers of expert reviews to be
accomplished to ensure all energy control points are properly accounted
for and secured for the specific described work areas. The correct
positioning of energy points and

attachment of closure devices and/or attachment of tags also requires
multiple experts to validate. This expert group constitutes the
"authorized employees" category. This "authorized" group affix the
tagouts prior to work being authorized to start and remove them only
after each individual employee's work is complete.

Recommend adding statement to paragraph 1915.89 (d)(3), "When system
complexity exceeds the ability of servicing personnel to accurately
identify all necessary energy control points and/or when each individual
authorized employee does not have the necessary level of system
knowledge and/or can not be allowed operational control of a system, an
expert with specific systems and isolation methods qualifications can

represent the group as the "VESTED authorized employee". The authorized
employee will utilize the VESTED authorized employee experts (via ship
crew customers when necessary) to accomplish the draining, de-energizing
and depressurizing of the equipment and/or systems, identify and
establish isolations at all necessary energy control points and
communicate these conditions to the authorized employees prior to the
start of work. The authorized employee will communicate to the VESTED
authorized employee expert

when the work is done that required isolation. The VESTED authorized
employee expert will direct when the energy control can be removed."

15\. 1915.162 and 1915.163, Ship's Boilers and Ship's Piping. **(Page
72520)**

**Navy Response:** This no longer needs to be included as 1915.89 now
promulgates energy control. It duplicates the requirements.

If this is not adopted, then the below will need included:

This states that any high temperature piping system with bolted joints
must have a blank installed vice using a shut valve to provide isolation
to perform work. This appears to regard the maintenance work differently
from the work required to break the piping joints to install blanks.
Since the system would have to be shut valve isolated to perform the
work to un-bolt the joint and then install a blank to be tagged, the
regulation appears to self conflict. Breaking the flange and blanking a
functional valve provides additional safety concerns over just shutting
it. The necessary premise in acceptable barrier criteria is that when a
valve is used as a barrier it must be proven as an acceptable barrier.
This premise applies regardless of if the valve is bolted or welded into
the piping system. The standard should be modified to delete the
requirement to always use blanks with bolted in joints. The proposed
rule will allow tagging vice mandatory locking of two welded in valves.
The Navy recommends that the standard be changed (similar to the
electric power generation, transmission and distribution standard) to
not require locking two welded-in valves, and to not require the
disassembly and blanking of mechanically attached (flanged) valves as
isolation for work from high temperature fluids/steam. The Navy will
require danger tagging two valves (welded in or mechanically attached
(flanged)), and in cases where the danger tagging of two valves is not
practical, danger

tagging and locking one valve. The Navy uses an existing procedure to
obtain Warship Commanding Officer permission to deviate by locking and
tagging a single valve vice two valve isolation.

Recommend that the rule be changed to allow tagging two valves, a locked
and tagged single valve isolation, or tagged single valve isolation with
telltale (open drain or loosened flange).

**[Section 1915.90: Safety Color Code for Marking Physical
Hazards]{.underline}**

1.  OSHA proposes to incorporate the General Industry Standard 1910.144.

**Navy Response**: This should apply only to shore facilities and
temporary systems placed shipboard during repair. **(Page 72518)**

**[Section 1915.93: Motor Vehicle Safety Equipment, Operation and
Maintenance]{.underline}**

1\. OSHA proposes in paragraph (b)(2) that "The employer shall ensure
that each employee uses the safety belt, securely and tightly fastened,
at all times while operating or riding in a motor vehicle." **(Page
72519)**

**Navy Response:** For vehicles in Section (b)(1) where seatbelts have
been provided employees will be required to utilize them.

**[Section 1915.95: Definitions]{.underline}**

1\. [Motor vehicle]{.underline}. Any motor-driven vehicle operated by an
employee that is used to transport employees, material, or property. For
the purposes of this subpart, motor vehicles include passenger cars,
light trucks, vans, motorcycles, all-terrain-vehicles, powered
industrial trucks and other similar vehicles. Motor vehicle does not
include boats or vehicles operated exclusively on a rail or rails.
(**Page 72519**)

**Navy Response:** Add "busses" to the list of included vehicles.