guard equipment is designed to perform differently than other types of
electrical protective equipment (Ex. 0230). Based on the IBEW comment,
OSHA has not included in the final rule the values from Table IV-1 and
Table IV-2. Moreover, since the final rule is written in performance
terms, inclusion of values like those included in these tables is
unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The proposal noted that there were two ASTM standards
addressing plastic guard equipment, F712, which contained test
methods, and F968, which contained specifications (70 FR 34829-
34830, June 15, 2005). ASTM has since combined those two standards
into a single one, F712-06 (2011), which contains both test methods
and specifications for plastic guard equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Final paragraph (b)(2) addresses the properties of insulating
equipment that limit the amount of current to which an employee is
exposed. Paragraph (b)(2)(i), which is being adopted without change
from the proposal, requires electrical protective equipment used as the
primary insulation of employees from energized parts to be capable of
passing a test for current (that is, a proof test) when subjected to
the highest nominal voltage on which the equipment is to be used.
Paragraph (b)(2)(ii), which is also being adopted as proposed, provides
that during the test, the equipment current may not exceed 1
microampere per kilovolt of phase-to-phase applied voltage. This
requirement will prevent dangerous electric shock to employees by
prohibiting use of both poor insulating materials and good insulating
materials that are contaminated with conductive substances (for
example, fiberglass-reinforced plastic coated with a conductive
finish). The limit for current has been derived from IEEE Std 516, and
OSHA believes such a limit is reasonable and appropriate.
    In the preamble to the proposed rule, the Agency invited comments
on whether another value would better protect employees. IBEW commented
on this issue as follows:

    The IEEE Standard 516 limit of 1 microampere per kilovolt of
phase-to-phase applied voltage is appropriate for testing equipment
used for primary insulation of employees from energized parts. This
limit has apparently worked to keep inferior protective equipment
of[f] the market. [Ex. 0230]

    One commenter was concerned that the proposed current limit might
not protect employees in the event that a fault occurred (Ex. 0126).
OSHA believes that this concern is unfounded. During a fault, the
voltage on a circuit typically falls, and the equipment current would
fall with it. Although it is possible that transient overvoltages may
occur, either during a fault on an adjacent phase or during switching
operations, such overvoltages are extremely short in duration, and the
possible resulting increase in equipment current should not prove life-
threatening to employees.
    ASTM stated that the only one of its standards that includes a 1-
microampere per kilovolt requirement is ASTM F712 on plastic guard
equipment (Ex. 0148). The organization recommended that OSHA limit this
provision to this type of equipment.
    OSHA is not adopting ASTM's recommendation. The Agency notes that
ASTM F712 is not the only ASTM standard that limits equipment current
to values less than 1 microampere per kilovolt of test voltage. ASTM
F711, Standard Specification for Fiberglass-Reinforced Plastic (FRP)
Rod and Tube Used in Live Line Tools, limits maximum current during the
dielectric testing prescribed in that standard to values substantially
less than 1 microampere per kilovolt of test voltage (Ex. 0053).\28\
Further, as noted previously, this limit has been derived from IEEE Std
516. Thus, OSHA concludes that the 1-microampere limit is reasonable
and appropriate.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Table 2 in ASTM F711-02 sets maximum leakage current for
different types of rod and tube used in live-line tools (Ex. 0053).
The highest value in this table is 14 microamperes. A note to the
table provides that, for special applications, the maximum
acceptable leakage current is twice the value listed in the table,
so that 28 microamperes is the highest acceptable leakage current.
The voltage applied during this test is 50 kilovolts. Thus, the
maximum current is less than 1 microampere per kilovolt.
    \29\ It should be noted that the equipment current requirement
contained in paragraph (b)(2) does not apply to rubber insulating
equipment, which is covered by paragraph (a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note 1 to paragraph (b)(2), which is being adopted without
substantive change from the proposal, emphasizes that this paragraph
applies to equipment that provides primary insulation from energized
parts, which is consistent with the plain language of paragraph
(b)(2)(i). The note also clarifies that paragraph (b)(2) does not apply
to equipment used for secondary insulation or equipment used for brush
contact only. OSHA considers primary insulation to be the insulation
that is placed directly between an employee and an energized part or,
for live-line barehand work, between an employee and ground. Insulation
that supplements the primary insulation, for example, a second form of
insulation placed between the employee and ground (in addition to the
primary insulation), is secondary insulation.
    Note 2 to paragraph (b)(2), which is being adopted without change
from the proposal, provides that when equipment is tested with ac
voltage, the current measured during the test consists of three
components: (1) Capacitive

current caused by the dielectric properties of the equipment being
tested, (2) conduction current through the equipment, and (3) leakage
current passing along the surface of the equipment. The conduction
current is negligible for materials typically used in insulating
equipment, and the leakage current should be small for clean, dry
insulating equipment. The capacitive component usually predominates
when insulating equipment is tested in good condition.
    OSHA expects that the tests required under final paragraphs (b)(1)
and (b)(2) will normally be performed by the manufacturer during the
design process and periodically during the manufacturing process. The
Agency recognizes, however, that some employers might want to use
equipment that is made of insulating materials but that was not
intended by the manufacturer to be used as insulation. For example, a
barrier made of rigid plastic may be intended for use as a general
purpose barrier. An employer could test the barrier under paragraphs
(b)(1) and (b)(2), and, if the equipment passes the tests, it would be
acceptable for use as insulating electrical protective equipment.
    Paragraph (c). Although existing construction standards do not
contain provisions for the care and use of insulating equipment, OSHA
believes provisions of this type can contribute greatly to employee
safety. Electrical protective equipment is, in large part, manufactured
in accordance with the latest ASTM standards. This would probably be
the case even in the absence of OSHA regulation. However, improper use
and care of this equipment can easily reduce, or even eliminate, the
protection afforded by this equipment. Therefore, OSHA proposed to add
new requirements for the in-service care and use of electrical
protective equipment to the design standards already contained in
existing Sec.  1926.951(a)(1). These new provisions are being adopted
in the final rule and will help ensure that these safety products
retain their insulating properties.
    Paragraph (c)(1), which is being adopted without change from the
proposal, requires electrical protective equipment to be maintained in
a safe and reliable condition. This general, performance-oriented
requirement, which applies to all equipment addressed by final Sec.
1926.97, helps ensure that employees are fully protected from electric
shock.
    Detailed criteria for the use and care of specific types of
electrical protective equipment are contained in the following ASTM
standards:

ASTM F478-09, Standard Specification for In-Service Care of
Insulating Line Hose and Covers.
ASTM F479-06 (2011), Standard Specification for In-Service Care of
Insulating Blankets.
ASTM F496-08, Standard Specification for In-Service Care of
Insulating Gloves and Sleeves.

    The requirements in final paragraph (c)(2) are derived from these
standards.
    Paragraph (c)(2) applies only to rubber insulating blankets,
covers, line hose, gloves, and sleeves. No consensus standards address
the care and use of other types of electrical protective equipment.
Whereas the material design specifications for rubber insulating
matting is addressed in Sec.  1926.97(a), the in-service care of this
matting is not covered by any ASTM standard or by existing Sec.
1910.137(b)(2). This type of equipment is generally permanently
installed to provide supplementary protection against electric shock.
Employees stand on the matting, and they are insulated from the floor,
which is one of the grounds present in the work area. This provides a
degree of protection from phase-to-ground electric shock. Because this
type of equipment is normally left in place after it is installed, and
because it is not relied on for primary protection from electric shock
(the primary protection is provided by other insulating equipment or by
insulating tools), it does not need to be tested on a periodic basis
and need not be subject to the same careful inspection before use that
other insulating equipment must receive. It should be noted, however,
that rubber insulating matting is still required to be maintained in a
safe, reliable condition under paragraph (c)(1).
    In final paragraph (c)(2)(i) and Table E-4, which are being adopted
without substantive change from the proposal, OSHA is incorporating the
margins of safety recognized in the ASTM standards by restricting the
use of insulating equipment to voltages lower than the proof-test
voltages given in Table E-1 and Table E-2. The rubber insulating
equipment addressed in Sec.  1926.97(a) is to be used at lower voltages
than the voltages the equipment is designed to withstand. For instance,
although Class 4 equipment is currently designed to be capable of
withstanding voltages of up to 40 kilovolts, the maximum use voltage
for such equipment is 36 kilovolts (see also, for example, ASTM F496 on
the care and use of rubber insulating gloves and sleeves). The use of
insulating equipment at voltages less than the actual breakdown voltage
provides a margin of safety for the employee.
    The maximum use voltage for class 3 equipment in Table E-4 in the
final rule is being corrected to 26,500. OSHA proposed that the maximum
use voltage for this class of equipment be 26,000. OSHA intended this
cell in the proposed table to read 26,500, as it is in Table I-5 in
existing Sec.  1910.137 and in the applicable consensus standards, but
an inadvertent error in printing resulted in the wrong number being
entered in the table.
    In the proposed rule, Note 1 to Table E-4 explained how the maximum
use voltage of electrical protective equipment varies depending on
whether multiphase exposure exists. In the general case, electrical
protective equipment must be rated for the full phase-to-phase voltage
of the lines or equipment on which work is being performed. This
requirement ensures that employees are protected against the most
severe possible exposure, that is, contact between one phase conductor
and another. However, if the employee is only exposed to phase-to-
ground voltage, then the electrical protective equipment selected can
be based on this lower voltage level (nominally, the phase-to-phase
voltage divided by [radic]3). For example, a three-phase, solidly
grounded, Y-connected overhead distribution system could be run as
three phase conductors with a neutral or as three single-phase circuits
with one phase conductor and a neutral each. If only one phase
conductor is present on a pole, there is no multiphase exposure. If all
three phase conductors are present, the multiphase exposure can be
removed by insulating two of the phases or by isolating two of the
phases.\30\ After the insulation is in place or while the employee is
isolated from the other two phase conductors, there is no multiphase
exposure, and electrical protective equipment rated for the phase-to-
ground voltage could be used.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Depending on the configuration of the system, an employee
could be isolated from two of the phases on the pole by approaching
one of the outside phase conductors and working on it from a
position where there is no possibility of coming too close to the
other two phase conductors. Isolation of the employee may be
impossible for some line configurations.
    \31\ It should be noted that, until the multiphase exposure has
actually been removed, the phase-to-phase voltage remains the
maximum use voltage. Thus, the maximum use voltage of any insulation
used to ``remove phase-to-phase exposure'' must be greater than or
equal to the phase-to-phase voltage on the system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the proposal, the Agency requested information about whether
employees can be insulated or isolated from multiphase exposure to
ensure safe use of electrical protective equipment. The

comments generally supported the note to proposed Table E-4 and
previously codified in Table I-5 in existing Sec.  1910.137. (See, for
example, Exs. 0155, 0175, 0177, 0227.) Mr. Charles Kelly of EEI
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
explained:

    [T]he typical practice in the industry is for employees to cover
the first phase from a position where the other phases cannot be
reached. This practice isolates employees from multiphase exposure.
Thus, the use of phase-to-ground voltage-rated equipment is safe.
    Many utilities use a class of equipment which is rated for the
phase to ground voltage and rely on isolation and, to a lesser
extent, cover-up equipment, to remove the potential for a multiphase
exposure. Multiphase exposure is always avoided regardless of
whether protective equipment (gloves or gloves and sleeves) is rated
for the phase to phase voltage. Outside of rubber blankets, cover-up
equipment is considered secondary protection against brush contact.
Isolation from phases different than the one being worked on has
always and will continue to be the primary form of defense against a
phase to phase contact. The administrative control of cover on the
way in and uncover on the way out ensures the cover-up equipment is
placed from a position which isolates the worker. A worker will
always cover the first phase from a position where he cannot reach
the other phases. . . .
    The terminology for maximum use voltage in ASTM F-819 has always
recognized this work practice: Thus, the ability to use phase to
ground voltage rated equipment is considered by the industry to be
both prudent and safe. [Ex. 0227; emphasis included in original]

    Mr. Thomas Taylor of Consumers Energy agreed that these practices
isolate employees from multiphase exposure so that using equipment
based on the phase-to-ground voltage is safe (Ex. 0177). Ms. Salud
Layton of the Virginia, Maryland & Delaware Association of Electric
Cooperatives similarly believed that using isolating work practices can
minimize employee exposure. She stated that, while ``isolation or
insulation of the employee from differing potentials in the work zone
is limited to the ability of the insulating equipment to cover exposed
parts,'' work practices can greatly minimize employee exposure (Ex.
0175).
    IBEW did not specifically object to the language in the note to
proposed Table E-4, but cautioned:

    To ensure a worker is isolated from contact to an energized
circuit, the isolating device has to physically prohibit the worker
from making contact, and the device has to maintain the electrical
integrity of the energized circuit. Although the isolating device
does not need to be permanent, the device should have the physical
strength to ensure isolation in the case of a slip or fall, and
other types of unintentional movements. [Ex. 0230]

The union also maintained that ``the insulating value of the equipment
would have to be . . . rated at the phase-to-phase voltage of the
circuit being worked'' (id.).
    Another commenter, however, objected to the preamble statements
that permitted using phase-to-ground rated insulation, stating:
``Industry practice has always been to use protective equipment rated
for the phase-to-phase rms voltage'' (Ex. 0184).
    After considering the rulemaking record on this issue, OSHA
concludes that the note to proposed Table E-4 is necessary and
appropriate and has carried it forward into the final rule without
substantive change. The comments broadly supported the proposed note.
In addition, the note is identical to Note 1 to Table I-5 of existing
Sec.  1910.137. As observed by the commenters, when multiphase exposure
has been removed, by either isolating or insulating the employee, the
worker is adequately protected against electric shock from the
remaining phase-to-ground exposure by using phase-to-ground rated
electrical protective equipment. The extent to which the note was
supported contradicts the comment that industry practice is to use
phase-to-phase rated electrical protective equipment. To address IBEW's
concerns, OSHA emphasizes that any insulation used to remove multiphase
exposure must adequately protect workers carrying out their tasks from
factors that could negate the insulation's purpose. These factors
include, among other things, worker movements such as reaching for
tools, adjusting clothing or personal protective equipment, and slips
and falls. Finally, OSHA agrees with IBEW that insulation used to
protect employees from phase-to-phase exposure must be rated for the
phase-to-phase exposure. After all, until this protective equipment is
installed, there is phase-to-phase exposure.
    Paragraph (c)(2)(ii), which is being adopted substantially as
proposed, requires insulating equipment to be visually inspected before
use each day and immediately after any incident that can reasonably be
suspected of causing damage. In this way, obvious defects can be
detected before an accident occurs. Possible damage-causing incidents
include exposure to corona and direct physical damage. Additionally,
rubber gloves must be subjected to an air test, along with the visual
inspection. In the field, this test usually consists of rolling the
cuff towards the palm so that air is entrapped within the glove. In a
testing facility, a mechanical inflater is typically used. In either
case, punctures and cuts can easily be detected. The note following
paragraph (c)(2)(ii) indicates that ASTM F1236-96 (2012), Standard
Guide for Visual Inspection of Electrical Protective Rubber Products,
contains information on how to inspect rubber insulating equipment and
descriptions and photographs of potential irregularities in the
equipment.
    Electrical protective equipment could become damaged during use and
lose some of its insulating value. Final paragraph (c)(2)(iii), which
is being adopted without substantive change from the proposal, lists
types of damage that cause the insulating value of rubber insulating
equipment to drop, for example, a hole, tear, puncture, or cut, or an
embedded foreign object. The equipment may not be used if any of the
defects listed here or in paragraph (c)(2)(iii), or any other defect
that damages its insulating properties, is present.
    Defects other than those listed in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) might
develop during use of the equipment and could also affect the
insulating or mechanical properties of the equipment. If such defects
are found, paragraph (c)(2)(iv), which is being adopted without change
from the proposal, requires the equipment to be removed from service
and tested in accordance with other requirements in paragraph (c)(2).
The results of the tests will determine if it is safe to return the
items to service.
    Foreign substances on the surface of rubber insulating equipment
can degrade the material and lead to damage to the insulation.
Paragraph (c)(2)(v), which is being adopted as proposed, requires the
equipment to be cleaned as needed to remove any foreign substances.
    Over time, certain environmental conditions can also cause
deterioration of rubber insulating equipment. Final paragraph
(c)(2)(vi), which is being adopted without substantive change from the
proposal, requires insulating equipment to be stored so that it is
protected from damaging conditions and substances, such as light,
temperature extremes, excessive humidity, and ozone. This requirement
helps the equipment retain its insulating properties as it ages. OSHA
has replaced the proposed term ``injurious substances and conditions''
with ``damaging substances and conditions'' to make it clear that the
equipment must be protected from substances and conditions that might
damage it rather

than substances and conditions that could injure workers.
    In connection with this requirement, the Agency does not believe
that it is safe to store equipment on trucks for extended periods
between use if such storage would expose the equipment to extremes of
temperature or humidity. It may be necessary, under some circumstances,
to store equipment indoors during prolonged periods when employees are
not using the equipment. Workers are dependent upon electrical
protective equipment for their safety, and all reasonable means of
protecting it from unnecessary damage must be employed.
    Rubber insulating gloves are particularly sensitive to physical
damage during use. Through handling conductors and other electrical
equipment, an employee can damage the gloves and lose the protection
they provide. For example, a sharp point on the end of a conductor
could puncture the rubber. To protect against damage, protector gloves
(made of leather) are worn over the rubber gloves. Paragraph
(c)(2)(vii) recognizes the extra protection afforded by leather gloves
and requires their use over rubber gloves, except under limited
conditions.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(A) provided that protector gloves
are not required with Class 0 or Class 00 gloves under limited-use
conditions, that is, when unusually high finger dexterity is needed for
small equipment and parts manipulation. This exception is necessary to
allow work to be performed on small energized parts. The Agency is
adopting the proposed provision with one revision. Under paragraph
(c)(2)(i) and Table E-4, which are being adopted without substantive
change from the proposal, the maximum voltage on which Class 0 and
Class 00 gloves can be used is 1,000 volts and 500 volts, respectively.
Mr. James A Thomas, President of ASTM International, pointed out that
Section 8.7.4 of ASTM F496 restricts the use of Class 00 rubber
insulating gloves to voltages of 250 volts, ac, or less when they are
used without protectors (Ex. 0148). Moreover, the consensus standard
also includes a maximum dc voltage for Class 00 gloves used without
protectors. Section 8.7.4 of ASTM F496-02a, Standard Specification for
In-Service Care of Insulating Gloves and Sleeves, states:

    Protector gloves may be omitted for Class 0 gloves, under
limited use conditions, where small equipment and parts manipulation
require unusually good finger dexterity. Under the same conditions,
Class 00 gloves may be used without protectors, but only at voltages
up to and including 250 V a-c or 375 V d-c. Other classes of gloves
may be used without protector gloves for similar conditions only
where the possibility of physical damage to the gloves is unlikely
and provided the voltage class of the glove used is one class above
the voltage exposure. Rubber insulating gloves that have been used
without protectors shall not be used with protectors until given an
inspection and electrical retest. [Ex. 0051]

    Based on Section 8.7.4 of ASTM F496-02a, the Agency concludes that
using Class 00 gloves without protectors on voltages above 250 volts,
ac, or 375 volts, dc, is considered to be unsafe by the experts on the
consensus standards committee.\32\ In the final rule, OSHA has
therefore included a new paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(B) addressing the use of
Class 00 gloves and incorporating these two voltage restrictions on the
use of Class 00 gloves without protectors. Consequently, OSHA
renumbered proposed paragraphs (c)(2)(vii)(B) and (c)(2)(vii)(C) as
paragraphs (c)(2)(vii)(C) and (c)(2)(vii)(D), respectively, and is
adopting them without substantive change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ ASTM F496-08 contains an identical requirement in Section
8.7.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted earlier, if protector gloves are not worn, there is a
danger a sharp object could puncture the rubber. The resulting hole
could endanger employees handling live parts because of the possibility
that current could arc through the hole to the employee's hand or that
leakage could develop and expose the employee to electric shock. At 250
volts, ac, or less, or 375 volts, dc, or less, for Class 00 gloves, and
at 1,000 volts or less for Class 0 gloves, the danger of current
passing through a hole is low, and an employee is protected against
electric shock as long as the live part itself does not puncture the
rubber and contact the employee's hand (59 FR 4328). Although the type
of small parts, such as small nuts and washers, encountered in work
covered by the exception are not likely to do this, the danger still
exists (id.). OSHA, therefore, is adopting, without substantive change
from the proposal, a note to final paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(A) that
provides that persons inspecting rubber insulating gloves used under
these conditions need to take extra care in visually examining them and
that employees using the gloves under these conditions need to take
extra care to avoid handling sharp objects.
    Under paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(C), classes of rubber insulating gloves
other than Class 0 and Class 00 may be used without protector gloves
only if: (1) The employer can demonstrate that the possibility for
physical damage to the glove is small, and (2) gloves at least one
class higher than required for the voltage are used. For example, if a
Class 2 glove is used at 7,500 volts or less (the maximum use voltage
for Class 1 equipment pursuant to Table E-4) and the employer can
demonstrate that the possibility of damage is low, then protector
gloves need not be used. The final rule ensures that, under the
conditions imposed by the exception, damage is unlikely, and the rule
further reduces the risk to the employee by requiring thicker
insulation as a measure of extra physical protection that will better
resist puncture during use.\33\ In addition, the consensus standard
permits these classes of rubber insulating gloves to be used without
protectors under the same conditions (Ex. 0051). This exception does
not apply when the possibility of damage is significant, such as when
an employee is using a knife to trim insulation from a conductor or
when an employee has to handle moving parts, such as conductors being
pulled into place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The thickness of the rubber increases with increasing class
of rubber insulating glove (for example, from Class 0 to Class 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Brockman with Farmers Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation
recommended, without explanation, that there should be no exception
permitting the use of rubber insulating gloves above Class 0 without
protectors (Ex. 0173).
    The Agency rejects this recommendation. OSHA has explained that it
is safe to use Class 1 and higher rubber insulating gloves without
protectors under the conditions imposed by final paragraph
(c)(2)(vii)(C). OSHA notes, however, that electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution work covered by Sec.  1910.269 and
subpart V will nearly always pose a substantial probability of physical
damage to rubber insulating gloves worn without protectors. Thus, the
exception contained in paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(C) will rarely apply when
rubber insulating gloves are used for that type of work. However,
electrical protective equipment covered by Sec.  1926.97 is used
outside of electric power generation, transmission, and distribution
work, and there may be rare cases in these other types of work, for
example, in product manufacturing or testing laboratories, in which the
possibility of damage is slight.
    To ensure that no loss of insulation has occurred, paragraph
(c)(2)(vii)(D) prohibits any rubber insulating gloves used without
protector gloves from being reused until the rubber gloves have been
tested in accordance with paragraphs (c)(2)(viii) and (c)(2)(ix),

which address required test voltages and the adequacy of the test
method, respectively. It should be noted that this testing is required
regardless of whether the glove is Class 0 or 00, as permitted in
paragraphs (c)(2)(vii)(A) and (c)(2)(vii)(B), or is Class 1 or higher,
as permitted in paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(C).
    The National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA) and several
NECA chapters objected to the requirement to test rubber insulating
gloves after use without protectors. (See, for example, Exs. 0127,
0171, 0172, 0188.) They argued that there was no safety benefit and
that the increased frequency of testing would be a burden on employers.
For example, NECA stated:

    The preamble doesn't include any information on electrical
injuries resulting from the failure of insulated gloves used without
leather protectors. Thus, requiring insulating gloves to be retested
after each use without a protector is a burden upon the employer
without offering any additional safety to employees. When using
gloves in Classes 1-4, protectors often must be removed for reasons
of manual dexterity, but the parts being worked on are fairly large
which minimizes the likelihood for damage. Current techniques of
inspecting and air-testing insulating gloves are sufficient to
identify damaged gloves. [Ex. 0171]

    Another commenter, Mr. Tom Chappell of the Southern Company, argued
that an accelerated testing schedule (every 90 days instead of every 6
months) should be an acceptable alternative to testing each time a
rubber insulating glove is used without a protector (Ex. 0212).
    OSHA disagrees with these objections. First, the consensus standard
also contains this requirement, which indicates that the consensus of
expert opinion considers that the requirement provides necessary
additional safety to employees (Ex. 0051). Second, a visual inspection
and air test may not detect minor damage that a voltage test will. Even
Mr. Chappell believes that additional testing is required to supplement
the visual inspection. Third, testing on an accelerated schedule would
allow such damage to go undetected until the next test, which could be
as long as 89 days under Mr. Chappell's recommended testing regimen.
Fourth, OSHA believes that the requirement to test rubber insulating
gloves used without protectors will strongly discourage any unnecessary
use of the gloves without protectors because of the expense of the test
and because testing gloves shortens their useful life. Finally, any
additional burden on employers is insubstantial, as employers are
already required to do much of the testing specified by the final rule.
In addition, existing Sec.  1910.137(b)(2)(vii)(B) already requires
gloves used without protectors to be tested before being used at a
higher voltage.\34\ Therefore, OSHA has carried forward proposed
paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(C) into the final rule without change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Existing Sec.  1910.137(b)(2)(vii)(B) only requires gloves
to be tested before being used on a higher voltage. The final rule
adopts the proposed revision to this requirement so that rubber
insulating gloves used without protectors must be tested before
reuse after any use without protector gloves. For the purposes of
Sec. Sec.  1926.97(c)(2)(vii)(D) and 1910.137(c)(2)(vii)(D),
``reuse'' means any use after the limited use permitted without
protector gloves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (c)(2)(viii), which is being adopted as proposed,
requires insulating equipment to be tested periodically at the test
voltages and testing intervals specified in Table E-4 and Table E-5,
respectively. These tests will verify that electrical protective
equipment retains its insulating properties over time. Table E-4 lists
the retest voltages that are required for the various classes of
protective equipment, and Table E-5 presents the testing intervals for
the different types of equipment. These test voltages and intervals
were derived from the relevant ASTM standards.
    Mr. Thomas Frank of Ameren Company objected to the inclusion of
rubber insulating line hose in proposed Table E-4 and Table E-5 (Ex.
0209). He argued that the applicable consensus standard does not
designate a test method for this equipment.
    OSHA disagrees with this objection. Contrary to Mr. Frank's
assertion, ASTM D1050, Standard Specification for Rubber Insulating
Line Hose, does contain test methods for rubber insulating line hose
(Ex. 0068).\35\ Table E-5, which specifies test intervals for rubber
insulating equipment, only requires testing of line hose either when
the insulating value is suspect \36\ or after repair. In these cases,
testing is the only way of ensuring that the insulating properties of
the equipment are at an acceptable level (id.). After all, paragraph
(a)(2)(i) requires rubber insulating equipment to be capable of passing
electrical tests. When the insulating value of the equipment is
suspect, or when the equipment has been altered, as it will have been
during any repair, there is simply no way other than testing to
determine whether the equipment retains the required insulating value.
Therefore, OSHA has carried proposed Table E-4 and Table E-5 into the
final rule without substantive change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Both the 1990 edition of ASTM D1050 referenced in the note
to existing Sec.  1910.137(b)(2)(ix) and the 2005 edition referenced
in the note to final Sec.  1926.97(c)(2)(ix) contain test methods
for rubber insulating line hose.
    \36\ The insulating value of rubber insulating equipment is
suspect when the inspection required by final paragraph (c)(2)(ii)
leads to questions about the quality of the insulation or uncovers
any damage to the insulating equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (c)(2)(ix), which is being adopted without change from
the proposal, establishes a performance-oriented requirement that the
method used for the tests required by paragraphs (c)(2)(viii) and
(c)(2)(xi) (the periodic and postrepair tests, respectively) give a
reliable indication of whether the electrical protective equipment can
withstand the voltages involved. As this is a performance-oriented
standard, OSHA does not spell out detailed procedures for the required
tests, which will obviously vary depending on the type of equipment
being tested.
    Following paragraph (c)(2)(ix) is a note stating that the
electrical test methods in various listed ASTM standards on rubber
insulating equipment will be deemed to meet the performance
requirement. As mentioned earlier, this note does not mean that OSHA is
adopting the listed ASTM standards by reference. In enforcing Sec.
1926.97(c)(2)(ix), the Agency will accept any test method that meets
the performance criteria of the OSHA standard.
    Once equipment has undergone in-service inspections and tests, it
is important to ensure that any failed equipment is not returned to
service. Final paragraph (c)(2)(x), which is being adopted without
change from the proposal, prohibits the use of electrical protective
equipment that failed the required inspections and tests. Paragraph
(c)(2)(x) does, however, list the following acceptable means of
eliminating defects and rendering the equipment fit for use again.
    The final standard permits defective portions of rubber line hose
and blankets to be removed in some cases. The result would be a smaller
blanket or a shorter length of line hose. Under the standard, Class 1,
2, 3, and 4 rubber insulating blankets may only be salvaged by severing
the defective portions of the blanket if the resulting undamaged area
is at least 560 millimeters by 560 millimeters (22 inches by 22
inches). For these classes, smaller sizes cannot be reliably tested
using standard test methods. Although the standard does not restrict
the size of Class 0 blankets, OSHA believes that practical
considerations in testing and using Class 0 blankets will force
employers to similarly limit the size of these blankets when they have
been repaired by cutting out a damaged portion.

    Obviously, gloves and sleeves cannot be repaired by removing a
defective portion; however, the final standard permits patching rubber
insulating gloves and sleeves if the defects are minor. Blankets may
also be patched under certain circumstances. Moreover, rubber
insulating gloves and sleeves with minor surface blemishes may be
repaired with a compatible liquid compound. In all cases (that is,
whether a patch is applied or a liquid compound is employed), the
repaired area must have electrical and physical properties equal to
those of the material being repaired.
    Repairs performed in accordance with the standard are unlikely to
fail because the rule requires the use of compatible patches or
compatible liquid compounds and requires the repaired area to have
electrical and physical properties equal to those of the surrounding
material. However, to minimize the possibility that glove repairs will
fail, repairs to rubber insulating gloves outside the gauntlet area
(that is, the area between the wrist and the reinforced edge of the
opening) are not allowed. OSHA stresses that the final rule does not
permit repairs in the working area of the glove, where the constant
flexing of the rubber during the course of work could loosen an ill-
formed patch. A failure of a patch or liquid compound in this area of
the glove would likely lead to injury very quickly. On the other hand,
the gauntlet area of rubber insulating gloves is not usually in direct
contact with energized parts. If a patch fails in this area, a worker
is much less likely to be injured.
    Farmers Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation recommended, without
explanation, that OSHA not permit patching of rubber insulating gloves
and sleeves (Ex. 0173). OSHA rejects this recommendation. OSHA has
explained that it is safe only to patch insulating gloves and sleeves
under the conditions imposed by final paragraph (c)(2)(x)(D).
    Once the insulating equipment has been repaired, it must be
retested to ensure that any patches are effective and that there are no
other defects present. Such retests are required under paragraph
(c)(2)(xi), which is being adopted without change from the proposal.
    Employers, employees, and OSHA compliance staff must have a method
of determining whether the tests required under this section have been
performed. Paragraph (c)(2)(xii) requires this determination to be
accomplished by means of certification by the employer that equipment
has been tested in accordance with the standard. The certification is
required to identify the equipment that passed the test and the date it
was tested. Typical means of meeting this requirement include logs and
stamping test dates on the equipment. A note following paragraph
(c)(2)(xii) explains that these means of certification are acceptable.
As explained under the summary and explanation for paragraph (a)(1)(ii)
earlier in this section of the preamble, the final rule, unlike the
proposal, includes an explicit requirement that employers make this
certification available upon request to employees and their authorized
representatives. OSHA has also clarified the requirement to indicate
that the certification records must be made available upon request to
the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health.

B. Subpart V, Electric Power Transmission and Distribution

    OSHA is revising subpart V of its construction standards. This
subpart contains requirements designed to prevent deaths and other
injuries to employees performing construction work on electric power
transmission and distribution installations. OSHA based the revision of
subpart V primarily on the general industry standard at Sec.  1910.269,
Electric power generation, transmission, and distribution, which the
Agency promulgated in January 1994. The final standard revises the
title of subpart V from ``Power Transmission and Distribution'' to
``Electric Power Transmission and Distribution'' to make it clear that
the subpart addresses ``electric'' power transmission and distribution
(and not mechanical power transmission) and to match the title of Sec.
1910.269 more closely.
1. Section 1926.950, General
    Section 1926.950 defines the scope of final subpart V and includes,
among other provisions, general requirements for training and the
determination of existing workplace conditions. Paragraph (a)(1)(i) of
final Sec.  1926.950 is adopted without change from proposed Sec.
1926.950(a)(1) and sets the scope of revised subpart V. This paragraph
has been taken largely from existing Sec.  1926.950(a) and (a)(1).
Subpart V applies to the construction of electric power transmission
and distribution installations. In accordance with existing Sec.
1926.950(a)(1) and Sec.  1910.12(d), paragraph (a)(1)(i) of final Sec.
1926.950 provides that ``construction'' includes the erection of new
electric transmission and distribution lines and equipment, and the
alteration, conversion, and improvement of existing electric
transmission and distribution lines and equipment.
    As noted in Section II, Background, earlier in this preamble,
rulemaking participants generally supported OSHA's goal of providing
consistency between Sec.  1910.269 and subpart V. However, many
commenters urged the Agency to combine Sec.  1910.269 and subpart V
into a single standard applicable to all electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution work. (See, for example, Exs. 0099,
0125, 0127, 0146, 0149, 0151, 0152, 0153, 0156, 0159, 0161, 0164, 0172,
0175, 0179, 0180, 0183, 0186, 0188, 0202, 0206, 0225, 0226, 0229, 0231,
0233, 0239, 0241, 0401; Tr. 291-294, 542-543, 1235-1236, 1282-1283,
1322, 1332.) These rulemaking participants argued that several benefits
would result from combining Sec.  1910.269 and subpart V into a single
standard, including:
     Lessening confusion--a single standard would eliminate
questions about whether work is construction or maintenance and ensure
uniform interpretations for all generation, transmission, and
distribution work (see, for example, Exs. 0146, 0151, 0152, 0156, 0175,
0183, 0202, 0233);
     Facilitating compliance and reducing costs--under a single
standard, employers would be able to train workers in a single set of
rules rather than one set for construction and another set for
maintenance (Tr. 293-294); and
     Eliminating the need to maintain and update two standards
over time (see, for example, Exs. 0127, 0149, 0152, 0179).
    OSHA is rejecting these recommendations to combine Sec.  1910.269
and subpart V into a single standard. First, OSHA does not believe that
employers will have to maintain separate sets of rules for construction
and maintenance. Because the final rule largely adopts identical
requirements for construction and maintenance, OSHA expects that
employers will be able to fashion a single set of rules, consistent
with both Sec.  1910.269 and subpart V, that apply regardless of the
type of work being performed. In the final standard, OSHA is adopting
different rules in a few cases, based on fundamental differences
between the other construction standards in part 1926 and the general
industry standards in part 1910. For example, Sec.  1910.269 and
subpart V reference the general industry and construction standards on
medical services and first aid in Sec. Sec.  1910.151 and 1926.50,
respectively. These general industry and construction standards set
slightly different requirements for

medical services and first aid. Similarly, Sec.  1910.269 and subpart V
separately reference the general industry and construction standards on
ladders. The differences between the construction and general industry
standards that may apply to electric power generation, transmission,
and distribution work go well beyond the few examples described here.
It is beyond the reach of this rulemaking to unify all of the different
general industry and construction standards that apply to electric
power generation, transmission, and distribution work. Consequently,
any employer that performs both general industry and construction work
will need to ensure compliance with applicable provisions in both part
1910 and part 1926. Even if OSHA were to adopt one electric power
generation, transmission, and distribution standard, employers would
still be faced with differences between other requirements in the
general industry and construction standards.
    Second, commenters' concerns over differences in language and
interpretation are largely unfounded. As noted in the preamble to the
proposal, one of the primary goals of this rulemaking is to make the
requirements for construction and maintenance consistent with one
another. The Agency will take steps to ensure that interpretations of
identical requirements in the two standards are the same. Toward this
end, the Agency is including a note to final Sec.  1926.950(a)(1)(i) to
indicate that an employer that complies with Sec.  1910.269 generally
will be considered in compliance with the requirements in subpart V.
There is a minor exception for provisions in subpart V that incorporate
by reference requirements from other subparts of part 1926. For those
provisions of subpart V, the employer must comply with the referenced
construction standards; compliance with general industry standards
referenced in comparable provisions of Sec.  1910.269 will not be
sufficient. The new note to Sec.  1926.950(a)(1) should allay the
concerns of commenters about potentially inconsistent interpretations
of identical requirements in Sec.  1910.269 and subpart V. The note
should also assure employers that they can adopt uniform work practices
for the construction, operation, and maintenance of electric power
generation, transmission, and distribution installations with regard to
these requirements.
    Ameren Corporation was concerned that OSHA would ``make significant
and costly changes to the current 1910.269 standard without adequately
providing the opportunity for utilities to study and comment on the
impact to these changes'' (Ex. 0209). The company requested that the
Agency provide the utility industry with an opportunity to comment on
any changes to existing Sec.  1910.269 that were not identified in the
proposal.
    OSHA does not believe additional notice and opportunity for comment
is necessary for any of the revisions to Sec.  1910.269 being made in
this final rule. In the preamble to the proposed rule, the Agency
stated:

    OSHA expects that final Subpart V will differ from proposed
Subpart V because of changes adopted based on the rulemaking record.
When the final rule is published, the Agency intends to make
corresponding changes to Sec.  1910.269 to keep the two rules the
same, except to the extent that substantial differences between
construction work and general industry work warrant different
standards. [70 FR 34892]

The Agency met this objective in this final rule. OSHA concludes that
any revisions to existing Sec.  1910.269 adopted in the final rule are
based on the record considered as a whole and are a logical outgrowth
of the rulemaking record.
    Mr. Anthony Ahern with Ohio Rural Electric Cooperatives recommended
that OSHA combine Sec. Sec.  1910.137 and 1926.97, or simply reference
Sec.  1910.137, instead of creating a new section on electrical
protective equipment in the construction standards (Ex. 0186).
    OSHA rejects this request. New Sec.  1926.97 applies to all of
construction, not just electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution work. Final Sec.  1926.97 imposes no additional burden on
employers beyond what would apply under Sec.  1910.137. Duplicating the
Sec.  1910.137 requirements in part 1926 meets the needs of
construction employers and employees for ready access to the protective
equipment standards that are applicable to their work.
    Ms. Salud Layton of the Virginia, Maryland & Delaware Association
of Electric Cooperatives objected to the word ``improvement'' in
proposed Sec.  1926.950(a)(1) (Ex. 0175). Ms. Layton also expressed
concern about a part of the preamble to the proposed rule in which OSHA
used the term ``repair'' to describe construction activities (id.). She
commented:

    As defined in the regulation, ``construction'' includes
``erection of new transmission and distribution lines and equipment,
and the alteration, conversion, and improvement of existing electric
transmission and distribution lines and equipment.[''] While
``alteration'' and ``conversion'' can be construed as construction
activities, the term ``improvement'' is too broad. Many maintenance
activities are considered improvements. Additionally, the preamble
uses the term ``repair'' in describing construction activities.
Repairs are typically considered maintenance activities in our
industry, further complicating this issue. [id.]

    OSHA considered Ms. Layton's comments, but decided to adhere to its
longstanding practice of treating ``improvements'' and ``repairs'' as
construction. The term ``improvement'' has been a part of the
definition of construction work under Subpart V for decades.
Furthermore, as noted earlier, this definition is codified in 29 CFR
1910.12(d). In addition, removing the term would have no practical
effect on the definition, as all improvements are ``alterations,'' a
term to which she did not object. OSHA has consistently treated
``repairs'' as construction work as well. See Sec.  1910.12(b)
(``Construction work means work for construction, alteration, and/or
repair. . . .''). OSHA recognizes that there may not always be a clear
distinction between construction repair and general industry
maintenance and has provided clarification in numerous letters of
interpretation, including the Agency's Memorandum for Regional
Administrators dated August 11, 1994.\37\ That memorandum explains
construction work as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ This document is available at http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=21569.

    [C]onstruction work is not limited to new construction. It
includes the repair of existing facilities. The replacement of
structures and their components is also considered construction
work.
* * * * *
    There is no specified definition for ``maintenance'', nor a
clear distinction between terms such as ``maintenance'', ``repair'',
or ``refurbishment.'' ``Maintenance activities'' can be defined as
making or keeping a structure, fixture or foundation (substrates) in
proper condition in a routine, scheduled, or anticipated fashion.
This definition implies ``keeping equipment working in its existing
state, i.e., preventing its failure or decline.'' However, this
definition, (taken from the directive on confined spaces) is not
dispositive; and, consequently, determinations of whether a
contractor is engaged in maintenance operations rather than
construction activities must be made on a case-by-case basis, taking
into account all information available at a particular site.
[Emphasis included in original.]

(See also, for example, letter to Raymond Knobbs (Nov. 18, 2003) and
letter to Randall Tindell (Feb. 1, 1999).\38\) In addition, the
Occupational

Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) has addressed this issue.
(See, for example, Gulf States Utilities Co., 12 BNA OSHC 1544 (No. 82-
867, Nov. 20, 1985).) In any event, one of OSHA's primary objectives in
this rulemaking is to make Sec.  1910.269 and subpart V more consistent
with each other. Therefore, going forward, the distinction between
construction and maintenance will be of much less significance to
employers covered by these standards. Even Ms. Layton recognized that
her concern about the definition of construction was only relevant
``[i]f the regulations are not the same'' (Ex. 0175). The proposed
definition of ``construction'' in Sec.  1926.950(a)(1) is, therefore,
being carried forward into the final rule without change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ The Knobbs and Tindell letters are available at: http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24789 and http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=22687,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Kenneth Stoller of the American Insurance Association inquired
about the applicability of the revised standards to insurance industry
employees, stating:

    AIA is concerned that the new contractor obligations
contemplated by the proposal with respect to training, reporting,
record-keeping and personal protective equipment may unintentionally
apply to insurance industry employees, whose only obligation is to
inspect--but not work on--some of the electrical equipment in
question. While our members are neither electrical utilities nor
electrical construction companies, some of their commissioned
inspectors are required to visit and inspect equipment that is both
energized and open. In addition, some state laws identify certain
equipment (such as pressure vessels) located within close proximity
to energized and open electrical apparatus that must be inspected
periodically.
    Subjecting insurers to these new requirements would require
individual companies to spend tens of thousands of dollars per year
for additional training and equipment, notwithstanding the fact that
the proposal's preamble indicates that these obligations should only
apply to entities performing maintenance and repairs, not simply
inspections. Accordingly, we recommend that the proposal be amended
to explicitly exempt insurance industry employees from any
obligations it places on contractors. [Ex. 0198]

    OSHA considered this comment, but will not be exempting insurance
industry employees from the final rule. Existing Sec.  1910.269 already
covers inspections of electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution installations performed by insurance company workers as
work ``directly associated with'' these installations. In this regard,
existing Sec.  1910.269(a)(1)(i)(D) states that ``[Sec.  1910.269
applies to:] (D) Work on or directly associated with [electric power
generation, transmission, and distribution and other covered]
installations. . . .'' OSHA, therefore, interprets existing Sec.
1910.269(a)(1)(i)(D) as applying to inspections conducted by insurance
company employees because the purpose of these inspections is to assure
the safety of these installations and employees working on or near
them. Insurance inspections are similar to inspections conducted by
electric utilities and their contractors. The preamble to the 1994
final rule adopting Sec.  1910.269 specifically listed ``inspection''
as an activity covered by that standard (59 FR 4333). Section 1910.269
applies to this type of work without regard to the industry of the
employer that has employees performing the inspections.\39\ Thus,
existing Sec.  1910.269 covers this work as it pertains to general
industry and will continue to cover this work after the final rule
becomes effective. However, insurance inspections may fall under
subpart V, instead of Sec.  1910.269, to the extent the inspections are
construction work. Whether an insurance inspection constitutes
construction depends on the characteristics of the work performed.
(See, for example, CH2M Hill, Inc. v. Herman, 192 F.3d 711 (7th Cir.
1999).)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See the letter of interpretation dated June 9, 1999, to Mr.
G. William Doody, which is available at http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=22749.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA does not believe that the final rule will impose substantial
additional costs on the insurance industry. Existing Sec.  1910.269
currently covers the vast majority of insurance inspections on electric
power installations. Of the new provisions this final rule is adding to
Sec.  1910.269, the ones that impose the greatest costs on all
employers are unlikely to impose significant economic burdens on
inspections conducted by insurance industry workers. First, the minimum
approach distance and arc-flash-protection requirements usually will
not apply to the insurance industry because insurance industry
inspectors will almost never be qualified employees (see final
Sec. Sec.  1910.269(l) and 1926.960).\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ According to final Sec.  1910.269(a)(1)(ii)(B), Sec.
1910.269 does not apply to electrical safety-related work practices
covered by Subpart S. Subpart S applies to work performed by
unqualified persons on, near, or with electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution installations (see Sec.
1910.331(b)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the host-contractor provisions in Sec. Sec.  1910.269(a)(3)
and 1926.950(c) should not impose significant costs on the insurance
industry. As explained in Section VI, Final Economic Analysis and
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, later in this preamble, OSHA estimated
the costs of the host-contractor provisions on a per-project basis;
that is, employers will incur costs once for each project. OSHA
believes that its estimate of the number of projects fully accounts for
projects that involve inspections, including insurance inspections, of
electric power generation, transmission, and distribution
installations, though OSHA allocated the costs to contract employers
generally. OSHA anticipates that the number of insurance inspections
will be a small fraction of the number of overall projects. If 1 in
every 1,000 projects involves an insurance inspection, then the total
costs related to employers' complying with the host-contractor
provisions for insurance inspections would be less than $20,000 per
year, half of which host employers would bear. The Agency deems such
costs an inconsequential portion of the overall costs of the final rule
and not significant for the insurance industry.
    Third, OSHA does not believe that insurance inspections will
typically involve employees working from aerial lifts or on poles,
towers, or similar structures covered by the personal protective
equipment requirements in final Sec. Sec.  1910.269(g)(2)(iv)(C) and
1926.954(b)(3)(iii). Mr. Stoller's lone example of work potentially
affected by the final rule, the inspection of pressure vessels, is not
generally covered by those provisions, which primarily affect work
involving overhead transmission and distribution lines. OSHA is unaware
of any other insurance inspection work that would involve employees
working from aerial lifts or on poles, towers, or similar structures.
Even if such inspections are taking place, they should be rare, and the
Agency deems costs associated with such inspections an inconsequential
portion of the overall costs of the final rule, and inconsequential as
well for the insurance industry.
    Paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of final Sec.  1926.950 provides that subpart
V does not apply to electrical safety-related work practices for
unqualified employees. Electrical safety-related work-practice
requirements for these employees are contained in other subparts of
part 1926, including subparts K, N, and CC. For example, Sec.
1926.416(a)(1) in subpart K prohibits employers from permitting an
employee to work in such proximity to any part of an electric power
circuit that the employee could contact the electric power circuit in
the course of work, unless the employee is protected against

electric shock by deenergizing the circuit and grounding it or by
guarding it effectively by insulation or other means. Deenergizing
circuits and insulating them from employees protects unqualified
employees from electric shock. By contrast, subpart V, in final Sec.
1926.960(b)(1)(i), permits only qualified employees to work on or with
exposed energized lines or parts of equipment. Final Sec.
1926.960(c)(1)(iii) requires the employer to ensure that no employee
approaches or takes any conductive object closer to exposed energized
parts than the minimum approach distances, established by the employer
under final Sec.  1926.960(c)(1)(i), unless the employee is insulated
from the energized part (for example, with rubber insulating gloves and
sleeves), or the energized part is insulated from the employee and from
any other conductive object at a different potential, or the employee
is performing live-line barehand work in accordance with Sec.
1926.964(c).
    Subpart CC generally requires employers to ensure that employees
maintain minimum clearances when operating cranes or derricks near
overhead power lines. Paragraph (a)(6) of Sec.  1926.600 also generally
requires minimum clearances when mechanical equipment is operated near
overhead power lines. In part because subpart V establishes
requirements for qualified employees operating mechanical equipment,
Sec.  1926.959(d)(1) of this final rule generally requires mechanical
equipment, including cranes and derricks, to maintain minimum approach
distances that are significantly less than the minimum clearance
distances in either Sec.  1926.600(a)(6) or subpart CC.
    OSHA did not expressly propose to exempt electrical safety-related
work practices used by unqualified employees from subpart V; however,
the preamble to the proposal made it clear that subpart V's
requirements did not apply to electrical safety-related work practices
used by unqualified employees. (See, for example, 70 FR 34857.)
Specifically, the Agency stated: ``The general approach taken in the
proposed revision of Subpart V is to provide safety-related work
practices for qualified employees to follow when they are performing
electric power transmission and distribution work. Safe work practices
for unqualified employees are not addressed in proposed Subpart V . .
.'' (70 FR 34857). Information in the record shows that the
requirements in subpart V are not sufficiently protective for
unqualified employees. (See, for example, Exs. 0077, 0134.) For
example, NFPA 70E contains electrical safety-related work practice
requirements to protect unqualified employees from electrical hazards
posed by electric power transmission and distribution installations
(Ex. 0134).\41\ The consensus standard requires unqualified employees
to maintain minimum approach distances that are substantially greater
than the minimum approach distances in Subpart V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See NFPA 70E-2004, Section 110.1, which sets the scope for
Article 110, General Requirements for Electrical Safety-Related Work
Practices (Ex. 0134).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA designed subpart V to mirror the requirements in Sec.
1910.269. Existing Sec.  1910.269(a)(1)(i)(A), which is being adopted
in the final rule without substantive change, provides that Sec.
1910.269 applies to ``[p]ower generation, transmission, and
distribution installations, including related equipment for the purpose
of communication or metering, which are accessible only to qualified
employees.'' Existing (and final) Sec.  1910.269(a)(1)(ii)(B)
explicitly excludes ``electrical safety-related work practices . . .
covered by subpart S of this part'' from coverage. According to Sec.
1910.331(b), subpart S covers electrical safety-related work practices
for unqualified employees working on, near, or with installations for
the generation, transmission, or distribution of electric energy. Thus,
Sec.  1910.269 does not apply to electrical safety-related work
practices for unqualified employees.
    In conclusion, OSHA notes that the electrical safety-related work
practices required by Subpart V do not provide sufficient protection
for unqualified employees. Therefore, Subpart V does not and should not
cover such work practices. The final rule, in Sec.  1926.950(a)(1)(ii),
expressly clarifies that Subpart V does not cover electrical safety-
related work practices for unqualified employees.
    Paragraph (a)(2) of final Sec.  1926.950, which is being adopted
without change from the proposal, explains that subpart V applies in
addition to all other applicable standards contained in part 1926. This
paragraph also provides that employers doing work covered by subpart V
are not exempt from complying with other applicable provisions in part
1926 by the operation of Sec.  1910.5(c). Paragraph (a)(2) also
clarifies that specific references in subpart V to other sections of
part 1926 are provided for emphasis only. In accordance with this
provision, all construction industry standards continue to apply to
work covered by subpart V unless there is an applicable exception in
subpart V or elsewhere in part 1926. For example, Sec.  1926.959(a)(2)
requires the critical safety components of mechanical elevating and
rotating equipment to be visually inspected before each shift. This
provision does not supersede Sec.  1926.1412(d), which details specific
requirements for the visual inspection of cranes each shift by a
competent person. In a change that OSHA considers nonsubstantive, Sec.
1910.269(a)(1)(iii) is being amended to include language equivalent to
that in Sec.  1926.950(a)(2).
    Subpart V has never applied to work on electric power generation
installations. Proposed Sec.  1926.950(a)(3) provided that Sec.
1910.269 would cover all work, including construction, involving
electric power generation installations. In the preamble to the
proposal, the Agency explained that the construction of an electric
power generation station normally poses only general construction
hazards, that is, hazards not addressed by subpart V (70 FR 34833).
OSHA recognized, however, the following two exceptions to this
conclusion: (1) during the final phase of construction of a generating
station, when electrical and other acceptance testing of the
installation is being performed, and (2) during ``reconstruction,''
when portions of the generating station not undergoing construction are
still in operation (id.). In both of these scenarios, construction work
at a generation station exposes workers to hazards akin to those posed
by the operation and maintenance of a generation plant. Because the
Agency believed that these two operations were more like general
industry work than construction, it deemed it appropriate for employers
to follow Sec.  1910.269 in those situations (id.). Rather than repeat
the relevant portions of Sec.  1910.269 in subpart V, OSHA proposed
that Sec.  1910.269 apply to all work involving electric power
generation installations.
    The Agency requested comments on whether Sec.  1910.269 should
apply to all work involving electric power generation installations, as
proposed, or whether instead the relevant requirements from Sec.
1910.269 should be contained in final subpart V for purposes of
construction work involving electric power generation installations.
OSHA received numerous responses to this request. (See, for example,
Exs. 0125, 0127, 0130, 0149, 0151, 0155, 0159, 0162, 0163, 0172, 0177,
0179, 0186, 0188, 0201, 0208, 0209, 0212, 0213, 0227, 0230.) Commenters
largely supported OSHA's proposed approach and the language making
Sec.  1910.269 applicable to all work involving electric power
generation installations. For

example, Mason County Public Utility District 3 commented: ``We believe
the proposed language referencing 1910.269 for all work involving
electric power generation installations should be adopted'' (Ex. 0125).
Siemens Power Generation responded similarly, explaining, ``Subpart V
should not apply to the electric power generation installations
[because m]aintenance in these installations is covered adequately by
1910.269 and construction is covered adequately by general construction
requirements'' (Ex. 0163). In addition, Mr. Tom Chappell of Southern
Company agreed with OSHA that ``[a]pplying 1910.269 during the `final
phase of construction' or `reconstruction work' would be preferable to
recreating the same requirements in Subpart V'' (Ex. 0212).
    On the other hand, NIOSH suggested that it ``would be less
burdensome'' for employers if the relevant requirements for
construction at generation installations were incorporated in subpart V
(Ex. 0130). In addition, MYR Group was concerned that OSHA's proposed
approach could lead to confusion, explaining:

    [A]pplying part 1910 electrical standards [to construction work
involving generation installations] would cause confusion as to
whether other applicable general industry or construction standards
would govern the remaining aspects of such work. Thus, OSHA's
proposal--based on an alleged simplification--does itself create
confusion. [Ex. 0162]

    OSHA considered these comments, but does not believe that applying
Sec.  1910.269 to construction involving generation installations is
likely to result in any heavy burdens or confusion. OSHA's construction
standards (29 CFR part 1926) apply to general construction activities
performed at generation installation sites. As previously explained,
Sec.  1910.269 generally will not apply to the original construction of
a generating station until the final phase of construction, when many
of the provisions in Sec.  1910.269 become applicable. For example, in
the early construction phases, the generation installation would
contain no energized circuits, so the provisions for working near
energized parts in Sec.  1910.269(l) would not apply. Similarly, in the
construction of a coal-fired generating station, the requirements in
Sec.  1910.269(v)(11) on coal handing would have no application until
coal is present. To the extent an employer is performing late-stage
construction or reconstruction of a generation installation and Sec.
1910.269 applies, the provisions of Sec.  1910.269 supplement, but do
not replace, any relevant general construction requirements. (See
Sec. Sec.  1910.269(a)(1)(iii) and 1926.950(a)(2).) For example, the
training requirements in Sec.  1910.269(a)(2) apply in addition to any
applicable training requirements in part 1926.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Paragraph (e) of Sec.  1910.269 contains requirements for
work in enclosed spaces. OSHA recently proposed a standard covering
confined spaces in construction, which will cover many of the same
hazards. OSHA will consider how to apply these new confined space
provisions to the construction of power generation installations in
the development and promulgation of that final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this additional clarification and the support of most of the
commenters who provided feedback on this issue, the Agency is adopting
proposed Sec.  1926.950(a)(3) as it relates to the construction of
electric power generation installations.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Current Sec.  1910.269(a)(1)(ii)(A) provides that Sec.
1910.269 does not apply to construction work. In the final rule,
OSHA is revising this paragraph to indicate that Sec.  1910.269 does
not apply to construction work, as defined in Sec.  1910.12, except
for line-clearance tree-trimming operations and work involving
electric power generation installations as specified in Sec.
1926.950(a)(3). This change makes the application of Sec.  1910.269
consistent with the coverage of work involving electric power
generation installations in subpart V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another coverage issue raised in the proposal relates to line-
clearance tree trimming, which is currently addressed in Sec.
1910.269.\44\ (See existing Sec.  1910.269(a)(1)(i)(E).) As OSHA
explained in the preamble to the proposal, line-clearance tree trimming
is not normally performed as part of the construction of electric power
transmission or distribution installations (70 FR 34833). One exception
occurs when trees are trimmed along an existing overhead power line to
provide clearance for a new transmission or distribution line that is
under construction (id.). While this type of work by line-clearance
tree trimmers is properly classified as construction work, it shares
many similarities with the work done by line-clearance tree trimmers
that is properly classified as general industry work.\45\ For this
reason, as well as for ease of compliance and enforcement, proposed
Sec.  1926.950(a)(3) provided that Sec.  1910.269 would apply to all
line-clearance tree-trimming operations, even those that might be
considered construction. OSHA requested comments on whether Sec.
1910.269 should apply to all work involving line-clearance tree
trimming, as proposed, or whether the relevant requirements from Sec.
1910.269 should be contained in subpart V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Line-clearance tree trimming is also addressed in Sec.
1910.268 when the lines involved are telecommunications lines. (See
29 CFR 1910.268(q).)
    \45\ Throughout the preamble discussion of this final rule, OSHA
generally refers to line-clearance tree trimmers who are not
qualified employees under Sec.  1910.269 or subpart V as ``line-
clearance tree trimmers,'' and to qualified employees who also meet
the definition of ``line-clearance tree trimmers'' as ``qualified
employees.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency received a handful of comments on this issue. (See, for
example, Exs. 0175, 0186, 0201, 0213, 0230.) These comments generally
supported OSHA's proposed approach. For example, Mr. Anthony Ahern of
Ohio Rural Electric Cooperatives agreed that OSHA need not duplicate
the line-clearance tree-trimming requirements from Sec.  1910.269 in
subpart V (Ex. 0186). Also, Mr. James Gartland of Duke Energy commented
that the requirements for line-clearance tree-trimming operations
should be covered exclusively under Sec.  1910.269, explaining that
line-clearance tree-trimming operations are the same whether one
considers the work to be general industry or construction (Ex. 0201).
    IBEW asked OSHA to clarify whether Sec.  1910.269 would apply even
to tree-trimming operations that could be considered ``construction,''
for example clearing around existing energized facilities for a new
right of way (Ex. 0230). OSHA is applying Sec.  1910.269 in those
circumstances. Given that clarification, IBEW agreed that the Sec.
1910.269 requirements for line-clearance tree-trimming operations do
not need to be repeated in subpart V (Ex. 0230). In light of the
commenters' support, OSHA is adopting Sec.  1926.950(a)(3) as proposed
with respect to line-clearance tree trimming.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Current Sec.  1910.269(a)(1)(ii)(A) provides that Sec.
1910.269 does not apply to construction work. In the final rule,
OSHA is revising this paragraph to indicate that Sec.  1910.269 does
not apply to construction work, as defined in Sec.  1910.12, except
for line-clearance tree-trimming operations and work involving
electric power generation installations as specified in Sec.
1926.950(a)(3). This change makes the application of Sec.  1910.269
consistent with the coverage of line-clearance tree-trimming
operations in subpart V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the tree trimming industry did not object to covering all
line-clearance tree trimming in Sec.  1910.269, representatives of the
industry urged the Agency to expand the scope of covered line-clearance
tree-trimming activities by broadening the definition of that term.
(See, for example, Exs. 0174, 0200, 0502, 0503; Tr. 620-628, 765-769.)
The proposed definition of ``line-clearance tree trimming'' in Sec.
1926.968, which was based on existing Sec.  1910.269(x), read as
follows:

    The pruning, trimming, repairing, maintaining, removing, or
clearing of trees or the cutting of brush that is within 3.05 m (10
feet) of electric supply lines and equipment.

    The Utility Line Clearance Coalition (ULCC) commented that the
definition of line-clearance tree trimming should not be limited to
trees within 3.05 meters (10 feet) of an electric supply line. ULCC
requested that OSHA expand the definition of ``line-clearance tree
trimming'' to include all vegetation management work done by line-
clearance tree trimmers and trainees for the construction or
maintenance of electric supply lines or for electric utilities (Ex.
0502). The Tree Care Industry Association (TCIA) proposed the same
change to the definition of ``line-clearance tree trimming'' (Ex.
0503). Both tree trimming trade associations recommended that the
definition of ``line-clearance tree trimming'' be revised to read as
follows:

    The pruning, trimming, repairing, maintaining, removing,
treating or clearing of trees or the cutting of brush (vegetation
management) that is within 10 feet (305 cm) of electric supply lines
and equipment, or vegetation management work performed by line
clearance tree trimmer/trainees for the construction or maintenance
of electric supply lines and/or for electric utilities. [Exs. 0502,
0503]

    The industry provided three main arguments in support of its
recommendation to expand the scope of tree-trimming work covered by
Sec.  1910.269. For the reasons described later, OSHA is not persuaded
by the industry's arguments and will not be expanding the definition of
``line-clearance tree trimming'' to include all vegetation management
work for the construction or maintenance of electric supply lines or
for electric utilities. However, OSHA is making some changes to the
definition of ``line-clearance tree trimming'' that will broaden, in a
limited manner, the scope of tree-trimming operations covered by Sec.
1910.269. These changes are discussed later in this section of the
preamble.
    The tree trimming industry's first argument in support of its
recommended definition is that the ``10-foot rule'' (as they described
it) contradicts other portions of Sec.  1910.269. Joe Tommasi of the
Davey Tree Expert Company, testifying on behalf of ULCC, noted:

    [T]he minimum separation distances tables in the standard
requires [sic] a line clearance arborist to maintain more than ten
feet from some lines depending on the voltage exposures, but at the
same time, the definition says that such work is not subject to
[the] line clearance tree trimming standard because the standard
[applies] only to trees that are within the ten feet of overhead
conductors. [Tr. 622]

Mr. Tommasi also suggested that some requirements, such as those for
spraying herbicides and stump cutting, may apply to work that takes
place more than 3.05 meters away from power lines (Tr. 622-623).
    OSHA does not find this argument persuasive. This first of the tree
trimmers' arguments reflects a basic misunderstanding of the way the
proposed standard worked. Under the proposed rule, tree-trimming work
was covered by Sec.  1910.269 only to the extent it was done on trees
or brush within 3.05 meters of electric supply lines and equipment. If
it was done on trees or brush more than 3.05 meters away from lines and
equipment, none of the provisions in proposed Sec.  1910.269 applied.
The proposed ``10-foot rule'' did not create any internal conflicts in
Sec.  1910.269. For work done outside of the 3.05-meter boundary, the
proposed provisions the industry was concerned about, that is, minimum
approach distances and requirements for spraying herbicides and stump
cutting, did not apply.
    The tree trimmers' second justification for expanding the
definition of line-clearance tree trimming in Sec.  1910.269 is that
the ``10-foot rule'' undermines safety by causing different safety
requirements to apply to line-clearance tree trimmers depending on
their distance from the line. Mr. Tommasi testified that ``experience
teaches that a single set of safety rules applicable to the line tree
arborist achieves the highest rate of compliance and thus the highest
safety'' (Tr. 625). Mr. Tommasi maintained that Federal and State OSHA
compliance officials have enforced other standards, such as OSHA's
logging standard (29 CFR 1910.266), during arborist operations more
than 3.05 meters from power lines (id.). Further, ULCC commented that
``the foundation of worker safety in line clearance tree trimming is
adherence to a single predictable set of safety standards in which
employees can be trained and repeatedly drilled'' (Ex. 0174).
    OSHA appreciates the industry's desire for a single set of safety-
related work practices, but changing the definition of ``line-clearance
tree trimming'' in Sec.  1910.269 would not necessarily achieve the
industry's goal. As stated previously, even work covered by Sec.
1910.269 and subpart V must comply with all other applicable general
industry and construction standards. In any event, the Agency does not
believe that it is necessary to employee safety to address in Sec.
1910.269 every hazard faced by line-clearance tree trimmers. Employers
in every industry, including line-clearance tree trimming firms, must
identify all OSHA standards applicable to their work, along with their
general duty clause obligations, and then set, communicate, and enforce
a set of work rules that meets all of the applicable requirements. For
example, if a line-clearance tree trimming contractor performs work
that falls under the logging or site-clearing standards (Sec. Sec.
1910.266 and 1926.604, respectively), the contractor will have to
ensure that its work rules meet those standards, in addition to Sec.
1910.269.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ ULCC suggested that the references in Sec.  1910.269(r)(5)
to specific requirements in the logging standard ``shows OSHA's
intent to not apply [the] logging standard to line clearance unless
so-designated'' (Ex. 0174). This is an erroneous interpretation that
overlooks existing Sec.  1910.269(a)(1)(iii), which explains that
``[s]pecific references in this section to other sections of part
1910 are provided for emphasis only.'' Other relevant provisions in
part 1910 continue to apply, including other provisions in the
logging standard, if the work being performed falls within the scope
of those standards and within the scope of Sec.  1910.269 at the
same time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The provisions on brush chippers, sprayers and related equipment,
stump cutters, gasoline-engine power saws, backpack units for use in
pruning and clearing, rope, and fall protection (Sec.  1910.269(r)(2),
(r)(3), (r)(4), (r)(5), (r)(6), (r)(7), and (r)(8), respectively) in
existing Sec.  1910.269 were taken, in part, from the EEI-IBEW draft on
which Sec.  1910.269 was based. Those provisions were ``checked against
the equivalent ANSI standard, ANSI Z133.1-1982[, American National
Standard for Tree Care Operations--Pruning, Trimming, Repairing,
Maintaining, and Removing Trees, and Cutting Brush--Safety
Requirements] ([269-]Ex. 2-29), to be sure that OSHA's regulations
would better effectuate safety than the national consensus standard''
(59 FR 4322). However, OSHA did not incorporate a comprehensive tree-
trimming standard in Sec.  1910.269. Thus, many important safety
provisions included in applicable consensus standards and in other OSHA
standards were not included in Sec.  1910.269, and that section does
not address some important safety hazards faced by workers performing
tree care operations. For example, Sec.  1910.269 does not contain any
specific requirements to protect workers felling trees. Those
requirements are in OSHA's logging standard. Furthermore, even with
respect to the nonelectrical hazards that are regulated in the Sec.
1910.269 tree-trimming provisions, the OSHA standards do not cover
those hazards as comprehensively as the current version,

or even the 1982 version, of ANSI Z133.1.\48\ For example, the new and
old consensus standards include additional requirements for brush
chippers and provisions on hand tools such as axes, pruners, and saws
that are not contained in Sec.  1910.269. For these reasons, adopting
the industry's recommendation to have Sec.  1910.269 be the exclusive
source of requirements for tree-trimming work would not improve
employee safety. Instead, it would jeopardize the workers performing
those operations. For example, an employer may perform a logging
operation near an overhead power line under contract with an electric
utility to remove trees along the right of way for the power line.
Applying the tree care industry's recommendation and logic to this work
would place that work exclusively under Sec.  1910.269, eliminating the
protection provided by the logging standard's tree-felling provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ As stated earlier, in its review of the EEI-IBEW draft,
OSHA checked provisions of that draft against equivalent provisions
in ANSI Z133.1-1982. However, because Sec.  1910.269 is a standard
for electric power generation, transmission, and distribution work
and not a comprehensive standard on tree trimming, the Agency did
not examine provisions in the ANSI standard that had no counterpart
in the EEI-IBEW draft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency has published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
to gather information to use in developing a comprehensive standard on
tree care operations (73 FR 54118-54123, Sept. 18, 2008). In that
rulemaking, OSHA will consider whether, and to what extent, any new
standard on tree care operations should cover line-clearance tree
trimming.
    The tree trimmers' third justification for expanding the definition
of line-clearance tree trimming in Sec.  1910.269 is that the
electrical hazards regulated by Sec.  1910.269 exist at distances
greater than 3.05 meters from the line. ULCC argued that there are many
circumstances that expose line-clearance tree trimmers to electrical
hazards at distances beyond 3.05 meters from the line, such as when a
tree or section of a tree can fall into the line even though the tree
itself is farther than 3.05 meters away (Ex. 0174). To illustrate this
point, Mr. Tommasi provided an example of a 15.2-meter tall oak tree
located 4.6 meters from an overhead power line (Tr. 623).
    OSHA has considered this argument, but has concluded that the 3.05-
meter rule is generally reasonable and consistent with provisions in 29
CFR part 1910, subpart S, OSHA's general industry electrical standards.
An examination of the different requirements that apply to the
electrical hazards posed by tree-trimming operations will illuminate
the need to set a locus within which Sec.  1910.269 should apply.
    The line-clearance tree-trimming provisions in existing Sec.
1910.269 contain several requirements to protect line-clearance tree
trimmers from electrical hazards. First, to be considered line-
clearance tree trimmers under Sec.  1910.269, employees must, through
training or experience, be familiar with the special techniques and
hazards involved in line-clearance tree trimming.\49\ (See existing
Sec.  1910.269(a)(1)(i)(E)(2) and the definition of ``line-clearance
tree trimmer'' in existing Sec.  1910.269(x).) Second, there must be at
least two line-clearance tree trimmers present under any of the
following conditions: (1) If a line-clearance tree trimmer is to
approach any conductor or electric apparatus energized at more than 750
volts more closely than 3.05 meters, (2) if branches or limbs being
removed are closer than the applicable minimum approach distances to
lines energized at more than 750 volts, or (3) if roping is necessary
to remove branches or limbs from such conductors or apparatus. (See
existing Sec.  1910.269(r)(1)(ii).) Third, when the voltage on the
lines is 50 volts or more and two or more employees are present,
generally at least two employees must be trained in first aid,
including cardiopulmonary resuscitation.\50\ (See existing Sec.
1910.269(b)(1).) Fourth, employees must maintain minimum approach
distances appropriate for qualified employees. (See existing Sec.
1910.269(r)(1)(iii) and (r)(1)(v).) Fifth, employees must use
insulating equipment to remove branches that are contacting exposed,
energized conductors or equipment or that are within the applicable
minimum approach distances of energized conductors or equipment. (See
existing Sec.  1910.269(r)(1)(iv).) Sixth, line-clearance tree-trimming
work may not be performed when adverse weather conditions make the work
hazardous in spite of the work practices required by Sec.  1910.269.
(See existing Sec.  1910.269(r)(1)(vi).) Seventh, mechanical equipment
must maintain appropriate minimum approach distances, and certain
measures must be taken to protect employees on the ground from hazards
that might arise from equipment contact with energized lines. (See
existing Sec.  1910.269(p)(4).)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Throughout this preamble, OSHA differentiates between line-
clearance tree trimmers (as defined in Sec.  1910.269) and other
workers involved in tree-trimming operations. OSHA refers to
employees doing tree-related work who are not line-clearance tree
trimmers under Sec.  1910.269 as ``regular tree trimmers'' (that is,
all other tree trimmers) or ``tree workers who are not line-
clearance tree trimmers'' (that is, all other tree trimmers and
ground workers). See also the summary and explanation for Sec.
1926.950(b)(2), later in this section of the preamble.
    \50\ See the summary and explanation for final Sec.
1926.951(b)(1), later in this section of the preamble, for a
discussion of the requirements for first-aid training for field
work, such as line-clearance tree-trimming operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Requirements for tree trimmers who are not performing line-
clearance tree trimming (as defined in final Sec.  1910.269(x)), that
is, ``regular tree trimmers,'' are contained in Subpart S of the
general industry standards in part 1910. It is important to note that,
for the purposes of Subpart S, tree trimmers fall into two categories:
(1) Regular tree trimmers, whom OSHA treats as unqualified persons, and
(2) line-clearance tree trimmers (as defined in Sec.  1910.269), whom
OSHA considers qualified persons under subpart S. Line-clearance tree
trimmers under Sec.  1910.269 are exempt from the electrical safety-
related work practice requirements in subpart S and must comply with
the Sec.  1910.269 requirements described previously.\51\ (See Sec.
1910.331(c)(1).) In contrast, regular tree trimmers are subject to the
subpart S requirements, but are not covered by Sec.  1910.269.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Note 2 to the definition of ``line-clearance tree trimmer''
in existing Sec.  1910.269(x) explains that line-clearance tree
trimmers are considered qualified employees for purposes of the
electrical safety-related work practices in Subpart S (Sec. Sec.
1910.331 through 1910.335). Paragraph (c)(1) of Sec.  1910.331
provides that Sec. Sec.  1910.331 through 1910.335 do not apply to
work performed by qualified persons, including line-clearance tree
trimmers under Sec.  1910.269, on or directly associated with
generation, transmission, and distribution installations. In
addition, Note 3 to Sec.  1910.331(c)(1) clarifies that the agency
considers line-clearance tree trimming to be work directly
associated with such installations.
    \52\ Currently, an employee must meet the definition of ``line-
clearance tree trimmer'' in existing Sec.  1910.269(x) and have
training meeting Sec.  1910.332(b)(3) to be considered a line-
clearance tree trimmer who is a qualified employee for the purposes
of subpart S. (See Note 1 to Sec.  1910.332(b)(3), which states that
a person must have the training required by that paragraph to be
considered a qualified person.) As explained in the summary and
explanation for Sec. Sec.  1926.950(b)(2) and 1910.269(a)(2)(iii),
later in this section of the preamble, OSHA added to Sec.  1910.269
appropriate training requirements for line-clearance tree trimmers.
Consequently, under this final rule, an employee must meet the
definition of ``line-clearance tree trimmer'' and have training
meeting Sec.  1910.269(a)(2)(iii) to be considered a line-clearance
tree trimmer who is a qualified employee for the purposes of subpart
S. Under both the existing standards and the final rule, any given
tree trimmer is either a line-clearance tree trimmer, who is
considered a qualified employee under subpart S, or a regular tree
trimmer, who is considered an unqualified employee under subpart S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subpart S sets some basic requirements for regular tree trimmers.

(Other requirements also apply, but are not germane to this
discussion.) First, regular tree trimmers must be appropriately trained
(see Sec.  1910.332(b)(1) and (b)(2)), although the training required
for regular tree trimmers is not as extensive as that required for
line-clearance tree trimmers. Second, regular tree trimmers must
generally maintain a minimum separation of 3.05 meters from overhead
power lines (see Sec.  1910.333(c)(3)(i) and (c)(3)(iii)). Finally,
regular tree trimmers working on the ground may not contact vehicles or
mechanical equipment capable of having parts of its structure elevated
near energized overhead lines, except under certain conditions (see
Sec.  1910.333(c)(3)(iii)(B)).
    As a general matter, OSHA believes that workers performing line-
clearance tree-trimming operations under existing Sec.  1910.269 are
afforded more protection than workers performing regular tree-trimming
operations under Subpart S. Under existing Sec.  1910.269, line-
clearance tree-trimming operations generally require the presence of at
least two line-clearance tree trimmers trained in first aid, including
cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Subpart S does not have a comparable
requirement. Existing Sec.  1910.269 forbids line-clearance tree-
trimming operations from being performed when adverse weather
conditions make work unsafe. Subpart S does not address weather
conditions. Furthermore, in comparison with subpart S, existing Sec.
1910.269 contains additional requirements to protect workers in case
mechanical equipment contacts a power line. OSHA believes that these
important protections in existing Sec.  1910.269 must be required only
when tree-trimming operations expose employees to the most serious
electrical hazards, not any time electrical hazards are present, as
posited by ULCC.
    OSHA believes that the seriousness of electrical hazards posed by
tree trimming depends on how close the tree is to the power line. The
closer the tree is to the power line, the more difficulty the worker
has in maintaining minimum approach distances. For example, roping may
be necessary to maintain the required minimum approach distances. (This
practice is addressed in existing Sec.  1910.269(r)(1)(ii)(C).)
Furthermore, when the tree is close to the power line, a worker
trimming trees from an aerial lift has to be more concerned with the
distances between the power line and the tree, the aerial lift, and
himself or herself. The farther the tree is from the power line, the
more room an employee has in which to maneuver the aerial lift.
    Therefore, the Agency has only to decide how close the tree needs
to be to a power line before the protections required by Sec.  1910.269
are necessary. The Agency concludes that those protections should start
when the tree is 3.05 meters from a power line. Under Subpart S,
unqualified employees are not permitted within that distance, but they
are permitted to work in compliance with subpart S outside of that
distance (plus 100 millimeters (4 inches) of additional distance for
every 10 kilovolts over 50 kilovolts). (See Sec.  1910.333(c)(3)(i).)
OSHA believes that it would be inconsistent to expand the definition of
``line-clearance tree trimming'' to the point that line-clearance tree
trimmers working on trees or brush more than 3.05 meters from the lines
would be entitled to the enhanced protections of Sec.  1910.269, while
employees doing other types of work closer to the lines (between 3.05
meters from the line and where the line-clearance tree trimmers are
working) would be governed by the more limited protections afforded by
subpart S. The Agency generally believes that any electrical hazards
that are present when a tree is more than 3.05 meters from power lines
are addressed adequately by subpart S.
    Nevertheless, changes to the existing definition of ``line-
clearance tree trimming'' in Sec.  1910.269 (which is identical to the
definition proposed for subpart V) are necessary to ensure consistency
with the 3.05-meter rule that applies to unqualified employees under
Sec.  1910.331(c)(3)(i). As noted previously, under Sec.
1910.333(c)(3)(i)(A)(1), 3.05 meters is the minimum distance an
unqualified employee must maintain from overhead power lines. If the
voltage is higher than 50 kilovolts, the required distance under Sec.
1910.333(c)(3)(i)(A)(2) increases by 100 millimeters for every 10
kilovolts of voltage above 50 kilovolts. OSHA believes that this
increase in distance reasonably captures the relationship between the
severity of the electrical hazard and voltage. Therefore, OSHA decided
that, although it is not expanding the definition of ``line-clearance
tree trimming'' to the extent recommended by the tree trimming
industry, it will add this extra distance to the definition of ``line-
clearance tree trimming'' to accord with Sec.  1910.333(c)(3)(i)(A).
The revised definition appears in Sec. Sec.  1910.269(x) and 1926.968.
    Paragraph (b) of final Sec.  1926.950 addresses training for
employees. Subpart V currently contains no general provisions related
to training employees in the safety practices necessary to perform
electric power transmission and distribution work. It is widely
recognized that the types of work covered by this standard require
special knowledge and skills. Additionally, final subpart V contains
many safety-related work practice requirements that are necessary for
the protection of employees. To gain the requisite knowledge and skills
to use these work practices, employees must be adequately trained.
Therefore, in the proposed revision of subpart V, OSHA included
training requirements mirroring those already in Sec.  1910.269, with a
few changes and additions (discussed later). OSHA notes that editorial
changes are being made throughout paragraph (b) to clarify that
employers must ensure that ``each'' employee covered by a specific
training provision receives the training required by that
provision.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Several provisions in the proposed rule and existing Sec.
1910.269 require employers to provide personal protective equipment
(PPE) and training for ``employees'' or for ``all employees.'' The
final rule amends these provisions to require PPE and training for
``each employee.'' These editorial, nonsubstantive changes emphasize
that the standards' training and PPE requirements impose a
compliance duty to each and every employee covered by the standards
and that noncompliance may expose the employer to liability on a
per-employee basis. This action is in accord both with OSHA's
longstanding position and OSHA standards addressing employers'
duties. (See Sec. Sec.  1910.9 and 1926.20(f); see also 73 FR 75568
(Dec. 12, 2008)). It should be noted that, if any provision in the
final rule continues to require training or PPE for ``employees'' or
for ``all employees,'' rather than for ``each employee,'' as
described above, this was an unintentional omission on OSHA's part
and should not be interpreted as amending OSHA's longstanding
position, or the general standards, addressing employers' duties to
provide training and PPE to each employee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (b)(1) contains training requirements applying to all
employees performing work covered by subpart V. Siemens Power
Generation and ORC Worldwide suggested deleting the heading ``All
employees'' from proposed paragraph (b)(1). They expressed concern that
the provision could be construed to require training for clerical
employees or other workers doing tasks not covered by subpart V (Exs.
0163, 0208, 0235). Siemens commented:

    By adding the word ``ALL'' the Agency is implying that training
must be conducted for any and all employees regardless of their
scope of task. It implies for example, that even for clerical
employees that have no risk, there must be some documented training
conducted to comply with this requirement. [Ex. 0163]

    OSHA appreciates these concerns, but has elected to retain the
title in paragraph (b)(1) as proposed. The Agency thinks that it is
important to distinguish the training requirements in

paragraph (b)(1), which is broadly applicable to workers doing work
covered by subpart V, from the requirements in paragraph (b)(2), which
is applicable only to ``qualified employees.'' OSHA clarified in the
proposal, and is reiterating here, that paragraph (b)(1) does not
impose training requirements on employees who are not performing work
covered by subpart V. The text of paragraph (b)(1) is self-limiting--
employers need only ensure that each employee receives safety training
that ``pertain[s] to his or her job assignments'' and that is ``related
to his or her work.''
    As clerical workers do not perform the types of hazardous work
covered by subpart V, this provision does not require employers to
train such employees in live-line barehand or other work techniques
addressed by this final rule. Employees performing clerical work or
other work not covered by subpart V would not need to receive the same
electrical safety training required for workers involved in the
construction of transmission and distribution lines and equipment.
However, employers must train clerical workers performing work covered
by subpart V in the hazards to which they might be exposed.
    Proposed paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii) were borrowed in large
part from provisions in existing Sec.  1910.269. Paragraph (b)(1)(i)
requires each employee to be trained in, and be familiar with, the
safety-related work practices, safety procedures, and other safety
requirements in subpart V that pertain to his or her job assignments.
OSHA considers this training necessary to ensure that employees use the
safety-related work practices outlined in subpart V. It should be noted
that this provision requires employers to train employees not only in
the content of the applicable requirements of the final rule but in how
to comply with those requirements. OSHA received no comments on
proposed paragraph (b)(1)(i) and is carrying it forward into the final
rule without substantive change.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(1)(ii) additionally provided that employees
had to be trained in, and be familiar with, any other safety practices
related to their work and necessary for their safety, including
applicable emergency procedures, such as pole-top and manhole rescue.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1)(ii) required that safety training be provided
in areas that are not directly addressed by subpart V, but that are
related to the employee's job. This training fills in the gaps left
when the final rule does not specify requirements for every hazard the
employee may encounter in performing electric power generation,
transmission, or distribution work. OSHA explained in the preamble to
the proposal that if more than one set of work practices could be used
to accomplish a task safely, the employee would only need to be trained
in the work methods to be used (70 FR 34833). For example, an insulator
on a power line could be replaced by an employee using live-line tools
or rubber insulating equipment or by an employee working without
electrical protective equipment after deenergizing and grounding the
line. The employee would only need to be trained in the method actually
used to replace that insulator.
    The Agency received numerous comments suggesting that the training
requirement proposed in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) was too broad (Exs. 0156,
0160, 0168, 0170, 0202, 0206, 0207, 0229, 0233, 0237). Mr. Don Adkins
of Davis H. Elliot Company, an electrical contractor, commented, for
example, that this proposed provision was ``impermissibly broad'' and
offered ``no guidance as to what safety practices are `related' to the
work of those covered by the standard'' (Ex. 0156). Mr. Robert Matuga
of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) believed that
paragraph (b)(1)(ii) was ``overly broad,'' potentially ``creating an
obligation for employers to provide training to workers . . . on almost
every hazard that could conceivably be encountered on a construction
jobsite'' (Ex. 0168). He also argued that proposed paragraph (b)(1)(ii)
is duplicative of Sec.  1926.21(b)(2), which requires ``[t]he employer
[to] instruct each employee in the recognition and avoidance of unsafe
conditions and the regulations applicable to his work environment to
control or eliminate any hazards or other exposure to illness or
injury'' (id.). Also, the U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA)
Office of Advocacy commented:

    The scope of this mandatory employee training is not limited to
work practices required by the proposed electrical standards, but
extends to any other safety practices that are related to their work
and necessary for their safety. The SBREFA panel was concerned that
this language was overly broad and could be viewed as covering
other, non-specified hazards on the worksite, such as ergonomic
injuries from overhead work.
* * * * *
    The proposed training language remains vague and OSHA should
clarify what training is necessary to comply with the standard (as
well as what alternative training is acceptable for compliance) [Ex.
0207]

    Despite these comments, OSHA continues to believe that the
requirement in proposed paragraph (b)(1)(ii) is essential to the safety
and welfare of employees and is adopting it without significant change
in this final rule. Mr. Brian Erga of Electrical Safety Consultants
International (ESCI) supported the proposed training requirements and
attributed an increase in employee proficiency, and safer work
environments, to the adoption of these provisions in existing Sec.
1910.269. He explained:

    It has been shown time and time again that high quality training
and retraining not only provides a safer work site, but returns
dividends in financial contributions and long term productivity to
the employer. The proposed [1926.]950(b) and associated verbiage in
the preamble, if followed, will, in our opinion, move the industry
to a safer work site. The current training requirements in 1910.269
and [the] proposed training requirements are not unduly burdensome,
and will provide a more educated and experienced work force. [Ex.
0155]

    Further, Mr. Donald Hartley with IBEW testified at the 2006 public
hearing that ``ensur[ing] that . . . employees are trained in the
safety-related work practices, procedures, and requirements that
pertain to their . . . assignments . . . is necessary to ensure that
employees are equipped to deal with potential hazards associated with
this dangerous work'' (Tr. 876). He did not suggest that this training
be limited only to the safety practices and other safety requirements
in subpart V. Several rulemaking participants recognized that subpart V
does not specifically address all hazards faced by employees performing
covered work and suggested that training is an important factor in
employee safety. For example, Mr. Lee Marchessault testified about the
importance of training in substation rescue procedures, stating, ``You
should do rescue training from substation structures'' (Tr. 572). Also,
Energy United EMC commented that ``proper training is necessary'' to
prevent employees in insulated aerial lifts from touching conductors
(Ex. 0219). The record also indicates that employers train employees to
protect them from heat-stress hazards (see, for example, Tr. 1129-
1130), to ensure proper maintenance of protective clothing (see, for
example, Tr. 471), and to supplement the line-clearance tree-trimming
requirements in existing Sec.  1910.269 (see, for example, Tr. 683).
    Existing Sec.  1910.269(a)(2)(i) already contains a requirement
identical to the one proposed in Sec.  1926.950(b)(1)(ii), and OSHA has
successful enforcement experience with this provision. First, except
for two questions addressing who needs to be trained in emergency and
rescue procedures, the Agency has

not received any letters requesting interpretation or clarification of
this provision, leading the Agency to believe that the requirement is
not as ambiguous as the commenters claim. Second, OSHA has issued only
a few citations under existing Sec.  1910.269(a)(2)(i) (for example, in
2008, OSHA issued only 2 citations of Sec.  1910.269(a)(2)(i) in 362
inspections of electric utilities), which supports OSHA's conclusion
that employees performing work under existing Sec.  1910.269 are
generally being trained as required. Third, even EEI admits that ``EEI
members have generally found the training requirements of paragraph
1910.269(a)(2) to be workable for their employees'' (Ex. 0227). Thus,
it appears that electric utilities have not had difficulty complying
with the identical requirement in existing Sec.  1910.269(a)(2)(i).
    On the other hand, the Agency agrees with these commenters that
Sec.  1926.950(b)(1)(ii) of the final rule sets a broad, general
requirement to train employees. This is not an uncommon approach for an
OSHA standard to take. OSHA's personal protective equipment (PPE)
standards in Sec. Sec.  1910.132(a) and 1926.95(a) require the employer
to provide and ensure the use of protective equipment wherever it is
necessary by reason of hazards of processes or environment, chemical
hazards, radiological hazards, or mechanical irritants encountered in a
manner capable of causing injury or impairment in the function of any
part of the body through absorption, inhalation or physical contact. An
employer is deemed to be in violation of the PPE standards when it
fails to provide PPE despite having actual or constructive knowledge of
a hazard in its facility for which protective equipment is necessary.
(See, for example, Cape & Vineyard Div. of the New Bedford Gas & Edison
Light Co. v. OSHRC, 512 F.2d 1148, 1152 (1st Cir.1975).) The general
construction training requirement contained in Sec.  1926.21(b)(2) is
similarly broad, requiring employers to instruct each employee in the
recognition and avoidance of unsafe conditions and the regulations
applicable to his or her work environment to control or eliminate any
hazards or other exposure to illness or injury. That standard has been
interpreted to require employers to provide employees with ``the
instructions that a reasonably prudent employer would have given in the
same circumstances.'' (El Paso Crane & Rigging Co., Inc., 16 BNA OSHC
1419 (No. 90-1106, Sept. 30, 1993); see also Pressure Concrete Constr.
Co., 15 BNA OSHC 2011 (No. 90-2668, Dec. 7, 1992) (``Because section
1926.21(b)(2) does not specify exactly what instruction the employees
must be given, the Commission and the courts have held that an employer
must instruct its employees in the recognition and avoidance of those
hazards of which a reasonably prudent employer would have been
aware.'').) The applicability of Sec.  1926.21(b)(2) turns on an
employer's actual or constructive knowledge of hazards, just as under
the general PPE requirements. (See, for example, W.G. Fairfield Co. v.
OSHRC, 285 F. 3d 499 (6th Cir. 2002).)
    OSHA is applying final paragraph (b)(1)(ii) in the same manner.
Therefore, if an employer has actual knowledge of a hazard (for
example, through safety warnings from equipment manufacturers or
through injury experience), or if the employer has constructive
knowledge of a hazard (for example, when industry practice recognizes
particular hazards), then each employee exposed to the hazard must be
trained. For the training to comply with this provision, it must be
sufficient to enable the employee to recognize the hazard and take
reasonable measures to avoid or adequately control it.
    In addition, OSHA agrees with Mr. Matuga that, except to the extent
that it only covers Subpart V work, paragraph (b)(1)(ii) requires the
same training as Sec.  1926.21(b)(2). Consequently, employers who meet
Sec.  1926.21(b)(2) also meet final Sec.  1926.950(b)(1)(ii). Even
though the final rule duplicates the general construction training
provision, the Agency is adopting paragraph (b)(1)(ii) to maintain
consistency with existing Sec.  1910.269.
    Mr. Lee Marchessault with Workplace Safety Solutions recommended
that paragraph (b)(1)(ii) refer to rescues at heights generally, rather
than just pole-top rescue, in the parenthetical listing examples of
potentially applicable emergency procedures (Tr. 572). He noted that
rescue procedures are performed from wind turbines, towers, and
substation structures, as well as utility poles (id.).
    OSHA has decided not to adopt this recommendation because no change
is necessary. The types of emergency procedures listed in paragraph
(b)(1)(ii) in the final rule are examples only. Pole-top rescue is
listed because it is a widely recognized and used emergency procedure.
The Agency notes, however, that training in these other types of
emergency procedures is required if it is necessary for employee safety
during the work in question.
    OSHA proposed to add a new provision to both subpart V and Sec.
1910.269 clarifying that the degree of training required is based on
the risk to the employee for the task involved. OSHA explained that,
under this proposed paragraph, the training provided to an employee
would need to be commensurate with the risk he or she faces (70 FR
34834). The two provisions, proposed Sec. Sec.  1910.269(a)(2)(i)(C)
and 1926.950(b)(1)(iii), were based on Sec.  1910.332(c), although
Sec.  1910.332(c) does not contain the ``for the task involved''
language. The purpose of these new training paragraphs was to ensure
that an appropriate level of training is provided to employees.
Employees who face little risk in their job tasks need less training
than those whose jobs expose them to more danger. OSHA believed that
this provision would ensure that employers direct their training
resources where they will provide the greatest benefit, while still
making sure that all employees receive adequate training to protect
them against the hazards they face in their jobs (id.). OSHA noted in
the preamble to the proposal that training already provided in
compliance with existing Sec.  1910.269 would be considered sufficient
for compliance with these paragraphs (id.). The provisions would not
require employers to make changes to existing training programs that
comply with Sec.  1910.269; rather, they would provide employers with
options to tailor their training programs and resources to employees
with particularly high-risk jobs (id.).
    OSHA received several comments regarding paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of
proposed Sec.  1926.950. (See, for example, Exs. 0128, 0162, 0163,
0169, 0177, 0201, 0209, 0210, 0212, 0221, 0225, 0227, 0235; Tr. 873-
874, 1316-1319, 1332-1333.)\54\ Some commenters maintained that this
provision was unnecessary or too vague. For example, Mr. Pat McAlister
of Henry County REMC requested additional guidance to ``clarify
generally when and how risks link with training and [how to assign] the
appropriate level of training to offset those risks'' (Ex. 0210). EEI
commented that this proposed training provision was unnecessary,
explaining:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ The remaining discussion of these provisions refers to the
proposed construction requirement. However, the comments and OSHA's
resolution of those comments applies equally to the corresponding
general industry provision as is generally the case throughout this
preamble.

    We question the soundness of changing the [current] requirements
[in Sec.  1910.269] because if compliance with existing Section
1910.269 training requirements is sufficient, there is no reason to
add another regulatory

requirement, and the proposed provisions demonstrably have no
purpose. The stated explanation is that the standard is intended to
``provide employers with options,'' but employers have those options
without the added regulation. No additional provisions are necessary
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
to preserve existing options. [Ex. 0227]

    EEI went on to suggest that the added requirement would create
confusion, commenting:

    EEI's concern is that the new language will likely create
confusion among many employers who do not have access to or
regularly consult the preambles to OSHA standards. All but the most
sophisticated readers likely will assume that the revised standard
imposes a requirement to modify existing training programs.
Moreover, the proposal is unclear: The meaning of the term ``degree
of training'' is difficult to discern in that it is not evident how
OSHA would classify and evaluate a ``degree'' of training. [Id.]

    Many of the comments received on proposed paragraph (b)(1)(iii)
expressed concern only about the language tying training to ``the task
involved.'' For example, Mr. Mark Spence with Dow Industries generally
supported the proposed provision, but stated that the similar
requirement in Sec.  1910.332(c), which does not contain the ``for the
task involved'' language, ``has been in effect since 1990 without
causing significant problems for employers'' (Ex. 0128). Mr. Spence had
concerns about the additional language in proposed paragraph
(b)(1)(iii), explaining:

    [T]he proposal refers to training ``for the task involved''.
Training programs typically are broad, rather than task-specific.
[T]he present wording could be interpreted to indicate an
unmanageable requirement to train affected employees on the details
of each individual task. OSHA should consider re-wording this
provision or clarifying that it means that, where necessary,
additional training may be required for a particular task . . .
[Id.]

    Mr. Tom Chappell of Southern Company similarly noted that ``[d]ue
to the large number of different tasks that an employee may need to
perform, it would be difficult to evaluate each task and identify the
level of training that would be required'' (Ex. 0212). Consumers Energy
commented that, in its experience, ``employees can safely complete
hundreds of specific tasks'' without the need for training in each task
individually (Ex. 0177). Mr. Donald Hartley of IBEW testified that the
requirement ``to tie the degree of training to the risk to the employee
for the task involved . . . is both an unworkable and inappropriate
standard'' (Tr. 873-874). Mr. William Mattiford with Henkels & McCoy
testified:

    [I]t's not very clear as to what by definition, the degree of
training shall be determined by the risk to the employee for the
task involved. And that's where we see it's very confusing.
    And if it's literally taken that way, then it's each individual
task. So it's not just setting a pole, but it's digging a hole, to
set the pole, to prefab the pole. Each one of those things could be,
I guess, understood as being training for each one of those tasks.
    And I feel as though, many of us feel as though that by the
design of the training programs today that have redundancy and
overlapping in them, you do cover all of those.
    But to actually spell out perhaps a lesson plan for each one of
those tasks I think would be just too difficult to do, if not
impossible. [Tr. 1339]

Mr. Wilson Yancey with Quanta Services agreed with these comments:

    I agree with Bill's comments, too. I think most of that is being
covered today. If we have to go down and copy it and put lesson
plans for everything, we will never get it accomplished and it will
be too costly to the contractor. [Tr. 1340]

    OSHA continues to believe that it is important that the level of
training provided to employees be commensurate with the risk they
encounter. Focusing training where the risk is greatest maximizes the
benefits to be achieved. In addition, providing no more training than
is necessary for hazards that pose less risk can conserve valuable, and
often limited, safety and health resources. OSHA successfully used this
general approach in Sec.  1910.332(c), allowing employers flexibility
in providing training to employees, yet ensuring that employees most at
risk receive the most training. This approach is recognized by the
Agency's publication ``Training Requirements in OSHA Standards and
Training Guidelines.'' \55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ This document can be obtained by contacting OSHA's Office
of Publications as directed in the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble or from OSHA's Web page: http://www.osha.gov/pls/publications/publication.html. See, in particular, Section III of
the voluntary guidelines, ``Matching Training to Employees,'' on pp.
6-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the other hand, the Agency understands the rulemaking
participants' concerns. Most commenters objected to providing a level
of training determined by ``the task involved.'' Although employees are
trained to perform the various tasks involved in their jobs, as noted
by Mr. Mattiford (Tr. 1339), examining each task to determine the
relative risk may seem daunting and unworkable as claimed by Mr.
Hartley (Tr. 873-874). Employers should, however, be capable of
determining the relative risk of the various hazards encountered by
their employees. To clarify this requirement, OSHA replaced the phrase
``for the task involved'' from the proposal with the phrase ``for the
hazard involved'' in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of the final rule.
    To determine the relative risk encountered by employees, employers
are encouraged to follow the guidelines in OSHA's publication
``Training Requirements in OSHA Standards and Training Guidelines,''
Voluntary Training Guidelines, Section III. In any event, employers may
allocate training resources in accordance with their own determination
of relative risk, provided that each affected employee receives the
minimum training required under subpart V.
    Paragraph (b)(2) contains additional requirements for training
qualified employees. Because qualified employees may work extremely
close to electric power lines and equipment and, therefore, encounter a
high risk of electrocution, it is important that they be specially
trained. Towards this end, the standard requires that these employees
be trained in: distinguishing exposed live parts from other parts of
electric equipment; determining nominal voltages of exposed live parts;
applicable minimum approach distances and how to maintain them; the
techniques, protective equipment, insulating and shielding materials,
and tools for working on or near exposed live parts; and the knowledge
necessary to recognize electrical hazards and the techniques to control
or avoid these hazards. The language in paragraph (b)(2) generally
mirrors language in existing Sec.  1910.269(a)(2)(ii). However,
paragraph (b)(2)(v), which requires training in how to recognize and