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

    \134\ Body belts and safety straps that meet ASTM F887-12\e1\,
but with the test weight adjusted as required by Sec.
1926.954(b)(2)(xii)(A), will be deemed to be in compliance with
final Sec.  1926.954(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note 2 in the proposal provided that work-positioning equipment
meeting the consensus standard also needed to meet proposed paragraphs
(b)(2)(iv), which specified tensile testing for snaphooks, and
(b)(2)(xi), which required snaphooks to be of the locking type. ASTM
Committee F18 stated that ASTM F887-04 contained nearly identical
requirements and suggested that the note omit references to those two
proposed paragraphs (Ex. 0148). OSHA agrees that ASTM F887-04
adequately covered all the requirements in final paragraph (b)(2), and
OSHA removed the two referenced paragraphs (paragraphs (b)(2)(iv) and
(b)(2)(xi)) from the note in the final rule. In addition, the Agency
reviewed the latest edition of the ASTM standard, ASTM F887-12\e1\, and
found that it also adequately addresses all of the design requirements
in the final rule. Consequently, the note in the final rule states
that, when used by employees weighing no more than 140 kg (310 lbm)
fully equipped, body belts and positioning straps meeting this later
edition of the consensus standard will be deemed as complying with
paragraph (b)(2).
    OSHA also proposed a third note to paragraph (b)(2) indicating that
body belts and positioning straps meeting Sec.  1926.502(e) on
positioning device systems would be deemed to be in compliance with the
manufacturing and construction requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of
proposed Sec.  1926.954, provided that the equipment also conformed to
proposed paragraph (b)(2)(vii), which contained provisions addressing
electrical and flame-resistance tests for positioning straps, as well
as requirements for positioning straps to be capable of withstanding a
tension test and a buckle-tear test. The preamble to the proposal
explained that body belts and positioning straps that are parts of
positioning device systems addressed by Sec.  1926.502(e) serve the
same function as work-positioning equipment used for work covered by
subpart V (70 FR 34853). OSHA originally believed that body belts and
positioning straps that met the design criteria specified by Sec.
1926.502(e), as well as the provisions in proposed Sec.
1926.954(b)(2)(vii), would generally be sufficiently strong for power
line work.
    OSHA reexamined the need for, and appropriateness of, proposed Note
3 to Sec.  1926.954(b)(2) in light of the rulemaking record for subpart
V. As indicated by Mr. Daniel Shipp with ISEA, Sec.  1926.502(e) does
not contain requirements comparable to those in final Sec.
1926.954(b)(2)(xi)(B) and (b)(2)(xi)(C) for the minimum and maximum
opening and closing forces for snaphook keepers and locking mechanisms.
As explained in the discussion of final Sec.  1926.954(b)(2)(xi)
earlier in this section of the preamble, OSHA believes that snaphooks
must meet these performance requirements to be adequately protective in
the conditions encountered by employees performing work covered by
Subpart V. In addition, Sec.  1926.502(e) does not contain requirements
comparable to several other provisions of final Sec.  1926.954(b)(2),
including those prohibiting leather in load-bearing components of body-
belt and positioning-strap assemblies (paragraph (b)(2)(v)),
prohibiting tool loops in the center 100 millimeters (4 inches) of the
back of a body belt (paragraph (b)(2)(ix)), and requiring a maximum
arresting force during the drop test (paragraph (b)(2)(xii)(F)). OSHA
believes that these also are important requirements necessary for the
safety of employees performing work covered by Subpart V. Consequently,
OSHA is not including Note 3 to proposed Sec.  1926.954(b)(2) in the
final rule.
    Some commenters were concerned that the proposal required the tests
in paragraph (b)(2) to be conducted by the employer. (See, for example,
Exs. 0169, 0175, 0186.) OSHA notes that the final rule states that
work-positioning equipment must be ``capable'' of passing these tests.
The tests in the final rule could be performed by the manufacturer on
samples that are representative of the finished product. However, it
will be the employer's responsibility to ensure that it selects, and
has its employees use, a type of equipment that has been subject to
adequate testing by the manufacturer. The final rule does not require
employers to conduct the tests specified by paragraph (b)(2) when the
manufacturer conducts such testing. Employers will be able to
determine, in most instances, whether work-positioning equipment meets
the OSHA standard simply by ensuring that the manufacturer has tested
the equipment in accordance with the OSHA standard or ASTM F887-12
\e1\. The tests required by paragraph (b)(2) are potentially
destructive and should never be performed on work-positioning equipment
that will be used by employees (Exs. 0055, 0072).
    Paragraph (b)(3) addresses the care and use of fall protection
equipment. As OSHA explained in the preamble to the proposal, fall
protection equipment provides maximum protection only when it is
properly used and maintained (70 FR 34853). Existing Sec.
1926.951(b)(3) requires this equipment to be inspected each day before
use. OSHA believed that this requirement had to be supplemented by
additional requirements to protect employees fully from fall hazards
posed by electric power transmission and distribution work and,
therefore, proposed to add requirements to subpart V, borrowed from
existing Sec.  1910.269(g)(2) and Sec.  1926.502(d) and (e), regulating
the care and use of fall protection equipment.

    Paragraph (b)(3)(i) requires the employer to ensure that work-
positioning equipment is inspected before use each day to determine if
it is in safe working condition. (Paragraph (d)(21) of Sec.  1926.502
already contains a similar requirement for fall arrest equipment that
applies, and will continue to apply, to work covered by Subpart V.)
Paragraph (b)(3)(i) also prohibits the use of work-positioning
equipment that is not in safe working condition. The proposal was
worded to prohibit the use of ``defective equipment.'' OSHA replaced
this term in the final rule with ``equipment that is not in safe
working condition'' and added ``work-positioning'' before ``equipment''
to clarify that this provision applies to any condition that would make
work-positioning equipment unsafe. This language also makes it
consistent with the requirement in this paragraph to inspect the
equipment to determine if it is in ``safe working condition.'' This
paragraph ensures that protective equipment will be capable of
protecting employees when needed. This requirement is similar to
existing Sec.  1926.951(b)(3), except that the prohibition on the use
of unsafe equipment is now stated explicitly. A thorough inspection of
fall protection equipment can detect defects such as cracked snaphooks
and D rings, frayed lanyards, loose snaphook keepers, and bent buckles.
A note to this paragraph states that a guide to the inspection of this
equipment is included in Appendix F.
    Paragraph (b)(3)(ii) requires personal fall arrest systems to be
used in accordance with Sec.  1926.502(d). Paragraph (d)(21) of Sec.
1926.502 provides: ``Personal fall arrest systems shall be inspected
prior to each use for wear, damage and other deterioration, and
defective components shall be removed from service.'' Removing
``defective'' equipment from service in accordance with Sec.
1926.502(d)(21) will ensure that employees are not using fall arrest
equipment that is not in safe working condition.\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ Subpart M, Appendix C, section II, paragraph (g) provides
examples of defects that require removing equipment from service.
Such defects include cuts, tears, abrasions, mold, or undue
stretching; alterations or additions which might affect the
efficiency of the equipment; damage due to deterioration; contact
with fire, acids, or other corrosives; distorted hooks or faulty
hook springs; tongues unfitted to the shoulder of buckles; loose or
damaged mountings; nonfunctioning parts; or wearing or internal
deterioration in the ropes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA explained in the proposal that personal fall arrest equipment
is sometimes used as work-positioning equipment such that the employee
can lean into the body harness and perform work (70 FR 34854). In this
scenario, the normal attachment point would be at waist level.
Paragraph (d)(17) of Sec.  1926.502 requires the attachment point for
body harnesses to be located in the center of the employee's back near
shoulder level or above his or her head. As the Agency explained in the
preamble to the proposal, such an attachment could prevent the employee
from performing his or her job while the employee is using work-
positioning equipment (id.), so OSHA proposed to exempt fall arrest
equipment used as work-positioning equipment from this requirement if
the equipment was rigged so that the maximum free-fall distance was no
greater than 0.6 meters (2 feet).
    Mr. Daniel Shipp with ISEA agreed with the proposal, commenting:

    ISEA agrees with the proposed change to allow frontal-attachment
for personal fall arrest on equipment that is used for work
positioning, with a maximum permissible free fall distance of 0.6 m
(2 ft). [Ex. 0211]

    OSHA reconsidered including this exception in the regulatory text
of paragraph (b)(3)(ii) and concluded that it is unnecessary. Fall
arrest equipment that is rigged for work positioning is considered to
be work-positioning equipment for the purposes of final Sec.
1926.954(b). When fall protection equipment is rigged for work
positioning, the equipment must meet the requirements in paragraph (b)
that apply to work-positioning equipment, and the provisions that apply
to fall arrest systems, including the anchorage requirement in Sec.
1926.502(d)(17), are not applicable. When fall protection equipment is
rigged to arrest falls, the equipment is considered to be a fall arrest
system, and the provisions for those systems apply. OSHA included a
note to paragraph (b)(3)(ii) to clarify this point.
    In paragraph (b)(3)(iii), OSHA proposed to require the use of a
personal fall arrest system or work-positioning equipment by employees
working at elevated locations more than 1.2 meters (4 feet) above the
ground on poles, towers, and similar structures if other fall
protection has not been provided. As OSHA clarified in the proposal,
the term ``similar structures'' includes any structure that supports
electric power transmission or distribution lines or equipment, such as
lattice substation structures and H-frame wood transmission structures
(70 FR 34854). A similar requirement is in existing Sec.
1910.269(g)(2)(v). (In existing Sec.  1926.951(b)(1), OSHA requires
fall protection for ``employees working at elevated locations,'' but
does not specify a height at which such protection becomes necessary.)
Note 1 to proposed paragraph (b)(3)(iii) indicated that these fall
protection requirements did not apply to portions of buildings,
electric equipment, or aerial lifts, and referred to the relevant
portions of the construction standards that do apply in those instances
(that is, subpart M for walking and working surfaces generally and
Sec.  1926.453 for aerial lifts).\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ As noted earlier, the corresponding note in the final rule
does not pertain to fall protection for employees in aerial lifts or
reference Sec.  1926.453.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many rulemaking participants commented on the proposed requirement
to use fall protection starting at 1.2 meters (4 feet) above the
ground. (See, for example, Exs. 0173, 0183, 0186, 0196, 0202, 0210,
0219, 0229, 0233, 0239; Tr. 575-576.) Two commenters recommended that
Subpart V mirror the Subpart M ``6-foot rule,'' in other words, that
fall protection not be required until an employee is 1.8 meters (6
feet) or more above the ground (Exs. 0196, 0219; Tr. 575-576). Lee
Marchessault with Workplace Safety Solutions commented:

    [The proposal] requires fall protection when working at heights
greater than 4 feet, however the referrence [sic] to 1926 subpart M
requires 6 feet and therefore the fall protection system is designed
to engage at distances not more than 6 feet. This renders the system
useless for a 5 foot fall in some cases. An example may be working
on a trash platform of a hydro generation facility cleaning racks
that are 4.5 feet off the lower walking surface. A fall restraint
system works best, but workers are allowed to use a harness and 6
foot lanyard. [Ex. 0196]

Mr. Marchessault suggested in testimony at the 2006 public hearing that
using different length lanyards for different jobs would not be
feasible (Tr. 576). The Virginia Maryland & Delaware Association of
Electric Cooperatives commented that it did not see a need for OSHA to
set any height threshold for fall protection in the standard,
explaining: ``Line work is inherently different than other occupations
with climbing a necessary skill required in the trade. Therefore,
specification of a distance does not add additional safety to the
employee'' (Ex. 0175).

    Other commenters supported the proposed 1.2-meter height or stated
that it generally has not presented problems since it was adopted in
existing Sec.  1910.269. (See, for example, Exs. 0186, 0211, 0213,
0230.) IBEW commented that ``[t]he 1910.269 requirement [for fall
protection starting at] 1.2 meters (4 feet) has proven not [to] be
problematic. The addition of 2 feet will not offer anything to the
requirement'' (Ex. 0230).

    Most of the comments relating to the starting height for fall
protection were from electric cooperatives or their representatives who
recommended that OSHA not require fall protection until 3 meters (10
feet) above the ground for employees who are undergoing training. (See,
for example, Exs. 0183, 0186, 0202, 0210, 0229, 0233, 0239.) For
instance, Mr. Anthony Ahern of Ohio Rural Electric Cooperatives
commented:

    [F]or training purposes it would be nice to have the option of
going to 10 feet without fall protection . . . under close
supervision. At a height of only 4 [feet] a climber really does not
get a sense of height. Using fall arrest equipment at higher levels
gives the new climber a false sense of security, can hinder mobility
and make it more difficult to move around the pole. Being able to
work new climbers up to 10 [feet] after demonstrating basic
abilities at lower levels would give the new climber a better sense
of working at heights and make it easier for trainers to determine
which [climbers] need additional training or who simply can not
handle working on a pole. [Ex. 0186]

NRECA maintained that ``in the highly-supervised and specially-equipped
environment of linemen training, the extra height adds very little, if
any extra danger'' (Ex. 0233).

    As previously noted, the current requirement in Sec.
1910.269(g)(2)(v) for fall protection starts at 1.2 meters (4 feet),
and multiple commenters indicated that this provision is not causing
problems. (See, for example, Exs. 0186, 0230.) Adjustable-length
lanyards, retractable lanyards, and work-positioning equipment can
serve to accommodate the varying heights at which an employee will be
working (Ex. 0211). In addition, the relevant paragraph in the final
rule (Sec.  1926.954(b)(3)(iii)(B)) does not apply to the example
provided by Mr. Marchessault (the ``trash platform of a hydro
generation facility''), as such work locations are not ``poles, towers,
or similar structures.'' OSHA is not persuaded by the speculation that
employees undergoing training experience a ``false sense of security''
or that employees using fall protection cannot be successfully trained
in the use of free-climbing techniques. Employees undergoing training
can use combination body belt-body harness systems that attach both to
a retractable lanyard anchored to the top of a pole (for fall arrest)
and to a positioning strap (for work positioning). This arrangement
will ensure protection for the trainees until they master climbing
techniques. Any sense of security the employee experiences using such
equipment would not be ``false,'' but rather would be based on real
protection. There is evidence in the record that unprotected employees
in training to climb wood poles have been injured (Ex. 0003 \137\).
Several of these employees were climbing wood poles with wood chips at
the base of the pole. The chips did not protect the employees, and they
received serious injuries, for which all but one were hospitalized.
OSHA has previously taken the position that wood chips do not provide
adequate fall protection for employees, and the evidence in this
rulemaking does not support a different conclusion. Under final Sec.
1926.954(b)(3)(iii)(B), employers must provide employees with
appropriate fall protection when they are in training to climb wood
poles.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ See, for example, the descriptions of five accidents at:
http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/accidentsearch.accident_detail?id=170157069&id=170181432&id=170175269&id=170176630&id=170204267.
    \138\ As stated in Note 2 to paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(B) and
(b)(3)(iii)(C), employees who have not completed training in
climbing and the use of fall protection are not considered
``qualified employees'' for the purposes of paragraph
(b)(3)(iii)(C), which permits qualified employees to climb without
fall protection in limited situations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 1.2-meter threshold provides additional safety when compared to
higher thresholds. The speed with which an employee will strike the
ground increases with increasing height. An extra 0.6 meters (2 feet)
in height increases fall velocity by over 20 percent, substantially
increasing the potential severity of any injuries the employee
receives. An extra 1.8 meters (6 feet) in height increases fall
velocity by nearly 50 percent. After considering the comments in the
record, OSHA concluded that the rationales offered by these commenters
do not justify increasing the severity of the fall hazard by increasing
the height threshold. Therefore, OSHA is adopting the proposed
requirement for fall protection to start at 1.2 meters (4 feet) and,
for the reasons described previously, is not adopting a less protective
threshold for employees undergoing training.
    Southern Company suggested that OSHA reference IEEE Std 1307-2004,
Standard for Fall Protection for Utility Work, for work on
transformers, circuit breakers, and other large equipment. That
standard requires fall protection at heights of 3.05 meters (10 feet)
and higher (Ex. 0212).
    The duty to provide fall protection for work on electric equipment,
such as transformers and capacitors, is not in Subpart V or Sec.
1910.269, but rather in Part 1926, Subpart M, and Part 1910, Subpart D,
for construction and general industry, respectively. The application of
Subpart D rather than Sec.  1910.269 to walking-working surfaces other
than poles, towers, and similar structures was explained in the
preamble to the 1994 Sec.  1910.269 final rule (59 FR 4374) and in
letters of interpretation.\139\ The consensus standard's requirement
for fall protection at heights over 3.05 meters conflicts with the more
protective requirements in Subparts M and D. Also, for reasons noted
earlier, the Agency concluded that an increase in the 1.2-meter (4-
foot) and 1.8-meter (6-foot) threshold heights for initiating fall
protection in Subparts D and M, respectively, is not warranted. It
should be noted that IEEE Std 1307 is included in Appendix G, and
employers may find that it contains useful information on how to
provide fall protection for work covered by subpart V. However, OSHA
concludes that a nonmandatory reference to the consensus standard for a
situation to which Sec.  1926.954(b)(3)(iii) does not apply, as
recommended by Southern Company, would be inappropriate and misleading.
Note 1 to proposed Sec.  1926.954(b)(3)(iii) stated that ``[t]he duty
to provide fall protection associated with walking and working surfaces
is contained in subpart M of this part.'' However, the relevant portion
of existing Sec.  1926.500(a) seems to indicate otherwise, stating that
requirements relating to fall protection for employees engaged in the
construction of electric transmission and distribution lines and
equipment are provided in subpart V (see Sec.  1926.500(a)(2)(vi)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ See, for example, the October 18, 1995, letter to Mr.
Lonnie Bell (http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=21981) and the December 18,
1997, letter to Mr. Dimitrios Mihou (http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=22508).

    As was clear from Note 1 to proposed Sec.  1926.954(b)(3)(iii),
OSHA was proposing that the duty to provide fall protection for
general walking working surfaces, that is, everything other than
aerial lifts and poles, towers, and similar structures, would be
covered by subpart M. To clarify this point, in the final rule, OSHA
is revising Sec.  1926.500(a)(2)(vi) so that the subpart V exemption
applies only to the duty to provide fall protection for aerial lifts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
and poles, towers, and similar structures.

    Existing Sec.  1910.269(g)(2)(v) permits travel-restricting
equipment as an alternative to fall arrest or work-positioning systems.
OSHA proposed to omit the use of travel-restricting equipment as a
recognized fall protection system for electric power transmission and
distribution work on poles, towers, and similar structures. In the
preamble to the proposal, the Agency explained that travel-restricting
equipment is only appropriate for work

on open-sided platforms, where employees can walk around the working
surface with the travel-restricting equipment keeping them from
approaching too close to an unguarded edge (70 FR 34854). When it
published the proposal, the Agency did not believe that this type of
working surface could be found on poles, towers, or similar structures
(id.). Therefore, OSHA did not include travel-restricting equipment as
an acceptable fall protection system in proposed Sec.
1926.954(b)(3)(iii) and proposed to remove the reference to travel-
restricting equipment in existing Sec.  1910.269(g)(2)(v), but invited
comments on this omission.
    Many commenters argued that there are surfaces used in work covered
by Subpart V for which travel-restricting equipment is appropriate and
recommended that OSHA restore travel-restricting equipment as an
alternative form of fall protection. (See, for example, Exs. 0126,
0173, 0183, 0201, 0202, 0210, 0225, 0229, 0230, 0233, 0239.) However,
few of these commenters provided specific, relevant examples. IBEW
commented that travel-restricting equipment is sometimes used when an
employee is transferring from a crossarm to a hook ladder or working or
climbing above an energized circuit (Ex. 0230). In addition, Duke
Energy asserted that the top of large transformers and rooftop
installations were places where travel-restricting equipment could be
used (Ex. 0201).
    OSHA concludes that the examples provided by IBEW and Duke Energy
are not relevant because the paragraph at issue does not apply to the
tops of transformers or rooftops. Also, travel-restricting equipment,
which is used to protect employees from fall hazards at unprotected
edges, is not an appropriate form of fall protection for employees
transferring from one location to another or for employees working or
climbing above energized equipment.
    Several commenters maintained that open-sided platforms are found
on electric utility structures. (See, for example, Exs. 0126, 0183,
0202, 0229, 0233, 0239.) One of them, BGE, commented that it still has
some open-sided platforms on switch structures (Ex. 0126).
    OSHA previously concluded that equipment that can prevent an
employee from falling, such as fall restraint equipment, is an
acceptable form of fall protection. This conclusion is consistent with
Agency policy as indicated in several letters of interpretation. (See,
for example, letter dated November 2, 1995, to Mr. Mike Amen, http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=21999, and letter dated August 14, 2000, to
Mr. Charles E. Hill, http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24110.) The term ``travel
restricting equipment'' appears only in existing Sec.  1910.269; the
equivalent terms ``restraint system'' and ``tethering system'' are used
consistently throughout other OSHA standards, such as Sec.
1926.760(a)(1), and official letters of interpretation (id.). The term
``fall restraint system,'' as defined in Sec.  1926.751 (in the steel
erection standard), is a broad term that OSHA generally uses to refer
to any equipment that prevents employees from falling. Thus, ``fall
restraint'' includes travel-restricting equipment, tethering systems,
and other systems that prevent falls from occurring. On the basis of
comments received on travel-restricting equipment, OSHA believes that
there are situations in which fall restraint systems can be used to
protect employees performing work on poles, towers, and similar
structures; therefore, the final rule includes these systems as an
acceptable form of fall protection.
    In reviewing the rulemaking record for Sec.  1926.954, the Agency
noted situations in which commenters appeared confused about the proper
use of the various forms of fall protection. For example, the tree care
industry believed that it was acceptable for employees working from
aerial lifts to use work-positioning equipment (Exs. 0174, 0200, 0502,
0503), and IBEW condoned the use of travel-restricting equipment in
what appear to be fall-arrest situations (Ex. 0230). OSHA adopted two
changes in the final rule to clarify these terms. First, in Sec. Sec.
1910.269(x) and 1926.968, OSHA is defining the three forms of fall
protection listed in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of the final rule.
    The final rule defines ``personal fall arrest system'' as a system
used to arrest an employee in a fall from a working level. This
definition is borrowed from Sec.  1926.500(b) in subpart M. The Agency
is not, however, including the descriptive text following the
definition in Sec.  1926.500(b), which describes the various parts of
personal fall arrest systems. Although this description is not a
necessary part of the definition, OSHA notes that it describes personal
fall arrest systems as consisting of an anchorage, connectors, and a
body harness and indicates that such equipment may include a lanyard,
deceleration device, lifeline, or suitable combinations of these.
    The final rule defines ``work-positioning equipment'' as a body
belt or body harness system rigged to allow an employee to be supported
on an elevated vertical surface, such as a utility pole or tower leg,
and work with both hands free while leaning. This definition is based
on the definition of ``positioning device system'' in Sec.  1926.500(b)
in subpart M. However, OSHA is replacing the example of vertical
surface work in the subpart M definition with examples of vertical
surfaces that are commonly found in electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution work and that are covered by the final
rule.
    Finally, the final rule defines ``fall restraint system'' as a fall
protection system that prevents the user from falling any distance.
This definition is borrowed from Sec.  1926.751, which specifies
definitions for the steel erection standard in subpart R of part 1926.
The Agency is not including the descriptive text following the
definition, which describes the various parts of fall restraint
systems. Although this description is not a necessary part of the
definition, OSHA notes that it describes such systems as consisting of
either a body belt or body harness, along with an anchorage, connectors
and other necessary equipment. The final rule does not specify strength
requirements for fall restraint systems; however, the system must be
strong enough to restrain the worker from exposure to the fall
hazard.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ OSHA recommended more specific strength criteria in a
letter of interpretation dated November 2, 1995, to Mr. Mike Amen
(http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=21999). This letter stated: ``OSHA has
no specific standards for restraint systems, however, we suggest
that as a minimum, fall restraint systems should have the capacity
to withstand at least twice the maximum expected force that is
needed to restrain the person from exposure to the fall hazard. In
determining this force, consideration should be given to site-
specific factors such as the force generated by a person walking,
leaning, or sliding down the working surface.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, OSHA is adding the phrase ``as appropriate'' to the
requirement in paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(B) to provide a personal fall
arrest system, work-positioning equipment, or fall restraint system on
poles, towers, or similar structures. This addition will make it clear
that the system the employer chooses to implement must be appropriate
for the situation, as indicated by the respective definitions. For
example, because work-positioning equipment, by definition, is to be
used on a vertical working surface, it would be inappropriate to use
this equipment on horizontal working surfaces, such as a crossarm or
horizontal tower arm.

    With these modifications, the relevant provision in the final rule,
which is in paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(B), states that, except as provided
in paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(C), each employee in elevated locations more
than 1.2 meters (4 feet) above the ground on poles, towers, or similar
structures must use a personal fall arrest system, work-positioning
equipment, or fall restraint system, as appropriate, if the employer
has not provided other fall protection meeting Subpart M.
    In the final rule, OSHA also added the phrase ``meeting subpart M
of this part'' to clarify that the requirements of Subpart M apply to
other forms of fall protection. The Agency is making a corresponding
clarification in final Sec.  1910.269(g)(2)(iv)(C)(2) that ``other fall
protection'' must meet the general industry fall protection
requirements in subpart D.
    The Southern Company recommended that OSHA not specify the type of
fall protection equipment to be used for open-sided platforms (Ex.
0212).
    The language OSHA is adopting in paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(B) of the
final rule provides the employer some latitude in deciding which form
of fall protection is appropriate for employees working at elevated
locations on poles, towers, and similar structures. However, the rule
requires that the selected fall protection equipment be appropriate for
the fall hazard. Using equipment for an application for which it is not
designed exposes employees to hazards that were not considered in the
design of the equipment. For example, an employee using work-
positioning equipment in a fall-arrest situation could fall out of the
equipment or be injured by fall-arrest forces. Thus, the Agency
concludes that employers must select fall protection equipment that is
appropriate for the hazard to which the employee is exposed.
Consequently, an employee exposed to a fall hazard on an open-sided
platform more than 1.2 meters (4 feet) above the ground must use either
a fall arrest system or a fall restraint system, with the fall
restraint system eliminating exposure to the fall hazard altogether.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(3)(iii) included an exemption from fall
protection requirements for qualified employees climbing or changing
locations on poles, towers, or similar structures unless conditions,
such as ice or high winds, could cause the employee to lose his or her
grip or footing. Two rulemaking participants objected to the proposed
provision allowing qualified employees to climb or change location
without using fall protection (Exs. 0130, 0196; Tr. 576-579). NIOSH
recommended ``that fall protection equipment be used by all employees,
including qualified employees, climbing or changing location on poles,
towers, and other walking/working surfaces that present a potential
fall hazard in both general industry and construction'' (Ex. 0130).
NIOSH supported its recommendation with a report that summarized
surveillance data and investigative reports of fatal work-related falls
from elevations (Ex. 0144). The first report noted that, according to
National Traumatic Occupational Fatalities surveillance-system data, 23
percent of fatal falls in the transportation/communications/public
utilities sector were from structures, predominantly poles and towers.
This report provided detailed information about two fatalities
involving employees performing work on poles or towers covered by this
final rule:
     A power line worker died in a fall from a utility pole. As
he was securing his positioning strap around the pole, he contacted a
120-volt conductor and fell as he tried to free himself from the
conductor. He landed on his head and died of a broken neck.
     A painter died in a fall from an electric power
transmission tower. As the employee unhooked his lanyard to reposition
himself on the tower, he lost his balance and fell to the ground. He
died of massive internal trauma sustained in the fall.
    In both of these cases, NIOSH recommended evaluating the
possibility of using 100-percent fall protection, including using fall
protection while employees climb and relocate.
    Lee Marchessault of Workplace Safety Solutions also recommended
requiring fall protection for employees climbing or changing location
on poles, towers, or similar structures, commenting:

    I have asked line workers in many companies if they have
``cutout'' (gaffs released and fallen to some extent from a pole).
\[141]\ The answer is almost universal, most (more than 90%) have
cutout at lease once. The resulting injury is usually a nasty sliver
from a treated wood pole or minor bruises or broken bones. This is a
known hazard and yet it is allowed to continue even though there are
devices that prevent this injury. This section should be eliminated
from this regulation and replaced with ``fall restraint devices are
required from the ground for climbing poles or similar structures
more than 6 feet and these devices shall be of a type that cannot be
defeated where practicable''. In other words, systems modifying
existing pole straps, or pole mounted devices that need to be
installed once you arrive would not be allowed because free-climbing
is still or may still be done. Pole top mounted retractable devices
protect from free fall but will not prevent slowly slipping down the
pole picking up slivers from every gaff cut along the way. A system
such as or similar to Buckingham's Bucksqueeze fall protection belt
would meet this requirement. Regarding towers and structures, there
is equipment or options available for most circumstances. [Ex. 0196]

    \141\ A line worker using positioning equipment on a wood pole
uses pole climbers, leg irons that are strapped to the worker's
legs. A gaff, or spike, protrudes from the leg iron. The gaffs
penetrate the wood of the pole and support the weight of the worker.
A cutout occurs when the gaff slips out of the wood, allowing the
worker to fall.

Mr. Marchessault recognized, however, that there may be times when it
is not feasible to provide protection and suggested that the standard
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
account for those situations (Tr. 595).

    Other rulemaking participants supported the proposed provision in
paragraph (b)(3)(iii) that permitted qualified employees to free climb
without fall protection. (See, for example, Exs. 0167, 0185, 0212.) For
instance, Mr. John Vocke with Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)
recommended that OSHA retain the exception allowing employees to free
climb poles and towers, commenting:

    PG&E submits that the ``free climbing'' of utility poles and/or
towers should continue to be permitted by the OSHA regulations. As
more cable television, telephone and communication equipment is
situated on utility poles, safe climbing space on these structures
becomes a consideration. In order for line workers to access
overhead electric facilities, in some instances, free climbing is a
safer alternative. [Ex. 0185]

    Whether to provide fall protection for employees climbing poles,
towers, and similar structures was an issue in the 1994 Sec.  1910.269
rulemaking. Participants in that rulemaking submitted substantial
evidence on the need for, and feasibility of, providing such
protection. Based on accident data submitted to that record in several
exhibits, the Agency found that employees are at risk of injury when
free climbing:

    [T]hese exhibits demonstrate that electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution workers face a significant risk of
serious injury due to falls under current industry practices. To
determine the extent to which they face hazards addressed by
proposed Sec.  1910.269(g)(2)(v), OSHA analyzed fall accidents
included in various exhibits contained in the rulemaking record. . .
. [E]mployees do fall while climbing poles, towers, or similar
structures--26 percent of the falling accidents related to Sec.
1910.269 occurred in this manner. The evidence in the record
indicates that climbing a pole, tower, or similar structure is not
as safe, under current industry practices, as some of the hearing
witnesses testified. Therefore, the

Agency has decided that the final standard must provide additional
protection beyond that provided by the existing industry practices.
. . . [59 FR 4373]

    Although OSHA concluded that it was not always safe to free climb,
the Agency ``accepted the position that it is not always necessary for
a qualified employee to use a pole strap when climbing an unstepped
wooden pole'' (id.) Therefore, in existing Sec.  1910.269(g)(2)(v),
OSHA adopted a rule, identical to that proposed in paragraph
(b)(3)(iii), that allowed free climbing ``unless conditions . . . could
cause the employee to lose his or her grip or footing.'' OSHA believed
that the rule adopted in Sec.  1910.269 would ensure that employees
were protected when conditions were most likely to lead to falls.
    The Agency examined the accident information in the current record
to determine if the rule in existing Sec.  1910.269(g)(2)(v) has
reduced climbing-related accidents. Table 3 presents relevant accident
information from the 1994 record, and from the record in this
rulemaking, to show the number of fall accidents occurring over time.

                                             Table 3--Falls by Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Number of accidents \2\
        Type of fall \1\         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   1981-1989    1991-1993     1994     1995     1996     1997     1998     1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climbing \3\....................          11           15        3        5        2        3        1        3
At work location................           7            5        0        0        0        0        0        1
Other (not stated)..............           3            0        0        0        0        0        0        0
Failure of Structure............          12            6        0        0        1        2        0        2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: 1. The table only includes falls from poles, towers, and similar structures.
2. Each accident involves the death or serious injury of one or more employees.
3. Climbing includes descending and changing location.
Sources: 1981-1989--Table 1 in the preamble to the 1994 Sec.   1910.269 final rule (59 FR 4373).
1991-1999--Exs. 0003 and 0400.

    The number of accidents in the years 1991 through 1999 are based on
OSHA IMIS data. Because IMIS reports are based on investigations
resulting from employer reports of accidents, and because employers are
not required to report accidents that do not involve a fatality or the
hospitalization of three or more employees, it is likely that IMIS data
substantially undercount the number of nonfatal injuries. Even without
adjusting for potential undercounting, however, the table shows that
employees still face a significant risk of being severely injured in a
fall while climbing poles, towers, or similar structures. In the 3
years before Sec.  1910.269 was promulgated, employees climbing poles,
towers, or similar structures experienced five accidents per year, on
average. In the first 6 years after that standard was promulgated,
there were approximately three accidents per year, on average, for a
reduction of two accidents per year, on average.\142\ This is in sharp
contrast to the reduction in the number of falls experienced by
employees at the work location on poles, towers, and similar
structures. This type of accident has largely disappeared since OSHA
issued Sec.  1910.269.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ OSHA examined accident data for electric utilities for the
years 2009 and 2010. In that industry alone, four employees were
injured (three fatally) when they fell from structures supporting
overhead power lines. (See the descriptions of these four accidents
at: http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/accidentsearch.accident_detail?id=202469680&id=202489316&id=201491990&id=201859964.) In half
the cases, the employees were climbing or changing location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, more than a third of the falls experienced by
employees climbing wood structures occurred when the employee's gaff
cut out of the wood and caused the employee to fall to the ground (Exs.
0003, 0004). This is also the experience reported by Mr. Marchessault
of Workplace Safety Solutions (Tr. 578). Federal and State compliance
records reported that the poles involved in two of the gaff cutout
accidents reflected in Table 3 had no observable defects (Ex.
0003\143\). Even though both of those accidents occurred before Sec.
1910.269 was promulgated, it is likely that nothing in that standard
would have prevented those accidents. Based on the comments, Mr.
Marchessault's testimony, and the accident descriptions in the record,
OSHA concludes that gaff cutout is pervasive, cannot be reliably
predicted, and can lead to death or serious physical harm. (Mr.
Marchessault described the injuries as ``slivers'' in his testimony,
but injuries from gaff cutout accidents have included such serious
injuries as severe fractures, a concussion, and a collapsed lung for
which the injured employees were hospitalized (Exs. 0003, 0400).\144\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ See the descriptions of the two accidents at: http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/accidentsearch.accident_detail?id=170374144&id=170611693.
    \144\ OSHA also has documentation, not included in this
analysis, of three instances in which employees were killed when
they fell from utility poles as a result of gaff cutout (http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/accidentsearch.accident_detail?id=170252852&id=14422471&id=14412209).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current rule in Sec.  1910.269 requires employers to protect
employees from falling while climbing or changing location under
specified circumstances, and evidence in this record indicates that in
many, if not all, circumstances it is feasible for employees to climb
and change locations while protected. For example, Mr. Marchessault of
Workplace Safety Solutions testified that there are ``equipment options
available for most circumstances [involving employees climbing or
changing location]'' (Tr. 576); Mr. Steven Theis of MYR testified that
he was aware that one utility required 100-percent fall protection (Tr.
1357); and IBEW noted that some employers require ``fulltime attachment
while climbing and working on a wood pole'' \145\ (Ex. 0230). According
to an IBEW survey of 102 IBEW construction locals, more than a quarter
of 93 locals responding to one question in the survey reported that
``the employer require[s] continuous attachment to the pole when
climbing,'' and nearly a third of 91 locals responding to another
question reported that ``the employer require[s] continuous attachment
to the

structure when climbing'' (Ex. 0230). The preamble to the 1994 final
rule for Sec.  1910.269 noted that the Electrical Division of the
Panama Canal Commission and Ontario Hydro in Canada required fall
protection for their employees while they work on elevated structures
(59 FR 4372-4373).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ OSHA concludes that, in describing the ``climbing'' of
poles or structures, rulemaking participants used the term
``climbing'' broadly to indicate any employee movement, including
``changing location,'' on poles or structures, as climbing a pole or
structure to get to the working position involves the same
horizontal and vertical movements as changing location vertically or
horizontally on a pole or structure. OSHA also concludes that, in
this context, rulemaking participants used the term ``working''
narrowly to indicate the activity of working in stationary positions
on poles or structures and not broadly to also indicate the activity
of climbing or changing location on poles or structures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are several new forms of work-positioning equipment that can
provide continuous attachment for employees climbing or changing
location on poles, towers, and similar structures. The preamble to the
proposal noted the Pole Shark and Pole Choker (70 FR 34855).\146\ Two
commenters pointed to the BuckSqueeze as another work-positioning
system that can provide continuous attachment while employees are
climbing or changing location on wood structures (Ex. 0199; Tr.
578).\147\ A video of this equipment being used demonstrates that an
employee proficient in its use can ascend and descend poles with
relative ease while being protected from falling (Ex. 0492). Rulemaking
participants indicated that fall protection equipment is available to
protect employees climbing or changing location on towers and similar
structures (Exs. 0144, 0196). This equipment includes rail and rope-
grab systems to which an employee can attach a harness and a lanyard,
retractable lanyards attached above the employee, and double-lanyard
systems (Ex. 0199; Tr. 578, 587 \148\). OSHA believes that these, and
similar new, devices make it easier to provide fall protection for
employees climbing or changing location on poles, towers, and similar
structures, as evidenced by the growing prevalence of employers
requiring 100-percent attachment. Therefore, OSHA concludes that
employees climbing or changing location on poles, towers, and similar
structures can use fall protection under more conditions than required
by existing Sec.  1910.269(g)(2)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ A Pole Shark is a device that uses jaws and a spur wheel
to grip the pole and provide an anchorage for climbing wood poles. A
Pole Choker is a pole strap with an integrated choker strap. The
employee tightens the choker strap against the pole to prevent the
pole strap from sliding down the pole. Note that, throughout this
notice, references to these and other products are examples only and
do not constitute an endorsement by OSHA.
    \147\ A BuckSqueeze is a pole strap with an integrated choker
strap. The employee tightens the choker strap against the pole to
prevent the pole strap from sliding down the pole.
    \148\ Mr. Marchessault described a double-strap system for use
on a pole (Tr. 587). OSHA believes that employers can adapt this
system, using lanyards in place of positioning straps, for use on a
tower or similar structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, OSHA also concludes that there may be circumstances that
preclude the use of fall protection while employees are climbing or
changing location. For example, Mr. James Tomaseski of IBEW testified,
``[O]n congested poles, to be able to ascend the pole to your working
area could be a major task in itself. On the congested poles it is
enough of a task already, but adding to the point that you have to stay
connected the entire time, it would be at best difficult'' (Tr. 977).
Mr. Theis of MYR Group echoed these concerns:

    [Employees] are using [pole chokers] now. And some of the guys
are telling us they can't be used in all situations. In a lot of
situations, they can be. When they start getting into a very
congested pole, very congested area, they become more cumbersome
than they are of any benefit. [Tr. 1357]

    Consequently, OSHA decided to modify the provision proposed in
paragraph (b)(3)(iii) (paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(C) in the final rule) to
require fall protection even for qualified employees climbing or
changing location on poles, towers, or similar structures, unless the
employer can demonstrate that the conditions at the worksite would make
using fall protection infeasible or would create a greater hazard for
employees climbing or changing location on these structures while using
fall protection. This rule will ensure that 100-percent fall protection
is the default procedure when employees are working on these structures
and, therefore, will better protect employees than the current
requirement. Based on the rulemaking record, OSHA would consider it
feasible to use fall protection while climbing or changing location on
a structure with few or no obstructions. Employers may, however, make
reasonable determinations of what conditions, for example, the degree
of congestion on a pole, would result in a greater hazard for employees
climbing with fall protection than without fall protection. Employers
making these determinations must consider the use of devices that
provide for continuous attachment and should account for other
conditions that would make climbing or changing location without fall
protection unsafe, including such conditions as ice, high winds, and
the other conditions noted in existing Sec.  1910.269(g)(2)(v). In
addition, OSHA notes that this provision does not affect fall
protection requirements in final Sec.  1926.954(b)(3)(iii)(B) for
employees once they reach the work location.
    Because the final rule permits qualified employees to climb or
change location without fall protection under limited circumstances,
the Agency anticipates that it will be necessary for employees to
occasionally defeat the continuous attachment feature on the fall
protection equipment. Therefore, OSHA decided not to require the
equipment used to meet paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(C) of the final rule to be
incapable of being defeated by employees, as recommended by Mr.
Marchessault (Ex. 0196).
    Even though under existing Sec.  1910.269(g)(2)(v) there already
are some circumstances in which employers must provide equipment that
will protect employees who are climbing or changing location on
structures, OSHA believes that many employers covered by the final rule
will need additional time to explore options to select equipment that
best protects their employees while climbing or changing location. In
some cases, the equipment employers currently are providing may not be
ideal for everyday use. In addition, employers will need time to train
employees to become proficient in the use of any new equipment. Before
employees gain proficiency, it is possible that not only will they have
difficulties climbing or changing location on structures, but the
equipment may distract them from climbing or changing location safely.
As noted by Mr. Gene Trombley, representing EEI in the 1994 rulemaking,
``To suddenly try to require them to change years and years of training
and experience would, I feel, cause a serious reduction in that high
level of confidence and ability'' (DC Tr. 853, as quoted in the
preamble to the 1994 rulemaking, 59 FR 4372).\149\ Therefore, OSHA is
giving employers until April 1, 2015, to comply with the new
requirements in Sec.  1926.954(b)(3)(iii)(C) of the final rule. This
delay should provide sufficient time for employers to: Evaluate the
various types of fall protection equipment that employees climbing or
changing location can use; select and purchase the type of equipment
that best satisfies their needs; train employees in the use of this
equipment; and certify that the employees demonstrated proficiency in
using the equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ This transcript is available for inspection and copying in
OSHA's Docket Office, Docket No. S-015, U.S. Department of Labor,
200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N2625, Washington, DC 20210;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. (OSHA's TTY number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.)
OSHA Docket Office hours of operation are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.,
ET.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the intervening period, paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(C) of the final
rule will apply the existing rule from Sec.  1910.269, which permits
qualified employees to climb and change location without fall
protection as long as there are no conditions, such as ice, high winds,
the

design of the structure (for example, no provision for holding on with
hands), or the presence of contaminants on the structure, that could
cause the employee to lose his or her grip or footing. The conditions
specifically listed in the standard are not the only ones warranting
the use of fall protection for climbing and changing position. Other
factors affecting the risk of an employee's falling include the level
of competence of the employee, the condition of a structure, the
configuration of attachments on a structure, and the need to have both
hands free for climbing. Moreover, if the employee is not holding onto
the structure (for example, because the employee is carrying tools or
equipment in his or her hands), the final rule requires fall
protection. Video tapes entered into the 1994 Sec.  1910.269 rulemaking
record by EEI (269-Ex. 12-6), which EEI claimed represented typical,
safe climbing practices in the utility industry, show employees using
their hands to provide extra support and balance.\150\ Climbing and
changing location in this manner will enable an employee to continue to
hold onto the structure in case his or her foot slips. When employees
are not using their hands for additional support, they are much more
likely to fall as a result of a slip.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ Exhibits in the 1994 Sec.  1910.269 rulemaking record
(denoted as ``269-Ex'') also are available in Docket Number S-015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All of these revisions, including the revisions related to fall
protection for employees working from aerial lifts described earlier in
this section of the preamble, appear in final Sec.
1926.954(b)(3)(iii).
    Paragraph (e)(1) of Sec.  1926.502 limits the maximum free-fall
distance for work-positioning systems to 0.6 meters (2 feet). OSHA
proposed to adopt this same limit in Sec.  1926.954. However, in
electric power transmission and distribution work, permanent anchorages
are not always available. Many utility poles provide no attachment
points lower than the lowest crossarm. If an employee is working below
the crossarm, there would be no place on the pole where he or she can
attach the work-positioning equipment. The preamble to the proposed
rule explained that, in such cases, work-positioning equipment still
provides some degree of fall protection in that the equipment holds the
employee in a fixed work position and keeps him or her from falling (70
FR 34855). Therefore, OSHA proposed in paragraph (b)(3)(iv) to require
work-positioning equipment to be rigged so that the employee could free
fall no more than 0.6 meters (2 feet), unless no anchorage was
available. In the preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA requested comment
on whether proposed paragraph (b)(3)(iv) would provide sufficient
protection for employees and on whether portable devices (such as a
Pole Shark, Pole Choker, or similar device) could be used as suitable
anchorages.
    Some commenters objected to the proposed requirement that work-
positioning equipment be rigged with a maximum free fall of 0.6 meters
(2 feet) insofar as it would apply when employees are working above
equipment that could serve as an anchorage. (See, for example, Exs.
0201, 0230.) For instance, IBEW noted that an employee using work-
positioning equipment might be much more than 0.6 meters above a
potential attachment point, such as a neutral bolt (Ex. 0230). The
union claimed that, if the employee used this attachment point, the
free-fall distance would have to be more than 0.6 meters for the
employee to reach the work.
    OSHA acknowledges these concerns, but believes they can be
eliminated by the use of portable devices. With portable devices,
employees will not have to rely on anchorages on poles or structures
because the employees would have anchorages that are part of the work-
positioning equipment. Thus, it would always be possible to rig the
equipment to accommodate a free fall of no more than 0.6 meters.
    Many commenters opposed requiring portable devices to provide
anchorages for employees on poles, towers, and similar structures.
(See, for example, Exs. 0125, 0127, 0149, 0151, 0162, 0171, 0173, 0175,
0177, 0186, 0200, 0209, 0227.) Some of these commenters maintained that
these devices do not meet the strength requirements for anchorages.
(See, for example, Exs. 0177, 0227.) For instance, Mr. Thomas Taylor
with Consumers Energy commented that ``the specified portable devices
do not meet the specifications for anchorages in Subpart M and were
never designed to be used for that purpose'' (Ex. 0177). Several
commenters argued that these devices are not always effective, are
difficult or impossible to use in some circumstances, are unnecessary,
and could even increase the risk to employees. (See, for example, Exs.
0125, 0127, 0149, 0151, 0171, 0175, 0186, 0200.) For instance, Ms. Jill
Lowe of the Employers Electrical and Communication Safety Committee of
Washington and Oregon commented:

    The use of an anchorage device [such as] the pole shark, would
not be an effective anchor when working on a structural member or
sitting on a cross arm. The device would only be effective when
climbing a pole without obstructions or working in a position on a
pole below a cross arm or structural member. It must also be
acknowledged that some of these devices could not physically be used
due to limited space available on the pole at the work position
(i.e.: Secondaries, crossarm braces, etc.) . . . .
    More information and data would be required before mandating the
use of this type of equipment. For example, how many actual injuries
have been recorded in a fall where a worker is belted in on the
pole? Would this add weight or further encumber the worker when
climbing the pole? These types of devices could be effective in
severe ice conditions, but for day to day use, would not provide the
desired efficacies and would impede climbing, add to maneuvering
difficulties and could increase risk factor(s). [Ex. 0151]

Ms. Salud Layton of the Virginia, Maryland & Delaware Association of
Electric Cooperatives argued that these devices pose a greater hazard
because they increase ``the amount of time spent on the pole, the
complexity of the work performed on the pole, and the number of
opportunities to make mistakes while doing unnecessary jobs not related
to the original reason the pole was actually climbed'' (Ex. 0175).

    Mr. Anthony Ahern with the Ohio Rural Electric Cooperatives
provided the following explanation for his argument that these devices
can be difficult to use and could potentially increase the risk to
employees:

    Some of these devices, especially the pole-shark, are large and
very awkward to use. They are very difficult to maneuver into a
narrow space and greatly limit movement on the pole. It is next to
impossible for a lineman to turn around far enough with one of these
devices to be able to reach the end of a ten foot cross arm or a
davit arm or even work on a transformer bank mounted on a cluster
rack. If two or more workers are working in the same area on a pole,
these devices can really create a lot of interference. Also, quite
often a second safety is required to be used with these devices so
that the climber can transition past cables, cross arms or other
equipment on a pole. This means an extra snap hook in the D-rings
and increases the possibility of an accident because the lineman
grabs the wrong one. These devices are also much more difficult to
operate with rubber gloves on than a conventional safety strap. [Ex.
0186]

    However, some commenters suggested that these types of devices
could be used as anchorages. (See, for example, Ex. 0199; Tr. 1338,
1357.) A video submitted to the record shows one of these devices
successfully supporting an employee who had fallen from a pole (Ex.
0492).

    OSHA concludes that the concerns of commenters who argued that
portable anchorage equipment is difficult to use or poses increased
hazards are unwarranted. As noted earlier, some employers already
require 100-percent attachment. The testimony of Messrs. Marchessault
(of Workplace Safety Solutions) and Theis (of MYR Group) offer evidence
that Pole Sharks, Pole Chokers, and similar devices can be, and have
been, used successfully as anchorages (Tr. 576-579, 1338, 1357). The
videotape of one of these devices in use clearly demonstrates that the
particular device is reasonably light and not significantly more
difficult to use than the traditional positioning straps currently used
by power line workers (Ex. 0492). Some of these devices occupy about
the same space on a pole or structure as a positioning strap and,
therefore, should fit wherever those straps fit (id.). Evidence also
indicates that, with training, employees can use these devices
proficiently (Ex. 0199; Tr. 576-579).
    Mr. Ahern's example of an employee using positioning equipment to
reach the end of a 3-meter (10-foot) crossarm supports the need for
employees to use an anchorage at the work location. The end of the
crossarm would be about 1.4 meters (4.6 feet) from the edge of the
pole. To perform such work, a 2-meter-tall (6.5-foot-tall) employee
would have to be in a nearly horizontal position to reach the end of
the arm. This position increases the likelihood of gaff cutout, because
the gaffs would be at an angle to the force applied by the employee's
weight, which would be applied in a vertical direction. A gaff is
designed to penetrate the wood when force is applied along its length.
When force is applied perpendicular to the length of the gaff, it can
twist the gaff out of the wood. In addition, to the extent it is
impossible to reach the end of the crossarm with some of these devices,
other methods of working from the pole can be used. For example, the
employee could work from a pole-mounted platform, which would both
enable the employee to reach further from the pole and provide an
anchorage for the fall protection equipment (269-Ex. 8-5). Thus, the
Agency concludes that there is greater need for an anchorage when work
is performed in such positions.
    The examples of working on a crossarm or a structural member
provided by Ms. Lowe with the Employers Electrical and Communication
Safety Committee of Washington and Oregon are inapposite. As noted
earlier, work-positioning equipment is inappropriate for use in these
situations; such equipment may be used only on vertical structural
members. It is not clear why Pole Sharks, Pole Chokers, or similar
devices, which are designed to supplement or replace traditional
positioning straps, could not be used on vertical members in the same
way a traditional positioning strap can be used.
    OSHA concludes that the accident information in the record
indicates that there is a need for employees to use an anchorage to
keep them from falling while they are at the work location (Exs. 0002,
0400). Two of the gaff cutout accidents included in Table 3 occurred
while an employee was at the work location. One commenter stated that
one of his company's eight fall accidents occurred while an employee
was at the work position (Ex. 0209). Although the total number of
accidents is not great, these accidents are easily preventable.
    The final rule, in paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(C), already requires
employees to be protected while climbing. The same equipment that
protects an employee climbing a pole can serve as an anchorage and can
prevent him or her from falling while at the work location as well (Ex.
0492; Tr. 576-579). As a result, OSHA does not believe there will often
be problems finding or providing anchorage points for work-positioning
equipment that can satisfy the 0.6-meter maximum free-fall requirement.
    The Agency notes that Consumers Energy incorrectly identified the
relevant strength requirements for anchorages used with work-
positioning equipment. Paragraph (b)(1)(i) of final Sec.  1926.954
applies Subpart M only to fall arrest equipment. Paragraph (b)(3)(v) of
final Sec.  1926.954, described later in this section of the preamble,
requires anchorages used with work-positioning equipment to be capable
of supporting at least twice the potential impact load of an employee's
fall, or 13.3 kilonewtons (3,000 pounds), whichever is greater. OSHA
concludes that it is feasible with available technology for portable
anchorage devices to meet the tensile-strength requirement in paragraph
(b)(3)(v) of the final rule. The materials, including straps, buckles,
rivets, snaphooks, and other hardware, that are, or could be, used in
anchorages also are used in positioning straps for work-positioning
equipment (Exs. 0055, 0492), which paragraph (b)(2)(vii)(C) of the
final rule requires to have greater tensile strength than required by
paragraph (b)(3)(v) of the final rule. In addition, Mr. Lee
Marchessault with Workplace Safety Solutions testified about the
experience of a line worker he had been training (Tr. 577-578). The
line worker, who had been using a portable anchorage device (the
BuckSqueeze) during the training exercise, experienced a gaff cutout,
but was not injured because the device successfully arrested the fall
(id.). The videotape Mr. Marchessault submitted for the record depicted
this equipment as successfully arresting the fall of the worker who had
been using it (Ex. 0492). Portable anchorage devices are designed to
arrest an employee's fall into work-positioning equipment; thus, the
devices almost certainly meet the strength requirements in ASTM F887-
04, which, as noted earlier, are equivalent to OSHA's strength
requirements for work-positioning equipment. In fact, the latest
edition of the consensus standard, ASTM F887-12\e1\, contains
equivalent strength requirements for what it calls ``wood pole fall
restriction devices.'' \151\ OSHA has included a note following
paragraph (b)(3)(v) of the final rule to indicate that wood-pole fall-
restriction devices meeting ASTM F887-12\e1\ are deemed to meet the
anchorage-strength requirement when they are used in accordance with
manufacturers' instructions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \151\ Section 15.3.2 of ASTM F887-12\e1\ requires these devices,
when new, to have a breaking strength of 13.3 kilonewtons (3,000
pounds). Section 24 of that standard describes test procedures for
these devices to ensure that they will successfully arrest a fall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, paragraph (b)(3)(iv) in the final rule requires
work-positioning systems to be rigged so that an employee can free fall
no more than 0.6 meters (2 feet). OSHA is not including the proposed
exemption for situations in which no anchorage is available. In view of
the availability of wood-pole fall-restriction devices, OSHA expects
that in most, if not all, circumstances, anchorages will not only be
available, but will be built into work-positioning equipment to permit
compliance with this provision, as well as paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(C) of
the final rule. However, because the Agency believes that employers
will purchase equipment that complies with both paragraphs
(b)(3)(iii)(C) and (b)(3)(iv), OSHA is requiring compliance with both
of these paragraphs starting on April 1, 2015. This delay should
provide employers with sufficient time to evaluate, and then purchase,
compliant equipment.
    Final paragraph (b)(3)(v), which is being adopted without
substantive change from the proposal, requires anchorages used with
work-positioning equipment to be capable of sustaining at least twice
the potential impact load of an employee's fall, or 13.3 kilonewtons
(3,000 pounds), whichever is greater.

This provision, which duplicates Sec.  1926.502(e)(2), will ensure that
an anchorage will not fail when needed to stop an employee's fall.
Comments on the technological feasibility of this provision are
addressed in the summary and explanation for paragraph (b)(3)(iv),
earlier in this section of the preamble.
    Final paragraph (b)(3)(vi), which is being adopted without
substantive change from the proposal, provides that, unless a snaphook
is a locking type and designed specifically for the following
conditions, snaphooks on work-positioning equipment not be engaged to
any of the following:
    (1) Webbing, rope, or wire rope;
    (2) Other snaphooks;
    (3) A D ring to which another snaphook or other connector is
attached;
    (4) A horizontal lifeline; or
    (5) Any object that is incompatibly shaped or dimensioned in
relation to the snaphook such that accidental disengagement could occur
should the connected object sufficiently depress the snaphook keeper to
allow release of the object.
    This paragraph, which duplicates Sec.  1926.502(e)(8), prohibits
methods of attachment that are unsafe because of the potential for
accidental disengagement of the snaphooks during use.
6. Section 1926.955, Portable Ladders and Platforms
    Final Sec.  1926.955 addresses portable ladders and platforms.
Paragraph (a) provides that requirements for portable ladders used in
work covered by Part 1926, Subpart V are contained in Part 1926,
Subpart X, except as noted in Sec.  1926.955(b). Proposed paragraph (a)
also provided that the requirements for fixed ladders in subpart D of
part 1910 (Sec.  1910.27) applied to fixed ladders used in electric
power transmission and distribution construction work. OSHA is
including proposed paragraph (a) in the final rule with one change--
deleting the second provision.
    Fixed ladders used in electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution work are permanent ladders. They are the same ladders
irrespective of whether the work being performed on them is
construction work covered by subpart V or maintenance work covered by
Sec.  1910.269. In the preamble to the proposal, OSHA explained that
the Agency believed that the Part 1910, Subpart D standards should
apply to these ladders during construction, as well as during
maintenance work (70 FR 34855), but requested comments on whether the
proposed incorporation of the general industry standard for fixed
ladders was warranted, especially in light of the 1990 proposed
revision to Part 1910, Subpart D (55 FR 13360, Apr. 10, 1990). OSHA
recently reproposed the revision of that subpart (75 FR 28862, May 24,
2010).
    A few commenters responded to this issue. (See, for example, Exs.
0162, 0212, 0227, 0230.) Southern Company was concerned about the
proposed incorporation of Subpart D, commenting:

    We question the use of 1910.27 for fixed ladders since OSHA
proposed the revision of this standard over 15 years ago and there
has been no action to date. Due to the time that has elapsed since
OSHA published the proposed revisions to 1910 Subpart D and the
revisions that have been made to the national consensus standards
for all types of ladders, OSHA may wish to consider reopening the
rulemaking prior to proceeding with the revisions to Subpart D. We
recommend that OSHA not reference Subpart D as a part of the
revisions to Subpart V and 1910.269 until work on the revision to
Subpart D is completed. [Ex. 0212]

Southern Company also asked OSHA to explain ``why the provisions of
1910 Subpart D should be applied to fixed ladders instead of the fixed
ladder requirements of 1926.1053'' (id.). Southern Company asserted
that the construction standard contained requirements that are not
found in the general industry standard, but that contribute to employee
safety (id.).

    EEI recommended that neither Sec.  1926.955(a) nor the
corresponding provision in the general industry standard, Sec.
1910.269(h)(1), incorporate part 1910, subpart D by reference until
OSHA finalizes revisions to part 1910, subpart D (Ex. 0227). EEI
asserted that there were discrepancies between the requirements for
fixed ladders in existing part 1910, subpart D, the 1990 proposed part
1910, subpart D, and the then-current ANSI standard for fixed ladders,
ANSI A14.3-2002, American National Standard for Ladders--Fixed--Safety
Requirements (id.). EEI also asserted that the existing general
industry standard contained outdated design requirements (id.).
    OSHA accepts EEI's and Southern Company's recommendation not to
apply the requirements for fixed ladders in Sec.  1910.27 to fixed
ladders used in the construction of electric power transmission and
distribution installations, though not for the reasons these commenters
stated. OSHA believes that the use of fixed ladders in the construction
of transmission and distribution installations is not unique. As such,
the requirements that apply to fixed ladders in the construction of
electric power transmission and distribution installations should be
the same as the requirements that apply generally to construction work
(including, as Southern Company noted, the requirements contained in
Sec.  1926.1053).
    Because OSHA is not including the cross-reference to subpart D for
fixed ladders in the final rule and because the remaining provisions in
Sec.  1926.955(a) apply only to portable ladders and platforms, OSHA is
revising the title of Sec.  1926.955 to ``Portable ladders and
platforms'' to more accurately reflect the contents of this section.
    OSHA also accepts EEI's and Southern Company's recommendation not
to reference in final Sec.  1910.269(h) the part 1910, subpart D
provisions for fixed ladders because, as with final Sec.  1926.955,
Sec.  1910.269(h) in the final rule covers only portable ladders and
platforms. Therefore, OSHA is revising the title of Sec.  1910.269(h)
to ``Portable ladders and platforms'' and is revising the regulatory
text of final Sec.  1910.269(h)(1) to clarify that the paragraph
applies to portable ladders and platforms, not fixed ladders. These
changes make final Sec.  1910.269(h) consistent with final Sec.
1926.955.
    MYR Group also had concerns about applying the general industry
standards to construction work. MYR Group maintained that contractors
would have little control over fixed ladders provided by host employers
(Ex. 0162).
    The Agency notes that an employer whose employees are performing
the work must adhere to OSHA standards. If, for example, an electric
utility's fixed ladder does not comply with Part 1926, Subpart X, then
a contractor whose employees would be using that ladder must take
whatever measures are necessary to protect its employees and comply
with Part 1926, Subpart X. Such measures include enforcing any
contractual language requiring the utility to address any noncompliant
ladders, using other means of accessing the work area, such as portable
ladders or aerial lifts, and repairing or replacing the ladder.
    IBEW recommended that OSHA consider the specifications for fixed
ladders in IEEE Std 1307, Standard for Fall Protection for Utility
Work, when finalizing the language for subpart V and Sec.  1910.269
(Ex. 0230).The union wrote:

    [T]he committee responsible for developing the standard went
through great pains to research ladders, step bolts, and other
climbing devices commonly installed on electrical structures.
Lineman climbing boots and other equipment was looked at for the
purpose of establishing ladder and step

bolt criteria that would be compatible with the worker safety
equipment. [Ex. 0230]

    OSHA rejects IBEW's recommendation to adopt requirements based on
IEEE Std 1307. Although that consensus standard contains requirements
for structures found in electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution work (for example, utility poles and towers), those
structures are not unique to the electric power industry; and the
Agency believes, therefore, that this rulemaking is not the proper
vehicle to regulate them. The same types of structures are found in
other industries, in particular, the telephone and cable-television
industries. Utility poles and towers are used to support telephone
lines, cable television lines, communications antennas, and other
equipment used by these industries. OSHA notes that its recently
proposed revision of part 1910, subpart D includes requirements for
fixed ladders on towers and for step bolts on towers and poles (see
proposed Sec.  1910.24, Step bolts and manhole steps; 75 FR 29136).
    Paragraph (b) of the final rule establishes requirements for
special ladders and platforms used for electrical work. Because the
lattice structure of an electric power transmission tower and overhead
line conductors generally do not provide solid footing or upper support
for ladders, OSHA is exempting portable ladders used on structures or
conductors in conjunction with overhead line work from the general
provisions of Sec.  1926.1053(b)(5)(i) and (b)(12), which address
ladder support and the use of ladders near exposed electric equipment.
As noted in the preamble to the proposal, an example of a type of
ladder exempted from these provisions is a portable hook ladder used by
power line workers to work on overhead power lines (70 FR 34855).\152\
These ladders are hooked over the line or other support member and then
are lashed in place at both ends to keep them steady while employees
are working from them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \152\ Existing Sec.  1926.1053(b)(12) provides that ``[l]adders
shall have nonconductive siderails if they are used where the
employee or the ladder could contact exposed energized electrical
equipment, except as provided in Sec.  1926.951(c)(1) of this
part.'' In this final rule, OSHA is replacing the reference to Sec.
1926.951(c)(1) with a reference to the corresponding provision in
the final rule, Sec.  1926.955(c), and to final Sec.  1926.955(b),
which exempts special ladders used for electrical work from the
requirement for nonconductive siderails.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Final paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) and (c) provide employees
with protection that is similar to the protection afforded to employees
by Sec.  1926.1053(b)(5)(i) and (b)(12). These provisions require that
these special ladders and platforms be secured, specify the acceptable
loads and proper strength of this equipment, and provide that the
ladders be used only for the particular types of application for which
they are designed. These provisions thereby ensure that employees are
adequately protected when using the ladders covered by the final rule.
In the Sec.  1910.269 rulemaking, OSHA concluded that these alternative
criteria provide for the safe use of this special equipment, and the
Agency is extending the application of these alternative criteria to
work covered by Subpart V (59 FR 4375). It should be noted that the
requirements for portable ladders in final paragraphs (b)(1) through
(b)(4) apply in addition to requirements in Sec.  1926.1053 for
portable ladders. OSHA revised the language in the final rule to
clarify that the requirements in Sec.  1926.1053, except for paragraph
(b)(5)(i) and (b)(12), apply to portable ladders used on structures or
conductors in conjunction with overhead line work and that the
requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) apply only to portable
ladders and platforms used in this manner.
    Paragraph (b)(1) of final Sec.  1926.955 requires portable
platforms to be capable of supporting without failure at least 2.5
times the maximum intended load in the configurations in which they are
used. Paragraph (b)(1) in the proposed rule also applied this
requirement to portable ladders. However, Sec.  1926.1053(a)(1), which
also applies, already specifies the strength of portable ladders.
Having two standards with different strength requirements for portable
ladders would be confusing. Consequently, OSHA revised Sec.
1926.955(b)(1) in the final rule so that it covers only portable
platforms.
    Paragraph (b)(2) of final Sec.  1926.955 prohibits portable ladders
and platforms from being loaded in excess of the working loads for
which they are designed. It should be noted that, with respect to
portable ladders, compliance with this provision constitutes compliance
with Sec.  1926.1053(b)(3).
    Paragraph (b)(3) of final Sec.  1926.955 requires portable ladders
and platforms to be secured to prevent them from becoming accidentally
dislodged.\153\ Accordingly, with respect to portable ladders, OSHA
concludes that compliance with Sec.  1926.955(b)(3) constitutes
compliance with Sec.  1926.1053(b)(6), (b)(7), and (b)(8).\154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ It should be noted that, to meet paragraph (b)(3),
employers must ensure that portable ladders and platforms are always
secured when in use, regardless of the conditions of the surface on
which the ladder is placed. For example, when a conductor platform,
such as a cable cart, is suspended from a line conductor by a
trolley or hooks, the platform must be secured to the conductor so
that it cannot fall if the trolley or hooks become dislodged.
    \154\ It should also be noted that Sec.  1926.1053(b)(1), which
requires that portable ladders be secured in certain situations,
applies additional requirements when portable ladders are used to
access an upper landing surface. Therefore, compliance with final
Sec.  1926.955(b)(3) does not constitute compliance with these
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (b)(4) of final Sec.  1926.955 requires portable ladders
and platforms to be used only in applications for which they are
designed. It should be noted that, with respect to portable ladders,
compliance with this provision constitutes compliance with Sec.
1926.1053(b)(4).
    Paragraph (c) prohibits the use of portable metal, and other
portable conductive, ladders near exposed energized lines or equipment.
This paragraph addresses the hazard to employees of contacting
energized lines and equipment with conductive ladders. However, as
noted in the preamble to the proposal, in specialized high-voltage
work, the use of nonconductive ladders could present a greater hazard
to employees than the use of conductive ladders (70 FR 34855-34856). In
some high-voltage work, voltage can be induced on conductive objects in
the work area. When the clearances between live parts operating at
differing voltages, and between the live parts and grounded surfaces,
are large enough that it is relatively easy to maintain the minimum
approach distances required by Sec.  1926.960(c)(1), electric shock
from induced voltage on objects in the vicinity of these high-voltage
lines can pose a greater hazard. Although these voltages do not
normally pose an electrocution hazard, the involuntary muscular
reactions caused by contacting objects at different voltages can lead
to falls. Using a conductive ladder in these situations can minimize
the voltage differences between objects within an employee's reach,
thereby reducing the hazard to the employee. Therefore, the final rule
permits a conductive ladder to be used if an employer can demonstrate
that the use of a nonconductive ladder would present a greater hazard
to employees.
7. Section 1926.956, Hand and Portable Power Equipment
    Final Sec.  1926.956 addresses hand and portable power equipment.
The title of this section in the proposal was ``Hand and portable power
tools.'' OSHA revised the title to comport with the scope of the
requirements in this section, which address equipment generally and not
just tools. Paragraph

(a) of this section of the final rule provides that electric equipment
connected by cord and plug is covered by paragraph (b), portable and
vehicle-mounted generators used to supply cord- and plug-connected
equipment are governed by paragraph (c), and hydraulic and pneumatic
tools are covered by paragraph (d). OSHA took all of the requirements
in this section from existing Sec.  1910.269(i).
    Electric equipment connected by cord and plug must satisfy the
requirements in paragraph (b). Proposed paragraph (b)(1) stated that
cord- and plug-connected equipment supplied by premises wiring is
covered by Subpart K of Part 1926. OSHA is not including this proposed
requirement in the final rule because, first, OSHA determined that the
language in proposed paragraph (b) improperly emphasized ``premises
wiring.'' The purpose of the proposed provision was to clarify that
equipment covered by Subpart K would continue to be covered by that
Subpart (70 FR 34856). However, OSHA derived the proposed provision
from the corresponding provision in existing Sec.  1910.269(i). That
provision was, in turn, derived from Sec.  1910.302(a)(1), which
specifies the scope of part 1910, subpart S, and provides that the
subpart's ``design safety standards for electric utilization of
systems'' apply to ``electrical installations and utilization equipment
installed or used within or on buildings, structures, and other
premises'' (that is, premises wiring). Section 1926.402, which
specifies the scope of Subpart K, does not use the term ``premises
wiring.'' Second, proposed Sec.  1926.956(b)(1), and its counterpart in
existing Sec.  1910.269(i)(2)(i), are unnecessary because these
provisions simply refer to requirements that already apply. Therefore,
to remove any ambiguity, the Agency is not including proposed Sec.
1926.956(b)(1) in the final rule and is removing existing Sec.
1910.269(i)(2)(i) and is replacing the reference in existing Sec.
1910.269(i)(2)(ii) (final Sec.  1910.269(i)(2)) to any cord- and plug-
connected equipment supplied by other than premises wiring with a
reference to cord- and plug-connected equipment not covered by Subpart
S.
    Pursuant to proposed paragraph (b)(2), equipment not covered by
subpart K had to have the tool frame grounded, be double insulated, or
be supplied by an isolating transformer with an ungrounded secondary.
The proposed rule (and existing Sec.  1926.951(f)(2)(iii)) did not
specify any limit on the secondary voltage of the isolating
transformer. OSHA is promulgating this paragraph in the final rule
(final paragraph (b)(3)) with one substantive change--if an isolating
transformer with an ungrounded secondary is used to comply with this
provision, its secondary voltage is limited to 50 volts.
    In the preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA noted the widespread
availability of double-insulated tools and requested comment on whether
the option permitting tools to be supplied through an isolating
transformer was still necessary (75 FR 34856). Several commenters
responded to this request. (See, for example, Exs. 0126, 0186, 0201,
0209, 0212, 0213, 0227, 0230.)
    Most of these comments supported retaining the proposed option that
permits cord- and plug-connected equipment to be supplied by an
isolating transformer. (See, for example, Exs. 0201, 0209, 0212, 0213,
0227.) For instance, Duke Energy stated: ``OSHA should continue to
allow the third option of isolating transformers. While most
applications are covered by grounding or double insulating, there are
unique situations where neither of these is possible and an isolating
transformer may be necessary to protect employees'' (Ex. 0201). TVA
commented, without elaboration, that ``[d]uring plant outages there are
situations where the use of isolating transformers provides the best
employee safety'' (Ex. 0213). Southern Company relied on OSHA's
statement in the preamble to the proposal \155\ that using isolating
transformers is ``an effective means of protecting employees from
shock'' (Ex. 0212).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ See 70 FR 34856.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other commenters asserted that using isolating transformers was an
outdated form of protection. (See, for example, Exs. 0126, 0186, 0230.)
For instance, Mr. Anthony Ahern of Ohio Rural Electric Cooperatives
wrote:

    Isolating transformers are not needed today. Almost all tools
today are either double insulated or equipped with a grounding (3
wire) cord and plug. OSHA already has rules which cover the use and
maintenance of these types of tools. Further, battery operated and
gas powered tools are becoming more and more common and hydraulic
tools are commonly used with bucket trucks. [Ex. 0186]

IBEW commented, ``Double insulated hand tools are the industry
standard. It would be difficult to find tools that are not double
insulated or the tool frame is not grounded'' (Ex. 0230). IBEW stated,
however, that isolating transformers continue to be an option ``[i]f
other types of tools continue to be used'' (id.).

    OSHA determined that the proposed option permitting cord- and plug-
connected equipment to be supplied by an isolating transformer was
insufficiently protective and that this option will only provide
sufficient protection against ground faults when the isolation
transformer has an ungrounded secondary of no more than 50 volts. OSHA
is imposing the 50-volt limit on isolation transformers because,
although OSHA stated in the preamble to the proposal that each of the
three options (grounding, double insulation, and isolation) provided
protection from electric shock (70 FR 34856), OSHA recognized in other
standards the limited protection provided by isolating
transformers.\156\ If unlimited voltages are permitted with respect to
the isolating transformer option, employees working with cord- and
plug-connected equipment operating at higher voltages would be exposed
to a serious electric-shock hazard when a second ground fault occurs.
Even if equipment is supplied by an isolating transformer with an
ungrounded secondary, there will always be a path to ground for the
circuit conductors. This path will be caused by leakage or by
capacitive or inductive coupling. Depending on the location of this
path, one of the circuit conductors could have a voltage to ground as
high as the full circuit voltage. Thus, while the corresponding
electrical standards for general industry and construction at
Sec. Sec.  1910.304(g)(6)(vi) and (g)(6)(vii) and 1926.404(f)(7)(iv),
respectively, permit all three options, the standards (in Sec. Sec.
1910.304(g)(6)(vii)(A) and 1926.404(f)(7)(iv)(C)(6)) also limit the
secondary voltage on the isolating transformer to 50 volts or less.
Fifty volts or less is widely recognized as a generally safe voltage.
(See, for example, Exs. 0076, 0077, 0532.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \156\ OSHA notes that TVA did not address the safety of using an
isolating transformer with a secondary voltage of more than 50 volts
during a plant outage. However, pursuant to the final rule, if TVA
uses such a transformer during a plant outage or otherwise, that
transformer must have a secondary voltage of not more than 50 volts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (c) of final Sec.  1926.956 requires portable and
vehicle-mounted generators used to supply cord- and plug-connected
equipment covered by paragraph (b) to meet several requirements. Under
paragraph (c)(1), the generator may only supply equipment on the
generator or the vehicle (for example, lights mounted on the generator
or vehicle) and cord- and plug-connected equipment through receptacles
mounted on the generator or the vehicle. Paragraph (c)(2) provides that
non-current-carrying metal parts of

equipment, and the equipment grounding conductor terminals of the
receptacles, must be bonded to the generator frame. Paragraph (c)(3)
requires that the frame of vehicle-mounted generators be bonded to the
vehicle frame. Finally, paragraph (c)(4) requires the neutral conductor
to be bonded to the generator frame. The final rule clarifies that
these requirements apply only when Subpart K does not apply, as
explained in the discussion of Sec.  1926.956(b), earlier in this
section of the preamble. The requirements in this paragraph are similar
to the corresponding Subpart K requirements, which are contained in
Sec.  1926.404(f)(3).
    Final paragraph (d), which is being adopted without substantive
change from the proposal, applies to pneumatic and hydraulic tools.
Paragraph (d)(1) of Sec.  1926.302 requires the fluids used in
hydraulic-powered tools to be fire resistant. As explained in the
preamble to the proposed rule, insulating hydraulic fluids are not
inherently fire resistant, and additives that could make them fire
resistant generally make the hydraulic fluid unsuitable for use as
insulation (70 FR 34856). Because of these characteristics and because
hydraulic fluids must be insulating to protect employees performing
power transmission and distribution work, existing Sec.  1926.950(i)
exempts insulating hydraulic fluids from Sec.  1926.302(d)(1).
    OSHA proposed to continue this exemption in Sec.  1926.956(d)(1),
but was concerned by several accidents described in the record that
occurred when insulating hydraulic fluid ignited and burned employees
(Ex. 0002). The Agency requested information on whether fire-resistant
insulating hydraulic fluids were available or were being developed.
    OSHA did not receive any information about the availability or
progress with the development of fire-resistant insulating hydraulic
fluid; consequently, OSHA is including the existing exemption for
insulating hydraulic fluids in the final rule. The Agency believes that
the most serious hazard faced by an employee performing work covered by
subpart V is electric shock. The Agency also reviewed the accidents in
the record (such as Exs. 0002, 0003, 0004, and 0400) and concluded
that, although insulating hydraulic fluid poses a substantial risk of
igniting and burning workers, the risk of electric shock with
uninsulated hydraulic equipment poses a greater risk of harm. OSHA
encourages employers and manufacturers to develop insulating fluid that
also is fire-resistant and will reexamine this issue if such fluids
become available.
    Final paragraph (d)(2) provides that safe operating pressures may
not be exceeded. This requirement protects employees from the harmful
effects of tool failure. If hazardous defects are present, no operating
pressure would be safe, and the tools could not be used. In the absence
of defects, the maximum rated operating pressure (which may be
specified by the manufacturer or by hydraulics handbooks) is the
maximum safe pressure. OSHA included a note to this effect in the final
rule.
    If a pneumatic or hydraulic tool is used where it may contact
exposed energized parts, the tool must be designed and maintained for
such use under final paragraph (d)(3). In addition, under paragraph
(d)(4), hydraulic systems for tools that may contact exposed live parts
during use must provide protection against loss of insulating value,
for the voltage involved, due to the formation of a partial vacuum in
the hydraulic line. Under paragraph (d)(5), a pneumatic tool used on
energized electric lines or equipment or used where it may contact
exposed live parts must provide protection against the accumulation of
moisture in the air supply. These three requirements protect employees
from electric shock by restricting current flow through hoses.
    OSHA included a note following paragraph (d)(4) of the final rule
addressing the use of hydraulic lines that do not have check
valves.\157\ If such lines are located in such a manner that the
highest point on the hydraulic system is more than 10.7 meters (35
feet) above the oil reservoir, a partial vacuum can form inside the
line. A partial vacuum can cause a loss of insulating value, possibly
resulting in an electrical fault and consequent hydraulic system
failure while an employee is working on a power line. During the
rulemaking on the 1994 Sec.  1910.269 final rule, IBEW reported two
accidents that resulted from such an occurrence (269-DC Tr. 613).
Therefore, OSHA inserted the note when the Agency adopted existing
Sec.  1910.269(i)(4)(iii), which is mirrored in final Sec.
1926.956(d)(4).\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ A check valve blocks reverse flow of the hydraulic fluid
and prevents the formation of a partial vacuum.
    \158\ OSHA notes that whether a partial vacuum will result in
the loss of insulating value that triggers actions to prevent the
formation of a partial vacuum depends on the voltage involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Final paragraphs (d)(6) and (d)(7) provide work-practice
requirements to protect employees from the accidental release of
pressure and from the injection of hydraulic oil (which is under high
pressure) through the skin and into the body. The first of these two
provisions requires the release of pressure before connections in the
lines are broken, unless quick-acting, self-closing connectors are
used. In the case of hydraulic tools, the spraying hydraulic fluid
itself, which is flammable, poses additional hazards. Final paragraph
(d)(7) requires employers to ensure that employees do not use any part
of their bodies, such as a finger, to try to locate or stop a hydraulic
leak. This provision in the final rule has been reworded to clarify
that the employer has responsibility for compliance.
    Final paragraph (d)(8) provides that hoses not be kinked. Kinks in
hydraulic and pneumatic hoses can lead to premature failure of the hose
and to sudden loss of pressure. If this loss of pressure occurs while
the employee is using the tool, an accident could result in harm to
employees. For example, a hydraulic or pneumatic tool supporting a load
could drop the load onto an employee on a sudden loss of pressure.
    NIOSH suggested that OSHA ``consider an additional safeguard
against the unintentional release of hydraulic oil--the use of hoses
that are color coded by the [operating pressure] they can withstand,
thus reducing the hazard of skin absorption or fire'' (Ex. 0130). NIOSH
did not submit any evidence that employers are using hoses of improper
rating on hydraulic equipment. Consequently, the Agency is not adopting
a requirement to color code hydraulic hoses according to safe operating
pressure. However, NIOSH submitted evidence that an employer performing
maintenance on an insulating hydraulic tool improperly replaced a
nonconductive hose with a hose that was conductive because of its metal
reinforcement (Ex. 0139). Although OSHA is not adopting a color-coding
requirement in the final rule, the Agency advises manufacturers to
clearly distinguish between conductive and nonconductive hoses.
Section 1926.957, Live-Line Tools
    Final Sec.  1926.957 is equivalent to existing Sec.  1910.269(j)
and contains requirements for live-line tools (some of which are
commonly called ``hot sticks''). This type of tool is used by qualified
employees to handle energized conductors. The tool insulates the
employee from the energized line. For example, a wire tong, which is a
slender insulated pole with a clamp on one end, is used to hold a
conductor at a distance while work is being performed. Common types of
live-line tools include

wire tongs, wire-tong supports, tension links, and switch, fuse, and
tie sticks.
    Mr. Leo Muckerheide of Safety Consulting Services was concerned
that proposed Sec.  1926.957 did not address all types of live-line
tools, stating:

    There is no definition given for a live-line tool except in the
preamble. It states that such a tool is used to handle energized
conductors and then gives some examples. There are other work
practices, such as installing personal protective grounds, checking
for voltage, pulling fuses or cutouts, removing or installing pins
on suspension insulators, removing or installing jumpers, etc.,
where an insulated tool (switch/fuse/hot stick) is utilized. The
insulating characteristics of these insulated tools (switch/fuse/hot
stick) is critical to the accomplishment of such activities without
injury to the worker. Any insulated tool (switch/fuse/hot stick)
that is used on an energized circuit or a normally energized circuit
in a manner that places a part of the tool inside the minimum
approach distance . . . should be considered a live-line tool. The
worker is depending on the insulating characteristics of the tool
for protection. [Ex. 0180]

He recommended that OSHA expand this section to include these other
insulated tools (id.).

    OSHA notes that the lists of live-line tools provided here and in
the preamble to the proposal (70 FR 34853) are not exhaustive. Also,
OSHA added some of Mr. Muckerheide's examples to the list in the first
paragraph of the summary and explanation for final Sec.  1926.957.
Final Sec.  1926.957, and its general industry counterpart, final Sec.
1910.269(j), cover any tool that is designed to contact an energized
part and insulate the worker from that part. IEEE Std 516-2003, IEEE
Guide for Maintenance Methods on Energized Power Lines, defines
``insulating tool or device'' as a tool or device ``designed primarily
to provide insulation from an energized part or conductor'' (Ex.
0041).\159\ This definition is consistent with OSHA's use of the term
``live-line tool.'' The Agency believes that the term is well
understood by the regulated community and that the guidance provided in
this preamble makes the Agency's meaning of the term clear. Therefore,
OSHA concludes that it is not necessary to define ``live-line tool'' in
the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ IEEE Std 516-2009 contains the same definition (Ex. 0532).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (a), which is being adopted without change from the
proposal, requires live-line tool rods, tubes, and poles to be designed
and constructed to withstand 328,100 volts per meter (100,000 volts per
foot) for 5 minutes if made of fiberglass-reinforced plastic (FRP),
246,100 volts per meter (75,000 volts per foot) for 3 minutes if made
of wood, or other tests that the employer can demonstrate are
equivalent. The voltage per unit length varies with the type of
material because different insulating materials are capable of
withstanding different voltages over equal lengths. For example, a
higher design standard for wood would cause most wood to fail to meet
the specification, while a lower design specification would allow
substandard products into service. Since the withstand voltages in
final paragraph (a) are consistent with the withstand voltages in
existing Sec.  1910.269(j)(1) and ASTM F711-02 (2007), Standard
Specification for Fiberglass-Reinforced Plastic (FRP) Rod and Tube Used
in Live-Line Tools, OSHA expects that tools currently in use in the
industry will continue to be acceptable. A note in the final regulatory
text provides that tools that meet ASTM F711-02 (2007) will be deemed
to comply with paragraph (a)(1) of final Sec.  1926.957. Together with
the minimum approach distances in Sec.  1926.960(c)(1), final paragraph
(a) of Sec.  1926.957 protects employees from electric shock when they
are using these tools.
    Mr. Frank Owen Brockman with Farmers Rural Electric Cooperative
Corporation recommended that the standard not contain provisions for
live-line tools made of wood (Ex. 0173). He maintained that these tools
are outdated and should no longer be in service (id.).
    OSHA believes that wood live-line tools likely are no longer in
service and are no longer being manufactured. However, the Agency has
no evidence in the record that there are no wood live-line tools
currently in service. As long as they meet the requirements in final
Sec.  1926.957, they can effectively protect employees from electric
shock. Therefore, OSHA is including in the final rule without change
the proposed requirements for live-line tools made of wood.
    Paragraph (b) addresses the condition of tools. The requirements in
this paragraph duplicate the requirements in existing Sec.
1910.269(j)(2) and will ensure that live-line tools remain in a safe
condition after they are put into service. Paragraph (b)(1), which is
being adopted without change from the proposal, requires live-line
tools to be wiped clean and visually inspected for defects before each
day's use. Wiping the tool removes surface contamination that could
lower the insulating value of the tool. Inspecting the tool will
identify any obvious defects that could also adversely affect the
insulating value of the tool.
    Paragraph (b)(2), which is being adopted without change from the
proposal, provides that a tool be removed from service if any
contamination or defect that could adversely affect its insulating
qualities or mechanical integrity is present after the tool is wiped
clean. This paragraph protects employees from the failure of live-line
tools during use. Tools removed from service must be examined and
tested under final paragraph (b)(3) before being returned to service.
    During the rulemaking on existing Sec.  1910.269, OSHA found that,
while there was no evidence in the record of any injuries related to
the failure of a hot stick, evidence did indicate that these tools have
failed in use (without injury to employees) and that employees depend
on their insulating value while using them to handle energized
conductors (59 FR 4378). The Agency believes that live-line tools are
not typically used to provide protection for employees in the rain
(when work is normally suspended), which probably accounts for the lack
of injuries in the record.\160\ However, live-line tools might be used
under wet conditions, in which case it is necessary to ensure that
these tools will retain their insulating qualities when they are wet.
In addition, employee safety is dependent on the insulating integrity
of the tool--failure of a live-line tool would almost certainly lead to
serious injury or death whenever the tool is the only insulating
barrier between the employee and a live part. Therefore, OSHA is
adopting rules on the periodic examination and testing of live-line
tools to ensure that the live-line tools employees use are safe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ A contaminated tool will fail more easily when wet than
when dry (Ex. 0532). Tools are supposed to be wiped before use, in
part to remove moisture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although visual inspection can detect the presence of hazardous
defects and contamination, the Agency concluded, on the basis of the
1994 rulemaking record for existing Sec.  1910.269, that the daily
inspections required by final paragraph (b)(1) might not detect all
defects and contamination (59 FR 4378). Referring to live-line tools
that had failed in use, a Georgia Power Company study submitted to that
1994 rulemaking record stated: ``Under visual inspection all the sticks
appeared to be relatively clean with no apparent surface
irregularities'' (269-Ex. 60). These tools passed a dry voltage test,
but failed a wet voltage test.\161\ While the study

further noted that the surface luster on the sticks was reduced,
apparently the normal visual inspection alone did not detect the
defects that caused those tools to fail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ A so-called ``dry test'' of a live-line tool is an
electrical test performed on the tool after it is stored under
ambient, low-humidity, test conditions for 24 hours. A so-called
``wet test'' is an electrical test performed on the tool after the
tool is placed in a high-humidity (at least 93-percent humidity)
chamber for 168 hours. After conditioning and before testing, the
tool is wiped with a dry cloth. Thus, the outside of the tool is dry
during both tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address these concerns, OSHA is adopting requirements in
paragraph (b)(3) for the thorough examination, cleaning, repair, and
testing of live-line tools on a periodic basis. These provisions are
adopted in the final rule without substantive change from the proposal.
The tools must undergo this process on a 2-year cycle and whenever the
tools are removed from service on the basis of the daily
inspection.\162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \162\ When an employer removes a tool from service under final
paragraph (b)(2) and inspects and tests it under final paragraph
(b)(3), the 2-year cycle begins again on the date of the test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule first requires a thorough examination of the live-
line tool for defects (paragraph (b)(3)(i)). After the examination, the
tool must be cleaned and waxed if no defects or contamination are
found; if a defect or contamination that could adversely affect the
insulating qualities or mechanical integrity of the live-line tool is
found during the examination, the tool must be repaired and refinished
or permanently removed from service as specified by final paragraph
(b)(3)(ii). In addition, under final paragraph (b)(3)(iii), a tool must
be tested: (1) After it has been repaired or refinished, regardless of
its composition; or (2) after an examination is conducted in accordance
with final paragraph (b)(3)(i) that results in no repair or refinishing
being performed (although no testing is required if the tool is made of
FRP rod or foam-filled FRP tube and the employer can demonstrate that
the tool has no defects that could cause it to fail in use).
    In accordance with final paragraph (b)(3)(iv), the test method used
must be designed to verify the tool's integrity along its full working
length and, if the tool is made of FRP, its integrity under wet
conditions. The performance criteria specified by final paragraph (a)
are ``design standards'' that must be met by the manufacturer. The test
voltages and test duration used during the manufacturing process are
not appropriate for periodic retesting of the hot sticks because live-
line tools may sustain damage during such tests. Accordingly, the in-
service tests required by final paragraph (b)(3)(v) are designed to
assure as much employee protection as possible without damaging the
tools. For tools with both hollow and foam-filled sections, the filled
section is typically considered to constitute the insulating portion of
the tool, which, for the purposes of final paragraph (b)(3)(iv), is the
working length of the tool.
    Under final paragraph (b)(3)(v), the test voltages must be 246,100
volts per meter (75,000 volts per foot) for fiberglass tools or 164,000
volts per meter (50,000 volts per foot) for wood tools, and, in both
cases, the voltage must be applied for 1 minute. Other tests are
permitted if the employer can demonstrate that they provide equivalent
employee protection.
    A note to paragraph (b) of the final rule states that guidelines
for the inspection, care, and testing of live-line tools are specified
in IEEE Std 516-2009.
    Mr. Stephen Frost with Mid-Columbia Utilities Safety Alliance
commented that the IEEE standard does not contain test criteria for FRP
tools with hollow sections, but supported OSHA's proposal to adopt the
same language as existing Sec.  1910.269 (Ex. 0184).
    OSHA reviewed the test procedures in IEEE Std 516-2009 and found
that they do address hollow, as well as foam-filled, live-line tools.
The Agency believes that these tests can be used by the employer as
appropriate for the different sections of multiple-section tools.
    Mr. Leo Muckerheide of Safety Consulting Services commented that
existing Sec.  1910.269(j)(2)(iii) references a 1994 edition of the
2003 IEEE standard that OSHA referenced in the note to proposed
paragraph (b). He also noted that the ``wet'' test procedure in an ASTM
standard differs from the one in the IEEE standard. Mr. Muckerheide
explained:

    [Paragraph (j)(2)(iii)(D) of existing Sec.  1910.269 and
proposed Sec.  1926.957(b)(3)(iv)] require the integrity testing of
fiberglass-reinforced plastic tools under ``wet conditions'' but it
does not define ``wet conditions''. The note for paragraph
1926.957(b)(3)(iv) refers to IEEE Std 516-2003 while the note for
1910.269(j)(2)(iii)(D) refers to IEEE Std 978-1984. IEEE Std 978-
1984 is no longer supported by IEEE. There is also an ASTM standard,
F711-02, that establishes specifications for live-line tools. Both
have a test protocol for ``wet conditions''. However, they are not
identical. One specifies a 7 day 93% humidity test and the other a
fine mist of distilled water. [Ex. 0180]

He recommended that both Sec.  1910.269 and subpart V require testing
under wet conditions to conform to the ``current version of IEEE Std
516.''

    OSHA notes that the test procedure and criteria in ASTM F711 are
design or acceptance tests for new live-line tools, while the tests in
the IEEE standard are in-service tests. As noted earlier, design and
acceptance tests generally are more severe than in-service tests and
can damage tools if repeated on a regular basis. A tool in new
condition should perform at an optimal level. Once a tool has been in
service for a while, it will typically exhibit reduced performance
because the tool deteriorates as it is handled--it develops microscopic
scratches and becomes contaminated with creosote and other substances.
To account for this deterioration, in-service testing frequently uses
different test procedures or test criteria, or both. In the final
standard, the Agency provides employers flexibility in adopting test
procedures and criteria. Thus, test procedures and criteria are
acceptable as long as they meet the performance requirements of the
standard, that is, they ``verify the tool's integrity along its entire
working length and, if the tool is made of fiberglass-reinforced
plastic, its integrity under wet conditions.'' As explained in detail
under the summary and explanation for final Sec.  1926.97, earlier in
this section of the preamble, OSHA is adopting performance requirements
rather than incorporating consensus standards by reference for a number
of reasons, including allowing greater compliance flexibility and
reducing the need to update the OSHA standards as frequently.
    As explained in the summary and explanation for Appendix G, later
in this section of the preamble, OSHA is updating the consensus
standards specified in nonmandatory references throughout final Sec.
1910.269 and final subpart V. In this case, the note to final Sec.
1910.269(j)(2) includes an updated reference to IEEE Std 516-2009 to
match the corresponding note to final Sec.  1926.957(b). (See the
summary and explanation of Sec.  1926.97, earlier in this preamble, for
a discussion of OSHA's approach regarding future updates of the
consensus standards referenced in this final rule.)
Section 1926.958, Materials Handling and Storage
    Final Sec.  1926.958 is equivalent to existing Sec.  1910.269(k)
and contains requirements for materials handling and storage. Final
paragraph (a) clarifies that material-handling and material-storage
requirements in Part 1926, including those in Subparts N and CC, apply.
Proposed paragraph (a) referenced only Subpart N.\163\ However, OSHA
recently

revised its cranes and derricks standard, former Sec.  1926.550, which
was in subpart N when OSHA published the proposed rule for subpart V.
The recently published cranes and derricks final rule moved the
requirements for cranes and derricks into a new subpart, subpart CC of
part 1926 (75 FR 47906, Aug. 9, 2010).\164\ Consequently, the Agency is
including a reference to this new subpart in final Sec.  1926.958(a).
Work performed under subpart V is exempt from certain requirements in
subpart CC. For example, Sec.  1926.1408(b)(5) exempts cranes and
derricks used in subpart V work from Sec.  1926.1408(b)(4), which
requires employers to adopt one of several encroachment-prevention
measures for certain work near overhead power lines. Any exemptions in
subpart CC for subpart V work continue to apply; those exemptions are
not affected by this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ When subpart V was originally promulgated in 1972, that
final rule also added a standard for aerial lifts to subpart N. That
aerial lift standard, which originally appeared at Sec.  1926.556,
eventually was redesignated as Sec.  1926.453, in subpart L. It
should be noted that, except for Sec.  1926.453(b)(2)(v), the aerial
lift standard still applies to work covered by subpart V even though
it is not referenced in final Sec.  1926.958 or final Sec.
1926.959. (See Sec.  1926.950(a)(2).) See, also, the summary and
explanation for final Sec.  1926.954(b)(3)(iii) for a discussion of
why the fall protection requirement in Sec.  1926.453(b)(2)(v) does
not apply to work covered by Subpart V.
    \164\ Subpart CC applies to power-operated equipment, when used
in construction, that can hoist, lower, and horizontally move a
suspended load. The discussion of Subpart CC in the preamble to the
Subpart V final rule refers to this equipment as ``cranes and
derricks.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should be noted that Subparts H and O of OSHA's construction
standards also contain requirements pertaining to material handling and
storage. For example, Sec.  1926.602 covers material-handling
equipment. These provisions continue to apply even though they are not
specifically mentioned in final Sec.  1926.958(a). (See final Sec.
1926.950(a)(2).) To make this clear in the final rule, OSHA reworded
Sec.  1926.958(a) in the final rule to require material handling and
storage to ``comply with applicable material-handling and material-
storage requirements in this part, including those in subparts N and CC
of this part.''
    Paragraph (b) addresses the storage of materials in the vicinity of
energized lines and equipment. Paragraph (b)(1), which is being adopted
without substantive change from the proposal, contains requirements for
areas to which access is not restricted to qualified employees only. As
a general rule, the standard does not permit materials or equipment to
be stored in such areas within 3.05 meters (10 feet) of energized lines
or exposed parts of equipment. This clearance distance must be
increased by 0.10 meters (4 inches) for every 10 kilovolts over 50
kilovolts. The distance also must be increased to account for the
maximum sag and side swing of any conductor and to account for the
height and movement of material-handling equipment. Maintaining these
clearances protects unqualified employees from contacting energized
lines or equipment with materials being handled. Storing materials at
the required distances also will facilitate compliance with provisions
elsewhere in the construction standards that require material-handling
equipment to maintain specific distances from energized lines and
equipment, such as Sec.  1926.600(a)(6).\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ OSHA's revised standard for cranes and derricks at subpart
CC requires minimum clearance distances for cranes and derricks,
which, under certain conditions, are greater than the distances
specified by final Sec.  1926.958(b)(1). Therefore, employers
covered by subpart V must be knowledgeable about these requirements
when they store materials that are lifted by equipment covered under
subpart CC and may need to adjust the clearance distances for
storing materials away from energized lines and equipment
accordingly. (For work covered by subpart V, compliance with final
Sec.  1926.959 is deemed compliance with the relevant requirements
in subpart CC (per Sec.  1926.1400(g)). However, employers must
comply with subpart CC clearance distances for work performed by
unqualified employees because subpart V does not contain electrical
safety-related work practices for those workers. See final Sec.
1926.950(a)(1)(ii).)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The work practices unqualified workers must use in handling
material stored near energized lines, including in areas addressed by
final Sec.  1926.958(b)(1), are addressed elsewhere in Part 1926,
including subparts K and CC of part 1926. The general approach taken in
this 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, including work in areas
addressed by final Sec.  1926.958(b)(1). (See the summary and
explanation for final Sec.  1926.950(a)(1)(ii).)
    Mr. Kenneth Brubaker was concerned that unqualified employees
storing materials near energized lines or equipment could not determine
the relevant voltage and recommended specifying clearance distances
that did not require calculations based on voltage (Exs. 0099, 0100).
    OSHA is not adopting Mr. Brubaker's recommendation. As noted under
the summary and explanation for final Sec.  1926.950(a)(1)(ii), subpart
V does not apply to electrical safety-related work practices for
unqualified employees. Paragraph (b)(1) of final Sec.  1926.958
specifies minimum clearance distances between energized lines or
exposed energized parts and stored material or equipment. The
electrical safety-related work practices used by unqualified employees
handling the stored material or equipment are addressed in subparts of
part 1926 other than subpart V. In any event, the employer is
responsible for determining where to store material and equipment so as
to comply with final Sec.  1926.958(b)(1), which addresses Mr.
Brubaker's concern that unqualified employees will be determining these
distances.
    Paragraph (b)(2), which is being adopted without substantive change
from the proposal, governs the storage of materials in areas restricted
to qualified employees. If the materials are stored where only
qualified workers have access to them, the materials may be safely
stored closer to the energized parts than 3.05 meters (10 feet),
provided that the employees have sufficient room to perform their work.
Therefore, to ensure that enough room is available, paragraph (b)(2)
prohibits material from being stored in the working space around
energized lines or equipment. A note to this paragraph clarifies that
requirements for the size of the working space are contained in Sec.
1926.966(b). (See the discussion of final Sec.  1926.966(b) later in
this preamble for an explanation of requirements for access and working
space.)
    Working space under this provision is the clear space that must be
provided around the equipment to enable qualified employees to work on
the equipment. The minimum working space specifies the minimum distance
an obstruction can be from the equipment. For example, if a switchboard