energized parts and, based on that information, select appropriate
electrical protective equipment rated for the voltage. However, OSHA
did not include in this category accidents in which there was
explicit notation or clear implication in the abstract that the
employees knew the voltage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \513\ Such cases include all cases captured by the information-
transfer category. These cases also include similar cases involving
employees of host employers.
    \514\ See, for example, the five accidents involving employees
of a host employer at: http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/establishment.inspection_detail?id=125850560&id=107095234&id=126603075&id=126480821&id=114145840.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In other instances, employees needed, and might not have had,
information on incident heat energy so that they could wear
appropriate protection against electric arcs to prevent or reduce
the severity of injuries resulting from the accident.\515\ However,
OSHA did not include in this category accidents involving employees
burned by direct contact with energized parts unless the employees'
clothing ignited.\516\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \515\ See, for example, the five accidents involving employees
of a host employer at: http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/establishment.inspection_detail?id=119617454&id=125958280&id=112130158&id=106447691&id=119541977.
    \516\ The arc-flash protection requirements in the final rule
protect employees against burns resulting from incident heat energy
from an electric arc or resulting from clothing or other material
ignited by the incident heat energy from the electric arc. When the
employee's clothing ignited in a direct-contact incident, OSHA
assumed that the ignition resulted from the electric arc that
occurred during contact. Otherwise, OSHA assumed that the burns
resulted from current passing through the employee's body. The arc-
flash protection requirements will not prevent the latter type of
burn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a few instances, employees needed other required information,
such as information on the condition of poles, to select appropriate
work practices, such as installing bracing to those poles to prevent
them from failing or falling over.\517\ The Agency did not include
in this category one instance in which an on-site supervisor was
aware of the conditions causing a pole to collapse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \517\ See, for example, the two accidents at: http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/establishment.inspection_detail?id=125773978&id=302868344.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA recognizes that, in some of the accidents counted in this
category, the relevant information might not have been available to
the employer at the time of the accident; and, therefore, the
employer could not provide that information to the employee in
charge. However, if the information was available, the employer,
under the final rule, would have to provide it to the employee in
charge, making it more likely that employees would select compliant
work practices and, consequently, lessen the likelihood of the
accident.

Fall Protection for Employees in Aerial Lifts

    The requirement for fall protection for employees in aerial
lifts in final Sec.  1910.269(g)(2)(iv)(C)(1) ensures that employees
working from aerial lifts use body harnesses to protect against
injuries resulting from falls. OSHA identified accidents involving
employees falling from aerial lifts.\518\ The Agency did not include
accidents involving aerial lifts overturning or aerial-lift failure
unless the accident abstract indicated that such an event ejected
the employee from the aerial lift platform and that the employee
might have suffered less severe injuries in the fall had the
employee been wearing a body harness. The comments included in the
analysis of these accidents explain OSHA's reasoning in such cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \518\ See the three accidents at: http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/establishment.inspection_detail?id=127350080&id=301827531&id=301994091.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note that, unless the abstract indicated that body harnesses
were the employer's required form of fall protection, the Agency
included in this category accidents involving employees not wearing
any fall protection because the final rule makes it more likely that
employees will use fall protection.\519\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \519\ See the summary and explanation of final Sec.
1926.954(b)(1)(i), which explains that requirements associated with
using body harnesses are easier for employers to enforce than
requirements associated with using body belts.

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

Fall Protection for Employees on Poles, Towers, or Similar
Structures

    The final rule, at Sec. Sec.  1910.269(g)(2)(iv)(C)(3) and
1926.954(b)(3)(iii)(C), requires qualified employees climbing and
changing location on poles, towers, or similar structures to use
fall protection. OSHA identified accidents involving employees
falling while climbing or changing location on poles, towers, and
similar structures.\520\ The Agency did not include in this category
accidents involving employees falling while at the work location (as
opposed to during climbing or while changing location) because the
existing standards require the use of fall protection in such
circumstances. Nor did the Agency include accidents involving
employees falling from ladders or structures that do not support
overhead power lines because the relevant fall protection
requirements in the final rule do not apply to ladders or structures
that do not support overhead power lines. Finally, OSHA did not
include in this category accidents involving falls resulting from
the failure of a pole, tower, or structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \520\ See, for example, the five accidents at: http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/establishment.inspection_detail?id=123997892&id=120080296&id=125864686&id=126603075&id=126053644.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA recognizes that the final rule does not require an employee
to use fall protection while the employee is climbing or changing
location on poles, towers, or similar structures when the employer
can demonstrate that climbing or changing location with fall
protection is infeasible or creates a greater hazard than climbing
or changing location without fall protection. Although OSHA was
unable to determine whether any of the accidents involved situations
in which this exception would apply, the Agency anticipates that the
exceptions would apply only in unusual, and relatively rare,
instances. Consequently, the Agency did not exclude any of the
accidents on this basis and determined that the final rule could
prevent nearly all accidents of this type.

Minimum Approach Distances and Working Position

    The approach-distance requirements in final Sec.
1910.269(l)(3), (l)(4)(ii), and (l)(5)(ii), and final Sec.
1926.960(c)(1), (c)(2)(ii), and (d)(2), require that employees
maintain the employer's established minimum approach distances and
ensure that employees within reach of those minimum approach
distances are using electrical protective equipment or are otherwise
protected against electric shock.\521\ OSHA identified accidents in
which the final rule would make it more likely that employees would
use electrical protective equipment or in which substantially larger
minimum approach distances would make it less likely that an
unprotected employee would come too close to an energized part.
Although other provisions in the standard require that employers
ensure that employees maintain the employers' established minimum
approach distances in specific circumstances, for example, during
the operation of mechanical equipment, this analysis does not
account for benefits resulting from increases in minimum approach
distances in those other circumstances.\522\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \521\ The benefits of these provisions relate to the final
rule's costs, either directly (see discussion of costs of minimum
approach distance provisions in the FEA) or indirectly (because
employees will need training in the revised work practices contained
in the provisions).
    \522\ These additional approach-distance requirements are in
final Sec. Sec.  1910.269(p)(4) and 1926.959(d) (for the operation
of mechanical equipment), final Sec. Sec.  1910.269(q)(3)(vi),
(q)(3)(xiv), (q)(3)(xv), and (q)(3)(xvi) and 1926.964(c)(5),
(c)(13), (c)(14), and (c)(15) (for live-line barehand work), and
final Sec.  1910.269(r)(1)(iii), (r)(1)(iv), and (r)(1)(v) (for
line-clearance tree-trimming work).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule generally prohibits employees who are not using
some form of electrical protective equipment or live-line tools from
being within reach of the minimum approach distance of exposed parts
energized at more than 600 volts, but not more than 72.5 kilovolts
(final Sec.  1910.269(l)(4)(ii) and (l)(5)(ii), and final Sec.
1926.960(c)(2)(ii) and (d)(2)). Existing Sec.  1910.269 contains no
such provisions; therefore, the final rule provides increased
protection in these circumstances and makes accidents less likely.
In addition, the final rule adopts minimum approach distances that
are substantially greater than the corresponding minimum approach
distances in existing Sec.  1910.269 for voltages between 301 and
1,000 volts and over 72.5 kilovolts.\523\ If employers follow the
final rule and ensure that employees use substantially greater
minimum approach distances at these voltages, then it is less likely
that an unprotected employee will approach too close to an exposed
energized part.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \523\ Under existing Sec.  1910.269, the minimum approach
distance for voltages of 50 to 1,000 volts is the statement, ``avoid
contact.'' The final rule requires the employer to establish a
minimum approach distance of not less than 0.33 meters (1.09 feet)
for voltages of 301 to 750 volts and not less than 0.63 meters (2.07
feet) for voltages of 751 to 5,000 volts.
    The default minimum approach distances in Table R-7 and Table V-
6 in the final rule provide substantially larger minimum approach
distances than the minimum approach distances in Table R-6 in
existing Sec.  1910.269 for voltages above 72.5 kilovolts. Under the
final rule, employers may establish their own minimum approach
distances, which may be the same as the minimum approach distances
in existing Table R-6, in lieu of using the default distances; but,
for the purposes of this analysis, OSHA assumed that employers would
use the default minimum approach distances. Even if employers
establish smaller minimum approach distances than the default
distances, the final rule requires that such distances ensure that
the probability of sparkover at the electrical component of the
minimum approach distance is no greater than 1 in 1,000, which makes
the probability of an accident less likely than under the existing
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA identified accidents in which employees who were not using
electrical protective equipment or live-line tools contacted, or
approached too close to, exposed circuit parts energized at 301
volts or more.\524\ Although the accident abstracts typically state
that the employee ``contacted'' an energized part, at the voltages
commonly encountered in transmission and distribution work, the air
between the worker and the energized part will break down
dielectrically before the employee can contact the part. Whether the
employee pulls away or subsequently touches the energized part will
not affect the outcome--that is, electric shock, and potentially
electrocution, and burns from current passing through the skin and
from exposure to the electric arc carrying current to the energized
part. Consequently, OSHA concludes that all ``contact'' accidents
involve a sparkover across an air gap and not actual contact with
the energized part.\525\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \524\ See, for example, the five accidents at: http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/establishment.inspection_detail?id=122193329&id=109573204&id=122194707&id=109298216&id=125652016.
    \525\ As detailed in the summary and explanation of final Sec.
1926.960(c), in Section V, Summary and Explanation of the Final
Rule, earlier in this preamble, the sparkover distance at the
worksite depends on several factors, including, in particular, the
nominal voltage on the system and any transient overvoltage that
occurs while the employee is working.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, for several reasons, increasing the minimum
approach distance will decrease the likelihood that an employee will
approach closely enough for sparkover. First, the increases in
minimum approach distance, though slight in most cases, reduce the
probability of sparkover to 3[sigma] (approximately 1 in 1,000) from
sometimes substantially higher probabilities. (For example, the
probability of sparkover at the electrical component of the existing
phase-to-phase minimum approach distance for an 800-kilovolt system
with a 2.5-per unit maximum transient overvoltage is approximately 6
in 10.) Second, the increased distance will provide the employee
with additional distance, and thus time, to detect and withdraw from
an approach that is too close to energized parts. (See the summary
and explanation of final Sec.  1926.960(c)(1) under the heading
``The ergonomic component of MAD'' in Section V, Summary and
Explanation of the Final Rule, earlier in this preamble, for further
information.) Third, the increased distance provides a greater
margin of error for the employee in the absence of a known maximum
transient overvoltage.
    The Agency did not, however, include certain types of accidents
under this category. First, the Agency did not include accidents
involving mechanical equipment, loose conductors, or guys \526\ that
contacted overhead power lines energized at less than 72.6
kilovolts. The revised requirements in the final rule do not
increase the likelihood of preventing such accidents because the
minimum approach distances at those voltages are substantially the
same as the distances in existing Sec.  1910.269, and the revised
work-positioning requirements in the final rule generally do not
address hazards associated with these accidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \526\ A guy is a tensioned cable, or wire rope, that adds
stability and support to structures carrying overhead power lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, OSHA did not include accidents in which the abstract
indicated that an employee contacted an energized part that the
employee incorrectly believed to be deenergized, except when
information on the location of circuits and their voltages would

have informed the employees that lines or equipment were
energized.\527\ Provisions for deenergizing and grounding lines and
equipment in the existing standard address these hazards, and the
final rule does not revise those provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \527\ An example of the exception is an accident in which an
employer assigns a crew to work on one line the crew correctly
believes is deenergized, but a crew member accidentally works on a
wrong line, which is energized. Information on the correct location
of lines and which lines are energized would help prevent such
accidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, OSHA did not include accidents in which the abstract
indicated that the employee was using, or likely was using,
appropriate electrical protective equipment or live-line tools. The
revised work-positioning requirements would not apply in such cases.

Arc-Flash Protection

    Final Sec. Sec.  1910.269(l)(8) and 1926.960(g) require the
employer to provide, and ensure the use of, appropriate protective
clothing and equipment to either prevent or reduce the severity of
injuries to employees exposed to electric arcs. OSHA identified
accidents in which employees sustained burns and other injuries from
electric arcs.\528\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \528\ See, for example, the five accidents at: http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/establishment.inspection_detail?id=119617454&id=125958280&id=112130158&id=106447691&id=119541977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency did not include accidents in which employees directly
contacted energized parts unless: (1) The employee survived the
electric shock and (2) the employee sustained burns or other arc-
flash injuries to parts of the body other than the hands and feet.
In the analysis, OSHA assumes that rubber insulating gloves with
leather protectors worn in compliance with the approach-distance
requirements will protect against burns to the hands. OSHA also
assumes that the injured employee was wearing heavy-duty work shoes
or boots that comply with the arc-flash protection requirements in
the final rule. Based on the analysis of the accident data, such
footwear will protect against exposure to electric arcs, but will
not protect against burns resulting from dielectric failure of the
footwear, which can occur in cases of direct contact with high-
voltage energized parts.
    In addition, OSHA did not include accidents in which employees
received burns from hydraulic fluid ignited by an electric arc,
unless the burning hydraulic fluid ignited the employee's clothing.
The Agency assumes that the arc-flash provisions in the final rule
will not prevent, or substantially reduce, injuries caused by the
heat from burning hydraulic fluid.

Training

    OSHA did not substantially revise the training requirements in
existing Sec.  1910.269. However, employers will incur costs for
training employees. Even though employees already are trained in the
work practices required by existing Sec.  1910.269, additional
training costs will result because employers must train workers in
the revised work practices required by the final rule. The
additional training requirements provide benefits because trained
employees are more likely to follow the work practices specified by
the standard than untrained employees.
    The Agency identified accidents involving incorrect work
practices that the final rule will prevent.\529\ Specifically, OSHA
included in this category any accident included in the fall-
protection, approach-distance, or arc-flash categories described
earlier. The work-practice changes required in those areas in the
final rule will result in new training, which, in turn, will make
accidents included in the training category less likely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \529\ See, for example, the five accidents at: http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/establishment.inspection_detail?id=123997892&id=119617454&id=125958280&id=123383382&id=124822347.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Results of Accident Analysis

    Table 24 presents the results of OSHA's analysis of the CONSAD
accident data. The first column in that table lists the categories
of provisions in the final rule included in this analysis, while the
second column presents the number of accidents that the requirements
in each of these categories likely will prevent. For example, the
information-transfer requirements in the final rule make 77 of the
accidents less likely to occur in comparison with the existing
standards. The third column of Table 24 shows the corresponding
percentage of accidents that the requirements in each of these
categories likely will prevent. For example, the approach-distance
requirements in the final rule make 35.8 percent of the accidents
less likely to occur in comparison with the existing standards.

                    Table 24--Percentage of Accidents Addressed by Each Category of Provision
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Percentage of 268
                                                                  Number of accidents        total accidents
                     Category of provision                          addressed by the         addressed by the
                                                                       provision                provision
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information Transfer..........................................                       77                     28.7
Job Briefing..................................................                      153                     57.1
Training......................................................                      144                     53.7
Aerial Lift Fall Protection...................................                        3                      1.1
Climbing Fall Protection......................................                       10                      3.7
Approach Distance.............................................                       96                     35.8
Arc Flash.....................................................                       42                     15.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Provision-by-Provision Sensitivity Analysis

    To conduct its provision-by-provision sensitivity analysis, OSHA
first compared the percentage of accidents in each category (from
Table 24) against the estimated total number of fatalities involving
circumstances directly addressed by the final rule, 74 annually, and
the corresponding number of serious injuries, 444 annually. OSHA
next estimated the economic value of those prevented fatalities and
injuries.\530\ Finally, OSHA estimated the percentage of provision-
relevant benefits that would be necessary to establish that a
particular provision produces zero net benefit (that is, the
estimated value of the prevented accidents equals the estimated cost
of the related provision). Any percentage greater than this will
produce positive net benefits. Table 25 shows the results of this
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \530\ Note that, due to data limitations discussed in the body
of the FEA, OSHA could not identify or evaluate injuries with the
same degree of accuracy as fatalities. For that reason, throughout
this analysis, estimated injuries are in fixed proportion to
estimated fatalities. Note, also, that prevented injuries comprise
only a minor percentage of the total benefits of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted earlier in the accident analysis, the Agency sometimes
attributed an accident to a provision even though it was unclear
from the accident abstract whether the employer followed that
provision on a voluntary basis. Therefore, although Table 25
accounts for baseline compliance in terms of costs, Table 25 does
not account for baseline compliance in terms of potential monetized
benefits. Table 26, on the other hand, accounts for baseline
compliance in terms of both costs and benefits.
    OSHA notes that accounting for baseline compliance is difficult
because effectiveness and baseline compliance interact for purposes
of estimating the number of accidents where there is no baseline
compliance. For example, if a provision is so effective that there
would be no accidents so long as employers follow the regulation,
then all accidents attributed to that provision would necessarily
occur when employers did not follow the provision; and OSHA,
therefore, could state with 100 percent certainty that employers did
not follow the provision voluntarily. Conversely, if the provision
is completely ineffective, the associated injury and fatality rate
for employers in voluntary compliance will be

the same as for employers not in voluntary compliance. As a result,
the expected percentage of associated injuries and fatalities for
firms in voluntary compliance will equal the percentage of employees
in firms in voluntary compliance (as a percentage of all employees
with associated injuries and fatalities). Thus, if 20 percent of
employees work in firms in voluntary compliance with a completely
ineffective provision, then 20 percent of all associated injuries
and fatalities will occur among these employees, assuming an equal
distribution of affected work. OSHA examines intermediate cases,
which are more complex to calculate, in a spreadsheet showing the
calculation of breakeven rates taking account of baseline compliance
[9].
    Table 26 shows estimated rates of baseline compliance for each
provision and the resulting percentage of potential benefits needed
for benefits to equal costs, adjusted for the compliance rate using
the methodology. The compliance rates show that, for all provisions,
with the exception of new requirements for calculating minimum
approach distances, industry already bears most of the costs
voluntarily. As expected, the break-even rates in Table 26 usually
are higher than the rates shown in Table 25. In some cases, as
discussed later, OSHA believes that accidents addressed by
individual provisions could not occur in the event of full
compliance with the final rule. In these cases, the last column of
Table 26 shows a range of potential benefits needed to break even
with costs, with the percentage in that column, adjusted for
baseline compliance, representing the top end of the range, and the
percentage from the last column of Table 25 representing the bottom
end of the range. OSHA believes the percentage at the top end of the
range is premised on an incorrect assumption--that relevant
accidents can occur even with full compliance with the final rule.

                    Table 25--Sensitivity Analysis of Potential Benefits From Different Provisions of the Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Percentage of                     Monetized                                                      Percentage of
                                                                                accidents                      benefits of      Injuries        Monetized         Total          potential
                                                                  Annualized     addressed by     Fatalities      fatalities      potentially     benefits of      potential     benefits needed
                     Category of provision                          cost of      the provision     prevented      potentially   prevented Sec.     injuries        monetized      to break even
                                                                  compliance      (from Table      [dagger]        prevented                      potentially      benefits        with costs
                                                                                24) *                         [Dagger]                      prevented **                   [dagger][dagger]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information Transfer..........................................     $17,820,841            28.7            21.5    $184,770,600           127.4      $7,900,536    $192,671,136              9.2
Job Briefing..................................................       6,697,557            57.1            42.3     367,609,800           253.5      15,718,488     383,328,288              1.7
Training......................................................       2,950,935            53.7            39.7     345,720,600           238.4      14,782,536     360,503,136              0.8
Aerial Lift Fall Protection...................................         113,222             1.1             0.8       7,081,800             4.9         302,808       7,384,608              1.5
Climbing Fall Protection......................................         451,768             3.7             2.7      23,820,600            16.4       1,018,536      24,839,136              1.8
Approach Distances............................................       1,807,505            35.8            26.5     230,480,400           159.0       9,855,024     240,335,424              0.8
Arc Flash.....................................................      19,446,147            15.7            11.6     101,076,600            69.7       4,321,896     105,398,496             18.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Total exceeds 100 percent because more than one provision may prevent a given accident.
[dagger] Percentage of accidents addressed multiplied by 74 (the number of fatalities of the type addressed by the final rule).
[Dagger]thnsp;Valued at $8.7 million per fatality.
Sec.   Percentage of accidents addressed multiplied by 444 (the number of injuries of the type addressed by the final rule).
** Valued at $62,000 per injury.
[dagger][dagger] The Percentage of Potential Benefits Needed to Break Even with Costs derived by dividing the monetized benefits in column 8 by the costs in column 2.
Note: Totals may not equal the sum or product of the components due to rounding.

 Table 26--Baseline Compliance Rates and Percentage of Potential Benefits Needed To Break Even With Costs, Given
                                               Baseline Compliance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Percentage of potential
                                                                                benefits that need to
                                                                 Baseline compliance *     be realized to break
                     Category of provision                             (percent)             even with costs,
                                                                                adjusted for baseline
                                                                                compliance [dagger]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information Transfer..........................................                       77                     31.6
Job Briefing..................................................                       96                     31.7
Training......................................................                       95                     14.7
Aerial Lift Fall Protection [Dagger]..........................                       65                  1.5-4.4
Climbing Fall Protection [Dagger].............................                       50                  1.8-3.7
Approach Distances [Dagger]...................................                        0                      0.8
Arc Flash [Dagger]............................................                       81                18.5-55.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Calculated as the percentage of costs for projects already in compliance as a percentage of costs if no firms
  were in compliance.
[dagger] See reference [9] for method of calculation.
[Dagger] It is possible that baseline compliance may be irrelevant because no accidents could occur (or, in the
  case of the arc-flash provisions, no fatalities could occur, and the final rule would significantly reduce the
  incidence of serious burns) in the event of 100-percent compliance, in which case the break-even percentage is
  the same as in Table 25.

    Before discussing the results of Table 25 and Table 26, OSHA
will address the potential preventability of the types of accidents
the final rule likely will prevent. Generally, no set of controls
can prevent all accidents associated with a particular activity and
still allow workers to engage in the activity at reasonable cost.
For example, controls cannot prevent fully many kinds of accidents,
such as transportation accidents or slips and trips. However, this
is not the case for many of the hazards addressed by this final
rule. The fall, burn, and electric-shock accidents that this
standard addresses are almost completely preventable with
appropriate, affordable precautions. The final rule addresses the
problem that, in many cases, employers do not apply known, effective
controls, either because no rule requires such controls or because
individual employers may lack the information to apply required
controls properly.
    Because the benefits of information transfer, job briefings, and
training depend in part on the effectiveness of other provisions,
OSHA will first consider the effectiveness of provisions involving
aerial lift and climbing fall protection, approach distances, and
arc-flash protection. In evaluating the likelihood of meeting any of
the calculated break-even effectiveness rates, there are several key
factors to consider: The potential that a provision could prevent an
accident; the extent to which full compliance with existing rules
could prevent the accident; and, even if full compliance with
existing rules could prevent an accident, the extent to which the
provision makes it easier or more likely that there will be greater
compliance with existing rules.

Aerial Lift Fall Protection

    Under the final rule, employees in aerial lifts performing
covered work will not be able to use body belts as part of fall-
arrest systems and, instead, must use body harnesses. While perfect
compliance with the existing fall-protection provision could prevent
most fatalities and some nonfatal injuries, as OSHA stated in
Section V, Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule, earlier in
this preamble, using body harnesses instead of body belts will not
only reduce the number of fatalities and the severity of some
injuries, but also increase the probability that employees use fall
protection because it is not always possible for an employer to
detect from the ground whether an employee is wearing a body belt,
but it is relatively easy to determine whether an employee is
wearing a body harness.
    Table 25 shows that the aerial-lift fall-protection provision
addresses 1.1 percent of all accidents OSHA reviewed for this
supplemental analysis. Moreover, Table 25 shows that, if compliance
with the final rule's aerial-lift fall-protection provision prevents
only 1.5 percent of these accidents, then the benefits will meet or
exceed the costs. Table 26 shows that, after adjusting for baseline
compliance, benefits will meet or exceed the costs if the provision,
including the correct use of body harnesses, prevents 4.4 percent or
more of these accidents.\531\

Ignoring the benefits resulting from the decrease in the number and
severity of injuries from falls into body harnesses in comparison to
falls into body belts, OSHA concludes that the increased probability
that workers subject to the final rule will use fall protection is
sufficient reason alone to assure a 4.4 percent decrease in
accidents involving falls from aerial lifts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \531\ OSHA uses the term ``these accidents'' in this and similar
portions of the text to refer to the percentage of the percentage of
total accidents that a particular provision needs to prevent for the
benefits of that provision to meet or exceed the costs of that
provision. For example, OSHA says in the text that ``Table 25 shows
that the aerial-lift fall-protection provision addresses 1.1 percent
of all accidents OSHA reviewed for this analysis,'' and that ``if
compliance with the final rule's aerial-lift fall-protection
provision prevents only 1.5 percent of these accidents, then the
benefits will meet or exceed the costs.'' This statement means that
Table 25 shows that benefits will meet or exceed costs if compliance
with the final rule's aerial-lift fall-protection provision prevents
1.5 percent of the 1.1 percent of total accidents that compliance
with the final rule's aerial-lift fall-protection provision would
potentially prevent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Climbing Fall Protection

    The final rule requires that qualified employees use fall
protection when climbing or changing location on poles, towers, or
similar structures. Existing fall protection standards do not
require the use of fall protection in these circumstances.
Therefore, full compliance with existing rules would not prevent any
of the falls OSHA attributed to this provision.
    Moreover, proper use of fall protection will prevent almost all
fatalities or serious injuries resulting from falls by employees
when climbing or changing location on such structures. Table 25
shows that the final rule's climbing fall protection provision
addresses 3.7 percent of all accidents and that benefits will meet
or exceed the costs if use of fall protection prevents 1.8 percent
or more of these accidents. Since it is nearly impossible for an
accident to occur if employers comply fully with these provisions,
it is reasonable to conclude that baseline compliance is irrelevant
and that 1.8 percent remains the relevant break-even percentage even
when considering existing compliance. OSHA believes that, given that
full compliance with this requirement will prevent almost all
fatalities and serious injuries from falls under these
circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that this provision will
have benefits that exceed costs.

Approach Distances

    The approach-distance provisions require employers to ensure
that employees who do not use electrical protective equipment or
have other protection against electric shock not reach into the
employer's established minimum approach distances. The existing rule
does not contain similar requirements. Even though full compliance
with existing rules may have prevented some of the accidents OSHA
attributed to the final rule's provisions, the final rule's
provisions will make the maintenance of the minimum approach
distance easier or more likely than under the existing rule. Under
the final rule's approach, the type of contact accidents OSHA
attributed to the final rule's provisions are less likely because an
employee following the revised approach-distance requirements would
not need to divide his or her attention between performing a job
task and maintaining the minimum approach distance. Simply put, the
final rule's provisions will minimize the risk that errors in
judgment about the minimum approach distance will lead to
electrocution.
    These provisions also require minimum approach distances that
are substantially greater than the corresponding minimum approach
distances in existing Sec.  1910.269 for voltages between 301 and
1,000 volts and over 72.5 kilovolts. For reasons stated earlier in
this analysis, increasing the minimum approach distance will
decrease the likelihood that an employee will approach closely
enough to an exposed energized part for sparkover. Therefore, if
employers follow the final rule and use substantially greater
minimum approach distances at these voltages, then it is
substantially less likely that an unprotected employee (that is, an
employee not using electrical protective equipment) will approach
too close to an exposed energized part.
    It is almost certain that full compliance with the final rule
would prevent all accidents attributed to these provisions. Table 25
shows that the final rule's minimum approach distance provisions
address 35.8 percent of all accidents and that benefits will meet or
exceed the costs if the new provisions prevent 0.8 percent or more
of these accidents. Moreover, baseline compliance is zero percent in
this case; therefore, even if baseline compliance was above zero,
since it is nearly impossible for an accident to occur if employers
comply with these provisions, it is reasonable to conclude that
baseline compliance would be irrelevant, and that 0.8 percent would
remain the relevant break-even percentage even when considering
existing compliance. Given that full compliance with this
requirement will prevent almost all applicable fatalities and
serious injuries, OSHA believes that it is reasonable to conclude
that this provision will have benefits that exceed costs.

Arc Flash

    The final rule contains new provisions addressing arc-flash
protection. These new provisions, if followed, will prevent
virtually all fatalities, and significantly reduce the incidence of
serious burns from arc-flash accidents. The existing rule does not
contain such protections. OSHA's existing rule simply requires that
an employee's clothing do no greater harm than the harm that the
employee would experience without the clothing. As such, it is
highly likely that full compliance with existing rules would prevent
none of the burn accidents OSHA analyzed.
    Moreover, it is almost certain that full compliance with the
final rule would prevent the fatalities and reduce the serious
injuries resulting from electric arcs. Table 25 shows that the final
rule's arc-flash provisions address 15.7 percent of all accidents
and that benefits will meet or exceed the costs if the new
provisions prevent 18.5 percent or more of these accidents.
Compliance with these provisions will almost certainly reduce the
severity of burns and will make it is nearly impossible for a
fatality to occur.\532\ Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that
baseline compliance is irrelevant and that 18.5 percent remains the
relevant break-even percentage even when considering existing
compliance. OSHA believes that, given that full compliance with
these provisions will prevent almost all applicable fatalities and
significantly reduce the severity of burn injuries, it is reasonable
to conclude that this provision will have benefits that exceed
costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \532\ See the summary and explanation of final Sec.
1926.960(g), in Section V, Summary and Explanation of the Final
Rule, earlier in this preamble, for an explanation of how the final
rule protects employees from fatal and nonfatal burn injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Information Transfer

    The information-transfer provisions require host employers to
exchange specified information with contract employers so that each
employer can comply with the final rule to protect its employees.
The existing rule does not contain such provisions. However,
accidents among employers are far more likely to occur when those
employers do not have adequate information to comply with
requirements that depend on the employer having that information.
For example, an employer cannot not select protective grounding
equipment meeting existing Sec.  1910.269(n)(4)(i), which requires
that protective grounding equipment be capable of conducting the
maximum fault current that could flow at the point of grounding for
the time necessary to clear the fault, if the employer does not know
the fault current or clearing time for a circuit. As such, it is
highly likely that the existing rule could not prevent at least some
of the accidents OSHA attributed to these provisions because many
employers did not have adequate information to achieve full
compliance with the existing rule's work practice requirements and,
but for the new information-transfer provisions, would not have
adequate information to achieve full compliance with the final
rule's work-practice requirements.
    OSHA also believes that it is likely that the benefits of this
provision will exceed the costs. In its analysis, OSHA identified
accidents in which an employer that appeared to be a contract
employer needed specific information to comply with the final rule.
It is necessary that the host employer transfer certain key
information about the electric power generation, transmission, or
distribution installation to the contract employer, as such
information is almost never readily available to the contract
employer from any source other than the host employer. Table 25
shows that the final rule's information-transfer provisions address
28.7 percent of all accidents and that benefits will meet or exceed
the costs if the new provisions prevent 9.2 percent or more of these
accidents. Table 26 shows that, after adjusting for baseline
compliance, benefits will meet or exceed the costs if the provisions
prevent 31.6 percent or more of these accidents. The transfer of
required information is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition
for preventing accidents; therefore, OSHA considers it likely that
the final rule will achieve this level of preventability given that
the record for this rulemaking clearly shows that contract employers
have difficulty meeting the provisions of the existing standard due
to a lack of information. In particular, the record shows that
contract employers experience a recurring inability to get needed
information from utilities. (See, for example, Tr. 877, 1240, 1333.)

Job Briefing

    The job-briefing provision requires employers to provide certain
necessary safety information to the employee in charge. It is
important that the employer provide the employee in charge with this
information to aid employees' assessment of worksite conditions and,
as a secondary precaution, in case employees at the site fail to
observe a particular condition related to their safety. The existing
standards do not contain such a provision. Moreover, the record
makes clear that, under the existing rule, employees do not always
have, nor can they always obtain, the necessary information they
need to perform their jobs safely because employers are placing the
entire burden of compliance with the job-briefing requirement on the
employee in charge (see discussion of Sec.  1926.952 in Section V,
Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule, earlier in this
preamble). As such, it is highly likely that the existing rule could
not prevent at least some of the accidents OSHA attributed to this
provision because many employees did not have adequate information
for employers to achieve full compliance with the existing rule's
work practice requirements and, but for the new job-briefing
provision, would not have adequate information for employers to
achieve full compliance with the final rule's work-practice
requirements.
    However, under existing Sec.  1910.269(c), employees become
aware of at least some of this necessary safety information because,
although the existing rule does not require employers to provide
this information to the employee in charge, the existing rule
requires job briefings that cover hazards associated with the job,
work procedures involved, special precautions, energy-source
controls, and personal protective equipment requirements. Consistent
with this conclusion, Table 25 shows that benefits will meet or
exceed the costs if the new provision prevents 1.7 percent or more
of the accidents addressed by this provision; Table 26 shows that,
after adjusting for baseline compliance, benefits will meet or
exceed the costs if the new provision prevents 31.7 percent or more
of these accidents.
    Table 25 shows that compliance with the final rule's job-
briefing provision potentially would prevent a large portion (57.1
percent) of all accidents. As such, it is likely that the benefits
of this provision will exceed the costs because of the large
percentage of total accidents potentially prevented by this
provision (57.1 percent) and the percentage of prevention (31.7
percent) needed for the benefits of these accidents to equal costs.
Again, the record evidence supports the conclusion that at least
some employees do not have adequate information to perform their
jobs safely and, further, that the overwhelming majority of
employers do find such job briefings desirable.

Training

    The training requirements in the final rule are substantially
the same as those in existing Sec.  1910.269. Training costs arise,
not from new training requirements, but from the need to provide
employees with new training in work practices conforming to new and
revised work-practice requirements in the final rule. Consequently,
the training required under the existing rule will prevent accidents
that only the existing rule's work-practice requirements might
prevent, and not accidents that only the final rule's work-practice
requirements might prevent.
    For example, full compliance with the existing rule's training
requirements would not prevent the falls that OSHA attributed to the
final rule's climbing fall-protection provision because the existing
rule does not require qualified employees to use fall protection
when climbing or changing location on poles, towers, or similar
structures. However, full compliance with the existing rule's
training requirements might prevent some of the falls that OSHA
attributed to the final rule's aerial-lift fall-protection provision
because full compliance with the existing rule's aerial-lift fall-
protection provision would likely prevent some of those accidents.
As such, the training required under the existing rule would prevent
some, but not all, of the accidents attributed to the training
required under the final rule.
    In its analysis, OSHA attributed to the training required under
the final rule any accident that the Agency attributed to provisions
requiring compliance with the final rule's new and revised work-
practice requirements (that is, provisions on aerial-lift fall
protection, climbing fall protection, information transfer, approach
distances, and arc flash). Consequently, the revised training
employers will provide under the final rule will prevent some, but
not all, of the accidents attributed to training required under the
final rule to the same extent as the new and revised work-practice
requirements. As such, full compliance with the new training
required under the final rule would help prevent the accidents OSHA
attributed to the new training precisely because OSHA also
attributed those accidents to the new and revised work-practice
provisions.
    As noted earlier, the training provisions act jointly with the
new and revised work-practice requirements in the final rule to
prevent accidents. The new and revised work-practice provisions
necessitate new training, which, in turn, will make accidents
included in the training category less likely. Trained employees are
much more likely to follow the work practices required under the
final rule than untrained employees. As discussed earlier, it is
almost certain that full compliance with the final rule's climbing
fall-protection, approach-distance, and arc-flash provisions would
prevent all accidents attributed to these provisions. As also
discussed earlier, using body harnesses instead of body belts in
aerial lifts also will reduce the number of fatalities and the
severity of some nonfatal injuries. The training requirements will
contribute to this reduction in accidents because those requirements
will help ensure full compliance with the final rule's work-practice
provisions.
    Table 25 shows that compliance with the final rule's training
provisions potentially would prevent 53.7 percent of all accidents
and that benefits will meet or exceed the costs if the provisions
prevent 0.8 percent or more of these accidents. Table 26 shows that,
after adjusting for baseline compliance, benefits will meet or
exceed the costs if the training provisions prevent 14.7 percent or
more of these accidents. OSHA believes that it is reasonably likely
the benefits will exceed the costs because training is essential to
assure that employees can follow the other provisions of the
standard and because of the relatively large portion of total
accidents related to this provision (53.7 percent) and the
relatively low percentage of these accidents (14.7 percent) that the
new provisions would need to prevent for benefits to equal costs.

5. Methodology for Comparing the Costs of Preventing Accidents, by
Accident Category, to the Associated Benefits

    In the first sensitivity analysis, discussed previously, OSHA
determined the frequency with which each single provision would have
to prevent accidents addressed by that provision for benefits to
exceed costs for that provision; however, the analysis ignored the
possibility that it may take multiple provisions to prevent a given
accident and that not all provisions may be necessary to prevent
every accident. The second sensitivity analysis, described in this
section, addresses the joint effects arising from various
provisions.
    The requirements in the final rule work in combination to
prevent accidents. For example, as noted previously, the minimum
approach-distance requirements work in combination with the training
requirements to prevent employees from coming too close to live
parts and receiving an electric shock. OSHA took steps to assure
that its provision-by-provision analysis accurately accounts for the
issue of joint costs, as described later.
    As noted earlier, Table 24 shows, for different categories of
provisions, the number of accidents that the requirements in that
category are likely to prevent. Table 27 breaks down the data in
Table 24 further, and presents, for five different categories of
accidents (falls from aerial lifts; falls from structures; electric
shock, too close to live parts; burns from arc flash; and accidents
other than those listed above), the number and percentage of
accidents in each accident category that the different combinations
of provisions (that is, ``provision categories'') in Table 24 are
likely to prevent. An example illustrates how OSHA calculated the
percentages in Table 27. From Table 24, the Agency determined that
the information-transfer provisions in the final rule would address
77 accidents. Table 27 shows the number of those 77 accidents in
each accident category, and the corresponding percentage of those 77
accidents, that the information-transfer provisions will address:
Electric shock, too close to live parts--53 (69 percent); burns from
arc flash--13 (17 percent); and accidents other than those listed
above--11 (14 percent).
    Table 28 presents the data in Table 24 differently.
Specifically, Table 28 presents, for each of the five provision
categories, the number and percentage of accidents (out of the total
accidents reviewed by OSHA for this supplemental analysis) that each
provision category of the final rule would address. Four of the
categories of accidents

in Table 28 (falls from aerial lifts; falls from structures;
electric shock, too close to live parts; burns from arc flash)
contain numbers of accidents that are identical to the numbers
contained in Table 24, as OSHA based both tables on its analysis of
the CONSAD accident data. For reasons explained later, OSHA derived
the number of accidents associated with the fifth category by
determining the number of accidents in Table 24 that the
information-transfer, job-briefing, and training provisions of the
final rule could prevent, not including accidents that the
provisions of the final rule that address the first four accident
categories in Table 27 also could prevent. Based on the analysis in
Table 27, OSHA determined that the final rule could potentially
prevent 165 (or 61.6 percent) of the 268 total accidents the Agency
analyzed.
    Table 29 takes the analyses from Table 24, Table 27, and Table
28 and performs a sensitivity analysis that accounts for the
combinations of provisions that are necessary to prevent different
kinds of accidents. OSHA discusses this analysis in more detail
later. However, OSHA first describes the costs associated with each
accident category in detail.
    For the purposes of Table 29, OSHA allocated to each hazard the
costs of a provision based on the percentage of accidents addressed
by the provision as a percentage of all accidents addressed by that
provision. That is, if a provision has costs of $10 million dollars
and 10 percent of all accidents addressed by the provision address
electric-shock hazards, then OSHA allocated $1 million dollars of
the costs of the provision to electric-shock hazards. OSHA believes
that allocating costs of provisions in proportion to the percentage
of accidents those provisions address allows for a reasonable
determination of the costs of provisions associated with individual
accidents. Indeed, this approach is entirely consistent with the
approach OSHA takes in the final rule: For example, final Sec. Sec.
1910.269(a)(2)(i)(C) and 1926.950(b)(1)(iii) specifically require
that employers determine the degree of employee training based on
the risk to the employees for the hazards they are likely to
encounter. Accordingly, allocating costs in proportion to the
percentage of accidents caused by each hazard is a reasonable
approach.
    There are two possibilities with respect to the costs of the
provisions that address multiple kinds of hazards (like the job-
briefing and information-transfer provisions). First, there may be a
certain minimum time necessary for such activities as job briefings
or information transfer whenever the final rule requires those
activities. If so, the allocation of the minimum time for each
activity is a classic joint-cost allocation problem and allocating
cost as a percentage of expected benefits is one common solution.
Alternatively, the total time allotted may be a function of whether
or not hazards are present. If this is the case, then the percentage
of accidents associated with a given hazard is a reasonable proxy
for the percentage of time employees encounter the hazard and the
time required to transfer the associated information. OSHA believes
the data supports the conclusion that the time allotted is a
function of whether or not hazards are present. For example, OSHA
expects, and the data supports the conclusion, that the hazards from
falls from aerial lifts and from structures will seldom be part of
the information employers provide for job briefings and information
transfer because employees encounter the hazards from falls from
aerial lifts and from structures far less often than they do other
hazards addressed by the final rule, such as electric-shock and arc-
flash hazards.

Falls From Aerial Lifts

    As explained later in the FEA, OSHA estimated the costs of
purchasing new fall protection equipment for employees working from
aerial lifts. However, this is not the only cost associated with
preventing these employees from falling. To ensure that employees
use this fall protection equipment properly, employers must train
workers in its use. Thus, training, and, consequently, a portion of
the training costs, contributes to the prevention of falls from
aerial lifts. OSHA assigned a percentage (2 percent) of the
annualized general training costs equal to the percentage of
accidents involving such falls taken from Table 27 and added that
cost to the annualized costs associated with providing fall
protection for employees working from aerial lifts. The Agency
estimates that the information-transfer and job-briefing
requirements do not contribute substantially to the prevention of
these accidents because there is little or no additional related
information provided to employees as a result of those new
provisions.

Falls From Structures

    As explained later in the FEA, OSHA estimated the costs directly
associated with the new fall-protection requirements for employees
climbing or changing location on poles, towers, or similar
structures. The costs include the purchase of upgraded fall
protection equipment, training workers in its use, and, to a small
extent (1 percent, from Table 27), job briefing. As opposed to other
categories of training, the FEA includes a separate cost item for
training when the employer requires workers to use the upgraded fall
protection equipment. OSHA included this cost in its cost estimate
for this analysis. OSHA estimated that 1 percent of the annualized
job-briefing-related accidents \533\ involve the ``Falls from
Structure'' category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \533\ The percentages listed in this portion of the analysis
come from Table 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Electric Shock, Too Close to Live Parts

    As explained later in the FEA, OSHA estimated the costs of the
revised minimum approach distances. However, the final rule further
prevents electric-shock accidents involving employees approaching
too close to energized parts through the revised work-positioning
requirements. Employers incur costs for these requirements through
training, including training in the revised minimum approach
distances. Consequently, the Agency assigned a percentage of the
annualized general-training costs (71 percent) to the prevention of
these electric-shock accidents and added these costs to its cost
estimate for the approach-distance requirements. In addition,
without knowledge of the voltages of exposed live parts in the work
area, employees would not be able to comply with the revised
approach-distance provisions. As a result, the information-transfer
(for contract employers) and job-briefing provisions also act to
prevent these electric-shock accidents, and OSHA added a percentage
of the annualized information-transfer and job-briefing costs (69
percent and 63 percent, respectively) to its estimated costs for the
approach-distance provisions.

Burns From Arc Flash

    As explained later in the FEA, OSHA estimated costs associated
with the arc-flash requirements in the final rule. To follow the new
work practices involving arc-flash protection, employees must
receive training, and employers incur training costs associated with
these requirements, in addition to the direct costs associated with
these requirements. Finally, without knowledge of the estimated
incident energy (or, for contract employers, the system parameters
necessary to estimate incident energy), contract employers and
employees would not be able to select the appropriate protective
equipment. For these reasons, OSHA added a percentage of the
annualized costs associated with general training (27 percent),
information transfer (17 percent), and job briefing (27 percent) to
its estimate of costs for the arc-flash requirements.

Accidents Other Than Those Listed Above

    As shown in Table 27, the new information-transfer requirements
and the new job-briefing requirements potentially could prevent 11
and 14 accidents, respectively (not including accidents in the other
four accident categories).\534\ The information provided to
employees through these requirements would facilitate employee
compliance with the work practices required by the existing
standard. Therefore, the only costs of the final rule directed
toward the prevention of these accidents are costs associated with
the information-transfer and job-briefing provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \534\ Because the final rule effectively requires a contract
employer to pass information from the host employer to the employee
in charge, the job-briefing requirements in the final rule also
could prevent all 11 accidents potentially prevented by the
information-transfer requirements. For example, in several cases,
the accidents involved employees who fell when a utility pole broke.
If the host employer had information about the condition of the
poles, the final rule requires the host employer to provide that
information to a contract employer and, through the employees'
employer, to the employee in charge. The employees then would use
that information in the evaluation of the need for bracing or
support as required by final Sec. Sec.  1910.269(q)(1)(i) and
1926.964(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Sensitivity of Net Benefits to Potential Preventability

    Table 29 shows the break-even percentages by type of accident
and for the final rule as whole. In this analysis, OSHA first
addresses the reasonableness of concluding that the

benefits of the final rule's provisions addressing each individual
type of accident outweigh the costs of those provisions. OSHA then
explains how the two sensitivity analyses it conducted (that is, the
first analysis showing the break-even point for each provision
separately and the second analysis, discussed herein, showing the
break-even point for the combined provisions) further supports the
conclusion OSHA drew, in its main benefits analysis, that the total
benefits of the final rule exceed the total costs of the final rule.
    Table 29 indicates that, for four categories of hazards, less
than 10 percent of potential benefits are necessary for benefits to
break even with the costs of the provisions addressing those
hazards. One category of hazard in Table 29, arc-flash-related
accidents, has a breakeven effectiveness of 23.8 percent. OSHA
concludes that the benefits of the final rule's provisions
addressing these five categories of hazards will outweigh the costs
of these provisions. First, as explained earlier, in discussing the
first sensitivity analysis, if there is full compliance with all
provisions necessary to protect against arc-flash, electric-shock,
and climbing fall protection-related accidents (including the
relevant work-practice and training, information-transfer, and job-
briefing provisions), then there will be no fatalities and few or no
serious injuries involving arc flash, electric shock, and climbing
fall protection. Second, the break-even percentage associated with
the aerial-lift fall-protection hazard is only 2.3 percent of
relevant benefits (or 2.3 percent of 0.8 fatalities and 4.9 serious
injuries). The new aerial-lift fall-protection provision should
prevent at least this small percentage of fatalities and serious
injuries. As discussed in the first sensitivity analysis, using body
harnesses instead of body belts will not only reduce the number of
fatalities and the severity of some injuries, but also increase the
probability that employees use fall protection because it is not
always possible for an employer to detect from the ground whether an
employee is wearing a body belt, but it is relatively easy to
determine whether an employee is wearing a body harness. Finally,
the relevant benefits of the job-briefing and information-transfer
provisions outweigh the costs assigned to the ``other'' category
(which has a break-even percentage of 8.9 percent of 3.8 fatalities
and 23.1 serious injuries). The relevant benefits should prevent at
least this small percentage of fatalities and serious injuries. The
accidents associated with the ``other'' category all involved
employer failure to comply with the work practices required by the
existing standard. As explained earlier, the information provided to
employees through the new job-briefing and information-transfer
requirements will facilitate employee compliance with these existing
work-practice requirements. OSHA concludes that the relevant
benefits will outweigh the relevant costs because of greater
compliance with existing rules that the costs will engender.
    Finally, the two sensitivity analyses OSHA conducted support the
conclusion that, given full compliance with the final rule, the
total benefits of the final rule exceed the total costs of the rule.
The single-provision analysis, in Table 25 and Table 26, established
the break-even percentages that are necessary for the benefits of
single provisions to meet or exceed costs. In discussing that
analysis, OSHA explained that it was reasonable to conclude, for
each of the provisions, that benefits meet or exceed costs. Since it
is reasonable to conclude, with respect to individual provisions,
that benefits meet or exceed costs, it also is reasonable to
conclude, based on this analysis, that the total benefits of the
final rule meet or exceed total costs.
    It is also reasonable to conclude, based on the second
sensitivity analysis, that the total benefits of the final rule meet
or exceed total costs. Table 29 provides that the final rule will
have total benefits at least equal to total costs if the rule
prevents 12.0 percent or more of potentially preventable accidents.
Thus, according to Table 29, the final rule will have benefits that
are equal to or exceed costs if the rule prevents at least 5.5
fatalities and 33 injuries per year (that is, 12.0 percent of the
45.5 total fatalities and 273.1 total injuries potentially prevented
annually by the final rule).\535\ Full compliance with the final
rule will almost certainly prevent 12.0 percent or more of
potentially preventable accidents because, as explained in the
discussion of the first sensitivity analysis, fatalities and serious
injuries from climbing fall protection, minimum approach-distance,
and arc-flash-related accidents are virtually impossible if there is
full compliance with the final rule. According to Table 29, these
hazards together account for 55.2 percent of all accidents OSHA
reviewed for this supplemental analysis, as well as 40.8 fatalities
and 245.1 injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \535\ The 45.5 total potentially prevented annual fatalities and
273.1 total potentially prevented annual injuries are the sums of
the fatalities and injuries potentially prevented annually for each
accident type, from columns 3 and 4 in Table 29.

                                                                                Provision category
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Information transfer      Job briefing       Training other than    Training in fall
                        Accident category                        --------------------------------------------  fall protection for     protection for
                                                                                structures*           structures*
                                                                    Number    Percent     Number    Percent  -------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number    Percent     Number    Percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Falls from Aerial Lifts.........................................          0          0          0          0          3          2        N/A        N/A
Falls from Structures...........................................          0          0          1          1        N/A        N/A         10        100
Electric Shock, Too Close to Live Parts.........................         53         69         96         63         95         71        N/A        N/A
Burns from Arc Flash............................................         13         17         42         27         36         27        N/A        N/A
Accidents Other than Those Listed Above.........................         11         14         14          9          0          0        N/A        N/A
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................         77        100        153        100        134        100         10        100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                Provision category
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Aerial lift fall        Climbing fall       Approach distance         Arc flash
                        Accident category                              protection            protection      -------------------------------------------
                                                                 --------------------------------------------
                                                                    Number    Percent     Number    Percent     Number    Percent     Number    Percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Falls from Aerial Lifts.........................................          3        100  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
Falls from Structures...........................................  .........  .........         10        100  .........  .........  .........  .........
Electric Shock, Too Close to Live Parts.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........         96        100  .........  .........
Burns from Arc Flash............................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........         42        100
Accidents Other than Those Listed Above.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The FEA separately estimates costs for training employees in upgraded fall protection for poles, towers, or similar structures.

 Table 28--Accident Categories and Total Number and Percent of Accidents Potentially Prevented by All Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Accident category                                Number *             Percent [dagger]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Falls from Aerial Lifts.......................................                        3                      1.1
Falls from Structures.........................................                       10                      3.7
Electric Shock, Too Close to Live Parts.......................                       96                     35.8
Burns from Arc Flash..........................................                       42                     15.7
Accidents Other than Those Listed Above.......................                       14                      5.2
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
  Total.......................................................                      165                     61.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Number of accidents addressed by the final rule.
[dagger] Percent of 268 total accidents.

                                     Table 29--The Benefits and Costs of Provisions of the Electric Power Generation Standard Compared, by Type of Accident
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent of
                                                                 relevant                                                            Aggregate      Portion of      Annualized     Percentage of
                                                                 accidents      Fatalities        Injuries       Total potential    annualized       relevant         cost of        potential
            Type of accident/relevant provisions               addressed by     potentially      potentially    annual monetized      cost of        accidents      preventing       benefits
                                                                provisions       prevented        prevented     benefits[Dagger]    provisions      related to      particular       needed to
                                                                (from Table      annually*    annually[dagger]                      (from FEA)      particular        hazard        break even
                                                                    28)                                                                             provision                     with costs**
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerial Lift Fall Protection:
    Equipment...............................................  ..............  ..............  ................  ................        $113,222               1        $113,222  ..............
    Training................................................  ..............  ..............  ................  ................       2,950,935            0.02          59,019  ..............
                                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        SUBTOTAL............................................             1.1             0.8              4.9        $7,384,608   ..............  ..............         172,241             2.3
Climbing Fall Protection:
    Equipment...............................................  ..............  ..............  ................  ................         451,768               1         451,768  ..............
    Training[dagger][dagger]................................  ..............  ..............  ................  ................          68,719               1          68,719  ..............
    Job Briefing............................................  ..............  ..............  ................  ................       6,697,557            0.01          66,976  ..............
                                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        SUBTOTAL............................................             3.7             2.7             16.4        24,839,136   ..............  ..............         587,463             2.4
MAD:
    Evaluation/Equipment....................................  ..............  ..............  ................  ................       1,807,505               1       1,807,505  ..............
    Training................................................  ..............  ..............  ................  ................       2,950,935            0.71       2,095,164  ..............
    Information Transfer....................................  ..............  ..............  ................  ................      17,820,841            0.69      12,296,380  ..............
    Job Briefing............................................  ..............  ..............  ................  ................       6,697,557            0.63       4,219,461  ..............
                                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        SUBTOTAL............................................            35.8            26.5            159.0       240,335,424   ..............  ..............      20,418,510             8.5
Arc-Flash Protection:
    Evaluation/Equipment....................................  ..............  ..............  ................  ................      19,446,147               1      19,446,147  ..............
    Training................................................  ..............  ..............  ................  ................       2,950,935            0.27         796,753  ..............
    Information Transfer....................................  ..............  ..............  ................  ................      17,820,841            0.17       3,029,543  ..............
    Job Briefing............................................  ..............  ..............  ................  ................       6,697,557            0.27       1,808,341  ..............
                                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        SUBTOTAL............................................            15.7            11.6             69.7       105,398,496   ..............  ..............      25,080,783            23.8
Other:
    Information Transfer....................................  ..............  ..............  ................  ................      17,820,841            0.14       2,494,918  ..............
    Job Briefing............................................  ..............  ..............  ................  ................       6,697,557            0.09         602,780  ..............
                                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        SUBTOTAL............................................             5.2             3.8             23.1        34,909,056   ..............  ..............       3,097,698             8.9
                                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            TOTAL...........................................            61.5            45.5            273.1       412,866,720   ..............  ..............      49,356,694            12.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Percentage of accidents potentially prevented (from Table 28) multiplied by 74 (the number of fatalities of the type addressed by the final rule).
[dagger] Percentage of accidents potentially prevented (from Table 28) multiplied by 444 (the number of injuries of the type addressed by the final rule).
[Dagger] Cases valued at $8.7 million per fatality, $62,000 per injury.
  From Table 27.
** Percentage of Potential Benefits Needed to Break Even with Costs derived by dividing the costs in column 8 by the benefits in column 5.
[dagger] In the FEA, OSHA separately estimated costs associated with training employees on the revised fall-protection requirements for climbing and changing location on poles, towers, and
  similar structures.
Note: Totals may not equal the sum or product of the components due to rounding.

F. Technological Feasibility

    In accordance with the OSH Act, OSHA must demonstrate that
occupational safety and health standards promulgated by the Agency are
technologically feasible. OSHA demonstrates that a standard is
technologically feasible ``by pointing to technology that is either
already in use or has been conceived and is reasonably capable of
experimental refinement and distribution within the standard's
deadlines'' (American Iron and Steel Inst. v. OSHA, 939 F.2d 975, 980
(D.C. Cir. 1991) (per curiam) (internal citation omitted)). OSHA
reviewed each of the requirements imposed by the final rule and
determined that compliance with the requirements of the rule is
technologically feasible for all affected industries, that employers
can achieve compliance with all of the final requirements using readily
and widely available technologies, and that there are no technological
constraints associated with compliance with any of the final
requirements.
    The final rule in Subpart V and Sec.  1910.269 includes several new
provisions or requirements that differ from the proposed rule. These
modifications primarily involve personnel time to develop programs and

procedures and to train employees. Any equipment required to comply is
either currently in use or readily available. OSHA determined, based on
its review, that all of the work practices and specifications required
by the final standard are consistent with equipment procurement,
installation, and work practices widely accepted in these industries.
    Several factors support OSHA's determination regarding the
technological feasibility of the final rule. First, OSHA concluded that
compliance with existing Sec.  1910.137 and Sec.  1910.269 was
technologically feasible when it promulgated those standards in 1994
(59 FR 4431). OSHA carefully reviewed the application of these
provisions to construction operations and determined that the
provisions in the final rule that OSHA based on the existing standards
are technologically feasible in these operations. In fact, OSHA
estimated as part of its cost analysis that 95 percent of firms that
perform work for the construction of electric power transmission and
distribution lines and equipment are currently following these
standards because the firms also perform repair and maintenance work
subject to Sec.  1910.269.
    Second, the provisions in the standard not based on existing
standards are also technologically feasible. As is evident from the
discussion of Sec.  1926.960(g)(2) in Section V, Summary and
Explanation of the Final Rule, earlier in this preamble, any software
that employers might have to use to comply with the final arc-hazard
assessment provision is readily and widely available. Moreover, as is
evident from the compliance-rate data discussed in this section of the
preamble, the arc-flash protective equipment required by the final rule
is readily and widely available, and the harnesses and work-positioning
equipment required by the final rule are also readily and widely
available.\536\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \536\ For voltages of 50 to 300 volts, Table R-3 specifies a
minimum approach distance of ``avoid contact.'' The minimum approach
distance for this voltage range contains neither an electrical
component nor an ergonomic component.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, OSHA based many of the provisions in the final rule on
national consensus standards, or indicated in the regulatory text of
the final rule that it would deem employers that comply with specific
provisions of certain national consensus standards to be in compliance
with specified provisions of the final rule. Reliance on a national
consensus standard provides assurance that a broad consensus of
industry representatives recognize that a means of compliance is an
appropriate way to comply and is, therefore, technologically feasible.
    Fourth, in Section V, Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule,
earlier in this preamble, OSHA adequately responded to issues
associated with the technological feasibility of specific provisions.
In that section of the preamble, OSHA discussed technological
feasibility concerns raised by rulemaking participants and also
discussed the technological feasibility of provisions that differ from
the proposed rule (such as the changes to the fall protection and
minimum approach-distance requirements). The legal test for proving
technological feasibility requires OSHA to establish a ``reasonable
possibility that the typical firm will be able to . . . meet the
[standard's requirement] in most of its operations'' (American Iron and
Steel Inst. v. OSHA, 939 F.2d 975, 980 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (per curiam)
(internal citation omitted)). The following examples demonstrate how
OSHA satisfied this test with respect to the key minimum approach
distance and fall protection provisions.
    In the section addressing OSHA's revision of the minimum approach-
distance requirements, OSHA addressed concerns that not all systems
have the space necessary to accommodate the larger minimum approach
distances that may result when an employer uses the final rule's new
default values for maximum per-unit transient overvoltages. (See the
discussion of Sec.  1926.960(c)(1).) Instead of using these default
values, employers may use an engineering analysis to determine the
actual values for maximum per-unit transient overvoltages and then
apply these values when calculating the required minimum approach
distances. However, even then it is possible for the transient
overvoltages to result in a minimum approach distance that exceeds the
available space. In such cases, employers have the option of reducing
the maximum transient overvoltages by implementing such measures as
portable protective gaps, portable lightning arresters, circuit
alterations, or operational controls (including disabling the automatic
reclosing feature on the circuit and restricting circuit switching).
Finally, if employers cannot use any of these measures to reduce the
maximum transient overvoltages and, thereby, lessen the minimum
approach distances, they have the option of deenergizing the circuit to
perform the work. Therefore, the final rule's minimum approach-distance
requirements will not prevent employers from completing their work.
    With respect to the final rule's requirement that qualified
employees use fall protection when climbing and changing location on
poles, towers, or similar structures, OSHA concluded, based on the
record, that under these conditions it is generally feasible for
employees to climb and change location while using fall protection.
(See the discussion of Sec.  1926.954(b)(3)(iii).) Substantial evidence
in the record supports OSHA's determination that the final rule is
technologically feasible, notwithstanding the Agency's acknowledgment
in Section V, Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule, earlier in
this preamble, that there may be limited circumstances that preclude
the use of fall protection while qualified employees are climbing, or
changing location on, a structure. OSHA addressed this issue by
incorporating into the final standard an exception to the requirement
for fall protection under these circumstances. Accordingly, the final
rule provides that qualified employees need not use fall protection
when climbing or changing location on poles, towers, or similar
structures if the employer can demonstrate that climbing or changing
location with fall protection is infeasible or creates a greater hazard
than climbing or changing location without it. (See Sec.
1926.954(b)(3)(iii)(C).)

G. Costs of Compliance

1. Introduction
    This portion of the analysis presents the estimated costs of
compliance for the final rule. The estimated costs of compliance
represent the additional costs necessary for employers to achieve full
compliance. They do not include costs for employers that are already
complying with the new requirements, nor do they include costs
associated with achieving full compliance with existing applicable
requirements.
    This analysis includes all elements of the final rulemaking,
including changes to 29 CFR Part 1910 and 29 CFR Part 1926. OSHA
analyzed this consolidated set of actions in its entirety and included
only parts of the final rule identified as imposing more than
negligible costs in the analysis of compliance costs and impacts. The
provisions of the rule with costs accounted for in this section
include:
     Paragraph (b)(1) of Sec.  1926.950 and Sec.
1910.269(a)(2)(i) require each employee to receive training in, and to
be familiar with, the safety-related work practices, safety procedures,
and other safety requirements that pertain to his or her respective job
assignments, as well as applicable emergency procedures.

Table 30 refers to the nonnegligible costs of these provisions as
``Training.''
     Paragraph (c) of Sec.  1926.950 and Sec.  1910.269(a)(3)
require host employers to provide certain information to contract
employers, contract employers to provide certain information to host
employers, and some coordination between host employers and contract
employers. Table 30 refers to the nonnegligible costs of these
provisions as ``Host-contractor communication.''
     Paragraph (a)(1) of Sec.  1926.952 and Sec.
1910.269(c)(1)(i) require the employer to provide the employee in
charge of the job with all available information that relates to the
determination of existing characteristics and conditions that the crew
must complete. Table 30 refers to the nonnegligible costs of these
provisions as ``Job briefing.''
     Paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(A) of Sec.  1926.954 and Sec.
1910.269(g)(2)(iv)(C)(1) require that employees working in aerial lifts
use appropriate fall protection. Table 30 refers to the nonnegligible
costs of these provisions as ``Use of harnesses in aerial lifts.''
     Paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(B) and (b)(3)(iii)(C) of Sec.
1926.954 and Sec.  1910.269(g)(2)(iv)(C)(2) and (g)(2)(iv)(C)(3)
require employees climbing or changing work locations at elevated
locations more than 1.2 meters (4 feet) above the ground on poles,
towers, or similar structures to use appropriate fall protection. Table
30 refers to the nonnegligible costs of these provisions as ``Upgrading
fall protection equipment.''
     Paragraph (c)(1) of Sec.  1926.960 and Sec.
1910.269(l)(3) require the employer to establish minimum approach
distances and to ensure that no employee approaches or takes any
conductive object closer to exposed energized parts than the
established MAD, unless they use certain, specified safe work
practices. Table 30 refers to the nonnegligible costs of these
provisions as ``MAD.''
     Paragraph (g)(1) of Sec.  1926.960 and Sec.
1910.269(l)(8)(i) require employers to perform a hazard assessment to
determine if each employee would be exposed to hazards from flames or
from electric arcs. For employees exposed to such hazards, Sec. Sec.
1926.960(g)(2) and 1910.269(l)(8)(ii) require the employer to make a
reasonable estimate of the incident heat energy of each such exposure.
Table 30 refers to the nonnegligible costs of these provisions as
``Arc-hazard assessment.''
     Paragraphs (g)(4) and (g)(5) of Sec.  1926.960 and Sec.
1910.269(l)(8)(iv) and (l)(8)(v) require the employer to select, and
ensure that employees use, appropriate flame-resistant and arc-rated
clothing and equipment (collectively referred to as arc-flash
protective equipment). Table 30 refers to the nonnegligible costs of
these provisions as ``Provision of appropriate arc-flash protective
equipment.''
    Table 30 presents the total annualized estimated costs by provision
and by industry sector.

                                             Table 30--Summary of Compliance Cost by Industry and Provision
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Calculating
                                                                                Other costs      incident
                                                                                Host-                       for employees  energy and arc-
             Industry code                        Industry name              Training       contractor     Job briefing     not already       hazard
                                                                                communication                    covered by      assessment
                                                                                Sec.         (arc-hazard
                                                                                1910.269       assessment)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS 234910...........................  Water, Sewer, and Pipeline              $59,908        $150,214         $70,743          $4,427              NA
                                          Construction.
NAICS 234920...........................  Power and Communication               1,579,831       1,891,463       1,777,657         121,855              NA
                                          Transmission Line Construction.
NAICS 234930...........................  Industrial Nonbuilding                    3,216         204,286          70,999              NA              NA
                                          Structure Construction.
NAICS 234990...........................  All Other Heavy Construction...         317,634         894,356         424,921          25,941              NA
NAICS 235310...........................  Electrical Contractors.........         840,667       2,702,235       1,545,162          76,067              NA
NAICS 235910...........................  Structural Steel Erection                 5,642          47,763          24,717              NA              NA
                                          Contractors.
NAICS 235950...........................  Building Equipment and Other              8,134          44,957          23,197              NA              NA
                                          Machine Installation
                                          Contractors.
NAICS 235990...........................  All Other Special Trade                  23,289         124,535          71,957              NA              NA
                                          Contractors.
NAICS 221110...........................  Electric Power Generation......          29,583       2,397,541         675,284              NA        $628,793
NAICS 221120...........................  Electric Power Transmission,             54,588       6,393,786       1,144,815              NA       1,012,130
                                          Control, and Distribution.
NAICS 2211.............................  Major Publicly Owned Utilities.           7,345         571,626         153,887              NA         261,913
Various................................  Industrial Power Generators....           4,778         648,391         306,992              NA         284,046
SIC 0783...............................  Ornamental Shrub and Tree                16,321       1,749,688         407,227              NA              NA
                                          Services.
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................  ...............................       2,950,935      17,820,841       6,697,557         228,289       2,186,883
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                           Provision of
                                                                            appropriate       Use of      Upgrading fall                       Total
             Industry code                        Industry name              arc-flash     harnesses in     protection          MAD         annualized
                                                                            protective     aerial lifts      equipment                      compliance
                                                                             equipment                                                         costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS 234910...........................  Water, Sewer, and Pipeline             $180,982              NA              NA              NA        $466,274
                                          Construction.
NAICS 234920...........................  Power and Communication               5,051,365              NA        $108,190              NA      10,530,361
                                          Transmission Line Construction.
NAICS 234930...........................  Industrial Nonbuilding                  216,963              NA              NA              NA         495,465
                                          Structure Construction.
NAICS 234990...........................  All Other Heavy Construction...       1,141,710              NA              NA              NA       2,804,561
NAICS 235310...........................  Electrical Contractors.........       3,468,183              NA              NA              NA       8,632,314
NAICS 235910...........................  Structural Steel Erection                58,585              NA              NA              NA         136,706
                                          Contractors.

NAICS 235950...........................  Building Equipment and Other             54,894              NA              NA              NA         131,182
                                          Machine Installation
                                          Contractors.
NAICS 235990...........................  All Other Special Trade                 174,370              NA              NA              NA         394,151
                                          Contractors.
NAICS 221110...........................  Electric Power Generation......       2,084,506              NA         116,972              NA       5,932,679
NAICS 221120...........................  Electric Power Transmission,          3,546,921              NA         199,879      $1,593,692      13,945,811
                                          Control, and Distribution.
NAICS 2211.............................  Major Publicly Owned Utilities.         475,610              NA          26,727         213,812       1,710,921
Various................................  Industrial Power Generators....         805,175         $48,612              NA              NA       2,097,993
SIC 0783...............................  Ornamental Shrub and Tree                     0          64,610              NA              NA       2,237,846
                                          Services.
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................  ...............................      17,259,264         113,222         451,768       1,807,505      49,516,264
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: (1) Totals may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding.
(2) ``NA'' = Not Applicable.
Sources: Office of Regulatory Analysis, OSHA. See text.

    As shown in Table 30, OSHA estimated the total annualized cost of
compliance with the final rule to be about $49.5 million. The largest
component of the compliance costs, at approximately $17.3 million
annually, is the cost of providing arc-flash protective equipment. The
other provisions of the final rule resulting in nonnegligible
compliance costs include training ($3.0 million), host-contractor
communication ($17.8 million), job briefing ($6.7 million), calculating
incident energy and arc-hazard assessment (arc-hazard assessment) ($2.2
million), use of harnesses in aerial lifts ($0.1 million), upgrading
fall protection equipment ($0.5 million), and MAD ($1.8 million). In
addition, the Agency estimated other minor costs for employees
potentially not covered by existing Sec.  1910.269 ($0.2 million).
    The remainder of this portion of the analysis explains the details
underlying the calculations of the compliance costs associated with the
final rule. OSHA estimated compliance costs for each provision of the
rule that involves nonnegligible costs and for each affected industry
sector. OSHA calculated total annualized costs by annualizing
nonrecurring one-time costs (at 7 percent over 10 years) and then
adding these costs to recurring annual costs.\536\ The calculations of
the estimated costs associated with compliance are representative of
the average resources necessary to achieve compliance with the final
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \536\ OSHA annualized one-time costs using the formula Ct = C
i(1 + i) t/(1 + i) t -1, where C is the total one-time cost (also
referred to as the ``Present Value''), i is the interest rate, and t
is the number of years over which the cost is annualized (for
example, the life of equipment). Loan-payment formulas, which can be
used to calculate annualized payments for one-time costs, are
standard items in spreadsheet software. To use these formulas to
calculate annualized costs, substitute the annualization interest
rate for the interest rate on the loan, the number of years of
annualization for the loan period, and the one-time cost for the
present value of the loan (the amount borrowed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA based labor costs on industry-specific wage rates published by
BLS [37], then, using data from its National Compensation Survey, OSHA
adjusted those rates upwards by 43.5 percent to account for benefits
and other employee-related costs [36], as presented in Table 31.\537\
OSHA estimated supervisory wage rates, including benefits, to be $29.20
per hour in the Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services industry, with an
estimated range of $41.55 to $50.60 in all other affected industries.
The Agency estimated electric power worker wage rates, including
benefits, to be $21.26 per hour in the Ornamental Shrub and Tree
Services industry, with an estimated range of $29.99 to $40.77 in all
other affected industries. OSHA estimated wage rates for engineers in
the electric utility industry, including benefits, to be $51.94 per
hour. The Agency estimated clerical wage rates, including benefits, to
be $20.27 per hour in the Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services industry,
with an estimated range of $22.44 to $28.75 in all other affected
industries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \537\ The survey indicated the benefits component to be 30.3
percent of total compensation, the remainder being wages. The
adjustment represents wages x (30.3/69.7). As elsewhere in the
analysis, OSHA has performed its calculation on the precise
fraction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The appropriate sections of this analysis address the comments on
the costs of specific provisions of the final rule. For other
provisions, OSHA adhered to the general approach it adopted in the
PRIA. In most cases, commenters did not question the cost methodology
used in the PRIA; therefore, OSHA carried this methodology over to this
FEA. OSHA notes that, unless otherwise indicated, any increase in cost
in the FEA above the costs in the PRIA is due to market factors, such
as inflation and an increase in employment or number of projects in the
relevant industries.

                                      Table 31--Summary of Wage Rates for Calculating Compliance Costs, by Industry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Electric                         Health and
            Industry code                       Industry name           Supervisor   Clerical     power      Utility    Utility      safety   Consultant
                                                                                worker *  supervisor   engineer  specialist
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS 234910.........................  Water, Sewer, and Pipeline           $42.35      $23.76     $34.55          NA         NA          NA          NA
                                        Construction.
NAICS 234920.........................  Power and Communication               42.35       23.76      34.55          NA         NA          NA          NA
                                        Transmission Line Construction.

NAICS 234930.........................  Industrial Nonbuilding                42.30       24.46      34.55          NA         NA          NA          NA
                                        Structure Construction.
NAICS 234990.........................  All Other Heavy Construction...       41.81       23.60      29.99          NA         NA          NA          NA
NAICS 235310.........................  Electrical Contractors.........       42.47       23.10      37.49          NA         NA          NA          NA
NAICS 235910.........................  Structural Steel Erection             42.27       22.44      37.49          NA         NA          NA          NA
                                        Contractors.
NAICS 235950.........................  Building Equipment and Other          42.47       23.10      37.49          NA         NA          NA          NA
                                        Machine Installation
                                        Contractors.
NAICS 235990.........................  All Other Special Trade               41.55       23.13      30.72          NA         NA          NA          NA
                                        Contractors.
NAICS 221110.........................  Electric Power Generation......       50.60       28.75      40.77      $50.60     $51.94      $50.79     $250.00
NAICS 221120.........................  Electric Power Transmission,          50.60       28.75      40.77       50.60      51.94          NA      250.00
                                        Control, and Distribution.
NAICS 2211...........................  Major Publicly Owned Utilities.       50.60       28.75      40.77       50.60      51.94          NA      250.00
Various..............................  Industrial Power Generators....       50.60       28.75      40.77       50.60      51.94          NA      250.00
SIC 0783.............................  Ornamental Shrub and Tree             29.20       20.27      21.26          NA         NA          NA          NA
                                        Services.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Depending upon the industry and the type of work performed (that is, power generation, power line, or both), these workers include line workers, tree-
  trimming crew members, power plant workers, and substation workers.
Notes: (1) Wage rates include an additional 30.3 percent of base salary for fringe-benefit costs.
(2) ``NA'' = Not Applicable.
Sources: BLS [36, 37].

    For most provisions of the final rule, OSHA based the cost estimate
in part on the estimated percentage of workers or firms already in
compliance with the rule's requirements. OSHA originally drew the
compliance rates used to calculate costs from CONSAD's report in
support of the PRIA [5], which commenters on the proposal did not
question, except as noted. In most cases, CONSAD estimated different
compliance rates for small unionized establishments, small nonunionized
establishments, large unionized establishments, and large nonunionized
establishments.\538\ There are a few exceptions: Major Publicly Owned
Utilities (NAICS 2211) and Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services (SIC
0783) only have compliance-rate estimates for small and large
establishments, and Industrial Power Generators only have a compliance-
rate estimate for large establishments. Generally, following the
findings of CONSAD's report [5], OSHA estimated that larger
establishments and unionized workforces have higher compliance rates
than smaller establishments and nonunionized establishments. The
compliance cost tables presented later in this section of the preamble
list these compliance rates as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \538\ As with other assertions in this analysis not supported
directly by a citation, OSHA based its estimates on CONSAD's
analysis. CONSAD based its initial estimates on information gathered
from Agency stakeholder meetings held in 2000 and from site visits
conducted in 2001 and 2002. These initial estimates were reviewed by
small entity representatives during the SBREFA process, in
accordance with the SBREFA Panel findings, as summarized in the 2003
report of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel [29]. CONSAD
subsequently modified its estimates to reflect the findings of the
Panel. CONSAD also incorporated information from the regulatory
analysis, and supporting research, for the 1994 Sec.  1910.269
rulemaking and from regulatory analyses for related rulemakings. The
CONSAD report was finalized in 2005 [5]. Unless otherwise specified,
OSHA received no objections to, or new evidence about, CONSAD's
estimates, and the estimates were not altered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

One-Time Costs for Revising Training Programs
    Establishments covered by this final rule may need to revise their
existing training programs to accommodate the amendments to existing
standards made in this final rule. For example, employers may need to
revise their training programs to address revisions in the employers'
minimum approach distances or arc-flash protection practices. However,
these costs are one-time costs only because employers will have to
revise these training programs once. These costs, therefore, merely
reflect the transitional costs of the new standard.
    For all industries except for Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services,
OSHA estimated the costs associated with revising training programs
based on 8 hours of supervisory time plus an hour of clerical
time.\539\ Due to the limited and less complex training required for
employees in the Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services industry, OSHA
estimated the costs associated with revising a training program in this
industry based on 4 hours of supervisory time plus half an hour of
clerical time [5].\540\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \539\ One commenter suggested that it would take more than 8
hours to revise its training program (Ex. 0240). While it is
possible that some larger employers with complex operations may find
this to be the case, the Agency believes its estimate is a
reasonable average, in part because employers already are training
employees in need of training on existing Sec.  1910.269 and, in
many cases, already are operating under elements of the final
standard.
    \540\ OSHA is retaining from the PRIA its estimate of 4 hours of
supervisory time, plus a half an hour of clerical time, for the
Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services industry (70 FR 34905). Although
no commenter objected to the estimate in the PRIA, OSHA now believes
the estimate is conservative given the limited obligations on this
industry specified by the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, OSHA estimates that the average cost of compliance per
affected establishment for revising existing training programs will be
$127 for establishments in the Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services
industry and $356 to $434 per establishment in all other affected
industries.
    Most establishments in the affected industries either already have
training programs that meet the requirements of the final rule or
regularly revise their training programs to account for new information
or work practices. These establishments will not incur any additional
costs to achieve compliance with the final rule.
    OSHA estimated rates of current compliance for each affected
industry. Within each industry, the Agency estimated rates of current
compliance separately for establishments based on

their size and on whether they had a unionized workforce. In the
Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services industry, estimated rates of current
compliance range from 50 to 75 percent. In all other affected
industries, OSHA estimated rates of current compliance to range from 75
to 98 percent [5].
    The total estimated cost of compliance for revising training
programs is $0.7 million. Annualizing this nonrecurring one-time cost
at a rate of 7 percent over 10 years \541\ results in a total estimated
annualized cost of approximately $0.1 million for all affected
industries, as shown in Table 32. Table 32 also shows the costs of
compliance for each affected industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \541\ Unless otherwise discussed in this FEA, and as with most
other one-time costs under the final standard, OSHA annualized costs
assuming that initial costs will occur in the first year after
promulgation of the standard. OSHA notes that the PRIA referred to
one-time costs as first-year costs. The Agency did not annualize
these costs when initially presented in the PRIA, but did annualize
them in the FEA.

                       Table 32--Annualized One-Time Costs for Revising Training Programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Average cost per                     Annualized one-
     Industry code        Industry name    Establishments       affected      Compliance rates   time compliance
                                            affected  (%)     establishment          (%)              costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS 234910...........  Water, Sewer,                  95              $363       90/75/95/85            $6,426
                          and Pipeline
                          Construction.
NAICS 234920...........  Power and                      95               363       90/75/95/85            21,836
                          Communication
                          Transmission
                          Line
                          Construction.
NAICS 234930...........  Industrial                    100               363       90/75/95/85             1,804
                          Nonbuilding
                          Structure
                          Construction.
NAICS 234990...........  All Other Heavy                95               358       90/75/95/85             5,233
                          Construction.
NAICS 235310...........  Electrical                     95               363       90/75/95/85            13,158
                          Contractors.
NAICS 235910...........  Structural                    100               361       90/75/95/85             5,258
                          Steel Erection
                          Contractors.
NAICS 235950...........  Building                      100               363       90/75/95/85             7,774
                          Equipment and
                          Other Machine
                          Installation
                          Contractors.
NAICS 235990...........  All Other                     100               356       90/75/95/85            22,351
                          Special Trade
                          Contractors.
NAICS 221110...........  Electric Power                100               434       95/95/98/98             3,325
                          Generation.
NAICS 221120...........  Electric Power                100               434       95/95/98/98             9,821
                          Transmission,
                          Control, and
                          Distribution.
NAICS 2211.............  Major Publicly                100               434             95/98             1,350
                          Owned
                          Utilities.
Various................  Industrial                    100               434                98             1,127
                          Power
                          Generators.
SIC 0783...............  Ornamental                    100               127             50/75             2,130
                          Shrub and Tree
                          Services.

    Total..............  ...............  ................  ................  ................           101,592
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: (1) Totals may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding.
(2) For most NAICSs, compliance rates are for small unionized establishments, small nonunionized establishments,
  large unionized establishments, and large nonunionized establishments, respectively. Major Publicly Owned
  Utilities (NAICS 2211) and Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services (SIC 0783) only have compliance rates for small
  and large establishments, and Industrial Power Generators only have a compliance rate for large
  establishments.
Sources: CONSAD [5], U.S. Census [43, 44, 45, 46].

One-Time Costs for Providing Additional Training for Employees Already
Receiving Training in Accordance With Existing Sec.  1910.269
    The final rule will impose costs related to the additional training
required for employees currently receiving training that complies with
existing Sec.  1910.269. The costs in this section describe the cost of
performing the training once the employer redesigns the program. As
discussed in greater depth elsewhere, affected firms that perform
construction work typically will need to comply with requirements of
Sec.  1910.269 as their operations span both construction and general
industry operations. In this regard, Sec.  1910.269 already effectively
covers these firms. The discussion under the next heading provides
costs for the limited number of firms that perform only construction
operations.\542\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \542\ In the proposal, OSHA also accounted for on-going, annual
training costs. OSHA determined that this approach was an error.
Employers providing additional training for employees already
receiving training in accordance with existing Sec.  1910.269 will
not accrue new on-going training costs in conjunction with the
training requirements in revised Sec.  1910.269 because these
employers already must provide training under existing Sec.
1910.269; OSHA does not consider the modified requirements of the
revised standard to be more time-intensive than the existing
requirements. Any new training (including the training in the use of
fall protection for qualified climbers, discussed infra) replaces
training already required. In contrast, OSHA notes that any
employers providing additional training for employees not already
receiving training in accordance with existing Sec.  1910.269 will
accrue new on-going, annual training costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------