Paragraph (i), which is being adopted without change from the
proposal, requires that test instruments used to monitor atmospheres in
enclosed spaces have a minimum accuracy of 10 percent and
be kept in calibration. This provision will ensure that test
measurements are accurate so that hazardous conditions will be detected
when they arise. The accuracy of instruments used for testing the
atmosphere of these spaces is important for employee safety, and
calibration is critical to test-instrument accuracy. As noted in the
preamble to the proposal and to the 1994 Sec.  1910.269 final rule,
OSHA considers 10 percent to be the minimum accuracy needed
to detect hazardous conditions reliably (70 FR 34849, 59 FR 4369).
    Two commenters objected to the proposed requirements (Exs. 0128,
0227). EEI recommended that the standard only require ``that test
instruments be kept in calibration using the recommendations set forth
by the specific manufacturer'' and not address accuracy (Ex. 0227). Mr.
Mark Spence of Dow Chemical Company argued that OSHA did not
demonstrate that the provision was necessary or that calibration has
been a problem (Ex. 0128). He stated that the general industry permit-
space standard did not contain such a requirement, but only requires
that the atmospheres in spaces be monitored (id.).
    OSHA rejects the recommendations from these two commenters. Mr.
Spence is incorrect. The permit-space standard requires test equipment
to be calibrated. As mentioned previously, Sec.  1910.146(c)(5)
contains requirements for alternative procedures for permit spaces that
are analogous to the enclosed-space requirements contained in Sec.
1926.953 of the final rule. Paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(C) of Sec.  1910.146
requires atmospheric testing using a calibrated test instrument.
Paragraph (d) of Sec.  1910.146, which contains requirements for
permit-required confined-space programs, specifies, at paragraph
(d)(4)(i), that employers maintain ``[t]esting and monitoring equipment
needed to comply with paragraph (d)(5).'' As OSHA concluded in the
preamble to the general industry permit-space final rule, if test
equipment ``is properly selected, calibrated, and maintained . . ., the
testing and monitoring needs for entry and work in permit-required
confined spaces can be effectively met'' (58 FR 4498). Thus, the use of
inaccurate or uncalibrated test instruments does not meet the permit-
space standard.
    OSHA rejects EEI's recommendation that the standard not address
accuracy. The Agency concluded in the 1994 Sec.  1910.269 rulemaking
that the requirement for test instruments to be accurate within 10 percent was reasonably necessary for the protection of
employees (59 FR 4369). OSHA continues to believe that the accuracy of
instruments used for testing the atmosphere of these spaces is
important, and EEI offered no evidence to the contrary.
    OSHA also rejects EEI's assertion that equipment calibrated to
manufacturers' specification is an adequate substitute for test
equipment accuracy. Calibration and accuracy are not synonymous. A
calibrated test instrument is one that has been compared to a standard
reference source for the substance (oxygen, or a toxic or flammable
gas) to be measured. Accuracy is a measure of the precision with which
the substance can be measured. An oxygen meter, for example, with an
accuracy of 20 percent could give a reading as much as 20
percent above or below the actual oxygen content even when it is
properly calibrated. It is evident that this calibrated instrument
would not meet the final rule's minimum accuracy requirement of 10 percent.
    Several commenters recommended that OSHA include in the final rule
specific requirements on how to keep instruments calibrated. (See, for
example, Exs. 0196, 0211, 0227.) For instance, ISEA recommended that
OSHA refer employers and employees to the Agency's Safety and Health
Information Bulletin ``Verification of Calibration for Direct-Reading
Portable Gas Monitors'' (SHIB 05-04-2004) for information on this topic
(Ex. 0211).\96\ As noted earlier, EEI recommended that test instruments
be calibrated in accordance with manufacturers' instructions (Ex.
0227). Another commenter, Mr. Lee Marchessault with Workplace Safety
Solutions agreed that the standard should require calibration in
accordance with manufacturers' instructions because test instruments
``may go out of calibration 2 hours after being calibrated'' (Ex.
0196).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ This document is available on the OSHA Web site at: http://www.osha.gov/dts/shib/shib050404.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA is not adopting these recommendations. The Agency decided to
adopt a performance-based approach for this requirement to provide
compliance flexibility. OSHA considers a test instrument to be ``kept
in calibration,'' as required by paragraph (i), when the employer
follows the manufacturers' calibration instructions or other reasonable
guidelines for the calibration of the instrument involved. The Agency
anticipates that most employers will follow manufacturers'
instructions. However, these instructions might not be available if the
manufacturer has gone out of business. In addition, there are other
sources of information on proper calibration methods. As mentioned
earlier, ISEA noted one appropriate source of information that can be
used instead, although the Agency decided against including a reference
to that publication in the final rule.
    Mr. Kevin Taylor with the Lyondell Chemical Company asked for
clarification of the requirement that test instruments have a minimum
accuracy of 10 percent (Ex. 0218). He inquired whether that
level of accuracy was needed for each measured gas or whether the
accuracy measurement was based on total detection of gases.
    OSHA clarifies that the accuracy required by the final rule
pertains to each gas being measured. Moreover, the accuracy of the
instrument must be determined based on the threshold quantities that
would make the atmosphere within the space hazardous (as per the
definition of ``hazardous atmosphere'' in Sec.  1926.968). For

example, a particular enclosed space could potentially contain
hazardous levels of methane, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide, as
well as insufficient levels of oxygen. The instrument or instruments
used to test the space in this example must be accurate to within
10 percent of: (1) A 0.5-percent concentration of methane
(which is 10 percent of its lower flammable limit),\97\ (2) the
permissible exposure limits (PELs) contained in Subpart D for both
carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide (9,000 and 55 mg/m\3\,
respectively), and (3) atmospheric concentrations of oxygen at 19.5
percent. It is important for the test instrument to be accurate near
the threshold because those are the critical values for determining
whether or not a space is hazardous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ The lower flammable limit for methane is 5 percent, and 10
percent of that value is 0.5 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted earlier, because of the lack of adequate ventilation,
enclosed spaces can accumulate hazardous concentrations of flammable
gases and vapors, or an oxygen deficient atmosphere could develop. It
is important to keep concentrations of oxygen and flammable gases and
vapors at safe levels; otherwise, an explosion could occur while
employees are in the space, or an oxygen deficiency could lead to
suffocation of an employee. Toward these ends, paragraphs (j) through
(o) of the final rule address the testing of the atmosphere in the
space and ventilation of the space. OSHA notes that the specific
testing requirements in paragraphs (j), (k), and (o) must be met
irrespective of the results of the employer's evaluation performed
under paragraph (e). The evaluation performed under paragraph (e)
serves only to ensure that it is safe to remove the cover and will not
determine whether an enclosed space contains a hazardous atmosphere.
The testing required by paragraphs (j), (k), and (o) will ensure, as
required by paragraph (g), that employees not enter an enclosed space
while it contains a hazardous atmosphere unless they follow the
requirements of the general industry permit-space standard.
    Paragraph (j), which is being adopted without substantive change
from the proposal, requires that, before an employee enters an enclosed
space, the atmosphere in the space be tested for oxygen deficiency and
that the testing be done with a direct-reading meter or similar
instrument capable of collecting and immediately analyzing data samples
without the need for off-site evaluation. Continuous forced air-
ventilation is permitted as an alternative to testing. However,
procedures for such ventilation must ensure that employees are not
exposed to the hazards posed by oxygen deficiency.\98\ (See also
paragraph (m) for additional requirements relating to ventilation of
the space.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ The definition of ``hazardous atmosphere'' determines what
concentrations of oxygen are considered hazardous. (See Sec.
1926.968.) Paragraph (g) of final Sec.  1926.953 prohibits entry
into an enclosed space while a hazardous atmosphere is present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (k), which is being adopted without change from the
proposal, requires that, before employees enter an enclosed space, the
internal atmosphere of the space be tested for flammable gases and
vapors. If the results of the test indicate the presence of a hazardous
atmosphere, employees may not enter under the procedures specified by
Sec.  1926.953. (See Sec.  1926.953(g).) So that the results are
accurate and relevant to the atmosphere in the space at the time of
employee entry, testing must be performed with a direct-reading meter,
or similar instrument, capable of collecting and immediately analyzing
data samples without the need for off-site evaluation. The flammability
test required by this paragraph must be performed after oxygen testing
and ventilation required by paragraph (j) demonstrate that the enclosed
space has sufficient oxygen for an accurate flammability test.
    If flammable gases or vapors are detected or if an oxygen
deficiency is found, paragraph (l), which is being adopted without
substantive change from the proposal, requires the employer to provide
forced-air ventilation to maintain safe levels of oxygen and to prevent
a hazardous concentration of flammable gases or vapors from
accumulating. As an alternative to ventilation, an employer may use a
continuous monitoring system that ensures that no hazardous atmosphere
develops and no increase in flammable gas or vapor concentrations above
safe levels occur if flammable gases or vapors are detected at safe
levels. The language in the final rule clarifies that the monitoring
must ensure that concentrations of flammable gases and vapors do not
increase above safe levels (as opposed to not increasing at all). The
definition of hazardous atmosphere contains guidelines for determining
whether the concentration of a substance is at a hazardous level. OSHA
is including a note to this effect after paragraph (l). An identical
note appears after paragraph (o). OSHA changed the title of this
paragraph in the final rule to ``Ventilation, and monitoring for
flammable gases or vapors'' to accurately reflect the contents of the
paragraph.
    Paragraph (m), which is being adopted without substantive change
from the proposal, contains specific requirements for the ventilation
of enclosed spaces. When forced-air ventilation is used, it must begin
before entry is made and must be maintained long enough for the
employer to be able to demonstrate that a safe atmosphere exists before
employees are allowed to enter the space. To accomplish this, the
ventilation must be maintained long enough to purge the atmosphere
within the space of hazardous levels of flammable gases and vapors and
to supply an adequate concentration of oxygen.
    OSHA decided not to specify a minimum number of air changes before
employee entry into the enclosed space is permitted. Instead, the
Agency places the burden on the employer to ensure that the atmosphere
is safe before such entry. The employer can discharge this duty either
by testing to determine the safety of the atmosphere in the space or by
a thorough evaluation of the air flow required to make the atmosphere
safe. In this way, the safety of employees working in enclosed spaces
will not be dependent on speculation by a supervisor or an
employee.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ This discussion, which also appeared in the preamble to the
proposal, responds to one commenter's request for clarification of
how the employer could demonstrate that the atmosphere in the
enclosed space is safe (Ex. 0186).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (m) also requires the air provided by the ventilating
equipment to be directed at the immediate area within the enclosed
space where employees are at work. The forced-air ventilation must be
maintained the entire time the employees are present within the space.
These provisions ensure that a hazardous atmosphere does not reoccur
where employees are working.
    NIOSH recommended that ``the atmosphere in a confined space be
tested before entry and monitored continuously while workers are in the
confined space to determine if the atmosphere has changed due to the
work being performed'' (Ex. 0130). NIOSH identified its publication
``Worker Deaths in Confined Spaces: A Summary of NIOSH Surveillance and
Investigative Findings,'' Publication No. 94-103, as evidence of the
need for continuous monitoring (id.).
    As explained earlier in this section of the preamble, the final
rule requires the atmosphere in enclosed spaces to be tested before
entry. OSHA concludes, however, that continuous monitoring of enclosed
spaces is unnecessary. By

definition, enclosed spaces contain a hazardous atmosphere only under
abnormal conditions. Thus, enclosed spaces almost never contain the
types of conditions that will cause a hazardous atmosphere to reoccur
after employers implement the precautions required by Sec.  1926.953
(such as forced-air ventilation). If these precautions are not
sufficient to keep the atmosphere in the space safe, then the space
would not qualify for entry under Sec.  1926.953, and entry could only
proceed under the general industry permit-required confined space
standard, as specified by paragraph (a) of that section. Therefore,
OSHA has not adopted NIOSH's recommendation in the final rule.
    Two commenters noted that proposed paragraph (m) might be
impossible to implement under certain conditions and recommended that
the final rule recognize these conditions (Exs. 0128, 0224). One of
these commenters, Dow Chemical Company, noted that it is not always
possible to test atmospheric conditions before entry into an enclosed
space (Ex. 0128). The other commenter, the Alabama Rural Electric
Association of Cooperatives, maintained that it was not always feasible
to use forced-air ventilation because of space constraints (Ex. 0224).
    OSHA concludes that no changes to paragraph (m) are necessary. The
final rule, as with the proposal, recognizes that the enclosed-space
procedures might not adequately protect employees in some
circumstances. Paragraph (a) of the final rule requires that employers
follow the general industry permit-space standard at Sec.  1910.146
whenever the precautions required by final Sec. Sec.  1926.953 and
1926.965 are insufficient to adequately control the hazards posed by
the space. These conditions include any conditions that make complying
with those two sections in this final rule infeasible. Therefore, OSHA
is including paragraph (m) in the final rule as proposed.
    To ensure that the air supplied by the ventilating equipment
provides a safe atmosphere, paragraph (n), which is being adopted
without substantive change from the proposal, requires the air supply
to be from a clean source and prohibits it from increasing the hazards
in the enclosed space. For example, the final rule prohibits
positioning the air intake for ventilating equipment near the exhaust
from a gasoline or diesel engine because doing so would contaminate the
atmosphere in the enclosed space.
    The use of open flames in enclosed spaces is safe only when
flammable gases or vapors are not present in hazardous quantities. For
this reason, final paragraph (o), which is being adopted without change
from the proposal, requires additional testing for flammable gases and
vapors if open flames are to be used in enclosed spaces. The tests must
be performed immediately before the open-flame device is used and at
least once per hour while the device is in use. More frequent testing
is required if conditions indicate the need for it. Examples of such
conditions include the presence of volatile flammable liquids in the
enclosed space and a history of hazardous quantities of flammable
vapors or gases in such a space.
5. Section 1926.954, Personal protective equipment
    Final Sec.  1926.954 contains requirements for personal protective
equipment (PPE). Paragraph (a), which is being adopted without change
from the proposal, clarifies that PPE used by employees during work
covered by Subpart V must meet Subpart E of Part 1926.
    Mr. Daniel Shipp with ISEA recommended that OSHA update the
national consensus standards incorporated by reference in Subpart E
(Ex. 0211). He pointed out, for example, that Sec.  1926.100, which
covers head protection, incorporates two outdated ANSI standards,
namely ANSI Z89.1-1969, Safety Requirements for Industrial Head
Protection, and ANSI Z89.2-1971, Industrial Protective Helmets for
Electrical Workers (id.).
    Updating the national consensus standards incorporated by reference
in Subpart E is beyond the scope of this rulemaking, so OSHA is not
adopting Mr. Shipp's recommendation in this final rule. However, on
June 22, 2012, OSHA published a direct final rule updating its head
protection standard in Subpart E (77 FR 37587-37600).\100\ On November
16, 2012, OSHA published a notice confirming the effective date of the
direct final rule (77 FR 68684; effective date--September 20, 2012).
That rulemaking action updates the national consensus standard for head
protection incorporated in Subpart E of the construction standards as
recommended by Mr. Shipp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ OSHA also updated its consensus standards for general
industry and maritime on September 9, 2009 (74 FR 46350). The Agency
again updated the general industry and maritime standards with the
June 22, 2012, direct final rule because OSHA published the proposal
for the 2009 final rule before ANSI updated its head-protection
standard that year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The preamble to the proposal noted that OSHA had separately
proposed regulatory language for the general PPE standards to clarify
that employers are generally responsible for the cost of PPE (70 FR
34868-34869; 64 FR 15402, Mar. 31, 1999). OSHA published the final rule
on employer payment for PPE on November 15, 2007 (72 FR 64342). The
final rule on employer payment for PPE requires employers to pay for
the PPE used to comply with OSHA standards, with a few exceptions. The
exceptions include: (1) Everyday clothing, such as longsleeve shirts,
long pants, street shoes, and normal work boots; and (2) ordinary
clothing, skin creams, or other items, used solely for protection from
weather, such as winter coats, jackets, gloves, parkas, rubber boots,
hats, raincoats, ordinary sunglasses, and sunscreen. (See Sec. Sec.
1910.132(h) and 1926.95(d).)
    Employers must pay for fall protection equipment and other PPE used
by employees in compliance with this final rule to the extent required
by Sec.  1926.95(d), the general construction rule regarding payment
for PPE, or Sec.  1910.132(h), the general rule regarding payment for
PPE in general industry. (See 72 FR 64369 (explaining that the general
PPE-payment provisions ``apply to all OSHA standards requiring PPE'');
see also the March 16, 2009, letter of interpretation to Mr. William
Mattiford \101\ (employers must pay for body belts, positioning straps,
and pole- and tree-climbing equipment in accordance with Sec.
1910.132(h)) and the May 1, 2008, letter to Mr. Gil Niedenthal \102\
(employers must pay for body belts and pole climbers in accordance with
Sec.  1910.132(h)).)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ The letter of interpretation to Mr. Mattiford is available
at http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=27014.
    \102\ The letter of interpretation to Mr. Niedenthal is
available at http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=27091.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA included a note to final Sec.  1926.954(a) to indicate that
Sec.  1926.95(d) sets employer payment obligations for the PPE required
by subpart V, including, but not limited to, the fall protection
equipment required by final Sec.  1926.954(b), the electrical
protective equipment required by final Sec.  1926.960(c), and the
flame-resistant and arc-rated clothing and other protective equipment
required by final Sec.  1926.960(g). (See the summary and explanation
for Sec.  1926.960(g), later in this section of the preamble, for a
discussion of the issue of employer payment for flame-resistant and
arc-rated clothing.)
    Paragraph (b) of the final rule sets requirements for personal fall
protection systems. Subpart M of part 1926, which sets requirements for
fall protection for

construction, contains provisions covering two types of personal fall
protection systems: Personal fall arrest systems, addressed in Sec.
1926.502(d), and positioning device systems, addressed in Sec.
1926.502(e). Subpart M defines a ``personal fall arrest system'' as a
system used to arrest an employee in a fall from a working level. It
consists of an anchorage, connectors, and body harness and may include
a lanyard, deceleration device, lifeline, or suitable combinations of
these. (See Sec.  1926.500(b).) Personal fall arrest systems are
designed to safely arrest the fall of an employee working on a
horizontal or vertical surface.
    Subpart M defines a ``positioning device system'' as a body belt or
body harness system rigged to allow an employee to be supported on an
elevated vertical surface, such as a wall, and work with both hands
free while leaning. (See Sec.  1926.500(b).)
    Positioning device systems are designed to support an employee
working on a vertical surface so that the employee can work with both
hands without falling. Proposed Subpart V contained requirements for
``work positioning equipment,'' which is equivalent to ``positioning
device system'' as that term is defined in subpart M. (See the summary
and explanation for final Sec.  1926.954(b)(2), later in this section
of the preamble.)
    A third form of personal fall protection system, which is not
specifically addressed in Subpart M, is a tethering, restraint, or
travel-restricting system. OSHA's steel erection standard in Subpart R
of Part 1926 contains requirements for ``fall restraint systems,''
which it defines as a fall protection system that prevents the user
from falling any distance. The system consists of either a body belt or
body harness, along with an anchorage, connectors and other necessary
equipment. The other components typically include a lanyard, and may
also include a lifeline and other devices. (See Sec.  1926.751.\103\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ The term ``fall restraint system'' as defined in Sec.
1926.751 is a broad term that includes travel-restricting equipment,
tethering systems, and other systems that prevent an employee from
falling any distance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fall restraint, tethering, and travel-restricting equipment are all
designed to prevent employees from falling, in some cases by
restraining an employee's access to unprotected edges (restraint,
tethering, and travel-restricting equipment) and in other cases by
holding the employee in place to prevent falling (restraint equipment).
    IBEW recommended that the fall protection provisions in proposed
paragraph (b), and in its general industry counterpart, proposed Sec.
1910.269(g)(2), contain a reference to IEEE Std 1307, Standard for Fall
Protection for Utility Work (Ex. 0230; Tr. 904-905, 983-984). The union
noted that this is the only consensus standard addressing specific fall
protection issues for the utility industry (Ex. 0230).
    OSHA agrees that this consensus standard provides useful
information to help employers comply with some provisions of the final
rule and added the IEEE standard to the list of reference documents in
Appendix G to subpart V and Appendix G to Sec.  1910.269.\104\ The
Agency is not, however, referencing IEEE Std 1307 in Sec.  1926.954 of
the final rule. OSHA made substantial changes to the fall protection
requirements in the final rule, and the IEEE standard does not reflect
all of the final rule's requirements. For example, on and after April
1, 2015, final Sec.  1926.954(b)(3)(iii)(C) generally does not permit
qualified employees to climb poles, towers, or similar structures
without fall protection. (See the summary and explanation for final
Sec.  1926.954(b)(3)(iii), later in this section of the preamble.) In
contrast, section 6.2.1 of IEEE Std 1307-2004 permits qualified
climbers to climb poles, towers, and similar structures without fall
protection (Ex. 0427).\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ See the discussion of the appendices to the final rule,
later in this section of the preamble. As explained in the
appendices, the referenced national consensus standards, including
IEEE Std 1307, contain detailed specifications that employers may
follow in complying with the more performance-oriented requirements
of OSHA's final rule. However, compliance with IEEE Std 1307 is not
a substitute for compliance with Sec.  1926.954(b).
    \105\ IEEE Std 1307-2004 is the most recent edition of that
consensus standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed paragraph (b)(1) provided that personal fall arrest
systems had to meet the requirements of Subpart M of Part 1926.
Existing Sec.  1910.269(g)(2)(i) already contains a similar
requirement. A note following proposed paragraph (b)(1) indicated that
this provision would apply to all personal fall arrest systems used in
work covered by subpart V. OSHA is not including this note in the final
rule as it is unnecessary.
    OSHA received a number of comments about proposed paragraph (b)(1).
(See, for example, Exs. 0128, 0180, 0211, 0219, 0227, 0230.) Some of
these comments generally supported the proposal, noting that there are
no situations in which work covered by Subpart V would necessitate
different requirements for fall arrest equipment than those already
found in Subpart M. (See, for example, Exs. 0219, 0227, 0230.) Mr. Mark
Spence with Dow Chemical Company supported the incorporation of subpart
M in both subpart V and Sec.  1910.269, but noted OSHA's plan to revise
the general industry fall protection standard. He recommended that
Sec.  1910.269 and subpart V eventually be revised to refer to the
updated general industry fall protection provisions:

    The existing general industry standard [Sec.  1910.269] requires
personal fall arrest equipment to meet the requirements of the
construction industry fall protection standards, 29 CFR Part 1926,
Subpart M. Both Sec.  1910.269 and Subpart M were promulgated in
1994, whereas the general industry fall protection standards date
back to 1971 (and are based on earlier requirements). To take
advantage of the updated fall protection requirements in the
construction standards, OSHA chose to make them applicable to work
under this general industry standard. [Footnote omitted.]
* * * * *
    Dow sees no current option for OSHA other than continuing to
refer to Subpart M, supplementing it as appropriate with new
provisions, as OSHA has done here. However, Dow urges OSHA to
proceed expeditiously with the issuance of . . . new general
industry fall protection . . . standards. Once . . . new [general
industry fall protection standards are] published as a final rule,
OSHA should revise both [Subpart V and Sec.  1910.269] to refer to
the new [provisions]. [Ex. 0126]

    On May 24, 2010, OSHA proposed to revise the general industry
walking-working surfaces standards and the personal protective
equipment standards (75 FR 28862). The proposal included a new standard
for personal fall protection systems, Sec.  1910.140, which would
increase consistency between construction, maritime, and general
industry standards. When that rulemaking is finalized, OSHA will
consider whether the cross-references in subpart V and Sec.  1910.269
should be changed as recommended by Mr. Spence.
    Two commenters noted that subpart M does not address arc-flash
resistance for fall arrest equipment and recommended that OSHA require
this equipment to pass arc-flash tests (Exs. 0180, 0211). Mr. Daniel
Shipp of ISEA supported arc-flash testing as follows:

    We believe that workers in electric power transmission and
distribution have special requirements different from those in
general construction activities. These special requirements are
recognized as hazards associated with exposure to high-voltage
electric current. The hazard of exposure to energized electrical
sources often occurs at height[s] where personal fall arrest systems
are required. The hazard of electric arc flash has been addressed in
the ASTM F887-04 [Standard Specifications for Personal Climbing
Equipment] for full body harnesses used in fall arrest.

    We support the inclusion of electric arc-flash resistance
requirements, referenced in ASTM F887-04, to be extended to
[include] fall arrest PPE, especially full body harnesses and shock
absorbing lanyards that are worn together as part of a complete fall
arrest system. These components would be exposed to potentially
damaging thermal shock in the event of an arc flash. The damage to
lanyards not designed to withstand a high-voltage arc flash can be
quite severe, reducing strength to levels below the factor of safety
necessary to assure arrest of a fall. Tests have been performed by
the Kinetrics high energy laboratory on high-tensile webbing, such
as that used in fall protection PPE products. Testing at exposure
levels of 40 cal/cm\2\, in accordance with the procedures in ASTM
F1958/F1958M-99 [Standard Test Method for Determining the
Ignitability of Non-flame-Resistance Materials for Clothing by
Electric Arc Exposure Method Using Mannequins], demonstrated
ignition and melting of the webbing sufficient to reduce webbing
strength by greater than 30 percent.
    One common example of this hazard involves employees tied off in
bucket trucks working in close proximity to high-voltage power
lines. The fall arrest harness and lanyard are typically exposed
above the edge of the bucket where contact with electric arc flash
is possible. In the event of an incident, including a fall by
ejection out of the bucket, the strength of fall arrest components
could be severely compromised if they were exposed to a high-voltage
electric arc flash. [Ex. 0211]

Mr. Leo Muckerheide of Safety Consulting Services similarly recommended
that harnesses and lanyards used by employees working on or near
energized circuits meet ASTM F887-04, because that consensus standard
provides performance criteria for arc resistance (Ex. 0180).

    OSHA recognizes that employees performing work covered by subpart V
and Sec.  1910.269 are sometimes exposed to hazards posed by electric
arcs. In fact, final Sec. Sec.  1910.269(l)(8) and 1926.960(g) are
designed to protect employees from electric arcs. In addition, the
Agency already recognized the need for work-positioning equipment to be
capable of passing a flammability test to ensure that the equipment
does not fail if an electric arc occurs. (See final Sec. Sec.
1910.269(g)(2)(iii)(G)(5) and 1926.954(b)(2)(vii)(E).) On the other
hand, in work covered by subpart V or Sec.  1910.269, personal fall
arrest equipment has broader application than work-positioning
equipment, with work-positioning equipment being used primarily on
support structures for overhead power lines. Several applications for
personal fall arrest equipment involve work that does not pose
electric-arc hazards, especially in electric power generation work
covered by Sec.  1910.269. For example, an employee working on a
cooling tower or atop a dam at an electric power generation plant would
not normally be exposed to these hazards. Consequently, OSHA decided
not to include a general requirement for all fall arrest equipment used
under the final rule to be capable of passing an electric-arc test.
    However, OSHA agrees that electric arcs can damage personal fall
arrest equipment as readily as work-positioning equipment. The testing
to which the commenters referred, and which is the basis of the test
data found in the record, demonstrates that harnesses subjected to an
electric arc can fail a drop test (Ex. 0432). The Agency concludes from
these test data that personal fall arrest equipment worn by an employee
who is exposed to an electric arc could fail if it is not designed to
withstand the heat energy involved. OSHA also agrees with the
commenters that employees working on or near energized circuits are
exposed to electric arcs when the circuit parts are exposed (Ex. 0180).
Accordingly, OSHA adopted a requirement in the final rule that fall
arrest equipment used by employees exposed to hazards from flames or
electric arcs be capable of passing a drop test after exposure to an
electric arc \106\ with a heat energy of 405 cal/cm\2\.
This requirement matches the electric arc performance required of fall
arrest equipment by ASTM F887-04 (Ex. 0055). The provision appears in
final paragraph (b)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ The electric arc test required by this paragraph is a test
exposing the equipment to an electric arc with a specified incident
heat energy. ASTM F887-12\e1\ includes an electric-arc test method
that involves positioning the fall arrest equipment in front of two
vertically mounted electrodes. The electric arc forms between the
electrodes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (g)(1) of Sec.  1926.960 in the final rule requires
employers to identify employees exposed to the hazards of flames or
electric arcs. When these employees are using personal fall arrest
equipment, that equipment also would be exposed to flame or electric-
arc hazards, and the final rule requires this fall arrest equipment to
be capable of passing a drop test equivalent to the test specified in
paragraph (b)(2)(xii) (discussed later in this section of the preamble)
after exposure to an electric arc with a heat energy of 405
cal/cm\2\. Harnesses and shock-absorbing lanyards meeting ASTM F887-
12\e1\ \107\ will be deemed to comply with this provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ The final rule is based on the edition of the consensus
standard that is in the record, ASTM F887-04, Standard
Specifications for Personal Climbing Equipment (Ex. 0055). OSHA
reviewed the most recent edition of this standard, ASTM F887-12\e1\,
and found that equipment meeting that standard will also comply with
final Sec.  1926.954(b)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA received a substantial number of comments addressing fall
protection requirements for employees working in aerial lifts. Existing
fall protection requirements to protect employees in aerial lifts
performing work, including line-clearance tree-trimming work, covered
by Subpart V or Sec.  1910.269 are found in several standards. In
construction, the construction aerial lift standard (Sec.  1926.453)
and subpart M apply. For maintenance and operation work, the general
industry aerial lift standard (Sec.  1910.67) and existing Sec.
1910.269(g)(2) (incorporating subpart M of the construction standards)
apply. Currently, line-clearance tree-trimming work is typically
governed by the fall protection requirements in Sec.  1910.269 and,
depending on the type of work performed, falls under either the general
industry or construction aerial lift standard.
    Paragraph (b)(2)(v) of Sec.  1926.453 in the construction standard
for aerial lifts requires an employee working from an aerial lift to
wear a body belt with a lanyard attached to the boom or basket.
However, the introductory text to Sec.  1926.502(d) in subpart M
provides that ``body belts are not acceptable as part of a personal
fall arrest system.'' The hazards of using a body belt as part of a
fall arrest system are described in the preamble to the Subpart M final
rule (59 FR 40672, 40702-40703, Aug. 9, 1994) and later in this section
of the preamble. In short, since the fall-arrest forces are more
concentrated for a body belt compared to a body harness, the risk of
injury in a fall is much greater with a body belt. In addition, an
employee can fall out of a body belt in a fall. Lastly, an employee
faces an unacceptable risk of further injury while suspended in a body
belt awaiting rescue.
    Given the potential discrepancy between the aerial lift standard's
requirement for body belts and the subpart M limitation on the use of
body belts in fall arrest systems, a note following Sec.
1926.453(b)(2)(v) explains that Sec.  1926.502(d) provides that body
belts are not acceptable as part of a personal fall arrest system. The
use of a body belt in a tethering system or in a restraint system is
acceptable and is regulated under Sec.  1926.502(e).
    Like the aerial lift standard in construction, the general industry
aerial lift standard at Sec.  1910.67(c)(2)(v) requires an employee
working from an aerial lift to wear a body belt with a lanyard attached
to the boom or basket. Even though existing Sec.  1910.269(g)(2)(i)
requires fall arrest equipment to meet subpart M of part 1926, which
prohibits the use of body belts in personal fall arrest systems, the
Agency previously decided that employers could use body belts and
lanyards configured as fall

arrest systems to protect employees doing work covered by Sec.
1910.269 in aerial lifts.
    OSHA explained in the preamble to the proposal that this rulemaking
would prohibit the use of body belts in personal fall arrest systems
for all work covered by Sec.  1910.269 and subpart V, including work
done from aerial lifts (70 FR 34850). The tree trimming industry
criticized OSHA's proposed application of the Subpart M prohibition on
body belts in personal fall arrest systems on the basis that it left
line-clearance tree trimming employers with two (in the industry's
view, undesirable) options--providing either (1) a personal fall arrest
system with a body harness, or (2) a positioning system that, under
proposed Sec.  1926.954(b)(3)(iv) (or proposed Sec.
1910.269(g)(2)(iii)(D)), is rigged to prevent free falls of more than
0.6 meters (2 feet). (See, for example, Exs. 0174, 0200, 0502, 0503;
Tr. 611-619, 756-760.)
    The tree trimming industry is mistaken about the compliance options
available to its employers. The 0.6-meter free-fall limit applies only
to work-positioning equipment, which may not be used in aerial lifts.
As noted previously, under Sec.  1926.500(b) of subpart M,
``positioning device system'' is defined as ``a body belt or body
harness system rigged to allow an employee to be supported on an
elevated vertical surface, such as a wall, and work with both hands
free while leaning.'' Positioning device systems are not permitted to
be used from a horizontal surface, such as the platform or bucket of an
aerial lift.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ See, for example, the following OSHA letters of
interpretation:
    May 11, 2001, to Mr. Jessie L. Simmons (http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24360);
    August 14, 2000, to Mr. Charles E. Hill (http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24110); and
    April 20, 1998, to Mr. Jonathan Hemenway Glazier (http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=22569).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although employees in aerial lifts cannot use work-positioning
equipment, they can use restraint systems. As noted previously, a
restraint system is a method of fall protection that prevents the
worker from falling, for example, by preventing the employee from
reaching an unprotected edge. Body belts are permissible in restraint
systems. If an employer has an employee use a fall restraint system, it
must ensure that the lanyard and anchor are arranged so that the
employee is not exposed to falling any distance.\109\ In addition, for
a restraint system to work, the anchorage must be strong enough to
prevent the worker from moving past the point where the system is fully
extended, including an appropriate safety factor. In a November 2,
1995, letter of interpretation to Mr. Dennis Gilmore, OSHA suggested
that, at a minimum, a fall restraint system have the capacity to
withstand at least 13.3 kilonewtons (3,000 pounds) or twice the maximum
expected force that is needed to restrain the employee from exposure to
the fall hazard.\110\ The Agency recommended that, in determining this
force, employers should consider site-specific factors such as the
force generated by an employee (including his or her tools, equipment
and materials) walking, slipping, tripping, leaning, or sliding along
the work surface.\111\ With respect to work in aerial lifts, to the
extent that the bucket or platform can become separated from the boom
as noted by several commenters (see, for example, Tr. 614-615, 700),
the restraint system would need to be anchored to the boom.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ See, for example, the August 14, 2000, letter of
interpretation to Mr. Charles E. Hill (http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24110).
    \110\ This letter of interpretation is available at (http://osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=22006.
    \111\ See also the following letters of interpretation:
    November 8, 2002, to Mr. Jeff Baum (http://osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24576); and
    November 2, 1995, to Mr. Mike Amen (http://osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=21999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule gave line-clearance tree trimming employers two
options for employees in aerial lifts: (1) Use a personal fall arrest
system with a harness; or (2) use a fall restraint system with a body
belt or a harness. With respect to the first option, the tree trimming
industry argued that personal fall arrest systems with body harnesses
pose two hazards unique to line-clearance tree trimmers: (1) An
electrocution hazard in the event of a fall into a power line and (2) a
hazard associated with a harness' being pulled into a chipper. (See,
for example, Exs. 0174, 0200, 0502, 0503; Tr. 616-617, 757-758.)
Testifying on behalf of ULCC, Mr. Andrew Salvadore explained these
arguments as follows:

    It is to be noted that this full body harness as one of the
options is potentially problematic though for line clearance tree
trimmers. [D]ue to the unique way that line clearance tree trimmers
work, this is for two reasons.
    Reason 1: Linemen work next to energized conductors at arm's
height. So if they fall from the aerial lift, they fall below the
wire suspended in the air. But because . . . line clearance tree
trimmers uniquely work from aerial lifts routinely positioned . . .
or traveling above the wires if they were to fall from the bucket,
they would likely fall onto the wire below when using the six-foot
lanyard and full body harness, facing certain death by
electrocution.
    Reason 2: Some line clearance tree trimming companies have their
tree trimmers help feed brush into the truck's wood chippers. This
is a concern among many line clearance tree trimming safety
professionals in that the harness's appendage straps . . . can get
caught on the brush being fed into the chipper and drag the operator
into the chipper. Additionally the donning and doffing of a full
body harness may predispose the aerial lif[t] operator to take [an]
unacceptable risk of aiding a coworker chipping brush on the ground
or conversely removing the harness and not putting it back on when
returning [aloft] in the lift. [Tr. 616-617]

    In their posthearing comments, ULCC and TCIA expanded on this
testimony. These organizations acknowledged that power line workers
also work above power lines, but maintained that there are still
significant differences that make it more dangerous to use personal
fall arrest equipment with harnesses for line-clearance tree trimming
work (Exs. 0502, 0503). First, ULCC and TCIA argued that, unlike line-
clearance tree trimmers, line workers take measures to protect
themselves from contact with power lines below the aerial lift bucket.
For example, TCIA commented:

    Through questioning of IBEW Panelists Jim Tomaseski and Don
Hartley (Hearing Transcript, pages 1016-1019), we discovered that it
is the lineman's typical practice to insulate wires underneath the
person in an elevated work position in an aerial lift when there is
the possibility of the worker coming within (including falling
within) the minimum approach distance. Obviously, it effectively
frees the lineman from concern of their fall protection allowing
them to drop into the conductor(s). [I]nsulating the line is
infeasible or impractical for our crews since they do not possess
the tools or expertise to implement it. [Ex. 0503]

Second, ULCC asserted that line workers perform significantly less work
above power lines than line-clearance tree trimmers, explaining:

    Linemen usually work at the height of the electric line; their
work from above the line is atypical--we estimate that less than 20%
of linemen work is from above the line. Thus, the amount of linemen
work [conducted] from above an electric line is di minimis [sic].
[Ex. 0502; emphasis included in original]

    First, with respect to fall arrest equipment, OSHA does not
consider body harnesses to pose greater hazards to line-clearance tree
trimmers than

body belts. The hazard to a worker from being pulled into a chipper is
easily dismissed. OSHA acknowledges that there are serious hazards
associated with operating chippers, including the hazard that workers
could be caught by the chipper feed mechanism. NIOSH published an
article warning of hazards associated with the operation of chippers
(see NIOSH Publication No. 99-145, ``Hazard ID 8--Injury Associated
with Working Near or Operating Wood Chippers;'' Ex. 0481), and that
publication provides recommendations to protect workers against being
caught in the feed mechanism.\112\ These recommendations include: (1)
Having workers wear close-fitting clothing and gloves, (2) having
workers wear trousers without cuffs, and (3) ensuring that employees
tuck in their clothing. Consistent with these recommendations, OSHA
expects that any hazards associated with using a chipper while wearing
a harness can be avoided by requiring employees to remove their
harnesses before working with the chipper. The tree trimming industry
commented that employees might not want to take off their harnesses
before feeding brush into chippers. (See, for example, Ex. 0502; Tr.
616-617.) OSHA does not find that argument persuasive. Employers can
avoid this concern altogether by having these workers perform other
ground-based work, such as moving the cut tree branches near the
chipper, while ground workers, who are not wearing harnesses, feed the
branches into the chippers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ This document is available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/99-145.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, OSHA does not consider the risk of falling into a power
line to be as serious as the tree care industry portrays. If an
employee falls from an aerial lift while using a personal fall arrest
system with a harness, contact with a power line, though possible, is
not certain. Sometimes the employee will not be working over the line.
In other situations, the line will be on one side of the aerial lift
bucket, but the employee will fall out on the other side where no
conductors are present. In addition, the line may be far enough away
that the employee does not reach it during the fall. In any event, the
hazards associated with an employee falling into a power line can be
reduced--or even removed altogether--by using a shorter lanyard as
suggested by some rulemaking participants. (See, for example, Ex. 0505;
Tr. 694-695.) In this regard, IBEW noted: ``If . . . the normal lanyard
length [for a fall arrest system] of 5 to 6 feet is too long, the
lanyard can be shortened to 3 or 4 feet, thereby eliminating the
anticipated problems'' (Ex. 0505). Noting that the attachment point on
a harness will be farther from the anchorage on the boom than is the
attachment point on a body belt, ULCC claimed that a 0.9-meter (3-foot)
lanyard was unworkable with a body harness (Ex. 0502). OSHA is not
suggesting that a 0.9-meter lanyard with a body harness is feasible,
only that a lanyard shorter than 1.8 meters (6 feet) could be used to
reduce the risk of contact with a power line. A retractable lanyard
could be used to keep the length of the lanyard as short as possible,
thereby reducing the risk even further.
    Finally, the tree trimming associations' attempt to portray the
hazards of falling into power lines as unique to their industry is
flawed. The evidence is clear from the comments of employees who
perform line work that power line workers also work above power lines
and can fall into them. (See, for example, Ex. 0505; Tr. 971.) In
addition, ULCC's attempt to distinguish line-clearance tree trimming
work from power line work on the grounds that power line workers
insulate the conductors above which they are working is unpersuasive.
Like line-clearance tree trimmers, power line workers often work above
energized power lines that have not been insulated. The final rule does
not require insulation on conductors for a power line worker
maintaining the minimum approach distance. In addition, insulating the
lines is not always possible. According to Sec.  1926.97(c)(2)(i) and
Table E-4 of the final rule, the highest maximum use voltage for rubber
insulating equipment, such as rubber insulating line hose or blankets,
is 36 kilovolts. The maximum use voltage for plastic guard equipment is
72.5 kilovolts (Ex. 0073). Insulation is not available above those
voltages.
    TCIA argued that insulating power lines is not feasible or
practical for line-clearance tree trimming crews (Ex. 0503). OSHA is
not persuaded by this argument. To the extent that it is the practice
of line workers to insulate conductors beneath them, OSHA concludes
that this practice also represents a feasible means of protecting line-
clearance tree trimmers from the hazard of falling into the line. The
comment that line-clearance tree trimmers are not currently being
trained in this practice is not relevant to whether it is feasible. If
necessary, a line-clearance tree trimming employer could have the
electric utility install the insulation or train line-clearance tree
trimmers so that they are qualified to install insulation. In any
event, the final rule does not require insulation for line-clearance
tree trimmers; the final rule at Sec.  1910.269(r)(1)(iii) simply
requires them to maintain the minimum approach distance from power
lines. The use of insulation would simply be one way for line-clearance
tree trimming employers to address their concern about employees
falling into power lines while using personal fall arrest systems.
    The tree trimming industry did not submit any comments directly
addressing the use of restraint systems, which is the second compliance
option available to line-clearance tree trimming employers. Instead, as
a result of the industry's misunderstanding regarding the applicability
of the 0.6-meter (2-foot) free-fall distance for work-positioning
systems (described earlier), it simply argued that it would be
impossible or unsafe for employees working from an aerial lift to use a
0.6-meter lanyard with a body belt for their work. (See, for example,
Exs. 0174, 0200, 0419, 0502, 0503; Tr. 613-615, 756.)
    Mr. Andrew Salvadore, representing ULCC, testified as follows:

    [W]e can't do line clearance tree trimming with a lanyard of two
foot [sic] or less. There are three reasons for this.
    Reason No. 1: Line clearance tree trimmers need to be able to
reach from the four corners of an aerial lift bucket to do their
work because [of the need] to maintain a minimum approach distance
from energized wires different from linemen who can work right next
to the wires. We can't get to the four corners of the bucket with a
two-foot or shorter lanyard, typically anchored . . . outside of the
bucket on the boom. This prevents us from reaching outside of the
bucket with our tools or extending from the bucket. . . .
    Reason 2: The two-foot limitation is also unworkable because we
usually work from [an] aerial lift positioned above energized
conductors, reaching down to the tree branches below adjacent to
conductors using insulated pole tools. This is different from
linemen who typically position their lift buckets right next to the
wire at arm's length. We lack the range of movement within the
bucket necessary to reach over the bucket and down to the worksite
because we would be restrained to the side of the bucket closest to
the anchor. Relocation of an anchor is not [an] easy fix because the
anchor is required to withstand a 5,000 pounds of force and
typically can't be installed on the bucket . . . because [of] the
lack of [a] strong enough anchoring point and because if the bucket
breaks off in a catastrophic incident the worker goes down with the
anchor attached to the bucket [rather than] being suspended by the
lanyard attached to the boom.
    The Third Reason: Our people may be potentially yanked out of
the bucket into precisely the fall that is sought to be avoided by
the proposal because line clearance tree trimmers routinely rotate
and articulate their lift buckets in ways that would exceed the
distance of a short lanyard. . . . [This

exposes] the worker to being yanked out of the bucket by the short
lanyard when the range of articulation of the bucket exceeds the
short length of the lanyard. [Tr. 613-615]

To address these problems, the tree care industry recommended that OSHA
permit the use of a 0.9-meter (3-foot) shock-absorbing lanyard with a
body belt. (See, for example, Exs. 0174, 0200, 0502, 0503; Tr. 615--
616, 759--760.) The industry proposed a 408-kilogram (900-pound)
limitation on fall arrest forces, presumably to remove hazards
associated with concentrated fall arrest forces in falls into body
belts (id.).
    As noted earlier, the tree care industry misinterpreted its
compliance options under the proposed rule. For work from an aerial
lift, there are only two options: (1) Fall arrest equipment and (2) a
fall restraint system. Restraint systems do not permit any free fall.
An acceptable restraint system for an aerial lift would prevent an
employee from falling out of the lift and from being catapulted from
the lift (for example, if the vehicle supporting the aerial lift was
struck by a vehicle or if a large tree section struck the boom). Body
belts are permitted as part of a restraint system; however, a system
rigged to allow an employee to free fall even 0.6 meters (2 feet) would
not be acceptable as a restraint system. The system proposed by the
tree care industry, namely a body belt connected to a 0.9-meter (3-
foot) lanyard attached to an anchorage on the boom of an aerial lift,
would not prevent the employee from falling out of or being catapulted
from an aerial lift. Therefore, it would not be acceptable as a
restraint system.
    Moreover, with a body belt instead of a harness, the system
proposed by the tree care industry would not be an acceptable fall
arrest system. Even if it provides sufficient protection to employees
against concentrated fall arrest forces, it does not address the other
two significant hazards associated with falling into body belts, that
is, falling out of the body belt and sustaining further injury during
suspension.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ Paragraph (d)(16) of Sec.  1926.502 requires a personal
fall arrest system to be rigged so that the employee cannot free
fall more than 6 feet (1.8 meters) nor contact any lower level. The
Agency notes that the lanyard may need to be shorter than the
maximum free-fall distance. This is the case for aerial lift work.
The anchorage point on the boom of an aerial lift may be below the
attachment point on the body belt or harness. As a result, the
employee could free fall a distance equal to twice the length of the
lanyard if he or she is ejected or catapulted from the aerial lift,
as can happen when a vehicle strikes the aerial lift truck or a
falling object, such as a tree branch, strikes the boom. This is not
an unlikely event as several accidents in the record demonstrate
(Ex. 0003; these three accidents can be viewed at http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/accidentsearch.accident_detail?id=14507743&id=953869&id=14333157). Thus, the tree industry's
recommended lanyard length could result in a free fall of 1.8 meters
(6 feet).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The tree care industry asserted that OSHA has not demonstrated that
using body belts in personal fall arrest systems in aerial lifts poses
hazards to line-clearance tree trimmers. (See, for example, Exs. 0174,
0200, 0502, 0503; Tr. 613, 758-759.) TCIA made this point as follows:

    The only fall protection issue arising in aerial lifts is
failure to use any form of fall protection--an unsafe and non-
compliant behavior that the industry must strive to eliminate.
Similarly, if operators in the past have worn body belts
incorrectly, causing the equipment to not deliver the level of
protection it should have, then there is a behavioral issue to
address in training.
    It is our industry's experience that workers are not being
injured by virtue of using body belts . . . and that non-compliance
with PPE use requirements is directly proportional to how hard or
uncomfortable the PPE is to use. [Ex. 0200; emphasis included in
original]

    ULCC had similar comments:

    Preliminarily, there is NO showing in the subject notice of rule
making that . . . allowing a body belt and lanyard for fall
protection from aerial devices . . . creates a risk which merits
modification of existing practice. It is our industry's experience
that line clearance tree trimmers are not being injured by virtue of
using body belts (OSHA cites no evidence, nor contrary evidence of
any such bucket fall hazard or hazard from body belt lanyards over
two feet long in line clearance tree trimming), and that lack of
compliance with PPE use requirements is directly proportional to how
hard or uncomfortable the PPE is to use. Between 1984 and 2002,
there were 34 OSHA-recorded fatalities in Tree Trimming (SIC 0783)
involving aerial device operators and falls. The details of these
accidents illustrate where the greatest problems lie:
     23 of 34 fatalities were caused by catastrophic
mechanical failures of some part of the aerial device that slammed
the victim to the ground from considerable height. Fall protection,
or lack of it, was not a factor in these fatalities.
     5 of 34 fatalities were caused by a tree or limb
striking the aerial lift boom, again causing failure of the aerial
device. Again, fall protection was not a factor.
     6 of 34 fatalities were caused by unsecured falls from
the aerial device, and probably would have been prevented by the use
of any means of fall protection.
    At a recent meeting of the Tree Care Industry Association Safety
Committee (a tree care industry trade association), with the safety
directors of 20 of the largest tree care companies representing well
over 60,000 tree care employees present, a survey was taken as to
whether these companies had any experience with aerial lift
operators being injured from secured falls out of buckets. None did.
For them, the more profound problem was the operator who disobeyed
company policy and failed to wear any fall protection. [Ex. 0174;
emphasis included in original]

In its posthearing comments, ULCC further argued that the one accident
OSHA described, in which an employee slipped out of a body belt,
occurred to a line worker, not a line-clearance tree trimmer, and that
this single accident ``is statistically insignificant, insufficiently
documented on the record, and in no way probative of any problem of
line clearance tree trimmers falling from aerial lifts'' (Ex. 0502).
ULCC further suggested that OSHA's proposal ignored the suspension-
trauma risk associated with full body harnesses (Exs. 0481, 0502).
(OSHA describes the hazards related to prolonged suspension in fall
protection equipment later in this section of the preamble.)
    OSHA rejects these assertions. OSHA closely examined issues related
to the use of body belts in arresting falls in its Subpart M rulemaking
(59 FR 40702-40703). In that rulemaking, the Agency concluded that
``evidence in the record clearly demonstrates that employees who fall
while wearing a body belt are not afforded the level of protection they
would be if the fall occurred while the employee was wearing a full
body harness'' (59 FR 40703). In addition, the Agency pointed to
``evidence of injuries resulting from the use of body belts'' in fall
arrest systems (id.). Also, as mentioned by ULCC, there is evidence in
this rulemaking of an incident in which an employee, working from an
aerial lift while wearing a body belt in a fall arrest system, slipped
from the belt in a fall (Ex. 0003 \114\). Contrary to the tree care
industry's suggestion, OSHA need not show that injuries are presently
occurring to line-clearance tree trimmers because of falls into body
belts; it is sufficient that the Agency found that tree trimming
employees are exposed to a significant risk of injury under the
existing standard and that the final rule will substantially reduce
that risk. (See Section II.D, Significant Risk and Reduction in Risk,
earlier in this preamble, for OSHA's response to the argument that the
Agency is required to demonstrate a significant risk for each of the
hazards addressed by this rulemaking.) ULCC's own analysis confirms
that line-clearance tree trimmers are exposed to fall hazards (Ex.
0174). Nearly 18 percent of falls from aerial lifts were of the type
that, if the employee had been wearing a body belt in a personal fall
arrest system, he or she would have been exposed to the serious
hazards, described earlier, that

are associated with using body belts in fall arrest systems (id.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ The description of this accident is available at: http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/accidentsearch.accident_detail?id=170155857.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency acknowledges the suspension risk from body harnesses
identified by ULCC. When an employee is suspended in a body belt or
harness, a number of adverse medical effects can occur, including upper
or lower extremity numbness; abdominal, shoulder, or groin pain;
respiratory distress; nausea; dizziness; and arrhythmias (Ex. 0088). At
least one of the adverse effects, orthostatic incompetence, can lead to
death (Ex. 0481). It is because of these hazards that Sec.
1926.502(d)(20) in Subpart M requires the employer to provide for
prompt rescue of employees in the event of a fall or to assure that
employees are able to rescue themselves. In any event, the hazards
associated with prolonged suspension in a body belt are substantially
more severe than the hazards associated with suspension in a harness.
In 1985, the U.S. Technical Advisory Group on Personal Equipment for
Protection Against Falling stated, in comments on another OSHA
rulemaking: ``The length of time which a fallen person can tolerate
suspension in a body belt is measured in a very few minutes under the
most favorable conditions'' (Ex. 0084). In addition, a 1984 U.S. Air
Force literature review recounted one study that found that ``two
subjects evaluated in . . . waist belt[s] with shoulder straps
tolerated suspension for 1 min 21 sec and 3 min'' (Ex. 0088).\115\ That
same study showed that subjects suspended in full body harnesses could
tolerate suspension for approximately 20 to 30 minutes (id.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ Hearon, B.F., Brinkley, J.W., ``Fall Arrest and Post-Fall
Suspension: Literature Review and Directions for Further Research,''
AFAMRL-TR-84-021, April 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The tree care industry commented that, to the extent injuries are
occurring, they are caused by the failure of employees to use any fall
protection, rather than by the use of body belts. (See, for example,
Exs. 0174, 0200.) This argument supports, rather than undermines, a
requirement for harnesses in personal fall arrest systems. To the
extent better enforcement of fall protection requirements by employers
is a critical component of protecting employees in aerial lifts,
harnesses are preferable to body belts. It is not always possible to
detect from the ground whether an employee is wearing a body belt, but
it is relatively easy to determine if an employee is wearing a body
harness (Tr. 972-973). If employees initially resist the use of body
harnesses, as suggested by some commenters (see, for example, Exs.
0174, 0200, 0219), employers must be proactive in communicating the
need for, and ensuring the use of, the required equipment.
    The Agency concludes that the use of a 0.9-meter shock-absorbing
lanyard with a body belt, as proposed by the tree trimming industry, is
not an adequate substitute for the use of a harness in a fall arrest
system. OSHA has not been persuaded to abandon its finding in the
Subpart M rulemaking that body belts present unacceptable risks in fall
arrest situations and should be prohibited as components of fall arrest
equipment. OSHA is adopting in the final rule the requirement proposed
in paragraph (b)(1) that personal fall arrest equipment meet Subpart M
of Part 1926. This provision appears in final Sec.  1926.954(b)(1)(i).
    ULCC noted what it perceived as an implied, but unstated, revision
in the proposal to the provisions contained in the general industry
aerial lift standard (Sec.  1910.67(c)(2)(v)) requiring employees
working in aerial lifts to use body belts and lanyards. (See, for
example, Ex. 0174.)
    In the preamble to the proposal, OSHA explained that it was relying
on the provisions in the aerial lift standards to establish the
employer's duty to provide fall protection for employees, but that
Subpart M would govern the criteria fall arrest equipment must meet (70
FR 34850). In other words, for work covered by this rule, body belts
would not be permitted in personal fall arrest systems. The ULCC
commented: ``OSHA's suggestion that [the aerial lift standard]
describes only the `duty' to use fall protection rather than the kind
of fall protection, respectfully, is a makeweight'' (Ex. 0502).
    In light of ULCC's comments, the Agency is concerned that some
employers reading the final rule may mistakenly assume that the body
belts required by Sec. Sec.  1910.67(c)(2)(v) and 1926.453(b)(2)(v)
remain acceptable for use in personal fall arrest systems. In addition,
the Agency wants to make it clear in the final rule that work-
positioning equipment is unacceptable from the horizontal working
surface of an aerial lift. Employees working from aerial lifts covered
by the final rule must be protected using either a fall restraint
system or a personal fall arrest system. Therefore, OSHA is adding a
provision in final Sec. Sec.  1910.269(g)(2)(iv)(C)(1) and
1926.954(b)(3)(iii)(A) providing that employees working from aerial
lifts be protected with a fall restraint system or a personal fall
arrest system and that the provisions of the aerial lift standards
requiring the use of body belts and lanyards do not apply. This
provision clearly states the requirement contained in the proposal. As
a consequence of this change, the final rule does not include the text
in Note 1 to proposed Sec.  1910.269(g)(2)(iii)(C) and Note 1 to
proposed Sec.  1926.954(b)(3)(iii) referring to fall protection for
aerial lifts or referencing the general industry and construction
standards on aerial lifts. (The corresponding notes in the final rule
are Note 1 to Sec.  1910.269(g)(2)(iv)(C)(2) and (g)(2)(iv)(C)(3) and
Note 1 to Sec.  1926.954(b)(3)(iii)(B) and (b)(3)(iii)(C).)
    OSHA is adopting revised requirements for work-positioning
equipment in Sec.  1926.954(b)(2).\116\ Section 1926.959 of existing
Subpart V contains requirements for body belts, safety straps,\117\ and
lanyards.\118\ This equipment was traditionally used as both work-
positioning equipment and fall arrest equipment in the maintenance and
construction of electric power transmission and distribution
installations. However, fall arrest equipment and work-positioning
equipment present significant differences in the way they are used and
in the forces they place on an employee's body. With fall arrest
equipment, an employee has freedom of movement within an area
restricted by the length of the lanyard or other device connecting the
employee to the anchorage. In contrast, and as explained earlier, work-
positioning equipment is used on a vertical surface to support an
employee in position while he or she works. The employee ``leans'' into
this equipment so that he or she can work with both hands free. If a
fall occurs while an employee is wearing fall arrest equipment, the
employee will free fall up to 1.8 meters (6 feet) before the slack is
removed and the equipment begins to arrest the fall. In this case, the
fall arrest forces can be high, and they need to be spread over a
relatively large area of the

body to avoid injury to the employee. Additionally, the velocity at
which an employee falls can reach up to 6.1 meters per second (20 feet
per second). Work-positioning equipment is normally used to prevent a
fall from occurring in the first place. If the employee slips and if
the work-positioning equipment is anchored, the employee will only fall
a short distance (no more than 0.6 meters (2 feet) under paragraph
(b)(3)(iv) of final Sec.  1926.954). This distance limits the forces on
the employee and the maximum velocity of a fall. Additionally, because
of the way the equipment is used, the employee should not be free
falling. Instead, the work-positioning equipment will be exerting some
force on the employee to stop the fall, thereby further limiting the
maximum force and velocity. As long as the employee is working on a
vertical surface, the chance of an employee using work-positioning
equipment falling out of, or being suspended at the waist in, a body
belt is extremely low.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ In Sec.  1910.269(g)(2)(ii), OSHA proposed to require body
belts and positioning straps for work positioning to meet Sec.
1926.954(b)(2). The final rule duplicates the requirements of Sec.
1926.954(b)(2) in Sec.  1910.269(g)(2)(iii) rather than referencing
them.
    \117\ ``Safety straps'' is an older, deprecated term for
``positioning straps.''
    \118\ Existing Sec.  1926.500(a)(3)(iii) states that additional
performance requirements for personal climbing equipment, lineman's
body belts, safety straps, and lanyards are provided in subpart V.
OSHA is revising the language in this provision to make it
consistent with the terms used in final Subpart V. Furthermore,
because the Agency is adopting, in subpart V, an additional
requirement for fall arrest equipment used by employees exposed to
electric arcs (as described earlier in this section of the
preamble), OSHA is adding fall arrest equipment to the list of
equipment in Sec.  1926.500(a)(3)(iii). As revised, Sec.
1926.500(a)(3)(iii) states that additional performance requirements
for fall arrest and work-positioning equipment are provided in
Subpart V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the final rule, OSHA is applying requirements to personal fall
arrest systems that differ from the requirements that apply to work-
positioning equipment. As discussed previously, personal fall arrest
systems must meet subpart M of part 1926, as required by paragraph
(b)(1)(i), supplemented by the requirement in final paragraph
(b)(1)(ii) that the equipment withstand exposure to electric arcs.
Work-positioning equipment must meet the requirements contained in
paragraph (b)(2) of the final rule. Employers engaged in electric power
transmission and distribution work may use the same equipment for fall
arrest and for work positioning provided the equipment meets both sets
of requirements. In fact, as noted in the preamble to the proposal,
several manufacturers market combination body harness-body belt
equipment, which can be used as fall arrest systems by employees
working on horizontal surfaces or as work-positioning systems
supporting employees working on vertical surfaces (70 FR 34850).
    Paragraph (b)(2) of the final rule is based on existing Sec.
1926.959 and ASTM F887-04, Standard Specifications for Personal
Climbing Equipment, which was the latest edition of the national
consensus standard applicable to work-positioning equipment when OSHA
developed the proposed rule (Ex. 0055). Although OSHA is adopting
requirements derived from the ASTM standard, the final rule is written
in performance-oriented terms. Detailed specifications contained in the
ASTM standard, which do not directly impact the safety of employees,
were not included in the final rule. The Agency believes that this
approach will retain the protection for employees afforded by the ASTM
standard, while giving employers flexibility in meeting the OSHA
standard and accommodating future changes in the ASTM standard without
needing to change the OSHA standard. This is similar to the approach
OSHA took in final Sec.  1926.97, discussed previously.
    While the ASTM standard does not cover lanyards, paragraph (b)(2),
as proposed, would have applied many of the requirements based on the
ASTM standard to lanyards. Existing Sec.  1926.959 imposes the same
basic requirements on lanyards.
    OSHA requested comment on whether any of the proposed requirements
for work-positioning equipment should not be applicable to lanyards.
Some commenters supported the Agency's proposal. (See, for example,
Exs. 0211, 0230.) For instance, IBEW stated:

    [L]anyards used for fall protection for electric power
transmission and distribution work [already] meet the requirements
of ASTM F887-04. Therefore these requirements, as proposed, should
be applicable to lanyards used for work positioning equipment. [Ex.
0230]

    However, Buckingham Manufacturing Company, a manufacturer of work-
positioning equipment used by line workers, opposed the application of
some of the proposed requirements for work-positioning equipment to
lanyards:

    Buckingham Mfg. recommends including a section on lanyards to
remove requirements outlined in the referenced sections that are not
applicable to lanyards such as: (b)(2)(vii) and including at least
criteria such as strength requirements for the rope or webbing used
to manufacture . . . a lanyard, the minimum number of rope tucks for
rope lanyards, the length of stitching for turnover at ends of web
lanyards, stitching used be of a contrasting color to facilitate
visual inspection, etc. [Ex. 0199]

    ASTM F887-04 refers to the straps used with work-positioning
equipment as ``positioning straps,'' not lanyards.\119\ That consensus
standard uses the term ``lanyard'' only with respect to personal fall
arrest equipment. In addition, subpart M uses the term ``lanyard'' only
in the requirements applicable to personal fall arrest systems in Sec.
1926.502(d). However, existing Sec.  1926.959 applies to ``body belts,
safety straps, and lanyards'' used for either work positioning or fall
arrest. Because the term ``lanyard'' is most typically used with
reference to fall arrest equipment, OSHA is concerned that using that
term in requirements for work-positioning equipment could lead
employers or employees to believe that work-positioning equipment is
acceptable for use in fall arrest situations, for example, when an
employee is working from a horizontal surface. For these reasons, OSHA
decided to use the term ``positioning strap'' instead of lanyard in
final paragraph (b)(2) to describe the strap used to connect a body
belt to an anchorage in work-positioning equipment. Thus, any strap
used with work-positioning equipment is a ``positioning strap'' for the
purposes of paragraph (b)(2). This language also should address
Buckingham Manufacturing's concerns that some of the proposed
requirements were inapplicable to lanyards. The Agency believes that
Buckingham Manufacturing's comment was referring to lanyards used with
personal fall arrest systems, which OSHA recognizes may not meet all of
the requirements for positioning straps in final Sec.  1926.954(b)(2).
Paragraph (b)(2)(vii) contains specifications for positioning straps
that are essential to electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution work, including requirements for electrical performance,
strength, and flame resistance (Ex. 0055). Lanyards, which are used
with personal fall arrest systems, have to meet appropriate strength
and, if necessary, arc-resistance requirements under subpart M and
final Sec.  1926.954(b)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ ASTM F887-12\e1\ uses the term ``adjustable positioning
lanyards'' for equipment used as part of certain positioning
devices. OSHA treats these lanyards as ``positioning straps'' under
the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (b)(2)(i), which is being adopted without substantive
change from the proposal, requires hardware for body belts and
positioning straps to be made from drop-forged steel, pressed steel,
formed steel, or equivalent material. This hardware also must have a
corrosion-resistant finish. Surfaces must be smooth and free of sharp
edges. These requirements ensure that the hardware is durable, strong
enough to withstand the forces likely to be imposed, and free of sharp
edges that could damage other parts of the work-positioning equipment.
These requirements are equivalent to existing Sec.  1926.959(a)(1),
except that the existing standard does not permit hardware to be made
of any material other than drop-forged or pressed steel. Although ASTM
F887-04 requires hardware to be made

of drop-forged steel,\120\ OSHA explained in the preamble to the
proposal that, while the drop-forged steel process produces hardware
that more uniformly meets the required strength criteria and will
retain its strength over a longer period than pressed or formed steel,
it is possible for other processes to produce hardware that is
equivalent in terms of strength and durability (70 FR 34851).
Paragraphs (d)(1) and (e)(3) of Sec.  1926.502 already permit
``connectors'' (that is, ``hardware'' as that term is used in this
final rule) to be made of materials other than drop-forged or pressed
steel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ The current edition of this standard, ASTM F887-12\e1\,
also requires hardware to be made from drop-forged steel in Section
<IP_ADDRESS>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA invited comments on whether alternative materials would
provide adequate safety to employees. Most commenters responding to
this issue supported the proposed language accepting the use of
equivalent materials. (See, for example, Exs. 0126, 0162, 0173, 0175,
0186, 0230.) For instance, Ms. Salud Layton of the Virginia, Maryland &
Delaware Association of Electric Cooperatives commented:

    We support the flexibility OSHA [is] offering in this area.
Allowing hardware to be made of material other than drop-forged or
pressed steel allows for potential alternatives to be evaluated for
use. Other material, however, must meet the strength and durability
criteria of drop-forged or pressed steel materials. [Ex. 0175]

Other commenters supported the proposal because it would permit the use
of alternative materials that might be developed in the future (Exs.
0162, 0186, 0230). Mr. Daniel Shipp with ISEA commented that the ``use
of non-ferrous materials, including high-tensile aluminum with [a]
protective anodize coating, is common'' and noted that there are
``criteria [available] for evaluating the equivalence between forged
alloy steel and other materials'' (Ex. 0211).
    Although OSHA received no outright opposition to the proposal, ASTM
Committee F18 on Electrical Protective Equipment for Workers, the
committee responsible for developing ASTM F887, submitted the following
statement from Mr. Hans Nichols, P.E., Metallurgical Consulting:

    My opinion is that forgings are superior to stampings. The
principal advantage of forgings is control of grain direction to
match the part geometry. The grain direction of a stamping will be
oriented transverse to the part in some areas. Since the mechanical
properties, i.e.--yield strength and impact strength, are lower in
the transverse direction, this area of the part would be a weak
point. [Ex. 0148]

    OSHA agrees that some materials have advantages over others and
expects that manufacturers typically base their design decisions on
factors such as these. However, the fact that forgings may result in
more uniform strength throughout a material than stampings is not
relevant to the overall strength of hardware. It is the area of least
strength that determines whether hardware has sufficient overall
strength, and the design-test requirements in the final rule (discussed
later in this section of the preamble) ensure that hardware, and the
entire work-positioning system, are sufficiently strong. In other
words, the testing requirements in the rule ensure that the weakest
part of the weakest piece of the system will not fail under conditions
likely to be encountered during use. In addition, the final rule
requires that the hardware be made of material that has strength and
durability equivalent to that of drop-forged, pressed, or formed steel,
materials used successfully for work-positioning equipment for decades.
Therefore, OSHA is including paragraph (b)(2)(i) in the final rule
substantially as proposed.
    Paragraph (b)(2)(ii), which is being adopted without substantive
change from the proposal, requires buckles to be capable of
withstanding an 8.9-kilonewton (2,000-pound-force) tension test with a
maximum permanent deformation no greater than 0.4 millimeters (0.0156
inches). This requirement, which also can be found in existing Sec.
1926.959(a)(2), will ensure that buckles do not fail if a fall occurs.
    Paragraph (b)(2)(iii), which is being adopted without substantive
change from the proposal, requires that D rings be capable of
withstanding a 22-kilonewton (5,000-pound-force) tensile test without
cracking or breaking. (A D ring is a metal ring in the shape of a
``D.'' See Figure 2, which shows a snaphook and a D ring.) This
provision, which is equivalent to existing Sec.  1926.959(a)(3), will
ensure that D rings do not fail if a fall occurs.
    Paragraph (b)(2)(iv), which is being adopted without substantive
change from the proposal, is equivalent to existing Sec.
1926.959(a)(4) and requires snaphooks to be capable of withstanding a
22-kilonewton (5,000-pound-force) tension test without failure. A note
following this provision indicates that distortion of the snaphook
sufficient to release the keeper is considered to be tensile failure.
The language of the note in the final rule was revised from the
proposal to make it clear that such distortion is only one form of
failure. The snaphook breaking completely is a more obvious failure not
mentioned in the note.
    Paragraph (b)(2)(v), which is being adopted without change from the
proposal, prohibits leather or leather substitutes from being used
alone as a load-bearing component of a body-belt and positioning-strap
assembly. This is a new requirement for Subpart V and was derived from
ASTM F887-04, Sections 14.2.1 and 15.2.1.\121\ The requirement is
necessary because leather and leather substitutes do not retain their
strength as they age. Because this loss in strength is not always easy
to detect by visual inspection, it can lead to failure under fall
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ These requirements are also contained in the latest
edition, ASTM F887-12\e1\, in Sections 14.2.1 and <IP_ADDRESS>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (b)(2)(vi), which is being adopted without substantive
change from the proposal, requires that plied fabric used in
positioning straps and in load-bearing portions of body belts be
constructed so that no raw edges are exposed and the plies do not
separate. This new requirement, which also is based on ASTM F887-04, in
this instance, Sections 14.2.2 and 15.2.2, will prevent plied fabric
from separating, which could cause it to fail under fall
conditions.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ These requirements are also contained in the latest
edition, ASTM F887-12\e1\, in Sections 14.2.2 and <IP_ADDRESS>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although work-positioning equipment used in electric power
transmission and distribution work is not to be used as insulation from
live parts, positioning straps could come into accidental contact with
live parts while an employee is working. Thus, OSHA deems it important
for this equipment to provide a specified level of insulation.
Accordingly, the Agency proposed, in paragraphs (b)(2)(vii)(A) and
(b)(2)(vii)(B), to require positioning straps to be capable of passing
dielectric and leakage current tests.\123\ Similar requirements are
found in existing Sec.  1926.959(b)(1). The voltages listed in the
proposed paragraphs were alternating current. A note following proposed
paragraph (b)(2)(vii)(B) indicated that equivalent direct current tests
also would be acceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ The dielectric and leakage-current tests required by these
paragraphs involve attaching electrodes to the fall protection
equipment, applying a test voltage across the electrodes, and
checking for deterioration (in the case of the dielectric test) or
measuring leakage current (in the case of the leakage-current test).
ASTM F887-12\e1\ includes test methods for these two tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA explained that ASTM
F887-04 did not require positioning straps to pass a withstand-voltage
test (70 FR

34851). Instead, the consensus standard stated in a note that the
fabric used in the positioning straps must pass a withstand-voltage
test. The Agency invited comment on whether performing electrical tests
on positioning straps is necessary for employee safety in electric
transmission and distribution work (that is, whether the requirements
proposed in paragraphs (b)(2)(vii)(A) and (b)(2)(vii)(B) were
necessary).\124\ A number of commenters responded to this question.
Some commenters supported OSHA's proposal. (See, for example, Exs.
0148, 0230.) For instance, IBEW explained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ The preamble to the proposal asked specifically about the
withstand test requirement proposed in paragraph (b)(2)(vii)(A);
however, most commenters responded to the question of whether there
is a need to perform electrical tests on positioning straps (the
withstand test and the leakage test proposed in paragraph
(b)(2)(vii)(B)).

    Positioning straps should offer a minimum level of insulation in
the event [the] strap comes in contact with energized parts. The
manufacturing specifications from ASTM F887-04 do not ensure the
positioning strap actually offers any level of insulation. As stated
in the proposal, the ASTM requirements only require the fabric used
to make the strap be tested for leakage current. Other products used
[in] the manufacture of the strap could . . . jeopardize the
electrical [insulation] integrity of the fabric. Therefore, the
leakage current of the finished product will not be known without a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
separate test. [Ex. 0230]

    ASTM commented that ``requirements in ASTM F887 04 for leakage
current and withstand testing of the positioning strap material in
Sections 15.3.1 and 15.3.1--Note 2 are adequate for the performance of
the positioning strap'' (Ex. 0148). The organization recommended that
the ASTM language ``be repeated in the Final 1926.954, or incorporated
by reference'' (id.).
    Other commenters did not see a need to perform electrical tests on
positioning straps. (See, for example, Exs. 0162, 0173, 0186, 0219.)
For instance, Mr. Anthony Ahern with Ohio Rural Electric Cooperatives
argued: ``Given the environment these devices will be used in, within 5
minutes of being used the first time they will probably have enough
dirt and wood preservative ground into them that they couldn't pass
such a test again'' (Ex. 0186). He also noted that this equipment has
been in service for years and he is not aware of any accidents that
have occurred due to the breakdown of a positioning strap (id.). Mr.
Allen Oracion with Energy United EMC maintained that positioning straps
will be separated from energized parts by at least the minimum approach
distance, making withstand tests unnecessary (Ex. 0219).
    OSHA believes that requiring positioning straps to be capable of
passing the electrical tests in proposed Sec.  1926.954(b)(2)(vii)(A)
and (b)(2)(vii)(B) will provide an additional measure of protection to
employees if a conductor or other energized part slips and lands on the
strap or if the strap slips from the employee's hand and lands on an
energized part. In response to Mr. Oracion's comment, the Agency notes
that the minimum approach distance will not always protect employees
exposed to electric-shock hazards. For example, minimum approach
distances do not apply to conductors on which work is being performed
by employees using rubber insulating gloves (as explained under the
discussion of Sec.  1926.960(c)(1) of the final rule). The proposed
withstand- and leakage-testing requirements will confirm that the
fabric used in the manufacture of the strap will provide insulation
from electrical contact and that the manufacturing process that created
the strap did not compromise the fabric's insulating properties.
Although the equipment may become contaminated during use, as noted by
Mr. Ahern, the inspection requirements in Sec.  1926.954(b)(3)(i) of
the final rule (discussed later in this section of the preamble) will
ensure that any contamination that can affect the insulating properties
of the equipment will be identified and removed. In addition, any
contamination will normally be on the portion of the positioning strap
in contact with a pole; the remaining portion of the strap will still
provide a measure of protection.
    The testing requirements in final paragraphs (b)(2)(vii)(A) and
(b)(2)(vii)(B) are also equivalent to the tests required by ASTM F887-
12\e1\ (Section 15.3.1 and Note 2). It is not clear why ASTM included
the requirement that positioning straps pass a withstand test in a note
rather than in the rule itself. OSHA is including the requirement that
positioning straps be capable of passing a withstand test in the text
of final Sec.  1926.954(b)(2)(vii)(A) to make it clear that this
provision is mandatory. The Agency believes that straps currently being
manufactured and used usually meet the final provisions. There is no
evidence in the rulemaking record that current positioning straps do
not meet these requirements. Therefore, OSHA is including paragraphs
(b)(2)(vii)(A) and (b)(2)(vii)(B) in the final rule as proposed.
    Paragraphs (b)(2)(vii)(C) and (b)(2)(vii)(D), which are being
adopted without substantive change from the proposal, contain new
requirements for positioning straps to be capable of passing tension
tests and buckle-tear tests. These tests are based on ASTM F887-04,
sections 15.3.2 and 15.3.3, and will ensure that individual parts of
positioning straps have adequate strength and will not fail during a
fall.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ These requirements are also contained in the latest
edition, ASTM F887-12\e1\, in Section 15.3.2 and 15.3.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (b)(2)(vii)(E) requires positioning straps to be capable
of passing a flammability test (described in Table V-1). This
requirement, and the test in Table V-1, are based on ASTM F887-04,
Section 15.3.4.\126\ If an electric arc occurs while an employee is
working, the work-positioning equipment must be capable of supporting
the employee in case he or she loses consciousness. It is particularly
important for the positioning strap to be resistant to igniting,
because, once ignited, it would quickly lose its strength and fail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ This requirement is also contained in the latest edition,
ASTM F887-12\e1\, in Section 15.3.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Pat McAlister with Henry County REMC questioned the ``value in
the proposed arc testing requirement'' because his company was ``not
aware of any situation where exposure to thermal energy has contributed
to failure of'' positioning straps (Ex. 0210).
    OSHA responds that, although paragraph (b)(2)(vii)(E) will help
ensure that positioning straps do not fail if an electric arc occurs,
the standard just requires positioning straps to be capable of passing
a flammability test; the standard does not require electric-arc
testing. As noted later in the discussion of Sec.  1926.960(g) of the
final rule, electric power generation, transmission, and distribution
work exposes employees to hazards from electric arcs. Paragraph
(b)(2)(vii)(E) of Sec.  1926.954 protects against some of those
hazards, including ignition of the positioning strap, which could lead
to failure of the strap and burns to the employee. ASTM F887 has
required positioning straps to be capable of passing a flammability
test since 1988, so the Agency is not surprised that Mr. McAlister is
not aware of failures of positioning straps in electric-arc exposures.
Having ASTM adopt a requirement for positioning straps to pass a
flammability test is evidence that the consensus of industry opinion is
that such testing is necessary. Therefore, OSHA is including paragraph
(b)(2)(vii)(E) in the final rule as proposed. (OSHA, however, has made
nonsubstantive, clarifying changes to final Table V-1.)

    Paragraph (b)(2)(viii), which is being adopted without substantive
change from the proposal, requires the cushion part of a body belt to
be at least 76 millimeters (3 inches) wide, with no exposed rivets on
the inside. This requirement is equivalent to existing Sec.
1926.959(b)(2)(i) and (ii).
    Existing Sec.  1926.959(b)(2)(iii), which requires the cushion part
of the body belt to be at least 0.15625 inches thick if made of
leather, was omitted from the final rule. The strength of the body belt
assembly, which this existing provision addresses, is now adequately
addressed by the performance-based strength criteria specified in final
Sec.  1926.954(b)(2)(xii) (discussed later in this section of the
preamble). Additionally, as noted previously, load-bearing portions of
the body belt may no longer be constructed of leather alone under
paragraph (b)(2)(v) of the final rule.
    Paragraph (b)(2)(ix), which is being adopted without substantive
change from the proposal, requires that tool loops on a body belt be
situated so that the 100 millimeters (4 inches) at the center of the
back of the body belt (measured from D ring to D ring) are free of tool
loops and other attachments. OSHA based this requirement on ASTM F887-
04, Section 14.4.3, which is similar to existing Sec.  1926.959(b)(3).
This requirement will prevent spine injuries to employees who fall onto
their backs while wearing a body belt, which could happen to an
employee walking on the ground before or after climbing a pole.
    Existing Sec.  1926.959(b)(2)(iv) requires body belts to contain
pocket tabs for attaching tool pockets. ASTM F887-04 also contained a
requirement that body belts have pocket tabs. In the proposal, OSHA
stated that it did not consider provisions regarding pocket tabs to be
necessary for the protection of employees; the Agency believed that
these requirements ensured that body belts were suitable as tool belts,
but did not contribute significantly to the safety of employees (70 FR
34851).
    ASTM Committee F18 on Electrical Protective Equipment for Workers
clarified the purpose of the requirements for pocket tabs in the
consensus standard as follows:

    [Pocket tabs are] addressed in ASTM F887-04, Section
14.4.1\[127]\ as follows: ``The belt shall have pocket tabs
extending at least 1\1/2\ (3.8 cm) down, and with the
point of attachment at least 3 in. (7.6 cm) back of the inside of
the circle dee rings on each side for the attachment of pliers or
tool pockets. On shifting dee belts, the measurement for pocket tabs
shall be taken when the dee ring section is centered.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ Section 14.3.1 in ASTM F887-12\e1\ contains an identical
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    The primary reason for the specific placement of these pocket
tabs is to assist in eliminating the interference of tools being
carried on the belt with the proper engagement of a positioning
strap snaphook into the body belt dee ring.
    Therefore, this detail is important for the safety of employees
using these body belts. [Ex. 0148]

The committee recommended that OSHA either adopt the ASTM language or
incorporate it by reference.
    OSHA does not believe that pocket tabs are a hazard. The tabs are
flush with the body belt and extend down from it. They do not interfere
with the attachment of snaphooks to the D rings. OSHA agrees that tool
pockets fastened to the tabs, or the tools in those pockets, could
interfere under certain conditions. For example, a large tool or pocket
could interfere with the attachment of snaphooks and D rings even with
the tabs positioned as required by the consensus standard. The Agency
believes that this hazard is better addressed by the general
requirement in final paragraph (b)(3)(i) (discussed later in this
section of the preamble) that work-positioning equipment be inspected
to ensure that it is in safe working condition before use. In addition,
the ASTM committee did not explain why tabs are necessary in the first
place. Therefore, OSHA is not adopting the committee's recommendation
to add the ASTM requirement on pocket tabs in the final rule.
    Existing Sec.  1926.959(b)(3) permits a maximum of four tool loops
on body belts. As explained in the preamble to the proposal, OSHA does
not believe that this provision is necessary for the protection of
employees (70 FR 34851). Like existing Sec.  1926.959(b)(2)(iv), this
requirement ensures only that body belts are suitable as tool belts.
OSHA received no comments on the proposed removal of this requirement,
and the final rule removes this requirement from subpart V.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ Existing Sec.  1926.959(b)(3) also requires the 100-
millimeter (4-inch) section of the body belt in the middle of the
back to be free of tool loops and other attachments. This portion of
the existing paragraph is retained as Sec.  1926.954(b)(2)(ix) in
the final rule, as described previously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (b)(2)(x), which is being adopted without change from the
proposal, requires copper, steel, or equivalent liners to be used
around the bars of D rings. This provision, which duplicates existing
Sec.  1926.959(b)(4), will prevent wear between the D ring and the body
belt fabric. Such wear could contribute to failure of the body belt
during use.
    In paragraph (b)(2)(xi), OSHA proposed that snaphooks used as part
of work-positioning equipment be of the locking type. A snaphook has a
keeper designed to prevent the D ring to which it is attached from
coming out of the opening of the snaphook. (See Figure 1.) However, if
the design of the snaphook is not compatible with the design of the D
ring, the D ring can roll around, press open the keeper, and free
itself from the snaphook. (See Figure 2.)

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11AP14.000

    For many years, ASTM F887 had a requirement that snaphooks be
compatible with the D rings with which they were used. Even with this
requirement, however, accidents resulting from snaphook roll-outs still
occurred. As OSHA explained in the preamble to the proposal, several
factors account for this condition (70 FR 34852). First, while one
manufacturer can (and most do) thoroughly test its snaphooks and its D
rings to ensure ``compatibility,'' no manufacturer can test its
hardware in every conceivable combination with other manufacturers'
hardware, especially since some models of snaphooks and D rings are no
longer manufactured. While an employer might be able to test all of the
different hardware combinations with its existing equipment, the
employer normally does not have the expertise necessary to conduct such
tests in a comprehensive manner. Second, snaphook keepers can be
depressed by objects other than the D rings to which they are attached.
For example, a loose guy (a support line) could fall onto the keeper
while an employee is repositioning himself or herself. This situation
could allow the D ring to escape from the snaphook, and the employee
would fall as soon as he or she leaned back into the work-positioning
equipment. The locking-type snaphooks OSHA proposed to require will not
open unless employees release the locking mechanisms.
    A few commenters objected to the requirement for locking snaphooks,
maintaining that existing pole straps with nonlocking snaphooks have
been used safely and effectively for many years. (See, for example,
Exs. 0210, 0225.) Mr. Jonathan Glazier with the National Rural Electric
Cooperative Association (NRECA) questioned the safety benefits of
locking snaphooks, commenting:

    Is the cost of replacing the thousands of non-locking snaphooks
in use today outweighed by the benefit? Certainly workers are
familiar with the rudimentary technology presented by non-locking
snaphooks, so the danger they present is low. [Ex. 0233]

    A majority of the rulemaking participants who commented on this
issue agreed that the proposed requirement for locking snaphooks was
justified. (See, for example, Exs. 0167, 0169, 0213; Tr. 579.) For
instance, Quanta Services commented that ``the current requirement [to
use] snaphooks compatible with the particular D rings with which they
are used is not sufficient because accidents from snaphook rollover
still occur'' and agreed with OSHA that the proposal to require locking
snaphooks ``will provide greater protection'' (Ex. 0169).
    Snaphook rollout is a recognized hazard, as indicated by updated
requirements in the consensus standard. The ASTM committee believed
that the former requirement for compatibility between snaphooks and D
rings was inadequate to protect employees; thus, the committee included
a requirement for locking snaphooks in ASTM F887-04 (Ex. 0055).
Evidence in the record indicates that the committee was correct; one
exhibit showed that two workers were killed when the snaphooks they
were using apparently rolled out (Ex. 0003).\129\ OSHA considered the
record on this issue and concluded that the proposed requirement for
locking snaphooks is justified; therefore, the Agency is including the
proposed provision in the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ Descriptions of these two accidents can be viewed at:
http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/accidentsearch.accident_detail?id=922336&id=14340061.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Lee Marchessault with Workplace Safety Solutions recommended
that the term ``double locking type'' be used rather than ``locking
type'' (Ex. 0196; Tr. 579). His comment addressed the reference to
locking snaphooks in proposed paragraph (b)(3)(vi) (discussed later in
this section of the preamble), but, because paragraph (b)(2)(xi)
contains the requirement that snaphooks on positioning straps be of the
locking type, his comment applies equally here.
    The devices specified in the standard are ``locking snaphooks.''
They are also known as ``double-locking snaphooks.'' However, this
latter term is a misnomer. There is only a single locking mechanism.
The keeper, which ``keeps'' the snaphook on the D ring, is not self-
locking. Consequently, these devices are correctly known as ``locking

snaphooks,'' and OSHA is using this term in the final rule.
    In issuing the proposal, OSHA recognized that there might be
thousands of existing nonlocking snaphooks currently in use and
requested comment on whether it should phase in the requirement for
locking snaphooks for older equipment or allow employers to continue
using existing equipment that otherwise complies with the standard
until it wears out and must be replaced.
    Several commenters recommended grandfathering existing equipment
and requiring that only newly purchased positioning straps be equipped
with locking snaphooks. (See, for example, Exs. 0162, 0175, 0210, 0224,
0225, 0227, 0233.) For instance, the Virginia, Maryland & Delaware
Association of Electric Cooperatives commented:

    [G]randfathering existing equipment for those companies that
have not started utilizing locking snap-hooks is prudent. For
companies currently using older equipment, the requirement should be
that as the older equipment is phased out or worn out, new equipment
must be the locking snap-hook type. [Ex. 0175]

In addition, Mr. Glazier with NRECA was concerned that requiring an
immediate switch to locking snaphooks could lead to a shortage of
compliant equipment (Ex. 0233).
    Other commenters argued that there should be little or no phase-in
period because nonlocking snaphooks have not been available for over 10
years and because employees would be left at risk. (See, for example,
Exs. 0148, 0199, 0212.) TVA commented that it had ``prohibited
nonlocking snaphooks for a number of years'' before OSHA's proposal
(Ex. 0213). The Southern Company and ASTM Committee F18 recommended a
phase-in period of no more than 12 months (Exs. 0148, 0212). Buckingham
Manufacturing Company recommended a phase-in period of no more than 3
months (Ex. 0199).
    According to the ASTM committee, manufacturers stopped producing
nonlocking snaphooks before 1998 (Ex. 0148). In addition, evidence in
the record indicates that the average useful life of a body belt or
body harness is 5 years (Ex. 0080). The Agency believes that the useful
life of positioning straps (to which snaphooks are affixed) also is
approximately 5 years because they are made from the same materials and
are subject to the same conditions of use. Thus, any nonlocking
snaphooks still remaining in use are substantially beyond their
expected useful life and are probably in need of replacement. In
addition, there is evidence in the record that the vast majority of
positioning straps in use already have locking snaphooks. Mr. James
Tomaseski of IBEW testified that, based on a survey of the union's
members, 80 percent of electric utilities and contractors performing
work covered by the final rule require the use of locking snaphooks
(Tr. 976). He also testified that locking snaphooks are used even by
companies that do not require them and that there will not be a problem
with availability (Tr. 975-976). Therefore, OSHA concludes that a
phase-in period of 90 days should be adequate to comply with the
requirement. Compliance with paragraph (b)(2)(xi) is required on the
effective date of the final rule: July 10, 2014.
    OSHA proposed three requirements for locking snaphooks to ensure
that keepers do not open without employees intentionally releasing
them. First, for the keeper to open, a locking mechanism would have to
be released, or a destructive force would have to be impressed on the
keeper (paragraph (b)(2)(xi)(A)). Second, a force in the range of 6.7 N
(1.5 lbf) to 17.8 N (4 lbf) would be required to release the locking
mechanism (paragraph (b)(2)(xi)(B)). Third, with a force on the keeper
and the locking mechanism released, the keeper must be designed not to
open with a force of 11.2 N (2.5 lbf) or less, and the keeper must
begin to open before the force exceeds 17.8 N (4 lbf) (paragraph
(b)(2)(xi)(C)).\130\ These requirements are based on ASTM F887-04,
section 15.4.1.\131\ Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(xi)(C), relating to the
spring tension on the keeper, was equivalent to existing Sec.
1926.959(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ In proposed paragraphs (b)(2)(xi)(B) and (b)(2)(xi)(C),
the metric units were not equal to the English units. The metric
units were corrected in the final rule.
    \131\ These requirement are also contained in the latest
edition, ASTM F887-12\e1\, in Section <IP_ADDRESS>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Daniel Shipp with ISEA objected to these proposed requirements
and maintained that the provisions on work-positioning equipment should
be consistent with Sec.  1910.66 (Powered platforms for building
maintenance), Appendix C, and Sec.  1926.502 (Fall protection systems
criteria and practices), commenting:

    Neither of these [existing] standards set forth detailed
specifications for the forces required to actuate the locking and
gate mechanisms of snaphooks. The determining factors that relate
most closely to incidents of accidental disengagement of a snaphook
from its connector are (a) the compatibility in size and shape of
the connecting element, and (b) the tensile strength of the gate in
the closed and locked position, which are fully discussed in 1910.66
and 1926.502. It is difficult to envision one range of force
requirements that would apply equally to all locking snaphooks
because of the wide variety of existing and possible snaphook
designs.
    OSHA should limit its regulation of self-closing and self-
locking snaphooks to use in work positioning applications that
follow existing fall protection regulations. The addition of further
restrictive requirements will have the effect of possibly
eliminating otherwise safe and efficient equipment from the
marketplace without any demonstrable improvement in worker safety.
[Ex. 0211]

    It is not clear from Mr. Shipp's comment whether he opposes the
requirement that snaphooks be of the locking type. If he does, there is
ample evidence in the record, as discussed previously, to support the
adoption of a requirement for locking snaphooks. Therefore, the Agency
will focus on his comments relating to the forces used to unlock and
open keepers. The proposed paragraphs ensure the adequacy of the
locking mechanism by requiring a destructive force to open the keeper
if it is not first unlocked and by specifying the minimum force
required to open the locking mechanism. The proposed paragraphs also
ensure that the keeper does not open unintentionally if the locking
mechanism is opened accidentally (for example, by a loose conductor
striking it), or if it breaks.
    In addition to specifying minimum forces, the proposed paragraphs
specified the maximum forces necessary to open the locking mechanism
and the keeper when the locking mechanism is open. Because this
equipment is frequently used with rubber insulating gloves and leather
protectors, employees have limited dexterity when they are opening and
closing keepers (Ex. 0173). Snaphook keepers that are too difficult to
unlock or open by employees wearing rubber insulating gloves could
interfere with connecting a snaphook to a D ring and lead to falls. In
addition, employees develop a rhythm, buckling and unbuckling the
positioning straps into the D rings of their body belts (see, for
example, 269-Ex. 3-11). Snaphook keepers that are too difficult to
unlock or open will interfere with this rhythm, potentially leading to
falls. These conditions are not present for employees working from
power platforms covered by Sec.  1910.66 or in general construction
work covered by Sec.  1926.502.
    As noted previously, existing subpart V already requires the
opening force on the keeper to be within the range specified in the
proposal. Also, the inclusion of similar provisions in ASTM F887 is
evidence that the ASTM committee concluded that there is a need for the
requirements proposed in paragraph (b)(2)(xi). For these reasons,

OSHA is including paragraphs (b)(2)(xi)(A), (b)(2)(xi)(B), and
(b)(2)(xi)(C) in the final rule as proposed. (As previously noted, OSHA
has corrected the metric units in these provisions in the final rule.)
    Mr. Frank Owen Brockman of Farmers Rural Electric Cooperative
Corporation recommended that OSHA prohibit the use of any snaphook that
requires employees to remove gloves before opening the snaphook (Ex.
0173). As noted earlier, the objective performance requirements in
paragraph (b)(2)(xi) will ensure that snaphooks meeting the standard
are usable by employees wearing rubber insulating gloves and leather
protectors. The Agency does not believe that adding a requirement that
snaphooks be capable of being opened by an employee wearing gloves will
improve the safety of these devices. OSHA believes, however, that
employers will consider this facet of snaphook design when selecting
positioning straps, if only to minimize employee complaints.
    Existing Sec.  1926.959(b)(7) requires body belts, safety straps,
and lanyards to be capable of passing a drop test in which a test load
is dropped from a specific height and the equipment arrests the fall.
The test consists of dropping a 113.4-kg (250-lbm) bag of sand a
distance of either 1.2 meters (4 feet) or 1.8 meters (6 feet), for
safety straps and lanyards, respectively.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ As noted earlier, existing Sec.  1926.959 covers body
belts, safety straps, and lanyards as both fall arrest and work-
positioning equipment. Paragraph (b)(2) of final Sec.  1926.954
covers only work-positioning equipment. Lanyards, which are used in
fall arrest and are not covered in final Sec.  1926.954(b)(2), have
to be capable of withstanding higher forces as required by Sec.
1926.502(d)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA explained in the preamble to the proposal that ASTM adopted a
different test in ASTM F887-04 (70 FR 34853). Under the existing OSHA
test, the bag of sand can be fitted with the body belt in different
ways, resulting in tests that are not necessarily consistent among
different testing laboratories. To overcome this problem, ASTM 887-04
adopted a drop test that uses a rigid steel mass of a specified design.
To compensate for differences between a rigid mass and the more
deformable human body, the ASTM standard uses a lower test mass, 100 kg
(220 lbm), and a shorter drop height, 1 meter (39.4 inches). OSHA
proposed to replace the drop test in existing Sec.  1926.959(b)(7) with
a test modeled on the test specified in the 2004 ASTM standard.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ ASTM F887-12\e1\ specifies equivalent test procedures and
criteria for this equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(xii)(A) would have required the test mass
to be rigidly constructed of steel or equivalent material having a mass
of 100 kg (220.5 lbm). OSHA explained in the proposal that this mass
was comparable to the 113.4-kg (250-lbm) bag of sand that must be used
under the existing OSHA standard (70 FR 34853). Even though the
proposed test mass was lighter than a heavy power line worker, OSHA
explained that the proposed test method would place significantly more
stress on the equipment than an employee of the same mass because the
test drop was greater than the maximum permitted free-fall distance and
because the test mass was rigid (id.).
    Proposed paragraphs (b)(2)(xii)(B) and (b)(2)(xii)(C) specified the
means used to attach body belts and positioning straps during testing.
These provisions would ensure that the work-positioning equipment being
tested was properly attached to the test apparatus.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(xii)(D) provided for the test mass to be
dropped an unobstructed distance of 1 meter (39.4 inches). OSHA
explained in the preamble that, for positioning straps, this distance
was equivalent (given the rigid test mass) to the existing standard's
test distance of 1.2 meters (4 feet) (70 FR 34853).
    Proposed paragraphs (b)(2)(xii)(E) and (b)(2)(xii)(F) specified the
following acceptance criteria for tested equipment: (1) Body belts
would have had to arrest the fall successfully and be capable of
supporting the test mass after the test, and (2) positioning straps
would have had to successfully arrest the fall without breaking or
allowing an arresting force exceeding 17.8 kilonewtons (4,000 pounds-
force). Additionally, the proposal provided that snaphooks on
positioning straps not distort sufficiently to allow release of the
keeper.
    OSHA requested comment on whether the proposed test was reasonable
and appropriate and, more specifically, whether the requirement for a
rigid test mass of 100 kg (220.5 lbm) dropped a distance of 1 meter
(39.4 inches) was sufficiently protective.
    Most rulemaking participants who commented on this issue supported
the proposed requirements. (See, for example, Exs. 0126, 0199, 0230.)
For instance, IBEW commented:

    This change has been accepted in the ASTM standard. The ASTM
Technical Subcommittee realized more consistent results were
necessary, and therefore, through experimentation with different
test methods, developed the test method using a specific design of a
rigid steel mass. OSHA should recognize this test method as the best
industry practice. [Ex. 0230]

    Two commenters noted that the test mass specified in the proposed
rule was adequate for workers weighing up to 140 kg (310 lbm) (Exs.
0199, 0211). Mr. James Rullo of Buckingham Manufacturing explained:

    The standard conversion factor used in the industry for the sand
bag to steel mass is 1.4 which when applied to the 220.5 lbm equates
to 310 lbm. That would seem to cover the general range of line
workers. In addition, the straight drop with the wire cable imposes
forces on the equipment which we believe to be more severe than most
falls that might be experienced by line workers. [Ex. 0199]

Mr. Daniel Shipp with ISEA supported the proposal's requirement for
testing with a 100-kg rigid test mass, but recommended a modification
for workers weighing more than 140 kg:

    ISEA supports the change to a test mass of rigid steel
construction, weighing 100 kg (220 lb). Our members' experience in
testing fall protection products leads us to conclude that the rigid
mass will produce more repeatable results than testing with a sand-
filled bag. However, we believe the 100 kg test mass should only be
sufficient to qualify products for use by employees with a maximum
body weight up to 140 kg (310 lb). For employees with weights
greater [than] 140 kg (310 lb), including body weight, clothing,
tools and other user-borne objects, the test should be modified to
increase the test mass proportionately greater than 100 kg (220 lb).
For example, for a worker with an all-up weight of 160 kg (354 lb),
the test mass should be increased to 114 kg (251 lb). [Ex. 0211]

    The ASTM committee and the fall-protection equipment-manufacturing
industry recognize the proposed tests as being reasonable and adequate.
As some of the commenters noted, the proposed test mass will impose
sufficient stress on work-positioning equipment for a worker weighing
140 kg (310 lbm), including tools and equipment. However, OSHA
concludes that the proposed test is insufficiently protective for
workers weighing more than 140 kg when fully equipped. Therefore, the
Agency is adopting paragraph (b)(2)(xii)(A) as proposed, except that
the final rule requires work-positioning equipment used by employees
with an equipped weight of more than 140 kg to be capable of passing
the same test, but with a test mass of proportionally greater mass
(that is, the test mass must equal the mass of the equipped worker
divided by 1.4). With this change, the final rule will ensure that
work-positioning equipment will adequately protect even the heaviest
workers. OSHA believes that, if any equipped worker has a mass greater
than 140 kg, the employer will order work-positioning equipment that is
adequate for the increased mass and that

manufacturers will supply work-positioning equipment that has been
tested with a mass that conforms to the standard.
    In the final rule, OSHA is adopting the remaining provisions in
Sec.  1926.954(b)(2)(xii), namely paragraphs (b)(2)(xii)(B) through
(b)(2)(xii)(F), without substantive change from the proposal.
    OSHA proposed three notes to paragraph (b)(2). The first note
indicated that paragraph (b)(2) applies to all work-positioning
equipment used in work covered by subpart V. The Agency is not
including this note in the final rule as it is unnecessary.
    The Ohio Rural Electric Cooperatives suggested that, instead of the
specific provisions proposed in paragraph (b)(2), the standard require
only that belts be certified to ASTM F887-04 (Ex. 0186). A note to
final paragraph (b)(2) (Note 2 in the proposal), which appears after
final paragraph (b)(2)(xii)(F), provides that, when used by employees
weighing no more than 140 kg (310 lbm) fully equipped, body belts and
positioning straps that conform to ASTM F887-12 \e1\, the most recent
edition of that standard, are deemed to be in compliance with paragraph
(b)(2). This note clearly informs employers that body belts and
positioning straps meeting that consensus standard also meet the
testing requirements in OSHA's final rule. To avoid confusion, the
Agency removed the phrase ``the manufacturing and construction
requirements of,'' which modified ``paragraph (b)(2) of this section''
and which appeared in the proposal, from the language of this note in
the final rule. The purpose of this phrase was to describe the contents
of paragraph (b)(2) rather than restrict the application of the note.
The Agency restricted the application of the note in the final rule to
body belts and safety straps used by employees weighing no more than
140 kg (310 lbm), as the ASTM standard does not address this aspect of
the final rule.\134\