(iii)), it must implement encroachment prevention measures to help
ensure that the applicable minimum clearance distance (20 feet under
Option (2) or the Table A distance) under Option (3) is not
breached.\47\ Most of the measures in this paragraph are designed to
help the employer maintain the appropriate distance and thereby prevent
electrical contact while operating the equipment. One of the measures
is designed to prevent electrocution in the event of electrical
contact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Alternatively, under Option (1) of Sec.  1926.1408(a)(i),
the employer could have the lines deenergized and grounded. If
Option (1) were selected, no further action under this section would
be required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paragraph (b)(1)
    Under 1926.1408(b)(1) the employer is required to conduct a
planning meeting with the operator and other workers who will be in the
area of the crane or load. This planning meeting must include reviewing
the location of the power line(s) and the steps that will be
implemented to prevent encroachment and electrocution.
    One commenter raised the issue of who is responsible for ensuring
that the planning meeting takes place. (ID-0218.1.) Where encroachment
precautions are required under Option (2) or Option (3) (see Sec.
1926.1408(a)(2)(ii) and Sec.  1926.1408(a)(2)(iii)), the employers of
the operator and other workers who will be in the area of the equipment
or load must ensure that the required planning meeting under Sec.
1926.1408(b)(1) takes place. Other employers at the work site may also
be responsible for such compliance in certain situations; see OSHA CPL
02-00-124, Multi-Employer Citation Policy, Dec. 10, 1999 for further
information.
    As discussed below, under this paragraph, certain encroachment/
electrocution prevention measures are required (they are listed in
Sec.  1926.1408(b)(1) through (3)). In addition, the employer is
required to select at least one additional measure from the list in
Sec.  1926.1408(b)(4). In the planning meeting, the employer must make
that selection and review all the measures that will be used to comply
with this section. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that
the operator and other workers who will be in the area understand these
measures and how they will be implemented. That understanding is
important to their successful implementation. Paragraph (b)(1) is
adopted as proposed.
Paragraph (b)(2)
    Section 1926.1408(b)(2) requires that where tag lines are used they
must be nonconductive. This provision provides additional protection to
those employees who would be exposed to electrical hazards in the event
that the equipment, load line, tag line or load contacts a power line
and the tag line they are holding becomes energized. Note the
discussion above related to Sec.  1926.1407(b)(2). This provision is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (b)(3)
    Section 1926.1408(b)(3) requires elevated warning lines, barricades
or a line of signs, in view of the crane operator, equipped with flags
or similar high-visibility markings, at 20 feet from the power line (if
using Option (2) of Sec.  1926.1408(a)(2)(ii)) or at the minimum
clearance distance under Table A (if using Option (3) of Sec.
1926.1408(a)(2)(iii)). The steps required by this provision are
designed to remind the operator that there are power lines with
associated minimum clearance distances that must be met. Warning lines,
barricades or a line of signs in the operator's view equipped with
high-visibility markings also indicate to the operator where the
minimum clearance distance boundary is located. This serves as one of
two layers of protection (the second layer consists of an additional
means selected by the employer under Sec.  1926.1408(b)(4), discussed
below).
    A commenter urged OSHA to reconsider this requirement because there
is nothing outside of the traveled roadway to which a warning line,
barricade, or line of signs could be affixed. (ID-0114.) OSHA
recognizes that this requirement will often require the employer to
install a series of poles or other supports to install an elevated
warning line. However, temporary

supports are routinely installed on construction sites, and installing
them for the purpose of enabling the operator to maintain a safe
distance from a power line serves an important safety purpose without
being overly difficult or time-consuming.
    A visual line on the ground to mark the minimum clearance distance
is not permitted under Sec.  1926.1408(b)(3) because an operator would
generally not notice or see a line on the ground and because, from
where the operator sits, it would be particularly difficult for the
operator to extrapolate from that line the location of the boundary in
the air. By contrast, visual reminders that are sufficiently elevated
from the ground level enable the operator to more accurately judge the
distance between the load, load line (including rigging and lifting
accessories) or crane and the boundary marked by the elevated warning
line.
    In reviewing the C-DAC draft of this provision, OSHA realized that
there may be situations where the employer would not be able to place
such a line so that it would be visible to the operator. In such a
case, to have two layers of protection, it would be necessary to
require that a dedicated spotter be used in addition to one of the
other (non-spotter) methods described below in Sec.  1926.1408(b)(4).
Therefore, in the proposed rule, OSHA stated that it was planning to
modify the proposed provision by adding the following after the last
sentence in Sec.  1926.1408(b)(3):

    If the operator is unable to see the elevated warning line, a
dedicated spotter must be used as described in Sec.
1926.1408(b)(4)(ii) in addition to implementing one of the measures
described in Sec.  1926.1408(b)(4)(i), (iii), (iv) and (v).

    The Agency requested public comment on this issue. Two commenters
agreed with the substance of the proposed addition to this provision
(ID-0205.1; -0213.1); a third commenter agreed with the proposed
addition but recommended that OSHA go a step further and require a
dedicated spotter at all times (ID-0113). For the reasons explained in
the discussion of Sec.  1926.1408(b)(4) below, OSHA has decided not to
accept this latter recommendation for a dedicated spotter in all cases.
The Agency has, however, included the additional regulatory text
delineated above in the final rule.
Paragraph (b)(4)
    This section sets out a list of five prevention measures, from
which the employer must select at least one, when the employer elects
to use either Option (2) or Option (3) under Sec.  1926.1408(a)(2). The
first four measures are methods for encroachment prevention. The fifth
measure is a method of electrocution prevention in the event of
electrical contact with a power line. Specifically, the employer is
required to choose one of the following: (i) A proximity alarm; (ii)
the use of a dedicated spotter; (iii) a device that automatically warns
the operator when to stop (i.e., a range control warning device); (iv)
a device that automatically limits the range of movement of the
equipment; or (once they are available) (v) an insulating link/device,
as defined in Sec.  1926.1401.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See discussion later in this section for an explanation of
the delay in the effective date for this provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proximity alarm performance was the subject of a study conducted by
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
published in January 2009, and submitted as an exhibit to this
rulemaking. (ID-0141.2.) This study tested the efficacy of two
proximity alarm models under various simulated construction conditions.
The study indicated that the accuracy of the proximity alarms could be
adversely affected by such factors as: (1) Operating the equipment with
a boom angle and length significantly different than that used for the
device's last sensitivity adjustment; and (2) operating the equipment
on sites with multiple overhead power lines, especially where those
power lines had differing voltages or involved intersecting
installations. Two other commenters also questioned the efficacy of
proximity alarms. (ID-0118.1; -0206.1.)
    OSHA shares the concerns expressed by NIOSH and other commenters
over the accuracy of currently available proximity alarms.\49\ However,
such concerns are addressed by the definition of ``proximity alarm'' in
Sec.  1926.1401, which states that the term refers to a device ``that
has been listed, labeled, or accepted by a Nationally Recognized
Testing Laboratory in accordance with Sec.  1910.7.'' To be so listed,
labeled, or accepted, the Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory
(NRTL) must determine that the device works properly by concluding that
it conforms to an appropriate test standard. Accordingly, no proximity
alarm can be listed, labeled, or accepted by a Nationally Recognized
Testing Laboratory (NRTL) in accordance with Sec.  1910.7 until the
problems identified by the commenters have been rectified. OSHA
concludes that retaining this option in the final rule will provide an
incentive for proximity alarm manufacturers to improve these devices to
the point where they will meet the definition's criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Neither of the proximity alarm models tested in the NIOSH
study had obtained NRTL listing, labeling, or acceptance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In situations where an employer chooses the option of using a
dedicated spotter, the employer is required to meet the requirements
for spotters in Sec.  1926.1408(b)(4)(ii). As specified in Sec.
1926.1408(b)(4)(ii)(A), the spotter has to be equipped with a visual
aid to assist in identifying the minimum clearance distance.
    Under Sec.  1926.1408(b)(4)(ii)(B)-(D), the spotter has to be
positioned so that he/she can effectively gauge the clearance distance
from the power line; the spotter, where necessary, must use equipment
that enables him/her to communicate directly with the equipment
operator; and the spotter must give timely information to the operator
so that the required clearance distance can be maintained.
    Some commenters recommended that dedicated spotters be required at
all times. (ID-0112; -0113.) OSHA declines to impose such a
requirement. The Agency determines that allowing the employer to choose
from a variety of options for this second layer of protection allows
the employer to select a method that it believes would be suitable,
increases the likelihood of employer compliance, and will be an
effective approach to reducing power line related injuries and
fatalities.
    One commenter also advocated adding a provision requiring dedicated
spotters to pass a visual acuity exam. (ID-0071.) OSHA determines that
it is unnecessary to require a specific level of visual acuity.
Wherever this standard requires an employer to have an individual
perform a particular task, that duty is met only where the individual
has the ability to perform the task. If an employer assigns an
individual to serve as a spotter, but his/her vision is insufficient to
perform the task of a spotter, the employer will not have met the
spotter requirement. For additional discussion of spotter requirements
see the discussion of Sec.  1926.1407(b)(3)(i) earlier in this
preamble.
    Section 1926.1408(b)(4)(iii) gives the employer the option of using
a device that automatically warns the operator when to stop movement,
such as a range control warning device. Such a device must be set to
give the operator sufficient warning to prevent encroachment. ``Range
control warning device'' is defined in Sec.  1926.1401 as ``a device
that can be set by an equipment operator to warn that the boom or jib
tip is at a plane or multiple planes.''
    For example: An employer has chosen the option of maintaining a 20-
foot

distance from the power line. Under Sec.  1926.1408(b)(4)(iii), it has
chosen to use a range control warning device to help maintain that
distance. The device would have to be set to alert the operator in time
to prevent the boom, load line or load (whichever is closest to the
power line) from breaching that 20-foot distance. As a practical
matter, the device would have to be set to sound the warning more than
20 feet from the line, since the operator will need some time to react
and to account for the momentum of the equipment, load line and
load.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ One commenter questioned whether range control warning
devices exist. (ID-0151.1.) OSHA has confirmed that some cranes are
equipped with such a device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 1926.1408(b)(4)(iv) gives the employer the option of using
a device that automatically limits the equipment's range of motion and
is set to prevent encroachment. Such a device can be particularly
suitable for tower cranes, for which the swing angle can be programmed
so that the operator cannot move the boom or jib past a certain range.
While it may be more technically difficult to apply swing limitation
devices for use in mobile cranes, the technology may develop so that
they could be used in such cranes as well.
    The insulating link option that is available under Sec.
1926.1408(b)(4)(v) would not protect against encroachment but would
provide protection to employees handling the load against electrocution
in the event encroachment did occur. Such a device must be installed
between the end of the load line and the load. When so installed, it
prevents the load from becoming energized in the event the load line or
other part of the equipment makes electrical contact with a power line.
Preventing the load from becoming energized helps protect riggers, who
often guide crane loads manually and who are therefore at high risk of
being electrocuted if a load becomes energized.
    Some commenters expressed concern about the effectiveness of
insulating links. (ID-0206.1; -0378.1.) As stated in Sec.  1926.1401,
``Insulating link/device'' is defined as ``an insulating device that
has been listed, labeled, or accepted by a Nationally Recognized
Testing Laboratory in accordance with Sec.  1910.7.'' This definition
addresses this concern, since an insulating link used under this
provision must have been found by a Nationally Recognized Testing
Laboratory (``NRTL'') to conform to an appropriate test standard as
required in Sec.  1910.7.
    Because insulating links previously have not been required by any
OSHA standard, OSHA has not yet recognized any testing laboratory as a
NRTL for purposes of insulating link listing, labeling, or acceptance.
A period of time will be needed to review laboratory requests for such
recognition. Once there are NRTLs for testing insulating links, some
time will also be needed for the NRTLs to conduct the tests. As a
result, where Sec.  1926.1408(b) applies, Sec.  1926.1408(b)(4)(v) will
be unavailable as an additional measure in the list contained in Sec.
1926.1408(b)(4) until employers acquire NRTL-approved insulating links.
Therefore, during that period, in addition to implementing the
requirements in Sec.  1926.1408(b)(1)-(3), the employer must implement
at least one of the measures listed in Sec.  1926.1408(b)(4)(i)-(iv).
    A commenter suggested that Sec.  1926.1408(b)(4)(v) be deleted
because it involves a live line procedure covered under Sec.  1910.269,
which, it says, requires an operator to be a qualified worker to get
this close to an insulating link. (ID-0161.1.) This commenter
misunderstands the provision. Paragraph (b)(4)(v) allows employers to
use an insulating link between the load line and load as an alternative
to other protective measures. It has nothing to do with live line
procedures under Sec.  1910.269, which is a general industry standard
that applies to operation and maintenance of power lines and which has
no provision regulating the proximity of an operator or a qualified
person to an insulating link.
    One commenter pointed out that insulating links do not provide
protection for those employees, such as equipment operators, who are in
contact with the equipment ``upstream'' of the insulating link. (ID-
0053.1.) That is incorrect. Insulating links serve a dual purpose. They
protect a rigger who is handling the load if the equipment upstream of
the link makes electrical contact with a power line. And they protect
employees who are upstream of the insulating link if the load makes
electrical contact with a power line. The workers who are at the
greatest risk of electrocution--the riggers who handle the load, are
also protected by the requirement for nonconductive tag lines. But the
best protection for all workers, and the primary focus of paragraph
(b), is to employ effective encroachment prevention measures to prevent
electrical contact of any part of the equipment and/or load with a
power line. For additional discussion of insulating links, see later in
this preamble where OSHA addresses Sec.  1926.1410(d)(4).
Paragraph (b)(5)
    Employers engaged in construction of electric transmission and
distribution lines, which is addressed by 29 CFR part 1926 subpart V
(Sec. Sec.  1926.950-1926.960), also have to meet the requirements in
Sec.  1926.1408, with several exceptions.\51\ The first exception is
found in Sec.  1926.1408(b)(5). The other exceptions are discussed
elsewhere in this preamble. In accordance with Sec.  1926.1408(b)(5),
employers engaged in work involving cranes/derricks that is covered by
subpart V are not required to comply with the requirements in Sec.
1926.1408(b)(4). Subpart V applies to the construction of electric
transmission and distribution lines and equipment, which includes the
alteration, conversion, and improvement of existing lines and
equipment. Thus, when employees are engaged in subpart V work near
energized lines, by the nature of the job, their full attention is on
the power lines. Non-subpart V workers, by contrast, do not work
directly with the lines, and their attention is primarily directed
elsewhere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ As discussed in Sec.  1926.1400, Scope, construction of
electric transmission and distribution lines is covered under this
subpart.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subpart V contains additional requirements to protect those
employees against making electrical contact with the lines. These
include requirements in Sec.  1926.950(c) for guarding the line or
using insulation (such as insulating gloves) to prevent electrical
contact. This paragraph is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (c) Voltage Information
    This section operates in conjunction with Sec.
1926.1408(a)(2)(iii) (Option (3)--Table A clearance). Where an employer
elects to use Option (3) (Sec.  1926.1408(a)(2)(iii)), the employer
must, under Sec.  1926.1408(a)(2)(iii)(A), determine the voltage of the
power lines. Under Sec.  1926.1408(c), utility owner/operators of these
lines must provide the requested voltage information within two working
days of the request (see the discussion above of Sec.  1926.1407(e) for
a description of the public comments received on this requirement and
OSHA's resolution of the issues raised by those comments).
    As discussed above with respect to Sec.  1926.1407(e), ``working
days'' means Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. This
provision is promulgated as proposed.

Paragraph (d) Operations Below Power Lines
    When a crane operates below a power line, the likelihood of
breaching the minimum clearance distance is enhanced by several
factors, including the greater difficulty of judging the distance to
the power line when it is above the equipment and the fact that in most
such situations the operator has to purposely look up to see the line
(and therefore is more likely to forget its location or that it is
there).
    This section addresses this problem by prohibiting any part of a
crane, load or load line (including rigging and lifting accessories)
from being below a power line unless the employer has confirmed with
the utility owner/operator that the power line is deenergized and
visibly grounded at the worksite or unless the employer can demonstrate
that it meets one of the four exceptions in Sec.  1926.1408(d)(2).
    The first exception, Sec.  1926.1408(d)(2)(i), is for work covered
by 29 CFR part 1926 subpart V. Subpart V work involves work on the
power line itself and commonly requires equipment to operate below a
power line. As explained above with respect to Sec.  1926.1408(b)(5),
subpart V work does not require all of the precautions required of
other work because the full attention of the workers is directed at the
power line.
    The second exception, Sec.  1926.1408(d)(2)(ii), is for equipment
with non-extensible booms and the third exception, Sec.
1926.1408(d)(2)(iii), is for equipment with articulating or extensible
booms. These exceptions apply when the uppermost part of the boom (for
non-extensible booms) or with the boom at its fullest extension (for
extensible booms), will be more than 20 feet below the plane of the
power line or more than the Table A minimum clearance distance below
the plane of the power line at the boom's most vertical point.\52\
Where this criterion is met, it is not possible for the minimum
clearance distance to be breached.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ The plane of the power line is the horizontal plane that
touches the lowest point on the lowest power line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The last exception, Sec.  1926.1408(d)(2)(iv), is for situations in
which the employer can demonstrate that it is infeasible to comply with
Sec.  1926.1408(d)(1), which prohibits any part of a crane, load or
load line from being below a power line unless the line is deenergized
and visibly grounded. Under this exception, the employer must not only
show that compliance with Sec.  1926.1408(d)(1) is infeasible, it must
also comply with the requirements in Sec.  1926.1410. Section 1926.1410
governs equipment operations closer than the Table A minimum clearance
distances.
    Two commenters requested that OSHA define the term ``infeasible.''
(ID-0203.1; -0214.1.) Infeasibility determinations are fact-dependent,
and OSHA generally considers compliance with a measure to be infeasible
when it is impossible or would prevent performance of the work in
question. See OSHA CPL 02-00-148, ch. 5, sec. VI.B.2, Field Operations
Manual, Nov. 10, 1999. OSHA notes that this is not the first standard
to incorporate feasibility considerations; the Agency has incorporated
feasibility language into many other standards. See, e.g., Fall
Protection (Sec.  1926.502(k)); Permit-Required Confined Spaces (Sec.
1910.146(d)(5)(i)); Bloodborne Pathogens (Sec.  1910.1030(f)(3)(ii));
and Electrical Work Practices (Sec.  1910.333(a)(1)). In letters of
interpretation and guidance documents explaining these and other
standards, OSHA has elaborated on the meaning of infeasibility in
numerous factual contexts. Because infeasibility is a concept of broad
applicability in the OSHA context, and its meaning depends on the
particular facts present in a given worksite situation, a single
definition would not provide useful guidance to employers. Accordingly,
the Agency declines to adopt a definition of that term specific to
subpart CC. Paragraph (d) is adopted as proposed.
Paragraph (e) Power Lines Presumed Energized
    This provision requires employers to assume that all power lines
are energized unless the utility owner/operator confirms that the power
line has been and continues to be deenergized and visibly grounded at
the worksite. This fundamental precaution is essentially the same as it
was in subpart N at former Sec.  1926.550(a)(15)(vi). The one commenter
on this proposed provision supported it (ID-0161.1); this provision is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (f)
    Paragraph (f) of this section addresses the danger that employees
could receive an electric shock from equipment that is operating near a
transmitter or communication tower. During such operation, the
equipment can act as an antenna and become energized by the
electromagnetic signal emitted from the tower. As proposed, Sec.
1926.1408(f) stated that when the equipment is close enough for an
electrical charge to be induced in the equipment or load, the
transmitter must be deenergized or the following precautions taken: The
equipment must be grounded, and non-conductive rigging or an insulating
link/device must be used.
    Previously, subpart N, at former Sec.  1926.550(a)(15)(vii),
required that when equipment is close enough to a transmitter tower for
an electrical charge to be induced, the equipment had to be grounded
and a ground jumper cable used to connect the load to the equipment. In
addition, nonconductive poles having large alligator clips or other
similar protection had to be used to connect the ground jumper cable to
the load. Connecting the load to the grounded equipment dissipated any
electrical charge induced in the load. The Committee determined that
subpart CC's proposed requirement for nonconductive rigging or an
insulating link instead of grounding the load better reflected current
industry practice and better protected employees.
    The requirement for nonconductive rigging or an insulating link in
proposed Sec.  1926.1408(f) was a fundamentally different approach than
requiring a ground jumper cable to be connected to the load as was
specified in former Sec.  1926.550(a)(15)(vii). The latter connects the
load to a ground, while proposed Sec.  1926.1408(f) would have
insulated the load from the equipment or employees handling the load.
    The Agency requested public comment on whether the proposed
requirement was preferable to that in former Sec.
1926.550(a)(15)(vii). Some commenters agreed that the proposed
requirements would provide better protection of workers and argued that
they were more feasible than the requirements of former Sec.
1926.550(a)(15)(vii). (ID-0205.1; -0213.1.) One commenter believed that
Sec.  1926.1408(f) as proposed was inferior to former Sec.
1926.550(a)(15)(vii) because ``insulating links are generally rated for
distribution voltages and would not properly protect employees working
near power lines.'' \53\ (ID-0209.1.) Another commenter recommended
that the proposed Sec.  1926.1408(f) requirements be supplemented with
a requirement that any insulating link used be rated for the applicable

transmission tower frequencies, and that nonconductive tag lines be
used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Another commenter opposed the proposed language because it
believed that grounding the equipment under the provisions of former
Sec.  1926.550(a)(15)(vii) would better protect employees, the
crane, and the power line because it would result in a very quick
trip of the line. (ID-0144.1.) This comment is not relevant because
grounding the crane would not cause the transmitter or communication
towers to trip.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The problem addressed by these comments involves how to protect a
worker, such as a rigger, who may come into electrical contact with the
load. Under the proposed rule, the load would be insulated from the
grounded crane to isolate the load from circulating current that could
cause it to be energized. However, it may be possible that the load
itself could become energized by absorbing energy from the transmitter
or communication tower. The former rule addresses this possibility by
requiring an electrical connection between the load and the (grounded)
equipment. However, in the event there is either a poor electrical
connection or a ground that is not fully effective, this method might
not provide complete protection. Therefore, OSHA has decided not to
require either precaution, but instead to require that any tag line
used be nonconductive. This precaution is required in other provisions,
discussed above, to protect the rigger from the possibility that the
equipment may come into electrical contact with a power line. It will
be equally appropriate here. Section 1926.1408(f) is modified
accordingly.
    OSHA notes that former Sec.  1926.550(a)(15)(vii) of subpart N
required employers to provide crews ``with nonconductive poles having
large alligator clips or other similar protection to attach the ground
cable to the load.'' This requirement protected employees from the
electric shock hazard that exists when employees apply grounds. Due to
what the Agency determined was an inadvertent oversight on the part of
the Committee, the proposed rule did not contain provisions addressing
these hazards. Although no commenters raised this issue, OSHA is aware
that employees are exposed to serious electric shock hazards when they
are attaching grounds in accordance with Sec.  1926.1408(f). For
example, when attaching the rigging to the load or the ground to the
crane, the crane and load will be energized. OSHA views this condition
as a recognized hazard and expects employers to ensure that employees
are adequately protected when they are attaching grounds. Employers who
fail to properly protect their employees in this regard will, in
appropriate circumstances, be subject to citation under the General
Duty Clause (sec. 5(a)(1)) of the OSH Act.
    It should also be noted that work covered by Sec. Sec.  1926.1407
and 1926.1410 that is performed near transmitter or communication
towers can pose electric shock hazards similar to those addressed by
Sec.  1926.1408(f). Due to another oversight by the Committee, however,
neither Sec.  1926.1407 nor Sec.  1926.1410 contains provisions
addressing these hazards. OSHA considers these to be recognized hazards
and will use its enforcement authority under the General Duty Clause,
as appropriate, to ensure that employers are taking measures, such as
those required in Sec. Sec.  1926.600(a)(6)(vii) or 1926.1408(f), to
protect employees from electric shock and fires while performing work
covered by Sec. Sec.  1926.1407 and 1926.1410 near transmitter or
communication towers. OSHA will consider addressing both of these
oversights through future rulemaking.
    A commenter suggested adding a provision to paragraph (f) whereby
the owner of a transmitter communication tower would be required to
evaluate whether power level density levels were high enough to
endanger employees working near the tower and, if so, implement
precautions to prevent them. (ID-0130.1.) The issue raised by this
comment is beyond the scope of this rule, which addresses hazards
related to the use of equipment and not employee exposure to possible
radiation hazards. Such hazards are covered by Sec.  1926.54,
Nonionizing radiation.
Paragraph (g) Training
    Paragraph (g) of this section sets forth training requirements for
crane operators and other crew members assigned to work with the
equipment. The training topics listed are designed to ensure that both
the operator and the other crew members have the information they need
to help protect themselves from power line hazards. One commenter
suggested that, in addition to the topics listed in the proposed rule,
employees working on equipment operating closer than Table A clearance
distances also be trained on induction, step and touch potentials, and
proper equipment grounding procedures. (ID-0161.1.) Other commenters
also recommended training in grounding procedures and in the
limitations of the protection that grounding provides. (ID-0131.1; -
0155.1.) OSHA concludes that training on induction, step, and touch
potentials would get into issues that are highly technical and would
not help workers understand what they must do to protect themselves and
others. OSHA does, however, agree with the suggestion that workers be
trained in proper grounding procedures and in the limitations of the
protection that grounding provides. As discussed under Sec.  1926.1410,
equipment grounding is one of the additional precautions required when
it is infeasible to maintain the Table A clearances, and training in
proper grounding procedures will help ensure the effectiveness of this
provision. In addition, employees must understand that grounding may
not afford complete protection. Accordingly, OSHA is adding a new Sec.
1926.1408(g)(1)(v) that requires training in the procedures to be
followed to properly ground equipment and the limitations of grounding.
    In addition, proposed Sec.  1926.1408(g)(1)(i)(E) stated that
training was required in the need to avoid approaching or touching
``the equipment.'' In the proposed rule's preamble, OSHA stated that it
determined that C-DAC inadvertently failed to add the phrase ``and the
load'' to that provision, since whenever the equipment is in electrical
contact with a power line, the load may also be energized. OSHA
requested public comment on whether that provision should be modified
to correct this omission. Commenters agreed that adding the phrase
``and the load'' was appropriate. (ID-0051.0; -0205.1; -0213.1.)
Therefore, OSHA has made this addition in the final rule.
    In the proposed rule, the Agency noted that proposed Sec.
1926.1408(g) did not address the timing and frequency of this training.
OSHA requested public comment on whether and, if so, how the standard
should address training timing and frequency.
    The one commenter on this issue advocated not dictating the timing
or frequency of training in this provision. For the final rule, OSHA
has decided to cross reference the testing administration requirements
of Sec.  1926.1430. That training section requires that employees be
evaluated to confirm that they understand the information provided in
the training, and that refresher training be provided when, based on
employee conduct, there is an indication that retraining is necessary.
Section 1926.1408(g) is modified accordingly.
Paragraph (h)
    In the proposed rule, this provision required that where devices
originally designed by the manufacturer for use as safety devices,
operational aids, or a means to prevent power line contact or
electrocution are used to comply with Sec.  1926.1408, they must meet
the manufacturer's procedures for use and conditions of use. The
Committee concluded that this provision is necessary to ensure that the
devices work as intended. No comments were received on this provision,
and it is promulgated without change. (See

Sec.  1926.1417 for a discussion of OSHA's authority to require
compliance with manufacturer procedures.)
Section 1926.1409 Power Line Safety (Over 350 kV)
    As proposed, the requirements in Sec. Sec.  1926.1407 and 1926.1408
would apply to power lines rated over 350 kV in all respects except
one: Wherever the regulatory text states ``20 feet,'' ``50 feet'' would
be substituted. Therefore, the ``trigger'' distance that would be used
when assessing an assembly/disassembly area or work zone would be 50
feet. In addition, an employer engaged in assembly/disassembly that is
using Option (2) of proposed Sec.  1926.1407(a)(2), or an employer
engaged in crane operations that is using Option (2) of proposed Sec.
1926.1408(a)(2)(ii), would be required to maintain a minimum clearance
distance of 50 feet. This would apply to all power lines rated over 350
kV, including power lines over 1,000 kV.
    For power lines over 1,000 kilovolts,\54\ employers electing to use
Table A of Sec.  1926.1408 in either assembly/disassembly (Option (3)
in Sec.  1926.1407(a)(3)) or crane operations (Option (3) in Sec.
1926.1408(a)(2)(iii)) are required, pursuant to instructions in the
Table, to maintain a minimum clearance distance determined by the
utility owner/operator or a registered professional engineer who is a
qualified person with respect to electrical power transmission and
distribution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ OSHA does not believe that there are any electric power
transmission lines in the United States that operate at more than
800 kV. However, there may be some power lines associated with
research laboratories or other similar facilities that operate at
more than 1,000 kV. In addition, it is possible that utilities may
install new power lines operating at more than this voltage or may
upgrade existing lines to operate at higher voltages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In reviewing this regulatory language, OSHA recognized that a
minimum clearance distance of 50 feet may be inadequate for the open-
ended category of ``over 1,000 kV.'' In fact, at some point in that
range, a utility owner/operator or a registered professional engineer
may well specify a minimum clearance distance of more than 50 feet.
However, as drafted in the proposed rule, employers using Option (2)
(in both proposed Sec. Sec.  1926.1407(a)(2) and 1926.1408(a)(2)(ii))
would only have to maintain a minimum clearance distance of 50 feet.
OSHA requested public comment on whether proposed Option (2) is
insufficiently protective for power lines rated over 1,000 kV. The one
commenter on this issue agreed that the proposed provision was
insufficiently protective for power lines carrying voltages greater
than 1,000 kV. OSHA agrees and has modified Sec.  1926.1409 in the
final rule to conform to the requirement of Table A that the minimum
clearance distance for lines over 1,000 kV be determined by the utility
owner/operator or a registered professional engineer who is a qualified
person with respect to electrical power and distribution. OSHA notes
that the minimum distance under Option (2) for voltages between 351 and
1,000 kV is 50 feet. The Agency expects that the distances set by
utilities and registered professional engineers in accordance with
Sec.  1926.1409(b) will be at least 50 feet.
Section 1926.1410 Power Line Safety (All Voltages)--Crane Operations
Closer Than the Table A Zone
    Subpart N did not permit work closer than the 10-foot rule \55\
unless the lines were deenergized and visibly grounded or where
insulating barriers, separate from the equipment, were erected.
However, the Committee recognized that many employers, without meeting
the exceptions, nonetheless worked closer than the 10-foot rule. The
Committee determined that most employers do not use the option to
deenergize and ground because of the time, expense and difficulty in
making those arrangements.\56\ In addition, the Committee concluded
that an ``insulating barrier'' of the type that is currently available
does not, by itself, adequately protect employees because these
barriers are only effective for ``brush'' contact. If there is more
than brush contact, they will not protect employees from electrocution
because the equipment will damage the device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ As described earlier, the ``10-foot rule'' is shorthand for
the formula in former Sec.  1926.550(a)(15) for minimum clearance
distances. Under the 10-foot rule, for lines rated 50 kV or less,
work was not permitted closer than 10 feet to an energized power
line. For lines rated more than 50 kV, a clearance of 10 feet plus
.4 inch for each 1 kV over 50 kV was generally required.
    \56\ If power lines are deenergized and grounded, power is shut
off to the utility owner/operator's customers. As a result, utility
owner/operators are understandably reluctant to implement such
measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address the insufficient protections provided to employees who
work closer than the 10-foot rule, the Committee developed, and OSHA
proposed, a new approach, which is contained in Sec.  1926.1410. It
consists of prerequisites and criteria that apply when work must be
conducted closer than the minimum clearance distance specified in Table
A of Sec.  1926.1408.
    In this case, the Committee's rationale misrepresented existing
OSHA enforcement policy under subpart N regarding insulating barriers
in two respects. First, current policy recognizes other types of
insulating barriers besides the type to which the Committee
referred.\57\ OSHA also recognizes goal-post-type barriers and, in
certain limited circumstances the insulation on insulated power lines
operating at 480 volts or less. See, e.g., letters of interpretation
dated February 8, 1994, to Mr. Ivan Blood (http://www.osha.gov) and
August 9, 2004, to Mr. Mathew McFarland (http://www.osha.gov). Second,
the Agency does accept barriers that protect against brush contact
under limited circumstances. See, e.g., letter of interpretation dated
February 8, 1994, to Mr. Ivan Blood (http://www.osha.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ The barriers are known as electrically insulating plastic
guard equipment. See ASTM F712-06 Standard Test Methods and
Specifications for Electrically Insulating Plastic Guard Equipment
for Protection of Workers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, as these letters of interpretation recognize, these
barriers have their limitations. Because of this, OSHA has concluded
that, although the Committee's rationale with respect to Sec.
1926.1410 was slightly flawed by a misunderstanding of subpart N
requirements, their reasoning that the provisions of this section are
more protective than the former standard still holds.
    This section starts out by explicitly prohibiting equipment from
operating closer than the distances specified in Table A of Sec.
1926.1408 to an energized power line except where the employer
demonstrates compliance with the requirements in Sec.  1926.1410.
    Note that, in the discussion below of Sec.  1926.1410, references
to a ``registered professional engineer'' are, in accordance with Sec.
1926.1410(c)(1), references to a registered professional engineer who
is a qualified person with respect to electrical power transmission and
distribution.
    One commenter on the proposed rule asked for clarification
regarding who determines whether a professional engineer is such a
``qualified person.'' (ID-0155.1.) Under Sec.  1926.1401, a qualified
person is a ``person who, by possession of a recognized degree,
certificate, or professional standing, or who by extensive knowledge,
training and experience, successfully demonstrated the ability to
solve/resolve problems relating to the subject matter, the work, or the
project.'' At a given construction site, the employer who is conducting
crane operations and who uses the services of the engineer to carry out
that employer's responsibilities under this section is responsible for
determining whether the registered professional engineer is a

qualified person with respect to electrical power transmission and
distribution.
Paragraphs (a) and (b)
    These paragraphs set forth prerequisites that must be met for the
employer to be permitted to operate equipment closer to a power line
than the applicable Table A of Sec.  1926.1408 distance. Section
1926.1410(a) requires the employer to determine that it is infeasible
to do the work without breaching the minimum clearance distance under
Table A. If the employer determines it is infeasible to maintain the
Table A distance, under Sec.  1926.1410(b) it also has to determine,
after consulting with the utility owner/operator, that deenergizing and
grounding the power line, as well as relocating the line, are
infeasible. See discussion of infeasibility determinations in Sec.
1926.1408(d).
    Two commenters argued that the requirement to demonstrate
infeasibility was unnecessary for electric utility work regulated under
subpart V. (ID-0203.1; -0209.1.) After careful review of these
comments, OSHA has concluded that it is appropriate for subpart V work
to be excluded from the need to show infeasibility under Sec.
1926.1410.
    Subpart V applies to the erection of new electric transmission and
distribution lines and equipment and the alteration, conversion, and
improvement of existing transmission and distribution lines and
equipment (Sec.  1926.950(a)(1)). Construction of new lines generally
takes place some distance from existing lines, and the lines themselves
are not energized until construction is complete. Hence, clearance
distances are usually not an issue for new construction. However,
alteration, conversion, and improvement of existing lines necessarily
takes place on or near the lines themselves. To enable such work to be
done safely, subpart V contains clearance requirements that permit
equipment to operate much closer to the lines than either former Sec.
1926.550 or Sec. Sec.  1926.1408-1926.1409 of this final rule, as well
as supplementary protective requirements that must be followed when the
subpart V clearance requirements cannot be observed.
    Subpart V's clearance requirements are found in Table V-1 of Sec.
1926.950. Subpart V does not require a showing of infeasibility before
allowing subpart V work to comply with these shorter clearance
distances, and OSHA concludes that the record does not support
requiring such a showing under the final rule either. The very nature
of work that alters, converts, or improves existing power lines must
necessarily be carried out close to those lines, and it would almost
always be infeasible for the clearances in Sec. Sec.  1926.1408-
1926.1409 to be maintained. As a result, requiring such a finding would
be a formality that would not add to worker safety.
    It is similarly inappropriate to require a showing that it is
infeasible to deenergize and ground the lines or relocate the lines
under paragraph (b) of this section for subpart V work. Subpart V
provides for deenergizing and grounding as an alternative to live line
precautions, but it also recognizes that subpart V work may take place
on live lines to avoid power disruptions to the utility's customers and
includes precautions for such live line work. Thus, subpart V leaves to
the utility employer the discretion to decide whether to deenergize and
ground without the need for an infeasibility determination, and OSHA
concludes they should continue to have this same discretion under this
final rule. OSHA also notes that paragraph (b) of this section requires
the employer to consult with the utility owner/operator before deciding
that it infeasible to deenergize and ground the lines or relocate them,
and it would be anomalous to apply this provision where the utility
owner/operator is itself the employer.
    For these reasons, OSHA has modified Sec.  1926.1410(c)(2) of the
final rule to clarify that paragraphs (a),(b), and (c)(1) of Sec.
1926.1410 do not apply to work covered by subpart V of 29 CFR 1926.
Instead, the Sec.  1926.950 Table V-1 minimum clearances apply. Section
1926.1410(c)(2) also explains that employers engaged in subpart V work
may work closer than the Sec.  1926.950 Table V-1 distances where both
the requirements of Sec.  1926.1410 and Sec.  1926.952(c)(3)(i) or (ii)
are met.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ OSHA is in the process of updating subpart V requirements.
If the Agency makes changes to those provisions that necessitate
updating the cross-references in Sec.  1926.1410(c)(2), those
changes will be made as part of that rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    See discussion later in this section regarding other provisions in
Sec.  1926.1410 that deal specifically with subpart V work.
Paragraph (c) Minimum Clearance Distance
    After the employer makes the infeasibility determinations required
by Sec.  1926.1410(a) and (b), a minimum clearance distance must be
established. Under Sec.  1926.1410(c)(1), the employer can establish
this distance by either having the utility owner/operator determine the
minimum clearance distance that must be maintained or by having a
registered professional engineer who is a qualified person with respect
to electrical transmission and distribution determine the minimum
clearance distance that must be maintained. The Committee believed that
either of these sources of this information has sufficient expertise to
accurately apply the factors discussed below in setting an appropriate
minimum clearance distance.
    Commenters objected to requiring the utility owner/operator to be
involved in setting the minimum clearance distance. (ID-0161.1; -
0162.1.) However, paragraph (c) of this section does not require the
utility owner/operator to establish the minimum clearance distance. It
gives the employer the option of engaging the utility owner/operator
for this purpose but, if the utility owner/operator declines, the
employer must engage a registered professional engineer who is a
qualified person with respect to electrical transmission and
distribution. In no case is the utility owner/operator required to
establish the minimum clearance distance.
    Under Sec.  1926.1410(c)(1), regardless of whether it is the
utility owner/operator or a registered professional engineer that makes
this determination, several factors must be considered when
establishing the minimum clearance distance. These factors include, but
are not limited to: conditions affecting atmospheric conductivity; time
necessary to bring the equipment, load and load line (including rigging
and lifting accessories) to a complete stop; wind conditions; degree of
sway in the power line; lighting conditions, and other conditions
affecting the ability to prevent electrical contact.
    A commenter objected to allowing cranes to operate closer to power
lines than the ``appropriate minimum approach distance to an energized
line.'' (ID-0226.) He further noted that, under the proposed rule, an
operator could take equipment closer to power lines than a qualified
electrical worker. C-DAC concluded, and OSHA agrees, that workers will
be better protected if employers are required to adhere to additional
safety precautions when it is infeasible to maintain the Table A
clearances. Accordingly, to the extent the commenter recommended that
the standard not permit equipment to come within the Table A distances,
OSHA rejects this commenter's suggestion.
    The same commenter objected to allowing equipment operated by
nonelectrical workers to approach closer to power lines than a
qualified electrical worker. The rule does not, however, allow this.
This section requires the

employer to determine a minimum clearance distance that will prevent
the equipment from making electrical contact with the line. Although
existing subpart V permits employees to take equipment closer to power
lines than Table V-1 of Sec.  1926.950, the corresponding general
industry standard at Sec.  1910.269(p)(4)(i) prohibits the operation of
equipment closer than the distances in Tables R-6 through R-10 of Sec.
1910.269. In the proposed revision of subpart V, the proposed rule
contains the same prohibition as the general industry standard. As a
general matter, OSHA determines that it is not appropriate or safe for
nonelectrical workers to bring equipment closer to power lines than is
permitted under Sec.  1910.269(p)(4)(i) for qualified workers.
Therefore, the Agency does not expect that distances shorter than those
in Tables R-6 through R-10 of Sec.  1910.269 will be adequate ``to
prevent electrical contact'' for purposes of Sec.  1926.1410(c)(1).
    Several commenters suggested that when equipment operations closer
than the Table A of Sec.  1926.1408 zone are performed, (1) ``qualified
employees'' (as defined under Sec.  1910.269) should be used (ID-
0161.1; -0199.1); (2) the equipment should be considered energized (ID-
0075.0; -0161.1); and/or (3) the power line should be deenergized (ID-
0161.1; -0226.0).
    Regarding the ``qualified employees'' suggestion, OSHA determines
that the training required under Sec.  1926.1410(m), discussed below,
is more appropriate for construction workers working with cranes and
other hoisting equipment than the training required under Sec.
1910.269(a)(2)(ii) for electrical workers. The training required under
paragraph (m) focuses on the actions that employees can take to protect
themselves when working near potentially energized equipment, while the
training under Sec.  1910.269(a)(2)(ii) focuses on safe practices for
working on energized lines.
    The second suggestion is valid because prudence dictates treating
the equipment as energized when it is closer than the Table A distance
to an energized power line. However, some provisions of the rule
already treat the equipment as energized. These include paragraph
(d)(8), which requires barricades around the equipment to prevent
unauthorized personnel from entering the work area, and paragraph
(d)(9), which prohibits employees from touching the equipment. OSHA
determines that no additional benefit would be gained by a statement to
treat the equipment as energized and therefore declines to add such a
statement.
    The third suggestion misconstrues the standard, which prohibits
work within the Table A clearance distances unless the employer can
show, among other things, that deenergizing and grounding the line is
infeasible. Therefore, except as noted above, Sec.  1926.1410(c) is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (d)
    Once a minimum clearance distance has been established under Sec.
1926.1410(c), the employer may not proceed without first having a
planning meeting with either the owner/operator of the power line or
the registered professional engineer to determine what procedures will
be implemented to prevent electrical contact and electrocution. In
accordance with Sec.  1926.1410(e), these procedures have to be
documented and immediately available on-site. In addition, in
accordance with Sec.  1926.1410(f) and (g), these procedures have to be
reviewed with the operator and other workers who will be in the area of
the equipment and the procedures must be implemented (Sec.
1926.1410(e)-(g) are discussed below).
    Section 1926.1410(d) sets out the minimum protective measures that
must be included in the procedures set by the employer and utility
owner/operator (or registered professional engineer). These procedures
need to include more stringent protective measures than those set out
in Sec.  1926.1408, because equipment will be in closer proximity to
power lines and there is otherwise a greater risk of contacting a power
line and causing electrocution. Therefore, these procedures have to
include, at a minimum, those set out in the remainder of this section.
    Commenters objected to having the utility owner/operator involved
in the planning meeting required by paragraph (d) of this section. (ID-
0161.1; -0162.1.) As with paragraph (c) of this section, discussed
above, the utility owner/operator is not required to become involved
with the decisions that must be made under this section. If the utility
owner/operator declines to participate in the planning meeting, the
employer must engage a registered professional engineer to help
determine the procedures needed to prevent electrical contact. OSHA
notes, however, that equipment making electrical contact with a power
line can disrupt electrical service as well as create a hazard to
employees on the worksite. Therefore, at least in some cases, the
utility owner/operator may wish to help develop precautions to prevent
such electrical contact.
Paragraph (d)(1)
    Under paragraph (d)(1) of this section, for power lines that are
equipped with a device that automatically reenergizes the circuit in
the event of a power line contact, the automatic reclosing feature of
the circuit interrupting device must be made inoperative prior to
beginning work. This will help ensure that, in the event of a power
line contact and activation of the automatic reclosing feature, the
line would not be automatically re-energized. One commenter stated that
many circuit interrupting devices currently in use are incapable of
having their automatic reclosing mechanisms disabled. (ID-0155.1.) OSHA
verified that fact and has amended Sec.  1926.1410(d)(1) to clarify
that the automatic reclosing feature must be made inoperative only if
the design of the device permits.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ This revised language is also consistent with the
provisions of Sec.  1910.269(q)(3)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paragraph (d)(2)
    Under paragraph (d)(2) of this section, a dedicated spotter who is
in continuous contact with the operator must be used. In addition, the
dedicated spotter must be equipped with a visual aid to assist in
identifying the minimum clearance distance, must be positioned to
effectively gauge the clearance distance, where necessary must use
equipment that enables him or her to communicate directly with the
operator, and must give timely information to the operator so the
required clearance distance can be maintained. For a more in-depth
analysis of the dedicated spotter requirement and the public comments
received, consult the discussion of Sec. Sec.  1926.1407(b)(3)(i) and
1926.1408(b)(4)(ii) above. This provision is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (d)(3)
    Under paragraph (d)(3) of this section, an elevated warning line,
or barricade that is not attached to the equipment, positioned to
prevent electrical contact, must be used. This warning line or
barricade must be in view of the operator either directly or by use of
video equipment and must be equipped with flags or similar high-
visibility markings. The need for an elevated warning line or barricade
is explained above in the discussion of Sec.  1926.1408(b)(3). This
provision does not apply to subpart V work.
    As discussed above in relation to Sec.  1926.1408(b)(3), there may
be situations where the operator is not able

to see an elevated warning line or barricade. To address such
situations, under Sec. Sec.  1926.1408 and 1926.1409, OSHA changed the
regulatory text so that the employer is required to use both a
dedicated spotter and one of the other (non-spotter) measures listed in
Sec.  1926.1408(b)(4). Because the clearance distances are likely to be
significantly smaller than the Table A distances, the Agency determines
that more precise means of estimating the clearance distance are
necessary. When the operator is not able to see an elevated warning
line or barricade when working closer than the Table A clearance
distance, it is necessary to provide an additional layer of protection
by requiring the use of video equipment to enable the operator to see
the warning line or barricade. Therefore, in all cases when working
closer than the Table A clearance distance, the operator will have
``two sets of eyes'' (in addition to other protection required under
this section) to ensure that the equipment maintains the minimum
clearance distance established under Sec.  1926.1410(c). This paragraph
is adopted as proposed.
Paragraph (d)(4) Insulating Link/Device
    Under paragraph (d)(4) of this section, an insulating link/device
must be installed at a point between the end of the load line (or
below) and the load. As described in the discussion of Sec.  1926.1408,
an insulating link is a barrier to the passage of electrical current.
When used on a crane, it prevents the load from becoming energized if
the boom or the load line makes electrical contact with a power line
and prevents the equipment from becoming energized if the load contacts
a power line.
    As explained in the discussion of Sec.  1926.1408(b)(4)(v), OSHA
anticipates that NRTL approval of these devices, which is necessary
from them to meet the definition of ``insulating link'' under Sec.
1926.1401, will not be available for up to one year after the effective
date of this rule. OSHA is providing two phase-in periods to allow time
for the NRTL recognition process, and to phase in the requirement in a
manner that will reduce the economic burden on employers with existing
inventories of devices that would qualify as ``insulating links/
devices,'' as defined in Sec.  1926.1401, except that they have not
been subject to NRTL approval (``non-approved links''). First, OSHA is
providing for an alternative measure that will be available to all
employers for one year after the effective date of the standard. Sec.
1926.1410(d)(4)(iv). Second, OSHA is allowing employers who have
existing inventory of non-approved links to continue to use these links
for an additional two years (up to a total of three years after the
effective date of the final rule), so long as the same protections
required for the alternative measures available during the one-year
interim period remain in place. Sec.  1926.1410(d)(4)(v). However, the
use of links manufactured after the one-year interim period is
prohibited unless they are NRTL-approved as required by the definition
of ``insulating link/device'' in Sec.  1926.1401.
    The absence of an insulating link can result in the load becoming
energized if the equipment makes electrical contact with a power line
or the equipment becoming energized if the load makes electrical
contact with a power line. When working inside the clearances permitted
under Table A, the danger of such electrical contact is increased. As
an interim precaution until insulating links (as defined in Sec.
1926.1401) become available, OSHA is requiring that all employees who
may come in contact with the equipment, the load line, or the load,
excluding equipment operators located on the equipment, must be
insulated or guarded from the equipment, the load line, and the load.
Insulating gloves rated for the voltage involved are adequate
insulation for the purposes of this alternative. This interim
precaution will provide some degree of protection to employees working
near the equipment or load by providing a layer of insulation should
the equipment or the load become energized. During the one-year interim
period following the effective date of subpart CC, OSHA is encouraging,
but not requiring, the use of non-approved links as an extra form of
protection (although they cannot be used to satisfy the standard).
    OSHA is also providing a separate alternative measure that would
apply for an additional two-year transition period (following the
first-year interim period, for a total of three years) to address
employers who already own or purchase non-approved links. See Sec.
1926.1410(d)(4)(v). Under this alternative, employers with non-approved
links would be required to use them in addition to other alternative
measures required under Sec.  1926.1410(d)(4)(iv) during the initial
one-year interim period. To be eligible for this alternative measure,
employers must use and maintain these non-approved links in compliance
with manufacturer requirements and recommendations. While OSHA
anticipates that NRTL-approved insulating links will be available for
purchase within a year after the effective date of subpart CC, the
Agency recognizes that some employers will have existing inventories of
non-approved links. OSHA is, therefore, allowing employers the
additional two years to phase out the use of the non-approved links to
reduce the economic burden of replacing the existing inventory of non-
approved links.
    As noted above, OSHA encourages employers to use non-approved links
during the initial one-year interim period as an extra measure of
protection, but is not requiring employers to use them during this
interim period. The Agency recognizes that some employers might not
already own these devices because OSHA did not mandate their use under
subpart N. If OSHA required the use of non-approved links during the
initial one-year interim period, these employers would be forced to
incur additional costs for devices that could only be used for a fixed
period of one to three years.\60\ However, once the NRTL-approved links
are available for purchase, the cost of purchasing the NRTL-approved
links would be a capital investment that could be amortized over the
normal life of the insulating link.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ While the record indicates that these devices are available
for rental, it is not clear from the record that all employers would
have access to the businesses renting these devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters noted the limitations of insulating links/
devices and advocated for the ability to employ alternative measures
when necessary. For example, commenters stated that no insulating
links/devices were readily available for loads above 60 tons or
voltages above 33 kV. (ID-0132.1; -0155.1; -0197.1.) In addition,
commenters noted that the added length of rigging that results when
insulating links are used can create problems in locations where there
is limited overhead clearance. (ID-0132.1; -0155.1; -0197.1.)
    Another commenter who manufactures insulating links stated that
insulating links are available with lifting capacities of up to 120
tons and voltage capacities of up to 125 kV.\61\ (ID-0216.1.)
Therefore, OSHA concludes that no changes are necessary to address the
objections to the proposed insulating link requirement based on load or
voltage capacities. However, OSHA has concluded that some accommodation
may be necessary to address conditions associated with electric utility
operations in work areas

with low overhead clearance from power lines.\62\ Accordingly, OSHA has
added an alternative to this provision for subpart V operations where
use of an insulating link is infeasible. However, this provision should
rarely, if ever, be available to employers, as there are several
alternatives to using a crane or derrick in this operation including
use of an aerial lift with a material handler or a manual hoist. The
alternative requires use of alternate electrical safety precautions;
specifically, the alternate precautions are those required under the
electric power generation, transmission, and distribution regulations
applicable to general industry under Sec.  1910.269(p)(4)(iii)(B) or
(C). Those precautions require either that the hoisting equipment be
insulated for the voltage involved, or that each employee be protected
from hazards that might arise from equipment contact with energized
lines.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Refer to the discussion of Sec.  1926.1408(b)(4)(v) for a
description of other comments received concerning insulating links
in the context of that provision.
    \62\ The example provided by the commenter was replacement/
repair of utility pole transformers. (ID-0155.1.) Such operations
frequently involve hoisting transformers onto and off of utility
poles immediately beneath power lines. The commenter stated that
frequently in those operations there is barely sufficient room for
the boom head itself; when an insulating link is added to the load
line, the extra 2-3 feet of rigging prevents the hoisting of the
transformer to the required elevation. The commenter did not explain
why an aerial lift or manual hoist could not be used.
    \63\ See discussion of this paragraph below under subpart V-
work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paragraph (d)(5)
    Under paragraph (d)(5) of this section, if the rigging may be
closer than the Table A of Sec.  1926.1408 distance during the
operation, it must be of the nonconductive type. This provides
protection to those employees who would be exposed to electrical
hazards in the event that the rigging contacts a power line, which
otherwise could energize the rigging and the load.
    One commenter stated that he was unaware of any sling manufacturers
who market their slings as being nonconductive, and that there are no
test standards for testing the dielectric properties of slings. (ID-
0155.1.) As noted in the discussion of tag lines of Sec.
1926.1407(b)(2), C-DAC considered the utility of setting specifications
for material required to be nonconductive but determined that it would
be impractical, and OSHA has additionally concluded that there is no
need to specify test criteria for these materials. The guidance
provided for determining whether a tag line is nonconductive applies
equally here. Slings made from nonmetallic fibers will meet the
standard provided they are not wet, dirty, or have substances on or in
them that will conduct electricity. Therefore, OSHA has concluded that
the requirement that rigging that may be closer than the Table A
distance be nonconductive is appropriate, and the provision is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (d)(6)
    Under paragraph (d)(6) of this section, if the crane is equipped
with a device that automatically limits range of movement, it must be
used and set to prevent any part of the crane, load or load line
(including rigging and lifting accessories) from breaching the minimum
clearance distance established under Sec.  1926.1410(c). This paragraph
is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (d)(7)
    Under paragraph (d)(7) of this section, if a tag line is used it
must be nonconductive. This requirement provides additional protection
to those employees who would be exposed to electrical hazards in the
event that the equipment contacts a power line and the tag line they
are holding becomes energized, or in the event that the tag line itself
makes contact with the power line.
    Refer to the discussion of Sec.  1926.1407(b)(2) for further
explanation of tag line non-conductivity and public comments received
on this subject. This provision is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (d)(8)
    Under paragraph (d)(8) of this section, barricades must be used to
form a perimeter at least 10 feet away from the equipment to prevent
unauthorized personnel from entering the work area. In areas where
obstacles prevent the barricade from being at least 10 feet away, the
barricade is required to be as far from the equipment as feasible. This
provision, along with Sec. Sec.  1926.1410(d)(9) and 1926.1410(d)(10),
minimizes the likelihood that any more employees than are absolutely
necessary to the operation will be near the equipment in the event the
equipment, load or load line makes electrical contact with the power
line. No comments were submitted on this provision; therefore, it is
promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (d)(9)
    Under paragraph (d)(9) of this section, employees other than the
operator are prohibited from touching the load line above the
insulating link/device and equipment. The reason C-DAC did not extend
this prohibition to the operator is that the operator, by being in the
cab, is going to be in electrical contact with both the equipment and
load line. However, this assumes that the operator is in fact standing
or sitting on the equipment. There may be some situations where this is
not the case. For example, some equipment may be operated by pendant
control or wireless control; in such cases the operator need not be on
the equipment to control it. OSHA requested public comment on this
issue.
    Commenters agreed that equipment operators operating from the
ground via remote controls need to be protected from potential shocks
by either (1) using wireless controls that physically isolate the
operator from the equipment; or (2) using insulating mats that insulate
the operator from the ground. (ID-0062.1; -0162.1.) OSHA agrees with
these comments. Although rubber insulating matting is designed for use
as a floor covering, the Agency determines that such mats can provide
an additional measure of protection for workers operating the equipment
from the ground.\64\ OSHA has amended paragraph (d)(9) accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ The proposed revision of subpart V also proposed a new
construction standard for electrical protective equipment, which
would cover rubber insulating matting. Until the subpart V revision
is finalized, rubber insulating matting meeting ASTM D178-01(2005)
Standard Specification for Rubber Insulating Matting, meets the
requirement in final Sec.  1926.1410(d)(9) for insulating mats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paragraph (d)(10)
    Under paragraph (d)(10) of this section, only personnel essential
to the operation are permitted to be in the area of the equipment and
the load. In conjunction with Sec. Sec.  1926.1410(d)(8) and
1926.1410(d)(9), this minimizes the likelihood that any more employees
than are absolutely necessary to the operation would be in a position
to make electrical contact with the equipment in the event the
equipment, load or load line makes electrical contact with the power
line. No comments were submitted on this provision; it is promulgated
as proposed.
Paragraph (d)(11)
    Under paragraph (d)(11) of this section, the equipment must be
properly grounded. As described in the summary and explanation of final
Sec.  1926.1408(a)(2)(i) Option (1), in the event the equipment
inadvertently makes electrical contact with the power line, proper
grounding will protect employees in two ways. First, if the line is
equipped with a circuit interrupting device, the grounding facilitates
the operation of the device to deenergize the line. However, under some
conditions, for example, if there is arcing contact or if the contact
is near the end of a power

line, the fault current may not be high enough to open the circuit for
the power line. Second, in the event an employee on the ground is
touching the equipment when it contacts the power line or if the
circuit protective device does not operate to deenergize the power
line, proper grounding will reduce the danger to the employee by
providing an additional, low resistance path to ground for the electric
current, substantially lowering the voltage on the equipment while the
power line remains energized.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ It should be noted that hazardous potential differences can
be created in the ground when a contact occurs, and employees
standing close to, but not touching, anything in contact with the
power line can still be injured or killed. The requirements in Sec.
1926.1425, Keeping clear of the load, which are designed to protect
employees from being struck or crushed by hazards, will also protect
employees from these electrical hazards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters on this provision stressed the need for worker training
on proper equipment grounding procedures and the limitations of the
protection that grounding provides. (ID-0131.1; -0155.1; -0161.1.) OSHA
agrees. As discussed under Sec.  1926.1408(g), OSHA is requiring that
the training under that paragraph include training in proper grounding
procedures and the limitations of the protection grounding provides. To
make clear that the training required under Sec.  1926.1408(g) is also
required under this section, OSHA is adding Sec.  1926.1410(m),
discussed below, to require that operators and crew assigned to
equipment under this section be trained in accordance with Sec.
1926.1408(g). Section 1926.1410(d)(11) is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (d)(12)
    Under paragraph (d)(12) of this section, insulating line hose or
cover-up must be installed by the utility owner/operator except where
such devices are unavailable for the line voltages involved. The
Committee noted that prior subpart N, at former Sec.  1926.550(a)(15),
allowed such insulating barriers to be used as a complete alternative
to deenergizing and grounding or to maintaining the applicable minimum
clearance distance from the power line. However, the Committee
determined that such insulating devices do not provide complete
protection because they can be pierced if the equipment makes more than
brushing contact with the device. However, the Committee concluded that
these insulating devices do provide protection if there is brushing
contact and that such devices are useful to supplement the other
protective measures provided by the requirements of this Sec.
1926.1410(d).
    One commenter on this provision believed that when work is being
performed under Sec.  1926.1410 around voltages above which insulating
line hose or cover-up are available, OSHA should require that the power
line be deenergized and visibly grounded. (ID-0161.1.) Another
commenter stated that the Committee correctly limited the use of line
hoses and similar rubber cover-ups as complete protection since it can
be pierced, but stated that it was unfortunate that the Committee
prohibited the use of other rigid plastic barriers that are effective
insulation and are not easily pierced. (ID-0144.1.) Regarding the
former comment, OSHA notes that the rule applies only when the employer
demonstrates that it is infeasible to deenergize and ground the power
line. Also, the provision does not require that line hose or cover-up
be made of rubber; if rigid plastic barriers provide effective
insulation for the voltage involved, they are permitted by this
paragraph. OSHA also notes that rigid plastic barriers (that is,
electrically insulating plastic guard equipment) is also intended for
brush contact only. (See ASTM F712--06 Standard Test Methods and
Specifications for Electrically Insulating Plastic Guard Equipment for
Protection of Workers.) Although this equipment may be able to
withstand higher forces, it is easier to displace than rubber
insulating line hose. This provision is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (e)
    Under paragraph (e) of this section, the procedures that are
developed to comply with Sec.  1926.1410(d) must be documented and
immediately available on-site. This ensures that these procedures are
available to be used as a reference while the work is in progress.
    No comments on this provision were submitted, and it is promulgated
as proposed.
Paragraph (f)
    Under paragraph (f) of this section, the equipment user and utility
owner/operator (or registered professional engineer) must meet with the
equipment operator and the other employees who will be in the area of
the equipment or load to review the procedures that are developed under
Sec.  1926.1410(d) to prevent a breach of the minimum clearance
distance established under Sec.  1926.1410(c). It is important that
this review take place so that the operator and other employees
understand this critical information and have the opportunity to
discuss the procedures with the utility owner/operator or registered
professional engineer who developed the procedures.
    OSHA notes that proposed Sec.  1926.1410(f) referred only to the
utility owner/operator. However, under Sec.  1926.1410(d), the
procedures are determined in a planning meeting with either the utility
owner operator or a registered professional engineer, and whichever
entity helped develop those procedures must also participate in the
meeting required under paragraph (f). Therefore, OSHA has modified this
paragraph by adding a reference to the registered professional engineer
as an alternative to the utility owner/operator.
    Several electric utility representatives questioned OSHA's
authority to impose these and other requirements upon power line owners
and operators. (ID-0162.1; -0166.1; -0203.1; -0226.1.) As stated above
in response to similar arguments, this paragraph does not require the
utility owner/operator to take any action. Another commenter asked who
was responsible for bearing the costs of deenergizing power lines and
other safety precautions, and what would happen if a utility owner/
operator was unable to meet the equipment user at the requested time.
(ID-0155.1) As stated above with respect to compliance costs, OSHA
determines that issues of compliance costs and specific obligations are
best handled as contractual matters among the parties involved, and/or
as prescribed by local and regional utility regulatory authorities.
Paragraphs (g) and (h)
    Under paragraph (g) of this section, the employer must implement
the procedures developed in accordance with Sec.  1926.1410(d). And
under paragraph (h) of this section, the utility owner/operator (or
registered professional engineer) and all employers of the employees
involved in the work must identify one person who will direct the
implementation of the procedures. This person must direct the
implementation of the procedures and have the authority to stop work at
any time to ensure safety. As with paragraph (f) of this section, OSHA
is adding a reference to the registered professional engineer to
paragraph (h) to ensure that the entity that helped develop the
procedures participate in the decision required under paragraph (h).
    The Committee concluded that, in view of the fact that more than
one employer is typically involved in these situations, coordination
among the employers of these employees is needed for the protective
measures to be effectively implemented. Once the

operation is underway, safety-related orders typically need to be given
and followed without delay. Since an employee of one employer typically
would not immediately follow an instruction from another employer, it
is necessary that, before these operations begin, all employees
understand that the one designated person will have this authority. For
these reasons, the Committee determined that there needs to be one
person who all involved in the operation recognize as having this role
and authority.
    A commenter objected to having the utility owner/operator involved
in determining which individual should direct implementation of the
procedures, saying that the decision should be made by the contractors.
(ID-0155.1.) OSHA notes that this provision is closely tied to
paragraphs (d) and (f) of this section, under which the utility owner/
operator or registered professional engineer is involved in developing
the procedures and in reviewing the procedures with the appropriate
employees. At this point, the utility or registered professional
engineer is well situated to help identify an individual who is able to
direct the implementation of the procedures. As with the other
provisions of this section that require the involvement of the utility
or a registered professional engineer, the utility has the discretion
not to participate, in which case the employer operating the equipment
must use a registered professional engineer.
Paragraph (i) [Reserved]
Paragraph (j)
    This provision requires the employer to safely stop operations if a
problem occurs with implementing the procedures in paragraph (d) of
this section or if there is an indication that those procedures are
inadequate to prevent electrocution. In addition, this provision
requires that the employer either develop new procedures which comply
with paragraph (d) or contact the utility owner/operator and have them
deenergize and visibly ground or relocate the power line(s) before
resuming operations.
    Two commenters suggested that the utility might not be able to
deenergize the lines for medical or security reasons and asked what
would happen in such a case. (ID-0155.1; -0162.1.) OSHA recognizes that
utilities may not be willing or able to discontinue power to their
customers, and Sec.  1926.1410(j) permits relocating the line as an
alternative to deenergizing.
    An electric utility representative requested that OSHA clarify
which employer has the responsibility to comply with this provision,
stating it should be the equipment operator and not the utility owner/
operator. (ID-0161.1.) OSHA notes that this paragraph's requirement for
the employer to ``safely stop operations'' applies to the employer(s)
who are conducting the operation, and the requirement for that employer
to contact the utility owner/operator after stopping operations makes
clear that a utility owner/operator who is not conducting equipment
operations near the power line is not the ``employer'' under this
paragraph. OSHA concludes these points are sufficiently clear, and the
provision is promulgated as proposed.
Paragraph (k)
    Proposed paragraph (k) required that, where a device originally
designed by the manufacturer for use as a safety device, operational
aid, or a means to prevent power line contact or electrocution is used
to comply with Sec.  1926.1410, it must meet the manufacturer's
procedures for use and conditions of use. (See Sec.  1926.1417 for a
discussion of OSHA's authority to require compliance with manufacturer
procedures.) No comments were received on this provision; it is
promulgated as proposed.
General Comment
    A commenter suggested that OSHA consider requiring a written permit
as a precondition to any work being done closer than 20 feet to a power
line.\66\ (ID-0201.1.) The permit, according to this commenter, should
document many of the requirements of this section, including the basis
for the employer's infeasibility determinations, the utility owner/
operator's or registered professional engineer's determination of a
minimum clearance distance, the specific procedures to be followed in
performing the work, verification that the employees have received the
required training, and other information relevant to the work. The
commenter did not explain why it believed such a permit system would
result in greater safety, but OSHA infers that the commenter believes
that the need to document certain information, such as the basis for
the employer's infeasibility findings, will lead to more careful
consideration of the factors that enter into the decision that it is
necessary to work closer to a power line than is normally permitted and
more carefully thought out procedures when such work is done. OSHA is
not convinced that a permit system is needed to ensure that employers
act carefully under this section. OSHA expects that the stringent
precautions required when employers work closer than the Sec.
1926.1408 and Sec.  1926.1409 clearance distances will ensure that an
employer will only determine that it is infeasible to work within those
distances if there is really no other viable option. Similarly, the
requirement that a minimum clearance distance must be determined by a
utility owner/operator or registered professional engineer ensures that
sound expert judgment will enter into that determination without the
need for additional documentation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ This commenter recommended that 20 feet should be the
minimum clearance distance for all work and that Table A of Sec.
1926.1408 should be deleted. OSHA explained in Sec.  1926.1408 why
it was rejecting this suggestion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart V Work
    In the proposed rule, OSHA discussed in detail the compliance
duties the rule would impose on employers engaged in subpart V work
(see 73 FR 59762-59764, Oct. 9, 2008). Industry representatives
objected to some of the changes from the requirements of subpart V.
Among other things, they pointed to another ongoing rulemaking in which
OSHA proposed to amend subpart V in ways that differ from the changes
proposed by C-DAC (70 FR 34821, Jun. 15, 2005).\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ The subpart V proposed rule was published after C-DAC
completed its work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA proposed requirements in addition to those in subpart V
because it had already concluded that the measures required by subpart
V for the operation of equipment near power lines are insufficiently
protective. (See the discussion of Sec.  1910.269(p)(4) in the preamble
to the final rule promulgating the general industry standard on the
operation and maintenance of electric power generation, transmission,
and distribution installations (59 FR 4320, 4400-4404, Jan. 31, 1994)).
Although proposed subpart V would require measures that are
sufficiently protective, OSHA has not yet adopted it as a final rule.
Consequently, the Agency is taking action today to increase the
protection currently afforded by subpart V. In doing so, OSHA has also
addressed the concerns raised by utility industry representatives.
    First, as discussed above, OSHA has made several changes to the
final rule in response to comments from the electric utility industry.
These include: (1) An expanded exclusion for digger derricks used in
utility pole work; (2) deleting the requirement that employers engaged
in subpart V work show the infeasibility of complying with the required
clearance distances in Sec. Sec.  1926.1408

through 1926.1409; and (3) an alternative to the requirement for
insulating links under Sec.  1926.1410(d)(4).
    In addition, employers engaged in subpart V activities are not
required to implement certain other protective measures required by
this standard when working near power lines. As discussed above,
subpart V work would not be subject to the requirement for an
additional protective measure from the list in Sec.  1926.1408(b)(4).
Also, subpart V work would not be subject to the prohibition in Sec.
1926.1408(d)(1) against equipment operating under power lines (see
discussion above of Sec.  1926.1408(d)(2)(i)). And Sec.
1926.1410(d)(3) provides that an employer engaged in subpart V work
closer than the Table A of Sec.  1926.1408 distance is not required to
use an elevated warning line or barricade.
    In recognition of the fact that much subpart V work necessarily
takes place on or near energized power lines, employers engaged in such
work may comply with shorter minimum clearance distances than those
specified in Sec. Sec.  1926.1408 and 1926.1409: they must generally
adhere to the clearance distances in Table V-1 of Sec.  1926.950.
However, Sec.  1926.952(c)(2) (redesignated as Sec.  1926.952(c)(3) as
a result of this rulemaking) permits clearances less than those in
Table V-1 and includes requirements that must be met when equipment is
operating closer to power lines that those distances. To make this
clear, Sec.  1926.1410(c)(2) provides: ``Employers engaged in subpart V
work are permitted to work closer than the distances in Sec.  1926.950
Table V-1 where both the requirements of this section and Sec.
1926.950(c)(3)(i) or (ii) are met.'' \68\ OSHA is also making
conforming amendments to Sec.  1926.952(c)(3), which was formerly
designated Sec.  1926.952(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ The proposed rule referred to ``Sec.  1926.950(c)(2)(iii)
or (iv).'' The final rule reflects the changes in numbering to Sec.
1926.950(c)(2) that are made elsewhere in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under this section, the precautions previously specified in
Sec. Sec.  1926.952(c)(2)(i) and (ii) are required under Sec.
1926.1410(d) when equipment used in subpart V work is operated closer
than the Table V-1 clearances. Since these precautions are now required
by Sec.  1926.1410(d), OSHA is deleting them from subpart V as
redundant. Therefore, OSHA is including the non-redundant provisions
from the proposed rule in the final rule, with proposed Sec.
1926.952(c)(2) redesignated as Sec.  1926.952(c)(3).\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ In subpart V, when equipment is considered energized, a
number of subpart V requirements are triggered. See, e.g., Sec.
1926.951(c)(1) (restricting use of metal or conductive ladders near
energized equipment); Sec.  1926.951(f)(3) (hydraulic tools used on
or around energized equipment shall use nonconducting hoses); Sec.
1926.953(c) (materials or equipment shall not be stored near
energized equipment if it is practical to store them elsewhere).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter opposed deleting former Sec. Sec.  1926.952(c)(2)(i)
and (ii) because the commenter believed that it would not be confusing
to duplicate requirements now found in subpart CC in subpart V. OSHA
disagrees. As amended by this rule, Sec.  1926.952(c)(3) states that
its requirements are ``in addition to'' the requirements in Sec.
1926.1410. Restating requirements in Sec.  1926.952(c)(3) that are also
found in Sec.  1926.1410 can lead to uncertainty over whether the
duplicate requirements are in fact redundant or are separate
requirements.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Amendments to Sec.  1926.950(c)(1) are discussed in Sec.
1926.1400, Scope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA notes that in this zone, one of the options that an employer
engaged in subpart V has under prior Sec.  1926.952(c)(3)(i) is to
insulate the equipment. Under Sec.  1926.1410(d)(11), that employer
also must ground the equipment. An employer can comply with both
requirements by using equipment with an insulating boom and grounding
the uninsulated portion of the equipment (that is, the portion below
the insulated section of the boom).
    It should also be noted that, in the subpart V rulemaking, OSHA has
proposed to prohibit equipment (other than insulated aerial lifts,
which are not covered by this final rule) from being operated closer
than the minimum approach distances from power lines. If this
prohibition is carried into the final subpart V rule, then the
requirements in this final rule relating to work inside the distance in
Table V-1 will have no effect.
    Finally, Sec.  1926.1400(g) includes a new compliance alternative
for subpart V work that has been added to the final rule.
Paragraph (l) [Reserved]
Paragraph (m)
    As noted above, the training requirements contained in Sec.
1926.1408(g) are being added to this section as well to assure that
employees engaged in activities under this section receive adequate
training.
Section 1926.1411 Power Line Safety--While Traveling Under Power Lines
With No Load
Paragraph (a)
    Proposed paragraph (a) provided that this section is designed to
protect against electrical hazards while equipment is traveling with no
load under power lines on a construction site. It did not address the
potential hazards associated with equipment traveling without a load
near power lines. OSHA requested public comment on whether it is
necessary to expand the applicability of this section to include
equipment traveling on a construction site without a load near power
lines.
    Two commenters favored broadening the applicability of Sec.
1926.1411 to include equipment traveling near power lines, with
``near'' being defined as the distances listed in Table T. (ID-0205.1;
-0213.1.) One commenter responded that adding an additional set of
power line clearance distances to trigger the requirements of Sec.
1926.1411 would be confusing. (ID-0144.1.) A fourth commenter thought
that the requirements of Sec.  1926.1411 should extend to cover
equipment traveling ``along side of'' power lines, but did not suggest
a definition for the term ``along side of.'' (ID-0155.1.)
    After considering these public comments, OSHA concludes that this
section should address the hazard of equipment traveling near, as well
as under, power lines with no load. If equipment comes into electrical
contact with a power line while traveling without a load, the same
electrocution hazard is present as when it is operating with a load.
The precautions in this section will protect workers against that
hazard.
    OSHA agrees with the two commenters who suggested that Table T of
this section contains appropriate clearances for equipment traveling
near, as well as under, power lines. Applying Table T to equipment
traveling near power lines will provide a uniform rule for this section
and will ensure adequate worker protection. Although the Table T
clearance distances are less than those required under Table A of Sec.
1926.1408 during crane operations, additional protection is provided
under this section by the requirement in paragraph (b)(1), discussed
below, that the boom/mast and boom/mast support system be lowered
sufficiently to meet the requirements of this paragraph. With the boom/
mast lowered, the highest point of the equipment will generally be
below the plane of the power line, reducing the risk of accidental
contact. Moreover, as also noted below, the dedicated spotter
requirement of Sec.  1926.1411(b)(4) will be triggered whenever the
equipment while traveling will get closer than 20 feet to a power line,
thereby providing additional protection against accidental contact.

    Accordingly, in the final rule, paragraph (a) applies to
``equipment traveling under or near a power line on a construction site
with no load.'' In addition, in the proposed rule, the heading of Sec.
1926.1411 read: ``Power line safety--while traveling.'' In the final
rule, OSHA has added the words ``under or near power lines with no
load'' so that the heading more clearly describes the activity to which
the section applies.
    These requirements apply only to cranes/derricks while traveling on
a construction site under or near power lines; they do not apply to
equipment while traveling on roads (or in areas) that are not part of a
construction site. In addition, this section does not apply to
equipment traveling on a construction site with a load. That situation
is governed by Sec. Sec.  1926.1408, 1926.1409, and 1926.1410. To make
this clear, OSHA is adding the language to paragraph (a) specifying
that Sec. Sec.  1926.1408, 1926.1409, and 1926.1410, whichever is
appropriate, govern equipment traveling on a construction site with a
load.
Paragraph (b)
    Under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the boom/mast and boom/mast
support system must be lowered sufficiently to meet the requirements of
this paragraph. Paragraph (b)(2) specifies that the clearances
specified in Table T of this section must be maintained. The values in
Table T, which provides the minimum clearance distances while traveling
with no load and a lowered boom, are substantially similar to the
values used in sec. 5-<IP_ADDRESS> of ASME B30.5-2004.
    In the proposed rule, the heading of Table T read: ``MINIMUM
CLEARANCE DISTANCES WITH NO LOAD AND BOOM/MAST LOWERED.'' In addition,
each clearance distance in the table was followed by the following
parenthetical: ``(while traveling, boom lowered).'' OSHA determines
that the references to the boom in the heading and parentheticals could
be confusing. The intent of the table is to establish minimum clearance
distances while the crane is traveling, not clearance distances with
the boom lowered. As noted in the discussion of Sec.  1926.1411(b)(1),
the boom and/or mast must be lowered sufficiently to comply with Table
T; it is not a prerequisite to the applicability of Table T.
Accordingly, in the final rule, the words ``AND BOOM/MAST LOWERED'' are
deleted from the heading of Table T, and the parentheticals are also
removed from the clearance distances in the table.
    Section 1926.1411(b)(3) requires the employer to ensure that the
effects of speed and terrain are considered so that those effects do
not cause the minimum clearance distances specified in Table T to be
breached. Sections 1926.1411(b)(1)-(3) are promulgated as proposed.
    Section 1926.1411(b)(4) requires the employer to use a dedicated
spotter if any part of the equipment while traveling will get closer
than 20 feet to a power line. This provision also requires that the
dedicated spotter be in continuous contact with the crane operator; be
positioned to effectively gauge the clearance distance; where
necessary, use equipment that enables the spotter to communicate
directly with the crane operator; and give timely information to the
crane operator so that the required clearance distance can be
maintained. See the earlier discussion of spotters in Sec. Sec.
1926.1407 and 1926.1408.
    In reviewing proposed Sec.  1926.1411(b)(4), OSHA noted that the
language ``crane operator'' was used rather than ``driver.'' Because
Sec.  1926.1411 deals with power line safety while equipment is
traveling without a load, OSHA recognized that the language ``crane
operator'' may not be appropriate in all situations. In some cases a
crane operator may not be the driver of such equipment on the
construction site. Therefore, OSHA solicited comments on whether the
language ``crane operator'' used in proposed Sec.  1926.1411(b)(4)
should be changed to ``driver'' or ``driver/operator.'' The two
commenters who addressed this issue supported changing the language to
``driver/operator.'' (ID-0205.1; -0213.1.) Therefore, this change to
the regulatory text has been made in the final rule.
    Section 1926.1411(b)(5) requires the employer to ensure that, when
traveling at night or in conditions of poor visibility, the power lines
must either be illuminated or another means of identifying them are
used and a safe path of travel is identified. No public comments
concerning this provision were received; therefore, it is promulgated
as proposed.
Section 1926.1412 Inspections
    This section seeks to prevent injuries and fatalities caused by
equipment failures by establishing an inspection process that
identifies and addresses safety concerns. The reasoning underlying the
proposed requirements is discussed at 73 FR 59766-59776, Oct. 9, 2008.
The following addresses public comments and differences between the
proposed and final rules.
    Paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section provide inspection
requirements for equipment covered by subpart CC. Those requirements
are supplemented by other sections of this standard for specific types
of equipment. This section is structured so that certain activities
(e.g., equipment modification, repair/adjustment, assembly, severe
service, or equipment not in regular use) and the passage of time
(e.g., shift, monthly, and annual/comprehensive) trigger the inspection
requirements.
    The proposed rule specified that the various inspections were to be
conducted by either a ``competent person'' or a ``qualified person''
depending on the type of inspection. Both terms are defined in Sec.
1926.01. OSHA solicited public comment on whether a protocol similar to
that for signal person qualifications in Sec.  1926.28 is needed to
ensure that the person who performs these inspections has the requisite
level of expertise (73 FR 59766, Oct. 9, 2008). Section 1926.28
establishes qualification requirements for signal persons and requires
those individuals to have their qualifications evaluated by a qualified
evaluator to act as signal persons under this subpart.
    Several commenters responded that there should be a verified
testing system to ensure ``qualified inspectors'' have the requisite
knowledge to inspect effectively or that the standard require
inspectors to demonstrate that ability. (ID-0182.1; -0187.1; -0226.)
    Regarding paragraph (f) of this section (annual/comprehensive
inspections of equipment) and Sec.  1926.1413(c) (annual wire rope
inspections), a local government further recommended that OSHA require
that a government agency or a third party crane inspector licensed or
certified by the local government perform the annual inspection. (ID-
0156.1.) The commenter also believed that the individual who inspects
an equipment modification in accordance with paragraph (a) of this
section must possess a certification from the manufacturer or an
independent third party and have the requisite training to inspect
modified, repaired, or altered crane components.
    In contrast, a utility company and two trade associations did not
support revising the final rule to include a more stringent inspector
qualification requirement. (ID-0226; -0205.1; -0213.) The two trade
associations expressed concerns that the Committee never discussed the
required level of knowledge of inspection workers, which, in the
commenter's view, means that consensus was not reached on the issue and
that the issue should not be included in the final rule.

    In response to these comments, OSHA is retaining the qualification
requirements for inspectors as specified in the proposed rule but is
not mandating that the inspector be assessed by a qualified evaluator,
certified, or licensed because there is not sufficient evidence in the
record to warrant these additional requirements. A number of current
OSHA construction standards, as did former Sec.  1926.550, require
inspections to be conducted by competent persons or qualified persons.
For example, Sec.  1926.651(k) requires that a competent person conduct
a daily inspection of excavations for possible cave-in hazards. OSHA is
not aware of evidence in the record indicating that accidents would be
prevented if OSHA required inspectors to have additional qualifications
or credentials. OSHA disagrees, and concludes that accidents do not
occur due to the inability of competent or qualified persons to conduct
adequate inspections of cranes under the former standard. Accordingly,
OSHA is retaining the requirement in Sec.  1926.1412 that the various
required inspections be conducted either by competent persons or
qualified persons.
    The local government's request that OSHA not preempt local laws and
allow local governments to continue to play a role in crane inspections
is within the scope of the local government's broader preemption
concerns addressed in the discussion of federalism in section V.D of
this preamble. However, OSHA notes that Sec.  1926.1412 would not
preclude local government inspectors or others who are not employees of
the employer responsible for the inspections, from serving as
inspectors in compliance with the requirements of this standard. The
inspector need only meet the definition of a competent or qualified
person in Sec.  1926.1401 (note that a ``competent person'' must have
the authority to take corrective action.)
Paragraph (a) Modified Equipment
    Paragraph (a) of this section requires an inspection (that includes
functional testing of the equipment) to be performed by a qualified
person for equipment that has been modified or has additions that
affect the safe operation of the equipment prior to initial use after
that modification/addition.\71\ As proposed, this paragraph did not
contain a documentation requirement. An industrial contractor stated
that the standard should require documentation of this inspection (as
well as the inspections required under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
section, discussed below) but offered no reasons to support its
suggestion. (ID-0120.) Absent a basis in the record to add such a
requirement, OSHA declines to require documentation of the inspections
under paragraphs (a), (b), and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ The phrase ``modifications or additions'' and the term
``modifications/additions,'' as used in this section, have the same
meaning (an addition is a type of modification). C-DAC wanted to
emphasize that additions are subject to the same approval procedures
as other types of modifications. Wherever a form of the word
``modification'' is used in this preamble, it is a reference to all
modifications, including additions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Sec.  1926.1412(a)(1)(ii) stated that ``[t]he inspection
shall include functional testing.'' OSHA requested public comment on
whether it should modify the provision to limit the functional testing
requirement to components that the modification affects or may affect
(73 FR 59766-59767, Oct. 9, 2008). Several commenters asserted that
functional testing is only necessary to test modifications of the
equipment and other affected components. (ID-0205; -0213.) In contrast,
a local government asserted that the functional testing should be of
the entire crane. (ID-0156.1.)
    OSHA is concerned that there may be instances where a modification
has an unanticipated effect on the equipment that would not become
apparent if the test were limited. Therefore, the Agency has decided to
require a functional test of the equipment as a whole. To make this
clear, the words ``of the equipment'' have been added at the end of the
sentence of the provision in the final rule.
    During the SBREFA process, a Small Entity Representative (SER)
suggested adding an exception to Sec.  1926.1412(a) for
``transportation systems,'' by which the SER meant any system
dispersing the weight of the crane for movement on a highway. As
recommended by the Panel, OSHA solicited public comment on whether to
include such an exception and possible language for it (73 FR 59767,
Oct. 9, 2008). No comments were submitted on this point. OSHA notes
that Sec.  1926.1412 specifies the items that must be inspected, and
these items do not include any items dealing with the movement of
equipment on a highway.
Paragraph (b) Repaired/Adjusted Equipment
    Paragraph (b) of this section provides that equipment that has had
a repair or adjustment that affects the safe operation of the equipment
must be inspected by a qualified person prior to initial use after the
repair/adjustment. In summary, the qualified person is required to
determine if such repairs and adjustments were performed in accordance
with manufacturer equipment criteria.
    Proposed Sec.  1926.1412(b)(1)(iii) stated that ``[t]he inspection
shall include functional testing.'' As in the case of proposed Sec.
1926.1412(a)(1)(ii) discussed above regarding modified equipment, OSHA
requested public comment on whether the functional testing required for
repaired/adjusted equipment should be limited to testing only those
components that are or may be affected by the repair or adjustment (73
FR 59767, Oct. 9, 2008).
    Several commenters asserted that functional testing is only
necessary to test the repairs or adjustments and other affected
components and systems of the equipment. (ID-0205; -0213.) In contrast,
one commenter indicated that the functional testing should be of the
entire crane. (ID-0156.)
    The standard requires that repairs or adjustments of equipment must
be done in accordance with the manufacturer's or qualified person's
recommendations. Repairs or adjustments are meant to restore equipment
to original design specifications and safety factors. Otherwise, OSHA
considers the maintenance activity performed a modification of the
equipment. In essence, repair or adjustment of a system or component
must be consistent with the engineering in the original equipment
design. OSHA believes that a functional test that is limited to only
those components that are or may be affected by the repair or
adjustment, in conjunction with the inspection required under Sec.
1926.1412(d). Each shift (discussed below), will sufficiently identify
a deficient repair or adjustment. OSHA has therefore modified the
language of Sec.  1926.1412(b)(1)(iii) in the final rule accordingly.
    A commenter stated that Sec.  1926.1412(b) should be structured
similarly to Sec.  1926.1434, Modifications, in that the employer
should be required to consult with the manufacturer before employers
perform repairs or adjustments of equipment that relate to safe
operation. (ID-0292.) In that case, the commenter stated, no third
party would be able to overrule a manufacturer statement that a repair
cannot be made. The commenter believed that an employer should only be
able to go to paragraph (b)(1)(ii) if the manufacturer is unavailable.
    OSHA does not agree with the suggested change. Implicit in the
comment is the suggestion that there are instances where a repair
cannot be made without compromising the integrity of the equipment.
That concern is already addressed by the standard. If the repair

cannot meet the criteria in accordance with Sec.  1926.1412(b)(1)(i)
(or, if applicable, Sec.  1926.1412(b)(1)(i)), then the requirements in
subpart CC for modifications would have to be met. Therefore, OSHA
declines to adopt the suggested change.
Paragraph (c) Post-Assembly
    Paragraph (c) of this section requires a post-assembly inspection
of equipment by a qualified person prior to its use. In sum, the
provision requires the qualified person to assure that the equipment is
configured in accordance with the manufacturer's equipment criteria. If
manufacturer equipment criteria are unavailable, the qualified person
must determine whether a registered professional engineer (RPE) is
needed to develop criteria for the equipment configuration. If an RPE
is not needed, the employer must ensure that a qualified person
develops them. If an RPE is needed, the employer must ensure that an
RPE develops them. Equipment must not be used until an inspection under
this paragraph demonstrates that the equipment is configured in
accordance with the applicable criteria. OSHA received no comments on
the proposed paragraph; therefore, it is published as proposed.
Paragraph (d) Each Shift
    Paragraph (d) of this section requires a shift inspection, the
first of three regularly scheduled equipment inspections that are
required. Specifically, paragraph (d)(1) sets forth the frequency of
this inspection, the degree of scrutiny required and the level of
expertise required of the person performing this inspection. The
paragraph lists the items that are required to be included in this
inspection and specifies the corrective action that is required. The
purpose of this provision is to identify and address safety hazards
before they cause accidents.
    A utility company recommended that OSHA revise Sec.  1926.1412(d)
to read ``each shift the equipment is used * * * .'' to clarify that
the equipment does not have to be inspected when it will not be used on
a shift. (ID-0226.) This suggested change is consistent with the intent
of the proposed rule, and OSHA is adding similar language to final rule
Sec.  1926.1412(d)(1) to clarify that intent.
    One commenter asserted that OSHA should prohibit operation of the
equipment until the shift inspection is complete rather than permitting
the inspection to be completed during the shift. (ID-0156.1.) A
different commenter disagreed. (ID-0143.) OSHA does not agree with this
suggestion. While some of the items that must be inspected can readily
be inspected before each shift, e.g., cab windows for deficiencies that
would hinder the operator's view, others can best be checked while the
equipment is operating. For example, one item that must be inspected is
control mechanisms for maladjustments that interfere with proper
operation. During the shift, such maladjustments may be easier to
detect than a check conducted before the equipment is operating. Still
others may change during the shift and require additional inspection.
For example, if the crane is moved to a new location during the shift,
it would be necessary to inspect the ground conditions in that
location.
    Regarding the frequency of this inspection, an energy utility
representative commented that the per-shift crane inspection fails to
take into account the frequency or severity of use. (ID-0203.1.) The
commenter points out that if a crane is used once during the first
shift, and once during the second shift, even if only to lift a minor
load, the inspection would have to be conducted twice. The commenter
agrees that the per shift inspection may be valuable and necessary on
constructions sites where cranes are used continuously for heavy use,
but states that the level of inspection should be adjusted to reflect
the infrequent use of mobile cranes for construction activities at
operating generating plants. The commenter suggests that the final
standard should permit employers to use the inspection protocol in ASME
B30.5, sec. 5-2.
    OSHA does not agree that minimal use during one shift negates the
need for a shift inspection during the next shift. Since the completion
of the last shift inspection, the equipment could have developed a
deficiency or been damaged even if it was used to hoist one load. For
example, fluids may expand or freeze, seals may leak due to a change in
temperature, structural materials may crack, or electrical components
may fail. A deficiency that might not have been apparent earlier might
become more readily observable.
    Moreover, while some equipment may be used infrequently for
construction work, the commenter did not disagree that it may be used
heavily for other purposes. When a crack, leak, or other hazard
appears, and the equipment is to be used in construction, the source of
that hazard is immaterial; the fact that the problem may have developed
during non-construction uses does nothing to reduce the safety hazard
that would be posed by the use of that equipment in construction.
Instead, the multiple uses of some of this equipment, potentially by
different employees using it for different purposes, makes it all the
more likely that important information might not be shared in a timely
manner, and therefore more important to ensure that the equipment is
inspected during each shift of construction work. An employer cannot
assume that the condition of the equipment has not changed since the
completion of the last shift inspection, even if the employer did not
use the equipment extensively during that shift. OSHA is convinced that
it is reasonable, and not overly burdensome, to require a competent
person to complete this inspection of the equipment before or during
each shift to ensure it is safe for use.
    A competent person is required to perform the shift inspection. A
labor management association commented that OSHA should replace
``competent person'' with ``operator'' for the purposes of who should
perform the visual inspection required by Sec.  1926.1412(d). (ID-
0172.) As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA
anticipates that the employer will often use the equipment operator as
the competent person who conducts the shift inspection. The operator,
in most cases, by virtue of his or her qualification or certification
under Sec. Sec.  1926.1427 and 1926.1430, experience, and familiarity
with the equipment, is a competent person. However, the employer has
the flexibility to use someone else to conduct the shift inspection as
long as that person is a competent person. When the operator does not
qualify as a competent person, the employer is required to choose a
different person. For these reasons, in the final rule, OSHA is
retaining the requirement that a competent person conduct the shift
inspection.
    A local government requested that the standard require the employer
to document the completion and results of the shift inspection. (ID-
0156.1.) In addition, it asked that the standard require employers to
submit daily logs to the equipment owner at the end of each job that
include a list of maintenance and repairs made to the equipment by the
user at the jobsite. It also requested that the owner maintain these
documents for the life of the equipment and transfer them from owner to
owner when sold.
    OSHA determines the documentation described by the commenter would
be burdensome for the user and owner of the equipment, with no added,
industry-recognized, benefit to safe hoisting operations. There is no
significant, safety-related evidence in the record to substantiate the
documentation

requirements the commenter recommended. Therefore, OSHA is not
requiring documentation of the shift inspection.
    The SBREFA Panel recommended that OSHA solicit public comment on
whether, and under what circumstances, booming down should be
specifically excluded as a part of the shift inspection, and whether
the removal of non-hinged inspection plates should be required during
the shift inspection. Section 1926.1413(a)(1), discussed below,
explicitly states that booming down is not required as part of the
shift inspection for wire rope. C-DAC did not include a similar
provision in the general shift inspection provision in Sec.
1926.1412(d) because booming down is not required to observe a
deficiency in any of the items requiring inspection under that
paragraph. Similarly, OSHA determines that inspection for a deficiency
in any of those items does not require the removal of non-hinged
inspection plates.
    Several commenters submitted comments that indicated a need for
OSHA to clarify that it is not usually necessary to boom down to
complete a visual inspection of the items listed in Sec.  1926.1412(d).
(ID-0143.1; -0205; -0213.) In response to the apparent ambiguity
suggested indicated by these comments, OSHA is revising Sec.
1926.1412(d)(1), to clarify that booming down is not required
routinely. The term ``disassembly'' was replaced with ``taking apart
equipment component'' in paragraph (d)(1) of this section to avoid any
confusion as to whether the provision was addressing disassembly as
defined for the application of Sec. Sec.  1926.1403 through 1926.1406.
    Paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (xiv) set forth the list of items
that, at a minimum, a competent person must inspect each shift.
Paragraph (d)(1)(x) of the proposed rule listed ``[g]round conditions
around the equipment for proper support, including ground settling
under and around outriggers and supporting foundations, ground water
accumulation, or similar conditions.''
    A railroad association objected to the application of this
provision to railroads. (ID-0170.1.) The association commented that the
Sec.  1926.1412(d)(1)(x) requirement that an inspector verify the
ground conditions around the equipment before each shift makes no sense
for a crane moving down the track. OSHA notes that this provision does
not require a railroad to inspect the ground conditions along the track
if a railroad crane is simply traveling down the track. Section
1926.1402, which contains requirements for ground conditions, makes
clear that the conditions being addressed are those where the equipment
is operating. To the extent that a railroad crane may move down the
track during a construction operation, OSHA determines it is
appropriate to require the ground conditions along the track to be
inspected to ensure that no hazardous conditions, such as the erosion
or other physical degradations of the support for railways, have
developed that will adversely affect the support needed for equipment
to perform safely during hoisting operations. However, OSHA is adding
language to exempt railroad tracks and their underlying support from
inspection when those rails are regulated by the FRA. OSHA concludes
that the exemption is appropriate because the FRA already regulates the
ground conditions for railroad tracks, including specific regulations
addressing the inspection of those rails and their support. See, e.g.,
49 CFR 213.233 (track inspections) and 213.237 (inspection of rail).
For consistency and clarity, OSHA is adding similar language exempting
rails regulated by the FRA to paragraph (d)(1)(xiii).
    A crane rental company objected to the requirement to inspect
ground conditions, stating that there is no similar provision for
inspecting ground conditions in the elements of inspections required by
ASME B30.5 sec. 5-2.1.2. (ID-0143.1.) It also believes listing this
requirement in the elements for shift inspections is confusing and
suggests that this requirement should either be removed or included in
Sec.  1926.1402, Ground Conditions. As stated in the explanation of the
proposed rule, this item was included because ground conditions can
change from shift to shift, and sufficient ground support is of
critical importance for safety. OSHA is retaining it in this section
because it is more appropriately included in the list of items to be
inspected than as a stand-alone inspection item in Sec.  1926.1402.
    In paragraph (d)(1)(x) in the final rule, OSHA is replacing the
word ``outriggers'' with ``outriggers/stabilizers.'' The term
``stabilizers'' was added because some pieces of equipment, like
articulating cranes, are designed to use stabilizers instead of
outriggers to add stability at their bases. A full discussion of the
comments that prompted this regulatory text change is provided in the
explanation of the rule for Sec.  1926.1404(q).
    Proposed Sec.  1926.1412(d)(1)(xi) included among the items to be
inspected ``the equipment for level position, both shift and after each
move and setup.'' The SBREFA Panel recommended that OSHA solicit public
comment about whether it is necessary to clarify the requirement of
proposed Sec.  1926.1412(d)(1)(xi) that the equipment be inspected for
``level position'' by clarifying the amount of tolerance that would be
allowed for the equipment to be considered ``level.'' OSHA requested
public comment on this issue and several commenters asked OSHA not to
specify tolerance limits. (ID-0143.1; -0170; -0205; -0213; -0226.) OSHA
notes that Sec.  1926.1402(b), which pertains to ground conditions,
requires the equipment, during use, to be level to the degree specified
by the equipment manufacturer. For clarity, OSHA is adding language to
Sec.  1926.1412(d)(1)(xi) to state that the equipment must be inspected