practical considerations will drive host employers that are not
controlling employers to notify the contractor if they observe
hazardous conditions involving the contractor's employees. Unsafe
conditions created by contractors can pose hazards to employees of the
host employer and to the public and can create additional obligations
for host employers to protect their employees (for example, through
OSHA standards and the general duty clause) and the public (for
example, through liability concerns) from those hazards. For instance,
a host employer that observes a contractor bypassing safety rules when
installing a new line will likely have concerns about the quality of
the contractor's work and about the effect of the contractor's unsafe
practices on the installation and on public safety. These concerns will
form a strong incentive for the host employer to report the hazardous
conditions to the contractor.
    Although the Agency concluded, based on the current rulemaking
record, that the reporting requirement in proposed paragraph (c)(1)(ii)
is neither necessary nor appropriate for this final rule, the Agency
will continue to monitor this issue and evaluate whether regulatory
requirements like the one in proposed paragraph (c)(1)(ii) are
necessary to ensure the safety of employees under subpart V or other
OSHA standards.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(C) would have required the contract
employer to advise the host employer of measures taken to correct, and
prevent from recurring, violations reported by the host employer under
proposed paragraph (c)(1)(ii). In light of the Agency's decision not to
adopt proposed paragraph (c)(1)(ii), proposed paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(C)
is no longer meaningful and is not incorporated in the final rule.
    In addition to proposing the requirement for hosts to report
observed contract-employer-related violations, OSHA requested comments
on the related, but distinct, issue of whether it should require host
employers to take appropriate measures to enforce contractual safety
requirements or review the contracts of contractors who fail to correct
violations.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Contracts between electric utilities and their contractors
often contain provisions requiring contractors to meet OSHA
standards and other provisions addressing noncompliance with the
terms of the contract. (See, for example, Ex. 0175.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IBEW was the only commenter that supported such requirements,
explaining:

    The host employer should regularly review the safety performance
of a contractor while operating on its site. The host employer
should take necessary action to ensure contractual obligations are
being met. The rule should require the host employer to initiate
further action if the review finds non compliance. [Ex. 0230]

    Rulemaking participants agreed that host employers regularly adopt
contracts that specify safety standards to which contractors must
adhere and that include provisions for enforcing those requirements.
(See, for example, Exs. 0163, 0175, 0213, 0405; Tr. 1386-1387.) Also,
some commenters recognized a general need for hosts to evaluate the
safety performance of contractors. (See, for example, Exs. 0167, 0175,
0184, 0213, 0219.) However, none of these rulemaking participants
supported the adoption of OSHA requirements related to the enforcement,
review, or awarding of contracts.
    For example, Ms. Susan O'Connor with Siemens Power Generation
explained:

    While host employers often [require and enforce compliance with
OSHA standards], in practice it would be burdensome [on] the host
employer to require them, at the risk of OSHA sanctions, to enforce
contract provisions as a regulatory matter. Indeed, establishing
this as a regulatory standard could operate as a disincentive for
host employers to establish sound health and safety contractual
terms with contractors,

particularly terms which go beyond regulatory requirements. . . . In
addition, OSHA regulations are promulgated and undergo public
review; Host Employer requirements do not go through such a
regulatory review process and therefore must not be held on par with
OSHA regulations. Host employers have a right to establish site
safety requirements that are more stringent than the law requires;
however, they should have the right to deal with contractors who do
not comply individually and in their own manner. But they must
currently do this against the backdrop of specific OSHA standards,
and the OSHA Multi-employer Workplace policy. Siemens sees no reason
to change this.
* * * * *
    OSHA should not prescribe how contractors are selected or
prescribe how contractors must be evaluated for purposes of
contracting work or terminating work. It is up to the discretion of
the party contracting for the services to make those determinations.
Host employers should have the discretion to choose, to dismiss, or
continue utilizing contractors. Given the already comprehensive and
pervasive nature of health and safety regulation through OSHA and
the states, as well as considerations of tort law, the effects of
the marketplace will weed out contractors that are repeatedly
substandard from a safety standpoint, as well as those that are
chronically poor perform[ers] from a quality, delivery, or other
standpoint. Contractors should be answerable to the host employe[r]
for business matters, and the agency for regulatory matters. These
lines should not be blurred by attempting to make the host employer
responsible for both. As a practical matter, it would be impossible
for OSHA . . . to come up with minimum requirements for every
contract activity, to establish an ``acceptable'' versus
``unacceptable'' contractor. [Ex. 0163]

    Duke Energy commented:

    The only safety performance that OSHA has authority to regulate
is compliance with OSHA rules. Worker Compensation Insurance
Carriers and others review safety performance. There is no need for
OSHA to impose additional requirements. Each host employer is faced
with a unique set of available contractors, each with its own safety
record. Some may excel in one area and perform poorly in another.
Some host employers may have such a limited pool of available
contractors that requiring some pre-determined level of contractor
safety performance would eliminate all contractors. Other goals,
such as employing minority firms may cause hosts to work with poor
performers to improve their performance, rather than eliminating the
minority contractor with the poor record. OSHA should not interfere
in decisions such as these. [Ex. 0201]

    In light of the comments received, OSHA decided not to adopt
provisions requiring host employers to enforce contractual safety
requirements, to review the contracts of contractors who fail to
correct violations or hazards, or to evaluate the safety performance of
contractors. As discussed previously, the host employer might not be
the entity that hired the contract employer, in which case the host
employer would not be in position to enforce contract requirements or
be involved in awarding contracts to the contract employer. In
addition, as Ms. O'Connor pointed out, and as noted earlier in this
section of the preamble, host employers that have supervisory authority
over a contractor's worksite are subject to a background statutory
obligation, as set forth in OSHA's multiemployer citation policy, to
exercise reasonable care to detect and prevent violations affecting
contractor employees. Moreover, for the reasons stated previously, OSHA
believes that, even in the absence of a specific requirement in subpart
V, host employers that are not controlling employers have strong
incentives to take measures to ensure safe contractor performance. In
addition, the Agency believes that contractors with poor safety
performance are likely to have similarly poor records with respect to
the quality of their work, making it less likely that host employers
will hire them. Therefore, the final rule does not contain provisions
related to the enforcement, review, or awarding of contracts.
    Paragraph (c)(2) of final Sec.  1926.950 addresses the
responsibilities of the contract employer. Final paragraph (c)(2)(i)
requires the contract employer to ensure that each of its employees is
instructed in any hazardous conditions relevant to the employee's work
of which the contractor is aware as a result of information
communicated to the contractor by the host employer as required by
final paragraph (c)(1). This paragraph ensures that information on
hazards the employees might face is conveyed to those employees. The
information provided by the host employer under paragraph (c)(1) is
essential to the safety of employees performing the work, especially
because it may include information related to hazardous conditions that
the contract employees might not identify or recognize.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(i) was worded differently from the final
rule; the proposed paragraph required contractors to instruct their
employees in hazards communicated by the host employer. OSHA received
no comments on this proposed provision. However, changes were made to
this paragraph in the final rule to mirror the changes made to
paragraph (c)(1) (described earlier). In the final rule, the Agency did
not include the note to proposed paragraph (c)(2)(i) because OSHA
believes that the note was confusing. The proposed note suggested that
the instruction required under paragraph (c)(2)(i) was not part of the
training required under Sec.  1926.950(b). The contractors' employees
will already be trained in many of the hazards that are related to the
information the contractor receives from the host, and the final rule
does not require employers to duplicate this training. Contractors will
need to supplement an employee's training only when that employee will
be exposed to a hazard or will follow safety-related work practices
with respect to which he or she has not already been trained.
    Paragraph (c)(2)(ii), as proposed, required the contract employer
to ensure that its employees followed the work practices required by
subpart V, as well as safety-related work rules imposed by the host
employer. In proposing this provision, OSHA explained that a host
employer's safety-related work rules are almost certain to impact the
safety and health of the contractor's employees (70 FR 34840). For
example, electric utilities typically require contractors to follow the
utilities' procedures for deenergizing electric circuits. If the
contract employer's employees do not follow these procedures, a circuit
the contractor's employees are working on might not be properly
deenergized, endangering the contractor's employees, or a circuit the
contractor was not working on might become reenergized, endangering any
host employer's employees that might be working on that circuit.
    OSHA invited comments on whether requiring a contractor to follow a
host employer's safety-related work rules could make work more
hazardous. A few commenters supported proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii).
(See, for example, Exs. 0164, 0213.) For instance, Mr. Tommy Lucas of
TVA commented:

    The proposed requirement is supported. Regardless whether this
requirement is carried forward, we will require contractors to
follow certain host-employer safety rules contractually, such as the
lockout/tagout (LOTO) procedure. Failure to follow the LOTO
procedure could result in host or contractor employees being
seriously injured. [Ex. 0213]

    In contrast, the vast majority of rulemaking participants opposed
the proposed provision. (See, for example, Exs. 0156, 0161, 0162, 0168,
0183, 0201, 0202, 0212, 0220, 0222, 0227, 0233, 0237, 0501; Tr. 1323,
1333.) These commenters gave several reasons for objecting to this
proposed requirement:
     It could result in the implementation of inadequately safe
work rules, such as when the contractor has more protective work rules
than the

host (see, for example, Ex. 0161) or when the host's work rules may be
based on its own employees' working conditions that are less hazardous
than the working conditions to which contractor employees will be
exposed (see, for example, Ex. 0233).
     It could cause contract employees to be confused about
proper work methods if rules change from contract to contract (see, for
example, Ex. 0227).
     It would result in contractual requirements becoming
enforceable OSHA standards in a way that constitutes an illegal
delegation of OSHA's rulemaking authority, thereby circumventing proper
rulemaking procedures (see, for example, Ex. 0237).
     It would place OSHA in the position of having to interpret
and enforce third-party contracts (see, for example, Ex. 0233).
     It could increase disaster-response time (Ex. 0233).
     It would increase costs and administrative burdens on
contract employers (see, for example, Ex. 0162).
     It could result in contractors having to follow host
employer work rules that are not directly linked to employee safety,
for example, in a situation in which the host's rules approve only one
vendor for safety equipment when equivalent, equally protective,
equipment is available from other vendors (Ex. 0162).
    For instance, Mr. Steven Theis with MYR Group commented:

    MYR Group believes that requiring a contractor to follow a
host's safety rules would create hazards. Contractors are required
by the standard to have appropriate work rules and policies for
compliance. Requiring them to follow another employer's policies--
which they are unfamiliar with and untrained on--would either result
in accidents or add undue and unnecessary time for retraining and
familiarization with the policies when the contractor has its own
policy . . . Indeed, MYR Group has experienced situations where host
employers impose work rules that do not significantly affect
employee safety and may even create an unsafe situation. [H]ost work
rules can specify chain of command requirements that do not align
with contractor management structure or responsibility and thus
following host requirements could result in loss or miscommunication
of safety information or safe work directives. Accordingly, MYR
Group respectfully submits that the requirement to follow host
employer work rules should be deleted. [Ex. 0162]

    Mr. Terry Williams with the Electric Cooperatives of South Carolina
agreed and provided an example of how following a host employer's
safety rules could jeopardize worker safety:

    The proposal ignores the fact that contractors have developed
their own rules that are appropriate for the work they do. They
train on these rules and operate according to them all the time.
Requiring contractors . . . to work to the rules of others could
easily result in the contractor working less safely.
    Consider the following actual situation: an electric utility
that is primarily a 12kV system, with some 34.5kV. The utility uses
its own crews for the 12kV work, and uses a qualified contractor for
the 34.5kV work, as the need arises. The utility's safety rules
specify use of Class 2 gloves, sleeves and cover up for all work, as
that is all their line crews need. For the 34.5 kV work, the
contractor should use Class 4 equipment, yet OSHA's proposal could
justify use of Class 2, with unsafe results.
    OSHA should retract this proposal and allow host employers to
require contractors to work to appropriate safety rules. [Ex. 0202]

    EEI made similar comments in its posthearing brief:

    [T]he standard would require contractors to utilize different
safe procedures depending upon the owner involved. For example, an
electric line contractor could be required to observe a ``ground-to-
ground'' rubber glove requirement while working for one electric
utility, but not while working for another utility nearby (Tr. 110-
11). The confusion and consequent increased risk to employees from
such requirements is obvious, not to mention the cost of training
for employees and supervisors alike. [Ex. 0501]

    As to the legal arguments, Susan Howe with the Society of the
Plastics Industry suggested that ``OSHA's incorporation'' of the host
employer's rules ``into the OSHA standards which are the subject of
this rulemaking would violate the rulemaking provisions of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Administrative Procedures Act,
and the Federal Register Act'' (Ex. 0170). The National Association of
Manufacturers similarly stated, with reference to this provision:
``OSHA has never had the authority to incorporate the provisions of
millions of private contracts into OSHA standards, nor to delegate its
rulemaking authority to private entities'' (Ex. 0222). EEI also
commented that the proposed requirement ``effectively would place each
host employer in the position of promulgating safety and health
standards for contractors' employees, and therefore would constitute an
unconstitutional delegation of legislative power'' (Ex. 0227).
    OSHA does not believe that the proposed provision would cause the
practical problems identified by rulemaking participants. There is
evidence in the record that, as IBEW stated, ``contractors . . .
routinely adapt their work rules and safety practices to accommodate
the demands of particular jobs and the requirements of specific hosts''
(Ex. 0505). The union explained this statement as follows:

    There are circumstances related to contractors performing work
on utility properties that would require the contractors to work
under the host employer's safety related work rules to ensure both
the contractor employees and the host employer employees are
provided a safe work environment. In fact, many collective
bargaining agreements require this. [Ex. 0230]

    Mr. Brian Erga with ESCI noted that some utilities have such unique
systems that contractors have no choice but to follow the host's rules
(Tr. 1271-1272). Several witnesses stated that contractors routinely
follow a host employer's lockout-tagout requirements (Tr. 314, 984,
1299-1301). There is evidence that some host employers require
contractors to follow NFPA 70E (Ex. 0460), to follow the host's fall
protection requirement for working from aerial lifts (Tr. 391), and to
use particular types of flame-resistant clothing (Tr. 1346). In
addition, the proposal did not require contractors to follow all of the
host employer's safety rules, only rules the host imposes on
contractors, which the contractors are required to follow anyway. The
Agency also does not believe that proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii) would
result in undue confusion from work rules that vary from one employer
to another. The record indicates that contractors are already required
to institute different work rules because of contractual or other
requirements imposed by host employers, such as following the host
employers' lockout-tagout procedures (Tr. 314), using particular live-
line work methods (Tr. 320), and using particular forms of fall
protection (Tr. 643-644).
    On the other hand, the record establishes that hosts sometimes
impose rules that do not meet OSHA requirements (Tr. 1366 \74\) or that
may be less safe than the contractor's rules (Tr. 1365-1366 \75\).
These are outcomes that OSHA did not envision in proposing paragraph
(c)(2)(ii). Considering these potential risks, and the commenters'
overwhelming opposition to this proposed provision, the Agency decided
not to include proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii) in the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Some host employers ``don't believe in equipotential work
zone,'' which is required by existing Sec.  1910.269(n)(3), or want
trucks barricaded, instead of having them grounded, as required by
existing Sec.  1910.269(p)(4)(iii)(C).
    \75\ One host employer requires contractor employees to wear
rubber insulating gloves while working with live-line tools on
transmission lines, which may cause the gloves to fail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA concludes, however, that some coordination of work rules
between

hosts and contractors is necessary, particularly with respect to
deenergizing lines and equipment (Ex. 0505) and grounding procedures
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Tr. 1271-1272). According to IBEW:

    [What is important] is not that one party's rules take
precedence over the others. Instead, what is important is that the
parties operating on an electrical system coordinate procedures to
ensure that all of the employees can perform safely. There are two
sets of circumstances in which this kind of coordination is an
issue: Where employees actually work together and when the manner in
which one group of employees performs has an impact on the safety of
another group of employees. [Ex. 0505]

    Other rulemaking participants similarly supported a requirement for
coordination between host employers and contract employers to assure
the protection of host employees and contract employees. (See, for
example, Exs. 0128, 0235, 0237.) Therefore, the Agency is adopting a
new paragraph in the final rule, Sec.  1926.950(c)(3), entitled ``Joint
host- and contract-employer responsibilities,'' which reads as follows:

    The contract employer and the host employer shall coordinate
their work rules and procedures so that each employee of the
contract employer and the host employer is protected as required by
this subpart.

This new provision provides host employers and contract employers more
flexibility than the proposal to select appropriate work rules and
procedures for each task or project, while ensuring that workers are
not at risk of harm due to a lack of coordination between employers.
    Under the new provision, each employer has independent
responsibility for complying with the final rule. In addition, the
Agency stresses that a contract employer must comply with the final
rule even though a host employer may try to impose work rules that
would cause the contract employer to violate OSHA's rules. Accordingly,
a contract employer is not relieved of its duty to comply with the
final rule by following a work rule imposed by the host employer. For
example, a contract employer must comply with final Sec.  1926.962(c),
which prescribes rules for equipotential grounding, even if the host
employer has its own noncompliant grounding procedures. Paragraph
(c)(3) of final Sec.  1926.950 requires host employers and contract
employers to confer in an effort to select work rules and procedures
that comply with final Sec.  1926.962(c).
    Final paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) and (c)(2)(iii) (proposed as part of
paragraph (c)(2)(iii)) require the contract employer to advise the host
employer of unique hazardous conditions posed by the contract
employer's work \76\ and any unanticipated hazardous conditions found,
while the contractor's employees were working, that the host employer
did not mention. Final paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) and (c)(2)(iii) enable the
host employer to take necessary measures to protect its employees from
hazards of which the host employer would not be aware. These
requirements will protect the host employer's employees: when they are
working near the contractor's employees (for example, during storm
situations (Tr. 315, 392, 1379-1380); during outages on transmission
lines (Tr. 1380) and in plants (Tr. 985); while working in the same
substation (Tr. 313-314, 559); and when the host employer's employees
work on the same equipment after the contract employer departs (such
as, when contractors are working on equipment in the field that the
host employer does not regularly inspect) (Tr. 877-878)). The Utility
Workers Union supported these proposed requirements, commenting:
``Requiring the sharing of information of hazards found or created by
the contractor is . . . insurance that all employees, host and
contractor, are in a safer working environment'' (Ex. 0197). OSHA notes
that proposed paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(B) (now paragraph (c)(2)(iii))
required contractors to report any unanticipated ``hazards'' not
mentioned by the host; however, in the final rule, the phrase
``hazardous conditions'' replaces the word ``hazards'' throughout
paragraph (c). In addition, the Agency anticipates that contract
employers will inform host employers of any information provided by the
host that is at odds with actual conditions at the worksite, consistent
with paragraph (c)(3), which specifies that host employers and contract
employers coordinate their work rules and procedures so that each
employee is protected as required by subpart V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ For the purposes of final paragraph (c)(2)(ii), ``unique
hazardous conditions presented by the contract employer's work''
means hazardous conditions that the work poses to which employees at
the worksite are not already exposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters believed that proposed paragraph (c)(2)(iii) (now
paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) and (c)(2)(iii)) needed clarification. For
example, the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) commented
that proposed paragraph (c)(2)(iii) was vague and did not provide
guidance on the timeframes or format of required information transfers
(Ex. 0160).
    OSHA does not agree that final paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) or (c)(2)(iii)
are vague or unclear. These provisions simply require that contractors
provide information to host employers, which reciprocates the
requirements under final paragraph (c)(1) that host employers provide
contractors with information. The Agency deliberately omitted, in the
proposed and final rules, any requirement for a formal or written
report; the final rule simply requires contractors to advise the host
employer, which allows contract employers maximum flexibility in
complying with the final requirements. The Agency will deem it
sufficient for the contract employer to provide the necessary
information, through any appropriate mechanism (for example, a phone
call or an email), to an authorized agent of the host employer.
    The purpose of final paragraph (c)(2)(ii) is to enable host
employers to protect their own employees from hazardous conditions
presented by the contractor's work. Thus, the information addressed by
paragraph (c)(2)(ii) needs to be provided to the host employer soon
enough so that the host employer can take any necessary action before
its employees are exposed to a hazardous condition. To address AGC's
concern that the proposed paragraph did not provide guidance on the
timeframe of the required information transfer, OSHA added language to
paragraph (c)(2)(ii) in the final rule to indicate that this
information must be provided ``[b]efore work begins.''
    The final rule also includes, in paragraph (c)(2)(iii), a 2-working
day timeframe in which the contractor must advise the host employer of
information described in that paragraph. OSHA believes that this
timeframe will give the contract employer sufficient time to provide
the required information. The final rule does not specifically require
hosts to take any direct action in response to information provided by
contractors, although the Agency anticipates that host employers will
use this information to protect their employees and comply with the OSH
Act.
    Frequently, the conditions present at a jobsite can expose workers
to unexpected hazards. For example, the grounding system available at
an outdoor site may be damaged by weather or vehicular traffic, or
communications cables in the vicinity could reduce the approach
distance to an unacceptable level. To protect employees from such
adverse situations, conditions affecting safety that are present in the
work area should be known so that appropriate action can be taken.
Paragraph (d) of Sec.  1926.950 addresses this problem by requiring
safety-related characteristics and conditions existing in the work area
to

be determined before employees start working in the area. The language
for proposed paragraph (d) was based on language in current Sec.
1926.950(b)(1) and was the same as existing Sec.  1910.269(a)(3). A
similar requirement can be found in ANSI/IEEE C2-2002, Rule 420D.\77\
As noted earlier, OSHA revised the language in the final rule to
clarify that the paragraph addresses installation characteristics, as
well as work-area conditions, and to separately number the examples
listed in the provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ The 2012 NESC contains an equivalent requirement in Rule
420D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA received only a few of comments on proposed paragraph (d). EEI
objected to this provision, commenting:

    EEI recognizes that the regulatory text of proposed paragraph
1926.950(d) is the same as in existing 1910.269(a)(3). Also, the
preamble accompanying the current proposal is essentially the same
as in the final 1910.269. There are certain aspects of the current
proposal, however, that are troublesome. . . .
* * * * *
    It is susceptible of being applied in a manner that effectively
requires an employer to examine every imaginable condition on a
jobsite, lest it be held accountable if some obscure, unexpected
condition later is involved in causing an accident.
* * * * *
    [I]f the standard is not applied reasonably, the result could be
a significant burden for line crews, as time is taken not to miss a
single detail, however obscure, lest the crew be second-guessed for
having missed observing some condition if something later goes
wrong. In the final rule, OSHA needs to address this issue. Rather
than state that there is an unqualified obligation to ``determine''
existing conditions relating to the safety of the work, the
obligation should be modified to require a ``reasonable effort to
determine'' the reasonably anticipated hazards. [Ex. 0227]

EEI noted, as an example of ``some obscure, unexpected condition . . .
involved in causing an accident,'' an energized static line that caused
the electrocution of an apprentice line worker (id.):

    In that case, the contractor was performing maintenance work on
a high-voltage transmission tower. The host utility was shown to
have been aware that what appeared to be a grounded static line atop
one side of the tower was in fact energized at 4,000 volts. The
utility did not inform the contractor of this information, however,
and the contractor's foremen on the ground and on the tower did not
notice that there was an insulator separating the line and tower,
thus indicating that the line could be energized. [Id.]

EEI stated that the contractor was cited, under existing Sec.
1910.269(a)(3), ``for failing to ascertain existing conditions, i.e.,
the energized condition of the static line, before beginning work''
(id.).
    OSHA considered this comment and decided not to adopt EEI's
recommended change to proposed Sec.  1926.950(d). First, OSHA does not
believe that obscure and unexpected conditions often lead to accidents,
as EEI seems to argue. EEI's example, in which an apprentice power line
worker was electrocuted by an energized static line, is a case in point
(id.). An employer exercising reasonable diligence can be expected to
determine that a static line is energized. In the case described by
EEI, the electric utility that owned the line was aware that the line
was energized, and the line itself was installed on insulators (id.).
Thus, the energized condition of the static wire was neither obscure
nor unexpected.
    Second, EEI appears confused about the purpose of this provision.
Paragraph (d) of final Sec.  1926.950 requires employers to determine,
before work is started on or near electric lines or equipment, existing
installation characteristics and work-area conditions related to the
safety of the work to be performed. The requirement also includes
examples of such characteristics and conditions.
    Characteristics of the installation, such as the nominal voltage on
lines, maximum switching transient overvoltages, and the presence of
grounds and equipment grounding conductors, are parameters of the
system. This is information the employer already has, either through
direct knowledge or by the transfer of information from the host
employer to the contract employer.\78\ Thus, this aspect of final
paragraph (d) does not place any burden, much less an unreasonable one,
on line crews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ The employer may not have knowledge of the exact locations
of customer-owned backup generators; however, the location of
possible sources of backfeed from such customer-owned equipment can
readily be determined by looking for connections to customers'
wiring in circuit diagrams or during an inspection at the worksite.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Conditions of the installation, including the condition of
protective grounds and equipment grounding conductors, the condition of
poles, and environmental conditions relating to safety, are worksite
conditions. In some cases, the employer already will have information
on the condition of the installation, such as information on the
condition of poles from pole-inspection programs or on the condition of
electric equipment from equipment manufacturers. In the usual case,
however, the conditions addressed by paragraph (d) of the final rule
will be determined by employees through an inspection at the worksite.
This inspection need not be overly detailed, but it does need to be
thorough rather than cursory. The standard does not require crews to
determine ``every imaginable condition,'' as EEI suggests. Rather, the
inspection must be designed to uncover the conditions specifically
noted in this paragraph as well as any other conditions of electric
lines and equipment that are related to the safety of the work to be
performed and that can be discovered through the exercise of reasonable
diligence by employees with the training required by Sec.  1926.950(b)
of the final rule.
    Employers are required by Sec.  1926.952(a)(1) of the final rule to
provide information on such worksite-specific conditions and the
characteristics of the installation to the employee-in-charge. With
this information, the employer then will determine the current
conditions of the installation through an examination by employees at
the worksite. Employer-supplied information, as well as information
gathered at the worksite, must be used in the job briefing required by
Sec.  1926.952 of the final rule. (See the discussion of Sec.  1926.952
later in this section of the preamble.) The characteristics and
conditions found as a result of compliance with final Sec.  1926.950(d)
could affect the application of various Subpart V requirements. For
example, the voltage on equipment will determine the minimum approach
distances required under final Sec.  1926.960(c)(1). Similarly, the
presence or absence of an equipment grounding conductor will affect the
work practices required under final Sec.  1926.960(j). If conditions
are found to which no specific subpart V provision applies, then the
employee would need to be trained, as required by final Sec.
1926.950(b)(1)(ii), to use appropriate safe work practices.
    Employers need not take measurements on a routine basis to make the
determinations required by final Sec.  1926.950(d). For example,
knowledge of the maximum transient voltage level is necessary to
perform many routine transmission and distribution line jobs safely.
However, no measurement of this maximum level is necessary to make the
requisite determination. Employers can make the determination by
conducting an analysis of the electric circuit, or they can assume the
default maximum transient overvoltages discussed under the summary and
explanation of final Sec.  1926.960(c)(1), later in this section of

the preamble. Similarly, employers can make determinations about the
presence of hazardous induced voltages, as well as the presence and
condition of grounds, without taking measurements.
    It may be necessary for employers to make measurements when there
is doubt about the condition of a ground or the level of induced or
transient voltage if the employer is relying on one of these conditions
to meet other requirements in the standard. For example, an engineering
analysis of a particular installation might demonstrate that the
voltage induced on a deenergized line is considerable, but should not
be dangerous. However, a measurement of the voltage may be required if
the employer is using this analysis as a basis for claiming that the
provisions of final Sec.  1926.964(b)(4) on hazardous induced voltage
do not apply. In another example, further investigation is required
when an equipment ground is found to be of questionable reliability,
unless the equipment is treated as energized under final Sec.
1926.960(j).
    EEI was concerned about this discussion of engineering analysis in
the preamble to the proposed rule (70 FR 34841), commenting:

    This [discussion] is unrealistic: engineering analyses are not
made in the field in transmission and distribution work. [Ex. 0227]

    OSHA agrees with EEI that engineering analyses are not made in the
field. Under this provision of the final rule, employers would conduct
any engineering analyses required by this provision off site and supply
the requisite information to the employees performing the work.
Section 1926.951, Medical services and first aid
    Section 1926.951 sets requirements for medical services and first
aid. Paragraph (a) of Sec.  1926.951 emphasizes that the requirements
of Sec.  1926.50 apply. (See Sec.  1926.950(a)(2).) Existing Sec.
1926.50 includes provisions for available medical personnel, first-aid
training and supplies, and facilities for drenching or flushing of the
eyes and body in the event of exposure to corrosive materials.
    Mr. Daniel Shipp with the International Safety Equipment
Association (ISEA) recommended that the reference in Sec.  1926.50,
Appendix A, to ANSI Z308.1-1978, Minimum Requirements for Industrial
Unit-Type First-aid Kits, be updated to the 2003 edition (Ex. 0211).
OSHA did not propose any changes to Sec.  1926.50, nor was that section
a subject of this rulemaking. Thus, the Agency is not adopting Mr.
Shipp's suggestion. It should be noted, however, that Appendix A to
Sec.  1926.50 is not mandatory. The Agency encourages employers to
examine the recommendations in the latest edition of the consensus
standard, which is ANSI/ISEA Z308.1-2009, when reviewing the guidance
in Appendix A to Sec.  1926.50.
    Mr. Stephen Sandherr with AGC was concerned that the requirements
proposed in Sec.  1926.951 conflicted with the requirements in Sec.
1926.50 and maintained that such a conflict would hinder a contractor's
ability to implement safety (Ex. 0160).
    OSHA reexamined the requirements in proposed Sec.  1926.951 and
found that the requirements for first-aid supplies in proposed
paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) in that section conflicted with similar
requirements in Sec.  1926.50. Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would have
required weatherproof containers if the supplies could be exposed to
the weather, whereas existing Sec.  1926.50(d)(2) requires that the
contents of first-aid kits be placed in weatherproof containers, with
individual sealed packages for each type of item. Further, proposed
paragraph (b)(3) would have required that first-aid kits be inspected
frequently enough to ensure that expended items are replaced, but not
less than once per year. By contrast, existing Sec.  1926.50(d)(2)
requires that first-aid kits ``be checked by the employer before being
sent out on each job and at least weekly on each job to ensure that the
expended items are replaced.''
    As noted earlier, final Sec.  1926.951(a), which requires that
employers comply with existing Sec.  1926.50, was adopted without
change from the proposal. The Agency is not including proposed
paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) in the final rule because these provisions
were less restrictive than the requirements of Sec.  1926.50. Including
them in the final rule would compromise OSHA's efforts to enforce Sec.
1926.50 on jobsites covered by Subpart V. OSHA notes that the remaining
provisions in Sec.  1926.951 apply in addition to those in Sec.
1926.50.
    Final Sec.  1926.951(b) supplements Sec.  1926.50 by requiring
cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) to help resuscitate electric shock
victims.\79\ OSHA concludes that the requirements for CPR training in
the final rule are supported by the record. This training is required
by existing Sec.  1910.269(b)(1), and work under subpart V poses the
same electric-shock hazards and requires the same protection against
those hazards. As discussed in the summary and explanation for Sec.
1926.953(h), the final rule defines ``first-aid training'' to include
CPR training. Therefore, in final Sec.  1926.951(b), OSHA replaced the
proposed phrase ``persons trained in first aid including
cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)'' with ``persons with first-aid
training.'' The Agency stresses that CPR training is required by this
and other provisions in the final rule for first-aid training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ In discussing these remaining provisions in this preamble,
OSHA generally uses the term ``CPR training'' to describe the first-
aid training required by the provisions. OSHA does not mean to imply
by this language that the final provisions do not require first-aid
training other than CPR. In fact, as explained later in the
preamble, the final rule defines ``first-aid training'' as training
in the initial care, including CPR, performed by a person who is not
a medical practitioner, of a sick or injured person until definitive
medical treatment can be administered. OSHA is emphasizing ``CPR
training'' in its preamble discussion because that type of first aid
is particularly beneficial to workers who are injured by an electric
shock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Electric shock is a serious and ever-present hazard to electric
power transmission and distribution workers because of the work they
perform on or with energized lines and equipment. CPR is necessary to
revive an employee rendered unconscious by an electric shock. As OSHA
concluded in the 1994 Sec.  1910.269 rulemaking, CPR must be started
within 4 minutes to be effective in reviving an employee whose heart
has gone into fibrillation (59 FR 4344-4347; see also 269-Ex. 3-21).
    To protect employees performing work on, or associated with,
exposed lines or equipment energized at 50 volts or more, OSHA proposed
to require that employees with training in first aid including CPR be
available to render assistance in an emergency.
    OSHA chose 50 volts as a widely recognized threshold for hazardous
electric shock.\80\ In this regard, several OSHA and national consensus
standards recognize this 50-volt threshold. For example, OSHA's general
industry and construction electrical standards require guarding live
parts energized at 50 volts or more (Sec. Sec.  1910.303(g)(2)(i) and
1926.403(i)(2)(i)); the general industry electrical standard also
requires that electric circuits be deenergized generally starting at 50
volts (Sec.  1910.333(a)(1)). Similarly, NFPA's Standard for Electrical
Safety in the Workplace (NFPA 70E-2004) and the National Electrical
Safety Code (ANSI/IEEE C2-2002) impose electrical safety requirements
starting at 50 volts (Exs. 0134, 0077, respectively). (See, for
example, Section 400.16 of NFPA 70E-

2004, which requires guarding of live parts of electric equipment
operating at more than 50 volts, and Rule 441A2 of ANSI/IEEE C2-
2002,\81\ which prohibits employees from contacting live parts
energized at 51 to 300 volts unless certain precautions are taken.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ Although it is theoretically possible to sustain a life-
threatening shock below this voltage, it is considered extremely
unlikely. (See, for example, Ex. 0428.)
    \81\ The 2012 NESC contains a similar requirement in Rule 441A2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many electric shock victims suffer ventricular fibrillation (59 FR
4344-4347; 269-Ex. 3-21). Ventricular fibrillation is an abnormal,
chaotic heart rhythm that prevents the heart from pumping blood and, if
unchecked, leads to death (id.). Someone must defibrillate a victim of
ventricular fibrillation quickly to allow a normal heart rhythm to
resume (id.). The sooner defibrillation is started, the better the
victim's chances of survival (id.). If defibrillation is provided
within the first 5 minutes of the onset of ventricular fibrillation,
the odds are about 50 percent that the victim will recover (id.).
However, with each passing minute, the chance of successful
resuscitation is reduced by 7 to 10 percent (id.). After 10 minutes,
there is very little chance of successful rescue (id.). Paragraph (b)
of the final rule requires CPR training to ensure that electric shock
victims survive long enough for defibrillation to be efficacious. The
employer may rely on emergency responders to provide defibrillation.
    In the preamble to the proposal, OSHA requested public comment on
whether the standard should require the employer to provide automated
external defibrillators (AEDs) and, if so, where they should be
required. AEDs are widely available devices that enable CPR-trained
individuals to perform defibrillation.
    Many rulemaking participants recommended that OSHA not adopt a
requirement for AEDs. (See, for example, Exs. 0125, 0162, 0167, 0169,
0171, 0173, 0174, 0177, 0200, 0225, 0227; Tr. 635-636, 762-763.) Some
commenters argued that there were no injuries for which AEDs would
prove beneficial. (See, for example, Exs. 0174, 0200; Tr. 635-636, 762-
763.) In this regard, Mr. Steven Semler, commenting on behalf of ULCC,
stated:

    [W]hen tragic electric contact accidents do, albeit rarely,
occur with respect to line clearance tree trimmers, they tend to
involve catastrophic accidental direct contract with high voltage
electric supply lines which inherently pass massive amounts of
electricity through the victim which irreversibly damages cardiac
conductivity altogether--as to which AED's cannot, nor even purport
to, rectify . . . . It is, of course, a misnomer that AED's can
restart a heart which is stopped from electrical contact or any
other reason. The stoppage is known as ``asystole'' for which an AED
is programmed to not shock the patient because AED's cannot start a
stopped heart--for instance, one whose stoppage is due to
destruction of the heart's electrical path, or due to irreversible
brain damage, respiratory muscle paralysis, tissue burn, or due to
electrical contact which serves to destroy the ability to breathe.
    Rather, AED's use is limited solely to cases of cardiac
fibrillation--cases of the heart beating in quivering fashion so as
to cease effective pumping capacity (and also to rarer situations of
ventricular tachycardia where the heart beats very fast). But, as a
trauma specialist physician has observed, ventricular fibrillation
is a rare occurrence in high voltage electrical contacts, as to
which rescue breathing and CPR (currently required) are remedial
pending arrival of medical help. [Footnote: Richard F. Edlict, MD,
``Burns, Electrical, www.emedicine.com/plastic/topic491.htm (7/12/
05) . . .]
    Given that the unfortunate nature of line clearance tree
trimmers cardiac events due to electric contact tend to be
catastrophic because of accidental non compliance with the OSHA
minimum distance separation from electric supply lines separation
requirement, the cardiac events which unfortunately have happened to
line clearance tree trimmers have tended to catastrophic, tending to
involve cardiac and brain damage of such severity that AED's are not
designed to, and cannot, perform a useful purpose. [Ex. 0174;
emphasis included in original]

Furthermore, TCIA presented polling data to show that their members
have not experienced any occupational incidents for which AED use would
have been appropriate to treat the victim (Exs. 0200, 0419).

    On the other hand, several rulemaking participants pointed out that
AEDs have saved lives (Exs. 0213, 0230). TVA, which has deployed AEDs
in both fixed work locations, such as generation plants, and in field
service-centers, reported two successful uses of AEDs in a 17-month
period (Ex. 0213). IBEW commented that ``AED units have proven to be
effective in the utility industry. More than one `save' has occurred''
(Ex. 0230). Testifying on behalf of IBEW, Mr. James Tomaseski stated,
``[B]ased on what the experts tell you about the need to have AEDs in
certain environments, [electric utility work] is [at the] top of the
list. We have an aging workforce. The possibilities of sudden cardiac
arrest to occur to people in this industry is very high'' (Tr. 964).
    The Agency concludes that employees performing work covered by
subpart V and Sec.  1910.269 are exposed to electric shocks for which
defibrillation is needed as part of the emergency medical response to
such injuries. The Agency bases this conclusion on the evidence in both
this record, as well as the record supporting its decision in the 1994
Sec.  1910.269 rulemaking to require first-aid training, including CPR
training, for work covered by that standard. OSHA found in its 1994
Sec.  1910.269 rulemaking that line-clearance tree trimmers were
exposed to electric-shock hazards for which CPR would be efficacious
(59 FR 4344-4347), and the National Arborist Association (TCIA's
predecessor) pointed out that low-voltage electric shock can result
from indirect contact with higher voltage sources (269-Ex. 58, 59 FR
4345). OSHA's inspection data amply demonstrate that indirect contacts,
such as contacting a power line through a tree branch, do occur in work
covered by Sec.  1910.269 and Subpart V (Ex. 0400). Half of the ten
line-clearance tree-trimmer electrocutions described in these data
resulted from indirect contacts. The experience of TVA and IBEW
reinforces the Agency's conclusion that employees performing work
covered by Subpart V and Sec.  1910.269 are exposed to electric shocks
for which defibrillation is needed as part of the emergency medical
response.
    Many rulemaking participants argued that work covered by Subpart V
would subject AEDs to environmental and other conditions for which the
devices are not, or may not be, designed, including:
     Extreme heat (see, for example, Exs. 0169, 0171, 0173,
0177, 0227),
     Extreme cold (see, for example, Exs. 0169, 0171, 0173,
0177, 0227),
     Vibration or jarring (see, for example, Exs. 0169, 0173,
0175),
     Dust (see, for example, Exs. 0169, 0171, 0173, 0175), and
     Humidity and moisture (see, for example, Exs. 0169, 0171,
0173).

For instance, Mr. Wilson Yancey with Quanta Services commented that the
conditions to which AEDs would be exposed could ``quickly degrade the
performance of the equipment and require frequent inspection and
maintenance'' (Ex. 0169). Ms. Salud Layton with the Virginia, Maryland
& Delaware Association of Electric Cooperatives commented, ``Most field
experience with AED's has been at either fixed sites or carried by
ambulances in padded bins/cases inside of heated and cooled ambulance
bodies. This is not what the AED's would be exposed to on a utility
vehicle'' (Ex. 0175). Mr. Thomas Taylor with Consumers Energy noted
that manufacturers' instructions tightly control AEDs' storage
requirements, explaining:

    [L]ine truck storage conditions would prohibit the AED from
functioning properly and therefore provide no tangible safety
benefit to employees. In this regard, the manufacturer instructions
for preventing electrode damage states: ``Store electrodes in a
cool, dry location (15 to 35 degree Celsius or 59 to 95 degrees
Fahrenheit''. The instruction also states: [``]It is important that
when the AED is stored with the battery installed, temperature
exposure should not fall below 0 degrees Celsius (32 degrees
Fahrenheit) or exceed 50 degrees Celsius (122 degrees Fahrenheit).
If the AED is stored outside this temperature range, the auto tests
may erroneously detect a problem and the AED may not operate
properly.[''] [Ex. 0177]

    OSHA decided not to include a requirement for AEDs in the final
rule because the Agency believes that there is insufficient evidence in
the record that AEDs exposed to the environmental extremes typical of
work covered by Subpart V and Sec.  1910.269 would function properly
when an incident occurs. There is no evidence in the record that AEDs
are adversely affected by dust, vibration, or humidity; however, it is
clear that line work in many areas of the country would subject AEDs to
temperatures above and below their designed operating range of 0 to 50
degrees Celsius. For example, Mr. Frank Owen Brockman with the Farmers
Rural Electric Cooperatives testified that temperatures in Kentucky can
get as cold as -34 degrees Celsius and as high as 44 degrees Celsius
(Tr. 1283). Although the record indicates that the highest of these
temperatures is within the operating range of AEDs, OSHA believes that
it is likely that the interior of trucks would be significantly hotter
than the 50-degree Celsius recommended maximum. Accordingly, there is
insufficient evidence in the record for the Agency to determine whether
AEDs will work properly in these temperature extremes during use, even
if they are stored in temperature-controlled environments as mentioned
by some rulemaking participants (see, for example, Ex. 0186; Tr. 965-
966).\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ Some rulemaking participants gave other reasons why OSHA
should not require AEDs, including: Costs of acquiring the devices
(see, for example, Exs. 0162, 0169, 0173, 0174, 0200, 0227), varying
State requirements related to AEDs, such as requirements that they
be prescribed by a physician (see, for example, Exs. 0125, 0149,
0227), conflicts with requirements of other Federal agencies, such
as the Food and Drug Administration (see, for example, Exs. 0177,
0227), and OSHA's failure to meet all its regulatory burdens, such
as burdens imposed by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (Ex. 0170). Because OSHA decided not to require AEDs
for the reason given in this section of the preamble, it need not
consider these other issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained previously, the Agency stresses that defibrillation is
a necessary part of the response to electric shock incidents that occur
during work covered by the final rule. OSHA is not adopting a rule
requiring AEDs because the record is insufficient for the Agency to
conclude that these devices will be effective in the conditions under
which they would be used. OSHA encourages employers to purchase and
deploy AEDs in areas where they could be useful and efficacious. This
action likely will save lives and provide the Agency with useful
information on the use of AEDs under a wide range of conditions.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(1) would have required CPR training for
field crews of two or more employees, in which case a minimum of two
trained persons would generally have been required (proposed paragraph
(b)(1)(i)), and for fixed worksites, in which case enough trained
persons to provide assistance within 4 minutes would generally have
been required (proposed paragraph (b)(1)(ii)). Proposed paragraph
(b)(1)(i) provided that employers could train all employees in first
aid including CPR within 3 months of being hired as an alternative to
having two trained persons on every field crew. If the employer chose
this alternative for field work, then only one trained person would
have been required for each crew. In practice, crews with more than one
employee would normally have two or more CPR-trained employees on the
crew, since all employees who worked for an employer more than 3 months
would receive CPR training. However, employers who rely on seasonal
labor (for example, employees hired only in the summer months), or
those with heavy turnover, might have some two-person crews with only
one CPR-trained employee. Because the Agency was concerned that those
new employees might be most at risk of injury, OSHA requested comment
on whether allowing employers the option of training all their
employees in CPR if they are trained within 3 months of being hired is
sufficiently protective. The Agency also requested comment on how this
provision could be revised to minimize the burden on employers, while
providing adequate protection for employees.
    Several commenters shared OSHA's concern with the 3-month delay in
CPR training. (See, for example, Exs. 0126, 0187, 0213, 0230) Mr. Rob
Land with the Association of Missouri Electric Cooperatives commented
that this option was too hazardous because of ``the hazards that
linemen face and the distinct possibility that [emergency medical
services] may be delayed due to remoteness and distances involved''
(Ex. 0187). TVA opposed the option because the ``3[ ]months when a two-
person crew would have only one CPR trained member . . . reduce[s] the
level of safety provided'' (Ex. 0213). IBEW presented its reasons for
opposing the 3-month option, and its recommendation for revising the
rule, as follows:

    Allowing employers the option of training all their employees in
CPR if they are trained within 3 months of being hired may not work
in all situations. Many utilities engaged in field work have
implemented the use of 2-person crews. It is not uncommon for the 2-
person crew to perform rubber gloving work on all distribution
voltage ranges. It is also not uncommon for a utility to assign a
new-hire (less than 3 months of service) as the second person on the
2-person crew. In these work scenarios, the second person would have
to be trained in CPR. Waiting 3 months to complete this training
would not [be] proper.
* * * * *
    The only revision that is necessary is to make it clear that
under certain circumstances, new-hires may need to be trained in CPR
well before the 3 month window. Manning of crews, especially in the
construction industry, cannot always be accomplished using CPR
certification as a factor. All employees need to receive the
training and the 3 months gives enough flexibility when
appropriate[.] [Ex. 0230; emphasis included in original]

    Other rulemaking participants supported the provision as proposed.
(See, for example, Exs. 0155, 0162, 0174, 0200; Tr. 633-635, 764-765.)
Some of them argued that the provision, which was taken from existing
Sec.  1910.269(b)(1)(i), has worked well. (See, for example, Exs. 0155,
0200; Tr. 764.) The tree care industry stated that the line-clearance
tree trimming industry did not use seasonal labor and argued that the
3-month delay in training new employees in CPR was justified on the
basis of high turnover in that industry (Exs. 0174, 0200; Tr. 633-635,
764-765). For example, testifying on behalf of ULCC, Mr. Mark Foster
stated:

    [T]he current standard reflects a clearly considered balance
made by OSHA at the time of adoption of the current standard to
allow a three-month phase-in period for CPR compliance for new
hires. That policy judgment rests on the fact that there was then an
81 percent turnover rate among line clearance tree trimming
employees such that many would not last in employment beyond the
initial training period and that that would be very difficult to
field crews if new hires had first had to be sent for CPR training.
    While the turnover ratio has improved somewhat, it is still
staggering[ly] high, [presenting] the same considerations that led
to the adoption of the phase-in period in the initial standard. [Tr.
633-634]

In its comment, ULCC indicated that the annual turnover rate in the
line-

clearance tree trimming industry is 53 to 75 percent (Ex. 0174).

    OSHA decided to restrict the exception permitting a 3-month delay
in training employees in first aid, including CPR, to line-clearance
tree trimming. The Agency agrees that turnover in the line-clearance
tree trimming industry remains high, which was the underlying reason
for OSHA's original adoption of the 3-month delay in training for newly
hired employees in the 1994 Sec.  1910.269 rulemaking (59 FR 4346-
4347). However, as noted by Mr. Land, the provision as proposed leaves
employees exposed to hazards when a new employee who has not yet been
trained in CPR is the second person in a two-worker crew (Ex. 0187).
IBEW also recognized the need to have both employees trained in CPR in
many circumstances (Ex. 0230). Finally, turnover rates for the electric
utility and power line contractor industries are not nearly as high as
that for the tree trimming industry. OSHA estimates that the turnover
rates among employees performing electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution work ranges from 11 to 16 percent in the
construction industries and 3 percent in the generation and utility
industries (see Section VI, Final Economic Analysis and Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, later in the preamble). These turnover rates are
significantly lower than the turnover rate indicated by ULCC for the
line-clearance tree trimming industry.
    Because this exception in the final rule applies only to line-
clearance tree trimming, which is addressed only in Sec.  1910.269, the
Agency is not adopting it in final Sec.  1926.951(b)(1).\83\ The
corresponding provision in Sec.  1910.269(b)(1)(i) retains the
exception providing for a 3-month delay in first-aid training,
including CPR, but only for line-clearance tree-trimming work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ Final Sec.  1926.951(b) uses the term ``trained persons,''
rather than ``trained employees,'' because the individuals with the
training do not necessarily need to be employees. For instance, the
``trained persons'' required by the rule could be self-employed
individuals working with a crew of employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These changes will continue to permit employers in the line-
clearance tree trimming industry to delay training in first aid,
including CPR, to new employees for a reasonable time.
    Finally, OSHA notes that it remains concerned that some employees
in the line-clearance tree trimming industry might encounter an
unnecessary delay in being treated in an emergency. The Agency does not
believe that it is reasonable to unnecessarily staff crews so that some
crews had only one CPR-trained worker, while other crews had three or
four. Although the Agency is not addressing this concern in the final
rule, OSHA expects employers to staff each tree trimming crew with as
many employees trained in first aid as possible, including CPR, to
assist in emergencies.
    Mr. Steven Theis of MYR Group requested that OSHA provide a similar
3-month grace period for refresher training (Ex. 0162).\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ Although paragraph (b)(1) in the final rule does not
address refresher first-aid training, final Sec.
1926.950(b)(4)(iii) contains a general requirement that employees
receive additional training when they must employ safety-related
work practices (such as administering first aid) that are not
normally used during their regular work duties. A note following
Sec.  1926.950(b)(4)(iii) indicates that the Agency would consider
tasks performed less often than once per year to require retraining.
See the discussion of that requirement earlier in this section of
the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA rejects this request. As stated, OSHA is adopting the 3-month
delay in CPR training because of the high turnover in the tree trimming
industry. There is no evidence in the record that this rationale also
applies to refresher training. The Agency expects employers to plan for
their employees' training needs and to schedule training in accordance
with the standard.
    Mr. Paul Hamer, a member of the NFPA 70E Technical Committee on
Electrical Safety in the Workplace, recommended that OSHA require
first-aid training, including CPR training, for all qualified employees
who work on electric circuits of 50 volts or more. He also recommended
deleting the 4-minute maximum response time for fixed work locations
(Ex. 0228). He argued that the sooner a victim receives CPR, the less
cell damage will occur. On the other hand, the American Forest & Paper
Association recommended that the 4-minute requirement should be deleted
because ``no one could ensure ([that is], guarantee) survival of the
victim for any particular length of time or that defibrillation would
be successful'' (Ex. 0237).
    OSHA rejects these recommendations. OSHA considered requiring all
employees to receive first-aid training, including CPR training, when
the Agency developed existing Sec.  1910.269. In lieu of such a
requirement, OSHA decided that the best approach was to require a 4-
minute maximum response time for fixed work locations and to require at
least two trained persons for field work involving crews of two or more
employees (existing Sec.  1910.269(b)). OSHA supplemented these
provisions with a requirement that two employees be present for work
exposing an employee to contact with exposed live parts energized at
more than 600 volts (existing Sec.  1910.269(l)(1)).\85\ This approach
continues to be the best one, as it ensures that persons trained in
first aid, including CPR, will be available to employees most at risk
of electrocution. The Agency further notes that Mr. Hamer's approach
does not address employees working alone in fixed work locations. In
these cases, it would still take time for someone to discover the
injury, which also would delay first-aid treatment, including CPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ The issue of whether the requirement for two employees
should apply to voltages of 600 volts or less is discussed under the
summary and explanation of final Sec.  1926.960(b)(3), later in this
section of the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two rulemaking participants commented that proposed paragraphs
(b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii) were vague (Exs. 0175, 0180). They did not
understand the difference between ``field work'' and ``fixed work
locations'' (id.). For example, Ms. Salud Layton with the Virginia,
Maryland & Delaware Association of Electric Cooperatives questioned
whether the requirements for fixed work locations applied to work at
unmanned substations (Ex. 0175). OSHA does not consider an unmanned
location to be a fixed work location, as there are normally no
employees present. In determining whether to apply paragraph (b)(1) or
(b)(2), the Agency would treat an unmanned substation no differently
than a manhole or utility pole in the field.
    As explained previously in this section of the preamble, OSHA
decided not to include proposed paragraphs (b)(2) or (b)(3) in the
final rule. The corresponding provisions in existing Sec.
1910.269(b)(2) and (b)(3) are being retained, however. The Agency did
not propose to revise these existing requirements and received no
comments alleging inconsistencies between existing Sec.  1910.269(b)
and Sec.  1910.151, OSHA's general industry standard addressing medical
services and first aid.
Section 1926.952, Job Briefing
    In Sec.  1926.952, OSHA is requiring that employers ensure that
employees conduct a job briefing before each job. This section, which
has no counterpart in existing subpart V, is based largely on existing
Sec.  1910.269(c).
    Most of the work covered by this final rule requires planning to
ensure employee safety (as well as to protect equipment and the general
public). Typically, electric power transmission and distribution work
exposes employees to the hazards of exposed conductors energized at
thousands of volts. If the work is not thoroughly

planned ahead of time, the possibility of human error that could harm
employees increases greatly. To avoid problems, the task sequence is
prescribed before work is started. For example, before climbing a pole,
the employee must determine if the pole is capable of remaining in
place and if minimum approach distances are sufficient, and he or she
must determine what tools will be needed and what procedure should be
used for performing the job. Without job planning, the worker may not
know or recognize the minimum approach-distance requirements or may
have to reclimb the pole to retrieve a forgotten tool or perform an
overlooked task, thereby increasing employee exposure to the hazards of
falling and contact with energized lines.
    Employers performing electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution work use job briefings to plan the work and communicate
the job plan to employees. If the job is planned, but the plan is not
discussed with the workers, an employee may perform his or her duties
out of order or may not coordinate activities with the rest of the
crew, thereby endangering the entire crew. Therefore, OSHA is requiring
a job briefing before work is started.
    Commenters agreed that job briefings are an important part of
electric power work. (See, for example, Exs. 0162, 0173, 0184, 0213,
0241; Tr. 1335.) For instance, Mr. John Masarick of the Independent
Electrical Contractors considered job briefings to be ``one of the most
critical steps for safety on any task'' (Ex. 0241). Also, Mr. Stephen
Frost of the Mid-Columbia Utilities Safety Alliance voiced his
organization's support for job briefings:

    We strongly agree that the job briefing requirement should be
written into Sec.  1926.952. Good communications on the job is
paramount to safety, and too often workers either choose not to
communicate or don't have the skills to communicate their ideas. The
job briefing requirement makes it the personal responsibility of
every crew member to understand all aspects of the job. The time it
takes to do a thorough job briefing is usually 5 to 15 minutes. This
is time well-spent to eliminate the possibility of an accident due
to workers not knowing or controlling hazards in the work area. [Ex.
0184]

    OSHA's experience in enforcing Sec.  1910.269(c), however, shows
that some employers are placing the entire burden of compliance with
the job briefing requirement on the employee in charge of the work.
Therefore, OSHA proposed to include a provision in Subpart V requiring
the employer to provide the employee in charge of a job with available
information necessary to perform the job safely. This requirement,
which is not in existing Sec.  1910.269(c), was in proposed Sec.
1926.952(a)(1). OSHA proposed to add the same requirement to Sec.
1910.269(c). A note following the proposed paragraph indicated that the
information provided by the employer was intended to supplement the
training requirements proposed in Sec.  1926.950(b) and was likely to
be more general than the job briefing provided by the employee in
charge. This note also clarified that information covering all jobs for
a day could be disseminated at the beginning of the day.
    Many commenters recognized the need for the employer to provide
certain information to the employee in charge about conditions to which
an employee would be exposed. (See, for example, Exs. 0125, 0127, 0186,
0197, 0200, 0219, 0230.) For instance, Mr. Anthony Ahern with Ohio
Rural Electric Cooperatives commented:

    The person in charge does need to be given more information than
is usually given him/her. They need to know things like the status
of the system where they will be working. What are the breaker
configurations/settings. Is reclosing enabled or disabled. What is
the available fault current at their work site. Are there any other
crews working in the area whose work could impact them. For the most
part most of this information is of a general type and a company
could probably develop a simple form that would be fairly easy to
fill out and attach to the usual work orders. This could also be
used to document that this information was given and could be used
to document the job briefing (tailgate) that the person in charge is
required to give the rest of the crew. [Ex. 0186]

Mr. James Junga, the Safety Director of Local 223 of the Utility
Workers Union of America (UWUA), also commented on the need for the
employer to supply information about the work:

    Requiring the employer to provide adequate information to the
employee in charge of a crew is the best way of ensuring that all
available information is given to the crew leader. Then and only
then the crew leader will be able to brief the crew. Without this
requirement a crew leader will be left on his/her own to figure out
what the crew is to do. [Ex. 0197]

    Some rulemaking participants described the types of information
that should be provided to employees. (See, for example, Exs. 0186,
0219; Tr. 402-403, 1373.) Commenters stated that employees in charge
need to be provided with the available fault current (Ex. 0186; Tr.
1373), circuit breaker settings, including whether reclosing is enabled
(Ex. 0186), whether there are other crews that could affect their work
(Ex. 0186), detailed maps and staking sheets (Ex. 0219), and relevant
information from outage reports by customers (Tr. 402-403).
    Other rulemaking participants addressed when there was a need for
the employer to provide information about a job. Mr. Allan Oracion with
EnergyUnited EMC maintained: ``When a job is not routine, special or
large-scale, the employer needs to share any special information with
the employee in charge. When the employee in charge is working at a
distant location, radio or telephone can be used to communicate
information'' (Ex. 0219). Mr. Donald Hartley with IBEW stated that the
employer needs to provide information ``when a contractor's crew
performs its first tasks on a host employer's worksite or when the job
assignment involves hazards or conditions the crew has not yet
encountered'' (Tr. 887).
    However, many commenters argued that the provision as proposed was
inappropriate. (See, for example, Exs. 0125, 0127, 0128, 0163, 0177,
0178, 0200, 0201 0226.) Many argued that the proposed provision was too
broad. (See, for example, Exs. 0125, 0127, 0200, 0226.) For instance,
Ms. Cynthia Mills of TCIA stated, ``We are uncomfortable with the open-
ended and subjective nature of the [proposed language], even though we
believe it is intended to convey anything `known to the employer, but
unusual,' associated with the work assignment'' (Ex. 0200).
    Some commenters argued that it was the responsibility of the
employee in charge to survey the site and determine all hazards
associated with the work. (See, for example, Exs. 0163, 0177, 0178,
0201.) Consumers Energy's submission typified these comments:

    The computer-generated job assignment will contain information
related to the location, circuit, and task to be accomplished but no
information related to unique hazards of the assignment. It is
critical that the employees on the job site survey the site and
identify all hazards upon arrival at the site. Removing that
responsibility from them would create a false sense of security and
a less than desirable knowledge of the hazards present. Safety
manuals and written procedures provide general information on
hazards that are typically expected in transmission and distribution
work. It is the responsibility of the employee in charge to survey
the site and identify all hazards upon arrival at the site. [Ex.
0177]

    After carefully considering the evidence in the record, OSHA
concludes that job briefings are important for ensuring the safety of
employees performing work covered by the final rule and that the
employer needs to provide adequate information to employees in charge
so that a complete job briefing can be conducted. However, OSHA also
decided to address

the concerns of commenters that the proposed rule was overly broad or
open ended. To this end, OSHA decided to require the employer to
provide the employee in charge of the job with all available
information that relates to the determination of existing
characteristics and conditions required by Sec.  1926.950(d). Thus,
final Sec.  1926.952(a)(1) requires the employer, in assigning an
employee or a group of employees to perform a job, to provide the
employee in charge of the job with all available information that
relates to the determination of existing characteristics and conditions
required by Sec.  1926.950(d).
    The Agency notes that final paragraph (a)(1) requires the employer
to provide the employee in charge with two types of available
information, as noted in Sec.  1926.950(d): (1) Available information
on the characteristics of electric lines and equipment, and (2)
available information on the conditions of the installation. The Agency
also notes that, because Sec.  1926.950(d) limits the determination of
characteristics and conditions only to characteristics and conditions
that relate to the safety of the work to be performed, this same
limitation extends to information that must be provided under final
Sec.  1926.952(a)(1). As such, information on the characteristics of
electric lines and equipment that must be provided under the final rule
(including, for instance, the nominal voltage of lines and equipment,
the maximum switching transient voltages, and the presence of hazardous
induced voltage) is critical to the selection of proper safety-related
work practices and protective equipment.\86\ For example, for an
employee to select the minimum approach distance required by final
Sec.  1926.960(c)(1), he or she needs to know, at a minimum, the
nominal voltage on the energized parts. Depending on the employer's
established minimum approach distances, the employee also may need to
know the maximum transient overvoltage at the worksite. Similarly, an
employee needs to know the employer's estimate of incident energy for
electric equipment so that he or she can select protective equipment
with an appropriate arc rating as required by final Sec.
1926.960(g)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ In fact, these are the types of information that commenters
argued employers should provide. (See, for example, Exs. 0186, 0219;
Tr. 402-403, 1373.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Information on the conditions of the installation that must be
provided under the final rule (including, for instance, the condition
of protective grounds and equipment grounding conductors, the condition
of poles, and environmental conditions relative to safety) also is
critical because that information can facilitate the employees'
assessment of conditions at the worksite and enable the employees to
take appropriate protective measures. For example, an employer may know
of defects in a wood pole on which employees are to work because it has
a pole-inspection program or has received reports that the pole had
defects. Information on such defects can help employees ascertain
whether the pole is safe to climb as required by Sec.  1926.964(a)(2).
Likewise, information from an employee or a customer that electric
equipment is making arcing noises periodically can affect the
assessment of whether the employee is exposed to hazards from flames or
electric arcs as required by Sec.  1926.960(g)(1).
    Thus, the type of information that the employer must provide under
the final rule ensures that employees in charge are provided with
information relevant to selecting appropriate work practices and
protective equipment as required by the final rule. Moreover, because
final Sec.  1926.952(a)(1) links the information that the employer must
provide the employee in charge to the determination required by Sec.
1926.950(d), final Sec.  1926.952(a)(1) is neither overly broad nor
open ended.
    The final rule also is narrowly tailored because it limits the
information the employer must provide to information that is available
to the employer. Under the rule, the question of whether information is
available to the employer varies depending on the type of information
at issue. First, OSHA presumes that information related to the
characteristics of electric lines and equipment is available to the
employer. Second, OSHA will deem information on the condition of the
installation to be available to the employer only when the information
is known by the employer or can be obtained by the employer from
existing records through the exercise of reasonable diligence. OSHA
does not expect employers to make inspections of worksite conditions to
determine the conditions of the installation. The Agency believes that,
in most instances, employees will gather additional information about
worksite conditions after they reach the worksite. It is nevertheless
important that employers provide employees with available information
to aid the employees' assessment of worksite conditions and as a
secondary precaution in case employees at the site fail to observe a
particular condition related to their safety.
    Paragraph (a)(1) of 1926.952 applies fully to contractors.
Contractors will obtain much or all of the information that they need
to comply with Sec.  1926.952(a)(1)--especially information about the
characteristics of electric lines and equipment--through the operation
of the host-contractor provision in Sec.  1926.950(c).
    Several commenters maintained that, in proposing this provision,
OSHA did not account for the way work is currently assigned to
employees. (See, for example, Exs. 0128, 0163, 0177, 0178, 0201.) For
instance, Mr. James Shill of ElectriCities noted that small towns often
assign work through a town manager who has insufficient knowledge of
the electrical system to provide the required information (Ex. 0178).
Further, Mr. James Gartland of Duke Energy described how the process
commonly used to assign work to employees at many utilities was at odds
with the proposal:

    Requiring a representative of the employer (a manager or
supervisor) to provide employees with information necessary to
perform a job safely for every job is inconsistent with the use of
technology in work management and scheduling. Today's utility
workers drive vehicles equipped with computers with wireless
communications. They receive job assignments throughout the day from
the computer. There frequently is no direct supervisor-employee
interface to discuss specific work assignments. The computer-
generated job assignment will contain information related to the
location, circuit, and task to be accomplished but no information
related to unique hazards of this assignment. . . .
    It is also inconsistent with industry practices to expect a
supervisor/manager to conduct a pre-job briefing at the beginning of
the day as mentioned in the Note [to proposed Sec.  1926.952(a)(1)].
Many utilities have employees who report directly to work locations
where their supervisor/manager is not present. They are expected to
do a pre-job briefing and to assess hazards on their own. There is
no company manager/supervisor at the work location to do that
assessment. [Ex. 0201]

Some of these commenters also recommended that the Agency make it clear
(1) that the rule does not require a face-to-face exchange of
information and (2) that the exchange can be provided through work
orders or in conjunction with training, safety manuals, and written
procedures. (See, for example, Exs. 0177, 0201.)

    OSHA appreciates these commenters' concerns and therefore changed
the heading for paragraph (a)(1) to read ``Information provided by the
employer'' to help clarify that a separate briefing or face-to-face
discussion

between the employer and the employee in charge is not required. The
Agency recognizes that assignments are made through a wide range of
mechanisms that do not always provide for face-to-face contact between
the employer and the employees performing the work. The rule does not
require such contact. The employer is free to use any mechanism that
provides the required information before the employees begin their
assignment. For example, information could be provided through radio
communication with the employee in charge, through a written work
order, or through a computer-generated assignment conveyed
electronically. Some of this information may be provided through
training, in a safety manual, or through written work procedures.
However, the Agency will deem such information as meeting paragraph
(a)(1) only if it effectively communicates the information about the
particular job in question to the employee in charge and if employers
respond to these employees' questions about this information as it
relates to the particular job in question.
    Some commenters suggested that OSHA add certain explicit language
to the requirement. (See, for example, Exs. 0125, 0127, 0149, 0169,
0171.) For instance, several commenters recommended revising the rule
to read: ``In assigning an employee or group of employees to perform a
job, the employer shall provide the employee in charge of the job with
any additional information known by the employee's supervisor that
could affect the safety of the job before the start of the work'' (Exs.
0125, 0127, 0149). Other commenters recommended that OSHA clarify that
the employer need only provide the information once for work lasting
long periods of time (Exs. 0169, 0171).
    OSHA rejects these recommended approaches. First, the key issue is
whether the information is available to the employer, not whether the
supervisor has knowledge of the required information. Second, the final
rule requires the employer to provide required information in
connection with each job. As stated, the information must be
communicated to the employee in charge in an effective manner. Whether
a prior communication constitutes an effective communication depends on
several factors, such as, but not limited to: The time between the
prior communication and the job at hand; the manner in which the prior
communication was made; the extent to which the prior job and the
present job are similar; and whether any additional or different
information needs to be provided with respect to the present job.
    OSHA is not including in the final rule the note following proposed
paragraph (a)(1). This note was to clarify the meaning of the phrase
``available information necessary to perform the job safely.'' The
final rule does not contain that phrase, and OSHA concludes that the
note is no longer necessary.
    Paragraph (a)(2), which is being adopted without substantive change
from the proposal, requires the employee in charge of the job to
conduct a job briefing. This provision comes from existing Sec.
1910.269(c).
    In the 2005 notice extending the comment period on the proposal,
OSHA requested comments on whether the standard should include a
requirement to document the job briefing. Comments addressing this
issue recommended that the Agency not include such a requirement in the
final rule because it would add to employers' paperwork burden without
a significant increase in safety. (See, for example, Exs. 0201, 0212.)
Considering the lack of record support for such a provision, OSHA is
not adopting a requirement to document job briefings in the final rule.
    Paragraph (b), which is being adopted without substantive change
from the proposal, requires the briefing by the employee in charge to
cover: Hazards and work procedures involved, special precautions,
energy-source controls, and requirements for personal protective
equipment. This requirement also comes from existing Sec.  1910.269(c).
    Under final paragraph (c)(1), the employee in charge must conduct
at least one briefing before the start of each shift. Only one briefing
in a shift is needed if all the jobs to be performed are repetitive or
similar. Additional briefings must be conducted pursuant to final
paragraph (c)(2) for work involving significant changes in routine that
might affect the safety of the employees. For example, if the first two
jobs of the day involve working on a deenergized line and the third job
involves working on energized lines with live-line tools, separate
briefings must be conducted for each type of job. It should be noted
that additional job briefings provided under paragraph (c)(2) are
separate from the job briefing provided at the start of the shift;
these briefings may not be combined. Paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2),
which duplicate existing Sec.  1910.269(c)(1), have been adopted
without substantive change from the proposal.
    For routine work, under final paragraph (d)(1), the required
briefing need only consist of a concise discussion outlining the tasks
to be performed and how to perform them safely. However, if the work is
complicated or particularly hazardous or if the employees may not be
able to recognize and avoid the hazards involved, then a more thorough
discussion is required by paragraph (d)(2). OSHA included a note
following this paragraph to clarify that, regardless of how short the
discussion is, the briefing must still address all the topics listed in
paragraph (b).
    OSHA received several comments on proposed paragraphs (d)(1) and
(d)(2). These commenters expressed concern that the proposed provisions
were vague and provided insufficient guidance on the conditions
requiring more detailed job briefings. (See, for example, Exs. 0162,
0175, 0213.) For instance, MYR Group maintained that the proposal did
not sufficiently distinguish between work that is ``routine'' and work
that is ``complicated'' (Ex. 0162; Tr. 1335), and TVA asked the Agency
to define ``complicated or particularly hazardous'' (Ex. 0213).
    With final paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2), which were taken from
existing Sec.  1910.269(c)(2), OSHA recognizes that employees are
familiar with the tasks and hazards involved in routine work. However,
it is important to take the time to carefully discuss unusual work
situations that may pose additional or different hazards to workers.
(See also the discussion of Sec.  1926.950(b)(4) earlier in this
section of the preamble.) The Agency believes that it is important for
the briefing to be as detailed as necessary for the hazards and work
practices involved. MYR Group noted that ``the general requirement for
short discussions could . . . be applied differently depending on the
skill and qualification of the employees involved in the work rather
than the work itself'' (Ex. 0162). This comment interprets the
requirement correctly, and the Agency believes that the language in
final Sec.  1926.952(d)(1) and (d)(2), which duplicates existing Sec.
1910.269(c)(2), appropriately conveys this meaning. Accordingly, a more
detailed discussion is required ``[i]f the employee cannot be expected
to recognize and avoid the hazards involved in the job.'' In addition,
the Agency has received no formal interpretation requests related to
existing Sec.  1910.269(c)(2). Thus, OSHA concludes that the vast
majority of employers understand this provision, and the Agency is
adopting Sec.  1926.952(d) without change from the proposal.
    OSHA recognizes the importance of job planning for all employees.
Although employees working alone cannot participate in formal job

briefings, the Agency believes that an employee who works alone needs
to plan his or her tasks as carefully and extensively as an employee
who works as part of a team. OSHA is aware of several fatalities
involving lone employees who could have benefited from better job
planning, or perhaps a briefing with the supervisor, before the job
started (Ex. 0400). In one such incident, a power line worker working
alone was repairing a broken guy. Standing on the ground, the employee
had the anchor in place and grabbed the dangling guy to attach it to
the anchor. The guy contacted a 7200-volt overhead power line that had
not been guarded or insulated. Had the employee properly planned the
job, he would have seen that the guy was close to the power line and
could have avoided the contact (id.).\87\ Therefore, paragraph (e),
which OSHA took from existing Sec.  1910.269(c)(3), provides that
employees working alone do not need to conduct job briefings, but the
employer must ensure that that the tasks are planned as if a briefing
were required. This provision is being adopted in the final rule
without change from the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ This accident can be viewed at: http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/accidentsearch.accident_detail?id=909119.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Section 1926.953, Enclosed Spaces
    Section 1926.953 contains requirements for entry into, and work in,
enclosed spaces. An ``enclosed space'' is defined in final Sec.
1926.968 as a working space, such as a manhole, vault, tunnel, or
shaft, that has a limited means of egress or entry, that is designed
for periodic employee entry under normal operating conditions, and
that, under normal conditions, does not contain a hazardous atmosphere,
but may contain a hazardous atmosphere under abnormal conditions. The
hazards posed by enclosed spaces consist of (1) limited access and
egress, (2) possible lack of oxygen, (3) possible presence of flammable
gases, and (4) possible presence of limited amounts of toxic chemicals.
The potential atmospheric hazards are caused by an enclosed space's
lack of adequate ventilation and can normally be controlled through the
use of continuous forced-air ventilation alone. Practices to control
these hazards are widely recognized and are currently in use in
electric, telecommunications, and other underground utility industries.
Such practices include testing for the presence of flammable gases and
vapors, testing for oxygen deficiency, ventilation of the enclosed
space, controls on the use of open flames, and the use of an attendant
outside the space. These practices already are required by existing
Sec.  1910.269(e) for the maintenance of electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution installations, and OSHA took the
requirements adopted in final Sec.  1926.953 from existing Sec.
1910.269(e).
    Paragraph (a) of final Sec.  1926.953, which is being adopted
without substantive change from the proposal, sets the scope of the
section's provisions. Accordingly, this section applies only to the
types of enclosed spaces that are routinely entered by employees
engaged in electric power transmission and distribution work and that
are unique to underground utility work. Work in these spaces is part of
the day-to-day activities performed by some of the employees protected
by this final rule. Enclosed spaces covered by this section include,
but are not limited to, manholes and vaults that provide employees
access to electric power transmission and distribution equipment.
    There are several types of spaces that are not covered by final
Sec.  1926.953 (or the corresponding general industry provisions in
final Sec.  1910.269(e)). If maintenance work is being performed in
confined spaces, it may be covered by OSHA's general industry permit-
required confined space (permit-space) standard at Sec.  1910.146; this
standard applies to all of general industry, including industries
engaged in electric power generation, transmission, and distribution
work.
    In Sec.  1910.146(b), the permit-space standard defines ``confined
space'' and ``permit-required confined space.'' A confined space is a
space that: (1) Is large enough and so configured that an employee can
bodily enter and perform assigned work; and (2) Has limited or
restricted means for entry or exit (for example, tanks, vessels, silos,
storage bins, hoppers, vaults, and pits are spaces that may have
limited means of entry); and (3) Is not designed for continuous
employee occupancy. A permit-required confined space (permit space) is
a confined space that has one or more of the following characteristics:
(1) Contains or has a potential to contain a hazardous atmosphere; (2)
Contains a material that has the potential for engulfing an entrant;
(3) Has an internal configuration such that an entrant could be trapped
or asphyxiated by inwardly converging walls or by a floor which slopes
downward and tapers to a smaller cross-section; or (4) Contains any
other recognized serious safety or health hazard.
    Section 1926.953 of the final rule applies to ``enclosed spaces.''
By definition, an enclosed space is a permit-required confined space
under Sec.  1926.146. An enclosed space meets the definition of a
confined space--it is large enough for an employee to enter; it has a
limited means of access or egress; and it is designed for periodic,
rather than continuous, employee occupancy under normal operating
conditions. An enclosed space also meets the definition of a permit
space--while it is not expected to contain a hazardous atmosphere, it
has the potential to contain one. OSHA also notes that the definition
of permit space in the general industry permit-space standard is
broader than the definition of enclosed space in Sec.  1926.968. For
instance, if a space contains a hazardous atmosphere under normal
conditions, that space is a permit space under Sec.  1910.146, but it
is not an enclosed space under final Sec.  1910.269 or Subpart V.
    Paragraph (b)(6) of Sec.  1926.21 specifies training requirements
for employees who enter ``confined or enclosed spaces'' as defined in
Sec.  1926.21(b)(6)(ii).
    When Sec.  1926.21(b)(6) applies, it requires employers to: (1)
Instruct their employees about confined-space hazards, the necessary
precautions to be taken, and protective and emergency equipment
required; and (2) comply with any specific regulations that apply to
work in dangerous or potentially dangerous areas. An enclosed space
under Sec.  1926.953 also is a confined or enclosed space under Sec.
1926.21(b)(6). However, the definition of confined or enclosed space in
Sec.  1926.21(b)(6) (like the definition of permit space in the general
industry permit-space standard) is broader than the definition of
enclosed space in Sec.  1926.968.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ Under Sec.  1926.21(b)(6)(ii), a confined or enclosed space
is any space having a limited means of egress, which is subject to
the accumulation of toxic or flammable contaminants or has an oxygen
deficient atmosphere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (b)(6) of Sec.  1926.21 applies to enclosed spaces
covered by final Sec.  1926.953 because employers covered under subpart
V are not exempt from complying with other applicable provisions in
Part 1926 (see Sec.  1926.950(a)(2)). Section 1926.953 is, therefore,
different from final Sec.  1910.269(e), which ``applies to routine
entry into enclosed spaces in lieu of the permit-space entry
requirements contained in paragraphs (d) through (k) of Sec.
1910.146.'' OSHA concludes, however, that an employer that is compliant
with Sec.  1926.953 is considered as being in compliance with existing
Sec.  1926.21(b)(6) for entry into enclosed

spaces covered by final Sec.  1926.953. Therefore, for all practical
purposes, Sec.  1926.953 applies to routine entry into enclosed spaces
in lieu of the requirements contained in Sec.  1926.21(b)(6). OSHA is
not including the ``in lieu of'' language in final Sec.  1926.953
because OSHA recently proposed a new standard for confined-space entry
during construction work (72 FR 67352, Nov. 28, 2007). OSHA intends to
revise Sec.  1926.953 to include appropriate ``in lieu of'' language
when it promulgates the new standard.
    Under final Sec.  1926.953(a), entry into an enclosed space to
perform construction work covered by Subpart V must meet the permit-
space entry requirements of paragraphs (d) through (k) of the general
industry permit-space standard at Sec.  1910.146 when the precautions
taken under Sec. Sec.  1926.953 and 1926.965 are insufficient to
eliminate hazards in the enclosed space that endanger the life of an
entrant or could interfere with escape from the space. This requirement
ensures that employees working in enclosed spaces will be afforded
protection in circumstances in which the Subpart V provisions are
insufficiently protective.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ Section 1926.953 thus functions similarly to corresponding
provisions in Sec.  1910.146. An employer need not follow the
permit-entry requirements of Sec.  1910.146 for spaces where the
hazards have been completely eliminated, or for limited situations
in which OSHA permits the use of alternative procedures (Sec.
1910.146(c)(5) and (c)(7)). The spaces for which alternative
procedures may be used are similar to ``enclosed spaces,'' as
defined in this final rule, and the alternative procedures
themselves are similar to the procedures contained in final Sec.
1926.953 (Sec.  1910.146(c)(5); 58 FR 4462, 4486-4489, Jan. 14,
1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some employers may prefer to comply with Sec.  1910.146 instead of
Sec.  1926.953 for entry into enclosed spaces covered by Subpart V.
Because the provisions of Sec.  1910.146 protect employees entering
enclosed spaces at least as effectively as Sec.  1926.953, OSHA will
accept compliance with Sec.  1910.146 as meeting the enclosed-space
entry requirements of Sec.  1926.953. OSHA included a note to this
effect immediately following final Sec.  1926.953(o). The Agency is
adopting the note as proposed.
    MYR Group opposed applying the general industry standard for permit
spaces to construction work. The company argued that subpart V should
not incorporate ``standard requirements that have already been rejected
for construction work'' and recommended that the Agency develop
requirements specific ``to electrical construction work or through the
proposed and pending separate confined space standard for
construction'' (Ex. 0162).
    OSHA disagrees with this comment. The Agency developed the
enclosed-space provisions in existing Sec.  1910.269 to protect
employees during routine entry into enclosed spaces. As discussed in
detail previously, OSHA concluded that the requirements for work on
electric power generation, transmission, and distribution installations
should generally be the same regardless of whether the work is covered
by final Sec.  1910.269 or subpart V. (See the summary and explanation
for final Sec.  1926.950(a)(1), earlier in this section of the
preamble.) For the purpose of routine entry into these spaces, OSHA
concludes that it is appropriate for employers to follow the same rules
with respect to both construction and general industry work.
    OSHA also is applying the general industry permit-space standard to
work in enclosed spaces when the hazards remaining in the enclosed
space endanger the life of an entrant or could interfere with escape
from the space after an employer takes the precautions required by
Sec. Sec.  1926.953 and 1926.965. This action is necessary because, as
OSHA noted in the proposed construction standard for confined spaces,
``the existing construction standard for confined and enclosed spaces
at 29 CFR 1926.21(b)(6) does not adequately protect construction
employees in confined spaces from atmospheric, mechanical, and other
hazards'' (72 FR 67354). OSHA notes, however, that the references to
the general industry standard in final Sec.  1926.953 are included as a
placeholder pending the promulgation of the confined spaces in
construction standard. OSHA intends to change these references to refer
to the construction standard when it promulgates that standard.
    Paragraph (a) in final Sec.  1926.953 provides that Sec.  1926.953
does not apply to vented vaults under certain conditions. Permanent
ventilation in vented vaults prevents a hazardous atmosphere from
accumulating. However, the intake or exhaust of a vented vault could be
clogged, limiting the flow of air through the vaults. The employee in
such cases would be exposed to the same hazards presented by unvented
vaults. Additionally, mechanical ventilation for a vault so equipped
may fail to operate. To ensure that the employee is protected from the
hazards posed by lack of proper ventilation, the final rule exempts
vented vaults only if the employer determines that the ventilation is
operating to protect employees. This determination must ensure that
ventilation openings are clear and that any permanently installed
mechanical ventilating equipment is in proper working order.
    Section 1926.953 also does not apply to spaces not designed for
periodic entry by employees during normal operating conditions, such as
spaces that require energy sources to be isolated or fluids to be
drained before an employee can safely enter. These types of spaces
include, but are not limited to, boilers, fuel tanks, coal bunkers, and
transformer and circuit breaker cases. As explained in the preamble to
the 1994 Sec.  1910.269 final rule, the measures required in existing
Sec.  1910.269(e) (and, by implication, final Sec.  1926.953) are not
adequate to protect employees from the various hazards posed by these
types of permit-entry confined spaces (59 FR 4364-4367).
    MYR Group commented that subpart V's definition of ``enclosed
space'' was ``overly narrow and unclear'' because ``there is no
specific basis for creation of such a broad definition solely for
electrical work'' (Ex. 0162).
    OSHA disagrees with this comment. The Agency derived the definition
from the definition of ``enclosed space'' in existing Sec.
1910.269(x). As explained in the preamble to the 1994 Sec.  1910.269
final rule, OSHA narrowly tailored the definition of ``enclosed space''
to the protective measures required by existing Sec.  1910.269(e) (59
FR 4364-4367). A broader definition would involve permit spaces
presenting hazards against which final Sec.  1926.953 would not offer
protection. Therefore, OSHA is adopting the definition of ``enclosed
space'' as proposed. However, OSHA is not adopting the proposed note in
final Sec.  1926.968.\90\ The proposed note, which appears in existing
Sec.  1910.269(x), describes types of spaces that are enclosed, but
that do not meet the definition of ``enclosed space,'' and explains
that such spaces meet the definition of permit spaces in Sec.  1910.146
and that entries into those spaces must conform to that standard.
Although the types of spaces described in the proposed note do not meet
the definition of ``enclosed space'' in either the general industry or
construction standard, Sec.  1910.146 does not apply to confined-space
entry during construction work. Consequently, the final rule does not
include the note to the definition of ``enclosed space'' in final Sec.
1926.968. OSHA intends to revise Sec.  1926.968 to include an
appropriate note to the definition of ``enclosed

space'' when it promulgates the new standard for confined-space entry
during construction work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ OSHA is not removing the existing note to that definition
from final Sec.  1910.269(x).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (b), which is being adopted without substantive change
from the proposal, contains the general requirement that employers
ensure the use of safe work practices for entry into, and work in,
enclosed spaces and for rescue of employees from such spaces. These
safe work practices ensure that employees are protected against hazards
in the enclosed space and include, among others, the practices
specified in paragraphs (e) through (o).
    Paragraph (c), which is being adopted without substantive change
from the proposal, requires each employee who enters enclosed spaces,
or who serves as an attendant, to be trained in the hazards associated
with enclosed-space entry and in enclosed-space entry and rescue
procedures. This training must ensure that employees are trained to
work safely in enclosed spaces and that they will be knowledgeable of
the rescue procedures in the event that an emergency arises within the
space.
    Paragraph (d), which is being adopted without change from the
proposal, requires that the employer provide equipment that will assure
the prompt and safe rescue of employees from the enclosed space. This
requirement is necessary to ensure that employees who are injured in
enclosed spaces will be retrieved from the spaces. The equipment must
enable a rescuer to remove an injured employee from the enclosed space
quickly and without injury to the rescuer or further harm to the
injured employee. A harness, lifeline, and self-supporting winch can
normally be used for this purpose.
    Mr. Leo Muckerheide with Safety Consulting Services recommended
that, because of the risk of arc hazards, OSHA should explicitly
require nonconductive and flame-resistance-rated rescue equipment that
meets ASTM F887, Standard Specifications for Personal Climbing
Equipment (Ex. 0180). He argued that the general industry confined
space standard does not protect against arc-flash and electric-shock
hazards and contrasted proposed paragraph (d) with provisions in
proposed Sec.  1926.960 that do require protection from these hazards
(id.).
    OSHA rejects this recommendation. First, work in enclosed spaces
does not always pose arc-flash or electric-shock hazards. Sometimes,
employees enter spaces to take readings or perform inspections; during
these activities these hazards are unlikely to be present,\91\ or there
may be no energized electric equipment present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ It is possible under certain circumstances that employees
taking readings or performing inspection activities could be exposed
to arc-flash hazards. See the discussion of arc-flash hazard
assessment under the summary and explanation for final Sec.
1926.960(g)(1), later in this section of the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, addressing arc-flash and electric-shock hazards in Sec.
1926.953 would be unnecessarily duplicative, as these hazards are more
appropriately addressed in Sec.  1926.960, which applies to work on or
near exposed live parts. When work is performed within reaching
distance of exposed energized parts of equipment, final Sec.
1926.960(f) requires the employer to ensure that each employee removes,
or renders nonconductive, all exposed conductive articles, unless such
articles do not increase the hazards associated with contact with the
energized parts. This provision covers conductive articles on
harnesses. Paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of final Sec.  1926.960 requires the
employer to ensure that employees do not take conductive objects, such
as conductive lifelines, closer to energized parts than the employer's
established minimum approach distances, unless the live parts or
conductive objects are insulated.\92\ Because, in a rescue situation,
the attendant would not have control over how close the lifeline got to
exposed energized parts, any lifeline would have to be insulated, or
the live parts would have to be insulated, to protect the attendant and
the entrant against electric shock. Paragraph (g)(1) of final Sec.
1926.960 requires the employer to assess the workplace to determine if
each employee is exposed to hazards from flames or electric arcs. This
assessment can guide the selection of rescue equipment that can effect
safe rescue when employees are exposed to these hazards. If there is a
risk that an electric arc could occur in an enclosed space, then the
rescue equipment must be capable of withstanding that hazardous
condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ There is a third exception associated with live-line
barehand work, which is generally inapplicable in enclosed spaces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some conditions within an enclosed space, such as high temperature
and high pressure, make it hazardous to remove a cover from the space.
For example, if high pressure is present within the space, the cover
could be blown off in the process of removing it. Paragraph (e), which
is being adopted without substantive change from the proposal, protects
against these hazards by requiring a determination of whether it is
safe to remove the cover. This determination must include checking for
the presence of any atmospheric pressure or temperature differences
(generally between the inside and outside of the enclosed space) and
evaluating whether there might be a hazardous atmosphere in the space.
Furthermore, any condition making it unsafe for employees to remove the
cover must be eliminated (that is, reduced to the extent that it is no
longer unsafe) before the cover is removed. A note following paragraph
(e) clarifies that this determination may consist of checking the
conditions that might foreseeably be inside the enclosed space. For
example, the cover could be checked to see if it is hot and, if it is
fastened in place, it could be loosened gradually to release any
residual pressure. The note also clarifies that, to evaluate whether
there might be a hazardous atmosphere in the space, an evaluation needs
to be made of whether conditions at the site could cause a hazardous
atmosphere to accumulate in the space.
    Paragraph (f), which is being adopted without substantive change
from the proposal, requires that, when covers are removed, openings to
enclosed spaces be promptly guarded to protect employees from falling
into the space and to protect employees in the enclosed space from
being injured by objects entering the space. The guard could be a
railing, a temporary cover, or any other barrier that provides the
required protection.
    Paragraph (g), which is being adopted without substantive change
from the proposal, prohibits employees from entering enclosed spaces
that contain a hazardous atmosphere unless the entry conforms to the
general industry permit-space standard at Sec.  1910.146. Accordingly,
if an entry is to be made while a hazardous atmosphere is present in
the enclosed space, the entry must conform to the general industry
permit-required confined spaces standard at Sec.  1910.146.\93\ Once
the hazardous atmosphere is removed (for example, by ventilating the
enclosed space), employees may enter the enclosed space following the
provisions in Sec.  1926.953.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ As stated previously, the references to the general
industry standard in final Sec.  1926.953 are included as a
placeholder pending the promulgation of the confined spaces in
construction standard. OSHA intends to change these references to
refer to the construction standard when it promulgates that
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The use of the term ``entry'' in this paragraph of Sec.  1926.953
is consistent with the use of that term in Sec.  1910.146, and OSHA
proposed to include the Sec.  1910.146 definition of ``entry'' in
Subpart V. Two commenters objected to the proposed definition of
``entry'' on the basis that the definition would

prevent them from hanging a tag in the chimney of a manhole with a
fault (Exs. 0157, 0227). Consolidated Edison Company of New York
(ConEd) described their opposition to the proposed definition of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``entry'' as follows:

    In order to comply with Sec.  1910.269(t)(7)(i), Con Edison
utilizes an identification system for structures that have cable and
joint abnormalities. This system requires the identifying crew to
hang a tag (in our nomenclature, a D-Fault tag) in the chimney of
the manhole. This red tag is a clear indication to any other
personnel who may attempt to enter the structure that the entry
should not be made. This tagging system is an integral part of our
compliance method and of protecting our employees. If OSHA adds the
definition as proposed, it will prevent us from breaking the plane
of the opening and hence prevent us from hanging the tag. This
process will reduce, not increase the safety of our employees and as
such will have the opposite effect from what OSHA is trying to
accomplish. [Ex. 0157]

EEI recommended instead that ``that the Agency grant electric utilities
an [exemption from] the definition for [Sec.  1910.269](t)(7)
Protection against faults, to allow utilities to properly comply'' (Ex.
0227).

    OSHA rejects ConEd's recommendation. Paragraph (g) of final Sec.
1926.953 does not preclude employers from hanging tags in the chimney
of a manhole with a fault. To the contrary, the rule permits entry into
an enclosed space that contains a hazardous atmosphere if entry
conforms to the general industry permit-space standard. Moreover, if
there is no hazardous atmosphere in the space, employees may enter when
the entry conforms to Sec.  1926.953. OSHA concludes that the proposed
definition is, therefore, appropriate as it applies to final Sec.
1926.953 and the corresponding requirements in final Sec.  1910.269(e).
    OSHA also rejects EEI's recommendation, because it is unnecessary.
The definition of ``entry,'' as proposed and adopted, applies only to
the use of that term in final Sec. Sec.  1910.269(e) and 1926.953. The
definition does not apply to final Sec.  1910.269(t)(7)(i) or Sec.
1926.965(h)(1). (See the summary and explanation for final Sec.
1926.965(h)(1) for the response to ConEd's and EEI's concerns that this
provision, and its counterpart in Sec.  1910.269(t)(7)(i), would
preclude an employer from hanging a tag in the chimney of a manhole or
vault to indicate the presence of a faulted cable.)
    Paragraph (h), which has been adopted with clarifying revisions
from the proposal, requires an attendant with first-aid training,
including CPR, to be immediately available outside the enclosed space
to provide assistance when a hazard exists because of traffic patterns
in the area of the opening used for entry.\94\ This paragraph does not
prohibit the attendant from performing other duties outside the
enclosed space, as long as those duties do not distract the attendant
from monitoring employees who are in the enclosed space (entrants) and
ensuring that it is safe to enter and exit the space. This paragraph
has two purposes: To protect the entrant from hazards involving traffic
patterns while the entrant is entering or exiting the space and to
provide assistance in an emergency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ Typically, workers direct traffic away from the work area
using traffic control devices, as required by Sec.  1926.967(g).
When the resultant traffic patterns (that is, the flow of traffic)
could bring vehicles close to the enclosed space entrance (for
example, when the work reduces the number of traffic lanes), the
employer must provide an attendant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Frank Brockman with Farmers Rural Electric Cooperative
Corporation noted that attendants should never be allowed to enter
manholes or confined spaces (Ex. 0173).
    The final rule, like the proposal, requires the attendant to remain
immediately available outside the enclosed space during the entire
entry. If the attendant were permitted to enter the enclosed space
during entry, he or she might not be able to assist the entrant. For
example, if traffic-pattern hazards are present in the area of the
opening to the enclosed space and if the attendant enters the space,
then both the attendant and the workers he or she is protecting would
be vulnerable upon leaving the enclosed space because no one would be
present to minimize or control the traffic-pattern hazards. Therefore,
the final rule specifies that the attendant must remain outside the
enclosed space during the entire entry process. It should be noted that
the rescue equipment required by paragraph (d) will enable the entrant
to rescue the entrant from the space before administering any necessary
first aid.
    Mr. Lee Marchessault of Workplace Safety Solutions recommended that
paragraph (h) require the attendant to be trained in CPR, in addition
to first-aid training (Ex. 0196; Tr. 575). He noted that the electrical
hazards in the space, as well as other hazards, might present a need
for CPR (Tr. 598).
    OSHA is clarifying paragraph (h) in the final rule. The proposed
rule required training in first aid, including CPR, so that the
attendant could provide emergency assistance in case of injury. This is
the type of training required by Sec.  1926.951(b). However, the
reference to Sec.  1926.951(b)(1) in the proposal likely caused Mr.
Marchessault to misinterpret the requirement. Therefore, the Agency
included a definition of ``first-aid training'' in Sec.  1926.968 in
the final rule. That definition states that first-aid training is
training in the initial care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation
(which includes chest compressions, rescue breathing, and, as
appropriate, other heart and lung resuscitation techniques), performed
by a person who is not a medical practitioner, of a sick or injured
person until definitive medical treatment can be administered. The
definition clarifies that, wherever first-aid training is required by
the final rule, CPR training must be included.\95\ OSHA also dropped
the proposed cross-reference to Sec.  1926.951(b)(1), as it is no
longer necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ The definition also clarifies that CPR training includes
resuscitation techniques both for the heart and for the lungs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Anthony Ahern with the Ohio Rural Electric Cooperatives
recommended that an attendant always be available for enclosed-space
operations, not just when traffic-pattern hazards exist (Ex. 0186).
    OSHA is not adopting this recommendation. By definition, an
enclosed space contains a hazardous atmosphere only under abnormal
conditions. The Agency previously concluded that these spaces do not
present the type of atmospheric hazards that warrant the presence of an
attendant after the employer takes precautions such as those required
by Sec.  1926.953. (See, for example, 58 FR 4485-4488.) In addition, as
provided in final Sec.  1926.953(a), when a hazardous atmosphere is
present after the employer takes the precautions required by this
section, paragraphs (d) through (k) of OSHA's general industry permit-
space standard, Sec.  1910.146, which do require attendants, apply.
Therefore, the Agency concluded that, when paragraph (h) applies, the
only hazards (other than electrical) that necessitate the presence of
an attendant while work is being performed in an enclosed space are
traffic-pattern hazards in the area of the opening used for entering
and exiting the enclosed space. OSHA notes that even if no traffic-
pattern hazards are present, an attendant is required under Sec.
1926.965(d) of the final rule while work is being performed in a
manhole or vault containing energized electric equipment. A note to
this effect follows final Sec.  1926.953(h).
    Mr. Leo Muckerheide with Safety Consulting Services commented that
the purpose of proposed paragraph (h) was confusing because the purpose
of the requirement as stated in the first

sentence--that is, protecting entrants from traffic-pattern hazards--
differs from the attendant's duties as noted in the second sentence--
monitoring employees within the space. He recommended that OSHA revise
the second sentence of that paragraph as follows:

    That person is not precluded from performing other duties
outside the enclosed space if these duties do not distract the
attendant from monitoring the traffic patterns outside the enclosed
space. [Ex. 0180]

    OSHA rejects Mr. Muckerheide's recommended language. Part of the
attendant's duty to monitor employees in the space is to warn entrants
preparing to exit an enclosed space about hazards involving traffic
patterns. If the attendant is watching traffic patterns instead of
monitoring the entrant, the entrant might not receive warnings about
that traffic before exiting the space. When the entrant is ready to
exit the space, the attendant can then monitor or direct traffic and
let the entrant know when it is safe to exit the space. On the other
hand, OSHA agrees with Mr. Muckerheide that the duties of the attendant
may not be clear from the language of the provision as proposed.
Therefore, OSHA revised the language in final paragraph (h) to make it
clear that ensuring that it is safe to enter and exit an enclosed space
is part of the attendant's duties.