thunder is audible at the worksite'' (Ex. 0532).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (c)(6), which is being adopted without substantive change
from the proposal, requires the use of a conductive device, usually a
conductive bucket liner, for bonding the insulated aerial device to the
energized line or equipment. This bond creates an area of equipotential
in which the employee can work safely. The employee must be bonded to
this device by means of conductive shoes or leg clips or by another
effective method. Additionally, if necessary to protect employees
further (that is, if differences in electric potential at the worksite
pose a hazard to employees), the employer must provide electrostatic
shielding designed for the voltage. This paragraph, which OSHA took
from existing Sec.  1910.269(q)(3)(vi), is essentially identical to
existing Sec.  1926.955(e)(7).
    To avoid receiving a shock caused by charging current, the employee
must bond the conductive bucket liner or other conductive device to the
energized conductor before he or she touches the conductor. Typically,
employees use a live-line tool to bring a bonding jumper (already
connected to the conductive bucket liner) into contact with the
energized line. This connection brings the equipotential area
surrounding the employee to the same voltage as that of the line. Thus,
paragraph (c)(7), which is being adopted without substantive change
from the proposal, requires the employer to ensure that, before the
employee contacts the energized part, the employee bonds the conductive
bucket liner or other conductive device to the energized conductor by
means of a positive connection. Final paragraph (c)(7) also requires
this connection to remain attached to the energized conductor until
employees complete the work on the energized circuit. This paragraph,
which OSHA took from existing Sec.  1910.269(q)(3)(vii), is essentially
identical to existing Sec.  1926.955(e)(14).
    Paragraph (c)(8), which is being adopted without substantive change
from the proposal, requires aerial lifts used for live-line barehand
work to have upper controls that are within easy reach of the employee
in the bucket and lower controls near the base of the boom that can
override operation of the equipment. On two-bucket-type lifts, the
upper controls must be within easy reach of both buckets. Upper
controls are necessary so that employees in the bucket can precisely
control the lift's direction and speed of approach to the live line.
Control by workers on the ground responding to directions from a worker
in the bucket could lead to contact by an employee in the lift with the
energized conductor before the bonding jumper is in place. Controls are
necessary at ground level, however, so that employees on the ground can
promptly lower and assist employees in the lift who become disabled as
a result of an accident or illness. Therefore, paragraph (c)(9), which
is being adopted without substantive change from the proposal,
prohibits, except in an emergency, operation of the ground-level
controls when an employee is in the lift. Final paragraphs (c)(8) and
(c)(9), which OSHA took from existing Sec.  1910.269(q)(3)(viii) and
(q)(3)(ix), respectively, are essentially identical to existing Sec.
1926.955(e)(12) and (e)(13).
    Paragraph (c)(10), which is being adopted without substantive
change from the proposal, requires the employer to ensure that
employees check all aerial-lift controls to ensure that they are in
proper working order before employees elevate an aerial lift into the
work position. This paragraph, which OSHA took from existing Sec.
1910.269(q)(3)(x), is essentially identical to existing Sec.
1926.955(e)(10).
    To protect employees on the ground from the electric shock they
would receive upon touching the truck supporting the aerial lift,
paragraph (c)(11), which is being adopted without substantive change
from the proposal, requires the body of the truck to be grounded, or
the body of the truck to be barricaded and treated as energized, before
employees elevate the boom. If the truck is grounded, the insulation of
the lift limits the voltage on the body of the truck to a safe level.
This paragraph, which OSHA took from existing Sec.  1910.269(q)(3)(xi),
is similar to existing Sec.  1926.955(e)(9). The existing requirement
in Subpart V, however, also includes a provision for using the
outriggers on the aerial lift to stabilize the equipment. Final Sec.
1926.959(b), discussed earlier in this section of the preamble,
addresses the need to stabilize aerial lifts.
    Aerial lifts that are used in live-line barehand work are exposed
to the full line-to-ground voltage of the circuit for the duration of
the job. To ensure that the insulating value of the lift being used is
high enough to protect employees, final paragraph (c)(12) requires the
employer to ensure that employees perform a boom-current test before
starting work each day. Employers also must ensure that employees
perform the test each time during the day when they encounter a higher
voltage and whenever changed conditions indicate a need for retesting.
    According to final paragraph (c)(12)(i), the test consists of
placing the bucket in contact with a source of voltage equal to that
encountered during the job and keeping it there for at least 3 minutes.
Employees normally accomplish the test at the worksite by placing the
bucket in contact with the energized line on which they will be working
(without anybody in the bucket, of course).
    To provide employees with a level of protection equivalent to that
provided by existing Sec.  1910.269(q)(3)(xii) and

American National Standard for Vehicle-Mounted Elevating and Rotating
Aerial Devices (ANSI/SIA A92.2-2001 \434\), OSHA proposed, in the third
sentence of paragraph (c)(12), to permit a leakage current of up to 1
microampere per kilovolt of nominal phase-to-ground voltage. In
contrast, the corresponding provision in existing Sec.  1926.955(e)(11)
is less protective; it allows up to 1 microampere of current for every
kilovolt of phase-to-phase voltage.\435\ OSHA received no comments on
this issue and, therefore, adopted the proposed limit of 1 microampere
per kilovolt of nominal phase-to-ground voltage in paragraph
(c)(12)(ii) of the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \434\ The 2009 edition of ANSI/SIA A92.2 contains an identical
requirement.
    \435\ For a three-phase, Y-connected system, the phase-to-phase
voltage equals times the phase-to-ground voltage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Final paragraph (c)(12)(iii) requires the immediate suspension of
work from the aerial lift whenever there is an indication of a
malfunction of the equipment, not only during tests. This requirement
will prevent the failure of insulated aerial devices during use and
will only affect work from an aerial lift. Employers may continue work
not involving an aerial lift. Halting work from the lift will protect
employees in the lift, as well as employees on the ground, from the
electrical hazards involved.
    OSHA took paragraph (c)(12) from existing Sec.  1910.269(q)(3)(xii)
and adopted paragraph (c)(12) without substantive change from the
proposal; this provision in the final rule is similar to existing Sec.
1926.955(e)(11), except as previously noted.
    Paragraphs (c)(13), (c)(14), and (c)(15) in the proposed rule would
have generally required employees to maintain the minimum approach
distances specified in Table V-2 through Table V-6 from grounded
objects and from objects at an electric potential different from the
potential of the bucket. Those proposed provisions, which OSHA based on
existing Sec.  1910.269(q)(3)(xiii), (q)(3)(xiv), and (q)(3)(xv), were
essentially identical to existing Sec.  1926.955(e)(15), (e)(16), and
(e)(17). Proposed paragraph (c)(13) applied to minimum approach
distances in general; proposed paragraph (c)(14) covered minimum
approach distances for employees approaching or leaving the energized
conductor or bonding to an energized circuit; and proposed paragraph
(c)(15) applied to the distance between the bucket and the grounded end
of a bushing or insulator string and other grounded surfaces. The
latter two paragraphs in the proposal clarified that the employee and
the bucket are, in effect, at phase potential as the employee is
approaching the energized part and that employees would have to
maintain the phase-to-ground minimum approach distance from grounded
objects. The preamble to the proposal noted that the employee also
would have to maintain the phase-to-phase minimum approach distance
from the other phases on the system (70 FR 34882) and requested
comments on whether proposed paragraphs (c)(14) and (c)(15) should
address objects at different phase potentials, in addition to objects
at ground potential.
    Only two commenters addressed this issue. BGE commented that it is
reasonable to address only phase-to-ground potential because the
proposed provisions implied phase-to-phase potential (Ex. 0126). IBEW
argued, in contrast, that OSHA also should address phase-to-phase
exposures in paragraphs (c)(14) and (c)(15), commenting:

    Since this requirement is contained in the live-line bare-hand
work section of the proposal, the language should address objects at
different phase potential, not just ground potentials. When
performing live-line bare-hand work mid span, the phase-to-phase MAD
could be critical. The same would hold true anytime an aerial device
would be positioned between dead-ends on structures, or any other
configuration when multiphases are present on the structure. [Ex.
0230]

    OSHA decided to take a middle course on this issue. When an
employee is working at phase potential, which final paragraph (c)(13)
covers, or moving into or away from the working position, which final
paragraph (c)(14) covers, both phase-to-phase and phase-to-ground
exposures may come into play. Proposed paragraph (c)(13) addressed both
exposures, but, as noted in the preamble to the proposal, proposed
paragraph (c)(14) did not (70 FR 34882). OSHA is correcting this
oversight in the final rule, so that final paragraph (c)(14) also
requires the employer to ensure that employees maintain the minimum
approach distances ``between the employee and conductive objects
energized at different potentials.''
    Proposed paragraph (c)(15) supplemented proposed paragraphs (c)(13)
and (c)(14) and served as a reminder that the phase-to-ground minimum
approach distance applied to the grounded end of the insulator string.
Thus, there is no need to add phase-to-phase exposures to this
paragraph.
    OSHA is making an additional change to paragraphs (c)(13) through
(c)(15) to account for changes in the minimum approach-distance
requirements adopted in final Sec.  1926.960(c)(1). The final rule does
not list specific minimum approach distances in tables as the proposal
did. Instead, final Sec.  1926.960(c)(1)(i) requires the employer to
establish minimum approach distances. (See the summary and explanation
for final Sec.  1926.960(c)(1), earlier in this section of the
preamble.) Consequently, paragraphs (c)(13) through (c)(15) of final
Sec.  1926.964 refer to ``minimum approach distances, established by
the employer under Sec.  1926.960(c)(1)(i),'' in place of the
references to proposed Table V-2 through Table V-6.
    Mr. Anthony Ahern with Ohio Rural Electric Cooperatives noted that
clearances between phases in substations typically are closer than on
power lines (Ex. 0186). He asserted that if paragraph (c) ``is also
going to cover bare hand work in substations then phase to phase
clearances also need to be addressed'' (id.).
    OSHA does not dispute Mr. Ahern's assertion that phase-to-phase
clearances in substations may be smaller than on overhead lines.
However, if the clearances are too small to permit employees to
maintain minimum approach distances for phase-to-phase exposures while
performing live-line barehand work, then the employer will have to
choose a different work method. The Agency notes that employers already
face this issue under existing Sec.  1910.269 and Subpart V, which both
set minimum approach distances for phase-to-phase exposures.
    Paragraph (c)(16), which is being adopted without substantive
change from the proposal, prohibits the use of handlines between the
bucket and boom or between the bucket and ground. Such use of lines
could result in a potential difference between the employee in the
bucket and the power line when the employee contacts the handline. If
the handline is a nonconductive type not supported from the bucket,
employees may use it from the conductor to ground. (Unless the rope is
insulated for the voltage, employees on the ground must treat it as
energized.\436\) Lastly, the employer must ensure that no one uses

ropes used for live-line barehand work for other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \436\ The definition of ``insulated'' in final Sec.  1926.968
reads: ``Separated from other conducting surfaces by a dielectric
(including air space) offering a high resistance to the passage of
current.'' The note following this definition states: ``When any
object is said to be insulated, it is understood to be insulated for
the conditions to which it normally is subjected. Otherwise, it is,
for the purpose of this subpart, uninsulated.'' Thus, employees must
treat any rope not insulated for the voltage as a conductive object
and, thus, as energized when it is in contact with an energized
part.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA took final paragraph (c)(16) from existing Sec.
1910.269(q)(3)(xvi); this provision is similar to existing Sec.
1926.955(e)(18). However, the existing standard, at Sec.
1926.955(e)(18)(ii), prohibits employees from placing conductive
materials over 36 inches long in the aerial lift bucket. Existing Sec.
1926.955(e)(18)(ii) makes exceptions for ``appropriate length jumpers,
armor rods, and tools.'' OSHA is removing this requirement. Under the
final rule, employers must ensure that employees maintain minimum
approach distances regardless of the length of any conductive object.
Thus, existing Sec.  1926.955(e)(18)(ii) is unnecessary.
    Paragraph (c)(17), which is being adopted without substantive
change from the proposal, prohibits passing uninsulated equipment or
materials between a pole or structure and an aerial lift while an
employee working from the bucket is bonded to an energized part.
Passing uninsulated objects in this way would bridge the insulation to
ground and endanger the employee. This provision, which OSHA based on
existing Sec.  1910.269(q)(3)(xvii), has no counterpart in existing
Sec.  1926.955(e).
    Proposed paragraph (c)(18) would have required the employer to
print, on a plate of durable nonconductive material, a table reflecting
the minimum approach distances listed in proposed Table V-2 through
Table V-6. That paragraph would also have required the employer to
mount the plate so as to be visible to the operator of the boom on
aerial devices used for live-line barehand work. This provision, which
OSHA took from existing Sec.  1910.269(q)(3)(xviii), was equivalent to
existing Sec.  1926.955(e)(20)(i).
    Although the Agency received no comments on this proposed
provision, OSHA is not including it in the final rule. First, the final
rule replaces the tables specifying minimum approach distances with a
requirement that the employer establish minimum approach distances
based on formulas. For voltages over 72.5 kilovolts, where employers
use the live-line barehand technique, those established minimum
approach distances could vary from site to site as the maximum
transient overvoltage varies.\437\ Employers would comply with proposed
paragraph (c)(18) with a table listing either a single minimum approach
distance for each voltage or listing a variety of minimum approach
distances for each voltage. A table listing a single value for each
voltage would list minimum approach distances that employees would not
be using at some sites, possibly leading to confusion. A table listing
a variety of minimum approach distances for each voltage would be more
difficult for employees to follow and might lead them to use
noncompliant minimum approach distances, thus exposing the employees to
sparkover hazards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \437\ The final rule does not require the employer to make site-
by-site engineering analyses. The employer could make an analysis
that applies to a single site, a range of sites, or all sites for a
given voltage, depending on the approach the employer takes in
performing the engineering analysis. See the summary and explanation
for final Sec.  1926.960(c)(1)(ii), earlier in this section of the
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, with information provided by the employer under final
Sec. Sec.  1926.950(d) and 1926.952(a)(1), employees will know the
applicable minimum approach distance and will discuss it during the job
briefing required under final Sec.  1926.952(a)(2). Through the job
briefing, the aerial device operator, and, if needed, the observer
required under Sec.  1926.959(d)(2), will know the applicable minimum
approach distance without needing to reference a table mounted on the
boom of the aerial device.
    For these reasons, OSHA is not adopting proposed Sec.
1926.964(c)(18) in the final rule.
    Final paragraph (c)(18) requires a nonconductive measuring device
to be available and readily accessible to employees performing live-
line barehand work. OSHA took this provision from existing Sec.
1910.269(q)(3)(xix). Existing Sec.  1926.955(e)(20)(ii) recommends, but
does not require, an insulating measuring device. OSHA believes that
this should be a requirement, rather than a recommendation, so that
employees can accurately determine whether they are maintaining the
required minimum approach distances. Compliance with final paragraph
(c)(18) will help the employee accurately determine and maintain the
minimum approach distances required by the standard. OSHA revised
paragraph (c)(18) in the final rule to clarify that the measuring
device must be accessible to employees performing live-line barehand
work.
    Existing Sec.  1926.955(e)(19) prohibits employees from
overstressing an aerial lift used in live-line barehand work while
lifting or supporting weights. OSHA did not include this requirement in
proposed or final Sec.  1926.964. The hazard addressed by the existing
requirement is a general hazard, which is present whenever an employee
uses an aerial lift, not just during live-line barehand work. Final
Sec.  1926.959(c), which requires employers to operate mechanical
equipment within its maximum load ratings and other design limitations,
is the appropriate provision addressing the relevant hazards.
    Final paragraph (d) addresses hazards associated with towers and
other structures supporting overhead lines. OSHA took this paragraph
from existing Sec.  1910.269(q)(4).
    Paragraph (b) of existing Sec.  1926.955 addresses metal tower
construction. Many of the requirements in the existing rules cover the
same hazards as other provisions in the construction standards. For
example, existing Sec.  1926.955(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) address
hazards associated with footing excavations. Subpart P of Part 1926
fully protects power transmission and distribution workers from these
hazards.\438\ Therefore, revised Subpart V contains no counterparts to
these existing requirements. Existing Sec.  1926.955(b)(5)(i) and
(b)(7) contain simple references to other Part 1926 requirements.
Existing Sec.  1926.955(b)(5)(iii), (b)(6)(i), (b)(6)(v), and (b)(8),
which address a few of the hazards associated with mechanical
equipment, contain requirements that are equivalent to provisions in
existing Subpart CC of Part 1926 or final Sec.  1926.959. Revised
Subpart V does not contain counterparts for these six paragraphs. OSHA
believes that eliminating these provisions will reduce redundancy and
will eliminate the potential for conflicts between different standards.
No rulemaking participants opposed the removal of these existing
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \438\ Provisions outside Subpart P cover two of the requirements
in the existing paragraphs. Under the last sentence of existing
Sec.  1926.955(b)(1), employees must use ladders to access pad- or
pile-type footing excavations more than 4 feet deep. Paragraph (a)
of Sec.  1926.1051 already addresses this hazard; this provision
requires employers to provide a stairway or a ladder for access to
breaks in elevation of more than 48 cm, unless a ramp, runway,
sloped embankment, or personnel hoist is available. Existing Sec.
1926.955(b)(3)(iii) addresses the stability of equipment used near
excavations. Final Sec.  1926.959(b) and (c) cover hazards
associated with instability of mechanical equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To protect employees on the ground from hazards presented by
falling objects, paragraph (d)(1), which is being adopted without
substantive change from the proposal, prohibits workers from standing
under a tower or other structure while work is in progress, unless the
employer can demonstrate that their presence is necessary to assist
employees working above. This provision, which OSHA took from existing
Sec.  1910.269(q)(4)(i), is equivalent

to existing Sec.  1926.955(b)(4)(i) and (b)(5)(ii). However, final
paragraph (d)(1) eliminates the redundancy presented by the two
existing requirements in Sec.  1926.955.
    Paragraph (d)(2), which is being adopted without substantive change
from the proposal, requires the employer to ensure that employees use
tag lines or other similar devices to maintain control of tower
sections being raised or positioned, unless the employer can
demonstrate that the use of such devices would result in a greater
hazard to employees. The use of tag lines prevents moving tower
sections from striking employees. This provision, which OSHA took from
existing Sec.  1910.269(q)(4)(ii), is similar to existing Sec.
1926.955(b)(4)(ii) and (b)(6)(ii). However, final paragraph (d)(2)
eliminates the redundancy presented by the two existing requirements in
Sec.  1926.955.
    Paragraph (d)(3), which is being adopted without substantive change
from the proposal, requires loadlines to remain in place until
employees safely secure the load so that it cannot topple and injure an
employee. This provision, which OSHA took from existing Sec.
1910.269(q)(4)(iii), is essentially identical to existing Sec.
1926.955(b)(4)(iii) and (b)(6)(iii). However, final paragraph (d)(3)
eliminates the redundancy presented by the two existing requirements in
Sec.  1926.955.
    Some weather conditions can increase the hazard for employees
working from towers and other overhead structures. For example, icy
conditions may increase the likelihood of slips and falls, perhaps
making them unavoidable. Final paragraph (d)(4) generally provides that
work must stop when adverse weather conditions make the work hazardous
in spite of compliance with other applicable provision of Subpart V.
However, when the work involves emergency restoration of electric
power,\439\ the additional risk may be necessary for public safety, and
the standard permits employees to perform such work even in adverse
weather conditions. This provision, which OSHA took from existing Sec.
1910.269(q)(4)(iv), is essentially identical to existing Sec.
1926.955(b)(6)(iv). OSHA changed ``this section'' in proposed paragraph
(d)(4) to ``this subpart'' in final paragraph (d)(4) to accurately
identify the CFR unit involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \439\ For purposes of final paragraph (d)(4), OSHA considers
emergency-restoration work to be work needed to restore an electric
power transmission or distribution installation to an operating
condition to the extent necessary to safeguard the general public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A note to paragraph (d)(4) provides that thunderstorms in the
vicinity, high winds, snow storms, and ice storms are examples of
adverse weather conditions that make work on towers or other structures
that support overhead lines too hazardous to perform, even after the
employee implements the work practices required by final Subpart V. In
the final rule, OSHA revised the note to closely match the regulatory
text in paragraph (d)(4). In addition, the Agency changed ``immediate
vicinity'' to ``vicinity'' to more clearly indicate that thunderstorms
do not need to be in the work area to pose a hazard.\440\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \440\ Section <IP_ADDRESS> of IEEE Std 516-2009 states: ``Energized-
line maintenance should not be started when lightning is visible or
thunder is audible at the worksite'' (Ex. 0532).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

16. Section 1926.965, Underground Electrical Installations
    In many electric distribution systems, utilities install electric
equipment in enclosures, such as manholes and vaults, set beneath the
earth. Section 1926.965 addresses safety for these underground
electrical installations. As noted in final paragraph (a), the
requirements in this section are in addition to requirements contained
elsewhere in Subpart V (and elsewhere in Part 1926) because Sec.
1926.965 only addresses conditions unique to underground facilities.
For example, final Sec.  1926.953, relating to enclosed spaces, also
applies to underground operations involving entry into an enclosed
space.
    OSHA took Sec.  1926.965 from existing Sec.  1910.269(t). Existing
Subpart V contains requirements for work on underground lines in Sec.
1926.956. OSHA explains the differences between the existing rules and
the final rule in the following summary and explanation of final Sec.
1926.965.
    Paragraph (b), which is being adopted without substantive change
from the proposal, requires the use of ladders or other climbing
devices for entrance into, and exit from, manholes and subsurface
vaults that are more than 1.22 meters (4 feet) deep. Because employees'
jumping into subsurface enclosures or climbing on the cables and
hangers installed in these enclosures can easily injure employees, the
standard requires the use of appropriate devices for employees entering
and exiting manholes and vaults. Paragraph (b) specifically prohibits
employees from climbing on cables and cable hangers to get into or out
of a manhole or vault. OSHA took this provision from existing Sec.
1910.269(t)(1). Existing Subpart V contains no counterpart to this
requirement.
    Paragraph (c), which is being adopted without substantive change
from the proposal, requires equipment used to lower materials and tools
into manholes or vaults to be capable of supporting the weight of the
materials and tools and specifies that employers check this equipment
for defects before employees use it. Paragraph (c) also requires
employees to be clear of the area directly under the opening for the
manhole or vault before tools or materials are lowered into the
enclosure. These provisions, found in separate paragraphs in the final
rule, protect employees against injuries from falling tools and
material. Note that, because work addressed by this paragraph exposes
employees to the danger of head injury, Sec.  1926.100(a) requires
employees to wear head protection when they are working in underground
electrical installations. OSHA took paragraph (c) of the final rule
from existing Sec.  1910.269(t)(2). Existing Subpart V contains no
counterpart to this requirement.
    Final paragraph (d) requires attendants for manholes and vaults.
Under final paragraph (d)(1), during the time employees are performing
work in a manhole or vault that contains energized electric equipment,
an employee with first-aid training must be available on the surface in
the immediate vicinity \441\ of the manhole or vault entrance (but not
normally in the manhole or vault) to render emergency assistance.
However, under paragraph (d)(2), the attendant may enter the manhole,
for brief periods, to provide nonemergency assistance to the employees
inside.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \441\ For the purposes of final Sec.  1926.965(d)(1),
``immediate vicinity'' means near enough to the manhole or vault
opening that the attendant can monitor employees in the space and
render any necessary assistance in an emergency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The provisions in final paragraph (d) ensure that employers can
provide emergency assistance to employees working in manholes and
vaults, where the employees work unobserved and where undetected injury
could occur. Taken from existing Sec.  1910.269(t)(3) and existing
Sec.  1926.956(b)(1), these requirements protect employees within the
manholes and vaults without exposing the attendants outside to a risk
of injury faced by employees inside these structures.
    Because the hazards addressed by final paragraph (d) involve
primarily electric shock, allowing the attendant to

enter the manhole briefly \442\ would have no significant effect on the
safety of the employee he or she is protecting. In case of electric
shock, the attendant would still be able to provide assistance. OSHA is
adopting paragraph (d) without substantive change from the proposed
rule. As noted in the summary and explanation for final Sec. Sec.
1926.951(b) and 1926.953(h) earlier in this section of the preamble,
OSHA adopted a definition of ``first-aid training'' that provides that
first-aid training includes training in CPR. Therefore, OSHA replaced
the term ``first aid and CPR training meeting Sec.  1926.951(b)(1)'' in
proposed Sec.  1926.965(d)(1) with ``first-aid training'' in final
Sec.  1926.965(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \442\ The attendant may remain within the manhole only for the
short period necessary to assist the employee inside the manhole
with a task that one employee cannot perform alone. For example, if
a second employee is necessary to help lift a piece of equipment
into place, the attendant may enter only for the period needed to
accomplish this task. However, if significant portions of the job
require the assistance of a second worker in the manhole, the
attendant may not remain in the manhole for the necessary period,
and a third employee would have to provide the requisite assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Kevin Taylor with Lyondell Chemical Company requested that the
Agency clarify what this provision means by ``immediate vicinity,''
asking: ``Would this definition include someone in a nearby control
room that is readily available (via radio) to come and administer CPR
or first aid?'' (Ex. 0218).
    Final Sec.  1926.968 defines ``attendant'' as ``[a]n employee
assigned to remain immediately outside the entrance to an enclosed or
other space to render assistance as needed to employees inside the
space.'' An employee in a control room is not close enough to the
manhole or vault to qualify as an attendant for the purposes of the
final rule.
    As previously noted, final paragraph (d)(2) permits the attendant
to occasionally enter the manhole or vault for brief periods to provide
assistance for nonemergency purposes. Note that, if hazards other than
electric shock could endanger the employee in the manhole or vault,
final Sec.  1926.953(h) also may apply. Paragraph (h) in final Sec.
1926.953 requires attendants when employees are working in an enclosed
space (which includes, manholes and vaults) and traffic patterns
present a hazard in the area of the opening to the enclosed space. In
such situations, having an attendant enter the manhole or vault would
expose the attendant and the entrant to the traffic-pattern hazards.
Therefore, the final rule does not permit attendants required under
Sec.  1926.953(h) to enter a manhole or vault. To clarify the
application of the two different attendant requirements, OSHA included
a note following final Sec.  1926.965(d)(2). The note states that Sec.
1926.953(h) may also require an attendant and does not permit this
attendant to enter the manhole or vault.
    OSHA included a second note following final paragraph (d)(2). The
second note serves as a reminder that Sec.  1926.960(b)(1)(ii)
prohibits unqualified employees from working in areas containing
unguarded, uninsulated energized lines or parts of equipment operating
at 50 volts or more.
    Mr. Lee Marchessault with Workplace Safety Solutions maintained
that there was a conflict between proposed Sec.  1926.953 and Sec.
1926.965 with respect to the requirements for attendants (Ex. 0196; Tr.
580-581). He also recommended that OSHA revise Sec.  1926.965(d)(2) to
permit the attendant to enter a manhole or vault only when it is less
than 1.5 meters (5 feet) in depth (Ex. 0196).
    OSHA does not believe that the depth of a manhole or vault is
generally relevant to determining whether an employer should permit an
attendant to enter one of these spaces. If the depth of the manhole or
vault presents a hazard, as it might if it were deep enough to pose
pressure or access and egress hazards, then those hazards would still
endanger the life of an entrant or interfere with escape from the space
even after the employer takes the precautions required by final
Sec. Sec.  1926.953 and 1926.965. In such cases, final Sec.
1926.953(a) would require entries to conform to paragraphs (d) through
(k) of Sec.  1910.146. Otherwise, the hazards for the entrant and
attendant should be independent of the depth of the manhole or vault.
    Moreover, the Agency does not believe that there is a conflict
between the requirements for attendants in final Sec. Sec.  1926.953
and 1926.965. As noted earlier, final Sec.  1926.953(h) requires
attendants for work in an enclosed space (which includes, manholes and
vaults) if a hazard exists because of traffic patterns in the area of
the opening to the enclosed space. Thus, this attendant requirement
addresses hazards outside the space. On the other hand, the hazards
addressed by final Sec.  1926.965(d) primarily involve electric shock.
As noted earlier, allowing the attendant required by this paragraph to
enter the manhole or vault briefly has no significant effect on the
safety of the employee he or she is protecting.
    Paragraph (d)(3), which is being adopted without change from the
proposal, permits an employee working alone to enter a manhole or
vault, where energized cables or equipment are in service, for brief
periods of time for the purpose of inspection, housekeeping, taking
readings, or similar work. In such situations, the employer must
demonstrate that the employee will be protected from all electrical
hazards.
    Mr. Lee Marchessault of Workplace Safety Solutions recommended that
OSHA remove this paragraph from the standard (Ex. 0196; Tr. 581). He
testified that ``[t]here is no way to ensure the safety of a worker in
a vault containing energized cables, and an attendant should always be
prepared for rescue in case of emergency'' (Tr. 581).
    As noted earlier, the purpose of requiring an attendant under final
paragraph (d) is to provide assistance in case the employee in the
manhole or vault receives an electric shock. In proposing paragraph
(d)(3), OSHA believed that, when an employee is performing the types of
work listed in this provision, there is very little chance that he or
she would suffer an electric shock. Mr. Marchessault did not provide
any evidence that the permitted types of work are unsafe or that they
expose employees to a risk of electric shock. In fact, final paragraph
(d)(3) requires the employer to demonstrate that the employee will be
protected from all electrical hazards. Thus, the Agency continues to
believe it is safe for an employee to perform duties such as
housekeeping and inspection without the presence of an attendant in the
circumstances described by final paragraph (d)(3).
    NIOSH recommended that this provision require the employer to
demonstrate that employees will also be protected from ``hazardous
atmospheres (as required in 1910.146)'' (Ex. 0130).
    OSHA agrees that employees entering manholes and vaults may be
exposed to hazardous atmospheres. However, these hazards are adequately
addressed by the requirements on enclosed spaces contained in final
Sec.  1926.953, which also apply to manholes and vaults. Consequently,
the Agency is not adopting the recommendation from NIOSH.
    Paragraph (d)(4), which is being adopted without substantive change
from the proposal, requires reliable communications through two-way
radios or other equivalent means to be maintained among all employees
involved in the job, including any attendants, the employees in the
manhole or vault, and employees in separate manholes or vaults working
on the same job. This requirement, which OSHA took from existing Sec.
1910.269(t)(3)(iv), has no counterpart in Sec.  1926.956(b)(1).

    To install cables into the underground ducts, or conduits, that
will contain them, employees use a series of short jointed rods, or a
long flexible rod, inserted into the ducts. The insertion of these rods
into the ducts is known as ``rodding.'' Employees use the rods to
thread the cable-pulling rope through the conduit. After withdrawing
the rods and inserting the cable-pulling ropes, employees then can pull
the cables through the conduit by mechanical means.
    Paragraph (e), which is being adopted without substantive change
from the proposal, requires the employer to ensure that employees
install the duct rods in the direction presenting the least hazard to
employees. To make sure that a rod does not contact live parts at the
far end of the duct line being rodded, which would be in a different
manhole or vault, this paragraph also requires the employer to station
an employee at the remote, or far, end of the rodding operation to
ensure that employees maintain the required minimum approach distances.
This provision, which OSHA took from existing Sec.  1910.269(t)(4), has
no counterpart in existing Subpart V.
    To prevent accidents resulting from working on the wrong, and
possibly energized, cable, paragraph (f), which is being adopted
without substantive change from the proposal, requires the employer to
identify the proper cable when multiple cables are present in a work
area. The employer must make this identification by electrical means
(for example, a meter), unless the proper cable is obvious because of
distinctive appearance, location, or other readily apparent means of
identification. The employer must protect cables other than the one
being worked from damage. This paragraph, which OSHA took from existing
Sec.  1910.269(t)(5), is similar to existing Sec.  1926.956(c)(4),
(c)(5), and (c)(6); however, existing Sec.  1926.956(c)(4) and (c)(5)
apply only to excavations. Final paragraph (f) applies the requirements
to all underground installations.
    If employees will be moving any energized cables during underground
operations, paragraph (g) requires the employer to ensure that
employees inspect these cables for abnormalities that could lead to a
fault, except as provided in paragraph (h)(2). If the employees find an
abnormality, final paragraph (h)(1) applies. These provisions protect
employees against possibly defective cables, which could fault when
moved, leading to serious injury. OSHA replaced ``defects'' in proposed
paragraph (g) with ``abnormalities'' in the final rule for consistency
with the language used in final paragraph (h). In addition, OSHA added
language exempting employers from the inspection requirement when final
paragraph (h)(2) permits employees to perform work that could cause a
fault in an energized cable in a manhole or vault. Under paragraph
(h)(2), employers may perform work that could cause a fault in a cable
when service-load conditions and a lack of feasible alternatives
require that the cable remain energized. In that case, employees may
enter the manhole or vault, and perform that work without the
inspection required by paragraph (g), provided the employer protects
them from the possible effects of a failure using shields or other
devices that are capable of containing the adverse effects of a fault.
Paragraph (g) in the final rule, which OSHA took from existing Sec.
1910.269(t)(6), has no counterpart in existing Subpart V.
    Since an energized cable with an abnormality may fail with an
enormous release of energy, employers must take precautions to minimize
the possibility of such an occurrence while an employee is working in a
manhole or vault. Therefore, final paragraph (h) addresses conditions
that could lead to a failure of a cable and injure an employee working
in a manhole or vault.
    Final paragraph (h)(1) provides that, if a cable in a manhole or
vault has one or more abnormalities that could lead to a fault or be an
indication of an impending fault, the employer must deenergize the
cable before an employee may work in the manhole or vault, except when
service-load conditions and a lack of feasible alternatives \443\
require that the cable remain energized. For example, under some
service-load conditions, it may not be feasible for the electric
utility to deenergize the cable with the abnormality because the
utility deenergized another line for maintenance work. In such cases,
employees may enter the manhole or vault only if protected from the
possible effects of a failure by shields or other devices capable of
containing the adverse effects of a fault. Final paragraph (h)(1)
provides that the employer must treat the following abnormalities as
indications of impending faults: oil or compound leaking from cable or
joints, broken cable sheaths or joint sleeves, hot localized surface
temperatures of cables or joints, or joints swollen beyond normal
tolerance. However, if the employer can demonstrate that the listed
conditions could not lead to a fault, final paragraph (h)(1) does not
require the employer to take protective measures. This provision, which
OSHA took from existing Sec.  1910.269(t)(7), has no counterpart in
existing Subpart V. OSHA revised the language in the final rule to
clarify that it applies to abnormalities that ``could lead to a fault
or be an indication of an impending fault'' (emphasis added). The
Agency also included the information in the note to proposed paragraph
(h)(1) in the regulatory text of this final paragraph to clarify that,
when any of the abnormalities specifically listed in paragraph (h)(1)
are present, the burden is on the employer to demonstrate that the
abnormality could not lead to a fault.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \443\ Feasible alternatives could include the use of shunts or
other means of supplying areas with power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted earlier in the discussion of the definition for ``entry''
under the summary and explanation for final Sec.  1926.953(g), ConEd
and EEI expressed concern that proposed Sec.  1910.269(t)(7)(i) (and by
implication its counterpart in proposed Sec.  1926.965(h)(1)) would
preclude the ability of an employer to enter a manhole or vault and
hang a tag to indicate the presence of a defective cable.
    Final Sec.  1910.269(t)(7)(i) and its counterpart in final Sec.
1926.965(h)(1) are substantially the same as existing Sec.
1910.269(t)(7). These provisions generally prohibit employees from
entering a manhole or vault containing a cable that has one or more
abnormalities that could lead to a fault, or be an indication of an
impending fault. Employers are unlikely to know about the abnormalities
addressed by these provisions before employees enter the manholes or
vaults in which they are present. The rule does not prohibit an initial
entry into a manhole or vault, so long as the employer does not have
actual or constructive knowledge of the abnormalities before the
initial entry. If an employer uses the described tagging system to
identify cables with these abnormalities, OSHA expects that the tags
will be hung during the initial entry into the manhole or vault when
employees first identify the abnormalities. Once the employer acquires
knowledge of cables with abnormalities that could lead to a fault, or
be an indication of an impending fault, the final rule prohibits
additional entries unless the employer takes the precautions required
by final paragraph (h)(1).
    Paragraph (h)(2), which is being adopted without substantive change
from the proposal, addresses work that could cause a fault in a cable,
such as removing asbestos covering on a cable

or using a power tool to break concrete encasing a cable. This type of
work can damage the cable and create an internal fault. The energy
released by the fault could injure not only the employee performing the
work, but any other employees nearby. Final paragraph (h)(2) requires
the same protective measures in those situations as paragraph (h)(1),
that is, deenergizing the cable or, under certain conditions, using
shields or other protective devices capable of containing the effects
of a fault.
    Two commenters requested that OSHA clarify the meaning of the
phrase ``shields or other devices that are capable of containing the
adverse effects of a fault'' in proposed paragraph (h) (Exs. 0209,
0227). Both paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) use this phrase. OSHA notes
that the preamble to the proposal described the types of devices that
employers could use to satisfy these requirements:

    For example, a ballistic blanket wrapped around a defective
splice can protect against injury from the effects of a fault in the
splice. The energy that could be released in case of a fault is
known, and the energy absorbing capability of a shield or other
device can be obtained from the manufacturer or can be calculated.
As long as the energy absorbing capability of the shield or other
device exceeds the available fault energy, employees will be
protected. The proposal would require employees to be protected,
regardless of the type of device used and of how it is applied. [70
FR 34884-34885]

This clarification applies equally to the final rule.
    Mr. Lee Marchessault with Workplace Safety Solutions suggested that
paragraph (h) also require consideration of FR clothing as outlined in
proposed Appendix F (Ex. 0196).
    Employers may use arc-rated clothing, which employers must use
under final Sec.  1926.960(g)(5), in combination with the shields or
other devices specified by final paragraph (h), to achieve the
protection from heat energy required by both of these provisions.
However, paragraph (h) of the final rule requires a broader form of
protection, including protection from flying objects and other hazards
from the fault. Therefore, OSHA does not recognize FR or arc-rated
clothing as a device that is capable, by itself, of containing the
adverse effects of a fault as required by that paragraph.
    Consolidated Edison objected to the wording of proposed paragraph
(h)(2) and the explanation of proposed paragraph (h)(2) in the preamble
to the proposal (70 FR 34885), commenting:

    While Consolidated Edison does not object to the concept that
OSHA is trying to convey in this new provision, we find the wording
to be unnecessarily vague. In the preamble to the proposed rule,
OSHA uses the example of removing asbestos covering from a cable as
a type of work that could cause a fault. In a given year, Con Edison
conducts almost one hundred (100) projects in which we remove
twenty-five (25) linear feet of asbestos covering from energized
cable. This is the regulatory limit at which we must file for the
project; it does not include projects where we remove less than the
regulatory filing limit. Con Edison has a set procedure by which
this work is conducted. This does not represent work that could be
expected to cause a fault in a cable since we routinely conduct this
work without cable faulting. In addition, we routinely remove arc-
proof tape of non-asbestos type from cables that are energized
without incident.
    In another example, you indicate that using a power tool to
break concrete encasing a cable could cause a fault. Con Edison uses
power tools to break concrete duct encasing energized cable as part
of our normal operations. We took the time to analyze the operation
and develop a procedure by which this can be done safely. By
following this procedure, we successfully remove concrete (and other
material) duct from energized cable.
    There are recognized work practices that could be expected to
cause a fault in a cable but the two examples OSHA provides in the
preamble to the proposed rule are not these type of operation. As
currently written, the rule could preclude a great deal of work in a
subsurface structure with energized cable even though there is no
danger to employee safety. Therefore, we are suggesting that OSHA
change the proposed language to the following:
    If the work being performed in a manhole or vault could be
expected to cause a fault in a cable, that cable shall be
deenergized before any employee may work in the manhole or vault,
except when service load conditions and a lack of feasible
alternatives require that the cable remain energized. In that case,
employees may enter the manhole or vault provided they are protected
from the possible effects of a failure by shields or other devices
that are capable of containing the adverse effects of a fault. [Ex.
0157; emphasis included in original]

    EEI similarly objected to the language in proposed paragraph (h),
arguing that ``the wording as . . . proposed would eliminate any work
in a structure with live equipment'' (Ex. 0227). EEI recommended the
following language to address its concerns: \444\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \444\ Paraphrasing language from proposed paragraph (h)(1), EEI
indicated that it was commenting on that provision of the proposal
(Ex. 0227). However, EEI recommended revised language that would
replace proposed paragraph (h)(2). In this discussion, OSHA responds
to EEI's comment as it applies to proposed paragraph (h) generally
and to the recommended language as a suggested replacement for
proposed paragraph (h)(2).

    If the work being performed in a manhole or vault could be
expected to lead to a fault in a cable, that cable shall be
deenergized before an employee may work on that cable. [Id.;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
emphasis included in original]

    First, OSHA disagrees with Consolidated Edison with regard to the
two examples of work that could cause a fault in a cable. In both
cases, the cable is hidden from view--in one case, by an asbestos
covering, and in the other case, by concrete. Employees cannot inspect
the condition of the cable jacket and insulation, which may be decades
old, until after removing the covering.\445\ It is reasonable to expect
that vibrations from the removal of an asbestos or concrete covering
would move the encased cables, and any movement of a cable with an
abnormality, even movement from vibrations, can lead to the failure of
the cable (that is, a fault). In addition, there is at least one
accident in the record involving the use of tools to remove concrete
from underground cables, and others involving tools penetrating
concrete-encased underground cables (Ex. 0004 \446\). Consequently,
OSHA continues to believe that these are two good examples of work that
could cause a fault in a cable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \445\ As noted earlier, final paragraph (g) requires employees
to inspect energized cables before moving them, except as provided
in paragraph (h)(2). OSHA added the exception, which the proposal
did not make explicit, to clarify that paragraph (g) does not
require an inspection when paragraph (h)(2) permits employees to
perform work that could cause a fault in an energized cable in a
manhole or vault.
    \446\ See, for example, the three accidents described at http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/accidentsearch.accident_detail?id=170063499&id=14485585&id=170191100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Agency does not agree with EEI that the final rule will
``eliminate any work in a structure with live equipment'' (Ex. 0227).
Final paragraph (h) requires employers to deenergize cables only under
limited conditions. Paragraph (h)(1) requires the employer to
deenergize a cable only when the cable has one or more abnormalities
that could lead to a fault or be an indication of an impending fault.
Paragraph (h)(2) requires the employer to deenergize a cable only when
employees will perform work that could cause a fault in that cable. The
final rule permits employees to work in manholes and vaults containing
live equipment whenever the conditions specified in paragraphs (h)(1)
and (h)(2) are not present, as well as when service-load conditions and
a lack of feasible alternatives require that the cable remain
energized.
    Finally, OSHA is not adopting Consolidated Edison's (or EEI's)
suggested language. The Agency does not believe that the recommended
change would clarify the rule and

believes that adopting the change would make the provision more
difficult to enforce. Final paragraph (h)(2) does not require
deenergizing cables when there is only a remote possibility that a
fault would occur. There must be a reasonable possibility that
performing the work could cause a fault. Such work would include: work
in which employees are using tools or equipment in a manner in which
they could foreseeably penetrate the cable jacket; work that would
disturb a cable that employees cannot visually inspect; and any other
work that could damage a cable. These are the types of activities that
caused accidents in the record (Exs. 0002, 0003 \447\). In addition,
EEI's recommendation would only protect employees working on a cable.
EEI's proposed language would not ensure the safety of employees
performing work in the vicinity of, but not on, the energized cable in
which a fault could occur. Such work would include work in which
employees are using tools or equipment in a manner in which they could
foreseeably penetrate the cable jacket, as noted previously. Therefore,
OSHA concludes that EEI's language would not provide adequate
protection to employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \447\ See, for example, the five accidents at http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/accidentsearch.accident_detail?id=170065650&id=014485585&id=170191100&id=170153977&id=170247944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (i), which is being adopted without substantive change
from the proposal, requires employers to maintain metallic-sheath
continuity while employees are working on buried cables or cables in
manholes and vaults. Bonding across an opening in a cable's sheath
protects employees against electric shock from a difference in electric
potential between the two sides of the opening. As an alternative to
bonding, the cable sheath can be treated as energized. (In this case,
the voltage at which the sheath is to be considered energized is equal
to the maximum voltage that could be seen across the sheath under fault
conditions.) This requirement, which OSHA took from existing Sec.
1910.269(t)(8), is essentially identical to existing Sec.
1926.956(c)(7), except that the final rule allows the cable sheath to
be treated as energized in lieu of bonding. This requirement is
consistent with other parts of the final rule, such as Sec.
1926.960(j), which recognize treating objects as energized as an
alternative to grounding.
    Mr. John Vocke with Pacific Gas and Electric Company objected to
proposed paragraph (i) as follows:

    Paragraph (i) of proposed Sec.  1926.965 would require metallic
sheath continuity to be maintained while work is performed on
underground cables. In its underground transmission system, PG&E has
deliberately engineered certain circuits with discontinuous shield
wires for system reliability. PG&E submits that as long as specific
safety procedures are in place, underground transmission cables need
not be equipped with metallic sheath continuity. [Ex. 0185]

    Paragraph (i) of the final rule requires employers to maintain
metallic-sheath continuity. It does not require these sheaths to be
continuous across the system, nor does it require the employer to bond
across breaks already installed in the system. As noted in the earlier
explanation of this provision, it requires employers to place bonds
when employees interrupt the continuity of the sheath as part of the
work procedure (for example, when the employee strips the jacket,
sheath, and insulation from a cable to splice it). Thus, Mr. Vocke's
concern is unfounded. OSHA notes, however, that final Sec.  1926.962(c)
requires temporary protective grounds to be installed to prevent each
employee from being exposed to hazardous differences in electric
potential. Installing grounds in accordance with this provision will
protect employees from hazardous differences in potential where
designed breaks in metallic sheath continuity exist.
    Mr. Brian Erga with ESCI recommended that OSHA add specific
procedures for grounding underground cables (Exs. 0155, 0471; Tr. 1256-
1257). He explained:

    IEEE has recognized the problem after a number of accidents
involving de-energized cables. The industry has also recognized the
hazard and has conducted research justifying the need for new safe
work methods.
    Again, there ha[ve] been a number of serious accidents and
fatalities when de-energized cable, thought to be . . . safely
grounded, has been energized due to voltage rise on the system
neutral. After an accident at San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E)
involving a grounded cable [that] became energized, SDG&E conducted
research in system neutral voltage rise. A paper was written and
published on the research . . . . Also, the IEEE/ESMOL Task Force
<IP_ADDRESS> published a paper titled ``Worker Protection While
Working De-energized Underground Distribution Systems''. . . . [Ex.
0471]

    Mr. Erga suggested provisions that included requiring the employer
to (1) insulate employees from system neutral voltage rise, (2) isolate
the cable and its associated neutral from system neutral voltage rise,
or (3) create an equipotential zone at the work location (id.).
    The final rule already addresses the provisions recommended by Mr.
Erga. Final Sec.  1926.962 requires employers to install grounds and
provide an equipotential zone on lines treated as deenergized.
Alternatively, the employer can treat the lines as energized. Paragraph
(b) of final Sec.  1926.962 also permits lines and equipment to be
treated as deenergized without grounds under certain conditions;
however, Mr. Erga did not include all of these conditions in his
recommendations. Finally, final Sec.  1926.962(g) prohibits grounding
at a remote terminal if there is a possibility of hazardous transfer of
potential should a fault occur. Thus, OSHA believes that the final rule
adequately addresses the hazards covered by Mr. Erga's suggested
regulatory text and decided not to adopt it. The Agency is, however,
incorporating appropriate information from Mr. Erga's submission in
Appendix C to final Subpart V, Protection from Hazardous Differences in
Electric Potentials, to assist employers in complying with the
requirements on grounding as they apply to underground installations.
17. Section 1926.966, Substations
    As explained in paragraph (a), final Sec.  1926.966 addresses work
performed in substations. The provisions of this paragraph supplement
(rather than modify) the general requirements contained in other
portions of Subpart V, such as final Sec.  1926.960, which regulates
working on or near live parts.
    Final paragraph (b) requires the employer to provide and maintain
sufficient access and working space around electric equipment to permit
ready and safe operation and maintenance of the equipment by employees.
This rule prevents employees from contacting exposed live parts as a
result of insufficient maneuvering room. A note following this
paragraph recognizes, for compliance purposes, the provisions of ANSI/
IEEE C2-2012, which address the design of workspace for electric
equipment. Final Sec.  1926.966(b), which OSHA took from existing Sec.
1910.269(u)(1), has no counterpart in existing Subpart V.
    OSHA realizes that older installations may not meet the dimensions
set forth in the latest version of the national consensus standard. The
Agency believes that the language of final paragraph (b) is
sufficiently performance-oriented that older installations, likely
built to specifications in the national consensus standards that were
in effect during construction of the installation, will meet the
requirement for sufficient workspace provided that the installation

and work practices used enable employees to perform work safely within
the space and to maintain the minimum approach distances established by
the employer under Sec.  1926.960(c)(1)(i). The note to final Sec.
1926.966(b) states that the NESC specifications are guidelines. That
note indicates that OSHA will determine whether an installation that
does not conform to that consensus standard complies with final
paragraph (b) based on the following criteria:
    (1) Whether the installation conforms to the edition of ANSI/IEEE
C2 that was in effect when the installation was made,
    (2) Whether the configuration of the installation enables employees
to maintain the minimum approach distances, established by the employer
under Sec.  1926.960(c)(1)(i), while the employees are working on
exposed, energized parts, and
    (3) Whether the precautions taken when employees perform work on
the installation provide protection equivalent to the protection
provided by access and working space meeting ANSI/IEEE C2-2012.
    The language in this note is equivalent to a note in existing Sec.
1910.269(u)(1) and accomplishes three goals. First, it explains that an
installation need not be in conformance with ANSI/IEEE C2-2012 to be in
compliance with final paragraph (b). Second, it informs employers with
installations that do not conform to the latest ANSI standard of how
they can comply with final paragraph (b). Third, it ensures that,
however old an installation is, it provides sufficient space to enable
employees to work within the space without significant risk of injury.
OSHA received no comments on either proposed paragraph (b) or the note
and is adopting them without substantive change from the proposal. OSHA
updated the version of ANSI/IEEE C2 listed in the note to the most
recent edition (2012). OSHA reviewed ANSI/IEEE C2-2012 and finds that
it provides protection equivalent to the 2002 edition referenced in the
note in the proposal.
    Paragraph (c), which is being adopted without substantive change
from the proposal, requires the employer to ensure that, when employees
remove or insert draw-out-type circuit breakers,\448\ the breaker is in
the open position. Additionally, if the design of the control devices
permits, the employer must render the control circuit for the circuit
breaker inoperable. These provisions prevent arcing that could injure
employees. Final paragraph (c), which OSHA took from existing Sec.
1910.269(u)(2), has no counterpart in existing Subpart V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \448\ A draw-out-type circuit breaker is one in which the
removable portion may be withdrawn from the stationary portion
without unbolting connections or mounting supports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because voltages can be impressed or induced on large metal objects
near substation equipment, proposed paragraph (d) would have required
conductive fences around substations to be grounded. In addition, the
proposal specified that employers maintain grounding continuity and
provide bonding to prevent electrical discontinuity when the employer
expanded substation fences or removed sections of such fences.
    OSHA took the proposed provision from existing Sec.
1910.269(u)(3). Existing Sec.  1926.957(g)(1) requires employers to
maintain ``[a]dequate interconnection with ground'' between temporary
and permanent fences, but does not require permanent substation fences
to be grounded. In the preamble to the proposal, OSHA indicated that it
believes that grounding metal fences, whether they are temporary or
permanent, is essential to the safety of employees working near the
fences (70 FR 34885).
    OSHA received many comments on proposed paragraph (d). (See, for
example, Exs. 0125, 0126, 0151, 0159, 0172, 0188, 0212.) Most of these
commenters pointed out that the proposal was at odds with the methods
of protecting employees and the general public from hazardous
differences in electric potential described in IEEE Std 80-2000, IEEE
Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding. (See, for example, Exs.
0125, 0126, 0151, 0159, 0172, 0188.) For instance, Mr. Jules Weaver
with the Northwest Line Constructors Chapter of NECA commented:

    As currently written, [paragraph (d)] creates a situation in
which death or serious injury to both employees and the public
exists. When a substation fence is expanded or a section removed for
working in an existing substation, the temporary fence installed to
keep the work area secured shall not be bonded or the fence
continuity maintained between the existing grounded fence enclosure
and the temporary fence, as explained in IEEE Standard 80-2000
``IEEE Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding'' section 17.3.
When expanding a substation the practice is to remove the existing
section of fence between the energized portion of the substation and
the new section. The new section is fenced to protect the worksite
and the public from unauthorized access into the energized sub.
Temporary isolation fences are installed between the existing
substation fence and the temporary fence to prevent touch and step
potential hazards. As stated in the current regulations by
maintaining a bond and electrical continuity employees are exposed
to these differences of potential. As the new substation addition is
built the following basic sequence of events occur, excavation of
the existing soil is completed, foundations and footings are poured
for equipment placement, control wiring and ground grid installed,
and then final installation of rock placed creating the required
insulation for employee protection. It is not until the new ground
grid in the substation addition is installed and equipment in place
does the connection between the new addition and the existing
substation [begin]. As the new addition nears completion the fence
isolation fences are removed, permanent fencing is installed, and
the grid connected. It is at this critical time that the employees
can be exposed to critical potential differences and proper work
rules on bonding and grounding would be required. [Ex. 0188;
emphasis included in original]

He recommended that OSHA modify paragraph (d) to read:

    Conductive fences around substations shall be grounded. When a
substation fence is expanded or a section is removed, they shall be
designed to limit touch, step, and transferred voltages in
accordance with industry practices.

    Note to paragraph . . . (d) . . . of this section: Guidelines
for substation grounding as defined in IEEE Guide for Safety in AC
substation Grounding (Standard 80-2000) would he one source that may
be utilized to provide guidance in meeting these requirements. [Id.;
emphasis included in original]

    OSHA agrees that this approach, which other commenters also
recommended, would better protect employees than the proposed
requirement. As demonstrated by the description quoted from Mr.
Weaver's comment, employers isolate temporary fences from existing
fences, in addition to bonding and grounding substation fence sections,
to protect employees from hazardous differences in potential. The
Agency also agrees that IEEE Std 80 provides useful guidance to protect
employees from hazardous differences in electric potential. Therefore,
OSHA adopted the following language in final paragraph (d):

    Conductive fences around substations shall be grounded. When a
substation fence is expanded or a section is removed, fence sections
shall be isolated, grounded, or bonded as necessary to protect
employees from hazardous differences in electric potential.

    Note to paragraph (d) of this section: IEEE Std 80-2000, IEEE
Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding, contains guidelines for
protection against hazardous differences in electric potential.

    The Agency believes that the language in the final rule addresses
the commenters' concerns, as well as the concern of another commenter,
who questioned whether isolation joints would be acceptable under the
standard as proposed (Ex. 0212).
    Final paragraph (e) addresses the guarding of rooms and other
spaces that contain electric supply equipment. OSHA took this paragraph
from existing Sec.  1910.269(u)(4). Paragraphs (c) and (g) of Sec.
1926.957 are the only provisions in existing Subpart V that address the
guarding of live parts in substations. These two provisions require
employers to install barricades or barriers (paragraph (c)) and to
install temporary fences if sections of permanent fencing are expanded
or removed (paragraph (g)). Existing Sec.  1926.957(g)(2) also
generally requires employers to lock gates to unattended substations.
    The existing requirements only address temporary guarding measures.
Existing Sec.  1926.957 does not mention permanent guarding of live
parts, which generally is more substantial than the tape and cone
barricades permitted under the existing rule. OSHA's revision of the
substation rules addresses guarding of live parts in substations in a
more comprehensive manner and will provide better protection for
employees than existing Sec.  1926.957.
    OSHA believes that it is important to prohibit unqualified persons
from entering areas containing energized electric supply equipment,
regardless of the work they are performing. Employees working in these
areas must be trained in the hazards involved and in the appropriate
work practices, as required by final Sec.  1926.950(b)(2). This
training will enable employees to distinguish hazardous circuit parts
from nonhazardous equipment and will ensure that they are familiar with
the appropriate work practices, regardless of the jobs they are
performing. Many accidents occur because unqualified persons contact
energized parts in such areas (Ex. 0004 \449\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \449\ See, for example, the eight accidents at http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/accidentsearch.accident_detail?id=800995&id=170571012&id=902650&id=170571632&id=14529085&id=170681456&id=170681456&id=170108310.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subpart V applies to electrical installations for which OSHA has
few design requirements. The Subpart K electrical installation
standards typically do not apply to electric power transmission and
distribution installations, and such installations may pose hazards in
addition to the hazards associated with exposed live parts. For
example, ungrounded equipment enclosures pose such hazards. If
employers do not meet the requirements of Subpart K, then it is
important to prevent unqualified persons from gaining access to areas
containing electric power transmission and distribution equipment.
    Paragraph (e) of final Sec.  1926.966 sets forth criteria for
access by unqualified persons to rooms and other spaces containing
electric supply lines or equipment. Final paragraph (e)(1) specifies
which areas containing electric supply lines or equipment must meet the
guarding requirements contained in final paragraphs (e)(2) through
(e)(5). These areas fall into three categories as follows:
    (1) Rooms and other spaces where exposed live parts operating at 50
to 150 volts to ground are within 2.4 meters (8 feet) of the ground or
other working surface,
    (2) Rooms and other spaces where live parts operating at 151 to 600
volts to ground are within 2.4 meters (8 feet) of the ground or other
working surface and are guarded only by location, as permitted under
final Sec.  1926.966(f)(1), and
    (3) Rooms and other spaces where live parts operating at more than
600 volts to ground are located, unless:
    (a) The live parts are enclosed within grounded, metal-enclosed
equipment whose only openings are designed so that foreign objects
inserted in these openings will be deflected from energized parts, or
    (b) The live parts are installed at a height, above ground and any
other working surface, that provides protection at the voltage on the
live parts corresponding to the protection provided by a 2.4-meter (8-
foot) height at 50 volts.
    Final paragraphs (e)(2) through (e)(5) contain requirements that
apply to these areas. Fences, screens, partitions, or walls must
enclose these rooms and other spaces so as to minimize the possibility
that unqualified persons will enter; the employer must display signs at
the entrances warning unqualified persons to keep out; and the employer
must keep the entrances locked unless the entrances are under the
observation of a person attending the room or other space for the
purpose of preventing unqualified employees from entering.
Additionally, unqualified persons may not enter these rooms or other
spaces while the electric supply lines or equipment are energized.
    OSHA received no comments on proposed paragraph (e) and is adopting
it substantially as proposed. In the final rule, OSHA added metric
equivalents that were missing from proposed paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and
(e)(1)(ii). In addition, the Agency reworded paragraph (e)(5) in the
final rule as follows: ``The employer shall keep each entrance to a
room or other space locked, unless the entrance is under the
observation of a person who is attending the room or other space for
the purpose of preventing unqualified employees from entering.''
Proposed paragraph (e)(5) would have required the employer to lock
entrances to rooms and other spaces not under the observation of an
``attendant.'' OSHA defined the word ``attendant'' in final Sec.
1926.968 as ``[a]n employee assigned to remain immediately outside the
entrance to an enclosed or other space to render assistance as needed
to employees inside the space.'' This term applies to provisions that
require an attendant whose purpose is to protect employees within an
enclosed or other space. In contrast, the purpose of the person
attending the room or other space under final paragraph (e)(5) is to
keep unqualified employees from entering the room or other space.
Therefore, the use of the term ``attendant'' in proposed paragraph
(e)(5) was inappropriate, and the revised language is more accurate.
    Paragraph (f) also addresses guarding of live parts. This
paragraph, which OSHA took from existing Sec.  1910.269(u)(5), has no
counterpart in existing Subpart V.
    Paragraph (f)(1), which is being adopted without substantive change
from the proposal, requires the employer to provide guards around all
live parts operating at more than 150 volts to ground without an
insulating covering unless the location of the live parts gives
sufficient clearance to minimize the possibility of accidental employee
contact. This provision protects qualified employees from accidentally
contacting energized parts. Guidance for clearance distances
appropriate for guarding by location is available in ANSI/IEEE C2. A
note following final paragraph (f)(1) provides that OSHA considers
installations meeting ANSI/IEEE C2-2002 to meet paragraph (f)(1), which
OSHA based on Rule 124A1 of that standard.\450\ The note further
provides that OSHA will determine whether an installation that does not
conform to this ANSI standard complies with paragraph (f)(1) based on
the following criteria:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \450\ The 2012 NESC contains a similar requirement in Rule
124A1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Whether the installation conforms to the edition of ANSI C2
that was in effect when the installation was made,
    (2) Whether each employee is isolated from energized parts at the
point of closest approach, and

    (3) Whether the precautions taken when employees perform work on
the installation provide protection equivalent to the protection
provided by horizontal and vertical clearances meeting ANSI/IEEE C2-
2002.
    This approach affords employers flexibility in complying with the
standard and affords employees protection from injury due to sparkover
from live circuit parts.
    In developing the final rule, OSHA examined the 2012 version of
ANSI/IEEE C2 to determine if the guarding requirements of the newer
consensus standard protect employees to the extent required by final
paragraph (f)(1) and ANSI/IEEE C2-2002. Rule 124A1 of ANSI/IEEE C2-2012
requires guarding of ``live parts operating above 300 V phase-to-
phase'' rather than ``live parts operating at more than 150 volts to
ground'' as required by final paragraph (f)(1). Therefore, some live
parts that require guarding under the OSHA standard and ANSI/IEEE C2-
2002 do not require guarding under ANSI/IEEE C2-2012. For example, an
ungrounded, single-phase circuit operating at 240 volts between
conductors has a phase-to-ground voltage of 240 volts.\451\ The phase-
to-phase voltage of this circuit also is 240 volts. Consequently, final
paragraph (f)(1) and ANSI/IEEE C2-2002 require guarding of live parts
on this circuit, while ANSI/IEEE C2-2012 does not. Accordingly, the
Agency finds that ANSI/IEEE C2-2012 requires guarding of fewer live
parts and, therefore, provides less employee protection than the OSHA
standard and ANSI/IEEE C2-2002. The note to final paragraph (f)(1)
retains the reference to ANSI/IEEE C2-2002, as proposed, rather than
updating the reference to ANSI/IEEE C2-2012. However, with regard to
the dimensions of clearance distances about electric equipment,
employers can rely on ANSI/IEEE C2-2012 for providing sufficient
clearance to minimize the possibility of accidental employee contact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \451\ The 2002 and 2007 editions of ANSI/IEEE C2 define the
phase-to-ground voltage on an ungrounded circuit as ``[t]he highest
nominal voltage available between any two conductors of the circuit
concerned'' (Ex. 0077).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (f)(2), which is being adopted without substantive change
from the proposal, requires that the employer maintain guarding of
energized parts within a compartment during operation and maintenance
functions. This guarding will prevent accidental contact with energized
parts and prevent tools or other equipment from contacting energized
parts if an employee drops the tools or equipment. However, since
qualified employees need access to energized equipment, an exception to
this requirement allows qualified employees to remove guards to replace
fuses and to perform other necessary work. In such cases, paragraph
(f)(3), which also is being adopted without substantive change from the
proposal, applies. When anyone removes guards from energized equipment,
final paragraph (f)(3) requires the employer to install barriers around
the work area to prevent employees who are not working on the
equipment, but who are in the area, from contacting the exposed live
parts.
    Paragraph (g)(1), which is being adopted without substantive change
from the proposal, requires employees who do not work regularly at the
station to report their presence to the employee in charge of
substation activities so that they can receive information on special
system conditions affecting employee safety. Final paragraph (g)(2)
requires the job briefing under final Sec.  1926.952 to cover
information on special system conditions affecting employee safety,
including the location of energized equipment in, or adjacent to, the
work area and the limits of any deenergized work area. OSHA took
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) from existing Sec.  1910.269(u)(6). The
Agency revised the language in paragraph (g)(2) in the final rule to
make it clear that the information covered in the job briefing must
include all information on special system conditions affecting employee
safety in the substation. Note that, unlike paragraph (g)(1), paragraph
(g)(2) applies equally to unattended and attended substations, and to
employees already working in a substation and employees who enter a
substation.
    Existing Sec.  1926.957(a)(1) requires the employer to ensure that
employees obtain authorization from the person in charge of the
substation before performing work. Proposed paragraph (g) would not
have required authorization. In the preamble to the proposal, OSHA
stated that the Agency did not believe that such a requirement was
necessary (70 FR 34886). Proposed paragraph (g)(1) would have required
employees who do not work regularly in the substation to report their
presence to the employee in charge. OSHA explained in the preamble to
the proposal that the main purpose of this rule is to ensure a flow of
important safety-related information from the employee in charge to
employees about to work in the substation (70 FR 34887). The Agency
believed that, as long as the employee in charge imparted this
information to the employees performing the work and as long as
employers followed the requirements proposed in the revision of Subpart
V, employees could perform the work safely. Although OSHA did not
believe that it was necessary to require that the employee in charge
authorize the work, the Agency requested comments on whether the lack
of authorization to perform work could lead to accidents.
    Four commenters argued that the final rule should require
authorization (Exs. 0167, 0209, 0219, 0227). Three of these commenters
stated that lack of authorization can lead to accidents, but did not
describe how or why such accidents could occur (Exs. 0209, 0219, 0227).
The other commenter maintained that the only way to assure that
employees receive the proper information is by requiring authorization
by the employee in charge (Ex. 0167).
    Other commenters supported the proposal and agreed with OSHA's
preliminary conclusion that authorization is unnecessary. (See, for
example, Exs. 0186, 0201, 0212, 0213.) Mr. Anthony Ahern with the Ohio
Rural Electric Cooperatives succinctly described this reasoning as
follows:

    [A]n employee is required to report to the person in charge. The
person in charge knows who is present and what they are doing. Newly
arrived employee[s] cannot start work until they receive their
safety briefing. If the person in charge doesn't want the employee
to start work on their particular task they will stop them at that
time. Otherwise the employee will start working on their task after
the safety briefing. [Ex. 0186]

    The Agency agrees with Mr. Ahern that the act of reporting will
give the employee in charge an opportunity to deny access if necessary.
Therefore, the Agency is not including Subpart V's existing requirement
for authorization in the final rule.
    One commenter questioned: ``Should there be a provision that states
an unqualified person may enter a substation with a qualified employee,
and must not touch anything, even if they are just doing a visual
inspection?'' (Ex. 0126).
    OSHA notes that final Sec.  1926.966(e) generally prohibits
unqualified employees from entering rooms and other spaces containing
unguarded energized supply lines or equipment. If it is necessary for
such employees to enter these rooms and other spaces, employers must
train them as qualified employees. Note that OSHA considers employees
in training to be qualified employees under certain conditions, one of
which is when they are under the direct supervision of a qualified
employee. (For more detail, see CPL 02-01-038.)

    Another commenter asked OSHA to clarify how proposed paragraph
(g)(1) would apply to vendors and engineers who may be present, but do
not directly work in substations (Ex. 0162).
    Final paragraph (g)(1) does not require employees who are not
performing work covered by Subpart V to report their presence to the
employee in charge. In such cases, Subpart V would not be applicable.
    Existing Sec.  1926.957(a)(2) is essentially identical to final
Sec.  1926.966(g)(2), except that the existing rule, in paragraph
(a)(2)(ii), also requires the determination of what protective
equipment and precautions are necessary. Since final Sec.  1926.952(b)
already requires the job briefing to cover these areas, existing Sec.
1926.957(a)(2)(ii), which applies only to work in energized
substations, is no longer necessary. The Agency received no objection
to this proposed change.
18. Section 1926.967, Special Conditions
    Final Sec.  1926.967 sets requirements for special conditions
encountered during electric power transmission and distribution work.
Except as noted otherwise, OSHA received no comments on this section.
    Since capacitors store electric charge and can release electrical
energy even when disconnected from their sources of supply, some
precautions may be necessary--in addition to the precautions contained
in final Sec.  1926.961 (deenergizing lines and equipment) and final
Sec.  1926.962 (grounding)--when employees perform work on capacitors
or on lines connected to capacitors. Paragraph (a), which is being
adopted without substantive change from the proposal, contains
precautions that will enable this equipment to be treated as
deenergized. This paragraph, which OSHA took from existing Sec.
1910.269(w)(1), has no counterpart in existing Subpart V. A note to
paragraph (a) serves as a reminder that final Sec. Sec.  1926.961 and
1926.962 apply to deenergizing and grounding capacitor installations.
    Under final paragraph (a)(1), before employees work on capacitors,
the employer must disconnect the capacitors from energized sources and
short circuit the capacitors. In addition, the employer must ensure
that the employee short circuiting the capacitors waits at least 5
minutes from the time of disconnection before applying the short
circuit. This provision not only removes the sources of electric
current, but also relieves the capacitors of their charge. Note that
ANSI/IEEE Std 18-2012, IEEE Standard for Shunt Power Capacitors,
requires all capacitors to have an internal discharge device to reduce
the voltage to 50 volts or less within 5 minutes after the capacitor is
disconnected from an energized source.\452\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \452\ The time limit is 5 minutes for capacitors rated over 600
volts and 1 minute for capacitors rated 600 volts or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Before employees handle the units, the employer must short circuit
each unit in series-parallel capacitor banks between all terminals and
the capacitor case or its rack; and, if the cases of capacitors are on
ungrounded substation racks, the employer must bond the racks to
ground. Final paragraph (a)(2) requires these measures to ensure that
individual capacitors do not retain a charge. Final paragraph (a)(3)
requires the employer to short circuit any line connected to capacitors
before the line is treated as deenergized.
    Although the magnetic flux density in the core of a current
transformer usually is low, resulting in a low secondary voltage, it
will rise to saturation if the secondary circuit opens while the
transformer primary is energized. When the secondary opens, the
magnetic flux will induce a voltage in the secondary winding high
enough to be hazardous to the insulation in the secondary circuit and
to workers. Because of this hazard to workers, paragraph (b), which is
being adopted without substantive change from the proposal, prohibits
the opening of the secondary circuit of a current transformer while the
transformer is energized. If the employer cannot deenergize the primary
of the current transformer before employees perform work on an
instrument, a relay, or other section of a current transformer
secondary circuit, the employer must bridge the circuit so that the
current transformer secondary does not experience an open-circuit
condition. This provision, which OSHA took from existing Sec.
1910.269(w)(2), has no counterpart in existing Subpart V.
    In a series streetlighting circuit, the lamps are connected in
series, and the same current flows in each lamp. A constant-current
transformer, which provides a constant current at a variable voltage
from a source of constant voltage and variable current, supplies the
current in a series streetlighting circuit. As with the current
transformer, the constant current source attempts to supply current
even to an open secondary circuit. The resultant open-circuit voltage
can be extremely high and hazardous to employees. For this reason,
final paragraph (c)(2) contains a requirement similar to that in
paragraph (b). Under final paragraph (c)(2), before any employee opens
a series loop, the employer must deenergize the streetlighting
transformer and isolate it from the source of supply or must bridge the
loop to avoid an open-circuit condition. In addition, final paragraph
(c)(1) requires the employer to ensure that employees work on series
streetlighting circuits with an open-circuit voltage of more than 600
volts in accordance with the requirements for overhead lines in final
Sec.  1926.964 or for underground electrical installations in final
Sec.  1926.965, as appropriate. Final paragraph (c), which OSHA took
from existing Sec.  1910.269(w)(3), has no counterpart in existing
Subpart V, and the Agency is adopting it without substantive change
from the proposal.
    Frequently, electric power transmission and distribution employees
must work at night, or in enclosed places, such as manholes, without
natural illumination. Since inadvertent contact with live parts can be
fatal, proper lighting is important to the safety of these workers.
Therefore, paragraph (d), which is being adopted without substantive
change from the proposal, requires the employer to provide sufficient
illumination to enable the employee to perform the work safely. This
provision, which OSHA took from existing Sec.  1910.269(w)(4), is
comparable to existing Sec.  1926.950(f). The existing requirement in
Sec.  1926.950(f), however, applies only at night. OSHA believes that
it is important for employees to have sufficient lighting to perform
the work safely regardless of the time of day. The note following
paragraph (d) refers to Sec.  1926.56 for specific levels of
illumination required under various conditions.
    Paragraph (e) of the final rule sets requirements to protect
employees working in areas that expose them to drowning hazards.
Paragraph (e)(1), which is being adopted without substantive change
from the proposal, requires the provision and use of personal flotation
devices meeting Sec.  1926.106 whenever an employee may be pulled or
pushed, or might fall, into water where there is a danger of
drowning.\453\ Paragraph (e)(2), which is being adopted without
substantive change from the proposal, requires that the employer
maintain each personal flotation device in safe condition and

inspect each personal flotation device frequently enough to ensure that
it does not have rot, mildew, water saturation, or any other condition
that could render the device unsuitable for use. Lastly, paragraph
(e)(3) requires a safe means of passage, such as a bridge, for
employees crossing streams or other bodies of water. This provision,
which OSHA took from existing Sec.  1910.269(w)(5), replaces existing
Sec.  1926.950(g). The existing rule at Sec.  1926.950(g) simply
references other construction standards on body belts, safety straps,
and lanyards, on safety nets, and on protection for working over or
near water, namely Sec. Sec.  1926.104, 1926.105, and 1926.106. In
final Sec.  1926.967(e)(3), OSHA is adopting language nearly identical
to that contained in existing Sec.  1910.269 to ensure a safe means of
passage, which the existing Subpart V rule does not address. In
addition, existing Sec.  1926.950(g) is unnecessary because the
referenced construction standards apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \453\ Paragraph (w)(5)(i) of Sec.  1910.269 explicitly requires
that the employer provide flotation devices approved by the U.S.
Coast Guard, rather than referring to Sec.  1926.106, which is a
construction standard. Section 1926.106 also requires that the
employer provide flotation devices approved by the U.S. Coast Guard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ms. Salud Layton with the Virginia, Maryland & Delaware Association
of Electric Cooperatives objected to proposed paragraph (e)(3) because
she believed it to be too broad (Ex. 0175). She stated that the U.S.
Geological Survey designates ``many intermitted streams on their
topographic map that may not have running waters many times during the
year'' (id.). She also argued that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
prohibits building bridges in certain wetlands. Ms. Layton maintained
that workers wearing waders can cross safely some small streams.
    OSHA notes that final paragraph (e)(3) does not require a bridge,
but only a safe means of passage. A bridge is only one form of safe
passage that employers can use to meet this requirement. A safe means
of passage would exist when the water is shallow enough that workers
wearing waders can cross it safely. Therefore, OSHA is adopting
paragraph (e)(3) without substantive change from the proposal.
    Paragraph (f) references Subpart P of Part 1926 for requirements on
excavations. This provision is equivalent to existing Sec.
1926.956(c)(2), which references Sec. Sec.  1926.651 and 1926.652 of
that subpart. The final rule clearly indicates that all of the
requirements of Subpart P apply. OSHA is adopting paragraph (f) without
change from the proposal.
    Working in areas with pedestrian or vehicular traffic exposes
employees to additional hazards compared to employees working on an
employer's premises, where the employer generally restricts public
access. One serious additional hazard faced by employees working in
public areas is traffic mishaps (for example, impact with a vehicle or
a pedestrian). Final paragraph (g) sets requirements to protect
employees against injuries resulting from traffic mishaps. If employees
work in the vicinity of vehicular or pedestrian traffic that may
endanger them, paragraph (g)(2), which is being adopted without
substantive change from the proposal, requires the employer to place
warning signs or flags and other traffic-control devices in conspicuous
locations to alert and channel approaching traffic. If the measures
required by paragraph (g)(2) do not provide sufficient employee
protection or if employees are working in an area in which there are
excavations, paragraphs (g)(3) and (g)(4), which are being adopted
without substantive change from the proposal, require the employer to
erect barricades. Paragraph (g)(5), which is being adopted without
substantive change from the proposal, requires the employer to display
warning lights prominently for night work. Paragraph (g)(1) requires
traffic-control signs and devices to meet Sec.  1926.200(g)(2), which
covers traffic-control devices. This provision in OSHA's construction
standards requires compliance with Part VI of the Manual of Uniform
Traffic Control Devices, 1988 Edition, Revision 3, September 3, 1993,
FHWA-SA-94-027, or Part VI of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices, Millennium Edition, December 2000, Federal Highway
Administration. OSHA is adopting paragraph (g)(1) without substantive
change from the proposal. Paragraph (g), which OSHA took from existing
Sec.  1910.269(w)(6), has no counterpart in existing Subpart V.
    Paragraph (h), which is being adopted without substantive change
from the proposal, addresses the hazards of voltage backfeed due to
sources of cogeneration or from the secondary system. Under conditions
of voltage backfeed, the lines on which employees will perform work
remain energized after the employer disconnects the main source of
power. According to this provision, if there is a possibility of
voltage backfeed from sources of cogeneration or from the secondary
system, employers must have employees work the lines as energized under
final Sec.  1926.960 or work the lines deenergized following final
Sec. Sec.  1926.961 and 1926.962. The referenced requirements contain
the appropriate controls and work practices employers must implement in
case of voltage backfeed. Final paragraph (h), which OSHA took from
existing Sec.  1910.269(w)(7), has no counterpart in existing Subpart
V.
    Sometimes, electric power transmission and distribution work
involves the use of lasers. Existing Sec.  1926.54 of the construction
standards contains appropriate requirements for the installation,
operation, and adjustment of lasers. Paragraph (i), which is being
adopted without substantive change from the proposal, requires the
employer to install, adjust, and operate laser equipment in accordance
with Sec.  1926.54. Paragraph (i), which OSHA took from existing Sec.
1910.269(w)(8), has no counterpart in existing Subpart V.
    To ensure that hydraulic equipment retains its insulating value,
paragraph (j) requires the hydraulic fluid used in insulated sections
of hydraulic equipment to provide insulation for the voltage involved.
Proposed paragraph (j) also contained an exemption from the requirement
in Sec.  1926.302(d)(1) that hydraulic fluid used in hydraulic-powered
tools be fire-resistant. OSHA did not adopt the proposed exemption in
final Sec.  1926.967(j) because final Sec.  1926.956(d)(1) already
contains the relevant exemption.
    Final paragraph (k) addresses communication facilities associated
with electric power transmission and distribution systems. Typical
communications installations include installations for microwave
signaling and power line carriers. This paragraph, which OSHA took from
existing Sec.  1910.269(s), has no counterpart in existing Subpart V.
    Paragraph (k)(1) addresses microwave signaling systems. To protect
employees' eyes from injury caused by microwave radiation, paragraph
(k)(1)(i), which is being adopted without substantive change from the
proposal, requires employers to ensure that employees do not look into
an open waveguide or antenna connected to an energized source of
microwave radiation.
    Existing Sec.  1910.97, which covers nonionizing radiation,
prescribes a warning sign with a special symbol to indicate nonionizing
radiation hazards. Paragraph (k)(1)(ii), which is being adopted without
substantive change from the proposal, provides that, if the
electromagnetic-radiation level in an accessible area exceeds the
radiation-protection guide set forth in Sec.  1910.97(a)(2), the
employer post the area with warning signs containing the warning symbol
described in Sec.  1910.97(a)(3). This paragraph also requires the
lower half of that symbol to include the following statements or

statements that the employer can demonstrate are equivalent:

    Radiation in this area may exceed hazard limitations and special
precautions are required. Obtain specific instruction before
entering.

    The sign will warn employees about the hazards present in the area
and inform them that special instructions are necessary to enter the
area.
    In Sec.  1910.97, the radiation-protection guide is advisory only.
In final paragraph (k)(1)(iii), OSHA makes the guide mandatory for
electric power transmission and distribution work by requiring the
employer to institute measures that prevent any employee's exposure
from being greater than the exposure set forth in the guide. These
measures may be administrative measures (such as limitations on the
duration of exposure) or engineering measures (such as a design of the
system that limits the emitted radiation to that permitted by the
guide), or the measures may involve the use of personal protective
equipment. This provision does not require employers to follow the
hierarchy of controls normally required for the protection of employees
from occupational hazards. Employees exposed to radiation levels beyond
that permitted by the radiation-protection guide are typically
performing maintenance tasks, and OSHA typically permits the use of
personal protective equipment in lieu of engineering or administrative
controls during work operations, such as some maintenance and repair
activities, for which engineering and work-practice controls are not
feasible. (See, for example, Sec. Sec.  1910.1001(g)(1)(ii) (asbestos),
1910.1018(h)(1)(ii) (inorganic arsenic), and 1910.1028(g)(1)(ii)
(benzene).) The Agency indicated in the preamble to the proposal that
it did not believe any employees had radiation exposures exceeding the
radiation-protection guide on a routine basis (70 FR 34888). The Agency
requested comments on whether the proposal adequately protected
employees and whether the standard should require employers to follow
the hierarchy of controls.
    No commenters suggested that OSHA apply the hierarchy of controls
to electromagnetic-radiation exposure. However, Mr. Anthony Ahern with
Ohio Rural Electric Cooperatives commented that ``[e]xposure to really
high power microwave radiation is diminishing as more and more of the
big telcos are dismantling their microwave facilities in favor of fiber
optic networks'' (Ex. 0186). The record, therefore, does not contradict
OSHA's determination that it is unnecessary in final paragraph
(k)(1)(iii) to require that employers comply with the hierarchy of
controls.
    Two commenters maintained that Sec.  1910.97 is out of date and
recommended other, more protective guidelines (Exs. 0163, 0212). Ms.
Susan O'Connor with Siemens Power Generation commented that ANSI, the
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, and the
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection have
guidelines that are more current and more protective than the
requirements in Sec.  1910.97 (Ex. 0163). She recommended that OSHA
update Sec.  1910.97 if the Agency references Sec.  1910.97 in the
final rule. Mr. Tom Chappell with Southern Company stated that the
Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) OET Bulletin 65, Edition 97-
01, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to
Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, has a two-tiered approach for
setting permissible exposure limits for nonionizing radiation that
``appears to provide a greater level of protection for employees'' (Ex.
0212). He recommended that OSHA defer to the FCC in establishing
employee exposure limits.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to set safety standards for
employees working on electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution installations and to set safety standards for electrical
protective equipment. It is not the purpose of this rulemaking to set
permissible exposure limits for nonionizing radiation. Therefore, the
radiation-protection guide contained in Sec.  1910.97 is outside the
scope of this rulemaking, and OSHA is not revising Sec.  1910.97 in
this final rule.
    The FCC authorizes and licenses devices, transmitters, and
facilities that generate radio-frequency radiation. It has jurisdiction
over all transmitting services in the United States, except services
operated by the Federal government. (See http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs.html#Q10.) However, the FCC's primary jurisdiction
does not include the health and safety of employees, and the FCC relies
on other agencies and organizations for guidance in such matters (id.).
Therefore, OSHA decided that it would be inappropriate to defer
establishing employee exposure limits to the FCC as recommended by Mr.
Chappell. For these reasons, OSHA is adopting paragraph (k)(1)(iii) as
proposed.
    Power-line carrier systems use power lines to carry signals between
equipment at different points on lines. Therefore, paragraph (k)(2),
which is being adopted without substantive change from the proposal,
requires the employer to ensure that employees perform work associated
with power-line carrier installations, including work on equipment used
for coupling carrier current to power line conductors, according to the
requirements for work on energized lines. As a correction, the final
rule replaces the term ``this section,'' which was in the proposal,
with ``this subpart.''
Comments Regarding Heightened Sensitivity to Electromagnetic Radiation
    Some rulemaking participants recommended that OSHA adopt protection
for workers who are sensitive to electromagnetic radiation. (See, for
example, Exs. 0106, 0482; Tr. 326-352.) These commenters maintained
that some individuals are especially sensitive to electromagnetic
radiation from sources such as computers, power lines, and other
electric equipment (id.) For example, Ms. M. Matich Hughes commented
that sensitive individuals react to this type of radiation with a wide
range of symptoms, including itching, redness, swelling, and stinging
(Ex. 0106). Some of these commenters also pointed to papers supporting
their claims (Exs. 0106, 0482). For instance, Drs. Diane and Bert
Schou, and Mr. Paul Schou, submitted several papers, and referenced
others, on the effects of electromagnetic radiation in humans and
animals (Ex. 0482).
    OSHA declines to regulate exposure to electromagnetic radiation in
this rulemaking for several reasons. First, the relevant portion of
this rulemaking focuses on the safety hazards associated with the
maintenance and construction of electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution installations.\454\ The hazards that
these commenters address appear to be health hazards posed by
electromagnetic radiation. The commenters maintain that only certain
individuals are sensitive to electromagnetic radiation (see, for
example, Ex. 0106 (``a California Department of Health Services survey
has found that 3 percent of the people interviewed reported that they
are unusually sensitive to electric appliances or power lines''), Ex.
0124 (``It is most easily understood as a radiation type injury that
affects . . . a population estimated at 3 to 5 percent in the world''),
and Tr. 330 (``we're talking about three percent worldwide of the
people who are very, very

sensitive'')) and that symptoms may develop or worsen after long-term
exposure (see, for example, Ex. 0482 (``High [electromagnetic
radiation] exposure for a short time is preferred to long time low
power [electromagnetic radiation]''). Second, these commenters are
requesting that OSHA address hazardous conditions that go far beyond
the work covered by the final rule. The commenters maintain that there
are many sources of electromagnetic radiation that can cause symptoms.
(See, for example, Ex. 0106 (``[Electromagnetic radiation] sensitivity
is . . . associated with exposure to electromagnetic fields created by
computers, power lines and other electronic equipment'') and Tr. 334
(``Sources that [can trigger electromagnetic radiation sensitivity]
include the fluorescent lights[,] remote meters[,] broadband on power
lines, [and] wireless Internet'').) Thus, to the extent that
electromagnetic radiation poses ``sensitivity hazards,'' those hazards
are not unique to work on electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution installations, but are present in nearly all workplaces.
OSHA, therefore, concludes that this rulemaking is not a proper vehicle
for regulating the hazards identified by these commenters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \454\ This rulemaking also addresses electrical protective
equipment, a subject unrelated to electromagnetic radiation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Section 1926.968, Definitions
    Final Sec.  1926.968 contains definitions of terms used in Subpart
V. Since OSHA based these definitions, in large part, on consensus
standards and existing OSHA rules, and since the definitions included
are generally self-explanatory, OSHA believes the regulated community
understands these terms well; therefore, with a few exceptions, this
discussion of final Sec.  1926.968 provides no explanation of the
terms' definitions. For terms having meanings that may not be readily
apparent, the Agency is providing an explanation of the definition of
each of these terms in the discussion of the provision in which the
term first appears. The following table shows where in this preamble
OSHA discusses some of the key definitions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         See the summary and explanation
                  Term                                 for:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contract employer......................  Sec.   1926.950(c), Information
                                          transfer.
Enclosed space.........................  Sec.   1926.953(a), Enclosed
                                          spaces, General.
Entry..................................  Sec.   1926.953(g), Hazardous
                                          atmosphere.
Exposed................................  Sec.   1926.960(b)(3), At least
                                          two employees.
                                         Sec.   1926.960(g)(1), Hazard
                                          assessment.
Fall restraint system..................  Sec.   1926.954(b)(3)(iii),
                                          Care and use of personal fall
                                          protection equipment.
Host employer..........................  Sec.   1926.950(c), Information
                                          transfer.
Isolated...............................  Sec.   1926.960(b)(3), At least
                                          two employees.
Line-clearance tree trimming...........  Sec.   1926.950(a)(3),
                                          Applicable Part 1910
                                          requirements.
Personal fall arrest system............  Sec.   1926.954(b)(3)(iii),
                                          Care and use of personal fall
                                          protection equipment.
Work-positioning equipment.............  Sec.   1926.954(b)(3)(iii),
                                          Care and use of personal fall
                                          protection equipment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA based the definition of ``qualified employee'' on the
definition of that term as set forth in existing Sec.  1910.269(x).
This definition states that a qualified employee is an employee
knowledgeable in the construction and operation of the electric power
generation, transmission, and distribution equipment involved, along
with the associated hazards.
    As OSHA indicated in the preamble to the proposal, the Agency is
not requiring that a ``qualified employee'' be knowledgeable in all
aspects of electric power generation, transmission, and distribution
equipment (70 FR 34888--34889). OSHA believes that this definition will
convey the true meaning of this term. Note that the final rule uses the
term ``qualified employee'' to refer only to employees who have the
training to work on energized electric power transmission and
distribution installations. Paragraph (b)(2) of final Sec.  1926.950
sets out the training an employee must have to be a qualified employee.
OSHA included a note to this effect following the definition of the
term. OSHA received no comments on the definition of ``qualified
employee'' and is adopting it without substantive change from the
proposal.
    One commenter requested that the standard define ``fire-resistant
clothing'' (Ex. 0237). This commenter noted that untreated cotton,
regardless of weight, is not considered ``fire-resistant'' and asked
that the final rule clarify this point.
    As the commenter pointed out in its submission, a footnote in
proposed Appendix F described flame-resistant clothing as follows:

    Flame-resistant clothing includes clothing that is inherently
flame resistant and clothing that has been chemically treated with a
flame retardant. (See ASTM F1506-02a, Standard Performance
Specification for Textile Materials for Wearing Apparel for Use by
Electrical Workers Exposed to Momentary Electric Arc and Related
Thermal Hazards.) [70 FR 34977]

OSHA decided not to include a definition of ``flame-resistant
clothing'' in the final rule. From the comments received on the record,
the Agency believes that affected employers and employees understand
that untreated cotton is not flame-resistant for the purposes of final
Sec.  1926.960(g)(4). Because final Sec.  1926.960(g)(5) requires arc-
rated protection, and because most FR clothing has an arc rating, OSHA
also believes that employers generally will use arc-rated clothing to
meet both requirements. (See, for example, Tr. 545.) In any event, the
Agency included a separate topic in Appendix E explaining what OSHA
means by FR and arc-rated clothing, so that employers will know what
clothing to purchase.
    IBEW objected to the definition of ``system operator'' as it
applied to the control room operator in a generating station (Exs.
0230, 0480; Tr. 905). The union maintained that generating plants do
not have system operators, stating:

    Most generating stations have a control room operator that is
responsible for all operations related to a specific generating
unit. System operators are usually located in some type of system
operations center and are responsible for operations of the
transmission system. There is available technology for computer
systems operated by system operators to have some form of automated
generation control . . . in a specific transmission system, but the
operations of the generating unit, specifically the installation of
lockout/tagout devices are the responsibility of station personnel,
probably the control room operator. OSHA should make the appropriate
changes. [Ex. 0230]

IBEW recommended that OSHA adopt a different term, ``control room
operator,''

applicable to the lockout-tagout requirements in Sec.  1910.269(d) and
defined as follows:

    Control room operator. A qualified employee who operates an
electric generating system or its parts from within a centralized
control room. [Ex. 0480]

    In final Sec.  1926.968, ``system operator'' means a ``qualified
person designated to operate the system or its parts.'' This is a
generic definition that OSHA believes applies equally to the employees
in the dispatch center operating a transmission or distribution system
and to the employees in the control room of a power generating plant
who control the generation system and apply lockout-tagout devices.
OSHA recognizes that the utility industry views these two groups of
employees as being distinct and may even frequently use the term
``system operator'' exclusively for the transmission and distribution
operators (though some utilities call these employees ``dispatchers''
(Exs. 0167, 0508)). However, from the description of the energy control
procedures in the 1994 Sec.  1910.269 rulemaking record, and even from
IBEW's own recommended definition, it is clear that the control room
operator in a generation plant serves the same function as a system
operator for a transmission or distribution system (269-Ex. 12-6; Ex.
0480). Therefore, the Agency concludes that a control room operator in
a generation plant is ``designated'' by the employer to ``operate'' or
control ``the [generation] system or its parts'' and, thus, meets the
definition for ``system operator'' contained in the final rule. For
these reasons, OSHA is adopting the definition of ``system operator''
as proposed.
20. Appendices
    OSHA is including six appendices to final Subpart V. The first of
these appendices is Appendix A. Proposed Appendix A to Subpart V
referred to Appendix A to Sec.  1910.269. The general industry appendix
contains flow charts depicting the interface between Sec.  1910.269 and
the following standards: Sec.  1910.146, Permit-required confined
spaces; Sec.  1910.147, The control of hazardous energy (lockout/
tagout); and Part 1910, Subpart S, Electrical. Appendix A to Sec.
1910.269 has little relevance, if any, to work covered by Subpart V, as
that appendix only contains information relevant to the application of
general industry standards. Therefore, the Agency is not adopting
proposed Appendix A to Subpart V.
    Lee Marchessault with Workplace Safety Solutions expressed concern
that Appendix A to Sec.  1910.269 granted electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution work an exemption from Subpart S of the
general industry standards (Ex. 0196; Tr. 582-583). Based on his
experience as an electrician, he believed that there were some hazards
covered by Subpart S that Sec.  1910.269 does not address.
    OSHA did not propose any changes to existing Appendix A to Sec.
1910.269 and is adopting it in Sec.  1910.269 of this final rule
without substantive change. This appendix does not grant an exemption
from Subpart S for electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution work. It simply provides guidance, in the form of a
flowchart, on how Sec.  1910.269 and Subpart S apply to various
installations. OSHA is not altering the scope of Subpart S in any way.
In fact, final Sec.  1910.269(a)(1)(ii)(B) explicitly states that Sec.
1910.269 does not apply to ``electrical installations, electrical
safety-related work practices, or electrical maintenance considerations
covered by Subpart S of this part.'' Therefore, Mr. Marchessault's
concerns are groundless.
    Appendix B provides information relating to the determination of
appropriate minimum approach distances under final Sec.
1926.960(c)(1)(i). In the proposed rule, OSHA based this appendix on
existing Appendix B to Sec.  1910.269, with revisions necessary to
reflect the changes to the minimum approach distances proposed for
Sec.  1910.269 and Subpart V. In this final rule, OSHA revised this
appendix as necessary to account for the calculation methods required
by final Sec.  1926.960(c)(1)(i) and Table V-2. OSHA based these
revisions on: (1) the findings made with regard to minimum approach
distances (see the summary and explanation for Sec.  1926.960(c)(1),
under the heading Minimum approach distances, earlier in this section
of the preamble); (2) IEEE Std 516-2009 (Ex. 0532); and (3) draft 9 of
IEEE Std 516 (Ex. 0524). The appendix includes a discussion, based on
IEEE Std 516-2009 (Ex. 0532), regarding how to determine the maximum
transient overvoltage for a system.
    Proposed Appendix C provided information relating to the protection
of employees from hazardous step and touch potentials as addressed in
proposed Sec. Sec.  1926.959(d)(3)(iii)(D), 1926.963(d)(3)(ii), and
1926.964(b)(2). As discussed under the summary and explanation for
final Sec.  1926.962(c), earlier in this section of the preamble, the
Agency expanded this appendix to incorporate guidance on protecting
employees from hazardous differences in potential as required by that
provision in the final rule. OSHA renamed this appendix accordingly.
OSHA based the additional material in this appendix on IEEE Std 1048-
2003 (Ex. 0046). Appendix C in the final rule also includes examples of
how to achieve equipotential grounding as required by final Sec.
1926.962(c). The Agency based these examples on information in the IEEE
standard and on the principle from the consensus standard that
installing grounds of adequate ampacity (as required by Sec.
1926.962(d)(1)) and sufficiently low impedance (as required by Sec.
1926.962(d)(2)) and adequately bonding all conductive objects within
the work zone will minimize potential differences (Ex. 0046). As
discussed in the summary and explanation for Sec.  1926.962(c), earlier
in this preamble, OSHA will deem employers using the examples in
Appendix C to be in compliance with that final paragraph. Employers are
free to use other methods of grounding as long as they can demonstrate
that those other methods will prevent exposure of each employee to
hazardous differences in electric potential.
    Appendix D contains information on the inspection and testing of
wood poles addressed in final Sec.  1926.964(a)(2). This appendix
describes ways to test wood poles to ensure that they are sound.
Proposed Appendix D described how to test a wood pole using a ``hammer
weighing about 1.4 kg (3 pounds).'' Ms. Salud Layton with the Virginia,
Maryland & Delaware Association of Electric Cooperatives recommended
deleting the weight of the hammer from the appendix (Ex. 0175). She
maintained that lighter hammers are as effective in sounding a pole as
a 1.4-kilogram hammer.
    OSHA notes that Appendix D is not mandatory. It contains guidelines
that employers may choose to follow in inspecting and testing wood
poles. Thus, employers may use lighter or heavier hammers if they find
them to be effective. However, Appendix D provides some guidance on
what weight hammer OSHA knows to be effective in testing wood poles.
The Agency took the weight given in Appendix D directly from Sec.
1910.268(n)(3)(i). Therefore, the Agency is not adopting Ms. Layton's
recommendation and is adopting Appendix D substantially as proposed.
    Appendix E, which OSHA proposed as Appendix F, provides guidance on
the selection of protective clothing and other protective equipment for
employees exposed to flames or electric arcs as addressed in final
Sec.  1926.960(g). The Agency modified this appendix to reflect the
final rule as discussed in the

summary and explanation for Sec.  1926.960(g), earlier in this section
of the preamble. That preamble discussion also responds to some of the
comments OSHA received on proposed Appendix F. Several other comments
addressed the appendix; OSHA discusses these comments here.
    Proposed Appendix F included tables for estimating incident-energy
levels based on voltage, fault current, and clearing times (proposed
Table 8 and Table 9, which OSHA adopted as Table 6 and Table 7 in
Appendix E of the final rule). Employers could use these tables to
estimate incident energy for exposures involving phase-to-ground arcs
in open air. The proposed appendix also included a table giving
protective clothing guidelines for electric-arc hazards (Table 10,
which OSHA did not adopt in the final rule). This table described
protective clothing that employers could use for different ranges of
estimated incident energy.
    Noting that the energy is inversely proportional to the distance,
NIOSH pointed out that proposed Appendix F incorrectly stated that the
amount of heat energy is directly proportional to the distance between
the employee and the arc (Ex. 0130). OSHA corrected the appendix
accordingly.
    Three commenters made recommendations for clarifying the
information presented in proposed Appendix F. First, NIOSH recommended:
     Revising the headings in Table 8 and Table 9 (Table 6 and
Table 7 in Appendix E of the final rule) to reflect more clearly that
the values in the table represent maximum clearing times at specified
maximum incident-energy levels,
     Making it clear that unqualified references to ``cotton''
in the appendix meant ``untreated cotton,''
     Describing how to use the arc rating on the clothing label
to select clothing appropriate for a given estimate of incident energy,
     Clarifying that the standard prohibits the use of meltable
undergarments, and
     Clarifying that employer-added logos on arc-rated clothing
can adversely affect the arc rating and FR characteristics of the
clothing (id.).

Second, TVA recommended that OSHA clarify that workers can sustain
burns even when wearing appropriately selected protection because there
is a 50-percent chance that a worker will sustain a second-degree burn
at the arc rating of the protective equipment (Ex. 0213). Third, Mr.
Paul Hamer recommended that the Agency note the method used to
calculate the incident-energy values in proposed Table 8 and Table 9
(Table 6 and Table 7 in Appendix E of the final rule) (Ex. 0228).
    OSHA believes that these recommendations will serve to provide