[Federal Register: June 15, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 114)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 34821-34980]
[DOCID:fr15jn05-32]

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

Part II

Department of Labor

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

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

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

29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1926

Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution; Electrical
Protective Equipment; Proposed Rule

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1926

[Docket No. S-215]
RIN 1218-AB67

Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution;
Electrical Protective Equipment

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA is proposing to update the existing standard for the
construction of electric power transmission and distribution
installations and make it consistent with the more recently promulgated
general industry standard addressing the maintenance and repair of
electric power generation, transmission, and distribution lines and
equipment. The proposal also makes some miscellaneous changes to both
standards, including adding provisions related to host employers and
contractors, flame resistant clothing, and training, and updates the
construction standard for electrical protective equipment, makes it
consistent with the corresponding general industry standard, and makes
it applicable to construction generally.
    The existing rules for this type of work were issued in 1971. They
are out of date and are not consistent with the more recent,
corresponding rules for the operation and maintenance of electric power
transmission and distribution systems. The revised standard would
include requirements relating to enclosed spaces, working near
energized parts, grounding for employee protection, work on underground
and overhead installations, work in substations, and other special
conditions and equipment unique to the transmission and distribution of
electric energy.
    OSHA is also proposing a new standard on electrical protective
equipment for the construction industry. The current standards for the
design of electrical protective equipment, which apply only to electric
power transmission and distribution work, adopt several national
consensus standards by reference. The new standard would replace the
incorporation of these out-of-date consensus standards with a set of
performance-oriented requirements that is consistent with the latest
revisions of these consensus standards and with the corresponding
standard for general industry. Additionally, OSHA is proposing new
requirements for the safe use and care of electrical protective
equipment to complement the equipment design provisions.
    In addition, OSHA is proposing changes to the two corresponding
general industry standards. These changes address: Class 00 rubber
insulating gloves, electrical protective equipment made from materials
other than rubber, training for electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution workers, host-contractor
responsibilities, job briefings, fall protection (including a
requirement that employees in aerial lifts use harnesses), insulation
and working position of employees working on or near live parts,
protective clothing, minimum approach distances, deenergizing
transmission and distribution lines and equipment, protective
grounding, operating mechanical equipment near overhead power lines,
and working in manholes and vaults. These changes would ensure that
employers, where appropriate, face consistent requirements for work
performed under the construction and general industry standards and
would further protect employees performing electrical work covered
under the general industry standards. The proposal would also update
references to consensus standards in Sec. Sec.  1910.137 and 1910.269
and would add new appendices to help employers comply with provisions
on protective clothing and the inspection of work positioning
equipment.
    OSHA is also proposing to revise the general industry standard for
foot protection. This standard has substantial application to employers
performing work on electric power transmission and distribution
installations, but that applies to employers in other industries as
well. The proposal would remove the requirement for employees to wear
protective footwear as protection against electric shock.

DATES: Informal public hearing. OSHA will hold an informal public
hearing in Washington, DC, beginning December 6, 2005. The hearing will
commence at 10 a.m. on the first day, and at 9 a.m. on the second and
subsequent days, which will be scheduled, if necessary.
    Comments. Comments must be submitted (postmarked or sent) by
October 13, 2005.
    Notices of intention to appear. Parties who intend to present
testimony at the informal public hearing must notify OSHA in writing of
their intention to do so no later than August 15, 2005.
    Hearing testimony and documentary evidence. Parties who request
more than 10 minutes for their presentations at the informal public
hearing and parties who will submit documentary evidence at the hearing
must submit the full text of their testimony and all documentary
evidence postmarked no later than November 3, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments, notices of intention to
appear, hearing testimony, and documentary evidence--identified by
docket number (S-215) or RIN number (1218-AB67)--by any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     OSHA Web site: http://dockets.osha.gov/. Follow the

instructions for submitting comments on OSHA's Web page.
     Fax: If your written comments are 10 pages or fewer, you
may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Regular mail, express delivery, hand delivery and courier
service: Submit three copies to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. S-
215, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room
N2625, Washington, DC 20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. (OSHA's TTY
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.) OSHA Docket Office hours of operation are
8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., E.S.T.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to
http://dockets.osha.gov/, including any personal information provided.

For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public Participation''
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read comments and background
documents that can be posted go to http://dockets.osha.gov/. Written

comments received, notices of intention to appear, and all other
material related to the development of this proposed standard will be
available for inspection and copying in the public record in the Docket
Office, Room N2439, at the address listed previously.
    Hearing. The hearing will be held in the auditorium of the U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General information and press
inquiries:

Mr. Kevin Ropp, Director, Office of Communications, Room N3647, OSHA,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Technical information: Mr. David Wallis, Director, Office of
Engineering Safety, Room N3609, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
2277 or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Hearings: Ms. Veneta Chatmon, OSHA Office of Communications,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3647; 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, telephone: (202) 693-
1999.
    For additional copies of this Federal Register notice, contact
OSHA, Office of Publications, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N3101, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20210; telephone (202) 693-
1888. Electronic copies of this Federal Register notice, as well as
news releases and other relevant documents, are available at OSHA's Web
page on the Internet at http://www.osha.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Development of Proposal
III. Legal Authority
IV. Summary and Explanation of Proposed Rule
V. Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis and Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis
VI. State Plan Standards
VII. Environmental Impact Analysis
VIII. Unfunded Mandates
IX. Federalism
X. OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
XI. Public Participation'Comments and Hearings
XII. List of Subjects in 29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1926
XIII. Authority and Signature

I. Background

A. Acronyms

    The following acronyms have been used throughout this document:

AED Automated external defibrillator
ALJ Administrative law judge
ANSI American National Standards Institute
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
CFOI Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries
CPR Cardiopulmonary resuscitation
EEI Edison Electric Institute
EPRI Electric Power Research Institute
FRA Flame-resistant apparel
FTE Full-Time Equivalent [Employee]
IBEW International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
IMIS OSHA's Integrated Management Information System
IRFA Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NESC National Electrical Safety Code
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OSH Act (or simply ``the Act'') Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
OSHRC Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
PRIA Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis
RIN Regulatory information number
SBA Small Business Administration
SBAR Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
SER small entity representative
SIC Standard Industrial Classification
WCRI Worker Compensation Research Institute

B. Need for Rule

    Employees maintaining or constructing electric power transmission
or distribution installations are not adequately protected by current
OSHA standards, though these employees face far greater electrical
hazards than those faced by other workers. The voltages involved are
generally much higher than voltages encountered in other types of work,
and a large part of electric power transmission and distribution work
exposes employees to energized parts of the power system.
    Employees performing work involving electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution are exposed to a variety of significant
hazards, such as fall, electric shock, and burn hazards, that can and
do cause serious injury and death. As detailed below, OSHA estimates
that, on average, 444 serious injuries and 74 fatalities occur annually
among these workers.
    Although some of these incidents may have been prevented with
better compliance with existing safety standards, research and analyses
conducted by OSHA have found that many preventable injuries and
fatalities would continue to occur even if full compliance with the
existing standards were achieved. Without counting incidents that would
potentially have been prevented with compliance with existing
standards, an estimated additional 116 injuries and 19 fatalities would
be prevented through full compliance with the proposed standards.
    Additional benefits associated with this rulemaking involve
providing updated, clear, and consistent safety standards regarding
electric power generation, transmission, and distribution work. The
existing standard for the construction of electric power transmission
and distribution lines and equipment is contained in Subpart V of
OSHA's construction standards (29 CFR part 1926). This standard was
promulgated on November 23, 1972, over 30 years ago (37 FR 24880). Some
of the technology involved in electric power transmission and
distribution work has changed since then, and the current standard does
not reflect those changes. For example, the method of determining
minimum approach distances has become more exact since 1972, and the
minimum approach distances given in existing Sec.  1926.950(c)(1) are
not based on the latest methodology. The minimum approach distances in
this proposal are more protective as well as more technologically
sound. Additionally, parts of Subpart V need clarification. For
example, in existing Subpart V, there are three different requirements
relating to the use of mechanical equipment near overhead lines:
Sec. Sec.  1926.952(c)(2) \1\ and 1926.955(a)(5) \2\ and (a)(6).\3\
These provisions apply

different requirements to these operations depending on whether or not
the mechanical equipment involved is lifting equipment and on whether
or not work is being performed on overhead lines. Two different United
States Courts of Appeals found these regulations to be confusing even
though they accepted OSHA's interpretation regarding their application
(Wisconsin Electric Power Co. v. OSHRC, 567 F.2d 735 (7th Cir. 1977);
Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. v. OSHRC, 737 F.2d 350 (3d Cir. 1984)).
In fact, the majority in the Wisconsin Electric decision noted that
``[r]evision of the regulations by any competent draftsman would
greatly improve their clarity'' (Wisconsin Electric, 567 F.2d at 738).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This requirement reads as follows:
    (2) With the exception of equipment certified for work on the
proper voltage, mechanical equipment shall not be operator closer to
any energized line or equipment than the clearances set forth in
Sec.  1926.950(c) unless:
    (i) An insulated barrier is installed between the energized part
and the mechanical equipment, or
    (ii) The mechanical equipment is grounded, or
    (iii) The mechanical equipment is insulated, or
    (iv) The mechanical equipment is considered as energized.
    \2\ This requirement reads as follows:
    (5)(i) When setting, moving, or removing poles using cranes,
derricks, gin poles, A-frames, or other mechanized equipment near
energized lines or equipment, precautions shall be taken to avoid
contact with energized lines or equipment, except in bare-hand live-
line work, or where barriers or protective devices are used.
    (ii) Equipment and machinery operating adjacent to energized
lines or equipment shall comply with Sec.  1926.952(c)(2).
    \3\ This requirement reads as follows:
    (6)(i) Unless using suitable protective equipment for the
voltage involved, employees standing on the ground shall avoid
contacting equipment or machinery working adjacent to energized
lines or equipment.
    (ii) Lifting equipment shall be bonded to an effective ground or
it shall be considered energized and barricaded when utilized near
energized equipment or lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even the newer general industry standards on the operation and
maintenance of electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution installations (29 CFR 1910.269) and electrical protective
equipment (29 CFR 1910.137) are not completely consistent with the
latest advances in technology represented by updated consensus
standards covering this type of work and equipment.
    OSHA has different standards covering construction work on electric
power transmission and distribution systems and general industry work
on the same systems. In most instances, the work practices used by
employees to perform construction or general industry work on these
systems are the same. The application of OSHA's construction or general
industry standards to a particular job depends upon whether the
employer is altering the system (construction work) or maintaining the
system (general industry work). For example, employers changing a
cutout (disconnect switch) on a transmission and distribution system
would be performing construction work if they were upgrading the
cutout, but general industry work if they were simply replacing the
cutout with the same model.
    Since the work practices used by the employees would most likely be
identical, the applicable OSHA standards should be identical. OSHA's
existing requirements are not, however. Conceivably, for work involving
two or more cutouts, different and conflicting OSHA standards might
apply. The inconsistencies between the two standards create
difficulties for employers attempting to develop appropriate work
practices for their employees. For this reason, employers and employees
have told OSHA that it should make the two standards identical. This
proposal does so.

C. Accident Data

    OSHA has looked to several sources for information on accidents in
the electric utility industry in preparing this proposed rule. Besides
OSHA's own accident investigation files, statistics on injuries are
compiled by the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and by the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). Additionally,
the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes such accident data as
incidence rates for total cases, lost workday cases, and lost workdays.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
publishes accident data as part of its Fatality Assessment and Control
Evaluation Program.
    Analyses of accident data for electric power transmission and
distribution workers can be found in the following documents, which
(like all exhibits) are available for inspection and copying in Docket
S-215 in the Docket Office:
    (1) ``Preparation of an Economic Impact Study for the Proposed OSHA
Regulation Covering Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and
Distribution,'' June 1986, Eastern Research Group, Section 4.
    (2) ``Assessment of the Benefits of the Proposed Standard on
Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution Coding
Results and Analysis,'' October 5, 1990, Eastern Research Group.
    (3) ``Analytical Support and Data Gathering for a Preliminary
Economic Analysis for Proposed Standards for Work on Electric Power
Generation, Transmission, and Distribution Lines and Equipment (29 CFR
1910.269 and 29 CFR 1926--Subpart V),'' 2005, CONSAD Research Corp.,
Chapter 4.
    To develop estimates of the potential benefits associated with this
proposal, CONSAD Corp., under contract to OSHA, researched and reviewed
potential sources of useful data. CONSAD, in consultation with the
Agency, determined that the most reliable data sources for this purpose
included OSHA's Integrated Management Information System, and the
Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries developed by the BLS.
    From these sources, CONSAD identified and analyzed injuries and
fatalities that would be addressed by this proposal. A description of
the methodological approach used for analyzing these data is included
in the final report submitted to OSHA from CONSAD. CONSAD's analysis
found that an average of 74 fatalities and 25 injuries involving
circumstances directly addressed by the existing or proposed standards
are recorded annually in the relevant databases. These accidents
include cases involving electric shock, burns from electric arcs, and
falls, which are the predominant types of accidents occurring in
electric power generation, transmission, and distribution work.

D. Significant Risk

    OSHA must show that the hazards the Agency addresses in a safety
regulation present significant risks to employees. OSHA has generally
considered an excess risk of 1 death per 1000 employees over a 45-year
working lifetime as clearly representing a significant risk. Industrial
Union Dept. v. American Petroleum Institute (Benzene), 448 U.S. 607,
655 (1980); International Union v. Pendergrass (Formaldehyde), 878 F.2d
389, 392-93 (D.C. Cir. 1989); Building and Construction Trades Dept.,
AFL-CIO v. Brock (Asbestos), 838 F.2d 1258, 1264-65 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
As part of the regulatory analyses for this standard, OSHA has
determined the population at risk, the occupations presenting major
risks, and the incidence and severity of injuries attributable to the
failure to follow the rules established in the proposed standard. In
keeping with the purpose of safety standards to prevent accidental
injury and death, OSHA has estimated the number of accidents that would
be prevented by the new rule.
    Electricity has long been recognized as a serious workplace hazard
exposing employees to dangers such as electric shock, electrocution,
electric arcs, fires, and explosions. The other hazards this rule
addresses, namely, falls and being struck by, struck against, or caught
between objects, are also widely recognized. The 227,683 employees
performing work covered by the proposed standards experience an average
of 444 injuries and 74 fatalities each year.\4\ Over a 45-year working
lifetime, more than 14 of every 1000 of these employees \5\ will die
from hazards

posed by their work. As detailed in Section V, Preliminary Regulatory
Impact Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, later in
this preamble, the Agency estimates that the proposed rule will prevent
116 injuries and 19 deaths each year. Accordingly, OSHA has
preliminarily determined that hazards faced by employees performing
construction or maintenance work on electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution installations pose a significant risk of
injury or death to those employees, and that this proposed rule would
substantially reduce that risk and would be reasonably necessary to
provide protection from these hazards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For a detailed explanation of the number of employees
covered by the proposal and the number of injuries and fatalities
experienced by these workers, see Section V, Preliminary Regulatory
Impact Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, later
in this preamble.
    \5\ The number of fatalities expected to occur in 45 years is 74
fatalities x 45, or 3330. Thus, 14.6 employees in 1000 covered by
the proposal ((3330 fatalities/227,683 employees) x 1000) will die
from job-related hazards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Development of Proposal

A. Present OSHA Standards

    OSHA adopted standards applying to the construction of power
transmission and distribution lines and equipment in 1972 (Subpart V of
Part 1926). OSHA defines the term ``construction work'' in Sec.
1910.12 as ``work for construction, alteration, and/or repair,
including painting and decorating.'' The term ``construction'' is
broadly defined in Sec.  1910.12(d) and Sec.  1926.950(a)(1) to include
alteration, conversion, and improvement of electric power transmission
lines and equipment, as well as the original installation of the lines
and equipment. However, Subpart V does not apply to the operation or
maintenance of transmission or distribution installations.
    On January 31, 1994, OSHA adopted rules for the operation and
maintenance of electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution lines and equipment, Sec.  1910.269. This standard was
intended as a companion standard to Subpart V of the construction
standards to address areas where Subpart V did not apply. The new
standard was also based on the latest technology and national consensus
standards.
    OSHA revised its electrical protective equipment standard in Sec.
1910.137 at the same time Sec.  1910.269 was issued. The revision of
Sec.  1910.137 eliminated the incorporation by reference of national
consensus standards relating to rubber insulating equipment and
replaced it with performance-oriented rules for the design,
manufacture, and safe care and use of electrical protective equipment.
    Other OSHA standards also relate to electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution work. The permit-required confined space
standard in Sec.  1910.146 applies to entry into certain confined
spaces found in this type of work. Section 1910.147 is OSHA's generic
lockout and tagging standard. Although this standard does not apply to
electric power generation, transmission, or distribution installations,
it formed the basis of Sec.  1910.269(d), which does apply to the
lockout and tagging of these installations. Subpart S of the General
Industry Standards and Subpart K of the construction standards set
requirements for unqualified \6\ workers who are working near electric
power generation, transmission, and distribution lines and equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In this preamble, ``unqualified worker'' (or ``unqualified
employee'') means an employee who does not have the requisite
training to work on or near electric power generation, transmission,
or distribution installations. For more information, see the
discussion of proposed Sec.  1926.950(b) in Section IV, Summary and
Explanation of Proposed Rule, later in this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Relevant consensus standards

    The National Electrical Safety Code (American National Standards
Institute Standard ANSI C2, also known as the NESC) was also taken into
consideration in the development this proposal. This national consensus
standard contains requirements specifically addressing electric power
generation, transmission, and distribution work. The latest version of
ANSI C2 \7\ is much more up-to-date than Subpart V. However, ANSI C2 is
primarily directed to the prevention of electric shock, although it
does contain a few requirements for the prevention of falls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ANSI/IEEE C2-2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has adopted
standards related to electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution work. ASTM Committee F18 on Electrical Protective
Equipment for Workers has developed standards on rubber insulating
equipment, climbing equipment, protective grounding equipment,
fiberglass rod and tube used in live-line tools, and clothing for
workers exposed to electric arcs.
    The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has adopted a
standard on electrical safety for employees, NFPA 70E-2004, Electrical
Safety Requirements for Employee Workplaces. Although it does not apply
to electric power generation, transmission, or distribution
installations, this standard contains requirements for unqualified
employees working near such installations.
    The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) is also
responsible for writing standards for electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution installations and for work on those
installations. Many of these standards have been adopted by ANSI. Among
these IEEE standards are: IEEE Std. 516, IEEE Guide for Maintenance
Methods on Energized Power-Lines, and IEEE Std. 1048, IEEE Guide for
Protective Grounding of Power Lines.
    A list of consensus standards relating to electric power
generation, transmission, and distribution work can be found in
existing Appendix E to Sec.  1910.269. OSHA considered the latest
editions of all the standards listed in this section of the preamble or
the Appendix in the development of the proposal.

C. Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health

    Section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act and
the Agency's own rulemaking regulations in 29 CFR Part 1911 require
OSHA to consult with the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and
Health (ACCSH or the Committee) in setting standards for construction
work. Specifically, Sec.  1911.10(a) requires the Assistant Secretary
to (1) provide ACCSH with the draft proposed rule along with pertinent
factual information, (2) and to prescribe a period within which the
Committee must submit its recommendations on the proposal.
    OSHA has a 10-year history of consulting with ACCSH on the proposed
construction standards for electrical protective equipment and electric
transmission and distribution work. The Agency has provided several
drafts of the proposed construction rules and updates on the status of
the proposal.
    On May 25, 1995, OSHA first took a draft of the proposed
construction standards to ACCSH, providing the Committee with a draft
of the proposal and with a statement on the need for and background
behind the proposal. The Committee formed a workgroup to review the
document and report back to ACCSH. The workgroup provided comments to
OSHA. Although the Agency gave a status report on the proposal to the
Committee on August 8, 1995, ACCSH did not make any formal
recommendations to OSHA at that time.
    The Agency provided a later draft of the proposal to ACCSH on
December 10, 1999. This time, the Committee made no comments. On
February 13, 2003, OSHA gave ACCSH a status report on the proposal and
summarized the major revisions in the draft.
    On May 22, 2003, OSHA provided the Committee with the same copy of
the draft proposal that had been provided to the small entity
representatives who

were participating in the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and
Fairness Act (SBREFA) proceedings, which were being conducted at that
time. OSHA also explained the major issues being raised by the small
entity representatives on the draft proposal.
    On May 18, 2004, ACCSH gave formal recommendations on OSHA's
proposal. OSHA sought ACCSH's recommendations on the proposal
generally, as well as on issues specifically related to host employer-
contractor communications and flame-resistant clothing. ACCSH voted
unanimously that: (1) The construction standards for electric power
transmission and distribution work should be the same as the general
industry standards for the same type of work; (2) requiring some
safety-related communications between host employers and contractors
was necessary; and (3) employees need to be protected from hazards
posed by electric arcs through the use of flame-resistant clothing.
ACCSH also recommended unanimously that OSHA issue its proposal,
consistent with these specific votes.

III. Legal Authority

    The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH
Act or the Act), 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq., is ``to assure so far as
possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful
working conditions and to preserve our human resources.'' 29 U.S.C.
651(b). To achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary of
Labor to promulgate and enforce occupational safety and health
standards. 29 U.S.C. 655(b) and 658.
    A safety or health standard ``requires conditions, or the adoption
or use of one or more practices, means, methods, operations, or
processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or
healthful employment and places of employment.'' 29 U.S.C. 652(8). A
standard is reasonably necessary or appropriate within the meaning of
Section 652(8) if:
     A significant risk of material harm exists in the
workplace and the proposed standard would substantially reduce or
eliminate that workplace risk;
     It is technologically and economically feasible;
     It employs the most cost effective protective measures;
     It is consistent with prior Agency action or supported by
a reasoned justification for departing from prior Agency action;
     It is supported by substantial evidence; and
     In the event the standard is preceded by a consensus
standard, it is better able to effectuate the purposes of the OSH Act
than the standard it supersedes.
    International Union, UAW v. OSHA (LOTO II), 37 F.3d 665, 668 (D.C.
Cir. 1994).
    OSHA has generally considered an excess risk of 1 death per 1000
employees over a 45-year working lifetime as clearly representing a
significant risk (see Industrial Union Dept. v. American Petroleum
Institute (Benzene), 448 U.S. 607, 655 (1980); International Union v.
Pendergrass (Formaldehyde), 878 F.2d 389, 392-93 (D.C. Cir. 1989);
Building and Construction Trades Dept., AFL-CIO v. Brock (Asbestos),
838 F.2d 1258, 1264-65 (D.C. Cir. 1988)).
    A standard is considered technologically feasible if the protective
measures it requires already exist, can be brought into existence with
available technology, or can be created with technology that can
reasonably be expected to be developed (see American Iron and Steel
Institute v. OSHA (Lead II), 939 F.2d 975, 980 (D.C. Cir. 1991)). A
standard is economically feasible when industry can absorb or pass on
the costs of compliance without threatening the industry's long-term
profitability or competitive structure (see American Textile Mfrs.
Institute v. OSHA (Cotton Dust), 452 U.S. 490, 530 n. 55 (1981); Lead
II, 939 F.2d at 980). A standard is cost effective if the protective
measures it requires are the least costly of the available alternatives
that achieve the same level of protection (see LOTO II, 37 F.3d at
668).
    All OSHA standards must be highly protective (LOTO II, 37 F.3d at
669) and, where practical, ``expressed in terms of objective criteria
and of the performance desired.'' 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5). Finally, the OSH
Act requires that when promulgating a rule that differs substantially
from a national consensus standard, OSHA must explain why the
promulgated rule is a better method for effectuating the purpose of the
Act. 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(8). As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, OSHA
is using several consensus standards as the basis for its proposed
rule. The deviations from these consensus standards are explained in
Section IV, Summary and Explanation of Proposed Rule, later in this
preamble.

IV. Summary and Explanation of Proposed Rule

    This section discusses the important elements of the proposed
standard, explains the purpose of the individual requirements, and
explains any differences between the proposed rule and existing
standards. References in parentheses are to exhibits in the rulemaking
record. References prefixed by ``269'' are to exhibits and transcripts
in the rulemaking record from OSHA's earlier rulemaking on Sec.
1910.137 and Sec.  1910.269. These documents are available for
inspection and copying in the Docket Office under Docket S-015. (The
transcripts are listed in the docket as ``exhibits'' 100-X through 208-
X.)
    OSHA is proposing a new construction standard on electrical
protective equipment, 29 CFR 1926.97, and a revision of the standard on
the construction of electric power transmission and distribution lines
and equipment, 29 CFR Part 1926, Subpart V. The Agency is also
proposing changes to the general industry counterparts to these two
construction standards, 29 CFR 1910.137 and 1910.269, respectively. The
proposed construction standards may contain some nonsubstantive
differences from their existing counterpart general industry
requirements that are not separately included in the proposed revision
of the general industry standards. However, the Agency intends for the
corresponding construction and general industry requirements to be the
same in the final rule except to the extent that separate requirements
are supported by the rulemaking record. For example, the definition of
``designated employee'' in existing Sec.  1910.269(x) reads as follows:

    An employee (or person) who is designated by the employer to
perform specific duties under the terms of this section and who is
knowledgeable in the construction and operation of the equipment and
the hazards involved.

    OSHA is proposing a slightly revised version of this definition in
Sec.  1926.968, as follows:

    An employee (or person) who is assigned by the employer to
perform specific duties under the terms of this section and who has
sufficient knowledge of the construction and operation of the
equipment and the hazards involved to perform his or her duties
safely.

    The Agency does not believe that the proposed definition for
Subpart V is substantially different from the existing definition in
Sec.  1910.269(x). Therefore, OSHA is not specifically including the
proposed change to the definition of ``designated employee'' in the
proposed changes to Sec.  1910.269. The language in the final standards
(that is, Sec. Sec.  1910.269(x) and 1926.968) will be the same,
however, unless the record warrants a separate definition for
construction work.

    In addition, the proposal references national consensus standards
in notes following various requirements. These references are intended
to provide employers and employees with additional useful sources of
information that can assist them in complying with the standards. OSHA
intends to review the latest editions of these consensus standards and
reference those editions when promulgating the final rule provided they
still provide suitable guidance.

A. Electrical Protective Equipment, Section 1926.97

    Electrical protective equipment is in constant use during electric
power transmission and distribution work; and, appropriately, existing
Subpart V contains provisions related to this equipment. The existing
OSHA standards for electrical protective equipment in construction work
are contained in Sec.  1926.951(a)(1), which only applies during
construction of electric power transmission and distribution lines and
equipment. Electrical protective equipment, however, is used throughout
the construction industry. OSHA therefore believes that updated
personal protective equipment provisions should apply throughout the
construction industry, wherever such equipment is necessary for
employee safety, and that electrical protective equipment provisions
should not be limited to the use of this equipment in electric power
transmission and distribution work. Therefore, OSHA is proposing new
Sec.  1926.97, Electrical protective equipment, to replace Sec.
1926.951(a)(1), which incorporates by reference the following six
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Item                            ANSI  Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rubber insulating gloves...................  J6.6-1971
Rubber matting for use around electric       J6.7-1935
 apparatus.                                  (R1971)
Rubber insulating blankets.................  J6.4-1971
Rubber insulating hoods....................  J6.2-1950
                                             (R1971)
Rubber insulating line hose................  J6.1-1950
                                             (R1971)
Rubber insulating sleeves..................  J6.5-1971
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These ANSI standards were originally developed and adopted as
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards. (In fact,
the latest revisions of these standards use the ASTM designations,
rather than using separate designations for both standards-writing
organizations.) As is typical of national consensus standards, the ASTM
standards are filled with detailed specifications for the manufacture,
testing, and design of electrical protective equipment. Additionally,
these standards are revised frequently, making existing Sec.
1926.951(a)(1) over a quarter century out of date. For example, the
most recent ANSI standard listed in the former OSHA requirement is
dated 1971. The most recent ASTM version available is a 2002 edition of
specifications on rubber insulating gloves. The complete list of
current ASTM standards corresponding to the ANSI standards is as
follows:
    ASTM D120-02a, Specification for Rubber Insulating Gloves.
    ASTM D178-01\e1\, Specification for Rubber Insulating Matting.
    ASTM D1048-99, Specification for Rubber Insulating Blankets.
    ASTM D1049-98\e1\ (Reapproved 2002), Specification for Rubber
Insulating Covers.
    ASTM D1050-90 (Reapproved 1999), Specification for Rubber
Insulating Line Hose.
    ASTM D1051-02, Specification for Rubber Insulating Sleeves.
    Additionally, ASTM has adopted standards on the in-service care of
insulating line hose and covers (ASTM F478-92 (Reapproved 1999)),
insulating blankets (ASTM F479-95 (Reapproved 2001)), and insulating
gloves and sleeves (ASTM F496-02a), which have no current counterparts
in existing Sec.  1926.951(a)(1).
    In an attempt to retain the quality of protection afforded by the
ASTM standards, OSHA has developed proposed new Sec.  1926.97 which has
been derived from the ASTM documents but which has been written in
performance terms. OSHA recognizes the importance of the ASTM standards
in defining basic requirements for the safe design and manufacture of
electrical protective equipment for employees. Proposed Sec.  1926.97
would increase the protection presently afforded to power transmission
and distribution employees by the outdated ANSI/ASTM standards
incorporated by reference in the existing standard. The proposal
carries forward ASTM provisions that are performance oriented and
necessary for employee safety, but does not contain many of the
detailed specifications in those consensus standards. The proposal will
thus provide greater flexibility for compliance with these provisions
to the extent that worker safety warrants.
    There are several reasons why adopting the ASTM standards in toto
would be inappropriate in this rulemaking. First, ASTM has revised each
of the currently referenced standards several times since they were
adopted in the former OSHA regulation. Because of the continual process
by which ASTM periodically revises its standards, any specific editions
that OSHA might adopt would likely be outdated within a few years.
Additionally, since the rulemaking process is lengthy, a complete
revision of OSHA's electrical protective equipment requirements every
three years or so to keep pace with the changes in the consensus
standards is not practical. (In fact, some of the ASTM standards will
likely be revised again during the rulemaking period.) To remedy this
problem, OSHA is proposing new Sec.  1926.97 to make the standards
flexible enough to accommodate changes in technology, obviating the
need for constant revision. Where possible, the proposed standard has
been written in performance terms in order to allow alternative methods
of compliance if they provide comparable safety to the employee.
    Another difficulty with incorporation of the ASTM standards by
reference is that they contain details that go beyond the purposes of
the OSHA standard or that are not directly related to employee safety.
In proposed Sec.  1926.97, OSHA has tried to carry forward only
provisions that are relevant to employee safety in the workplace.
Furthermore, OSHA has attempted to simplify those provisions to make
the requirements easier for employers and employees to use and
understand. Because the revision places all relevant requirements in
the text of the regulations, employers would no longer have to refer to
the ASTM documents to determine their obligations under OSHA.
    In striving for this degree of simplification, the Agency has tried
to use an approach that will accept new methods of protection that may
appear in future editions of the ASTM standards. OSHA recognizes that
such future editions of these standards might contain technological
advances providing significant improvement in employee safety, which
might not be permitted under proposed Sec.  1926.97. However, due to
the performance-oriented nature of the OSHA standard as compared to the
ASTM standards, conflicts between the two standards in areas affecting
employee safety are expected to be infrequent.
    Furthermore, an employer who follows future versions of ASTM
standards would likely be covered by OSHA's de minimis policy as set
forth in OSHA Instruction CPL 02-00-103 (Field Inspection Reference
Manual). Under that policy, a de minimis

condition \8\ exists: (1) Where an employer's workplace has been
updated in accordance with new technology or equipment as a result of
revisions to the latest consensus publications from which OSHA
standards were derived, (2) where the updated versions result in a
``state of the art'' workplace, technically advanced beyond the
requirements of the applicable OSHA standard, and (3) where equal or
greater safety and health protection is provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ OSHA considers a de minimis condition to be a technical
violation of a standard only. However, because the employer is
considered to be in substantial compliance with the standard, the
Agency issues no citations or penalties, nor is the employer
required to bring his or her workplace into compliance with the
older standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (a). Paragraph (a) of Sec.  1926.97 addresses the design
and manufacture of insulating blankets, matting, covers, line hose,
gloves, and sleeves made of rubber (either natural or synthetic). See
the summary and explanation of proposed Sec.  1926.97(b) for general
requirements on other types of insulating equipment.
    Under proposed paragraph (a)(1)(i), blankets, gloves, and sleeves
would have to be manufactured without seams. This method of making the
protective equipment minimizes the chance that the material will split.
Because they are used when workers handle energized lines, gloves and
sleeves are the only defense an employee has against electric shock.
Additionally, blankets, gloves, and sleeves need to be seamless because
the stresses placed on the equipment by the flexing of the rubber
during normal use could cause a seam to separate. The other three types
of electrical protective equipment (covers, line hose, and matting)
generally provide a more indirect form of protection--they insulate the
live parts from accidental, rather than intended, contact--and they are
not usually subject to similar amounts or types of flexing.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(ii) would require electrical protective
equipment to be marked to indicate its class and type. The class
marking indicates the voltage with which the equipment can be used; the
type marking indicates whether or not the equipment is ozone resistant.
This will enable employees to know the uses and voltages for which the
equipment is suited. Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(ii) would also permit
equipment to contain other relevant markings, such as one indicating
the manufacturer's name or compliance with ASTM standards.
    Paragraph (a)(1)(iii) would require all markings to be
nonconductive and to be applied so that the properties of the equipment
are not impaired. This would ensure that no marking interferes with the
protection to be provided by the equipment.
    Paragraph (a)(1)(iv) would require markings on gloves to be
provided only in the cuff area. Markings in other areas could possibly
wear off. Moreover, having the markings in one place will allow the
employee to determine the class and type of glove quickly. Furthermore,
OSHA would require in paragraph (c)(2)(vii) that rubber gloves normally
be worn under protector gloves. Because a protector glove is almost
always shorter than the corresponding rubber glove with which it is
worn and because the cuff of the protector glove can easily be pulled
back without removal, it is easy to see markings on the cuff portion of
the rubber glove beneath. Any marking provided on the rubber glove in
an area outside of the cuff could not be seen with the protector glove
in place.
    Under the national consensus standards, electrical protective
equipment must be capable of passing certain electrical tests. In
proposed Sec.  1926.97(a)(2), OSHA incorporates these requirements. The
tests specified in the ASTM standards are very detailed. This is not
the case in the OSHA standard. Through the use of performance language,
the proposed rule would establish the same level of protection without
a lengthy discussion of test procedures.
    Paragraph (a)(2)(i) would require electrical protective equipment
to be capable of withstanding the a-c proof-test voltages in Table E-1
or the d-c proof-test voltages in Table E-2 of the standard (depending,
of course, on whether an a-c proof test or an equivalent d-c proof test
is performed). The proof-test voltages listed in these tables have been
taken from the current ASTM standards, which also contain details of
the test procedures used to determine whether electrical protective
equipment is capable of withstanding these voltages. These details have
not been included in the proposed rule. Paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A) replaces
them with a performance-oriented requirement that whatever test is used
must reliably indicate that the equipment can withstand the proof-test
voltage involved. To meet the requirements of the OSHA performance
standard, employers would normally get the assurance of the
manufacturer that the equipment is capable of withstanding the
appropriate proof-test voltage.\9\ Manufacturers typically look to the
ASTM standards for guidance in determining the testing procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As explained in the note at the end of paragraph (a), OSHA
deems equipment meeting the ASTM standards as being compliant with
the OSHA standard. Thus, an employer could simply look for equipment
labeled as meeting these standards. Manufacturers attest, through
this label, that their equipment is capable of passing all the
required tests, including the a-c or d-c proof tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(i)(B) would require the proof-test
voltage to be applied for 1 minute for insulating matting and for 3
minutes for other insulating equipment. These times are based on the
proof-test times given in the ASTM design standards and are appropriate
for testing the design capabilities of electrical protective equipment.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(i)(C) would require rubber insulating
gloves to be capable of withstanding the a-c proof-test voltage
indicated in Table E-1 of the standard after a 16-hour water soak. If
rubber insulating gloves absorb water, a reduction in insulating
properties will result. Water absorption is thus a critical property
because exposure to perspiration or rain is quite common while line
worker's gloves are in use. Electrical work is sometimes performed in
the rain, and an employee's perspiration is often present while the
gloves are in use. The soak test is needed to ensure that electrical
protective equipment can withstand the voltage involved under these
conditions.
    When an a-c proof test is used on gloves, the resulting proof-test
current gives an indication of the validity of the gloves' make-up, the
dielectric constant of the type of material used, its thickness, and
the total area under test. Paragraph (a)(2)(ii) prohibits the a-c
proof-test current from exceeding the current allowed in Table E-1. The
currents listed in the table have been taken from ASTM D120-02a.
    Under paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(A), the maximum current for a-c voltages
at frequencies other than 60 hertz would be computed from the direct
ratio of the frequencies.
    Gloves are filled with and immersed in water during the a-c proof
test, and the water inside and outside the glove forms the electrodes.
The a-c proof-test current is dependent on the length of the portion of
the glove that is out of water. Because the proof-test current is a
function of immersion depth, it is important to specify the depth in
the rule. Otherwise, employee safety could be compromised. Therefore,
paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(B) in the proposed standard specifies that gloves
to be tested must be filled with and immersed in water to the depth
given in Table E-3 in the standard. This table was taken directly

from ASTM D120 and is valid for the proof-test currents listed in Table
E-1.
    The allowable proof-test current must be increased for proof-tests
on gloves after a 16-hour water soak because the gloves absorb a small
amount of water, which results in slightly increased current during the
test. ASTM D120 allows an increase in the proof-test current of 2
milliamperes. If the proof-test current increases more than that, it
would indicate that the gloves absorbed too much water. OSHA has
proposed to allow a similar increase in proof-test current in paragraph
(a)(2)(ii)(C).
    Since the relatively high voltages used in testing electrical
protective equipment for minimum breakdown voltage can actually damage
the insulating material under test (even if it passes), proposed
paragraph (a)(2)(iii) would prohibit protective equipment that has been
subjected to such a test from being used to protect employees from
electrical hazards. The intent of the proposal is to prohibit the use
of equipment that has been tested under conditions equivalent to those
in the ASTM standards for minimum breakdown voltage tests.
    A note at the end of proposed Sec.  1926.97(a) indicates that all
the tests given in the paragraph are described in the listed ASTM
standards, as follows:

    These [ASTM] standards contain specifications for conducting the
various tests required in paragraph (a) of this section. For
example, the a-c and d-c proof tests, the breakdown test, the water
soak procedure, and the ozone test mentioned in this paragraph are
described in detail in the ASTM standards.

    This does not mean that OSHA is adopting the ASTM standards by
reference. In enforcing proposed Sec.  1926.97, the Agency would accept
any test that meets the requirements of the OSHA standard. However, the
proposal states explicitly that the ASTM tests listed in the note are
acceptable; and, if the ASTM specifications are met, an employer has
assurance that he or she is complying with proposed Sec.  1926.97. If
an employer uses other test methods, the Agency would determine, on a
case-by-case basis, whether or not they meet the OSHA standard.
    Around high-voltage lines and equipment, a luminous discharge,
called electric corona, can occur due to ionization of the surrounding
air caused by a voltage gradient which exceeds a certain critical
value. The blue corona discharge is accompanied by a hissing noise and
by ozone, which can cause damage to certain types of rubber insulating
materials. Therefore, when there is a chance that ozone may be produced
at a work location, electrical protective equipment made of ozone-
resistant material is frequently used. To ensure that ozone-resistant
material will, in fact, be resistant to the damaging effects of the
gas, paragraph (a)(2)(iv) requires this type of material (Type II) to
be capable of withstanding an ozone test that can reliably indicate
that the material will resist ozone exposure in actual use. As noted
earlier, standardized ozone tests are given in the ASTM specifications.
The proposed rule also lists signs of failure of the test, such as
checking,\10\ cracking, breaks, and pitting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ASTM F819-00 \e1\, Standard Terminology Relating to
Electrical Protective Equipment for Workers, defines ``ozone cutting
and checking'' as: ``cracks produced by ozone in a material under
mechanical stress.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (a)(3) applies to the workmanship and finish of
electrical protective equipment. Because physical irregularities can
interfere with the insulating properties of the equipment, paragraph
(a)(3)(i) prohibits the presence of harmful defects that can be
detected by the tests or inspections required under Sec.  1926.97.
However, some minor irregularities are nearly unavoidable in the
manufacture of rubber goods, and these imperfections may be present in
the insulating materials without significantly affecting the
insulation. Paragraph (a)(3)(ii) lists the types of imperfections that
are permitted. Even with these imperfections, electrical protective
equipment is still required to be capable of passing the electrical
tests specified in paragraph (a)(2).
    Since paragraph (a) of Sec.  1926.97 is written in performance-
oriented language, OSHA believes that it is important for employees,
employers, and manufacturers to have some guidance in terms of what is
acceptable under the proposed standard. OSHA also realizes that the
current ASTM specifications on electrical protective equipment are
accepted by employers and employees in the industry as providing safety
to employees and that existing electrical protective equipment is
normally made to these specifications. Furthermore, the proposal is
based on the provisions of these national consensus standards, although
the requirements are stated in performance terms. OSHA has therefore
included a footnote at the end of paragraph (a) stating that rubber
insulating equipment meeting the requirements of the listed ASTM
standards for this equipment are considered as conforming to the
requirements contained in Sec.  1926.97(a). The lists of ASTM standards
in the proposed rule (in the notes following paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(B)
and (c)(2)(ix)) contain the latest revisions of these standards. The
Agency has reviewed these documents and has found them to provide
suitable guidance for compliance with Sec.  1926.97(a).\11\ It should
be noted that the listed consensus standards are the only ones with
official recognition within the body of the standard. Future consensus
standards are not automatically given the same recognition but will
have to be reviewed by OSHA to determine whether they provide
sufficient protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ OSHA has also reviewed earlier versions of these ASTM
standards and found them to afford protection equal to that of the
OSHA standard. Thus, the Agency will accept electrical protective
equipment meeting earlier versions of the consensus standards
provided the equipment meets the edition of the standard that was in
effect at the time of manufacture and provided the employer has
followed the use and care provisions set out in proposed Sec.
1926.97(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (b). Paragraph (b) of the proposed Sec.  1926.97
addresses electrical protective equipment other than the rubber
insulating equipment addressed in paragraph (a). Equipment falling
under this paragraph includes plastic guard equipment, insulating
barriers, and other protective equipment intended to provide electrical
protection to employees. Some of the equipment addressed in paragraph
(b) is covered under a national consensus standard. For example,
insulating plastic guard equipment is covered by ASTM F968,
Specification for Electrically Insulating Plastic Guard Equipment for
Protection of Workers. Other types of protective equipment are not
covered by consensus specification.
    Paragraph (b)(1) would require electrical protective equipment to
be capable of withstanding any voltage that might be imposed on it. The
voltage includes transient overvoltages as well as the nominal voltage
that is present on an energized part of an electric circuit. Equipment
withstands a voltage if it maintains its integrity without flashover or
arc through. This paragraph would protect employees from failure of
electrical protective equipment. Equipment conforming to a national
consensus standard for that type of equipment will generally be
considered as complying with this rule if that standard contains proof
testing requirements for the voltage involved. For types of equipment
not addressed by any consensus standard, OSHA is considering accepting
electrical protective equipment that is capable of passing a test
equivalent to that described in ASTM F712, Standard Test Methods for
Electrically Insulating Plastic Guard Equipment for Protection

of Workers. Guidance for performing dielectric tests of electrical
protective equipment is also given in IEEE Std. 516, IEEE Guide for
Maintenance Methods on Energized Power-Lines. OSHA invites comments on
whether these standards contain suitable test methods and whether
equipment passing those tests should be acceptable under the OSHA
standard.
    The electrical test criteria set in ASTM F968 are summarized in
Table IV-1 and Table IV-2. The Agency believes that the performance
criteria proposed in paragraph (b)(1) minimize the necessity of setting
or specifically including similar criteria in the OSHA standard.
However, comments are invited on the need to set specific electrical
performance values in the OSHA rule and on whether Table IV-1 and Table
IV-2 could be applied to all types of electrical protective equipment
that would be covered by proposed Sec.  1926.97(b).

                                    Table IV-1.--Withstand Voltage Proof Test
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Proof test withstand voltage (in service testing)
                       Rating  kV    Maximum use ---------------------------------------------------------------
        Class            [phis]-     kV [phis]-g          kV [phis]-g
                         [phis]        (60 Hz)   ----------------------------   Duration          Criteria
                                                      60 Hz          D-C          min.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2...................          14.6           8.4            13            18          1.00  No flashover other
3...................          26.4          15.3            24            34          1.00   than momentary as a
4...................          36.6          21.1            32            45          1.00   result of too-close
                                                                                spacing of
                                                                                electrode.
5...................          48.3          27.0            42            60          0.50
6...................          72.5          41.8            64            91          0.25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                       Table IV-2.--Minimum Flashover Test
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Minimum flashover test kV
                              Rating  kV    Maximum use           [phis]-g
           Class                [phis]-     kV [phis]-g ----------------------------           Criteria
                                [phis]        (60 Hz)        60 Hz          D-C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2..........................          14.6           8.4            14            20  No flashover other than
3..........................          26.4          15.3            25            35   momentary as a result of
4..........................          36.6          21.1            34            48   too-close spacing of
                                                                                electrode.
5..........................          48.3          27.0            43            61
6..........................          72.5          41.8            67            95
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed paragraph (b)(2) addresses the properties of insulating
equipment that limit the amount of current seen by an employee.
Paragraph (b)(2)(i) would require electrical protective equipment used
as the primary insulation of employees from energized parts to be
capable of passing a test for current (that is, a proof test) when
subjected to the highest nominal voltage on which the equipment is to
be used. Paragraph (b)(2)(ii) would limit the current encountered
during the test to 1 microampere per kilovolt of applied voltage. This
requirement is intended to prevent the use of poor insulating materials
or good insulating materials that are contaminated with conductive
substances (for example, fiberglass-reinforced plastic coated with a
conductive finish), which could lead to electric shocks to employees
using the equipment. The limit for current has been taken from IEEE
Std. 516, and OSHA believes such a limit is reasonable and appropriate.
The Agency invites comments, however, on whether another value would
better protect employees.
    When equipment is tested with ac voltage, the current measured
during the test consists of three components: (1) Capacitive current
caused by the dielectric properties of the equipment being tested, (2)
conduction current through the equipment, and (3) leakage current
passing along the surface of the equipment. The conduction current is
negligible for materials typically used in insulating equipment, and
the leakage current should be small for clean, dry insulating
equipment. The capacitive component usually predominates when
insulating equipment in good condition is tested. The second note to
paragraph (b)(2) summarizes this information.
    The tests required under proposed paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2)
would normally be performed by the manufacturer initially during the
design process and periodically during the manufacturing process.
However, some employers might want to use equipment that is made of
insulating materials but that is not intended by the manufacturer to be
used as insulation. For example, a barrier made of rigid plastic may be
intended for use as a general purpose barrier. An employer could test
the barrier under proposed paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2). If the
equipment passed the tests, it would be acceptable for use as
insulating electrical protective equipment. Note 1 to paragraph (b)(2)
makes clear that paragraph (b)(2) applies to equipment for primary
insulation; it is not intended to apply to equipment used for secondary
insulation or used for brush contact only.
    Paragraph (c). Although existing Sec.  1926.951(a)(1) does not
contain provisions for the care and use of insulating equipment, OSHA
believes provisions of this type can contribute greatly to employee
safety. Electrical protective equipment is, in large part, manufactured
in accordance with the latest ASTM standards. This would probably be
the case even in the absence of OSHA regulation. However, improper use
and care of this equipment can easily reduce, or even eliminate, the
protection afforded by this equipment. Therefore, OSHA is proposing new
requirements on the in-service care and use of electrical protective
equipment to the design standards already contained in existing Sec.
1926.951(a)(1). These new provisions will help ensure that these safety
products retain their insulating properties.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would require electrical protective
equipment to be maintained in a safe and reliable condition. This
general, performance-oriented requirement, which would apply to all
equipment addressed by

new Sec.  1926.97, helps ensure that employees are fully protected from
electric shock.
    Detailed criteria for the use and care of specific types of
electrical protective equipment are contained in the following ASTM
standards:
    ASTM F 478-92, Specification for In-Service Care of Insulating Line
Hose and Covers.
    ASTM F 479-95, Specification for In-Service Care of Insulating
Blankets.
    ASTM F 496-02a, Specification for In-Service Care of Insulating
Gloves and Sleeves.
    OSHA based the requirements proposed in paragraph (c)(2) on these
standards.
    Paragraph (c)(2) applies only to rubber insulating blankets,
covers, line hose, gloves, and sleeves. These are the only types of
electrical protective equipment addressed by consensus standards on the
care and use of such equipment. Rubber insulating matting, which is
addressed by the material design specifications in paragraph (a), is
not covered by any ASTM standard on its in-service care or by Sec.
1910.137(c)(2). This type of equipment is generally permanently
installed to provide supplementary protection against electric shock.
Employees stand on the matting, and they are insulated from ground,
which protects them from phase-to-ground electric shock. However,
because this type of equipment is normally left in place after it is
installed and because it is not relied on for primary protection from
electric shock (the primary protection is provided by other insulating
equipment or by insulating tools), it is not tested on a periodic basis
and is not subject to the careful inspection before use that other
insulating equipment is required to receive. It should be noted,
however, that rubber insulating matting is required to be maintained in
a safe, reliable condition under paragraph (c)(1).
    Although the rubber insulating equipment addressed in Sec.
1926.97(a) is currently designed to be capable of withstanding voltages
of up to 40 kilovolts, such equipment is actually intended to be used
at lower voltages (see, for example, ASTM F 496 on the care and use of
rubber insulating gloves and sleeves). The use of insulating equipment
at voltages less than its actual breakdown voltage provides a margin of
safety for the employee. In paragraph (c)(2)(i) and Table E-4, the
proposal has adopted the margins of safety recognized in the ASTM
standards, restricting the use of insulating equipment to voltages
lower than the proof-test voltages given in Table E-1 and Table E-2.
    Table E-4 contains the following note:

    The maximum use voltage is the a-c voltage (rms) classification
of the protective equipment that designates the maximum nominal
design voltage of the energized system that may be safely worked.
The nominal design voltage is equal to the phase-to-phase voltage on
multiphase circuits. However, the phase-to-ground potential is
considered to be the nominal design voltage:
    (1) If there is no multiphase exposure in a system area and if
the voltage exposure is limited to the phase-to-ground potential, or
    (2) If the electrical equipment and devices are insulated or
isolated or both so that the multiphase exposure on a grounded wye
circuit is removed.

    In the general case, electrical protective equipment must be rated
for the full phase-to-phase voltage of the lines or equipment on which
work is being performed. This ensures that employees are protected
against the most severe possible exposure, that is, contact between one
phase conductor and another. However, if the employee is only exposed
to phase-to-ground voltage, then the electrical protective equipment
selected can be based on this lower voltage level (nominally, the
phase-to-phase voltage divided by [radic]3 ). For example, a three-
phase, solidly grounded, Y-connected overhead distribution system could
be run as three phase conductors with a neutral or as three single-
phase circuits with one phase conductor and a neutral each. If only one
phase conductor is present on a pole, there is no multiphase exposure.
If all three phase conductors are present, the multiphase exposure can
be removed by insulating two of the phases or by isolating \12\ two of
the phases. After the insulation is in place or while the employee is
isolated from the other two phase conductors, there is no multiphase
exposure, and electrical protective equipment rated for the phase-to-
ground voltage could be used. (It should be noted that, until the
multiphase exposure has actually been removed, the phase-to-phase
voltage remains the maximum use voltage. Thus, the maximum use voltage
of any insulation used to ``remove phase-to-phase exposure'' must be
greater than or equal to the phase-to-phase voltage on the system.)
OSHA requests comments on how employees can be insulated or isolated
from multiphase exposure to ensure the safe use of electrical
protective equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Depending on the configuration of the system, an employee
could be isolated from two of the phases on the pole by approaching
one of the outside phase conductors and working on it from a
position where there is no possibility of coming too close to the
other two phase conductors. Isolation of the employee may be
impossible for some line configurations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii) would require insulating equipment to
be visually inspected before use each day and immediately after any
incident which might be suspected of causing damage. In this way,
obvious defects can be detected before an accident occurs. Possible
damage-causing incidents would include exposure to corona and exposure
to possible direct physical damage. Additionally, rubber gloves would
be required to be subjected to an air test along with the inspection.
In the field, this test usually consists of rolling the cuff towards
the palm so that air is entrapped within the glove. In a testing
facility, a mechanical inflater may be used. In either case, punctures
and cuts can easily be detected. The note following paragraph
(c)(2)(ii) indicates that ASTM F 1236-96, Standard Guide for Visual
Inspection of Electrical Protective Rubber Products, contains (1)
information on how to inspect rubber insulating equipment and (2)
descriptions and photographs of potential irregularities in the
equipment.
    During use, electrical protective equipment may become damaged and
lose some of its insulating value. Paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of proposed
Sec.  1926.97 lists types of damage that would cause the insulating
value to drop. The equipment may not be used if any of these defects
are present.
    Defects other than those listed in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) may
develop during use of the equipment and could also affect the
insulating and mechanical properties of the equipment. If such defects
are found, proposed paragraph (c)(2)(iv) would require the equipment to
be removed from service and tested in accordance with other
requirements in paragraph (c)(2). The results of the tests determine if
it is safe to return the items to service.
    Foreign substances on the surface of rubber insulating equipment
can degrade the material and lead to damage to the insulation.
Paragraph (c)(2)(v) would require the equipment to be cleaned as needed
to remove any foreign substances.
    Over time, certain environmental conditions can also cause
deterioration of rubber insulating equipment. Proposed paragraph
(c)(2)(vi) would require insulating equipment to be stored so that it
is protected from injurious conditions and substances, such as light,
temperature extremes, excessive humidity, and ozone. This requirement
helps the equipment retain its insulating properties as it ages.

    OSHA does not consider carrying the equipment on trucks for the use
of employees during the course of work to be storage. However, the
Agency does not believe that it is safe to store the equipment on
trucks for extended periods between use if such storage would expose
the equipment to extremes of temperature or humidity. It may be
necessary, under some circumstances, to store equipment indoors during
prolonged periods when employees would not be using it. Workers are
dependent upon electrical protective equipment for their safety, and
all reasonable means of protecting it from unnecessary damage must be
employed.
    Rubber insulating gloves are particularly sensitive to physical
damage during use. Through handling conductors and other electrical
equipment, an employee can damage the gloves and lose the protection
they provide. For example, a sharp point on the end of a conductor
could puncture the rubber. To protect against damage, protector gloves
(made of leather) are worn over the rubber gloves. Proposed paragraph
(c)(2)(vii) recognizes the extra protection afforded by leather gloves
and would require their use over rubber gloves, except under limited
conditions.
    Protector gloves would not be required with Class 0 or Class 00
gloves if high finger dexterity is needed for small parts manipulation.
The maximum voltage on which Class 0 and Class 00 gloves can be used is
1,000 volts and 500 volts, respectively. At these voltages, an employee
is protected against electric shock as long as a live part does not
puncture the rubber and contact the employee's hand. The type of small
parts encountered in work on energized circuits, such as small nuts and
washers, are not likely to do this. While the exception is necessary to
allow work to be performed on small energized parts, extra care is
needed in the visual examination of the glove and in the avoidance of
handling sharp objects. (A note to this effect is included in the
proposal.)
    The other exception to the requirement for protector gloves is
granted if the employer can demonstrate that the possibility for damage
is low and if gloves at least one class higher than required for the
voltage are used. For example, if a Class 2 glove is used at 7500 volts
or less (the maximum use voltage for Class 1 equipment), if high
dexterity is needed, and if the possibility of damage is low, then
protector gloves need not be used. In this case, the additional
thickness of insulation provides a measure of additional physical
protection. This exception does not apply when the possibility of
damage is significant, such as when an employee is using a knife to
trim insulation from a conductor or when an employee has to handle
moving parts, such as conductors being pulled into place. To ensure
that no loss of insulation has occurred, paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(C) would
require any gloves used under this exception to be tested before being
used again.
    Paragraph (c)(2)(viii), Table E-4, and Table E-5 would require
insulating equipment to be tested periodically to verify that
electrical protective equipment retains its insulating properties over
time. Table E-4 lists the retest voltages that are required for the
various classes of protective equipment, and Table E-5 presents the
testing intervals for the different types of equipment. These test
voltages and intervals were taken from the relevant ASTM standards.
    Paragraph (c)(2)(ix) proposes a performance-oriented requirement
that the method used for the periodic tests give a reliable indication
of whether or not the electrical protective equipment can withstand the
voltages involved. As this is a performance-oriented standard, OSHA
does not spell out detailed procedures for the required tests, which
vary depending on the type of equipment being tested. On the other
hand, OSHA believes that it is important for employees, employers, and
testing laboratories to have some guidance in terms of what is
acceptable under the proposed standard. Therefore, following paragraph
(c)(2)(ix), OSHA has included a note stating that electrical test
methods given in the various ASTM standards on rubber insulating
equipment meet the proposed performance requirement. The Agency
believes that referencing acceptable test methods within the standard
will benefit employees, employers, and testing laboratories. As noted
earlier, this does not mean that OSHA is adopting the ASTM standards by
reference. In enforcing Sec.  1926.97(c)(2)(ix), the Agency would
accept any test that meets the requirements of the OSHA standard.
However, the proposal states explicitly that the listed ASTM tests
would be acceptable; and, if the ASTM specifications are met, an
employer has assurance that he or she would be complying with Sec.
1926.97(c)(2)(ix). If an employer uses other test methods, the Agency
will determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether or not they meet the
Federal standard.
    Once the equipment has undergone the in-service inspections and
tests, it is important to ensure that any failed equipment is not
returned to service. Paragraph (c)(2)(x) would prohibit electrical
protective equipment that failed the required inspections and tests
from being used by employees, unless the defects can be safely
eliminated. Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(x) also lists acceptable means of
eliminating defects and rendering the equipment fit for use. Sometimes
defective portions of rubber line hose and blankets can be removed. The
result would be a smaller blanket or a shorter length of line hose.
Under the proposal, rubber insulating blankets may only be salvaged by
severing the defective portions of the blanket if the resulting
undamaged area is at least 560 mm by 560 mm (22 inches by 22 inches)
for Class 1, 2, 3, and 4 blankets. (Smaller sizes cannot be reliably
tested using standard test methods.) Obviously, gloves and sleeves
cannot be repaired in this manner; however, there are methods of
patching them if the defects are minor. Rubber blankets can also be
patched. The patched area must have electrical and physical properties
equal to those of the material being repaired. To minimize the
possibility that a patch will loosen or fail, the proposal would not
permit repairs to gloves outside the gauntlet area (the area between
the wrist and the reinforced edge of the opening). OSHA stresses that
the proposal would not permit repairs in the working area of the glove,
where the constant flexing of the rubber during the course of work
could loosen an ill-formed patch.
    Once the insulating equipment has been repaired, it must be
retested to ensure that any patches are effective and that there are no
other defects present. Such retests would be required under paragraph
(c)(2)(xi).
    Employers, employees, and OSHA compliance staff must have a method
of determining whether or not the tests required under proposed
paragraphs (c)(2)(viii) and (c)(2)(xi) have been performed. Paragraph
(c)(2)(xii) would require this to be accomplished by means of
certification by the employer that equipment has been tested in
accordance with the standard. The certification is required to identify
the equipment that passed the test and the date it was tested. Typical
means of meeting this requirement include logs and stamping test dates
on the equipment. A note following paragraph (c)(2)(xii) explains that
these means of certification are acceptable.

B. Electric Power Transmission and Distribution, Subpart V

    OSHA is proposing to revise Subpart V of its construction
standards. This subpart contains requirements for the prevention of
injuries to employees

performing construction work on electric power transmission and
distribution installations.
    The proposed revision of Subpart V is based primarily on the
general industry standard Sec.  1910.269, Electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution, which was promulgated in January 1994,
rather than on existing Subpart V, which was promulgated in 1972. As
noted earlier in this preamble, the existing Subpart V is
technologically out of date and contains provisions that are poorly
written. OSHA believes that basing the revision of Subpart V on the
more recently promulgated Sec.  1910.269 will produce a standard that
will be easier for employees and employers to understand and will
better protect employees than a revision based on the existing
construction standard.
Section 1926.950, General
    Section 1926.950, General, proposes the scope of revised Subpart V
and proposes general requirements for training and the determination of
existing conditions.
    Paragraph (a)(1) of proposed Sec.  1926.950 sets the scope of
revised Subpart V. OSHA intends the revision of Subpart V to apply to
the same types of work covered under the existing standard. Therefore,
paragraph (a)(1) has been taken directly from existing Sec.
1926.950(a) and (a)(1). As proposed, Subpart V would apply to the
construction of electric power transmission and distribution
installations. For the purposes of the proposal and the existing
standard, ``construction'' includes the erection of new electric
transmission and distribution lines and equipment, and the alteration,
conversion, and improvement of existing electric transmission and
distribution lines and equipment.
    Paragraph (a)(2) of proposed Sec.  1926.950 explains the
application of the subpart with respect to the rest of Part 1926. The
proposed provision reads as follows: ``This subpart applies in addition
to all other applicable standards contained in this Part 1926.
Employers covered under this subpart are not exempt from complying with
other applicable provisions in Part 1926 by the operation of Sec.
1910.5(c) of this chapter. Specific references in this subpart to other
sections of Part 1926 are provided for emphasis only.'' All other
construction industry standards would continue to apply to
installations covered by the revised standard unless an exception is
given in Subpart V. For example, Sec.  1926.959(a)(2) would require the
critical components of mechanical elevating and rotating equipment to
be inspected before each shift. This provision would not supersede
existing Sec. Sec.  1926.500(a)(5) and (a)(6), which detail specific
requirements for the inspection of cranes. Also, in a change that OSHA
considers nonsubstantive, Sec.  1910.269(a)(1)(iii) will be amended to
include language equivalent to that of the new provision at Sec.
1926.950(a)(2).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of Sec.  1910.269 presently states:
``This section applies in addition to all other applicable standards
contained in this part 1910. Specific references in this section to
other sections of part 1910 are provided for emphasis only.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast to Sec.  1910.269, Subpart V does not apply to work on
electric power generation installations or to the installations
themselves. The construction of an electric power generation station
normally poses hazards more akin to those of general construction
rather than those found in the operation and maintenance of the
generation plant. The only exceptions would be during the final phase
of construction of a generating station, when electrical and other
acceptance testing of the installation is being performed, and during
``reconstruction'' phases, when other portions of the generating
station would still be in operation. During these two operations, the
work being performed resembles general industry work, and the
appropriate work practices to follow are contained in the general
industry standard Sec.  1910.269. Therefore, rather than repeat the
relevant portions of Sec.  1910.269 in Subpart V, OSHA has simply
stated in Sec.  1926.950(a)(3) that such work shall comply with Sec.
1910.269. The Agency requests comments on whether Sec.  1910.269 should
apply to all work involving electric power generation installations, as
proposed, or whether the relevant requirements from Sec.  1910.269
should be contained in Subpart V.
    Similarly, line-clearance tree trimming is not normally performed
as part of the construction of electric power transmission or
distribution installations. One exception occurs when trees are trimmed
along an existing overhead power line to provide clearance for a new
transmission or distribution line being constructed. Even here,
however, this work is not construction-like in nature. Therefore, OSHA
is also applying Sec.  1910.269 to line-clearance tree-trimming
operations, regardless of whether the work is considered to be
construction work. The Agency also requests comments on whether Sec.
1910.269 should apply to all work involving line-clearance tree
trimming, as proposed, or whether the relevant requirements from Sec.
1910.269 should be contained in Subpart V.
    Paragraph (b) of Sec.  1926.950 addresses training for employees.
Subpart V currently contains no general provisions related to training
employees in the safety precautions necessary to perform electric power
transmission and distribution work. It is widely recognized that
electric-utility-type work requires special knowledge and skills.
Additionally, both existing Subpart V and the proposed revision of
Subpart V contain many safety-related work practice requirements that
are necessary for the protection of employees. In order to gain the
requisite knowledge and skills to employ these work practices,
employees must be adequately trained. Therefore, in the proposed
revision of Subpart V, OSHA has included training requirements based on
those in Sec.  1910.269.
    Paragraph (b)(1) contains training requirements applying to all
employees performing work covered by Subpart V. Paragraph (b)(1)(i)
would require employees to be trained in the safety-related work
practices, safety procedures, and other personnel safety requirements
in the standard that pertain to their respective job assignments. This
training is necessary to ensure that employees use the safety-related
work practices outlined in proposed Subpart V.
    Under paragraph (b)(1)(ii), employees would also be required to be
trained in and familiar with any other safety practices necessary for
their safety, including applicable emergency procedures. The proposed
rule would require employees to be trained in safe work techniques that
relate to his or her job. Additionally, if more than one set of work
practices could be used to accomplish a task safely, the employee would
need to be trained in only those work methods he or she is to use. For
example, an insulator on a power line could be replaced through the use
of live-line tools, through the use of rubber insulating equipment, or
by deenergizing the line. The employee would only have to be trained in
the method actually used to replace that insulator.
    The proposal cannot specify requirements for every hazard the
employee faces in performing electric power transmission or
distribution work. Employers must fill in this gap by training their
employees in hazards that are anticipated during the course of jobs
they are expected to perform. The language of proposed Sec.
1926.950(b)(1)(ii) imparts OSHA's intent that safety training be
provided in areas that are not directly addressed by the standard but
that are related to the employee's job.

    Under paragraph (b)(1)(iii), the training provided to an employee
would have to be commensurate with the risk he or she faces. This
provision is not contained in either existing Subpart V or Sec.
1910.269. This proposed requirement, which has been taken from Sec.
1910.332(c), is intended to ensure that an appropriate level of
training is provided. Employees who face little risk in their job tasks
need less training than those whose jobs expose them to the most
danger. OSHA believes that this provision will ensure that employers
direct their training resources where they will provide the greatest
benefit. At the same time, all employees will receive adequate training
to protect them against the hazards they face in their jobs. OSHA
notes, however, for employees who are currently provided the training
required by existing Sec.  1910.269, this training will be considered
sufficient for compliance with proposed paragraph (b)(1)(iii). Proposed
paragraph (b)(1)(iii) does not require employers to make changes to
their training programs; rather it provides employers with options to
tailor their training programs and resources to employees with
particularly high-risk jobs.
    Paragraph (b)(2) of proposed Sec.  1926.950 contains additional
requirements for the training of qualified employees. Because qualified
employees are allowed to work very close to electric power lines and
equipment and because they face a high risk of electrocution, it is
important that they be specially trained. OSHA believes that qualified
employees need to be extensively trained for them to perform their work
safely. Towards this end, the proposal would require that these
employees be trained in distinguishing live parts from other parts of
electric equipment, in determining nominal voltages of lines and
equipment, in the minimum approach distances set forth in the proposal,
in the techniques involved in working on or near live parts, and in the
knowledge necessary to recognize electrical hazards and the techniques
to avoid these hazards.
    OSHA believes that there is a need for all employees to be trained
on a continuing basis. Initial instruction in safe techniques for
performing specific job tasks is not sufficient to ensure that
employees will use safe work practices all of the time. At OSHA's
hearing on Sec.  1910.269, Dr. Heinz Ahlers of NIOSH spoke about the
effect of training on accidents, as follows:

    * * * I think in a majority of those instances, the fatality
involved the worker who had been appropriately trained for the
exposure that he subsequently came in contact with and just was not
following what the training and the company policy had involved.
[269-DC Tr. 47-48]

    Continual reinforcement of this initial guidance must be provided
to ensure that the employee actually uses the procedures he or she has
been taught. This reinforcement can take the form of supervision,
safety meetings, pre-job briefings or conferences, and retraining.
Typically, adequate supervision can detect unsafe work practices with
respect to tasks that are routine and are performed on a daily or
regular basis. However, if an employee has to use a technique that is
applied infrequently or that is based on new technology, some follow-up
is needed to ensure that the employee is actually aware of the correct
procedure for accomplishing the task. A detailed job briefing, as
required under proposed Sec.  1926.952(d)(2), may be adequate if the
employee has previously received some instruction, but training would
be necessary if the employee has never been schooled in the techniques
to be used.
    For these reasons, OSHA has supplemented the basic training
requirements proposed in Sec.  1926.950(b)(1) and (b)(2) with two
additional requirements: (1) a requirement for regular supervision
(that is, supervision that takes place on a periodic basis throughout
the year) and an annual inspection by the employer to determine whether
or not each employee is complying with the safety-related work
practices required by Subpart V and (2) a requirement for additional
training whenever
     The regular supervision or annual inspection indicates
that the employee is not following the safety-related work practices
required by the standard,
     New technology, new types of equipment, or changes in
procedures necessitate the use of safety-related work practices that
are different from those that the employee would normally use, or
     The employee must use safety-related work practices that
are not normally used during his or her regular job duties.
    These two provisions are contained in paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4).
    The proposal includes a note indicating that the Agency considers
tasks performed less often than once per year to require retraining
before the task is actually performed. Instruction provided in pre-job
briefings is acceptable if it is detailed enough to fully inform the
employee of the procedures involved in the job and to ensure that he or
she can accomplish them in a safe manner. OSHA believes that this
requirement will significantly improve safety for electric power
transmission and distribution workers.
    Under paragraph (b)(5), the proposal would require classroom or on-
the-job training or a combination of both. This allows employers to
continue the types of training programs that are currently in
existence. (See the discussion of Note 2 to paragraph (b)(7) for an
explanation of how employers may treat previous training.)
    An employee who has attended a single training class on a procedure
that is as complex as the lockout and tagging procedure used in an
electric generating plant has generally not been fully trained in that
procedure. Unless a training program establishes an employee's
proficiency in safe work practices and unless that employee then
demonstrates his or her ability to perform those work practices, there
will be no assurance that safe work practices will result. To address
this problem, the Agency is proposing paragraph (b)(6), which reads as
follows:

    The training shall establish employee proficiency in the work
practices required by this section and shall introduce the
procedures necessary for compliance with this section.

    The inclusion of paragraph (b)(6) and the demonstration of
proficiency requirement contained in paragraph (b)(7), discussed later
in this preamble, are intended to ensure that employers do not try to
comply with Sec.  1926.950(b) by simply handing training manuals to
their employees. These provisions will require employers to take steps
to assure that employees comprehend what they have been taught and that
they are capable of performing the work practices mandated by the
standard. OSHA believes that these two paragraphs will maximize the
benefits of the training required under the standard.
    The employer would be required, by paragraph (b)(7), to determine
that each employee has demonstrated proficiency in the work practices
involved. Until the employer makes this determination, the employee
would not be considered as being trained. Employers relying on training
provided by others are expected to take steps to verify that the
employee has indeed received it. For example, an employer could call a
previous employer or training facility or could check a union
employee's journeyman lineman credentials. Alternatively, an employer
could test the employee's knowledge of safe work practices. After these
steps have been taken, the employer could then, based on visual

observation of the employee, determine that that employee has been
trained in accordance with the standard and has demonstrated
proficiency in the work practices involved. A note following this
paragraph explains that employee training records, which are maintained
by many employers but which are not required by the standard, are one
way of tracking when an employee has demonstrated proficiency. OSHA
requests comments on whether the standard should require employers to
record employee training.
    Note 2 to paragraph (b)(7) describes how an employer may treat
training that the employee has received previously (for example,
through previous employment). If an employer can demonstrate that an
employee has already been trained, the employer does not have to
duplicate previous instruction provided that the employer: (1) Confirms
that the employee has the job experience appropriate to the work to be
performed, (2) through an examination or interview, makes an initial
determination that the employee is proficient in the relevant safety-
related work practices before he or she performs any work covered by
this subpart, and (3) supervises the employee closely until that
employee has demonstrated proficiency in all the work practices he or
she will employ. OSHA believes that it is unnecessary to require
employers to duplicate training the employee has received in the past.
However, the Agency believes that it is important for the employer to
take steps to ensure that the previous training was adequate for the
work practices the employee will be performing. It is possible, for
example, that an employee who has received training through an
apprenticeship program was not trained in the specific grounding
practices used by his or her current employer. The employer must
determine where the gaps in the employee's training are and provide
supplemental training to cover them. Otherwise, employees may follow
different practices that endanger not only themselves but their
coworkers as well. For example, a previously trained employee may have
been instructed to wear rubber gloves and sleeves, but his or her
current employer's practices require only rubber gloves but with the
extra insulation on conductors as required by proposed Sec.
1926.960(c)(2). This employee will be unlikely to install all the
necessary insulation, increasing the risk to the employee and his or
her coworkers.
    Existing Sec.  1910.269(a)(2)(vii) requires employers to certify
that employees have received the training required under that section.
The certification must be made when the employee demonstrates
proficiency in the work practices involved. To reduce unnecessary
paperwork burdens placed on employers, OSHA is proposing to eliminate
the requirement to certify training. The Agency believes that
compliance with the training requirements can be determined through
employee interviews; thus, the certification requirement is
unnecessary. OSHA does believe, however, that it is essential for the
employee to demonstrate proficiency in the work practices involved
before he or she is considered as having been trained satisfactorily.
Therefore, as described earlier, the proposal includes this as a
requirement. Comments are requested on whether or not the existing
certification requirement in existing Sec.  1910.269(a)(2)(vii) is
necessary and on whether or not the proposed alternative will better
protect employees.
    The work covered by Subpart V is frequently done by an employer
working under contract to an electric utility. Traditionally, electric
utilities \14\ have had a workforce that was sufficient for the day-to-
day maintenance of the electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution system. Electric utilities would hire contractors when the
work to be performed went beyond routine maintenance. Thus, contractors
typically would perform the following types of work: new transmission
and distribution line construction, extensive transmission and
distribution line renovation (such as the replacement of a large number
of utility poles or the upgrading of the line to a higher voltage),
line-clearance tree trimming, generation plant overhauls, and repair of
extensive storm damage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For the purposes of the discussion of Sec.  1926.950(c),
OSHA is using the term ``electric utility'' to include any employer
who hires a contractor to work on that employer's electric power
generation, transmission, or distribution facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Contractors performing electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution work experience a disproportionate share of fatal
accidents in comparison to electric utilities. Table IV-3 presents the
number of fatalities experienced by electric utilities and their major
electrical contractors.

                                         Table IV-3.--Fatalities by SIC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  SIC                                   Industry                       Year           Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
783...................................  Line-clearance tree-trimming contractors            1991               4
                                                                                1992               7
                                                                                1993               9
                                                                                1994               4
                                                                                1995               2
                                                                                1996               6
                                                                                1997               4
                                                                                1998               5
                                                                                ---------------
    Total.............................  ........................................  ..............              41
---------------------------------------
1623..................................  Power Line Contractors..................            1991              15
                                                                                1992              12
                                                                                1993              20
                                                                                1994              21
                                                                                1995              15
                                                                                1996              11
                                                                                1997              11
                                                                                1998              12
                                                                                ---------------
    Total.............................  ........................................  ..............             117
---------------------------------------
1731..................................  Electrical Contractors..................            1991               5

                                                                                1992               6
                                                                                1993              13
                                                                                1994               9
                                                                                1995               9
                                                                                1996               6
                                                                                1997               8
                                                                                1998               9
                                                                                ---------------
    Total.............................  ........................................  ..............              65
---------------------------------------
4911..................................  Electric Utilities......................            1991              33
                                                                                1992              34
                                                                                1993              28
                                                                                1994              23
                                                                                1995              36
                                                                                1996              23
                                                                                1997              20
                                                                                1998              27
                                                                                ---------------
    Total.............................  ........................................  ..............             224
---------------------------------------
4931..................................  Combination Utilities (e.g., Electric               1991               2
                                         and Gas Utilities).
                                                                                1992               7
                                                                                1993               1
                                                                                1994               1
                                                                                1995               1
                                                                                1996               2
                                                                                1997               2
                                                                                1998               1
                                                                                ---------------
    Total.............................  ........................................  ..............              17
                                                                                ===============
        Grand total...................  ........................................  ..............            464
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: OSHA accident inspection data for the years 1991 through 1998.

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JN05.000

BILLING CODE 4510-26-C

    Figure 1 shows the percentages of fatalities for the two groups.
These figures demonstrate that, while the overall number of fatalities
has not changed significantly, the proportion of fatal accidents has
shifted from electric utilities to their contractors, with nearly half
of the fatalities involving contractors.
    The number of fatalities for the two industry groups does not tell
the full story. To determine the relative risk faced by employees, OSHA
must look at fatality rates, which represent the number of deaths per
1000 employees. Using employment data for 1997 from Section V,
Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis and Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, later in this preamble, the Agency has calculated
fatality rates for electric utilities and their major contractors, as
shown in Table IV-4.

                                     Table IV-4.--Fatality Rate by Industry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Electric utilities      Electrical contractors      Line-clearance tree
                                   ----------------------------------------------------         trimmers
                                      124408 Employees \1\       43472 Employees \2\   -------------------------
               Year                ----------------------------------------------------    35020 Employees \3\
                                                                                -------------------------
                                     Number of     Fatality    Number of     Fatality    Number of     Fatality
                                     fatalities      rate      fatalities      rate      fatalities      rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1991..............................           35         0.28           20         0.46            4         0.11
1992..............................           41         0.33           18         0.41            7         0.20
1993..............................           29         0.23           33         0.76            9         0.26
1994..............................           24         0.19           30         0.69            4         0.11
1995..............................           37         0.30           24         0.55            2         0.06
1996..............................           25         0.20           17         0.39            6         0.17
1997..............................           22         0.18           19         0.44            4         0.11
1998..............................           28         0.23           21         0.48            5         0.14
                                   --------------
    Total.........................          241         0.24          182         0.52           41        0.15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source: ``Analytical Support and Data Gathering for a Preliminary Economic Analysis for Proposed Standards
  for Work on Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution Lines and Equipment (29 CFR 1910.269 and
  29 CFR 1926--Subpart V),'' 2005, CONSAD Research Corp. (CONSAD), full-time equivalent employment for NAICS
  221110, electric power generation, NAICS 221120, electric power transmission, control, and distribution, and
  NAICS 2211, publicly owned utilities, combined.
\2\ Source: CONSAD, full-time equivalent employment for NAICS 234910, water, sewer, and pipeline construction,
  NAICS 234920, power and communication transmission line construction, and NAICS 235310, electrical
  contractors, combined.
\3\ Source: CONSAD, full-time equivalent employment for SIC 0783, ornamental shrub and tree services.

    As can be seen from this table, the fatality rates for contractors
are more than double the comparable rate for electric utilities.
    OSHA believes that, for the protection of all employees performing
electric power generation,\15\ transmission, and distribution work, it
is essential that electric utilities hire contractors who have
employees with the skills, knowledge, training, tools, and protective
equipment necessary to perform this work safely. The safety of electric
utility employees as well as the safety of contractor employees depends
on this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Although Subpart V applies only to the construction of
transmission and distribution installations, the same requirements
on the duties of host and contract employers are being proposed in
Sec.  1910.269, which applies to the maintenance and operation of
electric power generation installations in addition to transmission
and distribution installations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is clear that the safety of contract employees is dependent on
their skills, knowledge, training, tools, and protective equipment. The
requirements of Sec.  1926.950(b) generally ensure that all employees
have the requisite skills and training. Other requirements in the
standard, including Sec. Sec.  1926.954, 1926.957, and 1926.960,
address tools and protective equipment. However, these other provisions
do not adequately address the employees' knowledge of the actual
equipment they will be working on. For example, an employee might be
trained in the climbing of concrete poles. Climbing these structures
typically involves the attachment of temporary ladders into fittings on
the concrete poles. An employee with the general type of training in
climbing electric power transmission structures that contract employees
typically receive might not be aware of the specific attachment and
locking means used by the concrete poles and structures owned by the
electric utility that hires the contractor. Without this knowledge, the
employee could attach the temporary ladder incorrectly or fail to lock
it in place properly with possibly fatal results.
    In addition, several provisions in the standard would require the
employer to assess certain hazards covered by the standard. For
example, Sec.  1926.960(g) would require employers to assess hazards
associated with electric arcs. Contract employers need to have
sufficient information about the electrical system so that they can
perform these hazard assessments.
    The facilities owned by an electric utility pose hazards to
employees of contractors working on those facilities. For example,
overhead electric power transmission and distribution lines and
equipment owned by electric utilities pose serious fall, electrocution,
and electric shock hazards. Employees exposed to such hazards need to
be highly trained and skilled. If an electric utility hires a
contractor who uses unqualified employees on those lines and equipment,
the hazards posed by the utility's facilities will almost certainly
lead to injuries. If the contract employees are working on a power line
with the understanding that it is deenergized and if the contract
employees do not fully understand the electric utility's procedures for
deenergizing lines and equipment, then those employees could mistakenly
believe that a line is deenergized when it is not, with possibly fatal
results. Inadequate maintenance of an electric utility's facilities can
also lead to unexpected hazards for contract employees.
    The safety of electric utility employees is also affected by the
contract employer's work. For example, a contractor's work could cause
an overhead energized line to fall on a deenergized line on which an
electric utility employee is working, creating hazards for the electric
utility employee. Additionally, a contract employee who is not familiar
with the utility's procedures for reenergizing lines and equipment
might inadvertently remove a tag protecting an electric utility
employee.

    Although electric utility employees do not typically work with
contract employees, sometimes they do work together. For example, it is
common practice for contract employees and electric utility employees
to work side-by-side during emergency restoration operations, such as
those that follow a big storm. Additionally, contractors in electric
power generation plants will be working near employees working full
time in the plant.
    It is clear from these examples that electric utility employers and
contract employers must cooperate and communicate if all employees
maintaining or constructing electric power generation, transmission, or
distribution facilities are to be adequately protected. Thus, OSHA is
proposing requirements in Sec.  1926.950 for each type of employer to
ensure the necessary exchange of information between electric utility
and contract employers. The proposed requirements have been taken from
similar provisions in the Agency's standard for Process Safety
Management, Sec.  1910.119(h).
    Paragraph (c)(1) of proposed Sec.  1926.950 would impose duties on
host employers that hire contractors to perform work on the host
employer's installations covered by Subpart V. Host employer is defined
as ``[a]n employer who operates and maintains an electric power
transmission or distribution installation covered by Subpart V of this
Part and who hires a contract employer to perform work on that
installation.'' This definition includes electric utilities and other
employers who operate and maintain an electric power transmission or
distribution installation. However, it does not include an employer who
owns but does not operate and maintain such installations. The Agency
believes that host employers who operate and maintain their electric
power transmission and distribution installations have expertise in
working safely on such installations. On the other hand, some entities
may own but not operate or maintain these installations. These entities
generally do not have the expertise necessary to work safely on
transmission or distribution lines and equipment and would have little
hazard-related knowledge to pass on to contractors. In addition, the
employees of such entities would have little if any exposure to hazards
created by a contract employer. Therefore, OSHA is proposing to exclude
such entities from having to comply with proposed Sec.  1926.950(c)(1).
The Agency invites comments on whether excluding such employers from
the host-contract employer provisions proposed in Sec.  1926.950(c)(1)
unduly jeopardizes employee safety and whether any of the provisions in
that paragraph could reasonably be applied to such employers.
    OSHA is also not proposing to extend the host-contract employer
provisions to line-clearance tree-trimming contractors for work
performed by line-clearance tree trimmers who are not qualified
employees. Existing Sec.  1910.269(a)(1)(i)(E) lists the paragraphs
that apply to line-clearance tree-trimming, and OSHA is not proposing
to add the host-contract employer provisions to that list. As noted
earlier, the fatality rate for line-clearance tree-trimming contractors
is lower than the rate for utilities. Thus, it appears that though
line-clearance tree-trimming operations are relatively hazardous, they
are still safer than power line construction, repair, and maintenance.
On the other hand, if a line-clearance tree-trimming operation is
performed by a qualified employee, then the host-contract employer
provisions would apply. (See existing Sec.  1910.269(a)(1)(i)(E)(1).)
As long as they are using electrical protective equipment, these
employees are permitted to come much closer to energized parts than
unqualified employees, and the Agency believes that these employees
face hazards similar to contract power line workers.\16\ OSHA requests
comments on whether excluding line-clearance tree-trimming contractors
from the host-contract employer provisions proposed in Sec.
1926.950(c)(1) unduly jeopardizes employee safety and whether any of
the provisions in that paragraph could reasonably be applied to such
employers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For a full discussion of why existing Sec.  1910.269
applies different requirements to line-clearance tree-trimming
operations depending on whether or not the operation is performed by
a qualified employee, see the preamble to the final rule on electric
power generation, transmission, and distribution work (January 31,
1994, 59 FR 4336).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Contract employer is defined as ``[a]n employer who performs work
covered by Subpart V of this Part for a host employer.'' This includes
painting contractors, line construction contractors, electrical
contractors, and any other contractors working on the construction of
electric power transmission and distribution lines.\17\ It does not
include contractors who might be present at a jobsite where some work
performed is covered by Subpart V, but who are not performing any
covered work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ For Sec.  1910.269, this definition also includes
contractors working on an electric power generation installation
covered by that section. This would include boiler maintenance
contractors, conveyor servicing contractors, electrical contractors,
and others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sometimes the host employer is aware of hazards that are present at
its facilities of which the contractor might not be aware. For example,
what appeared to be a static line on one electric utility's
transmission system was energized at 4,000 volts. Static lines are
typically grounded. An employee of a contractor, perhaps not
understanding that the line was energized, contacted the static line
and was electrocuted. Paragraph (c)(1)(i) of proposed Sec.  1926.950
would address this problem by requiring the host employer to inform
contract employers of any known hazards that the contractor or its
employees might fail to recognize. This provision should ensure that
the contractor will be able to take measures to protect its employees
from hazards posed by the host employer's workplace. Although this
provision would not require the host employer to inform the contract
employer of hazards the contract employees should be expected to
recognize, such as hazards posed by an overhead power line, the
proposal would require the host employer to inform the contract
employer of known hazards the contractor might not be aware of. For
example, if a host employer knows that a particular manhole on its
system is subject to periodic contamination from a nearby fuel tank,
that information must be relayed to the contractor.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(i) also covers information that a
contract employer would need to make any hazard assessments called for
under the proposed standard. For example, proposed Sec.  1926.950(d)
would require employers to determine existing conditions related to the
safety of the work being performed before work is started. Under
paragraph (c)(1)(ii), the host employer would have to provide any
system parameters that the contract employer would need to satisfy
paragraph (d). These parameters could include such things as the
nominal circuit voltage, maximum switching transient voltages, and the
presence of any utility poles known by the host employer to have
defects that could affect employee safety. This is the type of
information that could affect the contractor's choice of work practices