work. Otherwise, the conditions inside the space are more likely to
change and entrants could be unnecessarily exposed to the residual
hazards of permit spaces.
    One commenter suggested that OSHA limit the duration of the
permit's validity to one day or one shift to ensure that someone
inspects the confined spaces that employees are entering to discover
changed conditions (ID-060, p. 4). OSHA does not agree that such a
fixed limit is warranted. This process would be more burdensome because
it would require cancellation of entry permits even when there is no
change in conditions or hazards. Final Sec.  1926.1204(e)(2) requires
an employer to monitor the conditions inside a confined space to
determine if they become unacceptable. Furthermore, final Sec.
1926.1205(e)(2) requires an employer to cancel the entry permit if an
unacceptable condition arises. Taken together, these provisions provide
a less burdensome, more flexible, and even more direct method of
achieving the same safety mechanisms as the commenter's suggested
approach. Moreover, the less limited requirements are consistent with
the procedures required under the general industry confined spaces
standard at Sec.  1910.146. OSHA considered and rejected a similar
request for a per-shift permit limit when promulgating the general
industry final rule (see 58 FR 4505, 4506 (Jan. 14, 1993)).
    Paragraph (e). Final Sec.  1926.1205(e), which corresponds to Sec.
1910.146(e)(5), requires an employer to terminate entry and cancel the
entry permit under two conditions: when the employer completes the
entry operations covered by the permit (final Sec.  1926.1205(e)(1),
which is identical to Sec.  1910.146(e)(5)(i)), or when there is a
condition inside or near the permit space that is not acceptable under
the permit program established for that space (final Sec.
1926.1205(e)(3), which is identical to Sec.  1910.146(e)(5)(ii)).
Requiring the entry supervisor to terminate the entry permit under
either of these conditions increases the likelihood that the employees
will exit the space before new hazards emerge, and that employees will
avoid hazards arising from prohibited conditions within the PRCS. When
an employer completes an entry without incident, the employer must
cancel the permit by removing it from the entry site. If the employer
cancels the permit in response to new hazards or changes in the
condition of the permit space, the employer must record the reasons for
the cancellation on the permit in accordance with Sec.  1926.1205(f).
    In response to comments, OSHA also is adding an additional
provision in final Sec.  1926.1205(e)(2) that is not in the general
industry standard, but would provide employers additional flexibility
in certain situations identified by the commenters. Some commenters
asserted that it is unnecessary to require cancellation of the entry
permit in every instance in which reevaluation is necessary, and that
doing so was unnecessarily burdensome (ID-107, p. 4; -116, p. 3). A
commenter representing a client involved in sewer construction
suggested that, in the event an unacceptable condition arises that
necessitates temporary evacuation and reevaluation, but does not
present a new or increased hazard for employees working within the
confined space, OSHA should allow employers to track these events on
the existing permit rather than cancelling the entire permit and
filling out a new permit. For example, if there is a temporary loss of
power for five minutes such that the entrants must exit the permit
space because the lighting conditions are inadequate, the employer
would normally reenter once the power returns and the conditions inside
the permit space are the same as they were for initial entry.

    OSHA agrees that cancelling the permit may be unnecessary when a
condition outside or inside the permit space requires an evacuation,
but the permit space returns soon after to the same acceptable
conditions specified under the permit. So long as the employer records
on the permit the event that required evacuation, the employer conducts
a full reassessment of the permit space that indicates restoration of
the acceptable permit conditions before the employer permits reentry,
there are no new gases or physical elements introduced into the space
that are not addressed in the permit for that space, and there are no
other significant changes to the space, OSHA believes that the employer
can satisfy the purposes of the permit program without the additional
burden of cancelling and replacing the entire permit. OSHA modified the
text of the final rule accordingly by adding final Sec.
1926.1205(e)(2) to allow for the ``suspension'' of the permit, as an
alternative cancellation of the permit, when these criteria are met.
During suspension, employers still must fulfill all applicable duties
of an entry employer under the standard, such as preventing
unauthorized entrance. An employer may temporarily suspend a permit in
one of two ways: by removing it (leaving just the ``Do Not Enter'' sign
or its equivalent that must be posted under Sec.  1926.1203(b)(1) and
remain there throughout the entry), or taking other steps, such as
covering the permit, to ensure that no one will mistakenly rely on the
permit to enter the space. Regardless of the method of suspension, the
employer must also record the reason for the suspension on the permit
(see Sec.  1926.1205(f)).
    It would still be necessary, however, to cancel the permit and
complete a new one if there is any indication that the existing permit
may not be adequate to ensure the safety of the entrants. Cancellation
of the permit is also necessary if the employer is unable to identify
the cause of the change in conditions that led to the evacuation, or if
a new substance has entered the permit space or has increased in amount
or concentration. For example, if there is gas in a permit space in a
concentration held below safe levels by two ventilation fans located on
the exterior of the permit space and operated in accordance with the
employer's permit program, and one fan stops functioning, all employees
would need to exit the space and the employer must suspend the permit
until the space is returned to the allowable conditions specified in
the permit program. If the employer is able to identify the source of
the fan failure (e.g., a burned-out motor), replace the fan, and return
the gas in the space to a concentration below the applicable PEL, and
nothing else has changed in the space, then the employer may permit its
employees to re-enter after conducting a full reassessment of the space
and noting the reason for the fan failure on the permit. Similarly, if
the presence of a new gas is detected but the permit already
anticipates that level of gas and includes a means of controlling that
gas, the employer may control that gas in accordance with the existing
permit instead of cancelling that permit and creating an entirely new
permit. However, if the employer is unable to identify the reason for
the fan failure, or that failure appears likely to occur again (e.g.,
flickering power source), or there has been some additional change in
the permit space (e.g., monitoring detects the presence of a new gas
not accounted for in the permit program, or condensation has formed
within the space impeding entry or exit), then the employer must cancel
the permit and develop a new permit that addresses those new
conditions.
    The final rule, similar to the general industry standard, requires
employers to terminate the entry if there is an unacceptable condition
``in or near'' the permit space. Several commenters noted that the
proposed rule included references to ``near'' in several different
provisions and requested clarification. (See, e.g., ID-061.1; -095; -
101.1; -106.1; -120.1; -121.1; -124.1; -125.1; -131; -135; -136; -152;
-220.) Many of these commenters, however, also urged OSHA to promulgate
a construction standard that tracked the language of the general
industry standard. OSHA, therefore, did not use ``near'' in this final
rule except in Sec.  1926.1205(e), which tracks the identical use of
``near'' in the general industry standard. The requests of numerous
commenters urging OSHA to follow the general industry standard, and the
absence of record evidence suggesting that employers have had
difficulty complying with this general industry requirement, indicate
that the use of this term in this context is sufficiently clear to
employers engaged in permit-space work. The purpose of this provision
remains the same in the construction context as in the general industry
context: protection of employees working in confined spaces from
exposure to additional hazards introduced into the permit space from
outside. The use of ``near'' indicates a physical proximity to the
permit space, but OSHA is not specifying a fixed distance because of
the variety of potential hazards and the disparate distances from which
the hazards could impact the confined space. For example, a small
welding job may have no impact on a properly controlled permit space 15
feet away, but a demolition blast could easily result in a significant
hazard for employees working in an underground permit space much
farther away.
    One commenter suggested that existing OSHA standards were already
sufficient to protect employees from hazards near the confined space,
while another commenter asked whether operating gasoline-powered
equipment near the permit space would constitute a hazard, and whether
an employer must cancel the entry permit for sewer work every time an
automobile passed near the manhole to enter the sewer (see ID-131 and -
098.1). The examples provided by the latter commenter demonstrate the
need to address these external hazards in the confined spaces standard:
activities not necessarily prohibited by any other standard and that
usually do not pose a hazard to employees when used in open spaces,
such as operating gasoline-powered equipment, can result in hazards
when used in close proximity to a permit space. However, because
operating gasoline-powered equipment or automobiles near a permit space
is not inherently hazardous to the entrants working inside that space,
the employer would not necessarily need to cancel the permit at each
such occurrence. Instead, the employer must assess the hazards posed in
each scenario. If the fumes from the gasoline-powered equipment are
spewing into the confined space, then the employer likely would need to
remove the entrants and reassess the acceptable conditions for work
inside the space. Likewise, if the employer did not anticipate that
automobiles would be driving near the entry to a permit space, and did
not guard the entrance and establish barriers to adequately protect
employees working in the permit space, then the employer would need to
require the entrants to leave the space in a safe manner and then
reassess the permit program if automobile traffic develops. If,
however, the gasoline-powered equipment was operating at such a
distance or in such a manner that it would not foreseeably result in a
potential hazard to the permit-entrants, or if the employer planned for
automobile traffic near the space and provided barriers and other
appropriate protection, then the entry could

continue and the permit program would remain in effect. Activities
outside the permit space will only require entrants to leave if they
could foreseeably result in a hazard not accounted for when the
employer developed the permit program.
    Paragraph (f). Final Sec.  1926.1205(f), which is almost identical
to Sec.  1910.146(e)(6), requires the entry employer to ensure that the
cancelled entry permits are saved on file for at least a year after
cancellation. In addition, Sec.  1926.1205(f) requires employers to
note any problems encountered during an entry operation, particularly
those that trigger cancellation or suspension of a permit under Sec.
1926.1205(e), on the pertinent permit.
    This provision differs slightly from Sec.  1910.146(e)(6) because
it clarifies that ``every entry employer'' must comply with these
duties, whereas Sec.  1910.146(e)(6) refers generally to the duties of
``the employer.'' OSHA made this change in recognition that there may
be many different employers on a construction worksite, and that each
entry employer has a responsibility to ensure that the records are
saved. In some cases, this may involve coordination between different
employers.
    The purpose of this document retention requirement, and of the
requirement to note problems directly on the permit, is to facilitate
the evaluation of the effectiveness of protection provided to employees
involved in PRCS entries during the annual review required under Sec.
1926.1204(n). The requirements of Sec.  1926.1205(f) help to ensure
that employees complete future PRCS entries in a similar way if the
previous entries were successful, or that employers improve future PRCS
entries by resolving any problems or concerns discovered.
    One commenter asserted that the retention period should end upon
completion of the project (ID-099, p. 4). OSHA disagrees with this
commenter because the lack of document retention would significantly
affect the employer's ability to complete its required annual review.
OSHA set this minimum retention period at one year to ensure that the
documents still would be available when employers conduct the required
12-month review specified by final Sec.  1926.1204(n).
    As the Agency noted in the proposed rule, these document-retention
requirements are in addition to the document-retention requirements
required by other OSHA standards, such as the 30-year retention period
for employee-exposure records required by 29 CFR 1910.1020(d)
(Preservation of records) \23\ (see note to proposed Sec.
1926.1219(b)). In some cases, entry permits may constitute employee-
exposure records. (See definition of ``employee exposure record'' at 29
CFR 1910.1020(c)(5).)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The note in 29 CFR 1926.33 makes the provisions of 29 CFR
1910.1020 (Access to employee exposure and medical records)
applicable to construction operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter suggested that OSHA incorporate the language in the
general industry confined spaces directive, CPL 02-00-100: Application
of the Permit-Required Confined Spaces (PRCS) Standard, 29 CFR 1910.146
(May 5, 1995), to provide additional explanation of what constitutes an
``employee exposure record.'' OSHA agrees that the term has the same
meaning in this final rule as in the general industry standard, and
that the guidance from CPL 02-00-100 is equally applicable: ``[R]esults
which show the composition of an atmosphere to which an employee is
actually exposed (even if the employee is using a respirator) are
exposure records under 29 CFR 1910.1020(c)(5).''
    This requirement to maintain exposure records gives healthcare
providers, in the event of an emergency, access to information about
the substances and exposure levels the employee may have experienced
while working within a confined space. This information will enable
healthcare providers to administer medical care effectively to injured
employees.

Section 1926.1206--Entry Permit

    An employer conducting a permit-space entry must post an entry
permit outside the permit space to document the employer's efforts to
identify and control conditions in that permit space (see Sec.
1926.1205(c)). The purpose of the permit is to provide a concise
summary of the permit-space entry requirements for a particular entry
that will be useful to the personnel who are conducting the entry
operations, to rescue personnel, to the controlling contractor, to
other employers working near the confined space, and to any personnel
who need to review the conduct of entry operations after the employer
terminates the operations. Making the information on this document
accessible to employers and employees affected by the hazards in and
around the permit space also allows them to maintain an elevated
awareness of the conditions within the permit space, as well as
knowledge of the equipment and procedures necessary for safe permit-
space entry operations.
    The introductory language in final Sec.  1926.1206 requires the
employer to include, on the entry permit, all of the information
specified in Sec.  1926.1206(a) through (p). Most of the information
required on the permit is substantively identical to the general
industry confined spaces requirements at Sec.  1910.146(f). The
exception is paragraph (e), which requires the employer to record the
means of detecting an increase in atmospheric hazard levels if a
required ventilation system stops working. OSHA included that
requirement in the proposed rule and, for the reasons explained below,
OSHA concludes that it is important to retain it in the final rule.
    Proposed Sec.  1926.1210(k) provided that the employer must
document, on the entry permit, all ``determinations made'' and
``actions taken'' during PRCS procedures, as required by proposed rule
Sec.  1926.1214(a). Commenters appeared to interpret this proposed
provision as a broad and overly burdensome requirement, which was not
OSHA's purpose (see, e.g., ID-095, p. 4). In light of the concerns
about the proposed language, the Agency notes that the final rule is
not requiring employers to include on the entry permit each
determination or action taken with respect to the permit entry.
However, employers still must make certain demonstrations about
hazards, ventilation, monitoring, or equipment, and document other
determinations, as required by the final standard, and make that
information available to employees (see, e.g., Sec.  1926.1203(e)(1),
(g)(2), (g)(3)). Final Sec.  1926.1206 is otherwise generally
consistent with proposed Sec.  1926.1214(a).
    Paragraph (a). Final Sec.  1926.1206(a), which is identical to
Sec.  1910.146(f)(1), requires the employer to identify the permit
space that workers are planning to enter. This information will ensure
that employees use the correct permit for the permit space.
    Paragraph (b). Final Sec.  1926.1206(b), which is identical to
Sec.  1910.146(f)(2), requires the employer to record the purpose of
the entry. As the Agency noted in the proposed rule, this information
must be sufficiently specific, such as identifying specific tasks or
jobs employees are to perform within the space, to confirm that the
employer considered performance of each specific construction activity
in the hazard assessment of the PRCS. (See proposed Sec.
1926.1214(a)(1)(ii).) An entry employer's failure to evaluate
construction activities performed within the PRCS for their effect on
the conditions within the space could result in serious injury or death
to employees.

It would be sufficient, for example, to state the purpose of entry as
``replacement of communications cable in sewer line,'' or ``welding
upgraded component inside steel tank,'' but it would not be sufficient
to state only ``communications work in sewer line'' or ``upgrade to
tank.''
    Paragraph (c). Final Sec.  1926.1206(c), which is identical to
Sec.  1910.146(f)(3), requires the employer to record the date and
authorized duration of the planned entry. The ``date'' refers to the
day on which authorized entrants are permitted to enter the PRCS. The
duration of the permit may not exceed the time required to complete the
specified tasks or jobs, including the time necessary to set up and
dismantle any tools or equipment required to perform the tasks or jobs
(see Sec.  1926.1205(d)). The employer need not list duration in terms
of time, but instead may describe it in terms of the completion of
tasks identified in the permit. For instance, the employer could
describe the duration as ``welding and repair of water main'' or
``upgrading equipment in an electrical vault.'' One purpose of this
provision is to ensure that employees engaged in PRCS operations are
informed of the period during which conditions in the PRCS must meet
acceptable entry conditions as specified in the entry permit. A second
purpose is to place some reasonable limit on the duration of the
permit, because a permit of unlimited duration is not likely to account
for changed PRCS conditions.
    Paragraph (d). Final Sec.  1926.1206(d), which is identical to
Sec.  1910.146(f)(4), requires the employer to record the identity of
the authorized entrants so that the attendant is capable of safely
overseeing the entry operations. Employers can meet this requirement by
referring in the entry permit to a system such as a roster or tracking
system used to keep track of who is currently in the PRCS. The
availability of this information would enable the attendant, entry
supervisor, or rescue service to quickly and accurately account for
entrants who might still be in the PRCS when an emergency occurs. A
second purpose is to provide assurance that all authorized entrants
have exited the PRCS at the end of entry operations. A third purpose
would be to assist the attendant and entry supervisor in preventing
unauthorized personnel from entering the space.
    It is extremely important for the employer to confirm that all
authorized entrants have exited the PRCS during an evacuation.
Therefore, a tracking system that lists the names of the employees who
the employer designates as authorized entrants, but does not accurately
account for the number of employees inside the PRCS at all times, would
not meet the requirements of this paragraph. Merely maintaining a list
of authorized entrants, who may or may not be at the job site or inside
the PRCS, would not help the employer determine how many authorized
entrants are left inside the PRCS should an evacuation be necessary.
Likewise, a tracking system that only accounts for the number of
authorized entrants inside the PRCS, without providing their names or
other identifiers, also is not acceptable; knowing the name or other
identifier of each entrant makes it easier for the rescuers to
determine where the entrant is assigned to work in the PRCS, and
thereby determine the entrant's probable location.
    Paragraph (e). When a permit program requires ventilation, OSHA
requires employers to ensure that they have a monitoring system in
place that will alert employees of increased atmospheric hazards in the
event the ventilation system fails (see Sec.  1926.1204(c)(5)). Final
Sec.  1926.1206(e) requires the employer to record the means of
detecting an increase in atmospheric-hazard levels if the ventilation
system stops working. It is important for employers to provide this
information on the entry permit so that any new employees can easily
access this information and respond appropriately and as quickly as
possible to ensure the continued safety of entrants. For example, if
the original entry supervisor is replaced by a new entry supervisor
halfway through entry operations, the new entry supervisor can refer to
the entry permit for this information.
    Paragraph (f). Final Sec.  1926.1206(f), which is substantively the
same as Sec.  1910.146(f)(5), requires the employer to record the names
of each attendant. Final Sec.  1926.1206(f) differs from Sec.
1910.146(f)(5) only in that it clarifies that the name of ``each
person,'' rather than ``the person,'' must be recorded on the entry
permit. There is often more than one attendant during the course of
entry operations, so this requirement would facilitate identifying
attendants quickly and easily, thereby expediting communications with
them, which is necessary for the performance of safe PRCS entry
operations, and for the performance of specified duties during
emergency situations. When a new attendant replaces the previous one,
the employer must make it clear on the permit which attendant is on
duty, such as by crossing out the previous attendant's name, so that
there is no confusion about the identity of the current attendant
Without this requirement, the employer could waste valuable time
finding the attendant responsible for protecting authorized entrants
during an emergency.
    Paragraph (g). Final Sec.  1926.1206(g), which is nearly identical
to Sec.  1910.146(f)(6), requires the employer to record the name of
each employee currently serving as entry supervisor. The same reasons
for requiring the names of the attendants apply for requiring the name
of the entry supervisor here: it provides an assured means of
distinguishing these important individuals quickly and easily so that
employees may alert them of a developing hazard, and it provides the
opportunity for these individuals to review the permit and entry
conditions to ensure that entry conditions remain safe. The general
industry standard requires a space for each entry supervisor's name,
which implies that the entry supervisor names will be filled in, but in
this final rule OSHA is modifying paragraph (g) to make that
requirement explicit: The employer must ensure that the name of each
entry supervisor is entered into that space. As with the changes to the
attendants, the employer must ensure that the current supervisor is
identified as such when one supervisor replaces another.
    Paragraph (h). Final Sec.  1926.1206(h), which is identical to
Sec.  1910.146(f)(7) and corresponds to proposed Sec.
1926.1214(a)(2)(i)(A), requires the employer to record the hazards
associated with the planned confined space entry operations. This list
must include all hazards, regardless of whether the employer protects
the authorized entrants from the hazards by isolation, control, or
personal protective equipment. Providing this list will make it clear
which hazards the employer already identified so that the entrants can
confirm that they received training to work around such hazards, and
will know to bring any other developing hazard to the attention of the
entrance supervisor immediately.
    Paragraph (i). Final Sec.  1926.1206(i), which is identical to
Sec.  1910.146(f)(8) and corresponds to proposed Sec.
1926.1214(a)(2)(i)(B), requires the employer to record the procedures
used to isolate or control the hazards prior to entry. This information
must be consistent with the requirements specified in final Sec.
1926.1204(c), and must include the methods used to isolate or control
the hazards, the type of personal protective equipment provided, the
methods used to monitor each hazard (including the use of early-warning
systems, if required by final Sec.  1926.1204(e), and how frequently
each hazard is to be monitored). Note that

under final Sec.  1926.1204(e), employers must use continuous
monitoring of atmospheric hazards unless the employer demonstrates that
periodic monitoring is sufficient. The permit need only refer to the
procedures used to meet the requirements of this paragraph in
sufficient detail to enable employees to determine what measures they
must take, and how to perform those measures.
    One commenter urged OSHA to require employers to identify the
name(s) of the person(s) who performed all of the hazard-isolation or
control procedures listed on the permit pursuant to Sec.  1926.1206(i),
such as the person(s) who operated a ventilation machine to control an
atmosphere (ID-0625, p. 4). OSHA notes that employers must already
include the names or initials of the person performing monitoring under
final Sec.  1926.1206(k). To the extent that the commenter intended to
ensure the accuracy of the tests and measurements associated with the
isolation or control procedures, OSHA notes that the entry supervisor
must already verify the accuracy of this information (Sec.
1926.1210(b)). Therefore, OSHA concludes that, in the absence of
additional evidence to indicate that these records would provide a
discernible safety benefit, the additional records suggested by the
commenter are not necessary.
    Paragraph (j). Final Sec.  1926.1206(j), which is identical to
Sec.  1910.146(f)(9), requires the employer to specify the acceptable
entry conditions. The list of acceptable entry conditions includes
energy control considerations and conditions such as the permissible
levels allowed for oxygen, flammable gases and vapors, other hazardous
substances during PRCS entry. Additional information regarding PRCS
conditions includes, for example, the methods used to maintain a water
hazard at safe levels. Another example included in the NPRM is when an
employer decides to use PPE to protect employees from an atmospheric
hazard, the acceptable conditions must include, at a minimum, the type
of PPE the employees will use (such as type of respirator), and the
levels at which the PPE would protect the employees from the
atmospheric hazard. OSHA requires the employer to list the acceptable
conditions on the permit so that the authorized entrants, attendants,
and entry supervisors have this information on hand at the worksite,
thereby ensuring safe entry operations.
    This provision also requires employers, when applicable, to provide
the ventilation-malfunction determinations made in paragraph (c)(5) of
final Sec.  1926.1204. As explained in the proposed rule, and above in
the discussion of final Sec.  1926.1204(c)(5), some permit spaces may
require ventilation to control the atmospheric hazards at levels that
are below the levels at which they are harmful to entrants so that
entrants will have time to exit the PRCS safely (72 FR 67365). In these
spaces, the employer will be responsible for identifying that level and
monitoring the permit-space atmosphere to detect any increase of the
potentially hazardous substance. The Agency's requirement that the
employer include these determinations on the permit informs employees
(for example, entry supervisors, attendants, and authorized entrants)
about the time required for the entrants to evacuate the PRCS should
the ventilation system fail, and allows authorized entrants,
attendants, and entry supervisors to respond quickly to any deviations
in these conditions, including ventilation-system failure.
    OSHA notes, as it did in the explanation of this provision in the
general industry standard, that there is likely to be overlap between
this requirement to list the acceptable entry conditions and the
separate requirement in Sec.  1926.1206(i) to identify the hazard-
control or elimination measures that the employer must also list on the
permit (58 FR 4509 (Jan. 14, 1993)). The Agency anticipates that
employers may elect to combine these two elements when filling out the
permit, and such an approach is permissible so long as the employer
includes all of the relevant information in some form that the
authorized entrant, attendant, or entry supervisor can identify
quickly.
    Paragraph (k). Final Sec.  1926.1206(k), which is nearly identical
to Sec.  1910.146(f)(10), requires the employer to record the dates,
times, and results of the tests and monitoring performed, and the names
or initials of the individuals who performed each test. Entering the
testing and monitoring results in the permit enables the entry
supervisor, attendants, and authorized entrants to determine readily
whether acceptable entry conditions exist with regard to atmospheric
hazards in the PRCS. The employer also could use this information to
identify atmospheric conditions within the PRCS that need to be
monitored frequently because atmospheric conditions tend to rise
rapidly to hazardous levels. For example, if the oxygen concentration
is 19.6 percent, the attendant and entrants should be alert for signs
of oxygen deficiency, such as increased breathing rate, dizziness,
rapid heartbeat, and headache. Furthermore, documentation of test
results on the permit also facilitates the review of canceled permits
required under paragraph (d)(14). If testing indicates that levels of
hazardous substances are increasing, the increased hazard will be easy
to recognize through a review of the recorded test results on the
canceled permit.
    Listing the names of those who performed the testing identifies a
point of contact to which entry supervisors and attendants can direct
questions they may have regarding the results and procedures. The date
and time (or, for continuous monitoring, a time period) would provide a
basis for detecting dangerous trends in atmospheric conditions that may
indicate that more frequent observation of the atmospheric data is
necessary.
    The single difference between the final rule and Sec.
1910.146(f)(10) is that the general industry provision requires
documentation of ``initial and periodic testing,'' whereas final
paragraph (k) of this final standard requires documentation of the
results of all ``tests'' and ``monitoring.'' OSHA made these changes to
address a significant difference between this final rule and Sec.
1910.146: This final rule generally requires continuous monitoring,
whereas Sec.  1910.146 only requires periodic testing. For further
explanation of this change, see the discussion to final Sec.
1926.1204(e).
    Consistent with data collection from continuous monitoring under
Sec.  1910.146, the continuous monitoring values recorded on the entry
permit are ``real time'' concentrations. See December 10, 1996, letter
to Michael Coleman, available at www.osha.gov. Although the final
standard does not specify the frequency with which the employer must
record continuous monitoring measurements, from a compliance
perspective, the quantity of data entered on the permit must indicate
the number of times the entry supervisor or other entrant examined the
monitoring data. These measurements must be recorded with sufficient
frequency to demonstrate that the permit space was monitored such that
the employee could identify a change in atmosphere or other potential
hazard in time to allow entrants to exit the permit space safely (See
also discussion of Sec.  1926.1203(e)(2) and 1926.1204(e)(2).) For
continuous monitors with alarms, employers must record each time the
alarm is triggered. Employers also must include the initial entry-
monitoring results on the entry permit for the reasons explained above;
these results also would serve as a baseline for subsequent
measurements.

See December 10, 1996, letter to Michael Coleman, available at
www.osha.gov.
    Paragraph (l). Final Sec.  1926.1206(l), which is identical to
Sec.  1910.146(f)(11), requires the employer to identify the rescue and
emergency services required by this final rule, and the means by which
these services will be summoned when needed. Identification of these
services and the means for summoning them enables attendants to summon
the appropriate service immediately in case of emergency. In some
cases, an employer must include pertinent information, such as
communication equipment and emergency telephone numbers, on the permit
to sufficiently identify the means by which the rescue or emergency
services will be summoned. The inclusion of this specific information
would allow attendants to avoid errors and delays in contacting the
rescue service.
    Paragraph (m). Final Sec.  1926.1206(m), which is identical to
Sec.  1910.146(f)(12), requires the employer to record all of the
methods of communication used between authorized entrants and
attendants during entry operations. OSHA notes that establishing a
routine for maintaining contact between attendants and authorized
entrants would help attendants detect problems within the PRCS. OSHA
anticipates that the method of communication chosen may vary according
to the circumstances of the particular workplace; however, the methods
chosen must enable the attendants and the entrants to maintain
effective and continuous contact. OSHA notes that, while such
communication will normally be achieved through speech, other methods,
such as tapping on a wall, may be acceptable as long as it achieves
effective and continuous contact. See July 30, 1993, letter to Julie
Emmerich, available at www.osha.gov.
    Paragraph (n). Final Sec.  1926.1206(n), which is identical to
Sec.  1910.146(f)(13), requires the employer to record the equipment it
provides in accordance with the requirements of this final rule. This
equipment would typically include, for example, personal protective
equipment, testing equipment, communications equipment (including
equipment needed to assess entrants' status in the space), alarm
systems, rescue equipment, and other equipment that the employer would
provide to ensure compliance with paragraph (d)(4) of final Sec.
1926.1204 (personal protective equipment) or any other part of the
standard. This requirement provides employees with a ready reference to
the equipment required for safe entry operations.
    Paragraph (o). Final Sec.  1926.1206(o), which is substantively
identical to Sec.  1910.146(f)(14), requires the employer to record any
additional information needed to ensure safe confined space entry
operations. OSHA amended the language in Sec.  1910.146(f)(14) slightly
for clarity and conciseness. As OSHA explained in the preamble to the
general industry standard, this provision is necessary for employee
protection due to ``the wide-ranging types of hazards found in permit-
required confined spaces, there are many hazards that cannot be
adequately addressed with any precision in a generic permit space
standard'' (58 FR 4510 (Jan. 14, 1993)). Examples of the information
required by paragraph (o) may include: Problems encountered in the
PRCS; problems that an attendant, entry supervisor, or authorized
entrant believes may be relevant to the safety of the entrants working
in the space; or any other information that may be relevant to employee
safety under these conditions.
    Paragraph (p). Final Sec.  1926.1206(p), which is identical to
Sec.  1910.146(f)(15), requires the employer to record information
about any other permits, such as for hot work, issued for work inside
the confined space. If the employer identifies additional permits,
these additional permits may be, but are not required to be, attached
to the entry permit to provide information about the activity covered
by the permit to employees involved in the entry operations so they can
take appropriate precautions.

Section 1926.1207--Training

    Final Sec.  1926.1207 requires employers to train each employee who
performs work regulated by this standard, and specifies the
requirements of that training. The provisions in final Sec.  1926.1207
are substantively similar to the provisions in the general industry
confined spaces rule at Sec.  1910.146(g). The substance of the
training provisions in the proposed rule was similar to, but organized
differently than, the training provisions in the general industry rule.
The final rule includes a few provisions from the proposed rule to
provide clarity and to ease documentation, as explained below, but
follows the language and organization of the general industry standard.
Proposed Sec. Sec.  1926.1208, 1926.1213, 1926.1216, and 1926.1217
separated the training requirements based on the type of confined space
involved. One commenter asserted that, in general, the training
requirements were too scattered throughout the proposed rule (ID-099,
p. 4). By organizing the training provisions according to the training
provisions of the general industry confined spaces standard at Sec.
1910.146(g), OSHA placed the training requirements together in one
section.
    Paragraph (a). Final Sec.  1926.1207(a) sets forth the requirement,
also found in Sec.  1910.146(g)(1), that employers must train each
employee who performs work regulated by this standard. OSHA modified
this provision from Sec.  1910.146(g)(1) to include some language from
the proposed rule and to clarify two aspects of this requirement: (1)
The employer must train each employee; and (2) the employer must
provide training at no cost to the employee. Final Sec.
1926.1207(a)(1) refers to ``each employee'' rather than ``all
employees'' to emphasize that an employer's responsibility in this area
flows separately to each employee. The provision of training at no cost
is implicit in the general industry standard, and is consistent with
OSHA's longstanding policy regarding employer responsibility for
training. See, e.g., 29 CFR 1926.1430(g)(3) (training under the Cranes
& Derricks in Construction standard), Sec.  1910.1001(j)(7)(iv)
(asbestos awareness training for employees who perform housekeeping
operation in an area that contains asbestos), and June 25, 1991,
Memorandum to Regional Administrators, # 20315 (training under the
HAZWOPER standard, 1910.120), available at www.osha.gov.
    Paragraph (a) of the final rule also requires employers to provide
training so that employees who perform work regulated by part 1926,
subpart AA, acquire the understanding, knowledge, and skills necessary
for the safe performance of the duties assigned under that section,
including the safe operation of equipment and the proper use of PPE.
Sections 1926.1208, 1926.1209, 1926.1210, and 1926.1211 of this final
rule specify in detail the duties of authorized entrants, attendants,
entry supervisors, and rescue service personnel. Paragraph (a) requires
the training to impart the understanding, knowledge, and skills
necessary for the safe performance of the duties assigned under those
sections. OSHA believes that the training employers provide employees
under this provision will enable the employees to understand their
duties under this standard, as well as the hazards posed by permit
spaces, and to properly use equipment and PPE in a PRCS. Therefore,
this training will enable employees to safely perform their requisite
PRCS duties.
    In this paragraph, the Agency is requiring the employer to provide
whatever training is necessary to achieve the goal of safe performance
of

an employee's duties. The performance language used in paragraph (a)
will allow the employer to develop and implement the most effective
confined space training program to meet the needs of the specific
workplace. By requiring training of employees in Sec.  1926.1207, and
by specifying what those duties are in the relevant sections, the final
rule sets forth requirements regarding whom employers train, as well as
the content of the training.
    This paragraph also incorporates a requirement found in proposed
Sec.  1926.1209(d)(1), which specifies that the training must result in
an understanding of the hazards in the permit space(s), and the
method(s) used to isolate, control, or in other ways protect employees
from the hazards. For example, if an authorized entrant enters the
space to isolate an identified hazard or to set up ventilation to
control an atmospheric hazard, the employer must train the employee not
only in accordance with the PRCS entry requirements, but also to
perform the tasks necessary to isolate and control the specific hazards
in accordance with other appropriate OSHA requirements applicable to
construction. The employer also must train each employee who enters the
space thereafter to understand how the employer isolated or controlled
any hazards in the space. OSHA believes that the training employees
receive under this provision will enable them to associate the signs,
symptoms, and characteristic effects (discussed elsewhere in this
preamble) to the failure of methods to control or isolate the hazards,
and to alert them so that do not inadvertently disturb the isolation or
control mechanisms. Therefore, this training will enable employees to
safely perform their duties while working in the PRCS, and to respond
appropriately if the hazard-protection methods fail.
    Additionally, final Sec.  1926.1207(a) includes the requirement,
found in proposed Sec.  1926.1209(d)(2), that, for employees not
specifically authorized to perform entry rescue, their training must
result in an understanding of the dangers of attempting entry rescue.
This aspect of the training need not be extensive, as its purpose is to
prevent exposure to permit-space hazards by simply keeping all
employees who are not authorized to perform entry rescue out of such
spaces. OSHA prohibits such entry precisely because it is likely to
increase the risks of further injury to both the would-be rescuer and
the employee requiring rescue. In final Sec.  1926.1204(a) and (i), the
Agency also requires entry employers to take action to prevent all
unauthorized entry, but the training required by final paragraph (a)
remains crucial to overcome the inclination of many employees to
attempt to rescue a trapped colleague. If employees do not fully
appreciate the dangers involved, their actions might also pose a danger
to those employees designated to provide rescue.
    Finally, some commenters asserted that the training requirements in
this final rule should require employers to train entrants on the use
of gas, propane, and diesel-powered equipment and chemical-cartridge
respirators (ID-025, p. 3; ID-095, p. 3). Final Sec.  1926.1207(a)
requires employers to ensure that employees acquire the knowledge and
skill to safely perform their duties, which includes training employees
on how to use all equipment used in the PRCS.
    Paragraph (b). Final Sec.  1926.1207(b), which is substantively
similar to Sec.  1910.146(g)(2), requires the employer to provide
training to each employee covered by this standard, as specified by
paragraphs (b)(1)-(b)(5). One commenter requested that OSHA clarify
that the employer must provide this training in a language understood
by the employee (ID-140, p. 5). OSHA designed the training requirements
in final Sec.  1926.1207 to ensure that employees performing work
regulated by this final rule understand the hazards so that they can
take necessary precautions to perform their work safely. Therefore, the
employer must provide this training in a language the employee
understands, and ensure that the employee comprehends the training, to
achieve the purpose of the training requirements. Final Sec.
1926.1207(b)(1) incorporates the requirement that training be in both a
language and vocabulary that the employee understands, which is
consistent with OSHA's policy for all OSHA training requirements. See
April 28, 2010, OSHA Training Standards Policy Statement, available at
www.osha.gov. OSHA views this policy as applicable to all training
requirements in all OSHA standards, but is adding the language in this
standard for clarity.
    Final Sec.  1926.1207(b)(2)-(b)(4) require that the employer
provide training before assigning the employee duties covered by this
final standard, when there is any change in duties, and whenever there
is a change in permit conditions that present a hazard for which the
employee did not previously receive training. These requirements are
substantively identical to Sec.  1910.146(g)(2)(i)-(g)(2)(iii). OSHA
believes the requirements in final Sec.  1926.1207(b)(2)-(b)(3) are
necessary to ensure that employers provide the training required by
final Sec.  1926.1207(a) at the appropriate times, that is, prior to
exposure to confined space hazards.
    Final Sec.  1926.1207(b)(2), which is identical to Sec.
1910.146(g)(2)(i), requires employers to initially train their
employees before assigning them to perform duties under this standard.
Accordingly, the employer must ensure that specified employees (that
is, entry supervisors, attendants, authorized entrants, and rescue-
service employees) receive the training required by final Sec.
1926.1207(a) prior to performing assigned PRCS duties. This requirement
ensures that employers train these specified employees regarding PRCS
hazards before the employer exposes authorized entrants to these
hazards.
    Final Sec.  1926.1207(b)(3) and (b)(4) are substantively identical
to the general industry standard at Sec.  1910.146(g)(2)(ii) and
(g)(2)(iii). They address the issue of refresher training. Final
paragraph (b)(3) requires training before there is a change in assigned
duties. Such changes could be the result of new equipment or techniques
introduced into the entry operations, promotions, or simple
reassignments. If an employee previously received training in the new
duties and the employer ensures that the employee is still familiar
with the previous training, then the employer need not conduct
additional training under this paragraph, provided the employer has no
evidence that there are inadequacies in the employee's knowledge or use
of the relevant permit-space procedures. If there is evidence that such
inadequacies exist, the employer must retrain the employee under final
paragraph (b)(5).
    Paragraph (b)(4) similarly requires retraining if there is a change
in permit-space entry operations that presents a hazard for which an
employee did not previously receive training. This paragraph changes
the phrase ``permit space operations,'' from the general industry
standard at Sec.  1910.146(g)(2)(iii), to ``permit space entry
operations'' for the reasons explained in the introduction to the
discussion of final Sec.  1926.1204. One commenter was unsure whether
minor revisions of procedures, such as an increase in the use of
mechanical ventilation, would trigger the training requirements of
final Sec.  1926.1207(b)(3) (ID-099, p. 3). The relative significance
of the change in procedures does not determine the need for additional
training; employers must ensure that employees can perform their duties
safely, so any change in PRCS entry procedures for which an employee
did not receive previous training would necessitate training under this
final rule

to the extent it requires new knowledge or skill by the employee.
    Final Sec.  1926.1207(b)(5) provides that an employer must retrain
an employee whenever the employer has any evidence that the employee
has deviated from PRCS entry procedures or inadequacies in the
employee's knowledge or use of these procedures. This provision is
substantively identical to the general industry standard at Sec.
1910.146(g)(2)(iv), but this final provision clarifies that retraining
must occur when there is evidence of deviation, a change from the
phrase ``reason to believe'' in the general industry standard. OSHA
believes the term ``evidence'' will be clearer than the general
industry language for both employers and OSHA inspectors. By making
this revision, OSHA does not intend to make a substantive difference in
the types of employee actions or other factors that would trigger the
retraining requirement. Evidence of a need for retraining may come from
a variety of sources, such as an employee's actions during, or prior
to, an entry, statements made that indicate a lack of understanding of
permit-space entry procedures, reports of other employees or third
parties, or from other incidents.
    One commenter asserted that requiring retraining after every
deviation is overly burdensome. (ID-120, p. 3.) This commenter
suggested that OSHA require the employer to establish a better line of
communication and coordination when the deviation is not too severe.
However, the commenter did not suggest a means of identifying the
severity of a deviation. In light of the hazards associated with
confined spaces, and the procedures implemented to address those
hazards, the failure of even one employee to follow the correct
procedure can adversely affect the safety of others. OSHA, therefore,
concludes that it is necessary to retrain any employee who deviates
from the approved entry procedures. This retraining must provide the
employee with the knowledge and skills necessary for safe performance
of his or her confined space duties in accordance with final Sec.
1926.1207(a), although the employer may restrict retraining to the
limited aspect of the employee's overall responsibility on which the
employee made the deviation. For example, if employee failed to use a
piece of equipment properly, the retraining could focus on the proper
use of that equipment, and need not focus on areas unrelated to the
deviation, such as the hazards associated with the atmosphere in the
space.
    Paragraph (c). Final Sec.  1926.1207(c), which is identical to the
general industry standard at Sec.  1910.146(g)(3), requires an employer
to establish that the employee is capable of performing his or her
confined space duties proficiently, and to provide any supplemental
training needed to make the employee proficient. This provision ensures
that employees will not enter a PRCS without being able to apply the
knowledge and procedures addressed in their training. In other words,
the employer must determine that, for each employee, the training is
effective and resulted in the employee being capable of performing the
required duties proficiently.
    Some commenters were unsure how an employer can demonstrate that an
employee is proficient under final Sec.  1926.1207(c) (ID-106, p. 2; -
120, p. 3; -152, p. 3). Final Sec.  1926.1207(c) is a performance-
oriented measure that provides employers with flexibility by not
requiring a particular way to demonstrate proficiency. Administration
of a test or practical examination are some examples of how an employer
may demonstrate an employee's proficiency.
    Paragraph (d). Final Sec.  1926.1207(d), which is substantively
similar to the general industry standard at Sec.  1910.146(g)(4),
requires an employer to ``maintain training records,'' as opposed to
the requirement in Sec.  1910.146(g)(4) that employers ``certify''
training. This final paragraph also requires employers to document the
names of employees trained, the trainer's name, and the dates of the
training performed, and to make these records available for inspection
by employees and their authorized representatives. Final Sec.
1926.1207(d) differs from the general industry standard in that it
provides more flexibility in the documentation of training, and it
requires the retention of this documentation.
    The training-documentation provision in final paragraph (d)
requires only the name of the trainer, not the trainer's signature or
initials as required in the general industry standard. Proposed Sec.
1926.1209(d)(5) contained these more flexible requirements, and OSHA
retained them in the final rule. This documentation can take any form
that reasonably demonstrates the employee's completion of the training.
Examples include a record of test scores, a photocopied card certifying
completion of a class, or any other reasonable means. The employer may
store these records electronically so long as they are readily
accessible upon request. OSHA recognizes that the turnover rate for
employees on construction sites is higher than in many other
industries, and that employees also are likely to work at several
different worksites based on the type of work required. For example, an
employer could designate an employee to be an authorized entrant in
several different confined spaces at the same worksite, which may
require the employee to perform different assigned tasks under various
planned conditions. In this situation, the documentation must be
readily accessible to determine whether the employee received the
training necessary to perform the various tasks under the planned
conditions. Compliance with this provision will help ensure safe
conditions within the PRCS by providing employers, and OSHA, with an
administrative tool that they can use to confirm which employees will
be able to perform the duties required by this standard. Section
1926.1207(d) requires, as the general industry standard does, that
these training records must be available for inspection by employees
and their authorized representatives. Permit-space employees rely on
their fellow employees for safe entry operations, and this provision
provides that the training records that document employees' training
status be available to those employees and their representatives. This
requirement can be especially important in the construction industry
due to the high level of employee turnover and multiple employers
present at construction sites, including different employers who
conduct simultaneous entry where one employer's lack of training for
its employees could jeopardize the fully trained employees of a
different employer. Consequently, making these records available for
inspection by employees and their representatives provides an
additional level review to ensure that the employees received the
proper training and are ready to engage in safe entry operations.
    One commenter was unsure whether the final standard would require
an employer to maintain the name of the person that provides general
confined space training as well as ``for the specifics of this PCRS.''
(ID-098, p. 2). OSHA is uncertain of what training the commenter is
referring to. To the extent that the commenter was referring to
training required by this final rule, final Sec.  1926.1207(d) requires
the employer to record the name of the person who conducted the
training. To the extent the commenter was referring to training
required by a different rule, the

comment is not applicable to this rulemaking.
    As in this final rule, proposed Sec.  1926.1219(c) required that
employers retain these training records for the time the employee
remains employed by them. The general industry confined spaces standard
at Sec.  1910.146(g)(4) does not specify how long an employer must
retain the documentation. These training records are a valuable
resource for tracking whether an employee received the necessary
training. If these records are to serve as a tool to confirm employee
training, the records must be available during the period the employee
is working for the employer. Once the employee ceases to work for the
employer, there is no longer a significant benefit in tracking this
information. Therefore, OSHA is keeping in the final rule the proposed
requirement that an employer must retain training documentation until
the employee ceases to work for the employer.
    One commenter had several concerns about the retention of training
records. First, the commenter asserted that this retention requirement
is an unnecessary burden on employers (ID-099, p. 4). OSHA's experience
under the documentation requirements of other standards indicates that
employers typically use existing training records to meet these
documentation requirements and, as explained above, final Sec.
1926.1207(d) allows significant flexibility in the form of the records
and how an employer must store them. Next, the commenter was unsure
whether final Sec.  1926.1207(d) requires an employer to maintain
training records when the employer lays off an employee and then
rehires him or her (id). In the event an employee ceases to work for
the employer, final Sec.  1926.1207(d) does not necessarily require the
employer to continue to maintain or store the training records;
however, there is an incentive for the employer to retain these records
if there is a possibility that the employer might re-hire the employee,
as in the example offered by the commenter. The standard does require
the employer to maintain a set of training records for all employees
performing confined space work, regardless of when the employer hired
the employee, so if the employee is rehired the employer would be
required to produce that employee's training records or retrain the
employee. This commenter also asserted that employers should be free to
establish their own policy for retaining training records (id). Final
Sec.  1926.1207(d) leaves the employer with discretion in developing
its training-documents retention policy, and requires retention only
until the employee ceases to work for the employer.
    Another commenter asserted that final Sec.  1926.1207(d) should
require employers to keep these training records on site (ID-031, p.
1). OSHA finds that such a requirement would be an unnecessary burden
on employers. The purpose of the final requirement is to ensure that
employers can document their employees' training in case an issue
arises with respect to the training (e.g., whether the employee
received training, whether the training was adequate). Though the
training records need to be readily available, it is not necessary for
the employer to have immediate access to these records at the site.
Requiring the employer to maintain the records and make them readily
accessible for inspection, even offsite and/or in electronic form, is
sufficient to accomplish the purpose of the provision.

Section 1926.1208--Duties of Authorized Entrants

    An authorized entrant is an employee authorized by an entry
supervisor to enter a permit space. As the Agency noted in the preamble
to the general industry standard, ``[T]his is the person who faces the
greatest risk of death or injury from exposure to the hazards contained
within the space'' (58 FR 4515 (Jan. 14, 1993)). Because of the dangers
associated with confined space work, employers must prepare the
entrants properly to perform duties so as to assure their own safety
and the safety of their fellow entrants. The employer accomplishes this
purpose by means of training, communication of effective work rules,
and internal administration.
    Final Sec.  1926.1208 is nearly identical to the general industry
requirements in Sec.  1910.146(h), except for minor editorial revisions
and a revision in the introductory text to improve clarity. The
introductory language in Sec.  1910.146(h), which sets out requirements
for authorized entrants, refers generally to the duties of ``the
employer.'' OSHA changed the introductory language to refer to ``the
entry employer'' to clarify how this rule applies on multi-employer
worksites. This is a non-substantive change, however, because the
provisions in Sec.  1926.1208 apply to each employer establishing the
permit program for a permit space or allowing its employees to enter
under another employer's program.
    The authorized entrant duties also are substantively the same as
the duties specified by proposed Sec.  1926.1211(g), except as noted in
the discussion below. The Agency did not receive any comments
specifically addressing that provision of the proposed rule.
    Paragraph (a). Final Sec.  1926.1208(a), which is substantively
identical to the general industry standard at Sec.  1910.146(h)(1),
requires an employer to ensure that an authorized entrant is familiar
with and understands the potential hazards associated with each
particular confined space entry, including the mode, signs or symptoms,
and the consequences of exposure to these hazards. The final rule uses
``familiar with and understands,'' rather than the ``knows'' used in
the general industry standard, to emphasize the employee comprehension
required by the rule. This knowledge and understanding affords
authorized entrants with the information they need to protect
themselves from these hazards, including recognition of the effects of
these hazards should exposure occur.
    Paragraph (b). Final Sec.  1926.1208(b), which is substantively
identical to the general industry standard at Sec.  1910.146(h)(2),
requires an employer to ensure that an authorized entrant uses required
equipment properly. OSHA believes that proper use of such equipment is
essential for working safely inside a PRCS and preventing any rescue
operation from harming the incapacitated authorized entrant. Many
employers can meet this requirement through implementation of safe work
practices, training, and effective enforcement of those practices.
    Paragraph (c). Final Sec.  1926.1208(c), which is substantively
identical to the general industry standard at Sec.  1910.146(h)(3),
requires an employer to ensure that an authorized entrant communicates
effectively with the attendant to facilitate the attendant's adequate
assessment of the entrant's status and timely evacuation (see also the
discussion attendant-entrant communications in the explanation of Sec.
1926.1206(m)). The authorized entrant's communication with the
attendant provides the attendant with information regarding any
problems the entrant is having, which the attendant can use to
determine whether there is a need to evacuate the PRCS.
    Paragraph (d). Final Sec.  1926.1208(d), which is similar to the
general industry standard at Sec.  1910.146(h)(4), requires an employer
to ensure that an authorized entrant alerts the attendant whenever one
of the following circumstances arises: (1) There is a warning sign or
symptom of exposure to a dangerous situation; or (2) the entrant
recognizes a prohibited condition. In some instances, a properly
trained authorized entrant may be able to recognize and report his

or her own symptoms, such as headache, dizziness, or slurred speech,
and take the required action. In other cases, the authorized entrant,
once the effects begin, may be unable to recognize or report them. In
these latter cases, this provision requires that other, unimpaired,
authorized entrants in the PRCS, who employers must properly train to
recognize signs, symptoms, and other hazard-exposure effects in other
authorized entrants, report these effects to the attendant. Reporting
these effects will ensure the safety of the authorized entrants by
removing them from the hazardous conditions in a timely manner.
    Paragraph (d)(1) differs slightly from the corresponding general
industry provision at Sec.  1910.146(h)(4)(i). The general industry
provision requires an employer to ensure that an authorized entrant
alerts the attendant when ``the entrant recognizes'' a dangerous
situation. Final Sec.  1926.1208(d)(1) requires an employer to ensure
that an authorized entrant alerts the attendant whenever ``there is . .
. a dangerous situation.'' OSHA made this change to make the
requirement objective, and not contingent on the subjective belief of
an authorized entrant about the level of danger. For example, if an
entrant knocks over a container of sealant that was not scheduled to be
opened until later, thereby releasing hazardous fumes into an
inadequately ventilated permit space, the final rule makes it clear
that the entrant has a duty to report the incident to the attendant
immediately. The employer must ensure that the entrant is adequately
prepared to identify such an incident as a dangerous situation, and the
entrant's failure to do so would not excuse the entrant or employer
from that duty.
    By using language closer to that in the general industry, OSHA has
deviated slightly from the equivalent requirement in the proposed rule,
Sec.  1926.1211(g)(3), which required the authorized entrant to alert
the attendant of ``any sign, symptom, unusual behavior, or other effect
of a hazard.'' OSHA retained the reference to a ``symptom'' from the
proposed rule, but believes that the reference to the ``dangerous
situation'' in the general industry standard provides slightly broader
coverage than the proposed language. Under the general industry
standard and this final rule, attendants would need to be aware, for
example, of an entrant experiencing a heart attack or other condition
unrelated to the conditions in the confined space, but which might
nevertheless affect that entrant and/or other entrants in the space.
However, the general industry language incorporated into the final rule
provides sufficient specificity regarding the conditions covered by the
provision, and employers and authorized entrants are familiar with the
language, having used it for years in general industry work (and in
construction work if they chose to voluntarily follow the general
industry requirements). Other examples of exposure to a dangerous
situation that an authorized entrant must report to the attendant under
paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) include: Low measurements of supplied air in
a closed-respirator system; fraying or snagging of a retrieval line; a
leak allowing an unidentified substance to enter the confined space
through the walls of the space or from a container brought into the
space; sparks or other evidence of potential electrical malfunction
(particularly in areas where flammable gases are present); and any
changes identified by the entrant in his or her physical condition or
the physical condition of another entrant (e.g., dizziness, chest
pains, vertigo, breathing difficulty, trembling, etc.).
    Paragraph (e). The introductory language in final Sec.
1926.1208(e), which is identical to the general industry standard at
Sec.  1910.146(h)(5), requires an employer to ensure that an authorized
entrant exits from the confined space whenever one of circumstances
identified in final Sec.  1926.1208(e)(1)-(e)(4) arises.
    Final Sec.  1926.1208(e)(1), which is similar to the general
industry standard at Sec.  1910.146(h)(5)(i), requires an employer to
ensure that an authorized entrant exits from the confined space
whenever the attendant or entry supervisor orders an evacuation. It is
essential that the authorized entrants quickly comply with the command
to evacuate, particularly because the attendant or entry supervisor may
be aware of a hazard that the authorized entrant has not detected. Even
when there is disagreement between the entry supervisor and attendant
as to whether to evacuate, this provision requires the employer to
enforce orders to evacuate given by either the entry supervisor or the
attendant. OSHA believes this provision is necessary because
emergencies within a confined space are time sensitive, and the entry
supervisor and attendant may have different information regarding the
types or severity of the hazards in the PRCS.
    Final Sec.  1926.1208(e)(2), which is similar to the general
industry standard at Sec.  1910.146(h)(5)(ii), requires an employer to
ensure that an authorized entrant exits from the confined space
whenever there is a warning sign or symptom of a dangerous situation.
The phrase ``warning sign or symptom of a dangerous situation'' has the
same meaning as in final paragraph (d) of this section. As with final
paragraph (d), and for the same reason, final paragraph (e)(2) differs
slightly from the corresponding general industry provision at Sec.
1910.146(h)(5)(ii) because final Sec.  1926.1208(e)(2) requires an
employer to ensure that an authorized entrant exits the space whenever
``there is . . . a dangerous situation,'' rather than whenever ``the
entrant recognizes'' a dangerous situation. This provision requires
authorized entrants to exit the PRCS as quickly as possible in such
cases because the safety procedures delineated in the permit are
designed to work in the context of clearly defined acceptable entry
conditions, and deviations from the planned measures therefore require
timely evacuation to ensure the health and safety of the entrants
pending evaluation of the dangerous situation.
    Final Sec.  1926.1208(e)(3), which is identical to the general
industry standard at Sec.  1910.146(h)(5)(iii), requires an employer to
ensure that an authorized entrant exits from the confined space
whenever the entrant detects a prohibited condition, as defined in
final Sec.  1926.1201. This requirement ensures that employees exit the
confined space if there is any prohibited condition, such as a
hazardous atmosphere or uncontrolled physical hazard, in the space.
Exiting the space upon detecting a prohibited condition will prevent
serious injury or death to the entrants. Other examples of prohibited
conditions include, but are not limited to, the emergence of a new
hazard, a hazard level that exceeds acceptable entry conditions, or
personal protective equipment that is not working as planned. In such
circumstances, authorized entrants must exit the space to protect their
health and safety.
    Final Sec.  1926.1208(e)(4), which is identical to the general
industry standard at Sec.  1910.146(h)(5)(iv), requires an employer to
ensure that an authorized entrant exits the confined space whenever an
evacuation alarm sounds. Examples of these alarms include, but are not
limited to, atmospheric or engulfment-hazard monitor alarms or alarms
activated by an authorized entrant or other employee. This provision
ensures that entrants in a PRCS exit the space in a timely manner upon
activation of an evacuation alarm warning them of an impending danger,
thereby preventing serious injury or death to the entrants.

Section 1926.1209--Duties of Attendants

    In final Sec.  1926.1209, OSHA sets out the duties of the attendant
required by final Sec.  1926.1204(f) as part of every permit program.
The general industry standard recognizes the need for an attendant
outside permit spaces, and the preambles for final Sec.  1926.1204(f)
and the general industry standard at 58 FR 4517 (Jan. 14, 1993),
explain the need for these attendants. One of the major problems in
permit space entry operations is that, if an entrant within the space
is injured or incapacitated in the space, he or she cannot normally be
seen from outside the space, so the attendant is critical to
recognizing quickly any injury or incapacitation so that the employer
can initiate the applicable rescue operation as soon as possible. The
attendant also plays a critical role in protecting employees inside the
confined space from unauthorized entries and potentially hazardous
conditions outside the confined space that could affect the workers
inside the confined space.
    The provisions in final Sec.  1926.1209 are substantively identical
to the provisions in the general industry confined spaces rule, except
as noted below. The introductory language to Sec.  1910.146(i) refers
to ``the'' employer. As in the introductory language for many of the
provisions in the final rule, OSHA refers to ``the entry employer'' in
the introductory language of Sec.  1926.1209 to clarify how this rule
applies on multi-employer worksites.
    The attendant duties are also similar to the duties specified in
proposed Sec. Sec.  1926.1210(f) and 1926.1211(f). The final rule does
not include a paragraph found in proposed Sec.  1926.1211(f)(9), which
expressly prohibited attendants from entering a confined space to
perform rescue. OSHA did not include this paragraph because the
prohibition is clear from the general industry standard language
incorporated into the final rule, i.e., employers must ensure that
attendants never enter a confined space, whether it is to perform
rescue or for any other purpose, unless another person assumes the
duties of the attendant, and the attendant is properly trained for
rescue activity. See Sec.  1926.1209(d) and its Note. In this way, the
final rule provides more flexibility to employers than the proposal.
    Paragraph (a). Final Sec.  1926.1209(a), which is almost identical
to the general industry standard at Sec.  1910.146(i)(1) (except for
non-substantive clarifications), requires an employer to ensure that
each attendant is familiar with hazards that he or she may encounter
during entry, as well as the signs and consequences of such exposures.
Section 1910.146(i)(1) requires an employer to ensure that each
attendant ``knows'' the hazards that he or she may encounter during
entry. OSHA replaced ``knows'' with ``is familiar with and
understands'' in the final rule to emphasize that the element of
comprehension is critical to the attendant's ability to fulfill his or
her duties. Attendants must be able to recognize when entry conditions
in the PRCS are unacceptable--that the system of employee protection is
malfunctioning. Because attendants would be able to easily communicate
with entrants and entry supervisors, their recognition of deviations
from acceptable entry conditions, and of the signs, symptoms, and
characteristic effects that indicate exposure to a hazard, will enable
a timely evacuation from the PRCS. For additional information
concerning the signs and symptoms of exposure, see the discussion of
Sec.  1926.1208(d) in this preamble.
    Paragraph (b). Final Sec.  1926.1209(b), which is identical to the
general industry standard at Sec.  1910.146(i)(2), requires the
attendant to be aware of the potential behavioral effects of hazard
exposure to authorized entrants. While there is overlap between this
requirement and the requirement to be familiar with and understand
signs and symptoms of exposure, the same overlap exists in the general
industry standard and OSHA is preserving the separate requirements for
consistency with the general industry standard and to emphasize the
importance of recognizing behavioral changes as possible evidence of
hazard exposure. OSHA believes this requirement is necessary because
the attendant is likely to be in a position to quickly recognize
deteriorating conditions within the space and readily communicate the
need for an immediate evacuation. For instance, subtle behavioral
changes or effects detected in an entrant's speech, or deviations in
established communication procedures, would alert the attendant that it
is necessary to initiate the procedure to evacuate or rescue the
entrant from the space.
    Paragraph (c). Final Sec.  1926.1209(c), which is identical to the
general industry standard at Sec.  1910.146(i)(3), requires the
attendant to maintain an accurate count at all times of authorized
entrants, and to ensure that the method used to identify entrants under
final Sec.  1926.1206 of this section is accurate. In emergency
situations requiring evacuation, the count and identification of
entrants is necessary to determine whether evacuation of all authorized
entrants from the space occurred, and that no unauthorized entrants
remain in the space. This information can then be relayed, if
necessary, to rescue workers.
    Paragraph (d). Final Sec.  1926.1209(d), which is identical to the
general industry standard at Sec.  1910.146(i)(4), requires the
attendant to stay outside of the permit space during entry operations
until he or she is relieved by another attendant. One of the main
duties of the attendant is to recognize hazardous conditions that are
occurring inside the PRCS, and to communicate this information to
rescue personnel in emergency situations. The attendant is also often
the first (and sometimes only) person to recognize prohibited
conditions or signs of hazardous conditions within the space. If the
attendant was inside the space, the attendant could become
incapacitated if an emergency occurred, or the entrants are exposed to
prohibited conditions, and consequently rendered unable to perform the
duties that are necessary to protect the other employees.
    OSHA included a note to final Sec.  1926.1209(d) that is
substantively the same as the note in the general industry standard.
OSHA reorganized the sentence structure of the note in the final rule
to clarify that the attendant cannot attempt rescue until properly
relieved, and then only if the attendant is permitted to do so under
the permit program and adequately trained and equipped for entry
rescue. However, the final rule permits the attendant to perform non-
entry rescue so long as the attendant receives proper training to do
so. If the attendant is performing his or her duties in multiple
spaces, the attendant also must order the entrants in those other
spaces to exit the spaces while the attendant is involved in the
rescue, or ensure that another person assumes the attendant duties for
the other spaces.
    Paragraph (e). Final Sec.  1926.1209(e), which is nearly identical
to the general industry standard at Sec.  1910.146(i)(5), requires the
attendant to communicate with authorized entrants as necessary to keep
track of the entrants' status and to notify entrants if evacuation
under final Sec.  1926.1209(f) of this section is necessary. OSHA
believes that this communication provides information that the
attendant needs to determine if the entry can continue. For example,
subtle behavioral changes detected in the entrant's speech, or
deviations from set communication procedures, could alert the attendant
that it is necessary to evacuate or rescue the entrant. This
requirement may assist the attendant in fulfilling the duties to
identify signs and

symptoms of exposure or behavioral changes (see paragraphs (a) and (b)
of this section). In addition, if the need arises, the attendant must
communicate to the entrants an order to evacuate because the entrants
may not know that there is an emergency.
    In the final rule, OSHA requires the attendant to stay in
communication to ``assess'' the entrant's status, rather than to
``monitor'' it as required in the general industry standard. While
there is no substantive difference between these terms, OSHA uses
``assess'' because ``monitor,'' as defined in the final standard,
refers to the identification and evaluation of hazards in a confined
space. Assessment connotes an interactive duty in which the attendant
may ask questions of the entrant, or ask the entrant to perform a task
so the attendant can evaluate the entrant's status.
    As with the general industry standard, the attendant's
``communication'' with the entrant may take different forms depending
on the limitations of the particular permit space. In most instances,
the attendant could use voice communication, including communication by
phone, walkie talkie, or other device that provides a clear and
continuous means of communication with the entrant. In other cases,
alternative methods, such as tapping on the walls of the space to allow
for assessment through a pre-arranged code, may be sufficient to
satisfy Sec.  1926.1209(e). See, e.g., July 30, 1993, letter to Julie
Emmerich.
    Paragraph (f). Final Sec.  1926.1209(f), which is almost identical
to the general industry standard at Sec.  1910.146(i)(6), requires the
attendant to assess the activities and conditions inside and outside
the space to determine if it is safe for entrants to stay in the space.
OSHA again uses ``assess'' instead of ``monitor'' for the same reason
discussed above in final Sec.  1926.1209(e). OSHA refers to
``activities and conditions'' in the final rule, as opposed to just
``activities'' in the general industry standard, for internal
consistency within this provision. In the same paragraph, OSHA requires
the attendant to evacuate the permit space under any of the four
``conditions'' listed in final Sec.  1926.1209(f)(1) through (f)(4):
(1) The attendant notices a prohibited condition, (2) the attendant
identifies the behavioral effects of hazard exposure in an authorized
entrant, (3) there is a condition outside the space that could endanger
the authorized entrants, or (4) the attendant cannot effectively and
safely perform the duties required under final Sec.  1926.1209. Thus,
it is necessary for the attendant to assess both the activities and
conditions affecting the entrants.
    In the general industry standard, OSHA requires the attendant to
order evacuation ``if the attendant detects'' a prohibited condition,
certain behavioral effects, or a condition outside the space that could
endanger the entrants. See Sec.  1910.146(i)(6)(i) through (i)(6)(iii).
OSHA did not include the quoted language in the final rule because
existing conditions, not detection by the attendant, trigger the duties
in final Sec.  1926.1209(f)(1) through (3). OSHA believes that each of
these conditions represents potential precursors to serious safety
hazards that threaten the health and well-being of employees working in
and near the PRCS, and the employer has a duty to ensure that the
attendant detects them.
    One of the conditions that triggers evacuation is a situation that
arises outside the permit space that could endanger the workers inside
the space. See final Sec.  1926.1209(f)(3). This requirement also is
specified in the general industry standard. Under final Sec.
1926.1203(h)(4) and Sec.  1926.1204(k), the employer must develop and
implement procedures to coordinate entry operations with other
employers working outside the confined space when the activities of
those employers could, either alone or in conjunction with the
activities within a permit space, foreseeably result in a hazard within
the confined space. In most cases, employers will perform such
activities outside the space in close proximity to the permit space,
and the attendant must be aware of the applicable coordination
procedures to identify any deviation and evacuate the entrants if the
deviation makes it unsafe for the entrants to remain in the permit
space. While not required to do so, the attendant may take steps to
stop activities that do not conform to those procedures, either
directly or by notifying the entry supervisor and the controlling
contractor, provided that doing so does not interfere with the
attendant's ability to fulfill the duties required by Sec.  1926.1209.
However, if the employer does not address the potentially endangering
activities immediately, the attendant must evacuate the entrants.
Consider, for example, a situation in which employees are working
inside a storm-sewer permit space that is not isolated from the general
storm sewer system. If someone within the view of the attendant is
setting up for an activity that will discharge water into the upstream
portion of the storm sewer system, the attendant must alert the entry
supervisor, and may call to the person setting up the discharge system
to request that the person not discharge water into the storm sewer
until the employees in the storm sewer have completed their work. If
the potential pumpers refuse to wait, then the attendant must order the
immediate evacuation of the permit space. See Sec.  1926.1209(f)(3).
    Other examples of conditions or activities outside a permit space
that would require the attendant's attention include the placement of
potentially hazardous items near a ventilation intake source (e.g., an
open container of epoxy or gasoline-powered equipment emitting
exhaust), or physical conditions that could affect the permit space
(e.g., heavy rains outside a below-ground permit space).
    One commenter asserted that requiring an attendant to evaluate
confined space hazards inside and outside a ground storage tank exposes
the attendant to both fall hazards and struck-by hazards (ID-210, Tr.
p. 223). For example, a situation in which the tank does not have a
ground level entrance, and the attendant must climb a vertical fixed
ladder to gain access, exposes the attendant to a fall hazard. However,
this comment fails to recognize that the standard would permit the
attendant to use electronic monitoring and communications or other
means to fulfill the duties in Sec.  1926.1209. Thus, depending on the
circumstances of the space, the attendant might only need to physically
approach the entrance of the permit space to perform non-entry rescue
if non-entry rescue is appropriate (the retrieval equipment would not
increase the overall risk of entry and would contribute to the rescue
of the entrant), and then only when assigned and trained to do so. In
addition, if the attendant encounters a hazard not covered by the
confined spaces standard (e.g., a fall hazard), the employer must
comply with the relevant OSHA requirements that address the hazard
(e.g., 29 CFR part 1926, subpart M, for fall hazards).
    More importantly, it appears that the commenter also is challenging
the general need for an attendant by asserting that an attendant is
unnecessary when the employer is performing work inside an above-ground
storage tank (ID-210, Tr. p. 223). In these situations, so long as the
space meets the definition of a permit-required confined space, an
attendant is necessary for safe entry operations. Although the person
designated by the employer as attendant is not assigned the overall
responsibility for employee safety and health assigned to the entry

supervisor, the attendant is a crucial link in the communication chain
between the entry supervisor, rescue operations, and the authorized
entrants. For additional explanation of the importance of the
attendant's role, see the introductory discussion of Sec.  1926.1209.
    It is extremely important that attendants understand their duties,
stay in contact with the entrants, and remain alert to conditions
inside and outside the PRCS. The attendant may be in the best position
to warn the entrants of hazardous conditions developing outside the
space and impending danger within the space, and to recognize physical
and behavioral changes in the entrants that indicate that conditions
within the space may be deteriorating. Should the entrant become
incapacitated, the attendant often is an entrant's only contact with
individuals outside the confined space. Therefore, the attendant is
necessary to detect emergencies that develop in the space, and to
summon emergency assistance before it is too late to prevent injury or
death to the entrant.
    Another commenter suggested that OSHA make it explicit that the
attendant must remain outside the confined space when monitoring
atmospheric conditions of the confined space (ID-132, p. 3). This
additional language is unnecessary because final Sec.  1926.1209(d)
already requires attendants to remain outside the confined space while
fulfilling all of their duties under this section, including the duties
specified in Sec.  1926.1209(f).
    Paragraph (g). Final Sec.  1926.1209(g), which is identical to
Sec.  1910.146(i)(7), requires the attendant to call upon rescue and
other emergency services as soon as he or she decides that authorized
entrants may need assistance to escape from permit space hazards. This
provision is necessary to ensure that rescue of authorized entrants
occurs as soon as possible to maximize their chance of survival and
limiting their injuries, as well as minimizing risk of injury to the
rescue-service employees. The Agency notes that in some situations, the
attendant may be the person designated to perform non-entry rescue and,
therefore, may simply commence that rescue. If other personnel are
necessary for non-entry rescue, or if entry rescue is necessary, then
the attendant must summon those personnel immediately.
    One commenter noted that the parallel language in proposed
paragraph Sec.  1926.1211(f)(6) did not specifically require the
attendant to ``summon'' the rescue service (only to ``inform'' them),
and requested that OSHA insert language requiring that action (ID-210,
Tr. p. 357). OSHA responded to this comment by adopting the language of
the general industry standard in final Sec.  1926.1209(g).
    Paragraph (h). Final Sec.  1926.1209(h), which is identical to the
general industry standard at Sec.  1910.146(i)(8), requires the
attendant to take the actions specified in Sec.  1926.1209(h)(1)
through (h)(3) to prevent unauthorized persons from entering a permit
space while entry is taking place. OSHA recognizes that there are
individuals who may mistakenly believe that they are to work on a task
in the space, or who may simply wander by or attempt to enter into the
space unaware of the dangers of the PRCS. Final Sec.  1926.1203(b)
requires the employer to notify the controlling contractor and other
specified employees, as well as the employees' authorized
representatives, about the location of, and dangers posed by, the
space. However, if someone other than an authorized entrant happens to
approach the PRCS, Sec.  1926.1209(h)(1) specifies that the attendant
must make that individual aware that he/she must stay away from the
PRCS. Some construction sites may be accessible to the public, so the
attendant also would be responsible for warning members of the public
who may attempt to enter a permit space at the site. Should an
unauthorized person enter the PRCS, paragraph (h)(2) of Sec.  1926.1209
requires the attendant to advise him/her to exit the space immediately.
This provision protects employees who enter permit spaces without
proper authorization, training, or equipment, from the hazards of the
permit space, and prevents injury to the entrants already in the permit
space from the actions of unauthorized entrants and the items they may
carry into the space.
    Because an attendant may not have supervisory authority, or because
the errant individual may work for another employer at a multi-employer
construction site, an attendant may not have the authority to stop
unauthorized individuals from entering the PRCS, or to require them to
exit once they are inside the space. Therefore, paragraph (h)(3) of
Sec.  1926.1209 requires the attendant to notify the entry supervisor,
along with the authorized entrants, of this situation, and to evacuate
if necessary, as unauthorized entry will typically create a prohibited
condition under the permit. Accordingly, OSHA does not encourage or
require attendants to expose themselves to potential harm by physically
preventing entry to any person.
    Paragraph (i). Final Sec.  1926.1209(i), which is identical to the
general industry standard at Sec.  1910.146(i)(9), requires employers
that designate attendants to perform non-entry rescues to ensure that
the attendants perform these rescues in accordance with the employer's
rescue procedure. When properly executed, the attendant's performance
of non-entry rescue can be the fastest and most effective means of
successfully rescuing an entrant, while preventing injuries and deaths
that may result from improperly executed entry rescue operations.
However, if the employer designates the attendant to perform non-entry
rescue but does train the attendant to perform non-entry rescue, or if
the attendant does not operate winching equipment or perform other
components of the rescue in accordance with the proper procedures, then
the result could render the rescue ineffective and endanger the
attendant (e.g., improper line retrieval could cause the attendant to
lose balance and fall into the permit space), delay rescue (and,
thereby, endanger the entrant in need of rescue), or endanger other
entrants.
    Paragraph (j). Final Sec.  1926.1209(j), which is identical to the
general industry standard at Sec.  1910.146(i)(10), requires that the
attendant not engage in other activities that could distract him or her
from attending to the permit space. The attendant could endanger the
authorized entrants if distracted from these duties. If an attendant
performs a task that diverts his or her attention from the attendant
duties, an emergency condition inside or outside the space could go
undetected until it is too late to prevent injury or death to the
attendant. However, OSHA also recognizes that the attendant can perform
some additional tasks safely, particularly those tasks that enhance the
attendant's knowledge of conditions in the permit space. For example,
passing tools to authorized entrants and remote monitoring of the
atmosphere of the PRCS are among the types of duties permitted,
provided the attendant does not enter the PRCS. Activities requiring
close or prolonged concentration, or those activities requiring that
the attendant be away from a location in which he can observe the PRCS,
would likely interfere with attendant duties. Employers must not assign
such activities to an attendant and must ensure that an attendant not
engage in such activities. The Agency notes that, although the employer
may assign attendants to more than one permit space at the same time
under Sec.  1926.1204(f), the employer must still

properly train and equip the attendant so that the attendant's role
with respect to one space does not interfere with his or her duties
with respect to other permit spaces. See also Sec.  1926.1204(f)(1). In
other words, the attendant's duty under Sec.  1926.1209(j) applies
separately with respect to each individual permit space.

Section 1926.1210--Duties of entry supervisors

    The duties of the entry supervisor are critical to the safety of
entrants working in a permit space. The employer must assign an entry
supervisor who has the responsibility to supervise testing the
atmosphere and identifying hazards both before and during entry,
terminating entry when necessary, removing unauthorized entrants, and
generally ensuring that the work performed in the permit space conforms
to the permit program and the acceptable conditions specified on the
permit. As noted in the preamble to the general industry standard, the
entry supervisor has ``overall accountability for confined space
entry'' (58 FR 4523). OSHA enumerated specific responsibilities in
Sec.  1926.1210 of the final rule, which is almost identical to Sec.
1910.146(j) of the general industry standard. The final rule also is
consistent with the entry supervisor requirements in the proposed rule,
which were at proposed Sec.  1926.1210(e)(2) and Sec.  1926.1211(d)(1)
and (d)(2).\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ OSHA specified in the proposed rule that the entry
supervisor is responsible for evacuating employees from the permit
space under specified conditions, and for terminating entry and
canceling the permit. OSHA included similar requirements in final
Sec.  1926.1205(e) (permitting process), which is a more appropriate
location than Sec.  1926.1210 of the final rule because the
requirements in Sec.  1926.1205(e) address the process of
terminating and canceling the permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The introductory language to Sec.  1910.146(j) refers to ``the
employer.'' In this final rule, OSHA instead refers to ``the entry
employer'' to clarify how this rule applies on multi-employer
worksites. This revision is non-substantive; in both cases, the
requirements apply to each employer establishing the permit program for
a permit space.
    One commenter suggested that OSHA use ``competent person'' in place
of ``entry supervisor'' to ``be more consistent with other construction
standards'' (ID-124, p. 8). Although some employers in the construction
industry may not be as familiar with the term ``entry supervisor,''
OSHA is retaining the language of the general industry standard because
the term is clear and intuitive, and the majority of commenters seemed
familiar with that terminology.
    Paragraph (a). Final Sec.  1926.1210(a), which is identical to the
general industry standard at Sec.  1910.146(j)(1), except for a non-
substantive clarification, requires the employer to ensure that each
entry supervisor is familiar with, and understands, the hazards that
entrants may encounter during entry, including information on the mode,
signs or symptoms, and the consequences of exposure to these hazards.
Consistent with its approach in other provisions noted earlier, OSHA
changed the use of the term ``know,'' found in corresponding Sec.
1910.146(j)(1), to ``is familiar with and understands'' in this final
rule to clarify that the entry supervisor must comprehend the hazards
that entrants may encounter.
    In the discussion of the duties of the entry supervisor in the
preamble to the general industry standard, OSHA explained that, in
light of the overarching responsibility of the entry supervisor for the
safety of all entrants, it is ``only reasonable that he or she be
expected to know at least as much, if not more, than authorized
entrants and attendants'' (58 FR 4523). That knowledge is particularly
important in the context of construction, where high turnover of
employees and changes to the work site may be more frequent than for
general industry. As an individual with the authority to terminate
entry and cancel the entry permit, it is essential that the entry
supervisor recognize hazardous conditions and telltale indications
(signs, symptoms, and characteristic effects) that a hazard from within
or outside the permit space is affecting employees engaged in the PRCS
operations. By meeting the knowledge requirements of final Sec.
1926.1210(a), the entry supervisor will be able to effectively identify
emergency situations by observing employees involved in entry
operations.
    Paragraph (b). Final Sec.  1926.1210(b), which is identical to the
general industry standard at Sec.  1910.146(j)(2), requires the entry
supervisor to verify that the employer performed all tests specified by
the entry permit, and that all procedures and equipment so specified
are in place before he or she may sign the permit and allow entry. The
paragraph also specifies that the entry supervisor must verify this
information by checking the corresponding entries on the permit. These
preliminary checks are necessary to ensure that the conditions in the
space are within the acceptable entry conditions--hazard levels are as
planned, and protective measures are in place, working properly, and
are effective--before entry operations commence.
    Paragraph (c). Final Sec.  1926.1210(c) requires the employer,
through the entry supervisor, to stop the entry and cancel (or suspend)
the permit, as set forth by final Sec.  1926.1205(e), when certain
conditions change inside the permit space. By requiring the entry
supervisor to terminate the entry permit under the specified
conditions, the final rule ensures that the employees will exit the
space if there is a deviation from acceptable entry conditions and,
therefore, avoid encountering harm arising from prohibited conditions
within the PRCS. Final Sec.  1926.1210(c) is nearly identical to the
general industry standard at Sec.  1910.146(j)(3), except that the new
final provision allows for the suspension of a permit, rather than a
cancellation, as permitted in final Sec.  1926.1205(e). For additional
explanation of the suspension of the permit, see the explanation above
of Sec.  1926.1205(e).
    To perform this duty effectively, an entry supervisor must be
knowledgeable of the hazardous conditions and the tests and procedures
used to monitor these conditions so the entry supervisor can respond in
a timely manner to a developing hazard. While the entry supervisor need
not personally perform the testing or monitoring (but may choose to do
so if properly trained), the entry supervisor must possess the
expertise necessary to oversee the testing and identify the hazards in
the permit space, and is ultimately responsible for identifying
deviations from acceptable entry conditions and other unsafe
conditions. In the proposed rule, this requirement differed slightly
from the requirements in the general industry standard and this final
rule, but the result is the same: The entry supervisor must have all
the information regarding the conditions and monitoring results
required to know when it is necessary to terminate entry. This
requirement remains in effect even if the entry supervisor assumes
other duties, such as the duties of an entrant or attendant.
    Paragraph (d). Final Sec.  1926.1210(d), which is nearly identical
to the general industry standard at Sec.  1910.146(j)(4), requires the
entry supervisor to verify that rescue services are available, and that
the means for obtaining such services are operable. Because the
employer must assign authority for safe permit entry operations to the
entry supervisor, it is reasonable and consistent with the rescue
provisions to specify that the entry supervisor verify that the rescue
service is available, and that the means of summoning it in a

timely manner is functioning properly. The only difference between this
final provision and the general industry standard is that OSHA
clarified in this final provision that, as part of the contact with the
rescue service, the entry supervisor must verify that the rescue
service will notify the supervisor if that service becomes unavailable
during the entry process. This clarification corresponds to the
employer's duty to confirm the continued availability of the rescue
service in final Sec.  1926.1211(a)(3), and is consistent with the
proposed rule, which focused overall coordination of the permit entry
operations on the entry supervisor (see 72 FR 67368 (Nov. 28, 2007)).
Under both the proposed and final rules, the overall coordination
duties include managing communications with the rescue service.
    Paragraph (e). Final Sec.  1926.1210(e), which is identical to the
general industry standard at Sec.  1910.146(j)(5) and consistent with
the proposed rule at Sec.  1926.1211(d)(2), requires the entry
supervisor to remove unauthorized individuals who enter, or attempt to
enter, the permit space during entry operations. Unauthorized entrants
lack the safety training necessary to work in the PRCS, and the entry
permit does not account for them. Their presence in a permit space not
only poses a danger to them, but may also endanger the authorized
entrants in the space.
    In the final rule, OSHA requires attendants to warn persons near a
permit space not to enter the permit space unless they have
authorization to do so, but the attendant is not required to physically
prevent unauthorized entry or to remove an unauthorized entrant (final
Sec.  1926.1209(h)). Under the final rule, as with the general industry
standard, the entry supervisor has ultimate responsibility for
preventing unauthorized entry and, if that fails, for removing the
unauthorized person as quickly as possible from the permit space.
    Paragraph (f). Final Sec.  1926.1210(f) is identical to the general
industry standard at Sec.  1910.146(j)(6) and consistent with the
proposed rule at Sec.  1926.1211(e)(2). While paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section of the final rule set out the entry supervisor's
responsibility to ensure that the permit space will be safe prior to
entry, and paragraph (c) of this section makes it clear when the
employer must cancel or suspend the permit, paragraph (f) requires the
entry supervisor to ensure the maintenance of safe working conditions
during the entry. In final Sec.  1926.1210(f), OSHA sets out the entry
supervisor's duty to assess the space when first assigned entry
supervisor duties for the permit space, and at regular intervals
thereafter.
    OSHA recognizes that employers will need to replace entry
supervisors occasionally for various reasons (for example, shift
changes, lunch breaks, and regular rotations to other tasks at the job
site). This final provision requires that, whenever there is a transfer
of supervisory responsibility for a permit-space entry operation, the
entry supervisor must assess the space and its hazards to maintain
entry operations that are consistent with the entry permit and other
requirements of the standard pertaining to the maintenance of
acceptable entry conditions. This requirement ensures that the new
entry supervisor reviews the permit and entry conditions and,
consequently, has the information necessary for performing the duties
enumerated in final Sec.  1926.1210.
    Final Sec.  1926.1210(f) also requires that the entry supervisor
assess the space and its hazards at intervals dictated by the hazards
and operations performed therein. This requirement addresses the fact
that conditions often change over time within a permit space, while
providing the employer some flexibility to monitor different hazards at
different intervals of time (see 58 FR 4524). Some hazards may develop
rapidly and require more frequent assessments, such as when employees
are in a space with a combustible gas already at 9 percent of its LEL,
and the employer expects the operations to generate additional gas that
will be controlled through ventilation. Other hazards, such as a slow
leak of water from a pipe into a permit space, are likely to develop at
a more predictable pace that would allow for less frequent monitoring.
The type of operation and location or characteristics of the space may
also require more frequent assessments by the entry supervisor, such as
demolishing an underground wall near water pipes or performing
construction work in a sewer system where even a small leak of an
unidentified substance or other small change in the sewer space could
potentially place the lives of the employees in danger.
    One commenter asserted that it is not feasible for an employer to
have only one entry supervisor because employees could perform no work
in the permit space if the entry supervisor is absent (ID-107, p. 4).
This commenter misunderstands the entry supervisor requirements. Final
Sec.  1926.1210(f) permits an employer to transfer the duties of the
entry supervisor between employees, so long as each such entry
supervisor has the proper qualifications to perform these duties and
receives the appropriate information about the space from the previous
supervisor.
    Another commenter also was unsure whether the final rule requires
the entry supervisor to be on the construction site at all times (ID-
124, p. 7). The entry supervisor is responsible for crucial duties,
including monitoring the space, physically removing unauthorized
entrants, and terminating entry if necessary. Therefore, it is highly
unlikely that the entry supervisor will be able to fulfill the required
duties from a distance. However, the standard does not foreclose the
potential for technology advances that may allow an entry supervisor to
perform the required functions while located away from the permit
space. If the entry supervisor is unable to perform his or her duties,
either because he or she is not present on the site or for another
reason, then the employer must terminate the entry or replace that
entry supervisor with a supervisor properly qualified under this final
section, and who makes the determinations required by final Sec.
1926.1210(f), or the employer will not be in compliance with this final
rule.

Section 1211 -- Rescue and Emergency Services

    An employer conducting a permit-space entry must include procedures
for providing rescue and emergency service as part of its permit-space
program (final Sec.  1926.1204(i)). Final Sec.  1926.1211 specifies
requirements for that rescue and emergency service. The requirements in
final Sec.  1926.1211 are substantively similar to the corresponding
provisions in the general industry confined spaces standard at Sec.
1910.146(k). In general, the substance of the rescue provisions in the
proposed rule was similar to that of the rescue provisions in the
general industry rule, but the language of the general industry rule is
more performance-oriented and includes fewer detailed requirements than
the proposed rule.
    Final Sec.  1926.1211 uses the term ``rescue and emergency
services.'' There are two types of rescue services addressed by this
provision: Non-entry rescue and entry rescue, and the employer must
determine which is appropriate. Emergency services are distinct: They
are the services that must be used to retrieve the entrant when the
employer's non-entry or entry rescue fails.
    OSHA notes that during the rulemaking for the general industry
confined spaces standard, a commenter raised a question as to whether
an entry rescue service involved only off-site

rescue teams (58 FR 4525). The Agency made clear in that rulemaking
that an employer could use an on-site team as long as the employer met
all the criteria outlined in the standard. That rationale is equally
applicable to this final rule. Consequently, the term ``rescue
service'' in this standard does not exclude the use of an on-site entry
rescue service. Indeed, as OSHA noted in the preamble to final Sec.
1910.146, the need to respond as quickly as possible to an emergency
within a permit space indicates a preference for on-site rescue teams
wherever it is practical.
    Some employers may prefer to establish an on-site rescue service.
Other employers may prefer to rely on off-site rescue services, perhaps
because they believe that they do not have the resources to train
employees to perform rescue or because the ready availability of an
adequate off-site rescue service makes an on-site capability
unnecessary. The final rule allows employers to make arrangements for
either on-site or off-site services.
    Also, the final rule's phrase ``rescue service'' refers to all
rescue personnel provided to remove entrants from permit spaces. It
includes situations in which one person will be responsible for the
rescue of authorized entrants (e.g., when the employer uses non-entry
rescue systems). In such situations, the evaluation and selection
requirements of final Sec.  1926.1211(a) will apply. The training and
practice requirements of final Sec.  1926.1211(b) also apply in these
situations. Thus, OSHA is treating all rescue services alike, whether
the service is on-site or off-site, whether the service is entry rescue
or non-entry rescue, or whether the service consists of a multiple-
person team or a single person.
    One commenter asserted that the rescue requirements should differ
based on the type of hazard that is present in or near the confined
space (ID-077, p. 1). This standard does set different requirements
based on the type of hazard in a PRCS, although the requirements in
Sec.  1926.1211(a)(1) and (a)(3)(i) establish performance-oriented
criteria that vary based on the hazards in the permit spaces. Final
Sec.  1926.1203(e) allows an employer to use alternative entry
procedures different than those required by the rest of this standard
under certain circumstances. Final Sec.  1926.1203(g) allows an
employer to reclassify a PRCS as a non-permit confined space when the
employer meets the requirements of that paragraph. The rescue
requirements in this final standard do not apply when an employer is
using the procedures in final Sec. Sec.  1926.1203(e) or 1926.1203(g).
When an employer is working within a PRCS that does not meet the
criteria in one of those paragraphs, however, the rescue requirements
are the same for all hazards severe enough to trigger the PRCS program
required by final Sec.  1926.1204.
    Paragraph (a). The introductory text in final Sec.  1926.1211(a),
which is identical to the general industry standard at Sec.
1910.146(k)(1), introduces the requirements for designating rescue
services. This paragraph emphasizes the evaluation that an employer
must perform of available rescue and emergency service resources before
designating a rescue provider for the purposes of this standard as
required at Sec.  1926.1204(i) of this final rule. The requirements of
this paragraph apply equally to both on-site (employees of the entry
employer or controlling contractor) and third-party rescue services.
    One commenter asserted that some third-party rescue services, such
as fire departments, are unwilling to be the designated rescue service
due to liability concerns (ID-075, p. 8). Another commenter asserted
that relying on local fire departments to provide third-party recue
services can be problematic because the rescue service is not designed
specifically to provide confined space rescue at a particular worksite
(ID-210, Tr. p. 192). These comments imply that OSHA requires employers
to designate the local fire department as the rescue service, which is
not the case. In the final rule, OSHA provides employers with much
flexibility in choosing its third-party rescue service if the employer
elects to rely on a third-party rescue service.
    Contrary to the assertion of one commenter (ID-107 p. 4), both the
proposed rule and the general industry standard require employers to
provide a rescue service for entries, even if a third-party rescue
service is not available. (See proposed Sec.  1926.1211(h) and 72 FR
67377-78; 29 CFR 1910.146(d)(9); 58 FR 4524-27; and 63 FR 66018, 66023
(Dec. 1, 1998).) If one third-party rescue service will not assume the
responsibility of providing rescue under this final rule, or is not
adequately prepared to meet these rescue requirements, then the
employer must either find a different third-party rescue service that
is capable of performing this service, or train and equip its own
employees to provide adequate rescue service.
    Paragraph (a)(1). Final Sec.  1926.1211(a)(1), which is identical
to the general industry standard at Sec.  1910.146(k)(1)(i), requires
an employer to assess a prospective rescue service's ability to respond
to a rescue summons in a timely manner. Final Sec.  1926.1211(a)(1)
provides that the hazards identified in the permit space determine
timeliness. This provision defines ``timeliness'' in terms of how
quickly an entry rescue service needs to reach an entrant to prevent
further serious physical damage that may result from hazards in the
PRCS while the entrant is awaiting rescue. For example, as stated in
the note to paragraph (a)(1), OSHA's respiratory protection standard at
29 CFR 1910.134, made applicable to construction by 29 CFR 1926.103,
requires standby rescue personnel equipped with respiratory protection
when employees are working in atmospheres that require respiratory
protection because the atmospheres are immediately dangerous to life or
health (IDLH). Consistent with that requirement, the timeliness
requirement in this final rule also means that employers must ensure
that an appropriate rescue service is on site for IDLH permit entries.
An atmosphere in a permit space where an exposed entrant could suffer
irreversible impairment within four to six minutes would meet the
definition of an IDLH atmosphere. However, because not all permit
spaces pose the same immediate dangers as those spaces with IDLH
atmospheres, employers may use a less resource-intensive and more
measured response capability for situations in which the need for a
nearly instant response is not present. For example, in appendix F to
Sec.  1910.146, OSHA explained that if the danger to entrants is
restricted to mechanical hazards that would cause injuries (e.g.,
broken bones, abrasions) a response time of 10 or 15 minutes might be
adequate.
    At least one commenter was unsure what constitutes a response in a
``timely manner'' (ID-121, p. 5). Another commenter suggested that OSHA
identify the factors in Sec.  1910.146(k)(1)(i) of the general industry
confined spaces standard that it would use to analyze whether a rescue
response is ``timely,'' and apply them in the construction standard
(ID-129, p. 3). The factors that apply in general industry are relevant
in evaluating timeliness in this final rule.
    When the Agency added the parallel rescue selection requirements to
paragraph (k) of Sec.  1910.146, it included a substantive discussion
of ``timely'' rescue in the preamble, and concluded that the
determination of timeliness ``will be based on the particular
circumstances and hazards of each confined space, circumstances and
hazards which the employer must take into account in developing a
rescue

plan'' (63 FR 66023). As the note to new Sec.  1926.1211(a)(1) makes
clear, the same approach applies in this final rule. Employers must
consider the known hazards of in the space, the time it takes to reach
the permit space, as well as the time it will take to enter the space
and retrieve employees from inside the space, when determining what is
a ``timely'' response. Several commenters acknowledged that so many
factors could affect whether a response is ``timely'' that it is not
practical for OSHA to adopt a bright-line timeframe that would work in
all scenarios (ID-090, p. 1; ID-108, p. 3; ID-116, p. 4). As noted in
the discussion above, OSHA identified some of the factors that
determine whether an employer's response to an emergency is ``timely,''
but these factors are not exclusive. The standard as a whole will
prevent employee exposure to hazards, but employers must develop rescue
plans that anticipate and minimize potential harm to employees in the
event an employee becomes trapped or exposed to an atmospheric hazard.
For example, if a permit space contains a potential IDLH atmosphere
that the employer will control through ventilation, the employer has a
duty to ensure that the ventilation is effective, but also has a
separate duty to plan for rescue in the event that the ventilation
fails and an employee becomes trapped in the increasingly hazardous
atmosphere.
    The deaths of two workers during a sewer entry illustrate the
potential consequences of inadequate rescue planning: Not only did the
two employees enter the space without a permit, rescue plan, or
retrieval lines, but the employer also did not assess a potential
rescue service. See S. J. Louis Construction, OSHRC Docket No. 12-1045
(2013) (Welsh, ALJ). The first worker was overcome quickly by a
hazardous atmosphere in the sewer manhole, and the second worker was
also overcome after he entered the sewer manhole to attempt rescue. The
firemen who responded first were not trained or equipped for permit-
space entry and had to summon a different rescue service. The first
worker was washed down the sewer line before the second rescue service
arrived and was trapped underwater so that it took nearly a day to
retrieve his body.
    One commenter asserted that, when using a third-party rescue
service, it is infeasible for the third-party rescue service to
maintain constant contact with construction sites, and not reasonable
for outside services to track frequent changes in a confined space's
configuration (ID-116, p. 4). Another commenter asserted that it is too
costly to require rescue services on site, and that OSHA should allow
an employer to merely establish a rescue plan to address accidents (ID-
108, p. 5). Neither final Sec.  1926.1211(a)(1), nor any other
paragraph in final Sec.  1926.1211, requires an employer's rescue
service to be on the construction site at all times, absent an IDLH
atmosphere or other hazard that would require immediate rescue, or to
be in constant contact with the construction site.
    In general, final Sec.  1926.1211(a) only requires an employer to
determine that the rescue service is capable of responding to an
emergency in a timely manner. However, compliance may require the
employer to communicate with an off-site rescue service immediately
prior to each permit-space entry unless the employer has been assured
that personnel are always available and able to respond in a timely
manner. Section 1910.146 addresses the scenario in which the designated
rescue service is a local fire department that cannot guarantee that
the rescue team will available during the employer's entire permit-
space entry operations; in such a case, the employer must ensure close
communication with the rescue service during entry operations so that,
if the rescue service becomes unavailable while an entry is underway,
the employer can abort the entry immediately. May 23, 2008, letter to
Jonathan Pennington. To facilitate this communication, OSHA requires in
final paragraph (a)(3)(iii) that the entry employer select a rescue
provider that agrees to notify the entry employer in the event the
rescue service is unavailable. Entry operations must not resume until
the entry supervisor verifies that rescue services are available (final
Sec.  1926.1210(d)).
    One commenter asserted that OSHA should focus on the capability of
the rescue service to provide life support, and not whether the rescue
response is ``timely'' (ID-017, p. 2). For example, the provision
should focus on requiring someone trained in space-specific rescue
techniques, first aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation, who can gain
safe access to the patient, stop the bleeding, administer CPR, and
perhaps effect rescue. Final Sec.  1926.1211(a)(2) specifies the
requirement to assess whether a rescue service is capable of providing
adequate and effective rescue service. Final Sec.  1926.1211(a)(1)
requires the employer to assess whether the rescue service is capable
of applying such skills in a timely manner.
    Paragraph (a)(2). Final Sec.  1926.1211(a)(2), which is identical
to the general industry standard at Sec.  1910.146(k)(1)(ii), requires
an employer to assess a prospective rescue service's ability to provide
adequate and effective rescue services. This requirement is necessary
to ensure that the rescue service can perform rescue safely and
effectively.
    Many third-party emergency responders may be able to provide proper
permit-space rescue functions for spaces that do not require immediate,
stand-by rescue capability, but not all responders have this ability.
Each employer relying on these services must verify that the emergency
responder has the training, equipment, ability, and willingness to
perform rescue for confined spaces in its facility.
    In evaluating a prospective rescue provider's abilities, the
employer also must consider the willingness of the service to become
familiar with the particular hazards and circumstances faced during its
permit-space entries. Paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) of final Sec.
1926.1211 require the employer to provide its designated rescuers with
information about its confined spaces and access to those spaces to
allow the rescuers to develop appropriate rescue plans and to perform
rescue drills. A rescue service's receptiveness to this information is
directly relevant to its ability to function appropriately during
actual rescue operations.
    Two commenters suggested that OSHA provide additional guidance
about how employers that use a third-party rescue service are to verify
that they meet the requirements in final Sec.  1926.1211(a) (ID-099, p.
3; ID-132, p. 3). OSHA has provided performance-based requirements that
are closely aligned with the general industry standard. Therefore, OSHA
does not believe that it will be difficult for an employer to determine
whether the rescue service meets these requirements. However, OSHA is
willing to provide additional guidance as necessary.
    Paragraph (a)(3). Final Sec.  1926.1211(a)(3), which is identical
to Sec.  1910.146(k)(1)(iii) except for the addition of Sec.
1211(a)(3)(iii), introduces the requirements that a designated rescue
service must meet. Final Sec.  1926.1211(a)(3) requires the employer,
after performing the evaluations required by paragraphs (a)(1) and
(a)(2) of this section, to select a rescue provider that meets the
requirements of this paragraph. Therefore, it is not sufficient for an