standard. The official designation of the current version of the
National Electrical Safety Code is ANSI/IEEE C2-2012. Standards
approved as ANSI standards are American National Standards. In
addition, the ANSI approval process ensures that procedures used to
adopt standards conform to the procedures described in the
definition of ``national consensus standard'' in 29 CFR 1910.2(g).
See, for example, OSHA's adoption of national consensus standards
and established Federal standards under Section 6(a) of the OSH Act
(36 FR 10466, May 29, 1971).
    \245\ IEEE standards frequently undergo the ANSI approval
process. After becoming an approved American National Standard, an
IEEE standard shares a joint ANSI/IEEE designation.
    \246\ According to a survey conducted by IEEE, over 20 States
adopted the 2007 edition of the NESC, and several other States
adopted other editions of the NESC (http://standards.ieee.org/about/nesc/pucsurvey2007.pdf). The States generally enforce public safety
provisions of the NESC through public utility commissions. OSHA is
not aware of any States that adopted the updated consensus standard
since its most recent publication. OSHA anticipates that States will
adopt this edition of the NESC when they update their regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2012 NESC sets its basic ac minimum approach distances in Table
441-1. This table divides minimum approach distances into two sets of
distances: one for voltages up to 72.5 kilovolts and the other for
voltages of 72.6 to 800 kilovolts. The minimum approach distances
applying to voltages of 72.5 kilovolts and less are the same for work
with and without tools between the employee and the energized part. The
minimum approach distances applying to voltages of 72.6 to 800
kilovolts vary depending on whether a tool spans the distance between
the employee and the energized part. The distances in Table 441-1 are
identical to the minimum approach distances in IEEE Std 516-2009 for
industry-accepted values of maximum transient overvoltage, and the NESC
limits the application of Table 441-1 to situations in which IEEE Std
516-2009 declares that industry-accepted values of maximum transient
overvoltage are valid, as described earlier in this section of the
preamble.
    Table 441-1 in the 2012 NESC does not specify distances for phase-
to-phase exposures with tools or large conductive objects between the
employee and the energized part. In addition, the table applies only to
worksites at an elevation below 900 meters (3,000 feet). For higher
elevations, the 2012 NESC requires the employer to calculate minimum
approach distances using a formula equivalent to that in IEEE Std 516-
2009.
    The 2012 NESC requires the employer to make an engineering analysis
to determine the minimum approach distance in two situations: (1) If
the employer uses phase-to-phase live line tools between the employee
and the energized part (Table 441-1, Note 8), and (2) if the employer
chooses to use an engineering analysis in lieu of using Table 441-1
(Rule 441A1). A note in the 2012 NESC reads: ``IEEE Std 516-2009
contains information that may be used to perform an engineering
analysis to determine minimum approach distances.''
    The 2012 NESC bases its minimum approach distances on IEEE Std 516-
2009; and, as explained previously, the Agency concluded that the
minimum approach distances in IEEE Std 516-2009 expose employees to
additional risk of injury for various exposures. The IEEE standard sets
minimum approach distances for exposures at voltages of 72.5 kilovolts
and less that do not take account of tools or conductive objects in the
air gap. Consequently, OSHA determined that, for these voltages, the
IEEE method for calculating minimum approach distances, on which the
2012 NESC bases its minimum approach distances, does not protect
employees as well as the method for calculating minimum approach
distances specified in the final rule. The final rule ensures adequate
employee protection, even when tools or conductive objects are present
in the air gap. In addition, for phase-to-phase exposures at voltages
of more than 72.5 kilovolts, the Agency found that the method for
calculating minimum approach distances in IEEE Std 516-2009, on which
the 2012 NESC bases its minimum approach distances, does not use gap
factors that adequately represent the full range of employee exposures.
Furthermore, the 2012 NESC permits employers to use the industry-
accepted values for the maximum per-unit transient overvoltage without
ensuring that the maximum transient overvoltages at the worksite cannot
exceed those values. Although the 2012 NESC limits the use of the
industry-accepted values in some situations, the limitation does not
appear to apply to circuits such as the BPA circuit that exhibited
higher maximum per-unit transient overvoltages. Thus, OSHA concludes
that the 2012 NESC is not as effective as the final rule in protecting
employees against high maximum transient overvoltages. Because the
minimum approach distances contained in the final rule will better
protect employees than the distances specified in the NESC, the Agency
also concludes that the final rule will better effectuate the purposes
of the OSH Act than the NESC. Therefore, the Agency concludes that the
minimum approach distances required by the final rule, which account
for actual workplace conditions, will better protect employees than the
IEEE distances for these exposures.

    Impacts of changes in minimum approach distances. The final rule
at Sec.  1926.950(d)(2), as well as Sec.  1926.960(c)(1)(ii) and
Table V-2, requires employers to determine the maximum per-unit
transient overvoltage for the systems on which employees will be
working. Existing Sec.  1910.269(a)(3) already contains a comparable
provision, requiring employers to determine existing conditions
related to the safety of the work to be performed, including maximum
switching transient voltages.

    The maximum per-unit transient overvoltages addressed by the
existing standard are the industry-accepted values of 3.0 for voltages
up to 362 kilovolts, 2.4 for 552 kilovolts, and 2.0 for 800 kilovolts.
OSHA believes that, under the existing rule, most employers simply
assume these maximum per-unit transient overvoltages and set minimum
approach distances accordingly. As explained earlier, this final rule
raises the highest maximum transient overvoltages to 3.5 for up to 420
kilovolts, 3.0 for 550 kilovolts, and 2.5 for 800 kilovolts. OSHA
believes that some systems will accommodate the larger minimum approach
distances that will result from using these new, default values. Not
all systems will accommodate such changes, however. (See, for example,
Exs. 0573.1, 0575.1, 0577.1.) For phase-to-ground exposures, the
minimum approach distance could be as much as 2.35 meters (7.67 feet)
greater under the final rule than under Table R-6 in existing Sec.
1910.269. The existing minimum approach distance is 4.53 meters (14.9
feet) for phase-to-ground exposures on an 800-kilovolt system. The
final rule sets 6.88 meters (22.57 feet) as the largest minimum
approach distance for this voltage. (This increase is due to the use of
minimum tool distances, as well as the higher default maximum per-unit
transient overvoltage.) Consequently, OSHA believes that employers with
installations that will not accommodate these larger minimum approach
distances will either determine through engineering analysis or
establish through the use of portable protective gaps \247\ precise
maximum per-unit transient overvoltages on these installations so that
the installations will accommodate the required minimum approach
distances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \247\ A portable protective gap is a device installed on a phase
conductor to provide a known withstand voltage. The gap is designed
to spark over at a low enough transient overvoltage to prevent
sparkover at the (reduced) electrical component of the minimum
approach distance at the work location (Ex. 0532).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the systems that exhibit transient overvoltages that will not
accommodate the resultant minimum approach distances, OSHA concludes
that it is feasible for employers to either control the maximum
transient overvoltages, through the implementation of such measures as
portable protective gaps, circuit alterations, or operational controls
(including blocking reclosing and restricting circuit switching), or
deenergize the circuit to perform the work. (See, for example, Exs.
0532, 0548.1; Tr2. 114-115.)

    The final economic analysis, in Section VI, Final Economic Analysis
and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, later in this preamble, assumes
that electric utilities with circuits operating at 230 kilovolts or
more (including all circuits in the 169.1- to 242.0-kilovolt voltage
range \248\) will be affected by increases in minimum approach
distances at those voltages. Therefore, the Agency estimates that 10
percent of the circuits operating at 230 kilovolts or more will require
additional measures, such as installing portable protective gaps, that
permit employers to adopt minimum approach distances that their
circuits can accommodate.\249\ However, OSHA is not including any costs
for retrofitting or redesigning circuits or equipment for this purpose.
The Agency believes that such measures will be rare and undertaken only
when they are less costly than the alternatives or when necessitated
for reasons unrelated to requirements in the final rule. OSHA did not
include cost estimates for taking outages because the Agency concludes
that only rarely will other, less costly, measures be impractical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \248\ As seen from Table R-6 in existing Sec.  1910.269 and
Table V-1 in existing Sec.  1926.950, existing electric power
circuits operate at 161 to 169 kilovolts and at 230 to 242
kilovolts. OSHA broadened the ranges in the corresponding tables in
the final rule in the unlikely event that electric utilities design
and install circuits operating at voltage between the listed voltage
ranges.
    \249\ The final economic analysis estimates that 10 percent of
the ``projects'' (as that term is used in Section VI, Final Economic
Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, later in this
preamble) performed by employers with circuits operating at 230
kilovolts or more will involve installing portable protective gaps
based on the assumption that projects are distributed
proportionately across affected and unaffected circuits.
Consequently, if 10 percent of the circuits operating at voltages of
230 kilovolts or more require ``additional measures, such as
installing portable protective gaps,'' then 10 percent of the
projects on those circuits will require such measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several rulemaking participants maintained that adopting minimum
approach distances greater than the distances in existing Sec.
1910.269 would have a substantial effect on how employees perform
energized line work and possibly on whether they could perform it at
all. (See, for example, Exs. 0545.1, 0549.1, 0550.1, 0573.1, 0575.1;
Tr2. 53-55, 96-98.) Some of these comments related to climbing
structures, with the commenters claiming that employees would be
precluded from climbing some structures if the final rule substantially
increased minimum approach distances. (See, for example, Exs. 0549.1,
0573.1; Tr2. 54-55, 166.) For instance, Consolidated Edison reported
that larger minimum approach distances could prevent workers from
climbing towers on several of its lines and noted that clearances vary
from tower to tower (Ex. 0549.1). Consolidated Edison also maintained
that larger minimum approach distances might prohibit it from
positioning an employee on the tower with a live-line tool to perform
tasks such as installing cotter keys or removing debris (id.). EEI
argued that, if minimum approach distances exceeded the length of line
insulators, employees would not be permitted to use existing live-line
maintenance equipment without changing their work methods (Ex. 0545.1;
Tr2. 114-115). EEI and Consolidated Edison, among others, maintained
that larger minimum approach distances could increase the number of
outages. (See, for example, Exs. 0545.1, 0549.1.)
    For each of the examples the commenters provided of situations in
which higher minimum approach distances might be problematic, the
worker would be at ground potential while located on a tower or other
structure. Thus, these comments relate solely to phase-to-ground
exposures. For these exposures, the final rule increases minimum
approach distances substantially under two conditions: (1) When the
maximum per-unit transient overvoltage exceeds the default maximums
under the existing standards,\250\ or (2) when insulating tools or
conductive objects are present in the air gap. In each case, the
employer can implement measures, such as using a portable protective
gap, to reduce the maximum per-unit transient overvoltage and,
consequently, the minimum approach distance. (See Appendix B to final
Subpart V for a discussion of the use of a portable protective gap to
reduce the required minimum approach distance. Appendix B to existing
Sec.  1910.269 recognizes this method of reducing the required minimum
approach distance.) In addition, when the employer can demonstrate that
there will be only air between the employee and the energized part,
which should normally be the case during climbing or inspection
procedures, Table V-2 permits the employer to determine minimum
approach distances using the equation based on minimum air-insulation
distances, which will produce smaller minimum approach distances than
the equation based on minimum tool-insulation distance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \250\ The maximum per-unit transient overvoltages under existing
Sec.  1910.269 are 3.0 for voltages up to 362 kilovolts, 2.4 for 552
kilovolts, and 2.0 for 800 kilovolts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some rulemaking participants maintained that revised minimum
approach distances would result in costs related to the purchase of new
tools, revision of training programs, and retraining of employees.
(See, for example, Exs. 0545.1, 0548.1, 0550.1, 0551.1; Tr2. 94-95.)
For instance, American Electric Power commented:

    The potential [cost impact] could be significant, especially
when considering the proposed changes and resulting implications on
the design standards. It is sufficient to state that changes in
minimum approach distances, that exceed the length of standard line
insulation, could require the re-tooling of live line maintenance
equipment (placing some live line maintenance currently done on hold
until new tooling is available); the development of new work methods
and the training/re-education that could be required; and could
impact current design standards (that are relatively common across
the industry). In some cases, on [extra-high-voltage] lines, it is
not possible to state that new tooling and procedures can be
established until maintenance experts have had adequate time to
fully evaluate the situation. [Ex. 0550.1]

    OSHA included the costs of training employees in the requirements
of the standard, including the minimum approach-distance requirements,
in the economic analysis conducted for the proposed rule. (See 70 FR
34905-34910.) The proposal included revised minimum approach distances
that were in some cases greater than the distances specified in
existing Sec.  1910.269. OSHA's estimates for the proposed rule already
accounted for the costs associated with training employees in the
revised minimum approach distances, including any necessary changes in
procedures. Therefore, the Agency concludes that it is not necessary to
increase those cost estimates as a result of the changes made to the
minimum approach-distance provisions between the proposed and final
rules.\251\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \251\ OSHA addressed the cost of retrofitting or redesigning
circuits or equipment earlier in this discussion. OSHA's conclusion
regarding these costs apply equally to American Electric Power's
comment regarding the need to purchase new live-line maintenance
equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 9 shows the differences between the default minimum approach
distances in existing Sec.  1910.269 and the final rule for phase-to-
ground and phase-to-phase exposures on circuits operating between 72.6
kilovolts and 169.0 kilovolts. This table compares the minimum approach
distances in Table R-6 in existing Sec.  1910.269 with the largest
minimum approach distances in Table 7 through Table 9 in Appendix B to
final Subpart V. The distances in the tables in the appendix assume
that an insulated tool spans the gap (or that a

large conductive object is in the gap) for phase-to-ground exposures.

  Table 9--Increases in Minimum Approach Distances for Phase-to-Ground
       Exposures From Existing Sec.   1910.269 to Final Subpart V
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Phase-to-ground     Phase-to-phase
           Voltage kV               increase m (ft)     increase m (ft)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
72.6 to 121.0...................         0.18 (0.59)         0.13 (0.43)
121.1 to 145.0..................         0.21 (0.69)         0.14 (0.46)
145.1 to 169.0..................         0.24 (0.79)         0.23 (0.75)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these voltage ranges, the maximum difference is no more than
0.24 meters (9 inches). As photographs of live-line tool work in the
record show, at these voltages, employers can comply with the minimum
approach distances specified in the final rule by having employees make
small adjustments in their working positions (269-Ex. 8-5). For
example, employees using live-line tools can take a position slightly
lower on the pole or structure and maintain the revised minimum
approach distances. (As noted previously, when employees work where the
employer can demonstrate that no insulated tool spans the gap and that
no large conductive object is in the gap, such as during climbing or
inspection activities, the final rule sets minimum approach distances
for phase-to-ground exposures that are substantially smaller than the
minimum approach distances for working with tools; and the maximum
difference between the existing and the new minimum approach distance
is no more than 0.14 meters (5.5 inches). Information in the record
indicates that, as long as OSHA does not apply minimum approach
distances to climbing and similar activities based on tools in the gap,
employers should be able to comply with the minimum approach distances
required by the final rule for those activities without adopting
additional measures (Ex. 0575.1\252\).) Because employers generally
should be able to demonstrate that no insulated tool spans the gap and
that no large conductive object is in the gap during climbing and
inspection activities and because the increases in minimum approach
distances for voltages of 72.6 to 169.0 kilovolts are small, OSHA
believes that, with regard to circuits operating at those voltages,
employers will not incur significant costs beyond costs associated with
retraining employees, which OSHA included in its economic analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \252\ In this exhibit, EEI described how applying ``MAD for
tools'' to climbing and inspection activities would make some of
this work infeasible. According to EEI, up to 23 percent of line
insulators at transmission voltages are shorter than minimum
approach distances based on tools in the gap. As explained
previously in this section of the preamble, when the employer can
demonstrate that there will be only air between the employee and the
energized part, which normally should be the case during climbing or
inspection procedures, Table V-2 permits the employer to determine
minimum approach distances using the equation based on minimum air-
insulation distances, which will produce smaller minimum approach
distances than the equation based on minimum tool-insulation
distance. Therefore, OSHA concludes, the percentage of structures
that workers could not climb or inspect without violating the
default minimum approach distances in the final rule is
significantly smaller than 23 percent for voltages up to 169.0
kilovolts and that, up to this voltage level, any costs related to
complying with the final rule's minimum approach distances
applicable to climbing or inspecting a structure (such as performing
an engineering analysis) are negligible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Explanation of the final minimum approach-distance requirements. As
noted earlier in this section of the preamble, final Sec.
1926.960(c)(1) specifies minimum approach distances. The proposed rule
would have required the employer to ensure that no employee approached
or took any conductive object closer to exposed energized parts than
the minimum approach distances in proposed Tables V-2 through V-6. The
final rule splits this requirement into two provisions. First, as noted
previously, paragraph (c)(1)(i) requires employers to establish minimum
approach distances no less than the distances computed by Table V-2 for
ac systems or Table V-7 for dc systems; OSHA described and explained
earlier in this section of the preamble the equations in Table V-2 of
the final rule. Second, paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of the final rule
requires the employer to ensure that no employee approaches, or takes
any conductive object, closer to exposed energized parts than the
employer's established minimum approach distances, unless the employee
works in accordance with paragraphs (c)(1)(iii)(A), (c)(1)(iii)(B), or
(c)(1)(iii)(C). (See the discussion of these alternative methods later
in this section of the preamble.)
    Paragraph (c)(1)(iii) in the final rule is equivalent to proposed
paragraph (c)(1), except that it is the employer that is establishing
the specific minimum approach distances for the workplace, based on
equations in the standard, rather than the standard setting those
distances explicitly.
    The proposed rule would have allowed employees to approach
energized parts closer than the minimum approach distance under certain
conditions (see proposed Sec.  1926.960(c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(iii)).
Existing Sec.  1926.950(c)(1)(i), which is similar to proposed Sec.
1926.960(c)(1)(i), permits the employee to be insulated or guarded from
the live parts. OSHA omitted from the proposal language in the existing
standard specifically recognizing guarding. However, the language
proposed in paragraph (c)(1) required employees to maintain minimum
approach distances from ``exposed'' energized parts. OSHA defines
``exposed'' in final Sec.  1926.968 as ``[n]ot isolated or guarded'';
therefore, the minimum approach-distance requirement does not cover
guarded live parts, whether guarded by enclosures or barriers or
guarded by position (isolated), because they are not ``exposed.'' OSHA
removed similar redundancies throughout proposed paragraphs (c)(1)(i)
through (c)(1)(iii).
    Farmers Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation (FRECC) urged OSHA
to retain the language that explicitly recognizes that employees do not
have to maintain minimum approach distances from guarded or isolated
energized parts (Ex. 0173).
    Including language exempting guarded or isolated live parts would
be redundant and could lead to misinterpretation of the rule by
implying that ``exposed energized parts'' has a meaning other than not
guarded or isolated. Consequently, OSHA did not change the relevant
language in this final rule in response to FRECC's comment, and the
final rule removes the redundancies as proposed.
    OSHA proposed a note to paragraph (c)(1) reading as follows:

    Paragraph (f)(1) of Sec.  1926.966 contains requirements for the
guarding and isolation of live parts. Parts of electric circuits
that meet these two provisions are not considered as ``exposed''
unless a guard is removed or an employee enters the space intended
to provide isolation from the live parts.

Final Sec.  1926.966(f)(1) requires the employer to provide guards
around all live parts operating at more than 150 volts to ground
without an insulating covering unless the location of the live parts
gives sufficient clearance (horizontal, vertical, or both) to minimize
the possibility of accidental employee contact. This provision, which
applies to substations, requires guards or isolation for all live parts
operating at more than 150 volts to ground unless the live parts have
an insulating covering. As explained previously, ``exposed'' means
``[n]ot isolated or guarded,'' and live parts that are insulated, but
not guarded or isolated, are exposed. Thus, live parts operating at
more than 150 volts with an insulating covering meet final Sec.
1926.966(f)(1), but are still exposed. Therefore, the proposed note to
Sec.  1926.960(c)(1) inaccurately portrays insulated parts as not
exposed, and OSHA did not include the note in the final rule.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(i) contained the first exception to
maintaining the minimum approach distances--insulating the employee
from the energized part. This insulation, for example, can take the
form of rubber insulating gloves and rubber insulating sleeves. This
equipment protects employees from electric shock while they work on
energized lines or equipment. Even though uninsulated parts of an
employee's body may come closer to the live part being worked on than
the minimum approach distance, the requisite rubber insulating gloves
and sleeves would insulate the employee's hand and arm from the live
part, and the working distances involved would be sufficient protection
against arc-over. As noted earlier, the minimum approach distances
include a component for inadvertent movement, which is unnecessary for
employees using rubber insulating equipment. Such inadvertent movement
most often involved the employee's hands and arms, and the insulating
equipment will protect them. In addition, the employee has control over
the energized part. The accident data in the record show that the
overriding hazard to employees involves other energized conductors in
the work area, to which the minimum approach distances still apply.
Final paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) provides that employees may use
insulating gloves and sleeves to insulate themselves from the energized
parts upon which they are working; rubber insulating gloves and sleeves
provide protection only for the line on which the employee is
performing work. Employers must ensure that employees maintain the
required minimum approach distances from other exposed energized parts.
In addition, the insulation used must be designed for the voltage.
(Final Sec.  1926.97 gives use voltages for electrical protective
equipment.)
    IBEW recommended that OSHA clarify the final rule to indicate that
rubber insulating gloves or rubber insulating gloves with sleeves
provide adequate protection ``only from the energized part upon which
the employee is working, not to other energized parts in the work
area'' (Ex. 0230; emphasis included in original). OSHA is not adopting
IBEW's suggestion. Although this language correctly represents the
meaning of the provision, the Agency believes that this meaning is
clear without the suggested changes.
    It is important to ensure that conductors on which the employee is
working cannot move unexpectedly while only rubber insulating gloves
and sleeves are protecting the employee against contact with the
conductors. It is a violation of the minimum approach-distance
requirement contained in existing Sec.  1910.269(l)(2)(i) for an
employee to be insulated from an energized part only by rubber
insulating gloves and sleeves if the part is not under the full control
of the employee at all times. For example, if an employee is cutting a
conductor, the employee must restrain the conductor from moving toward
the employee after being cut, or the employee must use additional
insulation to prevent the conductor from striking uninsulated parts of
his or her body. OSHA proposed to make this requirement explicit in
parenthetical text in the proposed rule, including in the proposed
revision of Sec.  1910.269.
    Two commenters objected to the proposed language requiring the
employee to have control of the energized part sufficient to prevent
exposure to uninsulated parts of the employee's body (Exs. 0201, 0209).
They claimed that it is not always possible for the employer to ensure
that an employee has adequate control over a part. For example, Mr.
James Gartland with Duke Energy commented:

    OSHA should require employees to maintain control of energized
parts only when it is reasonably achievable. It is not always
possible. . . . The revised text . . . should be: ``. . .provided
that the employee has control of the part insofar as possible to
prevent exposure to uninsulated parts of the body.'' [Ex. 0201;
emphasis in original.]

    The Agency is not adopting this recommendation. The language does
not require employees to maintain control of energized parts under all
conditions. The provision requires additional insulation on the
energized part when the employee does not have sufficient control to
prevent contact with uninsulated parts of his or her body. When it is
not possible for the employee to maintain sufficient control, the final
rule provides several options: (1) Maintain the minimum approach
distance (per the introductory text to final paragraph (c)(1)(iii));
(2) insulate the employee by installing an insulating barrier, such as
a rubber insulating blanket, between the employee and the energized
part (per final paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A)); or (3) install a rubber
insulating line hose or a rubber insulating blanket on the energized
part (per final paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(B)). Allowing the employee to
work on an energized part that is not under the employee's full
control, with rubber insulating gloves and sleeves as the only
insulating barrier from the energized part, would not protect employees
sufficiently.
    The Ohio Rural Electric Cooperatives requested clarification of
what the Agency would consider to be adequate control, suggesting that
several types of measures might be adequate, including tying a
conductor to an insulator, clipping a conductor into the holder on the
jib arm of an aerial lift, and holding the conductor by hand at the
edge of the bucket of an aerial lift (Ex. 0186).
    OSHA would generally consider any of these measures to constitute
adequate control. Using a mechanical device, such as a tie wire or
live-line tool clamps, would adequately control the end of an energized
conductor as long as it is of adequate strength for the application.
However, the employer also must consider portions of the conductor not
under the control of a mechanical device. For example, when the
employee takes the slack from a conductor under tension and must cut
the conductor to remove any excess, the employer must consider whether
the conductor, now held in place by the tensioning equipment, will
break from the employee's control after it is cut. OSHA would consider
a conductor held by an employee to generally be under adequate control.
However, if the conductor is hanging down and is not under the
employee's full control, the employer must ensure that the employee is
protected from exposure to

the lower portion of the conductor that could come too close to his or
her leg.
    Mr. Leo Muckerheide with Safety Consulting Services objected to the
description of the application of minimum approach distances to
employees wearing rubber insulating gloves provided in the preamble to
the proposal (Ex. 0180). He assumed that existing Subpart V and the
proposal, which use similar language, did not permit uninsulated
portions of the employee's body to come closer to energized parts than
the minimum approach distance, even when the employee was wearing
rubber insulating gloves. In one particular example, he commented:

    [T]he minimum distance listed in existing table V-1 for 2100
volts is 24 inches and the maximum length of an insulated glove is
18 inches. Therefore, it would be impossible to work on energized
circuits with only insulating gloves and be in compliance with the
existing table V-1. [id.]

    Mr. Muckerheide misinterpreted this provision. The final standard
clearly considers the whole employee insulated as long as rated rubber
insulating gloves or gloves with sleeves insulate his or her hands and
arms.
    The Agency determined that the language explaining when rubber
insulating gloves or rubber insulating gloves with sleeves are adequate
protection is necessary and appropriate and has adopted it without
substantial change in the final rule. (The final rule adds the word
``rubber'' to the term ``insulating gloves or insulating gloves and
sleeves.'' ``Rubber insulating gloves'' and ``rubber insulating
sleeves'' are the precise terms used to describe this equipment, and
this revision clarifies that final Sec. Sec.  1910.137 and 1926.97
cover this equipment.)
    As a second exception to maintaining the minimum approach
distances, paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(B), which OSHA adopted without change
from proposed paragraph (c)(1)(ii), allows the energized part to be
insulated from the employee and any other conductive object at a
different potential. Such insulation can be in the form of rubber
insulating blankets or line hose or other suitable insulating
equipment. Again, the insulation must be adequate for the voltage.
    Paragraphs (c)(1)(iii)(A) and (c)(1)(iii)(B) in the final rule
recognize the protection afforded to the employee by an insulating
barrier between the employee and the energized part. As long as the
insulation is appropriate and is in good condition, current will not
flow through the worker, thereby protecting the worker.
    The third exception to the requirement to maintain minimum approach
distances (final paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(C)) is for live-line barehand
work. (For specific practices for this type of work, see the discussion
of final Sec.  1926.964(c) later in this preamble.) In this type of
work, the employee is in contact with the energized line, but is not
contacting another conductive object at a different potential. This is
the ``bird-on-a-wire'' scenario. Because there is no complete circuit,
current cannot flow through the worker, thereby protecting the worker.
    In the proposed rule, the exception for live-line barehand work was
broad enough to cover any work in which the employee is insulated from
any other exposed conductive objects. However, OSHA knows of several
accidents that occurred when employees working from aerial lifts,
either insulated or uninsulated, grabbed energized conductors (Ex. 0004
\253\). OSHA believes that some employers assume that this practice is
safe and, therefore, do not follow the live-line barehand procedures
specified in final Sec.  1926.964(c) for live-line barehand work. In
the preamble to the proposed rule, OSHA requested comments on whether
the proposal would adequately protect employees from this type of
accident and on what additional requirements, if any, would prevent
this type of accident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \253\ See, for example, the four accidents described at http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/accidentsearch.accident_detail?id=200550457&id=171055783&id=200780294&id=301171807.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters responded to this issue; they both believed that the
proposed rule would adequately protect employees (Exs. 0126, 0213).
Another commenter stated that proper training is necessary to prevent
these types of actions (Ex. 0219).
    OSHA determined that the requirements for live-line barehand work
are necessary whenever employees are working closer than the minimum
approach distance in accordance with final paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(C).
The accidents in the record make it clear that simply using an
insulated aerial lift to isolate employees from energized parts is not
sufficient protection (Exs. 0002, 0003, 0004). In Ex. 0004 alone, 69
accidents involved employees in aerial lifts who were working inside
the minimum approach distance without sufficient electrical protective
equipment. The accident summaries for these accidents indicated that 11
of the accidents involved insulated aerial lifts and that 2 of the
accidents involved uninsulated aerial lifts. Because power line work
predominantly makes use of insulated aerial devices, the Agency
believes that most of the other 56 accidents also involved insulated
aerial lifts. Employers may argue that the language in proposed
paragraph (c)(1)(iii) permits employees working from insulated aerial
lifts to position themselves inside the minimum approach distance
without following Sec.  1926.964(c). The sheer number of accidents
involving this practice clearly demonstrates that this practice is
unsafe. In addition, the 2002 NESC, in Rule 441A1d,\254\ contains a
similar restriction on its equivalent exception to its minimum
approach-distance requirement. Therefore, OSHA concludes that it is
necessary to restrict the exception proposed in paragraph (c)(1)(iii)
to live-line barehand work performed in accordance with final Sec.
1926.964(c) and modified the language of this exception, which is
contained in Sec.  1926.960(c)(1)(iii)(C), accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \254\ The 2012 NESC contains a similar provision in Rule 441A1d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to testimony in the Sec.  1910.269 rulemaking, between
five and six percent of accidents experienced by power line workers
resulted when the upper arm of an employee wearing rubber insulating
gloves without sleeves contacted an energized part (269-DC Tr. 558-
561). This is a significant portion of the total number of serious
accidents occurring among electric line workers. The Agency believes
that most of these injuries and fatalities were preventable had the
employees used rubber insulating sleeves. However, as demonstrated by
the safety record of some electric utility companies, the extensive use
of insulating equipment to cover energized parts in the employee's work
area also would appear to prevent employees' upper arms and shoulders
from contacting live parts (269-Ex. 46). OSHA believes that insulating
every energized part within reach of an employee also would avert
electrical contacts involving other parts of the body, such as an
employee's head or back.
    Existing Subpart V does not require any protection for employees
working on or near exposed live parts beyond the use of rubber
insulating gloves. To prevent the types of accidents described
previously from occurring in the future, the Agency decided to require
protection in addition to that required by existing Subpart V.
    OSHA adopted paragraph (c)(2)(i) in the final rule substantially as
proposed; this provision generally requires employees to use rubber
insulating

sleeves whenever they are using rubber insulating gloves under final
paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A). However, insulating exposed live parts on
which the employee is not working makes the sleeves unnecessary as long
as the insulation is placed from a position that would not expose the
employee's upper arm to contact with those parts (see final paragraph
(c)(2)). Therefore, employees can work without sleeves by installing
rubber line hose, rubber blankets, or plastic guard equipment on
exposed, energized parts on which the employees are not performing
work. OSHA reworded this provision in the final rule for purposes of
clarity.
    NIOSH recommended that the standard require rubber insulating
sleeves whenever employees use rubber insulating gloves (Ex. 0130).
NIOSH explained: ``[G]loves can be easily caught and pulled down by any
object protruding from the pole or powerline, exposing the body to
electrical current. . . [S]leeves add extra protection'' (id.). NIOSH
pointed to one accident in support of its position (Ex. 0137).
    OSHA reviewed the accident and found that it involved a situation
in which a splice on a conductor pulled down the cuff of the employee's
rubber insulating glove, with the conductor then contacting his forearm
near the wrist (id.). OSHA acknowledges that such accidents occur. For
example, there is a description of an additional similar accident in
the rulemaking record (Ex. 0002 \255\). Rubber insulating sleeves
protect an employee's arm from a point above the cuff of the rubber
insulating glove to the shoulder. In the accident cited by NIOSH, as
well as the other accident in the record, the conductor contacted the
employee at or near the wrist, where rubber insulating sleeves probably
would not have protected the employee. OSHA believes that the work
practices in which an employer trains qualified employees must include
practices designed to protect workers from the possibility that an
energized conductor will either pull a cuff down or penetrate the
opening at the end of the glove. (Paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of final Sec.
1926.950 requires employers to train each employee in ``safety
practices . . . that are not specifically addressed by this subpart but
that are related to his or her work and are necessary for his or her
safety.'') The Agency concludes that such work practices, rather than
the use of sleeves, will protect employees from being injured or killed
in the circumstances described by NIOSH. Therefore, OSHA is not
adopting NIOSH's recommendation in the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \255\ A report of this accident is available at: http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/accidentsearch.accident_detail?id=573717.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA knows of several accidents that occurred while employees were
performing work (generally on deenergized lines) near energized parts
without using rubber insulating equipment (Ex. 0004 \256\). In these
accidents, the employees were working near energized parts and
inadvertently entered the minimum approach distance. Employers
successfully challenged citations issued in a similar context by
arguing that the standard permits employees to work near energized
parts without the use of electrical protective equipment, as long as
they maintain the minimum approach distance involved and that, because
they trained their employees to maintain those distances, the accidents
were the result of unpreventable employee misconduct. (See, for
example, Central Kansas Power Co., 6 BNA OSHC 2118 (No. 77-3127,
1978).)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \256\ See, for example, the six accidents described at http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/accidentsearch.accident_detail?id=170074801&id=200010163&id=201750080&id=14242036&id=982082&id=170189849.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA does not believe that working close to energized parts (that
is, near the minimum approach distance boundary) without the use of
electrical protective equipment is a safe practice. The Agency further
believes that existing Sec.  1910.269, which appears to allow this
practice, is not effective in preventing these accidents. Therefore,
OSHA concludes that further regulation is necessary. Toward this end,
OSHA proposed two new requirements:
    (1) If an employee is performing work near exposed parts energized
at more than 600 volts but not more than 72.5 kilovolts and is not
insulated from the energized parts or performing live-line bare-hand
work, the employee would have to work from a position where he or she
could not reach into the minimum approach distance (proposed Sec.
1926.960(d)(2)), and
    (2) If an employee uses insulating gloves or insulating gloves with
sleeves to insulate himself or herself from energized parts, the
insulating gloves and sleeves would have to be put on and removed in a
position where the employee could not reach into the minimum approach
distance (proposed Sec.  1926.960(c)(2)(ii)).
    The Agency proposed Sec.  1926.960(c)(2)(ii) to ensure that
employees don rubber insulating gloves and sleeves from a safe
position. OSHA is aware that some employers have a ground-to-ground
rule requiring their employees to wear rubber insulating gloves before
leaving the ground to perform work and to leave the gloves on until the
employees return to the ground. This practice ensures that employees
wear the rubber gloves and sleeves before they reach the energized area
and eliminates the chance that an employee will forget to don the
protective equipment once he or she reaches the work position. Other
employers simply require their employees to put on their gloves and
sleeves before they enter the energized area. This practice normally
requires the employee to use his or her judgment in determining where
to begin wearing the protective equipment. The proposal recognized both
methods of protecting employees, but still ensured that employees wear
rubber insulating gloves and sleeves once they reach positions from
which they can reach into the minimum approach distance. In the
preamble to the proposal, the Agency requested comments on the need for
this requirement and on whether the provision as proposed would protect
employees from the relevant hazards.
    Many commenters expressed support for this proposed requirement or
urged the Agency to make the rule even more protective. (See, for
example, Exs. 0099, 0126, 0130, 0155, 0175, 0186, 0219, 0230, 0505; Tr.
891-894.) In supporting the proposed requirement, Mr. Anthony Ahern
with Ohio Rural Electric Cooperatives explained:

    Judging actual distance when in close proximity to a conductor
can be tricky. Great care needs to be used when putting on or taking
off sleeves when in close proximity to lines. This usually requires
the arms to be extended more than the employee might normally do
during regular work practices. Quite often too you will see a worker
waving his arms about as they try to settle the sleeve harness into
position behind their head. These inadvertent movements could bring
the workers arms inside of MAD. Also, while sleeves are being put on
or taken off the employee is not wearing rubber gloves. So if he
should reach inside of MAD his hands will have no protection. [Ex.
0186]

    EEI and Ameren Corporation objected to proposed paragraph
(c)(2)(ii) because, they argued, it would effectively increase the
minimum approach distance (Exs. 0209, 0227, 0501). Ameren argued that
``[e]nsuring compliance with this proposal would be extremely
difficult, if not impossible,'' and that there was additional risk for
employees climbing with rubber insulating gloves (Ex. 0209). EEI echoed
Ameren's objections and maintained that this provision was effectively
increasing the ergonomic movement

factor of the minimum approach distance (Ex. 0227). EEI maintained that
this provision would have a significant adverse impact on industry
practices (id.). In its posthearing submission after the 2006 hearing,
EEI presented additional arguments against the proposed requirement:

    There are several important difficulties with the proposed rules
that are self-evident. First, they do not establish an objective
standard, and therefore would be unenforceable. The rules would be
different for each employee, depending for example on personal
height, reach, working position, and the particular configuration of
the energized equipment in the vicinity. This will make it difficult
to train employees in compliance, and could make supervisory
enforcement of the rule a nightmare. Indeed, whether an employee is
[in] compliance could change literally from second to second, for
example, as the employee shift[s] weight on a pole, or turns around
to speak with a co-worker. As a litigation matter, proving the
violation element of employer knowledge will be problematic at best.
    Second, the rules will effectively limit or inhibit the nature
of work that can be performed outside, but within reaching distance,
of the MAD. In planning a job, it would be necessary to consider
what work is to be performed outside the MAD distance, and to
consider the individual physical characteristics of the employee(s)
who would perform it. Conceivably, short employees, with short arms,
would be favored over tall, lanky employees, with long arms. This
makes no sense, and it does not appear that OSHA has considered or
analyzed the potential practical implications of these requirements.
. . .
    Finally, there is no evidence in the record to show why OSHA is
proposing to implement these requirements. There is no evidence that
in the absence of these particular requirements, employees have been
injured or suffered near misses with energized electrical equipment.
In sum, these proposals are without any basis, and cannot be
sustained. [Ex. 0501]

    OSHA does not agree that proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii) increased
the minimum approach distance. Proposed paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) and
(d)(2) did not address the question of the employee's location once he
or she is wearing rubber insulating gloves and sleeves. Final paragraph
(c)(2)(ii) simply ensures that the employee is already wearing the
gloves and sleeves before he or she gets into position to perform work.
This paragraph has no effect on the minimum approach distances, which
provide protection against both energized parts on which the employee
will be working and other energized parts in the area. Under final
paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A), once the gloves and sleeves are on, workers
may get within the minimum approach distance for the part on which they
are performing work. In addition, employees need to maintain the
minimum approach distances (not distances greater than the minimum
approach distances) for parts on which they are not working.
    EEI and Ameren's argument that the provision would be difficult to
enforce is specious. The record contains several examples of methods of
compliance that would be reasonably easy to enforce, as well as easy
for employees to understand and follow. For example, employers can
institute ground-to-ground, cradle-to-cradle, or lock-to-lock rules.
(See, for example, Exs. 0099, 0130, 0201.) Mr. Kenneth Brubaker
described these rules as ``the wearing of rubber [insulating] gloves
and sleeves from ground to ground while climbing energized structures,
from cradle to cradle while working from aerial baskets, and lock to
lock when working on underground cabinets and vaults for qualified line
personnel'' (Exs. 0099, 0100). Commenters also suggested a ``10-foot
rule'' in which employees must wear electrical protective equipment
whenever they are within 3.05 meters (10 feet) of an exposed energized
part (Exs. 0099, 0186). OSHA expects that employers generally will
elect to use bright-line rules (for example, cradle-to-cradle or 3.05-
meter rules) such that an individual employee's height and reach will
not be an issue. Instituting such rules will ensure that all employees
put on and take off rubber insulating gloves and sleeves as specified
by the final rule. If an employer elects to use an alternative in which
an employee will be putting on and taking off rubber gloves and sleeves
in an unspecified location (for example if the employer simply
instructs the employee to put on and take off gloves and sleeves at any
location outside the reach of the minimum approach distance), the
employer will need to account for the employee's individual
characteristics.
    EEI's argument that planning jobs would be difficult under proposed
paragraph (c)(2)(ii) is not relevant. This paragraph only applies when
workers use rubber insulating gloves or rubber insulating gloves with
sleeves, which the employees have to don and remove. This rule simply
addresses donning and removal of this equipment in relation to the
energized parts. OSHA addresses EEI's comments further in its
discussion of proposed paragraph (d)(2), which addresses selecting work
positions.
    OSHA concludes that there is clear evidence in the record of
fatalities and injuries caused when employees approach too close to
energized parts without adequate protection (Exs. 0002, 0003,
0004).\257\ Evidence in the record indicates that industry and employee
representatives recognize that failure to wear electrical protective
equipment when necessary is a leading cause of accidents and that
additional measures to ensure the use of this equipment in appropriate
circumstances addresses this problem. For example, Mr. James Tomaseski
with IBEW testified:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \257\ See, for example, the 15 accidents described at http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/accidentsearch.accident_detail?id=526236&id=564971&id=566257&id=565051&id=512269&id=525675&id=609404&id=573832&id=743310&id=755231&id=738989&id=755199&id=800508&id=784397&id=812479.

    In a study on recent fatalities and serious accidents in the
industry by the OSHA Strategic Partnership of Major Electric Line
Contractor Employees, NECA, the IBEW, and EEI, by far the majority
of the accidents were from contact with energized parts. A solution
was easy in some folks' minds, and that was to come up with a
practice to get employees in rubber gloves and/or, again, rubber
sleeves, where required.
    The Partnership, as part of their agreed-upon path, will develop
best practices. Their first target for these best practices was in
general to address electrical contacts. It was no surprise to many
of the partners that ground-to-ground and cradle-to-cradle practices
were first on the list. [Tr. 892]

IBEW also pointed to action taken by NESC Subcommittee 8 as evidence of
the need to don and remove rubber insulating gloves and sleeves outside
locations in which employees can reach into minimum approach distances
(Ex. 0505). According to IBEW's comments, the NESC subcommittee adopted
a requirement for the 2007 NESC specifying that rubber insulating
gloves be ``worn whenever employees are within the reach or extended
reach of the minimum approach distances'' (id.).\258\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \258\ The NESC adopted this requirement, which, in the 2012
edition, appears in Rule 441A3b.

    In addition, Mr. Ahern's description of the types of movements
employees make when donning rubber insulating sleeves makes it clear
that the final rule needs measures to ensure that workers do not
encroach on the minimum approach distance during such activities.
Encroaching on the minimum approach distance to energized parts
presents hazards to employees, particularly when involved in tasks not
related directly to work on those live parts.\259\ Thus, the Agency
believes that paragraph (c)(2)(ii), which OSHA is

adopting in the final rule with only editorial changes from the
proposal, is reasonably necessary and appropriate.\260\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \259\ The ergonomic component of the minimum approach distance
only protects against errors in judging and maintaining the minimum
approach distance. It does not account for errors that might result
when employees become inattentive to the approach distance because
of work-related distractions or other factors.
    \260\ One commenter noted that OSHA proposed the same
requirement in Sec.  1910.269(l)(3)(ii) using slightly different
language (Ex. 0186). The final rule uses the same language in both
Sec. Sec.  1910.269(l)(3)(ii) and 1926.960(c)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some rulemaking participants recommended that the final rule
include a requirement that employers availing themselves of the
exception to the minimum approach-distance requirements for work
performed with rubber insulating gloves (or rubber insulating gloves
and sleeves) adopt ground-to-ground, cradle-to-cradle, or lock-to-lock
rules, or set a specific distance from energized parts at which
employees must wear electrical protective equipment.\261\ (See, for
example, Exs. 0099, 0130, 0186, 0230; Tr. 893-894.) IBEW recommended a
cradle-to-cradle requirement (Ex. 0230; Tr. 893-894). Two comments
suggested that the rule specify the distance from energized parts at
which employees must wear rubber insulating gloves or rubber insulating
gloves and sleeves (Exs. 0099, 0186). One of these commenters suggested
requiring that employees wear rubber insulating gloves and sleeves
within 3.05 meters (10 feet) of circuits energized at 500 volts to 500
kilovolts and within 6.1 meters (20 feet) of circuits energized at 500
to 800 kilovolts (Ex. 0099).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \261\ A ground-to-ground rule requires employees climbing a pole
to put on rubber insulating gloves or rubber insulating gloves with
sleeves while still on the ground and to remove them only after
returning to the ground. A cradle-to-cradle rule requires employees
working from an aerial lift to wear gloves or gloves with sleeves
whenever the aerial lift platform leaves its cradle. A lock-to-lock
rule requires employees working on transformers to wear gloves or
gloves with sleeves from the time they unlock the lock on the
transformer until they close the transformer case and reinstall the
lock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NIOSH recommended adopting a ground-to-ground rule, stating:

    Ground to ground use of personal protective equipment (PPE)
eliminates the hazard of reaching the energized area before donning
PPE. It also eliminates the reliance on employee judgment in
determining a safe distance to don PPE, and requires the worker to
don PPE before entering an aerial bucket . . . [Ex. 0130]

    Other rulemaking participants opposed ground-to-ground and
similarly specific rules (Exs. 0163, 0212, 0225). For example, Ms.
Susan O'Connor with Siemens argued that ``[f]orcing the use of one type
of enforcement strategy, especially one that questions the employee's
competency, can undermine a strong safety culture'' (Ex. 0163). Mr.
James Gartland with Duke Energy did not oppose ground-to-ground and
similar rules, but recommended that any such rule include an exception
to permit employees, during short breaks, to move 3.05 meters (10 feet)
away and to remove their electrical protective equipment (Ex. 0201). He
commented that his company ``has found the occurrence of heat-related
illnesses has been reduced by allowing employees to move the bucket
away from the conductors and remove rubber gloves and sleeves for a
brief rest period'' (id.). Although IBEW did not oppose a ground-to-
ground rule, the union recognized that there may be valid arguments
against such a requirement. Mr. Tomaseski testified:

    There are a few factors that mitigate against requiring [rubber
insulating gloves] ground-to-ground in all circumstances. First,
some linemen are concerned that they would have difficulty feeling
the pole while they are climbing if they had to wear rubber gloves
and they, therefore, would be at a greater risk of falling.
    Second, if a splinter on the pole [punctures] the glove . . .
while [the employee is] climbing, it may compromise the protective
value of the glove and, therefore, create a hazard for the lineman
who subsequently touches an energized object. [Tr. 893]

    In recommending a cradle-to-cradle rule, the union argued that
these factors were not present when an employee is working from an
aerial lift (Tr. 893-894).
    OSHA concludes that there is likely to be little risk associated
with wearing rubber insulating gloves while climbing. The practices
required by final Sec.  1926.954(b)(3)(iii) should mitigate any fall
hazards posed by climbing with rubber insulating gloves; this provision
specifies fall protection for employees climbing poles and other
structures. The Agency also believes it is unlikely that splinters will
puncture rubber insulating gloves during climbing. In this regard,
final Sec.  1926.97(c)(2)(vii) requires employees to wear protector
gloves over rubber insulating gloves; protector gloves should eliminate
any risk from small splinters. The Agency believes that employees would
feel any splinter large enough to penetrate the protector gloves and
also would notice any resulting damage to a rubber insulating glove. In
any event, there is little, if any, evidence that accidents occurred as
a result of fall or splinter hazards posed by climbing with rubber
insulating gloves.\262\ On the other hand, evidence of accidents caused
by employees not wearing rubber insulating gloves is pervasive (Exs.
0002, 0003, 0004). As Mr. Tomaseski noted, the electric power
partnership found that ``by far the majority of the accidents were from
contact with energized parts'' (Tr. 892).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \262\ The record contains descriptions of several accidents
involving falls by employees during climbing, but none of the
descriptions indicates that the use of rubber insulating gloves
caused the fall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is, however, significant evidence, as noted in the summary
and explanation for Sec.  1926.960(g) of the final rule later in this
section of the preamble, that electric power workers encounter heat-
stress hazards and that providing cooling breaks is a recognized method
of reducing such hazards. Adopting a ground-to-ground or cradle-to-
cradle rule would force employees wearing rubber insulating gloves to
either descend and reclimb poles or lower and reraise their aerial lift
platforms to take breaks from wearing the protective equipment. The
Agency suspects that such a requirement could discourage employees from
taking these breaks. Consequently, OSHA is not adopting a ground-to-
ground or cradle-to-cradle rule. Although the Agency is not adopting
ground-to-ground or cradle-to-cradle provisions in the final rule, OSHA
encourages employers to adopt such provisions when appropriate and to
remind employees of the importance of taking cooling breaks when
necessary.
    The Agency also decided not to include in the final rule a specific
distance beyond which employees must put on and take off their rubber
insulating gloves. Any such distance would be arbitrary, and OSHA
believes that allowing employers to design work rules appropriate for
their workforces and workplaces is a more reasonable approach.
Consequently, OSHA is adopting paragraph (c)(2)(ii) in the final rule
substantially as proposed. As explained previously under the summary
and explanation for paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A), the final rule uses the
term ``rubber insulating gloves'' in place of the term ``insulating
gloves'' included in the proposed rule.
    Paragraph (d) of the final rule addresses the employee's working
position. The requirements in this paragraph protect employees against
slipping, falling, or accidentally reaching into energized parts. Mr.
Stephen Frost with the Mid-Columbia Utilities Safety Alliance supported
proposed paragraph (d), commenting:

    Industry practice and OSHA guidance has always stated that the
worker shall not be within reaching or falling distance when working
near energized lines or equipment. We appreciate OSHA revising the
language to more clearly state what is reaching or falling distance.
[Ex. 0184]

    Paragraph (d)(1), which is being adopted without substantive change

from the proposal, requires the employer to ensure that each employee,
to the extent permitted by other safety-related conditions at the
worksite, works in a position from which a shock or slip would not
cause the employee to contact exposed, uninsulated parts energized at a
potential different from the employee's. Since slips, and even electric
shocks, are not entirely preventable, it is important for the employee
to take a working position so that such an event will not increase the
severity of any incurred injury. OSHA adopted this requirement from
existing Sec.  1910.269(l)(4). There is no counterpart to this
requirement in existing subpart V.
    The Agency believes that it is important for employees to work from
positions where a slip or a shock will not bring them into contact with
exposed, uninsulated energized parts unless other conditions, such as
the configuration of the lines involved, would make another working
position safer. The position taken must be the most protective
available to accomplish the task. In certain situations, this work
position may not be the most efficient one. OSHA notes that the
language in paragraph (d)(1) allows for guarding or insulating the live
part as an alternative means of compliance.
    Proposed paragraph (d)(2) generally would have required an employee
working near exposed parts energized at 601 volts to 72.5 kilovolts to
be in a position such that he or she could not reach into the
applicable minimum approach distance. In the preamble to the proposed
rule, OSHA requested comments on the need for proposed paragraph (d)(2)
and on whether there are other effective means of protecting employees
from the relevant hazard.
    The Southern Company argued that ``[t]he minimum approach distance
contains an ergonomic component that should provide adequate protection
from inadvertent movement'' (Ex. 0212).
    OSHA does not agree with Southern Company that the ergonomic
component of the minimum approach distance provides adequate protection
for employees who are working close to, but not on, exposed,
uninsulated energized parts. As explained earlier in the preamble, OSHA
concluded that working extremely close to (that is, near the minimum
approach distance boundary to) energized parts without the use of
electrical protective equipment is not a safe practice and that
existing Sec.  1910.269, which may allow this practice, is not
effective in preventing accidents involving contact with energized
parts by employees who are not using electrical protective equipment.
(See the summary and explanation for final Sec.  1926.960(c)(2)(ii) for
a description of the purpose behind paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) and (d)(2)
and a discussion of the relevant accidents.)
    When employees are not working directly on live parts, then nearby
exposed, uninsulated live parts are typically not in their view. Those
parts can be above them,\263\ below them,\264\ behind them,\265\ or to
the side \266\ (Exs 0002, 0003, 0004). As noted previously, OSHA
designed the ergonomic component of the minimum approach distance on
the premise that the employee will detect an error in judging and
maintaining the minimum approach distance and then have time to correct
that error before encroaching on the electrical component of the
minimum approach distance. When exposed, uninsulated live parts are not
in an employee's line of sight, such errors are difficult to detect. In
addition, the Agency believes that, when employees are not performing
work on energized parts, the employees are not paying as much attention
to those parts as to the equipment the employees are servicing and may,
inadvertently, become complacent about the hazards posed by those
parts. In any event, the accident record makes it clear that employees
working without electrical protective equipment near exposed,
uninsulated parts energized at 601 volts to 72.5 kilovolts face an
unacceptable risk of electric shock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \263\ See, for example, the three accidents described at http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/accidentsearch.accident_detail?id=201520301&id=573832&id=14333439.
    \264\ See, for example, the three accidents described at http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/accidentsearch.accident_detail?id=927830&id=839480&id=14373955.
    \265\ See, for example, the three accidents described at http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/accidentsearch.accident_detail?id=14403315&id=200350395&id=14346514.
    \266\ See, for example, the three accidents described at http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/accidentsearch.accident_detail?id=170672547&id=512269&id=569988.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An alternative approach would be for OSHA to adopt a more limited
requirement prohibiting employees without electrical protective
equipment from working where they could reach into the electrical
component of the minimum approach distance. The basis of such a
requirement would be that the probability that current could arc to the
employee is not significant at a distance that is farther than the
electrical component of the minimum approach distance from exposed,
uninsulated live parts. However, as the accident data show, employees
often are moving up, back, down, or in other directions away from their
working positions when they contact live parts (id.).\267\ The Agency,
therefore, concludes that requiring employees to work in positions from
which they cannot reach into the electrical component (rather than the
full minimum approach distance) would not protect employees adequately.
Existing Sec.  1910.269(a)(2)(ii)(C) already requires employers to
train their employees in minimum approach distances. In addition, final
Sec.  1926.960(c)(2)(ii) requires employers to ensure that employees
using rubber insulating gloves or rubber insulating gloves and sleeves
don the gloves and sleeves before they get into a position from which
they can reach into the minimum approach distance. OSHA believes that
using the same distance for paragraph (d)(2) will simplify training and
make it easier for employers to establish work rules governing the use
of electrical protective equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \267\ See, for example, the four accidents described at http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/accidentsearch.accident_detail?id=573832&id=14373955&id=200350395&id=569988.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the preamble to the proposed rule, the Agency discussed how to
comply with OSHA's minimum approach-distance requirements in the
summary and explanation for the proposal's minimum approach distances
specified in Sec.  1926.960(c)(1) (70 FR 34862). Although this
discussion applies equally to Sec.  1926.960(c)(1) in the final rule,
the Agency is moving the discussion to the summary and explanation for
final Sec.  1926.960(d)(2) because it relates to both provisions and to
comments received on both provisions, which OSHA discusses here. The
ergonomic component of the minimum approach distance accounts for
errors in maintaining the minimum approach distance (which might occur
if an employee misjudges the length of a conductive object he or she is
holding), and for errors in judging the minimum approach distance. The
ergonomic component also accounts for inadvertent movements by the
employee, such as slipping. In contrast, the working position selected
to comply with final paragraph (c)(1)(iii) (and paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)
and (d)(2)) must account for all of an employee's reasonably likely
movements and still permit the employee to adhere to the applicable
minimum approach distance. As noted in the preamble to the proposal
(id.), and in final Appendix B, to ensure compliance with minimum
approach distances (the electrical and ergonomic components combined),
the work position selected must account for such reasonably likely
movements as:

     adjusting an employee's hardhat,
     maneuvering a tool onto an energized part with a
reasonable amount of over- or under-reaching,
     reaching for, and handling, tools, material, and equipment
passed to him or her, and
     adjusting tools and replacing components on them, when
necessary during the work procedure.
    Figure 1 in final Appendix B depicts an example of the range of
reasonably likely movements by an employee.
    OSHA believes that it is important for employers to train employees
not only in the applicable minimum approach distances, but also in how
to maintain those distances. Proposed Appendix B explained this
approach, stating: ``The training of qualified employees required under
Sec.  1926.950 and the job planning and briefing required under Sec.
1926.952 must address selection of the proper working position.'' To
clarify this point, final Sec.  1926.950(b)(2)(iii) requires employers
to train qualified employees in the ``minimum approach distances
specified in this subpart corresponding to the voltages to which the
qualified employee will be exposed and the skills and techniques
necessary to maintain those distances'' (emphasis added to show the new
language). (See the discussion of this provision earlier in this
section of the preamble.) Final Sec.  1926.952(b) requires the job
briefing to cover personal protective equipment requirements and the
procedures employees are to use in performing the work. OSHA interprets
this provision as requiring the job briefing to address the selection
of the proper working position under final Sec.  1926.960(c)(1)(iii)
and (d)(2).
    EEI counsel Mr. Stephen Yohay and Mr. Clayton Abernathy with OG&E
Energy Corporation indicated that information in Appendix B to proposed
Subpart V, and the requirements in proposed paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)(a)
and (d), led EEI to believe that OSHA was increasing the ergonomic
component of the minimum approach distance by 0.61 meters, for a total
ergonomic component of 1.22 meters (Tr. 1079-1082). EEI commented:

    In the proposed preamble, OSHA states it is necessary to add the
reach component since many injuries resulted from violation of MAD.
EEI requests that OSHA place in the record the evidence on which it
relies to substantiate this change. EEI also suggests that if, in
fact, OSHA's reasoning is correct and employees did cross the
imaginary 24 inch line in the past, why and how does OSHA believe
that employees will not cross a 50 inch line in the future? [Ex.
0227]

    Testifying on behalf of EEI, Mr. Abernathy described how increasing
the minimum approach distance by 0.61 meters would restrict some of the
work his company's employees do (Tr. 1055-1078). He described two
scenarios that he claimed would be affected by this increase--an
apprentice line worker working on the secondary conductors on a
distribution transformer and a line worker installing insulating
protective equipment on overhead conductors. The apprentice in Mr.
Abernathy's first example was wearing rubber insulating gloves rated
for the secondary voltage, but not for the 15-kilovolt primary voltage
(Tr. 1058-1059).
    As explained previously in this preamble, the ergonomic component
for voltages addressed by EEI's comments is 0.61 meters; it is not 1.22
meters as Messrs. Abernathy and Yohay claimed. The Agency believes that
EEI's confusion stemmed from a common misperception of how minimum
approach distances work in practice. Some employers mistakenly believe
that the ergonomic component of the minimum approach distance accounts
for all movement on the part of the employee. As described previously,
this is not the case. The minimum approach distance sets a boundary
that the employee may not penetrate as he or she is working. To ensure
that employees do not penetrate this boundary as they are working, the
employer must instruct workers how to position themselves so that
reasonably likely movements do not bring the employees inside that
boundary. Paragraph (d)(2) of the final rule ensures that employees who
are not protected against exposure to energized parts are working at a
safe distance from the parts. The final standard generally provides
that an employee performing work near exposed parts energized between
601 volts and 72.5 kilovolts must work from a position where he or she
cannot reach into the minimum approach distance. This positioning
requirement does not apply if the employee is wearing rubber insulating
gloves, being protected by insulating equipment covering the energized
parts, performing work using live-line tools, or performing live-line
barehand work.\268\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \268\ The proposal provided that paragraph (d)(2) did not apply
to employees ``insulated from the energized parts.'' The language in
the final rule clarifies that the provision does not apply to
employees wearing rubber insulating gloves or protected by
insulating equipment covering the energized parts. Note that
employers must still ensure that employees wearing rubber insulating
gloves maintain the minimum approach distance from energized parts
on which they are not working unless those parts are insulated from
the employee. (See final paragraph (c)(1)(iii).)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted previously, OSHA concluded that there is clear evidence in
the record that approaching too close to energized parts kills and
injures employees (Exs. 0002, 0003, 0004). In Ex. 0004 alone, there
were at least 27 accidents involving employees coming too close to
energized parts without using electrical protective equipment.\269\
There are at least six accidents in the record involving apprentices
coming too close to energized parts without using electrical protective
equipment (Exs. 0002, 0003).\270\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \269\ There were 27 accidents in which the investigation summary
indicated that an employee who was not using electrical protective
equipment contacted energized parts. There were many other accidents
involving employee contact with energized parts in which the summary
did not indicate whether the employee was using electrical
protective equipment. The 27 accidents can be found at: http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/accidentsearch.accident_detail?id=512269&id=525675&id=573832&id=755199&id=768101&id=819805&id=894196&id=927830&id=982082&id=14238117&id=14242036&id=14333439&id=14367023&id=14392393&id=14402788 and http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/accidentsearch.accident_detail?id=14403315&id=14482723&id=170074801&id=170118475&id=170189849&id=170672547&id=170891014&id=171054430&id=200010163&id=200010338&id=201520301&id=201750080.
    \270\ See the six accidents described at http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/accidentsearch.accident_detail?id=200010163&id=201440013&id=14345318&id=170170179&id=789354&id=711960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted by an OSHA witness at the hearing, employers can protect
the apprentice in Mr. Abernathy's example by ensuring that the
apprentice is working from a position where he or she cannot reach into
the minimum approach distance or, if that is not possible, by
installing electrical protective equipment on the primary conductors to
enable the employee to work within the minimum approach distance of
those conductors (Tr. 1087-1088). According to Mr. Abernathy, the
primary conductor is 1.0 meter (40 inches) from the secondary conductor
on which the apprentice would be working (Tr. 1069, 1071). The minimum
approach distance for a 15-kilovolt primary generally is 0.65 meters
(26 inches).\271\ Thus, the worker could position himself or herself so
that he or she could reach 0.34 meters (14 inches) beyond the secondary
conductor and still be in compliance with final paragraph (d)(2). In
addition, as long as the secondary conductor is below the primary by a
distance that is greater than the minimum approach distance, it should
be possible under the final rule for the apprentice to work on the
secondary without rubber insulating gloves rated for the primary
voltage. If the secondary conductor is closer to the

primary conductor than the minimum approach distance, the existing
standards (Sec. Sec.  1926.950(c)(1) and 1910.269(l)(2)) already
prohibit employees from working on the secondary conductor without
using electrical protective equipment rated for the primary voltage on
either the primary conductor or the employee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \271\ The minimum approach distance for 15 kilovolts is 0.65
meters at elevations of 900 meters or less, but increases at higher
elevations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Final paragraph (d)(2) does not apply to voltages of 600 volts and
less. Much of the work performed at these lower voltages involves the
use of insulating hand tools in a panelboard or cabinet. The chance of
contacting a live part during this work is low because of the layout of
live parts within the enclosure and the use of the insulated tool to
maintain a safe distance from the live parts. The electrical clearances
between energized parts for voltages in this range are small enough
that all energized circuit parts normally will be in front of the
employee, enabling the employee to maintain the required minimum
approach distance easily. This paragraph also does not apply when the
voltage exceeds 72.5 kilovolts, because the minimum approach distances
generally become greater beyond this voltage and because employees
cannot use rubber insulating equipment for protection at these higher
voltages.
    Mr. Lee Marchessault of Workplace Safety Solutions recommended that
paragraph (d)(2) apply to exposed parts energized at more than 300
volts rather than 600 volts, noting that this application would expand
the scope of the requirement to ``underground, power plant and meter
work on exposed 480 volt secondary systems'' (Ex. 0196).
    As explained previously, and in the preamble to the proposed rule
(70 FR 34865), employees typically use insulated tools to work on this
equipment. In addition, a working position requirement is inappropriate
for this equipment because much of this equipment is at ground level,
where employees easily and frequently adjust their working positions
while they work. (In contrast, when employees are working at elevated
locations, where employees perform most of the energized work on higher
voltages, employees work from a fixed position determined by the
location of an aerial lift platform or their positioning straps.
Therefore, the Agency did not adopt Mr. Marchessault's recommendation
to expand the scope of final paragraph (d)(2).
    Proposed paragraph (d)(2) did not apply to situations involving
employees insulated from the energized parts or performing live-line
barehand work. However, many rulemaking participants expressed concern
that proposed paragraph (d)(2) did not fully account for work practices
involving the use of live-line tools. (See, for example, Exs. 0125,
0127, 0149, 0151, 0155, 0159, 0164, 0172, 0179, 0188, 0226, 0471; Tr.
1237, 1245-1246.) The comments of Ms. Tracy Harness with the Northwest
Line Constructors Chapter of NECA typified these concerns:

    This requirement proposes to add a greater working distance for
an employee working near energized exposed parts at more than 600
volts, but not more than 72.5 kilovolts if the employee is not
insulated from the energized exposed part or performing live-line
bare-hand work. This additional distance is proposed to prevent an
employee from accidentally reaching into the minimum approach
distance from their working position without protection . . . In
many states employees use insulated sticks to perform work on
energized parts above 600 volts. On page 34862 of the Federal
Register it appears that OSHA recognizes the difference when using
an insulated stick by not requiring this additional distance for
work above 72.5 kilovolts. A number of states do not allow the use
of protective gloves to work on energized parts above 5,000 volts.
There are no requirements for employees to wear insulated gloves
when using an insulated stick.
    Will OSHA consider an employee using an insulated stick exempt
from having to maintain the added positioning distance for all
voltages above 600 volts?
    If not, we request that OSHA reconsider this issue due to the
increased ergonomic risk it will place on employees. Requiring
employees to hold the stick at a greater distance from the object
they are handling or working on can put more stress on wrists,
elbows and shoulders by changing the leverage point. We do not
believe that the industry fatalities that support the proposed
change occurred while employees were using insulated sticks. [Ex.
0188]

    A live-line tool used by an employee to work on an energized part
insulates the employee from that part. As noted earlier and in the
preamble to the proposed rule (70 FR 34862), a live-line tool holds the
energized part at a distance. Using a live-line tool, an employee can
easily maintain minimum approach distances, at least once the tool is
engaged with the energized part. The working position requirement in
proposed paragraph (d)(2) did not apply to employees insulated from the
energized parts, including employees working on live parts with live-
line tools. However, there may be energized parts in the work area
other than the one the worker is handling with the tool, and he or she
would not be insulated from those parts by the live-line tool. Thus, it
was less clear from the language in the proposed rule whether a worker
using a live-line tool on one part would be required to position
himself or herself out of reach of the minimum approach distances from
other energized parts.
    OSHA examined the accident reports in Ex. 0004 and found that only
five of the 800 accidents in that database involved employees using the
live-line tool work method approaching too close to an energized part
operating between 600 volts and 72.5 kilovolts (Ex. 0004).\272\ This
compares to the 27 other accidents involving uninsulated employees
coming too close to energized parts noted previously. In addition,
employees using live-line tools generally are looking in the direction
of the live parts, are constantly aware of the presence of energized
parts, and position themselves by means of the live-line tool at a
fixed distance from the energized part on which they are working. Thus,
it is much less likely that these employees (compared to employees not
working on energized parts) will inadvertently encroach on the minimum
approach distances for parts not being worked on. The Agency concludes
that, although there is still some risk for employees using live-line
tools, that risk is much lower than for employees not insulated at all
from energized parts. Consequently, OSHA is adopting the commenters'
suggestion and is exempting work performed with live-line tools from
final paragraph (d)(2). This exemption only applies to work performed
using live-line tools. Thus, an employee who is hanging hardware on a
pole without the use of a tool or electrical protective equipment must
be in a position where he or she cannot reach into the minimum approach
distance of any part energized at 601 volts to 72.5 kilovolts, even if
the employee performs other work on that pole using live-line tools.
OSHA revised the language in Appendix B addressing the issue of proper
work positioning to explain clearly how to comply with the minimum
approach-distance requirements adopted in the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \272\ See the five accidents described at http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/accidentsearch.accident_detail?id=170378616&id=170577688&id=170336325&id=170089197&id=792739.

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

    Paragraph (e) of Sec.  1926.960 in the final rule, which is being
adopted without substantive change from the proposal, addresses the
practices of connecting and disconnecting lines and equipment. Common
industry practice, as specified in the 2002 NESC, Rule 443F,\273\ is
for employees to make connections by connecting the source as the last
item in the sequence and to break connections by removing the source as
the first item in the sequence (Ex. 0077). These practices, specified
by

paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) in the final rule, will ensure that the
wire or device handled by an employee remains deenergized as long as
possible, thereby minimizing the chance that an electrical accident
will occur. Also, to prevent energizing any disconnected conductors,
employers must ensure that employees keep loose ends of conductors away
from exposed, energized parts, as required by final paragraph (e)(3).
These three provisions, which have no counterparts in existing Subpart
V, duplicate the requirements of existing Sec.  1910.269(l)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \273\ The 2012 NESC contains the same requirement in Rule 443F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (f) of final Sec.  1926.960, which OSHA adopted from
existing Sec.  1910.269(l)(6)(i), provides that, when employees perform
work within reach of exposed, energized parts, the employer must ensure
that each employee removes, or renders nonconductive, all exposed
conductive articles, such as keys or watches, if those articles would
increase the hazards associated with contact with the energized parts.
If an employee wears metal jewelry, he or she could cover the jewelry
so as to eliminate the contact hazard. This requirement does not
preclude workers from wearing metal rings or watch bands if the work
already exposes them to electric-shock hazards and if the metal would
not increase those hazards. (For example, for work performed on an
overhead line, the wearing of a ring would not increase the likelihood
that an employee would contact the line, nor would it increase the
severity of the injury should contact occur.) This requirement protects
employees working on energized circuits with small clearances and high
current capacities (such as some battery-supplied circuits) from severe
burn hazards. The rule also protects workers minimally exposed to shock
hazards from injuries resulting from a dangling chain's making contact
with an energized part. This provision has no counterpart in existing
subpart V.
    The North Carolina Department of Labor recommended expanding the
list of prohibited articles or discussing other conductive articles in
the preamble to the final rule (Ex. 0098). The State agency pointed to
an OSHA interpretation related to a comparable provision in existing
Sec.  1910.333(c)(8).
    The interpretation to which the North Carolina Department of Labor
referred was an intraagency memorandum dated December 30, 1993, and it
related to whether Sec.  1910.333(c)(8), which is similar to proposed
Sec.  1926.960(f), prohibits metal eyeglasses.\274\ This interpretation
reads as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \274\ This memorandum is available at http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=21350.

    Eyeglasses with exposed metal parts are considered ``Conductive
apparel''. As noted in the middle of column 2 of page 32007 of the
preamble published in Volume 55, Number 151 of the Federal Register
on Monday, August 6, 1990, the Electrical Safety Related Work
Practice standard at 1910.333(c)(8) prohibits employees from wearing
conductive objects in a manner presenting an electrical contact
hazard. Normally, the wearing of eyeglasses containing exposed metal
frames (or metal parts of frames) is not considered to present an
electrical contact hazard. However, when the glasses have a metal
type frame and the employee is working with his or her face
extremely close to energized parts or when a metallic chain strap is
attached to the frame for wearing around the neck, an electrical
contact hazard can be present. In such cases, the standard permits
the hazard to be removed by eliminating the chain and wearing either
a protective face shield or appropriate safety glasses over the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
metal frame optical glasses.

    OSHA confirms that this interpretation also applies to paragraph
(f) of the final rule. However, because eyeglasses would rarely pose
the hazards addressed by this provision, the Agency concludes that it
is not necessary to mention eyeglasses as an example of the type of
conductive article prohibited by paragraph (f). Therefore, OSHA is
adopting paragraph (f) in the final rule without substantive change
from the proposal.
Protection From Flames and Electric Arcs
    Paragraph (g) of the final rule addresses protective clothing and
other personal protective equipment worn by employees exposed to
hazards posed by flames and electric arcs. OSHA revised the title of
paragraph (g) in the final rule to ``Protection from flames and
electric arcs'' to reflect more accurately that this paragraph
addresses forms of protection other than protective clothing. (For the
same reason, OSHA included language in final paragraph (g)(5) to be
clear that that provision requires both protective clothing and other
protective equipment.) In the 1994 rulemaking on Sec.  1910.269, OSHA
determined that electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution workers face a significant risk of injury from burns due
to electric arcs (59 FR 4388). In that rulemaking, OSHA also concluded
that certain fabrics increase the extent of injuries to employees
caught in an electric arc or otherwise exposed to flames (59 FR 4389).
Therefore, the Agency adopted two rules: (1) Existing Sec.
1910.269(l)(6)(ii), which requires that employers train employees
exposed to flames and electric arcs in the hazards related to the
clothing that they wear, and (2) existing Sec.  1910.269(l)(6)(iii),
which requires employers to ensure that employees exposed to flames or
electric arcs do not wear clothing that, when exposed to flames or
arcs, could increase the extent of injuries sustained by the workers. A
note following existing Sec.  1910.269(l)(6)(iii) indicates the types
of clothing fabrics that the Sec.  1910.269 rulemaking record
demonstrated were hazardous when worn by employees exposed to electric
arcs, namely, acetate, nylon, polyester, and rayon. The note explains
that the standard prohibits the use of clothing made from these types
of fabric unless the employer can demonstrate that the fabric was
treated to withstand any relevant conditions or the employee wears it
in a manner that eliminates the hazard.
    Need for protection from electric arcs and hazard assessment. Even
after existing Sec.  1910.269(l)(6) became effective,\275\ employees
continue to sustain burn injuries when working on energized lines and
equipment. In the preamble to the 2005 Subpart V proposal, OSHA noted
that, from January 1, 1990, to October 30, 1994, there were 46
accidents investigated by Federal OSHA or State-plan occupational
safety and health agencies involving burns addressed later by Sec.
1910.269(l)(6)(iii) (70 FR 34866). These 46 accidents resulted in 71
total injuries (id.). Averaged over this period, there were 9.5
accidents and 14.7 injuries per year. Also in the preamble to the 2005
proposal, OSHA noted that, from November 1, 1994 (when Sec.
1910.269(l)(6)(iii) became effective), to December 31, 1998, there were
17 relevant accidents resulting in 26 injuries (id.). Averaged over
this period, there were 4.0 accidents and 6.2 injuries per year. Thus,
while the clothing rule in Sec.  1910.269 appeared to reduce the number
of relevant accidents and injuries by more than 50 percent, OSHA
believed that the remaining risk of burn injury was still serious and
significant when it published the proposal in 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \275\ The original Federal Register notice promulgating Sec.
1910.269 set an effective date for Sec.  1910.269(l)(6) of May 31,
1994 (59 FR 4320). However, OSHA subsequently stayed the enforcement
of Sec.  1910.269(l)(6)(iii) until November 1, 1994 (59 FR 33658;
June 30, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA based its belief that the risk of burn injury was serious and
significant on two assumptions. First, the accidents identified in the
2005 preamble

represented only a small fraction of the accidents that occurred during
this period because employers must report to the Agency only accidents
involving a fatality or three or more hospitalized injuries (29 CFR
1904.39(a)). In this regard, OSHA generally does not investigate
accidents that are not reported by employers (see OSHA directives CPL
02-00-150 and CPL 02-00-094). Therefore, OSHA does not investigate, or
have documentation of, most injury-producing accidents, even serious
ones, so data on these accidents are not included in the information
that OSHA reviewed. Second, the reported burn injuries identified in
the 2005 preamble were extremely serious and costly. Eighty-four
percent of the burn injuries were fatalities or required
hospitalization (70 FR 34866). Eighty-seven percent of the accidents
for which the report lists the severity of the injury involved third-
degree burns (id.). Such burns are extremely painful and costly,
typically requiring skin grafts and leaving permanent scars.
    Dr. Mary Capelli-Schellpfeffer testified as OSHA's expert witness
on the subject of protecting workers from the hazards posed by electric
arcs. Dr. Capelli-Schellpfeffer received her medical degree from the
University of Florida in 1982. She also holds a master's degree in
public administration. Following her postgraduate medical training and
several years in private practice, Dr. Capelli-Schellpfeffer served as
the medical director of Wisconsin Energy Company, which included an
electric utility and a nuclear power generating plant. She joined the
University of Chicago, Department of Surgery Faculty, in 1993, where
she served as the director of the hyperbaric unit of the University of
Chicago Burn Center. Since 1999, she has worked as a consultant,
researcher, and teacher, and has treated employees in outpatient
clinical settings. She is licensed as a physician in Wisconsin,
Illinois, and Maryland, and she is board certified by the American
College of Preventive Medicine. Dr. Capelli-Schellpfeffer is also a
member of the American College of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine and a fellow of IEEE (Tr. 175-177).
    In her prepared testimony for the 2006 public hearing, Dr. Capelli-
Schellpfeffer described the physical properties of an electric arc and
possible injury following exposure to an arc as follows:

    [A]n electric arc exposure in a 480 V installation with 22.6 kA
available current is . . . captured on video from a high voltage
test laboratory. . . . In the . . . test, data results showed peak
monitored temperature exceeded 225 degrees C in 10 ms at the
mannequin's hand, and at the mannequin's neck at 120 ms. Cooling of
the hand to 70 degrees C required more than 2500 ms.
    The injuries that accompany high temperature exposures at the
body surface are commonly referred to as skin burns. High
temperature exposures that occur volumetrically, or that distribute
within the body's tissues, are also called burns. The term burn
generally refers to a physico-chemical change in the human tissue.
    For example, most people are familiar with the appearance of a
superficial sunburn, and how painful this can be. As the skin's
appearance changes more severely, the burn trauma is more profound,
and can affect other organ systems. When skin changes are
irreversible and irreparable, the trauma is severe.
    Other organs beside the skin can be burned. The mechanism or way
organ injury unfolds in response to temperature is again sensitive
to the temperature peak, duration, and biophysical processes.
    Additionally, the form of energy which creates the temperature
rise can influence the injury, once more because of biophysical
processes. For example, temperature change in the eye and
recognition of the resulting injury from conductive heat exposure
(like a piece of molten metal on the cornea) will be different than
the injury from a radiation exposure (like UV light).
    The latent heat of melting subsequent to an electric arc can
also serve as an ignition hazard for clothing. This means that along
with the hazard from an arc's heat burning the skin, there is
additional possibility of severe harm from the arc burning up
clothing which lies against the skin. Burning clothing against the
skin creates damage to the skin through conductive heating for the
extended time which might be necessary to extinguish the clothing
and start cooling.
* * * * *
    [T]est results illustrated the high degree of variability in
electric arc faults and led to excerpts of video images into time-
lapsed photographs. The test results also provided exposure data.
Finally, the stop action frames of video recordings permitted
visualization of the dynamic changes in the tests involving the
mannequin worker.
    Of particular note in the stop action frames of video recordings
is the explosive speed and ``blast'' character of electric arcs.
These images allow for the viewing of a destructive plasma ball,
flames, and waves of air, smoke, and other gases.
    The heating from the sub-second thermal expansion of air and
vaporization by sublimation of metallic conductors leads to pressure
waves, referred to as the ``thermo acoustic effect'' of an electric
arc.
* * * * *
    [A picture] illustrates the extent of injury that can follow an
electric arc exposure. Eyes, ears, face, skin, limbs, and organs are
affected. Basic bodily function, including the ability to breath[e],
eat, urinate, and sleep are completely changed. For this patient,
initial medical treatment cost more than $650,000, including five
surgeries; $250,000 for reconstructive surgeries for five subsequent
admissions; and $250,000 for [5] years of rehabilitation including
over 100 physician visits and numerous therapy sessions. These costs
represent only direct medical expenditures, without inclusion of
indirect employer and family costs . . . . [Ex. 0373; emphasis
included in original]

Dr. Capelli-Schellpfeffer's testimony reveals the power and injury-
producing effects of electric arcs. She also highlights the potential
extent and costs of these injuries.
    OSHA's existing clothing requirement in Sec.  1910.269 does not
require employers to protect employees from electric arcs through the
use of flame-resistant (FR) clothing. It simply requires that an
employee's clothing do no greater harm. Because the remaining risk to
power workers from electric arcs is serious, the Agency proposed to
revise the standard to require the use of flame-resistant clothing,
under certain circumstances, to protect employees from severe burns. As
OSHA noted in the preamble to the proposal (70 FR 34866), the electric
power industry is beginning to recognize this need, as evidenced by the
many employers that provide flame-resistant clothing to employees (see,
for example, Ex. 0080), in ASTM standards that provide for arc ratings
of protective clothing \276\ (see, for example, Exs. 0061, 0065, 0131,
0326), and by the adoption of protective-clothing requirements in the
2007 NESC \277\ (Ex. 0533). The National Fire Protection Association
also recognizes the need to protect employees working on energized
equipment from the hazards posed by electric arcs (see, for example,
Ex. 0134).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \276\ ASTM also has standards for other arc-protective
equipment, including ASTM F2178-08, Standard Test Method for
Determining the Arc Rating and Standard Specification for Face
Protective Products.
    \277\ The 2012 NESC also contains protective-clothing
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When OSHA promulgated Sec.  1910.269, there were no standards for
clothing to protect employees from the thermal hazards resulting from
electric arcs. Since then, ASTM adopted such standards (see, for
example, Exs. 0061, 0065, 0131, 0326). These standards ensure that
clothing does not ignite and that it is rated to provide protection
against a specific level of heat energy. Manufacturers label apparel
meeting the ASTM standards with the amount of heat energy that the
clothing can absorb under laboratory test conditions without letting
through sufficient heat to cause a second-degree burn.\278\ Such
clothing

currently is widely available in ratings from about 4 cal/cm \2\ to
over 50 cal/cm \2\ (Tr. 412). In general, the higher the rating, the
heavier the clothing; however, lighter fabrics now provide a level of
protection equivalent to heavier fabrics used in the past (Tr. 440).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \278\ OSHA explains the arc rating for clothing in the summary
and explanation for final paragraph (g)(5), under the heading
Selecting arc-rated protective clothing and other protective
equipment, later in this section of the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some rulemaking participants generally supported OSHA's proposal to
require the use of FR clothing \279\ in certain circumstances. (See,
for example, Exs. 0155, 0230, 0235, 0241, 0505; Tr. 895-897.) IBEW,
ESCI, and the Independent Electrical Contractors, among others,
supported FR clothing requirements (Exs. 0155, 0230, 0241, 0505; Tr.
895-897). ORC voiced general support for the proposal's approach to
arc-flash protection, commenting:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \279\ The final rule requires arc-rated clothing (which also is
flame-resistant) in some circumstances and FR clothing in others.
When the distinction is unimportant, as when discussing general
comments on the need for protective clothing, OSHA uses the term
``FR clothing,'' even though the final rule may require that
clothing also be arc rated. For a detailed explanation of the
difference between FR clothing and arc-rated clothing, see the
summary and explanation for final paragraph (g)(5), under the
heading Selecting arc-rated protective clothing and other protective
equipment, later in this section of the preamble.

    ORC generally supports the proposed requirements to protect
employees from the thermal hazards of electric arcs. Assessing the
potential for employee exposure to hazards from flames or electric
arcs is appropriate for employees working with or near energized
equipment and where their work clothing could be ignited directly by
molten metals or electric arcs or by flammable materials ignited by
an electric arc. Prohibiting the wearing of clothing that could melt
or ignite and requiring the wearing of flame-resistant and
appropriate arc-rated clothing based on the extent of the hazards
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
present are also appropriate. [Ex. 0235]

    Many electric utility representatives generally opposed the
proposed requirements for protection from electric arcs. (See, for
example, Exs. 0177, 0183, 0202, 0220, 0227, 0233, 0238, 0401; Tr. 371-
374, 1093-1104, 1184-1185.) Some of these rulemaking participants
suggested that the requirements in existing Sec.  1910.269 were
sufficiently protective and that there was insufficient evidence of a
need to adopt more protective requirements. (See, for example, Exs.
0177, 0181, 0227.) For instance, Consumers Energy stated that, in its
experience, existing Sec.  1910.269(1)(6)(iii) ``has been largely
effective'' (Ex. 0177). Some commenters argued that the accidents that
occurred were the result of employees violating safety-related work
rules. (See, for example, Exs. 0152, 0238.) For instance, Mr. Frank
Owen Brockman with Farmers Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation
commented: ``Most people are . . . injured not by arcs and their heat,
but by not following the simple, most basic rules'' (Ex. 0401).
    OSHA acknowledges that the adoption of existing Sec.  1910.269 in
1994 led to a reduction in the number (and potentially the severity) of
burn and other injuries incurred by power line workers exposed to
electric arcs. However, the Agency concludes that existing Sec.
1910.269 has not been sufficiently protective in preventing these
injuries.
    As noted earlier, the 6.2 injuries per year that OSHA identified as
being caused by electric arcs represent only a small fraction of such
injuries experienced by electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution workers. Moreover, the vast majority of the injuries OSHA
identified are extremely serious, such as the accident described in Dr.
Capelli-Schellpfeffer's testimony.
    OSHA's final regulatory analysis estimates that there are 444
serious injuries occurring each year during work addressed by the final
rule. This estimate was derived by multiplying the 25 serious injuries
actually reported annually over the period examined by a specified
correction factor to account for undercounting. (See Section VI, Final
Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, later in the
preamble to the final rule.) Multiplying the 6.2 reported serious arc-
related injuries by the ratio of 444 estimated injuries to 25 reported
injuries yields an estimate of 110 serious arc-related injuries still
occurring each year. As noted earlier, the vast majority of these
injuries involve third-degree burns.
    Existing Sec.  1910.269 requires extensive training in electrical
safety-related work practices, and evidence in the record indicates
that workers covered by this final rule receive extensive training in
these practices and are highly qualified to perform electric power
generation, transmission, and distribution work. Mr. Albert Smoak with
Southwestern Electric Power Company stated, ``We have a very extensive
apprentice program. And so we spend lots of money doing that. Our
apprentices are very well trained'' (Tr. 1229). Mr. William Mattiford
of Henkels & McCoy testified, ``Employees are trained either by Henkels
and McCoy or other construction companies or have undergone extensive
training in a certified apprenticeship program'' (Tr. 1318-1319).
Similar statements appear elsewhere in the rulemaking record. (See, for
example, Tr. 1238-1239.) As the data show, however, serious arc-related
incidents continue to occur during work covered by this final rule.
Even Mr. Brockman recognized that ``in the majority of [accidents], the
fatality involved [a] worker who had been appropriately trained for the
exposure'' (Tr. 1278).
    It would be contrary to the purposes of the OSH Act for the Agency
to set standards based on an expectation that there will be perfect
compliance with work-rule requirements. To be effective, such work-rule
provisions rely, in part, on employee compliance with employer work
practices. Because there will always be occasional instances of
noncompliance with work rules, OSHA standards incorporate secondary
protective measures. Moreover, arcs can occur as a result of
circumstances that work rules cannot control. For example, electric
arcs can result from accidents, such as an employee's dropping a tool
onto energized parts (Ex. 0004 \280\). According to Dr. Capelli-
Schellpfeffer, other causes of electric arcs on electric utility
systems include transient overvoltage disturbances (such as lightning,
switching surges, arcing ground fault in ungrounded systems),
mechanical breaking, cracking, loosening, abrading or deforming of
static or structural parts, and shorting by animals (Ex. 0373). These
types of electric arcs generally do not result from poor work
practices. Exhibit 0004 describes 100 accidents involving electric
arcs. More than 10 percent of those accidents involved equipment
failure or internal faults.\281\ Dr. Capelli-Schellpfeffer testified
about one of the reasons for this type of event:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \280\ See, for example, the accident described at http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/accidentsearch.accident_detail?id=201841061.
    \281\ See the 12 accidents described at http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/accidentsearch.accident_detail?id=201340395&id=170749873&id=170632699&id=170762769&id=14343594&id=170238109&id=170891899&id=170358428&id=170888259&id=170727697&id=14241863&id=170193353.

    There is more available power in the electric system, and the
higher availables put more stress, electromechanical stress, on the
infrastructure, at the same time that the infrastructure that we
have installed is mature. It is aging. And so there is a transition
in the experience of the power systems from fairly low levels of
available power and a relatively young infrastructure from the time
of the 1950s and `60s, to where we are today at the beginning of the
21st century where the availables are orders of magnitude higher,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
and the infrastructure is far more mature. [Tr. 205-206]

IBEW explained:

    Arcs can occur for reasons totally independent of the conduct of
employees or the utilities or contractors. Thus, arcs can result
from the presence of rodents, changes in mechanical properties,
environmental

conditions or the amount of stress that increasing amounts of
available power are putting on the aging infrastructure. [Tr.] 205,
207. Arc events are complicated and variable, and no one strategy
for preventing or protecting against them will be ``maximally
protective.'' Moreover, whatever the reason for an arc flash, the
fact is that they occur in the electrical transmission and
distribution industry, and there are measures that can be taken to
minimize the hazard they pose to employees. As Dr. Capelli-
Schellpfeffer noted, employee protection requires a ``multifactorial
approach,'' [Tr.] 210, which includes the use of FR clothing so that
if all else fails, employees will remain protected. [Ex. 0505]

    The Agency, thus, continues to believe that further reductions in
the number and severity of arc-flash-related injuries will result from
adopting requirements that provide protection from electric arcs in a
way that supplements the existing requirements in Sec.  1910.269
designed to prevent electric arcs and the ignition of clothing when
arcs do occur. OSHA concludes that, under existing Sec.  1910.269 and
subpart V, the risks associated with electric arcs warrant additional
protection for employees.
    The Agency does agree with APPA, however, that protective clothing
``is not a comprehensive solution to eliminating fire related injuries
in [the electric utility] industry'' (Ex. 0504). Paragraph (g) of the
final rule protects employees in case an electric arc occurs in spite
of other provisions in the final rule designed to prevent them from
happening in the first place.
    The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) recommended that,
even if the Agency found that there is a significant risk of arc-flash
burns for activities covered by this final rule, it should state
clearly that no findings indicate whether there is significant risk for
activities outside the scope of the final rule (Ex. 0222). The
association maintained that Sec. Sec.  1910.132 and 1926.95 do not
presently require arc-flash hazard assessments or arc-rated clothing
and that there is no justification for citations under those standards
or the general duty clause. NAM also recommended that the Agency
instruct its enforcement personnel not to issue such citations.
    The risk findings OSHA makes in this preamble regarding hazards
posed by electric arcs address only the types of work covered by this
final rule. However, some existing general industry and construction
standards already address these hazards. For example, Sec.
1910.335(a)(2)(ii) requires the use of protective shields, barriers, or
insulating materials ``to protect each employee from shock, burns, or
other electrically related injuries while that employee is working . .
. where dangerous electric heating or arcing might occur'' (emphasis
added). Furthermore, Sec.  1926.95(a) requires personal protective
equipment ``wherever it is necessary by reason of hazards of processes
or environment, chemical hazards, radiological hazards, or mechanical
irritants encountered in a manner capable of causing injury or
impairment in the function of any part of the body through absorption,
inhalation, or physical contact.'' Also, the generally applicable PPE
provisions for both general industry and construction--Sec. Sec.
1910.132(a) and 1926.95(a)--specifically mention ``protective
clothing'' as one form of required protection. The Agency described its
enforcement policy relating to the protection of employees from
electric-arc hazards in certain situations not covered by this final
rule in several letters of interpretation. (See, for example, the
November 14, 2006, letter to Ms. Joanne Linhard and the February 29,
2008, letter to Mr. Brian Dolin.\282\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \282\ The Dolin letter is available at http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=25973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters argued against the proposed requirements for
arc-protective clothing on the grounds that it is expensive and
uncomfortable. (See, for example, Exs. 0158, 0183, 0202, 0229, 0233,
0239.) For instance, NRECA commented:

    Data so far suggest that arc protective clothing is expensive
and is uncomfortable to wear, especially in hot and humid climates.
Of course, the discomfort in wearing arc protective clothing is
largely because it must act as a heat shield and, therefore, it is
inherently bulky. [Ex. 0233]

    OSHA finds that the costs associated with the requirements of
paragraph (g) of the final rule are commensurate with the benefits
resulting from those requirements. (For a detailed response to this
issue, see the discussion of comments on balance of risk and costs in
employing protective equipment to prevent arc-related burns in Section
VI, Final Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, later
in the preamble to the final rule.)
    As explained later in this section of the preamble, OSHA determined
that the PPE required by paragraph (g) of the final rule is not likely
to be unduly uncomfortable for employees to wear. In any event, the
Agency does not believe that discomfort alone would justify deleting
Sec.  1926.960(g) from the final rule. Complaints that PPE is
uncomfortable have been common throughout the Agency's history. For
example, employees have complained that hard hats and eye protection
are too uncomfortable to wear. (See, for example, I.T.O. Corp. of New
England v. OSHRC, 540 F.2d 543, 546 (1st Cir. 1976), noting ``employee
complaints that the [hard] hats created minor inconveniences e.g.,
because they were too heavy, too light, too hot, or too cold''; and
Lewis County Dairy Corp., 2006 WL 3247249, at *10 (03-1533, 2006)
(ALJ), noting that ``[the plant manager] knew that employees did not
always wear eye protection and that it was difficult to get them to do
so as they found it uncomfortable.'') In this rulemaking, the tree
trimming industry complained that employees find body harnesses
uncomfortable. (See, for example, Exs. 0174, 0200, 0219.) Although OSHA
generally advises employers to take the comfort of protective equipment
into consideration when selecting appropriate protective items for
their employees, the Agency concludes that the potential for complaints
about comfort does not outweigh the strong evidence that there is a
safety need for employees covered by this final rule to use PPE when
exposed to electric-arc hazards.
    Paragraph (g)(1) of the final rule, which is being adopted without
substantive change from the proposal, requires the employer to assess
the workplace to identify employees exposed to hazards from flames or
electric arcs.\283\ This provision ensures that the employer evaluates
employee exposure to flames and electric arcs so that employees who
face such exposures receive the required protection. Because final
Sec.  1926.960 applies to work performed on or near exposed, energized
parts of electric circuits, employers do not need to conduct
assessments under paragraph (g)(1) for employees who do not perform
such work. However, until the employer ensures the complete
deenergization of a line or part of an electric circuit following the
procedures required by final Sec.  1926.961, including any required
testing and grounding, the line or part must be considered and treated
as energized as required by final Sec.  1926.960(b)(2). Also, final
paragraphs (g)(2) through (g)(5) protect employees only from the
thermal hazards posed by flames and electric arcs. Therefore, if

the hazard assessment required by paragraph (g)(1) shows employee
exposure to other hazards, then other standards, such as Sec. Sec.
1910.132(a) and 1926.95(a), may require the employer to provide PPE for
those hazards. (See the discussion under the heading Protecting
employees from flying debris from electric arcs, later in this section
of the preamble.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \283\ Under paragraph (g)(1), employers need not identify
employees by name. The required identification can also be
occupation based, task based, or location based provided that each
employee exposed to hazards from flames or from electric arcs
receives the protection that paragraph (g) requires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Final paragraph (g)(1) requires the employer to assess the
workplace to identify employees ``exposed to hazards from flames or
from electric arcs.'' A few commenters requested that OSHA define this
phrase in the final rule (Exs. 0170, 0222, 0237). These commenters
argued that simply operating electric equipment, such as a disconnect
switch in an electrical box, does not pose a significant risk of injury
from an electric arc. For example, the American Forest & Paper
Association stated these concerns as follows:

    [W]e are concerned that the language of proposed Sections
1910.269(l)(11) and 1926.960(g) could have unintended consequences
if interpreted to apply to employees not exposed to a significant
risk * * *
* * * * *
    [W]e do not believe the individual who opens or closes the
electrical disconnect on an enclosed electrical box or panel with
the cover on/closed would be exposed to a significant risk of harm
from arc flash hazards, but that is not clear from the proposed
regulatory text or the preamble. A contrary interpretation would
involve a huge increase in the cost of both the proposed standards
and their potential extension outside the Electric Power Sector.
[Ex. 0237; emphasis in original; footnote omitted.]

    If the employer properly installs and maintains enclosed equipment
and if there is no evidence of impending failure, the risk that an
electric arc will occur is low enough that the Agency would not deem
there to be exposure to electric-arc hazards.\284\ For the purposes of
final paragraph (g), OSHA will consider an employee ``exposed'' to
electric-arc hazards whenever there is a reasonable likelihood that an
electric arc will occur in the employee's work area. The Agency
considers there to be a reasonable likelihood that an electric arc will
occur whenever the probability of such an event is higher than it is
for the normal operation of enclosed equipment.\285\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \284\ There is still a low risk that the equipment will fail
(with or without an employee operating it); however, that risk is
low enough that no arc-flash protection is necessary. This risk is
equivalent to the risk encountered by employees every day when they
turn on the lights.
    \285\ Basically, OSHA considers there to be a reasonable
likelihood that an electric arc will occur when an employee operates
enclosed electric equipment in a manner that is not in accordance
with the manufacturer's recommendations (that is, normal operation)
or when an employee operates enclosed electric equipment that the
employer has not maintained properly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, whenever the risk that an arc will occur is higher
than the risk of such an occurrence posed by the normal operation of
enclosed equipment, the Agency considers electric-arc hazards to be
present. For example, operating equipment that is not enclosed (for
example, racking in a circuit breaker) poses such a risk (Ex. 0004
\286\). Conductive objects can fall onto exposed live parts and cause
an arc. Evidence that the equipment may be defective, for example,
arcing noises or unusual behavior or heating, indicates that there is
employee exposure to the hazards of electric arcs (id. \287\). Also,