controlled environment of a laboratory or shop and in areas temporarily
located in a non-controlled field environment). At a minimum, the
safety work practices include:
    (1) Guarding the test area to prevent inadvertent contact with
energized parts,
    (2) Safe grounding practices to be observed,
    (3) Precautions to be taken in the use of control and measuring
circuits, and
    (4) Periodic checks of field test areas.
    Paragraph (b)(2) complements the general rule on the use of safe
work practices in test areas with a proposed requirement that all
employees involved in this type of work be trained in these safety test
practices. This paragraph, which makes explicit the types of training
required by the general training provisions in proposed Sec.
1926.950(b), would further require a periodic review of these practices
to be conducted from time to time as a means of providing reemphasis
and updating.
    Although specific work practices used in test areas are generally
unique to the particular test being conducted, three basic elements
affecting safety are commonly found to some degree at all test sites:
guarding, grounding, and the safe utilization of control and measuring
circuits. By considering safe work practices in these three categories,
OSHA has attempted to achieve a performance-oriented standard
applicable to high-voltage and high-power testing and test facilities.
    OSHA believes that guarding can best be achieved when it is
provided both around and within test areas. By controlling access to
all parts that are likely to become energized by either direct or
inductive coupling, the standard will prevent accidental contact by
employees. Within test areas, whether temporary or permanent, a degree
of safety can be achieved by observing guarding practices that control
access to test areas. Paragraph (c)(1) would therefore require that
such guarding be provided if the test equipment or apparatus under test
may become energized as part of the testing by either direct or
inductive coupling. A combination of guards and barriers is intended to
provide protection to all employees in the vicinity.
    Paragraph (c)(2) would require permanent test areas to be guarded
by having them completely enclosed by walls or some other type of
physical barrier. In the case of field testing, paragraph (c)(3)
attempts to achieve a level of safety for temporary test sites
comparable to that achieved in laboratory test areas. For these areas,
a barricade of tapes and cones or observation by an attendant would be
acceptable methods of guarding. Proposed paragraph (c)(3) would accept
any barrier or barricade that provides a means of limiting access to
the test area physically and visually equivalent to safety tape with
signs or would accept guarding by means of a test observer stationed
where the entire test area could be monitored.
    Since the effectiveness of the temporary guarding means can be

severely compromised by failing to remove it when it is not required,
frequent safety checks must be made to monitor its use. For example,
leaving barriers in place for a week at a time when testing is
performed only an hour or two per day is likely to result in disregard
for the barriers. For this reason, paragraph (c)(4) would require the
temporary barriers to be removed when they are no longer needed.
    Suitable grounding is another important work practice that can be
employed for the protection of personnel from the hazards of high-
voltage or high-power testing. If high currents are intentionally
employed in the testing, an isolated ground-return conductor, adequate
for the service, is required so that no intentional passage of heavy
current, with its attendant voltage rise, will occur in the ground grid
or in the earth. Another safety consideration involving grounding is
that all conductive parts accessible to the test operator during the
time that the equipment is operating at high voltage be maintained at
ground potential, except portions of the equipment that are isolated
from the test operator by suitable guarding. Paragraph (d) proposes
requirements for proper grounding at test sites.
    Paragraph (d)(1) would require that grounding practices be
established and implemented for test facilities to ensure that
unguarded conductive parts accessible to the operator are grounded and
that all ungrounded terminals of test equipment or apparatus under test
are treated as energized until reliably determined otherwise. Paragraph
(d)(2) would require visible grounds to be properly applied before work
is performed on the circuit or item or apparatus under test.
    Paragraph (d)(3) addresses hazards resulting from the use of
inadequate ground-returns in which a voltage rise in the ground grid or
in the earth can result whenever high currents are employed in the
testing. Test personnel who may be exposed to such potentials would be
required to be protected from the hazards involved. This paragraph
would require the use of an isolated ground return so that no
intentional passage of current, with its attendant voltage rise, could
occur in the ground grid or in the earth. However, under some
conditions (such as system fault testing), it may be necessary to
perform the test under actual operating conditions, or it may otherwise
be impractical to provide an isolated ground return. In such cases, it
would not be reasonable to require an isolated ground-return conductor
system. Therefore, paragraph (d)(3) would provide an exception to the
requirement for such an isolated ground return. The exception would
apply if the isolated ground-return cannot be provided because of the
distance involved and if employees are protected from hazardous step
and touch potentials that may develop. Consideration must always be
given to the possibility of voltage gradients developing in the earth
during impulse, short-circuit, inrush, or oscillatory conditions. Such
voltages may appear between the feet of an observer, or between his or
her body and a grounded object, and are usually referred to as ``step''
and ``touch'' potentials. Examples of acceptable protection from step
and touch potentials include suitable electrical protective equipment
and the removal of employees from areas that may expose them to
hazardous potentials.
    Another grounding situation is recognized by paragraph (d)(4) in
which grounding through the power cord of test equipment may be
inadequate and actually increase the hazard to test operators.
Normally, an equipment grounding conductor is required in the power
cord of test equipment to connect it to a grounding connection in the
power receptacle. However, in some circumstances, this practice can
prevent satisfactory measurements, or current induced in the grounding
conductor can cause a hazard to personnel. If these conditions exist,
the use of the equipment grounding conductor within the cord would not
be mandatory, and paragraph (d)(4) would require that an equivalent
safety ground be provided.
    Paragraph (d)(5) would further require that a ground be placed on
the high-voltage terminal and any other exposed terminals when the test
area is entered after equipment is deenergized. In the case of high
capacitance equipment or apparatus, before a direct ground can be
applied, the initial grounding discharge would have to be accomplished
through a resistor having an adequate energy rating.
    Paragraph (d)(6) recognizes the hazards associated with field
testing in which test trailers or test vehicles are used. In addition
to proposing that the chassis of such vehicles be grounded, paragraph
(d)(6) provides for a performance-oriented approach by proposing that
protection be provided against hazardous touch potentials by bonding,
by insulation, or by isolation. The protection provided by each of
these methods is described in the following examples:
    (1) Protection by bonding can be effected by providing, around the
vehicle, an area covered by a metallic mat or mesh of substantial
cross-section and low impedance which is bonded to the vehicle at
several points and is also bonded to an adequate number of driven
ground rods or, where available, to an adequate number of accessible
points on the station ground grid. All bonding conductors must be of
sufficient electrical size to keep the voltage developed during maximum
anticipated current tests at a safe value. The mat must be of a size
that precludes simultaneous contact with the vehicle and with the earth
or with metallic structures not adequately bonded to the mat.
    (2) Protection by insulation can be accomplished, for example, by
providing around the vehicle an area of dry wooden planks covered with
rubber insulating blankets. The physical extent of the insulated area
must be sufficient to prevent simultaneous contact with the vehicle, or
the ground lead of the vehicle, and with the earth or with metallic
structures in the vicinity.
    (3) Protection by isolation can be implemented by providing an
effective means to exclude personnel from any area where simultaneous
contact could be made with the vehicle (or conductive parts
electrically connected to the vehicle) and with other conductive
materials. A combination of barriers together with effective,
interlocked gates may be employed to ensure that the system is
deenergized when an employee is entering or leaving the test area.
    Finally, a third category of safe work practices applicable to
employees performing testing work, which complements the first two
safety work practices of guarding and grounding, involves work
practices associated with the installation of control and measurement
circuits utilized at test facilities. Practices necessary for the
protection of personnel and equipment from the hazards of high-voltage
or high-power testing must be observed for every test where special
signal-gathering equipment is used (that is, meters, oscilloscopes, and
other special instruments). In addition, special settings of protective
relays and the reexamination of backup schemes may be necessary to
ensure an adequate level of safety during the tests or to minimize the
effects of the testing on other parts of the system under test. As a
consequence, paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(3) address the principal
safe work practices involving control and measuring circuit utilization
within the test area.
    Generally, control and measuring circuit wiring should remain
within the test area. If this is not possible, however, paragraph
(e)(1) proposes requirements

to minimize hazards should it become necessary to have the test wiring
routed outside the test area. Cables and other wiring would have to be
contained within a grounded metallic sheath and terminated in a
grounded metal enclosure, or other precautions would have to be taken
to provide equivalent safety, such as guarding the area so that
employees do not have access to parts that might rise to hazardous
potentials.
    Paragraph (e)(2) covers the avoidance of possible hazards arising
from inadvertent contact with energized accessible terminals or parts
of meters and other test instruments. Meters with such terminals or
parts would have to be isolated from test personnel.
    Work practices involving the proper routing and connection of
temporary wiring to protect against damage are covered in paragraph
(e)(3). This paragraph would also require the various functional wiring
used for the test set-up to be kept separate, to the maximum extent
possible, in order to minimize the coupling of hazardous voltages into
the control and measuring circuits.
    A final safety work practice requirement related to control
circuits is addressed by paragraph (e)(4). This paragraph would require
the presence of a test observer who can, in cases of emergency,
immediately deenergize all test circuits for safety purposes.
    Since the environment in which field tests are conducted differs in
important respects from that of laboratory tests, extra care must be
taken to ensure appropriate levels of safety. Permanent fences and
gates for isolating the field test area are not usually provided, nor
is there a permanent conduit for the instrumentation and control
wiring. As a further hazard, there may be other sources of high-voltage
electric energy in the vicinity in addition to the source of test
voltage.
    It is not always possible in the field to prevent ingress of
persons into a test area physically, as is accomplished by the fences
and interlocked gates of the laboratory environment. Consequently,
readily recognizable means are required to discourage such ingress;
and, before test potential or current is applied to a test area, the
test operator in charge must ensure that all necessary barriers are in
place.
    As a consequence of these safety considerations, paragraph (f)(1)
would call for a safety check to be made at temporary or field test
areas at the beginning of each group of continuous tests (that is, a
series of tests conducted one immediately after another). Paragraph
(f)(2) would require that, as a minimum for the safety check, the
person responsible for the testing verify, before the initiation of a
continuous period of testing, the status of a general group of safety
conditions. These conditions include the state of guards and status
signals, the marking and availability of disconnects, the provision of
ground connections and personal protective equipment, and the
separation of circuits.
Section 1926.964, Overhead Lines
    Proposed Sec.  1926.964 would apply to work involving overhead
lines or equipment. The types of work performed on overhead lines and
addressed by this paragraph include the installation and removal of
overhead lines, live-line bare-hand work, and work on towers and
structures. While performing this type of work, employees are typically
exposed to the hazards of falls and electric shock.
    Section 1926.955 of existing Subpart V covers overhead lines.
Several requirements in the existing standard are redundant, and OSHA
believes that the existing section is poorly organized. For example,
paragraphs (c) and (d) both apply to the installation of lines parallel
to existing lines. Existing paragraph (c)(3) requires lines being
installed where there is a danger of hazardous induced voltage to be
grounded unless provisions are made to isolate or insulate employees.
Paragraph (d)(1) of existing Sec.  1926.955 contains a similar
requirement, and the rest of paragraph (d) specifies exactly how the
grounding is to be installed.
    Paragraph (q) of Sec.  1910.269 also addresses work on overhead
lines. OSHA believes that the newer standard is much better organized,
contains no redundancies, and better protects employees than the older
construction standard. Therefore, the Agency has used Sec.
1910.269(q), rather than Sec.  1926.955, as the base document in
developing proposed Sec.  1926.964. OSHA has, however, taken
requirements that pertain specifically to construction work from
existing Sec.  1926.955 and incorporated them into the proposal.
Paragraph (q) of Sec.  1910.269 does not contain these requirements,
because it does not apply to construction. For example, existing Sec.
1926.955(b) applies to metal tower construction, and no comparable
provisions are contained in Sec.  1910.269. OSHA is therefore proposing
requirements from Sec.  1926.955(b).
    Paragraph (a)(2) of proposed Sec.  1926.964 would require the
employer to determine that elevated structures such as poles and towers
are of adequate strength to withstand the stresses that will be imposed
by the work to be performed. For example, if the work involves removing
and reinstalling an existing line on a utility pole, the pole will be
subjected to the weight of the employee (a vertical force) and to the
release and replacement of the force imposed by the overhead line (a
vertical and possibly a horizontal force). The additional stress
involved may cause the pole to break, particularly if the pole has
rotted at its base. If the pole or structure cannot withstand the loads
to be imposed, it would have to be reinforced so that failure does not
occur. This rule would protect employees from hazards posed by the
failure of the pole or other elevated structure. This requirement,
which is equivalent to existing Sec.  1926.955(a)(2), (a)(3), and
(a)(4), has been taken from Sec.  1910.269(q)(1)(i).
    As the last step in ascertaining whether a wood pole is safe to
climb, as would be required under paragraph (a)(2), checking the actual
condition of the pole is important because of the possibility of decay
and other conditions adversely affecting the strength of the pole.
Appendix D of final Sec.  1910.269 contains methods of inspecting and
testing the condition of wood structures before they are climbed. These
methods, which can be used in ascertaining whether a wood pole is
capable of sustaining the forces imposed by an employee climbing it,
have been taken from Appendix D to Sec.  1910.269. It should be noted
that the employer would also be required to ascertain whether the pole
is capable of sustaining any additional forces that will be imposed
during the work.
    OSHA realizes that the employee at the worksite will be the one to
inspect the structure for deterioration and will also determine whether
it is safe to climb. However, it is the employer's responsibility to
ensure that this is accomplished, regardless of who performs the work.
Additionally, some work might involve changing the loading on the
structure. For example, replacement transformers might be heavier, and
the equipment needed to perform the work will impose extra stress on
the pole. The employee in the field is not necessarily skilled in
structural engineering, and a determination as to whether or not the
pole could withstand the stresses involved would almost always need to
be performed by the employer's engineering staff. (Typically, this task
is performed in the initial design of the system or when changes are
made.) For this reason, OSHA believes it is necessary to specify in the
standard the employer's responsibility in this regard. However, the
Agency expects the determination of the condition of the

pole or structure to be made at the worksite by an employee who is
capable of making this determination. The employer fulfills the
obligation imposed by the standard by ensuring that the design of
support structures is sound, by training his or her employees in proper
inspection and evaluation techniques, and by enforcing company rules
that adhere to the standard.
    When poles are handled near overhead lines, it is necessary to
protect the pole from contact with the lines. Paragraph (a)(3)(i) of
proposed Sec.  1926.964 would prohibit letting the pole come into
direct contact with the overhead lines. Measures commonly used to
prevent such contact include installation of insulating guards on the
pole and pulling conductors away from the area where the pole will go.
This provision, which is equivalent to existing Sec.
1926.955(a)(5)(i), has been taken from Sec.  1910.269(q)(1)(ii).
    Paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of proposed Sec.  1926.964 would require
employees handling the poles to be insulated from the pole. This
provision has been taken from Sec.  1910.269(q)(1)(iii). The comparable
provision in Sec.  1926.955(a)(6)(i) prohibits employees from
contacting mechanized equipment used to set, move, or remove poles,
unless the employees are using electrical protective equipment. OSHA
has proposed to cover hazards of using mechanical equipment near
energized parts in Sec.  1926.958, discussed earlier in this section of
the preamble. The Agency believes that the proposal will eliminate the
redundant and conflicting requirements contained in existing Subpart V.
Similarly, existing Sec.  1926.955(a)(5)(ii), (a)(6)(ii), and (a)(8)
are not being carried forward into this proposal, because the hazards
they address (those related to operation of mechanical equipment near
energized parts) are already adequately covered under proposed Sec.
1926.958.
    Paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (a)(3)(ii) would protect employees from
hazards caused by falling power lines and by contact of the pole with
the line. They would be in addition to the requirements in proposed
Sec.  1926.958(d) for operations involving mechanical equipment.
    To protect employees from falling into holes into which poles are
to be placed, paragraph (a)(3)(iii) would require the holes to be
guarded by barriers or attended by employees. This provision, which is
equivalent to existing Sec.  1926.955(a)(7), has been taken from Sec.
1910.269(q)(1)(iv).
    Paragraph (b) of proposed Sec.  1926.964 addresses the installation
and removal of overhead lines. The provisions contained in this
paragraph have been taken from Sec.  1910.269(q)(2), which was based in
large part on existing Sec.  1926.955(c) (stringing and removing lines)
and Sec.  1926.955(d) (stringing adjacent to energized lines). However,
the proposed rule, like Sec.  1910.269(q)(2), combines these provisions
into a single paragraph (b). OSHA believes that the proposed
provisions, which combine and simplify the construction requirements
for stringing overhead lines, will be easier for employers and
employees to understand.
    Proposed Sec.  1926.964(b)(1) would require precautions to be taken
to prevent the line being installed or removed from contacting existing
energized power lines. Common methods of accomplishing this include the
use of the following techniques: stringing conductors by means of the
tension stringing method (which keeps the conductors off the ground and
clear of energized circuits) and the use of rope nets and guards (which
physically prevent one line from contacting another). These
precautions, or equivalent measures, are necessary to protect employees
against electric shock and against the effects of equipment damage
resulting from accidental contact of the line being installed with
energized parts.
    Even though the precautions taken under paragraph (b)(1) minimize
the possibility of accidental contact, there is still a significant
risk that the line being installed or removed could contact energized
lines. OSHA believes that the hazards posed during line installation or
removal are equivalent to those posed during the operations of
mechanical equipment near energized parts. Employees are exposed to
hazardous differences in potential if the conductor being installed or
equipment being used makes contact with an energized line. The methods
of protection that can be applied are also the same in both cases.
Therefore, the Agency believes that the approach used for the hazard of
contact between mechanical equipment and overhead lines should also be
used for the hazard of contact between a line being installed or
removed and an existing energized conductor. To accomplish this,
paragraph (b)(2) of proposed Sec.  1926.964 simply adopts the
requirements of Sec.  1926.958(d)(3) by reference when conductors are
installed or removed close enough to energized conductors that certain
failures could energize the pulling or tensioning equipment in use or
the cable being installed or removed. Basically, the employer would be
required to institute measures to protect employees from hazardous
differences in potential at the work location. (See the discussion of
proposed Sec.  1926.958(d)(3) and Appendix C to Subpart V for
acceptable methods of compliance.)
    Paragraph (b)(3) of proposed Sec.  1926.964 would require the
disabling of the automatic-reclosing feature of the devices protecting
any circuit that operates at more than 600 volts and that passes under
conductors being installed. If it is not made inoperative, this feature
would cause the circuit protective devices to reenergize the circuit
after they had tripped, exposing the employees to additional or more
severe injury.
    Paragraph (b)(1) of proposed Sec.  1926.964 would require the use
of techniques that minimize the possibility of contact between the
existing and new conductors. Paragraph (b)(2) of proposed Sec.
1926.964 would require the use of measures that protect employees from
hazardous differences in potential. These two paragraphs provide the
primary protection to employees installing conductors. Paragraph (b)(3)
is a redundant form of protection; it provides an additional measure of
safety in case the first two provisions are violated.\57\ Therefore,
this paragraph would apply only to circuit reclosing devices that are
designed to permit the disabling of the automatic reclosing feature.
The Agency believes that the combination of these three paragraphs in
proposed Sec.  1926.964 will provide effective protection against the
electrical hazards associated with installing or removing lines near
energized parts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Disabling the reclosing feature of circuit protective
devices does not provide any protection against the initial contact
with the energized circuit involved. It only prevents the devices
from reenergizing the circuit after they open it on a fault
condition as would occur, for example, when a line being strung by
employee drops onto an energized conductor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (b)(4) proposes rules protecting workers from the hazard
of voltage induced on lines being installed near (and usually parallel
to) other energized lines. These rules, which provide supplemental
provisions on grounding, would be in addition to those elsewhere in the
standard. In general, when employees may be exposed to the hazard of
induced voltage on overhead lines, the lines being installed must be
grounded to minimize the voltage and to protect employees handling the
lines from electric shock.
    Paragraph (b)(4) of proposed Sec.  1926.964 would require a
determination of the ``approximate'' voltage, unless the line being
installed is assumed to carry a hazardous induced voltage.
Additionally, workers would be

able to treat the line as energized rather than comply with the
additional grounding requirements contained in this paragraph.
    The proposal does not provide specific guidance for determining
whether or not a hazard exists due to induced voltage. The hazard
depends not only on the voltage of the existing line, but also on the
length of the line being installed and the distance between the
existing line and the new one. Electric shock, whether caused by
induced or other voltage, poses two different hazards. First, the
electric shock could cause an involuntary reaction, which could cause a
fall or other injury. Second, the electric shock itself could cause
respiratory or cardiac arrest. If no precautions are taken to protect
employees from hazards associated with involuntary reactions from
electric shock, a hazard is presumed to exist if the induced voltage is
sufficient to pass a current of 1 milliampere through a 500-ohm
resistor. (The 500-ohm resistor represents the resistance of an
employee. The 1 milliampere current is the threshold of perception.) If
employees are protected from injury due to involuntary reactions from
electric shock, a hazard is presumed to exist if the resultant current
would be more than 6 milliamperes (the let-go threshold for women). It
would be up to the employer to ensure that employees are protected
against serious injury from any voltages induced on lines being
installed and to determine whether the voltages are high enough to
warrant the adoption of the additional provisions on grounding spelled
out in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (b)(4)(v) of proposed Sec.
1926.964. These rules propose the following requirements:
    (1) Grounds must be installed in increments of no more than 2 miles
(paragraph (b)(4)(i));
    (2) Grounds must remain in place until the installation is
completed between dead ends (paragraph (b)(4)(ii));
    (3) Grounds must be removed as the last phase of aerial cleanup
(paragraph (b)(4)(iii));
    (4) Grounds must be installed at each work location and at all open
dead-end or catch-off points or the next adjacent structure (paragraph
(b)(4)(iv)) if employees are working on bare conductors; and
    (5) Bare conductors being spliced must be bonded and grounded
(paragraph (b)(4)(v)).
    Paragraph (b)(5) would require reel handling equipment to be in
safe operating condition and to be leveled and aligned. Proper
alignment of the stringing machines will help prevent failure of the
equipment, conductors, and supporting structures, which could result in
injury to workers.
    Prevention of the failure of the line pulling equipment and
accessories is also the purpose of paragraphs (b)(6), (b)(7), and
(b)(8). These provisions, respectively, would require the operation to
be performed within the load limits of the equipment, would require the
repair or replacement of defective apparatus, and would prohibit the
use of conductor grips not specifically designed for use in pulling
operations. Equipment that has been damaged beyond manufacturing
specifications or that has been damaged to the extent that its load
ratings would be reduced are considered to be defective. Load limits
and design specifications are normally provided by the manufacturer,
but they can also be found in engineering and materials handbooks (see,
for example, The Lineman's and Cableman's Handbook, 269-Ex. 8-5).
    When the tension stringing method is used, the pulling rig (which
takes up the pulling rope and thereby pulls the conductors into place)
is separated from the reel stands and tensioner (which pay out the
conductors and apply tension to them) by one or more spans (the
distance between the structures supporting the conductors). In an
emergency, the pulling equipment operator may have to shut down the
operation. Paragraph (b)(9) of proposed Sec.  1926.964 would require
communication to be maintained between the reel tender and the pulling
rig operator, so that in case of emergency at the conductor supply end,
the pulling rig operator can shut the equipment down before injury-
causing damage occurs.
    Paragraph (b)(10) would prohibit the operation of the pulling rig
under unsafe conditions. OSHA has included an explanatory note
following paragraph (b)(10) providing examples of unsafe conditions.
    Paragraph (b)(11) would prohibit employees from unnecessarily
working directly beneath overhead operations or on the cross arm. This
provision would minimize exposure of employees to injury resulting from
the failure of equipment, conductors, or supporting structures during
pulling operations.
    Under certain conditions, work must be performed on transmission
and distribution lines while they remain energized. Sometimes, this
work is accomplished using rubber insulating equipment or live-line
tools. However, this equipment has voltage and other limitations which
make it impossible to insulate the employee performing work on live
lines under all conditions. In such cases, usually on medium- and high-
voltage transmission lines, the work is performed using the live-line
bare-hand technique. If work is to be performed ``bare handed,'' the
employee works from an insulated aerial platform and is electrically
bonded to the energized line. Since there is essentially no potential
difference across the worker's body, he or she is protected from
electric shock. Paragraph (c) of proposed Sec.  1926.964 addresses the
live-line bare-hand technique.
    Proposed Sec.  1926.964(c) has been taken directly from Sec.
1910.269(q)(3). Existing Sec.  1926.955(e) contains similar
requirements for live-line bare hand work. Substantive differences
between the proposal and the existing rule are outlined in the
following summary and explanation of proposed Sec.  1926.964(c).
Because live-line bare-hand work is performed on overhead lines, OSHA
has proposed to place requirements for this type of work in the section
relating to work on overhead lines. This is consistent with existing
Subpart V. However, it is technically possible to perform live-line
bare-hand work on other types of installations as well (in substations,
for example). OSHA requests comments on whether or not the live-line
bare-hand requirements should be consolidated with the other
regulations relating to work on energized lines contained in proposed
Sec.  1926.960.
    Paragraph (c)(1) would require employees using or supervising the
use of the live-line bare-hand method on energized lines to be trained
in the use of the technique. Periodic retraining would have to be
provided as required under paragraph (b) of proposed Sec.  1926.950.
Without this training, employees would not be able to perform the
highly specialized work safely.
    Before work can be started, the voltage of the lines on which work
is to be performed must be known. This voltage determines the minimum
approach distances and the types of equipment which can be used. If the
voltage is higher than expected, the minimum approach distance will be
too small and the equipment may not be safe for use. Therefore,
paragraph (c)(2) of proposed Sec.  1926.964 would require a
determination to be made of the voltage of the circuit, of the minimum
approach distances to ground of lines and other energized parts on
which work is to be performed, and of the voltage limitations of
equipment to be used.
    Because an employee performing live-line bare-hand work is at the
same potential as the line on which he or she is working, the employee
has exposure

to two different voltages. First, the employee is exposed to the phase-
to-ground voltage with respect to any grounded object, such as a pole
or tower. Second, the employee is exposed to the full phase-to-phase
voltage with respect to the other phases on the circuit. Thus, there
are two sets of minimum approach distances applicable to live-line
bare-hand work-one for the phase-to-ground exposure (the distance from
the employee to a grounded object) and one for the phase-to-phase
exposure (the distance from the employee to another phase). The phase-
to-phase voltage is higher than the phase-to-ground voltage.
Consequently, the phase-to-phase-based minimum approach distance is
greater than the phase-to-ground-based minimum approach distance.
    Paragraph (c)(3) would require insulated tools and equipment to be
designed, tested, and intended for live-line bare-hand work and that
they be kept clean and dry. This requirement is important to ensure
that equipment does not fail under constant contact with high voltage
sources. The proposed rule would apply to insulated tools (such as
live-line tools), insulated equipment (such as insulated ladders), and
aerial devices and platforms used in live-line work. The Agency
considers insulated equipment that is designed for long-duration
contact with energized parts at the voltage on which it is used (such
as a live-line tool) to meet this requirement. Insulating equipment
designed for brush contact only is not suitable for live-line bare-hand
work.
    Paragraph (c)(4) would require the automatic-reclosing feature of
circuit protective devices to be made inoperative if the design of
those devices permits. In case of a fault at the worksite, it is
important for the circuit to be deenergized as quickly as possible and
for it to remain deenergized once the protective devices have opened
the circuit.\58\ This prevents any possible injuries from becoming more
severe. Additionally, this measure helps limit the possible switching
surge voltage, which provides an extra measure of safety. This
provision is comparable to existing Sec.  1926.955(e)(5), which
requires this feature to be rendered inoperable ``where practical.''
The proposal eliminates this phrase because OSHA believes that it is
essential that a line which becomes deenergized on a fault not be
reenergized if it is possible to do so. During live-line bare-hand
work, employees have no other back-up system providing for their safety
as they would for work on deenergized lines.\59\ Thus, if the employee
causes a fault on the line, the line must not become reenergized
automatically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ If the circuit protective devices do not provide an
autoreclosing feature, the circuit will remain deenergized by
design. In addition, voltage surges caused by circuit reclosing
would not occur.
    \59\ Personal protective grounding provides supplementary
protection in case the deenergized line is reenergized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sometimes the weather makes live-line bare-hand work unsafe. For
example, lightning strikes on lines being worked can create severe
transient voltages, against which the minimum approach distances
required by proposed Sec.  1926.960(c)(1) may not provide complete
protection. Additionally, the wind can reduce the minimum approach
distance below acceptable values. To provide protection against
environmental conditions that can increase the hazards by an
unacceptable degree, proposed paragraph (c)(5) would prohibit live-line
bare-hand work under conditions that make the work hazardous in spite
of the precautions taken under the proposed rule. Also, work would not
be allowed under any conditions that reduce the minimum approach
distances below required values. If insulating guards are provided to
prevent hazardous approach to other energized parts and to ground, then
work could be performed under conditions reducing the minimum approach
distances.
    Existing Sec.  1926.955(e)(6) prohibits live-line bare-hand work
only during thunderstorms. OSHA believes that expanding the prohibition
to include any weather condition making it unsafe to perform this type
of work will better protect employees. The language for the proposed
rule has been taken from Sec.  1910.269(q)(3)(v).
    Proposed Sec.  1926.964(c)(6) would require the use of a conductive
device, usually in the form of a conductive bucket liner, which creates
an area of equipotential in which the employee can work safely. The
employee must be bonded to this device by means of conductive shoes or
leg clips or by another effective method. Additionally, if necessary to
protect employees further (that is, if differences in electrical
potential at the worksite pose a hazard to employees), electrostatic
shielding would be required. Proposed Sec.  1926.964(c)(6), which has
been taken from Sec.  1910.269(q)(3)(vi), is essentially identical to
existing Sec.  1926.955(e)(7).
    To avoid receiving a shock caused by charging current, the employee
must bond the conductive bucket liner (or other conductive device) to
the energized conductor before he or she touches the conductor.
Typically, a hot stick is used to bring a bonding jumper (already
connected to the conductive bucket liner) into contact with the live
line. This connection brings the equipotential area surrounding the
employee to the same voltage as that of the line. Proposed Sec.
1926.964(c)(7) would require the conductive device to be bonded to the
energized conductor before any employee contacts the energized
conductor and would require this connection to be maintained until work
is completed. Proposed Sec.  1926.964(c)(7), which has been taken from
Sec.  1910.269(q)(3)(vii), is essentially identical to existing Sec.
1926.955(e)(14).
    Proposed Sec.  1926.964(c)(8) would require aerial lifts used for
live-line bare-hand work to be equipped with upper controls that are
within reach of any employee in the bucket and with lower controls that
permit override operation at the base of the boom. Upper controls are
necessary so that employees in the bucket can precisely control the
lift's direction and speed of approach to the live line. Control by
workers on the ground responding to directions from those in the bucket
could lead to contact by an employee in the lift with the energized
conductor before the bonding jumper is in place. Controls are needed at
ground level, however, so that employees in the lift who might be
disabled as a result of an accident or illness could be promptly
lowered and assisted. For this reason, paragraph (c)(9) would prohibit
operation of the ground level controls except in case of emergency.
Proposed paragraphs (c)(8) and (c)(9), which have been taken from Sec.
1910.269(q)(3)(viii) and (q)(3)(ix), are essentially identical to
existing Sec.  1926.955(e)(12) and (e)(13).
    Proposed Sec.  1926.964(c)(10) would require all aerial lift
controls to be checked to ensure that they are in proper working order
before any employee is lifted into the working position. This
paragraph, which has been taken from Sec.  1910.269(q)(3)(x), is
essentially identical to existing Sec.  1926.955(e)(10).
    To protect employees on the ground from the electric shock that
would be received upon touching the truck supporting the aerial lift,
proposed Sec.  1926.964(c)(11) would require the truck to be grounded
or barricaded and treated as energized. If the truck is grounded, the
insulation of the lift limits the voltage on the body of the truck to a
safe level. The proposed rule, which has been taken from Sec.
1910.269(q)(3)(xi), is similar to existing Sec.  1926.955(e)(9). The
existing requirement in Subpart V, however, also includes a provision
for using the outriggers on the aerial lift to stabilize

the equipment. The hazard addressed by this provision is covered in
proposed Sec.  1926.959(b)(1), discussed earlier in this section of the
preamble.
    Aerial lifts that are used in live-line bare-hand work are exposed
to the full line-to-ground voltage of the circuit for the duration of
the job. To ensure that the insulating value of the lift being used is
high enough to protect employees, proposed Sec.  1926.964(c)(12) would
require a boom-current test to be made before work is started each day.
The test would also be required when a higher voltage is encountered
and when conditions change to a degree that warrants retesting the
equipment.
    Under the standard, the test consists of placing the bucket in
contact with a source of voltage equal to that being encountered during
the job and keeping it there for at least 3 minutes. This is normally
accomplished at the worksite by placing the bucket in contact with the
energized line on which work is to be performed (without anyone in it,
of course).
    Paragraph (c)(12), which has been taken from Sec.
1910.269(q)(3)(xii), is similar to existing Sec.  1926.955(e)(11). To
provide employees with a level of protection equivalent to that
provided by American National Standard for Vehicle-Mounted Elevating
and Rotating Aerial Devices (ANSI A92.2-2001), Sec.  1926.964(c)(12)
proposes to permit a leakage current of up to 1 microampere per
kilovolt of nominal phase-to-ground voltage. In contrast, the
corresponding provision in existing Sec.  1926.955(e)(11) allows up to
1 microampere of current for every kilovolt of phase-to-phase voltage.
(For a three-phase, Y-connected system, the phase-to-phase voltage
equals 1.73 times the phase-to-ground voltage.) Because the national
consensus standard and Sec.  1910.269(q)(3)(xii) contain the more
protective language, OSHA is proposing the maximum leakage current of 1
microampere per kilovolt of phase-to-ground voltage from the general
industry standard.
    Proposed Sec.  1926.964(c)(12) would also require the suspension of
related work activity any time (not only during tests) a malfunction of
the equipment is evident. This proposed requirement is intended to
prevent the failure of insulated aerial devices during use. Only work
from an aerial lift is affected. Work not involving an aerial lift
could be continued. Halting work from the lift will protect employees
in the lift, as well as those on the ground, from the electrical
hazards involved.
    Proposed paragraphs (c)(13), (c)(14), and (c)(15) of proposed Sec.
1926.964 would require the minimum approach distances specified in
Table V-2 through Table V-6 to be maintained from grounded objects and
from objects at a potential different from that at which the bucket is
energized. These provisions, which are based on Sec.
1910.269(q)(3)(xiii), (q)(3)(iv), and (q)(3)(v), are essentially
identical to existing Sec.  1926.955(e)(15), (e)(16), and (e)(17),
except for the change in the minimum approach distances. (See the
summary and explanation of proposed Sec.  1926.960(c)(1) for a
discussion of the derivation of minimum approach distances.) Paragraph
(c)(13) would apply to minimum approach distances in general; paragraph
(c)(14) would cover minimum approach distances to be used as the
employee approaches or leaves the energized conductor; and paragraph
(c)(15) relates to the distance between the bucket and the end of a
bushing or insulator string. The latter two paragraphs clarify that the
employee and the bucket are considered to be at phase potential as the
employee is approaching the energized part and that the phase-to-ground
minimum approach distance must be maintained from grounded objects.
Similarly, the employee must maintain the phase-to-phase minimum
approach distance from the other phases on the system. OSHA requests
comments on whether proposed paragraphs (c)(14) and (c)(15) should
address objects at different phase potential in addition to objects at
ground potential.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(16) would prohibit the use of hand lines
between the bucket and boom and between the bucket and ground. Such use
of lines could set up a potential difference between the employee in
the bucket and the power line when the employee contacts the hand line.
If the hand line is a nonconductive type and if it is not supported
from the bucket, it may be used from the conductor to ground. Unless
the rope is insulated for the voltage, employees on the ground must
treat it as energized. Lastly, ropes used for live-line bare-hand work
may not be used for other purposes.
    This provision, which has been taken from Sec.
1910.269(q)(3)(xvi), is similar to existing Sec.  1926.955(e)(18).
However, the existing standard, in Sec.  1926.955(e)(18)(ii), prohibits
conductive materials over 36 inches long from being placed in the
aerial lift bucket. Exceptions are made for ``appropriate length
jumpers, armor rods, and tools.'' OSHA is proposing to revoke this
requirement. The proposal would require the minimum approach distance
to be maintained regardless of the length of any conductive object.
Thus, existing Sec.  1926.955(e)(18)(ii) is unnecessary.
    Proposed Sec. Sec.  1926.964(c)(17) would prohibit passing
uninsulated equipment or materials to an employee bonded to an
energized part. Passing uninsulated objects to an employee who is
bonded to an energized conductor would bridge the insulation to ground
and endanger the employee. This proposed provision, which is based on
Sec.  1910.269(q)(3)(xvii), has no counterpart in existing Sec.
1926.955(e).
    Proposed Sec.  1926.964(c)(18) would require a durable
nonconductive chart reflecting the minimum approach distances
prescribed by Table V-2 through Table V-6 to be mounted so that it is
visible to the operator of the boom. Of course, a table prescribing
minimum approach distances greater than those required would also be
acceptable. This provision, which has been taken from Sec.
1910.269(q)(3)(xviii), is essentially identical to existing Sec.
1926.955(e)(20)(i).
    Proposed Sec.  1926.964(c)(19) would require a non-conductive
measuring device to be available and readily accessible to the employee
in the lift. This provision has been taken from Sec.
1910.269(q)(3)(xix). Existing Sec.  1926.955(e)(20)(ii) recommends, but
does not require, an insulating measuring device. OSHA believes that
this should be a requirement, rather than a recommendation, so that
employees can accurately determine whether the required minimum
approach distances are being maintained. Under the existing standard,
an employee might be required by the employer to estimate the distance.
Compliance with paragraphs (c)(18) and (c)(19) in proposed Sec.
1926.964 would assist the employee in accurately determining the
minimum approach distances required by the standard.
    Existing Sec.  1926.955(e)(19) prohibits an aerial lift used in
live-line bare-hand work from being overstressed while lifting or
supporting weights. OSHA has not proposed to include this requirement
under Sec.  1926.964. The hazard addressed by the existing requirement
is a general hazard, which is present any time the aerial lift is used,
not just during live-line bare-hand work. OSHA believes that this
hazard is better treated in proposed Sec.  1926.959(c), which would
require mechanical equipment to be operated within its design
limitations.
    Paragraph (d) of proposed Sec.  1926.964 addresses hazards
associated with towers and other structures supporting overhead lines.
This paragraph has been taken from Sec.  1910.269(q)(4).
    Paragraph (b) of existing Sec.  1926.955 addresses metal tower
construction.

Many of the requirements in the existing rules cover the same hazards
as other provisions in the construction standards. For example, Sec.
1926.955(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) address hazards associated with
footing excavations. Power transmission and distribution workers are
fully protected from these hazards by Subpart P of Part 1926.\60\
Therefore, the proposed revision of Subpart V contains no counterparts
to these existing requirements. Existing paragraphs (b)(5)(i) and
(b)(7) contain simple references to other Part 1926 requirements.
Existing paragraphs (b)(5)(iii), (b)(6)(i), (b)(6)(v), and (b)(8),
which address a few of the hazards associated with mechanical
equipment, contain requirements that are equivalent to provisions in
existing Subpart N of Part 1926 or proposed Sec.  1926.959. The
proposed revision of Subpart V contains counterparts to none of these
six paragraphs. OSHA believes that eliminating these provisions will
reduce redundancy and will eliminate the potential for conflicts
between different standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Two of the requirements in the existing paragraphs are
covered in other places. Under the last sentence of existing Sec.
1926.955(b)(1), ladders must be used to provide access for pad- or
pile-type footing excavations more than 4 feet deep. This hazard is
already addressed in Sec.  1926.1051(a), which requires a stairway
or a ladder to be provided for access to breaks in elevation of more
than 48 cm, unless a ramp, runway, sloped embankment, or personnel
hoist is available. Existing Sec.  1926.955(b)(3)(iii) addresses the
stability of equipment used near excavations. Proposed Sec.
1926.959(b) and (c) cover hazards associated with instability of
mechanical equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To protect employees on the ground from hazards presented by
falling objects, proposed Sec.  1926.964(d)(1) would prohibit workers
from standing under a tower or other structure, unless their presence
is necessary to assist employees working above. This provision, which
has been taken from Sec.  1910.269(q)(4)(i), is equivalent to existing
Sec.  1926.955(b)(4)(i) and (b)(5)(ii). The proposal eliminates the
redundancy presented by these two existing requirements.
    Paragraph (d)(2) of proposed Sec.  1926.964 relates to operations
that involve lifting and positioning tower sections. This provision
requires tag lines or other similar devices to be used to control tower
sections being positioned, unless the employer can demonstrate that the
use of such devices would create a greater hazard. The use of tag lines
protects employees from being struck by tower sections that are in
motion. This provision, which has been taken from Sec.
1910.269(q)(4)(ii), is the same as Sec.  1926.955(b)(4)(ii) and
(b)(6)(ii). The proposal eliminates the redundancy presented by these
two existing requirements.
    Paragraph (d)(3) of proposed Sec.  1926.964 would require loadlines
to remain in place until the load is secured so that it cannot topple
and injure an employee. This provision, which has been taken from Sec.
1910.269(q)(4)(iii), is essentially identical to Sec.
1926.955(b)(4)(iii) and (b)(6)(iii). The proposal eliminates the
redundancy presented by these two existing requirements.
    Some weather conditions can make work from towers and other
overhead structures more hazardous than usual. For example, icy
conditions may make slips and falls much more likely, in fact even
unavoidable. Under such conditions, work from towers and other
structures would generally be prohibited by proposed Sec.
1926.964(d)(4). However, when emergency restoration work \61\ is
involved, the additional risk may be necessary for public safety, and
the standard permits such work to be performed even in bad weather.
This provision, which has been taken from Sec.  1910.269(q)(4)(iv), is
essentially identical to existing Sec.  1926.955(b)(6)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Emergency restoration work is considered to be that work
needed to restore an electric power transmission or distribution
installation to an operating condition to the extent necessary to
safeguard the general public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 1926.965, Underground Electrical Installations
    In many electric distribution systems, electric equipment is
installed in enclosures, such as manholes and vaults, set beneath the
earth. Proposed Sec.  1926.965 addresses safety for these underground
electrical installations. As noted in Sec.  1926.965(a), the
requirements proposed in this section are in addition to requirements
contained elsewhere in the standard (and elsewhere in Part 1926)
because Sec.  1926.965 only contains considerations unique to
underground facilities. For example, proposed Sec.  1926.953, relating
to enclosed spaces, also applies to underground operations involving
entry into an enclosed space.
    Proposed Sec.  1926.965 has been taken from Sec.  1910.269(t).
Existing Subpart V contains requirements for work on underground lines
in Sec.  1926.956. Differences between the existing rules and the
proposed rules are explained in the following summary and explanation
of proposed Sec.  1926.965.
    Paragraph (b) of proposed Sec.  1926.965 would require the use of
ladders or other climbing devices for entrance into and exit from
manholes and subsurface vaults that are more than 1.22 meters (4 feet)
deep. Because employees can easily be injured in the course of jumping
into subsurface enclosures or in climbing on the cables and hangers
which have been installed in these enclosures, the standard requires
the use of appropriate devices for employees entering and exiting
manholes and vaults. The practice of climbing on equipment such as
cables and cable hangers is specifically prohibited by paragraph (b).
This proposed provision has been taken from Sec.  1910.269(t)(1).
Subpart V contains no counterpart to this requirement.
    Paragraph (c) of proposed Sec.  1926.965 would require equipment
used to lower materials and tools into manholes or vaults to be capable
of supporting the weight and requires this equipment to be checked for
defects before use. Paragraph (c) would also require employees to be in
the clear when tools or materials are lowered into the enclosure. This
provision protects employees against being injured by falling tools and
material. It should be noted that, because work addressed by this
paragraph exposes employees to the danger of head injury, Sec.
1926.95(a) requires employees to wear head protection when they are
working in underground electrical installations. Proposed paragraph (c)
has been taken from Sec.  1910.269(t)(2). Subpart V contains no
counterpart to this requirement.
    Paragraph (d) of proposed Sec.  1926.965 would require attendants
for manholes. During the time work is being performed in a manhole that
contains energized electric equipment, an employee would be required to
be available in the immediate vicinity (but not normally in the
manhole) to render emergency assistance. However, the attendant would
be allowed to enter the manhole, for brief periods, to provide other
than emergency assistance to those inside.
    The provisions in paragraph (d) are being proposed so that
emergency assistance can be provided to employees working in manholes,
where the employees work unobserved and where undetected injury could
occur. Taken from Sec.  1910.269(t)(3) and from existing Sec.
1926.956(b)(1), these proposed requirements are intended to protect
employees within the manhole without exposing the attendants outside to
a risk of injury greater than that faced by those inside.
    Because the hazards addressed by paragraph (t)(3) are primarily
related to electric shock, allowing the attendant to

enter the manhole briefly \62\ has no significant effect on the safety
of the employee he or she is protecting. In case of electric shock, the
attendant would still be able to provide assistance. The proposed rule
would require the attendant to be trained in first aid and in CPR to
ensure that emergency treatment will be available if needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ The attendant would be permitted to remain within the
manhole only for the short period of time necessary to assist the
employee inside the manhole with a task that one employee cannot
perform alone. For example, if a second employee is needed to help
lift a piece of equipment into place, the attendant could enter only
for the amount of time that is needed to accomplish this task.
However, if significant portions of the job require the assistance
of a second worker in the manhole, the attendant would not be
permitted to remain in the manhole for the length of time that would
be necessary, and a third employee would be required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If other hazards are believed to endanger the employee in the
manhole, paragraph (h) of proposed Sec.  1926.953 would also apply.\63\
This provision would require attendants for work in an enclosed space
(for example, a manhole) if a hazard exists because of traffic patterns
in the area of the opening to the enclosed space. Thus, an attendant
would be required when traffic patterns in the area around the manhole
opening endanger an entrant exiting the manhole. In such situations,
the employee on the surface would be exposed to the same hazards
against which he or she is trying to protect the original entrant if
the attendant were to enter the manhole or vault. Therefore, the
proposal would not permit attendants required under Sec.  1926.953(h)
to enter the manhole. To clarify the application of the two different
attendant requirements, a note has been included following Sec.
1926.965(d)(2). The note indicates that if an attendant is also
required under Sec.  1926.953(h), one person may serve to satisfy both
requirements, but is not permitted to enter the manhole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Additionally, as noted in the discussion of proposed Sec.
1926.953, earlier in this preamble, the entry would have to be
conducted in accordance with Sec.  1910.146, the generic permit-
required confined spaces standard, if proposed Sec. Sec.  1926.953
and 1926.965 would not adequately protect the entrants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA has included a second note following Sec.  1926.965(d)(2).
This note serves as a reminder that Sec.  1926.960(b) would prohibit
unqualified employees from working in areas containing unguarded,
uninsulated energized lines or parts of equipment operating at 50 volts
or more.
    Paragraph (d)(3) of proposed Sec.  1926.965 would permit an
employee working alone to enter a manhole or vault for the purpose of
inspection, housekeeping, taking readings, or similar work. As noted
earlier, the purpose of requiring an attendant under proposed Sec.
1926.965(d) is to provide assistance in case an electric shock occurs.
When an employee is performing the types of work listed in this
provision, there is very little chance that he or she would suffer an
electric shock. Thus, the Agency believes it is safe for an employee to
perform duties such as housekeeping and inspection without the presence
of an attendant.
    Under paragraph (d)(4) of proposed Sec.  1926.965, reliable
communications would be required to be maintained among all employees
involved in the job, including any attendants, the employees in the
manhole, and employees in separate manholes working on the same job.
This requirement, which has been taken from Sec.  1910.269(t)(3)(iv),
has no counterpart in Sec.  1926.956(b)(1).
    To install cables into the underground ducts, or conduits, that
will contain them, employees use a series of short jointed rods or a
long flexible rod inserted into the ducts. The insertion of these rods
into the ducts is known as ``rodding.'' The rods are used to thread the
cable-pulling rope through the conduit. After the rods have been
withdrawn and the cable-pulling ropes have been inserted, the cables
can then be pulled through by mechanical means.
    Paragraph (e) of proposed Sec.  1926.965 would require duct rods to
be inserted in the direction presenting the least hazard to employees.
To make sure that a rod does not contact live parts at the far end of
the duct line being rodded, which would be in a different manhole or
vault, the proposal would also require an employee to be stationed at
the remote end of the rodding operation to ensure that the required
minimum approach distances are maintained. This provision, which has
been taken from Sec.  1910.269(t)(4), has no counterpart in existing
Subpart V.
    To prevent accidents resulting from working on the wrong cable, one
that may be energized, proposed Sec.  1926.965(f) would require the
identification of the proper cable when multiple cables are present in
a work area. The identification must be made by electrical means (for
example, a meter), unless the proper cable is obvious because of
appearance, location, or other means of readily identifying the proper
cable. This proposed paragraph, which has been taken from Sec.
1910.269(t)(5), is similar to existing Sec.  1926.956(c)(4), (c)(5),
and (c)(6); however, existing Sec.  1926.956(c)(4) and (c)(5) apply
only to excavations. The proposal would apply the requirements to all
underground installations.
    If any energized cables are to be moved during underground
operations, paragraph (g) of proposed Sec.  1926.965 would require them
to be inspected for possible defects that could lead to a fault. (If a
defect is found, paragraph (h) would apply.) These provisions protect
employees against possibly defective cables, which could fault upon
being moved, leading to serious injury. This paragraph in the proposal,
which has been taken from Sec.  1910.269(t)(6), has no counterpart in
existing Subpart V.
    Since defective energized cables may fail with an enormous release
of energy, precautions must be taken to minimize the possibility of
such an occurrence while an employee is working in a manhole.
Therefore, paragraph (h) of proposed Sec.  1926.965 would, in general,
prohibit employees from working in a manhole which contains an
energized cable with a defect that could lead to a fault. The proposal
lists typical abnormalities that could expose employees to injury as:
oil or compound leaking from a cable or joint (splice), a broken cable
sheath or joint sleeve, hot localized surface temperatures on a cable
or joint, or a joint that is swollen beyond normal tolerances. Examples
of abnormalities are listed in a note following Sec.  1926.965(h). The
note states that the listed conditions are presumed to lead to or be an
indication of a possible impending fault. An employer could demonstrate
that any one of these conditions, in a particular case, is not
indicative of an impending fault, in which case proposed Sec.
1926.965(h) would not require protective measures to be taken. This
provision, which has been taken from Sec.  1910.269(t)(7), has no
counterpart in existing Subpart V.
    In the Sec.  1910.269 rulemaking, OSHA concluded that employees may
work in a manhole that contains an energized cable with abnormalities
only when service load conditions and feasible alternatives prevent
deenergizing the cable and only when the employees are protected from a
failure (January 31, 1994, 59 FR 4416).
    Under some service load conditions, it may not be feasible for the
electric utility to deenergize the cable with the defect at the same
time that another line is deenergized for maintenance work. In such
cases, paragraph (h)(1) of proposed Sec.  1926.965 would allow the
defective cable or splice to remain energized as long as the employees
in the manhole are protected against the possible effects of a failure
by shields or other devices capable of containing the adverse effects
of a failure. For example, a ballistic blanket wrapped around a
defective

splice can protect against injury from the effects of a fault in the
splice. The energy that could be released in case of a fault is known,
and the energy absorbing capability of a shield or other device can be
obtained from the manufacturer or can be calculated. As long as the
energy absorbing capability of the shield or other device exceeds the
available fault energy, employees will be protected. The proposal would
require employees to be protected, regardless of the type of device
used and of how it is applied. Additionally, the proposal would permit
this option to be used only ``when service load conditions and a lack
of feasible alternatives require that the cable remain energized.''
Employers are required to use alternatives, such as the use of shunts
or other means of supplying areas with power, whenever feasible before
allowing access.
    Paragraph (h)(2) addresses work that could itself cause a fault in
a cable, such as removing asbestos covering on a cable or using a power
tool to break concrete encasing a cable. This type of work can damage
the cable and create an internal fault. The energy released by the
fault could injure not only the employee performing the work but any
other employees nearby. Paragraph (h)(2) would require the same
protective measures in those situations as paragraph (h)(1), that is,
deenergizing the cable or, under certain conditions, using shields or
other protective devices capable of containing the effects of the
fault.
    Paragraph (i) of proposed Sec.  1926.965 would require metallic
sheath continuity to be maintained while work is performed on
underground cables. Bonding across an opening in a cable's sheath
protects employees against shock from a difference in potential between
the two sides of the opening. As an alternative to bonding, the cable
sheath could be treated as energized. (The voltage to which the sheath
is to be considered energized is equal to the maximum voltage that
could be seen across the sheath under fault conditions.) This
requirement, which has been taken from Sec.  1910.269(t)(8), is
essentially identical to existing Sec.  1926.956(c)(7), except that the
proposal would allow the cable sheath to be treated as energized in
lieu of bonding. This is consistent with other parts of the proposal,
such as proposed Sec.  1926.960(j), which recognize treating objects as
energized as an alternative to grounding.
Section 1926.966, Substations
    Proposed Sec.  1926.966 addresses work performed in substations. As
is the case elsewhere in the standard, the provisions of this paragraph
are intended to supplement (rather than modify) the more general
requirements contained in other portions of Subpart V, such as Sec.
1926.960 on working on or near live parts.
    Proposed Sec.  1926.966(b) would require enough space to be
provided around electric equipment to allow ready and safe access to
and operation and maintenance of the equipment. This rule would prevent
employees from contacting exposed live parts as a result of
insufficient maneuvering room. A note has been included to recognize,
as constituting compliance, the provisions of ANSI C2-2002 for the
design of workspace for electric equipment. This provision, which has
been taken from Sec.  1910.269(u)(1), has no counterpart in existing
Subpart V.
    OSHA realizes that older installations may not meet the dimensions
set forth in the latest version of the national consensus standard. The
Agency believes that the language of proposed Sec.  1926.966(b) is
sufficiently performance oriented that older installations built to
specifications in the standards that were in effect at the time they
were constructed would meet the requirement for sufficient workspace
provided that the installation and work practices used enable employees
to perform work safely within the space and to maintain the minimum
approach distances specified in proposed Sec.  1926.960(c)(1). In fact,
the note for this provision states that the NESC specifications are
guidelines. The ANSI standard is specifically not being incorporated by
reference here. However, OSHA has included the following language in
the note to proposed Sec.  1926.966(b):

    Note to paragraph (b) of this section: Guidelines for the
dimensions of access and workspace about electric equipment in
substations are contained in American National Standard National
Electrical Safety Code, ANSI C2-2002. Installations meeting the ANSI
provisions comply with paragraph (b) of this section. An
installation that does not conform to this ANSI standard will,
nonetheless, be considered as complying with paragraph (b) of this
section if the employer can demonstrate that the installation
provides ready and safe access based on the following evidence:
    (1) That the installation conforms to the edition of ANSI C2
that was in effect at the time the installation was made,
    (2) That the configuration of the installation enables employees
to maintain the minimum approach distances required by Sec.
1926.960(c)(1) of this Part while they working on exposed, energized
parts, and
    (3) That the precautions taken when work is performed on the
installation provide protection equivalent to the protection that
would be provide by access and working space meeting ANSI C2-2002.

    This language accomplishes three goals. First, it explains that an
installation need not be in conformance with ANSI C2-2002 in order to
be considered as complying with proposed Sec.  1926.966(b). Second, it
informs employers whose installations do not conform to the latest ANSI
standard of how they can demonstrate compliance with the OSHA standard.
Third, it ensures that, however old an installation is, it provides
sufficient space to enable employees to work within the space without
significant risk of injury.
    Proposed Sec.  1926.966(c) would require draw-out-type circuit
breakers to be inserted and removed while the breaker is in the open
position. (A draw-out-type circuit breaker is one in which the
removable portion may be withdrawn from the stationary portion without
the necessity of unbolting connections or mounting supports.)
Additionally, if the design of the control devices permits, the control
circuit for the circuit breaker would have to be rendered inoperative.
(Some circuit breaker and control device designs do not incorporate a
feature allowing the control circuit for the breaker to be rendered
inoperative.) These provisions are intended to prevent arcing which
could injure employees. This proposed paragraph, which has been taken
from Sec.  1910.269(u)(2), has no counterpart in existing Subpart V.
    Because voltages can be impressed or induced on large metal objects
near substation equipment, proposed Sec.  1926.966(d) would require
conductive fences around substations to be grounded. Continuity across
openings is also required in order to eliminate voltage differences
between adjacent parts of the fence.
    This provision has been taken from Sec.  1910.269(u)(3). Existing
Sec.  1926.957(g)(1) requires ``[a]dequate interconnection with
ground'' to be maintained between temporary and permanent fences.
Existing Subpart V does not require permanent substation fences to be
grounded. However, OSHA believes that grounding metal fences, whether
they are temporary or permanent, is essential to the safety of
employees working near the fences.
    Proposed Sec.  1926.966(e) addresses the guarding of rooms
containing electric supply equipment. This paragraph has been taken
from Sec.  1910.269(u)(4). The only provisions in existing Subpart V
addressing guarding of live parts in substations are contained in

Sec.  1926.957(c) and (g). These two provisions require barricades or
barriers to be installed (paragraph (c)) and for temporary fences to be
installed if sections of permanent fencing are removed (paragraph (g)).
Existing Sec.  1926.957(g)(2) also requires gates to unattended
substations to be locked.
    The existing requirements only address temporary guarding measures.
Permanent guarding of live parts, which is generally more substantial
than the tape and cone barricades permitted under the existing rule, is
never mentioned in existing Sec.  1926.957. OSHA's proposed revision of
the substation rules addresses guarding of live parts in substations in
a more comprehensive manner and should provide better protection for
employees.
    OSHA believes that it is important to prohibit unqualified persons
from areas containing energized electric supply equipment regardless of
the work they would be performing. Employees working in these areas
must be trained in the hazards involved and in the appropriate work
practices, as would be required by proposed Sec.  1926.950(b)(2).
Otherwise, they would not be able to distinguish hazardous circuit
parts from non-hazardous equipment and would not be familiar with the
appropriate work practices, regardless of the jobs they are performing.
There have been accidents that involve contact of unqualified persons
with energized parts in such areas.
    Subpart V is intended to apply to electrical installations for
which OSHA has few design requirements. The Subpart K electrical
installation standards typically do not apply to electric power
transmission and distribution installations, and such installations may
pose hazards in addition to those of exposed live parts. For example,
equipment enclosures may be ungrounded. If the requirements of Subpart
K are not being met, then it is important to prevent unqualified
persons from gaining access to areas containing electric power
transmission and distribution equipment.
    If, on the other hand, the installation conforms to Subpart K, at
least with respect to the guarding of live parts and to the grounding
of enclosures for these parts, unqualified employees may safely access
substation areas. In Subpart K, suitable protection is provided by
Sec. Sec.  1926.403(j)(2), 1926.403(i)(2), and 1926.404(f)(7) for
employees working in substations. These provisions prohibit unqualified
persons from accessing areas containing exposed live parts operating at
50 volts through 600 volts and located less than 8 feet above the floor
or other working surface. Unqualified persons are also prohibited from
areas containing live parts operating at more than 600 volts, unless
the live parts are completely enclosed in metal enclosures or are
installed at an elevation of at least 8 feet, 6 inches. The metal
enclosures must be grounded, and the minimum height increases with
increasing voltage.
    OSHA is proposing to adopt requirements here that follow the
Subpart K approach. Proposed Sec.  1926.966(e) sets forth criteria for
access by unqualified persons to spaces containing electric supply
lines or equipment. Paragraph (e)(1) divides areas containing electric
supply equipment into three categories as follows:
    (1) Areas where exposed live parts operating at 50 to 150 volts to
ground are located within 2.4 meters (8 feet) of the ground or other
working surface,
    (2) Areas where live parts operating at between 150 and 601 volts
and located within 2.4 meters (8 feet) of the ground or other working
surface are guarded only by location, as permitted under paragraph
(f)(1), and
    (3) Areas where live parts operating at more than 600 volts are
located, unless:
    (a) The live parts are enclosed within grounded, metal-enclosed
equipment whose only openings are designed so that foreign objects
inserted in these openings will be deflected from energized parts, or
    (b) The live parts are installed at a height above ground and any
other working surface that provides protection at least equivalent to
an 2.4-meter (8-foot) height at 50 volts.
    Proposed Sec.  1926.966(e)(2) through (e)(5) propose requirements
that would apply to these areas. The areas would have to be so enclosed
as to minimize the possibility that unqualified persons will enter;
warning signs would have to be displayed; and entrances not under the
observation of an attendant would have to be kept locked. Additionally,
unqualified persons would not be permitted to enter these areas while
the electric supply lines or equipment are energized.
    Proposed Sec.  1926.966(f) also addresses guarding of live parts.
This paragraph, which has been taken from Sec.  1910.269(u)(5), has no
counterpart in existing Subpart V.
    Proposed Sec.  1926.966(f)(1) would require live parts operating at
more than 150 volts to be guarded (by physical guards or by location)
or insulated. This provision protects qualified employees from
accidentally contacting energized parts. Guidance for clearance
distances appropriate for guarding by location can be found in ANSI C2.
Installations meeting ANSI C2-2002 are considered to meet paragraph
(f)(1), which is based on Section 124A.1 of that standard.
    OSHA will consider installations that do not meet ANSI C2-2002 as
meeting proposed paragraph (f)(1) provided the employer can demonstrate
that the installation provides sufficient clearance based on the
following evidence:
    (1) That the installation meets the requirements of the edition of
ANSI C2 that was in effect at the time the installation was made,
    (2) That each employee is isolated from live parts at the point of
closest approach, and
    (3) That the precautions taken protect employees to the same degree
as the clearances specified in ANSI C2-2002.
    This approach would afford employers flexibility in complying with
the standard and would afford employees protection from injury due to
sparkover from live circuit parts.
    Proposed Sec.  1926.966(f)(2) would require the guarding of live
parts within a compartment to be maintained during operation and
maintenance functions. This guarding is intended to prevent accidental
contact with energized parts and to prevent objects from being dropped
on energized parts. However, since access must be gained to energized
equipment by qualified employees, an exception to this proposed
requirement allows the removal of guards for fuse replacement and other
necessary access by qualified persons. In such cases, proposed
paragraph (f)(3) would protect other employees working nearby by
requiring the installation of protective barriers around the work area.
    So that employees can receive pertinent information on conditions
that affect safety at the substation, paragraph (g)(1) would require
employees who do not regularly work at the station to report their
presence to the employee in charge. Typical conditions affecting safety
in substations include the location of energized equipment in the area
and the limits of any deenergized work area. Proposed paragraph (g)(2)
would require this specific information to be communicated to employees
during the job briefing required by proposed Sec.  1926.952. These two
requirements have been taken from Sec.  1910.269(u)(6).
    Existing Sec.  1926.957(a)(1) requires authorization to be obtained
from the person in charge of the substation before work is performed.
The proposal would not require authorization. OSHA does not believe
that such a requirement is necessary. As noted, proposed Sec.
1926.966(g)(1) would require employees who do not regularly work in

the substation to report their presence to the employee in charge. The
main purpose of this rule is for the flow of important safety-related
information from the employee in charge to employees about to work in
the substation. As long as this information is imparted to the
employees performing the work and as long as the requirements proposed
in the revision of Subpart V are followed, the work can be performed
safely. The Agency does not believe that the requirement that the work
be authorized is necessary for employee safety; however, OSHA requests
comments on whether or not the lack of authorization to perform work
can lead to accidents.
    Existing Sec.  1926.957(a)(2) is essentially identical to proposed
Sec.  1926.966(g)(2), except that the existing rule, in paragraph
(a)(2)(ii), also requires the determination of what protective
equipment and precautions are necessary. Since the job briefing is
already required to cover these areas under proposed Sec.  1926.952(b),
existing Sec.  1926.957(a)(2)(ii), which applies only to work in
energized substations, would no longer be necessary.
Section 1926.967, Special Conditions
    Proposed Sec.  1926.967 proposes requirements for special
conditions that are encountered during electric power transmission and
distribution work.
    Since capacitors store electric charge and can release electrical
energy even when disconnected from their sources of supply, some
precautions may be necessary--in addition to those proposed in Sec.
1926.961 (deenergizing lines and equipment) and Sec.  1926.962
(grounding)--when work is performed on capacitors or on lines that are
connected to capacitors. Proposed Sec.  1926.967(a), which has been
taken from Sec.  1910.269(w)(1), contains precautions which will enable
this equipment to be considered as deenergized. This proposed paragraph
has no counterpart in existing Subpart V.
    Under proposed Sec.  1926.967(a)(1), capacitors on which work is to
be performed would have to be disconnected from their sources of supply
and, after a 5-minute wait, short-circuited. This not only removes the
sources of electric current but relieves the capacitors of their charge
as well. It should be noted that ANSI/IEEE Standard No. 18-2002
requires all capacitors to have an internal resistor across its
terminals to reduce the voltage to 50 volts or less within 5 minutes
after the capacitor is disconnected from an energized source.
    For work on individual capacitors in a series-parallel capacitor
bank, each unit must be short-circuited between its terminals and the
capacitor tank or rack, and the rack must be grounded; otherwise,
individual capacitors could retain a charge. These considerations are
proposed in paragraph (a)(2). Lastly, paragraph (a)(3) also requires
lines to which capacitors are connected to be short-circuited before
the lines can be considered deenergized.
    A note referring to the requirements for deenergizing electric
transmission and distribution lines and equipment (proposed Sec.
1926.961) and for grounding (proposed Sec.  1926.962) has been included
following Sec.  1926.967(a) to alert readers to the appropriate
requirements for deenergizing and grounding.
    Although the magnetic flux density in the core of a current
transformer is usually very low, resulting in a low secondary voltage,
it will rise to saturation if the secondary circuit is opened while the
transformer primary is energized. If this occurs, the magnetic flux
will induce a voltage in the secondary winding high enough to be
hazardous to the insulation in the secondary circuit and to personnel.
Because of this hazard to workers, proposed Sec.  1926.967(b) would
prohibit the opening of the secondary circuit of a current transformer
while the primary is energized. If the primary cannot be deenergized
for work to be performed on the secondary, then the secondary circuit
would have to be bridged so that an open-circuit condition does not
result. This provision, which has been taken from Sec.  1910.269(w)(2),
has no counterpart in existing Subpart V.
    In a series streetlighting circuit, the lamps are connected in
series, and the same current flows in each lamp. This current is
supplied by a constant-current transformer, which provides a constant
current at a variable voltage from a source of constant voltage and
variable current. Like the current transformer, the constant current
source attempts to supply current even when the secondary circuit is
open. The resultant open-circuit voltage can be very high and hazardous
to employees. For this reason, Sec.  1926.967(c)(2) proposes a
requirement, similar to that in proposed paragraph (b), that either the
streetlighting transformer be deenergized or the circuit be bridged to
avoid an open-circuit condition. In addition, proposed Sec.
1926.967(c)(1) would require streetlighting circuits with an open
circuit voltage of more than 600 volts to be worked in accordance with
the requirements on overhead lines in proposed Sec.  1926.964 or on
underground electrical installations in proposed Sec.  1926.965, as
appropriate. These provisions, which have been taken from Sec.
1910.269(w)(3), have no counterpart in existing Subpart V.
    Frequently, electric power transmission and distribution employees
must work at night or in enclosed places, such as manholes, that are
not illuminated by the sun. Since inadvertent contact with live parts
can be fatal, good lighting is important to the safety of these
workers. Therefore, proposed Sec.  1926.967(d) would require sufficient
illumination to be provided so that work can be performed safely. This
provision, which has been taken from Sec.  1910.269(w)(4), is
comparable to existing Sec.  1926.950(f). The existing requirement,
however, applies only at night. OSHA believes that it is important for
employees to have sufficient lighting to perform the work safely no
matter what the time of day is. The note following proposed Sec.
1926.967(d) refers to Sec.  1926.56 for specific levels of illumination
that are required under various conditions.
    To protect employees working in areas that expose them to the
hazards of drowning, proposed Sec.  1926.967(e) would require the
provision and use of personal flotation devices. Additionally, to
ensure that these devices would provide the necessary protection upon
demand, they would have to be approved by the U.S. Coast Guard, be
maintained in safe condition, and be inspected frequently enough to
ensure that they do not have defects or other conditions that would
render them unsuitable for use. Lastly, employees would not be
permitted to cross streams unless a safe means of passage is provided.
This provision, which has been taken from Sec.  1910.269(w)(5), would
replace existing Sec.  1926.950(g). The existing rule simply references
other construction standards on body belts, safety straps, and
lanyards, on safety nets, and on protection for working near water,
namely Sec. Sec.  1926.104, 1926.105, and 1926.106. OSHA is proposing
language identical to that contained in Sec.  1910.269 for consistency
with that standard, which the Agency believes affords better protection
for electric power transmission and distribution employees. However,
comments are invited on whether or not existing Sec.  1926.950(g) would
better protect employees.
    Proposed Sec.  1926.967(f) references Subpart P of Part 1926 for
requirements on excavations. This provision is equivalent to existing
Sec.  1926.956(c)(2), which references Sec. Sec.  1926.651 and 1926.652
of that subpart. The proposed

rule clearly indicates that all of the requirements of Subpart P apply.
    Employees working in areas with pedestrian or vehicular traffic are
exposed to additional hazards compared to employees working on an
employer's premises, where public access is restricted. One serious
additional hazard faced by workers exposed to the public is that of
being struck by a vehicle (or even by a person). To protect employees
against being injured as a result of traffic mishaps, proposed Sec.
1926.967(g) would require the placement of warning signs or flags or
other warning devices to channel approaching traffic away from the work
area if the conditions in the area pose a hazard to employees. If
warning signs are not sufficient protection or if employees are working
in an area in which there are excavations, barricades must be erected.
Additionally, warning lights are required for night work. This proposed
paragraph also references Sec.  1926.200(g)(2), which covers traffic
control devices. This provision in OSHA's construction standards
incorporates Part VI of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices,
1988 Edition, Revision 3, September 3, 1993, FHWA-SA-94-027, or Part VI
of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Millennium Edition,
December 2000, Federal Highway Administration, by reference. Proposed
Sec.  1926.967, which has been taken from Sec.  1910.269(w)(6), has no
counterpart in existing Subpart V.
    Proposed Sec.  1926.967(h) addresses the hazards of voltage
backfeed due to sources of cogeneration or due to the configuration of
the circuit involved. Under conditions of voltage backfeed, the lines
upon which work is to be performed remain energized after the main
source of power has been disconnected. According to this proposed
provision, the lines would have to be worked as energized, under
proposed Sec.  1926.960, or could be worked as deenergized, following
proposed Sec. Sec.  1926.961 and 1926.962. The referenced requirements
contain the appropriate controls and work practices to be taken in case
of voltage backfeed. This proposed paragraph, which has been taken from
Sec.  1910.269(w)(7), has no counterpart in existing Subpart V.
    Sometimes, electric power transmission and distribution work
involves the use of lasers. Appropriate requirements for the
installation, operation, and adjustment of lasers are contained in
existing Sec.  1926.54 of the construction standards. Rather than
develop different requirements for electric power transmission and
distribution work, OSHA has decided to reference Sec.  1926.54 in
paragraph (i) of proposed Sec.  1926.967. This proposed paragraph,
which has been taken from Sec.  1910.269(w)(8), has no counterpart in
existing Subpart V.
    To ensure that hydraulic equipment retains its insulating value,
paragraph (j) of proposed Sec.  1926.967 would require the hydraulic
fluid used in insulated sections of such equipment to be of the
insulating type. Paragraph (d)(1) of Sec.  1926.302 requires hydraulic
fluid used in hydraulic powered tools to be fire-resistant. Because
available insulating fluids are not fire-resistant, proposed Sec.
1926.967(j) would exempt insulating hydraulic fluid from Sec.
1926.302(d)(1). Proposed Sec.  1926.967(j) is essentially identical to
existing Sec.  1926.950(i).
    Proposed Sec.  1926.967(k) addresses communication facilities
associated with electric power transmission and distribution systems.
Typical communications installations include those for microwave
signaling and power line carriers. This proposed paragraph, which has
been taken from Sec.  1910.269(s), has no counterpart in existing
Subpart V.
    Microwave signaling systems are addressed by paragraph (k)(1) of
proposed Sec.  1926.967. To protect employees' eyes from being injured
by microwave radiation, paragraph (k)(1)(i) would require employers to
ensure that employees do not look into an open waveguide or antenna
that is connected to an energized source of microwave radiation.
    Existing Sec.  1910.97, which covers non-ionizing radiation,
prescribes a warning sign with a special symbol indicating non-ionizing
radiation hazards. Paragraph (k)(1)(ii) of proposed Sec.  1926.967
would require areas that contain radiation in excess of the radiation
protection guide set forth in Sec.  1910.97 to be posted with the
warning sign. Also, the proposal would require the lower half of that
sign to be labeled as follows:

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

    The sign is intended to warn employees about the hazards present in
the area and to inform them that special instructions are necessary to
enter the area.
    In Sec.  1910.97, the radiation protection guide is advisory only.
Paragraph (k)(1)(iii) of proposed Sec.  1926.967 would make the guide
mandatory for electric power transmission and distribution work by
requiring the employer to institute measures that prevent any
employee's exposure from being greater than that set forth in the
guide. These measures may be of an administrative nature (such as
limitations on the duration of exposure) or of an engineering nature
(such as a design of the system that limits the emitted radiation to
that permitted by the guide) or may involve the use of personal
protective equipment. This proposed provision would not require
employers to follow the hierarchy of controls normally required for the
protection of employees from occupational hazards. Employees exposed to
radiation levels beyond that permitted by the radiation protection
guide are typically performing maintenance tasks. OSHA typically
permits the use of personal protective equipment in these situations.
No employees are exposed to these levels on a routine basis. The Agency
requests comments on whether the proposal adequately protects employees
and whether the standard should require employers to follow the
hierarchy of controls.
    Power line carrier systems use the power line itself to carry
signals between equipment at different points on the line. Because of
this, the proposal would require, in Sec.  1926.967(k)(2), that work
associated with power line carrier installations be performed according
to the requirements for work on energized lines.
Section 1926.968, Definitions
    Proposed Sec.  1926.968 contains definitions of terms used in the
standard. Since these definitions have been taken, in large part, from
consensus standards and existing OSHA rules and since the definitions
included are generally self-explanatory, OSHA expects these terms to be
well understood, and no explanation is given here, except for the
definition of the term ``qualified employee.'' For other terms whose
meaning may not be readily apparent, the Agency has provided an
explanation in the discussion of the provision in which the term first
appears. (For example, the explanation of the definitions of ``host
employer'' is given in the discussion of proposed Sec.  1926.950(c)(1),
earlier in this section of the preamble.)
    The definition of ``qualified employee'' is based on the definition
of that term as set forth in Sec.  1910.269(x). This definition reads
as follows:

    One knowledgeable in the construction and operation of the
electric power generation, transmission, and distribution equipment
involved, along with the associated hazards.

    OSHA does not intend to require employees to be knowledgeable in
all

aspects of electric power generation, transmission, and distribution
equipment in order to be considered as ``qualified.'' OSHA believes
that the proposed definition will convey the Agency's true intent. It
should be noted that the proposal uses the term ``qualified employee''
to refer only to employees who have the training to work on energized
electric power transmission and distribution installations. Paragraph
(b)(2) of proposed Sec.  1926.950 sets out the training an employee
would have to have to be considered a qualified employee. A note to
this effect has been included following the definition of this term.
    Appendices. OSHA is including seven appendices to proposed Subpart
V.
    Appendix A refers to Appendix A to Sec.  1910.269, which contains
flow charts depicting the interface between Sec.  1910.269 and the
following standards: Sec.  1910.146, Permit-required confined spaces;
Sec.  1910.147, The control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout); and
Part 1910, Subpart S, Electrical. While these general industry
standards are not applicable to construction work, employers will still
need this information when the construction work performed under
Subpart V interfaces with general industry work. Thus, Appendix A will
assist employers in determining which of these standards applies in
different situations.
    Appendix B provides information relating to the determination of
appropriate minimum approach distances as proposed by Sec.
1926.950(c)(1) and Sec.  1926.964(c). This appendix is based on
Appendix B to Sec.  1910.269, with revisions necessary to reflect the
changes to the minimum approach distances proposed for Sec.  1910.269
and Subpart V. OSHA requests information on whether Appendix B requires
additional changes, beyond what the Agency is proposing, to make it
consistent with current technology. (See the summary and explanation of
proposed Sec.  1926.960(c)(1).) OSHA intends to revise the explanatory
material in Appendix B similarly when the Agency issues the final rule.
    Appendix C provides information relating to the protection of
employees from hazardous step and touch potentials as addressed in
Sec.  1926.959(d)(3)(iii)(D), Sec.  1926.963(d)(3)(ii), and Sec.
1926.964(b)(2).
    Appendix D contains information on the inspection and testing of
wood poles addressed in Sec.  1926.964(a)(2).
    Appendix E contains references to additional sources of information
that may be used to supplement the requirements of proposed Subpart V.
The national consensus standards referenced in this appendix contain
detailed specifications to which employers may refer in complying with
the more performance-oriented requirements of OSHA's proposed rule.
Except as specifically noted in Subpart V, however, compliance with the
national consensus standards would not be a substitute for compliance
with the provisions of the OSHA standard.
    Appendix F provides guidance on the selection of protective
clothing for employees exposed to electric arcs as addressed in
proposed Sec.  1926.960(g).
    Appendix G contains guidelines for the inspection of work
positioning equipment to assist employers in complying with proposed
Sec.  1926.954(b)(3)(i).

C. Part 1910 Revisions

    The construction of electric power transmission and distribution
lines and equipment nearly always exposes employees to the same hazards
as the maintenance of electric power lines and equipment. Power line
workers use the same protective equipment and safety techniques in both
types of work. During the course of a workday, these employees can
perform both types of work.
    For example, a power line crew could be assigned to replace two
transformers that have failed. In one case, the transformer is replaced
with an equivalent one; in the other case, it is replaced with a
transformer with a different kilovolt-ampere rating. When the employees
perform the first job, they are performing maintenance work covered by
Part 1910. However, the second job is considered to be construction and
is covered by Part 1926. The employees would almost certainly use
identical work practices and protective equipment for both jobs.
    Because of this, OSHA believes that it is important to have the
same requirements apply regardless of the type of work being performed.
If the corresponding Part 1910 and Part 1926 standards are the same,
employers can adopt one set of work rules covering all types of work.
Employers and employees would not be faced with having to decide
whether a particular job was construction or maintenance--a factor that
in virtually every instance has no bearing on the safety of employees.
    Therefore, in this rulemaking, OSHA is proposing revisions to
Sec. Sec.  1910.137 and 1910.269 so that the construction and
maintenance standards will be the same.\64\ The following distribution
table presents the major revisions and OSHA's rationale for proposing
them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Subpart V does not contain requirements for electric power
generation installations or for line-clearance tree-trimming work.
See the summary and explanation of proposed Sec.  1926.950(a)(3),
earlier in this preamble.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Proposed part        Rationale and
  Proposed part 1910 revision     1926 revision           comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   1910.137(A)(1)(ii),      Sec.               Section 1910.137
 (b)(2)(vii), and Tables I-2,    1926.97(a)(1)(ii   would be revised to
 I-3, I-4, and I-5.              ), (c)(2)(vii),    include Class 00
                                 and Tables E-1,    rubber insulating
                                 E-2, E-3, and E-   gloves.
                                 4.
The note following Sec.         The note           The note would be
 1910.137(a)(3)(ii)(B).          following Sec.     revised to include
                                 1926.97(a)(3)(ii   the latest ASTM
                                 )(B).              standards.
                                                    References to ASTM
                                                    definition and to an
                                                    ASTM guide for
                                                    visual inspection of
                                                    rubber insulating
                                                    equipment have been
                                                    included to provide
                                                    additional useful
                                                    information for
                                                    complying with the
                                                    OSHA standard.
A new note following Sec.       The note           A reference to an
 1910.137(b)(2)(ii).             following Sec.     ASTM guide for
                                 1926.97(b)(2)(ii   visual inspection of
                                 ).                 rubber insulating
                                                    equipment has been
                                                    included to provide
                                                    additional useful
                                                    information for
                                                    complying with the
                                                    OSHA standard.

Sec.   1910.137(b)(2)(vii)(B)   Sec.               Existing Sec.
 and (C).                        1926.97(c)(2)(vi   1910.137(b)(2)(vii)(
                                 i)(B) and (C).     B) would be split
                                                    into two separate
                                                    CFR units.
Sec.   1901.137(c) [New]......  Sec.   1926.97(b)  A new paragraph would
                                                    be added to cover
                                                    electrical
                                                    protective equipment
                                                    that is not made of
                                                    rubber. See the
                                                    summary and
                                                    explanation of
                                                    proposed Sec.
                                                    1926.97(b).
Sec.   1910.269(a)(2)(i)......  Sec.               Existing Sec.
                                 1926.950(b)(1).    1910.269(a)(2)(i)
                                                    would be split into
                                                    three separate CFR
                                                    units. The last of
                                                    those units,
                                                    paragraph
                                                    (a)(2)(i)(c), would
                                                    introduce a new
                                                    requirement that the
                                                    degree of training
                                                    be determined by the
                                                    risk to the
                                                    employee. See the
                                                    discussion of
                                                    proposed Sec.
                                                    1926.950(b)(1)(iii).
Sec.   1910.269(a)(2)(ii)(E)    Sec.               A new paragraph would
 [New].                          1926.950(b)(2)(v   be added to require
                                 ).                 qualified employees
                                                    to be trained to
                                                    recognize and to
                                                    control or avoid
                                                    electrical hazards.
                                                    See the discussion
                                                    of proposed Sec.
                                                    1926.950(b)(2)(v).
Sec.   1910.269(a)(2)(vii)....  Sec.               The existing
                                 1926.950(b)(7).    requirement for
                                                    employers to certify
                                                    that employees have
                                                    been trained would
                                                    be replaced with a
                                                    requirement for
                                                    employers to
                                                    determine that
                                                    employees have
                                                    demonstrated
                                                    proficiency in the
                                                    work practices
                                                    involved. In
                                                    addition, a new note
                                                    would be added to
                                                    clarify how training
                                                    received in a
                                                    previous job would
                                                    satisfy the training
                                                    requirements. See
                                                    the discussion of
                                                    proposed Sec.
                                                    1926.950(b)(7).
Sec.   1910.269(a)(4) [New]...  Sec.               A new paragraph would
                                 1926.950(c).       be added to require
                                                    host and contract
                                                    employers to share
                                                    information on
                                                    safety-related
                                                    matters. See the
                                                    discussion of
                                                    proposed Sec.
                                                    1926.950(c).
Sec.   1910.269(c)............  Sec.   1926.952..  The existing
                                                    provision would be
                                                    reorganized and
                                                    renumbered. A new
                                                    requirement would be
                                                    added to ensure that
                                                    employers provide
                                                    the employee in
                                                    charge with
                                                    sufficient
                                                    information to be
                                                    able to complete the
                                                    job safely. See the
                                                    discussion of
                                                    proposed Sec.
                                                    1926.952.
The note following Sec.         None.............  This note would be
 1910.269(e)(6).                                    removed. It
                                                    currently references
                                                    Sec.   1910.146 for
                                                    the definition of
                                                    ``entry.'' OSHA is
                                                    proposing to add a
                                                    definition of this
                                                    term to Sec.
                                                    1910.269, so this
                                                    note would be
                                                    unnecessary.
Sec.   1910.269(e)(8).........  Sec.               OSHA is proposing to
                                 1926.952(h).       remove the
                                                    requirement to
                                                    provide an attendant
                                                    if there is reason
                                                    to believe a hazard
                                                    exists in the
                                                    enclosed space.
                                                    Paragraph (e)(1) of
                                                    Sec.   1910.269
                                                    requires the entry
                                                    to conform to Sec.
                                                    1910.146 if there
                                                    are hazards for
                                                    which the
                                                    requirements of Sec.
                                                      1910.269(e) and
                                                    (t) do not provide
                                                    adequate protection.
                                                    Thus, if an employer
                                                    has reason to
                                                    believe that a
                                                    hazard exists
                                                    despite the
                                                    precautions taken
                                                    under Sec.
                                                    1910.269(e) and (t),
                                                    then Sec.   1910.146
                                                    applies, and an
                                                    attendant would be
                                                    required by that
                                                    standard.
Sec.   1910.269(e)(8).........  Sec.               The existing
                                 1926.953(i).       requirement would be
                                                    revised to clarify
                                                    that the test
                                                    instrument must have
                                                    an accuracy of < plus-
                                                    minus>10 percent.
Sec.   1910.269(e)(12)........  Sec.               The existing
                                 1926.953(m).       requirement would be
                                                    revised to require
                                                    the employer to be
                                                    able to demonstrate
                                                    that ventilation was
                                                    maintained long
                                                    enough to ensure
                                                    that a safe
                                                    atmosphere exists
                                                    before employees
                                                    enter an enclosed
                                                    space.
Sec.   1910.269(g)(2).........  Sec.               The existing
                                 1926.954(b).       requirements would
                                                    be revised to
                                                    maintain consistency
                                                    with the
                                                    construction
                                                    provisions. See the
                                                    discussion of
                                                    proposed Sec.
                                                    1926.954(b).
Sec.   1910.269(l)(2)(i)......  Sec.               The existing
                                 1926.960(c)(1)(i   requirement would be
                                 ).                 clarified to
                                                    indicate that an
                                                    energized part must
                                                    be under the full
                                                    control of the
                                                    employee for rubber
                                                    insulating gloves or
                                                    rubber insulating
                                                    gloves and sleeves
                                                    to be considered as
                                                    sufficient
                                                    insulation from that
                                                    part. See the
                                                    discussion of
                                                    proposed Sec.
                                                    1926.960(c)(1).
Sec.   1910.269(l)(3) and (4).  Sec.               OSHA is proposing to
                                 1926.960(c)(2)     revise the existing
                                 and (d).           requirements to
                                                    ensure that
                                                    employees use
                                                    electrical
                                                    protective equipment
                                                    whenever they can
                                                    reach within the
                                                    minimum approach
                                                    distance of an
                                                    energized part. See
                                                    the discussion of
                                                    Sec.
                                                    1926.960(c)(2) and
                                                    (d).
Sec.   1910.269(l)(6)           Sec.               OSHA is proposing to
 [Revised] and (12) [New].       1926.960(f) and    revise the existing
                                 (g).               requirements on
                                                    clothing in Sec.
                                                    1910.269(l)(6)(ii)
                                                    and (iii) to require
                                                    employees to be
                                                    protected from
                                                    electric arcs. See
                                                    the discussion of
                                                    proposed Sec.
                                                    1926.960(g).
Table R-6.....................  Table V-2........  The existing table
                                                    would be revised so
                                                    that it contains the
                                                    same minimum
                                                    approach distances
                                                    as ANSI C2 (on which
                                                    it is based). See
                                                    the discussion of
                                                    proposed Sec.
                                                    1926.960(c)(1).
Sec.   1910.269(m)(3)(viii)...  Sec.               The existing
                                 1926.961(c)(3)(i   provision would be
                                 i).                revised to require
                                                    independent crews to
                                                    coordinate
                                                    energizing and
                                                    deenergizing lines
                                                    and equipment if no
                                                    system operator is
                                                    in charge. The new
                                                    provision would
                                                    prevent one crew
                                                    from energizing a
                                                    line or equipment
                                                    that another crew
                                                    was working on.
Sec.   1910.269(n)(4).........  Sec.               The existing
                                 1926.962(d).       requirement would be
                                                    revised to allow
                                                    smaller protective
                                                    grounds under
                                                    certain conditions.
                                                    See the discussion
                                                    of proposed Sec.
                                                    1926.962(d).

Sec.   1910.269(n)(6) and       Sec.               The existing
 (n)(7).                         1926.962(f).       requirement would be
                                                    revised to allow
                                                    insulating equipment
                                                    other than a live-
                                                    line tool to place
                                                    grounds on or remove
                                                    them from circuits
                                                    of 600 volts or less
                                                    under certain
                                                    conditions. See the
                                                    discussion of Sec.
                                                    1926.962(f).
Sec.   1910.269(p)(4)(i)......  Sec.               OSHA is proposing to
                                 1926.959(d)(1).    clarify the existing
                                                    provision to
                                                    indicate that, if an
                                                    insulated aerial
                                                    lift comes closer to
                                                    an energized part
                                                    than the minimum
                                                    approach distance,
                                                    the aerial lift must
                                                    maintain the minimum
                                                    approach distance
                                                    from objects at a
                                                    different potential.
                                                    See the discussion
                                                    of Sec.
                                                    1926.959(d)(1).
Sec.   1910.269(t)(3), (7),     Sec.               OSHA is proposing to
 and (8).                        1926.965(d),       apply these
                                 (h), and (i).      requirements to
                                                    vaults as well as
                                                    manholes.
                                                    Additionally, OSHA
                                                    is proposing to add
                                                    a requirement to
                                                    address work that
                                                    could cause a cable
                                                    to fail. See the
                                                    discussion of
                                                    proposed Sec.
                                                    1926.965(d), (h),
                                                    and (i).
The notes following Sec.        The notes          The references in
 1910.269(u)(1), (u)(5)(i),      following and      these notes to ANSI
 (v)(3), and (v)(5).             Sec.               C2-1987 would be
                                 1926.966(b)        updated to ANSI C2-
                                 (f)(1).            2002.
Sec.   1910.269(x)............  Sec.   1926.968..  OSHA is proposing to
                                                    add definitions of
                                                    ``contract
                                                    employer,'' ``host
                                                    employer,'' and
                                                    ``entry.'' See the
                                                    discussion of
                                                    proposed Sec.  Sec.
                                                     1926.950(c) and
                                                    1926.953.
Appendix F to Sec.   1910.269   Appendix F to      OSHA is proposing to
 [New].                          Subpart V.         add a new appendix
                                                    containing
                                                    information on
                                                    protecting employees
                                                    from electric arcs.
Appendix G to Sec.   1910.269   Appendix G to      OSHA is proposing to
 [New].                          Subpart V.         add a new appendix
                                                    containing
                                                    guidelines for the
                                                    inspection of work
                                                    positioning
                                                    equipment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are some differences in language between proposed Subpart V
and existing Sec.  1910.269. Some of these differences are because
Sec.  1910.269 applies to electric power generation installations and
related work practices but Subpart V does not. For example, existing
Sec.  1910.269(b)(1)(ii) addresses CPR training requirements for fixed
work locations ``such as generating stations.'' The corresponding
construction provision in proposed Sec.  1926.951(b)(1)(ii) contains
the exact same requirement, but lists ``substations'' as examples of
fixed work locations. OSHA intends to retain such differences in the
final rule.
    Other differences result from the application of construction
standards when construction work is performed instead of general
industry standards when maintenance work is performed. For example,
proposed Sec.  1926.969(a)(1) contains exemptions from Sec. Sec.
1926.550(a)(15) and 1926.600(a)(6) \65\ for the operation of mechanical
equipment by qualified employees near overhead power lines. Existing