Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution; Electrical Protective Equipment, 34822-34980 [05-11585]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
34822
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1926
[Docket No. S–215]
RIN 1218–AB67
Electric Power Generation,
Transmission, and Distribution;
Electrical Protective Equipment
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: OSHA is proposing to update
the existing standard for the
construction of electric power
transmission and distribution
installations and make it consistent with
the more recently promulgated general
industry standard addressing the
maintenance and repair of electric
power generation, transmission, and
distribution lines and equipment. The
proposal also makes some
miscellaneous changes to both
standards, including adding provisions
related to host employers and
contractors, flame resistant clothing,
and training, and updates the
construction standard for electrical
protective equipment, makes it
consistent with the corresponding
general industry standard, and makes it
applicable to construction generally.
The existing rules for this type of
work were issued in 1971. They are out
of date and are not consistent with the
more recent, corresponding rules for the
operation and maintenance of electric
power transmission and distribution
systems. The revised standard would
include requirements relating to
enclosed spaces, working near energized
parts, grounding for employee
protection, work on underground and
overhead installations, work in
substations, and other special
conditions and equipment unique to the
transmission and distribution of electric
energy.
OSHA is also proposing a new
standard on electrical protective
equipment for the construction
industry. The current standards for the
design of electrical protective
equipment, which apply only to electric
power transmission and distribution
work, adopt several national consensus
standards by reference. The new
standard would replace the
incorporation of these out-of-date
consensus standards with a set of
performance-oriented requirements that
is consistent with the latest revisions of
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
these consensus standards and with the
corresponding standard for general
industry. Additionally, OSHA is
proposing new requirements for the safe
use and care of electrical protective
equipment to complement the
equipment design provisions.
In addition, OSHA is proposing
changes to the two corresponding
general industry standards. These
changes address: Class 00 rubber
insulating gloves, electrical protective
equipment made from materials other
than rubber, training for electric power
generation, transmission, and
distribution workers, host-contractor
responsibilities, job briefings, fall
protection (including a requirement that
employees in aerial lifts use harnesses),
insulation and working position of
employees working on or near live
parts, protective clothing, minimum
approach distances, deenergizing
transmission and distribution lines and
equipment, protective grounding,
operating mechanical equipment near
overhead power lines, and working in
manholes and vaults. These changes
would ensure that employers, where
appropriate, face consistent
requirements for work performed under
the construction and general industry
standards and would further protect
employees performing electrical work
covered under the general industry
standards. The proposal would also
update references to consensus
standards in §§ 1910.137 and 1910.269
and would add new appendices to help
employers comply with provisions on
protective clothing and the inspection of
work positioning equipment.
OSHA is also proposing to revise the
general industry standard for foot
protection. This standard has
substantial application to employers
performing work on electric power
transmission and distribution
installations, but that applies to
employers in other industries as well.
The proposal would remove the
requirement for employees to wear
protective footwear as protection against
electric shock.
DATES: Informal public hearing. OSHA
will hold an informal public hearing in
Washington, DC, beginning December 6,
2005. The hearing will commence at 10
a.m. on the first day, and at 9 a.m. on
the second and subsequent days, which
will be scheduled, if necessary.
Comments. Comments must be
submitted (postmarked or sent) by
October 13, 2005.
Notices of intention to appear. Parties
who intend to present testimony at the
informal public hearing must notify
OSHA in writing of their intention to do
so no later than August 15, 2005.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Hearing testimony and documentary
evidence. Parties who request more than
10 minutes for their presentations at the
informal public hearing and parties who
will submit documentary evidence at
the hearing must submit the full text of
their testimony and all documentary
evidence postmarked no later than
November 3, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may submit written
comments, notices of intention to
appear, hearing testimony, and
documentary evidence—identified by
docket number (S–215) or RIN number
(1218–AB67)—by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• OSHA Web site: https://
dockets.osha.gov/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments
on OSHA’s Web page.
• Fax: If your written comments are
10 pages or fewer, you may fax them to
the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693–
1648.
• Regular mail, express delivery,
hand delivery and courier service:
Submit three copies to the OSHA
Docket Office, Docket No. S–215, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Room N2625,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202)
693–2350. (OSHA’s TTY number is
(877) 889–5627.) OSHA Docket Office
hours of operation are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45
p.m., E.S.T.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory
Information Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. All comments received will
be posted without change to https://
dockets.osha.gov/, including any
personal information provided. For
detailed instructions on submitting
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
‘‘Public Participation’’ heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read comments and background
documents that can be posted go to
https://dockets.osha.gov/. Written
comments received, notices of intention
to appear, and all other material related
to the development of this proposed
standard will be available for inspection
and copying in the public record in the
Docket Office, Room N2439, at the
address listed previously.
Hearing. The hearing will be held in
the auditorium of the U.S. Department
of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
General information and press inquiries:
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Mr. Kevin Ropp, Director, Office of
Communications, Room N3647, OSHA,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210; telephone (202) 693–1999.
Technical information: Mr. David
Wallis, Director, Office of Engineering
Safety, Room N3609, OSHA, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210;
telephone (202) 693–2277 or fax (202)
693–1663.
Hearings: Ms. Veneta Chatmon,
OSHA Office of Communications,
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Room N3647; 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210, telephone: (202) 693–1999.
For additional copies of this Federal
Register notice, contact OSHA, Office of
Publications, U.S. Department of Labor,
Room N3101, 200 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC, 20210; telephone
(202) 693–1888. Electronic copies of this
Federal Register notice, as well as news
releases and other relevant documents,
are available at OSHA’s Web page on
the Internet at https://www.osha.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Development of Proposal
III. Legal Authority
IV. Summary and Explanation of Proposed
Rule
V. Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis
and Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis
VI. State Plan Standards
VII. Environmental Impact Analysis
VIII. Unfunded Mandates
IX. Federalism
X. OMB Review under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995
XI. Public Participation’Comments and
Hearings
XII. List of Subjects in 29 CFR Parts 1910 and
1926
XIII. Authority and Signature
I. Background
A. Acronyms
The following acronyms have been
used throughout this document:
AED Automated external defibrillator
ALJ Administrative law judge
ANSI American National Standards
Institute
ASTM American Society for Testing
and Materials
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
CFOI Census of Fatal Occupational
Injuries
CPR Cardiopulmonary resuscitation
EEI Edison Electric Institute
EPRI Electric Power Research Institute
FRA Flame-resistant apparel
FTE Full-Time Equivalent [Employee]
IBEW International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
IEEE Institute of Electrical and
Electronic Engineers
IMIS OSHA’s Integrated Management
Information System
IRFA Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis
NAICS North American Industry
Classification System
NEPA National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969
NESC National Electrical Safety Code
NFPA National Fire Protection
Association
NIOSH National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health
OIRA Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs
OMB Office of Management and
Budget
OSH Act (or simply ‘‘the Act’’)
Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
OSHRC Occupational Safety and
Health Review Commission
PRIA Preliminary Regulatory Impact
Analysis
RIN Regulatory information number
SBA Small Business Administration
SBAR Small Business Advocacy
Review Panel
SBREFA Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act
SER small entity representative
SIC Standard Industrial Classification
WCRI Worker Compensation Research
Institute
B. Need for Rule
Employees maintaining or
constructing electric power
transmission or distribution
installations are not adequately
protected by current OSHA standards,
though these employees face far greater
electrical hazards than those faced by
other workers. The voltages involved are
generally much higher than voltages
encountered in other types of work, and
a large part of electric power
transmission and distribution work
exposes employees to energized parts of
the power system.
Employees performing work involving
electric power generation, transmission,
and distribution are exposed to a variety
of significant hazards, such as fall,
electric shock, and burn hazards, that
can and do cause serious injury and
death. As detailed below, OSHA
estimates that, on average, 444 serious
injuries and 74 fatalities occur annually
among these workers.
Although some of these incidents may
have been prevented with better
compliance with existing safety
standards, research and analyses
conducted by OSHA have found that
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34823
many preventable injuries and fatalities
would continue to occur even if full
compliance with the existing standards
were achieved. Without counting
incidents that would potentially have
been prevented with compliance with
existing standards, an estimated
additional 116 injuries and 19 fatalities
would be prevented through full
compliance with the proposed
standards.
Additional benefits associated with
this rulemaking involve providing
updated, clear, and consistent safety
standards regarding electric power
generation, transmission, and
distribution work. The existing standard
for the construction of electric power
transmission and distribution lines and
equipment is contained in Subpart V of
OSHA’s construction standards (29 CFR
part 1926). This standard was
promulgated on November 23, 1972,
over 30 years ago (37 FR 24880). Some
of the technology involved in electric
power transmission and distribution
work has changed since then, and the
current standard does not reflect those
changes. For example, the method of
determining minimum approach
distances has become more exact since
1972, and the minimum approach
distances given in existing
§ 1926.950(c)(1) are not based on the
latest methodology. The minimum
approach distances in this proposal are
more protective as well as more
technologically sound. Additionally,
parts of Subpart V need clarification.
For example, in existing Subpart V,
there are three different requirements
relating to the use of mechanical
equipment near overhead lines:
§§ 1926.952(c)(2) 1 and 1926.955(a)(5) 2
and (a)(6).3 These provisions apply
1 This
requirement reads as follows:
(2) With the exception of equipment certified for
work on the proper voltage, mechanical equipment
shall not be operator closer to any energized line
or equipment than the clearances set forth in
§ 1926.950(c) unless:
(i) An insulated barrier is installed between the
energized part and the mechanical equipment, or
(ii) The mechanical equipment is grounded, or
(iii) The mechanical equipment is insulated, or
(iv) The mechanical equipment is considered as
energized.
2 This requirement reads as follows:
(5)(i) When setting, moving, or removing poles
using cranes, derricks, gin poles, A-frames, or other
mechanized equipment near energized lines or
equipment, precautions shall be taken to avoid
contact with energized lines or equipment, except
in bare-hand live-line work, or where barriers or
protective devices are used.
(ii) Equipment and machinery operating adjacent
to energized lines or equipment shall comply with
§ 1926.952(c)(2).
3 This requirement reads as follows:
(6)(i) Unless using suitable protective equipment
for the voltage involved, employees standing on the
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
Continued
15JNP2
34824
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
different requirements to these
operations depending on whether or not
the mechanical equipment involved is
lifting equipment and on whether or not
work is being performed on overhead
lines. Two different United States
Courts of Appeals found these
regulations to be confusing even though
they accepted OSHA’s interpretation
regarding their application (Wisconsin
Electric Power Co. v. OSHRC, 567 F.2d
735 (7th Cir. 1977); Pennsylvania Power
& Light Co. v. OSHRC, 737 F.2d 350 (3d
Cir. 1984)). In fact, the majority in the
Wisconsin Electric decision noted that
‘‘[r]evision of the regulations by any
competent draftsman would greatly
improve their clarity’’ (Wisconsin
Electric, 567 F.2d at 738).
Even the newer general industry
standards on the operation and
maintenance of electric power
generation, transmission, and
distribution installations (29 CFR
1910.269) and electrical protective
equipment (29 CFR 1910.137) are not
completely consistent with the latest
advances in technology represented by
updated consensus standards covering
this type of work and equipment.
OSHA has different standards
covering construction work on electric
power transmission and distribution
systems and general industry work on
the same systems. In most instances, the
work practices used by employees to
perform construction or general
industry work on these systems are the
same. The application of OSHA’s
construction or general industry
standards to a particular job depends
upon whether the employer is altering
the system (construction work) or
maintaining the system (general
industry work). For example, employers
changing a cutout (disconnect switch)
on a transmission and distribution
system would be performing
construction work if they were
upgrading the cutout, but general
industry work if they were simply
replacing the cutout with the same
model.
Since the work practices used by the
employees would most likely be
identical, the applicable OSHA
standards should be identical. OSHA’s
existing requirements are not, however.
Conceivably, for work involving two or
more cutouts, different and conflicting
OSHA standards might apply. The
inconsistencies between the two
ground shall avoid contacting equipment or
machinery working adjacent to energized lines or
equipment.
(ii) Lifting equipment shall be bonded to an
effective ground or it shall be considered energized
and barricaded when utilized near energized
equipment or lines.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
standards create difficulties for
employers attempting to develop
appropriate work practices for their
employees. For this reason, employers
and employees have told OSHA that it
should make the two standards
identical. This proposal does so.
C. Accident Data
OSHA has looked to several sources
for information on accidents in the
electric utility industry in preparing this
proposed rule. Besides OSHA’s own
accident investigation files, statistics on
injuries are compiled by the Edison
Electric Institute (EEI) and by the
International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers (IBEW). Additionally, the
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
publishes such accident data as
incidence rates for total cases, lost
workday cases, and lost workdays. The
National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) publishes
accident data as part of its Fatality
Assessment and Control Evaluation
Program.
Analyses of accident data for electric
power transmission and distribution
workers can be found in the following
documents, which (like all exhibits) are
available for inspection and copying in
Docket S–215 in the Docket Office:
(1) ‘‘Preparation of an Economic
Impact Study for the Proposed OSHA
Regulation Covering Electric Power
Generation, Transmission, and
Distribution,’’ June 1986, Eastern
Research Group, Section 4.
(2) ‘‘Assessment of the Benefits of the
Proposed Standard on Electric Power
Generation, Transmission, and
Distribution Coding Results and
Analysis,’’ October 5, 1990, Eastern
Research Group.
(3) ‘‘Analytical Support and Data
Gathering for a Preliminary Economic
Analysis for Proposed Standards for
Work on Electric Power Generation,
Transmission, and Distribution Lines
and Equipment (29 CFR 1910.269 and
29 CFR 1926—Subpart V),’’ 2005,
CONSAD Research Corp., Chapter 4.
To develop estimates of the potential
benefits associated with this proposal,
CONSAD Corp., under contract to
OSHA, researched and reviewed
potential sources of useful data.
CONSAD, in consultation with the
Agency, determined that the most
reliable data sources for this purpose
included OSHA’s Integrated
Management Information System, and
the Census of Fatal Occupational
Injuries developed by the BLS.
From these sources, CONSAD
identified and analyzed injuries and
fatalities that would be addressed by
this proposal. A description of the
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
methodological approach used for
analyzing these data is included in the
final report submitted to OSHA from
CONSAD. CONSAD’s analysis found
that an average of 74 fatalities and 25
injuries involving circumstances
directly addressed by the existing or
proposed standards are recorded
annually in the relevant databases.
These accidents include cases involving
electric shock, burns from electric arcs,
and falls, which are the predominant
types of accidents occurring in electric
power generation, transmission, and
distribution work.
D. Significant Risk
OSHA must show that the hazards the
Agency addresses in a safety regulation
present significant risks to employees.
OSHA has generally considered an
excess risk of 1 death per 1000
employees over a 45-year working
lifetime as clearly representing a
significant risk. Industrial Union Dept.
v. American Petroleum Institute
(Benzene), 448 U.S. 607, 655 (1980);
International Union v. Pendergrass
(Formaldehyde), 878 F.2d 389, 392–93
(D.C. Cir. 1989); Building and
Construction Trades Dept., AFL–CIO v.
Brock (Asbestos), 838 F.2d 1258, 1264–
65 (D.C. Cir. 1988). As part of the
regulatory analyses for this standard,
OSHA has determined the population at
risk, the occupations presenting major
risks, and the incidence and severity of
injuries attributable to the failure to
follow the rules established in the
proposed standard. In keeping with the
purpose of safety standards to prevent
accidental injury and death, OSHA has
estimated the number of accidents that
would be prevented by the new rule.
Electricity has long been recognized
as a serious workplace hazard exposing
employees to dangers such as electric
shock, electrocution, electric arcs, fires,
and explosions. The other hazards this
rule addresses, namely, falls and being
struck by, struck against, or caught
between objects, are also widely
recognized. The 227,683 employees
performing work covered by the
proposed standards experience an
average of 444 injuries and 74 fatalities
each year.4 Over a 45-year working
lifetime, more than 14 of every 1000 of
these employees 5 will die from hazards
4 For a detailed explanation of the number of
employees covered by the proposal and the number
of injuries and fatalities experienced by these
workers, see Section V, Preliminary Regulatory
Impact Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, later in this preamble.
5 The number of fatalities expected to occur in 45
years is 74 fatalities × 45, or 3330. Thus, 14.6
employees in 1000 covered by the proposal ((3330
fatalities/227,683 employees) × 1000) will die from
job-related hazards.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
posed by their work. As detailed in
Section V, Preliminary Regulatory
Impact Analysis and Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, later in this
preamble, the Agency estimates that the
proposed rule will prevent 116 injuries
and 19 deaths each year. Accordingly,
OSHA has preliminarily determined
that hazards faced by employees
performing construction or maintenance
work on electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution
installations pose a significant risk of
injury or death to those employees, and
that this proposed rule would
substantially reduce that risk and would
be reasonably necessary to provide
protection from these hazards.
II. Development of Proposal
A. Present OSHA Standards
OSHA adopted standards applying to
the construction of power transmission
and distribution lines and equipment in
1972 (Subpart V of Part 1926). OSHA
defines the term ‘‘construction work’’ in
§ 1910.12 as ‘‘work for construction,
alteration, and/or repair, including
painting and decorating.’’ The term
‘‘construction’’ is broadly defined in
§ 1910.12(d) and § 1926.950(a)(1) to
include alteration, conversion, and
improvement of electric power
transmission lines and equipment, as
well as the original installation of the
lines and equipment. However, Subpart
V does not apply to the operation or
maintenance of transmission or
distribution installations.
On January 31, 1994, OSHA adopted
rules for the operation and maintenance
of electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution lines and
equipment, § 1910.269. This standard
was intended as a companion standard
to Subpart V of the construction
standards to address areas where
Subpart V did not apply. The new
standard was also based on the latest
technology and national consensus
standards.
OSHA revised its electrical protective
equipment standard in § 1910.137 at the
same time § 1910.269 was issued. The
revision of § 1910.137 eliminated the
incorporation by reference of national
consensus standards relating to rubber
insulating equipment and replaced it
with performance-oriented rules for the
design, manufacture, and safe care and
use of electrical protective equipment.
Other OSHA standards also relate to
electric power generation, transmission,
and distribution work. The permitrequired confined space standard in
§ 1910.146 applies to entry into certain
confined spaces found in this type of
work. Section 1910.147 is OSHA’s
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
generic lockout and tagging standard.
Although this standard does not apply
to electric power generation,
transmission, or distribution
installations, it formed the basis of
§ 1910.269(d), which does apply to the
lockout and tagging of these
installations. Subpart S of the General
Industry Standards and Subpart K of the
construction standards set requirements
for unqualified 6 workers who are
working near electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution lines and
equipment.
B. Relevant consensus standards
The National Electrical Safety Code
(American National Standards Institute
Standard ANSI C2, also known as the
NESC) was also taken into consideration
in the development this proposal. This
national consensus standard contains
requirements specifically addressing
electric power generation, transmission,
and distribution work. The latest
version of ANSI C2 7 is much more upto-date than Subpart V. However, ANSI
C2 is primarily directed to the
prevention of electric shock, although it
does contain a few requirements for the
prevention of falls.
The American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) has adopted
standards related to electric power
generation, transmission, and
distribution work. ASTM Committee
F18 on Electrical Protective Equipment
for Workers has developed standards on
rubber insulating equipment, climbing
equipment, protective grounding
equipment, fiberglass rod and tube used
in live-line tools, and clothing for
workers exposed to electric arcs.
The National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) has adopted a
standard on electrical safety for
employees, NFPA 70E–2004, Electrical
Safety Requirements for Employee
Workplaces. Although it does not apply
to electric power generation,
transmission, or distribution
installations, this standard contains
requirements for unqualified employees
working near such installations.
The Institute of Electrical and
Electronic Engineers (IEEE) is also
responsible for writing standards for
electric power generation, transmission,
and distribution installations and for
work on those installations. Many of
6 In this preamble, ‘‘unqualified worker’’ (or
‘‘unqualified employee’’) means an employee who
does not have the requisite training to work on or
near electric power generation, transmission, or
distribution installations. For more information, see
the discussion of proposed § 1926.950(b) in Section
IV, Summary and Explanation of Proposed Rule,
later in this preamble.
7 ANSI/IEEE C2–2002.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34825
these standards have been adopted by
ANSI. Among these IEEE standards are:
IEEE Std. 516, IEEE Guide for
Maintenance Methods on Energized
Power-Lines, and IEEE Std. 1048, IEEE
Guide for Protective Grounding of
Power Lines.
A list of consensus standards relating
to electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution work can
be found in existing Appendix E to
§ 1910.269. OSHA considered the latest
editions of all the standards listed in
this section of the preamble or the
Appendix in the development of the
proposal.
C. Advisory Committee on Construction
Safety and Health
Section 107 of the Contract Work
Hours and Safety Standards Act and the
Agency’s own rulemaking regulations in
29 CFR Part 1911 require OSHA to
consult with the Advisory Committee
on Construction Safety and Health
(ACCSH or the Committee) in setting
standards for construction work.
Specifically, § 1911.10(a) requires the
Assistant Secretary to (1) provide
ACCSH with the draft proposed rule
along with pertinent factual
information, (2) and to prescribe a
period within which the Committee
must submit its recommendations on
the proposal.
OSHA has a 10-year history of
consulting with ACCSH on the
proposed construction standards for
electrical protective equipment and
electric transmission and distribution
work. The Agency has provided several
drafts of the proposed construction rules
and updates on the status of the
proposal.
On May 25, 1995, OSHA first took a
draft of the proposed construction
standards to ACCSH, providing the
Committee with a draft of the proposal
and with a statement on the need for
and background behind the proposal.
The Committee formed a workgroup to
review the document and report back to
ACCSH. The workgroup provided
comments to OSHA. Although the
Agency gave a status report on the
proposal to the Committee on August 8,
1995, ACCSH did not make any formal
recommendations to OSHA at that time.
The Agency provided a later draft of
the proposal to ACCSH on December 10,
1999. This time, the Committee made no
comments. On February 13, 2003,
OSHA gave ACCSH a status report on
the proposal and summarized the major
revisions in the draft.
On May 22, 2003, OSHA provided the
Committee with the same copy of the
draft proposal that had been provided to
the small entity representatives who
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34826
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
were participating in the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness
Act (SBREFA) proceedings, which were
being conducted at that time. OSHA
also explained the major issues being
raised by the small entity
representatives on the draft proposal.
On May 18, 2004, ACCSH gave formal
recommendations on OSHA’s proposal.
OSHA sought ACCSH’s
recommendations on the proposal
generally, as well as on issues
specifically related to host employercontractor communications and flameresistant clothing. ACCSH voted
unanimously that: (1) The construction
standards for electric power
transmission and distribution work
should be the same as the general
industry standards for the same type of
work; (2) requiring some safety-related
communications between host
employers and contractors was
necessary; and (3) employees need to be
protected from hazards posed by electric
arcs through the use of flame-resistant
clothing. ACCSH also recommended
unanimously that OSHA issue its
proposal, consistent with these specific
votes.
III. Legal Authority
The purpose of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act
or the Act), 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq., is ‘‘to
assure so far as possible every working
man and woman in the Nation safe and
healthful working conditions and to
preserve our human resources.’’ 29
U.S.C. 651(b). To achieve this goal,
Congress authorized the Secretary of
Labor to promulgate and enforce
occupational safety and health
standards. 29 U.S.C. 655(b) and 658.
A safety or health standard ‘‘requires
conditions, or the adoption or use of one
or more practices, means, methods,
operations, or processes, reasonably
necessary or appropriate to provide safe
or healthful employment and places of
employment.’’ 29 U.S.C. 652(8). A
standard is reasonably necessary or
appropriate within the meaning of
Section 652(8) if:
• A significant risk of material harm
exists in the workplace and the
proposed standard would substantially
reduce or eliminate that workplace risk;
• It is technologically and
economically feasible;
• It employs the most cost effective
protective measures;
• It is consistent with prior Agency
action or supported by a reasoned
justification for departing from prior
Agency action;
• It is supported by substantial
evidence; and
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
• In the event the standard is
preceded by a consensus standard, it is
better able to effectuate the purposes of
the OSH Act than the standard it
supersedes.
International Union, UAW v. OSHA
(LOTO II), 37 F.3d 665, 668 (D.C. Cir.
1994).
OSHA has generally considered an
excess risk of 1 death per 1000
employees over a 45-year working
lifetime as clearly representing a
significant risk (see Industrial Union
Dept. v. American Petroleum Institute
(Benzene), 448 U.S. 607, 655 (1980);
International Union v. Pendergrass
(Formaldehyde), 878 F.2d 389, 392–93
(D.C. Cir. 1989); Building and
Construction Trades Dept., AFL-CIO v.
Brock (Asbestos), 838 F.2d 1258, 1264–
65 (D.C. Cir. 1988)).
A standard is considered
technologically feasible if the protective
measures it requires already exist, can
be brought into existence with available
technology, or can be created with
technology that can reasonably be
expected to be developed (see American
Iron and Steel Institute v. OSHA (Lead
II), 939 F.2d 975, 980 (D.C. Cir. 1991)).
A standard is economically feasible
when industry can absorb or pass on the
costs of compliance without threatening
the industry’s long-term profitability or
competitive structure (see American
Textile Mfrs. Institute v. OSHA (Cotton
Dust), 452 U.S. 490, 530 n. 55 (1981);
Lead II, 939 F.2d at 980). A standard is
cost effective if the protective measures
it requires are the least costly of the
available alternatives that achieve the
same level of protection (see LOTO II,
37 F.3d at 668).
All OSHA standards must be highly
protective (LOTO II, 37 F.3d at 669) and,
where practical, ‘‘expressed in terms of
objective criteria and of the performance
desired.’’ 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5). Finally,
the OSH Act requires that when
promulgating a rule that differs
substantially from a national consensus
standard, OSHA must explain why the
promulgated rule is a better method for
effectuating the purpose of the Act. 29
U.S.C. 655(b)(8). As discussed
elsewhere in this preamble, OSHA is
using several consensus standards as the
basis for its proposed rule. The
deviations from these consensus
standards are explained in Section IV,
Summary and Explanation of Proposed
Rule, later in this preamble.
IV. Summary and Explanation of
Proposed Rule
This section discusses the important
elements of the proposed standard,
explains the purpose of the individual
requirements, and explains any
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
differences between the proposed rule
and existing standards. References in
parentheses are to exhibits in the
rulemaking record. References prefixed
by ‘‘269’’ are to exhibits and transcripts
in the rulemaking record from OSHA’s
earlier rulemaking on § 1910.137 and
§ 1910.269. These documents are
available for inspection and copying in
the Docket Office under Docket S–015.
(The transcripts are listed in the docket
as ‘‘exhibits’’ 100–X through 208–X.)
OSHA is proposing a new
construction standard on electrical
protective equipment, 29 CFR 1926.97,
and a revision of the standard on the
construction of electric power
transmission and distribution lines and
equipment, 29 CFR Part 1926, Subpart
V. The Agency is also proposing
changes to the general industry
counterparts to these two construction
standards, 29 CFR 1910.137 and
1910.269, respectively. The proposed
construction standards may contain
some nonsubstantive differences from
their existing counterpart general
industry requirements that are not
separately included in the proposed
revision of the general industry
standards. However, the Agency intends
for the corresponding construction and
general industry requirements to be the
same in the final rule except to the
extent that separate requirements are
supported by the rulemaking record. For
example, the definition of ‘‘designated
employee’’ in existing § 1910.269(x)
reads as follows:
An employee (or person) who is designated
by the employer to perform specific duties
under the terms of this section and who is
knowledgeable in the construction and
operation of the equipment and the hazards
involved.
OSHA is proposing a slightly revised
version of this definition in § 1926.968,
as follows:
An employee (or person) who is assigned
by the employer to perform specific duties
under the terms of this section and who has
sufficient knowledge of the construction and
operation of the equipment and the hazards
involved to perform his or her duties safely.
The Agency does not believe that the
proposed definition for Subpart V is
substantially different from the existing
definition in § 1910.269(x). Therefore,
OSHA is not specifically including the
proposed change to the definition of
‘‘designated employee’’ in the proposed
changes to § 1910.269. The language in
the final standards (that is,
§§ 1910.269(x) and 1926.968) will be the
same, however, unless the record
warrants a separate definition for
construction work.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
In addition, the proposal references
national consensus standards in notes
following various requirements. These
references are intended to provide
employers and employees with
additional useful sources of information
that can assist them in complying with
the standards. OSHA intends to review
the latest editions of these consensus
standards and reference those editions
when promulgating the final rule
provided they still provide suitable
guidance.
A. Electrical Protective Equipment,
Section 1926.97
Electrical protective equipment is in
constant use during electric power
transmission and distribution work;
and, appropriately, existing Subpart V
contains provisions related to this
equipment. The existing OSHA
standards for electrical protective
equipment in construction work are
contained in § 1926.951(a)(1), which
only applies during construction of
electric power transmission and
distribution lines and equipment.
Electrical protective equipment,
however, is used throughout the
construction industry. OSHA therefore
believes that updated personal
protective equipment provisions should
apply throughout the construction
industry, wherever such equipment is
necessary for employee safety, and that
electrical protective equipment
provisions should not be limited to the
use of this equipment in electric power
transmission and distribution work.
Therefore, OSHA is proposing new
§ 1926.97, Electrical protective
equipment, to replace § 1926.951(a)(1),
which incorporates by reference the
following six American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) standards:
Item
ANSI
Standard
Rubber insulating gloves ............
Rubber matting for use around
electric apparatus.
Rubber insulating blankets .........
Rubber insulating hoods .............
J6.6–1971
J6.7–1935
(R1971)
J6.4–1971
J6.2–1950
(R1971)
J6.1–1950
(R1971)
J6.5–1971
Rubber insulating line hose ........
Rubber insulating sleeves ..........
These ANSI standards were originally
developed and adopted as American
Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) standards. (In fact, the latest
revisions of these standards use the
ASTM designations, rather than using
separate designations for both
standards-writing organizations.) As is
typical of national consensus standards,
the ASTM standards are filled with
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
detailed specifications for the
manufacture, testing, and design of
electrical protective equipment.
Additionally, these standards are
revised frequently, making existing
§ 1926.951(a)(1) over a quarter century
out of date. For example, the most
recent ANSI standard listed in the
former OSHA requirement is dated
1971. The most recent ASTM version
available is a 2002 edition of
specifications on rubber insulating
gloves. The complete list of current
ASTM standards corresponding to the
ANSI standards is as follows:
ASTM D120–02a, Specification for
Rubber Insulating Gloves.
ASTM D178–01e1, Specification for
Rubber Insulating Matting.
ASTM D1048–99, Specification for
Rubber Insulating Blankets.
ASTM D1049–98e1 (Reapproved
2002), Specification for Rubber
Insulating Covers.
ASTM D1050–90 (Reapproved 1999),
Specification for Rubber Insulating Line
Hose.
ASTM D1051–02, Specification for
Rubber Insulating Sleeves.
Additionally, ASTM has adopted
standards on the in-service care of
insulating line hose and covers (ASTM
F478–92 (Reapproved 1999)), insulating
blankets (ASTM F479–95 (Reapproved
2001)), and insulating gloves and
sleeves (ASTM F496–02a), which have
no current counterparts in existing
§ 1926.951(a)(1).
In an attempt to retain the quality of
protection afforded by the ASTM
standards, OSHA has developed
proposed new § 1926.97 which has been
derived from the ASTM documents but
which has been written in performance
terms. OSHA recognizes the importance
of the ASTM standards in defining basic
requirements for the safe design and
manufacture of electrical protective
equipment for employees. Proposed
§ 1926.97 would increase the protection
presently afforded to power
transmission and distribution
employees by the outdated ANSI/ASTM
standards incorporated by reference in
the existing standard. The proposal
carries forward ASTM provisions that
are performance oriented and necessary
for employee safety, but does not
contain many of the detailed
specifications in those consensus
standards. The proposal will thus
provide greater flexibility for
compliance with these provisions to the
extent that worker safety warrants.
There are several reasons why
adopting the ASTM standards in toto
would be inappropriate in this
rulemaking. First, ASTM has revised
each of the currently referenced
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34827
standards several times since they were
adopted in the former OSHA regulation.
Because of the continual process by
which ASTM periodically revises its
standards, any specific editions that
OSHA might adopt would likely be
outdated within a few years.
Additionally, since the rulemaking
process is lengthy, a complete revision
of OSHA’s electrical protective
equipment requirements every three
years or so to keep pace with the
changes in the consensus standards is
not practical. (In fact, some of the ASTM
standards will likely be revised again
during the rulemaking period.) To
remedy this problem, OSHA is
proposing new § 1926.97 to make the
standards flexible enough to
accommodate changes in technology,
obviating the need for constant revision.
Where possible, the proposed standard
has been written in performance terms
in order to allow alternative methods of
compliance if they provide comparable
safety to the employee.
Another difficulty with incorporation
of the ASTM standards by reference is
that they contain details that go beyond
the purposes of the OSHA standard or
that are not directly related to employee
safety. In proposed § 1926.97, OSHA has
tried to carry forward only provisions
that are relevant to employee safety in
the workplace. Furthermore, OSHA has
attempted to simplify those provisions
to make the requirements easier for
employers and employees to use and
understand. Because the revision places
all relevant requirements in the text of
the regulations, employers would no
longer have to refer to the ASTM
documents to determine their
obligations under OSHA.
In striving for this degree of
simplification, the Agency has tried to
use an approach that will accept new
methods of protection that may appear
in future editions of the ASTM
standards. OSHA recognizes that such
future editions of these standards might
contain technological advances
providing significant improvement in
employee safety, which might not be
permitted under proposed § 1926.97.
However, due to the performanceoriented nature of the OSHA standard as
compared to the ASTM standards,
conflicts between the two standards in
areas affecting employee safety are
expected to be infrequent.
Furthermore, an employer who
follows future versions of ASTM
standards would likely be covered by
OSHA’s de minimis policy as set forth
in OSHA Instruction CPL 02–00–103
(Field Inspection Reference Manual).
Under that policy, a de minimis
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34828
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
condition 8 exists: (1) Where an
employer’s workplace has been updated
in accordance with new technology or
equipment as a result of revisions to the
latest consensus publications from
which OSHA standards were derived,
(2) where the updated versions result in
a ‘‘state of the art’’ workplace,
technically advanced beyond the
requirements of the applicable OSHA
standard, and (3) where equal or greater
safety and health protection is provided.
Paragraph (a). Paragraph (a) of
§ 1926.97 addresses the design and
manufacture of insulating blankets,
matting, covers, line hose, gloves, and
sleeves made of rubber (either natural or
synthetic). See the summary and
explanation of proposed § 1926.97(b) for
general requirements on other types of
insulating equipment.
Under proposed paragraph (a)(1)(i),
blankets, gloves, and sleeves would
have to be manufactured without seams.
This method of making the protective
equipment minimizes the chance that
the material will split. Because they are
used when workers handle energized
lines, gloves and sleeves are the only
defense an employee has against electric
shock. Additionally, blankets, gloves,
and sleeves need to be seamless because
the stresses placed on the equipment by
the flexing of the rubber during normal
use could cause a seam to separate. The
other three types of electrical protective
equipment (covers, line hose, and
matting) generally provide a more
indirect form of protection—they
insulate the live parts from accidental,
rather than intended, contact—and they
are not usually subject to similar
amounts or types of flexing.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(ii) would
require electrical protective equipment
to be marked to indicate its class and
type. The class marking indicates the
voltage with which the equipment can
be used; the type marking indicates
whether or not the equipment is ozone
resistant. This will enable employees to
know the uses and voltages for which
the equipment is suited. Proposed
paragraph (a)(1)(ii) would also permit
equipment to contain other relevant
markings, such as one indicating the
manufacturer’s name or compliance
with ASTM standards.
Paragraph (a)(1)(iii) would require all
markings to be nonconductive and to be
applied so that the properties of the
equipment are not impaired. This would
8 OSHA considers a de minimis condition to be
a technical violation of a standard only. However,
because the employer is considered to be in
substantial compliance with the standard, the
Agency issues no citations or penalties, nor is the
employer required to bring his or her workplace
into compliance with the older standard.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
ensure that no marking interferes with
the protection to be provided by the
equipment.
Paragraph (a)(1)(iv) would require
markings on gloves to be provided only
in the cuff area. Markings in other areas
could possibly wear off. Moreover,
having the markings in one place will
allow the employee to determine the
class and type of glove quickly.
Furthermore, OSHA would require in
paragraph (c)(2)(vii) that rubber gloves
normally be worn under protector
gloves. Because a protector glove is
almost always shorter than the
corresponding rubber glove with which
it is worn and because the cuff of the
protector glove can easily be pulled
back without removal, it is easy to see
markings on the cuff portion of the
rubber glove beneath. Any marking
provided on the rubber glove in an area
outside of the cuff could not be seen
with the protector glove in place.
Under the national consensus
standards, electrical protective
equipment must be capable of passing
certain electrical tests. In proposed
§ 1926.97(a)(2), OSHA incorporates
these requirements. The tests specified
in the ASTM standards are very
detailed. This is not the case in the
OSHA standard. Through the use of
performance language, the proposed
rule would establish the same level of
protection without a lengthy discussion
of test procedures.
Paragraph (a)(2)(i) would require
electrical protective equipment to be
capable of withstanding the a-c prooftest voltages in Table E–1 or the d-c
proof-test voltages in Table E–2 of the
standard (depending, of course, on
whether an a-c proof test or an
equivalent d-c proof test is performed).
The proof-test voltages listed in these
tables have been taken from the current
ASTM standards, which also contain
details of the test procedures used to
determine whether electrical protective
equipment is capable of withstanding
these voltages. These details have not
been included in the proposed rule.
Paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A) replaces them
with a performance-oriented
requirement that whatever test is used
must reliably indicate that the
equipment can withstand the proof-test
voltage involved. To meet the
requirements of the OSHA performance
standard, employers would normally get
the assurance of the manufacturer that
the equipment is capable of
withstanding the appropriate proof-test
voltage.9 Manufacturers typically look
9 As explained in the note at the end of paragraph
(a), OSHA deems equipment meeting the ASTM
standards as being compliant with the OSHA
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
to the ASTM standards for guidance in
determining the testing procedure.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(i)(B) would
require the proof-test voltage to be
applied for 1 minute for insulating
matting and for 3 minutes for other
insulating equipment. These times are
based on the proof-test times given in
the ASTM design standards and are
appropriate for testing the design
capabilities of electrical protective
equipment.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(i)(C) would
require rubber insulating gloves to be
capable of withstanding the a-c prooftest voltage indicated in Table E–1 of
the standard after a 16-hour water soak.
If rubber insulating gloves absorb water,
a reduction in insulating properties will
result. Water absorption is thus a critical
property because exposure to
perspiration or rain is quite common
while line worker’s gloves are in use.
Electrical work is sometimes performed
in the rain, and an employee’s
perspiration is often present while the
gloves are in use. The soak test is
needed to ensure that electrical
protective equipment can withstand the
voltage involved under these
conditions.
When an a-c proof test is used on
gloves, the resulting proof-test current
gives an indication of the validity of the
gloves’ make-up, the dielectric constant
of the type of material used, its
thickness, and the total area under test.
Paragraph (a)(2)(ii) prohibits the a-c
proof-test current from exceeding the
current allowed in Table E–1. The
currents listed in the table have been
taken from ASTM D120–02a.
Under paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(A), the
maximum current for a-c voltages at
frequencies other than 60 hertz would
be computed from the direct ratio of the
frequencies.
Gloves are filled with and immersed
in water during the a-c proof test, and
the water inside and outside the glove
forms the electrodes. The a-c proof-test
current is dependent on the length of
the portion of the glove that is out of
water. Because the proof-test current is
a function of immersion depth, it is
important to specify the depth in the
rule. Otherwise, employee safety could
be compromised. Therefore, paragraph
(a)(2)(ii)(B) in the proposed standard
specifies that gloves to be tested must be
filled with and immersed in water to the
depth given in Table E–3 in the
standard. This table was taken directly
standard. Thus, an employer could simply look for
equipment labeled as meeting these standards.
Manufacturers attest, through this label, that their
equipment is capable of passing all the required
tests, including the a-c or d-c proof tests.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
from ASTM D120 and is valid for the
proof-test currents listed in Table E–1.
The allowable proof-test current must
be increased for proof-tests on gloves
after a 16-hour water soak because the
gloves absorb a small amount of water,
which results in slightly increased
current during the test. ASTM D120
allows an increase in the proof-test
current of 2 milliamperes. If the prooftest current increases more than that, it
would indicate that the gloves absorbed
too much water. OSHA has proposed to
allow a similar increase in proof-test
current in paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(C).
Since the relatively high voltages used
in testing electrical protective
equipment for minimum breakdown
voltage can actually damage the
insulating material under test (even if it
passes), proposed paragraph (a)(2)(iii)
would prohibit protective equipment
that has been subjected to such a test
from being used to protect employees
from electrical hazards. The intent of
the proposal is to prohibit the use of
equipment that has been tested under
conditions equivalent to those in the
ASTM standards for minimum
breakdown voltage tests.
A note at the end of proposed
§ 1926.97(a) indicates that all the tests
given in the paragraph are described in
the listed ASTM standards, as follows:
These [ASTM] standards contain
specifications for conducting the various
tests required in paragraph (a) of this section.
For example, the a-c and d-c proof tests, the
breakdown test, the water soak procedure,
and the ozone test mentioned in this
paragraph are described in detail in the
ASTM standards.
This does not mean that OSHA is
adopting the ASTM standards by
reference. In enforcing proposed
§ 1926.97, the Agency would accept any
test that meets the requirements of the
OSHA standard. However, the proposal
states explicitly that the ASTM tests
listed in the note are acceptable; and, if
the ASTM specifications are met, an
employer has assurance that he or she
is complying with proposed § 1926.97.
If an employer uses other test methods,
the Agency would determine, on a caseby-case basis, whether or not they meet
the OSHA standard.
Around high-voltage lines and
equipment, a luminous discharge, called
electric corona, can occur due to
ionization of the surrounding air caused
by a voltage gradient which exceeds a
certain critical value. The blue corona
discharge is accompanied by a hissing
noise and by ozone, which can cause
damage to certain types of rubber
insulating materials. Therefore, when
there is a chance that ozone may be
produced at a work location, electrical
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
protective equipment made of ozoneresistant material is frequently used. To
ensure that ozone-resistant material
will, in fact, be resistant to the damaging
effects of the gas, paragraph (a)(2)(iv)
requires this type of material (Type II)
to be capable of withstanding an ozone
test that can reliably indicate that the
material will resist ozone exposure in
actual use. As noted earlier,
standardized ozone tests are given in the
ASTM specifications. The proposed rule
also lists signs of failure of the test, such
as checking,10 cracking, breaks, and
pitting.
Paragraph (a)(3) applies to the
workmanship and finish of electrical
protective equipment. Because physical
irregularities can interfere with the
insulating properties of the equipment,
paragraph (a)(3)(i) prohibits the
presence of harmful defects that can be
detected by the tests or inspections
required under § 1926.97. However,
some minor irregularities are nearly
unavoidable in the manufacture of
rubber goods, and these imperfections
may be present in the insulating
materials without significantly affecting
the insulation. Paragraph (a)(3)(ii) lists
the types of imperfections that are
permitted. Even with these
imperfections, electrical protective
equipment is still required to be capable
of passing the electrical tests specified
in paragraph (a)(2).
Since paragraph (a) of § 1926.97 is
written in performance-oriented
language, OSHA believes that it is
important for employees, employers,
and manufacturers to have some
guidance in terms of what is acceptable
under the proposed standard. OSHA
also realizes that the current ASTM
specifications on electrical protective
equipment are accepted by employers
and employees in the industry as
providing safety to employees and that
existing electrical protective equipment
is normally made to these
specifications. Furthermore, the
proposal is based on the provisions of
these national consensus standards,
although the requirements are stated in
performance terms. OSHA has therefore
included a footnote at the end of
paragraph (a) stating that rubber
insulating equipment meeting the
requirements of the listed ASTM
standards for this equipment are
considered as conforming to the
requirements contained in § 1926.97(a).
The lists of ASTM standards in the
proposed rule (in the notes following
10 ASTM F819–00 e1, Standard Terminology
Relating to Electrical Protective Equipment for
Workers, defines ‘‘ozone cutting and checking’’ as:
‘‘cracks produced by ozone in a material under
mechanical stress.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34829
paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(B) and (c)(2)(ix))
contain the latest revisions of these
standards. The Agency has reviewed
these documents and has found them to
provide suitable guidance for
compliance with § 1926.97(a).11 It
should be noted that the listed
consensus standards are the only ones
with official recognition within the
body of the standard. Future consensus
standards are not automatically given
the same recognition but will have to be
reviewed by OSHA to determine
whether they provide sufficient
protection.
Paragraph (b). Paragraph (b) of the
proposed § 1926.97 addresses electrical
protective equipment other than the
rubber insulating equipment addressed
in paragraph (a). Equipment falling
under this paragraph includes plastic
guard equipment, insulating barriers,
and other protective equipment
intended to provide electrical protection
to employees. Some of the equipment
addressed in paragraph (b) is covered
under a national consensus standard.
For example, insulating plastic guard
equipment is covered by ASTM F968,
Specification for Electrically Insulating
Plastic Guard Equipment for Protection
of Workers. Other types of protective
equipment are not covered by consensus
specification.
Paragraph (b)(1) would require
electrical protective equipment to be
capable of withstanding any voltage that
might be imposed on it. The voltage
includes transient overvoltages as well
as the nominal voltage that is present on
an energized part of an electric circuit.
Equipment withstands a voltage if it
maintains its integrity without flashover
or arc through. This paragraph would
protect employees from failure of
electrical protective equipment.
Equipment conforming to a national
consensus standard for that type of
equipment will generally be considered
as complying with this rule if that
standard contains proof testing
requirements for the voltage involved.
For types of equipment not addressed
by any consensus standard, OSHA is
considering accepting electrical
protective equipment that is capable of
passing a test equivalent to that
described in ASTM F712, Standard Test
Methods for Electrically Insulating
Plastic Guard Equipment for Protection
11 OSHA has also reviewed earlier versions of
these ASTM standards and found them to afford
protection equal to that of the OSHA standard.
Thus, the Agency will accept electrical protective
equipment meeting earlier versions of the
consensus standards provided the equipment meets
the edition of the standard that was in effect at the
time of manufacture and provided the employer has
followed the use and care provisions set out in
proposed § 1926.97(c).
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34830
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
of Workers. Guidance for performing
dielectric tests of electrical protective
equipment is also given in IEEE Std.
516, IEEE Guide for Maintenance
Methods on Energized Power-Lines.
OSHA invites comments on whether
these standards contain suitable test
methods and whether equipment
passing those tests should be acceptable
under the OSHA standard.
The electrical test criteria set in
ASTM F968 are summarized in Table
IV–1 and Table IV–2. The Agency
believes that the performance criteria
proposed in paragraph (b)(1) minimize
the necessity of setting or specifically
including similar criteria in the OSHA
standard. However, comments are
invited on the need to set specific
electrical performance values in the
OSHA rule and on whether Table IV–1
and Table IV–2 could be applied to all
types of electrical protective equipment
that would be covered by proposed
§ 1926.97(b).
TABLE IV–1.—WITHSTAND VOLTAGE PROOF TEST
Class
2
3
4
5
6
................
................
................
................
................
Rating
kV j-j
Proof test withstand voltage (in service testing)
Maximum
use
kV j-g
(60 Hz)
14.6
26.4
36.6
48.3
72.5
kV j-g
60 Hz
8.4
15.3
21.1
27.0
41.8
Duration
min.
D–C
13
24
32
42
64
18
34
45
60
91
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.50
0.25
Criteria
No flashover other than momentary as a result of
too-close spacing of electrode.
TABLE IV–2.—MINIMUM FLASHOVER TEST
Class
2
3
4
5
6
................
................
................
................
................
Rating
kV j-j
14.6
26.4
36.6
48.3
72.5
Maximum
use
kV j-g
(60 Hz)
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
60 Hz
8.4
15.3
21.1
27.0
41.8
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) addresses
the properties of insulating equipment
that limit the amount of current seen by
an employee. Paragraph (b)(2)(i) would
require electrical protective equipment
used as the primary insulation of
employees from energized parts to be
capable of passing a test for current (that
is, a proof test) when subjected to the
highest nominal voltage on which the
equipment is to be used. Paragraph
(b)(2)(ii) would limit the current
encountered during the test to 1
microampere per kilovolt of applied
voltage. This requirement is intended to
prevent the use of poor insulating
materials or good insulating materials
that are contaminated with conductive
substances (for example, fiberglassreinforced plastic coated with a
conductive finish), which could lead to
electric shocks to employees using the
equipment. The limit for current has
been taken from IEEE Std. 516, and
OSHA believes such a limit is
reasonable and appropriate. The Agency
invites comments, however, on whether
another value would better protect
employees.
When equipment is tested with ac
voltage, the current measured during the
test consists of three components: (1)
VerDate jul<14>2003
Minimum flashover test kV jg
Jkt 205001
Criteria
D–C
14
25
34
43
67
20
35
48
61
95
No flashover other than momentary as a result of too-close spacing of electrode.
Capacitive current caused by the
dielectric properties of the equipment
being tested, (2) conduction current
through the equipment, and (3) leakage
current passing along the surface of the
equipment. The conduction current is
negligible for materials typically used in
insulating equipment, and the leakage
current should be small for clean, dry
insulating equipment. The capacitive
component usually predominates when
insulating equipment in good condition
is tested. The second note to paragraph
(b)(2) summarizes this information.
The tests required under proposed
paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) would
normally be performed by the
manufacturer initially during the design
process and periodically during the
manufacturing process. However, some
employers might want to use equipment
that is made of insulating materials but
that is not intended by the manufacturer
to be used as insulation. For example,
a barrier made of rigid plastic may be
intended for use as a general purpose
barrier. An employer could test the
barrier under proposed paragraphs (b)(1)
and (b)(2). If the equipment passed the
tests, it would be acceptable for use as
insulating electrical protective
equipment. Note 1 to paragraph (b)(2)
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
makes clear that paragraph (b)(2) applies
to equipment for primary insulation; it
is not intended to apply to equipment
used for secondary insulation or used
for brush contact only.
Paragraph (c). Although existing
§ 1926.951(a)(1) does not contain
provisions for the care and use of
insulating equipment, OSHA believes
provisions of this type can contribute
greatly to employee safety. Electrical
protective equipment is, in large part,
manufactured in accordance with the
latest ASTM standards. This would
probably be the case even in the absence
of OSHA regulation. However, improper
use and care of this equipment can
easily reduce, or even eliminate, the
protection afforded by this equipment.
Therefore, OSHA is proposing new
requirements on the in-service care and
use of electrical protective equipment to
the design standards already contained
in existing § 1926.951(a)(1). These new
provisions will help ensure that these
safety products retain their insulating
properties.
Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would
require electrical protective equipment
to be maintained in a safe and reliable
condition. This general, performanceoriented requirement, which would
apply to all equipment addressed by
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
new § 1926.97, helps ensure that
employees are fully protected from
electric shock.
Detailed criteria for the use and care
of specific types of electrical protective
equipment are contained in the
following ASTM standards:
ASTM F 478–92, Specification for InService Care of Insulating Line Hose and
Covers.
ASTM F 479–95, Specification for InService Care of Insulating Blankets.
ASTM F 496–02a, Specification for
In-Service Care of Insulating Gloves and
Sleeves.
OSHA based the requirements
proposed in paragraph (c)(2) on these
standards.
Paragraph (c)(2) applies only to rubber
insulating blankets, covers, line hose,
gloves, and sleeves. These are the only
types of electrical protective equipment
addressed by consensus standards on
the care and use of such equipment.
Rubber insulating matting, which is
addressed by the material design
specifications in paragraph (a), is not
covered by any ASTM standard on its
in-service care or by § 1910.137(c)(2).
This type of equipment is generally
permanently installed to provide
supplementary protection against
electric shock. Employees stand on the
matting, and they are insulated from
ground, which protects them from
phase-to-ground electric shock.
However, because this type of
equipment is normally left in place after
it is installed and because it is not relied
on for primary protection from electric
shock (the primary protection is
provided by other insulating equipment
or by insulating tools), it is not tested on
a periodic basis and is not subject to the
careful inspection before use that other
insulating equipment is required to
receive. It should be noted, however,
that rubber insulating matting is
required to be maintained in a safe,
reliable condition under paragraph
(c)(1).
Although the rubber insulating
equipment addressed in § 1926.97(a) is
currently designed to be capable of
withstanding voltages of up to 40
kilovolts, such equipment is actually
intended to be used at lower voltages
(see, for example, ASTM F 496 on the
care and use of rubber insulating gloves
and sleeves). The use of insulating
equipment at voltages less than its
actual breakdown voltage provides a
margin of safety for the employee. In
paragraph (c)(2)(i) and Table E–4, the
proposal has adopted the margins of
safety recognized in the ASTM
standards, restricting the use of
insulating equipment to voltages lower
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
than the proof-test voltages given in
Table E–1 and Table E–2.
Table E–4 contains the following note:
The maximum use voltage is the a-c
voltage (rms) classification of the protective
equipment that designates the maximum
nominal design voltage of the energized
system that may be safely worked. The
nominal design voltage is equal to the phaseto-phase voltage on multiphase circuits.
However, the phase-to-ground potential is
considered to be the nominal design voltage:
(1) If there is no multiphase exposure in a
system area and if the voltage exposure is
limited to the phase-to-ground potential, or
(2) If the electrical equipment and devices
are insulated or isolated or both so that the
multiphase exposure on a grounded wye
circuit is removed.
In the general case, electrical
protective equipment must be rated for
the full phase-to-phase voltage of the
lines or equipment on which work is
being performed. This ensures that
employees are protected against the
most severe possible exposure, that is,
contact between one phase conductor
and another. However, if the employee
is only exposed to phase-to-ground
voltage, then the electrical protective
equipment selected can be based on this
lower voltage level (nominally, the
phase-to-phase voltage divided by √3 ).
For example, a three-phase, solidly
grounded, Y-connected overhead
distribution system could be run as
three phase conductors with a neutral or
as three single-phase circuits with one
phase conductor and a neutral each. If
only one phase conductor is present on
a pole, there is no multiphase exposure.
If all three phase conductors are present,
the multiphase exposure can be
removed by insulating two of the phases
or by isolating 12 two of the phases.
After the insulation is in place or while
the employee is isolated from the other
two phase conductors, there is no
multiphase exposure, and electrical
protective equipment rated for the
phase-to-ground voltage could be used.
(It should be noted that, until the
multiphase exposure has actually been
removed, the phase-to-phase voltage
remains the maximum use voltage.
Thus, the maximum use voltage of any
insulation used to ‘‘remove phase-tophase exposure’’ must be greater than or
equal to the phase-to-phase voltage on
the system.) OSHA requests comments
on how employees can be insulated or
isolated from multiphase exposure to
12 Depending on the configuration of the system,
an employee could be isolated from two of the
phases on the pole by approaching one of the
outside phase conductors and working on it from
a position where there is no possibility of coming
too close to the other two phase conductors.
Isolation of the employee may be impossible for
some line configurations.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34831
ensure the safe use of electrical
protective equipment.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii) would
require insulating equipment to be
visually inspected before use each day
and immediately after any incident
which might be suspected of causing
damage. In this way, obvious defects
can be detected before an accident
occurs. Possible damage-causing
incidents would include exposure to
corona and exposure to possible direct
physical damage. Additionally, rubber
gloves would be required to be
subjected to an air test along with the
inspection. In the field, this test usually
consists of rolling the cuff towards the
palm so that air is entrapped within the
glove. In a testing facility, a mechanical
inflater may be used. In either case,
punctures and cuts can easily be
detected. The note following paragraph
(c)(2)(ii) indicates that ASTM F 1236–
96, Standard Guide for Visual
Inspection of Electrical Protective
Rubber Products, contains (1)
information on how to inspect rubber
insulating equipment and (2)
descriptions and photographs of
potential irregularities in the
equipment.
During use, electrical protective
equipment may become damaged and
lose some of its insulating value.
Paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of proposed
§ 1926.97 lists types of damage that
would cause the insulating value to
drop. The equipment may not be used
if any of these defects are present.
Defects other than those listed in
paragraph (c)(2)(iii) may develop during
use of the equipment and could also
affect the insulating and mechanical
properties of the equipment. If such
defects are found, proposed paragraph
(c)(2)(iv) would require the equipment
to be removed from service and tested
in accordance with other requirements
in paragraph (c)(2). The results of the
tests determine if it is safe to return the
items to service.
Foreign substances on the surface of
rubber insulating equipment can
degrade the material and lead to damage
to the insulation. Paragraph (c)(2)(v)
would require the equipment to be
cleaned as needed to remove any foreign
substances.
Over time, certain environmental
conditions can also cause deterioration
of rubber insulating equipment.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(vi) would
require insulating equipment to be
stored so that it is protected from
injurious conditions and substances,
such as light, temperature extremes,
excessive humidity, and ozone. This
requirement helps the equipment retain
its insulating properties as it ages.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34832
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
OSHA does not consider carrying the
equipment on trucks for the use of
employees during the course of work to
be storage. However, the Agency does
not believe that it is safe to store the
equipment on trucks for extended
periods between use if such storage
would expose the equipment to
extremes of temperature or humidity. It
may be necessary, under some
circumstances, to store equipment
indoors during prolonged periods when
employees would not be using it.
Workers are dependent upon electrical
protective equipment for their safety,
and all reasonable means of protecting
it from unnecessary damage must be
employed.
Rubber insulating gloves are
particularly sensitive to physical
damage during use. Through handling
conductors and other electrical
equipment, an employee can damage
the gloves and lose the protection they
provide. For example, a sharp point on
the end of a conductor could puncture
the rubber. To protect against damage,
protector gloves (made of leather) are
worn over the rubber gloves. Proposed
paragraph (c)(2)(vii) recognizes the extra
protection afforded by leather gloves
and would require their use over rubber
gloves, except under limited conditions.
Protector gloves would not be
required with Class 0 or Class 00 gloves
if high finger dexterity is needed for
small parts manipulation. The
maximum voltage on which Class 0 and
Class 00 gloves can be used is 1,000
volts and 500 volts, respectively. At
these voltages, an employee is protected
against electric shock as long as a live
part does not puncture the rubber and
contact the employee’s hand. The type
of small parts encountered in work on
energized circuits, such as small nuts
and washers, are not likely to do this.
While the exception is necessary to
allow work to be performed on small
energized parts, extra care is needed in
the visual examination of the glove and
in the avoidance of handling sharp
objects. (A note to this effect is included
in the proposal.)
The other exception to the
requirement for protector gloves is
granted if the employer can demonstrate
that the possibility for damage is low
and if gloves at least one class higher
than required for the voltage are used.
For example, if a Class 2 glove is used
at 7500 volts or less (the maximum use
voltage for Class 1 equipment), if high
dexterity is needed, and if the
possibility of damage is low, then
protector gloves need not be used. In
this case, the additional thickness of
insulation provides a measure of
additional physical protection. This
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
exception does not apply when the
possibility of damage is significant, such
as when an employee is using a knife to
trim insulation from a conductor or
when an employee has to handle
moving parts, such as conductors being
pulled into place. To ensure that no loss
of insulation has occurred, paragraph
(c)(2)(vii)(C) would require any gloves
used under this exception to be tested
before being used again.
Paragraph (c)(2)(viii), Table E–4, and
Table E–5 would require insulating
equipment to be tested periodically to
verify that electrical protective
equipment retains its insulating
properties over time. Table E–4 lists the
retest voltages that are required for the
various classes of protective equipment,
and Table E–5 presents the testing
intervals for the different types of
equipment. These test voltages and
intervals were taken from the relevant
ASTM standards.
Paragraph (c)(2)(ix) proposes a
performance-oriented requirement that
the method used for the periodic tests
give a reliable indication of whether or
not the electrical protective equipment
can withstand the voltages involved. As
this is a performance-oriented standard,
OSHA does not spell out detailed
procedures for the required tests, which
vary depending on the type of
equipment being tested. On the other
hand, OSHA believes that it is
important for employees, employers,
and testing laboratories to have some
guidance in terms of what is acceptable
under the proposed standard. Therefore,
following paragraph (c)(2)(ix), OSHA
has included a note stating that
electrical test methods given in the
various ASTM standards on rubber
insulating equipment meet the proposed
performance requirement. The Agency
believes that referencing acceptable test
methods within the standard will
benefit employees, employers, and
testing laboratories. As noted earlier,
this does not mean that OSHA is
adopting the ASTM standards by
reference. In enforcing
§ 1926.97(c)(2)(ix), the Agency would
accept any test that meets the
requirements of the OSHA standard.
However, the proposal states explicitly
that the listed ASTM tests would be
acceptable; and, if the ASTM
specifications are met, an employer has
assurance that he or she would be
complying with § 1926.97(c)(2)(ix). If an
employer uses other test methods, the
Agency will determine, on a case-bycase basis, whether or not they meet the
Federal standard.
Once the equipment has undergone
the in-service inspections and tests, it is
important to ensure that any failed
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
equipment is not returned to service.
Paragraph (c)(2)(x) would prohibit
electrical protective equipment that
failed the required inspections and tests
from being used by employees, unless
the defects can be safely eliminated.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(x) also lists
acceptable means of eliminating defects
and rendering the equipment fit for use.
Sometimes defective portions of rubber
line hose and blankets can be removed.
The result would be a smaller blanket or
a shorter length of line hose. Under the
proposal, rubber insulating blankets
may only be salvaged by severing the
defective portions of the blanket if the
resulting undamaged area is at least 560
mm by 560 mm (22 inches by 22 inches)
for Class 1, 2, 3, and 4 blankets. (Smaller
sizes cannot be reliably tested using
standard test methods.) Obviously,
gloves and sleeves cannot be repaired in
this manner; however, there are
methods of patching them if the defects
are minor. Rubber blankets can also be
patched. The patched area must have
electrical and physical properties equal
to those of the material being repaired.
To minimize the possibility that a patch
will loosen or fail, the proposal would
not permit repairs to gloves outside the
gauntlet area (the area between the wrist
and the reinforced edge of the opening).
OSHA stresses that the proposal would
not permit repairs in the working area
of the glove, where the constant flexing
of the rubber during the course of work
could loosen an ill-formed patch.
Once the insulating equipment has
been repaired, it must be retested to
ensure that any patches are effective and
that there are no other defects present.
Such retests would be required under
paragraph (c)(2)(xi).
Employers, employees, and OSHA
compliance staff must have a method of
determining whether or not the tests
required under proposed paragraphs
(c)(2)(viii) and (c)(2)(xi) have been
performed. Paragraph (c)(2)(xii) would
require this to be accomplished by
means of certification by the employer
that equipment has been tested in
accordance with the standard. The
certification is required to identify the
equipment that passed the test and the
date it was tested. Typical means of
meeting this requirement include logs
and stamping test dates on the
equipment. A note following paragraph
(c)(2)(xii) explains that these means of
certification are acceptable.
B. Electric Power Transmission and
Distribution, Subpart V
OSHA is proposing to revise Subpart
V of its construction standards. This
subpart contains requirements for the
prevention of injuries to employees
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
performing construction work on
electric power transmission and
distribution installations.
The proposed revision of Subpart V is
based primarily on the general industry
standard § 1910.269, Electric power
generation, transmission, and
distribution, which was promulgated in
January 1994, rather than on existing
Subpart V, which was promulgated in
1972. As noted earlier in this preamble,
the existing Subpart V is technologically
out of date and contains provisions that
are poorly written. OSHA believes that
basing the revision of Subpart V on the
more recently promulgated § 1910.269
will produce a standard that will be
easier for employees and employers to
understand and will better protect
employees than a revision based on the
existing construction standard.
Section 1926.950, General
Section 1926.950, General, proposes
the scope of revised Subpart V and
proposes general requirements for
training and the determination of
existing conditions.
Paragraph (a)(1) of proposed
§ 1926.950 sets the scope of revised
Subpart V. OSHA intends the revision
of Subpart V to apply to the same types
of work covered under the existing
standard. Therefore, paragraph (a)(1) has
been taken directly from existing
§ 1926.950(a) and (a)(1). As proposed,
Subpart V would apply to the
construction of electric power
transmission and distribution
installations. For the purposes of the
proposal and the existing standard,
‘‘construction’’ includes the erection of
new electric transmission and
distribution lines and equipment, and
the alteration, conversion, and
improvement of existing electric
transmission and distribution lines and
equipment.
Paragraph (a)(2) of proposed
§ 1926.950 explains the application of
the subpart with respect to the rest of
Part 1926. The proposed provision reads
as follows: ‘‘This subpart applies in
addition to all other applicable
standards contained in this Part 1926.
Employers covered under this subpart
are not exempt from complying with
other applicable provisions in Part 1926
by the operation of § 1910.5(c) of this
chapter. Specific references in this
subpart to other sections of Part 1926
are provided for emphasis only.’’ All
other construction industry standards
would continue to apply to installations
covered by the revised standard unless
an exception is given in Subpart V. For
example, § 1926.959(a)(2) would require
the critical components of mechanical
elevating and rotating equipment to be
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
inspected before each shift. This
provision would not supersede existing
§§ 1926.500(a)(5) and (a)(6), which
detail specific requirements for the
inspection of cranes. Also, in a change
that OSHA considers nonsubstantive,
§ 1910.269(a)(1)(iii) will be amended to
include language equivalent to that of
the new provision at § 1926.950(a)(2).13
In contrast to § 1910.269, Subpart V
does not apply to work on electric
power generation installations or to the
installations themselves. The
construction of an electric power
generation station normally poses
hazards more akin to those of general
construction rather than those found in
the operation and maintenance of the
generation plant. The only exceptions
would be during the final phase of
construction of a generating station,
when electrical and other acceptance
testing of the installation is being
performed, and during ‘‘reconstruction’’
phases, when other portions of the
generating station would still be in
operation. During these two operations,
the work being performed resembles
general industry work, and the
appropriate work practices to follow are
contained in the general industry
standard § 1910.269. Therefore, rather
than repeat the relevant portions of
§ 1910.269 in Subpart V, OSHA has
simply stated in § 1926.950(a)(3) that
such work shall comply with
§ 1910.269. The Agency requests
comments on whether § 1910.269
should apply to all work involving
electric power generation installations,
as proposed, or whether the relevant
requirements from § 1910.269 should be
contained in Subpart V.
Similarly, line-clearance tree
trimming is not normally performed as
part of the construction of electric
power transmission or distribution
installations. One exception occurs
when trees are trimmed along an
existing overhead power line to provide
clearance for a new transmission or
distribution line being constructed.
Even here, however, this work is not
construction-like in nature. Therefore,
OSHA is also applying § 1910.269 to
line-clearance tree-trimming operations,
regardless of whether the work is
considered to be construction work. The
Agency also requests comments on
whether § 1910.269 should apply to all
work involving line-clearance tree
trimming, as proposed, or whether the
relevant requirements from § 1910.269
should be contained in Subpart V.
13 Paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of § 1910.269 presently
states: ‘‘This section applies in addition to all other
applicable standards contained in this part 1910.
Specific references in this section to other sections
of part 1910 are provided for emphasis only.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34833
Paragraph (b) of § 1926.950 addresses
training for employees. Subpart V
currently contains no general provisions
related to training employees in the
safety precautions necessary to perform
electric power transmission and
distribution work. It is widely
recognized that electric-utility-type
work requires special knowledge and
skills. Additionally, both existing
Subpart V and the proposed revision of
Subpart V contain many safety-related
work practice requirements that are
necessary for the protection of
employees. In order to gain the requisite
knowledge and skills to employ these
work practices, employees must be
adequately trained. Therefore, in the
proposed revision of Subpart V, OSHA
has included training requirements
based on those in § 1910.269.
Paragraph (b)(1) contains training
requirements applying to all employees
performing work covered by Subpart V.
Paragraph (b)(1)(i) would require
employees to be trained in the safetyrelated work practices, safety
procedures, and other personnel safety
requirements in the standard that
pertain to their respective job
assignments. This training is necessary
to ensure that employees use the safetyrelated work practices outlined in
proposed Subpart V.
Under paragraph (b)(1)(ii), employees
would also be required to be trained in
and familiar with any other safety
practices necessary for their safety,
including applicable emergency
procedures. The proposed rule would
require employees to be trained in safe
work techniques that relate to his or her
job. Additionally, if more than one set
of work practices could be used to
accomplish a task safely, the employee
would need to be trained in only those
work methods he or she is to use. For
example, an insulator on a power line
could be replaced through the use of
live-line tools, through the use of rubber
insulating equipment, or by
deenergizing the line. The employee
would only have to be trained in the
method actually used to replace that
insulator.
The proposal cannot specify
requirements for every hazard the
employee faces in performing electric
power transmission or distribution
work. Employers must fill in this gap by
training their employees in hazards that
are anticipated during the course of jobs
they are expected to perform. The
language of proposed
§ 1926.950(b)(1)(ii) imparts OSHA’s
intent that safety training be provided in
areas that are not directly addressed by
the standard but that are related to the
employee’s job.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34834
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Under paragraph (b)(1)(iii), the
training provided to an employee would
have to be commensurate with the risk
he or she faces. This provision is not
contained in either existing Subpart V
or § 1910.269. This proposed
requirement, which has been taken from
§ 1910.332(c), is intended to ensure that
an appropriate level of training is
provided. Employees who face little risk
in their job tasks need less training than
those whose jobs expose them to the
most danger. OSHA believes that this
provision will ensure that employers
direct their training resources where
they will provide the greatest benefit. At
the same time, all employees will
receive adequate training to protect
them against the hazards they face in
their jobs. OSHA notes, however, for
employees who are currently provided
the training required by existing
§ 1910.269, this training will be
considered sufficient for compliance
with proposed paragraph (b)(1)(iii).
Proposed paragraph (b)(1)(iii) does not
require employers to make changes to
their training programs; rather it
provides employers with options to
tailor their training programs and
resources to employees with
particularly high-risk jobs.
Paragraph (b)(2) of proposed
§ 1926.950 contains additional
requirements for the training of
qualified employees. Because qualified
employees are allowed to work very
close to electric power lines and
equipment and because they face a high
risk of electrocution, it is important that
they be specially trained. OSHA
believes that qualified employees need
to be extensively trained for them to
perform their work safely. Towards this
end, the proposal would require that
these employees be trained in
distinguishing live parts from other
parts of electric equipment, in
determining nominal voltages of lines
and equipment, in the minimum
approach distances set forth in the
proposal, in the techniques involved in
working on or near live parts, and in the
knowledge necessary to recognize
electrical hazards and the techniques to
avoid these hazards.
OSHA believes that there is a need for
all employees to be trained on a
continuing basis. Initial instruction in
safe techniques for performing specific
job tasks is not sufficient to ensure that
employees will use safe work practices
all of the time. At OSHA’s hearing on
§ 1910.269, Dr. Heinz Ahlers of NIOSH
spoke about the effect of training on
accidents, as follows:
* * * I think in a majority of those
instances, the fatality involved the worker
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
who had been appropriately trained for the
exposure that he subsequently came in
contact with and just was not following what
the training and the company policy had
involved. [269–DC Tr. 47–48]
Continual reinforcement of this initial
guidance must be provided to ensure
that the employee actually uses the
procedures he or she has been taught.
This reinforcement can take the form of
supervision, safety meetings, pre-job
briefings or conferences, and retraining.
Typically, adequate supervision can
detect unsafe work practices with
respect to tasks that are routine and are
performed on a daily or regular basis.
However, if an employee has to use a
technique that is applied infrequently or
that is based on new technology, some
follow-up is needed to ensure that the
employee is actually aware of the
correct procedure for accomplishing the
task. A detailed job briefing, as required
under proposed § 1926.952(d)(2), may
be adequate if the employee has
previously received some instruction,
but training would be necessary if the
employee has never been schooled in
the techniques to be used.
For these reasons, OSHA has
supplemented the basic training
requirements proposed in
§ 1926.950(b)(1) and (b)(2) with two
additional requirements: (1) a
requirement for regular supervision
(that is, supervision that takes place on
a periodic basis throughout the year)
and an annual inspection by the
employer to determine whether or not
each employee is complying with the
safety-related work practices required
by Subpart V and (2) a requirement for
additional training whenever
• The regular supervision or annual
inspection indicates that the employee
is not following the safety-related work
practices required by the standard,
• New technology, new types of
equipment, or changes in procedures
necessitate the use of safety-related
work practices that are different from
those that the employee would normally
use, or
• The employee must use safetyrelated work practices that are not
normally used during his or her regular
job duties.
These two provisions are contained in
paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4).
The proposal includes a note
indicating that the Agency considers
tasks performed less often than once per
year to require retraining before the task
is actually performed. Instruction
provided in pre-job briefings is
acceptable if it is detailed enough to
fully inform the employee of the
procedures involved in the job and to
ensure that he or she can accomplish
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
them in a safe manner. OSHA believes
that this requirement will significantly
improve safety for electric power
transmission and distribution workers.
Under paragraph (b)(5), the proposal
would require classroom or on-the-job
training or a combination of both. This
allows employers to continue the types
of training programs that are currently
in existence. (See the discussion of Note
2 to paragraph (b)(7) for an explanation
of how employers may treat previous
training.)
An employee who has attended a
single training class on a procedure that
is as complex as the lockout and tagging
procedure used in an electric generating
plant has generally not been fully
trained in that procedure. Unless a
training program establishes an
employee’s proficiency in safe work
practices and unless that employee then
demonstrates his or her ability to
perform those work practices, there will
be no assurance that safe work practices
will result. To address this problem, the
Agency is proposing paragraph (b)(6),
which reads as follows:
The training shall establish employee
proficiency in the work practices required by
this section and shall introduce the
procedures necessary for compliance with
this section.
The inclusion of paragraph (b)(6) and
the demonstration of proficiency
requirement contained in paragraph
(b)(7), discussed later in this preamble,
are intended to ensure that employers
do not try to comply with § 1926.950(b)
by simply handing training manuals to
their employees. These provisions will
require employers to take steps to assure
that employees comprehend what they
have been taught and that they are
capable of performing the work
practices mandated by the standard.
OSHA believes that these two
paragraphs will maximize the benefits
of the training required under the
standard.
The employer would be required, by
paragraph (b)(7), to determine that each
employee has demonstrated proficiency
in the work practices involved. Until the
employer makes this determination, the
employee would not be considered as
being trained. Employers relying on
training provided by others are expected
to take steps to verify that the employee
has indeed received it. For example, an
employer could call a previous
employer or training facility or could
check a union employee’s journeyman
lineman credentials. Alternatively, an
employer could test the employee’s
knowledge of safe work practices. After
these steps have been taken, the
employer could then, based on visual
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
observation of the employee, determine
that that employee has been trained in
accordance with the standard and has
demonstrated proficiency in the work
practices involved. A note following
this paragraph explains that employee
training records, which are maintained
by many employers but which are not
required by the standard, are one way of
tracking when an employee has
demonstrated proficiency. OSHA
requests comments on whether the
standard should require employers to
record employee training.
Note 2 to paragraph (b)(7) describes
how an employer may treat training that
the employee has received previously
(for example, through previous
employment). If an employer can
demonstrate that an employee has
already been trained, the employer does
not have to duplicate previous
instruction provided that the employer:
(1) Confirms that the employee has the
job experience appropriate to the work
to be performed, (2) through an
examination or interview, makes an
initial determination that the employee
is proficient in the relevant safetyrelated work practices before he or she
performs any work covered by this
subpart, and (3) supervises the
employee closely until that employee
has demonstrated proficiency in all the
work practices he or she will employ.
OSHA believes that it is unnecessary to
require employers to duplicate training
the employee has received in the past.
However, the Agency believes that it is
important for the employer to take steps
to ensure that the previous training was
adequate for the work practices the
employee will be performing. It is
possible, for example, that an employee
who has received training through an
apprenticeship program was not trained
in the specific grounding practices used
by his or her current employer. The
employer must determine where the
gaps in the employee’s training are and
provide supplemental training to cover
them. Otherwise, employees may follow
different practices that endanger not
only themselves but their coworkers as
well. For example, a previously trained
employee may have been instructed to
wear rubber gloves and sleeves, but his
or her current employer’s practices
require only rubber gloves but with the
extra insulation on conductors as
required by proposed § 1926.960(c)(2).
This employee will be unlikely to install
all the necessary insulation, increasing
the risk to the employee and his or her
coworkers.
Existing § 1910.269(a)(2)(vii) requires
employers to certify that employees
have received the training required
under that section. The certification
must be made when the employee
demonstrates proficiency in the work
practices involved. To reduce
unnecessary paperwork burdens placed
on employers, OSHA is proposing to
eliminate the requirement to certify
training. The Agency believes that
compliance with the training
requirements can be determined
through employee interviews; thus, the
certification requirement is
unnecessary. OSHA does believe,
however, that it is essential for the
34835
employee to demonstrate proficiency in
the work practices involved before he or
she is considered as having been trained
satisfactorily. Therefore, as described
earlier, the proposal includes this as a
requirement. Comments are requested
on whether or not the existing
certification requirement in existing
§ 1910.269(a)(2)(vii) is necessary and on
whether or not the proposed alternative
will better protect employees.
The work covered by Subpart V is
frequently done by an employer
working under contract to an electric
utility. Traditionally, electric utilities 14
have had a workforce that was sufficient
for the day-to-day maintenance of the
electric power generation, transmission,
and distribution system. Electric
utilities would hire contractors when
the work to be performed went beyond
routine maintenance. Thus, contractors
typically would perform the following
types of work: new transmission and
distribution line construction, extensive
transmission and distribution line
renovation (such as the replacement of
a large number of utility poles or the
upgrading of the line to a higher
voltage), line-clearance tree trimming,
generation plant overhauls, and repair
of extensive storm damage.
Contractors performing electric power
generation, transmission, and
distribution work experience a
disproportionate share of fatal accidents
in comparison to electric utilities. Table
IV–3 presents the number of fatalities
experienced by electric utilities and
their major electrical contractors.
TABLE IV–3.—FATALITIES BY SIC
SIC
Industry
783 ....................................
Line-clearance tree-trimming contractors ................................................................
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
4
7
9
4
2
6
4
5
Total ...........................
...................................................................................................................................
........................
41
1623 ..................................
Power Line Contractors ...........................................................................................
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
15
12
20
21
15
11
11
12
Total ...........................
...................................................................................................................................
........................
117
1731 ..................................
Electrical Contractors ...............................................................................................
1991
5
14 For the purposes of the discussion of
§ 1926.950(c), OSHA is using the term ‘‘electric
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
Year
utility’’ to include any employer who hires a
contractor to work on that employer’s electric
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Number
power generation, transmission, or distribution
facility.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34836
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
TABLE IV–3.—FATALITIES BY SIC—Continued
SIC
Industry
Year
Number
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
6
13
9
9
6
8
9
Total ...........................
...................................................................................................................................
........................
65
4911 ..................................
Electric Utilities .........................................................................................................
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
33
34
28
23
36
23
20
27
Total ...........................
...................................................................................................................................
........................
224
4931 ..................................
Combination Utilities (e.g., Electric and Gas Utilities) .............................................
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
2
7
1
1
1
2
2
1
...................................................................................................................................
........................
17
...................................................................................................................................
........................
464
Total
Grand total ..........
Source: OSHA accident inspection data for the years 1991 through 1998.
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
34837
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
EP15JN05.000</GPH>
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C
34838
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Figure 1 shows the percentages of
fatalities for the two groups. These
figures demonstrate that, while the
overall number of fatalities has not
changed significantly, the proportion of
fatal accidents has shifted from electric
utilities to their contractors, with nearly
Using employment data for 1997 from
Section V, Preliminary Regulatory
Impact Analysis and Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, later in this
preamble, the Agency has calculated
fatality rates for electric utilities and
their major contractors, as shown in
Table IV–4.
half of the fatalities involving
contractors.
The number of fatalities for the two
industry groups does not tell the full
story. To determine the relative risk
faced by employees, OSHA must look at
fatality rates, which represent the
number of deaths per 1000 employees.
TABLE IV–4.—FATALITY RATE BY INDUSTRY
Electric utilities
Year
124408
Number of fatalities
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
Electrical contractors
Employees 1
43472
Fatality rate
Line-clearance tree trimmers
Employees 2
Number of fatalities
35020 Employees 3
Fatality rate
Number of fatalities
Fatality rate
35
41
29
24
37
25
22
28
20
18
33
30
24
17
19
21
0.46
0.41
0.76
0.69
0.55
0.39
0.44
0.48
4
7
9
4
2
6
4
5
0.11
0.20
0.26
0.11
0.06
0.17
0.11
0.14
241
Total
0.28
0.33
0.23
0.19
0.30
0.20
0.18
0.23
0.24
182
0.52
41
0.15
1 Source: ‘‘Analytical Support and Data Gathering for a Preliminary Economic Analysis for Proposed Standards for Work on Electric Power
Generation, Transmission, and Distribution Lines and Equipment (29 CFR 1910.269 and 29 CFR 1926—Subpart V),’’ 2005, CONSAD Research
Corp. (CONSAD), full-time equivalent employment for NAICS 221110, electric power generation, NAICS 221120, electric power transmission,
control, and distribution, and NAICS 2211, publicly owned utilities, combined.
2 Source: CONSAD, full-time equivalent employment for NAICS 234910, water, sewer, and pipeline construction, NAICS 234920, power and
communication transmission line construction, and NAICS 235310, electrical contractors, combined.
3 Source: CONSAD, full-time equivalent employment for SIC 0783, ornamental shrub and tree services.
As can be seen from this table, the
fatality rates for contractors are more
than double the comparable rate for
electric utilities.
OSHA believes that, for the protection
of all employees performing electric
power generation,15 transmission, and
distribution work, it is essential that
electric utilities hire contractors who
have employees with the skills,
knowledge, training, tools, and
protective equipment necessary to
perform this work safely. The safety of
electric utility employees as well as the
safety of contractor employees depends
on this.
It is clear that the safety of contract
employees is dependent on their skills,
knowledge, training, tools, and
protective equipment. The requirements
of § 1926.950(b) generally ensure that all
employees have the requisite skills and
training. Other requirements in the
standard, including §§ 1926.954,
1926.957, and 1926.960, address tools
and protective equipment. However,
these other provisions do not adequately
address the employees’ knowledge of
15 Although Subpart V applies only to the
construction of transmission and distribution
installations, the same requirements on the duties
of host and contract employers are being proposed
in § 1910.269, which applies to the maintenance
and operation of electric power generation
installations in addition to transmission and
distribution installations.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
the actual equipment they will be
working on. For example, an employee
might be trained in the climbing of
concrete poles. Climbing these
structures typically involves the
attachment of temporary ladders into
fittings on the concrete poles. An
employee with the general type of
training in climbing electric power
transmission structures that contract
employees typically receive might not
be aware of the specific attachment and
locking means used by the concrete
poles and structures owned by the
electric utility that hires the contractor.
Without this knowledge, the employee
could attach the temporary ladder
incorrectly or fail to lock it in place
properly with possibly fatal results.
In addition, several provisions in the
standard would require the employer to
assess certain hazards covered by the
standard. For example, § 1926.960(g)
would require employers to assess
hazards associated with electric arcs.
Contract employers need to have
sufficient information about the
electrical system so that they can
perform these hazard assessments.
The facilities owned by an electric
utility pose hazards to employees of
contractors working on those facilities.
For example, overhead electric power
transmission and distribution lines and
equipment owned by electric utilities
pose serious fall, electrocution, and
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
electric shock hazards. Employees
exposed to such hazards need to be
highly trained and skilled. If an electric
utility hires a contractor who uses
unqualified employees on those lines
and equipment, the hazards posed by
the utility’s facilities will almost
certainly lead to injuries. If the contract
employees are working on a power line
with the understanding that it is
deenergized and if the contract
employees do not fully understand the
electric utility’s procedures for
deenergizing lines and equipment, then
those employees could mistakenly
believe that a line is deenergized when
it is not, with possibly fatal results.
Inadequate maintenance of an electric
utility’s facilities can also lead to
unexpected hazards for contract
employees.
The safety of electric utility
employees is also affected by the
contract employer’s work. For example,
a contractor’s work could cause an
overhead energized line to fall on a
deenergized line on which an electric
utility employee is working, creating
hazards for the electric utility employee.
Additionally, a contract employee who
is not familiar with the utility’s
procedures for reenergizing lines and
equipment might inadvertently remove
a tag protecting an electric utility
employee.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Although electric utility employees
do not typically work with contract
employees, sometimes they do work
together. For example, it is common
practice for contract employees and
electric utility employees to work sideby-side during emergency restoration
operations, such as those that follow a
big storm. Additionally, contractors in
electric power generation plants will be
working near employees working full
time in the plant.
It is clear from these examples that
electric utility employers and contract
employers must cooperate and
communicate if all employees
maintaining or constructing electric
power generation, transmission, or
distribution facilities are to be
adequately protected. Thus, OSHA is
proposing requirements in § 1926.950
for each type of employer to ensure the
necessary exchange of information
between electric utility and contract
employers. The proposed requirements
have been taken from similar provisions
in the Agency’s standard for Process
Safety Management, § 1910.119(h).
Paragraph (c)(1) of proposed
§ 1926.950 would impose duties on host
employers that hire contractors to
perform work on the host employer’s
installations covered by Subpart V. Host
employer is defined as ‘‘[a]n employer
who operates and maintains an electric
power transmission or distribution
installation covered by Subpart V of this
Part and who hires a contract employer
to perform work on that installation.’’
This definition includes electric utilities
and other employers who operate and
maintain an electric power transmission
or distribution installation. However, it
does not include an employer who owns
but does not operate and maintain such
installations. The Agency believes that
host employers who operate and
maintain their electric power
transmission and distribution
installations have expertise in working
safely on such installations. On the
other hand, some entities may own but
not operate or maintain these
installations. These entities generally do
not have the expertise necessary to work
safely on transmission or distribution
lines and equipment and would have
little hazard-related knowledge to pass
on to contractors. In addition, the
employees of such entities would have
little if any exposure to hazards created
by a contract employer. Therefore,
OSHA is proposing to exclude such
entities from having to comply with
proposed § 1926.950(c)(1). The Agency
invites comments on whether excluding
such employers from the host-contract
employer provisions proposed in
§ 1926.950(c)(1) unduly jeopardizes
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
employee safety and whether any of the
provisions in that paragraph could
reasonably be applied to such
employers.
OSHA is also not proposing to extend
the host-contract employer provisions to
line-clearance tree-trimming contractors
for work performed by line-clearance
tree trimmers who are not qualified
employees. Existing
§ 1910.269(a)(1)(i)(E) lists the
paragraphs that apply to line-clearance
tree-trimming, and OSHA is not
proposing to add the host-contract
employer provisions to that list. As
noted earlier, the fatality rate for lineclearance tree-trimming contractors is
lower than the rate for utilities. Thus, it
appears that though line-clearance treetrimming operations are relatively
hazardous, they are still safer than
power line construction, repair, and
maintenance. On the other hand, if a
line-clearance tree-trimming operation
is performed by a qualified employee,
then the host-contract employer
provisions would apply. (See existing
§ 1910.269(a)(1)(i)(E)(1).) As long as they
are using electrical protective
equipment, these employees are
permitted to come much closer to
energized parts than unqualified
employees, and the Agency believes that
these employees face hazards similar to
contract power line workers.16 OSHA
requests comments on whether
excluding line-clearance tree-trimming
contractors from the host-contract
employer provisions proposed in
§ 1926.950(c)(1) unduly jeopardizes
employee safety and whether any of the
provisions in that paragraph could
reasonably be applied to such
employers.
Contract employer is defined as ‘‘[a]n
employer who performs work covered
by Subpart V of this Part for a host
employer.’’ This includes painting
contractors, line construction
contractors, electrical contractors, and
any other contractors working on the
construction of electric power
transmission and distribution lines.17 It
does not include contractors who might
be present at a jobsite where some work
performed is covered by Subpart V, but
16 For a full discussion of why existing § 1910.269
applies different requirements to line-clearance
tree-trimming operations depending on whether or
not the operation is performed by a qualified
employee, see the preamble to the final rule on
electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution work (January 31, 1994, 59 FR 4336).
17 For § 1910.269, this definition also includes
contractors working on an electric power generation
installation covered by that section. This would
include boiler maintenance contractors, conveyor
servicing contractors, electrical contractors, and
others.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34839
who are not performing any covered
work.
Sometimes the host employer is aware
of hazards that are present at its
facilities of which the contractor might
not be aware. For example, what
appeared to be a static line on one
electric utility’s transmission system
was energized at 4,000 volts. Static lines
are typically grounded. An employee of
a contractor, perhaps not understanding
that the line was energized, contacted
the static line and was electrocuted.
Paragraph (c)(1)(i) of proposed
§ 1926.950 would address this problem
by requiring the host employer to
inform contract employers of any
known hazards that the contractor or its
employees might fail to recognize. This
provision should ensure that the
contractor will be able to take measures
to protect its employees from hazards
posed by the host employer’s
workplace. Although this provision
would not require the host employer to
inform the contract employer of hazards
the contract employees should be
expected to recognize, such as hazards
posed by an overhead power line, the
proposal would require the host
employer to inform the contract
employer of known hazards the
contractor might not be aware of. For
example, if a host employer knows that
a particular manhole on its system is
subject to periodic contamination from
a nearby fuel tank, that information
must be relayed to the contractor.
Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(i) also
covers information that a contract
employer would need to make any
hazard assessments called for under the
proposed standard. For example,
proposed § 1926.950(d) would require
employers to determine existing
conditions related to the safety of the
work being performed before work is
started. Under paragraph (c)(1)(ii), the
host employer would have to provide
any system parameters that the contract
employer would need to satisfy
paragraph (d). These parameters could
include such things as the nominal
circuit voltage, maximum switching
transient voltages, and the presence of
any utility poles known by the host
employer to have defects that could
affect employee safety. This is the type
of information that could affect the
contractor’s choice of work practices or
could otherwise affect the safety of the
contractor’s employees. In addition, the
contract employer would otherwise
have difficulty obtaining much of this
information, if it could be obtained at
all.
Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(i) would
not require the host employer to survey
the contract work areas for hazards. For
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34840
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
example, this provision does not require
the host employer to inspect utility
poles for damage or defects before the
contract employer starts working. The
proposed rule would require instead
that the host employer provide all
relevant and known information to the
contract employer. This paragraph does
not require host employers to acquire
additional unknown information but
does require host employers to provide
any information that was known by the
host employer.
Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(ii) would
require the host employer to report
observed contract-employer-related
violations of Subpart V to the contract
employer. OSHA believes that host
employers as a matter of course observe
employees of the contract employer,
from time to time, as they perform work
under the contract. When the host
employer observes contract employees
violating this standard, it is important
for the host employer to inform the
contract employer so that the contractor
can correct the violations and prevent
them from occurring in the future. The
contract employer is responsible for
correcting these violations, but may not
be aware of them. Thus, the proposal
would require the host employer to
report violations to the contract
employer so that the contract employer
will know to take corrective action.
Contracts between electric utilities
and their contractors typically contain
provisions requiring contractors to meet
OSHA standards and other provisions
addressing noncompliance with the
terms of the contract. OSHA believes
that host employers should take
appropriate measures to enforce the
terms of the contract with respect to safe
work practices and get the contractor to
fix any uncorrected violations. OSHA
also believes that host employers should
carefully review the contracts of
contractors who fail to correct violations
before renewing those contracts. The
Agency requests comments on whether
the standard should require these or
other actions on the part of the host
employer to promote compliance with
OSHA standards.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2) addresses
the responsibilities of the contract
employer. Paragraph (c)(2)(i) would
require the contract employer to instruct
its employees in the hazards
communicated to the contractor by the
host employer. A note following this
paragraph indicates that this instruction
would be in addition to the training
provided under § 1926.950(b). Proposed
paragraph (c)(2)(i) would ensure that
information on hazards the employees
might face is conveyed to those
employees. The hazard information
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
provided by the host employer is
essential to the safety of employees
performing the work, especially because
it includes information on hazards that
the contract employees might not
recognize. The contract employer would
also be required, under proposed
§ 1926.950(b)(1)(ii), to train employees
in work practices for their safety, as
related to those hazards.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii) would
require the contract employer to ensure
that its employees follow the work
practices required by the standard and
the safety-related work rules imposed by
the host employer. This proposed
paragraph: (1) Recognizes that the
contract employer has the responsibility
for the actions of its employees, and (2)
compels the contract employer to
enforce compliance with safety and
health rules imposed by the host
employer as if they were requirements
of the standard. The latter is particularly
important. If the host employer has
imposed safety-related work rules on its
contractors, those rules are almost
certain to impact the safety and health
of employees of the host and contract
employers. For example, electric
utilities typically require contractors to
follow the utilities’ procedures for
deenergizing electric circuits. If the
contract employer’s employees do not
follow these procedures, a circuit the
contractor’s employees are working on
might not be properly deenergized or a
circuit the contractor was not working
on might become reenergized. These
hazards could cause the electrocution of
the employees of either employer.
OSHA invites comments on whether
requiring a contractor to follow a host
employer’s safety-related work rules
could possibly make the work more
hazardous and, if so, how the standard
should address this possibility.
Even work rules imposed primarily
for reasons other than employee safety
and health are likely to affect employee
safety in one way or another. Work rules
that address the way electric equipment
is installed, for example, also affect the
safety of the host employer’s employees.
If the equipment is installed improperly,
it can fail when it is in use, possibly
injuring an employee. Similarly, work
rules imposed primarily for the
protection of the public can also affect
employee safety. For example, if a
contractor’s employees do not follow a
rule that requires trailer loads to be tied
down, employees at the host employer’s
facilities would be exposed to shifting
or falling loads in the same way that
members of the public would be. OSHA
requests comments on whether host
employers impose any work rules that
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
do not significantly affect employee
safety and examples of such work rules.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(iii) would
require the contract employer to advise
the host employer of: unique hazards
posed by the contract employer’s work;
any unexpected hazards found while
the contractor’s employees were
working; and the measures the contract
employer took to correct host-employerreported violations and to prevent them
from recurring. This provision enables
the host employer to take any necessary
measures to protect its employees from
hazards of which the host employer
would not otherwise be aware. This will
help protect the host employer’s
employees when they are working near
the contractor’s employees (for example,
when responding to an emergency) and
when the host employer’s employees
work on the same equipment after the
contract employer departs. It will also
provide essential feedback to the host
employer on the safety performance of
their contract employers. This feedback
will also help host employers satisfy
their obligations under the Agency’s
multiemployer enforcement policy (CPL
02–00–124).
OSHA’s recognition of the need for
employers on multiemployer worksites
to share responsibility for workplace
safety and health is reflected in the
Agency’s multiemployer enforcement
policy. On multiemployer worksites,
citations are normally issued not only to
the employer whose employees are
exposed to hazards (the exposing
employer) but, depending on the actions
the employer has taken to detect
violations and protect employees, also
to:
(1) The employer who creates the
hazard (the creating employer);
(2) The employer who has the
authority, by contract or practice, to
ensure that the hazardous condition is
corrected (the controlling employer);
and
(3) The employer who has the
responsibility for correcting the hazard
(the correcting employer).
OSHA’s proposed requirements
concerning host employers and
contractors do not affect the Agency’s
long-standing multiemployer
enforcement policy. Neither
§ 1910.269(a)(4) nor § 1926.950(d)
increase an employer’s obligations or
liability under that policy. Furthermore,
nothing in the proposed rule changes
OSHA’s position’as expressed in CPL
02–00–124 and various court cases (see,
for example, Anning-Johnson 94 O.S.H.
Cas. (BNA) 1193), Harvey Workover, Inc.
(7 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1687))–that each
employer is responsible for the health
and safety of his or her own employees,
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
and under certain circumstances may be
cited for endangering the safety of
another’s employees. Because the
proposed requirements will help
increase communication between host
employers and contractors about known
hazards, however, the proposed
requirements may help employers on
multiemployer worksites meet their
obligations under CPL 02–00–124, as
noted earlier. In determining who to
hold responsible under its
multiemployer enforcement policy,
OSHA will look at who created the
hazard, who controlled the hazard, and
whether all reasonable means were
taken to deal with the hazard.
OSHA is not proposing to require the
host employer to evaluate contract
employers’ safety performance.
However, contract employers with poor
safety performances are likely to
jeopardize not only their own
employees but employees of the host
employer as well. Even when a host
employer hires a contractor to perform
jobs where employees of the host will
not be present under normal
circumstances, employees of the host
employer will be present in some
circumstances, such as during quality
control inspections, in the aftermath of
an accident, and during emergency
restoration situations. In addition, the
work performed by a contractor can
affect the safety of employees of the host
employer after the contractor is gone.
(For example, if the contractor fails to
secure a crossarm to a utility pole
properly the crossarm could come down
while an employee of the host employer
is working on the pole.) Therefore,
OSHA requests comments on the need
to require host employers to evaluate
the safety performance of their
contractors.
Frequently, the conditions present at
a jobsite can expose employees to
unexpected hazards. For example, the
grounding system available at an
outdoor site could have been damaged
by the weather or by vehicular traffic, or
communications cables in the vicinity
could reduce the approach distance to
an unacceptable level. To protect
employees from such adverse situations,
the conditions present in the work area
should be known so that appropriate
action can be taken. Paragraph (d) of
§ 1926.950 would address this problem
by requiring conditions existing in the
work area to be determined before work
is started. The language for this
paragraph was based upon language in
current § 1926.950(b)(1). A similar
requirement can be found in ANSI C2–
2002 (the NESC), Section 420D.
The conditions found as a result of
compliance with this proposed
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
paragraph would affect the application
of various requirements contained
within Subpart V. For example, the
voltage on equipment will determine
the minimum approach distances
required under proposed
§ 1926.960(c)(1). Similarly, the presence
or absence of an equipment grounding
conductor will affect the work practices
required under proposed § 1926.960(j).
If conditions to which no specific
Subpart V provision applies are found,
then the employee would be trained, as
required by proposed
§ 1926.950(b)(1)(ii), to use appropriate
safe work practices.
OSHA does not intend to require
employers to take measurements on a
routine basis in order to make the
determinations required by proposed
§ 1926.950(d). For example, knowledge
of the maximum transient voltage level
is necessary to perform many routine
transmission and distribution line jobs
safely; however, no measurement is
necessary in the determination of what
the maximum level is. It can be
determined by an analysis of the electric
circuit, or the employer can assume the
default maximum transient overvoltages
as discussed under proposed
§ 1926.960(c)(1). Similarly, employers
can make determinations of the
presence of hazardous induced voltages
and of the presence and condition of
grounds without taking
measurements.18
Section 1926.951, Medical Services and
First Aid
Section 1926.951 proposes
requirements for medical services and
first aid. Paragraph (a) of § 1926.951
emphasizes that the requirements of
§ 1926.50 apply. (See § 1926.950(a)(2).)
Existing section 1926.50 includes
provisions for available medical
personnel, first aid training and
supplies, and facilities for drenching or
flushing of the eyes and body in the
event of exposure to corrosive materials.
Because of the hazard of electric
shock when employees are performing
work on or with energized lines and
18 It may be necessary for measurements to be
made if there is doubt as to the condition of a
ground or the level of induced or transient voltage
and if the employer is relying on one of these
conditions to meet other requirements in the
standard. For example, an engineering analysis of
a particular installation might reveal that voltage
induced on a deenergized line is considerable, but
should not be dangerous. A measurement of the
voltage is warranted if the employer is using this
analysis as a basis for claiming that the provisions
of proposed § 1926.964(b)(4) or hazardous induced
voltage do not apply. In another case, further
investigation would be warranted if an equipment
ground is found to be of questionable reliability,
unless the equipment is treated as energized under
proposed § 1926.960(j).
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34841
equipment, electric power transmission
and distribution workers suffer
electrocution on the job. Many electric
shock victims suffer ventricular
fibrillation. Ventricular fibrillation is an
abnormal, chaotic heart rhythm that
prevents the heart from pumping blood
and, if unchecked, leads to death.
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is
necessary in the event of electric shock
so that injured employees can be
revived. CPR must be started within 4
minutes to be effective in reviving an
employee whose heart has gone into
fibrillation.
To protect employees performing
work on or associated with exposed
lines or equipment energized at 50 volts
or more, OSHA is proposing to require
employees with first aid and CPR
training to be available to render
assistance in an emergency. CPR
training would be required for field
crews of two or more employees (a
minimum of two trained employees)
and for fixed worksites (enough trained
employees to provide assistance within
4 minutes) in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and
(b)(1)(ii), respectively.
Paragraph (b)(1)(i) would allow
employers to train all employees in CPR
within 3 months of being hired in lieu
of having two CPR-trained persons on
every field crew. If the employer chose
this alternative for field work, then only
one CPR-trained employee would be
required. In practice, crews with more
than one person would normally have
two or more CPR-trained employees on
the crew, since all employees who had
been working for an employer more
than 3 months would be trained.
However, employers who rely on
seasonal labor (for example, those hired
only in the summer months) might have
two-person crews with only one CPRtrained employee for 3 months out of
every year. Worse, that trained
employee would likely be the employee
directly exposed to electrical hazards,
because new employees are typically
hired as helpers working on the ground
away from most electrical hazards.
OSHA requests comments on whether
allowing employers the option of
training all their employees in CPR if
they are trained within 3 months of
being hired is sufficiently protective.
The Agency also requests comments on
how this provision could be revised to
minimize burdens on employers while
providing adequate protection for
employees.
Someone must defibrillate a victim of
ventricular fibrillation quickly to allow
a normal heart rhythm to resume. The
sooner defibrillation is started, the
better the victim’s chances of survival.
If defibrillation is provided within the
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34842
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
first 5 minutes of the onset of
ventricular fibrillation, the odds are
about 50 percent that the victim will
recover. However, with each passing
minute, the chance of successful
resuscitation is reduced by 7 to 10
percent. After 10 minutes, there is very
little chance of successful rescue.
OSHA has chosen a 50 volts as a
widely recognized threshold for
hazardous electric shock. Although it is
theoretically possible to sustain a lifethreatening shock at this voltage, it is
considered extremely unlikely. In
addition, other OSHA and national
consensus standards recognize this 50volt threshold. For example, OSHA’s
general industry and construction
electrical standards require guarding of
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
live parts energized at 50 volts or more
(§§ 1910.303(g)(2)(i) and
1926.403(i)(2)(i)), and the general
industry electrical safety-related work
practices standard requires electric
circuits to be deenergized starting at 50
volts or more if electric shock is the
only hazard (§ 1910.333(a)(1)).
Similarly, the National Electrical Code
and the National Electrical Safety Code
impose electrical safety requirements
starting at 50 volts.
Paragraph (b)(1) of proposed
§ 1926.951 would require CPR training
to ensure that electric shock victims
survive long enough for defibrillation to
be efficacious. This paragraph would
allow the employer to rely on
emergency responders to provide
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
defibrillation, which is necessary to
revive a victim who has suffered
ventricular fibrillation. A device that
enables a CPR-trained individual to
perform defibrillation is now widely
available. This device is called an
automated external defibrillator (AED).
(See the Automated External
Defibrillator FAQ.) OSHA requests
public comments on whether the
standard should require the employer to
provide AEDs and, if so, where they
should be required. Commenters
recommending a requirement for AEDs
should submit information on costs,
safety, and efficacy of and experience
with these devices.
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34843
EP15JN05.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
VerDate jul<14>2003
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
EP15JN05.002</GPH>
34844
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
34845
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
EP15JN05.003</GPH>
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C
34846
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
OSHA has adopted guidelines for the
evaluation of first aid training by
competent professionals as well as by
compliance staff in the context of
workplace inspections (OSHA
instruction CPL 02–02–053). Because
these guidelines are already in place,
the Agency is not proposing
requirements related to the content or
adequacy of first aid or CPR training.
The Agency will continue to use the
guidelines in CPL 02–02–053 to
determine the adequacy of first aid
training courses provided to employees.
In § 1926.951(b)(2), OSHA is
proposing that first aid supplies
required by § 1926.50(d) be placed in
weatherproof containers if they could be
exposed to the weather. This provision
is intended to ensure that first aid
supplies do not get ruined by exposure
to the weather.
Paragraph (b)(3) of proposed
§ 1926.951 would require first aid kits to
be maintained ready for use and
inspected frequently enough to ensure
that expended items are replaced. In any
event, they would have to be inspected
at least once a year. OSHA is proposing
this provision to ensure that first aid
kits are maintained with all of the
proper equipment.
Section 1926.952, Job Briefing
In § 1926.952, OSHA is proposing a
requirement for a job briefing to be
conducted before each job. This section,
which has no counterpart in existing
Subpart V, is based upon § 1910.269(c).
Most of the work performed under the
proposal requires planning in order to
ensure employee safety (as well as to
protect equipment and the general
public). Typically, electric power
transmission and distribution work
exposes employees to the hazards of
exposed conductors energized at
thousands of volts. If the work is not
thoroughly planned ahead of time, the
possibility of human error is increased
greatly. To avoid problems, the task
sequence is prescribed before work is
started. For example, before climbing a
pole, the employee must determine if
the pole is capable of remaining in place
and if minimum approach distances are
sufficient, and he or she must determine
what tools will be needed and what
procedure should be used for
performing the job. Without job
planning, the worker may not know or
recognize the minimum approach
distance requirements or may have to
reclimb the pole to retrieve a forgotten
tool or perform an overlooked task,
resulting in increased exposure to the
hazards of falling and contact with
energized lines.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
When more than one employee is
involved, the job plan must be
communicated to all the affected
employees. If the job is planned but the
plan is not discussed with the workers,
one employee may perform his or her
duties out of order or may otherwise not
coordinate activities with the rest of the
crew, endangering the entire crew.
Employers performing electric power
generation, transmission, and
distribution work use job briefings
before each job to plan the work and
communicate the job plan to employees.
Therefore, OSHA is requiring a job
briefing before work is started.
Paragraph (c) of existing § 1910.269
contains a requirement for the employee
in charge of the job to conduct the job
briefing. OSHA has found in enforcing
this paragraph that some employers
were placing the entire burden of
compliance with this rule on the part of
the employee in charge of the work,
whether or not that employee was a
supervisor. Therefore, the Agency is
proposing, in § 1926.952(a)(1), that the
employer provide the employee in
charge of a job with available
information necessary to perform the job
safely. The note following this provision
indicates that the information provided
by the employer is intended to
supplement the training requirements of
§ 1926.950(b) and is likely to be more
general in nature than the job briefing
provided by the employee in charge.
The note also clarifies that information
covering all jobs for a day may be
disseminated at the beginning of the
day. The information does not need to
be provided at the start of each job.
OSHA understands that some employers
assign jobs through a dispatcher, who
does not have the knowledge necessary
to provide a job briefing. The Agency
thus invites comments on the
appropriateness of this requirement and
welcomes suggested alternative ways of
requiring the employer to impart
relevant knowledge about hazards
relating to specific assignments in the
job briefing process.
Paragraph (a)(2) contains the
proposed requirement for the employee
in charge of the job to conduct a job
briefing. Proposed paragraph (b) would
require the briefing to cover: hazards
and work procedures involved, special
precautions, energy source controls, and
requirements for personal protective
equipment. These two requirements
have been taken from the introductory
text of § 1910.269(c).
Under proposed paragraph (c)(1), at
least one briefing would be required
before the start of each shift. Only one
briefing in a shift is needed if all the
jobs are similar in nature. Additional
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
planning discussions would be required
for work involving significant changes
in routine (proposed paragraph (c)(2)).
For example, if the first two jobs of the
day involve working on a deenergized
line and the third job involves working
on energized lines with live-line tools,
separate briefings must be conducted for
each type of job.
Under proposed paragraph (d)(1), the
required briefing would normally
consist of a concise discussion outlining
the tasks to be performed. However, if
the work is particularly hazardous or if
the employees may not be able to
recognize the hazards involved, then a
more thorough discussion would be
required by paragraph (d)(2). With this
provision, OSHA recognizes that
employees are familiar with the tasks
and hazards involved with routine
work. However, it is important to take
the time to carefully discuss unusual
work situations that may pose
additional or different hazards to
workers. (See also the preamble
discussion of § 1926.950(b)(4).) OSHA
has included a note following this
paragraph to clarify that, regardless of
how short the discussion is, the briefing
must still touch on all the topics listed
in paragraph (b).
OSHA recognizes the importance of
job planning for all employees.
Although work procedure discussions
would not have relevance for an
employee working alone, the Agency
does not believe that an employee who
labors alone needs to plan his or her
tasks any less than one who is assisting
others. OSHA is aware of several
fatalities involving a lone employee who
could have benefitted from better job
planning or perhaps a briefing with the
supervisor before the job started.
Therefore, OSHA has included a
requirement in proposed paragraph (e)
for job planning for these employees.
Section 1926.953, Enclosed Spaces
The requirements being proposed in
§ 1926.953 have been taken from
§ 1910.269(e). Paragraph (e) of
§ 1910.269 applies to maintenance work
performed in enclosed spaces, and
OSHA believes that the requirements for
performing construction work in these
spaces should be the same.
Section 1926.953 contains
requirements for entry into and work in
enclosed spaces. An ‘‘enclosed space’’ is
defined to be a space that has a limited
means of entry or egress, that is
designed for periodic entry by
employees under normal operating
conditions, and that is not expected to
contain a hazardous atmosphere, but
may contain one under unusual
conditions. In this section, OSHA
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
intends to cover only the types of
enclosed spaces that are routinely
entered by employees engaged in
electric power transmission and
distribution work and that are unique to
underground utility work. Work in these
spaces is part of the day-to-day activities
performed by employees protected by
this standard. Enclosed spaces include
manholes and vaults that provide
employees access to electric power
transmission and distribution
equipment. For reasons explained later,
this section does not address other types
of confined spaces, such as boilers,
tanks, and coal bunkers, that are
common to other industries as well.
These locations are addressed in
OSHA’s generic permit-required
confined space standard, § 1910.146,
which applies to all of general industry,
including industries engaged in electric
power generation, transmission, and
distribution work. OSHA is also
developing a standard for confined
space entry during construction work
(RIN 1218–AB47).
Proposed § 1926.953 would apply to
‘‘enclosed spaces.’’ By definition, an
enclosed space would be a permitrequired confined space under
§ 1926.146. An enclosed space meets the
definition of a confined space—it is
large enough for an employee to enter;
it has a limited means of access or
egress; it is designed for periodic, rather
than continuous, employee occupancy
under normal operating conditions. An
enclosed space also meets the definition
of a permit space—although it is not
expected to contain a hazardous
atmosphere, it has the potential to
contain one.
In the preamble to the permit-required
confined spaces standard, OSHA
acknowledged that ‘‘the practices
necessary to make confined spaces that
merely have the potential to contain
hazardous atmospheres (as opposed to
one that contains a hazardous
atmosphere under normal operating
conditions) safe are widely recognized
and used throughout various industries
[58 FR 4486].’’ The Agency recognized
the electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution industry
as one of those industries (January 31,
1994, 58 FR 4489).
Section 1910.146 contains
requirements that address hazards
associated with entry into ‘‘permitrequired confined spaces’’ (permit
spaces). Section 1910.146 defines
‘‘confined space’’ and ‘‘permit-required
confined space’’ as follows:
Confined space means a space that:
(1) Is large enough and so configured
that an employee can bodily enter and
perform assigned work; and
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
(2) Has limited or restricted means for
entry or exit (for example, tanks,
vessels, silos, storage bins, hoppers,
vaults, and pits are spaces that may
have limited means of entry.); and
(3) Is not designed for continuous
employee occupancy.
Permit-required confined space
(permit space) means a confined space
that has one or more of the following
characteristics:
(1) Contains or has a potential to
contain a hazardous atmosphere;
(2) Contains a material that has the
potential for engulfing an entrant;
(3) Has an internal configuration such
that an entrant could be trapped or
asphyxiated by inwardly converging
walls or by a floor which slopes
downward and tapers to a smaller crosssection; or
(4) Contains any other recognized
serious safety or health hazard.
The permit-required confined space
standard requires employers to
implement a comprehensive confined
space entry program. This standard
covers the wide range of permitrequired confined spaces encountered
throughout general industry. Because
the hazards posed by these spaces vary
so greatly, § 1910.146 requires
employers to implement a permit
system for entry into them. The permit
system must spell out the steps to be
taken to make the space safe for entry
and must include provisions for
attendants stationed outside the spaces
and for rescue of entrants, who could be
disabled inside the space. However, an
employer need not follow the permitentry requirements of § 1910.146 for
spaces where the hazards have been
completely eliminated or for spaces
where an alternative set of procedures
are observed. The alternative procedures
apply only where the space can be made
safe for entry through the use of
continuous forced air ventilation alone.
The procedures, which are set forth in
§ 1910.146(c)(5)(ii), ensure that
conditions within the permit space do
not endanger an entrant’s life or ability
to rescue himself or herself.
OSHA believes that § 1910.146 is the
proper place to regulate permit-required
confined spaces other than enclosed
spaces. The enclosed space
requirements of the proposed rule are
intended to regulate a portion of electric
power transmission and distribution
work that is routine and presents
limited hazards to the qualified
employees covered by Subpart V who
are performing that work. An estimated
14,350 employees are engaged in
underground transmission and
distribution work (where most of the
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34847
work covered by § 1926.953 occurs19).20
Underground repair crews, in which
these employees work, can typically
expect to enter a manhole once or twice
a day.21 The enclosed space entry
procedure addressed by § 1926.953 is a
day-to-day part of the routine of these
workers. This type of work is unique to
underground utilities (such as electric,
telephone, and water utilities), and the
hazards presented by these spaces are
widely recognized by these industries
and their workers. Indeed, OSHA
recognized this in promulgating
§ 1910.269 (January 31, 1994, 59 FR
4366).
Additionally, the hazards posed by
the enclosed spaces covered in
§ 1926.953 are generally much more
limited than the hazards posed by
permit spaces addressed in § 1910.146
or in proposed § 1926.33. By definition,
‘‘enclosed spaces’’ are designed for
employee occupancy during normal
operating conditions. Electrical and
other energy systems would not have to
be shut down, nor would the space have
to be drained of liquids for the
employee to enter the space safely. On
the other hand, other ‘‘permit-required
confined spaces,’’ such as boilers, fuel
tanks, and transformer and circuit
breaker cases, are not designed for
employee occupancy and require energy
sources to be isolated and fluids to be
drained from the space before an
employee can safely enter.
The hazards posed by enclosed spaces
consist of (1) limited access and egress,
(2) possible lack of oxygen, (3) possible
presence of flammable gases, and (4)
possible presence of limited amounts of
toxic chemicals. The potential
atmospheric hazards are caused by an
enclosed space’s lack of adequate
ventilation and can normally be
controlled through the use of
continuous forced air ventilation alone.
Practices to control these hazards are
widely recognized and are currently in
use in electric, telecommunications, and
other underground utility industries.
Such practices include testing for the
presence of flammable gases and vapors,
testing for oxygen deficiency,
ventilation of the enclosed space,
controls on the use of open flames, and
the use of an attendant outside the
space. These practices are already
19 Work in these spaces can be either maintenance
work covered by Part 1910 or construction work
covered by Part 1926. In fact, it is likely that both
types of work are performed periodically over the
course of time.
20 ERG, ‘‘Preparation of an Economic Impact
Study for the Proposed OSHA Regulation Covering
Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and
Distribution,’’ p. 8–8.
21 Id., p. 8–21.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34848
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
required by § 1910.269(e) for the
maintenance of electric power
generation, transmission, and
distribution installations. Section
1910.146, itself, recognizes permit
spaces that are equivalent to enclosed
spaces and sets separate provisions,
similar to those contained in proposed
§ 1926.953, for those spaces.
Proposed paragraph (a) contains the
scope of the enclosed space provisions.
As previously noted, enclosed spaces
are defined as spaces that have limited
means of entry or egress, that are
designed for periodic entry by
employees under normal operating
conditions, and that are not expected to
contain hazardous atmospheres but may
contain them under unusual conditions.
These spaces include manholes and
unvented vaults. This paragraph also
notes (1) that § 1926.953 applies to
routine entry into enclosed spaces in
lieu of the permit-space entry
requirements of § 1910.146, and (2) that
the generic permit-required confined
spaces standard, § 1910.146, applies to
entries into enclosed spaces where the
precautions taken under §§ 1926.953
and 1926.965 do not protect entrants.
The ventilation in vented vaults
prevents a hazardous atmosphere from
accumulating, so vented vaults are
proposed to be excluded from coverage.
However, the intake or exhaust of a
vented vault could be clogged, limiting
the flow of air through the vaults. The
employee in such cases would be
exposed to the same hazards as those
presented by unvented vaults.
Additionally, the mechanical
ventilation for a vault may fail to
operate. To ensure that the employee is
protected from the hazards posed by
lack of proper ventilation, the proposed
rule exempts vented vaults only if a
determination is made that the
ventilation is in full operating
condition. The determination must
ensure that ventilation openings are
clear and that any permanently installed
mechanical ventilating equipment is in
proper working order.
Some employers may want to comply
with § 1910.146 for entry into enclosed
spaces falling under § 1926.953. Because
the provisions of § 1910.146 protect
employees entering enclosed spaces to
the same degree as § 1926.953, OSHA
will accept compliance with § 1910.146
as meeting the enclosed space entry
requirements of § 1926.953. A note to
this effect has been included
immediately following paragraph (a).
Paragraph (b) proposes the general
requirement that employers ensure the
use of safe work practices by their
employees. These safe work practices
must include procedures for complying
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
with the specific regulations contained
in paragraphs (e) through (o) and must
include safe rescue procedures.
Proposed paragraph (c) would require
employees who enter enclosed spaces or
who serve as attendants to be trained in
hazards associated with enclosed space
entry, in the entry procedures, and in
rescue procedures. This training will
ensure that employees are trained to
work safely in enclosed spaces and that
they will be prepared in the event that
an emergency arises within the space.
OSHA believes that there is a need for
rescue equipment to be available in the
event that an injured employee must be
retrieved from the enclosed space. The
Agency has decided to adopt a
performance approach here and is
proposing, in paragraph (d), that the
employer provide equipment that will
assure the prompt and safe rescue of
injured employees. The equipment must
enable a rescuer to remove an injured
employee from the enclosed space
quickly and without injury to the
rescuer or further harm to the fallen
employee. A harness, a lifeline, and a
self-supporting winch can normally be
used in this manner.
Some conditions within an enclosed
space, such as high temperature and
high pressure, make it hazardous to
remove any cover from the space. For
example, if high pressure is present
within the space, the cover could be
blown off in the process of removing it.
To protect employees from such
hazards, proposed paragraph (e) would
require a determination of whether or
not it is safe to remove the cover. This
determination may take the form of a
quick check of the conditions expected
to be in the enclosed space. For
example, the cover could be checked to
see if it is hot and, if it is fastened in
place, could be loosened gradually to
release any residual pressure. An
evaluation must also be made of
whether conditions at the site could
cause a hazardous atmosphere to
accumulate in the space. Any
conditions making it unsafe for
employees to remove the cover are
required to be eliminated (that is,
reduced to the extent that it is no longer
unsafe). This provision is intended to
require a check of whether the cover is
hot, a determination of whether there
were conditions in the area conducive
to the formation of a hazardous
atmosphere within the enclosed space,
and a check (typically by means of
loosening the cover slightly) of whether
there was a hazardous pressure
differential between the two sides of the
cover. A note to this effect is included
following proposed paragraph (e).
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Proposed paragraph (f) would require
that openings to enclosed spaces be
guarded to protect employees from
falling into the space and to protect
employees in the enclosed space from
being injured by objects entering the
space. The guard could be in the form
of a railing, a temporary cover, or any
other temporary barrier that provides
the required protection.
Proposed paragraph (g) would
prohibit employees from entering
enclosed spaces that contain a
hazardous atmosphere. Once the
hazardous atmosphere is removed (for
example, by ventilating the enclosed
space), employees would be allowed to
enter. If an entry is to be made while a
hazardous atmosphere is present, the
entry is required to conform to the
generic permit-required confined spaces
standard, § 1910.146. The use of the
term ‘‘entry’’ in this paragraph of
§ 1926.953 is consistent with the use of
that term in § 1910.146, and OSHA is
proposing to include the § 1910.146
definition of ‘‘entry’’ in Subpart V.
Proposed paragraph (h) addresses the
use of an attendant outside the enclosed
space to provide assistance in an
emergency. An attendant would be
required if a hazard exists because of
traffic patterns near the opening. The
purpose of the attendant would be to
protect the entrant from traffic hazards
while the entrant is entering or exiting
the space and to provide assistance in
an emergency. However, the attendant
would not be precluded from
performing other duties outside the
enclosed space, as long as those duties
do not interfere with the person’s
function as an attendant. The attendant
would be required to have the first aid
training required under § 1926.951(b)(1).
This proposed provision would
require the attendant to remain outside
the enclosed space during the entire
entry procedure. The intent of this
paragraph is to require the presence of
a person with first aid training outside
the enclosed space if a hazard exists due
to traffic patterns outside the space. If
this person were to enter the enclosed
space, he or she might be unable to
assist the employee already within the
space. For example, if traffic hazards are
present in the area of the opening to the
enclosed space and if the attendant
entered the space, then both the
attendant and the workers he or she is
intended to protect would be vulnerable
upon leaving. No one would be present
to minimize or control the traffic
hazards. Therefore, the proposed rule
explicitly states that the attendant is
required to remain outside the enclosed
space.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
On the other hand, if no traffic
hazards are present, an attendant would
still be required under proposed
§ 1926.965(d) while work is being
performed in a manhole or vault
containing energized conductors. The
major, though not the only, hazard in
this case is that of electric shock.
Assistance can be provided to a victim
of electric shock by another person in
the manhole or vault. Therefore, the
provisions of § 1926.965(d)(2) would
permit the attendant required under that
paragraph to enter the manhole or vault
for brief periods of time in
nonemergency conditions when no
traffic hazards are present.
Proposed paragraph (i) would require
test instruments used to monitor
atmospheres in enclosed spaces to be
kept in calibration, with a minimum
accuracy of ±10 percent. This will
ensure that test measurements are
accurate so that hazardous conditions
will be detected when they arise. OSHA
considers ±10 percent to be the
minimum accuracy needed to detect
hazardous conditions reliably. However,
because proposed paragraph (i) would
require the test instrument to be kept in
calibration at all times, a higher
accuracy might be necessary to keep the
test instrument in calibration.
As noted earlier, because of the lack
of adequate ventilation, enclosed spaces
can accumulate hazardous
concentrations of flammable gases and
vapors, or an oxygen deficient
atmosphere could develop. It is
important to keep concentrations of
oxygen and flammable gases and vapors
at safe levels; otherwise, an explosion
could occur while employees are in the
space, or an oxygen deficiency could
lead to the suffocation of an employee.
Toward these ends, paragraphs (j), (k),
(l), (m), (n), and (o) address the testing
of the atmosphere in the space and
ventilation of the space.
Proposed paragraph (j) would require
the atmosphere in an enclosed space to
be tested for oxygen and would require
that the testing be done with a directreading meter or similar instrument.
However, continuous forced air
ventilation is permitted as an alternative
to testing. Such ventilation would
ensure that there is sufficient oxygen 22
in the enclosed space. (See also
paragraph (m) for requirements relating
to the length of time ventilation must be
22 The definition of ‘‘hazardous atmosphere’’
determines what concentractions of oxygen are
considered hazardous. (See the discussion of this
term under the summary and explanation of
§ 1926.968 later in this preamble.) Paragraph (g) of
proposed § 1926.953 would prohibit entry into an
enclosed space while a hazardous atmosphere is
present.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
provided before employees are allowed
to enter the space.)
Proposed paragraph (k) would require
the internal atmosphere of the enclosed
space to be tested for flammable gases
and vapors. The results of the test must
indicate that the atmosphere is safe
before employees can enter. So that the
results are accurate and are relevant to
the atmosphere in the space at the time
of employee entry, testing is required to
be performed with a direct reading
meter or similar instrument. Test
equipment that samples the atmosphere
so that the samples can be forwarded to
a laboratory for analysis does not meet
the requirements of this paragraph. The
flammability test must be undertaken
after the steps taken under paragraph (j)
ensure that the enclosed space has
sufficient oxygen for accurate results.
If flammable gases or vapors are
detected or if an oxygen deficiency is
found, proposed paragraph (l) would
require the employer to provide forced
air ventilation to assure safe levels of
oxygen and to prevent a hazardous
concentration of flammable gases or
vapors from accumulating. As an
alternative, an employer could use a
continuous monitoring system that
ensures that no hazardous atmosphere
develops and no increase in flammable
gas or vapor concentration occurs. The
definition of hazardous atmosphere
contains guidelines for the
determination of whether or not the
concentration of a substance is at a
hazardous level. OSHA is including a
note to this effect after paragraph (l). An
identical note appears after paragraph
(o).
Paragraph (m) proposes specific
requirements for the ventilation of
enclosed spaces. When forced air
ventilation is used, it is required to be
maintained before entry for a period of
time long enough to purge the
atmosphere within the space of
hazardous amounts of flammable gases
and vapors and long enough to supply
an adequate concentration of oxygen.
After the ventilation has been
maintained for this amount of time,
employees can then safely enter the
space.
OSHA has decided not to specify a
minimum number of air changes before
employee entry into the enclosed space
is permitted. Instead, the Agency places
the burden on the employer to ensure
that the atmosphere is safe before entry.
The employer can discharge this duty
either by testing to determine the safety
of the atmosphere in the space or by a
thorough evaluation of the air flow
required to make the atmosphere safe. In
this way, the safety of employees
working in enclosed spaces will not be
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34849
dependent on speculation by a
supervisor or an employee.
Paragraph (m) would also require the
air provided by the ventilating
equipment to be directed at the area
within the enclosed space where
employees are at work. The forced air
ventilation would be required to be
maintained the entire time the
employees are present within the space.
These provisions would ensure that a
hazardous atmosphere does not reoccur
where employees are working.
In order to ensure that the air
supplied by the ventilating equipment
will provide a safe atmosphere,
proposed paragraph (n) would require
the air supply to be from a clean source
and would prohibit it from increasing
the hazards in the enclosed space. For
example, positioning the air intake for
the ventilating equipment near the
exhaust from a gasoline or diesel engine
would contaminate the atmosphere in
the enclosed space. This practice would
not be allowed under the proposal.
The use of open flames in enclosed
spaces is safe only when flammable
gases or vapors are not present in
hazardous quantities. For this reason,
proposed paragraph (o) would require
additional testing for flammable gases
and vapors if open flames are to be used
in enclosed spaces. The tests would
have to be performed immediately
before the open flame device is used
and at least once per hour while the
device is in use. More frequent testing
would be required if conditions indicate
the need for it. Examples of such
conditions include the presence of
volatile flammable liquids in the
enclosed space and a history of
hazardous quantities of flammable
vapors or gases in a given space.
Section 1926.954, Personal Protective
Equipment
Section 1926.954 proposes
requirements for personal protective
equipment (PPE), which includes eye
and face protection, respiratory
protection, head protection, foot
protection, protective clothing,
electrical protective equipment, and
personal fall protection equipment. In
accordance with § 1926.950(a)(2),
paragraph (a) of proposed § 1926.954
emphasizes that the requirements of
Subpart E of Part 1926 apply.
Paragraph (b) proposes requirements
for personal fall protection systems. In
paragraph (b)(1), OSHA is proposing
that personal fall arrest systems meet
the design, care, and use requirements
of Subpart M of Part 1926. The note
following proposed paragraph (b)(1)
indicates that this provision applies to
all personal fall arrest systems used in
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34850
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
work covered by Subpart V. Thus, even
if another construction standard
requires the use of fall protection
equipment, § 1926.954(b)(1) would
require a personal fall arrest system to
meet Subpart M when that form of fall
protection is selected for use in work
covered by Subpart V.
For example, § 1926.453(b)(2)(v)
requires employees working from aerial
lifts to wear a body belt with a lanyard
attached to the boom or basket. Section
1926.453 sets the duty to provide fall
protection but does not set criteria for
the fall protection equipment to meet.
Because the note following proposed
§ 1926.954(b)(1) would require fall
arrest systems to meet Subpart M of Part
1926 and because Subpart M prohibits
the use of body belts in fall arrest
systems, a body belt worn by an
employee performing electric power
transmission or distribution work from
an aerial lift could only be used as part
of a restraint or tethering system, which
would prevent the employee from
falling.23 (See the note following
§ 1926.453(b)(2)(v).)
The hazards of using a body belt as
part of a fall arrest system are widely
known and documented (54 FR 31449–
31450; 59 FR 40703). Since the fall
arrest forces are more concentrated for
a body belt in comparison to a body
harness, the risk of injury in a fall is
much greater with a body belt. In
addition, an employee can fall out of a
body belt in a fall. Lastly, an employee
faces an unacceptable risk of further
injury while suspended in a body belt
as he or she awaits rescue. Because of
these hazards, paragraph (d) of
§ 1926.502, which sets requirements for
personal fall arrest equipment in
construction, has prohibited body belts
from use in a personal fall arrest system
since January 1, 1998; body harnesses
must be used instead.
In paragraph (b)(2), OSHA is
proposing revised requirements for
work positioning equipment. Section
1926.959 of existing Subpart V contains
requirements for body belts, safety
straps, and lanyards. This equipment
has traditionally been used as both work
positioning equipment and fall arrest
23 The proposal would have a similar effect on
work covered by § 1910.269. Paragraph (c)(2)(v) of
§ 1910.67 also contains a requirement for employees
covered by the general industry standards to wear
a body belt and lanyard when working from an
aerial lift. Section 1910.67 sets the duty to provide
fall protection but provides no criteria for the fall
protection equipment to meet. The proposed note
following § 1910.269(g)(1)(i) states that personal fall
arrest systems used with aerial lifts must meet
Subpart M of Part 1926. Thus, a body belt would
not be permitted to be used as part of a personal
fall arrest system for work from aerial lifts covered
by § 1910.269.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
equipment in the maintenance and
construction of electric power
transmission and distribution
installations. However, fall arrest
equipment and work positioning
equipment present significant
differences in the way they are used and
in the forces placed on an employee’s
body. With fall arrest equipment, an
employee is given freedom of movement
within an area restricted by the length
of the lanyard or other device
connecting the employee to the
anchorage. In contrast, work positioning
equipment is used to support an
employee in position while he or she
works. The employee ‘‘leans’’ into this
equipment so that he or she can work
with both hands free. If a fall occurs
while an employee is wearing fall arrest
equipment, the employee will free fall
up to 1.8 meters (6 feet) before the slack
is removed and the equipment begins to
arrest the fall. In this case, the fall arrest
forces can be very high, and they need
to be spread over a relatively large area
of the body to avoid injury to the
employee. Additionally, the velocity at
which an employee falls can reach up
to 6.1 meters per second (20 feet per
second). Work positioning equipment is
normally used to prevent a fall from
occurring in the first place. If the
employee does slip and if the work
positioning equipment is anchored, the
employee will only fall a short distance
(no more than 610 millimeters (2 feet)).
This limits the forces on the employee
and the maximum velocity.
Additionally, because of the way the
equipment is used, the employee should
not be free falling. Instead, the work
positioning equipment will be exerting
some force on the employee to stop the
fall. This will further limit the
maximum force and velocity.
OSHA recognized the differences
between the two types of equipment in
Subpart M, Fall Protection for
Construction. In this standard the two
types of equipment are regulated
separately, and different requirements
apply to the two fall protection systems.
In this proposal, OSHA would again
apply requirements to personal fall
arrest systems that differ from those that
apply to work positioning equipment.
Personal fall arrest systems would have
to meet Subpart M of Part 1926, as
would be required by proposed
§ 1926.954(b)(1). Work positioning
equipment would have to meet the
requirements proposed in
§ 1926.954(b)(2). Employers engaged in
electric power transmission and
distribution work could use the same
equipment for fall arrest and for work
positioning provided the equipment met
both sets of requirements. In fact,
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
several manufacturers market
combination body harness-body belts,
which can be used as fall arrest systems
by employees working on horizontal
surfaces or as work positioning systems
supporting employees working on
vertical surfaces. OSHA requests
comments on whether or not there are
unique situations in electric power
transmission and distribution work that
warrant different requirements than
those contained in existing Subpart M
or in this proposal. Information is also
requested on how any suggested
changes will protect employees in an
equivalent manner.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) has been
taken from existing § 1926.959 and from
ASTM F887–04, Standard
Specifications for Personal Climbing
Equipment, which is the latest edition of
the national consensus standard
applicable to work positioning
equipment. As in the proposed standard
on electrical protective equipment
(§ 1926.97) discussed earlier in this
preamble, OSHA is proposing
requirements derived from the ASTM
standard but written in performanceoriented terms. Detailed specifications
contained in the ASTM standard, which
do not directly impact the safety of
employees, have not been proposed.
The Agency believes that this will retain
the protection afforded by the ASTM
standard, but will allow flexibility in
meeting the OSHA standard and will
accommodate changes in the ASTM
standard without corresponding
changes in the OSHA standard.
Differences between the proposal and
existing § 1926.959 are explained in the
following discussion of paragraph (b)(2).
While the ASTM standard does not
cover lanyards, proposed paragraph
(b)(2) would apply many of the ASTM
requirements to lanyards. Existing
§ 1926.959 imposes the same basic
requirements on lanyards, and OSHA
believes that lanyards used as work
positioning equipment for electric
power transmission and distribution
work already meet these requirements.
Comments are requested on whether or
not any of the proposed requirements
should not be applicable to lanyards
used as work positioning equipment.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(i) would
require hardware for body belts and
positioning straps to be drop-forged,
pressed, or formed steel or to be made
of equivalent material. This hardware
would also be required to have a
corrosion-resistant finish. Surfaces
would have to be smooth and free of
sharp edges. This provision ensures that
the hardware is strong enough to
withstand the forces likely to be
imposed, is durable, and is free of sharp
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
edges that could damage attached
positioning straps.
This requirement is equivalent to
existing § 1926.959(a)(1), except that the
existing standard does not permit
hardware to be made of any material
other than drop-forged or pressed steel.
The ASTM standard requires hardware
to be made of drop-forged steel. The
drop-forged steel process produces
hardware that more uniformly meets the
required strength criteria and that is
expected to retain its strength over a
longer useful life. It is possible,
however, for other processes to produce
a product that is equivalent in terms of
strength and durability. Additionally,
§ 1926.502(d)(1) and (e)(3) require
‘‘connectors’’ (that is, hardware) to be
made of the same types of material as
those specified in proposed
§ 1926.954(b)(2)(i). Therefore, OSHA is
proposing to permit hardware to be
made of alternative materials.
Comments are invited on whether or not
these alternative materials will provide
adequate safety to employees.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(ii) would
require buckles to be capable of
withstanding an 8.9–kN (2,000-lbf)
tension test with a maximum permanent
deformation no greater than 0.4
millimeters (0.0156 inches). This is the
same as existing § 1926.959(a)(2). The
requirement is intended to ensure that
buckles do not fail if a fall occurs.
Paragraph (b)(2)(iii) proposes that D
rings be capable of withstanding a 22–
kN (5,000-lbf) tensile test without
cracking or breaking. This provision,
which is equivalent to existing
§ 1926.959(a)(3), is intended to ensure
that D rings do not fail if a fall occurs.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(iv) would
require snaphooks to be capable of
withstanding a 22–kN (5,000-lbf)
tension test without failure. A note
following this provision indicates that
tensile failure is considered to be
distortion of the snaphook sufficient to
release the keeper.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(v) would
prohibit the use of leather or leather
substitutes from being used alone as a
load bearing member in a body belt or
positioning strap. Existing § 1926.959
contains no equivalent requirement. The
proposed paragraph, which has been
taken from ASTM F887–04, sections
14.2.1 and 15.2.1, is necessary because
leather and leather substitutes do not
retain their strength as they age. Because
this loss in strength is not always easy
to detect by visual inspection, it can
lead to failure under fall conditions.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(vi) would
require that plied fabric used in
positioning straps and in load bearing
portions of body belts be so constructed
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
that raw edges are not exposed and that
the plies do not separate. Existing
§ 1926.959 contains no similar
requirement. Proposed paragraph
(b)(2)(vi) has been taken from ASTM
F887–04, sections 14.2.2 and 15.2.2.
This requirement is intended to prevent
plied fabric from separating, which
could weaken a body belt or positioning
strap and cause it to fail under load.
Although work positioning equipment
used in electric power transmission and
distribution work is not intended to be
used as insulation from live parts,
positioning straps could come into
accidental contact with live parts while
an employee is working. Thus, it is still
important for this equipment to provide
a certain level of insulation. Proposed
paragraphs (b)(2)(vii)(A) and
(b)(2)(vii)(B) would require positioning
straps to be capable of passing dielectric
and leakage current tests. This provision
is equivalent to existing
§ 1926.959(b)(1). The voltages listed in
these paragraphs are alternating current.
The note following proposed paragraph
(b)(2)(vii)(B) indicates that equivalent
direct current tests would also be
acceptable.
ASTM F887–04 does not require
positioning straps to pass a withstand
voltage test. Instead, it states in a note
that the fabric used must pass a
withstand voltage test.24 OSHA invites
comments on whether or not performing
a withstand test on positioning straps is
necessary for employee safety in electric
transmission and distribution work.
Proposed paragraphs (b)(2)(vii)(C) and
(b)(2)(vii)(D) would require positioning
straps to be capable of passing tension
tests and buckle tear tests. Existing
§ 1926.959 has no equivalent
requirements. These tests, which have
been taken from ASTM F887–04,
sections 15.3.2 and 15.3.3, are intended
to ensure that individual parts of
positioning straps have adequate
strength.
If an electric arc occurs while an
employee is working, the work
positioning equipment must be able to
support the employee in case he or she
loses consciousness. Additionally, the
positioning strap or lanyard must be
resistant to igniting, because, once
ignited, it would quickly lose its
strength and fail. Therefore, paragraph
(b)(2)(vii)(E) would require positioning
straps to be capable of passing a
flammability test, which is described in
Table V–1. This requirement and the
24 It is not clear whether the ASTM provision is
mandatory. Notes in ASTM standards are not
supposed to contain requirements, but the
particular note in question (Note 2 following
section 15.3.1) uses the word ‘‘shall,’’ which
normally indicates that the provision is mandatory.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34851
test in Table V–1 itself has been taken
from ASTM F887–04, section 15.3.4.
Existing § 1926.959 contains no
comparable provision.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(viii) would
require the cushion part of a body belt
to be at least 76 millimeters (3 inches)
wide, with no exposed rivets on the
inside. This requirement is essentially
identical to existing § 1926.959(b)(2)(i)
and (ii).
Existing § 1926.959(b)(2)(iii), which
requires the cushion part of the body
belt to be at least 0.15625 inches thick
if made of leather, is not contained in
the proposed rule. The strength of the
body belt assembly, which is addressed
by this existing specification, is
adequately covered by the performancebased strength criteria contained in
proposed § 1926.954(b)(2)(xii).
Additionally, as noted previously, load
bearing portions of the body belt would
no longer be permitted to be constructed
of leather alone under proposed
paragraph (b)(2)(v).
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(ix) would
require that tool loops on a body belt be
so situated that the 100 millimeters (4
inches) at the center of the back of the
body belt are free of tool loops and any
other attachments. This requirement,
which has been taken from ASTM
F887–04, section 14.4.3, is similar to
existing § 1926.959(b)(3). It is intended
to prevent spine injuries to employees
who fall onto their backs while wearing
a body belt.
Existing § 1926.959(b)(3) permits a
maximum of four tool loops, and
existing § 1926.959(b)(2)(iv) requires the
belt to contain pocket tabs for the
attachment of tool pockets. ASTM
F887–04 contains a similar requirement
for pocket tabs. OSHA does not believe
that these two provisions are necessary
for the protection of employees. These
requirements ensure that body belts are
suitable as tool belts and contribute to
the usefulness of the body belt.
However, they do not contribute
significantly to the safety of employees;
OSHA has thus not included similar
requirements in the proposal.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(x) would
require liners to be used around the bar
of D rings. This provision, which is the
same as existing § 1926.959(b)(4), is
intended to prevent wear between the D
ring and the body belt fabric. Such wear
could contribute to failure of the body
belt during use.
A snaphook has a keeper that is
designed to prevent a D ring to which
it is attached from coming out of the
opening of the snaphook. (See Figure 2.)
Nevertheless, if the design of the
snaphook is not compatible with the
design of the D ring, the D ring can roll
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34852
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
To address this problem, for many
years, ASTM F887 had a requirement
for snaphooks to be compatible with the
D rings with which they are used. Even
with this requirement, however,
accidents resulting from snaphook rollouts have still occurred. Several factors
account for this. First, while one
manufacturer can (and most do)
thoroughly test its snaphooks and its D
rings to ensure ‘‘compatibility,’’ no
manufacturer can test its hardware in
every conceivable combination with
other manufacturers’ hardware,
especially since some models of
snaphooks and D rings are no longer
manufactured. While an employer might
be able to test all the different hardware
combinations possible with his or her
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
existing equipment, the employer
normally does not have the expertise
necessary to run such tests in a
comprehensive manner. Second,
snaphook keepers can be depressed by
objects other than the D rings to which
they are attached. For example, a guy (a
support line) could fall onto the keeper
while an employee was repositioning
himself or herself. This could allow the
D ring to escape from the snaphook, and
the employee would fall as soon as he
or she leaned back into the work
positioning equipment.
For these reasons, OSHA is proposing,
in paragraph (b)(2)(xi), that snaphooks
used as part of work positioning
equipment be of the locking type. A
locking-type snaphook will not open
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
unless the employee releases its locking
mechanism. Because their are thousands
of existing non-locking snaphooks
currently in use, OSHA is considering
phasing in the requirement for older
equipment or completely grandfathering
existing equipment that otherwise
complies with the proposal. The Agency
requests comments on this.
OSHA is proposing three
requirements for snaphooks to ensure
that the keeper does not open without
the intentional release of the employee
using it. First, for the keeper to open, a
locking mechanism would have to be
released, or a destructive force would
have to be placed on the keeper
(paragraph (b)(2)(xi)(A)). Second, a force
in the range of 6.6 N (1.5 lbf) to 17.6 N
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
EP15JN05.004</GPH>
around, press open the keeper, and free
itself from the snaphook. (See Figure 3.)
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
(4 lbf) would be required to release the
locking mechanism (paragraph
(b)(2)(xi)(B)). Third, with a force on the
keeper and with the locking mechanism
released, the keeper would not be
allowed to open with a force of 11.0 N
(2.5 lbf) or less. Before the force exceeds
17.6 N (4 lbf), the keeper would have to
begin to open (paragraph (b)(2)(xi)(C)).
These requirements have been taken
from ASTM F887–04, section 15.4.1.
Paragraph (b)(2)(xi)(C), relating to the
spring tension on the keeper, is the
same as existing § 1926.959(b)(6).
Existing § 1926.959(b)(7) requires
body belts, pole straps, and lanyards to
be capable of passing a drop test, in
which a test load is dropped from a
specified height and the work
positioning equipment arrests the fall.
The test consists of dropping a 113.4-kg
(250-lbm) bag of sand a distance of
either 1.2 meters (4 feet) or 1.8 meters
(6 feet), respectively for pole straps and
lanyards.
The use of a bag of sand to represent
a human body is one way to test work
positioning equipment. However,
because the bag of sand can be fitted
with the body belt in different ways, the
results of the test may not be consistent
among different testing laboratories. To
overcome this, ASTM 887–04 has
adopted a drop test that uses a rigid
steel mass of a specified design. To
compensate for differences between a
rigid mass and the more deformable
human body, the ASTM standard uses
a lower test mass, 100 kg (220 lbm), and
a shorter drop height, 1 meter (39.4
inches). OSHA believes that the ASTM
test is equivalent to the existing OSHA
test. OSHA also believes that adoption
of the ASTM test, because it will result
in more uniform testing, will better
protect employees. Therefore, the
Agency is proposing to replace the sand
bag drop test given in existing
§ 1926.959(b)(7) with a less-detailed
version of the ASTM test in proposed
§ 1926.954(b)(2)(xii). OSHA requests
comments on whether this change is
reasonable and appropriate.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(xii)(A)
would require the test mass to be
constructed of steel or equivalent
material having a mass of 100 kg (220.5
lbm). This mass is comparable to the
113.4-kg (250-lbm) bag of sand given in
the existing OSHA standard. Even
though the test mass is lighter than a
heavy power line worker, the required
test method places significantly more
stress than an employee of the same
mass because the test drop is 0.3 meters
(1.28 feet) more than the maximum
permitted free fall distance and because
the test mass is rigid. OSHA believes
that this test indicates that a body belt
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
is sufficiently strong for the heaviest
line worker who will use it, even those
substantially heavier than the test mass.
However, the Agency requests
comments on whether the proposed test
is adequate.
Proposed paragraphs (b)(2)(xii)(B) and
(b)(2)(xii)(C) give the attachment means
for body belts and for positioning straps,
respectively. These provisions would
ensure that the work positioning
equipment being tested is properly
attached to the test apparatus.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(xii)(D)
would require the test mass to be
dropped a distance of 1 meter (39.4
inches). This is equivalent (given the
rigid test mass) to the existing
standard’s test distance of 1.2 meters (4
feet) for pole straps. Existing § 1926.959
requires lanyards to pass a 1.8-meter (6foot) drop test. However, that standard
sets no limit on the free fall distance
required for the work positioning
equipment covered under that standard.
The drop distance was based primarily
on the accepted practice of allowing a
1.8-meter (6-foot) maximum drop into a
body belt-lanyard combination or a 0.6or 0.9-meter (2-or 3-foot) maximum drop
into a body belt-pole strap combination.
Proposed paragraph (b)(3)(iv) specifies a
0.5-meter (2-foot) maximum free fall
distance, eliminating the need to drop
test lanyards at more than 1.2 meters (4
feet).
Proposed paragraphs (b)(2)(xii)(E) and
(b)(2)(xii)(F) specify acceptance criteria
for tested equipment. Body belts would
have to arrest the fall successfully and
be capable of supporting the test mass
after the test. Positioning straps would
have to arrest the fall successfully
without allowing an arresting force
exceeding 17.8 kN (4,000 lbf).
Additionally, snaphooks on positioning
straps would not be permitted to have
distorted sufficiently to allow release of
the keeper.
Three notes apply to paragraph
(b)(2).25 The first note indicates that
paragraph (b)(2) applies to all work
positioning equipment used in work
covered by Subpart V.
The second note indicates that body
belts and positioning straps that
conform to ASTM F 887–04 are deemed
to be in compliance with the
manufacturing and construction
requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this
section provided that the body belt or
positioning strap also conforms to
paragraphs (b)(2)(iv), which contains a
more stringent strength requirement
than ASTM F887–04, and (b)(2)(xi),
which requires snaphooks to be of the
25 These notes appear immediately after
paragraph (b)(2)(xii)(F).
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34853
locking type. OSHA’s proposal is based
on this ASTM standard; and, with the
exception of those two provisions, is
consistent with that consensus standard.
The third note indicates that body
belts and positioning straps meeting
existing § 1926.502(e) on positioning
device systems are deemed to be in
compliance with the manufacturing and
construction requirements of paragraph
(b)(2) of proposed § 1926.954 provided
that the body belt or positioning strap
also conforms to proposed
§ 1926.954(b)(2)(vii). This provision
requires positioning straps to pass
certain electrical and flame-resistance
tests. It also requires positioning straps
to withstand a tension test and a buckle
tear test. These tests ensure that
positioning straps have suitable
electrical and mechanical properties to
withstand the stresses that can be
imposed by power line work. Body belts
and positioning straps that are parts of
positioning device systems addressed by
§ 1926.502(e) serve the same function as
work positioning equipment in
proposed Subpart V. OSHA believes
that body belts and positioning straps
that meet the design criteria specified by
§ 1926.502(e) will generally be
sufficiently strong for power line work.
However, to be fully suitable for power
line work, positioning straps should
also meet the electrical, flameresistance, and other characteristics
proposed in § 1926.954(b)(2)(vii).
The Agency believes that the last two
notes to proposed § 1926.954(b)(2) will
help manufacturers determine whether
or not their equipment meets the OSHA
standard. Employers will thus be able to
determine, in most instances, whether
or not work positioning equipment
meets the OSHA standard without
having to conduct their own tests.
Proposed paragraph (b)(3) addresses
the care and use of fall protection
equipment. Fall protection equipment
provides the maximum intended safety
only when it is properly used and
maintained. Existing Subpart V
recognizes this fact in § 1926.951(b)(3).
Existing § 1926.951(b)(1) requires the
use of fall protection equipment when
employees are working at elevated
locations on poles, towers, and similar
structures; § 1926.951(b)(3) requires this
equipment to be inspected before use
each day. While it has carried these
requirements forward into the proposal,
OSHA believes that these requirements
must be supplemented by additional
requirements so that employees will be
fully protected from fall hazards faced
during electric power transmission and
distribution work. Therefore, OSHA is
proposing requirements from
§ 1910.269(g)(2) and from § 1926.502(e)
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34854
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
relating to the care and use of fall
protection equipment.
Proposed paragraph (b)(3)(i) would
require work positioning equipment to
be inspected before use each day to
determine if the equipment is safe for
use. (Paragraph (d)(21) of § 1926.502
contains an equivalent requirement for
fall arrest equipment to be inspected
before use.) This paragraph would
prohibit defective equipment from being
used. This requirement helps ensure
that the protective equipment in use
will, in fact, be able to protect
employees when called upon to do so.
This requirement is equivalent to
existing § 1926.951(b)(3), except that the
prohibition on the use of defective
equipment is stated explicitly rather
than being implied. A thorough
inspection of fall protection equipment
can detect such defects as cracked
snaphooks and D rings, frayed lanyards,
loose snaphook keepers, and bent
buckles. A guide to the inspection of
this equipment is included in Appendix
G.
Proposed paragraph (b)(3)(ii) would
require personal fall arrest systems to be
used in accordance with § 1926.502(d).
Personal fall arrest equipment is
sometimes used as work positioning
equipment during electric power
transmission and distribution work. So
that the employee can comfortably lean
into the body harness when the
equipment is used in this fashion, the
normal attachment point would be at
waist level. Paragraph (d)(17) of
§ 1926.502 requires the attachment
point for body harnesses to be located
in the center of the employee’s back
near shoulder level or located above his
or her head. Such an attachment point
would prevent the employee from
performing his or her job. Therefore,
OSHA is proposing to exempt personal
fall arrest equipment used as work
positioning equipment from this
requirement, if the equipment is rigged
so that the maximum free fall distance
is 0.6 meters (2 feet). This exemption is
proposed in paragraph (b)(3)(ii).
Proposed paragraph (b)(3)(iii) would
require the use of a personal fall arrest
system or work positioning equipment
to be used to protect employees working
at elevated locations more than 1.2
meters (4 feet) above the ground on
poles, towers, and similar structures if
other fall protection has not been
provided. The term ‘‘similar structures’’
includes any structure that supports
electric power transmission or
distribution lines or equipment, such as
lattice substation structures and H-frame
wood transmission structures. The use
of fall protection equipment would not
be required while a qualified employee
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
is climbing or changing location on a
structure if the structure is safe to climb.
The proposal lists examples illustrating
when the structure would be unsafe to
climb without fall protection: the
presence of ice or high winds, structure
designs that could cause the employee
to fall, and the presence of contaminants
on the structure that could cause the
employee to lose his or her grip or
footing.
Two informational notes follow
proposed paragraph (b)(3)(iii) explain
certain aspects of the proposed
provision. The first note indicates that
this requirement would not apply to
portions of buildings, electric
equipment, or aerial lifts. This note
refers to the relevant portion of the
construction standards that would apply
in those instances (that is, Subpart M for
walking and working surfaces generally
and § 1926.453 for aerial lifts). The first
note applies only to the ‘‘duty’’
requirement in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) to
use fall protection equipment; it does
not apply to other fall protection
requirements in § 1926.954.
The second note indicates that
employees who have not completed
training in climbing or in the use of fall
protection equipment would not be
considered to be ‘‘qualified’’ for the
purposes of paragraph (b)(3)(iii). These
employees, who have not demonstrated
that they can safely climb structures
without using fall protection, would
need fall protection anytime they are
more than 1.2 meters (4 feet) above the
ground.
Proposed paragraph (b)(3)(iii), which
is comparable to existing
§ 1926.951(b)(1), is based on
§ 1910.269(g)(2)(v). After analyzing the
extensive record built on fall protection
during the § 1910.269 rulemaking,
OSHA concluded that employees could
safely climb and change location on
poles, towers, and similar structures
without the use of fall protection
equipment. OSHA has carried the
general industry standard’s fall
protection requirements forward into
proposed Subpart V with two changes.
First, the term ‘‘fall arrest equipment’’
has been changed to ‘‘personal fall arrest
system’’ for consistency with other
OSHA fall protection standards (notably
Part 1926, Subpart M). Second, and
more significantly, OSHA is proposing
to omit the use of travel restricting
equipment as a recognized fall
protection system for electric power
transmission and distribution work.
OSHA originally proposed to recognize
this equipment in § 1910.269(g)(2)(v); no
comments in the rulemaking record
suggested leaving it out of the final
general industry standard. However,
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
travel restricting equipment is more
appropriate for work on open-sided
platforms, where employees can walk
around the working surface with the
travel restricting equipment keeping
them from approaching too close to an
unguarded edge. The Agency does not
believe that this type of working surface
is found on poles, towers, or similar
structures. Therefore, the inclusion of
travel restricting equipment in fall
protection requirements for work
performed on these structures is
inappropriate.26 OSHA invites
comments on whether or not travel
restricting equipment should be
recognized in § 1926.954(b)(3)(iii) and
on whether or not electric power
transmission and distribution structures
contain open-sided platform-like
working surfaces.
It should be noted that the conditions
listed in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) are not the
only ones warranting the use of fall
protection. Other factors affecting the
risk of an employee’s falling include the
level of competence of the employee,
the condition of a structure, the
configuration of attachments on a
structure, and the need to have both
hands free for climbing. In fact, OSHA
believes that climbing without the use
of fall protection is only safe if the
employee is using his or her hands to
hold onto the structure while he or she
is climbing. If the employee is not
holding onto the structure (for example,
because the employee is carrying tools
or equipment in his or her hands), fall
protection is required under the final
rule. Video tapes entered into the
§ 1910.269 rulemaking record by EEI
(269–Ex. 12–6),27 which they claimed
represented typical, safe climbing
practices in the utility industry,
demonstrate employees using their
hands to provide extra support and
balance. Climbing in this manner will
enable an employee to continue to hold
onto the structure in case his or her foot
slips. If the employee is not using his or
her hands for additional support, he or
she would be much more likely to fall
as a result of a slip.
The general industry electric power
generation, transmission, and
distribution standard, in
§ 1910.269(g)(2)(v), requires the use of
fall protection systems when work is
performed at heights more than 1.2
meters (4 feet) above the ground. The
existing standards in Subpart M of Part
26 OSHA is also proposing to omit the use of
travel restricting equipment as an acceptable form
of fall protection in § 1910.269(g)(2) for employees
working from poles, towers, and similar structures.
27 Exhibits in the § 1910.269 rulemaking record
(denoted as ‘‘269–Ex’’) can be found in Docket
Number S–015.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
1926 require fall protection (usually in
the form of guard rails) for situations
where employees are exposed to falls of
more than 1.8 meters (6 feet).
Additionally, in existing
§ 1926.951(b)(1), OSHA requires fall
protection to be used by ‘‘employees
working at elevated locations’’ without
specifying the height at which such
protection would be necessary. The
Agency is proposing to retain the
Subpart V requirement, but clarify it as
requiring protection to be initiated at 1.2
meters (4 feet) to be consistent with
§ 1910.269(g)(2)(v), which deals with
the same hazard. Comments are
requested on whether or not the
§ 1910.269 distance of 1.2 meters (4 feet)
is appropriate for electric power
transmission and distribution
construction work.
Work positioning equipment is
intended to be used with the employee
leaning into it, with the equipment
supporting the employee and keeping
him or her from falling. During work on
towers and horizontal members on poles
(such as crossarms), however, the
employee sometimes stands or sits on a
structural member, and the work
positioning equipment is not providing
any support for the employee. In such
cases, the work positioning equipment
is functioning more like personal fall
arrest equipment. OSHA has previously
concluded that body belts, which can be
used as part of work positioning
equipment, are not suitable for use as
part of a personal fall arrest system.
Paragraph (e)(1) of § 1926.502 limits
the maximum free fall distance for work
positioning systems to 0.6 meters (2
feet). OSHA is adopting this same limit
in § 1926.954. However, in electric
power transmission and distribution
work, anchorages are not always
available. Many utility poles provide no
attachment points lower than the lowest
crossarm. If an employee is working
below the crossarm, there will be
nothing to which he or she can attach
the work positioning equipment. The
work positioning equipment is still
providing a certain degree of fall
protection, even in this case. The
equipment holds the employee in a
fixed work position and keeps him or
her from falling. Therefore, proposed
paragraph (b)(3)(iv) would require work
positioning equipment to be rigged so
that the employee can free fall no more
than 0.6 meters (2 feet), unless no
anchorage is available.
OSHA requests comments on whether
or not this requirement will provide
sufficient protection for employees, on
what portable devices (such as a Pole
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
Shark,28 Pole Choker,29 or similar
devices) can be used as suitable
anchorages, and on what alternative
measures can be taken to protect
employees.
Proposed paragraph (b)(3)(v) would
require anchorages used with work
positioning equipment to be capable of
sustaining at least twice the potential
impact load of an employee’s fall or 13.3
kN (3,000 lbf), whichever is greater.
This provision, which has been taken
from § 1926.502(e)(2), is intended to
ensure that an anchorage will not fail
when called upon to stop an employee’s
fall. It should be noted that, under
proposed paragraph (b)(3)(iv), the
employee is not required to be tied to
an anchorage if one is not available.
In paragraphs (b)(3)(vi), OSHA is
proposing that snaphooks on work
positioning equipment not be engaged
to any of the following:
(1) Webbing, rope, or wire rope;
(2) Each other;
(3) A D ring to which another
snaphook or other connector is attached;
(4) A horizontal lifeline; or
(5) Any object which is incompatibly
shaped or dimensioned in relation to
the snaphook such that unintentional
disengagement could occur by the
connected object being able to depress
the snaphook keeper and release itself.
These provisions, which have been
taken from § 1926.502(e)(8), prohibit
methods of attachment that are
considered unsafe because of the
potential for accidental disengagement
of the snaphooks during use.
Section 1926.955, Ladders and
Platforms
Proposed § 1926.955 addresses
ladders and platforms. Paragraph (a)
notes that requirements for portable
ladders are contained in Subpart X of
the construction standards and apply to
work covered by Subpart V, except as
noted in proposed § 1926.955(b). This
paragraph also proposes that the
requirements for ladders in Subpart D of
Part 1910 apply to fixed ladders used in
electric power transmission and
distribution construction work. Fixed
ladders used in electric power
transmission and distribution
construction work are also considered
fixed ladders under Subpart D of the
General Industry Standards when used
during normal maintenance activities.
OSHA believes that the Part 1910,
28 A Pole Shark is a device that uses jaws and a
spur wheel to grip the pole and provide an
anchorage for climbing wood poles.
29 A Pole Choker is a pole strap with an integrated
choker strap. The choker strap is tightened against
the pole to prevent the pole strap from sliding down
the pole.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34855
Subpart D standards should also apply
during construction work. It should be
noted that OSHA has proposed a
revision of Subpart D of the General
Industry Standards (April 10, 1990, 55
FR 13401). The Agency requests
comments on whether the proposed
incorporation of the general industry
standard for fixed ladders is warranted,
especially in light of the proposed
revision of Subpart D.
Paragraph (b) proposes requirements
for special ladders and platforms used
for electrical work. Because of the
nature of overhead line work and the
limitations of structures available for
ladder support, OSHA is proposing to
exempt portable ladders and platforms
used on structures or on overhead lines
from the general provisions of
§§ 1926.1053(b)(5)(i) and (b)(12), which
deal with ladder support and
placement. An example of these
exempted ladders is a portable hook
ladder used by power line workers to
work on overhead power lines. These
ladders are hooked over the line or other
support member and are lashed in place
at both ends to keep them steady while
employees are working from them.
To provide employees with protection
that approximates that afforded by the
‘‘exempted’’ Subpart X provisions,
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) would
apply to these special types of ladders
and platforms. The proposed
requirements provide that these special
ladders and special platforms be
secured, specify the acceptable loads
and proper strength of this equipment,
and provide that they be used only for
the particular types of application for
which they are designed. (The ratings
and design of this equipment are
specified by the manufacturer and can
usually also be found in standard
references, such as ASTM F 1564–95,
Standard Specification for StructureMounted Insulating Work Platforms for
Electrical Workers. See Appendix E to
proposed Subpart V.) In the § 1910.269
rulemaking, OSHA concluded that these
alternative criteria provide for the safe
use of this special equipment, and the
Agency is proposing to extend the
application of these alternative criteria
to work covered under Subpart V.
In § 1926.955(c), OSHA is proposing
to prohibit the use of portable metal and
other portable conductive ladders near
exposed energized lines or equipment.
This paragraph addresses the hazard to
employees of contacting energized lines
and equipment with conductive ladders.
However, in specialized high-voltage
work, the use of nonconductive ladders
could present a greater hazard to
employees than the use of conductive
ladders. In such situations, the
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34856
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
clearances between live parts operating
at differing voltages and between the
live parts and grounded surfaces are
large enough that it is relatively easy to
maintain the minimum approach
distances required by proposed
§ 1926.960(c)(1). Voltage is induced on
objects in the vicinity of these highvoltage lines. Using a conductive ladder
can minimize the voltage differences
between objects 30 within an employee’s
reach, reducing the hazard to the
employee. Therefore, the proposal
would require a conductive ladder to be
used where an employer can
demonstrate that the use of a
nonconductive ladder would present a
greater hazard.
Section 1926.956, Hand and Portable
Power Tools
Proposed § 1926.956 addresses hand
and portable power tools, as stated in
paragraph (a). Portable and vehiclemounted generators supplying cord-and
plug-connected equipment are also
covered by this proposed section. These
requirements have been taken from
§ 1910.269(i). Existing Subpart V
contains requirements for hydraulic and
pneumatic tools in §§ 1926.950(i) and
1926.951(f). These requirements have
been retained in proposed
§ 1926.956(d).
Electric tools connected by cord and
plug would be required to meet
paragraph (b). If the equipment is
supplied by the wiring of a building or
other premises, existing Subpart K of
Part 1926 would continue to apply,
under proposed § 1926.956(b)(1), as it
does now. If premises wiring is not
involved (in which case Subpart K does
not currently apply), paragraph (b)(2)
would require that the tool frame be
grounded or that the tool be double
insulated or that the tool be supplied by
an isolating transformer with
ungrounded secondary. Any of these
three methods can protect employees
from electric shock, which could
directly injure the employee or which
could cause an involuntary reaction
leading to a secondary injury. Given the
widespread availability of doubleinsulated tools, OSHA requests
comments on whether the option
permitting tools to be supplied through
an isolating transformer is still
necessary.
Paragraph (c) of proposed § 1926.956
would require that portable and vehiclemounted generators provide a means for
grounding cord- and plug-connected
30 These voltages do not normally pose an
electrocution hazard. However, the involuntary
muscular reactions from contacting objects at
different voltages can lead to falls.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
equipment and allows the frame of the
generator to serve as the grounding
electrode (reference ground). Paragraph
(c)(4) would require the neutral
conductor to be bonded to the generator
frame. These proposed requirements are
based on existing § 1926.404(f)(3).
Proposed paragraph (d) would apply
to pneumatic and hydraulic tools.
Paragraph (d)(1) of § 1926.302
requires hydraulic fluids to be fire
resistant. Insulating hydraulic fluids are
not inherently fire resistant and
additives that could make them fire
resistant generally make the hydraulic
fluid unsuitable for use as insulation.
Because of this and because hydraulic
fluids must be insulating to protect
employees performing power
transmission and distribution work,
existing § 1926.950(i) exempts
insulating hydraulic fluids from
§ 1926.302(d)(1). OSHA is proposing to
continue this exemption in
§ 1926.956(d)(1). The Agency requests
information on whether or not fireresistant insulating hydraulic fluids are
available or are being developed.
Safe operating pressures would be
required to be maintained by paragraph
(d)(2). This protects employees from the
harmful effects of tool failure. Of course,
if hazardous defects are present, no
operating pressure would be safe, and
the tools could not be used. In the
absence of defects, the maximum rated
operating pressure (as specified by the
manufacturer or by standard references)
is the maximum safe pressure. A note to
this effect has been included in the
proposed rule.
If a pneumatic or hydraulic tool is
used where it may contact exposed
energized parts, the tool would be
required to be designed and maintained
for such use (paragraph (d)(3)).
Hydraulic systems for tools used near
live parts would need to provide
protection against the formation of a
partial vacuum in the hydraulic line
(paragraph (d)(4)). A pneumatic tool
would have to provide protection
against the accumulation of moisture in
the air supply (paragraph (d)(5)). These
three requirements protect employees
from electric shock by restricting
current flow through hoses.
If hydraulic tools are used so that the
highest point on the system is more than
10.7 meters (35 feet) above the oil
reservoir, a partial vacuum can form
inside the line. This can lead to loss of
insulating value in tools used on high
voltage lines and to the failure of the
system while the employee is working
on the power line. During the
rulemaking process on § 1910.269, the
IBEW reported that two accidents
resulted from such an occurrence (269–
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
DC Tr. 613). To stress the importance of
the requirement proposed in paragraph
(d)(4), OSHA has included a note
following this paragraph stating that
hydraulic lines without check valves
having a separation of more than 10.7
meters (35 feet) between the oil
reservoir and the upper end of the
hydraulic system can promote the
formation of a partial vacuum. Whether
or not a partial vacuum will result in the
loss of insulating value and trigger the
need to take measures to prevent the
formation of a partial vacuum will, of
course, depend on the voltage involved.
Paragraphs (d)(6) and (d)(7) propose
work-practice requirements to protect
employees from the accidental release of
pressure and from injection of hydraulic
oil, which is under high pressure,
through the skin and into the body. The
first of these two provisions would
require the release of pressure before
connections in the lines are broken,
unless the quick-acting, self-closing
connectors commonly found on tools
are used. In the case of hydraulic tools,
the spraying hydraulic fluid itself,
which is flammable, poses additional
hazards. The other provision would
prohibit employees from attempting to
use their bodies in order to locate or
stop a hydraulic leak.
Paragraph (d)(8) proposes that hoses
not be kinked. Kinks in hydraulic and
pneumatic hoses can lead to premature
failure of the hose and to sudden loss of
pressure. If this loss of pressure occurs
while the employee is using the tool, an
accident could result.
Section 1926.957, Live-Line Tools
Proposed § 1926.957 contains
requirements for live-line tools, some of
which are commonly called ‘‘hot
sticks.’’ This type of tool is used by
qualified employees to handle energized
conductors. The tool insulates the
employee from the energized line,
allowing the employee to safely perform
the task at hand. For example, a wire
tong, a slender insulated pole with a
clamp on one end, is used to hold a
conductor at a distance while work is
being performed. Common types of liveline tools include wire tongs, wire tong
supports, tension links, and tie sticks.
Paragraph (a) would require live-line
tools to be designed and constructed to
be able to withstand 100,000 V/ft if
made of fiberglass, 75,000 V/ft if made
of wood, or other equivalent tests. (The
voltage per unit length varies with
material because the two different
insulating materials are capable of
withstanding different voltages over
equal lengths. A higher design standard
for wood would cause most wood to fail
to meet the specification. A lower
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
design specification would allow
substandard products into service.
Paragraph (a), which contains the design
criteria for materials used in live-line
tools, is based on the capabilities of the
materials in question.) Since the
withstand voltages are consistent with
those in existing § 1926.951(d), for
fiberglass tools, and with ASTM F 711–
02, Standard Specification for
Fiberglass-Reinforced Plastic (FRP) Rod
and Tube Used in Live-Line Tools (the
material comprising the insulating
portion of a live-line tool), tools
complying with standards currently in
use in the industry continue to be
acceptable. A note to this effect is
included after proposed
§ 1926.957(a)(1). Together with the
minimum approach distances in
§ 1926.960(c)(1), paragraph (a) of
proposed § 1926.957 protects employees
from electric shock during use of these
tools.
Paragraph (b) addresses the condition
of tools. The requirements proposed in
this paragraph are intended to ensure
that live-line tools remain in a safe
condition after they are put into service.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1) would require
live-line tools to be wiped clean and
visually inspected before each day’s use.
Wiping the tool removes surface
contamination that could lower the
insulating value of the tool. Inspecting
the tool will enable the employer and
employee to discover any obvious
defects that could also adversely affect
the insulating value of the tool.
If any contamination or defect that
could lower the insulating value or that
could adversely affect the mechanical
integrity of the live-line tool is present
after the tool is wiped, it could be
discovered during the inspection, and
the tool would have to be removed from
service, as required by paragraph (b)(2).
This paragraph protects employees from
the failure of live-line tools during use.
Tools removed from service would have
to be examined and tested under
proposed paragraph (b)(3) before being
returned to service.
The performance criteria given in
paragraph (a) are intended to be ‘‘design
standards’’ and are to be met at the time
of manufacture. The test voltages and
length of time that they are applied
during the manufacturing process are
not appropriate for periodic retesting of
the hot sticks because the live-line tools
could sustain damage during the test.
During the rulemaking on § 1910.269,
OSHA found that, although no injuries
related to the failure of a hot stick could
be found in the record, evidence did
indicate that these tools have failed in
use (without injury to employees) and
that employees do depend on their
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
insulating value in using them to handle
energized conductors (January 31, 1994,
59 FR 4378). The Agency believes that
the fact that live-line tools are not
typically used to provide protection for
employees in the rain (when work is
normally suspended) probably
accounted for the lack of injuries in the
record. Regardless, live-line tools might
be used under wet conditions,31 in
which case it is important to ensure that
these tools will retain their insulating
qualities when they are wet. In addition,
employee safety is dependent on the
insulating integrity of the tool—the
results of a failure of a live-line tool
would almost certainly lead to serious
injury or death whenever the tool is the
only insulating barrier between the
employee and a live part. Therefore,
OSHA is proposing rules on the
periodic examination and testing of liveline tools.
Although inspection can detect the
presence of hazardous defects and
contamination, the Agency is concerned
about whether the daily inspections
proposed in paragraph (b)(1) will,
indeed, detect these problems. In fact,
referring to live-line tools that had failed
in use, a Georgia Power Company study
submitted to the rulemaking record on
§ 1910.269 stated: ‘‘Under visual
inspection all the sticks appeared to be
relatively clean with no apparent
surface irregularities [269–Ex. 60].’’
These tools also passed a ‘‘dry’’ voltage
test, but failed a ‘‘wet’’ test. While the
study further noted that the surface
luster on the sticks had been reduced,
apparently the normal visual inspection
alone was not able to detect such defects
as the ones that caused these tools to
fail.
To address these concerns, OSHA is
proposing requirements for the thorough
examination, cleaning, repair, and
testing of live-line tools on a periodic
basis. The tools would undergo this
process on a 2-year cycle and any time
tools are removed from service on the
basis of the daily inspection required by
§ 1926.957(b)(2). The proposed rule
would first require a complete
examination of the hot stick (paragraph
(b)(3)(i)). After the examination, the tool
would have to be cleaned and waxed, or
it would have to be repaired and
refinished if necessary (paragraph
(b)(3)(ii)). According to proposed
§ 1926.957(b)(3)(iii), a test would also be
required: (1) After the tool has been
repaired or refinished, regardless of its
composition; (2) after the examination if
the tool is made of wood or hollow FRP;
31 Neither the proposed rule nor § 1910.269
prohibits use of live-line tools under wet
conditions.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34857
or (3) after the examination if the tool
is solid FRP rod or foam-filled FRP tube,
unless the employer could demonstrate
that the examination has revealed no
defects that could cause the tool to fail
during use. The test method used would
be required to be designed to verify the
tool’s integrity along its full length and,
if made of FRP, its integrity under wet
conditions (paragraph (b)(3)(iv)). The
test voltages would be 75 kV/ft for FRP
and 50 kV/ft for wood, and the voltage
would have to be applied for a
minimum of 1 minute (paragraph
(b)(3)(v)). Other equivalent tests are
permitted. The proposed rule also
includes a note referring to IEEE Std.
516–2003, which contains an excellent
guide to the inspection, care, and testing
of live-line tools.
Section 1926.958, Materials Handling
and Storage
Section 1926.958 proposes
requirements for materials handling and
storage. Paragraph (a) proposes that
Subpart N of Part 1926 continue to
apply.
Paragraph (b) addresses the storage of
materials in the vicinity of energized
lines and exposed parts of energized
equipment. Paragraph (b)(1) proposes
requirements for areas to which access
is not restricted to qualified employees
only. In general, materials are not
allowed to be stored within 3.05 meters
(10 feet) of the lines or exposed parts of
equipment. This clearance distance
must be increased by 0.10 meters (4
inches) for every 10 kilovolts over 50
kilovolts. The distance must also be
increased to account for the maximum
sag and side swing of any conductor and
to account for the use of material
handling equipment. Maintaining these
clearances protects unqualified
employees, who are not trained in the
recognition and avoidance of the
hazards involved, from contacting the
energized lines or equipment with
materials being handled.
However, the work practices these
unqualified workers would employ in
handling material stored near energized
lines are addressed by Subpart K of Part
1926. The general approach taken in the
proposed revision of Subpart V is to
provide safety-related work practices for
qualified employees to follow when
they are performing electric power
transmission and distribution work.
Safe work practices for unqualified
employees are not addressed in
proposed Subpart V because these
practices are already spelled out in
Subpart K of the construction standards
(see in particular § 1926.416 for work
performed near electric power circuits).
In addition, much of the work
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34858
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
performed by unqualified employees
near overhead power lines falls outside
the scope of Subpart V. For example,
employees laying sewer lines or
handling building materials on a
housing project are not performing
electric power transmission or
distribution work, and their work
operations would not be covered by
Subpart V. OSHA believes it is more
appropriate to address work practices
used by unqualified employees working
near overhead power lines in Subpart K,
because that is the standard in which
employers who are not involved in
electric power transmission or
distribution work would look to find
requirements addressing electrical
hazards.
Paragraph (b)(2) proposes to regulate
the storage of materials in areas
restricted to qualified employees. If the
materials are stored where only
qualified workers have access to them,
the materials may be safely stored closer
to the energized parts than 3.05 meters
(10 feet), providing these employees
have sufficient room to perform their
work. To ensure that enough room is
available, paragraph (b)(2) would
prohibit material from being stored in
the working space around energized
lines or equipment. (See the discussion
of § 1926.966(b) for an explanation of
the proposed requirements for access
and working space.)
The working space about electric
equipment is the clear space to be
provided around the equipment to
enable qualified employees to work on
the equipment. An employee enters this
space to service or maintain the electric
equipment. The minimum working
space specifies the minimum distance
an obstruction can be from the
equipment. For example, if a
switchboard is installed in a cabinet
into which an employee will enter, the
inside walls of the cabinet must provide
a minimum working space to enable the
employee to work safely within the
cabinet.
The minimum approach distance to
be maintained from a live part is the
limit of the space about the equipment
that a qualified employee is not
permitted to enter. The minimum
approach distance a qualified employee
must maintain from an energized part
(covered in proposed § 1926.960(c)(1)) is
smaller than the working space that is
required to be provided around the part.
The employee must ‘‘enter’’ the working
space and still maintain the minimum
approach distance. Materials must be
stored outside the working space so that
employees are not tempted to work on
energized equipment in cramped
quarters if access is necessary in an
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
emergency and so that there is sufficient
room to allow an employee to move the
materials without violating the
minimum approach distance.
Section 1926.959, Mechanical
Equipment
Requirements for mechanical
equipment are proposed in § 1926.959.
Paragraph (a) proposes general
requirements for mechanical equipment
used in the construction of electric
power transmission or distribution lines
and equipment. Paragraph (a)(1) serves
as a reminder that Subparts N and O of
the construction standards contain
pertinent requirements for the operation
of mechanical equipment. However, two
requirements for the operation of
mechanical equipment near energized
power lines are contained in those two
subparts—§§ 1926.550(a)(15) and
1926.600(a)(6)—that OSHA has
determined not to apply to qualified
employees. (Under the proposed rule,
these two requirements would continue
to apply to unqualified employees.)
Proposed Subpart V contains
appropriate requirements for the
operation of mechanical equipment by
qualified employees near energized
power lines and equipment. While the
proposed Subpart V provisions would
allow qualified employees to operate
equipment closer to energized lines and
equipment than permitted by the two
generic construction standards, the
proposal also contains the relevant
safeguards for protecting employees.
These safeguards include special
training for qualified employees
(§ 1926.950(b)(2)) and the use of special
safety procedures for such operations
(§ 1926.959(d)). Because of this, OSHA
believes that the proposal will provide
more appropriate protection for electric
power transmission and distribution
workers than §§ 1926.550(a)(15) and
1926.600(a)(6).
Paragraph (a)(2) would require the
critical safety components of
mechanical elevating and rotating
equipment to be inspected before use on
each shift. A thorough visual inspection
would be required. It is not necessary to
disassemble equipment to perform this
visual inspection. The note following
this paragraph describes what parts
OSHA considers to be critical safety
components, that is, any part whose
failure would result in a free fall or free
rotation of the boom. These parts are
critical to safety because their failure
would immediately pose serious
hazards to employees.
Paragraph (a)(3) would prohibit the
operator of an electric line truck from
leaving his or her position at the
controls while a load is suspended,
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
unless the employer can demonstrate
that no employee, including the
operator, might be endangered. This
ensures that the operator will be at the
controls if an emergency arises that
necessitates moving the suspended load.
For example, due to wind or unstable
soil, the equipment might start to tip
over. Having the operator at the controls
ensures that corrective action can be
taken quickly enough to prevent an
accident.
Paragraph (b) proposes requirements
for outriggers. Paragraph (b)(1) would
require vehicular equipment provided
with outriggers to be operated with the
outriggers extended and firmly set as
necessary for the stability of the
equipment in the particular
configuration involved. The stability of
the equipment in various configurations
is normally provided by the
manufacturer, but it can also be derived
through engineering analysis. This
paragraph also prohibits the outriggers
from being extended or retracted outside
the clear view of the operator unless all
employees are outside the range of
possible equipment motion. Where the
work area or terrain precludes the use
of outriggers, paragraph (b)(2) would
permit the operation of the equipment
only within the maximum load ratings
as specified by the manufacturer for the
particular configuration without
outriggers. These two paragraphs are
intended to help ensure the stability of
the equipment while loads are being
handled and to prevent injuries caused
by extending outriggers into employees.
Proposed paragraph (c) would require
mechanical equipment used to lift or
move lines or other material to be
operated within its maximum load
rating and other design limitations. It is
important for mechanical equipment to
be used within its design limitations so
that the lifting equipment does not fail
during use and so that employees are
not otherwise endangered.
Even in electric-utility operations,
contact with live parts through
mechanical equipment causes many
fatalities each year. A sample of typical
accidents involving the operation of
mechanical equipment near overhead
lines is given in Table IV–5. Industry
practice and existing rules in Subpart V
of the construction standards require
aerial lifts and truck-mounted booms to
be kept away from exposed energized
lines and equipment at distances greater
than or approximately equal to those
proposed in Table V–2 (A–C Live-Line
Work Minimum Approach Distance).
However, some contact with the
energized parts does occur during the
hundreds of thousands of operations
carried out near overhead power lines
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
each year. If the equipment operator is
distracted briefly or if the distances
involved or the speed of the equipment
towards the line is misjudged, contact
with the lines is the expected result,
rather than simple coincidence,
especially when the minimum approach
distances are relatively small. Because
these types of contacts cannot be totally
avoided, OSHA believes that additional
34859
requirements are necessary for operating
mechanical devices near exposed
energized lines. Paragraph (d) of
proposed § 1926.959 addresses this
problem.
TABLE IV–5.—ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE OPERATION OF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT NEAR OVERHEAD LINES
Number of fatalities
Type of equipment
Grounded
Type of Accident
Total
Yes
No
?
Boom Truck/Derrick Truck ..
9
2
....................
7
Aerial lift ..............................
8
....................
1
7
Vehicle ................................
2
....................
1
1
Total .............................
19
2
2
Boom contact with energized line.
Pole contact with energized line.
Boom contact with energized line.
Lower boom contact with energized line.
Employee working on deenergized line when upper
boom contaced energized line.
Winch on lift used on energized line arced to nearby
ground.
Line fell on vehicle.
Unknown type of vehicle and type of accident.
15
Source: OSHA accident investigation data (269–Ex. 9–2 and 9–2A).
Proposed paragraph (d)(1) would
require the minimum approach
distances in Table V–2 through Table
V–6 to be maintained between the
mechanical equipment and the live
parts while equipment was being
operated near exposed energized lines
or equipment. This provision would
ensure that sufficient clearance is
provided between the mechanical
equipment and the energized part to
prevent an electric arc from occurring
and energizing the equipment. The
requirement to maintain a minimum
approach distance also lessens the
chance that the mechanical equipment
will strike the lines and knock them to
the ground.
Aerial lifts are designed to enable an
employee to position himself or herself
at elevated locations with a high degree
of accuracy. The aerial lift operator is in
the bucket next to the energized lines
and can easily judge the approach
distance. This minimizes the chance
that the equipment will contact an
energized line and that the energized
line will be struck down should contact
actually occur. Furthermore, the
employee operating the lift in the bucket
would be protected from the hazards of
contacting the live parts under the
provisions of § 1926.960. As the aerial
lift is insulated, employees on the
ground are protected from electric shock
in the case of contact with the lines.
Lastly, proposed § 1926.959(c) and other
provisions would protect against the
possibility that the aerial lift would
strike down the power line. Therefore,
proposed paragraph (d)(1) would
provide an exception to the requirement
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
to maintain specific minimum approach
distances for the insulated portion of an
aerial lift operated by a qualified
employee in the lift. It should be noted
that the employee must still maintain
the minimum approach distances
required in proposed § 1926.960(c)(1).
Paragraph (c)(1) of proposed § 1926.960
would still require the employee to
maintain the required distance from
conductive objects at potentials
different from that on which he or she
is working, and proposed
§ 1926.959(d)(1) would require the
conductive portions of the boom to
maintain the same distance from such
objects. It should also be noted that the
insulating portion of the boom can be
bridged by improper positioning of the
boom or by conductive objects
suspended from the aerial lift platform.
For example, the insulating portion of
the boom will be bridged if it is resting
against a grounded object, such as a
utility pole or if the employee in an
aerial bucket is holding onto a
grounding jumper. For the purposes of
proposed § 1926.959(d)(1), OSHA would
not consider the aerial lift to be
insulated when the insulation is
bridged.
Determining the distance between
objects that are themselves relatively far
away from a mechanical equipment
operator standing on the ground can
sometimes be difficult. For example,
different perspectives can lead to
different estimates of the distance, and
lack of a suitable reference can result in
errors. In addition, an operator may not
be in the best position to observe the
clearance between an energized part and
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the mechanical equipment. For
example, an obstruction may block his
or her view of the clearance. An extra
person would be required, by paragraph
(d)(2), to observe the operation and give
warnings when the specified minimum
approach distance is approached unless
the employer could demonstrate that the
minimum approach distance could be
accurately determined by the operator.
An aerial lift operator would not
normally need to judge the distance
between objects that are relatively far
away. In most cases, an aerial lift
operator is maintaining the minimum
approach distance from energized parts
relatively close to the employee, and it
would be easy for the employee to stay
far enough away. However, even an
aerial lift operator may have difficulty
maintaining the minimum approach
distances in certain circumstances.
Sometimes, congested configurations of
overhead power lines may necessitate
maintaining clearance from more than
one conductor at a time. Other times, an
aerial lift operator may need to judge the
distance between the lower uninsulated
portion of the boom and a conductor
well below the employee. In situations
like these, where the minimum
approach distance may be difficult for
an aerial lift operator to maintain, an
observer would be required.
Proposed paragraph (d)(3) would
require one of three alternative
protective measures to be taken if the
equipment could become energized. The
first option (paragraph (d)(3)(i)) is for
the energized lines exposed to contact to
be covered with insulating protective
material that will withstand the type of
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34860
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
contact that might be made during the
operation. The second option
(paragraph (d)(3)(ii)) is for the
equipment to be insulated for the
voltage involved. Under this option, the
mechanical equipment would have to be
positioned so that uninsulated portions
of the equipment could not come within
the specified minimum approach
distance of the line. The third option
(paragraph (d)(3)(iii)) is for each
employee to be protected from the
hazards that might arise from equipment
contact with the energized lines. The
measures used would have to ensure
that employees would not be exposed to
hazardous differences in potential. (The
following paragraphs describe the types
of measures that must be taken. The
employer must take all of these
measures unless he or she can
demonstrate that the methods in use
protect each employee from the hazards
that might arise if the equipment
contacts the energized line.) The
proposal is intended to protect
employees from electric shock in case
contact is made.
On the basis of the § 1910.269
rulemaking record, OSHA concluded
that vehicle grounding alone could not
always be depended upon to provide
sufficient protection against the hazards
of mechanical equipment contact with
energized power lines (January 31, 1994,
59 FR 4403). On the other hand, the
Agency recognized the usefulness of
grounding as a protective measure
against electric shock, when used with
all of the following techniques:
(1) Using the best available ground to
minimize the time the lines remain
energized,
(2) Bonding equipment together to
minimize potential differences,
(3) Providing ground mats to extend
areas of equipotential, and
(4) Using insulating protective
equipment or barricades to guard
against any remaining hazardous
potential differences.
The proposed rule recognizes all these
techniques, which (1) minimize
differences in potential, (2) minimize
the time employees would be exposed
to hazardous potentials, and (3) protect
against any remaining hazardous
potentials. Paragraph (d)(3)(iii) of
proposed § 1926.959 contains the
performance-oriented requirement that
would assure that employees are
protected from the hazards that could
arise if the equipment contacts the
energized parts. The protective
measures used would be required to
ensure that employees are not exposed
to hazardous differences in potential.
Information in Appendix C to proposed
Subpart V provides guidelines for
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
employers and employees that explain
the various measures and how they can
be used. A note referencing this
appendix has been included in the
proposal.
Section 1926.960, Working on or Near
Exposed Energized Parts
Proposed § 1926.960 covers the
hazards of working on or near exposed
parts of energized lines or equipment as
noted in paragraph (a). The provisions
of this section have been taken from
§ 1910.269(l).
Paragraph (b) proposes general
requirements for working on or near live
parts. Paragraph (b)(1) would require
employees working on or with exposed
live parts (at any voltage) of electric
lines or equipment and employees
working in areas containing unguarded,
uninsulated live parts operating at more
than 50 volts to be qualified. Without
proper training in the construction and
operation of the lines and equipment
and in the electrical hazards involved,
workers would likely be electrocuted
attempting to perform this type of work
and would also expose others to injury,
as well. In areas containing unguarded
live parts energized at more than 50
volts, untrained employees would not
be familiar with the practices that are
necessary to recognize and avoid
contact with these parts.
The definition of ‘‘qualified
employee’’ contains a note to indicate
that employees who are undergoing onthe-job training are considered to be
qualified if they have demonstrated an
ability to perform duties safely and if
they are under the immediate
supervision of qualified employees. (See
the definition of this term in proposed
§ 1926.968 and the discussion of this
definition under the summary and
explanation of § 1926.968.) Therefore,
employees in training, under the direct
supervision of a qualified employee,
would be permitted to perform work on
live parts and in areas containing
unguarded live parts. OSHA believes
that the close supervision of trainees
will reveal errors ‘‘in the act,’’ before
they cause accidents. Allowing these
workers the experience of performing
tasks under actual conditions may also
better prepare the employees to work
safely.
Paragraph (b)(2) would require lines
and equipment to be considered as
energized unless they have been
deenergized under the provisions of
§ 1926.961. Existing § 1926.950(b)(2)
requires electric lines and equipment to
be considered as energized until
determined to be deenergized by tests or
other appropriate means. The existing
standard does not spell out what those
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
appropriate means are. Additionally,
even if the line or equipment has been
tested and found to be deenergized, it
may become reenergized through
contact with another source of electric
energy or by someone reenergizing it at
its points of control. Proposed section
1926.961 contains requirements for
deenergizing electric power
transmission and distribution lines and
equipment. Unless the procedures
contained in that section have been
followed, lines and equipment cannot
reliably be considered as deenergized.
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) has been
taken from the last sentence of the
introductory text of § 1910.269(l)(1).
Two-person rule. If an employee
working on or near energized electric
power transmission or distribution lines
or equipment is injured by an electric
shock, a second employee will be
needed to provide emergency care to the
injured employee. As noted under the
summary and explanation of
§ 1926.951(b)(1) discussed earlier in this
preamble, CPR must begin within 4
minutes after an employee loses
consciousness as a result of an electric
shock. OSHA is proposing to require the
presence of a second employee during
certain types of work on or near electric
power transmission or distribution lines
or equipment to ensure that CPR begins
as soon as possible and to help ensure
that it starts within the 4-minute
window. (Note that § 1926.951(b)(1)
would require at least two people
trained in emergency first aid
procedures, including CPR, for field
work involving two or more employees
at a work location. Also, note that, in
the discussion of that proposed
paragraph, OSHA is requesting
comments on whether to require AEDs
along with training in CPR.)
Paragraph (b)(3)(i) of proposed
§ 1926.960 would require (unless
exempted by paragraph (b)(3)(ii)) the
presence of at least two employees
during the following types of work
involving exposed energized parts:
(1) Installation, removal, or repair of
lines that are energized at more than 600
volts,
(2) Installation, removal, or repair of
deenergized lines if an employee is
exposed to contact with other parts
energized at more than 600 volts,
(3) Installation, removal, or repair of
equipment, such as transformers,
capacitors, and regulators, if an
employee is exposed to contact with
parts energized at more than 600 volts,
(4) Work involving the use of
mechanical equipment, other than
insulated aerial lifts, near parts
energized at more than 600 volts, and
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34861
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
(5) Other work that exposes an
employee to electrical hazards greater
than or equal to those posed by these
operations.
This rule is based on
§ 1910.269(l)(1)(i). The first four work
operations are those that expose
employees to the greatest risk of electric
shock as demonstrated by the
§ 1910.269 rulemaking record. OSHA
has included the fifth category to cover
types of work that, while not
specifically identified in that record,
pose equal or greater hazards. The
operations covered under
§ 1910.269(l)(1)(i) are performed during
construction as well as during
maintenance. In fact, the construction
operations are similar in nature to those
performed during maintenance work,
and the Agency believes that the
hazards are the same. For example,
using mechanical equipment near a
7200-volt overhead power line during
the construction of a new line poses
hazards that are equivalent to those
posed during the use of mechanical
equipment to replace a damaged pole on
an existing line of the same voltage.
Similarly, the installation of a new
transformer near a 14.4-kilovolt line
poses the same hazards as the
replacement of a transformer near a
14.4-kilovolt line. Thus, OSHA is
proposing to extend the general industry
requirement to construction.
However, some work can be
performed safely by a single employee
or must be performed as quickly as
possible for reasons of public safety.
The proposal, in § 1926.960(b)(3)(ii),
recognizes this type of work by granting
exceptions to the two-person rule for the
following operations:
(1) Routine switching of circuits, if
the employer can demonstrate that
conditions at the site allow this work to
be performed safely,
(2) Work performed with live-line
tools if the employee is positioned so
that he or she is not within reach of or
exposed to contact with energized parts,
and
(3) Emergency repairs to the
minimum extent necessary to safeguard
the general public.
These exceptions are based on
§ 1910.269(l)(1)(ii). OSHA intends for
these exceptions to be applied narrowly
in view of the accidents that have
occurred even under these limited
conditions (269–Ex. 9–2). For example,
accidents involving hot stick work have
typically occurred only when the
employee was using a live-line tool but
was close enough to energized parts to
be injured—sometimes through direct
contact, other times by contact through
conductors being handled. Employees
have been injured during switching
operations when unusual conditions,
such as poor lighting, bad weather, and
hazardous configuration or state of
repair of the switching equipment, were
present. Paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(A)
addresses this scenario by requiring the
employer to demonstrate that the
operation can be performed in a manner
to mitigate the hazards so that the work
could be performed safely. For example,
the employer could provide supplemental lighting for work performed
where lighting was inadequate.
The requirement for at least two
employees to be present during certain
operations does not apply generally if
the voltage of the energized parts
involved is 600 volts or less. The
§ 1910.269 rulemaking record contained
conflicting data regarding the safety of
performing work at these voltages. Some
witnesses and commenters said that it
was safe to perform such work, but the
data in the rulemaking record suggested
that may not be true (269-Ex. 9–2). More
recent accident data indicate little
change. Table IV–6 shows the number of
electrocutions for various voltage ranges
for the years 1991 through 1998. In the
years 1991 to 1994, an average of 3.0
fatalities occurred per year involving
voltages of 600 volts or less. For the
years 1995 to 1998, when § 1910.269
was fully in effect, the average dropped
slightly to 2.5. Consequently, OSHA is
requesting comments regarding the
safety of employees working on lines
and equipment operating at 600 volts or
less. What types of work can be
performed safely by an employee
working alone? What additional
precautions are necessary for an
employee working on lines or
equipment operating at 600 volts or less
to make the work safe without the
presence of a second employee?
TABLE IV–6.—FATALITIES BY VOLTAGE AND YEAR
Less than
600 V
Year
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
600 V to 20
kV
20 to 80 kV
24
24
23
21
22
16
16
13
2
2
3
2
4
0
3
0
3
5
3
1
2
4
1
3
100kV and
higher
1
0
1
2
5
2
1
1
Source: OSHA database of electric power generation, transmission, and distribution accidents. These data include only cases involving electrocution in which the voltage was indicated in the accident abstract.
Minimum approach distances.
Paragraph (c)(1) of proposed § 1926.960
would require employees to maintain
minimum approach distances from
exposed energized parts. The minimum
approach distances are specified in
Table V–2 through Table V–6. This
provision has been taken from
§ 1910.269(l)(2).
Electric power systems operate at a
given nominal voltage. However, the
actual voltage on a power line varies
above and below that nominal voltage.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
For very brief periods, the instantaneous
voltage on a line can be 3 or more times
its nominal value.
The safe minimum approach distance
is intended to assure that an electric arc
will not form, even under the most
severe transient overvoltages that can
occur on a system and even if the
employee makes foreseeable errors in
maintaining the minimum approach
distance. To determine what this
distance is for a given voltage, OSHA
must first determine the size of the air
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
gap that must be present so that an arc
does not occur during the most severe
overvoltage on a system. This gap is the
electrical component of the minimum
approach distance. To determine the
minimum safe approach distance,
OSHA must then add an extra distance
to account for ergonomic
considerations, or human error.
The electrical component depends on
five factors:
(1) The maximum voltage,
(2) The wave shape of this voltage,
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34862
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
(3) The configuration of the
‘‘electrodes’’ forming the end points of
the gap,
(4) The insulating medium in the gap,
and
(5) The atmospheric conditions
present.
The NESC subcommittee having
responsibility for the ANSI C–2
minimum approach distance tables
adopted a change in minimum approach
distances for the 1993 edition of the
National Electrical Safety Code. The
NESC subcommittee developed the
minimum approach distance tables
using the following principles:
• ANSI/IEEE Standard 516 32 was to
be the electrical basis of the NESC Rules
for approach distances: Table 4
(Alternating Current) and Table 5
(Direct Current) for voltages above 72.5
KV. Lower voltages were to be based on
ANSI/IEEE Standard 4. The application
of ANSI/IEEE Standard 516 was
inclusive of the formula used by that
standard to derive electrical clearance
distances.
• Altitude correction factors were to
be in accordance with ANSI/IEEE
Standard 516, Table 1.
• The maximum design transient
overvoltage data to be used in the
development of the basic approach
distance tables were:
• 3.0 per unit for voltages of 362
KV and less
• 2.4 per unit for 500 to 550 KV
• 2.0 per unit for 765 to 800 KV
• All phase-to-phase values were to
be calculated from the EPRI
Transmission Line Reference Book for
115 to 138 KV.
• An inadvertent movement factor
(ergonomic component) intended to
account for errors in judging the
approach distance was to be added to all
basic electrical approach distances
(electrical component) for all voltage
ranges. A distance of 0.31 meters (1 foot)
was to be added to all voltage ranges.
An additional 0.3 meters (1 foot) was to
be added to voltage ranges below 72.6
KV.
• The voltage reduction allowance for
controlled maximum transient
overvoltage was to be such that the
minimum allowable approach distance
was not less than the given approach
distance specified for the highest
voltage of the given range.
• The transient overvoltage tables
were to be applied only at voltage
32 ANSI/IEEE Std. 516–1987 (the edition in effect
when the NESC subcommittee revised the
minimum approach distances) listed values for the
electrical component of the minimum approach
distance, both for air alone as an insulating medium
and for live-line tool sticks in air, that were
accepted as being accurate when the standard was
adopted (by IEEE) in 1987.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
ranges inclusive of 72.6 KV to 800 KV.
All tables were to be established using
the higher voltage of each separate
voltage range.
Relevant data related to the
determination of the ergonomic
component of the minimum approach
distance include a typical arm’s reach of
about 610 millimeters (2 feet) and a
reaction time to a stimulus of 0.2 to
more than 1.0 second (269–Ex. 8–19).
To prevent an employee from breaching
the air gap required for the electrical
component, the ergonomic distance
must be sufficient for the employee to
be able to recognize a hazardous
approach to an energized line and
withdraw to a safe position. Thus, the
distance should equal the response time
multiplied by the average speed of an
employee’s movement plus ‘‘braking’’
distance. (This is comparable to the
calculation of total braking distance for
a motor vehicle. This distance equals
the initial speed of the vehicle times the
driver’s reaction time plus the braking
distance for the vehicle itself after the
brakes have been applied.) The
maximum reach (or range of movement)
may place an upper bound on the
ergonomic component, however.
For system voltages up to 72.5 kV,
phase-to-phase, much of the work is
performed using rubber gloves, and the
employee is working within arm’s reach
of energized parts. The ergonomic
component of the minimum approach
distance must account for this since the
employee may not have time to react
and position himself or herself out of
danger. A distance of 610 millimeters (2
feet) for the ergonomic component
appears to meet this criterion and was,
in fact, adopted by the NESC
subcommittee. OSHA also accepts this
value. Therefore, for voltages of 751 V
to 72.5 kV, the minimum approach
distances proposed in § 1926.960 adopt
the electrical component of minimum
approach distance plus an ergonomic
component of 0.61 meters (2 feet).
For operations involving lines
energized at voltages over 72.5 kV, the
applicable work practices change.
Generally, live-line tools are employed
to perform the work while equipment is
energized. These tools hold the
energized part at a fixed distance from
the employee, ensuring that the
minimum approach distance is
maintained during the work operation.
Even when hot sticks are not used, as
during live-line bare-hand work,
employees use work methods that more
tightly control their movements than
when they perform rubber glove work,
and it is usually easier to plan ahead of
time how to keep employees from
violating the minimum approach
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
distance. For example, employees
planning a job to replace spacers on a
500-kV overhead power line can use an
envelope (or bounds) of anticipated
movement for the job and ensure that
the work procedure they use keeps this
envelope entirely outside the minimum
approach distance. All the employees’
movements during the job would be
kept within the envelope. Additionally,
exposure to conductors at a potential
different from the one on which work is
being performed is limited or
nonexistent. This is because the
distance between conductors is much
greater than the distance between
conductors at lower voltages and
because higher voltage systems do not
present the types of congestion that are
commonly found on lower voltage
systems. Therefore, a smaller ergonomic
component is appropriate for the higher
voltages. The NESC subcommittee
accepted a value of 0.31 meters (1 foot)
for this component. OSHA has adopted
this distance as well. Therefore, for
voltages over 72.5 kV, the minimum
approach distances proposed in
§ 1926.960 adopt the electrical
component of the minimum approach
distance plus an ergonomic component
of 0.31 meters (1 foot).
The ergonomic component of the
minimum approach distance is only
considered a safety factor that protects
employees in case of errors in judging
and maintaining the full minimum
approach distance, so that the employee
does not breach the electrical
component of the minimum approach
distance. The actual working position
selected must account for the full range
of movements that could normally be
anticipated 33 while an employee is
working. Otherwise, the employee
would violate the minimum approach
distance while he or she is working.
The design of electric power circuits
over 72.5 kV sometimes does not
provide sufficient clearance between
energized parts at different potential or
between energized parts and grounded
surfaces to permit employees to
maintain the base minimum approach
distances given in proposed Table V–2.
The Agency has adopted the approach
of the NESC subcommittee in the
proposal to permit work on such
systems so long as additional measures
are taken to reduce the required
minimum approach distance. Proposed
33 Anticipated movements include those
necessary to perform the work as well as
‘‘unexpected’’ movements that an employee could
reasonably be anticipated to perform, such as
adjusting his or her hard hat, clothing, or
equipment. See Appendix B to Subpart V for a
discussion of the selection of working position with
respect to minimum approach distances.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Table V–3, Table V–4, and Table V–5
recognize the use of gaps and other
means of decreasing the surge factor on
energized lines as acceptable methods of
reducing the required minimum
approach distance.34 These tables list
minimum approach distances for
various surge factors and phase-to-phase
voltages.
The proposal thus provides smaller
minimum approach distances for
systems with surge factors that are
limited by means such as system design,
switching controls, and temporary
protective gaps. Frequently, built-in or
temporary limits on the surge factor on
a system can result in a minimum
approach distance that is small enough
to permit work to be performed without
additional protective measures. Because
the line worker cannot determine surge
factors at the jobsite, surge factor
reduction is permitted only when the
employer can demonstrate, through
engineering analysis, that the possible
surges on the line will be held to values
no more than permitted under Table V–
3, Table V–4, and Table V–5. Methods
of controlling and determining the surge
factor for a system are given in
Appendix B to proposed Subpart V.
OSHA accepted the principles
adopted by the NESC subcommittee in
forming the minimum approach
distance tables in final § 1910.269.
OSHA reviewed the technical
information supporting the
subcommittee’s action and found that
the data justify the NESC criteria. After
the adoption of final § 1910.269, the
NESC Committee issued a tentative
interim amendment correcting some
errors in calculating the minimum
approach distances published in ANSI
C2–1993. The same minimum approach
distances are contained in the latest
edition of that standard, ANSI C2–2002.
In Table V–2 through Table V–6, OSHA
is proposing to adopt the NESC
minimum approach distances, as
corrected.35 The Agency believes that
this will protect employees from all
likely exposure conditions.
Proposed Table V–5 contains
minimum approach distances for d-c
voltages between 250 and 750 kilovolts,
nominal. These distances have been
taken directly from Table R–9 of
§ 1910.269. Since systems of d-c
voltages other than those listed are rare,
no distances were presented for them in
the table.
34 The decreased surge factor reduces the
maximum transient voltage on the line and thus
reduces the electrical component of the minimum
approach distance.
35 OSHA is also proposing to make similar
changes to § 1910.269.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
As noted earlier, proposed Table V–3
through Table V–5 permit reduced
minimum approach distances for
systems having known maximum
transient overvoltages. These tables are
based on Table R–7 through Table R–9
of § 1910.269.
The minimum approach distances
proposed in Subpart V for voltages over
750 volts are intended to provide a
sufficient gap between the worker and
the line so that current could not arc to
the employee under the most adverse
transient voltage that could be imposed
on the line, plus an extra amount for
inadvertent movement on the part of the
employee. The electrical component of
these distances is based on scientific
and engineering test data, and the
ergonomic component is based on the
conditions likely to be present for the
different types of work to be performed
on electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution circuits.
By contrast, the minimum approach
distances in existing Subpart V were
based on standard industry practice in
effect in 1972, when that standard was
promulgated. OSHA believes that the
proposed minimum approach distances,
which are based on sound engineering
principles, will provide significantly
better protection for employees than the
existing standard.
Table R–6 in existing § 1910.269
specifies ‘‘avoid contact’’ as the
minimum approach distance for
voltages between 50 and 1,000 volts. To
make the proposal consistent with ANSI
C2, OSHA is proposing to adopt
minimum approach distances of 0.31
meters (1 foot) for voltages between 301
volts and 750 volts and 0.65 meters (2
feet, 2 inches) for voltages between 751
volts and 15 kilovolts. This increase in
the minimum approach distance at the
lower voltages should help prevent
employees from contacting circuit parts
energized at these still dangerous
levels.36
The proposal allows employees to
come closer than the minimum
approach distance to energized parts
under certain conditions, as listed in
proposed § 1926.960(c)(1)(i) through
(c)(1)(iii). Existing § 1926.950(c)(1)(i),
from which proposed § 1926.960(c)(1)(i)
has been taken, permits the employee to
be insulated, guarded, or isolated from
the live parts. The language specifically
recognizing guarding and isolation has
been omitted from the proposal.
However, it should be noted that the
introductory language in final
§ 1926.960(c)(1) requires minimum
approach distances to be maintained
36 OSHA is also proposing to make similar
changes to § 1910.269.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34863
from ‘‘exposed’’ energized parts.
Guarded live parts, whether they are
guarded by enclosures or barriers or are
guarded by position (isolated), are not
addressed by this requirement as they
would not be considered ‘‘exposed.’’
Including language exempting live parts
that are ‘‘guarded’’ or ‘‘isolated’’ would
be redundant and could lead to
misinterpretation of the rule.
Additionally, similar redundancies in
paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) and (iii) of
§ 1926.950 have not been carried
forward into paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) and
(c)(1)(iii) of proposed § 1926.960. To
clarify the rule, however, a note has
been included following paragraph
(c)(1)(iii) to indicate that parts of electric
circuits meeting paragraph (f)(1) of
§ 1926.966 are not considered as
‘‘exposed’’ unless a guard is removed or
an employee enters the space intended
to provide isolation from the live parts.
Proposed § 1926.960(c)(1)(i) contains
the first exception to maintaining the
minimum approach distances—
insulating the employee from the
energized part. This insulation, for
example, can take the form of rubber
insulating gloves and rubber insulating
sleeves. This equipment protects the
employee from electric shock as he or
she works on the line or equipment.
Even though uninsulated parts of the
employee’s body may come closer to the
live part being worked on than would
otherwise be permitted by Table V–2
through Table V–6, the employee’s hand
and arm would be insulated from the
live part, and the working distances
involved would be sufficient protection
against arc-over. As noted earlier, the
minimum approach distance tables
include a component for inadvertent
movement, which is unnecessary for
employees using rubber insulating
equipment. In the worst case situation,
an employee would be working on a
line requiring a 0.84-meter (2-foot, 9inch) minimum approach distance. The
electrical component of this minimum
approach distance is 0.23 meters (9
inches).37 The distance from the hand to
the elbow is about 0.3 meters (1 foot),
and it would be nearly impossible to
work closer than this distance to a line
being held in the hand. Therefore, the
employee would be about 0.3 meters (1
foot) away from the conductor at a
minimum, and, thus, in the worst case
would still be more than the electrical
37 The minimum approach distance for 36.1 to
46.0 kV, the highest voltage range that can be
worked using rubber insulating gloves, is 0.84
meters (2 feet, 9 inches). The electrical component
of the minimum approach distance is the minimum
approach distance minus the ergonomic
component, 0.65 meters (2 feet), which equals 0.23
meters (9 inches).
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34864
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
component of the minimum approach
distance from the conductor. This
would protect the employee from
sparkover. In any event, the accident
data in the record show that the
overriding hazard to employees is posed
by other energized conductors in the
work area, to which the minimum
approach distances still apply. The
rubber gloves, of course, provide
protection only for the line on which
work is being performed.
It is important to ensure that
conductors on which the employee is
working cannot move unexpectedly
while the employee is protected against
contact only by rubber insulating gloves
and sleeves. It would be considered a
violation of the minimum approach
distance requirement proposed in
§ 1926.960(c)(1) for an employee to be
insulated from an energized part only by
rubber insulating gloves and sleeves if
the part is not under the full control of
the employee at all times. OSHA is
making this explicit in the parenthetical
text in proposed § 1926.960(c)(1)(i) (and
also in proposed § 1910.269(l)(2)(i)). For
example, if an employee were cutting a
conductor, that conductor would either
need to be restrained from moving
toward the employee after being cut or
additional insulation would have to be
used to protect the conductor from
striking uninsulated parts of the
employee’s body.
The insulation used would have to be
designed for the voltage. (Proposed new
§ 1926.97 gives use voltages for
electrical protective equipment.) As a
clarification, paragraph (c)(1)(i) notes
that the insulation is considered as
protection only against parts upon
which work is being performed; the
required minimum approach distances
would have to be maintained from other
exposed energized parts.
As a second exception to maintaining
the minimum approach distances,
paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of proposed
§ 1926.960 allows the energized part to
be insulated from the employee. Such
insulation could be in the form of
insulating blankets or line hose or other
suitable insulating equipment. Again,
the insulation would have to be
adequate for the voltage.
Paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(1)(ii)
recognize the protection afforded to the
employee by an insulating barrier
between the employee and the
energized part. As long as the insulation
is appropriate and is in good condition,
current will not flow through the
worker, and he or she is protected.
The third exception (paragraph
(c)(1)(iii)) to the maintenance of the
minimum approach distances is to
insulate the employee from exposed
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
conductive objects other than the live
part upon which work is to be
performed. Much of the work performed
under this option is called ‘‘live-line
bare-hand’’ work. (For specific practices
for this type of work, see the discussion
of proposed § 1926.964(c).) In this type
of work, the employee is in contact with
the energized line, like a bird on a wire,
but is not contacting another conductive
object at a different potential. Because
there is no complete circuit, current
cannot flow through the worker, and he
or she is protected.
Paragraph (c)(1) requires employees to
maintain minimum approach distances
from ‘‘exposed’’ energized parts, except
as noted above. A note following
paragraph (c)(1)(iii) clarifies that parts of
electric circuits meeting paragraph (f)(1)
of § 1926.966 are not considered as
‘‘exposed’’ unless a guard is removed or
an employee enters the space intended
to provide isolation from the live parts.
Several accidents occurred when
employees working from aerial lifts,
either insulated or uninsulated, grabbed
an energized conductor. OSHA is
concerned that some employers may
believe that this practice is safe without
following the procedures outlined in
proposed § 1926.964(c) on live-line
bare-hand work. OSHA requests
comments on whether or not the
proposed rule will adequately protect
employees from this type of accident
and on what additional requirements, if
any, are needed to prevent this type of
accident.
According to testimony in the
§ 1910.269 rulemaking, between five
and six percent of accidents
experienced by power line workers were
caused when the upper arm of an
employee wearing rubber insulating
gloves without sleeves contacted an
energized part (269-DC Tr. 558–561).38
This is a significant portion of the total
number of serious accidents occurring
among electric line workers. The
Agency believes that these injuries and
fatalities are clearly preventable.
The use of rubber insulating sleeves
would certainly have prevented most of
these accidents. However, as
demonstrated by the safety record of
some electric utility companies, the
38 OSHA believes that most, if not all, of these
accidents involved contact with conductors and
equipment other than the one on which the
employee had been working. It would be very
unlikely that an employee would touch his upper
arm or shoulder against the part on which he or she
was working with his or her hands. On the other
hand, it would be more likely that the employee
touched his or her upper arm or shoulder against
a different live part than the one on which he or
she is working. The employee’s attention would be
on the live part on which work is being performed
but might not be on other nearby live parts.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
extensive use of insulating equipment to
cover energized parts in the employee’s
work area would also appear to prevent
employees’ upper arms and shoulders
from contacting live parts (269-Ex. 46).
In fact, if every energized part within
reach of an employee was insulated,
electrical contacts involving other parts
of the body, such as an employee’s head
or back, would be averted as well. The
NESC subcommittee on work rules also
recognized this method as providing
protection to employees.
Existing Subpart V does not require
any protection for employees working
on or near exposed live parts beyond the
use of rubber insulating gloves. To
prevent the types of accidents described
above from occurring in the future, the
Agency has decided to require
protection in addition to that required
by existing Subpart V.
The proposal includes a provision,
§ 1926.960(c)(2)(i), that would require
the use of rubber insulating sleeves (in
addition to rubber insulating gloves),
unless live parts that could contact an
employee’s upper arm or shoulder are
insulated. Employees would be able to
work without sleeves by installing
rubber line hose, rubber blankets, and
plastic guard equipment on energized
equipment. However, an employee
installing such protective equipment on
energized lines would have to wear
rubber sleeves unless his or her upper
arms and shoulders are not exposed to
contact with other live parts during this
operation.
OSHA believes that paragraph (c)(2)(i)
incorporates the most effective approach
to preventing accidents involving work
on or near exposed live parts.
Several accidents have occurred while
employees were performing work
(generally on deenergized lines) near
energized parts without using rubber
insulating equipment. Because the
employees were concentrating on their
work, which did not involve the
energized parts, the employees did not
pay attention to the distance between
them and the energized parts and
violated the minimum approach
distance. When OSHA cited the
employers for violations of existing
§ 1926.950(c), the employers
successfully argued that the standard
permits employees to work near
energized parts without the use of
electrical protective equipment, as long
as they maintain the minimum
approach distance involved. They
further argued that, because they require
their employees to maintain these
distances and because their employees
have been trained, the accidents were a
result of unpreventable employee
misconduct. (See, for example, Central
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Kansas Power Co., Inc., 6 OSHC (BNA)
2118, 1978 WL 6886 (No. 77–3127,
1978).)
OSHA does not believe that working
very close to, but not on, energized parts
without the use of electrical protective
equipment is a safe practice. The
Agency further believes that § 1910.269,
which also allows this practice, is not
effective in preventing these accidents
and has concluded that further
regulation is warranted. Toward this
end, OSHA has gone beyond § 1910.269
by proposing two additional
requirements:39
(1) If work is performed near exposed
parts energized at more than 600 volts
but not more than 72.5 kilovolts and if
the employee is not insulated from the
energized parts or performing live-line
bare-hand work, the employee would
have to work from a position where the
employee would not be able to reach
into the minimum approach distance
(proposed § 1926.960(d)(2)), and
(2) If the employee is to be insulated
from energized parts by the use of
insulating gloves or insulating gloves
with sleeves, the insulating gloves and
sleeves would have to be put on and
removed in a position where the
employee would not be able to reach
into the minimum approach distance
(proposed § 1926.960(c)(2)(ii)).
These two provisions taken together
will ensure that an employee working
near energized parts will not be able to
reach within the minimum approach
distance unless using rubber insulating
equipment. Thus, any time an employee
is within reach of the minimum
approach distance, he or she would
need to be wearing rubber insulating
gloves or the energized parts would
need to be insulated from the employee,
and any employee who is not protected
by insulating equipment would need to
stay far enough away from energized
parts that he or she could not reach
within the minimum approach distance.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii) would
ensure that employees don rubber
insulating gloves and sleeves from a safe
position. OSHA is aware that some
employers have a ground-to-ground rule
requiring their employees to wear
rubber insulating gloves before leaving
the ground to work on energized lines
or equipment and to leave the gloves
and sleeves on until the employees
return to the ground. This practice
ensures that employees are indeed
wearing the rubber gloves and sleeves
before they reach the energized area and
eliminates the chance that an employee
will forget to don the protective
39 OSHA is also proposing to make similar
changes to § 1910.269.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
equipment once he or she reaches the
work position. Other employers simply
require their employees to put their
gloves and sleeves on before they enter
the energized area. This practice
normally requires the employee to use
his or her judgment in determining
where to begin wearing the protective
equipment. The proposal recognizes
both methods of protecting employees,
but ensures that the rubber gloves and
sleeves are being worn once the
employee reaches a position from which
he or she can reach into the minimum
approach distance. The Agency requests
comments on the need for this
requirement and on whether or not the
provision as proposed will protect
employees from the hazards involved.
Proposed paragraph (d)(2) would
ensure that an employee who is not
insulated from parts energized between
600 volts and 72.5 kilovolts is working
at a safe distance from the parts. This
provision does not apply to voltages of
600 volts and less to permit work on
equipment without requiring the
employee to cover energized parts
unnecessarily. Much of the work
performed at these lower voltages
involves the use of insulating hand tools
in a panelboard or cabinet. The chance
of contacting a live part with the
shoulder is extremely low because of
the layout of live parts within the
enclosure. The electrical clearances
between energized parts for voltages in
this range are small enough that all
energized circuit parts will normally be
in front of the employee, enabling the
worker to maintain the required
minimum approach distance easily. The
proposed paragraph does not apply
when the voltage exceeds 72.5 kilovolts,
because the minimum approach
distances generally become greater
beyond this voltage and because rubber
insulating equipment cannot be used for
these higher voltages.40 OSHA requests
comments on the need for this
requirement and on whether there are
other effective means of protecting
employees from the hazard involved.
Paragraph (d)(1) of proposed
§ 1926.960 would require employees to
position themselves, to the extent that
other safety-related conditions at the
worksite permit, so that a shock or slip
would not cause the worker’s body to
move towards exposed parts at a
potential different from that of the
employee. Since slips, and even electric
shocks, are not entirely preventable, it is
40 The maximum use voltage for Class 4 rubber
insulating equipment is 36 kilovolts. The highest
voltage on which this equipment can be used is 62
kilovolts if there is no multiphase exposure. This
voltage falls in the Table V–1 range of 46.1 to 72.5
kV.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34865
important for the employee to take a
working position so that such an event
will not increase the severity of any
incurred injury. This proposed
requirement was taken from
§ 1910.269(l)(3). There is no counterpart
to this requirement in existing Subpart
V.
The Agency believes that it is
important for an employee to work from
a position where a slip or a shock will
not bring him or her into contact with
an energized part unless other
conditions, such as the configuration of
the lines involved, would make another
working position safer. The position
taken must be the most protective
available to accomplish the task. In
certain situations, this work position
may not be the most efficient one. The
language proposed in § 1926.960(d)(1)
recognizes situations that preclude
working from a position from which a
slip would bring the employee into
contact with a live part. The language
contained in this provision also allows
such options as guarding or insulating
the live part as alternative means of
compliance.
Connecting and disconnecting lines
and equipment. Paragraph (e) addresses
the practices of connecting and
disconnecting lines and equipment.
Common industry practice, as reflected
in ANSI C2–2002, Section 443F, is to
make a connection so that the source is
connected as the last item in sequence
and to break a connection so that the
source is removed as the first item in
sequence. In this way, conducting wires
and devices used to make and break the
connection are deenergized during
almost the entire procedure. These
practices would be required by
paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2). Since these
wires and devices must be handled
during the procedure, the proposed
requirements would reduce the chance
for an electrical accident. Also, to
prevent the disconnected conductors
from being energized, loose ends of
conductors must be kept away from live
parts, as would be required by
paragraph (e)(3). These three proposed
provisions, which have no counterparts
in existing Subpart V, have been taken
from § 1910.269(l)(5).
Paragraph (f) of proposed § 1926.960,
which was taken from
§ 1910.269(l)(6)(i), would prohibit the
wearing of conductive articles by
employees working within reach of
exposed live parts of equipment if these
articles would increase the hazards
associated with accidental contact with
the live parts. If an employee wants to
wear metal jewelry, he or she can cover
the jewelry so as to eliminate the
contact hazard. This requirement is not
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34866
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
intended to preclude workers from
wearing metal rings or watch bands if
the work being performed already
exposes them to electric shock hazards
and if the wearing of metal would not
increase the hazards. (For example, for
work performed on an overhead line,
the wearing of a ring does not increase
the likelihood that an employee would
contact the line, nor would it increase
the severity of the injury should contact
occur.) However, this requirement
would protect employees working on
energized circuits with small clearances
and high current capacities (such as
some battery-supplied circuits) from
severe burn hazards to which they
would otherwise be exposed. The rule
also protects workers who are only
minimally exposed to shock hazards
from being injured as a result of a
dangling chain’s making contact with a
energized part. This provision has no
counterpart in existing Subpart V.
Protection from electric arcs.
Proposed paragraph (g) addresses
clothing worn by an employee. After
reviewing the rulemaking record on
§ 1910.269, OSHA determined that
electric power generation, transmission,
and distribution workers face a
significant risk of injury from burns due
to electric arcs (January 31, 1994, 59 FR
4388–4389). OSHA also concluded that
certain fabrics increase the extent of
injuries to employees caught in an
electric arc or otherwise exposed to
flames. Therefore, the Agency adopted
two rules: (1) paragraph (l)(6)(ii) of
§ 1910.269, which requires that
employees exposed to flames and
electric arcs be trained in the hazards
related to the clothing that they wear,
and (2) paragraph (l)(6)(iii) which
prohibits apparel that could increase the
extent of injuries received by a worker
who is exposed to a flame or electric
arc. OSHA also included a note
following paragraph (l)(6)(iii) to indicate
the types of clothing fabrics that the
§ 1910.269 rulemaking record
demonstrated were hazardous to wear
by employees exposed to electric arcs.
Since § 1910.269(l)(6)(iii) became
effective on November 1, 1994,
employees have continued to suffer
burn injuries working on energized lines
and equipment. From January 1, 1990,
to October 30, 1994, there were 46
accidents investigated by Federal or
State OSHA involving burns that would
have been addressed by
§ 1910.269(l)(6)(iii). These 46 accidents
resulted in 71 total injuries. Averaged
over this period, there were 9.5
accidents and 14.7 injuries per year.
From November 1, 1994, to December
31, 1998, there were 17 such accidents
resulting in 26 injuries. Averaged over
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
this period, there were 4.0 accidents and
6.2 injuries per year. Thus, while the
clothing rule in § 1910.269 appears to
have helped reduce the number of
accidents and injuries by more than 50
percent, for two reasons, OSHA believes
that the remaining risk of burn injury is
still serious and significant. First, these
accidents represent only a small fraction
of those that have actually occurred
during this time. Employers are only
required to report to the Agency
accidents involving fatalities or three or
more hospitalized injuries. OSHA does
not investigate accidents that are not
reported by employers (that is, those
involving two or fewer hospitalized
employees and no deaths) unless it
results in extensive property damage or
presents potential worker injury and
generates widespread media interest.
(See OSHA directives CPL 02–00–103
and CPL 02–00–094.) Consequently,
most injury-producing accidents, even
serious ones, are not investigated by the
Agency. Second, the reported burn
injuries are very serious and costly.
Eighty-four percent of the burn injuries
were fatalities or required
hospitalization. Eighty-seven percent of
the accidents for which the severity of
the injury was noted involved thirddegree burns. Such burns are extremely
painful and costly, typically requiring
skin grafts and leaving permanent scars.
OSHA’s existing clothing requirement
in § 1910.269 does not require
employers to protect employees from
electric arcs through the use of flameresistant clothing. It simply requires that
an employee’s clothing do no greater
harm. Because of the serious nature of
the still remaining risk to power
workers from electric arcs, the Agency
believes that the standard should be
revised to require the use of flameresistant clothing, under certain
circumstances, to protect employees
from the most severe burns. The electric
power industry is beginning to
recognize this need as evidenced by the
many employers who provide flameresistant clothing to employees, by the
work of ASTM in writing standards that
provide for arc ratings of protective
clothing, and by the ongoing work
towards a protective standard by the
committee responsible for writing work
rules for the NESC. The National Fire
Protection Association also recognizes
the need to protect employees working
on energized equipment from the
hazards posed by electric arcs.
In addition, when § 1910.269 was
promulgated, there were no standards
for clothing to protect employees from
the thermal hazards resulting from
electric arcs. Since then, ASTM has
adopted such standards. These
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
standards ensure not only that clothing
does not ignite but that it is rated to
provide protection against a given level
of heat energy. Apparel that meets the
ASTM standards is labeled with the
amount of heat energy that it can absorb
under laboratory test conditions without
letting through sufficient heat to cause
a second-degree burn. Clothing is
currently widely available in ratings
from about 4 cal/cm2 to over 50 cal/cm2.
In general, the higher the rating, the
heavier the clothing.
As described more fully below, OSHA
has decided to propose a rule that
would require employers to estimate the
heat energy from electric arcs that may
be encountered by employees and to
provide clothing that will be flame
resistant if it could be ignited when an
electrical fault occurs and that can
protect against the estimated level of
energy when an electric arc occurs. The
Agency believes that this rule, which is
proposed in § 1926.960(g), will ensure
that employees wear protective clothing
that is reasonably protective for the
hazards they are facing.41
Paragraph (g)(1) of proposed
§ 1926.960 would require the employer
to assess the workplace to determine if
employees are exposed to hazards from
flames or electric arcs. This provision
ensures that the employer evaluates
employee exposure to flames and
electric arcs so that employees who do
face such exposures can be protected.
Because § 1926.960 applies to work
performed on or near energized parts of
electric circuits, employers can base a
portion of the assessment required by
paragraph (g)(1) on a determination of
which employees perform energized
work covered by this section. It should
be noted, however, that until a line or
part of an electric circuit has been
completely deenergized following the
procedures required by § 1926.961,
including any required testing and
grounding, the line or part would have
to be treated as energized.
Once an employer determines who is
exposed to hazards from flames or
electric arcs, the next step in protecting
these employees is a determination of
the extent of the hazard. Paragraph (g)(2)
would require the employer to estimate
the maximum amount of heat energy to
which employees would be exposed.
This estimate can be used in the
selection of protective clothing, as
discussed later.
OSHA is aware of various methods of
calculating values of available heat
energy from an electric circuit. These
methods are listed in Table IV–7. Each
41 OSHA is also proposing to make similar
changes in § 1910.269.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
method requires the input of various
parameters, such as fault current, the
expected length of the electric arc, the
distance from the arc to the employee,
and the clearing time for the fault (that
is, the time the circuit protective
devices take to open the circuit and
clear the fault). Some of these
parameters, such as the fault current
and the clearing time, are known
quantities for a given system. Other
parameters, such as the length of the arc
and the distance between the arc and
the employee, vary widely and can only
be estimated. OSHA is not endorsing
any of the methods listed in Table IV–
7. The Agency requests comments and
information on these and any other
available methods of calculating
incident heat energy from electric arcs.
TABLE IV–7.—METHODS OF CALCULATING INCIDENT HEAT ENERGY
FROM AN ELECTRIC ARC
1. Standard for Electrical Safety Requirements for Employee Workplaces, NFPA
70E–2004, Annex D, ‘‘Sample Calculation
of Flash Protection Boundary.’’
2. Doughty, T.E., Neal, and Floyd II, H.L.,
‘‘Predicting Incident Energy to Better Manage the Electric Arc Hazard on 600 V
Power Distribution Systems,’’ Record of
Conference papers IEEE IAS 45th Annual
Petroleum and Chemical Industry Conference, September 28–30, 1998.
3. Guide for Performing Arc Flash Hazard
Calculations, IEEE 1584–2002.
4. Heat Flux Calculator, a free software program created by Alan Privette (widely
available on the Internet).
5. ARCPRO, a commercially available software program developed by Kinectrics, Toronto, ON, CA.
The amount of heat energy calculated
by any of the methods is approximately
proportional to the square of the
distance between the employee and the
arc. In other words, if the employee is
very close to the arc, the heat energy is
very high; but if he or she is just a few
more centimeters away, the heat energy
drops substantially.
In addition, the fault current and
clearing time are interdependent.
Typically, the higher the fault current,
the shorter the clearing time. It is quite
possible that the maximum heat energy
will result from a fault current that is
well below maximum but that results in
a relatively long clearing time. In order
to calculate the worst case heat energy,
an employer would have to perform a
range of calculations for each system
area.
Furthermore, the method of
calculation can affect the results. Each
method yields somewhat different
values using the same input parameters.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
This is partly because of the
unpredictability of an electric arc and
partly because of the different ways the
methods were developed. Some, like the
NFPA 70E method, are based in theory.
Others, like the IEEE 1584 method, are
based on empirical data. Whichever
method is used, it is important to use it
within its limitations. For example, the
values produced by the Heat Flux
Calculator must be adjusted if
employees are exposed to energy from a
multiphase fault or if the heat energy
would be reflected by nearby surfaces.42
Because of the variability imposed by
these factors, OSHA has preliminarily
concluded that it is not possible to
predict exactly how much energy an
employee would face if an electric arc
occurs. On the other hand, it is clear
that when more electrical energy is
available more heat will be generated by
an electric arc and the potential for
severe injury is greater. The Agency
believes that greater protection is
warranted when greater hazards exist.
Thus, OSHA is proposing a standard
that requires reasonable, but not exact,
estimates of the heat energy to which an
employee could be exposed.
Additionally, OSHA is not proposing
a standard based entirely on worst-case
exposure. The worst case occurs when
an electric arc powered by the
maximum available fault current is
against an employee’s skin. In such
cases, the distance between the
employee and the arc is zero, and the
energy is extremely high even for
relatively low-current arcs. The Agency
does not believe it is reasonable to
require a correspondingly high degree of
protection for relatively low-energy arcs,
which would put employees in very
heavy clothing.
On the other hand, OSHA believes
that it is appropriate for the employer to
provide a level of protection that is
reasonably related to the thermal hazard
involved. A 50-cal/cm2 exposure calls
for more protection than a 5-cal/cm2
exposure. Although none of the
methods can predict precisely how
much heat energy an employee will
face, they do provide a good indication
of the relative severity of the exposure
and the approximate level of protection
needed. Thus, the Agency is proposing
a rule that it believes requires
reasonable estimates of the amount of
heat energy an employee is likely to face
and to provide a corresponding level of
protection. OSHA requests comments
on whether the proposed rule requires
an appropriate level of protection and
clearly defines employer obligations
PO 00000
42 This
exposure is known as ‘‘arc in a box.’’
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34867
with respect to the estimates of the
maximum available heat energy.
Two notes following proposed
§ 1926.960(g)(2) help explain how to
comply with the rule. The first note
states that Appendix F to Subpart V
provides guidance on the estimation of
available heat energy. This appendix
discusses various methods of estimating
electric arc heat energy levels and
provides tables that can also be used for
this purpose. OSHA requests comments
on this appendix and on whether
additional information is available to
help employers and employees estimate
available heat energy. The second note
indicates that the employer may use
broad estimates representing multiple
system areas if the employer uses
reasonable assumptions about the
exposure distribution throughout the
system and if those estimates represent
the maximum exposure for those
particular areas. This note clarifies that
the rule is not intended to require
separate calculations for each job or
task.
Much of the flame-resistant clothing
available today comes with an arc
rating.43 In basic terms, an arc rating
indicates that a fabric is not expected to
transfer sufficient thermal energy to
cause a second-degree burn when tested
under standard laboratory conditions
exposing the fabric to an electric arc that
radiates an energy at or below the
rating.44 Proposed paragraph (g)(5)
would require that employees who are
exposed to hazards from electric arcs
wear clothing with an arc rating greater
than or equal to the heat energy
estimated under proposed paragraph
(g)(2). This clothing will protect
employees exposed to various levels of
heat energy from sustaining severe burn
injuries in areas covered by the clothing.
The note following paragraph (g)
explains that Appendix F to Subpart V
contains information on the selection of
appropriate clothing. This appendix
43 The ASTM standards governing arc rating
require the fabric being tested to be flame resistant.
Thus, no nonflame-resistant clothing has an arc
rating.
44 Arc rating is defined in ASTM F1506–02ae1,
Standard Performance Specification for Flame
Resistant Textile Materials for Wearing Apparel for
Use by Electrical Workers Exposed to Momentary
Electric Arc and Related Thermal Hazards: ‘‘a value
that indicates the arc performance of a material or
system of materials. It is either the arc thermal
performance value (ATPV) or breakdown threshold
energy (EBT), when the ATPV cannot be determined
by Test Method F1959.’’ ASTM F1959–99 defines
ATPV as ‘‘in arc testing, the incident energy on a
fabric or material that results in sufficient heat
transfer through the fabric or material to cause the
onset of a second-degree burn based on the Stoll
curve.’’ That same standard defines EBT as ‘‘the
average of the five highest incident energy exposure
values below the Stoll curve where the specimens
do not exhibit breakopen.’’
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34868
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
contains information on the ignition
threshold of various fabrics, the thermal
performance of typical arc-rated
clothing, ways of estimating available
heat energy, and ways of selecting
clothing to protect employees from burn
injuries resulting from electric arcs.
Even with the requirements for the
employer to assess hazards (proposed
paragraph (g)(2)) and for employees to
wear clothing with a rating appropriate
for this assessment (proposed paragraph
(g)(5)), there are still situations that
could arise under which an employee’s
clothing could ignite and lead to severe
burn injuries. For example, an employee
wearing a cotton-polyester blend jacket
over his or her arc-rated shirt could be
injured if the jacket ignites or melts
when an electric arc occurs. Thus,
OSHA is proposing, in paragraphs (g)(3)
and (g)(4), additional provisions
intended to prevent the ignition or
melting of an employee’s clothing.
Proposed § 1926.960(g)(3) would
prohibit clothing that could either melt
onto an employee’s skin or ignite and
continue to burn. This rule is equivalent
to existing § 1910.269(l)(6)(iii).45 This
proposed provision would ensure that
employees exposed to electric arcs do
not wear clothing presenting the most
severe burn hazards. A note following
this provision lists fabrics that are
specifically prohibited unless the
employer demonstrates that the clothing
is treated or worn to eliminate the
hazard. This note is the same as the note
following existing § 1910.269(l)(6)(iii).
OSHA requests comments on whether
additional fabrics pose similar hazards
and should be added to the note.
Proposed paragraph (g)(4) would
require employees to wear flameresistant clothing whenever: (1) The
employee is exposed to contact with
live parts energized at more than 600
volts (paragraph (g)(4)(i)); (2) the
employee’s clothing could be ignited by
nearby flammable material that could be
ignited by an electric arc (paragraph
(g)(4)(ii)); or (3) the employee’s clothing
could be ignited by molten metal or
electric arcs from faulted conductors in
the work area (paragraph (g)(4)(iii)). (A
note to proposed paragraph (g)(4)(iii)
indicates that this provision does not
apply to conductors capable of carrying
the maximum available fault current.
The design of the installation is
45 The existing rule prohibits clothing that could
increase the extent of injuries to an employee if an
electric arc occurs. The Agency interprets this rule
as prohibiting clothing that could melt or that could
ignite and continue to burn in the presence of an
electric arc faced by an employee (Memorandum to
the Field from James W. Stanley, ‘‘Guidelines for
the Enforcement of the Apparel Standard, 29 CFR
1910.269(l)(6), of the Electric Power Generation,
Transmission, and Distribution Standard’’).
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
intended to prevent these conductors
from melting.) The listed conditions are
those in which employees’ clothing has
been ignited in several of the burn
accidents examined by OSHA.
OSHA could have, more simply,
required clothing that could not ignite
and continue to burn under the heat
energy conditions estimated pursuant to
proposed paragraph (g)(2). However, as
noted earlier, these estimates do not
entirely reflect the heat energy produced
by worst case conditions. If the other
parameters affecting the energy in an arc
are held constant, the heat energy rises
exponentially with decreasing distance
between the arc and the employee.
Thus, an electric arc that touches an
employee’s clothing releases much more
energy than the same arc at a distance
equal to the minimum approach
distance. For example, the heat energy
from a 51-millimeter-long arc, generated
by 20 kiloamperes of fault current at 15
kilovolts, and clearing in 6 cycles is 1.23
cal/cm2 if the arc is 650 millimeters
away, but is 1971 cal/cm2 if the arc is
10 millimeters away.46 None of the
common fabrics listed in Table 11 in
Appendix F to Subpart V (explained
below) would ignite if the arc was 650
millimeters away from the employee,
but every one would ignite if the arc
was only 10 millimeters away.
The closest an electric arc was to an
employee in electric power accidents
over the years 1991 to 1998 occurred in
17 cases in which an employee
contacted an energized conductor or
was touching the electric arc. In eight of
those cases, an employee’s clothing
apparently ignited.47 On the other hand,
none of the accidents involved contact
with circuit parts energized at 600 volts
or less. OSHA believes that the cases
that have occurred demonstrate a
significant risk that an employee’s
clothing could ignite and cause serious,
even fatal, burn injuries from ignited
clothing when an employee contacts
circuit parts energized at more than 600
volts. Therefore, OSHA has
preliminarily concluded that an
employee must wear flame-resistant
clothing any time he or she is subject to
46 These heat energy estimates are calculated
using ARCPRO.
47 The accident description indicated that the
clothing ignited or stated that the extent of the
burns or the location of the burns was such that
clothing ignition was likely to have occurred. For
example, in one case, a 4100-volt conductor fell
onto an employee’s chest. The employee survived
the electric shock but died from second- and thirddegree burns over 60 percent of his body. The
electrical burns from the contact were probably
localized to the area near the point of contact. It is
likely that the employee’s clothing ignited to cause
burns that were spread over 60 percent of his body
though the accident description did not state that
clothing ignition occurred.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
contact with live parts energized at
more than 600 volts. The Agency
requests comments on whether the
requirements for flame-resistant
clothing in proposed § 1926.960(g)(4)
are reasonable and appropriate.
OSHA is not proposing to require a
specific level of protection for skin that
is not covered by clothing. Employees’
hands, which are frequently the closest
body part to an electric arc, would
typically be protected by rubber
insulating gloves and leather protectors
when the employee’s hands are at
greatest risk of injury. Although neither
rubber insulating gloves nor leather
protectors have arc ratings, because of
their weight and thickness, they
typically provide greater protection
from electric arcs than light-weight
flame-resistant clothing. Their
protective value is borne out in the
accident data—none of the burn injuries
to employees hands involved an
employee wearing rubber insulating
gloves. OSHA requests comments on
whether the standard should require
complete protection for an employee’s
entire body.
Payment for Protective Clothing. As
described earlier, OSHA is requiring
employers to ensure that their
employees (1) wear flame-resistant
clothing under certain hazardous
conditions, and (2) when working on
energized parts of the electric power
system, wear clothing with an arc rating
greater than or equal to potential heat
energy exposures estimated for those
parts. OSHA considers the protective
clothing required by paragraph (g) to be
PPE. The protective clothing would
reduce the degree of injury sustained by
an employee when an electric arc
occurs. In some cases, the clothing
would prevent injury altogether. Unlike
many OSHA standards, the proposal
would not require that employers
provide protective clothing at no cost to
employees. However, OSHA is
considering including an employerpayment requirement in the final rule
and is seeking comments on the issue.
OSHA has a longstanding policy that
employers must provide and pay for
PPE, except, in some cases, where the
PPE is personal in nature and usable by
the employee off of the job. This policy
is supported by the plain language of
the OSH Act and its legislative history.
(For a complete discussion of OSHA’s
policy, see OSHA’s preamble to the
employer payment for PPE proposal, 64
FR 15402 (March 31, 1999).) Many
OSHA health standards include
language explicitly stating that
employers must provide PPE ‘‘at no
cost’’ to employees. See, for example, 29
CFR 1910.1018(h)(2)(i) and (j) (inorganic
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
arsenic); 29 CFR 1910.1025(f)(1) and
(g)(1) (lead); and 29 CFR 1910.1048(g)(1)
and (h) (formaldehyde). The regulatory
text and preamble of some safety
standards also make clear that
employers must pay for PPE. See 29
CFR 1910.146(d)(4)(iv) (confined
spaces); and 29 CFR 1910.266(d)(1)(iii)
(logging).
Because not every OSHA standard
explicitly states that employers must
pay for PPE, in 1999, OSHA proposed
regulatory language to clarify that
employers are responsible for the cost of
PPE, with only a few exceptions (64 FR
15402). The proposal added language to
OSHA’s general industry, shipyard,
construction, marine terminal, and
longshoring standards that ‘‘[a]ll
protective equipment, including [PPE]
* * * shall be provided by the
employer at no cost to employees [64 FR
15441 (emphasis added)].’’ Exceptions
were given for safety-toe protective
footwear and prescription safety
eyewear, provided that the employer
permits them to be worn off of the job
site, they are not used in a manner that
makes them unsafe for use off of the job
site, and they are not designed for
special use on the job (64 FR 15441).
OSHA recently reopened the
rulemaking record on its employer
payment for PPE proposal. to solicit
comment on PPE that might be
considered tools of the trade. See 69 FR
41221 (July 8, 2004).
OSHA also recently proposed that
employers in general industry,
maritime, and construction, pay for
protective clothing for employees
exposed to hexavalent chromium
(Cr(VI)). See 69 FR 59465–59466 (Oct. 4,
2004) (‘‘Where a hazard is present or is
likely to be present from skin or eye
contact with chromium (VI), the
employer shall provide appropriate
personal protective clothing and
equipment at no cost to employees, and
shall ensure that employees use such
clothing and equipment.’’). The Agency
said that employers are in the best
position to select and obtain the
appropriate protective clothing and that
by providing and owning protective
clothing, the employer will better
maintain the integrity of it (69 FR
59456). The proposal also prohibits
employees from taking contaminated
protective clothing home; employers are
responsible for laundering or disposing
of contaminated protective clothing (69
FR 59456).
OSHA believes that requiring
employers to pay for the protective
clothing that would be required by this
proposal may also improve the safety of
employees. Like Cr(VI), the purchase of
protective clothing may be best handled
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
by electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution
employers, who have all of the
information related to the parameters of
the electric power system and are in the
best position to select and purchase
clothing necessary to protect employees
from injury. Moreover, an employerpayment requirement could also help
ensure that protective clothing is
replaced promptly when its protective
qualities erode. Some stakeholders have
told OSHA that employees, if required
to pay for their own protective clothing,
may delay replacing damaged protective
clothing for financial reasons. Any delay
in replacing an article of protective
clothing that has worn thin, or that
contains holes or other openings, could
endanger employees. Such damaged
clothing does not provide adequate
protection to employees exposed to
electric arcs.
Unlike Cr(VI), however, this proposal
contains no prohibition on employees’
taking certain protective clothing home,
wearing certain protective clothing off
of the job, and laundering such clothing.
OSHA has not included an employerpayment requirement in this proposal
because it does not have enough
information at this time on the types
and weights of protective clothing, if
any, that may be routinely worn outside
of work.48 There may be certain types of
lightweight protective clothing that
employees wear both at work and at
home. OSHA believes it needs more
information from the public on this
clothing before including a general
requirement that employers pay for
protective clothing. In the PPE payment
proposal, OSHA expressly exempted
safety shoes and prescription eyewear
from the general employer-payment
requirement, in part because such
equipment was personal in nature and
could be used outside of work. See 64
FR 15402. OSHA is seeking information
from the public as to whether protective
clothing worn by employees performing
power generation, transmission, and
distribution work falls into this same
category of PPE. OSHA is also
incorporating the record of the employer
payment for PPE rulemaking into the
record of this rulemaking and will give
due consideration to all relevant
comments.
48 OSHA notes that, for ease of analysis only, it
has included a cost to employers for providing
protective clothing in its economic feasibility
analysis—in addition to its economic impact
analysis under Executive Order 12866 and the
RFA—even though such a requirement is not
expressly included in the proposal. See Section V,
Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis and Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, later in this
preamble.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34869
OSHA is seeking comments on its
findings on protective clothing generally
in addition to the following specific
questions:
1. Are there types or weights of
protective clothing that employees
typically wear outside of work? Do
employers restrict the types or weights
of protective clothing that employees
are allowed to wear outside of work?
2. Do employers typically provide the
types of protective clothing required by
the proposal at no cost to employees?
Do some employers provide certain
types or weights of protective clothing
at no cost to employees, while requiring
other types or weights of protective
clothing to be paid for by employees?
Should OSHA include an employerpayment requirement for heavier
weights or particular types of protective
clothing, but not lighter weights or other
types? If so, please specify what weights
or types of protective clothing should be
exempt from an employer-payment
requirement.
3. OSHA realizes that in the
construction industry crews of
employees are sometimes hired through
local unions. This results in a variable
workforce for many contractors. A
contractor that hires employees in this
manner may have to buy protective
clothing for more employees than would
an employer with a more stable
workforce, particularly for protective
clothing that only fits one employee.
OSHA requests comment on whether,
given this hiring practice, an employerpayment requirement is appropriate in
the construction industry. Are there any
alternative approaches that would be
responsive to this variable workforce
situation and would also be protective
of construction workers performing
electric power generation, transmission,
and distribution work?
4. Should OSHA not address the
payment for protective clothing
specifically in the final rule and,
instead, follow the outcome of the
general employer payment for PPE
rulemaking?
To protect employees from contacting
energized parts, paragraph (h) of
proposed § 1926.960 would require
fuses to be installed and removed using
insulated tools or gloves when a
terminal is energized at over 300 volts
or when live parts are exposed at any
voltage over 50 volts. When an
expulsion fuse operates on a fault or
overload, the arc from the fault current
erodes the tube of the fuse holder. This
produces a gas that blasts the arc out
through the fuse tube vent or vents, and
with it any loose material in the way.
Employees could be injured by the arc
blast or by particles blown, by the blast,
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34870
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
in their eyes. Employees should never
install or remove such fuses using
gloves alone. Therefore, paragraph (h)
would also require employees installing
expulsion-type fuses energized at 300
volts or more to wear eye protection,
would have to use a tool rated for the
voltage, and would have to stand clear
of the fuse’s exhaust path. This
paragraph, which has no counterpart in
existing Subpart V, has been taken from
§ 1910.269(l)(7).
Paragraph (i) explains that covered
conductors are treated under the
standard as uninsulated. (See the
definition of ‘‘covered conductor’’ in
§ 1926.968.) The covering on this type of
wire protects the conductor from the
weather but does not provide adequate
insulating value. This provision, which
has no counterpart in existing Subpart
V, has been taken from § 1910.269(l)(8).
Paragraph (j) proposes a requirement
that noncurrent-carrying metal parts of
equipment or devices be treated as
energized at the highest voltage to
which they are exposed unless the
installation is inspected and these parts
are determined to be grounded.
Grounding these parts, whether by
permanent grounds or by the
installation of temporary grounds,
would provide protection against
ground faults. This requirement, which
has no counterpart in existing Subpart
V, is based on § 1910.269(l)(9).
Paragraph (k) would require devices
used to open circuits under load
conditions to be designed to interrupt
the current involved. It is hazardous to
open a circuit with a device that is not
designed to interrupt current if that
circuit is carrying current. Non-loadbreak switches used to open a circuit
while it is carrying load current could
fail catastrophically, severely injuring or
killing any nearby employee. This
requirement, which has no counterpart
in existing Subpart V, has been taken
from § 1910.269(l)(10).
Section 1926.961, Deenergizing Lines
and Equipment for Employee Protection
Proposed § 1926.961 addresses the
deenergizing of electric transmission
and distribution lines and equipment
for the protection of employees.
Transmission and distribution systems
are different from other energy systems
found in general industry or even in the
electric utility industry itself. The
hazardous energy control methods for
these systems are necessarily different
from those covered under the general
industry generic standard on the control
of hazardous energy sources
(§ 1910.147). Transmission and
distribution lines and equipment are
installed outdoors and are subject to
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
being reenergized by means other than
the normal energy sources. For example,
lightning can strike a line and energize
an otherwise deenergized conductor, or
a line could be energized by unknown
cogeneration sources not under the
control of the employer. Additionally,
some deenergized transmission and
distribution lines are subject to being
reenergized by induced voltage from
nearby energized conductors or by
contact with other energized sources of
electrical energy. Another difference is
that energy control devices are often
very remote from the worksite and are
frequently under the centralized control
of a system operator.
For these reasons, OSHA is proposing
to cover the control of hazardous energy
sources related to transmission and
distribution systems. This is the same
approach used in § 1910.269. In fact, the
requirements proposed in § 1926.961
have been taken from § 1910.269(m).
Existing Subpart V also contains
procedures for deenergizing
transmission and distribution
installations. The differences between
the existing requirements, which are
contained in § 1926.950(d), and those
proposed in § 1926.961 are discussed
later in this preamble.
In addition to setting forth the
application of § 1926.961, paragraph (a)
explains that conductors and equipment
that have not been deenergized under
the procedures of § 1926.961 have to be
treated as energized. As noted earlier in
this preamble under the summary and
explanation of proposed
§ 1926.960(b)(2), existing
§ 1926.950(b)(2) requires electric
equipment and lines to be considered as
energized until determined to be
deenergized by tests or other
appropriate means. OSHA believes that
the appropriate procedures for assuring
that lines and equipment are
deenergized are contained in proposed
§ 1926.961 and that a simple test for a
deenergized condition cannot be relied
upon to ensure that lines and equipment
remain deenergized.
Some systems are under the direction
of a central system operator who
controls all switching operations. Other
systems (mostly distribution
installations) are not under any
centralized control. These systems are
energized and deenergized in the field
without the direct intervention of a
system operator. Paragraph (b)(1) of
proposed § 1926.961 states that all of the
requirements of proposed paragraph (c)
would apply if a system operator is in
charge of the lines and equipment and
of their means of disconnection.
Paragraph (b)(2) defines the general rule
for crews working on lines that are not
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
under the control of a system operator.
In the usual case, one employee is
designated to be in charge of the
clearance. In general, all of the
requirements in paragraph (c) would
apply, with the employee in charge of
the clearance taking the place of the
system operator. In this manner, the
proposal provides protection against the
unintended energizing of transmission
and distribution lines without requiring
all lines to be under the control of one
employee. One employee in a crew will
be in charge of the clearance for the
crew; procedures will be followed to
ensure that the lines are truly
deenergized; tags will be placed on the
lines; and procedures will be followed
to remove the tags and reenergize the
lines.
However, in some cases, certain
requirements contained in paragraph (c)
are not necessary for the safety of
employees. If only one crew will be
working on transmission or distribution
lines and if the means of deenergizing
the lines is accessible and visible to and
under the sole control of the employee
in charge of the clearance, the
provisions requiring tags on the
disconnecting means are unnecessary.
Therefore, proposed paragraph (b)(3)(i)
would exempt a portion of the
requirements of paragraph (c) from
applying to work that is performed by
a single crew of employees,49 if the
means of disconnection of the lines and
equipment are accessible and visible to
and under the sole control of the
employee in charge of the clearance.
The provisions of paragraph (c) that
would not apply are those relating to (1)
requesting the system operator to
deenergize the lines, (2) automatic and
remote control of the lines, (3) the
wording on tags, (4) two crews working
on the same line, and (5) tag removal.
It is not necessary to request the system
operator to deenergize the lines because
he or she would not be in control of the
disconnecting means for the lines. Only
one person would be in charge of the
clearance for the crew, and the means of
disconnection for the lines would be
accessible and visible to and under the
control of that person.50 Thus, tags
would not be needed for the protection
of the crew. Further, remote and
automatic switching of lines and work
performed by two crews working on
lines or equipment controlled by the
same disconnecting means would not be
49 An employee working alone is considered to be
a ‘‘crew’’ of one.
50 The means of disconnection is under the sole
control of the employee in charge of the clearance,
and it need only be assessible and visible to that
employee. Other employees in the crew have no
control whatsoever over the disconnecting means.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
recognized under paragraph (b)(3)(i). (A
group of employees made up of several
‘‘crews’’ of employees who are under
the direction of a single employee and
who are working in a coordinated
manner to accomplish a task on the
same lines or equipment are considered
to be a single crew, rather than as
multiple independent crews, for the
purposes of paragraph (b)(3)(i). In such
cases, all operations that could energize
or deenergize a circuit would have to be
coordinated through the single
employee in charge.) If the crews are
independent, each crew would need an
employee-in-charge of its clearance (see
the discussion of proposed paragraph
(b)(3)(ii), later in this section of the
preamble). Therefore, no one could be
considered as having sole control over
the disconnecting means protecting the
crews, and the exceptions listed in
paragraph (b)(3)(i) would not apply.
Paragraph (d) of existing § 1926.950
also recognizes separate procedures for
lines that are ‘‘visibly open.’’ However,
only two requirements apply. First,
paragraph (d)(2)(i) requires guards or
barriers to be installed to protect against
contact with adjacent lines. Second,
upon completion of work, the
designated employee in charge must
determine that all employees in his
crew are clear and that protective
grounds installed by his crew have been
removed, and he or she must report to
the designated authority that all tags
protecting the crew may be removed
(paragraph (d)(2)(ii)).
The existing Subpart V provisions
relating to working on lines or
equipment that have their disconnecting
means ‘‘visibly open’’ are insufficient to
protect employees. Other requirements
relating to deenergizing, testing,
grounding, and reenergizing procedures
are necessary for the protection of
employees. While existing Subpart V
does cover reenergizing procedures, it
includes no provisions for deenergizing,
testing, or grounding. OSHA believes
that this proposal corrects these
deficiencies.
If more than one independent crew is
working on a line, paragraph (b)(3)(ii)
would require each crew to follow the
steps outlined in § 1926.961(c)
separately, to ensure that a group of
workers does not make faulty
assumptions about what steps have been
or will be taken by another group to
deenergize lines or equipment.
Paragraph (c) of proposed § 1926.961
would not require a separate tag for each
crew; it does require, however, separate
clearances for each crew. There would
have to be one employee in charge of
the clearance for each crew, and the
clearance for a crew would be held by
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
this employee. In complying with
paragraph (b)(3)(ii), the employer would
have to ensure that no tag is removed
unless its associated clearances are
released (paragraph (c)(11)) 51 and that
no action is taken at a given point of
disconnection until all protective
grounds have been removed, until all
crews have released their clearances,
until all employees are clear of the lines
or equipment, and until all tags have
been removed at that point of
disconnection (paragraph (c)(12)).
OSHA requests comments on whether
the standard should require each crew
to have a separate tag and, if so, on ways
to incorporate such a requirement in the
standard.
Where there is a system operator, who
is in charge of energizing and
deenergizing lines and equipment, that
person keeps track of clearances for
different crews working on the same
lines or equipment. When there is no
system operator, the crews will need to
coordinate their activities to ensure that
the lines or equipment are not
reenergized while an employee is still
working on them. Proposed paragraph
(b)(3)(ii) would require such
coordination when there is no system
operator.
Proposed paragraph (b)(3)(ii) has been
taken from § 1910.269(m)(3)(viii).
Existing Subpart V contains a
comparable requirement in
§ 1926.950(d)(1)(vi). However, the
existing requirement would simply
require a tag for each independent crew.
As noted earlier, the proposal would not
require separate tags for each crew.
However, each crew would hold a
separate clearance that could not be
released without authorization from the
employee in charge of the clearance.
Additionally, the proposal would
require that each crew independently
perform all the steps outlined in
proposed paragraph (c) and that the
crews coordinate deenergizing and
reenergizing the lines or equipment if
no system operator is in charge. The
existing standard contains no such
requirement. OSHA believes that the
proposed approach better protects
employees than the existing standard.
Disconnecting means that are
accessible to people not under the
employer’s control would have to be
rendered inoperable. For example, a
switch handle mounted at the bottom of
a utility pole that is not on the
employer’s premises must be locked in
the open position while the overhead
51 Unless the employer has only one crew, a
tracking mechanism may be necessary so that the
employer can determine what crew is protected by
a tag.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34871
line is deenergized. This requirement,
which is contained in paragraph (b)(4)
would prevent a member of the general
public or an employee (of a contractor,
for example) who is not under the
employer’s control from closing the
switch and energizing the line. This
requirement, which has no counterpart
in existing Subpart V, has been taken
from § 1910.269(m)(2)(iv).
Paragraph (c) of proposed § 1926.961
sets forth the exact procedure for
deenergizing transmission and
distribution lines and equipment. The
procedure must be followed in the order
presented in the rule. Except as noted,
the rules are consistent with existing
§ 1926.950(d)(1), although the language
has been taken from § 1910.269(m)(3).
The Agency has attempted to propose
simplified language and has written the
requirements in performance-oriented
terms whenever possible.
Paragraph (c)(1) would require an
employee to request the system operator
to deenergize a particular section of line
or equipment. So that control is vested
in one authority, a single designated
employee would be assigned this task.
This designated employee thus becomes
the employee in charge of and
responsible for the clearance for work.
This provision, which has no
counterpart in existing Subpart V, has
been taken from § 1910.269(m)(3)(i). The
designated employee who requests the
clearance need not be in charge of other
aspects of the work; the proposal
intends for this designated employee to
be in charge of the clearance. He or she
is responsible for requesting the
clearance, for informing the system
operator of changes in the clearance
(such as transfer of responsibility), and
for insuring that it is safe for the circuit
to be reenergized before the clearance is
released. If someone other than an
employee at the worksite requests the
clearance and if that clearance is in
place before the employee arrives at the
site, then clearance must be transferred
under § 1926.961(c)(8). The Agency
believes that the person requesting the
clearance, once the lines are indeed
deenergized, must be the one to contact
in case alterations in the clearance are
necessary. The employees who will be
performing the actual work at some time
in the future would not necessarily be
aware that a clearance has been
requested and would not be in position
to answer questions about the clearance.
The second step (proposed
§ 1926.961(c)(2)) is to open all switches
through which electrical energy could
flow to the section of line or equipment.
The disconnecting means would then be
made inoperable if the design of the
device permits. For example, the
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34872
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
removable handle of a switch could be
detached. Also, the switches would
have to be tagged to indicate that
employees are at work. This paragraph
would ensure that the lines are
disconnected from their sources of
supply and protects against the
accidental reclosing of the switches.
This rule is intended to require the
disconnection of known sources of
electric energy only. Hazards related to
the presence of unexpected energy
sources would be controlled by testing
for voltage and by grounding the circuit,
as proposed under paragraphs (c)(5) and
(c)(6), respectively.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2) has been
taken from § 1910.269(m)(3)(ii). Existing
Subpart V contains comparable
requirements in § 1926.950(d)(1)(i),
(d)(1)(ii)(a), and (d)(1)(ii)(b). The
existing provisions require: (1) the line
or equipment to be identified and
isolated from sources of energy
(paragraph (d)(1)(i)), and (2) notification
and assurance of the designated
employee that all disconnecting means
have been opened and tagged
(paragraphs (d)(1)(ii)(a) and (d)(1)(ii)(b)).
OSHA believes that the proposed
language more accurately reflects the
actual steps taken to deenergize lines
and equipment.
Proposed § 1926.961(c)(3) would
require the tagging of automatically and
remotely controlled switches. An
automatically or remotely controlled
switch would also have to be rendered
inoperable if the design of the switch
allows for it to be made inoperable. This
provision which has been taken from
§ 1910.269(m)(3)(iii), would also protect
employees from being injured as a result
of the automatic operation of such
switches. Existing Subpart V contains
an equivalent requirement in
§§ 1926.950(d)(1)(ii)(b) and (d)(1)(ii)(c).
Paragraph (c)(4) of proposed
§ 1926.961 would require tags to
prohibit operation of the switches to
which they are attached. They would
also be required to state that employees
are at work. This requirement has been
taken from § 1910.269(m)(3)(iv).
Existing § 1926.950(d)(1)(ii)(b) contains
a requirement for tags to indicate that
employees are working; however, it
does not require the tags to prohibit
operation of the disconnecting means.
The Agency believes that it is essential
for the tags to contain this prohibition
so that the meaning of the tag is clear.
After the previous four requirements
have been met and after the employee
in charge of the work has been given a
clearance by the system operator,
proposed paragraph (c)(5) would require
the lines or equipment to be tested. This
test would ensure that the lines have in
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
fact been deenergized and is intended to
prevent accidents resulting from
someone’s opening the wrong
disconnect. It also protects employees
from hazards associated with unknown
sources of electric energy. This
paragraph is based on
§ 1910.269(m)(3)(v). Existing
§ 1926.950(d)(1)(iii) requires a test or a
visual inspection to be performed to
ensure that the lines or equipment are
deenergized. Visual inspection alone
cannot determine whether a line or
equipment is deenergized. Voltage
backfeed, induced current, and leakage
current can all energize electric lines
and equipment without the employee
being able to ‘‘see’’ it. Additionally, the
§ 1910.269 rulemaking showed the lack
of testing to be a cause of accidents
(269-Ex. 9–2, 12–12). Therefore, the
proposal would require an actual test to
determine whether the lines or
equipment was energized. OSHA has
not specified the type of test but expects
employers to use testing procedures that
will reliably indicate whether or not the
part in question is energized. For
example, using a voltage detector on the
part would be one way to do this. OSHA
requests comments on when and if other
methods, such as fuzzing a line,52 are
acceptable testing methods.
Proposed paragraph (c)(6) would
require the installation of any protective
grounds required by § 1926.962 at this
point in the sequence of events. Since
the lines or equipment have been
deenergized and tested in accordance
with the previous provisions, it would
now be safe to install a protective
ground. This requirement is based on
§ 1910.269(m)(3)(vi). An equivalent
requirement is contained in existing
§ 1926.950(d)(1)(iv).
After the six previous rules have been
followed, paragraph (c)(7) would permit
the lines or equipment to be treated as
deenergized. This provision, which has
no counterpart in existing Subpart V, is
based on § 1910.269(m)(3)(vii).
In some cases, as when an employee
in charge has to leave the job because
of illness, it may be necessary to transfer
a clearance. Under such conditions,
proposed paragraph (c)(8) would require
that the employee in charge inform the
system operator and that the employees
in the crew be informed of the transfer.
If the employee holding the clearance is
forced to leave the worksite due to
52 Fuzzing, or buzzing, a line involves using a
live-line tool to hold a wrench or similar tool near
a line and listening for the buzzing sound given off
as the tool approaches a circuit part energized at a
high voltage. This method has obvious
disadvantages when ambient noise levels are
excessive, and it is only reliable above certain
voltage levels.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
illness or other emergency, the
employee’s supervisor could inform the
system operator of the transfer in
clearance. This requirement, which is
based on § 1910.269(m)(3)(ix), has no
counterpart in existing Subpart V.
After the clearance is transferred, the
new employee in charge would then be
responsible for the clearance. It is
important that only one employee at a
time be responsible for any clearance;
otherwise, independent action by any
worker could endanger the entire crew.
Once work is completed, the
clearance will have to be released so
that the lines or equipment can be
reenergized. Paragraph (c)(9) of
proposed § 1926.961 covers this
procedure. To ensure that it is safe to
release the clearance, the employee in
charge would have to: (1) Notify
workers in the crew of the release, (2)
determine that they are clear of the lines
and equipment, (3) determine that
grounds have been removed, and (4)
notify the system operator that the
clearance is to be released. This
provision is based on
§ 1910.269(m)(3)(x). An equivalent
requirement is contained in existing
§ 1926.950(d)(1)(viii).
Proposed paragraph (c)(10) would
require the person who is releasing the
clearance to be the one who requested
it, unless responsibility has been
transferred. This provision would
ensure that no clearance is released
without the authorization of the
employee who is in charge of the
clearance. This proposed paragraph,
which has no counterpart in existing
Subpart V, is based on
§ 1910.269(m)(3)(xi).
Proposed paragraph (c)(11) would
prohibit the removal of a tag unless its
associated clearance has been released.
Because the persons who place and
remove the tags may not be the same, it
is important for the regulation to
prohibit removing a tag without the
release of the clearance by the employee
who is responsible for it. This provision,
which has no counterpart in existing
Subpart V, is based on
§ 1910.269(m)(3)(xii).
According to proposed paragraph
(c)(12), action would be permitted to be
taken to reenergize the lines or
equipment only after grounds and tags
have been removed, after all clearances
have been released, and after all
employees are in the clear. This protects
employees from the possibility that the
line or equipment could be reenergized
while employees are still at work. The
Agency does not intend for this
provision to require the removal of all
tags from all disconnecting means
before any of them could be reclosed. It
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
is intended to require that all tags for
any particular switch be removed before
that switch is closed. It is very
important in a tagging system that no
energy isolating device be returned to a
position allowing energy flow if there
are any tags on it that are protecting
employees. For example, in the case of
a 5-mile section of line that is
deenergized by opening switches at both
ends of the line, after all the tags are
removed from any one switch that one
switch could then be closed.
Proposed paragraph (c)(12), which has
no counterpart in Subpart V, has been
taken from § 1910.269(m)(3)(xiii).
Section 1926.962, Grounding for the
Protection of Employees
Sometimes, normally energized lines
and equipment that have been
deenergized to permit employees to
work become accidentally energized.
This can happen in several ways, for
example, by contact with another
energized circuit, by voltage backfeed
from a customer’s cogeneration
installation, by lightning contact, or by
failure of the clearance system outlined
in § 1926.961.
Transmission and distribution lines
and equipment are normally installed
outdoors where they are exposed to
damage from the weather and from
actions taken by members of the general
public. Many utility poles are installed
alongside roadways where they may be
struck by motor vehicles. Distribution
lines have been damaged by falling
trees, and transmission line insulators
have been used for target practice.
Additionally, customers fed by a utility
company’s distribution line may have
cogeneration or backup generation
capability, sometimes without the
utility company’s knowledge. All these
factors can reenergize a deenergized
transmission or distribution line or
equipment. Energized lines can be
knocked down onto deenergized lines.
A backup generator or a cogenerator can
cause voltage backfeed on the
deenergized power line. Lastly,
lightning, even miles from the worksite,
can reenergize a line. All of these
problems pose hazards to employees
working on deenergized transmission
and distribution lines and equipment. In
fact, these problems were a factor in 14
of the accidents in 269–Exhibit 9–2.
Grounding the lines and equipment is
used to protect employees from injury
should such reenergizing occur.
Grounding also provides protection
against induced voltages and static
charges on a line. (These induced and
static voltages can be high enough to
endanger employees, either directly
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
from electric shock or indirectly from
involuntary reaction.)
Grounding, as a temporary protective
measure, involves connecting the
deenergized lines and equipment to
earth through conductors. As long as the
conductors remain deenergized, this
maintains the lines and equipment at
the same potential as the earth.
However, if voltage is impressed on a
line, the voltage on the grounded line
rises to a value dependent upon the
impressed voltage, the impedance
between its source and the grounding
point, and the impedance of the
grounding conductor.
Various techniques are used to limit
the voltage to which an employee
working on a grounded line would be
exposed. Bonding is one of these
techniques. Conductive objects within
the reach of the employee are bonded
together to create an equipotential work
area for the employee. Within this area
of equal potentials, voltage differences
are limited to a safe value.
The requirements proposed in
§ 1926.962 have been taken directly
from § 1910.269(n). Existing § 1926.954
contains current provisions related to
grounding for the protection of
employees. OSHA has reviewed existing
§ 1926.954 and has found that it is not
as protective as § 1910.269(n) and
contains redundant and unnecessary
requirements. For example, as noted
under the summary and explanation of
proposed § 1926.960(b)(2), existing
§ 1926.950(b)(2) requires electric lines
and equipment to be considered as
energized until determined to be
deenergized by tests or other
appropriate methods or means. Existing
§ 1926.954(a) similarly requires all
conductors and equipment to be treated
as energized until tested or otherwise
determined to be deenergized or until
grounded. These two provisions do not
adequately protect employees from
accidentally reenergized lines and
equipment. As noted in the earlier
discussion, electric power transmission
and distribution lines and equipment
can become reenergized even after they
have been deenergized. Therefore,
OSHA concluded in the § 1910.269
rulemaking that grounding deenergized
lines and equipment is essential except
under limited circumstances. The
Agency is proposing to continue that
approach here. In developing proposed
§ 1926.962, OSHA eliminated redundant
requirements from existing § 1926.954,
consolidated related requirements from
the existing standard, and strengthened
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34873
the current requirements to protect
employees better.53
Proposed § 1926.962 addresses
protective grounding and bonding.54 As
noted in paragraph (a), entire § 1926.962
applies to the grounding of deenergized
transmission and distribution lines and
equipment for the purpose of protecting
employees. Additionally, paragraph (a)
indicates that paragraph (d) of proposed
§ 1926.962 would apply to the
protective grounding of other
equipment, such as aerial lift trucks, as
well. Under normal conditions, such
equipment would not be connected to a
source of electric energy. However, to
protect employees in case of accidental
contact of the equipment with live parts,
protective grounding is required
elsewhere in the standard (in
§ 1926.964(c)(11), for example); to
ensure the adequacy of this grounding,
the provisions of paragraph (d) must be
followed.
The general requirement contained in
paragraph (b) of proposed § 1926.962
states the conditions under which lines
and equipment must be grounded.
Basically, in order for lines or
equipment to be treated as deenergized,
they must be deenergized under
53 As previously noted, existing § 1926.954(a)
requires conductors and equipment to be
considered as energized until determined to be
deenergized or until grounded. Paragraph (c) of
existing § 1926.954 requires bare communications
conductors on poles or structures to be treated as
energized unless they are protected by insulating
materials. The hazard addressed by these
requirements is covered by proposed
§ 1926.960(b)(2), discussed earlier in this preamble.
When equipment is being installed, it poses the
same hazard to an employee that any other
conductive object being manipulated near exposed
energized parts does. Requirements contained in
proposed § 1926.960(c) and (d) adequately address
this hazard. The installation of lines however does
pose additional hazards. First, the lines may be
subject to hazardous induced voltage. Second,
because of their length, new overhead lines are
much more likely to contact existing energized lines
than new equipment is. This can happen, for
example, through failure of the stringing and
tensioning equipment being used to install the new
lines or through failure of the existing lines or
support structures. These hazards are addressed in
proposed § 1926.964(b), which specifically covers
the installation and removal of overhead lines.
Lastly, new underground lines, which are run as
insulated cable, do not pose electrical hazards.
For these reasons, OSHA is not proposing to carry
existing § 1926.954(b) forward. However, comments
are requested on whether or not the proposal
adequately protects employees from hazards
associated with the installation of new lines and
equipment.
54 As used throughout the rest of this discussion
and within proposed § 1926.962, the term
‘‘grounding’’ includes bonding. Technically,
grounding refers to the connection of a conductive
part to ground, whereas bonding refers to
connecting conductive parts to each other.
However, for convenience, OSHA is using the term
‘‘grounding’’ to refer to both techniques of
minimizing voltages to which an employee will be
exposed.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34874
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
proposed § 1926.961 and grounded.
Grounding could be omitted only if the
installation of a ground is impracticable
(such as during the initial stages of work
on underground cables, when the
conductor is not exposed for grounding)
or if the conditions resulting from the
installation of a ground would introduce
more serious hazards than work without
grounds. It is expected that conditions
warranting the absence of protective
grounds would be rare.
If grounds are not installed and the
lines and equipment are to be treated as
deenergized, however, precautions have
to be observed, and certain conditions
must be met. Obviously, the lines and
equipment would still have to be
deenergized by the procedures of
§ 1926.961. Also, there would have to be
no possibility of contact with another
source of voltage and no hazard of
induced voltage present. Since these
precautions and conditions do not
protect against the possible reenergizing
of the lines or equipment under all
conditions, the omission of grounding is
permitted only in very limited
circumstances.
Paragraph (f) of existing § 1926.954
allows grounds to be omitted without
the additional restrictions proposed in
§ 1926.962(b)(1) through (b)(3).
However, the existing standard requires
the lines or equipment to be treated as
energized in such cases. While the
proposal does not specifically permit
omitting grounds for conductors that are
treated as energized, it does not require
grounding unless the equipment is to be
considered as deenergized. (See the
discussion of proposed § 1926.960(b)(2),
earlier in this section of the preamble.)
Paragraph (f) of existing § 1926.954
also addresses where grounds must be
placed. The existing standard requires
grounds to be placed between the work
location and all sources of energy and
as close as practicable to the work
location. Alternatively, grounds could
be placed at the work location. If work
is to be performed at more than one
location, the existing standard would
require the line section to be grounded
and short circuited at one location and
would require the conductor on which
work is being performed to be grounded
at the work location. Although these
requirements are intended to protect
employees in case the line on which
they are working is accidentally
reenergized, the existing provisions do
not ensure that the grounding practices
and equipment are adequate to provide
this protection.
OSHA proposed requirements similar
to those in existing § 1926.954(f) when
it proposed § 1910.269(n). In developing
final § 1910.269(n), OSHA reviewed the
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
accidents in 269–Ex. 9–2 and 269–Ex.
9–2A for those involving improper
protective grounding. There were nine
accidents in these two exhibits related
to protective grounding. In three cases,
inadequate grounds were present. Based
on the fact that grounding is a backup
measure, intended to provide protection
only when all other safety-related work
practices fail, OSHA concluded that this
was a significant incidence of faulty
grounding.
Grounding practices that do not
provide an equipotential zone in which
an employee is safeguarded from voltage
differences do not provide complete
protection. In case the line is
accidentally reenergized, voltages to
which an employee would be exposed
due to inadequate grounding would be
lethal, as can be seen by some of the
exhibits in the § 1910.269 rulemaking
record (269–Ex. 6–27, 57). The
employee would be protected only if he
or she is not in contact with the line
until the energy source is cleared by
circuit protective devices.
For these reasons, OSHA is proposing
to require grounds that will protect
employees in the event that the line or
equipment on which they are working is
reenergized. Proposed § 1926.962(c)
would require protective grounds to be
so located and arranged that employees
are not exposed to hazardous
differences in potential. The proposal
would allow employers and employees
to use whatever grounding method they
prefer as long as employees are
protected. For employees working at
elevated positions on poles and towers,
single point grounding may be
necessary, together with grounding
straps to provide an equipotential zone
for the worker. Employees in insulated
aerial lifts working at midspan between
two conductor supporting structures
may be protected by grounding at
convenient points on both sides of the
work area. Bonding the aerial lift to the
grounded conductor would ensure that
the employee remains at the potential of
the conductor in case of a fault. Other
methods may be necessary to protect
workers on the ground, including
grounding mats and insulating
platforms. The Agency believes that this
performance-oriented approach would
provide the flexibility needed by
employers, but would also afford the
best protection to employees.
Paragraph (d) of proposed § 1926.962
contains requirements that grounding
equipment would have to meet. So that
the protective grounding equipment
does not fail, it would be required to
have an ampacity high enough so that
the fault current could be carried for the
amount of time necessary to allow
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
protective devices to interrupt the
circuit. This provision, which has been
taken from the first sentence of
§ 1910.269(n)(4)(i), is contained in
paragraph (d)(1)(i) of proposed
§ 1926.962.
The design of electric power
distribution lines operating at 600 volts
or less frequently provides a maximum
fault current and fault interrupting time
that exceeds the current carrying
capability of the circuit conductors. In
other words, the maximum fault current
on distribution secondaries of 600 volts
or less is typically high enough to melt
the phase conductors carrying the fault
current. If protective grounding
equipment were required to carry the
maximum amount of fault current
without regard to whether the phase
conductors would fail, the size of the
grounding equipment would be
impractical. However, OSHA does not
interpret § 1910.269(n)(4)(i) to require
protective grounding equipment to be
capable of carrying more current than
necessary to allow the phase conductors
to fail. A protective grounding jumper
sized slightly larger than a phase
conductor would be sufficient to meet
the general industry standard, although
the language of the first sentence of
§ 1910.269(n)(4)(i) does not make this
clear.
To clarify this requirement, OSHA is
proposing, in § 1926.962(d)(1)(ii), to
permit, specifically, the use of
protective grounding equipment that
would not be large enough to carry the
maximum fault current indefinitely but
that would be large enough to carry this
current until the phase conductor
fails.55 This would be permitted only
under certain conditions. First, the
grounding equipment must be able to
carry the maximum fault current until
the conductor being protected fails.
Second, the conductor must only be
considered as grounded where it is
protected by the grounding equipment.
In other words, the portion of the phase
conductor between the grounding
equipment and the employee being
protected must remain intact under fault
conditions. Third, since the phase
conductor will likely fall once it fails,
no employee must be in a position
where they would be endangered by any
failed conductor. OSHA has not
restricted this provision to lines and
equipment operating at 600 volts or less
because the Agency believes that
employees would be protected with
these provisions regardless of voltage.
However, OSHA requests comments on
the issue of whether or not proposed
55 OSHA is also proposing to make a similar
change in § 1910.269.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
§ 1926.962(d)(1)(ii) should be restricted
to lines and equipment operating at 600
volts or less.
Paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of § 1926.962
would require protective grounding
equipment to have an ampacity of at
least No. 2 AWG copper. This provision
would ensure that protective grounding
equipment has a suitable minimum
ampacity and mechanical strength.
Under paragraph (d)(2), the
impedance of the grounding equipment
would be required to be low enough to
ensure the quick operation of the
protective devices.
Paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) help
ensure the prompt clearing of the circuit
supplying voltage to the point where the
employee is working. Thus, the
grounding equipment limits the
duration and reduces the severity of any
electric shock, though it does not itself
prevent shock from occurring. (As
discussed earlier, proposed
§ 1926.962(c) requires employees to be
protected from hazardous differences in
electrical potential.) OSHA has included
a note referencing the ASTM standard
on protective grounding equipment
(ASTM F855–03) so that employers will
be able to find additional information
that may be helpful in their efforts to
comply with the standard.
Existing § 1926.954(h), (i), and (j)
contain requirements relating to the
impedance and ampacity of personal
protective grounds. Paragraph (i)
requires tower clamps to have adequate
ampacity, and paragraph (j) contains the
same requirement for ground leads with
an additional restriction that they be no
smaller than No. 2 AWG copper.
Paragraph (i) requires the impedance of
a grounding electrode (if one is used) to
be low enough to remove the danger of
harm to employees or to permit prompt
operation of protective devices.
OSHA believes that the entire
grounding system should be capable of
carrying the maximum fault current and
should have an impedance low enough
to protect employees. The existing
standard contains no requirements for
the impedance of grounding conductors
or clamps, nor does it contain
requirements relating to the ampacity of
grounding clamps other than tower
clamps. By addressing specific portions
of the grounding systems but not
addressing others, the existing standard
does not require complete protection for
employees. Because the proposal’s
grounding requirements apply to the
entire grounding system, OSHA believes
that the proposal will provide better
protection for employees than the
existing rule.
Paragraph (e) of § 1926.962 would
require lines and equipment that are to
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
be grounded to be tested for voltage
before a ground is installed. If a
previously installed ground is evident,
no test would need to be conducted.
This requirement would prevent
energized equipment from being
grounded, which could result in injury
to the employee installing the ground.
This requirement is the same as existing
§ 1926.954(d).
Paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) propose
procedures for installing and removing
grounds. To protect employees in the
event that the ‘‘deenergized’’ equipment
to be grounded is or becomes energized,
the proposal would require the
‘‘equipment end’’ of the grounding
device to be applied last and removed
first and that a live-line tool be used for
both procedures in order to protect
workers.
These provisions are similar to
existing § 1926.954(e)(1) and (e)(2),
except that the existing standard
recognizes the use of a ‘‘suitable device’’
in addition to a live-line tool. OSHA is
concerned that this language implies
that rubber insulating gloves could be
used to install and remove grounds
under any circumstance. It should be
noted that it is unsafe for an employee
to be too close when connecting or
disconnecting a ground. Therefore,
OSHA is proposing to eliminate the
phrase ‘‘or other insulated device’’ from
the rule. OSHA will, however, consider
any device that is insulated for the
voltage and that allows an employee to
apply or remove the ground from a safe
position to be a live-line tool for the
purposes of § 1926.962(f)(1) and (f)(2).
These two paragraphs in the proposal
are based on existing § 1910.269(n)(6)
and (n)(7). The proposal, however,
would permit the use of insulated
equipment other than live-line tools to
attach protective grounds to, and to
remove them from, lines and equipment
operating at 600 volts or less, if the
employer ensures that the line or
equipment is not energized at the time
or if the employer can demonstrate that
the employee would be protected from
any hazard that could develop if the line
or equipment is energized. For example,
test equipment could be connected to a
line that is to be grounded, and the
protective ground could be applied by
an employee wearing rubber gloves
while the test equipment indicated that
the line was deenergized. After the
ground was in place the test equipment
could be removed.
Some electric utilities have
complained that lines and equipment
operating at 600 volts or less cannot
always accommodate the placement and
removal of a protective ground by a lineline tool. OSHA is proposing these
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34875
alternatives to enable protective grounds
to be placed on this equipment in a
manner that will still protect
employees.56
It should be noted that, during the
periods before the ground is installed
and after it is removed, the line or
equipment involved must be considered
as energized (under proposed
§ 1926.960(b)(2)). As a result, the
minimum approach distances specified
in proposed § 1926.960(c)(1) would
apply when grounds are installed or
removed.
With certain underground cable
installations, a fault at one location
along the cable can create a substantial
potential difference between the earth at
that location and the earth at other
locations. Under normal conditions, this
is not a hazard. However, if an
employee is in contact with a remote
ground (by being in contact with a
conductor that is grounded at a remote
station), he or she can be exposed to the
difference in potential (because he or
she is also in contact with the local
ground). To protect employees in such
situations, proposed § 1926.962(g)
would prohibit grounding cables at
remote locations if a hazardous
potential transfer could occur under
fault conditions. This proposed
provision has no counterpart in existing
Subpart V.
Proposed § 1926.962(h) addresses the
removal of grounds for test purposes.
Under the proposal, grounds would be
permitted to be removed for test
purposes. Existing Subpart V contains a
comparable requirement in
§ 1926.954(g). However, the existing
standard simply requires employees to
take extreme caution when grounds are
removed for testing. OSHA does not
believe that the existing language
contains sufficient safeguards for
employees. Therefore, the Agency is
proposing performance criteria that
testing procedures would be required to
meet. During the test procedure, the
employer would be required to ensure
that each employee uses insulating
equipment and is isolated from any
hazards involved, and the employer
would be required to institute any
additional measures as may be
necessary to protect each exposed
employee in case the previously
grounded lines and equipment become
energized. OSHA believes that the
proposal would protect employees
better than the existing rule.
56 OSHA is also proposing to make similar
changes in § 1910.269.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34876
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Section 1926.963, Testing and Test
Facilities
Proposed § 1926.963 contains safety
work practices covering electrical
hazards arising out of the special testing
of lines and equipment (namely, inservice and out-of-service, as well as
new, lines and equipment) to determine
maintenance needs and fitness for
service. Generally, the need to conduct
tests on new and idle lines and
equipment as part of normal checkout
procedures, in addition to maintenance
evaluation, is specified in the National
Electrical Safety Code (ANSI C2).
Basically, as stated in paragraph (a), the
rules would apply only to testing
involving interim measurements
utilizing high voltage, high power, or
combinations of both, as opposed to
testing involving continuous
measurements as in routine metering,
relaying and normal line work.
Proposed § 1926.963 has been taken
directly from § 1910.269(o). Existing
Subpart V has no counterpart to these
proposed requirements. The Agency
believes that these high-voltage and
high-current tests are performed during
construction work and that employers
would benefit by the inclusion of these
provisions within the construction
standard in place of a reference to
§ 1910.269. However, it may be that this
type of work is performed too
infrequently to warrant repeating the
requirements in Subpart V. OSHA
requests comments on the need to
include proposed § 1926.963 in Subpart
V.
For the purposes of these proposed
requirements, high-voltage testing is
assumed to involve voltage sources
having sufficient energy to cause injury
and having magnitudes generally in
excess of 1,000 volts, nominal. Highpower testing involves sources where
fault currents, load currents,
magnetizing currents, or line dropping
currents are used for testing, either at
the rated voltage of the equipment
under test or at lower voltages. Proposed
§ 1926.963 covers such testing in
laboratories, in shops and substations,
and in the field and on transmission and
distribution lines.
Examples of typical special tests in
which either high-voltage sources or
high-power sources are used as part of
operation and maintenance of electric
power transmission and distribution
systems include cable-fault locating,
large capacitive load tests, high current
fault-closure tests, insulation resistance
and leakage tests, direct-current proof
tests, and other tests requiring direct
connection to power lines.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
Excluded from the scope of proposed
§ 1926.963 are routine inspection and
maintenance measurements made by
qualified employees in accordance with
established work practice rules where
the hazards associated with the use of
intrinsic high-voltage or high-power
sources require only those normal
precautions peculiar to such periodic
work. Obviously, the work practices for
these routine tests would have to
comply with the rest of proposed
Subpart V. Because this type of testing
poses hazards that are identical to other
types of routine electric power
transmission and distribution work,
OSHA believes that the requirements of
proposed Subpart V excluding
§ 1926.963 adequately protect
employees performing these tests. Two
typical examples of such excluded test
work procedures would be ‘‘phasingout’’ testing and testing for a ‘‘no
voltage’’ condition. To clarify the scope
of this section, a note to this effect is
included after paragraph (a).
Paragraph (b)(1) of proposed
§ 1926.963 would require employers to
establish work practices governing
employees engaged in certain testing
activities. These work practices are
intended to delineate precautions that
employees must observe for protection
from the hazards of high-voltage or
high-power testing. For example, if
high-voltage sources are used in the
testing, employees would be required to
follow the safety practices established
under paragraph (b)(1) to protect against
such typical hazards as inadvertent
arcing or voltage overstress destruction,
as well as accidental contact with
objects that have become residually
charged by induced voltage from
electric field exposure. If high-power
sources are used in the testing,
employees would be required to follow
established safety practices to protect
against such typical hazards as ground
voltage rise as well as exposure to
excessive electromagnetically-caused
physical forces associated with the
passage of heavy current.
These practices would apply to work
performed at both permanent and
temporary test areas (that is, areas
permanently located in the controlled
environment of a laboratory or shop and
in areas temporarily located in a noncontrolled 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
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(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 § 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 highpower 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
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
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 highvoltage 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
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
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 highvoltage 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
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34877
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
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34878
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
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 § 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 § 1926.955 contains a similar
requirement, and the rest of paragraph
(d) specifies exactly how the grounding
is to be installed.
Paragraph (q) of § 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 § 1910.269(q), rather than
§ 1926.955, as the base document in
developing proposed § 1926.964. OSHA
has, however, taken requirements that
pertain specifically to construction work
from existing § 1926.955 and
incorporated them into the proposal.
Paragraph (q) of § 1910.269 does not
contain these requirements, because it
does not apply to construction. For
example, existing § 1926.955(b) applies
to metal tower construction, and no
comparable provisions are contained in
§ 1910.269. OSHA is therefore
proposing requirements from
§ 1926.955(b).
Paragraph (a)(2) of proposed
§ 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
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
§ 1926.955(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4), has
been taken from § 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
§ 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
§ 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
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
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
§ 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 § 1926.955(a)(5)(i), has been
taken from § 1910.269(q)(1)(ii).
Paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of proposed
§ 1926.964 would require employees
handling the poles to be insulated from
the pole. This provision has been taken
from § 1910.269(q)(1)(iii). The
comparable provision in
§ 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 § 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
§ 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 § 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 § 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
§ 1926.955(a)(7), has been taken from
§ 1910.269(q)(1)(iv).
Paragraph (b) of proposed § 1926.964
addresses the installation and removal
of overhead lines. The provisions
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
contained in this paragraph have been
taken from § 1910.269(q)(2), which was
based in large part on existing
§ 1926.955(c) (stringing and removing
lines) and § 1926.955(d) (stringing
adjacent to energized lines). However,
the proposed rule, like § 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 § 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 § 1926.964 simply adopts the
requirements of § 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
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34879
work location. (See the discussion of
proposed § 1926.958(d)(3) and
Appendix C to Subpart V for acceptable
methods of compliance.)
Paragraph (b)(3) of proposed
§ 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
§ 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 § 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 § 1926.964 will provide
effective protection against the electrical
hazards associated with installing or
removing lines near energized parts.
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
§ 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
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.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34880
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
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
§ 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
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
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
§ 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
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 § 1926.964 addresses the liveline bare-hand technique.
Proposed § 1926.964(c) has been taken
directly from § 1910.269(q)(3). Existing
§ 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 § 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
§ 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
§ 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 § 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 liveline bare-hand work is at the same
potential as the line on which he or she
is working, the employee has exposure
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
to two different voltages. First, the
employee is exposed to the phase-toground 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 workone for the phase-to-ground exposure
(the distance from the employee to a
grounded object) and one for the phaseto-phase exposure (the distance from the
employee to another phase). The phaseto-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 liveline 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 § 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,
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.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
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.
Sometimes the weather makes liveline 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 § 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 § 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
§ 1910.269(q)(3)(v).
Proposed § 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
§ 1926.964(c)(6), which has been taken
from § 1910.269(q)(3)(vi), is essentially
identical to existing § 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
59 Personal protective grounding provides
supplementary protection in case the deenergized
line is reenergized.
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34881
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 § 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
§ 1926.964(c)(7), which has been taken
from § 1910.269(q)(3)(vii), is essentially
identical to existing § 1926.955(e)(14).
Proposed § 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
§ 1910.269(q)(3)(viii) and (q)(3)(ix), are
essentially identical to existing
§ 1926.955(e)(12) and (e)(13).
Proposed § 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 § 1910.269(q)(3)(x), is
essentially identical to existing
§ 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
§ 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
§ 1910.269(q)(3)(xi), is similar to
existing § 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
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34882
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
the equipment. The hazard addressed by
this provision is covered in proposed
§ 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 § 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 § 1910.269(q)(3)(xii), is
similar to existing § 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),
§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 1926.964
would require the minimum approach
distances specified in Table V–2
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
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
§ 1910.269(q)(3)(xiii), (q)(3)(iv), and
(q)(3)(v), are essentially identical to
existing § 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
§ 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-tophase 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 § 1910.269(q)(3)(xvi), is similar to
existing § 1926.955(e)(18). However, the
existing standard, in
§ 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 § 1926.955(e)(18)(ii) is
unnecessary.
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Proposed §§ 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 § 1910.269(q)(3)(xvii),
has no counterpart in existing
§ 1926.955(e).
Proposed § 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 § 1910.269(q)(3)(xviii),
is essentially identical to existing
§ 1926.955(e)(20)(i).
Proposed § 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
§ 1910.269(q)(3)(xix). Existing
§ 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
§ 1926.964 would assist the employee in
accurately determining the minimum
approach distances required by the
standard.
Existing § 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 § 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 § 1926.959(c),
which would require mechanical
equipment to be operated within its
design limitations.
Paragraph (d) of proposed § 1926.964
addresses hazards associated with
towers and other structures supporting
overhead lines. This paragraph has been
taken from § 1910.269(q)(4).
Paragraph (b) of existing § 1926.955
addresses metal tower construction.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Many of the requirements in the existing
rules cover the same hazards as other
provisions in the construction
standards. For example,
§ 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 § 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.
To protect employees on the ground
from hazards presented by falling
objects, proposed § 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
§ 1910.269(q)(4)(i), is equivalent to
existing § 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
§ 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 § 1910.269(q)(4)(ii), is
the same as § 1926.955(b)(4)(ii) and
(b)(6)(ii). The proposal eliminates the
60 Two of the requirements in the existing
paragraphs are covered in other places. Under the
last sentence of existing § 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 § 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
§ 1926.955(b)(3)(iii) addresses the stability of
equipment used near excavations. Proposed
§ 1926.959(b) and (c) cover hazards associated with
instability of mechanical equipment.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
redundancy presented by these two
existing requirements.
Paragraph (d)(3) of proposed
§ 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 § 1910.269(q)(4)(iii), is
essentially identical to
§ 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
§ 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
§ 1910.269(q)(4)(iv), is essentially
identical to existing § 1926.955(b)(6)(iv).
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
§ 1926.965 addresses safety for these
underground electrical installations. As
noted in § 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 § 1926.965 only contains
considerations unique to underground
facilities. For example, proposed
§ 1926.953, relating to enclosed spaces,
also applies to underground operations
involving entry into an enclosed space.
Proposed § 1926.965 has been taken
from § 1910.269(t). Existing Subpart V
contains requirements for work on
underground lines in § 1926.956.
Differences between the existing rules
and the proposed rules are explained in
the following summary and explanation
of proposed § 1926.965.
Paragraph (b) of proposed § 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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34883
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
§ 1910.269(t)(1). Subpart V contains no
counterpart to this requirement.
Paragraph (c) of proposed § 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, § 1926.95(a)
requires employees to wear head
protection when they are working in
underground electrical installations.
Proposed paragraph (c) has been taken
from § 1910.269(t)(2). Subpart V
contains no counterpart to this
requirement.
Paragraph (d) of proposed § 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 § 1910.269(t)(3) and from existing
§ 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
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34884
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
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.
If other hazards are believed to
endanger the employee in the manhole,
paragraph (h) of proposed § 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 § 1926.953(h)
to enter the manhole. To clarify the
application of the two different
attendant requirements, a note has been
included following § 1926.965(d)(2).
The note indicates that if an attendant
is also required under § 1926.953(h),
one person may serve to satisfy both
requirements, but is not permitted to
enter the manhole.
OSHA has included a second note
following § 1926.965(d)(2). This note
serves as a reminder that § 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
§ 1926.965 would permit an employee
working alone to enter a manhole or
vault for the purpose of inspection,
housekeeping, taking readings, or
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.
63 Additionally, as noted in the discussion of
proposed § 1926.953, earlier in this preamble, the
entry would have to be conducted in accordance
with § 1910.146, the generic permit-required
confined spaces standard, if proposed §§ 1926.953
and 1926.965 would not adequately protect the
entrants.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
similar work. As noted earlier, the
purpose of requiring an attendant under
proposed § 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
§ 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
§ 1910.269(t)(3)(iv), has no counterpart
in § 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 § 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
§ 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
§ 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 § 1910.269(t)(5), is similar to
existing § 1926.956(c)(4), (c)(5), and
(c)(6); however, existing § 1926.956(c)(4)
and (c)(5) apply only to excavations.
The proposal would apply the
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
requirements to all underground
installations.
If any energized cables are to be
moved during underground operations,
paragraph (g) of proposed § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 1926.965(h)
would not require protective measures
to be taken. This provision, which has
been taken from § 1910.269(t)(7), has no
counterpart in existing Subpart V.
In the § 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
§ 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
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
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 § 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 § 1910.269(t)(8), is
essentially identical to existing
§ 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
§ 1926.960(j), which recognize treating
objects as energized as an alternative to
grounding.
Section 1926.966, Substations
Proposed § 1926.966 addresses work
performed in substations. As is the case
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
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 § 1926.960 on working on or
near live parts.
Proposed § 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
§ 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
§ 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
§ 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 § 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
§ 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
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34885
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
§ 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 § 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-outtype 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
§ 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
§ 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
§ 1910.269(u)(3). Existing
§ 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 § 1926.966(e) addresses the
guarding of rooms containing electric
supply equipment. This paragraph has
been taken from § 1910.269(u)(4). The
only provisions in existing Subpart V
addressing guarding of live parts in
substations are contained in
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34886
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
§ 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
§ 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 § 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 § 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
§§ 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.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
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
§ 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 (8foot) height at 50 volts.
Proposed § 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 § 1926.966(f) also addresses
guarding of live parts. This paragraph,
which has been taken from
§ 1910.269(u)(5), has no counterpart in
existing Subpart V.
Proposed § 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
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 § 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 § 1926.952. These two
requirements have been taken from
§ 1910.269(u)(6).
Existing § 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
§ 1926.966(g)(1) would require
employees who do not regularly work in
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
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 § 1926.957(a)(2) is essentially
identical to proposed § 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 § 1926.952(b), existing
§ 1926.957(a)(2)(ii), which applies only
to work in energized substations, would
no longer be necessary.
Section 1926.967, Special Conditions
Proposed § 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 § 1926.961 (deenergizing
lines and equipment) and § 1926.962
(grounding)—when work is performed
on capacitors or on lines that are
connected to capacitors. Proposed
§ 1926.967(a), which has been taken
from § 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 § 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, shortcircuited. 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.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
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 § 1926.961) and for grounding
(proposed § 1926.962) has been
included following § 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 § 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 § 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 constantcurrent 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, § 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 § 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 § 1926.964
or on underground electrical
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34887
installations in proposed § 1926.965, as
appropriate. These provisions, which
have been taken from § 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 § 1926.967(d) would require
sufficient illumination to be provided so
that work can be performed safely. This
provision, which has been taken from
§ 1910.269(w)(4), is comparable to
existing § 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
§ 1926.967(d) refers to § 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 § 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 § 1910.269(w)(5),
would replace existing § 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
§§ 1926.104, 1926.105, and 1926.106.
OSHA is proposing language identical
to that contained in § 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
§ 1926.950(g) would better protect
employees.
Proposed § 1926.967(f) references
Subpart P of Part 1926 for requirements
on excavations. This provision is
equivalent to existing § 1926.956(c)(2),
which references §§ 1926.651 and
1926.652 of that subpart. The proposed
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34888
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
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
§ 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
§ 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 § 1926.967,
which has been taken from
§ 1910.269(w)(6), has no counterpart in
existing Subpart V.
Proposed § 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 § 1926.960, or could be
worked as deenergized, following
proposed §§ 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 § 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 § 1926.54 of the
construction standards. Rather than
develop different requirements for
electric power transmission and
distribution work, OSHA has decided to
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
reference § 1926.54 in paragraph (i) of
proposed § 1926.967. This proposed
paragraph, which has been taken from
§ 1910.269(w)(8), has no counterpart in
existing Subpart V.
To ensure that hydraulic equipment
retains its insulating value, paragraph (j)
of proposed § 1926.967 would require
the hydraulic fluid used in insulated
sections of such equipment to be of the
insulating type. Paragraph (d)(1) of
§ 1926.302 requires hydraulic fluid used
in hydraulic powered tools to be fireresistant. Because available insulating
fluids are not fire-resistant, proposed
§ 1926.967(j) would exempt insulating
hydraulic fluid from § 1926.302(d)(1).
Proposed § 1926.967(j) is essentially
identical to existing § 1926.950(i).
Proposed § 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
§ 1910.269(s), has no counterpart in
existing Subpart V.
Microwave signaling systems are
addressed by paragraph (k)(1) of
proposed § 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 § 1910.97, which covers nonionizing radiation, prescribes a warning
sign with a special symbol indicating
non-ionizing radiation hazards.
Paragraph (k)(1)(ii) of proposed
§ 1926.967 would require areas that
contain radiation in excess of the
radiation protection guide set forth in
§ 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 § 1910.97, the radiation protection
guide is advisory only. Paragraph
(k)(1)(iii) of proposed § 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
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
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 § 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
§ 1910.269, which contains flow charts
depicting the interface between
§ 1910.269 and the following standards:
§ 1910.146, Permit-required confined
spaces; § 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
§ 1926.950(c)(1) and § 1926.964(c). This
appendix is based on Appendix B to
§ 1910.269, with revisions necessary to
reflect the changes to the minimum
approach distances proposed for
§ 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
§ 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
§ 1926.959(d)(3)(iii)(D),
§ 1926.963(d)(3)(ii), and
§ 1926.964(b)(2).
Appendix D contains information on
the inspection and testing of wood poles
addressed in § 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 § 1926.960(g).
Appendix G contains guidelines for
the inspection of work positioning
equipment to assist employers in
complying with proposed
§ 1926.954(b)(3)(i).
C. Part 1910 Revisions
The construction of electric power
transmission and distribution lines and
34889
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 §§ 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.
Proposed part 1910 revision
Proposed part 1926 revision
Rationale and comments
§ 1910.137(A)(1)(ii), (b)(2)(vii), and
Tables I–2, I–3, I–4, and I–5.
The
note
following
§ 1910.137(a)(3)(ii)(B).
§ 1926.97(a)(1)(ii), (c)(2)(vii), and
Tables E–1, E–2, E–3, and E–4.
The
note
following
§ 1926.97(a)(3)(ii)(B).
A
The
note
§ 1926.97(b)(2)(ii).
Section 1910.137 would be revised to include Class 00 rubber insulating gloves.
The note would be revised to include the latest ASTM 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 reference to an ASTM guide for visual inspection of rubber insulating equipment has been included to provide additional useful information for complying with the OSHA standard.
new
note
§ 1910.137(b)(2)(ii).
following
following
64 Subpart V does not contain requirements for
electric power generation installations or for lineclearance tree-trimming work. See the summary and
explanation of proposed § 1926.950(a)(3), earlier in
this preamble.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34890
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Proposed part 1910 revision
Proposed part 1926 revision
Rationale and comments
§ 1910.137(b)(2)(vii)(B) and (C) ......
§ 1926.97(c)(2)(vii)(B) and (C) .......
§ 1901.137(c) [New] ........................
§ 1926.97(b) ...................................
§ 1910.269(a)(2)(i) ...........................
§ 1926.950(b)(1) ............................
§ 1910.269(a)(2)(ii)(E) [New] ...........
§ 1926.950(b)(2)(v) ........................
§ 1910.269(a)(2)(vii) ........................
§ 1926.950(b)(7) ............................
§ 1910.269(a)(4) [New] ....................
§ 1926.950(c) .................................
§ 1910.269(c) ...................................
§ 1926.952 .....................................
The note following § 1910.269(e)(6)
None ..............................................
§ 1910.269(e)(8) ..............................
§ 1926.952(h) .................................
§ 1910.269(e)(8) ..............................
§ 1926.953(i) ..................................
§ 1910.269(e)(12) ............................
§ 1926.953(m) ................................
§ 1910.269(g)(2) ..............................
§ 1926.954(b) .................................
§ 1910.269(l)(2)(i) ............................
§ 1926.960(c)(1)(i) .........................
§ 1910.269(l)(3) and (4) ..................
§ 1926.960(c)(2) and (d) ................
§ 1910.269(l)(6) [Revised] and (12)
[New].
§ 1926.960(f) and (g) .....................
Table R–6 ........................................
Table V–2 ......................................
§ 1910.269(m)(3)(viii) ......................
§ 1926.961(c)(3)(ii) .........................
§ 1910.269(n)(4) ..............................
§ 1926.962(d) .................................
Existing § 1910.137(b)(2)(vii)(B) would be split into two separate CFR
units.
A new paragraph would be added to cover electrical protective equipment that is not made of rubber. See the summary and explanation
of proposed § 1926.97(b).
Existing § 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
§ 1926.950(b)(1)(iii).
A new paragraph would be added to require qualified employees to
be trained to recognize and to control or avoid electrical hazards.
See the discussion of proposed § 1926.950(b)(2)(v).
The existing 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 § 1926.950(b)(7).
A new paragraph would be added to require host and contract employers to share information on safety-related matters. See the discussion of proposed § 1926.950(c).
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 § 1926.952.
This note would be removed. It currently references § 1910.146 for
the definition of ‘‘entry.’’ OSHA is proposing to add a definition of
this term to § 1910.269, so this note would be unnecessary.
OSHA is proposing to remove the requirement to provide an attendant if there is reason to believe a hazard exists in the enclosed
space. Paragraph (e)(1) of § 1910.269 requires the entry to conform to § 1910.146 if there are hazards for which the requirements
of § 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 § 1910.269(e) and (t), then § 1910.146
applies, and an attendant would be required by that standard.
The existing requirement would be revised to clarify that the test instrument must have an accuracy of ±10 percent.
The existing 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.
The existing requirements would be revised to maintain consistency
with the construction provisions. See the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.954(b).
The existing 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 § 1926.960(c)(1).
OSHA is proposing to revise the existing 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 § 1926.960(c)(2) and (d).
OSHA is proposing to revise the existing requirements on clothing in
§ 1910.269(l)(6)(ii) and (iii) to require employees to be protected
from electric arcs. See the discussion of proposed § 1926.960(g).
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 § 1926.960(c)(1).
The existing provision would be 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.
The existing requirement would be revised to allow smaller protective
grounds under certain conditions. See the discussion of proposed
§ 1926.962(d).
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
34891
Proposed part 1910 revision
Proposed part 1926 revision
Rationale and comments
§ 1910.269(n)(6) and (n)(7) .............
§ 1926.962(f) ..................................
§ 1910.269(p)(4)(i) ...........................
§ 1926.959(d)(1) ............................
§ 1910.269(t)(3), (7), and (8) ...........
§ 1926.965(d), (h), and (i) ..............
The
notes
following
§ 1910.269(u)(1), (u)(5)(i), (v)(3),
and (v)(5).
§ 1910.269(x) ...................................
The
notes
following
§ 1926.966(b) (f)(1).
The existing 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 § 1926.962(f).
OSHA is proposing to 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 § 1926.959(d)(1).
OSHA is proposing to apply these 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 § 1926.965(d), (h), and (i).
The references in these notes to ANSI C2–1987 would be updated to
ANSI C2–2002.
Appendix F to § 1910.269 [New] .....
Appendix F to Subpart V ...............
Appendix G to § 1910.269 [New] ....
Appendix G to Subpart V ..............
and
§ 1926.968 .....................................
There are some differences in
language between proposed Subpart V
and existing § 1910.269. Some of these
differences are because § 1910.269
applies to electric power generation
installations and related work practices
but Subpart V does not. For example,
existing § 1910.269(b)(1)(ii) addresses
CPR training requirements for fixed
work locations ‘‘such as generating
stations.’’ The corresponding
construction provision in proposed
§ 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
OSHA is proposing to add definitions of ‘‘contract employer,’’ ‘‘host
employer,’’ and ‘‘entry.’’ See the discussion of proposed
§§ 1926.950(c) and 1926.953.
OSHA is proposing to add a new appendix containing information on
protecting employees from electric arcs.
OSHA is proposing to add a new appendix containing guidelines for
the inspection of work positioning equipment.
when construction work is performed
instead of general industry standards
when maintenance work is performed.
For example, proposed § 1926.969(a)(1)
contains exemptions from
§§ 1926.550(a)(15) and 1926.600(a)(6) 65
for the operation of mechanical
equipment by qualified employees near
overhead power lines. Existing
§ 1910.269 contains no similar
requirement because the corresponding
general industry provision,
§ 1910.333(c)(3), does not apply to
qualified employees performing work
covered by § 1910.269. In a similar
fashion, proposed § 1926.953(a) does
not contain § 1910.269(e)’s exemption
from paragraphs (d) through (k) of
§ 1910.146 dealing with permit-space
entries, as that general industry
standard does not apply to construction
work. OSHA intends to retain such
differences in the final rule.
On the other hand, OSHA has
identified several nonsubstantive
differences between the existing
language in §§ 1910.137 and 1910.269
and the language proposed in § 1926.97
and Subpart V. Table IV–8 identifies
these differences. The Agency intends to
carry those changes into final
§§ 1910.137 and 1910.269. OSHA
invites comments and questions on any
differences between the proposed
standards and existing §§ 1910.137 and
1910.269 and on how the respective
final rules should be made consistent.
TABLE IV–8.—PROVISIONS WITH NONSUBSTANTIVE CHANGES
Section 1926.97 provisions with nonsubstantive changes in language
Correspondong provisions in existing § 1910.137
1926.97(c)(2)(xii), Note.
1910.137(b)(2)(xii), Note.
Subpart V Provisions with Nonsubstantive Changes in Language
1926.950(a)(2) ..........................................................................................
1926.950(b)(2), introductory text ..............................................................
1926.950(b)(2), Note ................................................................................
1926.950(b)(4)(i) .......................................................................................
1926.955(b)(4) ..........................................................................................
1926.956(d)(3) ..........................................................................................
1926.957(a) ..............................................................................................
1926.961(c)(9)(i) .......................................................................................
1926.961(c)(10) ........................................................................................
1926.962(b), introductory text ..................................................................
1926.966(e)(1)(iii), introductory text. ........................................................
1926.968, definition of ‘‘designated employee’’. ......................................
65 These provisions generally require that a 3.05meter (10-foot) minimum clearance be provided
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
Corresponding provisions in Existing § 1910.269
1910.269(a)(1)(iii).
1910.269(a)(2)(ii), introductory text.
1910.269(a)(2)(ii), Note.
1910.269(a)(2)(iv)(A).
1910.269(h)(2)(iii).
1910.269(i)(4)(ii).
1910.269(j)(1).
1910.269(m)(3)(x)(A).
1910.269(m)(3)(xi).
1910.269(n)(2), introductory text.
1910.269(u)(4)(i)(C), introductory text.
1910.269(x), definition of ‘‘designated employee’’.
between mechanical equipment and overhead
power lines.
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34892
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
TABLE IV–8.—PROVISIONS WITH NONSUBSTANTIVE CHANGES—Continued
Section 1926.97 provisions with nonsubstantive changes in language
1926.968,
‘‘guarded’’.
Note
to
the
definition
of
Correspondong provisions in existing § 1910.137
1910.269(x), Note to the definition of ‘‘guarded’’.
Notes:
(1) This table does not list provisions in which the only change was to break up paragraphs with multiple requirements into separately numbered paragraphs. See, for example, proposed § 1926.960(b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), and (b)(2), which were taken from the introductory text to existing
§ 1910.269(1)(1).
(2) This table also does not list provisions in which the only change was a conversion to international standard (SI) units. See, for example,
proposed § 1926.966 (e)(1)(iii)(B), which was taken from existing § 1910.269(u)(4)(i)(C)(2).
OSHA expects that final Subpart V
will differ from proposed Subpart V
because of changes adopted based on
the rulemaking record. When the final
rule is published, the Agency intends to
make corresponding changes to
§ 1910.269 to keep the two rules the
same, except to the extent that
substantial differences between
construction work and general industry
work warrant different standards.
Similarly, the Agency intends to adopt
changes to § 1910.137 so that it is the
same as § 1926.97. Therefore, OSHA is
seeking comment on entire §§ 1910.137
and 1910.269. Comments received on
the general industry standards will be
considered in adopting the final
construction standards and vice versa.
In particular, the Agency has requested
comments on several issues in the
proposed revision of Subpart V and in
proposed new § 1926.97. Some of these
issues are directed towards
requirements in those construction
standard that are taken from general
industry provisions that OSHA is not
proposing to revise. For example, earlier
in this section of the preamble, the
Agency requests comments on whether
AEDs should be required as part of the
medical and first aid requirements in
proposed § 1926.951. (See the summary
and explanation of proposed
§ 1926.951(b)(1).) Although OSHA has
not proposed to revise the
corresponding general industry
provision, existing § 1910.269(b)(1), the
Agency intends to revise that general
industry provision if the rulemaking
record supports a requirement for AEDs.
Therefore, OSHA encourages all
rulemaking participants to respond to
these issues regardless of whether the
participants are covered by the
construction standards. Table IV–9 is a
cross-reference table to help interested
parties to find the section in Subpart V
that corresponds to a particular
paragraph in § 1910.269.
TABLE IV–9.—PROVISIONS IN SUBPART V CORRESPONDING TO PARAGRAPHS IN § 1910.269
Paragraph
in § 1910.269
Corresponding section in subpart V
Topic
(a) .....................................................................................
§ 1926.950 .......................................................................
(b) .....................................................................................
§ 1926.951 .......................................................................
(c) .....................................................................................
(e) .....................................................................................
(f) ......................................................................................
(g) .....................................................................................
§ 1926.952 .......................................................................
§ 1926.953 .......................................................................
§ 1926.967(f) ....................................................................
§ 1926.954 .......................................................................
(h) .....................................................................................
(i) ......................................................................................
§ 1926.955 .......................................................................
§ 1926.956 .......................................................................
(j) ......................................................................................
(k) .....................................................................................
§ 1926.957 .......................................................................
§ 1926.958 .......................................................................
(l) ......................................................................................
§ 1926.960 .......................................................................
(m) ....................................................................................
§ 1926.961 .......................................................................
(n) .....................................................................................
§ 1926.962 .......................................................................
(o) .....................................................................................
(p) .....................................................................................
(q) .....................................................................................
(s) .....................................................................................
(t) ......................................................................................
§ 1926.963 .......................................................................
§ 1926.959 .......................................................................
§ 1926.964 .......................................................................
§ 1926.967(k) ...................................................................
§ 1926.965 .......................................................................
(u) .....................................................................................
(w) .....................................................................................
(x) .....................................................................................
§ 1926.966 .......................................................................
§ 1926.967 .......................................................................
§ 1926.968 .......................................................................
General, scope, and training.
Medical services and first
aid.
Job briefing.
Enclosed spaces.
Excavations.
Personal protective equipment.
Ladders and platforms.
Hand and portable power
tools.
Live-line tools.
Materials handling and storage.
Working on or near exposed energized parts.
Deenergizing lines and
equipment for employee
protection.
Grounding for the protection of employees.
Testing and test facilities.
Mechanical equipment.
Overhead lines.
Communication facilities.
Underground electrical installations.
Substations.
Special conditions.
Definitions.
Note: Paragraphs (d), (r), and (v) have no counterparts in Subpart V.
Foot protection for electrical hazards.
OSHA is also proposing to revise
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
§ 1910.136(a). Existing § 1910.136(a)
reads as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(a) General requirements. The
employer shall ensure that each affected
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
employee uses protective footwear
when working in areas where there is a
danger of foot injuries due to falling or
rolling objects, or objects piercing the
sole, and where such employee’s feet
are exposed to electrical hazards.
The Agency is concerned that this
language is being interpreted to
recognize the use of electrical hazard
footwear as a primary form of electrical
protection. Electrical hazard footwear is
constructed to provide insulation of the
wearer’s feet from ground. This can
provide a small degree of protection
from electric shock for the wearer. This
protection is limited to voltages of 600
volts or less under dry conditions and
is intended to be a secondary form of
electrical insulation.66 Conductive
footwear, which is not electrical hazard
footwear, is designed to prevent static
electricity buildup. This is one method
of protecting against static electrical
discharges that can damage equipment
or, in hazardous locations, could
possibly lead to fires or explosions.
Interpreting existing § 1910.136(a) so
as to recognize electrical hazard
footwear as a primary form of electrical
protection could expose employees to
electric shock hazards if they believe
that the real primary form of electrical
protection (for example, rubber
insulating gloves or blankets) is no
longer necessary. This is true for several
reasons. First, electrical hazard footwear
only insulates an employee’s feet from
ground. The employee can still be
grounded through other parts of his or
her body. Second, the insulation
provided by electrical hazard footwear
is good only under dry conditions. This
footwear provides little if any protection
once it becomes wet or damp. Lastly,
the voltage rating on electrical hazard
footwear is only 600 volts.
OSHA believes that, because of these
limitations, electrical hazard footwear
should not be addressed by § 1910.136,
which is designed to provide protection
to employees’ feet. The Agency also
believes that the need for conductive
footwear, whether or not it provides
protection for the foot, is adequately
addressed by the general requirement in
§ 1910.132(a) to provide personal
protection equipment. Therefore, OSHA
is proposing to delete language relating
to electrical hazards from § 1910.136(a).
Paragraph (d) of § 1910.132 addresses
hazard assessment and selection of
66 Primary insulation normally insulates an
employee directly from an energized part. Rubber
insulating gloves and rubber insulating blankets are
examples of primary electrical protection.
Secondary insulation normally insulates an
employee’s feet from a grounded surface. Electrical
hazard footwear and rubber insulating matting are
examples of secondary electrical protection.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
personal protective equipment.
Paragraph (f) of § 1910.132 addresses
training in the use of personal protective
equipment. As noted in § 1910.132(g),
paragraphs (d) and (f) of existing
§ 1910.132 do not apply to electrical
protective equipment covered by
§ 1910.137. While training is covered in
other electrical standards (for example,
in § 1910.268, telecommunications, in
§ 1910.269, electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution, and in
§ 1910.332, training in electrical safetyrelated work practices), many of the
hazard assessment requirements in
§ 1910.132(d) are not addressed in any
other OSHA electrical standard. OSHA
requests comments on whether
electrical protective equipment should
be added to the scope of § 1910.132(d)
or § 1910.132(f) or both.
D. Effective Date
When a final rule is promulgated,
OSHA typically provides a delay in
effective date to allow employers to
become familiar with the rule and to
come into compliance. Some of the
provisions in the proposal would
require some employers to purchase
new equipment. For example, the
requirements proposed in
§§ 1910.269(l)(11) and 1926.960(g)
would require some employers to
purchase flame-resistant clothing.
OSHA requests comments generally on
what an appropriate delay in effective
date should be and specifically on how
long employers will need to make
purchases necessary for compliance
with the proposed rule.
Some of the proposed provisions
would require employers to replace
existing noncomplying equipment with
equipment that meets the proposal. For
example, proposed § 1926.954(b)(2)(xi)
would require snaphooks used with
work positioning equipment to be of the
locking type. Some employers may still
use nonlocking snaphooks with work
positioning equipment. OSHA requests
information on the extent to which
nonlocking snaphooks are used. The
Agency also requests information on the
useful life of such equipment and on
whether OSHA should allow sufficient
time for noncomplying equipment to be
replaced as it wears out. Such a delay
would minimize the costs incurred by
employers but would expose employees
to hazards for a longer period.
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34893
V. Preliminary Regulatory Impact
Analysis and Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis
A. Executive Summary
Introduction
OSHA is required by the OSH Act to
ensure and demonstrate that standards
promulgated under the Act are
technologically and economically
feasible. Executive Order 12866, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act also
require OSHA to estimate the costs,
assess the benefits, and analyze the
impacts of the rules that the Agency
promulgates.
Accordingly, OSHA has prepared this
Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis
(PRIA) for OSHA’s proposal to update
its standards addressing electric power
generation, transmission, and
distribution work, and the use of
electrical protective equipment. For
purposes of this analysis, the terms
‘‘proposal’’ and ‘‘proposed standard’’
include all elements of this proposed
rulemaking, including proposed
changes to 29 CFR 1910.269, proposed
changes to 29 CFR 1926, proposed
changes involving electrical protective
equipment requirements, and other
associated revisions and additions. The
consolidated set of proposed actions
was analyzed in its entirety; only those
parts that were identified as involving
nonnegligible costs are explicitly
reflected in the analysis of compliance
costs and impacts.
In some past notices of proposed
rulemakings, OSHA has included only
an Executive Summary of the PRIA in
the preamble to the proposal. For this
rulemaking, OSHA is including the
entire PRIA in this Federal Register
notice for the convenience of the public.
Need for Regulation
Employees in work environments
addressed by the proposed standards are
exposed to a variety of significant
hazards that can and do cause serious
injury and death. The risks to
employees are excessively large due to
the existence of market failures, and
existing and alternative methods of
alleviating these negative consequences
have been shown to be insufficient.
After carefully weighing the various
potential advantages and disadvantages
of using a regulatory approach to
improve upon the current situation,
OSHA preliminarily concludes that in
this case the proposed mandatory
standards represent the best choice for
reducing the risks to employees. In
addition, rulemaking is necessary in this
case in order to replace older existing
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34894
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
standards with updated, clear, and
consistent safety standards.
Affected Establishments
The proposal affects establishments in
a variety of different industries
involving electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution. The
proposed standards primarily affect
firms that construct, operate, maintain,
or repair electric power generation,
transmission, or distribution systems.
These firms include electric utilities as
well as contractors who are hired by
utilities and who are primarily
classified in the construction industry.
In addition, potentially affected firms
are found in a variety of manufacturing
and other industries which own or
operate their own electric power
generation, transmission, or distribution
systems as a secondary part of their
business operations. The proposal also
potentially affects establishments
performing line-clearance tree-trimming
operations.
Benefits, Net Benefits, and Cost
Effectiveness
The proposed revisions to the OSHA
standards addressing electric power
generation, transmission, and
distribution work, as comprised by the
proposed rulemaking, are expected to
result in an increased degree of safety
for the affected employees. These
changes are expected to reduce the
numbers of accidents, fatalities, and
injuries associated with the relevant
tasks, as well as reducing the severity of
certain injuries, such as burns or
injuries that could be sustained as a
result of an arrested fall, that may still
occur while performing some of the
affected procedures.
An estimated 74 fatalities and 444
injuries occur annually among
employees involved in electric power
generation, transmission, and
distribution work addressed by the
provisions of this rulemaking. Based on
a review and analysis of the incident
reports associated with the reported
injuries and fatalities, full compliance
with the proposed standards would
prevent 79.0 percent of the relevant
injuries and fatalities, compared with
52.9 percent prevented with full
compliance with the existing standards.
Thus, the increase in safety that would
be provided by the proposed standards
is represented by the prevention of an
additional 19 fatalities and 116 injuries
annually. Applying an average monetary
value of $50,000 per prevented injury,
and a value of $6.8 million per
prevented fatality, results in an
estimated monetized benefit of about
$135 million annually.
The net monetized benefits of the
proposed standard are estimated to be
about $101.1 million annually ($135
million in benefits and $33.9 million in
costs). Note that these net benefits
exclude any unquantified benefits
associated with revising the standards to
provide updated, clear, and consistent
regulatory requirements to the public.
Additional benefits associated with
this rulemaking involve providing
updated, clear, and consistent safety
standards regarding electric power
generation, transmission, and
distribution work to the relevant
employers, employees, and interested
members of the public. OSHA believes
that the updated standards enhance
worker safety and are easier to
understand and to apply. They will
benefit employers and employees by
facilitating compliance while improving
safety. The benefits associated with
providing updated, clear, and consistent
safety standards have not been
monetized or quantified.
Table V–1 summarizes the costs,
benefits, net benefits, and cost
effectiveness of the proposed standard.
TABLE V–1.—NET BENEFITS AND COST EFFECTIVENESS
Annualized Costs:
Determination of Appropriate Protective Clothing ...................................................................................................
Provision of Appropriate Protective Clothing ..........................................................................................................
Host/Contractor Communications ............................................................................................................................
Expanded Job Briefings ..........................................................................................................................................
Additional Training ...................................................................................................................................................
Other Costs .............................................................................................................................................................
Total Annual Costs ...........................................................................................................................................
Annual Benefits:
Number of Injuries Prevented .................................................................................................................................
Number of Fatalities Prevented ...............................................................................................................................
Monetized Benefits (Assuming $50,000 per Injury and $6.8 million per Fatality Prevented) ................................
OSHA standards that are updated and consistent .................................................................................................
Total Annual Benefits .......................................................................................................................................
Net Benefits (Benefits Minus Costs):
$101 million annually.
Cost Effectiveness
Compliance with the proposed
standards would result in the
prevention of 1 fatality and 6 injuries
per $1.8 million in costs, or,
alternatively, $4.00 of benefits per dollar
of cost.
Compliance Costs
The estimated costs of compliance for
this rulemaking represent the additional
costs necessary for employers to achieve
full compliance. They do not include
costs associated with current
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
compliance with the new requirements
imposed by the rulemaking; nor do they
include costs associated with achieving
full compliance with existing applicable
requirements. The total annualized cost
of compliance with the proposed
rulemaking is estimated to be about
$33.9 million.
The largest component of the
compliance costs, at $11.0 million
annually, is comprised of the costs
necessary to comply with the
requirement for the employer to make a
determination regarding the type and
extent of flame-resistant apparel
necessary to protect employees in the
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
$11.0 million.
$8.4 million.
$7.8 million.
$5.1 million.
$1.2 million.
$0.4 million.
$33.9 million.
116.
19.
135 million.
Unquantified.
116 injuries and 19 fatalities prevented.
event that employees may be exposed to
an electric arc.
Other provisions of the proposed
standards involving compliance costs
include requirements for more
protective clothing ($8.4 million),
requirements for various
communications between host
employers and contractors ($7.8
million), expanded requirements for
conducting job briefings ($5.1 million),
and revised training requirements ($1.2
million).
Economic Impacts
To assess the nature and magnitude of
the economic impacts associated with
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
compliance with the proposed
rulemaking, OSHA developed
quantitative estimates of the potential
economic impact of the requirements on
entities in each of the affected industry
sectors. The estimated costs of
compliance were compared with
industry revenues and profits to provide
an assessment of potential economic
impacts.
The costs of compliance with the
proposed rulemaking are not large in
relation to the corresponding annual
financial flows associated with the
regulated activities. The estimated costs
of compliance represent about 0.01
percent of revenues and 0.14 percent of
profits on average across all entities;
compliance costs do not represent more
than 0.24 percent of revenues or more
than 4.03 percent of profits in any
affected industry.
The economic impact of the proposed
rulemaking is most likely to consist of
a small increase in prices for electricity,
of about 0.01 percent on average. It is
unlikely that a price increase on the
magnitude of 0.01 percent will
significantly alter the services
demanded by the public or any other
affected customers or intermediaries. If
the compliance costs of the proposed
rulemaking can be substantially
recouped with such a minimal increase
in prices, there may be little effect on
profits.
In general, for most establishments, it
would be very unlikely that none of the
compliance costs could be passed along
in the form of increased prices. In the
event that unusual circumstances may
inhibit even a price increase of 0.01
percent to be realized, profits in any of
the affected industries would be
reduced by a maximum of about 4
percent.
OSHA concludes that compliance
with the requirements of the proposed
rulemaking is economically feasible in
every affected industry sector.
In addition, based on an analysis of
the costs and economic impacts
associated with this rulemaking, OSHA
preliminarily concludes that the effects
of the proposed standards on
international trade, employment, wages,
and economic growth for the United
States would be negligible.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as
amended in 1996 by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act,
requires the preparation of an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for
certain proposed rules promulgated by
agencies (5 U.S.C. 601–612). Under the
provisions of the law, each such
analysis shall contain: (1) A description
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
of the impact of the proposed rule on
small entities; (2) a description of the
reasons why action by the agency is
being considered; (3) a succinct
statement of the objectives of, and legal
basis for, the proposed rule; (4) a
description of and, where feasible, an
estimate of the number of small entities
to which the proposed rule will apply;
(5) a description of the projected
reporting, recordkeeping and other
compliance requirements of the
proposed rule; (6) an identification, to
the extent practicable, of all relevant
Federal rules which may duplicate,
overlap or conflict with the proposed
rule; and (7) a description and
discussion of any significant
alternatives to the proposed rule which
accomplish the stated objectives of
applicable statutes and which minimize
any significant economic impact of the
proposed rule on small entities.
OSHA has analyzed the potential
impact of the proposed rule on small
entities. As a result of this analysis,
OSHA preliminarily concludes that the
compliance costs are equivalent to over
5 percent of profits for some groups of
affected small entities (as identified
later in this analysis). Therefore, OSHA
has prepared an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis in conjunction with
this rulemaking to describe the potential
effects on small entities and to enable
the Agency and the public to fully
consider alternatives to the proposal.
B. Need for Rule
Employees performing work involving
electric power generation, transmission,
and distribution are exposed to a variety
of significant hazards, such as fall,
electric shock, and burn hazards, that
can and do cause serious injury and
death. As detailed below, OSHA
estimates that, on average, 444 serious
injuries and 74 fatalities occur annually
among these workers.
Although some of these incidents may
have been prevented with better
compliance with existing safety
standards, research and analyses
conducted by OSHA have found that
many preventable injuries and fatalities
would continue to occur even if full
compliance with the existing standards
were achieved. Relative to full
compliance with the existing standards,
an estimated additional 116 injuries and
19 fatalities would be prevented through
full compliance with the proposed
standards.
Additional benefits associated with
this rulemaking involve providing
updated, clear, and consistent safety
standards regarding electric power
generation, transmission, and
distribution work. The existing OSHA
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34895
standards for the construction of electric
power transmission and distribution
systems are over 30 years old and
inconsistent with the more recently
promulgated OSHA standards
addressing repair and maintenance
work.
OSHA has different standards
covering construction work on electric
power transmission and distribution
systems and general industry work on
the same systems. In most instances, the
work practices used by employees to
perform construction or general
industry work on these systems are the
same. The application of OSHA’s
construction or general industry
standards to a particular job depends
upon whether the employer is altering
the system (construction work) or
maintaining the system (general
industry work). For example, employers
changing a cutout (disconnect switch)
on a transmission and distribution
system would be performing
construction work if they were
upgrading the cutout, but general
industry work if they were simply
replacing the cutout with the same
model.
Since the work practices used by the
employees would most likely be
identical, the applicable OSHA
standards should be identical. OSHA’s
existing requirements are not, however.
Conceivably, for work involving two or
more cutouts, different and conflicting
OSHA standards might apply. The
inconsistencies between the two
standards create difficulties for
employers attempting to develop
appropriate work practices for their
employees. For this reason, employers
and employees have told OSHA that it
should make the two standards
identical. This proposal does so.
OSHA has preliminarily determined
that the proposal is needed to reduce
the number of fatalities and injuries
occurring among workers involved in
electric power generation, transmission,
and distribution and to make the
relevant standards clear and consistent.
Before reaching this preliminary
conclusion, many alternatives were
considered, including regulatory
alternatives and alternative approaches
that would not involve the
promulgation of revised standards.
C. Examination of Alternative
Approaches
Alternative Regulatory Approaches
To determine the appropriate
regulatory requirements to address
occupational risks for employees
working on electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution systems,
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34896
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
OSHA considered many different factors
and potential alternatives. The Agency
examined the incidence of injuries and
fatalities and their direct and underlying
causes to ascertain where existing
standards needed to be strengthened.
These standards were reviewed, current
practices in the industry were assessed,
information and comments from experts
were collected, and the available data
and research were scrutinized.
OSHA faces several constraints in
determining which regulatory
requirements should apply. As required
under Section 3(8) of the OSH Act, the
requirements of an OSHA standard must
be ‘‘reasonably necessary or appropriate
to provide safe or healthful employment
and places of employment.’’ Also, as
required under Section 6(b)(8) of the
OSH Act, the requirements of an OSHA
standard may only differ substantially
from existing national consensus
standards to the extent that the OSHA
standard will better effectuate the
purposes of the OSH Act than the
corresponding national consensus
standards. OSHA standards must also be
technologically and economically
feasible, as noted earlier, and be costeffective.
A full discussion of the basis for the
particular regulatory requirements
chosen is provided in Section IV,
Summary and Explanation of Proposed
Rule, earlier in this preamble. The
regulatory alternatives considered by
OSHA are discussed in the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis later in
this section of the preamble.
Alternative Nonregulatory Approaches
Introduction. The stated purpose of
the OSH Act is to ‘‘assure so far as
possible every working man and woman
in the Nation safe and healthful working
conditions and to preserve our human
resources.’’ This congressional mandate
provides the basis for OSHA’s proposed
rulemaking on electric power
generation, transmission, and
distribution, which is designed to
mitigate the occupational hazards
associated with work on electric power
systems.
Before issuing a standard, OSHA must
assess whether there are other,
nonregulatory approaches available that
may provide an equal or higher level of
benefits. Executive Order 12866 directs
regulatory agencies to assess whether an
unregulated private market can achieve
the same level of social benefits as that
expected to result from Federal
regulation:
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
Section 1. Statement of Regulatory
Philosophy and Principles.
(a) The Regulatory Philosophy. Federal
Agencies should promulgate only such
regulations as are required by law, are
necessary to interpret the law, or made
necessary by compelling public need, such as
material failures of private markets to protect
or improve the health and safety of the
public, the environment, or the well-being of
the American people. In deciding whether
and how to regulate, agencies should assess
all costs and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives, including the alternative of not
regulating.
The discussion below considers
several nonregulatory alternatives to
OSHA’s proposed rulemaking: Private
market incentives, information
dissemination programs, tort liability
options, and workers’ compensation
programs.
Private Market Incentives. Economic
theory suggests that the need for
government regulations would be
greatly reduced if private markets
worked efficiently and effectively to
provide health and safety protections for
employees. At issue is whether the
private market will be able to produce
a level of safety and health for
employees that will be equal to or
greater than that potentially afforded by
the proposed OSHA standards. In
particular, OSHA examined whether the
level of risk of experiencing an injury
caused by workplace hazards that
would be provided by an unregulated
market would be at least as protective of
employee safety as the proposed electric
power rulemaking.
Theoretically, unregulated markets
are capable of achieving an efficient
allocation of resources if certain
assumptions are satisfied. Necessary
assumptions include elements such as
perfect and free information, perfect and
costless mobility of labor and other
factors of production, and an absence of
any externalities.
A major conclusion of the ‘‘perfect
competition model’’ of economic theory
is that, in the presence of full
information about market choices and
outcomes and with complete mobility of
the factors of production, the private
market would produce an efficient
allocation of resources.
In the presence of perfect and
complete information regarding
occupational risks, labor markets would
reflect the presence of different degrees
of risk across different industries, firms,
and occupations. In such a market, wage
premiums would be paid to compensate
workers engaged in hazardous
occupations for the added risk they
confront on the job.
In this theoretical framework, wages
would vary directly with the riskiness of
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
a job (other things being equal), and
employers would have an incentive to
make investments to reduce
occupational health and safety risks to
the extent workers would demand
compensation for being exposed to such
risks. In other words, because employers
would have to pay their workers a
premium to induce them to work in a
risky environment, employers would be
willing to pay to make that environment
less risky by introducing technologies
and practices that lower risks to
workers.
In addition, a perfectly competitive
market will theoretically lead to the
efficient allocation of resources only if
all of the costs and benefits (pecuniary
and nonpecuniary) associated with the
behavior of market participants and
with market transactions are fully borne
by those directly involved. In economic
terms, this implies that there will not be
any negative externalities associated
with economic activities.
If all of the costs associated with
occupational safety and health risks
would in fact be internalized, then
market decisions about occupational
safety and health conditions made by
employers and workers would be based
on a consideration of the full social
costs of their economic actions.
However, if some of the effects of these
actions are externalized (that is, some
costs are not borne by employers and
employees but by other parties who are
external to the transaction), then those
costs will not be adequately
incorporated into the decisions of
managers and workers. The resultant
market allocation of resources can then
be expected to be less efficient.
Costs and other impacts that are
imposed on society and are not borne
directly by the economic participants
involved in an activity or transaction are
referred to as externalities. The
existence of such externalities is one
reason why an unregulated private
market often fails to produce an efficient
allocation of resources. The presence of
these externalities also implies that
economic efficiency can potentially be
improved with regulatory interventions.
In a theoretically perfect market
without externalities, firms would
decide how much to spend on reducing
safety and health risks based on the full
costs associated with the presence of
such risks. The costs include pain and
suffering, impacts on the quality of the
lives of families, and effects on society
as a whole. Workers would decide
whether they were willing to work in a
particular job based on the relative
riskiness of the job and the extent to
which they believe the wages offered to
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
them provide adequate compensation
for these risks.
Research conducted by OSHA and
information from several other sources
show that many firms have responded
to the risks posed to workers by electric
power systems. Employers have
increasingly recognized the costs
associated with these risks and have
implemented measures to reduce the
occupational risks faced by their
employees.
In fact, many risk control programs
already implemented by employers go
beyond the provisions required by the
existing OSHA standards or by the
proposed OSHA standards. The fact that
employers are implementing these
programs demonstrates that economic
incentives do exist at least to some
degree to motivate employers in the
direction of reducing the risks
associated with occupational exposures
to the hazards of electric power work.
However, OSHA notes that many
other employers continue to fall short of
their obligations to provide even
minimum safety protections for their
employees. Such circumstances persist
despite ongoing attempts by OSHA and
other groups to provide information and
assistance to employers to increase
awareness and reduce the risks involved
with work involving electric power
systems.
The benefits section of this
preliminary analysis shows that
preventable injuries and fatalities
continue to occur every year. The
evidence indicates that market forces
cannot alone curb occupational risks
adequately.
Among employees engaged in work
involving electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution systems,
there does not appear to be any risk
premium reflected in wage rates that
would differentiate between employers
based on the extent of risks faced by
employees. In fact, as presented in
Section IV, Summary and Explanation
of Proposed Rule, earlier in this
preamble, there is some evidence that in
these industries, wages for workers in
similar jobs performing similar types of
work are negatively correlated with the
degree of risk involved: Employees of
utilities tend to earn more than their
counterparts working for contractors,
and yet the fatality and injury rate is
higher among employees of the
contractors.
There are a variety of reasons why
workers may not be paid the risk
premiums that would theoretically be
necessary to ensure that markets
provide efficient levels of expenditures
on safety and health. Workers have
imperfect knowledge about the nature
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
and magnitude of occupational risk
factors. Many workers are not likely to
be fully aware of the extent and nature
of occupational risks associated with
various different jobs and different
employers at different points in time.
Even if workers have adequate
information regarding the risks of
occupational injuries, they may be
unable to adequately incorporate this
information into their decisions about
choosing a job or staying on the job.
Other factors and circumstances may
affect employment choices, and
decisions cannot be changed easily.
There are also significant costs
associated with job searches and
changing jobs.
Assessing occupational risks for the
purpose of determining the acceptability
of wages offered is made even more
difficult when differences in risk
between two firms are significant but
cannot be readily observed or predicted
over the pertinent time periods. If
differences in occupational risk between
various establishments are not fully
incorporated into the employment
decisions of workers, the wage
premiums paid for risky jobs will not
accurately reflect the relative
occupational risks associated with
specific jobs in different firms. Thus,
firms will have little incentive to
individually reduce risk beyond levels
present in other firms.
In addition, many employers may
simply be unaware of the direct and
indirect costs associated with
occupational risks. Some employers
may regard these costs as beyond their
control or as part of general overhead
costs. Employers may also not be fully
aware of the availability of cost-effective
ways of ameliorating or eliminating
these risks and reducing the
corresponding costs.
A significant problem that prevents
risk premiums in an unregulated market
from achieving the theoretical results
that may potentially reduce
occupational risks involves
imperfections in the operation of labor
markets. Changing jobs can be costly,
and in some circumstances the costs
may preclude a decision to change jobs
solely on the basis of the occupational
health risks involved. Factors that may
make job changes particularly costly
include nontransferability of
occupational skills or seniority within a
company, the difficulty of acquiring
sufficient human capital to seek
alternative employment opportunities,
the costs and uncertainty associated
with relocating to take advantage of
better employment opportunities, the
existence of institutional factors such as
the nontransferability of pension plans
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34897
and seniority rights, and the risk of
prolonged periods of unemployment.
Often, differences in occupational risk
between two firms must be very marked
before a worker will change jobs on that
basis. Therefore, wage rates determined
by a market in which the protection of
occupational safety and health is
unregulated are unlikely to fully
compensate workers for occupational
health and safety risks, including those
related to the risks of concern here.
Information Dissemination Programs.
OSHA and other organizations currently
produce and disseminate a considerable
amount of information regarding the
risks associated with work involving
electric power generation, transmission,
and distribution and the methods that
can be used to reduce these risks. The
dissemination of such information
would continue in conjunction with the
promulgation of the proposed standards;
alternatively, in lieu of issuing
mandatory standards, OSHA could rely
on current or expanded information
dissemination programs to generate the
incentives necessary to produce further
reductions in injuries and fatalities.
Better informed workers can more
accurately assess the occupational risks
associated with different jobs, thereby
facilitating those market interactions
that result in wage premiums for
relatively risky occupations.
There are several reasons, however,
why reliance on information
dissemination programs will not yield
the level of social benefits achievable
through compliance with the proposed
electric power rules. First, there are no
reliable incentives or mechanisms that
would ensure that appropriate and
sufficiently detailed information could
be produced, or that such information
would actually be distributed among
and relied upon by workers.
Furthermore, hazards associated with
work on electric power systems are
highly specific to individual tasks and
work environments. The development
of accurate knowledge about these
occupational risks would require each
employer to make available specific
information about the risks present in
his or her projects expected to be
undertaken in the future. The lack of
adequate incentives or mechanisms and
the potentially large costs associated
with the collection and reporting of the
necessary information makes effective
information dissemination difficult to
implement in practice.
In addition, even if workers are better
informed about workplace risks and
hazards, other factors, such as barriers
to labor mobility, that contribute to
market failure would still remain.
Finally, as argued above, workers may
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34898
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
not be able to evaluate information
about long-term risks accurately when
making employment decisions. Better
information, therefore, will not ensure
that the market will produce wage risk
premiums in a manner that is consistent
with an efficient allocation of resources.
Currently, in addition to the
applicable OSHA standards, there are
consensus standards, voluntary
guidelines, and other information
sources for preventing injuries and
fatalities while working on electric
power generation, transmission, and
distribution systems. Although many
employers have adopted many of the
practices and procedures recommended
by these sources, many other employers
have been less successful in the
widespread implementation of all of the
recommendations of these voluntary
guidelines. The Costs of Compliance
section of this preliminary analysis
provides further information regarding
current compliance with specific
elements in sectors covered by the
proposal.
Thus, the experience and observations
regarding electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution work
show that, while improved access to
information about occupational risks
can provide for more rational decisionmaking in the private market, voluntary
information programs will not produce
an adequately low level of occupational
risk.
Tort Liability Options. Employees
currently are generally restricted from
using tort law to force employers to pay
for costs and damages associated with
fatalities and injuries that occur on the
job. Greater worker use of tort law in
seeking redress from injuries associated
with occupational risks involving work
on electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution is
another example of a possible
nonregulatory alternative to the
proposed rule. If employees were able to
effectively sue their employers for
damages caused by work-related
hazards, and if other conditions
regarding the cost and availability of
information, knowledge and mobility of
workers, and externalities are satisfied,
then the need for an OSHA standard
would potentially be reduced or
eliminated.
A tort may be described, in part, as a
civil wrong (other than breach of
contract) for which the courts provide a
remedy in the form of an action for
damages. The application of the tort
system to occupationally related injuries
and illnesses would mean that a worker
whose disability resulted from exposure
to a work place risk would sue the
employer to recover damages. The tort
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
system could thus shift the liability for
the direct costs of occupational injury
from the worker to the employer, at least
under certain specific circumstances.
With limited exceptions, however, the
tort system has not been a viable
alternative to regulation in dealings
between employees and employers, for
a number of reasons. All States have
legislation making workers’
compensation either the exclusive or
principal legal remedy available to
employees. Generally, tort law can be
applied only to third-party producers or
suppliers of hazardous products or
equipment, for example, asbestos
products. It is often difficult, however,
to demonstrate that workplace injuries
have been caused by defective or
negligently designed products or
equipment.
Moreover, legal proceedings generally
fail to fully internalize costs because of
the substantial legal fees and
uncertainties associated with bringing
court actions. In deciding whether or
not to sue, the victim must be sure that
the potential award will exceed both the
expense and hardship of bringing the
lawsuit. Legal expenses commonly
include a contingency fee for the
plaintiff’s lawyer, plus court fees and
the costs of accumulating evidence and
witnesses. The accused firm must also
pay for its defense.
In sum, the use of legal action as an
alternative to regulation is limited
because of the expense, delays, and
uncertainties involved, and because
under current State laws, workers’
compensation will normally be an
exclusive remedy that will prevent a
worker from filing a suit at all. The tort
system, therefore, does not serve
adequately to protect workers from
exposure to risks in the workplace.
Workers’ Compensation Programs.
The existing workers’ compensation
programs serve to partially address the
market failures that result in insufficient
reductions in occupational risks. An
alternative to a mandatory standard
would be a continued reliance on these
and other existing programs (including
possible modifications or enhancements
to these programs) to address
occupational risk. The workers’
compensation system was implemented
in part as a result of the perceived
failure of the unregulated market to
compel employers to sufficiently reduce
occupational health and safety risks and
to compensate employees for bearing
those risks. The system seeks to shift
some of the burden of the costs
associated with occupational injuries
and illnesses from workers to
employers. By so doing, workers’
compensation requirements can ensure
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
that more of the costs of occupational
injuries and illnesses are incorporated
into decisions of employers even if
employees do not have full information
regarding their risks or are unable to
receive full wage compensation for such
risks. Originally designed to force more
of the social costs of occupational
injuries and illnesses to be internalized,
the workers’ compensation program has
in practice fallen short of fully
achieving this goal and does not fully
compensate workers for occupationally
related injuries and illnesses.
Compensation tends to be especially
inadequate in permanent disability
cases, in part because of time limits on
benefit entitlements and in part because
of the failure of the system to adjust
benefits for changes in a worker’s
expected earnings over time. Several
States restrict permanent, partial, and
total disability benefits either by
specifying a maximum number of weeks
for which benefits can be paid, or by
imposing a ceiling on dollar benefits.
Both temporary and permanent
disability payments are commonly
limited by imposing a ceiling on the
income per week that can be paid. In
addition, under workers’ compensation,
no award is made for pain and suffering.
The extent to which income is
replaced by each type of indemnity
payment (that is, temporary or
permanent partial) differs. First,
although rules vary by State, temporary
disability income is designed in most
states to replace two-thirds of the
worker’s before-tax income. However,
most States place a maximum and a
minimum on the amount of money paid
out to the worker, regardless of his or
her actual former income.
The Worker Compensation Research
Institute (WCRI) has studied the extent
to which workers’ compensation
replaces after-tax income in 19 states.
These studies show that temporary total
disability payments replace between 80
and 100 percent of the after-tax income
of the majority of workers in all of the
States examined [5].67 From 3 to 44
percent of workers receive less than 80
percent of their after-tax income, and
from 0 to 16 percent receive more than
100 percent of their previous after-tax
income (as a result of the ‘‘floor’’ on
payments). In 15 of the 19 States
examined, more workers receive less
than 80 percent of their former after-tax
income than receive more than 100
percent of their former income. WCRI
does not provide estimates of the
average replacement rates for all
workers in a State. However, based on
67 References appear at the end of this section of
the preamble.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
these data, it seems reasonable to
assume that, on average, workers receive
no more than 90 percent of their aftertax income while on temporary
disability.
In addition to not fully replacing after
tax income, workers’ compensation
payments, which are not taxable,
provide no replacement for tax losses to
the Federal, State or local government as
a result of an illness. This loss is
properly considered part of the social
losses associated with an illness or
injury. Typically taxes, including State
and Federal income taxes and employee
and employer contribution to social
security taxes will be approximately 30
percent of income. The taxes not paid
when an individual is unable to work
thus add an additional 30 percent of
worker income as losses associated with
injuries and illnesses not covered by
workers’ compensation.
In summary, workers’ compensation
often covers less than 65 percent of the
financial losses associated with the
costs of injuries, and does not cover any
portion of losses due to pain and
suffering. Thus, even if the financial
costs were fully internalized by
employers, workers’ compensation
would be insufficient to assure adequate
economic incentives to address workrelated injuries and illnesses.
For workers’ compensation to be able
to internalize costs of work-related
injuries and illnesses, it would be
necessary for the costs an employer pays
for workers’ compensation to be directly
related to the employer’s risk of causing
work-related injuries or illnesses.
Most workers’ compensation
programs nominally include the
employer’s injury experience as a factor
in determining the level of the
employer’s insurance premiums.
However, the majority of firms are not
rated individually for their safety and
health record; that is, they are not
‘‘experience rated.’’ For example, small
firms often are ineligible for experience
rating because of the high year-to-year
variance in their claim rates. Such firms
are class rated, and rate reductions are
granted only if the experience of the
entire class improves. Segregation of
loss experience into classes is somewhat
arbitrary, and an individual firm may be
classified with other firms that have
substantially different accident rates.
Even when firms have an experience
rating, the premiums paid may not
accurately reflect their true degree of
risk. In addition, a firm’s experience
rating is generally based on the benefits
paid to ill or injured workers, not on the
firm’s safety and health record or on the
actual risks faced by employees. Thus,
in some cases employers may have more
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
of an incentive to reduce premiums by
contesting claims than by initiating
safety and health measures.
For employers who rely on workers’
compensation insurance, the payment of
premiums represents the employer’s
major cost for the occurrence of
occupational injuries and illnesses.
However, the mechanism for
determining an employer’s workers’
compensation premium frequently fails
to reflect the real costs associated with
a particular employer’s record. As a
result, efforts made by an employer to
reduce the incidence of occupational
injuries and illnesses are not necessarily
reflected in reduced workers’
compensation premiums. Similarly,
firms that devote fewer resources to
promoting worker safety and health
often may not incur commensurately
higher workers’ compensation costs.
Consequently, the program does not
provide direct incentives for most
employers to reduce the occupational
health and safety risks in their
workplaces.
Finally, workers’ compensation is an
insurance mechanism through which
participants spread and share the risk of
injury and illness claims, and the costs
associated with occupational injuries
and illnesses are often spread
throughout the economy through risk
sharing stemming from participation in
health insurance programs. For
example, some direct costs may not be
incurred or attributed to employers
because many workers go to their
private physician rather than the
company’s physician for work-related
injuries and illnesses, even though there
are systemic mechanisms in place to
ensure that work-related injuries are
treated through the workers’
compensation system. The social
burden of adverse health effects is also
shared by taxpayer-supported programs
such as welfare, social security
disability and death benefits, and
Medicare. Employers have, therefore,
less incentive to avoid such losses than
they would if they were directly liable
for all such claims. This transfer of risk
is another reason why the market does
not fully internalize the social costs of
occupationally related injuries and
illnesses.
The workers’ compensation system
does provide economic incentives for
larger firms, especially those that selfinsure for workers’ compensation,
because these firms internalize a greater
portion of the true costs of the workrelated injuries and illnesses incurred
by their workers. Thus, larger firms can
generally be expected to have done
more to reduce the costs associated with
occupational risks than smaller firms.
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34899
In summary, the workers’
compensation system suffers from
several defects that seriously reduce its
effectiveness in providing incentives for
firms to create safe and healthful
workplaces. First, because the
scheduled benefits are often
significantly less than the actual losses
experienced by injured or ill workers
and the social losses experienced by tax
payers, the existence of workers’
compensation programs limits an
employer’s liability to levels
significantly below the actual costs of
the injury or illness. Second, premiums
for individual firms are often unrelated
or only loosely related to that firm’s risk
environment. The firm, therefore, does
not receive the proper economic
incentives and consequently fails to
invest sufficient resources in reducing
workplace injuries and illnesses. The
economic costs not borne by the
employer are imposed on the employee
directly or on society through social
welfare programs.
Summary. OSHA has determined that
certain workers are exposed to
occupational risks associated with work
on electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution systems.
The private market has not been
effective in sufficiently reducing this
level of risk due to a lack of complete
information about safety risks in
specific work environments, limits on
worker mobility, and other factors that
contribute to the failure of markets to
provide an efficient allocation of
resources. Options for improving the
operations of markets include
information dissemination programs,
tort liability options, and workers’
compensation programs. After
considering each of these options,
OSHA has concluded that none of them
will provide the level of benefits
achievable by the proposed electric
power systems rules.
D. Profile of Affected Industries
The proposal affects establishments in
a variety of different industries
involving electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution. The
proposal primarily affects firms that
construct, operate, maintain, or repair
electric power generation, transmission,
or distribution systems. These firms
include electric utilities as well as
contractors who are hired by utilities
and who are primarily classified in the
construction industry. In addition,
potentially affected firms are found in a
variety of manufacturing and other
industries that own or operate their own
electric power generation, transmission,
or distribution systems as a secondary
part of their business operations. The
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34900
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
proposal also potentially affects
establishments performing lineclearance tree-trimming operations.
Table V–2 presents data on the
numbers of establishments and numbers
of employees for each affected industry.
Across all industries, an estimated
20,765 establishments and 227,683
employees may be affected by the
proposed standards.
TABLE V–2.—PROFILE OF POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ESTABLISHMENTS AND EMPLOYEES
Potentially affected establishments
Potentially affected full-time
equivalent (FTE)
employees
Industry code
Industry name
NAICS 234910 ........
NAICS 234920 ........
NAICS 234930 ........
NAICS 234990 ........
NAICS 235310 ........
NAICS 235910 ........
NAICS 235950 ........
NAICS 235990 ........
NAICS 221110 ........
NAICS 221120 ........
NAICS 2211 ............
Various ....................
SIC 0783 .................
Water, sewer, and pipeline construction ...............................................................
Power and communication transmission line construction ....................................
Industrial nonbuilding structure construction .........................................................
All other heavy construction ..................................................................................
Electrical contractors ..............................................................................................
Structural steel erection contractors ......................................................................
Building equipment and other machine installation contractors ............................
All other special trade contractors .........................................................................
Electric power generation ......................................................................................
Electric power transmission, control, and distribution ...........................................
Publicly owned utilities ...........................................................................................
Industrial power generators ...................................................................................
Ornamental shrub and tree services .....................................................................
847
2829
266
656
1613
652
952
2612
1745
6190
923
933
547
951
26179
1391
5573
16342
300
281
734
43103
71441
9864
16504
35020
Total .................
................................................................................................................................
20765
227683
Source: CONSAD [2], Appendix C, pages 1–2.
As shown in Table V–2, the
construction industries with the largest
numbers of affected employees are
Power and Communication
Transmission Line Construction and
Electrical Contractors, which together
account for over 42,000 employees of
the affected work force. Other
potentially affected construction
industries include Water, Sewer, and
Pipeline Construction, Industrial
Nonbuilding Structure Construction, All
Other Heavy Construction, Structural
Steel Erection Contractors, Building
Equipment and Other Machine
Installation Contractors, and All Other
Special Trade Contractors.
Table V–2 also shows that firms
classified as utilities account for over
8,000 of the potentially affected
establishments, and for over 120,000 of
the potentially affected employees.
Utilities include establishments
classified in the Electric Power
Generation industry and in the Electric
Power Transmission, Control, and
Distribution industry.
The U.S. Department of Commerce
Census data on the numbers of utilities
and the numbers of workers employed
by utilities do not include utilities that
are owned by public sector entities.
Thus, data for utilities owned by the
public sector are shown separately in
Table V–2.
Potentially affected utilities include
publicly-owned utilities that operate in
OSHA State-plan States. (State-plan
States, representing about half of total
U.S. employment, are States that operate
their own occupational safety and
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
health programs; these States are
obligated, under formal agreements with
OSHA, to impose OSHA-equivalent
State regulatory requirements on public
employees within their jurisdiction.)
The number of potentially affected
public entities and the corresponding
number of employees are shown
separately in Table V–2. Over 900
establishments and over 9,000
employees are part of publicly-owned
utilities potentially affected by the
proposed standards.
Table V–2 further shows the numbers
of potentially affected establishments
and employees that are part of firms in
a variety of manufacturing and other
industries who own or operate their
own electric power generation,
transmission, or distribution systems as
a secondary part of their business
operations. Over 900 establishments and
16,000 employees potentially affected
by the proposed standards are
accounted for by these firms. Based on
their primary business activity, these
establishments are classified as part of
the following industry sectors: Oil and
Gas Extraction; Mining; Water, Sewer,
and Other Systems; Food
Manufacturing; Wood Product
Manufacturing; Paper Manufacturing;
Petroleum and Coal Products
Manufacturing; Chemical
Manufacturing; Primary Metal
Manufacturing; Wholesale Trade,
Durable Goods; Educational Services;
and Hospitals.
Finally, Table V–2 presents figures for
the numbers of potentially affected
establishments and employees in the
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services
industry. OSHA estimates that over 500
establishments and over 35,000
employees in this industry are
potentially affected by the provisions in
the proposal involving requirements
associated with providing fall protection
while working in aerial lifts.
E. Benefits, Net Benefits, and Cost
Effectiveness
The proposed revisions to the OSHA
standards addressing electric power
generation, transmission, and
distribution work are expected to result
in an increased degree of safety for the
affected employees. These changes are
expected to reduce the numbers of
accidents, fatalities, and injuries
associated with the relevant tasks, as
well as reducing the severity of certain
injuries, such as burns or injuries that
could be sustained as a result of an
arrested fall, that may still occur while
performing some of the affected
procedures.
To develop estimates of the potential
benefits associated with this proposal,
CONSAD Corp., under contract to
OSHA, researched and reviewed
potential sources of useful data.
CONSAD, in consultation with the
Agency, determined that the most
reliable data sources for this purpose
included OSHA’s Integrated
Management Information System (IMIS),
and the Census of Fatal Occupational
Injuries developed by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS).
From these sources, CONSAD
identified and analyzed injuries and
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
fatalities that would be addressed by
this proposal. This analysis was based
on over 9 years of data contained in
these databases. CONSAD identified
relevant cases in the databases by
determining the criteria provided in the
databases that would apply to such
cases, such as the nature of the injury,
the occupation of the employee, the
source of the injury, and the industry
classification of the employer. CONSAD
then reviewed individual accident
abstracts to make a final determination
whether to include the accident as one
addressed by the proposed standards. A
description of the methodological
approach used for analyzing these data
is included in the final report submitted
to OSHA by CONSAD Corporation [1].
CONSAD’s analysis found that an
average of 74 fatalities and 25 injuries
involving circumstances directly
addressed by the existing or proposed
standards are recorded annually in the
relevant databases. These figures
represent minimums since they are
associated with documented cases.
The actual number of fatalities
addressed by this rulemaking may be
somewhat higher, but OSHA does not
currently have a basis for estimating
how many pertinent fatalities may have
occurred that would not be represented
by the relevant data sources. OSHA
requests information and comments
from the public regarding this issue.
The actual number of injuries
addressed by this rulemaking is almost
certainly much greater than the number
included in the data sources. OSHA
requires data to be included in its IMIS
database only if an incident involves at
least one fatality or three or more
hospitalized injuries. However, some
individual States have more stringent
reporting requirements and thus include
some additional injuries among the
cases submitted to the IMIS database.
CONSAD performed an analysis of the
IMIS fatality and injury data by State
that were relevant to this rulemaking.
This analysis found that the ratio of
injuries to fatalities in California, which
requires all hospitalized injuries to be
reported, was over six.
Applying this ratio to the number of
known fatalities addressed by this
rulemaking results in an estimated 444
injuries occurring annually. It should be
noted that even this figure excludes
injuries that for various reasons may not
be reported to or included in the IMIS
database, such as single injuries that
result in no hospitalizations. OSHA
requests any information and comments
from the public that may help improve
the accuracy of this estimate.
Thus, OSHA estimates that 74
fatalities and 444 injuries occur
annually among employees involved in
electric power generation, transmission,
and distribution work addressed by the
provisions of this rulemaking.
Based on a review and analysis of the
incident reports associated with the
reported injuries and fatalities, OSHA
estimates that full compliance with the
existing standards would have
prevented about 53 percent of the
injuries and fatalities. In comparison,
full compliance with the proposed
standards would have prevented 79.0
percent of the relevant injuries and
fatalities. Thus, the increase in safety
that would be provided by the proposed
standards is represented by the
prevention of an additional 19 fatalities
and 116 injuries annually.
Applying an average monetary value
of $50,000 per prevented injury and a
value of $6.8 million per prevented
fatality results in an estimated
monetized benefit of $135 million. In
estimating the value of preventing a
fatality, OSHA has followed the
approach established by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). EPA’s approach is detailed in
Chapter 7 of EPA’s Guidelines for
Preparing Economic Analyses, which
provides a detailed review of the
methods for estimating mortality risk
values and summarizes the values
obtained in the literature [6].
Synthesizing the results from 26
relevant studies, EPA arrived at a mean
value of a statistical life (VSL) of $4.8
million (in 1990 dollars). EPA
recommends this central estimate,
updated for inflation (the value is $6.8
million in 2003 dollars) for application
in regulatory analyses. This VSL
estimate is also within the range of the
substantial majority of such estimates in
the literature of $1 million to $10
million per statistical life, as discussed
in OMB Circular A–4.
In estimating the value of preventing
an injury, OSHA reviewed the available
research literature. A critical review of
39 different studies estimating the value
of a statistical injury is provided by Kip
Viscusi and Joseph Aldy in their 2003
study [7]. Viscusi and Aldy found that
most studies have estimates in the range
of $20,000 to $70,000 per injury, and
several studies have even higher values.
The range of values is partly explained
by the measure of nonfatal job risks
used: some studies use an overall injury
rate, and other studies use only injuries
resulting in lost workdays. The injuries
that would be prevented by this
proposed electric power standard are
hospitalized injuries, which are likely to
be more severe, on average, than lost
workday injuries. In addition, the
proposed standard is expected to reduce
the incidence of burn injuries, which
tend to be more severe injuries,
involving more pain and suffering, more
expensive treatments, and generally
longer recovery periods than lost
workday injuries. Thus, for this
rulemaking, an estimated value of a
statistical injury in the upper part of the
reported range of estimates would be
supported. In their paper, Viscusi and
Aldy reviewed the available willingness
to pay (WTP) literature to identify their
range of estimates; using WTP to value
non-fatal injury and illness is the
recommended approach, as discussed in
OMB Circular A–4.
The net monetized benefits of the
proposed standard are estimated to be
about $101.1 million annually ($135
million in benefits and $33.9 million in
costs). Note that these net benefits
exclude any unquantified benefits
associated with revising the standards to
provide updated, clear, and consistent
regulatory requirements to the public.
Table V–4 provides an overview of
the estimated benefits associated with
this proposed rulemaking. OSHA
requests comments from the public
regarding these figures and any other
aspects of the estimation of the benefits
associated with this rulemaking. Table
V–3 summarizes the costs, benefits, net
benefits, and cost effectiveness of the
proposed standard.
TABLE V–3.—NET BENEFITS AND COST EFFECTIVENESS
Annualized Costs
Determination of Appropriate Protective Clothing .................................................................................
Provision of Appropriate Protective Clothing .........................................................................................
Host/Contractor Communications ..........................................................................................................
Expanded Job Briefings .........................................................................................................................
Additional Training .................................................................................................................................
Other Costs ............................................................................................................................................
Total Annual Costs .........................................................................................................................
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34901
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
$11.0 million.
$8.4 million.
$7.8 million.
$5.1 million.
$1.2 million.
$0.4 million.
$33.9 million.
15JNP2
34902
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V–3.—NET BENEFITS AND COST EFFECTIVENESS—Continued
Annual Benefits
Number of Injuries Prevented ................................................................................................................
Number of Fatalities Prevented .............................................................................................................
Monetized Benefits (Assuming $50,000 per Injury and $6.8 million per Fatality Prevented) ...............
OSHA standards that are updated and consistent ...............................................................................
Total Annual Benefits .....................................................................................................................
116
19
$135 million.
unquantified.
116 injuries and 19 fatalities prevented.
Net Benefits (Benefits Minus Costs): $101 million annually Cost Effectiveness
Compliance with the proposed standards would result in the prevention of 1 fatality and 6 injuries per $1.8 million in costs, or, alternatively,
$4.00 of benefits per dollar of costs.
Additional benefits associated with
this proposal involve providing
updated, clear, and consistent safety
standards regarding electric power
generation, transmission, and
distribution work to the relevant
employers, employees, and interested
members of the public. The existing
OSHA standards for the construction of
electric power transmission and
distribution systems are over 30 years
old and inconsistent with the more
recently promulgated standards
addressing repair and maintenance
work. OSHA believes that the updated
standards are easier to understand and
to apply and will benefit employers by
facilitating compliance while improving
safety.
As explained earlier, the
inconsistencies between OSHA’s
existing standards related to electric
power generation, transmission, and
distribution for construction and general
industry work create numerous
difficulties for employers and
employees. The benefits associated with
providing updated, clear, and consistent
safety standards are great, but they have
not been monetized or quantified.
OSHA requests comments regarding
how these benefits can or should be
estimated.
With particular regard to the benefits
associated with requirements for
protective clothing, OSHA estimates
that an average of at least 8 electric
utility burn accidents occur each year,
leading to 12 nonfatal injuries and 2
fatalities per year. Of the reports
indicating the extent of the burn injury,
75 percent reported third degree burns.
Proper protective clothing is expected to
reduce the number of fatalities and the
severity of these injuries.
Requiring the use of body harnesses
instead of body belts is also expected to
reduce fatalities and injuries among
affected workers. There are several
problems with body belts. First, they are
more likely to result in serious injury
during a fall because they place greater
stress on the workers’ body. Second,
body belts virtually eliminate the
possibility of self rescue after the fall,
and increase the probability of serious
internal injuries as the worker hangs
suspended. Studies performed in
Europe and by the U.S. Air Force
indicate high risks associated with the
body belt both in fall arrest and
suspension modes. Third, it is harder
for supervisors to determine visually if
the worker is using appropriate fall
protection when belts are used. By
contrast, it can easily be seen from a
distance whether a harness is being
worn. Finally, there is a greater risk that
a worker could slip out of a body belt
than out of a harness. As a result of
these considerations, many employers
have already switched to requiring
harnesses rather than belts. French and
German worker safety standards
prohibit the use of body belts, and
British standards impose major
restrictions on their use. Studies
documenting the inappropriateness of
and the safety risks associated with the
use of body belts as part of a fall arrest
system include Exhibits 2–36, 3–7, 3–9,
3–10, and 3–13 in OSHA docket S–206
(Fall Protection), and Exhibits 9–33, 11–
3, 11–4, 11–5, and 11–6 in OSHA docket
S–700 (Powered Platforms).
An average of about fifteen fatalities
annually involve falls from aerial lifts;
in these cases, the employees were
generally not wearing a belt or a
harness. Since most employees do, in
fact, wear a belt or a harness (according
to the CONSAD report, current
compliance is over 80 percent), there are
likely to be at least 60 falls annually in
which a belt or harness was relied upon
to arrest a fall.
Employees who rely only on a belt for
fall protection have been determined to
be at significant risk of serious injury,
and the use of body belts as part of a fall
arrest system has been determined to be
generally inappropriate, as OSHA has
already established with an extensive
record on the subject as part of the final
rule for fall protection in construction.
For a complete discussion of this issue,
see the Summary and Explanation
section of the preamble to the final
OSHA rule on fall protection in
construction (59 FR 40672, August 9,
1994).
TABLE V–4.—OVERVIEW OF ANNUAL BENEFITS
Injuries
Total Addressed by the Proposed Rulemaking ....................................................................................................
Preventable Through Full Compliance with Existing Standards (52.9 percent) ...................................................
Additional Preventable with Full Compliance with Proposed Standards (26.1 percent) ......................................
Monetized Benefits, Assuming Value of $50,000 per injury, $6.8 million per fatality ..........................................
Total Monetized Benefits ...............................................................................................................................
444 ..................
235 ..................
116 ..................
$5.8 million .....
Fatalities
74
39
19
$129.2 million
$135 million
Note: Additional benefits associated with this rulemaking involve providing OSHA standards that are updated, clear, and consistent.
Sources: CONSAD [1]; OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis.
F. Technological Feasibility
In accordance with the OSH Act,
OSHA is required to demonstrate that
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
occupational safety and health
standards promulgated by the Agency
are technologically feasible. In
fulfillment of this requirement, OSHA
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
has reviewed the requirements that
would be imposed by the proposal, and
has assessed their technological
feasibility. As a result of this review,
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
OSHA has determined that compliance
with the requirements of the proposal is
technologically feasible for all affected
industries.
The proposal would require
employers to provide protective
equipment and clothing, to provide
training, and to implement work
practices to reduce the hazards
associated with work involving electric
power generation, transmission, and
distribution. Compliance with all of the
proposed requirements can be achieved
with readily and widely available
technologies. OSHA believes that there
are no technological constraints
associated with compliance with any of
the proposed requirements, and requests
comments regarding this conclusion.
G. Costs of Compliance
Introduction
This section of the preliminary
analysis presents the estimated costs of
compliance for the proposed electric
power generation, transmission, and
distribution rulemaking. The estimated
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
costs of compliance represent the
additional costs necessary for employers
to achieve full compliance. They do not
include costs associated with current
compliance with the new requirements;
nor do they include costs associated
with achieving full compliance with
existing applicable requirements.
For purposes of this analysis, the
terms ‘‘proposal’’ and ‘‘proposed
standard’’ include all elements of this
proposed rulemaking, including
proposed changes to 29 CFR 1910.269,
proposed changes to 29 CFR 1926,
proposed changes involving electrical
protective equipment requirements, and
other associated revisions and
additions. The consolidated set of
proposed actions was analyzed in its
entirety; only those parts that were
identified as involving nonnegligible
costs are explicitly reflected in the
analysis of compliance costs and
impacts.
Table V–5 presents the total
annualized estimated costs by provision
and by industry sector. As shown in
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34903
Table V–5, the total annualized cost of
compliance with the proposed
rulemaking is estimated to be about
$33.9 million.
The largest component of the
compliance costs, at $11.0 million
annually, is comprised of the costs
necessary to comply with the
requirement for the employer to make a
determination regarding the type and
extent of flame-resistant apparel
necessary to protect employees in the
event that employees may be exposed to
an electric arc. For purposes of
estimating costs of compliance with this
provision, OSHA expects generally that
utilities will conduct system-wide
analyses of the extent of potential
hazards in various parts of the system
and will communicate the relevant
information to contractors. The
contractors, in turn, will use the
information provided by the utilities to
determine the appropriate type and
extent of flame-resistant apparel that
employees on a particular project must
wear.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
........................................................................................................
Water, Sewer, and Pipeline Construction .....................................
Power and Communication Transmission Line Construction .......
Industrial Nonbuilding Structure Construction ..............................
All Other Heavy Construction .......................................................
Electrical Contractors ....................................................................
Structural Steel Erection Contractors ...........................................
Building Equipment and Other Machine Installation Contractors
All Other Special Trade Contractors .............................................
Electric Power Generation ............................................................
Electric Power Transmission, Control, and Distribution ...............
Publicly Owned Utilities .................................................................
Industrial Power Generators .........................................................
Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services ..........................................
Industry name
Source: CONSAD [2], Appendix C; OSHA estimates.
Total .................
NAICS 234910 ........
NAICS 234920 ........
NAICS 234930 ........
NAICS 234990 ........
NAICS 235310 ........
NAICS 235910 ........
NAICS 235950 ........
NAICS 235990 ........
NAICS 221110 ........
NAICS 221120 ........
NAICS 2211 ............
Various ....................
SIC 0783 .................
Industry code
$1,245,355
$25,850
614,829
2,358
138,029
334,494
3,856
5,481
16,094
11,645
25,205
3,559
3,986
59,968
Revised
training requirements
$156,944
$3,043
83,773
0
17,834
52,294
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Existing
1910.269 for
construction
(except training)
$7,793,651
$84,325
1,062,275
114,887
508,846
1,629,823
29,071
27,230
77,081
1,021,719
2,725,314
280,791
232,289
0
Host-contractor communication
requirements
$5,059,338
$37,642
945,140
42,827
270,538
829,851
16,637
15,584
55,111
662,584
1,102,340
145,737
235,334
700,013
Expanded job
briefing requirements
$11,040,058
$23,055
581,517
47,048
228,773
611,134
16,448
15,407
54,532
2,106,375
5,900,695
676,998
778,076
0
Determination of appropriate protective clothing
TABLE V–5.—SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE COST BY INDUSTRY AND BY PROVISION
$8,363,987
$79,174
2,071,169
94,957
499,701
1,517,936
25,664
24,039
76,318
1,224,001
2,033,643
273,101
444,284
0
Provision of
appropriate
clothing
$284,000
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
67,422
216,578
Use of harnesses in
aerial lifts
$33,943,333
$253,089
5,358,702
302,077
1,663,721
4,975,533
91,676
87,741
279,136
5,026,324
11,787,197
1,380,186
1,761,391
976,559
Total annual
compliance
costs
34904
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
As shown in Table V–5, other
provisions of the proposed standards
involving compliance costs include
requirements for protective clothing
($8.4 million), requirements for various
communications between host
employers and contractors ($7.8
million), expanded requirements for
conducting job briefings ($5.1 million),
and revised training requirements ($1.2
million).
The remainder of this section
provides and explains the details
underlying the calculations of the
compliance costs associated with the
proposal. OSHA estimated compliance
costs for each provision of the proposal
that involves nonnegligible costs and for
each affected industry sector. Total
annualized costs were calculated by
annualizing nonrecurring first-year costs
(at 7 percent over 10 years) and then
adding these to recurring annual costs.
The calculations of the estimated
costs associated with compliance are
intended to be representative of the
average resources necessary to achieve
compliance with the proposed
standards. Affected establishments may
achieve compliance through other
means with an equivalent amount of
resources.
Labor costs are based on industryspecific wage rates published by BLS,
adjusted upwards by 37 percent to
account for benefits and other
employee-related costs and are
presented in Table V–6. Supervisory
wage rates, including benefits, are
34905
estimated to be $22.45 per hour in the
Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services
industry, and are estimated to range
from $31.56 to $41.00 in all other
affected industries. Employee wage rates
(except those for engineers), including
benefits, are estimated to be $16.66 per
hour in the Ornamental Shrub and Tree
Services industry, and are estimated to
range from $24.00 to $34.84 in all other
affected industries. Wage rates for
engineers, including benefits, are
estimated to be $41.00 per hour. Clerical
wage rates, including benefits, are
estimated to be $16.78 per hour in the
Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services
industry, and are estimated to range
from $17.91 to $23.70 in all other
affected industries. [1, Table 5.3]
TABLE V–6.—SUMMARY OF WAG RATES FOR CALCULATING COMPLIANCE COSTS, BY INDUSTRY
Wage rates
Salaries (including Fringe Benefits 1) Based on Jobs Description
Supervisor
Industry code
SIC 0783 ...............
NAICS 2211–10 ....
NAICS 2211–20 ....
NAICS 2349–10 ....
NAICS 2349–20 ....
NAICS 2349–30 ....
NAICS 2349–90 ....
NAICS 2353–10 ....
NAICS 2359–10 ....
NAICS 2359–50 ....
NAICS 2359–90 ....
Clerical
Power generation-power
line construction/maintenance/repair
worker 2
$22.45
41.00
41.00
31.56
31.56
31.56
31.56
33.99
34.13
34.13
$16.78
23.70
23.70
19.11
19.11
19.11
19.11
17.91
18.08
18.08
$16.66
32.66
32.66
24.00
24.00
28.28
26.85
25.46
34.84
34.84
..................
$41.00
41.00
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
................
$44.37
44.37
................
................
................
................
;
................
................
34.13
41.00
41.00
18.08
23.70
23.70
34.84
32.66
33.02
..................
41.00
41.00
................
44.37
44.37
Industry description
Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services .............................
Electric Power Generation ...............................................
Electric Power Transmission, Control, and Distribution ..
Water, Sewer, and Pipeline Construction ........................
Power and Communication Transmission Line Const .....
Industrial Nonbuilding Structure Construction .................
All Other Heavy Construction ..........................................
Electrical Contractors .......................................................
Structural Steel Erection Contractors ..............................
Building Equipment and Other Machine Installation
Contr.
All Other Special Trade Contractors ................................
Major Publicly Owned Utilities .........................................
Industrial Generators ........................................................
Utility/other
power
plant supervisor
Utility/
other
power
plant engineer
1 Assumes
an additional 37 percent of base salary for fringe benefit costs.
upon the industry and the type of work performed (that is, power generation, power line, or both), these workers include line workers, tree-trimming crew members, power plant workers, and substation workers.
Source: CONSAD Research Corporation, ‘‘Analytical Support and Data Gathering for a Preliminary Economic Analysis for Proposed Standards
for Work on Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution Lines and Equipment (29 CFR 1910.269 and 29 CFR 1926—Subpart V),’’
2005, prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Office of Regulatory Analysis under Contract
No. J9–F9–0013, Task Order Number 31, Pittsburgh, PA.
2 Depending
First-Year Costs for Revising Training
Programs
The proposed revisions to the OSHA
standards addressing electric power
generation, transmission, and
distribution work would require
establishments covered by 29 CFR
1910.269 to revise existing training
programs.
The costs associated with such a
revision were estimated as involving 8
hours of supervisory time plus an hour
of clerical time for all industries except
Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services.
Due to the more limited and less
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
complex nature of the training for
employees in the Ornamental Shrub and
Tree industry, the costs associated with
revising a training program in this
industry were estimated to involve 4
hours of supervisory time plus half an
hour of clerical time. [2, Appendix C,
pages 3–4]
Thus, OSHA estimates that the
average cost of compliance per affected
establishment covered by 29 CFR
1910.269 for revising existing training
programs would be $196 for
establishments in the Ornamental Shrub
and Tree Services industry, and would
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
range from $272 to $351 in all other
affected industries.
Most establishments in all affected
industries either already have training
programs that meet the requirements of
the proposed standards, or regularly
revise their training programs to account
for new information or work practices.
For these establishments, no additional
costs would be necessary to achieve
compliance with the proposed
standards.
Rates of current compliance were
estimated for each affected industry.
Within each industry, rates of current
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34906
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
compliance were estimated separately
for establishments based on their size
and based on whether their work force
was unionized or not. In the Ornamental
Shrub and Tree Services industry,
estimated rates of current compliance
ranged from 50 to 75 percent. In all
other affected industries, rates of current
for each affected industry. In calculating
the total annual cost associated with all
of the revised training requirements,
this nonrecurring first-year cost was
annualized at a rate of 7 percent over 10
years and was then added to the other
annual costs.
compliance were estimated to range
from 75 to 98 percent. [2, Appendix C,
pages 3–4]
The total estimated first-year cost of
compliance for revising training
programs was thus estimated to be
$516,000, as shown in Table V–7. Table
V–7 also shows the costs of compliance
TABLE V–7.—FIRST-YEAR COSTS FOR REVISING TRAINING PROGRAMS
Establishments affected
(%)
Industry code
Industry name
NAICS 234910 ......
NAICS 234920 ......
NAICS 2211 ..........
Various ..................
SIC 0783 ...............
....................................................................................
95
95
$272
272
75/95
75/95
$28,036
95,269
100
95
95
100
100
272
272
290
291
291
75/95
75/95
75/95
75/95
75/95
7,859
23,120
61,211
24,714
36,315
100
100
100
291
351
351
75/95
95/98
95/98
106,576
21,793
77,343
100
100
100
351
351
196
95/98
98/98
50/75
11,790
6,563
15,885
........................
........................
..............................
516,474
Water, Sewer, and Pipeline Construction .................
Power and Communication Transmission Line Construction.
Industrial Nonbuilding Structure Construction ...........
All Other Heavy Construction ....................................
Electrical Contractors .................................................
Structural Steel Erection Contractors ........................
Building Equipment and Other Machine Installation
Contractors.
All Other Special Trade Contractors .........................
Electric Power Generation .........................................
Electric Power Transmission, Control, and Distribution.
Publicly Owned Utilities .............................................
Industrial Power Generators ......................................
Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services .......................
Total ...............
Average cost
per affected
establishment
NAICS
NAICS
NAICS
NAICS
NAICS
234930
234990
235310
235910
235950
......
......
......
......
......
NAICS 235990 ......
NAICS 221110 ......
NAICS 221120 ......
Compliance rate
(%) low/high
First-year
compliance
costs
Source: CONSAD [1], Table 5.3 and CONSAD [2], Appendix C, pages 3–4.
First-Year Costs for Provision of
Additional Training for Employees
Already Covered by 29 CFR 1910.269
The proposed revisions to the OSHA
standards addressing electric power
generation, transmission, and
distribution work may involve costs for
providing additional training.
The costs associated with the
provision of additional training were
estimated as involving resources
(including labor costs or other
expenditures) equivalent to 1.5 hours of
employee time, plus 12 minutes of
supervisory time, plus 3 minutes of
clerical time per employee for all
affected industries except Ornamental
Shrub and Tree Services. For
establishments in the Ornamental Shrub
and Tree Services industry, the
provision of additional training was
estimated as involving resources
(including labor costs or other
expenditures) equivalent to 0.75 hours
of employee time, plus 6 minutes of
supervisory time, plus 3 minutes of
clerical time per employee. [2,
Appendix C, pages 5–6]
Half of the incremental cost of this
additional training is attributable to the
need to train current employees on the
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
changes in requirements that would be
associated with the adoption of the
proposed standards and that would
substitute for previous training. This
part of the cost would only need to be
incurred in the first year; in subsequent
years, the corresponding part of the
training would be substituted for the
previous training. The other half of the
additional training in the first year
represents additional training that may
be necessary to fully comply with the
revised training requirements of the
proposal.
OSHA estimates that the average cost
of compliance for providing the
additional training would be $40 per
employee for establishments in the
Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services
industry, and would range from $50 to
$67 per employee in all other affected
industries.
Based on research conducted by
CONSAD, most establishments in all
affected industries are estimated to
already provide training that fully
complies with the requirements of the
proposed standards [2, Appendix C,
pages 5–6]. For these establishments, no
additional costs would be necessary to
achieve compliance.
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Rates of current compliance with the
proposed requirements were estimated
for each affected industry. Within each
industry, rates of current compliance
were estimated separately for
establishments based on their size and
based on whether their work force was
unionized or not. In the Ornamental
Shrub and Tree Services industry,
estimated rates of current compliance
ranged from 50 to 75 percent. In all
other affected industries, rates of current
compliance were estimated to range
from 75 to 98 percent [2, Appendix C,
pages 5–6].
The total estimated first-year cost of
compliance for providing training
meeting the requirements of the
proposed standards was thus estimated
to be $572,000, as shown in Table V–8.
Table V–8 also shows the costs of
compliance for each affected industry.
In calculating the total annual cost
associated with all of the revised
training requirements, this nonrecurring
first-year cost (less the corresponding
annual cost shown in Table V–10) was
annualized at a rate of 7 percent over 10
years and was then added to the
recurring annual costs.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
34907
TABLE V–8.—FIRST-YEAR COSTS FOR PROVIDING ADDITIONAL TRAINING TO EMPLOYEES ALREADY COVERED BY
§ 1910.269
Industry name
NAICS 234910 .......
NAICS 234920 .......
NAICS 2211 ...........
Various ...................
SIC 0783 ................
Water, Sewer, and Pipeline Construction ...................
Power and Communication Transmission Line Construction.
Industrial Nonbuilding Structure Construction .............
All Other Heavy Construction ......................................
Electrical Contractors ..................................................
Structural Steel Erection Contractors ..........................
Building Equipment and Other Machine Installation
Contractors.
All Other Special Trade Contractors ...........................
Electric Power Generation ...........................................
Electric Power Transmission, Control, and Distribution.
Publicly Owned Utilities ...............................................
Industrial Power Generators ........................................
Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services ........................
Total ................
......................................................................................
NAICS
NAICS
NAICS
NAICS
NAICS
234930
234990
235310
235910
235950
.......
.......
.......
.......
.......
NAICS 235990 .......
NAICS 221110 .......
NAICS 221120 .......
Average cost
per affected
employee
Employees affected (%)
Industry code
Compliance
rate (%) low/
high
First-year
compliance
costs
95
95
$50
50
75/95
75/95
$4,028
106,246
100
95
95
100
100
58
55
51
67
67
75/95
75/95
75/95
75/95
75/95
6,041
27,622
78,696
1,854
1,736
100
100
100
67
60
60
75/95
95/98
95/98
5,071
55,278
91,945
100
100
100
60
61
40
95/98
98/98
50/75
12,187
19,744
162,035
........................
........................
........................
572,483
Source: CONSAD [1], Table 5.3 and CONSAD [2], Appendix C, pages 5–6.
First-Year Costs for Additional Training
for Employees Not Already Covered by
29 CFR 1910.269
The proposed revisions to the OSHA
standards addressing electric power
generation, transmission, and
distribution work include revisions to
the existing training requirements in 29
CFR 1910.269 and more substantial
revisions to the training requirements
applicable to construction work.
Companies that perform construction
work associated with electric power
generation, transmission, and
distribution systems would also be able
and willing to perform (and, in fact, do
perform) similar work involving the
repair and maintenance of such systems.
The distinction between construction
work and repair or maintenance work
can be difficult to make in some
situations. For example, the distinction
may hinge on whether a particular piece
of equipment is regarded as an upgrade
or a ‘‘replacement-in-kind.’’
Since the nature of the work is often
almost identical, companies are not
likely to restrict themselves to only
repair or maintenance work or to only
construction work with regard to
potential jobs involving electric power
generation, transmission, and
distribution. Thus, it would be
reasonable to assume that any company
involved in such work would have their
employees trained in accordance with
accepted industry safety practices, as
required by the existing OSHA standard
addressing this type of work in general
industry in 29 CFR 1910.269.
Small business representatives from
the affected industries providing
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
comments to OSHA on a draft of the
proposal generally indicated that
construction contractors follow and
comply with the standards applicable to
general industry work (29 CFR
1910.269) for all of their work,
including construction work. But some
small business representatives indicated
that there are some companies who
follow the standards for construction
work in 29 CFR 1926, rather than the
standards for general industry work in
29 CFR 1910.269. [3, p. 14]
For certain aspects of a particular
construction job, it may be possible to
avoid some expenses associated with
compliance with some of the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.269 not
dealing with training. However, if the
employees of the company ever do any
work considered repair or maintenance,
or any other work covered by 29 CFR
1910.269, then they must have been
trained in accordance with that
standard. Thus, compliance with the
training requirements of 29 CFR
1910.269 in particular is likely, even if
a specific job involves only construction
work and the employer follows the
relevant provisions of the Construction
Standard, Subpart V.
The number of firms, if any, who
actually limit themselves to
construction work as defined by OSHA,
and therefore avoid providing a basic
training regimen for employees under
29 CFR 1910.269, is difficult to estimate.
One small entity representative
estimated that about 10 to 30 percent of
contractors involved in electric power
transmission and distribution work may
exclusively do construction; another
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
representative stated that they do not
know of any contractor firms that do
exclusively construction work [3, p. 15].
It is not clear to what extent it is
understood by potentially affected firms
that much work that is commonly
regarded as construction or that is
commonly performed by construction
companies does in fact fall under
OSHA’s definition of general industry
work, which includes repair and
maintenance. Thus, it would be easy for
firms or people to mistakenly believe
that they (or others) are only involved
in construction work when in fact some
of their work falls under the scope of
OSHA’s general industry standards.
It is very unlikely that contractors
performing electric power generation,
transmission, or distribution work meet
both of the following criteria: (1) They
know and expect that for all projects
performed, only construction work will
be done such that the training required
by 29 CFR 1910.269 would not be
required to be provided, and (2) they
have employees perform such work
without providing them with what
many consider to be a minimum amount
of basic safety training applicable to this
type of work, as reflected in the training
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.269. Only
contractors meeting both of these
criteria would experience additional
training costs due to the formal
extension of the training requirements
in 29 CFR 1910.269 to the construction
industry.
Nevertheless, for purposes of
estimating the potential costs of
compliance that may be associated with
this proposal, OSHA estimates that 5
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34908
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
percent of the work force in several
construction industries would need to
be provided with the training currently
required by 29 CFR 1910.269 in order to
achieve full compliance with the
proposed standards.
In the development of the proposal,
OSHA was not able to identify any
employers that performed work covered
by Subpart V of Part 1926, but no work
covered by 29 CFR 1910.269. However,
OSHA has calculated costs based on an
estimate that 5 percent of the affected
construction work force performs no
work covered by 29 CFR 1910.269,
primarily in response to the
recommendations of the SBREFA Panel,
as discussed in the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis.
Specifically, OSHA estimates that 5
percent of the relevant work force
would be affected in the following
industries: Water, Sewer, and Pipeline
Construction; Power and
Communication Transmission Line
Construction; All Other Heavy
Construction; and Electrical Contractors.
OSHA requests comments and
information from the public regarding
this issue and the associated estimates.
The costs associated with the
additional training that may be
necessary to achieve full compliance
with the new training provisions for
employees not already covered by 29
CFR 1910.269 were estimated as
involving resources (including labor
costs or other expenditures) equivalent
to 24.75 hours of employee time, plus 3
minutes of clerical time per employee in
the affected industries.
Thus, OSHA estimates that the
average cost of compliance per affected
employee for the required training
would range from $690 to $772 in the
affected industries.
For the establishments and employees
considered to be affected by the
expansion of the scope of applicability
of this training requirement, current
compliance was estimated to be zero. [2,
Appendix C, pages 5–6]
The total estimated first-year cost of
compliance for providing additional
training for employees not already
covered by 29 CFR 1910.269 (and not
already provided with such training)
was thus estimated to be $4.1 million,
as shown in Table V–9. Table V–9 also
shows the costs of compliance for each
affected industry. In calculating the total
annual cost associated with all the
revised training requirements, this
nonrecurring first-year cost (less the
corresponding annual cost shown in
Table V–11) was annualized at a rate of
7 percent over 10 years and was then
added to the recurring annual costs.
TABLE V–9.—FIRST-YEAR COSTS FOR ADDITIONAL TRAINING FOR EMPLOYEES NOT ALREADY COVERED BY § 1910.269
Average cost
per affected
employee
Employees affected (%)
Compliance
rate (%) low
high
First-year
compliance
costs
Industry code
Industry name
NAICS 234910 .......
NAICS 234920 .......
5
5
$690
690
0
0
$78,184
2,153,238
0
5
5
0
0
........................
772
700
........................
........................
........................
0
0
........................
........................
0
479,611
1,344,110
0
0
0
0
0
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
0
0
0
NAICS 2211 ...........
Various ...................
SIC 0783 ................
Water, Sewer, and Pipeline Construction ...................
Power and Communication Transmission Line Construction.
Industrial Nonbuilding Structure Construction .............
All Other Heavy Construction ......................................
Electrical Contractors ..................................................
Structural Steel Erection Contractors ..........................
Building Equipment and Other Machine Installation
Contractors.
All Other Special Trade Contractors ...........................
Electric Power Generation ...........................................
Electric Power Transmission, Control, and Distribution.
Publicly Owned Utilities ...............................................
Industrial Power Generators ........................................
Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services ........................
0
0
0
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
0
0
0
Total ................
......................................................................................
........................
........................
........................
4,055,143
NAICS
NAICS
NAICS
NAICS
NAICS
234930
234990
235310
235910
235950
.......
.......
.......
.......
.......
NAICS 235990 .......
NAICS 221110 .......
NAICS 221120 .......
Source: CONSAD [1], Table 5.3; CONSAD [2], Appendix C, pages 5–6; OSHA estimates.
Annual Costs for Provision of
Additional Training for Employees
Already Covered by 29 CFR 1910.269
The proposed revisions to the OSHA
standards addressing electric power
generation, transmission, and
distribution work may involve annual
costs for providing additional training
due to workforce turnover.
The costs associated with the
provision of additional training were
estimated as involving resources
(including labor costs or other
expenditures) equivalent to 0.75 hours
of employee time, plus 6 minutes of
supervisory time, plus 3 minutes of
clerical time per employee for all
affected industries except Ornamental
Shrub and Tree Services. For
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
establishments in the Ornamental Shrub
and Tree Services industry, the
provision of additional training was
estimated as involving resources
(including labor costs or other
expenditures) equivalent to 0.375 hours
of employee time, plus 3 minutes of
supervisory time, plus 3 minutes of
clerical time per employee.
OSHA estimates that the average cost
of compliance for providing the
additional training would be $20 per
affected employee for establishments in
the Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services
industry and would range from $25 to
$34 per affected employee in all other
affected industries.
The number of affected employees in
each establishment was estimated by
determining the corresponding work
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
force turnover rate. The work force
turnover rate associated with the
relevant occupational category was
estimated for each potentially affected
industry. The turnover rates among
employees performing electric power
generation, transmission, and
distribution work were estimated to
range from 11 to 16 percent in the
construction industries, were estimated
to be 3 percent in generation and utility
industries, and were estimated to be 31
percent for establishments in the
Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services
industry [2, Appendix C, p. 7–8].
Based on research conducted by
CONSAD, OSHA estimates that most
establishments in all affected industries
already provide training that fully
complies with the requirements of the
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34909
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
proposed standards [2, Appendix C,
pages 7–8]. For these establishments, no
additional costs would be necessary to
achieve compliance.
Rates of current compliance with the
proposed requirements were estimated
for each affected industry. Within each
industry, rates of current compliance
were estimated separately for
establishments based on their size and
based on whether their work force was
unionized or not. In the Ornamental
Shrub and Tree Services industry,
estimated rates of current compliance
ranged from 50 to 75 percent. In all
other affected industries, rates of current
compliance were estimated to range
from 75 to 98 percent [2, Appendix C,
pages 7–8].
The total estimated annual cost of
compliance for providing training
meeting the requirements of the
proposed standards was thus estimated
to be about $58,000, as shown in Table
V–10. Table V–10 also shows the costs
of compliance for each affected
industry.
TABLE V–10.—ANNUAL COSTS FOR PROVIDING ADDITIONAL TRAINING FOR EMPLOYEES ALREADY COVERED BY
§ 1910.269
Employees affected (%)
Average cost
per affected
employee
Compliance
rate (%) low/
high
Annual compliance costs
Industry code
Industry name
NAICS 234910 .......
NAICS 234920 .......
15
15
$25
25
75/95
75/95
$299
7,870
16
15
10
11
11
29
28
26
34
34
75/95
75/95
75/95
75/95
75/95
448
2,046
4,103
97
91
11
3
3
34
30
30
75/95
95/98
95/98
280
817
1,359
NAICS 2211 ...........
Various ...................
SIC 0783 ................
Water, Sewer, and Pipeline Construction ...................
Power and Communication Transmission Line Construction.
Industrial Nonbuilding Structure Construction .............
All Other Heavy Construction ......................................
Electrical Contractors ..................................................
Structural Steel Erection Contractors ..........................
Building Equipment and Other Machine Installation
Contractors.
All Other Special Trade Contractors ...........................
Electric Power Generation ...........................................
Electric Power Transmission, Control, and Distribution.
Publicly Owned Utilities ...............................................
Industrial Power Generators ........................................
Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services ........................
3
3
31
30
31
20
95/98
98/98
50/75
180
292
40,447
Total ................
......................................................................................
........................
........................
........................
58,329
NAICS
NAICS
NAICS
NAICS
NAICS
234930
234990
235310
235910
235950
.......
.......
.......
.......
.......
NAICS 235990 .......
NAICS 221110 .......
NAICS 221120 .......
Source: CONSAD [1], Table 5.3; CONSAD [2], Appendix C, pages 7–8; OSHA estimates.
Annual Costs for Additional Training
for Employees Not Already Covered by
29 CFR 1910.269
As noted earlier, OSHA has included
training costs based on an estimate that
5 percent of the affected construction
work force performs no work covered by
29 CFR 1910.269. Specifically, OSHA
estimates that 5 percent of the relevant
work force would be affected in the
following industries: Water, Sewer, and
Pipeline Construction; Power and
Communication Transmission Line
Construction; All Other Heavy
Construction; and Electrical Contractors.
The annual costs associated with this
additional training were estimated for
new affected employees as involving
resources (including labor costs or other
expenditures) equivalent to 24.75 hours
of employee time, plus 3 minutes of
clerical time per employee. OSHA
estimates that the average cost of
compliance per affected employee for
the required training would range from
$690 to $772 in the affected industries.
The number of affected employees in
each establishment was estimated by
determining the corresponding work
force turnover rate. The work force
turnover rate associated with the
relevant occupational category was
estimated for each potentially affected
industry. The turnover rates among
employees performing electric power
generation, transmission, and
distribution work were estimated to
range from 11 to 16 percent in the
affected construction industries [2,
Appendix C, p. 9–10].
For the establishments and employees
considered to be affected by the
expansion of the scope of applicability
of this training requirement, current
compliance was estimated to be zero [2,
Appendix C, pages 9–10].
The total estimated annual cost of
compliance for providing additional
training for employees not already
covered by 29 CFR 1910.269 (and not
already provided with such training)
was thus estimated to be about
$542,000, as shown in Table V–11.
Table V–11 also shows the costs of
compliance for each affected industry.
TABLE V–11.—ANNUAL COSTS FOR PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL TRAINING FOR EMPLOYEES NOT ALREADY COVERED BY
§ 1910.269
Employees affected (%)
Industry code
Industry name
NAICS 234910 .......
NAICS 234920 .......
Water, Sewer, and Pipeline Construction ..................
Power and Communication Transmission Line Construction.
Industrial Nonbuilding Structure Construction ............
All Other Heavy Construction .....................................
Electrical Contractors ..................................................
NAICS 234930 .......
NAICS 234990 .......
NAICS 235310 .......
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Average cost
per affected
employee
Compliance
rate (%) low/
high
Annual compliance costs
1
1
$690
690
0
0
$11,583
318,999
0
1
1
........................
772
700
........................
0
0
0
71,053
140,144
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34910
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V–11.—ANNUAL COSTS FOR PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL TRAINING FOR EMPLOYEES NOT ALREADY COVERED BY
§ 1910.269—Continued
Average cost
per affected
employee
Compliance
rate (%) low/
high
0
0
........................
........................
........................
........................
0
0
0
0
0
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
0
0
0
0
0
0
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
0
0
0
........................
........................
........................
541,779
Employees affected (%)
Industry code
Industry name
NAICS 235910 .......
NAICS 235950 .......
NAICS 2211 ...........
Various ...................
SIC 0783 ................
Structural Steel Erection Contractors .........................
Building Equipment and Other Machine Installation
Contractors.
All Other Special Trade Contractors ..........................
Electric Power Generation ..........................................
Electric Power Transmission, Control, and Distribution.
Publicly Owned Utilities ..............................................
Industrial Power Generators .......................................
Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services ........................
Total ................
.....................................................................................
NAICS 235990 .......
NAICS 221110 .......
NAICS 221120 .......
Annual compliance costs
Source: CONSAD [1], Table 5.3; CONSAD [2], Appendix C, pages 9–10; OSHA estimates.
Costs To Comply With Existing 29 CFR
1910.269 (Other Than Training) for
Employees Not Already Covered by 29
CFR 1910.269
As described earlier, OSHA believes
that construction contractors who
perform work involving electric power
generation, transmission, or distribution
generally comply with the requirements
of the OSHA general industry standard
29 CFR 1910.269. Nevertheless, for
purposes of estimating the potential
costs of compliance associated with this
rulemaking, costs associated with
complying with existing requirements
in 29 CFR 1910.269 were estimated for
some construction establishments. For
purposes of calculating a cost estimate,
OSHA estimates that the equivalent of 5
percent of the work force in several
construction industries currently are not
provided with any of the additional
safety protections that were newly
provided by the existing 29 CFR
1910.269 when that standard was
updated by OSHA in 1994.
Specifically, OSHA estimates that the
compliance costs associated with
achieving full compliance with the
requirements of the existing 29 CFR
1910.269 for the construction industry
would be equivalent to that represented
by 5 percent of the relevant work force
being out of compliance with the
requirements of the existing 29 CFR
1910.269 that were newly introduced in
general industry in 1994. The relevant
work force would be the affected
employees in the following industries:
Water, Sewer, and Pipeline
Construction; Power and
Communication Transmission Line
Construction; All Other Heavy
Construction; and Electrical Contractors.
The costs necessary to achieve full
compliance with the relevant
nontraining requirements of 29 CFR
1910.269 were estimated based on those
associated with the final rule
promulgated by OSHA in 1994. Many of
these requirements have become
standard industry practice and thus
would no longer involve additional
costs. Thus, the estimate of compliance
costs would allow for more widespread
noncompliance among other
requirements, or for the incorporation of
other aspects of achieving compliance.
The resources necessary to achieve
compliance with the relevant
requirements were estimated to be
represented by an average of $64 per
employee. This cost is equivalent to that
associated with compliance with the
revised 29 CFR 1910.269, as supported
by the public record corresponding to
the promulgation of that standard.
The total estimated annual costs
associated with achieving compliance
with the nontraining requirements of
the existing 29 CFR 1910.269 for the
construction industry was thus
estimated to be $157,000, as shown in
Table V–12. Table V–12 also shows the
costs of compliance for each affected
industry.
TABLE V–12.—COSTS TO COMPLY WITH EXISTING 1910.269 (OTHER THAN TRAINING) FOR EMPLOYEES NOT ALREADY
COVERED BY § 1910.269
Industry name
NAICS 234910 .......
NAICS 234920 .......
234930
234990
235310
235910
235950
.......
.......
.......
.......
.......
NAICS 235990 .......
NAICS 221110 .......
NAICS 221120 .......
NAICS 2211 ...........
Various ...................
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Compliance
rate (%) low/
high
Employees affected (%)
5
5
$64
64
0
0
$3,043
83,773
0
5
5
0
0
........................
64
64
........................
........................
........................
0
0
........................
........................
0
17,834
52,294
0
0
0
0
0
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
0
0
0
0
0
........................
........................
........................
........................
0
0
Water, Sewer, and Pipeline Construction ..................
Power and Communication Transmission Line Construction.
Industrial Nonbuilding Structure Construction ............
All Other Heavy Construction .....................................
Electrical Contractors ..................................................
Structural Steel Erection Contractors .........................
Building Equipment and Other Machine Installation
Contractors.
All Other Special Trade Contractors ..........................
Electric Power Generation ..........................................
Electric Power Transmission, Control, and Distribution.
Publicly Owned Utilities ..............................................
Industrial Power Generators .......................................
NAICS
NAICS
NAICS
NAICS
NAICS
Average cost
per affected
employee
Employees affected (%)
Industry code
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
34911
TABLE V–12.—COSTS TO COMPLY WITH EXISTING 1910.269 (OTHER THAN TRAINING) FOR EMPLOYEES NOT ALREADY
COVERED BY § 1910.269—Continued
Employees affected (%)
Employees affected (%)
Average cost
per affected
employee
Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services ........................
0
........................
........................
0
.....................................................................................
........................
........................
........................
156,944
Industry code
Industry name
SIC 0783 ................
Total ................
Compliance
rate (%) low/
high
Source: OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis.
Annual Costs for Required
Communications Between Host
Employers and Contractors
The proposed revisions to the OSHA
standards addressing electric power
generation, transmission, and
distribution work would require certain
communications to take place between
host employers and contractors. These
requirements would apply for each
project that is performed by a contractor
for a host employer.
Under the proposed standards, the
host employer would be required to
provide to the contractor information on
hazards that the contract employer
might not be able to recognize.
However, the proposed standards would
not require the host employer to survey
the work area for hazards, and would
not require the host employer to acquire
additional unknown information.
The proposed standards would also
require the host employer to report to
the contractor any violations of the
applicable OSHA standards that may
happen to be observed by the host
employer. This requirement would not
impose any additional costs on host
employers or on contractors to the
extent that contractors are in
compliance with the applicable
standards.
Contractors are also required under
the proposed standards to inform the
host employer about any unique hazards
posed by the work of the contractor,
about any unexpected hazards found in
the course of performing the contracted
work, and about the measures taken by
the contractor to correct violations
reported by the host employer and the
measures taken to prevent such
violations from recurring. These
communications are generally
considered to be consistent with current
industry practices for projects involving
contracted work on electric power
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
generation, transmission, and
distribution systems.
An estimated 2.7 million projects are
performed by contractors for host
employers annually. Of these, about 1.3
million are performed by contractors
classified in the Power and
Communication Transmission Line
Construction industry, and another 0.9
million are performed by establishments
classified in the Electrical Contractors
industry. [2, Appendix C, p. 1]
Projects performed by the host
employers themselves would not be
affected by the proposed new
requirements. Also, projects for which
there is no host employer would not be
affected by these requirements. Host
employer is defined in the proposal as
‘‘[a]n employer who operates and
maintains’’ an electric power system
and who hires a contract employer to
perform work on the system.
Furthermore, the requirements do not
apply to line-clearance tree trimmers.
OSHA requests comments regarding the
scope and application of these
requirements, and regarding additional
costs, if any, that would need to be
incurred by tree trimmers if they were
to be covered by this requirement.
Some projects would be sufficiently
small and straightforward to preclude
the need for any required
communication. An estimated 50
percent of the projects performed by
establishments with fewer than 20
employees would be unaffected by the
proposed new communication
requirements. All projects performed by
establishments with 20 or more
employees are considered affected by
these requirements. [2, Appendix C, p.
11–12]
The costs associated with these
provisions were estimated as involving
resources (including labor costs or other
expenditures) equivalent to 10 minutes
of supervisory time each for the host
employer and for the contractor on
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
affected projects involving
establishments with fewer than 20
employees, and resources equivalent to
15 minutes of supervisory time each for
the host employer and for the contractor
on affected projects involving
establishments with 20 or more
employees. [2, Appendix C, pages 11–
12]
Thus, OSHA estimates that the
average cost of compliance to
contractors associated with the
requirements for communications
between host employers and contractors
would be $5 to $6 per affected project
performed by a smaller establishment,
and $8 to $9 per affected project
performed by a larger establishment.
The corresponding cost of compliance
to utilities associated with these
requirements would range from $7 to
$10 per affected project.
Based on research conducted by
CONSAD, OSHA believes that the
communications that would be required
by the proposed standards already occur
for most affected projects. Employers
involved in an estimated 50 percent of
the affected projects performed by
smaller establishments are already in
compliance with the proposed
requirements. Depending on the
construction contractor involved, an
estimated 75 to 90 percent of the
affected projects performed by larger
contractors are also already in
compliance. For these projects, no
additional costs would be necessary to
achieve compliance with the proposed
standards. [2, Appendix C, p. 11–12]
The total estimated annual cost of
compliance associated with the
proposed requirements involving
communications between host
employers and contractors was thus
estimated to be $7.8 million, as shown
in Table V–13. Table V–13 also shows
the costs of compliance for each affected
industry.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34912
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V–13.—COSTS FOR REQUIRED COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN HOST EMPLOYERS AND CONTRACTORS
Projects performed annually
Industry code
Industry name
NAICS 234910 .......
Water, Sewer, and Pipeline Construction.
Power and Communication Transmission Line Construction.
Industrial Nonbuilding Structure
Construction.
All Other Heavy Construction .........
Electrical Contractors ......................
Structural Steel Erection Contractors.
Building Equipment and Other Machine Installation Contractors.
All Other Special Trade Contractors
Electric Power Generation ..............
Electric Power Transmission, Control, and Distribution.
Publicly Owned Utilities ..................
Industrial Power Generators ...........
Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services.
NAICS 234920 .......
NAICS 234930 .......
NAICS 234990 .......
NAICS 235310 .......
NAICS 235910 .......
NAICS 235950 .......
NAICS 235990 .......
NAICS 221110 .......
NAICS 221120 .......
NAICS 2211 ...........
Various ...................
SIC 0783 ................
Total ................
.........................................................
Projects affected (%)
small/large
Cost per
project
small/large
Compliance
rate (%)
low/high
Annual compliance costs
49,019
50/100
$5/$8
50/75
$84,325
1,282,310
50/100
5/8
65/90
1,062,275
58,790
50/100
5/8
50/75
114,887
309,377
939,790
15,889
50/100
50/100
50/100
5/8
6/9
6/9
50/75
50/75
50/75
508,846
1,629,823
29,071
14,883
50/100
6/9
50/75
27,230
47,250
1,894,521
3,147,692
50/100
10
10
6/9
7/10
7/10
50/75
........................
........................
77,081
1,021,719
2,725,314
422,708
687,667
2,251,278
10
0
7/10
7/10
........................
........................
........................
........................
280,791
232,289
0
........................
........................
........................
........................
7,793,651
10
1 Note:
Projects performed directly by utilities are excluded; costs to utilities reflect costs of communication on projects contracted out.
Source: CONSAD [1], Table 5.3 and CONSAD [2], appendix C, pages 11–12.
Annual Costs Associated With
Expanded Requirements for Job
Briefings
The proposed revisions to the OSHA
standards would expand the
requirements for employers to conduct
job briefings prior to beginning work on
affected electric power projects.
Specifically, in addition to existing
requirements to provide a job briefing
for employees, affected employers
would be required to provide the
employee in charge of the job with
available information to perform the job
safely.
An estimated 11.1 million projects are
performed by construction contractors,
utilities, other power generators, and
line-clearance tree trimmers annually.
Of these, about 6.2 million projects are
performed by utilities and power
generators, 2.7 million projects are
performed by contractors classified in
the construction industry, and another
2.3 million projects are performed by
establishments classified in the
Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services
industry. All of these projects would be
potentially affected by the proposed
new requirements [2, Appendix C, p. 1
and p. 13–14].
Compliance with the proposed
standards would be expected to be
achieved through a small addition to
routine communications that already
take place regularly between and among
employers and employees involved in
the affected projects. The costs of
compliance associated with the revised
job briefing provisions were estimated
as involving resources (including labor
costs or other expenditures) equivalent
to 5 minutes of supervisory time and 5
minutes of employee time for each
affected project [2, Appendix C, pages
11–12].
Thus, OSHA estimates that the
average cost of compliance associated
with the revised requirements for job
briefings would be $5 to $6 per affected
project performed by utilities, other
power generators, and construction
contractors. The estimated average cost
of compliance for projects performed by
establishments in the Ornamental Shrub
and Tree Services industry would be
about $3 per project.
Based on research conducted by
CONSAD, OSHA estimates that the job
briefings that would be required by the
proposed standards are already
provided for most affected projects.
Employers involved in an estimated 85
percent of the affected projects
performed by establishments with fewer
than 20 employees are already in
compliance with the proposed
requirements. Employers involved in an
estimated 95 percent of the affected
projects performed by establishments
with 20 or more employees are also
already in compliance with the
proposed requirements. Among utilities
and other power generators, an
estimated 95 percent to 98 percent of
the potentially affected projects involve
employers already fully in compliance
with the proposed job briefing
provisions. For these projects, no
additional costs would be necessary to
achieve compliance with the proposed
standards. [2, Appendix C, pages 13–14]
The total estimated annual cost of
compliance associated with the
proposed requirements regarding job
briefings was thus estimated to be $5.1
million, as shown in Table V–14. Table
V–14 also shows the costs of
compliance for each affected industry.
TABLE V–14.—COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH EXPANDED REQUIREMENTS FOR JOB BRIEFINGS
Projects performed annually
Industry code
Industry name
NAICS 234910 .......
Water, Sewer, and Pipeline Construction.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Projects affected (%)
49,019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Compliance
rate (%) low
high
Cost per
project
100
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
5
15JNP2
85/95
Annual compliance costs
$37,642
34913
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V–14.—COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH EXPANDED REQUIREMENTS FOR JOB BRIEFINGS—Continued
Projects performed annually
Projects affected (%)
Compliance
rate (%) low
high
Cost per
project
Annual compliance costs
Industry code
Industry name
NAICS 234920 .......
Power and Communication Transmission Line Construction.
Industrial Nonbuilding Structure
Construction.
All Other Heavy Construction .........
Electrical Constructors ....................
Structural Steel Erection Constructors.
Building Equipment and Other Machine Installation Constructors.
All Other Special Trade Constructors.
Electric Power Generation ..............
Electric Power Transmission, Control, and Distribution.
Publicly Owned Utilities ..................
Industrial Power Generators ...........
Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services.
1,282,310
100
5
85/95
945,140
58,790
100
5
85/95
42,827
309,377
939,790
15,889
100
100
100
5
5
6
85/95
85/95
85/95
270,538
829,851
16,637
14,883
100
6
85/95
15,584
47,250
100
6
85/95
55,111
1,894,521
3,147,692
100
100
6
6
95/98
95/98
662,584
1,102,340
422,708
687,667
2,251,278
100
100
100
6
6
3
95/98
98/98
85/95
145,737
235,334
700,013
.........................................................
........................
........................
........................
........................
5,059,338
NAICS 234930 .......
NAICS 234990 .......
NAICS 235310 .......
NAICS 235910 .......
NAICS 235950 .......
NAICS 235990 .......
NAICS 221110 .......
NAICS 221120 .......
NAICS 2211 ...........
Various ...................
SIC 0783 ................
Total ................
Source: CONSAD [1], Table 5.3 and CONSAD [2], Appendix C, pages 13–14.
Annual Costs Associated With
Determinations Regarding Electric Arc
Hazards and Appropriate Employee
Protection
Under OSHA’s proposed revisions,
employers are required to determine
whether employees may be exposed to
hazards from flames or from electric
arcs. For employees exposed to hazards
from electric arcs, the employer must
estimate the available heat energy to
which the employee would be exposed.
Where the covered hazards exist, the
employer must determine the
corresponding appropriate clothing or
other protection for employees.
As noted in the proposal, the
calculations of potential heat energy
exposures do not need to be made
separately or repeated for each
individual project performed. Estimates
that cover multiple system areas can be
developed initially, and then
information from the resulting systemwide analysis can be used repeatedly as
needed. The relevant information
applicable for a specific project can be
identified and communicated to
contractors by referring to the results of
the system-wide assessment or by
providing the relevant system area
parameters (such as maximum fault
current and clearing times) so that the
contractor can perform the calculations.
An estimated 11.1 million projects are
performed by construction contractors,
utilities, other power generators, and
line-clearance tree trimmers annually.
Of these, about 6.2 million projects are
performed by utilities and power
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
generators, 2.7 million projects are
performed by contractors classified in
the construction industry, and another
2.3 million projects are performed by
establishments classified in the
Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services
industry. [2, Appendix C, p. 1].
The requirements involving
determinations associated with electric
arc hazards do not apply to projects
performed by establishments classified
in the Ornamental Shrub and Tree
Services industry. In addition, the
requirements do not apply to projects
involving only deenergized lines and
equipment, even if these could involve
potential electric arc hazards.
An estimated 50 percent of the
projects involving electric power
transmission and distribution involve
work on deenergized lines and
equipment; all projects involving
electric power generation were assumed
to involve energized lines or equipment.
Thus, the percent of projects potentially
affected by the requirements involving
determinations associated with electric
arc hazards ranges from 50 percent to
100 percent across affected industries
depending on the proportion of the
work in each industry that involves
energized lines or equipment. [2,
Appendix C, p. 13–14]
Compliance with the proposed
standards would be expected to be
achieved through the completion of a
single system-wide assessment for each
of the affected electric power
generation, transmission, or distribution
systems, in conjunction with the
communication of the relevant results of
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
that assessment to the appropriate
persons in charge of specific projects.
Contractors would use the necessary
information from the system-wide
analysis relevant to each particular
project to make a determination
regarding the appropriate protection to
provide employees for each project.
The costs of compliance associated
with the proposed requirements to make
determinations associated with electric
arc hazards were estimated as involving
resources (including labor costs or other
expenditures) for two activities. First,
costs were estimated for conducting and
updating a system-wide assessment of
potential energy for each utility and
other power generator. Second, costs
were estimated for making a
determination regarding appropriate
employee protection, using information
from a system-wide assessment, for each
affected project.
The cost associated with conducting a
system-wide assessment would depend
on the size and complexity of the
system, which tends to correspond
closely to the number of employees
working for the company that operates
the system. Thus, the costs were
estimated on a per-employee basis for
each affected utility. The annual cost for
each system was estimated as involving
resources (including labor costs or other
expenditures) equivalent to the cost of
2 hours of an electric power system
engineer’s time plus 6 minutes of
clerical time, per employee of the
utility. In their report, CONSAD had
estimated that on a per-employee basis
the cost of conducting a system-wide
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34914
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
assessment would be equivalent to the
cost of 3 hours of an engineer’s time
plus 9 minutes of clerical time [2,
Appendix C, pages 13–14]. OSHA
revised these estimates downwards by
one third to reflect subsequent changes
to the proposal that reduced the
associated costs.68 For example, for a
utility with 1,000 employees, the
estimated annual cost would be
equivalent to the cost of 2,000 hours of
an engineer’s time plus 6,000 minutes of
clerical time. OSHA requests comments
on the use and accuracy of this
approach for purposes of estimating
these costs. In particular, the Agency
requests comments on whether
employers will incur these costs on an
annual basis or on a one-time basis,
with smaller periodic updates.
Thus, the estimated average cost
associated with conducting a systemwide assessment would be about $91
per system employee. For example, the
estimated average annual cost for a
utility with 100 employees would be
$9,100, and the average annual cost for
a utility with 1,000 employees would be
$91,000.
The cost associated with making a
determination regarding the appropriate
employee protection, using information
from a system-wide assessment, was
estimated as involving resources
(including labor costs or other
expenditures) equivalent to 3 minutes of
supervisor time for affected contractors
and for each affected project [2,
Appendix C, pages 13–14].
Thus, the estimated average cost
associated with making a determination
regarding the appropriate employee
protection, using information from a
system-wide assessment, was estimated
to $2 per project.
Based on research conducted by
CONSAD, OSHA estimates that the
determinations that would be required
by the proposed standards are already
made for most affected projects. An
estimated 75 percent of the
establishments of utilities and other
generators with fewer than 20
employees already perform system-wide
assessments regarding the available heat
energy to which employees may be
exposed. An estimated 85 percent of the
establishments of utilities and other
generators with 20 or more employees
already perform system-wide
assessments regarding the available heat
energy to which employees may be
exposed. For these utilities, no
additional costs would be necessary to
achieve compliance with the proposed
standard’s requirement for determining
heat energy estimates. [2, Appendix C,
p. 13–14]
Among construction contractors,
determinations regarding appropriate
employee protection are made for an
estimated 25 percent of the projects
performed by smaller establishments
and for an estimated 50 percent of the
projects performed by larger contractors.
For these projects, no additional costs
would be necessary to achieve
compliance with the proposed
standards. [2, Appendix C, p. 13–14]
The total estimated annual cost of
compliance associated with the
proposed requirements regarding the
determinations associated with electric
arc hazards and the corresponding
appropriate employee protection was
thus estimated to be $11.0 million, as
shown in Table V–15. Table V–15 also
shows the costs of compliance for each
affected industry.
TABLE V–15.—COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH DETERMINING MAXIMUM POTENTIAL HEAT ENERGY AND CORRESPONDING
APPROPRIATE EMPLOYEE PROTECTION
Projects performed annually
Industry code
Industry name
NAICS 234910 .......
Water, Sewer, and Pipeline Construction.
Power and Communication Transmission Line Construction.
Industrial Nonbuilding Structure
Construction.
All Other Heavy Construction .........
Electrical Contractors ......................
Structural Steel Erection Contractors.
Building Equipment and Other Machine Installation Contractors.
All Other Special Trade Contractors
Electric Power Generation ..............
Electric Power Transmission, Control, and Distribution.
Publicly Owned Utilities ..................
Industrial Power Generators ...........
Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services.
NAICS 234920 .......
NAICS 234930 .......
NAICS 234990 .......
NAICS 235310 .......
NAICS 235910 .......
NAICS 235950 .......
NAICS 235990 .......
NAICS 221110 .......
NAICS 221120 .......
NAICS 2211 ...........
Various ...................
SIC 0783 ................
Total ................
.........................................................
Projects affected (%)
Compliance
rate (%) low/
high
Cost per
project
Annual compliance costs
49,019
50
$2
25/50
23,055
1,282,310
50
2
25/50
581,517
58,790
100
2
25/50
47,048
309,377
939,790
15,889
75
60
100
2
2
2
25/50
25/50
25/50
228,773
611,134
16,448
14,883
100
2
25/50
15,407
47,250
1,894,521
3,147,692
100
75
55
2
(1)
(1)
25/50
75/85
75/85
54,532
2,106,375
5,900,695
422,708
687,667
2,251,278
75
100
0
(1)
(1)
........................
75/85
85/85
........................
676,998
778,076
0
........................
........................
........................
........................
11,040,058
1 Note:
Costs for utilities include labor costs for performing system-wide assessments regarding potential arc hazards, estimated as $91 per
utility employee annually. Costs for contractors reflect labor costs for determining appropriate clothing based on information provided by utilities.
Source: CONSAD [1], Table 5.3 and CONSAD [2], Appendix C, pages 13–14, and OSHA estimates.
68 After CONSAD completed its report, OSHA
added tables to the appendices explaining the
proposed protective clothing requirements.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
Employers may use the heat exposure levels in
these tables rather than perform an engineering
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
assessment for portions of their systems that fall
within the ranges covered by the tables.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Annual Costs for Providing FlameResistant Apparel (FRA) and Other
Protective Clothing
The proposed revisions to the OSHA
standards addressing electric power
generation, transmission, and
distribution work include revisions to
the requirements addressing the extent
of protective clothing that employees
must wear. Under the proposed
standards, affected employers must
provide appropriate protective clothing
to employees based on the
determination of the hazards that the
employees may face.69
The average costs associated with
providing the clothing that would be
necessary to achieve full compliance
with the proposed standards were
estimated as involving resources
equivalent to those associated with the
following illustrative case example. An
employer could generally be expected to
achieve compliance with the proposed
standard’s clothing provisions by
purchasing eight sets of flame-resistant
apparel per employee and one switching
coat or flash jacket for every three
employees.
69 OSHA has not proposed to require employers
to purchase the FRA needed to meet the clothingrelated provisions of the proposal. However, for
costs purposes, the Agency is assuming that all
costs of purchasing FRA will be borne by
employers. See the discussion of the issue of
whether employers should purchase this clothing in
the discussion of proposed § 1926.960(g)(4) in
Section IV, Summary and Explanation of Proposed
Rule, earlier in this preamble.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
A single set of flame-resistant apparel
is estimated to cost about $110, and
with 8 sets provided for each employee,
the useful life of this apparel is expected
to be 4 years. A switching coat or flash
jacket is estimated to cost about $200
and to have an expected life of 10 years.
[2, Appendix C, p. 15–16]
The flame-resistant apparel will
generally be substituted for clothing that
the employee or the employer would
already be providing. The savings
associated with no longer needing to
purchase and launder the clothing that
would otherwise be worn by employees
were not included in this analysis.
The flame-resistant apparel provided
to employees is generally worn in lieu
of clothing that would otherwise be
provided by and cared for by the
employees themselves, and typically
does not require special laundering.
Thus, the proposed requirement to
provide flame-resistant apparel would
not create additional burdens associated
with laundering. Employers would not
be required under the proposal to
launder clothes for employees. To the
extent that employers choose to begin
laundering clothes or providing
laundering services for employees in
conjunction with providing flameresistant apparel for them, the cost
would not be attributable to the
proposed regulatory requirements, and
any such costs would be regarded as
transfers from employers to employees
rather than additional costs to society.
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34915
Based on research conducted by
CONSAD, OSHA estimates that most
establishments in all affected industries
already provide employees with flameresistant apparel and other required
protective clothing that fully complies
with the requirements of the proposed
standards. [2, Appendix C, pages 15–16]
For these establishments, no additional
costs would be necessary to achieve
compliance.
Rates of current compliance with the
proposed requirements were estimated
for each affected industry. Within each
industry, rates of current compliance
were estimated separately for
establishments based on their size.
Among construction contractors, the
estimated average rate of current
compliance for establishments with
fewer than 20 employees was 50
percent. The average rate of current
compliance among construction
contractor establishments with 20 or
more employees was estimated to be 75
percent. Among electric utilities and
other electric power generators, current
compliance was estimated to be 80
percent for establishments with fewer
than 20 employees and 90 percent for
establishments with 20 or more
employees. [2, Appendix C, p. 15–16]
The total estimated annual cost of
compliance for providing flameresistant apparel and other protective
clothing was thus estimated to be $8.4
million, as shown in Table V–16. Table
V–16 also shows the costs of
compliance for each affected industry.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
234910
234920
234930
234990
235310
235910
235950
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Industry name
..................................................................................................
Water, Sewer, and Pipeline Construction ...............................
Power and Communication Transmission Line Construction
Industrial Nonbuilding Structure Construction .........................
All Other Heavy Construction ..................................................
Electrical Contractors ..............................................................
Structural Steel Erection Contractors ......................................
Building Equipment and Other Machine Installation Contractors.
All Other Special Trade Contractors .......................................
Electric Power Generation .......................................................
Electric Power Transmission, Control, and Distribution ..........
Publicly Owned Utilities ...........................................................
Industrial Power Generators ....................................................
Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services ....................................
Source: CONSAD [2], Appendix 1P. 15–16
Total ...............
NAICS 235990 ......
NAICS 221110 ......
NAICS 221120 ......
NAICS 2211 ..........
Various ..................
SIC 0783 ...............
NAICS
NAICS
NAICS
NAICS
NAICS
NAICS
NAICS
Industry code
....................
100
100
100
100
100
0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Employees
affected (%)
....................
8
8
8
8
8
....................
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Sets of FRA
provided per
employee
....................
110
110
110
110
110
....................
$110
110
110
110
110
110
110
Cost per set
of FRA
....................
4
4
4
4
4
....................
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Useful life of
FRA with 8
sets/employee
(years)
....................
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
....................
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
Switching
coat/flash
jacket per
employee
....................
200
200
200
200
200
....................
$200
200
200
200
200
200
200
Cost per
switching
coat/flash
jacket
....................
10
10
10
10
10
....................
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Useful life of
switching
coat/flash
jacket
(years)
....................
50/75
80/90
80/90
80/90
90/90
....................
50/75
50/75
50/75
50/75
50/75
50/75
50/75
Compliance
rate (%)
low/high
TABLE V–16.—COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PROVIDING FLAME-RESISTANT APPAREL (FRA), SWITCHING COATS, AND FLASH JACKETS
8,363,987
76,318
1,224,001
2,033,643
273,101
444,284
0
$79,174
2,071,169
94,957
499,701
1,517,936
25,664
24,039
Annual
compliance
costs
34916
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Frm 00096
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34917
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
construction contractors, utilities, and
other electric power generators, an
estimated 67 percent of the employees
who perform electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution work are
potentially affected. Among employees
in the Ornamental Shrub and Tree
Services industry who perform lineclearance tree-trimming operations, an
estimated 50 percent of the work force
would be potentially affected. [2,
Appendix C, pages 17–18]
Based on research conducted by
CONSAD, OSHA estimates that many
establishments in all affectd industries
already provide employees with
harnesses as required by the applicable
provisions in the proposal [2, Appendix
C, pages 17–18]. For these
establishments, no additional costs
would be necessary to achieve
compliance with the proposal.
Rates of current compliance with the
proposed requirements were estimated
Annual Costs for Providing Harnesses
for Fall Protection in Aerial Lifts
The proposal includes provisions
addressing the equipment that must be
used as part of fall arrest systems, fall
restraint systems, and work positioning
systems. Under the proposal, employees
in aerial lifts performing work covered
by 29 CFR 1910.269 would no longer be
able to use body belts as part of fall
arrest systems and would be required to
use harnesses; belts would still be
allowed to be used under certain
circumstances, as part of work
positioning systems and fall restraint
systems.
The average costs associated with
providing harnesses in lieu of belts were
estimated to be about $100 per affected
employee [2, Appendix C, pages 17–18].
The percentage of the work force that
would potentially be affected by the
proposed regulatory changes was
estimated for each industry. For
for each affected industry. Among
construction contractors and utilities,
current compliance with the
requirement to provide harnesses was
estimated to be 100 percent. OSHA
already requires the use of harnesses for
fall arrest for construction work. The
average rate of current compliance
among industrial power generators was
estimated to be 75 percent. Among
employees performing line-clearance
tree-trimming operations, current
compliance was estimated to be 25
percent for establishments with fewer
than 20 employees and 50 percent for
establishments with 20 or more
employees. [2, Appendix C, p. 17–18]
The total estimated annual cost of
compliance for providing harnesses for
fall protection in aerial lifts was thus
estimated to be $284,000, as shown in
Table V–17. Table V–17 also shows the
costs of compliance for each affected
industry.
TABLE V–17.—COSTS FOR PROVIDING HARNESSES FOR FALL PROTECTION IN AERIAL LIFTS
Employees
affected (%)
Incremental
cost of harness in lieu
of belt
Compliance
rate (%)
low/high
Annual
compliance
costs
Water, Sewer, and Pipeline Construction ...................................
Power and Communication Transmission Line Construction .....
Industrial Nonbuilding Structure Construction ............................
All Other Heavy Construction .....................................................
Electrical Contractors ..................................................................
Structural Steel Erection Contractors .........................................
Building Equipment and Other Machine Installation Contractors
All Other Special Trade Contractors ...........................................
Electric Power Generation ..........................................................
Electric Power Transmission, Control, and Distribution .............
Publicly Owned Utilities ..............................................................
Industrial Power Generators .......................................................
Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services ........................................
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
50
$100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100/100
100/100
100/100
100/100
100/100
100/100
100/100
100/100
100/100
100/100
100/100
75/75
25/50
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
67,422
216,578
.....................................................................................................
....................
....................
....................
284,000
Industry code
Industry name
NAICS 234910 .......
NAICS 234920 .......
NAICS 234930 .......
NAICS 234990 .......
NAICS 235310 .......
NAICS 235910 .......
NAICS 235950 .......
NAICS 235990 .......
NAICS 221110 .......
NAICS 221120 .......
NAICS 2211 ...........
Various ...................
SIC 0783 ................
Total ................
1 Source:
CONSAD [2], Appendix C, p. 17–18.
H. Economic Feasibility and Impacts
This section of the preliminary
analysis presents OSHA’s analysis of the
economic impacts of the proposal, and
an assessment of the economic
feasibility of compliance with the
requirements imposed by the
rulemaking.
A separate analysis of the potential
economic impacts on small entities (as
defined in accordance with the criteria
established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA)) and on very
small establishments (defined as those
with fewer than 20 employees) is
presented in the following section as
part of the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, as required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
In order to assess the nature and
magnitude of the economic impacts
associated with compliance with the
proposal, OSHA developed quantitative
estimates of the potential economic
impact of the requirements on entities
in each of the affected industry sectors.
The estimated costs of compliance
presented previously in this economic
analysis were compared with industry
revenues and profits to provide an
assessment of potential economic
impacts.
Table V–18 presents data on the
revenues associated with electric power
generation, transmission, and
distribution work for each affected
industry sector, along with the
corresponding industry profits and the
estimated costs of compliance in each
sector.
TABLE V–18.—POTENTIAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Industry code
Industry name
NAICS 234910 ............
Water, Sewer, and Pipeline Construction.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Compliance costs
Frm 00097
$253,089
Fmt 4701
Comparable industry revenues
$157,458,000
Sfmt 4702
Comparable industry profits
$8,817,648
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Costs as a percent of revenues
0.16
Costs as a percent of profits
2.87
34918
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V–18.—POTENTIAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS—Continued
Industry code
Industry name
NAICS 234920 ............
Power and Communication Transmission Line Construction.
Industrial Nonbuilding Structure
Construction.
All Other Heavy Construction ........
Electrical Contractors .....................
Structural Steel Erection Contractors.
Building Equipment and Other Machine Installation Contractors.
All Other Special Trade Contractors.
Electric Power Generation .............
Electric Power Transmission, Control, and Distribution.
Publicly Owned Utilities .................
Industrial Power Generators ..........
Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services.
NAICS 234930 ............
NAICS 234990 ............
NAICS 235310 ............
NAICS 235910 ............
NAICS 235950 ............
NAICS 235990 ............
NAICS 221110 ............
NAICS 221120 ............
NAICS 2211 ................
Various ........................
SIC 0783 .....................
Total .....................
Compliance costs
........................................................
Comparable industry revenues
Comparable industry profits
Costs as a percent of revenues
Costs as a percent of profits
5,358,702
3,118,256,000
174,622,336
0.17
3.07
302,077
1,732,944,000
84,914,256
0.02
0.36
1,663,721
4,975,533
91,676
1,033,946,000
2,055,435,000
119,735,000
50,663,354
123,326,100
6,226,000
0.16
0.24
0.08
3.28
4.03
1.47
87,741
113,999,000
3,647,968
0.08
2.41
279,136
160,909,000
7,401,814
0.17
3.77
5,026,324
11,787,197
69,385,043,000
176,509,052,000
6,730,349,171
17,121,378,044
0.01
0.01
0.07
0.07
1,380,186
1,761,391
976,559
25,075,725,000
2,630,428,000
2,100,129,000
149,109,159
0.01
0.07
0.05
0.65
33,943,333
284,193,059,000
24,460,456,070
0.01
0.14
Source: CONSAD [2], Table 6.3 and Appendix C, adjusted for revised cost estimates.
As evident from the data presented in
Table V–18, the costs of compliance
with the proposed rulemaking are not
large in relation to the corresponding
annual financial flows associated with
the regulated activities. The estimated
costs of compliance represent about 0.01
percent of revenues and 0.14 percent of
profits on average across all entities;
compliance costs do not represent more
than 0.24 percent of revenues or more
than 4.03 percent of profits in any
affected industry.
The economic impact of the proposal
is most likely to consist of a small
increase in prices for electricity, of
about 0.01 percent on average. It is
unlikely that a price increase on the
magnitude of 0.01 percent will
significantly alter the services
demanded by the public or any other
affected customers or intermediaries. If
the compliance costs of the proposal can
be substantially recouped with such a
minimal increase in prices, there may be
little effect on profits.
In general, for most establishments, it
would be very unlikely that none of the
compliance costs could be passed along
in the form of increased prices. In the
event that unusual circumstances may
inhibit even a price increase of 0.01
percent to be realized, profits in any of
the affected industries would be
reduced by a maximum of about 4
percent.
In profit-earning entities, compliance
costs can generally be expected to be
absorbed through a combination of
increases in prices or reduction in
profits. The extent to which the impacts
of cost increases affect prices or profits
depends on the price elasticity of
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
demand for the products or services
produced and sold by the entity.
Price elasticity of demand refers to the
relationship between changes in the
price charged for a product and the
resulting changes in the demand for that
product. A greater degree of elasticity of
demand implies that an entity or
industry is less able to pass increases in
costs through to its customers in the
form of a price increase and must absorb
more of the cost increase through a
reduction in profits.
In the case of cost increases that may
be incurred due to the requirements of
the proposal, all businesses within each
of the covered industry sectors would be
subject to the same requirements. Thus,
to the extent potential price increases
correspond to costs associated with
achieving compliance with the
standards, the elasticity of demand for
each entity will approach that faced by
the industry as a whole.
Given the small incremental increases
in prices potentially resulting from
compliance with the proposed
standards and the lack of readily
available substitutes for the products
and services provided by the covered
industry sectors, demand is expected to
be sufficiently inelastic in each affected
industry to enable entities to
substantially offset compliance costs
through minor price increases without
experiencing any significant reduction
in total revenues or in net profits.
For the economy as a whole, OSHA
expects the economic impact of the
proposed rulemaking to be both an
increase in the efficiency of production
of goods and services and an
improvement in the welfare of society.
First, as demonstrated by the analysis
of costs and benefits associated with
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
compliance with the requirements of the
rule, OSHA expects that societal welfare
will increase as a result of these
standards, as the benefits achieved
clearly and strongly justify the relatively
small costs necessary. The impacts of
the proposal involve net benefits of over
$100 million that are achieved in a
relatively cost-effective manner.
Second, many of the costs associated
with the injuries and fatalities resulting
from the risks addressed by the proposal
have until now been externalized. That
is, the costs incurred by society to
supply certain products and services
associated with electric power
generation, transmission, and
distribution work have not been fully
reflected in the prices of those products
and services. The costs of production
have been partly borne by workers who
suffer the consequences associated with
the activities causing the risks. To the
extent that fewer of these costs are
externalized, the price mechanism will
enable the market to result in a more
efficient allocation of resources. It
should be noted that reductions in
externalities by themselves do not
necessarily increase efficiency or social
welfare unless the costs of achieving the
reductions are outweighed by the
associated benefits.
OSHA concludes that compliance
with the requirements of the proposal is
economically feasible in every affected
industry sector. This conclusion is
based on the criteria established by the
OSH Act, as interpreted in relevant case
law.
In general, the courts have held that
a standard is economically feasible if
there is a reasonable likelihood that the
estimated costs of compliance ‘‘will not
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34919
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
threaten the existence or competitive
structure of an industry, even if it does
portend disaster for some marginal
firms’’ [United Steelworkers of America
v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1272 (D.C.
Cir. 1980)]. As demonstrated by this
preliminary regulatory impact analysis
and the supporting evidence, the
potential impacts associated with
achieving compliance with the proposal
fall far within the bounds of economic
feasibility in each industry sector.
OSHA does not expect compliance with
the requirements of the proposal to
threaten the viability of entities or the
existence or competitive structure of
any of the affected industry sectors.
In addition, based on an analysis of
the costs and economic impacts
associated with this rulemaking, OSHA
preliminarily concludes that the effects
of the proposal on international trade,
employment, wages, and economic
growth for the United States would be
negligible.
Statement of Energy Effects
As required by Executive Order
13211, and in accordance with the
guidance for implementing Executive
Order 13211 and with the definitions
provided therein as prescribed by the
Office of Management and Budget,
OSHA has analyzed the proposed
standard with regard to its potential to
have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
As a result of this analysis, OSHA has
determined that this action is not a
significant energy action as defined by
the relevant OMB guidance.
I. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as
amended in 1996, requires the
preparation of an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for certain
proposed rules (5 U.S.C. 601–612).
Under the provisions of the law, each
such analysis shall contain:
1. A description of the impact of the
proposed rule on small entities;
2. A description of the reasons why
action by the agency is being
considered;
3. A succinct statement of the
objectives of, and legal basis for, the
proposed rule;
4. A description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities to which the proposed
rule will apply;
5. A description of the projected
reporting, recordkeeping and other
compliance requirements of the
proposed rule, including an estimate of
the classes of small entities which will
be subject to the requirements and the
type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record;
6. An identification, to the extent
practicable, of all relevant Federal rules
which may duplicate, overlap or
conflict with the proposed rule; and
7. A description and discussion of any
significant alternatives to the proposed
rule which accomplish the stated
objectives of applicable statutes and
which minimize any significant
economic impact of the proposed rule
on small entities, including
(a) The establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the
resources available to small entities;
(b) The clarification, consolidation, or
simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the rule
for such small entities;
(c) The use of performance rather than
design standards; and
(d) An exemption from coverage of
the rule, or any part thereof, for such
small entities.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act further
states that the required elements of the
IRFA may be performed in conjunction
with or as part of any other agenda or
analysis required by any other law if
such other analysis satisfies the relevant
provisions.
1. Impact of the proposed rule on
small entities.
OSHA has analyzed the potential
impact of the proposed standards on
small entities, as described below.
The total annual cost of compliance
with the proposal for small entities is
estimated to be $15.2 million [2, Table
5.7]. These costs were calculated by
provision, by industry, and by size of
establishment, as described in the cost
of compliance section of this economic
analysis.
To assess the potential economic
impact of the proposal on small entities,
OSHA calculated the ratios of
compliance costs to profits and to
revenues. These ratios are presented for
each affected industry in Table V–19.
OSHA expects that among small entities
potentially affected by the proposal, the
average increase in prices necessary to
completely offset the compliance costs
would be less than 0.3 percent in each
affected industry.
TABLE V–19.—POTENTIAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS ON SMALL ENTITIES
Compliance
costs per
firm
Industry code
Industry name
NAICS 234910 ...........
NAICS 234920 ...........
NAICS 234930 ...........
NAICS 234990 ...........
NAICS 235310 ...........
NAICS 235910 ...........
NAICS 235950 ...........
NAICS 235990 ...........
NAICS 221110 ...........
NAICS 221120 ...........
NAICS 2211 ...............
Various .......................
SIC 0783 ....................
Water, Sewer, and Pipeline Construction .......................................................
Power and Communication Transmission Line Construction .........................
Industrial Nonbuilding Structure Construction .................................................
All Other Heavy Construction ..........................................................................
Electrical Contractors ......................................................................................
Structural Steel Erection Contractors ..............................................................
Building Equipment and Other Machine Installation Contractors ...................
All Other Special Trade Contractors ...............................................................
Electric Power Generation ...............................................................................
Electric Power Transmission, Control, and Distribution ..................................
Publicly Owned Utilities ...................................................................................
Industrial Power Generators ............................................................................
Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services ............................................................
Compliance
costs as a
percent of
sales
Compliance
costs as a
percent of
profits
$179
1,142
590
1,377
2,085
89
51
79
1,917
1,917
2,444
2,655
545
0.15
0.16
0.02
0.15
0.24
0.07
0.08
0.16
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.07
0.04
4.27
4.58
0.30
2.34
5.31
1.45
....................
3.35
0.09
0.09
....................
....................
0.62
Source: CONSAD [2], Table 6.4, adjusted for revised cost estimates.
Only to the extent that such price
increases are not possible would there
be any effect on the average profits of
small entities. Even in the unlikely
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
event that no costs could be passed
through, the compliance costs could be
completely absorbed through an average
reduction in profits of less than 3
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
percent in most affected industries, and
through an average reduction in profits
of less than 6 percent in all affected
industries.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34920
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
In order to further ensure that
potential impacts on small entities were
fully analyzed and considered, OSHA
also separately examined the potential
impacts of the proposed standards on
very small entities, defined as those
with fewer than 20 employees.
To assess the potential economic
impact of the proposed standards on
very small entities, OSHA calculated the
ratios of compliance costs to profits and
to revenues. These ratios are presented
for each affected industry in Table V–
20. OSHA expects that among very
small entities potentially affected by the
proposed standards, the average
increase in prices necessary to
completely offset the compliance costs
would be 0.4 percent or less in each
affected industry.
TABLE V–20.—POTENTIAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS ON VERY SMALL ENTITIES
[Those with fewer than 20 employees]
Industry code
Industry name
Compliance
costs per
firm
Compliance
costs as a
percent of
sales
Compliance
costs as a
percent of
profits
NAICS 234910 ...........
NAICS 234920 ...........
NAICS 234930 ...........
NAICS 234990 ...........
NAICS 235310 ...........
NAICS 235910 ...........
NAICS 235950 ...........
NAICS 235990 ...........
NAICS 221110 ...........
NAICS 221120 ...........
NAICS 2211 ...............
Various .......................
SIC 0783 ....................
Water, Sewer, and Pipeline Construction .......................................................
Power and Communication Transmission Line Construction .........................
Industrial Nonbuilding Structure Construction .................................................
All Other Heavy Construction ..........................................................................
Electrical Contractors ......................................................................................
Structural Steel Erection Contractors ..............................................................
Building Equipment and Other Machine Installation Contractors ...................
All Other Special Trade Contractors ...............................................................
Electric Power Generation ...............................................................................
Electric Power Transmission, Control, and Distribution ..................................
Publicly Owned Utilities ...................................................................................
Industrial Power Generators ............................................................................
Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services ............................................................
$131
679
70
1,236
1,623
72
48
74
546
392
160
....................
664
0.24
0.28
0.03
0.26
0.35
0.12
0.13
0.20
0.01
0.01
0.00
....................
0.11
4.49
5.63
3.43
31.67
4.84
11.00
7.39
6.25
0.09
0.09
....................
....................
1.41
Source: CONSAD [2], Table 6.3, adjusted for revised cost estimates.
Only to the extent that such price
increases are not possible would there
be any effect on the average profits of
small entities. Even in the unlikely
event that no costs could be passed
through, the compliance costs could be
completely absorbed through an average
reduction in profits of 11 percent or less
in all affected industries except NAICS
2349–90, All Other Heavy Construction.
In the All Other Heavy Construction
industry, the reported profit rate for
very small entities is extraordinarily
low, which causes the compliance costs
to appear relatively large in relation to
profits. The average costs of compliance
for very small entities in this industry
represent less than 0.3 percent of
corresponding revenues. OSHA
anticipates that the compliance costs
will be recouped through price
increases of less than 0.3 percent,
leaving profits unaffected. OSHA
requests comments regarding the
estimated economic impacts of the
proposed standard on this industry.
2. A description of the reasons why
action by the agency is being
considered.
Employees performing work involving
electric power generation, transmission,
and distribution are exposed to a variety
of significant hazards, such as electric
shock, fall, and burn hazards, that can
and do cause serious injury and death.
OSHA estimates that 444 serious
injuries and 74 fatalities occur annually
among these workers.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
Although some of these incidents may
have been prevented with better
compliance with existing safety
standards, research and analyses
conducted by OSHA have found that
many preventable injuries and fatalities
would continue to occur even if full
compliance with the existing standards
were achieved. Without counting
incidents that would potentially have
been prevented with compliance with
existing standards, an estimated
additional 116 injuries and 19 fatalities
would be prevented annually through
full compliance with the proposed
standards.
As explained above, additional
benefits associated with this rulemaking
involve providing updated, clear, and
consistent safety standards regarding
electric power generation, transmission,
and distribution work to the relevant
employers, employees, and interested
members of the public. The existing
OSHA standards for the construction of
electric power transmission and
distribution systems are over 30 years
old and inconsistent with the more
recently promulgated standards
addressing repair and maintenance
work. OSHA believes that the proposed
updated standards are easier to
understand and to apply and will
benefit employers and employees by
facilitating compliance while improving
safety.
3. Statement of the objectives of, and
legal basis for, the proposed rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The primary objective of the proposed
standards is to provide an increased
degree of occupational safety for
employees performing electric power
generation, transmission, and
distribution work. As stated above, an
estimated 116 injuries and 19 fatalities
would be prevented annually through
compliance with the proposed
standards in addition to those that may
be prevented through compliance with
existing standards.
Another objective of the proposed
rulemaking is to provide updated, clear,
and consistent safety standards
regarding electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution work to
the relevant employers, employees, and
interested members of the public. The
proposed updated standards are easier
to understand and to apply, and they
will benefit employers by facilitating
compliance while improving safety.
The legal basis for the rule is the
responsibility given the Department of
Labor through the Occupational Safety
and Health (OSH) Act of 1970. The OSH
Act authorizes and obligates the
Secretary of Labor to promulgate
mandatory occupational safety and
health standards as necessary ‘‘to assure
so far as possible every working man
and woman in the Nation safe and
healthful working conditions and to
preserve our human resources.’’ 29
U.S.C. 651(b). The legal authority can
also be cited as 29 U.S.C. 655(b); 40
U.S.C. 333.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
4. Description of and estimate of the
number of small entities to which the
proposed rule will apply.
OSHA has completed a preliminary
analysis of the impacts associated with
this proposal, including an analysis of
the type and number of small entities to
which the proposed rule would apply.
In order to determine the number of
small entities potentially affected by
this rulemaking, OSHA used the
definitions of small entities developed
by the SBA for each industry.
For the construction industry, SBA
defines small businesses using revenuebased criteria. Specifically, for the four
heavy construction industries (NAICS
2349–10, 2349–20, 2349–30, and 2349–
90), firms with annual revenues of less
than $28.5 million are classified as
small businesses. For specialty
contractors (NAICS 2353–10, 2359–10,
2359–50, and 2359–90), firms with
annual revenues of less than $12 million
are considered to be small businesses.
For SIC 0783, Ornamental Shrub and
Tree Services, firms with annual
revenues of less than $5 million are
considered to be small businesses. For
electric utilities (NAICS 2211), the SBA
defines small businesses using power
production or transmission-based
criteria. Specifically, firms that produce
or transmit less than 4 million megawatt
hours annually are considered to be
small businesses.
The proposed standards would
primarily impact firms performing
construction, maintenance, and repair
work on power generation,
transmission, and distribution facilities,
34921
lines, and equipment. Based on the
definitions of small entities developed
by SBA for each industry, the proposal
is estimated to potentially affect a total
of 12,619 small entities.
The estimated number of potentially
affected small entities in each industry
is presented in Table V–21. As shown
in this table, of the 12,619 small entities
potentially affected, an estimated 2,661
entities are in the Power and
Communication Transmission Line
Construction industry, an estimated
2,552 entities are in the All Other
Special Trade Contractors industry, an
estimated 1,577 entities are in the
Electrical Contractors industry, and an
estimated 1,336 entities are in the
Electric Power Transmission, Control,
and Distribution industry.
TABLE V–21.—PROFILE OF POTENTIALLY AFFECTED SMALL ENTITIES
Industry code
NAICS
NAICS
NAICS
NAICS
NAICS
NAICS
NAICS
234910
234920
234930
234990
235310
235910
235950
Potentially affected
small entities (SBA
definitions)
Industry name
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
Potentially affected
establishments with
fewer than 20 employees
797
2,661
253
624
1,577
621
714
629
2,198
118
571
1,435
504
748
NAICS 235990 ..........................
NAICS 221110 ..........................
NAICS 221120 ..........................
NAICS 2211 ..............................
Various ......................................
SIC 0783 ...................................
Water, Sewer, and Pipeline Construction ................................
Power and Communication Transmission Line Construction ..
Industrial Nonbuilding Structure Construction .........................
All Other Heavy Construction ..................................................
Electrical Contractors ...............................................................
Structural Steel Erection Contractors ......................................
Building Equipment and Other Machine Installation Contractors.
All Other Special Trade Contractors ........................................
Electric Power Generation .......................................................
Electric Power Transmission, Control, and Distribution ..........
Publicly Owned Utilities ............................................................
Industrial Power Generators ....................................................
Ornamental Shrub and Tree Services .....................................
2,552
376
1,336
262
594
252
2,418
902
3,203
33
0
100
Total ...................................
...................................................................................................
12,619
12,859
Source: CONSAD [1]. Table 6.2 and Appendix C, pages 1–2.
5. Description of the projected
reporting, recordkeeping and other
compliance requirements of the
proposed rule.
OSHA is proposing to revise the
standards addressing the work practices
to be used, and other requirements to be
followed, for the operation and
maintenance of, and for construction
work involving, electric power
generation, transmission, and
distribution installations. The existing
rules for this type of work were issued
in 1972 for construction work and in
1994 for work covered by general
industry standards. The construction
standards, in particular, are out of date
and are not consistent with the more
recent, corresponding general industry
rules for the operation and maintenance
of electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution systems.
As described in detail earlier, this
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
proposal will make the construction and
general industry standards for this type
of work the same.
Existing § 1910.269 contains
requirements for the maintenance and
operation of electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution
installations. Section 29 CFR 1910.269
is primarily a work-practices standard.
Its requirements are based on
recognized safe industry practices as
reflected in current national consensus
standards covering this type of work,
such as the National Electrical Safety
Code (ANSI/IEEE C2). OSHA
promulgated this standard in 1994.
Section 29 CFR 1910.269 contains
provisions intended to protect
employees from the most serious
hazards they face in performing this
type of work, primarily, those causing
falls, burns, and electric shocks. The
requirements in this standard cover
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
training and job briefings, working near
energized parts, deenergizing lines and
equipment and grounding them for
employee protection, work on
underground and overhead
installations, work in power generating
stations and substations, work in
enclosed spaces, and other special
conditions and equipment unique to the
generation, transmission, and
distribution of electric energy.
OSHA is also proposing to extend its
general industry standard on electrical
protective equipment to the
construction industry. The current
construction standards for the design of
electrical protective equipment, which
apply only to electric power
transmission and distribution work,
adopt several national consensus
standards by reference. The proposed
new standard would replace the
incorporation of these out-of-date
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34922
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
consensus standards with a set of
performance-oriented requirements that
are consistent with the latest revisions
of these consensus standards and with
the corresponding standard for general
industry. Additionally, OSHA is
proposing new requirements for the safe
use and care of electrical protective
equipment to complement the
equipment design provisions. The new
standard, which will apply to all
construction work, will update the
existing OSHA industry-specific
standards and will prevent accidents
caused by inadequate electrical
protective equipment.
As discussed in detail earlier, this
transfer to the construction standards of
the existing general industry standards
(electrical protective equipment and 29
CFR 1910.269) is not expected to
impose a significant burden on
employers. Generally, many employers
doing construction work also do general
industry work, and thus OSHA believes
that they would already be following the
updated general industry standards in
all of their work. The proposed
standards for construction are also
consistent with the latest national
consensus standards.
OSHA is also proposing
miscellaneous changes to the two
corresponding general industry
standards. These changes address: Class
00 rubber insulating gloves; electrical
protective equipment made from
materials other than rubber; training for
electric power generation, transmission,
and distribution workers; hostcontractor responsibilities; job briefings;
fall protection; insulation and working
position of employees working on or
near live parts; protective clothing;
minimum approach distances;
deenergizing transmission and
distribution lines and equipment;
protective grounding; operating
mechanical equipment near overhead
power lines; and working in manholes
and vaults.
These changes to the general industry
standards, because they apply also to
construction, would ensure that
employers, where appropriate, face
consistent requirements for work
performed under the construction and
general industry standards and would
further protect employees performing
electrical work covered under the
general industry standards. The
proposal would also update references
to consensus standards in 29 CFR
1910.137 and 29 CFR 1910.269 and
would add a new appendix to help
employers comply with the new
clothing provisions.
Section IV, Summary and Explanation
of Proposed Rule, earlier in this
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
preamble, provides further detail
regarding the new and revised
provisions of the proposed rulemaking
in. A description of the classes of small
entities which would be subject to the
new and revised requirements, and the
type of professional skills necessary for
compliance with the requirements, is
presented in the preceding sections of
this economic analysis.
6. Federal rules which may duplicate,
overlap or conflict with the proposed
rule.
OSHA has not identified any Federal
rules which may duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with the proposal, and requests
comments from the public regarding
this issue.
OSHA does not believe that the
proposed provisions on host-contractor
responsibilities duplicate or overlap
OSHA’s multi-employer citation policy
(CPL 02–00–124). Section IV, Summary
and Explanation of Proposed Rule,
earlier in this preamble, provides
clarification of the intent and
application of the host-contractor
requirements and their relationship to
OSHA’s multi-employer citation policy.
It is not OSHA’s intent that the
provisions on host-contractor
responsibilities would affect in any way
the employer-employee relationship
under the Fair Labor Standards Act or
under the Internal Revenue Service
regulations. The OSHA requirements are
not intended to establish an employeremployee relationship with contractors
or employees of contractors, as defined
by the relevant statutes and regulations.
7. Alternatives to the proposed rule
which accomplish the stated objectives
of applicable statutes and which
minimize any significant economic
impact of the proposed rule on small
entities.
OSHA evaluated many alternatives to
the proposed standards to ensure that
the proposed requirements would
accomplish the stated objectives of
applicable statutes and would minimize
any significant economic impact of the
proposal on small entities.
In developing the proposal, and
especially in establishing compliance or
reporting requirements or timetables
that affect small entities, the resources
available to small entities were taken
into account. Compliance and reporting
requirements under the proposal
applicable to small entities were
clarified, consolidated, and simplified
to the extent practicable. Wherever
possible, OSHA has proposed the use of
performance rather than design
standards. An exemption from coverage
of the rule for small entities was not
considered to be a viable option because
the safety and health of the affected
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
employees would be unduly
jeopardized.
Many other specific alternatives to the
proposed requirements were
considered. Section IV, Summary and
Explanation of Proposed Rule, earlier in
this preamble, provides discussion and
explanation of the particular
requirements of the proposal.
Other regulatory alternatives
considered were those raised by the
Small Business Advocacy Review Panel,
which was convened for purposes of
soliciting comments on the proposal
from affected small entities. A
discussion of these alternatives is
provided later in this economic
analysis.
Nonregulatory alternatives were also
considered in determining the
appropriate approach to reducing
occupational hazards associated with
electric power generation, transmission,
and distribution work. These
alternatives were discussed in the
section of this economic analysis
entitled ‘‘Examination of Alternative
Approaches,’’ earlier in this preamble.
Alternatives Considered and Changes
Made in Response to Comments From
Small Entity Representatives and
Recommendations From the Small
Business Advocacy Review Panel
On May 1, 2003, OSHA convened a
Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
(SBAR Panel or Panel) for this
rulemaking in accordance with the
provisions of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), as codified at 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
The SBAR Panel consisted of
representatives of OSHA, of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) in the Office of Management and
Budget, and of the Office of Advocacy
within the U.S. Small Business
Administration. The Panel received oral
and written comments on a draft
proposal and a draft economic analysis
from small entities that would
potentially be affected by this
rulemaking. The Panel, in turn,
prepared a written report, which was
delivered to the Assistant Secretary for
Occupational Safety and Health [3]. The
report summarized the comments
received from the small entities, and
included recommendations from the
Panel to OSHA regarding the proposal
and the associated analysis of
compliance costs.
Table V–22 lists each of the
recommendations made by the Panel
and describes the corresponding
answers or changes made by OSHA in
response to the issues raised.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
34923
TABLE V–22.—PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND OSHA RESPONSES
Panel recommendations
OSHA responses
1. The Small Entity Representatives (SERs) generally felt that OSHA
had underestimated the costs and may have overestimated the benefits in its preliminary economic analysis. The Panel recommends
that OSHA revise its economic and regulatory flexibility analysis as
appropriate, and that OSHA specifically discuss the alternative estimates and assumptions provided by SERs and compare them to
OSHA’s revised estimates.
OSHA revised its economic and regulatory flexibility analysis as appropriate in light of the additional information received from the SERs.
Many of the comments from the SERs asserting deficiencies in the
estimates of the compliance costs were the result of differing interpretations of what would have to be done in order to achieve compliance with particular requirements.
Some SERs felt that OSHA had underestimated the time and resources that would be necessary to develop and maintain written
records associated with requirements for making determinations regarding training and protective clothing, for documenting employee
training, and for communicating with host employers or contractors
about hazards and appropriate safety practices. OSHA has clarified
that written records are not in fact required to achieve compliance
with these provisions of the proposed standards.
In some cases, the SERs also interpreted the draft requirements associated with job briefings, host/contractor responsibilities, and electric
arc hazard calculations in ways that would involve higher compliance
costs than those estimated by OSHA, but that were not consistent
with the way in which OSHA intended for compliance to be achieved.
In these cases, OSHA clarified what would be necessary to comply
with the standards such that the corresponding potential cost and impact concerns raised by the SERs would be alleviated.
With regard to the cost of training that would be necessary for employees who currently are not covered by the existing training requirements in 29 CFR 1910.269, OSHA revised its compliance cost calculations to reflect that an additional 24.75 hours of training per employee newly covered by the training currently required by 29 CFR
1910.269 would be necessary to comply with the proposed standard
for construction.
The SERs generally indicated that the job briefing requirements of the
proposed standards are generally consistent with current practices,
and that 5 minutes for the additional job briefing requirements per
project would be a reasonable estimate for the amount of time that
would be involved. For purposes of estimating compliance costs with
the proposal in this preliminary analysis, OSHA used estimates of
current compliance of 85 percent to 95 percent, and estimated that 5
minutes of supervisor time and 5 minutes of employee time would be
involved per affected project.
With regard to the cost associated with providing flame resistant apparel to employees, in general the SERs suggested that OSHA’s estimate of two sets per employee per year for small establishments,
and five sets per employees every five years for large establishments, was an underestimate. The SERs also gave OSHA broad estimates of FRA, ranging from $50 per shirt to $150 for switching
flash jackets. Several SERs agreed that many companies contract
out clothing supplies and laundering with uniform companies. In this
preliminary analysis of compliance costs associated with the requirements to provide FRA, OSHA estimates that, on average, 8 sets of
FRA clothing would be provided per employee, and that with 8 sets
per employee the useful life of the FRA would average 4 years. The
cost per set of FRA was estimated to be $110. Laundering costs
were excluded since the FRA is worn in lieu of street clothes, and
laundering would be needed whether the clothing was FRA, street
clothing, or any other type of clothing. Additionally, the proposal does
not require employers to launder the FRA.
For employees who are currently provided the training required by the
existing 29 CFR 1910.269 standard, OSHA notes and has clarified
that training that was deemed sufficient for compliance with 29 CFR
1910.269 will be considered sufficient for compliance with the proposal to allow employers to tailor their training to the risk faced by
employees. OSHA has included, however, the cost of providing 1.5
hours of additional training per employee in the first year for current
employees and 0.75 hours of additional training for new employees
in the estimation of the compliance costs associated with the proposed standards.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34924
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V–22.—PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND OSHA RESPONSES—Continued
Panel recommendations
OSHA responses
2. In its economic and RFA analyses, OSHA assumed that all affected
firms apply existing 29 CFR 1910.269 to construction related activities, even though not required to do so. The reason OSHA made this
assumption is OSHA though that all affected firms are either covered
solely by 29 CFR 1910, or engage in both 29 CFR 1910 and 29 CFR
1926 activities, and find it easiest to adopt the general industry
standard for all activities. SERs confirmed that most firms do in fact
follow 29 CFR 1910.269. However, they also pointed out that there
are some firms that are engaged solely in construction activities and
thus may not be following the 29 CFR 1910 standards. The Panel
recommends that OSHA revise its economic and regulatory flexibility
analyses to reflect the costs associated with some firms coming into
compliance with 29 CFR 1910.269. The SERs also reported that
compliance training under 29 CFR 1910.269 is extensive. One SER
estimated that in excess of 30 hours per employee is necessary in
the first year. The Panel recommends that OSHA consider the SER
comments on training and revise its estimate of training costs as
necessary.
3. Most SERs were concerned that a ‘‘performance standard’’ such as
this means that even in cases where OSHA does not require recordkeeping, such as for training, many small entities will find recordkeeping (1) useful for internal purposes and (2) virtually the only way
they will be able to demonstrate compliance with the rule. The Panel
recommends that OSHA consider whether recordkeeping is necessary to demonstrate compliance with the standard, and, if not, that
OSHA explicitly discuss ways in which employers can demonstrate
compliance without using recordkeeping.
4. SERs pointed out that the requirements for observation and followup would result in paperwork and reporting requirements not presented in the cost analysis. The Panel recommends that OSHA include such costs and paperwork burdens in its economic analysis as
appropriate.
OSHA has revised its economic and regulatory flexibility analyses to
reflect the costs associated with some firms coming into compliance
with 29 CFR 1910.269.
Specifically, OSHA estimated that these firms would incur compliance
costs equivalent to those incurred by firms who were affected by the
new requirements of 29 CFR 1910.269 when it was originally promulgated in 1994.
In addition, OSHA considered the SER comments on training and revised its estimate of training costs accordingly. OSHA added a separate training cost for firms who are not currently covered by the existing training requirements in 29 CFR 1910.269, as presented in the
compliance cost chapter of this economic analysis.
The proposal would not require employers to maintain records of training. Employees themselves can attest to the training they have received, and OSHA will determine compliance with the training requirements primarily through employee interviews.
The proposal would not require host employers to observe contract
employees. Rather, it would require host employers to report to the
contract employer violations of the standard’s work practice requirements by contract employees that the host employer observes in the
normal course of conducting their own operations. For example, a
host employer may observe contract employees during a quality control check of the contractor’s work or while employees of the host
employer are working on a project alongside employees of the contract employer. Consequently, OSHA has not included a cost for
conducting observations.
OSHA has eliminated the draft requirement for the host employer ‘‘to
note any failures of the contract employer to correct such violations,
take appropriate measures to correct the violations, and consider the
contract employer’s failure to correct violations in evaluating the contract employer.’’ The proposal would require the contract employer to
report to the host contractor any measures taken to correct reported
violations. Thus, OSHA has not included costs for the host employer
to follow up to ensure that the contract employer has corrected any
violations.
OSHA has included estimates of the costs of information collection requirements and of the associated paperwork burdens in the paperwork analysis for the proposal.
OSHA has eliminated the draft requirement for the host employer to
obtain and evaluate information on contractors’ safety performance
and programs. Consequently, the preliminary regulatory flexibility
analysis does not include costs associated with this draft provision.
However, the Agency requests comments on the need for such a requirement and on the associated costs and restricted business opportunities, particularly with respect to small businesses.
5. Several SERs argued that requiring consideration of safety records
would restrict the number of eligible contractors, resulting in both increased costs and potential impacts on small firms. Several SERs
also were concerned that the draft requirement would result in the increased use of methods such as pre-qualification in the hiring of contractors or would increase reliance on favored contractors; the SERs
said that both of these effects could result in increased costs and restricted business opportunities, especially for small businesses. The
Panel recommends that OSHA study the extent of such costs and
impacts and solicit comment on them.
6. Several SERs questioned OSHA’s estimates of the number of sets OSHA has reexamined its assumptions and cost estimates with regard
of flame resistant clothing an employee would need, and its assumpto the requirements to provide flame-resistant clothing. The comtions and cost estimates. The panel recommends that OSHA reexments from the SERs and OSHA’s revised estimates are described
amine its assumptions and cost estimates in light of these comments.
in response to Panel recommendation 1 above.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
34925
TABLE V–22.—PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND OSHA RESPONSES—Continued
Panel recommendations
OSHA responses
7. Many SERs questioned whether the new revisions to 29 CFR
1910.269 would in fact save any lives or prevent any accidents.
Some commented that they had never seen an accident that would
have been prevented by any of the new provisions. Some SERs suggested that OSHA’s analysis might have included fatalities in municipal facilities that may not be covered by the standard. Others suggested OSHA should discuss the extent to which the existing general
industry standard had resulted in reduced fatalities and injuries, and
how this compares with OSHA estimates of how many fatalities and
injuries would be prevented by the proposal. The Panel recommends
that OSHA provide more documentation regarding the sources and
nature of the anticipated benefits attributed to the draft proposal. The
estimated benefits should also be reexamined in light of the SER
comments and experiences regarding the perceived effectiveness of
the new provisions. In particular, OSHA should focus attention on the
benefits associated with the provisions on flame retardant apparel,
training, host/contractor responsibilities, and fall protection.
OSHA has collected and compiled information from a variety of
sources to document and support the need for the provisions of the
proposed standards. Data on the fatalities and injuries that have occurred among the affected work force over the past decade has
been analyzed specifically with regard to the effectiveness of both
the existing and proposed requirements in preventing such incidents.
This evaluation is summarized in the benefits chapter of this preliminary analysis; a detailed explanation of this evaluation is provided in
the corresponding research report [1].
In order to quantitatively determine the effectiveness of the existing
and proposed standards in preventing injuries and fatalities, a detailed review of the descriptions of accidents was performed. For
each accident reviewed, the detailed description of the accident,
along with the citations issued, the nature of the injuries incurred,
and the causes associated with the accident, were analyzed to estimate the likelihood that the accident would have been preventable
under, first, the existing applicable standards, and second, under the
proposed standard. Based on these analyses, CONSAD found that
full compliance with the existing standards would have prevented
52.9 percent of the injuries and fatalities; compliance with the proposed standards, however, would prevent 79.0 percent of the relevant injuries and fatalities. The increase in safety that would be provided by the proposed standards is represented by the prevention of
an additional 19 fatalities and 116 injuries annually.
In addition, the proposed revisions improve safety by clarifying and updating the existing standards to reflect modern technologies, work
practices, and terminology, and by making the standards consistent
with current consensus standards and other related standards and
documents. By facilitating the understanding of and compliance with
these important safety standards, the proposal also achieves better
protection of employee safety while reducing uncertainty, confusion,
and compliance burdens on employers.
Section IV, Summary and Explanation of Proposed Rule, earlier in this
preamble, includes explanations of the need for, and the expected
benefit associated with particular with, particular provisions of the
proposed standard. In particular, see the summary and explanation
of §§ 1926.950(c) (host-contractor responsibilities), 1926.954(b) (fall
protection), and 1926.960(g) (flame-resistant apparel) for a discussion of the need for and a qualitative explanation of the benefits of
these provisions.
As presented in the chapter on compliance costs in this preliminary
analysis, OSHA has revised its analysis, including its estimates of
baseline activities and its cost estimates, to reflect the possible existence of some firms that are not currently covered by the existing 29
CFR 1910.269 and that do not comply with these provisions when
performing construction work on electric power generation, transmission, or distribution installations.
8. There were no comments from the SERs on OSHA’s estimates of
the number and type of small entities affected by the proposal. However, some SERs pointed out that there may be some small entities
that engage in only construction related activities. The Panel recommends that OSHA’s estimates of current baseline activities and
OHSA’s cost estimates reflect such firms.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34926
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V–22.—PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND OSHA RESPONSES—Continued
Panel recommendations
OSHA responses
9. Most SERs were uncertain about how to comply with performance
oriented provisions of the proposal, and further, some felt that additional expenses might be required to be confident that they were in
compliance with such provisions. The Panel recommends that OSHA
study and address these issues and consider the use of guidance
material (e.g. non-mandatory appendices) to describe specific ways
of meeting the standard, which will help small employers comply,
without making the standard more prescriptive.
OSHA has added appendices containing guidelines on the inspection
of work positioning equipment to assist employers in complying with
the requirement to conduct such inspections proposed in 29 CFR
1910.269(g)(2)(iii)(a) and 29 CFR 1926.954(b)(3)(i). The proposal
also includes appendices on clothing in 29 CFR 1910.269 and Subpart V of 29 CFR Part 1926. These appendices should help employers comply with the clothing provisions proposed in 29 CFR
1910.269(1)(11) and 29 CFR 1926.960(g).
The proposal also includes many references to consensus standards
that contain information helping employers comply with various provisions of the proposed standards. For example, the note to proposed
29 CFR 1926.957(b) directs empl9yers to the Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers’ IEEE Guide for Maintenance Methods on
Energized Power Lines, IEEE Std. 516–2003 for guidance on the examination, cleaning, repairing, and in-service testing of live-line tools
to help employers comply with that provision in the OSHA standards.
Lastly, Appendix E to 29 CFR 1910.269 and Appendix E to Subpart
V of 29 CFR Part 1926 contain lists of reference documents to which
employers can turn for help in complying with OSHA’s proposal.
The preamble to the proposed standards and this preliminary analysis
both contain additional descriptions of what would be considered
necessary and sufficient for purposes of achieving compliance with
the requirements of the proposed standards. OSHA requests comments regarding which provisions, if any, require further clarification
on what specific measures would or would not constitute compliance
with the standards.
The Agency also requests comments on what additional guidance material is needed to assist employers in complying with the standards.
OSHA also encourages interested parties to submit such guidance
material for possible inclusion in the final rule.
OSHA has modified the provisions on host-contractor responsibilities
substantially from the draft requirements reviewed by the SERs. The
Agency believes that the changes address the concerns expressed
by the SERs.
The summary and explanation of proposed 29 CFR 1926.950(c), earlier in the preamble, provides clarification of the intent and application of the host-contractor requirements and their relationship to
OSHA’s multiemployer citation policy.
The proposal includes a requirement in 29 CFR 1910.269(a)(4)(i)(A)(1)
and 29 in CFR 1926.950(c)(1)(i)(A) that host employers inform contract employers of known hazards that are covered by the standards,
that are related to the contract employer’s work, and that might not
be recognized by the contract employer or its employees. This provision does not require host employers to conduct a risk assessment
of the work to be performed by the contract employer. However, proposed
29
CFR
1910.269(a)(4)(i)(A)(2)
and
29
CFR
1926.950(c)(1)(i)(B) would require the host employer to provide information about the employer’s installation to the contract employer to
enable the contract employer to make the assessments required by
the standards. This change should clarify that OSHA intends for the
contract employer to conduct appropriate hazard identification and
assessment for his or her own employees.
OSHA does not believe that State contractor licensing makes the proposed host-contractor provisions unnecessary. Not all States require
electric power generation, transmission, and distribution contractors
to be licensed. For example, Illinois and New York do not require licensing at the State level. (See https://www.electric-find.com/
licnese.htm) Additionally, the States with such licensing requirements
judge primarily the contractors’ ability to install electric equipment in
accordance with State or national installation codes and not their
ability to perform electric power generation, transmission, and distribution work safely.
OSHA has considered these issues in the development of the clothing
requirements proposed in 29 CFR 1910.269(1)(11) and 29 CFR
1926.960(g), as explained in the summary and explanation of proposed 29 CFR 1926.960(g) earlier in the preamble. In that section of
the preamble, the Agency has solicited comments on a wide range
of issues related to protection of employees from the hazards posed
by electric arcs.
10. Most SERs were highly critical of the host contractor provisions and
had trouble understanding what OSHA required. If these provisions
are to be retained, the Panel recommends that they be revised. The
Panel recommends that OSHA clarify what constitutes adequate consideration of contractor safety performance, clarify what is meant by
‘‘observation,’’ clarify how the multi-employer citation policy is related
to the proposal, and clarify whether the requirement to communicate
hazards does or does not represent a requirement for the host employer to conduct their own risk assessment. The Panel also recommends that OSHA examine the extent to which state contractor licensing could make the host contractor provisions in the proposal
unnecessary.
11. Some SERs questioned the need for flame resistant clothing beyond the existing clothing provisions in 29 CFR 1910.269. Some argued that there was a trade-off between possible decreased injuries
from burns and heat stress injuries as a result of using flame resistant clothing. The Panel recommends that OSHA consider and solicit
comments on these issues.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
34927
TABLE V–22.—PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND OSHA RESPONSES—Continued
Panel recommendations
OSHA responses
12. Many SERs were uncertain whether OSHA’s requirements for determining the need for flame resistant clothing would allow the use of
such methods as (1) ‘‘worst case’’ analysis or (2) specifying minimum levels of protection for use when a system does not exceed
certain limits. The Panel recommends that OSHA clarify what methods are acceptable to meet these requirements, and specify these
methods in such a way that small entities can be confident that they
have met the requirements of the standards.
13. OSHA made some changes to the training provisions in 29 CFR
1910.269, including dropping certification requirements and allowing
training to vary with risk. OSHA stated that both of these changes
were designed to give the rules a greater performance orientation
and to ease compliance. Some SERs felt that these changes might
make compliance more complicated by making it less clear what
needs to be done. The panel recommends that OSHA clarify the performance orientation of these changes and consider explaining that
existing compliance methods would still be considered adequate
under the new rules. The Panel further recommends that OSHA examine the requirement that employees demonstrate proficiency and
provide examples of how that can be accomplished. The Panel also
recommends that OSHA consider the possibility that the proposed
draft may introduce costs to small businesses that are uncertain of
how to comply with the new performance oriented training provisions.
OSHA has revised the clothing requirements in proposed 29 CFR
1910.269(1)(11) and 29 CFR 1926.960(g) to provide additional guidance explaining ways an employer can comply. For example, the
Agency has included two notes and additional appendix material explaining how an employer can calculate estimates of available heat
energy. For additional information, see the summary and explanation
of proposed 29 CFR 1926.960(g), earlier in the preamble.
14. Several SERS argued that the proposal placed restrictions on the
length of the lanyard and that these restrictions were unworkable.
The Panel recommends that OSHA clarify the intent of the fall protection provisions. Other SERs argued that fall fatalities from aerial
lifts were either the result of catastrophic failures in which case fall
protection would not have prevented the death, or the result of failure
to use any form of fall arrest or fall restraint. Some SERs argued that
some workers might find harnesses more awkward than belts and be
less likely to wear them. The Panel recommends that OSHA consider and solicit comment on these issues.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4701
OSHA believes that the proposed changes to the training requirements
contained in 29 CFR 1910.269 clarify the standard and reduce burdens on employers. If employees are trained as required under the
existing general industry standard, then no additional training would
be required by the proposed requirement to provide a level of training based on the risk to the employer or by the proposal to remove
the requirement that training be certified. Moreover, no additional
costs would be incurred.
Existing 29 CFR 1910.269(a)(2)(vii) already requires employees to
demonstrate proficiency in the work practices involved. OSHA believes that most employers are already complying with this requirement in various ways. For example, some employers have employees demonstrate proficiency in climbing after completing a pole
climbing class that includes climbing on practice poles as part of the
curriculum. In addition, many employers use an apprenticeship program, in which journeyman line workers acting as crew leaders observe trainees over the course of the program. The trainees pass
through the apprenticeship program by successfully completing each
step, demonstrating proficiency in various tasks along the way, until
the trainees reach the journeyman level.
OSHA has clarified the intent of the proposed changes to the fall protection requirements proposed in 29 CFR 1910.269(g)(2)(i) and (ii) in
the summary and explanation of those provisions earlier in the preamble.
It is easy for an employer to enforce the use of fall arrest equipment,
which incorporates a harness, by employees working from aerial lifts.
It is relatively easy for an employer to observe that an employee is
wearing a harness, which extends over the employee’s shoulders,
and that a lanyard is attached to the connector between the employee’s shoulders and to the anchorage on the boom of the aerial lift.
Body belts, which were the predominant form of protection used in
the time period represented by the accidents, are worn near an employee’s hips. It is not usually possible to determine whether an employee in an aerial lift bucket is wearing a body belt or, if he or she
is, whether the lanyard is attached to the D-ring on the body belt. It
would be much easier for an employer to enforce the use of personal fall arrest equipment than to enforce the use of body belts
even if employees do not want to wear them. Thus, to the extent that
fall injuries are the result of the failure of an employee to use any
form of fall protection equipment, the proposal would help prevent
many of those injuries.
Neither personal fall arrest systems nor work positioning equipment will
protect against catastrophic failure of the boom of an aerial lift; the
employee would fall with the bucket or platform. However, a personal
fall arrest system, and in some cases work positioning equipment,
can protect an employee if the bucket or platform detaches from the
boom as long as the fall protection equipment is attached to the
boom and not to the bucket or platform.
In the hopes of further clarifying the standard, OSHA requests comments on the fall protection issues raised by the SERs.
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34928
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V–22.—PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND OSHA RESPONSES—Continued
Panel recommendations
OSHA responses
15. This rule was designed by OSHA to eliminate confusing differences
between the applicable construction and general industry standards,
by making the standards consistent. Several SERs felt this was a
worthwhile goal. Some SERs felt that the host contractor provisions
of the rule could result in causing contractor employees to be considered employees of the host employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act and under the Internal Revenue Service regulations. In addition, the SERs identified OSHA’s multi-employer citation policy as
duplicative and overlapping of the host contractor provisions in the
proposal. The Panel recommends that, if this provision is retained,
OSHA investigate this issue and clarify these provisions to assure
that contractor employees do not become direct employees of the
host employer as a result of complying with possible OSHA requirements.
16. Some SERs were unconvinced about the need for revisions to the
existing 29 CFR 1910.269 standard in light of their potential to improve safety beyond what compliance with the requirements in existing 29 CFR 1910.269 would achieve. The Panel recommends that
OSHA consider and solicit comment on the regulatory alternative of
extending the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.269 to construction,
without further modification.
OSHA does not believe that the proposed provisions on host-contractor
responsibilities duplicate or overlap the Agency’s multiemployer policy. See the summary and explanation of proposed § 1926.950(c)
earlier in this preamble for clarification of the intent and application of
the host-contractor requirements and their relationship to OSHA’s
multiemployer citation policy.
It is not OSHA’s intent that the provisions on host-contractor responsibilities would affect in any way of the employer-employee relationship under the Fair Labor Standards Act or under the Internal Revenue Service regulations. The OSHA requirements are not intended
to establish an employer-employee relationship with contractors or
employees of contractors, as defined by the relevant statutes and
regulations.
17. The Panel notes that the host/contractor provisions were particularly troublesome for almost all SERs, and that as a result, OSHA
should provide either some change or provide extensive clarification
to these provisions. The Panel recommends that OSHA consider,
analyze, and solicit comment on a variety of alternatives to these
provisions, including:
1. Dropping all or some of these provisions
2. Specifying in detail methods that would be considered adequate
for purposes of compliance for those provisions retained
3. Changing the provision for consideration of safety performance to
indicate how employers can be sure they have complied with the
provision
4. Changing the provisions concerning observed violations by:
• Dropping the provision concerning observed violations entirely;
• Changing the provision concerning observed violations to
clearly indicate that ‘‘inspections’’ are not required;
• Minimizing the amount of follow-up and responsibility placed
on the host employer when a violation is observed;
• Requiring only that the contractor be notified of observed violations (no requirement for subsequent monitoring of evaluation);
• Changing the provision to require observation for the purpose
of determining if the contractor is performing safe work practices, requiring observed violations to be reported to the contractor (no requirement for subsequent monitoring or evaluation);
• Providing explicit language that line clearance tree trimmers
are not covered by this provision;
• Specifying that only observations made by a ‘‘safety professional’’ or other individual qualified to identify hazards must be
reported to the contractor
5. Changing the provision for hazard communication to make clear
that the host employer is not required to conduct his or her own
hazard analysis, but only to communicate such hazards of which
the host employer may be aware
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4701
OSHA requests comments on the regulatory alternative of extending
the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.269 to construction, without further
modification. Commenters should explain how, if the Agency adopted
this option, it could comply with section 6(b)(8) of the OSHA Act,
which requires OSHA to explain why a promulgated rule that differs
substantially from a national consensus standard will better effectuate the purposes of the Act than the national consensus standard.
Furthermore, as explained fully above, OSHA’s analysis preliminarily
finds that the additional changes to both 29 CFR 1910.269 and Subpart V will prevent a significant number of fatalities and injuries each
year.
OSHA has considered these options and has adopted several of them.
The Agency has dropped the draft requirement for host employers to
obtain and evaluate information on contractor safety performance
and programs. OSHA has also eliminated draft provisions that would
have required the host employer to follow up on observed violations.
Instead, the proposal, in 29 CFR 1910.269(a)(4)(ii)(C)(3) and in 29
CFR 1926.950(c)(2)(iii)(C), would require the contract employer to
report what measures the contractor took to correct any violations
and to prevent their recurrence.
OSHA requests comments on whether the changes, along with the accompanying summary and explanation of the proposal, adequately
clarify the host-contractor requirements, whether there are other options that the Agency should consider, and whether the proposed
provisions will adequately protect employees.
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
34929
TABLE V–22.—PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND OSHA RESPONSES—Continued
Panel recommendations
OSHA responses
18. The Panel recommends that OSHA consider and solicit comment
on two kinds of options with respect flame resistant clothing. First,
OSHA should consider the alternative of no further requirements beyond existing 29 CFR 1910.269 for the use of flame resistant clothing. Second, should the draft requirement be retained in some manner, OSHA should consider and solicit comment on one or a combination of alternative means of determining how much protection is
needed or required. These alternatives should include:
1. Allowing the employer to estimate the exposure assuming that the
distance from the employee to the electric arc is equal to the minimum approach distance
2. Providing tables showing heat energy for different exposure conditions as an alternative assessment method
3. Specifying a minimum level of protection for overhead line work
(for example, 10 cal/cm2) for use when the system does not exceed certain limits as an alternative to hazard assessment
4. Allowing the employer to reduce protection when other factors
interfere with the safe performance of the work (for example, severe heat stress) after the employer has considered alternative
methods of performing the work, including the use live-line tools
and deenergizing the lines and equipment, and has found them to
be unacceptable
5. Allowing employers to base their assessments on a ‘‘worst case
analysis.’’
6. Requiring employers to use appropriate flame retardant clothing
without specifying any assessment method.
19. Some SERs were concerned that the revised training requirements
complicated the question of demonstrating that training had been
provided, and that the requirement that training be related to the risk
would require additional training, additional documentation, or both.
The Panel recommends that OSHA consider making it clear that employers that follow the existing training provisions in 29 CFR
1910.269 will be in compliance with the new rules, and that OSHA
clarify alternative methods that would be considered acceptable for
demonstrating adequacy of training and the relation of the training to
risk.
20. In response to comment by some SERs, the Panel recommends
that OSHA consider and solicit comment on the issues of whether
the additional job briefing requirements are needed and how they
can be met in situations in which the employee is working at a distant location.
OSHA has considered the options recommended by the panel. The
Agency has adopted the second option suggested by the Panel. Appendix F to 29 CFR 1910.269 and Appendix F to 29 CFR Part 1926,
Subpart V propose tables that employers may use to estimate available heat energy. Although these tables do not cover every circumstance, they do address many exposure conditions found in
overhead electric power transmission and distribution work. Other
assessment aids are available, and also are listed in Appendix F, for
other exposure conditions, including typical electric power generation
exposures. There is less need for an underground assessment aid
since most underground work is performed on deenergized lines.
OSHA has not incorporated any of the other Panel-recommended options into the proposal because the Agency either currently believes
that they are not sufficiently protective or has insufficient information
to incorporate them.
However, the Agency does wish to facilitate compliance with the provisions proposed in 29 CFR 1910.269(1)(11) and 29 CFR 1926.960(g)
requiring employees to be protected from electric arcs. OSHA also
wishes to promulgate a rule that will protect employees from electric
arcs in the most cost-effective manner possible. The Agency encourages interested parties to provide information that can help simplify
the rule or make it more cost effective or that can assist in the development of compliance assistance materials.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4701
See the response to Panel recommendation 13 above.
OSHA is proposing only one new requirement on job briefings, the requirement in 29 CFR 1910.269(c)(1)(i) and in 29 CFR
1926.952(a)(1). This provision requires that, in assigning an employee or a group of employees to perform a job, the employer provide the employee in charge of the job with available information
necessary to perform the job safely. The remainder of the changes
to the job briefing requirements in 29 CFR 1910.269(c) simply reorganize the existing provisions into individual paragraphs. (For additional discussion of this provision, see the summary and explanation
of proposed 29 CFR 1926.952(a)(1) earlier in this preamble.)
The Agency believes that many employers are already providing relevant information about a job when they assign that job to a crew of
employees or to an employee working alone. (For additional discussion of this provision, see the summary and explanation of proposed
29 CFR 1926.952(a)(1) earlier in this preamble.) However, to make
sure that all employers do so, OSHA believes that the standard
should require that the employer provide relevant hazard-related information to the employees performing the work to the extent the
employer knows, or can reasonably be expected to know, that information. It should be noted that this is a requirement to communicate
information, not to gather information. OSHA anticipates that employers will pass along this information when they assign jobs to employees. Where the employees are working has no effect on the employer’s ability to communicate the information.
The Agency requests comments on whether the additional job briefing
requirement is necessary and on how this provision can be met for
an employee working at distant locations.
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34930
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V–22.—PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND OSHA RESPONSES—Continued
Panel recommendations
OSHA responses
21. All of the affected SERs felt that the provisions of the rule with respect to fall restraint systems would make it difficult for a person
using a fall restraint system to perform the necessary work. The
SERs also raised the possibility of safety problems associated with
wearing a safety harness as opposed to a safety belt, such as an increased likelihood of the harness being snagged and as a result the
employee being either pulled into a wood chipper while on the
ground or pulled out of the bucket when it is lowered. The Panel recommends that OSHA consider and solicit comment on the alternative
of making no changes to its existing fall protection requirements. If
the provision is retained, OSHA should carefully examine the issue
of whether the fall restraint system requirements in the draft make
use of fall restraint systems unworkable in aerial lifts. OSHA should
also consider the nonregulatory alternative of working with aerial device manufacturers and aerial device users (for example, electric and
telecommunications utilities, painting and electrical contractors, treetrimming firms) in the development of improved fall restraint systems
that are more comfortable than existing systems and maintain the
appropriate degree of protection for employees.
Over the course of the rulemaking, OSHA will examine the issue of
whether using fall restraint systems to protect employees working
from aerial lifts is workable. In this regard, the Agency requests comments on alternatives to the fall protection requirements proposed in
29 CFR 1910.269(g)(2) and 29 CFR 1926.954(b) as they relate to
aerial lifts, including the alternative of making no changes to the rule.
OSHA will also explore with manufacturers the nonregulatory option of
improving fall protection systems for use in aerial lifts.
J. References
1. CONSAD Research Corporation,
‘‘Analytical Support and Data Gathering for
a Preliminary Economic Analysis for
Proposed Standards for Work on Electric
Power Generation, Transmission, and
Distribution Lines and Equipment (29 CFR
1910.269 and 29 CFR 1926—Subpart V),’’
2005, prepared for the U.S. Department of
Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Office of Regulatory
Analysis under Contract No. J9–F9–0013,
Task Order Number 31, Pittsburgh, PA.
2. CONSAD Research Corporation,
‘‘Compliance Cost and Economic Impact
Estimates Including All Publicly-owned
Utilities in OSHA State-plan States and
Excluding Laundering Costs for Flame
Resistant Apparel (FRA),’’ Memorandum to
the Office of Regulatory Analysis (ORA),
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), February 25, 2004.
3. OSHA Small Business Advocacy Review
Panel, ‘‘Report of the Small Business
Advocacy Review Panel on the Draft OSHA
Standard for Electric Power Generation,
Transmission, and Distribution,’’ submitted
to Mr. John Henshaw, Assistant Secretary for
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S.
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety
and Health Administration, June 27, 2003.
4. U.S. Office of Management and Budget,
‘‘Informing Regulatory Decisions: 2004 Draft
Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits
of Federal Regulations and Unfunded
Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal
Entities.’’
5. Workers’ Compensation Research
Institute, ‘‘WCRI Research Brief, Special
Edition,’’ Volume 9, Number 4S, Cambridge,
MA, December 1993. Also available in OSHA
Docket S–777, Exhibit 26–1608, and
discussed in Exhibit 900, p. IV–56.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses.
EPA 240-R–00–003. September 2000. Internet
address: https://yosemite1.epa.gov/ee/epa/
eed.nsf/webpages/Guidelines.html; also
available in OSHA Docket No. H–0054a,
Exhibit 35–334.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
7. Viscusi, Kip and Aldy, Joseph, ‘‘The
Value of a Statistical Life: A Critical Review
of Market Estimates Throughout the World’’,
The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 27:1; 5–
76, 2003.
8. U.S. Office of Management and Budget,
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
‘‘Progress in Regulatory Reform: 2004 Report
to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of
Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates
on State, Local, and Tribal Entities’
December, 2004.
VI. State Plan Standards
The 26 States or territories with
OSHA-approved occupational safety
and health plans must adopt an
equivalent amendment or one that is at
least as protective to employees within
6 months of the publication date of the
final standard. These are: Alaska,
Arizona, California, Connecticut (for
State and local government employees
only), Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky,
Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota,
Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey (for
State and local government employees
only), New York (for State and local
government employees only), North
Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont,
Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington,
and Wyoming.
VII. Environmental Impact Analysis
The provisions of this proposal have
been reviewed in accordance with the
requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.), the
Council on Environmental Quality
NEPA regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500–
1508), and the Department of Labor’s
NEPA Procedures (29 CFR Part 11). As
a result of this review, OSHA has
determined that the proposed standards
will have no significant adverse effect
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
on air, water, or soil quality, plant or
animal life, use of land, or other aspects
of the environment.
VIII. Unfunded Mandates
Section 3 of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act makes clear that OSHA
cannot enforce compliance with its
regulations or standards on the U.S.
government ‘‘or any State or political
subdivision of a State.’’ Under voluntary
agreement with OSHA, some States
enforce compliance with their State
standards on public sector entities, and
these agreements specify that these State
standards must be equivalent to OSHA
standards. Thus, although OSHA has
included compliance costs for the
affected public sector entities in its
analysis of the expected impacts
associated with the proposal, the
proposal would not involve any
unfunded mandates being imposed on
any State or local government entity.
OSHA also concludes that the proposal
would not impose an unfunded
mandate on the private sector in excess
of $100 million in expenditures in any
one year.
IX. Federalism
OSHA has reviewed this proposed
rule in accordance with the Executive
Order on Federalism (Executive Order
13132, 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),
which requires that agencies, to the
extent possible, refrain from limiting
State policy options, consult with States
prior to taking any actions that would
restrict State policy options, and take
such actions only when there is clear
constitutional authority and the
presence of a problem of national scope.
The Order provides for preemption of
State law only if there is a clear
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Congressional intent for the Agency to
do so. Any such preemption is to be
limited to the extent possible.
Section 18 of the OSH Act expresses
Congress’s intent to preempt State laws
where OSHA has promulgated
occupational safety and health
standards. A State can avoid preemption
on issues covered by Federal standards
only if it submits, and obtains Federal
approval of, a plan for the development
of such standards and their
enforcement. 29 U.S.C. 667, Gade v.
National Solid Wastes Management
Association, 505 U.S. 88 (1992).
Occupational safety and health
standards developed by such Plan States
must, among other things, be at least as
effective in providing safe and healthful
employment and places of employment
as the Federal standards. Subject to the
statutory limitations of the OSH Act,
State-Plan States are free to develop and
enforce their own requirements for
occupational safety and health
protections related to the maintenance
and construction of electric power
generation, transmission, and
distribution installations. Therefore,
OSHA concludes that this action does
not significantly limit State policy
options.
X. OMB Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995
The proposed revisions of the general
industry and construction standards for
electric power generation, transmission,
and distribution and for electrical
protective equipment contain
collection-of-information (paperwork)
requirements that are subject to review
by the Office of Management and
Budget under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (PRA–95), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., and OMB’s regulations at 5 CFR
part 1320. The Paperwork Reduction
Act defines ‘‘collection of information’’
as ‘‘the obtaining, causing to be
obtained, soliciting, or requiring the
disclosure to third parties or the public,
of facts or opinions by or for an agency,
regardless of form or format * * * (44
U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)). OMB is currently
reviewing OSHA’s request for approval
of the proposed collections.
The pending Information Collection
Request (ICR) discusses the new
paperwork requirements found in the
proposed rule, as well as the removal of
the existing collection of information for
training certification in the Electric
Power Generation, Transmission, and
Distribution Standard
(§ 1910.269(a)(2)(vii)) under OMB
Control Number 1218–0190. Since this
package contains a full discussion of
removing the training certification,
reviewers do not need to obtain ICR
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
1218–0190. Commenters may submit
comments on the new collections, as
well as the removal of the
§ 1910.269(a)(2)(vii) training
certification requirement, under ICR
number 1218–0NEW.
The title, description of the need for
and proposed use of the information,
summary of the collections of
information, description of respondents,
and frequency of response of the
information collection are described
below with an estimate of the annual
cost and reporting burden as required by
§ 1320.5(a)(1)(iv). The reporting burden
includes the time for reviewing
instructions, gathering and maintaining
the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information.
OSHA invites comments on the
collection-of-information requirements
and the estimated burden hours
associated with these collections,
including comments on the following:
• Whether the proposed informationcollection requirements are necessary
for the proper performance of the
Agency’s functions, including whether
the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA’s estimate of
the burden (time and cost) of the
information-collection requirements,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of
the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on
employers who must comply, for
example, by using automated or other
technological techniques for collecting
and transmitting information.
Title: Electric Power Transmission
and Distribution Standard for
construction (§§ 1926.950 through
1926.968); and Electrical Protective
Equipment Standard (§ 1926.97).
Description and Proposed Use of the
Collections of Information: The
proposed standards would impose new
information collection requirements for
purposes of the PRA and would remove
one existing information collection
requirement. These collection of
information requirements
(§§ 1926.97(c)(2)(xii), 1926.950(c)(1)(i),
1926.950(c)(1)(ii), 1926.950(c)(2)(iii),
1926.953(a), 1910.269(a)(4)(i)(A),
1910.269(a)(4)(i)(B), and
1910.269(a)(4)(ii)(C)) are being reviewed
by OMB. OSHA is proposing to remove
the training certification requirement
contained in § 1910.269(a)(2)(vii) under
control number 1218–0190.
These provisions are needed to
protect employees against the electric
shock hazards that might be present in
the workplace and against other hazards
that might be present during electric
power generation, transmission, and
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34931
distribution work. The new information
collection requirements, including those
related to certification of rubber
insulated gloves and rubber blankets,
the host employer informing the
contract employer of any known job
related hazards that might be present on
the job, the contract employer
communicating all the hazards to his or
her employees, and the use of a permit
that will control access to an enclosed
space after it has been determined that
the space may endanger the life of
employees, are important tools for
controlling or eliminating hazards faced
by employees. The employer’s failure to
generate and disclose the information
required in these standards would
significantly affect OSHA’s effort to
reduce the number of injuries and
fatalities related to hazards posed by
electric power generation, transmission,
and distribution work.
Summary of the Collections of
Information: The following are new
collections of information contained in
the Electric Power Generation,
Transmission, and Distribution
Standard for general industry
(§ 1910.269); the Electric Power
Transmission and Distribution Standard
for construction (§§ 1926.950 through
1926.968); and the Electrical Protective
Equipment Standard for construction
(§ 1926.97).
Section 1926.97—Electrical Protective
Equipment—Special Requirements.
Paragraph (c)(2)(xii) of § 1926.97
requires the employer to certify that
equipment has been tested in
accordance with the requirements of
paragraphs (c)(2)(iv), (c)(2)(vii)(C),
(c)(2)(viii), (c)(2)(ix), and(c)(2)(xi) of that
section. The certification must identify
the equipment that passed the test and
the date it was tested. Marking of
equipment and entering the results of
the tests and the dates of testing onto
logs are two acceptable means of
meeting this requirement.
Section 1926.950, § 1910.269—Host
Employer-Contract Employer
Responsibilities.
Paragraph (c)(1)(i) of § 1926.950 and
paragraph (a)(4)(i)(A) of § 1910.269
require the host employer to inform the
contractor of any known hazards that
might be related to his work and that
might not be recognized by the
contractor. The host employer must also
inform the contractor of any information
needed to do assessments required by
the standard.
Paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of § 1926.950 and
paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B) of § 1910.269
require the host employer to report any
observed contract-employer related
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34932
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
violations of the standards to the
contract employer.
Paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of § 1926.950 and
paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(C) of § 1910.269
require the contract employer to advise
the host employer of unique hazards
presented by the contract employer’s
work, unanticipated hazards found
during the contract employer’s work
that the host employer did not mention,
and measures the contractor took to
correct and prevent recurrences of
violations reported by the host
employer.
Section 1926.953—Enclosed Spaces—
General
Paragraph (a) of § 1926.953 covers
enclosed spaces that may be entered by
employees. This paragraph applies to
routine entry into enclosed spaces. If,
after the precautions given in
§§ 1926.953 and 1926.965 are taken, the
hazards remaining in the enclosed space
endanger the life of an entrant or could
interfere with escape from the space,
then entry into the enclosed space must
meet the permit-space entry
requirements of paragraphs (d) through
(k) of § 1910.146, some of which involve
collections of information aimed at
protecting employees from the hazards
of entry into confined spaces. These
provisions contain practices and
procedures to protect employees from
the hazards of entry into permitrequired confined spaces. Section
1910.146 already has a control number.
Section 1910.269(a)(2)(vii)—Training—
Certification. [Amendment]
Paragraph (a)(2)(vii) of existing
§ 1910.269 requires the employer to
certify that each employee has received
the training required by paragraph
(a)(2). This certification must be made
when the employee demonstrates
proficiency in the work practices
involved and must be maintained for
the duration of the employee’s
employment. OSHA is proposing to
remove the certification requirement
contained in § 1910.269(a)(2)(vii).
Respondents: Employers who
construct, install, or repair electric
power lines and equipment outside of or
on buildings, structures, and other
premises. See section V, Preliminary
Regulatory Impact Analysis and Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, earlier
in this preamble, for the number of
employers (respondents) covered by the
proposed collection of information
requirements.
Frequency of Response: On occasion.
The collections of information involved
include the host employer
communicating the potentially known
hazards to the contract employer and
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
certifying tests performed on electrical
protective equipment. This information
will provide protection for employees
against the electric shock hazards that
might be present in the workplace.
Average Time per Response: Time per
response ranges from 5 minutes for the
host employer to inform a contract
employer of the hazards to 10 minutes
for the contract employer to instruct his
or her employees of the potential
hazards known on the jobsite.
Total Burden Hours: 122,276. The
estimated total cost of these burden
hours is approximately $4,800,000.
Estimated Costs (Operating and
Maintenance): 0.
In summary, the new collections of
information (1218–0NEW) will add
122,276 hours, while the removal of the
training certification will result in a
reduction of 11,520 hours (1218–0190).
The proposal will yield a net increase of
110,756 hours.
Interested parties who wish to
comment on the paperwork
requirements in this proposal must send
their written comments to the OSHA
Docket Office, Docket No. S–215,
Occupational Safety and Health, Room
N–2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210, and to the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, New Executive Office Building,
Office of Management and Budget,
Room 10235, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503, Attn: OSHA
Desk Officer (RIN 1218–AB67). The
Agency also encourages commenters to
include their comments on paperwork
requirements with their other comments
on the proposed rule submitted to
OSHA.
Copies of the referenced information
collection request are available for
inspection and copying in the OSHA
Docket Office and will be provided to
persons who request copies by
telephoning Todd Owen at (202) 693–
1941. For electronic copies of the
information collection request, contact
the OSHA Web page on the Internet at
https://www.osha.gov/.
XI. Public Participation—Comments
and Hearings
OSHA encourages members of the
public to participate in this rulemaking
by submitting comments on the
proposal, and by providing oral
testimony and documentary evidence at
the informal public hearing that the
Agency will convene after the comment
period ends. In this regard, the Agency
invites interested parties having
knowledge of, or experience with, safety
related to working on electric power
generation, transmission, or distribution
installations to participate in this
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
process, and welcomes any pertinent
data and cost information that will
provide it with the best available
evidence on which to develop the final
standard.
This section describes the procedures
the public must use to submit their
comments to the docket in a timely
manner, and to schedule an opportunity
to deliver oral testimony and provide
documentary evidence at the informal
public hearings. Comments, notices of
intention to appear, hearing testimony,
and documentary evidence will be
available for inspection and copying at
the OSHA Docket Office. You also
should read the earlier sections titled
DATES and ADDRESSES for additional
information on submitting comments,
documents, and requests to the Agency
for consideration in this rulemaking.
Written Comments. OSHA invites
interested parties to submit written data,
views, and arguments concerning this
proposal. In particular, OSHA
encourages interested parties to
comment on the various issues raised in
the summary and explanation of the
proposed rule (see Section IV, Summary
and Explanation of Proposed Rule,
earlier in this preamble). When
submitting comments, parties must
follow the procedures specified earlier
in the sections titled DATES and
ADDRESSES. The comments must clearly
identify the provision of the proposal
you are addressing, the position taken
with respect to each issue, and the basis
for that position. Comments, along with
supporting data and references, received
by the end of the specified comment
period will become part of the
proceedings record, and will be
available for public inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Informal Public Hearing. Pursuant to
section 6(b)(3) of the Act, members of
the public will have an opportunity at
an informal public hearing to provide
oral testimony concerning the issues
raised in this proposal. The hearings
will commence at 10 A.M. on December
6, 2005. At that time, the presiding
administrative law judge (ALJ) will
resolve any procedural matters relating
to the proceeding. The hearings will
reconvene on subsequent days at 9 A.M.
The legislative history of section 6 of
the OSH Act, as well as OSHA’s
regulation governing public hearings (29
CFR 1911.15), establish the purpose and
procedures of informal public hearings.
Although the presiding officer of such
hearings is an ALJ, and questioning by
interested parties is allowed on crucial
issues, the proceeding is informal and
legislative in purpose. Therefore, the
hearing provides interested parties with
an opportunity to make effective and
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
expeditious oral presentations in the
absence of procedural restraints or rigid
procedures that could impede or
protract the rulemaking process. In
addition, the hearing is an informal
administrative proceeding, rather than
adjudicative one in which the technical
rules of evidence would apply, because
its primary purpose is to gather and
clarify information. The regulations that
govern public hearings, and the
prehearing guidelines issued for this
hearing, will ensure participants
fairness and due process, and also will
facilitate the development of a clear,
accurate, and complete record.
Accordingly, application of these rules
and guidelines will be such that
questions of relevance, procedure, and
participation generally will favor
development of the record.
Conduct of the hearing will conform
to the provisions of 29 CFR part 1911,
‘‘Rules of Procedure for Promulgating,
Modifying, or Revoking Occupational
Safety and Health Standards.’’ The
regulation at 29 CFR 1911.4,
‘‘Additional or Alternative Procedural
Requirements,’’ specifies that the
Assistant Secretary may, on reasonable
notice, issue alternative procedures to
expedite proceedings or for other good
cause. Although the ALJs who preside
over these hearings make no decision or
recommendation on the merits of
OSHA’s proposal, they do have the
responsibility and authority to ensure
that the hearing progresses at a
reasonable pace and in an orderly
manner.
To ensure that interested parties
receive a full and fair informal hearing
as specified by 29 CFR part 1911, the
ALJ has the authority and power to:
Regulate the course of the proceedings;
dispose of procedural requests,
objections, and comparable matters;
confine the presentations to matters
pertinent to the issues raised; use
appropriate means to regulate the
conduct of the parties who are present
at the hearing; question witnesses, and
permit others to question witnesses; and
limit the time for such questioning. At
the close of the hearing, the ALJ will
establish a post-hearing comment period
for parties who participated in the
hearing. During the first part of this
period, the participants may submit
additional data and information to
OSHA; during the second part of this
period, they may submit briefs,
arguments, and summations.
Notice of Intention to Appear to
Provide Testimony at the Informal
Public Hearing. Interested parties who
intend to provide oral testimony at the
informal public hearings must file a
notice of intention to appear by using
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
the procedures specified earlier in the
sections titled DATES and ADDRESSES.
This notice must provide the: Name,
address, and telephone number of each
individual who will provide testimony,
and their preferred hearing location;
capacity (for example, the name of the
establishment or organization the
individual is representing and the
individual’s occupational title and
position) in which each individual will
testify; approximate amount of time
required for each individual’s
testimony; specific issues each
individual will address, including a
brief statement of the position that the
individual will take with respect to each
of these issues; and a brief summary of
any documentary evidence the
individual intends to present.
OSHA emphasizes that the hearings
are open to the public, and that
interested parties are welcome to attend.
However, only a party who files a
complete notice of intention to appear
may ask questions and participate fully
in the proceedings. While a party who
did not file a notice of intention to
appear may be allowed to testify at the
hearing if time permits, this
determination is at the discretion of the
presiding ALJ.
Hearing Testimony and Documentary
Evidence. Any party requesting more
than 10 minutes to testify at the
informal public hearing, or who intends
to submit documentary evidence at the
hearing, must provide the complete text
of the testimony and the documentary
evidence as specified earlier in the
sections titled DATES and ADDRESSES.
The Agency will review each
submission and determine if the
information it contains warrants the
amount of time requested. If OSHA
believes the requested time is excessive,
it will allocate an appropriate amount of
time to the presentation, and will notify
the participant of this action, and the
reasons for the action, before the
hearing. The Agency may limit to 10
minutes the presentation of any
participant who fails to comply
substantially with these procedural
requirements; in such instances, OSHA
may request the participant to return for
questioning at a later time.
Certification of the Record and Final
Determination after the Informal Public
Hearing. Following the close of the
hearing and post-hearing comment
period, the presiding ALJ will certify the
record to the Assistant Secretary of
Labor for Occupational Safety and
Health; the record will consist of all of
the written comments, oral testimony,
and documentary evidence received
during the proceeding. However, the
ALJ does not make or recommend any
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34933
decisions as to the content of the final
standard. Following certification of the
record, OSHA will review the proposed
provisions in light of all the evidence
received as part of the record, and then
will issue the final rule based on the
entire record.
XII. List of Subjects in 29 CFR Parts
1910 and 1926
Electric power, Fire prevention,
Hazardous substances, Occupational
safety and health, Safety.
XIII. Authority and Signature
This document was prepared under
the direction of Jonathan L. Snare,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210.
This action is taken pursuant to
sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C.
653, 655, 657), Secretary of Labor’s
Order No. 5–2002 (67 FR 65008), and 29
CFR part 1911.
Signed at Washington, DC this 7th day of
June, 2005.
Jonathan L. Snare,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor.
Accordingly, the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration proposes
that parts 1910 and 1926 of Title 29 of
the Code of Federal Regulations be
amended as follows:
PART 1910—[AMENDED]
Subpart I—Personal Protective
Equipment
1. The authority citation for Subpart
I of Part 1910 would be revised to read
as follows:
Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
(29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s
Order No. 12–71 (36 FR 8754), 8–76 (41 FR
25059), 9–83 (48 FR 35736), 1–90 (55 FR
9033), or 5–2002 (67 FR 65008) as applicable,
and 29 CFR Part 1911.
Sections 29 CFR 1910.133, 1910.135, and
1910.136 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.
2. Paragraph (a) of § 1910.136 would
be revised to read as follows:
§ 1910.136
Foot protection.
(a) General requirements. The
employer shall ensure that each affected
employee uses protective footwear
when working in areas where there is a
danger of foot injuries due to falling or
rolling objects or due to objects piercing
the sole.
*
*
*
*
*
3. Section 1910.137 would be
amended as follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34934
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
a. Paragraph (a)(1)(ii) and the note
following paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(B) would
be revised to read as follows:
§ 1910.137
Electrical protective equipment.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Each item shall be clearly marked
as follows:
(A) Class 00 equipment shall be
marked Class 00.
(B) Class 0 equipment shall be marked
Class 0.
(C) Class 1 equipment shall be marked
Class 1.
(D) Class 2 equipment shall be marked
Class 2.
(E) Class 3 equipment shall be marked
Class 3.
(F) Class 4 equipment shall be marked
Class 4.
(G) Non-ozone-resistant equipment
other than matting shall be marked Type
I.
(H) Ozone-resistant equipment other
than matting shall be marked Type II.
(I) Other relevant markings, such as
the manufacturer’s identification and
the size of the equipment, may also be
provided.
*
*
*
*
*
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) * * *
Note to paragraph (a) of this section:
Rubber insulating equipment meeting the
following national consensus standards is
deemed to be in compliance with paragraph
(a) of this section:
American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) D 120–02a, Standard Specification
for Rubber Insulating Gloves.
ASTM D 178–01el, Standard Specification
for Rubber Insulating Matting.
ASTM D 1048–99, Standard Specification
for Rubber Insulating Blankets.
ASTM D 1049–98el, Standard Specification
for Rubber Insulating Covers.
ASTM D 1050–90, Standard Specification
for Rubber Insulating Line Hose.
ASTM D 1051–02, Standard Specification
for Rubber Insulating Sleeves.
These standards contain specifications for
conducting the various tests required in
paragraph (a) of this section. For example,
the a-c and d-c proof tests, the breakdown
test, the water soak procedure, and the ozone
test mentioned in this paragraph are
described in detail in the ASTM standards.
ASTM F 1236–96, Standard Guide for
Visual Inspection of Electrical Protective
Rubber Products, presents methods and
techniques for the visual inspection of
electrical protective equipment made of
rubber. This guide also contains descriptions
and photographs of irregularities that can be
found in this equipment.
ASTM F 819–00el, Standard Terminology
Relating to Electrical Protective Equipment
for Workers, sets definitions of terms relating
to the electrical protective equipment
covered under this section.
*
*
*
*
*
b. A new note would be added
following paragraph (b)(2)(ii) to read as
follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
Note to paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section:
ASTM F 1236–96, Standard Guide for Visual
Inspection of Electrical Protective Rubber
Products, presents methods and techniques
for the visual inspection of electrical
protective equipment made of rubber. This
guide also contains descriptions and
photographs of irregularities that can be
found in this equipment.
*
*
*
*
*
c. Paragraph (b)(2)(vii) would be
revised to read as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(vii) Protector gloves shall be worn
over insulating gloves, except as
follows:
(A) Protector gloves need not be used
with Class 0 or Class 00 gloves, under
limited-use conditions, where small
equipment and parts manipulation
necessitate unusually high finger
dexterity.
Note to paragraph (b)(2)(vii)(A) of this
section: Extra care is needed in the visual
examination of the glove and in the
avoidance of handling sharp objects.
(B) Any other class of glove may be
used for similar work without protector
gloves if the employer can demonstrate
that the possibility of physical damage
to the gloves is small and if the class of
glove is one class higher than that
required for the voltage involved.
(C) Insulating gloves that have been
used without protector gloves may not
be reused until they have been tested
under the provisions of paragraphs
(b)(2)(viii) and (b)(2)(ix) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
d. Tables I–2, I–3, I–4, and I–5 would
be revised to read as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
TABLE I–2.—A–C PROOF-TEST REQUIREMENTS
Maximum proof-test current, mA
(gloves only)
Proof-test
voltage
rms V
Class of equipment
00 .........................................................................................
0 ...........................................................................................
1 ...........................................................................................
2 ...........................................................................................
3 ...........................................................................................
4 ...........................................................................................
2,500
5,000
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
267-mm
(10.5-in)
glove
356-mm
(14-in)
glove
406-mm
(16-in)
glove
457-mm
(18-in)
glove
8
8
........................
........................
........................
........................
12
12
14
16
18
........................
........................
14
16
18
20
22
........................
16
18
20
22
24
TABLE I–3.—D–C PROOF-TEST REQUIREMENTS
Proof-test
voltage
Class of equipment
00 .............................................................................................................................................................................................................
0 ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................
1 ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................
2 ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................
3 ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
10,000
20,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
34935
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
TABLE I–3.—D–C PROOF-TEST REQUIREMENTS—Continued
Proof-test
voltage
Class of equipment
4 ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................
70,000
Note: The d-c voltages listed in this table are not appropriate for proof testing rubber insulating line hose or covers. For this equipment, d-c
proof tests shall use a voltage high enough to indicate that the equipment can be safely used at the voltages listed in Table I–5. See ASTM D
1050–90 and ASTM D 1049–98el for further information on proof tests for rubber insulating line hose and covers, respectively.
TABLE I–4.—GLOVE TESTS—WATER LEVEL 1, 2
A–C proof test
D–C proof test
Class of glove
mm
00 .....................................................................................................................................
0 .......................................................................................................................................
1 .......................................................................................................................................
2 .......................................................................................................................................
3 .......................................................................................................................................
4 .......................................................................................................................................
in
38
38
38
64
89
127
mm
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
5.0
in
38
38
51
76
102
153
1.5
1.5
2.0
3.0
4.0
6.0
water level is given as the clearance from the cuff of the glove to the water line, with a tolerance of ±13 mm. (±0.5 in.).
atmospheric conditions make the specified clearances impractical, the clearances may be increased by a maximum of 25 mm. (1 in.).
1 The
2 If
TABLE I–5.—RUBBER INSULATING EQUIPMENT VOLTAGE REQUIREMENTS
Maximum use
voltage 1 A–C
rms
Class of equipment
Retest voltage 2 A–C rms
Retest voltage 2 D–C avg
500
1,000
7,500
17,000
26,000
36,000
2,500
5,000
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
10,000
20,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
00 .................................................................................................................................................
0 ...................................................................................................................................................
1 ...................................................................................................................................................
2 ...................................................................................................................................................
3 ...................................................................................................................................................
4 ...................................................................................................................................................
1 The maximum use voltage is the A–C voltage (rms) classification of the protective equipment that designates the maximum nominal design
voltage of the energized system that may be safely worked. The nominal design voltage is equal to the phase-to-phase voltage on multiphase
circuits. However, the phase-to-ground potential is considered to be the nominal design voltage:
(1) If there is no multiphase exposure in a system area and if the voltage exposure is limited to the phase-to-ground potential, or
(2) If the electrical equipment and devices are insulated or isolated or both so that the multiphase exposure on a grounded wye circuit is removed.
2 The proof-test voltage shall be applied continuously for at least 1 minute, but no more than 3 minutes.
*
*
*
*
*
e. A new paragraph (c) would be
added to read as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Requirements for other types of
electrical protective equipment. The
following requirements apply to the
design and manufacture of electrical
protective equipment that is not covered
by paragraph (a) of this section:
(1) Voltage withstand. Insulating
equipment used for the protection of
employees shall be capable of
withstanding, without failure, the
voltages that may be imposed upon it.
Note to paragraph (c)(1) of this section:
Such voltages include transient overvoltages,
such as switching surges, as well as nominal
line voltage. See Appendix B to § 1910.269
for a discussion of transient overvoltages on
electric power transmission and distribution
systems.
(2) Equipment current. (i) Protective
equipment used for the primary
insulation of employees from energized
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
circuit parts shall be capable of passing
a current test when subjected to the
highest nominal voltage on which the
equipment is to be used.
(ii) When insulating equipment is
tested in accordance with paragraph
(c)(2)(i) of this section, the equipment
current may not exceed 1 microampere
per kilovolt of phase-to-phase applied
voltage.
(3) Leakage current along the surface of the
tool or equipment.
The conduction current is normally
negligible. For clean, dry insulating
equipment, the leakage current is small, and
the capacitive current predominates.
Note 1 to paragraph (c)(2) of this section:
This paragraph applies to equipment that
provides primary insulation of employees
from energized parts. It is not intended to
apply to equipment used for secondary
insulation or equipment used for brush
contact only.
Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
(29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s
Order No. 12–71 (36 FR 8754), 8–76 (41 FR
25059), 9–83 (48 FR 35736), 1–90 (55 FR
9033), 6–96 (62 FR 111), 5–2002 (67 F.R.
65008) as applicable; 29 CFR part 1911.
Section 1910.272 also issued under 5
U.S.C. 553.
Note 2 to paragraph (c)(2) of this section:
For a-c excitation, this current consists of
three components:
(1) Capacitive current because of the
dielectric properties of the insulating
material itself,
(2) Conduction current through the volume
of the insulating equipment, and
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Subpart R—Special Industries
4. The authority citation for Subpart
R would be revised to read as follows:
5. Section 1910.269 would be
amended as follows:
a. Paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(vii)
would be revised and new paragraphs
(a)(2)(ii)(E) and (a)(4) would be added to
read as follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34936
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
§ 1910.269 Electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution.
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(2) Training. (i) All employees shall
be trained as follows:
(A) Employees shall be trained in and
familiar with the safety-related work
practices, safety procedures, and other
safety requirements in this subpart that
pertain to their respective job
assignments.
(B) Employees shall also be trained in
and familiar with any other safety
practices, including applicable
emergency procedures (such as pole top
and manhole rescue), that are not
specifically addressed by this subpart
but that are related to their work and are
necessary for their safety.
(C) The degree of training shall be
determined by the risk to the employee
for the task involved.
(ii) * * *
(E) The recognition of electrical
hazards to which the employee may be
exposed and the skills and techniques
necessary to control or avoid those
hazards.
*
*
*
*
*
(vii) Demonstration of proficiency.
The employer shall determine that each
employee has demonstrated proficiency
in the work practices involved before
that employee is considered as having
completed the training required by
paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
Note 1 to paragraph (a)(2)(vii) of this
section: Though they are not required by this
paragraph, employment records that indicate
that an employee has successfully completed
the required training are one way of keeping
track of when an employee has demonstrated
proficiency.
Note 2 to paragraph (a)(2)(vii) of this
section: Employers may rely on an
employee’s previous training as long as the
employer: (1) Confirms that the employee has
the job experience appropriate to the work to
be performed, (2) through an examination or
interview, makes an initial determination
that the employee is proficient in the relevant
safety-related work practices before he or she
performs any work covered by this subpart,
and (3) supervises the employee closely until
that employee has demonstrated proficiency
in all the work practices he or she will
employ.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Contractors. (i) Host employer
responsibilities. (A) The host employer
shall inform contract employers of:
(1) Known hazards that are covered by
this section, that are related to the
contract employer’s work, and that
might not be recognized by the contract
employer or its employees; and
(2) Information about the employer’s
installation that the contract employer
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
needs to make the assessments required
by this section.
(B) The host employer shall report
observed contract-employer-related
violations of this section to the contract
employer.
(ii) Contract employer responsibilities.
(A) The contract employer shall ensure
that each of his or her employees is
instructed in the hazards communicated
to the contract employer by the host
employer.
Note to paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(A) of this
section: This instruction is in addition to the
training required by paragraph (a)(2) of this
section.
(B) The contract employer shall
ensure that each of his or her employees
follows the work practices required by
this section and safety-related work
rules required by the host employer.
(C) The contract employer shall
advise the host employer of:
(1) Any unique hazards presented by
the contract employer’s work,
(2) Any unanticipated hazards found
during the contract employer’s work
that the host employer did not mention,
and
(3) The measures the contractor took
to correct any violations reported by the
host employer under paragraph
(a)(4)(i)(B) of this section and to prevent
such violations from recurring in the
future.
*
*
*
*
*
b. Paragraph (c) would be revised to
read as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Job briefing. (1) Before each job. (i)
In assigning an employee or a group of
employees to perform a job, the
employer shall provide the employee in
charge of the job with available
information necessary to perform the job
safely.
Note to paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section:
The information provided by the employer to
the employee in charge is intended to
supplement the training required under
§ 1910.269(a)(2). It may be provided at the
beginning of the day for all jobs to be
performed that day rather than at the start of
each job. The information is also intended to
be general in nature, with work-site specific
information to be provided by the employee
in charge after the crew arrives at the work
site.
(ii) The employer shall ensure that the
employee in charge conducts a job
briefing meeting paragraphs (c)(2),
(c)(3), and (c)(4) of this section with the
employees involved before they start
each job.
(2) Subjects to be covered. The
briefing shall cover at least the
following subjects: hazards associated
with the job, work procedures involved,
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
special precautions, energy source
controls, and personal protective
equipment requirements.
(3) Number of briefings. (i) If the work
or operations to be performed during the
work day or shift are repetitive and
similar, at least one job briefing shall be
conducted before the start of the first job
of each day or shift.
(ii) Additional job briefings shall be
held if significant changes, which might
affect the safety of the employees, occur
during the course of the work.
(4) Extent of briefing. (i) A brief
discussion is satisfactory if the work
involved is routine and if the
employees, by virtue of training and
experience, can reasonably be expected
to recognize and avoid the hazards
involved in the job.
(ii) A more extensive discussion shall
be conducted:
(A) If the work is complicated or
particularly hazardous, or
(B) If the employee cannot be
expected to recognize and avoid the
hazards involved in the job.
Note to paragraph (c)(4) of this section:
The briefing must always touch on all the
subjects listed in paragraph (c)(2) of this
section.
(5) Working alone. An employee
working alone need not conduct a job
briefing. However, the employer shall
ensure that the tasks to be performed are
planned as if a briefing were required.
*
*
*
*
*
c. The note following paragraph (e)(6)
would be removed and paragraphs
(e)(7), (e)(8), and (e)(12) would be
revised to read as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(7) Attendants. While work is being
performed in the enclosed space, a
person with first aid training meeting
paragraph (b) of this section shall be
immediately available outside the
enclosed space to provide assistance if
a hazard exists because of traffic
patterns in the area of the opening used
for entry. That person is not precluded
from performing other duties outside
the enclosed space if these duties do not
distract the attendant from monitoring
employees within the space.
Note to paragraph(e)(7) of this section: See
paragraph (t)(3) of this section for additional
requirements on attendants for work in
manholes.
(8) Calibration of test instruments.
Test instruments used to monitor
atmospheres in enclosed spaces shall be
kept in calibration and shall have a
minimum accuracy of ±10 percent.
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
(12) Specific ventilation requirements.
If continuous forced air ventilation is
used, it shall begin before entry is made
and shall be maintained long enough for
the employer to be able to demonstrate
that a safe atmosphere exists before
employees are allowed to enter the work
area. The forced air ventilation shall be
so directed as to ventilate the immediate
area where employees are present
within the enclosed space and shall
continue until all employees leave the
enclosed space.
*
*
*
*
*
d. Paragraph (g)(2) would be revised
to read as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(2) Fall protection. (i) Personal fall
arrest systems shall meet the
requirements of Subpart M of Part 1926
of this Chapter.
Note to paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section:
This paragraph applies to all personal fall
arrest systems used in work covered by this
section.
(ii) Body belts and positioning straps
for work positioning shall meet the
requirements of § 1926.954(b)(2) of this
Chapter.
Note to paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this section:
This paragraph applies to all work
positioning equipment used in work covered
by this section.
(iii) The following requirements apply
to the care and use of personal fall
protection equipment:
(A) Work positioning equipment shall
be inspected before use each day to
determine that the equipment is in safe
working condition. Defective equipment
may not be used.
Note to paragraph (g)(2)(iii)(A) of this
section: Appendix G to this section contains
guidelines for the inspection of work
positioning equipment.
(B) Personal fall arrest systems shall
be used in accordance with
§ 1926.502(d) of this chapter. However,
the attachment point need not be
located as required by § 1926.502(d)(17)
of this chapter if the body harness is
being used as work positioning
equipment and if the maximum free fall
distance is limited to 0.6 m (2 ft).
(C) A personal fall arrest system or
work positioning equipment shall be
used by employees working at elevated
locations more than 1.2 m (4 ft) above
the ground on poles, towers, or similar
structures if other fall protection has not
been provided. Fall protection
equipment is not required to be used by
a qualified employee climbing or
changing location on poles, towers, or
similar structures, unless conditions,
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
such as, but not limited to, ice, high
winds, the design of the structure (for
example, no provision for holding on
with hands), or the presence of
contaminants on the structure, could
cause the employee to lose his or her
grip or footing.
Note 1 to paragraph (g)(2)(iii)(C) of this
section: This paragraph applies to structures
that support overhead electric power
generation, transmission, and distribution
lines and equipment. It does not apply to
portions of buildings, such as loading docks,
to electric equipment, such as transformers
and capacitors, nor to aerial lifts. The duty
to provide fall protection associated with
walking and working surfaces is contained in
Subpart M of Part 1926 of this chapter; the
duty to provide fall protection associated
with aerial lifts is contained in § 1910.67.
Note 2 to paragraph (g)(2)(iii)(C) of this
section: Employees who have not completed
training in climbing and the use of fall
protection are not considered ‘‘qualified
employees’’ for the purposes of this
provision. Unqualified employees (including
trainees) are required to use fall protection
any time they are more than 1.2 m (4 ft)
above the ground.
(D) Work positioning systems shall be
rigged so that an employee can free fall
no more than 0.6 m (2 ft) unless no
anchorage is available.
(E) Anchorages for work positioning
equipment shall be capable of
supporting at least twice the potential
impact load of an employee’s fall or 13.3
kN (3,000 lbf), whichever is greater.
(F) Unless the snaphook is a locking
type and designed specifically for the
following connections, snaphooks on
work positioning equipment may not be
engaged:
(1) Directly to webbing, rope, or wire
rope;
(2) To each other;
(3) To a D ring to which another
snaphook or other connector is attached;
(4) To a horizontal lifeline; or
(5) To any object which is
incompatibly shaped or dimensioned in
relation to the snaphook such that
unintentional disengagement could
occur by the connected object being able
to depress the snaphook keeper and
release itself.
*
*
*
*
*
e. The heading to paragraph (h) would
be revised to read as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(h) Ladders and platforms. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
f. Paragraphs (l)(2)(i), (l)(3), (l)(4), and
(l)(6) would be revised and a new
paragraph (l)(11) would be added to
read as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(l) * * *
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34937
(2) * * *
(i) The employee is insulated from the
energized part (insulating gloves or
insulating gloves and sleeves worn in
accordance with paragraph (l)(3) of this
section are considered insulation of the
employee from the energized part upon
which the employee is working
provided that the employee has control
of the part in a manner sufficient to
prevent exposure to uninsulated
portions of the body), or
*
*
*
*
*
(3) Type of insulation. (i) If the
employee is to be insulated from
energized parts by the use of insulating
gloves (under paragraph (l)(2)(i) of this
section), insulating sleeves shall also be
used. However, insulating sleeves need
not be used under the following
conditions:
(A) If exposed energized parts on
which work is not being performed are
insulated from the employee and
(B) If such insulation is placed from
a position not exposing the employee’s
upper arm to contact with other
energized parts.
(ii) If the employee is to be insulated
from energized parts by the use of
insulating gloves or insulating gloves
with sleeves:
(A) The insulating equipment shall be
put on in a position where the employee
cannot reach into the minimum
approach distance given in paragraph
(l)(2) of this section; and
(B) The insulating equipment may not
be removed until the employee is in a
position where he or she cannot reach
into the minimum approach distance
given in paragraph (l)(2) of this section.
(4) Working position. (i) The employer
shall ensure that each employee, to the
extent that other safety-related
conditions at the worksite permit, works
in a position from which a slip or shock
will not bring the employee’s body into
contact with exposed, uninsulated parts
energized at a potential different from
the employee.
(ii) If work is performed near exposed
parts energized at more than 600 volts
but not more than 72.5 kilovolts and if
the employee is not insulated from the
energized parts or performing live-line
bare-hand work, the employee shall
work from a position where the
employee cannot reach into the
minimum approach distance given in
paragraph (l)(2) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(6) Conductive articles. When work is
performed within reaching distance of
exposed energized parts of equipment,
the employer shall ensure that each
employee removes or renders
nonconductive all exposed conductive
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34938
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
articles, such as key or watch chains,
rings, or wrist watches or bands, unless
such articles do not increase the hazards
associated with contact with the
energized parts.
*
*
*
*
*
(11) Clothing. (i) The employer shall
assess the workplace to determine if
each employee is exposed to hazards
from flames or from electric arcs.
(ii) For each employee exposed to
hazards from electric arcs, the employer
shall make a reasonable estimate of the
maximum available heat energy to
which the employee would be exposed.
Note 1 to paragraph (l)(11)(ii) of this
section: Appendix F to this section provides
guidance on the estimation of available heat
energy.
Note 2 to paragraph (l)(11)(ii) of this
section: This paragraph does not require the
employer to estimate the heat energy
exposure for every job task performed by
each employee. The employer may make
broad estimates that cover multiple system
areas provided the employer uses reasonable
assumptions about the energy exposure
distribution throughout the system and
provided the estimates represent the
maximum exposure for those areas. For
example, the employer could estimate the
heat energy just outside a substation feeding
a radial distribution system and use that
estimate for all jobs performed on that radial
system.
(iii) The employer shall ensure that
each employee who is exposed to
hazards from electric arcs does not wear
clothing that could melt onto his or her
skin or that could ignite and continue to
burn when exposed to the heat energy
estimated under paragraph (l)(11)(ii) of
this section.
Note to paragraph (l)(11)(iii) of this
section: Clothing made from the following
types of fabrics, either alone or in blends, is
prohibited by this paragraph, unless the
employer can demonstrate that the fabric has
been treated to withstand the conditions that
may be encountered or that the clothing is
worn in such a manner as to eliminate the
hazard involved: acetate, nylon, polyester,
rayon.
(iv) The employer shall ensure that an
employee wears clothing that is flame
resistant under any of the following
conditions:
(A) The employee is subject to contact
with energized circuit parts operating at
more than 600 volts,
(B) The employee’s clothing could be
ignited by flammable material in the
work area that could be ignited by an
electric arc, or
(C) The employee’s clothing could be
ignited by molten metal or electric arcs
from faulted conductors in the work
area.
Note to paragraph (l)(11)(iv)(C) of this
section: This paragraph does not apply to
conductors that are capable of carrying,
without failure, the maximum available fault
current for the time the circuit protective
devices take to interrupt the fault.
(v) The employer shall ensure that
each employee who is exposed to
hazards from electric arcs wears
clothing with an arc rating greater than
or equal to the heat energy estimated
under paragraph (l)(11)(ii) of this
section.
Note to paragraph (l)(11) of this section:
See Appendix F to this section for further
information on the selection of appropriate
clothing.
*
*
*
*
*
g. Table R–6 would be revised to read
as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
TABLE R–6—A–C LIVE-LINE WORK MINIMUM APPROACH DISTANCE
Distance
Nominal voltage in kilovolts phase to phase
Phase-to-ground exposure
m
0.300 1
0.051 to
................................................................................................
0.301 to 0.750 1 ................................................................................................
0.751 to 15.0 ....................................................................................................
15.1 to 36.0 ......................................................................................................
36.1 to 46.0 ......................................................................................................
46.1 to 72.5 ......................................................................................................
72.6 to 121 .......................................................................................................
138 to 145 ........................................................................................................
161 to 169 ........................................................................................................
230 to 242 ........................................................................................................
345 to 362 ........................................................................................................
500 to 550 ........................................................................................................
765 to 800 ........................................................................................................
ft-in
Avoid Contact
0.31
0.65
0.77
0.84
1.00
0.95
1.09
1.22
1.59
2.59
3.42
4.53
1–0
2–2
2–7
2–9
3–3
3–2
3–7
4–0
5–3
8–6
11–3
14–11
Phase-to-phase exposure
m
ft-in
Avoid Contact
0.31
0.67
0.86
0.96
1.20
1.29
1.50
1.71
2.27
3.80
5.50
7.91
1–0
2–3
2–10
3–2
3–11
4–3
4–11
5–8
7–6
12–6
18–1
26–0
1 For single-phase systems, use the voltage to ground.
Note 1: These distances take into consideration the highest surge an employee will be exposed to on any system with air as the insulating
medium and the maximum voltages shown.
Note 2: The clear live-line tool distance shall equal or exceed the values for the indicated voltage ranges.
Note 3: See Appendix B to this section for information on how the mimimum approach distances listed in the tables were derived.
*
*
*
*
*
h. Paragraph (m)(3)(viii) would be
revised to read as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(m) * * *
(3) * * *
(viii) If two or more independent
crews will be working on the same lines
or equipment, each crew shall
independently comply with the
requirements in this paragraph (m)(3).
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
The independent crews shall coordinate
deenergizing and reenergizing the lines
or equipment if there is no system
operator in charge of the lines or
equipment.
*
*
*
*
*
i. Paragraphs (n)(4), (n)(6), and (n)(7)
would be revised to read as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(n) * * *
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(4) Protective grounding equipment.
(i) Protective grounding equipment shall
be capable of conducting the maximum
fault current that could flow at the point
of grounding for the time necessary to
clear the fault.
(ii) If the protective grounding
equipment required under paragraph
(n)(4)(i) of this section would be larger
than the conductor to which it is
attached, this equipment may be
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
reduced in size provided that it is sized
and placed so that:
(A) The conductor being grounded
will fail before the protective grounding
equipment,
(B) The conductor is only considered
as grounded where it is protected
against failure by the protective
grounding equipment, and
(C) No employees would be
endangered by the failed conductor.
(iii) This equipment shall have an
ampacity greater than or equal to that of
No. 2 AWG copper.
(iv) Protective grounds shall have an
impedance low enough so that they do
not delay the operation of protective
devices in case of accidental energizing
of the lines or equipment.
Note to paragraph (n)(4) of this section:
Guidelines for protective grounding
equipment are contained in American
Society for Testing and Materials Standard
Specifications for Temporary Protective
Grounds to Be Used on De-Energized Electric
Power Lines and Equipment, ASTM F 855–
03.
*
*
*
*
*
(6) Order of connection. When a
ground is to be attached to a line or to
equipment, the ground-end connection
shall be attached first, and then the
other end shall be attached by means of
a live-line tool. For lines or equipment
operating at 600 volts or less, insulating
equipment other than a live-line tool
may be used if the employer ensures
that the line or equipment is not
energized at the time the ground is
connected or if the employer can
demonstrate that each employee would
be protected from hazards that may
develop if the line or equipment is
energized.
(7) Order of removal. When a ground
is to be removed, the grounding device
shall be removed from the line or
equipment using a live-line tool before
the ground-end connection is removed.
For lines or equipment operating at 600
volts or less, insulating equipment other
than a live-line tool may be used if the
employer ensures that the line or
equipment is not energized at the time
the ground is disconnected or if the
employer can demonstrate that each
employee would be protected from
hazards that may develop if the line or
equipment is energized.
*
*
*
*
*
j. Paragraph (p)(4)(i) would be revised
to read as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(p) * * *
(4) Operations near energized lines or
equipment. (i) Mechanical equipment
shall be operated so that the minimum
approach distances of Table R–6
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
through Table R–10 are maintained from
exposed energized lines and equipment.
However, the insulated portion of an
aerial lift operated by a qualified
employee in the lift is exempt from this
requirement if the applicable minimum
approach distance is maintained
between the uninsulated portions of the
aerial lift and exposed objects at a
different potential.
*
*
*
*
*
k. Paragraphs (t)(3), (t)(7), and (t)(8)
would be revised to read as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(t) * * *
(3) Attendants for manholes and
vaults. (i) While work is being
performed in a manhole or vault
containing energized electric
equipment, an employee with first aid
and CPR training meeting paragraph
(b)(1) of this section shall be available
on the surface in the immediate vicinity
of the manhole or vault entrance to
render emergency assistance.
(ii) Occasionally, the employee on the
surface may briefly enter a manhole or
vault to provide assistance, other than
emergency.
Note 1 to paragraph (t)(3)(ii) of this
section: An attendant may also be required
under paragraph (e)(7) of this section. One
person may serve to fulfill both requirements.
However, attendants required under
paragraph (e)(7) of this section are not
permitted to enter the manhole or vault.
Note 2 to paragraph (t)(3)(ii) of this
section: Employees entering manholes or
vaults containing unguarded, uninsulated
energized lines or parts of electric equipment
operating at 50 volts or more are required to
be qualified under paragraph (l)(1) of this
section.
(iii) For the purpose of inspection,
housekeeping, taking readings, or
similar work, an employee working
alone may enter, for brief periods of
time, a manhole or vault where
energized cables or equipment are in
service, if the employer can demonstrate
that the employee will be protected
from all electrical hazards.
(iv) Reliable communications, through
two-way radios or other equivalent
means, shall be maintained among all
employees involved in the job.
*
*
*
*
*
(7) Protection against faults. (i) Where
a cable in a manhole or vault has one
or more abnormalities that could lead to
or be an indication of an impending
fault, the defective cable shall be
deenergized before any employee may
work in the manhole or vault, except
when service load conditions and a lack
of feasible alternatives require that the
cable remain energized. In that case,
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34939
employees may enter the manhole or
vault provided they are protected from
the possible effects of a failure by
shields or other devices that are capable
of containing the adverse effects of a
fault.
Note to paragraph (t)(7)(i) of this section:
Abnormalities such as oil or compound
leaking from cable or joints, broken cable
sheaths or joint sleeves, hot localized surface
temperatures of cables or joints, or joints that
are swollen beyond normal tolerance are
presumed to lead to or be an indication of an
impending fault.
(ii) If the work being performed in a
manhole or vault could cause a fault in
a cable, that cable shall be deenergized
before any employee may work in the
manhole or vault, except when service
load conditions and a lack of feasible
alternatives require that the cable
remain energized. In that case,
employees may enter the manhole or
vault provided they are protected from
the possible effects of a failure by
shields or other devices that are capable
of containing the adverse effects of a
fault.
(8) Sheath continuity. When work is
performed on buried cable or on cable
in a manhole or vault, metallic sheath
continuity shall be maintained or the
cable sheath shall be treated as
energized.
*
*
*
*
*
l. In the Notes following paragraphs
(u)(1), (u)(5)(i), (v)(3), and (v)(5)(i),
‘‘ANSI C2–1987’’ would be revised to
read ‘‘ANSI C2–2002’’ wherever it
appears.
m. Definitions of ‘‘Contract
employer,’’ ‘‘Entry,’’ and ‘‘Host
employer’’ would be added, in
alphabetical order, to § 1910.269(x), to
read as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(x) * * *
Contract employer. An employer who
performs work covered by this section
for a host employer.
*
*
*
*
*
Entry (as used in paragraph (e) of this
section). The action by which a person
passes through an opening into an
enclosed space. Entry includes ensuing
work activities in that space and is
considered to have occurred as soon as
any part of the entrant’s body breaks the
plane of an opening into the space.
*
*
*
*
*
Host employer. An employer who
operates and maintains an electric
power generation, transmission, or
distribution installation covered by this
section and who hires a contract
employer to perform work on that
installation.
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34940
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
n. A new Appendix F would be added
to § 1910.269 to read as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
Appendix F to Section 1910.269—
Clothing
I. Introduction
Paragraph (1)(11) of § 1910.269 addresses
clothing worn by an employee. This
paragraph requires employers to: (1) Assess
the workplace for flame and arc hazards
(paragraph (1)(11)(i)); (2) estimate the
available heat energy from electric arcs to
which employees could be exposed
(paragraph (1)(11)(ii)), (3) ensure that
employees wear clothing that has an arc
rating greater than or equal to the available
heat energy (paragraph (1)(11)(v)), (4) ensure
that employees wear clothing that could not
melt or ignite and continue to burn in the
presence of electric arcs to which an
employee could be exposed (paragraph
(1)(11)(iii)), and (5) ensure that employees
wear flame-resistant clothing 1 under certain
conditions (paragraph (1)(11)(iv)). This
appendix contains information to help
employers estimate available heat energy as
required by § 1910.269(1)(11)(ii), select
clothing with an arc rating suitable for the
available heat energy as required by
§ 1910.269(1)(11)(v), and ensure that
employees do not wear flammable clothing
that could lead to burn injury as addressed
by §§ 1910.269(1)(11)(iii) and (1)(11)(iv).
II. Protection Against Burn Injury
A. Estimating Available Heat Energy
The first step in protecting employees from
burn injury resulting from an electric arc is
to estimate the potential heat energy if an arc
does occur. There are various methods of
calculating values of available heat energy
from an electric circuit. These methods are
listed in Table 7. Each method requires the
input of various parameters, such as fault
current, the expected length of the electric
arc, the distance from the arc to the
employee, and the clearing time for the fault
(that is, the time the circuit protective
devices take to open the circuit and clear the
fault). Some of these parameters, such as the
fault current and the clearing time, are
known quantities for a given system. Other
parameters, such as the length of the arc and
the distance between the arc and the
employee, vary widely and can only be
estimated.
1 Flame-resistant clothing includes clothing that
is inherently flame resistant and clothing that has
been chemically treated with a flame retardant. (See
ASTM F1506–02a, Standard Performance
Specification for Textile Materials for Wearing
Apparel for Use by Electrical Workers Exposed to
Momentary Electric Arc and Related Thermal
Hazards.)
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
TABLE 7.—METHODS OF CALCULATING
INCIDENT HEAT ENERGY FROM AN
ELECTRIC ARC
1. Standard for Electrical Safety Requirements for Employee Workplaces, NFPA
70E–2004, Annex D, ‘‘Sample Calculation
of Flash Protection Boundary.’’
2. Doughty, T.E., Neal, T.E., and Floyd II,
H.L., ‘‘Predicting Incident Energy to Better
Manage the Electric Arc Hazard on 600 V
Power Distribution Systems,’’ Record of
Conference Papers IEEE IAS 45th Annual
Petroleum and Chemical Industry Conference, September 28–30, 1998.
3. Guide for Performing Arc Flash Hazard
Calculations, IEEE 1584–2002.
4. Heat Flux Calculator, a free software program created by Alan Privette (widely
available on the Internet).
5. ARCPRO, a commercially available software program developed by Kinectrics, Toronto, ON, CA.
The amount of heat energy calculated by
any of the methods is approximately directly
proportional to the square of the distance
between the employee and the arc. In other
words, if the employee is very close to the
arc, the heat energy is very high; but if he or
she is just a few more centimeters away, the
heat energy drops substantially. Thus,
estimating the distance from the arc to the
employee is key to protecting employees.
In estimating available heat energy, the
employer must make some reasonable
assumptions about how far the employee will
be from the electric arc. In some instances,
such as during some work performed using
live-line tools, the employee will be at least
the minimum approach distance from an
energized part. However, in this situation,
the arc could still extend towards the
employee. Thus, in this case, a reasonable
estimate of the distance between the
employee and the arc would be the minimum
approach distance minus twice the sparkover
distance.2
In other cases, as during rubber glove work,
parts of the employee’s body will be closer
to an energized part than the minimum
approach distance. An employee’s chest will
be about 380 millimeters (15 in.) from an
energized conductor during rubber glove
work on that conductor. Because there
should not be any surfaces at a potential
other than the conductor between the
employee and the conductor, it is reasonable
to assume that the arc will not extend
towards the employee. Thus, in this
situation, it would be reasonable to use 380
millimeters (15 in.) as the distance between
the employee and the arc.
2 The sparkover distance equals the shortest
possible arc length.
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The standard permits an employer to make
broad estimates of available heat energy
covering multiple system areas using
reasonable assumptions about the energy
exposure distribution. For example, the
employer can use the maximum fault current
and clearing time to cover several system
areas at once. Table 8 presents estimates of
available energy for different parts of an
electrical system operating at 4 to 46 kV. The
table is for open-air, phase-to-ground electric
arc exposures typical for overhead systems
operating at these voltages. The table
assumes that the employee will be 380
millimeters (15 in.) from the electric arc,
which is a reasonable estimate for rubber
glove work. To use the table, an employer
would use the voltage, maximum fault
current, and maximum clearing time for a
system area and select the appropriate heat
energy (5, 8, or 12 calories) from the table.
For example, an employer might have a
12,470-volt power line supplying a system
area. The power line can supply a maximum
fault current of 8 kiloamperes with a
maximum clearing time of 10 cycles. This
system falls in the 4.0-to-15.0-kV range; the
fault current is less than 10 kA (the second
row in that voltage range); and the clearing
time is under 14.5 cycles (the first column to
the right of the fault current column). Thus,
the available heat energy for this part of the
system will be 5 calories or less (from the
column heading), and the employer could
select clothing with a 5-calorie rating to meet
§ 1910.269(l)(11)(v).
Table 9 presents similar estimates for
systems operating at voltages of 46.1 to 800
kV. This table is also for open-air, phase-toground electric arc exposures typical for
overhead systems operating at these voltages.
The table assumes that the arc length will be
equal to the sparkover distance 3 and that the
employee will be a distance from the arc
equal to the minimum approach distance
minus twice the arc length.
The employer will need to use other
methods for estimating available heat energy
in situations not addressed by Table 8 or
Table 9. The calculation methods listed in
Table 7 will help employers do this. In
addition, employers can use Table
130.7(C)(9)(a), Table 130.7(C)(10), and Table
130.7(C)(11) of NFPA 70E–2004 to estimate
the available heat energy (and to select
appropriate protective clothing) for many
situations not addressed in the tables in this
appendix, including lower-voltage, phase-tophase arc, and enclosed arc exposures.
3 The dielectric strength of air is about 10 kV for
every 25.4 mm (1 in.). Thus, the arc length can be
estimated to be the phase-to-ground voltage divided
by 10.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
34941
TABLE 8.—AVAILABLE HEAT ENERGY FOR VARIOUS FAULT CURRENTS, CLEARING TIMES, AND
VOLTAGES OF 4.0 TO 46.0 KV
Voltage range
(kV)
Fault current
(kV)
4.0 to 15.0 ........................................................................................................
5-cal maximum clearing
time
(cycles)
8-cal maximum clearing
time
(cycles)
12-cal maximum clearing
time
(cycles)
37.3
14.5
8.0
5.2
34.5
14.2
8.2
5.5
16.9
7.1
4.2
2.9
13.3
5.7
3.5
2.5
59.6
23.2
12.9
8.3
55.2
22.7
13.2
8.8
27.0
11.4
6.8
4.6
21.2
9.1
5.6
4.0
89.4
34.8
19.3
12.5
82.8
34.1
19.8
13.2
40.4
17.1
10.1
6.9
31.9
13.7
8.4
6.0
5
10
15
20
5
10
15
20
5
10
15
20
5
10
15
20
15.1 to 25.0 ......................................................................................................
25.1 to 36.0 ......................................................................................................
36.1 to 46.0 ......................................................................................................
Notes:
(1) This table is for open-air, phase-to-ground electric arc exposures. It is not intended for phase-to-phase arcs or enclosed arcs (arc in a box).
(2) The table assumes that the employee will be 380 mm (15 in.) from the electric arc. The table also assumes the arc length to be the
sparkover distance for the maximum voltage of each voltage range, as follows:
4.0 to 15.0 kV 51 mm (2 in.).
15.1 to 25.0 kV 102 mm (4 in.).
25.1 to 36.0 kV 152 mm (6 in.).
36.1 to 46.0 kV 229 mm (9 in.).
TABLE 9.—AVAILABLE HEAT ENERGY FOR VARIOUS FAULT CURRENTS, CLEARING TIMES, AND
VOLTAGES OF 46.1 TO 800 KV
Voltage range
(kV)
Fault current
(kV)
46.1 to 72.5 ......................................................................................................
72.6 to 121 .......................................................................................................
138 to 145 ........................................................................................................
161 to 169 ........................................................................................................
230 to 242 ........................................................................................................
345 to 362 ........................................................................................................
500 to 550 ........................................................................................................
765 to 800 ........................................................................................................
5-cal maximum clearing
time
(cycles)
8-cal maximum clearing
time
(cycles)
12-cal maximum clearing
time
(cycles)
10.6
6.6
4.6
3.4
10.3
5.9
3.9
2.7
12.2
7.0
4.6
3.3
11.6
7.2
5.0
3.8
13.0
8.0
5.6
4.2
28.3
17.5
12.2
9.2
23.6
14.6
10.2
7.6
54.5
33.7
23.6
17.8
17.0
10.5
7.3
5.5
16.5
9.4
6.2
4.4
19.5
11.2
7.4
5.3
18.6
11.5
8.0
6.0
20.9
12.9
9.0
6.8
45.3
28.1
19.6
14.7
37.8
23.3
16.3
12.2
87.3
53.9
37.8
28.4
25.5
15.8
11.0
8.3
24.7
14.1
9.3
6.6
29.3
16.8
11.1
7.9
27.9
17.2
12.0
9.0
31.3
19.3
13.5
10.1
67.9
42.1
29.4
22.1
56.7
35.0
24.4
18.3
130.9
80.9
56.7
42.6
20
30
40
50
20
30
40
50
20
30
40
50
20
30
40
50
20
30
40
50
20
30
40
50
20
30
40
50
20
30
40
50
Notes:
(1) This table is for open-air, phase-to-ground electric are exposures. It is not intended for phase-to-phase arcs or enclosed arcs (arc in a box)
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34942
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
(2) The table assumes that the arc length will be the phase-to-ground voltage divided by 10 and that the distance from the arc to the employee
is the minumum approach distance minus twice the arc length.
B. Selecting protective clothing
Table 10 presents protective clothing
guidelines for exposure to electric arcs.
Protective clothing meeting the guidelines in
this table are expected, based on extensive
laboratory testing, to be capable of preventing
second-degree burn injury to an employee
exposed to the corresponding range of
calculated incident heat energy from an
electric arc. It should be noted that actual
electric arc exposures may be more or less
severe than the laboratory exposures because
of factors such as arc movement, arc length,
arcing from reclosing of the system,
secondary fires or explosions, and weather
conditions. Therefore, it is possible that an
employee will sustain a second-degree or
worse burn wearing clothing conforming to
the guidelines in Table 10 under certain
circumstances. Such clothing will, however,
provide an appropriate degree of protection
for an employee who is exposed to electric
arc hazards.
TABLE 10.—PROTECTIVE CLOTHING GUIDELINES FOR ELECTRIC ARC HAZARDS
Range of calculated incident
energy
cal/cm 2
Clothing description
(number of layers)
0–2 ....................
2–5 ....................
5–10 ..................
10–20 ................
20–40 ................
Untreated Cotton (1) .................................................................................................................
FR Shirt (1) ...............................................................................................................................
T-Shirt plus FR Shirt and FR Pants (2) ....................................................................................
T-Shirt plus FR Shirt plus FR Coverall (3) ...............................................................................
T-Shirt plus FR Shirt plus Double Layer Switching Coat (4) ...................................................
Clothing
weight
oz/yd 2
4.5–7
4.5–8
9–12
16–20
24–30
Arc thermal
performance
value
(ATPV)
N/A
5–7
10–17
22–25
55
FR—Flame resistant.
ATPV—Arc Thermal Performance Value based on ASTM F1959 test method. (The method was modified as necessary to test the performance
of the three- and four-layer systems.)
Source: ‘‘Protective Clothing Guidelines for Electric Arc Exposure,’’ Neal, T. E. Bingham, A. H., Doughty, R. L., IEEE Petroleum and Chemical
Industry Conference Record, September 1996, p. 294.
It should be noted that Table 10 permits
untreated cotton clothing for exposures of 2cal/cm2 or less. Cotton clothing will reduce
a 2-cal/cm2 exposure below the 1.6-cal/cm2
level necessary to cause burn injury and is
not expected to ignite at such low heat
energy levels. Although untreated cotton
clothing is deemed to meet the requirement
for suitable arc ratings in § 1910.269(l)(11)(v)
and the prohibition against clothing that
could ignite and continue to burn in
§ 1910.269(l)(11)(iii) when the available heat
energy is 2 cal/cm2 or less, this type of
clothing is still prohibited under certain
conditions by § 1910.269(l)(11)(iv), as
discussed further below.
Protective performance of any particular
fabric type generally increases with fabric
weight, as long as the fabric does not ignite
and continue to burn. Multiple layers of
clothing usually block more heat and are
normally more protective than a single layer
of the equivalent weight.
Exposed skin is expected to sustain a
second-degree burn for incident energy levels
of 1.6 cal/cm2 or more. Though it is not
required by the standard, if the heat energy
estimated under § 1910.269(l)(11)(ii) is
greater than or equal to 1.6 cal/cm2, the
employer should require each exposed
employee to have no more than 10 percent
of his or her body unprotected. Due to the
unpredictable nature of electric arcs, the
employer should also consider requiring the
protection of bare skin from any exposure
exceeding 0.8 cal/cm2 so as to minimize the
risk of burn injury.
III. Protection Against Ignition
Paragraph (l)(11)(iii) of § 1910.269
prohibits clothing that could melt onto an
employee’s skin or that could ignite and
continue to burn when exposed to the
available heat energy estimated by the
employer. Meltable fabrics, such as acetate,
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
nylon, and polyester, even in blends, must be
avoided. When these fibers melt, they can
adhere to the skin, transferring heat more
rapidly, exacerbating any burns, and
complicating treatment. This can be true
even if the meltable fabric is not directly next
to the skin. The remainder of this section
focuses on the prevention of ignition.
Paragraph (l)(11)(v) of § 1910.269 requires
clothing with an arc rating greater than or
equal to the employer’s estimate of available
heat energy. As explained earlier, untreated
cotton is acceptable for exposures of 2 cal/
cm2 or less. If the exposure is greater than
that, the employee must wear flame-resistant
clothing with a suitable arc rating. However,
even though an employee is wearing a layer
of flame-resistant clothing, there are
circumstances under which flammable layers
of clothing would be exposed and subject to
ignition. For example, if the employee is
wearing flammable clothing (for example,
winter coveralls) over the layer of flameresistant clothing, the outer flammable layer
can ignite. Similarly, clothing ignition is
possible if the employee is wearing
flammable clothing under the flame-resistant
clothing and the underlayer is exposed by an
opening in the flame-resistant clothing. Thus,
it is important for the employer to consider
the possibility of clothing ignition even when
an employee is wearing clothing with a
suitable arc rating.
Table 11 lists the minimum heat energy
under electric arc conditions that can
reasonably be expected to ignite different
weights and colors of cotton fabrics. The
values listed, expressed in calories per square
centimeter, represent a 10 percent probability
of ignition with a 95 percent confidence
level. If the heat energy estimated under
§ 1910.269(l)(11)(ii) does not exceed the
values listed in Table 11 for a particular
weight and color of cotton fabric, then an
outer layer of that material would not be
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
expected to ignite and would be considered
as being permitted under
§ 1910.269(l)(11)(iii).4 Conversely, if the heat
energy estimated under § 1910.269(l)(11)(ii)
exceeds the values listed in Table 11 for a
particular weight and color of cotton fabric,
that material may not be worn as an outer
layer of garment and may not be otherwise
exposed due to an opening in the flameresistant clothing.
For white cotton fabrics of a different
weight from those listed, choose the next
lower weight of white cotton fabric listed in
Table 11. For cotton fabrics of a different
color and weight combination than those
listed, select a value from the table
corresponding to an equal or lesser weight of
blue cotton fabric. For example, for a 6.0-oz/
yd2 brown twill fabric, select 4.6 cal/cm2 for
the ignition threshold, which corresponds to
5.2-oz/yd2 blue twill. If a white garment has
a silkscreen logo, insignia, or other similar
design included on it, then the entire
garment will be considered as being of a
color other than white. (The darker portion
of the garment can ignite earlier than the rest
of the garment, which would cause the entire
garment to burn.)
Employers may choose to test samples of
genuine garments rather than rely on the
values given in Table 11. The appropriate
electric arc ignition test method is given in
ASTM F 1958/F 1958M–99, Standard Test
Method for Determining the Ignitability of
Non-flame-Resistant Materials for Clothing
by Electric Arc Exposure Method Using
Mannequins. Using this test method,
employers may substitute actual test data
analysis results representing an energy level
that is reasonably certain not to be capable
4 An underlayer of clothing with an arc rating
greater than or equal to the estimate of available
heat energy would still be required under
§ 1910.269(l)(11)(v).
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
of igniting the fabric. For example, based on
test data, the employer may select a level
representing a 10 percent probability of
ignition with a 95 percent confidence level,
representing a 1 percent probability of
ignition according to actual test results, or
representing an energy level that is two
standard deviations below the mean ignition
34943
threshold. The employer may also select
some other comparable level.
TABLE 11.—IGNITION THRESHOLD FOR COTTON FABRICS
Fabric description
Ignition threshold
(cal/cm 2)
Weight (oz/
yd 2
Color
Weave
4.6 ............
5.2 ............
6.2 ............
6.9 ............
8.0 ............
8.3 ............
11.9 ..........
12.8 ..........
13.3 ..........
White ...............................................................................
Blue .................................................................................
White ...............................................................................
Blue .................................................................................
Black ................................................................................
White ...............................................................................
Tan ..................................................................................
Blue .................................................................................
Blue .................................................................................
Jersey knit .......................................................................
Twill .................................................................................
Fleece ..............................................................................
Twill .................................................................................
Twill .................................................................................
Sateen .............................................................................
Duck ................................................................................
Denim ..............................................................................
Denim ..............................................................................
4.3
4.6
6.4
5.3
6.1
11.6
11.3
15.5
15.9
Source: ‘‘Testing Update on Protective Clothing & Equipment for Electric Arc Exposure,’’ IEEE Paper No. PCIC–97–35.
Clothing loses weight as it wears. This can
lower the ignition threshold, especially if the
garment has threadbare areas or is torn.
Adding layers of clothing beneath an outer
layer of flammable fabric has no significant
effect on the heat energy needed to ignite the
outer fabric layer. Therefore, the outer layer
of clothing must be treated as if it were a
single layer to determine the proper ignition
threshold.
Flammable clothing worn in conjunction
with flame-resistant clothing is not permitted
to pose an ignition hazard.5 Flammable
clothing may not be worn as an outer layer
if it could be exposed to heat energy above
the ignition threshold. Outer flame-resistant
layers may not have openings that expose
flammable inner layers that could be ignited.
When an outer flame-resistant layer would
be unable to resist breakopen,6 the next
(inner) layer should be flame-resistant.
Grounding conductors can become a
source of electric arcing if they cannot carry
fault current without failure. These possible
sources of electric arcs 7 must be considered
in determining whether the employee’s
clothing could ignite under
§ 1910.269(l)(11)(iv)(C).
Flammable clothing can also be ignited by
arcing that occurs when a conductor contacts
an employee or by nearby material that
ignites upon exposure to an electric arc.
These sources of ignition must be considered
in determining whether the employee’s
clothing could ignite under
§ 1910.269(l)(11)(iv)(A) and (l)(11)(iv)(C).
o. A new Appendix G would be added to
§ 1910.269 to read as follows:
5 Paragraph (l)(11)(iii) of § 1910.269 prohibits
clothing that could ignite and continue to burn
when exposed to the heat energy estimated under
paragraph (l)(11)(ii).
6 Breakopen is the creation of holes, tears, or
cracks in the exposed fabric such that incident
energy is not longer effectively blocked.
7 Static wires and pole ground are examples of
grounding conductors that might not be capable of
carrying fault current without failure. Grounds that
can carry the maximum available fault current are
not a concern and need not be considered a possible
electric arc souce.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
Appendix G to Section 1910.269—Work
Positioning Equipment Inspection Guidelines
I. Body Belts
Inspect body belts to ensure that:
A. Hardware has no cracks, nicks,
distortion, or corrosion;
B. No loose or worn rivets are present;
C. The waist strap has no loose grommets;
D. The fastening straps are not made of 100
percent leather;
E. No worn materials that could affect the
safety of the user are present; and
F. D-rings are compatible with the
snaphooks with which they will be used.
Note: An incompatibility between a
snaphook and a D-ring may cause snaphook
rollout, or unintentional disengagement of
the snaphook from the D-ring. Employers
should take extra precaution when
determining compatibility between
snaphooks and D-rings of different
manufacturers.
II. Positioning Straps
Inspect positioning straps to ensure that:
A. The warning center of the strap material
is not exposed;
B. No cuts, burns, extra holes, or fraying of
strap material is present;
C. Rivets are properly secured;
D. Straps are not made from 100 percent
leather; and
E. Snaphooks do not have cracks, burns, or
corrosion.
III. Climbers
Inspect pole and tree climbers to ensure
that:
A. Gaffs on pole climbers are no less than
32 millimeters in length measured on the
underside of the gaff;
B. Gaffs on tree climbers are no less than
51 millimeters in length measured on the
underside of the gaff;
C. Gaffs and leg irons are not fractured or
cracked;
D. Stirrups and leg irons are free of
excessive wear;
E. Gaffs are not loose;
F. Gaffs are free of deformation that could
adversely affect use;
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
G. Gaffs are properly sharpened; and
H. There are no broken straps or buckles.
PART 1926—[Amended]
Subpart E—Personal Protective and
Life Saving Equipment
6. The authority citation for Subpart
E of Part 1926 would be revised to read
as follows:
Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours
and Safety Standards Act (Construction
Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333); Secs. 4, 6, and
8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act
of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary
of Labor’s Order No. 12–71 (36 FR 8754), 8–
76 (41 FR 25059), 9–83 (48 FR 35736), 1–90
(55 FR 9033), 6–96 (62 FR 111), or 5–2002
(67 F.R. 65008) as applicable; and 29 CFR
Part 1911.
7. Section 1926.97 would be added to
read as follows:
§ 1926.97
Electrical protective equipment.
(a) Design requirements. Insulating
blankets, matting, covers, line hose,
gloves, and sleeves made of rubber shall
meet the following requirements:
(1) Manufacture and marking of
rubber insulating equipment. (i)
Blankets, gloves, and sleeves shall be
produced by a seamless process.
(ii) Each item shall be clearly marked
as follows:
(A) Class 00 equipment shall be
marked Class 00.
(B) Class 0 equipment shall be marked
Class 0.
(C) Class 1 equipment shall be marked
Class 1.
(D) Class 2 equipment shall be marked
Class 2.
(E) Class 3 equipment shall be marked
Class 3.
(F) Class 4 equipment shall be marked
Class 4.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34944
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
(G) Nonozone-resistant equipment
other than matting shall be marked Type
I.
(H) Ozone-resistant equipment other
than matting shall be marked Type II.
(I) Other relevant markings, such as
the manufacturer’s identification and
the size of the equipment, may also be
provided.
(iii) Markings shall be nonconducting
and shall be applied in such a manner
as not to impair the insulating qualities
of the equipment.
(iv) Markings on gloves shall be
confined to the cuff portion of the glove.
(2) Electrical requirements. (i)
Equipment shall be capable of
withstanding the a-c proof-test voltage
specified in Table E–1 or the d-c prooftest voltage specified in Table E–2.
(A) The proof test shall reliably
indicate that the equipment can
withstand the voltage involved.
(B) The test voltage shall be applied
continuously for 3 minutes for
equipment other than matting and shall
be applied continuously for 1 minute for
matting.
(C) Gloves shall also be capable of
withstanding the a-c proof-test voltage
specified in Table E–1 after a 16-hour
water soak. (See the note following
paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(B) of this section.)
(ii) When the a–c proof test is used on
gloves, the 60-hertz proof-test current
may not exceed the values specified in
Table E–1 at any time during the test
period.
(A) If the a–c proof test is made at a
frequency other than 60 hertz, the
permissible proof-test current shall be
computed from the direct ratio of the
frequencies.
(B) For the test, gloves (right side out)
shall be filled with tap water and
immersed in water to a depth that is in
accordance with Table E–3. Water shall
be added to or removed from the glove,
as necessary, so that the water level is
the same inside and outside the glove.
(C) After the 16-hour water soak
specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i)(C) of this
section, the 60-hertz proof-test current
may exceed the values given in Table E–
1 by not more than 2 milliamperes.
(iii) Equipment that has been
subjected to a minimum breakdown
voltage test may not be used for
electrical protection. (See the note
following paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(B) of this
section.)
(iv) Material used for Type II
insulating equipment shall be capable of
withstanding an ozone test, with no
visible effects. The ozone test shall
reliably indicate that the material will
resist ozone exposure in actual use. Any
visible signs of ozone deterioration of
the material, such as checking, cracking,
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
breaks, or pitting, is evidence of failure
to meet the requirements for ozoneresistant material. (See the note
following paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(B) of this
section.)
(3) Workmanship and finish. (i)
Equipment shall be free of harmful
physical irregularities that can be
detected by the tests or inspections
required under this section.
(ii) Surface irregularities that may be
present on all rubber goods because of
imperfections on forms or molds or
because of inherent difficulties in the
manufacturing process and that may
appear as indentations, protuberances,
or imbedded foreign material are
acceptable under the following
conditions:
(A) The indentation or protuberance
blends into a smooth slope when the
material is stretched.
(B) Foreign material remains in place
when the insulating material is folded
and stretches with the insulating
material surrounding it.
Note to paragraph (a) of this section:
Rubber insulating equipment meeting the
following national consensus standards is
deemed to be in compliance with paragraph
(a) of this section:
American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) D 120–02a, Standard Specification
for Rubber Insulating Gloves.
ASTM D 178–01 e1, Standard
Specification for Rubber Insulating
Matting.
ASTM D 1048–99, Standard
Specification for Rubber Insulating
Blankets.
ASTM D 1049–98e1, Standard
Specification for Rubber Insulating
Covers.
ASTM D 1050–90, Standard
Specification for Rubber Insulating Line
Hose.
ASTM D 1051–02, Standard
Specification for Rubber Insulating
Sleeves.
These standards contain
specifications for conducting the
various tests required in paragraph (a) of
this section. For example, the a–c and
d–c proof tests, the breakdown test, the
water soak procedure, and the ozone
test mentioned in this paragraph are
described in detail in the ASTM
standards.
ASTM F 1236–96, Standard Guide for
Visual Inspection of Electrical
Protective Rubber Products, presents
methods and techniques for the visual
inspection of electrical protective
equipment made of rubber. This guide
also contains descriptions and
photographs of irregularities that can be
found in this equipment.
ASTM F 819–00 e1, Standard
Terminology Relating to Electrical
PO 00000
Frm 00124
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Protective Equipment for Workers,
includes definitions of terms relating to
the electrical protective equipment
covered under this section.
(b) Requirements for other types of
electrical protective equipment. The
following requirements apply to the
design and manufacture of electrical
protective equipment that is not covered
by paragraph (a) of this section:
(1) Voltage withstand. Insulating
equipment used for the protection of
employees shall be capable of
withstanding, without failure, the
voltages that may be imposed upon it.
Note to paragraph (b)(1) of this section:
Such voltages include transient overvoltages,
such as switching surges, as well as nominal
line voltage. See Appendix B to Subpart V of
this Part for a discussion of transient
overvoltages on electric power transmission
and distribution systems.
(2) Equipment current. (i) Protective
equipment used for the primary
insulation of employees from energized
circuit parts shall be capable of passing
a current test when subjected to the
highest nominal voltage on which the
equipment is to be used.
(ii) When insulating equipment is
tested in accordance with paragraph
(b)(2)(i) of this section, the equipment
current may not exceed 1 microampere
per kilovolt of phase-to-phase applied
voltage.
Note 1 to paragraph (b)(2) of this section:
This paragraph applies to equipment that
provides primary insulation of employees
from energized parts. It is not intended to
apply to equipment used for secondary
insulation or equipment used for brush
contact only.
Note 2 to paragraph (b)(2) of this section:
For a-c excitation, this current consists of
three components:
1. Capacitive current because of the
dielectric properties of the insulating
material itself,
2. Conduction current through the volume
of the insulating equipment, and
3. Leakage current along the surface of the
tool or equipment.
The conduction current is normally
negligible. For clean, dry insulating
equipment, the leakage current is small, and
the capacitive current predominates.
(c) In-service care and use of rubber
insulating equipment. (1) General.
Electrical protective equipment shall be
maintained in a safe, reliable condition.
(2) Specific requirements. The
following specific requirements apply to
insulating blankets, covers, line hose,
gloves, and sleeves made of rubber:
(i) Maximum use voltages shall
conform to those listed in Table E–4.
(ii) Insulating equipment shall be
inspected for damage before each day’s
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Note to paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(A) of this
section: Extra care is needed in the visual
examination of the glove and in the
avoidance of handling sharp objects.
use and immediately following any
incident that can reasonably be
suspected of having caused damage.
Insulating gloves shall be given an air
test, along with the inspection.
Note to paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section:
ASTM F 1236–96, Standard Guide for Visual
Inspection of Electrical Protective Rubber
Products, presents methods and techniques
for the visual inspection of electrical
protective equipment made of rubber. This
guide also contains descriptions and
photographs of irregularities that can be
found in this equipment.
(iii) Insulating equipment with any of
the following defects may not be used:
(A) A hole, tear, puncture, or cut;
(B) Ozone cutting or ozone checking
(the cutting action produced by ozone
on rubber under mechanical stress into
a series of interlacing cracks);
(C) An embedded foreign object;
(D) Any of the following texture
changes: swelling, softening, hardening,
or becoming sticky or inelastic.
(E) Any other defect that damages the
insulating properties.
(iv) Insulating equipment found to
have other defects that might affect its
insulating properties shall be removed
from service and returned for testing
under paragraphs (c)(2)(viii) and
(c)(2)(ix) of this section.
(v) Insulating equipment shall be
cleaned as needed to remove foreign
substances.
(vi) Insulating equipment shall be
stored in such a location and in such a
manner as to protect it from light,
temperature extremes, excessive
humidity, ozone, and other injurious
substances and conditions.
(vii) Protector gloves shall be worn
over insulating gloves, except as
follows:
(A) Protector gloves need not be used
with Class 0 or Class 00 gloves, under
limited-use conditions, where small
equipment and parts manipulation
necessitate unusually high finger
dexterity.
(B) Any other class of glove may be
used for similar work without protector
gloves if the employer can demonstrate
that the possibility of physical damage
to the gloves is small and if the class of
glove is one class higher than that
required for the voltage involved.
(C) Insulating gloves that have been
used without protector gloves may not
be reused until they have been tested
under the provisions of paragraphs
(c)(2)(viii) and (c)(2)(ix) of this section.
(viii) Electrical protective equipment
shall be subjected to periodic electrical
tests. Test voltages and the maximum
intervals between tests shall be in
accordance with Table E–4 and Table E–
5.
(ix) The test method used under
paragraphs (c)(2)(viii) and (c)(2)(xi) of
this section shall reliably indicate
whether the insulating equipment can
withstand the voltages involved.
Note to paragraph (c)(2)(ix) of this section:
Standard electrical test methods considered
as meeting this requirement are given in the
following national consensus standards:
American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) D 120–02a, Standard Specification
for Rubber Insulating Gloves.
ASTM D 1048–99, Standard Specification
for Rubber Insulating Blankets.
ASTM D 1049–98e1, Standard
Specification for Rubber Insulating Covers.
ASTM D 1050–90, Standard Specification
for Rubber Insulating Line Hose.
ASTM D 1051–02, Standard Specification
for Rubber Insulating Sleeves.
ASTM F 478–92, Standard Specification
for In-Service Care of Insulating Line Hose
and Covers.
ASTM F 479–95, Standard Specification
for In-Service Care of Insulating Blankets.
ASTM F 496–02a, Standard Specification
for In-Service Care of Insulating Gloves and
Sleeves.
34945
(x) Insulating equipment failing to
pass inspections or electrical tests may
not be used by employees, except as
follows:
(A) Rubber insulating line hose may
be used in shorter lengths with the
defective portion cut off.
(B) Rubber insulating blankets may be
salvaged by severing the defective area
from the undamaged portion of the
blanket. The resulting undamaged area
may not be smaller than 560 mm by 560
mm (22 inches by 22 inches) for Class
1, 2, 3, and 4 blankets.
(C) Rubber insulating blankets may be
repaired using a compatible patch that
results in physical and electrical
properties equal to those of the blanket.
(D) Rubber insulating gloves and
sleeves with minor physical defects,
such as small cuts, tears, or punctures,
may be repaired by the application of a
compatible patch. Also, rubber
insulating gloves and sleeves with
minor surface blemishes may be
repaired with a compatible liquid
compound. The repaired area shall have
electrical and physical properties equal
to those of the surrounding material.
Repairs to gloves are permitted only in
the area between the wrist and the
reinforced edge of the opening.
(xi) Repaired insulating equipment
shall be retested before it may be used
by employees.
(xii) The employer shall certify that
equipment has been tested in
accordance with the requirements of
paragraphs (c)(2)(iv), (c)(2)(vii)(C),
(c)(2)(viii), (c)(2)(ix), and (c)(2)(xi) of
this section. The certification shall
identify the equipment that passed the
test and the date it was tested.
Note to paragraph (c)(2)(xii) of this
section: Marking of equipment and entering
onto logs the results of the tests and the dates
of testing are two acceptable means of
meeting this requirement.
TABLE E–1.—A–C PROOF-TEST REQUIREMENTS
Proof-test
voltage
rms V
Class of equipment
00 .............................................................................................................
0 ...............................................................................................................
1 ...............................................................................................................
2 ...............................................................................................................
3 ...............................................................................................................
4 ...............................................................................................................
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00125
Fmt 4701
2,500
5,000
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
Sfmt 4702
Maximum proof-test current, mA
(gloves only)
267-mm
(10.5-in)
glove
356-mm
(14-in)
glove
406-mm
(16-in)
glove
457-mm
(18-in)
glove
8
8
....................
....................
....................
....................
12
12
14
16
18
....................
....................
14
16
18
20
22
....................
16
18
20
22
24
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34946
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
TABLE E–2.—D–C PROOF-TEST REQUIREMENTS
Proof-test
voltage
Class of equipment
00 .............................................................................................................................................................................................................
0 ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................
1 ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................
2 ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................
3 ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................
4 ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................
10,000
20,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
Note: The d-c voltages listed in this table are not appropriate for proof testing rubber insulating line hose or covers. For this equipment, d-c
proof tests shall use a voltage high enough to indicate that the equipment can be safely used at the voltages listed in Table E–4. See ASTM D
1050–90 and ASTM D 1049–98e1 for further information on proof tests for rubber insulating line hose and covers, respectively.
TABLE E–3.—GLOVE TESTS—WATER LEVEL 1
2
A–C proof test
D–C proof test
Class of glove
mm
00 .....................................................................................................................................
0 .......................................................................................................................................
1 .......................................................................................................................................
2 .......................................................................................................................................
3 .......................................................................................................................................
4 .......................................................................................................................................
in
38
38
38
64
89
127
mm
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
5.0
in
38
38
51
76
102
153
1.5
1.5
2.0
3.0
4.0
6.0
water level is given as the clearance from the cuff of the glove to the water line, with a tolerance of ±13 mm. (±0.5 in.).
atmospheric conditions make the specified clearances impractical, the clearances may be increased by a maximum of 25 mm. (1 in.).
1 The
2 If
TABLE E–4.—RUBBER INSULATING EQUIPMENT VOLTAGE REQUIREMENTS
Maximum
use voltage 1
A–C rms
Class of
equipment
00 ...........................................................................................................................................
0 .............................................................................................................................................
1 .............................................................................................................................................
2 .............................................................................................................................................
3 .............................................................................................................................................
4 .............................................................................................................................................
Retest
voltage 2
A–C rms
500
1,000
7,500
17,000
26,000
36,000
2,500
5,000
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
Retest
voltage 2
D–C avg
10,000
20,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
1 The maximum use voltage is the a-c voltage (rms) classification of the protective equipment that designates the maximum nominal design
voltage of the energized system that may be safely worked. The nominal design voltage is equal to the phase-to-phase voltage on multiphase
circuits. However, the phase-to-ground potential is considered to be the nominal design voltage:
(1) If there is no multiphase exposure in a system area and if the voltage exposure is limited to the phase-to-ground potential, or
(2) If the electrical equipment and devices are insulated or isolated or both so that the multiphase exposure on a grounded wye circuit is removed.
2 The proof-test voltage shall be applied continuously for at least 1 minute, but no more than 3 minutes.
TABLE E–5.—RUBBER INSULATING EQUIPMENT TEST INTERVALS
Type of equipment
When to test
Rubber insulating line hose ......................................................................
Rubber insulating covers ..........................................................................
Rubber insulating blankets .......................................................................
Upon indication that insulating value is suspect and after repair.
Upon indication that insulating value is suspect and after repair.
Before first issue and every 12 months thereafter; 1 upon indication that
insulating value is suspect; and after repair.
Before first issue and every 6 months thereafter; 1 upon indication that
insulating value is suspect; after repair; and after use without protectors.
Before first issue and every 12 months thereafter; 1 upon indication that
insulating value is suspect; and after repair.
Rubber insulating gloves ..........................................................................
Rubber insulating sleeves ........................................................................
1 If the insulating equipment has been electrically tested but not issued for service, it may not be placed into service unless it has been electrically tested within the previous 12 months.
8. The authority citation for Subpart
V of Part 1926 would be revised to read
as follows:
Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours
and Safety Standards Act (Construction
Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333); Secs. 4, 6, and
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act
of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary
of Labor’s Order No. 12–71 (36 FR 8754), 8–
76 (41 FR 25059), 9–83 (48 FR 35736), 1–90
(55 FR 9033), 6–96 (62 FR 111), or 5–2002
PO 00000
Frm 00126
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(67 F.R. 65008) as applicable; and 29 CFR
Part 1911.
9. Subpart V of Part 1926 would be
revised to read as follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Subpart V—Electric Power
Transmission and Distribution
Sec.
1926.950 General.
1926.951 Medical services and first aid.
1926.952 Job briefing.
1926.953 Enclosed spaces.
1926.954 Personal protective equipment.
1926.955 Ladders and platforms.
1926.956 Hand and portable power tools.
1926.957 Live-line tools.
1926.958 Materials handling and storage.
1926.959 Mechanical equipment.
1926.960 Working on or near exposed
energized parts.
1926.961 Deenergizing lines and equipment
for employee protection.
1926.962 Grounding for the protection of
employees.
1926.963 Testing and test facilities.
1926.964 Overhead lines.
1926.965 Underground electrical
installations.
1926.966 Substations.
1926.967 Special conditions.
1926.968 Definitions applicable to this
subpart.
Subpart V—Electric Power
Transmission and Distribution
§ 1926.950
General.
(a) Application. (1) Scope. This
subpart, except for paragraph (a)(3) of
this section, covers the construction of
electric power transmission and
distribution lines and equipment. As
used in this subpart the term
‘‘construction’’ includes the erection of
new electric transmission and
distribution lines and equipment, and
the alteration, conversion, and
improvement of existing electric
transmission and distribution lines and
equipment.
(2) Other Part 1926 standards. This
subpart applies in addition to all other
applicable standards contained in this
Part 1926. Employers covered under this
subpart are not exempt from complying
with other applicable provisions in Part
1926 by the operation of § 1910.5(c) of
this chapter. Specific references in this
subpart to other sections of Part 1926
are provided for emphasis only.
(3) Applicable Part 1910
requirements. Line-clearance treetrimming operations and work involving
electric power generation installations
shall comply with § 1910.269 of this
chapter.
(b) Training. (1) All employees. (i)
Employees shall be trained in and
familiar with the safety-related work
practices, safety procedures, and other
safety requirements in this subpart that
pertain to their respective job
assignments.
(ii) Employees shall also be trained in
and familiar with any other safety
practices, including applicable
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
emergency procedures (such as pole top
and manhole rescue), that are not
specifically addressed by this subpart
but that are related to their work and are
necessary for their safety.
(iii) The degree of training shall be
determined by the risk to the employee
for the task involved.
(2) Qualified employees. Each
qualified employee shall also be trained
and competent in:
(i) The skills and techniques
necessary to distinguish exposed live
parts from other parts of electric
equipment,
(ii) The skills and techniques
necessary to determine the nominal
voltage of exposed live parts,
(iii) The minimum approach distances
specified in this subpart corresponding
to the voltages to which the qualified
employee will be exposed,
(iv) The proper use of the special
precautionary techniques, personal
protective equipment, insulating and
shielding materials, and insulated tools
for working on or near exposed
energized parts of electric equipment,
and
(v) The recognition of electrical
hazards to which the employee may be
exposed and the skills and techniques
necessary to control or avoid those
hazards.
Note to paragraph (b)(2) of this section:
For the purposes of this subpart, a person
must have the training required by paragraph
(b)(2) of this section in order to be considered
a qualified person.
(3) Supervision and annual
inspection. The employer shall
determine, through regular supervision
and through inspections conducted on
at least an annual basis, that each
employee is complying with the safetyrelated work practices required by this
subpart.
(4) Additional training. An employee
shall receive additional training (or
retraining) under any of the following
conditions:
(i) If the supervision or annual
inspections required by paragraph (b)(3)
of this section indicate that the
employee is not complying with the
safety-related work practices required
by this subpart, or
(ii) If new technology, new types of
equipment, or changes in procedures
necessitate the use of safety-related
work practices that are different from
those which the employee would
normally use, or
(iii) If he or she must employ safetyrelated work practices that are not
normally used during his or her regular
job duties.
PO 00000
Frm 00127
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34947
Note to paragraph (b)(4)(iii) of this section:
OSHA would consider tasks that are
performed less often than once per year to
necessitate retraining before the performance
of the work practices involved.
(5) Type of training. The training
required by paragraph (b) of this section
shall be of the classroom or on-the-job
type.
(6) Training goals. The training shall
establish employee proficiency in the
work practices required by this subpart
and shall introduce the procedures
necessary for compliance with this
subpart.
(7) Demonstration of proficiency. The
employer shall determine that each
employee has demonstrated proficiency
in the work practices involved before
that employee is considered as having
completed the training required by
paragraph (b) of this section.
Note 1 to paragraph (b)(7) of this section:
Though they are not required by this
paragraph, employment records that indicate
that an employee has successfully completed
the required training are one way of keeping
track of when an employee has demonstrated
proficiency.
Note 2 to paragraph (b)(7) of this section:
Employers may rely on an employee’s
previous training as long as the employer: (1)
Confirms that the employee has the job
experience appropriate to the work to be
performed, (2) through an examination or
interview, makes an initial determination
that the employee is proficient in the relevant
safety-related work practices before he or she
performs any work covered by this subpart,
and (3) supervises the employee closely until
that employee has demonstrated proficiency
in all the work practices he or she will
employ.
(c) Contractors. (1) Host employer
responsibilities. (i) The host employer
shall inform contract employers of:
(A) Known hazards that are covered
by this section, that are related to the
contract employer’s work, and that
might not be recognized by the contract
employer or its employees; and
(B) Information about the employer’s
installation that the contract employer
needs to make the assessments required
by this subpart.
(ii) The host employer shall report
observed contract-employer-related
violations of this section to the contract
employer.
(2) Contract employer responsibilities.
(i) The contract employer shall ensure
that each of his or her employees is
instructed in the hazards communicated
to the contract employer by the host
employer.
Note to paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section:
This instruction is in addition to the training
required by paragraph (b) of this section.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34948
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
(ii) The contract employer shall
ensure that each of his or her employees
follows the work practices required by
this subpart and safety-related work
rules required by the host employer.
(iii) The contract employer shall
advise the host employer of:
(A) Any unique hazards presented by
the contract employer’s work,
(B) Any unanticipated hazards found
during the contract employer’s work
that the host employer did not mention,
and
(C) The measures the contractor took
to correct any violations reported by the
host employer under paragraph (c)(1)(ii)
of this section and to prevent such
violations from recurring in the future.
(d) Existing conditions. Existing
conditions related to the safety of the
work to be performed shall be
determined before work on or near
electric lines or equipment is started.
Such conditions include, but are not
limited to, the nominal voltages of lines
and equipment, the maximum switching
transient voltages, the presence of
hazardous induced voltages, the
presence and condition of protective
grounds and equipment grounding
conductors, the condition of poles,
environmental conditions relative to
safety, and the locations of circuits and
equipment, including power and
communication lines and fire protective
signaling circuits.
§ 1926.951
Medical services and first aid.
(a) General. The employer shall
provide medical services and first aid as
required in § 1926.50.
(b) Additional requirements. In
addition to the requirements of
§ 1926.50, the following requirements
also apply:
(1) Cardiopulmonary resuscitation
and first aid training. When employees
are performing work on or associated
with exposed lines or equipment
energized at 50 volts or more, persons
trained in first aid including
cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)
shall be available as follows:
(i) For field work involving two or
more employees at a work location, at
least two trained persons shall be
available. However, only one trained
person need be available if all new
employees are trained in first aid,
including CPR, within 3 months of their
hiring dates.
(ii) For fixed work locations such as
substations, the number of trained
persons available shall be sufficient to
ensure that each employee exposed to
electric shock can be reached within 4
minutes by a trained person. However,
where the existing number of employees
is insufficient to meet this requirement
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
(at a remote substation, for example), all
employees at the work location shall be
trained.
(2) First aid supplies. First aid
supplies required by § 1926.50(d) shall
be placed in weatherproof containers if
the supplies could be exposed to the
weather.
(3) First aid kits. Each first aid kit
shall be maintained, shall be readily
available for use, and shall be inspected
frequently enough to ensure that
expended items are replaced, but at
least once per year.
§ 1926.952
Job briefing.
(a) Before each job. (1) Initial briefing
by the employer. In assigning an
employee or a group of employees to
perform a job, the employer shall
provide the employee in charge of the
job with available information necessary
to perform the job safely.
Note to paragraph (a)(1) of this section:
The information provided by the employer to
the employee in charge is intended to
supplement the training required under
§ 1926.950(b). It may be provided at the
beginning of the day for all jobs to be
performed that day rather than at the start of
each job. The information is also intended to
be general in nature, with work-site specific
information to be provided by the employee
in charge after the crew arrives at the work
site.
(2) Briefing by the employee in charge.
The employer shall ensure that the
employee in charge conducts a job
briefing meeting paragraphs (b), (c), and
(d) of this section with the employees
involved before they start each job.
(b) Subjects to be covered. The
briefing shall cover at least the
following subjects: hazards associated
with the job, work procedures involved,
special precautions, energy source
controls, and personal protective
equipment requirements.
(c) Number of briefings. (1) One before
each shift. If the work or operations to
be performed during the work day or
shift are repetitive and similar, at least
one job briefing shall be conducted
before the start of the first job of each
day or shift.
(2) Additional briefings. Additional
job briefings shall be held if significant
changes, which might affect the safety of
the employees, occur during the course
of the work.
(d) Extent of briefing. (1) Short
discussion. A brief discussion is
satisfactory if the work involved is
routine and if the employees, by virtue
of training and experience, can
reasonably be expected to recognize and
avoid the hazards involved in the job.
PO 00000
Frm 00128
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(2) Detailed discussion. A more
extensive discussion shall be
conducted:
(i) If the work is complicated or
particularly hazardous, or
(ii) If the employee cannot be
expected to recognize and avoid the
hazards involved in the job.
Note to paragraph (d) of this section: The
briefing must always touch on all the subjects
listed in paragraph (b) of this section.
(e) Working alone. An employee
working alone need not conduct a job
briefing. However, the employer shall
ensure that the tasks to be performed are
planned as if a briefing were required.
§ 1926.953
Enclosed spaces.
(a) General. This paragraph covers
enclosed spaces that may be entered by
employees. It does not apply to vented
vaults if a determination is made that
the ventilation system is operating to
protect employees before they enter the
space. This paragraph applies to routine
entry into enclosed spaces. If, after the
precautions given in this section and in
§ 1926.965 are taken, the hazards
remaining in the enclosed space
endanger the life of an entrant or could
interfere with escape from the space,
then entry into the enclosed space shall
meet the permit-space entry
requirements of paragraphs (d) through
(k) of § 1910.146 of this chapter.
Note to paragraph (a) of this section:
Entries into enclosed spaces conducted in
accordance with the permit-space entry
requirements of paragraphs (d) through (k) of
§ 1910.146 of this chapter are considered as
complying with this section.
(b) Safe work practices. The employer
shall ensure the use of safe work
practices for entry into and work in
enclosed spaces and for rescue of
employees from such spaces.
(c) Training. Employees who enter
enclosed spaces or who serve as
attendants shall be trained in the
hazards of enclosed space entry, in
enclosed space entry procedures, and in
enclosed space rescue procedures.
(d) Rescue equipment. Employers
shall provide equipment to ensure the
prompt and safe rescue of employees
from the enclosed space.
(e) Evaluation of potential hazards.
Before any entrance cover to an
enclosed space is removed, the
employer shall determine whether it is
safe to do so by checking for the
presence of any atmospheric pressure or
temperature differences and by
evaluating whether there might be a
hazardous atmosphere in the space. Any
conditions making it unsafe to remove
the cover shall be eliminated before the
cover is removed.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Note to paragraph (e) of this section: The
evaluation called for in this paragraph may
take the form of a check of the conditions
expected to be in the enclosed space. For
example, the cover could be checked to see
if it is hot and, if it is fastened in place, could
be loosened gradually to release any residual
pressure. A determination must also be made
of whether conditions at the site could cause
a hazardous atmosphere, such as an oxygen
deficient or flammable atmosphere, to
develop within the space.
(f) Removal of covers. When covers
are removed from enclosed spaces, the
opening shall be promptly guarded by a
railing, temporary cover, or other barrier
intended to prevent an accidental fall
through the opening and to protect
employees working in the space from
objects entering the space.
(g) Hazardous atmosphere. Employees
may not enter any enclosed space while
it contains a hazardous atmosphere,
unless the entry conforms to the generic
permit-required confined spaces
standard in § 1910.146 of this chapter.
(h) Attendants. While work is being
performed in the enclosed space, a
person with first aid training meeting
§ 1926.951(b)(1) shall be immediately
available outside the enclosed space to
provide assistance if a hazard exists
because of traffic patterns in the area of
the opening used for entry. That person
is not precluded from performing other
duties outside the enclosed space if
these duties do not distract the
attendant from monitoring employees
within the space.
Note to paragraph (h) of this section: See
§ 1926.965 for additional requirements on
attendants for work in manholes and vaults.
(i) Calibration of test instruments.
Test instruments used to monitor
atmospheres in enclosed spaces shall be
kept in calibration and shall have a
minimum accuracy of ±10 percent.
(j) Testing for oxygen deficiency.
Before an employee enters an enclosed
space, the internal atmosphere shall be
tested for oxygen deficiency with a
direct-reading meter or similar
instrument, capable of collection and
immediate analysis of data samples
without the need for off-site evaluation.
If continuous forced air ventilation is
provided, testing is not required
provided that the procedures used
ensure that employees are not exposed
to the hazards posed by oxygen
deficiency.
(k) Testing for flammable gases and
vapors. Before an employee enters an
enclosed space, the internal atmosphere
shall be tested for flammable gases and
vapors with a direct-reading meter or
similar instrument capable of collection
and immediate analysis of data samples
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
without the need for off-site evaluation.
This test shall be performed after the
oxygen testing and ventilation required
by paragraph (j) of this section
demonstrate that there is sufficient
oxygen to ensure the accuracy of the test
for flammability.
(l) Ventilation and monitoring. If
flammable gases or vapors are detected
or if an oxygen deficiency is found,
forced air ventilation shall be used to
maintain oxygen at a safe level and to
prevent a hazardous concentration of
flammable gases and vapors from
accumulating. A continuous monitoring
program to ensure that no increase in
flammable gas or vapor concentration
occurs may be followed in lieu of
ventilation, if flammable gases or vapors
are detected at safe levels.
Note to paragraph (l) of this section: See
the definition of ‘‘hazardous atmosphere’’ for
guidance in determining whether or not a
given concentration of a substance is
considered to be hazardous.
(m) Specific ventilation requirements.
If continuous forced air ventilation is
used, it shall begin before entry is made
and shall be maintained long enough for
the employer to be able to demonstrate
that a safe atmosphere exists before
employees are allowed to enter the work
area. The forced air ventilation shall be
so directed as to ventilate the immediate
area where employees are present
within the enclosed space and shall
continue until all employees leave the
enclosed space.
(n) Air supply. The air supply for the
continuous forced air ventilation shall
be from a clean source and may not
increase the hazards in the enclosed
space.
(o) Open flames. If open flames are
used in enclosed spaces, a test for
flammable gases and vapors shall be
made immediately before the open
flame device is used and at least once
per hour while the device is used in the
space. Testing shall be conducted more
frequently if conditions present in the
enclosed space indicate that once per
hour is insufficient to detect hazardous
accumulations of flammable gases or
vapors.
Note to paragraph (o) of this section: See
the definition of ‘‘hazardous atmosphere’’ for
guidance in determining whether or not a
given concentration of a substance is
considered to be hazardous.
§ 1926.954
Personal protective equipment.
(a) General. Personal protective
equipment shall meet the requirements
of Subpart E of this Part.
(b) Fall protection. (1) Personal fall
arrest systems. Personal fall arrest
PO 00000
Frm 00129
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34949
systems shall meet the requirements of
Subpart M of this part.
Note to paragraph (b)(1) of this section:
This paragraph applies to all personal fall
arrest systems used in work covered by this
Subpart.
(2) Work positioning equipment. Body
belts and positioning straps for work
positioning shall meet the following
requirements:
(i) Hardware for body belts and
positioning straps shall meet the
following requirements:
(A) Hardware shall be made of dropforged, pressed, or formed steel or
equivalent material.
(B) Hardware shall have a corrosionresistant finish.
(C) Hardware surfaces shall be smooth
and free of sharp edges.
(ii) Buckles shall be capable of
withstanding an 8.9-kN (2,000-lbf)
tension test with a maximum permanent
deformation no greater than 0.4 mm
(0.0156 in.).
(iii) D rings shall be capable of
withstanding a 22-kN (5,000-lbf) tensile
test without cracking or breaking.
(iv) Snaphooks shall be capable of
withstanding a 22-kN (5,000-lbf) tension
test without failure.
Note to paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section:
Tensile failure of a snaphook is indicated by
distortion of the snaphook sufficient to
release the keeper.
(v) Top grain leather or leather
substitute may be used in the
manufacture of body belts and
positioning straps; however, leather and
leather substitutes may not be used
alone as a load bearing component of
the assembly.
(vi) Plied fabric used in positioning
straps and in load bearing parts of body
belts shall be so constructed in such a
way that no raw edges are exposed and
that the plies do not separate.
(vii) Positioning straps shall be
capable of withstanding the following
tests:
(A) A dielectric test of 819.7 volts,
AC, per centimeter (25000 volts per
foot) for 3 minutes without visible
deterioration;
(B) A leakage test of 98.4 volts, AC,
per centimeter (3000 volts per foot) with
a leakage current of no more than 1 mA;
Note to paragraphs (b)(2)(vii)(A) and
(b)(2)(vii)(B) of this section: Positioning
straps that pass direct current tests at
equivalent voltages are considered as meeting
this requirement.
(C) Tension tests of 20 kN (4500 lbf)
for sections free of buckle holes and of
15 kN (3500 lbf) for sections with buckle
holes;
(D) A buckle tear test with a load of
4.4 kN (1000 lbf); and
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34950
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
(E) A flammability test in accordance
with Table V–1.
TABLE V–1.—FLAMMABILITY TEST
Test method
Criteria for passing the test
Vertically suspend a 500-mm (19.7-inch) length of strapping holding up
a 100-kg (200.5-lb) weight.
Use a butane or propane burner with a 76-mm (3-inch) flame ...............
Any flames on the positioning strap shall self extinguish.
The positioning strap shall continue to support the 100-kg (220.5-lb)
mass.
Direct the flame to an edge of the strapping at a distance of 25 mm (1
inch).
Remove the flame after 5 seconds.
Wait until any flames on the positioning strap go out.
(viii) The cushion part of the body
belt shall contain no exposed rivets on
the inside and shall be at least 76 mm
(3 in.) in width.
(ix) Tool loops shall be so situated on
the body of a body belt that 100 mm (4
in.) of the body belt in the center of the
back, measuring from D ring to D ring,
is free of tool loops and any other
attachments.
(x) Copper, steel, or equivalent liners
shall be used around the bars of D rings
to prevent wear between these members
and the leather or fabric enclosing them.
(xi) Snaphooks shall be of the locking
type meeting the following
requirements:
(A) The locking mechanism shall first
be released or a destructive force shall
be placed on the keeper before the
keeper will open.
(B) A force in the range of 6.6 N (1.5
lbf) to 17.6 N (4 lbf) shall be required
to release the locking mechanism.
(C) With the locking mechanism
released and with a force applied on the
keeper against the face of the nose, the
keeper may not begin to open with a
force of 11.0 N (2.5 lbf) or less and shall
begin to open with a maximum force of
17.6 N (4 lbf).
(xii) Body belts and positioning straps
shall be capable of withstanding a drop
test as follows:
(A) The test mass shall be rigidly
constructed of steel or equivalent
material with a mass of 100 kg (220.5
lbm).
(B) For body belts, the body belt shall
be fitted snugly around the test mass
and shall be attached to the test
structure anchorage point by means of a
wire rope.
(C) For positioning straps, the strap
shall be adjusted to its shortest length to
permit the test and connected to the test
structure anchorage point at one end
and to the test mass on the other.
(D) The test mass shall be dropped an
unobstructed distance of 1 m (39.4 in.)
from a supporting structure that will
sustain minimal deflection during the
test.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
(E) Body belts shall successfully arrest
the fall of the test mass and shall be
capable of supporting the mass after the
test.
(F) Positioning straps shall
successfully arrest the fall of the test
mass without breaking and the arrest
force may not exceed 17.8 kN (4000 lbf).
Additionally, snaphooks on positioning
straps may not have distorted
sufficiently to allow the keeper to be
released.
Note 1 to paragraph (b)(2) of this section:
This paragraph applies to all work
positioning equipment used in work covered
by this Subpart.
Note 2 to paragraph (b)(2) of this section:
Body belts and positioning straps that
conform to American Society of Testing and
Materials Standard Specifications for
Personal Climbing Equipment, ASTM F 887–
04, are deemed to be in compliance with the
manufacturing and construction
requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this
section provided that the body belt or
positioning strap also conforms to paragraphs
(b)(2)(iv) and (b)(2)(xi) of this section.
Note 3 to paragraph (b)(2) of this section:
Body belts and positioning straps that
conform to § 1926.502(e) on positioning
device systems are deemed to be in
compliance with the manufacturing and
construction requirements of paragraph (b)(2)
of this section provided that the positioning
strap also conforms to paragraph (b)(2)(vii) of
this section.
(3) Care and use of personal fall
protection equipment. (i) Work
positioning equipment shall be
inspected before use each day to
determine that the equipment is in safe
working condition. Defective equipment
may not be used.
Note to paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section:
Appendix G to this subpart contains
guidelines for the inspection of work
positioning equipment.
(ii) Personal fall arrest systems shall
be used in accordance with
§ 1926.502(d). However, the attachment
point need not be located as required by
PO 00000
Frm 00130
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§ 1926.502(d)(17) if the body harness is
being used as work positioning
equipment and if the maximum free fall
distance is limited to 0.6 m (2 ft).
(iii) A personal fall arrest system or
work positioning equipment shall be
used by employees working at elevated
locations more than 1.2 m (4 ft) above
the ground on poles, towers, or similar
structures if other fall protection has not
been provided. Fall protection
equipment is not required to be used by
a qualified employee climbing or
changing location on poles, towers, or
similar structures, unless conditions,
such as, but not limited to, ice, high
winds, the design of the structure (for
example, no provision for holding on
with hands), or the presence of
contaminants on the structure, could
cause the employee to lose his or her
grip or footing.
Note 1 to paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this
section: This paragraph applies to structures
that support overhead electric power
transmission and distribution lines and
equipment. It does not apply to portions of
buildings, such as loading docks, to electric
equipment, such as transformers and
capacitors, nor to aerial lifts. The duty to
provide fall protection associated with
walking and working surfaces is contained in
Subpart M of this Part; the duty to provide
fall protection associated with aerial lifts is
contained in § 1926.453.
Note 2 to paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this
section: Employees who have not completed
training in climbing and the use of fall
protection are not considered ‘‘qualified
employees’’ for the purposes of this
provision. Unqualified employees (including
trainees) are required to use fall protection
any time they are more than 1.2 m (4 ft)
above the ground.
(iv) Work positioning systems shall be
rigged so that an employee can free fall
no more than 0.6 m (2 ft) unless no
anchorage is available.
(v) Anchorages for work positioning
equipment shall be capable of
supporting at least twice the potential
impact load of an employee’s fall or 13.3
kN (3,000 lbf), whichever is greater.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
(vi) Unless the snaphook is a locking
type and designed specifically for the
following connections, snaphooks on
work positioning equipment may not be
engaged:
(A) Directly to webbing, rope, or wire
rope;
(B) To each other;
(C) To a D ring to which another
snaphook or other connector is attached;
(D) To a horizontal lifeline; or
(E) To any object which is
incompatibly shaped or dimensioned in
relation to the snaphook such that
unintentional disengagement could
occur by the connected object being able
to depress the snaphook keeper and
release itself.
§ 1926.955
Ladders and platforms.
(a) General. Requirements for portable
ladders contained in Subpart X of this
Part apply, except as specifically noted
in paragraph (b) of this section. Fixed
ladders shall meet Part 1910, Subpart D
of this chapter.
(b) Special ladders and platforms.
Portable ladders and platforms used on
structures or conductors in conjunction
with overhead line work need not meet
paragraphs (b)(5)(i) and (b)(12) of
§ 1926.1053. However, these ladders
and platforms shall meet the following
requirements:
(1) Design load. In the configurations
in which they are used, ladders and
platforms shall be capable of supporting
without failure at least 2.5 times the
maximum intended load.
(2) Maximum load. Ladders and
platforms may not be loaded in excess
of the working loads for which they are
designed.
(3) Secured in place. Ladders and
platforms shall be secured to prevent
their becoming accidentally dislodged.
(4) Intended use. Ladders and
platforms may be used only in
applications for which they are
designed.
(c) Conductive ladders. Portable metal
ladders and other portable conductive
ladders may not be used near exposed
energized lines or equipment. However,
in specialized high-voltage work,
conductive ladders shall be used where
the employer can demonstrate that
nonconductive ladders would present a
greater hazard than conductive ladders.
§ 1926.956
Hand and portable power tools.
(a) General. Paragraph (b) of this
section applies to electric equipment
connected by cord and plug. Paragraph
(c) of this section applies to portable
and vehicle-mounted generators used to
supply cord- and plug-connected
equipment. Paragraph (d) of this section
applies to hydraulic and pneumatic
tools.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
(b) Cord- and plug-connected
equipment. (1) Supplied by premises
wiring. Cord- and plug-connected
equipment supplied by premises wiring
is covered by Subpart K of this Part.
(2) Supplied by other than premises
wiring. Any cord- and plug-connected
equipment supplied by other than
premises wiring shall comply with one
of the following in lieu of
§ 1926.302(a)(1):
(i) It shall be equipped with a cord
containing an equipment grounding
conductor connected to the tool frame
and to a means for grounding the other
end (however, this option may not be
used where the introduction of the
ground into the work environment
increases the hazard to an employee); or
(ii) It shall be of the double-insulated
type conforming to Subpart K of this
Part; or
(iii) It shall be connected to the power
supply through an isolating transformer
with an ungrounded secondary.
(c) Portable and vehicle-mounted
generators. Portable and vehiclemounted generators used to supply
cord- and plug-connected equipment
shall meet the following requirements:
(1) Equipment to be supplied. The
generator may only supply equipment
located on the generator or the vehicle
and cord- and plug-connected
equipment through receptacles mounted
on the generator or the vehicle.
(2) Equipment grounding. The
noncurrent-carrying metal parts of
equipment and the equipment
grounding conductor terminals of the
receptacles shall be bonded to the
generator frame.
(3) Bonding the frame. In the case of
vehicle-mounted generators, the frame
of the generator shall be bonded to the
vehicle frame.
(4) Bonding the neutral conductor.
Any neutral conductor shall be bonded
to the generator frame.
(d) Hydraulic and pneumatic tools. (1)
Hydraulic fluid in insulating tools.
Paragraph (d)(1) of § 1926.302 does not
apply to hydraulic fluid used in
insulating sections of hydraulic tools.
(2) Operating pressure. Safe operating
pressures for hydraulic and pneumatic
tools, hoses, valves, pipes, filters, and
fittings may not be exceeded.
Note to paragraph (d)(2) of this section: If
any hazardous defects are present, no
operating pressure would be safe, and the
hydraulic or pneumatic equipment involved
may not be used. In the absence of defects,
the maximum rated operating pressure is the
maximum safe pressure.
(3) Work near energized parts. A
hydraulic or pneumatic tool used where
it may contact exposed energized parts
PO 00000
Frm 00131
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34951
shall be designed and maintained for
such use.
(4) Protection against vacuum
formation. The hydraulic system
supplying a hydraulic tool used where
it may contact exposed live parts shall
provide protection against loss of
insulating value for the voltage involved
due to the formation of a partial vacuum
in the hydraulic line.
Note to paragraph (d)(4) of this section:
Hydraulic lines without check valves having
a separation of more than 10.7 m (35 ft)
between the oil reservoir and the upper end
of the hydraulic system promote the
formation of a partial vacuum.
(5) Protection against the
accumulation of moisture. A pneumatic
tool used on energized electric lines or
equipment or used where it may contact
exposed live parts shall provide
protection against the accumulation of
moisture in the air supply.
(6) Breaking connections. Pressure
shall be released before connections are
broken, unless quick acting, self-closing
connectors are used.
(7) Leaks. Employees may not use any
part of their bodies to locate or attempt
to stop a hydraulic leak.
(8) Hoses. Hoses may not be kinked.
§ 1926.957
Live-line tools.
(a) Design of tools. Live-line tool rods,
tubes, and poles shall be designed and
constructed to withstand the following
minimum tests:
(1) Fiberglass-reinforced plastic. If the
tool is made of fiberglass-reinforced
plastic (FRP), it shall withstand 328100
volts per meter (100,000 volts per foot)
of length for 5 minutes, or
Note to paragraph (a)(1) of this section:
Live-line tools using rod and tube that meet
ASTM F 711–02, Standard Specification for
Fiberglass-Reinforced Plastic (FRP) Rod and
Tube Used in Live Line Tools, conform to
paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(2) Wood. If the tool is made of wood,
it shall withstand 246100 volts per
meter (75,000 volts per foot) of length
for 3 minutes, or
(3) Equivalent tests. The tool shall
withstand other tests that the employer
can demonstrate are equivalent.
(b) Condition of tools. (1) Daily
inspection. Each live-line tool shall be
wiped clean and visually inspected for
defects before use each day.
(2) Defects. If any defect or
contamination that could adversely
affect the insulating qualities or
mechanical integrity of the live-line tool
is present after wiping, the tool shall be
removed from service and examined
and tested according to paragraph (b)(3)
of this section before being returned to
service.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34952
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
(3) Biennial inspection and testing.
Live-line tools used for primary
employee protection shall be removed
from service every 2 years and
whenever required under paragraph
(b)(2) of this section for examination,
cleaning, repair, and testing as follows:
(i) Each tool shall be thoroughly
examined for defects.
(ii) If a defect or contamination that
could adversely affect the insulating
qualities or mechanical integrity of the
live-line tool is found, the tool shall be
repaired and refinished or shall be
permanently removed from service. If
no such defect or contamination is
found, the tool shall be cleaned and
waxed.
(iii) The tool shall be tested in
accordance with paragraphs (b)(3)(iv)
and (b)(3)(v) of this section under the
following conditions:
(A) After the tool has been repaired or
refinished; and
(B) After the examination if repair or
refinishing is not performed, unless the
tool is made of FRP rod or foam-filled
FRP tube and the employer can
demonstrate that the tool has no defects
that could cause it to fail in use.
(iv) The test method used shall be
designed to verify the tool’s integrity
along its entire working length and, if
the tool is made of fiberglass-reinforced
plastic, its integrity under wet
conditions.
(v) The voltage applied during the
tests shall be as follows:
(A) 246,100 volts per meter (75,000
volts per foot) of length for 1 minute if
the tool is made of fiberglass, or
(B) 164,000 volts per meter (50,000
volts per foot) of length for 1 minute if
the tool is made of wood, or
(C) Other tests that the employer can
demonstrate are equivalent.
Note to paragraph (b) of this section:
Guidelines for the examination, cleaning,
repairing, and in-service testing of live-line
tools are contained in the Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers’ IEEE
Guide for Maintenance Methods on
Energized Power Lines, IEEE Std. 516–2003.
§ 1926.958
Materials handling and storage.
(a) General. Materials handling and
storage shall conform to the
requirements of Subpart N of this Part.
(b) Materials storage near energized
lines or equipment. (1) Unrestricted
areas. In areas not restricted to qualified
persons only, materials or equipment
may not be stored closer to energized
lines or exposed energized parts of
equipment than the following distances
plus an amount providing for the
maximum sag and side swing of all
conductors and providing for the height
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
and movement of material handling
equipment:
(i) For lines and equipment energized
at 50 kV or less, the distance is 3.05 m
(10 ft).
(ii) For lines and equipment energized
at more than 50 kV, the distance is 3.05
m (10 ft) plus 0.10 m (4 in.) for every
10 kV over 50 kV.
(2) Restricted areas. In areas restricted
to qualified employees, material may
not be stored within the working space
about energized lines or equipment.
Note to paragraph (b)(2) of this section:
Requirements for the size of the working
space are contained in § 1926.966(b).
§ 1926.959
Mechanical equipment.
(a) General requirements. (1) Other
applicable requirements. Mechanical
equipment shall be operated in
accordance with Subparts N and O of
this Part, except that §§ 1926.550(a)(15)
and 1926.600(a)(6) do not apply to
operations performed by qualified
employees.
(2) Inspection before use. The critical
safety components of mechanical
elevating and rotating equipment shall
receive a thorough visual inspection
before use on each shift.
Note to paragraph (a)(2) of this section:
Critical safety components of mechanical
elevating and rotating equipment are
components whose failure would result in a
free fall or free rotation of the boom.
(3) Operator. The operator of an
electric line truck may not leave his or
her position at the controls while a load
is suspended, unless the employer can
demonstrate that no employee
(including the operator) might be
endangered.
(b) Outriggers. (1) Extend outriggers.
Vehicular equipment, if provided with
outriggers, shall be operated with the
outriggers extended and firmly set as
necessary for the stability of the specific
configuration of the equipment.
Outriggers may not be extended or
retracted outside of clear view of the
operator unless all employees are
outside the range of possible equipment
motion.
(2) Operation without outriggers. If
the work area or the terrain precludes
the use of outriggers, the equipment
may be operated only within its
maximum load ratings for the particular
configuration of the equipment without
outriggers.
(c) Applied loads. Mechanical
equipment used to lift or move lines or
other material shall be used within its
maximum load rating and other design
limitations for the conditions under
which the work is being performed.
PO 00000
Frm 00132
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(d) Operations near energized lines or
equipment. (1) Minimum approach
distance. Mechanical equipment shall
be operated so that the minimum
approach distances of Table V–2
through Table V–6 are maintained from
exposed energized lines and equipment.
However, the insulated portion of an
aerial lift operated by a qualified
employee in the lift is exempt from this
requirement if the applicable minimum
approach distance is maintained
between the uninsulated portions of the
aerial lift and exposed objects at a
different potential.
(2) Observer. A designated employee
other than the equipment operator shall
observe the approach distance to
exposed lines and equipment and give
timely warnings before the minimum
approach distance required by
paragraph (d)(1) of this section is
reached, unless the employer can
demonstrate that the operator can
accurately determine that the minimum
approach distance is being maintained.
(3) Extra precautions. If, during
operation of the mechanical equipment,
the equipment could become energized,
the operation shall also comply with at
least one of paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through
(d)(3)(iii) of this section.
(i) The energized lines exposed to
contact shall be covered with insulating
protective material that will withstand
the type of contact that might be made
during the operation.
(ii) The equipment shall be insulated
for the voltage involved. The equipment
shall be positioned so that its
uninsulated portions cannot approach
the lines or equipment any closer than
the minimum approach distances
specified in Table V–2 through Table V–
6 in § 1926.960.
(iii) Each employee shall be protected
from hazards that might arise from
equipment contact with the energized
lines. The measures used shall ensure
that employees will not be exposed to
hazardous differences in potential.
Unless the employer can demonstrate
that the methods in use protect each
employee from the hazards that might
arise if the equipment contacts the
energized line, the measures used shall
include all of the following techniques:
(A) Using the best available ground to
minimize the time the lines remain
energized,
(B) Bonding equipment together to
minimize potential differences,
(C) Providing ground mats to extend
areas of equipotential, and
(D) Employing insulating protective
equipment or barricades to guard
against any remaining hazardous
potential differences.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Note to paragraph (d)(3)(iii) of this section:
Appendix C to this Subpart contains
information on hazardous step and touch
potentials and on methods of protecting
employees from hazards resulting from such
potentials.
§ 1926.960 Working on or near exposed
energized parts.
(a) Application. This section applies
to work on exposed live parts, or near
enough to them, to expose the employee
to any hazard they present.
(b) General. (1) Qualified employees
only. (i) Only qualified employees may
work on or with exposed energized lines
or parts of equipment.
(ii) Only qualified employees may
work in areas containing unguarded,
uninsulated energized lines or parts of
equipment operating at 50 volts or more.
(2) Treat as energized. Electric lines
and equipment shall be considered and
treated as energized unless they have
been deenergized in accordance with
§ 1926.961.
(3) At least two employees. (i) Except
as provided in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of
this section, at least two employees
shall be present while the following
types of work are being performed:
(A) Installation, removal, or repair of
lines that are energized at more than 600
volts,
(B) Installation, removal, or repair of
deenergized lines if an employee is
exposed to contact with other parts
energized at more than 600 volts,
(C) Installation, removal, or repair of
equipment, such as transformers,
capacitors, and regulators, if an
employee is exposed to contact with
parts energized at more than 600 volts,
(D) Work involving the use of
mechanical equipment, other than
insulated aerial lifts, near parts
energized at more than 600 volts, and
(E) Other work that exposes an
employee to electrical hazards greater
than or equal to those posed by
operations that are specifically listed in
paragraphs (b)(3)(i)(A) through
(b)(3)(i)(D) of this section.
(ii) Paragraph (b)(3) of this section
does not apply to the following
operations:
(A) Routine switching of circuits, if
the employer can demonstrate that
conditions at the site allow this work to
be performed safely,
(B) Work performed with live-line
tools if the employee is positioned so
that he or she is neither within reach of
nor otherwise exposed to contact with
energized parts, and
(C) Emergency repairs to the extent
necessary to safeguard the general
public.
(c) Live work. (1) Minimum approach
distances. The employer shall ensure
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
that no employee approaches or takes
any conductive object closer to exposed
energized parts than set forth in Table
V–2 through Table V–6, unless:
(i) The employee is insulated from the
energized part (insulating gloves or
insulating gloves and sleeves worn in
accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this
section are considered insulation of the
employee from the energized part upon
which the employee is working
provided that the employee has control
of the part in a manner sufficient to
prevent exposure to uninsulated
portions of the body), or
(ii) The energized part is insulated
from the employee and from any other
conductive object at a different
potential, or
(iii) The employee is insulated from
any other exposed conductive object, as
during live-line bare-hand work.
Note to paragraph (c)(1) of this section:
Paragraph (f)(1) of § 1926.966 contains
requirements for the guarding and isolation
of live parts. Parts of electric circuits that
meet these two provisions are not considered
as ‘‘exposed’’ unless a guard is removed or
an employee enters the space intended to
provide isolation from the live parts.
(2) Type of insulation. (i) If the
employee is to be insulated from
energized parts by the use of insulating
gloves (under paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this
section), insulating sleeves shall also be
used. However, insulating sleeves need
not be used under the following
conditions:
(A) If exposed energized parts on
which work is not being performed are
insulated from the employee and
(B) If such insulation is placed from
a position not exposing the employee’s
upper arm to contact with other
energized parts.
(ii) If the employee is to be insulated
from energized parts by the use of
insulating gloves or insulating gloves
with sleeves,
(A) The insulating gloves and sleeves
shall be put on in a position where the
employee cannot reach into the
minimum approach distance given in
paragraph (c)(1) of this section; and
(B) The insulating gloves and sleeves
may not be removed until the employee
is in a position where he or she cannot
reach into the minimum approach
distance given in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section.
(d) Working position. (1) Working
from below. The employer shall ensure
that each employee, to the extent that
other safety-related conditions at the
worksite permit, works in a position
from which a slip or shock will not
bring the employee’s body into contact
with exposed, uninsulated parts
PO 00000
Frm 00133
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34953
energized at a potential different from
the employee.
(2) Working without electrical
protective equipment. If work is
performed near exposed parts energized
at more than 600 volts but not more
than 72.5 kilovolts and if the employee
is not insulated from the energized parts
or performing live-line bare-hand work,
the employee shall work from a position
where the employee cannot reach into
the minimum approach distance given
in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(e) Making connections. The employer
shall ensure that connections are made
as follows:
(1) Connecting. In connecting
deenergized equipment or lines to an
energized circuit by means of a
conducting wire or device, an employee
shall first attach the wire to the
deenergized part;
(2) Disconnecting. When
disconnecting equipment or lines from
an energized circuit by means of a
conducting wire or device, an employee
shall remove the source end first; and
(3) Loose conductors. When lines or
equipment are connected to or
disconnected from energized circuits,
loose conductors shall be kept away
from exposed energized parts.
(f) Conductive articles. When work is
performed within reaching distance of
exposed energized parts of equipment,
the employer shall ensure that each
employee removes or renders
nonconductive all exposed conductive
articles, such as key or watch chains,
rings, or wrist watches or bands, unless
such articles do not increase the hazards
associated with contact with the
energized parts.
(g) Clothing. (1) Hazard assessment.
The employer shall assess the
workplace to determine if each
employee is exposed to hazards from
flames or from electric arcs.
(2) Estimate of available heat energy.
For each employee exposed to hazards
from electric arcs, the employer shall
make a reasonable estimate of the
maximum available heat energy to
which the employee would be exposed.
Note 1 to paragraph (g)(2) of this section:
Appendix F to this Subpart provides
guidance on the estimation of available heat
energy.
Note 2 to paragraph (g)(2) of this section:
This paragraph does not require the employer
to estimate the heat energy exposure for
every job task performed by each employee.
The employer may make broad estimates that
cover multiple system areas provided the
employer uses reasonable assumptions about
the energy exposure distribution throughout
the system and provided the estimates
represent the maximum exposure for those
areas. For example, the employer could
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34954
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
estimate the heat energy just outside a
substation feeding a radial distribution
system and use that estimate for all jobs
performed on that radial system.
(3) Prohibited clothing. The employer
shall ensure that each employee who is
exposed to hazards from electric arcs
does not wear clothing that could melt
onto his or her skin or that could ignite
and continue to burn when exposed to
the heat energy estimated under
paragraph (g)(2) of this section.
Note to paragraph (g)(3) of this section:
Clothing made from the following types of
fabrics, either alone or in blends, is
prohibited by this paragraph, unless the
employer can demonstrate that the fabric has
been treated to withstand the conditions that
may be encountered or that the clothing is
worn in such a manner as to eliminate the
hazard involved: acetate, nylon, polyester,
rayon.
(4) Flame-resistant clothing. The
employer shall ensure that an employee
wears clothing that is flame resistant
under any of the following conditions:
(i) The employee is subject to contact
with energized circuit parts operating at
more than 600 volts,
(ii) The employee’s clothing could be
ignited by flammable material in the
work area that could be ignited by an
electric arc, or
(iii) The employee’s clothing could be
ignited by molten metal or electric arcs
from faulted conductors in the work
area.
Note to paragraph (g)(4)(iii) of this section:
This paragraph does not apply to conductors
that are capable of carrying, without failure,
the maximum available fault current for the
time the circuit protective devices take to
interrupt the fault.
(5) Clothing rating. The employer
shall ensure that each employee who is
exposed to hazards from electric arcs
wears clothing with an arc rating greater
than or equal to the heat energy
estimated under paragraph (g)(2) of this
section.
Note to paragraph (g) of this section: See
Appendix F to this subpart for further
information on the selection of appropriate
clothing.
(h) Fuse handling. When fuses must
be installed or removed with one or
both terminals energized at more than
300 volts or with exposed parts
energized at more than 50 volts, the
employer shall ensure that tools or
gloves rated for the voltage are used.
When expulsion-type fuses are installed
with one or both terminals energized at
more than 300 volts, the employer shall
ensure that each employee wears eye
protection meeting the requirements of
Subpart E of this Part, uses a tool rated
for the voltage, and is clear of the
exhaust path of the fuse barrel.
(i) Covered (noninsulated)
conductors. The requirements of this
section which pertain to the hazards of
exposed live parts also apply when
work is performed in the proximity of
covered (noninsulated) wires.
(j) Noncurrent-carrying metal parts.
Noncurrent-carrying metal parts of
equipment or devices, such as
transformer cases and circuit breaker
housings, shall be treated as energized
at the highest voltage to which they are
exposed, unless the employer inspects
the installation and determines that
these parts are grounded before work is
performed.
(k) Opening circuits under load.
Devices used to open circuits under
load conditions shall be designed to
interrupt the current involved.
TABLE V–2.—A–C LIVE-LINE WORK MINIMUM APPROACH DISTANCE
Distance
Nominal voltage in kilovolts phase to phase
Phase-to-ground exposure
m
0.051 to 0.300 1 .........................................................................................................
0.301 to 0.750 1 .........................................................................................................
0.751 to 15.0 ..............................................................................................................
15.1 to 36.0 ................................................................................................................
36.1 to 46.0 ................................................................................................................
46.1 to 72.5 ................................................................................................................
72.6 to 121 .................................................................................................................
138 to 145 ..................................................................................................................
161 to 169 ..................................................................................................................
230 to 242 ..................................................................................................................
345 to 362 ..................................................................................................................
500 to 550 ..................................................................................................................
765 to 800 ..................................................................................................................
ft-in
Phase-to-phase exposure
m
Avoid contact
0.31
1–0
0.65
2–2
0.77
2–7
0.84
2–9
1.00
3–3
0.95
3–2
1.09
3–7
1.22
4–0
1.59
5–3
2.59
8–6
3.42
11–3
4.53
14–11
ft-in
Avoid contact
0.31
0.67
0.86
0.96
1.20
1.29
1.50
1.71
2.27
3.80
5.50
7.91
1–0
2–3
2–10
3–2
3–11
4–3
4–11
5–8
7–6
12–6
18–1
26–0
1 For single-phase systems, use the voltage to ground.
Note 1: These distances take into consideration the highest switching surge an employee will be exposed to on any system with air as the insulating medium and the maximum voltages shown.
Note 2: The clear live-line tool distance shall equal or exceed the values for the indicated voltage ranges.
Note 3: See Appendix B to this subpart for information on how the minimum approach distances listed in the tables were derived.
TABLE V–3.—A–C LIVE-LINE WORK MINIMUM APPROACH DISTANCE WITH OVERVOLTAGE FACTOR
PHASE-TO-GROUND EXPOSURE
Distance in meters
Maximum phase-to-phase voltage in
kilovolts
Maximum anticipated per-unit transient overvoltage
121
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00134
Fmt 4701
145
169
242
362
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
552
1.82
1.97
2.13
2.29
2.47
800
2.95
3.23
3.54
3.86
4.19
34955
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V–3.—A–C LIVE-LINE WORK MINIMUM APPROACH DISTANCE WITH OVERVOLTAGE FACTOR
PHASE-TO-GROUND EXPOSURE
Distance in meters
Maximum phase-to-phase voltage in
kilovolts
Maximum anticipated per-unit transient overvoltage
121
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
0.74
0.76
0.78
0.80
0.82
0.84
0.86
0.88
0.91
0.93
0.95
145
0.83
0.85
0.88
0.91
0.93
0.96
0.98
1.01
1.03
1.06
1.09
169
242
0.92
0.95
0.98
1.01
1.04
1.07
1.10
1.13
1.16
1.19
1.22
362
1.16
1.21
1.25
1.29
1.33
1.38
1.42
1.45
1.50
1.54
1.59
1.59
1.65
1.74
1.84
1.94
2.04
2.14
2.25
2.36
2.47
2.59
552
800
2.65
2.83
3.01
3.20
3.42
............
............
............
............
............
............
4.53
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
Note 1: The distances specified in this table may be applied only where the maximum anticipated per-unit transient overvoltage has been determined by engineering analysis and has been supplied by the employer. Table V–2 applies otherwise.
Note 2: The distances specified in this table are the air, bare-hand, and live-line tool distances.
Note 3: See Appendix B to this subpart for information on how the minimum approach distances listed in the tables were derived and on how
to calculate revised minimum approach distances based on the control of transient overvoltages.
TABLE V–3.—A–C LIVE-LINE WORK MINIMUM APPROACH DISTANCE WITH OVERVOLTAGE FACTOR
PHASE-TO-GROUND EXPOSURE (CONTINUED)
Distance in feet-inches
Maximum phase-to-phase voltage in
kilovolts
Maximum anticipated per-unit transient overvoltage
121
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
145
169
242
362
552
800
............
............
............
............
............
2–5
2–6
2–7
2–8
2–9
2–9
2–10
2–11
3–0
3–1
3–2
............
............
............
............
............
2–9
2–10
2–11
3–0
3–1
3–2
3–3
3–4
3–5
3–6
3–7
............
............
............
............
............
3–0
3–2
3–3
3–4
3–5
3–6
3–8
3–9
3–10
3–11
4–0
............
............
............
............
............
3–10
4–0
4–1
4–3
4–5
4–6
4–8
4–10
4–11
5–1
5–3
............
............
............
............
............
5–3
5–5
5–9
6–1
6–4
6–8
7–1
7–5
7–9
8–2
8–6
6–0
6–6
7–0
7–7
8–1
8–9
9–4
9–11
10–6
11–3
............
............
............
............
............
............
9–8
10–8
11–8
12–8
13–9
114–11
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
Note 1: The distances specified in this table may be applied only where the maximum anticipated per-unit transient overvoltage has been determined by engineering analysis and has been supplied by the employer. Table V–2 applies otherwise.
Note 2: The distances specified in this table are the air, bare-hand, and live-line tool distances.
Note 3: See Appendix B to this Subpart for information on how the minimum approach distances listed in the tables were derived and on how
to calculate revised minimum approach distances based on the control of transient overvoltages.
TABLE V–4.—A–C LIVE-LINE WORK MINIMUM APPROACH DISTANCE WITH OVERVOLTAGE FACTOR
PHASE-TO-PHASE EXPOSURE
Distance in meters
Maximum phase-to-phase voltage in
kilovolts
Maximum anticipated per-unit transient overvoltage
121
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00135
Fmt 4701
145
169
242
362
............
............
............
............
............
1.08
1.10
............
............
............
............
............
1.24
1.27
............
............
............
............
............
1.41
1.44
............
............
............
............
............
1.85
1.89
............
............
............
............
............
2.61
2.68
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
552
2.24
2.65
3.08
3.53
4.01
4.52
4.75
800
3.67
4.42
5.23
6.07
6.97
7.91
............
34956
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V–4.—A–C LIVE-LINE WORK MINIMUM APPROACH DISTANCE WITH OVERVOLTAGE FACTOR
PHASE-TO-PHASE EXPOSURE
Distance in meters
Maximum phase-to-phase voltage in
kilovolts
Maximum anticipated per-unit transient overvoltage
121
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
145
1.12
1.14
1.16
1.18
1.21
1.23
1.25
1.27
1.29
169
1.29
1.32
1.35
1.37
1.40
1.43
1.45
1.48
1.50
242
1.47
1.50
1.53
1.56
1.59
1.62
1.65
1.68
1.71
362
1.93
1.97
2.01
2.06
2.10
2.13
2.19
2.22
2.27
2.78
2.90
3.02
3.14
3.27
3.40
3.53
3.67
3.80
552
800
4.98
5.21
5.50
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
Note 1: The distances specified in this table may be applied only where the maximum anticipated per-unit transient overvoltage has been determined by engineering analysis and has been supplied by the employer. Table V–2 applies otherwise.
Note 2: The distances specified in this table are the air, bare-hand, and live-line tool distances.
Note 3: See Appendix B to this Subpart for information on how the minimum approach distances listed in the tables were derived and on how
to calculate revised minimum approach distances based on the control of transient overvoltages.
TABLE V–4.—A–C LIVE-LINE WORK MINIMUM APPROACH DISTANCE WITH OVERVOLTAGE FACTOR
PHASE-TO-PHASE EXPOSURE (CONTINUED)
Distance in Meters
Maximum phase-to-phase voltage in
kilovolts
Maximum anticipated per-unit transient overvoltage
121
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
145
169
242
362
552
800
............
............
............
............
............
3–7
3–7
3–8
3–9
3–10
3–11
4–0
4–1
4–1
4–2
4–3
............
............
............
............
............
4–1
4–1
4–3
4–4
4–5
4–6
4–7
4–8
4–9
4–10
4–11
............
............
............
............
............
4–8
4–9
4–10
4–11
5–0
5–2
5–3
5–4
5–5
5–6
5–8
............
............
............
............
............
6–1
6–3
6–4
6–6
6–7
6–9
6–11
7–0
7–2
7–4
7–6
............
............
............
............
............
8–7
8–10
9–2
9–6
9–11
10–4
10–9
11–2
11–7
12–1
12–6
7–4
8–9
10–2
11–7
13–2
14–10
15–7
16–4
17–2
18–1
............
............
............
............
............
............
12–1
14–6
17–2
19–11
22–11
26–0
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
Note 1: The distances specified in this table may be applied only where the maximum anticipated per-unit transient overvoltage has been determined by engineering analysis and has been supplied by the employer. Table V–2 applies otherwise.
Note 2: The distances specified in this table are the air, bare-hand, and live-line tool distances.
Note 3: See Appendix B to this Subpart for information on how the minimum approach distances listed in the tables were derived and on how
to calculate revised minimum approach distances based on the control of transient overvoltages.
TABLE V–5.—D–C LIVE-LINE MINIMUM APPROACH DISTANCE WITH OVERVOLTAGE FACTOR
Maximum anticipated per-unit
transient overvoltage
Distance in meters (feet-inches)
Maximum line-to-ground voltage in kilovolts
250
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
or lower ..................................
................................................
................................................
................................................
1.12
1.17
1.23
1.28
400
(3–8)
(3–10)
(4–1)
(4–3)
1.60
1.69
1.82
1.95
500
(5–3)
(5–7)
(6–0)
(6–5)
2.06
2.24
2.42
2.62
600
(6–9)
(7–4)
(7–11)
(8–7)
2.62
2.86
3.12
3.39
750
(8–7)
(9–5)
(10–3)
(11–2)
3.61
3.98
4.37
4.79
(11–10)
(13–1)
(14–4)
(15–9)
Note 1: The distance specified in this table may be applied only where the maximum anticipated per-unit transient overvoltage has been determined by engineering analysis and has been supplied by the employer. However, if the transient overvoltage factor is not known, a factor of 1.8
shall be assumed.
Note 2: The distances specified in this table are the air, bare-hand, and live-line tool distances.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00136
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
34957
TABLE V–6.—ALTITUDE CORRECTION FACTOR
Altitude
Correction
factor
m
ft
900 ................................................................................................
1200 ..............................................................................................
1500 ..............................................................................................
1800 ..............................................................................................
2100 ..............................................................................................
2400 ..............................................................................................
2700 ..............................................................................................
3000 ..............................................................................................
3600 ..............................................................................................
4200 ..............................................................................................
4800 ..............................................................................................
5400 ..............................................................................................
6000 ..............................................................................................
3000 .............................................................................................
4000 .............................................................................................
5000 .............................................................................................
6000 .............................................................................................
7000 .............................................................................................
8000 .............................................................................................
9000 .............................................................................................
10000 ...........................................................................................
12000 ...........................................................................................
14000 ...........................................................................................
16000 ...........................................................................................
18000 ...........................................................................................
20000 ...........................................................................................
1.00
1.02
1.05
1.08
1.11
1.14
1.17
1.20
1.25
1.30
1.35
1.39
1.44
Note: If the work is performed at elevations greater than 900 m (3000 ft) above mean sea level, the minimum approach distance shall be determined by multiplying the distances in Table V–2 through Table V–5 by the correction factor corresponding to the altitude at which work is
performed.
§ 1926.961 Deenergizing lines and
equipment for employee protection.
(a) Application. This section applies
to the deenergizing of transmission and
distribution lines and equipment for the
purpose of protecting employees.
Conductors and parts of electric
equipment that have been deenergized
under procedures other than those
required by this section shall be treated
as energized.
(b) General. (1) System operator. If a
system operator is in charge of the lines
or equipment and their means of
disconnection, all of the requirements of
paragraph (c) of this section shall be
observed, in the order given.
(2) No system operator. If no system
operator is in charge of the lines or
equipment and their means of
disconnection, one employee in the
crew shall be designated as being in
charge of the clearance. All of the
requirements of paragraph (c) of this
section apply, in the order given, except
as provided in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this
section. The employee in charge of the
clearance shall take the place of the
system operator, as necessary.
(3) Number of crews working. (i) If
only one crew will be working on the
lines or equipment and if the means of
disconnection is accessible and visible
to and under the sole control of the
employee in charge of the clearance,
paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(4), and
(c)(11) of this section do not apply.
Additionally, tags required by the
remaining provisions of paragraph (c) of
this section need not be used.
(ii) If two or more independent crews
will be working on the same lines or
equipment, each crew shall
independently comply with the
requirements in paragraph (c) of this
section. The independent crews shall
coordinate deenergizing and
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
reenergizing the lines or equipment if
there is no system operator in charge of
the lines or equipment.
(4) Disconnecting means accessible to
general public. Any disconnecting
means that are accessible to persons
outside the employer’s control (for
example, the general public) shall be
rendered inoperable while they are open
for the purpose of protecting employees.
(c) Deenergizing lines and equipment.
(1) Request to deenergize. A designated
employee shall make a request of the
system operator to have the particular
section of line or equipment
deenergized. The designated employee
becomes the employee in charge (as this
term is used in paragraph (c) of this
section) and is responsible for the
clearance.
(2) Open disconnecting means. All
switches, disconnectors, jumpers, taps,
and other means through which known
sources of electric energy may be
supplied to the particular lines and
equipment to be deenergized shall be
opened. Such means shall be rendered
inoperable, unless its design does not so
permit, and tagged to indicate that
employees are at work.
(3) Automatically and remotely
controlled switches. Automatically and
remotely controlled switches that could
cause the opened disconnecting means
to close shall also be tagged at the point
of control. The automatic or remote
control feature shall be rendered
inoperable, unless its design does not so
permit.
(4) Tags. Tags shall prohibit operation
of the disconnecting means and shall
indicate that employees are at work.
(5) Test for energized condition. After
the applicable requirements in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this
section have been followed and the
employee in charge of the work has
PO 00000
Frm 00137
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
been given a clearance by the system
operator, the lines and equipment to be
worked shall be tested to ensure that
they are deenergized.
(6) Install grounds. Protective grounds
shall be installed as required by
§ 1926.962.
(7) Consider lines and equipment
deenergized. After the applicable
requirements of paragraphs (c)(1)
through (c)(6) of this section have been
followed, the lines and equipment
involved may be worked as deenergized.
(8) Transferring clearances. To
transfer the clearance, the employee in
charge (or, if the employee in charge is
forced to leave the worksite due to
illness or other emergency, the
employee’s supervisor) shall inform the
system operator; employees in the crew
shall be informed of the transfer; and
the new employee in charge shall be
responsible for the clearance.
(9) Releasing clearances. To release a
clearance, the employee in charge shall:
(i) Notify each employee under his or
her direction that the clearance is to be
released;
(ii) Determine that all employees in
the crew are clear of the lines and
equipment;
(iii) Determine that all protective
grounds installed by the crew have been
removed; and
(iv) Report this information to the
system operator and release the
clearance.
(10) Person releasing clearance. The
person releasing a clearance shall be the
same person who requested the
clearance, unless responsibility has
been transferred under paragraph (c)(8)
of this section.
(11) Removal of tags. Tags may not be
removed unless the associated clearance
has been released under paragraph (c)(9)
of this section.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34958
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
(12) Reenergizing lines and
equipment. Only after all protective
grounds have been removed, after all
crews working on the lines or
equipment have released their
clearances, after all employees are clear
of the lines and equipment, and after all
protective tags have been removed from
a given point of disconnection, may
action be initiated to reenergize the
lines or equipment at that point of
disconnection.
§ 1926.962 Grounding for the protection of
employees.
(a) Application. This section applies
to the grounding of transmission and
distribution lines and equipment for the
purpose of protecting employees.
Paragraph (d) of this section also applies
to the protective grounding of other
equipment as required elsewhere in this
Subpart.
(b) General. For any employee to work
lines or equipment as deenergized, the
lines or equipment shall be deenergized
under the provisions of § 1926.961 and
shall be grounded as specified in
paragraphs (c) through (h) of this
section. However, if the employer can
demonstrate that installation of a
ground is impracticable or that the
conditions resulting from the
installation of a ground would present
greater hazards than working without
grounds, the lines and equipment may
be treated as deenergized provided all of
the following conditions are met:
(1) Deenergized. The lines and
equipment have been deenergized under
the provisions of § 1926.961.
(2) No possibility of contact. There is
no possibility of contact with another
energized source.
(3) No induced voltage. The hazard of
induced voltage is not present.
(c) Equipotential zone. Temporary
protective grounds shall be placed at
such locations and arranged in such a
manner as to prevent each employee
from being exposed to hazardous
differences in electrical potential.
(d) Protective grounding equipment.
(1) Ampacity. (i) Protective grounding
equipment shall be capable of
conducting the maximum fault current
that could flow at the point of
grounding for the time necessary to
clear the fault.
(ii) If the protective grounding
equipment required under paragraph
(d)(1)(i) of this section would be larger
than the conductor to which it is
attached, this equipment may be
reduced in size provided that it is sized
and placed so that:
(A) The conductor being grounded
will fail before the protective grounding
equipment,
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
(B) The conductor is only considered
as grounded where it is protected
against failure by the protective
grounding equipment, and
(C) No employees would be
endangered by the failed conductor.
(iii) This equipment shall have an
ampacity greater than or equal to that of
No. 2 AWG copper.
(2) Impedance. Protective grounds
shall have an impedance low enough so
that they do not delay the operation of
protective devices in case of accidental
energizing of the lines or equipment.
Note to paragraph (d) of this section:
Guidelines for protective grounding
equipment are contained in American
Society for Testing and Materials Standard
Specifications for Temporary Protective
Grounds to Be Used on De-Energized Electric
Power Lines and Equipment, ASTM F 855–
03.
(e) Testing. Before any ground is
installed, lines and equipment shall be
tested and found absent of nominal
voltage, unless a previously installed
ground is present.
(f) Connecting and removing grounds.
(1) Order of connection. When a ground
is to be attached to a line or to
equipment, the ground-end connection
shall be attached first, and then the
other end shall be attached by means of
a live-line tool. For lines or equipment
operating at 600 volts or less, insulating
equipment other than a live-line tool
may be used if the employer ensures
that the line or equipment is not
energized at the time the ground is
connected or if the employer can
demonstrate that each employee would
be protected from hazards that may
develop if the line or equipment is
energized.
(2) Order of removal. When a ground
is to be removed, the grounding device
shall be removed from the line or
equipment using a live-line tool before
the ground-end connection is removed.
For lines or equipment operating at 600
volts or less, insulating equipment other
than a live-line tool may be used if the
employer ensures that the line or
equipment is not energized at the time
the ground is disconnected or if the
employer can demonstrate that each
employee would be protected from
hazards that may develop if the line or
equipment is energized.
(g) Additional precautions. When
work is performed on a cable at a
location remote from the cable terminal,
the cable may not be grounded at the
cable terminal if there is a possibility of
hazardous transfer of potential should a
fault occur.
(h) Removal of grounds for test.
Grounds may be removed temporarily
PO 00000
Frm 00138
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
during tests. During the test procedure,
the employer shall ensure that each
employee uses insulating equipment
and is isolated from any hazards
involved, and the employer shall
institute any additional measures as
may be necessary to protect each
exposed employee in case the
previously grounded lines and
equipment become energized.
§ 1926.963
Testing and test facilities.
(a) Application. This section provides
for safe work practices for high-voltage
and high-power testing performed in
laboratories, shops, and substations, and
in the field and on electric transmission
and distribution lines and equipment. It
applies only to testing involving interim
measurements utilizing high voltage,
high power, or combinations of both,
and not to testing involving continuous
measurements as in routine metering,
relaying, and normal line work.
Note to paragraph (a) of this section:
Routine inspection and maintenance
measurements made by qualified employees
are considered to be routine line work and
are not included in the scope of this section,
as long as the hazards related to the use of
intrinsic high-voltage or high-power sources
require only the normal precautions
associated with routine operation and
maintenance work required in the other
paragraphs of this section. Two typical
examples of such excluded test work
procedures are ‘‘phasing-out’’ testing and
testing for a ‘‘no-voltage’’ condition.
(b) General requirements. (1) Safe
work practices. The employer shall
establish and enforce work practices for
the protection of each worker from the
hazards of high-voltage or high-power
testing at all test areas, temporary and
permanent. Such work practices shall
include, as a minimum, test area
guarding, grounding, and the safe use of
measuring and control circuits. A means
providing for periodic safety checks of
field test areas shall also be included.
(See paragraph (f) of this section.)
(2) Training. Employees shall be
trained in safe work practices upon their
initial assignment to the test area, with
periodic reviews and updates provided
as required by § 1926.950(b).
(c) Guarding of test areas. (1)
Guarding. Guarding shall be provided
within test areas to control access to test
equipment or to apparatus under test
that may become energized as part of
the testing by either direct or inductive
coupling, in order to prevent accidental
employee contact with energized parts.
(2) Permanent test areas. Permanent
test areas shall be guarded by walls,
fences, or barriers designed to keep
employees out of the test areas.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
(3) Temporary test areas. In field
testing, or at a temporary test site where
permanent fences and gates are not
provided, one of the following means
shall be used to prevent unauthorized
employees from entering:
(i) The test area shall be guarded by
the use of distinctively colored safety
tape that is supported approximately
waist high and to which safety signs are
attached,
(ii) The test area shall be guarded by
a barrier or barricade that limits access
to the test area to a degree equivalent,
physically and visually, to the barricade
specified in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this
section, or
(iii) The test area shall be guarded by
one or more test observers stationed so
that the entire area can be monitored.
(4) Removal of barriers. The barriers
required by paragraph (c)(3) of this
section shall be removed when the
protection they provide is no longer
needed.
(d) Grounding practices. (1) Establish
and implement practices. The employer
shall establish and implement safe
grounding practices for the test facility.
(i) All conductive parts accessible to
the test operator during the time the
equipment is operating at high voltage
shall be maintained at ground potential
except for portions of the equipment
that are isolated from the test operator
by guarding.
(ii) Wherever ungrounded terminals
of test equipment or apparatus under
test may be present, they shall be treated
as energized until determined by tests to
be deenergized.
(2) Installation of grounds. Visible
grounds shall be applied, either
automatically or manually with
properly insulated tools, to the highvoltage circuits after they are
deenergized and before work is
performed on the circuit or item or
apparatus under test. Common ground
connections shall be solidly connected
to the test equipment and the apparatus
under test.
(3) Isolated ground return. In highpower testing, an isolated ground-return
conductor system shall be provided so
that no intentional passage of current,
with its attendant voltage rise, can occur
in the ground grid or in the earth.
However, an isolated ground-return
conductor need not be provided if the
employer can demonstrate that both the
following conditions are met:
(i) An isolated ground-return
conductor cannot be provided due to
the distance of the test site from the
electric energy source, and
(ii) Employees are protected from any
hazardous step and touch potentials that
may develop during the test.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
Note to paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section:
See Appendix C to this Subpart for
information on measures that can be taken to
protect employees from hazardous step and
touch potentials.
(4) Equipment grounding conductors.
In tests in which grounding of test
equipment by means of the equipment
grounding conductor located in the
equipment power cord cannot be used
due to increased hazards to test
personnel or the prevention of
satisfactory measurements, a ground
that the employer can demonstrate
affords equivalent safety shall be
provided, and the safety ground shall be
clearly indicated in the test set-up.
(5) Grounding after tests. When the
test area is entered after equipment is
deenergized, a ground shall be placed
on the high-voltage terminal and any
other exposed terminals.
(i) High capacitance equipment or
apparatus shall be discharged through a
resistor rated for the available energy.
(ii) A direct ground shall be applied
to the exposed terminals when the
stored energy drops to a level at which
it is safe to do so.
(6) Grounding test vehicles. If a test
trailer or test vehicle is used in field
testing, its chassis shall be grounded.
Protection against hazardous touch
potentials with respect to the vehicle,
instrument panels, and other conductive
parts accessible to employees shall be
provided by bonding, insulation, or
isolation.
(e) Control and measuring circuits. (1)
Control wiring. Control wiring, meter
connections, test leads and cables may
not be run from a test area unless they
are contained in a grounded metallic
sheath and terminated in a grounded
metallic enclosure or unless other
precautions are taken that the employer
can demonstrate as ensuring equivalent
safety.
(2) Instruments. Meters and other
instruments with accessible terminals or
parts shall be isolated from test
personnel to protect against hazards
arising from such terminals and parts
becoming energized during testing. If
this isolation is provided by locating
test equipment in metal compartments
with viewing windows, interlocks shall
be provided to interrupt the power
supply if the compartment cover is
opened.
(3) Routing temporary wiring. The
routing and connections of temporary
wiring shall be made secure against
damage, accidental interruptions, and
other hazards. To the maximum extent
possible, signal, control, ground, and
power cables shall be kept separate.
(4) Test observer. If employees will be
present in the test area during testing, a
PO 00000
Frm 00139
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34959
test observer shall be present. The test
observer shall be capable of
implementing the immediate
deenergizing of test circuits for safety
purposes.
(f) Safety check. (1) Before each test.
Safety practices governing employee
work at temporary or field test areas
shall provide for a routine check of such
test areas for safety at the beginning of
each series of tests.
(2) Conditions to be checked. The test
operator in charge shall conduct these
routine safety checks before each series
of tests and shall verify at least the
following conditions:
(i) That barriers and guards are in
workable condition and are properly
placed to isolate hazardous areas;
(ii) That system test status signals, if
used, are in operable condition;
(iii) That test power disconnects are
clearly marked and readily available in
an emergency;
(iv) That ground connections are
clearly identifiable;
(v) That personal protective
equipment is provided and used as
required by Subpart E of this Part and
by this section; and
(vi) That signal, ground, and power
cables are properly separated.
§ 1926.964
Overhead lines.
(a) General. (1) Application. This
section provides additional
requirements for work performed on or
near overhead lines and equipment.
(2) Checking structure before
climbing. Before elevated structures,
such as poles or towers, are subjected to
such stresses as climbing or the
installation or removal of equipment
may impose, the employer shall
ascertain that the structures are capable
of sustaining the additional or
unbalanced stresses. If the pole or other
structure cannot withstand the loads
which will be imposed, it shall be
braced or otherwise supported so as to
prevent failure.
Note to paragraph (a)(2) of this section:
Appendix D to this Subpart contains test
methods that can be used in ascertaining
whether a wood pole is capable of sustaining
the forces that would be imposed by an
employee climbing the pole. This paragraph
also requires the employer to ascertain that
the pole can sustain all other forces that will
be imposed by the work to be performed.
(3) Setting and moving poles. (i) When
poles are set, moved, or removed near
exposed energized overhead conductors,
the pole may not contact the
conductors.
(ii) When a pole is set, moved, or
removed near an exposed energized
overhead conductor, the employer shall
ensure that each employee wears
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34960
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
electrical protective equipment or uses
insulated devices when handling the
pole and that no employee contacts the
pole with uninsulated parts of his or her
body.
(iii) To protect employees from falling
into holes into which poles are to be
placed, the holes shall be attended by
employees or physically guarded
whenever anyone is working nearby.
(b) Installing and removing overhead
lines. The following provisions apply to
the installation and removal of overhead
conductors or cable.
(1) Tension stringing method. The
employer shall use the tension stringing
method, barriers, or other equivalent
measures to minimize the possibility
that conductors and cables being
installed or removed will contact
energized power lines or equipment.
(2) Conductors, cables, and pulling
and tensioning equipment. The
protective measures required by
§ 1926.959(d)(3) for mechanical
equipment shall also be provided for
conductors, cables, and pulling and
tensioning equipment when the
conductor or cable is being installed or
removed close enough to energized
conductors that any of the following
failures could energize the pulling or
tensioning equipment or the wire or
cable being installed or removed:
(i) Failure of the pulling or tensioning
equipment,
(ii) Failure of the wire or cable being
pulled, or
(iii) Failure of the previously installed
lines or equipment.
(3) Disable automatic-reclosing
feature. If the conductors being installed
or removed cross over energized
conductors in excess of 600 volts and if
the design of the circuit-interrupting
devices protecting the lines so permits,
the automatic-reclosing feature of these
devices shall be made inoperative.
(4) Induced voltage. Before lines are
installed parallel to existing energized
lines, the employer shall make a
determination of the approximate
voltage to be induced in the new lines,
or work shall proceed on the
assumption that the induced voltage is
hazardous. Unless the employer can
demonstrate that the lines being
installed are not subject to the induction
of a hazardous voltage or unless the
lines are treated as energized, the
following requirements also apply:
(i) Each bare conductor shall be
grounded in increments so that no point
along the conductor is more than 3.22
km (2 miles) from a ground.
(ii) The grounds required in paragraph
(b)(4)(i) of this section shall be left in
place until the conductor installation is
completed between dead ends.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
(iii) The grounds required in
paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section shall
be removed as the last phase of aerial
cleanup.
(iv) If employees are working on bare
conductors, grounds shall also be
installed at each location where these
employees are working, and grounds
shall be installed at all open dead-end
or catch-off points or the next adjacent
structure.
(v) If two bare conductors are to be
spliced, the conductors shall be bonded
and grounded before being spliced.
(5) Safe operating condition. Reel
handling equipment, including pulling
and tensioning devices, shall be in safe
operating condition and shall be leveled
and aligned.
(6) Load ratings. Load ratings of
stringing lines, pulling lines, conductor
grips, load-bearing hardware and
accessories, rigging, and hoists may not
be exceeded.
(7) Defective pulling lines. Pulling
lines and accessories shall be repaired
or replaced when defective.
(8) Conductor grips. Conductor grips
may not be used on wire rope, unless
the grip is specifically designed for this
application.
(9) Communications. Reliable
communications, through two-way
radios or other equivalent means, shall
be maintained between the reel tender
and the pulling rig operator.
(10) Operation of pulling rig. The
pulling rig may only be operated when
it is safe to do so.
Note to paragraph (b)(10) of this section:
Examples of unsafe conditions include:
employees in locations prohibited by
paragraph (b)(11) of this section, conductor
and pulling line hang-ups, and slipping of
the conductor grip.
(11) Working under overhead
operations. While the conductor or
pulling line is being pulled (in motion)
with a power-driven device, employees
are not permitted directly under
overhead operations or on the cross arm,
except as necessary to guide the
stringing sock or board over or through
the stringing sheave.
(c) Live-line bare-hand work. In
addition to other applicable provisions
contained in this section, the following
requirements apply to live-line barehand work:
(1) Training. Before using or
supervising the use of the live-line barehand technique on energized circuits,
employees shall be trained in the
technique and in the safety
requirements of paragraph (c) of this
section. Employees shall receive
refresher training as required by
§ 1926.950(b).
PO 00000
Frm 00140
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(2) Existing conditions. Before any
employee uses the live-line bare-hand
technique on energized high-voltage
conductors or parts, the following
information shall be ascertained:
(i) The nominal voltage rating of the
circuit on which the work is to be
performed,
(ii) The minimum approach distances
to ground of lines and other energized
parts on which work is to be performed,
and
(iii) The voltage limitations of
equipment to be used.
(3) Insulated tools and equipment.
The insulated equipment, insulated
tools, and aerial devices and platforms
used shall be designed, tested, and
intended for live-line bare-hand work.
Tools and equipment shall be kept clean
and dry while they are in use.
(4) Disable automatic-reclosing
feature. The automatic-reclosing feature
of circuit-interrupting devices
protecting the lines shall be made
inoperative, if the design of the devices
permits.
(5) Adverse weather conditions. Work
may not be performed when adverse
weather conditions would make the
work hazardous even after the work
practices required by this section are
employed. Additionally, work may not
be performed when winds reduce the
phase-to-phase or phase-to-ground
minimum approach distances at the
work location below that specified in
paragraph (c)(13) of this section, unless
the grounded objects and other lines
and equipment are covered by
insulating guards.
Note to paragraph (c)(5) of this section:
Thunderstorms in the immediate vicinity,
high winds, snow storms, and ice storms are
examples of adverse weather conditions that
are presumed to make live-line bare-hand
work too hazardous to perform safely.
(6) Bucket liners and electrostatic
shielding. A conductive bucket liner or
other conductive device shall be
provided for bonding the insulated
aerial device to the energized line or
equipment.
(i) The employee shall be connected
to the bucket liner or other conductive
device by the use of conductive shoes,
leg clips, or other means.
(ii) Where differences in potentials at
the worksite pose a hazard to
employees, electrostatic shielding
designed for the voltage being worked
shall be provided.
(7) Bonding the employee to the
energized part. Before the employee
contacts the energized part, the
conductive bucket liner or other
conductive device shall be bonded to
the energized conductor by means of a
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
positive connection. This connection
shall remain attached to the energized
conductor until the work on the
energized circuit is completed.
(8) Aerial lift controls. Aerial lifts to
be used for live-line bare-hand work
shall have dual controls (lower and
upper) as follows:
(i) The upper controls shall be within
easy reach of the employee in the
bucket. On a two-bucket-type lift, access
to the controls shall be within easy
reach from either bucket.
(ii) The lower set of controls shall be
located near the base of the boom, and
they shall be so designed that they can
override operation of the equipment at
any time.
(9) Operation of lower controls. Lower
(ground-level) lift controls may not be
operated with an employee in the lift,
except in case of emergency.
(10) Check controls. Before employees
are elevated into the work position, all
controls (ground level and bucket) shall
be checked to determine that they are in
proper working condition.
(11) Body of aerial lift truck. Before
the boom of an aerial lift is elevated, the
body of the truck shall be grounded, or
the body of the truck shall be barricaded
and treated as energized.
(12) Boom-current test. A boomcurrent test shall be made before work
is started each day, each time during the
day when higher voltage is encountered,
and when changed conditions indicate
a need for an additional test. This test
shall consist of placing the bucket in
contact with an energized source equal
to the voltage to be encountered for a
minimum of 3 minutes. The leakage
current may not exceed 1 microampere
per kilovolt of nominal phase-to-ground
voltage. Work from the aerial lift shall
be immediately suspended upon
indication of a malfunction in the
equipment.
(13) Minimum approach distance.
The minimum approach distances
specified in Table V–2 through Table V–
6 in § 1926.960 shall be maintained
from all grounded objects and from lines
and equipment at a potential different
from that to which the live-line barehand equipment is bonded, unless such
grounded objects and other lines and
equipment are covered by insulating
guards.
(14) Approaching, leaving, and
bonding to energized part. While an
employee is approaching, leaving, or
bonding to an energized circuit, the
minimum approach distances in Table
V–2 through Table V–6 shall be
maintained between the employee and
any grounded parts, including the lower
boom and portions of the truck.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
(15) Positioning bucket near energized
bushing or insulator string. While the
bucket is positioned alongside an
energized bushing or insulator string,
the phase-to-ground minimum approach
distances of Table V–2 through Table V–
6 shall be maintained between all parts
of the bucket and the grounded end of
the bushing or insulator string or any
other grounded surface.
(16) Hand lines. Hand lines may not
be used between the bucket and the
boom or between the bucket and the
ground. However, nonconductive-type
hand lines may be used from conductor
to ground if not supported from the
bucket. Ropes used for live-line barehand work may not be used for other
purposes.
(17) Passing objects to employee.
Uninsulated equipment or material may
not be passed between a pole or
structure and an aerial lift while an
employee working from the bucket is
bonded to an energized part.
(18) Table of minimum approach
distances. A minimum approach
distance table reflecting the minimum
approach distances listed in Table V–2
through Table V–6 shall be printed on
a plate of durable nonconductive
material. This table shall be mounted so
as to be visible to the operator of the
boom.
(19) Nonconductive measuring device.
A nonconductive measuring device
shall be readily accessible to assist
employees in maintaining the required
minimum approach distance.
(d) Towers and structures. The
following requirements apply to work
performed on towers or other structures
that support overhead lines.
(1) Working beneath towers and
structures. The employer shall ensure
that no employee is under a tower or
structure while work is in progress,
except where the employer can
demonstrate that such a working
position is necessary to assist employees
working above.
(2) Tag lines. Tag lines or other
similar devices shall be used to
maintain control of tower sections being
raised or positioned, unless the
employer can demonstrate that the use
of such devices would create a greater
hazard.
(3) Disconnecting load lines. The
loadline may not be detached from a
member or section until the load is
safely secured.
(4) Adverse weather conditions.
Except during emergency restoration
procedures, work shall be discontinued
when adverse weather conditions would
make the work hazardous in spite of the
work practices required by this section.
PO 00000
Frm 00141
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34961
Note to paragraph (d)(4) of this section:
Thunderstorms in the immediate vicinity,
high winds, snow storms, and ice storms are
examples of adverse weather conditions that
are presumed to make this work too
hazardous to perform, except under
emergency conditions.
§ 1926.965 Underground electrical
installations.
(a) Application. This section provides
additional requirements for work on
underground electrical installations.
(b) Access. A ladder or other climbing
device shall be used to enter and exit a
manhole or subsurface vault exceeding
1.22 m (4 feet) in depth. No employee
may climb into or out of a manhole or
vault by stepping on cables or hangers.
(c) Lowering equipment into
manholes. Equipment used to lower
materials and tools into manholes or
vaults shall be capable of supporting the
weight to be lowered and shall be
checked for defects before use. Before
tools or material are lowered into the
opening for a manhole or vault, each
employee working in the manhole or
vault shall be clear of the area directly
under the opening.
(d) Attendants for manholes and
vaults. (1) When required. While work is
being performed in a manhole or vault
containing energized electric
equipment, an employee with first aid
and CPR training meeting
§ 1926.951(b)(1) shall be available on
the surface in the immediate vicinity of
the manhole or vault entrance to render
emergency assistance.
(2) Brief entries allowed.
Occasionally, the employee on the
surface may briefly enter a manhole or
vault to provide assistance, other than
emergency.
Note 1 to paragraph (d)(2) of this section:
An attendant may also be required under
§ 1926.953(h). One person may serve to fulfill
both requirements. However, attendants
required under § 1926.953(h) are not
permitted to enter the manhole or vault.
Note 2 to paragraph (d)(2) of this section:
Employees entering manholes or vaults
containing unguarded, uninsulated energized
lines or parts of electric equipment operating
at 50 volts or more are required to be
qualified under § 1926.960(b).
(3) Entry without attendant. For the
purpose of inspection, housekeeping,
taking readings, or similar work, an
employee working alone may enter, for
brief periods of time, a manhole or vault
where energized cables or equipment
are in service, if the employer can
demonstrate that the employee will be
protected from all electrical hazards.
(4) Communications. Reliable
communications, through two-way
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34962
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
radios or other equivalent means, shall
be maintained among all employees
involved in the job.
(e) Duct rods. If duct rods are used,
they shall be installed in the direction
presenting the least hazard to
employees. An employee shall be
stationed at the far end of the duct line
being rodded to ensure that the required
minimum approach distances are
maintained.
(f) Multiple cables. When multiple
cables are present in a work area, the
cable to be worked shall be identified by
electrical means, unless its identity is
obvious by reason of distinctive
appearance or location or by other
readily apparent means of
identification. Cables other than the one
being worked shall be protected from
damage.
(g) Moving cables. Energized cables
that are to be moved shall be inspected
for defects.
(h) Protection against faults. (1)
Defective cables. Where a cable in a
manhole or vault has one or more
abnormalities that could lead to or be an
indication of an impending fault, the
defective cable shall be deenergized
before any employee may work in the
manhole or vault, except when service
load conditions and a lack of feasible
alternatives require that the cable
remain energized. In that case,
employees may enter the manhole or
vault provided they are protected from
the possible effects of a failure by
shields or other devices that are capable
of containing the adverse effects of a
fault.
Note to paragraph (h)(1) of this section:
Abnormalities such as oil or compound
leaking from cable or joints, broken cable
sheaths or joint sleeves, hot localized surface
temperatures of cables or joints, or joints that
are swollen beyond normal tolerance are
presumed to lead to or be an indication of an
impending fault.
(2) Work-related faults. If the work
being performed in a manhole or vault
could cause a fault in a cable, that cable
shall be deenergized before any
employee may work in the manhole or
vault, except when service load
conditions and a lack of feasible
alternatives require that the cable
remain energized. In that case,
employees may enter the manhole or
vault provided they are protected from
the possible effects of a failure by
shields or other devices that are capable
of containing the adverse effects of a
fault.
(i) Sheath continuity. When work is
performed on buried cable or on cable
in a manhole or vault, metallic sheath
continuity shall be maintained or the
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
cable sheath shall be treated as
energized.
§ 1926.966
Substations.
(a) Application. This section provides
additional requirements for substations
and for work performed in them.
(b) Access and working space.
Sufficient access and working space
shall be provided and maintained about
electric equipment to permit ready and
safe operation and maintenance of such
equipment.
Note to paragraph (b) of this section:
Guidelines for the dimensions of access and
working space 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
§ 1926.960(c)(1) 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.
(c) Draw-out-type circuit breakers.
When draw-out-type circuit breakers are
removed or inserted, the breaker shall
be in the open position. The control
circuit shall also be rendered
inoperative, if the design of the
equipment permits.
(d) Substation fences. Conductive
fences around substations shall be
grounded. When a substation fence is
expanded or a section is removed, fence
grounding continuity shall be
maintained, and bonding shall be used
to prevent electrical discontinuity.
(e) Guarding of rooms containing
electric supply equipment. (1) When
guarding of rooms is required. Rooms
and spaces in which electric supply
lines or equipment are installed shall
meet the requirements of paragraphs
(e)(2) through (e)(3) of this section under
the following conditions:
(i) If exposed live parts operating at 50
to 150 volts to ground are located within
8 feet of the ground or other working
surface inside the room or space,
(ii) If live parts operating at 151 to 600
volts to ground and located within 8 feet
of the ground or other working surface
inside the room or space are guarded
PO 00000
Frm 00142
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
only by location, as permitted under
paragraph (f)(1) of this section, or
(iii) If live parts operating at more
than 600 volts to ground are located
within the room or space, unless:
(A) The live parts are enclosed within
grounded, metal-enclosed equipment
whose only openings are designed so
that foreign objects inserted in these
openings will be deflected from
energized parts, or
(B) The live parts are installed at a
height above ground and any other
working surface that provides protection
at the voltage to which they are
energized corresponding to the
protection provided by a 2.4-meter (8foot) height at 50 volts.
(2) Prevent access by unqualified
persons. The rooms and spaces shall be
so enclosed within fences, screens,
partitions, or walls as to minimize the
possibility that unqualified persons will
enter.
(3) Restricted entry. Unqualified
persons may not enter the rooms or
spaces while the electric supply lines or
equipment are energized.
(4) Warning signs. Signs warning
unqualified persons to keep out shall be
displayed at entrances to the rooms and
spaces.
(5) Entrances to rooms. Entrances to
rooms and spaces that are not under the
observation of an attendant shall be kept
locked.
(f) Guarding of energized parts. (1)
Type of guarding. Guards shall be
provided around all live parts operating
at more than 150 volts to ground
without an insulating covering, unless
the location of the live parts gives
sufficient horizontal or vertical or a
combination of these clearances to
minimize the possibility of accidental
employee contact.
Note to paragraph (f)(1) of this section:
Guidelines for the dimensions of clearance
distances 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
(f)1. of this section. An installation that does
not conform to this ANSI standard will,
nonetheless, be considered as complying
with paragraph (f)(1) of this section if the
employer can demonstrate that the
installation provides sufficient clearance
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 each employee is isolated from
energized parts at the point of closest
approach, and
3. That the precautions taken when work
is performed on the installation provide
protection equivalent to the protection that
would be provide by horizontal and vertical
clearances meeting ANSI C2–2002.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
(2) Maintaining guards during
operation. Except for fuse replacement
and other necessary access by qualified
persons, the guarding of energized parts
within a compartment shall be
maintained during operation and
maintenance functions to prevent
accidental contact with energized parts
and to prevent tools or other equipment
from being dropped on energized parts.
(3) Temporary removal of guards.
When guards are removed from
energized equipment, barriers shall be
installed around the work area to
prevent employees who are not working
on the equipment, but who are in the
area, from contacting the exposed live
parts.
(g) Substation entry. (1) Report upon
entering. Upon entering an attended
substation, each employee other than
those regularly working in the station
shall report his or her presence to the
employee in charge in order to receive
information on special system
conditions affecting employee safety.
(2) Job briefing. The job briefing
required by § 1926.952 shall cover such
additional subjects as the location of
energized equipment in or adjacent to
the work area and the limits of any
deenergized work area.
§ 1926.967
Special conditions.
(a) Capacitors. The following
additional requirements apply to work
on capacitors and on lines connected to
capacitors.
Note to paragraph (a) of this section: See
§§ 1926.961 and 1926.962 for requirements
pertaining to the deenergizing and grounding
of capacitor installations.
(1) Disconnect from energized source.
Before employees work on capacitors,
the capacitors shall be disconnected
from energized sources and, after a wait
of at least 5 minutes from the time of
disconnection, short-circuited.
(2) Short circuiting units. Before the
units are handled, each unit in seriesparallel capacitor banks shall be shortcircuited between all terminals and the
capacitor case or its rack. If the cases of
capacitors are on ungrounded substation
racks, the racks shall be bonded to
ground.
(3) Short circuiting connected lines.
Any line to which capacitors are
connected shall be short-circuited
before it is considered deenergized.
(b) Current transformer secondaries.
The secondary of a current transformer
may not be opened while the
transformer is energized. If the primary
of the current transformer cannot be
deenergized before work is performed
on an instrument, a relay, or other
section of a current transformer
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
secondary circuit, the circuit shall be
bridged so that the current transformer
secondary will not be opened.
(c) Series streetlighting. (1) Applicable
requirements. If the open-circuit voltage
exceeds 600 volts, the series
streetlighting circuit shall be worked in
accordance with § 1926.964 or
§ 1926.965, as appropriate.
(2) Opening a series loop. A series
loop may only be opened after the
streetlighting transformer has been
deenergized and isolated from the
source of supply or after the loop is
bridged to avoid an open-circuit
condition.
(d) Illumination. Sufficient
illumination shall be provided to enable
the employee to perform the work
safely.
Note to paragraph (d) of this section: See
§ 1926.56 for specific levels of illumination.
(e) Protection against drowning. (1)
Personal flotation devices. Whenever an
employee may be pulled or pushed or
may fall into water where the danger of
drowning exists, the employee shall be
provided with and shall use personal
flotation devices meeting § 1926.106.
(2) Maintaining flotation devices in
safe condition. Each personal flotation
device shall be maintained in safe
condition and shall be inspected
frequently enough to ensure that it does
not have rot, mildew, water saturation,
or any other condition that could render
the device unsuitable for use.
(3) Crossing bodies of water. An
employee may cross streams or other
bodies of water only if a safe means of
passage, such as a bridge, is provided.
(f) Excavations. Excavation operations
shall comply with Subpart P of this Part.
(g) Employee protection in public
work areas. (1) Traffic control devices.
Traffic control signs and traffic control
devices used for the protection of
employees shall meet the requirements
of § 1926.200(g)(2).
(2) Controlling traffic. Before work is
begun in the vicinity of vehicular or
pedestrian traffic that may endanger
employees, warning signs or flags and
other traffic control devices shall be
placed in conspicuous locations to alert
and channel approaching traffic.
(3) Barricades. Where additional
employee protection is necessary,
barricades shall be used.
(4) Excavated areas. Excavated areas
shall be protected with barricades.
(5) Warning lights. At night, warning
lights shall be prominently displayed.
(h) Backfeed. If there is a possibility
of voltage backfeed from sources of
cogeneration or from the secondary
system (for example, backfeed from
more than one energized phase feeding
PO 00000
Frm 00143
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34963
a common load), the requirements of
§ 1926.960 apply if the lines or
equipment are to be worked as
energized, and the requirements of
§§ 1926.961 and 1926.962 apply if the
lines or equipment are to be worked as
deenergized.
(i) Lasers. Laser equipment shall be
installed, adjusted, and operated in
accordance with § 1926.54.
(j) Hydraulic fluids. Hydraulic fluids
used for the insulated sections of
equipment shall provide insulation for
the voltage involved. These fluids need
not meet § 1926.302(d)(1).
(k) Communication facilities. (1)
Microwave transmission. (i) The
employer shall ensure that no employee
looks into an open waveguide or
antenna that is connected to an
energized microwave source.
(ii) If the electromagnetic radiation
level within an accessible area
associated with microwave
communications systems exceeds the
radiation protection guide given in
§ 1910.97(a)(2) of this chapter, the area
shall be posted with the warning symbol
described in § 1910.97(a)(3) of this
chapter. The lower half of the warning
symbol shall include the following
statements or ones that the employer
can demonstrate are equivalent:
Radiation in this area may exceed hazard
limitations and special precautions are
required. Obtain specific instruction before
entering.
(iii) When an employee works in an
area where the electromagnetic
radiation could exceed the radiation
protection guide, the employer shall
institute measures that ensure that the
employee’s exposure is not greater than
that permitted by that guide. Such
measures may include administrative
and engineering controls and personal
protective equipment.
(2) Power line carrier. Power line
carrier work, including work on
equipment used for coupling carrier
current to power line conductors, shall
be performed in accordance with the
requirements of this section pertaining
to work on energized lines.
§ 1926.968
subpart.
Definitions applicable to this
Affected employee. An employee
whose job requires him or her to operate
or use a machine or equipment on
which servicing or maintenance is being
performed under lockout or tagout, or
whose job requires him or her to work
in an area in which such servicing or
maintenance is being performed.
Attendant. An employee assigned to
remain immediately outside the
entrance to an enclosed or other space
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34964
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
to render assistance as needed to
employees inside the space.
Authorized employee. An employee
who locks out or tags out machines or
equipment in order to perform servicing
or maintenance on that machine or
equipment. An affected employee
becomes an authorized employee when
that employee’s duties include
performing servicing or maintenance
covered under this section.
Automatic circuit recloser. A selfcontrolled device for interrupting and
reclosing an alternating current circuit
with a predetermined sequence of
opening and reclosing followed by
resetting, hold-closed, or lockout
operation.
Barricade. A physical obstruction
such as tapes, cones, or A-frame type
wood or metal structures intended to
provide a warning about and to limit
access to a hazardous area.
Barrier. A physical obstruction which
is intended to prevent contact with
energized lines or equipment or to
prevent unauthorized access to a work
area.
Bond. The electrical interconnection
of conductive parts designed to
maintain a common electrical potential.
Bus. A conductor or a group of
conductors that serve as a common
connection for two or more circuits.
Bushing. An insulating structure,
including a through conductor or
providing a passageway for such a
conductor, with provision for mounting
on a barrier, conducting or otherwise,
for the purposes of insulating the
conductor from the barrier and
conducting current from one side of the
barrier to the other.
Cable. A conductor with insulation,
or a stranded conductor with or without
insulation and other coverings (singleconductor cable), or a combination of
conductors insulated from one another
(multiple-conductor cable).
Cable sheath. A conductive protective
covering applied to cables.
Note: A cable sheath may consist of
multiple layers of which one or more is
conductive.
Circuit. A conductor or system of
conductors through which an electric
current is intended to flow.
Clearance (between objects). The clear
distance between two objects measured
surface to surface.
Clearance (for work). Authorization to
perform specified work or permission to
enter a restricted area.
Communication lines. (See Lines,
communication.)
Conductor. A material, usually in the
form of a wire, cable, or bus bar, used
for carrying an electric current.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
Contract employer. An employer who
performs work covered by Subpart V of
this Part for a host employer.
Covered conductor. A conductor
covered with a dielectric having no
rated insulating strength or having a
rated insulating strength less than the
voltage of the circuit in which the
conductor is used.
Current-carrying part. A conducting
part intended to be connected in an
electric circuit to a source of voltage.
Noncurrent-carrying parts are those not
intended to be so connected.
Deenergized. Free from any electrical
connection to a source of potential
difference and from electric charge; not
having a potential different from that of
the earth.
Note: The term is used only with reference
to current-carrying parts, which are
sometimes energized (alive).
Designated employee (designated
person). An employee (or person) who
is assigned by the employer to perform
specific duties under the terms of this
section and who has sufficient
knowledge of the construction and
operation of the equipment and the
hazards involved to perform his or her
duties safely.
Electric line truck. A truck used to
transport personnel, tools, and material
for electric supply line work.
Electric supply equipment. Equipment
that produces, modifies, regulates,
controls, or safeguards a supply of
electric energy.
Electric supply lines. (See Lines,
electric supply.)
Electric utility. An organization
responsible for the installation,
operation, or maintenance of an electric
supply system.
Enclosed space. A working space,
such as a manhole, vault, tunnel, or
shaft, that has a limited means of egress
or entry, that is designed for periodic
employee entry under normal operating
conditions, and that under normal
conditions does not contain a hazardous
atmosphere, but that may contain a
hazardous atmosphere under abnormal
conditions.
Note: Spaces that are enclosed but not
designed for employee entry under normal
operating conditions are not considered to be
enclosed spaces for the purposes of this
section. Similarly, spaces that are enclosed
and that are expected to contain a hazardous
atmosphere are not considered to be enclosed
spaces for the purposes of this section. Such
spaces meet the definition of permit spaces
in § 1910.146 of this chapter, and entry into
them must be performed in accordance with
that standard.
Energized (alive, live). Electrically
connected to a source of potential
PO 00000
Frm 00144
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
difference, or electrically charged so as
to have a potential significantly
different from that of earth in the
vicinity.
Energy isolating device. A physical
device that prevents the transmission or
release of energy, including, but not
limited to, the following: a manually
operated electric circuit breaker, a
disconnect switch, a manually operated
switch, a slide gate, a slip blind, a line
valve, blocks, and any similar device
with a visible indication of the position
of the device. (Push buttons, selector
switches, and other control-circuit-type
devices are not energy isolating
devices.)
Energy source. Any electrical,
mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic,
chemical, nuclear, thermal, or other
energy source that could cause injury to
personnel.
Entry (as used in § 1926.953). The
action by which a person passes through
an opening into an enclosed space.
Entry includes ensuing work activities
in that space and is considered to have
occurred as soon as any part of the
entrant’s body breaks the plane of an
opening into the space.
Equipment (electric). A general term
including material, fittings, devices,
appliances, fixtures, apparatus, and the
like used as part of or in connection
with an electrical installation.
Exposed. Not isolated or guarded.
Ground. A conducting connection,
whether intentional or accidental,
between an electric circuit or equipment
and the earth, or to some conducting
body that serves in place of the earth.
Grounded. Connected to earth or to
some conducting body that serves in
place of the earth.
Guarded. Covered, fenced, enclosed,
or otherwise protected, by means of
suitable covers or casings, barrier rails
or screens, mats, or platforms, designed
to minimize the possibility, under
normal conditions, of dangerous
approach or accidental contact by
persons or objects.
Note: Wires that are insulated, but not
otherwise protected, are not considered as
guarded.
Hazardous atmosphere. An
atmosphere that may expose employees
to the risk of death, incapacitation,
impairment of ability to self-rescue (that
is, escape unaided from an enclosed
space), injury, or acute illness from one
or more of the following causes:
(1) Flammable gas, vapor, or mist in
excess of 10 percent of its lower
flammable limit (LFL);
(2) Airborne combustible dust at a
concentration that meets or exceeds its
LFL;
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Note: This concentration may be
approximated as a condition in which the
dust obscures vision at a distance of 1.52 m
(5 feet) or less.
(3) Atmospheric oxygen concentration
below 19.5 percent or above 23.5
percent;
(4) Atmospheric concentration of any
substance for which a dose or a
permissible exposure limit is published
in Subpart G, Occupational Health and
Environmental Control, or in Subpart Z,
Toxic and Hazardous Substances, of this
Part and which could result in
employee exposure in excess of its dose
or permissible exposure limit;
Note: An atmospheric concentration of any
substance that is not capable of causing
death, incapacitation, impairment of ability
to self-rescue, injury, or acute illness due to
its health effects is not covered by this
provision.
(5) Any other atmospheric condition
that is immediately dangerous to life or
health.
Note: For air contaminants for which
OSHA has not determined a dose or
permissible exposure limit, other sources of
information, such as Material Safety Data
Sheets that comply with the Hazard
Communication Standard, § 1926.1200,
published information, and internal
documents can provide guidance in
establishing acceptable atmospheric
conditions.
High-power tests. Tests in which fault
currents, load currents, magnetizing
currents, and line-dropping currents are
used to test equipment, either at the
equipment’s rated voltage or at lower
voltages.
High-voltage tests. Tests in which
voltages of approximately 1000 volts are
used as a practical minimum and in
which the voltage source has sufficient
energy to cause injury.
High wind. A wind of such velocity
that the following hazards would be
present:
(1) An employee would be exposed to
being blown from elevated locations, or
(2) An employee or material handling
equipment could lose control of
material being handled, or
(3) An employee would be exposed to
other hazards not controlled by the
standard involved.
Note: Winds exceeding 64.4 kilometers per
hour (40 miles per hour), or 48.3 kilometers
per hour (30 miles per hour) if material
handling is involved, are normally
considered as meeting this criteria unless
precautions are taken to protect employees
from the hazardous effects of the wind.
Host employer. An employer who
operates and maintains an electric
power transmission or distribution
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
installation covered by Subpart V of this
Part and who hires a contract employer
to perform work on that installation.
Immediately dangerous to life or
health (IDLH). Any condition that poses
an immediate or delayed threat to life or
that would cause irreversible adverse
health effects or that would interfere
with an individual’s ability to escape
unaided from a permit space.
Note: Some materials—hydrogen fluoride
gas and cadmium vapor, for example—may
produce immediate transient effects that,
even if severe, may pass without medical
attention, but are followed by sudden,
possibly fatal collapse 12–72 hours after
exposure. The victim ‘‘feels normal’’ from
recovery from transient effects until collapse.
Such materials in hazardous quantities are
considered to be ‘‘immediately’’ dangerous to
life or health.
Insulated. Separated from other
conducting surfaces by a dielectric
(including air space) offering a high
resistance to the passage of current.
Note: When any object is said to be
insulated, it is understood to be insulated for
the conditions to which it is normally
subjected. Otherwise, it is, within the
purpose of this section, uninsulated.
Insulation (cable). That which is
relied upon to insulate the conductor
from other conductors or conducting
parts or from ground.
Line-clearance tree trimming. The
pruning, trimming, repairing,
maintaining, removing, or clearing of
trees or the cutting of brush that is
within 3.05 m (10 feet) of electric
supply lines and equipment.
Lines. (1) Communication lines. The
conductors and their supporting or
containing structures which are used for
public or private signal or
communication service, and which
operate at potentials not exceeding 400
volts to ground or 750 volts between any
two points of the circuit, and the
transmitted power of which does not
exceed 150 watts. If the lines are
operating at less than 150 volts, no limit
is placed on the transmitted power of
the system. Under certain conditions,
communication cables may include
communication circuits exceeding these
limitations where such circuits are also
used to supply power solely to
communication equipment.
Note: Telephone, telegraph, railroad signal,
data, clock, fire, police alarm, cable
television, and other systems conforming to
this definition are included. Lines used for
signaling purposes, but not included under
this definition, are considered as electric
supply lines of the same voltage.
(2) Electric supply lines. Conductors
used to transmit electric energy and
PO 00000
Frm 00145
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
34965
their necessary supporting or containing
structures. Signal lines of more than 400
volts are always supply lines within this
section, and those of less than 400 volts
are considered as supply lines, if so run
and operated throughout.
Manhole. A subsurface enclosure
which personnel may enter and which
is used for the purpose of installing,
operating, and maintaining submersible
equipment or cable.
Manhole steps. A series of steps
individually attached to or set into the
walls of a manhole structure.
Minimum approach distance. The
closest distance an employee is
permitted to approach an energized or a
grounded object.
Qualified employee (qualified
person). One knowledgeable in the
construction and operation of the
electric power generation, transmission,
and distribution equipment involved,
along with the associated hazards.
Note 1: An employee must have the
training required by § 1926.950(b)(2) in order
to be considered a qualified employee.
Note 2: Except under § 1926.954(b)(3)(iii),
an employee who is undergoing on-the-job
training and who, in the course of such
training, has demonstrated an ability to
perform duties safely at his or her level of
training and who is under the direct
supervision of a qualified person is
considered to be a qualified person for the
performance of those duties.
Step bolt. A bolt or rung attached at
intervals along a structural member and
used for foot placement during climbing
or standing.
Switch. A device for opening and
closing or for changing the connection
of a circuit. In this section, a switch is
understood to be manually operable,
unless otherwise stated.
System operator. A qualified person
designated to operate the system or its
parts.
Vault. An enclosure, above or below
ground, which personnel may enter and
which is used for the purpose of
installing, operating, or maintaining
equipment or cable.
Vented vault. A vault that has
provision for air changes using exhaust
flue stacks and low level air intakes
operating on differentials of pressure
and temperature providing for airflow
that precludes a hazardous atmosphere
from developing.
Voltage. The effective (rms) potential
difference between any two conductors
or between a conductor and ground.
Voltages are expressed in nominal
values unless otherwise indicated. The
nominal voltage of a system or circuit is
the value assigned to a system or circuit
of a given voltage class for the purpose
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34966
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
of convenient designation. The
operating voltage of the system may
vary above or below this value.
Appendix A to Subpart V—Flow Charts
For information, in the form of flow charts,
that helps illustrate the scope and
application of subpart V of this part, see
Appendix A to § 1910.269 of this chapter.
That appendix addresses the interface
between § 1910.269 of this chapter and
subpart S of part 1910 of this chapter
(Electrical), between § 1910.269 and
§ 1910.146 of this chapter (Permit-required
confined spaces), and between § 1910.269
and § 1910.147 of this chapter (the control of
hazardous energy (lockout/tagout)). The flow
charts presented in that Appendix provide
guidance for employers trying to implement
the requirements of § 1910.269 in
combination with other General Industry
Standards contained in part 1910 of this
chapter. Because subpart V of this part also
interfaces these general industry standards,
Appendix A to § 1910.269 of this chapter will
assist employers in determining which of
these standards applies in different
situations.
Appendix B to Subpart V—Working on
Exposed Energized Parts
I. Introduction
Electric transmission and distribution line
installations have been designed to meet
National Electrical Safety Code (NESC), ANSI
C2, requirements and to provide the level of
line outage performance required by system
reliability criteria. Transmission and
distribution lines are also designed to
withstand the maximum overvoltages
expected to be impressed on the system.
Such overvoltages can be caused by such
conditions as switching surges, faults, or
lightning. Insulator design and lengths and
the clearances to structural parts (which, for
low voltage through extra-high voltage, or
EHV, facilities, are generally based on the
performance of the line as a result of
contamination of the insulation or during
storms) have, over the years, come closer to
the minimum approach distances used by
workers (which are generally based on nonstorm conditions). Thus, as minimum
approach (working) distances and structural
distances (clearances) converge, it is
increasingly important that basic
considerations for establishing safe approach
distances for performing work be understood
by the designers and the operating and
maintenance personnel involved.
The information in this Appendix will
assist employers in complying with the
minimum approach distance requirements
contained in § 1926.960(c)(1) and
§ 1926.964(c). The technical criteria and
methodology presented herein is mandatory
for employers using reduced minimum
approach distances as permitted in Table V–
2 and Table V–3 in § 1926.960. This
Appendix is intended to provide essential
background information and technical
criteria for the development or modification,
if possible, of the safe minimum approach
distances for electric transmission and
distribution live-line work. The development
of these safe distances must be undertaken by
persons knowledgeable in the techniques
discussed in this appendix and competent in
the field of electric transmission and
distribution system design.
II. General
A. Definitions. The following definitions
from § 1926.968 of this part relate to work on
or near transmission and distribution lines
and equipment and the electrical hazards
they present.
Exposed. Not isolated or guarded.
Guarded. Covered, fenced, enclosed, or
otherwise protected, by means of suitable
covers or casings, barrier rails or screens,
mats, or platforms, designed to minimize the
possibility, under normal conditions, of
dangerous approach or accidental contact by
persons or objects.
Note: Wires which are insulated, but not
otherwise protected, are not considered as
guarded.
Insulated. Separated from other conducting
surfaces by a dielectric (including air space)
offering a high resistance to the passage of
current.
Note: When any object is said to be
insulated, it is understood to be insulated for
the conditions to which it is normally
subjected. Otherwise, it is, within the
purpose of this section, uninsulated.
B. Installations energized at 50 to 300
volts. The hazards posed by installations
energized at 50 to 300 volts are the same as
those found in many other workplaces. That
is not to say that there is no hazard, but the
complexity of electrical protection required
does not compare to that required for high
voltage systems. The employee must avoid
contact with the exposed parts, and the
protective equipment used (such as rubber
insulating gloves) must provide insulation for
the voltages involved.
C. Exposed energized parts over 300 volts
AC. Table V–1, Table V–2, Table V–3, and
Table V–4 of § 1926.960 of this part provide
minimum approach distances in the vicinity
of energized electric apparatus so that work
can be done safely without risk of electrical
flashover.
The distance between the employee and an
energized part must withstand the maximum
transient overvoltage that can reach the work
site under the working conditions and
practices in use. Normal system design may
provide or include a means to control
transient overvoltages, or temporary devices
may be employed to achieve the same result.
The use of technically correct practices or
procedures to control overvoltages (for
example, portable gaps or preventing the
automatic control from initiating breaker
reclosing) enables line design and operation
to be based on reduced transient overvoltage
values. Technical information for U.S.
electrical systems indicates that current
design provides for the following maximum
transient overvoltage values (usually
produced by switching surges):
362 kV and less—3.0 per unit
552 kV—2.4 per unit
800 kV—2.0 per unit
Additional discussion of maximum
transient overvoltages can be found in
paragraph III.A.2, later in this Appendix.
III. Determination of the Electrical
Component of Minimum Approach
Distances
A. Voltages of 1.1 kV to 72.5 kV. For
voltages of 1.1 kV to 72.5 kV, the electrical
component of minimum approach distances
is based on American National Standards
Institute (ANSI)/American Institute of
Electrical Engineers (AIEE) Standard No.4,
March 1943, Tables III and IV. (AIEE is the
predecessor technical society to the Institute
of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE).)
These distances are represented by the
following formula:
Equation (1)—For voltages of 1.1 kV to 72.5
kV:
D=
Vmax × pu
95
1.63
Where: D = Electrical component of the
minimum approach distance in air in
feet
Vmax = Maximum rated line-to-ground rms
voltage in kV
pu = Maximum transient overvoltage factor
in per unit
Source: AIEE Standard No. 4, 1943.
Table 1 shows the electrical component of
the minimum approach distances based on
that AIEE standard.
TABLE 1.—A–C ENERGIZED LINE WORK PHASE-TO-GROUND ELECTRICAL COMPONENT OF THE MINIMUM APPROACH
DISTANCE 1.1 TO 72.5 KV
Phase-to-phase voltage
Maximum anticipated per-unit transient overvoltage
15,000
36,000
46,000
72,500
3.0 ....................................................................................................
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00146
Fmt 4701
ft
m
ft
m
ft
m
ft
0.04
0.17
0.16
0.58
0.23
0.75
0.39
1.25
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
EP15JN05.005</MATH>
m
34967
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Note: The distances given are for air as the
insulating medium and provide no additional
clearance for inadvertent movement.
B. Voltages of 72.6 kV to 800 kV. For
voltages of 72.6 kV to 800 kV, the electrical
component of minimum approach distances
is based on ANSI/IEEE Standard 516–1987,
‘‘IEEE Guide for Maintenance Methods on
Energized Power Lines.’’ This standard gives
the electrical component of the minimum
approach distance based on power frequency
rod-gap data, supplemented with transient
overvoltage information and a saturation
factor for high voltages. The distances listed
in ANSI/IEEE Standard 516 have been
calculated according to the following
formula:
Equation (2)—For voltages of 72.6 kV to
800 kV:
pu = Maximum anticipated transient
overvoltage, in per unit (p.u.)
Vmax = Maximum rms system line-to-ground
voltage in kilovolts—it should be the
‘‘actual’’ maximum, or the normal
highest voltage for the range (for
example, 10 percent above the nominal
voltage)
Source: Formula developed from ANSI/
IEEE Standard No. 516, 1987.
This formula is used to calculate the
electrical component of the minimum
approach distances in air and is used in the
development of Table 2 and Table 3.
D = (C + a ) × pu × Vmax
Where: D = Electrical component of the
minimum approach distance in air in
feet
C = 0.01 to take care of correction factors
associated with the variation of gap
sparkover with voltage
a = A factor relating to the saturation of air
at voltages of 345 kV or higher
TABLE 2.—A–C ENERGIZED LINE WORK PHASE-TO-GROUND ELECTRICAL COMPONENT OF THE MINIMUM APPROACH
DISTANCE 121 TO 242 KV
Phase-to-phase voltage
Maximum anticipated per-unit transient overvoltage
121,000
145,000
169,000
242,000
m
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0
....................................................................................................
....................................................................................................
....................................................................................................
....................................................................................................
....................................................................................................
....................................................................................................
....................................................................................................
....................................................................................................
....................................................................................................
....................................................................................................
....................................................................................................
ft
m
ft
m
ft
m
ft
0.44
0.46
0.48
0.50
0.52
0.54
0.56
0.58
0.61
0.63
0.65
1.40
1.47
1.54
1.61
1.68
1.75
1.82
1.89
1.96
2.03
2.10
0.53
0.55
0.58
0.61
0.63
0.66
0.68
0.71
0.73
0.76
0.79
1.70
1.79
1.87
1.96
2.04
2.13
2.21
2.30
2.38
2.47
2.55
0.62
0.65
0.68
0.71
0.74
0.77
0.80
0.83
0.86
0.89
0.92
2.00
2.10
2.20
2.30
2.40
2.50
2.60
2.70
2.80
2.90
3.00
0.86
0.91
0.95
0.99
1.03
1.08
1.12
1.15
1.20
1.24
1.29
2.80
2.94
3.08
3.22
3.35
3.50
3.64
3.76
3.92
4.05
4.20
TABLE 3.—A–C ENERGIZED LINE WORK PHASE-TO-GROUND ELECTRICAL COMPONENT OF THE MINIMUM APPROACH
DISTANCE 362 TO 800 KV
Phase-to-phase voltage
362,000
552,000
m
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
Note: The distances given are for air as the
insulating medium and provide no additional
clearance for inadvertent movement.
C. Provisions for inadvertent movement.
The minimum approach distances (working
distances) must include an ‘‘adder’’ to
compensate for the inadvertent movement of
the worker relative to an energized part or the
movement of the part relative to the worker.
A certain allowance must be made to account
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
ft
................
................
................
................
................
1.29
1.35
1.44
1.54
1.64
1.74
1.84
1.95
2.06
2.17
2.29
................
................
................
................
................
4.20
4.41
4.70
5.01
5.34
5.67
6.01
6.36
6.73
7.10
7.48
for this possible inadvertent movement and
to provide the worker with a comfortable and
safe zone in which to work. A distance for
inadvertent movement (called the
‘‘ergonomic component of the minimum
approach distance’’) must be added to the
electrical component to determine the total
safe minimum approach distances used in
live-line work.
PO 00000
Frm 00147
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
m
1.52
1.67
1.83
1.99
2.17
2.35
2.53
2.71
2.9
3.12
800,000
ft
4.97
5.46
5.98
6.51
7.08
7.68
8.27
8.87
9.49
10.21
m
2.65
2.93
3.24
3.56
3.89
4.23
ft
8.66
9.60
10.60
11.64
12.73
13.86
One approach that can be used to estimate
the ergonomic component of the minimum
approach distance is response time-distance
analysis. When this technique is used, the
total response time to a hazardous incident
is estimated and converted to distance
traveled. For example, the driver of a car
takes a given amount of time to respond to
a ‘‘stimulus’’ and stop the vehicle. The
elapsed time involved results in a distance
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
EP15JN05.006</MATH>
Maximum anticipated per-unit transient overvoltage
34968
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
being traveled before the car comes to a
complete stop. This distance is dependent on
the speed of the car at the time the stimulus
appears.
In the case of live-line work, the employee
must first perceive that he or she is
approaching the danger zone. Then, the
worker responds to the danger and must
decelerate and stop all motion toward the
energized part. During the time it takes to
stop, a distance will have been traversed. It
is this distance that must be added to the
electrical component of the minimum
approach distance to obtain the total safe
minimum approach distance.
At voltages below 72.5 kV, the electrical
component of the minimum approach
distance is smaller than the ergonomic
component. At 72.5 kV the electrical
component is only a little more than 0.3 m
(1 foot). An ergonomic component of the
minimum approach distance is needed that
will provide for all the worker’s unexpected
movements. The usual live-line work method
for these voltages is the use of rubber
insulating equipment, frequently rubber
gloves. The energized object needs to be far
enough away to provide the worker’s face
with a safe approach distance, as his or her
hands and arms are insulated. In this case,
0.61 m (2 feet) has been accepted as a
sufficient and practical value.
For voltages between 72.6 and 800 kV,
there is a change in the work practices
employed during energized line work.
Generally, live-line tools (hot sticks) are
employed to perform work while equipment
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
is energized. These tools, by design, keep the
energized part at a constant distance from the
employee and thus maintain the appropriate
minimum approach distance automatically.
The length of the ergonomic component of
the minimum approach distance is also
influenced by the location of the worker and
by the nature of the work. In these higher
voltage ranges, the employees use work
methods that more tightly control their
movements than when the workers perform
rubber glove work. The worker is farther from
energized line or equipment and needs to be
more precise in his or her movements just to
perform the work.
For these reasons, a smaller ergonomic
component of the minimum approach
distance is needed, and a distance of 0.30 m
(1 foot) has been selected for voltages
between 72.6 and 800 kV.
Table 4 summarizes the ergonomic
component of the minimum approach
distance for the two voltage ranges.
TABLE 4.—ERGONOMIC COMPONENT
OF MINIMUM APPROACH DISTANCE
Distance
Voltage range (kV)
m
1.1 to 72.5 ........................
72.6 to 800 .......................
0.61
0.30
ft
2.0
1.0
Note: This distance must be added to the
electrical component of the minimum
PO 00000
Frm 00148
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
approach distance to obtain the full
minimum approach distance.
It must be noted that the ergonomic
component of the minimum approach
distance is intended to account only for
unexpected movements of the employee. The
working position selected must account for
all the employee’s anticipated movements
and still enable the employee to maintain the
safe minimum approach distance. (See Figure
1.) Anticipated movements include: An
employee’s adjustments to tools, equipment,
and working positions; expected errors in
positioning tools and equipment; and all
movements needed to perform the work. For
example, the employee should be able to
perform all of the following actions without
straying into the minimum approach
distance:
• Adjust his or her hard hat,
• Maneuver a tool onto an energized part
with a certain amount of over or
underreaching,
• Reach out for and handle tools, material,
and equipment being passed to the employee
in the working position, and
• Adjust tools and replace components on
them, if necessary during the work
procedure.
The training of qualified employees
required under § 1926.950 and the job
planning and briefing required under
§ 1926.952 must address selection of the
proper working position.
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
34969
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00149
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
EP15JN05.007</GPH>
BILLING CODE 4510–26–C
34970
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
D. Bare-Hand Live-Line Minimum
Approach Distances. Calculating the strength
of phase-to-phase transient overvoltages is
complicated by the varying time
displacement between overvoltages on
parallel conductors (electrodes) and by the
varying ratio between the positive and
negative voltages on the two electrodes. The
time displacement causes the maximum
voltage between phases to be less than the
sum of the phase-to-ground voltages. The
International Electrotechnical Commission
(IEC) Technical Committee 28, Working
Group 2, has developed the following
formula for determining the phase-to-phase
maximum transient overvoltage based on the
per unit (p.u.) of the system nominal voltage
phase-to-ground crest:
pup = pug + 1.6.
Where: pug = p.u. phase-to-ground maximum
transient overvoltage
pup = p.u. phase-to-phase maximum transient
overvoltage
This value of maximum anticipated
transient overvoltage must be used in
Equation (2) to calculate the phase-to-phase
minimum approach distances for live-line
bare-hand work.
E. Compiling the minimum approach
distance tables. For each voltage involved,
the distance in Table 4 in this appendix has
been added to the distance in Table 1, Table
2, or Table 3 in this appendix to determine
the resulting minimum approach distances in
Table V–1, Table V–2, and Table V–3 in
§ 1926.960 of this part.
F. Miscellaneous correction factors. The
strength of an air gap is influenced by the
changes in the air medium that forms the
insulation. A brief discussion of each factor
follows, with a summary at the end.
1. Dielectric strength of air. The dielectric
strength of air in a uniform electric field at
standard atmospheric conditions is
approximately 31 kV (crest) per cm at 60 Hz.
The disruptive gradient is affected by the air
pressure, temperature, and humidity, by the
shape, dimensions, and separation of the
electrodes, and by the characteristics of the
applied voltage (wave shape).
2. Atmospheric effect. Flashover for a given
air gap is inhibited by an increase in the
density (humidity) of the air. The empirically
determined electrical strength of a given gap
is normally applicable at standard
atmospheric conditions (20 C, 101.3 kPa, 11
g/cm 3 humidity).
The combination of temperature and air
pressure that gives the lowest gap flashover
voltage is high temperature and low pressure.
These are conditions not likely to occur
simultaneously. Low air pressure is generally
associated with high humidity, and this
causes increased electrical strength. An
average air pressure is more likely to be
associated with low humidity. Hot and dry
working conditions are thus normally
associated with reduced electrical strength.
The electrical component of the minimum
approach distances in Table 1, Table 2, and
Table 3 has been calculated using the
maximum transient overvoltages to
determine withstand voltages at standard
atmospheric conditions.
3. Altitude. The electrical strength of an air
gap is reduced at high altitude, due
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
principally to the reduced air pressure. An
increase of about 3 percent per 300 meters in
the minimum approach distance for altitudes
above 900 meters is required. Table V–5 of
§ 1926.960 of this Part presents this
information in tabular form.
Summary. After taking all these correction
factors into account and after considering
their interrelationships relative to the air gap
insulation strength and the conditions under
which live work is performed, one finds that
only a correction for altitude need be made.
An elevation of 900 meters is established as
the base elevation, and the values of the
electrical component of the minimum
approach distances has been derived with
this correction factor in mind. Thus, the
values used for elevations below 900 meters
are conservative without any change;
corrections have to be made only above this
base elevation.
IV. Determination of Reduced Minimum
Approach Distances
A. Factors Affecting Voltage Stress at the
Work Site
1. System voltage (nominal). The nominal
system voltage range sets the absolute lower
limit for the minimum approach distance.
The highest value within the range, as given
in the relevant table, is selected and used as
a reference for per unit calculations.
2. Transient overvoltages. Transient
overvoltages may be generated on an
electrical system by the operation of switches
or breakers, by the occurrence of a fault on
the line or circuit being worked or on an
adjacent circuit, and by similar activities.
Most of the overvoltages are caused by
switching, and the term ‘‘switching surge’’ is
often used to refer generically to all types of
overvoltages. However, each overvoltage has
an associated transient voltage wave shape.
The wave shape arriving at the site and its
magnitude vary considerably.
The information used in the development
of the minimum approach distances takes
into consideration the most common wave
shapes; thus, the required minimum
approach distances are appropriate for any
transient overvoltage level usually found on
electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution systems. The values of the per
unit (p.u.) voltage relative to the nominal
maximum voltage are used in the calculation
of these distances.
3. Typical magnitude of overvoltages. The
magnitude of typical transient overvoltages is
given in Table 5.
TABLE 5.—MAGNITUDE OF TYPICAL
TRANSIENT OVERVOLTAGES
Magnitude
(per unit)
Cause
Energized 200-mile line without closing resistors.
Energized 200-mile line with
one-step closing resistor.
Energized 200-mile line with
multi-step resistor.
Reclosed with trapped charge
one-step resistor.
Opening surge with single restrike.
PO 00000
Frm 00150
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3.5
2.1
2.5
2.2
TABLE 5.—MAGNITUDE OF TYPICAL
TRANSIENT OVERVOLTAGES—Continued
Magnitude
(per unit)
Cause
Fault initiation unfaulted
phase.
Fault initiation adjacent circuit
Fault clearing .........................
Source:
1987.
ANSI/IEEE
2.1
2.5
1.7 to 1.9
Standard
No.
516,
4. Standard deviation—air-gap withstand.
For each air gap length, and under the same
atmospheric conditions, there is a statistical
variation in the breakdown voltage. The
probability of the breakdown voltage is
assumed to have a normal (Gaussian)
distribution. The standard deviation of this
distribution varies with the wave shape, gap
geometry, and atmospheric conditions. The
withstand voltage of the air gap used in
calculating the electrical component of the
minimum approach distance has been set at
three standard deviations (3s1) below the
critical flashover voltage. (The critical
flashover voltage is the crest value of the
impulse wave that, under specified
conditions, causes flashover on 50 percent of
the applications. An impulse wave of three
standard deviations below this value, that is,
the withstand voltage, has a probability of
flashover of approximately 1 in 1000.)
5. Broken Insulators. Tests have shown that
the insulation strength of an insulator string
with broken skirts is reduced. Broken units
may have lost up to 70% of their withstand
capacity. Because the insulating capability of
a broken unit cannot be determined without
testing it, damaged units in an insulator are
usually considered to have no insulating
value. Additionally, the overall insulating
strength of a string with broken units may be
further reduced in the presence of a live-line
tool alongside it. The number of good units
that must be present in a string is based on
the maximum overvoltage possible at the
worksite.
B. Minimum Approach Distances Based on
Known Maximum Anticipated Per-Unit
Transient Overvoltages
1. Reduction of the minimum approach
distance for AC systems. When the transient
overvoltage values are known and supplied
by the employer, Table V–2 and Table V–3
of § 1926.960 of this Part allow the minimum
approach distances from energized parts to
be reduced. In order to determine what this
maximum overvoltage is, the employer must
undertake an engineering analysis of the
system. As a result of this engineering study,
the employer must provide new live work
procedures, reflecting the new minimum
approach distances, the conditions and
limitations of application of the new
minimum approach distances, and the
specific practices to be used when these
procedures are implemented.
2. Calculation of reduced approach
distance values. The following method of
calculating reduced minimum approach
3.0
1 Sigma
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
(s) is the symbol for standard deviation.
15JNP2
34971
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
distances is based on ANSI/IEEE Standard
516:
Step 1. Determine the maximum voltage
(with respect to a given nominal voltage
range) for the energized part.
Step 2. Determine the maximum transient
overvoltage (normally a switching surge) that
can be present at the work site during work
operation.
Step 3. Determine the technique to be used
to control the maximum transient
overvoltage. (See paragraphs III.C and III.D of
this appendix.) Determine the maximum
voltage that can exist at the work site with
that form of control in place and with a
confidence level of 3 . This voltage is
considered to be the withstand voltage for the
purpose of calculating the appropriate
minimum approach distance.
Step 4. Specify in detail the control
technique to be used, and direct its
implementation during the course of the
work.
Step 5. Using the new value of transient
overvoltage in per unit (p.u.), determine the
required phase-to-ground minimum
approach distance from Table V–2 or Table
V–3 of § 1926.960 of this Part.
C. Methods of Controlling Possible Transient
Overvoltage Stress Found on a System.
1. Introduction. There are several means of
controlling overvoltages that occur on
transmission systems. First, the operation of
circuit breakers or other switching devices
may be modified to reduce switching
transient overvoltages. Second, the
overvoltage itself may be forcibly held to an
acceptable level by means of installation of
surge arresters at the specific location to be
protected. Third, the transmission system
may be changed to minimize the effect of
switching operations.
2. Operation of circuit breakers.2 The
maximum transient overvoltage that can
reach the work site is often due to switching
on the line on which work is being
performed. If the automatic-reclosing is
removed during energized line work so that
the line will not be reenergized after being
opened for any reason, the maximum
switching surge overvoltage is then limited to
the larger of the opening surge or the greatest
possible fault-generated surge, provided that
the devices (for example, insertion resistors)
are operable and will function to limit the
transient overvoltage. It is essential that the
operating ability of such devices be assured
when they are employed to limit the
overvoltage level. If it is prudent not to
remove the reclosing feature (because of
system operating conditions), other methods
of controlling the switching surge level may
be necessary.
Transient surges on an adjacent line,
particularly for double circuit construction,
may cause a significant overvoltage on the
line on which work is being performed. The
2 The
detailed design of a circuit interrupter, such
as the design of the contacts, of resistor insertion,
and of breaker timing control, are beyond the scope
of this appendix. These features are routinely
provided as part of the design for the system. Only
features that can limit the maximum switching
transient overvoltage on a system are discussed in
this appendix.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
coupling to adjacent lines must be accounted
for when minimum approach distances are
calculated based on the maximum transient
overvoltage.
3. Surge arresters. The use of modern surge
arresters has permitted a reduction in the
basic impulse-insulation levels of much
transmission system equipment. The primary
function of early arresters was to protect the
system insulation from the effects of
lightning. Modern arresters not only dissipate
lightning-caused transients, but may also
control many other system transients that
may be caused by switching or faults.
It is possible to use properly designed
arresters to control transient overvoltages
along a transmission line and thereby reduce
the requisite length of the insulator string. On
the other hand, if the installation of arresters
has not been used to reduce the length of the
insulator string, it may be used to reduce the
minimum approach distance instead.3
4. Switching Restrictions. Another form of
overvoltage control is the establishment of
switching restrictions, under which breakers
are not permitted to be operated until certain
system conditions are satisfied. Restriction of
switching is achieved by the use of a tagging
system, similar to that used for a ‘‘permit’’,
except that the common term used for this
activity is a ‘‘hold-off’’ or ‘‘restriction’’. These
terms are used to indicate that operation is
not prevented, but only modified during the
live-work activity.
D. Minimum Approach Distance Based on
Control of Voltage Stress (Overvoltages) at
the Work Site
Reduced minimum approach distances can
be calculated as follows:
1. First Method—Determining the reduced
minimum approach distance from a given
withstand voltage.4
Step 1. Select the appropriate withstand
voltage for the protective gap based on
system requirements and an acceptable
probability of actual gap flashover.
Step 2. Determine a gap distance that
provides a withstand voltage 5 greater than or
equal to the one selected in the first step.6
Step 3. Using 110 percent of the gap’s
critical flashover voltage, determine the
electrical component of the minimum
approach distance from Equation (2) or Table
6, which is a tabulation of distance vs.
withstand voltage based on Equation (2).
3 Surge arrester application is beyond the scope
of this appendix. However, if the arrester is
installed near the work site, the application would
be similar to protective gaps as discussed in
paragraph III.D of this appendix.
4 Since a given rod gap of a given configuration
corresponds to a certain withstand voltage, this
method can also be used to determine the minimum
approach distance for a known gap.
5 The withstand voltage for the gap is equal to 85
percent of its critical flashover voltage.
6 Switch steps 1 and 2 if the length of the
protective gap is known. The withstand voltage
must then be checked to ensure that it provides an
acceptable probability of gap flashover. In general,
it should be at least 1.25 times the maximum crest
operating voltage.
PO 00000
Frm 00151
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
TABLE 6.—WITHSTAND DISTANCES
FOR TRANSIENT OVERVOLTAGES
Crest voltage (kV)
Withstand distance
air gap
m
100 ............................
150 ............................
200 ............................
250 ............................
300 ............................
350 ............................
400 ............................
450 ............................
500 ............................
550 ............................
600 ............................
650 ............................
700 ............................
750 ............................
800 ............................
850 ............................
900 ............................
950 ............................
1000 ..........................
1050 ..........................
1100 ..........................
1150 ..........................
1200 ..........................
1250 ..........................
1300 ..........................
1350 ..........................
1400 ..........................
1450 ..........................
1500 ..........................
1550 ..........................
0.22
0.32
0.43
0.54
0.65
0.75
0.86
0.97
1.08
1.19
1.29
1.40
1.58
1.75
1.92
2.11
2.31
2.51
2.72
2.94
3.18
3.41
3.67
3.93
4.20
4.48
4.77
5.06
5.37
5.68
ft
0.71
1.06
1.41
1.77
2.12
2.47
2.83
3.18
3.54
3.89
4.24
4.60
5.17
5.73
6.31
6.91
7.57
8.23
8.94
9.65
10.42
11.18
12.05
12.90
13.79
14.70
15.64
16.61
17.61
18.63
Note: The air gap is based on the 60-Hz
rod-gap withstand distance.
Source: Calculations are based on Equation
(2).
Step 4. Add the 0.30-m (1-foot) ergonomic
component to obtain the total minimum
approach distance to be maintained by the
employee.
2. Second Method—Determining the
necessary protective gap length from a
desired (reduced) minimum approach
distance.
Step 1. Determine the desired minimum
approach distance for the employee. Subtract
the 0.30-m (1-foot) ergonomic component of
the minimum approach distance.
Step 2. Using this distance, calculate the
air gap withstand voltage from Equation (2).
Alternatively, find the voltage corresponding
to the distance in Table 6.7
Step 3. Select a protective gap distance
corresponding to a critical flashover voltage
that, when multiplied by 110 percent, is less
than or equal to the withstand voltage from
Step 2.
Step 4. Calculate the withstand voltage of
the protective gap (85 percent of the critical
7 Since the value of the saturation factor, a, in
Equation (2) is dependent on the maximum voltage,
several iterative computations may be necessary to
determine the correct withstand voltage using the
equation. A graph of withstand voltage vs. distance
is given in ANSI/IEEE Std. No. 516–1987. This
graph could also be used to determine the
appropriate withstand voltage for the minimum
approach distance involved.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34972
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
2
× 1.25 = 563 kV
3
This will be the withstand voltage of the
protective gap.
Step 2. Using test data for a particular
protective gap, select a gap that has a critical
flashover voltage greater than or equal to:
563 kV ÷ 0.85 = 662 kV.
For example, if a protective gap with a
1.22-m (4.0-foot) spacing tested to a critical
flashover voltage of 665 kV, crest, select this
gap spacing.
933 kV ÷ 110 = 848 kV.
.
For example, if a protective gap with a
1.77-m (5.8-foot) spacing tested to a critical
flashover voltage of 820 kV, crest, select this
gap spacing.
Step 4. The withstand voltage of this
protective gap would be:
820 kV × 0.85 = 697 kV.
The maximum operating crest voltage
would be:
552 kV ×
2
= 449 kV.
3
The crest withstand voltage of the
protective gap in per unit is thus:
8 To eliminate unwanted flashovers due to minor
system disturbances, it is desirable to have the crest
withstand voltage no lower than 1.25 p.u.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
1 This appendix provides information primarily
with respect to employee protection from contact
between equipment being used and an energized
power line. The information presented is also
PO 00000
Frm 00152
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Appendix C to Subpart V—Protection
From Step and Touch Potentials
I. Introduction
When a ground fault occurs on a power
line, voltage is impressed on the ‘‘grounded’’
object faulting the line. The voltage to which
this object rises depends largely on the
voltage on the line, on the impedance of the
faulted conductor, and on the impedance to
‘‘true,’’ or ‘‘absolute,’’ ground represented by
the object. If the object causing the fault
represents a relatively large impedance, the
voltage impressed on it is essentially the
phase-to-ground system voltage. However,
even faults to well grounded transmission
towers or substation structures can result in
hazardous voltages.1 The degree of the
hazard depends upon the magnitude of the
fault current and the time of exposure.
II. Voltage-Gradient Distribution
A. Voltage-Gradient Distribution Curve.
The dissipation of voltage from a
grounding electrode (or from the grounded
end of an energized grounded object) is
called the ground potential gradient. Voltage
drops associated with this dissipation of
voltage are called ground potentials. Figure 2
relevant to ground faults to transmission towers and
substation structures; however, grounding systems
for these structures should be designed to minimize
the step and touch potentials involved.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
EP15JN05.016</MATH>
EP15JN05.015</MATH>
E. Location of Protective Gaps
1. Adjacent structures. Installation of the
protective gap on a structure adjacent to the
work site is an acceptable practice, as this
does not significantly reduce the protection
afforded by the gap.
2. Terminal stations. Gaps installed at
terminal stations of lines or circuits provide
a given level of protection. The level may
not, however, extend throughout the length
of the line to the worksite. The use of gaps
at terminal stations must be studied in depth.
The use of substation terminal gaps raises the
possibility that separate surges could enter
the line at opposite ends, each with low
enough magnitude to pass the terminal gaps
without flashover. When voltage surges are
initiated simultaneously at each end of a line
and travel toward each other, the total
voltage on the line at the point where they
meet is the arithmetic sum of the two surges.
A gap that is installed within 0.8 km (0.5
mile) of the work site will protect against
such intersecting waves. Engineering studies
of a particular line or system may indicate
that adequate protection can be provided by
even more distant gaps.
3. Work site. If protective gaps are used at
the work site, the work site impulse
insulation strength is established by the gap
setting. Lightning strikes as much as 6 miles
away from the worksite may cause a voltage
surge greater than the insulation withstand
voltage, and a gap flashover may occur. The
F. Disabling Automatic Reclosing
There are two reasons to disable the
automatic-reclosing feature of circuitinterrupting devices while employees are
performing live-line maintenance:
• To prevent the reenergizing of a circuit
faulted by actions of a worker, which could
possibly create a hazard or compound
injuries or damage produced by the original
fault;
• To prevent any transient overvoltage
caused by the switching surge that would
occur if the circuit were reenergized.
However, due to system stability
considerations, it may not always be feasible
to disable the automatic-reclosing feature.
EP15JN05.014</MATH>
If this is acceptable, the protective gap
could be installed with a 1.77-m (5.8-foot)
spacing, and the minimum approach distance
could then be reduced to 2.74 m (9.0 feet).
4. Comments and variations. The 0.30-m
(1-foot) ergonomic component of the
minimum approach distance must be added
to the electrical component of the minimum
approach distance calculated under
paragraph III.D of this appendix. The
calculations may be varied by starting with
the protective gap distance or by starting
with the minimum approach distance.
flashover will not occur between the
employee and the line, but across the
protective gap instead.
EP15JN05.013</GPH>
Step 3. The voltage calculated in Step 2
corresponds to 110 percent of the critical
flashover voltage of the gap that should be
employed. Using test data for a particular
protective gap, select a gap that has a critical
flashover voltage less than or equal to:
697 kV ÷ 449 kV = 1.55 p. u.
EP15JN05.012</MATH>
(8.00 − 7.57)
900 kV + 50 ×
= 933 kV.
(8.23 − 7.57)
732 kV
= 5.5 ft (1.68 m).
2
EP15JN05.011</MATH>
Step 5. Add 0.30 m (1 foot) to the distance
calculated in Step 4, resulting in a total
minimum approach distance of 1.98 m (6.5
feet).
Problem 2: For a line operating at a
maximum voltage of 552 kV subject to a
maximum transient overvoltage of 2.4 p.u.,
find a protective gap distance that will
permit the use of a 2.74-m (9.0-foot)
minimum approach distance. (A minimum
approach distance of 3.42 m (11 feet, 3
inches) is normally required.)
Step 1. Subtracting the 0.30-m (1-foot)
ergonomic component of the minimum
approach distance yields an electrical
component of the minimum approach
distance of 2.44 m (8.0 feet).
Step 2. From Table 6, select the withstand
voltage corresponding to a distance of 2.44 m
(8.0 feet). By interpolation:
665 kV × 110 = 732 kV.
.
This corresponds to the withstand voltage
of the electrical component of the minimum
approach distance.
Step 4. Using this voltage in Equation (2)
results in an electrical component of the
minimum approach distance of:
EP15JN05.010</MATH>
D = (0.01 + 0.0006) ×
Step 3. This protective gap corresponds to
a 110 percent of critical flashover voltage
value of:
EP15JN05.009</MATH>
552 kV ×
EP15JN05.008</MATH>
flashover voltage) to ensure that it provides
an acceptable risk of flashover during the
time the gap is installed.
3. Sample protective gap calculations.
Problem 1: Work is to be performed on a
500-kV transmission line that is subject to
transient overvoltages of 2.4 p.u. The
maximum operating voltage of the line is 552
kV. Determine the length of the protective
gap that will provide the minimum practical
safe approach distance. Also, determine what
that minimum approach distance is.
Step 1. Calculate the smallest practical
maximum transient overvoltage (1.25 times
the crest line-to-ground voltage):8
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
with increasing distance from the grounding
electrode.
BILLING CODE 4501–26–P
PO 00000
Frm 00153
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
EP15JN05.017</GPH><FNP>
is a typical voltage-gradient distribution
curve (assuming a uniform soil texture). This
graph shows that voltage decreases rapidly
34973
34974
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
‘‘Touch potential’’ is the voltage between
the energized object and the feet of a person
in contact with the object. It is equal to the
difference in voltage between the object
(which is at a distance of 0 feet) and a point
some distance away. It should be noted that
the touch potential could be nearly the full
voltage across the grounded object if that
object is grounded at a point remote from the
place where the person is in contact with it.
For example, a crane that was grounded to
the system neutral and that contacted an
energized line would expose any person in
contact with the crane or its uninsulated load
line to a touch potential nearly equal to the
full fault voltage.
Step and touch potentials are illustrated in
Figure 3.
C. Protection From the Hazards of GroundPotential Gradients
Several methods may be used to protect
employees from hazardous ground-potential
gradients, including equipotential zones,
insulating equipment, and restricted work
areas.
1. The creation of an equipotential zone
will protect a worker standing within it from
hazardous step and touch potentials. (See
Figure 4.) Such a zone can be produced
through the use of a metal mat connected to
the grounded object. In some cases, a
grounding grid can be used to equalize the
voltage within the grid. Equipotential zones
will not, however, protect employees who are
either wholly or partially outside the
protected area. Bonding conductive objects in
the immediate work area can also be used to
minimize the potential between the objects
and between each object and ground.
(Bonding an object outside the work area can
increase the touch potential to that object in
some cases, however.)
An engineering analysis of the power
system under fault conditions can be used to
determine whether or not hazardous step and
touch voltages will develop. The result of
this analysis can ascertain the need for
protective measures and can guide the
selection of appropriate precautions.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00154
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
EP15JN05.018</GPH>
B. Step and Touch Potentials
‘‘Step potential’’ is the voltage between the
feet of a person standing near an energized
grounded object. It is equal to the difference
in voltage, given by the voltage distribution
curve, between two points at different
distances from the ‘‘electrode.’’ A person
could be at risk of injury during a fault
simply by standing near the grounding point.
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
3. Restricting employees from areas where
hazardous step or touch potentials could
arise can protect employees not directly
involved in the operation being performed.
Employees on the ground in the vicinity of
transmission structures should be kept at a
distance where step voltages would be
insufficient to cause injury. Employees
PO 00000
Frm 00155
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
should not handle grounded conductors or
equipment likely to become energized to
hazardous voltages unless the employees are
within an equipotential zone or are protected
by insulating equipment.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
EP15JN05.019</GPH>
2. The use of insulating equipment, such
as rubber gloves, can protect employees
handling grounded equipment and
conductors from hazardous touch potentials.
The insulating equipment must be rated for
the highest voltage that can be impressed on
the grounded objects under fault conditions
(rather than for the full system voltage).
34975
34976
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Appendix D to Subpart V—Methods of
Inspecting and Testing Wood Poles
I. Introduction
When work is to be performed on a wood
pole, it is important to determine the
condition of the pole before it is climbed.
The weight of the employee, the weight of
equipment being installed, and other working
stresses (such as the removal or retensioning
of conductors) can lead to the failure of a
defective pole or one that is not designed to
handle the additional stresses.1 For these
reasons, it is essential that an inspection and
test of the condition of a wood pole be
performed before it is climbed.
If the pole is found to be unsafe to climb
or to work from, it must be secured so that
it does not fail while an employee is on it.
The pole can be secured by a line truck
boom, by ropes or guys, or by lashing a new
pole alongside it. If a new one is lashed
alongside the defective pole, work should be
performed from the new one.
II. Inspection of Wood Poles
Wood poles should be inspected by a
qualified employee for the following
conditions: 2
A. General condition. The pole should be
inspected for buckling at the ground line and
for an unusual angle with respect to the
ground. Buckling and odd angles may
indicate that the pole has rotted or is broken.
B. Cracks. The pole should be inspected for
cracks. Horizontal cracks perpendicular to
the grain of the wood may weaken the pole.
Vertical ones, although not considered to be
a sign of a defective pole, can pose a hazard
to the climber, and the employee should keep
his or her gaffs away from them while
climbing.
C. Holes. Hollow spots and woodpecker
holes can reduce the strength of a wood pole.
D. Shell rot and decay. Rotting and decay
are cutout hazards and possible indications
of the age and internal condition of the pole.
E. Knots. One large knot or several smaller
ones at the same height on the pole may be
evidence of a weak point on the pole.
F. Depth of setting. Evidence of the
existence of a former ground line
substantially above the existing ground level
may be an indication that the pole is no
longer buried to a sufficient extent.
G. Soil conditions. Soft, wet, or loose soil
may not support any changes of stress on the
pole.
H. Burn marks. Burning from transformer
failures or conductor faults could damage the
pole so that it cannot withstand mechanical
stress changes.
III. Testing of Wood Poles
The following tests, which have been taken
from § 1910.268(n)(3) of this chapter, are
1 A properly guyed pole in good condition
should, at a minimum, be able to handle the weight
of an employee climbing it.
2 The presence of any of these conditions is an
indication that the pole may not be safe to climb
or to work from. The employee performing the
inspection must be qualified to make a
determination as to whether or not it is safe to
perform the work without taking additional
precautions.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
recognized as acceptable methods of testing
wood poles:
A. Hammer test. Rap the pole sharply with
a hammer weighing about 1.4 kg (3 pounds),
starting near the ground line and continuing
upwards circumferentially around the pole to
a height of approximately 1.8 m (6 feet). The
hammer will produce a clear sound and
rebound sharply when striking sound wood.
Decay pockets will be indicated by a dull
sound or a less pronounced hammer
rebound. Also, prod the pole as near the
ground line as possible using a pole prod or
a screwdriver with a blade at least 127 mm
(5 inches) long. If substantial decay is
encountered, the pole is considered unsafe.
B. Rocking test. Apply a horizontal force to
the pole and attempt to rock it back and forth
in a direction perpendicular to the line.
Caution must be exercised to avoid causing
power lines to swing together. The force may
be applied either by pushing with a pike pole
or pulling with a rope. If the pole cracks
during the test, it shall be considered unsafe.
Appendix E to Subpart V—Reference
Documents
The references contained in this appendix
provide information that can be helpful in
understanding and complying with the
requirements contained in subpart V of this
part. The national consensus standards
referenced in this appendix contain detailed
specifications that employers may follow in
complying with the more performanceoriented requirements of OSHA’s final rule.
Except as specifically noted in subpart V of
this part, however, compliance with the
national consensus standards is not a
substitute for compliance with the provisions
of the OSHA standard.
ANSI/SIA A92.2–2001, American National
Standard for Vehicle-Mounted Elevating and
Rotating Aerial Devices.
ANSI C2–2002, National Electrical Safety
Code.
ANSI Z133.1–2000, American National
Standard Safety Requirements for Pruning,
Trimming, Repairing, Maintaining, and
Removing Trees, and for Cutting Brush.
ANSI/ASME B20.1–2003, Safety Standard
for Conveyors and Related Equipment.
ANSI/IEEE Std. 4–1995, IEEE Standard
Techniques for High-Voltage Testing.
ANSI/IEEE Std. 100–2000, The
Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards
Terms, 7th Edition.
ANSI/IEEE Std. 516–2003, IEEE Guide for
Maintenance Methods on Energized Power
Lines.
ANSI/IEEE Std. 935–1989, IEEE Guide on
Terminology for Tools and Equipment To Be
Used in Live Line Working.
ANSI/IEEE Std. 957–1995, IEEE Guide for
Cleaning Insulators.
ASTM D 120–02a, Standard Specification
for Rubber Insulating Gloves.
ASTM D 149–97a, Standard Test Method
for Dielectric Breakdown Voltage and
Dielectric Strength of Solid Electrical
Insulating Materials at Commercial Power
Frequencies.
ASTM D 178–01e1, Standard Specification
for Rubber Insulating Matting.
ASTM D 1048–99, Standard Specification
for Rubber Insulating Blankets.
PO 00000
Frm 00156
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
ASTM D 1049–98e1, Standard Specification
for Rubber Insulating Covers.
ASTM D 1050–90, Standard Specification
for Rubber Insulating Line Hose.
ASTM D 1051–02, Standard Specification
for Rubber Insulating Sleeves.
ASTM F 478–92, Standard Specification
for In-Service Care of Insulating Line Hose
and Covers.
ASTM F 479–95, Standard Specification
for In-Service Care of Insulating Blankets.
ASTM F 496–02a, Standard Specification
for In-Service Care of Insulating Gloves and
Sleeves.
ASTM F 711–02, Standard Specification
for Fiberglass-Reinforced Plastic (FRP) Rod
and Tube Used in Live Line Tools.
ASTM F 712–88, Standard Test Methods
for Electrically Insulating Plastic Guard
Equipment for Protection of Workers.
ASTM F 819–00e1, Standard Terminology
Relating to Electrical Protective Equipment
for Workers.
ASTM F 855–03, Standard Specifications
for Temporary Protective Grounds to Be Used
on De-Energized Electric Power Lines and
Equipment.
ASTM F 887–04, Standard Specifications
for Personal Climbing Equipment.
ASTM F 914–03, Standard Test Method for
Acoustic Emission for Insulated and NonInsulated Aerial Personnel Devices Without
Supplemental Load Handling Attachments.
ASTM F 968–93e1, Standard Specification
for Electrically Insulating Plastic Guard
Equipment for Protection of Workers.
ASTM F 1116–03, Standard Test Method
for Determining Dielectric Strength of
Dielectric Footwear.
ASTM F 1117–03, Standard Specification
for Dielectric Footwear.
ASTM F 1236–96, Standard Guide for
Visual Inspection of Electrical Protective
Rubber Products.
ASTM F 1430–03, Standard Test Method
for Acoustic Emission Testing of Insulated
and Non-Insulated Aerial Personnel Devices
with Supplemental Load Handling
Attachments.
ASTM F 1505–01, Standard Specification
for Insulated and Insulating Hand Tools.
ASTM F 1506–02ae1, Standard
Performance Specification for Flame
Resistant Textile Materials for Wearing
Apparel for Use by Electrical Workers
Exposed to Momentary Electric Arc and
Related Thermal Hazards.
ASTM F 1564–95, Standard Specification
for Structure-Mounted Insulating Work
Platforms for Electrical Workers.
ASTM F 1701–96, Standard Specification
for Unused Polypropylene Rope with Special
Electrical Properties.
ASTM F 1742–03, Standard Specifications
for PVC Insulating Sheeting.
ASTM F 1796–97, Standard Specification
for High Voltage Detectors—Part 1 Capacitive
Type to be Used for Voltages Exceeding 600
Volts AC.
ASTM F 1797–98, Standard Test Method
for Acoustic Emission Testing of Insulated
Digger Derricks.
ASTM F1825–03, Standard Specification
for Clampstick Type Live Line Tools.
ASTM F1826–00, Standard Specification
for Live Line and Measuring Telescoping
Tools.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
ASTM F 1891–02b, Standard Specification
for Arc and Flame Resistant Rainwear.
ASTM F 1958/F 1958M–99, Standard Test
Method for Determining the Ignitability of
Non-flame-Resistant Materials for Clothing
by Electric Arc Exposure Method Using
Mannequins.
ASTM F1959/F 1959M–99, Standard Test
Method for Determining the Arc Thermal
Performance Value of Materials for Clothing.
IEEE Std. 62–1995, IEEE Guide for
Diagnostic Field Testing of Electric Power
Apparatus
IEEE Std. 524–2003, IEEE Guide to the
Installation of Overhead Transmission Line
Conductors.
IEEE Std. 1048–2003, IEEE Guide for
Protective Grounding of Power Lines.
IEEE Std. 1067–1996, IEEE Guide for the
In-Service Use, Care, Maintenance, and
Testing of Conductive Clothing for Use on
Voltages up to 765 kV AC and ±750 kV DC.
NFPA 70E–2004, Standard for Electrical
Safety in the Workplace.
Appendix F to Subpart V—Clothing
I. Introduction
Paragraph (g) of § 1926.960 addresses
clothing worn by an employee. This
paragraph requires employers to: (1) Assess
the workplace for flame and arc hazards
(paragraph (g)(1)); (2) estimate the available
heat energy from electric arcs to which
employees could be exposed (paragraph
(g)(2)), (3) ensure that employees wear
clothing that has an arc rating greater than or
equal to the available heat energy (paragraph
(g)(5)), (4) ensure that employees wear
clothing that could not melt or ignite and
continue to burn in the presence of electric
arcs to which an employee could be exposed
(paragraph (g)(3)), and (5) ensure that
employees wear flame-resistant clothing 1
under certain conditions (paragraph (g)(4)).
This appendix contains information to help
employers estimate available heat energy as
required by § 1926.960(g)(2), select clothing
with an arc rating suitable for the available
heat energy as required by § 1926.960(g)(5),
and ensure that employees do not wear
flammable clothing that could lead to burn
34977
injury as addressed by §§ 1926.960(g)(3) and
(g)(4).
II. Protection Against Burn Injury
A. Estimating Available Heat Energy
The first step in protecting employees from
burn injury resulting from an electric arc is
to estimate the potential heat energy if an arc
does occur. Table 7 lists various methods of
calculating values of available heat energy
from an electric circuit. OSHA does not
endorse any of these specific methods. Each
method requires the input of various
parameters, such as fault current, the
expected length of the electric arc, the
distance from the arc to the employee, and
the clearing time for the fault (that is, the
time the circuit protective devices take to
open the circuit and clear the fault). Some of
these parameters, such as the fault current
and the clearing time, are known quantities
for a given system. Other parameters, such as
the length of the arc and the distance
between the arc and the employee, vary
widely and can only be estimated.
TABLE 7.—METHODS OF CALCULATING INCIDENT HEAT ENERGY FROM AN ELECTRIC ARC
1. Standard for Electrical Safety Requirements for Employee Workplaces, NFPA 70E–2004, Annex D, ‘‘Sample Calculation of Flash Protection
Boundary.’’
2. Doughty, T.E., Neal, T.E., and Floyd II, H.L., ‘‘Predicting Incident Energy to Better Manage the Electric Arc Hazard on 600 V Power Distribution Systems,’’ Record of Conference Papers IEEE IAS 45th Annual Petroleum and Chemical Industry Conference, Septebmer 28–30, 1998.
3. Guide for Performing Arc Flash Hazard Calculations, IEEE 1584–2002.
4. Heat Flux Calculator, a free software program created by Alan Privette (widely available on the Internet).
5. ARCPRO, a commercially available software program developed by Kinectrics, Toronto, ON, CA.
The amount of heat energy calculated by
any of the methods is approximately directly
proportional to the square of the distance
between the employee and the arc. In other
words, if the employee is very close to the
arc, the heat energy is very high; but if he or
she is just a few more centimeters away, the
heat energy drops substantially. Thus,
estimating the distance from the arc to the
employee is key to protecting employees.
In estimating available heat energy, the
employer must make some reasonable
assumptions about how far the employee will
be from the electric arc. In some instances,
such as during some work performed using
live-line tools, the employee will be at least
the minimum approach distance from an
energized part. However, in this situation,
the arc could still extend towards the
employee. Thus, in this case, a reasonable
estimate of the distance between the
employee and the arc would be the minimum
approach distance minus twice the sparkover
distance.2
In other cases, as during rubber glove work,
parts of the employee’s body will be closer
to an energized part than the minimum
approach distance. An employee’s chest will
be about 380 millimeters (15 in.) from an
energized conductor during rubber glove
work on that conductor. Because there
should not be any surfaces at a potential
other than the conductor between the
employee and the conductor, it is reasonable
to assume that the arc will not extend
towards the employee. Thus, in this
situation, it would be reasonable to use 380
millimeters (15 in.) as the distance between
the employee and the arc.
The standard permits an employer to make
broad estimates of available heat energy
covering multiple system areas using
reasonable assumptions about the energy
exposure distribution. For example, the
employer can use the maximum fault current
and clearing time to cover several system
areas at once. Table 8 presents estimates of
available energy for different parts of an
electrical system operating at 4 to 46 kV. The
table is for open-air, phase-to-ground electric
arc exposures typical for overhead systems
operating at these voltages. The table
assumes that the employee will be 380
millimeters (15 in.) from the electric arc,
which is a reasonable estimate for rubber
glove work. To use the table, an employer
would use the voltage, maximum fault
current, and maximum clearing time for a
system area and select the appropriate heat
energy (5, 8, or 12 calories) from the table.
For example, an employer might have a
12,470-volt power line supplying a system
area. The power line can supply a maximum
fault current of 8 kiloamperes with a
maximum clearing time of 10 cycles. This
system falls in the 4.0-to-15.0-kV range; the
fault current is less than 10 kA (the second
row in that voltage range); and the clearing
time is under 14.5 cycles (the first column to
the right of the fault current column). Thus,
the available heat energy for this part of the
system will be 5 calories or less (from the
column heading), and the employer could
select clothing with a 5-calorie rating to meet
§ 1926.960(g)(5).
Table 9 presents similar estimates for
systems operating at voltages of 46.1 to 800
kV. This table is also for open-air, phase-toground electric arc exposures typical for
overhead systems operating at these voltages.
The table assumes that the arc length will be
equal to the sparkover distance 3 and that the
employee will be a distance from the arc
equal to the minimum approach distance
minus twice the arc length.
The employer will need to use other
methods for estimating available heat energy
in situations not addressed by Table 8 or
Table 9. The calculation methods listed in
Table 7 will help employers do this. For
example, employers can use Table
130.7(C)(9)(a), Table 130.7(C)(10), and Table
130.7(C)(11) of NFPA 70E–2004 to estimate
1 Flame-resistant clothing includes clothing that
is inherently flame resistant and clothing that has
been chemically treated with a flame retardant. (See
ASTM F1506–02a, Standard Performance
Specification for Textile Materials for Wearing
Apparel for Use by Electrical Workers Exposed to
Momentary Electric Arc and Related Thermal
Hazards.)
2 The sparkover distance equals the shortest
possible arc length.
3 The dielectric strength of air is about 10 kV for
every 25.4 mm (1 in.). Thus, the arc length can be
estimated to be the phase-to-ground voltage divided
by 10.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00157
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34978
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
the available heat energy (and to select
appropriate protective clothing) for many
specific situations, including lower-voltage,
phase-to-phase arc, and enclosed arc
exposures.
TABLE 8.—AVAILABLE HEAT ENERGY FOR VARIATIONS FAULT CURRENTS, CLEARING TIMES, AND
VOLTAGES OF 4.0 TO 46.0 KV
Voltage range
(kV)
Fault current
(kA)
4.0 to 15.0 ........................................................................................................
5-cal maximum clearing
time
(cycles)
8-cal maximum clearing
time
(cycles)
12-cal maximum clearing
time
(cycles)
37.3
14.5
8.0
5.2
34.5
14.2
8.2
5.5
16.9
7.1
4.2
2.9
13.3
5.7
3.5
2.5
59.6
23.2
12.9
8.3
55.2
22.7
13.2
8.8
27.0
11.4
6.8
4.6
21.2
9.1
5.6
4.0
89.4
34.8
19.3
12.5
82.8
34.1
19.8
13.2
40.4
17.1
10.1
6.9
31.9
13.7
8.4
6.0
5
10
15
20
5
10
15
20
5
10
15
20
5
10
15
20
15.1 to 25.0 ......................................................................................................
25.1 to 36.0 ......................................................................................................
36.1 ..................................................................................................................
Notes:
(1) This table is for open-air, phase-to-ground electric arc exposures. It is not intended for phase-to-phase arcs or enclosed arcs (arc in a box).
(2) The table assumes that the employee will be 380 mm (15 in.) from the electric arc. The table also assumes the arc length to be the
sparkover distance for the maximum voltage of each voltage range, as follows:
4.0 to 15.0 kV 51 mm (2 in.).
15.1 to 25.0 kV 102 mm (4 in.).
25.1 to 36.0 kV 152 mm (6 in.).
36.1 to 46.0 kV 229 mm (9 in.).
TABLE 9.—AVAILABLE HEAT ENERGY FOR VARIOUS FAULT CURRENTS, CLEARING TIMES, AND
VOLTAGES OF 46.1 TO 800 KV
Voltage range
(kV)
Fault current
(kA)
46.1 to 72.5 ......................................................................................................
72.6 to 121 .......................................................................................................
138 to 145 ........................................................................................................
161 to 169 ........................................................................................................
230 to 242 ........................................................................................................
345 to 362 ........................................................................................................
500 to 550 ........................................................................................................
765 to 800 ........................................................................................................
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00158
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
5-cal maximum clearing
time
(cycles)
8-cal maximum clearing
time
(cycles)
12-cal maximum clearing
time
(cycles)
10.6
6.6
4.6
3.4
10.3
5.9
3.9
2.7
12.2
7.0
4.6
3.3
11.6
7.2
5.0
3.8
13.0
8.0
5.6
4.2
28.3
17.5
12.2
9.2
23.6
14.6
10.2
7.6
54.5
33.7
23.6
17.0
10.5
7.3
5.5
16.5
9.4
6.2
4.4
19.5
11.2
7.4
5.3
18.6
11.5
8.0
6.0
20.9
12.9
9.0
6.8
45.3
28.1
19.6
14.7
37.8
23.3
16.3
12.2
87.3
53.9
37.8
25.5
15.8
11.0
8.3
24.7
14.1
9.3
6.6
29.3
16.8
11.1
7.9
27.9
17.2
12.0
9.0
31.3
19.3
13.5
10.1
67.9
42.1
29.4
22.1
56.7
35.0
24.4
18.3
130.9
80.9
56.7
20
30
40
50
20
30
40
50
20
30
40
50
20
30
40
50
20
30
40
50
20
30
40
50
20
30
40
50
20
30
40
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
34979
TABLE 9.—AVAILABLE HEAT ENERGY FOR VARIOUS FAULT CURRENTS, CLEARING TIMES, AND
VOLTAGES OF 46.1 TO 800 KV
Voltage range
(kV)
Fault current
(kA)
5-cal maximum clearing
time
(cycles)
8-cal maximum clearing
time
(cycles)
12-cal maximum clearing
time
(cycles)
17.8
28.4
42.6
50
Notes:
(1) This table is for open-air, phase-to-ground electric arc exposures. It is not intended for phase-to-phase arcs or enclosed arcs (arc in a box).
(2) The table assumes that the arc length will be the phase-to-ground voltage divided by 10 and that the distance from the arc to the employee
is the minimum approach distance minus twice the arc length.
B. Selecting Protective Clothing
Table 10 presents protective clothing
guidelines for exposure to electric arcs.
Protective clothing meeting the guidelines in
this table are expected, based on extensive
laboratory testing, to be capable of preventing
second-degree burn injury to an employee
exposed to the corresponding range of
calculated incident heat energy from an
electric arc. It should be noted that actual
electric arc exposures may be more or less
severe than the laboratory exposures because
of factors such as arc movement, arc length,
arcing from reclosing of the system,
secondary fires or explosions, and weather
conditions. Therefore, it is possible that an
employee will sustain a second-degree or
worse burn wearing clothing conforming to
the guidelines in Table 10 under certain
circumstances. Such clothing will, however,
provide an appropriate degree of protection
for an employee who is exposed to electric
arc hazards.
TABLE 10.—PROTECTION CLOTHING GUIDELINES FOR ELECTRIC ARC HAZARDS
Range of calculated incident energy cal/
cm3
Clothing description
(number of layers)
Clothing
weight oz/yd2
0–2 ..........................................................
2–5 ..........................................................
5–10 ........................................................
10–20 ......................................................
20–40 ......................................................
Untreated Cotton (1) ..........................................................................
FR Shirt (1) ........................................................................................
T-Shirt plus FR Shirt and FR Pants (2) .............................................
T-Shirt plus FR Shirt plus FR Coverall (3) ........................................
T-Shirt plus FR Shirt plus Double Layer Switching Coat (4) .............
4.5–7
4.5–8
9–12
16–20
24–30
Arc thermal
performance
value
(ATPV)
N/A
5–7
10–17
22–25
55
FR—Flame resistant.
ATPV—Arc Thermal Performance Value based on ASTM F1959 test method. (The method was modified as necessary to test the performance
of the three- and four-layer systems.)
Source: ‘‘Protective Clothing Guidelines for Electric Arc Exposure,’’ Neal, T. E., Bingham, A. H. Doughty, R. L., IEEE Petroleum and Chemical
Industry Conference Record, September 1996, p. 294.
It should be noted that Table 10 permits
untreated cotton clothing for exposures of 2
cal/cm2 or less. Cotton clothing will reduce
a 2-cal/cm2 exposure below the 1.6-cal/cm2
level necessary to cause burn injury and is
not expected to ignite at such low heat
energy levels. Although untreated cotton
clothing is deemed to meet the requirement
for suitable arc ratings in § 1926.960(g)(5) and
the prohibition against clothing that could
ignite and continue to burn in
§ 1926.960(g)(3) when the available heat
energy is 2 cal/cm2 or less, this type of
clothing is still prohibited under certain
conditions by § 1926.960(g)(4), as discussed
further below.
Protective performance of any particular
fabric type generally increases with fabric
weight, as long as the fabric does not ignite
and continue to burn. Multiple layers of
clothing usually block more heat and are
normally more protective than a single layer
of the equivalent weight.
Exposed skin is expected to sustain a
second-degree burn for incident energy levels
of 1.6 cal/cm2 or more. Though it is not
required by the standard, if the heat energy
estimated under § 1926.960(g)(2) is greater
than or equal to 1.6 cal/cm2, the employer
should require each exposed employee to
have no more than 10 percent of his or her
body unprotected. Due to the unpredictable
nature of electric arcs, the employer should
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
also consider requiring the protection of bare
skin from any exposure exceeding 0.8 cal/
cm2 so as to minimize the risk of burn injury.
III. Protection Against Ignition
Paragraph (g)(3) of § 1926.960 prohibits
clothing that could melt onto an employee’s
skin or that could ignite and continue to burn
when exposed to the available heat energy
estimated by the employer. Meltable fabrics,
such as acetate, nylon, and polyester, even in
blends, must be avoided. When these fibers
melt, they can adhere to the skin, transferring
heat more rapidly, exacerbating any burns,
and complicating treatment. This can be true
even if the meltable fabric is not directly next
to the skin. The remainder of this section
focuses on the prevention of ignition.
Paragraph (g)(5) of § 1926.960 requires
clothing with an arc rating greater than or
equal to the employer’s estimate of available
heat energy. As explained earlier, untreated
cotton is acceptable for exposures of 2 cal/
cm2 or less. If the exposure is greater than
that, the employee must wear flame-resistant
clothing with a suitable arc rating. However,
even though an employee is wearing a layer
of flame-resistant clothing, there are
circumstances under which flammable layers
of clothing would be exposed and subject to
ignition. For example, if the employee is
wearing flammable clothing (for example,
winter coveralls) over the layer of flame-
PO 00000
Frm 00159
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
resistant clothing, the outer flammable layer
can ignite. Similarly, clothing ignition is
possible if the employee is wearing
flammable clothing under the flame-resistant
clothing and the underlayer is exposed by an
opening in the flame-resistant clothing. Thus,
it is important for the employer to consider
the possibility of clothing ignition even when
an employee is wearing clothing with a
suitable arc rating.
Table 11 lists the minimum heat energy
under electric arc conditions that can
reasonably be expected to ignite different
weights and colors of cotton fabrics. The
values listed, expressed in calories per square
centimeter, represent a 10 percent probability
of ignition with a 95 percent confidence
level. If the heat energy estimated under
§ 1926.960(g)(2) does not exceed the values
listed in Table 11 for a particular weight and
color of cotton fabric, then an outer layer of
that material would not be expected to ignite
and would be considered as being permitted
under § 1926.960(g)(3).4 Conversely, if the
heat energy estimated under § 1926.960(g)(2)
exceeds the values listed in Table 11 for a
particular weight and color of cotton fabric,
that material may not be worn as an outer
4 An underlayer of clothing with an arc rating
greater than or equal to the estimate of available
heat energy would still be required under
§ 1926.960(g)(5).
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
34980
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
layer of garment and may not be otherwise
exposed due to an opening in the flameresistant clothing.
For white cotton fabrics of a different
weight from those listed, choose the next
lower weight of white cotton fabric listed in
Table 11. For cotton fabrics of a different
color and weight combination than those
listed, select a value from the table
corresponding to an equal or lesser weight of
blue cotton fabric. For example, for a 6.0-oz/
yd2 brown twill fabric, select 4.6 cal/cm2 for
the ignition threshold, which corresponds to
5.2-oz/yd2 blue twill. If a white garment has
a silkscreen logo, insignia, or other similar
design included on it, then the entire
garment will be considered as being of a
color other than white. (The darker portion
of the garment can ignite earlier than the rest
of the garment, which would cause the entire
garment to burn.)
Employers may choose to test samples of
genuine garments rather than rely on the
values given in Table 11. The appropriate
electric arc ignition test method is given in
ASTM F 1958/F 1958M–99, Standard Test
Method for Determining the Ignitability of
Non-flame-Resistant Materials for Clothing
by Electric Arc Exposure Method Using
Mannequins. Using this test method,
employers may substitute actual test data
analysis results representing an energy level
that is reasonably certain not to be capable
of igniting the fabric. For example, based on
test data, the employer may select a level
representing a 10 percent probability of
ignition with a 95 percent confidence level,
representing a 1 percent probability of
ignition according to actual test results, or
representing an energy level that is two
standard deviations below the mean ignition
threshold. The employer may also select
some other comparable level.
TABLE 11.—IGNITION THRESHOLD FOR COTTON FABRICS
Fabric description
Weight (oz/yd2)
Color
Weave
46 .........................................................................................................................
5.2 ........................................................................................................................
6.2 ........................................................................................................................
6.9 ........................................................................................................................
8.0 ........................................................................................................................
8.3 ........................................................................................................................
11.9 ......................................................................................................................
12.8 ......................................................................................................................
13.3 ......................................................................................................................
White .........................
Blue ...........................
White .........................
Blue ...........................
Black ..........................
White .........................
Tan ............................
Blue ...........................
Blue ...........................
Jersey Kit ..................
Twill ...........................
Fleece ........................
Twill ...........................
Twill ...........................
Sateen .......................
Duck ..........................
Denim ........................
Denim ........................
Ignition threshold (cal/cm2)
4.3
4.6
6.4
5.3
6.1
11.6
11.3
15.5
15.9
Source: ‘‘Testing Update on Protective Clothing & Equipment for Electric Arc Exposure,’’ IEEE Paper No. PCIC–97–35.
Clothing loses weight as it wears. This can
lower the ignition threshold, especially if the
garment has threadbare areas or is torn.
Adding layers of clothing beneath an outer
layer of flammable fabric has no significant
effect on the heat energy needed to ignite the
outer fabric layer. Therefore, the outer layer
of clothing must be treated as if it were a
single layer to determine the proper ignition
threshold.
Flammable clothing worn in conjunction
with flame-resistant clothing is not permitted
to pose an ignition hazard.5 Flammable
clothing may not be worn as an outer layer
if it could be exposed to heat energy above
the ignition threshold. Outer flame-resistant
layers may not have openings that expose
flammable inner layers that could be ignited.
When an outer flame-resistant layer would
be unable to resist breakopen,6 the next
(inner) layer should be flame-resistant.
Grounding conductors can become a
source of electric arcing if they cannot carry
fault current without failure. These possible
sources of electric arcs 7 must be considered
in determining whether the employee’s
5 Paragraph (g)(3) of § 1926.960 prohibits clothing
that could ignite and continue to burn when
exposed to the heat energy estimated under
paragraph (g)(2).
Paragraph (g)(3) of § prohibits clothing that could
ignite and continue to burn when exposed to the
heat energy estimated under paragraph (g)(2).
6 Breakopen is the creation of holes, tears, or
cracks in the exposed fabric such that incident
energy is no longer effectively blocked.
7 Static wires and pole grounds are examples of
grounding conductors that might not be capable of
carrying fault current without failure. Grounds that
can carry the maximum available fault current are
not a concern and need not be considered a possible
electric arc source.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:14 Jun 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
clothing could ignite under
§ 1926.960(g)(4)(iii).
Flammable clothing can also be ignited by
arcing that occurs when a conductor contacts
an employee or by nearby material that
ignites upon exposure to an electric arc.
These sources of ignition must be considered
in determining whether the employee’s
clothing could ignite under
§ 1926.960(g)(4)(i) and (g)(4)(ii).
Appendix G to Subpart V—Work
Positioning Equipment Inspection
Guidelines
I. Body Belts
Inspect body belts to ensure that:
A. Hardware has no cracks, nicks,
distortion, or corrosion;
B. No loose or worn rivets are present;
C. The waist strap has no loose grommets;
D. The fastening straps are not made of 100
percent leather;
E. No worn materials that could affect the
safety of the user are present; and
F. D-rings are compatible with the
snaphooks with which they will be used.
PO 00000
Note: An incompatibility between a
snaphook and a D-ring may cause snaphook
rollout, or unintentional disengagement of
the snaphook from the D-ring. Employers
should take extra precaution when
determining compatibility between
snaphooks and D-rings of different
manufacturers.
II. Positioning Straps
Inspect positioning straps to ensure that:
A. The warning center of the strap material
is not exposed;
B. No cuts, burns, extra holes, or fraying of
strap material is present;
C. Rivets are properly secured;
D. Straps are not made from 100 percent
leather; and
E. Snaphooks do not have cracks, burns, or
corrosion.
III. Climbers
Inspect pole and tree climbers to ensure
that:
A. Gaffs on pole climbers are no less than
32 millimeters in length measured on the
underside of the gaff;
B. Gaffs on tree climbers are no less than
51 millimeters in length measured on the
underside of the gaff;
C. Gaffs and leg irons are not fractured or
cracked;
D. Stirrups and leg irons are free of
excessive wear;
E. Gaffs are not loose;
F. Gaffs are free of deformation that could
adversely affect use;
G. Gaffs are properly sharpened; and
H. There are no broken straps or buckles.
[FR Doc. 05–11585 Filed 6–14–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
Frm 00160
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\15JNP2.SGM
15JNP2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 15, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34822-34980]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-11585]
[[Page 34821]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Labor
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1926
Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution; Electrical
Protective Equipment; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 15, 2005 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 34822]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1926
[Docket No. S-215]
RIN 1218-AB67
Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution;
Electrical Protective Equipment
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OSHA is proposing to update the existing standard for the
construction of electric power transmission and distribution
installations and make it consistent with the more recently promulgated
general industry standard addressing the maintenance and repair of
electric power generation, transmission, and distribution lines and
equipment. The proposal also makes some miscellaneous changes to both
standards, including adding provisions related to host employers and
contractors, flame resistant clothing, and training, and updates the
construction standard for electrical protective equipment, makes it
consistent with the corresponding general industry standard, and makes
it applicable to construction generally.
The existing rules for this type of work were issued in 1971. They
are out of date and are not consistent with the more recent,
corresponding rules for the operation and maintenance of electric power
transmission and distribution systems. The revised standard would
include requirements relating to enclosed spaces, working near
energized parts, grounding for employee protection, work on underground
and overhead installations, work in substations, and other special
conditions and equipment unique to the transmission and distribution of
electric energy.
OSHA is also proposing a new standard on electrical protective
equipment for the construction industry. The current standards for the
design of electrical protective equipment, which apply only to electric
power transmission and distribution work, adopt several national
consensus standards by reference. The new standard would replace the
incorporation of these out-of-date consensus standards with a set of
performance-oriented requirements that is consistent with the latest
revisions of these consensus standards and with the corresponding
standard for general industry. Additionally, OSHA is proposing new
requirements for the safe use and care of electrical protective
equipment to complement the equipment design provisions.
In addition, OSHA is proposing changes to the two corresponding
general industry standards. These changes address: Class 00 rubber
insulating gloves, electrical protective equipment made from materials
other than rubber, training for electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution workers, host-contractor
responsibilities, job briefings, fall protection (including a
requirement that employees in aerial lifts use harnesses), insulation
and working position of employees working on or near live parts,
protective clothing, minimum approach distances, deenergizing
transmission and distribution lines and equipment, protective
grounding, operating mechanical equipment near overhead power lines,
and working in manholes and vaults. These changes would ensure that
employers, where appropriate, face consistent requirements for work
performed under the construction and general industry standards and
would further protect employees performing electrical work covered
under the general industry standards. The proposal would also update
references to consensus standards in Sec. Sec. 1910.137 and 1910.269
and would add new appendices to help employers comply with provisions
on protective clothing and the inspection of work positioning
equipment.
OSHA is also proposing to revise the general industry standard for
foot protection. This standard has substantial application to employers
performing work on electric power transmission and distribution
installations, but that applies to employers in other industries as
well. The proposal would remove the requirement for employees to wear
protective footwear as protection against electric shock.
DATES: Informal public hearing. OSHA will hold an informal public
hearing in Washington, DC, beginning December 6, 2005. The hearing will
commence at 10 a.m. on the first day, and at 9 a.m. on the second and
subsequent days, which will be scheduled, if necessary.
Comments. Comments must be submitted (postmarked or sent) by
October 13, 2005.
Notices of intention to appear. Parties who intend to present
testimony at the informal public hearing must notify OSHA in writing of
their intention to do so no later than August 15, 2005.
Hearing testimony and documentary evidence. Parties who request
more than 10 minutes for their presentations at the informal public
hearing and parties who will submit documentary evidence at the hearing
must submit the full text of their testimony and all documentary
evidence postmarked no later than November 3, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments, notices of intention to
appear, hearing testimony, and documentary evidence--identified by
docket number (S-215) or RIN number (1218-AB67)--by any of the
following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
OSHA Web site: https://dockets.osha.gov/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments on OSHA's Web page.
Fax: If your written comments are 10 pages or fewer, you
may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-1648.
Regular mail, express delivery, hand delivery and courier
service: Submit three copies to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. S-
215, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room
N2625, Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2350. (OSHA's TTY
number is (877) 889-5627.) OSHA Docket Office hours of operation are
8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., E.S.T.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to
https://dockets.osha.gov/, including any personal information provided.
For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public Participation''
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: For access to the docket to read comments and background
documents that can be posted go to https://dockets.osha.gov/. Written
comments received, notices of intention to appear, and all other
material related to the development of this proposed standard will be
available for inspection and copying in the public record in the Docket
Office, Room N2439, at the address listed previously.
Hearing. The hearing will be held in the auditorium of the U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General information and press
inquiries:
[[Page 34823]]
Mr. Kevin Ropp, Director, Office of Communications, Room N3647, OSHA,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210; telephone (202) 693-1999.
Technical information: Mr. David Wallis, Director, Office of
Engineering Safety, Room N3609, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
2277 or fax (202) 693-1663.
Hearings: Ms. Veneta Chatmon, OSHA Office of Communications,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3647; 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, telephone: (202) 693-
1999.
For additional copies of this Federal Register notice, contact
OSHA, Office of Publications, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N3101, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20210; telephone (202) 693-
1888. Electronic copies of this Federal Register notice, as well as
news releases and other relevant documents, are available at OSHA's Web
page on the Internet at https://www.osha.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Development of Proposal
III. Legal Authority
IV. Summary and Explanation of Proposed Rule
V. Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis and Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis
VI. State Plan Standards
VII. Environmental Impact Analysis
VIII. Unfunded Mandates
IX. Federalism
X. OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
XI. Public Participation'Comments and Hearings
XII. List of Subjects in 29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1926
XIII. Authority and Signature
I. Background
A. Acronyms
The following acronyms have been used throughout this document:
AED Automated external defibrillator
ALJ Administrative law judge
ANSI American National Standards Institute
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
CFOI Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries
CPR Cardiopulmonary resuscitation
EEI Edison Electric Institute
EPRI Electric Power Research Institute
FRA Flame-resistant apparel
FTE Full-Time Equivalent [Employee]
IBEW International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
IMIS OSHA's Integrated Management Information System
IRFA Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NESC National Electrical Safety Code
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OSH Act (or simply ``the Act'') Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
OSHRC Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
PRIA Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis
RIN Regulatory information number
SBA Small Business Administration
SBAR Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
SER small entity representative
SIC Standard Industrial Classification
WCRI Worker Compensation Research Institute
B. Need for Rule
Employees maintaining or constructing electric power transmission
or distribution installations are not adequately protected by current
OSHA standards, though these employees face far greater electrical
hazards than those faced by other workers. The voltages involved are
generally much higher than voltages encountered in other types of work,
and a large part of electric power transmission and distribution work
exposes employees to energized parts of the power system.
Employees performing work involving electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution are exposed to a variety of significant
hazards, such as fall, electric shock, and burn hazards, that can and
do cause serious injury and death. As detailed below, OSHA estimates
that, on average, 444 serious injuries and 74 fatalities occur annually
among these workers.
Although some of these incidents may have been prevented with
better compliance with existing safety standards, research and analyses
conducted by OSHA have found that many preventable injuries and
fatalities would continue to occur even if full compliance with the
existing standards were achieved. Without counting incidents that would
potentially have been prevented with compliance with existing
standards, an estimated additional 116 injuries and 19 fatalities would
be prevented through full compliance with the proposed standards.
Additional benefits associated with this rulemaking involve
providing updated, clear, and consistent safety standards regarding
electric power generation, transmission, and distribution work. The
existing standard for the construction of electric power transmission
and distribution lines and equipment is contained in Subpart V of
OSHA's construction standards (29 CFR part 1926). This standard was
promulgated on November 23, 1972, over 30 years ago (37 FR 24880). Some
of the technology involved in electric power transmission and
distribution work has changed since then, and the current standard does
not reflect those changes. For example, the method of determining
minimum approach distances has become more exact since 1972, and the
minimum approach distances given in existing Sec. 1926.950(c)(1) are
not based on the latest methodology. The minimum approach distances in
this proposal are more protective as well as more technologically
sound. Additionally, parts of Subpart V need clarification. For
example, in existing Subpart V, there are three different requirements
relating to the use of mechanical equipment near overhead lines:
Sec. Sec. 1926.952(c)(2) \1\ and 1926.955(a)(5) \2\ and (a)(6).\3\
These provisions apply
[[Page 34824]]
different requirements to these operations depending on whether or not
the mechanical equipment involved is lifting equipment and on whether
or not work is being performed on overhead lines. Two different United
States Courts of Appeals found these regulations to be confusing even
though they accepted OSHA's interpretation regarding their application
(Wisconsin Electric Power Co. v. OSHRC, 567 F.2d 735 (7th Cir. 1977);
Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. v. OSHRC, 737 F.2d 350 (3d Cir. 1984)).
In fact, the majority in the Wisconsin Electric decision noted that
``[r]evision of the regulations by any competent draftsman would
greatly improve their clarity'' (Wisconsin Electric, 567 F.2d at 738).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This requirement reads as follows:
(2) With the exception of equipment certified for work on the
proper voltage, mechanical equipment shall not be operator closer to
any energized line or equipment than the clearances set forth in
Sec. 1926.950(c) unless:
(i) An insulated barrier is installed between the energized part
and the mechanical equipment, or
(ii) The mechanical equipment is grounded, or
(iii) The mechanical equipment is insulated, or
(iv) The mechanical equipment is considered as energized.
\2\ This requirement reads as follows:
(5)(i) When setting, moving, or removing poles using cranes,
derricks, gin poles, A-frames, or other mechanized equipment near
energized lines or equipment, precautions shall be taken to avoid
contact with energized lines or equipment, except in bare-hand live-
line work, or where barriers or protective devices are used.
(ii) Equipment and machinery operating adjacent to energized
lines or equipment shall comply with Sec. 1926.952(c)(2).
\3\ This requirement reads as follows:
(6)(i) Unless using suitable protective equipment for the
voltage involved, employees standing on the ground shall avoid
contacting equipment or machinery working adjacent to energized
lines or equipment.
(ii) Lifting equipment shall be bonded to an effective ground or
it shall be considered energized and barricaded when utilized near
energized equipment or lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even the newer general industry standards on the operation and
maintenance of electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution installations (29 CFR 1910.269) and electrical protective
equipment (29 CFR 1910.137) are not completely consistent with the
latest advances in technology represented by updated consensus
standards covering this type of work and equipment.
OSHA has different standards covering construction work on electric
power transmission and distribution systems and general industry work
on the same systems. In most instances, the work practices used by
employees to perform construction or general industry work on these
systems are the same. The application of OSHA's construction or general
industry standards to a particular job depends upon whether the
employer is altering the system (construction work) or maintaining the
system (general industry work). For example, employers changing a
cutout (disconnect switch) on a transmission and distribution system
would be performing construction work if they were upgrading the
cutout, but general industry work if they were simply replacing the
cutout with the same model.
Since the work practices used by the employees would most likely be
identical, the applicable OSHA standards should be identical. OSHA's
existing requirements are not, however. Conceivably, for work involving
two or more cutouts, different and conflicting OSHA standards might
apply. The inconsistencies between the two standards create
difficulties for employers attempting to develop appropriate work
practices for their employees. For this reason, employers and employees
have told OSHA that it should make the two standards identical. This
proposal does so.
C. Accident Data
OSHA has looked to several sources for information on accidents in
the electric utility industry in preparing this proposed rule. Besides
OSHA's own accident investigation files, statistics on injuries are
compiled by the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and by the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). Additionally,
the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes such accident data as
incidence rates for total cases, lost workday cases, and lost workdays.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
publishes accident data as part of its Fatality Assessment and Control
Evaluation Program.
Analyses of accident data for electric power transmission and
distribution workers can be found in the following documents, which
(like all exhibits) are available for inspection and copying in Docket
S-215 in the Docket Office:
(1) ``Preparation of an Economic Impact Study for the Proposed OSHA
Regulation Covering Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and
Distribution,'' June 1986, Eastern Research Group, Section 4.
(2) ``Assessment of the Benefits of the Proposed Standard on
Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution Coding
Results and Analysis,'' October 5, 1990, Eastern Research Group.
(3) ``Analytical Support and Data Gathering for a Preliminary
Economic Analysis for Proposed Standards for Work on Electric Power
Generation, Transmission, and Distribution Lines and Equipment (29 CFR
1910.269 and 29 CFR 1926--Subpart V),'' 2005, CONSAD Research Corp.,
Chapter 4.
To develop estimates of the potential benefits associated with this
proposal, CONSAD Corp., under contract to OSHA, researched and reviewed
potential sources of useful data. CONSAD, in consultation with the
Agency, determined that the most reliable data sources for this purpose
included OSHA's Integrated Management Information System, and the
Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries developed by the BLS.
From these sources, CONSAD identified and analyzed injuries and
fatalities that would be addressed by this proposal. A description of
the methodological approach used for analyzing these data is included
in the final report submitted to OSHA from CONSAD. CONSAD's analysis
found that an average of 74 fatalities and 25 injuries involving
circumstances directly addressed by the existing or proposed standards
are recorded annually in the relevant databases. These accidents
include cases involving electric shock, burns from electric arcs, and
falls, which are the predominant types of accidents occurring in
electric power generation, transmission, and distribution work.
D. Significant Risk
OSHA must show that the hazards the Agency addresses in a safety
regulation present significant risks to employees. OSHA has generally
considered an excess risk of 1 death per 1000 employees over a 45-year
working lifetime as clearly representing a significant risk. Industrial
Union Dept. v. American Petroleum Institute (Benzene), 448 U.S. 607,
655 (1980); International Union v. Pendergrass (Formaldehyde), 878 F.2d
389, 392-93 (D.C. Cir. 1989); Building and Construction Trades Dept.,
AFL-CIO v. Brock (Asbestos), 838 F.2d 1258, 1264-65 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
As part of the regulatory analyses for this standard, OSHA has
determined the population at risk, the occupations presenting major
risks, and the incidence and severity of injuries attributable to the
failure to follow the rules established in the proposed standard. In
keeping with the purpose of safety standards to prevent accidental
injury and death, OSHA has estimated the number of accidents that would
be prevented by the new rule.
Electricity has long been recognized as a serious workplace hazard
exposing employees to dangers such as electric shock, electrocution,
electric arcs, fires, and explosions. The other hazards this rule
addresses, namely, falls and being struck by, struck against, or caught
between objects, are also widely recognized. The 227,683 employees
performing work covered by the proposed standards experience an average
of 444 injuries and 74 fatalities each year.\4\ Over a 45-year working
lifetime, more than 14 of every 1000 of these employees \5\ will die
from hazards
[[Page 34825]]
posed by their work. As detailed in Section V, Preliminary Regulatory
Impact Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, later in
this preamble, the Agency estimates that the proposed rule will prevent
116 injuries and 19 deaths each year. Accordingly, OSHA has
preliminarily determined that hazards faced by employees performing
construction or maintenance work on electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution installations pose a significant risk of
injury or death to those employees, and that this proposed rule would
substantially reduce that risk and would be reasonably necessary to
provide protection from these hazards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For a detailed explanation of the number of employees
covered by the proposal and the number of injuries and fatalities
experienced by these workers, see Section V, Preliminary Regulatory
Impact Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, later
in this preamble.
\5\ The number of fatalities expected to occur in 45 years is 74
fatalities x 45, or 3330. Thus, 14.6 employees in 1000 covered by
the proposal ((3330 fatalities/227,683 employees) x 1000) will die
from job-related hazards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Development of Proposal
A. Present OSHA Standards
OSHA adopted standards applying to the construction of power
transmission and distribution lines and equipment in 1972 (Subpart V of
Part 1926). OSHA defines the term ``construction work'' in Sec.
1910.12 as ``work for construction, alteration, and/or repair,
including painting and decorating.'' The term ``construction'' is
broadly defined in Sec. 1910.12(d) and Sec. 1926.950(a)(1) to include
alteration, conversion, and improvement of electric power transmission
lines and equipment, as well as the original installation of the lines
and equipment. However, Subpart V does not apply to the operation or
maintenance of transmission or distribution installations.
On January 31, 1994, OSHA adopted rules for the operation and
maintenance of electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution lines and equipment, Sec. 1910.269. This standard was
intended as a companion standard to Subpart V of the construction
standards to address areas where Subpart V did not apply. The new
standard was also based on the latest technology and national consensus
standards.
OSHA revised its electrical protective equipment standard in Sec.
1910.137 at the same time Sec. 1910.269 was issued. The revision of
Sec. 1910.137 eliminated the incorporation by reference of national
consensus standards relating to rubber insulating equipment and
replaced it with performance-oriented rules for the design,
manufacture, and safe care and use of electrical protective equipment.
Other OSHA standards also relate to electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution work. The permit-required confined space
standard in Sec. 1910.146 applies to entry into certain confined
spaces found in this type of work. Section 1910.147 is OSHA's generic
lockout and tagging standard. Although this standard does not apply to
electric power generation, transmission, or distribution installations,
it formed the basis of Sec. 1910.269(d), which does apply to the
lockout and tagging of these installations. Subpart S of the General
Industry Standards and Subpart K of the construction standards set
requirements for unqualified \6\ workers who are working near electric
power generation, transmission, and distribution lines and equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In this preamble, ``unqualified worker'' (or ``unqualified
employee'') means an employee who does not have the requisite
training to work on or near electric power generation, transmission,
or distribution installations. For more information, see the
discussion of proposed Sec. 1926.950(b) in Section IV, Summary and
Explanation of Proposed Rule, later in this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Relevant consensus standards
The National Electrical Safety Code (American National Standards
Institute Standard ANSI C2, also known as the NESC) was also taken into
consideration in the development this proposal. This national consensus
standard contains requirements specifically addressing electric power
generation, transmission, and distribution work. The latest version of
ANSI C2 \7\ is much more up-to-date than Subpart V. However, ANSI C2 is
primarily directed to the prevention of electric shock, although it
does contain a few requirements for the prevention of falls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ANSI/IEEE C2-2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has adopted
standards related to electric power generation, transmission, and
distribution work. ASTM Committee F18 on Electrical Protective
Equipment for Workers has developed standards on rubber insulating
equipment, climbing equipment, protective grounding equipment,
fiberglass rod and tube used in live-line tools, and clothing for
workers exposed to electric arcs.
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has adopted a
standard on electrical safety for employees, NFPA 70E-2004, Electrical
Safety Requirements for Employee Workplaces. Although it does not apply
to electric power generation, transmission, or distribution
installations, this standard contains requirements for unqualified
employees working near such installations.
The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) is also
responsible for writing standards for electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution installations and for work on those
installations. Many of these standards have been adopted by ANSI. Among
these IEEE standards are: IEEE Std. 516, IEEE Guide for Maintenance
Methods on Energized Power-Lines, and IEEE Std. 1048, IEEE Guide for
Protective Grounding of Power Lines.
A list of consensus standards relating to electric power
generation, transmission, and distribution work can be found in
existing Appendix E to Sec. 1910.269. OSHA considered the latest
editions of all the standards listed in this section of the preamble or
the Appendix in the development of the proposal.
C. Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health
Section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act and
the Agency's own rulemaking regulations in 29 CFR Part 1911 require
OSHA to consult with the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and
Health (ACCSH or the Committee) in setting standards for construction
work. Specifically, Sec. 1911.10(a) requires the Assistant Secretary
to (1) provide ACCSH with the draft proposed rule along with pertinent
factual information, (2) and to prescribe a period within which the
Committee must submit its recommendations on the proposal.
OSHA has a 10-year history of consulting with ACCSH on the proposed
construction standards for electrical protective equipment and electric
transmission and distribution work. The Agency has provided several
drafts of the proposed construction rules and updates on the status of
the proposal.
On May 25, 1995, OSHA first took a draft of the proposed
construction standards to ACCSH, providing the Committee with a draft
of the proposal and with a statement on the need for and background
behind the proposal. The Committee formed a workgroup to review the
document and report back to ACCSH. The workgroup provided comments to
OSHA. Although the Agency gave a status report on the proposal to the
Committee on August 8, 1995, ACCSH did not make any formal
recommendations to OSHA at that time.
The Agency provided a later draft of the proposal to ACCSH on
December 10, 1999. This time, the Committee made no comments. On
February 13, 2003, OSHA gave ACCSH a status report on the proposal and
summarized the major revisions in the draft.
On May 22, 2003, OSHA provided the Committee with the same copy of
the draft proposal that had been provided to the small entity
representatives who
[[Page 34826]]
were participating in the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and
Fairness Act (SBREFA) proceedings, which were being conducted at that
time. OSHA also explained the major issues being raised by the small
entity representatives on the draft proposal.
On May 18, 2004, ACCSH gave formal recommendations on OSHA's
proposal. OSHA sought ACCSH's recommendations on the proposal
generally, as well as on issues specifically related to host employer-
contractor communications and flame-resistant clothing. ACCSH voted
unanimously that: (1) The construction standards for electric power
transmission and distribution work should be the same as the general
industry standards for the same type of work; (2) requiring some
safety-related communications between host employers and contractors
was necessary; and (3) employees need to be protected from hazards
posed by electric arcs through the use of flame-resistant clothing.
ACCSH also recommended unanimously that OSHA issue its proposal,
consistent with these specific votes.
III. Legal Authority
The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH
Act or the Act), 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq., is ``to assure so far as
possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful
working conditions and to preserve our human resources.'' 29 U.S.C.
651(b). To achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary of
Labor to promulgate and enforce occupational safety and health
standards. 29 U.S.C. 655(b) and 658.
A safety or health standard ``requires conditions, or the adoption
or use of one or more practices, means, methods, operations, or
processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or
healthful employment and places of employment.'' 29 U.S.C. 652(8). A
standard is reasonably necessary or appropriate within the meaning of
Section 652(8) if:
A significant risk of material harm exists in the
workplace and the proposed standard would substantially reduce or
eliminate that workplace risk;
It is technologically and economically feasible;
It employs the most cost effective protective measures;
It is consistent with prior Agency action or supported by
a reasoned justification for departing from prior Agency action;
It is supported by substantial evidence; and
In the event the standard is preceded by a consensus
standard, it is better able to effectuate the purposes of the OSH Act
than the standard it supersedes.
International Union, UAW v. OSHA (LOTO II), 37 F.3d 665, 668 (D.C.
Cir. 1994).
OSHA has generally considered an excess risk of 1 death per 1000
employees over a 45-year working lifetime as clearly representing a
significant risk (see Industrial Union Dept. v. American Petroleum
Institute (Benzene), 448 U.S. 607, 655 (1980); International Union v.
Pendergrass (Formaldehyde), 878 F.2d 389, 392-93 (D.C. Cir. 1989);
Building and Construction Trades Dept., AFL-CIO v. Brock (Asbestos),
838 F.2d 1258, 1264-65 (D.C. Cir. 1988)).
A standard is considered technologically feasible if the protective
measures it requires already exist, can be brought into existence with
available technology, or can be created with technology that can
reasonably be expected to be developed (see American Iron and Steel
Institute v. OSHA (Lead II), 939 F.2d 975, 980 (D.C. Cir. 1991)). A
standard is economically feasible when industry can absorb or pass on
the costs of compliance without threatening the industry's long-term
profitability or competitive structure (see American Textile Mfrs.
Institute v. OSHA (Cotton Dust), 452 U.S. 490, 530 n. 55 (1981); Lead
II, 939 F.2d at 980). A standard is cost effective if the protective
measures it requires are the least costly of the available alternatives
that achieve the same level of protection (see LOTO II, 37 F.3d at
668).
All OSHA standards must be highly protective (LOTO II, 37 F.3d at
669) and, where practical, ``expressed in terms of objective criteria
and of the performance desired.'' 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5). Finally, the OSH
Act requires that when promulgating a rule that differs substantially
from a national consensus standard, OSHA must explain why the
promulgated rule is a better method for effectuating the purpose of the
Act. 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(8). As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, OSHA
is using several consensus standards as the basis for its proposed
rule. The deviations from these consensus standards are explained in
Section IV, Summary and Explanation of Proposed Rule, later in this
preamble.
IV. Summary and Explanation of Proposed Rule
This section discusses the important elements of the proposed
standard, explains the purpose of the individual requirements, and
explains any differences between the proposed rule and existing
standards. References in parentheses are to exhibits in the rulemaking
record. References prefixed by ``269'' are to exhibits and transcripts
in the rulemaking record from OSHA's earlier rulemaking on Sec.
1910.137 and Sec. 1910.269. These documents are available for
inspection and copying in the Docket Office under Docket S-015. (The
transcripts are listed in the docket as ``exhibits'' 100-X through 208-
X.)
OSHA is proposing a new construction standard on electrical
protective equipment, 29 CFR 1926.97, and a revision of the standard on
the construction of electric power transmission and distribution lines
and equipment, 29 CFR Part 1926, Subpart V. The Agency is also
proposing changes to the general industry counterparts to these two
construction standards, 29 CFR 1910.137 and 1910.269, respectively. The
proposed construction standards may contain some nonsubstantive
differences from their existing counterpart general industry
requirements that are not separately included in the proposed revision
of the general industry standards. However, the Agency intends for the
corresponding construction and general industry requirements to be the
same in the final rule except to the extent that separate requirements
are supported by the rulemaking record. For example, the definition of
``designated employee'' in existing Sec. 1910.269(x) reads as follows:
An employee (or person) who is designated by the employer to
perform specific duties under the terms of this section and who is
knowledgeable in the construction and operation of the equipment and
the hazards involved.
OSHA is proposing a slightly revised version of this definition in
Sec. 1926.968, as follows:
An employee (or person) who is assigned by the employer to
perform specific duties under the terms of this section and who has
sufficient knowledge of the construction and operation of the
equipment and the hazards involved to perform his or her duties
safely.
The Agency does not believe that the proposed definition for
Subpart V is substantially different from the existing definition in
Sec. 1910.269(x). Therefore, OSHA is not specifically including the
proposed change to the definition of ``designated employee'' in the
proposed changes to Sec. 1910.269. The language in the final standards
(that is, Sec. Sec. 1910.269(x) and 1926.968) will be the same,
however, unless the record warrants a separate definition for
construction work.
[[Page 34827]]
In addition, the proposal references national consensus standards
in notes following various requirements. These references are intended
to provide employers and employees with additional useful sources of
information that can assist them in complying with the standards. OSHA
intends to review the latest editions of these consensus standards and
reference those editions when promulgating the final rule provided they
still provide suitable guidance.
A. Electrical Protective Equipment, Section 1926.97
Electrical protective equipment is in constant use during electric
power transmission and distribution work; and, appropriately, existing
Subpart V contains provisions related to this equipment. The existing
OSHA standards for electrical protective equipment in construction work
are contained in Sec. 1926.951(a)(1), which only applies during
construction of electric power transmission and distribution lines and
equipment. Electrical protective equipment, however, is used throughout
the construction industry. OSHA therefore believes that updated
personal protective equipment provisions should apply throughout the
construction industry, wherever such equipment is necessary for
employee safety, and that electrical protective equipment provisions
should not be limited to the use of this equipment in electric power
transmission and distribution work. Therefore, OSHA is proposing new
Sec. 1926.97, Electrical protective equipment, to replace Sec.
1926.951(a)(1), which incorporates by reference the following six
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item ANSI Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rubber insulating gloves................... J6.6-1971
Rubber matting for use around electric J6.7-1935
apparatus. (R1971)
Rubber insulating blankets................. J6.4-1971
Rubber insulating hoods.................... J6.2-1950
(R1971)
Rubber insulating line hose................ J6.1-1950
(R1971)
Rubber insulating sleeves.................. J6.5-1971
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These ANSI standards were originally developed and adopted as
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards. (In fact,
the latest revisions of these standards use the ASTM designations,
rather than using separate designations for both standards-writing
organizations.) As is typical of national consensus standards, the ASTM
standards are filled with detailed specifications for the manufacture,
testing, and design of electrical protective equipment. Additionally,
these standards are revised frequently, making existing Sec.
1926.951(a)(1) over a quarter century out of date. For example, the
most recent ANSI standard listed in the former OSHA requirement is
dated 1971. The most recent ASTM version available is a 2002 edition of
specifications on rubber insulating gloves. The complete list of
current ASTM standards corresponding to the ANSI standards is as
follows:
ASTM D120-02a, Specification for Rubber Insulating Gloves.
ASTM D178-01\e1\, Specification for Rubber Insulating Matting.
ASTM D1048-99, Specification for Rubber Insulating Blankets.
ASTM D1049-98\e1\ (Reapproved 2002), Specification for Rubber
Insulating Covers.
ASTM D1050-90 (Reapproved 1999), Specification for Rubber
Insulating Line Hose.
ASTM D1051-02, Specification for Rubber Insulating Sleeves.
Additionally, ASTM has adopted standards on the in-service care of
insulating line hose and covers (ASTM F478-92 (Reapproved 1999)),
insulating blankets (ASTM F479-95 (Reapproved 2001)), and insulating
gloves and sleeves (ASTM F496-02a), which have no current counterparts
in existing Sec. 1926.951(a)(1).
In an attempt to retain the quality of protection afforded by the
ASTM standards, OSHA has developed proposed new Sec. 1926.97 which has
been derived from the ASTM documents but which has been written in
performance terms. OSHA recognizes the importance of the ASTM standards
in defining basic requirements for the safe design and manufacture of
electrical protective equipment for employees. Proposed Sec. 1926.97
would increase the protection presently afforded to power transmission
and distribution employees by the outdated ANSI/ASTM standards
incorporated by reference in the existing standard. The proposal
carries forward ASTM provisions that are performance oriented and
necessary for employee safety, but does not contain many of the
detailed specifications in those consensus standards. The proposal will
thus provide greater flexibility for compliance with these provisions
to the extent that worker safety warrants.
There are several reasons why adopting the ASTM standards in toto
would be inappropriate in this rulemaking. First, ASTM has revised each
of the currently referenced standards several times since they were
adopted in the former OSHA regulation. Because of the continual process
by which ASTM periodically revises its standards, any specific editions
that OSHA might adopt would likely be outdated within a few years.
Additionally, since the rulemaking process is lengthy, a complete
revision of OSHA's electrical protective equipment requirements every
three years or so to keep pace with the changes in the consensus
standards is not practical. (In fact, some of the ASTM standards will
likely be revised again during the rulemaking period.) To remedy this
problem, OSHA is proposing new Sec. 1926.97 to make the standards
flexible enough to accommodate changes in technology, obviating the
need for constant revision. Where possible, the proposed standard has
been written in performance terms in order to allow alternative methods
of compliance if they provide comparable safety to the employee.
Another difficulty with incorporation of the ASTM standards by
reference is that they contain details that go beyond the purposes of
the OSHA standard or that are not directly related to employee safety.
In proposed Sec. 1926.97, OSHA has tried to carry forward only
provisions that are relevant to employee safety in the workplace.
Furthermore, OSHA has attempted to simplify those provisions to make
the requirements easier for employers and employees to use and
understand. Because the revision places all relevant requirements in
the text of the regulations, employers would no longer have to refer to
the ASTM documents to determine their obligations under OSHA.
In striving for this degree of simplification, the Agency has tried
to use an approach that will accept new methods of protection that may
appear in future editions of the ASTM standards. OSHA recognizes that
such future editions of these standards might contain technological
advances providing significant improvement in employee safety, which
might not be permitted under proposed Sec. 1926.97. However, due to
the performance-oriented nature of the OSHA standard as compared to the
ASTM standards, conflicts between the two standards in areas affecting
employee safety are expected to be infrequent.
Furthermore, an employer who follows future versions of ASTM
standards would likely be covered by OSHA's de minimis policy as set
forth in OSHA Instruction CPL 02-00-103 (Field Inspection Reference
Manual). Under that policy, a de minimis
[[Page 34828]]
condition \8\ exists: (1) Where an employer's workplace has been
updated in accordance with new technology or equipment as a result of
revisions to the latest consensus publications from which OSHA
standards were derived, (2) where the updated versions result in a
``state of the art'' workplace, technically advanced beyond the
requirements of the applicable OSHA standard, and (3) where equal or
greater safety and health protection is provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ OSHA considers a de minimis condition to be a technical
violation of a standard only. However, because the employer is
considered to be in substantial compliance with the standard, the
Agency issues no citations or penalties, nor is the employer
required to bring his or her workplace into compliance with the
older standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (a). Paragraph (a) of Sec. 1926.97 addresses the design
and manufacture of insulating blankets, matting, covers, line hose,
gloves, and sleeves made of rubber (either natural or synthetic). See
the summary and explanation of proposed Sec. 1926.97(b) for general
requirements on other types of insulating equipment.
Under proposed paragraph (a)(1)(i), blankets, gloves, and sleeves
would have to be manufactured without seams. This method of making the
protective equipment minimizes the chance that the material will split.
Because they are used when workers handle energized lines, gloves and
sleeves are the only defense an employee has against electric shock.
Additionally, blankets, gloves, and sleeves need to be seamless because
the stresses placed on the equipment by the flexing of the rubber
during normal use could cause a seam to separate. The other three types
of electrical protective equipment (covers, line hose, and matting)
generally provide a more indirect form of protection--they insulate the
live parts from accidental, rather than intended, contact--and they are
not usually subject to similar amounts or types of flexing.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(ii) would require electrical protective
equipment to be marked to indicate its class and type. The class
marking indicates the voltage with which the equipment can be used; the
type marking indicates whether or not the equipment is ozone resistant.
This will enable employees to know the uses and voltages for which the
equipment is suited. Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(ii) would also permit
equipment to contain other relevant markings, such as one indicating
the manufacturer's name or compliance with ASTM standards.
Paragraph (a)(1)(iii) would require all markings to be
nonconductive and to be applied so that the properties of the equipment
are not impaired. This would ensure that no marking interferes with the
protection to be provided by the equipment.
Paragraph (a)(1)(iv) would require markings on gloves to be
provided only in the cuff area. Markings in other areas could possibly
wear off. Moreover, having the markings in one place will allow the
employee to determine the class and type of glove quickly. Furthermore,
OSHA would require in paragraph (c)(2)(vii) that rubber gloves normally
be worn under protector gloves. Because a protector glove is almost
always shorter than the corresponding rubber glove with which it is
worn and because the cuff of the protector glove can easily be pulled
back without removal, it is easy to see markings on the cuff portion of
the rubber glove beneath. Any marking provided on the rubber glove in
an area outside of the cuff could not be seen with the protector glove
in place.
Under the national consensus standards, electrical protective
equipment must be capable of passing certain electrical tests. In
proposed Sec. 1926.97(a)(2), OSHA incorporates these requirements. The
tests specified in the ASTM standards are very detailed. This is not
the case in the OSHA standard. Through the use of performance language,
the proposed rule would establish the same level of protection without
a lengthy discussion of test procedures.
Paragraph (a)(2)(i) would require electrical protective equipment
to be capable of withstanding the a-c proof-test voltages in Table E-1
or the d-c proof-test voltages in Table E-2 of the standard (depending,
of course, on whether an a-c proof test or an equivalent d-c proof test
is performed). The proof-test voltages listed in these tables have been
taken from the current ASTM standards, which also contain details of
the test procedures used to determine whether electrical protective
equipment is capable of withstanding these voltages. These details have
not been included in the proposed rule. Paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A) replaces
them with a performance-oriented requirement that whatever test is used
must reliably indicate that the equipment can withstand the proof-test
voltage involved. To meet the requirements of the OSHA performance
standard, employers would normally get the assurance of the
manufacturer that the equipment is capable of withstanding the
appropriate proof-test voltage.\9\ Manufacturers typically look to the
ASTM standards for guidance in determining the testing procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ As explained in the note at the end of paragraph (a), OSHA
deems equipment meeting the ASTM standards as being compliant with
the OSHA standard. Thus, an employer could simply look for equipment
labeled as meeting these standards. Manufacturers attest, through
this label, that their equipment is capable of passing all the
required tests, including the a-c or d-c proof tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(i)(B) would require the proof-test
voltage to be applied for 1 minute for insulating matting and for 3
minutes for other insulating equipment. These times are based on the
proof-test times given in the ASTM design standards and are appropriate
for testing the design capabilities of electrical protective equipment.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(i)(C) would require rubber insulating
gloves to be capable of withstanding the a-c proof-test voltage
indicated in Table E-1 of the standard after a 16-hour water soak. If
rubber insulating gloves absorb water, a reduction in insulating
properties will result. Water absorption is thus a critical property
because exposure to perspiration or rain is quite common while line
worker's gloves are in use. Electrical work is sometimes performed in
the rain, and an employee's perspiration is often present while the
gloves are in use. The soak test is needed to ensure that electrical
protective equipment can withstand the voltage involved under these
conditions.
When an a-c proof test is used on gloves, the resulting proof-test
current gives an indication of the validity of the gloves' make-up, the
dielectric constant of the type of material used, its thickness, and
the total area under test. Paragraph (a)(2)(ii) prohibits the a-c
proof-test current from exceeding the current allowed in Table E-1. The
currents listed in the table have been taken from ASTM D120-02a.
Under paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(A), the maximum current for a-c voltages
at frequencies other than 60 hertz would be computed from the direct
ratio of the frequencies.
Gloves are filled with and immersed in water during the a-c proof
test, and the water inside and outside the glove forms the electrodes.
The a-c proof-test current is dependent on the length of the portion of
the glove that is out of water. Because the proof-test current is a
function of immersion depth, it is important to specify the depth in
the rule. Otherwise, employee safety could be compromised. Therefore,
paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(B) in the proposed standard specifies that gloves
to be tested must be filled with and immersed in water to the depth
given in Table E-3 in the standard. This table was taken directly
[[Page 34829]]
from ASTM D120 and is valid for the proof-test currents listed in Table
E-1.
The allowable proof-test current must be increased for proof-tests
on gloves after a 16-hour water soak because the gloves absorb a small
amount of water, which results in slightly increased current during the
test. ASTM D120 allows an increase in the proof-test current of 2
milliamperes. If the proof-test current increases more than that, it
would indicate that the gloves absorbed too much water. OSHA has
proposed to allow a similar increase in proof-test current in paragraph
(a)(2)(ii)(C).
Since the relatively high voltages used in testing electrical
protective equipment for minimum breakdown voltage can actually damage
the insulating material under test (even if it passes), proposed
paragraph (a)(2)(iii) would prohibit protective equipment that has been
subjected to such a test from being used to protect employees from
electrical hazards. The intent of the proposal is to prohibit the use
of equipment that has been tested under conditions equivalent to those
in the ASTM standards for minimum breakdown voltage tests.
A note at the end of proposed Sec. 1926.97(a) indicates that all
the tests given in the paragraph are described in the listed ASTM
standards, as follows:
These [ASTM] standards contain specifications for conducting the
various tests required in paragraph (a) of this section. For
example, the a-c and d-c proof tests, the breakdown test, the water
soak procedure, and the ozone test mentioned in this paragraph are
described in detail in the ASTM standards.
This does not mean that OSHA is adopting the ASTM standards by
reference. In enforcing proposed Sec. 1926.97, the Agency would accept
any test that meets the requirements of the OSHA standard. However, the
proposal states explicitly that the ASTM tests listed in the note are
acceptable; and, if the ASTM specifications are met, an employer has
assurance that he or she is complying with proposed Sec. 1926.97. If
an employer uses other test methods, the Agency would determine, on a
case-by-case basis, whether or not they meet the OSHA standard.
Around high-voltage lines and equipment, a luminous discharge,
called electric corona, can occur due to ionization of the surrounding
air caused by a voltage gradient which exceeds a certain critical
value. The blue corona discharge is accompanied by a hissing noise and
by ozone, which can cause damage to certain types of rubber insulating
materials. Therefore, when there is a chance that ozone may be produced
at a work location, electrical protective equipment made of ozone-
resistant material is frequently used. To ensure that ozone-resistant
material will, in fact, be resistant to the damaging effects of the
gas, paragraph (a)(2)(iv) requires this type of material (Type II) to
be capable of withstanding an ozone test that can reliably indicate
that the material will resist ozone exposure in actual use. As noted
earlier, standardized ozone tests are given in the ASTM specifications.
The proposed rule also lists signs of failure of the test, such as
checking,\10\ cracking, breaks, and pitting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ ASTM F819-00 \e1\, Standard Terminology Relating to
Electrical Protective Equipment for Workers, defines ``ozone cutting
and checking'' as: ``cracks produced by ozone in a material under
mechanical stress.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (a)(3) applies to the workmanship and finish of
electrical protective equipment. Because physical irregularities can
interfere with the insulating properties of the equipment, paragraph
(a)(3)(i) prohibits the presence of harmful defects that can be
detected by the tests or inspections required under Sec. 1926.97.
However, some minor irregularities are nearly unavoidable in the
manufacture of rubber goods, and these imperfections may be present in
the insulating materials without significantly affecting the
insulation. Paragraph (a)(3)(ii) lists the types of imperfections that
are permitted. Even with these imperfections, electrical protective
equipment is still required to be capable of passing the electrical
tests specified in paragraph (a)(2).
Since paragraph (a) of Sec. 1926.97 is written in performance-
oriented language, OSHA believes that it is important for employees,
employers, and manufacturers to have some guidance in terms of what is
acceptable under the proposed standard. OSHA also realizes that the
current ASTM specifications on electrical protective equipment are
accepted by employers and employees in the industry as providing safety
to employees and that existing electrical protective equipment is
normally made to these specifications. Furthermore, the proposal is
based on the provisions of these national consensus standards, although
the requirements are stated in performance terms. OSHA has therefore
included a footnote at the end of paragraph (a) stating that rubber
insulating equipment meeting the requirements of the listed ASTM
standards for this equipment are considered as conforming to the
requirements contained in Sec. 1926.97(a). The lists of ASTM standards
in the proposed rule (in the notes following paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(B)
and (c)(2)(ix)) contain the latest revisions of these standards. The
Agency has reviewed these documents and has found them to provide
suitable guidance for compliance with Sec. 1926.97(a).\11\ It should
be noted that the listed consensus standards are the only ones with
official recognition within the body of the standard. Future consensus
standards are not automatically given the same recognition but will
have to be reviewed by OSHA to determine whether they provide
sufficient protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ OSHA has also reviewed earlier versions of these ASTM
standards and found them to afford protection equal to that of the
OSHA standard. Thus, the Agency will accept electrical protective
equipment meeting earlier versions of the consensus standards
provided the equipment meets the edition of the standard that was in
effect at the time of manufacture and provided the employer has
followed the use and care provisions set out in proposed Sec.
1926.97(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (b). Paragraph (b) of the proposed Sec. 1926.97
addresses electrical protective equipment other than the rubber
insulating equipment addressed in paragraph (a). Equipment falling
under this paragraph includes plastic guard equipment, insulating
barriers, and other protective equipment intended to provide electrical
protection to employees. Some of the equipment addressed in paragraph
(b) is covered under a national consensus standard. For example,
insulating plastic guard equipment is covered by ASTM F968,
Specification for Electrically Insulating Plastic Guard Equipment for
Protection of Workers. Other types of protective equipment are not
covered by consensus specification.
Paragraph (b)(1) would require electrical protective equipment to
be capable of withstanding any voltage that might be imposed on it. The
voltage includes transient overvoltages as well as the nominal voltage
that is present on an energized part of an electric circuit. Equipment
withstands a voltage if it maintains its integrity without flashover or
arc through. This paragraph would protect employees from failure of
electrical protective equipment. Equipment conforming to a national
consensus standard for that type of equipment will generally be
considered as complying with this rule if that standard contains proof
testing requirements for the voltage involved. For types of equipment
not addressed by any consensus standard, OSHA is considering accepting
electrical protective equipment that is capable of passing a test
equivalent to that described in ASTM F712, Standard Test Methods for
Electrically Insulating Plastic Guard Equipment for Protection
[[Page 34830]]
of Workers. Guidance for performing dielectric tests of electrical
protective equipment is also given in IEEE Std. 516, IEEE Guide for
Maintenance Methods on Energized Power-Lines. OSHA invites comments on
whether these standards contain suitable test methods and whether
equipment passing those tests should be acceptable under the OSHA
standard.
The electrical test criteria set in ASTM F968 are summarized in
Table IV-1 and Table IV-2. The Agency believes that the performance
criteria proposed in paragraph (b)(1) minimize the necessity of setting
or specifically including similar criteria in the OSHA standard.
However, comments are invited on the need to set specific electrical
performance values in the OSHA rule and on whether Table IV-1 and Table
IV-2 could be applied to all types of electrical protective equipment
that would be covered by proposed Sec. 1926.97(b).
Table IV-1.--Withstand Voltage Proof Test
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proof test withstand voltage (in service testing)
Rating kV Maximum use ---------------------------------------------------------------
Class [phis]- kV [phis]-g kV [phis]-g
[phis] (60 Hz) ---------------------------- Duration Criteria
60 Hz D-C min.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2................... 14.6 8.4 13 18 1.00 No flashover other
3................... 26.4 15.3 24 34 1.00 than momentary as a
4................... 36.6 21.1 32 45 1.00 result of too-close
spacing of
electrode.
5................... 48.3 27.0 42 60 0.50
6................... 72.5 41.8 64 91 0.25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV-2.--Minimum Flashover Test
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum flashover test kV
Rating kV Maximum use [phis]-g
Class [phis]- kV [phis]-g ---------------------------- Criteria
[phis] (60 Hz) 60 Hz D-C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.......................... 14.6 8.4
