Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution; Electrical Protective Equipment; Final Rule DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

SUMMARY: OSHA is issuing a new standard addressing the work practices

to be used during the operation and maintenance of electric power

generation, transmission, and distribution facilities. The standard

includes requirements relating to enclosed spaces, hazardous energy

control, working near energized parts, grounding for employee

protection, work on underground and overhead installations, line-

clearance tree trimming, work in substations and generating plants, and

other special conditions and equipment unique to the generation,

transmission, and distribution of electric energy. Compliance with

these requirements will prevent injuries to employees working on

electric power systems.

OSHA is also revising the electrical protective equipment

requirements contained in the General Industry Standards. The current

standards for the design of electrical protective equipment adopt

several national consensus standards by reference. The revision

replaces the incorporation of these out-of-date consensus standards

with a set of performance-oriented requirements that are consistent

with the latest revisions of these consensus standards. Additionally,

OSHA is issuing new requirements for the safe use and care of

electrical protective equipment to complement the equipment design

provisions. These revisions will update the existing OSHA standards and

will prevent accidents caused by inadequate electrical protective

equipment.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The Final Rule, except for Sec. 1910.269(a)(2), is

effective on May 31, 1994. Paragraph (a)(2) of Sec. 1910.269 is

effective on January 31, 1995.

ADDRESSES: In compliance with 28 U.S.C. 2112(a), the Agency designates

for receipt of petitions for review of the standard the Associate

Solicitor of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, Office of the

Solicitor, room S4004, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave.,

NW., Washington, DC 20210.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James F. Foster, U.S. Department

of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, room N3647,

200 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20210 (202-523-8148).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Need for Regulation

Employees performing operation or maintenance work on electric

power generation, 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

generation, transmission, and distribution work exposes employees to

energized parts of the power system.

The existing electrical regulations contained in subpart S of the

General Industry Standards address electric utilization systems--

installations of electric conductors and equipment which use electric

energy for mechanical, chemical, heating, lighting, or similar

purposes. Subpart S protects most employees from the hazards associated

with electric utilization equipment and with the premises wiring that

supplies this equipment. However, subpart S does not contain

requirements protecting employees from the hazards arising out of the

operation or maintenance of electric power generation, transmission, or

distribution installations.1

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

\1\Electric power generation, transmission, and distribution

installations under the exclusive control of an electric utility

(Sec. 1910.302(a)(2)(v)) are specifically not covered by the

electrical installation requirements contained in Subpart S

Secs. 1910.303 through 1910.308. Industrial generation,

transmission, and distribution installations, even though they are

not included in the language of Sec. 1910.302(a)(2)(v), are also not

covered under the Subpart S utilization requirements if they are the

same type as those of electric utilities (46 FR 4039). Additionally,

the safety-related work practice requirements of Subpart S exempt

work performed by qualified persons on or directly associated with

electric power generation, transmission, and distribution

installations regardless of who owns or controls them

(Sec. 1910.331(c)(1)).

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

In contrast, telecommunications workers, who face similar hazards,

are covered under a specific telecommunications standard in

Sec. 1910.268. This regulation protects employees performing

communications work from the two major hazards of falling and electric

shock. These are the same two hazards accounting for most of the

accidental deaths in electric power transmission and distribution work.

Employees engaged in the construction of electric power

transmission or distribution systems are protected by the provisions of

subpart V of the Construction Standards (Part 1926). However, this

standard does not address operation or maintenance work, nor does it

cover work in electric power generating plants.

Electric utility industry trade associations requested several

times that OSHA adopt a set of rules on the operation and maintenance

of power generation, transmission, and distribution systems. Toward

this end, representatives of Edison Electric Institute (an association

of investor-owned electric utilities) and of the International

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (a union representing electric

utility workers) developed a draft standard, submitted it to OSHA, and

suggested that it be used as a proposed rule. The Agency accepted the

draft standard and used it to begin the development of a proposal on

electric power generation, transmission, and distribution.

B. Accident Patterns

To establish a basis for the development of safety standards,

accident data must be collected and analyzed. OSHA has looked to

several sources for information on accidents in the electric utility

industry. 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. Analyses of accident data for electric utility

workers can be found in the following documents, which (like all

exhibits and hearing transcripts) are available for inspection and

copying in Docket S-015 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

(Ex.2 4).

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

\2\Exhibit.

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

(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 (Ex.

6-24).

Overall accident incidence rates for the electric services industry

(that is, the electric utility industry, SIC 491) are slightly lower

than corresponding rates for the private sector as a whole.

Furthermore, these rates are much lower than the traditionally more

hazardous manufacturing, construction, and mining industries. However,

although accident incidence rates can be used to compare relative risk

between industries, they are not specific enough to be used to

determine the types of hazards that need to be addressed by an

occupational safety standard.

OSHA realized during the development of the standard that, except

for electrical and fall hazards, electric utility employees face

hazards that are similar in nature and degree to those encountered in

many other industries. At the same time, OSHA recognized that the risk

faced by some employees during certain electric-utility-type operations

is greater than the risk faced by other general industry employees. For

example, the risk of electric shock to an electric power line worker or

cable repairer performing his or her routine duties is far greater than

that faced by any other occupational group.\3\ It is the uniquely

hazardous operations that are being addressed by OSHA's standard.

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

\3\JACA Corp., ``Regulatory Assessment of the Impact of the

Proposed Electrical Safety-Related Work Practices Standard, Final

Report,'' October 1983, pp. 4-8 to 4-10 (Ex. 2-6).

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

BLS's Supplementary Data System (SDS) provides some detail on the

characteristics of accidents in the electric service industry. SDS

files indicate that the three major sources of injury within SIC 491

are falls, overexertion, and being struck by or against an object.

Information on the nature of injuries also can be obtained from SDS.

For example, from these data, sprains/strains, cuts/lacerations, and

contusions/bruises are the most frequent injuries encountered in the

electric services industry. Similar data can be found throughout

general industry. It is noteworthy that electric shock cases do not

constitute a major injury category and are grouped under ``all other

classifiable.'' Although these data do indicate hazards that must be

addressed by a standard, they provide little guidance with respect to

the content of the standard.

More specific information on fatal and other serious accidents was

gathered from IBEW, EEI, and OSHA files. Contrasting with the SDS data,

these files indicate that electrical accidents are the most frequent

type of fatal and other serious injuries, accounting for approximately

one half of these. According to EEI and IBEW data, other accident types

that occur frequently include motor vehicle accidents, falls, and

``struck by/crushed.''

OSHA also collected information on accidents in non-utility

electric power generation, transmission, and distribution installations

(Ex. 6-25). These data indicate that accidents involving such

installations are similar in nature and degree to those in the electric

utility industry.

C. Significant Risk

OSHA must show that the hazards the Agency addresses in a safety

regulation present significant risks to employees. 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 established standards. 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 regulation.

Although nearly all workers in the electric utility industry are

exposed to various hazards common to the industry, some are at much

greater risk than others. Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), in their

``Preparation of an Economic Impact Study for the Proposed OSHA

Regulation Covering Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and

Distribution'', June 1986 (Ex. 4), characterized the frequency with

which accidents occur in the industry and tabulated the relative risk

among electric utility occupations. According to the ERG report,

``there were more accidents associated with transmission and

distribution [lines] than with substations or power generation

[installations].'' Within the first category, more fatal and serious

lost-time accidents occurred among line workers, apprentice line

workers, and working line foremen. Within the latter two categories,

substation electricians and general utility mechanics experienced the

most accidents. (See p. 4-23 of the ERG report.)

The hazards that are directly covered by the standard are those of

an electrical nature, causing electrocution and injuries due to

electric shock. In addition, the standard directly addresses fatalities

and injuries associated with four other types of accidents: (1) Struck

by or struck against; (2) fall; (3) caught in or between; and (4)

contact with temperature extremes. (A few requirements of the standard

address some hazards common to general industry work. These provisions

deal with hazards that are not currently addressed in the General

Industry Standards but that are causing injuries in electric power

generation, transmission, and distribution work.)

OSHA has estimated that an average of 12,976 lost-workday injuries

to and 86 fatalities of electric power generation, transmission, and

distribution employees occur annually. (See Section V of this

preamble.) Using these figures, OSHA has also estimated the number of

injuries which could be prevented by the new regulations. Taking into

account such factors as existing regulation and the differences in

training levels among utilities, OSHA estimated that 1,634 lost-workday

injuries and 61 deaths could be prevented each year through compliance

with the provisions contained in or referenced by the standard. (A

detailed analysis of the benefits of the standard and a description of

the methodology used can be found in the Final Regulatory Impact

Analysis of the Electric Power Generation, Transmission and

Distribution and the Electrical Protective Equipment Final Rules (RIA)

for the standard, which is available for inspection and copying in the

Docket Office.) Based on this analysis, OSHA has made a determination

that hazards of work on electric power generation, transmission, and

distribution installations pose a significant risk to employees and

that the standard is reasonably necessary and appropriate to deal with

that risk.

II. Development of Standard

A. Present Standards

OSHA adopted regulations applying to the construction of power

transmission and distribution lines and equipment in 1972 (Subpart V of

part 1926). The term ``construction'' is broadly defined in

Sec. 1926.950(a)(1) to include alteration, conversion, and improvement,

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.

OSHA found, in reviewing the construction regulations, that the

provisions of Subpart V of part 1926 were suitable for use as a base in

the development of rules for operation and maintenance work. Important

safety considerations for electric utility employees are currently

addressed in Subpart V including tools and protective equipment,

mechanical equipment, grounding for employee protection, and overhead

and underground installations. These are topics that also need to be

addressed in a comprehensive standard for the operation and maintenance

of electric power transmission and distribution installations.

However, the construction rules do have some disadvantages. During

the 15 years subpart V has been in effect, areas of ambiguity have

developed, making parts of the standard difficult for employees and

employers to understand and for OSHA compliance officers to enforce.

Additionally, some subpart V requirements are specifically related to

the initial construction of lines and equipment and are not readily

adaptable to maintenance operations. Lastly, subpart V contains no

provisions specifically addressing power generation work.

The National Electrical Safety Code (American National Standards

Institute Standard ANSI C2;\4\ also known as the NESC) must also be

taken into consideration in the development of rules for the operation

and maintenance of electric power generation, transmission, and

distribution systems. This national consensus standard contains

requirements specifically addressing this type of work. The latest

version of ANSI C2 is much more up-to-date than subpart V of the

Construction Standards. However, ANSI C2 is primarily directed to the

prevention of electric shock, although it does contain a few

requirements for the prevention of falls. Other hazards common to the

electric power generation, transmission, and distribution work are not

discussed.

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

\4\The 1984 and 1987 editions (ANSI C2-1984 and ANSI C2-1987)

were entered into the rulemaking record as Ex. 2-8.

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

Another related OSHA standard is Sec. 1910.268, pertaining to

telecommunications work. Much of the field work covered in this

regulation is similar in nature to the type of field work performed by

electric utility employees, and the hazards faced in the performance of

this type of work are frequently the same in both industries. In any

situation in which the hazards are the same and in which there is no

clear coverage in the other existing standards, the provisions in the

telecommunications standard have been used as a basis for developing

requirements to protect employees performing electric-utility-type

work.

B. Industry-Union Draft Standard

As previously noted, representatives of EEI and IBEW developed a

draft standard, submitted it to OSHA, and represented it as being a

negotiated standard that could be used in a rulemaking activity. (EEI

and IBEW submitted separate versions of the draft standard. These

documents are available for inspection and copying in the Docket Office

as Ex. 2-3 and 2-4.) This draft standard was essentially a continuation

of the existing requirements of Subpart V of Part 1926 in which the

hazards addressed are those found in transmission and distribution

installations after the construction phase is completed and the

electrical system becomes operational. Additionally, based on existing

industry practice, EEI and IBEW added provisions addressing generating

plants, substations, confined spaces, and hazardous energy control to

supplement the rules on transmission and distribution work.

In the development of this proposal, OSHA evaluated the drafts

submitted by EEI and IBEW to determine their suitability as a base

document. In areas which overlapped existing OSHA standards, the drafts

were reviewed to see if equivalent safety was provided. For example,

provisions in the draft standard dealing with ladders were compared to

the regulations in Subpart D of part 1910. OSHA also reviewed the

drafts to determine if their requirements were as effective as the

requirements of national consensus standards addressing the same

hazards and to determine if definitions of terms common to several

other OSHA standards were identical. For example, the draft provisions

on line-clearance tree trimming were checked against the equivalent

ANSI standard, ANSI Z133.1-1982 (Ex. 2-29), to be sure that OSHA's

regulations would better effectuate safety than the national consensus

standard.

The EEI and IBEW draft standards included a section on electrical

protective equipment. This equipment is an integral part of electric

power generation, transmission, and distribution work, and its use (or

lack of use) directly affects the safety of employees performing this

type of work. In fact, many of the accidents mentioned earlier were

related to electrical protective equipment. Because Sec. 1910.137

already addresses electrical protective equipment, OSHA believes it is

appropriate to revise that section rather than include separate

protective equipment requirements in Sec. 1910.269.

After thoroughly analyzing the EEI/IBEW drafts, OSHA determined

that, together with ANSI C2 and Subpart V of part 1926, they could

provide a basis from which a proposal could be developed. OSHA met with

representatives of EEI and IBEW several times to obtain their advice.

OSHA then clarified some of the language involved, revised

unenforceable wording, and resolved conflicts with other OSHA

regulations and with national consensus standards.

History of the Regulation

On January 31, 1989, OSHA published the proposed standard on

electric power generation, transmission, and distribution work and on

electrical protective equipment (54 FR 4974). This proposal was

intended to supplement the existing electric power transmission and

distribution requirements for construction contained in 29 CFR part

1926, subpart V, and to update the provisions of Sec. 1910.137 on

electrical protective equipment. The proposed rules were based, in

part, on the provisions of the EEI/IBEW draft standard, on subpart V,

and on the NESC.

Interested parties were originally given until May 1, 1989, to

submit written comments on the proposal, to file objections, and to

request a hearing. In response to requests from the public, the

deadline for receipt of comments was subsequently extended to June 1,

1989 (54 FR 18546).

OSHA received 83 comments on the proposal by June 1, 1989, and one

request for a hearing by the earlier May 1 deadline. Five late requests

for a hearing were also received. In response to the hearing requests

and in accordance with section 6(b)(3) of the Occupational Safety and

Health Act, OSHA published a notice announcing an informal public

hearing and listing the issues to be discussed at the hearing (54 FR

30401, corrected at 54 FR 31970).

The hearing began on November 28, 1989, in Washington, DC. It was

adjourned on December 5, 1989, and was reconvened on December 12, 1989,

in Los Angeles, CA. The hearing concluded on December 14, 1989.

At the close of the public hearing, Administrative Law Judge Robert

Feldman set the deadlines for the submission of additional information

and for the filing of briefs by the participants to be March 14 and

April 13, 1990, respectively. At the request of some of the hearing

participants, Judge Feldman subsequently extended the deadlines to July

1 and August 1, 1990 (Ex. 50).

Section 1910.269 was proposed to apply only to installations under

the exclusive control of electric utilities. One of the issues listed

in the notice of hearing was whether the scope of the standard should

be extended to include work on all electric power generation,

transmission, and distribution installations regardless of who owned or

operated the installations.

The original regulatory impact analysis for the proposal did not

consider the impact of the standard beyond electric utilities and their

contractors. Based on its review of the record, the Agency decided to

evaluate the economic impact of applying the rule to employers other

than electric utilities. Therefore, OSHA contracted for a study

(performed by Eastern Research Group, Inc.) of the regulatory impact of

applying Sec. 1910.269 to companies which generate or distribute their

own electric power. This study was placed in the rulemaking record on

the proposal (Ex. 6-25), and OSHA published a notice in the Federal

Register reopening the record on the proposal for a period of 60 days

(November 9, 1990, 55 FR 47074). At the request of several interested

parties, the deadline was extended until February 8, 1991 (January 10,

1991, 56 FR 976).

Two of the hearing participants had additional information to be

entered into the record and requested a reopening of the hearing

record. This information represented the outcome of a relevant

consensus standards committee action. During the hearing, the

participants had promised to provide these data at the request of the

Agency. In response to this request, Administrative Law Judge Robert

Feldman reopened the record until March 1, 1991 (Ex. 63).

Judge Feldman issued an order receiving the post-hearing comments

and closing the record on July 23, 1992. At that time, he certified the

record to the Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA.

The comments received in response to the notices of proposed

rulemaking, of public hearing, and of the reopening of the record, the

written transcript of the hearing, and the exhibits submitted at the

hearing and during the post-hearing period allowed for such submissions

constitute the rulemaking record for this proceeding. The entire record

was carefully considered in the preparation of this final rule.

III. Summary and Explanation of The Final Rule

This section discusses the important elements of the final

standard, explains the purpose of the individual requirements, and

explains any differences between the final rule and existing standards.

This section also discusses and resolves issues that were raised at the

public hearing, significant comments received as part of the rulemaking

record, and substantive changes from the language of the proposed rule.

References in parentheses are to exhibits and transcript pages5 in

the rulemaking record.

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

\5\DC--Transcript of the hearing held in Washington, DC.

LA--Transcript of the hearing held in Los Angeles, CA.

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

A. Section 1910.137

Electrical protective equipment is in constant use during electric

power generation, transmission, and distribution work; and,

appropriately, the EEI/IBEW draft standard contained provisions related

to this equipment. Because the existing OSHA standards for electrical

protective equipment are contained in Sec. 1910.137, the Agency

determined that relevant requirements based on the portion of the EEI/

IBEW draft relating to such equipment should be incorporated into the

format of the existing OSHA personal protective equipment standards

rather than in new Sec. 1910.269. Further, OSHA believes that these

updated personal protective equipment provisions should apply

throughout industry, wherever such equipment is necessary for employee

safety, and that improvements in the electrical protective equipment

provisions should not be limited to the use of this equipment in

electric power generation, transmission, and distribution work.

Therefore, OSHA is revising Sec. 1910.137, which formerly incorporated

by reference the following six American National Standards Institute

(ANSI) standards:

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

Item ANSI standard

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

Rubber insulating gloves...................... J6.6-1967

Rubber matting for use around electric J6.7-1935 (R1962)

apparatus.

Rubber insulating blankets.................... J6.4-1970

Rubber insulating hoods....................... J6.2-1950 (R1962)

Rubber insulating line hose................... J6.1-1950 (R1962)

Rubber insulating sleeves..................... J6.5-1962

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

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 former Sec. 1910.137 up

to a quarter century out of date. For example, the most recent ANSI

standard listed in the former OSHA requirement is dated 1970. The most

recent ASTM version available is a 1990 edition of specifications on

rubber insulating gloves. The complete list of current ASTM standards

corresponding to the ANSI standards is as follows:

ASTM D120-87, Specification for Rubber Insulating Gloves.

ASTM D178-88, Specification for Rubber Insulating Matting.

ASTM D1048-88, Specification for Rubber Insulating Blankets.

ASTM D1049-88, Specification for Rubber Insulating Covers.

ASTM D1050-90, Specification for Rubber Insulating Line Hose.

ASTM D1051-87, Specification for Rubber Insulating Sleeves.

Additionally, ASTM has adopted standards on the in-service care of

insulating line hose and covers (ASTM F478-92), insulating blankets

(ASTM F479-88a), and insulating gloves and sleeves (ASTM F496-91),

which have no current counterparts in the existing OSHA electrical

protective equipment standard.6

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

\6\The relevant ASTM standards are contained in the record as

Exhibits 2-9 through 2-17. In several cases, the version of the

consensus standard in the record is older than the version listed in

the preamble. However, final Sec. 1910.137 is based only on the ASTM

documents and other data in the record. The preamble lists editions

of the consensus standards not in the record because they have been

evaluated for consistency with OSHA's final rule. It has been

determined that these later ASTM standards do indeed conform to the

requirements of final Sec. 1910.137. See the discussion of the notes

following paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(B) and (b)(2)(ix) for the

significance of this determination.

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

In an attempt to retain the quality of protection afforded by the

ASTM standards, OSHA has developed a revision of Sec. 1910.137 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. The revision of

Sec. 1910.137 maintains the protection presently afforded to employees

by the referenced ANSI/ASTM standards. While carrying forward ASTM

provisions which are considered necessary for employee safety, OSHA is

providing greater flexibility for compliance with these provisions to

the extent that worker safety warrants. OSHA has determined, therefore,

that the requirements contained in this revision of Sec. 1910.137 are

reasonably necessary to protect employees from electrical hazards

posing significant risks in the workplace.

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 were

revised again during the rulemaking period.) To remedy this problem,

OSHA has adopted a revision of Sec. 1910.137 to make the standards

flexible enough to accommodate changes in technology, obviating the

need for constant revision. Where possible, the new 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 which go beyond the purposes of

the OSHA standard or which are not directly related to employee safety.

In the revision of Sec. 1910.137, OSHA has tried to carry forward only

provisions which 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 which 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 the revised Sec. 1910.137. 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.

An employer who follows future versions of ASTM standards will be

covered by OSHA's de minimis policy as set forth in OSHA Instruction

CPL 2.45A (Field Operations Manual). Under that policy, a de minimis

condition7 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.

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

\7\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.

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

Several commenters objected to OSHA's adoption of requirements on

the design of electrical protective equipment (Ex. 3-33, 3-44, 3-54, 3-

58, 3-71). These comments suggested leaving former Sec. 1910.137 as it

was, because ``[d]esign requirements are a manufacturer's specification

standard, not an employer/employee standard [Ex 3-71].''

Others, however, supported OSHA's performance-oriented proposal

(Ex. 3-34, 3-50, 3-51, 3-64). ASTM, itself, stated, ``Concerning

[Sec. 1910.137] and with the exception of the few items with which we

disagree or feel can be improved, we feel OSHA has adequately

accomplished its goal of protecting workers in performance-oriented

language [Ex. 3-51].'' At the hearing, Mr. Arthur Lewis, OSHA's expert

witness, testified, ``I feel OSHA has done an excellent job in

accomplishing its goal of protecting workers through performance

oriented language in the proposed standard [DC Tr. 352].''

In the development of this performance language, OSHA attempted to

avoid conflicts between the Agency's requirements and the ASTM

standards, and the notice of proposed rulemaking requested comments on

whether or not the Agency had achieved this objective. The

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, who expressed support

for the proposal, agreed that the proposed standard was written in

performance-oriented language (Ex. 3-107). As noted earlier, ASTM

itself supported the OSHA proposal and suggested ways in which the

final rule could be made more consistent with their standards. OSHA's

expert witness, Mr. Arthur Lewis (who is a long-term member of the ASTM

F-18 Committee), stated, ``I find the proposed revision of 1910.137 to

reflect the requirements of the relevant ASTM standards accurately with

the exception of the few items of the proposal with which I disagree or

which I feel can be improved [DC Tr. 352].'' Because of the Agency's

desire to maintain consistency with the consensus standards (which was

not opposed by any party in this rulemaking) OSHA has relied heavily on

Mr. Lewis's and ASTM's suggestions for improving the proposal. The

Agency believes the final rule does achieve the goal of protecting

employees through the use of performance language that is consistent

with and retains the intent of the ASTM standards from which the rule

was derived.

In view of the limitations imposed by the continued incorporation

by reference of the outdated ASTM standards, OSHA has determined that

relevant requirements for electrical protective equipment for workers

should be placed within the body of Sec. 1910.137 and that these

provisions should be updated and clarified to facilitate their

application to workplaces. The Agency believes the rulemaking record

supports this action and has made some revisions to the language

contained in the proposal, as suggested by the comments and as

summarized later in this section of the preamble.

There currently exist several relatively new ASTM standards on

other types of electrical protective equipment. For example, ASTM has

adopted specifications for fiberglass-reinforced plastic rod and tube

used in live-line tools. However, the standards writing organization

has not developed corresponding requirements on the use and care of

this equipment. Similarly, ASTM Standards F712 and F968 set forth test

methods and design specifications, respectively, for electrically

insulating plastic guard equipment for the protection of workers, but

this standard does not contain provisions on the use or care of the

guards. ASTM is currently working on standards for the use and care of

some of this equipment and on additional specifications for still other

types of equipment.

Most electrical protective equipment presently being manufactured

meets existing ASTM standards. Because of this, OSHA's adoption of

these newer ASTM design and test specifications would have little

impact on employee safety without the adoption of corresponding

requirements on the use and care of the equipment. Therefore, to

maximize efficient use of the Agency's available resources, this

revision does not include ASTM requirements for these other types of

electrical protective equipment, but such provisions are being

considered for future rulemaking. In this way, all of the newer types

of equipment can be dealt with at one time, and provisions on care and

use can be included.

Paragraph (a). Paragraph (a) of the revision to Sec. 1910.137

addresses the design and manufacture of insulating blankets, matting,

covers, line hose, gloves, and sleeves made of rubber (either natural

or synthetic). For the reasons noted earlier, other types of equipment

are not covered. However, the standard does not preclude their use.

Under paragraph (a)(1)(i), blankets, gloves, and sleeves have to be

manufactured without seams. This method of making the protective

equipment minimizes the chances of separation of the material. Because

they are used to permit workers to 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

of the stresses placed on the equipment by the flexing of the rubber

during normal use. 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.

Two commenters were concerned that existing sleeves were not

manufactured by a seamless process (Ex 3-42, 3-112). They recommended

exempting existing stocks of these items or eliminating the application

of this requirement to sleeves. However, Mr. Arthur Lewis noted that

all equipment addressed in proposed paragraph (a)(1)(i) has been ``made

utilizing a seamless process [DC Tr. 354].'' He further stated:

Items made in a mold process frequently have a raised portion

along the juncture of the two halves of the mold. This is not a

seam. Examination of a cross-section of the material at that point

will show it to be homogeneous. To the best of my knowledge, there

is no equipment used in industry today * * * that would be in

violation of the proposed 1910.137 standard or the relevant ASTM

standards [DC Tr. 354].

On the basis of Mr. Lewis's testimony, OSHA believes that there is

no reason to exempt existing sleeves from the requirement that they be

manufactured by a seamless process. Therefore, no change has been made

to the language contained in Sec. 1910.137(a)(1)(i).

Paragraph (a)(1)(ii) requires electrical protective equipment to be

marked to indicate its class and type. The class marking gives an

indication of 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. Paragraph (a)(1)(ii) also permits equipment to

contain other relevant markings.

Paragraph (a)(1)(iii) requires all markings to be nonconductive and

to be applied so that the properties of the equipment are not impaired.

This will ensure that no marking interferes with the protection to be

provided by the equipment.

Paragraph (a)(1)(iv) requires markings on gloves to be provided

only in the cuff area. Markings in other areas could possibly be worn

off. Moreover, having the markings in one place will allow the employee

to determine the class and type of glove quickly. Paragraph (b)(1)(vii)

of Sec. 1910.137 normally requires rubber gloves to 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 (both the formerly

referenced and the newer versions), electrical protective equipment

must be capable of passing certain electrical tests. In

Sec. 1910.137(a)(2), OSHA is continuing 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

final rule establishes the same level of protection without a lengthy

discussion of test procedures.

Paragraph (a)(2)(i) requires electrical protective equipment to be

capable of withstanding the a-c proof-test voltages in Table I-2 or the

d-c proof-test voltages in Table I-3 (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 final 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. (This provision was contained in the text of proposed

paragraph (a)(2)(i).) To meet the requirements of the OSHA performance

standard, employers would have to get the assurance of the manufacturer

that the equipment is capable of withstanding the appropriate proof-

test voltage. The manufacturer, in turn, would normally look to the

ASTM standards for guidance in determining the testing procedure.

Paragraph (a)(2)(i)(B) requires the proof-test voltage to be

applied for 1 minute for insulating matting and for 3 minutes for other

insulating equipment. (This provision was also part of the text of

proposed paragraph (a)(2)(i).) 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.

Some commenters suggested adding a requirement for gloves to be

able to withstand the proof-test voltage after a 16-hour water soak

(Ex. 3-50, 3-57). Siebe North, Inc., tested rubber insulating gloves of

some manufacturers and found them to absorb water, causing a reduction

in insulating properties (Ex. 3-50). They claimed that water absorption

is a critical property because exposure to perspiration or rain is

quite common while lineman's gloves are in use. These commenters also

noted that provisions for a proof test after a water soak are included

in ASTM D120-87. OSHA's expert witness also supported the inclusion of

a moisture absorption/proof test in the final standard (Ex. 17; DC Tr.

357).

The reduction of insulation that may be caused by absorption of

moisture is a legitimate concern, one that is addressed in ASTM D120

but was not covered in the OSHA proposal. Although a requirement for a

soak test was not included in the proposal, the inclusion of such a

rule in the final standard is a natural outgrowth of the requirement

proposed in paragraph (a)(2)(i) that electrical protective equipment be

tested and that the proof test reliably indicate that the equipment can

withstand the voltage involved. Electrical work is sometimes performed

in the rain, and an employee's perspiration is often present while the

gloves are in use (Ex. 3-50). The soak test is needed to ensure that

electrical protective equipment can withstand the voltage involved

under these conditions. Therefore, the Agency has accepted the

suggestion that rubber gloves also be capable of passing the proof test

after a 16-hour water soak (consistent with the ASTM standard) and has

added such a requirement as paragraph (a)(2)(i)(C) in the final rule.

When an a-c proof test is used on gloves, the resulting proof-test

current gives an indication of the validity of the glove 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 I-2.

Again, the currents listed in the table have been taken from ASTM D120-

87.

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. This provision was contained in the text of

paragraph (a)(2)(ii) in the proposal.

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.

Several commenters noted that the a-c proof-test current was dependent

on the length of the portion of the glove that was out of water (Ex. 3-

50, 3-57, 3-112). Mr. Arthur Lewis, OSHA's expert witness stated:

Additionally, the proof-test limits specified in Table I-2

depend upon specific immersion depths specified in the ASTM

standard. Less immersion results in lower leakage current. Unless

the OSHA regulation controls clearance above the water line, gloves

which would fail ASTM D-120 or F-496 could pass the OSHA

requirement, resulting in substantially lower level of protection.

[DC Tr. 358-359]

Mr. Lewis and two of the commenters, Siebe North, Inc. (Ex. 3-50),

and W. H. Salisbury and Co. (Ex. 3-57), suggested adding a table for

water immersion depths derived from ASTM D120. OSHA has accepted this

suggestion. The Agency agrees that, because the proof-test current is a

function of immersion depth, it is important to specify the depth in

the regulation. Otherwise, employee safety could be compromised.

Therefore, paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(B) in the final standard specifies that

gloves to be tested must be filled with and immersed in water to the

depth given in Table I-4. This table was taken directly from ASTM D120-

87 and is valid for the proof-test currents listed in Table I-2.

The allowable proof-test current must be increased for proof-tests

on gloves after a 16-hour water soak. ASTM D120-87 allows an increase

in the proof-test current of 2 milliamperes. OSHA has adopted this

provision, recommended by Mr. Lewis (Ex. 17, DC Tr. 359), as 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), paragraph

(a)(2)(iii) prohibits protective equipment that has been subjected to

such a test from being used to protect employees from electrical

hazards. Some comments suggested defining the term ``minimum breakdown

voltage test'' (Ex. 3-21, 3-50, 3-112, 3-120). Most of these comments

agreed that the standard should refer to the ASTM specifications for

this test.

OSHA agrees that the intent of the standard 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. However, the

standard already references the ASTM standards as a reference in a note

following paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(B). Rather than reference these

standards every place a different test is mentioned in the OSHA

regulation, the Agency has decided to clarify the note to indicate that

all the tests given in Sec. 1910.137(a) are described in the consensus

documents. Towards this end, the following paragraph has been added to

the note:

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 Sec. 1910.137, the Agency will accept any test

that meets the requirements of the OSHA standard. However, the final

rule 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 Sec. 1910.137. If an

employer uses other test methods, the Agency will determine, on a case-

by-case basis, whether or not they meet the Federal standard.

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 to be capable

of withstanding an ozone test.

Two commenters were concerned that the ozone test was not specified

or defined in proposed Sec. 1910.137(a)(2)(iv) (Ex. 3-50, 3-57). To

address this concern, OSHA has included, in paragraph (a)(2)(iv) of

final Sec. 1910.137, a requirement that the ozone test 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 final rule also lists signs of failure of the test,

such as checking, 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 Sec. 1910.137.

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).

Proposed paragraph (a)(3)(i) referred to ``harmful physical

irregularities which can be detected by thorough test or inspection.''

OSHA has revised this phrase to read ``harmful physical irregularities

that can be detected by the tests or inspections required under this

section.'' The Agency intended ``thorough test or inspection'' to be

those required under Sec. 1910.137, but this was not explicit in the

proposed text. The language contained in the final rule clearly

reflects the intent of this provision.

Two commenters objected to proposed paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(C) (Ex.

3-50, 3-57). They claimed that this provision dealt only with the

cosmetics of the gloves and not with their safety. These commenters

were joined by OSHA's expert witness, Mr. Arthur Lewis (Ex. 17), in

citing the ASTM D120-87 requirement that was the basis for this

paragraph, which states:

(Section 11.2) The working area of the glove on both the inner

and outer surfaces shall also be free of nonharmful physical

irregularities * * * [Ex. 2-9]

This language, they noted, prohibited ``nonharmful'' irregularities

only. They argued that omitting the provision would have no effect on

employee safety, because harmful abnormalities would be prohibited

under proposed paragraph (a)(3)(ii) generally. For example, a color

splash on the surface of the glove may not interfere with the

insulating capabilities or the mechanical characteristics of the glove.

The two commenters and OSHA's expert witness believed that, although

such an irregularity would affect the appearance of the glove, the

imperfection would not adversely impact employee safety. OSHA has

accepted this reasoning and proposed paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(C) is not

contained in the final rule.

Since paragraph (a) of Sec. 1910.137 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 final standard. OSHA also realizes that the

current ASTM specifications on electrical protective equipment are

accepted by industry as providing safety to employees and that existing

electrical protective equipment is normally made to these

specifications. Furthermore, the final rule 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. 1910.137. The lists of ASTM standards in the final rule (in the

notes following paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(B) and (b)(2)(ix)) contain the

latest revisions of the standards listed in the proposal. The Agency

has reviewed these documents and has found them to provide suitable

guidance for compliance with the OSHA standard.

Paragraph (b). Although former Sec. 1910.137 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 adding new

requirements on the in-service care and use of electrical protective

equipment to the design standards already contained in former

Sec. 1910.137. These new provisions will help ensure that these safety

products retain their insulating properties.

Paragraph (b)(1) requires electrical protective equipment to be

maintained in a safe and reliable condition. This general, performance-

oriented requirement, which applies to all equipment addressed by

revised Sec. 1910.137, helps ensure that employees are fully protected

from electric shock.

Detailed criteria for the use and care of specific types of

electrical protective equipment are contained in the following ASTM

standards:

ASTM F 478-92, Specification for In-Service Care of Insulating Line

Hose and Covers.

ASTM F 479-88a, Specification for In-Service Care of Insulating

Blankets.

ASTM F 496-91, Specification for In-Service Care of Insulating

Gloves and Sleeves.

Paragraph (b) (2), which has been derived from these ASTM

standards, applies only to rubber insulating blankets, covers, line

hose, gloves, and sleeves. These are the only types of electrical

protective equipment addressed by consensus standards on the care and

use of such equipment. Rubber insulating matting, which is addressed by

the material design specifications in paragraph (a), is not covered by

any ASTM standard on its in-service care or by Sec. 1910.137(b)(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 (b)(1).

Although the rubber insulating equipment addressed in

Sec. 1910.137(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 (Ex. 2-10 through 2-17). The use of

insulating equipment at voltages less than its actual breakdown voltage

provides a margin of safety for the employee. In paragraph (b)(2)(i)

and Table I-5, the final rule has adopted the margins of safety

recognized in the ASTM standards, restricting the use of insulating

equipment to voltages lower than the proof-test voltages given in Table

I-2 and Table I-3. (Table I-5 in the final rule was originally proposed

as Table I-4.)

Several comments addressed Note 1 to proposed Table I-4 (Ex. 3-23,

3-51, 3-64, 3-112). The proposed note read as follows:

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. If there is no multiphase exposure in a system

area and if the voltage exposure is limited to the phase-to-ground

potential, the phase-to-ground potential is considered to be the

nominal design voltage.

This language was taken from comparable provisions in the ASTM

standards on the in-service use and care of electrical protective

equipment (for example, ASTM F496-85, section 4.15). However, the ASTM

standards had an additional provision for recognizing the phase-to-

ground voltage as the nominal design voltage. Typically, this provision

read as follows:

If electrical equipment and devices are insulated, or isolated,

or both, such that the multiphase exposure on a grounded wye circuit

is removed, then the nominal design voltage may be considered as the

phase-to-ground voltage on that circuit. [ASTM F496-85, section

4.15.2; Ex. 2-17]

In proposing the original note, OSHA interpreted the language as

already recognizing the elimination of multiphase exposure through the

use of insulation or other means. In other words, assuming that the

multiphase exposure was eliminated before an employee had to rely on

the insulation provided by the electrical protective equipment, OSHA

was permitting the phase-to-ground voltage to be considered as the

maximum use voltage. For example, a three-phase, 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 isolating8 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.

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

\8\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.

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

The commenters universally interpreted the proposal differently and

mistakenly believed that OSHA was eliminating the option of removing an

existing multiphase exposure. They argued that the consensus wording

should be included to differentiate the case in which there is no

multiphase exposure initially present from the case in which the

exposure has been removed. ASTM, itself, suggested adding this language

to provide for consistency with the referenced standard and accepted

industry practice (Ex. 3-51).

OSHA has modified the language of Note 1 to Table I-5 in order to

recognize explicitly the removal of multiphase exposure as a means of

reducing the nominal design voltage. Although the proposed language

meant the same thing as the final regulatory text, OSHA has included

the ASTM language for consistency with the consensus standards. The

Agency believes that this will make the final standard easier to use by

those who are familiar with the ASTM standards and will minimize the

confusion that might otherwise result. (It should be noted that, until

the multiphase exposure has actually been removed, the phase-to-phase

voltage remains the maximum use voltage.)

Paragraph (b)(2)(ii) requires 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 must 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.

During use, electrical protective equipment may become damaged and

lose some of its insulating value. Paragraph (b)(2)(iii) lists types of

damage which 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 (b)(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, paragraph (b)(2)(iv) requires the equipment to be removed

from service and tested in accordance with other requirements in

paragraph (b)(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 (b)(2)(v) requires 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. Paragraph (b)(2)(vi)

requires 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.

Several electric utility representatives objected to this provision

(Ex. 3-11, 3-33, 3-44, 3-58, 3-123). They claimed that rubber

protective equipment was stored on trucks and that it was impossible,

in many parts of the country, to protect it from temperature extremes

and excess humidity. However, this is the method utilities use to

transport the equipment to the worksite; OSHA does not consider

carrying the equipment on trucks for the use of employees during the

course of work to be storage. Furthermore, 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. Therefore, OSHA has retained

this requirement as proposed.

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. Paragraph

(b)(2)(vii) recognizes the extra protection afforded by leather gloves

and requires their use over rubber gloves, except under limited

conditions.

Protector gloves would not be required with Class 0 gloves if high

finger dexterity is needed for small parts manipulation. The maximum

voltage on which Class 0 gloves can be used is 1000 volts. An employee

is protected against electric shock at this voltage 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 (Ex. 17). (A note to this effect

has been added in the final rule.)

The other exception to the requirement for protector gloves is

granted if the employer can demonstrate that the possibility for damage

is low and if gloves at least one class higher than required for the

voltage are used. For example, if a Class 2 glove is used at 7500 volts

or less (the maximum use voltage for Class 1 equipment), if high

dexterity is needed, and if the possibility of damage is low, then

protector gloves need not be used. In this case, the additional

thickness of insulation provides a measure of additional physical

protection. This exception does not apply when the possibility of

damage is significant, such as when an employee is using a knife to

trim insulation from a conductor or when an employee has to handle

moving parts, such as conductors being pulled into place. To ensure

that no loss of insulation has occurred, the standard requires any

gloves used under this exception to be tested before being used at a

voltage higher than that permitted for the lower class of insulating

equipment.

Paragraph (b)(2)(viii), Table I-5, and Table I-6 (proposed Tables

I-4 and I-5) require insulating equipment to be tested periodically so

that electrical protective equipment retains its insulating properties

over time. Table I-5 lists the retest voltages that are required for

the various classes of protective equipment, and Table I-6 presents the

testing intervals for the different types of equipment. These test

voltages and intervals were taken from the relevant ASTM standards.

Proposed Table I-4 contained a note allowing for the reduction in

test voltages for equipment used at voltages lower than the maximum use

voltages given in the table. A formula for determining the appropriate

test voltage was given in proposed Note 2.

Three commenters expressed concern with this proposed note (Ex. 3-

51, 3-64, 3-107). ASTM recommended the removal of this note from the

standard, stating:

Note 2 under Table [I-4] provides for proof-test voltages less

than those listed in the relevant ASTM standards, if nominal

voltages are less than the maximum use voltages. This provision and

formula was provided in the ASTM standards during an interim

transition period while users' equipment changed from the old

voltage classes to the new voltage classes. For instance, Class 2

gloves made to the J-6 set of standards were thinner and rated at

15,000 volts. If repeatedly tested to the current proof-test voltage

of Class 2 material of 20,000 volts there would have been the

possibility of above normal loss of protective equipment during

tests. The same was true of equipment made to the two higher voltage

classes. Such equipment has now been almost completely removed from

use and equipment manufactured since about 1975 has been

manufactured to withstand the proof-test voltages of the new voltage

classes without excessive failure rates. This note either has been

or is in the process of being removed from all the relevant ASTM

standards. [Ex. 3-51]

The other two commenters and OSHA's expert witness, Mr. Arthur

Lewis, supported the elimination of this note (Tr. DC-357). OSHA

accepts the reasoning in these comments, and the proposed note does not

appear in the final rule.

The proposal did not address the amount of time the test voltage

was to be applied to the protective equipment. Applying the voltage for

too short a period of time might allow marginal goods to pass the test,

while longer test times would cause good equipment to fail at a higher

than normal rate. Several commenters alluded to this problem (3-51, 3-

64, 3-65, 3-107, 3-123, 17). A test interval of from 1 to 3 minutes was

suggested for consistency with the ASTM in-service standards. OSHA has

accepted this suggestion and has included it as a note to Table I-5.

Paragraph (b)(2)(ix) sets forth 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. In a performance-oriented standard, it would not be

appropriate to 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, under

paragraph (b)(2)(ix), OSHA has included a note stating that electrical

test methods given in the various ASTM standards on rubber insulating

equipment meet the performance requirement. As noted earlier, this does

not mean that OSHA is adopting the ASTM standards by reference. In

enforcing Sec. 1910.137(b)(2), the Agency will accept any test that

meets the requirements of the OSHA standard. However, the final rule

states explicitly that the listed ASTM tests are acceptable; and, if

the ASTM specifications are met, an employer has assurance that he or

she is complying with Sec. 1910.137. If an employer uses other test

methods, the Agency will determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether or

not they meet the Federal standard.

In the notice of proposed rulemaking, OSHA requested comments on

whether the listed ASTM standards were appropriate and on whether there

were other acceptable test methods that should also have been listed.

The comments were nearly universal in support of the consensus

standards (Ex. 3-50, 3-51, 3-57, 3-64, 3-107). Countering these

comments, the Edison Electric Institute claimed that there were other

acceptable test methods not recognized by ASTM and suggested that OSHA

remove the list of their standards from the regulation (3-112).

However, EEI did not submit any other test methods into the record for

evaluation by the Agency. Therefore, OSHA is not listing any references

in addition to those given in the proposal. As noted earlier, OSHA will

accept other test methods meeting the performance requirements set out

in Sec. 1910.137. Also, the Agency believes that referencing acceptable

test methods within the standard will benefit employees, employers, and

testing laboratories in their efforts to comply with the standard. The

mere existence of other acceptable methods of testing electrical

protective equipment does not justify removing the list of methods that

OSHA does recognize.

Once the equipment has been tested, it is important to ensure that

any failed equipment is not returned to service. Paragraph (b)(2)(x)

prohibits electrical protective equipment that failed the required

tests from being used by employees, unless the defects can be safely

eliminated.

For electrical protective equipment that fails the test, paragraph

(b)(2)(x) also lists acceptable means of 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. 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 standard does not permit repairs to gloves outside

the gauntlet area. In response to requests for a definition of the term

``gauntlet area'' (Ex. 3-44, 3-58, 3-65, 3-112), OSHA has replaced that

term from paragraph (b)(2)(x)(D) of the proposal with the expression

``the area between the wrist and the reinforced edge of the opening''.

This language was taken directly from ASTM F496-85 (Ex. 2-17).

Several commenters objected to allowing patches to rubber

protective equipment (3-50, 3-57, 3-66, 3-69). However, they provided

no evidence that patched gloves have failed. Additionally, the ASTM

standards recognize such repairs, and the standard requires repaired

equipment to pass a retest before being placed back into service. For

these reasons, OSHA has retained the provision allowing patches to

rubber protective equipment in the final rule.

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 are required under paragraph

(b)(2)(xi).

Employers, employees, and OSHA compliance staff must have a method

of determining whether or not the tests required under paragraphs

(b)(2)(viii) and (b)(2)(xi) have been performed. Paragraph (b)(2)(xii)

requires 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.

Many commenters suggested that OSHA clarify this requirement (Ex.

3-11, 3-33, 3-39, 3-44, 3-45, 3-58, 3-69). In general, they objected to

the use of the words ``certify'' and ``certification'' in the rule and

recommended the words ``document'' and ``documentation'' in their

stead. In support of these comments, Mr. Arthur Lewis stated:

Many employers have independent testing facilities and these

facilities do certify their test results. The employer can only

maintain the documentation of those testing programs and the records

of the results. Since employers do not perform the actual tests,

even in their own companies, I recommend that a note be added after

this requirement to read as follows:

Note: This certification may be in the form of logs or test

records commonly found in industry. Such logs or other records shall

identify the equipment that passed the test and the date it was

tested. [Ex. 17]

OSHA believes that the intent of the proposed standard may not have

been clear with respect to what forms of documentation are acceptable

means of ``certification''. Therefore, the Agency has decided to add a

explanatory note to paragraph (b)(2)(xii) in the final rule. The note,

which is patterned after the first sentence in Mr. Lewis's

recommendation, reads as follows:

Note: 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.

B. Section 1910.269

OSHA is adding a new section to the General Industry Standards.

This new section is being added to Subpart R, Special Industries, and

is designated Sec. 1910.269. New Sec. 1910.269 contains requirements

for the prevention of injuries to employees performing operation or

maintenance work on electric power generation, transmission, or

distribution installations.

Two issues listed in the hearing notice affect the entire standard.

Additionally, two other issues raised at the hearing and in the

comments are general in nature. These four issues are as follows:

(1) Whether or not a provision should be included to

``grandfather'' all existing equipment and installations from the

specifications in the standard;

(2) Whether or not the standard should be more performance

oriented;

(3) Whether OSHA should more closely follow the EEI/IBEW draft

standard; and

(4) Whether or not health issues, such as exposure to

electromagnetic radiation or asbestos, should be addressed in this

standard.

These four issues will be discussed first. Individual provisions

contained in the new standard and related issues are discussed

immediately afterwards.

Grandfathering. Many commenters, representing affected employers,

requested some general form of exemption for existing power generation,

transmission, and distribution installations from Sec. 1910.269 (Ex. 3-

26, 3-42, 3-62, 3-80, 3-110, 3-112, 3-123, 56; DC Tr. 718, 831-838,

1144-1146; LA Tr. 409). Such an exemption is commonly referred to as

``grandfathering''. The objections listed proposed paragraph (h)(4) on

step bolts and manhole steps, paragraphs (u)(1) and (v)(3) on access

and working space about electric equipment, and paragraphs (u)(4) and

(v)(4) on guarding of live parts as requirements that would force

extensive modification of existing installations. The commenters were

also concerned that OSHA's economic analysis did not fully account for

the cost of ``retroactively'' applying the requirements of the standard

to existing installations.

The American Public Power Association (APPA), whose arguments were

cited by several other commenters, presented the best evidence

supporting a general grandfather provision, as follows:

Certain provisions of the proposed rule could be interpreted to

require extensive modification of existing utility work practices,

and installations and equipment which, when originally constructed,

complied with applicable regulatory requirements. The retroactive

application of the requirements in the proposed rule to these

facilities is unfair and will impose a tremendous financial burden

upon the electric utility industry. The Agency has not adequately

considered, much less justified, this aspect of the proposed rule.

The Agency has made no effort to demonstrate that the safety

benefits, if any, of retrofitting existing installations and

equipment justify the substantial costs involved in such efforts.

* * * * *

APPA therefore recommends that existing installations and

equipment should be exempted (i.e., ``grandfathered'') from the

requirements of the rule. [Ex. 3-80]

EEI supported the adoption of the language contained in the

``grandfather'' provision of the EEI/IBEW draft standard, which read as

follows:

Existing facilities are not required to be modified to conform

to the requirements of applicable standards in this section,

provided the maintenance and operation are performed in accordance

with the work rules and regulations of this section to the extent

existing physical facilities permit. Where existing facilities do

not permit compliance with this standard, the employer shall so far

as possible provide employment and places of employment which are as

safe and healthful as those which would prevail if the employer

complied with this standard. [Ex. 2-3]

EEI argued that they did not intend for the grandfathering concept

to deprive electric utility employees of the protection that would

otherwise be provided by the standard (Ex. 56). They claimed that this

EEI/IBEW draft provision, which was taken in part from the general duty

clause of the OSH Act,9 would require employers ``to provide

employees with a level of protection equivalent to that which the

standard would require in those instances in which a utility does not

want to modify existing facilities to comply with the final standard

[Ex. 56].''

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

\9\ Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act, known as the General duty

clause, reads as follows: [Each employer] shall furnish to each of

his employees employment and a place of employment which are free

from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause

death or serious harm to his employees . . .

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

One commenter opposed the adoption of an omnibus exemption for

existing installations (Ex. 3-122). He maintained that

``grandfathering'' would result in additional deaths with no

responsibility on the part of industry.

OSHA has concluded that applying final Sec. 1910.269 without a

general exemption is reasonably necessary and appropriate for employee

safety. This does not mean, however, that OSHA is not providing any

relief for employers with existing installations that do not meet the

design criteria proposed in specific provisions of Sec. 1910.269. The

Agency is ``grandfathering'' these installations wherever the record

supports an exemption from the specific requirement involved.

The standard consists largely of work practice requirements that

are necessary for employee safety. The Agency believes that it is

important to apply these work practices in full to existing

installations, as well as to conductors and equipment that are

installed in the future. Some of the rules apply to equipment or

installations; however, they are few in number.

Additionally, the standard typically provides alternative means of

compliance for many requirements. If the lines or equipment being

worked do not permit a specific compliance method to be used, another

approach is normally available. For example, final Sec. 1910.269(l)(2)

sets forth minimum approach distances to be maintained from exposed

energized parts. If the installation does not provide sufficient

clearance for this distance to be maintained during certain operations

(as is sometimes the case), alternative means of protecting employees,

such as insulation, are spelled out in the rule.

With respect to work practices, OSHA believes that it is important

for the rule to accept all currently recognized work methods that

provide an adequate degree of protection, regardless of the age of the

installation involved. The exemption suggested by the commenters

implies that other equally effective protective measures are available,

but are not recognized in the standard. This should not be the case.

Equipment design and installation presents different problems. Once

equipment has been installed, it can be very costly to modify. For

example, switchboards and control panels that were installed 20 years

ago may not provide as much clearance around energized parts as those

installed under current consensus standards. Any requirement that

imposed clearances equalling those of the newer equipment would force

the older equipment to be modified or replaced. In some cases, an

entire installation would have to be completely redone. Such

retrofitting can result in large capital outlays with limited benefits.

On the other hand, some older equipment may pose such hazards to

employees that the benefits of retrofitting or rebuilding the

installation outweigh the costs involved. For example, some

switchboards that could not be taken out of service (that is,

deenergized) may have such small clearances around energized parts that

it would be hazardous to perform any maintenance on the switchboard.

Safety considerations may indeed dictate modification of the equipment.

Therefore, while the argument that older equipment needs special

treatment has merit, a complete exemption of existing equipment from

all the requirements contained in Sec. 1910.269 is not in the best

interest of employee safety. In fact, OSHA rarely provides a complete

exemption from its standards for older equipment or installations;

rather, a more limited form of ``grandfathering'' is usually provided.

In some cases, employers are granted delays of several years to allow

existing equipment to be modified in accordance with the relevant

requirements.10 Other standards apply to existing equipment only

in part.11

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

\1\0 See, for example, Sec. 1910.67(b)(1) on aerial lifts and

Sec. 1926.1000(c) on roll-over protective structures.

\1\1 See, for example, Sec. 1910.302(b)(1), which specifies

which requirements of Subpart S apply to all installations

regardless of their age.

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

As there are relatively few equipment and installation design

requirements in Sec. 1910.269, the Agency has decided to provide

exemptions for existing equipment and installations on a case-by-case

basis, based on the record. For example, final paragraph (v)(11)(x)

allows coal conveying systems installed before the effective date of

the standard to use other protective measures instead of audible

devices to warn employees of startup of the system. This ``exemption''

is based on the record with respect to the proposed requirement for

audible warning devices. (See the discussion of this requirement later

in this preamble.) Each provision in the proposed standard that would

have resulted in substantial capital outlays has been reevaluated in

light of the record. The Agency's determination in each case is given

in the preamble discussion of the relevant provision of the final rule.

OSHA has also decided not to adopt the alternative ``exemption''

suggested by EEI. As noted earlier, the Agency believes that all

generally acceptable alternatives included in the rulemaking record

should be provided for in the standard. Unique safety techniques

adopted by a given employer should be handled under OSHA's variance

procedures. In this manner, all interested parties have an opportunity

to provide relevant information, and employee safety can be assured.

Additionally, this approach minimizes enforcement difficulties.

Performance-oriented requirements. One of the hearing requests

objected to the lack of performance language in some of the proposed

regulations (Ex. 3-80). In the hearing notice, public comment was

invited on the issue of whether any of the proposal's requirements were

too specification oriented.

The APPA was concerned about the lack of performance-oriented

language in certain parts of the proposed rule (Ex. 3-80, 3-119). They

believed that these parts of the standard could be written to allow

alternative ways of achieving the same safety-related goals.

The Agency believes that the proposed rule was written largely in

performance-oriented terms. The proposal also frequently allowed

several alternative methods of providing protection from specific

hazards. For example, proposed Sec. 1910.269(i)(2)(ii) provided three

alternative methods of protecting employees from ground-fault hazards

posed by cord- and plug-connected equipment.

On the other hand, the proposal was not written in vague, general

language, which can be difficult to enforce. Words such as

``adequate'', ``appropriate'', and ``suitable'', which appeared in

several of the source documents (that is, the EEI/IBEW draft,12

Subpart V, and consensus standards), were not used in the proposed

standard. Rather, specific performance goals were stated in enforceable

terms.

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

\1\2 The IBEW removed much of this type of language from their

version of the draft (Ex. 2-4).

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

OSHA has reviewed the record on the proposal and has modified the

language of the proposed rules as appropriate. The discussion of

individual requirements indicates when the provisions have been

rewritten in a more performance-oriented manner or have been revised to

allow additional alternatives.

EEI/IBEW draft standard. Some commenters and hearing participants

supported the EEI/IBEW draft standard on electric power generation,

transmission, and distribution work, and many of them recommended that

OSHA adopt it, either in part or in its entirety (Ex. 3-26, 3-42, 3-66,

3-80, 3-112, 3-120, 3-123, 56; DC Tr. 786-792, 818, 831-832, 980; LA

Tr. 216). EEI argued that the EEI/IBEW draft should be used by the

Agency in drafting the final rule (Ex. 3-112, 56). Their reasoning was

stated in their prehearing comments as follows:

As explained more fully below, EEI strongly believes that the

EEI/IBEW draft, prepared by experienced industry and union experts,

is superior to the OSHA proposal because it provides more

appropriate protection for electric utility workers, explains the

principles and requirements involved in more understandable

language, and would provide everyone affected by the standard with a

comprehensive document. Indeed, because the draft was prepared by

those who know the most about safety in electric utilities--those

who operate and work in the industry each day--EEI submits that OSHA

should give considerable deference to the EEI/IBEW draft. This is

especially so given that the other representatives of electric

utility employers--the American Public Power Association and the

National Rural Electric Cooperatives Association--supported the EEI/

IBEW draft. [Ex. 3-112]

The other major union representing electric power generation,

transmission, and distribution workers, the Utility Workers Union of

America (UWUA), which represents approximately one third of the

unionized electric utility work force (DC Tr. 457), did not endorse the

EEI/IBEW draft standard (DC Tr. 498). Additionally, a significant

contingent of affected employers, industrial establishments that

generate, transmit, or distribute their own electric power, did not

participate in the development of the EEI/IBEW draft.

EEI represented their draft standard as minimum safety rules that

were being met under current industry practices (DC Tr. 782, 793, 1109-

1110). They argued that electric power generation, transmission, and

distribution work poses a significant risk of serious injury, but that

electric utility workers do not face a significant risk under current

industry practice as reflected in their proposal (LA Tr. 316-317).

The Agency believes that the record clearly demonstrates that the

EEI/IBEW draft standard represents current practices in the electric

utility industry, at least to the extent that nearly all electric

utility employers comply with the rules in that draft. OSHA does not,

however, agree that electric utility employees are protected from

significant risk under current industry practices. The final regulatory

analysis has found 61 fatalities occurring each year in the industry

under these practices. Many of these deaths are preventable.

In the case of Sec. 1910.269, the Agency has determined that

employees are presently facing significant risk. The risk that an

electric utility employee will be seriously injured or die from a fall

or an electric shock is significant. OSHA has determined that that risk

can be reduced by adopting a standard that requires the industry to

change existing protective measures in certain cases. The areas for

which this holds true are explained in the discussion of individual

provisions.

There are many accident descriptions in the record. The Agency has

relied heavily on analyses of these accidents in determining the

content of the final rule. These analyses were used by OSHA to make

necessary modifications to the EEI/IBEW draft, which was based

primarily on current industry practice and anecdotal evidence (Ex. 3-

123, 56; DC Tr. 1108-1110). OSHA believes that, because the standard is

an attempt to reduce the number of injuries and fatalities, thorough

study of relevant accidents is a necessary part of the standards

development process.

Additionally, the OSH Act requires the Agency to look to consensus

standards for guidance in setting occupational safety standards.

Section 6(b)(8) of the OSH Act states:

Whenever a rule promulgated by the Secretary differs

substantially from an existing national consensus standard, the

Secretary shall, at the same time, publish in the Federal Register a

statement of the reasons why the rule as adopted will better

effectuate the purposes of this Act than the national consensus

standard.

Thus, OSHA relies heavily on consensus standards in developing

requirements for employee safety and health.

Several consensus standards generally apply to the work covered

under final Sec. 1910.269: ANSI C2, the ``National Electrical Safety

Code;'' ANSI Z244.1, ``American National Standard for Personnel

Protection--Lockout/Tagout of Energy Sources--Minimum Safety

Requirements;'' and ANSI Z133.1, ``American National Standard for Tree

Care Operations--Pruning, Trimming, Repairing, Maintaining, and

Removing Trees, and Cutting Brush--Safety Requirements.'' (The preamble

discussion of the individual paragraphs indicates where other consensus

documents have been used.) Under the OSH Act, the Agency must

demonstrate that any deviations from these standards will better

protect employees. Therefore, in developing the proposal, OSHA deferred

to the national consensus standards whenever such standards appeared to

be more protective than provisions of the EEI/IBEW draft.

Existing OSHA standards also apply to much of the work addressed by

Sec. 1910.269. For example, Subpart D of Part 1910 provides

requirements for walking and working surfaces, including fixed ladders.

Proposed Sec. 1910.269(h) also contained provisions on ladders. The

final rule includes only requirements that the record demonstrates

provide better protection for electric power generation, transmission,

and distribution workers than those set forth in current Subpart D.

Also, Subpart V of Part 1926 covers the construction of electric

transmission and distribution lines. Similarly, final Sec. 1910.269 is

no less protective than subpart V where identical hazards are addressed

in the two standards.

OSHA believes that new standards must build on existing

requirements. Provisions in the EEI/IBEW draft that were less

protective than current regulations have not been adopted in the final

rule.

For these reasons, OSHA has not simply adopted the EEI/IBEW draft

standard verbatim. However, the Agency has used the document as a

foundation for the development of final Sec. 1910.269, modifying it as

necessary to best protect employees and to meet the requirements of the

OSH Act. The final rule, based on the record considered as a whole,

provides reasonably necessary and appropriate protection from

significant risks faced by electric power generation, transmission, and

distribution workers. Substantial issues raised in the record as a

result of the difference between the EEI/IBEW draft and the proposal

are discussed in the explanation of the individual provisions.

Health considerations. Several persons claimed that the proposal

did not adequately address issues affecting the health of electric

power generation, transmission, and distribution workers (Ex. 3-21; DC

Tr. 420-421, 429-431, 475-476). They referred to hazardous exposures to

lead, asbestos, and electromagnetic radiation as matters that were not

covered at all. Mr. Eugene Briody of the UWUA noted:

work on electrical transmission involves a lot more than electrical

[shock] related hazards * * *. I must stress that over the last

several years that the overwhelming majority of safety complaints

and occupational related disabilities reported by our members

working in electrical transmission relate to asbestos, PCBs and lead

rather than shock, explosions or burns. We must also begin to pay

attention to the growing evidence concerning the occupational

hazards of electromagnetic radiation [DC Tr. 420-421].

OSHA realizes that there are hazards faced by electric power

generation, transmission, and distribution workers that are not

addressed by Sec. 1910.269. However, the health hazards discussed by

Mr. Briody, which are found throughout general industry, are more

appropriately regulated under Subpart Z of part 1910 (for asbestos,

polychlorinated biphenyls, and lead) and under Sec. 1910.97 (for non-

ionizing radiation) rather than in a standard specific to a particular

industry sector. Indeed, asbestos and lead have been subjects of

extensive rulemaking throughout OSHA's history.

Further, Sec. 1910.269 was proposed as a safety standard, and the

notices of proposed rulemaking and of public hearing portrayed it this

way. Most of the commenters were not aware that issues relating to

health effects of exposures to harmful chemicals or physical agents

would be raised at the hearing, and most of the hearing participants

(including the Agency, itself) were not prepared to respond to these

issues at the hearing. Additionally, the record contains very little

information on levels of exposure or rates of illness for any toxic

chemical or harmful physical agent to which electric power generation,

transmission, and distribution workers are exposed. Accordingly, at

this time, the Agency has no basis on which to expand the scope of

Sec. 1910.269 to cover health hazards that may be unique to utility

work. Should such data become available, OSHA will consider whether

further action is warranted.

Paragraph (a). Paragraph (a)(1) of Sec. 1910.269 sets forth the

scope of the standard. Under the terms of paragraph (a)(1)(i), the

provisions of Sec. 1910.269 apply to the operation and maintenance of

electric power generation, transmission, and distribution systems, to

electrical testing of such systems, and to line-clearance tree

trimming. Although the regulation does not define ``operation'' or

``maintenance'', OSHA intends that the standard cover activity, other

than construction work covered by Part 1926, associated with electric

power generation, transmission, and distribution installations. The

standard primarily covers the following types of work operations:

(1) Inspection,

(2) Switching (connection and disconnection of facilities),

(3) Maintenance of lines and equipment,

(4) Line-clearance tree trimming,

(5) Testing and fault locating,

(6) Streetlight relamping,

(7) Chemical cleaning of boilers, and

(8) Other operation and maintenance activities.

According to proposed Sec. 1910.269(a)(1)(ii)(B), OSHA would only

have applied the regulation to installations for the generation,

transmission, or distribution of electric energy that are owned or

operated by electric utilities and to work performed on such

installations owned by a utility. The scope of the draft proposal

submitted by EEI and IBEW was limited to utilities only, and OSHA

decided to propose that the standard be applied in the same manner.

However, the notice of proposed rulemaking noted that consideration was

being given to expanding the scope of the standard. In the preamble to

the proposal, in the hearing notice, and in the notice reopening the

record, OSHA solicited comments on the appropriateness of extending

coverage of the standard to all power generation, transmission, and

distribution systems. OSHA also requested data on the costs and

benefits of expanding the scope in this manner.

Many industrial generation, transmission, and distribution systems

are essentially the same as those of a utility, and the work performed

on these systems is nearly identical to that performed on electric

utility installations. One might assume that electric utility systems

are of larger capacity than those operated by industrial plants. In

general this is true, but not always. For example, one generating

facility for a large steel plant in Sparrows Point, Maryland, has a

generating capacity of 140 megawatts with a generating voltage of 13

kilovolts and with distribution voltages of 34.5 and 69 kilovolts. This

system is larger than those of many rural electric cooperatives that

would have been covered by the proposal. Additionally, the existing

OSHA and national consensus standards, Subpart V of part 1926 and ANSI

C2, respectively, do extend their coverage to anyone doing electric-

utility-type work.

OSHA received many comments on this issue, from utilities, from

electrical contractors, from other industries, and from unions. In

general, the utilities supported extending coverage to all generation,

transmission, and distribution installations (Ex. 3-27, 3-40, 3-59, 3-

82, 3-102, 3-112). For example, the New York State Electric and Gas

Corporation stated that their personnel perform work on transmission

and distribution interconnect facilities as well as inspect, oversee,

and approve protection system design, installation, testing, and

maintenance on non-utility protection systems (Ex. 3-40). Their

employees also provide assistance to industrial customers under

emergency conditions.

Unions also supported extending the scope of Sec. 1910.269 (Ex. 3-

9, 3-76, 3-107). The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

stated that the hazards, training, and work practices are the same for

electric power generation, transmission, and distribution facilities

regardless of who owns or operates them (Ex. 3-107). Therefore, they

argued, the safety and health requirements should be the same.

The National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA) represents

the contractors who perform work on utility and on industrial power

generation, transmission, and distribution installations. NECA agreed

with IBEW that these installations were the same, no matter who owned

or operated them, and that the accident prevention measures should be

the same (Ex. 3-60). The contractors' association also believed that

the scope should be expanded.

Countering these comments, many large industrial companies and

trade associations argued that the standard should apply only to

utilities (Ex. 3-34, 3-45, 3-88, 3-131, 62-2). These commenters

generally argued that portions of Sec. 1910.269 overlapped other OSHA

standards. Union Carbide Corp. noted that the proposal contained

provisions relating to boilers and railroad equipment (Ex. 3-34). They

were concerned that these requirements could be read to apply to

equipment and operations that are unrelated to a power generation

installation. The Amoco Corp. made similar comments about the proposed

regulations on hazardous energy control and on enclosed spaces (Ex. 3-

73).

S. C. Johnson and Son, Inc., argued that the ``hazards posed by

electric utilization systems at industrial facilities do not warrant

two separate work practice standards [Sec. 1910.269 and Sec. 1910.331

et seq., Ex. 3-4]''. Monsanto Company noted that, while a few

industrial plants have large electric power generation, transmission,

and distribution systems resembling a small utility company, most

industrial power systems are on a much smaller scale than any utility

system (Ex. 3-34). They compared a 50-kilowatt cogeneration unit that

is part of an industrial facility's steam plant to a 1000-megawatt

utility generating station. Monsanto reasoned that there was a

significant difference in the hazards posed by the two installations.

Union Carbide Corp. presented the following four reasons for not

extending the application of the final standard to industrial power

generation, transmission, and distribution:

(a) Utility electrical systems are normally operated at much

higher voltage than are industrial electrical systems. They also

differ drastically from industrial systems with respect to

grounding, physical size, aerial conductors, and lightning

protection. The hazards of the two kinds of systems and the best

methods of controlling these hazards differ.

(b) The proposed rule addresses a number of hazards which are

peculiar to utility systems but not to industrial systems. These

include tree trimming and access to the system by the unauthorized,

untrained general public. Fortunately, industrial electrical systems

seldom have those problems. It would be inappropriate to impose on

industrial systems requirements which address those hazards.

(c) Traditionally, industrial electrical systems have been based

upon the National Electrical Code (``NEC'') in their design and

operation. Utility electrical systems, on the other hand, have

always been based upon the National Electrical Safety Code

(``NESC'') in their design and operation. While the NEC and NESC use

many of the same concepts, they are entirely different documents.

The proposed rule is based upon the NESC (see 54 Fed. Reg. at 4975-

76). Accordingly, applying the proposed rule to industrial

electrical systems could create many compliance problems not related

to safety.

(d) Application of the proposed rule to industrial electrical

systems would establish the need to comply with two separate sets of

requirements at a single facility, creating a training nightmare.

For example, a piece of switchgear feeding a production unit may be

adjacent to a piece of switchgear serving a generating facility. The

regulations in 29 C.F.R. Part 1910, Subpart S would apply to the

production unit switchgear, while the proposed rule would apply to

the generator switchgear. This would create great practical

difficulties for operating personnel in trying to decide which set

of rules to apply. [Ex. 3-45]

The installation safety requirements in Subpart S of Part 1910

(Secs. 1910.302 through 1910.308) do not cover ``installations under

the exclusive control of electric utilities * * * for the generation,

control, transformation, transmission, and distribution of electric

energy'' (Sec. 1910.302(a)(2)(v)). Additionally, OSHA has interpreted

the Subpart S installation requirements to exempt industrial power

generation and distribution systems that are similar to electric

utility installations.13 This exclusion reflects the unique

hazards and work practices involved in generation, transmission, and

distribution of electric energy. The work practice requirements in

Subpart S of Part 1910 (Secs. 1910.332 through 1910.335) are designed

to complement the installation safety provisions in Subpart S and do

not cover work practices for qualified persons who work on or near

electric generation, transmission, or distribution installations. Also,

because electric power generation, transmission, and distribution

installations involve similar hazards and work practices whether or not

they are controlled by electric utilities, the Subpart S work practices

standard does not apply to qualified persons who work on or near any

such installation, regardless of who owns or controls the installation.

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

\1\3The preamble to the final rule revising the Subpart S

electrical standards stated:

In the situations where the industrial operation may be the same

as that of an electric utility, there would not be an overlap [of

electrical standards] since ANSI C-2 contains the provisions which

would apply and neither the NEC nor OSHA's Subpart S contain

provisions which would be applicable. [46 FR 4039, January 16, 1981]

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

OSHA believes that there are hazards related to electric power

generation, transmission, and distribution work that are not adequately

addressed elsewhere in the General Industry Standards. The hazards

related to transmission systems are the same whether the system is

owned by a steel plant, a chemical plant, or an electric utility. There

are currently no OSHA standards governing the design or installation of

these systems, and the electrical standards in Subpart S of Part 1910

do not apply.

Coverage of electric power generation and distribution systems is

slightly different from the coverage of transmission systems. Utility-

type generation and distribution installations are not covered by the

provisions of Secs. 1910.303 through 1910.308 or (if the work is

performed by a qualified employee) by Secs. 1910.332 through 1910.335.

Commercial-type systems,14 however, are covered by the Subpart S

requirements. Additionally, some employers voluntarily comply with

OSHA's electrical standards in Subpart S for their large-scale

generation and distribution installations.

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

\1\4OSHA is using the terms ``utility-type'' and ``commercial-

type'' to distinguish between covered and excluded generation and

distribution systems. As noted earlier, industrial generation and

distribution installations that are similar to those of an electric

utility are not covered under the Subpart S installation

requirements. These systems have voltages and generating capacity

equivalent to those of an electric utility. Additionally, the

operators of these installations typically sell excess power to an

electric utility. OSHA is referring to these systems and those of

electric utilities as ``utility-type'' electric power generation and

distribution systems.

On the other hand, industrial generation and distribution

``systems'' that are not like an electric utility system are covered

under Subpart S. These installations, which are considered to be

part of the electric utilization system, have more limited capacity,

and their generating capability is limited to an emergency or backup

role. OSHA is referring to these systems as ``commercial-type''

electric power generation and distribution systems.

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

From an electrical viewpoint, the hazards faced by employees

working on an installation that conforms to the design requirements of

Secs. 1910.303 through 1910.308 are different from those faced by

employees working on an installation that was designed to conform to

the National Electrical Safety Code. OSHA believes that whether an

employer should comply with the subpart S work practice requirements or

with the provisions of Sec. 1910.269 depends on the hazards faced by an

employee. The hazards posed by an installation are related to the type

of installation involved and to whether or not it conforms to the

design standards in subpart S. The risk faced by an employee working on

the installation depends on what the hazards are and on whether or not

the employee is trained to recognize and avoid the hazards. Therefore,

the Agency has made application of most of the electrical requirements

in the new standard dependent on whether or not the installation

conforms to Secs. 1910.303 through 1910.308 and on whether or not the

employee is qualified to perform the work, not on whether or not the

work is performed by an employee of an electric utility.

OSHA has determined which provisions of final Sec. 1910.269 address

electrical hazards that are already addressed in Secs. 1910.332 through

1910.335 of subpart S for electrical installations that meet the design

requirements in Secs. 1910.302 through 1910.308 of subpart S. In short,

when qualified employees work on such installations, the Agency will

consider these installations and work practices conforming to

Secs. 1910.332 through 1910.335 to be in compliance with the provisions

of Sec. 1910.269 that are identified in Table 1 of Appendix A-2.

OSHA has also identified requirements in Sec. 1910.269 that are not

adequately addressed in subpart S, and these requirements must be

followed at all times. These provisions are listed in Table 1 of

Appendix A-2 as well. It should be noted that, if unqualified employees

are working on, near, or with electric power generation, transmission,

and distribution installations, Secs. 1910.332 through 1910.335 apply

in any event. Appendices A-1 and A-2 illustrate the application of

Sec. 1910.269 and Subpart S to the various types of electrical

installations.

The non-electrical provisions in Sec. 1910.269 (for example,

paragraph (g)(2) on fall protection and paragraph (p)(1) on mechanical

equipment) address only unique aspects of electric power generation,

transmission, and distribution work. As noted in paragraph (a)(1)(iii),

the requirements of Sec. 1910.269 supplement those elsewhere in part

1910, unless an exception is specifically mentioned. The non-electrical

requirements in this section have been handled individually throughout

the standard to allow alternative methods of compliance already

recognized in the General Industry Standards. For example, the lockout

and tagging provisions of paragraph (d) recognize compliance with the

generic standard on control of hazardous energy sources in

Sec. 1910.147. (See the discussion of this paragraph later in this

preamble.) Each of these cases is discussed in detail in the portion of

this preamble relating to the requirement in question.

Paragraph (a)(1)(i)(A) sets forth the scope of Sec. 1910.269 as it

relates to industrial and utility power generation, transmission, and

distribution. This paragraph reads as follows:

* * * These provisions apply to:

(A) Power generation, transmission, and distribution

installations, including related equipment for the purpose of

communication or metering, which are accessible only to qualified

employees;

Note: The types of installations covered by this paragraph

include the generation, transmission, and distribution installations

of electric utilities, as well as equivalent installations of

industrial establishments. Supplementary electric generating

equipment that is used to supply a workplace for emergency, standby,

or similar purposes only is covered under Subpart S of this part.

(See paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B) of this section.)

OSHA believes that this language will effectively extend the scope

of the standard to the types of installations that the standard is

intended to cover, namely, electric power generation, transmission, and

distribution systems of electric utilities and equivalent industrial

systems. It also makes it clear that supplementary generating

equipment, such as emergency and standby generators used to provide

temporary power at a workplace, is not covered. These installations are

considered to be part of the utilization system rather than separate

generation installations and are addressed by the existing Subpart S

regulations. Additional clarification as to the application of the

electrical safety requirements of Sec. 1910.269 is contained in

paragraph (a)(i)(ii)(B), as discussed later in this preamble.

Section 1910.269 applies to the parts of a facility that are

directly involved with the generation, transmission, or distribution of

electric power. Installations not used for one of these purposes are

not covered by the standard. For example, office buildings, warehouses,

machine shops, and other installations which are not integral parts of

generating plants, substations, or control centers are not covered by

final Sec. 1910.269. Work performed on these installations is not of a

type addressed by the standard. However, paragraph (a)(1)(i)(B) lists

installations that are not integral to the generation of electric

power, but that are covered nonetheless. Such installations include the

fuel handling operations and water and steam spaces.

Edison Electric Institute objected to the proposed restriction in

scope to installations within a generating plant that are for the

purpose of electric power generation (DC Tr. 803-805). Speaking on

EEI's behalf, Mr. J. Frederick Doering stated, ``We continue to believe

that all power plant work for operation and maintenance should be

covered by this standard.'' (DC Tr. 804) Mr. John Bachofer displayed

many slides showing that widely varied and dispersed portions of an

electric generating plant were all maintained and operated by a single

resident crew (DC Tr. 806-813). These slides showed that similar

equipment is involved both in installations used specifically for power

generation and in installations used for other purposes within the same

plant. These witnesses argued that it would be safer to have a single

set of standards applying to employees at these plants than to have

multiple standards regulate utility work.

OSHA agrees that it is generally beneficial for employees to be

using one set of rules for the work they do. However, this does not

mean that it is always best to have a single standard governing all

safety considerations in every industry. This would not be practical

given the Agency's limited resources and the diversity of industries in

the United States. In explaining OSHA's position, Mr. Thomas Seymour

stated, ``We would not want to see ourselves getting into a posture

where we have to do a specific standard for each and every industry

because we would then have thousands and thousands of books for each

industry, repeating the same materials over and over and over again.''

(DC Tr. 177)

While OSHA believes that it may be important to cover the unique

safety aspects of an industry in an industry-specific standard, it

would be wasteful for the Agency to duplicate other general industry

regulations already addressing common safe working conditions. For

example, the existing generic lockout and tagging standard,

Sec. 1910.147, presently applies to the control of hazardous energy

sources of an installation that is not for the purpose of electric

power generation, transmission, or distribution. Additionally, OSHA's

electrical standards in subpart S also apply to such installations

within an electric utility's generating plant. OSHA is not able to

address all working conditions in a single rulemaking, especially where

there is adequate coverage in the existing General Industry Standards.

The utility industry must show that unique considerations within the

industry necessitate different requirements from those that apply

generally. Where there is adequate coverage, there is simply no need to

open up the record on rules with respect to which there is nothing

unique in the electric utility industry.

Furthermore, the Agency is expanding the scope of the rule so that

non-utility electric power generation, transmission, and distribution

are covered. Including general safety provisions within this standard

would create problems for industries that generate power as a by-

product of the manufacturing process. These companies would have two

full sets of standards applying in one workplace, instead of one set of

general rules and one set that applied to the unique aspects of

electric power generation.

For these reasons, OSHA has decided that Sec. 1910.269 should cover

only those aspects of electric power generation plants that pose unique

hazards to employees or that are not covered adequately in other

General Industry Standards. Thus, for example, this section includes

requirements on boiler maintenance safety, conveyors, and water and

steam installations that are not contained in any other subpart of Part

1910. Other provisions that seemingly duplicate other general industry

requirements are contained in Sec. 1910.269 either because the hazards

are not within the scope of the general regulations, or because unique

circumstances of electric power generation, transmission, or

distribution work necessitate different or additional rules. OSHA

believes that this approach will maximize employee safety, as well as

the effective use of Agency resources.

Two comments discussed the application of Sec. 1910.269 to coal

handling activities. These comments noted that the Mine Safety and

Health Administration (MSHA) was asserting jurisdiction in some areas

involving coal crushing and conveying (Ex. 3-109, 56). They argued that

it was more appropriate for OSHA to regulate these installations than

for them to be subject to MSHA's authority. Edison Electric Institute

stated, ``to exclude those facilities from this final standard, and

thereby to impose inconsistent regulatory requirements, would

compromise employee safety [Ex. 56].'' They urged OSHA to incorporate

provisions on coal handling, as proposed. Messrs. Nicholas Reynolds,

Scott DuBoff, and Allen Flowers, representing a number of electric

utilities, recommended appropriate interagency coordination and

corresponding adjustments to the agencies' respective regulations (Ex.

3-109).

While OSHA proposed requirements dealing with coal handling

facilities within a power plant, the Agency has no desire (indeed, not

even the legal authority) to regulate working conditions that are being

regulated by other Federal agencies. Section 4(b)(1) of the

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 states:

Nothing in this Act shall apply to working conditions of

employees with respect to which other Federal agencies * * *

exercise statutory authority to prescribe or enforce standards or

regulations affecting occupational safety or health.

Therefore, to the extent that MSHA asserts jurisdiction over areas

at an electric power plant, MSHA's exercise of that authority preempts

OSHA's. For example, the Mine Safety and Health Act (30 U.S.C. 801, et

seq.) provides that ``structures, facilities, equipment, machines,

tools or other property * * * used in, or to be used in, or resulting

from the work of preparing coal'' are within the definition of ``coal

or other mine'' and are thereby subject to MSHA jurisdiction. In

section 802(i) of the Mine Safety and Health Act, the ``work of

preparing coal'' is defined as ``breaking, crushing, sizing, cleaning,

washing, drying, mixing, storing, and loading of bituminous coal,

lignite or anthracite, and such other work of preparing such coal as is

usually done by the operator of the coal mine.'' In Pennsylvania

Electric Company v. Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission,

969 F.2d 1501 (3d Cir. 1992), the Court of Appeals found that conveyor

head drives of conveyor belts used to transport coal from mine head

scales to a processing station constitute the work of preparing coal

and that MSHA had promulgated rules preempting OSHA.

The requirements in this final rule are only intended to apply to

conditions and installations for which MSHA does not in fact ``exercise

statutory authority to prescribe or enforce standards or regulations.''

Because the mine safety agency assumes enforcement responsibility for

the coal handling operations noted earlier, OSHA and MSHA will work

together, coordinating their standards and inspection activities, in a

manner consistent with their respective rulemaking and enforcement

authorities, to assure the safety of affected employees.

Paragraph (a)(1)(i)(C) of final Sec. 1910.269 states that this

section applies to testing associated with electric power generation,

transmission, and distribution systems. This paragraph is the same as

the corresponding provision in the proposal, except that the reference

to electric utilities has been removed. This change was made for

consistency with OSHA's decision to expand the scope of the standard to

cover non-utilities.

In the proposal, the first three paragraphs under

Sec. 1910.269(a)(1)(i) referred only to installations. However, the

introductory statement prefacing these paragraphs stated that the

section also covered work practices associated with electric power

generation, transmission, and distribution lines and equipment. To

clarify the scope of the final rule, OSHA has added paragraph

(a)(1)(i)(D) to extend the application of Sec. 1910.269 explicitly to

work practices on or directly associated with the installations listed

in the first three paragraphs. It should be noted that work performed

near one of these installations is not covered simply because of its

proximity to the installation; the work must be directly associated

with the covered installation as well.

Paragraph (a)(1)(i)(E) of Sec. 1910.269 explains the application of

the standard to tree-trimming operations. The entire section, except

paragraph (r)(1), applies to tree-trimming operations performed by

qualified employees (that is, employees who are knowledgeable in the

operation of electric power generation, transmission, or distribution

equipment and the hazards involved). These employees typically perform

tree-trimming duties as an incidental part of their normal work

activities. However, only paragraphs (a)(2), (b), (c), (g), (k), (p),

and (r) apply to line-clearance tree-trimming work performed by other

employees (line-clearance tree trimmers).

Most tree-trimming operations, which are often performed by

employees of outside contractors, do not involve routine line-

maintenance activities. Although these tree-trimming employees work

near the power lines, they do not work directly on them. For activities

other than the actual tree-trimming work, these employees are not

``qualified employees'' for the purposes of this standard. Therefore,

many of the requirements set forth in Sec. 1910.269 are not relevant to

their work. Since these employees are not trained as qualified linemen,

OSHA feels that the application of rules written expressly for electric

utility-type work could expose these other types of workers to hazards

that they are not adequately trained to face. For example, paragraph

(1) allows qualified employees to come closer than 2 feet to a 7600-

volt overhead distribution line if the employee is wearing electrical

protective equipment (such as rubber insulating gloves and sleeves). By

contrast, paragraph (r)(1) requires line-clearance tree trimmers to

maintain a minimum approach distance from energized overhead power

lines regardless of any other protective techniques that might be

employed. Line-clearance tree-trimming work does not require these

employees to come closer to power lines, nor does their training15

typically encompass all the information and skill needed to work on or

closer than 2 feet to the line, regardless of whether electrical

protective equipment is used. For these reasons, OSHA has adopted

special electrical safety-related work practice provisions for line-

clearance tree trimmers that are more stringent than those that apply

to ``qualified employees''. These provisions are contained in paragraph

(r)(1).

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

\1\5 Of course, if these employees do receive the appropriate

training, then they become ``qualified employees''.

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

On the other hand, if employees performing line-clearance tree-

trimming work are also ``qualified employees'', with the necessary

training and experience in dealing with power lines, all of final

Sec. 1910.269, except paragraph (r)(1), applies to their work.

Paragraphs (a)(2), (b), (c), (g), (k), and (p), are general

requirements addressing training, medical services and first aid, job

briefing, personal protective equipment, material handling, and

mechanical equipment, respectively. OSHA has determined that the

requirements in these areas are necessary and appropriate for line-

clearance tree-trimming work performed by other than qualified

employees. The remaining provisions of final Sec. 1910.269 are not

necessary for the safety of these employees and are not related to the

type of work they perform.

The proposal would also have applied entire paragraph (a) (covering

the scope of the standard, training, and the determination of existing

conditions) to line-clearance tree trimming operations. Mr. Robert

Felix, Executive Vice President of the National Arborist Association,

argued that proposed paragraph (a)(3) was not appropriate for line-

clearance tree trimming work (Ex. 3-113). This paragraph would have

required the inspection of existing conditions before work is started

and set forth a list of items that would have to be checked. These

items (switching transients, induced voltages, integrity of grounds,

etc.) relate to maintenance of electric power generation, transmission,

and distribution lines and equipment. Mr. Felix asserted that these

conditions were not applicable to tree trimming work and that a

provision covering conditions directly related to tree trimming would

be more appropriately located in paragraph (r)(1), where the proposal

addressed the electrical hazards of line-clearance tree trimming. OSHA

has adopted this suggestion and is applying only paragraph (a)(2),

which covers training, rather than entire paragraph (a) to tree

trimming operations. Because paragraph (a)(1) is the scope of the

standard, the relevant portion of paragraph (a)(3) has been placed in

paragraph (r)(1).

Standards on the construction of transmission and distribution

lines and equipment are contained in 29 CFR part 1926, subpart V. So as

not to overlap these regulations in the Construction Standards, final

Sec. 1910.269 published today does not apply to operations involving

construction work. This ``exemption'' is set forth in

Sec. 1910.269(a)(1)(ii)(A). ``Construction work'' is defined in

Sec. 1910.12(b) as ``work for construction, alteration, and/or repair,

including painting and decorating.'' In Sec. 1910.12(d), the term is

further defined as including ``the erection of new electric

transmission and distribution lines and equipment, and the alteration,

conversion, and improvement of existing transmission and distribution

lines and equipment.'' None of the types of work covered by these two

definitions are covered by Sec. 1910.269.

Several commenters and witnesses at the hearing were concerned with

having to comply with two separate standards (that is, Sec. 1910.269

and 29 CFR part 1926, subpart V) governing essentially the same work

(Ex. 3-60, 3-85, 3-102, 3-112, 56; DC Tr. 717-718, 794-800). These

persons gave examples of work operations that could be covered under

either standard depending on slightly different circumstances. Mr.

Eugene Trombley of Consumers Power Company gave the most detailed

accounting of such situations, presenting a video tape of an employee

performing distribution work (DC Tr. 794-800). In one case, the

employee was replacing an insulator of the same type (Sec. 1910.269

applies); in the other he was installing an upgraded insulator (Subpart

V applies). Similar examples were given of lightning arrester and

transformer replacement. In each case, the hazards involved were

identical, but the standard that applied was different--sometimes it

was Sec. 1910.269, sometimes subpart V.

Mr. Trombley, testifying on behalf of EEI, stated his concerns and

his suggested solution as follows:

In view of what we have seen here, I believe that it is safe to

say that the work practices and procedures that we have used to work

on existing equipment are identical, whether OSHA calls the job

construction or maintenance.

Because the label dictates the OSHA standard that will apply,

however, I am concerned about the problems that will be created if

conflicting standards are applied to the same work.

I am concerned that this is going to complicate my company's

safety rules which we work hard to keep simple and direct. This in

turn is going to make it more difficult for me as a trainer to give

clear direction to my linemen as to what they are to do in specific

circumstances.

This is going to place them at greater risk, and I am sure that

linemen trainers throughout the industry would feel the same.

I would recommend strongly that the distinction between

construction and maintenance for electric utilities be eliminated

completely, as it affects work on existing equipment. So that

alterations, conversions and improvements of existing equipment

required for operation of the system will be considered, as it

should be, maintenance work. [DC Tr. 799-800]

OSHA has not accepted this suggestion. The scope of subpart V

cannot be altered without first submitting the revision to the Advisory

Committee for Construction Safety and Health and subsequently

publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking. EEI claimed that

consultation with the Advisory Committee would be unnecessary if the

scope of Sec. 1910.269 was simply extended to alterations, conversions,

and improvements of existing equipment required for operation of the

system. However, under the present definitions of construction work,

all alterations, improvements, and conversions of electric transmission

and distribution lines and equipment are considered to be construction

work and, therefore, covered under subpart V. The Agency cannot adopt

their suggestion without revising the definition of construction in

Sec. 1910.12 and the scope of subpart V in Sec. 1926.950(a)(1) to

eliminate this double coverage. This type of action would require

further rulemaking.

Others suggested that OSHA make the standards for equivalent

hazards the same. Mr. Charles J. Hart of the National Electrical

Contractors Association stated, ``we believe that all of the

requirements that apply to electrical power generation, transmission

and distribution, whether it be construction or maintenance and

operation, be included in one document and that the rules pertaining to

similar situations be identical [Ex. 3-60].'' Mr. Joseph Van Name,

testifying for the ANSI C2 Subcommittee 8 on Work Rules, supported this

view and stated, ``to the extent possible, consistency with subpart V

is essential; to have different clearance tables and paragraphs seems

inappropriate [DC Tr. 717].''

OSHA believes that it is important for employees to use consistent

work practices for jobs posing equivalent hazards. It may, indeed,

introduce dangers if an employee has to vary the work practices used

for a job depending on slightly different circumstances unrelated to

safety. The Agency attempts to make its standards consistent across

industries for similar situations, but it is not always possible to

make them identical. The employer should ensure that the work rules are

the same for similar jobs even though different regulations may apply.

Subpart V is about 20 years old, and it is based on technology and

practices that reflect its age. If OSHA were to promulgate a standard

identical to subpart V, it would not be possible for the Agency to

incorporate new technology or to correct deficiencies without first

revising the older standard. Therefore, in some cases, Sec. 1910.269

applies different requirements to the same work than subpart V. The

Agency believes it is more important to extend coverage of an electric

power generation, transmission, and distribution standard to areas

where employees are not now protected than it is to revise an existing

standard that is already protecting employees to a great degree. This

alternative provides greater protection to employees.

OSHA plans to develop a proposal that would revise subpart V to

incorporate the improvements promulgated here and to provide for

consistency between the two standards. Meanwhile, however, employers

will have to comply with two different standards on electric power

generation, transmission, and distribution work. OSHA expects that

employers will choose to comply with new Sec. 1910.269, as it provides

greater protection to employees than subpart V, and will generally

accept such compliance for all work involving electric power

generation, transmission, and distribution installations, whether it be

general industry or construction work. However, where subpart V

provides requirements that relate specifically to construction and

where Sec. 1910.269 contains no corresponding provisions, the subpart V

requirements will continue to apply. For example, Sec. 1926.955(b)

contains provisions relating to metal tower construction. Final

Sec. 1910.269 contains no corresponding requirements. Therefore,

Sec. 1926.955(b) will continue to apply in toto. The Agency will

provide compliance directives to its compliance staff incorporating

this concept.

Proposed Sec. 1910.269(a)(1)(ii)(B) would have excluded electric

power generation, transmission, and distribution installations of non-

utilities from coverage under Sec. 1910.269. As noted earlier, OSHA has

decided to provide coverage for these installations. Therefore, this

proposed paragraph was not carried forward into the final rule.

Existing regulations contained in Subpart S of Part 1910 apply to

the design and installation of electric utilization systems. Although

Sec. 1910.302(a)(2)(v) states that electric utility ``installations * *

* for the purpose of communication or metering; or for the generation,

control, transformation, transmission, and distribution of electric

energy'' are not covered by subpart S, electric utility installations

used for other purposes (that is, those for the electric utilization

systems) are covered by subpart S. Generation includes the conductors

and equipment that are used for generation, such as the generator

itself, the boiler feedwater pumps, and control circuits for the

generator. On the other hand, utilization includes premises wiring

leading to lighting, convenience outlets, and heating, ventilating, and

air conditioning equipment. Where it is difficult to distinguish

between generation and utilization within an electric power generating

installation, utilization begins at the point where circuits become

independent of generating circuits. This distinction, which was

thoroughly explained in the preamble to the electrical safety-related

work practices standard (55 FR 31993-31997), is consistent with the

National Fire Protection Association's (NFPA) National Electrical Code

(NFPA 70) and Electrical Safety Requirements for Employee Workplaces

(NFPA 70E), OSHA enforcement policy, and the installation safety

requirements in Subpart S. Moreover, the Court of Appeals, by upholding

OSHA's interpretation of the electrical installation requirements of

Part 1926, Subpart K, upheld OSHA's interpretation of utilization and

generation within an electric power generation facility. (See Edison

Electric Institute v. Occupational Safety and Health Administration,

849 F.2d 611 (D.C. Cir. 1988).) This current differentiation in

coverage between electric utilization installations, which are covered

by subpart S, and generation, transmission, and distribution

installations, which are not covered by subpart S, is carried forward

in Sec. 1910.269(a)(1)(ii)(B), which states that Sec. 1910.269 does not

apply to electrical installations, safety-related work practices, or

maintenance considerations covered by subpart S.

Many utility industry representatives restated the arguments made

in the electrical safety-related work practices rulemaking opposing any

application of subpart S to their industry and any language in

Sec. 1910.269 referencing subpart S (Ex. 3-26, 3-42, 3-80, 3-82, 3-102,

3-112). Most of these comments cited their desire to follow one

standard rather than two. Charles T. Autry of Oglethorpe Power Company

specifically recommended including work covered under subpart S as

being covered by Sec. 1910.269 (Ex. 3-102). Others also argued that the

requirements of Subpart S were inappropriate and that the work was

performed by the same highly qualified employees, whether or not

generating equipment was involved (Ex. 3-80, 3-82). EEI claimed that,

within electric utility power plants, there was no distinction between

installations used as opposed to those not used for the generation of

power (Ex. 3-112).

The distinction between generation and utilization in a power

generation facility was thoroughly considered in the electrical safety-

related work practices rulemaking, which resulted in a standard for

work practices for general industry (55 FR 31984, August 6, 1990).

While the electrical safety-related work practices standard itself

dealt only with work practices, comments to that rulemaking and OSHA's

rationale in applying the final standard to work on utilization systems

in electric power generation facilities addressed the application of

OSHA's electrical installation requirements of subpart S as well.

The Agency carefully considered all comments related to applying

the electrical safety-related work practices standard to electric

utility generating plants. Every argument made with respect to the

issue of applying all Subpart S requirements, whether related to

installation or work practices, was discussed in detail in the preamble

to the Final Rule. (For a full discussion of OSHA's decision in this

matter, see the full text of the Federal Register notice at 55 FR

31990-31997.) Briefly, the Agency's rationale was:

(1) The distinction, made under the scope of Part I of subpart S,

between installations used and those not used for the generation of

electric power at utility plants is one that can be readily determined.

OSHA realizes that all circuits for utilization equipment installed in

generating stations must originate in the same area as the circuits for

the generating installation. However, at some point, circuits that are

not an integral part of the generating installation must become

independent of the generating circuits, except to the extent that they

may share common cable trays or perhaps raceways. Otherwise, it would

be impossible to control the lighting, for example, independently of

the generator itself. With respect to the existing requirements of Part

I of subpart S, OSHA considers the ``covered'' installation to begin

where it becomes electrically independent of conductors and equipment

used for the generation of electric power. In most cases, it is a

simple matter of tracing the wiring back from the utilization equipment

itself until a point is reached where generation circuits are also

supplied. Generally, branch circuits supplying utilization equipment

(other than that used for the generation process) are covered; feeders

supplying only ``utilization'' branch circuits are covered; feeders

supplying ``generation'' circuits, alone or in combination with

``utilization'' circuits are not covered by subpart S.

(2) Although installations not used for power generation are

covered by subpart S, installations of conductors and equipment used

for power generation have not been regulated to date by OSHA standards.

Because of the installation requirements of subpart S, the conductors

and equipment covered by subpart S can be expected to present a minimum

level of safety, under normal operating conditions. The subpart S

installation requirements are sufficiently comprehensive that only a

few basic safety-related work practices are necessary to supplement

them (basically, those contained in Sec. 1910.334). For example, under

subpart S, live parts of electric circuits are not generally exposed to

contact by employees (especially unqualified employees), so that

employees can perform their jobs without consideration of touching an

energized part. Also, metal frames of electric equipment are grounded

if employees would likely be in contact with a grounded surface when

touching the equipment. In this way, employees are protected from

ground faults. To protect employees from fire and ground-fault hazards,

conductors and equipment are provided with overcurrent protection.

Thus, the installation safety requirements contained in Subpart S

protect employees to a great degree already (and this is the preferred

method of protection given the inevitability of human error if work

practices are used as the primary means of protection). The safe work

practices to be used when work is performed on, near, or with electric

circuits and equipment are dependent upon the design of the electrical

installation and the standards it must meet.

On the other hand, installations used for power generation, which

are not covered by the design requirements of Subpart S, have not been

subject to any comparable OSHA standards for equipment or installation

design. Equipment grounding, guarding of live parts, and overcurrent

protection are not required for power generation equipment under OSHA

standards, and the Agency has no assurance that these safety features

have been provided. Even if electric utilities ``generally'' comply

with the National Electrical Safety Code (ANSI C2), their generation

installations do not necessarily provide the same safety features as

the NEC and Subpart S require for utilization equipment. For example,

ANSI C2-1984, Section 124.A, requires the guarding of circuit parts

operating at more than 150 volts to ground. (This provision has been

carried into this final rule as Sec. 1910.269(v)(5)(i).) By contrast,

existing OSHA Sec. 1910.303 requires guarding of circuit parts

operating at 50 volts or more. In a generating station, electric

utilities must currently follow the Subpart S rule for conductors and

equipment that are not used for generation, but not for the generation

system conductors and equipment. Clearly, safe work practices for the

two types of installations would vary, even with similar 120-volt

motors, for example, if one has live parts guarded and the other does

not. (Of course, if the two types of installations are commingled, the

work practices used should be appropriate for whatever poses the

greater hazards. Normally, the hazards posed by the electric power

generation installation would be greater than those posed by the

utilization installation.)

(3) In the electrical safety-related work practices rulemaking,

OSHA found that electric utility employees face a significant risk of

injury due to hazards posed by installations that are not used for

electric power generation. After reviewing all the evidence in the

record of that rulemaking, the Agency determined that the risk of

electrocution caused by a hazard covered by Subpart S is about the same

as or slightly higher in the electric utility industry in comparison to

the risk faced by general industry employees as a whole.

(4) OSHA considered whether the hazards to which employees working

in electric utility plants are comparable to those faced by employees

working in other general industry workplaces covered by subpart S. In

general, the hazards faced by electric utility employees working on or

near electric utilization installations in generating plants are not

unique. With respect to installations in electric power generation

plants that are covered by Subpart S, OSHA concluded in the electrical

safety-related work practices rulemaking that the hazards from those

installations faced by electric utility employees are identical to

those faced by other general industry employees. There is nothing

special about a lighting installation, for example, in a generating

plant that would make the hazards there any different from those in

other workplaces.

(5) Electric utilization circuits in generating plants do pose

unique hazards if the circuits are commingled with installations of

power generation equipment or circuits and if the commingled generation

equipment or circuits present greater electrical hazards than those

posed by the utilization equipment or circuits alone (such as exposure

to higher voltages or lack of overcurrent protection). Under this

condition, the work practices to be used would have to conform to

Sec. 1910.269 rather than Secs. 1910.332 through 1910.335, and the

Subpart S work practices standard does not apply. (See the notes to

Sec. 1910.331(c)(1).)

No new evidence on this issue was introduced in the present

rulemaking. The scope of the Subpart S installation and work practice

requirements was the subject of two previous rulemakings (46 FR 4034

and 55 FR 31984).16 In those rulemakings, EEI and other electric

utility representatives raised the issue of whether or not electric

utility utilization installations at electric power generation

facilities should be covered by Subpart S. OSHA concluded that these

installations would be covered under Subpart S. The Agency is not

reconsidering this issue in the present rulemaking.

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

\1\6 The issue of whether electric utilities are covered by

OSHA's electrical installation requirements was also addressed in

the rulemaking on the electrical standards for construction (Subpart

K of Part 1926, 51 FR 25294).

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

OSHA is deciding in this rulemaking (1) whether compliance with

Sec. 1910.269 can be considered as protecting employees to a degree

equivalent to compliance with subpart S with respect to work practices

and installation covered by subpart S and (2) whether the requirements

of subpart S should be incorporated into Sec. 1910.269.

With respect to whether Sec. 1910.269 can be considered as

protective as subpart S, OSHA notes that final Sec. 1910.269 contains

very few requirements relating to the design of electrical

installations. (Whether or not final Sec. 1910.269 should include

additional electrical installation requirements is addressed later in

this section of the preamble.) The only such requirements are contained

in paragraphs (u) and (v) and relate to the guarding of live parts and

to access to and workspace around electric equipment. These

requirements, although similar in nature to corresponding provisions in

subpart S (Sec. 1910.303 (g) and (h)), are not as protective as their

Subpart S counterparts. For example, Sec. 1910.269(u)(5)(i) and

(v)(5)(i) require live parts operating at more than 150 volts to be

guarded. By contrast, Sec. 1910.303(g)(2)(i) requires guarding of live

parts operating at 50 volts or more. Clearly, the Subpart S provision

is more protective. Therefore, OSHA will continue to apply the

electrical installation safety requirements contained in Secs. 1910.302

through 1910.308 for utilization systems in electric generating

facilities.

On the other hand, OSHA has concluded that the electrical work

practices required by Sec. 1910.269 can protect employees as well as

certain provisions contained in the electrical safety-related work

practices standard (Secs. 1910.332 through 1910.335). Installations not

meeting the Subpart S design standard demand, in general, more

restrictive safety precautions by employees working on or near them.

Most of the requirements contained in final Sec. 1910.269 are more

stringent than comparable provisions of Secs. 1910.331 through

1910.335. For example, paragraph (l)(9) of final Sec. 1910.269 requires

non-current carrying metal parts of equipment to be treated as

energized unless the parts have been determined to be grounded. This

type of requirement is not contained in subpart S because such metal

parts are required to be grounded when they pose a hazard to employees.

For this reason, OSHA can consider compliance with these more stringent

provisions as compliance with the subpart S work practice requirements.

However, subpart S contains work practices that are beyond the scope of

Sec. 1910.269 and are thus not covered here. For example, requirements

pertaining to unqualified employees working near exposed live parts and

to the use of electric utilization equipment are simply not addressed

in final Sec. 1910.269. For this reason, OSHA cannot simply accept

compliance with Sec. 1910.269 as being compliance with all of

Secs. 1910.331 through 1910.335 for all employees, whether qualified or

unqualified.

OSHA has reviewed the two standards to determine which provisions

of subpart S could be considered as being met by an employer complying

with final Sec. 1910.269. Based on this review, the Agency has

concluded that the hazards addressed by Sec. 1910.333(c) and

Sec. 1910.335 (covering work on or near exposed energized parts and

safeguards for personnel protection, respectively), with respect to

qualified employees only, are adequately covered by final

Sec. 1910.269. The other provisions of the subpart S work practices

standard either relate extensively to the protection of unqualified

employees or relate to equipment generally not covered under

Sec. 1910.269. Paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B) of final Sec. 1910.269 contains

a note incorporating these concepts and reading as follows:

Note 2: Work practices performed by qualified persons and

conforming to Sec. 1910.269 of this part are considered as complying

with Sec. 1910.333(c) and Sec. 1910.335 of this part.

For consistency, OSHA is adding similar language to a new note

under Sec. 1910.331(c)(1).

With respect to the issue of whether the requirements of subpart S

should be incorporated into Sec. 1910.269, Edison Electric Institute

submitted an alternative standard that should be applied, they

suggested, to all electrical safety within a generating station in lieu

of subpart S (Ex. 3-112, 28, 62-33; DC Tr. 940-979). Representing EEI,

Mr. J. Frederick Doering explained the rationale behind their suggested

paragraph:

EEI reviewed the proposal's lack of coverage addressed to

electrical work in power generation. There were only four items in

the proposed section (v) covering electrical items.

The EEI proposal had 26 items--the EEI/IBEW proposal.

While nine of the proposed 1910.269 paragraphs (a), (d), (i),

(j), (l), (o), (s), (t), and (w) have rules that provide some

guidance to power plant electrical work, there's very little on

design or electrical work practices in power generation facilities.

* * * * *

We have no dispute that electrical safety in power plants needs

to be regulated. In fact, as we say, we think proposed subpart R is

inadequate to the extent it would not have addressed these issues.

But we want to try to find a way to get all of the regulation of

power plant electrical safety in one place--this standard. That's

one of the reasons why we have written proposed section (vv).

Another reason, of course, is that subpart S, Parts I and

proposed Part II, contain many provisions which are inappropriate

for power plants, largely due to the fact that these sections were

drawn from the National Electrical Code. We cannot overemphasize

that the electrical systems in power plants are engineered in great

detail by experienced engineering staffs, making use of a large

number of consensus standards and other sources, covering the

material, the equipment, system design, and so forth.

* * * * *

We are concerned that one reason OSHA did not include a detailed

section on electrical safety in power plants in this proposed

standard is that it is considering regulating some portion of power

plant work under subpart S. We are also concerned that OSHA believes

there are certain hazards in power plants which are properly

addressed in subpart S.

We have attempted to make our proposed section (vv) as

comprehensive as possible, to address the issues of electrical

safety which we know exist in power plants. Therefore, to help the

agency understand how our proposal was constructed, and to assure

the agency that relevant safety issues are addressed in the

standard, we want to show you the sources from which we drew in

putting this proposed section (vv) together.

Our hope is that from review, the agency will see that we have

covered all of the pertinent electrical safety issues in power

plants in our draft, and that it is included in the final standard--

and that if it is included in the final standard, there will be no

need for OSHA to refer to any other standard to regulate electrical

safety in utility plants. [DC Tr. 940-944]

OSHA does not believe that the proposal contained too few

provisions related to electrical safety in power plants.17 All of

the general electrical safety requirements in Sec. 1910.269 apply,

including paragraphs (d) and (m) on deenergizing electric circuits,

paragraph (i) on portable tools, paragraph (l) on work on or near live

parts, and paragraph (n) on grounding. Additionally, Subpart S of Part

1910 contains many requirements that are applicable to electrical

safety in electric utility power generating stations. OSHA believes

that the electrical safety-related work practices contained in final

Sec. 1910.269 and in Secs. 1910.332 through 1910.335 sufficiently

protect employees from electrical hazards caused by poor work practices

associated with electric power generation, transmission, and

distribution installations. Only in the area of electric power

generation, transmission, and distribution installation design is there

any deficiency in employee protection.

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

\1\7 The only significant area that is addressed only to a minor

degree is the design and installation of electric power generation

circuits and equipment. Paragraphs (v)(3) and (v)(5) contain rules

on access to working space around electric equipment and on guarding

of live parts, respectively. These provisions do apply to the design

of generation circuits and equipment, but there are no others.

As noted earlier, OSHA relied heavily on the EEI/IBEW draft

standard in the development of proposed Sec. 1910.269. Their draft

contained few requirements on electrical design, for either the

generating station or the transmission and distribution system.

Therefore, OSHA also proposed few provisions in this area, even

though much of the National Electrical Safety Code relates to

electrical design safety.

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

The Agency has reviewed the new EEI material on electrical safety

in generating plants in order to determine if it should be incorporated

into the final rule. The Agency compared the submission to requirements

in subpart S that are currently being applied to generating plants to

ascertain whether or not the EEI provisions would be as protective as

the existing OSHA standards.

By their own accounting, EEI indicated that member companies apply

less than 50 percent of the electrical installation requirements of

Subpart S for utilization systems at their power plants (DC Tr. 946-

948). No justification (other than that the provision was not

applicable in power plants) was given for the omission of such

important requirements as: Illumination of working space

(Sec. 1910.303(g)(1)(v)); guarding of live parts operating between 50

and 150 volts to ground (Sec. 1910.303(g)(2)); outlet devices

(Sec. 1910.304(b)(2)); grounding connections (Sec. 1910.304(f)(3));

grounding of hand-held, motor-operated tools, cord- and plug-connected

appliances used in damp or wet locations, and

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.