“SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant,v.CLEVELAND ELECTRICILLUMINATING COMPANY,Respondent.UTILITY WORKERS UNION OFAMERICA, LOCAL 270,Authorized EmployeeRepresentative.OSHRC DOCKET NO. 84-0593_DECISION_Before: BUCKLEY, Chairman; AREY, Commissioner.BY THE COMMISSION:The Secretary of Labor cited Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company(\”Cleveland\” or \”CEI\”), a public utility providing electricity innortheast Ohio, for violating the Occupational Safety and Health Act of1970, 29 U.S.C. ? 651-678 (\”the Act\”) by exposing some of its employeesto the hazard of falling while they were undergoing training. Becausethe administrative law judge who heard the case concluded that CEI’straining practices were necessary to give employees the experience,confidence, and steadiness they would need for the work they were beingtrained to perform, he vacated the citation. The union representing theaffected employees petitioned the Commission to review the judge’sdecision, and review was directed. We reverse.ICleveland’s Electrical Construction and Maintenance (EC&M) Departmentbuilds, repairs, and maintains the generating plants and substations inthe company’s electrical distribution system. All construction,maintenance, and repair on these substations is performed by employeescalled mechanics, who often work on metal trestles called \”bridges\” atheights as much as 65 feet above the ground. The mechanics are requiredto wear body belts and lanyards and to tie off the lanyards when theyare working at a specific location an a bridge. While the mechanics aremoving to and from these work stations, however, they cannot tie off.Under the standard before us, \”other safeguards shall be employed\” whenit is infeasible to tie off.[[1\/]] The parties stipulated, however, thatit frequently is not feasible to use safety nets or lines to protect themechanics when they are working on bridges, so that they must movearound on the bridges without fall protection.Before employees can become EC&M mechanics, they must first serve asapprentice mechanics. Their apprenticeship includes a training programduring which they are required to move across bridges at progressivelygreater heights without fall protection. It is this aspect of thetraining program that the Secretary has cited. The Secretary assertsthat employees who are inexperienced in negotiating the bridges shouldnot be exposed to the danger of falling, while the company argues thatthey must be exposed in order to acclimate them to working under \”real\”conditions and to build their confidence in their ability to negotiatethe bridges at heights without fall protection.There are two major issues in this case. The first is whether theconstruction standards in Part 1926 of 29 C.F.R., including the citedconstruction, standard section 1926.951(b), apply to the trainingactivities in question here. The second is whether the company’stestimony that it was necessary to perform the training without fallprotection in order to simulate real working conditions establishes avalid defense for its failure to protect its employees from falling.IISection 1926.951 is found in Subpart V of Part 1926, which contains thefollowing provisions:? 1926.950 General requirements.(a) Application. The Occupational Safety and Health standards containedin this Subpart V shall apply to the construction of electrictransmission and distribution lines and equipment.(1) As used in this Subpart V the term of \”construction\” includes theerection of new electric transmission and distribution lines andequipment, and the alteration, conversion, and improvement of existingelectric transmission and distribution lines and equipment.The general industry standards found in Part 1910 of 29 C.F.R. containsimilar provisions:? 1910.12 Construction work.(a) Standards. The standards prescribed in Part 1926 of this chapter areadopted as occupational safety and health standards under section 6 ofthe Act and shall apply, according to the provisions thereof, to everyemployment and place of employment of every employee engaged inconstruction work. Each employer shall protect the employment and placesof employment of each of his employees engaged in construction work bycomplying with the appropriate standards prescribed in this paragraph.(b) Definition. For purposes of this section, \”construction work\” meanswork for construction, alteration, and\/or repair, including painting anddecorating. See discussion of these terms in ? 1926.13 of this title.(d) For the purposes of this part, to the extent that it may not alreadybe included in paragraph (b) of this section, \”construction work\”includes the erection of new electric transmission and distributionlines and equipment, and the alteration, conversion, and improvement ofthe existing transmission and distribution lines and equipment.It is clear from the language of these provisions that some of the workthe EC&M mechanics normally perform–construction and improvement ofsubstations and generating plants–is, by definition, \”constructionwork.\” The question, however, is whether training the apprentices toperform these activities is also, by extension, \”construction work.\” Wethink it is.CEI argues that the employees are not performing any work, that all theyare doing is walking back and forth across the bridges to develop theirconfidence in their ability to do the work they will be assigned at somepoint in the future. We think this is too narrow a reading of the term\”work.\” The Commission has rejected similar arguments. See North BerryConcrete Corp., 13 BNA OSHC 2055, 1988 CCH OSHD ? 28,444 (No. 86-163,1989)(work necessarily includes getting to and from the work station);Gelco Builders, Inc., 77 OSAHRC 203\/B14, 6 BNA OSHC 1104, 1977-78 CCHOSHD ? 22,353 (No. 14505, 1977)(same); Salah & Pecci Construction Co.,78 OSAHRC 50\/A13, 6 BNA OSHC 1688, 1978 CCH OSHD ? 22,807 (No. 15769,1978)(\”working from an aerial lift\” includes being transported to andfrom the work level). The apprentices are required by Cleveland toundergo this training as a prerequisite to becoming mechanics. They arepaid for their time. The company itself argues that training isnecessary to the apprentices’ performance of their future duties. Wetherefore conclude that the training constitutes \”work.\”We also conclude that, since the apprentices are being trained toconstruct and repair substations and generating plants, the \”work\” theywere doing constitutes \”work for construction, alteration, and\/orrepair\” within the meaning of 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.12(b). Under Commissionprecedent, the construction standards in Part 1926 apply to operations\”that are an integral or necessary part of construction work. RoyalLogging Co., 79 OSAHRC 84\/A2, 7 BNA OSHC 1744, 1979 CCH OSHD ? 23,914(No. 15169, 1979), aff’d, 645 F-2d 822 (9th Cir. 1981). Based on thecompany’s own assertions, we find that the training of the apprenticemechanics was an integral and necessary prerequisite to their doing theconstruction work to which they would later be assigned Cleveland’straining operation was therefore required to comply with the standardsin Subpart V.CEI argues that the construction standards in Part 1926 cannot apply toits training because the activity took place at a separate trainingfacility where no construction work was being done. It is true that thelower two bridges used in the training had been erected away from, theequipment in use and were used solely for training, but the training wasconducted at an operating substation, and the highest bridge was locatedover actual operating equipment. We are aware that, since CEI filed itsbrief, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in which Ohio islocated, has issued a decision in Brock v. Cardinal Industries, Inc.,828 F.2d 373 (6th Cir. 1987), in which it held that there must be somenexus between the work activity and a construction site for Part 1926 toapply. We believe, however, that the rationale of the Court in CardinalIndustries ought not to be extended to the circumstances which arepresent in this case. We believe there is sufficient nexus between thetraining which was being conducted and an activity covered by thestandards that the training is covered by the standards in Subpart V.IIIThe next question we must resolve is whether the judge correctlyconcluded that the purported need to simulate the actual conditionsunder which the mechanics sometimes have to work justified exposing theapprentices to the hazard of falling during their training. We findnothing in the Occupational Safety and Health Act, in Commissionprecedent, or in this record that would justify exposing employees to ahazard in the name of training.The record indicates that the position of EC&M mechanic is a desirablejob in the company and that openings are usually filled by CEI employeesfrom other departments who apply for transfer to the EC&M department.Those selected must serve a two-year apprenticeship, which includestraining in the duties and functions of an EC&M mechanic. BeforeCleveland instituted this training program, apprentices were simply sentaloft to learn their jobs. In 1973 or 1974, the company decided that itwas necessary to train its apprentices to work at heights before sendingthem into the field, and this program was begun.The classroom training covers the rules and requirements of the job,followed by two days of outdoor training in climbing. The classroominstruction covers climbing techniques and methods of traversing thebridges. it covers the use and care of safety equipment, including bodybelts and lanyards. It also includes an explanation of when and how theyshould tie off their body belts and when this is not feasible.The outdoor instruction begins with the instructor demonstrating how towalk across the top of a bridge.[[2\/]] At the time of the inspection,training began with the employees walking a bridge twenty-five feet fromthe ground.[[3\/]] To start, ropes are strung along each side of thebridge about waist height, and each apprentice crosses the bridge atleast a dozen times, until he and the instructor are satisfied that theapprentice can perform this exercise comfortably. At that point, one ofthe ropes is taken down and the apprentice again crosses the bridgeuntil he is able to do it comfortably. The rope is then removed and theapprentice repeats the procedure. When all the apprentices in the classhave performed satisfactorily at twenty-five feet, they move to thethirty-six-foot bridge, where the same steps are repeated.The next day, the apprentices are given time to practice, with orwithout the ropes, until they feel ready to be tested on thefifty-six-foot bridge, which is in an unused part of the actualdistribution system. To \”graduate,\” an apprentice must cross that bridgeto the midway point, climb down the side of the bridge and tie off hissafety belt properly, then release himself, climb back to the top of thebridge, and finish crossing the bridge. No rope is used an this bridge,and, unlike the other two bridges, the fifty-six-foot bridge cannot havenets suspended beneath it.The controversy is whether CEI must train its apprentice mechanicswithout safety nets.[[4\/]] Several witnesses on each side addressed thisquestion, and the parties have argued it at length. Cleveland assertsthat the purpose of the training is to help the apprentices overcometheir fear of heights and that the training is designed to simulate the\”real life\” conditions the apprentices will encounter on the job andthereby to develop the apprentices’ skill and confidence so that theycan function safely when they go into the field. The main theme of CEI’sargument is that using nets during training would give the apprentices afalse sense of security by giving them a crutch that they would not haveout on the field. CEI witnesses testified that they were familiar withthe practices of other electric utilities and that none of them usedsafety nets during training.The primary danger that concerned Cleveland was that an apprentice whohad not had this training would \”freeze.\” One witness, a mechanic whohad been an apprentice before this training was instituted, testifiedthat he had \”frozen\” early in his career, while another witnesstestified that he had once had to go up and \”talk down\” an apprenticewho had \”frozen.\” His testimony indicates that he was afraid theapprentice would grab him and cause them both to fall. The consensus ofCleveland’s witnesses was that, once the apprentices had been given thechance to practice and to develop their confidence and skill, walkingthe bridges without fall protection was not hazardous.The Utility Workers Union of America, which participated in the hearing,elicited testimony that many CEI mechanics do not walk the tops ofbridges but cross to their work stations some other way. It wasestablished, however, that most of the mechanics do walk the tops andthat is sometimes the only way get to a job.The Secretary presented evidence that nets could be suspended beneaththe bridges, and the Secretary argues that this should be done. TheSecretary asserts that the very employees who need fall protection themost, inexperienced apprentices who are likely to experience strong fearor panic, are being forced to work without any protection in order toqualify for a job.The administrative law judge accepted CEI’s position. He found thatCleveland’s method of training was necessary to protect the apprenticesagainst \”exposure to the hazards alleged.\” The judge also concluded thatthe training program complied with the requirements of 29 C.F.R. ?1926.21(b)(2).[[5\/]]Since we have determined that CEI’s training was governed by section1926-951(b), which requires that employees use body belts or othersafeguards, and it is undisputed that CEI’s apprentices were not usingany fall protection, the question we must resolve is whether anything inthe law or the record excuses that failure to comply with the standard.Since Cleveland’s argument is in the nature of an affirmative defense,the burden is on the company to establish that its practice wasjustified by the circumstances. We find that CEI has not carried thatburden.Commission precedent recognizes two affirmative defenses that arguablyapply to CEI’s argument: infeasibility of compliance and greater hazard.We must therefore determine whether CEI has established either defense.The Commission has held that an employer who has failed to comply withan occupational safety or health standard may avoid liability for thatnoncompliance by establishing that compliance was infeasible under thecircumstances. Dun-Par Engineered Form CO., 86 OSAHRC 37\/A3, 12 BNA OSHC1949, 1986 CCH OSHD ? 27,650 (1986) rev’d on other grounds, 843 F.2d1135 (8th Cir. 1988). Having reviewed the evidence, we conclude that CEIhas not established that using some form of fall protection during itstraining was infeasible, particularly on the two lower bridges.The company’s management witnesses who testified that it was necessaryto simulate actual working conditions during the training were merelystating their opinions. None of them had any training or specialexpertise in the psychology of overcoming fear. None of then gave anybasis for his conclusion that using nets or other fall protection duringtraining would adversely affect the apprentices. Certainly, theassertion that using fall protection during training would give theapprentices a false sense of security sounds reasonable at first blush,but there was neither factual support nor expert testimony to supportthat assertion. Nor was there any explanation of what the likelyconsequences of this sense of security would be. Since the purpose ofthe training is to build the apprentices’ confidence in their ability towalk the bridges, the use of fall protection might equally help toincrease their confidence. There is simply not enough hard evidence toenable us to conclude that CEI’s training would be any less effective orthat there would be any harmful effect when the apprentices go into thefield.The Commission has also held that an employer’s failure to comply with astandard may be excused when it is shown that compliance with the wouldhave created a greater hazard to employees. To prove a greater hazarddefense, an employer must show that (1) the hazards of compliance with astandard are greater than the hazards of noncompliance, (2) alternativemeans of protection proposed by the Secretary were unavailable, and (3)a variance was not available or was inappropriate. Lauhoff Grain Co., 87OSAHRC 5\/A3, 13 BNA OSHC 1084, 1987 CCH OSHD ? 27,814 (1987). Inaddition, the applicable standard, section 1926.951(b)(1), contains itsown greater hazard provision, that belts must be worn \”except where suchuse creates a greater hazard to the safety of the employees, in whichcase other safeguards shall be employed.\”The question is whether CEI has shown that the hazards of complianceoutweigh \”the hazards of noncompliance. The danger from walkingfifty-six feet off the ground along a four-foot-wide trellis (or eventhirty-six or twenty-five feet high) is evident. We are aware thatCleveland had experienced no falls during its training, but the hazardnevertheless exists. Nothing in the record or in logic shows that thedanger of falling during post-training work is somehow greater than thedanger of falling during the training. The only suggestion that theremight be a greater hazard came from the witness who had once climbed upto \”talk down\” an apprentice who had \”frozen.\” The witness testifiedthat he was afraid that the other employee would \”do something to\” him.Presumably, he feared that the employee would grab him, causing both tofall. This speculation does not, however, establish the existence of agreater hazard. While we can sympathize with the fears experienced byboth the witness and the employee who froze, it has not been shown thatan employee trained with nets and then sent into the field is morelikely to freeze or fall than an employee who is being or has beentrained without nets. We therefore find that the greater hazard defensehas not been proved.CEI has presented convincing evidence that most if not all otherelectric utilities that conduct similar training also do so without fallprotection. That situation does not affect Cleveland’s legal obligationto comply with the standard. Evidence as to industry practice isappropriate only in applying a \”reasonable person\” test to curepotential vagueness in a standard; it should not be considered when, asit does here, the standard prescribes the required conduct in specificterms. Cleveland Consolidated, Inc., 87 OSAHRC 7\/A3, 13 BNA OSHC 1114,1117, 1987 CCH OSHD ? 27,829, p. 36,428 (No. 84-696, 1987), and casescited at nn. 3 & 4.The essence of Cleveland’s position is that it must train itsapprentices without nets in order for that training to be effective. Wesimply cannot find that the record supports that proposition.IVThe last question is whether, as the judge concluded, Cleveland wasexcused from complying with section 1926.951(b)(1) because it wascomplying with another standard, 29 C.F.R. ? 1926.21(b)(2), thatrequired it to train its employees to recognize and avoid hazards.Cleveland argues that its non-compliance was \”justified\” because ittaught the apprentices how to control and eliminate exposure to injuryduring their subsequent work. We hold that the judge erred.Sections 1926.951(b)(1) and 1926.21(b)(2) are not incompatible; anemployer can comply with both and, in fact, has a legal obligation to doso. While training employees as required by 1926.21(b)(2), an employermust take all necessary and feasible measures to protect them from thehazards they are being trained to recognize and avoid.VWe find that CEI violated 29 C.F.R. ? 1926.951(b)(1). We deem a penaltyof $100 to be appropriate. Under section 17(j) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. ?666(i), we must consider four factors in determining an appropriatepenalty: the size of the employer, the gravity of the violation, thegood faith of the employer, and the employer’s history of priorviolations. Here, a substantial consideration is that CEI developed thistraining program in the good faith belief that it was promoting thesafety of its employees. The company patterned its training programafter those of other public utilities in its industry, and the gravityof the violation is diminished by the fact that the apprentices hadropes to hold for much of their training on the bridges.The decision of the administrative law judge is therefore reversed. Weaffirm. the citation, as amended, for a violation of 29 C.F.R. ?1926.951(b)(1) and assess a penalty of $100.00.FOR THE COMMISSIONRay H. Darling, Jr. Executive SecretaryDATED: April 18, 1989————————————————————————SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainantv.CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO.,Respondent,andUTILITY WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO,Authorized EmployeeRepresentative.OSHRC, Docket No. 84-0593APPEARANCES:Gary A. Boncella, Esquire, Office of the Solicitor, U. S. Department ofLabor, Cleveland, Ohio, on behalf of complainantTomas Barnard and Kenneth B. Stark, Esquires, Cleveland, Ohio, on behalfof respondentMr. Michael Coughlin, Utility Workers Union of North America, Local 270,Cleveland, Ohio, on behalf of authorized employee representative_DECISION AND ORDER_BRADY, Judge: This proceeding is brought pursuant to section 10 of theOccupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (\”Act\”) to contest a citationissued by the Secretary of Labor (\”Secretary\”) pursuant to section 9(a)of the Act.Prior to commencement of the hearing, the Secretary’s motions to vacatethe alleged violation of 29 C.F.R. ? 1926.21(b)(2), and to allege in thealternative to item 1(a), violations of 29 C.F.R. ? 1926.28(a) and ?1926.951(b)(1), were granted.The underlying facts in this case are not in dispute. Respondent, anelectrical public utility, serves customers in northeast Ohio with fourgenerating plants which transmit electricity to various substations.From high voltage transmission substations, the electricity is reducedin voltage and transmitted to distribution substations. Respondentoperates approximately 40 transmission substations and 175 distributionstations.Respondent’s construction and maintenance department builds, installs,maintains and repairs the substations. The duties of this department areperformed by electrical mechanics classified as Electrical MechanicLeaders, Electrical Mechanics Grade I, Electrical Mechanics Grade II andElectrical Apprentices.All mechanics are required to perform work at elevations within thestructure of the substations, including changing and cleaninginsulators. servicing switches, replacing capacitators, cleaningbushings and repairing defective lines. It is undisputed that themechanics are also required to tie off prior to performing any work.This case concerns the training requirements for apprentice mechanics.The apprentice is the entry level position which generally providesassistance to the higher classified mechanics. Employees enter theirapprenticeships by voluntary transfer to the department, testing, andthen training. The apprenticeship program lasts two years during whichthe apprentice is given formal classroom training in addition toon-the-job training. Generally, the training program includes substationorientation, structure climbing and use of tools. The training isconducted both in classrooms and on the jobsite. It is the structureclimbing segment of the training that is the subject of the citation.The parties stipulated that due to the configuration of the substations,it would be infeasible to install fall protection for employees movingabout the substation structures in the course of their work (Tr. 363;Ex. R-1 thru R-13). Complainant maintains, however, that fall protectionin the form of safety nets or lifelines are feasible at the trainingsite when trainees are required to walk on top of the substation bridge.Accordingly, the structure climbing training was conducted in violationof the following standards:29 C.F.R. ? 1926.105(a):Safety nets shall be provided when workplaces are more than 25 feetabove the ground or water surface, or other surfaces where the use ofladders, scaffolds, catch platforms, temporary floors, safety lines, orsafety belts is impractical.Or in the alternative:29 C.F.R. ? 1926.28(a):The employer is responsible for requiring the wearing of appropriatepersonal protective equipment in all operations where there is anexposure to hazardous conditions or where this part indicates the needfor using such equipment to reduce the hazards to the employees.And:29 C.F.R. ? 1926.951(b)(1):Personal climbing equipment. (I) Body belts with straps or lanyardsshall be worn to protect employees working at elevated locations onpoles, towers, or other structures except where such use creates agreater hazard to the safety of the employees, in which case othersafeguards shall be employed.The record discloses that after training in electric safety and use ofsafety belts, the training in structure climbing begins. The apprenticeclimbs to the \”box bridge\” on the substation at a level of 25 feet where3\/4- inch ropes are strung on both sides. He traverses the bridge aminimum of 12 times to demonstrate his confidence before one rope isremoved and then the other before he walks the bridge with no ropes assupport. At each phase he crosses the bridge at least 12 times beforemoving to the next and proceeds at his own pace of confidence andcomfort. This procedure is similarly repeated at the 36-foot and 55-footlevels. He also practices use of his safety belt on the side of thebridge at each level (Tr. 384-390).The Secretary argues that inexperienced employees were exposed to fallhazards in being required to walk across the bridges to qualify for jobsthat do not involve that particular activity. [The record does reflectthat walking across the top of a bridge is not necessarily part of themechanic’s job (Tr. 198)]. Mr. James Szakovits, safety specialistsupervisor who conducted the inspection herein, testified that the fallhazard of up to 55 feet could be abated by the installation of safetynets or permanent lines to which safety belts could be attached (Tr. 280).Complainant also asserts that respondent is properly charged under theconstruction standards since the Commission has held they are applicableto power companies. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 75 OSAHRC 16\/200, 5 BNAOSHC 1702, 1974-75 CCH OSHD ? 19,431 (No. 2821, 1975). Therefore, anytraining to perform the work of building or renovating substations andtransmission equipment should be covered by the section.The Commission has held that, in order to establish a violation such asset forth, it is necessary for the Secretary to show by a preponderanceof the evidence that (1) the cited standard applies; (2) there was afailure to comply with the standard; (3) employees had access to theviolative condition; and (4) the cited employer either knew or couldhave known of the condition with the exercise of reasonable diligence.Astra Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., 82 OSAHRC 55\/E9, 9 BNA OSHC 2126,1982 CCH OSHD ? 26,251 (No. 78-6247, 1982); Daniel International Corp.,81 OSAHRC 71\/06, 9 BNA OSHC 2027, 1977-78 CCH OSHD ? 21,679 (No. 76-181,1977).There is no question that Subpart V of the Construction Safety Standardsapply to the construction of electric transmission and distributionlines and equipment. Its application, however, is limited to certainareas of construction as set forth in 29 C.F.R. ? 1926-950(a)(1) as follows:(1) As used in this Subpart V the term \”construction\” includes theerection of new electric transmission and distribution lines andequipment, and the alteration, conversion, and improvement of existingtransmission and distribution lines and equipment.Respondent does not deny application of the standards to constructionwork but argues that its training activities in no way involvesconstruction work within the context of the standards. In support ofthis argument, it is pointed out that the Commission has extended thescope of the standards in Part 1926 to include only actual constructionwork or related activities that are an integral and necessary part ofthe work. Royal Logging Company, 79 OSAHRC 84\/A2, 7 BNA OSHC 1744, 1979CCH OSHD ? 23,914 (No. 15169, 1979).It is clear respondent’s training procedure was not actual constructionwork and was not part of the actual construction to be performed at thesubstations. Generally, the determination as to what constitutesconstruction work depends on the activities or functions engaged in bythe employer in the overall work process. See Bechtel Power Corp., 76OSAHRC 38\/E2, 4 BNA OSHC 1005, 1975-76 CCH OSHD ? 20,503 (No. 5064,1976) and Bertrand Goldberg Associates, 76 OSAHRC 102\/A9, 4 BNA OSHC1587, 1976-77 CCH OSHD ? 20,995 (No. 1165, 1976).In this case, clearly the training function or activity was directedsolely toward the employee becoming a craftsman in the constructionindustry. His performance was \”directly and vitally\” related toconstruction work, so much so that his employment was contingent onsuccessful completion of the program.Therefore, under the circumstances, actual physical construction work isnot a necessary element that must be shown if the activity is anintegral and necessary part thereof.Even though the standards have application to the facts in this case, afailure to comply has not been established. The facts reveal that due tothe configuration of the substation structure, fall protection was notfeasible and it is not disputed that employees must tie off to a stableobject prior to performing any work. Also, when moving about thestructure, experienced mechanics usually walked. In light of theforegoing, it was explained that the goal of the training was to helpthe apprentices become proficient in walking in an atmosphere similar tothe on-the-job conditions. Clearly, there is merit to the contentionthat an untrained employee would be faced with a hazard when walkingacross the bridges without fall protection. The evidence, however,sufficiently establishes that the entire training process provided thenecessary experience, confidence and steadiness for protection againstexposure to the hazards alleged. Testimony persuasively shows that sincethe formal training program began In 1973, approximately 50 apprenticeshave successfully completed it without the occurrence of falls,accidents, or injuries in connection with the climbing training. (Tr.307-308). This proficiency in climbing also demonstrates that theemployees have overcome the serious problem of \”freezing\” and the needfor rescue efforts often associated with the fear involved (Tr. 393)additionally, respondent’s procedure for training apprentices appears tobe in total compliance with section 1926.21(b)(2) which requires that:(2) The employer shall instruct each employee in the recognition andavoidance of unsafe conditions and the regulations applicable to hiswork environment to control or eliminate any hazards or other exposureto illness or injury.Consistent with the requirements of the standard, respondent’s climbingtraining was initiated for the purpose of providing instruction tocontrol or eliminate exposure to injury.The citation is, therefore, vacated._FINDINGS OF FACT_1. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., at all times hereinaftermentioned, maintained a place of business at a Clinton Road electricalsubstation in Brooklyn Ohio.2. On February 15, 1984, authorized representatives of the Secretaryconducted an inspection of respondent’s aforesaid workplace. As aresult, respondent was issued a citation and notice of proposed penalty.3. Respondent operates approximately 215 substations with approximately100 electrical mechanics performing the construction and maintenanceactivities.4. The electrical mechanics are divided into four job classifications:Electrical Mechanic Leader, Electrical Mechanic Grade I, ElectricalMechanic Grade II, and Electrical Apprentice. The Electrical Apprenticeis the entry level position, and the apprentice generally assists thehigher classification mechanics.5. All mechanics are required to perform work at elevations within thesubstation structure. However, due to the configuration of thesubstations, it is not feasible to install fall protection for employeesmoving about the structures.6. Respondent’s two-year apprentice training program consists in partthat trainees be required to walk across the top of the bridge of thestructure at elevations of 25, 36 and 55 feet, respectively.7. The apprentice training program is an activity which is necessary andvital to the construction work process.8. The training program provides the apprentices with the experience,steadiness and confidence for adequate protection against exposure tofall hazards._CONCLUSIONS OF LAW_1. Cleveland and Electric Illuminating Co., at all times pertinenthereto, was an employer engaged in a business affecting commerce withinthe meaning of section 3(5) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of1970, and the Commission has jurisdiction of the parties and subjectmatter herein pursuant to section 10(c) of the Act.2. Respondent is, and at all times pertinent hereto, required to complywith the safety and health regulations promulgated by the Secretarypursuant to section 6(a) of the Act.3. Respondent, at the time of the aforesaid inspection, was not inviolation of 29 C.F.R. ? 1926.105(a), 29 C.F.R. ? 1926.28(a), and 29C.F.R. ? 1926.951(b)(1)._ORDER_On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law,and the entire record, it is hereby ORDERED:The citation is hereby vacated.PAUL L. BRADYJudgeDate: May 8, 1985FOOTNOTES:[[1\/]]The standard, 29 C.F.R. ? 1926.951(b), provides:? 1926.951 Tools and protective equipment.(b) Personal climbing equipment. (1) Body belts with straps or lanyardsshall be worn to protect employees working at elevated locations onpoles, towers, or other structures except where such use creates agreater hazard to the safety of the employees, in which case othersafeguards shall be employed.The Secretary originally cited the company for a willful violation of 29C.F.R. ? 1926.105(a), but moved at the hearing to amend the pleadings toallege in the alternative a serious violation of that standard or either29 C.F.R. ? 1926.28(a) or 29 C.F.R. ? 1926.951(b)(1). That motion wasgranted. In their briefs, both parties agree that ? 1926.951(b)(1) isthe standard that is most specifically applicable to the conditionscited here.[[2\/]] The bridges are rectangular frames that are usually four feetwide but vary from two feet high by two feet wide to six feet high byfour feet wide. They consist of four long beams connected by a series ofdiagonal cross-pieces. Each diagonal meets another diagonal on eachside. The greatest distance between the diagonals is about eighteen inches.[[3\/]] After the inspection but before the hearing, Cleveland alteredits training program to add a new first step. The employees now begin ona bridge eight feet high, then move to the twenty-five-foot-high bridge.[[4\/]] Section 1926.951(b) requires the use of body belts or \”othersafeguards.\” Although, some reference was made at the hearing to otherother methods of fall protection, it is clear that what the Secretarywants here is safety nets. That is the means of protection that theparties litigated.[[5\/]] That standard provides:? 1926.21 Safety training and education.* * *(b) Employer responsibility.* * *(2) The employer shall instruct each employee in the recognition andavoidance of unsafe conditions and the regulations applicable to hiswork environment to control or eliminate any hazards or other exposureto illness or injury.”