Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18973 

2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 

76137; telephone: (817) 222–5122; fax: 817– 

222–5961; email: sharon.y.miles@faa.gov. 

(2) For operations conducted under a Part 

119 operating certificate or under Part 91, 

Subpart K, we suggest that you notify your 

principal inspector, or lacking a principal 

inspector, the manager of the local flight 

standards district office or certificate holding 

district office before operating any aircraft 

complying with this AD through an AMOC. 

(f) Additional Information 

The subject of this AD is addressed in the 

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) AD 

CF–2010–33, dated September 30, 2010. 

(g) Subject 

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) 

Code: 5302, Rotorcraft tailboom. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 21, 

2012. 

Kim Smith, 

Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7542 Filed 3–28–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1926, 

and 1928 

[Docket Nos. OSHA–2010–0058, OSHA– 

2010–0059] 

RIN 1218–AC51 

Reinforced Concrete in Construction, 

and Preventing Backover Injuries and 

Fatalities 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Labor. 

ACTION: Request for information (RFI). 

SUMMARY: OSHA is aware of employee 

safety risks in two areas, reinforcing 

operations in concrete work 

(construction only) and fatal backovers 

by vehicles and equipment (all 

industries), and is requesting 

information from the public on these 

risks. This RFI requests information that 

will assist the Agency in determining 

what steps, if any, it can take to prevent 

injuries and fatalities in these two areas. 

DATES: Submit comments and other 

information by June 27, 2012. All 

submissions must bear a postmark or 

provide other evidence of the 

submission date. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments and 

additional materials using any of the 

following methods (submissions relating 

to Reinforced Concrete in Construction 

to Docket No. OSHA–2010–0058, and 

submissions relating to Preventing 

Backover Injuries and Fatalities to 

Docket No. OSHA–2010–0059): 

Electronically. Submit comments and 

attachments electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, which is the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the 

instructions online for making 

electronic submissions. 

Facsimile. Commenters may fax 

submissions, including attachments, 

that are no longer than 10 pages in 

length to the OSHA Docket Office at 

(202) 693–1648; OSHA does not require 

hard copies of these documents. 

Commenters must submit lengthy 

attachments that supplement these 

documents (e.g., studies, journal 

articles) to the OSHA Docket Office, 

Technical Data Center, Room N–2625, 

U.S. Department of Labor, 200 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20210. These attachments must 

clearly identify the commenter’s name, 

date, subject, and docket number (i.e., 

for Reinforced Concrete in Construction, 

OSHA–2010–0058, and for Preventing 

Backover Injuries and Fatalities, OSHA– 

2010–0059) so the Agency can attach 

them to the appropriate comments. 

Regular mail, express delivery, hand 

(courier) delivery, or messenger service. 

Submit a copy of comments and any 

additional material (e.g., studies, journal 

articles) to the OSHA Docket Office, 

Docket No. OSHA–2010–0058 (for 

Reinforced Concrete in Construction), 

Technical Data Center, Room N–2625, 

U.S. Department of Labor, 200 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20210; telephone (202) 693–2350 

(TDY number: (877) 889–5627). For 

submissions relating to Preventing 

Backover Injuries and Fatalities, please 

identify the docket number as OSHA– 

2010–0059. Note that security 

procedures may result in significant 

delays in receiving comments and other 

written materials by regular mail. 

Contact the OSHA Docket Office for 

information about security procedures 

concerning delivery of materials by 

express delivery, hand delivery, or 

messenger service. The hours of 

operation for the OSHA Docket Office 

are 8:15 a.m.–4:45 p.m., e.t. 

Instructions. All submissions must 

include the Agency name and the OSHA 

docket number for this rulemaking; i.e., 

for Reinforced Concrete in Construction, 

Docket No. OSHA–2010–0058, and for 

Preventing Backover Injuries and 

Fatalities, Docket No. OSHA–2010– 

0059. The Agency places all 

submissions, including any personal 

information provided, in the public 

docket without change; this information 

will be available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Therefore, the 

Agency cautions commenters about 

submitting information they do not 

want made available to the public, or 

submitting comments that contain 

personal information (either about 

themselves or others) such as Social 

Security numbers, birth dates, and 

medical data. 

Docket. To read or download 

submissions or other material in the 

docket, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or to the OSHA 

Docket Office at the address above. 

While the Agency lists all documents in 

the docket in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index, some 

information (e.g., copyrighted material) 

is not publicly available to read or 

download through this Web site. All 

submissions, including copyrighted 

material, are available for inspection 

and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. 

Contact the OSHA Docket Office for 

assistance in locating docket 

submissions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Information regarding this Request for 

Information is available from the 

following sources: 

Press inquiries. Contact Frank 

Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office of 

Communications, Room N–3647, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; 

telephone: (202) 693–1999. 

General and technical information. 

Contact Blake Skogland, Office of 

Construction Standards and Guidance, 

OSHA Directorate of Construction, 

Room N–3468, U.S. Department of 

Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 

693–2020; fax: (202) 693–1689. 

Copies of this Federal Register notice. 

Electronic copies are available at 

http://www.regulations.gov. This 

Federal Register notice, as well as news 

releases and other relevant information, 

also are available at OSHA’s Web page 

at http://www.osha.gov. 

Table of Contents of This RFI 

Exhibits Referenced in this RFI 

Reinforced Concrete in Construction, Docket 

No. OSHA–2010–0058 

Preventing Backover Injuries and Fatalities, 

Docket No. OSHA–2010–0059 

Authority and Signature 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Exhibits Referenced in This RFI 

Documents referenced by OSHA in 

this request for information, other than 

OSHA standards and Federal Register 

notices, are in Docket Nos. OSHA– 

2010–0058 (Reinforced Concrete in 

Construction) and OSHA–2010–0059 

(Preventing Backover Injuries and 

Fatalities). The dockets are available at 

http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

18974 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1 Ironworker Management Progressive Action 

Cooperative Trust (IMPACT), National Association 

of Reinforcing Steel Contractors, Concrete 

Reinforcing Steel Institute, Post Tensioning 

Institute, Western Steel Council, Department of 

Reinforcing Ironworkers Advisory Committee, and 

the Center for Construction Research and Training. 

2The document ‘‘Rebar and Post-tensioning 

Deaths from IMIS Database 2000–2009 

Spreadsheet,’’ which is available in the OSHA– 

2010–0058 docket, lists the regulations that Federal 

OSHA and state-plan states cited after investigating 

rebar-related deaths. 

3California adopted its own reinforcing concrete 

regulations, which differ from federal OSHA’s 

standards. The other state-plan states have 

regulations that duplicate Federal OSHA standards, 

but may follow a codification system that differs 

from the Code of Federal Regulations. 

eRulemaking Portal. Most exhibits are 

available at http://www.regulations.gov; 

some exhibits (e.g., copyrighted 

material) are not available to read or 

download from that Web page. 

However, all materials in the dockets 

are available for inspection and copying 

at the OSHA Docket Office, Room N– 

2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC. 

Reinforced Concrete in Construction 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. Events Leading to This Action 

B. Hazards and Accidents 

1. Reinforcing Steel 

2. Post-Tensioning 

C. Applicable Standards 

D. Standards From Other Jurisdictions 

II. Request for Data, Information, and 

Comments 

A. Post-Tensioning Operations 

B. Site Conditions and Roads 

C. Documentation 

D. Reinforcing Steel Operations 

E. General Reinforcing Safety 

F. Impalement 

G. Training 

H. Injuries 

I. Economic Issues 

J. References 

I. Background 

Concrete has strong compression 

strength (is not easily crushed), but 

weak tensile strength (breaks easily 

when stretched); thus, adding 

reinforcement increases concrete’s 

tensile strength, which is particularly 

important in floor or deck construction. 

Without reinforcement, many concrete 

structures and buildings would not be 

possible. Reinforced concrete is 

concrete that uses reinforcing steel bars 

(‘‘rebars’’), reinforcement grids, plates, 

steel tendons, fibers, or other material to 

increase its tensile strength. The 

construction industry uses reinforced 

concrete in building most types of 

commercial, industrial, and residential 

structures; this use includes many types 

of structural components such as slabs, 

walls, beams, columns, and 

foundations. According to estimates 

provided by the National Ready Mixed 

Concrete Association, contractors used 

about 257 million cubic yards of ready 

mixed concrete in 2010 (National Ready 

Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA) 

Fact Sheet), while the Steel 

Manufacturers Association estimates 

that the construction industry used 6.05 

million tons of rebar in reinforced 

concrete in 2010 (Apparent Domestic 

Consumption of Rebar 2010 

Spreadsheet). This RFI will address 

reinforcing concrete construction 

activities. 

A. Events Leading to This Action 

The International Association of 

Bridge, Structural, Ornamental & 

Reinforcing Iron Workers 

(‘‘Ironworkers’’), along with an industry 

coalition of stakeholders,1 petitioned 

OSHA on April 19, 2010, to conduct a 

negotiated rulemaking and publish new 

regulations for reinforcing steel and 

post-tensioning operations. (Letter to 

David Michaels, OSHA, from Joseph 

Hunt, International Association of 

Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and 

Reinforcing Iron Workers.) They 

explained the hazards of reinforcing 

operations, and noted that the use of 

steel-reinforced and post-tensioned 

poured-in-place concrete is likely to 

double its 1990 usage level by 2015. The 

request prompted OSHA to conduct a 

retrospective review of existing rules to 

determine what action, if any, the 

Agency should take to improve safety 

for workers engaged in this type of 

construction. In its review, OSHA found 

little information in the literature on the 

rates of incidents caused by reinforcing 

steel and post-tensioning activities. The 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) does 

not have statistics specific to this 

subject. Consequently, OSHA is issuing 

this RFI to gather more information to 

assess whether the Agency should take 

action to improve worker safety for 

reinforcing concrete activities. 

B. Hazards and Accidents 

OSHA conducted a review of its 

Integrated Management Information 

System (IMIS) incident database to 

determine the number of worker 

fatalities resulting from activities 

working with rebar for concrete 

reinforcement. This work includes 

constructing rebar mats and cages, and 

installing rebar. (Rebar and Posttensioning Deaths from IMIS Database 

2000–2009 Spreadsheet.) This review 

showed that, from 2000–2009, a total of 

30 workers died while performing rebarrelated activities, including five who 

died from impalement injuries, nine 

killed in falls, eight who died when 

rebar cages or columns collapsed, and 

six killed as a result of struck-by 

injuries. There also was one positionalasphyxiation death and one death 

involving a rebar mat collapse. In 

addition, during this period, IMIS data 

showed that one worker died while 

performing post-tensioning operations. 

Many of the rebar-related deaths 

occurred despite the existence of a 

specific standard governing the 

activities involved.2 For example, 

Federal OSHA and state-plan states 

other than California 3 cited 29 CFR 

1926.703(d)(1), which requires 

employers to adequately support 

reinforcing steel for vertical structures 

to prevent overturning and collapse, 

nine times between 2000 and 2009. 

During the same time period, Federal 

OSHA and state-plan states also cited 

employers for various fall protectionrelated regulations in Subpart M—Fall 

Protection 15 times, and 29 CFR 

1926.701(b), which requires the use of 

rebar caps, five times. While capping 

the rebar and using fall protection as 

required likely would prevent many of 

these accidents, it is unclear whether 

these existing standards are adequate to 

fully protect workers involved in 

reinforced concrete operations. For 

example, contractors involved in 

reinforced concrete operations may 

endanger the employees of contractors 

involved in subsequent steel erection or 

masonry work when they remove caps 

from rebar or supports from vertical 

form structures after they complete their 

work and leave the site; such an 

oversight indicates that the existing 

standards may need revision to ensure 

continuity of hazard control at these 

worksites. The Agency will study this 

issue further, and make use of any 

additional information collected from 

this RFI to determine what steps, if any, 

it can take to prevent fatalities and 

injuries related to working with 

reinforced concrete. 

1. Reinforcing Steel 

The construction industry uses 

reinforcing steel in a variety of different 

configurations, which create different 

hazards. Contractors use flexible steel 

wire to tie rebar together for such 

configurations as walls, mats, and cages. 

When tied improperly, these 

configurations can collapse. Formwork 

and decks also are susceptible to 

collapse when not properly installed. In 

addition, improperly anchored walls or 

cages can tip over, subjecting workers to 

fall and struck-by hazards. Vertical 

uncapped rebar can create impalement 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18975 

4At the time of the study’s publication, CPWR 

was the acronym for the Center to Protect Workers 

Rights. It later changed its name to Center for 

Construction Research and Training. 

hazards. Workers also can face struck-by 

and crushing hazards related to 

material-handling when a crane 

operator uses a crane to place preassembled rebar components and does 

not rig the load properly. Suppliers 

deliver, and workers position, rebar 

during the early stages of construction 

when site conditions are typically 

poor—the ground is rutted and uneven, 

which presents tripping hazards, and 

mud and wet or icy conditions create 

slipping hazards. 

The Center for Construction Research 

and Training (CPWR) discussed injuries 

sustained by ironworkers (which CPWR 

defined as ‘‘ironworkers, reinforced 

ironworkers, rodmen, or steelworkers’’) 

in the publication ‘‘Occupational 

Injuries among Construction Workers 

Treated at the George Washington 

University Emergency Department, 

1990–1997’’.4 Although this study did 

not document what these workers were 

doing when injured, their job titles and 

the types of injuries indicate that they 

most likely received their injuries 

during operations involving reinforced 

concrete. Accordingly, this study 

showed that, from November 1, 1990, 

through October 31, 1997, 133 

ironworkers received treatment for 

work-related injuries at the George 

Washington University Emergency 

Department. The most common injuries 

for these ironworkers were struck-by 

injuries (23%), which included injuries 

caused by falling objects. Other common 

injuries were caused by falls (21%), 

sharp objects (18%), and overexertion/ 

strenuous movement (17%). 

Ironworkers were most likely to injure 

fingers, thumbs, hands, and wrists 

(combined 34%). To reduce these types 

of injuries, CPWR recommended 

limiting lifting and carrying objects over 

uneven surfaces, and the frequency of 

moving heavy materials. CPWR also 

recommended improving the efficiency 

of current staging practices, and having 

the workers wear heavy gloves. 

A study from British Columbia found 

similar results for injuries reported by 

concrete-reinforcing workers. 

‘‘Mechanisms of Injury: Concrete 

Reinforcing’’, WorkSafeBC, CU 721012. 

The WorkSafeBC study noted that falls, 

overexertion, and struck-by incidents 

constituted 71% of the injuries reported 

by 465 workers between 2007–2009. 

2. Post-Tensioning 

Post-tensioning poses several unique 

hazards to workers. There are two types 

of post-tensioning systems: Unbonded 

and bonded. In an unbonded posttensioning operation, workers place 

high-strength steel tendons (coated in 

grease and sheathed in plastic) in a 

horizontal form (e.g., to construct a floor 

or slab) before pouring concrete into the 

form; both ends of the tendons protrude 

through the form on opposite sides. In 

a bonded post-tensioning operation, 

contractors pour the concrete around 

plastic, steel, or aluminum ducts. 

Workers then maneuver a set of tendons 

through the ducts and seal the ductwork 

with grout. In both cases, once the 

concrete hardens, workers tension the 

tendons using hydraulic jacks. Workers 

typically tension the tendons between 

30,000 and 50,000 p.s.i. 

One of the most dangerous hazards in 

a post-tensioning operation is the 

struck-by hazard that results from 

tensioning or de-tensioning the tendons, 

especially a flying object propelled by 

the energy released when a tendon 

breaks or a component fails at these 

high pressures. According to OSHA 

IMIS database reports, in 2008, an 

employee died when he was detensioning the tendons. The jack slipped 

and struck the employee in the chest, 

killing him. Ten years earlier, a worker 

died after a flying object struck his right 

arm and the back of his head while he 

was post-tensioning a parking lot ramp. 

C. Applicable Standards 

The following provisions of OSHA’s 

Concrete and Masonry Construction 

standard at 29 CFR part 1926, subpart Q, 

regulate some aspects of reinforcing 

steel and post-tensioning operations: 29 

CFR 1926.701(b) (Reinforcing steel); 29 

CFR 1926.701(c) (Post-tensioning 

operations); and 29 CFR 1926.703(d) 

(Reinforcing steel). 

Subpart M of 29 CFR part 1926 (Fall 

Protection), specifically § 1926.501(b)(5) 

(Formwork and reinforcing steel), 

requires fall protection for workers 

exposed to heights over six feet when 

working on reinforcing steel. 

D. Standards From Other Jurisdictions 

In its research on reinforced steel and 

post-tensioning, OSHA found that, in 

the years since it published 29 CFR part 

1926, subpart Q, various federal 

agencies, state governments, and 

industry associations drafted additional 

regulations and guidelines for 

reinforcing steel and post-tensioning 

operations. A few of the 26 state-plan 

states, which can develop their own 

occupational safety and health 

standards, have regulations regarding 

reinforcing steel and post-tensioning 

operations. California, for instance, has 

several concrete-reinforcing regulations. 

These regulations specify the criteria for 

impalement covers and tests to 

determine whether caps are effective. 

California has detailed requirements for 

rebar caps and troughs, which are long 

wooden forms built to encapsulate the 

exposed ends of rebar, Title 8, CCR 

§ 344.90. California also regulates jobbuilt covers used to protect workers 

from protruding rebar and similar 

projections Title 8, CCR § 1712. In 

addition to impalement devices, 

California requires that contractors use 

a qualified person to install and remove 

guys, supports, and braces (id.). 

Washington State regulates the 

performance of post-tensioning 

activities, which includes requirements 

that: ‘‘deadheads’’ used in posttensioning be the type that will increase 

the grip on the cable as the tension 

increases; contractors use proper means 

and equipment to prevent overtensioning; and only qualified workers 

perform post-tensioning operations, 

WAC–296–155–695. These regulations 

also require employers to: follow 

supplier recommendations and 

instructions regarding installation, 

maintenance, and replacement of 

anchor fittings; keep tools and strand 

vices clean and in good repair; and 

comply with minimum safety factors for 

expendable strand deflection devices 

and reusable strand deflection devices. 

Washington State also has regulations 

regarding jacking operations which 

specify that ‘‘during jacking operations 

of any tensioning element or group of 

tensioning elements, the anchors shall 

be kept turned up close to the 

anchorplate’’ and that no one can stand 

‘‘in line or directly over the jacking 

equipment during tensioning 

operations.’’ (Id.) Jacking and pulling 

equipment must be inspected 

frequently. These regulations also 

include requirements for handling 

stressed concrete. 

Federal agencies involved in 

construction activities also have 

requirements relating to concrete 

reinforcement. For example, section 

25.3.6 of the 2009 edition of the Bureau 

of Reclamation Safety and Health 

Standards prohibits the use of 

reinforcing steel as guy attachments at 

deadmen or other anchorage points for 

scaffolding hooks, for stirrups, or as a 

load-bearing member of any lifting 

device. 

Section 27.B.03 of the 2008 edition of 

the Army Corps of Engineers Safety and 

Health Requirements Manual requires 

that a registered professional engineer 

design support systems for reinforcing 

steel that are independent of other forms 

or shoring support systems. 

Additionally, this manual requires that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

18976 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

contractors: Secure connections of 

equipment used in plumbing-up; secure 

turnbuckles to prevent unwinding while 

under stress; place plumbing-up guys 

and related equipment so that 

employees can reach the connection 

points; and to remove these guys and 

equipment only under the supervision 

of a competent person. This manual also 

specifies that the designs and plans of 

shoring and formwork must meet the 

standards in the American Concrete 

Institute Publication 347 and that the 

manufacturer’s specifications for 

fabricated shoring systems be available 

at the job site during job planning and 

execution. 

The American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI) standard for reinforced 

concrete, ANSI/ASSE A10.9–2004, 

Safety Requirements for Masonry and 

Concrete Work—American National 

Standard for Construction and 

Demolition Operations, also includes 

safety recommendations for operations 

involving reinforced concrete. Similar to 

the Bureau of Reclamation standards, 

section 1.13.2 of the ANSI standard 

prohibits the use of reinforcing steel as 

hooks or stirrups for scaffolding, or as 

a load-bearing member of any lifting 

device. The ANSI standard also requires 

that reinforcing mats used as walkways 

be capable of supporting the walkway’s 

load, and it must have a surface 

covering that affords adequate footing 

(section 3.1.3). In addition, the ANSI 

standard requires that contractors clean 

and store post-tensioning tendons to 

prevent rusting, pitting, kinks, pits, or 

other damage (section 8.3), keep tools in 

good repair, and have a competent 

person inspect jacking equipment before 

and during jacking operations (section 

8.4). 

The purpose of this RFI is to gather 

information, data, and comment on 

hazards in operations involving 

reinforced concrete in construction, as 

well as effective measures to control 

these hazards to prevent injuries and 

fatalities. 

II. Request for Data, Information, and 

Comments 

As noted from the discussion in 

section IA, OSHA has limited 

information on reinforcing steel and 

post-tensioning operations. Therefore, 

OSHA developed the following 

questions to expand its information 

base. OSHA invites the public, 

especially the regulated community, 

both employers and employees, to read 

this document carefully and respond to 

these questions as completely as 

possible, including full explanations of 

their positions and arguments. 

Accordingly, OSHA is seeking data, 

information, and comment on hazards 

present in these operations, and the 

measures used to control these hazards 

and reduce accidents, injuries, and 

fatalities. OSHA welcomes any available 

data, information, or comments related 

to regulatory requirements addressing 

operations that involve reinforcing 

concrete. Based on its analysis of the 

information received in response to this 

RFI, OSHA will determine what action, 

if any, it will take to address the hazards 

of operations involving reinforced 

concrete. Please refer to each question 

by its specific number when 

responding, and make submissions in 

the OSHA–2010–0058 docket on 

reinforced concrete. 

A. Post-Tensioning Operations 

1. Are there specific post-tensioning 

hazards not currently addressed by 

OSHA standards? If so, what are they? 

2. What are the most common posttensioning-related injuries, and what 

procedures or techniques are available 

to prevent them? 

3. Should a competent person inspect 

jacking equipment for visible signs of 

defects or other signs of failure before 

and during jacking operations? Are such 

inspections currently standard practice 

in the industry? 

4. What safety checks are necessary 

before post-tensioning activity occurs? 

5. Are there engineering issues 

relating to post-tensioning operations 

that affect the safety of employees? 

6. Are there post-tensioning hazards 

associated with mixing components 

from various manufacturers? 

7. How can employees be protected 

from risks or hazards associated with 

drilling or cutting concrete after posttensioning operations are complete? 

8. Are the hazards associated with detensioning generally different than the 

hazards associated with posttensioning? Please explain. What 

measures are available to reduce these 

hazards? 

B. Site Conditions and Roads 

9. Some contractors perform rebar 

work, such as building rebar cages, on 

the ground. At a construction site with 

multiple contractors, concrete 

reinforcing workers may not have the 

authority to alter ground conditions that 

are muddy, uneven, or contain other 

hazards. Workers also need to transport 

rebar and other materials on the site. Do 

concrete reinforcing workers experience 

material-handling hazards, such as 

tripping, while carrying rebar when site 

conditions are poor? What site 

conditions make it difficult to transport 

rebar and other materials on the site? 

How do these conditions contribute to 

injuries, if at all? Please explain. 

10. Do site conditions pose other 

significant hazards for reinforcing steel 

work? If so, how frequently does this 

occur and when should contractors 

address site conditions—after 

excavation, before formwork begins, or 

at another time? 

11. Are road conditions a problem for 

reinforcing concrete contractors, and do 

they create hazards for employees? 

What would be an appropriate remedy 

to address risks to employees? 

C. Documentation 

12. Welding rebar used for 

reinforcement that is not safe for 

welding can make the rebar brittle and 

may lead to collapse of the structure and 

injury or death to workers. How can 

employees be protected from these 

risks? 

13. Are inadequate guardrails a 

problem for workers performing rebar 

operations? If so, how frequently does 

this occur, and what would be an 

appropriate remedy to address this risk? 

D. Reinforcing Steel Operations 

14. What are the hazards associated 

with using gas-powered abrasive cut-off 

saws (demo-saws) on rebar? What are 

appropriate training and safety 

measures necessary to protect 

employees? 

15. Are there safety issues in regard to 

the wire used for tying rebar (for 

example, the gauge of wire used for 

tying rebar)? If there are, what are the 

safety measures necessary to protect 

employees? 

16. Rebar columns can collapse when 

not supported properly, potentially 

injuring or killing workers. What safety 

measures are necessary to protect rebar 

workers from this hazard? 

17. Do some types of structures pose 

more risk to employees performing rebar 

work? Please explain. 

18. Are there specific safety issues 

related to the use of reinforcing steel 

and post-tensioning in residential 

construction? 

19. Workers may form rebar cages on 

the ground (horizontally) and then raise 

them to a vertical position. Are there 

specific rigging hazards related to 

moving rebar columns? If so, what are 

they? 

20. What health hazards are 

associated with working with or cutting 

epoxy-coated rebar or galvanized rebar? 

21. What are the hazards involved 

with using reinforcing steel as guy 

attachments at deadmen or other 

anchorage points for scaffolding hooks 

or stirrups, or as load-bearing members 

of any lifting device? Does the Bureau 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18977 

5Standard Occupational Classification (SOC). 

6North American Industry Classification System 

(NAICS). 

of Reclamation’s regulation (indicated 

above) effectively address these 

hazards? 

22. What are the hazards associated 

with using rebar mats as a walkway? 

What safety measures would address 

these risks? 

23. What safety measures are needed 

to address the risk of concrete forms 

collapsing? Please explain. 

E. General Reinforcing Safety 

24. 29 CFR 1926.703(d)(2) requires 

employers to take measures to prevent 

wire mesh from recoiling. What types of 

injuries occur when working with wire 

mesh? Are there additional hazards 

related to wire mesh that require safety 

measures to protect workers? What 

would these additional safety measures 

be? 

25. Are additional protective 

measures needed to address inhalation 

of the fibers used in fiber-reinforced 

concrete? 

26. Is a competent or qualified person 

necessary to supervise guying, bracing, 

or shoring formwork? What measures 

would help avoid collapses of these 

structures? Is using a competent or 

qualified person for this purpose 

currently standard practice in the 

industry? When installation of 

formwork requires removal of 

structural-stability guying of an erected 

cage, is an alternative stability measure 

used in place of the guys? If so, what are 

these measures? 

27. Are there safety issues associated 

with guardrails erected by reinforcing 

concrete contractors remaining onsite 

after the reinforcing contractors 

departed from the site? Should a 

controlling contractor be responsible for 

the guardrails after the reinforcing 

contractors depart the site to ensure that 

guardrails remain effective? What is 

currently the standard practice in the 

industry? 

28. Does improper sequencing among 

multiple crafts result in accidents or 

collapses in reinforcing concrete 

construction? Would a plan for project 

sequencing help eliminate the hazards 

created by multiple crafts working at the 

same time? Please explain. 

F. Impalement 

29 CFR 1926.701(b) requires that ‘‘all 

protruding reinforcing steel, onto which 

employees could fall, shall be guarded 

to eliminate the hazard of impalement.’’ 

Despite this requirement, workers 

continue to die and experience serious 

injuries because of impalement 

incidents. OSHA is looking at ways that 

it can improve its existing impalement 

standard to prevent future injuries and 

deaths. 

29. How could the current 

impalement provision be changed to be 

more effective or protective? Is it 

practical or effective to require 

additional specific forms of impalement 

protection for specific situations? For 

example, under what circumstances 

should a contractor use protective 

troughs? 

30. Subpart R of 29 CFR 1926 contains 

regulations that explain when a 

controlling contractor may take 

possession of fall protection, 29 CFR 

1926.760(e). These regulations allow a 

controlling contractor to take control 

and responsibility for fall protection 

installed by a subcontractor. Fall 

protection stays in place while the 

responsibility shifts from the 

subcontractor, who is leaving the area, 

to the controlling contractor, who 

remains at the worksite. Similar issues 

arise when many crafts use rebar caps 

placed by one contractor. Would 

procedures similar to the procedures 

specified for fall protection be useful in 

ensuring that rebar caps remain 

installed until no longer needed? 

31. The state of California has a test 

to determine whether rebar caps are 

effective. Does such testing increase 

worker protection of caps? Please 

explain. 

32. OSHA issued a memorandum on 

January 15, 1997, that explains what 

types of rebar caps adequately protect 

workers from the hazard of impalement, 

e.g., mushroom caps are insufficient for 

this purpose. What should OSHA do to 

update the clarifications described in 

this memorandum? 

33. In addition to rebar, construction 

sites have other, similar hazards that 

protrude from concrete, such as pipes. 

Unlike rebar, no existing OSHA 

standard covers these hazards. Are these 

hazards a safety issue, and what would 

be the most effective measure to use in 

controlling them? 

G. Training 

34. Is specific training needed for 

work involving reinforcing steel and 

post-tensioning? If so, what specific 

types of training are needed for 

operations involving these activities? 

35. How does your company/ 

organization evaluate employees to 

confirm that they understand 

information provided in the training? 

Should employers rely on hands-on 

methods and practical demonstration of 

skills rather than written tests/ 

evaluations? 

36. Does your company/organization 

train employees for operations involving 

reinforced concrete? If so, what 

information does it cover? How is 

training adapted for non-English 

speaking employees? Please provide 

copies of training materials, if possible. 

37. OSHA would like to receive 

information on employer experiences 

with training non-English speaking 

workers. What percentage of your 

workforce involved in reinforced 

concrete operations speaks languages 

other than English? What training 

methods have you found to be effective 

with these workers? Are you aware of 

any data that estimates the number of 

non-English speaking workers engaged 

in operations involving reinforced 

concrete? If so, please identify the data. 

H. Injuries 

OSHA currently is looking for 

information and data on incidents in the 

reinforcing concrete industry. While the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) keeps 

data on many types of injuries, the BLS 

data regarding concrete reinforcing is 

not specific to the incidents addressed 

by this RFI. While OSHA has some 

limited data, including the CPWR and 

BeSafeBC studies, the Agency needs 

additional data to determine the types 

and frequency of these incidents. 

38. If you or your company/ 

organization performs work involving 

reinforcing steel, what kinds of rebarrelated injuries, if any, have your 

employees experienced? How many? 

39. If you or your company/ 

organization performs post-tensioning 

operations, what kinds of posttensioning-related injuries, if any, have 

your employees experienced? How 

many? 

40. Are you aware of any data used to 

evaluate the effect of implementing 

specific safety practices in reinforced 

concrete operations? Is so, please 

identify the data. 

I. Economic Issues 

41. The Agency examined data from 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) 

Occupational Employment Survey (May 

2009) to identify which industries 

employ Reinforcing Iron and Rebar 

Workers (SOC 472171) (see the table 

below).5 Based on the data in this table, 

it would appear that most concrete 

reinforcement activity occurs in NAICS 

code 238100, with small amounts of 

activity in other construction sectors.6

However, the data may not be accurate 

because there may be construction 

workers, including laborers and 

carpenters, who perform reinforcing 

concrete operations and who are 

classified under other SOC codes 

because reinforcing concrete is not their 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

18978 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

primary activity. Also, there likely are 

reinforcing iron and rebar workers 

employed in non-construction sectors 

not accounted for in the data presented 

in this table. 

REINFORCING IRON AND REBAR WORKERS BY INDUSTRY

Potentially affected industries Potentially affected employees 

NAICS code Industry SOC 

472171: Number of Reinforcing Iron 

and Rebar Workers 

Subtotal Total 

236100 .............. Residential Building Construction ..................................................................................... ............................ 280 

236200 .............. Nonresidential Building Construction ................................................................................ ............................ ENR 

237000 .............. Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction ....................................................................... ............................ 2,520 

237100 .............. Utility System Construction ............................................................................................... 360 ............................

237300 .............. Highway Street and Bridge Construction. ........................................................................ 1,870 ............................

237900 .............. Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction ............................................................. 100 ............................

238000 .............. Specialty Trade Contractors ............................................................................................. ............................ 16,960 

238100 .............. Foundation Structure and Building Exterior Contractors .................................................. 16,180 ............................

238200 .............. Building Equipment Contractors ....................................................................................... 150 ............................

238900 .............. Other Specialty Trade Contractors ................................................................................... 620 ............................

327300 .............. Cement and Concrete Product Manufacturing ................................................................. ............................ 40 

423000 .............. Merchant Wholesalers Durable Goods ............................................................................ ............................ 130 

999301 .............. Local government including schools and hospitals .......................................................... ............................ 40 

Total ........................................................................................................................... ............................ 19,970 

ENR = ‘‘Estimate Not Released’’—due to data suppression, the actual number of rebar workers will be larger than the total based on the available data. 

Source: BLS Occupational Employment Survey, May 2009. 

42. Do the data listed in the table 

provide reasonable estimates of where 

concrete reinforcement work is done 

and who is doing it? Are there 

construction sectors other than those 

listed in the table above that do concrete 

reinforcing work? Are there other 

occupational groups, such as cement 

masons and concrete finishers, that 

OSHA should consider in determining 

the industries in which concrete 

reinforcement work might take place? 

43. Do reinforcing iron and rebar 

workers in sectors other than 

construction engage in construction 

work (as opposed to performing general 

industry maintenance)? Do they face 

hazards similar to reinforcing iron and 

rebar workers working in the 

construction sector? 

44. OSHA is interested in the 

experience of employers in complying 

with existing standards regarding 

concrete reinforcement, in terms of costs 

and benefits; specifically, the 

experience of employers in states with 

supplemental mandatory requirements 

related to concrete reinforcement, such 

as California and Washington. 

a. Have there been additional 

expenses in complying with these rules 

and what are these expenses? 

b. Have these standards had any affect 

on the industry structure? Has there 

been a noticeable improvement in 

safety? Are there any data sources on 

injuries related to reinforced concrete 

operations at local or regional levels? 

c. What is the industry’s experience, 

in terms of costs and benefits, in 

complying with various consensus 

standards, such as the ANSI standards? 

d. Have the Bureau of Reclamation or 

Army Corps of Engineers requirements 

imposed additional expenses, affected 

industry structure, or resulted in safety 

improvements? 

e. Is there any reason to believe that, 

if OSHA adopted the requirements of 

these various standards, the resulting 

costs, benefits, and affects on industry 

structure would differ from current 

experience? 

f. Are current state standards 

sufficiently flexible and/or performanceoriented to adapt to changing 

technology in the construction sector 

over time? 

45. Subpart R requires the controlling 

contractor to properly grade and drain 

the work area (29 CFR 1926.752(c)(2)). 

Reinforcing concrete work may be done 

before structural steel work begins. 

Currently, there is no requirement to 

grade and drain the site prior to 

commencing reinforcing concrete work. 

If controlling contractors must drain and 

grade the site prior to reinforcing 

concrete work, would this increase the 

cost of draining and grading the site, or 

would it merely shift the timing of the 

cost? Please explain. 

46. How many, and what kind of, 

small entities (small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions) perform reinforcing steel 

and post-tensioning operations? What 

percentage of the industry do they 

comprise? Are there important 

differences between entities of various 

sizes within the affected industries? 

47. OSHA requests that members of 

the small business community and 

others familiar with small business 

concerns address any special 

circumstances small entities may 

encounter in controlling hazards and 

reducing injuries and fatalities 

associated with reinforcing steel and 

post-tensioning operations. 

a. How, and to what extent, would 

publication of new regulatory 

provisions that address hazards in 

reinforcing steel and post-tensioning 

operations affect small entities in the 

industry? 

b. Are there special circumstances 

that make the control of hazards in 

reinforcing steel and post-tensioning 

operations more difficult or more costly 

for small entities? Please describe these 

circumstances, and explain any 

alternatives that may serve to minimize 

these impacts, such as extended 

compliance dates, use of performance 

standards, simplified compliance 

options, different requirements, and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18979 

7This data did not include accidents caused by 

backing railroad vehicles because the Federal 

Railroad Administration regulates railroad vehicles, 

nor did it include accidents in which the driver of 

the vehicle was the only fatality. However, the data 

included accidents in which a backing vehicle hit 

an object which, in turn, resulted in a fatality (e.g., 

a vehicle backed into a tower and toppled it onto 

an employee standing nearby). Additionally, not all 

IMIS fatality reports are available to the public 

because the employer is contesting the citations, or 

the Agency is reviewing the report. 

8 In most of these incidents, the victims were 

drivers who left the cab of the vehicle while it was 

running to perform a task behind the vehicle. 

partial exemptions for affected small 

firms. 

48. Are there reasons why the benefits 

of new provisions to control the hazards 

of reinforcing steel and post-tensioning 

operations may be different for small 

entities than for larger establishments? 

Please explain. 

J. References 

All references in this list are available in 

OSHA Docket No. OSHA–2010–0058, 

Reinforced Concrete in Construction. 

WAC 296–155–695. Miscellaneous Concrete 

Construction. 

ANSI/ASSE A10.9–2004, Safety Requirement 

for Masonry and Concrete Work, 

American National Standard for 

Construction and Demolition Operations. 

Apparent Domestic Consumption of Rebar 

2010 Spreadsheet. 

Bureau of Reclamation—Section 25 Concrete 

Masonry Construction and Formwork. 

California Code of Regulations, Title 8, 

Section 344.90. Impalement Protection. 

Specifications and Testing Criteria. 

California Code of Regulations, Title 8, 

Section 1712. Hazards Associated with 

the Use of Reinforcing Steel and Other 

Similar Projections. 

Hunt, J., President, International Association 

of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and 

Reinforcing Iron Workers. Letter to 

Michaels, David, Assistant Secretary of 

Labor for Occupational Safety and 

Health. 

National Ready Mixed Concrete Association 

(NRMCA) Fact Sheet. 

Occupational Injuries among Construction 

Workers Treated at the GWU Emergency 

Department. 

OSHA Rebar and Post-tensioning Deaths 

from IMIS Database 2000–2009 

Spreadsheet. 

Swanson, R. Memorandum re: Mushroom 

Rebar Caps, May 29, 1997. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Safety and 

Health Requirements Manual Section 27, 

2008 ed. 

WorkSafeBC. Mechanisms of Injury. CU 

721012 Concrete Reinforcing Industry 

Overview. 

Preventing Backover Injuries and 

Fatalities 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. Introduction 

1. Backover Injuries and Fatalities 

2. Current OSHA Standards 

3. Consensus Standards and State 

Standards 

4. Actions by Other Federal Agencies 

B. Backover Prevention Technology and 

Methods 

1. Backup Alarms 

2. Cameras 

3. Proximity Detection Systems 

4. Combined Technologies 

5. Backover Prevention Methods 

C. Other Research on Backing Maneuvers 

II. Request for Data, Information, and 

Comment 

A. General: Backing With an Obstructed 

View 

B. Audible Backup Alarms 

C. Studies 

D. Vehicle and Backing Safety System 

Manufacturers 

E. State Regulations 

F. Internal Traffic Control Plans 

G. Training 

H. Economic Issues 

I. Scope 

J. References 

I. Background 

A. Introduction 

1. Backover Injuries and Fatalities 

Workers can experience caughtbetween injuries and fatalities when 

backing vehicles or mobile equipment, 

especially those with an obstructed 

view to the rear, pin them against an 

object and struck-by injuries when 

struck by backing vehicles or mobile 

equipment in other circumstances. The 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) refers to many 

backing incidents as ‘‘backovers,’’ 

which are ‘‘crash[es] which occur when 

a driver reverses into and injures or kills 

a non-occupant’’ (‘‘Fatalities and 

Injuries in Motor Vehicle Backing 

Crashes’’). While backover incidents can 

be fatal, some backover incidents can 

result in serious non-fatal injuries, such 

as amputations, compound and simple 

fractures, and crushing injuries (OSHA 

Backing Injuries 2007–2009, Region 9 

Spreadsheet). In this Request for 

Information (RFI), OSHA is seeking 

information about backover incidents 

that occur when drivers or mobile 

equipment operators have an obstructed 

view to the rear. In addition, some 

mobile equipment that has an 

unobstructed view, such as most 

forklifts, also may cause backing 

incidents. The Agency also is seeking 

information and comment on this 

equipment. 

In a search of its Integrated 

Management Information System (IMIS) 

database for fatal accidents involving 

backover hazards, the Agency identified 

358 fatal incidents over a six-year 

period, from 2005 through 2010 7

(OSHA Backing Fatalities 2005–2010 

Spreadsheet). Of these deaths, 142 

occurred in the construction industry, 

and the remaining 216 occurred in 

general industry, shipyard employment, 

maritime, and agriculture industries. 

There were 279 fatalities involving 

struck-by hazards, and 73 fatalities 

involved caught-between hazards, 16 of 

which included workers caught between 

a loading dock and a tractor trailer, and 

6 fatalities caused by falls from backing 

vehicles. Three types of vehicles caused 

a large number of deaths: 61 deaths 

involved dump trucks; 31 deaths 

involved tractor trailers; and 20 deaths 

involved garbage trucks. 

The analysis of the IMIS data also 

provided a context for these fatal 

backover incidents. Eight of the 

deceased workers were using cell 

phones when the backover incident 

occurred. Twenty-one fatalities involved 

vehicles with no driver.8 Twenty-five of 

the victims were acting as spotters for 

the vehicles that backed over them. In 

many of the cases, employers were 

using spotters to comply with the 

existing backover-related standards. In 

some these cases, OSHA cited 

employers under § 5(a)(1) of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 

1970, known as the General Duty 

Clause. 

One area in which backover incidents 

are a significant concern are incidents 

that occur in highway work zones. Road 

construction workers routinely work in 

close proximity to mobile equipment 

and construction vehicles, which 

exposes them to struck-by hazards on 

the job site. For example, flaggers and 

other workers on foot are at risk because 

they may not be visible to equipment 

operators or motorists. Other highway 

workers are at risk because they 

routinely work in conditions of low 

visibility, low lighting, inclement 

weather, noise, or in congested areas 

with high traffic volumes. The 2010 

highway work zone study, ‘‘Fatal 

Occupational Injuries at Road 

Construction Sites, 2003–07,’’ found 

that, of the 639 fatal workplace injuries 

on road construction sites between 2003 

and 2007, 101 (15.8%) involved backing 

vehicles or mobile equipment. 

Additionally, the study found that 

dump trucks caused 60 of these fatal 

backover incidents. An earlier study 

found that 51% of workers killed by 

backing vehicles while on foot occurred 

within the confines of a highway work 

zone (‘‘Building Safer Highway Work 

Zones: Measures to Prevent Worker 

Injuries from Vehicles and Equipment’’). 

The National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) compiles case studies of 

worker fatalities in its Fatality 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

18980 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

9The ANSI standard defines a mechanical 

backing assistive device as ‘‘a mechanical device 

that provides increased visibility or detection of 

objects behind a vehicle to prevent accidents during 

reverse operations.’’ 

Assessment and Control Evaluation 

(FACE) reports. An OSHA review of 25 

construction-related backover fatalities 

described in these reports indicates that, 

in 15 of these fatalities, the backup 

alarm on the vehicle was functioning 

properly, suggesting that backup alarms 

may not be sufficient to prevent 

backover incidents. 

In the FACE reports, NIOSH 

recommended that employers: 

• Ensure that procedures for backing 

vehicles safely are in place for mobile 

construction vehicles; 

• Designate a spotter to direct vehicle 

backing; 

• Train workers on the specific duties 

they are to perform during backing 

maneuvers; 

• Train workers to recognize 

equipment blind areas; 

• Ensure that drivers are in 

communication with workers who are 

on foot near the vehicle; 

• Implement and enforce procedures 

that minimize exposure of workers on 

foot to moving construction vehicles 

and equipment; 

• Provide personal protective 

equipment and high-visibility clothing, 

and require its use; and, 

• Install after-market devices (e.g., 

cameras, radars, and ultrasonic devices) 

on construction vehicles and equipment 

to monitor workers on foot in blind 

areas. 

While vehicles cause the majority of 

backover incidents, mobile equipment 

cause backover injuries and fatalities as 

well. Powered industrial trucks, many 

of which are forklifts, are one type of 

mobile equipment that has the potential 

to create many backing hazards. 

Powered industrial trucks may need to 

change direction rapidly, which can 

make it difficult for a worker on foot to 

know where the forklifts are going. In 

addition, these machines cause injuries 

by backing slowly and trapping workers. 

ANSI standard B56.1–2009, Safety 

Standard for Low Lift and High Lift 

Trucks, provides safety instructions for 

personnel who operate powered 

industrial trucks. Section 5.2.7 of this 

standard instructs operators to 

‘‘[s]afeguard pedestrians at all times.’’ 

NIOSH recommended that powered 

industrial trucks have backup alarms to 

avoid worker on-foot fatalities 

(‘‘Preventing Injuries and Deaths of 

Workers Who Operate or Work Near 

Forklifts’’). Currently, there are no 

OSHA standards requiring powered 

industrial trucks to have backup alarms. 

2. Current OSHA Standards 

There are three OSHA construction 

standards that require employers to use 

an alarm or a spotter when backing a 

vehicle or other mechanical equipment 

with an obstructed view to the rear. 

These standards are: 

• 29 CFR 1926.601(b)(4)—Motor 

vehicles; 

• 29 CFR 1926.602(a)(9)(ii)—Material 

handling equipment; and 

• 29 CFR 1926.952(a)(3)—Mechanical 

equipment. 

General industry standard 29 CFR 

1910.269(p)(1)(ii) provides similar 

requirements for vehicular equipment 

operated in general industry at offhighway jobsites. 

While no OSHA standard defines the 

phrase ‘‘obstructed view to the rear,’’ a 

1987 OSHA memorandum addressing 

the use of the phrase in 29 CFR 

1926.602(a)(9)(ii) provides the following 

explanation: 

A simple interpretation would be 

‘‘anything’’ that would ‘‘blockout’’ (interfere) 

with the overall view of the operator of the 

vehicle to the rear of the vehicle, at ground 

level. 

‘‘Obstructed view to the rear’’ could 

include such obstacles as any part of the 

vehicle such as structural members, its load 

(gravel, dirt, rip-rap), its height relative to 

ground level viewing, damage to windows or 

side mirrors, etc. used for rearview 

movement of the vehicle; in addition, it 

could include restricted visibility due to 

weather conditions such as heavy fog; or 

work being done after dark, without proper 

lighting. 

(Memorandum re: Interpretation of 29 

CFR 1926.602(a)(9)(ii).) In a letter of 

interpretation, OSHA also permitted the 

use of motion-sensing equipment (e.g., 

radar) on vehicles, so long as it provides 

adequate warning to workers in the path 

of the vehicle or walking toward the 

vehicle (Letter of Interpretation re: 

Permissible methods of operating trucks 

in reverse on construction sites). 

The above-mentioned construction 

and general industry standards only 

require the use of a backup alarm when 

the view to the rear is obstructed. If the 

obstruction is removed or non-existent, 

current regulations do not require an 

alarm. OSHA notes, however, that 

vehicles and mobile equipment with 

unobstructed views to the rear, such as 

forklifts and some skid-steer loaders, 

kill and injure workers during backing 

maneuvers (‘‘Fatal Occupational Injuries 

at Road Construction Sites’’ and 

‘‘Building Safer Highway Work Zones’’). 

While OSHA does not specifically 

require backup alarms on powered 

industrial trucks, there are regulations 

that prohibit removing a backup alarm 

if a powered industrial truck is 

equipped with one by the manufacturer. 

Accordingly, two OSHA standards for 

the maritime industry (29 CFR 

1917.43(c)(5) and 29 CFR 1918.65(f)(1)) 

prohibit employers from removing 

safety devices, such as backup alarms, 

when the manufacturer equips a 

powered industrial truck with such an 

alarm. Additionally, 29 CFR 

1910.178(q)(6) prohibits eliminating 

parts from powered industrial trucks, 

which would include backup alarms. 

Paragraph (n)(6) of 29 CFR 1910.178 

requires employers to ensure that 

powered industrial truck operators look 

in the direction of travel, whether 

moving forward or in reverse. Similarly, 

29 CFR 1910.266(f)(2)(v) requires 

operators of logging machines to 

determine that no employee is in the 

path of the machine before starting or 

moving the machine. Paragraph (g)(7) of 

29 CFR 1910.266 applies this 

requirement to logging vehicles that 

‘‘transport any employee off public 

roads or * * * perform any logging 

operation, including any vehicle 

provided by an employee.’’ 

OSHA also has a requirement for the 

longshoring industry that prevents 

backover incidents when operators 

drive vehicles on and off cargo vessels. 

Accordingly, 29 CFR 1918.86(n) 

requires that ‘‘[d]rivers shall not drive 

vehicles, either forward or backward, 

while any personnel are in positions 

where they could be struck.’’ 

3. Consensus Standards and State 

Standards 

The ANSI A10.47–2009 standard, 

Work Zone Safety for Highway 

Construction, contains several sections 

regarding backing construction vehicles 

and equipment. Section 6.2 of this ANSI 

standard requires that, when 

pedestrians are potentially in the blind 

areas of vehicles and equipment, the 

vehicles and equipment must use a 

mechanical backing assistive device 9 or 

a spotter before backing. Section 6.2.1 

requires the use of a mechanical backing 

assistive device and a backup alarm if 

the employer does not use spotters. 

Section 6.2.2 requires employers to train 

spotters on the following topics: How to 

safely direct backing maneuvers; on not 

standing in the path of construction 

vehicles or equipment; to remain in the 

direct line of sight of drivers; and to 

wear high-visibility apparel. Employers 

also must train drivers to stop their 

vehicles when they lose sight of 

spotters. Section 6.2.3 requires that 

visual warning devices supplement 

audible backup alarms, especially at 

night. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18981 

Some states have regulations to 

prevent backover injuries and fatalities. 

Washington State regulation WAC 296– 

155–610(2)(f) requires, ‘‘An operable 

mechanical device that provides the 

driver a full view behind the dump 

truck [to be] used, such as a video 

camera,’’ or the use of spotters when 

using dump trucks where people will be 

walking behind them. In addition, 

Washington State law RCW 46.37.400 

requires trucks registered or based in the 

state and equipped with a ‘‘cube-style, 

walk-in cargo box up to eighteen feet 

long used in the commercial delivery of 

goods and services’’ to have either 

crossview mirrors or backup devices 

that alert the driver when a person or 

object is behind the truck. 

Virginia promulgated a 

comprehensive regulation to prevent 

backover incidents in construction and 

general industry in 2009. The regulation 

applies to vehicles, machinery, or 

equipment used in off-road work zones, 

or for over-the-road hauling or 

transportation, and that are capable of 

operating in reverse and have an 

obstructed view to the rear (16VAC25– 

97–10). To operate a vehicle under these 

conditions, it generally must have a 

backup alarm audible above the 

surrounding noise level. The operator 

also must use a spotter or video camera, 

or ‘‘visually determine, that no 

employee is in the path of the covered 

vehicle’’ prior to backing (16VAC25–97– 

30). In addition, the regulation specifies 

requirements for spotters, including the 

use of fluorescent safety vests or jackets, 

maintaining visual contact with the 

driver when the vehicle is operating in 

reverse, and not using personal cell 

phones or headphones (16VAC25–97– 

40). Vehicle operators must stop 

immediately if they lose visual contact 

with the spotter. Employers must train 

spotters and vehicle operators on the 

regulation prior to commencing backing 

activities and provide refresher training 

for drivers and spotters when they 

violate the regulation, have an accident 

or near miss, or receive an evaluation 

showing that they are not operating 

under the regulation in a safe manner 

(16VAC25–97–50). Since Virginia 

promulgated the regulation, two backing 

fatalities occurred in the state, which is 

less than the four or five the state saw 

before promulgating the regulation 

(ACCSH Transcript, Dec. 16, 2011). 

4. Actions by Other Federal Agencies 

OSHA is not the only federal agency 

working to curb backover incidents. 

Recently, the NHTSA issued a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking that would 

expand the required field of view in 

passenger cars, trucks, multipurpose 

passenger vehicles, buses, and lowspeed vehicles rated at 10,000 pounds 

or less, gross vehicle weight, to prevent 

pedestrian backover deaths. In the near 

term, the only technology that complies 

with the proposal is cameras with an invehicle visual display. (See 75 FR 

76186, December 3, 2010.) The Mine 

Safety and Health Administration 

recently published proposed rule which 

would require the use of certain 

proximity detection equipment on 

certain mining machines. (See 76 FR 

54163, August 31, 2011.) This type of 

proximity detection system would stop 

the mining machines when they enter a 

pre-determined danger zone near a 

miner. A sensor on the machine detects 

a signal emitted by a device attached to 

the miner. 

B. Backover Prevention Technology and 

Methods 

1. Backup Alarms 

Many construction employers equip 

large vehicles used on construction sites 

and in work zones with reverse signal 

alarms. Most of these alarms emit a 

single tone. Single tone alarms are used 

for backup alarms and other types of 

alarms on many types of vehicles and 

mobile equipment. Because they are 

used in so many applications, some 

workers may not pay attention to the 

alarms. It also may be difficult for 

workers to determine from what 

direction the tone is coming 

(‘‘Construction Noise: Exposure, Effects, 

and the Potential for Remediation; A 

Review and Analysis’’). Other types of 

backup alarms are available. These 

alarms include broadband alarms (also 

known as white-noise alarms) and selfadjusting alarms, which vary the tone 

based on the ambient noise level. 

However, the self-adjusting alarms can 

be problematic if several vehicles use 

them on a worksite and the alarms 

adjust to the tone that each alarm is 

emitting. 

The noise generated by backup alarms 

can cause problems. For example, over 

the years, OSHA received several letters 

from members of the public about the 

annoying sounds emitted by backup 

alarms at construction sites, especially 

in residential neighborhoods. (See, e.g., 

Letter of Interpretation re: Alternatives 

to common back-up alarms on 

construction motor vehicles; use of other 

effective technology or observers/signal 

persons.) In addition, noise caused by 

backup alarms may cause problems for 

workers. The Eugene, Oregon, Fire 

Department commissioned a 1998 study 

on the hearing effects of backup alarms 

on firefighters. (‘‘Personnel Noise 

Exposure to Fire Apparatus Backup 

Alarms: Eugene Fire and EMS.’’) The 

study failed to confirm that backup 

alarms caused hearing loss in 

firefighters, but the alarms were of 

sufficient concern that the fire 

department requested revision of a local 

ordinance that required the use of 

backup alarms, to allow the department 

to use spotters instead (id.). 

2. Cameras 

Most vehicles (and some types of 

mobile equipment) now can 

accommodate a camera that provides 

operators with a view to the rear. In a 

study involving medium straight trucks, 

NHTSA found that cameras provided an 

effective means of allowing the driver to 

see behind the vehicle (‘‘Experimental 

Evaluation of the Performance of 

Available Backover Prevention 

Technologies for Medium Straight 

Trucks’’). 

Several studies explored the use of 

cameras on construction equipment and 

identified conditions that limit their 

use. The NIOSH study, ‘‘Evaluation of 

Systems to Monitor Blind Areas Behind 

Trucks Used in Road Construction and 

Maintenance: Phase 1,’’ found that, in 

winter, snow and grime may accumulate 

quickly on the lenses of cameras, 

thereby impeding their usefulness. 

Determining where to mount a camera 

for maximum effectiveness may be 

difficult, especially on large vehicles. 

For example, dump trucks may require 

two or three cameras to monitor the 

blind spots on the front, rear, and side 

of the vehicle (‘‘Monitoring Blind Spots: 

A Major Concern for Haul Trucks’’). 

Mounting cameras on exposed areas 

subjects them to accumulations of mud 

and grime, which may damage the 

camera (‘‘Evaluation of Systems to 

Monitor Blind Areas Behind Trucks 

Used in Road Construction and 

Maintenance: Phase 1’’). Also, camera 

systems manufactured for the 

automobile market may not be durable 

enough to use on vehicles at 

construction sites (id.). 

3. Proximity Detection Systems 

Radar and ultrasonic technology both 

are used in backing safety systems. 

There generally are two types of radar 

used in these systems—Doppler effect 

radar and frequency modulated 

continuous wave radar. Doppler effect 

radar detects the presence of objects that 

are moving with respect to the vehicle. 

Consequently, either the vehicle or the 

object needs to be moving for the 

vehicle driver to detect it. Frequency 

modulated continuous wave radar can 

detect persons or objects that are not 

moving. However, these systems must 

be in a position where they will not 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

18982 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

10 In this study, the drivers were not performing 

work while driving. 

detect harmless objects, such as the 

concrete slab of a driveway, which can 

interfere with the detection of an object 

or person behind the vehicle or mobile 

equipment. Also, the composition of the 

object can affect the detection of an 

object, with some materials being 

virtually invisible to radar (‘‘Evaluation 

of the Performance of Available 

Backover Prevention Technologies for 

Light Vehicles’’). 

Ultrasonic systems, such as sonar, 

emit bursts of ultrasonic waves. When 

the waves strike an object, they generate 

echoes used to determine the distance to 

the object. 

A major drawback of radar and 

ultrasonic technology is that, in 

crowded work areas, many false alarms 

may result from detection of harmless 

objects (‘‘Evaluation of Systems to 

Monitor Blind Areas Behind Trucks 

Used in Road Construction and 

Maintenance: Phase 1’’). The 

accumulation of snow or mud on 

sensors also can cause false alarms (id.). 

Additionally, sensors may not detect 

every object behind a vehicle 

(‘‘Experimental Evaluation of the 

Performance of Available Backover 

Prevention Technologies for Medium 

Straight Trucks’’). 

Another type of proximity detection 

system is an electromagnetic field-based 

system. This system consists of a 

combination of electromagnetic field 

generators and field detecting devices. 

One electromagnetic field-based system 

uses electromagnetic field generators 

installed on a vehicle and electronic 

sensing devices worn by persons 

working near the vehicle. Another 

electromagnetic field-based system uses 

field generators worn by persons 

working near the vehicle, while the 

sensing devices installed on the vehicle. 

These electromagnetic field-based 

systems can be programmed to warn 

affected workers, stop the vehicle, or 

both, when workers get within the 

predefined danger zone of the vehicle. 

4. Combined Technologies 

NIOSH recommends combining a 

radar or ultrasonic system with a camera 

to protect workers from backover 

hazards (‘‘Evaluation of Systems to 

Monitor Blind Areas Behind Trucks 

Used in Road Construction and 

Maintenance: Phase 1’’). In a dual 

system, a radar or ultrasonic system 

would alert the driver to a possible 

object behind the vehicle, while a 

camera would enable the driver to easily 

determine if the signal is an object 

(including a person) or a false alarm 

(‘‘Test Results of Collision Warning 

Systems for Surface Mining Dump 

Trucks’’). One study assessed the use 

passenger vehicle drivers made of 

cameras while backing and found that 

drivers were more likely to look at the 

video monitor if sensors alerted them to 

an obstacle than they were to look at the 

camera without a sensor 10 (‘‘Backing 

Collisions: a Study of Drivers’ Eye and 

Backing Behaviour Using Combined 

Rear-view Camera and Sensor 

Systems’’). 

5. Backover Prevention Methods 

One common method to address 

backover hazards is to use spotters to 

signal drivers while backing a vehicle. 

However, spotters are at increased risk 

of death or injury if drivers lose sight of 

them while backing. 

Internal traffic control plans (ITCP) is 

another method used to address 

backover hazards. These are plans that 

project managers can use to coordinate 

the flow of construction equipment, 

workers, and vehicles at a worksite to 

prevent vehicle impacts with workers. 

These plans can significantly reduce, or 

possibly eliminate, the need for vehicles 

to back up on a site. ANSI standard 

A10.47–2009, Work Zone Safety for 

Highway Construction, section 6.3 

recommends that employers develop 

ITCPs and communicate them to 

employees. In addition, section 6.3.3 

states that an ITCP should include a 

diagram of travel routes; a listing of all 

onsite personnel and equipment; a 

checklist of site-specific safety hazards 

and how to minimize these hazards; a 

list of safety notes defining site-specific 

injury prevention measures; and a plan 

for communicating the ITCP to workers, 

truck drivers, and equipment operators. 

However, OSHA has no information on 

the effectiveness of this consensus 

standard. 

C. Other Research on Backing 

Maneuvers 

Some studies examined the use 

drivers make of backover prevention 

technology, but OSHA found no studies 

that address the use of this technology 

by drivers and operators under working 

conditions. NHTSA reviewed studies of 

parking assist technology, such as 

cameras, and found that the warning 

devices often are not useful to drivers 

who are not expecting objects behind 

their vehicles (‘‘Vehicle Backover 

Avoidance Technology Study’’). Drivers 

in these studies stated, however, that 

they would brake immediately if they 

received a sudden alert while backing. 

However, this research also found that 

drivers brake less often when the 

backing aids have a high false alarm 

rate, even when an object is behind the 

vehicle. 

II. Request for Data, Information, and 

Comment 

OSHA is seeking additional 

information to evaluate the hazards that 

backing maneuvers pose to workers. The 

Agency is requesting information on 

how and when backing maneuvers 

occur in the workplace, and the injuries 

and fatalities caused by these 

maneuvers. OSHA is particularly 

interested in how employers use 

backover prevention technologies in the 

workplace. Workers who perform 

backing maneuvers are also encouraged 

to respond. Based on its analysis of the 

information received in response to this 

RFI, OSHA will determine what action, 

if any, it will take to address backover 

hazards. 

OSHA appreciates detailed responses 

to the following questions on backover 

hazards and prevention. Please make 

comments regarding backovers in the 

OSHA–2010–0059 docket. When 

answering questions, please refer to the 

question number in your comments and 

also provide the following information: 

• If you are a worker, employer, or 

manager, please explain what industry 

you are in, and what position you hold. 

• If you are a public health 

professional, please explain which 

industry or industries you work with/ 

study. 

A. General: Backing With an Obstructed 

View 

1. What types of vehicles or mobile 

equipment do you use that have an 

obstructed view to the rear? 

2. How does your company address 

the risk of backing vehicles that have an 

obstructed view to the rear? 

3. Are some types of backing safety 

systems, including non-technological 

solutions such as spotters, more 

effective than other systems in your 

work situations? Please explain. 

4. To what extent do your vehicles 

with obstructed views have cameras or 

proximity detection systems? 

5. Do you use multiple cameras or 

cameras in combination with another 

backing safety system? If so, describe 

the systems used, and why you use 

them. 

6. How effective are the systems you 

use in preventing backing accidents 

involving vehicles with an obstructed 

view? 

7. Are you also using backing safety 

measures to protect the driver and 

vehicle from accidents and damage, in 

addition to protecting pedestrians or 

other workers? If so, describe the 

measures you are using. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18983 

8. If your company uses spotters for 

backing maneuvers, how do drivers and 

spotters communicate—verbally, by 

using two-way radios, hand signaling, or 

some other technique? 

9. Does your company require the use 

of reflective clothing for spotters or 

other exposed employees during 

backing maneuvers? If so, describe 

when you require its use (for example, 

during all maneuvers, only during 

periods when backing maneuvers are 

frequent). 

B. Audible Backup Alarms 

10. To what extent do your vehicles 

currently have audible backup alarms? 

Do you rely only on audible alarms 

when vehicles have an obstructed view 

to the rear? 

11. Does your company rely on more 

than just an audible alarm to ensure safe 

backing maneuvers? If so, what 

additional backing safety system does it 

use, and why? 

12. Backup alarm operations: 

a. If your company primarily uses 

backup alarms during backing 

maneuvers, do you find that these 

alarms can be recognized at all times 

above the background noise? 

b. Is it difficult to find a backup alarm 

that can be recognized above the 

background noise of the worksite? 

c. Can workers recognize the direction 

of a backup alarm signal? 

13. If your company requires hearing 

protection for workers who are on foot, 

does this protection interfere with their 

ability to hear the backup alarm on 

vehicles or mobile equipment during 

backing maneuvers? 

C. Studies 

14. Are you aware of any additional 

studies, including studies of over-theroad vehicles such as cars, that analyze 

the effectiveness of the backing safety 

systems discussed in this notice, 

including cameras or proximity 

detection systems? If so, please provide 

references to the studies. 

15. Do you or your company use any 

backing safety technology not discussed 

in this notice? If so, please explain what 

the technology is, how it works, and 

whether it is commercially available. 

16. Does your company follow the 

ANSI A10.47–2009 standard, Work 

Zone Safety for Highway Construction, 

section 6.2, for safe practices during 

backing maneuvers? 

17. Are you aware of any studies 

addressing human factors or 

performance related to backing 

maneuvers in construction or other 

industries? If so, please provide the 

references to these studies. 

18. Do you have any studies or other 

information on the effectiveness of 

backup alarms when used around 

workers on foot who have difficulty 

hearing? Please provide the references 

to these studies or information. 

19. Do you have any studies or other 

information on injuries or fatalities 

resulting from backover hazards? Please 

provide the references to these studies 

or information. 

D. Vehicle and Backing Safety System 

Manufacturers 

20. For manufacturers of vehicles or 

mobile equipment: 

a. Are camera or proximity detection 

systems available for your vehicles or 

mobile equipment that have obstructed 

views to the rear? Are they standard or 

optional equipment? 

b. How frequently are these 

technologies chosen by customers if the 

technology is not standard-issue 

equipment? Why do customers choose a 

specific technology or combination of 

technologies (that is, what special 

benefits do they believe one technology 

has over others)? 

c. Do you offer backing safety 

technology not mentioned in this RFI? 

If yes, please explain. 

d. What factors do you consider when 

deciding whether to equip a vehicle or 

mobile equipment with a backing safety 

system? 

21. For manufacturers of vehicles or 

mobile equipment with audible alarms: 

a. What decibel ranges do you provide 

on audible alarms? How do you 

determine how loud an alarm should 

be? 

b. Do you include audible backup 

alarms on all vehicles with obstructed 

views to the rear as part of the original 

equipment package? If not, are such 

alarms an option? Please explain your 

response. 

c. What percentage of customers 

request single-tone alarms, or other 

alarms such as broadband (white noise) 

or self-adjusting alarms? 

22. Are there types of vehicles or 

mobile equipment for which adding 

technology such as cameras or 

proximity detection systems are 

infeasible? Please explain. 

23. Some vehicle operators have 

hearing loss. Do your radar and 

proximity detection systems that 

provide audible warnings also provide 

visual warnings? 

24. For manufacturers of backing 

safety systems: do you provide any form 

of training in the use of this equipment? 

a. If yes, whom do you train— 

company representatives, end users, 

and/or others? 

b. If yes, what kind of training and 

training materials do you provide? 

c. Are there vehicles that are difficult 

to retrofit with a backing safety system? 

Please explain. 

25. For manufacturers of after-market 

backing safety systems: what kinds of 

support do you provide to companies 

that purchase your equipment? Do you 

suggest ways to mount the equipment? 

26. Are there other types of proximity 

detection systems in use for backing 

safety not described in this RFI? Is there 

any new, commercially available, 

technology to enhance backing safety 

that OSHA did not mention in this RFI? 

Please explain your response, including 

a description of the technology and its 

availability in the United States. 

E. State Regulations 

27. If your company must follow 

Virginia’s (16VAC–25–97–10 et seq.) or 

Washington’s (WAC 296–155–610(2)(f)) 

backing regulations: 

a. Do you use a spotter or a camera 

when backing? 

b. How costly and difficult is it to 

comply with the regulations? 

c. How do you train your employees? 

d. Would phase-in periods make 

implementation of a regulation more 

effective? Please explain your response. 

e. Have you retrofitted vehicles? If so, 

please describe that experience. 

f. Did your backover incident rates 

change after implementation of the 

regulation? 

g. Have you faced any challenges with 

implementation? If so, what are they? 

F. Internal Traffic Control Plans 

28. Internal traffic control plans 

regulate the flow of traffic in work zones 

and may reduce the frequency of 

backing that occurs in work zones. Does 

your company have an internal traffic 

control plan to aid or reduce backing 

maneuvers? 

29. Should companies use internal 

traffic control plans on construction 

sites other than road construction? 

Please explain. 

G. Training 

30. Does your company have training 

requirements regarding backing 

maneuvers? If yes: 

a. Who receives training? 

b. Is there specific training for 

operators of vehicles or equipment that 

are involved in backing maneuvers? 

c. Is there specific training for the 

designated spotters? Please describe this 

training. 

d. What is the length of the training 

programs offered? 

31. If you train your employees on 

backing maneuvers, how often do you 

conduct the training? Have you found a 

decrease in injuries since implementing 

the training? 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

18984 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

32. Should spotters receive specific 

training for backing maneuvers? 

33. Is backing maneuver training 

presented formally in a class or 

provided informally on a jobsite? 

34. If you have one or more 

employees who do not speak fluent 

English, do you provide backing 

maneuver training for them in another 

language? Would it be helpful to have 

training materials and guidelines 

available in a language they can 

understand? 

H. Economic Issues 

35. In addition to backup alarms, 

what initial costs are needed for safety 

measures associated with backing 

maneuvers? Please provide specific 

information on these costs. 

36. Do these safety measures for 

backing maneuvers affect daily 

productivity? Please provide specific 

information on these productivity costs. 

37. Do the various technological 

systems (cameras and proximity 

detection) save money or time if they 

replace spotters? Please explain. 

38. Are your costs for general liability 

insurance or workers’ compensation 

insurance affected by the types of 

backup safety systems you use? Please 

explain. 

39. What property damage has 

resulted from backing accidents? Please 

describe the types of accidents, the 

property damage involved, and the 

value of the damaged property. 

40. How, and to what extent, would 

promulgation of additional standards 

that address hazards in backing 

maneuvers affect small businesses in 

your industry? 

41. Do special circumstances exist 

that would make additional standards 

difficult or costly for small entities? 

Please describe these circumstances. 

42. Are there steps OSHA could take 

that would reduce the burden and cost 

of improved backing safety measures for 

small businesses? Please explain. 

I. Scope 

43. Should OSHA consider framing 

the problem in terms of the dangers 

associated with workers being too close 

to dangerous moving vehicles or mobile 

equipment, rather than focusing only on 

backover incidents? 

44. Are there non-regulatory 

alternatives the Agency should 

consider? 

45. What industry sectors, such as 

maritime or construction, have higher 

risks or greater frequency of injuries? On 

what information do you base your 

response? 

J. References 

All references in this list are available in 

OSHA Docket No. OSHA–2010–0059, 

Preventing Backover Injuries and Fatalities. 

ANSI A10.47–2009, Work Zone Safety for 

Highway Construction. 

ANSI B56.1–2009, Safety Standard for Low 

Lift and High Lift Trucks. 

RCW 46.37.400. Mirrors, backup devices. 

16VAC25–97–10. Applicability. 

16VAC25–97–30. Covered vehicle 

requirements. 

16VAC25–97–40. Responsibilities while 

engaged in reverse signal operation 

activities. 

16VAC25–97–50. Training. 

WAC 296–155–610(2)(f). Motor vehicles on 

construction sites. 

Fairfax, R.E., Acting Director, Directorate of 

Construction, letter to 20090429–9037, 

re: Permissible methods of operating 

trucks in reverse on construction sites, 

March 2, 2010. 

Hurwitz, D.S., Pradhan, A., Fisher, D., 

Knodler, M.A., Muttart, J.W., Menon, R., 

Meissner, U. ‘‘Backing Collisions: a 

Study of Drivers’ Eye and Backing 

Behaviour Using Combined Rear-view 

Camera and Sensor Systems,’’ Injury 

Prevention, 16: 79–84, 2010. 

Mazzae, E. and Garrott, R. National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, 

‘‘Evaluation of the Performance of 

Available Backover Prevention 

Technologies for Light Vehicles,’’ The 

20th International Technical Conference 

on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles 

Conference, Paper Number 07–0292, 

2006. 

Mazzae, E. and Garrott, W.R. National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

‘‘Experimental Evaluation of the 

Performance of Available Backover 

Prevention Technologies for Medium 

Straight Trucks,’’ DOT HS 810 865, 

November 2007. 

Miles, Jr., J.B., Directorate of Field 

Operations, Memorandum for Roger 

Clark, Regional Administrator, re: 

Interpretation of 29 CFR 

1926.602(a)(9)(ii), January 21, 1987. 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, ‘‘Fatalities and Injuries 

in Motor Vehicle Backing Crashes,’’ 

Report to Congress, November 2008. 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, ‘‘Vehicle Backover 

Avoidance Technology Study,’’ Report to 

Congress, November 2006. 

National Institute for Occupational Safety 

and Health, Publication 2001–109, 

‘‘Preventing Injuries and Deaths of 

Workers Who Operate or Work Near 

Forklifts,’’ 2001. 

OSHA Backing Injuries 2007–2009, Region 9 

Spreadsheet. 

OSHA Backing Fatalities 2005–2010 

Spreadsheet. 

Pegula, S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ‘‘Fatal 

occupational injuries at road 

construction sites, 2003–07,’’ Monthly 

Labor Review, November 2010. 

Pratt, S.G., Fosbroke, D.E, Marsh, S.M. 

National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health, Publication No. 2001– 

128, ‘‘Building Safer Highway Work 

Zones: Measures to Prevent Worker 

Injuries from Vehicles and Equipment,’’ 

April 2001. 

Robertson, T. Eugene Fire and EMS 

Department, ‘‘Personnel Noise Exposure 

to Fire Apparatus Backup Alarms: 

Eugene Fire and EMS,’’ March 1998. 

Ruff, T.M. National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health, ‘‘Evaluation of 

Systems to Monitor Blind Areas Behind 

Trucks Used in Road Construction and 

Maintenance: Phase 1,’’ Report of 

Investigations 9660, February 2003. 

Ruff, T.M. ‘‘Monitoring Blind Spots: A Major 

Concern for Haul Trucks,’’ Engineering 

and Mining Journal, December 2001, 

202(12). 

Ruff, T.M. National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health, ‘‘Test Results of 

Collision Warning Systems for Surface 

Mining Dump Trucks,’’ Report of 

Investigations 9652, May 2000. 

Suter, A.H. ‘‘Construction Noise: Exposure, 

Effects, and the Potential for 

Remediation; A Review and Analysis,’’ 

American Industrial Hygiene Association 

Journal, 63: 768–789, November/ 

December 2002. 

Swanson, R., Director, Directorate of 

Construction, letter re: Alternatives to 

common back-up alarms on construction 

motor vehicles; use of other effective 

technology or observers/signal persons, 

September 27, 2004. 

Authority and Signature 

David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. 

Department of Labor, authorized the 

preparation of this notice pursuant to 

Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational 

Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 

653, 655, 657), 29 CFR part 1911, and 

Secretary’s Order 1–2012 (77 FR 3192). 

Signed at Washington, DC, on March 23, 

2012. 

David Michaels, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7510 Filed 3–28–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 100 

[Docket No. USCG–2012–0182] 

RIN 1625–AA08 

Special Local Regulation for Marine 

Events; Yorktown Parade of Sail, York 

River; Yorktown, VA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS