59714 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

29 CFR Part 1926 

[Docket ID–OSHA–2007–0066] 

RIN 1218–AC01 

Cranes and Derricks in Construction 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Labor. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: OSHA is proposing a rule to 

protect employees from the hazards 

associated with hoisting equipment 

when used to perform construction 

activities. Under this proposed rule, 

employers would first determine 

whether the ground is sufficient to 

support the anticipated weight of 

hoisting equipment and associated 

loads. The employer then would be 

required to assess hazards within the 

work zone that would affect the safe 

operation of hoisting equipment, such 

as those of power lines and objects or 

personnel that would be within the 

work zone or swing radius of the 

hoisting equipment. Finally, the 

employer would be required to ensure 

that the equipment is in safe operating 

condition via required inspections and 

employees in the work zone are trained 

to recognize hazards associated with the 

use of the equipment and any related 

duties that they are assigned to perform. 

DATES: Submit comments (including 

comments to the information-collection 

(paperwork) determination described 

under the section titled ‘‘Supplementary 

Information’’ of this document), hearing 

requests, and other information by 

December 8, 2008. All submissions must 

bear a postmark or provide other 

evidence of the submission date. (See 

the following section titled ADDRESSES

for methods you can use in making 

submissions.) 

ADDRESSES: Comments and hearing 

requests may be submitted as follows: 

• Electronic. Comments may be 

submitted electronically to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, which is the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the 

instructions online for submitting 

comments. 

• Facsimile: OSHA allows facsimile 

transmission of comments and hearing 

requests that are 10 pages or fewer in 

length (including attachments). Send 

these documents to the OSHA Docket 

Office at (202) 693–1648; hard copies of 

these documents are not required. 

Instead of transmitting facsimile copies 

of attachments that supplement these 

documents (e.g., studies, journal 

articles), commenters may submit these 

attachments, in triplicate hard copy, to 

the OSHA Docket Office, Technical Data 

Center, Room N–2625, OSHA, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20210. 

These attachments must clearly identify 

the sender’s name, date, subject, and 

Docket ID (i.e., OSHA–2007–0066) so 

that the Agency can attach them to the 

appropriate document. 

• Regular mail, express delivery, 

hand (courier) delivery, and messenger 

service: Submit three copies of 

comments and any additional material 

(e.g., studies, journal articles) to the 

OSHA Docket Office, Docket ID OSHA– 

2007–0066 or RIN No. 1218–AC01, 

Technical Data Center, Room N–2625, 

OSHA, Department of Labor, 200 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693–2350. 

(OSHA’s TTY number is (877) 889– 

5627.) Please contact the OSHA Docket 

Office for information about security 

procedures concerning delivery of 

materials by express delivery, hand 

delivery, and messenger service. The 

hours of operation for the OSHA Docket 

Office are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t. 

• Instructions. All submissions must 

include the Agency name and the OSHA 

Docket ID (i.e., OSHA–2007–0066). 

Comments and other material, including 

any personal information, are placed in 

the public docket without revision, and 

will be available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Therefore, the 

Agency cautions commenters about 

submitting statements 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 

comments or other material in the 

docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov 

or to the OSHA Docket Office at the 

address above. Documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index; however, 

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: 

General information and press inquiries. 

Contact Ms. Jennifer Ashley, Director, 

Office of Communications, OSHA, U.S. 

Department of Labor, Room N–3647, 

200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 

693–1999 or fax (202) 693–1634. 

• Technical inquiries. Contact Mr. 

Garvin Branch, Directorate of 

Construction, Room N–3468, OSHA, 

U.S. Department of Labor, 200 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20210; telephone (202) 693–2020 or 

fax (202) 693–1689. 

• Copies of this Federal Register 

notice. Available from the OSHA Office 

of Publications, Room N–3101, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; 

telephone (202) 693–1888. 

• Electronic copies of this notice. Go 

to OSHA’s Web site (http:// 

www.osha.gov), and select ‘‘Federal 

Register,’’ ‘‘Date of Publication,’’ and 

then ‘‘2008.’’ 

• Additional information for 

submitting documents. See section V.I. 

(‘‘Public Participation’’) of this notice. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General 

A. Table of Contents 

The following Table of Contents 

identifies the major preamble sections 

in this notice and the order in which 

they are presented: 

I. General 

A. Table of Contents 

B. Hearing 

II. Background 

A. History 

B. The Cranes and Derricks Negotiated 

Rulemaking Advisory Committee (C– 

DAC) 

C. Hazards Associated with Cranes and 

Derricks in Construction Work 

III. The SBREFA Process 

IV. Summary and Explanation of the 

Proposed Standard 

V. Procedural Determinations 

A. Legal Authority 

B. Preliminary Economic Analysis and 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

C. OMB Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

D. Federalism 

E. State-Plan States 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

G. Applicability of Existing Consensus 

Standards 

H. Review of the Proposed Standard by the 

Advisory Committee for Construction 

Safety and Health (ACCSH) 

I. Public Participation—Comments and 

Hearings 

B. Hearing 

Requests for a hearing should be 

submitted to the Agency as set forth 

above under DATES and ADDRESSES. 

II. Background 

A. History 

The Occupational Safety and Health 

Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1590, 29 U.S.C. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59715 

651–678) (the OSH Act) authorizes the 

Secretary of Labor to adopt safety and 

health standards to reduce injuries and 

illnesses in American workplaces. 

Pursuant to that authority, the Secretary 

has adopted, among others, a set of 

safety and health standards applicable 

to the construction industry, 29 CFR 

Part 1926. Initially, standards for the 

construction industry were adopted 

under the Construction Safety Act, 40 

U.S.C. 333. Under the Construction 

Safety Act, those standards were limited 

to employers engaged in federallyfinanced or federally-assisted 

construction projects. The Secretary 

subsequently adopted them as OSHA 

standards pursuant to Section 6(a) of the 

OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 655(a), which 

authorized the Secretary to adopt 

established federal standards as OSH 

Act standards within the first two years 

the OSH Act was effective (36 FR 25232, 

Dec. 30, 1971). Subpart N of 29 CFR part 

1926, entitled ‘‘Cranes, Derricks, Hoists, 

Elevators, and Conveyors,’’ was 

originally adopted through this process. 

The section of subpart N of 29 CFR 

part 1926 that applies to cranes and 

derricks is § 1926.550. That section 

relies heavily on national consensus 

standards that were in effect in 1971, in 

some cases incorporating the consensus 

standards by reference. For example, 

§ 1926.550(b)(2) requires crawler, truck, 

and locomotive cranes to meet 

applicable requirements for design, 

inspection, construction, testing, 

maintenance, and operation prescribed 

in ANSI B30.5–1968, ‘‘Crawler, 

Locomotive and Truck Cranes.’’ 

Similarly, § 1926.550(e) requires 

derricks to meet applicable 

requirements for design, construction, 

installation, inspection, testing, 

maintenance, and operation prescribed 

in ANSI B30.6–1969, ‘‘Derricks.’’ Since 

1971, § 1926.550 has been amended 

substantively only twice. In 1988, a new 

paragraph (g) was added to establish 

clearly the conditions under which 

employees on personnel platforms may 

be hoisted by cranes and derricks. 53 FR 

29116 (Aug. 2, 1988). In 1993, a new 

paragraph § 1926.550(a)(19) was added 

to require that all employees be kept 

clear of lifted and suspended loads. 

There have been considerable 

technological changes since the 1971 

OSHA standard was issued. For 

example, hydraulic cranes were rare at 

that time but are now prevalent. 

Although the OSHA standard remains 

largely unchanged, the construction 

industry has updated the consensus 

standards on which the OSHA standard 

is based. For example, the industry 

consensus standard for derricks was 

most recently updated in 2003, and that 

for crawler, locomotive and truck cranes 

in 2004. 

In recent years, a number of industry 

stakeholders asked the Agency to 

update Subpart N’s cranes and derrick 

requirements. They were concerned that 

accidents involving cranes and derricks 

continued to be a significant cause of 

fatal and other serious injuries on 

construction sites and believed that an 

updated standard was needed to address 

the causes of these accidents and to 

reduce their numbers. They emphasized 

that the considerable changes in both 

work processes and technology have 

made much of Subpart N obsolete. 

In response to these requests, in 1998 

OSHA’s Advisory Committee for 

Construction Safety and Health 

(ACCSH) established a workgroup to 

develop recommended changes to the 

Subpart N requirements for cranes and 

derricks. The workgroup developed 

recommendations on some issues and 

submitted them to the full committee in 

a draft workgroup report. (OSHA–2007– 

0066–0020). In December 1999, ACCSH 

recommended to OSHA that the agency 

consider using a negotiated rulemaking 

process as the mechanism to update 

Subpart N (ACCSH 1999–4, Ex. 100x, 

p. 112). 

B. The Cranes and Derricks Negotiated 

Rulemaking Advisory Committee 

(C–DAC) 

In July 2002, OSHA announced its 

intent to use negotiated rulemaking 

under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act 

(NRA), 5 U.S.C. 561 et seq., to revise the 

cranes and derricks standard. The 

Agency made this decision in light of 

the stakeholder interest in updating 

Subpart N, the constructive discussions 

and work of the ACCSH workgroup, 

ACCSH’s recommendation, a positive 

assessment of the criteria listed in the 

NRA (5 U.S.C. 563(a)) for the use of 

negotiated rulemaking, and the 

Department of Labor’s policy on 

negotiated rulemaking (See ‘‘Notice of 

Policy on Use of Negotiated Rulemaking 

Procedures by Agencies of the 

Department of Labor,’’ 57 FR 61925 

(Dec. 29, 1992)). The Agency issued a 

notice of intent to use negotiated 

rulemaking for this project and establish 

the Cranes and Derricks Negotiated 

Rulemaking Advisory Committee 

(‘‘C–DAC’’ or ‘‘the Committee’’) (67 FR 

46612, July 16, 2002). 

Negotiated rulemaking is a process by 

which a proposed rule is developed by 

a committee comprised of members who 

represent the interests that will be 

significantly affected by the rule. 

Section 562 of the NRA defines 

‘‘interest’’ as follows: 

‘‘[I]nterest’’ means, with respect to an issue 

or matter, multiple parties which have a 

similar point of view or which are likely to 

be affected in a similar manner. 

By bringing different viewpoints to 

the table and sharing views, the 

members of the negotiated rulemaking 

committee learn the reasons for different 

positions on the issues as well as the 

practical effect of various approaches. 

Each member of the committee 

participates in resolving the interests 

and concerns of other members. 

Negotiation allows interested parties, 

including members who represent the 

interests of employers who will be 

subject to the rule and the employees 

who stand to benefit from the safer 

workplaces the rule will produce, to 

become involved at an earlier stage of 

the rulemaking process. As a result, the 

rule that OSHA proposes will have 

already received close scrutiny by 

affected parties at the pre-proposal 

stage. 

The goal of the negotiated rulemaking 

process is to develop a proposed rule 

that represents a consensus of all the 

interests. The NRA defines consensus as 

unanimous concurrence among the 

interests represented on a negotiated 

rulemaking committee unless the 

committee itself unanimously agrees to 

use a different definition of consensus. 

As discussed below, C–DAC agreed by 

unanimous vote to a different definition: 

a consensus was reached on an issue 

when not more than two non-federal 

members dissented on that issue. 

In the July 2002 notice of intent to 

establish a negotiated rulemaking 

committee referred to above, the Agency 

listed key issues that OSHA expected 

the negotiations to address and the 

interests that OSHA had tentatively 

identified as being significantly affected 

by the rulemaking. Those interests were: 

—Crane and derrick manufacturers, 

suppliers, and distributors. 

—Companies that repair and maintain 

cranes and derricks. 

—Crane and derrick leasing companies. 

—Owners of cranes and derricks. 

—Construction companies that use 

cranes and derricks. 

—General contractors. 

—Labor organizations representing 

construction employees who operate 

cranes and derricks. 

—Labor organizations representing 

construction employees who work in 

conjunction with cranes and derricks. 

—Owners of electric power distribution 

lines. 

—Civil, structural and architectural 

engineering firms and engineering 

consultants involved with the use of 

cranes and derricks in construction. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59716 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

—Training organizations. 

—Crane and derrick operator testing 

organizations. 

—Insurance and safety organizations, 

and public interest groups. 

—Trade associations. 

—Government entities involved with 

construction safety and with 

construction operations involving 

cranes and derricks. 

OSHA asked for public comment on 

whether interests other than those listed 

would be significantly affected by a new 

rule. It also solicited requests for 

membership on the committee. OSHA 

urged interested parties to communicate 

with others who shared similar interests 

and to begin organizing coalitions to 

support those interests in order to 

identify individuals for nomination to 

the committee. 

The Agency noted that the need to 

limit the committee’s membership to a 

number that could conduct effective 

negotiations might mean that not all 

interests could be represented on the 

committee itself. However, OSHA 

further noted that interested persons 

had means other than committee 

membership available to participate in 

the committee’s deliberations, including 

attending committee meetings and 

addressing the committee, providing 

written comments to the committee, and 

participating in committee workgroups. 

67 FR at 46615. 

In response to its request for public 

input, the Agency received broad 

support for using negotiated rulemaking 

and 55 nominations for committee 

membership. To keep membership to a 

reasonable size, OSHA tentatively listed 

20 potential committee members and 

asked for public comment on that 

proposed list. 68 FR 9036 (Feb. 27, 

2003). In response to the comments, 

OSHA added three members to the 

committee—individuals from the 

mobile crane manufacturing industry, 

the Specialized Carriers & Rigging 

Association, and the outdoor advertising 

industry. 68 FR 39879 (July 3, 2003). 

The members of the Committee, the 

organizations and interests they 

represent, and a summary of their 

qualifications at the time the Committee 

was formed are in Table 1 as follows: 

TABLE 1—THE QUALIFICATIONS OF C–DAC PANEL MEMBERS

Stephen Brown, International Union of Operating Engineers (labor). 

Title ........................................................................................................... Director of Construction Training, International Union of Operating Engineers. 

Organizations/Interests represented ........................................................ Organized construction employees who operate cranes and derricks, 

and work with such equipment. 

Experience ................................................................................................ Worked in numerous positions in the construction industry over 28 

years, including Equipment Operator, Mechanic, and Training Director. 

Michael Brunet, Manitowoc Cranes, Inc. (manufacturers and suppliers). 

Title ........................................................................................................... Director of Product Support for Manitowoc Cranes. 

Organizations/Interests represented ........................................................ Crane manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors. 

Experience ................................................................................................ Extensive engineering experience in crane engineering; participated in 

development of SAE and ISO standards for cranes. 

Stephen P. Charman, Viacom Outdoor, Inc. (employer users). 

Title ........................................................................................................... Vice President (New York) of Viacom Outdoor Group. 

Organizations/Interests represented ........................................................ Billboard construction. 

Experience ................................................................................................ Over 43 years’ experience with the construction industry, including specialized rigging. 

Joseph Collins, Zachry Construction Corporation (employer users). 

Title ........................................................................................................... Crane Fleet Manager. 

Organizations/Interests represented ........................................................ Highway/Railroad Construction. 

Experience ................................................................................................ Over 30 years’ experience with the construction industry in a variety of 

positions including crane operator, mechanic, and rigger. 

Noah Connell, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (government). 

Title ........................................................................................................... Director, Office of Construction Standards and Guidance. 

Organization/Interests represented .......................................................... Government. 

Experience ................................................................................................ 22 years’ experience with government programs. 

Peter Juhren, Morrow Equipment Company, L.L.C. (manufacturers and 

suppliers). 

Title ........................................................................................................... National Service Manager. 

Organization/Interests represented .......................................................... Tower crane distributor/manufacturer. 

Experience ................................................................................................ 22 years’ experience with Morrow Equipment Company, L.L.C. 

Bernie McGrew, Link-Belt Construction Equipment Corp. (manufacturers and suppliers). 

Title ........................................................................................................... Manager for Crane Testing, Product Safety, Metal Labs and Technical 

Computing. 

Organization/Interests represented .......................................................... Mobile crane manufacturers. 

Experience ................................................................................................ Extensive engineering experience in crane engineering. 

Larry Means, Wire Rope Technical Board (manufacturers and suppliers). 

Title ........................................................................................................... Rope Engineer. 

Organization/Interests represented .......................................................... Wire rope manufacturing industry. 

Experience ................................................................................................ 36 years’ wire rope engineering experience. 

Frank Migliaccio, International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers (labor organization). 

Title ........................................................................................................... Executive Director for Safety and Health. 

Organization/Interests Represented ......................................................... Organized construction employees who operate cranes and derricks, 

and work with such equipment. 

Experience ................................................................................................ 31 years’ experience in the ironworking industry, including ten years as 

Director of Safety and Health Training for the Ironworker’s National 

Fund. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59717 

TABLE 1—THE QUALIFICATIONS OF C–DAC PANEL MEMBERS—Continued 

Brian Murphy, Sundt Corporation (employer users). 

Title ........................................................................................................... Vice President and Safety Director. 

Organization/Interests Represented ......................................................... General contractors/crane owners/users. 

Experience ................................................................................................ Over 35 years’ experience in the construction industry, most of them 

with Sundt. 

George R. ‘‘Chip’’ Pocock, C.P. Buckner Steel Erection (employer 

users). 

Title ........................................................................................................... Safety and Risk Manager. 

Organization/Interests Represented ......................................................... Steel Erection crane user/employers.

Experience ................................................................................................ Over 22 years’ experience in the construction/steel erection industry. 

David Ritchie, St. Paul Companies (trainer and operator testing). 

Title ........................................................................................................... Crane and Rigging Specialist. 

Organization/Interests Represented ......................................................... Employee Training/Evaluation. 

Experience ................................................................................................ Over 31 years’ experience in the construction industry. 

Emmett Russell, International Union of Operating Engineers (labor). 

Title ........................................................................................................... Director of Safety and Health. 

Organization/Interests Represented ......................................................... Organized construction employees who operate cranes and derricks, 

and work with such equipment. 

Experience ................................................................................................ Over 32 years’ experience in the crane/construction industry, including 

ten years in the field as well as over 20 years with IUOE. 

Dale Shoemaker, Carpenters International Training Center (labor). 

Organization/Interests Represented ......................................................... Labor organizations representing construction employees who operate 

cranes and derricks and who work in conjunction with cranes and 

derricks. 

Experience ................................................................................................ Became a crane operator in 1973; served as a rigging trainer for labor 

organizations since 1986. 

William Smith, Maxim Crane Works (lessors/maintenance). 

Title ........................................................................................................... Corporate Safety/Labor Relations Manager. 

Organization/Interests Represented ......................................................... Crane/Derrick repair and maintenance companies. 

Experience ................................................................................................ 24 years’ experience in the crane, rigging, and construction industry, 

both public and private sectors. 

Craig Steele, Schuck & Sons Construction Company, Inc. (employer 

users). 

Title ........................................................................................................... President and CEO. 

Organization/Interests Represented ......................................................... Employers/users engaged in residential construction. 

Experience ................................................................................................ 30 years’ experience in the construction industry with Schuck & Sons 

Construction Company, Inc. 

Darlaine Taylor, Century Steel Erectors, Inc. (employer users). 

Title ........................................................................................................... Vice President.

Organization/Interests Represented ......................................................... Steel Erection/Leased Crane Users. 

Experience ................................................................................................ 19 years with Century Steel Erectors, over 12 years in the construction 

safety field. 

Wallace Vega III, Entergy Corp. (power line owners). 

Organization/Interests Represented ......................................................... Power line owners. 

Experience ................................................................................................ 35 years’ experience in the power line industry. 

William J. ‘‘Doc’’ Weaver, National Electrical Contractors Association 

(employer users). 

Organization/Interests Represented ......................................................... Electrical contractors engaged in power line construction. 

Experience ................................................................................................ Over 53 years’ electrical construction experience, 37 of which is spent 

in management positions. 

Robert Weiss, Cranes, Inc. and A.J. McNulty & Company, Inc. (employer users). 

Title ........................................................................................................... Vice President and Project Manager for Safety (respectively). 

Organization/Interests Represented ......................................................... Employers/users engaged in precast concrete erection. 

Experience ................................................................................................ 20 years’ experience in the precast and steel erection industry. 

Doug Williams, C.P. Buckner Steel Erection (employer users). 

Title ........................................................................................................... President. 

Organization/Interests Represented ......................................................... Buckner Heavy Lift Cranes. 

Experience ................................................................................................ 32 years’ experience in the construction industry. 

Stephen Wiltshire, Sports and Public Assembly Group, Turner Construction Corp. (employer users). 

Title ........................................................................................................... National Safety Director. 

Organization/Interests Represented ......................................................... Employer/users of owned and leased cranes. 

Experience ................................................................................................ 28 years’ experience in construction safety. 

Charles Yorio, Acordia (Wells Fargo) (insurance). 

Title ........................................................................................................... Assistant Vice President. 

Organization/Interests Represented ......................................................... Insurance. 

Experience ................................................................................................ 17 years’ experience in loss prevention and regulatory compliance. 

C–DAC was chaired by a facilitator, 

Susan L. Podziba of Susan Podziba & 

Associates, a firm engaged in public 

policy mediation and consensus 

building. Ms. Podziba’s role was to 

facilitate the negotiations by: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59718 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

(1) Chairing the Committee’s meetings 

in an impartial manner; 

(2) impartially assisting the members 

of the committee in conducting 

discussions and negotiations; and 

(3) supervising the taking of minutes 

and keeping of records and other 

relevant responsibilities, including the 

drafting of meeting summaries after 

each meeting to be reviewed and 

approved by C–DAC members. 

C–DAC first met from July 30 to 

August 1, 2003. Before addressing 

substantive issues, the Committee 

developed ground rules (formally 

approved on September 26, 2003) that 

would guide its deliberations. (OSHA– 

S030–2006–0663–0373). In addition to 

procedural matters, the ground rules 

addressed the nature and consequences 

of the Committee’s decision-making. 

C–DAC agreed that it would make every 

effort to reach unanimous agreement on 

all issues. However, if the facilitator 

determined that unanimous consent 

could not be achieved, the Committee 

would consider consensus to be reached 

when not more than two non-federal 

members (i.e., members other than the 

OSHA member) dissented. Under this 

definition, if OSHA dissented, there 

would be no consensus. 

This definition of consensus reflects 

the non-federal members’ view that 

Agency support of the Committee’s 

work was essential. The non-federal 

members believed that, if OSHA 

dissented, there would be little 

likelihood that the Committee’s work 

product would eventually be reflected 

in the final rule. These members wanted 

to ensure that concerns of the Agency 

that would prompt it to dissent were 

instead resolved in the negotiating 

process. 

Under this ground rule, if C–DAC 

reached a final consensus agreement on 

some or all issues, OSHA would use the 

consensus-based language on those 

issues for which agreement was reached 

as its proposed standard, and C–DAC 

members would refrain from providing 

formal written negative comment on 

those issues in response to the proposed 

rule. 

The ground rules provide that OSHA 

may only depart from this aspect of the 

agreement by either reopening the 

negotiated rulemaking process or 

providing to the C–DAC members a 

detailed statement of the reasons for 

altering the consensus-based language 

sufficiently far in advance of 

publication that the C–DAC members 

could express their concerns to OSHA. 

The Committee members could also 

provide negative or positive public 

comment in response to those changes. 

(OSHA–S030–2006–0663–0373). 

A tentative list of issues for the 

Committee to address was published 

along with the final list of Committee 

members (68 FR at 39879–90). At its 

initial meeting, the Committee reviewed 

and revised the issue list, adding several 

issues. (OSHA–S030–2006–0663–0372). 

The Committee met 11 times between 

July 30, 2003 and July 9, 2004. As the 

meetings progressed, the Committee 

reached consensus agreement on 

various issues and, at the final meeting, 

reached consensus agreement on all 

outstanding issues. The Committee’s 

work product, which is the Committee’s 

recommended regulatory text for the 

proposed rule, is referred to here as the 

C–DAC Consensus Document. (OSHA– 

S030–2006–0663–0639). On October 12, 

2006, ACCSH adopted a resolution 

supporting the C–DAC Consensus 

Document and recommending that 

OSHA use it as the basis for a proposed 

standard. (ACCSH 2006–1, Ex. 101x, pp. 

248–49). 

As noted earlier, OSHA’s assent was 

needed for C–DAC to reach consensus 

agreement on an issue. Thus, the fact 

that the Committee reached consensus 

agreement on all issues means that this 

proposal reflects OSHA’s agreement 

with the Consensus Document. In the 

discussion of the various sections of the 

proposal below, when the Committee’s 

views or conclusions are stated, OSHA 

agrees with those views or conclusions 

unless otherwise noted. 

In reviewing the Consensus Document 

to draft this proposed rule, OSHA 

identified certain problems in the 

Consensus Document. These range from 

misnumbering and other typographical/ 

technical errors to provisions that 

appear to be inconsistent with the 

Committee’s intent or that are worded in 

a manner that requires clarification. 

This proposed rule deviates from the 

Consensus Document where changes 

were clearly needed to reflect the 

Committee’s intent, or to correct 

typographical/technical errors. With 

respect to substantive changes, the 

Agency has identified and explained 

them in the portions of this preamble 

that address the affected provisions. 

There are instances where it appears 

to the Agency that other changes may be 

needed for several reasons: To conform 

to the Committee’s intent; where the 

precise form of a change needed to 

conform to that intent is not clear; or 

where an aspect of a significant issue 

appears not to have been considered by 

C–DAC. In each such instance OSHA 

has retained the regulatory language 

used in the Consensus Document but 

asks for public comment on them. 

Numerous Committee members had 

vast and varied experience in cranes 

and derricks in construction, which 

gave them a wealth of knowledge in the 

causes of accidents and safety issues 

involving such equipment. In addition, 

other members had substantial 

knowledge and experience in other 

types of subject areas that also related to 

crane and derrick safety. This is 

reflected in the summary of their 

qualifications (see list above). 

The members used this knowledge to 

identify issues that required particular 

attention and to devise regulatory 

language that would address the causes 

of such accidents. Their extensive 

practical experience in the construction 

industry and the other industries 

represented on the Committee helped 

them to design improvements to the 

current Subpart N requirements that 

would be practical and workable. This 

preamble describes the proposed 

standard and the Committee’s reasons 

for resolving the various issues in the 

manner it did. 

In examining the causes of crane 

accidents and devising ways to reduce 

them, the Committee concluded that 

incorrect operation was a factor in many 

accidents. Operating a crane is a 

complex job requiring skill and 

knowledge. To operate a crane safely 

requires a thorough knowledge of the 

equipment and controls and a complete 

understanding of the factors that can 

affect the safety of its operation. The 

Committee believed that it was essential 

to address the issue of operator 

qualification so that accidents resulting 

from incorrect operation would be 

reduced. 

C–DAC spent considerable time and 

effort determining how the proposed 

rule could best ensure that equipment 

operators are well qualified. C–DAC 

decided that it was necessary for crane 

operators to be certified or qualified 

through a formal process to ensure that 

they possessed the degree of knowledge 

necessary to operate their equipment 

safely. The Committee’s reasoning and 

the details of the qualification/ 

certification process are discussed 

below in connection with § 1926.1427, 

Operator Qualification and 

Certification. 

Another cause of numerous fatal and 

serious accidents that C–DAC addressed 

was equipment making electrical 

contact with power lines. Although 

Subpart N currently addresses this issue 

by requiring equipment to maintain a 

minimum distance from power lines 

that depends on the voltage of the line, 

the Committee identified reasons why 

the current standard was not preventing 

the many accidents that continue to 

occur. The Committee concluded that 

simply requiring a minimum clearance 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59719 

distance was not sufficient to eliminate 

the human error that led to most 

instances of power line contact and that 

additional requirements that would help 

employers identify potential power line 

hazards and systematic procedures to 

protect against those hazards were 

needed to prevent power line contact. 

See the discussion below under 

§§ 1926.1407–1411, which deal with the 

various aspects of power line safety. 

As noted above, OSHA’s current 

standard on cranes and derricks, 29 CFR 

1926.550, incorporates numerous 

national consensus standards by 

reference. The Committee reviewed the 

most recent versions of these consensus 

standards. For some issues, the 

Committee determined that a different 

approach was warranted (such as in the 

case of protections against power lines 

and operator qualification/certification). 

In many other instances the Committee 

determined that concepts in the 

consensus standards were appropriate 

but that different wording was needed 

to improve clarity and enforceability, or 

to be more readable within the structure 

of the proposed rule. 

Where the Committee incorporated 

consensus standards by reference, it 

agreed with the concepts, found the 

structure and wording appropriate, and 

determined that the incorporation of the 

provisions would not detract from its 

goal of producing a readable document. 

In addition, to avoid encumbering the 

text with too much length and technical 

detail that would hinder readability, C– 

DAC decided to incorporate by 

reference certain requirements from 

consensus standards where those 

requirements addressed highly technical 

topics, such as welding criteria. 

C–DAC also determined that some 

categories of equipment needed to be 

addressed differently than others. The 

proposed standard contains general 

requirements in §§ 1926.1402–1434 that 

are appropriate for most types of 

equipment and workplaces but which 

contain certain specific exclusions. 

Sections 1926.1435–1441 each address a 

specific type of equipment, such as 

§ 1926.1435, Tower cranes. Those 

sections tailor the requirements of the 

proposed standard to accommodate the 

unique characteristics of that 

equipment. They state which of the 

general provisions in §§ 1926.1402– 

1434 apply to that type of equipment 

and which do not. They also include 

requirements specific to that type of 

equipment either (as specified) as a 

substitute for, or in addition to, the 

general provisions in §§ 1926.1402– 

1434. In this way, C–DAC ensured that 

each type of equipment would be 

subject to requirements appropriate for 

that equipment. 

In drafting some of the provisions in 

this proposal, the Committee recognized 

that OSHA would be requiring cranes 

and derricks to be equipped with 

operational aids that have not been 

mandatory in the past. For some types 

of these aids, the Committee believed it 

would be impractical to require that 

cranes and derricks be retrofitted with 

the devices. In determining whether to 

propose that such requirements be 

prospective only, the Committee 

considered the degree of importance of 

the device to safety, whether the devices 

are required under industry consensus 

standards and, if so, the date they were 

first required under such standards. 

Recognizing that manufacturers 

generally follow industry consensus 

standards, C–DAC drafted these 

provisions to require equipment 

manufactured after the date an 

operational aid was required by an 

industry consensus standard to be 

equipped with the device. 

In situations where no industry 

consensus standard required that cranes 

or derricks be equipped with a certain 

operational aid or fall protection device, 

the Committee decided to allow 

sufficient lead time for manufacturers to 

install the aids and devices. The 

Committee proposed to require some 

aids and devices on equipment 

manufactured one year after the 

effective date of this standard. In other 

cases, the Committee specified that the 

aids and devices would be required on 

equipment manufactured after January 

1, 2008. 

It is now evident that the standard 

will not be finalized by that date and 

that keying requirements to that date 

will not afford employers the lead time 

intended by the Committee. To conform 

this proposed standard to the 

Committee’s intent, and to ensure that 

industry has sufficient lead time to 

equip cranes and derricks with the 

required aids and devices, OSHA is 

substituting ‘‘more than one year after 

the effective date of this standard’’ for 

‘‘January 1, 2008’’ wherever that date 

appears in the Committee’s draft. 

C. Hazards Associated With Cranes and 

Derricks in Construction Work 

OSHA estimates that 89 crane-related 

fatalities occur per year in construction 

work. The causes of crane-related 

fatalities were recently analyzed by 

Beavers, et al. J.E. Beavers, J.R. Moore, 

R. Rinehart, and W.R. Schriver, ‘‘CraneRelated Fatalities in the Construction 

Industry,’’ 132 Journal of Construction 

Engineering and Management 901 (Sept. 

2006) (OSHA–2007–0066–0012). The 

authors searched OSHA’s Integrated 

Management Information System (IMIS) 

database for all fatal accidents for 1997– 

2003 investigated by OSHA involving 

cranes in the construction industry. By 

searching the database for cases using 

the key words ‘‘crane,’’ ‘‘derrick,’’ or 

‘‘boom,’’ they identified 381 IMIS files 

for the covered years in the federal 

program states, which include states 

with about 57% of all workers 

throughout the country. The authors 

requested the case files from OSHA so 

that they could confirm that a crane or 

derrick was involved in the fatality. Of 

the 335 case files that OSHA provided, 

the authors identified 125 (involving 

127 fatalities) as being crane or derrick 

related. From these files, they 

determined that the percentages of 

fatalities caused by various types of 

incident are in Table 2 as follows: 

TABLE 2—THE CAUSES OF FATALITIES

DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF

HOISTING ACTIVITIES

Percent 

Struck by load (other than failure 

of boom/cable) .......................... 32 

Electrocution ................................. 27 

Crushed during assembly/disassembly ................................... 21 

Failure of boom/cable ................... 12 

Crane tip-over ............................... 11 

Struck by cab/counterweight ........ 3 

Falls .............................................. 2 

A study by Suruda et al. examined the 

causes of crane-related deaths for the 

1984–1994 period. A. Suruda, M. Egger, 

& D. Liu, ‘‘Crane-Related Deaths in the 

U.S. Construction Industry, 1984–94,’’ 

The Center to Protect Workers’ Rights 

(Oct. 1997) (OSHA–2007–0066–0013). 

The authors examined OSHA IMIS data 

to identify the number of fatal accidents 

involving cranes and determine their 

causes. For the years in question, they 

found 479 accidents involving 502 

fatalities. In the worst year, 1990, 70 

deaths occurred. 

The authors noted some limitations in 

the data they examined: Data for 

California, Michigan, and Washington 

state were not available for 1984–1989; 

the proportion of fatal accidents that 

OSHA and the states that enforce their 

own state plans investigate is unknown; 

and some of the investigation reports 

were not sufficiently detailed to allow 

the cause of the accident or the type of 

crane involved to be determined. 

The Suruda study determined that the 

number and the percentage of fatalities 

from various causes are in Table 3 as 

follows: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59720 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3—THE CAUSES OF CRANE

INCIDENTS

Electrocution ............................. 198 (39%) 

Crane assembly/disassembly ... 58 (12%) 

Boom buckling/collapse ............ 41 (8%) 

Crane upset/overturn ................ 37 (7%) 

Rigging failure ........................... 36 (7%) 

Overloading .............................. 22 (4%) 

Struck by moving load .............. 22 (4%) 

Accidents related to manlifts .... 21 (4%) 

Working within swing radius of 

counterweight ........................ 17 (3%) 

Two-blocking ............................. 11 (2%) 

Hoist limitations ........................ 7 (1%) 

Other causes ............................ 32 (6%) 

The proposed standard addresses the 

major causes of the equipment related 

fatalities identified in the Beavers and 

Suruda studies. The following is a brief 

synopsis of the sections in this proposed 

standard that address them; each 

proposed section is explained in detail 

later in this preamble. 

The electrocution hazard is addressed 

by proposed §§ 1926.1407–1411, which 

deal with various aspects of power line 

safety. These sections contain 

requirements designed to prevent 

equipment from contacting energized 

power lines. The proposed rule 

delineates systematic, reliable 

procedures and methods that must be 

used to prevent a safe clearance distance 

from being breached. If maintaining the 

safe clearance distance is infeasible, 

additional protections would be 

required, including grounding the 

equipment, covering the line with an 

insulating sleeve, and using insulating 

links and nonconductive tag lines. 

These procedures and methods are 

supplemented by requirements for 

training the operator and crew in power 

line safety and the requirement for 

operator qualification and certification 

in proposed § 1926.1427. C–DAC 

concluded that compliance with these 

training and certification requirements 

will not only reduce the frequency of 

power line contact but will give the 

workers the knowledge they need to 

help avoid injury in the event such 

contact does occur. 

Fatalities that involve employees 

being struck or crushed during 

assembly/disassembly are addressed in 

proposed §§ 1926.1403–1406. These 

sections require certain specific safe 

practice procedures to be followed and 

for the employer to address a list of 

specific hazards. Also, assembly/ 

disassembly must be supervised by an 

individual who is well qualified to see 

that these requirements are properly 

implemented. 

As the studies show and the 

Committee’s experience confirms, many 

disassembly accidents occur when 

sections of lattice booms unexpectedly 

move and strike or crush an employee 

who is disassembling the boom. The 

proposal addresses this scenario in 

proposed § 1926.1404(f) by prohibiting 

employees from being under the boom 

when pins are removed unless special 

precautions are taken to protect against 

boom movement. 

Accidents resulting from boom or 

cable failure are addressed in a number 

of provisions. For example, the 

proposed standard includes 

requirements for: Proper assembly 

procedures (proposed § 1926.1403); 

boom stops to prevent booms from being 

raised too far and toppling over 

backwards (proposed § 1926.1415, 

Safety devices); a boom hoist limiting 

device to prevent excessive boom travel, 

and an anti-two-block device, which 

prevents overloading the boom from 

two-blocking (proposed § 1926.1416, 

Operational aids). Also, the inspection 

requirements (proposed § 1926.1412) are 

designed so that a structural deficiency 

in a boom will be detected and 

addressed before an accident occurs. 

Cable failure will be avoided by 

compliance with proposed sections 

such as § 1926.1413, Wire rope— 

inspection, § 1926.1414, Wire rope— 

selection and installation criteria, and 

the provision in proposed § 1926.1416 

requiring two-block protection. 

Crane tip-over is caused by factors 

such as overloading, improper use of 

outriggers and insufficient ground 

conditions. Proposed § 1926.1417, 

Operations, includes provisions 

designed to prevent overloading. That 

section prohibits the equipment from 

being operated in excess of its rated 

capacity and includes procedures for 

ensuring that the weight of the load is 

reliably determined and within the 

equipment’s rated capacity. Proposed 

§ 1926.1404(q) has requirements for 

outrigger use designed to ensure that 

outriggers are properly set when they 

are needed to provide stability when a 

load is lifted. Proposed § 1926.1402 has 

requirements designed to ensure 

sufficient ground conditions. 

The provisions on training and 

operator qualification and certification 

will also prevent this type of accident 

by ensuring that the operator is 

sufficiently knowledgeable and skilled 

to recognize situations when the crane 

may be overloaded and to either require 

that the situation be corrected or refuse 

to proceed in accordance with proposed 

§ 1926.1418, Authority to stop 

operation. 

Fatalities that result from workers 

being struck by the cab or 

counterweights will be avoided by 

compliance with proposed § 1926.1424, 

Work area control. That section would 

require that employees who must work 

near equipment with a rotating 

superstructure be trained in the hazards 

involved, that employers mark or 

barricade the area within the area 

covered by the rotating superstructure, 

and that the operator be alerted 

whenever an employee must enter that 

area and not rotate the superstructure 

until the area is clear. Protection against 

being struck by a counterweight during 

assembly/disassembly is provided by 

proposed § 1926.1404(h)(9), which 

would require the assembly/ 

disassembly supervisor to address this 

hazard and take steps when necessary to 

protect workers against that danger. 

The proposal addresses a number of 

types of equipment failure that can 

result in the load striking a worker. 

Such accidents are directly addressed 

by proposed § 1926.1425, Keeping clear 

of the load, and § 1926.1426, Free fall/ 

controlled load lowering. In addition, 

improved requirements in proposed 

§§ 1926.1419–1422 for signaling will 

help avoid load struck-by accidents 

caused by miscommunication. 

Improper operation, including, for 

example, the failure to understand and 

compensate for the effects of factors 

such as dynamic loading, can also cause 

employees to be struck by a load. Such 

incidents will be reduced by 

compliance with proposed § 1926.1427, 

Operator qualification and certification 

and proposed § 1926.1430, Training. 

Other provisions, such as those for 

safety devices and operational aids 

(proposed § 1926.1415 and § 1926.1416), 

and the requirement for periodic 

inspections in proposed § 1926.1412, 

will also reduce the number of this type 

of accident. 

Protection against falling from 

equipment is addressed by proposed 

§ 1926.1423, Fall protection. That 

section would require new equipment to 

provide safe access to the operator work 

station by the use of devices such as 

steps, handholds, and grabrails. Certain 

new lattice boom equipment would 

have to be equipped with boom 

walkways. There are also fall protection 

provisions tailored to assembly and 

disassembly work and to other work. 

Proposed § 1926.1431, Hoisting 

personnel, addresses fall protection 

when employees are being hoisted. 

OSHA has investigated numerous 

equipment accidents that have resulted 

in fatalities from the causes listed in the 

Beavers and Suruda studies. Below is a 

discussion of examples from OSHA’s 

IMIS accident investigation reports from 

recent years that illustrate some of the 

types of accidents that occur when 

using the types of equipment covered by 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59721 

this proposed standard and the ways 

that this proposed standard would 

prevent such incidents. These examples 

illustrate the limitations of the current 

standard and highlight the need for a 

revised standard that will address the 

causes of the equipment accidents that 

continue to kill and injure construction 

workers. 

1. February 16, 2004: 4 fatalities, 4 

injuries. A launching gantry collapsed 

and fatally injured 4 workers and sent 

4 other workers to the hospital. The 

launching gantry was being used to 

erect pre-cast concrete segments span by 

span. The manufacturer required that 

the rear legs and front legs be properly 

anchored to resist longitudinal and 

lateral forces that act on the launching 

gantry. The legs of the launching gantry 

were not properly anchored. (OSHA– 

2007–0066–0017). 

OSHA believes that this type of 

accident would be prevented by 

compliance with the provisions of this 

proposed standard for assembling 

equipment. Proposed § 1403 requires 

that equipment be assembled in 

compliance with manufacturer 

procedures or with alternative employer 

procedures (see proposed § 1406) 

designed, among other things, to 

prevent the equipment from collapsing. 

In addition, under proposed § 1404, 

assembly must be conducted under the 

supervision of a person who 

understands the hazards associated with 

an improperly assembled crane and is 

well-qualified to understand and 

comply with the proper assembly 

procedures. 

2. January 30, 2006. 1 fatality. An 

employee was crushed by the lower end 

section of the lattice boom on a truck 

mounted crane while working from a 

position underneath the boom to 

remove the 2nd lower pin. When the 

2nd lower pin was removed the 

unsecured/uncribbed boom fell on the 

employee. (OSHA–2007–0066–0017.1) 

Proposed § 1926.1404(f) would 

prevent this type of accident by 

generally prohibiting employees from 

being under the boom when pins are 

removed. In situations where site 

constraints require an employee to be 

under the boom when pins are removed, 

the employer must implement other 

procedures, such as ensuring that the 

boom sections are adequately 

supported, to prevent the sections from 

falling onto the employee. 

3. July 23, 2001: 1 fatality. Employee 

failed to extend the outriggers before he 

extended the boom of a service truck 

crane to lift up some pipes. As he 

extended his boom, the crane tipped 

over on its side and an employee was 

struck on the head by the hook block as 

he stood near the rear of the truck. 

(OSHA–2007–0066–0017.10) 

This type of accident would be 

prevented by compliance with proposed 

§ 1926.1404(q), which contains several 

provisions designed to ensure that 

outriggers are deployed properly before 

lifting a load. In addition, the operator 

qualification and certification 

requirement of proposed § 1926.1427, 

which is intended to ensure that 

operators understand and follow the 

safety requirements for the equipment 

they are operating, would help prevent 

this type of accident. 

4. March 8, 1999. 1 fatality. Some 

employees were using a mobile crane to 

maneuver a load of steel joists. The 

crane contacted a 7,200-volt overhead 

power line, electrocuting an employee 

who was signaling and guiding the load. 

The crane operator jumped clear and 

was not injured. (OSHA–2007–0066– 

0017.11) 

Section 1926.1408 includes 

provisions that would prevent this type 

of accident. First, it would require the 

use of ‘‘encroachment prevention’’ 

measures designed to prevent the crane 

from breaching a safe clearance distance 

from the power line. Second, if tag lines 

are used to guide the load, they would 

have to be non-conductive. Third, if 

maintaining the normal clearance 

distance were infeasible, a number of 

additional measures would have to be 

used. One of those additional measures 

is the use of an insulating link between 

the end of the load line and the load. 

These measures would protect the 

employee guiding the load in several 

ways, including the following: First, 

they would reduce the chance that the 

crane would come into electrical contact 

with the power line. Second, if the 

employee were using a tag line to guide 

the load, it would have to be nonconductive, which would protect the 

employee if the load became energized. 

If the crane were intentionally 

operated closer than the normal 

clearance distance, and the employer 

complied with the additional protective 

measures required in that circumstance, 

an insulating link would be in place. In 

such a case, even if there was a failure 

of the encroachment prevention 

measures and electrical contact resulted, 

the insulating link would prevent the 

load from becoming energized and 

prevent the employee guiding the load 

from being electrocuted. 

5. August 21, 2003. 3 fatalities. A 

crane operator and two co-workers were 

electrocuted when a truck crane’s 

elevated boom contacted a 7,200 Volt 

uninsulated primary conductor 31 feet 

from the ground. When the operator 

stepped from the cab of the truck he 

created a conduction pathway to the 

ground through his right hand and right 

foot, causing him to be electrocuted. A 

co-worker attempted to revive the 

incapacitated crane operator with 

cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (‘‘CPR’’) 

while a third co-worker contacted 911 

and returned to the incident location. 

When the third co-worker 

simultaneously touched the energized 

truck crane and the back of his coworker performing CPR, the resulting 

pathway created a conduction pathway 

through the workers, electrocuting them 

all. (OSHA–2007–0066–0017.12). 

This type of accident would be 

avoided by compliance with the 

proposed rule. First, as explained in the 

previous electrocution accident 

examples, proposed § 1926.1408 is 

designed to ensure that a minimum safe 

distance from the power line is 

maintained, which would prevent the 

equipment from becoming energized. 

Also, when working closer than the 

normal minimum clearance distance, 

the crane would have to be grounded; 

that would reduce the chance of an 

electrical pathway through the 

employees in this type of scenario. 

In addition, proposed § 1926.1408(g) 

would require the operator to be trained 

to remain inside the cab unless there is 

imminent danger of fire or explosion. 

The operator must also be trained in the 

danger of simultaneously touching the 

equipment and the ground, as he did in 

this case, and in the safest means of 

evacuating the equipment. The crane’s 

remaining crew must be trained to avoid 

approaching or touching the equipment. 

The required training would be 

reinforced by the electrocution warnings 

that must be posted in the cab and on 

the outside of the equipment. 

6. September 28, 1999: 1 fatality. A 

19-year old electrical instrument helper 

was at a construction site that was on a 

manufacturing company’s property. 

That morning a contractor had 

positioned a 50-ton hydraulic crane in 

an open area that consisted of 

compacted fill material. This was the 

only location that the crane could be 

situated because the receiving area for 

the equipment was very close to the 

property border. The crane was moving 

large sections of piping to a new 

location when it overturned and struck 

the helper. 

The crane’s outriggers were set but 

matting was placed only under the 

northwest outrigger pad. At the start of 

the construction project, the 

manufacturing company cleared the site 

and had fill material brought in. The site 

was originally swamp and large 

amounts of fill had been brought in. 

(OSHA–2007–0066–0017.13). 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59722 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Proposed § 1926.1402, Ground 

conditions, is designed to prevent this 

type of accident. Under that paragraph, 

care must be taken to ensure that the 

surface on which a crane is operating is 

sufficiently level and firm to support the 

crane in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s specifications. A 

contributing factor to this accident may 

have been a lack of clarity regarding 

responsibility for adequate ground 

conditions due to the fact that the 

employer who operated the crane did 

not control the ground conditions on the 

property. 

Section 1926.1402 would impose 

specific duties on both the entity 

responsible for the project (the 

controlling entity) and the entity 

operating the crane to ensure that the 

crane is adequately supported. It places 

responsibility for ensuring that the 

ground conditions are adequate on the 

controlling entity while also making the 

employer operating the crane 

responsible for calling any deficiency to 

the controlling entity’s attention and 

having it corrected before using the 

crane. 

7. June 17, 2006: 1 fatality. A crane 

was being used on a barge to install a 

dock in a waterway. Employees were 

preparing to move the barge. A spud 

pipe, which anchored the barge, was 

being raised by the barge-mounted crane 

when the hoisting cable broke, dropping 

the headache ball and rigging onto one 

of the employees. (OSHA–2007–0066– 

0017.3). 

This type of accident can have various 

causes. An incorrectly selected wire 

rope (one that has insufficient capacity), 

use of a wire rope that is damaged or 

worn to the point where it needs to be 

replaced, or two-blocking, in which the 

headache ball is forced against the 

upper block, can each cause this type of 

failure. The provisions of proposed 

§§ 1926.1413 and 1414 on wire rope 

inspection, selection, and installation 

are designed to ensure that appropriate 

wire rope is installed, inspected and 

removed from service when its 

continued use would be unsafe. Section 

1926.1416, Operational aids, contains 

provisions designed to protect against 

two-blocking. 

8. July 13, 1999: 3 fatalities. Three 

employees were in a personnel basket 

280 feet above the ground. They were in 

the process of guiding a large roof 

section, being lifted by another crane, 

into place. Winds gusting to 27 miles 

per hour overloaded the crane holding 

the roof section; that crane collapsed, 

striking the crane that was supporting 

the personnel basket, causing the boom 

to fall. All three employees received 

fatal crushing injuries. (OSHA–2007– 

0066–0017.4 & OSHA–2007–0066– 

0018). 

This type of accident would be 

prevented by compliance with proposed 

§ 1926.1417(n), which requires the 

competent person in charge of the 

operation to consider the effect of wind 

and other adverse weather conditions 

on the equipment’s stability and rated 

capacity. In addition, proposed 

§ 1926.1431, Hoisting personnel, 

requires that when wind speed 

(sustained or gust) exceeds 20 mph, 

personnel are prohibited from being 

hoisted by a crane unless a qualified 

person determines it is safe to do so. 

9. November 7, 2005: 1 fatality. A 

construction worker was crushed 

between the outrigger and the rotating 

superstructure of a truck crane. He 

apparently tried to retrieve a level and 

a set of blueprints which were laying on 

the horizontal member of one of the 

outriggers at the same time the operator 

began to swing the boom. (OSHA–2007– 

0066–0017.5). 

This type of accident would be 

avoided by compliance with proposed 

§ 1926.1424, Work area control. That 

section generally requires that 

employers erect barriers to mark the 

area covered by the rotating 

superstructure to warn workers of that 

danger zone. In addition, employees 

who must work near equipment with a 

rotating superstructure must be trained 

in the hazards involved. If an employee 

must enter the marked area, the crane 

operator must be alerted and not rotate 

the superstructure until the area is clear. 

10. March 19, 2005: 2 fatalities and 1 

injury. During steel erection operations, 

a crane was lifting three steel beams to 

a parking garage under construction. 

The crane tipped over and the boom 

collapsed. The boom and attached 

beams struck concrete workers next to 

the structure. Two were killed and one 

injured. The accident apparently 

occurred as a result of overloading the 

crane. (OSHA–2007–0066–0017.6). 

Overloading a crane can cause it to tip 

over. When it does, the load or crane 

structure can strike and fatally injure 

workers who may be some distance 

from the crane. Proposed § 1926.1417, 

Operations, includes provisions 

designed to prevent overloading. That 

section prohibits the equipment from 

being operated in excess of its rated 

capacity and includes procedures for 

ensuring that the weight of the load is 

reliably determined and within the 

equipment’s rated capacity. 

The provisions on operator training 

and certification/qualification will also 

help prevent this type of accident by 

ensuring that the operator is sufficiently 

knowledgeable and skilled in 

recognizing conditions that would 

overload the crane. 

11. December 7, 2005. 1 fatality. Two 

cranes were being used to lower a 

concrete beam across the river. During 

the lowering process, the west side of 

the beam became lower than the east 

side. The consequent shifting of the 

load’s weight to the west side crane 

caused that crane to tip over. The west 

end of the beam went into the river and 

the east end fell on the bank and a 

support mat, causing a flag person to be 

thrown into the beam. (OSHA–2007– 

0066–0017.7). 

This type of accident would be 

prevented by compliance with proposed 

§ 1926.1432, Multiple crane/derrick lifts. 

That section specifies that when more 

than one crane will be supporting a 

load, the operation must be performed 

in accordance with a plan developed by 

a qualified person. The plan must be 

designed to ensure that the 

requirements of this proposed standard 

will be met and must be reviewed with 

all individuals who will be involved in 

the process. Moreover, the lift must be 

supervised by an individual who 

qualifies as both a competent person 

and a qualified person as defined in this 

standard. 

In the type of scenario involved in 

this accident, a plan that would comply 

with this requirement would, for 

example, include a determination of the 

degree of level that is needed to be 

maintained in order to prevent either 

crane from being overloaded. In 

addition, such a plan would include a 

system of communications and a means 

of monitoring the operation designed to 

ensure that the cranes’ operation was 

properly coordinated. 

12. May 7, 2004: 1 fatality. An 

employee, a rigger/operator-in-training, 

was in the upper cab of a 60-ton 

hydraulic boom truck crane to set up 

and position the crane boom prior to a 

lift. The crane was equipped with two 

hoists, a main line and auxiliary. The 

main hoist line had a multi-sheave 

block and hook and the auxiliary line 

had a 285 pound ball and hook. When 

the employee was extending the 

hydraulic boom, a two-block condition 

occurred with the auxiliary line ball 

striking the auxiliary sheave head, 

knocking the sheave and ball from the 

boom. The employee was struck in the 

head and killed by the falling ball. 

(OSHA–2007–0066–0017.8). 

This type of accident would be 

prevented by compliance with proposed 

§ 1926.1416, Operational aids, which 

requires protection against twoblocking. A hydraulic boom crane, if 

manufactured after February 28, 1992, 

would have to be equipped with a 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59723 

device that automatically prevents twoblocking. 

Also, the operator-in-training in this 

case apparently did not understand that 

extending a hydraulic boom would 

move the sheave head toward the ball 

and could cause two-blocking. The 

proposed standard, through proposed 

§ 1926.1427(a) and (f), would avoid 

having inexperienced operators make 

this type of mistake by prohibiting an 

operator-in-training from operating a 

crane without supervision and without 

first having had enough training to 

enable the operator to perform the 

assigned task safely. 

13. April 26, 2006: One fatality. The 

deceased employee was part of a 

framing crew which was in the process 

of installing sheathing for a roof. A 

bundle of plywood sheathing was being 

hoisted by a crane to a location on the 

roof. As the crane was positioning the 

bundle of sheathing above its landing 

location, the load hoist on the crane free 

spooled, causing an uncontrolled 

descent of the load. The employee was 

under the load, preparing to position it 

to its landing spot, when the load fell 

and crushed him. (OSHA–2007–0066– 

0017.9). 

This type of accident would be 

prevented by compliance with 

§ 1926.1426, Free fall and controlled 

load lowering, which prohibits free fall 

of the load line hoist and requires 

controlled load lowering when an 

employee is directly under the load. 

As discussed below in the Preliminary 

Economic Analysis, OSHA finds that 

construction workers suffer 89 fatal 

injuries per year from the types of 

equipment covered by this proposed 

standard. Of that number, OSHA 

estimates that 53 would be avoided by 

compliance with the proposed standard. 

In addition, OSHA estimates that the 

proposed standard would prevent 155 

non-fatal injuries each year. Based on all 

of the available evidence and on the 

collective expertise of the members of 

C–DAC, OSHA preliminarily finds that 

construction workers are faced with a 

significant risk of death and injury 

resulting from equipment operations 

and that the risk would be substantially 

reduced by compliance with this 

proposed standard. 

During the SBREFA process, several 

Small Entity Representatives expressed 

concern that the C–DAC proposal was 

so long and complex that small 

businesses would have difficulty 

understanding it and complying with it. 

The SBREFA Panel recommended that 

OSHA solicit public comment on how 

the rule could be simplified and made 

easier to understand without creating 

ambiguities. OSHA welcomes public 

comment on this issue. 

III. The SBREFA Process 

Before proceeding with a proposed 

rule based on the C–DAC Consensus 

Document, OSHA was required to 

comply with the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (SBREFA). 

This required OSHA to draft an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis that 

would evaluate the potential impact of 

the rule on small entities (defined as 

small businesses, small governmental 

units, and small nonprofit 

organizations) and identify the type of 

small entities that might be affected by 

the rule. In accordance with SBREFA, 

OSHA then convened a Small Business 

Advocacy Review Panel (‘‘Panel’’) 

composed of representatives of OSHA, 

the Office of Management and Budget, 

and the Office of Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. Individuals 

who were representative of affected 

small entities (Small Entity 

Representatives, or ‘‘SERs’’) were then 

identified for the purpose of obtaining 

advice and recommendations from those 

individuals about the potential impacts 

of the proposed rule. 

OSHA provided the SERs with the C– 

DAC consensus document and the draft 

regulatory flexibility analysis and 

afforded them the opportunity to submit 

written comments on those documents. 

The Agency also drafted questions 

asking them their views on the specific 

aspects of the C–DAC document it 

thought would be of most concern to 

small entities. 

The Panel conducted two conference 

calls with the SERs in which the SERs 

presented their views on various issues. 

After reviewing the SERs’ oral and 

written comments, on October 17, 2006, 

the Panel submitted its report 

summarizing the requirements of the 

C–DAC proposal, the comments 

received from the SERs, and presenting 

its findings and recommendations. 

(OSHA–S030A–2006–0664–0019). In its 

findings and recommendations, the 

Panel identified issues that it believed 

needed particular attention and analysis 

in the proposal or for which it believed 

OSHA should explicitly solicit public 

comment. 

In the discussion that follows, OSHA 

addresses each of the Panel’s findings 

and recommendations in the section 

pertaining to the issue involved. Table 

4 summarizes the Panel’s 

recommendations and the portions of 

this preamble in which they are 

discussed. 

TABLE 4—SBREFA PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND OSHA RESPONSES

SBREFA panel recommendation OSHA response 

The Panel recommends that OSHA provide full documentation for how 

it estimated the number of affected small entities and all other calculations and estimates provided in the PIRFA.

See the Preliminary Economic Analysis (PEA), in section V.B. of this 

Federal Register notice. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA reexamine its estimate of crane 

use in home building, the coverage of crane trucks used for loading 

and unloading, and the estimates of the number of jobs per crane. 

Changes in these estimates should be incorporated into the estimates of costs and economic impacts.

See the Preliminary Economic Analysis (PEA), in section V.B. of this 

Federal Register notice. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA review its estimates for the direct 

costs of operator certification and seek comment on these cost estimates.

See the Preliminary Economic Analysis (PEA), in section V.B. of this 

Federal Register notice. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA carefully examine certain types of 

impact that could result from an operator certification requirement, including reports of substantial increases in the wages of operators; 

the possibility of increased market power for firms renting out cranes; 

and loss of jobs for existing operators due to language, literacy, or 

knowledge problems; and seek comment on these types of impacts.

See the Preliminary Economic Analysis (PEA), in section V.B. of this 

Federal Register notice. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider studying the impacts of 

the implementation of operator certification in California.

See the Preliminary Economic Analysis (PEA), in section V.B. of this 

Federal Register notice. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59724 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 4—SBREFA PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND OSHA RESPONSES—Continued 

SBREFA panel recommendation OSHA response 

The Panel recommends that OSHA reexamine its estimates for the 

amount of time required to assess ground conditions, the number of 

persons involved in the assessment, and the amount of coordination 

involved; clarify the extent to which such assessments are currently 

being conducted and what OSHA estimates as new costs for this 

rule represent; and seek comments on OSHA’s cost estimates.

See the Preliminary Economic Analysis (PEA), in section V.B. of this 

Federal Register notice. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA carefully review the documentation 

requirements of the standard, including documentation that employers may consider it prudent to maintain; estimate the costs of such 

requirements; seek ways of minimizing these costs consistent with 

the goals of the OSH Act; and solicit comment on these costs and 

ways of minimizing these costs.

The Agency describes the documentation requirements, along with 

cost estimates, in the section of this Preamble entitled ‘‘OMB Review 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.’’ 

The Panel recommends that OSHA examine whether the inspection requirements of the proposed rule require procedures not normally 

conducted currently, such as lowering and fully extending the boom 

before the crane can be used and removing non-hinged inspection 

plates during the shift inspection, estimate the costs of any such requirements, and seek comment on these issues.

As explained in the discussion of § 1926.1412, Inspections, OSHA’s 

current standard at 29 CFR 1926.550 requires inspections each time 

the equipment is used as well as thorough annual inspections. In addition, national consensus standards that are incorporated by reference include additional inspection requirements. This proposal 

would list the inspection requirements in one place rather than rely 

on incorporated consensus standards. OSHA does not believe this 

proposed standard imposes significant new requirements for inspections. Section 1926.1413(a) explicitly says that booming down is not 

required for shift (and therefore monthly) inspections. 

Similarly, OSHA does not believe that inspection of any of those items 

would require removal of non-hinged inspection plates. In the discussion of proposed § 1926.1412, OSHA requests public comment on 

these points. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider the costs of meeting the 

requirements for original load charts and full manuals, and solicit 

comments on such costs.

Currently, Subpart N, at 29 CFR 1926.550(a)(2), requires load charts, 

so that is not a new cost. Subpart N does not require manuals. 

OSHA believes that most crane owners and operators have and 

maintain crane manuals, which contain the load charts and other critical technical information about crane operations and maintenance. 

The Agency believes that the cost of obtaining a copy of a manual 

should be modest and solicits comment on how many owners or operators do not have full manuals for their cranes or derricks. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA provide full documentation for its 

analysis of the benefits the proposed rule is expected to produce and 

assure that the benefits analysis is reproducible by others.

See the Preliminary Economic Analysis (PEA), in section V.B. of this 

Federal Register notice. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider and solicit public comment on whether the scope language should be clarified to explicitly 

state whether forklifts that are modified to perform tasks similar to 

equipment (cranes and derricks) modified in that manner would be 

covered.

OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed 

§ 1926.1400(c)(8) and solicits public comment on the issue. 

The Panel recommends that there be a full explanation in the preamble 

of how responsibility for ensuring adequate ground conditions is 

shared between the controlling entity, and the employer of the individual supervising assembly/disassembly and/or the operator.

OSHA explains in the discussion of proposed § 1926.1402(e) how the 

various employers, including the controlling entity, the employer 

whose employees operate the equipment, and the employer of the 

A/D supervisor share responsibility for ensuring adequate ground 

conditions. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA restate the applicable corrective 

action provisions (which are set forth in the shift inspection) in the 

monthly inspection section.

OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed 

§ 1926.1412(e) and solicits public comment on the issue. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit public comment on whether, 

and under what circumstances, booming down should be specifically 

excluded as a part of the shift inspection, and whether the removal 

of non-hinged inspection plates should be required during the shift 

inspection.

OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed 

§ 1926.1412(d) and solicits public comment on the issues raised in 

the recommendation. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit public comment on whether 

to include an exception for transportation systems in proposed 

§ 1926.1412(a), which requires an inspection of equipment that has 

had modifications or additions that affect its safe operation, and, if 

so, what the appropriate terminology for such an exception would be.

OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed 

§ 1926.1412(a) and solicits public comment on the issues raised in 

the recommendation. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA explain in the preamble that the 

shift inspection does not need to be completed prior to each shift but 

may be completed during the shift.

In the explanation of § 1926.1412(d)(1) of the proposed rule, OSHA explains that the shift inspection may be completed during the shift. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit public comment about 

whether it is necessary to clarify the requirement of proposed 

§ 1926.1412(d)(1)(xi) that the equipment be inspected for ‘‘level position’’.

OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed 

§ 1926.1412(d)(1)(xi) and requests public comment on the issues 

raised in the recommendation. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59725 

TABLE 4—SBREFA PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND OSHA RESPONSES—Continued 

SBREFA panel recommendation OSHA response 

The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit comment on whether 

§ 1926.1412(f)(2)(xii)(D) should be changed to require that pressure 

be inspected ‘‘at the end of the line,’’ as distinguished from ‘‘at each 

and every line,’’ and if so, what the best terminology would be to 

meet this purpose. (An SER indicated that proposed paragraph 

(f)(2)(xiv)(D) of § 1926.1412 should be modified to ‘‘checking pressure setting,’’ in part to avoid having to check the pressure at ‘‘each 

and every line’’ as opposed to ‘‘at the end of the line.’’).

There is no proposed requirement to check the pressure ‘‘at each and 

every line.’’ The provision simply states that relief valves should be 

checked for failure to reach correct pressure. If this can be done at 

one point for the entire system, then that would satisfy the requirement. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit public comment on whether 

proposed paragraph (f)(2)(xx) of § 1926.1412 should be deleted because an SER believes that it is not always appropriate to retain 

originally equipped steps and ladders, such as in instances where 

they are replaced with ‘‘attaching dollies.’’.

Proposed § 1926.1412(f)(2)(xx) does not require the corrective action 

to which the SER refers. If an inspection under proposed 

§ 1926.1412(f) reveals a deficiency, a qualified person must determine whether that deficiency is a safety hazard requiring immediate 

correction. If the inspection reveals that original equipment, such as 

stairs and ladders, have been replaced with something equally safe, 

there would be no safety hazard and no requirement for corrective 

action. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit public comment on the extent of documentation of monthly and annual/comprehensive inspections the rule should require.OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed 

§ 1926.1412(f) and requests public comment on the issue. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit public comment on whether 

the provision for monthly inspections should, like the provision for annual inspections, specify who must keep the documentation associated with monthly inspections.

OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed 

§ 1926.1412(e) and requests public comment on the issue. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider ways to account for the 

possibility that there may sometimes be an extended delay in obtaining the part number for an operational aid for older equipment and 

solicit public comment on the extent to which this is a problem.

OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed 

§ 1926.1416(d) and solicits public comment on the issue. 

The Panel recommends that the provision on fall protection (proposed 

§ 1926.1423) be proposed as written and that OSHA explain in the 

preamble how and why the Committee arrived at this provision.

In the discussion of proposed § 1926.1423, OSHA explains the Committee’s rationale underlying the proposed section. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider the potential advantages 

of and solicit public comment on adding provisions to proposed 

§ 1926.1427 that would allow an operator to be certified on a particular model of crane; allow tests to be administered by an accredited educational institution; and allow employers to use manuals that 

have been re-written to accommodate the literacy level and English 

proficiency of operators.

OSHA addresses these recommendations in the discussion of proposed § 1926.1427 and requests public comment on the issues 

raised by the Panel. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA clarify in the preamble how the 

proposed rule addresses an SER’s concern that his crane operator 

would not be able to pass a written qualification/certification exam 

because the operator has difficulty in taking written exams.

The issue is discussed in the explanation of the proposed rule for 

§ 1926.1427(h). 

The Panel recommends soliciting public comment on whether the 

phrase ‘‘equipment capacity and type’’ in proposed 

§ 1926.1427(b)(1)(ii)(B) needs clarification, suggestions on how to 

accomplish this, and whether the categories represented in Figures 1 

through 10 contained in ASME B30.5–2000 (i.e., commercial truckmounted crane—telescoping boom; commercial truck-mounted 

crane—non-telescoping boom; crawler crane; crawler crane—telescoping boom; locomotive crane; wheel mounted crane (multiple 

control station); wheel mounted crane—telescoping boom (multiple 

control station); wheel mounted crane (single control station); wheel 

mounted crane—telescoping boom (single control station)) should be 

used.

OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed 

§ 1926.1427(b)(1)(ii)(B) and requests public comment on the issue. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA ask for public comment on whether 

the rule needs to state more clearly that proposed 

§ 1926.1427(j)(1)(i) requires more limited training for operators of 

smaller capacity equipment used in less complex operations as compared with operators of higher capacity, more complex equipment 

used in more complex situations.

OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed 

§ 1926.1430(c) and requests public comment on the issue. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider and ask for public comment on whether a more limited training program would be appropriate for operations based on the capacity and type of equipment 

and nature of operations.

OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed 

§ 1926.1430(c) and requests public comment on the issue. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider and ask for public comment as to whether the supervisor responsible for oversight for an 

operator in the pre-qualification period (§ 1926.1427(f)) should have 

additional training beyond that required in the C–DAC document at 

proposed § 1926.1427(f)(2)(iii)(B).

OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed 

§ 1926.1430(c) and requests public comment on the issue. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59726 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 4—SBREFA PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND OSHA RESPONSES—Continued 

SBREFA panel recommendation OSHA response 

The Panel recommends OSHA solicit comment on whether there are 

qualified persons in the field with the necessary expertise to assess 

how the rated capacity for land cranes and derricks used on barges 

and other flotation devices needs to be modified as required by proposed § 1926.1437(n)(2).

OSHA addresses these recommendations in the discussion of proposed § 1926.1437(n)(2) and requests public comment on the 

issues. 

The Panel also recommends that OSHA solicit comment on whether it 

is necessary, from a safety standpoint, to apply this provision to 

cranes used only for duty cycle work, and if so, why that is the case, 

and how ‘‘duty cycle work’’ should be defined.

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider and ask for comment on 

whether it would be appropriate to exempt from the rule small side 

boom cranes incapable of lifting above the height of a truck bed and 

with a capacity of not more than 6,000 pounds.

OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed 

paragraph § 1926.1440(a) and requests public comment on the 

issue. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit public comment on how the 

proposed rule could be simplified (without creating ambiguities) and 

made easier to understand. (Several SERs believed that the C–DAC 

document was so long and complex that small businesses would 

have difficulty understanding it and complying with it.).

The length and comprehensiveness of the standard is an issue for this 

rulemaking. OSHA requests comment on how and whether the proposal can be shortened or simplified—made easier to understand— 

and the effect of that on addressing construction hazards. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider outlining the inspection 

requirements in spreadsheet form in an Appendix or developing 

some other means to help employers understand what inspections 

are needed and when they must be done.

OSHA will consider developing such an aid as a separate guidance 

document. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider whether use of the words 

‘‘determine’’ and ‘‘demonstrate’’ would mandate that the employer 

keep records of such determinations and if records would be required to make such demonstrations.

Some SERs requested clarification as to when documentation was required, believing that the document implicitly requires documentation 

when it states that the employer must ‘‘determine’’ or ‘‘demonstrate’’ 

certain things. OSHA notes that it cannot cite an employer for failing 

to have documentation not explicitly called for in a standard. See 

also the discussion under proposed § 1926.1402(e). 

The Panel recommends soliciting public comment on whether the word 

‘‘days’’ as used in §§ 1926.1416(d) and 1926.1416(e) should be clarified to mean calendar days or business days.

OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed 

§ 1926.1416(d) and requests public comment on the issue. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA carefully discuss what is included 

and excluded from the scope of this standard.

OSHA discusses in detail the types of machinery that are included 

under this proposed standard and those that are excluded in the explanation of § 1926.1400. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA gather data and analyze the effects 

of already existing certification requirements.

OSHA has obtained and evaluated a study by the Construction Safety 

Association of Ontario showing that Ontario’s certification requirement has led to a substantial decrease in crane-related fatalities 

there. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider excluding and soliciting 

comment on whether equipment used solely to deliver materials to a 

construction site by placing/stacking the materials on the ground 

should be explicitly excluded from the proposed standard’s scope.

OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed 

§ 1926.1400(c) and requests public comment on the issue. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA should consider the information 

and range of opinions that were presented by the SERs on the issue 

of operator qualification/certification when analyzing the public comments on this issue.

The information and opinions submitted by the SERs are part of the 

record for this rulemaking, and OSHA will consider them along with 

the other public comments on the proposed rule. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider and solicit public comment on expanding the levels of certification so as to allow an operator to be certified on a specific brand’s model of crane.OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed 

§ 1926.1427(j)(1) and requests public comment on the issue. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider and solicit public comment on expanding the levels of operator qualification/certification to 

allow an operator to be certified for a specific, limited type of circumstance. Such a circumstance would be defined by a set of parameters that, taken together, would describe an operation characterized by simplicity and relatively low risk. The Agency should consider 

and solicit comment on whether such parameters could be identified 

in a way that would result in a clear, easily understood provision that 

could be effectively enforced.

OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed 

§ 1926.1427(j)(1) and requests public comment on the issue. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider and solicit public comment on allowing the written and practical tests described in Option 

(1) of § 1926.1427(b) to be administered by an accredited educational institution.

OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of 

§ 1926.1427(b)(3) and requests public comment on the issue. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit public comment on making it 

clear that: (1) an employer is permitted to equip its cranes with 

manuals re-written in a way that would allow an operator with a low 

literacy level to understand the material (such as substituting some 

text with pictures and illustrations), and (2) making it clear that, when 

the cranes are equipped with such re-written manuals and materials, 

the ‘‘manuals’’ and ‘‘materials’’ referred to in these literacy provisions 

would be the re-written manuals.

OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed 

§ 1926.1427(h)(1) and requests public comment on the issues. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59727 

TABLE 4—SBREFA PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND OSHA RESPONSES—Continued 

SBREFA panel recommendation OSHA response 

The Panel recommends that OSHA explain in a Small Business Compliance Guide that the certification/qualification test does not need to 

be administered in English but can be administered in a language 

that the candidate can read; and that while the employee would also 

need to have a sufficient level of literacy to read and understand the 

relevant information in the equipment manual, that requirement 

would be satisfied if the material is written in a language that the employee can read and understand.

OSHA will issue a Small Business Compliance Guide after a final rule 

is issued and will explain these points in the Guide. 

IV. Summary and Explanation of the 

Proposed Standard 

The following discussion summarizes 

and explains each provision in the 

proposal and the substantive differences 

between the proposal and OSHA’s 

current standard for cranes and derricks 

at 29 CFR 1926.550, which is located in 

Subpart N of OSHA’s standards for 

construction work. In the discussion, 

OSHA explains corrections and 

clarifications it has made to the 

language in the C–DAC Document. The 

Agency also identifies other areas in the 

C–DAC Document it believes could 

benefit from modifications to the 

C–DAC language and asks for public 

comment on the need for such changes 

and, in some instances, the 

appropriateness of particular clarifying 

language. 

Section 1400 Scope 

Paragraphs (a) through (d) of proposed 

§ 1926.1400 set forth the scope of the 

proposed rule. Proposed paragraphs (a) 

through (c) describe, respectively, what 

equipment is included, the application 

of the standard to equipment used with 

attachments, and specific exclusions. 

Combining a Functional Description 

With a List of Covered Equipment 

Proposed paragraph (a) provides a 

functional definition of the covered 

equipment as well as a non-exclusive 

list of what is covered. C–DAC 

considered choosing between these 

approaches, but ultimately decided to 

use a combination of the two. The 

Committee also agreed that equipment 

listed in this proposed paragraph should 

be defined; these definitions, among 

others, are set forth in § 1926.1401, 

Definitions. It should be noted that the 

scope of some of the listed equipment 

is further delineated in the section of 

the standard that specifically relates to 

that equipment (for example, 

§ 1926.1436, Derricks and § 1926.1438, 

Overhead & Gantry Cranes). OSHA 

believes that this format strikes an 

appropriate balance between clarity and 

avoiding unintended limitations that 

might eliminate new and/or other 

existing technology that is similar to the 

listed examples. 

The decision to propose a functional 

definition with a non-exclusive list of 

covered equipment followed 

considerable discussion. The Committee 

settled on a definition that focuses on 

the equipment’s elemental functions— 

hoisting, lowering, and horizontally 

moving a suspended load. The goal of 

this definition is to cover both existing 

and new technologies that share those 

same functions. Committee members 

rejected using just a list of equipment 

because: (1) Even the most 

comprehensive list might inadvertently 

omit existing technologies, and (2) they 

wanted to provide leeway in the scope 

for applying the new standard to future 

technologies. 

On the other hand, C–DAC decided 

against a functional definition alone 

because that might include equipment 

that the standard was not designed to 

address (for example, equipment that 

poses a different set of hazards than 

those addressed by the standard). The 

list provides a context in which to apply 

the functional definition. The Agency 

believes that this hybrid approach 

addresses C–DAC’s concerns. 

Dedicated Pile Drivers 

The Committee quickly agreed to 

include most of the items on the nonexclusive list. However, several items 

were included only after considerable 

debate. For example, C–DAC’s decision 

to include dedicated pile drivers 

followed much discussion, including a 

panel presentation. The panel was 

comprised of a manufacturer, 

represented by Ahti Knopp and Pentti 

Heinonen, President, of Junttan, as well 

as a user, represented by Pat Karinen 

and Dan Kuhs, of Pile Drivers Local 

Union 34 and 56. The focus of the 

discussion was whether to include 

machinery that fell outside what the 

industry traditionally considered to be a 

crane or derrick covered by existing 

Subpart N. 

Although the manufacturer’s 

representatives stated that they did not 

consider their equipment to be cranes, 

they ultimately supported the inclusion 

of dedicated pile drivers in the 

proposed standard for several reasons. 

Specifically, they emphasized certain 

mechanical similarities and the need for 

timely regulation. However, they 

requested that the standard be adjusted 

to address the equipment’s unique 

characteristics. 

The users on the panel, citing the 

similarities in functional capabilities 

and hazards between dedicated pile 

drivers and cranes, also supported their 

inclusion. They were particularly 

concerned about the need to establish 

required inspections for dedicated pile 

drivers in view of the stress placed on 

this type of equipment. 

The Committee acknowledged the 

dilemma it faced in establishing the 

parameters of the proposed standard— 

including machines not typically 

described as cranes versus omitting 

machines similar in hazards and 

construction—but ultimately decided to 

include dedicated pile drivers. Prior to 

that decision, however, several members 

voiced concerns. 

For example, some members were 

worried that including these machines 

might encourage their ‘‘use as cranes,’’ 

that is, primarily for hoisting objects. 

The manufacturer representatives 

pointed out that while these machines 

are designed to hoist within a very 

limited range and capacity, it is 

inappropriate to use them for hoisting 

beyond those restricted limits. Others 

were concerned that some requirements 

in the proposed standard might be a 

‘‘bad fit’’ for these machines. In 

response to such concerns, the 

Committee included dedicated pile 

drivers but tailored the requirements of 

the standard to take into account the 

specific characteristics of such 

equipment. As a result, proposed 

§ 1439, Dedicated pile drivers, provides 

that most provisions of the standard 

apply to dedicated pile drivers but 

excludes some that the Committee 

believed were inappropriate for such 

equipment. 

OSHA believes that this approach is 

appropriate to propose because it 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59728 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

1 29 CFR 1926.550(a)(18) of Subpart N requires 

sideboom cranes mounted on wheel or crawler 

tractors to meet the requirements of SAE J743a– 

1964. 

provides a workable approach that 

addresses the unique aspects of the 

equipment. 

Multi-purpose Machines 

The concept of ‘‘multi-purpose 

machines’’ was discussed in depth. This 

term, as used in the proposed standard, 

refers to a relatively new type of 

equipment that is designed to be 

configured in a variety of ways to 

perform a variety of different types of 

functions. For example, during the 

discussion, C–DAC members noted that 

this type of machinery in one 

configuration works as an aerial forklift, 

and in another configuration works as a 

crane. 

The Agency believes that the 

Committee developed an appropriate 

approach to coverage of this equipment. 

Specifically, the Committee defined this 

category of equipment in § 1926.1401, 

Definitions, to cover only machinery 

‘‘designed to be configured in various 

ways’’ and has included it within the 

proposed scope of the standard only 

when configured ‘‘to hoist (by means of 

a winch or hook) and horizontally move 

a suspended load.’’ In short, a multipurpose machine would only be 

covered by the proposed standard when 

configured as a crane. 

For example, a machine might be 

configured variously as a rough-terrain 

type forklift, work platform, or as a 

crane. Such a machine would only be 

covered by the proposed standard when 

configured as a crane. Conversely, a 

traditional rough-terrain forklift is 

originally designed solely as a forklift. 

Even if an employer suspends a load 

from its fork, it would still be 

configured (and can only be configured) 

as a rough terrain forklift. Such forklifts 

are not multi-purpose machines and 

would specifically be excluded from the 

standard’s coverage by proposed 

§ 1926.1400(c)(8). 

For the same reason, aerial lifts that 

may have an incidental capacity to hoist 

(by means of suspending loads from the 

boom) are not multi-purpose machines. 

Even aerial lifts that are equipped with 

a low capacity hoisting device (usually 

located at basket level) are not 

‘‘designed to be configured in various 

ways’’ and, as such, would not fall 

within the definition of a multi-purpose 

machine. Such aerial lifts are designed 

to be configured in only one way, that 

is, as an aerial lift. In fact, the provision 

that specifically excludes aerial lifts, 

proposed § 1926.1400(c)(5), emphasizes 

that point in its description of aerial lifts 

by saying ‘‘[e]quipment originally 

designed as vehicle-mounted aerial 

devices (for lifting personnel) * * *.’’ 

The Agency agrees with the 

Committee that it is appropriate to 

propose covering multi-purpose 

equipment in this proposed standard 

(when configured as a crane) to protect 

employees from the types of hazards 

that are associated with the other 

equipment included in the Scope. 

Other Listed Equipment 

Some members were concerned that 

proposing to include industrial cranes 

on the list would result in such cranes 

being covered by this proposed standard 

even when used in a factory/general 

industry setting. That is not the case— 

this proposed standard applies only to 

employers engaged in construction, and 

therefore would apply to such 

equipment only when used in 

construction. 

The Committee decided to cover sideboom cranes, which are included in the 

current Subpart N.1 Committee 

members noted that side-boom cranes 

(defined in proposed § 1926.1401, 

Definitions) share characteristics with 

cranes. One member also stated that the 

American Pipeline Association supports 

their inclusion. 

Additional machinery that is 

proposed to be covered that is either not 

currently covered or not specifically 

addressed by Subpart N include cranes 

on a monorail, luffing tower cranes, 

straddle cranes, pedestal cranes and 

shearleg derricks (see § 1926.1436, 

Derricks). Each of these meets the 

functional definition in the proposed 

standard and presents the same types of 

hazards. 

Attachments 

Proposed § 1926.1400(b) would 

establish that equipment otherwise 

covered by proposed § 1926.1400(a) 

would remain within the scope of the 

proposed standard when used with 

attachments that are either ‘‘craneattached or suspended.’’ As defined in 

§ 1926.1401, an ‘‘attachment’’ is ‘‘any 

device that expands the range of tasks 

that can be done by the equipment. 

Examples include, but are not limited 

to: an auger, drill, magnet, pile-driver, 

and boom-attached personnel platform.’’ 

This definition reflects an inclusive 

approach with respect to the use of 

attachments. 

The Committee recognized that 

equipment using these attachments 

retain their fundamental nature as 

cranes, including most of the hazards 

typically associated with crane use. For 

example, hazards associated with 

ground conditions, assembly/ 

disassembly and operation near power 

lines, as well as the importance of 

proper signaling, work area control, and 

operator knowledge and skill, remain 

the same while an attachment is in use. 

Consequently, the proposed standard as 

a whole is well suited to the use of this 

equipment with attachments. 

The ACCSH December 2002 work 

group document provided C–DAC with 

an initial list of possible attachments 

(hooks, magnets, grapples, clamshell 

buckets, orange peel buckets) to be 

covered by the new rule. (OSHA–2007– 

0066–0020). Committee members 

suggested the remaining examples. 

Whether the proposed rule should 

apply to a personnel platform that is 

pinned to the boom was the subject of 

considerable discussion. Such a 

personnel platform was the subject of a 

presentation to C–DAC by Dan Wolff of 

the National Crane Corporation. 

Currently, Subpart N explicitly 

addresses suspended personnel 

platforms but does not specifically 

mention boom-attached personnel 

platforms. The Committee confirmed in 

its discussions that installing a boomattached personnel platform does not 

change the nature of the equipment to 

the type of aerial lift that is excluded by 

this proposed standard (see proposed 

§ 1926.1400(c)(5)). The Committee was 

concerned that a failure to specifically 

address this type of platform could 

result in confusion as to whether its use 

would be governed by this standard or 

by the aerial lift standard. C–DAC 

concluded that it was appropriate to 

explicitly include boom-attached 

personnel platforms in this standard. 

Committee members expressed some 

concern as to whether the use of such 

an attachment involves additional 

hazards not addressed in this proposed 

standard. The Agency is asking for 

public comment on whether there are 

additional requirements that should 

apply when using a personnel platform 

that is attached directly to the boom. 

Exclusions 

Proposed paragraph (c) lists 

machinery that is specifically excluded 

from the scope of the proposed rule. The 

Committee referenced a list in the 

ACCSH December 2002 work group 

document as a starting point for 

discussion (OSHA–2007–0066–0020). 

As a result of that discussion, 

modifications to that list were made. As 

discussed below, the Agency believes 

that the list in the proposed standard, in 

combination with proposed paragraphs 

(a) and (b), sets appropriate limits to the 

proposed standard’s scope. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59729 

Proposed paragraph (c)(1) states that 

machinery otherwise included under 

proposed § 1926.1400(a) but ‘‘converted 

or adapted for non-hoisting use’’ is 

excluded. Power shovels, excavators 

and concrete pumps are listed as 

nonexclusive examples of such 

‘‘conversions/adaptations’’ or modified 

machinery. 

The view of the Committee was that, 

in most cases, once machinery that 

would otherwise be included under 

proposed § 1926.1400(a) is converted or 

adapted for non-hoisting use, the 

configuration and nature of operation of 

the machinery is generally changed to 

the point where many of the proposed 

provisions would not be directly 

relevant to the hazards presented. In 

contrast, as discussed above, C–DAC 

believed that equipment used with 

‘‘crane-attached or suspended’’ 

attachments typically retain many of 

their original characteristics and the 

proposed provisions remain relevant. 

The Agency recognizes that there may 

be some instances where covered 

equipment used with an attachment is 

similar in purpose to machinery 

converted or adapted for non-hoisting 

use. For example, a crane with a drilling 

attachment will serve the same function 

as a machine converted to a dedicated 

drilling rig. Nonetheless, the Agency 

believes that the approach 

recommended by C–DAC and reflected 

in the proposed rule sets an appropriate 

dividing line between covered and 

excluded machinery. The crane’s 

hoisting mechanisms are mostly still 

present while the attachment is in use, 

and the crane’s hoisting capability will 

likely be called upon fully once the 

attachment is removed. Having the 

machine move in and out of coverage of 

the rule as attachments are put on and 

taken off would create significant 

confusion. Furthermore, most of the 

operational characteristics and hazards 

of the equipment remain the same while 

the attachment is in use. The Agency 

believes that, overall, this represents a 

sensible approach to setting the breadth 

and limits of the proposed standard. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(2) contains a 

specific list of excluded material 

handling machinery. This provision 

reflects C–DAC’s decision to name 

specific material handling machinery 

that is excluded rather than simply 

reference ‘‘material handling 

machinery’’ as a generic basis for 

exclusion. The Committee indicated 

that a generic exclusion based upon 

material handling would be too broad. 

For example, a crane, when equipped 

with a clamshell bucket, is used for 

material handling, and C–DAC believed 

such equipment should be covered by 

the proposed standard. 

C–DAC also agreed to a Committee 

member’s suggestion of specifying that 

the listed machinery is excluded even 

when used with rigging to lift 

suspended loads. C–DAC acknowledged 

that some of the hazards of using this 

material handling machinery in this 

way are similar to the hazards 

associated with equipment covered by 

the proposed rule. However, the 

Committee also believed the differences 

between the covered equipment and the 

material handling machinery is such 

that one standard could not be readily 

designed to suit both. It should be noted 

that another construction standard, 29 

CFR 1926.602 in subpart O—Motor 

Vehicles, Mechanized Equipment, and 

Marine Operations, covers material 

handling equipment. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(3) excludes 

automotive wreckers and tow trucks 

‘‘when used to clear wrecks and haul 

vehicles.’’ A Committee member, citing 

C–DAC’s focus on construction 

activities, questioned the need for this 

provision. In response, another member 

explained that some of these vehicles 

have substantial hoisting capacity. The 

implication of that observation is that 

these machines have the capability of 

hoisting construction material and so 

some construction employers may use 

them for that purpose. Consequently, C– 

DAC decided to cover them generally, 

but to exclude them when used for 

clearing wrecks and hauling vehicles. 

The exclusion is based on the 

Committee’s view that, even if done as 

a construction activity (which would be 

very rare), clearing wrecks and hauling 

vehicles is a highly repetitious, 

predictable type of operation that is 

sufficiently distinct from typical 

construction crane and derrick use to 

justify an exclusion from the proposed 

rule. It should be noted that ‘‘cranes 

designed for . . . automobile wreck 

clearance’’ are excluded from the scope 

of ASME B30.5–2004. 

Under proposed paragraph (c)(4), 

service trucks with mobile lifting 

devices for use in the power line and 

electric service industries, such as 

digger derricks, are excluded when 

engaged in certain listed activities for 

those industries. This machinery is 

currently covered by Subpart N, with 

the exception of certain provisions, by 

virtue of § 1926.952(c). We note that 

ASME B30.5–2004 excludes digger 

derricks and ‘‘cranes manufactured 

specifically for, or when used for, 

energized electrical line service’’ from 

the scope of that industry consensus 

standard. 

C–DAC ultimately adopted this 

exclusion because of the narrow, 

specialized range of activities and 

circumstances in which such trucks are 

used. The Agency is asking for public 

comment as to whether such an 

exclusion is appropriate and whether 

safety problems would be created by 

excluding them from coverage under the 

proposed standard. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(5) specifically 

excludes machinery originally designed 

as vehicle mounted aerial lifts and selfpropelled elevating work platforms. The 

language of this provision reflects C– 

DAC’s intent to differentiate between 

equipment with an attachment such as 

a personnel platform pinned to the 

boom, which is within the scope of the 

proposed rule, and machinery originally 

designed to be configured only as an 

aerial lift, which is excluded. In 

excluding this machinery, the 

Committee discussed the fact that some 

aerial lifts have a small capacity 

auxiliary winch. C–DAC decided not to 

include such machinery. The use of 

such winches is only incidental to an 

aerial lift’s primary function. Also, 

another standard, § 1926.453, addresses 

aerial lifts. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(6) excludes 

telescopic/hydraulic gantry systems. 

This machinery is also not currently 

covered by Subpart N or any ANSI/ 

ASME standards. C–DAC made the 

decision to exclude this machinery after 

extensive discussion between members 

and a presentation by Mr. Kevin 

Johnston of J&R Engineering Co., Inc. 

The decision was based upon several 

factors. One factor was the difference in 

design between this machinery and 

other equipment covered by the 

proposed rule. Telescopic/hydraulic 

gantry systems consist (in their most 

basic configuration) of a header beam 

that is supported on each side by 

hydraulic jacks. The load is suspended 

by rigging from the header beam. The 

load is raised and lowered by raising 

and lowering the jacks. 

This type of design involves hazards 

that are unique to this type of 

equipment. For example, keeping the 

jacks plumb and closely coordinating 

their movements is very important. Mr. 

Johnston noted that because of these 

differences, many of the requirements in 

the proposed standard would not be 

workable or needed. Also, hazards 

unique to this type of machinery would 

not be addressed. 

C–DAC was concerned that a failure 

to include this machinery in the 

proposed rule could result in there 

being no applicable OSHA 

requirements. The Committee was 

particularly concerned about this 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59730 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

because there was no industry 

consensus standard for telescopic/ 

hydraulic gantry systems. Once the 

Specialized Carriers & Rigging 

Association (SC&RA) indicated its 

willingness to draft and complete a 

voluntary consensus standard for this 

machinery within a short time frame, 

the Committee was satisfied that the 

best approach was to exclude 

telescopic/hydraulic gantry systems 

from the proposed rule. 

The Agency notes that, in the fall of 

2004, SC&RA did in fact complete a 

voluntary consensus standard for 

telescopic/hydraulic gantry systems. 

(OSHA–2007–0066–0027). Accordingly, 

the Agency agrees with C–DAC that, 

under these circumstances, these 

systems should be excluded from the 

proposed rule. 

Under proposed paragraph (c)(7), 

stacker cranes are excluded. This 

machinery, covered by ASME B30.18, 

was similarly excluded in the ACCSH 

draft. The Agency believes that these 

cranes are rarely used in construction, 

and that their configuration is too unlike 

other machinery covered by this 

proposed standard to warrant inclusion. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(8) excludes 

powered industrial trucks (forklifts). As 

noted during the C–DAC meetings, this 

machinery is already covered by 

§ 1926.602 of Subpart O—Motor 

Vehicles, Mechanized Equipment, and 

Marine Operations. The Agency believes 

that this type of machinery is mostly 

used in a manner that does not involve 

suspended loads and would often 

require different responses to the 

hazards presented than provided in this 

proposed standard. Therefore, the 

Agency agrees with C–DAC that this 

machinery should be excluded from the 

proposed standard. 

During the SBREFA process, one 

Small Entity Representative stated that 

the C–DAC document does not contain 

a provision explicitly excluding 

coverage of machines that are originally 

designed to function primarily as 

forklifts but are modified to perform 

tasks similar to cranes and derricks that 

are covered under the standard. The 

Panel recommended that OSHA 

consider and solicit public comment on 

whether the scope language should be 

modified to explicitly state whether 

forklifts modified in such a manner are 

covered. OSHA welcomes comment on 

this issue. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(9) excludes 

mechanic’s trucks with hoisting devices 

when used in activities related to 

equipment maintenance and repair. The 

treatment of this machinery is similar to 

that of automotive wreckers and tow 

trucks. This exclusion reflects the 

Committee’s conclusion that mechanic’s 

trucks, when used in these support 

activities, have the capability of hoisting 

construction material and so some 

construction employers may use them 

for that purpose. Consequently, C–DAC 

decided to cover them generally, but to 

exclude them when used for equipment 

maintenance and repair activities. The 

exclusion is based on the Committee’s 

view that, even if done as a construction 

activity (which would be very rare), the 

maintenance and repair activities are 

highly repetitious, predictable types of 

operations that are sufficiently distinct 

from typical construction crane and 

derrick use to justify an exclusion from 

the proposed rule. 

In proposed paragraph (c)(10), 

machinery that hoists by using a comea-long or chainfall is excluded. This 

exclusion reflects currently industry 

practice as exemplified by OSHA’s steel 

erection standard. The definition of 

‘‘hoisting equipment’’ in OSHA’s steel 

erection standard, § 1926.751, defines 

‘‘come-a-long’’ as ‘‘a mechanical device 

typically consisting of a chain or cable 

attached at each end that is used to 

facilitate movement of materials through 

leverage’’ and notes that such a device 

is not considered ‘‘hoisting equipment.’’ 

§ 1926.1401 of this proposed standard 

sets forth the same definition of ‘‘comea-long’’ as OSHA’s steel erection 

standard. Committee members decided 

that a specific exclusion was needed 

because these devices, that members 

term ‘‘tools of the trade,’’ are not all 

human-powered and thus might 

otherwise fall within the scope of the 

proposed rule. C–DAC was of the view 

that these tools are unlike the 

equipment covered by the proposed rule 

in terms of both scale and the set of 

hazards associated with their use. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(11) excludes 

dedicated drilling rigs. This exclusion 

was agreed upon after substantial 

discussion among Committee members. 

It should be noted that neither Subpart 

N nor other OSHA construction 

standards currently cover dedicated 

drilling rigs specifically. 

Much of the specific information as to 

the nature of dedicated drilling rigs and 

the concerns of drill rig industry 

stakeholders was ascertained during a 

panel discussion chaired by members of 

the International Association of 

Foundation Drilling. Panel members 

emphasized that, in their view, a 

dedicated drilling rig is not a crane, but 

rather is designed to function as 

excavating equipment. 

In support of that position, the 

panelists noted that, unlike cranes, this 

machinery lacks load charts and has 

only limited horizontal movement, 

radius, and hoisting capabilities. They 

also stated that although many are 

equipped with an auxiliary service 

winch, the primary use of this 

machinery is not for hoisting. Panelists 

suggested that accidents associated with 

the use of dedicated drilling rigs tend to 

result from improper use (that is, 

attempting to use them for more 

extensive hoisting work, beyond the 

narrow limits set by manufacturer 

specifications). Finally, the speakers 

emphasized that while they did not 

believe this machinery should be 

regulated as cranes under the proposed 

rule, if they were to be regulated, they 

should be under a more closely related 

standard, such as the excavation 

standard. 

Several additional concerns were 

examined in the course of the 

discussion. Some members suggested 

that dedicated pile drivers and 

dedicated drilling rigs be treated in the 

same manner—to either cover or 

exclude both. Others responded that the 

disparate treatment is justified by the 

fact that dedicated pile drivers are 

frequently used on barges, which 

involves additional hazards, and the 

more widespread use of that machine’s 

hoisting function. Some members 

expressed concern that the inclusion of 

dedicated drilling rigs under the 

proposed rule would encourage their 

misuse as cranes. 

The Committee decided that the 

arguments for excluding dedicated 

drilling rigs outweighed those for 

including them. The Agency agrees; 

while there are certain similarities to 

dedicated pile drivers in that both have 

an auxiliary hoisting capability, the 

dedicated drilling rigs are not typically 

used on barges and there seems to be 

less abuse of their very limited hoisting 

capabilities. Specific public comment is 

requested on these issues. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(12) contains 

an exclusion for gin poles used during 

the erection of communication towers. It 

is the Agency’s understanding that the 

erection of communication towers is a 

specialized subset of the construction 

industry, and involves issues that go 

beyond those C–DAC was designed to 

address. OSHA is therefore not 

proposing to include gin poles used for 

this purpose in the proposed rule. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(13) excludes 

tree trimming and tree removal work 

from the scope of the proposed rule. In 

correspondence to the Committee 

(OSHA S030–2006–0663–0534), the 

Tree Care Industry Association had 

requested that their work be excluded 

from the proposed rule. The Committee 

noted that the vast majority of the tree 

care industry’s work does not take place 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59731 

2The definition of ‘‘controlling entity’’ is 

explained in the discussion of proposed 

§ 1926.1402(c). 

3This language is in marked contrast to the 

language of Section 5(a)(1) of the Act (known as the 

‘‘general duty clause’’), which requires each 

employer to ‘‘furnish to each of his employees 

employment and a place of employment which are 

free from recognized hazards that are causing or are 

likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his 

employees.’’ 29 U.S.C. 654(a)(1) (emphases added). 

See Brennan v. OSHRC, 513 F.2d 1032, 1037–38 

(2nd. Cir. 1975). 

in construction and agreed that such 

work should be excluded. The Agency 

believes that, since tree trimming and 

tree removal work so rarely falls within 

construction, it is appropriate to 

exclude tree trimming and removal from 

the proposed rule. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(14) excludes 

anchor handling with a vessel or barge 

using an affixed A-frame. C–DAC 

decided to exclude this activity after the 

Cranes on Barges Work Group found 

that there would be problems tailoring 

the general requirements of the C–DAC 

draft to address the use of these 

specialized devices. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(15), the final 

item listed, excludes roustabouts. The 

Committee was of the view that the 

proposed rule is not suited to 

addressing these devices, which are 

moved about by hand. 

The SBREFA Panel recommended 

that OSHA consider, and solicit 

comment on, whether equipment used 

solely to deliver materials to a 

construction site by placing/stacking the 

materials on the ground should be 

explicitly excluded from the scope of 

the rule. OSHA requests public 

comment on this issue. 

Note: OSHA replaced the word 

‘‘Equipment’’ used in proposed 

§§ 1926.1400(c)(1), (c)(5) and (c)(10) of the C– 

DAC Consensus Document with the word 

‘‘Machinery.’’ This was done because 

‘‘equipment’’ is a defined term in the 

proposed standard that refers to covered 

equipment and, thus, cannot be used to mean 

excluded machinery. 

Unspecified Equipment 

Proposed paragraph (d) is included to 

clarify that all provisions of the 

proposed rule apply to covered 

equipment unless otherwise noted. This 

paragraph was included because there 

are some types of equipment for which 

only limited requirements apply, and 

others where there are special 

requirements that supplement, rather 

than displace, the other requirements in 

the proposed rule. To avoid confusion, 

this proposed paragraph establishes that 

all parts of the proposed rule apply 

unless a provision specifically identifies 

other parts of the proposed rule as 

inapplicable, or identifies the only 

provisions of the standard that are 

applicable. 

Controlling Entities 

Proposed paragraph (e) provides that 

the duties of controlling entities 2 are 

not limited to the duties specified in 

§§ 1926.1402(c), (e) and 1926.1424(b). 

This was included to clarify that the 

controlling entity duties specified in the 

proposed rule are intended to 

supplement, rather than displace, 

controlling entity duties under OSHA’s 

multi-employer policy. 

The Agency has clear authority to 

include in this proposed rule the 

provisions in proposed §§ 1926.1402(c), 

(e) and 1926.1424(b), which would 

apply specific requirements to 

controlling entities. First, the plain 

language of the OSH Act and its 

underlying purpose support OSHA’s 

authority to place requirements on 

employers that are necessary to protect 

the employees of others. Second, 

congressional action subsequent to 

passage of the OSH Act recognizes this 

authority. Third, OSHA has consistently 

interpreted its statutory authority as 

permitting it to impose obligations on 

employers that extend beyond their own 

employees, as evidenced by the 

numerous standards, including several 

construction standards, that OSHA has 

promulgated with multi-employer 

provisions. Finally, OSHA’s authority to 

place obligations on employers that 

reach beyond an employer’s own 

employees has been upheld by 

numerous courts of appeals and the 

Occupational Safety and Health Review 

Commission (OSHRC). 

The purpose of the Act is to assure so 

far as possible safe and healthful 

working conditions for every working 

man and women in the nation. 29 U.S.C. 

651(b). To achieve this goal, Congress 

authorized the Secretary to establish 

mandatory occupational safety and 

health standards. The Act broadly 

defines an OSHA standard as a rule that 

‘‘requires conditions, or the adoption or 

use of one or more practices, means, 

methods, operations, or processes, 

reasonably necessary or appropriate to 

provide safe or healthful employments 

and places of employment.’’ 29 U.S.C. 

652(8). See Building and Constr. Trades 

Div., AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258, 

1278 (DC Cir. 1988). OSHA standards 

must prescribe measures that are 

appropriate to protect ‘‘places of 

employment’’; nothing in the statutory 

language suggests that OSHA may do so 

only by regulating an employer’s 

interaction with its own employees. On 

the contrary, the Act’s broad language 

gives OSHA almost ‘‘unlimited 

discretion’’ to devise means to reach the 

statutory goal. See United Steelworkers 

v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1230 (DC 

Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 913 

(1981). 

Similarly, Section 5(a)(2) provides 

that each employer ‘‘shall comply with 

occupational safety and health 

standards promulgated under this 

Act.’’ 3 Nothing in this language suggests 

that compliance is required only when 

necessary to protect the employers’ own 

employees, or that the employer is 

entitled to endanger other employers’ 

employees at the worksite. Finally, 

Section 6(b)(7) of the Act authorizes the 

Secretary to ‘‘prescribe the use of labels 

or other appropriate forms of warning as 

are necessary to insure that employees 

are apprised of all hazards to which 

they are exposed.’’ 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7). 

Again, this authority is not limited to 

labels that would warn the employer’s 

own employees of the hazard. Given the 

distribution of potentially hazardous 

products in commerce, employees are 

predictably exposed to hazardous 

conditions created by other employers. 

Requiring employers to include hazard 

information needed by downstream 

employees is a necessary and 

appropriate means to ensure that the 

employees are apprised of all hazards to 

which they are exposed. 

In short, the statute focuses on 

workplace conditions to effectuate the 

OSH Act’s congressional mandate, and 

not on a particular employment 

relationship. The OSH Act’s underlying 

purpose is broad—to assure safe and 

healthful working conditions for 

working men and women—and 

Congress made clear that it expected the 

Act to protect all employees. (H. Rep. 

No. 91–1291, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., p. 

14–16 (July 9, 1970)). Numerous 

references in the legislative history of 

the Act require employers to provide a 

safe and healthful ‘‘place of 

employment’’ (see, e.g., S. Rep. No. 91– 

1282, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., p. 10 

(October 6, 1970)). The OSH Act tasks 

OSHA with promulgating rules that will 

create safe places of employment, 

notwithstanding the many varied 

employment relationships that might 

exist at a worksite. 

Subsequent congressional action has 

also recognized OSHA’s authority to 

impose responsibilities on employers to 

protect employees who are not their 

own. For example, Congress directed 

OSHA to develop a chemical process 

safety standard (the PSM standard) 

requiring employers to ‘‘ensure 

contractors and contract employees are 

provided appropriate information and 

training’’ and to ‘‘train and educate 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59732 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

employees and contractors in 

emergency response.’’ (29 U.S.C. note) 

(quoting Pub.L. 101–549, Title III, Sec. 

304, November 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 

2576). This is a clear ratification of the 

Agency’s authority to require employers 

to protect the employees of others. 

Congress also approved of the Agency’s 

authority when it relied on the 

provisions of OSHA’s Hazard 

Communication standard in 

promulgating the Emergency Planning 

and Community Right-to-Know Act (42 

U.S.C. 11001–11050) (EPCRA). OSHA’s 

Hazard Communication standard, 

among other things, requires a 

manufacturer of a hazardous chemical 

to ‘‘inform not only its own employees 

of the dangers posed by the chemicals, 

but downstream employers and 

employees as well.’’ Martin v. American 

Cyanamid Co., 5 F.3d 140, 141 (6th Cir. 

1993). Congress incorporated provisions 

of the Hazard Communication standard 

in EPCRA as a basis for triggering 

obligations on owners or operators of 

facilities producing hazardous 

chemicals to provide local governments 

with information needed for emergency 

response. Had Congress not approved of 

the multi-employer provisions in the 

Hazard Communication standard, it 

would not have approved of it as a basis 

for obligations in the EPCRA. 

Furthermore, OSHA has consistently 

interpreted the OSH Act as authorizing 

it to impose multi-employer obligations 

in its standards. In addition to the 

Hazard Communication standard and 

PSM standard discussed above, OSHA 

included multi-employer provisions in 

its powered platforms standard, which 

requires that a building owner inform 

employers that the building installation 

has been inspected and is safe to use. 29 

CFR 1910.66(c)(3). OSHA has also 

imposed multi-employer obligations in 

other construction standards. 

For example, in the construction 

asbestos standard, OSHA requires 

building owners/employers to perform 

initial monitoring for asbestos and to 

communicate the presence of asbestos 

or presumed asbestos containing 

materials to prospective employers 

whose employees reasonably can be 

expected to work in exposed areas. 29 

CFR 1926.1101(k)(2). In the recently 

promulgated steel-erection standard, 

OSHA imposed duties on controlling 

contractors to ensure that site 

conditions are safe for steel erection. 29 

CFR 1926.752(c). OSHA just recently 

proposed in updates to its electricpower transmission and distribution 

construction standard similar multiemployer communication provisions. 

See 70 FR 34947–48. OSHA’s inclusion 

of multi-employer provisions in this 

proposed rule is fully consistent with its 

past practice of ensuring the safety and 

health of all employees at construction 

worksites. 

Finally, OSHA’s authority to impose 

these provisions is confirmed by the 

decisions of numerous courts of appeals 

and the Occupational Safety and Health 

Review Commission holding that an 

employer’s duties and OSHA standards 

may extend beyond an employer’s own 

employees. See Universal Constr. Co. v. 

OSHRC, 182 F.3d 726, 728 (10th Cir. 

1999) (following decisions from Second, 

Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth 

Circuits); Access Equip. Sys., 18 BNA 

OSHC 1718, 1722–24 (No. 95–1449, 

1999). But see Melerine v. Avondale 

Shipyards, Inc., 659 F.2d 706 (5th Cir. 

1981). The DC Circuit suggested in 

Anthony Crane Rental, Inc. v. Reich, 70 

F.3d 1298, 1306 (DC Cir. 1995), 

however, that 29 CFR 1910.12(a)—a rule 

promulgated by OSHA to adopt 

Construction Safety Act (CSA) standards 

as OSHA standards—might limit an 

employer’s obligations under the 

construction standards in part 1926 to 

its own employees. The court did not 

reach the issue, noting that the parties 

had not briefed it. The proposed cranes 

and derricks in construction standard 

will be included in part 1926. 

Paragraph 1910.12(a) is consistent 

with the promulgation of requirements 

that place obligations on employers 

necessary to protect the employees of 

others. The provision states: 

The standards prescribed in part 1926 of 

this chapter are adopted as occupational 

safety and health standards under section 6 

of the Act and shall apply, according to the 

provisions thereof, to every employment and 

place of employment of every employee 

engaged in construction work. Each employer 

shall protect the employment and places of 

employment of each of his employees 

engaged in construction work by complying 

with the appropriate standards prescribed in 

this paragraph. 

The language of the provision 

supports OSHA’s interpretation that an 

employer’s responsibilities can extend 

beyond the employer’s employees. The 

first sentence makes the construction 

standards applicable to every 

employment and to every ‘‘place of 

employment’’ of every construction 

employee. This is broad language that 

does not limit an employer’s obligations 

to its own employees. The second 

sentence, by providing that each 

employer must protect the employment 

and the places of employment of each 

of his employees, does not limit an 

employer’s obligations to only 

protecting his or her employees and 

does not negate the broad reach of the 

first sentence. The two sentences, read 

together, require employers to comply 

with standards at all sites where they 

are working in order to protect 

employees who are predictably present 

at those sites. 

The sole purpose of the provision was 

to ‘‘adopt and extend’’ existing 

Construction Safety Act (CSA) standards 

applicable under the OSH Act. 29 CFR 

1910.11. Under the CSA, standards 

applied only to employers with 

Federally funded contracts, and only 

with respect to employees engaged on 

those Federal projects. See 29 CFR part 

1926 subpart B; CH2M Hill, Inc. v. 

Herman, 192 F.3d 711, 718 n.1 (7th Cir. 

1999). The function of 29 CFR 

1910.12(a) was to adopt the CSA 

standards as OSHA standards and in so 

doing to make it clear that neither of 

those limitations would apply. Thus, 

OSHA stressed that compliance would 

broadly extend to each construction 

employer (not just those with Federal 

contracts) and to every construction 

employee (not just those working on 

Federal projects). In no way did OSHA 

intend for the language of 29 CFR 

1910.12(a) to restrict its authority to 

promulgate construction standards that 

establish obligations extending beyond 

an employer’s own employees. 

Other factors confirm that OSHA had 

no intention in 29 CFR 1910.12(a) to bar 

multi-employer responsibilities under 

the construction standards. OSHA 

issued the regulation without notice and 

comment under Section 6(a) of the Act. 

That section provided authority only to 

adopt established federal standards, 

such as the CSA standards, without 

making any substantive changes. Usery 

v. Kennecott Copper Corp., 577 F.2d 

1113 (10th Cir. 1977). The CSA 

regulations did not limit multi-employer 

responsibilities; the regulations 

expressly provided for them. 29 CFR 

1926.16. OSHA could not have intended 

to limit statutory obligations in an 

action under Section 6(a). 

In addition, concurrently with 

issuance of 29 CFR 1910.12(a), OSHA 

issued its initial Field Operations 

Manual, which expressly directed 

issuance of citations to construction 

employers who created a hazard 

endangering their own employees or 

those of another employer. The Agency 

has also consistently promulgated rules 

in 29 CFR Part 1926 that expressly 

extend employers’ obligations beyond 

their own employees. The requirements 

in proposed 29 CFR 1926.1204 reflect 

this consistent interpretation and will 

ensure that all employees on 

construction worksites are protected 

from the hazards of confined spaces. 

The Occupational Safety and Health 

Review Commission’s recent decision in 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59733 

Secretary of Labor v. Summit 

Contractors (OSHRC Docket No. 03– 

1622 (April 27, 2007), has no 

application to this proposed rule. In 

Summit, a divided Review Commission 

vacated citations issued to a controlling 

employer for violations of a 

construction standard. The two 

Commissioners who joined in this result 

issued separate opinions; each read 29 

CFR 1910.12(a) as establishing a 

limitation on the Agency’s authority to 

hold controlling employers accountable 

for violations. OSHA believes this view 

is mistaken, and has appealed the 

OSHRC decision to the U.S. Court of 

Appeals (8th Cir. No. 07–2191). 

Moreover, Summit has no bearing on 

the duties established under the 

proposed rule. The Summit opinions 

interpreted OSHA’s intent under then 

existing rules. They did not question 

OSHA’s authority under the Act to 

establish multi-employer obligations 

through rulemaking. OSHA is exercising 

its authority under Section 6(b) to issue 

this proposed rule, and nothing in 29 

CFR 1910.12(a) limits an employer’s 

compliance obligations under the rule. 

Proposed paragraph (f) would require 

that where a provision in the proposed 

rule directs an operator, crewmember or 

other employee to take a specified 

action, it would be the employer’s 

responsibility to establish work rules to 

require the relevant employees to take 

that action, and to effectively 

communicate and enforce those work 

rules. This paragraph clarifies the 

employer’s obligations with regard to 

such provisions. 

Terminology 

According to § 1926.1401, Definitions, 

two terms are defined as meaning all 

equipment covered by this subpart: 

‘‘Equipment’’ and ‘‘cranes/derricks.’’ In 

reviewing the C–DAC document, OSHA 

has found that in some places it uses the 

word ‘‘crane’’ standing alone when C– 

DAC’s intent was to refer to all covered 

equipment. To avoid any ambiguity, 

OSHA has modified the document 

where appropriate to replace ‘‘crane’’ 

with either ‘‘equipment’’ or ‘‘crane/ 

derrick.’’ Where ‘‘crane’’ is used in a 

way that is technically correct, as in 

referring to ‘‘tower cranes,’’ OSHA has 

not changed it. 

In instances where the C–DAC 

document uses the phrase ‘‘crane 

operator,’’ OSHA has deleted the word 

‘‘crane.’’ By definition (in § 1926.1401) 

‘‘operator’’ refers to the equipment 

operator and, in many locations, the C– 

DAC document already uses ‘‘operator’’ 

without a modifier to refer to the 

equipment operator. Therefore, use of 

‘‘crane’’ to modify ‘‘operator’’ is 

unnecessary and potentially confusing. 

Section 1401 Definitions 

C–DAC included a number of 

definitions to clarify the meaning of 

terms used in the proposed standard. 

Many of the defined terms are 

commonly used in the industry, and 

C–DAC in most instances relied on 

standard industry sources or its own 

understanding of how terms are used in 

the industry to help ensure that the 

definitions would be readily understood 

by employers and employees. Industry 

sources on which C–DAC relied include 

existing OSHA standards, consensus 

standards, and ‘‘A Glossary of Common 

Crane and Rigging Terms’’ (Specialized 

Carriers and Rigging Foundation 1997) 

(‘‘SC&RF Handbook’’)(OSHA–2007– 

0066–0019). Some definitions were also 

included to ensure that certain terms 

used in the proposed standard have a 

precise, unambiguous meaning. 

Where defined terms are used 

primarily in a single section or group of 

sections (such as §§ 1926.1407–1411 on 

power line safety), the definition will be 

explained in the preamble to that 

section or group. Definitions that are 

used in a number of sections will be 

explained in this section. Table 5 shows 

the section or paragraph where each 

definition is discussed. 

TABLE 5—INDEX OF DEFINED TERMS

Term Section or paragraph where definition is 

discussed in the preamble 

A/D supervisor ....................................................................................................................................... § 1926.1404(a)(1) 

Articulating crane ................................................................................................................................... § 1926.1401 

Assembly/Disassembly .......................................................................................................................... § 1926.1403 

Assist crane ........................................................................................................................................... § 1926.1404(h)(4) 

Attachments ........................................................................................................................................... § 1926.1400(b)(2) 

Audible signal ........................................................................................................................................ § 1926.1419(b) 

Blocking ................................................................................................................................................. § 1926.1404(h)(2) 

Boatswain’s chair ................................................................................................................................... § 1926.1431(o) 

Bogie ...................................................................................................................................................... § 1926.1435 

Boom (equipment other than tower crane) ........................................................................................... § 1926.1401 

Boom (tower cranes) ............................................................................................................................. § 1926.1435(e)(5)(ii) 

Boom angle indicator ............................................................................................................................. § 1926.1416(d)(1)(i)(A) 

Boom hoist limiting device ..................................................................................................................... § 1926.1416(d)(1) 

Boom length indicator ............................................................................................................................ § 1926.1416(e)(3) 

Boom stop .............................................................................................................................................. § 1926.1416(a)(2) 

Boom suspension systems .................................................................................................................... § 1926.1404(h)(7) 

Builder .................................................................................................................................................... § 1926.1436(c)(1) 

Calculate ................................................................................................................................................ § 1926.1401 

Center of gravity .................................................................................................................................... § 1926.1404(h)(6) 

Certified welder ...................................................................................................................................... § 1926.1431(e)(5) 

Climbing ................................................................................................................................................. § 1926.1435(b)(7) 

Come-a-long .......................................................................................................................................... § 1926.1400(c)(10) 

Competent person ................................................................................................................................. § 1926.1401 

Controlled load lowering ........................................................................................................................ § 1926.1426(d) 

Controlling entity .................................................................................................................................... § 1926.1402(c) 

Counterweight ........................................................................................................................................ § 1926.1404(h)(9) 

Crane/derrick ......................................................................................................................................... § 1926.1400 

Crawler crane ........................................................................................................................................ § 1926.1401 

Crossover points .................................................................................................................................... § 1926.1413(a)(3)(iii) 

Dedicated channel ................................................................................................................................. § 1926.1420(b) 

Dedicated pile-driver .............................................................................................................................. § 1926.1439(a) 

Dedicated spotter (power lines) ............................................................................................................. § 1926.1407(b) 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59734 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 5—INDEX OF DEFINED TERMS—Continued 

Term Section or paragraph where definition is 

discussed in the preamble 

Directly under the load .......................................................................................................................... § 1926.1425(e)(1) 

Dismantling ............................................................................................................................................ § 1926.1405 

Drum rotation indicator .......................................................................................................................... § 1926.1416(e)(5) 

Electrical contact .................................................................................................................................... § 1926.1407–1411 

Employer-made equipment .................................................................................................................... § 1926.1437(m)(4) 

Encroachment ........................................................................................................................................ § 1926.1407–1411 

Equipment .............................................................................................................................................. § 1926.1400 

Equipment criteria .................................................................................................................................. § 1926.1412(b)(1)(i) 

Fall protection equipment ...................................................................................................................... § 1926.1423(d) 

Fall restraint system .............................................................................................................................. § 1926.1423(d) 

Fall zone ................................................................................................................................................ § 1926.1425(b) 

Flange points ......................................................................................................................................... § 1926.1413(a)(3)(iii) 

Floating cranes/derricks ......................................................................................................................... § 1926.1437 

For example ........................................................................................................................................... § 1926.1401 

Free fall (of the load line) ...................................................................................................................... § 1926.1426(d) 

Free surface effect ................................................................................................................................. § 1926.1437(m)(5)(ii) 

Hoist ....................................................................................................................................................... § 1926.1401 

Hoisting .................................................................................................................................................. § 1926.1401 

Include/including .................................................................................................................................... § 1926.1401 

Insulating link/device .............................................................................................................................. § 1926.1408(b)(4)(v) 

Jib stop .................................................................................................................................................. § 1926.1415(a)(3) 

Land crane/derrick ................................................................................................................................. § 1926.1437(h) 

List ......................................................................................................................................................... § 1926.1437(e)(1) 

Load ....................................................................................................................................................... § 1926.1401 

Load moment (or rated capacity) indicator ........................................................................................... § 1926.1416(e)(4) 

Load moment (or rated capacity) limiter ............................................................................................... § 1926.1416(e)(4) 

Locomotive crane .................................................................................................................................. § 1926.1401 

Luffing jib limiting device ....................................................................................................................... § 1926.1416(d)(2) 

Marine hoisted personnel transfer device ............................................................................................. § 1926.1431(b)(2)(iii) 

Marine worksite ...................................................................................................................................... § 1926.1431(b)(2)(iii) 

Mobile cranes ........................................................................................................................................ § 1926.1401 

Moving point-to-point ............................................................................................................................. § 1926.1423(d)(1) 

Multi-purpose machine .......................................................................................................................... § 1926.1400(a) 

Nationally recognized accrediting agency ............................................................................................. § 1926.1427(b)(1)(i) 

Non-conductive ...................................................................................................................................... § 1926.1407(b)(2) 

Operational aids ..................................................................................................................................... § 1926.1416 

Operational controls ............................................................................................................................... § 1926.1417(b)(2) 

Operator ................................................................................................................................................. § 1926.1401 

Overhead and gantry cranes ................................................................................................................. § 1926.1438 

Paragraph .............................................................................................................................................. § 1926.1401 

Pendants ................................................................................................................................................ § 1926.1404(h)(8) 

Personal fall arrest system .................................................................................................................... § 1926.1423(f) 

Portal cranes .......................................................................................................................................... § 1926.1415(a)(1) 

Power lines ............................................................................................................................................ § 1926.1407–1411 

Procedures ............................................................................................................................................. § 1926.1401 

Proximity alarm ...................................................................................................................................... § 1926.1407(b)(3) 

Qualified evaluator (not a third party) .................................................................................................... § 1926.1428(a)(2) 

Qualified evaluator (third party) ............................................................................................................. § 1926.1428(a)(2) 

Qualified person ..................................................................................................................................... § 1926.1401 

Qualified rigger ...................................................................................................................................... § 1926.1425(c)(3) 

Range control warning device ............................................................................................................... § 1926.1407(a)(3) 

Rated capacity ....................................................................................................................................... § 1926.1401 

Rated capacity indicator ........................................................................................................................ § 1926.1416(e)(4) 

Rated capacity limiter ............................................................................................................................ § 1926.1416(e)(4) 

Repetitive pickup points ......................................................................................................................... § 1926.1413(a)(3)(iii) 

Running wire rope ................................................................................................................................. § 1926.1413(a)(2)(ii)(A) 

Runway .................................................................................................................................................. § 1926.1431(k)(12)(ii)(A) 

Section ................................................................................................................................................... § 1926.1401 

Side-boom crane ................................................................................................................................... § 1926.1440 

Special hazard warnings ....................................................................................................................... § 1926. 1417(c)(1) 

Stability (flotation device) ....................................................................................................................... § 1926.1437(m)(5)(iii) 

Standard Method ................................................................................................................................... § 1926.1419(c) 

Such as .................................................................................................................................................. § 1926.1401 

Superstructure ....................................................................................................................................... § 1926.1424(a)(1) 

Tag line .................................................................................................................................................. § 1926.1407(b)(2) 

Tender .................................................................................................................................................... § 1926.1437(j)(3) 

Tilt-up or tilt-down operation .................................................................................................................. § 1926.1425(e) 

Tower crane ........................................................................................................................................... § 1926.1401 

Travel bogie (tower cranes) ................................................................................................................... § 1926.1435(d)(2)(iv) 

Trim ........................................................................................................................................................ § 1926.1437(e)(1) 

Two blocking .......................................................................................................................................... § 1926.1416(d)(3) 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59735 

TABLE 5—INDEX OF DEFINED TERMS—Continued 

Term Section or paragraph where definition is 

discussed in the preamble 

Unavailable procedures ......................................................................................................................... § 1926.1417(b) 

Up to ...................................................................................................................................................... § 1926.1401 

Upperstructure ....................................................................................................................................... § 1926.1424(a)(1) 

Upperworks ............................................................................................................................................ § 1926.1424(a)(1) 

Wire rope ............................................................................................................................................... § 1926.1413 

Four terms that are defined in the C– 

DAC document—‘‘alongside,’’ 

‘‘appointed person,’’ ‘‘blind pick,’’ and 

‘‘power down,’’—were used by C–DAC 

in earlier drafts but are not used in the 

proposed standard. OSHA has therefore 

not included them in this section. 

‘‘A/D supervisor’’ means ‘‘an 

individual who meets this standard’s 

requirements for an A/D supervisor, 

irrespective of the person’s formal job 

title or whether the person is nonmanagement or management 

personnel.’’ 

‘‘Articulating crane’’ means ‘‘a crane 

whose boom consists of a series of 

folding, pin connected structural 

members, typically manipulated to 

extend or retract by power from 

hydraulic cylinders.’’ This definition is 

taken from the SC&RF Handbook 

definition of ‘‘articulating boom crane.’’ 

‘‘Assist crane’’ is ‘‘a crane used to 

assist in assembling or disassembling a 

crane.’’ 

‘‘Assembly/Disassembly’’ means ‘‘the 

assembly and/or disassembly of 

equipment covered under this standard. 

With regard to tower cranes, ‘‘erecting 

and climbing’’ replaces the term 

‘assembly,’ and ‘dismantling’ replaces 

the term ‘disassembly.’ ’’ 

‘‘Attachments’’ means ‘‘any device 

that expands the range of tasks that can 

be done by the equipment. Examples 

include, but are not limited to: an auger, 

drill, magnet, pile-driver, and boomattached personnel platform.’’ This 

definition is discussed under paragraph 

1400(b) in the explanation of this 

proposed standard. 

‘‘Audible signal’’ means ‘‘a signal 

made by a distinct sound or series of 

sounds. Examples include, but are not 

limited to, sounds made by a bell, horn, 

or whistle.’’ 

‘‘Blocking’’ (also referred to as 

‘‘cribbing’’) ‘‘is wood or other material 

used to support equipment or a 

component and distribute loads to the 

ground. Typically used to support 

latticed boom sections during assembly/ 

disassembly and under outrigger floats.’’ 

‘‘Boatswain’s chair’’ is ‘‘a single-point 

adjustable suspension scaffold 

consisting of a seat or sling (which may 

be incorporated into a full body harness) 

designed to support one employee in a 

sitting position.’’ 

‘‘Bogie’’ is synonymous with ‘‘travel 

bogie,’’ which is defined below. 

‘‘Boom (equipment other than tower 

crane)’’ means ‘‘an inclined spar, strut, 

or other long structural member which 

supports the upper hoisting tackle on a 

crane or derrick. Typically, the length 

and vertical angle of the boom can be 

varied to achieve increased height or 

height and reach when lifting loads. 

Booms can usually be grouped into 

general categories of hydraulically 

extendible, cantilevered type, latticed 

section, cable supported type or 

articulating type.’’ This definition is 

taken from the SC&RF Handbook. 

‘‘Boom (tower cranes).’’ On tower 

cranes: if the ‘‘boom’’ (i.e., principal 

horizontal structure) is fixed, it is 

referred to as a jib; if it is moveable up 

and down, it is referred to as a boom. 

‘‘Boom angle indicator’’ is ‘‘a device 

which measures the angle of the boom 

relative to horizontal.’’ 

‘‘Boom hoist limiting device’’ 

‘‘includes boom hoist disengaging 

device, boom hoist shutoff, boom hoist 

disconnect, boom hoist hydraulic relief, 

boom hoist kick-outs, automatic boom 

stop device, or derricking limiter. This 

type of device disengages boom hoist 

power when the boom reaches a 

predetermined operating angle. It also 

sets brakes or closes valves to prevent 

the boom from lowering after power is 

disengaged.’’ 

‘‘Boom length indicator’’ ‘‘indicates 

the length of the permanent part of the 

boom (such as ruled markings on the 

boom) or, as in some computerized 

systems, the length of the boom with 

extensions/attachments.’’ 

‘‘Boom stop’’ ‘‘includes boom stops, 

(belly straps with struts/standoff), 

telescoping boom stops, attachment 

boom stops, and backstops. These 

devices restrict the boom from moving 

above a certain maximum angle and 

toppling over backward.’’ 

‘‘Boom suspension systems’’ are ‘‘a 

system of pendants, running ropes, 

sheaves, and other hardware which 

supports the boom tip and controls the 

boom angle.’’ 

‘‘Builder’’ means ‘‘an employer 

builder/constructor of equipment.’’ This 

definition is discussed under 

§ 1926.1436(c)(1) in the explanation of 

this proposed standard. 

‘‘Calculate’’ ‘‘includes use of a 

calculator.’’ The Committee included 

this definition to make clear that 

persons who performed calculations 

under this standard may use any 

method, including use of a calculator, 

that yields accurate results. 

‘‘Center of gravity.’’ ‘‘The center of 

gravity of any object is the point in the 

object around which its weight is evenly 

distributed. If you could put a support 

under that point, you could balance the 

object on the support.’’ 

‘‘Certified welder’’ is ‘‘a welder that 

meets the nationally recognized 

certification requirements that are 

applicable to the task being performed.’’ 

‘‘Climbing’’ is ‘‘the process in which 

a tower crane is raised to a new working 

height, either by adding additional 

tower sections to the top of the crane 

(top climbing), or by a system in which 

the entire crane is raised inside the 

structure (inside climbing).’’ 

‘‘Come-a-long’’ means ‘‘a mechanical 

device typically consisting of a chain or 

cable attached at each end that is used 

to facilitate movement of materials 

through leverage.’’ 

‘‘Competent person’’ is ‘‘a person who 

is capable of identifying existing and 

predictable hazards in the surroundings 

or working conditions which are 

unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous to 

employees, and who has authorization 

to take prompt corrective measures to 

eliminate them.’’ This definition is 

taken from 29 CFR 1926.32(f), which 

defines ‘‘competent person’’ under 

OSHA’s construction standards. Those 

standards assign duties to ‘‘competent 

persons’’ that are similar to those 

assigned under this proposed standard. 

‘‘Controlled load lowering’’ means 

‘‘lowering a load by means of a 

mechanical hoist drum device that 

allows a hoisted load to be lowered with 

maximum control using the gear train or 

hydraulic components of the hoist 

mechanism. Controlled load lowering 

requires the use of the hoist drive motor, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59736 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

rather than the load hoist brake, to 

lower the load.’’ 

‘‘Controlling entity’’ is ‘‘a prime 

contractor, general contractor, 

construction manager or any other legal 

entity which has the overall 

responsibility for the construction of the 

project—its planning, quality and 

completion.’’ 

‘‘Counterweight’’ is a ‘‘weight used to 

supplement the weight of equipment in 

providing stability for lifting loads by 

counterbalancing those loads.’’ 

‘‘Crane/derrick’’ includes ‘‘all 

equipment covered by this Subpart.’’ 

‘‘Crawler crane’’ means ‘‘equipment 

that has a type of base mounting which 

incorporates a continuous belt of 

sprocket driven track.’’ This definition 

is based on the definition of ‘‘crawler’’ 

in the SC&RF Handbook. Current 

industry terminology refers to crawler 

cranes and truck cranes together as 

‘‘mobile cranes.’’ See definition of 

‘‘mobile crane’’ below. 

‘‘Crossover points’’ are ‘‘locations on 

a wire rope which is spooled on a drum 

where one layer of rope climbs up on 

and crosses over the previous layer. 

This takes place at each flange of the 

drum as the rope is spooled onto the 

drum, reaches the flange, and begins to 

wrap back in the opposite direction.’’ 

‘‘Dedicated channel’’ is ‘‘a line of 

communication assigned by the 

employer who controls the 

communication system to only one 

signal person and crane/derrick or to a 

coordinated group of cranes/derrick/ 

signal person(s).’’ 

‘‘Dedicated pile-driver’’ is ‘‘a machine 

that is designed to function exclusively 

as a pile-driver. These machines 

typically have the ability to both hoist 

the material that will be pile-driven and 

to pile-drive that material.’’ 

‘‘Dedicated spotter (power lines)’’ is 

defined as follows: ‘‘In order to be 

considered a dedicated spotter, the 

requirements of § 1926.1428 (signal 

person qualifications) must be met and 

his/her sole responsibility is to watch 

the separation between the power line 

and: the equipment, load line and load 

(including rigging and lifting 

accessories), and ensure through 

communication with the operator, that 

the applicable minimum approach 

distance is not breached.’’ 

‘‘Directly under the load’’ means ‘‘a 

part or all of an employee is directly 

beneath the load.’’ 

‘‘Dismantling’’ ‘‘includes partial 

dismantling (such as dismantling to 

shorten a boom or substitute a different 

component).’’ 

‘‘Drum rotation indicator’’ is ‘‘a 

device on a crane or hoist which 

indicates in which direction and at what 

relative speed a particular hoist drum is 

turning.’’ 

‘‘Electrical contact’’ refers to ‘‘when a 

person, object, or equipment makes 

contact or comes in close proximity 

with an energized conductor or 

equipment that allows the passage of 

current.’’ 

‘‘Employer-made equipment’’ means 

‘‘floating cranes/derricks designed and 

built by an employer for the employer’s 

own use.’’ 

‘‘Encroachment’’ is ‘‘where any part of 

the crane, load line or load (including 

rigging and lifting accessories) breaches 

a minimum clearance distance that this 

subpart requires to be maintained from 

a power line.’’ 

‘‘Equipment’’ means ‘‘equipment 

covered by this subpart.’’ 

‘‘Equipment criteria’’ means 

‘‘instructions, recommendations, 

limitations and specifications.’’ 

‘‘Fall protection equipment’’ means 

‘‘guardrail systems, safety net systems, 

personal fall arrest systems, positioning 

device systems or fall restraint 

systems.’’ 

‘‘Fall restraint system’’ means ‘‘a fall 

protection system that prevents the user 

from falling any distance. The system is 

comprised of either a body belt or body 

harness, along with an anchorage, 

connectors and other necessary 

equipment. The other components 

typically include a lanyard, and may 

also include a lifeline and other 

devices.’’ 

‘‘Fall zone’’ means ‘‘the area 

(including but not limited to the area 

directly beneath the load) in which it is 

reasonably foreseeable that partially or 

completely suspended materials could 

fall in the event of an accident.’’ 

‘‘Flange point’’ is ‘‘a point of contact 

between rope and drum flange where 

the rope changes layers.’’ 

‘‘Floating cranes/derricks’’ means 

‘‘equipment designed by the 

manufacturer (or employer) for marine 

use by permanent attachment to a barge, 

pontoons, vessel or other means of 

flotation.’’ 

‘‘For example’’ means ‘‘one example, 

although there are others.’’ This 

definition was included to demonstrate 

and clarify the usage of the word. 

‘‘Free fall (of the load line)’’ means 

‘‘where only the brake is used to 

regulate the descent of the load line (the 

drive mechanism is not used to drive 

the load down faster or retard its 

lowering).’’ 

‘‘Free surface effect’’ is ‘‘the 

uncontrolled transverse movement of 

liquids in compartments which reduce 

a vessel’s transverse stability.’’ 

‘‘Hoist’’ is ‘‘a mechanical device for 

lifting and lowering loads by winding 

rope onto or off a drum.’’ A hoist is the 

primary lifting mechanism used by 

cranes and derricks. 

‘‘Hoisting’’ is ‘‘the act of raising, 

lowering or otherwise moving a load in 

the air with equipment covered by this 

standard. As used in this standard, 

‘hoisting’ can be done by means other 

than wire rope/hoist drum equipment.’’ 

This definition makes clear that 

‘‘hoisting’’ is broad enough to 

encompass all movement of a load in 

the air by cranes/derricks and is not 

limited to movement caused by wire 

rope/hoist drum equipment. For 

example, movement resulting from 

booming out a hydraulic boom that is 

holding a load would be ‘‘hoisting.’’ 

‘‘Include/including’’ means 

‘‘including, but not limited to.’’ This 

definition demonstrates and clarifies the 

usage of the word. 

‘‘Insulating link/device’’ is ‘‘an 

insulating device listed, labeled, or 

accepted by a Nationally Recognized 

Testing Laboratory in accordance with 

29 CFR 1910.7.’’ 

‘‘Jib stop,’’ which is also referred to as 

a jib backstop, ‘‘is the same type of 

device as a boom stop but is for a fixed 

or luffing jib.’’ 

‘‘Land crane/derrick’’ is ‘‘Equipment 

not originally designed by the 

manufacturer for marine use by 

permanent attachment to barges, 

pontoons, vessels, or other means of 

floatation.’’ 

‘‘List’’ is the ‘‘angle of inclination 

about the longitudinal axis of a barge, 

pontoon, vessel or other means of 

flotation.’’ 

‘‘Load’’ refers to ‘‘the object(s) being 

hoisted and/or the weight of the 

object(s); both uses refer to the object(s) 

and the load-attaching equipment, such 

as, the load block, ropes, slings, 

shackles, and any other ancillary 

attachment.’’ This definition makes 

clear that in calculating the weight of 

the load for purposes such as making 

sure that the lift is within the 

equipment’s rated capacity, the weight 

of all objects used to attach the load to 

the equipment must be included. As 

drafted by C–DAC, ‘‘load’’ referred to 

the weight of the object being lifted but 

not the object itself. However, ‘‘load’’ is 

used throughout the proposed standard 

to refer to the object being hoisted in 

addition to the weight of the load. 

OSHA has modified the C–DAC 

definition accordingly. 

‘‘Load moment (or rated capacity) 

indicator’’ is ‘‘a system which aids the 

equipment operator by sensing the 

overturning moment on the equipment, 

i.e., load multiplied by radius. It 

compares this lifting condition to the 

equipment’s rated capacity, and 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59737 

indicates to the operator the percentage 

of capacity at which the equipment is 

working. Lights, bells, or buzzers may 

be incorporated as a warning of an 

approaching overload condition.’’ 

‘‘Load moment (or rated capacity) 

limiter’’ is ‘‘a system which aids the 

equipment operator by sensing the 

overturning moment on the equipment, 

i.e., load multiplied by radius. It 

compares this lifting condition to the 

equipment’s rated capacity, and when 

the rated capacity is reached, it shuts off 

power to those equipment functions 

which can increase the severity of 

loading on the equipment, e.g., hoisting, 

telescoping out, or luffing out. 

Typically, those functions which 

decrease the severity of loading on the 

equipment remain operational, e.g., 

lowering, telescoping in, or luffing in.’’ 

‘‘Locomotive crane’’ is ‘‘a crane 

mounted on a base or car equipped for 

travel on a railroad track.’’ OSHA 

included this definition to remain 

consistent with the industry’s use of the 

term as indicated in the SC&RF 

Handbook. 

‘‘Luffing jib limiting device’’ ‘‘is 

similar to a boom hoist limiting device, 

except that it limits the movement of the 

luffing jib.’’ 

‘‘Marine hoisted personnel transfer 

device’’ is ‘‘a device, such as a ‘transfer 

net,’ used to hoist an employee to or 

from a marine worksite that is designed 

to protect the employee during a marine 

transfer and that allows for rapid entry/ 

exit from the device. Such devices do 

not include a boatswain’s chair when 

hoisted by equipment covered by this 

standard.’’ 

‘‘Marine worksite’’ is ‘‘a construction 

worksite that is located in, on or above 

the water.’’ 

‘‘Mobile crane’’ is ‘‘a lifting device 

incorporating a cable suspended latticed 

boom or hydraulic telescopic boom 

designed to be moved between 

operating locations by transport over the 

road.’’ This definition is derived from 

the SC&RF Handbook. The term ‘‘mobile 

crane,’’ as used in ASME B30.5–2004, 

‘‘Mobile and Locomotive Cranes,’’ 

encompasses crawler cranes, truck 

cranes, and other wheel-mounted 

cranes. The 1968 version of ANSI B30.5, 

which is incorporated by reference into 

Subpart N, is entitled ‘‘Crawler, 

Locomotive and Truck Cranes’’ and also 

covered crawler cranes, truck cranes, 

and other wheel-mounted cranes (in 

addition to locomotive cranes). C–DAC 

included its definition of ‘‘mobile 

cranes’’ to reflect current industry 

terminology, which now refers to 

crawler cranes, truck cranes, and other 

wheel-mounted cranes collectively as 

‘‘mobile cranes.’’ 

The SC&RF Handbook definition 

states that in Europe, ‘‘mobile crane’’ 

refers to a crane mounted on a truck 

carrier. The C–DAC draft of the 

definition of ‘‘mobile crane’’ included 

this reference to European terminology. 

While the European terminology 

describes a device that is included in 

this proposed rule’s definition of mobile 

crane, OSHA has deleted the reference 

to the European terminology because it 

could be read to mean, erroneously, that 

only truck cranes fall within the 

definition of ‘‘mobile cranes.’’ As noted 

above, crawler cranes and wheelmounted cranes other than truck cranes 

also qualify as ‘‘mobile cranes.’’ 

‘‘Moving point to point’’ means ‘‘the 

times during which an employee is in 

the process of going to or from a work 

station.’’ 

‘‘Multi-purpose machine’’ means ‘‘a 

machine that is designed to be 

configured in various ways, at least one 

of which allows it to hoist (by means of 

a winch or hook) and horizontally move 

a suspended load. For example, a 

machine that can rotate and can be 

configured with removable tongs (for 

use as a forklift) or with a winch pack, 

jib (with a hook at the end) or jib used 

in conjunction with a winch. When 

configured with the tongs, it is not 

covered by this Subpart. When 

configured with a winch pack, jib (with 

a hook at the end) or jib used in 

conjunction with a winch, it is covered 

by this Subpart.’’ 

‘‘Nationally recognized accrediting 

agency’’ is ‘‘an organization that, due to 

its independence and expertise, is 

widely recognized as competent to 

accredit testing organizations.’’ 

‘‘Non-conductive’’ means that, 

‘‘because of the nature and condition of 

the materials used, and the conditions 

of use (including environmental 

conditions and condition of the 

material), the object in question has the 

property of not becoming energized 

(that is, it has high dielectric properties 

offering a high resistance to the passage 

of current under the conditions of use).’’ 

‘‘Operational controls’’ are ‘‘levers, 

switches, pedals and other devices for 

controlling equipment operation.’’ 

‘‘Operational aids’’ are ‘‘devices that 

assist the operator in the safe operation 

of the crane by providing information or 

automatically taking control of a crane 

function. These include, but are not 

limited to, the devices listed in 

§ 1926.1416 (‘‘listed operational aids’’).’’ 

‘‘Operator’’ is ‘‘a person who is 

operating the equipment.’’ The term is 

therefore not restricted to job title but 

includes any and all persons who 

actually operate the equipment. The 

Committee included this definition to 

make clear that anyone operating 

equipment must meet all of the 

requirements of this subpart that apply 

to ‘‘operators.’’ 

‘‘Overhead and gantry cranes’’ is 

defined to include ‘‘overhead/bridge 

cranes, semigantry, cantilever gantry, 

wall cranes, storage bridge cranes, 

launching gantry cranes, and similar 

equipment, irrespective of whether it 

travels on tracks, wheels, or other 

means.’’ 

‘‘Paragraph’’ refers to ‘‘a paragraph in 

the same section of this subpart that the 

word ‘paragraph’ is used, unless 

otherwise specified.’’ For example, 

proposed paragraph 1423(a)(1) refers to 

‘‘paragraphs (b), (c)(2), and (e).’’ Under 

this definition, it is understood that 

those are paragraphs in § 1423. By 

contrast, paragraph 1439 refers to 

certain paragraphs in other sections and 

therefore includes the section 

designation in the reference, for 

example, ‘‘paragraph 1416(d)(3).’’ 

‘‘Pendants’’ are defined to ‘‘include 

both wire and bar types. Wire type: A 

fixed length of wire rope with 

mechanical fittings at both ends for 

pinning segments of wire rope together. 

Bar type: Instead of wire rope, a bar is 

used. Pendants are typically used in a 

latticed boom crane system to easily 

change the length of the boom 

suspension system without completely 

changing the rope on the drum when 

the boom length is increased or 

decreased.’’ 

‘‘Personal fall arrest system’’ means ‘‘a 

system used to arrest an employee in a 

fall from a working level. It consists of 

an anchorage, connectors, a body 

harness and may include a lanyard, 

deceleration device, lifeline, or suitable 

combination of these.’’ 

‘‘Portal cranes’’ are ‘‘a type of crane 

consisting of a rotating upperstructure, 

hoist machinery, and boom mounted on 

top of a structural gantry which may be 

fixed in one location or have travel 

capability. The gantry legs or columns 

usually have portal openings in between 

to allow passage of traffic beneath the 

gantry.’’ 

‘‘Power lines’’ are ‘‘electric 

transmission and distribution lines.’’ 

‘‘Procedures’’ ‘‘include, but are not 

limited to: instructions, diagrams, 

recommendations, warnings, 

specifications, protocols and 

limitations.’’ Several paragraphs of this 

proposed standard, such as 

§ 1926.1417(a), require employers to 

follow manufacturer procedures. C– 

DAC developed this definition to make 

clear that ‘‘procedures’’ in a provision 

such as § 1926.1417(a) is to be 

interpreted broadly to include all 

recommendations by the manufacturer 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59738 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

regardless of the format of those 

recommendations. 

‘‘Proximity alarm’’ is ‘‘a device that 

provides a warning of proximity to a 

power line that has been listed, labeled, 

or accepted by a Nationally Recognized 

Testing Laboratory in accordance with 

29 CFR 1910.7.’’ 

‘‘Qualified evaluator (not a third 

party)’’ means ‘‘a person employed by 

the signal person’s employer who has 

demonstrated that he/she is competent 

in accurately assessing whether 

individuals meet the qualification 

requirements in this subpart for a signal 

person.’’ 

‘‘Qualified evaluator (third party)’’ is 

an ‘‘entity that, due to its independence 

and expertise, has demonstrated that it 

is competent in accurately assessing 

whether individuals meet the 

qualifications in this Subpart for a 

signal person.’’ This definition is 

discussed under § 1926.1428(a)(2) in the 

explanation of this proposed standard. 

‘‘Qualified person’’ means ‘‘a person 

who, by possession of a recognized 

degree, certificate, or professional 

standing, or who by extensive 

knowledge, training and experience, 

successfully demonstrated the ability to 

solve/resolve problems relating to the 

subject matter, the work, or the project.’’ 

This definition corresponds to the 

definition of ‘‘qualified’’ in 29 CFR 

1926.32(m). Its use here reflects the fact 

that the duties assigned to ‘‘qualified 

persons’’ under this proposal are similar 

to those assigned persons with 

comparable qualifications under other 

OSHA construction standards. By 

defining this term in the same way it is 

defined under other OSHA standards, 

C–DAC sought to make clear that 

construction industry employers could 

continue to rely on their understanding 

of the qualifications for a ‘‘qualified 

person’’ that is applied under existing 

standards. 

‘‘Qualified rigger’’ is ‘‘a rigger who 

meets the criteria for a qualified 

person.’’ 

‘‘Range control warning device’’ is ‘‘a 

device that can be set by the equipment 

operator to warn that the boom or jib tip 

is at a plane or multiple planes.’’ 

‘‘Rated capacity’’ is ‘‘the maximum 

working load permitted by the 

manufacturer under specified working 

conditions. Such working conditions 

typically include a specific combination 

of factors such as equipment 

configuration, radii, boom length, and 

other parameters of use.’’ The first 

sentence of this definition is taken from 

the SC&RF Handbook. The second 

sentence was added by C–DAC to clarify 

the meaning of ‘‘working conditions.’’ 

Many crane/derrick accidents result 

when the equipment’s ‘‘rated capacity’’ 

is exceeded, and the Committee sought 

to provide an unambiguous definition of 

the term to promote compliance with 

provisions that use the term. In 

reviewing the C–DAC consensus 

document, OSHA noted that ‘‘rated 

load’’ and ‘‘rated load capacity’’ were 

used in various places to mean the same 

thing as the Committee’s definition of 

‘‘rated capacity.’’ For consistency and to 

reflect the intention of the Committee, 

all references to ‘‘rated load’’ and ‘‘rated 

load capacity’’ in the consensus 

document have been changed to ‘‘rated 

capacity.’’ 

‘‘Rated capacity indicator’’ is an 

alternative term for ‘‘load moment 

indicator,’’ which is defined above. 

‘‘Rated capacity limiter’’ is an 

alternative term for ‘‘load moment 

limiter,’’ which is defined above. 

‘‘Repetitive pickup points’’ are ‘‘when 

operating on a short cycle operation, the 

rope being used on a single layer and 

being spooled repetitively over a short 

portion of the drum.’’ 

‘‘Running wire rope’’ is ‘‘a wire rope 

that moves over sheaves or drums.’’ 

‘‘Runway’’ is ‘‘a firm, level surface 

designed, prepared and designated as a 

path of travel for the weight and 

configuration of the crane being used to 

lift and travel with the crane suspended 

platform. This surface can be an existing 

surface or created for purposes of the 

work activity.’’ 

‘‘Section’’ means ‘‘a section of this 

subpart, unless otherwise specified.’’ 

This definition is included to ensure 

that the reader understands what 

‘‘section’’ means in this standard. 

‘‘Side-boom crane’’ is ‘‘a track-type or 

wheel-type tractor having a boom 

mounted on the side of the tractor, used 

for lifting, lowering, or transporting a 

load suspended on the load hook. The 

boom or hook can be lifted or lowered 

in a vertical direction only.’’ 

‘‘Special hazard warnings’’ are 

‘‘warnings of site-specific hazards (for 

example, proximity of power lines).’’ 

‘‘Stability (flotation device)’’ means 

‘‘the tendency of a barge pontoon, vessel 

or other means of flotation to return to 

an upright position after having been 

inclined by an external force.’’ 

‘‘Standard Method’’ means ‘‘the 

protocol in Appendices for hand 

signals.’’ 

‘‘Such as’’ means ‘‘such as, but not 

limited to.’’ This definition was 

included to demonstrate and clarify the 

usage of the phrase. 

‘‘Superstructure’’ is a synonym for 

‘‘upperstructure’’ and ‘‘upperworks,’’ 

which is defined below. 

‘‘Tag line’’ is a rope (usually fiber) 

attached to a lifted load for purposes of 

controlling load spinning and pendular 

motions or used to stabilize a bucket or 

magnet during material handling 

operations. This definition is included 

to ensure that the use of this term for the 

application of this proposed standard is 

consistent with how tag lines are 

commonly used to control loads during 

hoisting operations. 

‘‘Tender’’ is ‘‘an individual 

responsible for monitoring and 

communicating with a diver.’’ 

‘‘Tilt-up or tilt-down operation’’ is the 

‘‘raising/lowering of a load from the 

horizontal to vertical or vertical to 

horizontal.’’ 

‘‘Tower crane.’’ C–DAC defined a 

tower crane as: A type of lifting 

structure which utilizes a vertical mast 

or tower to support a working boom (jib) 

suspended from the working boom. 

While the working boom may be fixed 

horizontally or have luffing capability, it 

can always rotate about the tower center 

to swing loads. The tower base may be 

fixed in one location or ballasted and 

moveable between locations.’’ 

In reviewing this language, OSHA 

believes that several changes are 

needed. First, a characteristic of tower 

cranes that is missing from the C–DAC 

definition is that the working boom is in 

an elevated position above the ground. 

Second, the working boom on some 

tower cranes, even of the non-luffing 

type, may not be at a 90-degree angle to 

the tower, and so the term ‘‘fixed 

horizontally’’ may not always be 

appropriate. Third, there are ‘‘top 

slewing’’ tower cranes—those in which 

the working boom rotates on the top of 

a fixed tower, and ‘‘bottom slewing’’ 

tower cranes—those in which the tower 

itself (with the working boom fixed to 

it) rotates on its base. The definition 

does not make clear that both types are 

considered tower cranes for purposes of 

this proposed standard. 

Therefore, the Agency has modified 

this language for the definition in the 

proposed rule as follows: 

A type of lifting structure which utilizes a 

vertical mast or tower to support a working 

boom (jib) in an elevated position. Loads are 

suspended from the working boom. While 

the working boom may be of the fixed type 

(horizontal or angled) or have luffing 

capability, it can always rotate to swing 

loads, either by rotating on the top of the 

tower (top slewing) or by the rotation of the 

tower (bottom slewing). The tower base may 

be fixed in one location or ballasted and 

moveable between locations. 

OSHA requests public comment on 

these changes. 

‘‘Travel bogie (tower cranes)’’ is ‘‘an 

assembly of two or more axles arranged 

to permit vertical wheel displacement 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59739 

and equalize the loading on the 

wheels.’’ 

‘‘Trim’’ is the ‘‘angle of inclination 

about the transverse axis of a barge, 

pontoon, vessel or other means of 

flotation.’’ 

‘‘Two blocking’’ means ‘‘a condition 

in which a component that is uppermost 

on the hoist line such as the load block, 

hook block, overhaul ball, or similar 

component, comes in contact with the 

boom tip, fixed upper block or similar 

component. This binds the system and 

continued application of power can 

cause failure of the hoist rope or other 

component.’’ 

‘‘Unavailable procedures’’ means 

‘‘procedures that are no longer available 

from the manufacturer, or have never 

been available from the manufacturer.’’ 

‘‘Upperstructure’’ is a synonym for 

‘‘superstructure’’ and ‘‘upperworks,’’ 

which is defined below. 

‘‘Upperworks’’ means ‘‘the revolving 

frame of equipment on which the engine 

and operating machinery are mounted 

along with the operator’s cab. The 

counterweight is typically supported on 

the rear of the upperworks and the 

boom or other front end attachment is 

mounted on the front.’’ 

‘‘Superstructure’’ and ‘‘upperstructure’’ 

are synonyms for ‘‘upperworks.’’ 

The second sentence of C–DAC’s 

version of this definition stated: ‘‘The 

counterweight is typically supported on 

the rear of the upperstructure * * *.’’ 

OSHA has changed the word 

‘‘upperstructure’’ to ‘‘upperworks’’ to 

avoid any confusion that could be 

caused by using one synonym in the 

definition of another. 

‘‘Up to’’ means ‘‘up to and including.’’ 

This definition is included to make the 

meaning of the phrase clear. 

‘‘Wire rope.’’ The C–DAC document 

defined this term as ‘‘rope made of 

wire,’’ the definition that is used in this 

proposed rule. However, some wire rope 

has a fiber core, which proposed 

§ 1926.1414 permits to be used for 

purposes other than boom hoist reeving. 

However, the C–DAC definition 

indicates that such rope would not be 

considered ‘‘wire rope.’’ OSHA requests 

public comment on whether a more 

suitable definition would be the one 

used by SC&RF, which is the following: 

A flexible rope constructed by laying steel 

wires into various patterns of multi-wired 

strands around a core system to produce a 

helically wound rope. 

Section 1402 Ground Conditions 

The Committee believed that the 

failure to have adequate ground 

conditions is a significant crane safety 

problem. Adequate ground conditions 

are essential for safe crane operations 

because the crane’s capacity and 

stability depend on such conditions 

being present. 

In the Committee’s view, there have 

been several key problems regarding 

ground conditions. First, cranes are 

commonly brought on site by a 

subcontractor, who typically neither has 

control over ground conditions nor 

knowledge of hidden hazards. For 

example, an HVAC subcontractor will 

usually not have the contractual 

authority to alter site conditions and 

will not know about hidden conditions 

such as sewer lines under the area 

where the crane will be located. 

Consequently, when ground conditions 

are inadequate, the subcontractor is 

typically unable to correct those 

conditions itself. Attempts to get other 

entities at the site to correct the 

conditions are often unsuccessful, 

which has led to cranes being set up on 

inadequate ground conditions. 

Another problem is that the entity 

that usually does have such authority— 

the controlling entity—may not have the 

expertise to know what changes are 

needed to make the ground conditions 

suitable for crane operations. This 

proposed section is designed to address 

these problems so that ground 

conditions will be made sufficient for 

safe crane operations. 

Paragraph 1402(a) Definitions 

Proposed paragraph (a) provides 

definitions of key terms used in this 

proposed section. 

The term ‘‘ground conditions’’ would 

be defined as the ability of the ground 

to support the equipment (including 

slope, compaction and firmness). The 

Committee believed that slope, 

compaction and firmness are the key 

factors that are involved in the ability of 

the ground to support the equipment. 

‘‘Supporting materials’’ would be 

defined as meaning blocking, mats, 

cribbing, marsh buggies (in marshes/ 

wetlands), or similar supporting 

materials or devices. Such materials 

typically help to distribute the load of 

the crane over a broad area and/or assist 

in leveling the equipment. The list in 

the definition of examples of such 

materials is nonexclusive—it includes 

similar materials and devices that 

would serve the same purpose(s). 

Paragraph 1402(b) 

Under proposed paragraph (b), the 

equipment would be prohibited from 

being assembled or used unless ground 

conditions are firm, drained (except for 

marshes/wetlands), and graded to a 

sufficient extent so that, in conjunction 

(if necessary) with the use of supporting 

materials, the equipment manufacturer’s 

specifications for adequate support and 

degree of level of the equipment are 

met. A crane’s stability depends (in 

part) on the crane being level, and 

‘‘degree of level’’ is a term used in the 

industry to describe the manufacturer’s 

specification for how level the crane 

must be. 

The Committee believed that crane 

tip-over incidents caused by inadequate 

ground conditions are a significant 

cause of injuries and fatalities. 

Conditions that enhance the chance of 

such accidents include ground that is 

wet or muddy, poorly graded, or that is 

loose fill (or otherwise disturbed soil) 

that has not been compacted. The 

Committee believed that requiring 

adequate ground conditions will 

prevent many of these accidents. 

This proposed provision would not 

require the ground conditions alone to 

be sufficient to support the equipment. 

The Committee recognized that such a 

requirement would be unnecessarily 

restrictive, since adequate support can 

often be achieved with the use of 

supporting materials. However, 

supporting materials cannot compensate 

for all ground condition problems. As a 

result, the Committee found that an 

appropriate approach would be to 

require that ground conditions be 

sufficiently firm, drained (except for 

marshes/wetlands) and graded to a 

sufficient extent so that, in conjunction 

(if necessary) with supporting materials, 

the support and degree of level would 

be adequate. ‘‘Adequate’’ in this context 

would mean sufficient to meet the 

equipment manufacturer’s 

specifications for support and degree of 

level of the equipment. 

In practical terms, the ultimate test of 

whether this criterion is met is whether 

the equipment can be set up so that it 

is within the manufacturer’s 

specifications for the needed support for 

the equipment and the degree of level of 

the equipment and whether it can 

remain within those specifications 

while in use. 

The Committee considered using 

more specific criteria, such as 

specifications for slope, compaction and 

firmness. That approach was rejected by 

the Committee for two reasons. First, in 

its view, such specifications would be 

unduly burdensome since employers 

would need to conduct complex tests 

with sophisticated instruments to 

ensure compliance. Second, it believed 

that such tests are unnecessary because 

the person or persons supervising the 

equipment assembly and the crane 

operator would have sufficient expertise 

to assess the adequacy of ground 

conditions without the use of complex 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59740 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

4 ‘‘A/D supervisor’’ is defined in proposed 

§ 1926.1401, Definitions. 

5The SBREFA Panel recommended that OSHA 

consider whether use of the words ‘‘determine’’ and 

‘‘demonstrate’’ would require employers to make 

and keep records to support such determinations 

and demonstrations. OSHA notes that records 

would not be required in these instances. Only 

where this proposal explicitly requires the 

employer to maintain records or documentation 

(see, e.g., proposed § 1926.1412(e)(3) on 

documentation of monthly inspections) is an 

employer required to create and/or maintain 

records. 

ground assessment tests and related 

instruments. 

The individual (or team) supervising 

the equipment assembly (referred to in 

proposed § 1926.1404(a) as the ‘‘A/D 

supervisor’’) would, under proposed 

§ 1926.1404(a), individually or 

collectively meet the definition of both 

a competent and qualified person. Also, 

under proposed § 1926.1427 (and 

specifically proposed 

§ 1926.1427(j)(1)(i)(E)(1)), the crane 

operator would have technical 

knowledge applicable to the suitability 

of the supporting ground and surface to 

handle expected loads. In view of that 

level of knowledge, the Committee 

believed that both the A/D supervisor 

and the crane operator would be able to 

assess the adequacy of ground 

conditions without the use of complex 

ground assessment tests and related 

instruments. 

OSHA notes that proposed 

§ 1926.1402(e) refers to the ‘‘individual’’ 

supervising the equipment assembly. 

Since the individual or individuals 

supervising the equipment assembly are 

referred to throughout this proposed 

rule as the ‘‘A/D supervisor,’’ 4 OSHA 

has, for clarity, replaced the phrase 

‘‘individual supervising the equipment 

assembly’’ in § 1926.1402(e) with ‘‘A/D 

supervisor.’’ 

Proposed paragraph 1402(b) would 

require the ground to be drained except 

for marshes/wetlands. This exception 

was included because the Committee 

was aware that, in many instances, the 

draining of marshes/wetlands is 

prohibited or restricted by 

environmental laws. Since there are 

devices available, such as marsh 

buggies, that are designed to provide 

adequate support to cranes in such areas 

(a marsh buggy is a device designed to 

support equipment such as a crane in 

swampy terrain; it can cross such terrain 

with that equipment on board), the 

Committee believed that such an 

exception would be appropriate. 

Paragraph 1402(c) 

Under proposed paragraph 1402(c), 

the controlling entity would have 

several specific duties regarding ground 

conditions. ‘‘Controlling entity’’ is 

defined in proposed § 1926.1401 as ‘‘a 

prime contractor, general contractor, 

construction manager or any other legal 

entity which has the overall 

responsibility for the construction of the 

project—its planning, quality and 

completion.’’ This definition, which 

mirrors the definition of ‘‘controlling 

contractor’’ in the steel erection 

standard, subpart R of 29 CFR part 1926, 

reflects the core principle of general 

supervisory control over the 

construction site as the central theme of 

the concept. The Committee believed 

that ‘‘controlling entity’’ would be a 

better term for this concept than 

‘‘controlling contractor’’ because some 

employers may mistakenly believe that 

‘‘controlling contractor’’ refers only to 

general contractors. Since in some 

instances an entity other than a general 

contractor has general supervisory 

control of the worksite, such an entity 

would meet the terms of the definition. 

Proposed paragraph 1402(c)(1) would 

require the controlling entity to ensure 

that ground preparations necessary to 

meet the requirements in proposed 

paragraph (b) of this section are 

provided. 

Currently, Subpart N does not specify 

who is responsible for providing for 

such preparations. In effect, reliance is 

placed on the various parties to work 

out who would have such responsibility 

through contractual arrangements. In 

the experience of a number of 

Committee members, in many instances 

the parties are unable to agree on who 

will have (or has) that contractual 

responsibility, with the result that 

inadequate ground conditions often do 

not get corrected. Consequently, the 

Committee believed that it is necessary 

to specify who will have ground 

condition responsibility. 

In the Committee’s view, the crane 

user and operator typically do not have 

the equipment or authority to make 

such preparations. In contrast, the 

controlling entity, due to its control of 

the worksite, has the requisite authority 

and is in the best position to arrange for 

adequate ground conditions. The 

Committee considered the fact that 

some controlling entities claim to not 

know when a crane will arrive at the 

site, and would therefore be unable to 

timely arrange for the necessary ground 

condition preparations. However, the 

Committee found this unpersuasive. It 

believed that the controlling entity, by 

virtue of its control over the site and 

normal business responsibilities for the 

construction project itself, is fully able 

to be cognizant of construction 

schedules and information about crane 

use by its subcontractors. 

The Committee was concerned, 

however, that some controlling entities 

may lack the expertise to recognize 

when ground conditions are inadequate. 

To address this concern, the Committee 

developed proposed § 1926.1402(e). 

Under that proposed provision, if the 

A/D supervisor or the operator 

determines that ground conditions do 

not meet the requirements in proposed 

paragraph (b) of this section, that 

person’s employer would be required to 

have a discussion with the controlling 

entity.5 This discussion would concern 

the ground preparations that are needed 

so that, with the use of suitable 

supporting materials/devices (if 

necessary), the requirements in 

proposed paragraph (b) of this section 

can be met. This discussion would serve 

as a mechanism for those with expertise 

regarding the ground conditions needed 

to meet proposed paragraph (b) of this 

section to convey that information to the 

entity responsible for making the 

necessary preparations. 

Proposed paragraph 1402(c)(2) 

addresses the problem of hidden 

hazards beneath the equipment set-up 

area. Open spaces underground, such as 

from voids, tanks, and utilities such as 

sewer, water supply and drain pipes, 

can greatly compromise the ability of 

the ground above them to support the 

equipment. At the set-up area, there are 

often no readily apparent visual clues 

above ground that such hazards exist 

under the area. In the experience of 

members of the Committee, because of 

the hidden nature of these hazards, 

accidents have occurred when cranes 

have been set up above such hazards 

and a portion of the ground has given 

way. 

Under proposed paragraph 1402(c)(2), 

the controlling entity would be required 

to inform the user of the equipment and 

the equipment operator of the location 

of hazards beneath the equipment set-up 

area (such as voids, tanks, utilities) that 

are identified in documents (such as site 

drawings, as-built drawings, and soil 

analyses) if they are available to the 

controlling entity. 

In developing this proposed 

provision, the Committee was mindful 

that the controlling entity often has 

access to documents that may identify 

the location of such hazards. For 

example, a sewer line may be marked on 

a site drawing, an as-built drawing, or 

in a soil analysis. Under this proposed 

provision, if the controlling entity has 

such a document, whether at the site or 

at an off-site location, it would be 

required to inform the equipment user 

and operator of the location of the 

hazard as identified in it. If the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59741 

6This study found that being struck by a load was 

the number one proximate cause of crane-related 

fatalities, followed by electrocution. Crushed by 

assembly and disassembly made up 12% of the total 

number of crane related fatalities in this study. 

controlling entity does not possess such 

a document, it would not be required to 

obtain it from another source. 

The proposed provision would not 

require the controlling entity to identify 

hazards that are not identified in such 

documents. In other words, it would not 

require the controlling entity to arrange 

for tests to be done at the site to 

determine if such hazards are present. 

The Committee believed that such a 

requirement would be unduly 

burdensome on the controlling entity. In 

its view the proposed provision would 

be sufficient because such hazards are 

typically identified in these documents 

in the normal course of business. 

The Committee also believed that the 

duty to provide this information should 

be limited to hazards identified in 

documents that are available to the 

controlling entity. Requiring the 

controlling entity to obtain such 

information from other sources would, 

in effect, require it to arrange for testing. 

As explained above, the Committee 

believed such a duty would be unduly 

burdensome and unnecessary. 

During the SBREFA meeting an SER 

commented on the difficulty and time 

consumed in getting approval from the 

controlling entity to make sure ground 

conditions were adequate, especially 

since many controlling entities were 

resistant to checking the site themselves 

for adequate ground conditions. The 

commenter further stated that his 

company relies on the steel erectors to 

test ground conditions for the proper 

support and that this system seems to 

work fine. OSHA notes that while the 

proposed rule would not preclude such 

arrangements, the responsibility for 

meeting the requirements of proposed 

paragraph (c) would nonetheless rest 

with controlling entity. Moreover, 

OSHA believes that this comment is 

illustrative of the need for the standard 

to require the controlling entity’s 

involvement in this phase of the project. 

Another SER expressed concern that 

the rule could not be properly 

implemented due to the number of 

communication channels a 

subcontractor would have to juggle 

before finally getting in contact with the 

controlling entity. For example, a 

subcontractor may have to go through 

several other subcontractors before it 

reaches the controlling entity. OSHA 

believes that, if controlling entities had 

the responsibilities set out in proposed 

paragraph (c), controlling entities would 

be more likely to facilitate such 

communication. 

Paragraph 1402(d) 

In the event that no controlling entity 

exists, proposed paragraph 1402(d) 

provides that the requirement in 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall be 

met by the employer that has authority 

at the site to make or arrange for ground 

preparations needed to meet paragraph 

(b) of this section. For example, if the 

employer who hires the crane has the 

authority to get the ground prepared in 

the absence of a controlling entity, the 

responsibility for complying with 

proposed paragraph (b) would fall to 

that employer. However, that employer 

would not be required to comply with 

proposed paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section. This is because the information 

required to be disclosed under proposed 

paragraph (c)(2) is not likely to be 

available to that employer. 

Paragraph 1402(e) 

Proposed paragraph 1402(e) would 

establish a mechanism for a controlling 

entity to obtain information from the A/ 

D supervisor or the equipment operator 

about insufficient ground conditions 

and the preparations needed to correct 

the problem. Specifically (as discussed 

above in the context of proposed 

§ 1926.1402(c)(1)), if the A/D supervisor 

or equipment operator determines that 

ground conditions do not meet the 

criteria in proposed paragraph (b) of this 

section, that person’s employer would 

be required to have a discussion with 

the controlling entity regarding the 

ground preparations needed so that, 

with the use of suitable supporting 

materials/devices (if necessary), the 

requirements in proposed paragraph (b) 

can be met. 

The Committee believed that, in some 

instances, the controlling entity may 

lack the expertise needed to know what 

ground preparations may be needed. In 

such cases, it is necessary for the 

information it needs to be provided by 

the A/D supervisor or operator, who 

have that expertise, so that the 

preparations needed for safe crane 

operations can be made. 

For example, controlling entity C, 

who has experience working with only 

relatively light, low capacity cranes, 

believes that the ground in set-up area 

Q is suitable. However, the crane that is 

going to be used is a high capacity 

crane. Because of the substantially 

greater weight of the high capacity 

crane, a greater degree of compaction of 

the soil in set-up area Q is needed. 

When the operator of the high capacity 

crane arrives at the site, the operator 

recognizes the need for more 

compaction. In this example, under this 

proposed provision, the operator’s 

employer would then be required to 

have a discussion with controlling 

entity C regarding the need for greater 

compaction. As a result of the ensuing 

discussion, controlling entity C would 

have the additional information it needs 

so that it could then comply with 

proposed paragraph (c)(1) of this section 

by ensuring that the additional 

compaction needed to meet the criteria 

in proposed paragraph (b) of this section 

is performed. 

Also, proposed § 1926.1402(e) would 

place a duty on the employer of the A/ 

D supervisor or equipment operator 

irrespective of a controlling entity’s lack 

of expertise. For example, if the 

controlling entity fails to ensure 

necessary ground condition 

preparations, action would be required 

of the A/D supervisor’s or operator’s 

employer. If either determined that 

ground conditions were insufficient to 

meet the proposed paragraph (b) 

criteria, that employer would be 

required to discuss the preparations that 

needed to be made with the controlling 

entity. The Committee believed that, in 

such circumstances, such a discussion 

would make it more likely that the 

requirements in proposed paragraph (b) 

would be met which, as discussed 

above, is necessary for safe crane 

operations. 

Sections 1403–1406 Assembly and 

Disassembly 

Proposed §§ 1926.1403 through 

1926.1406 set out requirements 

designed to ensure the safety of 

employees while equipment is 

assembled and disassembled, which 

includes the erecting and dismantling of 

tower cranes. C–DAC members 

indicated that, in their experience, the 

failure to adequately address hazards 

associated with these processes is a 

significant cause of injuries and 

fatalities. Two analyses of data support 

their view. 

A recent analysis of data published in 

the Journal of Construction Engineering 

and Management, authored by J.E. 

Beavers, J.R. Moore, R. Rinehart and 

W.R. Schriver, found that being 

‘‘crushed during assembly/disassembly’’ 

was the third highest proximate cause of 

crane related fatalities during 1997 to 

2003.6 (OSHA–2007–0066–0012). 

Contributing physical factors included 

improper assembly, improper 

disassembly (specifically, pin removal), 

and improper boom support. The study 

indicates that these assembly/ 

disassembly fatalities occurred while 

using lattice boom cranes. 

A 1997 study by A. Suruda, M. Egger 

and D. Liu analyzed crane related 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59742 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

7This study was limited to crane related fatalities 

in the U.S. construction industry. 

8Out of the 58 fatalities, 93% involved lattice 

boom cranes and 7% involved tower cranes. 

9 In contrast, a 34-year study (1969–2002) 

conducted by the Province of Ontario indicates that 

dismantling the boom is not a leading cause of 

mobile crane fatalities. This study concluded that 

dismantling the boom ranked sixth out of eight 

causes of mobile crane fatalities within the Province 

of Ontario during 1969 through 2002. Dismantling 

the boom comprised only 4% of the fatalities during 

this time period. (OSHA–2007–0066–0009). 

10C–DAC did not consider hazards associated 

with the use of synthetic slings during assembly/ 

disassembly. 

fatalities from 1984 to 1994.7 This study 

determined that crane assembly and 

disassembly was the second leading 

cause of crane related fatalities, 

comprising 12% (or 58 deaths) of the 

total number of crane fatalities from 

1984 to 1994. More specifically, a 

majority of these fatalities involved 

lattice boom cranes and a relatively 

small number involved tower cranes.8

Almost 90 percent of the fatalities 

involving lattice boom cranes resulted 

when employees were removing boom 

pins from underneath an unsupported 

boom. (A. Suruda, et al., ‘‘Crane-Related 

Deaths in the U.S. Construction 

Industry, 1984–94’’ (1997) (OSHA– 

2007–0066–0013).9

The Committee also concluded that 

the most effective way to reduce these 

injuries and fatalities would be to have 

a standard that comprehensively 

addresses these hazards. 

Note that the term ‘‘procedures’’ 

which is used in the proposed 

assembly/disassembly provisions is 

defined (see § 1926.1401) to include (but 

is not limited to) instructions, diagrams, 

recommendations, warnings, 

specifications, protocols and 

limitations. The operation of an ‘‘assist’’ 

crane used to help in the assembly/ 

disassembly process is not covered by 

the assembly/disassembly requirements 

but is covered by the other sections of 

this proposed standard. 

Section 1403 Assembly/Disassembly— 

Selection of Manufacturer or Employer 

Procedures 

In § 1926.1401, ‘‘assembly/ 

disassembly’’ is defined to mean ‘‘the 

assembly and/or disassembly of 

equipment covered under this standard. 

With regard to tower cranes, ‘erecting 

and climbing’ replaces the term 

‘assembly,’ and ‘dismantling’ replaces 

the term ‘disassembly.’ ’’ C–DAC did not 

originally include a definition of 

‘‘assembly/disassembly,’’ but OSHA 

added this definition to avoid any 

implication that §§ 1926.1403–1406 on 

‘‘assembly/disassembly’’ do not apply to 

tower cranes because the terms 

‘‘assembly’’ and ‘‘disassembly’’ are not 

commonly used in the industry in 

referring to tower cranes. Instead, the 

words ‘‘erecting,’’ ‘‘climbing,’’ and 

‘‘dismantling,’’ are used, and the 

definition of ‘‘assembly/disassembly’’ 

makes it clear that §§ 1926.1403–1406 

apply to tower cranes and, for that 

purpose, use tower crane terminology. 

Proposed § 1926.1403 would require 

employers to choose among two 

options: Assemble and disassemble 

cranes and derricks by following the 

manufacturer’s procedures, or use their 

own assembly/disassembly procedures 

(if they meet the proposed rule’s criteria 

in § 1926.1406). Note, though, that the 

assembly/disassembly requirements in 

proposed §§ 1926.1404 and 1405 must 

be met regardless of which option the 

employer selects. 

Committee members discussed 

whether employers should be required 

to comply with the manufacturer’s 

procedures, or if deviations from those 

procedures should be allowed. The 

Committee determined, and OSHA 

agrees, that deviations should be 

allowed for two reasons. First, 

manufacturers’ procedures are typically 

designed for use in ‘‘ideal’’ 

environments: Large, flat, dry, 

unencumbered open areas. However, 

such conditions are not typical, 

especially in urban areas. Consequently, 

employers are currently unable to 

implement those procedures in those 

situations. Second, members were of the 

view that there is often more than one 

way to safely assemble and disassemble 

a crane, and that it is unnecessary to 

mandate that in every case the 

manufacturer procedures be used. 

The Committee also agreed that, while 

use of methods other than those of the 

manufacturer should be allowed, such 

employer-developed procedures need to 

meet certain benchmarks (see the 

criteria in proposed § 1926.1406) to 

ensure that they are adequate to protect 

the employees during the assembly/ 

disassembly process. 

Section 1404 Assembly/Disassembly— 

General Requirements (Applies to All 

Assembly and Disassembly Operations) 

In examining the underlying causes of 

fatalities and injuries from assembly/ 

disassembly accidents, the Committee 

determined that a systematic, proactive 

approach, designed to highlight the key 

hazards involved, was needed. C–DAC 

developed a list of those hazards and 

then considered how to deal with each 

one. It became apparent in that 

discussion that the action needed to 

address some of these hazards is 

specific and straightforward. These are 

addressed in paragraphs (a) through (g) 

and (j) through (q) of this proposed 

section. However, with regard to others, 

the wide variety of circumstances and 

methods that could be used to address 

them made specifying particular, 

detailed actions impractical and 

needlessly inflexible. For those, C–DAC 

decided to require that the hazard be 

addressed but to have an Assembly/ 

Disassembly supervisory (A/D 

supervisor) determine how to deal with 

them; these are covered in paragraph 

(h). Note that the requirements in 

proposed § 1926.1404 would apply 

irrespective of whether manufacturer or 

employer procedures were used. 

New Issue 

The Agency has been investigating a 

March 15, 2008 collapse of a tower 

crane in New York City. One aspect of 

that investigation has focused on the use 

of synthetic slings in the process of 

attaching a bracing collar to the tower 

(the installation of such collars is part 

of the crane assembly process). This 

prompted the Agency to examine the 

existing OSHA standards applicable to 

the use of synthetic slings during crane 

assembly/disassembly. 

In the course of that examination, 

OSHA has determined that neither 

Subpart N nor 29 CFR 1926.251, Rigging 

equipment for material handling, 

specifically addresses the hazard posed 

when a synthetic sling is used in a 

manner that can cause compression or 

distortion of the sling, or when the sling 

is in contact with a sharp edge. 

Consequently, the Agency is 

considering adding a provision to 

§ 1926.1404 to address these hazards.10

One way of addressing these hazards 

would be to prohibit the use of synthetic 

slings in the assembly/disassembly of 

equipment covered by this proposed 

standard. Another way that the Agency 

is considering to address these hazards 

is to require padding or similar 

measures when needed to protect the 

slings from being damaged such as from 

being cut, compressed or distorted. 

OSHA requests public comment on this 

issue. 

Paragraph 1404(a) Supervision— 

Competent—Qualified Person 

Proposed paragraph (a) would require 

supervision of the assembly/ 

disassembly process by an ‘‘A/D 

supervisor.’’ Section 1926.1401 defines 

‘‘A/D supervisor’’ as ‘‘an individual who 

meets this proposed paragraph’s criteria 

for being an A/D supervisor, irrespective 

of the person’s formal job title or 

whether the person is non-management 

or management personnel.’’ C–DAC 

defined the term in this way to make 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59743 

11Proposed § 1926.1401, Definitions, defines a 

‘‘competent person’’ as: One who is capable of 

identifying existing and predictable hazards in the 

surroundings or working conditions which are 

unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous to employees, 

and who has authorization to take prompt 

corrective measures to eliminate them. Section 1401 

defines a ‘‘qualified person’’ in this proposed 

standard as: One who, by possession of a 

recognized degree, certificate, or professional 

standing, or who by extensive knowledge, training, 

and experience, has successfully demonstrated his 

ability to solve or resolve problems relating to the 

subject matter, the work, or the project. These 

definitions are essentially the same as the 

definitions in 29 CFR 1926.32(f) and 29 CFR 

1926.32(m). 

clear that it is the substance of the 

individual’s qualifications, and not his 

or her job title or position in the 

company hierarchy, that determines 

whether the person is qualified to act as 

an A/D supervisor. 

The A/D supervisor would have to 

meet the definition of both a 

‘‘competent’’ and ‘‘qualified’’ person as 

OSHA defines those terms.11 The 

Committee believed that having an A/D 

supervisor overseeing the assembly/ 

disassembly process who had both the 

authority to correct a hazard or stop the 

process and who had the expertise of a 

qualified person was necessary to 

ensure the safety of the operation. 

Many of the hazards involved in the 

process are not obvious to those with 

limited knowledge and experience in 

assembly/disassembly. There are 

numerous scenarios in which there is 

stored kinetic energy in the equipment’s 

component parts. The installation or 

removal of components in the wrong 

order, or using the wrong procedure, 

can release that energy in ways that 

would be unexpected to those with little 

knowledge of the process. 

For example, failure to place blocking 

in the correct position under a boom can 

lead to unexpected movement or 

collapse of the boom when a pin that is 

in tension is removed. Workers 

unfamiliar with the concept of pins in 

tension may not recognize the dangers 

of removing it in that circumstance. 

Having a person overseeing the process 

that has the expertise needed to know 

how the process is supposed to be done, 

the ability to recognize dangerous 

situations and how to remedy them, and 

the authority to take corrective action, is 

crucial to ensuring that the assembly/ 

disassembly process is completed 

safely. 

The Committee agreed that the A/D 

supervisor did not have to be one 

individual since two people (one with 

the requisite expertise and the other 

with the authority to take corrective 

action), working as a team, would be as 

effective in overseeing the process as 

one individual. 

The A/D supervisor would oversee 

the implementation of the proposed 

requirements in paragraphs (a) through 

(g) and (j) through (q) of this proposed 

section, and would also address the 

hazards as described in paragraph (h) of 

this proposed section. 

Paragraphs 1404(b) Knowledge of the 

Procedures, and 1404(c), Review of the 

Procedures 

Proposed paragraph (b) would require 

that the A/D supervisor understand the 

assembly/disassembly procedures. In 

addition, proposed paragraph (c) 

requires the A/D supervisor to review 

them prior to starting the process unless 

experience in having used them on the 

same type and configuration of 

equipment makes their review 

unnecessary. One example would be an 

A/D supervisor who has overseen the 

erection of a tower crane with the same 

configuration for numerous jobs in the 

past year. If that A/D supervisor had, 

through that repetitive experience, 

developed a knowledge and 

understanding of the assembly 

procedures to the point where reviewing 

them prior to beginning assembly was 

no longer necessary, he/she would not 

be required to review them. 

Without a thorough knowledge of 

these procedures, the A/D supervisor 

would be unable to ensure that the 

assembly/disassembly process is 

conducted safely. 

Paragraph 1404(d) Crew Instructions 

Under this proposed provision, before 

beginning assembly/disassembly 

operations, the A/D supervisor would 

have to determine that the crew 

members understand their tasks and the 

associated hazards, as well as any 

hazardous positions/locations that they 

need to avoid. 

The Committee was of the view that 

accidents during assembly/disassembly 

are often caused by misunderstandings 

of the employees working in the 

assembly/disassembly crew as to their 

tasks and how they are to be performed, 

as well as a failure to recognize 

potentially dangerous areas in and 

around the equipment. The details of 

these tasks and, in particular, the 

location of danger areas from which 

workers need to keep themselves and 

their extremities clear, often vary from 

one machine to another. Having the 

A/D supervisor check to make sure that 

the crew members know this essential 

information before starting the 

assembly/disassembly process would 

be, in the Committee’s view, an effective 

and practical means of addressing this 

aspect of the problem. 

Paragraph 1404(e) Protecting 

Assembly/Disassembly Crew Members 

Out of Operator View 

One of the hazards identified by the 

Committee is an operator swinging or 

moving the crane/derrick when 

assembly/disassembly personnel are in 

a crush/caught-in-between zone and out 

of the operator’s view. The Committee 

believed that an effective and practical 

means of preventing these accidents 

would be through a communication 

procedure that would provide key 

information to, and coordination 

between, the operator and these 

workers. 

This provision would therefore 

require that the crew member inform the 

operator that he/she is going to a 

location in, on, under, or near the 

equipment or load that is out of view of 

the operator where the movement of the 

equipment could injure the worker. The 

operator would be prohibited from 

moving any part of the crane/derrick or 

load until the operator gives a warning 

(the significance of which is understood 

by the crew member) and sufficient time 

for the crew member to move to a safe 

location, or the operator is informed 

through a pre-arranged means of 

communication that the crew member 

has moved to a safe location. Committee 

members indicated that the use of the 

(understood) warning coupled with 

sufficient time to exit, and the use of a 

pre-arranged means of communication, 

are each currently used by many 

employers and have proved to be 

effective. 

One Committee member suggested 

that instead of requiring that the crew 

member directly inform the operator of 

his/her location, the rule should permit 

the crew member to provide this 

information to the operator through a 

third person. For example, the crew 

member would instruct his/her foreman 

to radio the information to the operator. 

Such a change could be made by 

changing the last phrase in proposed 

paragraph (e)(1) of this section to read, 

‘‘the crew member shall inform the 

operator directly or through someone 

instructed by the crew member that the 

crew member is going to that location.’’ 

OSHA is asking for public comment on 

this suggestion. In particular, OSHA is 

asking for comment on whether this 

approach would be as protective of the 

crew members as the proposal, given 

that it would allow indirect 

communication between the crew 

members and the operator. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59744 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Paragraph 1404(f) Working Under the 

Boom, Jib or Other Components 

The proposed provision would 

establish a general prohibition against 

employees being under the component 

when pins or similar devices are being 

removed (note that this provision is 

similar to section 5–3.1.3(l) of ASME 

B30.5–2004). An exception is provided 

for instances where the employer 

demonstrates that site constraints 

require being positioned under the 

component and the employer takes 

steps to minimize the risk of dangerous 

movement and duration and extent of 

exposure. 

The Committee discussed the 

inherently hazardous nature of 

removing pins while being under the 

boom (and jib or similar components). If 

the wrong pins are removed while 

employees are under the component, it 

can move or collapse, posing a severe 

hazard to the worker. Even when pins 

are removed in the correct order, there 

may be unexpected stresses in the 

component which, as stored kinetic 

energy that may not be apparent until 

that energy is released upon the removal 

of the pin—at which time unexpected 

movement of the component may result. 

While other proposed provisions in the 

assembly/disassembly sections address 

this same hazard in other ways, these 

provisions in combination form a 

layered approach to safety. 

The Committee discussed whether 

any exceptions should be allowed to the 

prohibition against workers being under 

the component during pin removal. It 

determined, after considerable 

discussion, that the only type of 

situation where it may be inappropriate 

to apply the prohibition involves site 

constraints. For example, in some 

circumstances there is no room to 

assemble/disassemble the boom 

horizontally using ground support, and 

the boom has to be assembled/ 

disassembled ‘‘in the air’’ (that is, at an 

angle well above horizontal, or over an 

area, such as a large excavation, where 

there is no ground available for 

support). In some of those situations, 

one or more employees may have to be 

under the boom for certain periods of 

time in the pin removal process. 

Therefore, the proposed provision 

includes an exception to cover such 

instances. However, in those instances 

the hazard of being under the 

component is still present. Because of 

that, the Committee believed it 

important to limit the application of the 

exception and, where it would apply, to 

ensure that steps would be taken to 

limit the risks involved. Therefore, the 

exception would be applicable only 

where the employer demonstrates that 

site constraints require being positioned 

under the component and the employer 

takes steps to minimize the risk of 

dangerous movement and duration and 

extent of exposure. 

An example of a method for 

minimizing that risk and the exposure is 

provided in proposed Non-Mandatory 

Appendix D. The Committee considered 

making that method mandatory, but 

decided to include it only as an example 

because there may be other effective 

methods, which should not be 

excluded. 

Paragraph 1404(g) Capacity Limits 

This proposed provision would 

require that the rated capacity limits for 

loads imposed on the equipment, each 

of its components, (including rigging), 

lifting lugs and equipment accessories 

being assembled or disassembled not be 

exceeded. The provision would apply 

‘‘during all phases of assembly/ 

disassembly.’’ One example of the risk 

created by not following capacity limits 

is the process of installing 

counterweights. In some cases the crane 

being assembled is used to install its 

own counterweights. Early in this 

process, when few counterweights are 

in place, the crane’s capacity will be so 

limited that swinging beyond a certain 

point, or booming out beyond a certain 

point, may cause it to overturn. 

It should be noted that where an assist 

crane is being used during the 

assembly/disassembly of another crane/ 

derrick, the requirements for rated 

capacity during operations must be met 

under proposed § 1926.1417(o), 

Compliance with rated capacity, with 

respect to the assist crane. 

Paragraph 1404(h) Addressing Specific 

Hazards 

For assembly and disassembly, this 

provision sets out specific hazard topics 

which the A/D supervisor must address. 

The Committee believed that requiring 

specific means and methods for 

protecting against these hazards (and, 

where specified goals are stated, for 

attaining those goals) would be too 

limiting. Therefore, the A/D supervisor 

must consider each listed hazard, 

determine the appropriate means of 

addressing it, and oversee the 

implementation of that method. 

Paragraph 1404(h)(1) Site and Ground 

Bearing Conditions 

This proposed provision would work 

in conjunction with proposed 

§ 1926.1402, which addresses ground 

conditions for both assembly/ 

disassembly and use of the equipment, 

including ground condition criteria. 

Proposed § 1926.1404(h)(1) would 

require the A/D supervisor to assess the 

ground conditions for conformance with 

those criteria, and to assess the site for 

suitability for assembly and 

disassembly. 

Before beginning assembly/ 

disassembly, the A/D supervisor would 

have to make the determination that 

ground bearing conditions are adequate 

to support the equipment during 

assembly/disassembly (the concept of 

adequate ground bearing conditions is 

discussed in detail above regarding 

proposed § 1926.1402). In addition, the 

A/D supervisor would have to consider 

the adequacy of site conditions which 

might affect the safety of assembly or 

disassembly. For example, at a 

construction site in an industrial facility 

with overhead piping carrying 

hazardous materials, the A/D supervisor 

would have to consider the potential for 

the equipment contacting the piping in 

determining where and how to conduct 

the assembly/disassembly operations. 

Paragraph 1404(h)(2) Blocking 

Material and 1404(h)(3) Proper Location 

of Blocking 

These two provisions address the 

hazards associated with inadequate 

blocking. ‘‘Blocking’’ (also referred to as 

‘‘cribbing’’) is defined in § 1926.1401 as 

‘‘wood or other material used to support 

equipment or a component and 

distribute loads to the ground. Typically 

used to support latticed boom sections 

during assembly/disassembly and under 

outrigger floats.’’ This definition is from 

the SC&RF Handbook. 

Proper blocking plays an important 

role in assembly/disassembly safety. 

Blocking is used in a variety of 

circumstances to compensate for minor 

ground sloping and/or to enhance 

stability by spreading out the area over 

which forces from the load are 

transferred to the ground. It is used to 

help support assembled equipment 

(usually placed under outrigger pads) 

and during assembly/disassembly to 

support components. Blocking that is 

undersized, insufficient in type or 

number, in poor condition, and/or 

stacked in an unstable manner could 

lead to a failure of support and 

consequent unplanned movement or 

collapse of the equipment or 

component. 

When used to support lattice booms 

or lattice components, the failure to 

place blocking in the correct location 

could have several dangerous 

consequences. For example, incorrect 

placement in some instances could 

cause a part of the lattice boom/ 

component to bear too much force and 

damage it. That damage could 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59745 

compromise structural integrity and, in 

some cases, may not be immediately 

noticed. If the assembly process were to 

continue nonetheless, the boom/ 

component could fail. 

Improper blocking location may also 

result in a failure to provide adequate 

support of the boom/component. One 

example is blocking used to provide 

support to a boom section that will need 

it later in the disassembly process, such 

as after pins are removed. If the blocking 

is in the wrong place, once the pins are 

removed, unplanned movement or 

collapse could result. Note that 

proposed § 1926.1404(h)(3) on proper 

blocking location is similar to section 5– 

3.1.3(k) of ASME B30.5–2004 (blocking 

to be appropriately placed to prevent 

inadvertent dropping of the boom). 

Proposed paragraph (h)(3) (Proper 

location of blocking) is unchanged from 

the C–DAC document and its 

applicability is limited to lattice booms 

and components. However, it is the 

Agency’s understanding that other types 

of booms and components (i.e., those for 

hydraulic cranes) also are at times 

assembled and disassembled in the field 

and may similarly need blocking. 

Consequently, it appears to the Agency 

that it may be appropriate to broaden 

the provision so that it would apply to 

all booms and components, not just 

lattice boom and components. OSHA is 

soliciting comments from the public on 

whether proposed paragraph (h)(3) of 

this section should be broadened to 

apply to all booms and components. 

Paragraph 1404(h)(4) Verifying Assist 

Crane Loads 

This proposed paragraph requires 

that, when using an assist crane, the 

loads that will be imposed on the assist 

crane at each phase of assembly/ 

disassembly must be verified in 

accordance with proposed 

§ 1926.1417(o)(3) to avoid exceeding the 

assist crane’s rated capacity. ‘‘Assist 

crane’’ is defined in § 1926.1401 as ‘‘a 

crane used to assist in assembling or 

disassembling a crane.’’ When used for 

this purpose, an ‘‘assist crane’’ is subject 

to all applicable provisions of this 

standard, including the requirement of 

proposed paragraph (o) of this section 

that it not be used in a manner that 

exceeds its rated capacity. 

The Committee was concerned that, at 

times, resulting loads on assist cranes 

during the assembly/disassembly 

process are not properly anticipated. For 

example, when a boom is being 

disassembled in a cantilevered position, 

an assist crane is sometimes used to 

help support the boom. In some 

instances, the load prior to pin removal 

is within the assist crane’s rated 

capacity, but exceeds its rated capacity 

once the pins are removed, causing a 

collapse. 

The Committee discussed having one 

section on capacity limits for 

equipment, equipment components and 

accessories as well as for any assist 

equipment used while assembling or 

disassembling. The Committee agreed 

that having a separate section on 

capacity limits for assist cranes was less 

confusing and would help highlight the 

hazard as it pertains to assembly/ 

disassembly. 

Paragraph 1404(h)(5) Boom and Jib 

Pick Points 

This proposed provision would 

require the A/D supervisor to address 

the hazard of using improper boom and 

jib pick points. Specifically, the points 

of attachment of rigging to a boom/jib or 

boom/jib section(s) must be suitable for 

preventing structural damage. Such 

damage could compromise structural 

integrity and, in some cases, may not be 

immediately noticed. If that component 

were nonetheless used, the boom/ 

component could fail. 

The points of attachment also need to 

facilitate the safe handling of these 

components. Typically facilitating the 

safe handling of the boom/jib or boom/ 

jib sections means using pick points that 

will result in the boom/section being at 

an intended angle (that is, 90 degrees to 

the load line or some other intended 

angle) when hoisted. For example, if the 

boom/section is intended to be 

horizontal, and only one pick point is 

going to be used, the pick point must 

coincide with the center of gravity. If 

the boom/section is intended to be at 

some other angle, a pick point would 

need to be identified that would 

generate that intended angle. Failure to 

use an appropriate pick point in this 

regard can create a situation in which 

there is a greater likelihood of 

unintended movement in connecting or 

disconnecting the boom/section. 

Paragraph 1404(h)(6) Center of Gravity 

In a variety of instances the method 

used for maintaining stability during 

assembly/disassembly depends on 

supporting or rigging a component (or 

set of components) so that it remains 

balanced throughout the process. In 

such instances the A/D supervisor 

would be required to identify the center 

of gravity of the load. 

The ‘‘center of gravity’’ of an object is 

defined in § 1926.1401 as ‘‘the point in 

the object around which its weight is 

evenly distributed. If you could put a 

support under that point, you could 

balance the object on the support.’’ This 

definition is similar to the one in the 

SC&RF Handbook. 

One example of where it would be 

necessary to identify the center of 

gravity is where the assembly/ 

disassembly crew relies on an assist 

crane to suspend a component in a 

horizontal position. In such instances 

the center of gravity must be identified 

in order to correctly install the rigging. 

If the center of gravity were not 

identified, employees might try to 

compensate by riding on the section/ 

component while it is being moved into 

place, which is quite dangerous. Also, 

in such a situation, if the component 

gets ‘‘hung-up,’’ it can move 

unexpectedly if it becomes freed. 

In contrast, some methods for 

maintaining stability do not depend on 

rigging or supporting the component to 

attain horizontal balance. For example, 

if two adjoining sections of a boom are 

being disconnected from each other, and 

both sections are supported at all four 

end points by blocking, identifying the 

center of gravity of each section would 

not normally be necessary. 

The Committee anticipated that there 

may be instances where the assembly/ 

disassembly method being used 

necessitates the identification of the 

center of gravity, but the employer is 

unable to get sufficient information to 

make that identification accurately. In 

those instances, measures would be 

required to be put in place that would 

prevent unintended dangerous 

movement resulting from an inaccurate 

identification of the center of gravity. 

An example of one such method is 

described in the proposed NonMandatory Appendix D of proposed 

subpart CC. 

Paragraph 1404(h)(7) Stability Upon 

Pin Removal 

This proposed paragraph requires that 

boom sections, boom suspension 

systems (such as gantry A-frames and jib 

struts) or components must be rigged or 

supported to maintain stability upon the 

removal of the pins. ‘‘Boom suspension 

systems’’ are defined in § 1926.1401 as 

‘‘a system of pendants, running ropes, 

sheaves, and other hardware which 

supports the boom tip and controls the 

boom angle.’’ This definition is the same 

as that for ‘‘boom suspension’’ in the 

SC&RF Handbook. 

The Committee identified the process 

of pin removal as one that has proved 

to be particularly hazardous. Potential 

energy in these sections, systems and 

components can be released suddenly 

during this process, resulting in 

unanticipated movement, ranging from 

shifting to collapse. Even small 

movements can result in injury, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59746 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

including amputations; larger 

movements and collapses can cause 

fatal injuries. 

The Committee determined that the 

key to preventing these injuries and 

fatalities is through ensuring that the 

sections/components will remain stable 

upon the removal of the pins. Instability 

can have a variety of causes, including 

improper assembly/disassembly 

sequencing, improper rigging, 

incorrectly designed support, blocking 

failures and ground compression. 

Therefore, under this proposed 

provision, the A/D supervisor would be 

required to make sure that the sections/ 

components are rigged or supported by 

maintaining stability once the pins are 

removed. 

Paragraph 1404(h)(8) Snagging 

This proposed paragraph requires that 

suspension ropes and pendants not be 

allowed to catch on the boom or jib 

connection pins or cotter pins 

(including keepers and locking pins). In 

§ 1926.1401, ‘‘pendants’’ are defined to 

‘‘include both wire and bar types. Wire 

type: a fixed length of wire rope with 

mechanical fittings at both ends for 

pinning segments of wire rope together. 

Bar type: Instead of wire rope, a bar is 

used. Pendants are typically used in a 

latticed boom crane system to easily 

change the length of the boom 

suspension system without completely 

changing the rope on the drum when 

the boom length is increased or 

decreased.’’ This definition is similar to 

that in the SC&RF Handbook, but with 

the addition of the reference to ‘‘bar 

type’’ pendants. 

Many times the pendant cables hang 

alongside the boom and may get caught 

(snagged) on the pins, bolts, or keepers 

as the operator raises the boom. If this 

were to occur the cables could be 

damaged or the boom may rise then 

drop suddenly as a snagged cable 

releases from the pin. This can result in 

shock loading and damaging cables and 

components. For example, under this 

proposed provision, once all the boom 

sections are installed and the pendants 

are pinned together, the A/D supervisor 

must ensure that care is taken when 

raising the boom so that pendant cables 

and hoist cables do not snag on the pins 

or any other component during the 

boom raising process. 

Paragraph 1404(h)(9) Struck by 

Counterweights 

‘‘Counterweight’’ is defined in 

§ 1926.1401 as a ‘‘weight used to 

supplement the weight of equipment in 

providing stability for lifting loads by 

counterbalancing those loads.’’ This 

definition is taken from the SC&RF 

Handbook. 

Counterweights are usually large, 

heavy plates made of steel and/or 

concrete. The A/D process typically 

involves the installation and removal of 

counterweights. This proposed 

provision would require that the A/D 

supervisor address the hazard of 

employees being struck by them during 

their installation/removal. During the 

installation/removal process, employees 

typically are in close proximity to them. 

An employee could be struck by a 

counterweight or crushed between it 

and the crane structure if it were to 

sway as it was being installed or 

removed. The A/D supervisor would be 

required to address this aspect of the 

hazard, such as by taking steps to have 

the operator minimize the amount of 

sway and by positioning the employees 

to minimize their hazard exposure. 

Additionally, after the counterweights 

are installed, the crane may have to 

swing to complete the boom assembly. 

The A/D supervisor would be required 

to address this aspect of the hazard as 

well, such as through the proper 

positioning of the employees and 

enhancing their awareness of the 

counterweight swing zone so that they 

will avoid being struck or crushed. 

Paragraph 1404(h)(10) Boom Hoist 

Brake Failure 

This proposed provision addresses a 

hazard that can occur both during 

assembly and disassembly, although it 

is more typically a hazard during 

assembly. In many older cranes the 

boom hoist brake mechanism has an 

external or internal mechanical brake 

band that operates by pressing against 

the hoist drum. As the configuration of 

the crane changes and, for example, 

more boom is added, this type of boom 

hoist brake may slip unless it has been 

adjusted to hold the extra weight. The 

Committee was concerned that the 

inability of an unadjusted brake to hold 

the increased load will not be evident 

until the additional boom section(s) has 

been added and the operator attempts to 

rely on the brake in a subsequent phase 

of the operation. If the operator does not 

first raise the boom a small amount after 

the section has been added (with the 

crew clear of the boom) to test the brake, 

employees could be injured later in the 

process when the operator manipulates 

the boom and finds that he/she is 

unable to brake it. 

To address this hazard, the employer 

would be required to test the brake to 

determine if it can hold the load. In 

many cases, if it is insufficient, an 

adjustment to the brake will correct the 

problem. If it remains insufficient, the 

employer would be required to use a 

boom hoist pawl, other locking device, 

back-up braking device, or another 

method of preventing dangerous boom 

movement (such as blocking or using an 

assist crane to support the load) from a 

boom hoist brake failure. 

The Agency is concerned that the text 

of the proposed provision may not be 

sufficiently clear regarding the timing of 

this brake test. OSHA’s interpretation is 

that the test would need to be done 

immediately after each section (or group 

of sections) is installed, and after all 

sections are in place. OSHA is soliciting 

public comment on this issue and if it 

is necessary to revise the language of the 

provision to clarify when the test must 

be done. 

Paragraph 1404(h)(11) Loss of 

Backward Stability 

The Committee identified three points 

during the assembly/disassembly 

process at which there is a heightened 

risk of loss of backward stability; these 

are: when swinging the upperworks, 

during travel, and when attaching or 

removing equipment components. 

Therefore, under this proposed 

provision, before any of these occur, the 

A/D supervisor would be required to 

consider whether precautions need to be 

instituted to ensure that backward 

stability is maintained. 

The illustration contained within the 

proposed requirements for loss of 

backward stability (§ 1926.1404(h)(11)) 

is taken from the ‘‘Mobile Crane 

Manual,’’ published by the Construction 

Safety Association of Ontario. 

Paragraph 1404(h)(12) Wind Speed 

and Weather 

Committee members believed that 

wind velocity and weather must be 

considered so that crane stability and 

capacity are not compromised. The 

Committee considered the option of 

establishing a maximum wind speed, as 

well as the option of incorporating 

ANSI’s provisions regarding wind 

speed. However, it believed that 

selecting any one particular speed as a 

maximum would be arbitrary because of 

the variety of factors involved. For 

example: different cranes and crane 

types vary with respect to the ‘‘sail’’ 

area they present; an assembly process 

involving use of an assist crane may 

require lower wind speeds than one in 

which no assist crane is used; and 

assembly/disassembly operations done 

‘‘in the air’’ (that is, with the boom 

elevated in the air, without ground 

support for the boom) may require lower 

wind speeds than a boom assembled/ 

disassembled on the ground. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59747 

The Committee ultimately decided 

that a better approach would be to have 

the A/D supervisor determine the 

maximum safe wind speed under the 

circumstances. 

Other weather conditions that can 

affect the safety of assembly/ 

disassembly would include, for 

example, ice accumulation on crane 

components. Ice can both add to the 

weight of the components and create 

slippery, dangerous surfaces on which 

employees work. The A/D supervisor 

must consider if weather conditions 

affect the safety of the operation. 

Paragraph 1404(i). [Reserved.] OSHA 

is proposing to reserve this paragraph 

because it can be difficult for readers to 

distinguish (i) from (j). 

Paragraph 1404(j) Cantilevered Boom 

Sections 

Members of the Committee believed 

that a common mistake in assembly/ 

disassembly is cantilevering too much 

boom. When too much boom is 

cantilevered structural failure can occur 

in components such as the mast/gantry, 

boom sections and lifting lugs. 

Employees may be struck by falling 

components from this type of failure. To 

prevent accidents from cantilevering too 

much boom during assembly/ 

disassembly, this provision would 

require manufacturer’s limitations on 

cantilevering not to be exceeded. 

If the manufacturer’s limitations were 

not available, the employer would be 

required to have a registered 

professional engineer (RPE) determine 

the appropriate limitations, and to abide 

by those limitations. The Committee 

believed that in such cases there would 

need to be a requirement that the RPE’s 

determination be in writing to ensure 

that the assessment has been done. 

Paragraph 1404(k) Weight of 

Components 

As with any load to be lifted by a 

crane/derrick, the weight of the 

components must be available to the 

operator so that the operator can 

determine if the lift can be performed 

within the crane/derrick’s capacity. This 

proposed requirement would apply 

irrespective of whether the component 

is being hoisted by the crane being 

assembled/disassembled or by an assist 

crane. 

Paragraph 1404(l). [Reserved.] OSHA 

is proposing to reserve this paragraph 

because it is inconvenient for readers to 

distinguish the letter ‘‘l’’ from the 

Arabic number ‘‘1.’’ 

Paragraph 1404(m) Components and 

Configuration 

This proposed provision deals with 

the selection of components that will be 

used to comprise the crane/derrick, the 

configuration of the equipment, and its 

inspection upon completion of 

assembly. Proper selection of 

components and proper configurations 

are explained in the manufacturer’s 

instructions, limitations, and 

specifications. Regarding component 

selection, the provision would address 

the hazards associated with use of 

components that the manufacturer had 

neither intended nor planned for 

incorporation into the equipment. 

The Committee believes that the use 

of such components could adversely 

affect the capacity and performance of 

the crane/derrick, cause the 

manufacturer’s specifications (including 

the load chart) and instructions to be 

inapplicable, and adversely affect other 

components on the crane/derrick. 

Similar hazards are posed by 

configuring the crane/derrick in a 

manner that does not accord with the 

manufacturer’s instructions, limitations 

and specifications. An example given by 

the Committee was trucks carrying 

boom sections arriving out of sequence. 

To save time, some employers assemble 

the sections in the order in which they 

arrive rather than waiting for the correct 

section. This would result in a crane/ 

derrick configured differently than 

intended by the manufacturer. Because 

the crane/derrick is designed and tested 

as a unit, the failure to configure the 

crane/derrick as the manufacturer had 

intended could present the same 

hazards as those described above for 

improper component selection. 

The Committee recognized that, 

especially in the case of very old 

equipment where the manufacturer no 

longer exists, there are instances where 

the employer can no longer obtain the 

manufacturer’s instructions, limitations 

and specifications regarding the 

selection of components and 

configuration of the equipment. In such 

instances the proposed provision would 

require that a registered professional 

engineer familiar with the type of 

equipment involved approve, in writing, 

the component selection and 

configuration. 

Another proposed section 

(§ 1926.1434) would allow cranes/ 

derricks to be modified under certain 

circumstances. To the extent a crane/ 

derrick were modified in accordance 

with that section, the employer would 

not be required to follow the 

manufacturer’s original instructions, 

limitations and specifications regarding 

component selection and configuration 

regarding those modifications. Instead, 

under proposed paragraph (m)(1)(ii) of 

this section, the employer would be 

required to follow the component 

selection and configuration 

requirements approved in accordance 

with proposed § 1926.1434. 

Finally, this proposed provision 

would require that the equipment be 

inspected after assembly has been 

completed to ensure that the component 

selection and configuration are correct. 

Paragraph 1404(n) Manufacturer 

Prohibitions 

As explained above regarding 

proposed § 1926.1403, an employer 

would be able to choose to use either 

manufacturer assembly/disassembly 

procedures or its own (as long as they 

met the requirements in proposed 

§ 1926.1406). However, in either case, 

the Committee believed that 

manufacturer prohibitions regarding 

assembly or disassembly would need to 

be met. In the Committee’s view, a 

prohibition specified by the 

manufacturer signals that, if not heeded, 

a significant hazard would likely be 

created. 

Paragraph 1404(o) Shipping Pins 

In order to properly address the 

hazards the Committee was concerned 

with, the Agency rewrote the language 

that C–DAC had originally agreed upon 

for this proposed provision. The original 

(C–DAC) language read as follows: 

(o) Shipping pins. Reusable shipping pins, 

straps, links and similar equipment must be 

removed and stowed in accordance with 

manufacturer instructions. 

In studying the regulatory text as it 

was originally drafted it appeared the 

language did not accurately reflect the 

intentions of the Committee. The 

provision was intended to address two 

hazards. The first hazard is the failure 

to remove items such as shipping pins, 

which if left in place during operation 

could damage the equipment. For 

example, if shipping pins are not 

removed and the boom is raised up, the 

boom could be damaged. The second 

hazard is injury to employees where 

items such as shipping pins are 

removed but not properly stowed (i.e., 

placed in a special hole or bracket 

designed to keep the item from being 

dislodged) or stored on the equipment 

(such as in an equipment box in the cab) 

after assembly. Where these items are 

left lying on the equipment and not 

properly stowed or stored they present 

a falling object hazard to employees. To 

better reflect the Committee’s intentions 

the Agency has altered the C–DAC 

language. The proposed provision reads: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59748 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

(o) Shipping pins. Reusable shipping pins, 

straps, links and similar equipment must be 

removed. Once they are removed they must 

either be stowed or otherwise stored so that 

they do not present a falling object hazard. 

The Agency welcomes any comments 

with respect to this change. 

Paragraph 1404(p) Pile Driving 

This proposed provision would 

prohibit equipment used in pile driving 

operations from having a jib attached. 

The constant pounding of the pile 

driving hammer and the sometimes 

rapid descent of the pile causes the 

boom to bounce. If a jib were installed 

on the tip, as the boom bounces the jib 

could be thrown backward against its 

stops, which would likely cause 

structural damage to the boom. The 

damage could cause the boom to 

immediately fail or could diminish its 

capacity. 

Paragraph 1404(q) Outriggers 

This proposed paragraph specifies 

requirements regarding outrigger 

deployment. These requirements reflect 

current industry best practices in the 

use of outriggers. Failure to use 

outriggers in accordance with these 

practices could result in the overturning 

of the crane. 

Section 1926.1405 Disassembly— 

Additional Requirements for 

Disassembly of Booms and Jibs (Applies 

to Both the Use of Manufacturer 

Procedures and Employer Procedures) 

The Committee believed that many of 

the accidents associated with cranes 

occur during the removal of pendant, 

boom and jib pins. These accidents 

typically occur because of a failure to 

recognize that, in certain situations, 

particular pins are ‘‘in tension.’’ If 

removed while in that state the result 

will be unplanned movement of a 

component or the collapse of the boom 

or jib. 

Consequently, the Committee 

believed that the removal of pendant, 

boom section and jib pins warrants 

heightened attention. This proposed 

section focuses on protecting employees 

from these hazards during the 

dismantling of booms and jibs, either 

when disassembling the crane/derrick 

or when changing the length of a boom 

or jib. To make clear that ‘‘dismantling’’ 

includes activities such as shortening a 

boom, proposed § 1926.1401 defines 

‘‘dismantling’’ to include ‘‘partial 

dismantling (such as dismantling to 

shorten a boom or substitute a different 

component).’’ 

In this proposed section the 

Committee identified particular 

scenarios that, in the experience of 

many of the Committee members, pose 

specific hazards in disassembly if the 

wrong pins (that is, pins that are in 

tension) are partly or completely 

removed. The failure to follow the 

provisions would very likely result in 

unintended movement and or collapse 

of the components. OSHA believes that 

these requirements will help to prevent 

unintended movement or collapse of 

booms or jibs as they are being 

disassembled. 

While discussing the hazards 

associated with disassembly, the 

Committee reviewed particular 

illustrations from the ‘‘Mobile Crane 

Manual’’ by Construction Safety 

Association of Ontario. It was agreed 

that including these illustrations would 

be an effective way of communicating 

the dangers and the precautions 

specified in this proposed section. 

Section 1406 Assembly/Disassembly— 

Employer Procedures—General 

Requirements 

Under proposed § 1926.1403, 

employers would be permitted to follow 

their own procedures for assembling 

and disassembling a crane/derrick 

instead of those of the manufacturer. 

When doing so, the employer would 

have to ensure that its procedures met 

the general requirements in proposed 

§ 1926.1406. 

The proposed general requirements 

would focus on a ‘‘layered’’ strategy for 

preventing injuries and fatalities during 

this process: maintaining stability of the 

equipment and its components and 

positioning employees so that their 

exposure to unintended dangerous 

movement is minimized. This reflects 

the Committee members’ experience 

that maintaining stability and avoiding 

dangerous positions are the key 

elements to preventing these accidents. 

In addition, under proposed 

paragraph (b) of this section, the 

employer would be required to have its 

procedures developed by a qualified 

person. The Committee believed that, 

due to the complexity of the factors 

involved and the resultant expertise 

needed to develop such procedures, it 

would be necessary for them to be 

developed by a qualified person. 

Note that the Agency wording in 

proposed § 1926.1406(a)(1) includes a 

modification of the language in the C– 

DAC document. The C–DAC document 

stated: 

(1) Prevent unintended dangerous 

movement, and to prevent collapse, of part or 

all of the equipment. 

Read literally, this would mean that 

the employer could choose to design the 

procedures to prevent collapse either of 

part or of all of the equipment. The 

intent of the Committee was that the 

procedures must not allow unintended 

dangerous movement of any part of the 

equipment. Therefore, the Agency 

modified this language so that the 

proposed provision reads as follows: 

(1) Prevent unintended dangerous 

movement, and to prevent collapse, of all 

parts of the equipment. 

Sections 1407–1411 Power Lines 

Introduction 

Proposed §§ 1926.1407 through 

1926.1411 set out proposed 

requirements designed to help ensure 

the safety of employees while cranes/ 

derricks are being assembled, 

disassembled, operated, or while they 

travel under power lines. Section 1401 

defines ‘‘power lines’’ as ‘‘electric 

transmission and distribution lines.’’ 

This definition makes it clear that these 

sections apply to all electric 

transmission and distribution lines. C– 

DAC defined ‘‘power lines’’ as 

‘‘electrical distribution and electric 

transmission lines,’’ but OSHA changed 

the definition to make the terminology 

consistent with Subpart V of 29 CFR 

part 1926, which applies to the 

construction of ‘‘electric transmission 

and distribution lines and equipment.’’ 

29 CFR 1926.950(a). 

The Committee believed that there is 

a need to reduce the number of fatalities 

resulting from electrical contact with 

power lines. In its experience, the 

presence of power lines at construction 

sites poses a significant hazard to 

employees at the site. Power lines can 

be a hazard not only during the 

operation of cranes and derricks, such 

as lifting operations, but also during 

assembling and disassembling the 

equipment and traveling with such 

equipment under power lines. 

Employees are at risk of serious injury 

or death if the equipment they are in, on 

or near is at a construction site where 

there are power lines. 

The Committee’s perception of the 

significance of this problem is 

confirmed by data that indicate that 

electrocution is one of the leading 

causes of crane-related fatalities on 

construction sites. During the years 

1992 to 2005, the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS) reported 1,153 cranerelated fatalities. These statistics 

include fatalities across all industries 

and are not exclusive to construction 

crane-related fatalities. Of those total 

crane-related fatalities the second 

highest cause is attributed to cranes 

contacting overhead power lines (19% 

or 219 fatalities). Specifically for the 

year 2005, BLS reported 85 cranemstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59749 

12The authors determined that a crane’s boom 

was generally the component which made contact 

with the power line. 

13These studies include: D. MacCollum, ‘‘Critical 

Hazard Analysis and Crane Design,’’ Professional 

Safety (1980); D. Dickie, ‘‘Crane Study Confirms 

Downward Trend, Underlines Importance of 

Training,’’ The Crane Report (1993). 

related fatalities and 12 (or 14%) of 

those fatalities resulted from cranes 

contacting overhead power lines. 

(OSHA–2007–0066–0026). 

In addition, a recent analysis of data 

published by the American Society of 

Civil Engineers (ASCE), authored by J.E. 

Beavers, J.R. Moore, R. Rinehart and 

W.R. Schriver, found that electric shock 

caused by cranes and other lifting 

equipment contacting a power source 

was the second highest proximate cause 

(after being struck by a load) of cranerelated fatalities in the construction 

industry from 1997 to 2003. These 

fatalities all involved the failure to 

maintain the minimum approach 

distances set out in the existing Subpart 

N, § 1926.550 provisions.12 J.E. Beavers 

et al., ‘‘Crane-Related Fatalities in the 

Construction Industry,’’ 132 Journal of 

Construction Engineering and 

Management 901, 903–04 (2006) 

(OSHA–2007–0066–0012). 

The Construction Safety Association 

of Ontario conducted an extensive study 

which reviewed crane fatalities from 

1969 through 2002 in the Province of 

Ontario. (OSHA–2007–0066–0009). This 

study showed that the number one 

cause of mobile crane fatalities in the 

Province of Ontario construction 

industry during these 34 years was due 

to power line contact, with 50 of the 

115, or 43%, of the mobile crane 

fatalities caused by power line contact. 

A 1997 study by A. Suruda, M. Egger 

and D. Lui, analyzed crane related 

fatalities in the U.S. construction 

industry from 1984 to 1994. This study 

determined that electrocution by power 

line contact was the leading cause of 

crane related fatalities in the U.S. 

construction industry, with 39% of the 

502 fatalities caused by electrocution 

from power lines. In addition, the 

findings of this study further confirmed 

previous studies which indicated that 

power line contact contributes to a 

significant number of crane related 

fatalities.13 A. Suruda et al., ‘‘CraneRelated Deaths in the U.S. Construction 

Industry, 1984–94,’’ The Center to 

Protect Workers’ Rights (Oct. 1997) 

(OSHA–2007–0066–0013). 

Proposed § 1926.1401 defines 

‘‘electrical contact’’ as follows: 

When a person, object, or equipment 

makes contact or comes in close proximity 

with an energized conductor or equipment 

that allows the passage of current. 

The Committee decided that it was 

necessary to define the term ‘‘electrical 

contact’’ to clarify that the term is not 

limited to a person, object, or equipment 

making physical contact with a power 

line but includes situations in which the 

object comes close enough to a power 

line for current to arc between the 

power line and the object and thereby 

energize the object. 

Currently Subpart N, in 29 CFR 

1926.550(a)(15)(i) and (ii), addresses 

power line hazards by specifying the 

minimum distance that must be 

maintained between a crane and an 

energized power line. For lines rated 50 

kilovolts (kV) or below, the minimum 

distance is 10 feet; for lines over 50 kV, 

the minimum distance is 10 feet plus 

0.4 inches for each 1 kV over 50 kV (we 

will refer to this Subpart N requirement 

in this preamble as the ‘‘10 foot rule’’). 

However, the existing Subpart N 

provisions, which instruct employers to 

maintain a minimum clearance 

distance, do little by way of requiring 

employers to implement measures to 

help prevent operators from 

inadvertently breaching that distance. 

The only preventative measure in 

Subpart N is a requirement, in 

paragraph 1926.550(a)(15)(iv), to use a 

spotter ‘‘where it is difficult for the 

operator to maintain the desired 

clearance by visual means.’’ In 

discussing how to reduce power line 

fatalities, the Committee determined 

that a systematic, proactive approach to 

preventing power line contact is 

needed. 

First, in the Committee’s experience, 

it is difficult for the operator, from his/ 

her position in the crane’s cab, to 

determine if the crane or load is 10 feet 

(or other applicable minimum distance) 

from a power line. According to C–DAC, 

generally operators know the 10 foot 

rule but they have problems being able 

to perceive or visually determine when 

the part of the equipment or load closest 

to the power line has reached the 10 

foot rule’s distance. The operator might 

think he/she is maintaining the required 

minimum distance when in fact the 

crane or load is closer than that to the 

line. Except for the limited requirement 

to use a spotter mentioned above, the 

existing Subpart N standard does not 

require any methodology or aids to be 

provided in each case to help the 

operator identify the location of this 

invisible boundary or otherwise avoid 

it. 

Second, the Committee believed that 

operators sometimes breach the 

minimum clearance distance when they 

forget about the presence of a power 

line. For example, an operator might 

conclude at the beginning of a shift that 

he/she can pick and set all necessary 

loads while maintaining the required 

minimum distance but may thereafter be 

called upon to pick or set a load closer 

to the power line than normal. Having 

once concluded that the power line 

presents no problem, the operator might 

not recognize that the situation has 

changed and that there is now a danger 

of breaching the minimum distance. 

Another scenario is when an operator 

concentrates so strongly on tasks related 

to moving the load, particularly if the 

load is one that requires the crane to be 

operated near its capacity, that he/she 

forgets about the power line. By not 

providing encroachment prevention 

measures, the current standard does not 

help the operator maintain the 10 foot 

rule and therefore does not address 

scenarios where operators forget about 

the presence of a power line. 

Further, the current standard’s 

provision for a spotter does not 

adequately address these scenarios. By 

requiring a spotter only ‘‘where it is 

difficult for the operator to maintain the 

desired clearance by visual means,’’ the 

provision implies that typically it is not 

difficult for the operator to accurately 

judge the distance and the equipment’s 

or load’s distance from the boundary. 

However, a crane operator, no matter 

how experienced, is normally not wellpositioned to judge either the boundary 

distance or the distance the equipment 

or load is from it. In most cases the 

power line is thin, high up, and poorly 

contrasted against the sky. 

Adding to the operator’s difficulty is 

a confusion of angles posed by the 

power lines, load line, boom, and 

position of the operator away from the 

boundary. These factors are 

compounded by the distorting effects of 

distance on depth perception. Despite 

these factors, the operator must be able 

to accurately ascertain the location of an 

invisible boundary and judge relatively 

small distances with a high degree of 

precision. 

Even a small misjudgment can result 

in the minimum clearance distance 

being breached. In short, the current 

standard assumes a degree of visual 

acuity that experience has shown is 

unrealistic. The high number of 

fatalities that continue to result from 

electrocution by power lines 

demonstrates that the current, limited 

provision regarding a spotter is not 

effective. 

Third, the Committee discussed the 

reality that many employers 

intentionally perform work closer than 

the 10 foot rule to energized power 

lines. In only two circumstances does 

the current standard allow the operation 

of cranes closer than the 10 foot rule. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59750 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

The first instance is where the power 

lines have been deenergized and visibly 

grounded and the second is where 

insulating barriers (separate from the 

equipment) have been erected to 

prevent physical contact. 

Committee members noted that 

typically neither of these measures is 

implemented. Specifically, the 

Committee believed that most 

employers elect not to use the option to 

deenergize and ground because of the 

time, expense and difficulty in making 

those arrangements. In addition, the 

Committee determined that an 

‘‘insulating barrier’’ of the type that is 

currently available does not, by itself, 

adequately protect employees because 

these barriers are only effective for 

‘‘brush’’ contact. If there is more than 

brush contact, they will not protect 

employees from electrocution because 

the equipment will pierce the device. In 

order to address the lack of compliance 

and the insufficient protections 

provided to employees who work closer 

than the 10 foot rule, the Committee 

developed new provisions that it 

believed would be both realistic and 

effective for safely working in such 

circumstances. 

To summarize, the Committee found 

that the existing Subpart N provisions 

are inadequate. They fail to require 

employers to implement measures that 

would help prevent operators from 

inadvertently breaching the minimum 

clearance distance. The Committee 

determined that a systematic, proactive 

approach to preventing power line 

contact is needed. It recognized that 

while such an approach is necessarily 

more complex than the current 10 foot 

rule, it is essential to accomplishing the 

goal of reducing power line related 

fatalities and injuries. 

Brief Overview of Proposed 

Requirements 

The proposed standard would require 

the implementation of a systematic, 

proactive approach to dealing with the 

hazard of power lines. This approach 

would be comprised of the following 

steps: (1) Identify the work zone and 

assess it for power lines—determine 

how close the crane could get to them. 

The employer would have the option of 

doing this assessment for the area 360 

degrees around the crane or for a more 

limited, demarcated area; (2) If the 

assessment showed that the crane could 

get closer than a trigger distance—20 

feet for lines rated up to 350 kV (50 feet 

for lines rated over 350 kV)—then 

requirements for additional action 

would be triggered. 

Specifically, unless the power lines 

were deenergized and grounded, 

encroachment/electrocution prevention 

measures would have to be 

implemented to prevent the crane from 

breaching a minimum clearance 

distance and protect against 

electrocution. The employer would be 

allowed to choose among several 

minimum clearance distance options. 

For example, for lines up to 350kV, 

the minimum clearance distance 

options would be: (1) 20 feet; or (2) the 

distance specified in Table A for the 

line’s voltage (Table A is the ‘‘10 foot 

rule’’; see discussion of Table A below); 

or (3) a distance closer than what is 

specified in Table A. 

However, there are limitations to the 

availability of some of these options, 

and the number of mandatory 

encroachment prevention (and other) 

measures increases when using a 

clearance distance closer than Table A. 

The proposed standard uses the word 

‘‘encroachment’’ to describe a situation 

in which equipment gets closer than the 

minimum allowed clearance distance to 

a power line. Under § 1926.1401, 

Definitions, encroachment ‘‘is where 

any part of the crane, load line or load 

(including rigging and lifting 

accessories) breaches a minimum 

clearance distance that this Subpart 

requires to be maintained from a power 

line.’’ Encroachment prevention 

measures are critical to compliance with 

this proposed standard’s minimum 

distance requirements. 

A similar approach to power line 

safety was developed for preventing 

electrocutions during the assembly and 

disassembly of equipment. This is 

addressed in a separate proposed 

section because the assembly/ 

disassembly process involves some 

different circumstances than are present 

during operation. 

Section 1407 Power Line Safety (Up to 

350 kV)—Assembly and Disassembly 

The proposed requirements in 

§ 1926.1407 address the hazards of 

assembling and disassembling 

equipment near power lines up to 350 

kV. The requirements in proposed 1407 

are similar in most respects to the 

requirements in proposed § 1926.1408, 

which address operations of equipment 

near power lines. 

OSHA notes that when an assist crane 

is used during the assembly or 

disassembly of another crane/derrick, 

the use of the assist crane, with respect 

to power line safety, would be 

considered ‘‘operations’’ and therefore 

covered by proposed § 1926.1408 (or, for 

power lines over 350 kV, proposed 

§ 1926.1409). This is because the assist 

crane has already been assembled and is 

being used for a crane operation. 

Therefore, use of the assist crane would 

be required to comply with proposed 

§ 1926.1408 during the assembly/ 

disassembly process rather than with 

proposed § 1926.1407. 

In contrast, a crane that is not yet 

fully assembled is often used to 

complete its own assembly. For 

example, a crane is often used to load 

its own counterweights. Similarly, it 

may unload its counterweights in its 

own disassembly process. Such 

activities would be covered under 

proposed § 1926.1407 since it is being 

assembled/disassembled. 

Paragraph 1407(a) 

Under this proposed paragraph, 

before beginning assembly or 

disassembly, the employer would be 

required to determine if any part of the 

crane, load or load line (including 

rigging and lifting accessories) could 

get, in the direction or area of assembly, 

closer than 20 feet to a power line. In 

other words, the employer would use 

the direction or area of assembly or 

disassembly in evaluating whether any 

such part could come closer than 20 

feet. If this 20 foot ‘‘trigger’’ 

determination is positive, then the 

employer would be required to take 

additional steps. Specifically, the 

employer would be required to meet the 

proposed requirements under either, 

Option (1), Option (2) or Option (3) of 

§ 1926.1407(a). If any part of the crane, 

load or load line could not come within 

more than 20 feet of a power line the 

employer would not be required to take 

any further action under this proposed 

section. 

Upon further review of C–DAC’s 

§ 1926.1407(a), OSHA realized there 

was an inadvertent omission. The C– 

DAC regulatory text read: 

(a) Before assembling or disassembling a 

crane, the employer must determine if any 

part of the crane, load, or load line (including 

rigging and lifting accessories) could get, in 

the direction or area of ‘‘assembly,’’ within 

20 feet of a power line during the assembly/ 

disassembly process. 

These provisions were intended to 

apply to both assembly and 

disassembly. The employer needs to 

evaluate power lines with respect to the 

direction or area of assembly when 

preparing to assemble the crane, and the 

direction or area of disassembly when 

preparing to disassemble the crane. A 

reference to ‘‘disassembly’’ in this 

regard was inadvertently omitted. 

Therefore, OSHA has changed the 

regulatory text to read: 

(a) Before assembling or disassembling a 

crane, the employer must determine if any 

part of the crane, load, or load line (including 

rigging and lifting accessories) could get, in 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59751 

14As explained below, OSHA is changing ‘‘within 

20 feet of a power line’’ wherever it appears in the 

C–DAC document to ‘‘closer than 20 feet to a power 

line’’ to avoid potential confusion over whether 

‘‘within’’ means breaching or not breaching the 20 

foot distance. 

15This also occurs with telescopic extensible 

boom cranes when a ‘‘dead man section’’ is added 

to the boom. 

16OSHA notes that the phrase ‘‘utility owner/ 

operator’’ reflects scenarios where utilities may not 

be operated by an owner but by some entity other 

than the owner. Therefore wherever the phrase 

‘‘utility owner/operator’’ is used in the standard or 

in the preamble it is meant to apply to utility 

owners or utility operators. In addition, in various 

places in the original C–DAC document, the 

Committee had used the terms ‘‘power line owner,’’ 

‘‘power line owner/operator’’ or a variation of those 

terms. The Agency has changed those terms to 

‘‘utility owner/operator’’ or a variation of those 

terms. The Agency has changed those terms to 

‘‘utility owner/operator’’ to be consistent 

throughout the proposed regulatory text. 

17As discussed above, the 10 foot rule is a scale 

of voltages and distances that begins at 10 feet. 

the direction or area of ‘‘assembly/ 

disassembly,’’ closer than 20 feet to a power 

line during the assembly/disassembly 

process.14

The phrase ‘‘direction or area of 

assembly/disassembly’’ is designed to 

address the fact that, in some cases, the 

assembly or disassembly of a crane takes 

place not just in an ‘‘area,’’ that is, a 

fixed portion of the work site, but also 

in a ‘‘direction.’’ For example, when 

disassembling a crane, the disassembly 

process takes place in an area that 

includes the area under and around the 

boom’s path as it is lowered to the 

ground (in most, but not all cases, the 

boom is lowered to the ground for the 

disassembly process). Under this 

provision, the employer would be 

required to assess the promixity that the 

boom will be in to the power line in its 

path of travel to (and on) the ground. 

In another example, when assembling 

a lattice boom crane, the ‘‘area’’ 

involved will expand as boom sections 

are added.15 This area expands in the 

‘‘direction’’ in which the boom sections 

are added. The power line assessment 

has to be made for the portion of the site 

that will be involved as these boom 

sections are added. 

In addition, ‘‘direction’’ includes the 

direction that, for example, the boom 

will move as it rises into the air after the 

boom has been assembled on the 

ground. For example, the boom, when 

fully assembled on the ground, may be 

more than 20 feet from a power line. 

However, when raising it from the 

ground, it may get closer than 20 feet. 

Accordingly, under this language, the 

‘‘direction’’ that the boom will travel as 

it is raised must also be evaluated for 

proximity to power lines. 

Another example is the assembly of a 

tower crane. As tower sections are 

added, the assembly process may get 

closer to power lines than when the 

process began on the ground. That 

‘‘direction’’ of assembly upwards must 

also be evaluated. 

Paragraph (a)(1) Option (1) 

An employer choosing Option 1 

would protect against electrocution by 

having the power lines deenergized and 

visibly grounded. Where the employer 

elects this option, it would not have to 

implement any of the encroachment/ 

electrocution prevention measures 

listed in proposed § 1926.1407(b). This 

option helps to eliminate the electrical 

hazards which are present with power 

lines. 

However, some amount of time is 

needed to arrange for the utility owner/ 

operator 16 to deenergize and ground the 

line. Also, in some instances, especially 

where the construction project is small, 

the cost of deenergizing and grounding 

may be a substantial portion of the cost 

of the project. The Committee 

recognized that, in practice, largely 

because of these factors, deenergizing 

and grounding has not been routinely 

done. 

Therefore, the Committee believed 

that providing other safe and practical 

options would help to reduce unsafe 

practices in the industry. Those other 

options (Options 2 and 3 in proposed 

§ 1926.1407(a)) combined with 

proposed § 1926.1407(b) are designed to 

be effective protection against the 

hazards of electrocution. 

Paragraph (a)(2) Option (2) 

Under Option 2 (proposed 

§ 1926.1407(a)(2)), the employer would 

be required to maintain a minimum 

clearance distance of 20 feet. To help 

ensure that this distance is not 

breached, the employer would have to 

implement the encroachment 

prevention measures in proposed 

§ 1926.1407(b). Under this proposed 

option, no part of the crane, load or load 

line, including rigging and lifting 

accessories, would be permitted closer 

than 20 feet to the power line. 

Employers using this proposed option 

would, in most cases, have to stay 

further away from the power line than 

under the existing Subpart N’s 10 foot 

rule (employers wanting to use the 10 

foot rule would have to use proposed 

Option 3, discussed below).17 However, 

an advantage of this proposed option to 

many employers is that they would not 

have to determine the exact voltage of 

the power line as they would if they 

were to apply Subpart N’s 10 foot rule. 

They would only have to determine that 

the line voltage is equal to or less than 

350 kV. As a practical matter, since 

many employers rely on the utility 

owner/operator to provide voltage 

information, this option would save 

them that step. 

The Committee believed that, since 

the minimum clearance distance would 

be 20 feet, there would be no 

diminution of safety under this option 

since the maximum possible clearance 

distance under the current Subpart N’s 

formula is 20 feet. In fact, in the 

Committee’s experience, most power 

lines encountered by most employers 

have voltages that, under the current 

Subpart N formula, require a minimum 

clearance distance of 10 feet. Therefore, 

use of this option would, in most cases, 

result in a higher margin of safety. 

Employers who do not need to get closer 

than 20 feet in order to assemble/ 

disassemble the crane could use this 

option and would be saved the step of 

obtaining the exact line voltage. 

As noted above, in addition to 

maintaining a minimum clearance 

distance of 20 feet, employers using this 

option would be required to implement 

the encroachment prevention and other 

measures specified in proposed 

§ 1926.1407(b). 

Paragraph (a)(3) Option (3) 

Under Option 3 (proposed paragraph 

§ 1926.1407(a)(3)), the employer would 

be required to maintain a minimum 

clearance distance in accordance with 

Table A (of proposed § 1926.1408). 

Under Table A, depending on the 

voltage of the power line, the minimum 

approach distance ranges from 10 feet to 

20 feet for lines up to 350 kV. Therefore, 

the minimum clearance distance would 

be essentially the same under Option 3 

as under Subpart N’s 10 foot rule. Under 

this option the employer would be 

required to determine the line’s voltage. 

As a practical matter, in the 

Committee’s experience, the power lines 

most typically encountered by most 

employers would require a minimum 

clearance distance of 10 feet under 

Table A. As a result, employers could 

usually assemble/disassemble 

equipment closer to the lines under this 

option than under Option 2. 

Table A in essence is based upon the 

same formula as is currently used in 

existing Subpart N (the 10 foot rule) and 

is similar to Table 1 in ASME B30.5– 

2004. Unlike Subpart N, which requires 

employers to calculate the minimum 

clearance distance from a formula, Table 

A sets forth specified clearance 

distances in a readily understood table 

and requires no calculations. The 

Committee believed that a table with 

specified clearance distances is more 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59752 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

18Alternatively, under Option (1), the employer 

could have the lines deenergized and grounded. If 

Option (1) were selected, no further action under 

this section would be required. 

readily applied than the formula set out 

in the existing Subpart N requirements. 

The enhanced safety that would result 

under this option would stem from the 

fact that, first, there would be an 

affirmative obligation on the employer 

to determine the power line voltage so 

that the correct Table A minimum 

clearance distance could be determined. 

Second, in addition to maintaining the 

minimum clearance distance specified 

in the Table, employers using this 

option would be required to implement 

the encroachment prevention and other 

measures specified in proposed 

§ 1926.1407(b). 

In reviewing C–DAC’s draft of this 

provision, the Agency realized that C– 

DAC inadvertently failed to explicitly 

state that the Table A minimum 

clearance distance must not be 

breached. OSHA has modified proposed 

paragraph § 1926.1407(a)(3)(ii) to correct 

this error. Therefore, the last sentence of 

the C–DAC language has been expanded 

to read as follows: 

If so, then the employer must follow the 

requirements in paragraph (b) to ensure that 

no part of the crane, load line, or load 

(including rigging and lifting accessories), 

gets closer to the line than the minimum 

clearance distance. 

Paragraph 1407(b) Preventing 

Encroachment/Electrocution 

Once an employer has determined 

that some part of the crane, load or load 

line could come within the trigger 

distance of 20 feet of a power line (see 

§ 1926.1407(a)), if it chooses either 

Option (2) or (3) of § 1926.1407(a) it 

would be required to implement 

encroachment prevention measures to 

help ensure that the applicable 

minimum clearance distance (20 feet 

under Option 2 or the Table A distance 

under Option 3) is not breached.18

Most of the measures in this proposed 

paragraph are designed to help the 

employer maintain the appropriate 

clearance distance and thereby prevent 

electrical contact while in the process of 

assembling or disassembling equipment. 

Some of the measures are designed to 

prevent electrocution in the event of 

electrical contact. The committee 

believed these proposed requirements 

would add layers of protection to help 

keep employees safe from power lines 

during the assembly or disassembly of 

the equipment. 

Paragraph 1407(b)(1) 

Under proposed paragraph (b)(1), the 

employer would be required to conduct 

a planning meeting with the Assembly/ 

Disassembly Supervisor (A/D 

Supervisor), operator, assembly/ 

disassembly crew and other workers 

who will be in the assembly/ 

disassembly area (including the area of 

the load). This planning meeting must 

include reviewing the location of the 

power line(s) and the steps that will be 

implemented to prevent encroachment 

and electrocution. 

As discussed below, under this 

proposed paragraph, certain 

encroachment/electrocution prevention 

measures would be required (they are 

listed in proposed paragraph (b)(1) and 

(2) of this section). In addition, the 

employer would be required to select at 

least one additional measure from the 

list in proposed § 1926.1407(b)(3). In the 

planning meeting, the employer would 

be required to make that selection and 

review all the measures that will be 

used to comply with this section. 

The purpose of this proposed 

requirement is to ensure that the 

operator and other workers who will be 

in the area understand these measures 

and how they will be implemented. 

That understanding is important to their 

successful implementation. Because of 

the critical nature of these measures, 

and the seriousness of the consequences 

to the safety of the employees if they are 

not implemented correctly, the 

Committee believed that it is necessary 

for there to be a structured process by 

which the employer communicates this 

information. 

Paragraph 1407(b)(2) 

Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would 

require that where tag lines are used 

they must be non-conductive. This 

provision uses two terms that are 

defined in § 1401. ‘‘Tag lines’’ is defined 

as ‘‘a rope (usually fiber) attached to a 

lifted load for purposes of controlling 

load spinning and pendular motions or 

used to stabilize a bucket or magnet 

during material handling operations.’’ 

Thus, one end of a tag line is attached 

to the load and the other end is held by 

an employee who controls the load’s 

motion by exerting force on the line. 

If the equipment or load were to make 

electrical contact with a power line 

while an employee was holding a tag 

line that was able to conduct electricity, 

the employee could be electrocuted. The 

requirement that the tag line be nonconductive is designed to protect 

against such an event. Section 

1926.1401 defines ‘‘non-conductive’’ as 

meaning that, ‘‘because of the nature 

and conditions of the materials used, 

and the conditions of use (including 

environmental conditions and condition 

of the material), the object in question 

has the property of not becoming 

energized (that is, it has high dielectric 

properties offering a high resistance to 

the passage of current under the 

conditions of use).’’ 

This definition recognizes that it is 

not only the inherent property of the tag 

line material that results in it being nonconductive but also the conditions of 

use. For example, if an otherwise nonconductive material were to become wet 

and therefore able to conduct electricity, 

it would no longer qualify as nonconductive under this proposed 

paragraph. 

Paragraph 1407(b)(3) 

Under this proposed paragraph the 

employer would be required to choose 

one of five encroachment prevention 

measures (§ 1926.1407(b)(3)(i) through 

(v)) to implement. The Committee 

concluded that the use of any one of 

these measures, in combination with the 

required measures listed elsewhere in 

proposed § 1926.1407(b), would be 

feasible and effective in protecting 

against encroachment. Specifically, the 

employer would be required to choose 

either: (i) The use of a dedicated spotter; 

(ii) a proximity alarm; (iii) a device that 

automatically warns the operator when 

to stop (i.e., a range control warning 

device); (iv) a device that automatically 

limits the range of movement of the 

equipment; or (v) an elevated: Warning 

line, barricade, or line of signs, in view 

of the operator, equipped with flags or 

similar high-visibility markings. 

Providing the ability to choose among 

these options would give the employer 

flexibility so that it could pick one that 

was well suited and efficient in the 

circumstances. 

A definition of ‘‘dedicated spotter 

(power lines)’’ is included in proposed 

§ 1926.1401, Definitions. That definition 

provides: 

In order to be considered a dedicated 

spotter, the requirements of § 1926.1428 

(signal person qualifications) must be met 

and his/her sole responsibility is to watch the 

separation between the power line and: the 

equipment, load line and load (including 

rigging and lifting accessories), and ensure 

through communication with the operator 

that the applicable minimum distance is not 

breached. 

When the employer uses a dedicated 

spotter to prevent encroachment under 

this section, that person has the critical 

responsibility of ensuring, through 

communication with the operator, that 

the equipment maintains a specified 

minimum clearance distance from a 

power line. This definition makes clear 

that the dedicated spotter cannot have 

any other responsibilities that detract 

him/her from this task. Also, the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59753 

19The C–DAC version of this provision defined 

proximity alarm as: ‘‘a device that provides a 

warning of proximity to a power line that has been 

approved by a Nationally Recognized Testing 

Laboratory.’’ OSHA has modified the provision to 

conform its language to that used in 29 CFR 1910.7, 

the OSHA rule governing nationally recognized 

testing laboratories, and to explicitly refer to 

§ 1910.7 to make clear that the listing, labeling, or 

acceptance of a device under this rule must be in 

accord with § 1910.7. 

dedicated spotter must have the 

qualifications required of a signal 

person under proposed § 1926.1428, 

discussed below. Those qualifications 

will ensure that the signal person can 

communicate effectively with the 

operator. They also ensure that the 

signal person is knowledgeable about 

crane dynamics and therefore is able to 

recognize situations in which the 

minimum clearance distance may 

inadvertently be breached if, for 

example, the load is stopped quickly 

while it is being moved near a power 

line. 

The devices listed in proposed 

§§ 1926.1407(b)(3)(ii) and (iii) are also 

defined in § 1401. ‘‘Proximity alarm,’’ is 

defined as ‘‘a device that provides a 

warning of proximity to a power line 

that has been listed, labeled, or accepted 

by a Nationally Recognized Testing 

Laboratory in accordance with 29 CFR 

1910.7.’’ 19 A Nationally Recognized 

Testing Laboratory is an organization 

that has been recognized by OSHA 

pursuant to 29 CFR 1910.7 as competent 

to evaluate equipment for conformance 

to appropriate safety test standards for 

that type of equipment. Thus, approval 

of a proximity alarm by a nationally 

recognized testing laboratory provides 

assurance that the device will work as 

intended. ‘‘Range control warning 

device,’’ is defined as ‘‘a device that can 

be set by an equipment operator to warn 

that the boom or jib tip is at a plane or 

multiple planes.’’ 

In reviewing this proposed provision, 

OSHA realized that some of the devices 

listed in proposed § 1926.1407(b)(3) 

would not be operational or effective 

against electrocution during certain 

phases of the assembly or disassembly 

process of certain types of cranes. For 

example, for lattice boom cranes, 

proximity alarm devices may not be able 

to be used when the boom is not yet 

fully assembled; at that point the 

proximity alarm typically cannot be 

connected and functioning. Therefore, 

during certain phases of assembly/ 

disassembly, one of the other options 

would need to be used (such as a 

dedicated spotter) in order to provide 

the needed protection. 

However, the regulatory text, as 

currently drafted, would permit an 

employer to select an option 

irrespective of whether it would be 

effective under the circumstances. In 

order to address this concern, OSHA 

requests public comment on whether 

proposed § 1926.1407(b)(3) should be 

revised to preclude the employer from 

selecting an option that, in the 

employer’s situation, would be 

ineffective, such as by revising the 

provision to read: 

(3) At least one of the additional measures 

listed in this paragraph must be in place. The 

measure selected from this list must be 

effective in preventing encroachment. The 

additional measures are: * * * 

In situations where an employer 

chooses the option of using a dedicated 

spotter, the employer would be required 

to meet the proposed requirements for 

spotters in proposed 

§ 1926.1407(b)(3)(i). As specified in 

proposed paragraph (b)(3)(i)(A) of this 

section, the spotter would have to be 

equipped with a visual aid to assist in 

identifying the minimum clearance 

distance. The Committee concluded that 

a visual aid is needed for the spotter 

because of the difficulty in visualizing 

the minimum clearance distance 

boundary in the air (as discussed 

above). 

In the C–DAC version of this 

paragraph, examples of visual aids 

included a line painted on the ground, 

a clearly visible line of stanchions or a 

set of line-of-sight landmarks. An 

example of a clearly visible set of lineof-sight landmarks would be a fence 

post and a building corner. 

In reviewing C–DAC’s draft of this 

provision, the Agency noted that the 

stanchions and landmarks would have 

to be ‘‘clearly visible,’’ but that this 

language was not used with respect to 

the example of a painted line on the 

ground. Since all such visual aids 

would have to be clearly visible to be 

effective, and that was the evident 

intent of C–DAC, the Agency has 

modified the C–DAC language so that, 

in the proposed provision, all the listed 

examples would have to be ‘‘clearly 

visible.’’ This revision was also made in 

proposed § 1926.1408(b)(4)(ii)(A). 

Under proposed paragraphs 

(b)(3)(i)(B)–(D), the spotter would have 

to be positioned so that he/she can 

effectively gauge the clearance distance 

from the power line; the spotter, where 

necessary, would have to use equipment 

that enables him/her to communicate 

directly with the equipment operator; 

and the spotter would have to give 

timely information to the operator so 

that the required clearance distance can 

be maintained. C–DAC believed that 

each criterion is needed for the spotter 

to be able to be effective. 

Paragraph 1407(c) Assembly/ 

Disassembly Below Power Lines 

Prohibited 

This proposed paragraph would 

preclude employers from assembling or 

disassembling cranes/derricks beneath 

energized power lines. The Committee 

agreed that assembly/disassembly below 

energized power lines presents an 

extreme risk and needs to be prohibited. 

The assembly/disassembly process 

necessarily involves moving and 

hoisting parts of the equipment into 

place. If some of this work took place 

beneath a power line, the risk that a 

part, load, load line, or other equipment 

would make electrical contact is very 

high. Also, in both assembly and 

disassembly, maneuvering an assembled 

crane out from under the power lines, 

or maneuvering a crane that is about to 

be disassembled under them, itself 

poses a high risk of such contact. 

C–DAC’s agreement on this provision 

indicates a belief by the Committee that, 

in almost all cases, the employer can 

plan the assembly/disassembly so that 

there will be no need to be beneath 

power lines. The Committee also 

concluded that, in the very few 

instances where this is not possible, in 

light of the extreme risk involved, it is 

essential that the lines be deenergized 

and visibly grounded. 

Paragraph 1407(d) Assembly/ 

Disassembly Closer Than Table A 

Clearance Prohibited 

Assembly and disassembly of cranes/ 

derricks closer than the minimum 

clearance distance in proposed Table A 

(of proposed § 1926.1408) to an 

energized power line would be 

prohibited. If assembly or disassembly 

needed to take place closer than that 

distance, the employer would be 

required to have the line deenergized 

and visibly grounded. The rationale for 

this proposed provision is similar to 

that discussed above for assembly/ 

disassembly beneath power lines. 

Engaging in assembly/disassembly 

activity closer to an energized power 

line than the Table A distance was 

considered by the Committee to be too 

hazardous to be permitted under any 

circumstances. 

This reflects certain inherent 

characteristics of the assembly/ 

disassembly process that preclude the 

employer from being able to reliably 

maintain clearance distances closer than 

Table A (of proposed § 1926.1408). For 

example, when disassembling a lattice 

boom, pins that hold boom sections 

together are removed. Even when done 

properly, this can release stored kinetic 

energy and cause the boom section 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59754 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

20 In this respect this proposed provision differs 

from proposed § 1926.1408. As discussed below, 

§ 1926.1408 would allow use of minimum clearance 

distances closer than Table A in some 

circumstances for crane ‘‘operations.’’ In contrast, 

proposed § 1926.1407(d) reflects a determination by 

the Committee that there are no circumstances for 

‘‘assembly/disassembly’’ when it would be safe for 

any part of the crane, load or load line (including 

rigging and lifting accessories) to get closer than the 

Table A minimum clearance distance. 

21As noted in the introduction, C–DAC included 

two members from the electric utility industry. 

22An employer engaged in subpart V (of 29 CFR 

part 1926) work (power transmission and 

distribution) would also have to comply with most 

of these provisions. However, when certain 

prerequisites are met, it would be permitted to use 

the minimum clearance distances in Subpart V’s 

Table V–1. In addition, where additional 

prerequisites are met, it would be permitted to work 

closer than the Table V–1 distances. These are 

explained in the discussion of proposed 

§ 1926.1410. 

being removed, as well as the remaining 

sections, to move. It is too difficult to 

estimate the amount of such potential 

movement with the precision that 

would be necessary when working 

closer than the Table A distances. 

Another example is when assembling 

a boom, an error in the assembly process 

may similarly cause unanticipated 

movement. Using clearances closer than 

those in Table A would not allow 

sufficient room in light of the difficulty 

of predicting the amount such 

movement.20

Paragraph 1407(e) Voltage Information 

This proposed section operates in 

conjunction with proposed 

§ 1926.1407(a)(3). Under proposed 

§ 1926.1407(a)(3), employers who elect 

to use Option (3) of § 1926.1407(b) must 

determine the line’s voltage. Under 

proposed § 1926.1407(e), where the 

employer asks the utility owner/ 

operator for that voltage information, 

the utility owner/operator of the line 

would be required to provide the 

voltage information within two working 

days of the request. 

This reflects a belief of the Committee 

that, in the absence of such a time 

limitation on the utility owner/operator, 

in many instances Option (3) (proposed 

§ 1926.1407(b)) would not be useful 

because the employer would not be able 

to get the voltage information in 

sufficient time to be able to use it. Many 

employers would rely on the utility 

owner/operator to get this information. 

The Committee was concerned that an 

extended delay in getting it would result 

in employers, to some extent, doing the 

work anyway without the information. 

Therefore, for Option (3) (proposed 

§ 1926.1407(b)) to be viable, the 

Committee believed that a reasonable 

time limitation for the utility owner/ 

operator to respond is needed.21

The Committee believed that two 

business days would be a reasonable 

amount of time to allow the utility 

owners/operator to respond and be 

sufficiently short to be useful to the 

employer requesting the information. 

In reviewing this provision, the 

Agency noted that the C–DAC provision 

reads: 

Voltage information. Where Option (3) is 

used, owner/operators of power lines must 

provide the requested voltage information 

within two working days of the employer’s 

request. 

In a different context—determining 

the timeliness of notices of contest to 

OSHA citations—OSHA defines 

‘‘working days’’ to mean ‘‘Mondays 

through Fridays but shall not include 

Saturdays, Sundays, or Federal 

holidays.’’ 29 CFR 1903.22(c). Since the 

term is already defined in an OSHA 

regulation, the Agency would apply the 

same definition here unless this rule 

were to specify a different definition. 

Therefore, OSHA solicits comments on 

whether the phrase ‘‘working days’’ 

should be defined differently for 

purposes of this rule than it is in 29 CFR 

1903.22(c). 

Paragraph 1407(f) Power Lines 

Presumed Energized 

This proposed paragraph would 

require that employers always assume 

that all power lines are energized unless 

the utility owner/operator confirms that 

the power line has been and continues 

to be deenergized and visibly grounded 

at the worksite. This fundamental 

precaution is essentially the same as 

currently in Subpart N at 

§ 1926.550(a)(15)(vi). 

Paragraph 1407(g) Posting of 

Electrocution Warnings 

This proposed paragraph would 

require the posting of electrocution 

warnings as follows: One inside the cab 

in view of the operator and (except for 

overhead gantry and tower cranes) at 

least two on the outside of the 

equipment. The Committee believes that 

these electrocution warnings are 

necessary to protect the operator as well 

as any employees working in the area 

around the crane by increasing their 

awareness of the hazard. This provision 

is similar to section 5–3.4.5.2(d) of 

ASME B30.5–2004. 

Section 1408 Power Line Safety (Up to 

350 kV)—Operations 

As discussed above with respect to 

power line safety in assembly/ 

disassembly, the proposed standard 

would require the implementation of a 

systematic approach to power line 

safety for crane/derrick operations. This 

approach would consist of two basic 

steps. First, the employer would need to 

identify the work zone, assess it for 

power lines, and determine how close 

the crane could get to them. The 

employer would have the option of 

doing this assessment for the area 360 

degrees around the crane or for a more 

limited, demarcated area. Second, if the 

assessment showed that the crane could 

get closer than a trigger distance—20 

feet for lines rated up to 350 kV (50 feet 

for lines rated over 350 kV)—then 

requirements for additional action 

would be triggered. 

Specifically, unless the power lines 

were deenergized and grounded, 

encroachment prevention measures 

would have to be implemented to 

prevent the crane from breaching a 

minimum clearance distance. The 

employer would be allowed to choose 

among three minimum clearance 

distance options. For example, for lines 

up to 350kV, the minimum clearance 

distance options would be 20 feet, or the 

distance specified in Table A (of 

proposed § 1926.1408) for the line’s 

voltage (Table A is the ‘‘10 foot rule’’; 

see discussion of Table A below), or a 

distance closer than what is specified in 

Table A. 

However, there are limitations to the 

availability of some of these options, 

and the number of mandatory 

encroachment prevention (and other) 

measures increases when using a 

clearance distance closer than Table 

A.22

Paragraph 1408(a) Hazard Assessments 

and Precautions Inside the Work Zone 

Before beginning crane/derrick 

operations, the employer would be 

required to determine if power lines 

would pose a hazard. The first step in 

this process would be to identify the 

work zone for which this hazard 

assessment will be made (proposed 

§ 1926.1408(a)(1)). The employer would 

have two options for defining the work 

zone. 

Under the first option (proposed 

§ 1926.1408(a)(1)(i)), the employer 

would be required to define the work 

zone by marking boundaries and 

prohibiting the operator from operating 

the equipment past those boundaries. 

Examples of how to demarcate the 

boundaries include using flags or 

devices such as a range limit device or 

range control warning device. ‘‘Range 

control warning device’’ is defined in 

§ 1926.1401 as ‘‘a device that can be set 

by an equipment operator to warn that 

the boom or jib tip is at a plane or 

multiple planes.’’ See the explanation 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59755 

23 If any part of the crane, load or load line could 

not come closer than 20 feet to a power line the 

employer would not be required to take any further 

action under this proposed section. However, the 

employer may encounter a situation where it 

unexpectedly needs to increase the size of the work 

zone. This may occur, for example, as a result of 

an unanticipated need to change the crane’s 

position or to have the crane operate beyond the 

original work zone boundaries. In such a case the 

employer would be required to go back to the first 

step under proposed § 1926.1408(a)(1), re-identify a 

work zone and conduct a new 20 foot ‘‘trigger’’ 

assessment. 

24As discussed above, the 10 foot rule is a scale 

of voltages and distances that begins at 10 feet and 

increases to 20 feet (for line voltages up to 350kV). 

below of ‘‘range limit device’’ at the end 

of the discussion of this section. 

Employers would not be permitted to 

use existing landmarks to demarcate 

boundaries unless they are marked. For 

example, a line of trees would be 

insufficient. Without anything more the 

trees would not signal a reminder to the 

operator of there being a boundary that 

must be maintained. However, adding 

flags to those trees would be sufficient 

because the flags would serve as a 

reminder that the trees are located along 

a boundary that the operator must not 

breach. 

The boundaries must mark the limits 

of all crane movement. For example, a 

work zone could be defined by 

demarcating boundaries: (1) To the left 

and right of the operator, to limit the 

lateral movement of the boom, and (2) 

in front of the operator, in a line 

connecting the side boundaries, limiting 

the boom’s radius. 

In identifying the work zone, the 

employer must consider the entire area 

in which the crane will need to operate. 

If the crane will need to be positioned 

in more than one spot to accomplish its 

work, or to travel with a load, the 

employer would be required to consider 

the total area in which it will need to 

operate and set the boundaries 

accordingly. 

The second option for identifying the 

work zone (proposed 

§ 1926.1408(a)(1)(ii)) would be to define 

the work zone as the area 360 degrees 

around the crane, up to the crane’s 

maximum working radius. In other 

words, under this option, the work zone 

would be the area within a circle, with 

the crane at the center, and the radius 

defined by the maximum working 

radius of the crane. No boundaries 

would have to be marked under this 

option since the crane would be 

permitted to operate in the entire area 

that it could reach. 

Paragraph 1408(a)(2) 

Once the employer has identified the 

work zone according to proposed 

§ 1926.1408(a)(1), it would then be 

required to make the power line hazard 

assessment. Specifically, it must 

determine if any part of the crane, load 

or load line (including rigging and 

lifting accessories) could come within a 

‘‘trigger’’ distance—20 feet of a power 

line. This determination must be made 

based upon the assumption that the 

crane would be operated up to its 

maximum working radius (or, if a 

demarcated boundary is closer than the 

maximum working radius, the 

assessment must be made with the 

assumption that the crane would be 

operated up to that boundary). 

Even if the employer has no intention 

of working up to the crane’s maximum 

radius in the work zone, the assessment 

must still be made using this 

assumption. The Committee believed 

that this is crucial since, even if the 

employer’s original intention was not to 

operate in that part of the work zone, 

unexpected events may occur that may 

lead the operator to operate the 

equipment there. 

If this 20 foot ‘‘trigger’’ determination 

is positive, then the employer would be 

required to take additional steps. 

Specifically, the employer would be 

required to meet the proposed 

requirements under either, Option (1), 

Option (2), or Option (3) of proposed 

§ 1926.1408(a)(2).23

Paragraph 1408(a)(2)(i) Option (1) 

An employer choosing Option (1) 

would protect against electrocution by 

having the power lines deenergized and 

visibly grounded at the worksite. This 

option would prevent equipment that 

contacts the power line from becoming 

energized. The power line must be 

‘‘visibly grounded at the worksite’’ so 

that the employer can verify, through 

observation, that the protection 

provided by this option remains in 

place for as long as the employer 

continues to rely on it. 

Where the employer elects this 

option, it would not have to implement 

any of the encroachment/electrocution 

prevention measures listed in proposed 

§ 1926.1408(b). However, some amount 

of time is needed to arrange for the 

utility owner/operator to deenergize and 

ground the line. Also, in some 

instances, especially where the 

construction project is small, the cost of 

deenergizing and grounding may be a 

substantial portion of the cost of the 

project. The Committee recognized that, 

in practice, largely because of these 

factors, deenergizing and grounding has 

not been routinely done. 

Therefore, the committee believed 

that providing other safe and practical 

options would help to reduce unsafe 

practices in the industry. Those other 

options (Options 2 and 3 in proposed 

§ 1926.1408(a)(2)(ii) and (iii), discussed 

below) combined with proposed 

§ 1926.1408(b) are designed to afford 

effective protection against the hazards 

of electrocution. 

Paragraph 1408(a)(2)(ii) Option (2) 

Under Option 2 (proposed 

§ 1926.1408(a)(2)(ii)), the employer 

would be required to maintain a 

minimum clearance distance of 20 feet. 

To help ensure that this distance is not 

breached, the employer would have to 

implement the encroachment 

prevention measures in proposed 

§ 1926.1407(b). Under this proposed 

option, no part of the crane, load or load 

line, including rigging and lifting 

accessories, would be permitted closer 

than 20 feet to the power line. 

Employers using this proposed option 

would, in most cases, have to stay 

further away from the power line than 

under the existing Subpart N’s 10 foot 

rule (employers wanting to use the 10 

foot rule would have to use proposed 

Option 3 (in § 1926.1408(a)(2)(iii)). 

However, proper application of the 10 

foot rule, as a practical matter, 

necessitates determining the exact 

voltage of the power line.24 An 

advantage of this proposed option to 

many employers is that they would not 

have to determine the exact voltage of 

the power line (they would only have to 

determine that the line is equal to or 

less than 350 kV). As a practical matter, 

since many employers rely on the utility 

owner/operator to provide voltage 

information, this option would save 

them that step. 

The Committee believed that, since 

the minimum clearance distance would 

be 20 feet, there would be no 

diminution of safety under this option 

since the maximum possible clearance 

distance under the current Subpart N’s 

formula is 20 feet. In fact, in the 

Committee’s experience, most power 

lines encountered by most employers 

have voltages that, under the current 

Subpart N’s formula, require a 

minimum clearance distance of 10 feet. 

Therefore, use of this option would, in 

most cases, result in a higher margin of 

safety. Employers who do not need to 

get closer than 20 feet in order to do 

their work could use this option and 

would be saved the step of obtaining the 

exact line voltage. 

As noted above, in addition to 

maintaining a minimum clearance 

distance of 20 feet, employers using this 

option would be required to implement 

the encroachment prevention and other 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59756 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

25The range referred to here is the range in the 

part of the table that is applicable up to 350kV. 

26Alternatively, under Option (1) of proposed 

§ 1926.1408(a)(i), the employer could have the lines 

deenergized and grounded. If Option (1) were 

selected, no further action under this section would 

be required. 

measures specified in proposed 

§ 1926.1408(b). 

Paragraph 1408(a)(2)(iii) Option (3) 

Under Option 3 (proposed 

§ 1926.1408(a)(2)(iii)), the employer 

would be required to maintain a 

minimum clearance distance in 

accordance with Table A (of proposed 

§ 1926.1408). Under Table A, depending 

on the voltage of the power line, the 

minimum approach distance ranges 

from 10 feet to 20 feet.25 Under this 

option the employer would be required 

to determine the line’s voltage. 

As a practical matter, in the 

Committee’s experience, the power lines 

most typically encountered by most 

employers have a minimum clearance 

distance of 10 feet under Table A. As a 

result, employers could usually work 

closer to the lines under this option 

than under Option 2 (proposed 

§ 1926.1408(a)(2)(ii)). Table A in essence 

is based upon the same formula as is 

currently used in existing Subpart N. 

Therefore, the minimum clearance 

distance would be similar under Option 

3 (in proposed § 1926.1408(a)(2)(iii)) as 

under the existing requirements. 

The information in Table A (of 

proposed § 1926.1408) of the proposed 

rule is similar to information in Table 1 

of ASME B30.5–2004. The Committee 

believed that a table with specified 

clearance distances is more 

understandable than the formula set out 

in the existing Subpart N requirements. 

Proposed Table A is intended to be a 

clear way of conveying the minimum 

clearance distances. 

The enhanced safety that would result 

under this option would stem from the 

fact that, first, there would be an 

affirmative obligation on the employer 

to determine the power line voltage so 

that the correct Table A minimum 

clearance distance could be determined. 

Second, in addition to maintaining the 

minimum clearance distance specified 

in the Table, employers using this 

option would be required to implement 

the encroachment prevention and other 

measures specified in proposed 

§ 1926.1408(b). 

In reviewing C–DAC’s draft of this 

provision, the Agency realized that C– 

DAC inadvertently failed to explicitly 

state that the Table A minimum 

clearance distance must not be 

breached. Therefore, OSHA has 

modified proposed § 1926.1408(a)(2) to 

correct this error. The last sentence of 

the C–DAC language has been expanded 

to read as follows: 

If so, then the employer must follow the 

requirements in paragraph (b) to ensure that 

no part of the crane, load line, or load 

(including rigging and lifting accessories), 

gets closer to the line than the minimum 

clearance distance. 

Paragraph 1408(b) Preventing 

Encroachment/Electrocution 

Once the employer has determined 

that some part of the crane, load or load 

line could come within the work zone 

assessment trigger distance of 20 feet of 

a power line (see proposed 

§ 1926.1408(a)), if it chooses either 

Option (2) or (3) (of proposed 

§ 1926.1408(a)(2)(ii) and (iii)), it would 

be required to implement encroachment 

prevention measures to help ensure that 

the applicable minimum approach 

distance (20 feet under Option 2 or the 

Table A (of proposed § 1926.1408) 

distance under Option 3 is not 

breached.26 Most of the measures in this 

proposed paragraph are designed to 

help the employer maintain the 

appropriate distance and thereby 

prevent electrical contact while 

operating the equipment. Some of the 

measures are designed to prevent 

electrocution in the event of electrical 

contact. The committee believed these 

proposed requirements would add 

layers of protection to help keep 

employees safe from energized power 

lines. 

Paragraph 1408(b)(1) 

Under proposed 1408(b)(1) the 

employer would be required to conduct 

a planning meeting with the operator 

and other workers who will be in the 

area of the crane or load. This planning 

meeting must include reviewing the 

location of the power line(s) and the 

steps that will be implemented to 

prevent encroachment and 

electrocution. 

As discussed below, under this 

proposed paragraph, certain 

encroachment/electrocution prevention 

measures would be required (they are 

listed in proposed § 1926.1408(b)(1) 

through (3)). In addition, the employer 

would be required to select at least one 

additional measure from the list in 

proposed § 1926.1408(b)(4). In the 

planning meeting, the employer would 

be required to make that selection and 

review all the measures that will be 

used to comply with this section. The 

purpose of this proposed requirement is 

to ensure that the operator and other 

workers who will be in the area 

understand these measures and how 

they will be implemented. That 

understanding is important to their 

successful implementation. Because of 

the critical nature of these measures, 

and the seriousness of the consequences 

to the safety of the employees if they are 

not implemented correctly, the 

Committee believed that it is necessary 

for there to be a structured process by 

which the employer communicates this 

information. 

Paragraph 1408(b)(2) 

Proposed § 1926.1408(b)(2) would 

require that where tag lines are used 

they must be non-conductive. This 

provision would provide additional 

protection to those employees who 

would be exposed to electrical hazards 

in the event that the equipment, load 

line, tag line or load contacts a power 

line and the tag line they are holding 

becomes energized. 

Paragraph 1408(b)(3) 

Proposed § 1926.1408(b)(3) would 

require elevated: Warning lines, 

barricades or line of signs, in view of the 

crane operator equipped with flags or 

similar high-visibility markings, at 20 

feet from the power line (if using Option 

(2) (of proposed § 1926.1408(a)(2)(ii)) or 

at the minimum approach distance 

under Table A (if using Option (3) (of 

proposed § 1926.1408(a)(2)(iii)). This 

provision is designed to serve as a 

reminder to the operator that there are 

power lines with associated minimum 

clearance distances that must be met. 

Warning lines, barricades or a line of 

signs in the operator’s view equipped 

with high-visibility markings would 

also indicate to the operator where the 

minimum approach distance boundary 

is located. This would serve as one of 

two layers of protection (the second 

layer would consist of an additional 

means selected by the employer under 

proposed § 1926.1408(b)(4), discussed 

below). 

C–DAC discussed and ultimately 

rejected the idea of permitting a visual 

line on the ground which would mark 

the minimum approach distance 

because an operator would generally not 

notice or see a line on the ground and 

because, from where the operator sits, it 

would be particularly difficult for the 

operator to extrapolate from that line the 

location of the boundary in the air. The 

committee decided that these visual 

reminders need to be elevated, or as the 

proposed definition states, sufficiently 

elevated from the ground level to 

accurately enable the operator to judge 

the distance between the load, load line 

(including rigging and lifting 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59757 

accessories) or crane and the boundary 

marked by the elevated warning line. 

In reviewing the C–DAC draft of this 

provision, OSHA realized that there 

may be situations where the employer 

would not be able to place such a line 

so that it would be visible to the 

operator. In such a case, in order to have 

two layers of protection, it would be 

necessary to require that a dedicated 

spotter be used in addition to one of the 

other (non-spotter) methods described 

below in proposed § 1926.1408(b)(4). 

Therefore, OSHA is planning on 

modifying this proposed provision by 

adding the following after the last 

sentence in proposed § 1926.1408(b)(3): 

If the operator is unable to see the elevated 

warning line, a dedicated spotter must be 

used as described in § 1926.1408(b)(4)(ii) in 

addition to implementing either the measure 

described in § 1926.1408(b)(4)(i), (iii), (iv) or 

(v). 

The Agency requests public comment 

on this issue. 

Paragraph 1408(b)(4) 

This proposed section sets out a list 

of five prevention measures, from which 

the employer would be required to 

select at least one, when the employer 

elects to use either Option (2) or Option 

(3) under § 1926.1408(a)(2). In the 

Committee’s experience, the use of any 

one of these measures, in combination 

with the required measures listed 

elsewhere in proposed § 1926.1408(b), 

would be feasible and effective in 

protecting against encroachment/ 

electrocution. The first four measures 

are methods for encroachment 

prevention. The fifth measure is a 

method of electrocution prevention in 

the event of electrical contact with a 

power line. Specifically, the employer 

would be required to choose either: (i) 

A proximity alarm; (ii) the use of a 

dedicated spotter; (iii) a device that 

automatically warns the operator when 

to stop (i.e., a range control warning 

device); (iv) a device that automatically 

limits the range of movement of the 

equipment; or (v) an insulating link/ 

device. 

C–DAC believed that allowing the 

employer to choose from a variety of 

options for this second layer of 

protection would allow the employer to 

select a method that it believed would 

be suitable, would increase the 

likelihood of employer compliance and 

would be an effective approach to 

reducing power line related injuries and 

fatalities. 

In situations where an employer 

chooses the option of using a dedicated 

spotter, the employer would be required 

to meet the proposed requirements for 

spotters in proposed 

§ 1926.1408(b)(4)(ii). As specified in 

proposed § 1926.1408(b)(4)(ii)(A), the 

spotter would have to be equipped with 

a visual aid to assist in identifying the 

minimum clearance distance. The 

Committee concluded that a visual aid 

is needed for the spotter because of the 

difficulty in visualizing the minimum 

clearance distance boundary in the air 

(as discussed above). 

In the C–DAC version of this 

paragraph, examples of visual aids 

included a line painted on the ground, 

a clearly visible line of stanchions or a 

set of line-of-sight landmarks. An 

example of a clearly visible set of lineof-sight landmarks would be a fence 

post positioned behind the dedicated 

spotter and a building corner ahead of 

the spotter. 

In reviewing C–DAC’s draft of this 

provision, the Agency noted that that 

the stanchions and landmarks would 

have to be ‘‘clearly visible,’’ but that this 

language was not used with respect to 

the example of a painted line on the 

ground. Since all such visual aids 

would have to be clearly visible to be 

effective, and that was the evident 

intent of C–DAC, the Agency has 

modified the C–DAC language so that, 

in the proposed provision, all the listed 

examples would have to be ‘‘clearly 

visible.’’ This revision was also made in 

proposed § 1926.1407(b)(3)(i)(A). 

Under proposed 

§ 1926.1408(b)(4)(ii)(B)–(D), the spotter 

would have to be positioned so that he/ 

she can effectively gauge the clearance 

distance from the power line; the 

spotter, where necessary, must use 

equipment that enables him/her to 

communicate directly with the 

equipment operator; and the spotter 

must give timely information to the 

operator so that the required clearance 

distance can be maintained. C–DAC 

believed that each criterion is needed 

for the spotter to be able to be effective. 

Proposed § 1926.1408(b)(4)(iii) would 

give the employer the option of using a 

device that automatically warns the 

operator when to stop movement, such 

as a range control warning device. Such 

a device must be set to give the operator 

sufficient warning to prevent 

encroachment. ‘‘Range control warning 

device’’defined in § 1926.1401 as ‘‘a 

device that can be set by an equipment 

operator to warn that the boom or jib tip 

is at a plane or multiple planes.’’ For 

example: an employer has chosen the 

option of maintaining a 20 foot distance 

from the power line. Under proposed 

§ 1926.1408(b)(4), it has chosen to use a 

range control warning device to help 

maintain that distance. The device 

would have to be set to alert the 

operator in time to prevent the boom, 

load line or load (which ever is closest 

to the line) from breaching that 20 foot 

distance. As a practical matter, the 

device would have to be set to sound 

the warning more than 20 feet from the 

line, since the operator will need some 

time to react and to account for the 

momentum of the equipment, load line 

and load. 

Proposed § 1926.1408 (b)(4)(iv) would 

give the employer the option of using a 

device that automatically limits the 

equipment’s range of motion and is set 

to prevent encroachment. Such a device 

could be particularly suitable for tower 

cranes, for which the swing angle can be 

programmed so that the operator cannot 

move the boom or jib past a certain 

range. The Committee recognized that it 

may be more technically difficult to 

apply swing limitation devices for use 

in mobile cranes but believed that the 

technology may develop so that they 

could be used in such cranes. 

As noted above, the insulating link 

option that would be available under 

proposed § 1926.1408(b)(4)(v) would not 

protect against encroachment but would 

provide protection to employees 

handling the load against electrocution 

in the event encroachment did occur. 

Such a device would have to be 

installed between the end of the load 

line and the load. When so installed, it 

prevents the load from becoming 

energized in the event the load line or 

other part of the equipment makes 

electrical contact with a power line. 

Preventing the load from becoming 

energized helps protect riggers, who 

often guide crane loads manually and 

who are therefore at high risk of being 

electrocuted if a load becomes 

energized. 

As stated in proposed § 1926.1401, 

‘‘Insulating link/device’’ would be 

defined as ‘‘an insulating device that 

has been listed, labeled, or accepted by 

a Nationally Recognized Testing 

Laboratory in accordance with 29 CFR 

1910.7.’’ This proposed definition 

reflects the Committee’s concern that 

there be some assurance that the 

insulating link/device would work as 

intended. That assurance would be 

accomplished by requiring that such 

link/device be approved by a Nationally 

Recognized Testing Laboratory. 

Paragraph 1408(b)(5) 

Employers engaged in construction of 

electric transmission and distribution 

lines, which is regulated by 29 CFR part 

1926 subpart V (§§ 1926.950 through 

960), would also have to meet the 

requirements in proposed § 1926.1408, 

with several exceptions. First, in 

accordance with proposed 

§ 1926.1408(b)(5), work involving 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59758 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

27As noted in the introduction, C–DAC included 

a member from the electric utility industry. 

cranes/derricks that is covered by 

Subpart V would not be required to 

comply with the proposed requirements 

in § 1926.1408(b)(4). Subpart V applies 

to the construction of electric 

transmission and distribution lines and 

equipment, which includes the 

alteration, conversion, and 

improvement of existing lines and 

equipment. Thus, when employees are 

engaged in Subpart V work near 

energized lines, by the nature of the job, 

their full attention is on the power lines. 

Subpart V contains additional 

requirements to protect those employees 

against making electrical contact with 

the lines. These include requirements in 

§ 1926.950(c) for guarding the line or 

using insulation (such as insulating 

gloves) to prevent electrical contact. 

Non-Subpart V workers, by contrast, do 

not work directly with the lines, and 

their attention is primarily directed 

elsewhere. In view of these differences, 

the Committee believed that the 

protective measures listed in proposed 

§ 1926.1408(b)(4) were not necessary for 

Subpart V work. 

Second, as explained below in the 

discussion of proposed § 1926.1410, 

when certain prerequisites are met, the 

employer would be permitted to use the 

minimum clearance distances in 

Subpart V’s Table V–1. Also explained 

in that discussion is that where 

additional prerequisites are met, work 

would be permitted closer than the 

Table V–1 distances. 

Third, an employer engaged in 

Subpart V work would not be subject to 

the restrictions regarding operations 

below power lines, as explained in the 

discussion below of proposed 

§ 1926.1408(d). 

Paragraph 1408(c) Voltage Information 

This proposed section operates in 

conjunction with proposed 

§ 1926.1408(a)(2)(iii) (Option 3—Table 

A clearance). Where an employer elects 

to use Option (3) (of proposed 

§ 1926.1408(a)(2)(iii)), it would be 

required under proposed 

§ 1926.1408(a)(2)(iii)(A) to determine 

the voltage of the power lines. Under 

proposed § 1926.1408(c), utility owners/ 

operators of these lines must provide 

the requested voltage information 

within two working days of the request. 

The Committee believed that for 

Option (3) (of proposed 

§ 1926.1408(a)(2)(iii)) to be viable, a 

reasonable time limit for the utility 

owner/operator to respond is needed. 

Employers must generally rely on the 

utility owner/operator to provide the 

voltage of the power line. The 

Committee was concerned that an 

extended delay in obtaining the 

information would lead some employers 

to do the work anyway without the 

information. The committee believed 

that two business days would be a 

reasonable amount of time to allow the 

utility owners/operator to respond and 

be sufficiently short to be useful to the 

employer requesting the information.27

As discussed above with respect to 

proposed § 1926.1407(e), the Agency 

would interpret ‘‘working days’’ to 

mean Monday through Friday, 

excluding federal holidays, unless this 

rule contains a different definition, and 

is asking for comment on whether a 

different definition should be included 

in the rule. 

Paragraph 1408(d) Operations Below 

Power Lines 

The Committee believed that there is 

a substantially enhanced likelihood of 

breaching the applicable minimum 

clearance distance when a crane 

operates below a power line. This is due 

to several factors, including the greater 

difficulty of judging the distance to the 

line when the line is above the 

equipment and the fact that in most 

such situations the operator has to 

purposely look up to see the line (and 

therefore is more likely to forget its 

location or that it is there). 

This proposed section addresses this 

problem by prohibiting any part of a 

crane, load or load line (including 

rigging and lifting accessories) from 

being below a power line unless the 

employer has confirmed with the utility 

owner/operator that the power line is 

deenergized and visibly grounded at the 

worksite or unless the employer can 

demonstrate that it meets one of the four 

exceptions in proposed 

§ 1926.1408(d)(2). 

The first exception, 

§ 1926.1408(d)(2)(i), is that the work the 

employer is doing is covered by 29 CFR 

part 1926 subpart V. Subpart V work 

involves work on the power line itself 

and commonly requires equipment to 

operate below a power line. As 

explained above with respect to 

proposed paragraph § 1926.1408(b)(5), 

Subpart V work does not require all of 

the precautions required of other work 

because the full attention of the workers 

is directed at the power line. The 

Committee believed that the other 

precautions required during Subpart V 

work would provide adequate 

protection when equipment operates 

below power lines during Subpart V 

work. 

The second exception, 

§ 1926.1408(d)(2)(ii), would be for 

equipment with non-extensible booms 

and the third exception, 

§ 1926.1408(d)(2)(iii), would be for 

equipment with articulating or 

extensible booms. These exceptions 

would apply when the boom, either at 

its most vertical point (for nonextensible booms) or at its fullest 

extension (for extensible booms), will be 

more than 20 feet below the plane of the 

power line or more than the Table A (of 

proposed § 1926.1408) minimum 

clearance distance below the plane of 

the power line. Where this criterion is 

met, it is not possible for the minimum 

clearance distance to be breached. 

The last exception, 

§ 1926.1408(d)(2)(iv), is where the 

employer can demonstrate that it is 

infeasible to comply with proposed 

§ 1926.1408(d)(1), which prohibits any 

part of a crane, load or load line from 

being below a power line unless the line 

is deenergized and visibly grounded. 

Under this proposed exception, the 

employer must not only show that 

compliance with § 1926.1408(d)(1) is 

infeasible, it must also comply with the 

requirements in proposed § 1926.1410. 

Proposed § 1926.1410 governs 

equipment operations closer than the 

Table A (of proposed § 1926.1408) 

minimum approach distances. The 

Committee believed that in such 

instances those additional protective 

measures are needed to prevent the 

minimum clearance distance 

established under proposed 

§ 1926.1410(c) from being breached and 

to protect the employees in the event of 

electrical contact with the power line. 

Paragraph 1408(e) Power Lines 

Presumed Energized 

This proposed paragraph would 

require employers to assume that all 

power lines are energized unless the 

utility owner/operator confirms that the 

power line has been and continues to be 

deenergized and visibly grounded at the 

worksite. This fundamental precaution 

is essentially the same as currently in 

Subpart N at § 1926.550(a)(15)(vi). 

Paragraph 1408(f) 

Proposed paragraph (f) addresses the 

danger that employees could receive 

electrical shock from equipment that is 

operating near a transmission or 

communication tower. During such 

operation, the equipment could act as 

an antenna and become energized by the 

electromagnetic signal emitted by the 

tower. When the equipment is close 

enough for an electrical charge to be 

induced in the equipment or load, 

proposed § 1926.1408(f) would require 

the transmitter to be deenergized or the 

following precautions taken: the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59759 

28As described earlier, the ‘‘10 foot rule’’ is 

shorthand for the formula in existing 29 CFR 1926, 

Subpart N for minimum clearance distances. Under 

the 10 foot rule, for lines rated 50 kV or less, work 

is not permitted closer than 10 feet to an energized 

power line. For lines rated more than 50 kV, a 

clearance of 10 feet plus .4 inch for each 1 kV over 

50 kV is required. 

equipment must be grounded, and nonconductive rigging or an insulating link/ 

device must be used. 

Currently, Subpart N, at 

§ 1926.550(a)(15)(vii), requires that 

when equipment is close enough to a 

transmission tower for an electrical 

charge to be induced, the equipment 

must be grounded and a ground jumper 

cable must connect the load to the 

equipment. In addition, nonconductive 

poles having large alligator clips or 

other similar protection must be used to 

connect the ground jumper cable to the 

load. By connecting the load to the 

grounded equipment, any electrical 

charge induced in the load will be 

dissipated. In the Committee’s 

experience, this precaution is neither 

necessary nor commonly taken. The 

Committee believed that the proposal’s 

requirement for nonconductive rigging 

or an insulating link reflects current safe 

industry practice. 

OSHA notes that the requirement for 

nonconductive rigging or an insulating 

link in proposed § 1926.1408(f) is a 

fundamentally different approach than 

requiring a ground jumper cable to be 

used as specified in current 

§ 1926.550(a)(15)(vii). The latter 

connects the load to the equipment and 

grounds the load, while proposed 

paragraph (f) would insulate the load 

from the equipment. It appears that only 

an employee who is contacting the load 

would be affected by this provision. The 

Agency requests public comment on the 

following questions: (1) Is it necessary 

to take special precautions to ground the 

equipment to protect an employee who 

contacts the equipment? (2) Are 

employees best protected by proposed 

paragraph (f), by current Subpart N, or 

by some other means, such as requiring 

that they only handle the load with an 

insulated tag line or other means of 

insulation? 

Paragraph 1408(g) Training 

During C–DAC discussions, members 

stressed the importance of providing 

appropriate training to operators and 

their crew regarding power line safety. 

The Committee believed that training is 

a necessary component in reducing 

crane related fatalities. 

The training topics listed are designed 

to ensure that both the operator and the 

other crew members have the 

information they need to protect 

themselves from power line hazards. 

The Committee believed that training 

for power line safety should not be 

limited to operators because any crew 

member who is near the equipment is 

potentially at risk of electrocution. 

The Agency notes that proposed 

§ 1926.1408(g) does not address the 

timing and frequency of this training. 

OSHA requests public comment on 

whether and, if so, how the standard 

should address training timing and 

frequency. 

In addition, proposed 

§ 1926.1408(g)(1)(i)(E) would requiring 

training in the need to avoid 

approaching or touching ‘‘the 

equipment.’’ OSHA believes that C– 

DAC inadvertently failed to add the 

phrase ‘‘and the load’’ to this provision, 

since whenever the equipment is in 

electrical contact with a power line, the 

load may also be energized. OSHA 

requests public comment on whether 

this provision should be modified to 

correct this omission. 

Paragraph 1408(h) 

This proposed provision would 

require that where devices originally 

designed by the manufacturer for use as 

safety devices, operational aids, or a 

means to prevent power line contact or 

electrocution are used to comply with 

proposed § 1926.1408, they must meet 

the manufacturer’s procedures for use 

and conditions of use. The Committee 

believed that this provision is necessary 

to ensure that the devices will work as 

intended. 

OSHA notes that § 1926.1408 uses the 

term ‘‘range limit device’’ in 

§ 1926.1408(a)(1)(i) but that no 

definition of this term is provided in 

§ 1926.1401. OSHA believes that C–DAC 

understood a range limit device to be a 

device that physically limits how far a 

crane can boom out and the angle 

within which the boom can swing. 

OSHA requests public comment on 

whether a definition of ‘‘range limit 

device’’ should be added to § 1926.1401 

and, if so, whether the definition in this 

paragraph is appropriate. 

Section 1409 Power Line Safety (Over 

350 kV) 

Under this proposed section, the 

requirements in proposed §§ 1926.1407 

and 1926.1408 would apply to power 

lines rated over 350 kV in all respects 

except one: wherever the regulatory text 

states ‘‘20 feet,’’ ‘‘50 feet’’ is substituted. 

Therefore, the ‘‘trigger’’ distance that 

would be used when assessing the work 

zone would be 50 feet. In addition, an 

employer engaged in assembly/ 

disassembly that is using Option 2 of 

proposed § 1926.1407 (a)(2), or an 

employer engaged in crane operations 

that is using Option 2 of proposed 

§ 1926.1408(a)(2)(ii), would be required 

to maintain a minimum clearance 

distance of 50 feet. This would apply to 

all power lines rated over 350 kV, 

including power lines over 1,000 kV. 

For power lines over 1,000 kilovolts, 

employers electing to use Table A (of 

proposed § 1926.1408 in either 

assembly/disassembly (Option 3 in 

proposed § 1926.1407(a)(3)) or crane 

operations (Option 3 in proposed 

§ 1926.1408 (a)(2)(iii) would be 

required, pursuant to instructions in the 

Table, to maintain a minimum clearance 

distance determined by the utility 

owner/operator or a registered 

professional engineer who is a qualified 

person with respect to electrical power 

transmission and distribution. 

In reviewing this regulatory language, 

OSHA recognized that a minimum 

clearance distance of 50 feet may be 

inadequate for the open-ended category 

of ‘‘over 1,000 kV.’’ In fact, at some 

point in that range, a utility owner/ 

operator or a registered professional 

engineer may well specify a minimum 

clearance distance of more than 50 feet. 

However, as currently drafted, 

employers using Option 2 (in both 

proposed § 1926.1407(a)(2) and 

§ 1926.1408(a)(2)(ii)) would only have to 

maintain a minimum clearance distance 

of 50 feet. OSHA requests public 

comment on whether Option 2 is 

insufficiently protective for power lines 

rated over 1,000 kV. 

Section 1410 Power Line Safety (All 

Voltages)—Crane Operations Closer 

Than the Table A Zone 

The existing Subpart N requirements 

do not permit work closer than the 10 

foot rule.28 The only exceptions to the 

10 foot rule are where the lines are 

deenergized and visibly grounded or 

where insulating barriers, separate from 

the equipment, have been erected. 

However, the Committee recognized 

that many employers, without meeting 

the exceptions, nonetheless work closer 

than the 10 foot rule. 

Specifically, the Committee believed 

that most employers do not use the 

option to deenergize and ground 

because of the time, expense and 

difficulty in making those arrangements. 

In addition, the Committee concluded 

that an ‘‘insulating barrier’’ of the type 

that is currently available does not, by 

itself, adequately protect employees 

because these barriers are only effective 

for ‘‘brush’’ contact. If there is more 

than brush contact, they will not protect 

employees from electrocution because 

the equipment will pierce the device. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59760 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

In order to address the insufficient 

protections provided to employees who 

work closer than the 10 foot rule, the 

Committee developed a new approach, 

which is contained in proposed 

§ 1926.1410. It consists of prerequisites 

and criteria that would apply when 

work must be conducted closer than the 

minimum clearance distance specified 

in Table A (of proposed § 1926.1408). 

The Committee believed that these 

provisions would be both realistic and 

effective for safely working in these 

circumstances. 

This proposed section starts out by 

explicitly prohibiting equipment from 

operating closer than the distances 

specified in Table A (of proposed 

§ 1926.1408) of an energized power line 

except where the employer 

demonstrates compliance with the 

requirements in proposed § 1926.1410. 

Note that, in the discussion below of 

proposed § 1926.1410, references to a 

‘‘registered professional engineer’’ are, 

in accordance with proposed 

§ 1926.1410(c)(1), references to a 

registered professional engineer who is 

a qualified person with respect to 

electrical power transmission and 

distribution. 

Paragraphs 1410(a) and (b) 

These proposed paragraphs set forth 

prerequisites that must be met for the 

employer to be permitted to operate 

equipment closer to a power line than 

the applicable Table A (of proposed 

§ 1926.1408) distance. Proposed 

§ 1926.1410(a) would require the 

employer to determine that it is 

infeasible to do the work without 

breaching the minimum approach 

distance under Table A. If the employer 

determines it is infeasible to maintain 

the Table A distance, under proposed 

§ 1926.1410(b) it would also have to 

determine, after consulting with the 

utility owner/operator, that 

deenergizing and grounding the power 

line, as well as relocating the line, are 

infeasible. 

Paragraph 1410(c) Minimum Clearance 

Distance 

After the employer makes the 

infeasibility determinations required by 

proposed § 1926.1410(a) and (b), a 

minimum clearance distance would 

have to be established. Under proposed 

§ 1926.1410(c)(1), the employer can 

establish this distance by either having 

the utility owner/operator determine the 

minimum clearance distance that must 

be maintained or by having a registered 

professional engineer who is a qualified 

person with respect to electrical 

transmission and distribution determine 

the minimum clearance distance that 

must be maintained. The Committee 

believed that either of these sources of 

this information has sufficient expertise 

to accurately apply the factors discussed 

below in setting an appropriate 

minimum clearance distance. 

Under proposed § 1926.1410(c)(1), 

regardless of whether it is the utility 

owner/operator or a registered 

professional engineer that makes this 

determination, several factors must be 

considered when establishing the 

minimum clearance distance. These 

factors include, but are not limited to: 

Conditions affecting atmospheric 

conductivity; time necessary to bring 

the equipment, load and load line 

(including rigging and lifting 

accessories) to a complete stop; wind 

conditions; degree of sway in the power 

line; lighting conditions, and other 

conditions affecting the ability to 

prevent electrical contact. 

Under proposed § 1926.1410(c)(2), the 

proposed requirement in 

§ 1926.1410(c)(1) described above 

would not apply to work covered by 

part 1926 subpart V. Instead, the 

minimum clearance distance specified 

in § 1926.950 Table V–1 would apply. 

This proposed paragraph, along with the 

other proposed provisions affecting 

work covered by Subpart V, are 

discussed below at the end of the 

portion of this preamble addressing 

proposed § 1926.1410. 

Paragraph 1410(d) 

Once a minimum clearance distance 

has been established, under proposed 

§ 1926.1410(b) the employer would be 

required to have a planning meeting 

with either the owner/operator of the 

power line or the registered professional 

engineer to determine what procedures 

will be implemented to prevent 

electrical contact and electrocution. In 

accordance with proposed 

§ 1926.1410(e), these procedures would 

have to be documented and 

immediately available on-site. In 

addition, in accordance with proposed 

§ 1926.1410(f) and (g), these procedures 

would have to be reviewed with the 

operator and other workers who will be 

in the area of the equipment and the 

procedures must be implemented 

(proposed § 1926.1410(e)–(g) are 

discussed below). 

Proposed § 1926.1410(d) sets out the 

minimum protective measures which 

would have to be included in the 

procedures set by the employer and 

utility owner/operator (or registered 

professional engineer). The committee 

believed that these procedures need to 

include more stringent protective 

measures than those set out in proposed 

§ 1926.1408, because equipment will be 

in closer proximity to power lines and 

there would otherwise be a greater risk 

of contacting a power line and causing 

electrocution. Therefore, these 

procedures would have to include, at 

the minimum, the following: 

Paragraph 1410(d)(1) 

Under proposed paragraph (d)(1), for 

power lines that are equipped with a 

device that automatically reenergizes 

the circuit in the event of a power line 

contact, the automatic reclosing feature 

of the circuit interrupting device must 

be made inoperative prior to beginning 

work. This would help ensure that, in 

the event of a power line contact and 

activation of the automatic reclosing 

feature, the line would not be 

automatically re-energized. 

Paragraph 1410(d)(2) 

Under proposed paragraph (d)(2), a 

dedicated spotter who is in continuous 

contact with the operator would have to 

be used. In addition, the dedicated 

spotter must be equipped with a visual 

aid to assist in identifying the minimum 

clearance distance, must be positioned 

to effectively gauge the clearance 

distance, where necessary must use 

equipment that enables him or her to 

communicate directly with the operator, 

and the spotter must give timely 

information to the operator so the 

required clearance distance can be 

maintained. The need for a spotter 

meeting this criteria is explained above 

in the discussion of proposed 

§ 1926.1408(b)(4)(ii). 

Paragraph 1410(d)(3) 

Under proposed paragraph (d)(3), an 

elevated warning line, or barricade that 

is not attached to the equipment, 

positioned to prevent electrical contact, 

would have to be used. This warning 

line or barricade must be in view of the 

operator either directly or by use of 

video equipment and must be equipped 

with flags or similar high-visibility 

markings. The need for an elevated 

warning line or barricade is explained 

above in the discussion of proposed 

§ 1926.1408(b)(3). 

As discussed above in relation to 

proposed § 1926.1408(b)(3), there may 

be situations where the operator is not 

able to see an elevated warning line or 

barricade. To address such situations, 

under proposed § 1926.1408 or 

§ 1926.1409, OSHA is planning to 

change the regulatory text so that the 

employer would be required to use both 

a dedicated spotter and one of the other 

(non-spotter) measures listed in 

proposed § 1926.1408(b)(4). Here, when 

working closer than the Table A (of 

proposed § 1926.1408) clearance 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59761 

distance, C–DAC believed it is necessary 

to provide an additional layer of 

protection by requiring the use of video 

equipment to enable the operator to see 

the warning line or barricade. Therefore, 

in all cases when working closer than 

the Table A clearance distance, the 

operator will have ‘‘two sets of eyes’’ (in 

addition to other protection required 

under this proposed section) to ensure 

that the equipment maintains the 

minimum clearance distance 

established under proposed 

§ 1926.1410(c). 

As explained in, Subpart V-working 

closer than Table A, that follows the 

discussion of § 1926.1410(k), this 

provision would not apply to subpart V 

work. 

Paragraph 1410(d)(4) Insulating Link/ 

Device 

Under proposed paragraph (d)(4), an 

insulating link/device would have to be 

installed at a point between the end of 

the load line (or below) and the load. An 

insulating link is a barrier to the passage 

of electrical current. When used on a 

crane, it prevents the load from 

becoming energized if the boom or the 

load line makes electrical contact with 

a power line. In such situations it 

protects employees who make contact 

with the load or are holding a tag line. 

As explained in, Subpart V-working 

closer than Table A, that follows the 

discussion of § 1926.1410(k), this 

requirement to install an insulating 

link/device would only apply when 

working closer than the § 1926.950 

Table V–1 clearance distances. 

Paragraph 1410(d)(5) 

Under proposed paragraph (d)(5), if 

the rigging may be closer than the Table 

A (of proposed § 1926.1408) distance 

during the operation, it would be 

required to be non-conductive rigging. 

This would provide protection to those 

employees who would be exposed to 

electrical hazards in the event that the 

rigging contacts a power line, which 

otherwise could energize the rigging and 

the load. 

Paragraph 1410(d)(6) 

Under proposed paragraph (d)(6), if 

the crane is equipped with a device that 

automatically limits range of movement, 

it would have to be used and set to 

prevent any part of the crane, load or 

load line (including rigging and lifting 

accessories) from breaching the 

minimum approach distance established 

under proposed paragraph (c) of 

§ 1926.1410. 

Paragraph 1410(d)(7) 

Under proposed paragraph (d)(7), if a 

tag line is used it would have to be nonconductive. This requirement would 

provide additional protection to those 

employees who would be exposed to 

electrical hazards in the event that the 

equipment contacts a power line and 

the tag line they are holding becomes 

energized, or in the event that the tag 

line makes contact with the power line. 

Paragraph 1410(d)(8) 

Under proposed paragraph (d)(8), 

barricades would have to be used to 

form a perimeter at least 10 feet away 

from the equipment to prevent 

unauthorized personnel from entering 

the work area. In areas where obstacles 

prevent the barricade from being at least 

10 feet away, the barricade would be 

required to be as far from the equipment 

as feasible. This provision, along with 

proposed § 1926.1410(d)(9) and (d)(10), 

would minimize the likelihood that any 

more employees than are absolutely 

necessary to the operation would be 

near the equipment in the event the 

equipment, load or load line makes 

electrical contact with the power line. 

Paragraph 1410(d)(9) 

Under proposed paragraph (d)(9), 

employees other than the operator 

would be prohibited from touching the 

load line above the insulating link/ 

device and equipment. It is the Agency’s 

understanding that the Committee’s 

rationale for not extending this 

prohibition to the operator is that the 

operator, by being in the cab, is going 

to be in electrical contact with both the 

equipment and load line. However, this 

assumes that the operator is in fact 

standing or sitting on the equipment. 

There may be some situations where 

this is not the case. For example, some 

equipment may be operated by pendant 

control or wireless control; in such 

cases the operator need not be on the 

equipment to control it. OSHA requests 

public comment on this issue. 

Paragraph 1410(d)(10) 

Under proposed paragraph (d)(10), 

only personnel essential to the 

operation would be permitted to be in 

the area of the equipment and the load. 

In conjunction with proposed 

§ 1926.1410(d)(8) and (d)(9), this would 

minimize the likelihood that any more 

employees than are absolutely necessary 

to the operation would be near the 

equipment in the event the equipment, 

load or load line makes electrical 

contact with the power line. 

Paragraph 1410(d)(11) 

Under proposed paragraph (d)(11), the 

equipment would be required to be 

properly grounded. In the event the 

equipment inadvertently makes 

electrical contact with the power line, 

proper grounding would protect 

employees in two ways. First, if the line 

is equipped with a circuit interrupting 

device, the grounding will result in a 

current surge that will trip the device 

and deenergize the line. Second, in the 

event an employee on the ground is 

touching the equipment when it 

contacts the power line, proper 

grounding will reduce the danger to the 

employee by providing an alternative, 

low resistance path to ground for the 

electric current. 

In reviewing this proposed paragraph, 

OSHA has identified what appears to be 

a conflict between this proposed 

provision and a provision in Subpart V’s 

§ 1926.952(c)(2)(iii) regarding grounding 

of equipment. This issue is explained 

under the heading, Subpart V work— 

working closer than Table V–1, that 

follows the discussion of § 1926.1410(k). 

Paragraph 1410(d)(12) 

Under proposed paragraph (d)(12), 

insulating line hoses or cover-ups 

would be required to be installed by the 

utility owner/operator except where 

such devices are unavailable for the line 

voltages involved. The Committee noted 

that Subpart N, at § 1926.550(a)(15), 

currently allows such insulating barriers 

to be used as a complete alternative to 

deenergizing and grounding or to 

maintaining the applicable minimum 

clearance distance from the power line. 

However, the Committee believed that 

such insulating devices do not provide 

complete protection because they can be 

pierced if the equipment makes more 

than brushing contact with the device. 

However, the Committee believed that 

these insulating devices do provide 

protection if there is brushing contact 

and that such devices are useful to 

supplement the other protective 

measures provided by the requirements 

of this proposed § 1926.1410(d). 

Paragraph 1410(e) 

Under proposed paragraph (e), the 

procedures that are developed to 

comply with proposed § 1926.1410(d) 

would have to be documented and 

immediately available on-site. This 

would ensure that these procedures are 

available to be used as a reference while 

the work is in progress. 

Paragraph 1410(f) 

Under proposed paragraph (f), the 

equipment user and utility owner/ 

operator would be required to meet with 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59762 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

29Since C–DAC developed its consensus 

document, OSHA has proposed t amend part 1926 

subpart V by, among other things, replacing Table 

V–1. 70 FR 34821 (June 15, 2005). If OSHA issues 

a final rule modifying Subpart V before issuing a 

final rule based on this proposal, OSHA will take 

into account any modifications to Subpart V, 

including Table V–1, in drafting this final rule. 

30The only exceptions to the application of this 

proposed rule to subpart V of part 1926 V of part 

1926 work are those contained in §§ 1926.1407– 

1411; all other aspects of the proposed rule would 

apply. This is consistent with the current Subpart 

V, for § 1926.952(c) of Subpart V requires 

equipment operating near power lines to comply 

with the current cranes and derricks standard in 

Subpart N. Therefore, the portion of the current 

§ 1926.952(c) that requires equipment operating 

near power lines to comply with the cranes and 

derricks standard would be retained. 

the equipment operator and the other 

employees who will be in the area of the 

equipment or load to review the 

procedures that are developed under 

proposed § 1926.1410(d) to prevent a 

breach of the minimum clearance 

distance established under proposed 

§ 1926.1410(c). The Committee believed 

that it is important that this review take 

place so that the operator and other 

employees understand this critical 

information and have the opportunity to 

discuss the procedures with the utility 

owner/operator, who has a high level of 

expertise regarding the power lines. 

Paragraphs 1410(g) and (h) 

Under proposed paragraphs (g) and 

(h), the employer would be required to 

implement the procedures developed in 

accordance with proposed 

§ 1926.1410(d). The utility owner/ 

operator and all employers of the 

employees involved in the work would 

have to identify one person who will 

direct the implementation of the 

procedures. This person would have to 

direct the implementation of the 

procedures and have the authority to 

stop work at any time to ensure safety. 

The Committee believed that, in view 

of the fact that more than one employer 

is typically involved in these situations, 

coordination among the employers of 

these employees is needed for the 

protective measures to be effectively 

implemented. Once the operation is 

underway, safety-related orders 

typically need to be given and followed 

without delay. Since an employee of 

one employer typically would not 

immediately follow an instruction from 

another employer, it is necessary that, 

before these operations begin, all 

employees understand that the one 

designated person will have this 

authority. For these reasons, the 

Committee believed that there needs to 

be one person who all involved in the 

operation recognize as having this role 

and authority. 

Paragraph 1410(i). [Reserved.] This 

paragraph would be reserved because it 

is inconvenient for readers to determine 

whether ‘‘(i)’’ is being used as a letter or 

a roman numeral. 

Paragraph 1410(j) 

This proposed provision would 

require the employer to safely stop 

operations if a problem occurs with 

implementing the procedures in 

paragraph (d) or if there is an indication 

that those procedures are inadequate to 

prevent electrocution. In addition, this 

proposed provision would require that 

the employer either develop new 

procedures which comply with 

paragraph (d) or contact the utility 

owner/operator and have them 

deenergize and visibly ground or 

relocate the power line(s) before 

resuming operations. 

Paragraph 1410(k) 

This proposed provision would 

require that where a device originally 

designed by the manufacturer for use as 

a safety device, operational aid, or a 

means to prevent power line contact or 

electrocution is used to comply with 

proposed § 1926.1410 it must meet the 

manufacturer’s procedures for use and 

conditions of use. The Committee 

believed that this provision is necessary 

to ensure that the devices will work as 

intended. 

Subpart V Work—Working Closer Than 

Table A 

In considering the circumstances 

under which work closer than the Table 

A (of proposed § 1926.1408) distances 

would be permitted, C–DAC recognized 

that it was necessary to address the 

special circumstances of power line 

work covered by 29 CFR 1926 subpart 

V. That subpart applies to the erection 

of new electric transmission and 

distribution lines and equipment, and 

the alteration, conversion, and 

improvement of existing transmission 

and distribution lines and equipment. 

Currently, under subparts V and N of 

part 1926, employers engaged in subpart 

V work are not required to comply with 

the ‘‘10 foot rule.’’ Instead, with some 

exceptions, they are required to 

maintain the minimum clearance 

distances specified in subpart V’s Table 

V–1.29 Table V–1 has minimum 

clearance distances that are less than the 

‘‘10 foot rule’’ (and, therefore, less than 

the proposed rule’s Table A distances). 

As discussed below, under this 

proposed standard, employers engaged 

in subpart V work would continue to be 

permitted to use the Table V–1 

minimum clearance distances. However, 

C–DAC believed that additional 

protection is needed for these workers. 

Therefore, this proposed rule includes 

new prerequisites and criteria that must 

be met before the Table V–1 minimum 

clearance distances could be used.30

The Committee believed that it is 

appropriate for employers using 

equipment for subpart V of part 1926 

activities to work closer than the Table 

A (of proposed § 1926.1408) distances 

only where the prerequisites and criteria 

for doing so set out in proposed 

§ 1926.1410, which are applicable to all 

employers, are met. Therefore, for 

subpart V work, the employer would be 

required to maintain the clearance 

distances in Table A except where the 

employer demonstrates infeasibility. 

In addition, it would be required to 

implement most of the protective 

measures required by this proposed 

standard. As discussed above, Subpart V 

work would not be subject to the 

requirement for an additional protective 

measure from the list in proposed 

§ 1926.1408(b)(4). The Committee 

believed that, with certain exceptions 

explained below, such additional 

measure would not be necessary for 

such work. Also, subpart V work would 

not be subject to the prohibition in 

proposed § 1926.1408(d)(1) against 

equipment operating under power lines 

(see discussion above of proposed 

paragraph 1408(d)(2)(i)). 

However, when, as will often be the 

case, it is not feasible to maintain the 

Table A (of proposed § 1926.1408) 

distances for subpart V work, under 

proposed § 1926.1410(c)(2), the 

clearance distances in Table V–1 would 

normally apply. The Committee 

concluded that it was not necessary to 

require employers engaged in subpart V 

work to undertake the process in 

proposed § 1926.1410(c)(1) for 

establishing a minimum clearance 

distance when it is infeasible to comply 

with the Table A (of proposed 

§ 1926.1408) clearances. The existing 

clearance distances for subpart V work 

found in Table V–1 recognize that such 

work often requires that equipment get 

closer to the lines than the clearance 

distances specified in Table A and were 

specifically drafted to address subpart V 

work. Therefore, proposed § 1926.1410 

(c)(2) would exempt subpart V work 

from proposed § 1926.1410(c)(1) and 

would state instead that the minimum 

clearance distances specified in 

§ 1926.950 Table V–1 would apply. 

Furthermore, under proposed 

§ 1926.1410(d)(3), an employer engaged 

in subpart V work closer than the Table 

A distance would not be required to use 

an elevated warning line or barricade. It 

is the Agency’s understanding that the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59763 

31 In Subpart V, when equipment is considered 

energized, a number of Subpart V requirements are 

triggered. See, for example, § 1926.951(c)(1) 

(restricting use of metal or conductive ladders near 

energized equipment); § 1926.951(f)(3) (hydraulic 

tools used on or around energized equipment shall 

use nonconducting hoses); § 1926.953(c) (materials 

or equipment shall not be stored near energized 

equipment if it is practical to store them elsewhere). 

Committee’s rationale for this exclusion 

was that when subpart V work takes 

place closer than the Table A distances, 

a warning line would interfere with the 

tools, cables, and other material used in 

subpart V work. However, it is unclear 

to the Agency why this would also be 

the case if a barricade were used. The 

Agency requests public comment on 

this issue. 

The provisions of this proposed 

standard would necessitate certain 

conforming amendments to the subpart 

V provisions dealing with lifting 

equipment to eliminate obsolete 

requirements and promote clarity. 

Currently, § 1926.952(c)(1) reads as 

follows 

(c) Derrick trucks, cranes and other lifting 

equipment. (1) All derrick trucks, cranes, and 

other lifting equipment shall comply with 

subpart N and O of this part except: 

(i) As stated in § 1926.550(a)(15)(i) and (ii) 

relating to clearance (for clearances in this 

subpart see Table V–1) and 

(ii) Derrick truck (electric line trucks) shall 

not be required to comply with 

§ 1926.550(a)(7)(vi), (a)(17), (b)(2), and (e). 

These subpart V provisions would 

need to be modified in several respects. 

First, service trucks with mobile lifting 

devices designed specifically for use in 

the power line and electric service 

industries, such as digger derricks 

(radial boom derricks), when used in 

these industries for auguring holes to set 

power and utility poles, or handling 

associated materials to be installed or 

removed from utility poles, are 

excluded from the scope of this 

proposed standard. They would, 

however, continue to be covered by 

subpart V when used in this manner. 

Specifically, subpart V’s current 

requirement that the minimum 

clearance distances of Table V–1 be met 

when using such equipment would be 

retained when such equipment is used 

outside the coverage of the new cranes 

and derricks standard. 

Since these trucks, when used in the 

manner described, would be outside the 

scope of the new cranes and derricks 

standard, subpart V’s provision in 

§ 1926.952(c)(1)(ii) stating that derrick 

trucks need not comply with 

§§ 1926.550(a)(7)(vi), (a)(17), (b)(2), and 

(e), which incorporate the requirements 

of certain industry consensus standards, 

would no longer be necessary. 

Second, the subpart V provisions 

would be changed to reflect the 

terminology used in the scope section of 

this proposed standard and its new 

subpart designation (Subpart CC). With 

respect to ‘‘cranes and other lifting 

equipment,’’ § 1926.952(c)(1)(i) would 

be unnecessary since proposed 

§§ 1926.1407 through 1926.1411 of this 

proposed standard address the 

applicable minimum clearance 

distances, including the circumstances 

under which the clearance distances in 

Table V–1 would apply. 

Accordingly, § 1926.952(c)(1) would 

be amended to read: 

(c) Cranes and other lifting equipment. (1) 

All equipment covered by Subpart CC that is 

used for work covered by this standard 

[Subpart V], including cranes and other 

lifting equipment, shall comply with 

subparts CC and O of this part. 

(2) Service trucks with mobile lifting 

devices designed specifically for use in the 

power line and electric service industries, 

such as digger derricks (radial boom 

derricks), when used in these industries for 

auguring holes to set power and utility poles, 

or handling associated materials to be 

installed or removed from utility poles, must 

meet the applicable minimum clearance 

distance in Table V–1. 

Subpart V Work—Working Closer Than 

Table V–1 

Currently, § 1926.952(c)(2) recognizes 

that there are circumstances when the 

Table V–1 clearance distances cannot be 

maintained during Subpart V work and 

lists requirements that must be met 

when this is the case. OSHA believes 

that C–DAC intended to permit Subpart 

V work closer than the Table V–1 

clearances when the precautions in 

§ 1926.952(c)(2), as well as additional 

precautions contained in proposed 

§ 1926.1410(d), are followed. 

To make this clear, OSHA is 

proposing to add the following language 

to proposed § 1926.1410(c)(2): 

‘‘Employers engaged in Subpart V work 

are permitted to work closer than the 

distances in § 1926.950 Table V–1 

where both the requirements of this 

section and § 1926.950(c)(2)(i) and (ii) 

are met.’’ [Note that subsections (i) and 

(ii) are currently subsections (iii) and 

(iv) but would be renumbered under the 

proposed amended language of 

§ 1926.950(c)(2) discussed below]. 

OSHA requests public comment on this 

proposed addition. 

This proposed change would require 

conforming amendments to 

§ 1926.952(c)(2), which currently reads 

as follows: 

(2) With the exception of equipment 

certified for work on the proper voltage, 

mechanical equipment shall not be operated 

closer to any energized line or equipment 

than the clearances set forth in § 1926.950(c) 

unless: 

(i) An insulated barrier is installed between 

the energized part and the mechanical 

equipment, or 

(ii) The mechanical equipment is 

grounded, or 

(iii) The mechanical equipment is 

insulated, or 

(iv) The mechanical equipment is 

considered as energized. 

Under this proposed section, the 

precautions specified in paragraphs 

§ 1926.952(c)(2)(i) and (ii) would be 

required under proposed § 1926.1410(d) 

when equipment used in Subpart V 

work is operated closer than the Table 

V–1 clearances. Since these precautions 

would now be required by proposed 

§ 1926.1410(d), OSHA is proposing to 

delete them from Subpart V as 

redundant. OSHA is therefore proposing 

to amend § 1926.952(c)(2) to read as 

follows: 

(2) With the exception of equipment 

certified for work on the proper voltage, 

mechanical equipment shall not be operated 

closer to any energized line or equipment 

than the clearances set forth in § 1926.950(c) 

unless, in addition to the requirements in 

§ 1926.1410: 

(i) The mechanical equipment is insulated, 

or 

(ii) The mechanical equipment is 

considered as energized. 

OSHA requests public comment on 

the proposed amendments to 

§ 1926.950(c)(1) and (2) of Subpart V 

described above. 

In addition, OSHA notes that, under 

the current 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart V 

requirement in § 1926.952(c)(2), when 

doing Subpart V work closer than the 

Table V–1 distances, the equipment 

must be insulated or considered 

energized.31 However, proposed 

§ 1926.1410 does not have a similar 

requirement. Therefore, an employer 

engaged in Subpart V work that was 

closer than the Table V–1 distances 

would continue to be required (under 

§ 1926.952(c)(2)) to insulate or consider 

the equipment energized, but an 

employer engaged in non-Subpart V 

work at the same distance would not. 

The Agency requests public comment 

on whether such requirements should 

also apply to non-Subpart V work when 

working closer than the Table V–1 

distances. 

Finally, OSHA notes that in this zone, 

one of the options that an employer 

engaged in Subpart V currently has 

under § 1926.952(c)(2)(iii) is to insulate 

the equipment. Under proposed 

§ 1926.1410(d)(11), that employer would 

also have to ground the equipment. The 

Agency’s understanding of how 

equipment can be simultaneously 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59764 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

insulated and grounded is illustrated by 

the following example: Equipment that 

has a boom constructed of an insulating 

material (such as fiberglass) is typically 

mounted on a carrier (the ‘‘truck’’ 

portion of the equipment), which is 

constructed mostly of conductive 

material (i.e., steel). Because the boom 

(and the linkages, pneumatic and 

hydraulic lines, and other associated 

parts on the boom) is insulated, the 

equipment is considered insulated 

under (§ 1926.952(c)(2)(iii)). If the 

employer were to ground the carrier, the 

parts of the equipment that could form 

an electrical path to ground (the carrier 

and the conducting parts of the 

equipment forming an electrical path to 

the carrier, such as the load line and 

hoist) would be grounded. Therefore, 

the equipment would meet both the 

insulating option in § 1926.952(c)(2)(iii) 

and the proposed grounding 

requirement in proposed 

§ 1926.1410(d)(11). 

Subpart V Work—Summary 

The differences between how the 

proposed requirements for power line 

safety would apply generally to crane 

operations and how they would apply to 

an employer engaged in work covered 

by Subpart V are summarized in the 

following table: 

Non-Subpart V Work Subpart V Work 

When Using Table A Distances 

§ 1926.1408: 

Must pick one additional prevention measure from list in 

§ 1926.1408(b)(4).

Additional measure not required (§ 1926.1408(b)(5)). 

§ 1926.1408(d): Operations below power lines generally precluded. Operations below power lines permitted (§ 1926.1408(d)(2)(i)). 

(All other requirements in § 1926.1408 would apply equally to both Non-Subpart V work and Subpart V) 

Working Closer Than Table A Distances 

§ 1926.1410: 

§ 1926.1410(c)(1) (utility or registered professional engineer sets 

minimum clearance distance).

Instead, use Subpart V’s Table V–1 minimum clearance distance 

(§ 1926.1410(c)(2)). 

§ 1926.1410(d)(3) (warning line or barricade) ................................... Not required. 

§ 1926.1410(d)(4) (insulating link) ..................................................... Only required if working closer than Table V–1 (§ 1926.1410(d)(4)(ii)); 

see below. 

Working Closer Than Table V–1 

[The proposed § 1926.1410 requirements would apply to all distances 

closer than those specified in Table A; there are no additional proposed requirements for working closer than the Table V–1 distances 

for non-Subpart V work].

(Under both § 1926.1410 and current § 1926.952(c)(2)). 

(Insulating link required under § 1926.1410(d)(4)) ................................... Must use insulating link (§ 1926.1410(d)(4)(ii)). 

Not required ....................................................................................... Equipment must be insulated or considered energized 

(§ 1926.952(c)(2)). 

(All other requirements in § 1926.1410 would apply equally to both Non-Subpart V work and Subpart V work) 

Section 1411 Power Line Safety -While 

Traveling 

This proposed section is designed to 

protect against electrical hazards while 

equipment is traveling with no load 

under power lines on construction sites. 

These proposed requirements would 

apply only to cranes/derricks while 

traveling on a construction site under 

power lines; they would not apply to 

equipment while traveling on roads (or 

in areas) that are not part of a 

construction site. 

The following scenario is an example 

of the parameters of the scope of this 

provision: A crane travels on a public 

road to the entrance of a new residential 

tract development. While traveling on 

the public road it passes under 

powerlines. No construction is taking 

place on the public road. The tract, 

including a road that runs through the 

development, is open to construction 

traffic but is otherwise closed to the 

public. In the development, homes are 

in various stages of construction. The 

crane enters the development and 

travels along the development road to 

the area where the crane is going to be 

operated. The crane will pass under 

power lines as it travels along this 

development road. 

In this scenario, proposed § 1926.1411 

would not apply with respect to the 

crane traveling along the public road to 

the entrance of the development, since 

that road is not part of a construction 

site. However, it would apply with 

respect to traveling under power lines 

on the development road since the 

development road is part of a 

construction site. 

It was the intention of the Committee 

that the requirements of proposed 

§ 1926.1411 apply only with respect to 

such equipment when traveling with no 

load. Power line hazards regarding 

equipment traveling on a construction 

site with a load would be governed by 

the proposed provisions in 

§§ 1926.1408, 1926.1409 and 1926.1410. 

The C–DAC draft of § 1926.1411(a) 

stated: 

(a) This section applies to equipment while 

traveling under a power line on the 

construction site with no load and the boom/ 

mast and boom/mast support system lowered 

sufficiently to meet the requirements of 

paragraph (b). 

In reviewing that draft, the Agency 

realized that it could be misconstrued to 

mean that the requirements of 

§ 1926.1411 would only apply once the 

crane was traveling under a power line; 

in other words, that no action would be 

required of an employer prior to the 

equipment being under the power line. 

To make it clear that there are certain 

proposed provisions in this section that 

would require the employer to make 

determinations and take action before 

the equipment is actually under the 

power line, the Agency has revised the 

Committee’s original language in 

§ 1926.1411(a) to read: 

(a) This section establishes procedures and 

criteria that must be met for equipment 

traveling under a power line on the 

construction site with no load. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59765 

This change clarifies that the 

employer would be required to make 

determinations and take certain actions 

prior to the equipment traveling under 

the power line. For example, under 

proposed § 1926.1411(b)(4), if any part 

of the equipment while traveling would 

get closer than 20 feet to the power line, 

the employer would be required to have 

a dedicated spotter who is in 

continuous contact with the operator. If 

this requirement were to only apply at 

the moment the equipment was under 

the power line, it would not serve the 

purpose of providing the operator with 

someone to assist in gauging the 

clearance distance while the equipment 

is traveling under the power line. 

In addition, the C–DAC draft of 

§ 1926.1411(a) included a reference to 

the boom/mast and boom/mast support 

system being lowered to meet the 

criteria specified in proposed 

§ 1926.1411(b). The Agency was 

concerned that inclusion of that 

reference could be misconstrued as 

meaning that the section is inapplicable 

where the boom/mast and boom/mast 

support system had not been 

sufficiently lowered. Therefore, the 

Agency has modified the paragraph by 

moving that reference to proposed 

1926.1411(b) to explicitly make it part 

of the required criteria for traveling 

under powerlines without a load. The 

C–DAC’s draft of 1926.1411(b)(1) stated: 

(b) The employer shall ensure that: 

(1) The clearances specified in paragraph 

(c), Table T, are maintained. 

This has been changed so that the 

proposed § 1926.1411(b)(1) and (b)(2) 

now state: 

(b) The employer shall ensure that: 

(1) The boom/mast and boom/mast support 

system are lowered sufficiently to meet the 

requirements of this paragraph. 

(2) The clearances specified in Table T of 

this section are maintained. 

Therefore, under these proposed 

provisions, the employer would be 

required to ensure that equipment 

traveling with no load on a construction 

site under a power line has the boom/ 

mast and boom/mast support system 

lowered sufficiently so that the 

clearances specified in Table T are 

maintained. 

In addition to maintaining the Table 

T minimum clearance distances, 

proposed § 1926. § 1926.1411(b)(3) 

would require the employer to ensure 

that the effects of speed and terrain are 

considered so that those effects do not 

cause the minimum clearance distances 

specified in Table T to be breached. 

OSHA is modifying the C–DAC 

language as follows to clarify this 

requirement. 

(b)(3) The effects of speed and terrain on 

equipment movement (including movement 

of the boom/mast) are considered so that 

those effects do not cause the minimum 

clearance distances specified in Table T of 

this section to be breached. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(4) would 

require the employer to use a dedicated 

spotter if any part of the equipment 

while traveling will get closer than 20 

feet to a power line. This provision 

would also require that the dedicated 

spotter be in continuous contact with 

the crane operator; be positioned to 

effectively gauge the clearance distance; 

where necessary, use equipment that 

enables the spotter to communicate 

directly with the crane operator; and 

give timely information to the crane 

operator so that the required clearance 

distance can be maintained. The 

Committee believed that each of these 

measures is necessary for the spotter to 

be effective. 

In reviewing proposed 

§ 1926.1411(b)(4), OSHA noted that the 

language ‘‘crane operator’’ was used 

rather than ‘‘driver.’’ For example, 

proposed § 1926.1411(b)(4) reads: 

(4) Dedicated spotter. If any part of the 

equipment while traveling will get within 20 

feet of the power line, the employer shall 

ensure that a dedicated spotter who is in 

continuous contact with the crane operator is 

used * * * 

Because proposed § 1926.1411 deals 

with power line safety while equipment 

is traveling without a load, OSHA 

recognizes that the language ‘‘crane 

operator’’ may not be appropriate in all 

situations. In some cases a crane 

operator may not be the driver of such 

equipment on the construction site. 

Therefore, OSHA is soliciting comments 

on whether the language ‘‘crane 

operator’’ used in proposed 

§ 1926.1411(b)(4) should be changed to 

‘‘driver’’ or ‘‘driver/operator.’’ 

The Committee members were also 

concerned about equipment traveling 

underneath power lines in low visibility 

situations, such as at night, in the rain 

or fog. The electrical hazards posed by 

power lines are exacerbated when the 

driver’s ability to see the power line is 

reduced. The Committee believed that 

additional precautions are necessary in 

light of this heightened danger. 

Therefore, proposed § 1926.1411(b)(5) 

would require the employer to ensure 

the power lines are either illuminated or 

another means of identifying them is 

used and a safe path of travel is 

identified. 

In reviewing the C–DAC draft of this 

provision, OSHA recognized that 

§ 1926.1411(b)(5)(ii) did not clearly state 

the Committee’s intentions. The 

committee intended for employers to 

both identify a safe path of travel and 

also use the identified safe path of 

travel. However, the C–DAC draft stated 

only that a safe path be ‘‘identified,’’ 

which only implicitly means that it be 

used. Therefore OSHA has revised the 

language in § 1926.1411(b)(5)(ii) from: 

(ii) A safe path of travel is identified. 

to read: 

(ii) A safe path of travel is identified and 

used. 

The proposed requirements of this 

section are similar to section 5–3.4.5.5 

of ASME B30.5–2004. The values in 

proposed Table T of proposed 

§ 1926.1411, which provides the 

minimum clearance distances while 

traveling with no load and a lowered 

boom, are substantially similar to the 

values used by ASME. The distinction 

between these proposed requirements 

and those requirements in ASME are 

that the proposed requirements govern 

equipment while traveling under a 

power line and the ASME provisions 

govern mobile cranes while in transit. 

ASME defined ‘‘transit’’ as the moving 

or transporting of a crane from one 

jobsite to another. 

The Agency notes that ASME B30.5– 

2004 calls for equipment in transit to 

maintain a specific clearance distance to 

power lines in accordance with Table 1 

of ASME B30.5. While proposed 

§ 1926.1411 governs equipment 

traveling without a load directly under 

power lines, it does not otherwise 

address the potential hazards associated 

with equipment traveling without a load 

near power lines. Further, as stated 

earlier, equipment traveling with a load, 

whether or not under a power line, 

would be considered ‘‘operations’’ and 

employers would have to comply with 

the proposed requirements in 

§ 1926.1408, 1926.1409, or 1926.1410 in 

such instances. 

However, equipment traveling 

without a load is not covered by either 

proposed § 1926.1410 (operations) or 

§ 1926.1411 (traveling under power 

lines). Therefore, OSHA requests public 

comment on whether it is necessary to 

establish requirements for equipment 

traveling on a construction site without 

a load near power lines. 

Additional Changes to the Regulatory 

Text In Proposed §§ 1926.1407–1411 

In the C–DAC draft of provisions 

dealing with the ‘‘trigger’’ distance for 

further action, the draft referred to 

situations in which the crane, load or 

load line could get ‘‘within’’ the trigger 

distance. Because of the potential for 

confusion as to whether ‘‘within’’ means 

breaching or not breaching that 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59766 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

distance, the Agency has changed 

‘‘within’’ to ‘‘closer than.’’ For example, 

the C–DAC draft of 1926.1407(a) read: 

Before assembling or disassembling a 

crane, the employer must determine if any 

part of the crane, load line or load (including 

rigging and lifting accessories) could get, in 

the direction or area of assembly, within 20 

feet of a power line during the assembly/ 

disassembly process. If so, the employer must 

meet the requirements in Option (1), Option 

(2), or Option (3) of, as follows: * * * 

This provision now reads: 

Before assembling or disassembling a 

crane, the employer must determine if any 

part of the crane, load line or load (including 

rigging and lifting accessories) could get, in 

the direction or area of assembly, closer than 

20 feet to a power line during the assembly/ 

disassembly process. If so, the employer must 

meet the requirements in Option (1), Option 

(2), or Option (3) of § 1926.1407(a), as 

follows: 

Section 1412 Inspections 

The purpose of this proposed section 

is to prevent injuries and fatalities 

caused by equipment failures. A key 

method of accomplishing this goal is 

through the use of an inspection process 

that identifies and addresses safety 

concerns. 

Currently, Subpart N requires the 

employer to designate a competent 

person to inspect all machinery and 

equipment prior to each use, and during 

use, to make sure it is in safe operating 

condition. Any deficiencies shall be 

repaired, or defective parts replaced, 

before continued use. 29 CFR 

1926.550(a)(5). In addition, Subpart N 

requires a thorough annual inspection of 

the hoisting machinery by a competent 

person or by a government or private 

agency recognized by the U.S. 

Department of Labor. 29 CFR 

1926.550(a)(6). 

Subpart N also contains inspection 

requirements for specific types of 

equipment that incorporate national 

consensus standards or manufacturer 

recommendations by reference. Section 

1926.550(b)(2) requires crawler, 

locomotive, and truck cranes to meet the 

inspection requirements of ANSI B30.5– 

1968, ‘‘Crawler, Locomotive and Truck 

Cranes’’ (with a modified version of the 

ANSI standard’s monthly inspection 

documentation requirement). Overhead 

and gantry cranes, under 

§ 1926.550(d)(4), must be inspected 

pursuant to ANSI B30.2.0–1967, 

‘‘Overhead and Gantry Cranes.’’ For 

derricks, § 1926.550(e) requires 

compliance with the inspection 

requirements of ANSI B30.6–1969, 

‘‘Derricks.’’ Hammerhead tower cranes 

must be inspected (§ 1926.550(c)(5)) and 

floating cranes and derricks must be 

tested (§ 1926.550(f)(2)(iii)) in 

accordance with manufacturer 

specifications. 

The Committee believed it would 

avoid confusion and promote 

compliance to establish, as far as 

possible, uniform inspection schedules 

and requirements applicable to all types 

of equipment. At the same time, it 

recognized that the wide variety of 

equipment covered by this proposed 

standard necessitated some equipmentspecific inspection provisions. Thus, 

proposed paragraphs (a) through (j) of 

this section would set inspection 

requirements for all covered equipment 

that would be supplemented by other 

sections of this proposed standard 

relative to specific equipment. The 

proposed section is structured so that 

the inspection requirements would be 

triggered by activity (e.g., equipment 

modification, repair/adjustment, 

assembly, severe service or equipment 

not in regular use) and the passage of 

time (e.g., shift, monthly and annual/ 

comprehensive). 

Note that for each of these 

inspections, as discussed in detail 

below, this proposed standard specifies 

a requisite level of qualification of the 

person conducting the inspection (for 

certain inspections, a competent person; 

for others a qualified person). However, 

like Subpart N, the proposed rule does 

not include a testing/evaluation 

requirement for such employees for 

assessing their ability to conduct the 

inspections. 

Since the C–DAC document was 

completed, crane accidents have 

occurred that have raised concerns 

regarding the level of expertise needed 

by those who inspect the equipment 

covered by this proposed standard. In 

§ 1926.1428, this proposed rule specifies 

a protocol for ensuring that signal 

persons have adequate expertise to 

perform their duties. The Agency 

requests public comment on whether a 

similar approach is needed for those 

who inspect equipment as required by 

this proposed standard. 

Paragraph 1412(a) Modified 

Equipment 

Proposed paragraph (a) would require 

an inspection (that includes functional 

testing) to be performed by a qualified 

person for equipment that has been 

modified or has additions that affect the 

safe operation of the equipment prior to 

initial use after that modification/ 

addition. In essence, the proposed 

provision would require assurance that 

such modifications or additions are 

performed in accordance with the 

approval obtained in proposed 

§ 1926.1434, Equipment modifications. 

Proposed § 1926.1412(a)(2) would 

prohibit the use of the equipment until 

that requirement was met. The purpose 

is to prevent modification-related 

equipment failure. 

This proposed paragraph is generally 

similar to consensus and government 

standards, including ANSI B30.5–1968, 

ASME B30.5–2004, COE (Corps of 

Engineers)—EM 385–1–1 (3–Nov–03), 

and DOE (Department of Energy)—STD– 

1090–2004 in that each require an 

inspection and some degree of 

functional testing prior to using 

equipment that has been modified/ 

altered. However, the inspection in the 

proposed paragraph differs from these 

in that it is limited to equipment that 

has modifications/additions that affect 

the safe operation of the equipment and 

is limited to confirming compliance 

with modifications or additions that are 

approved by the manufacturer or a 

registered professional engineer 

pursuant to § 1434. Further, this 

proposed paragraph does not contain a 

documentation requirement. 

The Committee was of the view that 

many changes made to equipment do 

not implicate safe operation, and 

application of an inspection 

requirement to such changes would be 

unnecessary and unduly burdensome. 

The proposed paragraph reflects this 

concern and is tailored to require this 

inspection only when the modification 

is of the type that could affect safety. As 

such, the inspection would only be 

required for modifications that affect 

‘‘safe operation’’ as illustrated by a nonexclusive list of examples 

(‘‘modifications or additions involving a 

safety device or operator aid, critical 

part of a control system, power plant, 

braking system, load sustaining 

structural components, load hook, or inuse operating mechanisms’’). 

The first criterion to be used in 

conducting the inspection (proposed 

§ 1926.1412(a)(1)(i)) is the modification 

approval obtained under proposed 

§ 1926.1434. This would ensure that the 

modification was accomplished as 

intended under that approval. 

The second criterion (proposed 

§ 1926.1412(a)(1)(ii)) is functional 

testing. This reflects the Committee’s 

view that functional testing is essential 

to ensuring that the modification was 

completed correctly. Such testing can 

reveal faults that often would not 

otherwise be apparent. 

As drafted, § 1926.1412(a)(1)(ii) 

would not limit the functional testing 

requirement to only those components 

that are or may be affected by the 

modification or addition but would 

require testing of the entire equipment. 

OSHA requests public comment on 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59767 

whether the provision should be 

modified to limit the functional testing 

requirement to those components that 

are or may be affected by the 

modification or addition. 

During the SBREFA process, a Small 

Entity Representative suggested adding 

an exception to proposed § 1926.1412(a) 

for ‘‘transportation systems,’’ by which 

the SER meant any system dispersing 

the weight of the crane for movement on 

the highways. The Panel recommended 

that OSHA solicit public comment on 

whether to include such an exception 

and, if so, what the appropriate 

terminology for such an exception 

would be. OSHA welcomes public 

comment on whether an explicit 

exception for such transportation 

systems should be included in 

§ 1926.1412(a). 

Paragraph 1412(b) Repaired/Adjusted 

Equipment 

Proposed paragraph (b) provides that 

equipment that has had a repair or 

adjustment that affects the safe 

operation of the equipment must be 

inspected (including functional testing) 

by a qualified person prior to initial use 

after the repair/adjustment. In summary, 

the qualified person would be required 

to determine if such repairs and 

adjustments have been performed in 

accordance with manufacturer 

equipment criteria. 

As defined in § 1926.1401, 

‘‘equipment criteria’’ include 

‘‘instructions, recommendations, 

limitations and specifications.’’ This 

definition is included to make clear that 

‘‘equipment criteria’’ is to be broadly 

construed to include the full range of 

information regarding the equipment’s 

functions and operation provided by the 

manufacturer. If those criteria were 

unavailable or inapplicable, the 

qualified person would be required to 

determine whether a registered 

professional engineer (RPE) is needed to 

develop criteria. If an RPE were not 

needed, a qualified person would be 

required to develop them. Use of the 

equipment would be prohibited until 

the inspection demonstrates that the 

repairs and adjustments met the criteria. 

The purpose of this provision is to avoid 

the failure of equipment due to 

improper repairs and adjustments. 

The Committee was of the view that 

many repairs and adjustments made to 

equipment do not implicate safe 

operation, and application of an 

inspection requirement to all repairs 

and adjustments would be unnecessary 

and unduly burdensome. The proposed 

paragraph reflects this concern by 

limiting this proposed inspection 

requirement to those repairs and 

adjustments that are of the type that 

could affect safety. A non-exclusive list 

of examples of repairs and adjustments 

that would trigger the inspection is 

included in the provision. 

The Committee believed that 

functional testing is essential to 

ensuring that a repair or adjustment has 

been completed correctly. Such testing 

can reveal faults that may not otherwise 

be apparent. 

As discussed above in relation to 

proposed § 1926.1412(a)(1)(ii), the 

functional testing requirement is not 

limited to those components that are or 

may be affected by the repair or 

adjustment. OSHA requests public 

comment on whether the provision 

should be modified to add such a 

limitation. 

The Agency believes that this 

inspection provision is needed to 

prevent injuries and fatalities from 

accidents caused by faulty repairs and 

adjustments. As evidenced by similar 

provisions in other standards (see 

COE—EM 385–1–1 (3–Nov–03), and 

DOE—STD–1090–2004; see also the 

consensus standard ASME B30.5–2004), 

the industry has recognized the hazards 

associated with improperly repaired and 

adjusted equipment and the importance 

of this type of inspection. 

Paragraph 1412(c) Post-Assembly 

Proposed paragraph (c) would require 

a post-assembly inspection of 

equipment by a qualified person prior to 

its use. In sum, the provision would 

require the qualified person to assure 

that the equipment is configured in 

accordance with the manufacturer’s 

equipment criteria. Where those criteria 

are unavailable, the equipment would 

have to meet criteria developed by 

either the qualified person or an RPE 

familiar with the equipment (if the 

qualified person decides that an RPE is 

needed). Equipment use would be 

prohibited until the inspection 

demonstrates that the criteria have been 

met. 

ANSI B30.5–1968, and ASME B30.5– 

2004 do not call for this type of 

inspection. COE in EM 385–1–1 (3 Nov 

03), Appendix H, does include a postassembly inspection. 

The Committee was of the view that 

a post-assembly inspection is needed 

because of the dangers associated with 

incorrectly assembled equipment. For 

example, the equipment’s load chart 

may overstate the equipment’s capacity 

if the equipment has been incorrectly 

assembled. Also, a component may be 

stressed beyond its design capacity if 

incorrectly assembled. 

The Committee considered whether to 

recommend requiring that this 

inspection be conducted by a person 

who is not only qualified but is also a 

‘‘competent person,’’ i.e., a person with 

the authority to take corrective action. 

The Committee ultimately decided that 

this would not be necessary because 

proposed § 1926.1412(c)(3) would 

prohibit the use of equipment until the 

post-assembly inspection demonstrates 

that the equipment is configured in 

accordance with the applicable criteria. 

Therefore, if the qualified person were 

to find that the equipment was 

incorrectly assembled, it could not be 

used until the error was corrected. 

Also discussed was whether a 

registered professional engineer (RPE), 

as opposed to a qualified person, is 

needed to develop the criteria for the 

equipment configuration where the 

manufacturer criteria are unavailable. 

The Committee agreed that an RPE 

would typically not be needed for, as 

one member stated, ‘‘a basic machine 

that goes together in a basic manner,’’ 

but that an RPE would be needed for 

some of the more complex types of 

equipment. As a result, the Committee 

found that it would be appropriate to 

have the qualified person determine if 

an RPE were needed to develop the 

criteria. 

Paragraph 1412(d) Each Shift 

Proposed paragraph (d) would require 

a shift inspection, the first of three 

regularly scheduled equipment 

inspections that would be required. 

Specifically, 1926.1412(d)(1) sets forth 

the frequency of this inspection, the 

degree of scrutiny required and the level 

of expertise required of the person 

performing this inspection. The 

proposed paragraph lists the items that 

would be required to be included in this 

inspection and specifies the corrective 

action that would be required. The 

purpose of this provision is to identify 

and address safety hazards before they 

cause accidents. 

This inspection (which would begin 

prior to each shift and be completed 

before or during that shift) is broadly 

similar to the current requirement in 29 

CFR 1926.550(a)(5) of Subpart N to 

conduct an inspection ‘‘prior to each 

use, and during use * * *’’ Similarly, 

several other current standards, 

including 29 CFR part 1926 subpart R 

(Steel Erection) and COE—EM 385–1–1 

(3–Nov–03) require some type of shift 

inspection for cranes. In contrast, ANSI 

B30.5–1968 as well as the more current 

ASME B30.5–2004, call for a ‘‘Frequent 

Inspection’’ at ‘‘daily to monthly’’ 

intervals. The ‘‘Frequent Inspection’’ in 

the ANSI/ASME standards, though, 

includes a reference to ‘‘observation 

during operation.’’ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59768 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

The ‘‘each shift’’ inspection in the 

proposed rule is designed to ensure that 

the equipment will be removed from 

service if there is a visually apparent 

deficiency that constitutes a safety 

hazard. The Committee considered 

adopting the ‘‘daily to monthly’’ 

inspection interval that is in the ANSI/ 

ASME B30.5 consensus standard, but 

determined that that approach was too 

vague for use as a mandatory OSHA 

requirement. Instead, the Committee 

found that, in accordance with longstanding, common industry practice, an 

inspection of the items listed in the 

proposed paragraph each shift is an 

appropriate means of ensuring that the 

equipment’s condition will be sufficient 

for safe operation. 

The Committee also discussed 

whether the shift inspection should be 

required to be completed before a shift’s 

crane operations begin. It determined 

that it is not necessary to complete the 

inspection in that short of a time frame. 

The Agency believes that this 

determination is reasonable for several 

reasons. First, this would be an 

inspection that would be done for every 

shift, and therefore would be done quite 

frequently. This would substantially 

diminish the likelihood that a critical 

problem would suddenly occur, since 

symptoms of such a problem developing 

would likely have been detected in prior 

shift inspections. 

Second, as discussed below, one of 

the purposes of the annual/ 

comprehensive inspection is to detect 

developing deficiencies that, while not 

yet safety hazards, need to be 

monitored. In such cases the employer 

under the annual/comprehensive 

requirements in proposed 

§ 1926.1412(f)(4) would be required to 

monitor them in the monthly 

inspections. Finally, the competent 

person that conducts the shift 

inspection would be required to reassess 

his or her determinations in light of 

observations made during the 

equipment’s operation. The Committee 

designed these proposed requirements 

to work together, and in light of that 

combined approach, the Agency 

believes that it would be sufficient for 

the shift inspection to be completed 

during the shift. 

The Committee also discussed the 

degree of scrutiny that would be 

required during the shift inspection. 

Specifically, it considered whether the 

shift inspection should involve any 

disassembly of the equipment. It 

determined that disassembly should not 

normally be needed for this type of 

inspection since its purpose is not to 

duplicate the annual/comprehensive 

inspection (which is where the 

equipment would be subjected to a level 

of scrutiny that would necessarily 

involve disassembly). Instead, 

disassembly would only be required 

where ‘‘the results of the visual 

inspection or trial operation indicate 

that further inspection necessitating 

disassembly is needed.’’ 

Finally, a competent person would be 

required to perform the shift inspection. 

The Committee believed that a person 

that meets the definition of a competent 

person (see the definition discussion 

above) is needed to perform the shift 

inspection for two reasons. First, such a 

person would have the capability to 

identify apparent deficiencies, 

determine if any disassembly was 

needed, and determine if the deficiency 

constitutes a safety hazard. Second, a 

competent person would have the 

authority necessary to take corrective 

action in the event a deficiency was 

such a hazard. 

OSHA anticipates that the equipment 

operator will often be used by the 

employer as the competent person who 

conducts the shift inspection. The 

operator will be at the site and, in most 

cases, by virtue of his or her 

qualification or certification under 

proposed §§ 1926.1427 and 1926.1430 

and experience and familiarity with the 

equipment, would meet the 

requirements for a competent person. 

However, the employer would have the 

flexibility to use someone else to 

conduct the shift inspection as long as 

that person met the definition of 

competent person. 

Proposed paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through 

(xiv) sets forth the list of items that, at 

a minimum, would be required to be 

inspected each shift. The Committee 

believes that this is an appropriate list 

for ensuring safety and builds on well 

established industry practice in terms of 

what needs to be inspected in this type 

of inspection. For example, the list is 

similar to the one for pre-shift 

inspections in 29 CFR Part 1926 subpart 

R, the list in ASME B30.5–2004 for its 

Frequent Inspection, and with the 

exception of a few additional items, to 

the list for Frequent Inspections in ANSI 

B30.5–1968. 

Overall, except as noted below in the 

discussion of the particular items on 

this list, the concerns of C–DAC 

members relative to this list focused on 

whether items not listed as ‘‘daily’’ 

inspection items but included instead in 

the ‘‘Frequent Inspection’’ list in ASME 

B30.5a–2002 (which are identical to 

those in the more recent ASME B30.5– 

2004 standard) should be inspected 

each shift. A concern was raised in the 

Committee meetings about the nature of 

the visual inspection and whether 

including all of the listed items in 

ANSI/ASME would be too burdensome. 

To address this concern, the Committee 

decided to include these items (and a 

few others) but to also include the 

language discussed above limiting the 

circumstances in which disassembly 

would be required. 

The following discussion addresses 

only those items for which the 

Committee recommended inspection 

descriptions that vary in some 

significant way from past or current 

consensus standards (apart from their 

being designated for inspection each 

shift). 

Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(ii) lists 

‘‘[c]ontrol and drive mechanisms for 

apparent excessive wear of components 

and contamination by lubricants, water 

or other foreign matter.’’ Though similar 

to the requirement in ANSI B30.5–1968 

and ASME B30.5–2004 (on the 

‘‘Frequent’’ list), and in 29 CFR part 

1926 subpart R, this provision reflects 

some differences. For example, unlike 

the ANSI/ASME standards (but similar 

to Subpart R), it adds ‘‘drive’’ 

mechanisms, which the Committee 

believed more accurately reflects the 

type of mechanisms that need to be 

inspected. In addition, ‘‘excessive’’ was 

added to account for the fact that some 

wear in these mechanisms is normal 

and not unsafe. The extent of wear 

needed to trigger further evaluation of 

the item is that which is apparently 

excessive. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(iii) 

addresses ‘‘[a]ir, hydraulic, and other 

pressurized lines for deterioration or 

leakage, particularly those which flex in 

normal operation.’’ This paragraph is 

similar to an item listed in ANSI 

B30.5—1968 and in ASME B30.5–2004, 

with the difference being the reference 

to ‘‘air’’ and ‘‘other pressurized lines.’’ 

These additions reflect the Committee’s 

belief that it is necessary to check all 

types of pressurized lines. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(v) lists 

‘‘[h]ooks and latches for deformation, 

cracks, excessive wear, or damage such 

as from chemicals or heat.’’ This 

substantially mirrors Subpart R, and is 

similar to ANSI B30.5–1968 and ASME 

B30.5–2004, but also differs in certain 

ways. First, the Committee believed that 

latches can be damaged by causes other 

than the examples listed. The proposed 

paragraph therefore adds the words 

‘‘such as’’ so that the examples listed 

would be a non-exclusive list. Second, 

the Committee believed that ‘‘heat’’ 

should be added as another example of 

a cause of damage to highlight this as an 

area of concern (since, for example, 

welding is sometimes done near a hook 

or latch). Finally, the proposed 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59769 

32Currently, 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart N contains 

a requirement specifying that the type of glazing in 

cabs must not cause ‘‘a visible distortion.’’ 

provision would require the competent 

person to inspect for ‘‘excessive wear,’’ 

as opposed to ‘‘wear.’’ This change was 

made because the Committee believed 

that hooks and latches are designed to 

withstand a degree of wear, and it is 

only when the wear is excessive that it 

is of concern. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(vii) lists 

‘‘[w]ire rope, in accordance with 

§ 1926.1413(a).’’ This item references 

the Shift Inspection provision of 

§ 1926.1413, Wire rope—inspection, 

which specifies how the wire rope 

would be required to be inspected in the 

shift inspection. As discussed below in 

the section of this Preamble on that 

proposed provision, the timing, degree 

of scrutiny, and level of expertise 

required of the person conducting the 

wire rope inspection essentially mirror 

those for proposed § 1926.1412(d)(1). 

This was done to ensure consistency 

with the wire rope inspections and the 

other general items inspected each shift. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(viii) lists 

‘‘[e]lectrical apparatus for 

malfunctioning signs of apparent 

excessive deterioration, dirt or moisture 

accumulation.’’ This essentially mirrors 

provisions in ANSI B30.5–1968 and 

ASME B30.5–2004 (for Frequent 

Inspection) and Subpart R except for the 

insertion of the word ‘‘apparent.’’ That 

word was added to be consistent with 

proposed § 1926.1412(d)(1)’s reference 

to ‘‘apparent deficiencies.’’ 

Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(ix) lists 

‘‘[t]ires (when in use) for proper 

inflation and condition.’’ ASME B30.5– 

2004 calls for tires be checked for 

‘‘inflation pressure’’ and Subpart R 

contains a similar provision, although it 

does not contain the ‘‘when in use’’ 

limitation. The Committee believed that 

it is unnecessary to check tires for 

proper inflation on equipment that is 

not in use. In addition, it decided to not 

include the word ‘‘pressure’’ because it 

believed that checking pressure each 

shift with a gauge is unnecessary and 

inconsistent with the visual nature of 

the shift inspection. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(x) lists 

‘‘[g]round conditions around the 

equipment for proper support, including 

ground settling under and around 

outriggers and supporting foundations, 

ground water accumulation, or similar 

conditions.’’ This item is new, in that it 

is not included in 29 CFR part 1926 

subpart N or the ANSI/ASME standards. 

The Committee believed that ground 

conditions can change from shift to 

shift, and in light of the critical 

importance of sufficient ground support, 

included this item in the C–DAC 

document. 

A nearly identical provision is 

included in 29 CFR part 1926 subpart R. 

However, the C–DAC provision differs 

from the Subpart R provision in that the 

language ‘‘and supporting foundations’’ 

was added by C–DAC to reflect that 

some cranes (particularly towers cranes) 

are set on surfaces other than ‘‘ground’’ 

(e.g., concrete) and that ground settling 

could occur ‘‘under and around’’ those 

foundations. As such, the Agency 

believes that the C–DAC language is 

appropriate in the proposed rule. It 

should also be noted that a separate 

provision, § 1926.1402, Ground 

conditions, is included in this proposed 

rule, which more specifically addresses 

responsibility for and adequacy of 

ground conditions. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(xi) lists 

‘‘[t]he equipment for level position, both 

shift and after each move and setup.’’ 

This item is not included in the ANSI/ 

ASME standards; however, it mirrors 

the language of the similar pre-shift 

inspection in Subpart R. The Committee 

found that, as with ground conditions, 

maintaining the equipment’s level 

position is essential for its safe 

operation. Since factors affecting the 

equipment’s angle of inclination can 

change from shift to shift (such as 

compression of dunnage, ground 

settling from freeze/thaw conditions and 

ground compression), the Committee 

believed that it is necessary to include 

this in the shift inspection. 

The SBREFA Panel recommended 

that OSHA solicit public comment 

about whether it is necessary to clarify 

the requirement of proposed 

§ 1926.1412(d)(1)(xi) that the equipment 

be inspected for ‘‘level position’’ by 

clarifying the amount of tolerance that 

would be allowed for the equipment to 

be considered ‘‘level.’’ The Agency 

requests public comment on this issue. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(xii) lists 

‘‘[o]perator cab windows for significant 

cracks, breaks, or other deficiencies that 

would hamper the operator’s view.’’ 32

The purpose of this proposed provision 

is to ensure adequate visibility. The 

Committee believed that it is important 

to ensure that the windows’ condition 

does not hamper the operator’s view. 

Since a significant crack, break or other 

defect hampering the operator’s view 

may occur during a shift, it believed that 

this item needs to be included in the 

shift inspection. The inclusion of the 

words ‘‘significant’’ and ‘‘hamper the 

operator’s view’’ were to clarify that 

minor deficiencies that do not 

materially impair the operator’s view 

are not considered safety hazards. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(xiii) lists 

‘‘[r]ails, rail stops, rail clamps and 

supporting surfaces when the 

equipment has rail traveling.’’ This item 

is not specifically listed as an inspection 

item in the pre-shift inspections of 

Subpart R or in the Frequent Inspections 

of the 1968 or 2004 ANSI/ASME B30.5 

standards. However, they are included 

because of the essential role they play 

in the holding and emergency stopping 

of rail mounted equipment. Their 

importance to safe operation is similarly 

recognized by their inclusion in 

proposed § 1926.1415, Safety Devices, 

as safety devices that must be working 

properly for crane operations to 

continue. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(xiv) lists 

‘‘[s]afety devices and operational aids 

for proper operation.’’ Subpart N, 

through its incorporation by reference of 

ANSI B30.5–1968, includes a daily 

inspection of safety devices for 

malfunction for the equipment it covers, 

while ASME B30.5–2004 requires a 

daily inspection of operational aids for 

malfunction. Finally, Subpart R 

includes a nonexclusive list of safety 

devices in its pre-shift inspection. The 

equipment’s safety devices and 

operational aids would be included 

because of their important role in 

assisting the operator in the safe 

operation of equipment. 

Concern was raised in Committee 

about including this item because the 

industry did not have clear, consistent 

definitions for terms ‘‘safety devices’’ 

and ‘‘operational aids.’’ This concern 

was addressed by referencing the lists of 

devices for each of these terms in 

proposed § 1926.1415, Safety devices 

and § 1926.1416, Operational aids. 

The language also reflects the 

Committee’s view that the inspection of 

these devices and aids is more 

accurately described as an inspection 

for ‘‘proper operation’’ rather than for 

‘‘malfunction.’’ The Committee 

considered this a more accurate 

description because the person 

conducting the inspection does so by 

checking the safety device or 

operational aid for proper operation. If 

it is found to be working properly, the 

inspection is finished. 

Another concern was including both 

safety devices and operational aids in 

this provision, since many members 

were of the view that these two 

categories of devices necessitate 

different levels and types of action 

when a deficiency is found. That 

concern was addressed by specifying in 

proposed § 1926.1412(d)(3) that if a 

deficiency is found, the action that 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59770 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

would be required in response would be 

the actions delineated in proposed 

§ 1926.1415, Safety devices and 

§ 1926.1416, Operational aids, which 

address these two categories differently. 

See additional discussions of these 

procedures in §§ 1926.1415 and 

1926.1416 of this explanation of the 

rule. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(2) would 

establish the follow-up actions to the 

identification of apparent deficiencies 

during the shift inspection that would 

be required. Specifically, under 

proposed 1926.1412(d)(2), immediately 

following the discovery of any 

deficiency identified pursuant to 

proposed § 1926.1412(d)(1)(i) through 

(xiii), or pursuant to other equipmentspecific inspections (e.g., see proposed 

§ 1926.1436(p) (inspection of derricks), 

the competent person must determine 

whether the deficiency is a safety 

hazard. If so, equipment operations 

must cease until it has been corrected. 

The correction procedure described in 

proposed § 1926.1412(d)(2) is similar to 

that in ANSI B30.5–1968 and ASME 

B30.5–2004 for their Frequent 

Inspections. 

This approach reflects the 

Committee’s determination that not all 

deficiencies constitute safety hazards. 

The proposed language in 

§ 1926.1412(d)(2) reflects that approach 

by linking the requirement for removing 

the equipment from service to 

deficiencies that constitute safety 

hazards. The provision is designed to 

ensure that this determination is made 

appropriately by requiring that it be 

made by a competent person. The 

competent person would have the 

capability necessary to make an accurate 

determination. In addition, requiring a 

competent person to make the 

determination would ensure that his or 

her findings were implemented; i.e., the 

competent person would have the 

authority to order the equipment out of 

service if the deficiency constituted a 

hazard. The Agency believes that this 

would be an appropriate means of 

protecting employees from equipment 

with deficiencies that constitute safety 

hazards. 

The SBREFA Panel recommended 

that OSHA solicit public comment on 

whether, and under what 

circumstances, booming down should 

be specifically excluded as a part of the 

shift inspection, and whether the 

removal of non-hinged inspection plates 

should be required during the shift 

inspection. Proposed § 1926.1413(a)(1), 

discussed below, explicitly states that 

booming down is not required as part of 

the shift inspection for wire rope. It is 

the Agency’s understanding that C–DAC 

did not include a similar provision in 

the general shift inspection provision in 

proposed § 1926.1412(d) because 

booming down would not be required to 

observe a deficiency in any of the items 

requiring inspection under that 

paragraph. Similarly, OSHA does not 

believe that inspection for a deficiency 

in any of those items would require 

removal of non-hinged inspection 

plates. However, OSHA welcomes 

public comment on these points. 

Paragraph 1412(e) Monthly 

Proposed paragraph (e) would require 

a monthly inspection of the equipment, 

the second of the three regularly 

scheduled general inspections that 

would be required by this proposed 

standard. The monthly inspection is 

identical in coverage and manner to the 

shift inspection required by proposed 

§ 1926.1412(d), with one addition 

discussed below. Thus, the monthly 

inspection would be a visual inspection 

of the items listed in the shift inspection 

for apparent deficiencies, conducted by 

a competent person. However, unlike a 

shift inspection, a written record of the 

monthly inspection is proposed to be 

kept and retained for at least 3 months. 

In addition, under the annual/ 

comprehensive inspection in proposed 

§ 1926.1412(f)(4), the employer would 

be required to identify developing 

deficiencies that, while not yet safety 

hazards, need to be monitored. In such 

cases the employer under proposed 

§ 1926.1412(f)(4) and (f)(6) would be 

required to monitor them in the 

monthly inspections. 

This provision differs in some ways 

from the current requirement in 29 CFR 

part 1926 Subpart N that incorporates 

by reference ANSI B30.5–1968 and from 

ASME B30.5–2004. For example, rather 

than a monthly inspection, these 

industry standards call for a ‘‘Frequent’’ 

inspection to be done at ‘‘daily to 

monthly’’ intervals. The Committee 

believed that the proposed approach is 

an improvement over the ANSI/ASME 

approach by eliminating ambiguity over 

the frequency of inspections. Also, the 

consensus standards do not call for the 

monitoring of developing deficiencies, a 

change the Committee believed would 

lead to the elimination of hazards before 

they develop. However, many of the 

items listed in those consensus 

standards for frequent inspections are 

similar to those listed in the shift and 

monthly inspections of the proposed 

rule (See discussion of items inspected 

under proposed paragraphs (d)(1)(i) 

through (xiv) for comparison). 

Proposed paragraph (e)(3) would 

establish a documentation requirement 

for this monthly inspection. 

Specifically, proposed 

§ 1926.1412(e)(3)(i) would require that 

the inspection ‘‘be documented by the 

employer that conducts the inspection’’ 

and indicate the items checked with 

results, the name and signature of the 

person of the inspector, and the date. In 

these respects this proposed 

requirement is similar to that currently 

in effect under § 1926.550(b)(2) of 29 

CFR part 1926 Subpart N for crawler, 

locomotive, and truck cranes. Proposed 

§ 1926.1412(e)(3)(ii) would establish a 

minimum three-month retention period 

for the monthly inspection 

documentation. 

These two proposed provisions have 

several purposes. The Committee 

believed that, on a monthly basis, it is 

necessary to record the items checked 

and the results of an inspection that for 

the most part parallels a shift 

inspection. It believed that the 

documentation of this inspection, 

signed by the person who conducted the 

inspection and retained for three 

months, would have several effects. 

First, it would increase the likelihood 

that more employers would implement 

systems for conducting and responding 

to inspections. The failure to do so 

would be more readily apparent if a 

record were not made, and the signature 

of the person who conducted the 

inspection would be an inducement to 

that person to ensure that the inspection 

was done correctly. Second, it would 

create a record that the employer could 

use to help track developing problems 

so that they could be corrected in time 

to assure continued safe operation of the 

equipment. 

The Agency notes that the proposed 

three month retention period also 

reflects a desire of the Committee to 

have a retention period that is 

consistent with Department of 

Transportation (‘‘DOT’’) truck 

inspection documentation requirements. 

Also, proposed § 1926.1412(e)(3) 

parallels the monthly inspection for 

wire rope in proposed paragraph 

1413(b) in terms of timing, level of 

scrutiny, expertise of the inspector, and 

documentation. 

The SBREFA Panel recommended 

that OSHA solicit public comment on 

whether the provision for monthly 

inspections should, like the provision 

for annual inspections, specify who 

must keep the documentation associated 

with monthly inspections. (The 

provision for annual inspections states 

that the documentation must be 

‘‘maintained by the employer who 

conducts the inspection.’’) OSHA 

requests public comment on the issue 

raised by the Panel’s recommendation. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59771 

33Note that, under proposed § 1926.1412(h), 

discussed below, equipment that has been out of 

regular service for three months or more must 

receive a monthly inspection before being returned 

to service. However, if the equipment had been out 

of regular service for more than three months but 

it was due for its annual inspection, the annual 

inspection would have to be done and there would 

therefore be no need to also do the § 1926.1412(h) 

(out of regular service) inspection. 

The SBREFA Panel also 

recommended that OSHA restate the 

corrective action provisions from the 

shift inspection (proposed 

§ 1926.1412(d)(2) and (3)) in proposed 

§ 1926.1412(e). Under proposed 

§ 1926.1412(e)(1), the monthly 

inspection must be conducted in 

accordance with proposed 

§ 1926.1412(d) on shift inspections, and 

this means that the corrective action 

provisions in proposed 

§ 1926.1412(d)(2) and (3) must also be 

followed in the monthly inspections. 

OSHA requests comment on whether 

the language in proposed 

§ 1926.1412(d)(2) and (3) should be 

repeated under proposed § 1926.1412(e). 

Paragraph (f) Annual/Comprehensive 

Proposed paragraph (f) would require 

an annual (i.e., once every twelve 

months), general inspection of the 

equipment, the third of the three 

regularly scheduled general inspections 

that would be required by this proposed 

standard. It would promote safety by 

ensuring that a thorough, 

comprehensive inspection of the 

equipment is performed to detect and 

address deficiencies that might not be 

detected in the proposed shift and 

monthly inspections. 

Proposed paragraph (f)(1) would 

require that a qualified person inspect 

the equipment, at least every 12 months, 

in accordance with § 1926.1412(d) (shift 

inspections). The Committee’s intent 

was to have the items specified in the 

shift inspection examined more 

thoroughly, by a qualified person, on an 

annual basis. This would ensure that 

deficiencies necessitating a greater 

degree of scrutiny than what would be 

required in the shift inspection (such as 

a deficiency that is not apparent in a 

visual inspection but is detectable 

through disassembly), and a greater 

degree of expertise to detect, would be 

discovered. 

The Committee believed that, in light 

of this need for greater scrutiny, a higher 

level of expertise is needed of the 

person conducting the inspection than 

is currently required for the annual 

inspection in 29 CFR part 1926 Subpart 

N (Subpart N, at § 1926.550(a)(6), 

requires that it be conducted by a 

competent person). The Committee’s 

view is similar to that reflected in COE– 

EM 385–1–1 (3 Nov 03) and ASME 

B30.5–2004, both of which call for a 

qualified person to perform those 

standards’ ‘‘periodic’’ inspections. The 

Agency believes that, to effectuate the 

purpose of the proposed annual/ 

comprehensive inspection, a qualified 

person would be needed to conduct this 

inspection. 

The Agency notes that neither this 

paragraph nor the subsequent 

paragraphs under proposed 

§ 1926.1412(f) specify the level of 

scrutiny that would be required for the 

annual/comprehensive inspection. As it 

is the Agency’s understanding that it 

was the Committee’s belief that this 

inspection needs to be more thorough 

than a visual inspection for apparent 

deficiencies, OSHA solicits comments 

from the public as to whether language 

specifying a higher level of scrutiny (for 

example, ‘‘thorough, including 

disassembly when necessary’’) should 

be added. 

In terms of timing, this proposed 

annual/comprehensive inspection is 

essentially the same as currently 

specified in Subpart N, which requires 

an ‘‘annual’’ inspection. 

The requirement that the inspection 

be conducted at least every 12 months 

means that an inspection must be 

conducted on or before the anniversary 

date of the last annual inspection. A 

situation that may arise is where the 

equipment is not in service on the 

anniversary date. In that situation, since 

the equipment is not in service, the 

annual inspection would not have to be 

done at that point. However, the 

equipment could not be put back into 

service until the annual inspection had 

been done.33

As discussed below, proposed 

§ 1926.1412(f)(4)–(f)(6) contain specific 

proposed responsive actions in the 

event a deficiency is discovered in the 

annual/comprehensive inspection. C– 

DAC recommended that proposed 

§ 1926.1412(f)(1) state that ‘‘ * * * the 

equipment shall be inspected * * * in 

accordance with paragraph (d) (shift 

inspections).’’ Read literally, the C–DAC 

language would have required the 

employer to comply with the responsive 

actions specified for the shift 

inspections in proposed § 1926.1412(d). 

However, the specified responsive 

actions for the proposed shift inspection 

differ from those proposed for the 

annual/comprehensive inspection. 

Therefore, the Agency modified the C– 

DAC language for proposed 

§ 1926.1412(f)(1) to make it clear that 

the responsive actions that would be 

required if a deficiency were found 

under § 1926.1412(f)(1) are those 

specified in proposed § 1926.1412(f)(4)– 

(f)(6). This has been done by adding the 

following language to the C–DAC (f)(1) 

provision: 

At least every 12 months the equipment 

shall be inspected by a qualified person in 

accordance with paragraph (d) (shift 

inspections) of this section, except that the 

corrective action set forth in Paragraph (f) 

Annual/comprehensive, of this section shall 

apply. 

The difference is that while both 

require that the equipment be removed 

from service if safety hazards are 

identified, paragraphs (f)(4) through 

(f)(6) also provide that a deficiency that 

might, but has not yet, reached the 

safety hazard stage must be monitored 

on a monthly basis. (Also, the 

determinations in § 1926.1412(f)(4) 

through (f)(6) are made by a qualified 

person, whereas the determinations in 

the shift inspection are made by a 

competent person.) 

Proposed paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through 

(xxi) supplement the list of inspection 

items in proposed § 1926.1412(f)(1) that 

would be required to be inspected in the 

annual/comprehensive inspection. The 

Committee developed this list based on 

the members’ experience and current 

industry practice as reflected in current 

consensus standards for annual/periodic 

inspections. The Committee believed 

that each item plays an important role 

in the safe operation of equipment. 

The list in proposed paragraphs 

(f)(2)(i) through (xxi) differs somewhat 

from those in consensus standards. 

Among other differences, the list in 

these proposed paragraphs is more userfriendly to the employer and qualified 

person because the item inspected is at 

the beginning of each sentence. Also, 

some items not in consensus standards 

are included because, as discussed 

below, in the view of the Committee, 

they also have a significant effect on the 

safe operation of equipment. 

Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(i) lists 

‘‘[e]quipment structure (including the 

boom and, if equipped, the jib),’’ 

including ‘‘(A) Structural members: 

deformed, cracked, or significantly 

corroded. (B) Bolts, rivets and other 

fasteners: loose, failed or significantly 

corroded. (C) Welds for cracks.’’ 

Differences with similar items listed in 

ANSI B30.5–1968, ASME B30.5–2004 

and COE–EM 385–1–1 (3 Nov 03) are as 

follows: ‘‘Welds for cracks’’ was added 

to better ensure that the equipment is 

structurally sound; ‘‘Other fasteners’’ 

was added to ‘‘bolts and rivets’’ 

(referenced in the ANSI/ASME 

standards) because there are now other 

types of fasteners which also need to be 

inspected to ensure they are not loose, 

failed or significantly corroded; and 

‘‘significantly’’ was added to describe 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59772 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

34Section 5–3.2.1.2 of the ASME standard allows 

the employer to follow the recommendations of the 

manufacturer of the equipment or device for 

continued operation or shutdown of the equipment. 

The same section of the ASME standard also sets 

forth alternative precautions, which may be taken 

unless the manufacturer specifies otherwise, when 

specific operational aids malfunction. 

the degree of corrosion on a structural 

member or fastener needed to trigger 

further examination because some 

corrosion on those items is normal and 

has no effect on safety. 

Proposed paragraphs (f)(2)(ii) through 

(iv) list: ‘‘[s]heaves and drums for cracks 

or significant wear;’’ ‘‘[p]arts such as 

pins, bearings, shafts, gears, rollers and 

locking devices for distortion, cracks or 

significant wear;’’ and ‘‘[b]rake and 

clutch system parts, linings, pawls and 

ratchets for excessive wear.’’ These 

items are similar to the items currently 

listed in the Periodic Inspection 

(monthly to twelve month intervals) in 

ANSI B30.5–1968 and ASME B30.5– 

2004. The Committee believed that 

these items, as reflected in their 

inclusion in current consensus 

standards, need to be checked in an 

annual inspection to ensure the safe 

operation of the equipment. 

Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(v) lists 

‘‘[s]afety devices and operational aids 

for proper operation (including 

significant inaccuracies).’’ The 

Committee included the term 

‘‘significant inaccuracies’’ in recognition 

of the fact that such devices normally 

operate within a tolerance range. 

Corrective action would not be required 

if the inaccuracy is so small as to be 

irrelevant with regards to the safe 

operation of the equipment. In contrast, 

significant inaccuracies in these devices 

could mislead the operator and 

contribute to actions that could result in 

the equipment being inadvertently used 

in an unsafe manner. Consequently, the 

Committee believed that these devices 

and aids need to be inspected for both 

proper operation and significant 

inaccuracies. 

This provision is broader than similar 

provisions in the ANSI and ANSI/ASME 

standards. Specifically, ANSI B30.5– 

1968 only addresses ‘‘safety devices for 

malfunction’’ (the Periodic Inspection 

includes the items listed in the Frequent 

Inspection) while the Periodic 

Inspection for ASME B30.5–2004 only 

includes operational aids. 

Another significant difference 

between this paragraph and the ASME 

standard is the follow-up action 

required subsequent to the discovery of 

a deficiency involving operational aids. 

Under this paragraph, the discovery of 

such a deficiency that is determined to 

be a safety hazard would require the 

equipment to be removed from service 

until the safety hazard is corrected. In 

contrast, under the 2004 ASME 

standard, alternatives to the removal of 

equipment from service are available.34

Proposed § 1926.1416 would permit 

equipment with operational aids that 

are not functioning properly to continue 

to be used with specified alternative 

measures in place. Proposed 

§ 1926.1416(d) and (e) would set time 

limits for such use. It is the Agency’s 

understanding that the Committee 

intended that this same approach 

should apply with respect to the followup action required when an operational 

aid is found in the annual inspection to 

be not working properly. In other words, 

the equipment could be returned to 

service but the time limits in proposed 

§ 1926.1416(d) and (e) would apply, as 

would the alternative measures 

requirements. 

Proposed § 1926.1412(f) does not 

explicitly describe how the follow-up 

measures in proposed § 1926.1412(f)(4)– 

(f)(6) would apply to operational aids. 

As explained below in the discussion of 

proposed § 1926.1412(f)(4)–(f)(6), the 

Agency believes that it would be 

appropriate to add language to clarify 

that the follow-up action required when 

an operational aid is found in the 

annual inspection to be not working 

properly is the action specified in 

proposed § 1926.1416(d) and (e). 

Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(vi) lists 

‘‘[g]asoline, diesel, electric, or other 

power plants for safety-related problems 

(such as leaking exhaust and emergency 

shut-down feature), conditions and 

proper operation.’’ This proposed 

provision was derived from ANSI 

B30.5–1968 and ASME B30.5–2004 and 

reworded to emphasize and limit its 

application to safety related issues, and 

to include examples to better 

communicate those concepts. Leaking 

exhaust was included as an example 

because it could asphyxiate an 

employee. The emergency shut-down 

feature was added as an example 

because a failure of this feature could 

result in an employee being struck by a 

suspended load. 

Proposed paragraphs (f)(2)(vii), (viii) 

and (ix) list ‘‘[c]hains and chain drive 

sprockets for excessive wear of 

sprockets and excessive chain stretch,’’ 

‘‘[t]ravel steering, brakes, and locking 

devices, for proper operation,’’ and 

‘‘[t]ires for damage or excessive wear.’’ 

These proposed provisions were derived 

from ANSI B30.5–1968 and ASME 

B30.5–2004. The Committee believed 

that these items, as their presence in 

these industry standards reflects, play a 

significant role in the safe operation of 

equipment. 

Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(x) lists 

‘‘[h]ydraulic, pneumatic and other 

pressurized hoses, fittings and tubing, as 

follows: (A) Flexible hose or its junction 

with the fittings for indications of leaks. 

(B) Threaded or clamped joints for 

leaks. (C) Outer covering of the hose for 

blistering, abnormal deformation or 

other signs of failure/impending failure. 

(D) Outer surface of a hose, rigid tube, 

or fitting for indications of excessive 

abrasion or scrubbing.’’ The purpose of 

this proposed paragraph, as noted 

during C–DAC meetings, is to ‘‘call 

attention to specific parts of these 

hoses’’ and thus prevent the failure of 

mechanisms, such as the brakes, hoist 

mechanisms and limit switches, that are 

powered or affected by the movement of 

fluids or air through the equipment’s 

system of hoses. 

Neither the general provisions in 29 

CFR part 1926 Subpart N nor the 

provisions in ANSI B30.5–1968 that are 

incorporated by reference in Subpart N 

contain a specific requirement for an 

inspection of these hoses, fittings and 

tubing. However, several more recent 

consensus and government standards do 

contain similar items in their annual/ 

Periodic inspections. ASME B30.5– 

2004, COE–EM 385–1–1 (3 Nov 03) and 

DOE STD 1090–2004 all contain some 

form of this item in their Periodic 

inspection provisions. 

The Committee’s discussion of this 

item focused on whether language used 

in ASME B30.5–2004 should be 

adopted. For example, the meaning of 

the reference in the ASME standard to 

‘‘metal and couplings’’ as one of the 

points of concern on a hose for leakage 

was questioned. The Committee sought 

to be clearer by referencing ‘‘fittings’’ 

instead in proposed 

§ 1926.1412(f)(2)(x)(A). 

Also, members questioned the 

appropriateness of the ASME language 

on inspecting for hose leakage that 

specifies leakage from threaded or 

clamped joints that is not eliminated by 

‘‘recommended procedures.’’ Since the 

use of such procedures to correct a leak 

is in the nature of a repair, the concept 

of limiting the inspection item in this 

manner was rejected. 

Proposed paragraphs (f)(2)(xi)–(xiii) 

list a series of items that, like (f)(2)(x), 

focus on specific parts of hydraulic and 

pneumatic power systems. They would 

be included for the same reason—to 

better ensure that those parts of the 

equipment driven by hydraulic and 

pneumatic power do not fail. These 

provisions address: ‘‘(xi) [h]ydraulic and 

pneumatic pumps and motors, as 

follows: (A) Performance indicators: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59773 

35The original C–DAC language provided: 

‘‘Operator seat: missing or unusable.’’ OSHA 

modified this language to avoid the implication that 

equipment that did not include an operator seat as 

original equipment would, contrary to C–DAC’s 

intent, nevertheless need to have a seat installed. 

unusual noises or vibration, low 

operating speed, excessive heating of 

the fluid, low pressure. (B) Loose bolts 

or fasteners. (C) Shaft seals and joints 

between pump sections for leaks’’; (xii) 

‘‘[h]ydraulic and pneumatic valves, as 

follows: (A) Spools: sticking, improper 

return to neutral, and leaks. (B) Leaks. 

(C) Valve housing cracks. (D) Relief 

valves: failure to reach correct pressure 

(if there is a manufacturer procedure for 

checking pressure, it must be 

followed)’’; and (xiii) ‘‘[h]ydraulic and 

pneumatic cylinders, as follows: (A) 

Drifting caused by fluid leaking across 

the piston. (B) Rod seals and welded 

joints for leaks. (C) Cylinder rods for 

scores, nicks or dents. (D) Case (barrel) 

for significant dents. (E) Rod eyes and 

connecting joints: loose or deformed.’’ 

As with proposed paragraph (f)(2)(x), 

these items are not explicitly mentioned 

in Subpart N. Neither the Subpart itself 

nor the incorporated ‘‘Periodic’’ 

inspection in ANSI B30.5–1968 

specifically references these items. 

However, ASME B30.5–2004, COE–EM 

385–1–1 (3 Nov 03) and DOE STD 1090– 

2004 each require inspection of these 

items by language with varying degrees 

of specificity. 

While discussing these items, C–DAC 

members decided not to include the 

inspection of hydraulic filters that are 

included in ASME B30.5–2004 because, 

as a Committee member who works for 

a manufacturer noted, the condition of 

these filters is a maintenance rather than 

a safety issue. Other discussion related 

to several of the items in this list. In 

proposed § 1926.1412(f)(2)(xi)(C), 

‘‘pump’’ was inserted to clarify which 

joints must be inspected for leaks. 

Further, ‘‘significant’’ was added to 

describe the dents subject to inspection 

under proposed 

§ 1926.1412(f)(2)(xiii)(D) because some 

dents on cases do not affect operation. 

The Committee believed that these 

items, as their presence in these 

government and consensus standards 

reflects, play a significant role in the 

safe operation of equipment. 

Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(xiv) lists 

‘‘[o]utrigger pads/floats’’ for excessive 

wear or cracks.’’ The purpose of the 

inspection of outrigger pads/floats is to 

make certain that these pads (which are 

attached to the outrigger and used to 

distribute the weight of the load to the 

ground) will not fail and leave the 

outrigger without proper support. 

This item is not included in the 

annual inspection of Subpart N for 

cranes and derricks, the periodic 

inspections of ANSI B30.5–1968 or 

ASME B30.5–2004. However, the 

Periodic (yearly) inspection in COE–EM 

385–1–1 (3 Nov 03) may cover 

‘‘outrigger pads/floats’’ with its general 

provision regarding ‘‘foundation or 

supports.’’ The Committee similarly 

included this item because it believed 

that it plays a significant role in the safe 

operation of equipment. 

Paragraph (f)(2)(xv) lists ‘‘slider pads 

for excessive wear or cracks.’’ Slider 

pads (which are used to guide sections 

of equipment such as the boom 

extension on a hydraulic crane) are 

included because excessive wear may 

cause the equipment to fail. The 

Committee was aware that some 

disassembly may be required to inspect 

slider pads. 

This item is not included in the 

annual inspection of Subpart N for 

cranes and derricks or the periodic 

inspections of ANSI B30.5–1968 or 

ASME B30.5–2004. However, the 

Committee included this item because 

of its role in the safe operation of the 

equipment. 

Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(xvi) lists 

‘‘[e]lectrical components and wiring for 

cracked or split insulation and loose or 

corroded terminations.’’ Wires are not 

listed in the annual/Periodic inspection 

in Subpart N, ANSI B30.5–1968, ASME 

B30.5—2004 or COE–EM 385–1–1 (3 

Nov 03). The purpose of this proposed 

provision is to prevent hazards related 

to deficiencies in electrical components 

and wiring. Since such deficiencies may 

cause a fire or the malfunction of safety 

related systems, the Agency believes 

that the inclusion of electrical 

components as well as wiring in the 

inspection list is necessary. 

Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(xvii) lists 

‘‘[w]arning labels and decals originally 

supplied with the equipment by the 

manufacturer or otherwise required 

under this standard: missing or 

unreadable.’’ The annual/Periodic 

inspection in COE–EM 385–1–1 (3– 

NovJan 03) contains a similar 

requirement relative to ‘‘safety and 

function labels for legibility and 

replacement.’’ However, this item is not 

included in the annual/Periodic 

inspections included in Subpart N, 

ANSI B30.5–1968 or ASME B30.5–2004. 

The Committee believed that warning 

decals that would be required under this 

proposed standard (either by virtue of a 

specific provision in this proposed 

standard, e.g., paragraph 1407(g), or 

because they were originally supplied 

by the manufacturer with the 

equipment, see § 1926.1433(e)(5), Posted 

warnings) provide important safety 

reminders and information. As such, it 

was of the view that they need to be 

maintained in order for them to 

continue to alert users to those safety 

concerns. The Agency modified the C– 

DAC language for proposed paragraph 

(f)(2)(xvii) so that it would cover 

warning labels and decals originally 

supplied by the manufacturer and thus 

better reflect the Committee’s intent as 

indicated by proposed § 1926.1433(e)(5). 

Proposed paragraphs (f)(2)(xviii–xxi) 

list: ‘‘Originally equipped operator seat: 

missing;’’ ‘‘Operator seat: unusable;’’ 35

‘‘Originally equipped steps, ladders, 

handrails, guards: missing;’’ and ‘‘Steps, 

ladders, handrails, guards: in unusable/ 

unsafe condition.’’ These are not 

included in the annual/periodic 

inspections of ANSI B30.5–1968, ASME 

B30.5–2004, or COE–EM 385–1–1 (3 

Nov 03). 

The Committee believed that these are 

safety related items that need to be 

inspected. For example, if the operator 

seat is unusable, the likelihood of the 

operator manipulating a control in an 

inadvertent manner or being unable to 

reach a control is increased. The other 

items relate to preventing falls and 

contact with exposed parts that are 

moving or otherwise dangerous. It 

should be noted that, among others, 

proposed § 1926.1433, Design, 

construction and testing, and 

§ 1926.1426, Fall protection, would 

include requirements related to several 

of these items. 

Proposed paragraph (f)(3) would 

require functional testing as part of the 

annual/comprehensive inspection. A 

general functional testing requirement is 

not included in the annual/periodic 

inspection in COE–EM 385–1–1 (3 Nov 

03), although it does require functional 

testing for certain items, such as ‘‘crane 

function operating mechanisms,’’ and 

‘‘operator aids (safety devices) and 

indicating devices.’’ Similarly, the 

annual/periodic inspection provisions 

of ANSI B30.5–1968 (incorporated by 

reference into Subpart N) and ASME 

B30.5–2004, imply a functional testing 

requirement with regard to several 

specific items (e.g., in B30.5–1968 and 

in B30.5–2004), ‘‘[t]ravel steering, 

braking, and locking devices, for 

malfunction’’). 

The purpose of this testing is to 

ensure that the equipment as configured 

in the inspection is functioning 

properly. It was the Committee’s belief 

that, without functional testing, the 

inspection may not reveal some safety 

problems. 

The proposed provision reflects the 

Committee’s belief that functional 

testing should be limited to the 

equipment ‘‘as configured in the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59774 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

inspection.’’ In its view, functional 

testing in all possible configurations, 

with all possible attachments, is 

unnecessary and would be unduly 

burdensome. In light of the 

comprehensive nature of the inspection 

that would result from compliance with 

the proposed annual/comprehensive 

inspection provision, the Agency 

believes that this limitation would not 

adversely affect safety. 

Proposed paragraphs (f)(4) through (6) 

delineate the follow-up procedures that 

would apply when a deficiency is 

identified during the annual/ 

comprehensive inspection. The purpose 

of these provisions is to ensure that a 

deficiency that is not yet a safety hazard 

but may develop into one is monitored 

on a monthly basis, and that a 

deficiency that is a safety hazard is 

corrected before the equipment is 

returned to service. 

Specifically, proposed paragraph (f)(4) 

provides that immediately following the 

identification of a deficiency, the 

qualified person must determine 

‘‘whether the deficiency constitutes a 

safety hazard, or though not yet a safety 

hazard, needs to be monitored in the 

monthly inspections.’’ Proposed 

paragraph (f)(5) would require that 

equipment with a deficiency identified 

as a safety hazard by the qualified 

person be removed from service until 

the deficiency is corrected. Proposed 

paragraph (f)(6) would require the 

employer to check in the monthly 

inspections the deficiencies that the 

qualified person had identified as 

needing monitoring. 

The corrective procedures in 

proposed paragraphs (f)(4) through (f)(6) 

are similar to those in ANSI B30.5–1968 

and ASME B30.5–2004 in that the 

ANSI/ASME provisions also call for 

equipment operation to cease upon 

discovery of a safety hazard. They differ 

in that the ANSI/ASME provisions have 

no procedures for monitoring 

deficiencies that are not yet safety 

hazards. 

The Committee believed that this 

would be an effective means of ensuring 

that employers respond appropriately to 

deficiencies identified in the annual/ 

comprehensive inspection. In addition, 

the Committee’s addition of a 

mechanism for monthly monitoring, 

where needed, of deficiencies that have 

not yet developed into safety hazards 

would ensure that developing hazards 

are caught before they endanger 

employees. 

Upon reviewing these proposed 

provisions, OSHA believes that C–DAC 

inadvertently omitted a reference in the 

proposed provisions for annual/ 

comprehensive inspections to special 

corrective action procedures for 

operational aids. This issue is explained 

below. 

Proposed § 1926.1416, Operational 

aids, sets out requirements that would 

apply where an operational aid is not 

working properly. Specifically, it would 

allow equipment with an operational 

aid that is not working to continue to be 

operated for a limited time as long as 

certain temporary protective measures 

are used. 

In a shift or monthly inspection, as 

reflected in proposed § 1926.1412(d)(3), 

if a deficiency in an operational aid is 

identified, the corrective action 

described in proposed § 1926.1416 

would apply. In contrast, in the 

proposed paragraph on annual/ 

comprehensive inspections 

(§ 1926.1412(f)), C–DAC did not include 

a similar reference. 

If the corrective actions described in 

proposed § 1926.1416 did not apply and 

an operational aid were found to be not 

working properly in an annual/ 

comprehensive inspection, the qualified 

person would have to determine if that 

constituted a safety hazard. If he or she 

concluded that it was a safety hazard, 

the equipment would have to be 

removed from service immediately until 

the aid was repaired. OSHA believes 

that such a result would be contrary to 

C–DAC’s intent, since the issue of the 

extent to which an operational aid 

needed to be repaired was 

comprehensively dealt with in proposed 

§ 1926.1416. 

In sum, the Agency believes that 

proposed § 1926.1412(f) should be 

modified to specifically make the 

corrective actions in proposed 

§ 1926.1416 applicable. OSHA requests 

public comment on this issue. 

The Committee considered whether 

the monitoring aspect of this proposed 

requirement would unduly add to the 

employer’s paperwork burden. The 

Committee determined that it would 

not, since all that would be involved 

would be a notation on the employer’s 

monthly inspection form to pay special 

attention to the item and then note its 

condition. 

Proposed paragraph (f)(7), 

Documentation of annual/ 

comprehensive inspection, would 

require the employer that conducts the 

inspection to complete and maintain, 

for a minimum of twelve months, 

documentation that contains ‘‘[t]he 

items checked and the results of the 

inspection,’’ and ‘‘[t]he name and 

signature of the person who conducted 

the inspection and the date.’’ Note that 

proposed § 1926.1413(c)(4), which 

pertains to the annual/comprehensive 

wire rope inspection, contains a similar 

documentation requirement. 

This proposed documentation 

requirement differs in several respects 

from Subpart N and other current 

consensus standards. For example, 

Subpart N at 29 CFR 1926.550(a)(6), has 

an open-ended retention period and 

does not include a signature 

requirement or a requirement that the 

inspector be named. It also differs from 

the periodic inspection in ASME B30.5– 

2004 that only calls for ‘‘dated records’’ 

for specific, critical items, does not 

specify that the inspector’s name be 

listed, and does not specify a retention 

period. 

The Committee believed that the 

proposed provision would promote 

safety by ensuring that the items 

checked and the inspection results are 

documented and maintained for at least 

12 months. This would ensure that past 

deficiencies and potential hazards 

associated with the equipment can be 

tracked. In the Committee’s view this 

information would help the qualified 

person assess the equipment in the 

subsequent annual/ comprehensive 

inspection. 

The Committee believed that the 

documentation of this inspection, 

signed by the person who conducted the 

inspection and retained for 12 months, 

would have several effects. First, it 

would increase the likelihood that more 

employers would implement systems 

for conducting and responding to 

inspections. The failure to do so would 

be more readily apparent if a record was 

not made, and the signature of the 

person who conducted the inspection 

would be an inducement to that person 

to ensure that the inspection was done 

correctly. 

The Committee determined that it 

would not be necessary for this 

documentation to be available on site. 

The information in the document is not 

routinely needed at the site to ensure 

safe operation. Rather, it would be 

sufficient to maintain it in a centralized 

location (such as a corporate office) and 

made available as necessary. 

During the SBREFA process, several 

Small Entity Representatives objected to 

the requirement for documentation of 

monthly and annual inspections, stating 

that such documentation would be 

unduly burdensome and would not, in 

their opinions, add to worker safety. 

The Panel recommended that OSHA 

solicit public comment on the extent of 

inspection documentation the rule 

should require. OSHA requests 

comment on this issue. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59775 

Paragraph 1412(g) Severe Service 

Proposed paragraph (g) would require 

the employer to inspect the equipment 

when the severity of use/conditions— 

‘‘such as loading that may have 

exceeded rated capacity, shock loading 

that may have exceeded rated capacity, 

[or] prolonged exposure to a corrosive 

atmosphere’’—creates a ‘‘reasonable 

probability of damage or excessive 

wear.’’ In such instances, the employer 

would be required to stop using the 

equipment and have a qualified person 

‘‘inspect the equipment for structural 

damage’’; determine whether, in light of 

the use/conditions of the severe service, 

any items listed in the Annual/ 

comprehensive inspection need to be 

inspected and if so, inspect them; and 

if a deficiency is found, follow the 

correction/monitoring procedures set 

forth in proposed § 1926.1412(f)(4)– 

(f)(6). 

Neither ANSI B30.5–1968 nor ASME 

B30.5–2004 has a specific inspection 

provision for severe service. Rather, 

those standards reference ‘‘severity of 

service’’ as a factor to be considered 

when determining how frequently to 

conduct a Periodic Inspection. COE–EM 

385–1–1 (1 Jan 03) references severe 

service under its periodic inspection as 

a basis for requiring that inspection to 

be performed quarterly as opposed to 

‘‘Yearly.’’ 

The Committee believed that there are 

certain events and circumstances that, 

because they may cause damage (i.e., 

structural damage or significant wear), 

should trigger a close inspection to 

check for such damage, rather than 

waiting for the next annual inspection. 

The Committee considered using 

‘‘heavy service’’ as a trigger for such an 

inspection. In the course of that 

discussion, the Committee considered 

triggering the inspection based on 

specific rated load capacities (such as 85 

to 100% of the rated load capacity) or 

on a particular number of cycles (such 

as in excess of 10 lift cycles per hour). 

These were rejected because members 

believed that, as long as the use is 

within the equipment’s rated capacity, 

such use would not be expected to 

necessitate a special inspection. 

Instead, the Committee agreed that a 

trigger based on use or conditions in 

which there is a reasonable probability 

of damage or excessive wear would be 

an effective means of ensuring that 

equipment was not operated with such 

damage/wear. Examples were provided 

in the proposed provision to add clarity 

to the concept. 

Paragraph 1412(h) Equipment Not in 

Regular Use 

Proposed paragraph (h) would require 

that equipment that sits idle for three 

months or more be inspected by a 

qualified person in accordance with the 

monthly inspection provisions of 

proposed § 1926.1412(e) before being 

used. 

This would ensure that deficiencies 

that may arise as a result of the 

equipment standing idle are checked 

before its subsequent use. The 

Committee believed that this inspection 

would need to be done by a qualified 

person because some of the deficiencies 

that may arise from sitting idle require 

the qualified person’s higher level of 

ability to detect and assess. For 

example, equipment that is idle for a 

period of time is often subject to 

variations in weather (e.g., temperature 

and humidity) that cause contraction 

and expansion of parts and fluids, 

which can cause damage. In addition, 

idle equipment is also more likely to 

have corroded pins and corrosion on the 

boom. Such conditions need to be 

assessed by a qualified person to 

determine if there is a deficiency that 

constitutes a hazard. 

This proposed requirement differs 

from the ANSI/ASME standards in 

several respects, most significantly in 

terms of the time frame that triggers the 

inspection and the type of inspection 

required. Both ANSI B30.5–1968 and 

ASME B30.5–2004 subject cranes that 

are idle for one or more months, but less 

than six months, to a frequent 

inspection, and cranes that are idle for 

six or more months to a periodic 

inspection. It should be noted that 

under the proposed provision and the 

ANSI/ASME standards, an inspection of 

wire rope is included. A qualified 

person would conduct this inspection of 

wire rope (as well as the rest of the 

items included in this inspection of 

equipment not in regular use). 

The Committee considered the ANSI/ 

ASME approach to inspecting idle 

equipment. It determined that a one 

month trigger was too short, because 

problems that may arise from the 

equipment sitting idle, such as drying/ 

hardening seals, take longer than that to 

occur. It believed that a three month 

trigger was more appropriate to use for 

this purpose. 

Paragraph 1412(i). [Reserved.] This 

paragraph is reserved because it is 

inconvenient for readers to determine 

whether ‘‘(i)’’ is being used as a letter or 

a roman numeral. 

Paragraph 1412(j) 

Proposed paragraph (j) would require 

that any part of a manufacturer’s 

inspection procedures relating to safe 

operation that is more comprehensive or 

has a more frequent schedule than that 

required by this proposed section must 

be followed. However, the proposed 

paragraph notes that additional 

manufacturer documentation 

requirements need not be followed. 

Examples are provided in the proposed 

provision of the types of items that 

would be considered to relate to safe 

operation (‘‘a safety device or operator 

aid, critical part of a control system, 

power plant, braking system, loadsustaining structural components, load 

hook, or in-use operating mechanism’’). 

Neither the general provisions of 29 

CFR part 1926 Subpart N nor ANSI 

B30.5–1968 contains a similar 

provision. However, § 1926.550(c)(5) of 

Subpart N relative to hammerhead 

tower cranes and § 1926.550(f)(2)(iii) 

relative to floating cranes and floating 

derricks require that inspections meet 

the manufacturer’s requirements. COE– 

EM 385–1–1–1 (3 Nov 03) states that 

‘‘[c]ranes and derricks shall be * * * 

inspected * * * in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s operating manual for the 

crane and the applicable ANSI/ASME 

codes or OSHA requirements, 

whichever is more stringent.’’ 

The Committee believed that, to the 

extent a more comprehensive or 

frequent inspection is specified by the 

manufacturer, it is necessary for that to 

be done to ensure the safe operation of 

the equipment. In the Committee’s view, 

the expertise of the manufacturer with 

respect to the equipment in this regard 

needs to be recognized and acted upon. 

Summary of Significant Differences 

From the Current 29 CFR Part 1926 

Subpart N 

This proposed section differs in 

several respects from Subpart N. Unlike 

Subpart N, the proposed standard does 

not include an initial inspection for new 

equipment or inspections for standby 

cranes, nor does it include a 

requirement for preventive 

maintenance. 

The Committee concluded that 

manufacturers’ quality control and 

inspection practices are generally 

effective in ensuring that new 

equipment does not have deficiencies 

that constitute safety hazards. The 

Committee believed that, to the extent 

those practices do not identify and 

correct all such hazards, the shift 

inspection would be adequate to 

identify and address them. 

The Committee concluded that a 

special inspection for ‘‘standby’’ cranes 

is not needed since the proposed section 

includes proposed requirements for 

equipment ‘‘not in regular use’’ (see the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59776 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

36As discussed below under paragraph 

1926.1413(a)(4), Removal from service, in certain 

instances tasks relative to alternative measures for 

certain (Category II) deficiencies would be done by 

a ‘‘qualified person,’’ also a defined term. 

discussion of proposed § 1926.1412(h), 

above). 

The Committee also concluded that a 

general requirement for preventive 

maintenance is not needed because the 

proposed inspection requirements are 

designed to ensure that deficiencies 

constituting safety hazards will be 

identified quickly and equipment with 

such a safety hazard would be 

prohibited from being returned to 

service until the hazard is corrected. 

As discussed above, the proposed 

section would add requirements for a 

post-assembly inspection and a severe 

service inspection, and varies from 

Subpart N to some extent with respect 

to some of the items to be inspected. In 

addition, the specific proposed 

requirements for inspecting operational 

aids and for a qualified person to 

perform the modified equipment and 

annual inspections would be new 

requirements. Finally, rather than 

providing for ‘‘daily to monthly’’ 

inspections, the proposed standard 

would require shift inspections and 

monthly inspections. 

Section 1413 Wire Rope—Inspection 

Cranes/derricks use wire rope to lift 

and support their loads and parts of the 

equipment. If the rope is worn or 

damaged, it can break, causing a failure 

of the equipment and/or a falling load, 

which can kill or injure workers below. 

Approximately 3% of crane fatalities in 

construction work result from wire 

ropes snapping. J.E. Beavers et al., 

‘‘Crane-Related Fatalities in the 

Construction Industry,’’ 132 Journal of 

Construction Engineering and 

Management 901, 903 (Sept. 2006). 

(OSHA–2007–0066–0011). 

Subpart N, in § 1926.550(a), contains 

several inspection requirements 

applicable to wire ropes. Other 

requirements are found in ANSI B30.5– 

1968, which is incorporated by 

reference in Subpart N through 

§ 1926.550(b)(2). In addition, the 

employer currently must look to both 

§ 1926.550 and to the ANSI standard to 

learn the content of the required 

inspections, the qualifications of the 

inspector, and the requirements for 

addressing deficiencies found in ropes. 

The Committee believed that placing all 

of the required inspections and 

remedies in this subpart without 

reference to outside resources would 

make it easier for employers to find and 

become familiar with the steps they are 

required to take and so facilitate 

compliance. This is particularly true for 

small businesses, which bear a 

disproportionate cost when they must 

access outside resources. 

The proposal would require wire rope 

inspections at the same frequency— 

shift, monthly, and annually—that 

would apply for other crane 

components. Also, like inspections of 

other components, the shift and 

monthly inspections must be conducted 

by a ‘‘competent person,’’ and the 

annual inspection by a ‘‘qualified 

person.’’ 

Paragraph 1413(a) Shift Inspection 

Proposed paragraph (a) would require 

a shift inspection, the first of the three 

types of wire rope inspections that 

would be required under this subpart. 

The timing, degree of scrutiny, and the 

level of expertise required of the person 

conducting this inspection and the other 

two inspections (monthly and annual) 

essentially mirror those in proposed 

§ 1926.1412, Inspections, for general 

equipment inspections. 

Paragraph 1413(a)(1) 

Proposed paragraph (a)(1) describes 

who conducts the shift inspection, the 

timing of the inspection, and the degree 

of scrutiny required. 

The shift inspection would be 

conducted by a ‘‘competent person,’’ a 

defined term in this subpart.36 C–DAC 

believed that a ‘‘competent person’’ 

would be the appropriate person to 

perform the shift inspection. OSHA 

standards typically assign comparable 

inspection duties to ‘‘competent 

persons.’’ See, for example, 

§ 1926.753(c) (competent person must 

conduct pre-shift visual inspection of 

cranes used in steel erection) and 

§ 1926.451(d)(3)(i) (competent person 

must inspect suspension scaffold before 

use to ensure it is able to support 

intended load). Moreover, a ‘‘competent 

person’’ would conduct other aspects of 

the shift inspections under this 

proposed standard. Some C–DAC 

members questioned using a 

‘‘competent person’’ for shift and 

monthly inspections on the basis that 

the individual most likely to perform 

such an inspection, the operator, may 

not have the authority to take corrective 

action, as is required of a ‘‘competent 

person’’ by definition. In response, 

OSHA notes that the employer would be 

required to ensure that the person 

assigned to perform the shift inspections 

has the requisite authority. 

This proposed paragraph also would 

require that this inspection be started 

before each shift and be completed 

before or during that shift. As with the 

general shift inspection, the Committee 

concluded that it was appropriate to 

allow the wire rope inspection to be 

completed during the shift instead of 

requiring it to be completed before the 

shift begins (see the discussion above of 

proposed § 1926.1412(d)(1), which 

explains the Committee’s reasons for 

allowing the general shift inspection to 

be completed during the shift). 

Accordingly, the competent person 

would be required to inspect all wire 

rope that is reasonably likely to be used 

during the shift. In cases where some of 

the rope that is likely to be used is not 

readily visible before the shift begins, as 

discussed above, that portion may be 

inspected during the shift. 

Proposed § 1926.1413(a)(1) would 

require the competent person to conduct 

a ‘‘visual inspection * * * for apparent 

deficiencies.’’ As discussed below, the 

purpose of this inspection is to ensure 

that deficiencies are identified and that, 

depending on the competent person’s 

evaluation of those deficiencies, 

appropriate action is taken. The 

Committee wanted to make clear, 

however, that the inspection was not to 

be so comprehensive and timeconsuming that it would be unrealistic 

to conduct it for each shift. To clarify 

that the inspection was one that was 

reasonable for a shift inspection, the 

provision states that neither ‘‘untwisting 

(opening of wire rope)’’ nor ‘‘booming 

down’’ would be required during this 

inspection. It believed that keeping the 

level of inspection realistic will 

encourage compliance that ultimately 

will serve to reduce accidents. 

Paragraph 1413(a)(2) Apparent 

Deficiencies 

Proposed § 1926.1413(a)(1) (discussed 

above) would require the competent 

person to look for ‘‘apparent 

deficiencies, including those listed in 

paragraph (a)(2).’’ Proposed 

§ 1926.1413(a)(2) would establish three 

categories (I, II, and III) of apparent wire 

rope deficiencies. The likelihood that a 

deficiency is hazardous increases as the 

number of the category increases from I 

to III. As discussed further below, the 

category determines the options or 

‘‘next steps’’ available to or required of 

the employer under § 1926.1413(a)(4), 

Removal from service. 

C–DAC’s goal in this paragraph is to 

establish clear and appropriate 

requirements setting out the steps 

employers must take when inspections 

reveal deficiencies. 

Category I: Proposed 

§ 1926.1413(a)(2)(i) lists ‘‘Category I’’ 

apparent deficiencies. These are similar 

to the types of wire rope deterioration 

noted in the inspection provisions of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59777 

37An example would be when the person installs 

a U-bolt clip with the ‘‘U’’ on the live end of the 

wire rope. 

section 5–2.4.1 of ANSI B30.5–1968 and 

section 5–2.4.2 of ASME B30.5–2004. 

As further indicated below in the 

discussion of § 1926.1413(a)(4)(i) under 

Removal from service, these items are 

grouped together because they reflect 

damage that may or may not be severe 

enough to constitute a hazard. Proposed 

§ 1926.1413(a)(4)(i) sets forth the steps 

the employer would be required to take 

once a Category I apparent deficiency 

has been identified. 

Proposed § 1926.1413(a)(2)(i)(A) 

begins the list with the ‘‘significant 

distortion’’ of wire rope, such as 

‘‘kinking, crushing, unstranding, 

birdcaging, signs of core failure or steel 

core protrusion between the strands.’’ 

These apparent deficiencies were 

selected because, as indicated by their 

inclusion in consensus standards, such 

as section 5–2.4.2 of ASME B30.5–2004, 

they may constitute or indicate the 

presence of a hazard. The Committee 

considered whether the reference in this 

paragraph to core failure should be 

limited to rotation resistant rope. 

However, the Committee decided not to 

limit ‘‘signs of core failure’’ to rotation 

resistant rope. 

The word ‘‘significant’’ was included 

in this and other provisions in 

§ 1926.1413(a)(2)(i) to make clear that 

minimal defects of these types do not 

rise to the level of Category I 

deficiencies. Only those that may pose 

genuine safety concerns are included. 

Proposed § 1926.1413 (a)(2)(i)(B) lists 

‘‘significant corrosion’’ as a Category I 

apparent deficiency. This type of 

damage was included because severe 

corrosion can weaken wire rope and 

cause it to break. The Committee used 

the descriptive term ‘‘significant’’ to 

limit further action to situations in 

which the degree of corrosion could 

realistically suggest a hazard. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(i)(C) lists 

‘‘electric arc (from a source other than 

power lines) or heat damage’’ as a 

Category I apparent deficiency. These 

deficiencies were derived from SAE 

(Society of Automotive Engineers) and 

COE (Army Corps of Engineers) 

standards and are included because 

such damage can weaken the wire rope. 

In discussing these types of damage, 

some Committee members expressed 

concern that ‘‘heat damage’’ would 

include instances where the rope had 

been cut to size by flame cutting. 

However, flame cutting would occur at 

the end of the newly cut rope, not at a 

load-bearing part of the rope. Heat 

damage is only a concern if it weakens 

a load-bearing part of the rope. Flame 

cutting done at the end of the rope, not 

in a load-bearing part, would not cause 

a hazard. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(i)(D) lists 

‘‘improperly applied end connections’’ 

as another apparent deficiency. In the 

Committee’s experience, one type of 

error that occurs is when somebody 

between shifts cuts the cable and puts 

the end connection back the wrong 

way.37 An improper connection is 

weaker than a proper one and can result 

in the connection failing. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(i)(E) lists 

‘‘[s]ignificantly corroded, cracked, bent, 

or worn end connections (such as from 

severe service)’’ as the last type of 

Category I apparent deficiency. Each of 

these may constitute a hazard. 

Category II: Proposed paragraph 

(a)(2)(ii) contains two types of Category 

II apparent deficiencies—visible broken 

wires (§ 1926.1413(a)(2)(ii)(A)) and wire 

rope diameter reduction 

(§ 1926.1413(a)(2)(ii)(B)). In the 

experience of the Committee, these 

more typically signal the presence of a 

safety hazard than Category I apparent 

deficiencies. Proposed 

§ 1926.1413(a)(4)(ii), under Removal 

from service, sets forth the steps the 

employer would be required to take 

once a Category II apparent deficiency 

has been identified. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(A) lists 

separate criteria for visible broken wires 

for running wire ropes (six randomly 

distributed broken wires in one rope lay 

or three broken wires in one strand in 

one rope lay), rotation resistant ropes 

(two randomly distributed broken wires 

in six rope diameters or four randomly 

distributed broken wires in 30 rope 

diameters), and pendant or standing 

wire ropes (more than two broken wires 

in one rope lay located in rope beyond 

end connections and/or more than one 

broken wire in a rope lay located at an 

end connection). 

A ‘‘running wire rope’’ is a wire rope 

that moves over sheaves or drums. This 

definition is included in § 1926.1401 of 

this proposed standard to make clear the 

nature of the wire rope that is subject to 

this inspection provision. These criteria 

are the same as those contained in 

section 5–2.4.3 of ASME B30.5–2004, 

and those for running wire ropes and 

pendant or standing wire ropes are also 

contained in section 5–2.4.2 of ANSI 

B30.5–1968, which is incorporated by 

reference in 29 CFR Part 1926 subpart 

N. One issue that was left unanswered 

during the Committee discussions is 

whether these broken wire criteria are 

equally applicable when using plastic 

sheaves. The Agency requests public 

comment on this issue. 

The reference in proposed paragraph 

(a)(2)(ii)(B) to ‘‘a diameter reduction of 

more than 5% from nominal diameter’’ 

reflects a change in the manner of 

expressing essentially the same criteria 

currently set forth in fractions in 

Subpart N (§ 1926.550(a)(7)(iv)) and 

section 5–2.4.3(b)(6) of ASME B30.5– 

2004. OSHA notes that the ‘‘reduction 

in diameter’’ fractions set forth currently 

in § 1926.550(a)(7)(iv) are in each case 

equal to or greater than 5%, so the 

proposed across the board 5% criterion 

is equally or more protective than the 

current standard for each rope diameter. 

C–DAC used the percentage reduction 

criterion because it is consistent with 

the criterion now being set by rope 

manufacturers and used in the industry. 

The industry uses the percentage 

reduction criterion because it is easier to 

remember than the fractional reductions 

in Subpart N. 

Category III: Proposed paragraph 

(a)(2)(iii) lists apparent Category III 

deficiencies. The Committee believed 

that these are of such significance that 

they require the rope’s immediate 

removal from service. For some 

Category III deficiencies, the undamaged 

part of the rope may be returned to 

service if the damaged part is severed 

(the actions required in response to 

identifying these deficiencies are 

discussed below with respect to 

proposed § 1926.1413(a)(4)(iv)). 

Under proposed paragraph 

(a)(2)(iii)(A), ‘‘core protrusion or other 

distortion indicating core failure’’ in 

rotation resistant rope would be a 

Category III apparent deficiency. As 

described by a C–DAC member, this 

visible indicator is present when there 

is core protrusion between the outer 

strands or, in other words, ‘‘the metal 

core is coming out.’’ Core protrusion is 

a late-stage indicator that the rope has 

already suffered significant damage and, 

in the Committee’s judgment, 

necessitates the rope’s immediate 

removal from service. 

Under proposed paragraph 

(a)(2)(iii)(B), ‘‘[e]lectrical contact with a 

power line’’ would be a Category III 

apparent deficiency. Contact with a 

power line could cause the rope to carry 

a high electrical current that could 

result in internal damage that 

significantly reduces the rope’s strength. 

The Committee believed that, in view of 

the difficulty in confirming such 

internal damage and the likelihood that 

significant damage has occurred in such 

instances, it is imperative that the entire 

rope be replaced. 

The rope would have to be removed 

from service under this provision if the 

load, rigging, or the rope itself makes 

electrical contact with a power line. In 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59778 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

addition, electrical contact under this 

provision would occur if the boom or 

other part of the crane contacts a power 

line and the wire rope is in contact with 

the ground through the hook or some 

other means. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(C) also 

lists ‘‘a broken strand’’ as a Category III 

apparent deficiency. A strand is a 

‘‘group’’ of wires. In the Committee’s 

view, that degree of damage clearly 

compromises the rope’s capacity and 

continued use would be dangerous. 

Paragraph 1413(a)(3) Critical Review 

Items 

Under proposed paragraph (a)(3), the 

competent person must give particular 

attention to certain ‘‘Critical Review 

Items’’ during the shift inspection (as 

well as, as discussed below, in the 

monthly and annual inspections). 

Under proposed paragraph (a)(3)(i), 

rotation resistant wire rope that is in use 

would be a critical review item. As 

indicated earlier, the construction of 

rotation resistant rope makes it more 

susceptible to damage and more 

difficult to detect damage to the inner 

wires and/or strands. 

Under proposed paragraph (a)(3)(ii), 

‘‘wire rope being used for boom hoists 

and luffing hoists, particularly at reverse 

bends’’ would be included in the list 

because of the critical nature of these 

ropes and, with respect to reverse 

bends, because these areas are subjected 

to more stress and are more prone to 

damage. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(3)(iii) lists 

‘‘wire rope at flange points, crossover 

points and repetitive pickup points on 

drums’’ because these points of the rope 

are subject to additional wear. These 

terms are defined in § 1926.1401, 

Definitions, as follows: 

Flange point: A point of contact between 

rope and drum flange where the rope changes 

layers. 

Crossover points: Locations on a wire rope 

which is spooled on a drum where one layer 

of rope climbs up and crosses over the 

previous layer. This takes place at each 

flange of the drum as the rope is spooled onto 

the drum, reaches the flange, and begins to 

wrap back in the opposite direction. 

Repetitive pickup points: When operating 

on a short cycle operation, the rope being 

used on a single layer and being spooled 

repetitively over a short portion of the drum. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(3)(iv) lists 

‘‘wire rope adjacent to end connections’’ 

because such rope is prone to corrosion 

and/or breakage due to the localized 

stresses placed on these areas. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(3)(v) lists 

‘‘wire rope at and on equalizer sheaves’’ 

because the limited travel of such rope 

and added stress make it more prone to 

wear. 

Paragraph 1413(a)(4) Removal From 

Service 

Remedial steps upon identification of 

apparent deficiency: Proposed 

paragraph (a)(4) would set out the 

required next steps to be taken once the 

competent person performing the 

inspection has identified an apparent 

deficiency. Those steps depend upon 

whether, under § 1926.1413(a)(2), the 

apparent deficiency falls under Category 

I, II or III. Under this approach, 

immediate removal from service would 

be required for certain deficiencies, 

while continued use under prescribed 

circumstances would be allowed for 

others. This approach was adopted by 

C–DAC because, in the Committee’s 

collective experience, different types of 

deficiencies warrant different responses. 

As described below, this approach 

differs somewhat from Subpart N, with 

its incorporation by reference of ANSI 

B30.5–1968, as well as ASME B30.5– 

2004. In addition, certain apparent 

deficiencies addressed in this proposed 

rule are not addressed by those 

consensus standards. 

Category I remedial steps: Proposed 

paragraph (a)(4)(i) sets forth the followup to the discovery of a Category I 

apparent deficiency that would be 

required. Immediately upon the 

discovery of such a deficiency, the 

competent person must determine 

whether the deficiency is a safety 

hazard. If it is determined to be a 

hazard, operations involving the use of 

the wire rope would be prohibited until 

one of two responses is taken—the rope 

is replaced or the deficiency, if localized 

(and not due to power line contact), is 

removed by severing the rope in two so 

that the undamaged portion can be 

used. The provision also would prohibit 

joining lengths of rope by splicing. 

The Committee found that the 

likelihood of significant damage from 

power line contact is so great that, after 

such contact, it is imperative that the 

rope be removed from service. Also, it 

determined that splicing is not a safe 

practice and should therefore be 

prohibited. 

The Category I deficiencies, except for 

damage from significant corrosion or an 

electric arc, are currently addressed by 

Subpart N through incorporation by 

reference of section 5–2.4 of ASME 

B30.5–1968. That ANSI standard 

requires the deficiencies to be evaluated 

(by an ‘‘appointed or authorized 

person’’) and a determination made as 

to whether continued use of the rope 

would constitute a safety hazard. A 

similar provision is contained in ASME 

B30.5–2004. These provisions imply, 

but do not explicitly state, that a rope 

constituting a safety hazard must not be 

used. The proposed standard would 

explicitly state this prohibition. 

Category II remedial steps: Proposed 

paragraphs (a)(4)(ii) and (iii) establish 

the procedures to be followed once 

Category II apparent deficiencies have 

been identified. This category of 

deficiencies includes wire rope that has 

diameter reduction and/or visible 

broken wires as described in proposed 

§ 1926.1413(a)(2)(ii). Proposed 

§ 1926.1413(a)(4)(ii) sets forth two 

alternative options for the employer— 

Option A or B—when such a deficiency 

is identified. 

Under Option A, an employer must 

consider the wire rope to be a safety 

hazard where the deficiency meets the 

wire rope manufacturer’s established 

criterion for removal or ‘‘meets a 

different criterion that the wire rope 

manufacturer has approved in writing 

for that specific wire rope.’’ In such 

instances, operations involving the use 

of the wire rope in question are 

prohibited until it is replaced or severed 

as provided in § 1926.1413(a)(4)(i)(B). 

Option B would allow limited 

continued use of the wire rope with an 

identified Category II apparent 

deficiency provided the employer 

ensures the procedures specified in 

§ 1926.1413(a)(4)(iii) are met. Under 

1926.1413(a)(4)(iii), a qualified person 

first assesses the deficiencies in light of 

the load and other conditions of use and 

determines that continued use is safe as 

long as the conditions established in 

this paragraph are met. 

These conditions include (as 

established by the qualified person) the 

parameters for use of the rope, including 

a reduced maximum rated load, the 

number of broken wires and/or the 

diameter reduction that will require the 

rope to be taken out of service (or 

repaired in accordance with proposed 

1926.1413(4)(i)(A) or (B)), and a specific 

time limit, not to exceed 30 days from 

the date the deficiency was first 

identified, to replace the rope or sever 

the damaged portion in accordance with 

1926.1413(a)(4)(i)(B). 

The C–DAC draft, at paragraph 

(a)(4)(iii)(C), would also have allowed 

the qualified person to specify the 

number of broken strands that would 

require the equipment to be taken out of 

service. However, as discussed above, 

under 1926.1413(a)(2)(iii)(C), a single 

broken strand is a Category III apparent 

deficiency that requires the equipment 

to be immediately removed from service 

until the rope is replaced or the 

deficiency severed, in which case the 

undamaged part of the rope may 

continue to be used. Because the 

proposed rule prohibits any use of a 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59779 

wire rope with a broken strand, OSHA 

has deleted the words ‘‘broken strands’’ 

from 1926.1413(a)(4)(iii)(C). 

Once the qualified person has 

established the conditions for continued 

use of the rope, the workers who are to 

conduct the shift inspections must be 

notified of the qualified person’s 

determinations. In addition, the 

qualified person’s procedures and 

findings must be documented. The 

Committee included this documentation 

provision because the person 

conducting the shift inspections would 

need to be able to refer to the parameters 

set by the qualified person. 

29 CFR Part 1926 subpart N, in 

§ 1926.550(a)(7), currently requires that 

ropes with the same deficiencies that 

would fall under the proposed rule’s 

Category II (as well as heat damage, 

which would be a Category I deficiency) 

be removed from service. Section 

2.4.3(a) of ASME B30.5–2004 allows the 

rope to be used to the end of the work 

shift based on the judgment of a 

qualified person. 

The Committee determined that the 

alternative measures specified in Option 

B are sufficiently comprehensive and 

specific to ensure that the rope’s 

continued use for up to 30 days would 

be safe. 

OSHA notes that the remedial steps 

for Category II apparent deficiencies do 

not, unlike those for Category I and III 

apparent deficiencies, state explicitly 

that splicing of wire rope is prohibited. 

Instead, § 1926.1413(a)(4)(ii)(A) states 

that, if a Category II apparent deficiency 

is a safety hazard, continued use of the 

rope is prohibited unless ‘‘the damage is 

removed in accordance with 

§ 1926.1413(4)(i)(B),’’ which applies to 

Category I deficiencies. Proposed 

§ 1926.1413(a)(4)(i)(B) includes a 

prohibition against splicing that C–DAC 

intended to apply to Category II 

deficiencies, but the language ‘‘damage 

is removed’’ in proposed 

§ 1926.1413(a)(4)(ii)(A) could, in the 

absence of an explicit prohibition 

against splicing in that paragraph, 

arguably be read to mean that the rope 

could be severed and the undamaged 

portions spliced. To make clear C– 

DAC’s intent that the anti-splicing 

provision of § 1926.1413(a)(4)(i)(B) 

applies to Category II, OSHA has 

modified the C–DAC language for 

proposed § 1926.1413(a)(4)(ii)(B) as 

follows: 

(ii) If a deficiency in Category II is 

identified, the employer shall comply with 

Option A of this section or Option B of this 

section, as follows: 

(A) Option A. Consider the deficiency to 

constitute a safety hazard where it meets the 

wire rope manufacturer’s established 

criterion for removal from service or meets a 

different criterion that the wire rope 

manufacturer has approved in writing for 

that specific wire rope. If the deficiency is 

considered a safety hazard, operations 

involving use of the wire rope in question 

shall be prohibited until the wire rope is 

replaced, or the damage is removed in 

accordance with all of the requirements and 

restrictions in paragraph (4)(i)(B) of this 

section. 

OSHA has made similar changes to 

proposed § 1926.1413(a)(4)(iii)(C) & (D). 

Category III remedial steps: Proposed 

paragraph (a)(4)(iv) would establish the 

procedure for dealing with identified 

apparent deficiencies that fall within 

Category III. These deficiencies include 

a broken strand, electrical contact with 

a power line, and core protrusion or 

other distortion in rotation resistant 

rope indicating core failure. This 

proposed paragraph would prohibit 

operations involving the use of the wire 

rope until either the wire rope is 

replaced or (except where there has 

been power line contact) severed in two, 

so that the undamaged portion can be 

used. Joining lengths of wire rope by 

splicing would be prohibited (see 

discussion above of proposed 

§ 1926.1413(a)(4)(i)(B)). 

Neither Subpart N nor ANSI B30.5– 

1968 addresses these apparent 

deficiencies. However, the Committee 

noted that section 5–2.4.2(a) of ASME 

B30.5–2000 lists ‘‘broken or cut strands’’ 

and ‘‘core failure in rotation resistant 

ropes’’ as deficiencies that may be an 

immediate hazard. (ASME B30.5–2004 

contains the same characterization of 

these deficiencies as the 2000 version). 

The Committee believed that ropes with 

Category III deficiencies must not be 

used because of the high potential for 

rope failure. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(4)(v) would 

require that where a wire rope is 

required to be removed from service 

under this proposed section, the 

equipment (as a whole) or the hoist with 

that wire rope shall be tagged-out as 

provided in proposed § 1926.1417(f)(1) 

until the wire rope is replaced or 

repaired. Neither Subpart N, with its 

incorporated reference to ASME B30.5– 

1968, nor ASME B30.5–2004 contains a 

similar tag-out provision specific to wire 

rope. The Committee believed that this 

would be an efficient and effective way 

of preventing employees from activating 

equipment (or the affected hoist) that 

has a wire rope with an identified 

hazard. 

Paragraph 1413(b) Monthly Inspection 

Proposed paragraph (b) would require 

a monthly inspection of wire rope. The 

monthly inspection would be, as 

explained below, a documented shift 

inspection. C–DAC decided to keep the 

timing of this inspection (as well as the 

level of scrutiny required and the 

expertise required of the inspector) 

parallel with the general inspection 

requirements in § 1926.1412 to provide 

for an efficient inspection process and 

thus enhance compliance. A monthly 

wire rope inspection is currently 

required by Subpart N’s incorporation 

by reference of ASME B30.5–1968. 

Proposed paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) 

would require the monthly inspection to 

be conducted in the same manner as the 

shift inspection under § 1926.1413(a). 

Thus, the monthly inspection would be 

a visual inspection conducted by a 

competent person for the same types of 

apparent deficiencies noted in the wire 

rope shift inspection. 

It should be noted that the reference 

in proposed § 1926.1413(b)(2) of the C– 

DAC Consensus Document to 

‘‘paragraph 1413(a)(3)’’ has been 

corrected in the proposed rule to refer 

to § 1926.1413(a)(4), which contains the 

relevant provisions governing corrective 

actions. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(3) would 

require the monthly inspection to be 

documented in the same manner as 

required by paragraph § 1926.1412(e)(3) 

for the monthly general inspection. C– 

DAC wanted to keep this requirement 

parallel with the monthly general 

inspection provision in order to reduce 

paperwork and confusion, and facilitate 

compliance. 

Specifically, for the general monthly 

inspection, § 1926.1412(e)(3) provides 

that the ‘‘employer that conducts the 

inspection’’ must provide 

documentation that reflects the items 

checked with results, the name and 

signature of the inspector, and the date. 

Similar requirements are set forth in 

ASME B30.5–1968. 

Proposed paragraph 1412(e)(3) also 

specifies that the documentation be 

retained for not less than three-months. 

The Committee believed that the 

proposed three-month retention period 

would provide sufficient overlap to 

avoid gaps in information and thus 

provide a tracking mechanism for 

developing problem areas. 

Paragraph 1413(c) Annual/ 

Comprehensive 

Proposed paragraph 1413(c) would 

require an annual inspection (at least 

every 12 months) for wire rope, 

conducted by a qualified person. The 

annual inspection would be 

considerably more thorough and 

comprehensive than the shift and 

monthly inspections required by 

proposed § 1926.1413(a) and (b). In 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59780 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

addition, it would be conducted by a 

‘‘qualified person,’’ who would have 

greater expertise than the ‘‘competent 

person’’ who must conduct the shift and 

monthly inspections. 

The timing and inspector 

qualifications for the annual wire rope 

inspection coincide with those for the 

general equipment annual/ 

comprehensive inspection. C–DAC 

believed that the use of corresponding 

timeframes and personnel will allow 

inspections to be conducted efficiently 

and thereby promote effectiveness and 

compliance. 

Under proposed paragraph (c)(1), all 

apparent deficiencies and critical 

review items required to be checked in 

a shift inspection would have to be 

checked in the annual/comprehensive 

inspection (see § 1926.1413(a)(2) and 

(a)(3)). In addition, under proposed 

§ 1926.1413(c)(2), a complete and 

thorough inspection, covering the 

surface of the entire length of the wire 

ropes, would be required. In addition to 

inspecting in this manner for the types 

of deficiencies listed in 

§ 1926.1413(a)(2), under proposed 

§ 1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(A), the qualified 

person would be required to give 

particular attention to the critical review 

items listed in § 1926.1413(a)(3). Note 

that the C–DAC document’s 

§ 1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(A) referred to the 

‘‘critical review items listed in 

paragraph (a)(2)’’ instead of 

§ 1926.1413(a)(3). That reference to 

§ 1926.1413(a)(2) was a typographical 

error, which has been corrected in the 

proposed rule. 

Under proposed paragraph 

(c)(2)(ii)(B), particular attention must be 

given to those sections of wire rope that 

are normally hidden during shift and 

monthly inspections. For example, such 

sections would include parts of the rope 

that form the lower wraps on the boom 

hoist drum and which would not be 

visible unless the drum is in a very low 

angle position. The parts of the rope that 

are normally inside a cowling or 

covered area would be another example 

of such sections. 

Similarly, proposed paragraphs 

(c)(2)(ii)(C) through (F) require 

particular attention to wire rope in 

contact with saddles, equalizer sheaves 

or other sheaves where rope travel is 

limited, wire rope subject to reverse 

bends, wire rope passing over sheaves 

and wire rope at or near terminal ends, 

since these areas are more prone to 

wear. 

Unlike the shift and monthly 

inspections, in which booming down 

would not be required, booming down 

would be necessary in order for the 

inspection to be ‘‘complete and 

thorough, covering the surface of the 

entire length of the wire rope.’’ 

OSHA notes that the items listed in 

§ 1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(C) and (F) (‘‘Wire 

rope in contact with saddles, equalizer 

sheaves or other sheaves where rope 

travel is limited’’ and ‘‘Wire rope at or 

near terminal ends’’) are similar to the 

critical review items listed for shift 

inspections in proposed 

§ 1926.1413(a)(3)(iv) and (a)(3)(v)(‘‘Wire 

rope adjacent to end connections’’ and 

‘‘Wire rope at and on equalizer 

sheaves’’). Consequently, the Agency is 

planning to revise the language in 

proposed § 1926.1413(a)(3)(iv) and 

(a)(3)(v) to match the language in 

§ 1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(C) and (c)(2)(ii)(F). 

OSHA then could delete proposed 

§ 1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(C) and (c)(2)(ii)(F) 

because proposed 

§ 1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(A) incorporates by 

reference the critical review items listed 

in § 1926.1413(a)(3)(iv) and (a)(3)(v), 

thereby making the items listed in 

proposed paragraphs 

§ 1926.1413(c)(2)(ii)(C) and (c)(2)(ii)(F) 

redundant and unnecessary. The 

Agency asks the public for comments on 

this proposed action. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(iii) would 

establish an exception to the timing of 

the annual/ comprehensive inspection 

where that inspection is infeasible due 

to ‘‘existing set-up and configuration of 

the equipment (such as where an assist 

crane is needed) or due to site 

conditions (such as a dense urban 

setting).’’ The provision sets a timetable 

for annual/comprehensive inspections 

in such cases that requires the 

inspection to be performed ‘‘as soon as 

it becomes feasible, but no longer than 

an additional 6 months for running 

ropes and, for standing ropes, at the 

time of disassembly.’’ 

This provision reflects the 

Committee’s concern that, particularly 

in densely developed urban settings, the 

inability to boom down would prevent 

the employer from completing a 

comprehensive wire rope inspection. 

The Committee considered requiring 

employers anticipating such situations 

to provide rope that is new or ‘‘like 

new’’ when the crane is set-up at the 

site. Also considered was requiring that 

an annual inspection be required in 

such instances before the start of the job. 

The Committee found these proposals to 

be impractical because it is difficult for 

employers to forecast completion 

timeframes with sufficient accuracy. 

The proposed provision is intended to 

ensure that, under the circumstances 

where the exception would apply, the 

required inspection would occur within 

an appropriate period. The Committee 

considered a maximum of an additional 

6 months appropriate for running ropes 

in these circumstances. A longer period, 

up to the time of disassembly, was 

considered appropriate for standing 

ropes because these ropes, in the 

Committee’s experience, are less subject 

to deterioration and wear. 

These provisions of the annual/ 

comprehensive inspection differ in 

various ways from Subpart N annual 

inspection provisions at 

§ 1926.550(a)(6). The current annual 

inspection in Subpart N is a ‘‘thorough’’ 

inspection conducted by a ‘‘competent 

person or by a government or private 

agency recognized by the U.S. 

Department of Labor.’’ Under this 

proposal, the annual/comprehensive 

inspection would be conducted by a 

qualified person and includes a number 

of specific items the inspection must 

encompass. The Committee believed 

that these changes are needed to reduce 

the likelihood of injuries and fatalities 

from wire rope failure. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(3) identifies 

the next steps that would have to be 

taken once the qualified person 

performing the annual/comprehensive 

inspection discovers a deficiency. The 

qualified person must immediately 

determine whether the deficiency 

constitutes a safety hazard. If it does, 

under proposed § 1926.1413(c)(3)(i), the 

rope would either have to be replaced 

or, if the deficiency is localized, the 

damaged part may be severed and the 

undamaged portion may continue to be 

used. As discussed with respect to 

proposed § 1926.1413(a)(4)(i)(B), joining 

lengths of wire rope by splicing would 

be prohibited. 

The proposed standard does not 

include a prohibition in 

§ 1926.1413(c)(3)(i)(B) against repair of 

wire rope that contacted an energized 

power line, although such a prohibition 

is included in the context of a shift 

inspection in proposed 

§ 1926.1413(a)(4)(i)(B). The Agency’s 

understanding is that the Committee 

decided to not include that prohibition 

in the annual/comprehensive inspection 

provision because, if an energized 

power line contact had occurred, the 

rope would have been removed from 

service immediately in accordance with 

proposed § 1926.1413(a)(4)(i)(B). 

If the qualified person determines that 

the deficiency is not currently a safety 

hazard but needs to be monitored, under 

proposed § 1926.1413(c)(3)(ii) the 

employer would be required to ensure 

that the deficiency is checked in the 

monthly inspections. This would ensure 

that, as the deficiency continues to 

develop, the competent person would 

pay particular attention to it in the 

monthly inspections. Once it became a 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59781 

38As discussed below under proposed paragraph 

(c), C–DAC drew from the current 2004 ASME 

document in proposing design factors for rotation 

resistant rope. 

39The provisions for standard rope in section 

5–1.7.1 of B30.5–2004 read as follows: 

5–1.7.1 Rope Design Factors 

(a) For supporting rated loads and for supporting 

the boom and working attachments at 

recommended travel or transit positions and boom 

lengths, 

(1) the design factor for live or running ropes that 

wind on drums or travel over sheaves shall not be 

less than 3.5. 

(2) the design factor for boom pendants or 

standing ropes shall not be less than 3.0. 

(b) For supporting the boom under recommended 

boom erection conditions, 

(1) the design factor for live or running ropes 

shall not be less than 3.0. 

(2) the design factor for boom pendants or 

standing ropes shall not be less than 2.5. 

safety hazard, it would be identified 

promptly and the appropriate corrective 

action would be taken. 

Under proposed paragraph (c)(4), the 

annual/comprehensive inspection 

would be required to be documented 

according to proposed § 1926.1412(f)(7), 

which is the documentation provision 

for the annual general inspection. As 

with other parallel requirements in this 

section, the C–DAC intended to ensure 

consistency with other recordkeeping 

requirements and thus facilitate 

compliance. 

Proposed paragraph 1412(f)(7), which 

is incorporated by reference here, would 

require the employer that is conducting 

the inspection to document and retain 

for 12 months, ‘‘the items checked and 

the results of that inspection’’ and ‘‘the 

name and signature of the person who 

conducted the inspection and the date.’’ 

This documentation requirement differs 

from 29 CFR Part 1926 subpart N’s 

annual inspection in that Subpart N 

does not specify the period of time the 

documentation must be kept and has 

neither a signature requirement nor a 

requirement that the inspector be 

named. The Committee believed that a 

12 month retention period would ensure 

that the employer would be able to refer 

to the last annual/comprehensive 

inspection to help track the rate of 

progression of a deficiency that has not 

yet developed into a safety hazard. The 

Committee also believed that it would 

increase the likelihood of compliance 

with the annual/comprehensive 

inspection requirements. 

Finally, proposed paragraph 1413(d) 

would prohibit the use of the type of 

rope lubricants that hinder inspection. 

For example, rope lubricants that are 

opaque or so dark that they mask the 

wire rope inside them would be of this 

type. This prohibition is necessary to 

ensure that the rope lubricant does not 

hide potential deficiencies. 

Section 1414 Wire Rope—Selection 

and Installation Criteria 

This proposed section sets forth 

requirements for selecting and installing 

wire rope. It addresses safety concerns 

related to wire rope selection and 

installation. In addition, it would 

provide greater flexibility in the 

selection process than current 

requirements under Subpart N. This 

flexibility reflects and takes advantage 

of new developments in wire rope 

technology. 

Currently, paragraph 

1926.550(a)(7)(vi) of Subpart N 

prescribes that wire rope safety factors 

accord with ANSI B30.5–1968 or SAE 

J959–1966. By contrast, this proposed 

section would not refer to external 

standards for wire rope safety factors or 

other requirements (with a single 

exception discussed below) and would 

give greater flexibility in selecting wire 

rope, particularly rotation resistant wire 

rope. Specific differences between this 

proposal and Subpart N are examined in 

the discussion of the paragraph where 

the difference arises. 

The Agency notes that, in developing 

the C–DAC consensus document, the 

Committee appears to have made an 

inadvertent omission. The wire rope 

safety factors in section 5–1.7.1 of ANSI 

B30.5–1968 (which, as noted above, are 

incorporated by reference in Subpart N) 

apply irrespective of whether the rope is 

of the standard type (i.e., rope that is not 

rotation-resistant) or rotation resistant. 

However, the C–DAC document 

contains safety factor (now ‘‘design’’ 

factor) requirements only for rotation 

resistant rope 38; it has no provisions on 

design factors for standard rope. 

Currently, under Subpart N’s 

incorporation of section 5–1.7.1 of ANSI 

B30.5–1968, the factors for standard 

rope vary from a minimum of 2.5 to 3.5 

depending on how the rope is used. The 

2004 version of section 5–1.7.1 of ASME 

B30.5 contains similar provisions and 

the same range of design factors.39

Given the importance of design factors 

in the selection of wire rope, OSHA 

believes that the omission of design 

factors for standard rope from the 

C–DAC document was an oversight. 

OSHA is unaware of any reason to omit 

design factors for standard rope and 

plans to include factors for standard 

rope similar to those in section 5–1.7.1 

of ASME B30.5–2004. OSHA requests 

public comment on this issue. 

Paragraph 1414(a) 

Proposed paragraph (a) would require 

the selection of replacement wire rope 

to be in accordance with the 

requirements of this section and the 

recommendations of the wire rope 

manufacturer, the equipment 

manufacturer, or a qualified person. 

Currently, Subpart N (through section 

5–1.7.2e of ANSI B30.5–1968) limits the 

employer to using replacement rope of 

the same size, grade and construction as 

the rope originally furnished by the 

crane manufacturer unless otherwise 

approved by the rope manufacturer. The 

2004 version of ASME B30.5, in section 

5–2.4.3(d), specifies that replacement 

rope shall have a strength rating at least 

as great as the original rope unless a 

deviation is approved by the equipment 

manufacturer, the rope manufacturer, or 

a qualified person. 

A number of concerns about the 

current 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N 

provision were raised during the C–DAC 

negotiations. Some members were 

concerned about delays in obtaining 

approval from the equipment 

manufacturer. With respect to older 

equipment, the manufacturer may no 

longer be in business. In such cases the 

employer is unable to get original 

equipment wire rope information or 

obtain approval for use of a different 

specification of rope. Even where the 

original manufacturer was purchased by 

another company, the current company 

may no longer have the original 

equipment information. Another 

concern was that the wire rope 

manufacturer may be unduly 

conservative in recommending a 

replacement rope. 

The Committee concluded that it 

would be appropriate to allow a 

qualified person to determine the 

replacement rope specifications. The 

Committee believed that the criteria for 

being a qualified person are sufficiently 

rigorous to ensure that such a person’s 

recommendation in this regard would 

be authoritative with respect to safety. 

OSHA notes that proposed paragraph 

(a)’s mention of only ‘‘replacement 

rope’’ could mislead some readers to 

conclude that all of § 1926.1414 applies 

only to replacement rope. The 

Committee clearly intended that the 

remainder of § 1926.1414 apply to both 

original equipment rope and 

replacement rope. Rewording 

§ 1926.1414(a) to read as follows would, 

OSHA believes, make clear the 

Committee’s intent: ‘‘Original 

equipment wire rope and replacement 

wire rope shall be selected and installed 

in accordance with the requirements of 

this section. Selection of replacement 

wire rope shall be in accordance with 

the recommendations of the wire rope 

manufacturer, the equipment 

manufacturer, or a qualified person.’’ 

OSHA requests public comment on such 

a revision. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59782 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

40ASTM A 1023/A 1023M–02 has a similar 

classification system, although it divides rotation 

resistant ropes into ‘‘categories.’’ 

41 In contrast, where the operating design factor 

is 5 or greater, the Committee believed that core 

damage (which is difficult to detect) would not 

occur prior to the development of outer core 

damage. Consequently, its use for duty cycle or 

repetitive lifts would be safe. 

Paragraph 1414(b) Boom Hoist Reeving 

Proposed paragraph (b) sets forth two 

provisions regarding the use of wire 

rope for boom hoist reeving. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(1) would 

prohibit using fiber core ropes for boom 

hoist reeving, except for derricks. In the 

Committee’s view, the composition of 

such ropes makes them prone to 

degradation that is not completely 

detectable by normal inspection 

techniques. The Committee believed 

that fiber core ropes can be used safely 

for boom hoist reeving on derricks 

because the sheaves on derricks are 

smaller than on cranes, and because 

they are more pliable, fiber core ropes 

can accommodate reverse bending. In 

addition, but less significant, derrick 

booms are typically shorter in length 

and have less capacity. 

Currently, Subpart N does not contain 

an express prohibition against the use of 

fiber core wire ropes for boom hoist 

reeving. ANSI B30.5–1968, incorporated 

by reference into Subpart N, only 

references the effect of temperature on 

fiber core wire rope. 

The 2004 version of ASME B30.5, in 

section 5.1.7.2(b), prohibits the use of 

fiber core wire ropes for boom hoist 

reeving for mobile and locomotive 

cranes. By contrast, the standard in the 

ASME B30 series that applies to 

derricks, ASME B30.6–2003, does not 

prohibit the use of fiber core wire rope 

for boom hoist reeving. Thus, the 

distinction in proposed § 1926.1414(b) 

between cranes and derricks in this 

regard is consistent with current 

national consensus standards. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would 

prohibit rotation resistant rope from 

being used for boom hoist reeving 

except where the requirements of 

§ 1926.1414(c) are met. The Committee 

believed that only where these 

provisions are met would the use of 

rotation resistant rope for this purpose 

be safe. The particulars of paragraph (c) 

are discussed next. 

Paragraph 1414(c) Rotation Resistant 

Ropes 

Paragraph (c)(1) 

Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would 

classify rotation resistant ropes into 

three ‘‘Types’’ (‘‘Type I,’’ ‘‘Type II,’’ and 

‘‘Type III’’).40 Proposed 

§ 1926.1414(c)(2) specifies use 

limitations and requirements for each 

‘‘Type’’ of wire rope. This approach 

differs from Subpart N, ANSI B30.5– 

1968 and ASME B30.5–2004, which do 

not distinguish between types of 

rotation resistant rope. 

Technological advances have resulted 

in different types of what in the past 

had been referred to as ‘‘rotation 

resistant rope.’’ The different kinds, 

which are distinguished in this 

proposed section as Types I, II and III, 

have different capabilities, which are 

described in the definitions in proposed 

§ 1926.1414(c)(1). This proposed section 

tailors the requirements and limitations 

to each Type. The Committee believed 

that this approach would enable the 

industry to take advantage of 

technological advances and improve 

safety. 

Paragraph (c)(2) Requirements 

Proposed paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through 

(iv) set forth use requirements of the 

three ‘‘Types’’ of rotation resistant rope 

in terms of operating design factors (and 

in some instances activity). The purpose 

of these provisions is to ensure that the 

selection of the Type of rotation 

resistant rope is suitable, in terms of 

safety, to its use. 

The specifics of each paragraph are 

discussed below. This approach 

generally differs from Subpart N. The 

safety factors in ANSI B30.5–1968 and 

SAE J959–1966 that are incorporated by 

reference in 29 CFR part 1926 subpart 

N are applicable to wire rope generally; 

those industry consensus standards do 

not separately address rotation resistant 

rope with respect to design factors. 

However, sections 5–5–1.7.1(c) and 

5–3.2.1.1(d) of ASME B30.5–2004 

generally designate a design factor of 5 

for the use of rotation resistant rope, 

reflecting the advances in technology 

that led the Committee to adopt a 

similar approach. Further, the 2004 

ASME standard allows for deviation 

from the design factor of 5, but in no 

case lower than 3.5, when certain 

specified procedures that are similar to 

procedures in proposed 

§ 1926.1414(c)(2)(iv) and further 

described in § 1926.1414(c)(3) are 

followed. 

Proposed paragraphs (c)(2)(i)–(iv) use 

the phrase ‘‘operating design factor.’’ 

‘‘Operating’’ has been included in this 

phrase to show that the factors specified 

in these proposed paragraphs are to 

reflect how the rope is installed on the 

specific piece of equipment in which it 

is used. In other words, the operating 

design factor is calculated based on 

numerous considerations associated 

with both the rope’s design and how it 

is installed on the equipment in which 

it will be used. 

The Committee recognized that 

limiting the use of a particular Type of 

rotation resistant rope by operating 

design factors (and, in some instances, 

by activity) is a new approach. 

However, the technological 

developments that have occurred since 

Subpart N was promulgated have led to 

a need to tailor use requirements and 

parameters to the different Types of 

rotation resistant rope. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(i) would 

prohibit Types II and III rotation 

resistant rope with an operating design 

factor of less than 5 from being used for 

duty cycle or repetitive lifts. The 

Committee believed that such ropes are 

inappropriate for this type of use, which 

subjects the rope to high levels of stress 

generally and/or concentrates wear in 

particular sections of the rope.41

While not addressed in the current 

Subpart N, a similar limitation applies 

to rotation resistant rope (though not 

limited by Type) in section 5– 

3.2.1.1(d)(3) of ASME B30.5–2004. 

This prohibition would not apply to 

Type I rotation resistant rope because 

the Committee believed that it is 

significantly more resistant to rotation 

or torque compared with Types II and 

III. This reduces Type I’s potential for 

internal wear during use and moves 

degradation from the inner wires to the 

outer wires, where damage is more 

easily detected during wire rope 

inspections. Accordingly, the 

Committee concluded that Type I rope 

can safely be used for duty cycle and 

repetitive lifts at an operating design 

factor below 5 (but no less than 3.5), as 

specified in proposed 

1926.1414(c)(2)(ii). 

The Committee’s understanding of 

‘‘duty cycle’’ in this context is a 

continuous operation in which 

approximately the same type and weight 

of load is handled. For example, 

dredging with a clamshell is duty cycle 

work. ‘‘Repetitive lifts’’ refers to a 

continuous operation with loads that 

may vary in size and weight. For 

example, steel erection work typically 

involves repetitive lifts of various size 

and configurations of structural steel 

members. It is the Agency’s 

understanding that these definitions are 

widely understood in the industry. 

However, OSHA believes it is 

appropriate to include them in 

§ 1926.1401, Definitions, to avoid any 

misunderstanding as to their meaning in 

this standard. OSHA requests public 

comment on this issue. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii) would 

require that all rotation resistant ropes 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59783 

have an operating design factor of no 

less than 3.5. As discussed above, some 

rotation resistant ropes—Types II and 

III—would have to have an operating 

design factor of no less than 5 when 

used for duty cycle or repetitive lifts. 

Apart from those uses, under proposed 

§ 1926.1414(c)(2)(ii), the lowest 

operating design factor that would be 

allowed for both Types II and III, as well 

as Type I, would be 3.5. 

This provision recognizes that the use 

of rotation resistant rope at operating 

design factors below 5 (but in no case 

below 3.5) is permissible, although 

proposed paragraphs (c)(2)(i) (discussed 

above), (iii) and (iv) would set 

limitations and conditions. The 

Committee was cognizant of the fact that 

section 5–3.2.1.1(d) of ASME B30.5– 

2004 also allows rotation resistant rope 

to be used at a design factor as low as 

3.5 under similarly restricted 

circumstances. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(iii) would 

require the operating design factor for 

Type I rotation resistant rope to be no 

less than 5 except where the wire rope 

manufacturer and the equipment 

manufacturer approve a different design 

factor in writing. (Note that, under 

proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii), the 

operating design factor would be 

prohibited from being less than 3.5.) 

The Committee believed that, in light of 

the design of Type I rope, where there 

is approval for the operating design 

factor by both the wire rope 

manufacturer and equipment 

manufacturer, the use of the rope would 

be safe. 

The Committee considered concerns 

about the fact that, in the future, there 

may be many new Type I ropes on the 

market, and the manufacturer may not 

have tested them; this could lead to 

difficulty in obtaining manufacturer 

approval for an operating design factor 

less than 5. However, in the 

Committee’s judgment, the 

manufacturer’s expertise regarding the 

particular equipment is essential in this 

instance to ensure that use of such rope 

would be safe. 

Under proposed paragraph (c)(2)(iv), 

Types II and III rotation resistant rope 

would be required to have an operating 

design factor of no less than 5 except 

when used for non-duty cycle and nonrepetitive lifts, and where the 

requirements of § 1926.1414(c)(3)(i)— 

(iii) are met. When these exceptions 

apply, proposed § 1926.1414(c)(2)(ii) 

would prohibit the operating design 

factor from being less than 3.5. 

This proposed paragraph reflects the 

Committee’s belief that there is a greater 

likelihood of internal damage in Type II 

and Type III rotation resistant rope 

when used with an operating design 

factor lower than 5. However, the 

Committee’s view is that where the 

additional precautions in proposed 

§ 1926.1414(c)(3) are met, its use would 

be safe. 

As stated above, 29 CFR part 1926 

subpart N is dissimilar from this 

paragraph in that it does not contain a 

specific operating design factor for 

rotation resistant rope and does not 

otherwise differentiate between rotation 

resistant wire ropes. This provision is, 

however, similar to section 5–3.2.1.1(d) 

in ASME B30.5–2004 which, while not 

differentiating by ‘‘Type,’’ does allow 

the use of rotation resistant rope with an 

operating design factor of less than 5 

where conditions similar to those 

included in proposed § 1926.1414(c)(3) 

are instituted. 

Paragraph (c)(3) 

This proposed paragraph specifies 

additional requirements that must be 

met when Types II and III are used with 

an operating design factor of between 

3.5 and 5 (for non-duty cycle, nonrepetitive lifts). The Committee believed 

that these additional requirements are 

needed to ensure that use of such ropes 

would be safe. 

Specifically, under proposed 

§ 1926.1414(c)(3)(i), an inspection of the 

rope by a qualified person in accordance 

with § 1926.1413(a) would be required, 

with its use allowed only if that person 

determines there are no deficiencies 

constituting a hazard (with the presence 

of more than one broken wire in any one 

rope lay considered a hazard). Because 

of the lower operating design factor of 

these ropes, the Committee believed that 

the expertise of a qualified person is 

needed to ensure that there are no 

deficiencies that constitute a hazard. 

Similarly, even one broken wire in any 

one rope lay would be considered a 

hazard. 

Under proposed paragraph (c)(3)(ii), 

operations would have to be conducted 

in a manner and at speeds that 

minimize dynamic effects. Dynamic 

effects are the additional forces exerted 

on the rope due to dynamics like 

acceleration and deceleration. Such 

effects need to be minimized because 

they increase the stress on the rope. 

Under proposed paragraph (c)(3)(iii), 

each lift would have to be documented 

in the monthly and annual inspection 

records, with such use to be considered 

by the qualified person in allowing 

subsequent use of the rope. The 

Committee considered this an important 

step because the more times the rope is 

used, the greater the likelihood that 

degradation would have occurred. 

Requiring each such lift to be 

documented in the monthly and annual 

inspection records would ensure that 

this information is available to the 

qualified person when that person 

makes his or her inspections and 

assessments under proposed 

§ 1926.1414(c)(3)(i) and (ii). 

Paragraph (c)(4) Additional 

Requirements for Rotation Resistant 

Rope for Boom Hoist Reeving 

Proposed paragraph (c)(4)(i) would 

prohibit rotation resistant rope from 

being used for boom hoist reeving 

except where the requirements of 

proposed § 1926.1414(c)(4)(ii) are met. 

Currently, Subpart N, through its 

incorporation by reference of section 5– 

1.7.2 of ANSI B30.5–1968, prohibits the 

use of rotation resistant rope for boom 

hoist reeving under all circumstances. 

This prohibition reflects the fact that 

rotation resistant rope used for boom 

hoist reeving tends to twist and thereby 

suffer internal damage when it passes 

over sheaves that are close together. 

In reviewing this prohibition, the 

Committee noted that this problem is 

reduced when load hoists using rotation 

resistant rope are used as boom hoists 

for attachments such as luffing 

attachments or boom and mast 

attachment systems because the sheaves 

are not as close together in these 

applications and the twisting forces are 

therefore lower. 

The Committee concluded that safety 

would not be compromised in such 

circumstances as long as the conditions 

in proposed § 1926.1414(c)(4)(ii) were 

met. The Committee also believed that 

the exception would serve a practical 

purpose, especially when using 

attachments such as luffing jibs. The 

auxiliary hoist is typically used as a 

boom hoist for such attachments, and is 

normally rigged with rotation resistant 

rope. The exception enables the 

employer to avoid the need to change 

the rope when using such attachments 

when safety could be assured by 

meeting the specified conditions for its 

use. Note that section 5–1.7.2 of ASME 

B30.5–2004 also allows rotation 

resistant rope to be used for boom hoist 

reeving when conditions similar to 

those in proposed § 1926.1414(c)(4)(ii) 

are met. 

Under proposed paragraph 

(c)(4)(ii)(A), the drum must have a first 

layer rope pitch diameter of not less 

than 18 times the nominal diameter of 

the rope used. A first layer rope pitch 

diameter less than that could damage 

the rope. 

Under proposed paragraph 

(c)(4)(ii)(B), the requirements of 

§ 1926.1426(a) and (b) would have to be 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59784 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

42The C–DAC Document referred to 

§ 1926.1426(b) and (c). C–DAC’s intent clearly was 

to refer to § 1926.1426(a) and (b), and OSHA has 

corrected the text accordingly. 

43The Committee determined that the 

incorporated provisions were sufficiently clear and 

enforceable for use as OSHA requirements. 

met.42 Section 1926.1426(a) prohibits 

boom free fall for equipment 

manufactured prior to October 31, 1984 

and restricts the circumstances under 

which a free falling boom may be used 

for equipment manufactured before that 

date. By saying that paragraph 1426(a) 

applies ‘‘irrespective of the date of 

manufacture,’’ proposed 

§ 1926.1414(c)(4)(ii)(B) makes clear that, 

when rotation resistant rope is used for 

boom hoist reeving, boom free fall is 

prohibited for all equipment under all 

circumstances. The reference to 

§ 1926.1426(b) requires the boom hoist 

to have a secondary mechanism to 

prevent free fall in the event the primary 

system fails. These provisions would 

prevent the rope from being subjected to 

the shock load forces that would occur 

in a boom free fall when the rope arrests 

the fall. 

The C–DAC draft of proposed 

paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(C) incorporated by 

reference the provisions in ASME 

B30.5–2004 at sections 5–1.3.2(a), (a)(2) 

through (a)(4), and (b) through (d).43

(Note that, at the time the C–DAC 

document was completed, the most 

current version of ANSI/ASME B30.5 

was the 2000 version. Since that time 

the 2004 version has been issued. The 

referenced provisions are identical in 

both versions). 

These provisions of section 5–1.3.2 

(load hoist mechanisms) of the ASME 

standard provide: 

* * * * * 

(a) Load Hoist Drums. The load hoist drum 

assemblies shall have power and operational 

characteristics sufficient to perform all load 

lifting and lowering functions required in 

crane service when operated under 

recommended conditions. 

* * * * * 

(2) Load hoist drums shall have rope 

capacity with the recommended rope size 

and reeving to perform crane service within 

the range of boom lengths, operating radii, 

and vertical lifts specified by the 

manufacturer. 

(a) No less than two full wraps of rope 

shall remain on the drum when the hook is 

in the extreme low position. 

(b) The drum end of the rope shall be 

anchored to the drum by an arrangement 

specified by the crane or rope manufacturer. 

(c) The drum flange shall extend a 

minimum of 1/2 inch (13 mm) over the top 

layer of rope at all times. 

(3) The load hoist drums shall provide a 

first layer rope pitch diameter of not less than 

18 times the nominal diameter of the rope 

used. 

(4) A means controllable from the 

operator’s station shall be provided to hold 

the drum from rotating in the lowering 

direction and be capable of holding the rated 

load without further action by the operator. 

Foot-operated brakes having a continuous 

mechanical linkage between the actuating 

and braking means, capable of transmitting 

full braking force and equipped with a 

positive mechanical means to hold the 

linkage in the applied position, meet this 

requirement. 

* * * * * 

(b) Load Hoist Brakes. 

(1) When power-operated brakes having no 

continuous mechanical linkage between the 

actuating and braking means are used for 

controlling loads, an automatic means shall 

be provided to set the brake, to prevent the 

load from falling in the event of loss of brake 

control power. 

(2) Foot-operated brake pedals shall be 

constructed so that the operator’s feet, when 

in proper position, will not slip off, and a 

means shall be provided for holding the 

brakes in the applied position without 

further action by the operator. 

(c) Power Controlled Lowering. When 

provided, a power-controlled lowering 

system shall be capable of handling rated 

loads and speeds as specified by the 

manufacturer. Such a system is 

recommended to assist in precision lowering 

and to reduce demand on the load brake. 

(d) Cylinders with Rope Reeving. Cranes 

using a load hoist mechanism with hydraulic 

cylinder(s) and rope reeving shall have 

power and operational characteristics 

sufficient to perform all load lifting and 

lowering functions required in crane service 

when operated under recommended 

conditions. Sheaves used in multiple rope 

reeving shall have a pitch diameter not less 

than 16 times the nominal diameter of the 

rope and shall comply with para. 5–1.7.4. 

Upon reviewing these provisions, 

OSHA believes that two changes need to 

be made to the incorporation 

recommended by C–DAC. First, the 

second sentence of section 5–1.3.2(c) is 

stated as a recommendation rather than 

a mandatory requirement. OSHA 

believes it would be confusing to 

incorporate a non-mandatory 

recommendation into this standard. 

Therefore, rather than incorporating that 

provision by reference, OSHA is adding 

a new paragraph (G) to 

§ 1926.1414(c)(4)(ii) that incorporates 

only the mandatory first sentence of 

section 5–1.3.2(c) of ASME B30.5: 

‘‘When provided, a power-controlled 

lowering system shall be capable of 

handling rated loads and speeds as 

specified by the manufacturer.’’ 

The second change pertains to the 

final sentence of section 5–1.3.2(d) of 

ASME B30.5. That sentence’s 

requirement of a minimum pitch 

diameter of 16 times the nominal 

diameter of the rope varies from the 

requirement of proposed 

§ 1926.1414(c)(4)(ii)(D), discussed next, 

that the minimum pitch diameter be 18 

times the rope’s nominal diameter. The 

variation is due to the fact that section 

1.3.2(d) of ASME B30.5 does not apply 

solely to rotation resistant rope, as does 

this paragraph. Although it is possible 

to comply with a minimum pitch 

diameter of both 16 and 18 times the 

nominal diameter of the rope by 

adhering to the value of 18, OSHA 

believes it would be confusing to 

include requirements giving both 

values. Accordingly, OSHA is 

modifying the incorporation by 

reference recommended by C–DAC so 

that, in this proposed rule, 

§ 1926.1414(c)(4)(ii)(C) reads as follows: 

The requirements in ASME B30.5–2004 

Section 5–1.3.2 (a), (a)(2)–(a)(4), (b), and (d), 

except that the minimum pitch diameter for 

sheaves used in multiple rope reeving is 18 

times the nominal diameter of the rope used 

instead of the value of 16 specified in section 

5–1.3.2(d). 

Proposed paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(D) 

provides that all sheaves used in the 

boom hoist reeving system shall have a 

rope pitch diameter of not less than 18 

times the nominal diameter of the rope 

used. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(E) 

provides that the operating design factor 

of the boom hoist reeving system shall 

be not less than five. In this paragraph 

and the next one as well, OSHA has 

changed the C–DAC term ‘‘design 

factor’’ to ‘‘operating design factor.’’ 

OSHA made this change so that the 

terminology in these two paragraphs 

would be consistent with that in 

proposed paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of 

this section. OSHA requests public 

comment on whether there is any reason 

for using different terminology in 

proposed § 1926.1414(c)(4)(ii)(E) and (F) 

than in proposed § 1926.1414(c)(2) and 

(3). 

Proposed paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(F) 

provides that the operating design factor 

for these ropes shall be the total 

minimum breaking force of all parts of 

rope in the system divided by the load 

imposed on the rope system when 

supporting the static weights of the 

structure and the crane rated load. The 

purpose of this provision is to ensure 

that the methodology for computing the 

operating design factors is clear and the 

operating design factor requirements 

specified in the proposed standard 

achieve their intended effect. 

Paragraph 1414(d) 

Proposed paragraph (d) would require 

that wire rope clips used with wedge 

sockets be attached to the unloaded 

dead end of the rope; however, the 

provision also permits the use of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59785 

44Proposed § 1926.1401 defines ‘‘portal cranes’’ 

as a type of crane consisting of a rotating 

upperstructure, hoist machinery, and boom 

mounted on top of a structural gantry which may 

be fixed in one location or have travel capability. 

The gantry legs or columns usually have portal 

openings in between to allow passage of traffic 

beneath the gantry. 

45Note that, under proposed § 1926.1437(e), a 

pontoon or barge/vessel list and trim device would 

be required for floating cranes/derricks and land 

cranes/derricks. 

devices specifically designed for deadending rope in a wedge socket. The 

Committee believed that this provision 

is necessary to ensure attachment 

strength, reliability and prevention of 

cable damage. 

Paragraph 1414(e) 

Proposed paragraph (e) states that 

socketing shall be done in the manner 

specified by the manufacturer of the 

wire rope or fitting. This is a clearer 

version of the provision in section 5– 

1.7.2b of ANSI B30.5–1968, which refers 

to the manner specified by the 

manufacturer of the assembly. 

Paragraph 1414(f) 

Proposed paragraph (f) specifies that 

prior to cutting wire rope, seizings must 

be placed on each side of the point to 

be cut, with the length and number of 

seizings determined in accordance with 

the wire rope manufacturer’s 

instructions. Seizings are needed to 

hold the wire in the strands and the 

strands in place during handling while 

cutting. This keeps the rope beyond the 

area of the cut intact. This provision 

differs from both section 5.2.4.3(c) of 

ANSI B30.5–1968 (incorporated by 

reference into 29 CFR part 1926 Subpart 

N) and from section 5–2.4.4(c) of ASME 

B30.5–2004, which set forth specific 

seizing requirements based upon 

whether the rope is preformed and the 

rope’s diameter. 

In Committee’s experience, the 

instructions and procedures for seizing 

differ among various wire rope 

manufacturers. It concluded that the 

most appropriate approach would be to 

require that, beyond specifying that 

seizings be placed on each side of the 

point to be cut, which is always 

necessary, the length and number of 

seizings be in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s instructions. The 

Committee decided to require 

employers to follow the manufacturer’s 

instructions because it believed that 

wire rope manufacturers have the 

knowledge and expertise to best 

determine the length and number of 

seizings that are needed to maintain the 

integrity of their wire ropes during 

cutting. 

Section 1415 Safety Devices 

This section sets forth the proposed 

requirements for equipping cranes and 

derricks with certain safety devices. 

The safety devices addressed by this 

section are devices that C–DAC believed 

are essential for the safe operation of 

cranes and derricks and therefore, 

required to be present and in proper 

working order during all equipment 

operations with no alternative measures 

permitted. Those devices considered 

less critical to equipment safety are 

designated as operational aids and are 

governed by proposed § 1926.1416. That 

section allows for equipment to 

continue operating if the operational aid 

fails or malfunctions but requires 

certain temporary alternative protective 

measures in such cases. Those devices 

designated as safety devices in this 

section are so essential and integral to 

safe equipment operation that C–DAC 

determined that there is no acceptable 

alternative to having them in proper 

working order. 

Paragraph 1415(a) Safety Devices 

Proposed paragraph (a) lists the safety 

devices that would be required on all 

equipment covered by this Subpart and 

any specifications and conditions 

applicable to those devices (including 

the exemption of certain equipment 

from the requirements of the listed 

devices). 

Crane Level Indicator: Proposed 

paragraph (a)(1) would require that a 

crane level indicator be on all 

equipment covered under this subpart. 

The Agency is proposing this 

requirement based upon the 

Committee’s belief that level equipment 

is a key factor in ensuring crane and 

derrick safety. Using a crane level 

indicator is necessary because it has the 

requisite accuracy for leveling the 

equipment. C–DAC members stressed 

the need to use a crane level indicator 

because, if the equipment is not 

properly leveled, it will not have all the 

capacities indicated in the load charts. 

Reliance on the charts in such situations 

could cause the equipment to overturn 

or otherwise fail. 

C–DAC discussions also raised two 

significant issues in applying the (a)(1) 

requirement. First, as stated in 

§ 1926.1415(a)(1)(i), the proposal 

specifies that a crane level indicator 

must either be built into the equipment 

or available on it. The Committee 

believed that either option accomplishes 

the purpose of enabling the employer to 

determine if the equipment is level. 

Second, as covered in 

§ 1926.1415(a)(1)(ii), the Committee 

believed that tagging out or removing 

deficient built-in crane level indicators 

is necessary. This provision addresses 

the hazard posed by false readings. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iii) would 

exempt portal cranes,44 derricks, 

floating cranes/derricks and land 

cranes/derricks on barges, pontoons, 

vessels, or other means of flotation from 

the requirements of § 1926.1415(a)(1). 

C–DAC members indicated that these 

types of equipment are leveled upon 

installation and then fixed in place, 

precluding the need for a crane level 

indicator.45

Boom Stops: Proposed paragraph 

(a)(2) requires boom stops on all 

equipment except for derricks and 

hydraulic booms. ‘‘Boom stop’’ is 

defined in proposed § 1926.1401 as a 

device that restricts the boom from 

moving above a certain maximum angle 

and toppling over backwards. This 

definition is derived from the SC&RF 

Handbook. The term includes all 

devices that meet the definition, 

including boom stops, (belly straps with 

struts/standoff), telescoping boom stops, 

attachment boom stops, and backstops. 

As the definition indicates, a boom stop 

is needed to prevent a boom from 

tipping backwards past its designed 

range during equipment operations. 

Several Committee members suggested 

exempting certain older equipment from 

being retrofitted with boom stops. 

However, C–DAC concluded that the 

significant safety issue at stake and the 

fact that installing boom stops is not 

technically difficult justify requiring 

them on older equipment. 

As noted above, the Agency proposes 

to exempt derricks and hydraulic cranes 

from the requirements of 

1926.1415(a)(2). The derrick boom 

overturn issue is covered in proposed 

1926.1436(f)(2). Hydraulic cranes are 

exempted because these cranes contain 

the equivalent function of boom stops in 

that the hydraulic cylinder physically 

prevents the boom from moving 

backward past its designed range. 

Jib Stops: ‘‘Jib stop’’ is defined in 

§ 1926.1401 as the same type of device 

as a boom stop but used for a fixed or 

luffing jib. The definition notes that the 

device is also referred to as a ‘‘jib 

backstop.’’ Proposed § 1926.1415(a)(3) 

would require jib stops on all 

equipment where a jib is attached, 

except for derricks. Jib stops perform the 

same function for jibs as boom stops 

perform for booms, and are similarly 

necessary. The proposal exempts 

derricks from this requirement because 

jibs are not installed on derricks. 

Foot Pedal Brake Locks: Proposed 

paragraph (a)(4) would require that 

equipment with foot pedal brakes have 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59786 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

46OSHA notes that ASME B30.8–2004, ‘‘Floating 

Cranes and Floating Derricks,’’ section 8–1.6.2(l), 

applies to load hoists and reads as follows: ‘‘Footoperated brake pedals * * * shall be equipped with 

a means for latching in the applied position.’’ 

locks, except for portal cranes and 

floating cranes. Such locks are needed 

to prevent the unintentional 

disengagement of a foot pedal brake, 

which could lead to unintended 

equipment movement and consequent 

injuries and fatalities. Due to the 

physical effort needed to keep the pedal 

engaged, this is particularly important 

where the brake is applied for long 

periods of time. 

The rationale for exempting portal 

cranes and floating cranes from this 

requirement discussed by the 

Committee was that there are instances 

in which, due to the pitching of a 

floating crane and the pitching of the 

vessel or object in the water with which 

a portal crane works, the operator may 

have to immediately release the brake. 

The concern is that, if the foot pedal 

brake lock had been activated, the 

operator may not be able to release the 

brake quickly enough in such a situation 

to prevent the equipment from being 

overloaded or to prevent unintended 

movement of the load. 

Upon review of the exemption in the 

provision, the Agency has realized that 

C–DAC assumed that the locking device 

would in all cases be of the type that is 

located on the brake pedal. That type of 

device can be difficult to disengage, 

thereby delaying the operator’s ability to 

release the brake. However, it is OSHA’s 

understanding that there are other types 

of brake locking mechanisms that do not 

present this problem (for example, a 

brake lock that is hand-actuated). It 

therefore appears that the exemption 

may not be needed.46 The Agency 

requests public comment on changing 

proposed paragraph § 1926.1415(a)(4) by 

deleting the exemption and requiring a 

hoist brake locking mechanism for all 

cranes. 

Integral Holding Device/Check Valve: 

Proposed paragraph (a)(5) would require 

that hydraulic outrigger jacks have an 

integral holding device/check valve. 

Such a device is necessary to prevent 

the outrigger jack from collapsing in the 

event of a hydraulic failure. 

Rail Clamps and Rail Stops: Proposed 

paragraph (a)(6) specifies that 

equipment on rails have rail clamps and 

rail stops, except for portal cranes. A 

rail clamp restricts the equipment from 

lifting off the rails. The rail stop 

prevents the equipment from moving 

further than a specific point on the rails. 

Portal cranes are exempt from the 

requirements of § 1926.1415(a)(6) 

because these cranes typically are 

equipped with a parking brake that 

provides the equivalent function of 

preventing the crane from 

unintentionally moving along the rails. 

Paragraph 1415(b) Proper Operation 

Required 

Proposed paragraph (b) would 

prohibit the operation of the equipment 

if any of the safety devices listed in this 

section are not in proper working order. 

This paragraph reflects the Committee’s 

belief, discussed above, that proper 

operation of these devices is critical to 

safe use of the equipment. 

Section 1416 Operational Aids 

This section sets forth the proposed 

requirements for equipping cranes and 

derricks with certain operational aids. 

‘‘Operational aids’’ are defined in 

§ 1926.1401 as ‘‘devices that assist the 

operator in the safe operation of the 

crane by providing information or 

automatically taking control of a crane 

function. These include, but are not 

limited to, the devices listed in 

§ 1926.1416 (‘listed operational aids’).’’ 

This definition is similar to that in 

section 5–0.2.2 of ASME B30.5–2004. 

As discussed above in regard to 

proposed § 1926.1415, the Committee 

believed that the devices addressed in 

§ 1926.1416 enhance safety. However, 

they are less essential to the safe 

operation of equipment than the safety 

devices addressed by § 1926.1415 

because of the availability of 

alternatives that are sufficient on a 

temporary basis. The temporary 

alternative measures are precautions 

that were historically used prior to the 

widespread availability and use of these 

operational aids. 

Paragraphs 1416(a) and (b) 

Under proposed paragraphs (a) and 

(b), operational aids would be required 

on all equipment unless otherwise 

specified, and would have to be in 

proper working order unless the 

employer uses specified temporary 

alternative protection. Section 

1926.1416(b) provides that if the 

crane/derrick manufacturer specifies 

more protective alternative measures 

than those listed in the standard, the 

employer would be required to follow 

them. 

Committee discussions of these 

provisions primarily focused on the use 

of manufacturer procedures as 

temporary alternative measures. The 

Committee considered recommending 

that the Agency require employers to 

follow any temporary alternative 

measures specified by the equipment 

manufacturer in addition to those 

required by this proposal. However, 

instead of requiring additional 

measures, the Committee decided that 

employers should be required to rely 

solely on measures specified by the 

manufacturer but only if those measures 

are more protective than those specified 

in the standard. 

Paragraph 1416(c) 

Proposed paragraph (c) states that if a 

listed operational aid stops working 

properly during operations, the operator 

shall safely stop operations until the 

temporary alternative measures are 

implemented or the device is again 

working properly. It further provides 

that, if a replacement part is no longer 

available, a substitute device that 

performs the same type of function may 

be used, and the use of such a device 

is not considered a modification under 

proposed § 1926.1434, Equipment 

modifications. Section 1926.1434 

applies to modifications or additions 

which affect the capacity or safe 

operation of the equipment unless 

certain steps are taken to have the 

modifications or additions approved. 

The Committee believed that it is 

unnecessary to apply § 1926.1434 to the 

use of a substitute operational aid 

because, as long as the substitute device 

works properly, its use will not affect 

the capacity or safe operation of the 

equipment. 

Paragraph 1416(d) Category I 

Operational Aids and Alternative 

Measures 

The proposal splits operational aids 

into two categories, with different 

amounts of time permitted for 

temporary alternative measures to be 

used in place of the listed operational 

aids. Category I operational aids, which 

are addressed by proposed paragraph 

(d), would set a 7-day time limit for 

repairing the deficient aid, and Category 

II, addressed below under proposed 

paragraph (e), has a 30-day time limit. 

The allowance of a 30-day time period 

for Category II operational aids reflects 

the Committee’s belief that these aids 

are less critical to equipment safety than 

those in Category I. 

Both Category I and II would have an 

exception to the repair time limits. For 

Category I, if the employer documents 

that it has ordered the necessary part 

within 7 days of the occurrence of the 

deficiency, the repair would have to be 

completed within 7 days of receipt of 

the part. For Category II, if the employer 

documents that it has ordered the 

necessary part within 7 days of the 

occurrence of the deficiency and the 

part is not received in time to complete 

the repair in 30 days, the repair shall be 

completed within 7 days of receipt of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59787 

the part. The Committee believed that 

these time frames set limitations that are 

both feasible and reflective of the 

amount of time that it is appropriate to 

rely on the alternative measures in each 

category. 

During the SBREFA Panel process, 

one Small Entity Representative stated 

that an extended period of time might 

be required to determine the appropriate 

part number for older equipment and 

that it might therefore not be possible to 

order a replacement within 7 days. 

OSHA solicits public comment on the 

extent to which this is a problem. OSHA 

further seeks comment on how to 

accommodate a situation in which 

ordering a replacement part is hindered 

because the part number is not readily 

available. For example, would a parts 

supplier be able to furnish the correct 

part if the type of device (e.g., boom 

hoist limiting device) and the model of 

the crane are provided? 

The SBREFA Panel also questioned 

whether the number of ‘‘days’’ for 

ordering parts and completing repairs 

for operational aids refers to calendar 

days or business days. Absent a 

different definition in the standard, 

OSHA interprets the word ‘‘days’’ to 

mean ‘‘working days’’ which, as 

discussed above in relation to proposed 

§ 1926.1407(e), would mean Mondays 

through Fridays, excluding federal 

holidays. OSHA solicits public 

comment on whether a different 

definition of ‘‘days’’ should apply under 

this section. 

Proposed paragraph (d) lists the 

required Category I operational aids and 

the acceptable temporary alternative 

measures for these aids. 

Boom Hoist Limiting Device: 

Proposed paragraph (d)(1) would 

require that all equipment manufactured 

after December 16, 1969 have a boom 

hoist limiting device. As defined in 

§ 1926.1401, a boom hoist limiting 

device disengages boom hoist power 

when the boom reaches a predetermined 

operating angle and also sets brakes or 

closes valves to prevent the boom from 

lowering after power is disengaged. This 

definition is taken from the SC&RF 

Handbook. Section 1926.1401 also 

explains that the term ‘‘boom hoist 

limiting device’’ includes boom hoist 

disengaging device, boom hoist shutoff, 

boom hoist disconnect, boom hoist 

hydraulic relief, boom hoist kick-outs, 

automatic boom stop device, or 

derricking limiter. A boom hoist 

limiting device automatically prevents 

the boom hoist from pulling the boom 

past the minimum allowable radius 

(maximum boom angle). If the boom 

were to be pulled past that point, a 

failure is likely (for example, the boom 

could buckle from being forced against 

the boom stop). 

The December 16, 1969 date reflects 

the effective date of ANSI B30.5–1968. 

This was the first national consensus 

standard to require a boom hoist 

limiting device, and the Committee 

regarded that date as a reasonable 

indicator of when the industry began 

widely manufacturing or equipping 

cranes and derricks with such devices. 

Although the ANSI standard was only 

applicable to crawler, locomotive, and 

truck cranes, the Committee 

recommended extending this provision 

to all equipment based on prevailing 

industry practice. 

The Agency is also proposing three 

temporary alternative measures 

[§ 1926.1416(d)(1)(A)–(C)], of which the 

employer must use at least one upon 

malfunction of the boom hoist limiting 

device. These are: Use of a boom angle 

indicator; clearly marking the boom 

hoist cable at a point that will give the 

operator sufficient time to stop the hoist 

to keep the boom within the minimum 

allowable radius; and, if a spotter is 

used, clearly marking the boom hoist 

cable at a point that will give the spotter 

sufficient time to signal the operator and 

have the operator stop the hoist to keep 

the boom within the minimum 

allowable radius. C–DAC recommended 

these measures because historically they 

were used by employers prior to the 

development of the boom hoist limiting 

device. This paragraph further proposes 

requiring these measures on a 

permanent basis for those employers 

operating equipment manufactured on 

or before December 16, 1969 and not 

originally equipped with a boom hoist 

limiting device. 

Luffing Jib Limiting Device: Proposed 

paragraph (d)(2) would require that 

equipment with a luffing jib have a 

luffing jib limiting device. As defined in 

§ 1926.1401, a luffing jib limiting device 

is similar to a boom hoist limiting 

device, except that it limits the 

movement of the luffing jib. C–DAC 

indicated that these two devices 

function similarly and are distinguished 

only as to the type of crane extension 

each is automatically designed to limit: 

The jib versus the boom. The temporary 

alternative measures for a luffing jib 

limiting device are the same as those 

proposed for a boom hoist limiting 

device in § 1926.1416(d)(1)(i)(A)–(C). 

Anti Two-Blocking Device: Proposed 

paragraph (d)(3) sets forth the 

requirements for anti two-blocking 

devices. ‘‘Two blocking’’ is defined in 

§ 1926.1401 as ‘‘a condition in which a 

component that is uppermost on the 

hoist line such as the load block, hook 

block, overhaul ball, or similar 

component, comes in contact with the 

boom tip, fixed upper block or similar 

component. This binds the system and 

continued application of power can 

cause failure of the hoist rope or other 

component.’’ This definition is derived 

from the SC&RF Handbook. As the 

definition indicates, two-blocking can 

result in the crane dropping the load, 

the headache ball, or another 

component, creating an extreme hazard 

to employees below. An anti twoblocking device has been required by 

§ 1926.550(g)(3)(ii)(C) when hoisting 

personnel since October 3, 1988 but is 

not otherwise required under 29 CFR 

part 1926 subpart N. The Committee 

believed that expanding the use of anti 

two-blocking devices beyond hoisting 

personnel is needed to help reduce the 

number of crane-related injuries and 

fatalities. 

Anti two-block devices are 

manufactured in two forms: As an 

automatic prevention device or as a 

warning device. The automatic 

prevention device automatically stops 

two blocking from occurring. The 

warning device warns the operator 

when two blocking is about to occur. 

C–DAC members agreed that the 

automatic prevention anti two-block 

device provides better protection for 

employees, since it automatically stops 

two-blocking. As discussed below, the 

proposed standard would ultimately 

require automatic prevention devices on 

all equipment under a phase-in 

schedule. In drafting the schedule, 

C–DAC took account of the date the 

national consensus standard, ANSI 

B30.5, began to require such devices for 

telescopic boom cranes and the fact that 

B30.5 has continued to allow lattice 

boom cranes to be equipped with either 

prevention devices or warning devices. 

Effective February 28, 1992, ASME 

B30.5 required automatic prevention 

devices on telescopic boom cranes. At 

the same time, for lattice boom cranes, 

ASME B30.5 required two-block 

protection but allowed greater 

flexibility, requiring them to be 

equipped with either automatic 

prevention devices or warning devices. 

The additional protection required for 

telescopic boom cranes in the ASME 

standard reflects the fact that such 

cranes are more likely to two-block 

because telescoping the boom out (an 

action that does not occur with lattice 

boom cranes) moves the boom’s block 

closer to the load end of the hoist cable, 

which can cause two-blocking. 

Because February 28, 1992, is the date 

that ASME B30.5 first required anti twoblock devices on telescopic boom cranes 

and the industry first began widely 

manufacturing or equipping such cranes 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59788 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

47 In most situations hoisting containers would be 

regulated under 29 CFR part 1918; the proposed 

standard would apply to hoisting containers only 

where that activity is considered construction work. 

For example, hoisting a container of construction 

material from a ship onto a concrete pier that is part 

of a bridge construction project would be a 

construction activity and covered by this proposed 

standard. 

with such devices, proposed 

§ 1926.1416(d)(3)(i) would require 

automatic prevention devices on all 

telescopic boom cranes manufactured 

after February 28, 1992. However, 

because ASME B30.5 has allowed lattice 

boom cranes to have either a warning 

device or an automatic prevention 

device since February 28, 1992, 

proposed § 1926.1416(d)(3)(ii)(A) 

similarly would give employers the 

option of using either device on lattice 

boom cranes manufactured between 

February 28, 1992 and one year after the 

effective date of this standard. 

As noted above, C–DAC believed that 

the automatic prevention device offers 

better protection than the warning 

device. Therefore, to ensure that future 

cranes are equipped with the preferable 

automatic prevention device, the 

proposal would require lattice boom 

cranes manufactured more than one 

year after the effective date of this 

standard to be equipped with an 

automatic prevention device. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(C) 

excludes lattice boom equipment used 

during certain activities from the anti 

two-block requirements of 

§ 1926.1416(d)(3)(A) and (B). The 

provision would exempt lattice boom 

equipment when used for dragline, 

clamshell (grapple), magnet, drop ball, 

concrete bucket, and pile driving work 

because these operations involve heavy 

repetitive motion, and currently 

manufactured anti-two block devices 

used during these activities consistently 

malfunction (that is, the device ‘‘trips’’ 

even though a two-block has not 

occurred) and are frequently damaged. 

Lattice boom equipment used during 

marine operations generally would be 

exempt because the constant movement 

of the barge tends to damage the device. 

Similarly, lattice boom equipment used 

during container handling work in 

construction would be exempted 

because this activity typically involves 

hoisting containers to and from ships.47

However, note that proposed 

paragraph 1437(f)(1) would require anti 

two-block devices on floating cranes/ 

derricks and land cranes/derricks on 

barges when hoisting personnel or 

hoisting over an occupied coffer dam or 

shaft. In those situations the exemption 

would not apply. The Agency believes 

that the need for anti two-block devices 

in such situations to prevent employees 

from being dropped, and to prevent a 

load from striking employees in the 

confined work environment of a coffer 

dam or shaft, outweighs any propensity 

for damage to the device or unnecessary 

‘‘tripping’’ during marine operations. 

For lattice boom cranes and derricks, 

the temporary alternative measure 

required when an anti two-block device 

malfunctions is to clearly mark the cable 

so that it can easily be seen by the 

operator at a point that will give the 

operator sufficient time to stop the hoist 

to prevent two-blocking, or use a spotter 

to warn the operator to stop the hoist. 

For telescopic boom cranes, the 

temporary alternative measure required 

would be to clearly mark the cable so 

that it can easily be seen by the operator 

at a point that will give the operator 

sufficient time to stop the hoist to 

prevent two-blocking and use a spotter 

when extending the boom. The 

Committee believed that the alternative 

measure for telescopic boom cranes 

needs to have the additional precaution 

of a spotter when extending the boom 

because in those cranes two-blocking 

can occur even when the cable hoist is 

not being operated. As noted above, 

telescoping the boom out moves the 

boom’s block closer to the load end of 

the hoist cable, which can cause twoblocking. A mark on the hoist cable in 

such instances would not warn the 

operator that two-blocking is about to 

occur. Therefore, when extending the 

boom, a spotter would also have to be 

used. 

Paragraph 1416(e) Category II 

Operational Aids and Alternative 

Measures 

Proposed paragraph (e) lists the 

required Category II operational aids 

and the acceptable temporary 

alternative measures for these aids. If 

these aids were to malfunction there 

would be a 30-day time limit for repair. 

If the employer documents it has 

ordered the necessary parts within 7 

days of the occurrence of the deficiency 

and the part is not received in time to 

complete the repair within 30 days, the 

repair would be required to be 

completed within 7 days of receipt of 

the part. 

Boom Angle or Radius Indicator: 

Proposed paragraph (e)(1) would require 

a boom angle or radius indicator 

readable from the operator’s station on 

all equipment. ‘‘Boom angle indicator’’ 

is defined in § 1926.1401 as ‘‘a device 

which measures the angle of the boom 

relative to the horizontal.’’ This 

definition is taken from the SC&RF 

Handbook. Knowing the boom angle is 

necessary to accurately determine the 

crane’s capacity from its load chart. The 

temporary alternative would be to 

measure the radii or boom angle with a 

measuring device. 

Jib Angle Indicator: Proposed 

paragraph (e)(2) would require a jib 

angle indicator on all equipment with a 

luffing jib. The temporary alternative 

would be to measure the radii or jib 

angle with a measuring device. 

Boom Length Indicator: Proposed 

paragraph (e)(3) would require a boom 

length indicator on all equipment 

equipped with a telescopic boom. As 

defined in § 1926.1401, a boom length 

indicator ‘‘indicates the length of the 

permanent part of the boom (such as 

ruled markings on the boom) or, as in 

some computerized systems, the length 

of the boom with extensions/ 

attachments.’’ The length of the boom 

must be known because it affects the 

crane’s capacity as shown on the load 

chart. The temporary alternative would 

be one of the following: mark the boom 

with measured marks to calculate boom 

length; calculate boom length from 

boom angle and radius measurements; 

or measure the boom with a measuring 

device. 

Load Weighing and Similar Devices: 

Proposed paragraph (e)(4) would require 

load weighing and similar devices on all 

equipment with a rated capacity over 

6,000 pounds and manufactured after 

March 29, 2003, except derricks. (A 

comparable provision for derricks is in 

proposed § 1926.1436(f)(3), discussed 

below.) The framework of this proposed 

paragraph is similar to the approach 

taken in section 5–1.9.9.2 of ASME 

B30.5–2004 with respect to these aids. 

The framework permits employers to 

choose to outfit its equipment with 

either a load weighing device; load 

moment or rated capacity indicator; or 

a load moment or rated capacity limiter. 

Load moment (or rated capacity) 

indicator is defined in § 1926.1401 as ‘‘a 

system which aids the equipment 

operator by sensing the overturning 

moment on the equipment, i.e., load 

multiplied by radius. It compares this 

lifting condition to the equipment’s 

rated capacity, and indicates to the 

operator the percentage of capacity at 

which the equipment is working. Lights, 

bells, or buzzers may be incorporated as 

a warning of an approaching overload 

condition.’’ This definition is derived 

from the SC&RF Handbook. 

Load moment (or rated capacity) 

limiter is defined in § 1926.1401 as ‘‘a 

system which aids the equipment 

operator by sensing the overturning 

moment on the equipment, i.e., load 

multiplied by radius. It compares this 

lifting condition to the equipment’s 

rated capacity, and when the rated 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59789 

capacity is reached, it shuts off power 

to those equipment functions which can 

increase the severity of loading on the 

equipment, e.g., hoisting, telescoping 

out, or luffing out. Typically, those 

functions which decrease the severity of 

loading on the equipment remain 

operational, e.g., lowering, telescoping 

in, or luffing in.’’ The proposal permits 

employers flexibility in choosing which 

device to employ because the 

Committee believed that all three 

devices will help ensure that the 

equipment does not exceed its capacity 

and tip over. 

This provision would be limited to 

equipment (other than derricks) 

manufactured after March 29, 2003. 

That was the date when ASME B30.5 

first called for all mobile cranes with a 

rated capacity over 6,000 pounds to be 

equipped with load weighing devices. It 

therefore reflects when the industry first 

began widely manufacturing or 

equipping cranes with load weighing or 

load moment devices. 

Each of these indicators makes it 

easier for the operator to ensure that the 

equipment is operated within its 

capacity. The proposed provision would 

therefore reduce the likelihood of 

injuries and fatalities from tip-over and 

other incidents resulting from operating 

equipment beyond its capacity. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(5) would 

require two future operational aids—an 

outrigger position sensor/monitor and a 

hoist drum rotation indicator—on all 

equipment manufactured after January 

1, 2008. ‘‘Drum rotation indicator’’ is 

defined in § 1926.1401 as ‘‘a device on 

a crane or hoist which indicates in 

which direction and at what relative 

speed a particular hoist drum is 

turning.’’ This definition is taken from 

the SC&RF Handbook. C–DAC believed 

that these aids will help ensure the safe 

operation of cranes but found that 

additional time is needed for the 

industry to develop them. 

The Committee also considered 

whether a third future operational aid— 

counterweight sensors—should be 

required on all equipment manufactured 

after January 1, 2008. Several Committee 

members representing crane 

manufacturers expressed concern as to 

the difficulty in developing a reliable 

counterweight sensor presently or in the 

near future. In light of these 

technological problems, the Committee 

did not include these. 

Section 1417 Operation 

Proposed § 1926.1417 addresses 

hazards associated with general 

operation of equipment covered by this 

standard. Currently, 29 CFR part 1926 

subpart N primarily addresses safe 

operation by incorporating national 

consensus standards and manufacturer 

recommendations. For example, 

§ 1926.550(b)(2) requires crawler, truck, 

and locomotive cranes to comply with 

the operation requirements of ANSI 

B30.5–1968. The provisions in this 

proposed section are designed to update 

such requirements, make them more 

comprehensive, and state them in a way 

that is clear and enforceable. 

Paragraph 1417(a) 

Currently, Subpart N requires 

employers to comply with 

manufacturers’ operational 

requirements for hammerhead tower 

cranes (§ 1926.550(c)(5)) and for floating 

cranes/derricks (§ 1926.550(f)(2)(iii)) but 

not for other types of equipment. 

Proposed § 1926.1417(a) would require 

employers to comply with the 

manufacturer procedures applicable to 

the operational functions of all 

equipment covered by this proposed 

standard, including the use of 

equipment with attachments. 

The Committee believed that the 

manufacturer has a high degree of 

expertise with respect to the capabilities 

and limitations of the equipment it has 

designed and built. Accidents can 

therefore be prevented by ensuring that 

the equipment is operated in a manner 

that is consistent with the 

manufacturer’s procedures. As noted in 

the discussion of the proposed 

definition of ‘‘procedures’’ in 

§ 1926.1401, the phrase ‘‘manufacturer 

procedures’’ is to be interpreted broadly 

to include all recommendations by the 

manufacturer regardless of the format of 

those recommendations. 

Paragraph 1417(b) Unavailable 

Operation Procedures 

Paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3). 

Currently, Subpart N has no provision 

for developing operational procedures 

where manufacturer procedures are not 

available. C–DAC believed that setting 

requirements to address these situations 

would help improve safety with respect 

to the operation of such equipment. 

‘‘Unavailable procedures’’ is defined 

in proposed § 1926.1401 as meaning 

procedures that are no longer available 

from the manufacturer, or have never 

been available from the manufacturer. 

C–DAC provided this definition so that 

employers would understand what 

constitutes unavailable procedures. For 

instance, procedures that are in the 

employer’s possession but are not on the 

job site, would not be considered 

unavailable under proposed 

§§ 1926.1417(b) and 1926.1441(c)(2), 

where the term is used. 

Under proposed paragraph (b)(1), in 

the event that the manufacturer 

procedures for operation are not 

available, the employer would be 

required to develop procedures 

necessary for the safe operation of the 

equipment and its attachments. The 

employer would also be required to 

ensure compliance with such 

procedures. 

For example, the manufacturers of 

some old equipment are no longer in 

business; procedures for that equipment 

are typically unavailable. Even where 

the original manufacturer became a part 

of another company that is still in 

business, in some cases the successor 

company no longer has the original 

manufacturers’ procedures for that 

equipment. In such instances the 

employer would be required to develop 

and follow substitute procedures. 

Proposed paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) 

would specify qualifications criteria for 

those who develop two aspects of the 

substitute procedures. Specifically, 

under proposed § 1926.1417(b)(2), 

procedures for the operational controls 

would have to be developed by a 

qualified person. As defined in 

§ 1926.1401 of this proposed standard, 

‘‘operational controls’’ are levers, 

switches, pedals and other devices for 

controlling equipment operation. The 

Committee believed that a high level of 

expertise is needed to develop such 

procedures in light of both the 

complexity of the factors that must be 

considered in developing such 

procedures and the critical nature of the 

operational controls. 

Under proposed paragraph (b)(3), 

operational procedures related to 

equipment capacity would have to be 

developed and signed by a registered 

professional engineer familiar with the 

equipment. The Committee believed 

that the type and complexity of 

engineering analysis that is needed to 

develop safe procedures related to 

capacity necessitates that this work be 

done by a registered professional 

engineer (RPE). In addition, because 

capacity is so critical to safe operation, 

the Committee believed that a signature 

by the RPE is needed to ensure that this 

work is done with the requisite care. 

Paragraph 1417(c) Accessibility of 

Procedures 

Paragraph (c)(1). This proposed 

paragraph would require employers to 

provide the operator with ready access 

in the cab to the procedures applicable 

to the operation of the equipment, 

including the following: Rated 

capacities (load charts), recommended 

operating speeds, special hazard 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59790 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

48Section 5–3.2.4a. of ANSI B 30.5–1968, 

incorporated by reference in 29 CFR part 1926 

Subpart N at § 1926.550(b)(2), states, ‘‘The operator 

shall not leave his position at the controls while the 

load is suspended.’’ 

warnings, and the instructions and 

operator’s manual. 

For the purposes of this proposed 

standard, ‘‘special hazard warnings’’ are 

warnings of site-specific hazards (for 

example, proximity of power lines). C– 

DAC defines this term in proposed 

§ 1926.1401 to differentiate these sitespecific warnings from all other general 

hazard warnings which are common to 

typical construction worksites. 

Currently, § 1926.550(a)(2) of Subpart 

N requires rated capacities, 

recommended operating speeds, and 

special hazard warnings to be posted on 

the equipment, and instructions and 

warnings to be visible at the operator’s 

station. Unlike § 1926.1417(c)(1) of this 

proposed standard, it does not require 

the operator’s manual to be accessible to 

the operator. 

The Committee believed that the 

information in these materials, 

including the operator’s manual, is 

essential for safe crane operation. It is 

needed to help the operator avoid 

performing operations beyond a crane’s 

capacity and recommended operating 

speed, and by increasing operator 

awareness of special hazards related to 

a specific piece of equipment. 

In addition, the Committee believed 

that this information needs to be 

available to the equipment operator in 

the cab so that the operator can obtain 

the information as the need arises. If the 

information were not available in the 

cab, operations would have to be 

delayed in order for the operator to 

leave the cab and obtain the information 

elsewhere (or for someone else to obtain 

them and bring them to the operator). 

The prospect of such a delay would 

serve as a disincentive to obtaining the 

information and increase the chance 

that operations would proceed without 

it, which could result in injuries or 

fatalities. 

Paragraph (c)(2). Subpart N does not 

address the issue of load capacities that 

are available only in electronic form. 

With the advancement of technology 

since 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N was 

promulgated, it has become increasingly 

common for equipment to be supplied 

by manufacturers with load capacities 

in electronic form. Because of the 

potential for an electronic or other 

failure to occur that would make that 

information inaccessible, C–DAC 

determined that it is necessary to 

establish requirements to address that 

problem. Proposed § 1926.1417(c)(2) 

establishes requirements to address a 

situation in which electronic or other 

failure makes such information 

unavailable. 

The Committee agreed that having the 

load capacities accessible to the 

operator in the cab is so important, due 

to this information’s direct relationship 

to preventing overloading, that 

operations need to shut down without 

them. Therefore, where load capacities 

are available in the cab only in 

electronic form and a failure makes the 

load capacities inaccessible, this 

proposed paragraph would require that 

the operator immediately cease 

operations or follow safe shut-down 

procedures until the load capacities 

become available again (in electronic or 

other form). 

Paragraph 1417(d) 

This proposed paragraph would 

require that operators refrain from 

engaging in any practice that would 

divert his or her attention while 

operating the crane. This would include 

the use of cell phones except when cell 

phones are used for signal 

communications. Operating a crane is a 

complex task that requires an operator’s 

full attention to be performed safely. 

This proposed paragraph addresses the 

risk that an accident can occur if the 

operator’s full attention is not directed 

toward that task. A similar provision is 

found in section 5–3.1.2 of ANSI B30.5– 

1968, which is incorporated by 

reference in Subpart N, although it does 

not specifically reference the use of cell 

phones. 

Paragraph 1417(e) Leaving Equipment 

Unattended 

Paragraph (e)(1). Currently, under 29 

CFR part 1926 subpart N, the operator 

of a crawler, locomotive, or truck crane 

is prohibited from leaving the controls 

while a load is suspended.48 It is 

important for the operator to be at the 

controls for a variety of safety-related 

reasons. These include making 

necessary adjustments to keep the load 

in a safe position, moving the load 

where necessary for reasons of safety 

(such as for the safety of employees 

working with or near the load), and 

responding to emergencies that may 

arise during lifting operations. 

In the Committee’s experience, this 

requirement is routinely breached when 

the load is ‘‘held suspended,’’ that is, 

without need for adjustment of the 

load’s or the equipment’s position—for 

an extended period. In such 

circumstances, the operator does not 

manipulate the controls. 

In this type of circumstance, the 

Committee believed that greater safety 

could be achieved by developing criteria 

that allow the operator to leave the 

controls when it is safe to do so rather 

than to simply continue the existing 

rule unchanged. (Note that the 

suspension of working gear, such as 

slings, spreader bars, ladders, and 

welding machines, is addressed 

separately in proposed 

§ 1926.1417(e)(2)). 

This proposed paragraph would 

require that the operator not leave the 

controls while the load is suspended 

except when four conditions, outlined 

in proposed § 1926.1417(e)(1)(i) through 

(e)(1)(iv), are met. The conditions are as 

follows: 

Paragraph (e)(1)(i). The operator 

would be required to remain adjacent to 

the equipment and not engage in any 

other duties. This paragraph will not 

only prevent unauthorized use of the 

crane by persons who are not competent 

crane operators but also allow the 

operator to quickly access the controls 

in case the equipment or load 

inadvertently moves. 

Paragraph (e)(1)(ii). The load is to be 

held suspended for a period of time 

exceeding normal lifting operations. As 

explained above, these are instances 

when the load is ‘‘held suspended,’’ that 

is, without need for adjustment of the 

load’s or the equipment’s position—for 

an extended period. These are 

circumstances in which the operator 

will not need to manipulate the 

controls. Such circumstances must be 

for a period of time in excess of the 

periods that occur during normal lifting 

operations. 

For example, during the construction 

of a structure, a large subassembly is 

being attached to another part of the 

structure. After the subassembly has 

been initially connected, it is held 

suspended (that is, without need for 

adjustment of position) for support for 

a protracted period while the final 

connections are made. This period 

exceeds normal lifting operations. In 

this example, the criterion of proposed 

§ 1926.1417(e)(1)(ii) would be met. 

Another, contrasting example is the 

following: A steel structure is being 

erected. When installing the steel 

beams, the operator holds the beam 

suspended (typically for several 

minutes) while it is initially connected. 

Holding the beam suspended in such 

instances is a normal part of the steel 

erection process. In this example the 

criterion in proposed 

§ 1926.1417(e)(1)(ii) would not be met 

and the operator can not leave the 

controls. 

Paragraph (e)(1)(iii). The competent 

person would have to determine that it 

is safe for the operator to leave the 

controls and implement measures 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59791 

49Section 1910.147 is not applicable to 

construction (see § 1910.147(a)(ii)(A)). 

50These general industry provisions state: 

(i) Verification by the employer that the 

authorized employee who applied the device is not 

at the factory; 

(ii) Making all reasonable efforts to contact the 

authorized employee to inform him/her that his/her 

lockout or tagout device has been removed; and 

(iii) Ensuring that the authorized employee has 

this knowledge before he/she resumes work at that 

facility. 

Section 1910.147(e)(3)(i) through (iii). 

necessary to restrain the boom hoist and 

telescoping, load, swing, and outrigger 

functions. This proposed provision 

addresses the hazard of inadvertent 

movement while the controls are 

unattended. 

Paragraph (e)(1)(iv). Barricades or 

caution lines, and notices would have to 

be erected to prevent all employees from 

entering the fall zone. Furthermore, 

under this proposed paragraph no 

employees would be permitted in the 

fall zone, including those listed in 

proposed § 1926.1425(b)(1) through (3), 

(d), or (e). The Committee concluded 

that this is necessary because the added 

margin of safety that results from the 

operator being at the controls would not 

be present in these circumstances. 

Paragraph (e)(2). As drafted, proposed 

§ 1926.1417(e)(2) reads: 

The provisions in paragraph (e) of this 

section do not apply to working gear (such 

as slings, spreader bars, ladders, and welding 

machines) where the load is not suspended 

over an entrance or exit. 

The Agency notes that the reference to 

‘‘§ 1926.1417(e)’’ is a drafting error and 

that the appropriate reference is to 

paragraph ‘‘§ 1926.1417(e)(1).’’ In 

addition, the provision currently 

contains two incidences of the word 

‘‘not’’ which could lead to confusion. 

Therefore, the Agency is considering 

changing the language to read as follows 

and requests comment on such a 

change: 

The provisions in § 1926.1417(e)(1) do not 

apply to working gear (such as slings, 

spreader bars, ladders, and welding 

machines) where the working gear is 

suspended over an area other than an 

entrance or exit. 

The Committee agreed on this 

paragraph with the understanding that 

employers frequently leave lightweight 

items such as slings, ladders, spreader 

bars, and welding machines suspended 

in the air overnight in order to prevent 

theft. These are items whose weight is 

negligible relative to the capacity of the 

equipment and whose size is small (the 

small size means that there will not be 

a significant sail effect and the rigging 

needed to attach the item to the hook is 

not complex). 

The Committee recognized that this 

practice is a safe practice as long as the 

working gear items are not suspended 

over an entrance or exit where 

employees could be exposed to falling 

object hazards. Thus, this paragraph 

would allow such items to be held 

suspended, without the operator at the 

controls, and without establishing the 

four conditions set forth in 

§ 1926.1417(e)(1)(i) through (iv), so long 

as the gear is not suspended over an 

entrance or exit. 

Paragraph 1417(f) Tag-Out 

Paragraph 1417(f)(1). Tagging out of 

service equipment/functions. Where the 

employer has taken the equipment out 

of service, this proposed paragraph 

would require that the employer place 

a tag in the cab stating that the 

equipment is out of service and not to 

be used. Where the equipment remains 

in service but the employer has taken a 

function out of service, this proposed 

paragraph would require that the 

employer place a tag in a conspicuous 

position stating that that function is out 

of service and not to be used. This 

proposed paragraph is designed to 

prevent hazards associated with workers 

inadvertently attempting to use out-ofservice equipment or a function that is 

out of service. 

Currently, section 5–2.3.2 of ANSI 

B30.5–1968, which is incorporated by 

reference in Subpart N, requires ‘‘out of 

order’’ signs on crawler, locomotive and 

truck cranes undergoing maintenance. 

Unlike proposed 1926.1417(f)(1), 29 

CFR part 1926 subpart N does not 

address the situation where the 

equipment itself is in service but a 

function is out of service. 

Paragraph 1417(f)(2) Response to ‘‘Do 

Not Operate’’/Tag-Out Signs 

Paragraph 1417(f)(2)(i). If there is a 

warning sign on the equipment or 

starting control, proposed paragraph 

(f)(2)(i) would prohibit the operator 

from activating the switch or starting the 

equipment until the sign is removed by 

someone authorized to remove it or 

until the operator can verify that (A) no 

one is servicing, working on, or 

otherwise in a dangerous position on 

the machine, and (B) the equipment has 

been repaired and is working properly. 

Similarly, under proposed 

§ 1926.1417(f)(2)(ii), when there is a 

warning sign on any other switch or 

control, the operator would be 

prohibited from activating that switch or 

control until the sign has been removed 

by an individual authorized to remove 

it, or until the operator meets the two 

requirements of paragraph 

§ 1926.1417(f)(2)(i), described above. 

These provisions would prevent two 

types of hazards. First, since the 

machine is out of service, there is a risk 

that an employee servicing, working on, 

or otherwise in a dangerous position on 

it is not expecting it to be activated and 

would be injured if it were activated. 

Second, if an employee does not know 

that the equipment is malfunctioning or 

has a function that is not working 

properly, an employee could 

inadvertently try to operate it with the 

result that the equipment will not work 

as intended, causing unintended 

movement or a collapse. 

Subpart N addresses this issue 

through section 5–3.1.3g of ANSI B30.5– 

1968, which states: ‘‘If there is a 

warning sign on the switch or engine 

starting controls, the operator shall not 

close the switch or start the engine until 

the warning sign has been removed by 

the person placing it there.’’ Instead of 

requiring that the sign be removed by 

the person who placed it, proposed 

§ 1926.1417(f)(2) would permit it to be 

removed by an authorized person and, 

as an alternative, permit the operator to 

start the equipment after verifying that 

no worker is in a dangerous area and 

that the equipment has been repaired 

and is working properly. C–DAC 

believed that either alternative would 

achieve the safety purpose of the tag-out 

because it would ensure that a 

knowledgeable and responsible person, 

either the operator or another 

authorized person, verifies that repairs 

are complete and all workers are in a 

safe position before the equipment can 

be started. 

As discussed above, the operator 

would be permitted to start equipment 

that is tagged out or activate a taggedout switch if the procedures specified in 

proposed § 1926.1417(f)(2)(i) are met. In 

reviewing this provision, the Agency 

noted that these procedures are not as 

comprehensive as those in the general 

industry standard for the control of 

hazardous energy (lockout/tagout), 

which are listed in § 1910.147(e)(3)(i) 

through (iii).49 The Agency requests 

public comment on whether procedures 

similar to those in paragraphs 

1910.147(e)(3)(i) through (iii) 50 would 

be feasible and appropriate for cranes/ 

derricks used in construction. 

Paragraph 1417(g). Before starting the 

engine, this proposed paragraph would 

require the operator to verify that all 

controls are in the proper starting 

position and that all personnel are in 

the clear. The Committee agreed that 

requiring operators to check that all 

controls are in their proper starting 

positions would prevent unintended 

movement of the equipment when the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59792 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

51 In some instances the overcapacity problem can 

be avoided by repositioning the crane (for example, 

by moving the crane so that the lift can be 

performed at a higher boom angle). However, even 

in those instances some time (and associated 

expense) is involved. 

engine is initially started. Similarly, 

requiring operators to ensure that all 

personnel are in the clear is designed to 

prevent personnel from being injured in 

the event that some aspect of the 

equipment moves upon start-up. 

Currently, section 5–3.1.3h of ANSI 

B30.5–1968, incorporated by reference 

in 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N, contains 

a comparable requirement. 

Paragraph 1417(h). Storm warning. 

When a local storm warning has been 

issued, this proposed paragraph would 

require the competent person to 

determine whether it is necessary to 

implement manufacturer 

recommendations for securing the 

equipment. This provision was designed 

to prevent hazards that could arise from 

severe weather including inadvertent 

movement and crane collapse. Highspeed winds in particular can affect 

both the crane and the load, reducing 

the rated capacity of the crane and 

affecting boom strength. Subpart N does 

not contain a corresponding 

requirement. 

Paragraph 1417(i). [Reserved.] This 

proposed paragraph is reserved because 

it is inconvenient for readers to 

determine whether ‘‘(i)’’ is being used as 

a letter or a roman numeral. 

Paragraph 1417(j) 

This proposed paragraph would 

require that operators be familiar with 

the equipment and its proper operation. 

Furthermore, if adjustments/repairs are 

necessary, then the operator would have 

to promptly inform the individual 

designated by the employer to receive 

such information as well as inform the 

next operator in cases where there are 

successive shifts. 

This paragraph addresses the need to 

identify problems that may develop 

with the equipment during operations. 

Early recognition of such problems by 

the operator would help prevent 

accidents that could result from 

continued operation of equipment that 

needs adjustment and/or repair. 

Operators who are familiar with the 

equipment and its proper operation can 

recognize such equipment anomalies 

and problems. By requiring that 

information about needed adjustments 

and/or repairs be provided to the 

individual designated by the employer 

to receive it, this proposed paragraph 

will facilitate the correction of those 

problems. 

C–DAC did not specify any particular 

job title for the person to whom the 

operator would be required to provide 

this information because different 

employers may assign the responsibility 

of receiving such information to 

different job classifications. 

Providing this information to the next 

operator in cases where there are 

successive shifts (that is, shifts that have 

no break between them) would ensure 

that the next operator is aware of this 

information and will be able to take 

appropriate action. 

This provision is comparable to 

section 5–3.1.3j of ANSI B30.5–1968, 

incorporated by reference in Subpart N, 

which requires operators of crawler, 

locomotive and truck cranes to 

familiarize themselves with the 

equipment and its proper care, to report 

any needed adjustments/repairs or 

defects to a responsible person, and to 

notify the next operator of any such 

problems when changing shifts. 

Paragraph 1417(k) 

This proposed paragraph would 

prohibit safety devices and operational 

aids from being used as a substitute for 

the exercise of professional judgment by 

the operator. The Committee agreed that 

such devices and aids do not displace 

the need for operators to apply their 

professional judgment because the 

devices and aids can malfunction and 

lead to the types of safety hazards they 

are designed to prevent. Subpart N 

contains no corresponding provision. 

Paragraph (l). [Reserved.] This 

proposed paragraph is reserved because 

it is inconvenient for readers to 

distinguish the letter ‘‘l’’ from the 

number ‘‘1.’’ 

Paragraph 1417(m) 

If the competent person determines 

that there is a slack rope condition 

requiring re-spooling of the rope, this 

proposed paragraph would require that 

before starting the lift, it shall be 

verified that the rope is seated on the 

drum and in the sheaves as the slack is 

removed. This would prevent a loose 

coil of rope from becoming cross-coiled 

on the drum, a portion of the rope 

coming off the drum altogether, or the 

rope being pulled alongside (instead of 

seating in) a sheave. Each of these 

conditions can lead to sudden failure of 

the rope. 

Section 5–3.2.3a.4 of ANSI B30.5– 

1968, incorporated by reference in 

Subpart N, has a provision stating: ‘‘If 

there is a slack rope condition, it should 

be determined that the rope is properly 

seated on the drum and in the sheaves.’’ 

The term ‘‘should’’ has been interpreted 

by the courts of appeals as meaning that 

the provision is non-mandatory. The 

provision in paragraph (m) of this 

section uses language making clear that 

the provision is mandatory. 

Paragraph 1417(n) 

This proposed paragraph addresses 

the hazards posed by wind, ice and 

snow on equipment capacity and 

stability. Wind can reduce capacity by 

imposing loads on the equipment, 

which can also reduce stability. Ice and 

snow can also reduce capacity and 

stability when it accumulates on the 

equipment. There are numerous 

variables involved in determining the 

effects of wind, ice and snow in any 

particular circumstance, (for example, 

the extent to which the crane is 

operating below its rated capacity, the 

sail effect presented by the load, the rate 

at which ice or snow is accumulating, 

and whether the snow is wet or light). 

C–DAC concluded that the most 

effective approach would be to require 

the competent person to consider their 

effect on equipment stability and rated 

capacity. 29 CFR part 1926 subpart N 

currently has no similar provision. 

Paragraph 1417(o) Compliance With 

Rated Capacity 

Paragraph 1417(o)(1). This proposed 

paragraph would require employers to 

ensure that equipment is not operated 

beyond its rated capacity. Overloading a 

crane or derrick can cause it to collapse, 

with potentially catastrophic 

consequences. This basic safeguard has 

long been recognized in the industry as 

crucial and is designed to prevent such 

accidents. A comparable requirement is 

contained in 29 CFR part 1926 subpart 

N through incorporation by reference of 

section 5–3.2.1a of ANSI B30.5–1968. 

Paragraph 1417(o)(2). This proposed 

paragraph would require employers to 

ensure that operators are not required to 

operate the equipment in a manner that 

would exceed its rated capacity, in 

violation of proposed § 1926.1417(o)(1) 

above. This proposed provision 

reinforces the general prohibition of 

proposed § 1926.1417(o)(1) by making it 

a separate violation for an employer to 

expressly require an operator to exceed 

the equipment’s rated capacity. 29 CFR 

part 1926 subpart N currently has no 

provision comparable to proposed 

paragraph (o)(2) of this section. 

In the Committee’s experience, a 

significant problem in the construction 

industry is that some employers 

pressure operators to conduct lifts that 

exceed the equipment’s rated capacity. 

Such employers seek to avoid the time 

and expense associated with bringing in 

larger capacity equipment.51

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59793 

52The operator would still be required to use his 

or her professional judgment in determining 

whether the load exceeds the capacity of the 

equipment. As discussed above, proposed 

§ 1926.1417(k) would prohibit sole reliance by the 

operator on an operational aid, such as a load 

weight device, for ensuring that the equipment’s 

capacity will not be exceeded. The procedure in 

proposed § 1926.1417(o)(3)(ii) is a verification 

procedure—it would verify that the operator’s 

estimate is at least correct in terms of not exceeding 

75% of the equipment’s rated capacity (at the 

longest radius that will be used). If, for example, the 

load weight device yields a figure that is 

significantly below what the operator estimates to 

be the true weight, the operator would need to 

reliably determine the weight of the load before 

proceeding with the lift. 

The Committee believed that in many 

of these instances the employer knows 

that the load exceeds the crane’s rated 

capacity but acts on the belief that the 

rated capacity is sufficiently 

conservative to perform the lift. In some 

such cases the exact weight of the load 

is unknown, and the employer pressures 

the crane operator in the belief that even 

if the operator is right about the weight 

exceeding the capacity rating, the safety 

factor that the employer assumes is built 

into the capacity rating will enable the 

crane to perform the lift anyway. 

In the C–DAC discussions of this 

issue, members explained that while 

equipment capacity ratings are 

developed with consideration of a safety 

factor, that safety factor is not intended 

by the manufacturer to be treated as 

excess capacity. There are numerous, 

complex considerations used by 

manufacturers in setting the capacity 

rating. Employers cannot safely assume 

that, in any particular situation, they 

will not need the benefits conferred by 

the safety factor. 

There continue to be a significant 

number of injuries and fatalities 

resulting from equipment overturning. 

Although it has long been a requirement 

not to exceed the equipment’s rated 

capacity, in the Committee’s experience, 

a significant number of overturning 

incidents are caused by exceeding rated 

capacity. A study of fatal accidents 

involving cranes in the U.S. 

construction industry for 1984–1994, 

based on investigations of reported 

accidents conducted by OSHA and 

states with OSHA-approved safety and 

health programs, showed that 22 deaths 

resulted from overloaded cranes. A. 

Suruda, M. Egger, & D. Liu, ‘‘CraneRelated Deaths in the U.S. Construction 

Industry, 1984–94,’’ p. 12, Table 9, The 

Center to Protect Workers’ Rights (Oct. 

1997). (OSHA–2007–0066–0013). 

The Committee believed that there are 

several root causes of this problem, 

including lack of operator qualification/ 

certification requirements, insufficient 

ground conditions, reliance on 

unreliable information regarding load 

weight, and operators being pressured 

into exceeding rated capacity. The 

Committee concluded that this 

additional measure is needed to help 

counteract the persistent problem of 

operators being pressured into 

exceeding rated capacity. 

Paragraph 1417(o)(3). Load weight. As 

discussed above, another cause of 

injuries and fatalities from overturning 

equipment is the use of unreliable 

information on load weight. The 

Committee concluded that one of the 

ways these incidents can be reduced is 

to require that load weight be verified 

by a reliable means. 

Under this proposed paragraph, the 

operator would be required to verify 

that the load is within the rated capacity 

of the equipment by using the 

procedures in either proposed 

§ 1926.1417(o)(3)(i) or (ii). Under 

§ 1926.1417(o)(3)(i), the weight of the 

load would have to be determined in 

one of three ways: From a reliable 

source, from a reliable calculation 

method, or by other equally reliable 

means. An example of verifying the load 

weight from a reliable source would be 

where the load is mechanical equipment 

and the weight is obtained from its 

manufacturer. 

An example of a reliable calculation 

method would be the following: The 

load is a steel I–beam. After measuring 

the thickness of the steel and the I– 

beam’s other dimensions, the operator 

uses an industry table that shows weight 

per linear foot for a beam of these 

dimensions. The operator then 

calculates the beam’s weight using that 

information. If the weight of the load is 

determined under proposed 

§ 1926.1417(o)(3)(i), the information 

about how the load weight was 

determined must be provided to the 

operator, prior to the lift, upon the 

operator’s request. This provision is 

included to help ensure that the 

operator has the information necessary 

to verify that the load is within the rated 

capacity of the equipment. 

Under proposed paragraph (o)(3)(ii), 

the operator would have to begin 

hoisting the load to determine if it 

exceeds 75 percent of the maximum 

rated capacity at the longest radius that 

will be used during the lift operation, 

using a load weighing device, load 

moment indicator, rated capacity 

indicator, or rated capacity limiter. If 

the load does exceed 75 percent of the 

maximum rated capacity, then the 

operator would be prohibited from 

proceeding with the lift until he/she 

verifies the weight of the load in 

accordance with proposed 

§ 1926.1417(o)(3)(i). 

The Committee concluded that as 

long as one of these devices shows that 

the load does not exceed 75% of the 

rated capacity (at the longest radius that 

will be used), it is not necessary to 

determine the actual weight of the load. 

Its conclusion is based on the belief that 

this verification procedure 52

incorporates a sufficient margin of error 

and would be adequate to ensure that 

the crane’s rated capacity would not be 

exceeded. 

In contrast, the Committee believed 

that if the device shows that the load 

exceeds 75%, there is an insufficient 

margin of error to proceed without a 

more accurate determination. In such 

instances a verified determination of the 

actual weight, in accordance with 

proposed § 1926.1417(o)(3)(i), is needed 

to ensure safety. 

Currently, the only Subpart N 

requirement for determining or verifying 

the weight of the load is found in 

section 5–3.2.1b of ANSI B30.5–1968, 

which states: ‘‘When loads which are 

limited by structural competence rather 

than by stability are to be handled, the 

person responsible for the job shall 

ascertain that the weight of the load has 

been determined within plus or minus 

10 percent before it is lifted.’’ The 

Committee believed that the more 

detailed procedures in proposed 

§ 1926.1417(o)(3) and the greater margin 

of safety provided by the 75% limit are 

needed to prevent the crane’s capacity 

from being exceeded. 

Paragraph 1417(p) 

This proposed paragraph would 

require that the boom or other parts of 

the equipment not contact any 

obstruction. The Committee agreed on 

this provision because of its 

understanding that boom contact with 

an obstruction can deform, misalign or 

otherwise damage the equipment. Such 

damage can cause unintended 

movement, prevent intended movement, 

or a collapse. 29 CFR part 1926 subpart 

N currently has no similar provision. 

Paragraph 1417(q) 

This proposed paragraph would 

require that the equipment not be used 

to drag or pull loads sideways. The 

Committee intended this provision to 

prevent the sideloading that occurs 

when a load is dragged or pulled 

sideways. Sideloading can buckle the 

boom, damage the swing mechanism, or 

overturn the crane (such as when the 

boom is at a high angle). Currently, 

section 5–3.2.3c.2 of ANSI B30.5–1968 

contains a similar requirement, 

providing: ‘‘Side loading of booms shall 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59794 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

be limited to freely suspended loads. 

Cranes shall not be used for dragging 

loads sideways.’’ (As discussed below, 

proposed paragraph (v) addresses 

sideloading of freely suspended loads 

by restricting the speed of rotation). 

Paragraph 1417(r) 

On wheel-mounted equipment, this 

proposed provision would require that 

no loads be lifted over the front area, 

except as permitted by the 

manufacturer. The Committee agreed on 

this provision because wheel-mounted 

equipment typically is not designed to 

lift loads over the front area without 

tipping over unless it is specifically 

designed to do so (such as where 

equipped with a front outrigger for 

support and stabilization for this 

purpose). Equipment that is not so 

designed will likely tip over or 

otherwise fail when lifting loads over 

the front area. This proposed paragraph 

continues the requirement of section 5– 

3.2.3g of ANSI B30.5–1968, which is 

incorporated by reference in Subpart N. 

Paragraph 1417(s) 

In many circumstances an operator 

may use equipment that has not recently 

been used to handle a load that is 90% 

or more of the maximum line pull. The 

condition and adjustment of the brakes 

may be sufficient to handle lesser loads, 

but insufficient to handle loads closer to 

their design capacity. Consequently, the 

operator may not know that the brakes 

are insufficient until after the load is 

hoisted. In such a case the load could 

be dropped, posing a struck-by hazard. 

This proposed paragraph would 

address that hazard by requiring that the 

operator test the brakes each time a load 

that is 90% or more of the maximum 

line pull is handled by lifting the load 

a few inches and applying the brakes. In 

duty cycle and repetitive lifts where 

each lift is 90% or more of the 

maximum line pull, this requirement 

would apply to the first but not to 

successive lifts, since the operator 

would have already determined from 

the initial test that the brakes are 

sufficient. 

Currently, 29 CFR part 1926 subpart 

N contains a similar requirement 

through section 5–3.2.3h of ANSI 

B30.5–1968, which states: ‘‘The operator 

shall test the brakes each time a load 

approaching the rated load is handled 

by raising it a few inches and applying 

the brakes.’’ C–DAC believed that 

additional clarity than that found in the 

ANSI provision is needed to give 

employers notice of when a brake test 

was required and therefore proposed in 

§ 1926.1417(s) to require testing when 

the load is 90% or more of the 

maximum line pull. 

Paragraph 1417(t) 

This proposed paragraph would 

require that neither the load nor the 

boom be lowered below the point where 

less than two full wraps of rope remain 

on their respective drums. This 

provision is designed to ensure that the 

rope is not unspooled to the point 

where the rope would become 

disconnected from the drum. It 

continues the current Subpart N 

requirement found in section 5–3.2.3j of 

ANSI B30.5–1968. 

Paragraph 1417(u) Traveling With a 

Load 

Paragraph 1417(u)(1). This proposed 

paragraph would prohibit traveling with 

a load if the practice is prohibited by the 

manufacturer. If the manufacturer does 

not prohibit this practice, the equipment 

may travel with a load, but only if the 

requirements of proposed 

§ 1926.1417(u)(2) are met. 29 CFR part 

1926 subpart N does not prohibit 

traveling with a load if the practice is 

prohibited by the manufacturer but, 

through incorporation of section 5– 

3.2.3n of ANSI B30.5–1968, permits 

traveling with a load whenever 

conditions similar to those in proposed 

§ 1926.1417(u)(2)(i) are satisfied. 

The dynamic effects of traveling with 

a load impose additional and/or 

increased forces on crane components. 

Unless the crane has been designed to 

handle these types of forces and force 

levels, they can cause component 

failure, collapse, instability or 

overturning. The Committee believed 

that the manufacturer has the expertise 

to ascertain its equipment’s capabilities. 

Therefore, the Committee believed that 

where the manufacturer has prohibited 

traveling with the load, such a 

determination needs to be complied 

with to ensure safety. 

Paragraph 1417(u)(2). If the 

manufacturer does not prohibit traveling 

with a load, the equipment may travel 

with a load if the requirements of 

proposed § 1926.1417(u)(2) are met. 

This proposed paragraph sets forth three 

procedures that employers would have 

to follow when traveling with a load. 

Paragraph 1417(u)(2)(i). Pursuant to 

this proposed paragraph, a competent 

person would have to supervise the 

operation, determine if it is necessary to 

reduce crane ratings, and make 

determinations regarding load position, 

boom location, ground support, travel 

route, overhead obstructions, and speed 

of movement necessary to ensure safety. 

Under proposed § 1926.1417(u)(2)(ii), 

the determinations of the competent 

person must be implemented. These 

provisions are similar to section 5– 

3.2.3n of ANSI B30.5–1968, which is 

incorporated in 29 CFR part 1926 

subpart N. 

As discussed above, traveling with a 

load imposes types and levels of forces 

on the equipment that are not present 

when the equipment is stationary, and 

conditions such as load position and 

boom location can affect the magnitude 

of those forces. Some of the criteria in 

proposed § 1926.1417(u)(2)(i) address 

this type of effect. Other criteria in this 

paragraph are intended to ensure that 

other hazards—those posed by the crane 

being in changing locations (such as 

ground support, travel route and 

overhead obstructions)—are addressed 

by the competent person. When 

traveling with a load, a crane may 

encounter hazards such as power lines, 

insufficient ground support, uneven or 

slippery ground conditions, and 

obstructions that the equipment could 

strike. 

A competent person must address 

these issues before the equipment 

begins to travel with a load. The 

competent person must also supervise 

the operation as it proceeds so that 

problems that arise that were not 

foreseen at the outset can be properly 

addressed. In sum, the Committee 

designed these provisions to ensure that 

the employer plans and implements a 

travel operation so that the various 

effects and changeable conditions 

associated with travel are properly 

identified, assessed and addressed. 

Paragraph 1417(u)(2)(iii). For 

equipment with pressurized tires, this 

proposed paragraph would require that 

tire pressure specified by the 

manufacturer be maintained. Subpart N 

currently has no corresponding 

provision. 

The Committee agreed on this 

provision to address the hazards posed 

by improper tire pressure when 

traveling with a load. Where pressure 

varies among the tires, the equipment 

may be out of level, reducing capacity 

and causing instability. Uniform but 

improper pressure can reduce capacity 

or lead to tire failure. Each of these 

circumstances can lead to unintended 

movement, loss of the load, overturning 

and/or collapse. 

Paragraph 1417(v) 

This proposed paragraph would 

require that rotational speed of the 

equipment be such that the load does 

not swing out beyond the radius at 

which it can be controlled. As noted 

above in relation to proposed 

§ 1926.1417(q), 29 CFR part 1926 

subpart N currently permits sideloading 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59795 

of freely suspended loads with no 

restriction comparable to that in 

proposed § 1926.1417(v). 

The Committee intended this 

provision to prevent the hazard of 

sideloading, which occurs when the 

load swings to either side of the boom 

tip, rather than its appropriate position 

directly beneath the boom tip. When the 

load is not directly under the boom tip, 

sideloading occurs and decreases 

capacity. This hazard can lead to tipover or boom failure. 

Paragraph 1417(w) 

This proposed paragraph would 

require that a tag or restraint line be 

used if necessary to prevent rotation of 

the load that would be hazardous. The 

Committee agreed on this provision in 

order to prevent the hazard of an 

unstable or uncontrolled load which 

could in turn destabilize other parts of 

the crane or the crane itself. This 

condition can also result in the load 

posing a struck-by hazard. Section 5– 

3.2.3p of ANSI B30.5–1968 contains a 

comparable requirement. 

Paragraph 1417(x) 

This proposed paragraph would 

require that the brakes be adjusted in 

accordance with manufacturer 

procedures to prevent unintended 

movement. This requirement would 

apply to all brakes on equipment 

covered by this standard, including 

brakes used to control the lowering of 

the load and those used to stop the 

equipment while it is traveling. 

Improper adjustment can cause a delay 

in the onset of braking after the operator 

attempts to activate the brake and can 

also diminish the brake’s capacity. 

Brakes are critical to the safe operation 

of the equipment and must be properly 

adjusted to serve their safety function. 

Currently, 29 CFR part 1926 subpart 

N does not specifically address brake 

adjustment. However, section 5–2.3.1a 

of ANSI B30.5–1968 requires a 

preventive maintenance program based 

on the manufacturer’s 

recommendations, and section 5–2.3.3b 

requires that all components and 

operating mechanisms be adjusted to 

ensure their correct functioning. In light 

of the critical role that brakes play in 

ensuring equipment safety, these 

provisions of ANSI B30.5–1968 can be 

read to include brake adjustments. The 

Committee concluded that the more 

explicit approach to this issue taken in 

proposed § 1926.1417(x) requirement 

would help enhance employee safety. 

Paragraph 1417(y) 

This proposed paragraph would 

require that the operator obey a stop or 

emergency stop signal, regardless of 

who gives the signal. Any person on a 

worksite may observe a hazardous 

condition that is not visible to or 

recognized by the crane operator and 

that can only be avoided if the 

equipment stops immediately. 

Therefore, the operator must obey a stop 

signal given by anybody on the 

worksite. Section 5–3.1.3c of ANSI 

B30.5–1968 contains a comparable 

requirement. 

Paragraph 1417(z) Swinging 

Locomotive Cranes 

Pursuant to this proposed paragraph, 

a locomotive crane shall not be swung 

into a position where it is reasonably 

foreseeable that railway cars on an 

adjacent track could strike it, until it is 

determined that cars are not being 

moved on the adjacent track and that 

proper flag protection has been 

established. A comparable requirement 

is contained in section 5–3.4.4 of ANSI 

B30.5–1968. 

Paragraph 1417(aa) Counterweight/ 

Ballast 

Paragraph 1417(aa)(1). This proposed 

paragraph contains counterweight/ 

ballast requirements that would apply to 

equipment other than tower cranes. 

Pursuant to proposed 

§ 1926.1417(aa)(2), requirements 

regarding counterweight/ballast for 

tower cranes are found in proposed 

§ 1926.1435(b)(7). 

Paragraph 1417(aa)(1)(i). This 

proposed paragraph would require that 

equipment not be operated without the 

counterweight or ballast in place as 

specified by the manufacturer. Failure 

to follow the manufacturer’s 

specifications for use of counterweights 

and ballast could result in a tipover or 

collapse. 

Paragraph 1417(aa)(1)(ii). Under this 

proposed provision, the employer 

would be prohibited from exceeding the 

maximum counterweight or ballast 

specified by the manufacturer for the 

equipment. Exceeding that maximum 

could result in component failure, 

which could cause unintended 

movement, tipover or collapse. 

Requirements similar to those in 

§ 1926.1417(aa)(1)(i) and (ii) are 

currently contained in Subpart N 

through incorporation by reference of 

section 5–3.4.2 of ANSI B30.5–1968. 

The C–DAC draft of this provision 

stated that the maximum counterweight 

or ballast ‘‘approved’’ by the 

manufacturer shall not be exceeded. 

Upon reviewing the draft, OSHA 

determined that a term that more 

accurately reflects the Committee’s 

intent in this regard is ‘‘specified.’’ 

Therefore, the Agency has modified the 

C–DAC language so that proposed 

§ 1926.1417(aa)(1)(ii) reads: 

The maximum counterweight or ballast 

specified by the manufacturer for the 

equipment shall not be exceeded. 

Paragraph 1417(aa)(2). This proposed 

paragraph complements proposed 

§ 1926.1417(aa)(1) by noting that the 

counterweight and ballast requirements 

for tower cranes are found in proposed 

§ 1926.1435(b)(8). 

Section 1418 Authority To Stop 

Operation 

This proposed section provides: 

‘‘Whenever there is a concern as to 

safety, the operator shall have the 

authority to stop and refuse to handle 

loads until a qualified person has 

determined that safety has been 

assured.’’ Subpart N incorporates pre1971 industry consensus standards that 

require operators to have comparable 

authority, and current industry 

consensus standards contain similar 

provisions. An appropriately capable 

equipment operator is highly 

knowledgeable in matters affecting 

equipment safety and is well qualified 

to determine whether an operation 

presents a safety concern. C–DAC 

believed that it continues to be 

necessary for the employer to provide 

this authority to the operator. 

Current consensus standards specify 

that an operator with a safety concern 

must raise that concern with a 

supervisor before proceeding with a lift. 

For example, section 5–3.1.3(d) of ANSI 

B30.5–2004, ‘‘Mobile and Locomotive 

Cranes,’’ provides: ‘‘Whenever there is 

any doubt as to safety, the operator shall 

consult with the supervisor before 

handling the loads.’’ Similar provisions 

are included in section 2–3.1.7 of ASME 

B30.2–2001, ‘‘Overhead and Gantry 

Cranes,’’ section 3–3.1.3(d) of ASME 

B30.3–1996, ‘‘Construction Tower 

Cranes,’’ section 6–3.2.3 of ASME 

B30.6–2003, ‘‘Derricks,’’ and other 

standards in the ASME B30 series. 

The proposed section reflects C– 

DAC’s belief that it is necessary to 

clearly delineate the circumstances 

under which it would be permissible to 

resume operations after the operator has 

exercised this authority. Under the 

proposed provision, operations would 

be prohibited from resuming ‘‘until a 

qualified person had determined that 

safety has been assured.’’ 

In accordance with the proposed 

definition of a qualified person (see the 

discussion above of this term in 

proposed § 1926.1401), that person 

would, ‘‘by possession of a recognized 

degree, certificate, or professional 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59796 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

standing, or who by extensive 

knowledge, training and experience, 

successfully demonstrated the ability to 

solve/resolve problems relating to the 

subject matter, the work or the project.’’ 

For example, operations could resume 

only after the qualified person either: (1) 

Assesses the factors that led the operator 

to stop and refuse to handle the load 

and determines that there is not, in fact, 

a safety hazard, or (2) after corrective 

action has been taken, determines that 

there is no longer a safety hazard. 

An illustrative example of this is the 

following: A large steel cylinder, which 

is lying lengthwise on the ground, is to 

be lifted into the vertical position and 

then up to the top of a structure. As the 

crane operator prepares to lift the 

cylinder into the vertical position, the 

operator sees that the rigging is attached 

at a point that is more than halfway 

down from the top of the cylinder. This 

indicates to the operator that the rigging 

has been attached below the cylinder’s 

center of gravity. Rigging such a load 

below the center of gravity could cause 

it to flip over when it is lifted. As a 

result of this concern, the operator 

exercises his/her authority to stop and 

refuse to handle the load. 

After the operator explains his/her 

concern to the employer, the employer 

consults with an individual who is a 

qualified person with respect to the 

rigging of the load. The qualified person 

finds that the wall of the steel cylinder 

is much thicker near its base than at the 

top. After calculating the cylinder’s 

center of gravity, the qualified person 

determines that it is well below the 

midpoint of the cylinder. The qualified 

person then determines that the rigging 

is, in fact, attached above the cylinder’s 

center of gravity, and that safety is 

assured. The lifting operation is then 

resumed. 

In this example the operator 

appropriately exercised his/her 

authority to stop and refuse to handle 

the load, since there were indications of 

an unsafe condition. A qualified person 

then appropriately found that safety was 

assured after examining those 

indications, assessing the relevant 

factors, and determining that the load 

was in fact rigged in a safe manner. 

Signals 

Proposed §§ 1926.1419 through 

1926.1422 address the circumstances 

under which a signal person must be 

provided, the type of signals that may be 

used, criteria for how signals are 

transmitted, and other criteria 

associated with the use of signals. 

Section 1419 Signals—General 

Requirements 

This proposed section would set 

requirements regarding signals when 

using equipment covered by this 

proposed standard. 

Currently, § 1926.550(a)(4) provides: 

‘‘Hand signals to crane and derrick 

operators shall be those prescribed by 

the applicable ANSI standard for the 

type of crane in use. An illustration of 

the signals shall be posted at the job 

site.’’ C–DAC believed that the current 

rule is insufficient in several respects. 

First, the current rule does not establish 

the circumstances in which there is a 

need to have a signal person. Second, 

the current standard refers only to hand 

signals. C–DAC believed that other 

means of signaling need to be addressed 

as well to provide necessary flexibility 

and reduce the potential for 

miscommunication (requirements 

regarding other signaling methods are 

addressed in proposed §§ 1926.1420 and 

1926.1421). 

Finally, C–DAC found that hazardous 

situations arise as a result of signal 

persons not understanding safetyrelated aspects of crane operations and 

dynamics and not knowing how to give 

appropriate signals. Consequently, it 

determined that there is a need to 

establish requirements regarding the 

qualifications of the signal person; these 

are addressed in proposed § 1926.1428. 

In short, C–DAC believed that 

addressing these issues is one of the 

means by which the number of injuries 

and fatalities caused by ‘‘struck-by’’ 

incidents, in which the equipment or 

load strikes an employee, can be 

reduced. 

Paragraph 1419(a) 

Proposed paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(a)(3) address the circumstances that 

would require the provision of a signal 

person: When the point of operation, 

meaning the load travel or the area near 

or at load placement, is not in full view 

of the operator (§ 1926.1419(a)(1)); when 

the equipment is traveling and the 

operator’s view in the direction of travel 

is obstructed (§ 1926.1419(a)(2)); and 

when, due to site specific safety 

concerns, either the operator or the 

person handling the load determines it 

is necessary (§ 1926.1419(a)(3)). The 

first two of these circumstances involve 

an obvious hazard—limited operator 

visibility. 

With respect to the third 

circumstance, C–DAC believed that 

other situations arise that, from a safety 

standpoint, necessitate the use of a 

signal person. For example, the operator 

may recognize that the load at one point 

will move alongside and very close to a 

structure. Even though the load in this 

example will remain in view of the 

operator as it travels, because of the 

tight tolerances involved, the operator 

determines that a signal person is 

needed to help ensure that the load does 

not come in contact with the structure 

(which could cause the load to fall). 

Another example is where a heavy 

load, such as a large HVAC unit, has to 

be placed very precisely on a concrete 

pad. In this example, as in the previous 

one, the load remains within the view 

of the operator at all times. However, 

the employee handling the load 

determines that signals need to be given 

to the operator so that the load handler’s 

work and the operator’s movement of 

the load are properly coordinated. 

Because of the weight of the load, the 

employee handling it will have to use 

both hands to help position it as it is 

placed on the pad and will not be able 

to give signals. In such an instance the 

person handling the load could 

determine that a signal person is 

necessary. 

Paragraph 1419(b) Types of Signals 

Under proposed paragraph (b), signals 

to crane operators would have to be by 

hand, voice, audible, or ‘‘new’’ signals. 

As used in this proposed standard, these 

terms refer to the type of signal, not the 

means by which the signal is 

transmitted. For example, signaling by 

voice refers to oral communication, not 

whether the oral communication is done 

with or without amplification or with or 

without electronic transmission. The 

manner of transmission of the signal is 

addressed separately. 

‘‘Audible signal’’ is defined in 

§ 1926.1401 as ‘‘a signal made by a 

distinct sound or series of sounds. 

Examples include, but are not limited 

to, sounds made by a bell, horn, or 

whistle.’’ Under some circumstances, 

audible signals are effective means of 

communicating with an operator, and 

C–DAC defined the term to make clear 

the types of sounds that would be 

permissible. 

The criteria for the use of these signal 

types are set out in proposed 

§ 1926.1419(c)–(m) (additional voice 

signal requirements are in proposed 

§ 1926.1421, Signals—voice signals— 

additional requirements). The 

Committee’s intent was to reduce the 

potential for miscommunication, which 

can lead to injuries and fatalities, 

particularly from ‘‘struck-by’’ and 

‘‘crushed-by’’ incidents. In setting 

parameters for the use of the various 

types of existing signal methods, and for 

signal methods that may be developed 

in the future, the Committee sought to 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59797 

53The C–DAC draft refers to an ‘‘industry 

consensus standard.’’ OSHA hasd changed this to 

‘‘national consensus standard’’ to conform to the 

terminology used in the OSH Act. 

promote a degree of standardization 

while still allowing appropriate 

flexibility. In addition, the proposed 

provisions are designed to ensure that 

the selection of signal type and means 

of sending the signals are appropriate 

under the circumstances and reliable. 

Paragraph 1419(c) Hand Signals 

Proposed paragraph (c) addresses the 

use of hand signals. The industry has 

long recognized the need for consistent, 

universal hand signals to minimize the 

potential for miscommunication 

between signal persons and operators. 

ANSI B30.5–1968, ‘‘Crawler, 

Locomotive and Truck Cranes,’’ 

contains illustrations of hand signals 

that are the same as the current 2004 

edition of ASME B30.5 and that are 

consistent with hand signals for other 

types of cranes in ASME B30 standards. 

Subpart N currently requires that hand 

signals to crane and derrick operators 

‘‘be those prescribed by the applicable 

ANSI standard for the type of crane in 

use’’ and that ‘‘an illustration of the 

signals shall be posted at the job site’’ 

(§ 1926.550(a)(4)). 

Because of the industry’s long 

familiarity with these standard hand 

signals, C–DAC determined that, when 

using hand signals, the standardized 

version of the signals should continue to 

be required. These signals are referred to 

as the ‘‘Standard Method,’’ which is 

defined in proposed § 1926.1401 as ‘‘the 

protocol in Appendix A for hand 

signals.’’ The ‘‘Standard Method’’ 

signals are located in Appendix A. 

However, the Committee recognized 

that there are instances when use of the 

Standard Method is either infeasible or 

where there is no Standard Method 

signal applicable to the work being 

done. 

For example, the Standard Method 

signal for raising the boom is: arm 

extended, thumb pointing upward and 

other fingers closed. The signal for 

lowering the boom is the same except 

the thumb points down. There are 

circumstances where back-lighting 

conditions make it difficult for the 

operator to see the signal person’s 

thumb and therefore cannot discern 

whether it is pointing up or down. In 

such circumstances use of the standard 

signal would be infeasible. 

In such instances, under this 

proposed paragraph, non-standard 

signals (examples of which are provided 

in Appendix B of this proposed rule) 

may be used. To avoid confusion when 

non-standard signals are used, proposed 

§ 1926.1419(c)(2) would require that the 

signal person, crane operator, and lift 

supervisor (where there is one) meet 

prior to the operation to agree upon the 

signals that will be used. 

Paragraph 1419(d) New Signals 

Proposed paragraph (d) would allow 

signals other than hand, voice, or 

audible signals to be used if certain 

criteria are met. As discussed above 

under proposed § 1926.1419(b), C–DAC 

include § 1926.1419(d) to allow for the 

development of new signals in the 

future. To ensure that any new signals 

are as effective as hand, voice, or 

audible signals, proposed 

1926.1419(d)(1) and (d)(2) would 

require the employer to demonstrate 

either that the new signals are as 

effective as existing signals for 

communicating, or that there is a 

national consensus standard for the new 

signals.53 C–DAC believed it was 

appropriate to allow reliance on signals 

in a national consensus standard 

because their inclusion in such a 

standard shows a high degree of 

standardization and widespread 

acceptance by persons who are affected 

by the signals, thereby ensuring that the 

signals can be used safely to control 

equipment operations. 

Paragraph 1419(e) Suitability 

Under proposed paragraph (e), the 

type of signal (hand, voice, audible, or 

new) and the transmission method used 

would have to be suitable for the site 

conditions. For example, hand signals 

would not be suitable if site conditions 

do not allow for the signal person to be 

within the operator’s line of sight. Radio 

signals would not be suitable if 

electronic interference on the site 

prohibits the signals from being readily 

understood. 

Paragraph 1419(f) 

Proposed paragraph (f) would require 

the ability to transmit signals between 

the operator and signal person to be 

maintained. If that ability is interrupted, 

the operator would be required to safely 

stop operations until signal 

transmission is reestablished and a 

proper signal is given and understood. 

Paragraph 1419(g) 

Proposed paragraph (g) would require 

the operator to stop operations if the 

operator becomes aware of a safety 

problem and needs to communicate 

with the signal person. Operations may 

only be resumed after the operator and 

signal person agree that the problem has 

been resolved. 

Most signal systems permit only oneway communication, from the signal 

person to the operator. In addition, most 

two-way systems, such as a typical twoway radio system, only permit one 

person to speak at a time. When using 

such systems, circumstances may arise 

in which the operator, while receiving 

signals, becomes aware of a safety 

problem that is of a nature that 

necessitates that the operator 

communicate with the signal person. 

For example, the signal person signals 

to the operator to lower the load. 

However, the operator sees that an 

employee has moved under the load in 

an area that is out of the view of the 

signal person. Under this proposed 

provision the operator would have to 

safely stop lowering the load and 

communicate the problem to the signal 

person. 

Another example is where the signal 

person gives a hand signal but it appears 

to the operator that the signal person is 

using the wrong signal. The operator 

would be required to safely stop 

operations and communicate with the 

signal person to resolve the problem. 

Paragraph 1419(h) and (j) 

Proposed paragraph (h) would require 

that only one person at a time signal the 

operator. C–DAC believed this provision 

was needed to prevent confusion with 

respect to which signals the operator is 

supposed to follow. An exception is 

provided when, as provided in 

proposed § 1926.1419(j), somebody 

becomes aware of a safety problem and 

gives an emergency stop signal. Under 

proposed § 1926.1417(y), the operator 

would be required to obey such a signal. 

Paragraph 1419(i) [Reserved.] 

Paragraph (i) is reserved because it is 

inconvenient for readers to determine 

whether ‘‘(i)’’ is being used as a letter or 

a roman numeral. 

Paragraph 1419(k) 

Proposed paragraph (k) would require 

that all directions given to the operator 

by the signal person be given from the 

operator’s direction perspective. In the 

Committee’s experience, the operator 

will tend to react to a directional signal, 

such as ‘‘forward,’’ by acting on the 

signal from the operator’s perspective. 

This provision would ensure that the 

signal that is given will be consistent 

with that natural tendency. 

Paragraph 1419(l) [Reserved.] 

Paragraph (l) is reserved because it is 

inconvenient for readers to whether ‘‘l’’ 

is being used as a letter or a number. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59798 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Paragraph 1419(m) Communication 

With Multiple Cranes/Derricks 

Proposed paragraph (m) addresses a 

situation where the signal person is in 

communication with more than one 

crane or derrick. It would require the 

signal person to use an effective means 

of identifying the crane or derrick the 

signal is for before giving the signal. 

Proposed § 1926.1419(m)(i) and (ii) set 

out alternate means of complying with 

this requirement. Under proposed 

§ 1926.1419(m)(i), for each signal, prior 

to giving the function/direction, the 

signal person must identify the crane/ 

derrick for which the signal is intended. 

Alternatively, under proposed 

§ 1926.1419(m)(ii), the employer could 

implement a method of identifying 

which crane/derrick for which the 

signal is intended that is as effective as 

the system in proposed 

§ 1926.1419(m)(i). Because of the 

potential for confusion, it is essential 

that an alternative system under 

proposed § 1926.1419(m)(ii) be equally 

effective as § 1926.1419(m)(i) in clearly 

conveying, on a consistent basis, the 

crane/derrick to which each signal is 

directed. 

Section 1420 Signals—Radio, 

Telephone, or Other Electronic 

Transmission of Signals 

C–DAC concluded that certain criteria 

are needed to ensure the reliability and 

clarity of electronically transmitted 

signals; these criteria are listed in 

proposed paragraphs § 1926.1420(a) 

through (c). Proposed paragraph (a) 

would require the testing of the 

transmission devices prior to the start of 

operations to ensure that the signals are 

clear and that the devices are reliable. 

This will help ensure that the operator 

receives and can understand the signals 

that are given and will prevent 

accidents caused by miscommunication. 

Proposed paragraph (b) would require 

that such signals be transmitted through 

a dedicated channel. As defined in 

§ 1926.1401, a ‘‘dedicated channel’’ is 

‘‘a line of communication assigned by 

the employer who controls the 

communication system to only one 

signal person and crane/derrick or to a 

coordinated group of cranes/derricks/ 

signal person(s).’’ Use of a dedicated 

channel would ensure that the operator 

and signal person are not interrupted by 

users performing other tasks or confused 

by instructions not intended for them. 

An exception to § 1926.1419(b) would 

allow more than one signal person and 

more than one crane/derrick operator to 

share a dedicated channel in multiple 

crane/derrick situations for coordinating 

operations. The Committee believed that 

this exception is needed because, in 

those situations, it may be advantageous 

to share a single dedicated channel. For 

example, in some situations several 

cranes may be operating in an area in 

which their booms, loads or load lines 

could come in contact with each other. 

In such cases it is crucial that the 

movements of each crane be properly 

coordinated. By sharing a single 

channel, each operator can hear what 

each crane is being asked to do, which 

can facilitate that coordination. 

Proposed paragraph (c) would require 

that the operator’s reception be by a 

hands-free system. In other words, the 

operator must not have to depress a 

button, manipulate a switch, or take any 

action in order for the incoming signal 

to be received. C–DAC believed that this 

provision is needed because the 

operator must have both hands free to 

manipulate the equipment’s controls. 

Paragraph 1421 Signals—Voice 

Signals—Additional Requirements 

C–DAC considered whether the 

proposed rule should include a 

standardized set of voice signals. Unlike 

hand signals, which have become 

standardized to a large extent within the 

industry, in the Committee members’ 

experience there is significant variation 

in the phrases used to convey the same 

instructions. Consequently, words or 

phrases that the Committee might 

choose to propose to be required as 

voice signals could be unfamiliar to 

many employees in the industry or 

contrary to common usage in some parts 

of the country. In light of this, the 

Committee determined that it would be 

better to use a different approach to 

address the problem of 

miscommunication when using voice 

signals. This approach, which 

establishes criteria for whatever voice 

signals are used, is set out in proposed 

§ 1926.1421(a)–(c). 

Under proposed paragraph (a), prior 

to beginning operations, the personnel 

involved with signals—the crane 

operator, signal person and lift 

supervisor (if there is one)—would be 

required to meet and agree on the voice 

signals that will be used. Because of the 

lack of standardization and the variety 

of languages that are in use in the 

construction industry, the Committee 

concluded that it is essential that the 

persons who give and/or receive voice 

signals agree in advance on the signals 

that will be used in order to avoid 

miscommunication. Once the parties 

have met and agreed on the voice 

signals, another meeting is not required 

to discuss them unless another worker 

is substituted, there is some confusion 

about the signals, or a signal needs to be 

changed. 

In reviewing the C–DAC draft of this 

provision, the Agency realized that the 

adjective ‘‘voice’’ was inadvertently left 

out when referring to signals. To avoid 

ambiguity, the Agency has added the 

term ‘‘voice’’ to clarify that this 

proposed provision applies to the use of 

voice signals. 

Proposed paragraph (b) would require 

that each voice signal contain the 

following three elements, given in the 

following order: function (such as hoist, 

boom, etc.), direction; distance and/or 

speed; Function, stop command. For 

example: hoist up; 10 feet; hoist stop. As 

discussed above, the Committee 

considered it impractical to attempt to 

standardize the voice signals themselves 

(that is, to require the use of particular 

words to represent particular functions, 

directions or other instructions). 

However, the Committee concluded that 

the chance of miscommunication could 

nonetheless be reduced if certain 

parameters were established for the type 

of information and order of information 

that would be given. 

Proposed paragraph (c) would require 

the crane operator, signal person, and 

lift supervisor (if there is one) to be able 

to effectively communicate in the 

language used. Voice signals will not 

serve their intended purpose if they 

cannot be understood, or can be 

misinterpreted. The inability of these 

workers to understand each other could 

lead to accidents caused, for example, 

by the crane operator moving a load in 

a different direction than the signal 

person intends. 

Section 1422 Signals—Hand Signal 

Chart 

This proposed paragraph would 

require that hand signal charts be either 

posted on the equipment or be readily 

available at the site. The purpose of this 

proposed provision is to serve as a 

reference for operators and signal 

persons of the mandatory hand signals 

and thereby help avoid 

miscommunication. 

Section 1423 Fall Protection 

This proposed section contains 

provisions designed to protect workers 

on equipment covered by this Subpart 

from fall hazards. (See proposed 

§ 1926.1431, Hoisting Personnel, for fall 

protection provisions that would apply 

when equipment is used to hoist 

personnel). Currently, 29 CFR part 1926 

subpart N contains certain fall 

protection requirements but does not 

address fall protection for cranes and 

derricks comprehensively. Where 

Subpart N does not specifically address 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59799 

54 In Subpart M, § 1926.500(a)(2) states: ‘‘Section 

1926.501 sets forth those workplaces, conditions, 

operations, and circumstances for which fall 

protection shall be provided except as follows: 

* * * (ii) Requirements relating to fall protection 

for employees working on certain cranes and 

derricks are provided in Subpart N of this part.’’ 

55These criteria would apply to all boom 

walkways, not just those on lattice booms. 

a fall protection issue, the general fall 

protection provisions of 29 CFR part 

1926 subpart M apply. As OSHA 

explained when it issued subpart M, 

‘‘while Subpart N contains requirements 

for fall protection when certain cranes 

are used, it does not address other 

equipment or working conditions 

otherwise covered by subpart N which 

may also expose employees to a fall 

hazard.’’59 FR 40672, 40675 (Aug. 9, 

1994).54

The fall protection requirements in 

Subpart M apply where an employee is 

on a ‘‘walking/working surface.’’ 29 CFR 

1926.501. In § 1926.500(b), the 

definition of walking/working surface 

excludes ‘‘vehicles.’’ That definition 

effectively excludes many cranes (for 

example, mobile cranes would be 

considered ‘‘vehicles’’). 

The Committee believed that safety 

would be enhanced by addressing the 

problem of fall hazards associated with 

cranes and derricks comprehensively. In 

addition, it believed that putting all 

such requirements under the cranes and 

derricks standard would make it easier 

for employers to readily determine the 

applicable fall protection requirements. 

Accordingly, under this proposed 

standard, Subpart M would not apply to 

equipment covered by this proposed 

subpart except where it incorporates 

requirements of Subpart M by reference. 

In this regard, note that the Agency is 

proposing to amend Subpart M at 

§ 1926.500(a)(2)(ii) to remove the word 

‘‘certain.’’ 

Definition of Fall Protection Equipment 

‘‘Fall protection equipment’’ is 

defined in proposed § 1926.1401 as 

‘‘guardrail systems, safety net systems, 

personal fall arrest systems, positioning 

device systems, or fall restraint 

systems.’’ The first four listed systems 

are described, and their specifications 

listed, in 29 CFR Part 1926. Subpart M 

of this part, OSHA’s general fall 

protection standard for construction 

work. See § 1926.502(b) (guardrail 

systems); § 1926.502(c) (safety net 

systems); § 1926.502(d) (personal fall 

arrest systems); and § 1926.502(e) 

(positioning device systems). 

The fifth category of fall protection 

equipment, ‘‘fall restraint system,’’ is 

defined in § 1926.1401 as ‘‘a fall 

protection system that prevents the user 

from falling any distance. The system is 

comprised of either a body belt or body 

harness, along with an anchorage, 

connectors and other necessary 

equipment. The other components 

typically include a lanyard, and may 

also include a lifeline and other 

devices.’’ This definition is found in 29 

CFR part 1926. Subpart R of this part, 

OSHA’s steel erection standard. 

By defining ‘‘fall protection 

equipment’’ to include the same types of 

fall protection equipment required 

under other OSHA standards, C–DAC 

sought to ensure that employers would 

be familiar with the types of fall 

protection required under this standard 

and thereby promote compliance. 

Paragraph 1423(a) Application 

Falls have traditionally been the 

leading cause of deaths among 

construction workers. BLS data for 2004 

and 2005, the latest years for which 

complete figures are available, shows 

445 fatalities from falls in 2004 (OSHA– 

2007–0066–0023), and 394 in 2005 

(OSHA–2007–0066–0024). In 2004, 20 

fatalities resulted from falls from 

nonmoving vehicles and in 2005, such 

falls caused 18 deaths. A recent study of 

crane-related fatalities in the U.S. 

construction industry found that 2% 

resulted from falls. J.E. Beavers, J.R. 

Moore, R. Rinehart, and W.R. Schriver, 

‘‘Crane-Related Fatalities in the 

Construction Industry,’’ 132 Journal of 

Construction Engineering and 

Management 901 (Sept. 2006) (OSHA– 

2007–0066–0012). Falls from cranes, 

particularly when the operator is 

entering or leaving the crane, also cause 

numerous non-fatal injuries to 

construction workers. (OSHA–S030– 

2006–0663–0422). 

Under proposed paragraph (a), certain 

proposed provisions in this section 

(proposed § 1926.1423(c)(1), (f) and (h)) 

would apply to all equipment, including 

tower cranes; certain provisions 

(proposed § 1926.1423(b), (c)(2), (d) and 

(e)) would apply to all equipment 

except tower cranes; and certain 

provisions (proposed paragraph (g) 

would apply only to tower cranes). 

Paragraph 1423(b) Boom Walkways 

Proposed paragraph (b) would 

establish when walkways must be 

incorporated into lattice booms and the 

criteria for such walkways. Boom 

walkways are not currently required by 

subpart N of this part. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(1) would 

require that equipment manufactured 

more than one year after the effective 

date of this standard with a lattice boom 

be equipped with walkways on the 

boom if the vertical profile of the boom 

(from cord centerline to cord centerline) 

is 6 or more feet. C–DAC believed that 

the installation of walkways on booms 

would decrease the number of falls 

which occur during assembly/ 

disassembly, inspection, and 

maintenance of booms and attached 

devices. Without a walkway, employees 

walking the boom must step from lattice 

to lattice. C–DAC believed it is safer to 

walk the boom if the boom is equipped 

with a walkway. 

C–DAC considered the technical 

difficulty of equipping a boom with a 

vertical profile of less than 6 feet. Such 

booms would not accommodate the 

addition of a walkway into their design 

because the added weight of the 

walkway would significantly 

compromise their hoisting capacity. For 

that reason, C–DAC limited the 

requirement for boom walkways to 

equipment with lattice booms where the 

vertical profile of the boom is 6 feet or 

more. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(2), Boom 

walkway criteria, would establish a 

minimum width for boom walkways 

and address safety issues associated 

with guardrails, railings and other 

attachments.55 Proposed 

§ 1926.1423(b)(2)(i) would require that 

walkways on booms be at least 12 

inches wide. C–DAC considered 

requiring boom walkways to be at least 

18 inches wide to remain consistent 

with § 1926.451(b)(2) of the scaffold 

standard (Subpart L). However, C–DAC 

determined that there are engineering 

limitations applicable to booms that are 

not applicable to scaffolds. Specifically, 

the Committee found that an 18 inch 

requirement would present feasibility 

problems, especially on smaller booms. 

In such cases an 18 inch walkway’s 

added weight would unduly impinge 

upon the equipment’s capacity. 

C–DAC believed that a walkway with 

a 12 inch width, while not as easy to use 

as an 18 inch walkway, would provide 

enough space for an employee to 

maintain his/her balance while walking 

from point to point on the boom when 

the boom is positioned horizontally. 

This would be a significant 

improvement over having to step across 

the open space between the boom’s 

lattice-work and onto the lattice. In sum, 

the Committee concluded that the 

benefits obtained by providing a 

walkway on booms outweigh any 

drawbacks associated with a minimum 

width of 12 inches. Note that, in many 

circumstances, the safety benefits 

afforded by this walkway would be 

supplemented by fall protection 

equipment (see the discussion below of 

proposed paragraphs (d) and (e)). 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59800 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

56Note that section 3–1.17.2 of both the 1996 and 

2004 versions of ASME B30.3, ‘‘Construction Tower 

Cranes,’’ calls for access ladders to the cab, 

machinery platform, and tower to conform to ANSI 

A14.3 or to SAE J185. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(ii) would 

address the use of guardrails, railings 

and other permanent fall protection 

attachments along walkways. The 

general fall protection standard for 

construction work at § 1926.501(b)(6) 

requires that walkways be equipped 

with guardrail systems to protect 

workers against falling 6 feet or more. 

This proposed section would retain the 

general requirement for fall protection at 

or above 6 feet for certain work (see 

discussion below of § 1926.1423(d)), but 

C–DAC believed that guardrails should 

not be a required form of fall protection 

on boom walkways because of the 

feasibility constraints discussed below. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) states 

that guardrails, railings and other 

permanent fall protection attachments 

along boom walkways would not be 

required. For some equipment, the 

added weight of fixed railings, 

combined with the walkway’s weight, 

would unduly impinge upon the lift 

capacity of the boom. In addition, as 

discussed in relation to 

§ 1926.1423(b)(2)(ii)(B) below, in some 

boom designs pendant ropes and bars 

(where present) could become snagged 

on such railings. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B) 

would prohibit guardrails, railings and 

other permanent fall protection 

attachments along walkways on booms 

supported by pendant ropes or bars if 

the guardrails, railings or attachments 

could be snagged by the ropes or bars. 

Such snagging could cause instability or 

a collapse. Whether the potential for 

snagging is present on a boom 

supported by pendant ropes or bars 

would depend on the design of the 

equipment. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C) 

would prohibit removable-type 

guardrails, railings, and other 

permanent fall protection along 

walkways. For purposes of this 

paragraph, ‘‘removable-type’’ means 

designed to be installed and removed 

each time the boom is assembled/ 

disassembled. One of the Committee’s 

concerns was that such devices may be 

left installed by mistake, which could 

damage the equipment and cause 

unexpected movement or a failure 

during its operation. 

Under proposed paragraph 

(b)(2)(ii)(D), where guardrails or railings 

are not prohibited, they would be 

permitted to be of any height up to, but 

not more than, 45 inches. C–DAC 

believed that requiring all guardrails 

and handrails to comply with the height 

criteria in Subpart M of this part, which 

generally requires them to be 39 to 45 

inches high, could deter manufacturers 

from equipping their products with 

guardrails and handrails. That is 

because meeting Subpart M’s height 

criteria could make the device 

incompatible with the design and 

operation of the boom. For boom 

walkway applications, C–DAC 

concluded that using guardrails lower 

than 39 inches when higher guardrails 

are infeasible was preferable to not 

having any guardrails at all. 

Paragraph 1423(c) Steps, Handholds, 

Grabrails, Guardrails and Railings 

Proposed paragraph (c) would specify 

criteria for the use and maintenance of 

steps, handholds, grabrails, guardrails 

and railings. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would 

require that the employer maintain 

originally-equipped steps, handholds, 

ladders and guardrails/railings/grabrails 

in good condition. The failure to 

properly maintain such devices could 

pose dangers to the employees who use 

them. For example, a grabrail that has 

become weakened from rust could fail 

when an employee uses it, which could 

cause the employee to fall. Another 

example is a missing railing. A 

manufacturer that integrated a railing 

into its design may have provided a 

walking surface that would otherwise be 

too narrow to be safe. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would 

require that equipment manufactured 

more than one year after the effective 

date of this standard be equipped to 

provide safe access and egress between 

the ground and the operator work 

station(s), including the forward and 

rear operator positions, by the provision 

of devices such as steps, handholds, 

ladders, and guardrails/railings/ 

grabrails. As discussed below, proposed 

§ 1926.1423(c)(2)(i) would require these 

devices to meet updated design criteria. 

Currently, § 1926.550(a)(13)(i) in 

Subpart N requires that guardrails, 

handholds, and steps be provided on 

cranes for easy access to the car and cab 

and specifies that these devices conform 

to ANSI B30.5. The 1968 version of 

ANSI B30.5, which was in effect at the 

time Subpart N was issued, specifies 

that the construction of these devices 

must conform to the 1946 U.S. Safety 

Appliance Standard. C–DAC recognized 

that many pieces of equipment now in 

use would have been manufactured 

with handholds and steps but was 

concerned that the handholds and steps 

may have been designed to meet 

outdated criteria. 

The Committee believed that it would 

be unduly burdensome to require all 

equipment to be retrofitted with new 

steps, handholds, and railings simply 

because the existing design may vary 

from what would be required under this 

proposal. Accordingly, the proposal 

would allow one year from the date of 

the published final rule for equipment 

to be manufactured with devices that 

conform to proposed 1926.1423(c)(2)(i), 

discussed next. This would give 

equipment manufacturers adequate time 

to incorporate the requirements of 

§ 1926.1423(c)(2)(i) into their products. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(i) would 

require that steps, ladders and 

guardrails/railings/ grabrails meet the 

requirements of SAE J185 (May 2003) or 

ISO 11660–2 (1994). OSHA’s 

construction standards contain 

specifications for stairways and ladders 

in 29 CFR Part 1926 subpart X, but C– 

DAC believed that the Subpart X 

requirements do not take into account 

the characteristics of the equipment 

covered by this proposed standard. The 

specifications in SAE J185 are 

referenced in industry consensus 

standards, such as ASME B30.5–2004, 

‘‘Mobile and Locomotive Cranes,’’ and 

crane manufacturers are familiar with 

those requirements. C–DAC 

recommended alternatively allowing 

compliance with ISO 11660–2 since 

employers also use equipment built by 

foreign manufacturers who have been 

following that standard. 

Under proposed paragraph (a) of this 

section, the requirements in proposed 

paragraph § 1926.1423(c)(2) do not 

apply to tower cranes. It is the Agency’s 

understanding that C–DAC excluded 

tower cranes from these requirements 

because the SAE and ISO standards 

referenced in § 1926.1423(c)(2)(i) are 

designed for, and only address, mobile 

cranes. The Agency also believes that 

the lack of a similar provision in the 

C–DAC document designed for tower 

cranes was an oversight; tower cranes 

also need to be equipped with safe 

stairways and ladders to enable the 

operator to ascend to the cab and 

descend safely.56 Accordingly, OSHA 

plans to include a requirement similar 

to § 1926.1423(c)(2) that would be 

applicable to, and designed for, tower 

cranes, and requests public comment on 

this issue. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii) would 

require that walking/stepping surfaces, 

except for crawler treads, have slipresistant features/properties (such as 

diamond plate metal, strategically 

placed grip tape, expanded metal, or 

slip-resistant paint). Section 

1926.550(a)(13)(iii) of Subpart N of this 

part requires platforms and walkways to 

have anti-skid surfaces. C–DAC 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59801 

recommended that OSHA retain this 

requirement as a complement to the use 

of guardrails, handholds, grabrails, 

ladders and other engineered safety 

features that would be required by this 

proposed section. OSHA continues to 

believe that compliance with this 

provision would minimize the number 

of slips and falls for employees who 

must travel point to point to access the 

operator workstations on equipment 

covered by this proposed section. 

Paragraph 1423(d) Fall Protection 

Requirements for Non-Assembly/ 

Disassembly Work 

Proposed paragraph (d) addresses fall 

protection requirements for employees 

engaged in work other than assembly/ 

disassembly work (‘‘non-A/D’’ work). 

For such work, in certain circumstances, 

employers would be required to provide 

and ensure the use of fall protection 

equipment for employees who are on a 

walking/working surface with an 

unprotected side or edge more than 6 

feet above a lower level. 

C–DAC discussed different trigger 

heights for fall protection requirements 

for particular types of cranes and 

derricks. Ultimately, C–DAC concluded 

that the requirements for fall protection 

should remain consistent with 29 CFR 

Part subpart M, which generally 

requires fall protection at heights at and 

above 6 feet, as much as possible. (As 

discussed below, for A/D work, the 

Committee recommended fall protection 

beginning at 15 feet). C–DAC also 

believed that, in its view, operators do 

not need to be tied off while moving to 

and from their cabs, and the proposal 

would make this clear by requiring fall 

protection equipment only when 

employees are moving point-to-point on 

booms or while at a work station (with 

certain exceptions). The Committee 

believed that the steps, handholds, and 

railings required under proposed 

§ 1926.1423(c) would protect operators 

moving to and from their workstations 

and eliminate the need for additional 

fall protection equipment. 

Paragraph 1423(d)(1) Non-Assembly/ 

Disassembly: Moving Point to Point 

Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(i) would 

require employers to provide and ensure 

the use of fall protection equipment at 

6 feet and above when an employee is 

moving point to point on non-lattice 

booms (whether horizontal or not 

horizontal). As defined in § 1926.1401, 

‘‘moving point to point’’ means ‘‘the 

times during which an employee is in 

the process of going to or from a work 

station.’’ 

C–DAC believed that non-lattice 

booms generally present more hazards 

to workers who must walk them to 

reach other work areas, devices, and 

equipment attached to it than lattice 

booms. Non-lattice booms are typically 

of the extensible type. As a result, as 

members noted, the walking/working 

surfaces on these types of booms are 

often oily (from the hydraulic 

mechanisms). Also, since the boom 

sections extend and retract, it is 

typically infeasible to provide boom 

walkways and other safety features. 

Because they tend to be slippery from 

oil, the Committee concluded that they 

are especially hazardous to move across 

even when horizontal. Therefore, where 

an employee is required to move point 

to point on a non-lattice boom, the 

proposal would require fall protection 

above 6 feet in height. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(ii) would 

require employers to provide and ensure 

the use of fall protection, beginning at 

6 feet, when employees must move 

point to point on lattice booms that are 

not in a horizontal position. In non-A/ 

D work, an employee may, for example, 

need to move point-to-point on a lattice 

boom to inspect a part that is suspected 

to need repair, or to make a repair (such 

as replacing a broken or missing cotter 

pin). In many of these situations, the 

boom will not be horizontal, since space 

limitations often make it difficult to 

lower the boom to do this work. 

The Committee believed that it is both 

necessary and feasible for fall protection 

to be used in such instances. Typically, 

the fall protection that would be used 

would consist of a double-lanyard or 

similar personal fall arrest system. Since 

the boom in these instances would be 

elevated, there would usually be a point 

on the boom above the level of the 

employee’s feet to which the lanyard 

could be attached. 

It is the Agency’s understanding that, 

in contrast, it is uncommon for an 

employee to need to move point-topoint on a horizontal lattice boom for 

non-A/D work. If work does need to be 

done, such as making an inspection or 

repair as discussed above, the employee 

would usually get access to their work 

station with a ladder. In those instances 

when the employee must traverse the 

boom itself, the Committee concluded 

that it would be inappropriate to require 

fall protection for the reasons discussed 

below. 

The key difficulty in providing fall 

protection in such instances stems from 

the lack of a tie-off point above the level 

of the employee’s feet. Most lattice 

booms when horizontal would be less 

than 15 feet above the next lower level. 

At heights below 15 feet, a personal fall 

arrest system tied off at the level of the 

employee’s feet, with a lanyard long 

enough to afford the employee the range 

of movement necessary for this work, 

might not prevent the employee from 

falling to the next lower level. In 

construction work the problem of 

providing personal fall protection in 

this height range, when there is no 

higher tie-off point, is usually solved in 

one of three ways (apart from the use of 

ladders, scaffolds, aerial lifts, and 

similar devices). One way is to use a 

restraint system, which is anchored at a 

point that prevents the employee from 

moving past an edge. This type of 

system could not be used while on a 

boom because the boom is too narrow. 

Another method is to set up a 

personal fall arrest system that would 

arrest the employee’s fall before hitting 

the next lower level by using stanchions 

to support an elevated, horizontal lifeline. However, such stanchions must be 

securely fastened and whatever they are 

fastened to must be able to withstand 

considerable forces in an arrested fall. 

On a crane’s lattice boom, the 

stanchions would have to be attached 

either to the chords or the lacings. 

The chords and lacings are engineered 

to be as light as possible, and an 

engineering analysis would be needed 

in each case to determine if the 

attachment point was sufficiently strong 

to withstand those forces. Also, the 

Agency believes that manufacturers 

would be unlikely to approve clamp-on 

type systems because of the likelihood 

of the clamping forces damaging these 

critical structural components. 

Similarly, the Agency believes that 

manufacturers would not approve the 

repeated weld/removal/re-weld cycles 

that would be involved in attaching and 

removing stanchions because this could 

adversely affect the boom’s structural 

components. 

The third method commonly used in 

construction work is a temporary 

guardrail system, but that also would 

require attaching stanchions to the 

boom, which would be infeasible for 

these same reasons. 

The Committee concluded that, in 

light of such factors, it would not be 

appropriate to require fall protection 

when an employee moves point-to-point 

on horizontal lattice booms. However, 

the Agency notes that, although it may 

rarely be necessary for an employee 

moving point-to-point on a horizontal 

lattice boom to be 15 feet or more above 

the next lower level, there is the 

possibility of such an occurrence, such 

as where a horizontal boom spans a 

large gap in the ground surface. At such 

heights a personal fall arrest system tied 

off at the level of the employee’s feet 

would allow sufficient room for the 

arrest system to operate without 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59802 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

57 ‘‘Personal fall arrest system’’ is defined in 

§ 1926.1401 of this proposed standard as ‘‘a system 

used to arrest an employee in a fall from a working 

level. It consists of an anchorage, connectors, a 

body harness and may include a lanyard, 

deceleration device, lifeline, or suitable 

combination of these.’’ This definition is taken from 

§ 1926.500(b) of Subpart M. As with other 

definitions applicable to this section, C–DAC used 

terminology that is familiar to the industry to 

provide clear notice of the standard’s requirements 

and promote compliance. 

allowing the employee to strike the next 

lower level. Therefore, the Agency 

requests public comment on whether 

proposed § 1926.1423(d)(1)(ii) should be 

expanded to require fall protection 

when an employee, engaged in 

non-A/D work, is moving point-to-point 

on a boom that is horizontal and the fall 

distance is 15 feet or more. 

Paragraph 1423(d)(2) Non-Assembly/ 

Disassembly: While at a Work Station 

Proposed paragraph (d)(2) would 

require employers to provide and ensure 

the use of fall protection while an 

employee is at a work station on any 

part of the equipment (including the 

boom, of any type), except when the 

employee is at or near draw-works 

(when the equipment is running), in the 

cab, or on the deck. An example of 

being at a work station is the following: 

An employee is assigned to replace a 

cotter pin for a sheave at the end of a 

boom. The employee’s ‘‘work station’’ 

on the boom for this task will be the 

point where, after the employee has 

traversed the boom or climbed on from 

a ladder, the employee performs that 

task. Because the employee is using one 

or both hands to perform the task, there 

is a heightened risk of falling. 

Since the work is typically done 

while the employee is sitting or lying on 

or inside the boom and is stationary 

while doing the task, there is normally 

no difficulty in setting up the personal 

fall protection system so that it would 

prevent the worker from contacting the 

next lower level. Therefore, this 

proposed provision does not distinguish 

between work stations based on boom 

type or whether the boom is horizontal 

or elevated. For work stations on other 

parts of the equipment, the Committee 

concluded that there is normally some 

suitable point available to which a 

personal fall arrest system can be 

anchored. 

Fall protection would not be required 

near draw-works when the equipment is 

running because of the danger that 

moving parts could catch a safety 

lanyard and pull the worker into 

moving machinery. This danger is 

present when parts in the draw works 

are moving. It is also present when the 

equipment is running and the draw 

works parts are not moving because of 

the potential that someone will activate 

those parts. 

Fall protection would not be required 

when the employee is in a cab because 

the employee is not exposed to a fall 

hazard in that instance. Fall protection 

would also not be required for 

employees on decks, since the 

Committee believed that equipment is 

typically designed so that employees on 

the deck are not exposed to a fall 

hazard. 

As discussed earlier, C–DAC was 

convinced that the steps and railings 

required by this proposed standard 

would provide adequate fall protection 

to operators going to and from their 

workstations. Therefore, fall protection 

(apart from those devices) would not be 

required for operators while moving 

point-to-point between the ground and 

the operator work station(s). 

Paragraph 1423(e) Assembly/ 

Disassembly 

Proposed paragraph (e) would require 

the employer to provide and ensure the 

use of fall protection equipment during 

A/D work for employees who are on a 

walking/working surface with an 

unprotected side or edge more than 15 

feet above a lower level, except when 

the employee is at or near draw-works 

(when the equipment is running), in the 

cab, or on the deck. 

The principal problem with the use of 

fall protection during assembly/ 

disassembly below 15 feet is the 

difficulty in setting up a personal fall 

protection system that allows a 

significant degree of movement on a 

boom in this height range (which is 

usually of the lattice type) and also 

prevents the employee from contacting 

the next lower level. Unlike employees 

who work at a stationary work station, 

employees engaged in assembly/ 

disassembly work typically have to 

move a significant amount to 

accomplish the work. 

Consequently, the degree of 

movement that the protection system 

needs to provide to the employee is 

more similar to what is needed when 

moving point-to-point on a boom than 

working at a work station. As discussed 

above, the characteristics of lattice 

booms make it more difficult to set up 

such systems than in other situations. 

The exception to the requirement for 

fall protection when the employee is at 

or near draw-works (when the 

equipment is running), in the cab, or on 

the deck is based on the same 

considerations discussed above with 

respect to proposed § 1926.1423(d)(2). 

Paragraph 1423(f) Anchorage Criteria 

Proposed paragraph (f) would specify 

criteria for anchorage points used in 

personal fall protection systems.57

Proposed paragraph (f)(1), Anchorages 

for fall arrest and positioning device 

systems, contains requirements for 

anchorage points used in fall arrest and 

positioning device systems. Proposed 

§ 1926.1423(f)(1)(i) would permit 

personal fall arrest systems and 

positioning systems to be anchored to 

any apparently substantial part of the 

equipment unless a competent person, 

from a visual inspection, without an 

engineering analysis, would conclude 

that the applicable criteria in § 1926.502 

of Subpart M of this part would not be 

met. The Subpart M criteria include, for 

personal fall arrest systems, 5,000 

pounds per employee or twice the 

potential impact load of an employee’s 

fall (in addition to other requirements) 

(§ 1926.502(d)(15)); for a positioning 

device, 3,000 pounds or twice the 

potential impact load of an employee’s 

fall, whichever is greater (in addition to 

other requirements) (§ 1926.502(e)(2)). 

Most of the equipment covered by the 

proposed standard are designed to lift 

and support weights much heavier than 

these. Apparently substantial parts of 

the equipment are, therefore, typically 

capable of meeting the Subpart M 

capacities. Consequently, C–DAC 

believed that the proposed 

§ 1926.1423(f)(1)(i) criteria was 

appropriate and would avoid burdening 

employers with what it considered to be 

the unnecessary expense of obtaining 

engineering analyses for each part that 

would serve as an anchor. 

Proposed paragraph (f)(1)(ii) would 

require that attachable anchor devices 

(portable anchor devices that are 

attached to the equipment) meet the 

applicable anchorage criteria in 

§ 1926.502. These criteria are the same 

as those discussed in the previous 

paragraph for fall arrest and fall 

positioning systems. 

Proposed paragraph (f)(2), Anchorages 

for restraint systems, would require 

restraint systems to be anchored to any 

part of the equipment that is capable of 

withstanding twice the maximum load 

that a worker may impose on it during 

reasonably anticipated conditions of 

use. Since restraint systems do not 

arrest a worker’s fall (instead they 

prevent a fall from occurring), the 

anchorage does not need to be able to 

support the significantly greater force 

generated during an arrested fall. C– 

DAC believed that having the anchorage 

support twice the maximum anticipated 

load will provide an adequate margin of 

safety when a restraint system is used. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59803 

58At the top of the tower, there is a long 

horizontal structure that supports the load (the 

‘‘jib’’ or, if the luffing type, the ‘‘boom’’), and a 

shorter horizontal structure that supports the 

counterweights, which is referred to as the 

‘‘counter-jib.’’ 

Paragraph 1423(g) Tower Cranes 

Proposed paragraph (g) would specify 

fall protection requirements specific to 

tower cranes. Note that the terminology 

‘‘erecting’’ and ‘‘dismantling’’ is used 

with regard to tower cranes rather than 

‘‘assembly’’ and ‘‘disassembly’’; this 

terminology reflects the industry’s use 

of these terms. 

Paragraph 1423(g)(1) Non-Erecting/ 

Dismantling 

Proposed paragraph (g)(1) addresses 

fall protection requirements for nonerecting/dismantling work. The 

employer would be required to provide 

and ensure the use of fall protection 

equipment for employees who are on a 

walking/working surface with an 

unprotected side or edge more than 6 

feet above a lower level. The exceptions 

to this requirement would be when the 

employee is at or near draw-works 

(when the equipment is running), in the 

cab, or on the deck. 

As discussed above, for equipment 

other than tower cranes, there were 

various factors that prompted C–DAC to 

agree on different requirements for 

moving point-to-point than when 

working at a work station. Those factors, 

however, are not present in tower 

cranes. 

For example, when moving point-topoint on the jib (or boom) or on the 

tower, there are no feasibility 

constraints to being protected. There are 

numerous areas on the jib to which an 

employee can anchor personal fall arrest 

equipment as the employee walks out 

and back on the jib (or boom) on a tower 

crane. Also, by standard industry 

practice, the counter-jib 58 is usually 

equipped with a walkway and railings. 

If the employee needs to traverse in an 

area that is off the walkway, other fall 

protection can be used, such as a 

personal fall arrest system. Since the jib 

(or boom) once erected is much higher 

than 6 feet from the next lower level, 

there is plenty of room for the arrest 

system to operate without allowing the 

employee to strike the next lower level. 

Moving point-to-point on the tower is 

typically done either using the ladder or 

stair system provided within the tower, 

or (in some situations) moving on a 

tower section. When moving on a tower 

section, because the sections are 

vertical, there is always a point above 

the employee’s feet to which the arrest 

system can be anchored. There is 

therefore no need for stanchions or 

other equipment to set up the system to 

prevent the employee from striking the 

next lower level. 

The exception to the proposed 

provision for fall protection when the 

employee is at or near draw-works 

(when the equipment is running), in the 

cab, or on the deck is based on the same 

considerations discussed above with 

respect to proposed § 1926.1423(d)(2). 

The Agency notes that its understanding 

of the location of ‘‘the deck’’ on a tower 

crane is the walking/working area on 

the counter-jib. 

Paragraph 1423(g)(2) Erecting/ 

Dismantling 

This proposed paragraph specifies 

that, for erecting/dismantling work, 

employers must provide, and ensure use 

of, fall protection equipment for 

employees who are on a walking/ 

working surface with an unprotected 

side or edge more than 15 feet above a 

lower level. 

On tower cranes, almost all of the 

erecting/dismantling work that takes 

place below 15 feet occurs in 

connection with erecting or dismantling 

the sections of the jib (or boom), which 

is usually done on the ground. In this 

respect the erecting/dismantling process 

is similar to the assembly/disassembly 

of other types of cranes. Therefore, the 

same reasons for setting a 15–foot 

threshold for requiring fall protection 

for assembling/disassembling non-tower 

cranes (see discussion of proposed 

paragraph (e) above) are also the basis 

for proposing to require fall protection 

beginning at 15 feet for erecting and 

dismantling tower cranes. 

The Agency notes that C–DAC did not 

include the exceptions that were 

included in proposed § 1926.1423(g)(1) 

for when the employee is at or near 

draw-works (when the equipment is 

running), in the cab, or on the deck. 

OSHA is unaware of any reason why 

these exceptions would not be equally 

applicable here, and asks for public 

comment on whether they should be 

added to proposed § 1926.1423(g)(2). 

Paragraph 1423(h) Anchoring to the 

Load Line 

Proposed paragraph (h) would permit 

an employer, under prescribed 

conditions, to anchor a fall arrest system 

to the hook or other part of a load line 

of a crane or derrick. Currently, in 

Subpart M of this part, § 1926.502(d)(23) 

prohibits personal fall arrest systems to 

be attached to ‘‘hoists except as 

specified in other subparts of this part.’’ 

Subpart N does not contain any 

provisions specifically addressing this 

issue. Therefore, since the hook or other 

part of a load line is connected to a hoist 

in the crane or for the derrick, attaching 

a personal fall arrest system in this 

manner is currently prohibited by 

Subpart M. 

OSHA has received a number of 

inquiries asking whether a crane’s hook 

or load line may be used as an 

anchorage point for fall protection. 

Using a crane for such purpose would 

be particularly useful in many 

situations, especially where establishing 

a suitable anchor point would be 

otherwise very difficult. OSHA asked C– 

DAC to consider whether there is any 

reason to prohibit using a crane or 

derrick for such purpose. C–DAC 

believed that the hook or load line of a 

crane could be used safely as an anchor 

point under the conditions proposed in 

the rest of this paragraph. 

Proposed paragraph (h)(1) would 

allow the hook or load line to be used 

as an anchorage point when a qualified 

person has determined that the set-up 

and rated capacity of the crane/derrick 

(including the hook, load line and 

rigging) meets or exceeds the 

requirements in § 1926.502(d)(15). C– 

DAC concluded that, as long as the 

crane or derrick had sufficient capacity 

to meet those criteria, there is no reason 

to prohibit its use for this purpose. 

The criteria in § 1926.502(d)(15) were 

developed to ensure that fall protection 

anchorages provide adequate employee 

protection. A number of factors related 

to the crane’s capacity in the particular 

configuration and set-up involved 

would need to be considered, including, 

in some cases, the angle of the fall arrest 

lanyard to the boom if a fall were to 

occur. In C–DAC’s view, determining 

whether those criteria are met when 

anchoring to the hook or load line 

requires the expertise of a qualified 

person. 

Proposed paragraph (h)(2) would 

require that the equipment operator be 

at the work site and informed that the 

equipment is being used to anchor a fall 

arrest system. This would ensure that 

the operator is available to make any 

necessary adjustments, such as moving 

the boom or load lines. Further, in the 

event of an emergency that results in a 

tied-off employee being suspended from 

the hook or load line, the operator 

would be available to bring the worker 

to the ground safely. 

Section 1424 Work Area Control 

Proposed paragraph (a) addresses the 

hazard of employees being struck, 

pinched-between or crushed when 

within the swing radius of the 

equipment’s rotating superstructure. 

Proposed 1926.1424(a)(1) states that the 

precautions in § 1926.1424(a)(2) must be 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59804 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

59See also, Daniel Int’l Corp. v. Donovan, 705 

F.2d 382, 388 (10th Cir. 1983); Mineral Indus. & 

Heavy Constr. Group v. OSHRC, 639 F.2d 1289, 

1294 (5th Cir. 1981). 

taken when there are accessible areas in 

which the equipment’s rotating 

superstructure (whether permanently or 

temporarily mounted) poses a 

reasonably foreseeable risk of either: (i) 

Striking and injuring an employee; or 

(ii) pinching/crushing an employee 

against another part of the equipment or 

another object. 

Currently, § 1926.550(a)(9) provides: 

‘‘Accessible areas within the swing 

radius of the rear of the rotating 

superstructure of the crane, either 

permanently or temporarily mounted, 

shall be barricaded in such a manner as 

to prevent an employee from being 

struck or crushed by the crane.’’ In 

proposed § 1926.1401, ‘‘superstructure’’ 

is defined as a synonym for 

‘‘upperworks’’ and ‘‘upperstructure.’’ 

Under this definition, all three terms 

mean the following: ‘‘the revolving 

frame of equipment on which the engine 

and operating machinery are mounted 

along with the operator’s cab. The 

counterweight is typically supported on 

the rear of the upperstructure and the 

boom or other front end attachment is 

mounted on the front.’’ 

The Committee agreed that barriers 

around danger areas are a viable, safe 

option, but they also agreed that such 

barriers are not always feasible and that, 

in such cases, there needs to be 

alternative means of protecting the 

employees. In addition, C–DAC was 

concerned that the language ‘‘accessible 

areas within the swing radius . * * *’’ 

would require that all areas accessible to 

an employee within the swing radius 

would have to be protected, irrespective 

of whether an employee could be 

injured while in such an area. C–DAC 

viewed such a requirement as overly 

broad and unnecessary. 

The Committee drafted the proposed 

requirement so that protective measures 

would be required for accessible areas 

that pose a ‘‘reasonably foreseeable risk’’ 

that an employee would be struck or 

pinched/crushed. The principle of 

reasonably foreseeable risk is one that is 

well established in Occupational Safety 

and Health Review Commission caselaw 

and in the courts of appeals. For 

example, in Pete Miller Inc., 19 O.S.H.C. 

(BNA) 1257, 1258 (Rev. Comm’n 2000), 

the Review Commission stated that a 

violation occurs when ‘‘it is reasonably 

predictable either by operational 

necessity or otherwise (including 

inadvertence), that employees have 

been, are, or will be in the zone of 

danger.’’ 59 The following are two 

illustrative examples of the application 

of this principle to the swing radius 

provision: 

Illustrative example #1: The bottom of the 

rear of the rotating superstructure of crane A 

is 12 feet above the ground. An employee 

standing on the ground within that swing 

radius could not be struck by the rotating 

superstructure since the rotating 

superstructure would swing well above him/ 

her. There is nothing within that area on 

which the employee could stand. In this 

example the area does not pose a reasonably 

foreseeable risk of the employee being struck 

or pinched/crushed. 

Illustrative example #2: Same scenario as 

example #1 above, except that a truck with 

material that is to be unloaded from its bed 

is within the swing radius. If an employee 

were to stand on the truck bed the employee 

would be within the swing radius. In this 

example there is a reasonably foreseeable risk 

of an employee being struck or pinched/ 

crushed. 

Under proposed paragraph (a)(2), the 

employer would be required to institute 

two types of measures to prevent 

employees from entering these hazard 

areas. Specifically, under proposed 

§ 1926.1424(a)(2)(i), the employer would 

have to train employees assigned to 

work on or near the equipment in how 

to recognize these areas. The Committee 

believed that employees need to 

understand and appreciate the risk 

posed by the rotating superstructure for 

the other precautions required by 

§ 1926.1424(a)(2)(ii) to be effective. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(ii) would 

require the employer to erect and 

maintain control lines, warning lines, 

railings, or similar barriers to mark the 

boundaries of the hazard areas, but 

contains an exception when such a 

precaution is infeasible. If it is neither 

feasible to erect such barriers on the 

ground nor on the equipment, the 

employer would be required to mark the 

danger zone with a combination of 

warning signs and high visibility 

markings on the equipment that identify 

the hazard areas. In addition, the 

employer would have to train 

employees to understand what those 

markings signify. 

To help prevent struck-by and 

crushed-by injuries and fatalities, C– 

DAC concluded that it is necessary to 

address the protection of employees 

who must sometimes enter the hazard 

area to perform work. Proposed 

§ 1926.1424(a)(3) is designed to help 

protect such employees by ensuring that 

there is adequate communication and 

coordination between the operator and 

the employee in the danger area. 

Under proposed paragraph (a)(3)(i), if 

an employee is going to go to a location 

in a hazard area that is out of view of 

the operator, before that employee goes 

in that area the employee (or someone 

instructed by the employee) would have 

to ensure that the operator is informed 

that the employee is going to that 

location. Since the operator will 

typically be under the assumption that 

no one is in that area, informing the 

operator that an employee is going to 

enter the hazard area is an essential first 

step in preventing the operator from 

moving the superstructure and causing 

injury to that employee. 

Under proposed paragraph (a)(3)(ii), 

once informed that an employee is going 

to enter a hazard area out of the 

operator’s view, the operator would be 

prohibited from rotating the 

superstructure unless and until he/she 

gives a warning that the employee 

understands is a signal that the 

superstructure is about to be rotated and 

gives the employee time to get clear. 

Alternatively, the operator may rotate 

the superstructure if informed in 

accordance with a pre-arranged system 

of communication that the employee is 

in a safe position. An example of such 

a system would be the use of a signal 

person who gives an all-clear signal to 

the operator once the signal person sees 

that the employee has exited the hazard 

area. Another example would be where 

the employee in the hazard area is 

equipped with a portable air horn and, 

in accordance with a pre-arranged horn 

signal system, sounds an appropriate 

signal to the operator that the employee 

has exited the hazard area. To be 

effective, the pre-arranged signal system 

would need to be designed so that this 

all-clear signal could not be confused 

with a horn signal from some other 

employee for another purpose. 

Proposed paragraph (b) addresses 

situations where multiple pieces of 

equipment are located in such 

proximity that their working radii 

overlap. Such situations pose the danger 

of employees being pinched/crushed 

between the equipment and being 

injured as a result of unintended 

movement or collapse when pieces of 

equipment collide. To prevent such 

accidents, the controlling entity would 

be required to coordinate the operations 

of these pieces of equipment. In the 

event that there is no controlling entity, 

the employer or employers operating the 

equipment would be required to 

institute a coordination system. 

C–DAC’s language for proposed 

paragraph (b) refers to ‘‘employers 

operating the equipment’’ but does not 

address a situation in which only one 

employer is operating the multiple 

pieces of equipment. It appears to the 

Agency that a coordination system is 

also needed in that situation. OSHA is 

considering revising the C–DAC 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59805 

language to make clear that such an 

employer would be required to institute 

a coordination system. Proposed 

§ 1926.1424(b) could be revised in this 

regard as follows: 

(b) Multiple equipment coordination. 

Where any part of a crane/derrick is within 

the working radius of another crane/derrick, 

the controlling entity shall institute a system 

to coordinate operations. If there is no 

controlling entity, the employer (if there is 

only one employer operating the multiple 

pieces of equipment), or employers, shall 

institute such a system. 

OSHA requests public comment on 

whether such a revision should be 

made. 

Section 1425 Keeping Clear of the 

Load 

Currently, 29 CFR part 1926 subpart 

N at § 1926.550(a)(19) states: ‘‘All 

employees shall be kept clear of loads 

about to be lifted and of suspended 

loads.’’ C–DAC believed that 

compliance with this provision is 

infeasible in certain circumstances. For 

example, many urban construction sites 

have a relatively small footprint with 

numerous construction employees 

throughout the site. These sites are 

typically bounded on all sides by roads 

and sidewalks with high concentrations 

of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. In 

such circumstances it is not always 

possible to route a suspended load in 

such a way that all employees will be 

clear of the load at all times. In addition, 

meeting that objective may sometimes 

conflict with meeting local requirements 

regarding public safety. 

C–DAC also believed that employers 

have a greater ability to avoid having 

static suspended loads over employees 

than moving loads, since a static 

suspended load usually affects a much 

smaller area. Furthermore, in a static 

situation, it is possible to limit the 

number of employees in the fall zone to 

only those whose jobs involve the 

handling of the load and therefore 

require them to be in that area at that 

time. Accordingly, this proposed section 

is designed to account for these 

considerations and protect employees to 

the extent feasible. 

Paragraph 1425(a) 

Proposed paragraph (a) would require 

the employer to use hoisting routes that 

minimize employee exposure to hoisted 

loads to the extent consistent with 

public safety. This provision addresses 

the fact that in many situations, 

especially urban construction sites with 

high concentrations of employees 

throughout the site, it is not feasible to 

prevent all employees from being 

exposed to hoisted loads that are 

moving at all times (see discussion 

above). 

Also, C–DAC recognized that there 

could be situations where minimizing 

employee exposure to hoisted loads 

would be in conflict with local 

requirements regarding public safety, as 

when an alternative route would take 

the load over a street with public traffic. 

The Committee wanted to make clear 

that choosing a route that would 

endanger the public was not required. 

Paragraph 1425(b) 

Proposed paragraph (b) addresses 

those situations where the equipment 

operator is not actually engaging the 

controls to move the load. In such 

situations, the load affects a more 

limited area then when it is moved up 

or horizontally. Consequently, C–DAC 

determined that, in these static 

situations, it is feasible to preclude most 

employee exposure to the load’s fall 

zone. The only exceptions are 

employees engaged in the types of 

activities specified in proposed 

§ 1926.1425(b)(1) through (3). 

‘‘Fall zone’’ is defined in § 1926.1401 

as ‘‘the area (including but not limited 

to the area directly beneath the load) in 

which it is reasonably foreseeable that 

partially or completely suspended 

materials could fall in the event of an 

accident.’’ The ‘‘fall zone’’ thus includes 

both the area directly under the load as 

well as other areas into which it is 

‘‘reasonably foreseeable’’ that 

suspended materials could fall. For 

example, if wind is causing the load to 

swing, the employer would need to 

consider the extent to which the load is 

or may swing in determining the extent 

of the fall zone. Another example is 

where a bundle of materials is 

suspended, and some loose materials at 

the top of the bundle may slide off 

sideways. In such a case those materials 

would foreseeably fall outside the area 

directly beneath the load. As discussed 

above in relation to § 1926.1424, Work 

area control, the concept of ‘‘reasonably 

foreseeable’’ risk is well established in 

OSHA law. 

Proposed paragraph 1425(b)(1) would 

permit employees engaged in hooking, 

unhooking or guiding a load to be 

within the fall zone while engaged in 

these activities. Hooking or unhooking a 

load sometimes requires an employee to 

be within the fall zone of a load. For 

example, where a lifting accessory is 

used, the employee will typically be 

under the fall zone of the lifting 

accessory when attaching or unhooking 

the load. Also, guiding a load, even with 

a tag line, sometimes necessitates that 

the employee be positioned within the 

fall zone, especially when the work area 

below is restricted in size. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would 

permit employees engaged in the initial 

attachment of the load to a component 

or structure to be within the fall zone. 

One example is the following scenario: 

A subassembly of steel members is 

hoisted for attachment to a structure. 

When initially attaching the lower 

portion of that subassembly, an 

employee is within the fall zone of the 

load. In this example, the employee 

engaged in the initial attachment of the 

subassembly to the structure would be 

permitted to be within the fall zone; that 

work cannot be done otherwise. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(3) would 

allow workers to be present in the fall 

zone when operating a concrete hopper 

or concrete bucket. The employee 

operating the hopper or bucket is 

necessarily in the fall zone since the 

hopper or bucket is suspended while 

the employee operates the releasing 

mechanism. 

Paragraph 1425(c) 

Proposed paragraph (c) deals with the 

situations addressed in paragraphs 

1425(b)(1) and (b)(2). The Committee 

felt that additional requirements were 

necessary to ensure employee safety in 

these situations, given the additional 

risks posed while loads are being 

connected to equipment or structures. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would 

require that the load be rigged to 

prevent unintentional displacement, so 

that workers in the fall zone are less 

likely to be struck by shifting materials. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would 

require the use of hooks with selfclosing latches or their equivalent be 

used, to prevent accidental failure of the 

hooks. However, ‘‘J’’ type hooks would 

be permitted for setting wooden trusses. 

This exception is designed to enable the 

truss to be unhooked without the need 

for an employee to go out on the truss. 

This avoids the additional exposure to 

fall hazards that would otherwise occur 

from going out on the truss to release a 

latched hook. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(3) would 

require the use of a qualified rigger in 

the rigging of materials in the situations 

addressed by proposed § 1926.1425(c). 

By ensuring that the load is rigged in as 

safe a manner as possible, this 

requirement serves to reduce the risk of 

injury to workers who cannot perform 

their duties outside of the fall zone, and 

reduces the potential size of the fall 

zone. 

Section 1401 of this proposed 

standard defines a ‘‘qualified rigger’’ as 

a rigger who meets the criteria for a 

qualified person. The same definition is 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59806 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

60Proposed § 1926.1401 defines ‘‘tilt up or tilt 

down operation’’ as ‘‘raising/lowering a load from 

the horizontal to vertical or vertical to horizontal.’’ 

found in subpart R of 29 CFR Part 1926, 

Steel Erection at § 1926.753(c)(2). 

Paragraph 1425(d) Receiving a Load 

Proposed paragraph (d) would 

prohibit all employees except those 

needed to receive a load from being in 

the fall zone when it is being landed. An 

employee receiving a load will typically 

need to be within the fall zone when it 

is being landed because that is the time 

when the load needs to be guided to a 

specific landing point. 

Paragraph 1425(e) 

Proposed paragraph (e) concerns tiltup and tilt-down operations. In these 

operations, one end of a component, 

such as a precast panel, is either raised, 

tilting the component up, usually from 

a horizontal position (often on the 

ground) to a vertical position; or 

lowered, tilting the component down, 

usually from a vertical position to a 

horizontal position on the ground or 

other surface.60 Note that the 

requirements in this proposed 

paragraph would not apply when 

receiving a load. 

As with any other suspended load, it 

is dangerous to be directly beneath the 

load because of the possibility of a 

failure or error that would cause the 

load to fall or be accidentally lowered 

onto an employee. To minimize the risk 

of such accidents, proposed 

§ 1926.1425(e)(1) provides that no 

employee shall be directly under the 

load during a tilt-up or tilt-down 

operation. Section 1926.1401 defines 

‘‘directly under the load’’ to mean ‘‘a 

part or all of an employee is directly 

beneath the load.’’ This provision will 

avoid having employees in the area that 

presents the greatest danger in the event 

of a loss of control of the load. 

While C–DAC determined that tilt-up 

and tilt-down operations can be 

accomplished without anyone being 

directly under the load, it also found 

that the operation is at times infeasible 

unless one or more employees 

‘‘essential to the operation’’ needs to be 

elsewhere within the fall zone. 

Proposed § 1926.1425(e)(2) therefore 

provides that employees ‘‘essential to 

the operation’’ may be in the fall zone 

(but not directly under the load) during 

a tilt up or tilt down operation. 

The C–DAC document does not 

contain a definition of ‘‘essential to the 

operation.’’ Consequently, the proposed 

provision does not specify what job 

functions would be permitted to be 

performed from within the fall zone. 

OSHA believes that examples of an 

employee ‘‘essential to the operation’’ is 

an employee who must be within the 

fall zone because it is infeasible to 

conduct the following operations from 

outside the fall zone: (1) Physically 

guide the load; (2) closely monitor and 

give instructions regarding the load’s 

movement; and/or (3) either detach it 

from or initially attach it to another 

component or structure. OSHA requests 

public comment on whether there are 

other activities that are essential to this 

operation and are infeasible to be done 

from outside the fall zone, and whether 

it would be appropriate to add a 

definition of ‘‘essential to the operation’’ 

to the standard. 

A note to paragraph (e) refers to 

§ 1926.1426, which addresses free fall of 

the boom and the load. As discussed 

below, it specifies that employees may 

not be anywhere in the fall zone of a 

boom that is designed to free fall, and 

that employees are never to be directly 

under the load during free fall of the 

load line hoist. 

Section 1426 Free Fall and Controlled 

Load Lowering 

This proposed section addresses the 

hazards that can arise from free fall of 

the boom (live boom) during lifts. Live 

booms are those in which the rate of 

lowering can be controlled only by a 

brake; a failure of the brake will result 

in a free fall (i.e., unrestricted lowering) 

of the boom. In contrast, in equipment 

that has a boom that is not ‘‘live,’’ there 

is a mechanism or device other than the 

brake which slows the boom’s lowering 

speed. 

The uncontrolled lowering of a boom 

could result in an accident which could 

injure or kill workers in proximity of the 

load or hoisting equipment. This 

proposed section would prohibit use of 

live booms in most circumstances. An 

exception is provided for older 

equipment manufactured before the 

ANSI B30.5 series prohibited free fall of 

the boom for all hoisting operations, but 

only under limited conditions that do 

not create hazards to employees. A 

limited exception is also provided for 

floating cranes/derricks. This proposed 

section includes many of the modern 

protective methods and mechanisms 

included in ASME B30.5–2004. 

This section also, in § 1926.1426(d), 

would specify the circumstances under 

which free fall of the load line would be 

prohibited. 

Paragraph 1426(a) Boom Free Fall 

Prohibitions 

Under proposed paragraph (a)(1), the 

use of equipment in which the boom is 

designed to free fall would be 

prohibited under six specified 

conditions. C–DAC concluded that, in 

these six circumstances, free fall of the 

boom needs to be prohibited regardless 

of what type of equipment is used and 

when that equipment was 

manufactured. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(i) would 

prohibit the use of a live boom when an 

employee is in the fall zone of the boom 

or load (see the explanation of ‘‘fall 

zone’’ in the discussion above of 

proposed § 1926.1425(b). Section 

1926.1425, Keeping clear of the load, of 

this proposed standard recognizes that 

there are some situations in which 

certain employees need to be positioned 

in the fall zone in order to perform their 

assigned duties. However, the 

likelihood that an employee would 

sustain a serious injury or be killed in 

the event of a falling boom is very high 

when an employee is in the fall zone of 

the boom or load. 

Because the likelihood of a falling 

boom is higher when a live boom is in 

use, C–DAC believed it was necessary to 

prohibit employees from being in the 

fall zone whenever a live boom is being 

used, without exception. Therefore, the 

exceptions listed in proposed 

§ 1926.1425 that would permit 

employees to be in the fall zone in 

certain circumstances apply only where 

a non-live boom is being used. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(ii) would 

prohibit use of a live boom when an 

employee is being hoisted. This 

continues the current prohibition in 

§ 1926.550(g)(3)(i)(F) of subpart N of this 

part, which is designed to prevent 

hoisted employees from being seriously 

injured or killed if the boom were to 

fall. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iii) would 

prohibit the use of a live boom where 

the load or boom is directly over a 

power line, or over any part of the area 

extending the Table A ( of proposed 

§ 1926.1408) clearance distance to each 

side of the power line. The diagram 

below illustrates a situation in which a 

load on a live boom is over the area 

extending the Table A clearance 

distance to each side of the power line: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59807 

As discussed above in relation to 

proposed §§ 1926.1407 through 

1926.1411, equipment making electrical 

contact with power lines is one of the 

primary causes of equipment-related 

deaths on construction sites and, to 

prevent such contact, those sections 

would require equipment to maintain 

minimum distances from power lines. 

C–DAC recognized that a live boom 

that is over a power line, or that is 

suspending a load that is over any part 

of the area extending the Table A 

clearance distance to each side of the 

power line, could fall or cause the load 

to fall into electrical contact with a 

power line. 

The C–DAC draft of this provision 

stated: ‘‘The load or boom is directly 

over a power line, or over the area 

extending the Table A clearance 

distance to each side of the power line.’’ 

Since C–DAC’s intent was to prohibit 

the boom or load from being over any 

part of the area extending the Table A 

clearance distance to each side of the 

line, OSHA has changed this language 

to make clear that the prohibition 

applies with respect to the boom or load 

being above ‘‘any part of’’ that area. 

In reviewing this provision, OSHA 

realized that there appears to be another 

circumstance when a fall of the boom 

could cause the load or boom to breach 

the Table A clearance distance. This 

would occur as follows: Neither the 

boom nor load is over the power line or 

over the Table A clearance area. 

However, the Table A clearance 

distance is within the radius of vertical 

travel of the boom or load. This 

circumstance is depicted in the 

following illustrations: 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2EP09OC08.000</GPH> EP09OC08.001</GPH>
59808 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

61The C–DAC draft of this provision used the 

term ‘‘workers;’’ this has been changed to 

‘‘employees,’’ which is the more appropriate term 

in light of the language in the Occupational Safety 

and Health Act. 

62OSHA has modified the language used in the 

C–DAC version of this provision to conform to the 

terminology used in proposed § 1926.1437, Floating 

cranes and land cranes on barges. 

In Illustration A, neither the boom nor 

the load is above the power line or any 

part of the Table A zone. However, if the 

boom were to fall, the boom would cross 

into the Table A zone. In Illustration B, 

neither the boom nor load is above the 

power line or any part of the Table A 

zone. However, if the boom were to fall, 

the load would cross into the Table A 

zone. 

The Agency therefore requests public 

comment on whether proposed 

§ 1926.1426(a)(1)(iii) should be 

modified to also prohibit the equipment 

from being positioned such that the fall 

path of the boom or load would breach 

the Table A clearance distance. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iv) would 

prohibit use of a live boom where the 

load is over a shaft. As discussed in 

relation to § 1926.1426(a)(1)(i) of this 

proposed section, C–DAC recognized 

that there are situations where 

employees must be in the fall zone of a 

suspended load. One particular scenario 

is when employees must receive a load 

that is lowered into a shaft. Such 

employees would be at a particularly 

high risk of being killed or injured by 

a free falling boom because the shaft 

severely limits or eliminates any ability 

to get out of the way. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(v) would 

prohibit free fall of a boom when the 

load is over a cofferdam, except where 

there are no employees 61 in the fall 

zone. Much like employees who must 

receive a suspended load in a shaft, 

employees have limited ability to escape 

a free falling boom or load in a 

cofferdam. However, because 

cofferdams are typically much larger 

work spaces than shafts, the fall zone of 

a falling boom or load may only affect 

one part of the cofferdam. Therefore, 

this provision contains an exception for 

situations where there are no employees 

in the fall zone. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(vi) would 

prohibit use of a live boom for lifting 

operations in a refinery or tank farm. 

C–DAC was concerned that a free falling 

boom could strike pipes or a tank in a 

refinery or tank farm. Such accidental 

impact could cause a release of toxic 

materials or conflagration. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(2) is an 

exclusive list of conditions under which 

the use of cranes with live booms would 

be permitted. C–DAC believed that 

cranes with live booms could be used 

safely under some circumstances and 

did not believe that the cost of replacing 

or retrofitting all existing such 

equipment was justified as long as the 

use of live boom equipment was limited 

to those circumstances. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(i) would 

allow the use of equipment with a live 

boom if that equipment was 

manufactured prior to October 31, 1984 

and none of the circumstances listed in 

proposed § 1926.1426(a)(1) are present. 

C–DAC noted that ANSI B30.5 first 

prohibited live booms in its 1972 

version and reiterated the prohibition in 

the 1982 edition, which was published 

on October 31, 1983 and became 

effective on October 31, 1984. 

C–DAC concluded that manufacturers 

would have begun to phase out liveboom equipment when ANSI first 

prohibited its use in 1972 and that little, 

if any, live boom equipment would have 

been manufactured after October 31, 

1984. Moreover, during this period, 

hydraulic hoisting equipment, the 

design of which typically precluded 

boom free fall even in its early designs, 

became more prevalent. 

In light of these factors, C–DAC 

concluded that most equipment 

manufactured after October 31, 1984 

would not have live booms. Proposed 

§ 1926.1426(a)(2) thus allows the older 

live boom equipment to be phased out 

safely by restricting its use to situations 

in which none of the circumstances 

listed in § 1926.1426(a)(1) are present. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(ii) would 

allow use of a live boom if the 

equipment is a floating crane/derrick or 

is a land crane/derrick on a vessel/ 

flotation device and none of the 

circumstances listed in proposed 

§ 1926.1426(a)(1) are present.62 C–DAC 

noted that equipment used on the water 

commonly has a live boom. This is 

because the dynamics of load transfer 

while on water (from side to side), as 

well as unexpected wave action, which 

can cause rapid changes in list and trim, 

sometimes necessitates that the operator 

have a free fall boom system to 

compensate for these effects. Non-live 

systems are not fast enough for this 

purpose. As a result, C–DAC concluded 

that there is no need to alter current 

industry practice in this regard as long 

as none of the circumstances listed in 

§ 1926.1426(a)(1) are present. 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2EP09OC08.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59809 

Paragraph (b) Preventing Boom Free 

Fall 

Proposed paragraph (b) sets criteria 

for preventing boom free fall. A boom 

that meets this criteria is considered to 

be designed to not free fall. The criteria 

consist of requirements for a secondary 

system for controlling the boom’s 

descent in addition to the equipment’s 

primary system. The Committee 

believed that the hazard posed by a 

failure of the primary system for holding 

or regulating the boom is so significant 

that the availability of a secondary 

mechanism needs to be required. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(1)(i) specifies 

that a friction drum must have both a 

friction clutch and a braking device, to 

allow for controlled boom lowering. 

These provisions are similar to those in 

section 5–1.3.2(a)(1) and (a)(4) of ANSI 

B30.5–1968 and ASME B30.5–2004. 

Proposed § 1926.1426(b)(1)(ii) would 

require friction drums to also have a 

secondary braking or locking device, 

which is manually or automatically 

engaged, to back-up the primary brake 

while the boom is held (such as a 

secondary friction brake or a ratchet and 

pawl device). In the view of the 

Committee these have been well 

established as effective for this purpose. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would 

require hydraulic drums to have an 

integrally mounted holding device or 

internal static brake to prevent boom 

hoist movement in the event of 

hydraulic failure. The requirements of 

this proposed paragraph are similar to 

those in section 5–1.3.1(d) of ASME 

B30.5–2004. The hazard presented by 

this type of hoisting system is that once 

the hydraulic system fails, the boom 

hoist drum could free spin and allow 

the boom to free fall. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(3) states that 

clutches or hydraulic motors do not 

qualify as brakes or locking devices for 

purposes of this subpart. C–DAC 

believed the use of clutches or hydraulic 

motors for such purposes would 

accelerate the wear of these systems and 

increase the risk they will fail when 

they are needed to control the lowering 

of the boom. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(4) would 

require hydraulic boom cylinders to 

have an integrally mounted holding 

device. An integrally mounted holding 

device would secure the boom from 

pivoting down in the event that 

hydraulic pressure is lost. This 

requirement is similar to section 

5–1.3.1(d) of ASME B30.5–2004. 

Paragraph 1426(c) Preventing 

Uncontrolled Retraction 

Proposed paragraph (c) would require 

hydraulic telescoping booms (which are 

also referred to as hydraulic extensible 

booms) to have an integrally mounted 

holding device to prevent the boom 

from retracting in the event of hydraulic 

failure. This proposed provision is 

similar to section 5–1.3.3(c) of ASME 

B30.5–2004. 

The C–DAC draft of this provision 

stated that the purpose of this device 

was ‘‘to prevent boom movement in the 

event of hydraulic failure.’’ OSHA 

believes that this language was 

unintentionally broad in that it refers to 

any ‘‘boom movement.’’ The purpose of 

proposed § 1926.1426(b)(4) is, as 

discussed above, to prevent the boom 

from pivoting down in the event of 

hydraulic failure. Therefore, there is no 

need for proposed § 1926.1426(c) to also 

require a device to prevent that type of 

boom movement. 

The Agency’s understanding is that 

the purpose of proposed § 1926.1426(c) 

is, as reflected in C–DAC’s heading 

(‘‘Preventing uncontrolled retraction’’), 

to prevent a telescoping hydraulic boom 

from retracting in the event of hydraulic 

failure. Therefore, OSHA has modified 

the language to state that the purpose of 

the integrally mounted holding device is 

‘‘to prevent the boom from retracting’’ in 

the event of hydraulic failure. OSHA 

requests public comment on the 

appropriateness of this change. 

Paragraph1426(d) Load Line Free Fall 

Proposed paragraph (d) lists 

circumstances under which free fall of 

the load line hoist is prohibited and 

controlled load lowering is required. 

‘‘Free fall (of the load line)’’ is defined 

in § 1926.1401 to mean ‘‘where only the 

brake is used to regulate the descent of 

the load line (the drive mechanism is 

not used to drive the load down faster 

or retard its lowering).’’ ‘‘Free fall’’ is 

contrasted with ‘‘controlled load 

lowering,’’ which § 1926.1401 defines as 

‘‘lowering a load by means of a 

mechanical hoist drum device that 

allows a hoisted load to be lowered with 

maximum control using the gear train or 

hydraulic components of the hoist 

mechanism. Controlled load lowering 

requires the use of the hoist drive motor, 

rather than the load hoist brake, to 

lower the load.’’ 

As with free fall of the boom, free fall 

of the load line hoist presents a struckby hazard to employees. One difference 

with boom free fall, however, is that free 

fall of the load line endangers a smaller 

area. When a boom free falls, its tip (and 

any attached load) moves both 

downward and outward. Because the 

load will moving in at least two 

directions simultaneously, the area that 

will be affected by the fall is 

comparatively large. 

In contrast, if a load line free falls, the 

load will tend to fall in a relatively 

straight path downward (as long as the 

boom is not being moved and the load 

is not significantly affected by winds). 

Thus the area affected will typically be 

smaller. C–DAC therefore concluded 

that it would be appropriate to have a 

more limited prohibition compared with 

use of a live boom. This is reflected in 

the prohibition in proposed 

§ 1926.1426(d)(1) against an employee 

being directly under the load. That 

provision is more limited than proposed 

§ 1926.1426(a)(1)(i), which would 

prohibit an employee from being in the 

fall zone of the boom or load. 

Similarly, unlike the live boom 

provisions, proposed § 1926.1426(d) 

does not include a prohibition against 

use of load line hoist free fall in a 

refinery or tank farm. Because of the 

more limited affected area, the operator 

can more readily set up the equipment 

so that, in the event of a load line free 

fall, the affected area will not include 

safety critical refinery or tank 

equipment. 

However, paragraphs (d)(2), (3), and 

(4) are similar to the boom free fall 

prohibitions in that they prohibit free 

fall of the load line when (1) an 

employee is being hoisted; (2) the load 

is directly over a power line or over any 

part of the area extending the Table A 

(of proposed § 1926.1408) clearance 

distance to each side of the power line; 

and (3) the load is over a shaft or 

cofferdam. 

The C–DAC draft of proposed 

paragraph (d)(3) stated: ‘‘The load is 

directly over a power line, or over the 

area extending the Table A clearance 

distance to each side of the power line.’’ 

As discussed above, C–DAC’s intent was 

to prohibit the load from being over any 

part of the area extending the Table A 

clearance distance to each side of the 

line, and OSHA has therefore changed 

this language to make clear that the 

prohibition applies with respect to the 

load being above ‘‘any part of’’ that area. 

In reviewing proposed paragraph 

(d)(4), OSHA noted that it would 

prohibit load line free fall over a shaft 

or cofferdam, but contains no exception 

regarding cofferdams in which there is 

no employee in the fall zone. In this 

respect this provision is broader than 

the live boom provision in proposed 

§ 1926.1426(a)(1)(v), which does contain 

such an exception. OSHA requests 

public comment on whether proposed 

§ 1926.1426(d)(4) should be modified to 

include such an exception. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59810 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

63Section 1926.20(b)(4) states that ‘‘the employer 

shall permit only those employees qualified by 

training or experience to operate equipment and 

machinery’’; § 1926.21(b)(2) states that ‘‘the 

employer shall instruct each employee in the 

recognition and avoidance of unsafe 

conditions.* * *’’ 

Section 1427 Operator Qualification 

and Certification 

Proposed § 1926.1427 addresses the 

safety concerns created by underqualified crane operators. In the 

Committee’s experience, human error 

resulting from insufficient operator 

knowledge and capability is a 

significant cause of fatal crane/derrick 

accidents. It concluded that a verified 

testing process is essential for ensuring 

sufficient knowledge and capability of 

crane/derrick operators and would be an 

effective and efficient way to reduce 

these accidents. 

The Committee’s view was based on 

the extensive collective experience of 

the Committee members. Members 

expressed the belief that crane/derrick 

safety depends heavily on the operator 

having the knowledge and ability to 

implement safe operation practices. For 

example, an operator who does not 

know how to properly use load charts 

could miscalculate the capacity of the 

crane and inadvertently overload the 

equipment. An operator who lacks the 

knowledge and skill to control and 

manipulate a load could lose control of 

it, causing other employees to be struck 

by the load or the equipment. 

In addition, knowledge and skill are 

needed to prevent electrical contact 

with power lines (see the discussion 

above regarding proposed §§ 1926.1407– 

1926.1411). For example, an operator 

who does not understand an 

operational/performance characteristic 

such as dynamic loading may 

inadvertently allow the boom to get too 

close to a power line. This could occur 

where the operator failed to account for 

the fact that, under certain conditions, 

the boom would flex and so continue to 

move towards the line after the operator 

had stopped the superstructure’s 

rotation. 

Similarly, understanding and being 

able to minimize such effects is 

important in situations such as blind 

picks, where the operator will be relying 

on information relayed to him/her by a 

signal person. 

The Committee considered whether it 

would be sufficient to set testing criteria 

without a third-party (that is, 

independent) verification mechanism, 

and determined that such an approach 

was not likely to be effective in ensuring 

sufficient operator qualifications. 

During the Committee’s deliberations, 

members expressed a concern that 

testing conducted without a check on 

the quality of the test, with respect to 

both its content and administration, has 

been ineffective in ensuring that crane 

operators are qualified to operate the 

equipment safely. Members noted that 

operator ‘‘certification’’ cards are easily 

obtained from various Internet sites 

without having to pass a credible test. 

They also noted that the current OSHA 

standards, which require employers to 

instruct employees on the hazards 

involved with crane operation, and 

require the employer to permit only 

those employees qualified by training or 

experience to operate equipment,63 but 

do not require testing verified by a third 

party, have been generally ineffective in 

ensuring an adequate degree of 

consistency with respect to crane 

operator knowledge and ability. The 

Committee concluded that significant 

advances in crane/derrick safety would 

not be achieved unless such testing was 

required. 

The Committee was aware that testing 

of equipment operators by an impartial 

party has been used in the past to 

prevent fatal and other serious accidents 

that result when operators lack the 

knowledge and skills needed to operate 

safely. An example is the Department of 

Transportation’s requirements for overthe-road commercial drivers’ licenses 

(‘‘CDL’’). These are designed to reduce 

the incidence of serious accidents 

caused by unqualified drivers of 

vehicles such as trucks and buses. These 

requirements, codified at 40 CFR part 

383, require drivers of commercial 

motor vehicles to have state licenses 

that are issued in accordance with 

federal standards for qualification, 

training, and testing. To receive a 

license, the driver must pass knowledge 

and skills tests administered either by 

the state or by a third party whose 

examiners meet the same qualification 

and training standards as state 

examiners. 40 CFR 383.75(a). 

The Committee’s view of the 

importance of independent testing is 

further buttressed by a study conducted 

over a 34-year period (1969–2002), by 

the Construction Safety Association of 

Ontario. (OSHA–2007–0066–0009). The 

study showed a substantial decrease in 

crane and rigging fatalities in Ontario 

beginning in 1979, when mandatory 

training and certification requirements 

for Ontario crane operators went into 

effect. 

The Ontario system requires 

prospective or current crane operators 

(referred to in Ontario as ‘‘hoisting 

engineers’’) to either successfully 

complete an apprenticeship program or 

demonstrate sufficient previous 

experience before seeking certification 

as a hoisting engineer. The 

apprenticeship program includes inschool training in a number of topics 

determined by the Ministry of 

Education, a practical examination 

administered at Ministry-designated 

sites, and a written examination 

administered by the Ministry. Upon 

passing this examination and proving 

completion of the requisite work hours, 

an apprentice receives a certificate of 

qualification as one of three types of 

hoisting engineer from the Ministry. 

(OSHA–2007–0066–0010). 

Hoisting engineers already qualified 

elsewhere must also obtain a 

certification from the Ministry to 

operate cranes in the province. These 

candidates must sit for the written 

examination and complete the practical 

skills assessment required for 

qualification of apprentices, but may 

demonstrate sufficient previous 

experience instead of completing the 

number of work/training hours required 

by the apprenticeship program, to 

receive a certificate of qualification from 

the Ministry in one of the three hoisting 

engineer categories. (OSHA–2007– 

0066–0011). 

In the ten year period from 1969 

through 1978, before Ontario’s 

requirements went into effect, 85 

Ontario construction workers suffered 

crane and rigging fatalities, amounting 

to 8.5 per year, or 19.8% of all 

construction fatalities in Ontario. In the 

24 year period from 1979 through 2002, 

there were 51 crane and rigging 

fatalities, or slightly more than two per 

year. For this period, crane and rigging 

fatalities equaled 9.6% of all Ontario 

construction fatalities. In the 12-year 

period from 1991 through 2002, the total 

number of crane and rigging fatalities 

was 9, or fewer than one per year. 

During this period, crane and rigging 

fatalities amounted to 4.1% of total 

construction fatalities. (OSHA–2007– 

0066–0009). 

Proposed § 1926.1427 would afford 

employers several options for ensuring 

that operators have obtained sufficient 

knowledge and ability. These options 

are designed to provide employers 

flexibility for meeting the proposed 

requirement and to accommodate the 

needs of the U.S. military. 

Paragraph 1427(a) 

As drafted by C–DAC, proposed 

paragraph (a) would have required the 

employer to ensure that the operator of 

any equipment covered under 

§ 1926.1400 is either qualified or 

certified to operate the equipment in 

accordance with the provisions of this 

section or is operating the equipment 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59811 

64Note that certification on a more complex and/ 

or higher capacity piece of equipment would 

typically qualify an operator to operate less 

complex/lower capacity equipment of the same 

type. For example, an operator certified for a 300 

ton hydraulic truck crane would not need a separate 

certification to operate a 22 ton hydraulic truck 

crane. 

65One possible approach, referred to by the 

SBREFA Panel, would define ‘‘type’’ by using the 

categories of equipment represented in Figures 1– 

10 of the ASME B30.5–2004 standard. 

during a training period. OSHA notes, 

however, that C–DAC provided for 

exceptions to the general rule for 

operator qualification/certification in 

proposed §§ 1436, Derricks; 1926.1440, 

Sideboom cranes; and 1926.1441, 

Equipment with a rated hoisting/lifting 

capacity of 2,000 pounds or less. To 

make proposed § 1926.1427(a) reflect 

the exceptions provided in these 

sections, OSHA has added the following 

language to proposed § 1926.1427(a): 

Exceptions: Operator qualification or 

certification under this section is not 

required for operators of derricks (see 

§ 1926.1436), sideboom cranes (see 

§ 1926.1440), and equipment with a rated 

hoisting/lifting capacity of 2,000 pounds or 

less (see § 1926.1441). 

Paragraph 1427(b) Option 1: 

Certification by an Accredited Crane/ 

Derrick Operator Testing Organization 

Proposed paragraph (b) sets out 

Option 1, in which the employee 

becomes certified to operate equipment 

of a certain type and capacity by passing 

an examination administered by an 

accredited testing organization. 

Certification under this option would be 

‘‘portable,’’ which means that any 

employer covered by the proposed 

standard could meet the requirements of 

proposed § 1926.1427 by using an 

operator who had this certification. 

These certifications would be valid for 

five years. 

Proposed section § 1926.1427(b) 

incorporates a number of safeguards to 

ensure that the Option 1 certification 

could be relied upon by any employer 

to meet the requirements of § 1926.1427, 

and adequately establishes the 

employee’s ability to operate the types 

and capacities of crane for which he/she 

is certified. The first of these safeguards 

is proposed § 1926.1427(b)(1)(i), which 

would require that the testing 

organization be accredited by a 

nationally recognized accrediting 

agency. 

As defined in § 1926.1401, a 

‘‘nationally recognized accrediting 

agency’’ is ‘‘an organization that, due to 

its independence and expertise, is 

widely recognized as competent to 

accredit testing organizations.’’ The 

Agency notes that, under this definition, 

new accrediting organizations would 

meet this definition upon establishing a 

national reputation based on 

independence, use of widely recognized 

criteria, and demonstrated competence 

in applying those criteria. 

For a testing organization to be 

accredited, the accrediting agency 

would have to determine that the testing 

organization meets industry recognized 

criteria for written testing materials, 

practical examinations, test 

administration, grading, facilities/ 

equipment and personnel. 

In its deliberations, the Committee 

expressed concern about the need for 

independent evaluation of certification 

programs. It believed such evaluation is 

necessary to ensure that the certification 

programs are adequately and 

consistently applying the requisite 

criteria for safe crane operation when 

testing operators. This accreditation 

would ensure that the testing 

procedures would accurately measure 

whether the operator has met the 

knowledge and skill criteria specified in 

proposed § 1926.1427(j) (discussed 

below). 

Under proposed § 1926.1427(b)(1)(v), 

the accreditation would be required to 

be reviewed every three years, to ensure 

continuing quality of testing materials 

and administration. The Committee 

believed that an entity that meets the 

proposed definition for a nationally 

recognized accrediting agency (‘‘an 

organization that, due to its 

independence and expertise, is widely 

recognized as competent to accredit 

testing organizations’’), would have both 

the expertise and independence needed 

to provide reliable assurance that a 

testing organization meets the proposed 

standard’s criteria. 

The use of a nationally recognized 

accrediting agency to provide an 

independent, authoritative assurance of 

a testing organization’s competence is a 

well-established practice. For example, 

for a number of years, the National 

Commission for Certifying Agencies 

(NCCA), the accreditation body of the 

National Organization for Competency 

Assurance (NOCA), has accredited 

testing organizations in a wide variety of 

fields, including those that provide 

crane operator certification. (OSHA– 

2007–0066–0021). Also, in 2003, the 

American National Standards Institute 

began accrediting personnel 

certification entities. (OSHA–2007– 

0066–0022). 

Another safeguard is in proposed 

§ 1926.1427(b)(1)(ii)(A), under which a 

testing organization would be required 

to administer both written and practical 

tests addressing the criteria set forth in 

proposed § 1926.1427(j). The Committee 

believed that operator ability cannot be 

assessed reliably unless both written 

and practical tests are used. In its view, 

operator ability depends both on 

knowledge of a variety of subjects, 

which the written test would address, 

and the ability to apply that knowledge, 

which would be addressed by the 

practical test. 

Proposed paragraph 1427(b)(1)(ii)(B) 

would require that different levels of 

certification be provided, based on 

varying equipment capacities and types. 

This proposed requirement is designed 

to ensure that the extent of knowledge 

and skill required is commensurate with 

the type and capacity of equipment the 

employee operates. For example, an 

employee who only operates a hydraulic 

truck crane would not need to also have 

the additional knowledge and skills 

necessary to operate a lattice boom 

crawler crane. Similarly, an employee 

who operates only a 22 ton capacity 

hydraulic truck crane would not need to 

also have the additional knowledge and 

skills necessary to operate a 300 ton 

hydraulic truck crane.64

In its deliberations, the Committee 

determined that requiring the 

certification to be model-specific would 

be unnecessarily restrictive, and instead 

agreed on the term ‘‘type.’’ In the 

SBREFA Panel Report, the Panel 

recommended that OSHA solicit public 

comment on whether the term ‘‘type’’ is 

sufficiently clear for this purpose. 

OSHA requests public comment on 

whether this term is appropriate, 

whether it needs to be defined (and if 

so, what that definition should be),65

and suggestions as to what other terms 

may be better. 

During the SBREFA process, several 

SERs described situations in which an 

operator is very knowledgeable and 

skillful with respect to one particular 

model of crane, but has very limited 

knowledge and ability regarding other 

models and types of cranes. These SERs 

were concerned that such operators 

would be unable to obtain a certification 

based on equipment capacity and type. 

They believe that, since these operators 

are well qualified to operate a particular 

crane model, there should be a 

mechanism for them to become certified 

to operate that model. The Panel 

recommended that OSHA consider and 

solicit public comment on expanding 

the levels of certification so as to allow 

an operator to be certified on a specific 

brand’s model of crane. Consistent with 

the Panel’s recommendation, OSHA 

seeks public comment on this issue. 

The SBREFA Panel also received 

comments from some SERs suggesting 

that the standard should accommodate 

crane operators who were fully capable 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59812 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

66See the explanation of the proposed definition 

of ‘‘portable’’ below in the discussion of proposed 

§ 1926.1427(m). 

67These organizations are the National 

Commission for the Certification of Crane Operators 

(NCCCO), which is accredited by the National 

Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA) 

(OSHA–2007–0066–0021) and by ANSI (OSHA– 

2007–0066–0025), and the Southern California 

Crane & Hoisting Certification Program (SCCHCP), 

which is accredited by NCCA. 

of operating particular equipment in a 

limited set of circumstances but who 

would be unable to pass certification 

tests that required knowledge and 

abilities beyond those circumstances. 

The Panel recommended that OSHA 

consider and solicit public comment on 

expanding the levels of operator 

qualification/certification to allow such 

operators to be certified for a specific, 

limited type of circumstance defined by 

a set of parameters that, taken together, 

would describe an operation 

characterized by simplicity and 

relatively low risk. In response to the 

Panel’s recommendation, OSHA 

requests public comment on whether 

such parameters could be identified in 

a way that would result in a clear, easily 

understood provision that could be 

effectively enforced. 

Proposed paragraph 1427(b)(1)(iii) 

would require that the testing 

organization have procedures for 

operators to re-apply and be re-tested in 

the event an applicant fails a test. This 

would help ensure that if the employee 

initially failed to pass the test, the 

employee would be able to retake the 

test and still have the opportunity to 

obtain the certification. 

Proposed paragraph 1427(b)(1)(iii) 

would also require that the testing 

organization have procedures for 

operators to re-apply and be re-tested in 

the event an operator was decertified. 

This would similarly help protect an 

employer’s expenditures for training 

and certification testing. 

Proposed paragraph 1427(b)(1)(iv) 

would require that the testing 

organization have procedures for recertifying operators designed to ensure 

that the operator continues to meet the 

requirements of proposed 

§ 1926.1427(j). The Committee believed 

that testing for recertification would not 

need to be as rigorous as for initial 

certification. This proposed provision 

was therefore included so that 

recertification procedures appropriate 

for those who have already been 

certified would be available. 

Under proposed paragraph (b)(2), the 

certification would be ‘‘portable,’’ 

which means that any employer of an 

operator certified under Option 1 would 

meet the requirements of proposed 

§ 1926.1427 with respect to that 

operator.66 The Committee believed that 

accredited testing organizations could 

be relied upon to consistently adhere to 

the criteria in § 1926.1427, since they 

would be fully independent and their 

business interest would depend on their 

continued accreditation. Therefore, it 

would be appropriate for all employers 

to be able to rely on their certifications. 

Under proposed § 1926.1427(b)(3), the 

certification would be valid for five 

years. The Committee believed that this 

is an appropriate length of time to 

assume that, absent a specific indication 

to the contrary, an employee would 

retain the knowledge and proficiency 

demonstrated through the testing 

process. 

In the SBREFA Panel Report, the 

Panel indicated that some Small Entity 

Representatives were concerned that 

there would be an insufficient number 

of accredited crane operator testing 

organizations and that many employers 

would not be able to set up and 

maintain an audited employer program 

under Option 2 (see discussion of 

Option 2 below). At present, there are 

two testing organizations that have been 

accredited by a nationally recognized 

accrediting organization to certify crane 

operators.67

C–DAC considered this issue and was 

of the view that, with a four-year phasein period, there would be sufficient time 

for the market to respond to an 

increased demand for certification 

services. Some SERs expressed a similar 

expectation. Nonetheless, the Panel 

recommended that OSHA solicit public 

comment on whether it would be 

appropriate to expand Option 1 so that 

an accredited educational institution 

could be used to ‘‘administer’’ tests. In 

other words, under this concept, Option 

1 would be expanded so that an 

accredited educational institution could 

administer written and practical tests 

that were developed or approved by an 

accredited crane/derrick testing 

organization. Many educational 

institutions currently have an 

accreditation through a national or 

regional accrediting agency that is listed 

by the U.S. Secretary of Education (SOE) 

or have an accreditation by a State 

agency that has been recognized by the 

SOE for approval of public postsecondary vocational education. Such 

an expansion could broaden the 

availability of certification services. 

C–DAC considered a related concept 

in which an educational institution or 

program accredited in this manner 

could both develop and administer 

tests. However, it rejected that concept 

because the SOE-related type of 

accreditation would be more broadly 

based on the institution as a whole, 

rather than on its operator certification 

program in particular. 

It is the Agency’s understanding that 

much of the Committee’s concern in this 

regard was related to the development 

of the tests rather than their 

administration. In other words, while 

considerable subject-specific expertise 

is needed to develop accurate and 

reliable crane operator tests, the 

expertise needed to administer such 

tests may be similar to the expertise 

needed to administer tests in general. 

However, there is a question as to 

whether this is equally true for written 

and practical tests. 

Therefore, OSHA solicits public 

comment on these issues. Specifically, 

the Agency seeks comment on whether 

Option 1 should be expanded so that an 

accredited educational institution could 

administer written and practical tests 

that were developed or approved by an 

accredited crane/derrick testing 

organization. 

Paragraph 1427(c) Option 2: 

Qualification by an Audited Employer 

Program 

Proposed paragraph (c) sets out 

Option 2, in which the employer would 

determine, through its own audited 

testing program, that its employee is 

qualified to operate the equipment. The 

Committee recognized that some 

employers, including those that have 

already established in-house testing 

programs, may want to do their own 

testing to meet the proposed 

§ 1926.1427 requirements. The 

Committee also recognized that, for 

there to be a significant improvement in 

the industry with respect to operator 

qualifications, it is essential that there 

be a mechanism to ensure that such 

testing is accurate and reliable. 

Therefore, under Option 2, the tests 

would be required to be either 

developed by an accredited crane 

operator testing organization, or 

approved by an auditor who is certified 

by an accredited crane operator testing 

organization. In addition, the 

administration of the tests would be 

audited. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(1) sets forth 

the requirements that would apply to 

the contents and design of the tests 

(requirements for the administration of 

the tests is dealt with separately in 

proposed § 1926.1427(c)(2), discussed 

below) used in an audited employer 

program. To ensure that the tests meet 

the industry standards for written and 

practical examinations, they would have 

to be developed by an accredited testing 

organization (as described in proposed 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59813 

§ 1926.1427(b)), or approved by an 

auditor in accordance with the 

requirements of proposed 

§ 1926.1427(c)(1)(ii). 

An employer choosing to use tests 

other than those developed by an 

accredited testing organization under 

proposed § 1926.1427(c)(1)(i) would be 

required to have the tests approved by 

an auditor in accordance with the 

criteria in proposed 

§ 1926.1427(c)(1)(ii). The auditor would 

have to be certified as a test evaluator 

by an accredited testing organization. To 

ensure that the auditor’s evaluation is 

independent and impartial, the auditor 

would be prohibited from being 

employed by the employer seeking 

evaluation of its qualification program. 

Also, the audit would need to determine 

that the program meets nationally 

recognized test development criteria 

and adequately assesses the criteria in 

proposed § 1926.1427(j). 

The Committee believed that these 

requirements are necessary to ensure 

that the contents and design of the tests 

meet the criteria in proposed 

§ 1926.1427(j) and generate valid and 

reliable results. 

The requirements for test 

administration that would apply under 

Option 2 of this section are set forth in 

proposed § 1926.1427(c)(2). Proposed 

§ 1926.1427(c)(2)(i) would require that 

the auditor find that the administration 

procedures meet nationally recognized 

test administration standards. The 

Committee believed that this proposed 

provision is needed to ensure that the 

test results would be valid and reliable. 

Under proposed paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) 

and (c)(2)(iii), the auditor would have to 

be certified by an accredited certifying 

organization as described in 

§ 1926.1427(b), and would be prohibited 

from being employed by the employer 

seeking the auditor’s approval for its 

operator qualification program. Finally, 

proposed paragraph 

§ 1926.1427(c)(2)(iv) would require that 

the audit be conducted in accordance 

with nationally recognized auditing 

standards. The Committee believed that, 

to avoid a conflict of interest and assure 

the integrity of the audit, it is necessary 

to have the auditor be independent of 

the employer and apply well recognized 

procedures for conducting the audit. 

The Agency notes that the proposed 

requirement that the audit be conducted 

in accordance with nationally 

recognized auditing standards would 

apply only to the audit of the 

administration of the tests, and not to 

the audit of the contents of the written 

and practical tests. It appears to the 

Agency that this was a drafting error, 

and that the Committee intended that 

the entire audit be conducted in 

accordance with nationally recognized 

auditing standards. Therefore, the 

Agency solicits public comment on 

whether a new § 1926.1427(c)(1)(ii)(D), 

reading as follows, should be added: 

(D) The audit shall be conducted in 

accordance with nationally recognized 

auditing standards. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(3) addresses 

the need for an audit of an employer’s 

operator qualification program shortly 

after its inception, as well as 

periodically thereafter. This would 

ensure regular and independent 

oversight of employer-run qualification 

programs to verify that operators are 

being tested according to nationally 

recognized standards, on at least those 

qualifications set forth in proposed 

§ 1926.1427(j). 

Proposed paragraph (c)(4) would 

require an employer’s program to 

include re-qualification procedures, 

which would have to be audited as 

described in proposed § 1926.1427(c)(1) 

and (c)(2). The Committee believed that 

this is necessary to ensure the operators’ 

continued proficiency with, at a 

minimum, the criteria set forth in 

proposed § 1926.1427(j). 

In the event an auditor discovers a 

deficiency in an employer’s operator 

qualification program, the employer 

would have to meet the requirements set 

forth in proposed § 1926.1427(c)(5). 

Proposed § 1926.1427(c)(5)(i) requires 

that no additional operators be qualified 

until the auditor determines that the 

deficiency has been corrected. Under 

§ 1926.1427(c)(5)(ii), the program would 

also have to be re-audited within 180 

days of the deficiency’s correction to 

ensure that the minimum qualifications 

in proposed § 1926.1427(j) were being 

adequately and consistently tested. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(5)(iii) would 

require the auditor to file a report of any 

such deficiency with the appropriate 

OSHA Regional Office within 15 days of 

discovery. In addition, records of the 

employer’s qualification program audits 

would be required to be maintained by 

the auditor for three years and, under 

§ 1926.1427(c)(5)(iv), would have to be 

made available at the request of the 

Secretary of Labor or a designated 

representative. The Committee believed 

that these provisions are necessary to 

facilitate enforcement of the Option 2 

requirements. 

Under proposed paragraph (c)(6)(i), a 

qualification by an employer’s operator 

qualification program (Option 2) of this 

section would not be portable. It was the 

Committee’s view that the degree of 

consistency in adhering to the proposed 

requirements of § 1926.1427 is likely to 

be highest among accredited crane 

operator testing organizations, since 

they would be fully independent and 

their business interest would depend on 

their continued accreditation. That view 

is reflected in full portability being 

restricted to certification under Option 

1 of this section. 

Under proposed paragraph (c)(6)(ii), a 

qualification by an employer’s operator 

qualification program would be valid for 

five years. The Committee believed that 

this is an appropriate length of time to 

assume that, absent a specific indication 

to the contrary, an employee would 

retain the knowledge and proficiency 

demonstrated through the testing 

process. 

Paragraph 1926.1427(d) Option 3: 

Qualification by the U.S. Military 

Proposed paragraph (d) provides that 

an operator would be deemed qualified 

if he/she had a current qualification 

issued by the United States military. 

Under proposed § 1926.1427(d)(2), such 

a qualification would be considered 

valid for the length of time stipulated by 

the United States military, and would 

not be portable. 

At the C–DAC meetings a 

representative of the United States Navy 

explained that, because of a variety of 

potential exigencies associated with the 

mission of the United States military, 

i.e., national defense, the military needs 

to be able to use its own qualification 

program, the criteria for which may 

have to vary based on the 

circumstances. Consequently, the 

criteria for qualification under Option 3 

would be left to the military to 

determine, including the length of time 

for which such a qualification would be 

valid. 

Proposed § 1926.1427(d) must be read 

in light of Executive Order (E.O.) 12196 

(Feb. 26, 1980) and 29 CFR Part 1960, 

which exclude military personnel 

(uniformed members of the Armed 

Forces) and uniquely military 

equipment, systems, and operations 

from OSHA coverage. Consequently, 

uniformed military personnel would not 

be covered by any of this proposed 

standard and there would be no 

obligation under this standard or E.O. 

12196 for uniformed military personnel 

operating cranes to be certified. Civilian 

employees of the Defense Department 

and Armed Forces engaged in work 

encompassed by ‘‘uniquely military 

equipment, systems and operations’’ 

similarly would not be covered by any 

of the provisions of this proposed 

standard, including the certification 

provisions. Therefore, even in the 

absence of Option 3, the Department of 

Defense is free to impose whatever 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59814 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

qualifications it requires for crane 

operators who are military personnel or 

civilian employees engaged in such 

work. 

Under E.O. 12196, OSHA standards 

apply with respect to a civilian 

employee of the Department of Defense 

and Armed Forces who is engaged in 

work that falls beyond ‘‘uniquely 

military equipment, systems and 

operations.’’ Under that executive order, 

proposed § 1926.1427 would be 

applicable to those employees. 

Therefore, the U.S. military could use 

Option 3 by qualifying its own civilian 

employee operators engaged in work 

that falls beyond ‘‘uniquely military 

equipment, systems and operations.’’ 

In reviewing this part of the C–DAC 

consensus document, the Agency has 

determined that there is an ambiguity in 

the text of Option 3 in that it does not 

clearly indicate whether it would also 

cover employees of private contractors 

of the Armed Forces or Defense 

Department. With respect to such 

private contractor employees, E.O. 

12196 is inapplicable and OSHA has the 

authority to promulgate qualification/ 

certification requirements regarding 

them. 

The Agency believes that C–DAC’s 

intent was to have Option 3 be 

applicable only with respect to civilian 

employees of the U.S. military; it was 

not intended to include private 

contractor employees. This intent is 

reflected in C–DAC’s use of the term 

‘‘Not portable’’ in Option 3 and that 

term’s definition. Proposed 

§ 1926.1427(d)(2)(i) specifies that an 

operator’s U.S. military-issued 

qualification is not portable. Under the 

definition of that term in 

§ 1926.1427(m)(2), such a qualification 

is valid ‘‘only where the operator is 

employed by (and operating the 

equipment for) the employer that issued 

the qualification.’’ Since private 

contractor employees are not ‘‘employed 

by’’ the U.S. military, this indicates that 

Option 3 was not intended to apply to 

them. Instead, Option 3 was intended to 

apply only with respect to the U.S. 

military’s own employees. 

Accordingly, OSHA is planning on 

changing the regulatory language in 

proposed § 1926.1427(d) to more clearly 

reflect this intent. Specifically, the 

Agency is considering making the 

following changes to proposed 

§ 1926.1427(d)(1): 

(1) For purposes of this section, an operator 

who is an employee of the U.S. military is 

considered qualified if he/she has a current 

operator qualification issued by the U.S. 

military for operation of the equipment. 

In addition, in proposed 

§ 1926.1427(m)(Definitions), the 

following definition would be added: 

(3) An ‘‘employee of the U.S. military’’ is 

a federal employee of the Department of 

Defense or Armed Forces and does not 

include employees of private contractors. 

OSHA requests public comment on 

this issue. 

Paragraph 1427(e) Option 4: Licensing 

by a Government Entity 

This option would allow a 

government licensing department/office 

to qualify crane operators. The 

Committee included this option because 

it believed that some States have 

effective, reliable licensing procedures, 

and that making use of them for 

purposes of proposed § 1926.1427 

would provide additional flexibility to 

employers. However, in the experience 

of Committee members, there is 

significant variability in criteria and 

administrative practices among 

government licensing entities. 

Therefore, under this option, the license 

could be used to meet the requirements 

of proposed § 1926.1427 only if the 

government entity meets the licensing 

criteria in proposed 1926.1427(e)(2). 

Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(i) would 

require that the criteria used by the 

licensing department/office address the 

knowledge and skill requirements listed 

in proposed § 1926.1427(j). Proposed 

§ 1926.1427(e)(2)(ii) would require that 

the government entity follow the same 

test content, test administration and 

related criteria as required under Option 

1. Proposed § 1926.1427(e)(2)(iii) would 

require that the office with authority 

over the licensing department/office 

assess the tests and procedures used by 

the licensing office/department and 

determine that the requirements of 

proposed § 1926.1427(e)(2)(ii) and 

(e)(2)(iii) have been met. Also, the 

government licensing office would have 

to have re-certification procedures in 

place as discussed in proposed 

§§ 1926.1427(b)(1)(iv) and 

1926.1427(c)(4). The Committee 

believed that these provisions are 

necessary to ensure that the government 

licensing criteria and procedures yield 

valid and reliable results. 

Under proposed paragraph (e)(3)(i), 

this qualification would be valid only 

within the geographic jurisdiction of the 

licensing entity. For reasons of federallocal government comity, the Committee 

decided not to include a provision 

requiring the government entity to be 

accredited by a nationally recognized 

accrediting agency for purposes of 

Option 4. In the absence of such 

accreditation, there is an increased 

potential for variability in the degree to 

which the criteria in proposed 

§ 1926.1427(e)(2) will be met. 

Consequently, the Committee believed 

that, for purposes of meeting the 

requirements in proposed § 1926.1427, 

the validity of the qualification under 

Option 4 should not extend beyond the 

geographical jurisdiction of the 

government entity. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(3)(ii) provides 

that the licensing entity may determine 

the time period for which the 

qualification is valid, but cannot issue a 

qualification intended to be valid for 

more than five years. The five year 

maximum was included in the 

provision because the Committee 

believed that this is an appropriate 

length of time to assume that, absent a 

specific indication to the contrary, an 

employee would retain the knowledge 

and proficiency demonstrated through 

the testing process. 

Paragraph 1427(f) Pre-Qualification/ 

Certification Training Period 

This proposed paragraph addresses 

the requirements that would have to be 

met for a trainee to operate a crane on 

the job while preparing for 

qualification/certification assessment. 

Proposed § 1926.1427(f)(1) would allow 

for the operation of cranes by employees 

who are not qualified or certified, 

provided that they meet the 

requirements in proposed 

§ 1926.1427(f)(2). Proposed 

§ 1926.1427(f)(2) would allow those 

undergoing training in preparation for 

qualification/certification tests to 

operate equipment under the conditions 

outlined in § 1926.1427(f)(2)(i) through 

(f)(2)(v). The Committee believed that it 

is necessary for there to be a process by 

which operators who are not certified or 

qualified can get experience working 

with the equipment to help prepare for 

obtaining a certification/qualification. 

This proposed paragraph would require 

appropriate oversight of such trainees to 

ensure worksite safety. 

In the C–DAC consensus document, 

§ 1926.1427(f)(2) states that, 

An employee who has passed neither the 

written nor practical tests required under this 

section is permitted to operate equipment as 

part of his/her training where the following 

requirements are met. * * * 

It is the Agency’s understanding that 

the intent of the Committee was to allow 

trainees who had not yet obtained a 

certification or qualification to operate 

equipment on the job as part of the 

training process as long as the criteria in 

§ 1926.1427(f)(2) were met. However, 

the C–DAC language would allow such 

an operator to do this only if the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59815 

operator had passed not yet passed both 

the written and practical tests. 

The anomalous result of that language 

would have been that an operator who 

had passed one of those tests but not 

both would have been prohibited from 

operating the crane as a trainee under 

this provision. Since that would have 

been contrary to the Committee’s intent, 

the Agency has modified that language 

for the proposed rule, which now reads: 

An employee who has not passed both the 

written and practical tests required under 

this section is permitted to operate 

equipment as part of his/her training where 

the following requirements are met. * * * 

Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(i) would 

require that the trainee/apprentice be 

provided with sufficient training prior 

to operating the equipment to enable 

him/her to operate it safely under the 

limitations listed in this proposed 

section and any additional limitations 

established by the employer. This 

would ensure that, before beginning to 

operate the equipment at the site, the 

trainee/apprentice would have attained 

sufficient knowledge and skills to 

operate the equipment safely as a 

trainee/apprentice. 

Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(ii) would 

restrict the trainee/apprentice’s 

operation of the equipment to those 

tasks currently within his/her ability. 

The Committee believed that this is 

necessary to ensure that, throughout the 

training period, the tasks the trainee/ 

apprentice performs are always 

commensurate with his/her ability. This 

provision would also allow the trainee/ 

apprentice to perform progressively 

more complex tasks as the trainee/ 

apprentice develops the necessary 

ability. 

Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(iii) sets 

forth the requirements that an employee 

would have to meet to be permitted to 

supervise the trainee/apprentice’s 

operation of the crane. The Committee 

believed that setting the criteria for such 

supervision is necessary to ensure that 

the equipment is operated safely during 

the training/apprenticeship period. 

Under proposed paragraph 

(f)(2)(iii)(A), the trainee/apprentice’s 

supervisor would have to be an 

employee or agent of the trainee’s/ 

apprentice’s employer. The Committee 

believed that this is necessary to ensure 

that the supervisor would have the 

authority to direct the actions of the 

trainee/apprentice. 

Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(iii)(B) 

would require that the trainee/ 

apprentice’s supervisor be either a 

certified operator (in accordance with 

proposed § 1926.1427), or have passed 

the written portion of a certification test 

under one of the Options in proposed 

§ 1926.1427. In addition, whether the 

supervisor is a certified operator or has 

passed the written test, the supervisor 

would have to be familiar with the 

proper use of the equipment’s controls. 

The SBREFA panel recommended 

that OSHA consider whether the 

trainee/apprentice’s supervisor should 

have additional training beyond the 

qualifications required under proposed 

§ 1926.1427(f)(2)(iii)(B). This 

recommendation is addressed below in 

the discussion of § 1926.1430, Training. 

The Committee believed that this 

provision is necessary to ensure that the 

supervisor has sufficient knowledge 

about the equipment to enable him/her 

to effectively oversee the safe operation 

of the crane. The Committee determined 

that a supervisor who had passed the 

written portion of a certification test 

would not need to be sufficiently 

proficient to pass the practical portion 

in order to effectively supervise a 

trainee/apprentice. However, both in the 

instance where the supervisor is 

certified and in the instance where he/ 

she is not certified but has passed the 

written portion of the certification test, 

the Committee believed that it is 

necessary that he/she be familiar with 

the proper use of the equipment’s 

controls, since such knowledge is 

essential to being able to effectively 

supervise a trainee/apprentice. 

The C–DAC consensus document 

language refers to ‘‘certified operator’’ 

and the written portion of a 

‘‘certification’’ test. However, under 

proposed § 1926.1427, an operator may 

be either ‘‘certified,’’ which would be 

obtained under Option 1, or ‘‘qualified,’’ 

which would be obtained under any one 

of the other options. The Agency 

believes that the Committee intended 

that as long as the supervisor meets the 

qualification/certification criteria under 

any of these options, or has passed the 

written portion of a test used to obtain 

a qualification/certification under any of 

these options, and all other aspects of 

proposed § 1926.1427(f)(2)(iii) have 

been met, the employer should be 

permitted to use that supervisor to 

supervise the trainee/apprentice. 

In addition, the C–DAC consensus 

document language regarding this 

provision states that a supervisor who is 

a ‘‘certified operator’’ may, if the other 

criteria listed in the provision are met, 

supervise the trainee/apprentice. 

Alternatively, the supervisor must have 

‘‘passed the written portion of a 

certification test * * *.’’ The Agency 

believes that it was the Committee’s 

intent that the certification or written 

test that was passed be valid for the 

equipment that the trainee/apprentice is 

operating. However, the C–DAC 

language, read literally, would permit a 

supervisor with a certification or 

passing score on a written test that was 

valid only for equipment other than 

what the trainee/apprentice was 

operating to supervise that trainee/ 

apprentice. 

To conform proposed paragraph 

(f)(2)(iii)(B) to C–DAC’s intent, OSHA is 

planning to modify that provision as 

follows and requests public comment on 

this change. 

(B) The operator’s supervisor is either a 

qualified/certified operator under this section 

for the equipment the trainee/apprentice is 

operating, or has passed the written portion 

of a qualification/certification test for such 

equipment under one of the Options in 

paragraphs (b) through (e), and is familiar 

with the proper use of the equipment’s 

controls. 

Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(iii)(C) 

would require that the operator’s 

supervisor perform no tasks that would 

detract from his/her ability to supervise 

the trainee/apprentice. The Committee 

believed that permitting the operator’s 

supervisor to engage in tasks that would 

impinge on his/her ability to supervise 

the trainee/apprentice would endanger 

the trainee/apprentice and other 

employees in the vicinity of the crane. 

Under proposed paragraph 

(f)(2)(iii)(D), for equipment other than 

tower cranes, the operator’s supervisor 

and the trainee/apprentice would be 

required to be in direct line of sight of 

each other, and would be required to 

communicate either verbally or by hand 

signals. The Committee believed that 

this would ensure that the operator’s 

supervisor could rapidly and effectively 

give instructions to the trainee/ 

apprentice, especially for purposes of 

correcting the trainee/apprentice. 

With respect to tower cranes, it was 

the Committee’s view that the height of 

the operator’s station would typically 

make it infeasible to maintain direct line 

of sight between the operator’s 

supervisor and the trainee/apprentice. 

For the same reason, use of hand signals 

is also often not feasible. Therefore, the 

proposed provision would instead 

require that they be in direct 

communication with each other. For 

example, direct communication could 

be achieved by radio or other instant 

electronic voice communication system. 

The Committee believed that it would 

be infeasible for the operator’s 

supervisor to supervise the trainee/ 

apprentice 100 percent of the time. 

Proposed § 1926.1427(f)(2)(iv) is 

designed to set criteria that would 

permit the trainee/apprentice to 

continue operating the crane in the 

absence of the operator’s supervisor for 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59816 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

short breaks under circumstances that 

would result in safe operation. Those 

criteria would be as follows: 

Under proposed paragraph 

(f)(2)(iv)(A), the break would be 

restricted to no more than 15 minutes, 

and no more than one break per hour. 

The Committee believed that this 

restriction is needed because otherwise 

there would be a significant likelihood 

that the other criteria (discussed below) 

would not be followed, and that the 

trainee/apprentice would not receive 

the amount of supervision that is 

needed to ensure safe operation. 

Under proposed paragraph 

(f)(2)(iv)(B), immediately prior to the 

break, the operator’s supervisor would 

have to inform the trainee/apprentice of 

the specific tasks that the trainee/ 

apprentice would be authorized to 

perform and the limitations that he/she 

must adhere to during the break. Under 

proposed § 1926.1427(f)(2)(iv)(C), the 

specific tasks that the trainee/apprentice 

would perform during the break would 

have to be within the trainee/ 

apprentice’s ability. The Committee 

believed that these provisions are 

necessary to prevent injuries and 

fatalities that could be caused by a 

trainee/apprentice operating a crane 

under circumstances that are beyond 

his/her ability. 

The Committee believed that there are 

certain circumstances in which it is 

inappropriate for a trainee/apprentice to 

operate a crane because of the 

complexity and/or heightened risks 

involved. Therefore, for the 

circumstances listed in proposed 

§ 1926.1427(f)(2)(v)(A)–(D), the trainee/ 

apprentice would be prohibited from 

operating the equipment in all cases, 

even if the operator’s supervisor 

believed the trainee/apprentice had 

attained the necessary knowledge and 

skill. 

With respect to operations involving 

multiple-lift rigging, the Committee 

believed that the difficulty and/or risk 

involved is not at the same level as 

those listed in proposed 

§ 1926.1427(f)(2)(v)(A)–(D). 

Consequently, as reflected in proposed 

§ 1926.1427(f)(2)(v)(E), while there 

would be a general prohibition against 

a trainee/apprentice operating the 

equipment when multiple-lift rigging is 

involved, an exception would apply 

where the operator’s supervisor 

determined that the trainee/apprentice’s 

skills are sufficient for this high-skill 

work. 

Paragraph 1427(g) 

Proposed paragraph (g) would permit 

a testing entity to provide training as 

well as testing services as long as the 

criteria of the applicable accrediting 

agency (in the Option selected) for an 

organization providing both services are 

met. The Committee was aware of an 

impression among some people in the 

industry that a testing entity could not 

get accredited if it also provided 

training. However, after some research, 

the Committee determined that this was 

not a bar to accreditation if certain 

procedures were instituted. Specifically, 

an industry consensus standard, the 

International Organization for 

Standardization (‘‘ISO’’) 17024, 

addresses entities that offer 

certifications to individuals. It requires 

that no such entity offer training unless 

the entity can demonstrate that the 

training is independent of both 

evaluation and certification. This is 

intended to preserve both 

confidentiality and impartiality in the 

testing/certification process. 

Therefore, at least with respect to 

those accrediting agencies that apply the 

ISO standard, a testing entity may also 

conduct training as long as an adequate 

‘‘firewall’’ exists between the two 

functions. Proposed § 1926.1427(g) 

reflects the Committee’s intent to make 

clear that a testing entity is not be 

prohibited from providing training, as 

long as the applicable criteria have been 

met. 

Paragraph 1427(h) 

The Committee deliberated about the 

need for operators to be able to read to 

operate a crane safely and how some 

operators, even though they can read, 

nonetheless have difficulty taking 

written tests. The Committee believed 

that it is crucial for operators to be able 

to read the load chart and other 

manufacturer procedures for the 

equipment they operate. In its view, the 

failure to be able to read that 

information could result in injuries and 

fatalities through a wide variety of 

errors (for example, by overloading the 

crane as a result of exceeding the crane’s 

working radius, failing to deploy 

outriggers in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s instructions, or failing to 

apply a footnote in a load chart that 

explains that the capacity is lower when 

a particular configuration of the crane is 

used). 

However, the Committee recognized 

that some employees, while they have 

sufficient literacy to be able to read this 

type of material, for other reasons are 

unable to take written tests effectively. 

Therefore, under proposed 

§ 1926.1427(h), the written 

qualification/certification test could be 

administered verbally, with the answers 

given verbally, if two prerequisites are 

met. 

The first is that the qualification/ 

certification candidate pass a written 

demonstration of literacy relevant to the 

work (proposed § 1926.1427(h)(1)). The 

second is that the candidate 

demonstrate the ability to use the type 

of written manufacturer procedures 

applicable to the class/type of 

equipment for which the candidate is 

seeking qualification/certification 

(proposed § 1926.1427(h)(2)). These 

would typically include, for example, 

the load chart and operator’s manual for 

the crane the candidate would be 

operating. 

As reflected in the SBREFA Panel 

Report, some SERs expressed a concern 

that operators who are not proficient in 

English would not be able to meet either 

requirement. The Panel recommended 

that OSHA solicit comment on whether 

employers should be permitted to use 

manuals that have been re-written to 

accommodate the level of English 

proficiency (that is, lower level or lack 

of proficiency) of the operator. 

C–DAC considered this same concern 

in designing § 1926.1427(h). Neither the 

demonstration in § 1926.1427(h)(1) nor 

(h)(2) would necessarily have to be 

made in English as those provisions are 

currently drafted. As an example, under 

these proposed provisions, an employer 

could obtain a Spanish-language version 

of the load charts and operator’s manual 

from the manufacturer, and arrange to 

have the literacy test administered in 

Spanish. An operator able to meet the 

requirements of proposed 

§ 1926.1427(h) using these Spanish 

language materials would have 

demonstrated adequate literacy under 

the proposed rule. 

However, it may be necessary to 

modify proposed § 1926.1427(b)(1), (c) 

and (e) so that, in such instances, the 

qualification/certification is limited to 

the use of equipment that is equipped 

with such translated materials. In 

addition, there is an issue with respect 

to whether the rule needs to incorporate 

safeguards to ensure that a translation of 

manufacturer-supplied materials 

conveys the same information as in the 

original. OSHA requests comment on 

these issues. 

Some SERs also expressed a concern 

that many operators are not sufficiently 

literate in any language to meet the 

proposed requirements in 

§ 1926.1427(h)(1) and (h)(2). As 

discussed above, C–DAC determined 

that it is essential for ensuring safe 

crane operation that operators have 

sufficient literacy to read and 

comprehend written materials that 

relate to critical aspects of operation, 

such as load charts and manufacturer’s 

manuals. However, the Panel 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59817 

68The SBREFA Panel also recommended that 

OSHA ask for public comment on whether the 

standard should state more clearly that more 

limited training is required for operators of smaller 

capacity equipment than for more complex 

equipment. This recommendation is addressed 

below in the discussion of § 1926.1430, Training. 

recommended that OSHA solicit 

comment on whether employers should 

be permitted to use manuals that have 

been re-written to accommodate the 

literacy level of operators. 

The concept underlying this 

recommendation is that a lower level of 

literacy may be sufficient as long as that 

level still enables the operator to read 

and understand the simplified language 

(and perhaps greater use of illustrations) 

in the re-written manual. If this were to 

be allowed, it would be necessary to 

modify proposed § 1926.1427(b)(1), (c) 

and (e) so that the certification is 

limited to the use of equipment that is 

equipped with a suitably re-written 

manual. Another issue that such a 

change would raise is whether the rule 

would need to incorporate safeguards to 

ensure that the modified materials 

conveyed the same information as in the 

original, manufacturer-supplied 

materials. OSHA requests comment on 

the Panel’s recommendation and these 

related issues. 

Paragraph 1427(i) [Reserved.] 

Proposed paragraph (i) would be 

reserved because it is inconvenient for 

readers to determine whether ‘‘i’’ is 

being used as a letter or a roman 

numeral. 

Paragraph 1427(j) Certification Criteria 

Proposed paragraph (j) sets out the 

qualification and certification criteria 

applicable to the options described in 

proposed §§ 1926.1427(b)(1)(ii)(A), 

1926.1427(c)(1)(ii)(C), and 

1926.1427(e)(2)(iv). The Committee 

determined that these are the criteria 

needed to address the knowledge and 

skills that are fundamental to safe crane 

operation. As stated in the introductory 

language in proposed § 1926.1427(j), 

these would constitute ‘‘minimum’’ 

criteria; the accredited certifying 

entities, employers, or local or state 

licensing offices would not be 

precluded from adding additional 

requirements to their certification or 

qualification programs. 

Proposed paragraph (j)(1) describes 

the criteria that would have to be 

covered by the written examination 

portion of a qualification/certification 

program. As stated above in the 

discussion of examination 

administration, the written portion of 

the examination may be administered 

orally, so long as the candidate has 

demonstrated sufficient literacy relevant 

to the work (e.g., load charts and 

equipment manual). 

Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(i) states that 

the individual seeking qualification or 

certification must know ‘‘the 

information necessary for safe operation 

of the specific type of equipment the 

individual will operate * * *’’ As 

discussed above with respect to 

proposed § 1926.1427(b)(1)(ii)(B) 

(requirement that different levels of 

certification be provided, based on 

varying equipment capacities and 

types), during the SBREFA process, 

several SERs described situations in 

which an operator is very 

knowledgeable and skillful with respect 

to one particular model of crane, but has 

very limited knowledge and ability 

regarding other models and types of 

cranes. These SERs were concerned that 

such operators would be unable to 

obtain a certification based on 

equipment capacity and type. They 

believe that, since these operators are 

well qualified to operate a particular 

crane model, there should be a 

mechanism for them to become certified 

to operate that model. The Panel 

recommended that OSHA consider and 

solicit public comment on expanding 

the levels of certification so as to allow 

an operator to be certified on a specific 

brand’s model of crane. Consistent with 

the Panel’s recommendation, OSHA 

seeks public comment on this issue. 

Also, as discussed above with respect 

to proposed § 1926.1427(b)(1)(ii)(B), the 

SBREFA Panel received comments from 

some SERs suggesting that the standard 

should accommodate crane operators 

who were fully capable of operating 

particular equipment in a limited set of 

circumstances but who would be unable 

to pass certification tests that required 

knowledge and abilities beyond those 

circumstances. The Panel recommended 

that OSHA consider and solicit public 

comment on expanding the levels of 

operator qualification/certification to 

allow such operators to be certified for 

a specific, limited type of circumstance 

defined by a set of parameters that, 

taken together, would describe an 

operation characterized by simplicity 

and relatively low risk. In response to 

the Panel’s recommendation, OSHA 

requests public comment on whether 

such parameters could be identified in 

a way that would result in a clear, easily 

understood provision that could be 

effectively enforced.68

Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(i)(A) would 

require that the written examination 

address the candidate’s knowledge of 

the equipment controls and operational/ 

performance characteristics of the 

specific type of equipment. Operational/ 

performance characteristics would 

include, for example, the deflection 

characteristics of the boom, including 

how deflection affects the positioning of 

the load and the extent to which 

deflection varies with boom angle and 

length as well as load weight. Also, 

equipment with lattice/cable supported 

booms has different deflection 

characteristics than equipment with 

non-lattice booms (that is, hydraulic 

ram supported booms). Meeting these 

criteria would ensure that the person 

controlling the equipment would be 

able to make necessary judgments and 

adjustments for safe crane operation. 

Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(i)(B) was 

included to ensure that operators would 

be able to use load capacity information 

on a variety of configurations of the 

capacity and type of equipment. Such 

information is typically contained in 

load charts and manuals. This would 

ensure that the operator would be able 

to accurately determine, independently, 

the capacity of the equipment in each 

situation that he/she might encounter. 

The Committee believed that this ability 

is critical to helping prevent injuries 

and fatalities caused by overloading the 

equipment. 

The Committee considered whether it 

is also necessary for the operator to be 

able to use the load information without 

the aid of a calculator. It determined 

that calculators are now so commonly 

available and used that it is not 

necessary for the operator to be able to 

use the load information without one. 

Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(i)(C) 

addresses the need for crane operators 

to know how to prevent power line 

contact. In the Committee’s experience, 

electrocutions and electrical injuries are 

typically caused when the operator 

unintentionally brings the boom, load 

line or load in electrical contact with a 

power line. Operator knowledge of the 

procedures that are necessary for 

preventing such contact (see the 

discussions of proposed §§ 1926.1407 

through 1926.1411 above) is essential 

for preventing these injuries and 

fatalities. 

Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(i)(C) also 

addresses the need for crane operators 

to know how to respond to a power line 

contact if one occurs. For example, the 

Committee determined that some 

electrocutions of operators occur while 

an operator attempts to exit the 

equipment. After realizing that the 

equipment is in electrical contact with 

a power line, the operator is 

electrocuted when he/she creates a 

grounding path by touching the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59818 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

69Note that, as provided in proposed 

§ 1926.1408(g)(1)(i)(A) on power line safety, 

operators must be aware of the danger of 

electrocution if they simultaneously touch 

energized equipment and the ground. They must 

also, pursuant to proposed § 1926.1408(g)(1)(i)(B), 

be trained to understand that when the equipment 

makes electrical contact with a power line, the 

operator’s safety requires him or her to remain 

inside the cab except where there is an imminent 

danger of fire, explosion, or other emergency that 

necessitates their leaving the cab. 

equipment while stepping on the 

ground.69

Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(i)(D) 

addresses the need for crane operators 

to have technical knowledge on a range 

of subjects that, if not sufficiently 

understood, could cause injuries and 

fatalities. The list of subjects in 

proposed Non-Mandatory Appendix E 

of this subpart serves as an example of 

that set of knowledge. The Committee 

believed that a degree of flexibility 

should be accorded in terms of what 

specific subjects need to be included. 

For example, a subject relevant only to 

an extensible boom crane would not 

need to be covered for a certification for 

a traditional lattice boom crane. 

Therefore, the proposed provision states 

that the testing criteria must include 

technical knowledge ‘‘similar’’ to the 

subject matter criteria listed in 

Appendix E of this subpart. To 

accommodate those who have less of a 

need for such flexibility and more of a 

need for specificity in this regard, the 

proposed provision also makes clear 

that, when the subjects listed in 

Appendix E are used, the requirements 

of the provision would be met. 

In addition to the technical 

knowledge that would be required 

under proposed § 1926.1427(j)(1)(i)(D), 

technical knowledge applicable to three 

specific subjects would also be required 

under proposed § 1926.1427(j)(1)(i)(E). 

Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(i)(E)(1) 

would require that an operator be able 

to demonstrate sufficient knowledge of 

how to assess ground conditions to 

identify potential hazards. The operator 

would therefore be able to assess ground 

conditions through inspection, and 

would also be aware of the potential for 

unseen hazards such as sewers, water 

mains, and other underground 

installations or conditions that might 

affect the ability of the ground to 

support the equipment and expected 

load. 

Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(i)(E)(2) 

would require operators to demonstrate 

sufficient knowledge of site hazards so 

that the operator would be able to 

identify them and understand their 

significance to safe operation of the 

equipment. Examples of typical site 

hazards include electrical hazards posed 

by underground electrical or cable lines 

and aboveground telephone poles and 

power lines, and ground-support 

hazards posed by manholes, drains and 

trenches, which can lead to tip-overs. 

Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(i)(E)(3) 

would require operators to demonstrate 

sufficient technical knowledge to ensure 

that conditions at the entrance to the 

site are sufficient to enable the 

equipment to travel safely onto the site. 

For example, where equipment must 

descend or ascend a dirt ramp, the 

operator needs to be able to assess the 

effect of the ramp’s steepness and to 

detect signs of instability. 

Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(i)(F) would 

require operators to demonstrate a 

thorough knowledge of this subpart, 

including incorporated materials. The 

Committee believed that operators play 

a key role in the application of these 

requirements and it is therefore 

essential that they understand them. 

Proposed paragraph (j)(1)(ii) is 

intended to ensure that operators have 

the ability, at a minimum, to 

demonstrate sufficient literacy to locate 

and understand information both in the 

equipment manual as well as in other 

sources which address the information 

discussed in proposed 

§ 1926.1427(j)(1)(i)(A) through 

(j)(1)(i)(F). Since the Committee 

determined that safe crane operation 

depends on applying that information, 

the operator needs to be able to locate 

and understand it. 

Proposed paragraph (j)(2) would 

require a practical test and sets criteria 

for such a test. Safe crane operation 

depends on an operator having 

sufficient skill to operate the equipment 

safely. The Committee felt that a 

successful demonstration of ability to 

perform the operations discussed below 

is essential to ensuring that the operator 

will be able to apply the requisite 

knowledge in the field. The practical 

test under this proposed paragraph 

would be conducted using equipment of 

the capacity and type for which the 

candidate seeks certification. 

Proposed paragraph (j)(2)(i) would 

require an operator to demonstrate the 

ability to recognize, from visual and 

audible observation, the items listed in 

proposed paragraph § 1926.1412(d)(shift 

inspection). Irrespective of whether the 

operator or someone else conducts the 

shift inspection, the operator needs to 

be able to recognize apparent 

deficiencies associated with these parts 

and mechanisms. First, the operator 

needs to be able to identify indications 

of safety problems that may arise after 

the shift inspection has been completed. 

In addition, this ability is important 

since the operator needs to be able to 

effectively exercise his/her authority 

under proposed § 1926.1418, Authority 

to stop operation to stop lifting 

operations (see discussion of that 

proposed section above). 

Proposed paragraph (j)(2)(ii) addresses 

the need for operators to have 

demonstrated proficiency with 

operational and maneuvering skills. 

Lack of such proficiency could result in 

a wide range of accidents that could 

cause injuries or fatalities. For example, 

without this level of skill, the operator 

could unintentionally exceed the 

crane’s capacity (such as by booming 

out too far) and overturn the equipment, 

make electrical contact with power 

lines, or cause struck-by injuries and 

fatalities (such as by losing a load or 

losing control of the load). 

Proposed paragraph (j)(2)(iii) requires 

that the operator demonstrate the ability 

to apply load chart information. The 

Committee believed that if an operator 

is unable to apply load chart 

information, there is a significantly 

heightened risk of the crane 

overturning. This is because an operator 

without this ability may fail to keep the 

crane within the required operational 

parameters called for by the load chart 

(for example, by failing to recognize that 

proceeding with the lift will result in 

exceeding the maximum allowable 

boom radius as specified in the load 

chart). 

As with proposed paragraph (j)(2)(i) 

(ability to recognize inspection items), 

this ability is also important since the 

operator needs to be able to effectively 

exercise his/her authority under 

proposed § 1926.1418 (Authority to stop 

operation) to stop lifting operations (see 

discussion of that proposed section 

above). For example, if the only way to 

land the load with the crane in its 

current position would be to exceed the 

allowable radius specified in the chart, 

the operator would need to be able to 

recognize that this would happen and 

stop the lift. 

Proposed paragraph (j)(2)(iv) would 

require that an operator be able to shut 

down and secure equipment safely. This 

ability is necessary to ensure that the 

shut down procedure is done safely and 

the equipment is properly secured to 

prevent unintended movement of the 

equipment after shut down. 

Paragraph 1427(k) Phase-In 

Under proposed paragraph (k), the 

qualification/certification requirements 

in proposed § 1926.1427 would not 

become effective until four years after 

the effective date of the final rule. The 

Committee believed that this four year 

period would provide time for operators 

to get additional training (where 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59819 

needed) to prepare them for the testing, 

for additional testing organizations to 

become accredited for purposes of 

Option 1 (proposed § 1926.1427(b)), for 

additional organizations to become 

nationally recognized accrediting 

agencies, for employers (who so choose) 

to develop audited programs for use 

under Option 2 (proposed 

§ 1926.1427(c)), for accredited testing 

organizations to develop programs to 

certify auditors as described under 

Option 2, and for state and local 

government entities (who so choose) to 

make preparations to meet the criteria 

under Option 4 (proposed 

§ 1926.1427(e)). It would also give 

employers time to plan which of the 

qualification/certification options 

would be most suitable for them. 

Under proposed paragraph (k)(1), 

during this four year period, proposed 

paragraphs § 1926.1427(k)(1)(i) and (ii) 

would address operator qualifications 

and training. Specifically, proposed 

§ 1926.1427(k)(1)(i) would require that 

operators be competent for the purposes 

of operating the equipment safely. This 

would require that the operator have the 

requisite knowledge and skill to 

identify, anticipate, and avoid actions 

which could result in hazardous 

conditions related to the equipment and 

job site. 

Proposed paragraph (k)(1)(ii) would 

require employers to ensure that 

operators who do not already have 

sufficient knowledge or skill to operate 

the equipment safely undergo training 

prior to engaging in operations. In 

addition, the employer would be 

required to ensure that the operator is 

evaluated to confirm that he/she 

understands the information provided 

in the training. These interim measures 

are not significantly different from 

current requirements under Subpart N 

of this part, § 1926.20(b)(4) (‘‘the 

employer shall permit only those 

employees qualified by training or 

experience to operate equipment and 

machinery’’) and § 1926.21(b)(2) (‘‘the 

employer shall instruct each employee 

in the recognition and avoidance of 

unsafe conditions * * * ’’). However, 

they would ensure that there would not 

be a gap with respect to this issue 

between the termination of the 

requirements under Subpart N of this 

part and the effective date of proposed 

§ 1926.1427(a) through (j) and (m). The 

four-year phase-in period discussed 

above is set out in proposed 

§ 1926.1427(k)(2). 

Paragraph 1427(l) [Reserved.] 

Proposed paragraph (l) would be 

reserved because of the inconvenience 

that would result from the use of ‘‘l’’ 

both as a small Arabic numeral and as 

the letter ‘‘l.’’ 

Paragraph 1427(m) Definitions 

Proposed paragraph (m) defines two 

terms used in the qualification/ 

certification provisions in 

§ 1926.1427(b) through (e) (addressed 

above). Proposed § 1926.1427(m)(1) 

explains that, if an operator has a 

‘‘portable’’ certification, any employer 

may rely on that certification. The 

employer of an operator who carries a 

portable certification (which can be 

obtained only through the method 

described in proposed § 1926.1427(b)) 

has ensured that the operator has been 

qualified or certified, and has met the 

requirements of proposed 

§ 1926.1427(a). 

Proposed paragraph (m)(2) explains 

that, if an operator has a qualification 

that is ‘‘not portable,’’ only the 

employer who issued that qualification 

may rely on it for purposes of meeting 

the requirements of proposed 

§ 1926.1427(a). As discussed above, 

OSHA is considering adding a third 

definition for the term ‘‘employee of the 

U.S. military’’ (see the discussion above 

of proposed § 1926.1427(d)). 

Dissenting View of C–DAC Member 

Brian H. Murphy 

Under the C–DAC ground rules 

(OSHA–S030–2006–0663, Ex. 36–1–8), 

the Committee reaches consensus if no 

more than two non-federal members 

dissent on a particular issue. The 

ground rules also provide that, upon the 

request of a dissenting member, OSHA 

will include the member’s reasons for 

dissenting in the preamble to the 

proposed rule. Two members of C–DAC, 

Mr. Brian H. Murphy and Mr. Craig 

Steel, dissented from the Committee’s 

draft of proposed § 1427. Mr. Murphy 

asked that his reasons for dissenting be 

included in the preamble, and provided 

them in the letter reprinted below 

(OSHA–2007–0066–0007). Note that, 

pursuant to the ground rules, OSHA has 

not reprinted comments in the letter 

regarding issues upon which the 

member did not dissent. 

Dear Deputy Assistant Secretary Snare: 

Thank you for providing an opportunity for 

the Associated General Contractors of 

America (AGC) to serve on the Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA’s) 

Crane and Derrick Advisory Committee (C– 

DAC). AGC welcomed and appreciated the 

chance to explore OSHA’s several options for 

a new standard on cranes and derricks with 

the other knowledgeable members of that 

committee. In addition, it was a personal 

privilege for me to represent AGC’s 33,000 

members. 

AGC is a nationwide trade association of 

general contractors, specialty contractors, 

material suppliers, equipment dealers and 

other firms that collectively form the core of 

the construction industry. The association 

was formed in 1918 at the express request of 

President Woodrow Wilson, and today, AGC 

maintains a network of 98 state and local 

chapters throughout the United States. Its 

members engage in the construction of 

commercial buildings, factories, warehouses, 

highways, bridges, airports, waterworks 

facilities, waste treatment facilities, dams, 

water conservation projects, defense facilities 

and multi-family housing projects, and on 

site preparation and utilities installation for 

housing development. 

AGC shares and strongly supports OSHA’s 

mission. While AGC occasionally disagrees 

with OSHA’s views on the best and most 

effective means and methods of improving 

construction safety and health, AGC is and 

will remain equally committed to that goal. 

Indeed, from its very inception, AGC has 

taken a great interest in the safety and health 

of construction workers. Its bylaws expressly 

provide that ‘‘[t]he members of [AGC] shall 

work to develop good relations with 

employees * * * and shall make every effort 

to provide safe working conditions on 

construction projects and to promote safe 

working habits by their employees. 

AGC has long taken a very proactive 

approach to construction safety and health. 

Over the last 15 years, AGC has produced 

over 100 videos and publications on the 

various practices and procedures that may be 

necessary, on any given jobsite, to protect 

construction workers from occupational 

injury or illness. Each year, AGC sponsors 

two nationwide safety award programs. 

Regularly, AGC also offers safety 

management training courses and other 

safety training programs. In 2003, AGC used 

a Susan Harwood Training Grant to train 

1,800 construction workers on OSHA’s new 

steel erection standard. In 2004, AGC will 

use a third grant to train another 600 

construction workers on fall protection. AGC 

was proud to receive these grants, and today, 

AGC is even prouder that an overwhelming 

number of its trainees gave these programs 

excellent reviews. These efforts demonstrate 

AGC’s commitment to partnering with OSHA 

to make construction work-sites safer. 

AGC also supports OSHA’s very specific 

effort to set new standards for the men and 

women operating cranes and derricks. AGC 

agrees that systematically increasing the 

knowledge and improving the skill of these 

construction workers will reduce the number 

of accidents involving cranes and derricks 

and limit the closely related risks of injury. 

Long before serving on C–DAC, AGC 

collaborated with the St. Paul Companies on 

an exemplary training program on the 

essentials of crane safety. AGC also signed a 

cooperative agreement with the National 

Commission for the Certification of Crane 

Operators (NCCCO), recognizing the 

‘‘importance of safe crane operations on our 

nation’s construction sites’’ and ‘‘the CCO 

written and practical examination is a 

method of documenting the qualifications 

criteria outlined in ASME B30.5–3.1–1995, 

‘‘Qualifications for and Conduct of Operators 

and Operating Practices.’’ 

As a member of C–DAC, fully committed 

to its goals and objectives, AGC worked long 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59820 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

and hard to find common ground with the 

other members of that group. At the end of 

the day, both AGC and the others did reach 

agreement on a vast majority of the issues 

that the group had to confront. The group 

wrote forty-two sections and two appendices 

into the new standard that it proposed to 

OSHA, developing a document that totaled 

one-hundred-nineteen pages in length. 

During its deliberations, the group reached 

agreement on forty-one of those sections and 

both appendices, which collectively 

accounted for one-hundred-twelve of the 

pages of text. On only one of the sections, 

and only seven pages of the text, did 

everyone fail to agree. On only that one 

section, and those few pages of text, did AGC 

find it necessary to part company with the 

others. (Endnote 1). 

AGC would not, however, suggest that the 

disagreement was a trivial one. Quite to the 

contrary, AGC believes that the disagreement 

was a serious one that OSHA needs to 

address. C–DAC accomplished most but not 

all of its mission. It is now incumbent upon 

OSHA to correct the one significant error that 

C–DAC made. 

The disagreement between AGC and the 

other members of the committee was over 

section 1427 of the committee’s proposal. 

That section is entitled ‘‘Operator 

qualification and certification.’’ In paragraph 

(a), it requires an employer to ‘‘ensure’’ that 

its crane and derrick operators are either: 

• ‘‘Qualified or certified * * * in 

accordance with’’ one of four procedures, 

found in the following paragraphs (b), (c), (d) 

and (e); or 

• ‘‘Operating the equipment during a 

training period in accordance with paragraph 

(f) 

Paragraph (b) of section 1427 provides for 

‘‘[c]ertification by an accredited crane/ 

derrick operator testing organization.’’ 

Paragraph (c) provides for ‘‘[q]ualification by 

an audited employer program.’’ Paragraph (d) 

provides for ‘‘[q]ualification by the U.S. 

military.’’ And paragraph (e) provides for 

‘‘[l]icensing by a government entity.’’ 

(Endnote 2) 

AGC opposes section 1427 primarily 

because its requirements for the qualification 

and certification of crane and derrick 

operators are too restrictive. For many and 

perhaps the vast majority of construction 

contractors, none of the four options for 

operator qualification or certification are 

practical to pursue. At the same time, section 

1427 omits several requirements that would 

far more directly affect crane and derrick 

safety. If adopted as currently written, 

section 1427 would disrupt the construction 

industry and might actually hinder the broad 

effort necessary to ensure that crane and 

derrick operators are knowledgeable, 

competent and well prepared, every day, to 

perform their work. 

Following are AGC’s more specific 

comments on each of the four options that 

Section 1427 provides, on the risks that this 

provision would create for any employer that 

chose to implement an operator training 

program, and on several significant 

omissions from the proposed standard. 

Certification by an Accredited Crane/Derrick 

Operator Testing Organization 

While less restrictive than paragraph (d), 

paragraph (b) fails to provide an option for 

many and perhaps most of the small to 

medium-sized firms that dominate the 

construction industry. Paragraph (b) would 

permit employers to engage third parties to 

test and certify their crane and derrick 

operators, but in the process, paragraph (b) 

would severely restrict the number of 

organizations qualified to perform those 

tasks. The proposed standard would permit 

employers to rely on only those organizations 

‘‘accredited by a nationally recognized 

accrediting agency.’’ 

To the best of AGC’s knowledge, 

information and belief, only two 

organizations are ‘‘accrediting’’ agencies 

within the meaning and for the purposes of 

Section 1427, and only one of the two 

agencies has actually accredited any other 

organization to test and certify crane and 

derrick operators. During the lengthy 

deliberations among the members of C–DAC, 

the National Commission for Certifying 

Agencies (NCCA) and the American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI) were the only two 

organizations said to be such ‘‘accrediting’’ 

agencies. The NCCA was the only one of the 

two said to have actually accredited any 

other organization to test and certify 

operators. 

To make matters worse, it was 

acknowledged and agreed that the NCCCO is 

the only testing organization that the NCCA 

has accredited. If other organizations are also 

accredited to test and certify crane and 

derrick operators, within the meaning and for 

the purposes of Section 1427, then neither 

the other members of C–DAC nor OSHA 

identified them, and AGC is unaware of 

them. 

AGC would emphasize that it holds the 

NCCCO in high regard. As already 

mentioned, AGC has gone so far as to sign 

a cooperative agreement with the NCCCO. 

Nevertheless, AGC doubts that the NCCCO 

could meet the enormous demand that 

section 1427 would generate for crane and 

derrick operator testing and certification. If 

adopted, Section 1427 would take that 

demand to an entirely new level. It should 

be noted that NCCCO has largely succeeded 

in meeting the much more limited demand 

for voluntary certification. 

In fairness, AGC believes that other 

members of C–DAC harbor the same doubt. 

Something had to motivate the authors of 

section 1427 to include paragraph (k), 

delaying the mandate for operator testing and 

certification for four years. It is certainly 

possible that the other members of C–DAC 

supported section 1427 in the belief that 

other testing organizations would use this 

time to seek accreditation—in the hope of 

profiting on a dramatic increase in the 

demand for operator testing and certification. 

The problem is that neither the other 

members of C–DAC nor OSHA undertook any 

study of the costs that such organizations 

would have to incur to qualify for 

accreditation, or to provide testing or 

certification services on the massive scale 

that section 1427 contemplates. Nor did the 

other members identify the sources of capital 

that these other testing organizations would 

require, or the prices they would have to 

charge for their services, or how they could 

even begin to sustain themselves until testing 

and certification became mandatory. There 

were no business plans or business models 

for either the committee or OSHA to review. 

It might be appealing to suppose that future 

demand for testing and certification would 

call forth the necessary supply, but it would 

remain little more than speculation. There is 

no factual record to support any such 

conclusions. 

However logical it may be, AGC maintains 

that OSHA cannot simply suppose that the 

supply of the necessary services would 

materialize. The stakes are much too great. If 

other testing organizations did not enter the 

market, or they subsequently failed for 

financial or other reasons, or they simply 

found it necessary to charge more than most 

contractors could bear, the construction 

industry could quickly find itself in gridlock. 

AGC also doubts the wisdom of giving any 

private organization—whether the NCCA, 

ANSI, the NCCCO or any other accrediting 

agencies or testing organization—such a 

dominant role in the implementation of a 

federal regulation. Section 1427 would set 

minimal standards for accreditation, leaving 

most of that process in private hands. OSHA 

would not have any direct oversight over (or 

other relationship with) any testing 

organization. The agency would be two steps 

removed from that process. 

Qualification by an Audited Employer 

Program 

Paragraph (c) also fails to provide an 

option for many and perhaps most 

construction companies. That provision 

would permit an employer to test and qualify 

its own employees to operate cranes and 

derricks, but only if inter alia (1) the 

employer’s written and practical tests were 

‘‘developed by an accredited crane/derrick 

operator testing organization,’’ (2) the 

employer’s ‘‘program’’ were approved by an 

auditor ‘‘certified,’’ in turn, by such an 

organization, and (3) the ‘‘circumstances’’ 

under which the employer administered the 

tests were also approved by such an auditor. 

As noted, the NCCCO appears to be the 

only ‘‘accredited crane/derrick operator 

testing organization’’ at this time. AGC 

doubts that small or medium-sized 

construction contractors would have the 

resources necessary to self-administer the 

NCCCO’s written and practical tests, 

particularly ‘‘under circumstances * * * 

meeting nationally recognized test 

administration standards.’’ In addition, it 

appears that neither the NCCCO nor any 

other testing organizations would have any 

business incentive to develop a large pool of 

certified auditors. To the contrary, they 

would have an obvious interest in 

maintaining the demand for their own testing 

services, and their own certifications. 

Nothing in the proposed standard would 

compel or even encourage the NCCCO or any 

other testing organization to help 

construction employers develop practical 

alternatives. 

Further eroding paragraph (c) are 

provisions that would require the employer 

to have its ‘‘program’’ re-audited every three 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59821 

years, and suspend the employer’s 

‘‘program’’ for any ‘‘significant deficiency.’’ 

Though it would expressly forbid the auditor 

of the employer’s program to be the 

employer’s employee—and therefore subject 

to the employer’s control—paragraph (c) 

would also render the employer liable for the 

auditor’s failure to file a ‘‘documented 

report’’ of any ‘‘significant deficiency’’ to 

OSHA within 15 days, to maintain records of 

his or her audits for three years, or to make 

such records available to the U.S. Department 

of Labor. 

For all of these reasons, AGC believes that 

paragraph (c) would not be a practical and 

dependable option for any significant 

number of construction employers. 

Qualification by the U.S. Military 

As a threshold matter, paragraph (d) is 

limited to the men and women in uniform. 

By its terms, it is ‘‘[n]ot portable,’’ meaning 

that it ‘‘meets the requirements of paragraph 

(a) only where the operator is employed by 

(and operating the equipment for) the 

employer that issued the qualification.’’ See 

Section 1427(m). To any operator to which 

paragraph (d) might apply, the military 

would be ‘‘the employer that issued the 

qualification.’’ It follows that any operator 

qualified by the military would be qualified 

to operate a crane or derrick only for the 

military. (Endnote 3). 

Licensing by a Government Entity 

Whether paragraph (e) provided any 

practical option for construction contractors 

would depend entirely on how state and 

local governments responded to it. This 

provision would permit employers to use 

state or local government agencies to test and 

license their crane and derrick operators. 

Employers, however, could use only the 

government agencies that had volunteered to 

perform those tasks. 

In some ways, paragraph (e) is superior to 

paragraphs (b) and (c). The state or local 

agency would have to be the one that 

‘‘issue[d] operator licenses for operating 

[relevant] equipment,’’ and it would have to 

qualify for accreditation as a ‘‘government 

accredited crane/derrick operator testing 

organization.’’ But the ‘‘government authority 

that overs[aw]’’ the agency, and not any 

private entity, would determine whether the 

agency met the substantive criteria for 

accreditation. Unlike paragraphs (b) and (c), 

paragraph (e) makes no direct or indirect 

reference to a ‘‘nationally recognized 

accrediting agency.’’ 

Paragraph (e) does not, however, go far 

enough to save Section 1427. It would not— 

and probably could not—require any state or 

local agency to test or license operators. It 

would not—and probably could not—provide 

any positive incentives for any such agency 

to perform those tasks. It would not—and 

probably could not—even reimburse any 

government agency that volunteered to 

perform those tasks. 

Many state and local budgets are already 

tight, and neither OSHA nor other members 

of C–DAC have given AGC any reason to 

expect that any significant number of state or 

local agencies would be likely to step 

forward. AGC believes that some would do 

so but doubts that the number would be high 

enough, or their distribution broad enough, 

to meet what would be a truly nationwide 

demand for the testing and certification of 

crane and derrick operators. A government 

license issued under paragraph (e) would 

satisfy section 1427 ‘‘only within the 

jurisdiction’’ of the agency that issued it, and 

at best, AGC would expect an irrational 

patchwork of options for crane and derrick 

operators and their employers across the 

country. 

Operator Training 

AGC also believes that Section 1427 would 

put employers that provided hands-on 

training for crane or derrick operators at great 

and ultimately uncontrollable risk of liability 

for any accidents that their trainees or 

apprentices might cause, and could become 

a legal deterrent to such training. The 

relevant paragraph of the proposed standard 

is paragraph (f), entitled ‘‘Pre-qualification/ 

certification training period.’’ In 

subparagraph (f)(2)(i), that provision states 

that a trainee or apprentice ‘‘shall be 

provided with sufficient training prior to 

operating the equipment to enable the trainee 

to operate the equipment safely* * *’’ In 

subparagraph (f)(2)(ii), that provision adds 

that ‘‘[t]he tasks performed by the trainee/ 

apprentice while operating the equipment 

shall be within the trainee’s ability.’’ In 

subparagraph (f)(2)(iv)(C), that provision 

further provides that ‘‘[t]he specific tasks that 

the trainee/apprentice will perform during 

[any fifteen minute] break’’ that his or her 

supervisor may take ‘‘are within the trainee/ 

apprentice’s abilities.’’ 

If these were merely statements of 

principle, AGC would wholeheartedly 

support them. AGC completely agrees that 

trainees and apprentices should have any 

prior training that they require to operate the 

equipment safely. AGC completely agrees 

that all tasks that a trainee or apprentice 

actually performs—at any time—should be 

within his or her ability. 

The problem is that these would be legal 

requirements, and not merely goals to which 

contractors should aspire. As written, they 

would render contractors legally liable not 

for failing to make every reasonable effort— 

or even every conceivable effort—to provide 

such prior training, or to limit the tasks that 

a trainee or apprentice actually performed. In 

substance and effect, paragraph (f) would 

render contractors strictly liable for outcomes 

that contractors could not guarantee. If a 

trainee or apprentice caused an accident, it 

would necessarily follow that the individual 

did not have prior training ‘‘sufficient’’ to 

operate the equipment safely. It would also 

follow that the trainee or apprentice had 

actually performed a task not ‘‘within’’ his or 

her ‘‘ability.’’ 

Neither construction workers nor their 

supervisors are any less human than anyone 

else. No one can guarantee that others will 

not make mistakes, or that they will always 

follow instructions. Nor is an individual’s 

prior training, or his or her current abilities, 

something that one can measure with great 

precision. Of course, all construction 

contractors should make a very strong effort 

to prevent accidents. The human toll of any 

accident involving a crane or derrick can 

easily exceed anything that anyone would 

ever want to bear. Holding employers strictly 

liable for any accident that a trainee or 

apprentice may cause would, however, 

punish the good as well as the bad actors, 

and in the end, AGC fears that it would 

discourage useful training and hinder the 

effort to protect construction workers. One 

could well expect employers to provide no 

more than the minimum training necessary to 

satisfy the proposed standard, and whenever 

feasible, to engage third parties to perform 

that function. 

Significant Omissions From the Proposed 

Standard 

AGC also encourages OSHA to reconsider 

the broader question that Section 1427 raises. 

At the heart of that provision lies the 

assumption that elaborate procedures for 

testing and certifying crane and derrick 

operators would have benefits commensurate 

with their cost. The proposed requirements 

for such testing and certification are above 

and beyond the broader training 

requirements that C–DAC embedded—with 

AGC’s concurrence—in Section 1430. In 

many other instances, OSHA requires 

employers to train their employees, and even 

to ensure that the individuals employed to 

perform certain functions are ‘‘competent 

persons.’’ In these other instances, OSHA has 

not, however, found it necessary to go so far 

as to require sophisticated testing and formal 

certification. 

Paragraph (k) of Section 1427 contemplates 

a four-year ‘‘phase-in’’ for the testing and 

certification procedures, and indeed, for that 

substantial phase-in period, even the authors 

of Section 1427 considered it sufficient to 

require operators ‘‘to be competent,’’ to ‘‘be 

provided the necessary training,’’ and to be 

‘‘evaluated to confirm that he/she 

understands the information provided in the 

training.’’ Under these circumstances, AGC 

would consider it more than fair to request 

that OSHA take a hard look at the actual 

costs and benefits of ever going beyond 

paragraph (k)—to the point of requiring 

testing and certification by third parties 

beyond the federal government’s supervision 

or direct control. (Endnote 4). 

AGC would simply add that the costs of 

the proposed testing and certification could 

be social as well as financial. The 

construction workforce is not entire Englishspeaking. AGC is also concerned that Section 

1427 could have the unintended but clearly 

detrimental effect of limiting employment 

opportunities for competent crane operators 

who do not speak English. AGC is unaware 

of any organization that currently provides 

nationally recognized testing for crane or 

derrick operators in any language other than 

English. 

* * * * * 

Conclusion 

In closing, AGC would like to thank you 

for the opportunity to serve on C–DAC. Crane 

and derrick safety is extremely important to 

AGC’s members, and the association greatly 

appreciated the chance to participate in the 

committee’s deliberations. 

In the end, C–DAC succeeded in reaching 

agreement on all but one of the provisions 

included in the standard that the committee 

proposed to OSHA. AGC could not support 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59822 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

70See Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 

109 S. Ct. 1402 (1989) and International 

that one provision because it is too 

restrictive. AGC supported the proposed 

requirements for the training of crane and 

derrick operators, and AGC could even 

support a carefully tailored and clear 

requirement that construction contractors 

employ ‘‘competent’’ operators for their 

cranes and derricks. AGC is far less certain 

that the benefits of mandating elaborate 

procedures for the sophisticated testing and 

formal certification of crane and derrick 

operators would ever outweigh the great cost 

of doing so. 

* * * * * 

AGC supports OSHA’s effort to improve 

crane and derrick safety, and believes that C– 

DAC has greatly contributed to that effort, but 

maintains that Section 1427 of the proposed 

standard requires serious reconsideration. 

Sincerely, 

/S/ 

Brian H. Murphy, P.E., C.S.P. AGC C–DAC 

Representative. 

Endnote 1: On that one section, the 

National Association of Home Builders also 

parted company with the other members of 

the committee. 

Endnote 2: Presumably, the authors of this 

provision intended to equate ‘‘licensing’’ 

with ‘‘qualification’’ or ‘‘certification.’’ 

Endnote 3: AGC has received reports that 

some members of C–DAC were led to believe 

that a military certification would be valid 

for a construction contractor working for the 

military on a military installation. The 

wording of paragraph (d) is, however, clear 

and makes no reference to military projects 

or installations, or to the contractors 

construction such projects at such locations. 

By the express and unambiguous terms of 

paragraph (d), a military certification is 

‘‘[n]ot portable’’ and in paragraph (m) by 

definition applies ‘‘only where the operator 

is employed by (and operating the equipment 

for) the employer that issued the 

certification.’’ 

Nor is it clear that OSHA could justify such 

awkwardly limited portability for military 

certifications. If OSHA rewrote paragraph (d) 

to provide for portability then whether a 

construction contractor could use a military 

certification to satisfy section 1427 would 

depend entirely on (1) whether the project 

owner is a branch of the military and (2) 

whether the project is located on a military 

installation. Those two factors would not, 

however, have any obvious bearing on the 

merits of the process that the military used 

to certify crane or derrick operators, or the 

knowledge or skills that such operators 

actually possessed. AGC cannot readily 

identify any rational basis for rendering a 

military certification portable to a contractor 

working for the military project on one of its 

installations but not portable to even the 

same contractor when working for a different 

owner, or simply across the street. 

In any event, paragraph (d) could not begin 

to solve the larger problem. Even if it 

provided for portability to construction 

contractors working for the military on 

military installations, paragraph (d) would 

remain far too limited to provide an option 

for the overwhelming majority of 

construction contractors. The military and its 

installations account for only a small fraction 

of the contractors and projects that the new 

standard would cover. 

Endnote 4: AGC would also encourage 

OSHA to compare paragraph (k) with other 

standards that require construction 

contractors to employ ‘‘competent persons’’ 

to perform certain functions. AGC believes 

that many if not most of those other 

provisions define the required competence 

far more precisely. AGC presumes that 

paragraph (k) refers to competence in dealing 

with the various subjects listed in paragraph 

(j) of section 1427, or perhaps paragraph (c) 

of Section 1430, but paragraph (k) of section 

1427 does not cross-reference either of those 

other provisions or otherwise define the 

required competence. Nor does it define the 

‘‘required training.’’ 

[End of Murphy comments.] 

OSHA notes that Mr. Murphy 

indicated in his letter that proposed 

§ 1926.1427 would apply to derricks. 

However, under paragraph (q) of 

proposed §§ 1926.1436 Derricks, 

§ 1926.1427 would not apply to 

derricks. This is explained in more 

detail below in the discussion on 

proposed § 1926.1436. 

Operator qualification/certification 

was the only section of the C–DAC 

document for which there were 

dissenting committee members (as 

noted above, two members dissented: 

Mr. Murphy and Mr. Steele). In his 

letter, Mr. Murphy addressed a number 

of issues associated with this subject, 

such as questioning the need for, and 

practicality of, limiting an employer’s 

operator qualification/certification 

options to those that require the 

involvement of independent third 

parties. There was considerable 

discussion by C–DAC on this subject 

and its many associated issues, 

including the degree of portability of a 

qualification/certification. The Agency 

requests public comment on these 

issues. 

Physical Qualifications and Substance 

Abuse Testing 

Physical Qualifications 

Section 5–3.1 of ANSI B30.5–1968 

contains criteria for operator vision and 

hearing, disqualification for a ‘‘history 

of epilepsy’’ or a ‘‘disabling heart 

condition,’’ and a general statement that 

‘‘when he is physically or mentally 

unfit, an operator shall not engage in the 

operation of his equipment.’’ Subpart N 

at § 1926.550(b)(2) states that ‘‘all 

crawler, truck, or locomotive cranes in 

use shall meet the applicable 

requirements for design, inspection, 

construction, testing, maintenance and 

operation as prescribed in the ANSI 

B30.5–1968 * * *.’’ 

In a May 8, 1981 letter of 

interpretation to Mr. A. Bennett Hill Jr. 

(OSHA–2007–0066–0016), OSHA stated 

that: 

It is the interpretation of OSHA that the 

physical qualifications requirements 

incorporated by reference in 29 CFR 

1926.550 do not apply to operators of 

equipment covered by those standards. 

In other words, OSHA interpreted the 

incorporation by reference in 

§ 1926.550(b)(2) for ‘‘operation’’ as 

referring to how the crane was to be 

operated, not to who was operating it. 

The Agency therefore has taken the 

position that the incorporation by 

reference excludes the physical criteria 

listed above. 

C–DAC considered whether to 

include in this proposed standard 

provisions that would require 

equipment operators to meet particular 

physical qualifications. After 

considering various possible 

approaches, including those in current 

industry consensus standards, the 

Committee decided that it would be 

very difficult, and likely unnecessary, to 

identify minimum physical 

requirements that would be appropriate. 

First, the physical demands of 

equipment vary significantly depending 

on the type and, in some cases, age of 

the equipment. For example, some 

equipment is operated largely by 

electronic controls. In contrast, older 

‘‘friction cranes’’ have pedal controls 

that can require significant strength and 

stamina to operate. Some equipment is 

air conditioned whereas other 

equipment is not. A requirement 

regarding physical qualifications would 

have to account for these types of 

differences. 

Second, establishing physical 

qualifications that would appropriately 

account for the effect of medical 

conditions would be a complex 

undertaking. The Committee ultimately 

determined that, in light of its members’ 

experience that accidents caused by 

problems associated with the operator’s 

physical/medical condition are rare, the 

issue of physical qualifications did not 

need to be addressed by this standard. 

Substance Abuse Testing 

The Committee also considered 

whether to include mandatory 

substance abuse testing for equipment 

operators and others, such as signal 

persons, whose jobs affect safety. OSHA 

informed the Committee that the case 

law requires that any substance abuse 

testing requirements included in the 

proposal would have to meet 

constitutional safeguards.70 Because the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59823 

Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Department of 

Transportation, 932 F.2d 1292 (9th Cir. 1991). 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

(DOT) already has substance abuse 

requirements and designed them to 

meet these safeguards, C–DAC 

considered whether to incorporate DOT 

regulations on controlled substance 

testing, Title 49 CFR part 382 and Title 

49 CFR part 40, into the proposed rule. 

The DOT regulations govern 

commercial drivers and are designed to 

protect public highway safety. Under 

these requirements an employer is 

required to establish a program for 

substance abuse testing. This program 

must include an employer’s policy 

statement, supervisory education and 

training, controlled substances and 

(optional) alcohol testing program, 

evaluation of driver, and recording 

keeping. Under the DOT requirements 

the controlled substances and alcohol 

testing program must include six 

different types of testing, which include: 

Pre-employment, reasonable suspicion, 

post-accident, random, return to duty 

and follow up testing. 

After researching the DOT regulations 

and several discussions with DOT 

representatives, OSHA presented 

information to C–DAC on the 

procedural and substantive aspects of 

the DOT regulations, including the 

administrative requirements, the types 

of testing by employers, and optional 

alcohol testing. Committee members 

discussed implementation and 

enforcement concerns such as an 

employer’s inability to ‘‘stand down’’ a 

crane operator based on an unconfirmed 

test result, until a positive result is 

verified by a medical review officer. The 

parallel DOT requirement prohibits an 

employer from: 

temporarily removing an employee from the 

performance of a safety-sensitive function 

based only on a report from a laboratory to 

the MRO (medical review officer) of a 

confirmed positive test for a drug or drug 

metabolite, an adulterated test, or a 

substituted test, before the MRO has 

completed verification of the test result. 

Committee members were concerned 

that including a substance testing 

provision in this standard would restrict 

an employer’s ability to suspend an 

operator who tested positive pending 

confirmation of the result. Committee 

members believed that many employers 

already have voluntarily instituted 

substance abuse testing programs. They 

believed that employers are able to 

judge whether an operator who tested 

positive presents a risk to workers on 

the site and should be able to remove an 

operator immediately if, in the 

employer’s judgment, the operator 

presents such a risk. 

In short, the Committee balanced the 

potential benefits from a requirement for 

substance abuse testing that would have 

more restrictive procedures against the 

fact that many employers already have 

their own programs in place that, in C– 

DAC’s view, may be more protective 

than what could be enacted as an OSHA 

requirement. C–DAC concluded that it 

would be better not to include a 

substance abuse requirement. 

Section 1428 Signal Person 

Qualifications 

As discussed under § 1926.1419, 

Signals—general requirements, the 

safety of equipment operations depends 

in many situations on signals given to 

the operator. It is critical that the 

operator understand the signals given, 

and the signal person must therefore be 

able to give clear, accurate and 

appropriate signals that unambiguously 

convey the needed information to the 

operator. The Committee was concerned 

that some signal persons are not able to 

recognize the hazards involved with 

certain crane operations, do not, in 

some cases, understand what it is that 

the crane needs to do to accomplish the 

task, and do not know how to give the 

appropriate signals. This poses hazards, 

such as struck-by and crushed-by 

hazards, due to either 

miscommunication or the 

communication of instructions that are 

inappropriate. 

An example of the type of accident 

that can be caused by 

miscommunication from not knowing 

the appropriate signals is as follows: 

The signal person intends to indicate to 

the operator to hoist up, since the load 

needs to be raised straight up. However, 

the signal person uses the standard 

signal for booming up in the mistaken 

belief that this signal is for hoisting up. 

A struck-by or crushed-by incident 

could result because, when booming up, 

the load will move laterally as well as 

vertically. 

A failure to understand what it is that 

the crane needs to do to accomplish a 

task can also lead to struck-by or 

crushed-by incidents. For example, as a 

crane booms down, boom deflection 

tends to increase, which has the effect 

of lowering the load more than if there 

were no boom deflection. If the signal 

person is unfamiliar with this boom 

characteristic, he or she may fail to 

signal in time for the load to stop at the 

correct point or may cause the load to 

descend too quickly. 

The Committee concluded that to 

prevent such accidents it is necessary to 

establish qualification criteria that 

would have to be met in order for an 

individual to serve as a signal person 

(that criteria is set out in proposed 

§ 1926.1428(c), discussed below). The 

employer would have the option of 

using one of two methods for ensuring 

that these criteria were met. Under 

Option (1) (proposed § 1926.1428(a)(1)), 

the signal person would have 

documentation from a third party 

qualified evaluator showing that the 

evaluator had determined that the signal 

person meets the requirements of 

§ 1926.1428(c). 

This qualification would be portable, 

that is, any employer could rely on such 

documentation to show that a signal 

person meets the criteria. C–DAC 

believed that such portability would be 

appropriate because of the 

independence and expertise of the third 

party evaluator. 

Under Option (2) (proposed 

§ 1926.1428(a)(2)), an employer’s own 

qualified evaluator would have 

determined that a signal person meets 

the qualification requirements. Since 

such a determination would not be done 

by an independent entity, other 

employers would not have a basis to 

assume that the assessment had been 

done correctly. Therefore, a 

qualification under this option would 

not be portable; other employers would 

not be permitted to rely upon it to show 

that the signal person meets these 

requirements. 

The term ‘‘qualified evaluator’’ used 

in proposed § 1926.1428(a)(2) is defined 

in proposed § 1926.1401 as ‘‘a person 

employed by the signal person’s 

employer who has demonstrated that 

he/she is competent in accurately 

assessing whether individuals meet the 

Qualification Requirements in this 

Subpart for a signal person.’’ In 

reviewing the C–DAC document, the 

Agency realized that the Committee had 

not provided a definition for the term 

‘‘third party qualified evaluator,’’ which 

is used in proposed § 1926.1428(a)(1). 

OSHA has therefore added the following 

definition for this term: 

An entity that, due to its independence and 

expertise, has demonstrated that it is 

competent in accurately assessing whether 

individuals meet the Qualification 

Requirements in this Subpart for a signal 

person. 

The Agency requests public comment 

on whether this is an appropriate 

definition for this term. 

Under proposed paragraph (a)(3), the 

documentation for whichever Option is 

used (that is, Option (1) or (2)) of this 

section, would have to be available 

while the signal person is employed by 

the employer. With respect to an 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59824 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

71As discussed above with respect to proposed 

1926.1419(c), there are circumstances when it 

would be permissible to use hand signals other than 

the Standard Method signals. Also, under proposed 

§ 1926.1419, signals other than hand signals could 

be used. 

employer using Option (1) of this 

section, the signal person’s 

documentation from the third party 

qualified evaluator would have to be 

available. The Committee believed that 

this documentation is essential for this 

to be a viable and effective Option. 

Under this option the employer would 

be permitted to rely on someone else’s 

assessment of the signal person rather 

than its own. In such a circumstance 

such documentation is essential for this 

to be a reliable means of assuring the 

signal person has the requisite ability. 

In reviewing these provisions, the 

Agency noted that C–DAC used the term 

‘‘available,’’ rather than ‘‘available at the 

site.’’ It is OSHA’s understanding that 

C–DAC’s intent was that the 

documentation be available at the site 

by, for example, the documentation 

being physically present at the site or 

through use of an on-site computer. For 

clarity, OSHA is planning on changing 

the term ‘‘available’’ to ‘‘available at the 

site.’’ OSHA requests public comment 

on this issue. 

In addition, in reviewing the C–DAC 

draft of Option (2) of this section, the 

Agency noted that it does not explicitly 

state that documentation of the signal 

person’s qualification by this method is 

required. However, proposed 

§ 1926.1428(a)(3) states that ‘‘the 

documentation for whichever Option is 

used shall be available * * *.’’ It is not 

clear to the Agency if C–DAC intended 

to require documentation under Option 

(2) as it did for Option (1), or if it only 

intended that any documentation the 

employer chose to create under Option 

(2) would have to be made available. 

One reason to require documentation 

under Option (2) is the Committee’s 

concern that, at present, the operator’s 

employer has no ready means of 

determining if the signal person (who is 

typically a different employer’s 

employee) has the necessary knowledge 

and skill for signaling until after 

hoisting operations have begun. In other 

words, a problem with the signal 

person’s ability may not become evident 

to the operator until a hazardous 

situation has already arisen. Requiring 

documentation, which would have to be 

available at the site, would enable that 

determination be made before hoisting 

operations begin. 

Requiring documentation under 

Option (2) of this section would address 

C–DAC’s concern. Therefore, the 

Agency has expanded the first sentence 

of the C–DAC version of proposed 

§ 1926.1428(a)(2) to clarify that 

documentation would be required under 

Option (2). The proposed paragraph 

now reads, with the added language 

highlighted: 

(2) Option (2)—Employer’s qualified 

evaluator. The employer has its qualified 

evaluator assess the individual and 

determine that the individual meets the 

Qualification requirements (see 

§ 1926.1428(c)) and provides documentation 

of that determination. An assessment by an 

employer’s qualified evaluator under this 

Option is not portable—other employers are 

not permitted to use it to meet the 

requirements of this section. 

The Agency requests public comment 

on whether this revision is appropriate. 

Proposed paragraph (b) addresses 

circumstances in which a signal person 

who had been qualified under 

§ 1926.1428(a) subsequently acts in a 

manner that indicates that he or she 

may not meet the qualification 

requirements. Such an indication would 

result, for example, where the use of 

Standard Method signals have been 

agreed to but the signal person does not 

give a Standard Method signal. Another 

example would be where the signal 

person gives inappropriate signals (such 

as indicating to the operator to boom up 

when the action that is needed is to 

hoist up). 

In such circumstances the employer 

would be prohibited from allowing the 

individual to continue working as a 

signal person until he or she is retrained and has been requalified in 

accordance with proposed 

§ 1926.1428(a). 

Proposed paragraph (c) sets forth the 

qualification requirements for signal 

persons. Proposed paragraph (c)(1) 

would require that the signal person 

know and understand whatever signal 

method will be used for that particular 

job site. 

In addition, if hand signals are used, 

the signal person must know and 

understand the Standard Method for 

hand signals. Hand signals are widely 

used in this industry. As discussed 

above with respect to proposed 

§ 1926.1419(c), C–DAC believed that 

accidents due to miscommunication 

could be reduced if there were more 

widespread use of standardized hand 

signals. C–DAC concluded that this 

provision would promote greater use of 

standardized hand signals through the 

use of the Standard Method.71

Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would help 

prevent miscommunication between the 

signal person and the crane operator by 

requiring the signal person to be 

competent in the application of 

whatever signals are used. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(3) would 

require the signal person to have a basic 

understanding of crane operation and 

limitations, including crane dynamics 

involved in swinging and stopping 

loads and boom deflection from hoisting 

loads. As explained above in the 

beginning of this discussion of proposed 

§ 1926.1428, it is critical that a signal 

person understand how the crane and 

load will move in response to the 

various signals he or she gives so that 

the signal person will give the most 

appropriate signals and reduce the 

occurrence of struck-by, crushed-by and 

other hazards. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(4) specifies 

that signal persons must know and 

understand the relevant requirements in 

proposed §§ 1926.1419–1926.1422, 

which address the types of signals that 

may be used and the circumstances 

surrounding their use, and the 

requirements of proposed § 1926.1428. 

C–DAC included the phrase ‘‘relevant 

requirements’’ to make clear that a 

signal person’s qualification could be 

limited with regards to the use of a 

particular type of signal and associated 

information. 

For example: A crane operation is going to 

use Standard Method hand signals. The 

signal person knows and understands all 

aspects of proposed § 1926.1419 that are 

relevant when using hand signals, as well as 

§ 1926.1422, Signals—hand signal chart. In 

addition, the signal person meets the 

proposed requirements in proposed 

§ 1926.1428(c)(1) and (2) with respect to the 

use of Standard Method hand signals. The 

signal person also has the knowledge 

necessary to meet the provision in proposed 

§ 1926.1428(c)(3), and demonstrates through 

a verbal or written test, and through a 

practical test, that he/she has this knowledge 

and capabilities. However, the signal person 

is unfamiliar with the contents of proposed 

§ 1926.1420, Signals—radio, telephone or 

other electronic transmission of signals, or of 

proposed § 1926.1421, Signals—voice 

signals—additional requirements. 

In this example, it would be appropriate 

for the signal person to be qualified under 

either Option (1) or Option (2) (see proposed 

1926.1428(a)) so long as that qualification 

was limited to signaling with Standard 

Method hand signals. Since the signal person 

would be qualified only for Standard Method 

signaling, there would be no need for that 

person to have the knowledge or capabilities 

associated with other types of signaling. In 

such a situation employers, though, would be 

precluded from using such a person if other 

types of signals were to be used. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(5) would 

require that the signal person pass 

knowledge and practical tests to 

demonstrate that he or she meets the 

qualification requirements. It would 

allow the knowledge test to be either 

verbal or written. Reading or writing is 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59825 

not normally necessary when working 

as a signal person. Therefore, C–DAC 

believed that administering the 

knowledge test verbally, without a 

separate demonstration of literacy, 

should be permitted. 

Section 1429 Qualifications of 

Maintenance and Repair Workers 

This proposed section addresses the 

qualifications that the workers who 

maintain and repair cranes/derricks 

must possess. Subpart N of this part 

currently contains no provisions 

concerning the qualifications of 

maintenance and repair workers. 

The Committee had two basic 

concerns regarding maintenance and 

repair work. First, it was aware of 

accidents that had occurred when the 

equipment that was being maintained or 

repaired was operated improperly. For 

example, a maintenance worker who 

booms down a mobile hydraulic crane 

to one side without following the 

manufacturer’s instructions for 

deploying outriggers may overturn the 

equipment. C–DAC believed that 

placing restrictions on equipment 

operations during such work would 

help prevent such accidents. 

Second, the Committee sought to 

avoid hazards that can result from 

maintenance and repair work that is 

done improperly by ensuring that 

maintenance and repair workers are 

sufficiently qualified to perform their 

work. For example, if a load-bearing 

component is removed for maintenance 

or repair and re-installed incorrectly, 

unintended movement of the load or 

even a collapse could occur during 

operations. 

Paragraph 1429(a) 

The Committee was aware that 

maintenance and repair workers 

sometimes need to operate equipment in 

order to perform maintenance, inspect 

or verify the performance of the 

equipment. This work typically involves 

operating the equipment to get access to 

components, diagnose problems and 

check repairs. 

C–DAC did not believe it necessary 

for maintenance, inspection and repair 

personnel to meet the requirements in 

proposed § 1926.1427, Operator 

qualification and certification, when 

operating equipment for such purposes. 

The operations involved for these 

purposes are almost always done 

without a load on the hook. The only 

instance when there is a load on the 

hook is if the equipment is load tested. 

However, even when load testing, the 

operation is very limited, since the load 

is not moved about as it would be 

during crane operations. 

While such limited operation does 

not, in C–DAC’s view, necessitate the 

maintenance, inspection or repair 

personnel to meet the proposed 

§ 1926.1427 requirements, a failure to 

operate the equipment properly even in 

these limited circumstances can result 

in accidents from, for example, 

unintended movement or tip-over. 

Therefore, this proposed paragraph 

would permit maintenance and repair 

workers to operate equipment during 

their work only under specific 

restrictions designed to ensure safety. 

Specifically, under proposed 

paragraph (a)(1), maintenance and 

repair workers would be permitted to 

operate the equipment only to the extent 

necessary to perform maintenance, 

inspect or verify the performance of the 

equipment. Under this provision, 

maintenance and repair workers would 

not be permitted to operate the 

equipment during regular operations. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would 

require the maintenance and repair 

worker who operates equipment to 

either (i) do so under the direct 

supervision of an operator who meets 

the requirements of § 1926.1427, 

Operator qualification and certification, 

or (ii) be familiar with the operation, 

safe limitations, characteristics and 

hazards associated with the type of 

equipment involved. 

Paragraph 1429(b) 

Proposed paragraph (b) provides that 

maintenance and repair personnel must 

meet the definition of a qualified person 

with respect to the equipment and 

maintenance/repair tasks they perform. 

Proposed § 1926.1401 defines ‘‘qualified 

person’’ as ‘‘a person who, by 

possession of a recognized degree, 

certificate, or professional standing, or 

who by extensive knowledge, training, 

and experience, successfully 

demonstrated the ability to solve/ 

resolve problems relating to the work, 

the subject matter, or the project.’’ In 

light of the safety hazards that could 

result from maintenance and repairs 

that are performed improperly, C–DAC 

believed that it was necessary for 

maintenance and repair workers to meet 

the ‘‘qualified person’’ criteria. 

The Committee believed that many 

current maintenance and repair workers 

have received comprehensive, in-depth, 

on-the-job training from highly 

experienced supervisors and/or coworkers and have become highly 

experienced themselves. Because of 

such extensive training, long experience 

and high level of knowledge, the term 

‘‘qualified persons’’ under this 

provision would include such workers 

under the prong for ‘‘extensive 

knowledge, training, and experience.’’ 

1430 Training 

This proposed section both references 

training criteria that would be required 

by other sections of this subpart and sets 

forth training criteria and requirements 

not otherwise included in the proposed 

standard. Additionally, paragraph 

§ 1926.1430(g) of this section would 

require employers to evaluate 

employees’ understanding of the 

training. The following chart 

summarizes the location of the training 

requirements in this proposed rule: 

Paragraph Training requirement 

§ 1926.1408(g) .................... Power line safety: The operator and crew assigned to work with the equipment, including spotters, must be trained 

in specified topics relevant to power line safety. 

§ 1926.1424(a)(2) ............... Swing radius hazards: Employees assigned to work on or near the equipment must be trained to recognize struckby and pinch/crush hazard areas of rotating superstructures. Also, where the employer protects against swing 

radius hazards by using warning signs and high visibility markings, the employer must train employees to understand what the markings signify. 

§ 1926.1437(c)(2)(ii) ........... Swing radius hazards (floating cranes): Where the employer protects against swing radius hazards on floating 

cranes by using warning signs and high visibility markings, the employer must train employees to understand 

what the markings signify. 

§ 1926.1430(e) .................... Crush/pinch points: Employees who work with equipment must be instructed to keep clear of holes, crush/pinch 

points, and the hazards addressed in § 1926.1424. 

§ 1926.1430(f) ..................... Tag-out: Operators and other employees authorized to start/energize equipment or operate equipment controls 

(such as maintenance and repair workers), shall be trained in the tag-out procedures in § 1926.1417(f). 

§ 1926.1430(d) .................... Competent and Qualified Persons: Competent persons and qualified persons must be trained in the requirements 

of this subpart applicable to their respective roles. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59826 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

72With respect to operator testing, as discussed 

in connection with § 1926.1427, Operator 

qualification and certification, this proposed 

standard places special emphasis on ensuring that 

equipment operators have acquired the knowledge 

and skills necessary to operate their equipment 

safely. This proposed standard also includes 

specific assessment requirements for signal persons 

(see proposed § 1926.1428(a)). 

Paragraph Training requirement 

§ 1926.1430(g)(2) ............... Refresher training (general): Refresher training in relevant topics shall be provided when the employee’s conduct 

or an evaluation of the employee’s knowledge indicates that retraining is necessary. 

§ 1926.1430(b) .................... Signal person training: Employees who will be assigned to work as signal persons who do not meet the requirements of § 1926.1428(c) shall be trained in the areas addressed in that paragraph. 

§ 1926.1428(b) .................... Signal person re-training: A signal person whose actions indicate that he or she does not meet the qualification requirements of § 1926.1428 must be retrained before being allowed to continue to work as a signal person. 

§ 1926.1427(f)(2)(i) ............. Operator trainee/apprentice: Before a trainee/apprentice is assigned to operate equipment, the employee must be 

provided with sufficient training for operating the equipment safely under the limitations established under 

§ 1926.1427. 

§ 1926.1427(k) .................... Operator training during phase-in period: An employee assigned to operate the equipment during the phase-in period of § 1926.1427 who does not have the knowledge or ability to operate the equipment safely must be provided with necessary training prior to operating the equipment. 

§ 1926.1430(c)(1) ............... Operator training for qualification or certification: Operators who have not yet been qualified or certified under 

§ 1926.1427 must be trained in the areas addressed in § 1926.1427(j). An operator who does not pass a qualification or certification test must be retrained as necessary. 

§ 1926.1430(c)(2)(i) ............ Operator training—boom hoist brake test: Operators must be trained to determine if the boom hoist brake needs to 

be adjusted or repaired by first raising the boom a short distance and testing the brake. 

§ 1926.1430(c)(2)(ii) ........... Operator training—emergency procedures (halting unintended movement): Where a manufacturer’s emergency 

procedures for halting unintended equipment movement are available, operators must be trained in those procedures. 

§ 1926.1441(e) .................... Operator training (2,000 pound maximum rated capacity): Operators of equipment with a rated hoisting-lifting capacity of 2,000 pounds or less must be trained in the safe operation of the equipment the operator is using. 

The Committee believed that both 

training and testing of certain 

employees are critical to the safety of 

equipment use on construction sites.72

With respect to training, the Committee 

concluded that there is a need to 

improve upon the current general 

requirement for construction industry 

training established by § 1926.21, Safety 

training and education, which requires 

the employer to (1) ‘‘establish and 

supervise programs for the education 

and training of employers and 

employees in the recognition, avoidance 

and prevention of unsafe conditions in 

employments covered by the [OSH] 

Act,’’ § 1926.21(a), and (2) ‘‘instruct 

each employee in the recognition and 

avoidance of unsafe conditions and the 

regulations applicable to his work 

environment to control or eliminate any 

hazards or other exposure to illness or 

injury,’’ § 1926.21(b). 

C–DAC found that more specific 

provisions were needed to ensure that 

employees are able to work safely with 

and around cranes. First, greater 

specificity would highlight the 

particular tasks (and the hazards 

associated with them) for which certain 

types of training are necessary. Second, 

training tailored to the specific hazards 

faced by particular employees would be 

an efficient and effective means of 

preventing injury. 

Proposed paragraph (a), Overhead 

powerlines, states that employees must 

be trained as outlined at proposed 

§ 1926.1408(g) (see the explanation of 

hazards and training requirements in 

the discussion of proposed 

§ 1926.1408(g)). 

Under proposed paragraph (b), Signal 

persons, employees who will be 

assigned to work as signal persons who 

need training in order to meet the 

requirements of § 1926.1428(c) must be 

trained in the areas addressed in that 

paragraph. As discussed in relation to 

proposed § 1926.1428(c), each employee 

who will serve as a signal person must 

pass a verbal or written test and a 

practical test demonstrating the required 

knowledge and skills. Any such 

employee who does not pass those tests 

must receive additional training in the 

areas of deficiency. 

Proposed paragraph (c), Operators, 

provides, at proposed paragraph (c)(1), 

that an equipment operator who is 

neither qualified nor certified under 

§ 1926.1427, Operator qualification and 

certification, would be required to be 

trained in the areas addressed in 

§ 1926.1427(j). 

This proposed paragraph applies to 

operators who will need to be qualified 

or certified under § 1926.1427 but who 

are not yet qualified or certified or who 

have lost their qualification or 

certification. Operators in this category 

would include those who, during the 

four-year phase-in period of 

§ 1926.1427, would not yet be required 

to be qualified or certified. Also in this 

category would be employees who the 

employer has decided will be assigned 

to work as operators and will need to be 

qualified or certified under § 1926.1427, 

as well as operators who need such 

training in order to become re-qualified 

or re-certified, or who failed to pass a 

qualification or certification test. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would 

require operators to be trained in two 

practices. Paragraph (c)(2)(i) would 

require training in the testing of the 

boom hoist brake on friction equipment 

prior to moving a boom off a support to 

determine whether the brake requires 

adjustment or repair. The purpose of 

this procedure is to ensure that the 

brake is sufficient before the boom is at 

too great an angle or height. Using this 

procedure, if the brake is deficient, the 

boom will fall only a very short 

distance. This provides an additional 

safety practice related to the hazards 

resulting from an uncontrolled boom. 

Moving the boom when the brake is not 

working properly can result in 

uncontrolled lowering of the boom, 

which can endanger workers in the 

proximity of the hoisting equipment. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii) would 

require the operator to be trained in the 

manufacturer’s emergency procedures, 

when available, for stopping unintended 

equipment movement. This provides 

another level of protection to minimize 

employee injury resulting from 

unintended equipment movement. The 

Committee recognized that 

manufacturer’s emergency procedures 

for halting unintended equipment 

movement may not always be available 

and therefore this training would be 

required only when the procedures are 

available. 

The C–DAC version of 

§ 1926.1430(c)(2) began: ‘‘In addition to 

training in the areas addressed in 

§ 1926.1427(j), operators shall be trained 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59827 

in the following practices.’’ This 

wording implied that all operators must 

be trained in the topics listed in 

§ 1926.1427(j). However, § 1926.1427(j) 

is not a training requirement but sets 

forth criteria that must be addressed in 

a qualification or certification test. 

Operators who are sufficiently 

knowledgeable in these topics through 

prior training and/or experience need 

not receive additional training under 

this proposed standard. To avoid any 

confusion in this regard, OSHA has 

changed C–DAC’s wording to read, in 

proposed § 1926.1430(c)(2): ‘‘Operators 

shall be trained in the following 

practices.’’ 

The SBREFA Panel recommended 

that OSHA seek public comment on 

several issues related to operator 

training. Several Small Entity 

Representatives (SERs) believed that the 

training requirements in the proposed 

standard are too broad and should 

instead be keyed to the particular 

operations the operator performs and 

the particular equipment he/she 

operates. The SBREFA Panel also 

recommended that OSHA consider and 

ask for public comment on whether a 

more limited operator training program 

would be appropriate for operations 

based on the capacity and type of 

equipment and nature of operations. 

The Panel noted that proposed 

§ 1926.1427(j)(1)(i) requires operator 

training in ‘‘the information necessary 

for safe operation of the specific type of 

equipment the individual will operate’’ 

and understood this to address the 

SERs’ concern that operators of smaller 

capacity equipment used in less 

complex operations should require less 

training than those operators of higher 

capacity, complex equipment used in 

more complex situations. The Panel 

recommended that OSHA seek public 

comment on whether this point should 

be made more clearly, and OSHA 

welcomes such comment. 

The Panel further recommended that 

OSHA consider and ask for public 

comment as to whether the supervisor 

responsible for oversight for an operator 

in the pre-qualification period described 

at § 1926.1427(f) should have additional 

training beyond that required at 

§ 1926.1427(f)(2)(iii)(B). The discussion 

was focused on the issue of whether the 

supervisor should be trained to be able 

to take over the controls, if necessary, 

while supervising the operator in the 

pre-qualification period. 

As the proposed rule is written, when 

the supervisor is not a certified operator, 

he/she must be certified on the written 

portion of the test and be familiar with 

the proper use of the equipment’s 

controls; the supervisor is not required 

to have passed a practical operating test. 

In accordance with the Panel’s 

recommendation, OSHA requests 

comment on whether the supervisor 

needs additional training in this regard 

than the proposal would require. 

Paragraph (d), Competent persons and 

qualified persons, would require that 

competent persons and qualified 

persons be trained regarding the 

requirements of this Subpart applicable 

to their respective roles. See 

§ 1926.1401, Definitions, for a 

description of what is necessary to be a 

competent person or a qualified person. 

A person assigned by an employer to 

be a ‘‘competent person’’ or ‘‘qualified 

person’’ under this proposed rule must 

already have had a certain level of 

training (or, in the case of a competent 

person, training or experience) in order 

to meet the criteria applicable to such a 

designation. This paragraph does not 

address such training—it would not 

require the employer to provide the 

training needed for an employee to meet 

those criteria in order to become a 

competent or qualified person. The sole 

purpose of this paragraph is to require 

the employer to ensure that both 

competent persons and qualified 

persons are trained on the requirements 

of this Subpart that are applicable to the 

person’s role and responsibility. For 

example, a ‘‘competent person’’ 

assigned to conduct shift inspections 

under § 1926.1412(d) must be trained 

under proposed § 1926.1430(d) in the 

required elements of a shift inspection. 

This training is necessary to ensure the 

competent person or qualified person is 

aware of his/her responsibility under 

this subpart for finding/correcting 

hazardous conditions. 

Proposed paragraph (e), Crush/pinch 

points, provides that employees who 

work with equipment covered by this 

Subpart must be instructed to stay clear 

of holes, crush/pinch points and the 

hazards that are addressed in 

§ 1926.1424, Work area control. See the 

discussion of hazards and requirements 

in the discussion of proposed 

§ 1926.1424. 

Proposed paragraph (f), Tag-out, states 

that operators and other employees 

authorized to start or energize 

equipment or operate equipment 

controls (such as maintenance and 

repair workers) must be trained 

according to the tag-out procedures in 

§ 1926.1417(f). See the discussion of tagout procedures discussed in proposed 

§ 1926.1417(f). 

Proposed paragraph (g), Training 

administration, would require that 

employers ensure employees 

understand required training and 

provide refresher training when 

necessary. Specifically, proposed 

§ 1926.1430(g)(1) would require that the 

employee be evaluated to verify that he/ 

she understands the information 

provided in training required by this 

Subpart. The Committee determined 

that training without any follow-up 

measure to determine understanding or 

effectiveness would not achieve the goal 

of a safe work environment. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(2) would 

require the employer to provide 

refresher training of an employee when, 

based on evaluation or employee 

conduct, it is indicated that retraining is 

needed. 

Section 1431 Hoisting Personnel 

Cranes and derricks are designed to 

move materials, not personnel. 

However, situations arise when a crane 

or derrick can be the safest means to 

move employees to their work area and/ 

or to hold them in position while they 

do their work. 

Although there are situations when 

using a crane or derrick to lift personnel 

to work areas is the safest means of 

accomplishing the task, there are 

inherent dangers in such an operation 

because of the heights, equipment and 

environment involved. A number of 

workers have been killed and seriously 

injured while being lifted by a crane or 

derrick when the equipment’s lifting 

mechanism malfunctioned and they did 

not have adequate fall protection. The 

height to which the workers are lifted 

means that any instability in their 

supporting platform creates a serious 

fall hazard. See 53 FR 29116, 29117–18 

(Aug. 2, 1988) (discussing accidents that 

occurred when cranes were used to lift 

personnel). Because of that risk, in 1988 

OSHA added regulations to subpart N of 

this part to both limit the use of cranes 

for lifting personnel and increase 

employee protection when it is 

necessary to use cranes for this purpose. 

See 29 CFR 1926.550(g), Crane or 

derrick suspended personnel platforms. 

Because of the inherent hazards such 

operations present, OSHA currently 

permits cranes and derricks to be used 

to lift personnel only ‘‘when the 

erection, use, and dismantling of 

conventional means of reaching the 

worksite, such as a personnel hoist, 

ladder, stairway, aerial lift, elevating 

work platform or scaffold, would be 

more hazardous, or is not possible 

because of structural design or worksite 

conditions.’’ 29 CFR 1926.550(g)(2). 

When a crane or derrick is used to lift 

personnel, a personnel platform that 

complies with requirements in 

§ 1926.550(g) must be used. 

The Committee concluded that the 

current subpart N standards governing 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59828 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

personnel hoisting by equipment have 

resulted in a reduction of accidents and 

determined that their fundamental 

substance should be maintained in the 

proposed standard. Accordingly, the 

Committee proposal largely continues 

the current requirements of subpart N, 

§ 1926.550(g). Some changes have been 

made to provide additional safety and to 

eliminate ambiguity. Requirements 

specific to certain activities, such as 

personnel hoisting in pile-driving 

operations, drill shafts, storage tanks 

and marine transfer have been added. 

The discussion below focuses on these 

changes and additions. 

One of the resources the Committee 

consulted in developing this proposed 

paragraph was ASME B30.23–1998, 

‘‘Personnel Lifting Systems.’’ Since the 

Committee finished its work, that 

industry consensus standard was 

superseded by ASME B30.23–2005. 

OSHA has compared the two versions 

and found no substantive differences in 

the provisions that correspond to 

paragraphs in this proposal. Where the 

ASME standard is cited in this section, 

the citations will refer to the 2005 

version. 

OSHA stresses that the proposed 

provisions in this section would be 

additional requirements that must be 

met when equipment is used to lift 

personnel. During such use, all other 

applicable requirements of this 

proposed standard would also be 

required to be met. 

Paragraph 1431(a) 

This proposed paragraph states that 

equipment may be used to hoist 

personnel only when all other means of 

reaching the work area would present a 

greater hazard or would not be possible 

because of the project’s structural design 

or worksite conditions. The same 

limitation is currently found in Subpart 

N’s § 1926.550(g)(2). It reflects OSHA’s 

longstanding recognition that using 

cranes and derricks to lift personnel is 

inherently hazardous and should only 

be done when it is either the least 

hazardous means or when, in light of 

the configuration of the worksite, it is 

the only means of performing required 

work. 

This proposed paragraph differs from 

the current § 1926.550(g)(2) by 

substituting the word ‘‘equipment’’ for 

‘‘crane or derrick.’’ The terms ‘‘crane’’ 

and ‘‘derrick’’ do not represent the full 

spectrum of equipment that would be 

covered by this standard. See 

§ 1926.1400, Scope for a description of 

the equipment covered by this Subpart. 

Additionally, this proposed paragraph 

would not apply to work covered by 29 

CFR part 1926 subpart R, Steel Erection. 

Subpart R, at § 1926.753(c)(4), allows 

the use of equipment to hoist personnel 

in a platform that complies with 

§ 1926.550 without the need for a 

showing that other means of reaching 

the work area would create a greater 

hazard or are impossible. This provision 

was included in Subpart R because steel 

connectors must often work at high 

locations before there is a solid structure 

to stand on and where a personnel 

platform suspended from a crane is the 

safest place for them to work. OSHA’s 

reasons for including this exception in 

Subpart R are discussed in detail in the 

preamble to the steel erection standard, 

66 FR 5196, 5209 (Jan. 18, 2001). 

Paragraph 1431(b) Use of Personnel 

Platform 

This proposed paragraph would 

generally require the use of a personnel 

platform when hoisting employees and 

require that criteria specified in 

proposed § 1926.1431(e) be met for such 

platforms. It also provides for 

exceptions to the use of personnel 

platforms that are not currently allowed 

by § 1926.550(g)(2). 

For reasons discussed above, 

proposed § 1926.1431(b)(1) would 

generally require that a personnel 

platform be used when hoisting 

employees and that the platform meet 

the requirements of § 1926.1431(e) of 

this proposed section. As discussed 

below, the requirements of 

§ 1926.1431(e) are comparable to 

requirements currently found in 

§ 1926.550(g). 

Proposed paragraph (b)(2), 

Exceptions, sets forth the construction 

activities in which hoisting personnel 

without using a personnel platform 

would be allowed because, in the 

Committee’s view, use of a personnel 

platform might be infeasible or more 

hazardous than an alternative means of 

hoisting personnel. These activities are: 

Hoisting employees into and out of drill 

shafts 8 feet and smaller in diameter, 

pile driving operations, marine 

worksites, storage tanks (steel or 

concrete), and shaft operations and 

chimney operations. This proposed 

section contains specific requirements 

for hoisting personnel during these 

operations at § 1926.1431(o), (p), (r), and 

(s) that provide for alternatives to the 

use of a personnel platform. For drill 

shafts, pile driving operations, storage 

tanks, and shaft and chimney 

operations, which present access 

restrictions, the alternative to a 

personnel platform would be a 

boatswain’s chair. For marine worksites, 

it would be a marine hoisted personnel 

transfer device, which is designed to 

facilitate exit in the event it enters the 

water. 

For the purposes of this proposed 

standard, a ‘‘marine worksite’’ is a 

construction worksite that is located in, 

on or above the water (see proposed 

§ 1926.1401, Definitions). The 

Committee determined it was necessary 

to clearly define this term since marine 

worksite conditions and hazards differ 

significantly from non-marine 

worksites. In particular, with respect to 

equipment covered by this section, the 

marine worksite presents unique 

hazards for equipment stability and 

environmental conditions affecting 

operations. 

Section 1926.1401 defines a ‘‘marine 

hoisted personnel transfer device’’ as a 

device, such as a ‘‘transfer net’’ used to 

hoist an employee to or from a marine 

worksite that is designed to protect the 

employee during a marine transfer and 

that allows for rapid entry/exit from the 

device. Such devices do not include a 

boatswain’s chair when hoisted by 

equipment covered by this standard. 

The Committee determined it was 

necessary to clearly specify the type of 

device that will or will not be 

considered a marine hoisted personnel 

transfer device for this standard, as 

marine worksites involve unique 

conditions and hazards with respect to 

hoisting employees. The Committee 

determined that it was necessary to 

require a device designed for such 

conditions while allowing flexibility so 

the employer may select the most 

appropriate device based on the site and 

working conditions. 

Each of the exceptions is discussed 

below under the particular paragraph 

that addresses it. Subpart N of this part 

does not currently address these 

worksite activities (nor does ASME 

B30.23–2005 address these particular 

topics). 

Paragraph 1431(c) Equipment Set-Up 

This paragraph sets forth the basic 

criteria for equipment set-up for 

personnel hoisting. The requirements 

continue and refine those currently in 

Subpart N’s § 1926.550(g)(3)(i)(D). 

Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would 

require the equipment to be on level, 

firm and stable footing. It differs from 

the current standard at 

§ 1926.550(g)(3)(i)(D) in that a qualified 

person must determine if the footing is 

‘‘sufficiently firm and stable.’’ Stable 

footing is essential to minimize the 

hazard of the equipment tipping while 

hoisting personnel. ASME B30.23– 

3.2.2(a)(4)–2005 has a similar 

requirement, with the operator of the 

equipment determining equipment to be 

level within one percent during set-up 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59829 

and hoisting operations. The Committee 

believed that the danger of equipment 

potentially tipping when hoisting 

personnel justifies the need for a 

qualified person to examine and 

approve the equipment’s stability. See 

§ 1926.1401, Definitions for the criteria 

for a qualified person. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(2) specifies 

that each outrigger be both extended 

and locked. The amount of extension 

must be the same and also be in 

accordance with the manufacturer’s 

specifications. This is similar to the 

current requirement of 

§ 1926.550(g)(3)(i)(D); however, the 

current requirement that outriggers be 

‘‘fully deployed’’ has been changed to 

require that outriggers be equally 

extended and in accordance with 

manufacturer’s procedures and load 

charts. Equal extension eliminates the 

hazard of the operator forgetting that 

one or more outriggers has a shorter 

extension and swinging into that area 

with a load that exceeds the crane’s 

capacity in that area. The Committee 

determined that a requirement of full 

extension of all outriggers would not be 

appropriate for all worksite conditions. 

Nor is it necessary, as long as partial 

extension is within the manufacturer’s 

procedures; the critical factor is to have 

each outrigger extended equally, 

whether it is a full or shorter extension. 

Proper placement and deployment of 

outriggers is essential to prevent the 

hazard of equipment tipping while 

hoisting personnel. 

Paragraph 1431(d) Equipment Criteria 

This paragraph sets forth 

requirements for the equipment used to 

hoist personnel. These requirements 

refine and expand the equipment 

requirements currently in Subpart N. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(1): Capacity: 

use of suspended personnel platform, 

would continue the requirement at 

§ 1926.550(g)(3)(i)(E) to limit the total 

load to 50 per cent of the equipment’s 

rated capacity. It would clarify the 

current standard by specifying that the 

total load includes the hook, load line, 

and rigging. The 50 percent capacity 

limit would not apply during equipment 

proof testing. 

The 50 percent limit reflects that 

using this equipment to hoist personnel 

requires additional safety precautions 

than when lifting materials. The limit 

provides for an extra margin of safety to 

prevent overloading the equipment, 

which could cause tip-over or structural 

collapse. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(2), Capacity: 

use of boom-attached personnel 

platforms, establishes the load limit at 

50 percent of rated capacity for 

platforms that are attached to the boom. 

It also provides an exception to the 50 

percent capacity limit during equipment 

proof testing. The same reasons for the 

50 percent limit in § 1926.1431(d)(1) 

also apply here. 

The Committee considered 

prohibiting the use of boom attached 

personnel platforms for hoisting 

personnel. However, the Committee 

concluded that it was unaware of any 

reason to prohibit their use. As 

discussed above under § 1926.1400, 

Scope, Committee members were 

concerned that boom-attached platforms 

may present additional hazards not 

addressed in this proposed standard, 

and OSHA is requesting comment on 

whether additional requirements should 

apply when using them. 

In reviewing the C–DAC consensus 

document, the Agency determined that 

the Committee did not address the issue 

of capacity when no personnel platform 

is used. Since there are several 

situations where no platform will be 

used at all (these are listed in proposed 

§ 1926.1431(b)(2) of this section), the 

Agency believes that a capacity limit 

similar to those set by the Committee 

when using a personnel platform is 

needed. Therefore, OSHA has added 

proposed § 1926.1431(d)(3), Capacity: 

hoisting personnel without a personnel 

platform, which establishes the load 

limit at 50 percent of rated capacity. In 

calculating the load, the weight of the 

personnel, including the hook, load 

line, rigging and any other equipment 

that imposes a load must be included. 

The addition of this proposed paragraph 

has resulted in the renumbering of the 

remaining paragraphs in proposed 

§ 1926.1431(d) (as compared to the 

numbering in the C–DAC document). 

Proposed paragraph (d)(4) would 

require engaging all the equipment’s 

locking or braking devices when the 

platform has reached its stationary work 

position. The purpose is to minimize 

sudden and unintended movement or 

tipping of the platform when employees 

have reached the work area. 

This differs from current provision 

§ 1926.550(g)(3)(i)(C) in Subpart N in 

that the proposed provision adds a 

requirement to use operator actuated 

secondary braking/locking features, 

when available, in addition to other 

braking systems. This is similar to 

sections 1.2.2(f) and 3.2.2(a)(19) of 

ASME B30.23–2005 for automatic brake 

systems and setting of brakes before 

work begins from the platform. 

The subsections of proposed 

paragraph (d)(5), Devices, would require 

certain safety devices for equipment 

addressed by this proposed section. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(5)(i) would 

address the requirements for equipment 

with a variable angle boom. Such 

equipment would be required to be 

equipped with both a boom angle 

indicator and boom hoist limiting 

device (except for derricks). Use of these 

devices minimizes the potential for 

hoisting personnel at an unsafe angle, 

which could result in the platform or 

equipment tipping. 

A boom angle indicator is currently 

required in § 1926.550(g)(3)(ii)(A). 

Proposed § 1926.1431(d)(4)(i) would 

add a requirement for a boom hoist 

limiting device. The Committee 

believed that both a boom angle 

indicator and a boom hoist limiting 

device are necessary to prevent the 

boom from being moved to unsafe 

angles. A boom hoist limiting device 

would be required when hoisting 

personnel, even though it would not 

otherwise be required for equipment 

manufactured before December 17, 1969 

under proposed § 1926.1416(d)(1) (see 

discussion of proposed § 1926.1416(d)— 

Operational aids). This reflects the need 

for equipment used to hoist personnel to 

have additional safety features. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(5)(i) would 

not apply to derricks. This is consistent 

with C–DAC’s recommendation that 

boom hoist limiting devices and boom 

angle indicators not be required on 

derricks. See proposed § 1926.1436(f), 

which addresses operational aids for 

derricks. As discussed below, the 

Committee believed that these devices 

were not needed on derricks because the 

current practice in the industry of 

marking the boom hoist cable of 

derricks with visible caution and stop 

marks corresponding to maximum and 

minimum allowable boom angles is a 

safe work practice. Accordingly, 

paragraph § 1926.1436(f) permits 

employers to use this practice. 

Alternatively, it permits employers to 

use an electronic or other device that 

either signals the operator in time to 

prevent the boom from moving past its 

minimum and maximum angles or 

automatically prevents such movement. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(5)(ii) would 

address the requirements for equipment, 

including derricks, when a luffing jib is 

used for personnel hoisting. This 

paragraph would require all equipment 

to have both a jib angle indicator and jib 

hoist limiting device. Use of these 

devices minimizes the likelihood of 

platform tipping and equipment failure. 

Neither the current Subpart N nor 

ASME B30.23–2005 addresses the use of 

luffing jibs for personnel hoisting. The 

Committee believed that this proposed 

requirement is needed to help improve 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59830 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

the safety of crane and derrick 

operations. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(5)(iii) would 

require a telescoping boom to either 

have a device indicating the boom’s 

extended length or measuring marks 

that are clear and visible to the 

equipment operator. This would allow 

the operator to easily ascertain the 

extension length in order to stay within 

safe operating parameters. This 

requirement would address the hazard 

of equipment or platform tipping or 

equipment failure that can result when 

a telescoping boom is extended beyond 

appropriate operating parameters. 

Currently, § 1926.550(g)(3)(ii)(B) 

permits, as an alternative to equipping 

the boom with a device to indicate the 

boom’s extended length, an ‘‘accurate 

determination’’ to be made of the load 

radius to be used prior to hoisting 

personnel. Proposed 

§ 1926.1431(d)(5)(iii)’s provision for 

measuring marks on the boom would 

enable this determination to be made 

accurately if the boom is not equipped 

with a device indicating its extended 

length. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(5)(iv), Antitwo-block, would require a device that 

automatically prevents contact between 

a component on the hoist line (load 

block, overhaul block, etc.) with the 

boom tip, which can damage or sever 

the load line or cause other forms of 

equipment failure. This contact between 

the hoist line component and the boom 

tip is referred to as two-blocking. The 

purpose of the anti-two-blocking device 

is to prevent this condition, which can 

result in a sudden drop of the personnel 

platform. See the discussion of twoblocking in proposed § 1926.1416, 

Operational aids. 

Paragraph (d)(5)(iv) is similar to 

current § 1926.550(g)(3)(ii)(C) and adds 

an exception for pile driving operations. 

The proposed requirement would not 

apply when hoisting personnel in pile 

driving operations due to the fact the 

vibration of the pile driving activity 

makes use of an anti-two-block device 

ineffective. 

In reviewing this portion of the C– 

DAC document, the Agency has noted 

that the use of alternative measures for 

preventing two-blocking during pile 

driving operations would be required 

under proposed § 1926.1431(p)(2). 

However, the C–DAC language for 

proposed provision 

§ 1926.1431(d)(5)(iv) did not refer to the 

requirement for alternative measures. 

Therefore, OSHA has added a reference 

to the exception in § 1926.1431(d)(5)(iv) 

advising the reader that alternative 

measures are required under 

§ 1926.1431(p)(2). 

Proposed paragraph (d)(5)(v), 

Controlled load lowering, would require 

a system or device on the load line hoist 

drum that positively regulates the 

lowering speed. It would require this 

system to be used when hoisting 

personnel, in addition to a load line 

hoist brake. The purpose is to minimize 

the likelihood of free fall of the 

personnel that could lead to hitting the 

ground from a sudden fast descent. 

Additionally, the proposed paragraph 

would note that free fall of the load line 

hoist is prohibited and use of equipment 

in which the boom hoist mechanism can 

free fall is prohibited. Refer to proposed 

§ 1926.1426, Free fall/controlled load 

lowering, for additional information. 

Currently, 1926.550(g)(3)(ii)(D) 

similarly requires a system or device 

that positively regulates the lowering 

speed. Proposed § 1926.1431(d)(5)(v) 

would explicitly specify that the system 

must be used when hoisting personnel. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(5)(vi), Proper 

operation required, specifies that 

personnel hoisting would only occur 

when and if all the devices required in 

§ 1926.1431(d)(5)(i) through (v) are in 

proper working order. It would also 

mandate that if a required device stops 

working while personnel are being 

hoisted, all personnel hoisting 

operations must be stopped and not 

resumed until all devices are working 

properly. Alternative measures would 

not be allowed. 

The purpose of this paragraph is to 

clearly establish that personnel hoisting 

may only be done when all necessary 

safety devices are working properly. The 

hazards addressed by this requirement 

include: structural failure, equipment 

tipping, dropping personnel, and 

platform tipping. These are severe 

hazards, so safeguards to prevent them 

are clearly needed. 

This paragraph does not have a 

specific corollary in the current Subpart 

N, although the Subpart N provisions 

that require safety devices implies that 

they be working properly. Sections 

3.2.2(a)(23) and 1.2.2 of ASME B30.23– 

2005 are comparable to this 

requirement. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(6) would 

prohibit the use of a personnel platform 

directly attached to a luffing jib. Thus, 

only a suspended type of personnel 

platform may be used on a luffing jib. 

The Committee determined that it 

would be dangerous to use a boomattached personnel platform if attached 

to a luffing jib and that a complete 

prohibition of use of a boom-attached 

personnel platform to a luffing jib is 

appropriate. 

Paragraph 1431(e) Personnel Platform 

Criteria 

This proposed paragraph would 

establish the minimum criteria for a 

personnel platform. The criteria are 

similar to those currently in 29 CFR part 

1926 subpart N’s § 1926.550(g)(4)(i) and 

(ii). However, § 1926.1431(e)(2) would 

add the requirement that the connection 

system keep the platform within 10 

degrees of level and § 1926.1431(e)(10) 

would add a visibility requirement for 

the overhead protective cover to the 

personnel platform. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(1) would 

require that both the platform and its 

attachment/suspension system be 

designed by a qualified person who 

understands structural design and be 

designed for the particular function of 

personnel hoisting. The purpose of this 

paragraph is to clearly stipulate that the 

platform must be designed for employee 

safety. This would address the hazards 

of structural failure of the platform, 

failure of the attachment/suspension 

system, and preclude the use of designs 

that would be inappropriate for hoisting 

people. This is similar to the current 29 

CFR part 1926 subpart N’s 

§ 1926.550(g)(4)(i)(A), which states that 

either a ‘‘qualified engineer or a 

qualified person competent in structural 

design’’ shall design the platform, but 

clarifies that even if the platform is 

designed by a qualified engineer, that 

engineer must understand structural 

design. See § 1926.1401, Definitions, for 

the definition of ‘‘qualified person.’’ 

Proposed paragraph (e)(2) would 

require the system used to connect the 

personnel platform to the equipment to 

be within 10 degrees of level. This 

would address the hazard of platform 

tipping by maintaining the platform 

close to level. This requirement is not 

currently in subpart N. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(3) would 

require the platform designer to 

consider the movement of employees on 

the platform and design the suspension 

system to minimize platform tipping 

from such movement. The purpose is to 

design the platform in such a way as to 

limit the likelihood of platform tipping 

while employees are working from the 

platform. This continues the 

requirement of subpart N’s 

§ 1926.550(g)(4)(i)(B). 

Proposed paragraph (e)(4) would 

require the platform to support its own 

weight plus a minimum of five times the 

maximum intended load without 

failure. This limit would provide an 

adequate margin of safety for employee 

protection from structural failure of the 

platform. The guardrail system and 

personal fall arrest system anchorages 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59831 

would not be subject to this requirement 

but instead would be subject to 

proposed § 1926.1431(e)(6). This 

continues a requirement in proposed 

§ 1926.550(g)(4)(i)(C). 

Proposed paragraph (e)(5) would 

require that welding of any part of the 

platform or its component parts be 

performed by a welder who is certified 

and familiar with the weld grades, types 

and material specified in the particular 

platform’s design. This requirement is 

designed to prevent structural failure of 

the platform due to improper welding. 

‘‘Certified welder’’ is defined in 

§ 1926.1401 as ‘‘a welder that meets the 

nationally recognized certification 

requirements that are applicable to the 

task being performed.’’ The requirement 

for a ‘‘certified’’ welder modifies the 

current requirement of Subpart N’s 

§ 1926.550(g)(4)(ii)(H), which requires a 

‘‘qualified’’ welder. It is similar to 

section 1.2.1(b)(2) of ASME B30.23– 

2005 welding standards for personnel 

platforms. The Committee believed that 

because proper platform welding is so 

critical to employee safety, it is 

necessary for the welding to be done by 

a certified welder. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(6) would 

detail the requirements of the platform 

for guardrails, fall arrest anchorage 

points and enclosure of the platform 

between the toeboard and mid-rail. 

Proper guardrails and fall arrest 

anchorage points are critical fall 

protection devices, and the required 

platform enclosure is needed to protect 

employees below from falling objects. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(6) adds to the 

current requirements of 29 CFR part 

1926 subpart N’s § 1926.550(g)(4)(ii)(A) 

in specifying that ‘‘points to which 

personal fall arrest systems are attached 

must meet the anchorage requirements 

in 29 CFR part 1926 subpart M.’’ This 

is similar to the guardrail and anchorage 

specifications in sections 1.1.1(b)(2) and 

(3) of ASME B30.23–2005. This would 

update the requirements for the 

anchorage so that the same degree of 

protection currently required under 

Subpart M would be required under this 

standard. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(7) would 

require the placement of a grab rail 

within the entire perimeter of the 

personnel platform except for access 

gates/doors, where a grab rail would be 

impractical. The grab rail provides a 

place for the employee to hold onto 

while in the platform instead of using a 

guardrail as a hand hold. Use of the 

guardrail for this purpose exposes the 

employee’s hand to being smashed by 

external objects. This would modify the 

current requirement of Subpart N’s 

§ 1926.550(g)(4)(ii)(B) by clarifying that 

grab rails are not required on the access 

gates/door. It is similar to ASME 

B30.23–1.1.1(b)(4)–2005. 

Proposed paragraphs (e)(8)(i) and (ii), 

Access gates/doors, would specify that 

access gates/doors be designed to not 

swing outward and must also have a 

mechanism that will keep the gate/door 

from being opened unintentionally. A 

door that swings outward or opens 

unexpectedly puts the employee at risk 

of fall from the platform. This modifies 

the current requirements of Subpart N’s 

§ 1926.550(g)(4)(ii)(C) and (D) by 

requiring that access doors not swing 

outward at any time and expands the 

list of types of gates/doors to include 

‘‘swinging, sliding, folding, or other 

types.’’ Section 1.1.1(b)(8) of ASME 

B30.23–2005 has similar requirements 

for access gates. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(9) would 

require adequate headroom to allow 

employees to stand upright in the 

personnel platform. This would provide 

adequate space for the employee to 

work from the platform while keeping 

his/her entire body within the platform, 

and would also contribute to greater 

stability during platform movement. 

This continues the current requirement 

at § 1925.550(g)(4)(ii)(E). 

Proposed paragraph (e)(10) would 

require an overhead protective cover 

attached to the platform when an 

employee is exposed to falling objects. 

It would mandate that the overhead 

cover of the platform be of such material 

and design to provide visibility for both 

the operator and the employees on the 

platform, while maintaining adequate 

protection from falling objects. The 

reference to a wire mesh with 1⁄2 inch 

openings is an example of a type of 

material and design that could be used 

for the platform cover. The nature of the 

worksite conditions and foreseeable 

falling objects would determine the type 

of material and design to provide the 

necessary protection for the platform 

occupants. Full overhead protection 

(i.e., no visibility through the protective 

cover) would be allowed when 

conditions are such that a full protective 

cover is necessary to protect employees 

from falling objects. The visibility 

requirement is similar to section 

1.1.1(b)(11) of ASME B30.23–2005. This 

proposed paragraph would change 

current § 1926.550(g)(4)(ii)(F) by 

clarifying the type of overhead 

protection that is required. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(10) explicitly 

states that the protection provided by 

the cover would be supplemental to the 

protection provided by hard hats—the 

use of hard hats would not obviate the 

requirement for the cover. While a hard 

hat provides some protection to an 

employee’s head from overhead 

hazards, it does not protect the rest of 

an employee’s body from such hazards. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(11) would 

require that all edges of the platform be 

smooth enough to prevent injury. The 

purpose is to protect the employee from 

injuries such as lacerations and 

puncture wounds. A similar 

requirement is found in Subpart N’s 

§ 1926.550(g)(4)(ii)(G). 

Proposed paragraph (e)(12) would 

require conspicuously posting a plate or 

other permanent written notice on the 

personnel platform listing the weight of 

the platform itself and the platform’s 

rated load capacity. The purpose is to 

make employees aware of the platform’s 

limits to prevent overloading, which 

could result in structural failure of the 

platform or equipment, and to facilitate 

compliance with § 1926.1431(f)(1), 

which prohibits loading the platform in 

excess of its rated capacity. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(12) would 

modify the current requirement of 

Subpart N’s § 1926.550(g)(4)(ii)(I) by 

deleting the phrase ‘‘or maximum 

intended load.’’ That phrase was 

included in Subpart N because 

platforms made on the worksite did not 

have a manufacturer’s rated capacity. 

However, under proposed 

§ 1926.1431(e)(1), all personnel 

platforms would be required to be 

designed by a qualified person familiar 

with structural design, and such a 

person will be able to determine the 

rated capacity for the platform. 

Paragraph 1431(f) Personnel Platform 

Loading 

Proposed paragraph (f)(1) would 

prohibit loading the platform in excess 

of its rated load capacity. Proposed 

§ 1926.1431(f)(1) differs from current 

§ 1926.550(g)(4)(ii)(A) by deleting a 

provision stating that if a personnel 

platform does not have a rated load 

capacity it shall not be loaded in excess 

of its maximum intended load. The 

‘‘maximum intended load’’ provision 

was deleted for the same reason 

previously discussed under 

§ 1926.4131(e)(12). 

Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(i) would 

require that the platform be used 

exclusively for personnel hoisting and 

not for hoisting materials. However, it 

would allow the necessary materials 

and tools for the work activity to be 

hoisted along with the employees. Using 

a personnel platform to hoist materials 

can lead to damage of the platform due 

to materials shifting or excessive 

loading. This can subject the platform to 

structural stresses that may not be 

visible and contribute to platform 

structural failure. This would continue 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59832 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

the current requirement of 

§ 1926.550(g)(4)(iii)(C). 

Proposed paragraph (f)(2)(ii) would 

provide an exception to (f)(2)(i) to allow 

materials and tools on the personnel 

platform during the trial lift as long as 

the materials/tools are properly secured 

and distributed as specified in 

§ 1926.1431(f)(3). Since the materials 

and tools would be secured, they would 

not damage the platform. Subpart N, at 

§ 1926.550(g)(5)(i), currently allows 

materials/tools to be on the platform 

during the trial lift but does not specify 

that they need to be properly secured 

and distributed. 

Proposed paragraphs (f)(3)(i) and (ii) 

would require that any materials and 

tools that are on the platform during the 

hoist be secured, and evenly distributed 

within the platform itself while the 

platform is suspended. These 

precautions are designed to prevent 

platform tipping and injury to 

employees due to movement of 

materials or tools during the hoist. 

These requirements would continue 

those in Subpart N’s 

§ 1926.550(g)(4)(iii)(D) & (E). 

Proposed paragraph (f)(4) would limit 

the number of employees on a personnel 

platform to the lesser of either the 

number needed to perform the work or 

the maximum number for which the 

platform was designed. The purpose is 

to expose the fewest possible number of 

employees to the hazards presented 

when hoisting personnel and to 

minimize the load on the platform to the 

extent possible. This would provide 

greater clarity than the current 

requirement of Subpart N’s 

§ 1926.550(g)(4)(iii)(B) by noting that the 

number of platform occupants is limited 

not only by work requirements but also 

the platform’s design. 

Paragraph 1431(g) Attachment and 

Rigging 

Proposed paragraph (g)(1) would 

establish the requirements for the device 

used to connect the personnel platform 

to the hoist line. It would expand and 

clarify the requirements of Subpart N’s 

§ 1926.550(g)(4)(iv)(B). 

The nature and type of connector 

used is critical to the overall safety of 

the suspended personnel platform. 

Under the proposed paragraph, a hook 

used to connect the hoist line and 

personnel platform must be the type 

that can be closed/locked and must be 

closed/locked when attached to the 

platform. When a shackle is used in lieu 

of a hook, it must be of the alloy anchor 

type with either: a bolt, nut and 

retaining pin in place; or: the screw type 

with the screw pin secured against 

accidental removal. Any detachable 

device other than a shackle or hook that 

is used must be closable and lockable to 

the same extent a hook or shackle would 

be when in compliance with this 

proposed section. When used to connect 

the personnel platform, such a device 

must be closed and locked to ensure 

that the platform is secured to the hoist 

line. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(2) would 

require that each bridle leg in a rope 

bridle be connected to the master link/ 

shackle in a manner that would allow 

the platform’s load to be equally 

distributed among each bridle leg. The 

purpose of this type of attachment is to 

avoid platform tipping. The proposed 

requirement differs from current 

Subpart N at § 1926.550(g)(4)(iv)(A) by 

changing the phrase ‘‘wire rope’’ to 

‘‘rope.’’ Currently, the only type of rope 

that Subpart N permits to be used for 

bridles is wire rope, and it is C–DAC’s 

and OSHA’s understanding that no 

other type of rope suitable for this 

purpose is currently available. However, 

the Committee believed that synthetic 

ropes now under development could 

someday meet the safety factor 

requirement in § 1926.1431(g)(3) and it 

did not want to preclude the potential 

use of sufficiently strong synthetic rope. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(3) would 

continue the current requirement of the 

first sentence of § 1926.550(g)(4)(iv)(C) 

that all hardware used for rigging must 

be able to support five times the 

maximum intended load applied to or 

transmitted to that component. 

However, the C–DAC consensus 

document omitted the second sentence 

in current § 1926.550(g)(4)(iv)(C), which 

requires slings using rotation resistant 

rope to be able to support at least ten 

times the maximum intended load. In 

promulgating § 1926.550(g)(4)(iv)(C), 

OSHA arrived at the safety factor of ten 

for rotation resistant rope by doubling 

the normal design factor of five for such 

rope (see discussion of the design factor 

for rotation resistant rope above under 

§ 1926.1414, Wire rope—selection and 

installation criteria) to add an extra 

margin of safety when hoisting 

personnel. 53 FR 29116, 29122, 29132 

(Aug. 2, 1988). OSHA believes that C– 

DAC did not intend to lower the safety 

factor for rotation resistant rope used for 

personnel hoisting and inadvertently 

omitted the requirement that slings 

using rotation resistant rope to have a 

safety factor of ten. OSHA has therefore 

restored that requirement to proposed 

1926.1431(g)(3). As modified, 

1926.1431(g)(3) reads: 

(3) Rigging hardware (including wire rope, 

shackles, rings, master links, and other 

rigging hardware) and hooks must be capable 

of supporting, without failure, at least five 

times the maximum intended load applied or 

transmitted to that component. Where 

rotation resistant rope is used, the slings 

shall be capable of supporting without failure 

at least ten times the maximum intended 

load. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(4) would 

require the eyes in wire rope slings to 

be fabricated with thimbles, continuing 

the current Subpart N’s 

§ 1926.550(g)(4)(iv)(D) requirement. The 

purpose of this requirement is to 

prevent excessive wear to the eyes and 

possible failure of the platform’s rigging. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(5) would 

require that bridles and rigging used to 

suspend the personnel platform be used 

exclusively for hoisting personnel 

operations, continuing the current 

requirement of § 1926.550(g)(4)(iv)(E). 

Rigging components must be dedicated 

for the sole use of personnel hoisting to 

provide maximum safety. Materials 

hoisting can lead to damage of the 

rigging components due to material 

shifting or excessive loading. This can 

make the rigging components 

susceptible to structural stress that may 

not be visible, yet contribute to 

structural failure. 

Paragraph 1431(h) Trial Lift and 

Inspection 

The proposed requirements of 

paragraphs (h)(1) through (5) generally 

continue the current requirements of 

Subpart N’s § 1926.550(g)(5)(i) through 

(v). The proposed requirements have 

been reorganized and reworded for 

clarity. Requirements for removal of the 

test weight, checking for wire rope 

deficiencies, and use of a competent 

person for trial lifts are not currently in 

29 CFR part 1926 subpart N. 

Proposed paragraph (h)(1) continues 

the requirement of § 1926.550(g)(5)(i) for 

a trial lift without occupants with the 

platform loaded to at least the 

anticipated liftweight. The purpose of 

the trial lift is to confirm that: the lift 

set-up works properly; the lift route is 

free of obstacles; the accessibility of the 

work location; no work locations will 

place the crane or derrick in such a 

configuration where the intended load 

would exceed 50 percent of the 

equipment’s rated capacity; the soil or 

other supporting surface is stable; and 

that the lift route is suitable for the 

intended lift. 

The path of the trial lift would be 

required to begin at the point the 

employees enter the platform and end at 

the ultimate location the platform is 

being hoisted to and positioned (end 

point). When there are multiple 

destination locations from a single setup point, the trial lift would be required 

to be conducted in one of two ways. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59833 

First, individual lifts may be 

conducted in which the platform is 

moved to one of the end points from the 

starting point, returned to the starting 

point, moved to a second end point, 

again returned to the starting point, and 

the process repeated until each end 

point has been reached. Second, a single 

lift may be conducted from the starting 

point to all of the end points in 

sequence, without returning to the 

starting point until after the last end 

point has been reached. 

Upon reviewing § 1926.1431(h)(1) in 

the C–DAC document, OSHA believes 

that the phrase ‘‘a single trial lift for all 

locations,’’ which was taken from 

current § 1926.550(g)(5)(i), may not be 

sufficiently clear to describe the 

intended meaning. In addition, OSHA is 

concerned that allowing the trial lift to 

be conducted in either of these two 

ways, irrespective of how the personnel 

will actually be hoisted, may result in 

the trial lift failing to reveal problems 

that would be encountered in the actual 

lift. OSHA believes that the following 

language would more clearly reflect the 

intent of the provision and requests 

public comment on whether the 

language should be clarified in this 

manner: 

(h) Trial lift and inspection. 

(1) A trial lift with the unoccupied 

personnel platform loaded at least to the 

anticipated liftweight shall be made from 

ground level, or any other location where 

employees will enter the platform, to each 

location at which the platform is to be 

hoisted and positioned. Where there is more 

than one location to be reached from a single 

set-up position, either individual trial lifts for 

each location, or a single trial lift, in which 

the platform is moved sequentially to each 

location, shall be performed; the method 

selected must be the same as the method that 

will be used to hoist the personnel. 

Proposed paragraph (h)(2) would 

require that the trial lift take place 

immediately prior to each shift when 

hoisting personnel, and each time the 

equipment is moved and set up in a new 

location or a previously used location. 

Additionally, a trial lift must be done 

when the lift route is changed, unless a 

competent person determines the new 

lift route does not present new factors 

affecting safety. Similar requirements 

are found in Subpart N’s 

§ 926.550(g)(5)(i) and (ii). 

Proposed paragraph (h)(3) would 

require a competent person to ensure 

that all required safety devices and 

operational aids required by this 

proposed section are activated and 

properly functioning, that nothing 

interferes with the equipment or 

personnel platform during the trial lift, 

that the lift load does not exceed 50 

percent of the equipment’s rated 

capacity, and that the load radius used 

is accurately determined. These 

requirements would ensure that 

necessary safety measures are in place 

and validated by a competent person for 

the trial lift. The proposed paragraph 

differs from the current requirements at 

§ 1926.550(g)(5)(i) as it would require a 

competent person to make the 

determination rather than the operator. 

Under sections 3.2.2(a)(9) and (a)(10) of 

ASME B30.23–2005, the operator is also 

required to determine that the trial lift 

has been conducted properly. It is 

important for this to be the 

responsibility of a competent person 

because such a person not only has the 

knowledge necessary to make the 

determinations, but also has the 

authority to take any necessary 

corrective action. 

Proposed paragraph (h)(4) would 

establish the duties of the competent 

person immediately after the trial lift. It 

would require the competent person to 

conduct a visual inspection of the 

personnel platform and equipment to 

determine if there is any problem or 

defect resulting from the trial lift or if 

it produced any adverse effect. In 

addition, the competent person must 

ensure that the test weight used during 

the trial lift has been removed prior to 

personnel loading. 

The purpose of these requirements is 

to ensure that any defects in the 

equipment, base support or ground and 

personnel platform revealed by the trial 

lift are seen by a competent person prior 

to hoisting personnel (note that, under 

proposed § 1926.1431(h)(6), any 

condition found during the trial lift that 

fails to meet a requirement of this 

proposed standard or otherwise 

constitutes a safety hazard must be 

corrected before hoisting personnel). 

Proposed paragraph (h)(4) would 

continue the current requirements of 

§ 1926.550(g)(5)(iv) while adding the 

requirement that the competent person 

ensure that the test weight is removed. 

This has been added because the 

Committee was aware of incidents in 

which overloading of the personnel 

platform occurred due to use of the 

platform to hoist personnel with the test 

weights still on board. 

Under proposed paragraph (h)(5)(i), 

immediately prior to each personnel lift, 

the competent person must inspect the 

platform while it is lifted a few inches 

to ensure that the platform is secure and 

properly balanced. 

It is the understanding of the Agency 

that the purpose of this procedure is to 

ensure that, with the occupants and 

materials/tools to be hoisted on the 

platform immediately before the hoist is 

to take place, the platform is secure and 

properly balanced. The purpose of 

having the occupants and materials/ 

tools on board during this check is 

twofold. First, it ensures that the check 

takes place just before the personnel lift, 

which minimizes the chance that 

damage or other problems affecting the 

platform’s security will occur after the 

check. In addition, it would be difficult 

to ensure that the platform will be 

properly balanced when in actual use 

without having the employees and 

materials/tools on board. 

However, while the text of this 

proposed provision implies that the 

check is to be done with the personnel 

and materials/tools on board, it does not 

specifically so state. The Agency plans 

to add language to that effect so that 

proposed § 1926.1431(h)(5)(i) would 

read as follows: 

(i) The platform shall be hoisted a few 

inches with the personnel and materials/ 

tools on board and inspected by a competent 

person to ensure that it is secure and 

properly balanced. 

The Agency requests public comment 

on such a change. 

Proposed paragraph (h)(5)(ii) would 

require a competent person to determine 

that hoist ropes are free of defects, that 

multiple part lines are not twisted 

around each other, and that the primary 

attachment is centered over the 

platform. If the load rope is slack, the 

competent person must inspect the 

hoisting system to ensure the rope lines 

are properly seated on drums and in 

sheaves. Proposed paragraphs (i) and (ii) 

continue the current requirements of 

§ 1926.550(g)(5)(iii), with the additional 

clarification that hoist ropes must be 

free of deficiencies (that is, not just free 

of ‘‘kinks,’’ as required by existing 

§ 1926.550(g)(5)(iii)(A)). The purpose of 

these requirements is to mandate an 

additional final review by a competent 

person to evaluate the personnel 

platform, the balance of the load, and 

the lifting devices to ensure that 

necessary safety requirements are met. 

Proposed paragraph (h)(6) would 

establish that any condition that fails to 

meet any requirements of this standard 

or otherwise creates a safety hazard 

must be corrected before personnel are 

hoisted. This includes such conditions 

found during the trial lift or in any 

inspection or subsequent review of the 

equipment, platform or rigging. This is 

similar to the requirement of Subpart 

N’s § 1926.550(g)(5)(v). 

Paragraph 1431(i) [Reserved.] 

This proposed paragraph is reserved 

because it is inconvenient for readers to 

determine whether ‘‘(i)’’ is being used as 

a letter or a roman numeral. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59834 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Paragraph 1431(j) Proof Testing 

This proposed paragraph would 

delineate the requirement of and 

method for proof testing the personnel 

platform and rigging. It would require 

the proof test to be done at each jobsite 

prior to hoisting personnel and after any 

repair or modification of the platform. 

The proof test would be at 125 percent 

of the platform’s rated capacity, with an 

evenly distributed test load. The 

platform must be lowered by controlled 

load lowering, braked, and held in a 

suspended position for at least five 

minutes. After this proof test, the 

competent person must inspect the 

platform and rigging to determine if it 

has passed the proof test. If not, all 

deficiencies that pose a safety hazard 

must be corrected and another proof test 

performed. The competent person must 

determine that the platform and rigging 

have successfully passed the proof test 

before any personnel hoisting begins. 

The purpose of this proposed 

paragraph is to determine if the 

structural integrity of the personnel 

platform is intact or if it has been 

affected by any condition, damage, 

repair or modification which could 

result in structural failure or other safety 

hazards of the platform or rigging. 

Proposed paragraph § 1926.1431(j) 

contains requirements similar to those 

in Subpart N’s § 1926.550(g)(5)(vi). It 

adds the requirement in proposed 

§ 1926.1431(j)(2) that the platform be 

lowered by controlled load lowering 

and braked before being held in position 

for five minutes. This provision was 

added to ensure that the load lowering 

and braking mechanisms are 

functioning properly before personnel 

are lifted. In addition, proposed 

§ 1926.1431(j)(3) clarifies that only 

deficiencies that present a safety hazard 

need be corrected to avoid any 

implication that minor deficiencies 

bearing no relation to safety need to be 

corrected. 

The Committee discussed requiring 

the employer to document the proof test 

but determined that documentation of 

the proof test would not add to 

employee safety. 

Paragraph 1431(k) Work Practices 

Proposed paragraph (k)(1) would 

require hoisting of the personnel 

platform in a slow, controlled, cautious 

manner, with no sudden movements of 

the equipment or platform. This 

precaution would minimize the 

likelihood of platform tipping, loss of 

footing, and loss of control of the 

platform by the operator during 

hoisting. A comparable requirement is 

now contained in Subpart N at 

§ 1926.550(g)(3)(i)(A). 

Proposed paragraph (k)(2)(i) would 

require that all occupants of the 

personnel platform keep all parts of the 

body inside the platform while it is 

being raised, lowered or moved 

horizontally. This would not apply 

when a platform occupant must position 

the platform. Additionally, this does not 

apply while performing the duties of a 

signal person. The purpose of this 

requirement is to prevent an employee 

from having a body part struck or caught 

in between the personnel platform and 

another object. This differs from the 

current requirement of Subpart N at 

§ 1926.550(g)(6)(i) by providing an 

exception for a platform occupant 

positioning the platform. The 

Committee believed that such 

positioning can be important to safety, 

and therefore an exception in this regard 

would be appropriate. 

Proposed paragraph (k)(2)(ii) would 

add a new provision by prohibiting 

platform occupants from standing on, 

sitting on, or working from any surface 

other than the floor of the personnel 

platform during hoisting or when 

working from the platform. It would 

prohibit working from a railing or 

toeboard or the use of any means or 

device to raise the employee’s working 

height. The purpose is to ensure that the 

occupants receive the protections of the 

guardrail system and do not destabilize 

the platform. 

Proposed paragraph (k)(2)(iii) would 

add a new provision by prohibiting 

platform occupants from pulling the 

platform out of plumb in relation to the 

hoisting equipment. The purpose is to 

prevent tipping of the platform with 

employees on board, which could 

exacerbate the fall hazard. 

Proposed paragraph (k)(3) would 

require a personnel platform that is not 

landed to be secured to the structure 

before employees enter or exit the 

platform. It would allow an exception 

when a greater hazard would be created 

by securing the platform to the 

structure. The purpose is to provide a 

stable surface to prevent loss of footing 

when entering or exiting the platform. 

This provision is similar to Subpart N’s 

§ 1926.550(g)(6)(ii) but replaces the 

words ‘‘unsafe condition’’ with ‘‘greater 

hazard’’ to clarify that the exception 

only comes into play when the hazard 

that would be created by securing the 

platform to the structure is greater than 

would exist if it were not secured. 

Proposed paragraph (k)(4) would add 

a new requirement that the operator 

receive confirmation that the platform is 

no longer tied to the structure and is 

freely suspended before the operator 

moves the platform. This requirement 

would prevent structural damage to the 

platform and/or rigging and prevent the 

fall hazard that could result from 

pulling the platform out of plumb if 

there is an attempt to move it while it 

is still attached. 

Proposed paragraph (k)(5) would 

require the use of tag lines when 

necessary to control the personnel 

platform. The purpose is to provide an 

additional way to control platform 

stability to decrease the risk of injury 

from loss of footing or from the platform 

striking an object. This would modify 

the current requirement of Subpart N’s 

§ 1926.550(g)(6)(iii), which requires the 

use of tag lines unless their use would 

create an unsafe condition. The 

Committee believed it is not always 

necessary to use tag lines even when 

their use would not create an unsafe 

condition and was of the view that this 

change would not decrease safety. 

Under proposed paragraph (k)(6), 

where the platform is not equipped with 

controls, the equipment operator would 

be required to remain at the equipment 

controls at all times while the personnel 

platform is occupied. Since there are no 

controls in the personnel platform, the 

equipment operator must be available to 

make any necessary adjustments to 

protect the employees from injury from 

any condition arising after the platform 

is placed at the working location. 

Subpart N at § 1926.550(g)(6)(iv) 

currently contains a similar requirement 

but requires the operator to remain at 

the controls ‘‘when the crane engine is 

running and the platform is occupied.’’ 

Proposed § 1926.1431(k)(6) specifies 

that the operator must stay at the 

controls at all times the platform is 

occupied, whether or not the crane 

engine is running. 

Proposed paragraph (k)(7), Platforms 

with controls, and its subsections apply 

when a personnel platform has controls. 

At present, platforms being 

manufactured with controls are boomtip mounted platforms. Controls on 

certain personnel platforms enable a 

platform occupant to articulate both the 

platform and the boom. Other platform 

designs enable an occupant to control 

only the platform/basket itself, for 

example to level the basket as it is 

boomed up or down. Currently, Subpart 

N of this part does not distinguish 

between platforms with controls and 

platforms without controls, so the 

requirement of § 1926.550(g)(6)(iv) that 

the operator remain at the equipment 

controls when the engine is running and 

the platform is occupied applies to both 

types of platform. 

Proposed paragraph (k)(7)(i) would 

require the platform occupant using the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59835 

platform’s controls to be a qualified 

person with respect to their use, 

including the safe limitations of the 

equipment and hazards associated with 

its operation. Such knowledge and skill 

is essential for the safety of the platform 

occupants and employees in the 

surrounding area. 

Proposed paragraph (k)(7)(ii) would 

require the equipment operator to be 

either at the equipment controls, in the 

personnel platform, or onsite in view of 

the equipment. It is OSHA’s 

understanding that the purpose of this 

proposed provision is to require the 

equipment operator to be available to 

take action if necessary, such as where 

there is unexpected or inadvertent 

platform or equipment movement, a 

sudden change in wind conditions, or 

an injury to a platform occupant. 

It is also OSHA’s understanding that 

C–DAC intended this provision to give 

employers the flexibility to position the 

operator where he or she is needed in 

certain common situations. For 

example, if the controls on the platform 

are designed to control both the 

platform and the boom, the operator 

could be the qualified person on the 

platform who operates the controls. If 

the controls allow only limited control 

of the platform itself, the operator will 

be needed at the equipment controls, as 

under proposed § 1926.1431(k)(6). The 

Agency also believes that C–DAC 

intended the option of having the 

operator onsite and in view of the 

equipment to accommodate radiocontrolled operations, in which the 

operator controls the equipment from a 

position off the equipment but within 

its line of sight. 

Upon reviewing proposed paragraph 

(k)(7)(ii), OSHA is concerned that the 

proposed provision would not operate 

in this manner. Specifically, it would 

not limit the employer’s choices to 

situations where they are suitable. For 

example, under the provision as written, 

the operator could be on the platform 

even if the controls on the platform 

allow only limited control of the 

platform, and the operator would 

therefore not be available at the 

equipment controls to move the boom 

when it is necessary to do so. OSHA 

requests public comment on whether it 

is necessary to reword proposed 

§ 1926.1431(k)(7)(ii) to clarify the 

circumstances under which employers 

can use the three options for positioning 

the equipment operator and, if so, how 

the provision should be worded to 

achieve that goal. 

Proposed paragraph (k)(7)(iii) would 

require the platform operating manual 

to be on the platform or on the 

equipment while the platform is 

occupied. The purpose is to have ready 

access to manufacturer’s operating 

information when employees are on the 

platform. 

Proposed paragraph (k)(8)(i), 

Environmental conditions—Wind, 

would require a qualified person to 

determine if it is unsafe to hoist 

personnel when the wind speed (gust or 

sustained) exceeds 20 mph. High winds 

increase the likelihood of platform 

tipping, sudden unexpected movement 

of the platform, or structural failure of 

the equipment. If the qualified person 

determines that hoisting personnel is 

unsafe, hoisting operations must not 

begin or, if already in progress, must be 

terminated. 

Subpart N at § 1926.550(g)(6)(v) 

currently requires personnel hoisting 

operations to stop when there is 

indication of any dangerous weather 

conditions or other impending danger. 

The Committee believed that it was 

necessary to establish a clearer 

guideline with respect to hoisting 

personnel under windy conditions. C– 

DAC discussed setting a particular wind 

speed at which hoisting personnel 

would be prohibited (it considered, for 

example, that section 3.2.1(e) of ASME 

B30.23–2005 prohibits personnel 

hoisting operations when wind speed 

exceeds 20 mph). It determined that the 

number of variables involved at each 

site precludes establishing a single wind 

speed threshold at which, in each 

instance, it could be said that hoisting 

personnel is not safe. It did, however, 

determine that 20 mph is an appropriate 

point at which a determination, in all 

cases, needs to be made. Therefore, it 

found that it was appropriate to have 

the qualified person evaluate all 

relevant factors in order to determine if 

conditions are such that hoisting 

personnel with wind speed over 20 mph 

is unsafe. 

Proposed paragraph (k)(8)(ii), 

Environmental conditions—Other 

weather and environmental conditions, 

would require a qualified person to 

determine if it is not safe to hoist 

personnel when there are indications of 

dangerous weather or any other 

impending/existing dangerous 

environmental condition. Upon 

determination that it is unsafe, 

personnel hoisting operations must not 

be started or must be terminated if 

already in progress. 

The purpose of this paragraph is to 

require evaluation of all environmental 

conditions, including weather, by a 

qualified person, to determine if the 

conditions make it unsafe to hoist 

personnel. Dangerous conditions, such 

as those presented by severe weather, 

may contribute to the hazards of 

platform tipping, unexpected platform 

movement, dropping the platform, or 

structural failure of the platform or 

equipment. Examples of non-weather 

environmental dangers would be a 

neighboring fire that threatens the area 

of the crane operations or a chemical 

release from a neighboring 

manufacturing facility that threatens to 

drift into the area. Section 3.2.1(c) of 

ASME B30.23–2005 lists electric storms, 

snow, ice, sleet, or other adverse 

weather conditions that could affect the 

safety of personnel as reasons for 

suspending operations. Rather than 

listing specific dangers or events, C– 

DAC believed that the determination of 

whether conditions were dangerous was 

best left to the assessment of the 

qualified person. 

As noted above, § 1926.550(g)(6)(v) 

requires personnel hoisting operations 

to stop when there is indication of any 

dangerous weather conditions or other 

impending danger. The proposed 

paragraph continues that requirement; 

however, it adds the requirement that a 

qualified person must make the 

determination. 

Proposed paragraph (k)(9) would 

require employees being hoisted to 

remain in direct communication with 

either the signal person (where used) or 

equipment operator at all times. In some 

instances the platform occupants are in 

a better position to see potential 

problems developing than the operator, 

or to recognize that there is some other 

safety-related need for the operator to 

take action. In addition, there are 

instances when the operator becomes 

aware of a developing problem and 

needs to communicate that to the 

employees being hoisted. This provision 

would ensure that such information can 

be communicated quickly between the 

hoisted employees and operator. 

Currently, Subpart N’s 

§ 1926.550(g)(6)(vi) requires hoisted 

employees to remain in continuous 

sight of and in direct communication 

with the operator or signal person. 

Reliance on direct communication alone 

(such as by radio) is only permitted 

when visual contact with the operator is 

not possible and the use of a signal 

person (to relay information by hand 

signals) would create a greater hazard. 

The Committee believed that direct 

communication, either with a signal 

person (when used) or with the 

operator, is an effective way for the 

hoisted employees to communicate with 

the operator and that 

§ 1926.550(g)(6)(vi)’s preference for 

visual contact does not add to safety. 

Accordingly, proposed § 1926.1431(k)(9) 

would allow direct communication with 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59836 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

a signal person or the operator in all 

instances. 

Proposed paragraphs (k)(10)(i) and 

(ii), Fall protection, would require 

employees on the personnel platform to 

be provided with and use a personal fall 

arrest system attached to a structural 

member within the personnel platform. 

The fall arrest system (including the 

attachment point) must comply with 

§ 1926.502, Fall protection systems 

criteria and practices. When hoisting 

personnel over water, a personal fall 

arrest system would not be required 

since, in the event that an error or 

failure occurred that resulted in the 

employees being in the water, being 

tied-off would exacerbate the drowning 

hazard. However, the requirements of 

§ 1926.106, Working over or near water, 

would apply. 

The purpose of this requirement is to 

protect employees from a fall hazard 

while in the personnel platform in the 

event of sudden movement, tipping, or 

other circumstance in which a fall 

would not be prevented by the 

platform’s guardrail system. This is 

similar to the requirements of Subpart 

N’s § 1926.550(g)(6)(vii). However, it 

replaces use of a ‘‘body belt/harness 

system with lanyard’’ with ‘‘personal 

fall arrest system’’ to reflect current 

technology, terminology and practice for 

personal fall protection and to be 

consistent with 29 CFR part 1926 

subpart M’s personal fall arrest system 

requirements. Additionally, the 

Committee determined that the 

requirement in the current standard to 

attach a personal fall arrest system to 

the ‘‘lower load block or overhaul ball’’ 

was no longer considered good industry 

practice and, instead, an employee 

needs to be tied off to ‘‘a structural 

member within the personnel platform.’’ 

Tying off to the lower load block or 

overhaul ball places the employee at 

risk of being pulled through the top of 

the personnel platform and into the 

rigging attached to the personnel 

platform. 

Proposed paragraph (k)(11)(i), Other 

load lines, would mandate that while 

hoisting personnel no other lifts may be 

made with any of the equipment’s other 

load lines. This proposed provision has 

several purposes. First, it would prevent 

platform tipping due to entanglement 

with other load lines or loads. Second, 

it would reduce the chance that the 

equipment would be overloaded. Third, 

when hoisting personnel, it is essential 

that the operator’s full attention be 

devoted to the personnel; use of another 

load line would necessarily divert his/ 

her attention. This is comparable to the 

requirement of Subpart N’s 

§ 1926.550(g)(6)(viii), with the addition 

of an exception for pile driving 

equipment. In pile driving operations, 

personnel have to be hoisted at times as 

part of the pile driving operation while 

the pile driving apparatus is being 

suspended on another load line. 

In reviewing this aspect of the C–DAC 

document, the Agency noted that under 

the C–DAC language, the provision 

would have applied only when 

personnel were ‘‘suspended on a 

platform.’’ Since there are specified 

exceptions to the proposed requirement 

to use a personnel platform, there will 

be specific instances where personnel 

will be hoisted without a platform. The 

Agency believes that it is equally 

important to safety that the prohibition 

against using any other load lines apply 

in these instances (with the exception of 

pile driving operations, in which it is 

not feasible to use only one load line), 

and that this was a textual oversight by 

the Committee. Therefore, OSHA has 

modified the C–DAC language of this 

provision so that the prohibition would 

apply ‘‘while personnel are being 

hoisted. * * *’’ OSHA requests 

comment on this change. 

Proposed paragraph (k)(11)(ii), Other 

load lines, would allow the use of a 

winch line while hoisting personnel 

when all of the following factors are 

present: the personnel platform is a 

factory-produced boom-mounted 

personnel platform incorporating a 

winch as original equipment, the load 

on the winch line does not exceed 500 

pounds, and the load on the winch line 

itself does not exceed the rated capacity 

of the winch and platform. The 

Committee believed that, when all of 

these factors are present, there is little 

chance that the use of the winch line 

would compromise safety. 

Proposed paragraph (k)(12)(i), 

Traveling—equipment other than 

derricks, would prohibit any traveling 

by equipment with hoisted employees 

except in two circumstances. The first is 

where the equipment is traveling on 

fixed rails. The second is where the 

employer demonstrates that there is no 

less hazardous way to perform the work 

than by traveling. However, this second 

exception does not apply to rubber-tired 

equipment, for which traveling is 

always prohibited. Traveling with 

hoisted employees is also always 

prohibited for derricks, as set forth 

under proposed § 1926.1431(k)(13), 

discussed below. 

Traveling while hoisting personnel is 

generally prohibited due to several 

additional risks that it presents. The 

platform will tend to swing when the 

equipment is traveling, which presents 

an increased likelihood of employee 

injury from platform tipping or loss of 

footing. If the swing is pronounced, the 

equipment could become unbalanced 

and its capacity exceeded. Also, the 

chance of an unplanned circumstance or 

event increases when the equipment 

travels, which heightens the risk to the 

employees being hoisted. Therefore, the 

exception to this prohibition is narrowly 

drawn. 

Traveling would be permitted with 

equipment that travels on fixed rails, as 

travel on fixed rails is relatively stable 

and predictable, which reduces the 

chance of significant uncontrolled 

movement. Traveling may be done with 

equipment that is not on fixed rails and 

not rubber-tired, but only where the 

employer can demonstrate that there is 

no less hazardous way to perform the 

work. 

However, traveling would be 

prohibited with rubber-tired equipment. 

The Committee was of the view that 

traveling with such equipment while 

hoisting personnel is inherently 

dangerous due to the bouncing and 

swaying of the equipment that is 

inherent in this type of equipment 

because of the tires and suspension. 

The current requirements of Subpart 

N at § 1926.550(g)(7)(i), prohibit 

hoisting employees while a crane is 

traveling ‘‘except for portal, tower or 

locomotive cranes, or where the 

employer demonstrates that there is no 

less hazardous way to perform the 

work.’’ The proposed paragraph would 

have a clearer restriction on equipment 

traveling by establishing a complete 

prohibition on traveling while hoisting 

employees for any rubber-tired 

equipment. Instead of referring to 

particular types of cranes, the proposed 

paragraph allows for hoisting personnel 

by equipment that travels on fixed rails, 

which more directly relates to what 

makes the use of such equipment 

acceptable for this purpose. The 

proposed paragraph still allows for 

hoisting personnel if there is no less 

hazardous means to do the work, but 

this exception does not apply to rubbertired equipment. 

Proposed paragraph (k)(12)(ii), 

Traveling—equipment other than 

derricks, would establish certain criteria 

that would have to be met when 

traveling with employees is allowed. 

The purpose of this proposed paragraph 

is to establish the conditions necessary 

to minimize the effect of traveling on 

the stability of the equipment and 

personnel. In order to hoist employees 

while traveling, the following would be 

required: travel restricted to a fixed 

track or runway; distance of travel 

limited to the length of the boom, 

including any attached jib; the boom 

parallel to the direction of travel (unless 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59837 

73Note that, under proposed § 1926.1431(a), an 

employer may only use equipment to hoist 

personnel when other means of reaching the work 

area would present a greater hazard or would not 

be possible because of the project’s structural 

design or worksite conditions. C–DAC provided, in 

paragraphs (o)(2) and (o)(3)(i), that paragraph (a) 

applies to the use of either a personnel platform or 

a boatswain’s chair. Therefore, before using either 

means to hoist personnel in drill shafts, the 

employer would need to determine that hoisting 

personnel in lieu of using other means of access to 

the work area is the least hazardous, or the only, 

means to gain access to the work area. 

it is safer otherwise); and a complete 

trial run performed to test the travel 

route before employees occupy the 

platform. 

In proposed § 1926.1401, a ‘‘runway’’ 

is defined as a firm level surface 

designed, prepared and designated as a 

path of travel for the weight and 

configuration of the equipment being 

used to lift and travel with the 

personnel platform, including an 

existing surface. For the purposes of this 

proposed paragraph, OSHA believes it is 

necessary to clearly define what 

constitutes a runway since its purpose 

differs, for example, from a runway on 

a gantry crane. The function of the 

runway required by this proposed 

paragraph would be to provide a stable 

surface for equipment during travel to 

minimize unexpected movement. This 

definition is included to remain 

consistent with the term, without 

change, as it is used in Subpart N of 29 

CFR part 1926. The required trial run 

may be done at the same time as the trial 

lift testing the lift route (see proposed 

paragraph (h)). 

This continues the requirements of 

Subpart N’s § 1926.550(g)(7)(ii) with 

three exceptions. Currently, ‘‘the boom 

must be parallel to the direction of 

travel’’; the proposed paragraph allows 

an exception when it is safer to travel 

with the boom not parallel to the 

direction of travel. For example, if the 

work was being done to the side of the 

crane, and booming to parallel would 

take the personnel platform closer to a 

power line, and the manufacturer 

permits the crane to travel with the 

boom to the side, it would be safer to 

travel with the boom to the side in this 

instance. Next, the Committee 

determined that the current travel limit 

of ‘‘the load radius of the boom’’ was 

confusing terminology and found that a 

clearer and equally safe restriction 

would be to limit the distance of travel 

to the ‘‘boom length.’’ Finally, as 

discussed above, the proposed 

paragraph would prohibit all traveling 

while hoisting personnel with rubbertired equipment. The current standard 

(§ 1926.550(g)(7)(ii)(E)) in effect allows 

use of rubber-tired equipment in limited 

conditions. 

Proposed paragraph (k)(13), 

Traveling—derricks, would prohibit a 

derrick from traveling while it is 

hoisting personnel. The current 

requirements of Subpart N that address 

traveling refer only to cranes. C–DAC 

believed that the intent of Subpart N 

was to prohibit derricks from traveling 

with hoisted employees and decided it 

was necessary to note this exclusion to 

eliminate any ambiguity. Hoisting 

employees on a traveling derrick is 

dangerous because derricks are not 

sufficiently stable when traveling. This 

proposed paragraph reflects the current 

industry practice as reflected in section 

3.3.4(a)(14) of ASME B30.6–2003, 

‘‘Derricks.’’ 

Paragraph 1431(l) [Reserved.] 

This proposed paragraph is reserved 

because it is inconvenient for readers to 

distinguish the letter ‘‘l’’ from the 

number ‘‘1.’’ 

Paragraph 1431(m) Pre-Lift Meeting 

This proposed paragraph would 

require a meeting prior to the trial lift 

at each new work location to review the 

requirements of this section and the 

procedures to be followed when 

hoisting personnel. The pre-lift meeting 

would be attended by the equipment 

operator, signal person (when one is 

used for the lift), employees to be 

hoisted, and the person responsible for 

the task to be performed. 

Also, this paragraph would require 

this meeting to be repeated when an 

employee is newly assigned to the 

operation. The purpose of this 

requirement is to make all employees 

involved in the personnel hoisting 

operation aware of the requirements of 

this section and the plan for the 

personnel lift. This would provide an 

opportunity for all employees involved 

to have a common and complete 

understanding of the hoisting operation 

and to give uniform information and 

instructions immediately prior to the 

lift. This would address hazards which 

could result from misunderstanding of 

the requirements, particular lift 

conditions or procedures. 

The provisions of proposed paragraph 

(m) are comparable to the requirements 

of § 1926.550(g)(8). 

Paragraph 1431(n) Hoisting Personnel 

Near Power Lines 

This proposed paragraph would 

prohibit hoisting personnel within 20 

feet of a power line 350 kV and below 

or within 50 feet of a power line over 

350 kV, except for work that is covered 

by 29 CFR part 1926 Subpart V, Power 

Transmission and Distribution. 

The purpose of this requirement is to 

establish a safe clearance distance from 

power lines to protect employees from 

an electrocution hazard that would 

result if the personnel, a personnel 

platform, or equipment made electrical 

contact with a power line. The clearance 

distances are similar to those in 

proposed § 1926.1407 and § 1926.1408 

for equipment operating near power 

lines. However, under § 1926.1407 and 

§ 1926.1408, clearances less than 20 and 

50 feet are permitted for certain voltage 

ranges. Here, the Committee believed 

that the extra risk that arises when 

personnel are hoisted near a power line 

justifies the requirement to maintain the 

minimum distances of 20 feet for lines 

350 kV or less and 50 feet for lines over 

350 kV regardless of whether operations 

at closer distances without hoisting 

personnel would be permitted. 

Currently, Subpart N at § 1926.550 

has no specific requirement for hoisting 

personnel near power lines, and the 

normal minimum distances established 

by that standard apply. 

Paragraph 1431(o) Hoisting Personnel 

in Drill Shafts 

This proposed paragraph would 

provide requirements when hoisting 

personnel in drill shafts that are 8 feet 

and smaller in diameter. C–DAC noted 

that drill shafts of this size may be 

either too small to use a personnel 

platform, or that use of a personnel 

platform might not allow the room 

needed to perform the necessary work. 

As a result, the Committee determined 

that, due to the limitations of a drill 

shaft of this size, use of a personnel 

platform would typically be infeasible 

and a boatswain’s chair may be the only 

practical means of hoisting personnel 

and performing the necessary work. 

‘‘Boatswain’s chair’’ is defined in 

§ 1926.1401 as ‘‘a single-point 

adjustable suspension scaffold 

consisting of a seat or sling (which may 

be incorporated into a full body harness) 

designed to support one employee in a 

sitting position.’’ Except for the 

parenthetical, this definition is identical 

to that in OSHA’s construction 

scaffolding standard, § 1926.450(b). The 

parenthetical has been added to clarify 

that a boatswain’s chair in which the 

seat or sling is incorporated into a full 

body harness complies with the 

standard. 

Proposed § 1926.1431(o)(1) would 

allow the employer to use either a 

personnel platform or a boatswain’s 

chair; the employer would have the 

option of choosing which one to use.73

When the employer elects to use a 

boatswain’s chair in lieu of a personnel 

platform, particular supplementary 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59838 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

requirements in proposed paragraph 

(o)(3) would have to be met. These 

particular requirements address the 

heightened danger that the employee 

may fall from the chair or contact the 

wall of the drill shaft. Subpart N does 

not have requirements that specifically 

address hoisting personnel in drill 

shafts. 

Proposed § 1926.1431(o)(1) would 

require that the employer use either a 

personnel platform or boatswain’s chair. 

Proposed § 1926.1431(o)(2) would 

require the employer to follow 

requirements (a) through (n) of 

§ 1926.1431 when using a personnel 

platform to hoist employees. This would 

make clear that the provisions in 

proposed paragraph (o) are 

supplementary requirements. 

Proposed § 1926.1431(o)(3) would 

establish the requirements when the 

employer elects to use a boatswain’s 

chair in lieu of a personnel platform for 

hoisting personnel. 

Proposed § 1926.1431(o)(3)(i) would 

establish which of the previous 

proposed paragraphs in § 1926.1431 

would continue to apply when using a 

boatswain’s chair. For these applicable 

paragraphs, the reader would substitute 

the phrase ‘‘boatswain’s chair’’ for either 

‘‘personnel platform’’ or ‘‘platform,’’ 

and the employer must comply with 

these requirements. 

The proposed paragraphs omitted 

from proposed § 1926.1431(o)(3)(i) 

would not apply when a boatswain’s 

chair is used. This is because the 

requirement is either specifically 

applicable to personnel platform design 

and use, or generally not applicable 

when hoisting personnel in a drill shaft. 

Proposed § 1926.1431(o)(3)(ii) would 

require a signal person to be stationed 

at the opening of the shaft during 

personnel hoisting. The purpose is to 

have the signal person at the best 

position to watch the employee being 

hoisted and signal the equipment 

operator, since the employee would be 

out of visual range of the operator. 

Proposed § 1926.1431(o)(3)(iii) would 

require the employee to be hoisted in a 

slow, controlled descent and ascent. 

This is to limit swinging or sudden 

movement of the boatswain’s chair to 

prevent fall from the chair or impact 

with the walls of the drill shaft. 

Proposed § 1926.1431(o)(3)(iv) would 

require the employee in the boatswain’s 

chair to use personal fall arrest 

equipment, including a full body 

harness, that is attached independent of 

the crane/derrick. The purpose of 

requiring a tie off point independent of 

the equipment is to protect the 

employee from a sudden drop or fall 

due to equipment failure or other 

problem associated with the operation 

of the crane/derrick and to protect the 

employee from falls when accessing and 

egressing the boatswain’s chair. 

Proposed § 1926.1431(o)(3)(v) would 

require fall protection equipment to 

comply with § 1926.502, Fall Protection 

Systems Criteria and Practices. 

Proposed § 1926.1431(o)(3)(vi) would 

require the boatswain’s chair (excluding 

the personal fall arrest anchorages) to be 

capable of supporting, without failure, 

its own weight plus a minimum of five 

times the maximum intended load. This 

is similar to the requirement for 

personnel platforms at proposed 

§ 1926.1431(e)(4). The strength 

requirement that would be applicable to 

personal fall arrest anchorages is in 

§ 1926.502(d)(15). 

Proposed § 1926.1431(o)(3)(vii) would 

mandate that only one person be hoisted 

at a time when using a boatswain’s 

chair. The Committee believed that 

hoisting more than one person using a 

boatswain’s chair in a drill shaft would 

present unacceptable additional hazards 

for the employees being hoisted. 

Paragraph 1431(p) Hoisting Personnel 

for Pile Driving Operations 

This proposed paragraph would 

provide requirements for hoisting 

personnel in pile driving operations. 

Subpart N does not have provisions that 

specifically address hoisting personnel 

in pile driving operations. 

Proposed § 1926.1431(p)(1) would 

require that the employer use either a 

personnel platform or boatswain’s chair 

when hoisting personnel in pile driving 

operations. As with drill shafts, C–DAC 

believed that use of a personnel 

platform would often be infeasible in 

this type of operation, and 

§ 1926.1431(p)(1) therefore gives the 

employer the option of choosing which 

one to use. 

Proposed § 1926.1431(p)(2) would 

require the cable being used to hoist 

personnel to be clearly marked at the 

point on the cable that would allow the 

equipment operator the opportunity to 

stop the hoist to prevent two-blocking. 

In the C–DAC document an alternative 

to marking the cable would have been 

permitted: use of a spotter to observe the 

lift and alert the equipment operator in 

time to prevent two-blocking. An antitwo-blocking device would not be 

required for equipment during pile 

driving operations since the vibration of 

the pile driver would destroy this 

device. (See § 1926.1431(d)(4)(iv), Antitwo-block). 

In reviewing this portion of the C– 

DAC document, the Agency has noted 

that the means of preventing twoblocking in the C–DAC language, that is, 

to mark the cable or use a spotter, is 

consistent with the temporary 

alternative measure for an anti twoblock device specified in proposed 

§ 1926.1416(d)(3)(ii)(D) for lattice boom 

cranes. However, as indicated in 

proposed § 1926.1416(d)(3)(i), marking 

the cable is not sufficient for telescopic 

boom cranes when extending the boom. 

As discussed above in the context of 

that proposed provision, when 

extending a telescopic boom, a spotter is 

needed to warn against two-blocking. 

The Agency believes that the 

Committee developed its language for 

preventing two-blocking when pile 

driving with only lattice boom cranes in 

mind, since that is the type of 

equipment that is commonly used for 

this work. However, as technology and 

construction practices evolve, telescopic 

boom cranes may be used for this work 

as well. Therefore, the Agency has 

modified the C–DAC language so that 

proposed § 1926.1431(p)(2) would 

require that, when using a telescopic 

boom crane for pile driving operations, 

a spotter must be used in addition to 

marking the cable. The Agency requests 

public comment on this issue. 

Proposed § 1926.1431(p)(3) would 

require the employer to follow 

requirements (b) through (n) of 

§ 1926.1431 when using a personnel 

platform to hoist employees. Section 

1926.1431(a) would not apply because 

the Committee determined that the 

employer should not be required to 

demonstrate that the other means of 

access listed in § 1926.1431(a) are 

infeasible before being able to use a 

personnel platform to hoist personnel 

during pile driving operations. C–DAC 

believed that demonstrating infeasibility 

prior to using a personnel platform 

should not be required because, in most 

instances, it is not feasible to use other 

means of access. 

Proposed § 1926.1431(p)(4) would 

establish the requirements when the 

employer elects to use a boatswain’s 

chair in lieu of a personnel platform for 

hoisting personnel. 

Proposed § 1926.1431(p)(4)(i) would 

establish which of the previous 

paragraphs in § 1926.1431 continue to 

apply when using a boatswain’s chair in 

a pile driving operation. For these 

applicable paragraphs, the reader would 

substitute the phrase ‘‘boatswain’s 

chair’’ for either ‘‘personnel platform’’ 

or ‘‘platform’’ and the employer must 

comply with these requirements. 

The proposed paragraphs omitted 

from proposed § 1926.1431(p)(3)(i) do 

not apply when a boatswain’s chair is 

used because the requirement is either 

specifically applicable to personnel 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59839 

platform design and use or generally not 

applicable for pile driving operations. 

Proposed § 1926.1431(p)(4)(ii) would 

require the employee to be hoisted in a 

slow, controlled descent and ascent. 

This is to limit swinging or sudden 

movement of the boatswain’s chair to 

prevent a fall from the chair or impact 

with equipment or other structures. 

Proposed § 1926.1431(p)(4)(iii) would 

require that the employee in the 

boatswain’s chair use personal fall arrest 

equipment, including a full body 

harness. The fall arrest system must be 

attached to either the lower load block 

or the overhaul ball. The purpose of 

having the fall protection equipment 

and tie off point independent of the 

boatswain’s chair and rigging used to 

hoist the employee is twofold. It would 

both protect the employee from a 

sudden drop or fall due to failure of that 

equipment and protect the employee 

when accessing and egressing the 

boatswain’s chair. 

Proposed § 1926.1431(p)(4)(iv) would 

require fall protection equipment to 

comply with § 1926.502, Fall protection 

systems criteria and practices. This 

would ensure that the fall equipment is 

sufficient to safely arrest the employee’s 

fall. 

In reviewing this portion of the C– 

DAC document, the Agency has noted 

that the Committee did not include a 

provision similar to proposed 

§ 1926.1431(o)(3)(vi)(drill shafts) and 

§ 1926.1431(s)(3)(v)(storage tanks) to 

require a minimum strength for the 

boatswain’s chair. In addition, it did not 

include a provision similar to proposed 

§ 1926.1431(o)(3)(vii)(drill shafts) and 

§ 1926.1431(s)(3)(vi)(storage tanks) to 

restrict hoisting to one person at a time. 

Accordingly, the Agency is planning to 

add the following provisions to 

proposed § 1926.1431(p)(4) and requests 

public comment on these additions. 

(v) The boatswain’s chair itself (excluding 

the personal fall arrest system anchorages), 

shall be capable of supporting, without 

failure, its own weight and at least five times 

the maximum intended load. 

(vi) No more than one person shall be 

hoisted at a time. 

Paragraph 1431(q) [Reserved.] 

This paragraph is reserved because it 

is inconvenient for the reader to 

distinguish the letter q, when in 

parentheses, from the letter o. 

Paragraph 1431(r) Hoisting Personnel 

for Marine Transfer 

This proposed paragraph would 

address the particular hazards related to 

hoisting personnel for transfer to or 

from a marine construction worksite. 

Currently, Subpart N does not address 

the particular hazards and requirements 

of marine personnel transfer. This 

proposed paragraph would apply only 

when hoisting employees solely for 

such transfer. 

Proposed § 1926.1431(r)(1) would 

require the employer to use either a 

traditional personnel platform or a 

marine hoisted personnel transfer 

device. This proposed paragraph would 

allow an employer to use a marine 

hoisted personnel transfer device 

instead of a personnel platform for 

several reasons. Transferring personnel 

to or from a marine construction site 

poses special problems due to the 

effects of waves and gusting wind. 

These effects, which can be 

unpredictable, can result in a situation 

where the equipment operator will not 

be able to adequately control the 

equipment. In such a situation, the 

device used to transfer the employees 

may suddenly wind up in the water. 

Another possibility is that the 

employees may need to jump off into 

the water to avoid a collision with the 

ship or an object on the construction 

site. A third possibility is that the 

operator will be unable to control the 

equipment while the employees are 

attempting to board or disembark. The 

longer it takes to get on or off, the 

greater this risk becomes. In all of these 

scenarios the employees need to be able 

to either enter or exit the device being 

used to transfer them quickly and easily. 

A personnel platform, which is 

designed, in part, to keep the employees 

inside, would, in most marine 

situations, compound the hazard faced 

by the employees, since they can be 

difficult to enter and exit quickly. For 

example, there is usually a gate that 

latches shut. Also, the gate may prevent 

more than one employee from entering 

or exiting at a time. In contrast, a marine 

hoisted personnel transfer device is 

designed specifically to facilitate the 

employees’ rapid entry and exit. The 

Committee believed that the employer 

should have the option of using such a 

device so that it may be used where, in 

the judgment of the employer, the 

conditions are such that the risk of 

being prevented from entering or exiting 

quickly is greater than the risk of 

unintentionally falling off. 

OSHA notes that proposed 

§ 1926.1431(r)(1) would give employers 

an unrestricted choice of whether to use 

a personnel platform or a marine 

hoisted personnel transfer device 

despite the fact that the personnel 

platform would often be a less safe 

choice. OSHA requests public comment 

on whether the employer should be 

required to select the device used for 

marine transfer on the basis of which is 

safer under the circumstances or should 

otherwise restrict the use of personnel 

platforms for marine transfer. 

Proposed § 1926.1431(r)(2) would 

require the employer to follow 

requirements (a) through (n) of 

§ 1926.1431 when using a personnel 

platform to hoist employees. As 

discussed previously, these provisions 

are designed to ensure that hoisting 

personnel is the safest means of moving 

the employees and that the personnel 

platform’s design and use are adequate 

from a safety standpoint. 

Proposed § 1926.1431(r)(3) would 

establish the requirements when the 

employer elects to use a marine hoisted 

personnel transfer device in lieu of a 

personnel platform for hoisting 

personnel. 

Proposed § 1926.1431(r)(3)(i) would 

establish which of the previous 

paragraphs in § 1926.1431 continue to 

apply when using a marine hoisted 

personnel transfer device. For these 

applicable paragraphs, the reader would 

substitute the phrase ‘‘marine hoisted 

personnel transfer device’’ for either 

‘‘personnel platform’’ or ‘‘platform’’ and 

the employer must comply with these 

requirements. 

The paragraphs omitted from 

proposed § 1926.1431(r)(3)(i) do not 

apply when a marine hoisted personnel 

transfer device is used. This is because 

the requirement is either specifically 

applicable to personnel platform design 

and use or generally not applicable 

when hoisting personnel at a marine 

worksite. 

Proposed § 1926.1431(r)(3)(ii) would 

require the marine hoisted personnel 

transfer device to be used exclusively 

for transferring employees. One purpose 

of this proposed provision is to not 

allow the device to be used as a work 

platform. The device’s design, which 

specifically facilitates easy and rapid 

entry and exit, is ill-suited to providing 

a safe work platform. In particular, it is 

not designed to prevent falling while an 

employee uses his or her hands for 

working rather than holding on to the 

device. Also, it is ill-suited as a material 

transfer device because it is not 

designed to prevent materials from 

falling from it and could be damaged by 

such use. 

Proposed § 1926.1431(r)(3)(iii) would 

limit the number of employees on the 

marine hoisted personnel transfer 

device to the maximum number the 

device was designed to hold. This 

would prevent overloading, which 

could result in structural failure of the 

device. It would also prevent 

overcrowding, which could cause an 

unintended fall or preclude a worker 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59840 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

74There is no current requirement in Subpart N 

that specifically addresses hoisting personnel in 

storage tanks (steel or concrete), shaft operations, or 

chimney operations. 

from entering or exiting as rapidly as 

when used properly. 

Proposed § 1926.1431(o)(3)(iv) would 

require each employee being transferred 

on a marine hoisted personnel transfer 

device to wear a U.S. Coast Guard 

personal flotation device that is 

approved for industrial use. The 

purpose is to protect the employee from 

drowning if the device enters the water, 

or if the employee falls or needs to jump 

into the water. 

Paragraph 1431(s) Hoisting Personnel 

for Storage Tank (Steel or Concrete), 

Shaft and Chimney Operations 

This proposed paragraph would 

establish requirements when hoisting 

personnel in storage tank (steel or 

concrete), shaft operations and chimney 

operations. C–DAC determined that use 

of a personnel platform, while usually 

feasible, is infeasible in some 

circumstances involving these 

operations due to the nature of the work 

activity. Consequently, the Committee 

determined that boatswain’s chairs 

should be allowed instead of a 

personnel platform in such instances, 

but only when the employer can 

demonstrate that use of a personnel 

platform is infeasible.74 For these 

reasons, proposed § 1926.1431(s)(1) 

would allow the employer to use a 

boatswain’s chair only when the 

employer has determined that use of a 

personnel platform is infeasible. 

Proposed § 1926.1431(s)(2) would 

require the employer to follow 

requirements (a) through (n) of 

§ 1926.1431 when using a personnel 

platform to hoist employees. Under 

proposed § 1926.1431(a), an employer 

may only use equipment to hoist 

personnel when other means of reaching 

the work area would present a greater 

hazard or would not be possible because 

of the project’s structural design or 

worksite conditions. Therefore, before 

using a personnel platform to hoist 

personnel in storage tank (steel or 

concrete), shaft operations and chimney 

operations, the employer would need to 

determine that hoisting personnel in 

lieu of using other means of access to 

the work area is the least hazardous, or 

the only, means to gain access to the 

work area. 

Proposed § 1926.1431(s)(3) would 

establish the requirements when the 

employer uses a boatswain’s chair in 

lieu of a personnel platform for hoisting 

personnel. 

Proposed § 1926.1431(s)(3)(i) would 

establish which of the previous 

paragraphs in § 1926.1431 continue to 

apply when using a boatswain’s chair. 

For these applicable paragraphs, the 

reader would substitute the phrase 

‘‘boatswain’s chair’’ for either 

‘‘personnel platform’’ or ‘‘platform’’ and 

the employer must comply with these 

requirements. 

The paragraphs omitted from 

proposed § 1926.1431(s)(3)(i) do not 

apply when a boatswain’s chair is used. 

This is because the requirement is either 

specifically applicable to personnel 

platform use and design or generally not 

applicable when hoisting personnel in 

storage tanks (steel or concrete), shaft 

operations and chimney operations. 

Proposed § 1926.1431(s)(3)(ii) would 

require the employee to be hoisted in a 

slow, controlled descent and ascent. 

This is to limit swinging or sudden 

movement of the boatswain’s chair to 

prevent fall from the chair or impact 

with the walls or other areas or 

structures involved in these operations. 

Proposed § 1926.1431(s)(3)(iii) would 

require the employee in the boatswain’s 

chair to use personal fall arrest 

equipment, including a full body 

harness, that is attached independent of 

the crane/derrick. Having the tie off 

point independent of the equipment 

protects the employee from a sudden 

drop or fall due to equipment failure or 

other problem associated with the 

operation of the crane/derrick and to 

protect the employee from falls when 

accessing and egressing the boatswain’s 

chair. 

Proposed § 1926.1431(s)(3)(iv) would 

require fall protection equipment to 

comply with § 1926.502, Fall protection 

systems criteria and practices. This 

would ensure that the fall equipment is 

sufficient to safely arrest the employee’s 

fall. 

Proposed § 1926.1431(s)(3)(v) would 

require the boatswain’s chair to be 

capable of supporting, without failure, 

its own weight plus a minimum of five 

times the maximum intended load. This 

is consistent with the requirement for 

personnel platforms at 

§ 1926.1431(e)(4). 

Proposed § 1926.1431(s)(3)(vi) would 

mandate that only one person be hoisted 

at a time when using a boatswain’s 

chair. The Committee believed that 

hoisting more than one person using a 

boatswain’s chair in these operations 

would present unacceptable additional 

hazards for the employees being 

hoisted. 

Section 1432 Multiple Crane/Derrick 

Lifts 

This proposed section lists additional 

requirements for operations involving 

multiple cranes and derricks. It 

addresses hazards arising from 

operations that use more than one 

crane/derrick to lift a single load. This 

section evolved from the Committee’s 

concern that such operations involve an 

additional level of risk due to their 

higher degree of complexity. 

Specifically, the number and type of 

factors that must be accounted for, the 

difficulties associated with closely 

coordinating the movement of the 

multiple cranes/derricks, and the 

likelihood that such lifts are typically 

outside the normal routine for most 

employers, combine to create this higher 

level of risk. Consequently, the 

Committee agreed that such lifts need 

an additional level of planning and 

expertise over that required in routine 

operations. This section would require 

development and implementation of a 

plan by qualified persons, which would 

result in proactive decision-making and 

greater awareness and caution during 

multiple-crane/derrick operations. 

Currently, Subpart N, through 

incorporation of section 5–3.2.31 of 

ANSI B30.5–1968, addresses multiple 

lifts as follows: ‘‘When two or more 

cranes are used to lift one load, one 

designated person shall be responsible 

for the operation. He shall analyze the 

operation and instruct all personnel 

involved in the proper positioning, 

rigging of the load, and the movements 

to be made.’’ As discussed below, this 

proposed rule also requires supervision 

of the operation and instruction of 

personnel but, in addition, specifies 

qualifications that the person who 

supervises the lift must have and 

contains additional provisions to ensure 

safety. 

Paragraph 1432(a) Plan Development 

The purpose of the proposed 

requirement for a plan is to help ensure 

that the hazards involved with a 

multiple lift are identified and 

eliminated. These hazards include, but 

are not limited to, load slipping and 

unintended load shifting. Such hazards 

can be minimized by a plan that 

addresses elements such as the capacity 

of the cranes/derricks relative to load 

distribution (throughout the lift), load 

rigging, load travel (from start to finish), 

and communication. The Committee 

discussed several specific methods of 

addressing these hazards, but in view of 

the wide variety and circumstances of 

such lifts, determined that a plan-based 

requirement would be most appropriate 

and would be effective in reducing the 

risks associated with these operations. 

Proposed § 1926.1432(a)(1) would 

require that a qualified person develop 

the plan. Because of the inherent 

complexity of these operations, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59841 

Committee members believed that it is 

necessary for a person with a high 

degree of knowledge and experience to 

develop the plan; otherwise, there is a 

significant likelihood that the plan 

would be ineffective in addressing the 

hazards. Therefore, the Committee 

determined that the plan developer 

would need to be a qualified person. 

Proposed § 1926.1432(a)(2) would 

require that the plan be designed to 

ensure that the requirements of this 

Subpart are met. This provision 

emphasizes that all applicable 

requirements in the proposed standard 

must be met when performing multiple 

crane/derrick lifts, in addition to the 

specific requirements set forth in this 

section. The Committee believed that it 

was important to emphasize this in the 

plan to help ensure safe multiple-crane/ 

derrick lift operations. 

Paragraph 1432(a)(3) 

Proposed § 1926.1432(a)(3) would 

require engineering expertise to be 

provided by the employer whenever the 

qualified person determines that it is 

necessary. In the view of the Committee, 

some, but not all multiple-crane/derrick 

lifts need to be planned with 

engineering expertise so that the lift can 

be performed safely. The Committee 

believed that it is not practical to set 

criteria in this proposed rule for 

identifying which lifts need such 

expertise. 

Paragraph 1432(b) Plan 

Implementation 

Under this proposed paragraph, the 

employer would be required to take 

specific steps designed to ensure that 

the decisions and precautions built into 

the plan are effectively implemented. 

Proposed § 1926.1432(b)(1) would 

require supervision of plan 

implementation by competent and 

qualified persons, or by one person who 

meets the definitions of both. The 

Committee believed that, especially in 

light of the inherent complexity of these 

operations, it is essential that a person 

(or team) with sufficient expertise and 

authority oversee the implementation of 

the plan. Supervision by a person or 

team with the attributes of both a 

competent and qualified person would 

ensure not only that potential problems 

are identified, but also that the person 

in charge of oversight will have the 

authority to correct anything that is 

amiss. For a detailed explanation of 

competent and qualified persons, refer 

to the preamble discussion of proposed 

§ 1926.1404(a), Supervision— 

competent-qualified person. 

Proposed § 1926.1432(b)(2) would 

mandate that the supervisor review the 

plan with all employees who will be 

involved with the operation before lift 

operations begin. This would typically 

involve the signal person, rigging crew, 

crane operator, and sometimes laborers, 

who would all meet to make certain that 

everyone understands the plan and how 

the operation will be conducted. The 

Committee believed that it is important 

for employees to know how the plan 

will work, including their 

responsibilities and the responsibilities 

of others, to help ensure that the diverse 

aspects of the operation will be 

coordinated. 

Section 1433 Design, Construction and 

Testing 

Currently, Subpart N includes design, 

construction, and testing requirements 

for specific types of equipment that 

either incorporate pre-1970 consensus 

standards or that require equipment to 

conform to manufacturer’s 

specifications. The former category 

includes: Crawler, locomotive, and 

truck cranes (ANSI B30.5–1968, 

incorporated by 29 CFR 1926.550(b)(2)); 

overhead and gantry cranes (ANSI 

B30.2.0–1967, incorporated by 

1926.550(d)(4)); and derricks (ANSI 

B30.6–1969, incorporated by 

§ 1926.550(e)). The latter includes 

hammerhead tower cranes 

(§ 1926.550(c)(5)) and floating cranes 

and derricks (§ 1926.550(f)(2)(iii)). 

Except for crawler, locomotive, and 

truck cranes, design, construction and/ 

or testing requirements for each of these 

categories of equipment is addressed in 

a section of this proposed standard that 

is dedicated to that type of equipment. 

This proposed section contains certain 

requirements applicable only to crawler, 

locomotive, and truck cranes and, in 

addition, contains requirements that 

apply to all of the equipment subject to 

this standard. 

The C–DAC draft provides that the 

requirements of this section ‘‘apply to 

equipment that has a manufacturerrated hoisting/lifting capacity of 2,000 

pounds or more.’’ However, proposed 

§ 1926.1441 sets forth requirements for 

equipment with a rated capacity of 

2,000 pounds or less and excludes 

§ 1926.1433 from the requirements for 

such equipment. The two sections 

conflict with respect to equipment rated 

at 2,000 pounds, which is a common 

rating. It is OSHA’s understanding that 

C–DAC included the 2,000-pound cutoff 

to parallel ANSI B30.5 in this regard. 

The 1968 and 2004 versions of ANSI 

B30.5, as well as intermediate versions, 

exclude equipment with a capacity of 

one ton or less. To conform to that 

intent in the proposed rule, OSHA has 

changed the introductory sentence so 

that it reads: ‘‘The following 

requirements apply to equipment that 

has a manufacturer-rated hoisting/lifting 

capacity of more than 2,000 pounds.’’ 

Paragraph 1433(a) 

Proposed paragraph (a) would require 

that crawler, truck and locomotive 

cranes manufactured prior to the 

effective date of this standard meet the 

applicable requirements for design, 

construction, and testing prescribed in 

ANSI B30.5–1968, safety code for 

‘‘Crawler, Locomotive, and Truck 

Cranes,’’ ‘‘PCSA Standard No. 2,’’ the 

requirements in paragraph (b), or the 

applicable DIN (Deutsches Institut fu ̈r 

Normung e.V., or German Institute for 

Standardization) standards that were in 

effect at the time of manufacture. 

This proposed provision would allow 

employers to continue to use equipment 

that complies with § 1926.550(b)(2) of 

Subpart N and also gives them the 

flexibility to use equipment that was 

built to conform to applicable DIN 

standards. The Committee concluded 

that the equipment manufactured 

during this period that was built to 

conform to the applicable DIN standards 

has not shown signs of being less safe 

from the standpoint of its design and 

construction than equipment built 

during this period to meet the 

applicable ANSI or PCSA standards. 

The C–DAC draft of this paragraph, 

and of § 1926.1433(c) (see discussion 

below), referred to ‘‘the effective date of 

1926.1400’’ instead of the ‘‘effective 

date of the standard.’’ For consistency 

throughout this proposal, OSHA has 

changed the references to ‘‘the effective 

date of 1926.1400’’ to ‘‘the effective date 

of the standard.’’ 

Paragraph 1433(b) 

Proposed (b) uses the phrase ‘‘mobile 

and locomotive cranes’’ to reflect the 

current terminology used in ASME 

B30.5–2004. As drafted by C–DAC, it 

would require that mobile (including 

crawler and truck) and locomotive 

cranes manufactured on or after the 

effective date of this standard meet 

certain provisions of ASME B30.5–2000 

with addenda ASME B30.5a–2002, 

‘‘Safety Code for Mobile and 

Locomotive Cranes.’’ Here, as elsewhere 

in this proposal, OSHA has updated the 

provision to refer to the 2004 version of 

ASME B30.5. OSHA has compared the 

2004 and earlier version and, as 

discussed below, requests public 

comment on whether certain changes in 

the 2004 version should be adopted. 

The provisions of ASME B30.5–2004 

incorporated in the C–DAC document 

are as follows: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59842 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

(1) In section 5–1.1.1 (‘‘Load 

Ratings—Where Stability Governs 

Lifting Performance’’), paragraphs (a)– 

(d) (including subparagraphs); 

(2) In section 5–1.1.2 (‘‘Load 

Ratings—Where Structural Competence 

Governs Lifting Performance’’), 

paragraph (b); 

(3) Section 5–1.2 (‘‘Stability 

(Backward and Forward)’’); 

(4) In section 5–1.3.1 (‘‘Boom Hoist 

Mechanism’’), paragraphs (a), (b)(1) and 

(b)(2), except that when using rotation 

resistant rope, § 1926.1414(c)(4)(ii)(A) 

applies; 

(5) In section 5–1.3.2 (‘‘Load Hoist 

Mechanism’’), paragraphs (a), (a)(2)— 

(a)(4) (including subparagraphs), (b)— 

(d) (including subparagraphs); 

(6) Section 5–1.3.3 (‘‘Telescoping 

Boom’’); 

(7) Section 5–1.4 (‘‘Swing 

Mechanism’’); 

(8) In section 5–1.5 (‘‘Crane Travel’’), 

all provisions except 5–1.5.3(d); 

(9) In section 5–1.6 (‘‘Controls’’), all 

provisions except 5–1.6.1(c); 

(10) Section 5–1.7.4 (‘‘Sheaves’’); 

(11) Section 5–1.7.5 (‘‘Sheave sizes’’); 

(12) In section 5–1.9.1 (‘‘Booms’’), 

paragraph (f); 

(13) Section 5–1.9.3 (‘‘Outriggers’’); 

(14) Section 5–1.9.4 (‘‘Locomotive 

Crane Equipment’’); 

(15) Section 5–1.9.7 (‘‘Clutch and 

Brake Protection’’); and 

(16) In section 5–1.9.12 

(‘‘Miscellaneous equipment’’), 

paragraphs (a), (c), (e), and (f). 

C–DAC’s intent in this paragraph was 

to incorporate design and construction 

provisions of ASME B30.5–2004 that 

would only be applicable to mobile and 

locomotive cranes. Some other 

provisions of ASME B30.5–2004 are not 

incorporated here because they deal 

with issues addressed elsewhere in this 

proposal. For example, two-block 

protection, which is required by section 

5–1.9.9.1 of the ASME standard, is 

addressed in § 1926.1416 of this 

proposed standard. In addition, the 

issues addressed in proposed paragraph 

(e) below are addressed in ASME B30.5– 

2004 but, instead of making those 

provisions applicable solely to mobile 

and locomotive cranes, C–DAC drafted 

corresponding provisions that would be 

applied to all of the equipment subject 

to this proposed standard. 

The sections of ASME B30.5 

referenced in proposed 

§ 1926.1433(b)(1) and (b)(13) contain 

substantive differences between the 

2004 and earlier versions. For 

§ 1926.1433(b)(1), Table 1 of section 5– 

1.1.1 includes new requirements for 

equipment with outriggers partially 

extended that are not found in the 

earlier version. For paragraph 

§ 1926.1433(b)(13), the 2004 version of 

section 5–1.9.3 contains a new 

paragraph (d) dealing with deploying 

partially extended outriggers. Inasmuch 

as § 1926.1404(q)(1) of this proposal 

permits partial deployment of outriggers 

when manufacturer procedures permit, 

OSHA believes it would serve C–DAC’s 

intent to incorporate the provisions on 

partially deployed outriggers in the 

2004 version of ASME B30.5. OSHA 

requests public comment on this issue. 

Upon reviewing the C–DAC draft of 

§ 1926.1433(b)(5), OSHA notes that two 

corrections are necessary. First, there is 

an internal inconsistency between the 

incorporation of paragraph (a) of the 

ASME section and the more limited 

incorporation of paragraphs (a)(2) 

through (a)(4). To correct this 

inconsistency, OSHA is deleting the 

reference to paragraph (a). Second, as 

noted earlier in the discussion of 

§ 1926.1414, the second sentence of 

section 5–1.3.2(c) of ASME B30.5–2004 

is stated as a recommendation rather 

than a mandatory requirement. OSHA 

believes it would be confusing to 

incorporate a non-mandatory 

recommendation into this standard. 

Therefore, rather than incorporating all 

of section 5–1.3.2(c) by reference, OSHA 

is proposing to incorporate only the first 

sentence, which reads: ‘‘When 

provided, a power-controlled lowering 

system shall be capable of handling 

rated loads and speeds as specified by 

the manufacturer.’’ With these changes, 

proposed § 1926.1433(b)(5) reads as 

follows: 

(5) In section 5–1.3.2 (‘‘Load Hoist 

Mechanism’’), paragraphs (a)(2)–(a)(4) 

(including subparagraphs), (b) (including 

subparagraphs), (c) (first sentence only), and 

(d). 

Finally, due to renumbering, section 

5–1.9.12 of the older ASME standard is 

section 5–1.9.11 in the 2004 version. 

The proposed rule reflects this change. 

Paragraph 1433(c) 

Proposed (c), Prototype testing, would 

require that prototype mobile (including 

crawler and truck) and locomotive 

cranes manufactured on or after the 

effective date of this standard meet the 

prototype testing requirements in 

§ 1926.1433(c)(1), Test Option A or 

§ 1926.1433(c)(2), Test Option B of this 

proposed section. As discussed in 

greater detail below, Test Option A 

continues the prototype testing 

methodology that has been required 

under Subpart N for crawler, 

locomotive, and truck cranes through 

the incorporation of ANSI B30.5–1968. 

Test Option B would permit, as an 

alternative, the use of computer 

modeling technology for prototype 

evaluation. 

Test Option A—Physical Testing 

Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(i), Test 

Option A, would state that the following 

applies to equipment with cantilevered 

booms (such as hydraulic boom cranes): 

all the tests listed in SAE J1063, Table 

1, shall be performed to load all critical 

structural elements to their respective 

limits; and all the strength margins 

listed in SAE J1063, Table 2 shall be 

met. As mentioned in previous 

paragraphs of this proposed standard, 

C–DAC recognized the abundance of 

hydraulic cranes now in production and 

believed OSHA needs to ensure that 

prototypes are tested to the most 

applicable standards. C–DAC identified 

current SAE standards as being most 

protective and applicable to the majority 

of cantilevered-boom cranes that are 

manufactured in the United States. In 

addition, they believed that most U.S. 

manufacturers already adhere to the 

SAE standards. 

Proposed § 1926.1433(c)(1)(ii) states 

that the following applies to equipment 

with pendant supported lattice booms: 

all the tests listed in SAE J987, Table 1, 

shall be performed to load all critical 

structural elements to their respective 

limits; and all the strength margins 

listed in SAE J987 Table 2 shall be met. 

C–DAC recommended that OSHA 

include the minimum testing criteria 

specified in the referenced SAE 

standard to ensure that prototype cranes 

with pendant supported booms were 

safe to operate on construction sites. 

The testing involved in the SAE tables 

under Option A uses empirical 

measurements of the prototype; in other 

words, ‘‘physical testing,’’ using 

equipment such as strain gauges, is 

done to determine if the prototype is 

within the requisite limits. 

Test Option B—Computer Modeling 

With Methodology Verification 

In contrast to the physical testing 

required under Test Option A, under 

proposed § 1926.1433(c)(2), Test Option 

B, the testing and verification 

requirements of CEN’s EN 13000 (2004), 

which permits tests to be conducted 

using computer modeling, would apply. 

In using the CEN (Comite Europe en de 

Normalisation, or European Committee 

for Standardization) standard, the 

additional requirements specified in 

proposed § 1926.1433(c)(2)(i) through 

(iii), which impose conditions that must 

be met if computer modeling is used, 

would also have to be met. 

During the C–DAC meetings, there 

was considerable discussion about 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59843 

whether computer modeling is a 

sufficient substitute for physical testing. 

A German crane manufacturer gave a 

presentation to C–DAC in which they 

described successful experience with 

the use of computer modeling, which 

convinced some members of C–DAC 

that computer modeling should be 

allowed to be used to comply with this 

proposed section. Other C–DAC 

members were not convinced that 

computer modeling was sufficient to 

ensure that prototype cranes were safe 

for operation because the tested areas of 

those cranes were not strain gauged. 

Others believed that data was available 

which indicated that, when CEN testing 

standards were met, imported cranes 

were as safe as those tested using the 

strain gauging methods specified in 

§ 1926.1433(c)(1). Ultimately, C–DAC 

agreed to allow testing under the CEN 

standard but to mandate that the 

requirements of proposed 

§ 1926.1433(c)(2), discussed below, are 

met to ensure the reliability of the 

computer modeling. 

Proposed § 1926.1433(c)(2)(i) would 

require that the analysis methodology 

(computer modeling) demonstrate that 

all load cases listed in SAE J1063 meet 

the strength margins listed in SAE J1063 

Table 2 for equipment with cantilevered 

booms (such as hydraulic boom cranes). 

C–DAC determined that it is necessary 

that the computer modeling 

demonstrate that the prototype meets 

the same minimum strength criteria 

used in Test Option A (see proposed 

§ 1926.1433(c)(1)(i), Test Option A, 

above). 

Proposed § 1926.1433(c)(2)(ii) would 

require that the analysis methodology 

(computer modeling) demonstrate that 

all load cases listed in SAE J987 meet 

the strength margins listed in SAE J987 

Table 2 for equipment with pendant 

supported lattice booms. This proposed 

provision was included for the same 

reason as explained in the discussion of 

proposed § 1926.1433(c)(2)(i) above. 

Proposed § 1926.1433(c)(2)(iii), 

Analysis verification, is designed to 

ensure that computer modeling would 

not be used as a substitute for physical 

testing unless its accuracy and 

reliability is verified. Some C–DAC 

members raised objections to reliance 

on computer modeling because it may 

not accurately account for some aspects 

of a design, or may not be reliable for 

other reasons. Their concern was that if 

the analysis methodology did not 

accurately or reliably account for some 

aspect of the design, such error might 

not be known until there had been a 

failure of the crane when in use. 

To address this concern, under this 

proposed provision, computer modeling 

may only be used as a substitute for 

strain gauge testing if the reliability of 

the computer modeling is verified by a 

history of strain gauge testing, or strain 

gauge testing combined with other 

physical testing. This does not mean 

that each computer modeling 

assessment of a particular prototype 

must be verified with strain gauge 

testing of that prototype. Rather, it 

means that strain gauge testing, or strain 

gauge testing combined with other 

physical testing, has been used to 

confirm the results of the computer 

modeling in enough relevant instances, 

which are documented, to demonstrate 

that the modeling is accurate and 

reliable. 

Some members of C–DAC were 

concerned that small employers would 

not have the resources to determine if 

the computer modeling used to test its 

crane met the specified SAE standards. 

This concern is addressed by proposed 

paragraph (e), which allows employers 

to rely on manufacturer documentation 

to show that the testing requirements of 

this proposed standard have been met. 

The C–DAC draft included a 

§ 1926.1433(c) that would have required 

that prototype testing of crawler, 

locomotive, and truck cranes meet the 

applicable requirements for prototype 

testing prescribed in ANSI B30.5–1968. 

Upon reviewing that provision, OSHA 

notes that it is included in the 

requirement of proposed § 1926.1433(a) 

that such cranes meet the applicable 

testing requirements of ANSI B30.5– 

1968. To avoid any confusion that such 

duplication may cause, OSHA is 

deleting C–DAC’s proposed 

§ 1926.1433(c) and has redesignated the 

paragraphs that followed it. However, to 

make clear that this deletion does not 

alter the substantive requirement for 

prototype testing in the C–DAC 

document, OSHA is adding a note at the 

end of paragraph (c) that states that 

prototype testing of crawler, locomotive 

and truck cranes manufactured prior to 

the effective date of the standard must 

conform to paragraph (a). 

OSHA notes that neither proposed 

§ 1926.1433(c) nor any other proposed 

provisions would apply prototype 

testing requirements to tower cranes. It 

appears to the Agency that this was an 

oversight on the part of C–DAC. OSHA 

requests public comment on whether 

there should be prototype testing 

requirements for tower cranes, and, if 

so, what requirements should apply. 

Paragraph 1433(d) 

Proposed paragraph (d) would 

mandate that all equipment covered by 

this Subpart meet the requirements 

listed in § 1926.1433(d)(1) through 

(d)(13) of this proposed section. As 

noted above, the issues addressed by 

paragraph (d) are addressed by ASME 

B30.5–2004. However, instead of 

making those requirements apply solely 

to mobile and locomotive cranes, C– 

DAC believed that all equipment 

covered by this proposal presents 

similar issues and drafted this 

paragraph to apply to all covered 

equipment. 

Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(1), Load 

capacity/ratings and related 

information, would require the 

employer to ensure that the information 

available in the cab (see § 1926.1417(c)) 

regarding load capacity/ratings and 

related information include the data 

listed in § 1926.1433(d)(1)(i) through 

(d)(1)(xvi). This proposed paragraph 

essentially tracks section 5–1.1.3 of 

ASME B30.5–2004 but uses wording 

that makes the provisions of the ASME 

standard applicable to all equipment 

subject to this standard. Some of this 

information is already required for 

mobile and locomotive cranes by 

Subpart N’s incorporation of ANSI 

B30.5–1968. C–DAC believed that these 

equipment specifications need to be 

made available for the operator to 

reference in the cab so that the operator 

has immediate access to information 

needed to ensure safe operation. 

Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(2), (3), and 

(4) are comparable to requirements in 

section 5–1.7.6 of ASME B30.5–2004. 

Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(2) would 

require that load hooks (including 

latched and unlatched types), ball 

assemblies and load blocks be of 

sufficient weight to overhaul the line 

from the highest hook position for boom 

or boom and jib lengths and the number 

of parts of the line in use. C–DAC 

explained that due to the various 

lengths of booms possible and the 

weight of varying lengths of cable along 

the entire lengths of those booms, 

selection of sufficiently weighted ball 

assemblies and load blocks is crucial to 

safe hoisting operations. C–DAC 

believed that this proposed requirement 

is necessary to prevent any incidents 

that would occur when ball assemblies, 

load blocks, and load hooks are of 

insufficient weight to keep the load line 

from being unintentionally pulled up 

the boom due to the weight of the load 

line itself. 

Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(3) would 

require that hook and ball assemblies 

and load blocks be marked with their 

rated capacity and weight. C–DAC 

believed that marking this equipment 

with their rated capacities is needed to 

help ensure that they are not 

overloaded, which could lead to loss of 

the load. Marking them with their 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59844 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

weight is necessary to help enable 

employers to comply with proposed 

§ 1926.1433(d)(2) (discussed above). 

Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(4), Latching 

hooks, would require that hooks meet 

the requirements in 

§ 1926.1433(d)(4)(i)–(iii) of this 

proposed section. C–DAC believed that 

these proposed requirements would 

help employers reduce or eliminate the 

number of incidents related to the 

unintentional disengaging of loads from 

their load line hooks. 

Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(4)(i) would 

require that hooks be equipped with 

latches, except where the requirements 

of § 1926.1433(d)(4)(ii) are met. C–DAC 

believed that the use of hooks with 

latches is an industry recognized 

practice but also recognized that there 

are some circumstances where the use 

of a hook with a latch presents a greater 

hazard. For example, if an employee 

would have to climb up or out onto an 

unsecured, elevated member to unhook 

the load after its placement, the 

employee would be exposed to a fall 

hazard. 

To accommodate such greater hazard 

scenarios, proposed § 1926.1433(d)(4)(ii) 

would require that hooks without 

latches, or with latches removed or 

disabled, not be used unless two criteria 

are met. First, a qualified person must 

determine that it is safer to hoist and 

place the load without latches (or with 

the latches removed/tied-back). Second, 

routes for the loads must be pre-planned 

to ensure that no employee is required 

to work in the fall zone except for 

employees necessary for the hooking or 

unhooking of the load. 

Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(4)(iii) would 

require that the latch close the throat 

opening and be designed to retain slings 

or other lifting devices/accessories in 

the hook when the rigging apparatus is 

slack. This requirement was included to 

ensure that the rigging will not be 

unintentionally dislodged from the hook 

when the rigging apparatus is slack. C– 

DAC members described scenarios 

where loads had become caught on 

structures or objects and created a slack 

condition. This caused the rigging to 

become dislodged and resulted in the 

load falling. 

Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(5), Posted 

warnings, states that posted warnings 

required by this subpart as well as those 

originally supplied with the equipment 

by the manufacturer shall be maintained 

in legible condition. Compliance with 

this proposed requirement would 

increase the likelihood that employees 

will recognize the hazard identified on 

the posted warning and avoid or protect 

themselves from that hazard. 

Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(6) would 

require that an accessible fire 

extinguisher be on the equipment. This 

requirement, which is similar to one 

currently at § 1926.550(a)(14)(i), would 

enable a small fire to be extinguished 

before it can spread. 

Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(7), Cabs, 

states that equipment with cabs shall 

meet the requirements listed in 

§ 1926.1433(d)(7)(i) through (v) of this 

proposed section. The majority of 

§ 1926.1433(d)(7) is currently required 

for crawler, locomotive, and truck 

cranes by Subpart N, which 

incorporates the construction 

requirements of ANSI B30.5–1968. 

These proposed provisions would 

ensure that the crane operator is 

provided with a safe work station that 

has adequate ventilation, safe means of 

access and egress, good visibility, 

protection against window breakage, 

and sufficient roof strength. 

Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(7)(i) would 

require that cabs be designed with a 

form of adjustable ventilation and 

method for clearing the windshield for 

maintaining visibility and air 

circulation. Examples of means for 

adjustable ventilation include an air 

conditioner or window that can be 

opened (for ventilation and air 

circulation); examples of means for 

maintaining visibility include heater 

(for preventing windshield icing), 

defroster, fan, and windshield wiper. 

This provision would ensure adequate 

air circulation both for the operator’s 

health and for good visibility. 

Under proposed § 1926.1433(d)(7)(ii), 

cab doors (whether swinging or sliding) 

would have to be designed to prevent 

inadvertent opening or closing while 

traveling or operating the machine. 

Swinging doors adjacent to the operator 

must open outward. Sliding operator 

doors must open rearward. This 

proposed provision is currently required 

for crawler, locomotive, and truck 

cranes by section 5–1.8.1c of ANSI 

B30.5–1968, which is incorporated by 

reference in Subpart N. Standardization 

of the direction for opening doors helps 

ensure that an operator will be able to 

exit the cab quickly in an emergency. 

Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(7)(iii), 

Windows, would require that cabs meet 

the requirements listed in 

§ 1926.1433(d)(7)(iii)(A) through (C). 

Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(7)(iii)(A) 

would require that the cab have 

windows in front and on both sides of 

the operator. Forward vertical visibility 

would have to be sufficient to give the 

operator a view of the boom point at all 

times. This proposed provision is 

currently required for crawler, 

locomotive, and truck cranes by section 

5–1.8.1b of ANSI B30.5–1968, which is 

incorporated by reference in Subpart N. 

Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(7)(iii)(B) 

would allow windows to have sections 

designed to be opened or readily 

removed. Windows with sections 

designed to be opened would have to be 

designed so that they can be secured to 

prevent inadvertent closure. This 

proposed provision is currently required 

for crawler, locomotive, and truck 

cranes by section 5–1.8.1b of ANSI 

B30.5–1968, which is incorporated by 

reference in Subpart N. Compliance 

with this provision would ensure that 

the operator can adequately ventilate 

the cab should conditions within the 

cab affect the safe operation of the 

crane. Under such conditions, 

inadvertent closure of the windows 

during the operation of the crane could 

distract an operator or facilitate 

reoccurrence of conditions within the 

cab which adversely affect the safe 

operation of the crane. 

Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(7)(iii)(C) 

would specify that windows be of safety 

glass or material with similar optical 

and safety properties, that introduce no 

visible distortion or otherwise obscure 

visibility that interferes with the safe 

operation of the crane. This provision 

maintains the protections currently 

required by § 1926.550(a)(12). 

Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(7)(iv) would 

require that a clear passageway be 

provided from the operator’s station to 

an exit door on the operator’s side. This 

proposed provision is currently required 

for crawler, locomotive, and truck 

cranes by section 5–1.8.1d of ANSI 

B30.5–1968, which is incorporated by 

reference in Subpart N. This provision 

will enable the operator to enter and 

exit the equipment safely and will 

enable the operator to escape from the 

cab quickly in the event of an 

emergency. 

Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(7)(v) would 

state that areas of the cab roof that serve 

as a workstation for rigging, 

maintenance or other crane-related tasks 

shall be capable of supporting 250 

pounds without permanent distortion. 

This proposed provision maintains the 

protection provided by Subpart N for 

crawler, locomotive, and truck cranes 

through its incorporation by reference of 

ANSI B30.5–1968 (section 5–1.8.4), 

except that the cab roof strength 

requirement was increased to 250 

pounds from 200 pounds. This increase 

was recommended by C–DAC to 

increase the safety factor of the roof in 

light of heavier employees and 

equipment that must be supported by 

the cab roof. 

Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(8) would 

require that belts, gears, shafts, pulleys, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59845 

sprockets, spindles, drums, fly wheels, 

chains, and other parts or components 

that reciprocate, rotate or otherwise 

move be guarded where contact by 

employees (except for maintenance and 

repair workers) is possible in the 

performance of normal duties. This 

proposed provision continues the basic 

requirement of § 1926.550(a)(8) of 

Subpart N but revises the Subpart N 

provision to include an exception for 

maintenance and repair employees. The 

exception would permit maintenance 

and repair workers to remove the guards 

when their work requires access to the 

parts being guarded. C–DAC believed 

this exception was necessary because 

these employees often cannot perform 

their work with the guards installed. 

Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(9) would 

require that all exhaust pipes, 

turbochargers, and charge air coolers be 

insulated or guarded where contact by 

employees is possible in the 

performance of normal duties. As with 

proposed § 1926.1433(d)(8), an 

exception is provided when 

maintenance and repair workers need to 

remove the guards to perform their 

work. This proposed provision was 

included to retain the employee 

protection against burn injuries 

currently provided by § 1926.550(a)(10), 

which requires guarding or insulation of 

exhaust pipes, and to extend it to other 

components that can get hot enough to 

cause burns if contacted. 

Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(10) would 

require that hydraulic and pneumatic 

lines be protected from damage to the 

extent feasible. Denting, crushing, 

puncturing, or nicking a hydraulic or 

pneumatic line could adversely affect 

the structural integrity of the line and 

compromise the safe operation of the 

affected systems and the crane as a 

whole. A similar provision is in section 

5–1.9.8 of ASME B30.5–2004. C–DAC 

believed that most manufacturers in the 

industry are already providing 

protection for these lines but believed it 

was advisable to include this proposed 

provision in light of the increasing 

numbers of pneumatically and 

hydraulically controlled cranes now 

being operated in the industry. 

Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(11) would 

require that equipment be designed so 

that exhaust fumes are not discharged in 

the cab and are discharged in a direction 

away from the operator. This proposed 

provision was included to retain the 

employee protection provided for 

crawler, locomotive, and truck cranes by 

section 5–1.9.2 of ANSI B30.5–1968, 

incorporated by reference in Subpart N, 

and to extend it to other types of 

equipment. This proposed requirement 

ensures that exhaust gases which are 

likely to adversely affect or incapacitate 

the operator will not accumulate in the 

cab because of the design of the 

equipment. 

Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(12), Friction 

mechanisms, states that where friction 

mechanisms (such as brakes and 

clutches) are used to control the boom 

hoist or load line hoist, they shall be: Of 

a size and thermal capacity sufficient to 

control all rated loads with the 

minimum recommended reeving; and 

adjustable to permit compensation for 

lining wear to maintain proper 

operation. Comparable requirements 

now apply to crawler, locomotive, and 

truck cranes through incorporation by 

reference in Subpart N of ANSI B30.5– 

1968 (sections 5–1.3.2a.1 and 5–1.3.3). 

C–DAC believed that a similar 

requirement should apply to all 

equipment using friction mechanisms to 

control the boom hoist or load line. The 

Committee believed that this 

engineering technology is typical in 

most modern friction mechanisms. 

Proposed § 1926.1433(d)(13), 

Hydraulic load hoists, would specify 

that hydraulic drums have an integrally 

mounted holding device or internal 

static brake to prevent load hoist 

movement in the event of hydraulic 

failure. A comparable requirement is in 

section 5–1.3.1(d) of ASME B30.5–2004. 

This requirement will protect 

employees against serious injuries and 

deaths that could result from an 

unintended movement of the load hoist 

caused by a hydraulic failure. 

Paragraph 1433(e) 

As noted above, proposed paragraph 

(e) would permit employers to rely on 

documentation from manufacturers to 

show that they are in compliance with 

§ 1926.1433(a)–(c) and 

§ 1926.1433(d)(7)–(d)(13) where the 

equipment has not changed since it was 

manufactured, except in accordance 

with § 1926.1434, Equipment 

modifications. Section 1926.1433(d)(1)– 

(d)(6) are excluded from this provision 

because the employer can easily verify 

compliance with them without recourse 

to documentation provided by the 

manufacturer. 

A failure to have such documentation 

would not, in itself, constitute a 

violation of these provisions. Rather, 

proposed § 1926.1433(e) is intended to 

make it easier for employers to 

determine if their equipment meets 

these criteria. 

Section 1434 Equipment Modifications 

This proposed section addresses the 

procedures an employer must follow if 

it wants to modify equipment in a way 

that would affect its capacity or safe 

operation. Its purpose is to safeguard 

against unsafe modifications and to 

ensure that the equipment’s instructions 

and specifications are updated to reflect 

the modifications so that the equipment 

may be used safely. 

Currently, § 1926.550(a)(16) provides: 

No modifications or additions which affect 

the capacity or safe operation of the 

equipment shall be made by the employer 

without the manufacturer’s written approval. 

If such modifications or changes are made, 

the capacity, operation, and maintenance 

instruction plates, tags, or decals, shall be 

changed accordingly. In no case shall the 

original safety factor of the equipment be 

reduced. 

By requiring the manufacturer’s 

written approval, § 1926.550(a)(16) 

seeks to ensure that the proposed 

modifications or additions will be 

consistent with the design and 

structural integrity of the equipment 

and will not reduce the original safety 

factor of the equipment. The Committee 

believed that manufacturer approval 

was an important safeguard and should 

be retained but was concerned that it 

does not address situations in which the 

manufacturer does not respond to a 

request to approve a modification or 

when the manufacturer is no longer 

available to evaluate a proposed 

modification. Therefore, the Committee 

recommended a new provision that 

addresses these types of scenarios with 

procedures that it believed would allow 

for modifications to be made safely. 

Paragraph 1434(a) 

Proposed paragraph (a) would 

prohibit modifications or additions 

which affect the capacity or safe 

operation of the equipment except 

where any of three approval options set 

out in proposed § 1926.1434(a)(1), (2), 

and (3) are met. In the first option, 

proposed § 1926.1434(a)(1)(i), 

Manufacturer review and approval, the 

employer would be required to obtain 

written manufacturer approval for the 

modifications/additions. 

OSHA has corrected an inadvertent 

omission from proposed 

§ 1926.1434(a)(1) by adding proposed 

§ 1926.1434(a)(1)(ii), which requires the 

employer to modify the load charts, 

procedures, instruction manuals and 

instruction plates/tags/decals as 

necessary to accord with the 

modification/addition. Currently, 

§ 1926.550(a)(16) contains such a 

requirement and proposed 

§ 1926.1434(a)(2), which requires the 

modifications or additions to be 

approved by a registered professional 

engineer if the manufacturer declines to 

review the proposal, does as well (see 

below). It was clearly C–DAC’s intent to 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59846 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

retain the existing protection in 

§ 1926.550(a)(16) and require the 

employer to modify the load charts, 

procedures, instruction manuals and 

instruction plates/tags/decals regardless 

of who approved the modification/ 

addition. The crane operator and other 

employees who work with the crane 

need accurate information about the 

topics addressed in those materials, and 

having them available, as proposed 

§ 1926.1434(a)(1)(ii) requires, will help 

ensure that the equipment is operated 

safely. 

The second option, proposed 

§ 1926.1434(a)(2), Manufacturer refusal 

to review request, would establish a 

procedure where the manufacturer 

either declines to review a request for a 

modification approval or fails to 

respond to the request. Under this 

procedure, the employer would be 

required to provide a detailed 

description of the proposed 

modification to the manufacturer and 

ask it to approve the modification/ 

addition. If the manufacturer declines to 

review the technical merits of the 

proposal or fails, within 30 days, to 

acknowledge the request or initiate the 

review, the employer would be 

permitted to proceed with the 

modification if the requirements 

specified in proposed 

§ 1926.1434(a)(2)(i) and (ii) are met. 

Proposed § 1926.1434(a)(2)(i) would 

require that a registered professional 

engineer who is a qualified person with 

respect to the equipment involved take 

two actions. First, under proposed 

§ 1926.1434(a)(2)(i)(A), the engineer 

would have to approve the 

modification/addition and specify the 

equipment configurations to which that 

approval applies. The second action that 

the approving engineer would have to 

take, which is described under proposed 

§ 1926.1434(a)(2)(i)(B), would be to 

modify load charts, procedures, 

instruction manuals and instruction 

plates/tags/decals as necessary to accord 

with the modification/addition. 

This is essential for safe equipment 

operation because these are the charts, 

signs and materials that inform the user 

and operator of the capacities, 

procedures and limitations that apply to 

the equipment. Proposed 

§ 1926.1434(a)(2)(ii) would specify that 

the modification/addition not reduce 

the original safety factor of the 

equipment, retaining the comparable 

requirement now found in 

§ 1926.550(a)(16). 

The Committee recommended 

§ 1926.1434(a)(2) because it believed 

that the refusal of a manufacturer to 

review a request, or a manufacturer’s 

failure to act on the request within a 

reasonable time, should not preclude an 

employer from making a modification if 

adequate precautions are followed. The 

Committee concluded that 30 days 

would give the manufacturer a 

reasonable amount of time to decide 

whether to simply decline to review the 

request or to proceed with evaluating it. 

Also, the Committee concluded that a 

failure to respond at all in this period 

would fairly reflect an intention not to 

act on the request in a timely manner. 

C–DAC believed that the actions 

specified in proposed 

§ 1926.1434(a)(2)(i) would need to be 

done by a registered professional 

engineer who is a qualified person with 

respect to the equipment involved. The 

term ‘‘qualified person’’ is defined in 

proposed § 1926.1401 as ‘‘a person who, 

by possession of a recognized degree, 

certificate, or professional standing, or 

who by extensive knowledge, training 

and experience, successfully 

demonstrated the ability to solve/ 

resolve problems related to the subject 

matter, the work, or the project.’’ The 

Committee thought it important to make 

clear that this individual needs to be a 

qualified person ‘‘with respect to the 

equipment involved,’’ since specialized 

engineering knowledge is needed to 

make the required assessments 

regarding the particular equipment that 

is being modified. 

The approval of the modification/ 

addition under proposed 

§ 1926.1434(a)(2)(i) would have to 

specify the equipment configurations to 

which that approval applies. Cranes 

typically can be configured in a variety 

of ways. Modifications may have 

different effects depending on the 

configuration. It is therefore essential for 

purposes of ensuring safe operation that 

the approval specify the configurations 

to which the approval applies. An 

example of an approval that met this 

aspect of the proposed provision would 

be the following: ‘‘This is an approval 

to add an additional boom section of the 

above-described design for a brand K 

lattice boom crane, model 1. This 

approval applies only when the crane is 

configured without a jib.’’ 

This proposed section uses the term 

‘‘modification/addition’’ to refer to 

‘‘modification or addition.’’ The 

Committee wanted to make clear that an 

addition to the equipment is a type of 

modification and needs to be subject to 

the same approval procedures as other 

types of modifications. For example, the 

addition of a generator to the back of the 

cab of a crane needs to be subject to the 

approval procedures because it will 

alter the crane’s backward stability. 

Proposed § 1926.1434(a)(3), 

Unavailable manufacturer, would 

address a scenario where an employer 

wishes to make an equipment 

modification and the manufacturer of 

the equipment is unavailable to review 

the proposed modifications because, for 

example, it has gone out of business 

(and has not been taken over by a 

successor company). Under these 

circumstances, if the employer wishes 

to modify its equipment in such a way 

that affects its capacity and safe 

operation, it must meet the 

requirements of proposed 

§ 1926.1434(a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii) above. 

Paragraph 1434(b) 

Proposed paragraph (b) would 

prohibit modifications or additions 

which affect the capacity or safe 

operation of the equipment where the 

manufacturer, after a review of the 

technical safety merits of the proposed 

modification/addition, rejects the 

proposal and explains the reasons for 

the rejection in a written response. This 

requirement is the same as in 

§ 1926.550(a)(16), except C–DAC 

believed that it was important to 

expressly state the need for the 

manufacturer to explain why it rejected 

the employer’s proposed modification. 

Such an explanation would both 

demonstrate that the manufacturer 

reviewed the technical safety merits of 

the request and give the employer the 

opportunity to modify the proposal to 

address the manufacturer’s objections. 

The C–DAC version of proposed 

§ 1926.1434(b) did not explicitly state 

the effect of a manufacturer rejecting the 

proposal but failing to provide written 

reasons for the rejection. OSHA believes 

that C–DAC intended that such a 

situation be treated as a manufacturer 

refusal to review the request under 

§ 1926.1434(a)(2). To effectuate this 

intent, OSHA has added the following 

sentence to proposed § 1926.1434(b): 

If the manufacturer rejects the proposal but 

does not explain the reasons for the rejection 

in writing, the employer may treat this as a 

manufacturer refusal to review the request 

under paragraph (a)(2) of this section. 

Paragraph 1434(c) 

Proposed paragraph (c) would state 

that the provisions in § 1926.1434(a) 

and (b) of this proposed section do not 

apply to modifications made or 

approved by the U.S. military. A 

representative of the U.S. Navy 

indicated to C–DAC that such an 

exception is needed in the event of 

military exigencies. 

Section 1435 Tower Cranes 

‘‘Tower crane’’ is defined in 

§ 1926.1401 as ‘‘a type of lifting 

structure which utilizes a vertical mast 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59847 

75This definition is explained in the discussion 

above of proposed § 1926.1401 (Definitions). 

76The list of hazards the A/D supervisor must 

address was in § 1926.1435(b)(3) of the C–DAC 

draft; that list (as modified in accordance with the 

discussion above) is now located in proposed 

§ 1926.1435(b)(4). 

or tower to support a working boom (jib) 

in an elevated position. Loads are 

suspended from the working boom. 

While the working boom may be of the 

fixed type (horizontal or angled) or have 

luffing capability, it can always rotate to 

swing loads, either by rotating on the 

top of the tower (top slewing) or by the 

rotation of the tower (bottom slewing). 

The tower base may be fixed in one 

location or ballasted and moveable 

between locations.’’ This definition is 

based in part on the SC&RF Handbook’s 

definition.75

Subpart N, at § 1926.550(c), addresses 

only one type of tower crane: those in 

which the working boom is fixed 

horizontally (hammerhead cranes). 

Furthermore, § 1926.550(c) addresses 

such tower cranes only to a limited 

extent. Specifically, it addresses 

adequate clearance for employee 

passage near moving and rotating parts, 

fall protection, trolley buffers, and limit 

switches for cranes that travel on rails. 

In addition, § 1926.550(c)(5) requires 

that hammerhead tower cranes meet the 

applicable requirements for design, 

construction, installation, testing, 

maintenance, inspection, and operation 

as prescribed by the manufacturer. 

The Committee believed that most of 

the provisions in the other sections of 

this proposed standard are necessary 

and appropriate for tower cranes but 

that, in addition, certain unique 

characteristics of tower cranes 

necessitate certain additional 

requirements. 

Paragraph 1435(a) 

Proposed paragraph (a) states that 

unless provided otherwise in this 

section, all other sections of this 

proposed standard apply to tower 

cranes. As discussed below, sections 

§ 1926.1415 (safety devices) and 

§ 1926.1416 (operational aids) would 

not apply to tower cranes. Instead, this 

proposed section lists the safety devices 

and operational aids that would be 

required for tower cranes. In addition, 

this proposed section contains 

additional requirements for erecting, 

climbing, dismantling, and inspections. 

Paragraph 1435(b) Erecting, Climbing 

and Dismantling 

Proposed paragraph 1435(b) addresses 

erecting, climbing, and dismantling 

tower cranes. Under proposed 

paragraph 1435(b)(1), the employer 

would be required to comply with the 

assembly and disassembly requirements 

set out in proposed §§ 1926.1403, 

1926.1404 and 1926.1405 except as 

otherwise specified in this section. 

Because the industry generally refers to 

the assembly and disassembly of tower 

cranes as erecting, climbing and 

dismantling, the term ‘‘assembly,’’ as 

used in §§ 1926.1403 through 

1926.1405, is replaced with ‘‘erecting 

and climbing,’’ and the term 

‘‘disassembly’’ is replaced with 

‘‘dismantling.’’ 

OSHA notes that proposed 

§ 1926.1403(b) specifies that employer 

procedures for assembly and 

disassembly may be used only where 

the employer can demonstrate that the 

procedures used meet the requirements 

in § 1926.1406. The C–DAC draft of 

§ 1926.1435(b) inadvertently omitted a 

reference to § 1926.1406. OSHA has 

corrected that omission; proposed 

paragraph (b)(1) now reads as follows: 

(1) Sections 1926.1403 (Assembly/ 

disassembly—selection of manufacturer or 

employer procedures), 1926.1404 (Assembly/ 

disassembly—general requirements), 

1926.1405 (Disassembly—additional 

requirements for disassembly of booms and 

jibs), and 1926.1406 (Assembly/ 

disassembly—employer procedures—general 

requirements), apply to tower cranes (except 

as otherwise specified), except that the term 

‘‘assembly/disassembly’’ is replaced by 

‘‘erecting, climbing and dismantling,’’ and 

the term ‘‘disassembly’’ is replaced by 

‘‘dismantling.’’ 

Proposed paragraph 1435(b)(2), 

Dangerous areas (self-erecting tower 

cranes), addresses the hazards 

associated with crew members located 

in certain areas. Employees would be 

prohibited from being in or under the 

tower, jib, or rotating portion of the 

crane during erecting, climbing and 

dismantling operations until the crane is 

secured in a locked position and the 

competent person indicates it is safe to 

enter these areas. The only exception to 

this would be where the manufacturer’s 

instructions direct otherwise and the 

employer limits access to necessary 

employees only. 

These areas are hazardous because, in 

the event of unintended movement of 

components, there is a heightened 

chance than an employee could be 

struck or crushed. The exception 

accounts for those situations in which, 

due to the design of the equipment, it 

is infeasible for all employees to be out 

of these areas during erecting, climbing 

and dismantling operations. 

Under proposed paragraph (b)(3), 

Foundations and structural supports, 

tower crane foundations and structural 

supports would be required to be 

designed by the manufacturer or a 

registered professional engineer. The 

Committee noted that structural 

supports can include portions of a 

structure, such as the floors or columns 

of a building, when the tower crane is 

mounted to them and they are used to 

help support the crane. 

When a tower crane is mounted to 

portions of a structure, it is vital for safe 

operation that the structure be able to 

withstand both the crane and the loads 

the crane will handle throughout the 

job. Accordingly, when portions of a 

structure are used to support a tower 

crane, the manufacturer or registered 

professional engineer who designs the 

crane’s structural supports must ensure 

not only that the structure is adequate 

to support the crane when it is mounted 

but that it will continue to support the 

crane under all anticipated conditions 

of use. 

Moreover, that entity must ensure 

both that the structure is strong enough 

to support the crane under all 

anticipated conditions of use and that 

the means of attaching the crane to the 

structure are strong enough to maintain 

the crane’s support throughout the job. 

Therefore, OSHA interprets ‘‘structural 

supports’’ in this provision to include 

both the portions of the structure used 

for support and the means of 

attachment. OSHA requests public 

comment on whether proposed 

§ 1926.1435(b)(3) states this intent with 

sufficient clarity. 

As drafted by C–DAC, this provision 

was listed as one of the hazards the A/ 

D supervisor must address. However, 

the provision imposes a specific duty on 

the employer to have the foundations 

and structural supports designed by the 

manufacturer or a registered 

professional engineer, and this will be 

more clearly stated if the provision is 

contained in a stand-alone requirement 

rather than as one of several 

requirements that the A/D supervisor 

must address. Accordingly, OSHA has 

moved the provision into a separate 

§ 1926.1435(b)(3).76 In addition, as 

discussed below, the original 

§ 1926.1435(b)(3)(i) (now 

§ 1926.1435(b)(4)(i)) has been modified 

to state that the A/D supervisor must 

verify that the foundation and structural 

supports have been installed in 

accordance with their design in order to 

ensure that the design of the 

manufacturer or registered professional 

engineer has actually been 

implemented. 

Proposed paragraph 1435(b)(4), 

Addressing specific hazards, would 

require the employer to comply with 

proposed § 1926.1404(h)(1) through (9). 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59848 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

During erecting, climbing and 

dismantling, proposed § 1926.1404(h) 

would require that the A/D supervisor 

address certain hazards (these are 

discussed above in the discussion of 

proposed § 1926.1404). Proposed 

1926.1435(b)(4) lists additional hazards, 

specific to tower cranes, that the A/D 

supervisor would also have to address. 

These additional hazards are those 

associated with (i) the foundations and 

structural supports for tower cranes, (ii) 

the loss of backward stability, and (iii) 

wind speed. 

Proposed paragraph 1435(b)(4)(i) 

would require the A/D supervisor to 

verify that the foundation and structural 

supports are installed in accordance 

with their design. This paragraph is 

designed to ensure that the design of 

these components by the manufacturer 

or registered professional engineer is 

followed when they are installed. 

Proposed (b)(4)(ii) would require that 

the A/D supervisor address the 

backward stability of the crane before 

self erecting tower cranes or cranes on 

traveling or stationary undercarriages 

are swung. This provision is similar to 

the assembly/disassembly requirement 

in § 1926.1404(h)(11)(discussed above) 

except that it applies only to self 

erecting tower cranes and cranes that 

are on traveling or static (stationary) 

undercarriages. It applies to these types 

of tower cranes to highlight the fact that, 

because they do not have a base that is 

fixed to the ground, the backwards 

stability safety issue needs to be 

addressed. 

Tower cranes have a relatively small 

footprint relative to their height. The 

horizontal force caused by wind during 

erecting and dismantling can therefore 

have a substantial effect on the stability 

of a tower crane. Proposed 

§ 1926.1435(b)(4)(iii) would require that 

erecting, climbing, and dismantling not 

take place when the wind speed 

recommended by the manufacturer is 

exceeded. Where the manufacturer does 

not specify the proper wind speed, a 

qualified person would be required to 

determine the wind speed not to be 

exceeded. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(4), Plumb 

tolerance, addresses the extent to which 

tower cranes need to be plumb. This 

proposed provision would require that 

the crane’s tower be plumb to the 

manufacturer’s tolerance and verified by 

a qualified person. The Committee 

noted that if a vertical tower is out of 

plumb the stability of the crane is 

greatly reduced. In addition, an out of 

plumb condition can reduce the crane’s 

capacity and could cause a collapse. 

Where the manufacturer does not 

specify the plumb tolerance, this 

provision would require that the tower 

be plumbed to a tolerance of at least 

1:500. The Committee noted that a 

tolerance of at least 1:500 is generally 

what manufacturers specify and that for 

any type of vertical structure this 

generally is the accepted plumb 

tolerance in the engineering and 

construction industries. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(6), Multiple 

tower crane jobsites, would require 

construction jobsites with more than 

one fixed jib (hammerhead) tower crane 

installed to be located so that no crane 

could contact the structure of another 

crane. However, the jibs of multiple 

hammerhead tower cranes would be 

permitted to pass over/under one 

another. 

This would help to ensure that 

multiple tower cranes on a construction 

site do not collide with each other. Such 

a collision could cause employee 

injuries or fatalities in various ways. For 

example, employees could be struck by 

a load that was caused to swing by the 

collision; a tower crane operator could 

be struck; employees could be struck by 

a falling load, or there could be a 

collapse of one or more cranes. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(7), Climbing 

procedures, contains special 

requirements that would have to be 

followed during the climbing process. 

‘‘Climbing’’ is defined in § 1926.1401, 

Definitions, as: ‘‘The process in which a 

tower crane is raised to a new working 

height, either by adding additional 

tower sections to the top of the crane 

(top climbing), or by a system in which 

the entire crane is raised inside the 

structure (inside climbing).’’ 

Currently, the process of climbing is 

unique to tower cranes. The Committee 

indicated that, if done improperly, a 

collapse can occur during the climbing 

process. This proposed paragraph 

would require that prior to, and during 

all, climbing procedures the employer 

(i) comply with all manufacturer 

prohibitions; (ii) have a registered 

professional engineer verify that the 

host structure is strong enough to 

sustain the forces imposed through the 

braces, brace anchorages and supporting 

floors; and (iii) ensure that no part of the 

climbing procedure takes place when 

wind exceeds the speed recommended 

by the manufacturer or, where the 

manufacture does not specify the wind 

speed, a qualified person must 

determine the appropriate wind speed. 

Proposed (b)(7)(ii) would require the 

employer to have a registered 

professional engineer verify that the 

host structure is strong enough to 

sustain the forces imposed through the 

braces, brace anchorages and supporting 

floors. Examples of typical host 

structures include a building, parking 

garage, bridge or pier. If the host 

structure is not strong enough, the host 

structure could collapse and cause the 

tower crane to collapse as well. 

Proposed (b)(7)(iii) would require the 

employer to ensure that no part of the 

climbing procedure takes place when 

wind exceeds the speed recommended 

by the manufacturer or by a qualified 

person if the manufacturer does not 

specify this information. This provision 

is included because, during the 

climbing process, a tower crane is not 

yet fully stabilized and excessively high 

winds can lead to a collapse. 

The Agency notes that proposed 

§ 1926.1435(b)(4)(iii) would require 

wind speed to be addressed during 

erecting, climbing and dismantling in 

the same manner as 

§ 1926.1435(b)(7)(iii). OSHA requests 

public comment on whether 

§ 1926.1435(b)(7)(iii) should be omitted 

as redundant. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(8), 

Counterweight/ballast, addresses the 

hazard of instability that can result from 

improper installation or removal of 

counterweight/ballast, which can cause 

a collapse. Proposed § 1926.1435(b)(8)(i) 

and (ii) would require that tower cranes 

not be erected, dismantled or operated 

without the amount and position of 

counterweight or ballast in place as 

specified by the manufacturer or a 

registered professional engineer and that 

the maximum amount of counterweight 

or ballast not be exceeded. The 

registered professional engineer must be 

one who is familiar with the equipment. 

OSHA has made several wording 

changes to proposed § 1926.1435(b)(8)(i) 

and (ii) as compared with the C–DAC 

draft of these provisions. First, the C– 

DAC draft of proposed § 1926.1435(b)(8) 

used the term ‘‘professional engineer,’’ 

rather than, as used in proposed 

§ 1926.1435(b)(7)(i) and other provisions 

in this proposed standard, ‘‘registered 

professional engineer.’’ OSHA believes 

that this was an inadvertent omission 

and has added the word ‘‘registered’’ in 

proposed § 1926.1435(b)(8)(i) and (ii). 

Second, the C–DAC draft of proposed 

§ 1926.1435(b)(8)(ii) used the word 

‘‘approved’’ in the phrase ‘‘approved by 

the manufacturer or professional 

engineer.’’ In contrast, in the draft of 

proposed § 1926.1435(b)(8)(i), C–DAC 

used the phrase ‘‘as specified by’’ rather 

than ‘‘approved.’’ To ensure consistency 

and avoid confusion, the Agency has 

substituted the phrase ‘‘as specified by’’ 

for the word ‘‘approved’’ in proposed 

§ 1926.1435(b)(8)(ii). 

Third, the C–DAC draft of proposed 

§ 1926.1435(b)(8)(i) referred to the 

amount and position of the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59849 

77OSHA has changed the C–DAC word 

‘‘procedures’’ to ‘‘specifications’’ for greater 

accuracy and clarity. 

‘‘counterweight or ballast.’’ However, 

some tower cranes, such as traveling 

tower cranes, have both counterweight 

and ballast. Therefore, the Agency has 

changed the language so that proposed 

§ 1926.1435(b)(8)(i) refers to 

‘‘counterweight and/or ballast.’’ 

Paragraph 1435(c) Signs 

This proposed requirement addresses 

the hazards that can result from adding 

signs to tower cranes. Many employers 

will attach/hang/install signs (or 

advertisements) to the jib, boom or 

tower, such as signs with the company 

name. The force of the wind bearing 

against a large sign can significantly 

increase the horizontal force the wind 

exerts on the crane. According to the 

Committee, most manufacturers specify 

the maximum size and permissible 

location of signs so that the stability of 

the tower crane is not compromised. 

Proposed 1926.1435(c) would require 

employers to comply with the 

manufacturer’s specifications 77

regarding the size and location of signs. 

Where the manufacturer does not 

specify this information or where such 

information is unavailable, this 

provision would require a registered 

professional engineer who is familiar 

with the specific type of tower crane 

involved to give written approval of the 

size and location of any signs. 

Note that the C–DAC draft included 

this provision as § 1926.1435(b)(4). 

However, upon review, OSHA became 

aware that signs are sometimes placed 

on tower cranes after the erecting/ 

climbing process has been completed. 

Therefore, to make clear that the 

provision would apply irrespective of 

whether the sign was installed during or 

after erecting/climbing, the Agency has 

changed this provision’s designation so 

that it is no longer under the paragraph 

on erecting, climbing and dismantling. 

Paragraphs 1435(d), Safety Devices, and 

1435(e), Operational Aids 

These proposed paragraphs set out the 

safety devices and operational aids that 

would be required on tower cranes. 

Proposed §§ 1926.1415 and 1926.1416, 

which would require safety devices and 

operational aids on other types of 

cranes, would not be applicable to tower 

cranes. Instead, proposed § 1926.1435(d) 

and (e) would apply. Although some of 

the safety devices and operational aids 

for tower cranes are the same as 

§§ 1926.1415 and 1926.1416 require for 

other equipment, others are unique to 

tower cranes. C–DAC believed it would 

promote clarity to list all the devices 

and aids for tower cranes in this section. 

Safety devices would be required to 

be in proper working order. Where a 

safety device is not in proper working 

order, the crane would have to be taken 

out of service until it is again 

functioning properly. The Committee 

believed that the protection offered by 

safety devices is critical to safe 

operation and that there is no 

alternative way to achieve the same 

level of safety that the safety devices 

provide. By contrast, if an operational 

aid is malfunctioning, operations may 

continue where the employer 

implements specified temporary 

alternative measures. Where the tower 

crane manufacturer specifies more 

protective alternative measures than 

those specified in this proposed section, 

the employer would be required to 

follow those more protective alternative 

measures. 

Safety Devices: Proposed paragraph 

(d)(2) would require the safety devices 

on tower cranes discussed below. 

Boom stops on luffing boom type 

tower cranes (proposed 

§ 1926.1435(d)(2)(i)) and jib stops on 

luffing boom type tower cranes if 

equipped with a jib attachment 

(proposed § 1926.1435(d)(2)(ii)) would 

be required. These are comparable to the 

boom and jib stops required for other 

cranes under proposed § 1926.1415 

(discussed above) and are intended to 

prevent the boom and jib from being 

raised to too high an angle and toppling 

over backwards. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(iii) would 

require travel end rail stops at both ends 

of the travel rail. These are comparable 

to the rail stops required for equipment 

on rails under proposed § 1926.1415 

and are designed to keep the crane from 

overshooting the boundaries on the rail 

within which it is supposed to operate. 

Overshooting the boundaries could 

result in a collapse. Subpart N currently 

contains a similar requirement at 

§ 1926.550(c)(4). 

Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(iv) would 

require travel rail clamps on all travel 

bogies. A ‘‘travel bogie (tower cranes)’’ 

is defined at § 1401 as ‘‘an assembly of 

two or more axles arranged to permit 

vertical wheel displacement and 

equalize the loading on the wheels.’’ 

This definition is comparable to the 

definition of ‘‘bogie’’ in the SC&RF 

Handbook. When tower cranes travel on 

rails, they are mounted on travel bogies. 

The rail clamps that would be required 

by this proposed paragraph enable the 

bogies to be clamped to the rail to 

prevent the crane from lifting off the 

rail. They secure the crane in place 

when out of operation to prevent the 

crane from drifting unintentionally, 

which could cause struck-by accidents. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(v) would 

require integrally mounted check valves 

on all load supporting hydraulic 

cylinders. A check valve permits fluid 

to flow in one direction only. When 

installed on load supporting hydraulic 

cylinders, such as the cylinders used to 

climb the crane, they protect against the 

loss of load support in the event of a 

hydraulic pressure failure by preventing 

the reverse flow of the hydraulic fluid 

supporting the cylinder. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(vi) would 

require a hydraulic system pressure 

limiting device. A pressure limiting 

device, such as a relief valve, would 

prevent the pressure in a hydraulic 

system from exceeding its design limit, 

which can cause the system to fail. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(vii) would 

require the following brakes, which 

must automatically set in the event of 

pressure loss or power failure: A hoist 

brake on all hoists; a swing brake; a 

trolley brake; and a rail travel brake. 

These types of brakes are needed to 

enable the motion of the crane and load 

to be controlled safely. Under this 

proposed paragraph, they must set 

automatically to avoid uncontrolled 

movement of the crane or load in the 

event of pressure loss or power failure 

that prevents their operation. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(viii) would 

require deadman control or forced 

neutral return control (hand) levers. 

These devices ensure that the crane 

does not move unless the movement is 

being controlled by the operator. In the 

case of a deadman control, the motion 

being controlled, such as hoisting or 

trolleying, ceases when the operator 

releases the control. Forced neutral 

return control levers automatically 

return to the neutral position when they 

are released. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(ix) would 

require an emergency stop switch at the 

operator’s station. This safety device is 

needed to enable the operator to 

immediately stop all crane functions in 

the event of an emergency. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(3) would 

require that the safety devices listed in 

§ 1926.1435(d)(2) be in proper working 

order for the crane to be operated. 

Where a device stops working properly 

during operations, the operator would 

have to safely stop operations, and 

operations would be prohibited from 

resuming until the device is once again 

in proper working order. 

Operational aids: Like proposed 

§ 1926.1416 for other equipment, 

proposed paragraph § 1926.1435(e) 

divides operational aids for tower 

cranes into Category I aids and Category 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59850 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

II aids, with the two categories differing 

in the amount of time that temporary 

alternative measures can be used until 

the aids are repaired. For Category I aids 

that period is seven days, and for 

Category II it is 30 days. Also like 

§ 1926.1416, if a required part is ordered 

within seven days and not received in 

time to complete the repair in seven and 

30 days, respectively, the employer 

would have seven days from receiving 

the part to complete the repair. 

Proposed paragraph 1435(e)(4) 

specifies that operational aids must 

work properly during operations and, if 

an aid stops working, the operator 

would be required to safely stop 

operations until the aid is working 

properly again or until the temporary 

alternative measures are implemented. 

Where a replacement part for an 

operational aid is not available, the 

substitution of a device that performs 

the same function would not be 

considered a modification subject to 

proposed § 1926.1434, i.e., it would not 

need to be approved by the 

manufacturer or a registered 

professional engineer. See the 

discussion above regarding proposed 

§ 1926.1416 for an explanation of the 

committee’s rationale for this approach 

to operational aids. 

Three of the operational aids 

discussed below would be required on 

tower cranes manufactured more than 

one year after the effective date of the 

standard. The remainder would be 

required on all cranes. It was C–DAC’s 

understanding that the three aids that 

would not be required on existing 

cranes represent technology that has not 

been commonly available until recently, 

while the aids that would be required 

on all cranes have routinely been used 

in the industry for some time. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(5) would 

require the Category I operational aids 

discussed below and specifies the 

alternative measures that would have to 

be followed if they are not working 

properly. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(5)(i) would 

require trolley travel limiting devices. 

These devices would be required at both 

ends of the jib to prevent the trolley 

from running into the end stops. If the 

trolley were to run into an end stop, 

injuries or fatalities could result in a 

variety of ways. For example, the 

sudden stopping of the trolley at the 

outward end stop could cause the load 

to swing significantly past the crane’s 

maximum working radius, causing a 

collapse. Another example is where the 

load swing from the sudden stopping of 

the trolley could cause the load to fall 

and strike employees. 

If this operational aid was not 

working properly, the employer would 

have to use one of two temporary 

alternative measures: (A) Mark the 

trolley rope so it can be seen by the 

operator at a point that will give the 

operator sufficient time to stop the 

trolley prior to the end stops, or (B) use 

a spotter when operations are conducted 

within 10 feet of a trolley end stop. The 

Committee believed that both options 

would constitute safe alternatives until 

the trolley travel limit device is back in 

working order within the required time 

frame. 

In order for the proposed option for a 

spotter in proposed 

§ 1926.1435(e)(5)(i)(B) to work 

effectively and as the Committee 

intended, the spotter would need to 

communicate with the operator. 

Although such a communication 

requirement is implicit, the Agency 

believes that, to avoid ambiguity, the 

provision needs to explicitly require 

that the spotter be in communication 

with the operator. Therefore, OSHA 

believes that the C–DAC language in 

proposed § 1926.1435(e)(5)(i)(B), as well 

as the additional provisions in proposed 

§ 1926.1435 which reference spotters, 

should be changed to include such a 

requirement. The provision, if changed 

in this manner, would read: 

(B) Option B. A spotter who is in direct 

communication with the operator shall be 

used when operations are conducted within 

10 feet of the outer or inner trolley end stops. 

OSHA requests public comment on 

the advisability of such a change. 

In Subpart N, § 1926.550(c)(3) 

currently requires trolley end stops (it 

refers to them as ‘‘buffers’’). In 

reviewing the C–DAC draft of the trolley 

travel limiting devices provision 

discussed above, OSHA realized that the 

C–DAC draft did not carry forward the 

requirement in § 1926.550(c)(3) for 

trolley end stops. The Agency believes 

that this was an inadvertent omission, 

since the C–DAC draft included a 

requirement for trolley travel limiting 

devices, and those devices would not 

work without trolley end stops. 

Therefore, OSHA has added proposed 

§ 1926.1435(d)(2)(x), which would 

require trolley end stops as safety 

devices. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(5)(ii) would 

require a boom hoist limiting device. As 

defined in proposed § 1926.1401, the 

word ‘‘boom’’ used in reference to tower 

cranes refers to a luffing boom. 

Therefore, under this proposed 

paragraph, a boom hoist limiting device 

would only be required on cranes with 

luffing booms. A boom hoist limiting 

device automatically prevents the boom 

hoist from pulling the boom past the 

minimum allowable radius (maximum 

boom angle), which can result in boom 

failure (see the discussion above of 

boom hoist limiting device with respect 

to proposed § 1926.1416(d)(1)). The 

temporary alternative measures for this 

operational aid are similar to the ones 

for the trolley travel limiting device and 

the boom hoist limiting device in 

proposed § 1926.1416(d)(1): The 

employer would have the option of 

clearly marking the cable at a point that 

would give the operator sufficient time 

to stop the boom hoist within the 

minimum and maximum boom radius 

or use a spotter. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(5)(iii) would 

require an anti two-blocking device. 

This is comparable to the requirement 

for anti-two blocking devices for other 

cranes required by § 1926.1416. This 

operational aid would be required on 

tower cranes to prevent damage from 

contact between the load block, 

overhaul ball, or similar component, 

and the boom tip (or fixed upper block 

or similar component). Where the 

operational aid is not working properly, 

the employer would have the option of 

clearly marking the cable at a point that 

would give the operator sufficient time 

to stop the hoist to prevent twoblocking, or use a spotter. (See the 

discussion of the need for this type of 

device and rationale for including it as 

an operational aid above with respect to 

proposed § 1926.1416(d)(3)). 

Proposed paragraph (e)(5)(iv) would 

require a hoist drum lower limiting 

device. This proposed paragraph would 

require that tower cranes manufactured 

more than one year after the effective 

date of this standard be equipped with 

a device that prevents the last two 

wraps of hoist cable from being spooled 

off the drum. Such a device would 

prevent the entire rope from being 

spooled off the drum, which can cause 

the rope to separate (and the load to fall) 

from the drum due to the shock from the 

load suddenly stopping. 

OSHA notes that the C–DAC draft of 

this provision was mistakenly entitled, 

‘‘Hoist drum lowering device.’’ Since 

this device is a limiting device, the title 

has been changed in the proposed rule 

to, ‘‘Hoist drum lower limiting device.’’ 

Proposed paragraph (e)(5)(v) would 

require a load moment limiting device. 

‘‘Load moment (or rated capacity) 

limiter’’ is defined in § 1926.1401 as ‘‘a 

system which aids the equipment 

operator by sensing the overturning 

moment on the equipment, i.e., load 

multiplied by radius. It compares this 

lifting condition to the equipment’s 

rated capacity, and when the rated 

capacity is reached, it shuts off power 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59851 

to those equipment functions which can 

increase the severity of loading on the 

equipment, e.g., hoisting, telescoping 

out, or luffing out. Typically, those 

functions which decrease the severity of 

loading on the equipment remain 

operational, e.g., lowering, telescoping 

in, or luffing in.’’ As the definition 

indicates, this type of device detects and 

prevents a potential overload condition 

which could cause the load to fall, the 

crane to collapse or other failure of the 

crane. 

Where the load moment limiting 

device is not in proper working 

condition, two types of measures would 

be required. The first type of measure is 

designed to ensure that the operator 

determines the radius. If the crane is 

equipped with a radius indicating 

device, it would be required to be used. 

If the crane is not so equipped, the 

radius would be required to be 

measured (such as with a tape measure) 

to ensure that the load is within the 

rated capacity of the crane. 

The second type of measure is 

designed to ensure that the operator 

accurately determines the weight of the 

load. The load weight would be 

required to be determined from a 

reliable source (such as the load’s 

manufacturer), by a reliable calculation 

method (such as calculating a steel 

beam from measured dimensions and a 

known per foot weight), or by other 

equally reliable means. This information 

would be required to be provided to the 

operator prior to the lift. 

The C–DAC document refers to this 

device as a ‘‘load moment limit device.’’ 

OSHA has corrected this to ‘‘load 

moment limiting device.’’ 

Proposed paragraph (e)(5)(vi) would 

require a hoist line pull limiting device 

so that the load applied to the hoist 

drum will not exceed the hoist’s 

capacity. If the hoist is equipped with 

a multiple speed hoist transmission, the 

device would have to limit the hoist’s 

lifting capacity in each individual gear 

ratio. If the hoist line pull were to 

exceed the hoist’s capacity, the hoist 

could fail and unspool the line, causing 

the load to drop suddenly. Such a drop 

could cause a worker to be struck by the 

load. 

The temporary alternative measure for 

this operational aid would be that the 

operator would ensure that the weight 

of the load does not exceed the capacity 

of the hoist, taking into account each 

individual gear ratio if the crane is 

equipped with a multiple speed hoist 

transmission. For example, this could be 

done by the operator checking the hoist 

capacity in the equipment manual and 

verifying that the load will not exceed 

that capacity. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(5)(vii) would 

require a rail travel limiting device in 

each direction to prevent the travel 

bogies from running into the end stops 

or buffers. As noted above, rail stops 

that keep the crane from overshooting 

the section of rail within which it is 

supposed to operate is one of the safety 

devices required for tower cranes that 

travel on rails. A rail travel limiting 

device is a device that limits the crane’s 

travel to keep a travel bogie from 

running into a rail stop. C–DAC 

believed that rail stops should not be 

the exclusive means of ensuring that the 

crane stays within its intended limits 

because the crane could jump the tracks 

if it were to strike the rail stops at a high 

enough speed. The temporary 

alternative to a rail travel limiting 

device that is not in proper working 

order would be to use a spotter when 

the crane is operated within 10 feet of 

a rail stop. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(5)(viii) would 

require the boom hoist drum to be 

equipped with a positive locking device. 

One example of such a device is a 

ratchet and pawl mechanism. The 

purpose of the device is to prevent the 

boom (and therefore the load as well) 

from inadvertently lowering. 

C–DAC intended that the device be 

able to be set from the operator’s station 

because it provided that the temporary 

alternative to a device that can be set 

from the operator’s station is to set the 

device manually when its use is 

required. However, neither the 

requirement for a device that can be set 

from the operator’s station nor the 

alternative of setting the device 

manually will help the operator lock the 

boom hoist drum if the device itself 

malfunctions. Accordingly, the Agency 

requests public comment on whether 

this provision should include a 

temporary measure that would be 

required if the positive locking device is 

not working properly (regardless of 

whether it is attempted to be set 

automatically or manually) and, if so, 

what temporary measure is available in 

such a situation. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(6) would 

require the category II operational aids 

discussed below and specifies the 

alternative measures that would have to 

be followed if they are not working 

properly. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(6)(i) would 

require a boom angle or hook radius 

indicator as specified in proposed 

§ 1926.1435(e)(6)(i)(A) and (B). Under 

these provisions, luffing boom tower 

cranes would be required to have a 

boom angle indicator readable from the 

operator’s station. Hammerhead tower 

cranes manufactured more than one 

year after the effective date of this 

standard would be required to have a 

hook radius indicator readable from the 

operator’s station. These devices are 

needed because the information they 

provide is necessary for the operator to 

determine the crane’s capacity under its 

load chart. As with the similar devices 

required under § 1926.1416, the 

temporary alternative would be to 

measure the boom angle or hook radius 

with a measuring device (proposed 

§ 1926.1435(e)(6)(i)(C)). 

Proposed paragraphs (e)(6)(ii) through 

(iv) would require a trolley travel 

deceleration device, boom hoist 

deceleration device, and load hoist 

deceleration device. These devices 

reduce the speed of the trolley, boom 

and load as they approach certain 

limits. They prevent crane components 

from being subjected to the excessive 

stress that would result if the trolley, 

boom, or load were to run into a 

limiting device without slowing down. 

Such high stresses could cause a crane 

component to fail, which could cause 

unintended movement of the load, loss 

of the load, or damage/collapse of a 

component (and therefore struck-by 

injuries or fatalities). 

Proposed (e)(6)(ii) would require 

tower cranes to have a trolley travel 

deceleration device which would 

automatically reduce the trolley speed 

before the trolley reached the end limit 

in both directions. Proposed 

§ 1926.1435(e)(6)(iii) would require 

tower cranes to have a boom hoist 

deceleration device, which would 

automatically reduce the boom speed 

before a luffing boom reaches the 

minimum or maximum radius limit. 

Proposed § 1926.1435(e)(6)(iv) would 

require tower cranes to have a load hoist 

deceleration device, which would 

automatically limit the load speed 

before the load hoist reaches the upper 

limit. The temporary alternative 

measure for each of these operational 

aids would be for the operator to reduce 

the speed when approaching the limits. 

In specifying temporary alternative 

measures generally for operational aids, 

C–DAC sought to identify some measure 

in each instance that would assist the 

operator in performing the necessary 

task (in this case, slowing the action of 

a crane component before it reaches a 

limiting point). However, in the case of 

these deceleration devices, the 

Committee was unable to identify or 

develop that type of alternative 

measure. The Agency requests public 

comment on whether there are any such 

alternative measures that could be used 

in these instances. 

Proposed (e)(6)(v) would require 

tower cranes to have a device that 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59852 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

displays the wind speed, mounted 

above the upper rotating structure. On 

self-erecting cranes, which typically 

rotate at the tower base and do not have 

an ‘‘upper rotating superstructure,’’ it 

would have to be mounted at or above 

the jib level to be in a position to give 

a useful reading. 

As discussed under proposed 

§ 1926.1417 (Operation), paragraph 

§ 1926.1417(n) would require a 

competent person to consider the effect 

of wind (and other weather conditions) 

on equipment stability and rated 

capacity. Tower cranes are particularly 

susceptible to the effects of high wind, 

and knowledge of wind speed is needed 

so that the competent person can 

consider its effect on equipment 

stability and rated capacity. The 

temporary alternative measure would be 

for the wind speed to be obtained from 

a properly functioning device on 

another tower crane on the same site or 

to be estimated by a qualified person. 

Proposed paragraph 1435(e)(6)(vi) 

would require tower cranes 

manufactured more than one year after 

the effective date of this standard to 

have a device that displays the 

magnitude of the load that is on the 

hook. This could be either a separate 

device or one that is part of the load 

moment limiting device (discussed 

above) that displays the load that is on 

the hook. By informing the operator of 

the weight of the load, this device will 

help the operator ensure that the crane 

is operated within its rated capacity. 

The temporary alternative would be for 

the weight of the load to be determined 

from a reliable source (such as the load’s 

manufacturer), by a reliable calculation 

method (such as calculating a steel 

beam from measured dimensions and a 

known per foot weight), or by other 

equally reliable means. This information 

would be required to be provided to the 

operator prior to the lift. 

Paragraph 1435(f) Inspections 

Under proposed paragraph (f)(1), 

§ 1926.1412 (Inspections) would apply 

to tower cranes except that the term 

‘‘assembly’’ would be replaced by 

‘‘erection’’ (the appropriate term for 

tower cranes). 

Proposed paragraph (f)(2) would 

supplement the requirement in 

proposed § 1926.1412(c). It would 

require that a load test be conducted as 

part of the post-erection inspection 

required by proposed § 1926.1412(c). 

The load test would have to be 

conducted using certified weights or 

weights that have been weighed on a 

calibrated scale (with a current 

certificate of calibration) (proposed 

§ 1926.1412(f)(2)(i)). The test would 

have to be conducted in accordance 

with the manufacturer’s instructions or, 

if those are unavailable, in accordance 

with written procedures developed by a 

registered professional engineer familiar 

with the type of equipment involved 

(proposed § 1926.1412(f)(2)(ii)). This 

would help ensure that any significant 

problems or errors made during the 

erection process would be revealed 

prior to placing the crane in operation. 

Proposed paragraph (f)(3) would 

require that additional items be 

included in the monthly inspections of 

tower cranes. These include tower 

(mast) bolts and other structural bolts 

(for loose or dislodged condition) from 

the base of the tower up or, if the crane 

is tied to or braced by the structure, 

those above the upper-mast brace 

support (proposed § 1926.1435(f)(3(i)). 

The monthly inspection would also 

include the uppermost tie-in, braces, 

floor supports, and floor wedges where 

the tower crane is supported by the 

structure (proposed § 1926.1435(f)(3(i)), 

for loose or dislodged components. 

These items are critical to the stability 

of the crane, and C–DAC believed that 

a monthly inspection would uncover 

any deficiencies that would endanger 

the crane’s stability. 

Section 1436 Derricks 

This proposed section contains 

requirements for derricks that would 

supplement the other requirements of 

this standard. Currently, 29 CFR part 

1926 subpart N, at § 1926.550(e), 

requires derricks to meet the applicable 

requirements for design, construction, 

installation, inspection, testing, 

maintenance, and operation as 

prescribed in ANSI B30.6–1969, safety 

code for ‘‘Derricks,’’ as well as the 

general requirements of Subpart N 

applicable to all equipment. 

C–DAC’s review of injury and fatality 

statistics did not indicate a need to 

deviate significantly from the 

requirements of Subpart N. For the most 

part, the most recent version of the 

ANSI standard, ASME B30.6–2003, does 

not differ substantively from the 1969 

version insofar as the provisions 

discussed below are concerned, so the 

requirements of this section differ 

substantively from those of Subpart N in 

only limited respects. Where 

substantive differences exist, they are 

discussed in the context of that 

requirement. 

Paragraph 1436(a) 

Proposed paragraph (a) explains that 

this section contains supplemental 

requirements for derricks, whether 

temporarily or permanently mounted; 

all sections of this Subpart would apply 

to derricks unless specified otherwise. 

Proposed § 1926.1436(a) defines a 

derrick as powered equipment 

consisting of a mast or equivalent 

member that is held at or near the end 

by guys or braces, with or without a 

boom, and its hoisting mechanism. The 

mast/equivalent member and/or the 

load is moved by the hoisting 

mechanism (typically base-mounted) 

and operating ropes. Derricks include: 

A-frame, basket, breast, Chicago boom, 

gin pole (except gin poles used for 

erection of communication towers), guy, 

shearleg, stiffleg, and variations of such 

equipment. 

Proposed paragraph (a)’s exclusion of 

gin poles used for erection of 

communication towers mirrors the 

exclusion of such equipment from the 

scope of the standard under proposed 

§ 1926.1400(c)(12). As explained above 

in the discussion of proposed 

§ 1926.1400(c)(12), gin poles used for 

erecting communication towers are 

excluded because the erection of 

communication towers is a highly 

specialized subset of the construction 

industry and involves interests and 

issues that go beyond the interests and 

issues C–DAC was designed to address. 

Paragraph 1436(b) Operation— 

Procedures 

Proposed paragraph (b)(1) states that 

§ 1926.1417 (Operation) of this 

proposed standard applies except for 

proposed § 1926.1417(c) (Accessibility 

of procedures). C–DAC believed that it 

was appropriate to keep the operation 

requirements for derricks consistent 

with those of cranes as much as possible 

because they both present many of the 

same hazards and operational issues. 

However, proposed § 1926.1417(c) 

would require the operating procedures, 

including load charts, to be located in 

‘‘the cab’’ of the equipment and derricks 

often do not have a cab. Therefore, that 

proposed requirement would not apply 

to derricks. Proposed § 1926.1436(b)(3), 

discussed below, sets forth requirements 

for accessibility of the load chart for 

derricks. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(2), Load chart 

contents, would list what information 

must be included on load charts. 

Subpart N incorporated similar load 

chart requirements of section 6–1.1.2 in 

ANSI B30.6–1969, which remains the 

same in the ASME B30.6–2003 version 

of the consensus standard. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(i) would 

require the load chart to contain the 

rated capacity at corresponding ranges 

of boom angle or operating radii. This 

information is necessary to prevent 

overloading of the derrick. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59853 

78The text of section 6–1.2.1(b) of ASME B30.6— 

2003 does not state the dates of the welding 

standards it incorporates. However, those dates are 

specified in section 6–0.3 of the ASME standard, 

and OSHA has added them to the text of 

§ 1926.1436(c)(1)(ii). 

79A similar problem with the provisions on 

stiffleg derricks is discussed below. 

Paragraph (b)(2)(ii) requires the load 

chart to list the specific lengths of 

components to which the rated 

capacities apply. This information is 

needed because the derrick’s load 

capacity varies with different 

component lengths. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(iii) would 

require the load chart to list parts for 

hoist reeving. By listing the reeving 

parts considered during the tabulation 

of available load charts, the employer 

can determine if available load charts 

are applicable to the configuration of the 

derrick at its work site. As with 

proposed § 1926.1436(b)(2)(i) and (ii), 

meeting this requirement would help 

prevent accidents that could occur 

resulting from errors in determining the 

equipment’s rated capacity. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(iv) would 

require the size and construction of rope 

to be included on the load chart or in 

the operating manual. This proposed 

requirement would prevent hoisting 

accidents that might occur if a rope fails 

because it was the wrong size or 

construction for the load being lifted. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(3), Load chart 

location, states where the required load 

charts must be kept. Proposed 

§ 1926.1436(b)(3)(i), Permanent 

installations, would require 

permanently installed derricks with 

fixed lengths of boom, guy, and mast, to 

have a load chart posted where it is 

visible to personnel responsible for the 

operation of the equipment. Proposed 

§ 1926.1436(b)(3)(ii), Non-permanent 

installations, requires derricks that are 

not permanently installed, to have the 

load chart readily available at the job 

site to personnel responsible for the 

operation of the equipment. These 

requirements would ensure that the 

critical information contained on these 

charts is available on the worksite to 

enable the employer to calculate the 

parameters of a safe lift. 

Paragraph 1436(c) Construction 

Proposed paragraph (c) contains 

supplemental engineering and 

fabrication requirements that address 

hazards specific to derricks. Proposed 

paragraph (c)(1), General requirements, 

would list general construction 

requirements that apply to the use of all 

types of derricks. The requirements that 

follow are similar to section 6–1.2.1 of 

ANSI B30.6–1969 and ASME B30.6– 

2003 and would help the employer 

prevent accidents caused by inadequate 

structural design and fabrication. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(i) states 

that derricks shall be constructed to 

meet all stresses imposed on members 

and components when installed and 

operated in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s/ builder’s procedures 

and within its rated capacity. ‘‘Builder’’ 

is defined in § 1926.1401 as ‘‘an 

employer builder/constructor of 

equipment.’’ This definition 

distinguishes a ‘‘builder’’ of equipment 

(an employer at the worksite where the 

derrick is erected) from a manufacturer, 

who sells products that may be used at 

any worksite. Section 

§ 1926.1436(c)(1)(i) uses the word 

‘‘builder’’ in addition to ‘‘manufacturer’’ 

because it will often be the builder’s 

procedures, rather than the 

manufacturer’s, that must be followed to 

ensure that derricks are constructed 

properly. This requirement is similar to 

section 6–1.2.1(a) of ANSI B30.6–1969 

and ASME B30.6–2003. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(ii) specifies 

that the welding of load sustaining 

members shall conform to 

recommended practices in ANSI/AWS 

D14.3–94 or D1.1–02. This latter 

provision is similar to section 6–1.2.1(b) 

of ASME B30.6–2003 and relies on 

newer welding standards than the 

corresponding requirement of ANSI 

B30.6–1969, which requires welding of 

critically stressed members to conform 

to AWS D2.0–66.78 These provisions 

would prevent structural failures when 

using the derrick within its rated 

capacity. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(2), Guy 

derricks, lists additional requirements 

applicable to the construction of guy 

derricks. In addition, proposed 

§ 1926.1436(d), Anchoring and guying, 

contains requirements for anchoring and 

guying guy derricks. Both of these 

sections contain provisions that address 

the specifications for guys, and OSHA is 

concerned about whether placing 

related requirements in two different 

paragraphs could lead to confusion and 

impede compliance.79 Moreover, OSHA 

is concerned about whether proposed 

§ 1926.1436(c)(2) is worded in a way 

that clearly states its intent. OSHA 

requests public comment on whether 

these provisions need to be modified to 

provide clearer guidance and, if so, how 

they should be modified. A discussion 

of the issues these proposed paragraphs 

present follows. 

A guy derrick consists of a vertical, 

rotating mast anchored at its base and a 

boom connected to the bottom of the 

mast in such a way that the boom can 

pivot in a vertical plane, i.e., the angle 

between the boom and the mast can 

vary. The mast is supported at its top by 

guys that run from the mast to the 

surface on which the derrick is 

mounted. Factors such as the number, 

spacing, and angle of the guys, the 

material of which they are made, and 

the tension in the guys, affect whether 

the derrick is able to handle loads 

within its rated capacity. 

The following proposed provisions 

apply to guy derricks. 

(c) Construction 

* * * * * 

(2) Guy derricks. 

(i) The minimum number of guys shall be 

6, with equal spacing, except where a 

qualified person or derrick manufacturer 

approves variations from these requirements 

and revises the rated capacity to compensate 

for such variations. 

(ii) Guy derricks shall not be used unless 

the employer has the following guy 

information: 

(A) The number of guys. 

(B) The spacing around the mast. 

(C) The size, grade, and construction of 

rope to be used for each guy. 

(iii) For guy derricks manufactured after 

December 18, 1970, in addition to the 

information required in paragraph (ii), the 

employer shall have the following guy 

information: 

(A) The amount of initial sag or tension. 

(B) The amount of tension in guy line rope 

at anchor. 

(d) Anchoring and guying. 

(1) Load anchoring data developed by the 

manufacturer or a qualified person shall be 

used. 

(2) Guy derricks. 

(i) The mast base shall be anchored. 

(ii) The guys shall be secured to the ground 

or other firm anchorage. 

(iii) The anchorage and guying shall be 

designed to withstand maximum horizontal 

and vertical forces encountered when 

operating within rated capacity with the 

particular guy slope and spacing specified for 

the application. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(i) specifies 

that the minimum number of guys shall 

be 6, with equal spacing, except where 

a qualified person or derrick 

manufacturer approves variations from 

these requirements and revises the rated 

capacity to compensate for such 

variations. This requirement is 

comparable to section 6–1.2.2 of ANSI 

B30.6–1969 and ASME B30.6–2003. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii) states 

that guy derricks shall not be used 

unless the employer has the following 

guy information: (A) The number of 

guys; (B) The spacing around the mast; 

and (C) The size, grade, and 

construction of rope to be used for each 

guy. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(iii) requires 

that for guy derricks manufactured after 

December 18, 1970, in addition to the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59854 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

80The 1969 version of the ANSI standard does 

not include the items in proposed 

§ 1926.1436(c)(2)(iii), but later versions of the B30.6 

standard, including the 2003 version, list those 

items. 

81The provisions do not explicitly permit the 

employer to rely on manufacturer recommendations 

and could be read not to permit reliance on such 

recommendations because the provisions on guy 

information, which would typically be provided by 

the manufacturer (proposed § 1926.1436(c)(2)(ii) 

and (iii)), and those on installing anchoring and 

guying (propose § 1926.1436(d)(1) and (2)), are 

found in different paragraphs and may therefore be 

read to be mutually exclusive. 

information required in 

§ 1926.1436(c)(2)(ii), the employer shall 

have the following guy information: (A) 

The amount of initial sag or tension; and 

(B) The amount of tension in guy line 

rope at anchor. 

OSHA notes that proposed 

§ 1926.1436(c)(2)(ii) does not establish 

specifications an employer must follow 

when installing a guy derrick. They 

require only that the employer have the 

specified information on the guying 

used to install the derrick. 

The requirement of proposed 

§ 1926.1436(c)(2) that the derrick user 

possess certain guy information differs 

substantially from that found in the 

ANSI/ASME standards on which 

proposed § 1926.1436(c) is based. The 

corresponding ANSI/ASME provisions 

are section 6–1.2.2 of ANSI B 30.6–1969 

and ASME B30.6–2003, which require 

the derrick manufacturer to furnish 

complete information recommending 

the guy specifications listed in 

§ 1926.1436(c)(2)(ii).80 Thus, the ANSI/ 

ASME provisions impose a duty on 

derrick manufacturers to provide certain 

information and recommendations to 

their customers. The C–DAC provisions, 

by contrast, impose an obligation on 

derrick users to possess the information 

provided by the manufacturer. However, 

as drafted, proposed § 1926.1436(c)(2) 

does not require derrick users to follow 

the manufacturer’s recommendations on 

the listed guy specifications, only to 

have that information. 

In sum, proposed § 1926.1436(c) tells 

guy derrick users (1) that they must 

install a minimum of six guys with 

equal spacing, unless the derrick 

manufacturer or a qualified person 

approves variations from these 

requirements and revises the rated 

capacity accordingly, and (2) that they 

must have information on the number of 

guys and spacing, as well as the type of 

guy material used and, for newer 

derricks, the tension in the guys. 

The subject of guy installation is also 

addressed by proposed § 1926.1436(d). 

Proposed § 1926.1436(d)(1) requires the 

derrick user to use load anchoring data 

developed by the manufacturer (or a 

qualified person) to anchor the mast and 

install the guys. Under proposed 

§ 1926.1436(d)(2), the employer must 

use this data to (i) anchor the mast base; 

(ii) secure the guys to the ground or 

other firm anchorage; and (iii) install 

guying that will withstand the 

maximum horizontal and vertical forces 

encountered when operating within 

rated capacity with the particular guy 

slope and spacing specified for the 

application. Although this provision 

requires the employer to install guying 

that will enable the derrick to handle 

loads within its rated capacity and to 

use manufacturer’s (or a qualified 

person’s) data for this purpose, it does 

not explicitly require the employer to 

follow manufacturer recommendations 

on guying. Nor does it explicitly say that 

an employer who follows the 

manufacturer’s guying 

recommendations is in compliance. 

OSHA believes that, in many if not 

most cases in which guy derricks are 

used, the employer who uses the derrick 

will want to be able to rely on the 

manufacturer’s recommendations for 

number, spacing, angle, material, and 

tension of guys and that permitting 

employers to do so will promote safe 

use of such derricks. OSHA is 

concerned about whether the proposed 

C–DAC provisions clearly permit an 

employer to rely on such manufacturer 

recommendations.81

OSHA requests public comment on 

whether and, if so how, any of these 

proposed provisions should be modified 

to make clear what information the 

derrick user must use when installing 

guys. For example, should the derrick 

user be required to use specifications 

provided by the manufacturer of the 

derrick (assuming such specifications 

are available from the manufacturer) on 

all of the topics listed in proposed 

§ 1926.1436(c)(2)(ii) and (iii)? 

OSHA further notes that the need for 

the ‘‘grandfathering’’ provision in 

proposed § 1926.1436(c)(2)(iii) is 

problematic. Although the 1969 ANSI 

B30.6 standard did not require 

manufacturers to provide information 

on sag and tension of guy line rope, 

proposed § 1926.1436(d)(1) 

contemplates that such information 

could be developed by a qualified 

person. OSHA therefore additionally 

requests public comment on whether 

the standard should require guy tension 

(as well as other guy specifications) to 

be developed by a qualified person if 

not available from the manufacturer. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(iv) states 

that the mast base shall permit the mast 

to rotate freely with allowance for slight 

tilting of the mast caused by guy slack. 

Proposed § 1926.1436(c)(2)(v) requires 

that the mast cap shall: (A) Permit the 

mast to rotate freely; (B) Withstand 

tilting and cramping caused by the guy 

loads; (C) Be secured to the mast to 

prevent disengagement during erection; 

and (D) Be provided with means for 

attaching guy ropes. These requirements 

track similar ones in sections 6–1.2.2(c) 

and (d) of ANSI B30.6–1969 and ASME 

B30.6–2003. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(3), Stiffleg 

derricks, provides additional 

requirements specific to stiffleg derricks 

to help ensure their safe use. These 

requirements are comparable to those in 

section 6–1.2.3 of ANSI B30.6–1969 and 

ASME B30.6–2003. 

As with guy derricks, specifications 

for stiffleg derricks are found in both 

proposed § 1926.1436(c) and (d). Both 

paragraphs contain provisions dealing 

with the ability of stifflegs to withstand 

loads, and OSHA is concerned about the 

possibility for confusion if two different 

provisions address the same issue. The 

two provisions are: 

Proposed § 1926.1436(c)(3)(ii): The stifflegs 

shall be capable of withstanding the loads 

imposed at any point of operation within the 

load chart range. 

Proposed § 1926.1436(d)(3)(ii): The mast 

base and stifflegs shall be designed to 

withstand maximum horizontal and vertical 

forces encountered when operating within 

rated capacity with the particular stiffleg 

spacing and slope specified for the 

application. 

Even though these two provisions 

appear to be consistent with each other, 

there is always the possibility for 

confusion if two differently worded 

provisions address the same topic, and 

OSHA requests public comment on 

whether either or both of these 

provisions should be changed or deleted 

to avoid any such potential confusion. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(3)(i) would 

require that the mast be supported in 

the vertical position by at least two 

stifflegs; one end of each would have to 

be connected to the top of the mast and 

the other end securely anchored. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(3)(ii) states 

that the stifflegs shall be capable of 

withstanding the loads imposed at any 

point of operation within the rated load 

chart range. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(3)(iii) 

specifies that the mast base shall: (A) 

Permit the mast to rotate freely (when 

necessary); and (B) Permit deflection of 

the mast without binding. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(3)(iv) states 

that the mast shall be prevented from 

lifting out of its socket when the mast 

is in tension. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(3)(v) requires 

the stiffleg connecting member at the 

top of the mast to: (A) Permit the mast 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59855 

to rotate freely (when necessary); (B) 

Withstand the loads imposed by the 

action of the stifflegs; and (C) Be 

secured so as to oppose separating 

forces. 

Paragraph (c)(4), Gin pole derricks, 

contains additional requirements 

specific to gin pole derricks to help 

ensure their safe use. Similar 

requirements are found in section 6– 

1.2.4 of ASME B30.6–2003. ANSI B 

30.6–1969, which is incorporated by 

reference in Subpart N, does not contain 

provisions specific to gin pole derricks. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(4)(i) provides 

that guy lines be sized and spaced so as 

to make the gin pole stable in both 

boomed and vertical positions. 

Exception: Where the size and/or 

spacing of guy lines do not result in the 

gin pole being stable in both boomed 

and vertical positions, the employer 

shall ensure that the derrick is not used 

in an unstable position. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(4)(ii) requires 

that the base of the gin pole permit 

movement of the pole (when necessary). 

Proposed paragraph (c)(4)(iii) would 

require the gin pole to be anchored at 

the base against horizontal forces (when 

such forces are present). 

Proposed paragraph (c)(5), Chicago 

boom derricks, states that the fittings for 

stepping the boom and for attaching the 

topping lift shall be arranged to: (i) 

Permit the derrick to swing at all 

permitted operating radii and mounting 

heights between fittings; (ii) 

Accommodate attachment to the upright 

member of the host structure; (iii) 

Withstand the forces applied when 

configured and operated in accordance 

with the manufacturer’s/builder’s 

procedures and within its rated 

capacity; and (iv) Prevent the boom or 

topping lift from lifting out under 

tensile forces. Similar requirements, 

which will help ensure that such 

derricks are used safely, are found in 

section 6–1.2.5 of ASME B30.6–2003. 

ANSI B 30.6–1969, which is 

incorporated by reference in Subpart N, 

does not contain specific requirements 

for Chicago boom derricks. 

Paragraph 1436(d) Anchoring and 

Guying 

Proposed paragraph (d) lists 

requirements for anchoring and guying 

derricks to the surfaces that support 

them. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(1) would 

require use of load anchoring data 

developed by the manufacturer or a 

qualified person. Currently, Subpart N, 

through incorporation of section 6–1.4.3 

of ANSI B30.6–1969, requires load 

anchoring data for non-permanent 

installations, which would include most 

derricks used for construction work, to 

be determined by the user. The 2003 

version of ASME B30.6 requires the data 

to be determined by a qualified person. 

C–DAC believed that, to better ensure 

safety, a qualified person (as defined in 

proposed § 1926.1401) is needed to 

develop such data. The proposal affords 

the employer the additional flexibility 

of relying on data provided by the 

derrick manufacturer rather than relying 

exclusively on a qualified person to 

develop such data. 

For permanent fixed installations, the 

1969 ANSI standard requires load 

anchoring data to be provided by the 

derrick manufacturer, while the 2003 

version requires it to be provided by the 

owner. C–DAC believed that derrick 

users should be able to rely on data 

developed by the manufacturer or a 

qualified person for any type of 

installation and therefore did not 

distinguish between fixed and 

temporary installations for this purpose. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(2), Guy 

derricks, lists additional requirements, 

for anchoring and guying, that are 

specific to the use of guy derricks. These 

provisions are similar to section 6– 

1.4.1of ANSI B30.6–1969 and ASME 

B30.6–2003. These provisions are 

discussed above in connection with 

proposed § 1926.1436(c)(2). 

Proposed paragraph (d)(3), Stiffleg 

derricks, lists anchoring and guying 

requirements that are specific to the use 

of stiffleg derricks. The provisions in 

this paragraph are similar to section 6– 

1.4.2 in ANSI B30.6–1969 and ASME 

B30.6–2003. 

Proposed paragraph (d)(3)(i) would 

require the mast base and stifflegs to be 

anchored. Proposed paragraph (d)(3)(ii) 

would require the mast base and 

stifflegs to be designed to withstand 

maximum horizontal and vertical forces 

encountered when operating within 

rated capacity with the particular 

stiffleg spacing and slope specified for 

the application. This provision is 

discussed above in connection with 

proposed § 1926.1436(c)(3). 

Paragraph 1436(e) Swingers and Hoists 

Proposed paragraph (e) lists 

requirements for swinger mechanisms 

and hoists that are used as part of a 

derrick. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(1) would 

require that the boom, swinger 

mechanisms and hoists be suitable for 

the derrick work intended and be 

anchored to prevent displacement from 

the imposed loads. This provision is 

similar to section 6–1.5.1 of ANSI 

B30.6–1969 and section 6–1.5 of ASME 

B30.6–2003. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(2), Basemounted drum hoists, would specify 

minimum requirements for hoists used 

for derricks. Currently, Subpart N has 

requirements for base-mounted drum 

hoists in 29 CFR 1926.553. These 

requirements apply to all base-mounted 

drum hoists used in construction, 

including those used for derricks. 

It should be noted that this 

rulemaking is limited to setting 

requirements for cranes and derricks, 

and therefore does not address the 

requirements in § 1926.553 for basemounted drum hoists to the extent they 

apply beyond their use for derricks. 

Consequently, proposed 

§ 1926.1436(e)(2) would set 

requirements for base-mounted drum 

hoists only to the extent such hoists are 

used for derricks. Also note that the 

requirements in § 1926.553 for basemounted drum hoists would no longer 

apply to such hoists used for derricks. 

To make this clear, this proposed rule 

would amend § 1926.553 by adding the 

following § 1926.1436(c) to that section 

and requests public comment on this 

proposed change: 

(c) This section does not apply to basemounted drum hoists used in conjunction 

with derricks. Base-mounted drum hoists 

used in conjunction with derricks must 

conform to § 1926.1436(e). 

Section 1926.553 requires basemounted drum hoists to meet the 

applicable requirements for design, 

construction, installation, testing, 

inspection, maintenance, and operations 

prescribed by the manufacturer. In 

addition, it imposes requirements to 

guard exposed moving parts, locate 

controls within easy reach of the 

operator’s station, and equip electric 

motor operated hoists with certain 

safety features. 

For such hoists used for derricks, 

instead of relying on a manufacturer’s 

recommendation for most requirements, 

proposed § 1926.1436(e)(2) incorporates 

by reference certain sections of ASME 

B30.7–2001, ‘‘Base Mounted Drum 

Hoists,’’ and sets forth specific 

requirements for load tests. 

Proposed paragraphs (e)(2)(i)(A) 

through (D) would require that base 

mounted drum hoists meet the 

requirements in the following sections 

of ASME B30.7–2001: 

(A) Sections 7–1.1 (Load ratings and 

markings). 

(B) Section 7–1.2 (Construction), except: 7– 

1.2.13 (Operator’s cab); 7–2.15 (Fire 

extinguishers) (Note: The requirements 

excluded by this proposed paragraph would 

be covered by the general fire extinguisher 

and operator’s cab requirements in 

§ 1926.1433(e)(6) and (7) of this proposed 

standard. Therefore, the incorporation by 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59856 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

82ASME B30.7–2001 does not specify who must 

determine if a hoist passes its load test. 

83Other operational aids listed in § 1926.1416— 

a luffing jib limiting device, a jib angle indicator, 

a boom length indicator on equipment with a 

telescoping boom, and an outrigger position sensor/ 

monitor on equipment with outriggers—are 

required on equipment with components not 

possessed by derricks. 

reference of those requirements from ASME 

B30.7–2001 would be redundant.) 

(C) Section 7–1.3 (Installation). 

(D) Applicable terms in Section 7–0.2 

(Definitions). 

The requirements incorporated from 

section 7–1.2 include those for guarding 

exposed moving parts, locating controls 

within easy reach of the operator’s 

station, and equipping electric motor 

operated hoists with certain safety 

features. Comparable requirements are 

now found in § 1926.553. Section 7–1.2 

also contains a number of additional 

requirements from ASME B30.7, 

including requirements for hoist and 

swinger mechanisms, brakes, clutches, 

adjustments for brakes and clutches, 

ropes, prime mover controls, electric 

resistors and switches, and lubrication. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(ii), Load 

tests for new hoists, would require that 

the employer ensure that new hoists are 

load tested to a minimum of 110% of 

rated capacity, but not more than 125% 

of rated capacity, unless otherwise 

recommended by the manufacturer. 

This requirement is met where the 

manufacturer has conducted this 

testing. ASME B30.7–2001, in section 7– 

2.2.2(a), requires similar load testing but 

requires the test to be conducted by the 

manufacturer. OSHA recognizes that the 

manufacturer will usually be the party 

who conducts the test and allows the 

manufacturer to do so, but this proposal 

permits the test to be conducted by any 

party as long as it is performed 

correctly. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(iii), 

Repaired or modified hoists, would 

require that hoists which have had 

repairs, modifications or additions 

affecting their capacity or safe operation 

be evaluated by a qualified person to 

determine if a load test is necessary. If 

it is, load testing shall be conducted in 

accordance with § 1926.1436(e)(2)(ii) 

and (iv). This requirement parallels 

section 7–2.2.2(b)(1) of ASME B30.7– 

2001. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(iv), Load 

test procedure, would state that load 

tests required by § 1926.1436(e)(2)(ii) or 

(e)(2)(iii) shall be conducted in 

accordance with the requirements listed 

in § 1926.1436(e)(2)(iv)(A) to (C). 

Proposed § 1926.1436(e)(2)(iv)(A) would 

require that the test load be hoisted a 

vertical distance to assure that the load 

is supported by the hoist and held by 

the hoist brake(s). Proposed 

§ 1926.1436(e)(2)(iv)(B) provides that 

the test load shall be lowered, stopped 

and held with the brake(s). These 

specifications are comparable to those 

in section 7–2.2.2(b)(2) of ASME B30.7– 

2001. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(C) states 

that the hoist shall not be used unless 

a competent person determines that the 

test has been passed.82 The requirement 

that a competent person determine 

whether a base-mounted drum hoist has 

passed a load test is consistent with the 

requirement, discussed below under 

proposed § 1926.1436(g), that a 

competent person determine whether a 

derrick has passed a load test. C–DAC 

believed that, to ensure that the load test 

is properly assessed, this determination 

needs to be made by a competent 

person. 

Paragraph 1436(f) Operational Aids 

Proposed paragraph (f) would specify 

the types of operational aids that must 

be used on derricks during construction 

activities. 

Proposed paragraph (f)(1) states that 

proposed § 1926.1416 (Operational aids) 

applies, except for § 1926.1416(d)(1) 

(Boom hoist limiting device), (e)(1) 

(Boom angle or radius indicator) and 

(e)(4) (Load weighing and similar 

devices). Under proposed 

§ 1926.1436(f)(1), two operational aids— 

an anti two-block device and a hoist 

drum rotation indicator (if the drum is 

not visible from the operator’s station)— 

would be required on a derrick 

manufactured more than one year after 

the effective date of this subpart. 

Neither is currently required under 29 

CFR part 1026 subpart N.83 The safety 

functions served by these operational 

aids are described above in the 

discussion of proposed § 1926.1416. 

Proposed paragraph (f)(2), Boom angle 

aid, would require the employer to 

ensure that either: (i) The boom hoist 

cable is marked with caution and stop 

marks, corresponding to maximum and 

minimum allowable boom angles, that 

are within view of the operator or a 

spotter who is in direct communication 

with the operator, or (ii) an electronic or 

other device that signals the operator in 

time to prevent the boom from moving 

past its maximum and minimum angles, 

or automatically prevents such 

movement, is used. 

C–DAC discussed whether to require 

derricks to be equipped with boom 

angle indicators. Section 6–1.6.4 of 

ASME B30.6–2003 advises that derricks 

have such devices, stating that ‘‘Boom 

angle indicators should be provided and 

be readable by the operator or the signal 

person, unless the derrick has one rating 

for all boom angles.’’ C–DAC believed 

that, instead of requiring such a device, 

marking the boom hoist cables to 

indicate maximum and minimum boom 

positions is a safe work practice that is 

routinely implemented by many derrick 

operators in the industry. 

The Committee also believed that the 

most recent accident data it reviewed 

did not indicate that this work practice 

was ineffective and concluded that 

requiring boom angle indicators would 

be an added cost to the industry with no 

significant impact on safety. The 

proposed standard therefore would 

require the employer either to mark the 

boom hoist lines or to use an electronic 

signaling device in lieu of using a boom 

angle indicator. 

OSHA notes that, as drafted by C– 

DAC, proposed § 1926.1436(f)(2) would 

require derrick users to take one of the 

two specified precautions even if the 

derrick is equipped with a boom angle 

indicator as suggested by ASME B30.6. 

It is the Agency’s understanding that C– 

DAC intended those precautions to be 

taken in lieu of requiring boom angle 

indicators and that they are not needed 

if the derrick has such a device. OSHA 

therefore requests public comment on 

whether it should modify 

§ 1926.1436(f)(2) by adding the words 

‘‘If the derrick is not equipped with a 

functioning boom angle indicator’’ so 

that it would read as follows: 

(2) Boom angle aid. If the derrick is not 

equipped with a functioning boom angle 

indicator, the employer shall ensure that 

either: 

(i) The boom hoist cable shall be marked 

with caution and stop marks. The stop marks 

shall correspond to maximum and minimum 

allowable boom angles. The caution and stop 

marks shall be in view of the operator, or a 

spotter who is in direct communication with 

the operator, or 

(ii) An electronic or other device that 

signals the operator in time to prevent the 

boom from moving past its maximum and 

minimum angles, or automatically prevents 

such movement, is used. 

Proposed paragraph (f)(3), Load 

weight/capacity devices, would require 

that derricks manufactured more than 

one year after the effective date of this 

Subpart with a maximum rated capacity 

over 6,000 pounds have at least one of 

the following: load weighing device, 

load moment indicator, rated capacity 

indicator, or rated capacity limiter. This 

paragraph would adopt for derricks a 

comparable requirement to that for 

cranes required by proposed 

§ 1926.1416(e)(4). However, the 

requirement for cranes applies to cranes 

manufactured after March 29, 2003. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59857 

84This proposed paragraph differs from section 

6–2.2.1(b) of ASME B30.6–2003 in the following 

respect: The ASME section states that rock or 

hairpin anchorages ‘‘may require’’ special testing. 

C–DAC believed that it is necessary to explicitly 

require that a qualified person determine whether 

such testing is needed. 

That date was chosen for cranes because 

it was when ANSI B30.5 first required 

load weighing devices on all mobile 

cranes with a rated capacity over 6,000 

pounds. There is no comparable 

requirement for derricks in the ASME 

B30.6 standard. Since this proposed 

paragraph, if adopted, would impose a 

requirement not previously applied to 

derricks by an industry standard, C– 

DAC believed it is appropriate to allow 

one year after this standard becomes 

effective for new derricks to be 

equipped with such devices. 

Proposed paragraph (f)(3) sets 

temporary alternative measures that 

must be used when the load weight/ 

capacity device is not working properly. 

These temporary alternatives are the 

same as those required by proposed 

§ 1926.1416(e)(5) for equipment 

generally and under proposed 

§ 1926.1435(e)(6)(vi) for tower cranes 

specifically. Under § 1926.1416(e) and 

§ 1926.1435(e)(6), such a device is a 

category II operational aid and, as such, 

it must be repaired within 30 days if it 

is not working properly. OSHA requests 

comment on whether to apply that same 

30-day requirement, along with the 

exception if a part is ordered within 7 

days of the malfunction and not 

received in time to complete the repair 

within 30 days, to proposed 

§ 1926.1436(f)(3). 

Paragraph 1436(g) Post-Assembly 

Approval and Testing—New or 

Reinstalled Derricks 

Proposed paragraph (g) would list the 

minimum testing and approval 

requirements that an employer must 

meet to assure that its derrick will be 

structurally and functionally able to 

perform within the manufacturer’s 

specifications and recommendations. 

C–DAC believed that by meeting these 

minimum requirements, the employer 

would provide its workers with a safe 

derrick that will not endanger its 

workers during hoisting operations. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(1), 

Anchorages, would list minimum 

requirements for an anchor used to 

support a derrick. Proposed 

§ 1926.1436(g)(1)(i), would require that 

the anchorages, including the structure 

to which the derrick is attached (if 

applicable), be approved by a qualified 

person. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(1)(ii) would 

require the qualified person to 

determine if any special testing of the 

anchorage is needed when rock or 

hairpin anchorage are used. If so, it shall 

be tested accordingly. The provisions in 

proposed § 1926.1436(g)(1) are similar 

to what is required by Subpart N 

through its incorporation of section 6– 

2.2.1b in ANSI B30.6–1969 and also 

what is currently in section 6–2.2.1(b) in 

its newest revision, ASME B30.6– 

2003.84 These requirements would help 

the employer ensure that the derrick 

would not collapse due to insufficient 

anchoring and injure or kill workers 

who must use or be in the vicinity of the 

derrick. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(2), Functional 

test, would require that, prior to initial 

use, new or reinstalled derricks shall be 

tested by a competent person with no 

hook load to verify proper operation. 

Section 2.2.1a of ANSI B30.6–1969, 

incorporated in Subpart N, requires the 

employer to test the derrick to ensure 

that it can safely hoist and lower the 

load, boom up and down, swing left and 

right, and brake/control the speed of its 

hoist lines. The five provisions of this 

proposed paragraph are similar to 

section 6–2.2.1 of ASME B30.6–2003 

and would require, respectively, the 

following tests: (i) Lifting and lowering 

the hook(s) through the full range of 

hook travel; (ii) raising and lowering the 

boom through the full range of boom 

travel; (iii) swinging in each direction 

through the full range of swing; (iv) 

actuating the anti two-block and boom 

hoist limit devices (if provided); and (v) 

actuating locking, limiting and 

indicating devices (if provided). 

Proposed paragraph (g)(3), Load test, 

would require that, prior to initial use, 

new or reinstalled derricks shall be load 

tested by a competent person. Subpart N 

requires operational tests prior to initial 

use of all new and altered derricks 

through the incorporation of section 6– 

2.2.1 of ANSI B30.6–1969, but a load 

test is not explicitly required. C–DAC 

recommended that OSHA adopt the 

revised guidance provided in section 6– 

2.2.2 of ASME B30.6–2003, which 

includes a requirement to load test all 

new and reinstalled derricks prior to 

initial use and specifies the elements 

such a test should include. OSHA 

believes that compliance with the load 

test requirements listed below would 

help the employer identify defects in 

the derrick prior to its actual use. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(i) would 

require that test loads shall be at least 

100% and no more than 110% of the 

rated capacity, unless otherwise 

recommended by the manufacturer or 

qualified person, but in no event shall 

the test load be less than the maximum 

anticipated load. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(ii) would 

list minimum procedures that must be 

accomplished during the load testing. 

These are: (A) The test load be hoisted 

a few inches and held to verify that the 

load is supported by the derrick and 

held by the hoist brake(s); (B) the 

derrick must be swung, if applicable, 

the full range of its swing, at the 

maximum allowable working radius for 

the test load; (C) the derrick must be 

boomed up and down within the 

allowable working radius for the test 

load; and (D) the load must be lowered, 

stopped and held with the brake(s). 

Proposed paragraph (g)(3)(iii) would 

require that the derrick not be used 

unless the competent person determines 

that the test has been passed. 

Proposed paragraph (g)(4), 

Documentation, would require that tests 

conducted under this paragraph be 

documented. The document must 

contain the date, test results, and the 

name of the tester. The document shall 

be retained until the derrick is re-tested 

or dismantled, whichever occurs first. 

Because a load test meeting the criteria 

listed in the proposed standard is so 

important to the safe use of the derrick, 

C–DAC believed that documentation of 

the test was needed to show that the test 

had been conducted properly. Section 

6–2.2.2(a)(1) of ASME B30.6–2003 

similarly requires that a written report 

of the load test be prepared and 

maintained. 

Paragraph 1436(h) Load Testing 

Repaired or Modified Derricks 

Proposed paragraph (h) would require 

that derricks that have had repairs, 

modifications or additions affecting the 

derrick’s capacity or safe operation be 

evaluated by a qualified person to 

determine if a load test is necessary. If 

it is, load testing shall be conducted and 

documented in accordance with 

§ 1926.1436(g). Subpart N, through 

incorporation by reference of section 6– 

2.3.3 of ANSI B30.6–1969, Adjustments 

and Repairs, requires all replaced and 

repaired parts to have at least the 

original safety factor. However, there is 

no explicit requirement to load test the 

derricks after parts are repaired or 

replaced. ASME B30.6–2003 does 

address load testing of repaired, altered 

or modified derricks in its section 6– 

2.2.2(b), specifying that the need for 

such a test be determined by a qualified 

person. C–DAC recommended that load 

testing should be mandatory after a 

derrick has been repaired or modified. 

Such testing will help the employer 

identify safety defects in a repaired or 

modified derrick prior to its actual use. 

Paragraph 1436(i) [Reserved.] This 

proposed paragraph is reserved because 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59858 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

it is inconvenient for readers to 

determine whether ‘‘(i)’’ is being used as 

a letter or a roman numeral. 

Paragraph 1436(j) Power Failure 

Procedures 

Proposed paragraph (j) would require 

the derrick operator to safely stop 

operation if the power fails during 

operations and would list additional 

steps that must be taken. Proposed 

§ 1926.1436(j)(1) would require setting 

all brakes or locking devices. Proposed 

§ 1926.1436(j)(2) would require moving 

all clutch and other power controls to 

the off position. These steps would 

prevent inadvertent movement of the 

load during the power outage or upon 

restoration of power. These precautions 

are found in section 6–3.2.3(h) of ANSI 

B30.6–1969, which is incorporated by 

reference in Subpart N of this part, and 

are reiterated in ASME B30.6–2003. 

Paragraph 1436(k) Use of Winch Heads 

Proposed paragraph (k) would specify 

minimum requirements for the safe use 

of a winch during hoisting operations. 

Proposed paragraph (k)(1) would require 

that ropes not be handled on a winch 

head without the knowledge of the 

operator. Proposed § 1926.1436(k)(2) 

would require the operator to be within 

reach of the power unit control while a 

winch head is being used. These 

proposed requirements are in section 6– 

3.3.5 of ANSI B30.6–1969, which is 

incorporated by reference in Subpart N, 

and are continued in section 6–3.3.6 of 

ASME B30.6–2003. 

Paragraph 1436(l): [Reserved.] This 

proposed paragraph is reserved because 

it is inconvenient for readers to 

distinguish the letter ‘‘l’’ from the 

number ‘‘1.’’ 

Paragraph 1436(m) Securing the Boom 

Proposed paragraph (m) would list 

minimum requirements for ensuring the 

stability of a derrick’s boom at rest to 

prevent injuries and deaths that could 

occur if it inadvertently shifted or fell. 

Subpart N incorporates section 6–3.3.6 

of ANSI B30.6–1969, which contains 

similar requirements. ASME B30.6– 

2003 revised those provisions in its 

section 6–3.3.7, and C–DAC 

recommended that OSHA list elements 

of the updated consensus standard’s 

provisions in proposed 

§ 1926.1436(m)(1) and (2) below. 

Proposed paragraph (m)(1) would 

require that when the boom is being 

held in a fixed position, dogs, pawls, or 

other positive holding mechanisms on 

the boom hoist be engaged. Proposed 

§ 1926.1436(m)(2) would require that 

when taken out of service for 30 days or 

more, the boom be secured by one of the 

following methods: (i) By laying down 

the boom; (ii) by securing the boom to 

a stationary member, as nearly under 

the head as possible, by attachment of 

a sling to the load block; (iii) for guy 

derricks, by lifting the boom to a vertical 

position and securing it to the mast; or 

(iv) for stiffleg derricks, by securing the 

boom against the stiffleg. 

The comparable ASME B30.6–2003 

provision (section 6–3.3.7) would 

require the boom to be secured when 

the derrick is ‘‘not in use.’’ C–DAC 

believed the intent of the ANSI 

provision was to require the boom to be 

secured when the derrick was not in 

service but thought the ASME wording 

could be misconstrued to mean that the 

boom had to be secured whenever the 

derrick was not in the process of lifting 

a load. To avoid misunderstanding and 

establish an objective requirement for 

when the boom had to be secured, C– 

DAC proposed that the boom be secured 

whenever the derrick was taken out of 

service for 30 days or more. 

Paragraph 1436(n) 

‘‘Jumping the derrick’’ is the practice 

of moving structural components of the 

derrick to different locations, such as to 

the upper floors as a building is 

constructed, and is essential to some 

construction activities. Proposed 

§ 1926.1436(n) would require that the 

process of jumping the derrick be 

supervised by the A/D (assembly/ 

disassembly) supervisor. As provided in 

§ 1926.1401, the A/D supervisor must 

either be a person who meets the criteria 

for both a competent person and a 

qualified person, or a competent person 

who is assisted by one or more qualified 

persons. 

As discussed above, proposed 

§ 1926.1436(g) would require a derrick 

to be load tested to confirm that the 

derrick and its support can withstand 

rated loads. C–DAC discussed whether 

load testing should be required when a 

derrick is jumped. Some members stated 

that load testing a derrick after it has 

been jumped would be unduly 

burdensome since it is often already 

difficult to locate loads heavy enough to 

meet the 100–110% of rated capacity 

requirement of the initial load test. C– 

DAC agreed that a jumped derrick need 

not be load tested and believed that the 

A/D supervisor could be relied upon to 

see that the jumped derrick is properly 

erected and anchored and complies 

with the applicable requirements of this 

proposed standard. OSHA is satisfied 

with C–DAC’s rationale and believes 

that giving the A/D supervisor the 

responsibility for supervising the 

jumping of a derrick will ensure that the 

jumped derrick is safe to use. 

Paragraph 1436(o) 

Proposed paragraph (o) would require 

that derrick operations be supervised by 

a competent person. Subpart N 

incorporates by reference section 6.3.1.1 

of ANSI B30.6–1969, which requires 

derrick operations to be directed by a 

designated individual. ASME B30.6– 

2003 contains a similar requirement, 

and both consensus standards specify 

the requirements and practices of that 

designated individual. OSHA believes 

its definition of competent person meets 

the objectives of the ANSI/ASME 

designated individual requirements to 

competently perform the specific duties 

involved in supervising derrick 

operations. The experience and 

knowledge possessed by the competent 

person and his/her ability to recognize 

and correct potential hazardous 

conditions will help ensure safety of 

derrick operations. 

Paragraph 1436(p) Inspections 

Under proposed paragraph (p), the 

inspection requirements of proposed 

§ 1926.1412 apply to derricks. In 

addition to the items that must be 

inspected under § 1926.1412, proposed 

§ 1926.1436(p) requires certain 

additional items to be inspected. These 

additional items, when combined with 

the items that must be inspected under 

§ 1926.1412, are consistent with ANSI 

B30.6–1969 and ASME B30.6–2003. 

Proposed paragraph (p)(1), Daily, 

would require the inspection of guys for 

proper tension. Guy wires are critical 

elements of the support system for 

derricks, and ANSI B30.6–1969 and 

ASME B30.6–2003 both require their 

daily inspection in section 6–2.1.2. 

Proposed paragraph (p)(2), Annual, 

contains two requirements. 

Proposed paragraph (p)(2)(i) would 

require the inspection of the gudgeon 

pin for cracks, wear, and distortion. 

This requirement is found in section 6– 

2.1.3 of ANSI B30.6–1969 and ASME 

B30.6–2003, which establish 

requirements for periodic inspections. 

Proposed paragraph (p)(2)(ii) would 

require foundation supports for 

continued ability to sustain the imposed 

loads. Since a derrick is more likely to 

remain stationary and supported by the 

same foundation throughout the 

duration of its use than the majority of 

the equipment covered by this standard, 

C–DAC believed it was necessary to 

require the foundation to be inspected 

annually in addition to the items 

specified in § 1926.1412 of this 

proposed standard. This requirement is 

similar to section 6–2.1.3(b) of ANSI 

B30.6–1969 and ASME B30.6–2003. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59859 

Paragraph 1436(q) 

Proposed paragraph (q) would state 

that § 1926.1427 (Operator qualification 

and certification) does not apply. As 

discussed in regard to § 1926.1427 

above, C–DAC paid considerable 

attention to the need for equipment 

operators to be well qualified to operate 

the equipment to which they are 

assigned, and the Committee concluded 

that crane operators need to be certified 

through an accredited testing process to 

ensure that they are sufficiently 

qualified. After discussing whether 

there should be a similar certification 

requirement for derrick operators, the 

Committee decided against 

recommending such a requirement. 

The Committee noted that there are 

no accredited testing criteria to use for 

testing of derrick operators nor are there 

nationally recognized accredited testing 

facilities readily available. C–DAC 

questioned whether testing providers 

would find it cost-effective to establish 

accredited testing programs for derrick 

operator certification in light of the 

relatively small number of derrick 

operators in the construction industry. 

C–DAC also believed it would be 

difficult to establish accredited testing 

programs for derrick operators, noting 

that most training for derricks must be 

site specific because the types of 

derricks used, their support structures, 

and the hazards associated with specific 

projects vary from company to 

company. Moreover, the accident 

investigation data reviewed by C–DAC 

did not indicate that there was a need 

to require derrick operators to meet 

certification requirements similar to 

those proposed for crane operators. 

Training 

In reviewing the C–DAC language of 

proposed § 1926.1430, Training and 

§ 1926.1436, Derricks, the Agency 

realized that C–DAC did not specify any 

training requirements for derrick 

operators, which OSHA believes was an 

inadvertent omission. The Agency is 

planning to add such a requirement, 

such as a provision that would require 

that derrick operators be trained ‘‘on the 

safe operation of the equipment the 

operator will be using.’’ OSHA requests 

public comment on this issue. 

Section 1437 Floating Cranes/Derricks 

and Land Cranes/Derricks on Barges 

Currently, § 1926.550(f) of Subpart N 

includes limited requirements specific 

to floating cranes/derricks and land 

cranes attached to a vessel. The current 

requirements are broadly written and 

incorporate manufacturer’s guidelines 

for design, construction, installation, 

testing, maintenance, and operation 

(proposed § 1926.550(f)(2)(iii)). The 

Committee believed that greater clarity 

and specificity, along with some 

additional safety requirements, would 

improve safety by more effectively 

addressing the unique hazards in the 

marine construction environment. Of 

special concern to the Committee were 

drowning incidents from cranes 

overturning from or sliding off vessels 

and the hazardous effects of wind, water 

and the marine environment on 

equipment and operations. 

Section 1926.1437 covers two types of 

equipment in a marine environment: 

Those manufactured as a combination 

crane/derrick and vessel, and 

equipment designed to operate on land 

but used on a means of flotation, such 

as a vessel. The first type is referred to 

as ‘‘floating cranes/derricks,’’ which are 

defined in § 1926.1401, Definitions, as 

‘‘equipment designed by the 

manufacturer (or employer) for marine 

use by permanent attachment to a barge, 

pontoons, vessel, or other means of 

flotation.’’ ‘‘Land cranes/derricks’’ are 

defined in § 1926.1401 as ‘‘equipment 

not originally designed by the 

manufacturer for marine use by 

permanent attachment to barges, 

pontoons, vessels, or other means of 

flotation.’’ 

Most provisions of this section apply 

to both floating cranes/derricks and land 

cranes/derricks used on barges, 

pontoons, vessels or other means of 

flotation. Proposed § 1926.1437(m) 

applies only to floating cranes/derricks, 

and proposed § 1926.1437(n) only to 

land cranes/derricks used on barges, 

pontoons, vessels or other means of 

flotation. 

Paragraph 1437(a) 

Proposed paragraph (a) specifies that 

the requirements of § 1926.1437 are 

supplemental requirements and, 

therefore, all other requirements of this 

proposed subpart would continue to 

apply unless specifically noted 

otherwise. Proposed § 1926.1437(a) 

would specifically exempt equipment 

operating on jacked barges in certain 

circumstances from the requirements of 

§ 1926.1437. The barges would be 

exempted when the jacks are deployed 

to the river/lake/sea bed and the barge 

is fully supported by the jacks. 

The Committee explained that a 

jacked barge deployed in this manner 

has four ‘‘spuds’’ on its corners that are 

grounded into the sea-bottom, providing 

a level and stable platform on which 

employees work. This results in work 

conditions similar to a crane working on 

land and unlike the work conditions 

pertinent to equipment covered by this 

section. Therefore, equipment used on a 

jacked barge deployed in this manner 

would be subject to all other applicable 

requirements of this proposed Subpart 

and not the requirements of this section. 

The C–DAC consensus document, at 

§ 1926.1437(a), states that, ‘‘The 

requirements of this section do not 

apply to jacked barges. * * *’’ To 

clarify that this sentence pertains to 

situations when equipment is used on a 

jacked barge, the Agency has modified 

the language for the proposed rule to 

now read: ‘‘The requirements of this 

section do not apply when using jacked 

barges when the jacks are deployed to 

the river/lake/sea bed and the barge is 

fully supported by the jacks.’’ 

Proposed § 1926.1437(a) of the C– 

DAC draft states that, ‘‘This section 

contains supplemental requirements for 

floating cranes/derricks and land 

cranes/derricks on barges, pontoons, 

vessels or other means of flotation; all 

sections of this Subpart apply to floating 

cranes/derricks and land cranes/ 

derricks on barges, pontoons, vessels or 

other means of flotation, unless 

specified otherwise.’’ At various points 

in proposed § 1926.1437, the phrase 

‘‘vessels/flotation devices’’ is used 

synonymously with ‘‘barges, pontoons, 

vessels or other means of flotation.’’ To 

make it clear that these two phrases 

mean the same thing, the Agency has 

modified the first sentence of proposed 

§ 1926.1437(a) to read as follows: ‘‘This 

section contains supplemental 

requirements for floating cranes/ 

derricks and land cranes/derricks on 

barges, pontoons, vessels or other means 

of flotation (vessels/flotation devices); 

all sections of this Subpart apply to 

floating cranes/derricks and land 

cranes/derricks on barges, pontoons, 

vessels or other means of flotation, 

unless specified otherwise.’’ 

Some paragraphs of proposed 

§ 1926.1437 in the C–DAC draft employ 

other phrases to mean the same thing as 

‘‘barges, pontoons, vessels or other 

means of flotation (vessels/flotation 

devices).’’ For example, proposed 

§ 1926.1437(h)(2) uses the phrase 

‘‘vessel/means of flotation.’’ The Agency 

has identified a number of such 

paragraphs and, to avoid ambiguity, has 

modified the language of proposed 

§ 1926.1437 to use either the phrase 

‘‘barges, pontoons, vessels or other 

means of flotation’’ or ‘‘vessel/flotation 

device’’ in the following proposed 

paragraphs: §§ 1926.1437(e)(1), 

1926.1437(h)(2), 1926.1437(j)(4), 

1926.1437(n)(3)(i), 1926.1437(n)(5)(i), 

1926.1437(n)(5)(iv)(B), and 

1926.1437(n)(5)(iv)(C). 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59860 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Paragraph 1437(b) General 

Requirements 

Proposed paragraph (b) specifies that 

proposed § 1926.1437(c)–(k) apply to 

both floating cranes/derricks and land 

cranes/derricks mounted on barges, 

pontoons, vessels, or other means of 

flotation. As noted above and discussed 

below, proposed § 1926.1437(m) would 

apply only to floating cranes/derricks, 

and proposed § 1926.1437(n) only to 

land cranes/derricks mounted on 

vessels/flotation devices. 

Paragraph 1437(c) Work Area Control 

Proposed paragraph (c) provides that 

the requirements of § 1926.1424, Work 

area control, applies to equipment 

covered by this section, except for the 

requirements of § 1926.1424(a)(2)(ii). 

Section 1926.1437(c)(2) of this section 

closely parallels § 1926.1424(a)(2)(ii) but 

dispenses with the requirement that the 

employer demonstrate infeasibility in 

order to use a combination of warning 

signs and high visibility markings in 

place of erecting and maintaining 

control lines, warning lines, railings, or 

similar boundaries of hazard areas. 

Because equipment covered by this 

section operates within limited physical 

work space, the Committee believed that 

employers need increased flexibility in 

determining which work area control 

method is most appropriate in light of 

special site-specific circumstances. To 

ensure that employees are adequately 

protected if the employer uses high 

visibility markings to supplement 

warning signs, this paragraph would 

require that the employer train 

employees to understand the meaning of 

the markings. 

Paragraph 1437(d) Keeping Clear of 

the Load 

Proposed paragraph (d) states that the 

requirements of proposed § 1926.1425, 

Keeping Clear of the Load, do not apply 

to the equipment covered by 

§ 1926.1437. Due to the limited space 

available for equipment on worksites 

covered by this section (i.e., the decks 

of barges and other vessels), the 

Committee determined that the 

requirements of § 1926.1425 are 

infeasible in these worksite 

environments. 

Paragraph 1437(e) Additional Safety 

Devices 

Proposed paragraph (e) lists 

additional safety devices required for 

equipment covered by this section. 

Equipment covered by § 1926.1437 

would also be required to have the 

safety devices listed in proposed 

§ 1926.1415, Safety Devices, unless 

otherwise noted in § 1926.1415. The 

additional safety devices required by 

proposed § 1926.1437(e) reflect the 

special conditions of a marine worksite, 

especially with respect to vessel 

stability, inadvertent movement due to 

water conditions, and the greater effect 

of wind and other environmental 

conditions on equipment operating at 

these sites. However, note that 

§ 1926.1415 would exempt floating 

cranes/derricks and land cranes/ 

derricks on barges, pontoons, vessels, or 

other means of flotation from having 

crane level indicators and floating 

cranes from having foot pedal brake 

locks. See the discussion above of 

§ 1926.1415(a)(1)(iii) and (a)(4). 

Proposed paragraph (e)(1) would 

require that equipment covered by this 

section have a barge, pontoon, vessel or 

other means of flotation, list and trim 

device. The Committee believed that it 

is necessary to have this device since it 

allows an operator to have a reading of 

the current list and trim of the vessel. 

Since the degrees of list and trim are 

directly related to the stability of the 

vessel/flotation device and therefore to 

the stability of the equipment and its 

operation, the Committee believed it 

necessary to define these two terms for 

clarity. Proposed § 1926.1401 defines 

‘‘list’’ as ‘‘the angle of inclination about 

the longitudinal axis of a barge, 

pontoon, vessel, or other means of 

flotation.’’ ‘‘Trim’’ is defined in 

proposed § 1926.1401 as ‘‘the angle of 

inclination about the transverse axis of 

a barge, pontoon, vessel, or other means 

of flotation.’’ (Note that proposed 

§ 1926.1437 includes requirements 

related to the maximum degrees of list 

and trim that can exist when equipment 

is used on marine worksites.) The list 

and trim device required by this 

proposed paragraph is needed to inform 

the operator during an operation 

whether environmental conditions have 

changed to affect list or trim and how 

the movement of the load is affecting or 

may affect the stability of the vessel. 

Based on this information, the 

equipment operator can make any 

necessary adjustments to keep the 

equipment within required parameters. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(2) would 

require that equipment covered in this 

section have a horn. The sounding of a 

crane’s horn is commonly understood in 

the marine segment of the industry as a 

warning to employees. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(3) would 

require that all equipment with a 

rotating superstructure have a positive 

crane house lock. The Committee 

indicated that this device is necessary 

for equipment covered within this 

section because it positively locks the 

rotating superstructure. The lock 

provides additional protection from the 

superstructure’s unintended movement 

that can result due to the action of wind, 

waves, or current. 

Because the speed and direction of 

the wind can directly affect equipment 

operations, such as by diminishing 

equipment capacity and inducing 

unintended movement of the load, 

proposed § 1926.1437(e)(4) would 

require that equipment covered by this 

section have and use a wind speed and 

direction indicator when a competent 

person determines that wind is a factor 

that needs to be considered during 

operations. 

Paragraph 1437(f) Operational Aids 

Proposed paragraph (f) modifies the 

application of some of the proposed 

requirements in proposed § 1926.1416, 

Operational Aids, for equipment 

covered by this section. Apart from 

these specific differences, in all other 

respects proposed § 1926.1416 would 

apply to equipment covered by this 

section. 

Paragraph (f)(1) would require that 

equipment covered by this section be 

equipped with an anti two-block device 

only when hoisting personnel or when 

hoisting over an occupied cofferdam or 

shaft. As discussed above with respect 

to proposed § 1926.1416(d)(3), twoblocking can result in a sudden drop of 

the load on the line. Anti two-block 

devices protect against this danger. 

However, the Committee determined 

that anti two-blocking devices have a 

high rate of failure in a marine 

environment due to wind and other 

environmental factors. Also, the 

equipment covered by this section is 

often performing live boom/fast-moving 

functions, causing an anti-two-block 

device to consistently malfunction. 

Therefore, C–DAC proposed to only 

require the use of the anti two-block 

devices when hoisting personnel or 

hoisting over an occupied cofferdam or 

shaft due to the additional risk to 

employees during these operations. 

Proposed paragraph (f)(2) specifies 

that employers using equipment to 

perform dragline, clamshell (grapple), 

magnet, drop ball, container handling, 

concrete bucket, and pile driving work 

covered by this section, would be 

exempt from the requirements of 

proposed § 1926.1416(e)(4), Load 

weighing and similar devices. These 

operations add heavy loads and 

repetitive motion to the marine 

characteristics described above. As a 

result, load weighing devices used 

during these operations consistently 

malfunction. Additionally, the listing 

and tilting that is typical in marine 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59861 

worksites often prevents these devices 

from providing accurate load readings. 

Paragraph 1437(g) Accessibility of 

Procedures Applicable to Equipment 

Operation 

Proposed paragraph (g) sets forth a set 

of requirements regarding accessibility 

of equipment operation procedures. The 

provision is split into different 

requirements based on whether the 

equipment has a cab. If the equipment 

covered by this section has a cab, the 

requirements of proposed 

§ 1926.1417(c), Operation—accessibility 

of procedures, would apply. If the 

equipment covered by this section does 

not have a cab, proposed 

§ 1926.1437(g)(1) and (g)(2) of this 

section would apply. 

During the C–DAC negotiations, 

individuals from the marine 

construction industry addressed the 

Committee and emphasized the 

importance of load charts being located 

where the operator is stationed. Under 

proposed § 1926.1437(g)(1), if the 

operator’s station is movable, such as 

with pendant-controlled equipment, the 

load chart must be posted on the 

equipment. Under proposed 

§ 1926.1437(g)(2), the remaining 

procedures (other than load charts) 

would be required to be readily 

available on board. Where there is no 

cab for the equipment, it is impractical 

to require these other procedures to be 

next to the operator; however, it is still 

necessary for the operator to have easy 

access to these procedures for reference, 

if necessary, during operations. 

Paragraph 1437(h) Inspections 

Proposed paragraph (h) sets forth 

additional inspection requirements 

applicable to equipment covered by this 

section. It states that § 1926.1412, 

Inspections, applies to the inspection of 

the crane/derrick. The additional 

inspection requirements in this 

paragraph apply to the vessel/flotation 

device that supports the crane/derrick. 

The Agency notes that there is a 

discrepancy between two proposed 

paragraphs of § 1926.1437. Paragraph (b) 

of the C–DAC Consensus Document 

specifies that the requirements of 

proposed § 1926.1437(c)—(k), which 

include proposed § 1926.1437(h), apply 

to both floating cranes/derricks and land 

cranes/derricks mounted on barges, 

pontoons, vessels, or other means of 

flotation. Proposed § 1926.1437(h), as 

drafted by C–DAC, contains provisions 

for inspecting vessel-related items only 

for land cranes/derricks mounted on 

barges, pontoons, vessels, or other 

means of flotation, but not for floating 

cranes/derricks. 

OSHA believes that C–DAC intended 

the vessel-related inspections to apply 

to all the equipment covered by this 

section and is changing the introductory 

sentence of this paragraph to read: ‘‘In 

addition to meeting the requirements of 

§ 1926.1412 for inspecting the crane/ 

derrick, the employer shall ensure that 

the vessel/means of flotation used to 

support a floating crane/derrick or land 

crane/derrick is inspected as follows.’’ 

The Agency requests public comment 

on this change. 

The Committee’s discussions 

regarding § 1926.1437(h) were extensive 

and focused on three aspects of 

inspection of vessels/means of flotation: 

(1) Who would conduct the inspection 

of the equipment; (2) what would the 

equipment be inspected for; and (3) how 

often. 

The Committee believed that 

inspections need to be required at four 

distinct times: Each shift, each month, 

annually, and quadrennially. The 

Committee determined that a competent 

person (see proposed § 1926.1401, 

Definitions) needs to conduct the shift 

and monthly inspections. If the 

competent person identifies one or more 

deficiencies, an immediate 

determination by a qualified person (see 

proposed § 1926.1401, Definitions) 

would be required to determine if the 

deficiency constitutes a hazard. If the 

deficiency constitutes a hazard, the 

vessel would have to be removed from 

service until the deficiency is corrected. 

The Agency notes that the C–DAC 

draft of § 1926.1437(h)(3) refers to ‘‘The 

daily and monthly inspections * * *’’ 

To be consistent with the usage 

throughout this proposed rule, the 

reference to ‘‘daily’’ inspections has 

been changed to ‘‘shift’’ inspections. 

Therefore, the proposed rule reads: 

‘‘The shift and monthly inspections 

* * *’’ 

The Committee indicated that the 

conditions listed under the 

requirements of shift and monthly 

inspections are easily identifiable to a 

competent person with respect to a 

vessel or other means of flotation and 

did not necessitate a more extensive 

professional knowledge of vessel 

deficiencies. Therefore, a competent 

person would be required to conduct 

shift and monthly inspections. 

Under this proposed paragraph, a 

qualified person would have to 

determine if the identified deficiency 

constitutes a hazard. This differs from 

the shift and monthly general inspection 

provisions of proposed § 1926.1412, in 

which the competent person who 

identified a deficiency would then 

determine whether the deficiency was a 

safety hazard requiring immediate 

correction. The reason for this 

difference is that that this is a highly 

specialized area and the judgments 

involved require a very high level of 

knowledge and ability. 

With respect to the annual 

inspections, proposed § 1926.1437(h)(4) 

would require the equipment and 

vessel/flotation device to be inspected 

by a qualified person with expertise 

with respect to vessels/flotation devices. 

The Committee believed it is important 

to explicitly state that the qualified 

person conducting these inspections 

must have the necessary expertise with 

respect to barges, pontoons, vessels or 

other means of flotation for the items 

listed for the annual inspection. 

The qualified person required in the 

shift and monthly inspections must 

have expertise with respect to the nature 

of the work conditions, the crane/ 

derrick and the vessel/flotation device. 

(See § 1926.1401, Definitions—Qualified 

person.) However, the annual inspection 

is more extensive than the shift or 

monthly inspections. As a result, the 

Committee chose to clearly specify that 

the qualified person for the annual 

inspection must have a greater level of 

expertise than that of the qualified 

person required for determining 

whether deficiencies identified in shift 

and monthly inspections constitute 

hazards. The qualified person for the 

annual inspection must have the level of 

expertise for all the areas covered by the 

annual inspection in addition to general 

expertise regarding the equipment and 

vessel/flotation device. 

Proposed paragraph (h)(5) would 

require quadrennial inspections of the 

internal portion of the barge, pontoons, 

vessel, or other means of flotation by a 

marine engineer, marine architect, 

licensed surveyor, or other qualified 

person who has expertise with respect 

to vessels/flotation devices. As with the 

qualified person performing an annual 

inspection, C–DAC chose to emphasize 

the higher level of expertise necessary 

for performing the quadrennial 

inspection. By listing ‘‘other qualified 

person’’ together with ‘‘marine 

engineer,’’ ‘‘marine architect,’’ and 

‘‘licensed surveyor,’’ C–DAC intended 

to make clear that the expertise of the 

‘‘other qualified person’’ would need to 

be equivalent to that of a marine 

engineer, marine architect, or licensed 

surveyor. 

Proposed § 1926.1437(h) specifies the 

items that would have to be inspected 

under the shift, monthly, and annual 

inspections. C–DAC used ASME B30.8– 

1999, ‘‘Floating Cranes and Floating 

Derricks,’’ specifically section 2.1 of 

B30.8, as a basis for developing the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59862 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

85The 1999 version of ASME B30.8 has since 

been superseded by a 2004 version. The list of items 

to be inspected in section 2.1 is the same in both 

versions. 

inspection list.85 However, the 

Committee did not set forth a specified 

list of inspection items to be checked in 

the quadrennial survey of the internal 

portion of the vessel/flotation device, 

instead deferring to the expert 

knowledge of the marine engineer, 

marine architect, licensed surveyor, or 

other qualified person who has 

expertise with respect to vessels/ 

flotation devices. The Committee chose 

a once-every-four-year time period for 

surveying the internal portion of a 

vessel/flotation device based on the 

comments of individuals from the 

marine construction industry that this 

frequency reflects the prevailing 

industry practice and provides adequate 

safety. 

Proposed paragraph (h)(6) sets forth 

the documentation requirements for the 

monthly, annual, and quadrennial 

inspections, which follow those in 

proposed § 1926.1412, Inspections, at 

§ 1926.1412(e)(3) and (f)(7). However, 

with respect to the quadrennial 

inspections the written documentation 

of the inspection would have to be 

maintained for four years. This would 

enable the employer to track changes in 

the condition of the vessel from the 

previous inspection. 

Paragraph 1437(i) [Reserved.] 

Paragraph (i) is reserved because it is 

inconvenient for readers to determine 

whether ‘‘i’’ is being used as a letter or 

a roman numeral. 

Paragraph 1437(j) Working With a 

Diver 

Proposed paragraph (j) sets forth 

supplemental requirements designed to 

ensure that a diver is hoisted safely from 

the vessel and back when equipment 

covered by this section is used to move 

a diver to and from the water. Extra 

precautions and measures are needed 

when engaged in this activity due to the 

drowning, struck-by, crushed-by, and 

other hazards involved in this activity. 

Marine environments and the 

condition of a diver can change quickly 

and unexpectedly; the operator must be 

constantly aware of the diving operation 

and in position to take immediate action 

when necessary. Therefore, under 

proposed § 1926.1437(j)(1), when one or 

more divers are being hoisted into and 

out of the water, the employer would be 

prohibited from using the equipment for 

any other purpose until all divers have 

returned back on board. This would 

ensure that the operator’s attention is 

not diverted from the welfare of the 

divers. Proposed § 1926.1437(j)(2) 

would require the equipment operator 

to remain at the equipment controls the 

entire time. This would ensure that the 

operator can respond as necessary. 

Proposed paragraph (j)(3) would 

require that, in addition to the signal 

requirements in proposed §§ 1926.1419– 

1422, the diver tender must be in direct 

communication with the equipment 

operator. This communication may be 

done either through maintaining a clear 

line of sight between the operator and 

tender or by electronic transmission 

between the operator and tender. As 

defined in proposed § 1926.1401, a 

‘‘tender’’ is the individual responsible 

for monitoring and communicating with 

the diver. The Committee determined it 

was necessary to define tender since 

that person is critical to effective 

communication with the equipment 

operator during an operation with a 

diver. In this section, the diver tender is 

required to maintain effective 

communication with the equipment 

operator when the equipment is used to 

get the diver in and out of the water. 

The tender is the member of the dive 

team who closely monitors the diver’s 

condition during the dive and checks 

the equipment prior to the dive. 

Therefore, the tender is able to let the 

operator know when a diver needs to be 

lifted out of the water or when other 

action by the crane is needed. 

Proposed paragraph (j)(4) specifies 

that when using a crane/derrick to hoist 

a diver, the crane/derrick must be 

secured in such a way that there is no 

amount of shifting in any direction. The 

Committee determined that even a small 

shift of a crane/derrick on a barge can 

result in unintended movement that can 

injure the diver. 

OSHA notes that proposed 

§ 1926.1431, Hoisting Personnel, applies 

when a crane/derrick is used to hoist 

personnel. In most instances when 

personnel are hoisted, they must be 

located in a personnel platform that 

meets criteria specified in proposed 

§ 1926.1431. However, proposed 

§ 1926.1431(b)(2) contains exceptions to 

the need to use a personnel platform 

and one such exception, in 

§ 1926.1431(b)(2)(iii), applies when an 

employer transfers an employee to or 

from a marine worksite in a marine 

hoisted personnel transfer device. 

Under the definition in proposed 

§ 1926.1401, ‘‘marine worksite’’ 

includes a worksite in the water, so the 

exception to the requirement to use a 

personnel platform in proposed 

§ 1926.1431(b)(2)(iii) would apply when 

a diver is hoisted into or out of the 

water in a marine hoisted personnel 

transfer device. 

Paragraph 1437(k) 

Proposed paragraph (k) would require 

the employer to adhere to the 

specifications and limitations 

established by the manufacturer of the 

barge, pontoon, vessel, or other means 

of flotation with respect to imposed 

environmental, operational, and intransit loads. The purpose of this 

provision is to ensure that the 

equipment can operate safely under the 

forces imposed on it. The Committee 

believed that the manufacturer is in the 

best position to determine the maximum 

external loads the vessel/flotation 

device can withstand while maintaining 

the necessary stability and buoyancy 

and that the necessary protection would 

be provided by requiring employers to 

adhere to the manufacturer’s 

specifications and limitations. 

The text developed by C–DAC reads: 

(k) The barge, pontoons, vessel or other 

means of flotation shall be capable of 

withstanding imposed environmental, 

operational and in-transit loads under 

conditions specified by its manufacturer. 

Upon reviewing this language, OSHA 

believes it does not clearly convey 

C–DAC’s intent to place a duty on the 

employer who uses the equipment to 

comply with the manufacturer’s 

recommendations. The Agency has 

therefore modified this proposed 

paragraph to read: 

(k) The employer shall ensure that the 

manufacturer’s specifications and limitations 

with respect to environmental, operational, 

and in-transit loads for a barge, pontoon, 

vessel, or other means of flotation are not 

exceeded or violated. 

OSHA requests public comment on 

this change. 

Paragraph 1437(l) [Reserved.] 

Paragraph (l) is reserved because it is 

inconvenient for readers to distinguish 

the letter ‘‘l’’ from the number ‘‘1.’’ 

Paragraph 1437(m) Floating Cranes/ 

Derricks 

Proposed paragraph (m) sets forth 

requirements with respect to load 

charts, rated capacity, allowable list, 

allowable trim, wind speed and related 

measures for floating cranes/derricks. 

The requirements set forth in 

§ 1926.1437(m)(1) through (5) address 

the various hazards which can 

contribute to instability of the vessel/ 

flotation device and the effect of marine 

conditions that can lead to boom/ 

equipment failure. 

As defined in proposed § 1926.1401, a 

floating crane/derrick may be built 

either by a manufacturer or by the 

employer who uses the equipment. Both 

types would have to meet the criteria in 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59863 

86This is the same wind speed that section 8– 

1.2.2(c) of AMSE B30.8–2004, ‘‘Floating Cranes and 

Floating Derricks,’’ requires to be considered in 

establishing operating criteria for floating cranes. 

87These criteria are the same as those in section 

8–1.2.2(a) of ASME B30.8–2004. 

88The criteria in Tables M2 and M3 are the same 

as those in section 8–1.2.2(b) of ASME B30.8–2004. 

proposed § 1926.1437(m)(1) through (3). 

These provisions are designed to 

prevent the crane/derrick portion of the 

equipment from failures due to 

overloading and to prevent capsizing. 

Proposed paragraph (m)(1) would 

require that load charts applicable to 

operations on water not be exceeded. 

The employer would be required to 

comply with all the parameters and 

limitations that apply to proper 

application of the load charts. 

Additionally, § 1926.1437(m)(1)(ii) 

would require the load charts to account 

for a minimum wind speed of 40 mph.86

Proposed paragraph (m)(2) sets forth 

criteria (in Table M1 proposed 

§ 1926.1437) for maximum allowed list 

and trim relative to rated capacity of the 

equipment.87 Section 1926.1437(m)(3) 

sets forth two charts that would set 

stability criteria regarding certain 

specified conditions. The first chart 

(Table M2 of proposed § 1926.1437) 

contains the minimum requirements 

relative to stability with respect to wind 

speed and freeboard distance of the 

vessel/flotation device. The second 

chart (Table M3 of proposed 

§ 1926.1437) addresses the backward 

stability of the boom.88 In reviewing 

Table M2, the Agency realized that the 

term ‘‘freeboard,’’ which is used in the 

table, was not defined in the C–DAC 

document. OSHA requests public 

comment on an appropriate definition 

for this term. 

Employer-made equipment is defined 

in proposed § 1926.1401 as ‘‘equipment 

designed and built by an employer for 

its own use.’’ In some cases, for 

example, an employer designs and 

custom-builds the equipment for a 

particular operation or worksite. The 

Committee therefore determined it was 

necessary to include criteria for 

employer-made equipment. 

Under proposed paragraph (m)(4), 

employer-made equipment would have 

to meet the same criteria as those in 

proposed § 1926.1437(m)(1)–(3) for 

manufacturer-made equipment. In 

addition, an employer using equipment 

it builds would be required to have 

documents demonstrating that those 

criteria have been met. Such documents 

would have to be signed by a registered 

professional engineer who is a qualified 

person with respect to a design of the 

type involved. 

C–DAC concluded that manufacturers 

have sufficient expertise with respect to 

the development of load charts, rated 

capacities and related operational 

limitations that there is no need for a 

documentation requirement for 

manufacturer-built floating cranes/ 

derricks. However, the expertise in this 

regard of non-manufacturers can vary 

greatly. Because of the specialized 

knowledge and skill needed for this 

work, and the potentially catastrophic 

consequences if this work was not done 

correctly, C–DAC believed that this 

documentation requirement is needed to 

provide the same level of safety for 

employer-made equipment as 

manufactured equipment. 

Proposed paragraph (m)(5) addresses 

structural and access requirements for 

the barge, pontoon, vessel or other 

means of flotation. These requirements 

are related to the stability of the vessel, 

including minimizing unintended 

movement while operating equipment 

and minimizing the likelihood of 

capsizing. 

Proposed paragraph (m)(5)(i) would 

require that the vessel be structurally 

sufficient to withstand the stress of both 

static and dynamic loads of the crane/ 

derrick when operating at the crane/ 

derrick’s maximum rated capacity with 

all anticipated deck loads and ballasted 

compartments. This is necessary to 

minimize the likelihood of the vessel’s 

structure failing, which could result in 

unintended movement during 

equipment operations or drowning. 

Proposed paragraph (m)(5)(ii) would 

require a subdivided hull with at least 

one longitudinal watertight bulkhead to 

reduce the free surface effect on the 

vessel. ‘‘Free surface effect’’ is defined 

in § 1926.1401 as the ‘‘uncontrolled 

transverse movement of liquids in 

compartments which reduce a vessel’s 

transverse stability.’’ By reducing the 

free surface effect, subdividing the hull 

limits the influence of liquid movement 

on vessel stability and reduces the risk 

of the vessel capsizing. 

Proposed paragraph (m)(5)(iii) would 

require void compartments to be 

accessible for inspection and pumping. 

This is needed to evaluate the amount 

of water in them so that the employer 

can determine the potential free surface 

effect on vessel stability and initiate 

pumping when necessary. As defined in 

§ 1926.1401 of this proposed standard, 

‘‘stability (flotation device)’’ means the 

tendency of a barge pontoon, vessel or 

other means of flotation to return to an 

upright position after having been 

inclined by an external force. Since the 

stability of the vessel is critical to the 

safe operation of equipment at a marine 

worksite, the Committee determined it 

necessary to clarify this term. The 

Agency determined it was appropriate 

to add the parenthetical ‘‘(flotation 

device)’’ to the term as the word 

stability in its more common usage 

occurs frequently throughout this 

proposed standard. 

Paragraph 1437(n) Land Cranes/ 

Derricks 

Proposed paragraph (n) sets forth the 

requirements for land cranes/derricks 

when used on a barge, pontoons, vessel 

or other means of flotation. As noted 

above, ‘‘land cranes/derricks’’ are not 

originally designed for marine use but 

are addressed by this paragraph when 

they are mounted on a vessel/flotation 

device and used on water. The 

Committee determined that special 

requirements were needed to address 

the distinctive safety issues presented 

by the use of such equipment. 

The stability of the vessel/flotation 

device is affected by the use of a land 

crane/derrick on board. The Committee 

determined that one of the primary 

causes of accidents for a land crane/ 

derrick on a vessel is related to the 

crane/derrick not being properly 

secured to the vessel. This can result in 

the equipment sliding off the vessel or 

the vessel capsizing. Implementing a 

system that keeps the equipment 

properly located on the vessel is 

essential for maintaining stability. 

In addition, land cranes/derricks have 

less capacity when on a vessel/flotation 

device than when on land. 

Consequently, the rated capacity must 

be adjusted for use on the vessel/ 

flotation device. If not properly 

determined, the land crane/derrick may 

be overloaded, which can cause loss of 

stability (including tip-over) and boom/ 

equipment failure. 

Proposed paragraph (n)(1) sets forth 

the requirements for determining the 

rated capacity for land cranes/derricks 

used on a vessel/flotation device. Load 

charts for this equipment developed for 

use on land do not reflect the use of the 

equipment on a flotation device or the 

environmental conditions of a marine 

worksite. Therefore, under proposed 

§ 1926.1437(n)(1)(i), the rated capacity 

(load charts) must be reduced for list, 

trim, wave action and wind. 

In establishing the rated capacity for 

use on the vessel/flotation device, the 

capacity of the vessel/flotation device 

must also be considered. Since some 

locations on the vessel/flotation device 

will have less ability to support the 

crane/derrick than others, under 

proposed § 1926.1437(n)(1)(ii), the rated 

capacity would have to be applicable to 

a specified location (or specific 

locations) on the particular vessel/ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59864 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

89This is similar to section 8–1.2.2(a)(3) of ASME 

B30.8–2004, which specifies that the list and trim 

shall be the lesser of 5 degrees or the maximum 

recommended by the manufacturer. 

90 In this preamble the Agency uses the term 

‘‘securing’’ and ‘‘secured’’ to refer collectively to the 

systems described in Options (1)–(4) in proposed 

paragraphs § 1926.1437(n)(5)(i) through (iv). The 

Agency notes that this differs from the term 

‘‘positively secured’’ in the current Subpart N in 29 

CFR 1926.550(f)(1)(iv), which requires that ‘‘mobile 

cranes on barges shall be positively secured.’’ As 

OSHA has stated in letters of interpretation, the 

term ‘‘positively secured’’ in that Subpart N 

provision means ‘‘physically attached’’—similar to 

the type of system described in Option 1 of 

proposed paragraphs (n)(5)(i). (See OSHA’s 

interpretation letter to Mr. Gary C. Hay, October 12, 

2004. (OSHA–2007–0066–0014). 

flotation device. This assessment would 

have to be made considering the 

expected environmental conditions. 

Furthermore, the rated capacity 

would have to be designed to ensure 

that the maximum allowable list and 

trim for the vessel/flotation device, as 

required in proposed § 1926.1437(n)(3), 

would not be exceeded. Also, the rated 

capacity would have to be designed so 

that the conditions listed in proposed 

§ 1926.1437(n)(4) would be maintained. 

If the rated capacity was not so 

designed, the operator could 

inadvertently cause these criteria to be 

violated. 

Proposed paragraph (n)(2) would 

require that the modification to rated 

capacity required by proposed 

§ 1926.1437(n)(1) of this section be 

prepared either by the manufacturer of 

the equipment or by a qualified person 

with expertise in both land crane/ 

derrick capacity and stability of vessels/ 

flotation devices. The Committee 

determined this was necessary to 

achieve equivalent operational safety 

conditions as for floating cranes/ 

derricks. 

In the SBREFA Panel Report, the 

Panel recommended that OSHA solicit 

comment on whether there are qualified 

persons in the field with expertise in 

both land crane/derrick capacity and 

stability of vessels/flotation devices 

with respect to this equipment 

performing duty cycle work. 

Additionally, the Panel recommended 

that OSHA solicit comment on the 

following: When cranes are solely used 

for duty cycle work: (1) Whether the 

requirements of proposed 

§ 1926.1437(n)(2) are necessary for 

safety for equipment performing duty 

cycle work, (2) the safety justification 

for the requirement for equipment 

performing duty cycle work, and (3) a 

definition of ‘‘duty cycle work.’’ As 

recommended by the Panel, OSHA 

solicits public comment on these issues. 

Proposed paragraph (n)(3) would set 

parameters for the maximum allowable 

list and trim for the vessel/flotation 

device and the land crane/derrick to 

help ensure the necessary vessel and 

crane/derrick stability and to help 

prevent the crane/derrick from 

exceeding its rated capacity. 

The maximum list and trim for the 

vessel/flotation device may not exceed 

the least of the following: 5 degrees, the 

amount specified by the crane/derrick 

manufacturer, or the amount specified 

by a qualified person in the event an 

amount is not specified by the 

manufacturer.89

Under proposed paragraph (n)(4), 

when a land crane/derrick is used on a 

flotation device, all deck surfaces would 

have to be above water and the entire 

bottom area must be submerged. This is 

necessary to ensure a stable platform 

when operating the land crane/derrick, 

to protect against loads that would 

cause the system used to secure the land 

crane/derrick (see proposed 

§ 1926.1437(n)(5)) to fail, and to protect 

against overloading the vessel/flotation 

device land/crane derrick. 

Proposed paragraph (n)(5) sets forth 

four options for securing 90 the land 

crane/derrick on the vessel/flotation 

device. The Committee determined that 

providing several options would 

address the variety of work scenarios 

that are found in the industry. It also 

determined that each option would be 

effective in preventing the land crane/ 

derrick from rolling, sliding or 

otherwise shifting away from its proper 

location. It is these horizontal 

movements that can cause the vessel/ 

flotation device to be destabilized or 

cause the land crane/derrick to slide or 

fall into the water. Additionally, the 

Committee determined that an 

exception is appropriate for use of 

mobile auxiliary cranes on a vessel. The 

proposed requirements for this type of 

equipment are outlined in proposed 

§ 1926.1437(n)(5)(vi). 

Proposed paragraphs (n)(5)(i) through 

(iv) set forth the four options from 

which the employer must choose to 

secure the land crane/derrick to the 

vessel/flotation device. The options to 

prevent shifting of the equipment 

include direct physical attachment, 

corralling, a rail system or a centerline 

cable system. All of these options serve 

the purpose of preventing inadvertent 

movement of the equipment away from 

its proper location on the vessel/ 

flotation device, which can result in 

harm to employees working nearby, the 

equipment sliding off the vessel, or 

capsizing the vessel. 

Note that it is not the purpose of these 

options to prevent any portion of the 

land crane/derrick from pulling 

vertically up from the deck when 

handling loads beyond the land crane/ 

derrick’s rated capacity. Rather, their 

purpose is, as discussed above, to 

prevent horizontal rolling or shifting 

away from the land crane/derrick’s 

proper location. 

Proposed paragraph (n)(5)(v) would 

require that the option selected for 

securing the equipment on the vessel be 

designed by a marine engineer, a 

registered professional engineer familiar 

with floating crane/derrick design, or a 

qualified person familiar with floating 

crane/derrick design. The Committee 

determined that expertise in floating 

crane/derrick design was essential to 

design a securing system that would 

meet the selected option’s requirements 

and prevent unintended movement of 

the equipment on the vessel. 

Proposed paragraph (n)(5)(vi) would 

provide an exception under which, 

where the employer demonstrates that 

certain conditions have been met, 

mobile auxiliary cranes would not be 

required to be secured to a floating 

crane/derrick as outlined in proposed 

§ 1926.1437(n)(5)(i) through (v) above. 

The Committee determined that an 

exception to the application of these 

options would be appropriate in certain 

circumstances where a mobile crane 

travels on the deck of a floating crane/ 

derrick. Typically the movement of the 

mobile crane on these vessels does not 

adversely affect the stability of the 

floating crane/derrick because of the 

large size, displacement and design of 

the floating crane/derrick. Also, because 

of the size and design of the floating 

crane/derrick, it is less susceptible to 

the effects of wind, waves, and other 

environmental forces than other vessels. 

The Committee concluded that where 

the employer can demonstrate that the 

criteria in proposed 

§ 1926.1437(n)(5)(vi)(A) through (F) 

have been met, there would be adequate 

protection against unintended 

horizontal movement of the mobile 

crane while on the deck of a floating 

crane/derrick. 

As indicated by the language of this 

proposed provision, the Committee 

concluded that it would not be 

appropriate to expand this exception 

beyond its application to mobile 

auxiliary cranes used on the deck of a 

floating crane/derrick. Therefore, in 

such other circumstances, even if the 

criteria in proposed 

§ 1926.1437(n)(5)(vi)(A) through (F) 

were met, the employer would still have 

to use one of the four options in 

proposed § 1926.1437(n)(5)(i) through 

(iv). 

Under proposed paragraph 

(n)(5)(vi)(A), a written plan that is 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59865 

designed and signed by a marine 

engineer or a registered professional 

engineer familiar with floating crane/ 

derrick design would be required. 

Because of the specialized knowledge 

and skill needed for this work, and the 

potentially catastrophic consequences if 

this work was not done correctly, C– 

DAC believed that this documentation 

requirement is needed to ensure safety. 

Under proposed paragraph 

(n)(5)(vi)(B), this plan would have to be 

designed so that the applicable 

requirements of proposed § 1926.1437 

will be met despite the position, travel, 

operation, and lack of physical 

attachment, corralling, use of rails or 

use of cable system of the mobile 

auxiliary crane. An example of one 

aspect of such a plan would be that it 

would have to be designed so that the 

vessel’s stability was such that, while 

operating within specified dynamic/ 

environmental conditions (see proposed 

§ 1926.1437(n)(5)(vi)(E) and (F)), the 

movement of the vessel will not cause 

the mobile crane to shift horizontally or 

for the vessel’s or mobile crane’s 

maximum list and trim to be exceeded. 

Under proposed paragraph 

(n)(5)(vi)(C), the plan would have to 

specify the areas of the deck where the 

mobile auxiliary crane is permitted to be 

positioned, travel, and operate. It would 

also have to specify the parameters (that 

is, limitations) of such movements and 

operation. For example, one aspect of 

the plan may be to specify that the 

mobile crane is permitted to move 

within one particular area without a 

load, and is permitted to handle a load 

only when in another particular area. 

Under proposed paragraph 

(n)(5)(vi)(D), the employer would be 

required to mark the deck to identify the 

permitted areas for positioning, travel 

and operation of the mobile crane. This 

is necessary for the operator to be able 

to maneuver and operate the crane 

within the limitations identified in the 

plan. 

Under proposed paragraph 

(n)(5)(vi)(E), the plan would have to 

specify the particular dynamic/ 

environmental conditions that must be 

present for movement and operation of 

the mobile auxiliary crane on the vessel. 

Under proposed 

§ 1926.1437(n)(5)(vi)(F), if the necessary 

dynamic/environmental conditions are 

not present, then the mobile auxiliary 

crane would be required to be secured 

according to one of the four options 

outlined in proposed 

§ 1926.1437(n)(5)(i) through (iv). For 

example, the plan would have to 

address environmental conditions such 

as maximum amount of wind and wave 

action; if those were exceeded, the 

mobile crane would have to be secured 

using one of the four options. 

In reviewing the C–DAC draft of 

proposed § 1926.1437(n)(5)(vi), the 

Agency realized that there is no explicit 

requirement that the employer 

implement the written plan. Therefore, 

OSHA has modified the introductory 

language of the proposed paragraph as 

follows: 

(vi) Exception. For mobile auxiliary cranes 

used on the deck of a floating crane/derrick, 

the requirement to use Option (1), Option (2), 

Option (3), or Option (4) of this section does 

not apply where the employer demonstrates 

implementation of a plan and procedures 

that meet the following requirements: * * * 

Proposed paragraph (n)(6) contains 

requirements regarding the barge, 

pontoon, vessel or other means of 

flotation on which the land crane/ 

derrick will be located. The 

requirements of proposed 

§ 1926.1437(n)(6) are identical to those 

listed at proposed paragraph (m)(5) of 

this section. These requirements are 

related to the stability of the vessel and 

its structural ability to support the land 

crane/derrick. These proposed 

provisions are designed to help prevent 

unintended movement while operating 

equipment and to prevent capsizing. 

The Committee determined it is 

necessary to include these requirements 

to provide a safe, stable work 

environment. 

Section 1438 Overhead and Gantry 

Cranes 

Currently, specific requirements for 

overhead and gantry cranes are found in 

section 1926.550(d) of Subpart N. 

Section 1926.550(d)(4) incorporates by 

reference ANSI B30.2.0–1967, safety 

code for ‘‘Overhead and Gantry Cranes.’’ 

The general industry standard for 

overhead and gantry cranes, § 1910.179, 

is also derived from ANSI B30.2.0–1967. 

Therefore, the current requirements for 

overhead and gantry cranes are 

generally the same regardless of whether 

the equipment is used in general 

industry or construction. 

As defined in proposed § 1926.1401, 

overhead and gantry cranes include 

overhead/bridge cranes, semigantry, 

cantilever gantry, wall cranes, storage 

bridge cranes, launching gantry cranes, 

and similar equipment, irrespective of 

whether it travels on tracks, wheels, or 

other means. The Committee developed 

this definition to reflect the wide range 

of this type of equipment that has been 

developed. 

Overhead and gantry cranes are 

commonly found on general industry as 

well as construction worksites. 

Sometimes overhead and gantry cranes 

installed in general industry facilities 

are used for construction purposes (for 

example, the overhead/gantry crane in a 

factory is sometimes used when a part 

of the factory is being renovated). The 

Committee believed that applying the 

general industry standard for overhead 

and gantry cranes, § 1910.179, to the use 

of those cranes for construction work 

would reduce compliance burdens 

without jeopardizing employee 

protection. 

The Committee proposal therefore 

distinguishes between permanently 

installed overhead and gantry cranes, 

which are primarily used in general 

industry, and those that are not 

permanently installed, which are 

primarily used in construction work. 

For the former, this proposed rule 

would apply the requirements of 

§ 1910.179, the general industry 

standard. For the latter, the C–DAC 

proposal would apply specific 

provisions of both this standard and 

§ 1910.179. 

Paragraph 1438(a) Permanently 

Installed Overhead and Gantry Cranes 

Proposed § 1926.1438(a)(1) establishes 

the scope of § 1926.1438(a). By its terms, 

§ 1926.1438(a) would pertain to 

overhead and gantry cranes, including 

semigantry, cantilever gantry, wall 

cranes, storage bridge cranes, and others 

with fundamentally similar 

characteristics, when they are used in 

construction and are permanently 

installed in a facility. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would 

apply the requirements of § 1910.179 to 

the equipment listed in 

§ 1926.1438(a)(1), with the exception of 

§ 1910.179(b)(1). Section 1910.179(b)(1) 

sets forth the scope of the general 

industry standard as defined under 29 

CFR Part 1910. It is excluded to avoid 

any confusion that might arise from 

having two separate scope provisions 

applicable to § 1926.1438(a). 

Paragraph (a)(1) only applies to these 

cranes if they are used in construction 

and are permanently installed in a 

facility. This will typically be 

equipment that is used in general 

industry but may also be used for 

construction purposes. For example, a 

manufacturing plant that uses an 

overhead crane for lifting large 

components may use that same crane 

when adding a new room to the facility 

or changing its floorplan. Under the 

proposed provision, the requirements of 

§ 1910.179 would apply to both uses. 

Paragraph 1438(b) Overhead and 

Gantry Cranes That Are Not 

Permanently Installed in a Facility 

Paragraph (b)(1) would provide the 

scope of § 1926.1438(b). By its terms, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59866 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

§ 1926.1438(b) would pertain to 

overhead and gantry cranes, overhead/ 

bridge cranes, semigantry, cantilever 

gantry, wall cranes, storage bridge 

cranes, launching gantry cranes, and 

similar equipment, when they are used 

in construction and are not permanently 

installed in a facility. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(2) specifies 

which requirements would apply to the 

equipment identified in 

§ 1926.1438(b)(1). 

Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(i) would 

require overhead and gantry cranes not 

permanently installed in a facility to 

comply with §§ 1926.1400 through 

1926.1414; 1926.1417 through 

1926.1425; 1926.1426(d); 1926.1427 

through 1926.1434; 1926.1437, 

1926.1439, and 1926.1441 of this 

standard. Sections 1926.1435, 

1926.1436 and 1926.1440, entitled 

Tower cranes, Derricks, and Sideboom 

cranes, respectively, would not be 

applicable because they pertain to 

different kinds of equipment. Sections 

1926.1415, 1926.1416 and 1926.1426(a) 

through (c) would not apply because 

they refer to devices not used on 

overhead and gantry cranes. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(ii) would 

incorporate by reference several 

requirements from § 1910.179. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) 

specifies the portions of § 1910.179 that 

would be applicable to the equipment 

identified in § 1926.1438(b)(1). The 

Committee selected these requirements 

because each is a safety requirement 

that applies to this type of crane 

regardless of whether it is used in 

construction or general industry. Other 

than certain definitions (described 

below), these are the only provisions of 

§ 1910.179 that would apply to the 

equipment identified in 

§ 1926.1438(b)(1). These requirements 

are: 

1910.179 (b)(5)—Rated load marking 

1910.179 (b)(6)—Clearance from 

obstruction 

1910.179 (b)(7)—Clearance between 

parallel cranes 

1910.179(e)(1)—Trolley stops 

1910.179(e)(3)—Trolley bumpers 

1910.179(e)(5)—Guards for hoisting 

ropes 

1910.179(e)(6)—Guards for moving parts 

1910.179(f)(1)—Brakes for hoists 

1910.179(f)(4)—Brakes for trolleys and 

bridges 

1910.179(g)—Electric equipment 

1910.179(h)(1)—Sheaves 

1910.179(h)(3)—Equalizers 

1910.179(k)—Testing 

1910.179(n)—Handling the load 

The C–DAC version of paragraph 

1438(b)(2)(ii)(B) would have 

incorporated the definitions in 

§ 1910.179(a) that do not differ from 

those in § 1926.1401 of this Subpart. 

Upon examining this provision, OSHA 

believes that it can be stated more 

clearly without changing its substance. 

Only three terms are defined in both 

§ 1926.1401 and § 1910.179: ‘‘hoist,’’ 

‘‘load,’’ and ‘‘runway.’’ With respect to 

‘‘hoist’’ and ‘‘load,’’ the definitions in 

§ 1926.1401 and § 1910.179(a) are 

similar but worded differently. ‘‘Hoist’’ 

is defined in § 1926.1401 as ‘‘a 

mechanical device for lifting and 

lowering loads by winding rope onto or 

off a drum.’’ In § 1910.179, ‘‘hoist’’ is 

defined as ‘‘an apparatus which may be 

part of a crane, exerting a force for 

lifting and lowering.’’ ‘‘Load’’ is defined 

in § 1926.1401 as ‘‘the object to be 

hoisted and the weight of the object 

being lifted or lowered, including the 

weight of the load-attaching equipment 

such as the load block, ropes, slings, 

shackles, and any other ancillary 

equipment.’’ Section 1910.179 defines 

‘‘load’’ as ‘‘the total superimposed 

weight on the load block or hook.’’ In 

both cases, the § 1926.1401 definition is 

clearer and more precise. 

With respect to ‘‘runway,’’ the 

§ 1926.1401 and § 1910.179 definitions 

address different subject matter. The 

definition in § 1926.1401 addresses the 

criteria for a ground surface used as a 

path of travel for a mobile crane 

traveling with a suspended personnel 

platform. The definition in § 1910.179 

refers to the rails, beams, and other 

structural components along which an 

overhead or gantry crane travels. 

Because the § 1926.1401 definition of 

‘‘runway’’ does not pertain to overhead 

and gantry cranes, the § 1910.179 

definition should apply under this 

section. 

The Agency believes it will be 

consistent with C–DAC’s intent and 

promote clarity to modify proposed 

§ 1926.1438(b)(2)(ii)(B) to list the 

definitions in § 1910.179(a) that do not 

apply to overhead and gantry cranes 

under proposed § 1926.1438(b). 

Accordingly, OSHA has changed that 

paragraph to read as follows: 

(B) The definitions in § 1910.179(a) except 

for ‘‘hoist’’ and ‘‘load.’’ For those words, the 

definitions in § 1926.1401 apply. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C) 

would limit the application of 

§ 1910.179(b)(2) to equipment identified 

in proposed § 1926.1438(b)(1) that was 

manufactured before September 19, 

2001. Section 1910.179(b)(2) requires 

cranes manufactured after August 31, 

1971 to comply with the design 

specifications in American National 

Standard Safety Code for Overhead and 

Gantry Cranes, ANSI B30.2.0–1967. As 

discussed below, equipment 

manufactured after September 19, 2001 

would have to comply with the updated 

provisions of ASME B30.2–2001. 

Proposed § 1926.1438(b)(2)(ii)(C) is a 

transitional provision covering 

equipment manufactured between 

August 31, 1971 and September 19, 

2001. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(iii) would 

have incorporated several sections of 

the 2001 version of ASME B.30.2 into 

this section to update the Subpart N of 

29 CFR part 1926 provision, 

§ 1926.550(d), which incorporates ANSI 

B.30.2.0–1967. The Committee agreed 

that the 2001 version should be used 

because it is more comprehensive than 

the 1967 version and thus more 

conducive to safety. The sections 

referenced are: 

ASME B30.2–2001 

2–1.3.1—Foundations and Anchorages 

2–1.3.2—Crane Runways 

2–1.4.1—Welded Construction 

2–1.6—Lubrication 

2–1.7.2—Ladders and Stairways 

2–1.8.2—Bridge Bumpers 

2–1.9.1—Bridge Rail Sweeps 

2–1.9.2—Trolley Rail Sweeps 

2–1.11—Truck Frame Drop 

2–1.12.2—Hoist Control Braking Means 

2–1.13.7—Lifting Magnets 

2–1.14.2—Drums 

2–1.14.3—Ropes 

2–1.14.5—Hooks 

2–1.15—Warning Devices or Means for 

a Crane with a Power-Traveling 

Mechanism 

2–2.2.2—Load Test 

2–3.2.1.1—Planned Engineered Lifts 

2–3.5—Crane Lockout/Tagout, except 

that in 2–3.5.1(b), ‘‘29 CFR 

1910.147,’’ the OSHA general 

industry Lockout/Tagout standard, 

is substituted for ‘‘ANSI Z244.1.’’ 

When C–DAC drafted proposed 

paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C), the current 

version of ASME B30.2 was the 2001 

edition. That has since been superseded 

by a 2005 edition. OSHA notes that, in 

all material respects, the 2001 and 2005 

versions of the provisions listed in 

proposed § 1926.1438(b)(2)(iii) are the 

same. Except for section 2–1.8.2, the 

2001 and 2005 provisions are identical. 

Section 2–1.8.2 contains a wording 

change that does not substantively alter 

that provision. The 2001 version of 

section 2–1.8.2 contains the following 

requirement, among others, for bridge 

bumpers: ‘‘energy-absorbing (or 

-dissipating) capacity to stop the bridge 

when traveling with power off in either 

direction at a speed of at least 40% of 

rated load speed.’’ In the 2005 version 

‘‘(or -dissipating)’’ is changed to ‘‘(or 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59867 

energy-dissipating).’’ This is clearly a 

clarification rather than a substantive 

change. Accordingly, OSHA has 

changed the reference in proposed 

§ 1926.1438(b)(2)(iii) to refer to the 2005 

version of ASME B30.2. 

When employers engaged in 

construction work must lock or tag 

components of overhead and gantry 

cranes during maintenance and repair 

work, proposed § 1926.1438(b)(2)(iii) 

would require them to comply with 

OSHA’s general industry lockout/tagout 

standard at § 1910.147 instead of the 

ANSI lockout/tagout standard (ANSI 

Z244.1) referenced in paragraph 2– 

3.5.1(b) of ASME B30.2–2005. The 

Committee believed that the OSHA 

general industry lockout/tagout 

standard would be more accessible and 

familiar to employers in the 

construction industry than the ANSI 

standard. Therefore, requiring 

compliance with the OSHA standard 

will promote compliance and, as a 

result, improve worker protection. 

Section 1439 Dedicated Pile Drivers 

The term ‘‘dedicated pile driver’’ is 

defined in § 1926.1401 as follows: 

[A] machine that is designed to function 

exclusively as a pile-driver. These machines 

typically have the ability to both hoist the 

material that will be pile-driven and to piledrive that material. 

As the definition above indicates, this 

section covers equipment that is 

designed to function exclusively as a 

pile driver. Unlike the other equipment 

covered by Subpart N, dedicated pile 

drivers are not designed primarily to 

hoist, lower, and horizontally move 

suspended loads. However, the 

Committee decided to include dedicated 

pile drivers in this standard because of 

similarities to cranes with respect to 

hazards and functions. For a complete 

discussion of the Committee’s rationale 

for the inclusion of dedicated pile 

drivers within this standard, see the 

discussion above of proposed 

§ 1926.1400, Scope. 

As discussed below, most of the 

provisions of this standard apply to 

dedicated pile drivers, but this section 

includes certain provisions that 

accommodate unique characteristics of 

such equipment. In addition to the 

requirements established by this 

standard, pile driving equipment will 

continue to be covered by § 1926.603, 

Pile driving equipment. 

Paragraph 1439(a) 

This proposed paragraph would apply 

most of the provisions of this proposed 

standard to dedicated pile drivers. The 

provisions that would not apply, or 

would apply with some modification, 

are specified in proposed § 1926.1439(b) 

through (e) (discussed below). 

Paragraph 1439(b) 

Under this proposed provision, 

proposed § 1926.1416(d)(3), which 

requires that cranes manufactured after 

February 28, 1992, be equipped with 

anti-two-blocking devices, would not 

apply to dedicated pile drivers. A note 

to this paragraph in the C–DAC draft 

states that anti two-block devices are 

required under proposed 

§ 1926.1431(d)(5)(iv) when hoisting 

personnel. This note misstates the 

requirement of proposed 

§ 1926.1431(d)(5)(iv), which provides 

that an anti two-block device is not 

required when hoisting personnel in 

pile driving operations. OSHA is 

therefore deleting the note to avoid 

inconsistency and conform to C–DAC’s 

intent. 

As discussed above in relation to 

proposed § 1926.1416(d)(3), anti twoblock devices are not required during 

pile driving operations because the 

heavy repetitive forces imposed on such 

devices during pile driving cause them 

to malfunction. However, because anti 

two-block protection is needed when 

hoisting personnel to prevent a sudden 

drop of a personnel platform should a 

two-block condition occur, the proposed 

rule specifies, in proposed 

§ 1926.1431(p)(2), that when hoisting an 

employee in pile driving operations 

using a lattice boom crane, the employer 

clearly mark the cable (so that it can be 

easily seen by the operator) at a point 

that will give the operator sufficient 

time to stop the hoist to prevent twoblocking, or use a spotter. 

When using a telescopic boom crane, 

the employer must similarly clearly 

mark the cable (so that it can be easily 

seen by the operator) at a point that will 

give the operator sufficient time to stop 

the hoist to prevent two-blocking, and 

use a spotter. As discussed above in 

relation to proposed 

§ 1926.1416(d)(3)(i), marking the cable 

is not sufficient to prevent two-blocking 

when extending the boom of a 

telescopic boom crane. Other 

requirements that apply when hoisting 

personnel for pile driving operations are 

also listed in proposed § 1926.1431(p) 

and are discussed under that paragraph. 

Paragraph 1439(c) 

This provision would apply the 

requirements of proposed 

§ 1926.1416(e)(4) (load weighing and 

similar devices) to dedicated pile 

drivers, except that only dedicated pile 

drivers manufactured more than one 

year after the effective date of this 

standard would be required to be 

equipped with load weighing or rated 

capacity devices. The purpose of 

requiring load-weighing and rated 

capacity devices would be to provide 

dedicated pile driver operators with a 

reliable load weight prior to each lift to 

prevent the equipment from being 

overloaded. The Committee believed 

that this phase-in period would be 

appropriate because there are some 

technical challenges with designing this 

type of equipment to work consistently 

and reliably on dedicated pile drivers. 

The C–DAC draft would have 

required dedicated pile drivers 

manufactured after January 1, 2008 to be 

equipped with load weighing or rated 

capacity devices. As explained in the 

Introduction, OSHA has changed the 

January 1, 2008 date to ‘‘more than one 

year after the effective date of this 

standard’’ wherever that date appears in 

the C–DAC document. OSHA seeks 

public comment on the current 

availability of load-weighing or rated 

capacity devices for dedicated pile 

drivers and the related issue of whether 

a date other than one year after the 

effective date of this standard would be 

the appropriate date for requiring future 

dedicated pile drivers to be equipped 

with such devices. 

Paragraph 1439(d) 

Under this provision, the only aspects 

of proposed § 1926.1433 (Design, 

construction and testing) that would 

apply to dedicated pile drivers would be 

proposed § 1926.1433(e) and (f). In 

§ 1926.1433, proposed § 1926.1433(a) 

through (d) apply to specific types of 

equipment other than dedicated pile 

drivers. By contrast, proposed 

§ 1926.1433(e) and (f) would apply to 

equipment in general (see the 

explanation of proposed § 1926.1433 

above). 

Paragraph 1439(e) 

This proposed paragraph would 

require pile driver operators to be 

qualified or certified pursuant to 

§ 1926.1427. The Committee concluded 

that there was no reason to exclude 

dedicated pile drivers from the 

requirements of that section; in its view, 

the concerns underlying the need for 

§ 1926.1427 (see the discussion of that 

proposed section above) are equally 

applicable to the operation of dedicated 

pile drivers. 

Proposed ‘‘ 1926.1439(e) would 

modify the application of § 1926.1427 in 

one respect. Dedicated pile driver 

operators would have to have a 

qualification or certification applicable 

either to dedicated pile drivers or 

equipment that is most similar to 

dedicated pile drivers. This addresses a 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59868 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

91Under proposed § 1926.1426(a)(2)(i), the use of 

cranes in which the boom is designed to free fall 

(live boom) is limited to situations where both of 

the following criteria are met: (1) none of the free 

fall prohibitions outlined in proposed 

§ 1926.1426(a)(1) are present and § 1926.1426(a)(2) 

the equipment was manufactured prior to October 

31, 1984. 

concern of the Committee that there are 

relatively few dedicated pile drivers in 

use. As a result, even with the four year 

phase-in period provided under 

§ 1926.1427, certification testing 

specific to dedicated pile drivers may be 

unavailable due to lack of market 

demand. Similarly, there may be a lack 

of auditors for auditing employer 

qualification programs for dedicated 

pile driver operators under proposed 

§ 1926.1427(c). 

However, most of the aspects 

involved in the safe operation of a 

dedicated pile driver are similar to those 

involved with operating equipment that 

performs the same function as a 

dedicated pile driver. For example, 

there is substantial similarity in the 

operation of a crane with a pile driving 

attachment and the operation of a 

dedicated pile driver. C–DAC believed 

that an operator who is qualified or 

certified to operate a crane with a pile 

driving attachment would have the 

knowledge and skill to operate a 

dedicated pile driver safely. C–DAC 

concluded that any lack of qualification 

or certification services specific to 

dedicated pile drivers would be 

alleviated by allowing qualification or 

certification on similar equipment. 

Section 1440 Requirements for 

Sideboom Cranes 

‘‘Sideboom crane’’ is defined in 

§ 1926.1401 as ‘‘a track-type or wheeltype tractor having a boom mounted on 

the side of the tractor, used for lifting, 

lowering, or transporting a load 

suspended on the load hook. The boom 

or hook can be lifted or lowered in a 

vertical direction only.’’ 

This is the definition of ‘‘side boom 

tractor’’ in ASME B30.14–2004, ‘‘Side 

Boom Tractors,’’ which serves as the 

basis for most of the requirements of 

this proposed section. C–DAC included 

a definition of ‘‘side boom tractor’’ in its 

original draft that stated only that the 

term was synonymous with ‘‘sideboom 

crane.’’ However, this proposed section 

uses ‘‘sideboom crane’’ exclusively. To 

avoid any confusion that could be 

caused by the use of two different terms 

and to provide a meaningful definition 

of ‘‘sideboom crane,’’ OSHA has deleted 

the definition of ‘‘side boom tractor’’ 

from § 1926.1401 and substituted the 

above definition of ‘‘sideboom crane.’’ 

OSHA has also substituted ‘‘sideboom 

crane’’ for ‘‘side boom tractor’’ in 

§ 1926.1400, Scope. 

This proposed section identifies 

which of the other sections of the 

proposed standard would apply to this 

equipment and sets additional 

requirements. These more limited 

requirements for this equipment reflect 

the particular construction and more 

limited functions of sideboom cranes. 

For a discussion of the Committee’s 

rationale for the inclusion of sideboom 

cranes within this standard, see the 

preamble of § 1400, Scope. 

Paragraph 1440(a) 

Proposed paragraph (a) states that the 

provisions of this standard apply with 

the exception of § 1926.1402 (Ground 

conditions), § 1926.1415 (Safety 

devices), § 1926.1416 (Operational aids), 

and § 1926.1427 (Operator qualification 

and certification). The Committee 

exempted sideboom cranes from the 

requirements of these four sections 

because the Committee believed that, in 

light of the limited capacity and relative 

simplicity of operation of sideboom 

cranes, these requirements would be 

unnecessary. 

During the SBREFA process, one 

Small Entity Representative (SER) raised 

a question as to whether small sideboom 

cranes incapable of lifting above the 

height of a truck bed and with a 

capacity of not more than 6,000 pounds 

should be covered by the proposed rule. 

This SER felt that these small sideboom 

cranes should be exempted from the 

scope of this Subpart. In light of this 

suggestion, the SBREFA panel 

recommended that OSHA ask for public 

comment about the appropriateness of 

such an exemption for these small 

sideboom cranes. OSHA requests 

comments on this issue. 

Paragraph 1440(b) 

This proposed paragraph addresses 

the hazards posed by boom free fall (that 

is, ‘‘live’’ booms). For equipment other 

than sideboom cranes, as explained 

above in the discussion of proposed 

§ 1926.1426 (Free fall and controlled 

load lowering), C–DAC determined that, 

in general, the use of such equipment 

with live booms needs to be prohibited. 

However, it also found that it would be 

appropriate to allow equipment 

manufactured before consensus 

standards had prohibited live booms to 

be used as long as certain limitations 

were applied. The prohibition in 

§ 1926.1426 therefore applies to 

equipment manufactured from October 

31, 1984 onwards. Equipment 

manufactured before that date with live 

booms may only be used where the 

specified limitations are met.91

C–DAC applied a similar approach to 

sideboom cranes in proposed 

§ 1926.1440(b), which applies most of 

§ 1926.1426 to sideboom cranes. The 

only difference is the cut-off date for the 

use of sideboom cranes with live booms. 

As explained above in the discussion of 

proposed § 1926.1426(a)(2), C–DAC 

concluded that, in light of the history of 

the ANSI B30.5 prohibition against live 

booms, most equipment covered by this 

proposed standard manufactured after 

October 31, 1984 does not have live 

booms. In contrast, the ANSI/ASME 

standards applicable to sideboom cranes 

(ANSI/ASME B30.14) have never 

prohibited live booms. As a result, C– 

DAC recognized that sideboom cranes 

with live booms continued to be 

manufactured after 1984. 

Consequently, under proposed 

§ 1926.1440(b), the cut-off date for using 

sideboom cranes with live booms is the 

effective date of this standard. 

Sideboom cranes in which the boom is 

designed to free fall that were 

manufactured prior to that date could 

continue to be used except under the 

circumstances specified in proposed 

§ 1926.1426(a)(1). 

Paragraph 1440(c) 

As drafted by C–DAC, this proposed 

paragraph would have required that 

sideboom cranes meet certain 

requirements of ASME B30.14–1996 

with addenda ASME B30.14a–1997, 

B30.14b–1999, and B30.14c –2001, 

‘‘Side Boom Tractors.’’ Since the 

Committee completed its work, ASME 

has consolidated the requirements of the 

1996 version with those in the 

supplements, and these are now found 

in ASME B30.14–2004. In that 

consolidation, ASME did not 

substantively change any of the 

provisions of those prior consensus 

standards. Accordingly, OSHA has 

modified the C–DAC paragraph to refer 

to the 2004 version of the ASME 

standard. 

In deciding which sections of ASME 

B30.14 to incorporate in this section, the 

Committee was mindful that, as noted 

in the discussion of § 1926.1440(a), most 

provisions of this proposed standard 

apply to sideboom cranes. To avoid any 

duplication, conflicts or possible 

confusion, the Committee wanted to 

avoid incorporating provisions of the 

ASME standard that dealt with issues 

addressed by other provisions of this 

standard. The provisions of ASME 

B30.14 incorporated by the Committee 

through this section consist of 

requirements that are specific to 

sideboom cranes. The Committee 

believed that these ASME requirements 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59869 

92There are some consensus standards that do not 

have a capacity threshold. For example, the current 

ASME B30.6—2003 on overhead and gantry cranes 

no longer limit their application by hoisting/lifting 

capacity. Further, the current ASME standard for 

floating cranes and derricks (ASME B30.8—204) 

and for construction tower cranes (ASME B30.3— 

2004) similarly do not limit their application by 

hoisting/lifting capacity. 

are necessary and appropriate with 

respect to this equipment. 

Paragraph 1440 (c)(i) through 

Paragraph (c)(viii). These proposed 

paragraphs set forth sections of ASME 

B30.14–2004 which would be 

incorporated by reference to apply to 

sideboom cranes. Those sections are 

section 14–1.1 (‘‘Load Ratings’’), section 

14–1.3 (‘‘Side Boom Tractor Travel’’), 

section 14–1.5 (‘‘Ropes and Reeving 

Accessories’’), section 14–1.7.1 

(‘‘Booms’’), section 14–1.7.2 (‘‘General 

Requirements-Exhaust Gases’’), section 

14–1.7.3 (‘‘General RequirementsStabilizers [Wheel-Type Side Boom 

Tractors]’’), section 14–1.7.4 (‘‘General 

Requirements-Welded Construction’’), 

and section 14–1.7.6 (‘‘General 

requirements-Clutch and Brake 

Protection’’). The Committee found that 

each of these would provide appropriate 

employee protection. 

Paragraph 1440 (c)(9) through 

Paragraph (c)(12). These proposed 

paragraphs set forth sections of ASME 

B30.14–2004 which would be 

incorporated by reference to apply to 

sideboom cranes, but with some 

exceptions or with only certain 

paragraphs selected from a section. 

Those sections are section 14–2.2.2 

(‘‘Testing-Rated Load Test’’), except that 

it applies only to equipment that has 

been modified or repaired; paragraph (a) 

of section 14–3.1.2 (‘‘Operator 

Qualifications’’) except that the phrase 

‘‘when required by law’’ would be 

omitted; Paragraphs (e), (f)(1) through 

(4), (6), and (7), (h), and (i) of section 

14–3.1.3 (Operating Practices), and 

paragraphs (j), (l),and (m) of section 14– 

3.2.3 (Moving the Load). 

Section 1441 Requirements for 

Equipment with a Rated Hoisting/Lifting 

Capacity of 2,000 Pounds or Less 

Proposed § 1926.1441 would establish 

requirements for equipment with a 

maximum-rated hoisting/lifting capacity 

of 2,000 pounds. Equipment in this 

category is inherently less hazardous 

than higher-capacity equipment for 

several reasons. First, the reduced mass 

of these loads makes them easier to 

manipulate. Second, the working radius 

of such equipment is very limited, 

which reduces the zone of danger 

involved. Third, the equipment itself is 

less complex to operate, which places 

fewer demands on the operator’s ability 

to maneuver the equipment and the load 

safely. 

Consequently, the Committee 

believed that not all of the requirements 

proposed for higher-capacity equipment 

should apply to this relatively light-duty 

equipment. For example, the Committee 

believed that the operator certification 

requirement of proposed § 1926.1427, 

which was developed with the 

complexities and hazards of heavy 

equipment in mind, should not apply to 

the low-capacity equipment addressed 

in this section. This proposed section 

identifies the sections of this proposal 

that the Committee believed need to 

apply to equipment with a capacity of 

2,000 pounds or less and contains 

provisions that would apply specifically 

to this category of equipment. 

Under the C–DAC document, this 

section would have applied to 

equipment with a ‘‘manufacturer-rated’’ 

hoisting/lifting capacity of 2,000 pounds 

or less. However, as discussed below, 

§ 1926.1441(j) was intended to address 

equipment designed and built at the 

jobsite, rather than manufactured 

equipment. Changing the term 

‘‘manufacturer-rated’’ in the title and 

regulatory text to ‘‘rated’’ will clarify 

that this section applies to both jobsitebuilt equipment and manufactured 

equipment. OSHA requests public 

comment on this change. 

The 2,000 pound cutoff for this 

section corresponds to that found in a 

number of consensus standards. For 

example, the ANSI standards that are 

currently incorporated by reference into 

Subpart N (B30.2–1967 for overhead 

and gantry cranes; B30.5—1968 for 

crawler, locomotive and truck cranes; 

and B30.6–1969 for derricks) do not 

apply to equipment with a hoisting/ 

lifting capacity of 2,000 pounds or less. 

ASME B30.5–2004 continues to exclude 

equipment whose capacity is 2,000 

pounds or less.92

The requirements of 29 CFR part 1926 

subpart N that do not incorporate 

consensus standards by reference apply 

regardless of the equipment’s capacity, 

so equipment with a capacity of 2,000 

pounds or less is currently subject to 

those requirements. The Committee 

believed that the requirements in 

proposed § 1926.1441 would be more 

appropriate for this category of 

equipment and would be adequate to 

protect employees. 

In 2004, as discussed above, C–DAC 

found the 2,000 pound threshold for the 

application of this section, which is 

consistent with the 2004 ASME 

standard and prior ANSI standards, to 

be appropriate. The Agency is interested 

in information on whether there have 

been changes in technology or other 

considerations that would suggest a 

different threshold capacity for 

equipment covered by this proposed 

section. OSHA solicits public comment 

on this issue. 

Paragraph (a) 

Proposed paragraph (a) sets forth 

sections of the proposed standard that 

would apply, in their entirety, to 

equipment with a rated capacity of 

2,000 pounds or less to the same extent 

that those sections would apply to that 

type of equipment with a rated load 

capacity in excess of 2,000 pounds. 

Tower cranes (§ 1926.1435), Derricks 

(§ 1926.1436), Floating cranes & land 

cranes/derricks on barges (§ 1926.1437), 

and Overhead and gantry cranes 

(§ 1926.1438) are included in the list 

and thus would be subject to uniform 

requirements regardless of rated 

capacity. The Committee determined 

that the hazards addressed by these 

sections apply irrespective of the 

equipment’s rated capacity. 

For example, the dangers associated 

with making electrical contact with a 

power line do not depend on the lifting 

capacity of the equipment, so C–DAC 

believed that proposed §§ 1926.1407 

through 1926.1411 on power line safety 

should apply to all equipment 

regardless of rated capacity. Similarly, 

the proposed sections on Scope 

(§ 1926.1400), Definitions (§ 1926.1401), 

Ground conditions (§ 1926.1402), Wire 

rope (§§ 1926.1413 through 1926.1414), 

Authority to stop operation 

(§ 1926.1418), Signals (§§ 1926.1419 

through 1926.1422), Fall protection 

(§ 1926.1423), Free fall/controlled load 

lowering (§ 1926.1426), Multiple crane 

lifts (§ 1926.1432), and Equipment 

modifications (§ 1926.1434) are listed 

and would apply to equipment with a 

rated capacity of 2,000 pounds or less to 

the same extent that those sections 

would apply to that type of equipment 

with a rated capacity in excess of 2,000 

pounds. 

The hazards addressed by the sections 

not listed in § 1926.1441(a) are dealt 

with in the remainder of this proposed 

section in a manner that takes into 

account the lower capacity of the 

equipment. The discussion below 

explains how the Committee believed 

those hazards should be addressed for 

the equipment covered by this section. 

Note that proposed § 1926.1441(b) 

(discussed below) addresses assembly/ 

disassembly, and identifies some 

sections and paragraphs elsewhere in 

the standard that are applicable to this 

category of equipment (it also provides 

other assembly/disassembly 

requirements tailored to this category). 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59870 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

93The requirement in this paragraph are the same 

as those that apply to higher-capacity equipment 

under proprosed § 1926.1417(b). 

A note to this effect has been added to 

the regulatory text of proposed 

§ 1926.1441(a), as follows: 

Note: Under paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section, § 1926.1403 (Assembly/ 

Disassembly—selection of manufacturer or 

employer procedures) and § 1926.1406 

(Assembly/Disassembly—employer 

procedures) also apply. 

Paragraph (b) Assembly/Disassembly 

Paragraph (b)(1). This proposed 

paragraph identifies the provisions 

related to assembly and disassembly 

that would apply to equipment with 

rated capacities of 2,000 pounds or less. 

The Committee identified two 

applicable Sections: § 1926.1403 

(Assembly/Disassembly—selection of 

manufacturer or employer procedures) 

and § 1926.1406 (Assembly/ 

Disassembly—employer procedures). 

Sections 1926.1404 (Assembly/ 

Disassembly—general requirements) 

and § 1926.1405 (Disassembly— 

additional requirements for disassembly 

of booms and jibs) were not included. 

The Committee believed that those 

comprehensive assembly/disassembly 

procedures are unnecessary for this 

category of equipment, which typically 

involves substantially less complexity. 

Paragraph (b)(2) Components and 

Configuration 

Paragraph (b)(2)(i). This proposed 

paragraph sets forth two options for 

selecting components and configuration 

of the equipment that affect capacity or 

safe operation. This paragraph, as well 

as the four paragraphs below, mirror 

§ 1926.1404(m)(1), (m)(1)(i), (m)(1)(ii), 

(m)(2), and (n) of this subpart. See 

§ 1926.1404(m) for further explanation 

of these provisions. 

Paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A). This first 

option would allow employers to select 

and configure components of the 

equipment in accordance with the 

manufacturer instructions, 

recommendations, limitations, and 

specifications. Furthermore, when the 

manufacturer instructions are not 

available, this provision would require 

a registered professional engineer, 

familiar with the type of equipment 

involved, to approve, in writing, the 

selection and configuration of 

components. 

Paragraph (b)(2)(i)(B). In this second 

option, employers would be able to 

select and configure components of the 

equipment in accordance with 

equipment modifications that meet the 

requirements of § 1926.1434 (Equipment 

modifications). 

Paragraph (b)(2)(ii). Post-assembly 

inspection. This proposed paragraph 

would require employers to conduct an 

equipment inspection when assembly is 

complete in order to ensure compliance 

with § 1926.1441(b)(2)(i) above. The 

employer would be required to conduct 

such post-assembly inspections in a 

manner that complied with proposed 

§ 1926.1412(c). The same requirement 

applies to higher-capacity equipment 

under proposed § 1926.1404(m)(2). 

Ensuring that the assembled equipment 

aligns with the manufacturer 

instructions, recommendations, 

limitations, and specifications, would 

prevent hazards from arising and ensure 

the safe operation of the equipment. 

Paragraph (b)(3). Manufacturer 

prohibitions. This proposed paragraph 

would require employers to comply 

with applicable manufacturer 

prohibitions when using equipment 

with manufacturer-rated hoisting/lifting 

capacities of 2,000 pounds or less. The 

same requirement applies to highercapacity equipment under proposed 

§ 1926.1404(n). The Committee agreed 

on this provision because 

manufacturers’ prohibitions are 

designed to prevent hazards that can 

arise with the use of their products. 

Paragraph 1441(c) Operation— 

Procedures 

Paragraph (c)(1). This proposed 

paragraph would require the employer 

to comply with all manufacturer 

procedures applicable to equipment 

operation, including equipment 

operation with attachments. The same 

requirement applies to higher-capacity 

equipment under proposed 

§ 1926.1417(a). The Committee agreed 

on this provision because manufacturer 

procedures are designed to prevent 

hazards that can arise with the use of 

their products. 

Paragraph (c)(2) Unavailable Operation 

Procedures93

Paragraph (c)(2)(i). In the event that 

manufacturer procedures are not 

available, this paragraph would require 

the employer to develop, and ensure 

compliance with, its own procedures 

necessary for the safe operation of the 

equipment and its attachments. This 

paragraph is designed so that safe 

operation procedures, whether they 

come from the manufacturer or an 

employer, are utilized. 

Paragraph (c)(2)(ii). This proposed 

paragraph would require that when 

employers develop procedures as 

outlined in the previous paragraph, the 

procedures for the operational controls 

must be developed by a qualified 

person. The Committee concluded that, 

in light of the critical nature of the 

operational controls and the degree of 

expertise needed to develop safe 

procedures for their use, it is necessary 

that they be developed by a qualified 

person. 

Paragraph (c)(2)(iii). When 

manufacturer procedures are 

unavailable, this proposed paragraph 

would require that operational 

procedures related to equipment 

capacity be developed and signed by a 

professional engineer familiar with the 

equipment. The Committee concluded 

that, in light of the critical nature of 

such procedures and the high degree of 

complexity needed to develop them, a 

registered professional engineer who is 

familiar with the equipment is needed 

for this task. In addition, for the same 

reasons as discussed with respect to 

proposed § 1926.1417(b)(3), the 

Committee concluded that it is 

necessary that they be signed by the 

engineer. 

Paragraph (c)(3) Accessibility 

Paragraph (c)(3)(i). This proposed 

paragraph would require employers to 

make the load chart available to the 

operator at the control station. The 

Committee intended this provision to 

help prevent cranes from being used to 

perform operations beyond their 

capacities. The Committee believed that 

the load chart must be readily available 

to crane operators since capacity varies 

according to a variety of factors 

addressed in such charts, including, for 

example, boom length, radius, boom 

angle, and equipment configuration. 

A similar requirement applies to 

higher-capacity equipment under 

proposed § 1926.1417(c)(1). However, 

§ 1926.1417(c)(1) requires that the load 

chart be available in the cab. Because 

the equipment covered by this section 

may not have a cab, this proposed 

paragraph requires the chart to be 

available at the control station. 

Paragraph (c)(3)(ii). This proposed 

paragraph would require that 

procedures applicable to equipment 

operation, including recommended 

operating speeds, special hazard 

warnings, instructions, and the 

operator’s manual, be readily available 

for use by the operator. The Committee 

intended operators to have easy access 

to these materials because that 

information is needed to operate the 

equipment safely. A similar requirement 

applies to higher-capacity equipment 

under proposed § 1926.1417(c)(1), but 

this provision omits the reference to 

‘‘the cab’’ for reasons explained above 

with respect to proposed 

§ 1926.1441(c)(3)(i). 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59871 

Paragraph (c)(3)(iii). Where rated 

capacities are available at the control 

station only in electronic form, and in 

the event that a failure makes the rated 

capacities inaccessible, this proposed 

paragraph would require that the 

operator immediately cease operations 

or follow safe shut-down procedures 

until the rated capacities become 

available again. The same requirement 

applies to higher capacity equipment 

under proposed § 1926.1417(c)(2). The 

Committee agreed that it is unsafe to 

continue to operate the equipment if the 

rated capacities are inaccessible to the 

operator. 

Paragraph (d) Safety Devices and 

Operational Aids 

Paragraph (d)(1). This proposed 

paragraph would require employers to 

maintain originally-equipped safety 

devices and operational aids in 

accordance with manufacturer 

procedures. The Committee believed 

that the full range of safety devices and 

operational aids required by proposed 

§§ 1926.1415 and § 1926.1416 were 

generally not needed for this relatively 

low-capacity equipment to operate 

safely. 

However, C–DAC also concluded that 

if the manufacturer included such 

devices or aids, it is probable that the 

manufacturer’s design relies on them 

working properly for the equipment to 

operate safely. Therefore, it is 

appropriate for the standard to require 

them to be maintained in accordance 

with the manufacturer’s procedures. 

Paragraph (d)(2). Anti two-blocking 

By its terms, this proposed paragraph 

would require that equipment covered 

by this section that is manufactured 

more than one year after the effective 

date of this standard be either equipped 

with an anti-two block device that 

would meet the requirements of 

proposed § 1926.1416(d)(3) or be 

designed so that no damage or load 

failure would occur in the event of a 

two-block situation. 

The provision identifies an example 

of equipment designed to prevent 

equipment damage load failure—where 

the power unit of the machine stalls in 

the event of a two-block situation. In 

such a case, the power unit does not 

have sufficient power to cause the load 

to fail or to damage the equipment. 

Instead, when the two-block occurs, the 

power unit simply stalls out. 

The purpose of this paragraph is to 

prevent equipment damage and/or 

failure stemming from contact between 

a component on the hoist line and the 

boom tip, which occurs during a twoblock. Such contact can lead to a 

damaged or severed load line, as well as 

other types of equipment failure. 

The Committee agreed to provide 

employers with discretion to choose 

between two options for eliminating 

two-block hazards. The first option is 

designed to prevent a two-block from 

occurring. The second option is 

designed to prevent equipment damage 

and load failure in the event of a twoblock. The Committee believed that 

each option would, for this category of 

equipment, be equally protective of 

employee safety. 

As discussed under proposed 

§ 1926.1416, Operational aids, the 

Committee believed that anti two-block 

devices should be required on highercapacity cranes manufactured after the 

date that ANSI/ASME B30.5 began to 

require them. Consequently, proposed 

§ 1926.1416(d)(3) states that telescopic 

boom cranes and lattice boom cranes 

manufactured after February 28, 1992 

are required to have an anti two-block 

device. However, none of the various 

versions of ANSI/ASME B30.5 has 

applied to equipment with a capacity 

under 2,000 pounds. C–DAC believed 

that it would be inappropriate to apply 

this requirement to equipment 

manufactured before either a voluntary 

consensus standard or federal 

requirement has been in place. 

Therefore, proposed § 1926.1441(d)(2) 

would only apply to equipment 

manufactured more than one year after 

the effective date of this standard. 

As discussed above, an anti two-block 

device used to comply with proposed 

1926.1441(d)(2) must meet the 

requirements for such devices in 

proposed § 1926.1416(d)(3). Proposed 

§ 1926.1416(d)(3) addresses two types of 

anti two-block devices: The warning 

type and the automatic prevention type 

(these are explained above in the 

discussion of proposed 

§ 1926.1416(d)(3)). The type required 

depends on the type of crane and the 

date of manufacture. However, the 

automatic prevention type is required 

on all equipment manufactured more 

than one year after the effective date of 

this standard. Since proposed 

§ 1926.1441(d)(2) only applies to 

equipment with a capacity of 2,000 

pounds or less manufactured more than 

one year after the effective date of the 

standard, an anti two-block device on 

such equipment would need to be the 

automatic prevention type. 

Note that, under proposed 

§ 1926.1441(d)(1) (discussed above), 

equipment of 2,000 pounds or less 

capacity manufactured prior to the 

standard’s effective date, if 

manufactured with an anti-two-block 

device, would be required to have that 

device properly maintained. For further 

discussion of anti-two-blocking devices, 

see the explanation in proposed 

§ 1926.1416, Operational aids. 

Paragraph (e) Operator Qualifications 

This proposed paragraph would 

require that, before operating 

equipment, the operator is trained on 

the safe operation of the type of 

equipment the operator will be using. 

The Committee believed that 

familiarizing operators with safe 

operation techniques would help 

minimize operator error and thereby 

reduce the likelihood of accidents and 

injuries. However, the Committee 

concluded that the operator 

certification/qualification procedures 

that would be required for higher 

capacity equipment under proposed 

§ 1926.1427 was not needed for this 

lighter and less complicated equipment. 

Paragraph 1441(f) Signal Person 

Qualifications 

This proposed paragraph would 

require employers to ensure that signal 

persons are trained in the proper use of 

signals applicable to the use of 

equipment with a rated capacity of 

2,000 pounds or less. Though the 

equipment covered by this section has 

limited capacity, in some circumstances 

its safe operation depends on signals 

given by a signal person. In that event, 

this paragraph would ensure that 

communication between the crane 

operator and the signal person is clear 

and effective. 

However, the Committee concluded 

that the comprehensive signal person 

qualification procedures that would be 

required for higher capacity equipment 

under proposed § 1428 were not needed 

for this equipment. 

Paragraph 1441(g) Keeping Clear of the 

Load 

This proposed paragraph states that 

proposed § 1926.1425 is applicable to 

equipment with a rated capacity of 

2,000 pounds or less, with the exception 

of proposed § 1926.1425(c)(3). Proposed 

§ 1926.1425(c)(3) would require 

materials to be rigged by a qualified 

rigger. The Committee believed that, in 

light of the limited capacity of this 

equipment, it was unnecessary to 

require a qualified rigger. 

Paragraph 1441(h) Inspections 

The general provision on inspections, 

§ 1926.1412, would not apply to this 

equipment. Instead, this proposed 

paragraph would require that the 

equipment be inspected pursuant to the 

manufacturer’s procedures. The 

Committee believed that inspections 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59872 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

pursuant to manufacturers’ procedures 

would be sufficient to detect conditions 

that could lead to equipment failure 

because manufacturers typically 

recommend procedures that are 

designed to prevent hazards that can 

arise with the use of their products. The 

Committee concluded that the 

comprehensive inspection procedures 

that would be required for higher 

capacity equipment under proposed 

§ 1926.1412 were not needed for this 

lighter and less complicated equipment. 

Paragraph 1441(i) [Reserved.] 

This paragraph is reserved because it 

is inconvenient for the reader to 

determine whether (i) is used as a letter 

or a Roman numeral. 

Paragraph 1441(j) Hoisting Personnel 

This proposed paragraph would 

prohibit the practice of using equipment 

with manufacturer-rated load capacities 

of 2,000 pounds or less to hoist 

personnel. The Committee believed that 

this equipment is inherently unsuited to 

lifting personnel safely due to its low 

capacity and typically light 

construction. 

Paragraph 1441(k) Design 

This proposed paragraph would 

require that the equipment be designed 

by a qualified engineer. The Committee 

was concerned that some employers 

may design and construct equipment in 

this category themselves, rather than 

using equipment built by a 

manufacturer. This provision is 

intended to ensure that the design of 

such equipment would be sufficient 

from a safety standpoint. 

V. Procedural Determinations 

A. Legal Authority 

The purpose of the Occupational 

Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. 651 et 

seq. (‘‘the Act’’), is ‘‘to assure so far as 

possible every working man and woman 

in the Nation safe and healthful working 

conditions and to preserve our human 

resources.’’ 29 U.S.C. 651(b). To achieve 

this goal, Congress authorized the 

Secretary of Labor to promulgate and 

enforce occupational safety and health 

standards, 655(b) (authorizing 

promulgation of standards pursuant to 

notice and comment), 654(b) (requiring 

employers to comply with OSHA 

standards)). 

A safety or health standard is a 

standard ‘‘which requires conditions, or 

the adoption or use of one or more 

practices, means, methods, operations, 

or processes, reasonably necessary or 

appropriate to provide safe or healthful 

employment’’ (29 U.S.C. 652(8)). 

A safety standard is reasonably 

necessary or appropriate within the 

meaning of Section 652(8) if it 

substantially reduces or eliminates 

significant risk, is economically and 

technologically feasible, is cost 

effective, is consistent with or is a 

justified departure from prior Agency 

action, is supported by substantial 

evidence, and is better able to effectuate 

the Act’s purposes than a relevant 

national consensus standard. 

A standard is technologically feasible 

if the protective measures it requires 

already exist, can be brought into 

existence with available technology, or 

can be created with technology that can 

reasonably be expected to be developed. 

American Textile Mfrs. Institute v. 

OSHA, 452 U.S. 490, 513 (1981) 

(‘‘ATMI’’); AISI v. OSHA, 939 F.2d 975, 

980 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (‘‘AISI’’). 

A standard is economically feasible if 

industry can absorb or pass on the costs 

of compliance without threatening its 

long-term profitability or competitive 

structure. See ATMI, 452 U.S. at 530 n. 

55; AISI, 939 F.2d at 980. A standard is 

cost effective if the protective measures 

it requires are the least costly of the 

available alternatives that achieve the 

same level of protection. ATMI, 453 U.S. 

at 514 n. 32; International Union, UAW 

v. OSHA, 37 F.3d 665, 668 (D.C. Cir. 

1994) (‘‘LOTO III’’). 

Section 6(b)(7) authorizes OSHA to 

include among a standard’s 

requirements labeling, monitoring, 

medical testing and other information 

gathering and transmittal provisions. 29 

U.S.C. 655(b)(7). 

Safety standards must be highly 

protective. See 58 FR at 16614–16615; 

LOTO III, 37 F.3d at 669. Finally, 

whenever practical, standards shall ‘‘be 

expressed in terms of objective criteria 

and of the performance desired.’’ Id. 

B. Preliminary Economic Analysis and 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Summary 

Affected Industries 

The proposal would affect employers 

and employees in a variety of different 

construction industries in which cranes 

and derricks are used as part of the 

performance of work duties. These 

industries include firms involved in 

renting cranes for use in construction 

projects such as: Multi-family housing; 

industrial buildings and warehouses; 

other nonresidential buildings; highway 

and street construction; and water, 

sewer, power, and communication line 

construction. For purposes of this 

preliminary economic analysis (PEA), 

the Agency has grouped affected 

establishments, by industry, into the 

following categories: 

• Crane Rental with Operators, 

• Crane Rental without Operators, 

• Own and Rent Cranes with 

Operators, 

• Own but Do Not Rent, and 

• Crane Lessees in the Construction 

Industry (or referred to simply as just 

‘‘Crane Lessees’’ throughout this 

preliminary economic analysis). 

The full industrial profile of affected 

firms and establishments, including 

information on number of employees, 

revenues, and profits, is presented 

below in section 3 with data on affected 

employers presented in Table B–2. 

Benefits 

The proposed standard addressing 

construction work involving cranes and 

derricks is expected to reduce accidents, 

fatalities, and injuries in the 

construction industry. The Agency 

estimates that 53 fatalities and 155 

injuries would be avoided annually 

from compliance with the provisions of 

the proposed standard. Applying an 

average monetary value of $50,000 per 

prevented injury and a value of $7.5 

million per prevented fatality, the 

Agency estimates the monetized benefit 

at about $406 million annually. The 

Agency believes that affected employers 

and employees will also benefit from 

the additional clarity of the revised 

standards as well as their 

comprehensiveness. Table B–1 provides 

a summary of the benefits, costs, and net 

benefits of the proposed standard. Net 

benefits are estimated to be $283 million 

annually. 

TABLE B–1—ANNUAL BENEFITS, COSTS, AND NET BENEFITS

Annualized Costs 

Crane Assembly/Disassembly .......................................................................................................................................... $33.5 million. 

Power Line Safety ............................................................................................................................................................ 30.8 million. 

Crane Inspections ............................................................................................................................................................. 21.6 million. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59873 

TABLE B–1—ANNUAL BENEFITS, COSTS, AND NET BENEFITS—Continued 

Operator Qualification and Certification ........................................................................................................................... 37.3 million. 

Total Annual Costs .................................................................................................................................................... 123.2 million. 

Annual Benefits 

Number of Injuries Prevented .......................................................................................................................................... 155 

Number of Fatalities Prevented ........................................................................................................................................ 53 

Total Monetized Benefits ........................................................................................................................................... $406 million. 

Annual Net Benefits (Benefits Minus Costs) ........................................................................................................................... $283 million. 

Source: OSHA Office of Regulatory Analysis. 

Benefits base year 2006; costs based on wages in BLS Employment and Earnings 2004. 

Compliance Costs 

The estimated compliance costs for 

this proposed standard represent the 

additional resources necessary for 

employers to achieve full compliance. 

The Agency believes provisions in four 

areas of the proposed standard will 

generate the largest costs for employers: 

Crane assembly/disassembly; powerline safety; inspections; and operator 

qualification and certification. 

Estimated costs do not include costs 

when employers are already complying 

with the new requirements of the 

proposed standard. The total annualized 

costs of compliance with the proposed 

standard are estimated to be about $123 

million. 

OSHA solicits comments from the 

public regarding the ranges of cost and 

benefits calculated in the economic 

analysis. 

Economic Impacts 

To assess the economic impacts 

associated with the proposed rule, 

OSHA compared the estimated 

employer costs with employer revenues 

and profits. The costs of compliance 

with the proposed rule are not large in 

relation to the corresponding annual 

financial flows. The economic impacts 

are presented in Table B–13. At most, 

the estimated costs of compliance 

represent about 0.3 percent (less than 1 

percent) of revenues for each affected 

industry. Alternatively, the estimated 

compliance costs also represent less 

than 1 percent of profits, for the average 

establishment among the affected 

industries. 

The impact of the proposal measured 

by the ratio of costs to profits varies 

across the affected sectors. Among the 

industries in the Crane Lessees (in the 

construction industry) sector, which 

includes about 142,500 of the 164,500 

affected establishments, average 

employers are expected to have costs 

that represent much less than 1 percent 

of profits. Within the sector of 

employers which Own but Do Not Rent, 

affected establishments in 11 of the 30 

industry sectors have average costs as 

high as a few percent of profits (from 2 

to 6 percent). 

The economic impact of the proposed 

rulemaking is most likely to consist of 

a small increase in prices for affected 

construction projects—less than 0.3 

percent, on average. (Note that costs/ 

impacts will be far less for the 

construction industry in its entirety, 

which consists of over 700,000 

establishments and over $1 trillion in 

revenue.) It is unlikely that a price 

increase of this magnitude will 

significantly alter the amount of 

construction goods demanded. If the 

compliance costs of the proposed rule 

can be substantially recouped with a 

minimal increase in prices, there will be 

little effect on profits. 

OSHA concludes preliminarily that 

compliance with the requirements of the 

proposed rulemaking is economically 

feasible in every affected industry 

sector. In addition, based on an analysis 

of the costs and economic impacts 

associated with this rulemaking, OSHA 

preliminarily concludes that the effects 

of the proposed standard on 

international trade, employment, wages, 

and economic growth for the United 

States would be negligible. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

OSHA has analyzed the impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities and has 

prepared an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) (in section 8, 

below), describing the potential effects 

on small entities. The IRFA includes a 

discussion of the Small Business 

Advocacy Review Panel (SBARP) 

process that has been completed for this 

proposed standard. The SBARP process 

provided small businesses the 

opportunity to comment on a draft of 

the proposed standard and on the 

corresponding economic analysis. The 

SBARP subsequently submitted a report 

to OSHA which summarized these 

comments and made specific findings 

and recommendations regarding the 

draft proposed standard. The Panel’s 

recommendations are presented in 

section 8 of this PEA. Table B–15 

presents the impacts on small entities. 

Costs as a percent of revenues range 

from 0.01 to 0.26 percent (less than 1 

percent); costs as a percent of profit 

range from 0.03 to 6.6 percent. 

1. Introduction 

The Occupational Safety and Health 

Act of 1970 (OSH Act) requires OSHA 

to demonstrate the technological and 

economic feasibility of its rules. 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as 

amended in 1996, require federal 

agencies to analyze the costs, benefits, 

and other consequences and impacts, 

including small business impacts, of 

their rules. Consistent with these 

requirements, OSHA has prepared a 

Preliminary Economic Analysis (PEA) 

and an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis to accompany this proposal. 

The proposal on cranes and derricks in 

construction will increase the protection 

of construction workers from hazardous 

working conditions in and around 

cranes. 

It has been determined that this is an 

economically significant action under 

E.O. 12866 and a major rule under the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA). In addition, as 

required by the RFA, the Agency has 

assessed the potential impacts of this 

proposal on small entities and has 

prepared an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis. This rule is not a 

significant federal intergovernmental 

mandate, and the Agency has no 

obligations to conduct analyses of this 

rule under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995. Because this 

proposed rule would have costs of over 

$100 million in any given year, this 

proposed rule would establish a federal 

mandate for the private sector. The 

analysis presented for compliance under 

E. O. 12866 also serves as the UMRA 

analysis. 

The purpose of this analysis is to 

identify the establishments and 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59874 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

industries affected by the rule; evaluate 

its costs, benefits, and economic 

impacts; assess the technological and 

economic feasibility of the proposal for 

affected industries; and evaluate the 

appropriateness of regulatory nonregulatory alternatives to the rule. 

This PEA has been developed 

according to the requirements of the 

E.O. 12866 and the OSH Act. In 

addition, in accordance with the RFA as 

amended by the SBREFA, this analysis 

identifies and estimates the impacts of 

the proposal on small businesses, using 

the Small Business Administration’s 

(SBA’s) industry-specific definitions of 

small businesses. In addition, OSHA 

assessed the impacts of the rule on very 

small businesses, i.e., those with fewer 

than 20 employees. 

Methodology 

The Agency’s occupational safety and 

health standards are required to be 

‘‘reasonably necessary or appropriate’’: 

(8) The term ‘‘occupational safety and 

health standard’’ means a standard which 

requires conditions, or the adoption or use of 

one or more practices, means, methods, 

operations, or processes, reasonably 

necessary or appropriate to provide safe or 

healthful employment and places of 

employment. 

E.O. 12866 further defines appropriate 

regulatory goals and how regulations 

should be analyzed, and pursuant to the 

E.O. OSHA develops an economic 

analysis to estimate benefits and costs. 

A comparison of estimated benefits and 

costs from the economic analysis further 

addresses whether an occupational 

standard is reasonably necessary. Since 

2002, under the direction of the Office 

and Management and Budget, the 

Agency has also provided a 

‘‘monetized’’ value of benefits for 

avoided injuries, illnesses, and fatalities 

from its standards, which permits 

comparison of benefits and costs where 

required. 

For all significant occupational safety 

and health standards, OSHA derives 

estimates of benefits and costs as 

annualized values, as the Agency 

believes these are the simplest and most 

understandable ways to weigh and 

assess the impact of its standards. 

Computing annualized estimates 

focuses Agency analysis on information 

from current conditions and recent 

years which the Agency deems the best 

information—most accurate and 

reliable—to analyze a standard’s impact 

on employers and employees. OSHA 

typically uses a time period of ten years 

for its analysis, unless there are 

significant long-term effects not 

captured within a ten-year time frame. 

In this case, adding additional years to 

the time frame of the analysis would not 

change any major conclusions. 

To isolate and describe only the 

effects of a new standard, the Agency 

carefully distinguishes, for both benefits 

and costs, the change induced by the 

new standard without regard to 

compliance with existing standards. So, 

when injuries or fatalities have occurred 

because existing standards were not 

adhered to, the Agency neither counts 

such avoidable accidents as a benefit of 

the proposed new standard nor includes 

as an additional cost meeting existing 

occupational standards. This analysis 

assumes that all costs are incurred in 

the first year following the promulgation 

of the final standard and that benefits 

result immediately, although some costs 

will actually likely be incurred over a 

longer horizon since the standard has 

phase-in periods for some provisions. 

The Agency employs a ‘‘willingness 

to pay’’ (WTP) approach in estimating 

benefits. This is a two-step process in 

which, for the cranes and derricks’ 

proposal, the past 10 years of accident 

reports were studied to estimate the 

number of fatalities and injuries, and 

also the number that would be avoided 

by full compliance with the proposed 

standard. Secondly, the Agency uses 

values from the WTP approach to 

produce a monetary value of benefits. 

The WTP approach applied by many 

economic studies estimates the ‘‘value 

of a statistical life’’ (VSL) based on data 

collected about job risks and the ‘‘risk 

premium’’ in wages that is paid to 

employees in riskier jobs. The VSL is 

used as a metric by many government 

regulatory authorities, such as National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

and the Environmental Protection 

Agency, but is particularly appropriate 

for occupational standards since it is 

derived from occupational risks and 

wages. 

The Agency’s calculation of estimates 

for benefits and costs, summarized and 

compared in the tables on net benefits, 

is implicitly one that looks at society as 

a whole. Estimated costs are borne by all 

affected employers while benefits from 

the WTP approach are market-derived 

estimates of employees’ valuation of job 

risk and reward (economic feasibility, 

discussed in section 7 below focuses on 

employer and industry economic 

impacts without regard to benefits). The 

VSL represents to some extent the 

employees’ value of taking on additional 

job risks and describes the value to 

employees of avoiding fatality and 

injury. The monetary value of an 

(avoided) injury from the WTP approach 

is based on survey results. Summing 

together estimates of costs and benefits 

that impact different parts of society is 

an approach that is considered (by 

economists) to represent the welfare of 

society as a whole. 

The primary alternative to a WTP 

approach is a cost of injury (COI) 

approach. A COI approach estimates 

such factors as medical costs for 

injuries, the costs of work disruption 

from accidents and accident 

investigations, indirect costs to 

employers (absenteeism and hiring 

costs, for example), lost wages or job 

opportunities to employees, 

rehabilitation, and many other potential 

sources of costs to all parties. The COI 

approach results in ascribing costs and 

benefits to many involved entities: The 

employer, the employee, workers’ 

compensation programs, medical 

insurance, federal disability programs, 

and government/taxpayers, for example. 

A COI approach does not capture a 

value for loss of life, pain and suffering, 

impacts on families, and similar 

parameters, and for that reason the 

Agency believes that the VSL better 

represents a monetary value that is 

consistent with the purposes of the OSH 

Act, placing great value on workers’ 

health and lives. 

The remainder of this part of the 

preamble is organized as follows: 

2. Identification of Market Failure and 

Need for Regulation 

3. Industry Profile 

4. Benefits and Net Benefits 

5. Technological Feasibility 

6. Costs of Compliance 

7. Economic Feasibility and Impacts 

8. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

9. References 

2. Identification of Market Failure and 

Need for Regulation 

The justification for imposing 

appropriate occupational safety and 

health standards generally, and for 

adopting this change to the cranes and 

derricks standard in particular, is that 

without these requirements, fatality and 

injury risks to employees would remain 

unacceptably high. Workplace risks and 

resulting injuries and costs would be too 

high from a moral- and social-preference 

perspective, as determined by Congress 

through the passage of the Occupational 

Safety and Health Act. In addition, risks 

would be too high in terms of imposing 

large net costs (both pecuniary and nonpecuniary) on society, producing an 

inefficient allocation of resources, and 

reducing overall social welfare. 

‘‘Market failure’’ is a term used by 

economists to describe when the 

allocation of goods and services by a 

market is not efficient, in the sense that 

it is possible for at least one person to 

be made better off without making 

anyone else worse off (termed ‘‘Pareto 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59875 

efficiency’’). One common cause of 

market failure is that the person 

responsible for a decision does not bear 

the full costs or consequences of that 

decision. When this occurs, the person 

responsible for the decision will not 

fully consider all of the costs involved, 

and, as a result, may arrive at an 

inappropriate decision. In the case of 

occupational injuries, the employer has 

the primary decision-making 

responsibility, and does not, in fact, 

bear the full costs of occupational 

injuries. As a result, employers will 

tend to allocate less to occupational 

safety than would be efficient if all costs 

of occupational injuries were 

considered. 

Who bears the costs of an employee 

injury, which include loss of income, 

medical care costs, the non-monetary 

burdens the injury imposes, and other 

outcomes? Some of these costs, 

particularly medical costs and a portion 

of income loss, are paid for through 

workers’ compensation. While some 

employers self insure, and pay the 

workers’ compensation costs directly, 

the overwhelming majority of employers 

purchase (and are required to purchase) 

workers’ compensation insurance. Thus, 

in most cases, employers do not directly 

pay for workers’ compensation to the 

injured worker. The remainder of the 

costs of the injury is normally borne by 

the employee, though some of the costs 

may be borne by the government in the 

form of welfare. (In almost all states, 

workers’ compensation is an exclusive 

remedy, meaning that an employee may 

not sue his employer for a work-related 

injury.) 

In principle, both employees and 

insurers could contract with employers 

for payment in advance for the risks 

incurred. Insurers charge premiums for 

their insurance. Workers could, in 

theory, demand increased pay for 

increased risk, and there is evidence 

that workers do demand increased pay 

for more dangerous occupations, work 

in more dangerous industries, and 

exposure to well known hazardous 

substances. In this situation, there is not 

an externality, where an externality is 

defined as damage to an outside party 

who is not party to a market agreement. 

There are, however, several 

informational and institutional 

problems that prevent an ideal set of 

payments for risks incurred. 

The first requirement for reasonable 

valuation of risk in transfers of risk 

between parties is that the risk be 

known. Further, for the estimate of risk 

to affect the behavior of employers, it is 

necessary that employees and insurers 

be able to differentiate the risk among 

different employers, not just be able to 

assess the risk across all employers in 

an industry. In the case of relatively rare 

accidents such as serious crane 

accidents, this is quite difficult to do. As 

a result, simply looking at the past 

record will not provide much useful 

information concerning relative risk 

among employers. The employers 

themselves may be equally uncertain 

about the risks associated with their 

practices. 

Even if such information on past 

performance were available, there is no 

guarantee that future performance will 

be identical to past performance. 

Different management or even the same 

management (with different objectives, 

financial performance or schedule) may 

do things differently than they have in 

past. Further, once the risk has been 

transferred by contract to employees 

and insurers, the employer has reduced 

incentives to maintain a low level of 

risk. This phenomenon is a constant 

problem in insurance, where it is known 

as a moral hazard—the tendency of the 

insured to act with less care as a result 

of having insurance. As a result, the 

only way for an insurance company to 

estimate the risk of crane accidents for 

a specific employer is through 

monitoring actual employer practices 

that affect crane safety—an expensive 

method of obtaining information and 

one that insurance companies do not 

perform, the Agency concludes. In 

addition, workers’ compensation 

insurance uses, and, in most states is 

required by law to use, an experience 

rating system. Experience rating ties the 

quoted premium closely to a 

combination of all similar occupations 

in all firms and the individual firm’s 

actual record over the previous three 

years. For very small firms, this means 

that, in practice, the individual firm’s 

record has no impact on their insurance 

premium. Even quite large firms pay, 

through insurance premium increases, 

less than the full costs of accidents. 

Further, the use of experience rating 

makes it difficult for insurers to make 

use of information from monitoring and 

inspection of safety practices, even if 

they had such information. 

Employees also have problems 

obtaining and using this information. 

First, employees may simply be 

unacquainted with safe practices—as 

these are commonly taught by 

employers. (One effect of the proposed 

standard’s requirement for crane 

operator certification is to assure that 

crane operators will be acquainted with 

rules for crane safety, and have the 

appropriate skills to apply them.) 

Second, information on safety is 

commonly not available before taking a 

job. Third, wages are sometimes 

determined by industry contracts, with 

no room for added risk premiums for 

individual employers. Finally, there are 

significant costs in many cases to 

leaving a job, which means that even if 

the employee realizes a job is less safe 

than some other available jobs, the 

employee may be reluctant to leave the 

job. 

In summary, the market failure in job 

safety is that employers commonly 

transfer the costs of job safety to other 

parties, and a combination of 

informational and institutional 

constraints prevents the costs of the 

transfer from actually reflecting the risk 

to the individual employer—instead 

employers pay to transfer the risk at a 

cost closer to the average costs for the 

occupation rather than their own costs 

reflecting their own risks. As result, 

employers do not pay the full costs if 

they have above average risks or poor 

safety practices. Under these 

circumstances, the need for regulation is 

established by the significant risk 

presented by crane and derrick 

operations (see section 4). 

3. Industrial Profile 

The proposed standard would affect 

establishments across a variety of 

different construction industries with 

work involving cranes and derricks. 

Table B–2 presents data on the numbers 

of affected firms, establishments, 

employees, and average establishment 

revenues and profits. The Agency sorted 

establishments, by industry, into five 

sectors according to their crane or 

equipment activities, as follows: 

• Crane Rental with Operators, 

• Crane Rental without Operators, 

• Own and Rent Cranes with 

Operators, 

• Own but Do Not Rent, and 

• Crane Lessees in the Construction 

Industry (or just ‘‘Crane Lessees’’). 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59876 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE B–2—INDUSTRIAL PROFILE OF AFFECTED FIRMS AND ESTABLISHMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED STANDARD

NAIC/Industry 

Affected 

Profit rate 

(percent) 

Average per estab. 

Firms Estabs. Employees 

Revenues 

($1,000) 

Profits 

($1,000) 

Crane Rental with Operators: 

238990 All Other Specialty Trade Cont ......................................... 1,183 1,240 16,244 4.10 $1,918 $79 

Crane Rental without Operators (Bare Rentals): 

532412 Const./Min./For. Machine & Equip .................................... 2,137 4,631 50,409 4.00 3,289 132 

Own and Rent Cranes with Operators: 

236115 New Single-Family Housing Const ................................... 168 168 261 4.41 233 10 

236118 Residential Remodelers .................................................... 21 21 45 4.41 528 23 

236210 Industrial Building Construction ........................................ 8 10 1,067 4.41 14,656 646 

236220 Commercial and Institutional Building ............................... 21 28 757 4.41 4,603 203 

237110 Water and Sewer Line and Related Struct ....................... 47 62 1,432 4.65 4,570 213 

237120 Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Struct .......................... 16 21 1,457 4.65 6,822 317 

237130 Power and Communication Line and Rel ......................... 36 36 666 4.65 2,720 126 

237310 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction ........................ 76 101 6,456 4.65 12,483 580 

237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Const ........................ 143 191 5,857 4.65 5,394 251 

238110 Poured Concrete Foundation and Struct .......................... 263 263 4,328 4.65 2,256 105 

238120 Structural Steel and Precast Concrete ............................. 239 319 7,389 4.65 2,868 133 

238130 Framing Contractors ......................................................... 20 20 120 3.90 200 8 

238150 Glass and Glazing Contractors ......................................... 41 41 328 3.90 631 25 

238170 Siding Contractors ............................................................. 3 3 18 3.90 827 32 

238190 Other Foundation, Structure, and Building ....................... 26 35 1,145 3.90 2,802 109 

238210 Electrical Contractors ........................................................ 12 12 176 3.90 1,629 63 

238220 Plumbing, Heating, and Air-Conditioning .......................... 2 3 196 3.90 5,835 227 

238290 Other Building Equipment Contractors ............................. 104 138 4,076 3.90 3,801 148 

238320 Painting and Wall Covering Contract ................................ 20 20 159 3.90 962 37 

238910 Site Preparation Contractors ............................................. 311 311 4,706 3.90 2,146 84 

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 1,576 1,803 40,639 

Own but Do Not Rent: 

236115 New Single family housing construction ........................... 2,915 2,915 13,621 4.41 1,057 47 

236116 New Multifamily housing construction ............................... 220 220 2,219 4.41 3,792 167 

236117 New housing operative builders ........................................ 1,302 1,302 12,015 4.41 5,338 235 

236118 Residential Remodelers .................................................... 827 827 3,201 4.41 544 24 

236210 Industrial building construction .......................................... 235 277 9,359 4.41 6,132 270 

236220 Commercial and Institutional Bldg. Const ......................... 3,718 3,718 71,536 4.41 6,479 286 

237110 Water and Sewer Line Const ............................................ 922 1,230 20,306 4.65 2,630 122 

237120 Oil and gas pipeline construction ...................................... 104 138 9,277 4.65 8,167 380 

237130 Power and communication line const ............................... 225 300 12,600 4.65 5,769 268 

237210 Land subdivision ............................................................... 0 0 0 4.65 289 13 

237310 Highway, street and bridge const ..................................... 84 111 4,308 4.65 7,266 338 

237990 Other heavy and civil eng ................................................. 516 516 7,563 4.65 2,076 97 

238110 Poured Concrete foundation and struct ............................ 269 269 3,070 4.65 1,252 58 

238120 Structural steel and precast concrete ............................... 400 400 7,249 4.65 2,018 94 

238130 Framing Contractors ......................................................... 1,083 1,083 11,834 3.90 998 39 

238140 Masonry Contractors ......................................................... 129 129 1,303 3.90 788 31 

238150 Glass & Glazing Contractors ............................................ 53 53 504 3.90 1,187 46 

238160 Roofing Contractors .......................................................... 232 232 2,262 3.90 991 39 

238170 Siding Contractors ............................................................. 33 33 215 3.90 641 25 

238190 Other foundation, structure, building, ext .......................... 14 14 158 3.90 1,254 49 

238210 Electrical Contractors ........................................................ 63 63 771 3.90 1,312 51 

238220 Plumbing, Heating and Airconditioning Cont .................... 87 87 974 3.90 1,346 52 

238290 Other building equipment cont .......................................... 45 59 1,237 3.90 2,383 93 

238310 Drywall and insulation contractors .................................... 0 0 0 3.90 1,573 61 

238320 Painting and wall covering contractors ............................. 39 39 234 3.90 433 17 

238330 Flooring Contractors .......................................................... 0 0 0 3.90 760 30 

238340 Tile and Terrazzo contractors ........................................... 0 0 0 3.90 655 26 

238350 Finish Carpentry contractors ............................................. 0 0 0 3.90 517 20 

238390 Other building finishing contractors .................................. 0 0 0 3.90 1,304 51 

238910 Site Preparation ................................................................ 302 302 2,825 3.90 1,228 48 

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 13,815 14,316 198,641 

Crane Lessees in the Construction Industry: 

236115 New Single family housing construction ........................... 29,236 29,236 136,601 4.41 2,116 93 

236116 New Multifamily housing construction ............................... 2,199 2,199 22,192 4.41 7,606 335 

236117 New housing operative builders ........................................ 13,022 13,022 120,146 4.41 10,692 472 

236118 Residential Remodelers .................................................... 8,275 8,275 32,021 4.41 5,442 240 

236210 Industrial building construction .......................................... 2,777 2,777 93,931 4.41 6,307 278 

236220 Commercial and Institutional Bldg. Construction .............. 37,208 37,208 715,896 4.41 6,490 286 

237110 Water and Sewer Line Const ............................................ 12,357 12,357 204,085 4.65 2,629 122 

237120 Oil and gas pipeline construction ...................................... 1,052 1,403 94,176 4.65 8,254 384 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59877 

TABLE B–2—INDUSTRIAL PROFILE OF AFFECTED FIRMS AND ESTABLISHMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED STANDARD— 

Continued 

NAIC/Industry 

Affected 

Profit rate 

(percent) 

Average per estab. 

Firms Estabs. Employees 

Revenues 

($1,000) 

Profits 

($1,000) 

237130 Power and communication line const ............................... 2,263 3,017 126,753 4.65 11,295 525 

237210 Land subdivision ............................................................... 0 0 0 4.65 0 0 

237310 Highway, street and bridge const ..................................... 843 1,124 43,471 4.65 72,437 3,367 

237990 Other heavy and civil eng ................................................. 5,251 5,251 77,036 4.65 3,950 184 

238110 Poured Concrete foundation and struct ............................ 1,358 1,358 15,498 4.65 24,877 1,157 

238120 Structural steel and precast concrete ............................... 4,321 4,321 78,266 4.65 2,019 94 

238130 Framing Contractors ......................................................... 10,841 10,841 118,502 3.90 1,331 52 

238140 Masonry Contractors ......................................................... 1,286 1,286 13,035 3.90 15,762 614 

238150 Glass & Glazing Contractors ............................................ 529 529 5,080 3.90 12,086 471 

238160 Roofing Contractors .......................................................... 2,319 2,319 22,620 3.90 9,923 387 

238170 Siding Contractors ............................................................. 332 332 2,152 3.90 12,932 504 

238190 Other foundation, structure, building, ext .......................... 139 139 1,599 3.90 26,387 1,028 

238210 Electrical Contractors ........................................................ 626 626 7,712 3.90 132,080 5,147 

238220 Plumbing, Heating and Airconditioning Cont .................... 875 875 9,744 3.90 135,367 5,275 

238290 Other building equipment cont .......................................... 457 609 12,662 3.90 23,770 926 

238310 Drywall and insulation contractors .................................... 0 0 0 3.90 0 0 

238320 Painting and wall covering contractors ............................. 389 389 2,346 3.90 43,317 1,688 

238330 Flooring Contractors .......................................................... 0 0 0 3.90 0 0 

238340 Tile and Terrazzo contractors ........................................... 0 0 0 3.90 0 0 

238350 Finish Carpentry contractors ............................................. 0 0 0 3.90 0 0 

238390 Other building finishing contractors .................................. 0 0 0 3.90 0 0 

238910 Site Preparation ................................................................ 3,050 3,050 28,543 3.90 12,380 482 

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 141,004 142,542 1,984,066 

Total .................................................................................... 159,715 164,532 2,289,999 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Economic Census, 2002 for establishments, employees, revenues, except Crane Rental w/o Operators group; 

Dunn and Bradstreet, Market Profiles, 2002 for data for Crane Rental w/o Operators group; Profit rates from Internal Revenue Service, Statistics 

of Income 2002 Corporation Source Book, 2002; Affected establish estimates from OSHA/Office of Regulatory Analysis (ORA). 

These sectors have an estimated total 

of about 164,500 affected 

establishments. Crane Lessees in the 

Construction Industry (just ‘‘Crane 

Lessees’’ hereafter) have almost 90 

percent of the firms and employees 

affected by the proposed standard. The 

profile was constructed by combining 

two kinds of sources: (1) General data 

on numbers of establishments, firms, 

revenues, employees, and profits for 

affected individual industries, and (2) 

data on the number or percentage of 

establishments in the industries that use 

cranes. 

General Data Sources 

Data from the U.S. Bureau of the 

Census (CB) was used to develop the 

industry profile estimates (which 

include establishments, employees, and 

revenues) for the five sectors, except the 

Crane Rental without Operators sector, 

which was developed using 2002 Dunn 

and Bradstreet (D&B) data, except for 

estimates of the number of firms which 

was based on CB data. The Agency used 

2002 D&B data for the Crane Rental 

without Operators sector because these 

data matched best with SBA data for 

estimating the characteristics of small 

firms in that sector. 

Profit rates were taken from the § 2002 

Source Book Statistics of Income’’ 

published by the Internal Revenue 

Service. The profit rates were calculated 

by dividing the reported net income by 

total receipts for each 3-digit NAIC, and 

were applied to each industry falling 

within that 3-digit NAIC. For example, 

for NAIC 236 Building Construction, 

OSHA used the calculated profit rate of 

4.41 percent for all industries 

performing building construction 

(residential and non-residential). 

Adjustments for Use of Cranes 

OSHA used the ‘‘2002 Economic 

Census’’ of the Census Bureau (CB) for 

data on numbers of firms, 

establishments, and employees, by size, 

for establishments that rent cranes 

(Crane Rental with Operators, Crane 

Rental without Operators). To estimate 

the number of establishments that Own 

but Do Not Rent Cranes and those that 

only lease cranes (see Table B–3), the 

Agency applied several adjustments to 

the CB ‘‘2002 Economic Census’’ data. 

First, adjustments were made so that 

estimates of establishments would be 

consistent with the data from CB which 

identified establishments that report 

crane rental revenue. OSHA reviewed 

the construction industry sub-sectors in 

the ‘‘NAICS Manual 2007’’ to determine 

the type of work activities that would 

require the use of a crane. Some of the 

industries affected by the proposal 

consist entirely of contractors and 

general contractors—either of whom 

might be the lessee of a crane. In some 

cases, OSHA determined that general 

contractors in residential construction 

would lease cranes instead of the trade 

contractor. Secondly, during the SBAR 

panel process some small entity 

representatives stated that some 

establishments that were categorized as 

Crain Lessees (in the construction 

industry) do in fact own their own 

cranes, and that some who were 

categorized as owning cranes typically 

lease them, or do both. Table B–3 shows 

the adjustments the Agency made to 

estimate the number of establishments 

renting cranes in each industry (which 

are reflected in Table B–2) and the 

Agency’s rationale. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59878 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE B–3—INDUSTRIAL PROFILE ADJUSTMENTS FOR CRANE LESSEES FOR ALL ESTABLISHMENTS

NAIC Industry description 

Establishments 

(2002 economic 

census) 

OSHA assumption Revised 

estimate 

236115 ................ New Single-Family Housing Const 58,472 Estimated that 50 percent would contract out instead of leasing the crane themselves.29,236 

236116 ................ New Multifamily Housing Const .... 4,397 Estimated that 50 percent would contract out instead of leasing the crane themselves.2,199 

236117 ................ New Housing Operative Builders .. 26,043 Estimated that 50 percent would contract out instead of leasing the crane themselves.13,022 

236118 ................ Residential Remodelers ................ 82,750 Estimated that only 10 percent of the establishments perform work that requires a crane. Only 

new buildings may require them.

8,275 

236210 ................ Industrial Building Construction .... 2,777 All estimated to be affected ...................................... 2,777 

236220 ................ Commercial and Institutional Bldg. 

Const.

37,208 All estimated to be affected ...................................... 37,208 

237110 ................ Water and Sewer Line Const ....... 12,357 All estimated to be affected ...................................... 12,357 

237120 ................ Oil and Gas Pipeline Const .......... 1,403 All estimated to be affected ...................................... 1,403 

237130 ................ Power and Communication Line 

Const.

6,034 Estimated that 50 percent (only in Power Line Construction) would involve work that requires a 

crane.

3,017 

237210 ................ Land Subdivision ........................... 8,403 Work performed does not require crane .................. 0

237310 ................ Highway, Street, and Bridge Const 11,239 Estimate only 10 percent (larger employers) would 

use cranes. Street and highway construction 

would typically not require them.

1,124 

237990 ................ Other Heavy and Civil Eng ........... 10,502 Estimated that only 50 percent would need a crane 5,251 

238110 ................ Poured Concrete Foundation and 

Struct.

27,151 Estimated that only 5 percent would perform tasks 

that require a crane. In many cases a site crane 

performs lifting.

1,358 

238120 ................ Structural Steel and Precast Concrete.4,321 All estimated to be affected ...................................... 4,321 

238130 ................ Framing Contractors ..................... 14,455 Estimated that 75 percent would need a crane that 

would typically not be leased by the residential 

general contractor.

10,841 

238140 ................ Masonry Contractors ..................... 25,720 Estimated that only 5 percent would perform work 

that requires a crane. For new multi-story structures, the site crane lifts materials.

1,286 

238150 ................ Glass and Glazing Contractors ..... 5,294 Estimated that only 10 percent would perform work 

that requires a crane. Typically only use powered 

personnel platforms.

529 

238160 ................ Roofing Contractors ...................... 23,192 Estimated only 10 percent would need a crane. 

Typically use site crane for any high rise building 

projects.

2,319 

238170 ................ Siding Contractors ........................ 6,632 Estimated that only 5 percent would need a crane. 

Most of the work is done on scaffolds, ladders, 

platforms.

332 

238190 ................ Other Foundation, Structure, Bldg. 

Ext.

2,786 Estimated that only 5 percent would need a crane .. 139 

238210 ................ Electrical Contractors .................... 62,586 Estimated that only 1 percent would need a crane .. 626 

238220 ................ Plumbing, Heating, Air Conditioning Cont.87,501 Estimated that only 1 percent would need a crane .. 875 

238290 ................ Other Building Equipment Const .. 6,087 Estimated that only 10 percent would need a crane 609 

238310 ................ Drywall and Insulation Contractors 19,598 Work performed does not require crane. Site crane 

used on multi-story structures.

0 

238320 ................ Painting and Wall Coverings Contractors.38,943 Estimated that only 1 percent would need a crane .. 389 

238330 ................ Flooring Contractors ..................... 12,865 Work performed does not require crane .................. 0 

238340 ................ Tile and Terrazzo Contractors ...... 8,950 Work performed does not require crane .................. 0 

238350 ................ Finish Carpentry Contractors ........ 35,087 Work performed does not require crane .................. 0 

238390 ................ Other Building Finishing Contractors.3,729 Work performed does not require crane .................. 0 

238910 ................ Site Preparation ............................ 30,496 Estimated that only 10 percent of establishments 

(large employers that work on high rises) would 

require cranes.

3,050 

Affected Establishments and Employees 

This section describes OSHA’s 

method for estimating the number of 

affected establishments and employees 

in construction for each of the five 

affected construction industry sectors. 

The Agency derived estimates of the 

number of affected employees and 

establishments primarily from CB data 

on establishments, employees, annual 

payroll, and revenues (see Table B–2). 

The CB also collects data on 

establishments that have reported 

revenue from renting cranes with 

operators (‘‘cranes,’’ which are more 

numerous than derricks, will be used 

throughout this section as shorthand for 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59879 

‘‘cranes and derricks’’). This data was 

acquired via special data runs by CB for 

OSHA. This data includes crane-rental 

revenue percentages which OSHA used 

to determine separate estimates for 

those establishments that (1) rent cranes 

with operators as their main revenue 

source, and (2) rent their cranes to other 

firms when they are not using them. 

Thus, the Agency was able to compile 

profile estimates for employers who (1) 

provide crane rental with operators 

(which are only found in NAIC 238990), 

and (2) own and rent cranes with 

operators (which are found across 

several NAICS codes). The Crane Rental 

without Operators category consists of 

establishments in NAICS 532412 that 

rent cranes without operators (also 

known as bare rentals) that fall within 

the scope of this proposal. Estimates for 

the Own but Do Not Rent category are 

based on the assumption that ten 

percent of all establishments in the 

construction industry own their own 

cranes, but do not rent them when they 

are not using them. The last category, 

Crane Lessees, consists of all of the 

other construction establishments that 

do not own their own cranes, but only 

lease cranes from crane-rental 

companies or other companies that own 

cranes. In preparing this profile of 

industries affected by the proposal, 

OSHA assumed that the proposed rule 

would affect all establishments that 

either rent or use cranes in construction 

activities. 

Among the affected crane-rental 

industries, the largest is the Crane 

Rental without Operators (bare rentals) 

(NAICS 532412 Construction/Mining/ 

Forestry Machine and Equipment 

Rental), with an estimated 4,631 

affected establishments and 50,409 

employees. The largest crane-use 

industry is Commercial and 

Institutional Building Construction 

(NAICS 236220), with an estimated 

37,208 affected establishments and 

715,896 employees. 

Crane Rental with Operators 

This sector consists of 1,240 affected 

establishments (part of NAICS 238990 

All Other Specialty Trade Contractors) 

that rent cranes with operators. These 

establishments employ 16,244 

employees and have total revenues of 

$1.9 billion. The profit rate for this 

NAIC is 4.1 percent. The CB data did 

not report estimates of the number of 

firms. The Agency estimated the 

number of firms by assuming a 1:1 ratio 

of establishments to firms in the lessthan-20-employee size class. For all 

other size classes, the Agency 

multiplied the number of 

establishments by 75 percent to estimate 

the number of firms. These ratios of 

establishments to firms are typical for 

the size classes in the construction 

industry. Based on revenues for this 

sector and an estimate of the total 

number of cranes in use, the Agency 

estimated that each crane generates 

about $400,000 in average annual 

revenue, and so estimated the average 

number of cranes per establishment, by 

size class, by dividing the average 

revenues per establishment by $400,000. 

The Agency estimated that there is, on 

average, one crane operator for each 

crane in this sector since this category 

rents cranes with operators. 

Crane Rental without Operators (bare 

rentals) 

Establishments that rent cranes 

without operators (bare rentals) are 

incorporated into NAICS 532412 

Construction, Mining, and Forestry 

Machinery and Equipment Rental and 

Leasing. The Agency estimated that 

there are 4,631 affected establishments 

in this NAIC engaged in construction 

activity, with over 50,000 employees 

and revenues of $3.2 billion. The profit 

rate for this industry is 4.0 percent. 

Since the D&B data did not report 

estimates of the number of firms, OSHA 

used 2002 Small Business 

Administration (SBA) data for firms in 

the less-than-20-employee size class (the 

only size class in this category 

considered to be small by SBA). An 

estimate of the number of cranes was 

derived by dividing the revenues per 

establishment by the estimated $250,000 

that each crane generates in average 

annual revenue (less than the average 

revenue per crane rented with 

operators). The Agency estimated that 

the ratio of cranes-to-operators is 4:1 for 

this category since establishments in 

this category rent cranes without 

operators. 

Own and Rent Cranes with Operators 

The CB identified establishments that 

own cranes and rent them when they 

are not being used. These 1,803 

establishments employ 40,639 

employees with total annual revenues of 

$6 billion. The profit rate for the firms 

in these sectors ranged from 3.9 to 4.7 

percent. The Agency assumed a 1:1 ratio 

of establishments to firms, in most 

cases, for those establishments with less 

than 20 employees. For all others, the 

Agency multiplied the number of 

establishments by 75 percent to estimate 

the number of firms. To derive an 

estimate of the number of cranes, OSHA 

divided the per establishment revenues 

by the $400,000 which each crane 

generates in average annual revenue. 

The Agency used a 1:1 ratio of cranesto-operators to estimate the number of 

crane Operators. 

Own but Do Not Rent 

To estimate the number of 

establishments that Own but Do Not 

Rent, the Agency subtracted those 

establishments that own and rent cranes 

from the total number of construction 

firms per NAICS sector. This difference 

was then multiplied by 10 percent to 

estimate the number of establishments 

that own cranes but do not rent them. 

Since most cranes in construction are 

leased, 10 percent seemed a reasonable 

estimate of establishments that own 

cranes but do not rent them. The CB 

provided estimates of establishments, 

employees, and revenues per NAICS 

sector. To estimate the number of firms, 

the Agency used employment data from 

the CB to estimate the average number 

of employees per establishment. The 

Agency assumed a 1:1 ratio of 

establishments to firms for those 

establishments that averaged less than 

20 employees. For all others, the Agency 

multiplied the number of 

establishments by 75 percent to estimate 

the number of firms. The profit rate for 

these firms is the same as for firms in 

the Own and Rent Cranes with 

Operators category. An estimate of the 

number of cranes was derived by 

assuming that each establishment would 

own, on average, one crane. The Agency 

assumed a 1:1 ratio of cranes-tooperators for this sector. (Data on the 

number of cranes and crane jobs is also 

presented in section 6 Costs of 

Compliance.) 

Crane Lessees (in the construction 

industry) 

The Agency assumed that any NAICS 

identified from the CB data that could 

rent a crane would likely do so, and 

included all establishments in those 

NAICS industries as possible leasees of 

cranes. The corresponding estimate of 

the number of firms was derived using 

the same procedure described above for 

the Own but Do Not Rent category. 

Using the estimates from three sectors 

(Crane Rental with Operators, Crane 

Rental without Operators, and Own and 

Rent Cranes with Operators), OSHA 

concluded that, among the cranes that 

are rented, 74 percent are rented 

without operators and 26 percent with 

operators. 

Estimates of Number of Cranes and 

Crane Jobs 

The Agency estimates that there are 

96,206 cranes that would fall under the 

scope of the proposal. The Preliminary 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(PIRFA) estimated the number of cranes 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59880 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

at 91,997. Based on comments from 

small entity representatives (SERs) 

during the SBREFA panel meetings, 

OSHA increased its estimate of the 

number of cranes in the Own but Do Not 

Rent category by increasing to 10 

percent the fraction of all construction 

establishments that may own cranes but 

not rent them. OSHA also expanded the 

Crane Lessees category to include light 

and heavy construction entities. This 

expansion accounts for the difference in 

estimates of establishments, firms, and 

employees between the PIRFA and in 

this PEA. 

In the PIRFA, the Agency estimated 

the number of crane jobs at 368,000 

annually, or four jobs per crane. For the 

purposes of this analysis, a crane job is 

defined as beginning when the crane is 

put into use and ending when the crane 

is either moved (which triggers an 

assessment of ground conditions and 

power lines) or when an increasingly 

hazardous situation occurs (e.g., excess 

rain which affects ground conditions) 

which triggers other requirements of the 

standard. While no SER provided an 

alternative estimate, some stated that 

the Agency’s estimate of crane jobs was 

extremely low. As a result of these 

comments, the Agency increased its 

estimate of the number of crane jobs to 

almost 860,000 for all establishments 

and increased the average number of 

annual jobs per crane to 9. OSHA 

requests comment on these estimates. 

(Estimates of the number of cranes and 

crane jobs can be found in section 5 

Costs of Compliance.) 

Estimates of Small Entities 

The Small Business Administration 

(SBA) publishes industry-specific size 

criteria that classify businesses as small 

entities. The SBA criteria for small 

entities in the construction industry are 

based on revenue, rather than the 

number of employees. OSHA used 2002 

CB ‘‘Economic Census’’ data to associate 

these revenue criteria with employment 

size classes. For each industry sector, 

the Agency used CB data to calculate 

average revenues for entities of each 

employment size class and then 

matched the SBA revenue criterion for 

that industry with the size class that had 

the largest average revenues not 

exceeding the SBA criterion. 

Table B–4 shows the estimated 

number of construction small entities 

that meet the SBA criteria for each 

sector. As shown, the SBA revenue 

criteria are so large, given the size of 

typical construction entities, that 

virtually all entities in the industries fall 

within the SBA definition of small 

entities. Almost 99 percent of all 

construction establishments are small 

entities, following the SBA criteria. In 

addition to the SBA-defined small 

entities, the Agency estimated the 

number of establishments that are very 

small (having less than 20 employees). 

Table B–5 shows the industrial profile 

for this size class. 

TABLE B–4—INDUSTRIAL PROFILE OF SBA DEFINED SMALL ENTITIES FOR THE PROPOSED STANDARD

Category/NAIC/Industry 

SBA Size 

Standard 

(Less 

Than) 

(mil.) 

Affected 

Profit rate 

(pct.) 

Avg. 

revenues 

per estab. 

($1,000) 

Avg. profits per 

estab. 

($1,000) Firms Estabs. Employees 

Crane Rental with Operators: 

238990 All Other Specialty Trade Cont ..................... $13.0 1,171 1,223 13,473 4.10 $1,551 $64 

Crane Rental without Operators (Bare Rentals): 

532412 Const./Min./For. Machine & Equip ................ 6.5 1,782 3,927 20,459 4.00 935 37 

Own and Rent Cranes with Operators: 

236115 New Single-Family Housing Const ............... 31.0 168 168 261 4.41 233 10 

236118 Residential Remodelers ................................ 31.0 21 21 45 4.41 528 23 

236210 Industrial Building Construction .................... 31.0 8 10 1,067 4.41 14,656 646 

236220 Commercial and Institutional Building ........... 31.0 21 28 757 4.41 4,603 203 

237110 Water and Sewer Line and Related Struct ... 31.0 47 62 1,432 4.65 4,570 213 

237120 Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Struct ...... 31.0 16 21 1,457 4.65 6,822 317 

237130 Power and Communication Line and Rel ..... 31.0 36 36 666 4.65 2,720 126 

237310 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction .... 31.0 76 101 6,456 4.65 12,483 580 

237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Const .... 31.0 143 191 5,857 4.65 5,394 251 

238110 Poured Concrete Foundation and Struct ...... 13.0 263 263 4,328 4.65 2,256 105 

238120 Structural Steel and Precast Concrete ......... 13.0 239 319 7,389 4.65 2,868 133 

238130 Framing Contractors ..................................... 13.0 20 20 120 3.90 200 8 

238150 Glass and Glazing Contractors ..................... 13.0 41 41 328 3.90 631 25 

238170 Siding Contractors ......................................... 13.0 3 3 18 3.90 827 32 

238190 Other Foundation, Structure, and Building ... 13.0 26 35 1,145 3.90 2,802 109 

238210 Electrical Contractors .................................... 13.0 12 12 176 3.90 1,629 63 

238220 Plumbing, Heating, and Air-Conditioning ...... 13.0 2 3 196 3.90 5,835 227 

238290 Other Building Equipment Contractors ......... 13.0 104 138 4,076 3.90 3,801 148 

238320 Painting and Wall Covering Contract ............ 13.0 20 20 159 3.90 962 37 

238910 Site Preparation Contractors ......................... 13.0 311 311 4,706 3.90 2,146 84 

Subtotal .............................................................. ................ 1,576 1,803 40,639 

Own but Do Not Rent: 

236115 New Single family housing construction ....... 31.0 2,906 2,906 11,578 4.41 1,000 44 

236116 New Multifamily housing construction ........... 31.0 213 213 1,886 4.41 3,400 150 

236117 New housing operative builders .................... 31.0 1,263 1,263 10,212 4.41 5,104 225 

236118 Residential Remodelers ................................ 31.0 825 825 2,721 4.41 543 24 

236210 Industrial building construction ...................... 31.0 223 262 7,955 4.41 2,570 113 

236220 Commercial and Institutional Bldg. Const ..... 31.0 3,615 3,615 60,805 4.41 3,661 161 

237110 Water and Sewer Line Const ........................ 31.0 918 1,223 17,260 4.65 2,324 108 

237120 Oil and gas pipeline construction .................. 31.0 98 131 7,885 4.65 3,743 174 

237130 Power and communication line const ........... 31.0 218 291 10,710 4.65 4,656 216 

237210 Land subdivision ........................................... 6.0 0 0 0 4.65 0 0 

237310 Highway, street and bridge const ................. 31.0 70 93 3,662 4.65 3,225 150 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59881 

TABLE B–4—INDUSTRIAL PROFILE OF SBA DEFINED SMALL ENTITIES FOR THE PROPOSED STANDARD—Continued 

Category/NAIC/Industry 

SBA Size 

Standard 

(Less 

Than) 

(mil.) 

Affected 

Profit rate 

(pct.) 

Avg. 

revenues 

per estab. 

($1,000) 

Avg. profits per 

estab. 

($1,000) Firms Estabs. Employees 

237990 Other heavy and civil eng ............................. 31.0 502 502 6,429 4.65 1,500 70 

238110 Poured Concrete foundation and struct ........ 13.0 108 108 2,609 4.65 1,000 47 

238120 Structural steel and precast concrete ........... 13.0 388 388 6,161 4.65 1,425 66 

238130 Framing Contractors ..................................... 13.0 1,061 1,061 10,059 3.90 798 31 

238140 Masonry Contractors ..................................... 13.0 128 128 1,108 3.90 675 26 

238150 Glass & Glazing Contractors ........................ 13.0 49 49 428 3.90 900 35 

238160 Roofing Contractors ...................................... 13.0 230 230 1,922 3.90 801 31 

238170 Siding Contractors ......................................... 13.0 33 33 183 3.90 600 23 

238190 Other foundation, structure, building, ext ...... 13.0 10 10 134 3.90 900 35 

238210 Electrical Contractors .................................... 13.0 60 60 655 3.90 1,100 43 

238220 Plumbing, Heating and Airconditioning Cont 13.0 86 86 828 3.90 1,100 43 

238290 Other building equipment cont ...................... 13.0 34 45 1,051 3.90 1,664 65 

238310 Drywall and insulation contractors ................ 13.0 0 0 0 3.90 0 0 

238320 Painting and wall covering contractors ......... 13.0 37 37 199 3.90 419 16 

238330 Flooring Contractors ...................................... 13.0 0 0 0 3.90 0 0 

238340 Tile and Terrazzo contractors ....................... 13.0 0 0 0 3.90 0 0 

238350 Finish Carpentry contractors ......................... 13.0 0 0 0 3.90 0 0 

238390 Other building finishing contractors .............. 13.0 0 0 0 3.90 0 0 

238910 Site Preparation ............................................ 13.0 271 271 2,401 3.90 962 37 

Subtotal .................................................................. ................ 13,346 13,831 168,845 

Crane Lessees in the Construction Industry: 

236115 New Single family housing construction ....... 31.0 29,229 29,229 136,566 4.41 2,116 93 

236116 New Multifamily housing construction ........... 31.0 2,130 2,130 21,496 4.41 7,606 335 

236117 New housing operative builders .................... 31.0 12,634 12,634 116,566 4.41 10,692 472 

236118 Residential Remodelers ................................ 31.0 8,274 8,274 32,018 4.41 5,442 240 

236210 Industrial building construction Commercial 

and Institutional ......................................................... 31.0 2,633 2,633 75,701 4.41 6,307 278 

236220 Bldg.Construction .......................................... 31.0 36,174 36,174 696,001 4.41 6,490 286 

237110 Water and Sewer Line Const ........................ 31.0 12,296 12,296 152,308 4.65 2,629 122 

237120 Oil and gas pipeline construction .................. 31.0 1,000 1,333 67,108 4.65 8,254 384 

237130 Power and communication line const ........... 31.0 2,211 2,948 92,891 4.65 11,295 525 

237210 Land subdivision ........................................... 6.0 0 0 0 4.65 0 0 

237310 Highway, street and bridge const ................. 31.0 775 1,033 29,967 4.65 72,437 3,367 

237990 Other heavy and civil eng ............................. 31.0 5,214 5,214 76,493 4.65 3,950 184 

238110 Poured Concrete foundation and struct ........ 13.0 1,339 1,339 15,282 4.65 24,877 1,157 

238120 Structural steel and precast concrete ........... 13.0 4,203 4,203 76,129 4.65 2,019 94 

238130 Framing Contractors ..................................... 13.0 10,631 10,631 116,199 3.90 1,331 52 

238140 Masonry Contractors ..................................... 13.0 1,283 1,283 13,000 3.90 15,762 614 

238150 Glass & Glazing Contractors ........................ 13.0 526 526 5,051 3.90 12,086 471 

238160 Roofing Contractors ...................................... 13.0 2,299 2,299 22,426 3.90 9,923 387 

238170 Siding Contractors ......................................... 13.0 331 331 2,145 3.90 12,932 504 

238190 Other foundation, structure, building, ext ...... 13.0 136 136 1,563 3.90 26,387 1,028 

238210 Electrical Contractors .................................... 13.0 615 615 7,579 3.90 132,080 5,147 

238220 Plumbing, Heating and Airconditioning Cont 13.0 863 863 9,615 3.90 135,367 5,275 

238290 Other building equipment cont ...................... 13.0 441 588 9,168 3.90 23,770 926 

238310 Drywall and insulation contractors ................ 13.0 0 0 0 3.90 0 0 

238320 Painting and wall covering contractors ......... 13.0 389 389 2,344 3.90 43,317 1,688 

238330 Flooring Contractors ...................................... 13.0 0 0 0 3.90 0 0 

238340 Tile and Terrazzo contractors ....................... 13.0 0 0 0 3.90 0 0 

238350 Finish Carpentry contractors ......................... 13.0 0 0 0 3.90 0 0 

238390 Other building finishing contractors .............. 13.0 0 0 0 3.90 0 0 

238910 Site Preparation ............................................ 13.0 3,021 3,021 28,276 3.90 12,380 482 

Subtotal .................................................................. 138,645 140,120 1,805,890 

Total ................................................................ 156,520 160,905 2,049,306 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Economic Census, 2002 for establishments, revenues, except Crane Rental w/o Operators group; Dunn and 

Bradstreet, Market Profiles, 2002 for data for Crane Rental w/o Operators group; Profit rates from Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income 

2002 Corporation Source Book, 2002; Affected establish estimates from OSHA/Office of Regulatory Analysis (ORA); Cost/establishment figures 

estimated by OSHA/ORA; Cost as a percent of revenue = Avg. establishment cost/avg establishment revenue. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59882 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE B–5—INDUSTRIAL PROFILE OF VERY SMALL ENTITIES (LESS THAN 20 EMPLOYEES) BY MAJOR CATEGORY

Category/NAIC/Industry Firms Estabs Employees 

Profit rate 

(percent) 

Average 

Revenues 

per 

estab. 

($1,000) 

Profits 

per 

estab. 

($1,000) 

Crane Rental with Operators: 

238990 All Other Specialty Trade Cont ......................................... 1,013 1,013 4,824 4.10 $614 $25 

Crane Rental without Operators (Bare Rentals): 

532412 Const./Min./For. Machine & Equip .................................... 1,782 3,927 20,459 4.00 935 37 

Own and Rent Cranes with Operators: 

236115 New Single-Family Housing Const ................................... 168 168 261 4.41 233 10 

236118 Residential Remodelers .................................................... 21 21 45 4.41 528 23 

236210 Industrial Building Construction ........................................ 8 10 1,067 4.41 14,656 646 

236220 Commercial and Institutional Building ............................... 21 28 757 4.41 4,603 203 

237110 Water and Sewer Line and Related Struct ....................... 47 62 1,432 4.65 4,570 213 

237120 Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Struct .......................... 16 21 1,457 4.65 6,822 317 

237130 Power and Communication Line and Rel ......................... 36 36 666 4.65 2,720 126 

237310 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction ........................ 76 101 6,456 4.65 12,483 580 

237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Const ........................ 143 191 5,857 4.65 5,394 251 

238110 Poured Concrete Foundation and Struct .......................... 263 263 4,328 4.65 2,256 105 

(All other sectors in this category have no very small affected firms) 

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 798 901 22,326 

Own Cranes But Do Not Rent Them: 

236115 New Single family housing construction ........................... 2,763 2,763 12,910 4.41 823 36 

236116 New Multifamily housing construction ............................... 197 197 1,987 4.41 1,350 60 

236117 New housing operative builders ........................................ 1,206 1,206 11,127 4.41 1,854 82 

236118 Residential Remodelers .................................................... 808 808 3,126 4.41 443 20 

236210 Industrial building construction .......................................... 209 209 7,076 4.41 1,247 55 

236220 Commercial and Institutional Bldg. Construction .............. 2,943 2,943 56,620 4.41 1,526 67 

237110 Water and Sewer Line Const ............................................ 900 900 14,864 4.65 702 33 

237120 Oil and gas pipeline construction ...................................... 63 63 4,224 4.65 708 33 

237130 Power and communication line const ............................... 207 207 8,703 4.65 655 30 

237210 Land subdivision ............................................................... 0 0 0 4.65 0 0 

237310 Highway, street and bridge const ..................................... 66 66 2,558 4.65 976 45 

237990 Other heavy and civil eng ................................................. 378 378 5,549 4.65 589 27 

238110 Poured Concrete foundation and struct ............................ 46 46 527 4.65 494 23 

238120 Structural steel and precast concrete ............................... 90 90 1,625 4.65 659 31 

238130 Framing Contractors ......................................................... 981 981 10,728 3.90 374 15 

238140 Masonry Contractors ......................................................... 115 115 1,165 3.90 343 13 

238150 Glass & Glazing Contractors ............................................ 44 44 418 3.90 619 24 

238160 Roofing Contractors .......................................................... 206 206 2,013 3.90 447 17 

238170 Siding Contractors ............................................................. 31 31 202 3.90 408 16 

238190 Other foundation, structure, building, ext .......................... 10 10 115 3.90 394 15 

238210 Electrical Contractors ........................................................ 54 54 671 3.90 444 17 

238220 Plumbing, Heating and Airconditioning Contractors ......... 77 77 861 3.90 509 20 

238290 Other building equipment cont .......................................... 30 30 624 3.90 714 28 

238310 Drywall and insulation contractors .................................... 0 0 0 3.90 0 0 

238320 Painting and wall covering contractors ............................. 37 37 222 3.90 265 10 

238330 Flooring Contractors .......................................................... 0 0 0 3.90 0 0 

238340 Tile and Terrazzo contractors ........................................... 0 0 0 3.90 0 0 

238350 Finish Carpentry contractors ............................................. 0 0 0 3.90 0 0 

238390 Other building finishing contractors .................................. 0 0 0 3.90 0 0 

238910 Site Preparation ................................................................ 271 271 2,536 3.90 497 19 

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 11,733 11,733 150,451 

Crane Lessees in the Construction Industry: 

236115 New Single family housing construction ........................... 28,449 28,449 132,922 4.41 1,645 73 

236116 New Multifamily housing construction ............................... 1,968 1,968 19,865 4.41 2,700 119 

236117 New housing operative builders ........................................ 12,059 12,059 111,265 4.41 3,708 164 

236118 Residential Remodelers .................................................... 8,099 8,099 31,341 4.41 4,431 195 

236210 Industrial building construction .......................................... 2,170 2,170 62,390 4.41 1,247 55 

236220 Commercial and Institutional Bldg. Construction .............. 29,651 29,651 570,496 4.41 1,526 67 

237110 Water and Sewer Line Const ............................................ 9,867 9,867 122,221 4.65 702 33 

237120 Oil and gas pipeline construction ...................................... 740 740 37,254 4.65 708 33 

237130 Power and communication line const ............................... 2,203 2,203 69,416 4.65 1,311 61 

237210 Land subdivision ............................................................... 0 0 0 4.65 0 0 

237310 Highway, street and bridge const ..................................... 727 727 21,081 4.65 9,762 454 

237990 Other heavy and civil engg ............................................... 4,624 4,624 67,830 4.65 1,177 55 

238110 Poured Concrete foundation and struct ............................ 1,213 1,213 13,844 4.65 9,888 460 

238120 Structural steel and precast concrete ............................... 3,428 3,428 62,091 4.65 659 31 

238130 Framing Contractors ......................................................... 9,953 9,953 108,788 3.90 498 19 

238140 Masonry Contractors ......................................................... 1,150 1,150 11,655 3.90 6,859 267 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59883 

TABLE B–5—INDUSTRIAL PROFILE OF VERY SMALL ENTITIES (LESS THAN 20 EMPLOYEES) BY MAJOR CATEGORY— 

Continued 

Category/NAIC/Industry Firms Estabs Employees 

Profit rate 

(percent) 

Average 

Revenues 

per 

estab. 

($1,000) 

Profits 

per 

estab. 

($1,000) 

238150 Glass & Glazing Contractors ............................................ 472 472 4,528 3.90 6,194 241 

238160 Roofing Contractors .......................................................... 2,067 2,067 20,160 3.90 4,465 174 

238170 Siding Contractors ............................................................. 312 312 2,027 3.90 8,155 318 

238190 Other foundation, structure, building, ext .......................... 122 122 1,404 3.90 7,885 307 

238210 Electrical Contractors ........................................................ 545 545 6,719 3.90 44,376 1,729 

238220 Plumbing, Heating and Airconditioning Contractors ......... 774 774 8,614 3.90 50,865 1,982 

238290 Other building equipment cont .......................................... 435 435 6,783 3.90 7,667 299 

238310 Drywall and insulation contractors .................................... 0 0 0 3.90 0 0 

238320 Painting and wall covering contractors ............................. 370 370 2,228 3.90 26,527 1,034 

238330 Flooring Contractors .......................................................... 0 0 0 3.90 0 0 

238340 Tile and Terrazzo contractors ........................................... 0 0 0 3.90 0 0 

238350 Finish Carpentry contractors ............................................. 0 0 0 3.90 0 0 

238390 Other building finishing contractors .................................. 0 0 0 3.90 0 0 

238910 Site Preparation ................................................................ 2,739 2,739 25,631 3.90 4,974 194 

Subtotal ...................................................................................... 124,135 124,135 1,520,554 

Total .................................................................................... 139,461 141,709 1,718,614 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Economic Census, 2002; Dunn and Bradstreet, Market Profiles, 2002; Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income 2002 Corporation Source Book, 2002. 

Wages 

Taking the ratio of total payroll (from 

CB’s ‘‘2002 Economic Census’’) to total 

employment, OSHA calculated an 

average annual salary of $35,352 per 

employee. This estimate includes both 

production and non-production 

employees. OSHA compared this CB 

annual salary estimate with a salary 

estimate that is based on weekly 

earnings of $724.66 for a production or 

non-supervisory employee in 2002, as 

reported by Bureau of Labor Statistics’ 

(BLS) ‘‘Employment and Earnings, 

January 2003.’’ On an annual basis, the 

BLS salary is calculated as $37,682 

(fringe benefits not included), which 

differs only slightly with the CB salary 

estimate. The Agency chose to rely on 

the BLS wage data for this analysis due 

to their breakdown into different 

employment categories using its 

National Industry-Specific Occupational 

Employment and Wage Estimates 

Survey. Estimated wages include: Base 

gross pay rate, cost-of-living allowances, 

guaranteed pay, hazardous pay, 

incentive pay including commissions 

and production bonuses, on-call pay, 

and tips. The estimates exclude: Back 

pay, jury duty pay, overtime pay, 

severance pay, shift differentials, nonproduction bonuses, and tuition 

reimbursement (BLS, 2000). To produce 

a total wage that reflects total 

compensation for employees in affected 

industries, OSHA adjusted the average 

base annual wage ($37,682) to include 

fringe benefits. BLS estimates the 

percentage of fringe benefits based on 

survey data for aggregate worker 

categories. In this analysis, OSHA used 

an average fringe-benefit rate of 40 

percent. 

4. Benefits and Net Benefits 

This section reviews the population at 

risk of occupational injury or death in 

construction and estimates the benefits 

from the proposal. OSHA believes that 

compliance with the proposal will yield 

substantial benefits in terms of lives 

saved, injuries avoided, and accidentrelated cost savings. The proposal 

addresses several areas that will impose 

compliance costs: Crane assembly/ 

disassembly; power-line safety; 

inspections; and operation qualification 

and certification. Although the proposal 

also includes other new provisions, they 

primarily update, consolidate, and 

clarify existing requirements. The 

Agency is only providing quantitative 

estimates of benefits for the new 

provisions listed above, although OSHA 

believes that all of the provisions are 

reasonably related to preventing injuries 

and fatalities which, in turn, will reduce 

expenditures for medical care, 

rehabilitation, death benefits, and lost 

work time (but note that these are not 

part of the calculated benefits, or cost 

savings, since the Agency is relying on 

a willingness to pay approach). 

To assess the benefits, a historical 

analysis of the frequency of fatalities 

and injuries among employees in 

construction was conducted using 

OSHA and BLS data. 

Data Sources 

The data sources that the Agency 

determined are the most reliable to 

estimate benefits are OSHA’s Integrated 

Management Information System (IMIS), 

the BLS Census of Fatal Occupational 

Injuries (CFOI), and the BLS survey of 

Occupational Injuries and Illnesses. 

Because not all accidents are included 

in the relevant data bases, the actual 

number of preventable fatalities and 

injuries addressed by this rulemaking 

may be somewhat higher. However, 

OSHA does not currently have a basis 

for estimating how many pertinent 

fatalities or injuries may have occurred 

that would not be represented by the 

relevant data sources. OSHA requests 

information and comments from the 

public regarding this issue. 

Fatality Benefits 

OSHA’s analysis of the number of 

fatalities estimated to be averted by the 

proposal proceeds in two steps: (1) 

Determine the number of fatalities 

currently occurring, and the types and 

causes of these fatalities; and (2) 

determine the proposal’s ability to avert 

various types of fatalities (assuming full 

compliance). As discussed above, only 

those fatalities that would have been 

prevented through compliance with the 

four new provisions noted above were 

estimated in the benefits analysis. To 

estimate the number of fatalities 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59884 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

associated with cranes and derricks, the 

Agency first averaged 10 years of 

construction fatality data (1994–2003) 

from the CFOI database. Based on the 

CFOI data, an average of 1,123 fatalities 

occurred each year during that time 

period in the construction industry. 

According to a study from the 

Construction Industry Research and 

Policy Center (CIRPC), at least 8 percent 

of the total construction fatalities are 

crane related (CIRPC, Beavers, Moore, 

Rinehart, and Schriver, Report 35, 

March, 2005 and Journal of 

Construction and Engineering 

Management, 2006). This percentage 

when applied to the yearly average 

fatalities, results in an estimated average 

of 89.8 crane-related fatalities in the 

construction industry annually. 

To determine avoidable deaths under 

the proposal, OSHA reviewed accident 

abstracts from the IMIS database from 

1995 to 2005. These abstracts consist of 

general-duty clause citations under the 

OSH Act and existing 29 CFR 1926.550 

citations. In reviewing these data, OSHA 

determined that 29 fatalities were 

similar to the types of accidents 

addressed by the existing rule or 

proposal. Of these 29 fatalities, OSHA 

determined that 17 (or 59 percent) 

would have been averted by compliance 

with the proposal. This ratio was 

applied to the estimated annual average 

of crane-related fatalities (89.8) to 

preliminarily estimate the fatality 

benefits of the proposal—i.e., 53 

avoided fatalities annually. These are 

potentially avoided fatalities because 

the estimate assumes perfect 

compliance with the proposed standard. 

Table B–6 outlines the avoided fatalities 

under the proposed standard. 

TABLE B–6—CRANES AND DERRICKS

BENEFITS ANALYSIS (FATALITIES) 

Yearly 

average 

1. CFOI Construction Fatalities 1,123 

2. Number of Fatalities that are 

crane related (8% of #1) ......... 89 .8 

3. Total Avoidable Crane-Related Fatalities (59% of #2) ..... 53 .0 

Sources: ORA, OSHA; BLS CFOI database; 

IMIS Fatality/Catastrophe Reports; CIRPC report March, 2005. 

Injury Benefits 

To estimate the avoidable injuries, the 

Agency relied on the number of injuries 

involving cranes in the construction 

industry from 1995 to 2004 using the 

BLS Survey of Occupational Injuries 

and Illnesses. The assessment of 

avoidable injuries is presented in Table 

B–7. The Agency obtained from BLS 

special data runs with estimates of the 

number of cases involving days away 

from work associated with cranes in 

construction for the 10 years (1995– 

2004). In using those data to assess 

potential benefits, OSHA is assuming 

that the reported injuries encompass 

most of the attributes related to 

accidents where cranes are the true 

source. These BLS data do not 

differentiate between crane-related cases 

that are ‘‘struck by’’ or ‘‘contact with 

electric current,’’ but the Agency 

assumes that the majority of cranereported cases are from these two 

causes. 

As shown in Table B–7, over a tenyear period, 263 injuries per year 

occurred involving cranes in 

construction. To estimate the number of 

potentially avoidable struck-by cases, 

the Agency multiplied the 263 injuries 

each year by its ratio of avoidable cases 

(59 percent) derived from the fatality 

data. Thus, the Agency preliminarily 

estimates that the proposal will avoid 

155 injuries annually. 

TABLE B–7—CRANES AND DERRICKS

BENEFITS ANALYSIS (INJURIES) 

Annual 

average 

1. Number of Injury Cases in 

Construction Involving Cranes 

(CIDAFW) .................................. 263 

2. Avoidable Cases (59% of #1 

above) ....................................... 155 

Sources: OSHA/ORA; BLS Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses. 

Monetized Benefits 

For informational purposes, the 

Agency monetized both the avoidable 

fatalities and injuries based on 

willingness-to-pay values of $7.5 

million per death and $50,000 per 

injury. OSHA has followed EPA’s 

approach to monetizing the reduction in 

the risk of premature mortality, as 

presented in ‘‘The Benefits and Costs of 

the Clean Air Act of 1990 to 2010’’ 

(EPA, 1999) and applied in the Radon 

in Drinking Water regulation. EPA’s 

approach is presented in Chapter 7 of 

EPA’s ‘‘Guidelines for Preparing 

Economic Analyses,’’ which provides a 

detailed review of the methods for 

estimating mortality risk values and 

summarizes the values obtained in the 

literature (EPA, 2000). EPA identified 26 

studies that it considered relevant. 

Synthesizing the results of these studies, 

EPA arrived at a mean value for a 

statistical life (VSL) of $4.8 million in 

1990 dollars. EPA employs this central 

estimate, updated for inflation, in its 

regulatory analyses. OSHA has updated 

EPA’s mean VSL for 1990 using the 

consumer price index (CPI calculator, 

CPI home page), adjusted for income 

elasticity (GDP data, Bureau of 

Economic Analysis, Dept. of 

Commerce), and applied a value of $7.5 

million to each premature fatality 

avoided (2006 base year). In applying 

these values, OSHA estimates that the 

annual monetized value of the 53 

potentially avoidable fatalities is $397.5 

million. The estimated monetized value 

of avoiding the 155 injuries is $8.5 

million. Thus, total monetized benefits 

are $406 million. 

Non-Quantified Benefits 

OSHA believes that there are nonquantified injury benefits that are likely 

to result from other provisions of the 

proposal, and the 155 injuries should be 

considered a minimum estimate. The 

proposed provisions for signal persons, 

fall protection, work-area control, 

multiple lifts, hoisting personnel, and 

training, among others, are expected to 

result in safer working conditions that 

will reduce injuries to construction 

workers. Also, OSHA believes that 

employers and employees will benefit 

from the reorganization and plain 

language used in the proposal, which 

will make it easier for employers to 

comply with the requirements and, 

thus, improve construction safety 

conditions. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59885 

NET BENEFITS

Annualized Costs: 

Crane Assembly/Disassembly ................................................................................................................................... $33.5 million. 

Power Line Safety ..................................................................................................................................................... $30.8 million. 

Crane Inspections ..................................................................................................................................................... $21.6 million. 

Operator Qualification and Certification .................................................................................................................... $37.3 million. 

Total Annual Costs ..................................................................................................................................... $123.2 million. 

Annual Benefits: 

Number of Injuries Prevented ................................................................................................................................... 155. 

Number of Fatalities Prevented ................................................................................................................................ 53. 

Monetized Benefits ($50,000 per injury and $7.5 million per fatality prevented) ..................................................... $406 million. 

Net Monetized Benefits (Benefits Minus Costs): ...................................................................................................... $283 million annually. 

Sensitivity of Estimates 

The estimate of benefits is most 

sensitive to the estimated percentage of 

current annual fatalities that can be 

avoided by full compliance with the 

proposed standard. The percentage of 

fatalities that will be avoided is also 

applied to the estimate of avoided 

injuries involving cranes and derricks in 

construction. OSHA closely examined 

available reports of 29 fatalities that 

were related to the provisions in the 

existing and proposed standards and 

found that 17 would be prevented if 

measures in the proposal standard had 

been followed, or about 59 percent. 

Since the 29 detailed reports are a 

sample of all crane-related fatalities, the 

true benefits depend on how well the 29 

cases reviewed represent the actual 

accidents involving cranes. So, if the 

true percentage of avoided fatalities 

varied from the estimate by 10 percent 

(49 or 69 percent instead of 59 percent) 

there would be a 10 percent change in 

the number fatalities and injuries 

prevented. The Agency believes that its 

estimate of annual fatalities involving 

cranes (about 90) in the construction 

industry is much less sensitive than the 

estimate of the percentage of fatalities 

avoided, because both the estimate of 

the annual number of all construction 

fatalities (1,123) and percentage related 

to cranes and derricks were based on 10 

years of data. According to the Agency’s models for 

estimating costs and (monetized) 

benefits, the proposed standard 

generates considerable positive net 

benefits; that is, the benefits are much 

greater than costs. For net benefits to fall 

to zero, the Agency would have had to 

overestimate the number of fatalities 

prevented by the standard by several 

fold, from the estimated 55 fatalities 

prevented to about 16. Alternatively (for 

zero net benefits), the Agency would 

have had to underestimate the number 

of cranes and derricks in use—and the 

annual number of construction projects 

where cranes are used—by threefold, 

from about 96,000 cranes and derricks 

to 300,000. In that case estimated 

compliance costs would rise to over 

$400 million annually, or about equal to 

the value of estimated monetary 

benefits. 

5. Technological Feasibility 

In accordance with the OSH Act, 

OSHA is required to demonstrate that 

occupational safety and health 

standards promulgated by the Agency 

are technologically feasible. 

Accordingly, OSHA reviewed the 

requirements that would be imposed by 

the proposal, and assessed their 

technological feasibility. As a result of 

this review, OSHA has determined that 

compliance with the requirements of the 

proposal is technologically feasible for 

all affected industries. The proposal 

would require employers to perform 

crane inspections, utilize qualified or 

certified crane operators, address 

ground conditions, maintain safe 

distances from power lines using the 

encroachment prevention precautions, 

and to fulfill other obligations under the 

standard. Compliance with all of the 

proposed requirements can be achieved 

with readily and widely available 

technologies. Some businesses in the 

affected industries already implement 

the requirements of the proposed 

standard to varying degrees (some states 

have requirements), as noted during the 

SBREFA Panel. OSHA believes that 

there are no technological constraints in 

complying with any of the proposed 

requirements, and welcomes comments 

regarding this conclusion. 

6. Costs of Compliance 

This section presents the estimated 

costs of compliance for the proposed 

standard for cranes and derricks in 

construction. The estimated costs 

represent the additional costs necessary 

for employers to achieve full 

compliance, and these estimates do not 

include costs associated with current 

practices, or ‘‘baseline’’ activities, that 

affected employers already perform. If a 

national consensus standard exists, 

OSHA takes that standard as the 

‘‘baseline’’ reflecting current practices— 

costs are attributed for provisions in the 

proposal that are over and above current 

practices. If, however, the standard is 

more stringent than the consensus 

standard, all employers incur 

compliance costs solely attributable to 

the OSHA regulation. 

Table B–8 presents the total 

annualized estimated costs by provision 

across industry sectors. Information 

about how costs were calculated for 

each of the four major provisions is 

presented below. Table B–9 presents the 

average cost per affected establishment 

across industries. The total annualized 

cost of compliance with the proposed 

rule is estimated to be about $123 

million. The major provisions 

generating employer compliance costs 

are: assembly/disassembly, power-line 

safety, inspections, and operator 

qualification and certification. There are 

provisions in the standard that may 

generate minor, but new, costs for 

affected employers. These provisions 

are noted in detailed estimates of 

paperwork costs in that section of the 

preamble below. The Agency seeks 

comment on whether these costs are 

covered under current practices, or are 

of sufficient magnitude to affect the 

overall total of costs of the proposal. 

Estimation of Compliance Costs 

The costs of compliance presented in 

this analysis are based on data from the 

CB ‘‘2002 Economic Census,’’ IRS 

Statistics of Income ‘‘2002 Corporate 

Source Book,’’ and D&B ‘‘2002 Market 

Profiles.’’ OSHA’s cost model was 

originally developed as part of the 

Preliminary Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (PIRFA), prepared 

for the Small Business Advocacy 

Review Panel (the Panel). The Panel 

process solicited comment from small 

businesses which would be impacted by 

the new standard, and the Panel 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59886 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

provided recommendations and 

findings to OSHA. (The Panel’s 

recommendations and findings are 

presented in detail in section 8 Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.) That 

initial cost analysis has been revised in 

response to comments from the Panel’s 

small entity representatives (SERs), 

additional information received from 

potentially affected small businesses, 

and in response to the Panel’s 

recommendations and findings. 

TABLE B–8—ANNUALIZED COMPLIANCE COST BY SECTOR AND MAJOR PROVISION

NAIC/Industry 

Number of 

affected 

firms 

Number of 

affected 

estab’s 

Crane assembly/disassembly 

Power line 

safety 

Crane inspections 

Operator 

qualification 

certification 

Total 

anualized cost 

Crane Rental with Operators: 

238990 All Other Specialty 

Trade Contractors ..................... 1,183 1,240 .................... .................... $1,315,86 $2,550,661 $3,865,787 

Crane Rental without Operators (Bare 

Rentals): 

53248 Const./Min./For. Machine 

and Equipment .......................... 2,137 4,631 .................... .................... 13,614,435 6,601,232 20,215,667 

Own and Rent Cranes with Operators: 

236115 New Single-Family 

Housing Construction ................ 168 168 $19,067 $17,572 22,341 42,467 101,447 

236118 Residential Remodelers 21 21 5,388 4,966 6,314 8,001 28,669 

236210 Industrial Building Construction ..................................... 8 10 71,285 65,697 83,526 158,770 379,278 

236220 Commercial and Institutional Bldg. Construction ........... 21 28 62,687 57,773 73,452 139,621 333,534 

237110 Water and Sewer Line 

Construction .............................. 47 62 137,822 87,018 161,489 306,965 733,293 

23780 Oil and Gas Pipeline 

Construction .............................. 16 21 69,686 64,223 81,653 155,209 370,772 

237130 Power and Communication Line Construction ............... 36 36 47,622 43,889 55,800 106,068 253,380 

237310 Highway, Street, and 

Bridge Construction ................... 76 101 613,268 565,193 718,580 1,365,910 3,262,951 

237990 Other Heavy and Civil 

Engineering Construction .......... 143 191 501,156 461,870 587,216 1,116,207 2,666,449 

238110 Poured Concrete Foundations and Structures .............. 263 263 288,546 265,927 338,097 642,669 1,535,239 

23880 Structural Steel and Precast Concrete ............................ 239 319 444,986 410,103 521,401 991,103 2,367,593 

238130 Framing Contractors ..... 20 20 1,941 1,789 2,274 4,323 10,326 

238150 Glass and Glazing Contractors ...................................... 41 41 8,589 11,603 14,751 28,040 66,984 

238170 Siding Contractors ......... 3 3 1,207 1,18 1,414 2,688 6,421 

238190 Other Foundation, Structure, and Bldg. Contr’s .............. 26 35 47,708 43,968 55,901 106,259 253,836 

238210 Electrical Contractors .... 8 8 9,506 8,761 11,139 21,173 50,579 

238220 Plumbing, Heating, and 

Aircond. Contractors ................. 2 3 8,515 7,847 9,977 18,965 45,304 

238290 Other Building-Equipment Contractors ....................... 104 138 255,141 235,140 298,955 568,266 1,357,502 

238320 Painting and Wall-Covering Contractors ....................... 20 20 9,360 8,626 10,967 20,847 49,800 

238910 Site-Preparation Contractors ...................................... 311 324,607 299,161 380,350 722,986 1,727,104 

Subtotal .................................. 1,576 1,803 2,932,087 2,702,239 3,435,597 6,530,537 15,600,459 

Own but Do Not Rent: 

236115 New Single-Family 

Housing Construction ................ 2,915 2,915 567,182 522,720 664,580 1,263,264 3,017,746 

236116 New Multifamily Housing 

Construction .............................. 220 220 42,774 39,421 50,119 95,269 227,584 

236117 New Housing Operative 

Builders ..................................... 1,302 1,302 253,346 233,486 296,852 564,270 1,347,955 

236118 Residential Remodelers 827 827 160,958 148,340 188,598 358,495 856,391 

236210 Industrial Building Construction ..................................... 235 277 53,835 49,615 63,080 119,904 286,433 

236220 Commercial and Institutional Bldg. Construction ........... 3,718 3,718 723,374 666,669 847,595 1,611,147 3,848,786 

237110 Water and Sewer Line 

Construction .............................. 922 1,230 239,28 220,460 280,290 532,788 1,272,749 

23780 Oil and Gas Pipeline 

Construction .............................. 104 138 26,888 24,780 31,506 59,887 143,061 

237130 Power and Communication Line Construction ............... 225 300 58,349 53,775 68,368 89,958 310,449 

237210 Land Subdivision ........... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59887 

TABLE B–8—ANNUALIZED COMPLIANCE COST BY SECTOR AND MAJOR PROVISION—Continued 

NAIC/Industry 

Number of 

affected 

firms 

Number of 

affected 

estab’s 

Crane assembly/disassembly 

Power line 

safety 

Crane inspections 

Operator 

qualification 

certification 

Total 

anualized cost 

237310 Highway, Street, and 

Bridge Construction ................... 84 111 21,670 19,971 25,391 48,265 115,298 

237990 Other Heavy and Civil 

Engineering Construction .......... 516 516 100,305 92,442 117,530 223,407 533,685 

238110 Poured Concrete Foundations and Structures .............. 269 269 52,313 48,28 61,297 116,516 278,338 

23880 Structural Steel and Precast Concrete ............................ 400 400 77,863 71,759 91,234 173,421 414,278 

238130 Framing Contractors ..... 1,083 1,083 210,636 194,84 246,807 469,142 1,80,708 

238140 Masonry Contractors ..... 89 89 25,019 23,058 29,316 55,725 133,118 

238150 Glass and Glazing Contractors ...................................... 53 53 10,220 9,419 11,975 22,763 54,378 

238160 Roofing Contractors ...... 232 232 45,117 41,580 52,864 100,487 240,047 

238170 Siding Contractors ......... 33 33 6,449 5,943 7,556 14,363 34,311 

238190 Other Foundation, Structure, and Bldg. Contr’s .............. 14 14 2,676 2,466 3,136 5,961 14,239 

238210 Electrical Contractors .... 63 63 8,174 11,220 14,265 27,116 64,775 

238220 Plumbing, Heating, and 

Aircond. Contractors ................. 87 87 17,024 15,689 19,947 37,916 90,576 

238290 Other Building-Equipment Contractors ....................... 45 59 11,574 10,667 13,562 25,779 61,583 

238310 Drywall and Insulation 

Contractors ................................ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

238320 Painting and Wall-Covering Contractors ....................... 39 39 7,573 6,979 8,873 16,867 40,292 

238330 Flooring Contractors ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

238340 Tile and Terrazzo Contractors ...................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

238350 Finish Carpentry Contractors ...................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

238390 Other Building Finishing 

Contractors ................................ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

238910 Site-Preparation Contractors ...................................... 302 302 58,728 54,84 68,813 130,803 38,468 

Subtotal .................................. 13,815 14,316 2,785,259 2,566,921 3,263,555 6,203,513 14,819,248 

Crane Lessees in the Construction Industry: 

236115 New Single-Family 

Housing Construction ................ 29,236 29,236 5,688,159 5,242,261 .................... 3,167,261 14,097,680 

236116 New Multifamily Housing 

Construction .............................. 2,199 2,199 427,740 394,210 .................... 238,173 1,060,83 

236117 New Housing Operative 

Builders ..................................... 13,022 13,022 2,533,464 2,334,864 .................... 1,410,675 6,279,003 

236118 Residential Remodelers 8,275 8,275 1,609,985 

1,483,777 

.................... 896,466 3,990,228 

236210 Industrial Building Construction ..................................... 2,777 2,777 540,293 497,939 .................... 300,844 1,339,077 

236220 Commercial and Institutional Bldg.Construction ............ 37,208 37,208 7,239,192 6,671,707 .................... 4,030,901 17,941,801 

237110 Water and Sewer Line 

Construction .............................. 8,357 8,357 2,404,179 2,215,714 .................... 1,338,687 5,958,580 

23780 Oil and Gas Pipeline 

Construction .............................. 1,052 1,403 272,968 251,570 .................... 151,993 676,530 

237130 Power and Communication Line Construction ............... 2,263 3,017 586,988 540,973 .................... 326,844 1,454,806 

237210 Land Subdivision ........... 0 0 0 0 .................... 0 0 

237310 Highway, Street, and 

Bridge Construction ................... 843 1,84 218,666 201,525 .................... 81,757 541,948 

237990 Other Heavy and Civil 

Engineering Construction .......... 5,251 5,251 1,021,635 941,548 .................... 568,863 2,532,047 

238110 Poured Concrete Foundations and Structures .............. 1,358 1,358 264,85 243,420 .................... 147,069 654,614 

23880 Structural Steel and Precast Concrete ............................ 4,321 4,321 840,694 774,792 .................... 468,18 2,083,598 

238130 Framing Contractors ..... 10,841 10,841 2,109,275 1,943,927 .................... 1,174,479 5,227,681 

238140 Masonry Contractors ..... 1,286 1,286 250,204 230,591 .................... 139,318 620,113 

238150 Glass and Glazing Contractors ...................................... 529 529 103,000 94,926 .................... 57,352 255,278 

238160 Roofing Contractors ...... 2,319 2,319 451,224 415,852 .................... 251,249 1,118,325 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59888 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE B–8—ANNUALIZED COMPLIANCE COST BY SECTOR AND MAJOR PROVISION—Continued 

NAIC/Industry 

Number of 

affected 

firms 

Number of 

affected 

estab’s 

Crane assembly/disassembly 

Power line 

safety 

Crane inspections 

Operator 

qualification 

certification 

Total 

anualized cost 

238170 Siding Contractors ......... 332 332 64,516 59,459 .................... 35,924 159,898 

238190 Other Foundation, Structure, and Bldg. Contr’s .............. 139 139 27,102 24,978 .................... 15,091 67,171 

238210 Electrical Contractors .... 626 626 81,767 18,222 .................... 67,802 301,791 

238220 Plumbing, Heating, and 

Aircond. Contractors ................. 875 875 170,242 156,897 .................... 94,794 421,932 

238290 Other Building-Equipment Contractors ....................... 457 609 118,487 109,199 .................... 65,976 293,661 

238310 Drywall and Insulation 

Contractors ................................ 0 0 0 0 .................... 0 0 

238320 Painting and Wall-Covering Contractors ....................... 389 389 75,768 69,828 .................... 42,189 187,784 

238330 Flooring Contractors ...... 0 0 0 0 .................... 0 0 

238340 Tile and Terrazzo Contractors ...................................... 0 0 0 0 .................... 0 0 

238350 Finish Carpentry Contractors ...................................... 0 0 0 0 .................... 0 0 

238390 Other Building Finishing 

Contractors ................................ 0 0 0 0 .................... 0 0 

238910 Site-Preparation Contractors ...................................... 3,050 3,050 593,330 546,819 .................... 330,376 1,470,526 

Subtotal .................................. 141,004 142,542 27,733,005 25,558,997 .................... 15,442,194 68,734,196 

Total ................................ 159,715 164,532 33,450,351 30,828,157 21,628,713 37,328,136 83,235,357 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Economic Census, 2002; Dunn and Bradstreet, Market Profiles, 2002; Data from Table 2 for affected firms and 

establishments; Cost estimates from OSHA cost model, ORA. 

TABLE B–9—ANNUALIZED COMPLIANCE COSTS PER ESTABLISHMENTS BY SECTOR

NAIC/Industry Number of 

affected firms 

Number of affected estab’s 

Annualized 

compliance 

cost 

Cost per 

estab. 

Crane Rental with Operators: 

238990 All Other Specialty Trade Contractors ...................................... 1,183 1,240 $3,865,787 $3,118 

Crane Rental without Operators (Bare Rentals): 

532412 Const./Min./For. Machine and Equipment ................................ 2,137 4,631 20,215,667 4,365 

Own and Rent Cranes with Operators: 

236115 New Single-Family Housing Construction ................................ 168 168 101,447 604 

236118 Residential Remodelers ............................................................ 21 21 28,669 1,365 

236210 Industrial Building Construction ................................................ 8 10 379,278 37,928 

236220 Commercial and Institutional Building ....................................... 21 28 333,534 11,912 

237110 Water and Sewer Lines and Related Structures ...................... 47 62 733,293 11,827 

237120 Oil and Gas Pipelines and Related Structures ......................... 16 21 370,772 17,656 

237130 Power and Communication Lines and Related Struct. ............. 36 36 253,380 7,038 

237310 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction ................................ 76 101 3,262,951 32,306 

237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction ..................... 143 191 2,666,449 13,960 

238110 Poured Concrete Foundations and Structures ......................... 263 263 1,535,239 5,837 

238120 Structural Steel and Precast Concrete ..................................... 239 319 2,367,593 7,422 

238130 Framing Contractors ................................................................. 20 20 10,326 516 

238150 Glass and Glazing Contractors ................................................. 41 41 66,984 1,634 

238170 Siding Contractors .................................................................... 3 3 6,421 2,140 

238190 Other Foundation, Structure, and Building Contractors ........... 26 35 253,836 7,252 

238210 Electrical Contractors ................................................................ 12 12 50,579 4,215 

238220 Plumbing, Heating, and Air-Conditioning Contractors .............. 2 3 45,304 15,101 

238290 Other Building-Equipment Contractors ..................................... 104 138 1,357,502 9,837 

238320 Painting and Wall-Covering Contractors ................................... 20 20 49,800 2,490 

238910 Site Preparation Contractors ..................................................... 311 311 1,727,104 5,553 

Subtotal ............................................................................................. 1,576 1,803 15,600,459 

Own but Do Not Rent: 

236115 New Single-Family Housing Construction ................................ 2,915 2,915 3,017,746 1,035 

236116 New Multifamily Housing Construction ..................................... 220 220 227,584 1,035 

236117 New Housing Operative Builders .............................................. 1,302 1,302 1,347,955 1,035 

236118 Residential Remodelers ............................................................ 827 827 856,391 1,035 

236210 Industrial Building Construction ................................................ 235 277 286,433 1,035 

236220 Commercial and Institutional Bldg.Construction ....................... 3,718 3,718 3,848,786 1,035 

237110 Water and Sewer Lines and Related Structures ...................... 922 1,230 1,272,749 1,035 

237120 Oil and Gas Pipelines and Related Structures ......................... 104 138 143,061 1,035 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59889 

TABLE B–9—ANNUALIZED COMPLIANCE COSTS PER ESTABLISHMENTS BY SECTOR—Continued 

NAIC/Industry Number of 

affected firms 

Number of affected estab’s 

Annualized 

compliance 

cost 

Cost per 

estab. 

237130 Power and Communication Lines and Related Struct. ............. 225 300 310,449 1,035 

237210 Land Subdivision ....................................................................... 0 0 0 0 

237310 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction ................................ 84 111 115,298 1,035 

237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction ..................... 516 516 533,685 1,035 

238110 Poured Concrete Foundations and Structures ......................... 269 269 278,338 1,035 

238120 Structural Steel and Precast Concrete ..................................... 400 400 414,278 1,035 

238130 Framing Contractors ................................................................. 1,083 1,083 1,120,708 1,035 

238140 Masonry Contractors ................................................................. 129 129 133,118 1,035 

238150 Glass and Glazing Contractors ................................................. 53 53 54,378 1,035 

238160 Roofing Contractors .................................................................. 232 232 240,047 1,035 

238170 Siding Contractors .................................................................... 33 33 34,311 1,035 

238190 Other Foundation, Structure, and Building Contractors ........... 14 14 14,239 1,035 

238210 Electrical Contractors ................................................................ 63 63 64,775 1,035 

238220 Plumbing, Heating, and Air-Conditioning Contractors .............. 87 87 90,576 1,035 

238290 Other Building-Equipment Contractors ..................................... 45 59 61,583 1,035 

238310 Drywall and Insulation Contractors ........................................... 0 0 0 0 

238320 Painting and Wall-Covering Contractors ................................... 39 39 40,292 1,035 

238330 Flooring Contractors .................................................................. 0 0 0 0 

238340 Tile and Terrazzo Contractors .................................................. 0 0 0 0 

238350 Finish Carpentry Contractors .................................................... 0 0 0 0 

238390 Other Building Finishing Contractors ........................................ 0 0 0 0 

238910 Site Preparation Contractors ..................................................... 302 302 312,468 1,035 

Subtotal ............................................................................................. 13,815 14,316 14,819,248 

Crane Lessees in the Construction Industry: 

236115 New Single-Family Housing Construction ................................ 29,236 29,236 14,097,680 482 

236116 New Multifamily Housing Construction ..................................... 2,199 2,199 1,060,123 482 

236117 New Housing Operative Builders .............................................. 13,022 13,022 6,279,003 482 

236118 Residential Remodelers ............................................................ 8,275 8,275 3,990,228 482 

236210 Industrial Building Construction ................................................ 2,777 2,777 1,339,077 482 

236220 Commercial and Institutional Bldg.Construction ....................... 37,208 37,208 17,941,801 482 

237110 Water and Sewer Lines and Related Structures ...................... 12,357 12,357 5,958,580 482 

237120 Oil and Gas Pipelines and Related Structures ......................... 1,052 1,403 676,530 482 

237130 Power and Communication Lines and Related Struct. ............. 2,263 3,017 1,454,806 482 

237210 Land Subdivision ....................................................................... 0 0 0 0 

237310 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction ................................ 843 1,124 541,948 482 

237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction ..................... 5,251 5,251 2,532,047 482 

238110 Poured Concrete Foundations and Structures ......................... 1,358 1,358 654,614 482 

238120 Structural Steel and Precast Concrete ..................................... 4,321 4,321 2,083,598 482 

238130 Framing Contractors ................................................................. 10,841 10,841 5,227,681 482 

238140 Masonry Contractors ................................................................. 1,286 1,286 620,113 482 

238150 Glass and Glazing Contractors ................................................. 529 529 255,278 482 

238160 Roofing Contractors .................................................................. 2,319 2,319 1,118,325 482 

238170 Siding Contractors .................................................................... 332 332 159,898 482 

238190 Other Foundation, Structure, and Building Contractors ........... 139 139 67,171 482 

238210 Electrical Contractors ................................................................ 626 626 301,791 482 

238220 Plumbing, Heating, and Air-Conditioning Contractors .............. 875 875 421,932 482 

238290 Other Building-Equipment Contractors ..................................... 457 609 293,661 482 

238310 Drywall and Insulation Contractors ........................................... 0 0 0 0 

238320 Painting and Wall-Covering Contractors ................................... 389 389 187,784 482 

238330 Flooring Contractors .................................................................. 0 0 0 0 

238340 Tile and Terrazzo Contractors .................................................. 0 0 0 0 

238350 Finish Carpentry Contractors .................................................... 0 0 0 0 

238390 Other Building Finishing Contractors ........................................ 0 0 0 0 

238910 Site Preparation Contractors ..................................................... 3,050 3,050 1,470,526 482 

Subtotal ............................................................................................. 141,004 142,542 68,734,196

Total ........................................................................................... 159,715 164,532 123,235,357 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Economic Census, 2002; Dunn and Bradstreet, Market Profiles, 2002; Data from Table 2 for number of affected 

establishments; Cost estimates from OSHA cost model, ORA. 

Estimates of Cranes and Crane Jobs 

The Agency estimates that there are 

about 164,500 establishments using 

about 96,000 cranes that would fall 

under the scope of the proposal. In the 

PIRFA, the Agency had estimated the 

number of cranes at about 92,000, with 

fewer establishments using them. Based 

on comments from the Panel’s SERs, 

OSHA increased the estimated number 

of cranes in the Own but Do Not Rent 

category. OSHA also broadened and 

increased the industries and 

establishments in the Crane Lessees’ 

category—which has almost 90 percent 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59890 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

of all affected establishments—to 

include light and heavy construction 

entities. These revisions account for the 

difference in estimated establishments, 

firms, and employees between the 

PIRFA and this PEA. 

In the PIRFA, the Agency estimated 

the total annual number of crane jobs at 

368,000, or about 4 jobs per crane. For 

the purposes of this analysis, a crane job 

is defined as beginning when the crane 

is put into use at a site and ending when 

the crane is either moved (which 

triggers an assessment of ground 

conditions and power lines) or when an 

increasingly hazardous situation occurs 

(e.g., excess rain which affects ground 

conditions) which triggers other 

requirements of the standard (e.g., postassembly inspection, re-assembly, 

ground conditions assessment, power 

lines assessment). While no SER 

provided an alternative estimate of the 

number of crane jobs performed, some 

stated that OSHA’s estimate was 

extremely low—and that rented cranes 

are used much more frequently. Also, a 

few SERs stated that some 

establishments that were categorized as 

Crane Lessees own their own cranes, 

and some employers categorized as 

owning cranes typically lease them, or 

both own and lease their own cranes. As 

a result of these comments, the Agency 

increased its estimate of the number of 

cranes in use, as noted above, and 

increased the annual average number of 

crane jobs per establishment to five. 

With the increase in the number of 

establishments in the Crane Lessee 

sector and the number of cranes in use, 

the total number of annual crane jobs is 

estimated to be about 860,000 per year. 

(Also as a result of these changes, the 

intensity of use of rental cranes is 

estimated to be much higher—on 

average over ten jobs per year, per rental 

crane.) These revisions in the cost 

model resulted in a higher estimated 

total cost for the proposed standard 

compared to the PIRFA, as more 

establishments and cranes are affected; 

however, these revisions increase the 

average estimated per establishment 

cost only slightly. Table B–10 presents 

information on numbers of cranes and 

crane jobs across affected industry 

sectors. 

TABLE B–10—ESTIMATES OF CRANES, CRANE JOBS, AND AFFECTED CRANE OPERATORS FOR ALL ESTABLISHMENTS

NAIC/Industry Number of affected firms 

Number of affected estabs. Total cranes Cranes jobs Affected 

operators 

Crane Rental with Operators: 

238990 All Other Specialty Trade Contractors .......... 1,183 1,240 5,886 ........................ 5,886 

Crane Rental without Operators (Bare Rentals): 

532412 Constr./Min./For. Maching and Equipment ... 2,137 4,631 60,934 ........................ 15,233 

Own and Rent Cranes with Operators: 

236115 New Single-Family Housing Construction .... 168 168 98 490 98 

236118 Residential Remodelers ................................ 21 21 28 138 28 

236210 Industrial Building Construction .................... 8 10 366 1,832 366 

236220 Commercial and Institutional Bldg. Constr ... 21 28 322 1,611 322 

237110 Water and Sewer Line Construction ............. 47 62 708 3,542 708 

237120 Oil and Gas Pipeline Construction ................ 16 21 358 1,791 358 

237130 Power and Communication Line Constr ....... 36 36 245 1,224 245 

237310 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction .... 76 101 3,152 15,760 3,152 

237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Constr ... 143 191 2,576 12,879 2,576 

238110 Poured Concrete Foundations and Struct’s .. 263 263 1,483 7,415 1,483 

238120 Structural Steel and Precast Concrete ......... 239 319 2,287 11,436 2,287 

238130 Framing Contractors ..................................... 20 20 10 50 10 

238150 Glass and Glazing Contractors ..................... 41 41 65 324 65 

238170 Siding Contractors ......................................... 3 3 6 31 6 

238190 Other Foundation, Struct., and Bldg. Contr’s 26 35 245 1,226 245 

238210 Electrical Contractors .................................... 12 12 49 244 49 

238220 Plumb., Heat., and Aircond. Contractors ...... 2 3 44 219 44 

238290 Other Building-Equipment Contractors ......... 104 138 1,311 6,557 1,311 

238320 Painting and Wall-Covering Contractors ....... 20 20 48 241 48 

238910 Site-Preparation Contractors ......................... 311 311 1,668 8,342 1,668 

Subtotal .................................................................. 1,576 1,803 15,070 75,352 15,070 

Own but Do Not Rent 

236115 New Single-Family Housing Construction .... 2,915 2,915 2,915 14,576 2,915 

236116 New Multifamily Housing Construction ......... 220 220 220 1,099 220 

236117 New Housing Operative Builders .................. 1,302 1,302 1,302 6,511 1,302 

236118 Residential Remodelers ................................ 827 827 827 4,136 827 

236210 Industrial Building Construction .................... 235 277 277 1,384 277 

236220 Commercial and Institutional Bldg. Constr ... 3,718 3,718 3,718 18,590 3,718 

237110 Water and Sewer Line Construction ............. 922 1,230 1,230 6,148 1,230 

237120 Oil and Gas Pipeline Construction ................ 104 138 138 691 138 

237130 Power and Communication Line Constr ....... 225 300 300 1,500 300 

237210 Land Subdivision ........................................... 0 0 0 0 0 

237310 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction .... 84 111 111 557 111 

237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Constr ... 516 516 516 2,578 516 

238110 Poured Concrete Foundations and Struct’s .. 269 269 269 1,344 269 

238120 Structural Steel and Precast Concrete ......... 400 400 400 2,001 400 

238130 Framing Contractors ..................................... 1,083 1,083 1,083 5,413 1,083 

238140 Masonry Contractors ..................................... 129 129 129 643 129 

238150 Glass and Glazing Contractors ..................... 53 53 53 263 53 

238160 Roofing Contractors ...................................... 232 232 232 1,159 232 

238170 Siding Contractors ......................................... 33 33 33 166 33 

238190 Other Foundation, Struct., and Bldg. Constr 14 14 14 69 14 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59891 

TABLE B–10—ESTIMATES OF CRANES, CRANE JOBS, AND AFFECTED CRANE OPERATORS FOR ALL ESTABLISHMENTS— 

Continued 

NAIC/Industry Number of affected firms 

Number of affected estabs. Total cranes Cranes jobs Affected 

operators 

238210 Electrical Contractors .................................... 63 63 63 313 63 

238220 Plumb., Heat., and Aircond. Contractors ...... 87 87 87 437 87 

238290 Other Building-Equipment Contractors ......... 45 59 59 297 59 

238310 Drywall and Insulation Contractors ............... 0 0 0 0 0 

238320 Painting and Wall-Covering Contractors ....... 39 39 39 195 39 

238330 Flooring Contractors ...................................... 0 0 0 0 0 

238340 Tile and Terrazzo Contractors ...................... 0 0 0 0 0 

238350 Finish Carpentry Contractors ........................ 0 0 0 0 0 

238390 Other Building Finishing Contractors ............ 0 0 0 0 0 

238910 Site-Preparation Contractors ......................... 302 302 302 1,509 302 

Subtotal .................................................................. 13,815 14,316 14,316 71,578 14,316 

Crane Lessees in the Construction Industry: 

236115 New Single-Family Housing Construction .... 29,236 29,236 ........................ 146,180 7,309 

236116 New Multifamily Housing Construction ......... 2,199 2,199 ........................ 10,993 550 

236117 New Housing Operative Builders .................. 13,022 13,022 ........................ 65,108 3,255 

236118 Residential Remodelers ................................ 8,275 8,275 ........................ 41,375 2,069 

236210 Industrial Building Construction .................... 2,777 2,777 ........................ 13,885 694 

236220 Commercial and Institutional Bldg. Constr ... 37,208 37,208 ........................ 186,040 9,302 

237110 Water and Sewer Line Construction ............. 12,357 12,357 ........................ 61,785 3,089 

237120 Oil and Gas Pipeline Construction ................ 1,052 1,403 ........................ 7,015 351 

237130 Power and Communication Line Constr ....... 2,263 3,017 ........................ 15,085 754 

237210 Land Subdivision ........................................... 0 0 ........................ 0 0 

237310 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction .... 843 1,124 ........................ 5,620 281 

237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Constr ... 5,251 5,251 ........................ 26,255 1,313 

238110 Poured Concrete Foundations and Struct’s .. 1,358 1,358 ........................ 6,788 339 

238120 Structural Steel and Precast Concrete ......... 4,321 4,321 ........................ 21,605 1,080 

238130 Framing Contractors ..................................... 10,841 10,841 ........................ 54,206 2,710 

238140 Masonry Contractors ..................................... 1,286 1,286 ........................ 6,430 322 

238150 Glass and Glazing Contractors ..................... 529 529 ........................ 2,647 132 

238160 Roofing Contractors ...................................... 2,319 2,319 ........................ 11,596 580 

238170 Siding Contractors ......................................... 332 332 ........................ 1,658 83 

238190 Other Foundation, Struct., and Bldg. Constr 139 139 ........................ 697 35 

238210 Electrical Contractors .................................... 626 626 ........................ 3,129 156 

238220 Plumb., Heat., and Aircond. Contractors ...... 875 875 ........................ 4,375 219 

238290 Other Building-Equipment Contractors ......... 457 609 ........................ 3,045 152 

238310 Drywall and Insulation Contractors ............... 0 0 ........................ 0 0 

238320 Painting and Wall-Covering Contractors ....... 389 389 ........................ 1,947 97 

238330 Flooring Contractors ...................................... 0 0 ........................ 0 0 

238340 Tile and Terrazzo Contractors ...................... 0 0 ........................ 0 0 

238350 Finish Carpentry Contractors ........................ 0 0 ........................ 0 0 

238390 Other Building Finishing Contractors ............ 0 0 ........................ 0 0 

238910 Site-Preparation Contractors ......................... 3,050 3,050 ........................ 15,248 762 

Subtotal .................................................................. 141,004 142,542 ........................ 712,711 35,636 

Total ................................................................ 159,715 164,532 96,206 859,641 86,141 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Economic Census, 2002 for establishments and firms, except Crane Rental w/o Operators group; Dunn and 

Bradstreet, Market Profiles, 2002 for data for Crane Rental w/o Operators group; Profit rates from Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income 

2002 Corporation Source Book, 2002; Affected establish estimates from OSHA/Office of Regulatory Analysis (ORA). 

TABLE B–11—UNIT COST ESTIMATES FOR THE CRANES AND DERRICKS PROPOSED STANDARD

Section Requirement Incremental time Employee type (wage) 

Assembly/Disassembly (All Cases) Assess power line issues and 

ground conditions.

30 minutes per assessment (15 

minutes for power line conditions and 15 minutes for ground 

conditions).

Assembly/Disassembly (AD) Supervisor ($36.22). 

Power Line Safety—Assembly/Disassembly (Near Power Lines) 

(Estimated as 25% of Cases).

Line Contact Determination .......... 15 minutes per incidence ............. Qualified Person ($36.33). 

Planning Meeting & Voltage Information Request.20 minutes .................................... AD Supervisor ($36.22), Operator 

($31.37), Rigger ($18.59), Employee ($16.16). 

A dedicated spotter is needed .....

Spotter training .............................

2 hours per incident, 15 minutes 

(each).

Employee ($16.16), Employee 

($16.16), AD Supervisor 

($36.22). 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59892 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE B–11—UNIT COST ESTIMATES FOR THE CRANES AND DERRICKS PROPOSED STANDARD—Continued 

Section Requirement Incremental time Employee type (wage) 

Power Line Safety—Operations 

(Option 2 or 3)—Occurs in 30% 

of the jobs where cranes were 

not assembled near a power line 

(75%).

Elevated Warning Line and 20- 

foot determination.

15 minutes .................................... Employee ($16.16). 

Planning Meeting & Voltage Information Request.20 minutes .................................... Supervisor ($36.22), Operator 

($31.37), Rigger ($18.59), Employee ($16.16). 

Proximity Alarm/Other Operational 

Aids (25 % of Incidents).

0 minutes ...................................... Crane Operator ($31.37). 

Dedicated Spotter (75% of Incidents).4 hours per incident, 15 minutes 

(instruction).

Employee ($16.16), Employee 

($16.16), Supervisor ($36.22). 

Power Line Safety—Operations 

(Closer Than Table A) Occurs in 

the 5% of the jobs where cranes 

were not assembled near a 

power line (75%).

Minimum Clearance Determination.

Planning Meeting ..........................

..................................................

Dedicated Spotter .........................

Elevated Warning Line .................

1 hour ...........................................

..................................................

2 hours ..........................................

..................................................

4 hours ..........................................

15 minutes ....................................

Professional Engineer (PE) 

($63.59). 

Power Line Owner and PE 

($63.59 each). 

Employee ($16.16). 

Employee ($16.16). 

Equipment Grounding ................... 30 minutes .................................... PE ($63.59). 

Insulating Link ............................... $427 (Annualized Cost). 

Written Procedures ....................... Developed during planning meeting. 

Barricades ..................................... 15 minutes .................................... Employee ($16.16). 

Limit Access ................................. Discussed during instruction/training 

Non-Conductive Rigging ............... Already being done. 

Deactivate Automatic Re-energizer.30 minutes .................................... Line Owner or PE ($63.59). 

Crane Inspections .......................... Monthly Inspection ........................ 15 minutes per crane in addition 

to current time spent (includes 

2 minutes per crane for recordkeeping).

Competent Person ($20.15). 

Annual Inspection ......................... 15 minutes per crane in addition 

to current time spent (includes 

2 minutes per crane for recordkeeping).

Qualified Person ($36.33). 

Repair Inspections ........................ 15 minutes per crane (includes 2 

minutes per crane for recordkeeping).

Qualified Person ($36.33). 

Operator Training for Certification/ 

Qualification.

Certify operators ........................... Wages for operator’s training time (16 hours) for a 2-day course with 

examination. OSHA has included 2 additional hours for travel time. 

Thus, the total operator’s training time is 18 hours. 

Also, the cost for a 2-day course ($7,200) divided by 15 employees 

per class or about $480 per person. OSHA used an estimate of 

$500 per person. This estimate includes 2 minutes for recordkeeping. In addition to these costs, the cost for the actual examination averages about $250 per person. 

This totals about $1,314 per person (not annualized). 

Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis; BLS ‘‘Employment and Earnings, 2003.’’ 

Ground Conditions and Assembly/ 

Disassembly 

The proposal requires employers to 

ensure that site and ground conditions 

are adequate for safe assembly/ 

disassembly (A/D) operations, including 

meeting ground condition criteria. 

Initially, an A/D supervisor must assess 

the ground conditions for conformance 

with those criteria and assess the site for 

suitability for assembly and 

disassembly. Accordingly, before 

beginning assembly/disassembly, the A/ 

D supervisor would have to make the 

determination that ground-bearing 

conditions are adequate to support the 

equipment during assembly/ 

disassembly. In addition, the A/D 

supervisor would have to consider the 

adequacy of site conditions that might 

affect the safety of assembly or 

disassembly. For example, at a 

construction site in an industrial facility 

with overhead piping carrying 

hazardous materials, the A/D supervisor 

would have to consider the potential for 

the equipment contacting the piping in 

determining where and how to conduct 

the assembly/disassembly operations. 

The following is an example of how 

OSHA determined the cost for A/D 

operations. The cost for these operations 

for the Own-and-Rent-Cranes-withOperators sector in NAIC 236115 was 

estimated to be $19,067 annually (Table 

B–8). OSHA calculated this cost as 

follows: 

• Determining power-line and ground 

conditions for all jobs = $8,873 (490 

crane jobs/year × 0.5 hour of supervisor 

wage ($36.22/hour)); 

• Marking work zones = $495 (490 

crane jobs/year × 25% jobs near power 

lines × 0.25 hour of employee wage 

($16.04/hour)); 

• Holding assembly-planning 

meetings = $4,137 (490 crane jobs/year 

(490) × 0.25 hour × (supervisor wage 

($36.22/hour) + laborer wage ($16.04/ 

hour) + crane operator wage ($31.36/ 

hour) + rigger wage ($18.59/hour))); 

• Using dedicated spotters under 

Options 2 or 3 = $3,958; (490 crane jobs/ 

year × 25% of jobs × 2 hours × employee 

wage ($16.04/hour)); and 

• Training spotters = $1,604 (490 

crane jobs/year × 25% of jobs requiring 

spotters × 0.25 hours × (supervisor wage 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59893 

($36.22/hour) and laborer wage ($16.04/ 

hour))). 

Some subtotals above may not exactly 

match the figures in parenthesis due to 

rounding factors. 

C–DAC believed that crane tip-over 

incidents caused by inadequate ground 

conditions are a significant cause of 

injuries and fatalities. Conditions that 

increase the risk of such accidents 

include ground that is wet or muddy, 

poorly graded, or that consists of loose 

fill (or otherwise disturbed soil) that has 

not been sufficiently compacted. The 

Committee believed that requiring 

adequate ground conditions will 

prevent many of these accidents. 

To perform these assessments, OSHA 

estimates that 30 minutes, on average, of 

assembly/disassembly (AD) supervisor 

time would be needed for each crane job 

(Table B–11). While there are 

requirements for disassembly, the 

Agency estimates that all of the costs 

will be incurred during the assembly 

process. Most of the problems dealing 

with disassembly are prohibited 

practices, which do not involve new 

costs to employers. 

Many SERs offered input on the time 

needed to make the ground-condition 

assessment. While some time estimates 

were given, one SER stated that the time 

to assure adequate site assessment was 

not the issue; rather, the whole team 

needed to have input to assess the 

operations, including the crane 

operator. Another SER stated ‘‘this cost 

is part of normal operations.’’ Due to the 

range of estimates, OSHA believes that 

the 30-minute estimate is reasonable. 

The Agency did not assume any 

current baseline for the costs of this 

provision, and seeks comment about 

current practices. 

Power-Line Safety 

Under the proposed standard, before 

beginning crane operations, employers 

must either: (1) Define a work zone with 

demarcated boundaries by using flags or 

a device such as a range-limiting device 

or range-control warning device that 

prohibits the operator from operating 

the crane past those boundaries, or (2) 

define the work zone as the area 360 

degrees around the crane based on the 

crane’s maximum working radius (see 

proposed 1408(a)(1)). The Agency 

estimates that, in most cases, the leastcost option would be to mark the zone 

with flags. Based on the defined work 

zone, the employer must determine 

whether the crane, load, or load line, if 

operated to its maximum working 

radius, could get closer than 20 feet to 

a power line. The Agency estimates that 

it will take a qualified person about 15 

minutes to mark the work zone with 

flags and then determine whether the 

crane could come closer than 20 feet to 

a power line. 

If the 20-foot determination is 

positive, then the employer would be 

required to take additional steps. 

Specifically, the employer would be 

required to meet the proposed 

requirements under one of three 

options. If any part of the crane, load, 

or load line could not come within more 

than 20 feet of a power line, the 

employer would not be required to take 

any further action. 

The Agency estimates that 25 percent 

of all crane jobs would require that the 

crane be assembled or disassembled 

near a power line, which will take an 

estimated average of 15 additional 

minutes of a qualified person’s time. If 

the crane operations take the crane 

closer than 20 feet, the employer must 

either: (1) De-Energize and visibly 

ground the power line, (2) maintain the 

20-foot clearance, or (3) contact the 

utility owner/operator to get the line 

voltage and maintain the appropriate 

distance (listed in Table A of the 

proposal). If the employer chooses 

Option 2 or 3, the employer must then 

maintain the appropriate distance by 

implementing several encroachmentprevention procedures to ensure that the 

crane does not contact the energized 

power lines. The employer in either 

case is required to implement additional 

preventive encroachment measures, 

including having a planning meeting 

with the operator and other workers 

who will be in the area of the crane, 

erecting an elevated warning line, and 

using either a proximity alarm, 

operational aids/limiting devices, a 

dedicated spotter, or an insulating link. 

The Agency estimated that a designated 

spotter would be used in 75 percent of 

the cases and a proximity alarm would 

be used in the remaining 25 percent of 

cases. The Agency estimated that: the 

spotter would be on duty an average of 

2 hours per incident; 25 percent of 

cranes are already equipped with 

proximity alarms (at no new cost to 

employers); and operators would use 

the proximity alarm instead of a 

dedicated spotter. Therefore, Agency 

did not estimate compliance costs for 

retrofitting cranes with proximity 

alarms. 

Many SERs commented on this 

provision. The majority of them 

believed that, most of the time, a 

dedicated spotter would be used; 

accordingly, OSHA made no changes to 

the assumptions used to develop the 

costs for this provision. The Agency did 

not assume any baseline current 

practices for this provision, and seeks 

comment on this assumption. 

For cranes that are not assembled near 

power lines (75 percent of all crane 

jobs), there are times when those cranes 

will operate closer than 20 feet to a 

power line, thus triggering the 

encroachment precautions in the 

proposed standard. The Agency 

estimates that this situation will occur 

30 percent of the time, thereby affecting 

22.5 percent of all these crane jobs (i.e., 

30 percent × 75 percent = 22.5 percent 

of all crane-assembly jobs not near 

power lines). 

The responses from the SERs as to the 

number of jobs that required cranes to 

work closer than 20 feet to a power line 

varied. One SER stated that as much as 

50 percent of his jobs could be within 

20 feet of power lines. Another SER 

stated that 7.3 percent of their jobs are 

within 20 feet of power lines, and .04 

percent of jobs are within 10 feet of 

power lines. One SER stated that great 

variation exists in power-line situations; 

this SER had no power-line conflicts 

during the previous year, but in other 

years, the SER reported having three or 

four such conflicts. This SER stated 

further that after 20 years of craneoperation experience, his company had 

only been within two feet of a power 

line once, and then the power company 

was able to cut the power temporarily 

until the crane operations were finished. 

The proposed standard allows 

employers to operate cranes closer than 

the minimum approach distances 

outlined in Table A. The Agency 

estimates that the remaining 5 percent 

of crane jobs (of the 75 percent that will 

operate close to a power line, but not be 

assembled near one) are required to do 

all of the following: 

(1) Determine minimum clearance (1 

hour of professional engineer time); 

(2) Conduct a planning meeting (2 

hours each of line owner time and 

professional engineer time); 

(3) Provide a dedicated spotter (4 

hours per job); 

(4) Erect an elevated warning line (15 

minutes of laborer time); 

(5) Use an insulating link ($427 

annualized cost); 

(6) Ground equipment (30 minutes of 

professional engineer time); 

(7) Develop written procedures 

(during the meeting between the line 

owner and professional engineer); 

(8) Erect barricades (15 minutes of 

laborer time); 

(9) Limit access to employees (by 

informing employees of the limits 

during training, and by using 

barricades); 

(10) Provide non-conductive rigging 

(already being done under consensus 

standards and current industry 

practice); and 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59894 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

(11) Deactivate automatic reenergizers (30 minutes for the line 

owner or professional engineer). 

Due to the closeness of the power line 

to the crane operations in these 

situations, many SERs stated that they 

perform duties similar to those required 

by the proposed standard. Some even 

stated that they go beyond what is 

required in the proposal by establishing 

‘‘no swing’’ zones, marking boundaries 

of these zones with safety fencing and 

signs, and assigning a spotter to stay in 

communication with the operator to 

keep the crane boom out of the swing 

zone. Another SER stated that the power 

line could either be de-energized or 

relocated until the project is completed. 

This opinion was not shared by many 

other SERs, who believed that getting 

the power line de-energized is not an 

option. One SER stated that OSHA has 

failed to recognize the logistics of a 

power-line situation, which involve 

meetings, planning, and making 

preparations. This SER continued by 

stating that the utility company often 

adds costs through delays, and that 

costs of preparation are substantial and 

not accounted for by OSHA. Also, each 

job is specific, and it would be 

irresponsible to generalize the costs to 

do this work. Another SER stated that 

OSHA’s estimates of costs were too low 

because OSHA omitted necessary travel 

time and support equipment, and 

underestimated wages. OSHA believes 

its estimates accurately reflect the 

(average) costs attributable to the 

proposed provisions on power-line 

safety, but requests comment from the 

public on the estimates. 

The following is an example of how 

OSHA determined the cost of the 

proposed power-line safety 

requirements. The total cost of these 

requirements for the Own-and-RentCranes-with-Operators sector in NAIC 

236115 was estimated to be $17,752 

(Table B–8), which is the sum of annual 

costs for operations near power lines 

($3,714) and operations closer to power 

lines than the distances specified in 

Table A ($13,858). These cost estimates 

are based on this sector’s use of 98 

cranes on 490 jobs (Table B–10), as well 

as the unit costs described in Table B– 

11. 

The cost of operations near power 

lines ($3,714) was estimated as follows: 

• Hold planning meetings = $3,269 

(490 crane jobs/year × 75 percent of 

crane-assembly jobs not near power 

lines × 30 percent of jobs near power 

lines × 0.25 hour × (wages for 2 laborers 

(2 × $16.04/hour) + crane-operator wage 

($31.36/hour) + rigger wage ($18.59/ 

hour) + qualified-person wage ($36.33/ 

hour))); and 

• Determine location for elevated 

warning line and 20-foot distance = 

$445 (490 crane jobs/year × 75 percent 

of crane-assembly jobs not near power 

lines × 30 percent of jobs near power 

lines × 0.25 hour of employee wages 

($16.04/hour). 

For operations near power lines closer 

than the distances specified in Table A, 

the Agency estimated annual cost 

($13,858) as follows: 

• Determine minimum clearance 

distance = $1,168 (490 crane jobs/year × 

75 percent crane-assembly jobs not near 

power lines × 5 percent affected × 1.00 

hour × professional-engineer (or 

equivalent) wage ($63.59/hour)); 

• Hold a planning meeting = $3,516 

(490 crane jobs/year × 75 percent craneassembly jobs not near power lines × 5 

percent affected jobs × (2.00 hours × 

professional engineer (or equivalent) 

wage ($63.59/hour) + 4.00 hours 

dedicated-spotter wage ($16.04/hour))); 

• Insulation for power line = $7,846 

(490 crane jobs/year × 75 percent craneassembly jobs not near power lines × 5 

percent affected jobs × $427/insulation 

unit ($15,000/unit annualized over 10 

years at 7 percent with 5 crane jobs/ 

unit/year)); 

• Determine location for elevated 

warning lines = $74 (490 crane jobs/year 

× 75 percent crane-assembly jobs not 

near power lines × 5 percent affected 

jobs × 0.25 hour × laborer wage ($16.04/ 

hour)); 

• Ground equipment = $584 (490 

crane jobs/year × 75 percent craneassembly jobs not near power lines × 5 

percent affected jobs × 0.50 hour × 

professional engineer (or equivalent) 

wage ($63.59/hour)); 

• Erect and remove barricades = $74 

(490 crane jobs/year × 75 percent craneassembly jobs not near power lines × 5 

percent affected jobs × 0.25 hour × 

laborer wage ($16.04/hour)); and 

• Deactivate automatic re-energizer = 

$584 (490 crane jobs/year × 75 percent 

crane-assembly jobs not near power 

lines × 5 percent affected jobs × 0.50 

hour × power-line owner wage ($63.59/ 

hour)). 

Inspections 

The proposed standard requires 

several crane inspections. The Agency 

did not attribute any costs to daily 

visual inspections because these are 

already required in some instances and 

are a common industry practice. 

However, monthly, annual, and repair 

inspections will result in some 

incremental compliance costs 

attributable to the proposed standard. 

Depending upon the type of crane, the 

current standard already requires 

monthly inspections and documentation 

for some equipment. Further, the 

current standard requires annual 

inspections (and documentation) of 

hoisting machinery. The Agency 

estimates that additional measures 

outlined in the proposed standard 

would result in some incremental cost 

increase. Thus, the Agency estimates an 

additional 15 minutes per crane for each 

type of inspection (including time spent 

for recordkeeping) is needed to comply 

with the additional measures in the 

proposed standard—the time necessary 

for a competent person to conduct a 

monthly inspection and for a qualified 

person to conduct an annual inspection. 

OSHA also estimates that employers 

would incur a cost to re-inspect cranes 

that have been repaired. The Agency 

estimates that 10 percent of all cranes 

will be repaired annually. The Agency 

further estimates that an additional 15 

minutes of a qualified person’s time 

would be needed to re-inspect the crane. 

The 15 minutes is an additional, 

incremental amount as employers are 

already performing some kind of 

equipment re-inspection to ensure that 

the equipment is safe to operate. 

The following is an example of how 

OSHA determined the cost of the 

proposed inspection requirements. The 

total annual cost of these requirements 

for the Own-and-Rent-Cranes-withOperators sector in NAIC 236115 was 

estimated to be $22,341 (Table B–8). 

This cost estimate is based on this sector 

operating 98 cranes (Table B–10). The 

total cost consists of the sum of costs for 

annual and monthly inspections, as well 

as inspections following crane repairs, 

determined as follows: 

• Monthly inspections = $21,362 (98 

cranes × 12 months × 0.5 hours (Table 

B–11) × competent-person wage 

($36.33/hour)); 

• Annual inspections = $890 (98 

cranes × 0.25 hours (from Table B–11) 

× qualified-person wage ($36.22/hour)); 

• Re-inspections following repairs = 

$89 (98 cranes × 0.1 repaired cranes × 

0.25 hours (Table B–11) × qualified 

person wage ($36.33)). 

The annual and monthly inspections 

were non-controversial among the SERs, 

but the shift inspections sparked 

considerable response. One SER did not 

believe that the proposed standard 

should dictate that inspections must be 

performed prior to each shift. Also, the 

SER stated that some deficiencies only 

become apparent after operations begin. 

Implementing remedies then impacts 

the work, putting the operator in a 

difficult situation. This SER requested 

that OSHA align the proposal with the 

provisions in ANSI B30.5–2.1.2, which 

calls for ‘‘frequent inspections’’ at 

‘‘daily to monthly intervals.’’ Another 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59895 

SER believed that the required 

inspections would make operations 

safer, and his company would not have 

difficulty accepting them. Likewise, 

another SER stated that his company 

currently performs many of the 

inspections that are included in the 

proposed standard, but does not 

document the inspections as the 

proposal requires. 

OSHA concludes that its time 

estimates (Table B–11) for inspections 

presented in the PIRFA are reasonable. 

The Agency seeks comment on these 

estimates, including the cost and extent 

of inspection documentation. 

Operator Certification 

The proposed standard requires 

operators to be certified or qualified. 

The Agency assumes only one operator 

for each crane, on average, in all craneusing sectors, and one operator for every 

four cranes in firms that rent cranes 

without operators. In addition, OSHA 

estimated a 23 percent annual turnover 

among crane operators, and that about 

one-third of the replacement operators 

(i.e., 8 percent of all operators) would 

require certification/qualification; 

accordingly, OSHA assumes that the 

remaining replacements are properly 

certified/qualified crane operators. 

Compared to the current standards, 

the proposed standard requires more 

information that operators must know 

and understand, necessitating more 

training resources. Of the total number 

of existing operators, the Agency 

estimates that 70 percent would need to 

be certified or qualified. The remainder 

would already be certified as a result of 

existing state and local requirements. 

To estimate the cost for crane 

operators’ certification/qualification, the 

Agency used the least-cost option: 

employees attending a two-day test 

preparation course and taking the 

necessary examinations to be certified to 

operate a crane. This method would cost 

about $1,314 per operator (not 

annualized, see Table B–11 for details of 

this estimated cost). This figure reflects 

the total cost of the course, test, 

recordkeeping, and wages for operator 

course time. The Agency also estimates 

that 15 percent of the total number of 

operators needing certification/ 

qualification would fail the first test and 

need to retake the test-preparation 

course. Eight percent would need to be 

certified/qualified each year due to 

employee turnover; that is, training of 

new entrants rather than certified/ 

qualified operators moving within the 

industry. OSHA’s estimates also include 

the time needed to develop and retain 

certification/qualification records. The 

Agency has assumed that employers 

will pay for both the course and 

employee wages during training, and 

seeks comment on this assumption. In 

this regard, some industries such as 

commercial trucking and aviation 

require employees to pay wholly or 

partially for their training or 

certification. 

The annualized cost of training/ 

certification is $750 per operator in 

course expenses and 18 hours for wages 

at $31.36/hour to attend a course, which 

is about $1,314, or $187 when 

annualized over 10 years at 7 percent. 

In addition, there are annual costs for 

training new entrants (8 percent of all 

operators) and for operators to retake the 

course and tests (15 percent of all 

operators). For example, from Table B– 

8, the total cost of this provision for the 

Own-and-Rent-Cranes-with-Operators 

sector in NAIC 236115 is $42,467, 

assuming the industry has an estimated 

98 operators (Table B–10). The total cost 

of this provision was determined as 

follows: 

• Initial training (annualized) = 

$12,828 (98 operators × 70 percent 

(baseline training/certification) × $187 

(annualized training cost)); 

• Training for new entrants = $10,302 

(98 operators × 8 percent (new entrants) 

× $1,314 (non-annualized training cost); 

and 

• Retaking training = $19,316 (98 

operators × 15 percent (operators 

needing to retake training) × $1,314 

(non-annualized training cost)). 

Many SERs objected to provisions in 

the proposed standard for operator 

certification/qualification, though some 

SERs found that the proposed standard 

adequately addresses a long-neglected 

problem for the construction industry. 

One SER expressed concern that his 

operator, due to his difficulty in taking 

written tests, would not be able to pass 

a written exam. The proposed standard 

allows for written tests to be 

administered orally as long as the 

employee can demonstrate the level of 

literacy needed to use the 

manufacturer’s written procedures for 

the class/type of equipment that he/she 

would be operating. Also, the Panel 

recommended that OSHA consider and 

solicit public comment on allowing an 

operator to be certified for a specific, 

limited type of operation. In such a case, 

a defined set of parameters would limit 

the operator to simple, relatively lowrisk operations. OSHA seeks comment 

on whether such parameters could be 

identified in a way that would result in 

a clear, easily understood provision that 

could be effectively enforced. 

Some SERs were concerned that, to 

become certified/qualified, employees 

would have to be proficient in English. 

These SERs were concerned that, as a 

result, the certification/qualification 

requirement would be burdensome for 

employers who have operators who are 

unable to speak English. The Panel 

stated that the proposed standard does 

not require that the certification/ 

qualification process be administered in 

English. First, the proposed rule allows 

employees to take the written portion of 

the certification/qualification test orally; 

there is no requirement that testing be 

done in English. In such a case, the 

operator candidate would have to 

demonstrate the ability to read and 

locate relevant information in the 

equipment manual and other related 

materials. However, the proposed 

standard does not specify that such 

materials be in English. In short, the 

candidates must have a level of literacy 

commensurate with the materials. If 

materials are in the candidate’s 

language, the terms of the provision 

would be met. 

Provisions in the Proposed Standard 

without Major Cost 

The provisions described above 

contain the requirements OSHA 

believes will result in major costs for 

affected employers. There are, of course, 

numerous other requirements in the 

proposal that the Agency assumes will 

not impose any compliance costs. 

OSHA notes, however, that even if some 

of these provisions resulted in costs to 

employers, they would not, in total, be 

of a magnitude to affect the economic 

feasibility findings of this PEA. The 

compliance costs of the proposed rule 

are small with respect to the average 

revenues and profits of affected 

establishments. Even if there were 

additional costs placed on employers by 

the proposed rule, it would not 

‘‘ ‘threaten massive dislocation’ to or 

imperil the existence of the industry’’ 

(United Steelworkers v. Marshall, 647 

F.2d 1189, 1265 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (cert. 

denied) (cites omitted)). (Section 7 of 

this PEA also discusses economic 

feasibility.) The Agency seeks comments 

on this and all assumptions used in this 

analysis. 

Many of the provisions in the 

proposed rule are similar to existing 

national consensus standards. In some 

instances, the C–DAC incorporated 

national consensus standards by 

reference. (See, e.g., proposed 

1926.1414(c)(4)(ii)(C); 

1926.1423(c)(2)(i); 1926.1433(b); 

1926.1436(c)(1)(ii); 1926.1438(b)(2)(iii); 

1926.1440(c). In other instances, the C– 

DAC adopted the substantive 

requirements of a national consensus 

standard, but clarified the text and made 

it enforceable. For example, most of the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59896 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

requirements in proposed 1926.1436, 

Derricks are similar to those in ANSI/ 

ASME B30.6–2003, while proposed 

1926.1426, Free Fall and Controlled 

Load Lowering includes the protective 

methods and mechanisms found in 

ASME B30.5–2004. These national 

consensus standards reflect industry 

current practices and are the baseline 

against which the new, incremental 

costs and benefits of the proposed rule 

are measured. Therefore, if the proposed 

rule requires a level of safety equivalent 

to that in an existing national consensus 

standard, then no difference exists 

between the proposed regulatory 

language and the baseline, and the 

proposed rule imposes no additional 

cost on employers. If, however, the 

proposed standard is more stringent 

than the consensus standard, the 

Agency concludes that all employers 

would incur new, incremental 

compliance costs solely attributable to 

the OSHA rule. 

In addition, some of the provisions in 

the proposal are already required by, or 

based on provisions in, existing Subpart 

N. Section 1926.1425, Keeping Clear of 

the Load, for example, sets forth 

requirements to ensure that employees 

are protected from struck-by hazards 

associated with lifted and suspended 

loads. A similar requirement to keep 

employees clear of ‘‘loads about to be 

lifted and suspended’’ is in existing 

Subpart N at 1926.550(a)(19). Also, as 

explained in the Summary and 

Explanation section of the preamble 

above, proposed 1926.1431, Hoisting 

Personnel essentially duplicates existing 

requirements of Subpart N, as does 

proposed 1926.1418, Authority to Stop 

Operation. (See, also, proposed 1424, 

Work Area Control and proposed 1434, 

Equipment Modifications.) Because 

OSHA assumes employers are already 

complying with the requirements in 

existing Subpart N, provisions in the 

proposal that essentially duplicate these 

requirements would result in no 

incremental compliance costs to 

employers. 

Finally, as described above, the 

members of the C–DAC had vast 

experience with cranes/derricks and, 

when appropriate, developed 

requirements that reflect current 

industry practices. For some provisions, 

the Committee determined that a 

different approach was warranted (e.g., 

power-line safety and operator 

qualification/certification). As described 

above, OSHA provided estimated costs 

for these provisions. 

In the table below, OSHA identifies 

provisions in the proposed rule that do 

not result in new, incremental 

compliance costs and provides its 

rationale for this determination. During 

the SBAR Panel process, SERs did not 

identify any of the provisions in the 

table below as imposing significant new 

costs. 

TABLE B–12—PROVISIONS FOR WHICH OSHA DID NOT ESTIMATE NEW, INCREMENTAL COSTS

Proposed requirement Consensus standard/comment 

1413 Wire Rope—inspections .................................................................. Reflects similar concepts found in ASME B30.5 (2004). 

(b) Monthly inspections—(1) Each month an inspection shall be conducted in accordance with paragraph 1413(a) (wire rope shift inspection). 

(c) Annual/comprehensive—(1) At least every 12 months, wire ropes in 

use on equipment shall be inspected by a qualified person in accordance with paragraph 1413 (a) (shift inspection). 

1415 Safety devices ................................................................................. Similar devices are found in ASME B30.5 (2004). 

(a) Safety devices. The following safety devices are required on all 

equipment covered by this Subpart, unless otherwise specified: (1) 

Crane level indicator; (2) Boom stops, except for derricks and hydraulic booms; (3) Jib stops (if a jib is attached), except for derricks; 

(4) Equipment with foot pedal brakes shall have locks, except for 

portal cranes and floating cranes; (5) Hydraulic outrigger jacks shall 

have an integral holding device/check valve; and (6) Equipment on 

rails shall have rail clamps and rail stops, except for portal cranes.

While ASME does not require work to be delayed if the devices are not 

in proper working order-which the proposal does require. Current 

crane inspection requirements provide that any deficiencies be identified. 

(b) Proper operation required. Operations shall not begin unless the 

devices listed in this section are in proper working order. If a device 

stops working properly during operations, the operator shall safely 

stop operations. Operations shall not resume until the device is again 

working properly. Alternative measures are not permitted to be used.

1416 Operational aids .............................................................................. Similar to requirements in ASME B30.5–2004. 

(a) The devices listed in this section (‘‘listed operational aids’’) are required on all equipment covered by this Subpart, unless otherwise 

specified. 

(d) Category 1 operational aids and alternative measures: (1) Boom 

hoist limiting device; (2) Luffing jib limiting device; (3) Anti two-blocking device. 

(e) Category 2 operational aids: (1) Boom angle or radius indicator; (2) 

Jib angle indicator if the equipment has a luffing jib; (3) Boom length 

indicator if the equipment has a telescopic boom, except where the 

load rating is independent of the boom length; (4) Load weighing and 

similar devices; (5) Outrigger position (horizontal beam extension) 

sensor/monitor if the equipment has outriggers; and (5)(ii) Hoist drum 

rotation indicator if the drum is not visible from the operator’s station. 

1417 Operation ......................................................................................... OSHA believes this duty is currently performed by a supervisor or 

other personnel in accord with similar provisions in ASME B30.5 

(2004). 

(u)(2) Where traveling with a load, the employer shall ensure that: (i) A 

competent person supervises the operation, determines if it is necessary to reduce rated capacity, and makes determinations regarding 

load position, boom location, ground support, travel route, overhead 

obstructions, and speed of movement necessary to ensure safety. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59897 

TABLE B–12—PROVISIONS FOR WHICH OSHA DID NOT ESTIMATE NEW, INCREMENTAL COSTS—Continued 

Proposed requirement Consensus standard/comment 

1423 Fall protection .................................................................................. The proposal requires all new equipment built with lattice booms to 

have walkways. The Agency estimates this will add $4,000 to the 

crane’s price, a small percentage of a crane’s cost. There is no requirement to retrofit existing cranes, and, therefore, no estimated 

costs imposed on employers. 

(b)(1) Boom Walkways. Equipment manufactured more than one year 

after effective date of standard with lattice booms shall be equipped 

with walkways on the boom(s) if the vertical profile of the boom (from 

cord centerline to cord centerline) is 6 or more feet. 

1428 Signal Person Qualifications ........................................................... The Agency believes this is a very minor cost and seeks comment on 

current practices from the public. 

Paragraph (a)(3) requires that the signal personal evaluation be documented 

1430 Training ............................................................................................ The proposal includes an employer evaluation. OSHA believes this 

evaluation is currently being made by employers; thus the Agency 

did not estimate additional compliance costs. 

(g)(1) The employer shall ensure that employees required to be trained 

under this Subpart are evaluated to confirm that they understand the 

information provided in the training. 

1432 Multiple-crane/derrick lifts Plan development [paragraph (a)] is required before lifts with more than one piece of equipment.2004 ANSI B30.5—3.2.1.5(k) A designated person (DP) is responsible 

for multi-crane lifts. The DP must analyze the operation, direct all 

personnel, and address changes in crane ratings, load position, 

boom location, ground support, and speed, which the Agency believes is equivalent to the proposal. 

(b)(2) Supervisors must review the plan with workers ............................. The Agency seeks comment on whether 1432(b)(2) is current industry 

practice. The Agency’s paperwork package has estimated that this 

function may entail some costs; however, if it is current practice this 

provision would not add a new cost of compliance. 

1433 Design, construction, and testing .................................................... 2004 ANSI 30.5 Chapters 5.1 and 5.2 

These provisions explicitly reference ANSI B30.5, SAE J 987 and 1063 

for criteria.

The Agency believes that the consensus standards are equivalent to 

provisions in the proposal. 

1437 Floating cranes/derricks Paragraph (n)(2) refers to reducing the 

rating of land cranes used on vessels.

2004 ANSI B30.5–1.1.1(e) specifies that this determination be made by 

the manufacturer or a qualified person. The Agency believes this is 

equivalent to the proposal. 

Sensitivity of Estimates 

The primary variable affecting the 

estimate of the total cost of the standard 

is the Agency’s estimate of the number 

of cranes, and, secondarily, the average 

annual number of jobs performed per 

crane. All four of the major provisions 

that generate costs (operator 

certification, assembly/disassembly, 

inspections, and power-line safety) 

depend on the number of cranes. Costs 

for operators’ certification and 

inspections are almost wholly a 

function of the number of cranes. The 

total estimated cost of the proposal 

varies directly and in rough proportion 

to the estimate of the number of cranes, 

with some minor dependence on the 

industries in which cranes are found. 

(The Agency has also estimated costs for 

operator certification as if all operators 

will be certified in the first year of the 

proposed four-year phase-in period. If 

included in the analysis, this factor (the 

4-year phase-in) could introduce 

sources of variation in employers’ costs 

as well.) The Agency’s estimate of the 

average annual number of jobs per crane 

drives costs for jobsite assembly/ 

disassembly and power-line safety 

provisions and is a secondary source of 

variability of cost estimates. However, 

this statistic introduces possible 

variability on the economic impact on 

employers, since it affects individual 

employer costs. In comparison, the 

estimate of the total number of cranes 

affects overall cost estimates without 

affecting individual employer costs in 

the cost model. 

When the initial one-time cost of 

operator qualification/certification is 

annualized with a 3 percent rather than 

a 7 percent discount rate, the annual 

total costs are little affected. The cost for 

that provision alone falls to about $35.3 

million annually from about $37.3 

million, similarly reducing total annual 

costs from about $123 million to $121 

million, or less than two percent. The 

overall costs are therefore not sensitive 

to the discount rate used in cost 

modeling. 

7. Economic Feasibility and Impacts 

This section presents OSHA’s analysis 

of the potential economic impacts of the 

proposal and an assessment of economic 

feasibility. A separate analysis of the 

potential economic impacts on small 

entities (as defined by the criteria 

established by the Small Business 

Administration) and on very small 

entities (employers with fewer than 20 

employees) is presented in the following 

section as part of the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, conducted in 

accordance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

A standard is economically feasible if 

it does not threaten massive dislocation 

to an industry or imperil its existence. 

(See United Steelworkers v. Marshall, 

647 F.2d 1189 (D.C. Cir. 1980)). The 

court also found that a standard that is 

financially burdensome or threatens the 

survival of some companies in an 

industry is also not sufficient to render 

it infeasible. Further, the cost of 

compliance with an OSHA standard 

must be analyzed ‘‘in relation to the 

financial health and profitability of the 

industry and the likely effect of such 

costs on unit consumer prices.’’ Id. The 

court also found that ‘‘the practical 

question is whether the standard 

threatens the competitive stability of an 

industry, or whether any intra-industry 

or inter-industry discrimination in the 

standard might wreck such stability or 

lead to undue concentration.’’ Id. 

To assess the potential economic 

impacts of the proposed rule, OSHA 

compared the anticipated costs of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59898 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

achieving compliance against revenues 

and profits of establishments affected by 

the rule. This screening analysis is 

presented in Table B–13. This table is 

considered a screening analysis because 

it measures costs as a percentage of pretax profits and revenues, but does not 

predict impacts on pre-tax profits and 

sales. This screening analysis is used to 

determine whether the compliance costs 

potentially associated with the standard 

would lead to significant impacts on 

establishments in the affected 

industries. The actual impact of the 

standard on the profits and revenues of 

establishments in a given industry will 

depend on the price elasticity of 

demand for the services sold by 

establishments in that industry. 

Price elasticity refers to the 

relationship between the price charged 

for a service and the demand for that 

service; that is, the more elastic the 

relationship, the less able an 

establishment is to pass the costs of 

compliance through to its customers in 

the form of a price increase and the 

more it will have to absorb the costs of 

compliance from its profits. 

When demand is inelastic, 

establishments can recover all the costs 

of compliance simply by raising the 

prices they charge for that service; 

under this scenario, profits are 

untouched. On the other hand, when 

demand is elastic, establishments 

cannot recover all the costs simply by 

passing the cost increase through in the 

form of a price increase; instead, they 

must absorb some of the increase from 

their profits. In general, ‘‘when an 

industry is subject to a higher cost, it 

does not simply swallow it, it raises its 

price and reduces its output, and in this 

way shifts a part of the cost to its 

consumers and a part to its suppliers,’’ 

American Dental Association v. 

Secretary of Labor, (984 F.2d 823, 829 

(7th Cir. 1993). Specifically, if demand 

is completely inelastic (i.e., price 

elasticity is 0), then the impact of 

compliance costs that amount to 1 

percent of revenues would be a 1 

percent increase in the price of the 

product or service, with no decline in 

demand or profits. Such a situation 

would be most likely when there are 

few, if any, substitutes for the product 

or service offered by the affected sector 

or if the products or services of the 

affected sector account only for a small 

portion of the income of its consumers. 

If the demand is perfectly elastic (i.e., 

the price elasticity is infinitely large), 

then no increase in price is possible, 

and before-tax profits would be reduced 

by an amount equal to the costs of 

compliance (minus any savings 

resulting from improved worker health 

and reduced insurance costs). Under 

this scenario, if the costs of compliance 

represent a large percentage of the 

sector’s profits, some establishments 

might be forced to close. This scenario 

is highly unlikely to occur, however, 

because it can only arise when there are 

other goods and services that are, in the 

eye of the consumer, perfect substitutes 

for the goods and services the affected 

establishments produce or provide. 

TABLE B–13—ESTIMATES OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS FOR AFFECTED ESTABLISHMENTS ACROSS INDUSTRY SECTORS

NAIC/Industry 

Affected Avg. revenues per 

estab. 

(1,000) 

Avg. profits per 

estab. 

(1,000) 

Cost per 

estab. 

Cost as a 

percent of 

revenues 

Cost as a 

percent of 

Firms Estab’s profits 

Crane Rental with Operators: 

238990 All Other Specialty Trade Cont ..................... 1,183 1,240 1,918 79 3,118 0.16 3.97 

Crane Rental without Operators (Bare Rentals): 

532412 Const./Min./For. Machine & Equip ................ 2,137 4,631 3,289 132 4,365 0.13 3.32 

Own and Rent Cranes with Operators: 

236115 New Single-Family Housing Const ............... 168 168 233 10 604 0.26 5.87 

236118 Residential Remodelers ................................ 21 21 528 23 1,365 0.26 5.87 

236210 Industrial Building Construction .................... 8 10 14,656 646 37,928 0.26 5.87 

236220 Commercial and Institutional Building ........... 21 28 4,603 203 11,912 0.26 5.87 

237110 Water and Sewer Line and Related Struct ... 47 62 4,570 213 11,827 0.26 5.57 

237120 Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Struct ...... 16 21 6,822 317 17,656 0.26 5.57 

237130 Power and Communication Line and Rel ..... 36 36 2,720 126 7,038 0.26 5.57 

237310 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction .... 76 101 12,483 580 32,306 0.26 5.57 

237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Const .... 143 191 5,394 251 13,960 0.26 5.57 

238110 Poured Concrete Foundation and Struct ...... 263 263 2,256 105 5,837 0.26 5.57 

238120 Structural Steel and Precast Concrete ......... 239 319 2,868 133 7,422 0.26 5.57 

238130 Framing Contractors ..................................... 20 20 200 8 516 0.26 6.64 

238150 Glass and Glazing Contractors ..................... 41 41 631 25 1,634 0.26 6.64 

238170 Siding Contractors ......................................... 3 3 827 32 2,140 0.26 6.64 

238190 Other Foundation, Structure, and Building ... 26 35 2,802 109 7,252 0.26 6.64 

238210 Electrical Contractors .................................... 12 12 1,629 63 4,215 0.26 6.64 

238220 Plumbing, Heating, and Air-Conditioning ...... 2 3 5,835 227 15,101 0.26 6.64 

238290 Other Building Equipment Contractors ......... 104 138 3,801 148 9,837 0.26 6.64 

238320 Painting and Wall Covering Contract ............ 20 20 962 37 2,490 0.26 6.64 

238910 Site Preparation Contractors ......................... 311 311 2,146 84 5,553 0.26 6.64 

Subtotal .................................................................. 1,576 1,803 

Own but Do Not Rent: 

236115 New Single family housing construction ....... 2,915 2,915 1,057 47 1,035 0.10 2.22 

236116 New Multifamily housing construction ........... 220 220 3,792 167 1,035 0.03 0.62 

236117 New housing operative builders .................... 1,302 1,302 5,338 235 1,035 0.02 0.44 

236118 Residential Remodelers ................................ 827 827 544 24 1,035 0.19 4.31 

236210 Industrial building construction ...................... 235 277 6,132 270 1,035 0.02 0.38 

236220 Commercial and Institutional Bldg. Const ..... 3,718 3,718 6,479 286 1,035 0.02 0.36 

237110 Water and Sewer Line Const ........................ 922 1,230 2,630 122 1,035 0.04 0.85 

237120 Oil and gas pipeline construction .................. 104 138 8,167 380 1,035 0.01 0.27 

237130 Power and communication line const ........... 225 300 5,769 268 1,035 0.02 0.39 

237210 Land subdivision ........................................... 0 0 289 13 0 0.00 0.00 

237310 Highway, street and bridge const ................. 84 111 7,266 338 1,035 0.01 0.31 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59899 

TABLE B–13—ESTIMATES OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS FOR AFFECTED ESTABLISHMENTS ACROSS INDUSTRY SECTORS— 

Continued 

NAIC/Industry 

Affected Avg. revenues per 

estab. 

(1,000) 

Avg. profits per 

estab. 

(1,000) 

Cost per 

estab. 

Cost as a 

percent of 

revenues 

Cost as a 

percent of 

Firms Estab’s profits 

237990 Other heavy and civil eng ............................. 516 516 2,076 97 1,035 0.05 1.07 

238110 Poured Concrete foundation and struct ........ 269 269 1,252 58 1,035 0.08 1.78 

238120 Structural steel and precast concrete ........... 400 400 2,018 94 1,035 0.05 1.10 

238130 Framing Contractors ..................................... 1,083 1,083 998 39 1,035 0.10 2.66 

238140 Masonry Contractors ..................................... 129 129 788 31 1,035 0.13 3.37 

238150 Glass & Glazing Contractors ........................ 53 53 1,187 46 1,035 0.09 2.24 

238160 Roofing Contractors ...................................... 232 232 991 39 1,035 0.10 2.68 

238170 Siding Contractors ......................................... 33 33 641 25 1,035 0.16 4.14 

238190 Other foundation, structure, building, ext ...... 14 14 1,254 49 1,035 0.08 2.12 

238210 Electrical Contractors .................................... 63 63 1,312 51 1,035 0.08 2.02 

238220 Plumbing, Heating and Airconditioning Cont 87 87 1,346 52 1,035 0.08 1.97 

238290 Other building equipment cont ...................... 45 59 2,383 93 1,035 0.04 1.11 

238310 Drywall and insulation contractors ................ 0 0 1,573 61 0 0.00 0.00 

238320 Painting and wall covering contractors ......... 39 39 433 17 1,035 0.24 6.14 

238330 Flooring Contractors ...................................... 0 0 760 30 0 0.00 0.00 

238340 Tile and Terrazzo contractors ....................... 0 0 655 26 0 0.00 0.00 

238350 Finish Carpentry contractors ......................... 0 0 517 20 0 0.00 0.00 

238390 Other building finishing contractors .............. 0 0 1,304 51 0 0.00 0.00 

238910 Site Preparation ............................................ 302 302 1,228 48 1,035 0.08 2.16 

Subtotal .................................................................. 13,815 14,316 

Crane Lessees in the Construction Industry 

236115 New Single family housing construction ....... 29,236 29,236 2,116 93 482 0.02 0.52 

236116 New Multifamily housing construction ........... 2,199 2,199 7,606 335 482 0.01 0.14 

236117 New housing operative builders .................... 13,022 13,022 10,692 472 482 0.00 0.10 

236118 Residential Remodelers ................................ 8,275 8,275 5,442 240 482 0.01 0.20 

236210 Industrial building construction ...................... 2,777 2,777 6,307 278 482 0.01 0.17 

236220 Commercial and Institutional Bldg. Construction ............................................................................. 37,208 37,208 6,490 286 482 0.01 0.17 

237110 Water and Sewer Line Const ........................ 12,357 12,357 2,629 122 482 0.02 0.39 

237120 Oil and gas pipeline construction .................. 1,052 1,403 8,254 384 482 0.01 0.13 

237130 Power and communication line const ........... 2,263 3,017 11,295 525 482 0.00 0.09 

237210 Land subdivision ........................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 

237310 Highway, street and bridge const ................. 843 1,124 72,437 3,367 482 0.00 0.01 

237990 Other heavy and civil eng ............................. 5,251 5,251 3,950 184 482 0.01 0.26 

238110 Poured Concrete foundation and struct ........ 1,358 1,358 24,877 1,157 482 0.00 0.04 

238120 Structural steel and precast concrete ........... 4,321 4,321 2,019 94 482 0.02 0.51 

238130 Framing Contractors ..................................... 10,841 10,841 1,331 52 482 0.04 0.93 

238140 Masonry Contractors ..................................... 1,286 1,286 15,762 614 482 0.00 0.08 

238150 Glass & Glazing Contractors ........................ 529 529 12,086 471 482 0.00 0.10 

238160 Roofing Contractors ...................................... 2,319 2,319 9,923 387 482 0.00 0.12 

238170 Siding Contractors ......................................... 332 332 12,932 504 482 0.00 0.10 

238190 Other foundation, structure, building, ext ...... 139 139 26,387 1,028 482 0.00 0.05 

238210 Electrical Contractors .................................... 626 626 132,080 5,147 482 0.00 0.01 

238220 Plumbing, Heating and Airconditioning Cont 875 875 135,367 5,275 482 0.00 0.01 

238290 Other building equipment cont ...................... 457 609 23,770 926 482 0.00 0.05 

238310 Drywall and insulation contractors ................ 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 

238320 Painting and wall covering contractors ......... 389 389 43,317 1,688 482 0.00 0.03 

238330 Flooring Contractors ...................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 

238340 Tile and Terrazzo contractors ....................... 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 

238350 Finish Carpentry contractors ......................... 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 

238390 Other building finishing contractors .............. 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 

238910 Site Preparation ............................................ 3,050 3,050 12,380 482 482 0.00 0.10 

Subtotal .................................................................. 141,004 142,542 

Total ................................................................ 159,715 164,532 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Economic Census, 2002 for establishments, revenues, except Crane Rental w/o Operators group; Dunn and 

Bradstreet, Market Profiles, 2002 for data for Crane Rental w/o Operators group; Profit rates from Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income 

2002 Corporation Source Book, 2002; Affected establish estimates from OSHA/Office of Regulatory Analysis (ORA); Cost/establishment figures 

from Table B–9; Cost as a percent of revenue = Avg. establishment cost/avg establishment revenue. 

A common intermediate case would 

be a price elasticity of one. In this 

situation, if the costs of compliance 

amount to 1 percent of revenues, then 

production would decline by 1 percent 

and prices would rise by 1 percent. The 

sector would remain in business and 

maintain approximately the same profit 

rate as before implementation of the 

standard, but would produce 1 percent 

less of its services. Consumers would 

effectively absorb the costs through a 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59900 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

combination of increased prices and 

reduced consumption; this, as the court 

described in ADA v. Secretary of Labor, 

is the more typical case. 

Table B–13 presents estimates for the 

number of affected establishments, 

average establishment revenues and 

profits, and average establishment costs 

for each affected industry sector. 

Economic impacts in the table (the two 

right-most columns) are represented by 

two ratios: of average establishment 

costs to revenues, and of costs to profits. 

In the Own and Rent Cranes with 

Operators sector, the impacts for a 

number of sectors are identical. This 

effect is an artifact of the cost model, 

which estimates the number of cranes, 

and hence costs, based on revenues. 

Since profits are also derived from 

revenues, the impacts parallel one 

another in several industry sectors. 

As is evident from the data and 

estimates in Table B–13, average 

establishment costs of compliance for 

the proposal are not large in relation to 

the corresponding average 

establishment revenues and profits in 

each of the industry sectors. The 

estimated per establishment cost of 

compliance represents at most, less than 

0.26 percent (or 0.0026) of average 

establishment revenues. In most sectors 

it is lower. 

The impact of the proposal measured 

by the ratio of costs to profits varies 

across the affected sectors. Among the 

sectors in the Crane Lessees sector, 

which includes about 142,500 of the 

164,500 affected establishments, average 

employers are expected to have costs 

that represent much less than 1 percent 

of profits. Within the sector of 

employers Own but Do Not Rent, 

affected establishments in 11 of the 30 

sectors have average costs as high as a 

few percent of profits (from 2 to 6 

percent). This estimate of impact on 

costs as a percentage of profits is low, 

but OSHA notes that, for a few 

individual industries, the costs as a 

percentage of profits may be 

‘‘significant’’ (over 5 percent). The 

Agency believes that in part the impact 

measure is high because the cost of 

compliance is compared with average 

revenues and profits for the industry as 

a whole. There are many very small 

employers across these industries, while 

it is likely that only larger employers 

own cranes. In that case, the average 

establishment’s estimated revenue and 

profit are lower than that of affected 

establishments that own cranes, 

resulting in a too-high ratio (or 

percentage) of costs to profits for the 

affected employers. The Agency seeks 

comment on this. 

In the two sectors that are most 

intensively involved in crane use, Crane 

Rental with Operators (employers 

primarily in the crane rental business) 

and Crane Rental without Operators 

(bare rentals), estimated costs are about 

3 to 4 percent of profits. In the Own and 

Rent Cranes with Operators sectors, 

costs as a percentage of profits are 

estimated at 5 to 6 percent. Because 

these employers both own and use 

cranes as well as rent them, the cost 

model estimates significantly higher 

average establishment costs for them— 

even in relation to the sectors involved 

primarily in crane rentals. In addition, 

as noted above for the Own but Do Not 

Rent sector, most employers in these 

sectors are quite small, with only a few 

employees, and a relatively small 

fraction of employers in the sectors 

actually own cranes. Consequently, the 

average establishment revenues and 

profits may be considerably lower for 

the average establishment than for 

establishments that own cranes. If so, 

the cost as a percentage of profits 

overestimates that impact for affected 

establishments. The Agency seeks 

comment and additional data on this 

issue. 

The Agency preliminarily concludes 

that the proposal is economically 

feasible for the affected industries. As 

described above, a standard is 

economically feasible if there is a 

reasonable likelihood that the estimated 

costs of compliance ‘‘will not threaten 

the existence or competitive structure of 

an industry, even if it does portend 

disaster for some marginal firms’’ 

(United Steelworkers of America v. 

Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1272 (D.C. Cir. 

1980). The potential impacts on 

employer costs associated with 

achieving compliance with the proposal 

fall well within the bounds of economic 

feasibility in each industry sector. Costs 

of 0.25 percent of revenues and 5 

percent of profits will not threaten the 

existence of the construction industry or 

the potential use of cranes in 

construction. OSHA does not expect 

compliance with the requirements of the 

proposal to threaten the viability of 

employers or the competitive structure 

of any of the affected industry sectors. 

For several reasons, the Agency 

believes that the impact of compliance 

costs will be less than estimates in Table 

B–13. The economic impact of the 

proposal is most likely to consist of a 

very small increase in prices for 

construction projects involving work 

with cranes (0.26 percent or less, 

depending on the sector). Crane rental 

companies, all of which must incur the 

costs of compliance unless they are 

already in compliance, should be able to 

pass through costs to lessees. The 

additional costs of crane safety 

measures are extremely small in relation 

to value of construction, and there are 

no economic substitutes, or alternatives, 

to the use of cranes in construction. It 

is unlikely that a price increase of this 

magnitude would significantly alter the 

services demanded by the public or any 

other affected customers or 

intermediaries. If the compliance costs 

of the proposal are substantially 

recouped with an increase in rental 

prices, there would be little effect on 

profits. 

Given the small incremental increases 

in prices potentially resulting from 

compliance with the proposed standard 

and the lack of readily available 

substitutes for the products and services 

provided by the covered industry 

sectors, demand is expected to be 

sufficiently inelastic in each affected 

industry to enable entities to 

substantially offset compliance costs 

through minor price increases without 

experiencing any significant reduction 

in revenues or profits. 

8. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as 

amended in 1996, requires the 

preparation of an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for certain 

proposed rules (5 U.S.C. 601–612). 

Under the provisions of the law, each 

such analysis must contain: 

1. A description of the impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities; 

2. a description of the reasons why 

action by the agency is being 

considered; 

3. a succinct statement of the 

objectives of, and legal basis for, the 

proposed rule; 

4. a description of and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities to which the proposed 

rule will apply; 

5. a description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping and other 

compliance requirements of the 

proposed rule, including an estimate of 

the classes of small entities that will be 

subject to the requirements and the type 

of professional skills necessary for 

preparation of the report or record; 

6. an identification, to the extent 

practicable, of all relevant Federal rules 

that may duplicate, overlap or conflict 

with the proposed rule; and 

7. a description and discussion of any 

significant alternatives to the proposed 

rule that accomplish the stated 

objectives of applicable statutes and that 

minimize any significant economic 

impact of the proposed rule on small 

entities, including: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59901 

(a) The establishment of differing 

compliance or reporting requirements or 

timetables that take into account the 

resources available to small entities; 

(b) the clarification, consolidation, or 

simplification of compliance and 

reporting requirements under the rule 

for such small entities; 

(c) the use of performance rather than 

design standards; and 

(d) an exemption from coverage of the 

rule, or any part thereof, for such small 

entities. 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act further 

states that the required elements of the 

IRFA may be performed in conjunction 

with or as part of any other agenda or 

analysis required by any other law if 

such other analysis satisfies the relevant 

provisions. 

1. Impact of the proposed rule on 

small entities. 

OSHA has analyzed the potential 

impact of the proposed standards on 

small entities. The total annual cost of 

compliance with the proposal for small 

entities is estimated to be $105 million, 

as shown by industry in Table B–14. 

The costs per establishment in the table 

are identical in several sectors because 

the cost model assumed that, on 

average, the number of cranes, 

operators, and crane jobs were the same 

for each affected establishment. In the 

crane-rental sectors, the Agency had 

rental income data for each sector and 

estimated the number of cranes owned 

per establishment for each sector. 

Different sizes of firms with different 

numbers of cranes in the rental sectors 

resulted in per establishment (average) 

costs varying by industry NAICS 

identifier. 

To assess the potential economic 

impact of the proposal on small entities, 

OSHA calculated the ratios of 

compliance costs to profits and to 

revenues. These impacts are presented 

for each affected industry in Table B–15. 

OSHA expects that among small entities 

potentially affected by the proposal, the 

average increase in prices necessary to 

completely offset the compliance costs 

would be 0.08 percent. The average 

price increase necessary to completely 

offset compliance costs would not 

exceed 0.26 percent among small 

entities in any industry. 

Only to the extent that such price 

increases are not possible would there 

be any effect on the average profits of 

small entities. Even in the unlikely 

event that no costs could be passed 

through, the compliance costs could be 

completely absorbed through an average 

reduction in profits of 1.8 percent. In 

most affected industries the compliance 

costs, without any pass-through, could 

be completely absorbed through an 

average reduction in profits of less than 

1 percent; the reduction would be no 

more than 6.64 percent in any of the 

affected industries. 

In order to further ensure that 

potential impacts on small entities were 

fully analyzed and considered, OSHA 

also separately examined the potential 

impacts of the proposed standards on 

very small entities, defined as 

employers with fewer than 20 

employees. To assess the potential 

economic impact of the proposed 

standards on very small entities, OSHA 

calculated the ratios of compliance costs 

to profits and to revenues. These ratios 

are presented for each affected industry 

in Table B–16. OSHA expects that 

among very small entities potentially 

affected by the proposed standards, the 

average increase in prices necessary to 

completely offset the compliance costs 

would be 0.11 percent (less than 1 

percent). 

Only to the extent that such price 

increases are not possible would there 

be any effect on the average profits of 

very small entities. Even in the unlikely 

event that no costs could be passed 

through, the compliance costs could be 

completely absorbed through an average 

reduction in profits of 2.60 percent 

among affected very small entities. 

TABLE B–14—ANNUALIZED COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR SBA DEFINED SMALL ENTITIES BY MAJOR CATEGORY

Category/Industry Firms Estabs. 

Annualized 

compliance 

costs 

Cost per 

estab. 

Crane Rental with Operators: 

238990 All Other Specialty Trade Cont ................................................. $1,171 $1,223 $3,114,525 $2,661 

Crane Rental without Operators (Bare Rentals): 

532412 Const./Min./For. Machine & Equip ............................................ 1,782 3,927 4,870,341 1,240 

Own and Rent Cranes with Operators: 

236115 New Single-Family Housing Const ........................................... 168 168 101,447 604 

236118 Residential Remodelers ............................................................ 21 21 28,669 1,365 

236210 Industrial Building Construction ................................................ 8 10 379,278 37,928 

236220 Commercial and Institutional Building ....................................... 21 28 333,534 11,912 

237110 Water and Sewer Line and Related Struct ............................... 47 62 733,293 11,827 

237120 Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Struct .................................. 16 21 370,772 17,656 

237130 Power and Communication Line and Rel ................................. 36 36 253,380 7,038 

237310 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction ................................ 76 101 3,262,951 32,306 

237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Const ................................ 143 191 2,666,449 13,960 

238110 Poured Concrete Foundation and Struct .................................. 263 263 1,535,239 5,837 

238120 Structural Steel and Precast Concrete ..................................... 239 319 2,367,593 7,422 

238130 Framing Contractors ................................................................. 20 20 10,326 516 

238150 Glass and Glazing Contractors ................................................. 41 41 66,984 1,634 

238170 Siding Contractors .................................................................... 3 3 6,421 2,140 

238190 Other Foundation, Structure, and Building ............................... 26 35 253,836 7,252 

238210 Electrical Contractors ................................................................ 12 12 50,579 4,215 

238220 Plumbing, Heating, and Air-Conditioning .................................. 2 3 45,304 15,101 

238290 Other Building Equipment Contractors ..................................... 104 138 1,357,502 9,837 

238320 Painting and Wall Covering Contract ........................................ 20 20 49,800 2,490 

238910 Site Preparation Contractors ..................................................... 311 311 1,727,104 5,553 

Subtotal ............................................................................................. 1,576 1,803 15,600,459 

Own but Do Not Rent: 

236115 New Single family housing construction ................................... 2,906 2,906 3,008,274 1,035 

236116 New Multifamily housing construction ....................................... 213 213 220,441 1,035 

236117 New housing operative builders ................................................ 1,263 1,263 1,307,790 1,035 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59902 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE B–14—ANNUALIZED COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR SBA DEFINED SMALL ENTITIES BY MAJOR CATEGORY—Continued 

Category/Industry Firms Estabs. 

Annualized 

compliance 

costs 

Cost per 

estab. 

236118 Residential Remodelers ............................................................ 825 825 854,352 1,035 

236210 Industrial building construction .................................................. 223 262 271,527 1,035 

236220 Commercial and Institutional Bldg. Const ................................. 3,615 3,615 3,741,748 1,035 

237110 Water and Sewer Line Const .................................................... 918 1,223 1,266,435 1,035 

237120 Oil and gas pipeline construction .............................................. 98 131 135,815 1,035 

237130 Power and communication line const ....................................... 218 291 301,443 1,035 

237210 Land subdivision ....................................................................... 0 0 0 0 

237310 Highway, street and bridge const ............................................. 70 93 96,478 1,035 

237990 Other heavy and civil eng ......................................................... 502 502 519,969 1,035 

238110 Poured Concrete foundation and struct .................................... 108 108 111,349 1,035 

238120 Structural steel and precast concrete ....................................... 388 388 402,062 1,035 

238130 Framing Contractors ................................................................. 1,061 1,061 1,098,374 1,035 

238140 Masonry Contractors ................................................................. 128 128 132,658 1,035 

238150 Glass & Glazing Contractors .................................................... 49 49 50,247 1,035 

238160 Roofing Contractors .................................................................. 230 230 237,708 1,035 

238170 Siding Contractors .................................................................... 33 33 33,902 1,035 

238190 Other foundation, structure, building, ext .................................. 10 10 10,476 1,035 

238210 Electrical Contractors ................................................................ 60 60 62,427 1,035 

238220 Plumbing, Heating and Airconditioning Cont ............................ 86 86 89,073 1,035 

238290 Other building equipment cont .................................................. 34 45 46,573 1,035 

238310 Drywall and insulation contractors ............................................ 0 0 0 0 

238320 Painting and wall covering contractors ..................................... 37 37 38,219 1,035 

238330 Flooring Contractors .................................................................. 0 0 0 0 

238340 Tile and Terrazzo contractors ................................................... 0 0 0 0 

238350 Finish Carpentry contractors ..................................................... 0 0 0 0 

238390 Other building finishing contractors .......................................... 0 0 0 0 

238910 Site Preparation ........................................................................ 271 271 280,543 1,035 

Subtotal ............................................................................................. 13,346 13,831 14,317,883 

Crane Lessees in the Construction Industry: 

236115 New Single family housing construction ................................... 29,229 29,229 14,094,064 482 

236116 New Multifamily housing construction ....................................... 2,130 2,130 1,026,851 482 

236117 New housing operative builders ................................................ 12,634 12,634 6,091,909 482 

236118 Residential Remodelers ............................................................ 8,274 8,274 3,989,842 482 

236210 Industrial building construction .................................................. 2,633 2,633 1,269,640 482 

236220 Commercial and Institutional Bldg. Construction ...................... 36,174 36,174 17,443,203 482 

237110 Water and Sewer Line Const .................................................... 12,296 12,296 5,929,165 482 

237120 Oil and gas pipeline construction .............................................. 1,000 1,333 642,776 482 

237130 Power and communication line const ....................................... 2,211 2,948 1,421,534 482 

237210 Land subdivision ....................................................................... 0 0 0 0 

237310 Highway, street and bridge const ............................................. 775 1,033 498,115 482 

237990 Other heavy and civil eng ......................................................... 5,214 5,214 2,514,205 482 

238110 Poured Concrete foundation and struct .................................... 1,339 1,339 645,501 482 

238120 Structural steel and precast concrete ....................................... 4,203 4,203 2,026,698 482 

238130 Framing Contractors ................................................................. 10,631 10,631 5,126,057 482 

238140 Masonry Contractors ................................................................. 1,283 1,283 618,425 482 

238150 Glass & Glazing Contractors .................................................... 526 526 253,832 482 

238160 Roofing Contractors .................................................................. 2,299 2,299 1,108,729 482 

238170 Siding Contractors .................................................................... 331 331 159,368 482 

238190 Other foundation, structure, building, ext .................................. 136 136 65,676 482 

238210 Electrical Contractors ................................................................ 615 615 296,584 482 

238220 Plumbing, Heating and Airconditioning Cont ............................ 863 863 416,363 482 

238290 Other building equipment cont .................................................. 441 588 283,487 482 

238310 Drywall and insulation contractors ............................................ 0 0 0 0 

238320 Painting and wall covering contractors ..................................... 389 389 187,673 482 

238330 Flooring Contractors .................................................................. 0 0 0 0 

238340 Tile and Terrazzo contractors ................................................... 0 0 0 0 

238350 Finish Carpentry contractors ..................................................... 0 0 0 0 

238390 Other building finishing contractors .......................................... 0 0 0 0 

238910 Site Preparation ........................................................................ 3,021 3,021 1,456,783 482 

Subtotal ............................................................................................. 138,645 140,120 67,566,479

Total ........................................................................................... 156,520 160,905 105,469,687 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Economic Census, 2002; Dunn and Bradstreet, Market Profiles, 2002; Data from Table 2 for number of affected 

establishments; Cost estimates from OSHA cost model, ORA. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59903 

TABLE B–15—ECONOMIC IMPACTS FOR SBA DEFINED SMALL ENTITIES BY MAJOR CATEGORIES

Category/Industry Firms Estabs. 

Avg. revenues per 

estab. 

($1,000) 

Avg. profits per 

estab. 

($1,000) 

Cost per 

estab. 

Cost as a 

percent of 

revenues 

Cost as a 

percent of 

profits 

Crane Rental with Operators: 

238990 All Other Specialty Trade Cont ..................... 1,171 1,223 1,551 $64 $2,661 0.17 4.18 

Crane Rental without Operators (Bare Rentals): 

532412 Const./Min./For. Machine & Equip ................ 1,782 3,927 935 37 1,240 0.13 3.32 

Own and Rent Cranes with Operators: 

236115 New Single-Family Housing Const ............... 168 168 233 10 604 0.26 5.87 

236118 Residential Remodelers ................................ 21 21 528 23 1,365 0.26 5.87 

236210 Industrial Building Construction .................... 8 10 14,656 646 37,928 0.26 5.87 

236220 Commercial and Institutional Building ........... 21 28 4,603 203 11,912 0.26 5.87 

237110 Water and Sewer Line and Related Struct ... 47 62 4,570 213 11,827 0.26 5.57 

237120 Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Struct ...... 16 21 6,822 317 17,656 0.26 5.57 

237130 Power and Communication Line and Rel ..... 36 36 2,720 126 7,038 0.26 5.57 

237310 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction .... 76 101 12,483 580 32,306 0.26 5.57 

237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Const .... 143 191 5,394 251 13,960 0.26 5.57 

238110 Poured Concrete Foundation and Struct ...... 263 263 2,256 105 5,837 0.26 5.57 

238120 Structural Steel and Precast Concrete ......... 239 319 2,868 133 7,422 0.26 5.57 

238130 Framing Contractors ..................................... 20 20 200 8 516 0.26 6.64 

238150 Glass and Glazing Contractors ..................... 41 41 631 25 1,634 0.26 6.64 

238170 Siding Contractors ......................................... 3 3 827 32 2,140 0.26 6.64 

238190 Other Foundation, Structure, and Building ... 26 35 2,802 109 7,252 0.26 6.64 

238210 Electrical Contractors .................................... 12 12 1,629 63 4,215 0.26 6.64 

238220 Plumbing, Heating, and Air-Conditioning ...... 2 3 5,835 227 15,101 0.26 6.64 

238290 Other Building Equipment Contractors ......... 104 138 3,801 148 9,837 0.26 6.64 

238320 Painting and Wall Covering Contract ............ 20 20 962 37 2,490 0.26 6.64 

238910 Site Preparation Contractors ......................... 311 311 2,146 84 5,553 0.26 6.64 

Subtotal .................................................................. 1,576 1,803 

Own but Do Not Rent: 

236115 New Single family housing construction ....... 2,906 2,906 1,000 44 1,035 0.10 2.35 

236116 New Multifamily housing construction ........... 213 213 3,400 150 1,035 0.03 0.69 

236117 New housing operative builders .................... 1,263 1,263 5,104 225 1,035 0.02 0.46 

236118 Residential Remodelers ................................ 825 825 543 24 1,035 0.19 4.32 

236210 Industrial building construction ...................... 223 262 2,570 113 1,035 0.04 0.91 

236220 Commercial and Institutional Bldg. Const ..... 3,615 3,615 3,661 161 1,035 0.03 0.64 

237110 Water and Sewer Line Const ........................ 918 1,223 2,324 108 1,035 0.04 0.96 

237120 Oil and gas pipeline construction .................. 98 131 3,743 174 1,035 0.03 0.59 

237130 Power and communication line const ........... 218 291 4,656 216 1,035 0.02 0.48 

237210 Land subdivision ........................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 

237310 Highway, street and bridge const ................. 70 93 3,225 150 1,035 0.03 0.69 

237990 Other heavy and civil eng ............................. 502 502 1,500 70 1,035 0.07 1.48 

238110 Poured Concrete foundation and struct ........ 108 108 1,000 47 1,035 0.10 2.23 

238120 Structural steel and precast concrete ........... 388 388 1,425 66 1,035 0.07 1.56 

238130 Framing Contractors ..................................... 1,061 1,061 798 31 1,035 0.13 3.33 

238140 Masonry Contractors ..................................... 128 128 675 26 1,035 0.15 3.94 

238150 Glass & Glazing Contractors ........................ 49 49 900 35 1,035 0.12 2.95 

238160 Roofing Contractors ...................................... 230 230 801 31 1,035 0.13 3.32 

238170 Siding Contractors ......................................... 33 33 600 23 1,035 0.17 4.43 

238190 Other foundation, structure, building, ext ...... 10 10 900 35 1,035 0.12 2.95 

238210 Electrical Contractors .................................... 60 60 1,100 43 1,035 0.09 2.42 

238220 Plumbing, Heating and Airconditioning Cont 86 86 1,100 43 1,035 0.09 2.42 

238290 Other building equipment cont ...................... 34 45 1,664 65 1,035 0.06 1.60 

238310 Drywall and insulation contractors ................ 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 

238320 Painting and wall covering contractors ......... 37 37 419 16 1,035 0.25 6.34 

238330 Flooring Contractors ...................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 

238340 Tile and Terrazzo contractors ....................... 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 

238350 Finish Carpentry contractors ......................... 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 

238390 Other building finishing contractors .............. 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 

238910 Site Preparation ............................................ 271 271 962 37 1,035 0.11 2.76 

Subtotal .................................................................. 13,346 13,831 

Crane Lessees in the Construction Industry: 

236115 New Single family housing construction ....... 29,229 29,229 2,116 93 482 0.02 0.52 

236116 New Multifamily housing construction ........... 2,130 2,130 7,606 335 482 0.01 0.14 

236117 New housing operative builders .................... 12,634 12,634 10,692 472 482 0.00 0.10 

236118 Residential Remodelers ................................ 8,274 8,274 5,442 240 482 0.01 0.20 

236210 Industrial building construction ...................... 2,633 2,633 6,307 278 482 0.01 0.17 

236220 Commercial and Institutional Bldg. Construction ............................................................................. 36,174 36,174 6,490 286 482 0.01 0.17 

237110 Water and Sewer Line Const ........................ 12,296 12,296 2,629 122 482 0.02 0.39 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59904 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE B–15—ECONOMIC IMPACTS FOR SBA DEFINED SMALL ENTITIES BY MAJOR CATEGORIES—Continued 

Category/Industry Firms Estabs. 

Avg. revenues per 

estab. 

($1,000) 

Avg. profits per 

estab. 

($1,000) 

Cost per 

estab. 

Cost as a 

percent of 

revenues 

Cost as a 

percent of 

profits 

237120 Oil and gas pipeline construction .................. 1,000 1,333 8,254 384 482 0.01 0.13 

237130 Power and communication line const ........... 2,211 2,948 11,295 525 482 0.00 0.09 

237210 Land subdivision ........................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 

237310 Highway, street and bridge const ................. 775 1,033 72,437 3,367 482 0.00 0.01 

237990 Other heavy and civil eng ............................. 5,214 5,214 3,950 184 482 0.01 0.26 

238110 Poured Concrete foundation and struct ........ 1,339 1,339 24,877 1,157 482 0.00 0.04 

238120 Structural steel and precast concrete ........... 4,203 4,203 2,019 94 482 0.02 0.51 

238130 Framing Contractors ..................................... 10,631 10,631 1,331 52 482 0.04 0.93 

238140 Masonry Contractors ..................................... 1,283 1,283 15,762 614 482 0.00 0.08 

238150 Glass & Glazing Contractors ........................ 526 526 12,086 471 482 0.00 0.10 

238160 Roofing Contractors ...................................... 2,299 2,299 9,923 387 482 0.00 0.12 

238170 Siding Contractors ......................................... 331 331 12,932 504 482 0.00 0.10 

238190 Other foundation, structure, building, ext ...... 136 136 26,387 1,028 482 0.00 0.05 

238210 Electrical Contractors .................................... 615 615 132,080 5,147 482 0.00 0.01 

238220 Plumbing, Heating and Airconditioning Cont 863 863 135,367 5,275 482 0.00 0.01 

238290 Other building equipment cont ...................... 441 588 23,770 926 482 0.00 0.05 

238310 Drywall and insulation contractors ................ 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 

238320 Painting and wall covering contractors ......... 389 389 43,317 1,688 482 0.00 0.03 

238330 Flooring Contractors ...................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 

238340 Tile and Terrazzo contractors ....................... 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 

238350 Finish Carpentry contractors ......................... 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 

238390 Other building finishing contractors .............. 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 

238910 Site Preparation ............................................ 3,021 3,021 12,380 482 482 0.00 0.10 

Subtotal .................................................................. 138,645 140,120 

Total ................................................................ 156,520 160,905 

Simple Average of impacts 0.10 2.29 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Economic Census, 2002 for establishments, revenues, except Crane Rental w/o Operators group; Dunn and 

Bradstreet, Market Profiles, 2002 for data for Crane Rental w/o Operators group; Profit rates from Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income 

2002 Corporation Source Book, 2002; Affected establish estimates from OSHA/Office of Regulatory Analysis (ORA); Cost/establishment figures 

from Table B–14; Cost as a percent of revenue = Avg. establishment cost/avg establishment revenue. 

2. A description of the reasons why 

action by the agency is being 

considered. 

Employees performing construction 

work involving cranes/derricks are 

potentially exposed to a variety of 

significant hazards that can and do 

cause serious injury and death. OSHA 

estimates that 263 serious injuries and 

89 fatalities occur annually among these 

workers. 

TABLE B–16—ECONOMIC IMPACTS FOR VERY SMALL ENTITIES (LESS THAN 20 EMPLOYEES) BY MAJOR CATEGORY

Category/Industry Firms Estabs. Employ- ees 

Profit rate 

(percent) 

Revenues 

per estab. 

($1,000) 

Profits 

per estab. 

($1,000) 

Cost per 

estab 

Cost as a 

percent of 

revenues 

Cost as a 

percent of 

profits 

Crane Rental with Operators: 

238990 All Other Specialty Trade Cont. ............. 1,013 1,013 4,824 4.10 $614 $25 $1,009 0.16 4.00 

Crane Rental without Operators (Bare Rentals): 

5324121 Const./Min./For. Machine & Equip. ...... 1,782 3,927 20,459 4.00 935 37 1,240 0.13 3.32 

Own and Rent Cranes with Operators: 

236115 New Single-Family Housing Const. ....... 168 168 261 4.41 233 10 604 0.26 5.87 

236118 Residential Remodelers ......................... 21 21 45 4.41 528 23 1,365 0.26 5.87 

236210 Industrial Building Construction .............. 8 10 1,067 4.41 14,656 646 37,928 0.26 5.87 

236220 Commercial and Institutional Building .... 21 28 757 4.41 4,603 203 11,912 0.26 5.87 

237110 Water and Sewer Line and Related 

Struct. ................................................................. 47 62 1,432 4.65 4,570 213 11,827 0.26 5.57 

237120 Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related 

Struct. ................................................................. 16 21 1,457 4.65 6,822 317 17,656 0.26 5.57 

237130 Power and Communication Line and 

Rel. ..................................................................... 36 36 666 4.65 2,720 126 7,038 0.26 5.57 

237310 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction ...................................................................... 76 101 6,456 4.65 12,483 580 32,306 0.26 5.57 

237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering 

Const. ................................................................. 143 191 5,857 4.65 5,394 251 13,960 0.26 5.57 

238110 Poured Concrete Foundation and 

Struct. ................................................................. 263 263 4,328 4.65 2,256 105 5,837 0.26 6.64 

(All other sectors in this category have no very small 

affected firms) 

798 901 22,326 

Own Cranes But Do Not Rent Them: 

236115 New Single family housing construction 2,763 2,763 12,910 4.41 823 36 1,035 0.13 2.85 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59905 

TABLE B–16—ECONOMIC IMPACTS FOR VERY SMALL ENTITIES (LESS THAN 20 EMPLOYEES) BY MAJOR CATEGORY— 

Continued 

Category/Industry Firms Estabs. Employ- ees 

Profit rate 

(percent) 

Revenues 

per estab. 

($1,000) 

Profits 

per estab. 

($1,000) 

Cost per 

estab 

Cost as a 

percent of 

revenues 

Cost as a 

percent of 

profits 

236116 New Multifamily housing construction .... 197 197 1,987 4.41 1,350 60 1,035 0.08 1.74 

236117 New housing operative builders ............. 1,206 1,206 11,127 4.41 1,854 82 1,035 0.06 1.27 

236118 Residential Remodelers ......................... 808 808 3,126 4.41 443 20 1,035 0.23 5.30 

236210 Industrial building construction Commercial and Institutional ............................................ 209 209 7,076 4.41 1,247 55 1,035 0.08 1.88 

236220 Bldg. Construction .................................. 2,943 2,943 56,620 4.41 1,526 67 1,035 0.07 1.54 

237110 Water and Sewer Line Const. ................ 900 900 14,864 4.65 702 33 1,035 0.15 3.17 

237120 Oil and gas pipeline construction ........... 63 63 4,224 4.65 708 33 1,035 0.15 3.14 

237130 Power and communication line const. ... 207 207 8,703 4.65 655 30 1,035 0.16 3.40 

237210 Land subdivision ..................................... 0 0 0 4.65 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 

237310 Highway, street and bridge const. ......... 66 66 2,558 4.65 976 45 1,035 0.11 2.28 

237990 Other heavy and civil eng. ..................... 378 378 5,549 4.65 589 27 1,035 0.18 3.78 

238110 Poured Concrete foundation and struct 46 46 527 4.65 494 23 1,035 0.21 4.50 

238120 Structural steel and precast concrete .... 90 90 1,625 4.65 659 31 1,035 0.16 3.38 

238130 Framing Contractors ............................... 981 981 10,728 3.90 374 15 1,035 0.28 7.10 

238140 Masonry Contractors .............................. 115 115 1,165 3.90 343 13 1,035 0.30 7.75 

238150 Glass & Glazing Contractors .................. 44 44 418 3.90 619 24 1,035 0.17 4.29 

238160 Roofing Contractors ............................... 206 206 2,013 3.90 447 17 1,035 0.23 5.95 

238170 Siding Contractors .................................. 31 31 202 3.90 408 16 1,035 0.25 6.52 

238190 Other foundation, structure, building, 

ext. ...................................................................... 10 10 115 3.90 394 15 1,035 0.26 6.74 

238210 Electrical Contractors Plumbing, Heating 

and Airconditioning ............................................. 54 54 671 3.90 444 17 1,035 0.23 5.99 

238220 Contractors ............................................. 77 77 861 3.90 509 20 1,035 0.20 5.22 

238290 Other building equipment cont. .............. 30 30 624 3.90 714 28 1,035 0.15 3.72 

238310 Drywall and insulation contractors ......... 0 0 0 3.90 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 

238320 Painting and wall covering contractors .. 37 37 222 3.90 265 10 1,035 0.39 10.01 

238330 Flooring Contractors ............................... 0 0 0 3.90 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 

238340 Tile and Terrazzo contractors ................ 0 0 0 3.90 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 

238350 Finish Carpentry contractors .................. 0 0 0 3.90 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 

238390 Other building finishing contractors ........ 0 0 0 3.90 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 

238910 Site Preparation ...................................... 271 271 2,536 3.90 497 19 1,035 0.21 5.34 

Subtotal ........................................................... 11,733 11,733 150,451 

Crane Lessees in the Construction Industry: 

236115 New Single family housing construction 28,449 28,449 132,922 4.41 1,645 73 482 0.03 0.66 

236116 New Multifamily housing construction .... 1,968 1,968 19,865 4.41 2,700 119 482 0.02 0.40 

236117 New housing operative builders ............. 12,059 12,059 111,265 4.41 3,708 164 482 0.01 0.29 

236118 Residential Remodelers ......................... 8,099 8,099 31,341 4.41 4,431 195 482 0.01 0.25 

236210 Industrial building construction Commercial and Institutional ............................................ 2,170 2,170 62,390 4.41 1,247 55 482 0.04 0.88 

236220 Bldg. Construction .................................. 29,651 29,651 570,496 4.41 1,526 67 482 0.03 0.72 

237110 Water and Sewer Line Const. ................ 9,867 9,867 122,221 4.65 702 33 482 0.07 1.48 

237120 Oil and gas pipeline construction ........... 740 740 37,254 4.65 708 33 482 0.07 1.46 

237130 Power and communication line const. ... 2,203 2,203 69,416 4.65 1,311 61 482 0.04 0.79 

237210 Land subdivision ..................................... 0 0 0 4.65 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 

237310 Highway, street and bridge const. ......... 727 727 21,081 4.65 9,762 454 482 0.00 0.11 

237990 Other heavy and civil engg. ................... 4,624 4,624 67,830 4.65 1,177 55 482 0.04 0.88 

238110 Poured Concrete Foundation and 

Struct. ................................................................. 1,213 1,213 13,844 4.65 9,888 460 482 0.00 0.10 

238120 Structural steel and precast concrete .... 3,428 3,428 62,091 4.65 659 31 482 0.07 1.57 

238130 Framing Contractors ............................... 9,953 9,953 108,788 3.90 498 19 482 0.10 2.48 

238140 Masonry Contractors .............................. 1,150 1,150 11,655 3.90 6,859 267 482 0.01 0.18 

238150 Glass & Glazing Contractors .................. 472 472 4,528 3.90 6,194 241 482 0.01 0.20 

238160 Roofing Contractors ............................... 2,067 2,067 20,160 3.90 4,465 174 482 0.01 0.28 

238170 Siding Contractors .................................. 312 312 2,027 3.90 8,155 318 482 0.01 0.15 

238190 Other foundation, structure, building, 

ext. ...................................................................... 122 122 1,404 3.90 7,885 307 482 0.01 0.16 

238210 Electrical Contractors Plumbing, Heating 

and Airconditioning ............................................. 545 545 6,719 3.90 44,376 1,729 482 0.00 0.03 

238220 Contractors ............................................. 774 774 8,614 3.90 50,865 1,982 482 0.00 0.02 

238290 Other building equipment cont. .............. 435 435 6,783 3.90 7,667 299 482 0.01 0.16 

238310 Drywall and insulation contractors ......... 0 0 0 3.90 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 

238320 Painting and wall covering contractors .. 370 370 2,228 3.90 26,527 1,034 482 0.00 0.05 

238330 Flooring Contractors ............................... 0 0 0 3.90 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 

238340 Tile and Terrazzo contractors ................ 0 0 0 3.90 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 

238350 Finish Carpentry contractors .................. 0 0 0 3.90 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 

238390 Other building finishing contractors ........ 0 0 0 3.90 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 

238910 Site Preparation ...................................... 2,739 2,739 25,631 3.90 4,974 194 482 0.01 0.25 

Subtotal ........................................................... 124,135 124,135 1,520,554 

Total ......................................................... 139,461 141,709 1,718,614 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Economic Census, 2002 for establishments, revenues, except Crane Rental w/o Operators group; Dunn and Bradstreet, Market Profiles, 2002 for data for Crane Rental w/o Operators group; Profit rates from Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income 2002 Corporation Source Book, 2002; Affected establish estimates from OSHA/Office of Regulatory Analysis (ORA); Cost/establishment figures from Table B–14; Cost as a percent of revenue = Avg. establishment cost/avg establishment revenue. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59906 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Although some of these incidents may 

have been prevented with better 

compliance with existing safety 

standards, research and analyses 

conducted by OSHA have found that 

most injuries and fatalities would be 

prevented through compliance with the 

proposed standard. In this regard, the 

existing OSHA standards for the 

construction industry do not directly 

address all of the hazards associated 

with work involving cranes/derricks in 

a comprehensive manner. An estimated 

53 fatalities and 155 injuries would be 

prevented annually through full 

compliance with the proposed standard. 

An additional and more complete 

discussion of the reasons why this 

standard is being proposed by the 

Agency is provided above in the 

Summary and Explanation section of 

the Preamble. 

3. Statement of the objectives of, and 

legal basis for, the proposed rule. 

The primary objective of the proposed 

standard is to provide an increased 

degree of occupational safety for 

employees performing construction 

work involving cranes/derricks. As 

stated above, an estimated 155 injuries 

and 53 fatalities would be prevented 

annually through compliance with the 

proposed standard. Another objective of 

the proposed rulemaking is to provide 

employers and employees updated and 

more complete safety standards for 

construction work involving cranes/ 

derricks. 

The legal basis for the rule is the 

Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) 

Act of 1970. The OSH Act authorizes 

and obligates the Secretary of Labor to 

promulgate mandatory occupational 

safety and health standards as necessary 

‘‘to assure so far as possible every 

working man and woman in the Nation 

safe and healthful working conditions 

and to preserve our human resources.’’ 

29 U.S.C. 651(b). 

4. Description of and estimate of the 

number of small entities to which the 

proposed rule will apply. 

OSHA has completed a preliminary 

analysis of the economic impacts 

associated with this proposal, including 

an analysis of the type and number of 

small entities to which the proposed 

rule would apply, as described above. In 

order to determine the number of small 

entities potentially affected by this 

rulemaking, OSHA used the definitions 

of small entities developed by the Small 

Business Administration (SBA) for each 

industry. 

For the construction industry 

generally, SBA defines small businesses 

using revenue-based criteria. For most 

of the affected construction industries, 

including those industries that are 

mostly comprised of general contractors, 

firms with annual revenues of less than 

$31 million are classified as small 

businesses. For specialty contractors, 

such as structural-steel erection 

contractors, firms with annual revenues 

of less than $13 million are considered 

to be small businesses. Based on the 

definitions of small entities developed 

by SBA for each industry, the proposal 

is estimated to potentially affect a total 

of 160,905 small entities, as shown in 

Tables B–14 and 15. Included in this 

number are an estimated 141,709 

entities with fewer than 20 employees 

(Table B–16). 

5. Description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping and other 

compliance requirements of the 

proposed rule. 

OSHA is proposing a standard which 

would address the work practices to be 

used, and other requirements to be 

followed, for performing construction 

work involving cranes/derricks. 

Employers would be required to keep 

certain records associated with 

inspections and operator certification/ 

qualification as specified by the 

proposed standard. Regular reporting 

would not be required by the proposed 

standard; however, employers would be 

required to demonstrate compliance 

with the recordkeeping requirements as 

part of OSHA compliance inspections. 

Other compliance requirements of the 

proposed standard include, as required, 

the assembly and disassembly 

requirements, encroachment prevention 

precautions when working near power 

lines, and ground condition and power 

line assessments. 

The preamble to the proposed 

standard provides a comprehensive 

description of, and further detail 

regarding, the provisions of the 

proposed rulemaking. A description of 

the types of business entities which 

would be subject to the new and revised 

requirements, and the types of 

professional skills necessary for 

compliance with the requirements, is 

presented in the preceding chapters of 

this economic analysis. 

6. Federal rules which may duplicate, 

overlap or conflict with the proposed 

rule. 

OSHA recognizes that this standard 

may overlap with provisions in other 

construction standards, such as those 

standards addressing general training 

requirements. OSHA has clarified the 

relationship between the proposed 

standard and other pre-existing 

construction standards which may be 

applicable to cranes/derricks in the 

summary and explanation section of 

this preamble. Finally, OSHA has not 

identified any other Federal rules which 

may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with 

the proposal, and requests comments 

from the public regarding this 

determination. 

7. Alternatives to the proposed rule 

which accomplish the stated objectives 

of applicable statutes and which 

minimize any significant economic 

impact of the proposed rule on small 

entities. 

OSHA and C–DAC evaluated many 

alternatives to the proposed standards to 

ensure that the proposed requirements 

would accomplish the stated objectives 

of applicable statutes and would 

minimize any significant economic 

impact of the proposal on small entities. 

In developing the proposal, OSHA took 

into account the resources available to 

small entities. An exemption from 

coverage of the rule for small entities 

was not considered to be a viable option 

because the safety and health of the 

affected employees would be unduly 

jeopardized. Other regulatory 

alternatives were recommended by the 

Small Business Advocacy Review Panel, 

which was convened for purposes of 

soliciting comments on the proposal 

from affected small entities. A 

discussion of these alternatives is 

provided below. 

Nonregulatory alternatives were also 

considered for occupational hazards 

associated with construction work 

involving cranes/derricks. These 

alternatives were discussed above in 

section 2 Identification of Market 

Failure and Need for Regulation. 

Alternatives considered and changes 

made in response to comments from 

small entities and recommendations 

from the Small Business Advocacy 

Review Panel. 

On August 18, 2006, OSHA convened 

a Small Business Advocacy Review 

Panel (the Panel) for this rulemaking in 

accordance with the provisions of the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

as codified at 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. 

The Panel consisted of representatives 

of OSHA, the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs in the Office of 

Management and Budget, and of the 

Office of Advocacy within the U.S. 

Small Business Administration. The 

Panel received oral and written 

comments on a draft proposal and a 

draft economic analysis from small 

entities (businesses) that would 

potentially be affected by the rule. The 

Panel, in turn, prepared a written report 

which was delivered to the Assistant 

Secretary for Occupational Safety and 

Health (which can be found in the 

docket for this rulemaking). The report 

summarized the comments received 

from the small entities, and included 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59907 

recommendations from the Panel to 

OSHA regarding the proposal and the 

associated analysis of compliance costs. 

In response to the Panel’s 

recommendations, OSHA revised many 

of its assumptions, estimates of unit 

costs, and aspects of its economic model 

from the PIRFA for this PEA. These 

revisions are noted throughout the PEA, 

but principally in the sections for the 

industrial profile and estimates of costs 

of compliance. 

Panel Report Recommendations and 

Alternatives 

Small entity representatives (SERs) 

had an opportunity to meet with the 

Panel and comment on the draft 

proposal, as well as submit written 

comments to the Panel afterward. Some 

SERs who are in the business of 

supplying construction materials, and 

who deliver those materials to 

construction sites, believed that the 

proposed standard should not apply to 

their work. While there are many 

circumstances in which such businesses 

are not in the scope of the standard, 

there may be some circumstances in 

which they would be within the scope 

of the standard. The Panel 

recommended that OSHA consider 

excluding them from the scope of the 

standard, and solicit comment on 

whether equipment used solely to 

deliver materials to a construction site 

by placing/stacking the materials on the 

ground should be explicitly excluded 

from the proposed standard’s scope. 

OSHA has addressed this issue in the 

scope section of the preamble. 

Some SERs favored the operator 

certification/qualification section, and 

some SERs were opposed to various 

aspects of it. The Panel anticipated that 

there would be considerable public 

comment on the proposed rule 

regarding this issue. The Panel 

recommended that OSHA consider the 

information and range of opinions that 

were presented by the SERs on this 

issue when analyzing their comments. 

As noted above, the Panel 

recommended that OSHA include, as 

part of its preliminary economic 

analysis, an analysis of the costs, 

economic impacts, and benefits of 

operator certification/qualification. 

Also, based on the SERs’ comments, the 

Panel recommended that OSHA 

consider, and solicit public comment 

on, expanding the levels of certification 

so as to allow an operator to be certified 

on a specific brand and model of crane. 

OSHA has addressed this issue in the 

operator qualification and certification 

section of the preamble and in this PEA. 

Some SERs described crane operators 

whose abilities were limited to 

operating particular equipment in a very 

limited set of circumstances. They 

believed that these operators are fully 

capable of doing the work, but would be 

unable to pass certification tests that 

require knowledge and abilities beyond 

these limited circumstances. In response 

to these comments, the Panel 

recommended that OSHA consider, and 

solicit public comment on, expanding 

these provisions to allow an operator to 

be certified for specific, limited 

circumstances. Such circumstances 

would be defined by a set of parameters 

that, taken together, would limit an 

operation to simple, low-risk operations. 

Also, the Panel recommended that 

OSHA consider and solicit public 

comment on whether such parameters 

could be identified in a way that would 

result in a clear, easily understood 

provision that could be effectively 

enforced. OSHA requests comment on 

these issue. 

A SER commented that it would be 

burdensome for small employers in 

remote areas to send their operators long 

distances to have them tested, and that 

it may be difficult or costly to arrange 

to have an accredited testing 

organization come to their area to 

administer the tests. The Panel 

recommended that OSHA consider and 

solicit public comment on allowing the 

written and practical tests described in 

Option (1) of proposed § 1926.1427(b) to 

be administered by an accredited 

educational institution. Also, this issue 

has been addressed in the preamble. 

Lastly, some SERs were concerned 

that in order to become certified or 

qualified under proposed § 1926.1427, 

employees would have to be proficient 

in English. These SERs were concerned 

that, as a result, the certification/ 

qualification requirement would be 

burdensome for employers who have 

operators who are unable to speak in 

English. The Panel noted that the C– 

DAC document does not state that the 

certification/qualification process be 

administered in English. The proposed 

rule also allows employees to take the 

written portion of the certification/ 

qualification test orally. In such a case, 

the operator candidate (under 

§ 1926.1427(h) and (j)) would have to 

demonstrate the ability to read and 

locate relevant information in the 

equipment manual and other related 

materials. However, the proposed rule 

does not specify that such written 

materials would have to be in English. 

The candidate must have a level of 

literacy commensurate with these 

materials; as long as the materials are in 

the candidate’s language, the terms of 

this provision would be met. The Panel 

recommended that OSHA provide this 

interpretation in a Small Business 

Compliance Guide. OSHA has more 

fully discussed this in the preamble and 

intends to provide this interpretation in 

compliance guidance. 

Table B–17 below lists the 

recommendations made by the Panel 

and presents the Agency’s answers or 

responses. In the right-hand column of 

the table, where ‘‘discussion’’ of an 

issue is referred to in the preamble, it 

means in the Summary and Explanation 

section. 

TABLE B–17—RESPONSES TO SBREFA PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS (ALSO FOUND IN TABLE 4 OF THE PREAMBLE) 

SBREFA panel recommendation OSHA response 

The Panel recommends that OSHA provide full documentation for how 

it estimated the number of affected small entities and all other calculations and estimates provided in the PIRFA.

OSHA has developed a full preliminary economic analysis (PEA) for 

the proposal which explains all assumptions used in estimating the 

costs and benefits of the proposed standard. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA reexamine its estimate of crane 

use in home building, the coverage of crane trucks used for loading 

and unloading, and the estimates of the number of jobs per crane. 

Changes in these estimates should be incorporated into the estimates of costs and economic impacts.

OSHA has included homebuilding industries in the ‘‘Own but Do Not 

Rent’’ and ‘‘Crane Lessees’’ industrial profile categories. 

OSHA has presented a discussion in the preamble of this rule of specific equipment that meets that functional definition of a crane 

The estimate of crane jobs per year has increased from 368,000 total 

annually (or 4 jobs per crane on average) to 860,000 (or 9 jobs per 

crane on average). 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59908 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE B–17—RESPONSES TO SBREFA PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS (ALSO FOUND IN TABLE 4 OF THE PREAMBLE)— 

Continued 

SBREFA panel recommendation OSHA response 

The Panel recommends that OSHA review its estimates for the direct 

costs of operator certification and seek comment on these cost estimates.

OSHA has reviewed its cost estimates in the PEA for operator certification and seeks comment on the estimates and methodology. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA carefully examine certain types of 

impact that could result from an operator certification requirement, including reports of substantial increases in the wages of operators; 

the possibility of increased market power for firms renting out cranes; 

and loss of jobs for existing operators due to language, literacy, or 

knowledge problems; and seek comment on these types of impacts. 

The Panel also recommends studying the impacts of the implementation of operator certification in CA.

OSHA seeks public comment on all aspects (including economic impacts, wages, number of operators, demand, etc.) of the operator 

certification requirements, specifically as it pertains to the State of 

California. 

OSHA has included 2 hours of travel time per operator into the unit 

costs for operator certification. 

The Agency reviewed data on wage rates for operators in California 

immediately before and after operator certification was required (Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division, State of California, 2007). The data did not show much change 

in operators’ wages. The Agency seeks further comment from the 

public. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA reexamine its estimates for the 

amount of time required to assess ground conditions, the number of 

persons involved in the assessment, and the amount of coordination 

involved; clarify the extent to which such assessments are currently 

being conducted and what OSHA estimates as new costs for this 

rule represent; and seek comments on OSHA’s cost estimates.

OSHA seeks comment on the methodology used to calculate all of the 

costs in the PEA, which includes the costs for assessing ground conditions. 

OSHA assumed that inspection of ground conditions is normal business practice, and that, as a result, provisions in the proposal only 

add minor costs to this practice. The method of estimating costs is 

explained in detail in section 6, Costs of Compliance. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA carefully review the documentation 

requirements of the standard, including documentation that employers may consider it prudent to maintain; estimate the costs of such 

requirements; seek ways of minimizing these costs consistent with 

the goals of the OSH Act; and solicit comment on these costs and 

ways of minimizing these costs.

The Agency describes the documentation requirements, along with 

cost estimates, in the section of this Preamble entitled ‘‘OMB Review 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.’’ 

The Panel recommends that OSHA examine whether the inspection requirements of the proposed rule require procedures not normally 

conducted currently, such as lowering and fully extending the boom 

before the crane can be used, and removing non-hinged inspection 

plates during the shift inspection, estimate the costs of any such requirements, and seek comment on these issues.

As explained in the discussion of section 1412, Inspections, OSHA’s 

current standard at 29 CFR 1926.550 requires inspections each time 

the equipment is used as well as thorough annual inspections. In addition, national consensus standards that are incorporated by reference include additional inspection requirements. This proposal 

would list the inspection requirements in one place rather than rely 

on incorporated consensus standards. OSHA does not believe this 

proposed standard imposes significant new requirements for inspections. Paragraph 1413(a) explicitly says that booming down is not required for shift (and therefore monthly) inspections. 

Similarly, OSHA does not believe that inspection of any of those items 

would require removal of non-hinged inspection plates. In the discussion of proposed § 1412, OSHA requests public comment on these 

points. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider the costs of meeting the 

requirements for original load charts and full manuals, and solicit 

comments on such costs.

Existing Subpart N, at 29 CFR 1926.550(a)(2), requires load charts; 

this is not a new cost. Subpart N does not require manuals. OSHA 

believes that most crane owners and operators have and maintain 

crane manuals, which contain the load charts and other critical technical information about crane operations and maintenance. The 

Agency believes that the cost of obtaining a copy of a manual should 

be modest and solicits comment on how many owners or operators 

do not have full manuals for their cranes or derricks. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA provide full documentation for its 

analysis of the benefits the proposed rule are expected to produce 

and assure that the benefits analysis is reproducible by others.

The Agency has already placed additional materials into the rulemaking docket to aid in the reproduction of the benefits analysis. The 

Agency has also developed a full benefits analysis (section 4 of this 

PEA) which includes the methodology and data sources for the calculations. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider and solicit public comment on whether the scope language should be clarified to explicitly 

state whether forklifts that are modified to perform tasks similar to 

equipment (cranes and derricks) modified in that manner would be 

covered.

OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed 

paragraph 1400(c)(8) and solicits public comment on the issue. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59909 

TABLE B–17—RESPONSES TO SBREFA PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS (ALSO FOUND IN TABLE 4 OF THE PREAMBLE)— 

Continued 

SBREFA panel recommendation OSHA response 

The Panel recommends that there be a full explanation in the preamble 

of how responsibility for ensuring adequate ground conditions is 

shared between the controlling entity, and the employer of the individual supervising assembly/disassembly and/or the operator.

OSHA explains in the discussion of proposed paragraph 1402(e) how 

the various employers, including the controlling entity, the employer 

whose employees operate the equipment, and the employer of the 

A/D supervisor share responsibility for ensuring adequate ground 

conditions. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA restate the applicable corrective 

action provisions (which are set forth in the shift inspection) in the 

monthly inspection section.

OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed 

paragraph 1412(e) and solicits public comment on the issue. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit public comment on whether, 

and under what circumstances, booming down should be specifically 

excluded as a part of the shift inspection, and whether the removal 

of non-hinged inspection plates should be required during the shift 

inspection.

OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed 

paragraph 1412(d) and solicits public comment on the issues raised 

in the recommendation. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit public comment on whether 

to include an exception for transportation systems in proposed paragraph 1412(a), which requires an inspection of equipment that has 

had modifications or additions that affect its safe operation, and, if 

so, what the appropriate terminology for such an exception would be.

OSHA addresses the recommendation in the discussion of proposed 

paragraph 1412(a) and solicits comment on the issues raised in the 

recommendation. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA explain in the preamble that the 

shift inspection does not need to be completed prior to each shift but 

may be completed during the shift.

In the explanation of paragraph 1412(d)(1) of the proposed rule, OSHA 

explains that the shift inspection may be completed during the shift. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit public comment about 

whether it is necessary to clarify the requirement of proposed paragraph 1412(d)(1)(xi) that the equipment be inspected for ‘‘level position.’’ 

OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed 

paragraph 1412(d)(1)(xi) and requests public comment on the issues 

raised in the recommendation. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit comment on whether paragraph 1412(f)(2)(xii)(D) should be changed to require that pressure 

be inspected ‘‘at the end of the line,’’ as distinguished from ‘‘at each 

and every line,’’ and if so, what the best terminology would be to 

meet this purpose. (An SER indicated that paragraph (f)(2)(xiv)(D) of 

§ 1412 should be modified to ‘‘checking pressure setting,’’ in part to 

avoid having to check the pressure at ‘‘each and every line’’ as opposed to ‘‘at the end of the line.’’) 

There is no proposed requirement to check the pressure ‘‘at each and 

every line.’’ The provision simply states that relief valves should be 

checked for failure to reach correct pressure. If this can be done at 

one point for the entire system, then that would satisfy the requirement. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit public comment on whether 

paragraph (f)(2)(xx) of § 1412 should be deleted because an SER 

believes that it is not always appropriate to retain originally-equipped 

steps and ladders, such as in instances where they are replaced with 

‘‘attaching dollies.’’ 

Proposed paragraph 1412(f)(2)(xx) does not require the corrective action to which the SER refers. If an inspection under proposed paragraph 1412(f) reveals a deficiency, a qualified person must determine whether that deficiency is a safety hazard requiring immediate 

correction. If the inspection reveals that original equipment, such as 

stairs and ladders, have been replaced with something equally safe, 

there would be no safety hazard and no requirement for corrective 

action. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit public comment on the extent of documentation of monthly and annual/comprehensive inspections the rule should require.OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed 

paragraph 1412(f) and requests public comment on the issue. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit public comment on whether 

the provision for monthly inspections should, like the provision for annual inspections, specify who must keep the documentation associated with monthly inspections.

OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed 

paragraph 1412(e) and requests public comment on the issue. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider ways to account for the 

possibility that there may sometimes be an extended delay in obtaining the part number for an operational aid for older equipment and 

solicit public comment on the extent to which this is a problem.

OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed 

paragraph 1416(d) and solicits public comment on the issue. 

The Panel recommends that the provision on fall protection (proposed 

§ 1423) be proposed as written and that OSHA explain in the preamble how and why the Committee arrived at this provision.

In the discussion of proposed § 1423, OSHA explains the Committee’s 

rationale underlying the proposed section. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider the potential advantages 

of and solicit public comment on adding provisions to proposed 

§ 1427 that would allow an operator to be certified on a particular 

model of crane; allow tests to be administered by an accredited educational institution; and allow employers to use manuals that have 

been re-written to accommodate the literacy level and English proficiency of operators.

OSHA addresses these recommendations in the discussion of proposed § 1427 and requests public comment on the issues raised by 

the Panel. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA clarify in the preamble how the 

proposed rule addresses an SER’s concern that his crane operator 

would not be able to pass a written qualification/certification exam 

because the operator has difficulty in taking written exams.

The issue is discussed in the explanation of the proposed rule for 

§ 1926.1427(h). 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59910 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE B–17—RESPONSES TO SBREFA PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS (ALSO FOUND IN TABLE 4 OF THE PREAMBLE)— 

Continued 

SBREFA panel recommendation OSHA response 

The Panel recommends soliciting public comment on whether the 

phrase ‘‘equipment capacity and type’’ in proposed paragraph 

1427(b)(1)(ii)(B) needs clarification, suggestions on how to accomplish this, and whether the categories represented in Figures 1 

through 10 contained in ANSI B30.5–2000) (i.e., commercial truckmounted crane—telescoping boom; commercial truck-mounted 

crane—non-telescoping boom; crawler crane; crawler crane—telescoping boom; locomotive crane; wheel mounted crane (multiple 

control station); wheel mounted crane—telescoping boom (multiple 

control station); wheel mounted crane (single control station); wheel 

mounted crane—telescoping boom (single control station)) should be 

used.

OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed 

paragraph 1427(b)(1)(ii)(B) and requests public comment on the 

issue. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA ask for public comment on whether 

the rule needs to state more clearly that paragraph 1427(j)(1)(i) requires more limited training for operators of smaller capacity equipment used in less complex operations as compared with operators of 

higher capacity, more complex equipment used in more complex situations.

OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed 

paragraph 1430(c) and requests public comment on the issue. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider and ask for public comment on whether a more limited training program would be appropriate for operations based on the capacity and type of equipment 

and nature of operations.

OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed 

paragraph 1430(c) and requests public comment on the issue. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider and ask for public comment as to whether the supervisor responsible for oversight for an 

operator in the pre-qualification period (1427(f)) should have additional training beyond that required in the C–DAC document at paragraph 1427(f)(2)(iii)(B).

OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed 

paragraph 1430(c) and requests public comment on the issue. 

The Panel recommends OSHA solicit comment on whether there are 

qualified persons in the field with the necessary expertise to assess 

how the rated capacity for land cranes and derricks used on barges 

and other flotation devices needs to be modified as required by proposed paragraph 1437(n)(2).

OSHA addresses these recommendations in the discussion of proposed paragraph 1437(n)(2) and requests public comment on the 

issues. 

The Panel also recommends that OSHA solicit comment on whether it 

is necessary, from a safety standpoint, to apply this provision to 

cranes used only for duty cycle work, and if so, why that is the case, 

and how ‘‘duty cycle work’’ should be defined.

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider and ask for comment on 

whether it would be appropriate to exempt from the rule small side 

boom cranes incapable of lifting above the height of a truck bed and 

with a capacity of not more than 6,000 pounds.

OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed 

paragraph 1440(a) and requests public comment on the issue. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit public comment on how the 

proposed rule could be simplified (without creating ambiguities) and 

made easier to understand. (Several SERs believed that the C–DAC 

document was so long and complex that small businesses would 

have difficulty understanding it and complying with it.) 

The length and comprehensiveness of the standard is an issue for this 

rulemaking. OSHA requests comment on how and whether the proposal can be shortened or simplified—made easier to understand— 

and the effect of that on addressing construction hazards. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider outlining the inspection 

requirements in spreadsheet form in an Appendix or developing 

some other means to help employers understand what inspections 

are needed and when they must be done.

OSHA will consider developing such an aid as a separate guidance 

document. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider whether use of the words 

‘‘determine’’ and ‘‘demonstrate’’ would mandate that the employer 

keep records of such determinations and if records would be required to make such demonstrations.

Some SERs requested clarification as to when documentation was required, believing that the document implicitly requires documentation 

when it states that the employer must ‘‘determine’’ or ‘‘demonstrate’’ 

certain things. OSHA notes that it cannot cite an employer for failing 

to have documentation not explicitly called for in a standard. See 

also the discussion under proposed paragraph 1402(e). 

The Panel recommends soliciting public comment on whether the word 

‘‘days’’ as used in sections 1416(d) and 1416(e) should be clarified 

to mean calendar days or business days.

OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed 

paragraph 1416(d) and requests public comment on the issue. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA carefully discuss what is included 

and excluded from the scope of this standard.

OSHA discusses in detail the types of machinery that are included 

under this proposed standard and those that are excluded in the explanation of § 1400. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA gather data and analyze the effects 

of already existing certification requirements.

OSHA has obtained and evaluated a study by the Construction Safety 

Association of Ontario showing that Ontario’s certification requirement has led to a substantial decrease in crane-related fatalities 

there. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider excluding and soliciting 

comment on whether equipment used solely to deliver materials to a 

construction site by placing/stacking the materials on the ground 

should be explicitly excluded from the proposed standard’s scope.

OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed 

paragraph 1400(c) and requests public comment on the issue. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59911 

TABLE B–17—RESPONSES TO SBREFA PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS (ALSO FOUND IN TABLE 4 OF THE PREAMBLE)— 

Continued 

SBREFA panel recommendation OSHA response 

The Panel recommends that OSHA should consider the information 

and range of opinions that were presented by the SERs on the issue 

of operator qualification/certification when analyzing the public comments on this issue.

The information and opinions submitted by the SERs are part of the 

record for this rulemaking, and OSHA will consider them along with 

the other public comments on the proposed rule. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider and solicit public comment on expanding the levels of certification so as to allow an operator to be certified on a specific brand’s model of crane.OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed 

paragraph 1427(j)(1) and requests public comment on the issue. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider and solicit public comment on expanding the levels of operator qualification/certification to 

allow an operator to be certified for a specific, limited type of circumstance. Such a circumstance would be defined by a set of parameters that, taken together, would describe an operation characterized by simplicity and relatively low risk. The Agency should consider 

and solicit comment on whether such parameters could be identified 

in a way that would result in a clear, easily understood provision that 

could be effectively enforced.

OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed 

paragraph 1427(j)(1) and requests public comment on the issue. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA consider and solicit public comment on allowing the written and practical tests described in Option 

(1) to be administered by an accredited educational institution.

OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of paragraph 

1427(b)(3) and requests public comment on the issue. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA solicit public comment on making it 

clear that: (1) An employer is permitted to equip its cranes with 

manuals re-written in a way that would allow an operator with a low 

literacy level to understand the material (such as substituting some 

text with pictures and illustrations), and (2) making it clear that, when 

the cranes are equipped with such re-written manuals and materials, 

the ‘‘manuals’’ and ‘‘materials’’ referred to in these literacy provisions 

would be the re-written manuals.

OSHA addresses this recommendation in the discussion of proposed 

paragraph 1427(h)(1) and requests public comment on the issues. 

The Panel recommends that OSHA explain in a Small Business Compliance Guide that the certification/qualification test does not need to 

be administered in English but can be administered in a language 

that the candidate can read; and that while the employee would also 

need to have a sufficient level of literacy to read and understand the 

relevant information in the equipment manual, that requirement 

would be satisfied if the material is written in a language that the employee can read and understand.

OSHA will issue a Small Business Compliance Guide after a final rule 

is issued and will explain these points in the Guide. 

9. References 

Beavers, J.E., Moore, R., Rinehart, R., 

Schriver, W.R., ‘‘Crane Related Fatalities 

in the Construction Industry’’, Journal of 

Construction Engineering and 

Management, September 2006 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, ‘‘Census of Fatal 

Occupational Injuries,’’ 1994–2003 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, ‘‘Survey of 

Occupational Injuries and Illnesses,’’ 

1995–2004 

Dunn and Bradstreet, ‘‘Market Profiles,’’ 2002 

Environmental Protection Agency, ‘‘The 

Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act 

of 1990 to 2010,’’ 1999 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

‘‘Guidelines for Preparing Economic 

Analyses’’, 2000 

Internal Revenue Service, ‘‘Statistics of 

Income 2002 Corporation Source Book,’’ 

2002 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, ‘‘IMIS Fatality Reports,’’ 

1995–2005 

U.S. Bureau of the Census, ‘‘Economic 

Census,’’ 2002 

C. OMB Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

The proposed Cranes and Derricks in 

Construction Standard contains 

collection-of-information (paperwork) 

requirements that are subject to review 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget (‘‘OMB’’) under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (‘‘PRA–95’’), 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and OMB’s 

regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. The 

Paperwork Reduction Act defines 

‘‘collection of information’’ as ‘‘the 

obtaining, causing to be obtained, 

soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to 

third parties or the public of facts or 

opinions by or for an agency regardless 

of form or format. * * * ’’ (44 U.S.C. 

3502(3)(A).) OSHA submitted the 

collection-of-information requirements 

identified in this NPRM to OMB for 

review (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). OSHA 

solicits comments on the collection-ofinformation requirements and the 

estimated burden hours associated with 

these collections, including comments 

on the following: 

• Whether the proposed collection-ofinformation requirements are necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

Agency’s functions, including whether 

the information is useful; 

• The accuracy of OSHA’s estimate of 

the burden (time and cost) of the 

information-collection requirements, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

• The quality, utility, and clarity of 

the information collected; and 

• Ways to minimize the burden on 

employers who must comply, for 

example, by using automated or other 

technological techniques for collecting 

and transmitting information. 

The title, description of the need for 

and proposed use of the information, 

description of the respondents, and 

frequency of response of the information 

collections are described below, along 

with an estimate of the annual reporting 

burden and cost as required by 5 CFR 

1320.5(a)(1)(iv) and 1320.8(d)(2). 

Title: Cranes and Derricks in 

Construction (29 CFR part 1926 subpart 

CC). 

Description and Proposed Use of the 

Collections of Information: The 

proposed standard would impose new 

information-collection requirements for 

purposes of PRA–95. The collection-ofinformation requirements in the 

proposed standard have not been 

approved by OMB. These provisions are 

needed to protect the health and safety 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59912 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

of employees who work with equipment 

at construction worksites. 

The paperwork requirements would 

impose a duty to produce and maintain 

records on employers who implement 

controls and take other measures to 

protect employees from hazards related 

to cranes and derricks used in 

construction. Accordingly, each 

construction business that has 

employees who operate or are in the 

vicinity of cranes and derricks would be 

required to have, as applicable, the 

following documents on file and 

available at the job site: Equipment 

ratings, employee training records, 

written authorizations from qualified 

individuals, and qualification program 

audits. During an inspection, OSHA 

would have access to the records to 

determine compliance under conditions 

specified by the proposed standard. An 

employer’s failure to generate and 

disclose the information required in this 

standard will affect significantly the 

Agency’s effort to control and reduce 

injuries and fatalities related to the use 

of cranes and derricks in construction. 

Table C–1 below identifies and 

describes the new collections of 

information contained in the proposed 

standard. 

TABLE C–1—COLLECTION-OF-INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROPOSED STANDARD

Information-Collection Requirements 

1926.1402(c)(2) ............................. 1926.1413(a)(4)(ii)(A) ................... 1926.1427(c)(5)(iv) ....................... 1926.1436(c)(2)(ii). 

1926.1403(b) .................................. 1926.1413(a)(4)(iii)(F) ................... 1926.1427(e)(1) ............................ 1926.1436(c)(2)(iii). 

1926.1404(f)(2) .............................. 1926.1413(a)(4)(v) ........................ 1926.1427(h)(1) ............................ 1926.1436(d)(1). 

1926.1404(h)(4) ............................. 1926.1413(b)(3) ............................ 1926.1428(a)(3) ............................ 1926.1436(g)(1)(ii). 

1926.1404(h)(6) ............................. 1926.1413(c)(4) ............................ 1926.1428(b) ................................ 1926.1436(g)(2). 

1926.1404(j) ................................... 1926.1414(c)(2)(iii) ....................... 1926.1430(a) ................................ 1926.1436(g)(3). 

1926.1404(k) .................................. 1926.1414(c)(3)(i) ......................... 1926.1430(b) ................................ 1926.1436(g)(4). 

1926.1404(m)(1)(i) ......................... 1926.14(c)(3)(iii) ........................... 1926.1430(c)(1) ............................ 1926.1436(h). 

1926.1407(b)(3)(i)(D) ..................... 1926.1415(a)(1)(ii) ........................ 1926.1431(e)(12) .......................... 1926.1437(c)(2)(ii). 

1926.1407(g) .................................. 1926.1416(d) ................................ 1926.1431(o)(3) ............................ 1926.1437(g). 

1926.1408(b)(1) ............................. 1926.1416(e) ................................ 1926.1431(p)(4) ............................ 1926.1437(h)(6). 

1926.1408(b)(4)(ii)(D) .................... 1926.1416(e)(4) ............................ 1926.1431(r) ................................. 1926.1437(m)(4). 

1926.1408(g) .................................. 1926.1417(b)(1) ............................ 1926.1431(s) ................................. 1926.1437(n)(1). 

Table A .......................................... 1926.1417(b)(2) ............................ 1926.1432(a) ................................ 1926.1437(n)(2). 

1926.1409 ...................................... 1926.1417(b)(3) ............................ 1926.1432(b)(2) ............................ 1926.1437(n)(3)(i). 

1926.1410(c)(1) ............................. 1926.1417(c)(1) ............................ 1926.1433(d)(1)(ii) ........................ 1926.1437(n)(3)(ii). 

1926.1410(d). ................................. 1926.1417(e)(1)(iv) ....................... 1926.1433(d)(5) ............................ 1926.1437(n)(5)(v). 

1926.1410(d)(2)(iv) ........................ 1926.1417(f)(1) ............................. 1926.1434(a)(1)(i) ......................... 1926.1437(n)(5)(vi). 

1926.1410(e) .................................. 1926.1417(j) .................................. 1926.1434(a)(1)(ii) ........................ 1926.1439(e). 

1926.1410(f) ................................... 1926.1417(o)(3)(i) ......................... 1926.1434(a)(2)(i) ......................... 1926.1440(a). 

1926.1410(j) ................................... 1926.1421(a) ................................ 1926.1434(a)(3) ............................ 1926.1441(b)(2)(i)(A). 

1926.1411(b)(4)(iii) ......................... 1926.1422 ..................................... 1926.1434(b) ................................ 1926.1441(b)(2)(i)(B). 

Table T ........................................... 1926.1423(h)(2) ............................ 1926.1435(c) ................................. 1926.1441(c)(2)(i). 

1926.1412(a)(1)(i) .......................... 1926.1424(a)(2)(i) ......................... 1926.1435(e)(5) ............................ 1926.1441(c)(2)(ii). 

1926.1412(b)(1)(ii)(A) ..................... 1926.1424(a)(2)(ii) ........................ 1926.1435(e)(5)(v) ........................ 1926.1441(c)(2)(iii). 

1926.1412(c)(2)(i) .......................... 1926.1427(a) ................................ 1926.1435(e)(6) ............................ 1926.1441(c)(3)(i). 

1926.1412(e)(3)(i) .......................... 1926.1427(b) ................................ 1926.1435(e)(6)(vi) ....................... 1926.1441(c)(3)(ii). 

1926.1412(e)(3)(ii) ......................... 1926.1427(c)(1)(ii) ........................ 1926.1435(f)(2)(i) .......................... 1926.1441(e). 

1926.1412(f)(6) .............................. 1926.1427(c)(2)(i) ......................... 1926.1435(f)(2)(ii) ......................... 1926.1441(f). 

1926.1412(f)(7) .............................. 1926.1427(c)(5)(ii) ........................ 1926.1436(b)(3)..

1926.1412(g)(3) ............................. 1926.1427(c)(5)(iii) ....................... 1926.1436(c)(2)(i)..

1926.1412(h) .................................. 1926.1428(a)(2) ............................ 1926.1436(f)(3)..

Affected Public: Business or other 

for-profit. 

Number of Respondents: 159,715 

firms. 

Frequency: On occasion (for most of 

the information-collection requirements; 

determined by the use of cranes and 

derricks and employee training and 

certification); annually (for equipment 

inspections). 

Average Time per Response: Varies 

from 10 seconds (sounding an alarm) to 

two hours (developing written 

equipment operation procedures). 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 

157,981 hours. 

Estimated Costs (Operation and 

Maintenance): $1.4 million. 

Submitting comments. Members of 

the public who wish to comment on the 

paperwork requirements in this 

proposal must send their written 

comments to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OSHA 

Desk Officer (RIN 1218–AC01), Office of 

Management and Budget, Room 10235, 

725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20503. The Agency encourages 

commenters to also submit their 

comments on these paperwork 

requirements to the rulemaking docket, 

along with their comments on other 

parts of the proposed rule. For 

instructions on submitting these 

comments to the rulemaking docket, see 

the sections of this Federal Register 

notice titled DATES and ADDRESSES. 

Docket and inquiries. To access the 

docket to read or download comments 

and other materials related to this 

paperwork determination, including the 

complete Information Collection 

Request (ICR) (containing the 

Supporting Statement (describing the 

paperwork determinations in detail) and 

attachments) use the procedures 

described under the section of this 

notice titled ADDRESSES. You also may 

obtain an electronic copy of the 

complete ICR by visiting the Web page 

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAMain. Scroll under ‘‘Currently 

Under Review’’ to ‘‘Department of Labor 

(DOL)’’ to view all of the DOL’s ICRs, 

including those ICRs submitted for 

proposed rulemakings. To make 

inquiries, or to request other 

information, contact Mr. Todd Owen, 

Directorate of Standards and Guidance, 

OSHA, Room N–3609, U.S. Department 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59913 

of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone 

(202) 693–2222. 

D. Federalism 

The Agency reviewed the proposed 

rule according to the most recent 

Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) on Federalism 

(E.O. 13132, 64 FR 43225). This E.O. 

requires that Federal agencies, to the 

extent possible, refrain from limiting 

State policy options, consult with States 

before taking actions that restrict their 

policy options, and take such actions 

only when clear constitutional authority 

exists and the problem is national in 

scope. The E.O. allows Federal agencies 

to preempt State law only with the 

expressed consent of Congress. In such 

cases, Federal agencies must limit 

preemption of State law to the extent 

possible. 

Section 18 of the Occupational Safety 

and Health Act of 1970 (‘‘the Act’’; 29 

U.S.C. 667) expressly provides OSHA 

with authority to preempt State 

occupational safety and health 

standards to the extent that the Agency 

promulgates a Federal standard under 

Section 6 of the Act. Accordingly, 

Section 18 of the Act authorizes the 

Agency to preempt State promulgation 

and enforcement of requirements 

dealing with occupational safety and 

health issues covered by OSHA 

standards unless the State has an 

OSHA-approved occupational safety 

and health plan (namely, is a State-Plan 

State). (See Gade v. National Solid 

Wastes Management Association, 112 S. 

Ct. 2374 (1992).) 

With respect to States that do not 

have OSHA-approved plans, the Agency 

concludes that this proposed rule would 

conform to the preemption provisions of 

the Act. Additionally, Section 18 of the 

Act prohibits States without approved 

plans from issuing citations for 

violations of OSHA standards; the 

Agency finds that the proposed 

rulemaking would not expand this 

limitation. Therefore, for States that do 

not have approved occupational safety 

and health plans, this proposed rule 

would not affect the preemption 

provisions of Section 18 of the Act. 

OSHA has authority under E.O. 13132 

to promulgate the proposed rule in 29 

CFR part 1926 because the employee 

exposures related to cranes and derricks 

used in construction addressed by the 

proposed requirements are national in 

scope. The Agency concludes that the 

requirements in this proposed rule 

would provide employers in every State 

with critical information to use when 

protecting their employees from the 

hazards presented when working with 

cranes and derricks. However, while 

OSHA drafted the proposed 

requirements to protect employees in 

every State, Section 18(c)(2) of the Act 

permits State-Plan States and Territories 

to develop and enforce their own 

standards for cranes and derricks used 

in construction provided these 

requirements are at least as effective in 

providing safe and healthful 

employment and places of employment 

as the final requirements that result 

from this proposal. 

In summary, this proposed rule 

complies with E.O. 13132. In States 

without OSHA-approved State Plans, 

Congress expressly provides for OSHA 

standards to preempt State job safety 

and health rules in areas addressed by 

the Federal standards; in these States, 

this rule limits State policy options in 

the same manner as every standard 

promulgated by the Agency. In States 

with OSHA-approved State Plans, this 

rulemaking does not significantly limit 

State policy options. 

E. State-Plan States 

Section 18(c)(2) of the Occupational 

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

667(c)(2)) requires State-Plan States to 

adopt mandatory standards promulgated 

by OSHA. Accordingly, the 24 States 

and two Territories with their own 

OSHA-approved occupational safety 

and health plans would have to adopt 

provisions comparable to the provisions 

in this proposed rule within six months 

after the Agency publishes the final rule 

that it develops from this proposal. The 

Agency believes that the proposed rule 

would provide employers in State-Plan 

States and Territories with critical 

information and methods necessary to 

protect their employees when working 

with cranes and derricks in 

construction. The 24 States and two 

Territories with State Plans are: Alaska, 

Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana, 

Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North 

Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South 

Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, 

Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. 

Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and 

the Virgin Islands have OSHA-approved 

State Plans that apply to State and local 

government employees only. Until a 

State-Plan State/Territory promulgates 

its own comparable provisions based on 

the final rule developed from this 

proposal, Federal OSHA will provide 

the State/Territory with interim 

enforcement assistance, as appropriate. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

OSHA reviewed this proposed rule 

according to the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’; 2 U.S.C. 

1501 et seq.) and Executive Order 12875 

(58 FR 58093). As discussed above in 

section V.B. of this preamble 

(‘‘Preliminary Economic Analysis and 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis’’), 

the Agency estimates that compliance 

with this proposed rule would require 

private-sector employers to expend 

about $123 million each year. However, 

while this proposed rule establishes a 

federal mandate in the private sector, it 

is not a significant regulatory action 

within the meaning of Section 202 of 

the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1532). 

Under voluntary agreement with 

OSHA, some States enforce compliance 

with their State standards on public 

sector entities, and these agreements 

specify that these State standards must 

be equivalent to OSHA standards. Thus, 

although OSHA has included 

compliance costs for the affected public 

sector entities in its analysis of the 

expected impacts associated with the 

proposal, the proposal would not 

involve any unfunded mandates being 

imposed on any State or local 

government entity. Consequently, this 

proposed rule does not meet the 

definition of a ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandate’’ (see Sec. 

421(5) of the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5))). 

Therefore, for the purposes of the 

UMRA, the Agency preliminarily 

certifies that this proposed rule does not 

mandate that State, local, and tribal 

governments adopt new, unfunded 

regulatory obligations, nor does the 

proposed rule increase the expenditures 

by the private sector of more than $100 

million a year. 

G. Applicability of Existing Consensus 

Standards 

Some of the types of equipment 

subject to this proposed standard are 

addressed by current national consensus 

standards in the ASME B30 series, 

including: ASME B30.5–2004, ‘‘Mobile 

and Locomotive Cranes’’; ASME B30.6– 

2003, ‘‘Derricks’’; ASME B30.8–2004, 

‘‘Floating Cranes and Floating 

Derricks’’; ASME B30.3–2004, 

‘‘Construction Tower Cranes’’; ASME 

B30.14–2004, ‘‘Side Boom Tractors’’; 

and ASME B30.2–2001, ‘‘Overhead and 

Gantry Cranes.’’ In addition, ASME 

B30.7–2005, ‘‘Base-Mounted Drum 

Hoists,’’ addresses a type of equipment 

that is often a component of derricks, 

and ASME B30.23–2005, ‘‘Personnel 

Lifting Systems,’’ addresses issues that 

are covered by proposed § 1926.1431, 

Hoisting personnel. 

The Committee consulted these 

ASME standards (or the most current 

versions available at the time) and other 

resources in developing its proposal. In 

most instances, the ASME standards 

that the Committee consulted were 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59914 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

entered into the docket, including: 

ASME B30.5–2000 (OSHA–S030–2006– 

0663–0334); ASME B30.5a–2002 

Addenda (OSHA–S030–2006–0663– 

0335); ASME B30.6–2003 (OSHA–S030– 

2006–0663–0337); ASME B30.17–2003 

(OSHA–S030–2006–0663–0338); ASME 

B30.3–1996 (OSHA–S030–2006–0663– 

0353); and ASME B30.23–1998 (OSHA– 

S030–2006–0663–0354). Where newer 

versions of the ASME standards were 

issued after the Committee finished its 

work, OSHA has examined the updated 

standards to determine if their 

provisions deviate in a significant way 

from provisions on which C–DAC 

relied. Those updated standards have 

been entered into the record of this 

rulemaking. For the most part, OSHA 

did not find significant deviations 

between the updated versions and the 

versions before the Committee. In the 

few instances where deviations 

occurred, OSHA has identified those 

deviations and asked for public 

comment on any issues they raise. 

As discussed in detail in the 

Summary and Explanation of the 

proposed standard, a number of 

provisions in this proposal contain 

concepts that are similar to those in 

provisions in the various ASME 

standards. However, the Committee 

determined in most instances that, for 

reasons of enforceability, clarity or ease 

of use, the wording of those concepts 

needed to be modified. 

For some issues, the ASME standards 

do not address issues covered by this 

proposal, or the Committee determined 

that a different approach is needed. For 

example, in the provisions on 

inspections (§§ 1926.1412 and 

1926.1413), C–DAC concluded that 

shift, monthly and annual inspection 

intervals are most appropriate, in 

contrast to the ASME approach, which 

uses ‘‘frequent’’ and ‘‘periodic’’ 

intervals. In the provisions addressing 

assembly/disassembly (§§ 1926.1403 

through 1926.1406) and the 

encroachment prevention provisions for 

power lines (§ 1926.1407 through 

1926.1411), C–DAC adopted approaches 

with no comparable counterparts in the 

ASME standards. 

In some instances, C–DAC determined 

that it was appropriate to incorporate 

ASME standards by reference, in whole 

or in part. For example, in proposed 

§ 1926.1433, Design, construction and 

testing, the proposed rule incorporates 

by reference ANSI B30.5–1968, safety 

code for ‘‘Crawler, Locomotive, and 

Truck Cranes,’’ ‘‘PCSA Standard No. 2,’’ 

for crawler, truck and locomotive cranes 

manufactured prior to [EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], and 

incorporates portions of ASME B30.5a2004, ‘‘Mobile and Locomotive Cranes,’’ 

for mobile (including crawler and truck) 

and locomotive cranes manufactured on 

or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE 

FINAL RULE]. 

H. Review of the Proposed Standard by 

the Advisory Committee for 

Construction Safety and Health 

The proposed subpart would add 

requirements to the existing standards 

in 29 CFR part 1926 that protect 

employees from hazards associated with 

the use of cranes and derricks in 

construction. OSHA’s regulation 

governing the Advisory Committee on 

Construction Safety and Health 

(ACCSH) at 29 CFR 1912.3 requires 

OSHA to consult with ACCSH 

whenever the Agency proposes a rule 

that involves the occupational safety 

and health of construction employees. 

OSHA distributed the C–DAC 

Consensus Document to the ACCSH 

members one month prior to their 

scheduled October 11, 2006 meeting. At 

the meeting, OSHA took questions from 

the ACCSH members regarding the 

C–DAC Consensus Document. On 

October 12, 2006, the OSHA staff 

provided answers to these questions to 

the ACCSH members. ACCSH discussed 

the issues related to the C–DAC 

Consensus Document and then adopted 

a resolution supporting it and 

recommending that OSHA use it as the 

basis for a proposed standard. (ACCSH 

2006–1, Ex. 101x, pp. 248–49). 

I. Public Participation—Comments and 

Hearings 

OSHA encourages members of the 

public to participate in this rulemaking 

by submitting comments on the 

proposal and documentary evidence. In 

this regard, the Agency invites 

interested parties having knowledge of, 

or experience with, cranes and derricks 

in construction to participate in this 

process, and welcomes any pertinent 

data and cost information that will 

provide it with the best available 

evidence on which to develop the final 

regulatory requirements. 

Comments. The Agency invites 

interested parties to submit written data, 

views, and arguments concerning this 

proposal. In particular, the Agency 

welcomes comments on its 

determination of the economic or other 

regulatory impacts of the proposed rule 

on the regulated community. When 

submitting comments, follow the 

procedures specified above in the 

sections titled DATES and ADDRESSES. 

The comments must clearly identify the 

provision of the proposal being 

addressed, the position taken with 

respect to each issue, and the basis for 

that position. Comments, along with 

supporting data and references, received 

by the end of the specified comment 

period will become part of the 

proceedings record, and will be 

available electronically for public 

inspection at the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov), or 

may be read at the OSHA Docket Office, 

Room N–2625, 200 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington. (See the section of 

this Federal Register notice titled 

ADDRESSES for additional information 

on how to access these documents.) 

Informal Public Hearings. Requests 

for a hearing should be submitted to the 

Agency as set forth above under the 

sections of this notice titled DATES and 

ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1926 

Construction industry, Occupational 

safety and health, Safety. 

Authority and Signature 

Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant 

Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health, U.S. Department of 

Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20210, directed the 

preparation of this notice. The Agency 

is issuing this proposal under the 

following authorities: Sections 4, 6(b), 

8(c), and 8(g) of the Occupational Safety 

and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 

655, 657); Section 3704 of the Contract 

Work Hours and Safety Standards Act 

(40 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.); Section 4 of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 

553); Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 

5–2007 (72 FR 31159); and 29 CFR part 

1911. 

Signed at Washington, DC, on September 

16, 2008. 

Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health. 

Proposed Amendments to Standards 

For the reasons stated in the preamble 

of this proposed rule, the Agency is 

proposing to amend 29 CFR part 1926 

to read as follows: 

PART 1926—[AMENDED] 

Subpart M—Fall Protection 

1. The authority citation for subpart M 

of Part 1926 is revised to read as 

follows: 

Authority: Section 3704 of the Contract 

Work Hours and Safety Standards Act 

(Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 3701); 

Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the Occupational 

Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 

655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s Order Nos. 1– 

90 (55 FR 9033), 6–96 (62 FR 111), 3–2000 

(65 FR 50017), and 5–2007 (72 FR 31159); 

and 29 CFR part 1911. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59915 

2. Section 1926.500 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1926.500 Scope, application, and 

definitions applicable to this subpart. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) Requirements relating to fall 

protection for employees working on 

cranes and derricks are provided in 

subpart CC of this part. 

* * * * * 

Subpart N—Cranes, Derricks, Hoists, 

Elevators, and Conveyors 

3. The authority citation for subpart N 

of CFR part 1926 is revised to read as 

follows: 

Authority: Section 3704 of the Contract 

Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 

U.S.C. 3701); Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 

(29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s 

Order Nos. 12–71 (36 FR 8754), 8–76 (41 FR 

25059), or 9–83 (49 FR 35736), and 5–2007 

(72 FR 31159). Section 1926.550 also issued 

under 29 CFR part 1911. 

4. The heading to subpart N of 29 CFR 

part 1926 is revised to read as follows: 

Subpart N—Hoists, Elevators, and 

Conveyors 

* * * * * 

§ 1926.550 [Reserved] 

5. Section 1926.550 is removed and 

reserved. 

6. Section 1926.553 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 1926.553 Base-mounted drum hoists. 

* * * * * 

(c) This section does not apply to 

base-mounted drum hoists used in 

conjunction with derricks. Basemounted drum hoists used in 

conjunction with derricks must conform 

to § 1926.1436(e). 

Subpart R—Steel Erection 

7. The authority citation for subpart R 

of 29 CFR part 1926 is revised to read 

as follows: 

Authority: Section 3704 of the Contract 

Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 

U.S.C. 3701); Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 

(29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s 

Order Nos. 3–2000 (65 FR 50017), 5–2002 (67 

FR 65008), and 5–2007 (72 FR 31159); and 

29 CFR part 1911. 

8. Section 1926.753 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (c)(4) to read 

as follows: 

§ 1926.753 Hoisting and rigging. 

(a) All the provisions of subpart CC of 

this part apply to hoisting and rigging 

with the exception of § 1926.1431(a). 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(4) Cranes or derricks may be used to 

hoist employees on a personnel 

platform when work under this subpart 

is being conducted, provided that all 

provisions of § 1926.1431 (except for 

§ 1926.1431(a)) are met. 

* * * * * 

Subpart V—Power Transmission and 

Distribution 

9. The authority citation for subpart V 

of part 1926 is revised to read as 

follows: 

Authority: Section 3704 of the Contract 

Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 

U.S.C. 3701); Secs. 4, 6, and 8 of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 

(29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s 

Order Nos. 12–71 (36 FR 8754); 8–76 (41 FR 

25059); 9–83 (48 FR 35736, 1–90 (55 FR 

9033), and 5–2007 (72 FR 31159). Section 

1926.951 also issued under 29 CFR part 1911. 

10. Section 1926.952 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 1926.952 Mechanical equipment. 

* * * * * 

(c) Cranes and other lifting 

equipment. (1) All equipment covered 

by subpart CC that is used for work 

covered by this subpart (subpart V), 

including cranes and other lifting 

equipment, shall comply with subparts 

CC and O of this part. 

(2) Service trucks with mobile lifting 

devices designed specifically for use in 

the power line and electric service 

industries, such as digger derricks 

(radial boom derricks), when used in 

these industries for auguring holes to set 

power and utility poles, or handling 

associated materials to be installed or 

removed from utility poles, must meet 

the applicable minimum clearance 

distance in Table V–1 in § 1926.950. 

(3) With the exception of equipment 

certified for work on the proper voltage, 

mechanical equipment shall not be 

operated closer to any energized line or 

equipment than the clearances set forth 

in § 1926.950(c) unless, in addition to 

the requirements in § 1926.1410: 

(i) The mechanical equipment is 

insulated, or 

(ii) The mechanical equipment is 

considered as energized. 

11. Subparts AA and BB are added 

and reserved and Subpart CC is added 

to read as follows: 

Subpart CC—Cranes and Derricks in 

Construction 

Sec. 

1926.1400 Scope. 

1926.1401 Definitions. 

1926.1402 Ground conditions. 

1926.1403 Assembly/Disassembly— 

selection of manufacturer or employer 

procedures. 

1926.1404 Assembly/Disassembly—general 

requirements (applies to all assembly 

and disassembly operations). 

1926.1405 Disassembly—additional 

requirements for dismantling of booms 

and jibs (applies to both the use of 

manufacturer procedures and employer 

procedures). 

1926.1406 Assembly/Disassembly— 

employer procedures—general 

requirements. 

1926.1407 Power line safety (up to 350 

kV)—assembly and disassembly. 

1926.1408 Power line safety (up to 350 

kV)—equipment operations. 

1926.1409 Power line safety (over 350 kV). 

1926.1410 Power line safety (all voltages)— 

equipment operations closer than the 

Table A zone. 

1926.1411 Power line safety—while 

traveling. 

1926.1412 Inspections. 

1926.1413 Wire rope—inspection. 

1926.1414 Wire rope—selection and 

installation criteria. 

1926.1415 Safety devices. 

1926.1416 Operational aids. 

1926.1417 Operation. 

1926.1418 Authority to stop operation. 

1926.1419 Signals—general requirements. 

1926.1420 Signals—radio, telephone or 

other electronic transmission of signals. 

1926.1421 Signals—voice signals— 

additional requirements. 

1926.1422 Signals—hand signal chart. 

1926.1423 Fall protection. 

1926.1424 Work area control. 

1926.1425 Keeping clear of the load. 

1926.1426 Free fall and controlled load 

lowering. 

1926.1427 Operator qualification and 

certification. 

1926.1428 Signal person qualifications. 

1926.1429 Qualifications of maintenance & 

repair employees. 

1926.1430 Training. 

1926.1431 Hoisting personnel. 

1926.1432 Multiple-crane/derrick lifts— 

supplemental requirements. 

1926.1433 Design, construction and testing. 

1926.1434 Equipment modifications. 

1926.1435 Tower cranes. 

1926.1436 Derricks. 

1926.1437 Floating cranes/derricks and 

land cranes/derricks on barges. 

1926.1438 Overhead & gantry cranes. 

1926.1439 Dedicated pile drivers. 

1926.1440 Sideboom cranes. 

1926.1441 Equipment with a rated hoisting/ 

lifting capacity of 2,000 pounds or less. 

Appendix A to Subpart CC of part 1926— 

Standard Hand Signals 

Appendix B to Subpart CC of part 1926—Use 

of Non-Standard Signals 

Appendix C to Subpart CC of part 1926— 

Checklists for Determining if Hoisting 

Personnel is Permissible 

Appendix D to Subpart CC of part 1926— 

Assembly/Disassembly—Sample 

Procedures for Minimizing the Risk of 

Unintended Dangerous Boom Movement 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59916 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Appendix E to Subpart CC of part 1926— 

Operator Certification: Written 

Examination: Technical Knowledge 

Criteria 

Subpart CC—Cranes and Derricks in 

Construction 

Authority: Section 3704 of the Contract 

Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 

U.S.C. 3701); sections 4, 6, and 8 of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 

(29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s 

Order No. 5–2007 (72 FR 31159); and 29 CFR 

part 1911. 

§ 1926.1400 Scope. 

(a) This subpart applies to poweroperated equipment used in 

construction that can hoist, lower and 

horizontally move a suspended load. 

Such equipment includes, but is not 

limited to: Articulating cranes (such as 

knuckle-boom cranes); crawler cranes; 

floating cranes; cranes on barges; 

locomotive cranes; mobile cranes (such 

as wheel-mounted, rough-terrain, allterrain, commercial truck-mounted, and 

boom truck cranes); multi-purpose 

machines when configured to hoist and 

lower (by means of a winch or hook) 

and horizontally move a suspended 

load; industrial cranes (such as carrydeck cranes); dedicated pile drivers; 

service/mechanic trucks with a hoisting 

device; a crane on a monorail; tower 

cranes (such as fixed jib (‘‘hammerhead 

boom’’), luffing boom and self-erecting); 

pedestal cranes; portal cranes; overhead 

and gantry cranes; straddle cranes; 

sideboom cranes; derricks; and 

variations of such equipment. However, 

items listed in paragraph (c) of this 

section are excluded from the scope of 

this subpart. 

(b) Attachments. This subpart applies 

to equipment included in paragraph (a) 

of this section when used with 

attachments. Such attachments, whether 

crane-attached or suspended include, 

but are not limited to: Hooks, magnets, 

grapples, clamshell buckets, orange peel 

buckets, concrete buckets, drag lines, 

personnel platforms, augers or drills and 

pile driving equipment. 

(c) Exclusions. This subpart does not 

cover: 

(1) Machinery included in paragraph 

(a) of this section while it has been 

converted or adapted for a non-hoisting/ 

lifting use. Such conversions/ 

adaptations include, but are not limited 

to, power shovels, excavators and 

concrete pumps. 

(2) Power shovels, excavators, wheel 

loaders, backhoes, loader backhoes, 

track loaders. This machinery is also 

excluded when used with chains, slings 

or other rigging to lift suspended loads. 

(3) Automotive wreckers and tow 

trucks when used to clear wrecks and 

haul vehicles. 

(4) Service trucks with mobile lifting 

devices designed specifically for use in 

the power line and electric service 

industries, such as digger derricks 

(radial boom derricks), when used in 

these industries for auguring holes to set 

power and utility poles, or handling 

associated materials to be installed or 

removed from utility poles. 

(5) Machinery originally designed as 

vehicle-mounted aerial devices (for 

lifting personnel) and self-propelled 

elevating work platforms. 

(6) Telescopic/hydraulic gantry 

systems. 

(7) Stacker cranes. 

(8) Powered industrial trucks 

(forklifts). 

(9) Mechanic’s truck with a hoisting 

device when used in activities related to 

equipment maintenance and repair. 

(10) Machinery that hoists by using a 

come-a-long or chainfall. 

(11) Dedicated drilling rigs. 

(12) Gin poles used for the erection of 

communication towers. 

(13) Tree trimming and tree removal 

work. 

(14) Anchor handling with a vessel or 

barge using an affixed A-frame. 

(15) Roustabouts. 

(d) All sections of this subpart apply 

to the equipment covered by this 

subpart unless specified otherwise. 

(e) The duties of controlling entities 

under this subpart include, but are not 

limited to, the duties specified in 

§ 1926.1402(c), § 1926.1402(e), and 

§ 1926.1424(b). 

(f) Where provisions of this subpart 

direct an operator, crewmember, or 

other employee to take certain actions, 

the employer shall establish, effectively 

communicate to the relevant persons, 

and enforce work rules, to ensure 

compliance with such provisions. 

§ 1926.1401 Definitions. 

A/D supervisor (Assembly/ 

Disassembly supervisor) means an 

individual who meets this standard’s 

requirements for an A/D supervisor, 

irrespective of the person’s formal job 

title or whether the person is nonmanagement or management personnel. 

Articulating crane means a crane 

whose boom consists of a series of 

folding, pin connected structural 

members, typically manipulated to 

extend or retract by power from 

hydraulic cylinders. 

Assembly/Disassembly means the 

assembly and/or disassembly of 

equipment covered under this standard. 

With regard to tower cranes, ‘‘erecting 

and climbing’’ replaces the term 

‘‘assembly,’’ and ‘‘dismantling’’ replaces 

the term ‘‘disassembly.’’ 

Assist crane means a crane used to 

assist in assembling or disassembling a 

crane. Attachments means any device 

that expands the range of tasks that can 

be done by the equipment. Examples 

include, but are not limited to: An 

auger, drill, magnet, pile-driver, and 

boom-attached personnel platform. 

Audible signal means a signal made 

by a distinct sound or series of sounds. 

Examples include, but are not limited 

to, sounds made by a bell, horn, or 

whistle. 

Blocking (also referred to as 

‘‘cribbing’’) is wood or other material 

used to support equipment or a 

component and distribute loads to the 

ground. It is typically used to support 

latticed boom sections during assembly/ 

disassembly and under outrigger floats. 

Boatswain’s chair means a singlepoint adjustable suspension scaffold 

consisting of a seat or sling (which may 

be incorporated into a full body harness) 

designed to support one employee in a 

sitting position. 

Bogie means ‘‘travel bogie,’’ which is 

defined below. 

Boom (equipment other than tower 

crane) means an inclined spar, strut, or 

other long structural member which 

supports the upper hoisting tackle on a 

crane or derrick. Typically, the length 

and vertical angle of the boom can be 

varied to achieve increased height or 

height and reach when lifting loads. 

Booms can usually be grouped into 

general categories of hydraulically 

extendible, cantilevered type, latticed 

section, cable supported type or 

articulating type. 

Boom (tower cranes): On tower 

cranes, if the ‘‘boom’’ (i.e., principal 

horizontal structure) is fixed, it is 

referred to as a jib; if it is moveable up 

and down, it is referred to as a boom. 

Boom angle indicator means a device 

which measures the angle of the boom 

relative to horizontal. 

Boom hoist limiting device includes 

boom hoist disengaging device, boom 

hoist shut-off, boom hoist disconnect, 

boom hoist hydraulic relief, boom hoist 

kick-outs, automatic boom stop device, 

or derricking limiter. This type of device 

disengages boom hoist power when the 

boom reaches a predetermined 

operating angle. It also sets brakes or 

closes valves to prevent the boom from 

lowering after power is disengaged. 

Boom length indicator indicates the 

length of the permanent part of the 

boom (such as ruled markings on the 

boom) or, as in some computerized 

systems, the length of the boom with 

extensions/attachments. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59917 

Boom stop includes boom stops, 

(belly straps with struts/standoff), 

telescoping boom stops, attachment 

boom stops, and backstops. These 

devices restrict the boom from moving 

above a certain maximum angle and 

toppling over backward. 

Boom suspension system means a 

system of pendants, running ropes, 

sheaves, and other hardware which 

supports the boom tip and controls the 

boom angle. 

Builder means an employer builder/ 

constructor of equipment. 

Calculate includes use of a calculator. 

Center of gravity: The center of gravity 

of any object is the point in the object 

around which its weight is evenly 

distributed. If you could put a support 

under that point, you could balance the 

object on the support. 

Certified welder means a welder who 

meets nationally recognized 

certification requirements applicable to 

the task being performed. 

Climbing means the process in which 

a tower crane is raised to a new working 

height, either by adding additional 

tower sections to the top of the crane 

(top climbing), or by a system in which 

the entire crane is raised inside the 

structure (inside climbing). 

Come-a-long means a mechanical 

device typically consisting of a chain or 

cable attached at each end that is used 

to facilitate movement of materials 

through leverage. 

Competent person means one who is 

capable of identifying existing and 

predictable hazards in the surroundings 

or working conditions which are 

unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous to 

employees, and who has authorization 

to take prompt corrective measures to 

eliminate them. 

Controlled load lowering means 

lowering a load by means of a 

mechanical hoist drum device that 

allows a hoisted load to be lowered with 

maximum control using the gear train or 

hydraulic components of the hoist 

mechanism. Controlled load lowering 

requires the use of the hoist drive motor, 

rather than the load hoist brake, to 

lower the load. 

Controlling entity means a prime 

contractor, general contractor, 

construction manager or any other legal 

entity which has the overall 

responsibility for the construction of the 

project—its planning, quality and 

completion. 

Counterweight means a weight used to 

supplement the weight of equipment in 

providing stability for lifting loads by 

counterbalancing those loads. 

Crane/derrick includes all equipment 

covered by this subpart. 

Crawler crane means equipment that 

has a type of base mounting which 

incorporates a continuous belt of 

sprocket driven track. 

Crossover points means locations on a 

wire rope which is spooled on a drum 

where one layer of rope climbs up on 

and crosses over the previous layer. 

This takes place at each flange of the 

drum as the rope is spooled onto the 

drum, reaches the flange, and begins to 

wrap back in the opposite direction. 

Dedicated channel means a line of 

communication assigned by the 

employer who controls the 

communication system to only one 

signal person and crane/derrick or to a 

coordinated group of cranes/derricks/ 

signal person(s). 

Dedicated pile-driver is a machine 

that is designed to function exclusively 

as a pile-driver. These machines 

typically have the ability to both hoist 

the material that will be pile-driven and 

to pile-drive that material. 

Dedicated spotter (power lines): In 

order to be considered a dedicated 

spotter, the requirements of § 1926.1428 

(Signal person qualifications) must be 

met and his/her sole responsibility is to 

watch the separation between the power 

line and: the equipment, load line and 

load (including rigging and lifting 

accessories), and ensure through 

communication with the operator that 

the applicable minimum approach 

distance is not breached. 

Directly under the load means a part 

or all of an employee is directly beneath 

the load. 

Dismantling includes partial 

dismantling (such as dismantling to 

shorten a boom or substitute a different 

component). 

Drum rotation indicator means a 

device on a crane or hoist which 

indicates in which direction and at what 

relative speed a particular hoist drum is 

turning. 

Electrical contact occurs when a 

person, object, or equipment makes 

contact or comes in close proximity 

with an energized conductor or 

equipment that allows the passage of 

current. 

Employer-made equipment means 

floating cranes/derricks designed and 

built by an employer for the employer’s 

own use. 

Encroachment is where any part of 

the crane, load line or load (including 

rigging and lifting accessories) breaches 

a minimum clearance distance that this 

subpart requires to be maintained from 

a power line. 

Equipment means equipment covered 

by this subpart. 

Equipment criteria means 

instructions, recommendations, 

limitations and specifications. 

Fall protection equipment means 

guardrail systems, safety net systems, 

personal fall arrest systems, positioning 

device systems or fall restraint systems. 

Fall restraint system means a fall 

protection system that prevents the user 

from falling any distance. The system is 

comprised of either a body belt or body 

harness, along with an anchorage, 

connectors and other necessary 

equipment. The other components 

typically include a lanyard, and may 

also include a lifeline and other devices. 

Fall zone means the area (including 

but not limited to the area directly 

beneath the load) in which it is 

reasonably foreseeable that partially or 

completely suspended materials could 

fall in the event of an accident. 

Flange points are points of contact 

between rope and drum flange where 

the rope changes layers. 

Floating cranes/derricks means 

equipment designed by the 

manufacturer (or employer) for marine 

use by permanent attachment to a barge, 

pontoons, vessel or other means of 

flotation. 

For example means ‘‘one example, 

although there are others.’’ 

Free fall (of the load line) means that 

only the brake is used to regulate the 

descent of the load line (the drive 

mechanism is not used to drive the load 

down faster or retard its lowering). 

Free surface effect is the uncontrolled 

transverse movement of liquids in 

compartments which reduce a vessel’s 

transverse stability. 

Hoist means a mechanical device for 

lifting and lowering loads by winding 

rope onto or off a drum. 

Hoisting is the act of raising, lowering 

or otherwise moving a load in the air 

with equipment covered by this 

standard. As used in this standard, 

‘‘hoisting’’ can be done by means other 

than wire rope/ hoist drum equipment. 

Include/including means ‘‘including, 

but not limited to.’’ 

Insulating link/device means an 

insulating device listed, labeled, or 

accepted by a Nationally Recognized 

Testing Laboratory in accordance with 

29 CFR 1910.7. 

Jib stop (also referred to as a jib 

backstop), is the same type of device as 

a boom stop but is for a fixed or luffing 

jib. 

Land crane/derrick is equipment not 

originally designed by the manufacturer 

for marine use by permanent attachment 

to barges, pontoons, vessels, or other 

means of floatation. 

List means the angle of inclination 

about the longitudinal axis of a barge, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59918 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

pontoons, vessel or other means of 

floatation. 

Load refers to the object(s) being 

hoisted and/or the weight of the 

object(s); both uses refer to the object(s) 

and the load-attaching equipment, such 

as, the load block, ropes, slings, 

shackles, and any other ancillary 

attachment. 

Load moment (or rated capacity) 

indicator means a system which aids the 

equipment operator by sensing the 

overturning moment on the equipment, 

i.e., load multiplied by radius. It 

compares this lifting condition to the 

equipment’s rated capacity, and 

indicates to the operator the percentage 

of capacity at which the equipment is 

working. Lights, bells, or buzzers may 

be incorporated as a warning of an 

approaching overload condition. 

Load moment (or rated capacity) 

limiter means a system which aids the 

equipment operator by sensing the 

overturning moment on the equipment, 

i.e., load multiplied by radius. It 

compares this lifting condition to the 

equipment’s rated capacity, and when 

the rated capacity is reached, it shuts off 

power to those equipment functions 

which can increase the severity of 

loading on the equipment, e.g., hoisting, 

telescoping out, or luffing out. 

Typically, those functions which 

decrease the severity of loading on the 

equipment remain operational, e.g., 

lowering, telescoping in, or luffing in. 

Locomotive crane means a crane 

mounted on a base or car equipped for 

travel on a railroad track. 

Luffing jib limiting device is similar to 

a boom hoist limiting device, except 

that it limits the movement of the 

luffing jib. 

Marine hoisted personnel transfer 

device means a device, such as a 

‘‘transfer net,’’ that is designed to 

protect the employees being hoisted 

during a marine transfer and to facilitate 

rapid entry into and exit from the 

device. Such devices do not include 

boatswain’s chairs when hoisted by 

equipment covered by this standard. 

Marine worksite means a construction 

worksite located in, on or above the 

water. 

Mobile crane means a lifting device 

incorporating a cable suspended latticed 

boom or hydraulic telescopic boom 

designed to be moved between 

operating locations by transport over the 

road. 

Moving point-to-point means the 

times during which an employee is in 

the process of going to or from a work 

station. 

Multi-purpose machine means a 

machine that is designed to be 

configured in various ways, at least one 

of which allows it to hoist (by means of 

a winch or hook) and horizontally move 

a suspended load. For example, a 

machine that can rotate and can be 

configured with removable tongs (for 

use as a forklift) or with a winch pack, 

jib (with a hook at the end) or jib used 

in conjunction with a winch. When 

configured with the tongs, it is not 

covered by this subpart. When 

configured with a winch pack, jib (with 

a hook at the end) or jib used in 

conjunction with a winch, it is covered 

by this subpart. 

Nationally recognized accrediting 

agency is an organization that, due to its 

independence and expertise, is widely 

recognized as competent to accredit 

testing organizations. 

Non-conductive means that, because 

of the nature and condition of the 

materials used, and the conditions of 

use (including environmental 

conditions and condition of the 

material), the object in question has the 

property of not becoming energized 

(that is, it has high dielectric properties 

offering a high resistance to the passage 

of current under the conditions of use). 

Operational aids are devices that 

assist the operator in the safe operation 

of the crane by providing information or 

automatically taking control of a crane 

function. These include, but are not 

limited to, the devices listed in 

§ 1926.1416 (‘‘listed operational aids’’). 

Operational controls means levers, 

switches, pedals and other devices for 

controlling equipment operation. 

Operator means a person who is 

operating the equipment. 

Overhead and gantry cranes includes 

overhead/bridge cranes, semigantry, 

cantilever gantry, wall cranes, storage 

bridge cranes, launching gantry cranes, 

and similar equipment, irrespective of 

whether it travels on tracks, wheels, or 

other means. 

Paragraph refers to a paragraph in the 

same section of this subpart that the 

word ‘‘paragraph’’ is used, unless 

otherwise specified. 

Pendants includes both wire and bar 

types. Wire type: A fixed length of wire 

rope with mechanical fittings at both 

ends for pinning segments of wire rope 

together. Bar type: Instead of wire rope, 

a bar is used. Pendants are typically 

used in a latticed boom crane system to 

easily change the length of the boom 

suspension system without completely 

changing the rope on the drum when 

the boom length is increased or 

decreased. 

Personal fall arrest system means a 

system used to arrest an employee in a 

fall from a working level. It consists of 

an anchorage, connectors, a body 

harness and may include a lanyard, 

deceleration device, lifeline, or suitable 

combination of these. 

Portal crane is a type of crane 

consisting of a rotating upperstructure, 

hoist machinery, and boom mounted on 

top of a structural gantry which may be 

fixed in one location or have travel 

capability. The gantry legs or columns 

usually have portal openings in between 

to allow passage of traffic beneath the 

gantry. 

Power lines means electric 

transmission and distribution lines. 

Procedures include, but are not 

limited to: Instructions, diagrams, 

recommendations, warnings, 

specifications, protocols, and 

limitations. 

Proximity alarm is a device that 

provides a warning of proximity to a 

power line that has been listed, labeled, 

or accepted by a Nationally Recognized 

Testing Laboratory in accordance with 

29 CFR 1910.7. 

Qualified evaluator (not a third party) 

means a person employed by the signal 

person’s employer who has 

demonstrated that he/she is competent 

in accurately assessing whether 

individuals meet the Qualification 

Requirements in this subpart for a signal 

person. 

Qualified evaluator (third party) 

means an entity that, due to its 

independence and expertise, has 

demonstrated that it is competent in 

accurately assessing whether 

individuals meet the Qualification 

Requirements in this subpart for a signal 

person. 

Qualified person means a person who, 

by possession of a recognized degree, 

certificate, or professional standing, or 

who by extensive knowledge, training 

and experience, successfully 

demonstrated the ability to solve/ 

resolve problems relating to the subject 

matter, the work, or the project. 

Qualified rigger is a rigger who meets 

the criteria for a qualified person. 

Range control warning device is a 

device that can be set by an equipment 

operator to warn that the boom or jib tip 

is at a plane or multiple planes. 

Rated capacity means the maximum 

working load permitted by the 

manufacturer under specified working 

conditions. Such working conditions 

typically include a specific combination 

of factors such as equipment 

configuration, radii, boom length, and 

other parameters of use. 

Rated capacity indicator: See load 

moment indicator. 

Rated capacity limiter: See load 

moment limiter. 

Repetitive pickup points refer to, 

when operating on a short cycle 

operation, the rope being used on a 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59919 

single layer and being spooled 

repetitively over a short portion of the 

drum. 

Running wire rope means a wire rope 

that moves over sheaves or drums. 

Runway means a firm, level surface 

designed, prepared and designated as a 

path of travel for the weight and 

configuration of the crane being used to 

lift and travel with the crane suspended 

platform. An existing surface may be 

used as long as it meets these criteria. 

Section means a section of this 

subpart, unless otherwise specified. 

Sideboom crane means a track-type or 

wheel-type tractor having a boom 

mounted on the side of the tractor, used 

for lifting, lowering or transporting a 

load suspended on the load hook. The 

boom or hook can be lifted or lowered 

in a vertical direction only. 

Special hazard warnings means 

warnings of site-specific hazards (for 

example, proximity of power lines). 

Stability (flotation device) means the 

tendency of a barge, pontoons, vessel or 

other means of floatation to return to an 

upright position after having been 

inclined by an external force. 

Standard Method means the protocol 

in Appendix A of this subpart for hand 

signals. 

Such as means ‘‘such as, but not 

limited to.’’ 

Superstructure: See Upperworks. 

Tagline means a rope (usually fiber) 

attached to a lifted load for purposes of 

controlling load spinning and pendular 

motions or used to stabilize a bucket or 

magnet during material handling 

operations. 

Tender means an individual 

responsible for monitoring and 

communicating with a diver. 

Tilt up or tilt down operation means 

raising/lowering a load from the 

horizontal to vertical or vertical to 

horizontal. 

Tower crane is a type of lifting 

structure which utilizes a vertical mast 

or tower to support a working boom (jib) 

in an elevated position. Loads are 

suspended from the working boom. 

While the working boom may be of the 

fixed type (horizontal or angled) or have 

luffing capability, it can always rotate to 

swing loads, either by rotating on the 

top of the tower (top slewing) or by the 

rotation of the tower (bottom slewing). 

The tower base may be fixed in one 

location or ballasted and moveable 

between locations. 

Travel bogie (tower cranes) is an 

assembly of two or more axles arranged 

to permit vertical wheel displacement 

and equalize the loading on the wheels. 

Trim means angle of inclination about 

the transverse axis of a barge, pontoons, 

vessel or other means of floatation. 

Two blocking means a condition in 

which a component that is uppermost 

on the hoist line such as the load block, 

hook block, overhaul ball, or similar 

component, comes in contact with the 

boom tip, fixed upper block or similar 

component. This binds the system and 

continued application of power can 

cause failure of the hoist rope or other 

component. 

Unavailable procedures means 

procedures that are no longer available 

from the manufacturer, or have never 

been available, from the manufacturer. 

Upperstructure: See upperworks. 

Upperworks means the revolving 

frame of equipment on which the engine 

and operating machinery are mounted 

along with the operator’s cab. The 

counterweight is typically supported on 

the rear of the upperstructure and the 

boom or other front end attachment is 

mounted on the front. 

Up to means ‘‘up to and including.’’ 

Wire rope means rope made of wire. 

§ 1926.1402 Ground conditions. 

(a) Definitions. 

(1) ‘‘Ground conditions’’ means the 

ability of the ground to support the 

equipment (including slope, 

compaction, and firmness). 

(2) ‘‘Supporting materials’’ means 

blocking, mats, cribbing, marsh buggies 

(in marshes/wetlands), or similar 

supporting materials or devices. 

(b) The equipment shall not be 

assembled or used unless ground 

conditions are firm, drained (except for 

marshes/wetlands), and graded to a 

sufficient extent so that, in conjunction 

(if necessary) with the use of supporting 

materials, the equipment manufacturer’s 

specifications for adequate support and 

degree of level of the equipment are 

met. 

(c) The controlling entity shall: 

(1) Ensure that ground preparations 

necessary to meet the requirements in 

paragraph (b) of this section are 

provided. 

(2) Inform the user of the equipment 

and the operator of the location of 

hazards beneath the equipment set-up 

area (such as voids, tanks, utilities) that 

are identified in documents (such as site 

drawings, as-built drawings, and soil 

analyses) if they are available to the 

controlling entity. 

(d) If there is no controlling entity for 

the project, the requirement in 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall be 

met by the employer that has authority 

at the site to make or arrange for ground 

preparations needed to meet paragraph 

(b) of this section. 

(e) If the A/D supervisor or the 

operator determines that ground 

conditions do not meet the requirements 

in paragraph (b) of this section, that 

person’s employer shall have a 

discussion with the controlling entity 

regarding the ground preparations that 

are needed so that, with the use of 

suitable supporting materials/devices (if 

necessary), the requirements in 

paragraph (b) of this section can be met. 

§ 1926.1403 Assembly/Disassembly— 

selection of manufacturer or employer 

procedures. 

When assembling and disassembling 

equipment (or attachments), the 

employer shall comply with either: 

(a) Manufacturer procedures 

applicable to assembly and disassembly, 

or 

(b) Employer procedures for assembly 

and disassembly. Employer procedures 

may be used only where the employer 

can demonstrate that the procedures 

used meet the requirements in 

§ 1926.1406. 

§ 1926.1404 Assembly/Disassembly— 

general requirements (applies to all 

assembly and disassembly operations). 

(a) Supervision—competent-qualified 

person. 

(1) Assembly/disassembly must be 

supervised by a person who meets the 

criteria for both a competent person and 

a qualified person, or by a competent 

person who is assisted by one or more 

qualified persons (‘‘A/D supervisor’’). 

(2) Where the assembly/disassembly 

is being performed by only one person, 

that person must meet the criteria for 

both a competent person and a qualified 

person. For purposes of this subpart, 

that person is considered the A/D 

supervisor. 

(b) Knowledge of procedures. The 

A/D supervisor must understand the 

applicable assembly/disassembly 

procedures. 

(c) Review of procedures. The A/D 

supervisor must review the applicable 

assembly/disassembly procedures 

immediately prior to the 

commencement of assembly/ 

disassembly unless the A/D supervisor 

has applied them to the same type and 

configuration of equipment (including 

accessories, if any) so that they are 

already known and understood. 

(d) Crew instructions. 

(1) Before commencing assembly/ 

disassembly operations, the A/D 

supervisor must determine that the crew 

members understand the following: 

(i) Their tasks. 

(ii) The hazards associated with their 

tasks. 

(iii) The hazardous positions/ 

locations that they need to avoid. 

(2) During assembly/disassembly 

operations, before a crew member takes 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59920 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

on a different task, or when adding new 

personnel during the operations, the 

requirements in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) 

through (d)(1)(iii) of this section must be 

met with respect to the crew member’s 

understanding regarding that task. 

(e) Protecting assembly/disassembly 

crew members out of operator view. 

(1) Before a crew member goes to a 

location that is out of view of the 

operator and is either: in, on, or under 

the equipment, or near the equipment 

(or load) where the crew member could 

be injured by movement of the 

equipment (or load), the crew member 

shall inform the operator that he/she is 

going to that location. 

(2) Where the operator knows that a 

crew member went to a location covered 

by paragraph (e)(1) of this section, the 

operator shall not move any part of the 

equipment (or load) until the operator: 

(i) Gives a warning that is understood 

by the crew member as a signal that the 

equipment (or load) is about to be 

moved and allows time for the crew 

member to get to a safe position, or 

(ii) Is informed in accordance with a 

pre-arranged system of communication 

that the crew member is in a safe 

position. 

(f) Working under the boom, jib or 

other components. 

(1) When pins (or similar devices) are 

being removed, employees must not be 

under the boom, jib, or other 

components, except where the 

requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of this 

section are met. 

(2) Exception. Where the employer 

demonstrates that site constraints 

require one or more employees to be 

under the boom, jib, or other 

components when pins (or similar 

devices) are being removed, the A/D 

supervisor must implement procedures 

that minimize the risk of unintended 

dangerous movement and minimize the 

duration and extent of exposure under 

the boom. (See Non-mandatory 

Appendix D of this subpart for an 

example.) 

(g) Capacity limits. During all phases 

of assembly/disassembly, rated capacity 

limits for loads imposed on the 

equipment, equipment components 

(including rigging), lifting lugs and 

equipment accessories shall not be 

exceeded for the equipment being 

assembled/disassembled. 

(h) Addressing specific hazards. The 

A/D supervisor supervising the 

assembly/disassembly operation must 

address the hazards associated with the 

operation with methods to protect the 

employees from them, as follows: 

(1) Site and ground bearing 

conditions. Site and ground conditions 

must be adequate for safe assembly/ 

disassembly operations and to support 

the equipment during assembly/ 

disassembly (see § 1926.1402 for ground 

condition requirements). 

(2) Blocking material. The size, 

amount, condition and method of 

stacking blocking must be sufficient to 

sustain the loads and maintain stability. 

(3) Proper location of blocking. When 

used to support lattice booms or 

components, blocking must be 

appropriately placed to: 

(i) Protect the structural integrity of 

the equipment, and 

(ii) Prevent dangerous movement and 

collapse. 

(4) Verifying assist crane loads. When 

using an assist crane, the loads that will 

be imposed on the assist crane at each 

phase of assembly/disassembly must be 

verified in accordance with 

§ 1926.1417(o)(3) before assembly/ 

disassembly begins in order to prevent 

exceeding rated capacity limits for the 

assist crane. 

(5) Boom and jib pick points. The 

point(s) of attachment of rigging to a 

boom (or boom sections or jib or jib 

sections) must be suitable for preventing 

structural damage and facilitating safe 

handling of these components. 

(6) Center of gravity. 

(i) The center of gravity of the load 

must be identified if that is necessary 

for the method used for maintaining 

stability. 

(ii) Where there is insufficient 

information to accurately identify the 

center of gravity, measures designed to 

prevent unintended dangerous 

movement resulting from an inaccurate 

identification of the center of gravity 

must be used. (See Non-mandatory 

Appendix D of this subpart for an 

example.) 

(7) Stability upon pin removal. The 

boom sections, boom suspension 

systems (such as gantry A-frames and jib 

struts), or components must be rigged or 

supported to maintain stability upon the 

removal of the pins. 

(8) Snagging. Suspension ropes and 

pendants must not be allowed to catch 

on the boom or jib connection pins or 

cotter pins (including keepers and 

locking pins). 

(9) Struck by counterweights. The 

potential for unexpected movement 

from inadequately supported 

counterweights and from hoisting 

counterweights. 

(10) Boom hoist brake failure. Where 

reliance is placed on the boom hoist 

brake to prevent boom movement 

during assembly/disassembly, the brake 

shall be tested to determine if it is 

sufficient to prevent boom movement. If 

it is not sufficient, a boom hoist pawl, 

other locking device/back-up braking 

device, or another method of preventing 

dangerous movement of the boom (such 

as blocking or using an assist crane) 

from a boom hoist brake failure shall be 

used. 

(11) Loss of backward stability. 

Backward stability must be considered 

before swinging the upperworks, travel, 

and when attaching or removing 

equipment components. See, for 

example, Figure 1. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59921 

(12) Wind speed and weather. Wind 

speed and weather must be considered 

so that the safe assembly/disassembly of 

the equipment is not compromised. 

(i) [Reserved.] 

(j) Cantilevered boom sections. 

Manufacturer limitations on the 

maximum amount of boom supported 

only by cantilevering shall not be 

exceeded. Where these are unavailable, 

a registered professional engineer 

familiar with the type of equipment 

involved shall determine this limitation 

in writing, which shall not be exceeded. 

(k) Weight of components. The weight 

of the components must be readily 

available. 

(l) [Reserved.] 

(m) Components and configuration. 

(1) The selection of components and 

configuration of the equipment that 

affect the capacity or safe operation of 

the equipment must be in accordance 

with: 

(i) Manufacturer instructions, 

limitations, and specifications. Where 

these are unavailable, a registered 

professional engineer familiar with the 

type of equipment involved must 

approve, in writing, the selection and 

configuration of components; or 

(ii) Approved modifications that meet 

the requirements of § 1926.1434 

(Equipment modifications). 

(2) Post-assembly inspection. Upon 

completion of assembly, the equipment 

must be inspected to ensure compliance 

with paragraph (m)(1) of this section 

(see § 1926.1412(c) for post-assembly 

inspection requirements). 

(n) Manufacturer prohibitions. The 

employer must comply with applicable 

manufacturer prohibitions. 

(o) Shipping pins. Reusable shipping 

pins, straps, links, and similar 

equipment must be removed. Once they 

are removed they must either be stowed 

or otherwise stored so that they do not 

present a falling object hazard. 

(p) Pile driving. Equipment used for 

pile driving shall not have a jib attached 

during pile driving operations. 

(q) Outriggers. When the load to be 

handled and the operating radius 

require the use of outriggers, or at any 

time when outriggers are used, the 

following requirements shall be met: 

(1) The outriggers shall be either fully 

extended or, if manufacturer procedures 

permit, deployed as specified in the 

load chart. 

(2) The outriggers shall be set to 

remove the equipment weight from the 

wheels, except for locomotive cranes 

(see paragraph (q)(6) of this section for 

use of outriggers on locomotive cranes). 

(3) When outrigger floats are used, 

they shall be attached to the outriggers. 

(4) Each outrigger shall be visible to 

the operator or to a signal person during 

extension and setting. 

(5) Outrigger blocking shall: 

(i) Meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (h)(2) and (h)(3) of this 

section. 

(ii) Be placed only under the outrigger 

float/pad of the outrigger jack or, where 

the outrigger is designed without a jack, 

under the outer bearing surface of the 

extended outrigger beam. 

(6) For locomotive cranes, when using 

outriggers to handle loads, the 

manufacturer’s procedures shall be 

followed. When lifting loads without 

using outriggers, the manufacturer’s 

procedures shall be met regarding truck 

wedges or screws. 

§ 1926.1405 Disassembly—additional 

requirements for dismantling of booms and 

jibs (applies to both the use of 

manufacturer procedures and employer 

procedures). 

(a) None of the pins in the pendants 

are to be removed (partly or completely) 

when the pendants are in tension. See, 

for example, Figure 2. 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2EP09OC08.003</GPH>
59922 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

(b) None of the pins (top and bottom) 

on boom sections located between the 

pendant attachment points and the 

crane/derrick body are to be removed 

(partly or completely) when the 

pendants are in tension. See, for 

example, Figures 3 and 4. 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2EP09OC08.004</GPH> EP09OC08.005</GPH> EP09OC08.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59923 

(c) None of the pins (top and bottom) 

on boom sections located between the 

uppermost boom section and the crane/ 

derrick body are to be removed (partly 

or completely) when the boom is being 

supported by the uppermost boom 

section resting on the ground (or other 

support). See, for example, Figure 5. 

(d) None of the top pins on boom 

sections located on the cantilevered 

portion of the boom being removed (the 

portion being removed ahead of the 

pendant attachment points) are to be 

removed (partly or completely) until the 

cantilevered section to be removed is 

fully supported. See, for example, 

Figures 6 and 7. 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2EP09OC08.007</GPH> EP09OC08.008</GPH>
59924 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

§ 1926.1406 Assembly/disassembly— 

employer procedures—general 

requirements. 

(a) When using employer procedures 

instead of manufacturer procedures for 

assembling or disassembling, the 

employer shall ensure that the 

procedures are designed to: 

(1) Prevent unintended dangerous 

movement, and to prevent collapse, of 

all parts of the equipment. 

(2) Provide adequate support and 

stability of all parts of the equipment 

during the assembly/disassembly 

process. 

(3) Position employees involved in 

the assembly/disassembly operation so 

that their exposure to unintended 

movement or collapse of part or all of 

the equipment is minimized. 

(b) Qualified person. Employer 

procedures must be developed by a 

qualified person. 

§ 1926.1407 Power line safety (up to 350 

kV)—assembly and disassembly. 

(a) Before assembling or 

disassembling equipment, the employer 

must determine if any part of the 

equipment, load line, or load (including 

rigging and lifting accessories) could 

get, in the direction or area of assembly/ 

disassembly, closer than 20 feet to a 

power line during the assembly/ 

disassembly process. If so, the employer 

must meet the requirements in Option 

(1), Option (2), or Option (3) (see 

paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this 

section), as follows: 

(1) Option (1)—Deenergize and 

ground. Confirm from the utility owner/ 

operator that the power line has been 

deenergized and visibly grounded at the 

worksite. 

(2) Option (2)—20 foot clearance. 

Ensure that no part of the equipment, 

load line or load (including rigging and 

lifting accessories), gets closer than 20 

feet to the power line by implementing 

the measures specified in paragraph (b) 

of this section. 

(3) Option (3)—Table A clearance. 

(i) Determine the line’s voltage and 

the minimum clearance distance 

permitted under Table A (see 

§ 1926.1408). 

(ii) Determine if any part of the 

equipment, load line, or load (including 

rigging and lifting accessories), could 

get closer than the minimum approach 

distance to the power line permitted 

under Table A (see § 1926.1408). If so, 

then the employer must follow the 

requirements in paragraph (b) to ensure 

that no part of the equipment, load line, 

or load (including rigging and lifting 

accessories), gets closer to the line than 

the minimum approach distance. 

(b) Preventing encroachment/ 

electrocution. Where encroachment 

precautions are required under Option 

(2), or Option (3) (see paragraphs (a)(2) 

or (a)(3) of this section), the following 

requirements must be met: 

(1) Conduct a planning meeting with 

the Assembly/Disassembly supervisor 

(A/D supervisor), operator, assembly/ 

disassembly crew and the other workers 

who will be in the assembly/ 

disassembly area to review the location 

of the power line(s) and the steps that 

will be implemented to prevent 

encroachment/electrocution. 

(2) If tag lines are used, they must be 

non-conductive. 

(3) At least one of the following 

additional measures must be in place: 

(i) Use a dedicated spotter who is in 

continuous contact with the equipment 

operator. The dedicated spotter must: 

(A) Be equipped with a visual aid to 

assist in identifying the minimum 

clearance distance. Examples of a visual 

aid include, but are not limited to: a 

clearly visible line painted on the 

ground; a clearly visible line of 

stanchions; a set of clearly visible lineof-sight landmarks (such as a fence post 

behind the dedicated spotter and a 

building corner ahead of the dedicated 

spotter). 

(B) Be positioned to effectively gauge 

the clearance distance. 

(C) Where necessary, use equipment 

that enables the dedicated spotter to 

communicate directly with the operator, 

in accordance with § 1926.1420 (Radio, 

telephone, or other electronic 

transmission of signals). 

(D) Give timely information to the 

operator so that the required clearance 

distance can be maintained. 

(ii) A proximity alarm set to give the 

operator sufficient warning to prevent 

encroachment. 

(iii) A device that automatically warns 

the operator when to stop movement, 

such as a range control warning device. 

Such a device must be set to give the 

operator sufficient warning to prevent 

encroachment. 

(iv) A device that automatically limits 

range of movement, set to prevent 

encroachment. 

(v) An elevated warning line, 

barricade, or line of signs, in view of the 

operator, equipped with flags or similar 

high-visibility markings. 

(c) Assembly/disassembly below 

power lines prohibited. No part of a 

crane/derrick, load line, or load 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2EP09OC08.009</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59925 

(including rigging and lifting 

accessories), whether partially or fully 

assembled, is allowed below a power 

line unless the employer has confirmed 

that the utility owner/operator has 

deenergized and (at the worksite) visibly 

grounded the power line. 

(d) Assembly/disassembly inside 

Table A clearance prohibited. No part of 

a crane/derrick, load line, or load 

(including rigging and lifting 

accessories), whether partially or fully 

assembled, is allowed closer than the 

minimum approach distance under 

Table A (see § 1926.1408) to a power 

line unless the employer has confirmed 

that the utility owner/operator has 

deenergized and (at the worksite) visibly 

grounded the power line. 

(e) Voltage information. Where 

Option (3) (see paragraph (a)(3) of this 

section) is used, the utility owner/ 

operator of the power lines must 

provide the requested voltage 

information within two working days of 

the employer’s request. 

(f) Power lines presumed energized. 

The employer must assume that all 

power lines are energized unless the 

utility owner/operator confirms that the 

power line has been and continues to be 

deenergized and visibly grounded at the 

worksite. 

(g) Posting of electrocution warnings. 

There must be at least one electrocution 

hazard warning conspicuously posted in 

the cab so that it is in view of the 

operator and (except for overhead gantry 

and tower cranes) at least two on the 

outside of the equipment. 

§ 1926.1408 Power line safety (up to 350 

kV)—equipment operations. 

(a) Hazard assessments and 

precautions inside the work zone. 

Before beginning equipment operations, 

the employer must: 

(1) Identify the work zone by either: 

(i) Defining a work zone by 

demarcating boundaries (such as with 

flags, or a device such as a range limit 

device or range control warning device) 

and prohibit the operator from operating 

the equipment past those boundaries, or 

(ii) Defining the work zone as the area 

360 degrees around the equipment, up 

to the equipment’s maximum working 

radius. 

(2) Determine if any part of the 

equipment, load line or load (including 

rigging and lifting accessories), if 

operated up to the equipment’s 

maximum working radius in the work 

zone, could get closer than 20 feet to a 

power line. If so, the employer must 

meet the requirements in Option (1), 

Option (2), or Option (3) (see paragraph 

(a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii), and (a)(2)(iii) of this 

section), as follows: 

(i) Option (1)—Deenergize and 

ground. Confirm from the utility owner/ 

operator that the power line has been 

deenergized and visibly grounded at the 

worksite. 

(ii) Option (2)—20 foot clearance. 

Ensure that no part of the equipment, 

load line, or load (including rigging and 

lifting accessories), gets closer than 20 

feet to the power line by implementing 

the measures specified in paragraph (b) 

of this section. 

(iii) Option (3)—Table A clearance. 

(A) Determine the line’s voltage and 

the minimum approach distance 

permitted under Table A (see 

§ 1926.1408). 

(B) Determine if any part of the 

equipment, load line or load (including 

rigging and lifting accessories), while 

operating up to the equipment’s 

maximum working radius in the work 

zone, could get closer than the 

minimum approach distance of the 

power line permitted under Table A (see 

§ 1926.1408). If so, then the employer 

must follow the requirements in 

paragraph (b) of this section to ensure 

that no part of the equipment, load line, 

or load (including rigging and lifting 

accessories), gets closer to the line than 

the minimum approach distance. 

(b) Preventing encroachment/ 

electrocution. Where encroachment 

precautions are required under Option 

(2) or Option (3) (see paragraphs 

(a)(2)(ii) and (a)(2)(iii) of this section), 

the following requirements must be met: 

(1) Conduct a planning meeting with 

the operator and the other workers who 

will be in the area of the equipment or 

load to review the location of the power 

line(s), and the steps that will be 

implemented to prevent encroachment/ 

electrocution. 

(2) If tag lines are used, they must be 

non-conductive. 

(3) Erect and maintain an elevated 

warning line, barricade, or line of signs, 

in view of the operator, equipped with 

flags or similar high-visibility markings, 

at 20 feet from the power line (if using 

Option (2) (see paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of 

this section)) or at the minimum 

approach distance under Table A (see 

§ 1926.1408) (if using Option (3) (see 

paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section)). 

(4) Implement at least one of the 

following measures: 

(i) A proximity alarm set to give the 

operator sufficient warning to prevent 

encroachment. 

(ii) A dedicated spotter who is in 

continuous contact with the operator. 

Where this measure is selected, the 

dedicated spotter must: 

(A) Be equipped with a visual aid to 

assist in identifying the minimum 

clearance distance. Examples of a visual 

aid include, but are not limited to: A 

clearly visible line painted on the 

ground; a clearly visible line of 

stanchions; a set of clearly visible lineof-sight landmarks (such as a fence post 

behind the dedicated spotter and a 

building corner ahead of the dedicated 

spotter). 

(B) Be positioned to effectively gauge 

the clearance distance. 

(C) Where necessary, use equipment 

that enables the dedicated spotter to 

communicate directly with the operator. 

(D) Give timely information to the 

operator so that the required clearance 

distance can be maintained. 

(iii) A device that automatically warns 

the operator when to stop movement, 

such as a range control warning device. 

Such a device must be set to give the 

operator sufficient warning to prevent 

encroachment. 

(iv) A device that automatically limits 

range of movement, set to prevent 

encroachment. 

(v) An insulating link/device installed 

at a point between the end of the load 

line (or below) and the load. 

(5) The requirements of paragraph 

(b)(4) of this section do not apply to 

work covered by subpart V of this part. 

(c) Voltage information. Where 

Option (3) of this section is used, the 

utility owner/operator of the power 

lines must provide the requested voltage 

information within two working days of 

the employer’s request. 

(d) Operations below power lines. 

(1) No part of the equipment, load 

line, or load (including rigging and 

lifting accessories) is allowed below a 

power line unless the employer has 

confirmed that the utility owner/ 

operator has deenergized and (at the 

worksite) visibly grounded the power 

line, except where one of the exceptions 

in paragraph (d)(2) of this section 

applies. 

(2) Exceptions. Paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section is inapplicable where the 

employer demonstrates that one of the 

following applies: 

(i) The work is covered by subpart V 

of this part. 

(ii) For equipment with nonextensible booms: The uppermost part 

of the equipment, with the boom at true 

vertical, would be more than 20 feet 

below the plane of the power line or 

more than the Table A (of this section) 

minimum clearance distance below the 

plane of the power line. 

(iii) For equipment with articulating 

or extensible booms: The uppermost 

part of the equipment, with the boom in 

the fully extended position, at true 

vertical, would be more than 20 feet 

below the plane of the power line or 

more than the Table A (of this section) 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59926 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

minimum clearance distance below the 

plane of the power line. 

(iv) The employer demonstrates that 

compliance with paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section is infeasible and meets the 

requirements of § 1926.1410. 

(e) Power lines presumed energized. 

The employer must assume that all 

power lines are energized unless the 

utility owner/operator confirms that the 

power line has been and continues to be 

deenergized and visibly grounded at the 

worksite. 

(f) When working near transmitter/ 

communication towers where the 

equipment is close enough for an 

electrical charge to be induced in the 

equipment or materials being handled, 

the transmitter shall be deenergized or 

the following precautions shall be taken 

when necessary to dissipate induced 

voltages: 

(1) The equipment shall be provided 

with an electrical ground. 

(2) Non-conductive rigging or an 

insulating link/device shall be used. 

(g) Training. 

(1) Operators and crew assigned to 

work with the equipment shall be 

trained on the following: 

(i) The procedures to be followed in 

the event of electrical contact with a 

power line. Such training shall include: 

(A) Information regarding the danger 

of electrocution from the operator 

simultaneously touching the equipment 

and the ground. 

(B) The importance to the operator’s 

safety of remaining inside the cab 

except where there is an imminent 

danger of fire, explosion, or other 

emergency that necessitates leaving the 

cab. 

(C) The safest means of evacuating 

from equipment that may be energized. 

(D) The danger of the potentially 

energized zone around the equipment. 

(E) The need for crew in the area to 

avoid approaching or touching the 

equipment. 

(F) Safe clearance distance from 

power lines. 

(ii) Power lines are presumed to be 

energized unless the utility owner/ 

operator confirms that the power line 

has been and continues to be 

deenergized and visibly grounded at the 

worksite. 

(iii) Power lines are presumed to be 

uninsulated unless the utility owner/ 

operator or a registered engineer who is 

a qualified person with respect to 

electrical power transmission and 

distribution confirms that a line is 

insulated. 

(iv) The limitations of an insulating 

link/device, proximity alarm, and range 

control (and similar) device, if used. 

(2) Employees working as dedicated 

spotters shall be trained to enable them 

to effectively perform their task, 

including training on the applicable 

requirements of this section. 

(h) Devices originally designed by the 

manufacturer for use as: a safety device 

(see § 1926.1415), operational aid, or a 

means to prevent power line contact or 

electrocution, when used to comply 

with this section, shall meet the 

manufacturer’s procedures for use and 

conditions of use. 

TABLE A—MINIMUM CLEARANCE DISTANCES

Voltage 

(nominal, kV, alternating current) 

Minimum clearance distance 

(feet) 

up to 50 .................................................................................................... 10 

over 50 to 200 .......................................................................................... 15 

over 200 to 350 ........................................................................................ 20 

over 350 to 500 ........................................................................................ 25 

over 500 to 750 ........................................................................................ 35 

over 750 to 1,000 ..................................................................................... 45 

over 1,000 ................................................................................................. (as established by the utility owner/operator or registered professional 

engineer who is a qualified person with respect to electrical power 

transmission and distribution). 

Note: The value that follows ‘‘to’’ is up to and includes that value. For example, over 50 to 200 means up to and including 200kV. 

§ 1926.1409 Power line safety (over 350 

kV). 

The requirements of § 1926.1407 and 

§ 1926.1408 apply to power lines over 

350 kV, except that wherever the 

distance ‘‘20 feet’’ is specified, the 

distance ‘‘50 feet’’ shall apply in its 

place. 

§ 1926.1410 Power line safety (all 

voltages)—equipment operations closer 

than the Table A zone. 

Equipment operations in which any 

part of the equipment, load line, or load 

(including rigging and lifting 

accessories) is closer than the minimum 

approach distance under Table A of 

§ 1926.1408 to an energized power line 

is prohibited, except where the 

employer demonstrates that the 

following requirements are met: 

(a) The employer determines that it is 

infeasible to do the work without 

breaching the minimum approach 

distance under Table A of § 1926.1408. 

(b) The employer determines that, 

after consultation with the utility 

owner/operator, it is infeasible to 

deenergize and ground the power line or 

relocate the power line. 

(c) Minimum clearance distance. 

(1) The power line owner/operator or 

registered professional engineer who is 

a qualified person with respect to 

electrical power transmission and 

distribution determines the minimum 

clearance distance that must be 

maintained to prevent electrical contact 

in light of the on-site conditions. The 

factors that must be considered in 

making this determination include, but 

are not limited to: conditions affecting 

atmospheric conductivity; time 

necessary to bring the equipment, load 

line, and load (including rigging and 

lifting accessories) to a complete stop; 

wind conditions; degree of sway in the 

power line; lighting conditions, and 

other conditions affecting the ability to 

prevent electrical contact. 

(2) Paragraph (c)(1) of this section 

does not apply to work covered by 

subpart V of this part; instead, for such 

work, the minimum clearance distances 

specified in § 1926.950 Table V–1 apply. 

Employers engaged in subpart V of this 

part work are permitted to work closer 

than the distances in § 1926.950 Table 

V–1 where both the requirements of this 

section and § 1926.952(c)(2)(iii) or (iv) 

are met. 

(d) A planning meeting with the 

employer and utility owner/operator (or 

registered professional engineer who is 

a qualified person with respect to 

electrical power transmission and 

distribution) is held to determine the 

procedures that will be followed to 

prevent electrical contact and 

electrocution. At a minimum these 

procedures shall include: 

(1) If the power line is equipped with 

a device that automatically reenergizes 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59927 

the circuit in the event of a power line 

contact, the automatic reclosing feature 

of the circuit interrupting device must 

be made inoperative before work begins. 

(2) A dedicated spotter who is in 

continuous contact with the operator. 

The dedicated spotter must: 

(i) Be equipped with a visual aid to 

assist in identifying the minimum 

clearance distance. Examples of a visual 

aid include, but are not limited to: A 

line painted on the ground; a clearly 

visible line of stanchions; a set of clearly 

visible line-of-sight landmarks (such as 

a fence post behind the dedicated 

spotter and a building corner ahead of 

the dedicated spotter). 

(ii) Be positioned to effectively gauge 

the clearance distance. 

(iii) Where necessary, use equipment 

that enables the dedicated spotter to 

communicate directly with the operator. 

(iv) Give timely information to the 

operator so that the required clearance 

distance can be maintained. 

(3) An elevated warning line, or 

barricade (not attached to the crane), in 

view of the operator (either directly or 

through video equipment), equipped 

with flags or similar high-visibility 

markings, to prevent electrical contact. 

However, this provision does not apply 

to work covered by subpart V of this 

part. 

(4) Insulating link/device. 

(i) An insulating link/device installed 

at a point between the end of the load 

line (or below) and the load. 

(ii) For work covered by subpart V of 

this part, the requirement in paragraph 

(d)(4)(i) of this section applies only 

when working inside the § 1926.950 

Table V–1 clearance distances. 

(5) Non-conductive rigging if the 

rigging may be within the Table A (of 

§ 1926.1408) distance during the 

operation. 

(6) If the equipment is equipped with 

a device that automatically limits range 

of movement, it must be used and set to 

prevent any part of the equipment, load 

line, or load (including rigging and 

lifting accessories) from breaching the 

minimum approach distance established 

under paragraph (c) of this section. 

(7) If a tag line is used, it must be of 

the non-conductive type. 

(8) Barricades forming a perimeter at 

least 10 feet away from the equipment 

to prevent unauthorized personnel from 

entering the work area. In areas where 

obstacles prevent the barricade from 

being at least 10 feet away, the barricade 

shall be as far from the equipment as 

feasible. 

(9) Workers other than the operator 

must be prohibited from touching the 

load line above the insulating link/ 

device and crane. 

(10) Only personnel essential to the 

operation shall be permitted to be in the 

area of the crane and load. 

(11) The equipment must be properly 

grounded. 

(12) Insulating line hose or cover-up 

shall be installed by the utility owner/ 

operator except where such devices are 

unavailable for the line voltages 

involved. 

(e) The procedures developed to 

comply with paragraph (d) of this 

section are documented and 

immediately available on-site. 

(f) The equipment user and utility 

owner/operator meet with the 

equipment operator and the other 

workers who will be in the area of the 

equipment or load to review the 

procedures that will be implemented to 

prevent breaching the minimum 

approach distance established in 

paragraph (c) of this section and prevent 

electrocution. 

(g) The procedures developed to 

comply with paragraph (d) of this 

section are implemented. 

(h) The utility owner/operator and all 

employers of employees involved in the 

work shall identify one person who will 

direct the implementation of the 

procedures. The person identified in 

accordance with this paragraph shall 

direct the implementation of the 

procedures and shall have the authority 

to stop work at any time to ensure 

safety. 

(i) [Reserved.] 

(j) If a problem occurs implementing 

the procedures being used to comply 

with paragraph (d) of this section, or 

indicating that those procedures are 

inadequate to prevent electrocution, the 

employer shall safely stop operations 

and either develop new procedures to 

comply with paragraph (d) of this 

section or have the utility owner/ 

operator deenergize and visibly ground 

or relocate the power line before 

resuming work. 

(k) Devices originally designed by the 

manufacturer for use as: A safety device 

(see § 1926.1415), operational aid, or a 

means to prevent power line contact or 

electrocution, when used to comply 

with this section, shall meet the 

manufacturer’s procedures for use and 

conditions of use. 

§ 1926.1411 Power line safety—while 

traveling. 

(a) This section establishes 

procedures and criteria that must be met 

for equipment traveling under a power 

line on the construction site with no 

load. 

(b) The employer shall ensure that: 

(1) The boom/mast and boom/mast 

support system are lowered sufficiently 

to meet the requirements of this 

paragraph. 

(2) The clearances specified in Table 

T of this section are maintained. 

(3) The effects of speed and terrain on 

equipment movement (including 

movement of the boom/mast) are 

considered so that those effects do not 

cause the minimum clearance distances 

specified in Table T of this section to be 

breached. 

(4) Dedicated spotter. If any part of 

the equipment while traveling will get 

closer than 20 feet to the power line, the 

employer shall ensure that a dedicated 

spotter who is in continuous contact 

with the operator is used. The dedicated 

spotter must: 

(i) Be positioned to effectively gauge 

the clearance distance. 

(ii) Where necessary, use equipment 

that enables the dedicated spotter to 

communicate directly with the operator. 

(iii) Give timely information to the 

operator so that the required clearance 

distance can be maintained. 

(5) Additional precautions for 

traveling in poor visibility. When 

traveling at night, or in conditions of 

poor visibility, in addition to the 

measures specified in paragraphs (b)(1) 

through (4) of this section, the employer 

shall ensure that: 

(i) The power lines are illuminated or 

another means of identifying the 

location of the lines shall be used. 

(ii) A safe path of travel is identified 

and used. 

TABLE T—MINIMUM CLEARANCE DISTANCES WHILE TRAVELING WITH NO LOAD AND BOOM/MAST LOWERED

Voltage (nominal, kV, alternating 

current) 

While traveling—minimum clearance distance 

(feet) 

up to 0.75 ........................................ 4 (while traveling/boom lowered). 

over .75 to 50 .................................. 6 (while traveling/boom lowered). 

over 50 to 345 ................................. 10 (while traveling/boom lowered). 

over 345 to 750 ............................... 16 (while traveling/boom lowered). 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59928 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE T—MINIMUM CLEARANCE DISTANCES WHILE TRAVELING WITH NO LOAD AND BOOM/MAST LOWERED—Continued 

Voltage (nominal, kV, alternating 

current) 

While traveling—minimum clearance distance 

(feet) 

Over 750 to 1,000 ........................... 20 (while traveling/boom lowered). 

Over 1,000 ...................................... (as established by the utility owner/operator or registered professional engineer who is a qualified person 

with respect to electrical power transmission and distribution) 

§ 1926.1412 Inspections. 

(a) Modified equipment. 

(1) Equipment that has had 

modifications or additions which affect 

the safe operation of the equipment 

(such as modifications or additions 

involving a safety device or operator 

aid, critical part of a control system, 

power plant, braking system, loadsustaining structural components, load 

hook, or in-use operating mechanism) or 

capacity shall be inspected by a 

qualified person after such 

modifications/additions have been 

completed, prior to initial use. The 

inspection shall meet the following 

requirements: 

(i) The inspection shall assure that the 

modifications or additions have been 

done in accordance with the approval 

obtained pursuant to § 1926.1434 

(Equipment modifications). 

(ii) The inspection shall include 

functional testing. 

(2) Equipment shall not be used until 

an inspection under this paragraph 

demonstrates that the requirements of 

paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section have 

been met. 

(b) Repaired/adjusted equipment. 

(1) Equipment that has had a repair or 

adjustment that relates to safe operation 

(such as: A repair or adjustment to a 

safety device or operator aid, or to a 

critical part of a control system, power 

plant, braking system, load-sustaining 

structural components, load hook, or inuse operating mechanism), shall be 

inspected by a qualified person after 

such a repair or adjustment has been 

completed, prior to initial use. The 

inspection shall meet the following 

requirements: 

(i) The qualified person shall 

determine if the repair/adjustment 

meets manufacturer equipment criteria 

(where applicable and available). 

(ii) Where manufacturer equipment 

criteria are unavailable or inapplicable, 

the qualified person shall: 

(A) Determine if a registered 

professional engineer (RPE) is needed to 

develop criteria for the repair/ 

adjustment. If an RPE is not needed, the 

employer shall ensure that the criteria 

are developed by the qualified person. 

If an RPE is needed, the employer shall 

ensure that they are developed by an 

RPE. 

(B) Determine if the repair/adjustment 

meets the criteria developed in 

accordance with paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) 

of this section. 

(iii) The inspection shall include 

functional testing. 

(2) Equipment shall not be used until 

an inspection under this paragraph 

demonstrates that the repair/adjustment 

meets the requirements of paragraph 

(b)(1)(i) of this section (or, where 

applicable, (b)(1)(ii) of this section). 

(c) Post-assembly. 

(1) Upon completion of assembly, the 

equipment shall be inspected by a 

qualified person to assure that it is 

configured in accordance with 

manufacturer equipment criteria. 

(2) Where manufacturer equipment 

criteria are unavailable, a qualified 

person shall: 

(i) Determine if a registered 

professional engineer (RPE) familiar 

with the type of equipment involved is 

needed to develop criteria for the 

equipment configuration. If an RPE is 

not needed, the employer shall ensure 

that the criteria are developed by the 

qualified person. If an RPE is needed, 

the employer shall ensure that they are 

developed by an RPE. 

(ii) Determine if the equipment meets 

the criteria developed in accordance 

with paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. 

(3) Equipment shall not be used until 

an inspection under this paragraph 

demonstrates that the equipment is 

configured in accordance with the 

applicable criteria. 

(d) Each shift. 

(1) A competent person shall begin a 

visual inspection prior to each shift, 

which shall be completed before or 

during that shift. The inspection shall 

consist of observation for apparent 

deficiencies. Disassembly is not 

required as part of this inspection 

unless the results of the visual 

inspection or trial operation indicate 

that further investigation necessitating 

disassembly is needed. Determinations 

made in conducting the inspection shall 

be reassessed in light of observations 

made during operation. At a minimum 

the inspection shall include the 

following: 

(i) Control mechanisms for 

maladjustments interfering with proper 

operation. 

(ii) Control and drive mechanisms for 

apparent excessive wear of components 

and contamination by lubricants, water 

or other foreign matter. 

(iii) Air, hydraulic, and other 

pressurized lines for deterioration or 

leakage, particularly those which flex in 

normal operation. 

(iv) Hydraulic system for proper fluid 

level. 

(v) Hooks and latches for deformation, 

cracks, excessive wear, or damage such 

as from chemicals or heat. 

(vi) Wire rope reeving for compliance 

with the manufacturer’s specifications. 

(vii) Wire rope, in accordance with 

§ 1926.1413(a). 

(viii) Electrical apparatus for 

malfunctioning, signs of apparent 

excessive deterioration, dirt or moisture 

accumulation. 

(ix) Tires (when in use) for proper 

inflation and condition. 

(x) Ground conditions around the 

equipment for proper support, including 

ground settling under and around 

outriggers and supporting foundations, 

ground water accumulation, or similar 

conditions. 

(xi) The equipment for level position, 

both shift and after each move and 

setup. 

(xii) Operator cab windows for 

significant cracks, breaks, or other 

deficiencies that would hamper the 

operator’s view. 

(xiii) Rails, rail stops, rail clamps and 

supporting surfaces when the 

equipment has rail traveling. 

(xiv) Safety devices and operational 

aids for proper operation. 

(2) If any deficiency in paragraphs 

(d)(1)(i) through (xiv) of this section (or 

in additional inspection items required 

to be checked for specific types of 

equipment in accordance with other 

sections of this standard) is identified, 

an immediate determination shall be 

made by the competent person as to 

whether the deficiency constitutes a 

safety hazard. If the deficiency is 

determined to constitute a safety hazard, 

the equipment shall be removed from 

service until it has been corrected. 

(3) If any deficiency in paragraph 

(d)(1)(xiv) of this section (safety 

devices/operational aids) is identified, 

the action specified in § 1926.1415 and 

§ 1926.1416 shall be taken prior to using 

the equipment. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59929 

(e) Monthly. 

(1) Each month the equipment is in 

service it shall be inspected in 

accordance with paragraph (d) (each 

shift) of this section. 

(2) Equipment shall not be used until 

an inspection under this paragraph 

demonstrates that no corrective action 

under paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) of this 

section is required. 

(3) Documentation. 

(i) The following information shall be 

documented by the employer that 

conducts the inspection: 

(A) The items checked and the results 

of the inspection. 

(B) The name and signature of the 

person who conducted the inspection 

and the date. 

(ii) This document shall be retained 

for a minimum of three months. 

(f) Annual/comprehensive. 

(1) At least every 12 months the 

equipment shall be inspected by a 

qualified person in accordance with 

paragraph (d) (each shift) of this section 

except that the corrective action set 

forth in this paragraph (f), Annual/ 

comprehensive, of this section shall 

apply. 

(2) In addition, at least every 12 

months, the equipment shall be 

inspected by a qualified person for the 

following: 

(i) Equipment structure (including the 

boom and, if equipped, the jib): 

(A) Structural members: Deformed, 

cracked, or significantly corroded. 

(B) Bolts, rivets and other fasteners: 

loose, failed or significantly corroded. 

(C) Welds for cracks. 

(ii) Sheaves and drums for cracks or 

significant wear. 

(iii) Parts such as pins, bearings, 

shafts, gears, rollers and locking devices 

for distortion, cracks or significant wear. 

(iv) Brake and clutch system parts, 

linings, pawls and ratchets for excessive 

wear. 

(v) Safety devices and operational 

aids for proper operation (including 

significant inaccuracies). 

(vi) Gasoline, diesel, electric, or other 

power plants for safety-related problems 

(such as leaking exhaust and emergency 

shut-down feature) and conditions, and 

proper operation. 

(vii) Chains and chain drive sprockets 

for excessive wear of sprockets and 

excessive chain stretch. 

(viii) Travel steering, brakes, and 

locking devices, for proper operation. 

(ix) Tires for damage or excessive 

wear. 

(x) Hydraulic, pneumatic and other 

pressurized hoses, fittings and tubing, as 

follows: 

(A) Flexible hose or its junction with 

the fittings for indications of leaks. 

(B) Threaded or clamped joints for 

leaks. 

(C) Outer covering of the hose for 

blistering, abnormal deformation or 

other signs of failure/impending failure. 

(D) Outer surface of a hose, rigid tube, 

or fitting for indications of excessive 

abrasion or scrubbing. 

(xi) Hydraulic and pneumatic pumps 

and motors, as follows: 

(A) Performance indicators: unusual 

noises or vibration, low operating speed, 

excessive heating of the fluid, low 

pressure. 

(B) Loose bolts or fasteners. 

(C) Shaft seals and joints between 

pump sections for leaks. 

(xii) Hydraulic and pneumatic valves, 

as follows: 

(A) Spools: sticking, improper return 

to neutral, and leaks. 

(B) Leaks. 

(C) Valve housing cracks. 

(D) Relief valves: failure to reach 

correct pressure (if there is a 

manufacturer procedure for checking 

pressure, it must be followed). 

(xiii) Hydraulic and pneumatic 

cylinders, as follows: 

(A) Drifting caused by fluid leaking 

across the piston. 

(B) Rod seals and welded joints for 

leaks. 

(C) Cylinder rods for scores, nicks, or 

dents. 

(D) Case (barrel) for significant dents. 

(E) Rod eyes and connecting joints: 

loose or deformed. 

(xiv) Outrigger pads/floats for 

excessive wear or cracks. 

(xv) Slider pads for excessive wear or 

cracks 

(xvi) Electrical components and 

wiring for cracked or split insulation 

and loose or corroded terminations. 

(xvii) Warning labels and decals 

originally supplied with the equipment 

by the manufacturer or otherwise 

required under this standard: missing or 

unreadable. 

(xviii) Originally equipped operator 

seat: missing. 

(xix) Operator seat: unusable. 

(xx) Originally equipped steps, 

ladders, handrails, guards: missing. 

(xxi) Steps, ladders, handrails, guards: 

in unusable/unsafe condition. 

(3) This inspection shall include 

functional testing to determine that the 

equipment as configured in the 

inspection is functioning properly. 

(4) If any deficiency is identified, an 

immediate determination shall be made 

by the qualified person as to whether 

the deficiency constitutes a safety 

hazard or, though not yet a safety 

hazard, needs to be monitored in the 

monthly inspections. 

(5) If the qualified person determines 

that a deficiency is a safety hazard, the 

equipment shall be removed from 

service until it has been corrected. 

(6) If the qualified person determines 

that, though not presently a safety 

hazard, the deficiency needs to be 

monitored, the employer shall ensure 

that the deficiency is checked in the 

monthly inspections. 

(7) Documentation of annual/ 

comprehensive inspection. The 

following information shall be 

documented and maintained by the 

employer that conducts the inspection: 

(i) The items checked and the results 

of the inspection. 

(ii) The name and signature of the 

person who conducted the inspection 

and the date. 

(iii) This document shall be retained 

for a minimum of 12 months. 

(g) Severe service. Where the severity 

of use/conditions is such that there is a 

reasonable probability of damage or 

excessive wear (such as loading that 

may have exceeded rated capacity, 

shock loading that may have exceeded 

rated capacity, prolonged exposure to a 

corrosive atmosphere), the employer 

shall stop using the equipment and a 

qualified person shall: 

(1) Inspect the equipment for 

structural damage. 

(2) In light of the use/conditions 

determine whether any items/ 

conditions listed in paragraph (f) of this 

section need to be inspected; if so, the 

qualified person shall inspect those 

items/conditions. 

(3) If a deficiency is found, the 

employer shall follow the requirements 

in paragraphs (f)(4) through (6) of this 

section. 

(h) Equipment not in regular use. 

Equipment that has been idle for 3 

months or more shall be inspected by a 

qualified person in accordance with the 

requirements of paragraph (e) (Monthly) 

of this section before initial use. 

(i) [Reserved.] 

(j) Any part of a manufacturer’s 

procedures regarding inspections that 

relate to safe operation (such as to a 

safety device or operator aid, critical 

part of a control system, power plant, 

braking system, load-sustaining 

structural components, load hook, or inuse operating mechanism) that is more 

comprehensive or has a more frequent 

schedule than the requirements of this 

section shall be followed. Additional 

documentation requirements by the 

manufacturer are not required. 

§ 1926.1413 Wire rope—inspection. 

(a) Shift inspection. 

(1) A competent person shall begin a 

visual inspection prior to each shift, 

which shall be completed before or 

during that shift. The inspection shall 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59930 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

consist of observation of wire ropes 

(running and standing) that are 

reasonably likely to be in use during the 

shift for apparent deficiencies, 

including those listed in paragraph 

(a)(2) of this section. Untwisting 

(opening) of wire rope or booming down 

is not required as part of this inspection. 

(2) Apparent deficiencies. 

(i) Category I. Apparent deficiencies 

in this category include the following: 

(A) Significant distortion of the wire 

rope structure such as kinking, 

crushing, unstranding, birdcaging, signs 

of core failure or steel core protrusion 

between the outer strands. 

(B) Significant corrosion. 

(C) Electric arc (from a source other 

than power lines) or heat damage. 

(D) Improperly applied end 

connections. 

(E) Significantly corroded, cracked, 

bent, or worn end connections (such as 

from severe service). 

(ii) Category II. Apparent deficiencies 

in this category are: 

(A) Visible broken wires, as follows: 

(1) In running wire ropes: Six 

randomly distributed broken wires in 

one rope lay or three broken wires in 

one strand in one rope lay, where a rope 

lay is the length along the rope in which 

one strand makes a complete revolution 

around the rope. 

(2) In rotation resistant ropes: Two 

randomly distributed broken wires in 

six rope diameters or four randomly 

distributed broken wires in 30 rope 

diameters. 

(3) In pendants or standing wire 

ropes: More than two broken wires in 

one rope lay located in rope beyond end 

connections and/or more than one 

broken wire in a rope lay located at an 

end connection. 

(B) A diameter reduction of more than 

5% from nominal diameter. 

(iii) Category III. Apparent 

deficiencies in this category include the 

following: 

(A) In rotation resistant wire rope, 

core protrusion or other distortion 

indicating core failure. 

(B) Electrical contact with a power 

line. 

(C) A broken strand. 

(3) Critical review items. The 

competent person shall give particular 

attention to: 

(i) Rotation resistant wire rope in use. 

(ii) Wire rope being used for boom 

hoists and luffing hoists, particularly at 

reverse bends. 

(iii) Wire rope at flange points, 

crossover points and repetitive pickup 

points on drums. 

(iv) Wire rope adjacent to end 

connections. 

(v) Wire rope at and on equalizer 

sheaves. 

(4) Removal from service. 

(i) If a deficiency in Category I (see 

paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section) is 

identified, an immediate determination 

shall be made by the competent person 

as to whether the deficiency constitutes 

a safety hazard. If the deficiency is 

determined to constitute a safety hazard, 

operations involving use of the wire 

rope in question shall be prohibited 

until: 

(A) The wire rope is replaced, or 

(B) If the deficiency (other than power 

line contact) is localized, the problem is 

corrected by severing the wire rope in 

two; the undamaged portion may 

continue to be used. Joining lengths of 

wire rope by splicing is prohibited. 

Repair of wire rope that contacted an 

energized power line is also prohibited. 

(ii) If a deficiency in Category II (see 

paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section) is 

identified, the employer shall comply 

with Option A (see paragraph (a)(2)(ii) 

(A) of this section) or Option B (see 

paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(B) of this section), as 

follows: 

(A) Option A. Consider the deficiency 

to constitute a safety hazard where it 

meets the wire rope manufacturer’s 

established criterion for removal from 

service or meets a different criterion that 

the wire rope manufacturer has 

approved in writing for that specific 

wire rope. If the deficiency is 

considered a safety hazard, operations 

involving use of the wire rope in 

question shall be prohibited until the 

wire rope is replaced, or the damage is 

removed in accordance with all of the 

requirements and restrictions in 

paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B) of this section. 

(B) Option B. Institute the alternative 

measures specified in paragraph 

(a)(4)(iii) of this section. 

(iii) Alternative measures for a 

Category II deficiency. The wire rope 

may continue to be used if the employer 

ensures that the following measures are 

implemented: 

(A) A qualified person assesses the 

deficiency in light of the load and other 

conditions of use and determines it is 

safe to continue to use the wire rope as 

long as the conditions established under 

this paragraph are met. 

(B) A qualified person establishes the 

parameters for the use of the equipment 

with the deficiency, including a reduced 

maximum rated capacity. 

(C) A qualified person establishes a 

specific number of broken wires, or 

diameter reduction that, when reached, 

will require the equipment to be taken 

out of service until the wire rope is 

replaced, or the damage is removed in 

accordance with all of the requirements 

and restrictions in paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B) 

of this section. 

(D) A qualified person sets a time 

limit, not to exceed 30 days from the 

date the deficiency is first identified, by 

which the wire rope must be replaced, 

or the damage removed in accordance 

with all of the requirements and 

restrictions in paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B) of 

this section. 

(E) The workers who will conduct the 

shift inspections are informed of this 

deficiency and the measures taken 

under this paragraph. 

(F) The qualified person’s findings 

and procedures in paragraphs 

(a)(4)(iii)(A) through (D) of this section 

are documented. 

(iv) If a deficiency in Category III is 

identified, operations involving use of 

the wire rope in question shall be 

prohibited until: 

(A) The wire rope is replaced, or 

(B) If the deficiency (other than power 

line contact) is localized, the problem is 

corrected by severing the wire rope in 

two; the undamaged portion may 

continue to be used. Joining lengths of 

wire rope by splicing is prohibited. 

Repair of wire rope that contacted an 

energized power line is also prohibited. 

(v) Where a wire rope is required to 

be removed from service under this 

section, either the equipment (as a 

whole) or the hoist with that wire rope 

shall be tagged-out, in accordance with 

§ 1926.1417(f)(1), until the wire rope is 

repaired or replaced. 

(b) Monthly inspection. 

(1) Each month an inspection shall be 

conducted in accordance with 

paragraph (a) (shift inspection) of this 

section. 

(2) Wire ropes on equipment shall not 

be used until an inspection under this 

paragraph demonstrates that no 

corrective action under paragraph (a)(4) 

of this section is required. 

(3) The inspection shall be 

documented according to 

§ 1926.1412(e)(3) (monthly inspection 

documentation). 

(c) Annual/comprehensive. 

(1) At least every 12 months, wire 

ropes in use on equipment shall be 

inspected by a qualified person in 

accordance with paragraph (a) (shift 

inspection) of this section. 

(2) In addition, at least every 12 

months, the wire ropes in use on 

equipment shall be inspected by a 

qualified person, as follows: 

(i) The inspection shall be for 

deficiencies of the types listed in 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section. 

(ii) The inspection shall be complete 

and thorough, covering the surface of 

the entire length of the wire ropes, with 

particular attention given to: 

(A) Critical review items listed in 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59931 

(B) Those sections that are normally 

hidden during shift and monthly 

inspections. 

(C) Wire rope in contact with saddles, 

equalizer sheaves or other sheaves 

where rope travel is limited. 

(D) Wire rope subject to reverse 

bends. 

(E) Wire rope passing over sheaves. 

(F) Wire rope at or near terminal ends. 

(iii) Exception: In the event an 

inspection under paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section is not feasible due to existing 

set-up and configuration of the 

equipment (such as where an assist 

crane is needed) or due to site 

conditions (such as a dense urban 

setting), such inspections shall be 

conducted as soon as it becomes 

feasible, but no longer than an 

additional 6 months for running ropes 

and, for standing ropes, at the time of 

disassembly. 

(3) If a deficiency is identified, an 

immediate determination shall be made 

by the qualified person as to whether 

the deficiency constitutes a safety 

hazard. 

(i) If the deficiency is determined to 

constitute a safety hazard, operations 

involving use of the wire rope in 

question shall be prohibited until: 

(A) The wire rope is replaced, or 

(B) If the deficiency is localized, the 

problem is corrected by severing the 

wire rope in two; the undamaged 

portion may continue to be used. 

Joining lengths of wire rope by splicing 

is prohibited. 

(ii) If the qualified person determines 

that, though not presently a safety 

hazard, the deficiency needs to be 

monitored, the employer shall ensure 

that the deficiency is checked in the 

monthly inspections. 

(4) The inspection shall be 

documented according to 

§ 1926.1412(f)(7) (annual/ 

comprehensive inspection 

documentation). 

(d) Rope lubricants that are of the type 

that hinder inspection shall not be used. 

§ 1926.1414 Wire rope—selection and 

installation criteria. 

(a) Selection of replacement wire rope 

shall be in accordance with the 

requirements of this section and the 

recommendations of the wire rope 

manufacturer, the equipment 

manufacturer, or a qualified person. 

(b) Boom hoist reeving. 

(1) Fiber core ropes shall not be used 

for boom hoist reeving, except for 

derricks. 

(2) Rotation resistant ropes shall be 

used for boom hoist reeving only where 

the requirements of paragraph (c) of this 

section are met. 

(c) Rotation resistant ropes. 

(1) Definitions. 

(i) Type I rotation resistant wire rope 

(‘‘ Type I’’). Type I rotation resistant 

rope is stranded rope constructed to 

have little or no tendency to rotate or, 

if guided, transmits little or no torque. 

It has at least 15 outer strands and 

comprises an assembly of at least three 

layers of strands laid helically over a 

center in two operations. The direction 

of lay of the outer strands is opposite to 

that of the underlying layer. 

(ii) Type II rotation resistant wire rope 

(‘‘Type II’’). Type II rotation resistant 

rope is stranded rope constructed to 

have significant resistance to rotation. It 

has at least 10 outer strands and 

comprises an assembly of two or more 

layers of strands laid helically over a 

center in two or three operations. The 

direction of lay of the outer strands is 

opposite to that of the underlying layer. 

(iii) Type III rotation resistant wire 

rope (‘‘Type III’’). Type III rotation 

resistant rope is stranded rope 

constructed to have limited resistance to 

rotation. It has no more than nine outer 

strands, and comprises an assembly of 

two layers of strands laid helically over 

a center in two operations. The 

direction of lay of the outer strands is 

opposite to that of the underlying layer. 

(2) Requirements. 

(i) Types II and III with an operating 

design factor of less than 5 shall not be 

used for duty cycle or repetitive lifts. 

(ii) Rotation resistant ropes (including 

Types I, II and III) shall have an 

operating design factor of no less than 

3.5. 

(iii) Type I shall have an operating 

design factor of no less than 5, except 

where the wire rope manufacturer and 

the equipment manufacturer approves 

the design factor, in writing. 

(iv) Types II and III shall have an 

operating design factor of no less than 

5, except where the requirements of 

paragraph (c)(3) of this section are met. 

(3) When Types II and III with an 

operating design factor of less than 5 are 

used (for non-duty cycle, non-repetitive 

lifts), the following requirements shall 

be met for each lifting operation: 

(i) A qualified person shall inspect the 

rope in accordance with § 1926.1413(a). 

The rope shall be used only if the 

qualified person determines that there 

are no deficiencies constituting a 

hazard. In making this determination, 

more than one broken wire in any one 

rope lay shall be considered a hazard. 

(ii) Operations shall be conducted in 

such a manner and at such speeds as to 

minimize dynamic effects. 

(iii) Each lift made under these 

provisions shall be recorded in the 

monthly and annual inspection 

documents. Such prior uses shall be 

considered by the qualified person in 

determining whether to use the rope 

again. 

(4) Additional requirements for 

rotation resistant ropes for boom hoist 

reeving. 

(i) Rotation resistant ropes shall not 

be used for boom hoist reeving, except 

where the requirements of paragraph 

(c)(4)(ii) of this section are met. 

(ii) Rotation resistant ropes may be 

used as boom hoist reeving when load 

hoists are used as boom hoists for 

attachments such as luffing attachments 

or boom and mast attachment systems. 

Under these conditions, the following 

requirements shall be met: 

(A) The drum shall provide a first 

layer rope pitch diameter of not less 

than 18 times the nominal diameter of 

the rope used. 

(B) The requirements in 

§ 1926.1426(a) (irrespective of the date 

of manufacture of the equipment), and 

§ 1926.1426(b). 

(C) The requirements in ASME B30.5– 

2004, section 5–1.3.2 (a), (a)(2) through 

(a)(4), (b) and (d), except that the 

minimum pitch diameter for sheaves 

used in multiple rope reeving is 18 

times the nominal diameter of the rope 

used instead of the value of 16 specified 

in section 5–1.3.2(d). 

(D) All sheaves used in the boom 

hoist reeving system shall have a rope 

pitch diameter of not less than 18 times 

the nominal diameter of the rope used. 

(E) The operating design factor for the 

boom hoist reeving system shall be not 

less than five. 

(F) The operating design factor for 

these ropes shall be the total minimum 

breaking force of all parts of rope in the 

system divided by the load imposed on 

the rope system when supporting the 

static weights of the structure and the 

load within the equipment’s rated 

capacity. 

(G) When provided, a powercontrolled lowering system shall be 

capable of handling rated capacities and 

speeds as specified by the manufacturer. 

(d) Wire rope clips used in 

conjunction with wedge sockets shall be 

attached to the unloaded dead end of 

the rope only, except that the use of 

devices specifically designed for deadending rope in a wedge socket is 

permitted. 

(e) Socketing shall be done in the 

manner specified by the manufacturer of 

the wire rope or fitting. 

(f) Prior to cutting a wire rope, 

seizings shall be placed on each side of 

the point to be cut. The length and 

number of seizings shall be in 

accordance with the wire rope 

manufacturer’s instructions. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59932 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

§ 1926.1415 Safety devices. 

(a) Safety devices. The following 

safety devices are required on all 

equipment covered by this subpart, 

unless otherwise specified: 

(1) Crane level indicator. 

(i) The equipment shall have a crane 

level indicator that is either built into 

the equipment or is available on the 

equipment. 

(ii) If a built-in crane level indicator 

is not working properly, it shall be 

tagged-out or removed. 

(iii) This requirement does not apply 

to portal cranes, derricks, floating 

cranes/derricks and land cranes/ 

derricks on barges, pontoons, vessels or 

other means of flotation. 

(2) Boom stops, except for derricks 

and hydraulic booms. 

(3) Jib stops (if a jib is attached), 

except for derricks. 

(4) Equipment with foot pedal brakes 

shall have locks, except for portal cranes 

and floating cranes. 

(5) Hydraulic outrigger jacks shall 

have an integral holding device/check 

valve. 

(6) Equipment on rails shall have rail 

clamps and rail stops, except for portal 

cranes. 

(b) Proper operation required. 

Operations shall not begin unless the 

devices listed in this section are in 

proper working order. If a device stops 

working properly during operations, the 

operator shall safely stop operations. 

Operations shall not resume until the 

device is again working properly. 

Alternative measures are not permitted 

to be used. 

§ 1926.1416 Operational aids. 

(a) The devices listed in this section 

(‘‘listed operational aids’’) are required 

on all equipment covered by this 

subpart, unless otherwise specified. 

(b) Operations shall not begin unless 

the listed operational aids are in proper 

working order, except where the 

employer meets the specified temporary 

alternative measures. More protective 

alternative measures specified by the 

crane/derrick manufacturer, if any, shall 

be followed. 

(c) If a listed operational aid stops 

working properly during operations, the 

operator shall safely stop operations 

until the temporary alternative measures 

are implemented or the device is again 

working properly. If a replacement part 

is no longer available, the use of a 

substitute device that performs the same 

type of function is permitted and is not 

considered a modification under 

§ 1926.1434. 

(d) Category I operational aids and 

alternative measures. Operational aids 

listed in this paragraph that are not 

working properly shall be repaired no 

later than 7 days after the deficiency 

occurs. Exception: If the employer 

documents that it has ordered the 

necessary parts within 7 days of the 

occurrence of the deficiency, the repair 

shall be completed within 7 days of 

receipt of the parts. 

(1) Boom hoist limiting device. 

(i) For equipment manufactured after 

December 16, 1969, a boom hoist 

limiting device is required. Temporary 

alternative measures (use at least one): 

(A) Use a boom angle indicator. 

(B) Clearly mark the boom hoist cable 

(so that it can easily be seen by the 

operator) at a point that will give the 

operator sufficient time to stop the hoist 

to keep the boom within the minimum 

allowable radius. In addition, install 

mirrors or remote video cameras and 

displays if necessary for the operator to 

see the mark. 

(C) Clearly mark the boom hoist cable 

(so that it can easily be seen by a 

spotter) at a point that will give the 

spotter sufficient time to signal the 

operator and have the operator stop the 

hoist to keep the boom within the 

minimum allowable radius. 

(ii) If the equipment was 

manufactured on or before December 16, 

1969, and was not originally equipped 

with a boom hoist limiting device, at 

least one of the measures in paragraphs 

(d)(1)(i)(A) through (C) of this section 

shall be used, on a permanent basis. 

(2) Luffing jib limiting device. 

Equipment with a luffing jib shall have 

a luffing jib limiting device. Temporary 

alternative measures are the same as in 

paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section, except 

to limit the movement of the luffing jib. 

(3) Anti two-blocking device. 

(i) Telescopic boom cranes 

manufactured after February 28, 1992, 

shall be equipped with a device which 

automatically prevents damage from 

contact between the load block, 

overhaul ball, or similar component, 

and the boom tip (or fixed upper block 

or similar component). The device(s) 

must prevent such damage at all points 

where two-blocking could occur. 

Temporary alternative measures: 

Clearly mark the cable (so that it can 

easily be seen by the operator) at a point 

that will give the operator sufficient 

time to stop the hoist to prevent twoblocking, and use a spotter when 

extending the boom. 

(ii) Lattice boom cranes. 

(A) Lattice boom cranes manufactured 

after Feb 28, 1992, shall be equipped 

with a device that either automatically 

prevents damage and load failure from 

contact between the load block, 

overhaul ball, or similar component, 

and the boom tip (or fixed upper block 

or similar component), or warns the 

operator in time for the operator to 

prevent two-blocking. The device(s) 

must prevent such damage/failure or 

provide adequate warning for all points 

where two-blocking could occur. 

(B) Lattice boom cranes, and derricks, 

manufactured one year after the 

effective date of this standard shall be 

equipped with a device which 

automatically prevents damage and load 

failure from contact between the load 

block, overhaul ball, or similar 

component, and the boom tip (or fixed 

upper block or similar component). The 

device(s) must prevent such damage/ 

failure at all points where two-blocking 

could occur. 

(C) Exception. The requirements in 

paragraphs (d)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) of this 

section do not apply to such lattice 

boom equipment when used for 

dragline, clamshell (grapple), magnet, 

drop ball, container handling, concrete 

bucket, marine operations that do not 

involve hoisting personnel, and pile 

driving work. 

(D) Temporary alternative measures. 

Clearly mark the cable (so that it can 

easily be seen by the operator) at a point 

that will give the operator sufficient 

time to stop the hoist to prevent twoblocking, or use a spotter. 

(e) Category II operational aids and 

alternative measures. Operational aids 

listed in this paragraph that are not 

working properly shall be repaired no 

later than 30 days after the deficiency 

occurs. Exception: If the employer 

documents that it has ordered the 

necessary parts within 7 days of the 

occurrence of the deficiency, and the 

part is not received in time to complete 

the repair in 30 days, the repair shall be 

completed within 7 days of receipt of 

the parts. 

(1) Boom angle or radius indicator. 

The equipment shall have a boom angle 

or radius indicator readable from the 

operator’s station. Temporary 

alternative measures: Radii or boom 

angle shall be determined by measuring 

the radii or boom angle with a 

measuring device. 

(2) Jib angle indicator if the 

equipment has a luffing jib. Temporary 

alternative measures: Radii or jib angle 

shall be determined by ascertaining the 

main boom angle and then measuring 

the radii or jib angle with a measuring 

device. 

(3) Boom length indicator if the 

equipment has a telescopic boom, 

except where the rated capacity is 

independent of the boom length. 

Temporary alternative measures: One of 

the following methods shall be used: 

(i) Mark the boom with measured 

marks to calculate boom length; or 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59933 

(ii) Calculate boom length from boom 

angle and radius measurements; or 

(iii) Measure the boom with a 

measuring device. 

(4) Load weighing and similar devices. 

Equipment (other than derricks) 

manufactured after March 29, 2003 with 

a rated capacity over 6,000 pounds shall 

have at least one of the following: Load 

weighing device, load moment (or rated 

capacity) indicator, or load moment (or 

rated capacity) limiter. Temporary 

alternative measures: The weight of the 

load shall be determined from a reliable 

source (such as the load’s 

manufacturer), by a reliable calculation 

method (such as calculating a steel 

beam from measured dimensions and a 

known per foot weight), or by other 

equally reliable means. This information 

shall be provided to the operator prior 

to the lift. 

(5) The following devices are required 

on equipment manufactured after 

January 1, 2008: 

(i) Outrigger position (horizontal 

beam extension) sensor/monitor if the 

equipment has outriggers. Temporary 

alternative measures: the operator shall 

verify that the position of the outriggers 

is correct (in accordance with 

manufacturer procedures) before 

beginning operations requiring outrigger 

deployment. 

(ii) Hoist drum rotation indicator if 

the drum is not visible from the 

operator’s station. Temporary 

alternative measures: Mark the drum. In 

addition, install mirrors or remote video 

cameras and displays if necessary for 

the operator to see the mark. 

§ 1926.1417 Operation. 

(a) The employer shall comply with 

all manufacturer procedures applicable 

to the operational functions of 

equipment, including its use with 

attachments. 

(b) Unavailable operation procedures. 

(1) Where the manufacturer 

procedures are unavailable, the 

employer shall develop and ensure 

compliance with all procedures 

necessary for the safe operation of the 

equipment and attachments. 

(2) Procedures for the operational 

controls must be developed by a 

qualified person. 

(3) Procedures related to the capacity 

of the equipment must be developed 

and signed by a registered professional 

engineer familiar with the equipment. 

(c) Accessibility of procedures. 

(1) The procedures applicable to the 

operation of the equipment, including 

rated capacities (load charts), 

recommended operating speeds, special 

hazard warnings, instructions, and 

operator’s manual, shall be readily 

available in the cab at all times for use 

by the operator. 

(2) Where rated capacities are 

available in the cab only in electronic 

form: In the event of a failure which 

makes the rated capacities inaccessible, 

the operator must immediately cease 

operations or follow safe shut-down 

procedures until the rated capacities (in 

electronic or other form) are available. 

(d) The operator shall not engage in 

any practice that diverts his/her 

attention while actually engaged in 

operating the crane, such as the use of 

cell phones (other than when used for 

signal communications) or other 

attention-diverting activities. 

(e) Leaving the equipment 

unattended. 

(1) The operator shall not leave the 

controls while the load is suspended, 

except where the following are met: 

(i) The operator remains adjacent to 

the equipment and is not engaged in any 

other duties. 

(ii) The load is to be held suspended 

for a period of time exceeding normal 

lifting operations. 

(iii) The competent person determines 

that it is safe to do so and implements 

measures necessary to restrain the boom 

hoist and telescoping, load, swing, and 

outrigger functions. 

(iv) Barricades or caution lines, and 

notices, are erected to prevent all 

employees from entering the fall zone. 

No employees, including those listed in 

§ 1926.1425(b)(1) through (3), 

§ 1926.1425(d) or § 1926.1425(e), shall 

be permitted in the fall zone. 

(2) The provisions in paragraph (e) of 

this section do not apply to working 

gear (such as slings, spreader bars, 

ladders, and welding machines) where 

the load is not suspended over an 

entrance or exit. 

(f) Tag-out. 

(1) Tagging out of service equipment/ 

functions. Where the employer has 

taken the equipment out of service, a tag 

shall be placed in the cab stating that 

the equipment is out of service and is 

not to be used. Where the employer has 

taken a function(s) out of service, a tag 

shall be placed in a conspicuous 

position stating that the function is out 

of service and is not to be used. 

(2) Response to ‘‘do not operate’’/tagout signs. 

(i) If there is a warning (tag-out or 

maintenance/do not operate) sign on the 

equipment or starting control, the 

operator shall not activate the switch or 

start the equipment until the sign has 

been removed by a person authorized to 

remove it, or until the operator has 

verified that: 

(A) No one is servicing, working on, 

or otherwise in a dangerous position on 

the machine. 

(B) The equipment has been repaired 

and is working properly. 

(ii) If there is a warning (tag-out or 

maintenance/do not operate) sign on 

any other switch or control, the operator 

shall not activate that switch or control 

until the sign has been removed by a 

person authorized to remove it, or until 

the operator has verified that the 

requirements in paragraphs (f)(2)(i)(A) 

and (B) of this section have been met. 

(g) Before starting the engine, the 

operator shall verify that all controls are 

in the proper starting position and that 

all personnel are in the clear. 

(h) Storm warning. When a local 

storm warning has been issued, the 

competent person shall determine 

whether it is necessary to implement 

manufacturer recommendations for 

securing the equipment. 

(i) [Reserved.] 

(j) The operator shall be familiar with 

the equipment and its proper operation. 

If adjustments or repairs are necessary, 

the operator shall promptly inform the 

person designated by the employer to 

receive such information and, where 

there are successive shifts, to the next 

operator. 

(k) Safety devices and operational 

aids shall not be used as a substitute for 

the exercise of professional judgment by 

the operator. 

(l) [Reserved.] 

(m) If the competent person 

determines that there is a slack rope 

condition requiring re-spooling of the 

rope, it shall be verified (before starting 

to lift) that the rope is seated on the 

drum and in the sheaves as the slack is 

removed. 

(n) The competent person shall 

consider the effect of wind, ice, and 

snow on equipment stability and rated 

capacity. 

(o) Compliance with rated capacity. 

(1) The equipment shall not be 

operated in excess of its rated capacity. 

(2) The operator shall not be required 

to operate the equipment in a manner 

that would violate paragraph (o)(1) of 

this section. 

(3) Load weight. The operator shall 

verify that the load is within the rated 

capacity of the equipment by at least 

one of the following methods: 

(i) The weight of the load shall be 

determined from a reliable source (such 

as the load’s manufacturer), by a reliable 

calculation method (such as calculating 

a steel beam from measured dimensions 

and a known per foot weight), or by 

other equally reliable means. In 

addition, when requested by the 

operator, this information shall be 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59934 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

provided to the operator prior to the lift; 

or 

(ii) The operator shall begin hoisting 

the load to determine, using a load 

weighing device, load moment 

indicator, rated capacity indicator, or 

rated capacity limiter, if it exceeds 75 

percent of the maximum rated capacity 

at the longest radius that will be used 

during the lift operation. If it does, the 

operator shall not proceed with the lift 

until he/she verifies the weight of the 

load in accordance with paragraph 

(o)(3)(i) of this section. 

(p) The boom or other parts of the 

equipment shall not contact any 

obstruction. 

(q) The equipment shall not be used 

to drag or pull loads sideways. 

(r) On wheel-mounted equipment, no 

loads shall be lifted over the front area, 

except as permitted by the 

manufacturer. 

(s) The operator shall test the brakes 

each time a load that is 90% or more of 

the maximum line pull is handled by 

lifting the load a few inches and 

applying the brakes. In duty cycle and 

repetitive lifts where each lift is 90% or 

more of the maximum line pull, this 

requirement applies to the first lift but 

not to successive lifts. 

(t) Neither the load nor the boom shall 

be lowered below the point where less 

than two full wraps of rope remain on 

their respective drums. 

(u) Traveling with a load. 

(1) Traveling with a load is prohibited 

if the practice is prohibited by the 

manufacturer. 

(2) Where traveling with a load, the 

employer shall ensure that: 

(i) A competent person supervises the 

operation, determines if it is necessary 

to reduce rated capacity, and makes 

determinations regarding load position, 

boom location, ground support, travel 

route, overhead obstructions, and speed 

of movement necessary to ensure safety. 

(ii) The determinations of the 

competent person required in paragraph 

(u)(2)(i) of this section are implemented. 

(iii) For equipment with tires, tire 

pressure specified by the manufacturer 

is maintained. 

(v) Rotational speed of the equipment 

shall be such that the load does not 

swing out beyond the radius at which it 

can be controlled. 

(w) A tag or restraint line shall be 

used if necessary to prevent rotation of 

the load that would be hazardous. 

(x) The brakes shall be adjusted in 

accordance with manufacturer 

procedures to prevent unintended 

movement. 

(y) The operator shall obey a stop (or 

emergency stop) signal, irrespective of 

who gives it. 

(z) Swinging locomotive cranes. A 

locomotive crane shall not be swung 

into a position where it is reasonably 

foreseeable that railway cars on an 

adjacent track could strike it, until it is 

determined that cars are not being 

moved on the adjacent track and that 

proper flag protection has been 

established. 

(aa) Counterweight/ballast. 

(1) The following applies to 

equipment other than tower cranes: 

(i) Equipment shall not be operated 

without the counterweight or ballast in 

place as specified by the manufacturer. 

(ii) The maximum counterweight or 

ballast specified by the manufacturer for 

the equipment shall not be exceeded. 

(2) Counterweight/ballast 

requirements for tower cranes are 

specified in § 1926.1435(b)(8). 

§ 1926.1418 Authority to stop operation. 

Whenever there is a concern as to 

safety, the operator shall have the 

authority to stop and refuse to handle 

loads until a qualified person has 

determined that safety has been assured. 

§ 1926.1419 Signals—general 

requirements. 

(a) A signal person must be provided 

in each of the following situations: 

(1) The point of operation, meaning 

the load travel or the area near or at load 

placement, is not in full view of the 

operator. 

(2) When the equipment is traveling, 

the view in the direction of travel is 

obstructed. 

(3) Due to site specific safety 

concerns, either the operator or the 

person handling the load determines 

that it is necessary. 

(b) Types of signals. Signals to 

operators must be by hand, voice, 

audible, or new signals. 

(c) Hand signals. 

(1) When using hand signals, the 

Standard Method must be used (see 

Appendix A of this subpart). Exception: 

where use of the Standard Method for 

hand signals is infeasible, or where an 

operation or use of an attachment is not 

covered in the Standard Method, nonstandard hand signals may be used in 

accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section (see Appendix B of this subpart 

for an example). The following 

requirements apply to the use of nonstandard hand signals: 

(2) Non-standard hand signals. When 

using non-standard hand signals, the 

signal person, operator, and lift 

supervisor (where there is one) shall 

contact each other prior to the operation 

and agree on the non-standard hand 

signals that will be used. 

(d) New signals. Signals other than 

hand, voice or audible signals may be 

used where the employer demonstrates 

that: 

(1) The new signals provide at least 

equally effective communication as 

voice, audible, or Standard Method 

hand signals, or 

(2) There is a national consensus 

standard for the new signals. 

(e) Suitability. The signals used (hand, 

voice, audible, or new), and means of 

transmitting the signals to the operator 

(such as direct line of sight, video, 

radio, etc.), must be appropriate for the 

site conditions. 

(f) During operations requiring 

signals, the ability to transmit signals 

between the operator and signal person 

shall be maintained. If that ability is 

interrupted at any time, the operator 

shall safely stop operations requiring 

signals until it is reestablished and a 

proper signal is given and understood. 

(g) If the operator becomes aware of a 

safety problem and needs to 

communicate with the signal person, 

the operator must safely stop operations. 

Operations shall not resume until the 

operator and signal person agree that the 

problem has been resolved. 

(h) Only one person gives signals to 

a crane/derrick at a time, except in 

circumstances covered by paragraph (j) 

of this section. 

(i) [Reserved.] 

(j) Anyone who becomes aware of a 

safety problem must alert the operator 

or signal person by giving the stop or 

emergency stop signal. (Note: 

§ 1926.1417(y) requires the operator to 

obey a stop or emergency stop signal). 

(k) All directions given to the operator 

by the signal person shall be given from 

the operator’s direction perspective. 

(l) [Reserved.] 

(m) Communication with multiple 

cranes/derricks. Where a signal 

person(s) is in communication with 

more than one crane/derrick, a system 

for identifying the crane/derrick each 

signal is for must be used, as follows: 

(1) For each signal, prior to giving the 

function/direction, the signal person 

shall identify the crane/derrick the 

signal is for, or 

(2) An equally effective method of 

identifying which crane/derrick the 

signal is for must be used. 

§ 1926.1420 Signals—radio, telephone or 

other electronic transmission of signals. 

(a) The device(s) used to transmit 

signals shall be tested on site before 

beginning operations to ensure that the 

signal transmission is clear and reliable. 

(b) Signal transmission must be 

through a dedicated channel. Exception: 

Multiple cranes/derricks and one or 

more signal persons may share a 

dedicated channel for the purpose of 

coordinating operations. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59935 

(c) The operator’s reception of signals 

must be by a hands-free system. 

§ 1926.1421 Signals—voice signals— 

additional requirements. 

(a) Prior to beginning operations, the 

operator, signal person and lift 

supervisor (if there is one), shall contact 

each other and agree on the voice 

signals that will be used. Once the voice 

signals are agreed upon, these workers 

need not meet again to discuss voice 

signals unless another worker is 

substituted, there is confusion about the 

voice signals, or a voice signal is to be 

changed. 

(b) Each voice signal shall contain the 

following three elements, given in the 

following order: function (such as hoist, 

boom, etc.), direction; distance and/or 

speed; function, stop command. 

(c) The operator, signal person and lift 

supervisor (if there is one), shall be able 

to effectively communicate in the 

language used. 

§ 1926.1422 Signals—hand signal chart. 

Hand signal charts must be either 

posted on the equipment or readily 

available at the site. 

§ 1926.1423 Fall protection. 

(a) Application. 

(1) Paragraphs (b), (c)(2), (d) and (e) of 

this section apply to all equipment 

covered by this subpart except tower 

cranes. 

(2) Paragraph (c)(1), (f) and (h) of this 

section applies to all equipment covered 

by this subpart. 

(3) Paragraph (g) of this section 

applies only to tower cranes. 

(b) Boom walkways. 

(1) Equipment manufactured more 

than one year after the effective date of 

this standard with lattice booms shall be 

equipped with walkways on the boom(s) 

if the vertical profile of the boom (from 

cord centerline to cord centerline) is 6 

or more feet. 

(2) Boom walkway criteria. 

(i) The walkways shall be at least 12 

inches wide. 

(ii) Guardrails, railings and other 

permanent fall protection attachments 

along walkways are: 

(A) Not required. 

(B) Prohibited on booms supported by 

pendant ropes or bars if the guardrails/ 

railings/attachments could be snagged 

by the ropes or bars. 

(C) Prohibited if of the removable type 

(designed to be installed and removed 

each time the boom is assembled/ 

disassembled). 

(D) Where not prohibited, guardrails 

or railings may be of any height up to, 

but not more than, 45 inches. 

(c) Steps, handholds, grabrails, 

guardrails and railings. 

(1) The employer shall maintain 

originally equipped steps, handholds, 

ladders and guardrails/railings/grabrails 

in good condition. 

(2) Equipment manufactured more 

than one year after the effective date of 

this standard shall be equipped so as to 

provide safe access and egress between 

the ground and the operator work 

station(s), including the forward and 

rear positions, by the provision of 

devices such as steps, handholds, 

ladders, and guardrails/railings/ 

grabrails. These shall meet the following 

criteria: 

(i) Steps, ladders and guardrails/ 

railings/grabrails shall meet the 

requirements of SAE J185 (May 2003) or 

ISO 11660–2 (1994), except where 

infeasible. 

(ii) Walking/stepping surfaces, except 

for crawler treads, shall have slipresistant features/properties (such as 

diamond plate metal, strategically 

placed grip tape, expanded metal, or 

slip-resistant paint). 

(d) For non-assembly/disassembly 

work, the employer shall provide and 

ensure the use of fall protection 

equipment for employees who are on a 

walking/working surface with an 

unprotected side or edge more than 6 

feet above a lower level as follows: 

(1) When moving point-to-point: 

(i) On non-lattice booms (whether 

horizontal or not horizontal). 

(ii) On lattice booms that are not 

horizontal. 

(2) While at a work station on any part 

of the equipment (including the boom, 

of any type), except when the employee 

is at or near draw-works (when the 

equipment is running), in the cab, or on 

the deck. 

(e) For assembly/disassembly work, 

the employer shall provide and ensure 

the use of fall protection equipment for 

employees who are on a walking/ 

working surface with an unprotected 

side or edge more than 15 feet above a 

lower level, except when the employee 

is at or near draw-works (when the 

equipment is running), in the cab, or on 

the deck. 

(f) Anchorage criteria. 

(1) Anchorages for fall arrest and 

positioning device systems. 

(i) Personal fall arrest systems and 

positioning systems shall be anchored to 

any apparently substantial part of the 

equipment unless a competent person, 

from a visual inspection, without an 

engineering analysis, would conclude 

that the applicable criteria in § 1926.502 

would not be met. 

(ii) Attachable anchor devices 

(portable anchor devices that are 

attached to the equipment) shall meet 

the applicable anchorage criteria in 

§ 1926.502. 

(2) Anchorages for restraint systems. 

Restraint systems shall be anchored to 

any part of the equipment that is 

capable of withstanding twice the 

maximum load that an employee may 

impose on it during reasonably 

anticipated conditions of use. 

(g) Tower cranes. 

(1) For non-erecting/dismantling 

work, the employer shall provide and 

ensure the use of fall protection 

equipment for employees who are on a 

walking/working surface with an 

unprotected side or edge more than 6 

feet above a lower level, except when 

the employee is at or near draw-works 

(when the equipment is running), in the 

cab, or on the deck. 

(2) For erecting/dismantling work, the 

employer shall provide and ensure the 

use of fall protection equipment for 

employees who are on a walking/ 

working surface with an unprotected 

side or edge more than 15 feet above a 

lower level. 

(h) Anchoring to the load line. A fall 

arrest system is permitted to be 

anchored to the crane/derrick’s hook (or 

other part of the load line) where the 

following requirements are met: 

(1) A qualified person has determined 

that the set-up and rated capacity of the 

crane/derrick (including the hook, load 

line and rigging) meets or exceeds the 

requirements in § 1926.502(d)(15). 

(2) The equipment operator shall be at 

the work site and informed that the 

equipment is being used for this 

purpose. 

§ 1926.1424 Work area control. 

(a) Swing radius hazards. 

(1) The requirements in paragraph 

(a)(2) of this section apply where there 

are accessible areas in which the 

equipment’s rotating superstructure 

(whether permanently or temporarily 

mounted) poses a reasonably foreseeable 

risk of: 

(i) Striking and injuring an employee; 

or 

(ii) Pinching/crushing an employee 

against another part of the equipment or 

another object. 

(2) To prevent employees from 

entering these hazard areas, the 

employer shall: 

(i) Instruct employees assigned to 

work on or near the equipment 

(‘‘authorized personnel’’) in how to 

recognize struck-by and pinch/crush 

hazard areas posed by the rotating 

superstructure. 

(ii) Erect and maintain control lines, 

warning lines, railings or similar 

barriers to mark the boundaries of the 

hazard areas. Exception: where it is 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59936 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

neither feasible to erect such barriers on 

the ground nor on the equipment, the 

hazard areas shall be clearly marked by 

a combination of warning signs (such as 

‘‘Danger—Swing/Crush Zone’’ or 

‘‘Danger—This Thing’s Gonna Swing 

and Crunch You—Zone’’) and high 

visibility markings on the equipment 

that identify the hazard areas. In 

addition, the employer shall train the 

employees to understand what these 

markings signify. 

(3) Protecting employees in the hazard 

area. 

(i) Before an employee goes to a 

location in the hazard area that is out of 

view of the operator, the employee (or 

someone instructed by the employee) 

must ensure that the operator is 

informed that he/she is going to that 

location. 

(ii) Where the operator knows that an 

employee went to a location covered by 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the 

operator shall not rotate the 

superstructure until the operator: 

(A) Gives a warning that is 

understood by the employee as a signal 

that the superstructure is about to be 

rotated and allows time for the 

employee to get to a safe position, or 

(B) Is informed in accordance with a 

pre-arranged system of communication 

that the employee is in a safe position. 

(b) Multiple equipment coordination. 

Where any part of a crane/derrick is 

within the working radius of another 

crane/derrick, the controlling entity 

shall institute a system to coordinate 

operations. If there is no controlling 

entity, the employers shall institute 

such a system. 

§ 1926.1425 Keeping clear of the load. 

(a) Where available, hoisting routes 

that minimize the exposure of 

employees to hoisted loads shall be 

used, to the extent consistent with 

public safety. 

(b) While the operator is not moving 

a suspended load, no employee shall be 

within the fall zone, except for 

employees: 

(1) Engaged in hooking, unhooking or 

guiding a load, or 

(2) Engaged in the initial attachment 

of the load to a component or structure, 

or 

(3) Operating a concrete hopper or 

concrete bucket. 

(c) When employees are engaged in 

hooking, unhooking, or guiding the 

load, or in the initial connection of a 

load to a component or structure and are 

within the fall zone, the following 

criteria shall be met: 

(1) The materials being hoisted shall 

be rigged to prevent unintentional 

displacement. 

(2) Hooks with self-closing latches or 

their equivalent shall be used. 

Exception: ‘‘J’’ hooks are permitted to be 

used for setting wooden trusses. 

(3) The materials shall be rigged by a 

qualified rigger. 

(d) Receiving a load. Only employees 

needed to receive a load shall be 

permitted to be within the fall zone 

when a load is being landed. 

(e) During a tilt-up or tilt-down 

operation: 

(1) No employee shall be directly 

under the load. 

(2) Only employees essential to the 

operation shall be in the fall zone (but 

not directly under the load). 

Note to § 1926.1425: Boom free fall is 

prohibited when an employee is in the fall 

zone of the boom or load, and load line free 

fall is prohibited when an employee is 

directly under the load; see § 1926.1426. 

§ 1926.1426 Free fall and controlled load 

lowering. 

(a) Boom free fall prohibitions. 

(1) The use of equipment in which the 

boom is designed to free fall (live boom) 

is prohibited in each of the following 

circumstances: 

(i) An employee is in the fall zone of 

the boom or load. 

(ii) An employee is being hoisted. 

(iii) The load or boom is directly over 

a power line, or over any part of the area 

extending the Table A (of § 1926.1408) 

clearance distance to each side of the 

power line. 

(iv) The load is over a shaft. 

(v) The load is over a cofferdam, 

except where there are no employees in 

the fall zone. 

(vi) Lifting operations are taking place 

in a refinery or tank farm. 

(2) The use of equipment in which the 

boom is designed to free fall (live boom) 

is permitted only where none of the 

circumstances listed in paragraph (a)(1) 

of this section are present and: 

(i) The equipment was manufactured 

prior to October 31, 1984, or 

(ii) The equipment is a floating crane/ 

derrick or a land crane/derrick on a 

vessel/flotation device. 

(b) Preventing boom free fall. Where 

the use of equipment with a boom that 

is designed to free fall (live boom) is 

prohibited (see paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section), the boom hoist shall have a 

secondary mechanism or device 

designed to prevent the boom from 

falling in the event the primary system 

used to hold or regulate the boom hoist 

fails, as follows: 

(1) Friction drums shall have: 

(i) A friction clutch and, in addition, 

a braking device, to allow for controlled 

boom lowering. 

(ii) A secondary braking or locking 

device, which is manually or 

automatically engaged, to back-up the 

primary brake while the boom is held 

(such as a secondary friction brake or a 

ratchet and pawl device). 

(2) Hydraulic drums shall have an 

integrally mounted holding device or 

internal static brake to prevent boom 

hoist movement in the event of 

hydraulic failure. 

(3) Neither clutches nor hydraulic 

motors shall be considered brake or 

locking devices for purposes of this 

subpart. 

(4) Hydraulic boom cylinders shall 

have an integrally mounted holding 

device. 

(c) Preventing uncontrolled retraction. 

Hydraulic telescoping booms shall have 

an integrally mounted holding device to 

prevent the boom from retracting in the 

event of hydraulic failure. 

(d) Load line free fall. In each of the 

following circumstances, controlled 

load lowering is required and free fall of 

the load line hoist is prohibited: 

(1) An employee is directly under the 

load. 

(2) An employee is being hoisted. 

(3) The load is directly over a power 

line, or over any part of the area 

extending the Table A clearance 

distance to each side of the power line. 

(4) The load is over a shaft or 

cofferdam. 

§ 1926.1427 Operator qualification and 

certification. 

(a) The employer must ensure that, 

prior to operating any equipment 

covered under § 1926.1400, the operator 

is either qualified or certified to operate 

the equipment in accordance with one 

of the options in paragraphs (b) through 

(e) of this section, or is operating the 

equipment during a training period in 

accordance with paragraph (f) of this 

section. Exceptions: Operator 

qualification or certification under this 

section is not required for operators of 

derricks (see § 1926.1436), sideboom 

cranes (see § 1926.1440), and equipment 

with a rated hoisting/lifting capacity of 

2,000 pounds or less (see § 1926.1441). 

(b) Option 1: Certification by an 

accredited crane/derrick operator 

testing organization. 

(1) For a testing organization to be 

considered accredited to certify 

operators under this subpart, it must: 

(i) Be accredited by a nationally 

recognized accrediting agency based on 

that agency’s determination that 

industry recognized criteria for written 

testing materials, practical 

examinations, test administration, 

grading, facilities/equipment and 

personnel have been met. 

(ii) Administer written and practical 

tests that: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59937 

(A) Assess the operator applicant 

regarding, at a minimum, the knowledge 

and skills listed in paragraphs (j)(1) and 

(2) of this section. 

(B) Provide different levels of 

certification based on equipment 

capacity and type. 

(iii) Have procedures for operators to 

re-apply and be re-tested in the event an 

operator applicant fails a test or is 

decertified. 

(iv) Have testing procedures for recertification designed to ensure that the 

operator continues to meet the technical 

knowledge and skills requirements in 

paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(v) Have its accreditation reviewed by 

the nationally recognized accrediting 

agency at least every three years. 

(2) A certification issued under this 

option is portable. 

(3) A certification issued under this 

paragraph (b) is valid for 5 years. 

(c) Option 2: Qualification by an 

audited employer program. The 

employer’s qualification of its employee 

shall meet the following requirements: 

(1) The written and practical tests 

shall be either: 

(i) Developed by an accredited crane/ 

derrick operator testing organization 

(see paragraph (b) of this section), or 

(ii) Approved by an auditor in 

accordance with the following 

requirements: 

(A) The auditor is certified to evaluate 

such tests by an accredited crane/ 

derrick operator testing organization 

(see paragraph (b) of this section). 

(B) The auditor is not an employee of 

the employer. 

(C) The approval shall be based on the 

auditor’s determination that the written 

and practical tests meet nationally 

recognized test development criteria 

and are valid and reliable in assessing 

the operator applicants regarding, at a 

minimum, the knowledge and skills 

listed in paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this 

section. 

(2) Administration of tests. 

(i) The written and practical tests 

shall be administered under 

circumstances approved by the auditor 

as meeting nationally recognized test 

administration standards. 

(ii) The auditor shall be certified to 

evaluate the administration of the 

written and practical tests by an 

accredited crane/derrick operator testing 

organization (see paragraph (b) of this 

section). 

(iii) The auditor shall not be an 

employee of the employer. 

(iv) The audit shall be conducted in 

accordance with nationally recognized 

auditing standards. 

(3) The employer program shall be 

audited within 3 months of the 

beginning of the program and every 3 

years thereafter. 

(4) The employer program shall have 

testing procedures for re-qualification 

designed to ensure that the operator 

continues to meet the technical 

knowledge and skills requirements in 

paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this section. 

The re-qualification procedures shall be 

audited in accordance with paragraphs 

(c)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(5) Deficiencies. If the auditor 

determines that there is a significant 

deficiency (‘‘deficiency’’) in the 

program, the employer shall ensure that: 

(i) No operator is qualified until the 

auditor confirms that the deficiency has 

been corrected. 

(ii) The program is audited again 

within 180 days of the confirmation that 

the deficiency was corrected. 

(iii) The auditor files a documented 

report of the deficiency to the 

appropriate Regional Office of the 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration within 15 days of the 

auditor’s determination that there is a 

deficiency. 

(iv) Records of the audits of the 

employer’s program are maintained by 

the auditor for three years and are made 

available by the auditor to the Secretary 

of Labor or her designated 

representative upon request. 

(6) A qualification under this 

paragraph (c) is: 

(i) Not portable. 

(ii) Valid for 5 years. 

(d) Option 3. Qualification by the U.S. 

military. 

(1) For purposes of this section, an 

operator is considered qualified if he/ 

she has a current operator qualification 

issued by the U.S. military for operation 

of the equipment. 

(2) A qualification under this 

paragraph (d) is: 

(i) Not portable. 

(ii) Valid for the period of time 

stipulated by the issuing entity. 

(e) Option 4. Licensing by a 

government entity. 

(1) For purposes of this section, a 

government licensing department/office 

that issues operator licenses for 

operating equipment covered by this 

standard is considered a government 

accredited crane/derrick operator testing 

organization if the criteria in paragraph 

(e)(2) of this section are met. 

(2) Licensing criteria. 

(i) The requirements for obtaining the 

license include an assessment, by 

written and practical tests, of the 

operator applicant regarding, at a 

minimum, the knowledge and skills 

listed in paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this 

section. 

(ii) The testing meets industry 

recognized criteria for written testing 

materials, practical examinations, test 

administration, grading, facilities/ 

equipment and personnel. 

(iii) The government authority that 

oversees the licensing department/ 

office, has determined that the 

requirements in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and 

(ii) of this section have been met. 

(iv) The licensing department/office 

has testing procedures for re-licensing 

designed to ensure that the operator 

continues to meet the technical 

knowledge and skills requirements in 

paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(3) A license issued by a government 

accredited crane/derrick operator testing 

organization that meets the 

requirements of this option: 

(i) Meets the operator qualification 

requirements of this section for 

operation of equipment only within the 

jurisdiction of the government entity. 

(ii) Is valid for the period of time 

stipulated by the licensing department/ 

office, but no longer than 5 years. 

(f) Pre-qualification/certification 

training period. 

(1) An employee who is not qualified 

or certified under this section is 

permitted to operate equipment where 

the requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of 

this section are met. 

(2) An employee who has not passed 

both the written and practical tests 

required under this section is permitted 

to operate equipment as part of his/her 

training where the following 

requirements are met: 

(i) The employee (‘‘trainee/ 

apprentice’’) shall be provided with 

sufficient training prior to operating the 

equipment to enable the trainee to 

operate the equipment safely under 

limitations established by this section 

(including continuous supervision) and 

any additional limitations established 

by the employer. 

(ii) The tasks performed by the 

trainee/apprentice while operating the 

equipment shall be within the trainee’s 

ability. 

(iii) Supervisor. While operating the 

equipment, the trainee/apprentice shall 

be continuously supervised by an 

individual (‘‘operator’s supervisor’’) 

who meets the following requirements: 

(A) The operator’s supervisor is an 

employee or agent of the trainee’s/ 

apprentice’s employer. 

(B) The operator’s supervisor is either 

a certified operator under this section, 

or has passed the written portion of a 

certification test under one of the 

options in paragraphs (b) through (e) of 

this section, and is familiar with the 

proper use of the equipment’s controls. 

(C) While supervising the trainee/ 

apprentice, the operator’s supervisor 

performs no tasks that detract from the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59938 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

supervisor’s ability to supervise the 

trainee/apprentice. 

(D) For equipment other than tower 

cranes: the operator’s supervisor and the 

trainee/apprentice shall be in direct line 

of sight of each other. In addition, they 

shall communicate verbally or by hand 

signals. For tower cranes: the operator’s 

supervisor and the trainee/apprentice 

shall be in direct communication with 

each other. 

(iv) Continuous supervision. The 

trainee/apprentice shall be supervised 

by the operator’s supervisor at all times, 

except for short breaks where the 

following are met: 

(A) The break lasts no longer than 15 

minutes and there is no more than one 

break per hour. 

(B) Immediately prior to the break the 

operator’s supervisor informs the 

trainee/apprentice of the specific tasks 

that the trainee/apprentice is to perform 

and limitations that he/she is to adhere 

to during the operator supervisor’s 

break. 

(C) The specific tasks that the trainee/ 

apprentice will perform during the 

operator supervisor’s break are within 

the trainee’s/apprentice’s abilities. 

(v) The trainee/apprentice shall not 

operate the equipment in any of the 

following circumstances: 

(A) If any part of the equipment, load 

line or load (including rigging and 

lifting accessories), if operated up to the 

equipment’s maximum working radius 

in the work zone (see § 1926.1408(a)(1)), 

could get within 20 feet of a power line 

that is up to 350 kV, or within 50 feet 

of a power line that is over 350 kV. 

(B) If the equipment is used to hoist 

personnel. 

(C) In multiple-equipment lifts. 

(D) If the equipment is used over a 

shaft, cofferdam, or in a tank farm. 

(E) For multiple-lift rigging, except 

where the operator’s supervisor 

determines that the trainee’s/ 

apprentice’s skills are sufficient for this 

high-skill work. 

(g) Under this section, a testing entity 

is permitted to provide training as well 

as testing services as long as the criteria 

of the applicable accrediting agency (in 

the option selected) for an organization 

providing both services are met. 

(h) Written tests under this section are 

permitted to be administered verbally, 

with answers given verbally, where the 

operator candidate: 

(1) Passes a written demonstration of 

literacy relevant to the work. 

(2) Demonstrates the ability to use the 

type of written manufacturer procedures 

applicable to the class/type of 

equipment for which the candidate is 

seeking certification. 

(i) [Reserved.] 

(j) Certification criteria. Qualifications 

and certifications must be based, at a 

minimum, on the following: 

(1) A determination through a written 

test that: 

(i) The individual knows the 

information necessary for safe operation 

of the specific type of equipment the 

individual will operate, including the 

following: 

(A) The controls and operational/ 

performance characteristics. 

(B) Use of, and the ability to calculate 

(manually or with a calculator), load/ 

capacity information on a variety of 

configurations of the equipment. 

(C) Procedures for preventing and 

responding to power line contact. 

(D) Technical knowledge similar to 

the subject matter criteria listed in 

Appendix E of this subpart applicable to 

the specific type of equipment the 

individual will operate. Use of the 

Appendix E of this subpart criteria 

meets the requirements of this 

provision. 

(E) Technical knowledge applicable 

to: 

(1) The suitability of the supporting 

ground and surface to handle expected 

loads. 

(2) Site hazards. 

(3) Site access. 

(F) This subpart, including applicable 

incorporated materials. 

(ii) The individual is able to read and 

locate relevant information in the 

equipment manual and other materials 

containing information referred to in 

paragraph (j)(1)(i) of this section. 

(2) A determination through a 

practical test that the individual has the 

skills necessary for safe operation of the 

equipment, including the following: 

(i) Ability to recognize, from visual 

and audible observation, the items listed 

in § 1926.1412(d) (shift inspection). 

(ii) Operational and maneuvering 

skills. 

(iii) Application of load chart 

information. 

(iv) Application of safe shut-down 

and securing procedures. 

(k) Phase-in. 

(1) As of the effective date of this 

subpart, until four years after the 

effective date of the subpart, the 

following requirements apply: 

(i) Operators of equipment covered by 

this standard are required to be 

competent to operate the equipment 

safely. 

(ii) Where an employee assigned to 

operate machinery does not have the 

required knowledge or ability to operate 

the equipment safely, the employee 

shall be provided with the necessary 

training prior to operating the 

equipment. The employer shall ensure 

that the operator is evaluated to confirm 

that he/she understands the information 

provided in the training. 

(2) The effective date of paragraphs (a) 

through (j) and (m) of this section is [4 

YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE 

OF THE FINAL RULE]. 

(l) [Reserved.] 

(m) Definitions. 

(1) ‘‘Portable.’’ Any employer of an 

operator with a certification that is 

portable under this section meets the 

requirements of paragraph (a) of this 

section with respect to that operator. 

(2) ‘‘Not portable.’’ Where an operator 

has a qualification that is not portable 

under this section, the qualification 

meets the requirements of paragraph (a) 

of this section only where the operator 

is employed by (and operating the 

equipment for) the employer that issued 

the qualification. 

§ 1926.1428 Signal person qualifications. 

(a) The employer of the signal person 

shall ensure that each signal person 

meets the Qualification Requirements 

(paragraph (c) of this section) prior to 

giving any signals. This requirement 

shall be met by using either Option (1) 

or Option (2) (see paragraphs (a)(1) and 

(a)(2) of this section). 

(1) Option (1)—Third party qualified 

evaluator. The signal person has 

documentation from a third party 

qualified evaluator showing that the 

signal person meets the Qualification 

Requirements (see paragraph (c) of this 

section). 

(2) Option (2)—Employer’s qualified 

evaluator. The employer has its 

qualified evaluator assess the individual 

and determine that the individual meets 

the Qualification Requirements (see 

paragraph (c) of this section) and 

provides documentation of that 

determination. An assessment by an 

employer’s qualified evaluator under 

this option is not portable—other 

employers are not permitted to use it to 

meet the requirements of this section. 

(3) The documentation for whichever 

option is used shall be available while 

the signal person is employed by the 

employer. 

(b) If subsequent actions by the signal 

person indicate that the individual may 

not meet the Qualification Requirements 

(see paragraph (c) of this section), the 

employer must not allow the individual 

to continue working as a signal person 

until retraining is provided and a 

reassessment is made in accordance 

with paragraph (a) of this section that 

confirms that the individual meets the 

Qualification Requirements. 

(c) Qualification Requirements. Each 

signal person must: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59939 

(1) Know and understand the type of 

signals used. If hand signals are used, 

the signal person must know and 

understand the Standard Method for 

hand signals. 

(2) Be competent in the application of 

the type of signals used. 

(3) Have a basic understanding of 

equipment operation and limitations, 

including the crane dynamics involved 

in swinging and stopping loads and 

boom deflection from hoisting loads. 

(4) Know and understand the relevant 

requirements of § 1926.1419 through 

§ 1926.1422 and § 1926.1428. 

(5) Demonstrate that he/she meets the 

requirements in paragraph (c)(1) 

through (4) of this section through a 

verbal or written test, and through a 

practical test. 

§ 1926.1429 Qualifications of maintenance 

& repair employees. 

(a) Maintenance, inspection and 

repair personnel are permitted to 

operate the equipment only where the 

following requirements are met: 

(1) The operation is limited to those 

functions necessary to perform 

maintenance, inspect or verify the 

performance of the equipment. 

(2) The personnel either: 

(i) Operate the equipment under the 

direct supervision of an operator who 

meets the requirements of § 1926.1427 

(Operator qualification and 

certification), or 

(ii) Are familiar with the operation, 

safe limitations, characteristics and 

hazards associated with the type of 

equipment. 

(b) Maintenance and repair personnel 

shall meet the definition of a qualified 

person with respect to the equipment 

and maintenance/repair tasks 

performed. 

§ 1926.1430 Training. 

The employer shall provide training 

as follows: 

(a) Overhead powerlines. Employees 

specified in § 1926.1408(g) (Power line 

safety; training) shall be trained in 

accordance with the requirements of 

that paragraph. 

(b) Signal persons. Employees who 

will be assigned to work as signal 

persons who do not meet the 

requirements of § 1926.1428(c) shall be 

trained in the areas addressed in that 

paragraph. 

(c) Operators. 

(1) Operators who are not qualified or 

certified under § 1926.1427 shall be 

trained in the areas addressed in 

§ 1926.1427(j). Retraining shall be 

provided if necessary for requalification or re-certification or if the 

operator does not pass a qualification or 

certification test. 

(2) Operators shall be trained in the 

following practices: 

(i) On friction equipment, whenever 

moving a boom off a support, first raise 

the boom a short distance (sufficient to 

take the load of the boom) to determine 

if the boom hoist brake needs to be 

adjusted. On other types of equipment, 

the same practice is applicable, except 

that typically there is no means of 

adjusting the brake; if the brake does not 

hold, a repair is necessary. 

(ii) Where available, the 

manufacturer’s emergency procedures 

for halting unintended equipment 

movement. 

(d) Competent persons and qualified 

persons. Competent persons and 

qualified persons shall be trained 

regarding the requirements of this 

subpart applicable to their respective 

roles. 

(e) Crush/pinch points. Employees 

who work with the equipment shall be 

instructed to keep clear of holes, and 

crush/pinch points and the hazards 

addressed in § 1926.1424 (Work area 

control). 

(f) Tag-out. Operators and other 

employees authorized to start/energize 

equipment or operate equipment 

controls (such as maintenance and 

repair employees), shall be trained in 

the tag-out procedures in § 1926.1417(f). 

(g) Training administration. 

(1) The employer shall ensure that 

employees required to be trained under 

this subpart are evaluated to confirm 

that they understand the information 

provided in the training. 

(2) Refresher training in relevant 

topics shall be provided when, based on 

the conduct of the employee or an 

evaluation of the employee’s 

knowledge, there is an indication that 

retraining is necessary. 

§ 1926.1431 Hoisting personnel. 

The requirements of this section are 

supplemental to the other requirements 

in this subpart and apply when one or 

more employees are hoisted. 

(a) The use of equipment to hoist 

employees is prohibited except where 

the employer demonstrates that the 

erection, use, and dismantling of 

conventional means of reaching the 

worksite, such as a personnel hoist, 

ladder, stairway, aerial lift, elevating 

work platform, or scaffold, would be 

more hazardous, or is not possible 

because of the project’s structural design 

or worksite conditions. This paragraph 

does not apply to work covered by 

subpart R (Steel Erection) of this part. 

(b) Use of personnel platform. 

(1) When using equipment to hoist 

employees, the employees shall be in a 

personnel platform that meets the 

requirements of paragraph (e) of this 

section. 

(2) Exceptions: A personnel platform 

is not required for hoisting employees: 

(i) Into and out of drill shafts that are 

up to and including 8 feet in diameter 

(see paragraph (o) of this section for 

requirements for hoisting these 

employees). 

(ii) In pile driving operations (see 

paragraph (p) of this section for 

requirements for hoisting these 

employees). 

(iii) Solely for transfer to or from a 

marine worksite in a marine hoisted 

personnel transfer device (see paragraph 

(r) of this section for requirements for 

hoisting these employees). 

(iv) In storage tank (steel or concrete), 

shaft and chimney operations (see 

paragraph (s) of this section for 

requirements for hoisting these 

employees). 

(c) Equipment set-up. 

(1) The equipment shall be uniformly 

level, within one percent of level grade, 

and located on footing that a qualified 

person has determined to be sufficiently 

firm and stable. 

(2) Equipment with outriggers shall 

have them all extended and locked. The 

amount of extension shall be the same 

for all outriggers and in accordance with 

manufacturer procedures and load 

charts. 

(d) Equipment criteria. 

(1) Capacity: use of suspended 

personnel platforms. The total load 

(with the platform loaded, including the 

hook, load line and rigging) shall not 

exceed 50 percent of the rated capacity 

for the radius and configuration of the 

equipment, except during proof testing. 

(2) Capacity: use of boom-attached 

personnel platforms. The total weight of 

the loaded personnel platform shall not 

exceed 50 percent of the rated capacity 

for the radius and configuration of the 

equipment (except during proof testing). 

(3) Capacity: hoisting personnel 

without a personnel platform. When 

hoisting personnel without a personnel 

platform pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of 

this section, the total load (including the 

hook, load line, rigging and any other 

equipment that imposes a load) shall 

not exceed 50 percent of the rated 

capacity for the radius and 

configuration of the equipment, except 

during proof testing. 

(4) When the occupied personnel 

platform is in a stationary working 

position, the load and boom hoist 

brakes, swing brakes, and operator 

actuated secondary braking and locking 

features (such as pawls or dogs) or 

automatic secondary brakes shall be 

engaged. 

(5) Devices. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59940 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

(i) Equipment (except for derricks) 

with a variable angle boom shall be 

equipped with: 

(A) A boom angle indicator, readily 

visible to the operator. 

(B) A boom hoist limiting device. 

(ii) Equipment with a luffing jib shall 

be equipped with: 

(A) A jib angle indicator, readily 

visible to the operator. 

(B) A jib hoist limiting device. 

(iii) Equipment with telescoping 

booms shall be equipped with a device 

to indicate the boom’s extended length 

clearly to the operator, or shall have 

measuring marks on the boom. 

(iv) Anti two-block. A device which 

automatically prevents damage and load 

failure from contact between the load 

block, overhaul ball, or similar 

component, and the boom tip (or fixed 

upper block or similar component) shall 

be used. The device(s) must prevent 

such damage/failure at all points where 

two-blocking could occur. Exception: 

this device is not required when 

hoisting personnel in pile driving 

operations. Instead, paragraph (p)(2) of 

this section specifies how to prevent 

two-blocking during such operations. 

(v) Controlled load lowering. The load 

line hoist drum shall have a system, 

other than the load line hoist brake, 

which regulates the lowering rate of 

speed of the hoist mechanism. This 

system or device must be used when 

hoisting personnel. 

Note to paragraph (d)(2)(v): free fall of the 

load line hoist is prohibited (see 

§ 1926.1426(d); the use of equipment in 

which the boom hoist mechanism can free 

fall is also prohibited (see § 1926.1426(a)(1) 

(vi) Proper operation required. 

Personnel hoisting operations shall not 

begin unless the devices listed in this 

section are in proper working order. If 

a device stops working properly during 

such operations, the operator shall 

safely stop operations. Personnel 

hoisting operations shall not resume 

until the device is again working 

properly. Alternative measures are not 

permitted. 

(6) Direct attachment of a personnel 

platform to a luffing jib is prohibited. 

(e) Personnel platform criteria. 

(1) The personnel platform and 

attachment/suspension system shall be 

designed for hoisting personnel by a 

qualified person familiar with structural 

design. 

(2) The system used to connect the 

personnel platform to the equipment 

shall allow the platform to remain 

within 10 degrees of level, regardless of 

boom angle. 

(3) The suspension system shall be 

designed to minimize tipping of the 

platform due to movement of employees 

occupying the platform. 

(4) The personnel platform itself 

(excluding the guardrail system and 

personal fall arrest system anchorages), 

shall be capable of supporting, without 

failure, its own weight and at least five 

times the maximum intended load. 

(5) All welding of the personnel 

platform and its components shall be 

performed by a certified welder familiar 

with the weld grades, types and material 

specified in the platform design. 

(6) The personnel platform shall be 

equipped with a guardrail system which 

meets the requirements of subpart M of 

this part, and shall be enclosed at least 

from the toeboard to mid-rail with either 

solid construction material or expanded 

metal having openings no greater than 

1⁄2 inch (1.27cm). Points to which 

personal fall arrest systems are attached 

must meet the anchorage requirements 

in subpart M of this part. 

(7) A grab rail shall be installed inside 

the entire perimeter of the personnel 

platform except for access gates/doors. 

(8) Access gates/doors. If installed, 

access gates/doors of all types 

(including swinging, sliding, folding, or 

other types) shall: 

(i) Not swing outward. 

(ii) Be equipped with a device that 

prevents accidental opening. 

(9) Headroom shall be sufficient to 

allow employees to stand upright in the 

platform. 

(10) In addition to the use of hard 

hats, employees shall be protected by 

overhead protection on the personnel 

platform when employees are exposed 

to falling objects. The platform overhead 

protection shall not obscure the view of 

the operator or platform occupants 

(such as wire mesh that has up to 1/2 

inch openings), unless full protection is 

necessary. 

(11) All edges exposed to employee 

contact shall be smooth enough to 

prevent injury. 

(12) The weight of the platform and 

its rated capacity shall be conspicuously 

posted on the platform with a plate or 

other permanent marking. 

(f) Personnel platform loading. 

(1) The personnel platform shall not 

be loaded in excess of its rated capacity. 

(2) Use. 

(i) Personnel platforms shall be used 

only for employees, their tools, and the 

materials necessary to do their work. 

Platforms shall not be used to hoist 

materials or tools when not hoisting 

personnel. 

(ii) Exception: materials and tools to 

be used during the lift, if secured and 

distributed in accordance with 

paragraph (f)(3) of this section may be 

in the platform for trial lifts. 

(3) Materials and tools shall be: 

(i) Secured to prevent displacement. 

(ii) Evenly distributed within the 

confines of the platform while it is 

suspended. 

(4) The number of employees 

occupying the personnel platform shall 

not exceed the maximum number the 

platform was designed to hold or the 

number required to perform the work, 

whichever is less. 

(g) Attachment and rigging. 

(1) Hooks and other detachable 

devices. 

(i) Hooks used in the connection 

between the hoist line and the 

personnel platform (including hooks on 

overhaul ball assemblies, lower load 

blocks, bridle legs, or other attachment 

assemblies or components) shall be: 

(A) Of a type that can be closed and 

locked, eliminating the throat opening. 

(B) Closed and locked when attached. 

(ii) Shackles used in place of hooks 

must be of the alloy anchor type, with 

either: 

(A) A bolt, nut and retaining pin, in 

place, or 

(B) Of the screw type, with the screw 

pin secured from accidental removal. 

(iii) Where other detachable devices 

are used, they must be of the type that 

can be closed and locked to the same 

extent as the devices addressed in 

paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (ii) of this 

section. Such devices must be closed 

and locked when attached. 

(2) Rope bridle. When a rope bridle is 

used to suspend the personnel platform, 

each bridle leg shall be connected to a 

master link or shackle (see paragraph (g) 

of this section) in a manner that ensures 

that the load is evenly divided among 

the bridle legs. 

(3) Rigging hardware (including wire 

rope, shackles, rings, master links, and 

other rigging hardware) and hooks must 

be capable of supporting, without 

failure, at least five times the maximum 

intended load applied or transmitted to 

that component. Where rotation 

resistant rope is used, the slings shall be 

capable of supporting without failure at 

least ten times the maximum intended 

load. 

(4) Eyes in wire rope slings shall be 

fabricated with thimbles. 

(5) Bridles and associated rigging for 

suspending the personnel platform shall 

be used only for the platform and the 

necessary employees, their tools and 

materials necessary to do their work, 

and shall not be used for any other 

purpose when not hoisting personnel. 

(h) Trial lift and inspection. 

(1) A trial lift with the unoccupied 

personnel platform loaded at least to the 

anticipated liftweight shall be made 

from ground level, or any other location 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59941 

where employees will enter the 

platform, to each location at which the 

platform is to be hoisted and positioned. 

Where there is more than one location 

to be reached from a single set-up 

position, either individual trial lifts for 

each location, or a single trial lift for all 

locations, shall be performed. 

(2) The trial lift shall be performed 

immediately prior to each shift in which 

personnel will be hoisted. In addition, 

the trial lift shall be repeated prior to 

hoisting employees in each of the 

following circumstances: 

(i) The equipment is moved and set 

up in a new location or returned to a 

previously used location. 

(ii) The lift route is changed, unless 

the competent person determines that 

the new route presents no new factors 

affecting safety. 

(3) The competent person shall 

determine that: 

(i) Safety devices and operational aids 

required by this section are activated 

and functioning properly. Other safety 

devices and operational aids must meet 

the requirements of § 1926.1415 and 

§ 1926.1416. 

(ii) Nothing interferes with the 

equipment or the personnel platform in 

the course of the trial lift. 

(iii) The lift will not exceed 50 

percent of the equipment’s rated 

capacity at any time during the lift. 

(iv) The load radius to be used during 

the lift has been accurately determined. 

(4) Immediately after the trial lift, the 

competent person shall: 

(i) Conduct a visual inspection of the 

equipment, base support or ground, and 

personnel platform, to determine 

whether the trial lift has exposed any 

defect or problem or produced any 

adverse effect. 

(ii) Confirm that, upon the completion 

of the trial lift process, the test weight 

has been removed. 

(5) Immediately prior to each lift: 

(i) The platform shall be hoisted a few 

inches and inspected by a competent 

person to ensure that it is secure and 

properly balanced. 

(ii) The following conditions must be 

determined by a competent person to 

exist before the lift of personnel 

proceeds: 

(A) Hoist ropes shall be free of 

deficiencies in accordance with 

§ 1926.1413(a). 

(B) Multiple part lines shall not be 

twisted around each other. 

(C) The primary attachment shall be 

centered over the platform. 

(D) If the load rope is slack, the 

hoisting system shall be inspected to 

ensure that all ropes are properly seated 

on drums and in sheaves. 

(6) Any condition found during the 

trial lift and subsequent inspection(s) 

that fails to meet a requirement of this 

standard or otherwise creates a safety 

hazard shall be corrected before hoisting 

personnel. 

(i) [Reserved.] 

(j) Proof testing. 

(1) At each jobsite, prior to hoisting 

employees on the personnel platform, 

and after any repair or modification, the 

platform and rigging shall be proof 

tested to 125 percent of the platform’s 

rated capacity. The proof test may be 

done concurrently with the trial lift. 

(2) The platform shall be lowered by 

controlled load lowering, braked, and 

held in a suspended position for a 

minimum of five minutes with the test 

load evenly distributed on the platform. 

(3) After proof testing, a competent 

person shall inspect the platform and 

rigging to determine if the test has been 

passed. If any deficiencies are found 

that pose a safety hazard, the platform 

and rigging shall not be used to hoist 

personnel unless the deficiencies are 

corrected, the test is repeated, and a 

competent person determines that the 

test has been passed. 

(4) Personnel hoisting shall not be 

conducted until the competent person 

determines that the platform and rigging 

have successfully passed the proof test. 

(k) Work practices. 

(1) Hoisting of the personnel platform 

shall be performed in a slow, controlled, 

cautious manner, with no sudden 

movements of the equipment or the 

platform. 

(2) Platform occupants shall: 

(i) Keep all parts of the body inside 

the platform during raising, lowering, 

and horizontal movement. This 

provision does not apply to an occupant 

of the platform when necessary to 

position the platform or while 

performing the duties of a signal person. 

(ii) Not stand, sit on, or work from the 

top or intermediate rail or toeboard, or 

use any other means/device to raise 

their working height. 

(iii) Not pull the platform out of 

plumb in relation to the hoisting 

equipment. 

(3) Before employees exit or enter a 

hoisted personnel platform that is not 

landed, the platform shall be secured to 

the structure where the work is to be 

performed, unless securing to the 

structure would create a greater hazard. 

(4) If the platform is tied to the 

structure, the operator shall not move 

the platform until the operator receives 

confirmation that it is freely suspended. 

(5) Tag lines shall be used when 

necessary to control the platform. 

(6) Platforms without controls. Where 

the platform is not equipped with 

controls, the equipment operator shall 

remain at the equipment controls at all 

times while the platform is occupied. 

(7) Platforms with controls. Where the 

platform is equipped with controls, the 

following must be met at all times while 

the platform is occupied: 

(i) The occupant using the controls in 

the platform must be a qualified person 

with respect to their use, including the 

safe limitations of the equipment and 

hazards associated with its operation. 

(ii) The equipment operator must be 

at the equipment controls, or in the 

personnel platform, or on site and in 

view of the equipment. 

(iii) The platform operating manual 

must be in the platform or on the 

equipment. 

(8) Environmental conditions. 

(i) Wind. When wind speed (sustained 

or gusts) exceeds 20 mph at the 

personnel platform, a qualified person 

shall determine if, in light of the wind 

conditions, it is not safe to lift 

personnel. If it is not, the lifting 

operation shall not begin (or, if already 

in progress, shall be terminated). 

(ii) Other weather and environmental 

conditions. A qualified person shall 

determine if, in light of indications of 

dangerous weather conditions, or other 

impending or existing danger, it is not 

safe to lift personnel. If it is not, the 

lifting operation shall not begin (or, if 

already in progress, shall be 

terminated). 

(9) Employees being hoisted shall 

remain in direct communication with 

the signal person (where used), or the 

operator. 

(10) Fall protection. 

(i) Except over water, employees 

occupying the personnel platform shall 

be provided and use a personal fall 

arrest system. The system shall be 

attached to a structural member within 

the personnel platform. 

(ii) The fall arrest system, including 

the attachment point (anchorage) used 

to comply with paragraph (k)(10)(i) of 

this section, shall meet the requirements 

in § 1926.502. 

Note to paragraph (k)(10): When working 

over or near water, the requirements of 

§ 1926.106 apply. 

(11) Other load lines. 

(i) No lifts shall be made on any other 

of the equipment’s load lines while 

personnel are being hoisted, except in 

pile driving operations. 

(ii) Factory-produced boom-mounted 

personnel platforms that incorporate a 

winch as original equipment: Loads are 

permitted to be hoisted by such a winch 

while employees occupy the personnel 

platform only where the load on the 

winch line does not exceed 500 pounds 

and does not exceed the rated capacity 

of the winch and platform. 

(12) Traveling—equipment other than 

derricks. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59942 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

(i) Hoisting of employees while the 

equipment is traveling is prohibited, 

except for: 

(A) Equipment that travels on fixed 

rails, or 

(B) Where the employer demonstrates 

that there is no less hazardous way to 

perform the work. 

(C) This exception does not apply to 

rubber-tired equipment. 

(ii) Where employees are hoisted 

while the equipment is traveling, the 

following criteria shall be met: 

(A) Equipment travel shall be 

restricted to a fixed track or runway. 

(B) Where a runway is used, it shall 

be a firm, level surface designed, 

prepared and designated as a path of 

travel for the weight and configuration 

of the equipment being used to lift and 

travel with the personnel platform. An 

existing surface may be used as long as 

it meets these criteria. 

(C) Travel shall be limited to boom 

length. 

(D) The boom shall be parallel to the 

direction of travel, except where it is 

safer to do otherwise. 

(E) A complete trial run shall be 

performed to test the route of travel 

before employees are allowed to occupy 

the platform. This trial run can be 

performed at the same time as the trial 

lift required by paragraph (h) of this 

section which tests the lift route. 

(13) Traveling—derricks. Derricks are 

prohibited from traveling while 

personnel are hoisted. 

(l) [Reserved.] 

(m) Pre-lift meeting. A pre-lift meeting 

shall be: 

(1) Held to review the applicable 

requirements of this section and the 

procedures that will be followed. 

(2) Attended by the equipment 

operator, signal person (if used for the 

lift), employees to be hoisted, and the 

person responsible for the task to be 

performed. 

(3) Held prior to the trial lift at each 

new work location, and shall be 

repeated for any employees newly 

assigned to the operation. 

(n) Hoisting personnel near power 

lines. Hoisting personnel within 20 feet 

of a power line that is up to 350 kV, and 

hoisting personnel within 50 feet of a 

power line that is over 350 kV, is 

prohibited, except for work covered by 

subpart V of this part (Power 

Transmission and Distribution). 

(o) Hoisting personnel in drill shafts. 

When hoisting employees into and out 

of drill shafts that are up to and 

including 8 feet in diameter, the 

following requirements shall be met: 

(1) The employee shall be in either a 

personnel platform or on a boatswain’s 

chair. 

(2) If using a personnel platform, 

paragraphs (a) through (n) of this section 

apply. 

(3) If using a boatswain’s chair: 

(i) The following paragraphs of this 

section apply: (a), (c), (d)(1), (d)(3), 

(d)(4), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (f)(1), (f)(2)(i), 

(f)(3)(i), (g), (h), (k)(1), (k)(6), (k)(8), 

(k)(9), (k)(11)(i), (m), (n). Where the 

terms ‘‘personnel platform’’ or 

‘‘platform’’ are used in these paragraphs, 

the term ‘‘boatswain’s chair’’ applies in 

their place. 

(ii) A signal person shall be stationed 

at the shaft opening. 

(iii) The employee shall be hoisted in 

a slow, controlled descent and ascent. 

(iv) The employee shall use personal 

fall protection equipment, including a 

full body harness, attached independent 

of the crane/derrick. 

(v) The fall protection equipment 

shall meet the applicable requirements 

in § 1926.502. 

(vi) The boatswain’s chair itself 

(excluding the personal fall arrest 

system anchorages), shall be capable of 

supporting, without failure, its own 

weight and at least five times the 

maximum intended load. 

(vii) No more than one person shall be 

hoisted at a time. 

(p) Hoisting personnel for pile driving 

operations. When hoisting an employee 

in pile driving operations, the following 

requirements shall be met: 

(1) The employee shall be in a 

personnel platform or boatswain’s chair. 

(2) For lattice boom cranes: Clearly 

mark the cable (so that it can easily be 

seen by the operator) at a point that will 

give the operator sufficient time to stop 

the hoist to prevent two-blocking, or use 

a spotter. For telescopic boom cranes: 

Clearly mark the cable (so that it can be 

easily seen by the operator) at a point 

that will give the operator sufficient 

time to stop the hoist to prevent twoblocking, and use a spotter. 

(3) If using a personnel platform, 

paragraphs (b) through (n) of this 

section apply. 

(4) If using a boatswain’s chair: 

(i) The following paragraphs of this 

section apply: (a), (c), (d)(1), (d)(3), 

(d)(4), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (f)(1), (f)(2)(i), 

(f)(3)(i), (g), (h), (j), (k)(1), (k)(6), (k)(8), 

(k)(9), (k)(11)(i), (m), and (n). Where the 

terms ‘‘personnel platform’’ or 

‘‘platform’’ are used in these paragraphs, 

the term ‘‘boatswain’s chair’’ applies in 

their place. 

(ii) The employee shall be hoisted in 

a slow, controlled descent and ascent. 

(iii) The employee shall use personal 

fall protection equipment, including a 

full body harness, independently 

attached to the lower load block or 

overhaul ball. 

(iv) The fall protection equipment 

shall meet the applicable requirements 

in § 1926.502. 

(q) [Reserved.] 

(r) Hoisting personnel for marine 

transfer. When hoisting employees 

solely for transfer to or from a marine 

worksite, the following requirements 

shall be met: 

(1) The employee shall be in either a 

personnel platform or a marine hoisted 

personnel transfer device. 

(2) If using a personnel platform, 

paragraphs (a) through (n) of this section 

apply. 

(3) If using a marine hoisted 

personnel transfer device: 

(i) The following paragraphs of this 

section apply: (a), (c)(2), (d)(1), (d)(3), 

(d)(4), (e)(1) through (5), (e)(12), (f)(1), 

(g), (h), (j), (k)(1), (k)(8), (k)(9), (k)(10)(ii), 

(k)(11)(i), (k)(12), (m), and (n). Where 

the terms ‘‘personnel platform’’ or 

‘‘platform’’ are used in these paragraphs, 

the term ‘‘marine hoisted personnel 

transfer device’’ applies in their place. 

(ii) The transfer device shall be used 

only for transferring workers. 

(iii) The number of workers 

occupying the transfer device shall not 

exceed the maximum number it was 

designed to hold. 

(iv) Each employee shall wear a U.S. 

Coast Guard personal flotation device 

approved for industrial use. 

(s) Hoisting personnel for storage tank 

(steel or concrete), shaft and chimney 

operations. When hoisting an employee 

in storage tank (steel or concrete), shaft 

and chimney operations, the following 

requirements shall be met: 

(1) The employee shall be in a 

personnel platform except where use of 

a personnel platform is infeasible; in 

such a case, a boatswain’s chair shall be 

used. 

(2) If using a personnel platform, 

paragraphs (a) through (n) of this section 

apply. 

(3) If using a boatswain’s chair: 

(i) The following paragraphs of this 

section apply: (a), (c), (d)(1), (d)(3), 

(d)(4), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (f)(1), (f)(2)(i), 

(f)(3)(i), (g), (h), (k)(1), (k)(6), (k)(8), 

(k)(9), (k)(11)(i), (m), (n). Where the 

terms ‘‘personnel platform’’ or 

‘‘platform’’ are used in these paragraphs, 

the term ‘‘boatswain’s chair’’ applies in 

their place. 

(ii) The employee shall be hoisted in 

a slow, controlled descent and ascent. 

(iii) The employee shall use personal 

fall protection equipment, including a 

full body harness, attached independent 

of the crane/derrick. 

(iv) The fall protection equipment 

shall meet the applicable requirements 

in § 1926.502. 

(v) The boatswain’s chair itself 

(excluding the personal fall arrest 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59943 

system anchorages), shall be capable of 

supporting, without failure, its own 

weight and at least five times the 

maximum intended load. 

(vi) No more than one person shall be 

hoisted at a time. 

§ 1926.1432 Multiple-crane/derrick lifts— 

supplemental requirements. 

(a) Plan development. Before 

beginning a crane/derrick operation in 

which more than one crane/derrick will 

be supporting the load, the operation 

must be planned. The planning must 

meet the following requirements: 

(1) The plan must be developed by a 

qualified person. 

(2) The plan must be designed to 

ensure that the requirements of this 

subpart are met. 

(3) Where the qualified person 

determines that engineering expertise is 

needed for the planning, the employer 

must ensure that it is provided. 

(b) Plan implementation. 

(1) The multiple-crane/derrick lift 

must be supervised by a person who 

meets the criteria for both a competent 

person and a qualified person, or by a 

competent person who is assisted by 

one or more qualified persons. 

(2) The supervisor must review the 

plan with all workers who will be 

involved with the operation. 

§ 1926.1433 Design, construction and 

testing. 

The following requirements apply to 

equipment that has a manufacturerrated hoisting/lifting capacity of more 

than 2,000 pounds. 

(a) Crawler, truck and locomotive 

cranes manufactured prior to 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL 

RULE] shall meet the applicable 

requirements for design, construction, 

and testing as prescribed in ANSI 

B30.5–1968, ‘‘Crawler, Locomotive, and 

Truck Cranes,’’ ‘‘PCSA Standard No. 2,’’ 

the requirements in paragraph (b) of this 

section, or the applicable DIN standards 

that were in effect at the time of 

manufacture. 

(b) Mobile (including crawler and 

truck) and locomotive cranes 

manufactured on or after [EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF THE FINAL RULE] shall meet 

the following portions of ASME B30.5– 

2004, ‘‘Mobile and Locomotive Cranes,’’ 

as applicable: 

(1) In section 5–1.1.1 (‘‘Load 

Ratings—Where Stability Governs 

Lifting Performance’’), paragraphs (a)– 

(d) (including subparagraphs). 

(2) In section 5–1.1.2 (‘‘Load 

Ratings—Where Structural Competence 

Governs Lifting Performance’’), 

paragraph (b). 

(3) Section 5–1.2 (‘‘Stability 

(Backward and Forward)’’). 

(4) In section 5–1.3.1 (‘‘Boom Hoist 

Mechanism’’), paragraphs (a), (b)(1) and 

(b)(2), except that when using rotation 

resistant rope, § 1926.1414(c)(4)(ii)(A) 

applies. 

(5) In section 5–1.3.2 (‘‘Load Hoist 

Mechanism’’), paragraphs (a)(2) through 

(a)(4) (including subparagraphs), (b) 

(including subparagraphs), (c) (first 

sentence only) and (d). 

(6) Section 5–1.3.3 (‘‘Telescoping 

Boom’’). 

(7) Section 5–1.4 (‘‘Swing 

Mechanism’’). 

(8) In section 5–1.5 (‘‘Crane Travel’’), 

all provisions except 5–1.5.3(d). 

(9) In section 5–1.6 (‘‘Controls’’), all 

provisions except 5–1.6.1(c). 

(10) Section 5–1.7.4 (‘‘Sheaves’’). 

(11) Section 5–1.7.5 (‘‘Sheave sizes’’). 

(12) In section 5–1.9.1 (‘‘Booms’’), 

paragraph (f). 

(13) Section 5–1.9.3 (‘‘Outriggers’’). 

(14) Section 5–1.9.4 (‘‘Locomotive 

Crane Equipment’’). 

(15) Section 5–1.9.7 (‘‘Clutch and 

Brake Protection’’). 

(16) In section 5–1.9.11 

(‘‘Miscellaneous equipment’’), 

paragraphs (a), (c), (e), and (f). 

(c) Prototype testing: Mobile 

(including crawler and truck) and 

locomotive cranes manufactured on or 

after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL 

RULE] shall meet the prototype testing 

requirements in Test Option A or Test 

Option B (see paragraphs (c)(1) and 

(c)(2) of this section). 

Note to paragraph (c) introductory text: 

Prototype testing of crawler, locomotive and 

truck cranes manufactured prior to the 

effective date of this subpart must conform to 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

(1) Test Option A. 

(i) The following applies to 

equipment with cantilevered booms 

(such as hydraulic boom cranes): All the 

tests listed in SAE J1063, Table 1, shall 

be performed to load all critical 

structural elements to their respective 

limits. All the strength margins listed in 

SAE J1063, Table 2 shall be met. 

(ii) The following applies to 

equipment with pendant supported 

lattice booms: All the tests listed in SAE 

J987, Table 1, shall be performed to load 

all critical structural elements to their 

respective limits. All the strength 

margins listed in SAE J987, Table 2 

shall be met. 

(2) Test Option B. The testing and 

verification requirements of CEN’s EN 

13000 (2004) shall be met. In applying 

the CEN standard, the following 

additional requirements shall be met: 

(i) The following applies to 

equipment with cantilevered booms 

(such as hydraulic boom cranes): The 

analysis methodology (computer 

modeling) must demonstrate that all 

load cases listed in SAE J1063 meet the 

strength margins listed in SAE J1063 

Table 2. 

(ii) The following applies to 

equipment with pendant supported 

lattice booms: The analysis 

methodology (computer modeling) must 

demonstrate that all load cases listed in 

SAE J987 meet the strength margins 

listed in SAE J987 Table 2. 

(iii) Analysis verification. The 

physical testing requirements under 

SAE J1063 and SAE J987 must be met 

unless the reliability of the analysis 

methodology (computer modeling) has 

been demonstrated by a documented 

history of verification through strain 

gauge measuring or strain gauge 

measuring in combination with other 

physical testing. 

(d) All equipment covered by this 

subpart shall meet the following 

requirements: 

(1) Rated capacity and related 

information. The information available 

in the cab (see § 1926.1417(c)) regarding 

‘‘rated capacity’’ and related 

information shall include, at a 

minimum, the following information: 

(i) A complete range of the 

manufacturer’s equipment rated 

capacities, as follows: 

(A) At all manufacturer approved 

operating radii, boom angles, work 

areas, boom lengths and configurations, 

jib lengths and angles (or offset). 

(B) Alternate ratings for use and 

nonuse of option equipment which 

affects rated capacities, such as 

outriggers and extra counterweights. 

(ii) A work area chart for which 

capacities are listed in the load chart. 

(Note: An example of this type of chart is 

in ASME B30.5–2004, section 5–1.1.3, Figure 

11). 

(iii) The work area figure and load 

chart shall clearly indicate the areas 

where no load is to be handled. 

(iv) Recommended reeving for the 

hoist lines shall be shown. 

(v) Recommended parts of hoist 

reeving, size, and type of wire rope for 

various equipment loads. 

(vi) Recommended boom hoist 

reeving diagram, where applicable; size, 

type and length of wire rope. 

(vii) Tire pressure (where applicable). 

(viii) Caution or warnings relative to 

limitations on equipment and operating 

procedures, including an indication of 

the least stable direction. 

(ix) Position of the gantry and 

requirements for intermediate boom 

suspension (where applicable). 

(x) Instructions for boom erection and 

conditions under which the boom, or 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59944 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

boom and jib combinations, may be 

raised or lowered. 

(xi) Whether the hoist holding 

mechanism is automatically or 

manually controlled, whether free fall is 

available, or any combination of these. 

(xii) The maximum telescopic travel 

length of each boom telescopic section. 

(xiii) Whether sections are telescoped 

manually or with power. 

(xiv) The sequence and procedure for 

extending and retracting the telescopic 

boom section. 

(xv) Maximum loads permitted during 

the boom extending operation, and any 

limiting conditions or cautions. 

(xvi) Hydraulic relief valve settings 

specified by the manufacturer. 

(2) Load hooks (including latched and 

unlatched types), ball assemblies and 

load blocks shall be of sufficient weight 

to overhaul the line from the highest 

hook position for boom or boom and jib 

lengths and the number of parts of the 

line in use. 

(3) Hook and ball assemblies and load 

blocks shall be marked with their rated 

capacity and weight. 

(4) Latching hooks. 

(i) Hooks shall be equipped with 

latches, except where the requirements 

of paragraph (d)(4)(ii) of this section are 

met. 

(ii) Hooks without latches, or with 

latches removed or disabled, shall not 

be used unless: 

(A) A qualified person has determined 

that it is safer to hoist and place the load 

without latches (or with the latches 

removed/tied-back). 

(B) Routes for the loads are preplanned to ensure that no employee is 

required to work in the fall zone except 

for employees necessary for the hooking 

or unhooking of the load. 

(iii) The latch shall close the throat 

opening and be designed to retain slings 

or other lifting devices/accessories in 

the hook when the rigging apparatus is 

slack. 

(5) Posted warnings. Posted warnings 

required by this subpart as well as those 

originally supplied with the equipment 

by the manufacturer shall be maintained 

in legible condition. 

(6) An accessible fire extinguisher 

shall be on the equipment. 

(7) Cabs. Equipment with cabs shall 

meet the following requirements: 

(i) Cabs shall be designed with a form 

of adjustable ventilation and method for 

clearing the windshield for maintaining 

visibility and air circulation. Examples 

of means for adjustable ventilation 

include air conditioner or window that 

can be opened (for ventilation and air 

circulation); examples of means for 

maintaining visibility include heater 

(for preventing windshield icing), 

defroster, fan, windshield wiper. 

(ii) Cab doors (swinging, sliding) shall 

be designed to prevent inadvertent 

opening or closing while traveling or 

operating the machine. Swinging doors 

adjacent to the operator shall open 

outward. Sliding operator doors shall 

open rearward. 

(iii) Windows. 

(A) The cab shall have windows in 

front and on both sides of the operator. 

Forward vertical visibility shall be 

sufficient to give the operator a view of 

the boom point at all times. 

(B) Windows may have sections 

designed to be opened or readily 

removed. Windows with sections 

designed to be opened shall be designed 

so that they can be secured to prevent 

inadvertent closure. 

(C) Windows shall be of safety glass 

or material with similar optical and 

safety properties, that introduce no 

visible distortion or otherwise obscure 

visibility that interferes with the safe 

operation of the equipment. 

(iv) A clear passageway shall be 

provided from the operator’s station to 

an exit door on the operator’s side. 

(v) Areas of the cab roof that serve as 

a workstation for rigging, maintenance 

or other equipment-related tasks shall 

be capable of supporting 250 pounds 

without permanent distortion. 

(8) Belts, gears, shafts, pulleys, 

sprockets, spindles, drums, fly wheels, 

chains, and other parts or components 

that reciprocate, rotate or otherwise 

move shall be guarded where contact by 

employees (except for maintenance and 

repair employees) is possible in the 

performance of normal duties. 

(9) All exhaust pipes, turbochargers, 

and charge air coolers shall be insulated 

or guarded where contact by employees 

(except for maintenance and repair 

employees) is possible in the 

performance of normal duties. 

(10) Hydraulic and pneumatic lines 

shall be protected from damage to the 

extent feasible. 

(11) The equipment shall be designed 

so that exhaust fumes are not discharged 

in the cab and are discharged in a 

direction away from the operator. 

(12) Friction mechanisms. Where 

friction mechanisms (such as brakes and 

clutches) are used to control the boom 

hoist or load line hoist, they shall be: 

(i) Of a size and thermal capacity 

sufficient to control loads with the 

minimum recommended reeving. 

(ii) Adjustable to permit 

compensation for lining wear to 

maintain proper operation. 

(13) Hydraulic load hoists. Hydraulic 

drums shall have an integrally mounted 

holding device or internal static brake to 

prevent load hoist movement in the 

event of hydraulic failure. 

(e) The employer’s obligations under 

paragraphs (a) through (c) and (d)(7) 

through (13) of this section are met 

where the equipment has not changed 

(except in accordance with § 1926.1434 

(Equipment modifications)) and it can 

refer to documentation from the 

manufacturer showing that the 

equipment has been designed, 

constructed and tested in accordance 

with those paragraphs. 

§ 1926.1434 Equipment modifications. 

(a) Modifications or additions which 

affect the capacity or safe operation of 

the equipment are prohibited except 

where the requirements of paragraph 

(a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this section are 

met. 

(1) Manufacturer review and 

approval. 

(i) The manufacturer approves the 

modifications/additions in writing. 

(ii) The load charts, procedures, 

instruction manuals and instruction 

plates/tags/decals are modified as 

necessary to accord with the 

modification/addition. 

(iii) The original safety factor of the 

equipment is not reduced. 

(2) Manufacturer refusal to review 

request. The manufacturer is provided a 

detailed description of the proposed 

modification/addition, is asked to 

approve the modification/addition, but 

it declines to review the technical 

merits of the proposal or fails, within 30 

days, to acknowledge the request or 

initiate the review, and all of the 

following are met: 

(i) A registered professional engineer 

who is a qualified person with respect 

to the equipment involved: 

(A) Approves the modification/ 

addition and specifies the equipment 

configurations to which that approval 

applies, and 

(B) Modifies load charts, procedures, 

instruction manuals and instruction 

plates/tags/decals as necessary to accord 

with the modification/addition. 

(ii) The original safety factor of the 

equipment is not reduced. 

(3) Unavailable manufacturer. The 

manufacturer is unavailable and the 

requirements of paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and 

(ii) of this section are met. 

(b) Modifications or additions which 

affect the capacity or safe operation of 

the equipment are prohibited where the 

manufacturer, after a review of the 

technical safety merits of the proposed 

modification/addition, rejects the 

proposal and explains the reasons for 

the rejection in a written response. If the 

manufacturer rejects the proposal but 

does not explain the reasons for the 

rejection in writing, the employer may 

treat this as a manufacturer refusal to 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59945 

review the request under paragraph 

(a)(2) of this section. 

(c) The provisions in paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section do not apply to 

modifications made or approved by the 

U.S. military. 

§ 1926.1435 Tower cranes. 

(a) This section contains 

supplemental requirements for tower 

cranes; all sections of this subpart apply 

to tower cranes unless specified 

otherwise. 

(b) Erecting, climbing and 

dismantling. 

(1) Section 1926.1403 (Assembly/ 

Disassembly—selection of manufacturer 

or employer procedures), § 1926.1404 

(Assembly/Disassembly—general 

requirements (applies to all assembly 

and disassembly operations)), 

§ 1926.1405 (Disassembly—additional 

requirements for dismantling of booms 

and jibs (applies to both the use of 

manufacturer procedures and employer 

procedures)), and § 1926.1406 

(Assembly/Disassembly—employer 

procedures—general requirements), 

apply to tower cranes (except as 

otherwise specified), except that the 

term ‘‘assembly/disassembly’’ is 

replaced by ‘‘erecting, climbing and 

dismantling,’’ and the term 

‘‘disassembly’’ is replaced by 

‘‘dismantling.’’ 

(2) Dangerous areas (self-erecting 

tower cranes). In addition to the 

requirements in § 1926.1404(e), for selferecting tower cranes, the following 

applies: Employees shall not be in or 

under the tower, jib, or rotating portion 

of the crane during erecting, climbing 

and dismantling operations until the 

crane is secured in a locked position 

and the competent person in charge 

indicates it is safe to enter this area, 

unless the manufacturer’s instructions 

direct otherwise and only the necessary 

personnel are permitted in this area. 

(3) Foundations and structural 

supports. Tower crane foundations and 

structural supports shall be designed by 

the manufacturer or a registered 

professional engineer. 

(4) Addressing specific hazards. The 

requirements in § 1926.1404(h)(1) 

through (9) apply. In addition, the A/D 

supervisor shall address the following: 

(i) Foundations and structural 

supports. The A/D supervisor shall 

verify that tower crane foundations and 

structural supports are installed in 

accordance with their design. 

(ii) Loss of backward stability. 

Backward stability must be considered 

before swinging self erecting cranes or 

cranes on traveling or static 

undercarriages. 

(iii) Wind speed. Wind must not 

exceed the speed recommended by the 

manufacturer or, where manufacturer 

does not specify this information, the 

speed determined by a qualified person. 

(5) Plumb tolerance. Towers shall be 

erected plumb to the manufacturer’s 

tolerance and verified by a qualified 

person. Where the manufacturer does 

not specify plumb tolerance, the crane 

tower shall be plumb to a tolerance of 

at least 1:500 (approximately 1 inch in 

40 feet). 

(6) Multiple tower crane jobsites. On 

jobsites where more than one fixed jib 

(hammerhead) tower crane is installed, 

the cranes shall be located such that no 

crane may come in contact with the 

structure of another crane. Cranes are 

permitted to pass over one another. 

(7) Climbing procedures. Prior to, and 

during, all climbing procedures 

(including inside climbing and top 

climbing), the employer shall: 

(i) Comply with all manufacturer 

prohibitions. 

(ii) Have a registered professional 

engineer verify that the host structure is 

strong enough to sustain the forces 

imposed through the braces, brace 

anchorages and supporting floors. 

(iii) Ensure that no part of the 

climbing procedure takes place when 

wind exceeds the speed recommended 

by the manufacturer or, where the 

manufacturer does not specify this 

information, the speed determined by a 

qualified person. 

(8) Counterweight/ballast. 

(i) Equipment shall not be erected, 

dismantled or operated without the 

amount and position of counterweight 

and/or ballast in place as specified by 

the manufacturer or a registered 

professional engineer familiar with the 

equipment. 

(ii) The maximum counterweight and/ 

or ballast specified by the manufacturer 

or registered professional engineer 

familiar with the equipment shall not be 

exceeded. 

(c) Signs. The size and location of 

signs installed on tower cranes must be 

in accordance with manufacturer 

specifications. Where these are 

unavailable, a registered professional 

engineer familiar with the type of 

equipment involved must approve in 

writing the size and location of any 

signs. 

(d) Safety devices. 

(1) Section 1926.1415 does not apply 

to tower cranes. 

(2) The following safety devices are 

required on all tower cranes unless 

otherwise specified: 

(i) Boom stops on luffing boom type 

tower cranes. 

(ii) Jib stops on luffing boom type 

tower cranes if equipped with a jib 

attachment. 

(iii) Travel rail end stops at both ends 

of travel rail. 

(iv) Travel rail clamps on all travel 

bogies. 

(v) Integrally mounted check valves 

on all load supporting hydraulic 

cylinders. 

(vi) Hydraulic system pressure 

limiting device. 

(vii) The following brakes, which 

shall automatically set in the event of 

pressure loss or power failure, are 

required: 

(A) A hoist brake on all hoists. 

(B) Swing brake. 

(C) Trolley brake. 

(D) Rail travel brake. 

(viii) Deadman control or forced 

neutral return control (hand) levers. 

(ix) Emergency stop switch at the 

operator’s station. 

(x) Trolley end stops shall be 

provided at both ends of travel of the 

trolley. 

(3) Proper operation required. 

Operations shall not begin unless the 

devices listed in this section are in 

proper working order. If a device stops 

working properly during operations, the 

operator shall safely stop operations. 

Operations shall not resume until the 

device is again working properly. 

Alternative measures are not permitted 

to be used. 

(e) Operational aids. 

(1) Section 1926.1416 does not apply 

to tower cranes. 

(2) The devices listed in this section 

(‘‘operational aids’’) are required on all 

tower cranes covered by this subpart, 

unless otherwise specified. 

(3) Operations shall not begin unless 

the operational aids are in proper 

working order, except where the 

employer meets the specified temporary 

alternative measures. More protective 

alternative measures specified by the 

tower crane manufacturer, if any, shall 

be followed. 

(4) If an operational aid stops working 

properly during operations, the operator 

shall safely stop operations until the 

temporary alternative measures are 

implemented or the device is again 

working properly. If a replacement part 

is no longer available, the use of a 

substitute device that performs the same 

type of function is permitted and is not 

considered a modification under 

§ 1926.1434. 

(5) Category I operational aids and 

alternative measures. Operational aids 

listed in this paragraph that are not 

working properly shall be repaired no 

later than 7 days after the deficiency 

occurs. Exception: If the employer 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59946 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

documents that it has ordered the 

necessary parts within 7 days of the 

occurrence of the deficiency, the repair 

shall be completed within 7 days of 

receipt of the parts. 

(i) Trolley travel limiting device. The 

travel of the trolley shall be restricted at 

both ends of the jib by a trolley travel 

limiting device to prevent the trolley 

from running into the trolley end stops. 

Temporary alternative measures: 

(A) Option A. The trolley rope shall 

be marked (so it can be seen by the 

operator) at a point that will give the 

operator sufficient time to stop the 

trolley prior to the end stops. 

(B) Option B. A spotter shall be used 

when operations are conducted within 

10 feet of the outer or inner trolley end 

stops. 

(ii) Boom hoist limiting device. The 

range of the boom shall be limited at the 

minimum and maximum radius. 

Temporary alternative measures: 

Clearly mark the cable (so it can be seen 

by the operator) at a point that will give 

the operator sufficient time to stop the 

boom hoist within the minimum and 

maximum boom radius, or use a spotter. 

(iii) Anti two-blocking device. The 

tower crane shall be equipped with a 

device which automatically prevents 

damage from contact between the load 

block, overhaul ball, or similar 

component, and the boom tip (or fixed 

upper block or similar component). The 

device(s) must prevent such damage at 

all points where two-blocking could 

occur. Temporary alternative measures: 

Clearly mark the cable (so it can be seen 

by the operator) at a point that will give 

the operator sufficient time to stop the 

hoist to prevent two-blocking, or use a 

spotter. 

(iv) Hoist drum lower limiting device. 

Tower cranes manufactured more than 

one year after the effective date of this 

standard shall be equipped with a 

device that prevents the last 2 wraps of 

hoist cable from being spooled off the 

drum. Temporary alternative measures: 

Mark the cable (so it can be seen by the 

operator) at a point that will give the 

operator sufficient time to stop the hoist 

prior to last 2 wraps of hoist cable being 

spooled off the drum, or use a spotter. 

(v) Load moment limiting device. The 

tower crane shall have a device that 

prevents moment overloading. 

Temporary alternative measures: A 

radius indicating device shall be used (if 

the tower crane is not equipped with a 

radius indicating device, the radius 

shall be measured to ensure the load is 

within the rated capacity of the crane). 

In addition, the weight of the load shall 

be determined from a reliable source 

(such as the load’s manufacturer), by a 

reliable calculation method (such as 

calculating a steel beam from measured 

dimensions and a known per foot 

weight), or by other equally reliable 

means. This information shall be 

provided to the operator prior to the lift. 

(vi) Hoist line pull limiting device. 

The capacity of the hoist shall be 

limited to prevent overloading, 

including each individual gear ratio if 

equipped with a multiple speed hoist 

transmission. Temporary alternative 

measures: The operator shall ensure that 

the weight of the load does not exceed 

the capacity of the hoist (including for 

each individual gear ratio if equipped 

with a multiple speed hoist 

transmission). 

(vii) Rail travel limiting device. The 

travel distance in each direction shall be 

limited to prevent the travel bogies from 

running into the end stops or buffers. 

Temporary alternative measures: A 

spotter shall be used when operations 

are conducted within 10 feet of either 

end of the travel rail end stops. 

(viii) Boom hoist drum positive 

locking device. The boom hoist drum 

shall be equipped with a device to 

positively lock the boom hoist drum. 

Temporary alternative measures: The 

device shall be manually set when 

required if an electric, hydraulic or 

automatic type is not functioning. 

(6) Category II operational aids and 

alternative measures. Operational aids 

listed in this paragraph that are not 

working properly shall be repaired no 

later than 30 days after the deficiency 

occurs. Exception: If the employer 

documents that it has ordered the 

necessary parts within 7 days of the 

occurrence of the deficiency, and the 

part is not received in time to complete 

the repair in 30 days, the repair shall be 

completed within 7 days of receipt of 

the parts. 

(i) Boom angle or hook radius 

indicator. 

(A) Luffing boom tower cranes shall 

have a boom angle indicator readable 

from the operator’s station. 

(B) Hammerhead tower cranes 

manufactured more than one year after 

the effective date of this subpart shall 

have a hook radius indicator readable 

from the operator’s station. 

(C) Temporary alternative measures: 

Hook radii or boom angle shall be 

determined by measuring the hook radii 

or boom angle with a measuring device. 

(ii) Trolley travel deceleration device. 

The trolley speed shall be automatically 

reduced prior to the trolley reaching the 

end limit in both directions. Temporary 

alternative measure: The operator shall 

reduce the trolley speed when 

approaching the trolley end limits. 

(iii) Boom hoist deceleration device. 

The boom speed shall be automatically 

reduced prior to the boom reaching the 

minimum or maximum radius limit. 

Temporary alternative measure: The 

operator shall reduce the boom speed 

when approaching the boom maximum 

or minimum end limits. 

(iv) Load hoist deceleration device. 

The load speed shall be automatically 

reduced prior to the hoist reaching the 

upper limit. Temporary alternative 

measure: The operator shall reduce the 

hoist speed when approaching the 

upper limit. 

(v) Wind speed indicator. A device 

shall be provided to display the wind 

speed and shall be mounted above the 

upper rotating structure on tower 

cranes. On self erecting cranes, it shall 

be mounted at or above the jib level. 

Temporary alternative measures: Use of 

wind speed information from a properly 

functioning indicating device on 

another tower crane on the same site, or 

a qualified person estimates the wind 

speed. 

(vi) Load indicating device. Cranes 

manufactured more than one year after 

the effective date of this standard, shall 

have a device that displays the 

magnitude of the load on the hook. 

Displays that are part of load moment 

limiting devices that display the load on 

the hook meet this requirement. 

Temporary alternative measures: The 

weight of the load shall be determined 

from a reliable source (such as the load’s 

manufacturer), by a reliable calculation 

method (such as calculating a steel 

beam from measured dimensions and a 

known per foot weight), or by other 

equally reliable means. This information 

shall be provided to the operator prior 

to the lift. 

(f) Inspections. 

(1) Section 1926.1412 (Inspections) 

applies to tower cranes, except that the 

term ‘‘assembly’’ is replaced by 

‘‘erection.’’ 

(2) Post-erection inspection. In 

addition to the requirements in 

§ 1926.1412(c), the following 

requirements shall be met: 

(i) A load test using certified weights, 

or scaled weights using a certified scale 

with a current certificate of calibration, 

shall be conducted after each erection. 

(ii) The load test shall be conducted 

in accordance with the manufacturer’s 

instructions. Where these instructions 

are unavailable, a registered 

professional engineer familiar with the 

type of equipment involved shall 

develop written load test procedures. 

(3) Monthly. The following additional 

items shall be included: 

(i) Tower (mast) bolts and other 

structural bolts (for loose or dislodged 

condition) from the base of the tower 

crane up or, if the crane is tied to or 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59947 

braced by the structure, those above the 

upper-most brace support. 

(ii) The upper-most tie-in, braces, 

floor supports and floor wedges where 

the tower crane is supported by the 

structure, for loose or dislodged 

components. 

§ 1926.1436 Derricks. 

(a) This section contains 

supplemental requirements for derricks, 

whether temporarily or permanently 

mounted; all sections of this subpart 

apply to derricks unless specified 

otherwise. A derrick is powered 

equipment consisting of a mast or 

equivalent member that is held at or 

near the end by guys or braces, with or 

without a boom, and its hoisting 

mechanism. The mast/equivalent 

member and/or the load is moved by the 

hoisting mechanism (typically basemounted) and operating ropes. Derricks 

include: A-frame, basket, breast, 

Chicago boom, gin pole (except gin 

poles used for erection of 

communication towers), guy, shearleg, 

stiffleg, and variations of such 

equipment. 

(b) Operation—procedures. 

(1) Section 1926.1417 (Operation) 

applies except for § 1926.1417(c) 

(accessibility of procedures). 

(2) Load chart contents. Load charts 

shall contain at least the following 

information: 

(i) Rated capacity at corresponding 

ranges of boom angle or operating radii. 

(ii) Specific lengths of components to 

which the rated capacities apply. 

(iii) Required parts for hoist reeving. 

(iv) Size and construction of rope 

shall be included on the load chart or 

in the operating manual. 

(3) Load chart location. 

(i) Permanent installations. For 

permanently installed derricks with 

fixed lengths of boom, guy, and mast, a 

load chart shall be posted where it is 

visible to personnel responsible for the 

operation of the equipment. 

(ii) Non-permanent installations. For 

derricks that are not permanently 

installed, the load chart shall be readily 

available at the job site to personnel 

responsible for the operation of the 

equipment. 

(c) Construction. 

(1) General requirements. 

(i) Derricks shall be constructed to 

meet all stresses imposed on members 

and components when installed and 

operated in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s/ builder’s procedures 

and within its rated capacity. 

(ii) Welding of load sustaining 

members shall conform to 

recommended practices in ANSI/AWS 

D14.3–94 or D1.1–02. 

(2) Guy derricks. 

(i) The minimum number of guys 

shall be 6, with equal spacing, except 

where a qualified person or derrick 

manufacturer approves variations from 

these requirements and revises the rated 

capacity to compensate for such 

variations. 

(ii) Guy derricks shall not be used 

unless the employer has the following 

guy information: 

(A) The number of guys. 

(B) The spacing around the mast. 

(C) The size, grade, and construction 

of rope to be used for each guy. 

(iii) For guy derricks manufactured 

after December 18, 1970, in addition to 

the information required in paragraph 

(c)(2)(ii) of this section, the employer 

shall have the following guy 

information: 

(A) The amount of initial sag or 

tension. 

(B) The amount of tension in guy line 

rope at anchor. 

(iv) The mast base shall permit the 

mast to rotate freely with allowance for 

slight tilting of the mast caused by guy 

slack. 

(v) The mast cap shall: 

(A) Permit the mast to rotate freely. 

(B) Withstand tilting and cramping 

caused by the guy loads. 

(C) Be secured to the mast to prevent 

disengagement during erection. 

(D) Be provided with means for 

attaching guy ropes. 

(3) Stiffleg derricks. 

(i) The mast shall be supported in the 

vertical position by at least two stifflegs; 

one end of each shall be connected to 

the top of the mast and the other end 

securely anchored. 

(ii) The stifflegs shall be capable of 

withstanding the loads imposed at any 

point of operation within the load chart 

range. 

(iii) The mast base shall: 

(A) Permit the mast to rotate freely 

(when necessary). 

(B) Permit deflection of the mast 

without binding. 

(iv) The mast shall be prevented from 

lifting out of its socket when the mast 

is in tension. 

(v) The stiffleg connecting member at 

the top of the mast shall: 

(A) Permit the mast to rotate freely 

(when necessary). 

(B) Withstand the loads imposed by 

the action of the stifflegs. 

(C) Be secured so as to oppose 

separating forces. 

(4) Gin pole derricks. 

(i) Guy lines shall be sized and spaced 

so as to make the gin pole stable in both 

boomed and vertical positions. 

Exception: Where the size and/or 

spacing of guy lines do not result in the 

gin pole being stable in both boomed 

and vertical positions, the employer 

shall ensure that the derrick is not used 

in an unstable position. 

(ii) The base of the gin pole shall 

permit movement of the pole (when 

necessary). 

(iii) The gin pole shall be anchored at 

the base against horizontal forces (when 

such forces are present). 

(5) Chicago boom derricks. The 

fittings for stepping the boom and for 

attaching the topping lift shall be 

arranged to: 

(i) Permit the derrick to swing at all 

permitted operating radii and mounting 

heights between fittings. 

(ii) Accommodate attachment to the 

upright member of the host structure. 

(iii) Withstand the forces applied 

when configured and operated in 

accordance with the manufacturer’s/ 

builder’s procedures and within its 

rated capacity. 

(iv) Prevent the boom or topping lift 

from lifting out under tensile forces. 

(d) Anchoring and guying. 

(1) Load anchoring data developed by 

the manufacturer or a qualified person 

shall be used. 

(2) Guy derricks. 

(i) The mast base shall be anchored. 

(ii) The guys shall be secured to the 

ground or other firm anchorage. 

(iii) The anchorage and guying shall 

be designed to withstand maximum 

horizontal and vertical forces 

encountered when operating within 

rated capacity with the particular guy 

slope and spacing specified for the 

application. 

(3) Stiffleg derricks. 

(i) The mast base and stifflegs shall be 

anchored. 

(ii) The mast base and stifflegs shall 

be designed to withstand maximum 

horizontal and vertical forces 

encountered when operating within 

rated capacity with the particular 

stiffleg spacing and slope specified for 

the application. 

(e) Swingers and hoists. 

(1) The boom, swinger mechanisms 

and hoists shall be suitable for the 

derrick work intended and shall be 

anchored to prevent displacement from 

the imposed loads. 

(2) Base-mounted drum hoists. 

(i) Base mounted drum hoists shall 

meet the requirements in the following 

sections of ASME B30.7–2001: 

(A) Sections 7–1.1 (Load ratings and 

markings). 

(B) Section 7–1.2 (Construction), 

except: 7–1.2.13 (Operator’s cab); 7– 

1.2.15 (Fire extinguishers). 

(C) Section 7–1.3 (Installation). 

(D) Applicable terms in section 7–0.2 

(Definitions). 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59948 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

(ii) Load tests for new hoists. The 

employer shall ensure that new hoists 

are load tested to a minimum of 110% 

of rated capacity, but not more than 

125% of rated capacity, unless 

otherwise recommended by the 

manufacturer. This requirement is met 

where the manufacturer has conducted 

this testing. 

(iii) Repaired or modified hoists. 

Hoists that have had repairs, 

modifications or additions affecting 

their capacity or safe operation shall be 

evaluated by a qualified person to 

determine if a load test is necessary. If 

it is, load testing shall be conducted in 

accordance with paragraphs (e)(2)(ii) 

and (iv) of this section. 

(iv) Load test procedure. Load tests 

required by paragraphs (e)(2)(ii) or 

(e)(2)(iii) of this section shall be 

conducted as follows: 

(A) The test load shall be hoisted a 

vertical distance to assure that the load 

is supported by the hoist and held by 

the hoist brake(s). 

(B) The test load shall be lowered, 

stopped and held with the brake(s). 

(C) The hoist shall not be used unless 

a competent person determines that the 

test has been passed. 

(f) Operational aids. 

(1) Section 1926.1416 (Operational 

aids) applies, except for § 1926.1416 

(d)(1) (Boom hoist limiting device) and 

§ 1926.1416(e)(1) (Boom angle or radius 

indicator) and § 1926.1416(e)(4) (Load 

weighing and similar devices). 

(2) Boom angle aid. The employer 

shall ensure that either: 

(i) The boom hoist cable shall be 

marked with caution and stop marks. 

The stop marks shall correspond to 

maximum and minimum allowable 

boom angles. The caution and stop 

marks shall be in view of the operator, 

or a spotter who is in direct 

communication with the operator, or 

(ii) An electronic or other device that 

signals the operator in time to prevent 

the boom from moving past its 

maximum and minimum angles, or 

automatically prevents such movement, 

is used. 

(3) Load weight/capacity devices. 

Derricks manufactured more than one 

year after the effective date of this 

standard with a maximum rated 

capacity over 6,000 pounds shall have at 

least one of the following: load weighing 

device, load moment indicator, rated 

capacity indicator, or rated capacity 

limiter. Temporary alternative 

measures: The weight of the load shall 

be determined from a reliable source 

(such as the load’s manufacturer), by a 

reliable calculation method (such as 

calculating a steel beam from measured 

dimensions and a known per foot 

weight), or by other equally reliable 

means. This information shall be 

provided to the operator prior to the lift. 

(g) Post-assembly approval and 

testing—new or reinstalled derricks. 

(1) Anchorages. 

(i) Anchorages, including the 

structure to which the derrick is 

attached (if applicable), shall be 

approved by a qualified person. 

(ii) If using a rock or hairpin 

anchorage, the qualified person shall 

determine if any special testing of the 

anchorage is needed. If so, it shall be 

tested accordingly. 

(2) Functional test. Prior to initial use, 

new or reinstalled derricks shall be 

tested by a competent person with no 

hook load to verify proper operation. 

This test shall include: 

(i) Lifting and lowering the hook(s) 

through the full range of hook travel. 

(ii) Raising and lowering the boom 

through the full range of boom travel. 

(iii) Swinging in each direction 

through the full range of swing. 

(iv) Actuating the anti two-block and 

boom hoist limit devices (if provided). 

(v) Actuating locking, limiting and 

indicating devices (if provided). 

(3) Load test. Prior to initial use, new 

or reinstalled derricks shall be load 

tested by a competent person. The test 

load shall meet the following 

requirements: 

(i) Test loads shall be at least 100% 

and no more than 110% of the rated 

capacity, unless otherwise 

recommended by the manufacturer or 

qualified person, but in no event shall 

the test load be less than the maximum 

anticipated load. 

(ii) The test shall consist of: 

(A) Hoisting the test load a few inches 

and holding to verify that the load is 

supported by the derrick and held by 

the hoist brake(s). 

(B) Swinging the derrick, if 

applicable, the full range of its swing, at 

the maximum allowable working radius 

for the test load. 

(C) Booming the derrick up and down 

within the allowable working radius for 

the test load. 

(D) Lowering, stopping and holding 

the load with the brake(s). 

(iii) The derrick shall not be used 

unless the competent person determines 

that the test has been passed. 

(4) Documentation. Tests conducted 

under this paragraph shall be 

documented. The document shall 

contain the date, test results and the 

name of the tester. The document shall 

be retained until the derrick is re-tested 

or dismantled, whichever occurs first. 

(h) Load testing repaired or modified 

derricks. Derricks that have had repairs, 

modifications or additions affecting the 

derrick’s capacity or safe operation shall 

be evaluated by a qualified person to 

determine if a load test is necessary. If 

it is, load testing shall be conducted and 

documented in accordance with 

paragraph (g) of this section. 

(i) [Reserved.] 

(j) Power failure procedures. If power 

fails during operations, the derrick 

operator shall safely stop operations. 

This shall include: 

(1) Setting all brakes or locking 

devices. 

(2) Moving all clutch and other power 

controls to the off position. 

(k) Use of winch heads. 

(1) Ropes shall not be handled on a 

winch head without the knowledge of 

the operator. 

(2) While a winch head is being used, 

the operator shall be within reach of the 

power unit control lever. 

(l) [Reserved.] 

(m) Securing the boom. 

(1) When the boom is being held in a 

fixed position, dogs, pawls, or other 

positive holding mechanisms on the 

boom hoist shall be engaged. 

(2) When taken out of service for 30 

days or more, the boom shall be secured 

by one of the following methods: 

(i) Laid down. 

(ii) Secured to a stationary member, as 

nearly under the head as possible, by 

attachment of a sling to the load block. 

(iii) For guy derricks, lifted to a 

vertical position and secured to the 

mast. 

(iv) For stiffleg derricks, secured 

against the stiffleg. 

(n) The process of jumping the derrick 

shall be supervised by the A/D 

supervisor. 

(o) Derrick operations shall be 

supervised by a competent person. 

(p) Inspections. In addition to the 

requirements in § 1926.1412, the 

following additional items shall be 

included in the inspections: 

(1) Daily: Guys for proper tension. 

(2) Annual. 

(i) Gudgeon pin for cracks, wear, and 

distortion. 

(ii) Foundation supports for 

continued ability to sustain the imposed 

loads. 

(q) Section 1926.1427 (Operator 

qualification and certification) does not 

apply. 

§ 1926.1437 Floating cranes/derricks and 

land cranes/derricks on barges. 

(a) This section contains 

supplemental requirements for floating 

cranes/derricks and land cranes/ 

derricks on barges, pontoons, vessels or 

other means of flotation (vessel/flotation 

device); all sections of this subpart 

apply to floating cranes/derricks and 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59949 

land cranes/derricks on barges, 

pontoons, vessels or other means of 

flotation, unless specified otherwise. 

The requirements of this section do not 

apply when using jacked barges when 

the jacks are deployed to the river/lake/ 

sea bed and the barge is fully supported 

by the jacks. 

(b) General requirements. The 

requirements in paragraphs (c) through 

(k) of this section apply to both floating 

cranes/derricks and land cranes/ 

derricks on barges, pontoons, vessels or 

other means of flotation. 

(c) Work area control. 

(1) The requirements of § 1926.1424 

(Work area control) apply, except for 

§ 1926.1416 (a)(2)(ii). 

(2) The employer shall either: 

(i) Erect and maintain control lines, 

warning lines, railings or similar 

barriers to mark the boundaries of the 

hazard areas, or 

(ii) The hazard areas shall be clearly 

marked by a combination of warning 

signs (such as ‘‘Danger—Swing/Crush 

Zone’’ or ‘‘Danger—This Thing’s Gonna 

Swing and Crunch You—Zone’’) and 

high visibility markings on the 

equipment that identify the hazard 

areas. In addition, the employer shall 

train the employees to understand what 

these markings signify. 

(d) Keeping clear of the load. Section 

1926.1425 does not apply. 

(e) Additional Safety devices. In 

addition to the safety devices listed in 

§ 1926.1415, the following safety 

devices are required: 

(1) Barge, pontoon, vessel or other 

means of flotation list and trim device. 

This shall be located in the cab or, 

where there is no cab, at the operator’s 

station. 

(2) Horn. 

(3) Positive equipment house lock. 

(4) Wind speed and direction 

indicator. A competent person shall 

determine if wind is a factor that needs 

to be considered; if it needs to be 

considered, a wind speed and direction 

indicator shall be used. 

(f) Operational aids. 

(1) An anti two-block device is 

required only when hoisting personnel 

or hoisting over an occupied cofferdam 

or shaft. 

(2) Section 1926.1416(e)(4) (load 

weighing and similar devices) does not 

apply to dragline, clamshell (grapple), 

magnet, drop ball, container handling, 

concrete bucket, and pile driving work. 

(g) Accessibility of procedures 

applicable to equipment operation. If 

the crane/derrick has a cab, the 

requirements of § 1926.1417(c) apply. If 

the crane/derrick does not have a cab: 

(1) Rated capacities (load charts) shall 

be posted at the operator’s station. If the 

operator’s station is moveable (such as 

with pendant-controlled equipment), 

the load charts shall be posted on the 

equipment. 

(2) Procedures applicable to the 

operation of the equipment (other than 

load charts), recommended operating 

speeds, special hazard warnings, 

instructions and operators manual, shall 

be readily available on board. 

(h) Inspections. In addition to meeting 

the requirements of § 1926.1412 for 

inspecting the crane/derrick, the 

employer shall ensure that the barge, 

pontoons, vessel or other means of 

flotation used to support a floating 

crane/derrick or land crane/derrick is 

inspected as follows: 

(1) Shift. The means used to secure/ 

attach the equipment to the vessel/ 

flotation device shall be inspected for 

proper condition, including wear, 

corrosion, loose or missing fasteners, 

defective welds, and (where applicable) 

insufficient tension. 

(2) Monthly. The vessel/ flotation 

device used shall be inspected for the 

following: 

(i) The means used to secure/attach 

the equipment to the vessel/flotation 

device shall be inspected for proper 

condition, including wear, corrosion 

and (where applicable) insufficient 

tension. 

(ii) Taking on water. 

(iii) Deckload for proper securing. 

(iv) Chain lockers, storage, fuel 

compartments and battening of hatches 

for serviceability as a water-tight 

appliance. 

(v) Firefighting and lifesaving 

equipment in place and functional. 

(3) The shift and monthly inspections 

shall be conducted by a competent 

person. If any deficiency is identified, 

an immediate determination shall be 

made by a qualified person as to 

whether the deficiency constitutes a 

hazard. If the deficiency is determined 

to constitute a hazard, the vessel/ 

flotation device shall be removed from 

service until it has been corrected. 

(4) Annual: External vessel/flotation 

device inspection. 

(i) The external portion of the barge, 

pontoons, vessel or other means of 

flotation used shall be inspected 

annually by a qualified person who has 

expertise with respect to vessels/ 

flotation devices. The inspection shall 

include the following items: 

(A) The items identified in paragraphs 

(h)(1)(Shift) and (h)(2)(Monthly) of this 

section. 

(B) Cleats, bitts, chocks, fenders, 

capstans, ladders, and stanchions, for 

significant: Corrosion, wear, 

deterioration, and deformation. 

(C) External evidence of leaks and 

structural damage. 

(D) Four-corner draft readings. 

(E) Firefighting equipment for 

serviceability. 

(ii) Rescue skiffs, lifelines, work vests, 

life preservers and ring buoys shall be 

inspected for proper condition. 

(iii) If any deficiency is identified, an 

immediate determination shall be made 

by the qualified person as to whether 

the deficiency constitutes a hazard or, 

though not yet a hazard, needs to be 

monitored in the monthly inspections. If 

the deficiency is determined to 

constitute a hazard, the vessel/flotation 

device shall be removed from service 

until it has been corrected. 

(iv) If the qualified person determines 

that, though not presently a hazard, the 

deficiency needs to be monitored, the 

employer shall ensure that the 

deficiency is checked in the monthly 

inspections. 

(5) Quadrennial: Internal vessel/ 

flotation device inspection. 

(i) The internal portion of the barge, 

pontoons, vessel or other means of 

flotation used shall be surveyed once 

every 4 years by a marine engineer, 

marine architect, licensed surveyor, or 

other qualified person who has 

expertise with respect to vessels/ 

flotation devices. 

(ii) If any deficiency is identified, an 

immediate determination shall be made 

by the surveyor as to whether the 

deficiency constitutes a hazard or, 

though not yet a hazard, needs to be 

monitored in the monthly or annual 

inspections, as appropriate. 

(iii) If the deficiency is determined to 

constitute a hazard, the vessel/flotation 

device shall be removed from service 

until it has been corrected. 

(iv) If the surveyor determines that, 

though not presently a hazard, the 

deficiency needs to be monitored, the 

employer shall ensure that the 

deficiency is checked in the monthly or 

annual inspections, as appropriate. 

(6) Documentation. The monthly and 

annual inspections required in 

paragraphs (h)(2) and (h)(4) of this 

section shall be documented in 

accordance with §§ 1926.1412 (e)(3) and 

1926.1412(f)(7), respectively. The 

quadrennial inspection required in 

paragraph (h)(5) of this section shall be 

documented in accordance with 

§ 1926.1412(f)(7), except that the 

documentation for that inspection shall 

be retained for a minimum of 4 years. 

(i) [Reserved.] 

(j) Working with a diver. The 

following additional requirements apply 

when working with a diver in the water: 

(1) If a crane/derrick is used to get a 

diver into and out of the water, it shall 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59950 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

not be used for any other purpose until 

the diver is back on board. When used 

for more than one diver, it shall not be 

used for any other purpose until all 

divers are back on board. 

(2) The operator shall remain at the 

controls of the crane/derrick at all times. 

(3) In addition to the requirements in 

§§ 1926.1419 through 1422 (Signals), 

either: 

(i) A clear line of sight shall be 

maintained between the operator and 

tender, or 

(ii) The signals between the operator 

and tender shall be transmitted 

electronically. 

(4) The means used to secure the 

crane/derrick to the vessel/flotation 

device (see paragraph (n)(5) of this 

section) shall not allow any amount of 

shifting in any direction. 

(k) The employer shall ensure that the 

manufacturer’s specifications and 

limitations with respect to 

environmental, operational and intransit loads for the barge, pontoons, 

vessel or other means of flotation are not 

exceeded or violated. 

(l) [Reserved.] 

(m) Floating cranes/derricks. For 

equipment designed by the 

manufacturer (or employer) for marine 

use by permanent attachment to barges, 

pontoons, vessels or other means of 

flotation: 

(1) Load charts. 

(i) The manufacturer load charts 

applicable to operations on water shall 

not be exceeded. When using these 

charts, the employer shall comply with 

all parameters and limitations (such as 

dynamic/environmental parameters) 

applicable to the use of the charts. 

(ii) The load charts shall take into 

consideration a minimum wind speed of 

40 miles per hour. 

(2) The requirements for maximum 

allowable list and maximum allowable 

trim as specified in Table M1 of this 

section shall be met. 

TABLE M1 

Rated capacity Maximum allowable list Maximum allowable trim 

Equipment designed for marine use by permanent attachment (other than derricks): 

25 tons or less ................................................... 5 degrees ......................................................... 5 degrees. 

Over 25 tons ...................................................... 7 degrees ......................................................... 7 degrees. 

Derricks designed for marine use by permanent attachment: 

Any rated capacity ............................................. 10 degrees ....................................................... 10 degrees. 

(3) The equipment shall be stable 

under the conditions specified in Tables 

M2 and M3 of this section. 

TABLE M2 

Operated at Wind speed 

(mph) 

Minimum 

freeboard 

(ft) 

Rated capacity ......................................................................................................................................................... 60 2 

Rated capacity plus 25% ......................................................................................................................................... 60 1 

High boom, no load ................................................................................................................................................. 60 2 

TABLE M3 

Operated at Wind speed 

For backward stability of the boom: 

High boom, no load, 

full back list (least 

stable condition).

90 mph. 

(4) If the equipment is employermade, it shall not be used unless the 

employer has documents demonstrating 

that the load charts and applicable 

parameters for use meet the 

requirements of paragraphs (m)(1) 

through (3) of this section. Such 

documents shall be signed by a 

registered professional engineer who is 

a qualified person with respect to the 

design of this type of equipment 

(including the means of flotation). 

(5) The barge, pontoons, vessel or 

other means of flotation used shall: 

(i) Be structurally sufficient to 

withstand the static and dynamic loads 

of the crane/derrick when operating at 

the crane/derrick’s maximum rated 

capacity with all anticipated deck loads 

and ballasted compartments. 

(ii) Have a subdivided hull with one 

or more longitudinal watertight 

bulkheads for reducing the free surface 

effect. 

(iii) Have access to void 

compartments to allow for inspection 

and pumping. 

(n) Land cranes/derricks. For land 

cranes/derricks used on barges, 

pontoons, vessels or other means of 

flotation: 

(1) The rated capacity of the 

equipment (load charts) applicable for 

use on land shall be reduced to: 

(i) Account for increased loading from 

list, trim, wave action, and wind. 

(ii) Be applicable to a specified 

location(s) on the specific barge, 

pontoons, vessel or other means of 

flotation that will be used, under the 

expected environmental conditions. 

(iii) Ensure that the conditions 

required in paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4) 

of this section are met. 

(2) The rated capacity modification 

required in paragraph (n)(1) of this 

section shall be done by the equipment 

manufacturer, or a qualified person who 

has expertise with respect to both land 

crane/derrick capacity and the stability 

of vessels/flotation devices. 

(3) List and trim. 

(i) The maximum allowable list and 

the maximum allowable trim for the 

barge, pontoon, vessel or other means of 

flotation shall not exceed the amount 

necessary to ensure that the conditions 

in paragraph (n)(4) of this section are 

met. In addition, the maximum 

allowable list and the maximum 

allowable trim shall not exceed the least 

of the following: 5 degrees, the amount 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59951 

specified by the crane/derrick 

manufacturer, or where an amount is 

not so specified, the amount specified 

by the qualified person. 

(ii) The maximum allowable list and 

the maximum allowable trim for the 

land crane/derrick shall not exceed the 

amount specified by the crane/derrick 

manufacturer, or where an amount is 

not so specified, the amount specified 

by the qualified person. 

(4) The following conditions shall be 

met: 

(i) All deck surfaces of the barge, 

pontoons, vessel or other means of 

flotation used shall be above water. 

(ii) The entire bottom area of the 

barge, pontoons, vessel or other means 

of flotation used shall be submerged. 

(5) Physical attachment, corralling, 

rails system and centerline cable 

system. The employer shall meet the 

requirements in Option (1), Option (2), 

Option (3), or Option (4) (see paragraphs 

(n)(4)(i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) of this 

section). Whichever option is used, the 

requirements of paragraph (v) must also 

be met. 

(i) Option (1)—Physical attachment. 

The crane/derrick shall be physically 

attached to the barge, pontoons, vessel 

or other means of flotation. Methods of 

physical attachment include crossedcable systems attached to the crane/ 

derrick and vessel/flotation device (this 

type of system allows the crane/derrick 

to lift up slightly from the surface of the 

vessel/means of flotation), bolting or 

welding the crane/derrick to the vessel/ 

flotation device, strapping the crane/ 

derrick to the vessel/flotation device 

with chains, or other methods of 

physical attachment. 

(ii) Option (2)—Corralling. The crane/ 

derrick shall be prevented from shifting 

by installing barricade restraints (a 

corralling system). Corralling systems 

shall not allow any amount of shifting 

in any direction by the equipment. 

(iii) Option (3)—Rails. The crane/ 

derrick shall be prevented from shifting 

by being mounted on a rail system. Rail 

clamps and rail stops are required 

unless the system is designed to prevent 

movement during operation by other 

means. 

(iv) Option (4)—Centerline cable 

system. The crane/derrick shall be 

prevented from shifting by being 

mounted to a wire rope system. The 

wire rope system shall meet the 

following requirements: 

(A) The wire rope and attachments 

shall be of sufficient size/strength to 

support the side load of crane/derrick. 

(B) The wire rope shall be physically 

attached to the vessel/flotation device. 

(C) The wire rope shall be attached to 

the crane/derrick by appropriate 

attachment methods (such as shackles 

or sheaves) on the undercarriage which 

will allow the crew to secure the crane/ 

derrick from movement during 

operation and to move the crane/derrick 

longitudinally along the vessel/flotation 

device for repositioning. 

(D) Means shall be installed to 

prevent the crane/derrick from passing 

the forward or aft end of the wire rope 

attachments. 

(E) The crane/derrick shall be secured 

from movement during operation. 

(v) The systems/means used to 

comply with Option (1), Option (2), 

Option (3), or Option (4) (see paragraphs 

(n)(4)(i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) of this 

section) shall be designed by a marine 

engineer, registered professional 

engineer familiar with floating crane/ 

derrick design, or qualified person 

familiar with floating crane/derrick 

design. 

(vi) Exception. For mobile auxiliary 

cranes used on the deck of a floating 

crane/derrick, the requirement to use 

Option (1), Option (2), Option (3), or 

Option (4) of this section does not apply 

where the employer demonstrates 

implementation of a plan and 

procedures that meet the following 

requirements: 

(A) A marine engineer or registered 

professional engineer familiar with 

floating crane/derrick design develops 

and signs a written plan for the use of 

the mobile auxiliary crane. 

(B) The plan shall be designed so that 

the applicable requirements of this 

section will be met despite the position, 

travel, operation, and lack of physical 

attachment (or corralling, use of rails or 

cable system) of the mobile auxiliary 

crane. 

(C) The plan shall specify the areas of 

the deck where the mobile auxiliary 

crane is permitted to be positioned, 

travel, and operate and the parameters/ 

limitations of such movements and 

operation. 

(D) The deck shall be marked to 

identify the permitted areas for 

positioning, travel, and operation. 

(E) The plan shall specify the 

dynamic/environmental conditions that 

must be present for use of the plan. 

(F) If the dynamic/environmental 

conditions in paragraph (n)(5)(vi)(E) of 

this section are exceeded, the mobile 

auxiliary crane shall be physically 

attached or corralled in accordance with 

Option (1), Option (2) or Option (4) (see 

paragraphs (n)(4)(i), (ii), and (iv) of this 

section). 

(6) The barge, pontoons, vessel or 

other means of flotation used shall: 

(i) Be structurally sufficient to 

withstand the static and dynamic loads 

of the crane/derrick when operating at 

the crane/derrick’s maximum rated 

capacity with all anticipated deck loads 

and ballasted compartments. 

(ii) Have a subdivided hull with one 

or more longitudinal watertight 

bulkheads for reducing the free surface 

effect. 

(iii) Have access to void 

compartments to allow for inspection 

and pumping. 

§ 1926.1438 Overhead & gantry cranes. 

(a) Permanently installed overhead 

and gantry cranes. 

(1) This paragraph applies to the 

following equipment when used in 

construction and permanently installed 

in a facility: Overhead and gantry 

cranes, including semigantry, cantilever 

gantry, wall cranes, storage bridge 

cranes, and others having the same 

fundamental characteristics. 

(2) The requirements of § 1910.179, 

except for § 1910.179(b)(1), apply to the 

equipment identified in paragraph (a)(1) 

of this section. 

(b) Overhead and gantry cranes that 

are not permanently installed in a 

facility. 

(1) This paragraph applies to the 

following equipment when used in 

construction and not permanently 

installed in a facility: Overhead and 

gantry cranes, overhead/bridge cranes, 

semigantry, cantilever gantry, wall 

cranes, storage bridge cranes, launching 

gantry cranes, and similar equipment, 

irrespective of whether it travels on 

tracks, wheels, or other means. 

(2) The following requirements apply 

to equipment identified in paragraph 

(b)(1) of this section: 

(i) Sections 1926.1400 through 1414; 

§§ 1926.1417 through 1425; 

§ 1926.1426(d), §§ 1926.1427 through 

1434; § 1926.1437, § 1926.1439, and 

§ 1926.1441. 

(ii) The following portions of 

§ 1910.179: 

(A) Paragraphs (b)(5),(6),(7); 

(e)(1),(3),(5),(6); (f)(1),(4); (g); (h)(1),(3); 

(k); and (n) of § 1910.179. 

(B) The definitions in § 1910.179(a) 

except for ‘‘hoist’’ and ‘‘load.’’ For those 

words, the definitions in § 1926.1401 

apply. 

(C) Section 1910.179 (b)(2) applies 

only to equipment identified in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section 

manufactured before September 19, 

2001. 

(iii) For equipment manufactured on 

or after September 19, 2001, the 

following sections of ASME B.30.2– 

2005 apply: 2–1.3.1; 2–1.3.2; 2–1.4.1; 2– 

1.6; 2–1.7.2; 2–1.8.2; 2–1.9.1; 2–1.9.2; 2– 

1.11; 2–1.12.2; 2–1.13.7; 2–1.14.2; 2– 

1.14.3; 2–1.14.5; 2–1.15.; 2–2.2.2; 2– 

3.2.1.1. In addition, 2–3.5 applies, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59952 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

except in 2–3.5.1(b), ‘‘29 CFR 1910.147’’ 

applies in place of ‘‘ANSI Z244.1.’’ 

§ 1926.1439 Dedicated pile drivers. 

(a) The provisions of this standard 

apply to dedicated pile drivers, except 

as specified in this section. 

(b) Section 1926.1416(d)(3) (anti twoblock device) does not apply. 

(c) Section 1926.1416(e)(4) (Load 

weight/capacity devices) applies only to 

dedicated pile drivers manufactured 

more than one year after the effective 

date of this standard. 

(d) In § 1926.1433, only 

§§ 1926.1433(e) and (f) apply to 

dedicated pile drivers. 

(e) Section 1926.1427 (Operator 

qualification and certification) applies, 

except that the qualification or 

certification shall be for operation of 

either dedicated pile drivers or 

equipment that is the most similar to 

dedicated pile drivers. 

§ 1926.1440 Sideboom cranes. 

(a) The provisions of this subpart 

apply, except § 1926.1402 (Ground 

conditions), § 1926.1415 (Safety 

devices), § 1926.1416 (Operational aids), 

and § 1926.1427 (Operator qualification 

and certification). 

(b) Section 1926.1426 (Free fall and 

controlled load lowering) applies, 

except § 1926.1426(a)(2)(i). Sideboom 

cranes in which the boom is designed to 

free fall (live boom) are permitted only 

if manufactured prior to [effective date 

of this subpart]. 

(c) Sideboom cranes mounted on 

wheel or crawler tractors shall meet the 

following requirements of ASME 

B30.14–2004 (Side Boom Tractors): 

(1) Section 14–1.1 (‘‘Load Ratings’’). 

(2) Section 14–1.3 (‘‘Side Boom 

Tractor Travel’’). 

(3) Section 14–1.5 (‘‘Ropes and 

Reeving Accessories’’). 

(4) Section 14–1.7.1 (‘‘Booms’’). 

(5) Section 14–1.7.2 (‘‘General 

Requirements—Exhaust Gases’’). 

(6) Section 14–1.7.3 (‘‘General 

Requirements—Stabilizers (Wheel-Type 

Side Boom Tractors)’’). 

(7) Section 14–1.7.4 (‘‘General 

Requirements—Welded Construction’’). 

(8) Section 14–1.7.6 (‘‘General 

Requirements—Clutch and Brake 

Protection’’). 

(9) Section 14–2.2.2 (‘‘Testing—Rated 

Load Test’’), except that it applies only 

to equipment that has been modified or 

repaired. 

(10) In section 14–3.1.2 (‘‘Operator 

Qualifications’’), paragraph (a), except 

the phrase ‘‘When required by law.’’ 

(11) In section 14–3.1.3 (‘‘Operating 

Practices’’), paragraphs (e), (f)(1)—(4), 

(6), (7); (h), and (i). 

(12) In section 14–3.2.3 (‘‘Moving the 

Load’’), paragraphs (j), (l), and (m). 

§ 1926.1441 Equipment with a rated 

hoisting/lifting capacity of 2,000 pounds or 

less. 

For equipment with a maximum 

manufacturer-rated hoisting/lifting 

capacity of 2,000 pounds or less: 

(a) The following sections of this 

subpart apply: § 1926.1400 (Scope); 

§ 1926.1401 (Definitions); § 1926.1402 

(Ground conditions); §§ 1926.1407 

through 1411 (Power line safety); 

§§ 1926.1413 through 1414 (Wire rope); 

§ 1926.1418 (Authority to stop 

operation); §§ 1926.1419 through 1422 

(Signals); § 1926.1423 (Fall protection); 

§ 1926.1426 (Free fall and controlled 

load lowering); § 1926.1432 (Multiple 

crane/derrick lifts—supplemental 

requirements); § 1926.1434 (Equipment 

modifications); § 1926.1435 (Tower 

cranes); § 1926.1436 (Derricks); 

§ 1926.1437 (Floating cranes/derricks 

and land cranes/derricks on barges); 

§ 1926.1438 (Overhead & gantry cranes). 

Note to paragraph (a): Under paragraph 

(b)(1) of this section, § 1926.1403 (Assembly/ 

Disassembly—selection of manufacturer or 

employer procedures) and § 1926.1406 

(Assembly/Disassembly—employer 

procedures—general requirements) also 

apply. 

(b) Assembly/disassembly. 

(1) Sections 1926.1403 (Assembly/ 

Disassembly—Selection of manufacturer 

or employer procedures) and 1926.1406 

(Assembly/Disassembly—employer 

procedures) apply. 

(2) Components and configuration. 

(i) The selection of components and 

configuration of the equipment that 

affect the capacity or safe operation of 

the equipment must be in accordance 

with: 

(A) Manufacturer instructions, 

recommendations, limitations, and 

specifications. Where these are 

unavailable, a registered professional 

engineer familiar with the type of 

equipment involved must approve, in 

writing, the selection and configuration 

of components; or 

(B) Approved modifications that meet 

the requirements of § 1926.1434 

(Equipment modifications). 

(ii) Post-assembly inspection. Upon 

completion of assembly, the equipment 

must be inspected to ensure compliance 

with paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section 

(see § 1926.1412(c) for post-assembly 

inspection requirements). 

(3) Manufacturer prohibitions. The 

employer must comply with applicable 

manufacturer prohibitions. 

(c) Operation—procedures. 

(1) The employer shall comply with 

all manufacturer procedures applicable 

to the operational functions of the 

equipment, including its use with 

attachments. 

(2) Unavailable operation procedures. 

(i) Where the manufacturer 

procedures are unavailable, the 

employer shall develop and ensure 

compliance with all procedures 

necessary for the safe operation of the 

equipment and attachments. 

(ii) Procedures for the operational 

controls must be developed by a 

qualified person. 

(iii) Procedures related to the capacity 

of the equipment must be developed 

and signed by a registered professional 

engineer familiar with the equipment. 

(3) Accessibility. 

(i) The load chart shall be available to 

the operator at the control station. 

(ii) Procedures applicable to the 

operation of the equipment, 

recommended operating speeds, special 

hazard warnings, instructions and 

operator’s manual, shall be readily 

available for use by the operator. 

(iii) Where rated capacities are 

available at the control station only in 

electronic form: In the event of a failure 

which makes the rated capacities 

inaccessible, the operator must 

immediately cease operations or follow 

safe shut-down procedures until the 

rated capacities (in electronic or other 

form) are available. 

(d) Safety devices and operational 

aids. 

(1) Originally-equipped safety devices 

and operational aids shall be 

maintained in accordance with 

manufacturer procedures. 

(2) Anti two-blocking. Equipment 

covered by this section manufactured 

more than one year after the effective 

date of this standard shall have either an 

anti two-block device that meets the 

requirements of § 1926.1416(d)(3), or 

shall be designed so that, in the event 

of a two-block situation, no damage will 

occur and there will be no load failure 

(such as where the power unit will stall 

in the event of a two-block). 

(e) Operator qualifications. The 

employer shall ensure that, prior to 

operating the equipment, the operator is 

trained on the safe operation of the type 

of equipment the operator will be using. 

(f) Signal person qualifications. The 

employer shall ensure that signal 

persons are trained in the proper use of 

signals applicable to the use of the 

equipment. 

(g) Keeping clear of the load. Section 

1926.1425 applies, except for 

§ 1926.1425(c)(3) (qualified rigger). 

(h) Inspections. The equipment shall 

be inspected in accordance with 

manufacturer procedures. 

(i) [Reserved.] 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59953 

(j) Hoisting personnel. Hoisting 

personnel using equipment covered by 

this section is prohibited. 

(k) Design. The equipment shall be 

designed by a qualified engineer. 

Appendix A to Subpart CC of Part 

1926—Standard Hand Signals 

[Illustration to be added with final rule.] 

STOP—With arm extended horizontally to 

the side, palm down, arm is swung back and 

forth. 

[Illustration to be added with final rule.] 

HOIST—With upper arm extended to the 

side, forearm and index finger pointing 

straight up, hand and finger make small 

circles. 

[Illustration to be added with final rule.] 

RAISE BOOM—With arm extended 

horizontally to the side, thumb points up 

with other fingers closed. 

[Illustration to be added with final rule.] 

SWING—With arm extended horizontally, 

index finger points in direction that boom is 

to swing. 

[Illustration to be added with final rule.] 

RETRACT TELESCOPING BOOM—With 

hands to the front at waist level, thumbs 

point at each other with other fingers closed. 

[Illustration to be added with final rule.] 

RAISE THE BOOM AND LOWER THE 

LOAD—With arm extended horizontally to 

the side and thumb pointing up, fingers open 

and close while load movement is desired. 

[Illustration to be added with final rule.] 

DOG EVERYTHING—Hands held together at 

waist level. 

[Illustration to be added with final rule.] 

LOWER—With arm and index finger pointing 

down, hand and finger make small circles. 

[Illustration to be added with final rule.] 

LOWER BOOM—With arm extended 

horizontally to the side, thumb points down 

with other fingers closed. 

[Illustration to be added with final rule.] 

EXTEND TELESCOPING BOOM—With 

hands to the front at waist level, thumbs 

point outward with other fingers closed. 

[Illustration to be added with final rule.] 

TRAVEL—With all fingers pointing up, arm 

is extended horizontally out and back to 

make a pushing motion in the direction of 

travel. 

[Illustration to be added with final rule.] 

LOWER THE BOOM AND RAISE THE 

LOAD—With arm extended horizontally to 

the side and thumb pointing down, fingers 

open and close while load movement is 

desired. 

[Illustration to be added with final rule.] 

MOVE SLOWLY—A hand is placed in front 

of the hand that is giving the action signal 

[Illustration to be added with final rule.] 

USE AUXILIARY HOIST (whipline)—With 

arm bent at elbow and forearm vertical, 

elbow is tapped with other hand. Then 

regular signal is used to indicate desired 

action. 

[Illustration to be added with final rule.] 

CRAWLER CRANE TRAVEL, BOTH 

TRACKS—Rotate fists around each other in 

front of body; direction of rotation away from 

body indicates travel forward; rotation 

towards body indicates travel backward. 

[Illustration to be added with final rule.] 

USE MAIN HOIST—A fist taps on top of the 

head. Then regular signal is given to indicate 

desired action. 

[Illustration to be added with final rule.] 

CRAWLER CRANE TRAVEL, ONE TRACK— 

Indicate track to be locked by raising fist on 

that side. Rotate other fist in front of body in 

direction that other track is to travel. 

Appendix B to Subpart CC of Part 

1926—Use of Non-Standard Signals 

The follow is an example of a situation 

where the use of the Standard Method for 

hand signals is infeasible: Due to background 

lighting conditions behind the signal person, 

there is insufficient contrast between the 

person’s hand and the sky color. This 

prevents the operator from being able to 

clearly see the signal person’s hand and 

fingers when extended out to either side. 

Appendix C to Subpart CC of Part 

1926—Checklist for Determining if 

Hoisting Personnel is Permissible 

A. HOISTING PERSONNEL IS 

PERMITTED: When the employer can show 

that the erection, use, and dismantling of 

conventional means of reaching the worksite, 

such as a personnel hoist, ladder, stairway, 

aerial lift, elevating work platform, or 

scaffold, would be more hazardous, or is not 

possible because of the project’s structural 

design or worksite conditions. See 

§ 1926.1431(a). However, the employer may 

hoist personnel without showing that the 

erection, use, and dismantling of 

conventional means of reaching the worksite 

would be more hazardous, or is not possible 

because of the project’s structural design or 

worksite conditions: 

(1) When engaged in work covered by 

subpart R (Steel Erection) of this part. See 

§ 1926.1431(a); 

(2) When using a personnel platform to 

hoist personnel for pile driving operations. 

See § 1926.1431(p)(3). 

B. HOISTING PERSONNEL IS ALWAYS 

PROHIBITED: Even if hoisting personnel is 

otherwise permitted, it is prohibited: 

(1) When any part of the equipment would 

get closer than 20 feet to a power line that 

is 350 kV or less or 50 feet to a power line 

over 350 kV, unless the employer is engaged 

in Subpart V work. See § 1926.1431(n); 

(2) When equipment is traveling unless the 

equipment travels on fixed rails or the 

employer can demonstrate that there is no 

less hazardous way to perform the work. See 

§ 1926.1431(k)(12). However, when the 

equipment is a derrick, it may not be used 

to hoist personnel while traveling under any 

circumstances. See § 1926.1431(k)(13); 

(3) When the equipment has a rated 

hoisting/lifting capacity of 2,000 pounds or 

less. See § 1926.1441(j). 

C. WHEN HOISTING PERSONNEL IS 

PERMITTED, A PERSONNEL PLATFORM 

MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF § 1431 

MUST BE USED, EXCEPT: 

(1) When hoisting personnel in drill shafts 

8 feet or less in diameter, the employer may 

instead use either a personnel platform or a 

boatswain’s chair. See § 1926.1431(o); 

(2) When hoisting personnel for pile 

driving operations the employer may instead 

use a boatswain’s chair. See § 1926.1431(p); 

(3) When hoisting personnel for marine 

transfer, the employer may instead use a 

marine hoisted personnel transfer device. See 

§ 1926.1431(r); 

(4) When hoisting personnel for storage 

tank, shaft, and chimney operations, the 

employer may instead use a boatswain’s 

chair, but only if use of a personnel platform 

is infeasible. See § 1926.1431(s). 

Appendix D to Subpart CC of Part 

1926—Assembly/Disassembly: Sample 

Procedures for Minimizing the Risk of 

Unintended Dangerous Boom 

Movement 

1. a. Section 1926.1404(f)(1) provides that 

when pins (or similar devices) are being 

removed, employees must not be under the 

boom, jib, or other components, except where 

the requirements of § 1926.1404(f)(2) are met. 

The exception in § 1926.1404(f)(2) applies 

when the employer demonstrates that site 

constraints require one or more employees to 

be under the boom, jib, or other components 

when pins (or similar devices) are being 

removed. In such a situation, the A/D 

supervisor must implement procedures that 

minimize the risk of unintended dangerous 

movement and minimize the duration and 

extent of exposure under the boom. 

b. The following scenario is an example of 

how the exception applies: A boom cannot be 

disassembled on the ground because of 

aboveground piping (as might be found, for 

example, in an oil refinery) that precludes 

lowering the boom to the ground. The boom 

must therefore be disassembled in the air, 

and the employees who remove the pins 

must perform that work from an aerial lift 

whose base is positioned on one side (the 

near side) of the boom. To gain access to the 

pins on the far side, the aerial lift basket must 

move under the boom, since, due to lack of 

room, the aerial lift cannot be repositioned 

on the far side. 

c. To minimize the risk of unintended 

dangerous movement while the pins are 

removed, the A/D supervisor uses an assist 

crane that is rigged to support the boom 

section that is being detached, using 

particular care to ensure that the section end 

that is near the employee(s) removing the 

pins is well supported. The duration and 

extent of exposure is minimized by removing 

the far side pins first, moving the aerial lift 

basket as soon as possible to the near side so 

that the employees are no longer under the 

boom, and then removing the near side pins. 

2. a. Section 1926.1404(h)(6)(i) provides 

that, during assembly/disassembly, the center 

of gravity of the load must be identified if 

that is necessary for the method used for 

maintaining stability. Section 

1926.1404(h)(6)(ii) states that, where there is 

insufficient information to accurately 

identify the center of gravity, measures 

designed to prevent unintended dangerous 

movement resulting from an inaccurate 

identification of the center of gravity must be 

used. 

b. An example of the application of 

§ 1926.1404(h)(6)(ii) is as follows. The boom 

is assembled by lowering boom sections 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2

59954 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

sequentially into place using an assist crane. 

The A/D supervisor’s plan is to keep the 

boom sections stable while they are lowered 

into place by attaching the assist crane hoist 

line above the center of gravity of each 

section. However, in assembling the nonsymmetrical top section of the boom, the A/ 

D supervisor is not able to determine where 

to attach the assist crane hoist line so that it 

is above the center of gravity. In this 

situation, before raising the section, all 

personnel are kept clear of the section and 

the section is first raised a few inches to 

determine whether it tips when raised (if it 

did tip, it would indicate it is not rigged over 

the center of gravity). If this occurs, the hoist 

line is repositioned and the procedure 

repeated (with employees kept clear of the 

section while it is raised) until the A/D 

supervisor determines that it is rigged over 

the center of gravity and can be moved into 

place without dangerous movement. 

Appendix E to Subpart CC of Part 

1926—Operator Certification: Written 

Examination: Technical Knowledge 

Criteria 

This appendix contains information for 

employers, accredited testing organizations, 

auditors and government entities developing 

criteria for a written examination to test an 

individual’s technical knowledge relating to 

the operation of cranes. 

(a) General technical information. 

(1) The functions and limitations of the 

crane and attachments. 

(2) Wire rope: 

(i) Background information necessary to 

understand the inspection and removal from 

service criteria in § 1926.1413 and 

§ 1926.1414. 

(ii) Capacity and when multi-part rope is 

needed. 

(iii) Relationship between line pull and 

safe working load. 

(iv) How to determine the manufacturer’s 

recommended rope for the crane. 

(3) Rigging devices and their use, such as: 

(i) Slings. 

(ii) Spreaders. 

(iii) Lifting beams. 

(iv) Wire rope fittings, such as clips, 

shackles and wedge sockets. 

(v) Saddles (softeners). 

(vi) Clamps (beams). 

(4) The technical limitations of protective 

measures against electrical hazards: 

(i) Grounding. 

(ii) Proximity warning devices. 

(iii) Insulated links. 

(iv) Boom cages. 

(v) Proximity to electric power lines, radii, 

and microwave structures. 

(5) The effects of load share and load 

transfer in multi-crane lifts. 

(6) Basic crane terms. 

(7) The basics of machine power flow 

systems. 

(i) Mechanical. 

(ii) Electrical. 

(iii) Pneumatic. 

(iv) Hydraulic. 

(v) Combination. 

(8) The significance of the instruments and 

gauge readings. 

(9) The effects of thermal expansion and 

contraction in hydraulic cylinders. 

(10) Background information necessary to 

understand the requirements of pre-operation 

and inspection. 

(11) How to use the safety devices and 

operational aids required under § 1926.1415 

and § 1926.1416. 

(12) The difference between duty-cycle and 

lifting operations. 

(13) How to calculate net capacity for every 

possible configuration of the equipment 

using the manufacturer’s load chart. 

(14) How to use manufacturer-approved 

attachments and their effect on the 

equipment. 

(15) How to obtain dimensions, weight, 

and center of gravity of the load. 

(16) The effects of dynamic loading from: 

(i) Wind. 

(ii) Stopping and starting. 

(iii) Impact loading. 

(iv) Moving with the load. 

(17) The effect of side loading. 

(18) The principles of backward stability. 

(b) Site information. 

(1) How to identify the suitability of the 

supporting ground/surface to support the 

expected loads of the operation. Elements 

include: 

(i) Weaknesses below the surface (such as 

voids, tanks, loose fill). 

(ii) Weaknesses on the surface (such as 

retaining walls, slopes, excavations, 

depressions). 

(2) Proper use of mats, blocking/cribbing 

and outriggers or crawlers. 

(3) Identification of site hazards such as 

power lines, piping, and traffic. 

(4) How to review operation plans with 

supervisors and other workers (such as the 

signal person), including how to determine 

working height, boom length, load radius, 

and travel clearance. 

(5) How to determine if there is adequate 

room for extension of crawlers or outriggers/ 

stabilizers and counterweights. 

(c) Operations. 

(1) How to pick, carry, swing and place the 

load smoothly and safely on rubber tires and 

on outriggers/stabilizers or crawlers (where 

applicable). 

(2) How to communicate at the site with 

supervisors, the crew and the signal person. 

(3) Proper procedures and methods of 

reeving wire ropes and methods of reeving 

multiple-part lines and selecting the proper 

load block and/or ball. 

(4) How to react to changes in conditions 

that affect the safe operation of the 

equipment. 

(5) How to shut down and secure the 

equipment properly when leaving it 

unattended. 

(6) Know how to apply the manufacturer’s 

specifications for operating in various 

weather conditions, and understand how 

environmental conditions affect the safe 

operation of the equipment. 

(7) How to properly level the equipment. 

(8) How to verify the weight of the load 

and rigging prior to initiating the lift. 

(9) How to determine where the load is to 

be picked up and placed and how to verify 

the radii. 

(10) Know basic rigging procedures. 

(11) How to carry out the shift inspection 

required in this subpart. 

(12) Know that the following operations 

require specific procedures and skill levels: 

(i) Multi-crane lifts. 

(ii) Hoisting personnel. 

(iii) Clamshell/dragline operations. 

(iv) Pile driving and extracting. 

(v) Concrete operations, including pouredin-place and tilt-up. 

(vi) Demolition operations. 

(vii) Operations on water. 

(viii) Magnet operations. 

(ix) Multi-drum operations. 

(13) Know the proper procedures for 

operating safely under the following 

conditions: 

(i) Traveling with suspended loads. 

(ii) Approaching a two-block condition. 

(iii) Operating near power lines. 

(iv) Hoisting personnel. 

(v) Using other than full outrigger/crawler 

extensions. 

(vi) Lifting loads from beneath the surface 

of the water. 

(vii) Using various approved counterweight 

configurations. 

(viii) Handling loads out of the operator’s 

vision (‘‘operating in the blind’’). 

(ix) Using electronic communication 

systems for signal communication. 

(14) Know the proper procedures for load 

control and the use of hand-held tag lines. 

(15) Know the emergency response 

procedure for: 

(i) Fires. 

(ii) Power line contact. 

(iii) Loss of stability. 

(iv) Control malfunction. 

(v) Two-blocking. 

(vi) Overload. 

(vii) Carrier or travel malfunction. 

(16) Know how to properly use outriggers 

in accordance with manufacturer 

specifications. 

(d) Use of load charts. 

(1) Know the terminology necessary to use 

load charts. 

(2) Know how to ensure that the load chart 

is the appropriate chart for the equipment in 

its particular configuration and application. 

(3) Know how to use load charts. This 

includes knowing: 

(i) The operational limitations of load 

charts and footnotes. 

(ii) How to relate the chart to the 

configuration of the crane, crawlers, or 

outriggers extended or retracted, jib erected 

or offset, and various counterweight 

configurations. 

(iii) The difference between structural 

capacity and capacity limited by stability. 

(iv) What is included in capacity ratings. 

(v) The range diagram and its relationship 

to the load chart. 

(vi) The work area chart and its 

relationship to the load chart. 

(vii) Where to find and how to use the 

‘‘parts-of-line’’ information. 

(4) Know how to use the load chart 

together with the load indicators and/or load 

moment devices. 

[FR Doc. E8–21993 Filed 10–8–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2