Source: https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/federalregister/2003-09-08
Timestamp: 2018-01-22 06:45:04
Document Index: 189555234

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', 'arts 1910', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', 'arts 1910', '§ 1926', 'arts 1910', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', 'art 1926', 'art 1910', 'art 1926', 'art 1910', 'arts 1910', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', 'arts 1910', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926', '§ 1926']

Oak Park Chimney Corp. and American Boiler & Chimney Co.; Grant of a Permanent Variance | Occupational Safety and Health Administration
ACTION: Notice of a grant of a permanent variance.
SUMMARY: This notice announces the grant of a permanent variance to Oak Park Chimney Corp. and American Boiler & Chimney Co. ("the employers"). The permanent variance addresses the provision that regulates the tackle used for boatswains' chairs (§ 1926.452 (o)(3)), as well as the provisions specified for personnel hoists by paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4), (c)(8), (c)(13), (c)(14)(i), and (c)(16) of § 1926.552. Instead of complying with these provisions, the employers must comply with a number of alternative conditions listed in this grant; these alternative conditions regulate rope-guided hoist systems used during inside or outside chimney construction to raise or lower employees in personnel cages, personnel platforms, and boatswains' chairs between the bottom landing of a chimney and an elevated work location. Accordingly, OSHA finds that these alternative conditions protect employees at least as well as the requirements specified by § 1926.452(o)(3)) and § 1926.552(c)(1) through (c)(4), (c)(8), (c)(13), (c)(14)(i), and (c)(16).
Securing the lifelines (used with a personnel platform or boatswains' chair) to the rigging at the top of the chimney and to a weight at the bottom of the chimney, to provide maximum stability to the lifelines.
II. Proposed Variance from § 1926.452(o)(3)
The employers noted in their variance request that it is necessary, on occasion, to use a boatswains' chair to transport employees to and from a bracket scaffold on the outside of an existing chimney during flue installation or repair work, or to transport them to and from an elevated scaffold located inside a chimney that has a small or tapering diameter. Paragraph (o)(3) of § 1926.452, which regulates the tackle used to rig a boatswains' chair, states that this tackle must "consist of correct size ball bearings or bushed blocks containing safety hooks and properly 'eye-spliced' minimum five-eighth (5/8) inch diameter first-grade manila rope [or equivalent rope]."
The primary purpose of this paragraph is to allow an employee to safely control the ascent, descent, and stopping locations of the boatswains' chair. However, the employers stated in their variance request that, because of space limitations, the required tackle is difficult or impossible to operate on some chimneys that are over 200 feet tall. Therefore, as an alternative to complying with the tackle requirements specified by § 1926.452(o)(3), the employers proposed to use the hoisting system described above in section I of this notice to raise or lower employees in a personnel cage to work locations both inside and outside a chimney. In addition, the employers proposed to use a personnel cage for this purpose to the extent that adequate space is available, and to use a personnel platform if using a personnel cage was infeasible because of limited space. When available space makes using a personnel platform infeasible, the employers proposed to use a boatswains' chair to lift employees to work locations. The proposed variance limited use of the boatswains' chair to elevations above the last work location that the personnel platform can reach; under these conditions, the employers proposed to attach the boatswains' chair directly to the hoisting cable only when the structural arrangement precludes the safe use of the block and tackle required by § 1926.452(o)(3).
III. Proposed Variance From § 1926.552(c)
Paragraph (c) of § 1926.552 specifies the requirements for enclosed hoisting systems used to transport employees from one elevation to another. This paragraph ensures that employers transport employees safely to and from elevated work platforms by mechanical means during the construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, or demolition of structures such as chimneys. However, this standard does not provide specific safety requirements for hoisting employees to and from elevated work platforms and scaffolds in tapered chimneys; the tapered design requires frequent relocation of, and adjustment to, the work platforms and scaffolds. The space in a small-diameter or tapered chimney is not large enough or configured so that it can accommodate an enclosed hoist tower. Moreover, using an enclosed hoist tower for outside operations exposes employees to additional fall hazards because they need to install extra bridging and bracing to support a walkway between the hoist tower and the tapered chimney.
Paragraph (c)(1) of § 1926.552 requires employers to enclose hoist towers located outside a chimney on the side or sides used for entrance to, and exit from, the chimney; these enclosures must extend the full height of the hoist tower. The employers asserted in their proposed variance that it is impractical and hazardous to locate a hoist tower outside tapered chimneys because it becomes increasingly difficult, as a chimney rises, to erect, guy, and brace a hoist tower; under these conditions, access from the hoist tower to the chimney or to the movable scaffolds used in constructing the chimney exposes employees to a serious fall hazard. Additionally, they noted that the requirement to extend the enclosures 10 feet above the outside scaffolds often exposes the employees involved in building these extensions to dangerous wind conditions.
Paragraph (c)(2) of § 1926.552 requires that employers enclose all four sides of a hoist tower even when the tower is located inside a chimney; the enclosure must extend the full height of the tower. In the proposed variance, the employers contended that it is hazardous for employees to erect and brace a hoist tower inside a chimney, especially small-diameter or tapered chimneys or chimneys with sublevels, because these structures have limited space and cannot accommodate hoist towers; space limitations result from chimney design (e.g., tapering), as well as reinforced steel projecting into the chimney from formwork that is near the work location.
As an alternative to complying with the hoist-tower requirements of § 1926.552(c)(1) and (c)(2), the employers proposed to use the rope-guided hoist system discussed in section I of this notice to transport employees to and from work locations inside and outside chimneys. They claimed that this hoist system should make it unnecessary for them to comply with other provisions of § 1926.552(c) that specify requirements for hoist towers, including:
The employers asserted that the proposed hoisting system protected employees at least as effectively as the hoist-tower requirements of § 1926.552(c). The following section of this preamble provides the comments received on the employers' proposed variance.
The private sector submitted no comments regarding the proposed variance. However, OSHA did receive comments from 14 of the 26 states and territories that have an autonomous occupational safety and health agency approved under Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 667). The Agency received the 14 comments after it sent each of these 26 states and territories a copy of the application and requested that they provide information on whether their standards (the ones that would be affected by the proposed variance) were identical to the corresponding Federal standards, and, if so, did they agree to accept the alternative conditions proposed by the employers.
Of the 14 states and territories that submitted comments, the following nine states reported that they have standards that are identical to the Federal standards, and that they agree to accept the alternative conditions: Alaska, Arizona, Kentucky, Maryland, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, and Tennessee (Exs. 2-1 to 2-8). South Carolina (Ex. 2-9) indicated that it, too, has identical standards, and that it would accept the alternative conditions, but noted that a provision of its state code (Chapter 7, Article 1, Subarticle 2, SC Code of Laws 1976, as amended) requires that "[i]n order that such a variance be honored by the Commissioner, it is and will be incumbent upon the employer to file the final rule or order of the [U.S.] Secretary of Labor with the Commissioner of Labor at his office in Columbia, South Carolina."
Four State-plan states and one territory reported having identical standards, but did not accept the alternative conditions. Connecticut (Ex. 2-10) did not concur with the alternative conditions because its state-plan program regulates only public-sector employees and, therefore, it has "its own statutory and regulatory authority pertaining to the issuance of variances in the public sector." Hawaii (Ex. 2-11) declined to accept the alternative conditions because it did not have "a chance to do a thorough job of researching" them. The Virgin Islands (Ex. 2-12) agreed with Hawaii's position. Washington State (Ex. 2-13) noted that while its standards were the same as the Federal standards, "We anticipate updating the section of our standards with these particular codes and[,] therefore[,] their current numbering and possibly content may change in the next year or two[,] which means that granted variances would need to be updated." The Washington State response continued, "[W]e have no objection to such a variance being issued. However, for the reasons stated * * * above regarding the coding system, it may be easier for the affected companies to directly submit variance requests to our attention so there is a record of which state specific codes have a variance in the event there [are] changes in the future of those codes."
While Iowa (Ex. 2-14) also has standards that are identical to the Federal standards, it stated that "[b]ecause the State of Iowa has a specific statute and regulations for variances, [the employers] would have to submit a request to Iowa for any work to be done here as opposed to accepting a variance granted by Federal OSHA." In addition, Iowa made several substantive comments regarding the proposed variance. First, it commented that "[t]he lack of the safety clamps required under [proposed Condition 9] * * * would seem to indicate the company needs to comply with 1926.451(g)(1)(i) & (ii) for a work platform and boatswains' chair." In response, OSHA notes that paragraphs (c) and (d) of proposed Condition 7 would require, respectively, appropriately designed and constructed safety clamps, as well as clamps that, when used, apply tension to guide ropes without damaging them. Also, under proposed Condition 9, employers would have to attach safety clamps to each personnel cage; additionally, this proposed condition specifies requirements that regulate the stopping capability and spring-compression force, as well as the operation and maintenance, of the clamps. OSHA has retained these proposed provisions, but has consolidated them under a single condition (Condition 11) in the permanent variance.
The proposed variance also would require employers to comply with paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of § 1926.451 as a condition of the permanent variance. In this regard, the third paragraph under "General Conditions" in the proposed variance notes that "the applicants acknowledge that they would comply with all other applicable provisions of 29 CFR parts 1910 and 1926 if OSHA grants the variance applications." To clarify this requirement, OSHA is including this requirement as a distinct provision (Condition 1(b)) of the permanent variance; this provision states, "Except for the requirements specified by § 1926.452 (o)(3)) and § 1926.552(c)(1) through (c)(4), (c)(8), (c)(13), (c)(14)(i), and (c)(16), the employers must comply fully with all other applicable provisions of 29 CFR parts 1910 and 1926."
Commenting further, Iowa noted that "[a] fall protection system for the cage and a positioning device for the employee to keep him/her in the cage would need to be addressed." OSHA believes that the safety-clamp requirements specified in Conditions 7 and 9 of the proposed variance (Condition 11 of the permanent variance) are sufficient to prevent a personnel cage from falling should a hoist rope separate, while the construction requirements for personnel cages (e.g., steel-frame construction, wire-enclosed sides, safe handholds) provided under Condition 8 of the proposed variance (Condition 10 of the permanent variance) will prevent employees from falling out of the cages.
Iowa also made the following comments:
"[T]here is no reference to protecting any of the cables or fall protection equipment during welding on the top platform. The application of requirements described in § 1926.451(f)(17) should be considered."
"The problems associated with hazards to employees on the upper deck with the lift mechanism or protection of the lift mechanism from damage [are] not addressed."
"1910 issues are only mentioned in passing."
These comments suggest that the proposed variance does not address the identified hazards. However, as we noted earlier, the "General Conditions" section of the proposed variance (and Condition 1(b) of the permanent variance) require employers to comply with any other requirements of 29 CFR parts 1910 and 1926 that pertain to hazards in these workplaces. Therefore, regarding the first of these comments, under the permanent variance, employers must still implement the precautions specified in § 1926.451(f)(17) to prevent the welding current from arcing through the suspension cables when employees are performing welding operations on suspended scaffolds.
The second of these comments appears to assert that none of the proposed conditions would protect employees if a hoist machine strikes a scaffold (i.e., "hazards to employees on the upper deck with the lift mechanism"), or that none of these conditions would prevent damage to the hoist machine (i.e., "protection of the lift mechanism from damage"). Regarding the first assertion, OSHA believes that proper design, maintenance, inspection, and operation of hoist machines as specified by Conditions 1 and 2 of the proposed variance, as well as proper selection and training of hoist operators as provided by proposed Condition 3, would prevent a hoist machine from endangering employees located on a scaffold. In the unlikely event a hoist machine strikes a scaffold, employees on the scaffold would be protected against falls under § 1926.451(g), and would have additional protection under § 1926.28 and subpart E ("Personal Protective and Life Saving Equipment") of 29 CFR part 1926.
Iowa's comment does not indicate what would cause damage to the hoist machine. OSHA assumes that such damage could only occur if a heavy object was to fall on or strike the machine. In this case, the Agency finds that the structural requirements listed in paragraphs (h) and (i) ("Frame" and "Stability," respectively) of proposed Condition 2 ("Hoist Machine") would adequately protect the machine from damage. Proposed paragraph 2(h) would require that the frame of the machine be "a self-supporting, rigid, welded steel structure, with holding brackets for anchor lines and legs for anchor bolts being integral components of the frame'; proposed paragraph 2(i) would prevent collapse of the hoist machine when struck by a heavy object by ensuring that the machine is secured "in position to prevent movement, shifting, or dislodgement." The Agency has retained both of these provisions in the permanent variance as paragraphs (h) ("Frame") and (i) ("Stability") of Condition 4 ("Hoist Machine").
As to Iowa's concerns about the coverage of 29 CFR part 1910, OSHA notes that the variance only covers construction provisions specified under 29 CFR part 1926. Condition 1(b) of the permanent variance states that any provisions of 29 CFR part 1910 that apply to the employers' work activities will remain in effect.
The variance application stated that the employers perform chimney work in a number of geographic locations in the United States, some of which could include one or more locations in State-plan states and territories. As noted in the previous section of this preamble, OSHA sent a copy of the variance application to all State-plan states and territories for comment. Nine states responded that they had identical provisions and also agreed to accept the alternative conditions. These states are: Alaska, Arizona, Kentucky, Maryland, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, and Tennessee. (South Carolina commented that its state code requires the employers to submit to its State Commissioner of Labor any permanent variance issued by OSHA.) The remaining four states and one territory that submitted comments did not accept the alternative conditions for a variety of reasons. Additionally, the Agency cannot determine the status of the 12 State- plan states and single territory that did not submit comments. Therefore, based on the comments submitted to the record, the permanent Federal variance also will be effective in the following nine states: Alaska, Arizona, Kentucky, Maryland, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina (provided the employers first submit a copy of the permanent variance to the State Commissioner of Labor), and Tennessee.
VII. Corrections to the Variance
The Agency has made a number of minor editorial corrections to the proposed variance to improve comprehension of, and compliance with, the specified conditions (e.g., revising the term "applicants" to "employers"). OSHA also made several technical (non-substantive) revisions to the proposed variance. These revisions are described in the following table.
Proposed condition Revision made to the permanent variance Rationale for the revision
A. General Conditions. * * * The applicants propose to use the hoist system inside and outside a chimney to raise or lower employees in a personnel cage to work locations Moved to Condition 1(a) To make the provision more noticeable than it was in the proposal.
A. General Conditions. * * * Except for the provisions identified above in this section * * * , the applicants acknowledge that they would comply fully with all other applicable provisions of 29 CFR parts 1910 and 1926.* * *. Moved to Condition 1(b) To make the provision more noticeable than it was in the proposal.
A. General Conditions. * * * If available space makes using a personnel cage * * * infeasible, the applicants would use a personnel platform.* * *. Moved to Condition 2(a) To make the provision more noticeable than it was in the proposal.
A. General Conditions.* * * If available space makes using a personnel cage * * * infeasible, the applicants would use * * * a boatswains' chair. The applicants would limit use of the boatswains' chair to elevations above the last work location that the personnel cage and personnel platform can reach Moved to Condition 2(b). This condition clarifies that a boatswains' chair can be used only at the last location that a personnel platform (vice either a personnel platform or a personnel cage) can reach To make the provision more noticeable than it was in the proposal. Limiting use of the boatswains' chair makes this condition consistent with the discussion provided in the proposed variance (see 67 FR 36263).
Condition 2(b). Raising or lowering a transport. The applicants would ensure that * * * the hoist machine does not use belt drives Revised the provision to read, "No belts are used between the power source and the winding drum," and moved it to Condition 4(b)(ii)(D) The language of paragraph 4.2(2) of ANSI A10.22-1990 (R1998) and previous OSHA variances suggest that the prohibition against using belt drives applies to that part of the drive system between the power source and the winding drum, making application to the entire hoist machine too broad. Moving the provision made it an integral part of the provisions that address the drive system.
Condition 2(b). Raising or lowering a transport. * * * Whenever they raise or lower a personnel or material hoist * * * the applicants would: * * * (ii) Interconnect, on a continuous basis, the drive system through a torque converter or mechanical (or equivalent) coupling Added the parenthetical statement "(e.g., electronic controllers, fluid clutches, hydraulic drivers)" to the provision to provide examples of equivalent couplings (see Condition 4(b)(ii)(B)) To provide an example of an equivalent coupling.
Condition 2(e). Line-speed indicator. The applicants would equip the hoist machine with a line-speed indicator.* * *. serted the term "operating" before "line-speed indicator" (see Condition 4(e)(i)) To clarify that the line-speed indicator must be functioning.
Condition 2(g). Slack-rope switch. The applicants would equip the hoist machine with a slack-rope switch to prevent rotation of the hoist drum under slack-rope conditions Revised the term "hoist drum" to "winding drum" (see Condition 4(g)) To use a single term throughout the variance to describe the drum around which the hoist rope is spooled.
Condition 2(k). Drum and flange diameter. The applicants would provide a winding drum * * * with a flange diameter that is at least one and one-half (1 1/2) times the rope-drum diameter Revised the term "rope-drum" to "winding-drum" (see Condition 4(k)(ii)) To use a single term throughout the variance to describe the drum around which the hoist rope is spooled.
Condition 2(1). Spooling of the rope. The applicants would never spool the rope closer than two (2) inches (5.1 cm) from the outer edge of the hoist-drum flange Revised the term "hoist-drum to "winding-drum" (see Condition 4(1)) To use a single term throughout the variance to describe the drum around which the hoist rope is spooled.
Condition 3(a). Operator. The applicants would ensure that only trained and experienced employees, who are knowledgeable of hoist- system operations, control the hoist machine Retained the proposed requirement as Condition 5(a)(i), but moved from Condition 11(b)(ii) in the proposal to Condition 5(a)(ii) the requirement to train employees who use a personnel cage for transportation on how to operate the hoist system To consolidate the training requirements for hoist systems into a single provision.
Condition 4(b). Safety factor. The applicants would maintain a safety factor of at least eight (8) throughout the entire length of hoist rope Added the phrase "times the safe workload" between the terms "(8)" and "throughout" (see Condition 6(b)) To clarify that the safety factor must be based on the safe workload.
Condition 4(d). Installation, removal, and replacement. Replaced the term "installation" with the term "inspection" in Condition 6(d) To clarify that this condition specifies inspection, but not installation, requirements for hoist ropes.
Condition 5(c). * * * To ensure this diameter-to-diameter ratio, the applicants would inspect the hoist rope regularly, and immediately discard the rope if they find evidence of any of the conditions specified by § 1926.552(a)(3) Moved the diameter-to-diameter inspection requirement to Condition 6(d)(ii), and removed the reference to § 1926.552(a)(3) To consolidate the requirements for hoist ropes under a single condition. The reference to § 1926.552(a)(3) is redundant with the reference in Condition 6(d)(iii).
Condition 6(a). Qualified competent person. The applicants would use a qualified competent person to design and maintain the cathead (i.e., overhead support) Moved to Condition 3(b) To consolidate the requirements for a qualified competent person under a single condition.
Condition 6(d). Sheave safeguards Revised the title from "Sheave safeguards" to "Rope guides" (see Condition 8(c)) To clarify that this condition specifies requirements for rope guides.
Condition 6(e). * * * To ensure this diameter-to-diameter ratio, the applicants would inspect the hoist rope regularly, and immediately discard the rope if they find evidence of any of the conditions specified by § 1926.552(a)(3) Moved the diameter-to-diameter inspection requirements to Condition 6(d)(ii), and removed the reference to § 1926.552(a)(3) To consolidate the requirements for hoist ropes under a single condition. The reference to § 1926.552(a)(3) is redundant with the reference in Condition 6(d)(iii).
Condition 7(a). Number of cables Revised the heading to "Number and construction" (see Condition 9(a)) To clarify that this condition also addresses the physical characteristics of guide cables.
Condition 7(d). Application of tension. The applicants would never use safety clamps that damage the ropes Moved the requirement to Condition 10(a)(iii) To consolidate the safety-clamp requirements into a single provision.
Condition 8(a). Construction. The applicants would use a personnel cage that: * * * (v) Has safe handholds (e.g., rope grips -- but not rails or hard protrusions -- that accommodate each occupant) Inserted a footnote at the end of the parenthetical statement that explains the prohibition against rails or hard protrusions (see Condition 10(a)) To clarify the safety hazards associated with rails or hard protrusions in personnel cages.
Condition 10. Overhead Protection. To protect employees located at the base of the chimney (i.e., both inside and outside the chimney) from material and debris that may fall from above, the applicants would install a canopy or shield that is made of steel plate at least three-sixteenth (3/ 16) of an inch (4.763 mm) thick, or material of equivalent strength and impact resistance, and that slopes to the outside Removed the phrase "located at the base of the chimney" from the requirement, and added the phrases "over the top of the personnel cage" (see Conditions 12(a) and 12(b), respectively) To clarify the location of the canopy or shield consistent with the requirements of § 1926.800(t)(4)(v) (from which the conditions was adapted) and paragraph 10.6 of ANSI A10.22-1990 (R1998).
Condition 11(a). Location. The applicants would provide an emergency-escape device, with operating instructions attached to it, in the personnel cage or at the bottom landing. If the device is: (i) In the personnel cage, the applicants would ensure that it is long enough to reach the bottom landing from the highest possible escape point. (ii) At the bottom landing, the applicants would provide a means in the personnel cage for the occupants to raise the device to the highest possible escape point Moved the requirement regarding the attachment of operating instructions to Condition 13(b) To make the provision more noticeable than it was in the proposal.
Condition 11(b). Training. The applicants would instruct each employee who uses a personnel cage: (i) On how to operate the emergency-escape device prior to the employee using the personnel cage for transportation. (ii) Periodically, and as necessary, in the operation of the hoist system and the emergency-escape system Moved to Condition 5(a)(ii) the portion of proposed Condition 11(b)(ii) that refers to training employees who use a personnel cage for transportation in the operation of the hoist system To consolidate the training requirements for hoist systems into a single provision.
Condition 12(a). Personnel platform. The applicants would: (i) Be permitted to attach the hoisting cable to a personnel platform under the conditions specified above by section III.A ("General conditions") of this application Retained the proposed requirement under Condition 14(a), but revised the reference to "section III.A" to "Condition 2(a).". The requirements proposed under section III.A are now specified under Condition 2(a).
Condition 13(a). [The applicants would c]onduct inspections of the hoist system as required by § 1926.20(b)(2). These inspections would include a daily visual inspection of the systems Condition 15(a). The employers must: (i) Conduct inspections of the hoist system as required by § 1926.20(b)(2); (ii) Ensure that a competent person conducts daily visual inspections of the hoist system; and * * *. To clarify that paragraph (a) consists of two separate requirements, and to emphasize the requirement in § 1926.20(b)(2) that a competent person must conduct the daily visual inspection of the hoist system.
Oak Park Chimney Corp. and American Boiler & Chimney Co. seek a permanent variance from the provision that regulates the tackle used for boatswains' chairs (§ 1926.452(o)(3)), as well as the provisions specified for personnel hoists by paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4), (c)(8), (c)(13), (c)(14)(i), and (c)(16) of 1926.552. Paragraph (o)(3) of § 1926.452 states that the tackle used for boatswains' chairs must "consist of correct size ball bearings or bushed blocks containing safety hooks and properly "eye-spliced" minimum five- eighth (5/8) inch diameter first-grade manila rope [or equivalent rope]." The primary purpose of this provision is to allow an employee to safely control the ascent, descent, and stopping locations of the boatswains' chair. The proposed alternative to these requirements allows the employer to use a boatswains' chair to lift employees to work locations inside and outside a chimney when both a personnel cage and a personnel platform are infeasible. The employers proposed to attach the boatswains' chair to the hoisting system described as an alternative for paragraph (c) of § 1926.552.
Paragraph (c) of § 1926.552 specifies the requirements for enclosed hoisting systems used to transport personnel from one elevation to another. This paragraph ensures that employers transport employees safely to and from elevated work platforms by mechanical means during construction work involving structures such as chimneys. In this regard, paragraph (c)(1) of § 1926.552 requires employers to enclose hoist towers located outside a chimney on the side or sides used for entrance to, and exit from, the structure; these enclosures must extend the full height of the hoist tower. Under the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of § 1926.552, employers must enclose all four sides of a hoist tower located inside a chimney; these enclosures must extend the full height of the tower.
As an alternative to complying with the hoist-tower requirements of § 1926.552(c)(1) and (c)(2), the employers proposed to use a rope- guided hoist system to transport employees to and from elevated work locations inside and outside chimneys. The proposed hoist system includes a hoist machine, cage, safety cables, and safety measures such as limit switches to prevent overrun of the cage at the top and bottom landings, and safety clamps that grip the safety cables if the main hoist line fails. To transport employees to and from elevated work locations, the employers proposed to attach a personnel cage to the hoist system. However, when they can demonstrate that adequate space is not available for the cage, they can use a personnel platform above the last worksite that the cage can reach. Further, when the employers can show that space limitations make it infeasible to use a work platform for transporting employees, they have proposed to use a boatswains' chair above the last worksite serviced by the personnel platform. Using the proposed hoist system as an alternative to the hoist-tower requirements of § 1926.552(c)(1) and (c)(2) eliminates the need to comply with the other provisions of § 1926.552(c) that specify requirements for hoist towers. Accordingly, the employers have requested a permanent variance from these and related provisions (i.e., paragraphs (c)(3), (c)(4), (c)(8), (c)(13), (c)(14)(i), and (c)(16)).
After reviewing the variance application, as well as the comments made to the record regarding the application, OSHA has made only minor editorial amendments and technical corrections to the proposed variance. Therefore, under Section 6(d) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655), and based on the record discussed above, the Agency finds that when the employers comply with the conditions of the following order, their employees will be exposed to working conditions that are at least as safe and healthful as they would be if the employers complied with paragraph (o)(3) of § 1926.452, and paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4), (c)(8), (c)(13), (c)(14)(i), and (c)(16) of § 1926.552.
OSHA issues this order authorizing Oak Park Chimney Corp. and American Boiler & Chimney Co. ("the employers") to comply with the following conditions instead of complying with paragraph (o)(3) of § 1926.452 and paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4), (c)(8), (c)(13), (c)(14)(i), and (c)(16) of § 1926.552:
(b) Except for the requirements specified by § 1926.452(o)(3) and § 1926.552(c)(1) through (c)(4), (c)(8), (c)(13), (c)(14)(i), and (c)(16), the employers must comply fully with all other applicable provisions of 29 CFR parts 1910 and 1926.
(b) The employers must use a qualified competent person to design and maintain the cathead described under Condition 8 ("Cathead and Sheave") below.
(d) Constant pressure control switch. The employers must:
(i) Equip the hoist machine with a hand-or foot-operated constant- pressure control switch (i.e., a "deadman control switch") that stops the hoist immediately upon release; and
(ii) Ensure that the fleet angle remains between one-half degree (1/2°) and one and one-half degrees (1 1/2°) for smooth drums, and between one-half degree (1/2°) and two degrees (2°) for grooved drums, with the lead sheave centered on the drum.(1)
(ii) Ensure that the winding drum has a flange diameter that is at least one and one-half (1 1/2) times the winding-drum diameter.
(l) Spooling of the rope. The employers must never spool the rope closer than two (2) inches (5.1 cm) from the outer edge of the winding- drum flange.
(a) Grade. The employers must use a wire rope for the hoist system (i.e., "hoist rope") that consists of extra-improved plow steel, an equivalent grade of non-rotating rope, or a regular lay rope with a suitable swivel mechanism.
(c) Size. The employers must use a hoist rope that is at least one- half (1/2) inch (1.3 cm) in diameter.
(a) Support. The employers must use a cathead (i.e., "overhead support") that consists of a wide-flange beam or two (2) steel-channel sections securely bolted back-to-back to prevent spreading.
(vi) Safe handholds (e.g., rope grips -- but not rails or hard protrusions (2)) that accommodate each occupant.
(b) The employers must ensure that the canopy or shield slopes to the outside of the personnel cage.(3)
(b) Boatswains' chairs. When the employers elect to replace the personnel platform with a boatswains' chair in accordance with Condition 2(b) ("Boatswains" chair") of this variance, they may attach the boatswains' chair directly to the hoisting cable only when they demonstrate that the spatial arrangement makes it infeasible to safely use the block and tackle required by § 1926.452(o)(3).
(c) Fall-protection equipment. Before employees use work platforms or boatswains' chairs, the employers must equip the employees with, and ensure that they use, body harnesses and lifelines as specified by § 1926.104 and the applicable requirements of § 1926.502(d).
(b) The employers must comply with the accident-prevention requirements of § 1926.20(b)(3).
Signed at Washington, DC on August 26, 2003.
[FR Doc. 03-22741 Filed 9-5-03; 8:45 am]
Footnote 1 This variance adopts the definition of, fleet angle from Cranes and Derricks, H.I. Shapiro, et al. (eds.); New York: McGraw-Hill. Accordingly, the fleet angle is "[t]he angle the rope leading onto a [winding] drum makes with the line perpendicular to the drum rotating axis when the lead rope is making a wrap against the flange." (Back to text)
Footnote 2 To reduce impact hazards should employees lose their balance because of cage movement. (Back to text)
Footnote 3 Paragraphs (a) and (b) were adapted from OSHA's Underground Construction Standard (§ 1926.800(t)(4)(iv)). (Back to text)