Source: http://thefederalregister.com/2012/11/09/2012-27209.html
Timestamp: 2018-09-24 19:30:01
Document Index: 466412330

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

SUMMARY: OSHA is broadening the exemption for digger derricks in its standard for cranes and derricks. OSHA issued a final standard updating the requirements for cranes and derricks on August 9, 2010, and the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) petitioned for review of the standard in the United States Court of Appeals. After petitioning, EEI provided OSHA with new information regarding digger derricks. OSHA reviewed the additional information and the rulemaking record, and decided to broaden the exemption for digger derricks used in the electric-utility industry by means of this proposed rule.
DATES: Comment by December 10, 2012. All submissions, whether transmitted, mailed, or delivered, must bear a postmark or provide other evidence of the submission date.
OSHA requests comments on all issues related to this proposed rule, including economic, paperwork, or other regulatory impacts of this rule on the regulated community. If OSHA receives no significant adverse comment to either this proposal or the direct final rule, OSHA will publish aFederal Registerdocument confirming the effective date of the direct final rule and withdrawing this companion proposed rule published in the “Proposed Rules” section of today'sFederal Register. Such confirmation may include minor stylistic or technical changes to the document. For the purpose of judicial review, OSHA views the date of confirmation of the effective date of this direct final rule as the date of promulgation.
In direct final rulemaking, an agency publishes a direct final rule in theFederal Registerwith a statement that the rule will go into effect unless the agency receives significant adverse comment within a specified period. The agency may publish an identical proposed rule at the same time. If the agency receives no significant adverse comment in response to the direct final rule, the rule goes into effect. OSHA typically confirms the effective date of a direct final rule through a separateFederal Registernotice. If the agency receives a significant adverse comment, the agency withdraws the direct final rule and treats such comment as aresponse to the proposed rule. An agency typically uses direct final rulemaking when an agency anticipates that a rule will not be controversial.
In addition to publishing this proposed rule, OSHA is publishing a companion direct final rule in the “Final Rules” section of today'sFederal Register. The comment period for this proposed rule runs concurrently with that of the direct final rule. OSHA also will treat comments received on the companion direct final rule as comments regarding the proposed rule. Likewise, OSHA will consider significant adverse comment submitted to the proposed rule as comment to the direct final rule. Therefore, if OSHA receives a significant adverse comment on either the direct final rule or this proposed rule, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and proceed with this proposed rule. In the event that OSHA withdraws the direct final rule because of significant adverse comment, OSHA will consider all timely comments received in response to the direct final rule when it continues with this proposed rule. After carefully considering all comments to the direct final rule and the proposal, OSHA will decide whether to publish a new final rule.
OSHA determined that the subject of this rulemaking is suitable for direct final rulemaking. OSHA originally included the digger-derrick exemption in the proposed Cranes and Derricks in Construction standard as a result of negotiated rulemaking involving stakeholders from many affected sectors. The existing rule for Cranes and Derricks in Construction, subpart CC of 29 CFR part 1926, exempts the majority of digger derricks used in the telecommunications and electric-utility industries from the requirements of that subpart. Because the revision specified in this proposed rule extends the exemption to a small number of digger derricks used in the electric-utility industry, and does not impose any new costs or duties, OSHA does not expect objections from the public to this rulemaking action.
When the activities are exempt from subpart CC of 29 CFR part 1926, they must still comply with all other applicable construction standards, such as 29 CFR part 1926, subpart O (Motor Vehicles, Mechanized Equipment, and Marine Operations), and subpart V.1
1For telecommunications work, compliance with the provisions of § 1910.268 is a condition of the exemption in § 1926.400(c)(4). The scope limitations in § 1910.268(a) (such as the language stating that it does not apply to construction) are irrelevant to application of the exemption. If an employer uses a digger derrick for telecommunications construction work and does not comply with the provisions in § 1910.268, then that employer fails to qualify for the exemption in § 1926.400(c)(4). As a result, that employer must comply with all of the requirements in subpart CC of part 1926, including the operator-certificationrequirements in § 1926.1427. If the employer fails to comply with subpart CC, and cannot demonstrate that it complied with § 1910.268 for telecommunications work, or § 1910.269 for electric-utility work, then OSHA will cite the employer under subpart CC (not § 1910.268 or § 1910.269). If the employer demonstrates that it complies with the exemption in subpart CC, but does not comply with the separate requirements in subpart O applicable to all motorized vehicles in construction, then OSHA will cite the employer under subpart O. Note that this explanation does not suggest that OSHA is restricting its enforcement discretion on whether to issue citations at all.
2EEI's chart does not show weights for concrete and plastic transformer pads, and EEI did not indicate that utilities use digger derricks to place those pads. If utilities do use digger derricks to lift pads, EEI's presentation indicates that the digger derricks lift the transformers separately. Because the surface area of these pads is comparable to the transformers on them, and because these pads are generally only a few hundred millimeters thick, OSHA does not believe that the pads weigh any more than transformers or poles.
OSHA acknowledges the arguments that there are minimal safety benefits attributable to imposing the standard's requirements on the remaining five percent of non-exempted work; moreover, the exempted digger-derrick operations are still subject to the protections afforded to workers by OSHA's electric-utility and telecommunications standards (§ 1910.269, subpart V of 29 CFR part 1926, and § 1910.268, respectively). OSHA also notes that the largest labor organization for workers in the electric-utility industry, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, participated in settlement discussions, corroborated the general validity of the information provided by EEI, and actively supported EEI's request for an expanded digger-derrick exemption. In light of these factors, OSHA is removing the burdens on employers for the remaining five percent of non-exempted work, and revising the digger-derrick exemption to include all digger derricks used in construction work subject to 29 CFR part 1926, subpart V. Based on its estimates in the Final Economic Analysis in the 2010 final rule, the Agency determined that expanding the exemption for digger derricks will enable employers in NAICS 221120 to avoid compliance costs of about $15.9 million per year, while employers in NAICS 221110 will avoid about $5.7 million per year, for a total cost savings of about $21.6 million annually.
When the Agency promulgated the final Cranes and Derricks in Construction rule, OSHA's primary concern about extending the digger-derrick exemption beyond pole work was that such an extension would provide employers with an incentive to use digger derricks on construction sites to perform construction tasks normally handled by cranes—tasks that are beyond the original design capabilities of a digger derrick. In discussing this concern, OSHA stated, “[T]he general lifting work done at those other worksites would be subject to this standard if done by other types of lifting equipment, and the same standards should apply as apply to that equipment . . . .” (75 FR 47925). OSHA acknowledges that revising the exemption would extend the digger-derrick exemption to include some work at substations. However, EEI indicated that the employers in the electric-utility industry limit such uses to assembly or arrangement of substation components, and that these employers use other types of cranes instead of digger derricks to perform lifting and installation work at substations (see OSHA-2012-0025-0005 for Jan. 2011 EEI letter). If OSHA finds that, should the direct final rule become a final rule, employers are using digger derricks increasingly for other tasks, the Agency may revisit this issue and adjust the exemption accordingly. The Agency also recognizes that, because the exemption only applies to work subject to the electrical-power and telecommunications standards, employers cannot use digger derricks within this exemption to perform unrelated tasks such as the construction of a building or the foundation or structural components of a substation before the installation of electric power-transmission or power-distribution equipment. A digger derrick used for this type of construction will still be subject to the requirements in 29 CFR 1926, subpart CC, and operators willhave to be certified in accordance with § 1926.1427.
OSHA is revising the exemption in 29 CFR 1926.1400(c)(4) to include within the exemption “any other work subject to subpart V of 29 CFR part 1926.” This revision expands the exemption to remove from coverage under subpart CC of 29 CFR part 1926 the types of non-pole, digger-derrick work described by EEI. OSHA is not expanding the exemption for pole work performed by employers in the telecommunications industry because no party raised or requested such an exemption in the litigation; therefore, this issue is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
Second, OSHA is adding the phrase “to be eligible for this exclusion” at the beginning of the sentence requiring compliance with § 1910.268 and subpart V of 29 CFR part 1926, respectively. This revision limits the exemption to the use of digger derricks that comply with the requirements in subpart V or § 1910.268; if an employer uses a digger derrick for subpart V or telecommunications work without complying with all of the requirements in subpart V or § 1910.268, then the work is not exempt, and the employer must comply with all of the requirements of subpart CC of 29 CFR part 1926. This clarification is consistent with OSHA's explanation of the exemption in the preamble of the final rule (see 75 FR 47925-47926).
Third, OSHA is replacing the reference to § 1910.269 with a reference to 29 CFR part 1926, subpart V. The current exemption in § 1926.1400(c)(4) requires employers using digger derricks for work covered by subpart V to comply with the requirements in § 1910.269. However, in the 2010 final rule for Cranes and Derricks in Construction, OSHA also revised 29 CFR 1926.952(c)(2) of subpart V to require digger derricks used for the purposes exempted from subpart CC to comply with § 1910.269. Thus, although the revised exemption in this proposed rule specifies compliance with subpart V instead of § 1910.269, there is no substantive revision to digger derricks used for augering holes and handling associated materials. The primary purpose for this revision is to harmonize the § 1926.1400(c)(4) exemption with 29 CFR 1926.952(c)(2) to ensure that non-pole digger-derrick work covered by subpart V receives the same protections as pole work covered by subpart V.
C. Discussion of Conforming Revisions to 29 CFR Part 1926, Subpart V
As part of this harmonizing process, OSHA also is revising the corresponding provision in subpart V that requires compliance with § 1910.269 for all digger-derrick work exempted from subpart CC, including §§ 1910.269(p) (Mechanical equipment), 1910.269(a)(2) (Training), and 1910.269(l) (Working on or near exposed energized parts) (see new 29 CFR 1926.952(c)(2)). When OSHA promulgated subpart CC of 29 CFR part 1926 in 2010, the Agency also revised § 1926.952(c)(2) in subpart V of its construction standards (75 FR 48135). The revision mirrored the terminology in the digger-derrick exemption in § 1926.1400(c)(4), and required employers using digger derricks so exempted to comply with § 1910.269 (Electric power generation, transmission, and distribution). In making this revision, the Agency noted that it added specific minimum clearance-distance requirements, which are applicable to subpart V work, to the cranes and derricks in construction rules at subpart CC, and explained that it revised § 1926.952(c) to require digger derricks to comply with § 1910.269 to provide “comparable safety requirements” (75 FR 47921).
As revised, paragraph § 1926.952(c)(2) requires employers using digger derricks for subpart V work and, thus, not subject to the requirements of subpart CC of 29 CFR part 1926, to comply with the requirements in § 1910.269. OHSA also is clarifying that paragraph (c)(2) applies in addition to, not in place of, the general requirement in § 1926.952(c) that all equipment (including digger derricks) must comply with subpart O of 29 CFR part 1926. As noted in the preamble to the subpart CC final rule, OSHA currently is developing a rule that will amend subpart V to avoid inconsistencies between subpart V of the construction standards and § 1910.269 (see 70 FR 34822 (June 15, 2005)). Pending completion of that rulemaking, digger derricks excluded from subpart CC of 29 CFR 1926 will be subject to the same requirements regardless of whether employers use them for work covered by subpart V or work covered by § 1910.269, and regardless of whether employers use them for pole work or other subpart V work.
The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act; 29 U.S.C. 651et al.) 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 (29 U.S.C. 654(b), 655(b)). An occupational safety or health standard is a standard 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 employment and places of employment” (29 U.S.C. 652(8)). A standard is reasonably necessary or appropriate within the meaning of Section 652(8) if it substantially reduces or eliminates significant risk (seeIndustrial Union Department, AFL-CIOv.American Petroleum Institute,448 U.S. 607 (1980)).
This proposed rule does not impose any additional requirements on employers. Because OSHA previously determined that the Cranes and Derricks in Construction standard substantially reduces a significant risk (see 75 FR 47913), it is unnecessary for the Agency to make additional findings on risk for the purposes of this minor amendment to the digger-derrick exemption (see,e.g., Public Citizen Health Research Groupv.Tyson,796 F.2d 1479, 1502 n.16 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (rejecting the argument that OSHA must “find that each and every aspect of its standard eliminates a significant risk”).
In the FEA for the final rule (OSHA-2007-0066-0422), the Agency estimatedthat there were about 10,000 crane operators in NAICS 221110 Electric Power Generation, and about 20,000 crane operators in NAICS 221120 Electric Power Transmission, Control, and Distribution. OSHA based these figures on estimates of the number of construction work crews in these industries from its subpart V FEA, with an allowance (to assure maximum flexibility) that there be three trained crane operators for every work crew. Based on submissions to the record, OSHA estimated that 85 percent of these 30,000 operators (25,500) worked on digger derricks, while 15 percent of the operators operated truck-mounted cranes, or boom trucks; therefore, a total of 25,500 digger-derrick operators would require operator certification.
3Based on the size of digger derricks and EEI's descriptions of digger-derrick activities, OSHA understands that the vast majority of digger-derrick use for construction activity in the electric-utility industry will involve transmission and distribution work subject to subpart V of 29 CFR part 1926. Employers categorized under NAICS 221120 generally conduct electric-transmission and -distribution work. However, OSHA is including digger derricks under NAICS 221110, which is the SIC code for power generation, because some employers may be under that SIC code because their primary work is in that area, but those employers also may engage in transmission work covered by subpart V. Because the record does not indicate that employers use digger derricks for power-generation construction activities, OSHA assumes that the use of digger derricks under NAICS 221110 is for subpart V work.
Because this proposed rule estimates cost savings of $21.6 million per year, this proposed rule is not economically significant within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735). The proposed rule does not impose additional costs on any private-sector or public-sector entity, and does not meet any of the criteria for an economically significant or major rule specified by Executive Order 12866 and the relevant statutes. This rule is not a “major rule” under Section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801et seq.).
OSHA developed this proposed rule consistent with the provisions of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. Accordingly, this proposed rule follows closely the principle of EO 13563 that agencies should use new data developed after completion of a rulemaking (retrospective analysis) to determine if a regulation “should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed.” In this case, review of data submitted after completion of the initial rulemaking provided OSHA with the opportunity to streamline a rule by dropping its application to digger derricks, thereby saving the industry an estimated $21.6 million per year. As described previously, this action removes duties and costs for the electric-utility industry, and does not impose any new duties on any employer. Because small entities will have reduced costs as a result of this proposed rule, the Agency certifies that the final standard would not impose significant economic costs on a substantial number of small entities.
A standard is technologically feasible when the protective measures it requires already exist, when available technology can bring the protective measures into existence, or when that technology is reasonably likely to develop (seeAmerican Textile Mfrs. Institutev.OSHA,452 U.S. 490, 513 (1981) (ATMI);American Iron and Steel Institutev.OSHA,939 F.2d 975, 980 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (AISI)). This proposed rule does not require any additional protective measures. In the original FEA, OSHA found the standard to be technologically feasible (75 FR 48079). OSHA concludes that this revision is feasible as well because it reduces or removes current requirements on employers.
This proposed rule, which expands the digger-derrick exemption, does not require any additional collection of information or alter the substantive requirements detailed in the 2010 ICR. The only impact on the collection of information will be a reduction in the number of entities collecting information. Accordingly, OSHA does not believe it is necessary to submit a new ICR to OMB. OSHA will identify any reduction in burden hours when it renews the ICR.
Interested parties may comment on OSHA's determination that this proposal contains no additional paperwork requirements by sending their written comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 726 Jackson Place, NW., Washington, DC 20503. The Agency also encourages commenters to submit their comments on this paperwork determination to OSHA, along with their other comments on this proposedrule, within the specified comment period.
OSHA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with the Executive Order on Federalism (Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999))), which requires that Federal agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from limiting state policy options, consult with states prior to taking any actions that would restrict state policy options, and take such actions only when clear constitutional authority exists and the problem is national in scope. Executive Order 13132 provides for preemption of state law only with the expressed consent of Congress. Federal agencies must limit any such preemption to the extent possible.
OSHA previously concluded that its promulgation of subpart CC complies with Executive Order 13132 (75 FR 48128 and 48129). Because the current rulemaking does not impose any additional burdens, that analysis applies to the revision of the digger-derrick exemption. Therefore, this proposed rule complies with Executive Order 13132. In states without OSHA-approved state plans, any standard developed from this proposed rule would impact state policy options in the same manner as every standard promulgated by OSHA. In states with OSHA-approved state plans, this proposed rulemaking does not limit state policy options.
When federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or more stringent amendment to an existing standard, the 27 states and U.S. territories with their own OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plans must amend their standards to reflect the new standard or amendment, or show OSHA why such action is unnecessary,e.g.,because an existing state standard covering this area is at least as effective in protecting employees as the new federal standard or amendment (29 CFR 1953.5(a)). The state standard must be at least as effective in protecting employees as the final federal rule. State Plan States must issue the standard within six months of the promulgation date of the final federal rule. When OSHA promulgates a new standard or amendment that does not impose additional or more stringent requirements than an existing standard, State Plan States are not required to amend their standards, although OSHA may encourage them to do so. The 27 states and U.S. territories with OSHA-approved occupational safety and health 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, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and the Virgin Islands have OSHA-approved State Plans that apply to state and local government employees only.
The amendments made in this proposed rule do not impose any new requirements on employers. Accordingly, State Plan States are not required to amend their standards to incorporate the expanded exemption specified in this proposal, but they may do so if they so choose.
When OSHA issued the final rule for Cranes and Derricks in Construction (75 FR 48130), it reviewed the rule according to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA; 2 U.S.C. 1501et seq.) and Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999)), and concluded that the final rule did not meet the definition of a “Federal intergovernmental mandate” under the UMRA. OSHA's standards do not apply to state or local governments except in states that have voluntarily adopted state plans. OSHA further noted that the rule imposed costs of over $100 million per year on the private sector and, therefore, required review under the UMRA for those costs; the Agency determined that its Final Economic Analysis met that requirement.Id.
As discussed above in Section IV.B. (Final Economic Analysis and Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis) of this preamble, this proposed rule reduces expenditures by private-sector employers. For the purposes of the UMRA, OSHA certifies that this proposed rule does not mandate that state, local, or tribal governments adopt new, unfunded regulatory obligations, or increase expenditures by the private sector of more than $100 million in any year.
OSHA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000)), and determined that it does not have “tribal implications” as defined in that order. This proposed rule does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes.
Signed at Washington, DC, on October 9, 2012. David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. Proposed Amendments to Standards
For the reasons stated in the preamble of this proposed rule, OSHA is proposing to amend 29 CFR part 1926 as follows:
PART 1926—[AMENDED] Subpart V—Power Transmission and Distribution
(2) Use of digger derricks must comply with § 1910.269 (in addition to 29 CFR part 1926, subpart O) whenever such use is excluded from 29 CFR part 1926, subpart CC, in accordance with § 1926.1400(c)(4).