SS_ Cranes and Derricks

SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR
THE INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE PROPOSED STANDARD ON
CRANES AND DERRICKS IN CONSTRUCTION
(29 CFR PART 1926, SUBPART CC) 1
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET (OMB)
CONTROL NUMBER 1218-XXXX (September 26, 2008)
JUSTIFICATION
1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative
requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation
mandating or authorizing the collection of information.

The main objective of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (i.e., “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). To achieve this
objective, the Act authorizes “the development and promulgation of occupational safety and
health standards” (29 U.S.C. 651).
Section 6(b)(7) of the Act specifies that “[a]ny standard promulgated under this subsection
shall 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, relevant
symptoms and appropriate emergency treatment, and proper conditions and precautions of
safe use or exposure.” This provision goes on to state that “[t]he Secretary, in consultation
with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, may by rule promulgated pursuant to
section 553 of title 5, United States Code, make appropriate modifications in the foregoing
requirements relating to the use of labels or other forms of warning . . . as may be warranted
by experience, information, or medical or technological developments acquired subsequent
to the promulgation of the relevant standard” (29 U.S.C. 655).
With regard to recordkeeping, the Act specifies that “[e]ach employer shall make, keep and
preserve, and make available to the Secretary . . . such records . . . as the Secretary . . . may
prescribe by regulation as necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of this Act . . . .” (29
U.S.C. 657). The Act states further that “[t]he Secretary . . . shall prescribe such rules and
regulations as [he/she] may deem necessary to carry out [his/her] responsibilities under this
Act, including rules and regulations dealing with the inspection of an employer’s
establishment” (29 U.S.C. 657).
Under the authority granted by the Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(i.e., “OSHA” or “the Agency”) is proposing to publish at 29 CFR part 1926, subpart CC, a
safety standard for the construction industry that regulates cranes and derricks (i.e., “the
1

The purpose of this Supporting Statement is to analyze and describe the burden hours and costs
associated with provisions of the proposed Standard that contain paperwork requirements. Accordingly, this
Supporting Statement does not provide information or guidance on how to comply with, or how to enforce,
these provisions.

proposed standard"). Items 2 and 12 below describe in detail the specific information
collection requirements of the proposed standard.
2. Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new
collection, indicate the actual use the Agency has made of the information received from the current
collection.

The proposed standard specifies a number of collection of information requirements.
Employers and employees would use these collections of information to help ensure the safe
operation of equipment covered by the proposed standard. The following sections describe
who would use the information collected under each requirement, as well as how they would
use it. In addition, the paperwork provisions of the proposed standard specify requirements
for developing and maintaining a number of records and other documents. Further, OSHA
compliance safety and health officers would need the information to determine, during an
inspection, whether employers are complying with the requirements. The following
discussion identifies the sections of the proposed standard that have collection of information
requirements, and describes the content and purpose of these requirements in detail.
The requirements are listed below by section. The specific paragraphs requiring the
collections of information are listed in brackets directly below the title for each section. The
full text of those paragraphs is included, along with additional headings and paragraphs
where necessary for context. The text of the paragraphs requiring information collections are
double underlined. The text of other provisions provided for context are not underlined.
A. Ground Conditions (§ 1926.1402)
[§ 1926.1402(c)(2)]
§ 1926.1402(c) -- The controlling entity shall:
*

*

*

§ 1926.1402(c)(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.
Purpose: The purpose of this exchange of information is to ensure that the equipment
operator is informed of hidden hazards beneath the equipment in set-up area so that the
operator can avoid the hazards or take precautions to prevent the equipment from being set
up unsafely.
B. Assembly/Disassembly -- Selection of Manufacturer or Employer Procedures
(§ 1926.1403)
[§ 1926.1403(b)]
−2−

§ 1926.1403 -- When assembling and disassembling equipment (or attachments), the
employer shall comply with either:
*

*

*

§ 1926.1403(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.
Purpose: The purpose of requiring use of the proposed procedures is to help ensure that the
employer and its employees use the correct information for safe assembly/disassembly of the
equipment. OSHA considers this requirement to be a usual and customary practice of the
industry as made evident by ANSI B.30.5-2000, section 5-3.1.3(k). However, OSHA also
recognizes that there may be a small number of employers who operate older models of
cranes that still would have to meet the proposed requirements as a new work practice.
OSHA is taking burden under Item 12 below for this small number of employers.
C. Assembly/Disassembly - General Requirements (applies to all assembly and
disassembly operations) (§ 1926.1404)
[§ 1926.1404(f)(2), (h)(4), (h)(6), (j), (k), and (m)(1)(i)]
§ 1926.1404(f)(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.)
Purpose: This proposed requirement would prevent struck-by and crushed-by injuries and
fatalities when pins are being removed during A/D operations. The use of these procedures
is also an element in an effective training program as required by § 1926.21(b)(2). However,
OSHA recognizes that there may be a small number of employers for whom developing an
alternative A/D plan and exchanging this information with A/D employees would be done as
a new work practice. OSHA is taking burden under Item 12 below for this small number of
employers.
§ 1926.1404(h)(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.
Purpose: This proposed verification requirement would ensure that the operator of the assist
crane avoids loading the equipment beyond its rated capacity and creating an unsafe
condition. Existing § 1926.550(a)(1) requires similar verification for several types of cranes,
−3−

including assist cranes. Therefore, OSHA believes this requirement is a usual and customary
work practice in the industry and is not taking burden for the requirement under Item 12
below.
§ 1926.1404(h)(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).
Purpose: These proposed provisions would be necessary for the equipment operator to make
determinations that would ensure crane stability during operations and, therefore, prevent
crane collapse and unplanned movement of the load. However, OSHA considers acquiring
this information to be a usual and customary rigging practice in the industry and is not taking
burden for the requirement under Item 12 below.
§ 1926.1404(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, in writing, determine this limitation which shall not be exceeded.
Purpose: Under this proposed requirement, OSHA requires that a registered professional
engineer’s calculated limitations be in writing so that these limits can be readily referenced
when the boom is going to be supported by cantilevering alone. This proposed requirement
would help ensure that the determination is made in accordance with professional
engineering practices.
§ 1926.1404(k) -- Weight of components. The weight of the components must be readily
available.
Purpose: This proposed information requirement is necessary for the operator to accurately
calculate the weight of the loads, and would prevent the equipment from being overloaded,
resulting in possible crane collapse. It also would allow riggers to select appropriate rigging
equipment. OSHA believes that manufacturers already provide this information for
components, and have it readily available during hoisting operations (i.e., it is a usual and
customary practice of the industry). Therefore, OSHA is not taking burden for the
requirement under Item 12 below.
§ 1926.1404(m)(1)(i) -- Manufacturer instructions, limitations, and specifications. Where
these are unavailable, a registered professional engineer familiar with the type of equipment
−4−

involved must approve, in writing, the selection and configuration of components;
Purpose: Improper selection or configuration of equipment can result in unplanned
movement or collapse of the equipment. The proposed requirement would ensure that
employees engaged in A/D operations can readily reference it to determine which
components to select and how to configure them. The engineer’s approval would also help
to ensure that the selections of components are made in accordance with professional
engineering practices.
D. Power line safety (up to 350 KV) – assembly and disassembly (§ 1926.1407)
[§ 1926.1407(b)(3)(i)(D) and (g)]
§ 1926.1407(b)(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:
*

*

*

(D) Give timely information to the operator so that the required clearance
distance can be maintained.
Purpose: For the proposed measure to be effective, the operator must receive the spotter’s
information in a timely manner or the operator may breach the minimum clearance distance,
which could result in injury or electrocution. OSHA considers this requirement to be a usual
and customary practice in the industry because it is specified as an alternative to
deenergizing the power line in § 1926.550(a)(15)(iv) and ASME B30.5-1968, section 53.4.5(a)(4). Therefore, OSHA is not taking burden for the requirement under Item 12 below.
§1926.1407(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.
Purpose: This proposed requirement would ensure that the operator and others who may be
in the vicinity of the equipment are adequately warned of the potential for electrocution if
any part of the machinery or load comes into contact with an energized power line.
E. Power line safety (up to 350 kV) - crane operations (§ 1926.1408)
[§ 1926.1408(b)(1), (b)(4)(ii)(D), (g), and Table A]
§ 1926.1408(b)(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.

−5−

Purpose: This proposed information exchange would ensure that the operator and other
employees who will be in the vicinity of the crane or load are informed and aware of
protective methods that will be implemented to prevent equipment from contacting energized
power lines at the worksite.
§ 1926.1408(b)(4)(ii) -- A dedicated spotter who is in continuous contact with the operator.
Where this measure is selected, the dedicated spotter must:
*

*

*

(D) -- Give timely information to the operator so that the required clearance distance
can be maintained.
Purpose: This proposed requirement would ensure the safe operation of the equipment in
the vicinity of an energized power line. A dedicated spotter must give timely information to
the operator so that the required clearance distance can be effectively maintained. OSHA
considers this requirement to be a usual and customary practice in the industry because it is
specified as an alternative to deenergizing the power line in § 1926.550(a)(15)(iv) and
ASME B30.5-1968, section 5-3.4.5(a)(4). Therefore, OSHA is not taking burden for the
requirement under Item 12 below.
§ 1926.1408(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.
−6−

(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.
Purpose: This proposed provision would require that employees be informed of potential
electrocution hazards and protective methods that the employer will implement to prevent
equipment from contacting energized power lines. OSHA considers this proposed training
provision to be performance oriented as indicated by a generic training requirement specified
by § 1926.21(b)(2) and, therefore, is not taking burden for the requirement under Item 12
below.
§1926.1408, Table A, minimum clearance distance that must be maintained for over 1,000
(nominal, kV, alternating current) -- as established by the utility owner/operator or registered
professional engineer who is a qualified person with respect to electrical power transmission
and distribution
Purpose: This proposed information requirement is necessary to ensure that minimum
clearance distances for employees performing work in the vicinity of power lines of over
1000 kV are accurately determined only by qualified persons, thereby preventing employee
electrocutions.
G. Power line safety (0ver 350 kV) (§ 1926.1409)
[All of § 1926.1409]
§ 1926.1409 -- The requirements of §§ 1926.1407 and 1408 apply to power lines over 350
kV, except that wherever the distance “20 feet” is specified, the distance “50 feet” shall be
substituted.
Purpose: This proposed provision serves the same purpose identified above for proposed §§
1926.1407 and 1408. Therefore, the paperwork burdens for this proposed section will be
included the burdens calculated for proposed §§ 1926.1407 and 1408.
H. Power line safety (all voltages)- crane operations closer than Table A zone (§
−7−

1926.1410)
[§ 1926.1410(b), (c)(1), (d) introductory text, (d)(2)(iv), (e), (f), and (j)]
§1926.1410 -- 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 to an energized power line is prohibited, except where the employer
demonstrates that the following requirements are met:
*

*

*

§ 1926.1410(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.
Purpose: The methods of protection proposed in § 1926.1410 may substitute for methods
proposed in § 1926.1408 only when the employer makes an infeasibility determination in
accordance with proposed § 1926.1410(b). The information obtained from the utility
owner/operator under § 1926.1410(b) citied information is necessary to make an infeasibility
determination. OSHA considers this exchange of information a confirmation of information
and is not taking burden for the requirement under Item 12 below.
§ 1926.1410(c)(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.
Purpose: The Agency believes the methods of protection specified in proposed § 1926.1410
are appropriate substitutes for the methods specified in proposed § 1926.1408 only when the
employer makes the required infeasibility determination. Therefore, obtaining the specified
information is necessary to make further determinations that could affect the safe operation
of the equipment in the vicinity of energized power lines.
§ 1926.1410(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:

*

*

*

−8−

(2) A dedicated spotter who is in continuous contact with the operator. The
dedicated spotter must:
*

*

*

(iv) -- Give timely information to the operator so that the required clearance
distance can be maintained.
Purpose: This proposed provision ensures that qualified persons contribute to planning
procedures that address the safe operation of equipment in the vicinity of energized power
lines (e.g., no closer than the minimum approach distances specified by Table A of this
proposed subpart). OSHA recognizes that although pre-shift meetings are usual and
customary practices in the industry, meetings with the utility owners/operators may not be
usual and customary. Therefore, OSHA is taking burden for meetings with utility
owners/operators under Item 12 below.
The requirement in proposed § 1926.1410(d)(iv) would ensure the safe operation of
equipment being operated in the vicinity of an energized power line. A dedicated spotter
must give timely information to the operator so that the required clearance distance can be
effectively maintained. OSHA considers this required exchange of information to be a usual
and customary practice in the industry because it is specified as an alternative to
deenergizing the power line in § 1926.550(a)(15)(iv) and ASME B30.5-1968 section 53.4.5(a)(4).
§ 1926.1410(e) -- The procedures developed to comply with paragraph (d) of this section are
documented and immediately available on-site.
Purpose: This proposed documentation requirement would ensure that these procedures are
available to be used as a reference when hoisting operations are conducted.
§ 1926.1410(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.
Purpose: This proposed meeting requirement is necessary to help ensure that the operator
and other employees understand this critical information. OSHA recognizes that although
pre-shift meetings are usual and customary practices in the industry, meetings with utility
owners/operators may not be usual and customary. Therefore, OSHA is taking burden for
meetings with utility owners/operators under Item 12 below.
§ 1926.1410(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
−9−

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.
Purpose: This proposed requirement would ensure that the employer communicates any
modifications to safety procedures to employees who must work in the vicinity of operating
equipment and energized power lines. OSHA recognizes that some employers will conduct
these meetings as a new work practice and, therefore, is taking burden for these employers in
Item 12 below.
I. Power line safety - while traveling (§ 1926.1411)
[§ 1926.1411(b)(4)(iii) and Table T]
§ 1926.1411(b)(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:
*

*

*

§ 1926.1411(b)(4)(iii) -- Give timely information to the operator so that the required
clearance distance can be maintained.
Purpose: For this proposed provision to be effective, the operator must receive the spotter’s
information in a timely manner or the operator may breach the minimum clearance distance,
resulting in injury or electrocution. OSHA considers this requirement to be a usual and
customary practice in the industry as it is specified as an alternative to deenergizing the
power line in § 1926.550(a)(15)(iv) and ASME B30.5-1968 section 5-3.4.5(a)(4).
§ 1926.1411, Table T, minimum clearance distance that must be maintained for over 1,000
(nominal, kV, alternating current) -- as established by the utility owner/operator or registered
professional engineer who is a qualified person with respect to electrical power transmission
and distribution)
Purpose: This proposed information requirement is necessary to ensure that the minimum
clearance distances for employees performing work in the vicinity of power lines of over
1000 kV are accurately determined only by qualified persons.
J. Inspections (§ 1926.1412)
[§ 1926.1412(a)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii)(A), (c)(2)(i), (e)(3)(i) and (ii), (f)(6), (f)(7), (g), and (h)](i)]
§ 1926.1412(a)(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, load-sustaining
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
−10−

to initial use. The inspection shall meet the following requirements:
§ 1926.1412(a)(1)(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).
Purpose: This proposed requirement ensures that the person performing the inspection of
modified equipment gets the information provided in the approval documents required in
proposed § 1926.1434. Having this information would help the inspector ensure that the
equipment is in safe operating condition after the modification has been completed.
§ 1926.1412(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 in-use 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:
*

*

*

(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.
Purpose: This proposed provision would ensure that employers prevent unsafe
repairs/adjustments of the equipment by using only the determinations made by an RPE.
§ 1926.1412(c)(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.
Purpose: To prevent unsafe use of equipment, this proposed requirement would ensure that
−11−

employers use only equipment configurations determined to be safe by an RPE or a qualified
person.
§ 1926.1412(e)(1) -- Each month the equipment is in service it shall be inspected in
accordance with paragraph (d) (shift inspections) of this section.
*

*

*

§ 1926.1412(e)(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.
Purpose: This proposed documentation requirement would ensure that the employer has a
reliable inspection system in place. In addition, it would notify and/or remind the individual
conducting monthly inspections to check deficiencies identified in the annual/comprehensive
inspection as needing follow-up monitoring (see proposed paragraph (f)(6) of this section).
Finally, the documentation would be a reference for tracking changes in the condition of the
equipment from month to month.
The three-month retention requirement in proposed §1926.1412(e)(3)(ii) would increase the
likelihood that employers will implement systems for conducting and responding to
inspections; failure to do so would be apparent if a record was not made. Requiring the
signature of the inspector would induce the inspector to ensure that the inspection was
conducted correctly. In addition, this proposed requirement would create a record that the
employer could use to track developing problems so that they can be corrected in time to
ensure continued safe operation of the equipment.
§ 1926.1412(f)(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.
Purpose: This proposed documentation requirement would help ensure that employers
respond appropriately to deficiencies identified in annual/comprehensive inspections. This
proposed requirement also would ensure that a deficiency that is not yet a safety hazard, but
may develop into one, would be monitored on a monthly basis so that developing hazards
would be communicated to appropriate personnel and corrected before endangering
−12−

employees.
§ 1926.1412(f)(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.
Purpose: This proposed documentation requirement would ensure that the employer has a
reliable inspection system in place. Safety would also be promoted by ensuring that a record
of the items checked and the inspection results are maintained for at least 12 months so that
the employer can track past deficiencies and potential hazards associated with the equipment.
This information would help the qualified person assess the equipment in subsequent
annual/comprehensive inspections.
§ 1926.1412(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.
Purpose: These proposed inspection and documentation requirements are necessary to help
ensure that critical items and components of equipment used in severe service are effectively
monitored to prevent failures.
§ 1926.1412(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.
Purpose: These proposed inspection and documentation requirements are necessary to help
identify and facilitate monitoring of problems with equipment that has not been in regular
use. OSHA believes this provision will help protect employees from hazards that may occur
−13−

when worn or damaged equipment is used without an effective inspection.
K. Wire Rope—Inspection (§ 1926.1413)
[§ 1926.1413(a)(4)(ii)(A), (a)(4)(iii)(F), (a)(4)(v), (b)(3), and (c)(4)]
§ 1926.1413(a)(2)(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.
*

*

*

*

*

§ 1926.1413(a)(4)(ii) -- If a deficiency in Category II is identified, the employer shall comply
with Option A or Option B, 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.
Purpose: Option A of this proposed section was designed to recognize manufacturers’
expertise in determining wire rope removal criteria. The proposed provision would help
protect employees from hazards that may occur when worn or damaged wire ropes are used,
including crushed-by and struck-by hazards resulting from equipment failure or falling loads.
§ 1926.1413(a)(4)(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
−14−

implemented:
*

*

*

§ 1926.1413(a)(4)(iii)(F) -- The qualified person’s findings and procedures in
paragraphs (a)(4)(iii)(A) through (D) of this section are documented.
Purpose: This proposed documentation requirement would ensure that the individual
conducting shift inspections could refer to the written parameters set by the qualified person
to confirm the safe operating condition of the equipment.
§ 1926.1413(a)(4)(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 taggedout, in accordance with § 1926.1417(f)(1), until the wire rope is repaired or replaced.
Purpose: This proposed tag-out requirement would ensure that individuals are notified that a
wire rope is damaged. Tagging-out a damaged wire rope would prevent individuals from
operating the equipment having a damaged wire rope.
§ 1926.1413(b)(1) -- Each month an inspection shall be conducted in accordance with
paragraph (a) (wire rope shift inspection) of this section.
*

*

*

§ 1926.1413(b)(3) -- The inspection shall be documented according to § 1926.1412(e)(3)
(monthly inspection documentation).
Purpose: This proposed documentation requirement would ensure that the employer has a
reliable wire rope inspection system in place. In addition, it would serve to notify and/or
remind the individual conducting the monthly wire rope inspection to check deficiencies that
were identified in the annual/comprehensive wire rope inspection as needing follow-up
monitoring (see proposed § 1926.1413(c)(3)(ii)). Finally, the documentation would allow
employers to track changes in the condition of the damaged wire rope from month to month.
OSHA believes that making this proposed requirement concurrent with the monthly
inspection-documentation requirement for the equipment would lessen the overall paperwork
burden for both requirements.
§ 1926.1413(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 § 1926.1413(a) (shift inspection) of this section.
*

*

*

−15−

(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.
*

*

*

(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).
Purpose: The requirement in proposed 1926.1413(c)(3)(ii) would help ensure that
employers respond appropriately to deficiencies identified in the annual/comprehensive
inspection. In addition, this proposed requirement would create a record that the employer
could use on a monthly basis to track developing problems so that they can be corrected in
time to ensure continued safe operation of the equipment.
The provision in proposed 1926.1413(c)(4) is necessary to ensure that the crane operator can
confirm that the required annual/comprehensive wire-rope inspection used with the
equipment has been completed, including identification of wire-rope deficiencies and trends
in wire-rope wear. The results of this annual inspection will be accessible for at least twelve
months to help employers and wire-rope inspectors prevent potential equipment failures.
Making these documentation requirements concurrent with the annual/comprehensive
equipment inspection-documentation requirement would lessen the overall paperwork burden
associated with both documentation requirements.
L. Wire Rope – Selection and installation criteria (§ 1926.1414)
[§ 1926.1414(c)(2)(iii), (c)(3)(i), and (c)(3)(iii)]
§ 1926.1414(c) -- Rotation resistant ropes.
§ 1926.1414(c)(2) -- Requirements.
*

*

*

(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.
Purpose: This proposed requirement would ensure that the technical expertise of
manufacturers is included in making determinations about minimum safety factors for wire
rope. Employers would reference these safety factors to determine if a wire rope can be used
−16−

safely under different lift conditions.
§1926.1414(c)(3)(i) -- A qualified person shall inspect the rope in accordance with paragraph
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.
Purpose: Proposing to document the qualified person’s determination regarding wire-rope
safety following an inspection conducted under proposed paragraph 1413(a) would ensure
that using a damaged wire rope will not result in a safety hazard
§1926.1414(c)(3)(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.
Purpose: Documenting each lift completed with a damaged wire rope as proposed by this
provision allows the qualified person to assess deterioration of the wire rope over time based
on how the rope is used. This assessment would enable the employer to identify lifts that
may increase the rate of deterioration and, by avoiding these lifts, improve wire-rope safety.
M. Safety Devices (§ 1926.1415)
[§ 1926.1415(a)(1)(ii)]
§1926.1415(a)(1)(ii) -- If a built-in crane level indicator is not working properly, it shall be
tagged-out or removed.
Purpose: Tagging-out a deficient crane-level indicator is essential to communicate the
condition of the level to the operator, and to prevent the operation of the equipment under
unsafe conditions. If a malfunctioning crane-level indicator is not tagged-out, the operator
may rely on it and set up the equipment in an unsafe manner, causing the equipment to tip
over. OSHA considers this tag-out requirement to be a usual and customary work practice in
the industry because tagging-out malfunctioning construction equipment is specified by §
1926.20(b)(3). Therefore, OSHA is not taking burden for this proposed paperwork
requirement in Item 12 below.
N. Operational Aids (§ 1926.1416)
[§ 1926.1416(d) introductory text, (e) introductory text, and (e)(4)]
§ 1926.1416(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.

−17−

Purpose: This proposed requirement is necessary as an administrative control to ensure that
employers order replacements for, and replace in a timely manner, defective operational aids
that remain in service. OSHA believes that employers in the industry, as a usual and
customary practice, maintain for accounting purposes purchasing orders and receipts for
parts, and that they will use these documents to meet this proposed requirement.
Accordingly, OSHA is not taking a paperwork burden for this proposed requirement..
§ 1926.1416(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.
Purpose: This proposed provision serves as an administrative control to ensure that
employers order replacements for, and replace in a timely manner, defective operational aids
on equipment that remains in service. OSHA believes that employers in the industry, as a
usual and customary practice, maintain for accounting purposes purchasing orders and
receipts for parts, and that they will use these documents to meet this proposed requirement.
Therefore, OSHA is not taking a paperwork burden for this proposed requirement.
§ 1926.1416(e)(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.
Purpose: Providing the required information to the operator, prior to the lift, is essential to
the safe handling of the load and operation of the equipment. OSHA is not taking a
paperwork burden for this provision because the Agency considers it to be a usual and
customary practice in the industry as indicated by a similar requirement specified by ASME
B30.5- 2000, section 5-3.2.1.1(c).
O. Operation (§ 1926.1417)
[§ 1926.1417(b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), (c)(1), (e)(1)(iv), (f)(1), (j), and (o)(3)(i)]
§ 1926.1417(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.
−18−

(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.
Purpose: When the manufacturer’s procedures are unavailable, these proposed information
requirements would ensure that: the employer develops procedures for equipment operation;
a qualified person (with respect to the equipment involved) develops procedures for
operational controls, and a RPE develops procedures related to the capacity of the
equipment. The proposed documentation requirements would ensure that
modifications/additions to the equipment do not adversely affect safety.
§ 1926.1417(c)(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.
Purpose: The operator needs to have the information required by this proposed provision
immediately available to operate the crane safely. For example, the equipment’s capacity
varies with factors such as boom length, radius, and boom angle. This proposed provision
would decrease crane accidents by preventing crane operators from performing operations
beyond a crane’s capacity and operating the equipment beyond the recommended operating
speed. It also would increase operator awareness of special hazards related to a specific
piece of equipment. OSHA considers this proposed information requirement to be a usual
and customary practice in the industry because a similar requirement is specified by §
1926.550(a)(2). Therefore, OSHA is not taking a paperwork burden for this proposed
requirement in Item 12 below.
§ 1926.1417(e)(1) -- The operator shall not leave the controls while the load is suspended,
except where the following are met:
*

*

*

(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.
Purpose: The proposed information-exchange requirement would ensure that employees are
made aware (through the use of a barricade or caution lines, and notices) that the area under
which the load will be suspended must be avoided to protect them from the hazard of a
falling load. Although holding a load while equipment is unattended is not explicitly
addressed in subpart N of 29 CFR part 1926, OSHA considers barricading hazardous areas
−19−

around the equipment a usual and customary practice in the industry, similar to barricades
required under § 1926.550(a)(9) for pinch points. Also, using barricades under these
specified conditions is allowed as an option under ASME B30.5- 2000 section 5-3.2.1.3 to a
provision prohibiting employers from holding the load during a lift. Accordingly, OSHA is
not taking a paperwork burden for this proposed requirement in Item 12 below.
§ 1926.1417(f)(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.
Purpose: This proposed tagging-out requirement is needed to prevent operation of
equipment under unsafe conditions. OSHA is not taking a paperwork burden for this
proposed provision because it is required by § 1926.20(b)(3), thereby making it a usual and
customary practice in the industry.
§ 1926.1417(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.
Purpose: This proposed information-exchange requirement would ensure that the operator is
familiar with the equipment and relays the need for necessary repairs/adjustments of the
equipment to individuals designated to receive the information. This requirement would help
the employer schedule necessary servicing of the equipment, thereby preventing accidents
caused by equipment malfunctions. OSHA is not taking a paperwork burden for this
proposed requirement because the Agency considers the requirement to be a usual and
customary practice in the industry as indicated by a similar requirement specified by ASME
B30.5-2000, section 5-3.1.3(i).
§ 1926.1417(o)(3)(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
provided to the operator prior to the lift
Purpose: This requirement is proposed to help prevent overloading the crane. In the
absence of a load weighing device, load-moment indicator, rated-capacity indicator, or ratedcapacity limiter, the employer must provide the operator with this information so that
overloading of the equipment can be prevented. OSHA considers this proposed informationexchange requirement to be a usual and customary practice of the industry as indicated by a
similar requirements specified by ASME B30.5-2000, section 5-3.2.1.1(c) and ASME B30.51968, section 5.3.2.1. Consequently, OSHA is not taking a paperwork burden for this
−20−

proposed requirement.
P. Signals, Voice – additional requirements (§ 1926.1421)
[§ 1926.1421(a)]
§ 1926.1421(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.
Purpose: The required pre-lift meeting to discuss voice signals would ensure that the
individuals necessary for the lift understand the voice signals and avoid miscommunications.
Any miscommunication related to the use of voice signals could lead to unsafe operation of
the equipment. OSHA considers this proposed information-exchange requirement to be a
usual and customary practice in the industry as indicated by a similar requirement in ASME
B30.5-2000, section 5-3.3.3. Therefore, OSHA is not taking a paperwork burden for this
proposed requirement.
Q. Signals – Hand Signal Chart (§ 1926.1422)
[Entire § 1926.1422]
§ 1926.1422 -- Signals – hand signal chart. Hand signal charts must be either posted on the
equipment or readily available at the site.
Purpose: This proposed exchange-of-information requirement would enable employees to
refer to an established reference for hand signals when a question arises about what hand
signal is appropriate or when they are unsure of what a hand signal means. Therefore, the
signal chart aides the employer in preventing hand-signal-related miscommunications and the
resulting unsafe conditions that may occur during equipment operations. OSHA is not taking
a paperwork burden for this proposed requirement because it considers it to be a usual and
customary practice in the industry as indicated by a similar requirement in § 1926.550(a)(4)
and section 5-3.3.2 of ASME B30.5-1968 and ASME B30.5-2000.
R. Fall Protection (§ 1926.1423)
[§ 1926.1423(h)(2)]
§ 1926.1423(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:
*

*

*

(2) The equipment operator shall be at the work site and informed that the equipment
−21−

is being used for this purpose.
Purpose: This proposed information-exchange requirement would ensure that the operator is
aware that an employee will be connected to the load line of the equipment and that the
operator will be available to make any adjustments necessary for safety, such as moving the
boom or load line to appropriately position the anchorage point.
S. Work Area Control (§ 1926.1424)
[§ 1926.1424(a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii)]
§ 1926.1424(a)(2)(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.
Purpose: This proposed exchange of information would ensure that employees are made
aware that they must avoid these hazardous areas. OSHA considers this proposed training
provision to be performance oriented as indicated by a generic training requirement specified
by § 1926.21(b)(2) and, therefore, is not taking a paperwork burden for it.
§ 1926.1424(a)(2)(ii) -- Erect and maintain control lines, warning lines, railings or similar
barriers to mark the boundaries of the hazard areas. Exception: where it is 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.
Purpose: Although OSHA considers barricading hazardous areas around the equipment a
usual and customary practice in the industry, posting the required signs is not. The proposed
posting requirement would notify employers in the vicinity of the equipment about the
hazardous swing radius areas they must recognize and avoid. Accordingly, OSHA is not
taking a paperwork burden for the proposed barricading requirement, but is taking a burden
for the proposed sign-posting requirement.
T. Operator Qualification and Certification (§ 1926.1427)
[§ 1926.1427(a), (b), (c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(ii), (c)(2)(i), (c)(5)(ii), (c)(5)(iii), (c)(5)(iv), (e)(1), and
(h)(1)]
§ 1926.1427(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 (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
−22−

with a rated hoisting/lifting capacity of 2000 pounds or less (see § 1926.1441).
Purpose: Compliance with this proposed certification requirement would ensure that the
equipment will be operated only by qualified persons, thereby reducing the likelihood of
injuries from improperly operated equipment.
Note: OSHA believes that this proposed requirement would be a condition of employment,
and, therefore, is not taking a paperwork burden for it. However, most employers would
likely maintain file copies of the certifications for equipment operators, which OSHA
considers to be a paperwork burden.
§ 1926.1427(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.

*

*

*

*

*

*

(5) Deficiencies. If the auditor determines that there is a significant deficiency
−23−

(“deficiency”) in the program, the employer shall ensure that:
*

*

*

(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.
*

*

*

*

*

Purpose: The testing requirements proposed in paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) and (c)(2)(i) of this
section would help ensure that operators are capable of operating the equipment safely. The
proposed paragraphs require an auditor to determine that the tests and the administration of
the employer’s testing procedures meet nationally-recognized test administration standards.
OSHA assumes that most auditors will document this determination.
The exchange of information required in proposed paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of this section would
ensure that the minimum qualifications specified by § 1926.1427(j) are being adequately and
consistently tested. OSHA assumes that most auditors will document the results of this reaudit.
The documentation required in proposed paragraphs (c)(5)(iii) and (c)(5)(iv) of this section
would require the filing and maintenance of reports to facilitate enforcement of the Option 2
requirements.
§ 1926.1427(e)(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.
Purpose: The proposed documentation requirements for government licensing and auditing
would be used by employers as an administrative control for ensuring that equipment
operators meet the government licensing criteria. Similar to proposed paragraphs (b) and (d)
of this section, OSHA believes that, as a practical matter, most employers would choose to
maintain file copies of each operator’s license as a matter of administrative expediency.
Therefore, OSHA assumes that a copy of this license would be retained and maintained by
the employer.
−24−

§ 1926.1427(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.
Purpose: This proposed written-literacy requirement would be an essential administrative
means for ensuring 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.
U. Signal Person Qualifications (§ 1926.1428)
[§ 1926.1428(a)(2), (a)(3), and (b)]
§ 1926.1428(a)(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.
Purpose: Compliance with this proposed documentation requirement would serve as an
administrative tool for ensuring that the employee is adequately trained and evaluated.
§ 1926.1428(a)(3) -- The documentation for whichever option is used shall be available
while the signal person is employed by the employer.
Purpose: OSHA expects that employers will maintain file copies of the training
documentation required in proposed § 1926.1428(a)(1) and (2) to ensure that their employees
have received the required training. The proposed document-availability requirement in
proposed § 1926.1428(a)(3) ensures that the signal person is properly trained while
employed by the employer.
§ 1926.1428(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 re-training is
provided and a re-assessment is made in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section that
confirms that the individual meets the Qualification Requirements.
Purpose: OSHA believes that it is necessary to retrain a signal person who indicates that he
or she does not possess the requisite qualifications for that job. The proposed requirement
would prevent miscommunication and the potential for resulting injury.
V. Training (§ 1926.1430)
−25−

[§ 1926.1430(a), (b), and (c)(1)]
§1926.1430(a) -- Overhead power lines. Employees specified in § 1926.1408(g)(Power line
safety; training) shall be trained in accordance with the requirements of that paragraph.
Purpose: These proposed training requirements for operators, crew, and dedicated spotters
would ensure that these employees recognize the identified hazards and understand how to
avoid them or protect themselves. OSHA considers these proposed training requirements to
be performance oriented, as well as similar to the requirements in § 1926.21(b)(2) and,
therefore, is not taking paperwork burden for them.
§1926.1430(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.
Purpose: Under proposed § 1926.1428(c)(5), employees must demonstrate that they meet
the requirements of proposed § 1926.1428(c)(1) through (c)(4) through a verbal or written
test, and through a practical test. This proposed training requirement would ensure that
signal persons understand how their duties affect the safe operation of the equipment, and
that they can perform those duties safely.
§1926.1430(c)(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 re-qualification or re-certification or if the operator does not pass a qualification or
certification test.
Purpose: Proposed paragraph 1427(j) of this section requires the employer to determine
through written and practical tests 2 that the individual has the knowledge and skills needed to
safely operate equipment. OSHA is not taking a paperwork burden for this proposed
requirement because it considers the required training to be performance oriented, as well as
similar to the requirements in § 1926.20(b)(4).
W. Hoisting Personnel (§ 1926.1431)
[§ 1926.1431(e)(12), (o)(3), (p)(4), (r), and (s)]
§1926.1431(e)(12) -- The weight of the platform and its rated capacity shall be
conspicuously posted on the platform with a plate or other permanent marking.
Purpose: This proposed information requirement would ensure that the employer will have
adequate information regarding the capacity of the personnel platform to prevent equipment
failures that could result from overloading the personnel platform. OSHA considers the
proposed posting requirement to be a usual and customary practice in the industry as
2 OSHA does not consider this an information collection burden as it is usual and customary to
instruct employees on work area hazards, and is currently required under 1926.21(b)(2).
−26−

manufacturers post this information in accordance with § 1926.550(g)(4)(ii)(I). Therefore,
OSHA is not taking a paperwork burden for this proposed requirement.
§ 1926.1431(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:
*

*

*

(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, substitute them with “boatswains
chair.”
(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.
Purpose: OSHA recognizes that there is a heightened danger when hoisting personnel in
drill shafts. The proposed pre-lift meeting requirement (required by referenced §
1926.1431(m)(1)) would facilitate communication among employees regarding the safe
operation of the personnel-hoisting equipment during the performance of drilling operations.
§1926.1431(p)(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, substitute them with “boatswains chair.”
−27−

(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.
Purpose: The proposed pre-lift meeting requirement (required by referenced §
1926.1431(m)(1)) would facilitate communication among employees regarding the safe
operation of the personnel-hoisting equipment when boatswain’s chairs will be used.
§ 1926.1431(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, substitute them with
“marine hoisted personnel transfer device.”
(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.
Purpose: The proposed pre-lift meeting requirement (required by referenced §
1926.1431(m)(1)) would facilitate communication among employees regarding the safe
operation of the personnel-hoisting equipment when marine-hoisting personnel-transfer
devices will be used.
§ 1926.1431(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
−28−

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, substitute them with “boatswains
chair.”
(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 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.
Purpose: OSHA recognizes that there is a heightened danger when hoisting personnel in
storage tanks, shafts, and chimneys. The proposed pre-lift meeting requirement (required by
referenced § 1926.1431(m)(1)) would facilitate communication among employees regarding
the safe operation of the personnel-hoisting equipment when boatswain’s chairs will be used.
OSHA believes it is a usual and customary practice in the industry to conduct the required
meeting when boatswain’s chairs are used. Therefore, OSHA is not taking a paperwork
burden for this proposed requirement.
X. Multiple Lifts (§ 1926.1432)
[§ 1926.1432(a) and (b)(2)]
§ 1926.1432(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:

−29−

(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.
Purpose: The proposed exchange of information would ensure that the hazards involved
with a multiple lift are identified in, and eliminated according to, a plan developed by a
qualified person. 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. OSHA considers this proposed
requirement to be a usual and customary practice in the industry as indicated by a similar
provision in ASME B30.5-1968, section 5-3.2.3(l). Accordingly, OSHA is not taking a
paperwork burden for this proposed requirement.
§ 1926.1432(b)(2) -- The supervisor must review the plan with all workers who will be
involved with the operation.
Purpose: This proposed exchange-of-information requirement would typically involve the
signal person, rigging crew, crane operator, and sometimes laborers, who would meet to
ensure that everyone understands the plan and how the operation will be conducted. This
meeting is important for employees to understand how the plan will work, including their
responsibilities and the responsibilities of others, which would help ensure that the diverse
elements of the operation are coordinated. OSHA considers this proposed requirement to be
a usual and customary practice in the industry as indicated by the training required under §
1926.21(b)(2), and a similar provision in ASME B30.5-1968, section 5-3.2.3(l). Therefore,
OSHA is not taking a paperwork burden for this proposed requirement.
Y. Design, Construction and Testing (§ 1926.1433)
[§ 1926.1433(d)(1)(ii) and (d)(5)]
§ 1926.1433(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:
*

*

*

(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,
−30−

Figure 11).
Purpose: This proposed exchange of information is necessary to ensure that equipment
operators have immediate access in the cab to information that they need to make
determinations that could affect the safe operation of the equipment. OSHA considers this
proposed requirement to be a usual and customary practice in the industry as indicated by
similar provisions in § 1926.550(a)(2) and ASME B30.5-2000, section 5-1.1.3(a).
Consequently, OSHA is not taking a paperwork burden for this proposed requirement.
§ 1926.1433(d)(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.
Purpose: These proposed postings requirements require employers to warn employees that
they must avoid or protect themselves from the specified hazardous conditions. OSHA
considers this proposed requirement to be a usual and customary practice in the industry as
indicated by similar provisions in § 1926.550(a)(2) and ASME B30.5-2000, section 51.1.3(a). Therefore, OSHA is not taking a paperwork burden for this proposed requirement.
Z. Equipment Modifications (§ 1926.1434)
[§ 1926.1434(a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), (a)(2)(i), (a)(3), and (b)]
§ 1926.1434(a)(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.
*

*

*

Purpose: The approval requirement under proposed paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section,
which addresses modifications or additions that may affect the capacity or safe operation of
the equipment, is necessary to ensure that proposed modifications/additions would not result
in an unsafe condition. The approval must be in writing, and would be used as an
administrative tool to ensure that an RPE approved the modifications/additions in accordance
with professional engineering practices. Similarly, the proposed requirement to modify load
charts and other crucial data to accord with the modification/addition would provide accurate
information about the equipment to the operator so that the equipment can be operated within
its lifting capacity.
§ 1926.1434(a)(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,
−31−

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.
Purpose: This proposed approval requirement would ensure that, in the event that a
manufacturer refuses to review a proposed modification/addition request, only an RPE will
make determinations regarding proposed modifications/additions that may affect safe
operation of the equipment. Similarly, the proposed requirement to modify load charts and
other crucial data to accord with the modification/addition would provide the operator with
accurate information about the equipment so that the equipment can be operated within its
lifting capacity.
§1926.1434(a)(3) -- Unavailable manufacturer. The manufacturer is unavailable and the
requirements of paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (2)(ii) of this section are met.
Purpose: The proposed approval requirements are needed for the same reasons explained
above for proposed § 1926.1434(a)(2).
§1926.1434(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 review the request under paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
Purpose: The proposed approval requirements are needed for the same reasons explained
above for proposed § 1926.1434(a)(2). Similarly, the manufacturer’s explanation of why it
rejected the employer’s proposed modification/addition would provide the employer with an
administrative tool to verify that the manufacturer reviewed the technical merits of the
request. Requiring employers to obtain this information from the manufacturer would ensure
that employers have this information available when making further determinations that
affect the safe operation of the equipment. However, OSHA does not consider the retention
of this rejection document to be a burden on the employer because the document likely
would be generated and maintained on file by the manufacturer rather than the employer (i.e.,
the document would confirm the information provided to the employer by the manufacturer).
Therefore, OSHA is not taking a paperwork burden for this proposed requirement.
−32−

AA. Tower Cranes (§ 1926.1435)
[§ 1926.1435(c), (e)(5) introductory text, (e)(5)(v), (e)(6) introductory text, (e)(6)(vi),
(f)(2)(i), and (f)(2)(ii)]
§1926.1435(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.
Purpose: OSHA proposed this provision because wind pushing against a sign can
significantly increase the horizontal force exerted on a crane, thereby reducing the crane’s
capacity and/or compromising its stability. To operate cranes safely under windy conditions,
employers must develop information about the affects of wind on a crane’s lifting capacity in
accordance with this proposed provision when this information is not available from the
manufacturer. OSHA requires that the registered professional engineer’s approval be in
writing and in accordance with professional engineering practices so that the size and
location criteria can be readily referenced when the crane is being erected, operated, and
dismantled.
§1926.1435(e)(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 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.
Purpose: This proposed documentation requirement serves as an administrative control to
ensure that a defective Category I operational aid on equipment that remains in service has
been ordered and will be replaced in a timely manner. OSHA believes that employers
maintain purchasing orders and receipts for parts as a usual and customary accounting
practice in the industry and would use these documents to meet this proposed requirement.
Therefore, OSHA is not taking a paperwork burden for this proposed requirement.
§1926.1435(e)(5)(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.
*

*

*

−33−

§1926.1435(e)(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.
Purpose: This proposed documentation requirement is an administrative control to ensure
that a defective Category II operational aid on equipment that remains in service has been
ordered and will be replaced in a timely manner. OSHA believes that employers maintain
purchasing orders and receipts for parts as a usual and customary accounting practice of the
industry and would use these documents to meet this proposed requirement. Therefore,
OSHA is not taking a paperwork burden for this proposed requirement.
§1926.1435(e)(6)(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.
Purpose: When chosen as a specified compliance alternative, obtaining the required
information, prior to the lift, is essential to the safe handling of the load and operation of the
equipment. OSHA is not taking a paperwork burden for this requirement because it
considers the requirement to be a usual and customary practice in the industry as indicated by
a similar requirement in ASME B30.5- 2000, section 5-3.2.1.1(c).
§1926.1435(f)(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.
Purpose: The proposed calibration requirement in proposed paragraph 1926.1435(f)(2)(i)
would ensure that the employers provide the equipment necessary to conduct an accurate
load test. OSHA believes that to meet this proposed calibration requirement, employers are
most likely to test weights on the same calibrated scales that are used to verify loads that are
−34−

to be handled. Therefore, OSHA considers the proposed requirement to be a usual and
customary practice in the industry and is not taking a paperwork burden for it.
Compliance with the documentation requirement in proposed paragraph 1926.1435(f)(2)(ii)
would ensure that, in the absence of manufacturer’s instructions, effective load testing
procedures will be developed by an RPE. These instructions would help the employer
discover, prior to placing the crane into operation, any significant equipment deficiencies or
errors made during erection of the equipment. Having the required information available to
the employer would prevent inaccurate testing of the equipment that could contribute to
equipment failure. OSHA considers this load-testing requirement to be a usual and
customary work practice in the industry as indicated by the a similar requirement in
1926.550(a)(1) and (c)(5), and because manufacturers provide load-testing instructions with
the equipment. Accordingly, OSHA is not taking a paperwork burden for this proposed
requirement.
BB. Derricks (§ 1926.1436)
[§ 1926.1436(b)(3), (c)(2)(i), (c)(2)(ii), (c)(2)(iii), (d)(1), (f)(3), (g)(1)(ii), (g)(2), (g)(3),
(g)(4), and (h)]
§ 1926.1436(b)(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.
Purposes: This proposed load-chart information requirement is needed by the personnel
responsible for the operation of the equipment to calculate the parameters of a safe lift.
OSHA is not taking a paperwork burden for this proposed information requirement because it
considers the requirement to be a usual and customary practice in the industry as indicated by
similar provision in ANSI B30.6-1969, section 6-1.1.2(a).
§ 1926.1436(c)(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:

−35−

(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.
*

*

*

Purpose: These proposed information requirements would ensure that the employer has the
necessary information to construct, maintain, and operate the guy derricks safely. OSHA
considers this proposed requirement to be a usual and customary practice in the industry as
indicated by a similar provision in ASME B30.6-2003, section 6-1.2.2. Therefore, OSHA is
not taking a paperwork burden for this proposed requirement.
§ 1926.1436(d)(1) -- Load anchoring data developed by the manufacturer or a qualified
person shall be used.
Purpose: These proposed information requirements would ensure that the employer has the
necessary information to anchor guy and stiffleg derricks safely. OSHA is not taking a
paperwork burden for this proposed requirement because it considers the requirement to be a
usual and customary practice in the industry as indicated by a similar provision in ASME
B30.6-2003. section 6-1.4.3.
§ 1926.1436(f)(3) -- Load weight/capacity devices. Derricks manufactured more than one
year after the effective date of this standard with a maximum rated capacity over 6000
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.
Purpose: When chosen as a specified compliance alternative, obtaining the required
information, prior to the lift, is essential to the safe handling of the load and operation of the
equipment. OSHA considers this proposed requirement to be a usual and customary practice
in the industry as indicated by a similar requirement in ASME B30.6-2003, section 6−36−

3.3.1(b). Therefore, OSHA is not taking a paperwork burden for this proposed requirement.
§ 1926.1436(g) -- Post-assembly approval and testing – new or reinstalled derricks.
(1) -- Anchorages.
*

*

*

(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.
Purpose: Compliance with this proposed information requirement would help the employer
ensure that the derrick would not collapse due to insufficient anchoring, thereby endangering
employees in the vicinity of the derrick. The provisions in proposed paragraph (g)(1) of this
section are similar to the requirements specified by ANSI B30.6-1969, which is incorporated
by reference in 29 CFR 1926, subpart N; the provisions also are similar to requirements in
ASME B30.6-2003, section 6-2.2.1(b). For this reason, OSHA considers compliance with
this proposed information requirement to be a usual and customary practice in the industry,
and is not taking a paperwork burden for it.
§ 1926.1436(g)(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).
Purpose: The functional test required by proposed paragraph (g)(2) of this section would
identify potential equipment deficiencies or hazards prior to its use. OSHA considers this
proposed requirement to be a usual and customary practice in the industry as indicated by a
similar provision in ANSI B30.6-1969, section 6-2.2.1(a), which is incorporated by reference
in 29 CFR 1926, subpart N. Therefore, OSHA is not taking a paperwork burden for this
proposed requirement.
§1926.1436(g)(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:
−37−

(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.
Purpose: The load test required by proposed paragraph (g)(3) of this section would identify
potential equipment deficiencies or hazards while hoisting a test load prior to the
equipment’s use. OSHA is not taking a paperwork burden for this proposed requirement
because it considers the requirement to be a usual and customary practice in the industry as
indicated by a similar requirement in ASME B30.6-2003 section 6-2.2.2.
§ 1926.1436(g)(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.
Purpose: These proposed functional- and load-test documentation requirements would help
the employer identify defects in the derrick prior to use, which would prevent failures of the
equipment. Having a documented record of this testing information serves as an
administrative tool to confirm that the testing has been conducted and provides a historical
reference document for the equipment.
§ 1926.1436(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.
Purpose: The load test required by proposed paragraph (g)(4) of this section would identify
−38−

potential equipment deficiencies or hazards while hoisting a test load prior to use. OSHA
considers this proposed requirement to be a usual and customary practice in the industry as
indicated by a similar requirement in ASME B30.6-2003, section 6-2.2.2(b). Therefore,
OSHA is not taking a paperwork burden for this proposed requirement.
CC. Floating Cranes & Land Cranes on Barges (§ 1926.1437)
[§ 1926.1437(c)(2)(ii), (g), (h)(6), (m)(4), (n)(1), (n)(2), (n)(3)(i), (n)(3)(ii), (n)(5)(v), and
(n)(5)(vi)(A)]
§1926.1437(c)(2)(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.
Purpose: Although OSHA considers barricading hazardous areas around the equipment to
be a usual and customary practice in the industry, posting signs is not such a usual and
customary practice. The proposed posting requirement would notify employers in the
vicinity of the equipment about the hazardous swing radius areas they must recognize and
avoid. OSHA is taking a paperwork burden for the proposed posting requirement, but not for
the proposed barricading requirement.
§ 1926.1437(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.
Purpose: This proposed information requirement ensures that equipment operators have
immediate access in the cab to information that is needed to make determinations that could
affect the safe operation of the equipment. OSHA considers this proposed requirement to be
a usual and customary practice in the industry as indicated by a similar provision in §
1926.550(a)(2) and ASME B30.5-2000, section 5-1.1.3(a). Therefore, OSHA is not taking a
paperwork burden for this proposed requirement.
§1926.1437(h)(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
−39−

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.
Purpose: Requiring the documentation specified in proposed paragraph (h)(6) of this section
would provide employers with an administrative tool with which to monitor the condition of
specified pieces of equipment during inspections. More specifically, employers would be
able to track any deterioration of the equipment that could compromise the safety of
equipment operations.
§ 1926.1437(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:
§ 1926.1437(m)(4) -- If the equipment is employer-made, 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).
Purpose: When equipment is employer-made, this proposed documentation requirement
would serve as an administrative tool for employers to confirm that an RPE has evaluated the
equipment’s design, thereby preventing the use of unsafe equipment.
§ 1926.1437(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.

−40−

(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
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.
Purpose: The requirements in proposed § 1926.1437(n)(1) and (2) would provide the
operator with information that will enable the operator to avoid maritime conditions that
would adversely affect the safe operation of the equipment. OSHA considers this proposed
requirement to be a usual and customary practice of the industry as indicated by a similar
requirement in ASME B30.8-2004, sections 8-1.2 and 8-1.3. Therefore, OSHA is not taking
a paperwork burden for this proposed requirement.
The requirement in proposed § 1926.1437(n)(3) would provide employers with information
that would accurately portrays the decreased capacity of land cranes and derricks when
attached to flotation devices and barges. A qualified person is needed to make the required
modifications of rated capacities to ensure that this complex, technical task accounts
correctly for both the land crane/derrick capacity and the stability of vessels/flotation
devices.
§ 1926.1437(n)(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) 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 crossed-cable 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
−41−

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) 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.
−42−

(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) of this
section.
Purpose: The information required by proposed paragraph (n)(5)(v) of this section needs to
be developed to ensure that the system is designed correctly. System failure could result in
unplanned movement of the crane/derrick, with consequent injury to employees. This
proposed documentation requirement also would serve as a reference for employees who
must know and understand the parameters under which the mobile crane can be operated
safely.

DD. Overhead and Gantry Cranes (§ 1926.1438)
[§ 1926.1438(b)(2)(ii)(A)]
§ 1926.1438(b) -- Overhead and gantry cranes that are not permanently installed in a
facility.
*

*

*

(2) -- The following requirements apply to equipment identified in paragraph (b)(1)
of this section:
*

*

*

(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.
*

*

*

*

*

Purpose: One of these proposed provisions, § 1910.179(b)(5), requires that the rated load of
the crane be plainly marked on each side of the crane, and if the crane has more than one
hoisting unit, each hoist shall have its rated load marked on it or its load block, and this
marking shall be clearly legible from the ground floor. These 29 CFR part 1910
−43−

requirements were selected because each requirement is a safety requirement that applies to
this type of crane regardless of whether it is used in construction or general industry.
Compliance with this proposed labeling requirement would provide the operator with
information about load ratings of the equipment when determinations must be made that
affect the safe operation of the overhead and gantry crane. OSHA considers this proposed
requirement to be a usual and customary practice in the industry as indicated by a similar
provision in AMSE B30.2-2001, section 2-1.1.1 and, therefore, is not taking a paperwork
burden for it.
EE. Dedicated Pile Drivers (§ 1926.1439)
[§ 1926.1439(e)]
§ 1926.1439(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.
Purpose: This proposed qualification/certification requirement would ensure that the
operator can recognize and avoid hazards related to the operation of the equipment he or she
uses to perform hoisting jobs. OSHA believes that meeting this proposed requirement would
be a condition of employment, and therefore is not taking a paperwork burden for it. In
addition, OSHA expects that most employers would maintain file copies of operator
certifications for administrative purposes, with the burden hours and costs for this practice
being accounted for under § 1926.1427.
FF. Sideboom Cranes (§ 1926.1440)
[§ 1926.1440(a)]
§ 1926.1440(a) -- The provisions of this standard apply, except § 1926.1402 (Ground
conditions), § 1926.1415 (Safety devices), § 1926.1416 (Operational aids), and § 1926.1427
(Operator qualification and certification).
Purpose: Sideboom cranes would be exempted from the proposed requirements specified in
§§ 1926.1402, 1926.1415, 1926.1416, and 1926.1427 because of the limited capacity and
relative simplicity involved in the operation of sideboom cranes.
GG. Requirements for equipment with a manufacturer-rated hoisting/lifting capacity
of 2000 pounds or less (§ 1926.1441)
[§ 1926.1441(b)(2)(i)(A), (b)(2)(i)(B), 1441(c)(2)(i), (c)(2)(ii), (c)(2)(iii), (c)(3)(i), (c)(3)(ii),
(e), and (f)]
§ 1926.1441(b)(2)(i)(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
−44−

Purpose: The written approval documentation required by this proposed paragraph serves as
a reference for employees who must recognize and be protected from the hazards associated
with the equipment’s configuration. Obtaining an RPE’s written approval would ensure that
any developed instructions, recommendations, limitations, and specifications have been
evaluated and confirmed to be safe for application for the equipment.
§ 1926.1441(b)(2)(i)(B) -- Approved modifications that meet the requirements of section §
1926.1434 (Equipment modifications).
Purpose: The written documentation required by proposed § 1926.1434, as referenced in
proposed § 1926.1441(b)(2)(i)(B), serves as a reference for employees who must recognize
and be protected from the hazards associated with the equipment’s modified configuration as
approved by a qualified person.
§ 1926.1441(c)(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.
Purpose: When a manufacturer’s procedures are unavailable, the proposed documentation
requirement would ensure that an RPE has developed safe operation procedures related to the
equipment’s capacity.
§ 1926.1441(c)(3)(i) -- The load chart shall be available to the operator at the control station.
Purpose: This proposed information requirement would ensure that the operator of the
equipment will have the information necessary to calculate the parameters of a safe lift. This
proposed requirement becomes especially important on equipment with a hoisting/lifting
capability of 2000 pounds or less because this capacity can be easily exceeded. OSHA
considers this proposed requirement to be a usual and customary practice in the industry as
indicated by similar provisions in § 1926.550(a)(2) and ASME B30.5-2000, section 51.1.3(a). Therefore, OSHA is not taking a paperwork burden for this proposed requirement.
§ 1926.1441(c)(3)(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.

−45−

Purpose: The proposed information requirement would ensure that the information is
immediately available to an operator so that he or she can use it to make determinations that
would affect the safe operation of the equipment. OSHA is not taking a paperwork burden
for this proposed requirement because it considers the requirement to be a usual and
customary practice in the industry as indicated by similar requirements in § 1926.550(a)(2)
and ASME B30.5-2000, section 5-1.1.3(a)..
§ 1926.1441(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.
Purpose: This proposed training requirement would ensure that operators receive training
that would give them the ability to recognize and avoid unsafe conditions related to the
operation of the equipment. OSHA considers this proposed training requirement to be
performance-oriented, as well as covered by the generic training requirements specified by
§§ 1926.20(b)(4) and 1926.21(b)(2). Therefore, OSHA is not taking a paperwork burden for
this proposed requirement.
§ 1926.1441(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.
Purpose: This proposed training requirement would ensure that the signal person recognizes
and avoids hazards related to the operation of cranes, and understands how the performance
of his or her duties affects the safety of equipment operations. This proposed requirement
would also ensure that communication between the crane operator and the signal person is
clear and effective, and will prevent crane accidents that could be caused by an inadequately
trained signal persons. OSHA considers this proposed training provision to be performance
oriented as indicated by a generic training requirement specified by § 1926.21(b)(2) and,
therefore, is not taking burden for the requirement under Item 12 below.
3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting
this means of collection. Also describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce
burden.

Employers would be able to use automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological
information-collection techniques, or other forms of information technology when
establishing and retaining the required records. The Agency wrote the paperwork
requirements of the proposed Standard in performance-oriented language (i.e., in terms of
what data to collect, not how to document the data). However, several proposed paragraphs
of this standard would require employers to prepare written documents to: establish safe
configurations of equipment and operation procedures; verify critical calculations that affect
the safe operation of the equipment; confirm the immediate ordering of operational aids, and
−46−

the completion of required inspections: The following paragraphs of this proposed standard
have been identified for these purposes: 29 CFR 1926.1403(b), 29 CFR 1926.1404(h)(4), 29
CFR 1926.1404(j), 29 CFR 1926.1404(m)(1) and (m)(1)(ii), 29 CFR 1926.1406(a), 29 CFR
1926.1410(e), 29 CFR 1926.1410(j), 29 CFR 1926.1412(a)(1)(i), 29 CFR
1926.1412(b)(1)(i)(A), 29 CFR 1926.1412(e)(3), 29 CFR 1926.1412(f)(4),(f)(6), and (f)(7),
29 CFR 1926.1413(a)(4)(ii)(A), (a)(4)(iii)(F), (b)(3), and (c)(4), 29 CFR
1926.1414(c)(2)(iii), 29 CFR 1926.1416(d), and (e), 29 CFR 1926.1417(b)(1) and (b)(2), 29
CFR 1926.1432(a), 29 CFR 1926.1435(e)(5) and (e)(6), 29 CFR 1926.1436(c)(2)(i), 29 CFR
1926.1436(g)(4), 29 CFR 1926.1437(m)(4), (n)(5)(v), and (n)(5)(vi), 29 CFR
1926.1441(b)(2)(i)(A), (b)(2)(i)(B), (c)(2)(i), (c)(2)(ii), (c)(3)(i), and (c)(3)(ii). Employers
may scan and electronically maintain copies of these documents.
4. Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already
available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Item 2 above.

The proposed requirements to collect and retain information are specific to each piece of
equipment and the conditions under which it is operated, and no other source or agency
duplicates these proposed requirements or can make the proposed information available to
OSHA (i.e., the proposed information is available only from employers).
5. If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities (Item 5 of OMB Form
83-I), describe any methods used to minimize the burden.

The information-collection requirements specified by the proposed Standard would not have
a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
6. Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is
conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing the burden.

The Agency believes that the information-collection frequencies required by the proposed
Standard are the minimum frequencies that would be necessary to effectively regulate the
equipment covered by this proposed standard and, thereby, fulfill its mandate “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” as specified in the Act at 29 U.S.C. 651.
Accordingly, if employers do not perform the proposed information collections, or delay in
providing this information, employees may be subject to an increased risk of death and
serious injury when working on or near cranes or derricks.
7. Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a
manner:
·

requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often than quarterly;

·

requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer than
30 days after receipt of it;

·

requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any document;

−47−

·

requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical, government contract, grantin- aid, or tax records, for more than three years;

·

in connection with a statistical survey, that is not designed to produce valid and reliable results
that can be generalized to the universe of study;

·

requiring the use of a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and approved by
OMB;

·

that includes a pledge of confidentially that is not supported by authority established in statue or
regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and data security policies that are consistent with
the pledge, or which unnecessarily impedes sharing of data with other agencies for compatible
confidential use; or

·

requiring respondents to submit proprietary trade secret, or other confidential information
unless the agency can prove that it has instituted procedures to protect the information's
confidentially to the extent permitted by law.

No special circumstances exist that would require employers to collect the proposed
information using the procedures specified by this Item. The proposed requirements are
within the guidelines set forth in 5 CFR 1320.5.
8. If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publication in the Federal
Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on the information
collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice
and describe actions taken by the agency in response to those comments. Specifically address comments
received on cost and hour burden.
Describe efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to obtain their views on the availability of
data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instructions and recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting
format (if any), and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported.
Consultation with representatives of those from whom information is to be obtained or those who must
compile records should occur at least once every 3 years - even if the collection of information activity is
the same as in prior periods. There may be circumstances that may preclude consultation in a specific
situation. These circumstances should be explained.

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).
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
−48−

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). The collections of information identified in this preliminary
information collections report were adopted through consensus of the negotiated-rulemaking
committee, C-DAC.
In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.11, OSHA is submitting an information collection request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the proposed Confined Spaces in
Construction Standard (29 CFR part 1926, subpart AA). A copy of the proposed rule is
attached to this Supporting Statement. Members of the public who wish to comment on the
ICR must submit written comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
New Executive Office Building, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503; Attn: OSHA Deck Officer (RIN 1218-AC-01). The
Agency will summarize comments submitted by the public to OMB on the ICR, and will
include the summary in its request to OMB for final approval for the ICR.
OSHA also encourages the public to submit copies of their comments on the ICR to the
rulemaking docket (Docket No. OSHA-2007-0066). All comments received on the ICR will
be made part of the record on the proposed Standard. For information on how to submit
comments and access the rulemaking docket, see the “Public Participation” section in the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at http://www.regulations.gov or contact the OSHA Docket
Office, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone
(202) 693-2350 (OSHA’s TTY number is (877) 889-5627).
9. Explain any decision to provide any payments or gift to respondents, other than reenumeration of
contractors or grantees.

The Agency will not provide payments or gifts to the respondents.
10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in
statute, regulation, or agency policy.

The paperwork requirements specified by the proposed Standard do not involve confidential
information.
11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and
attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification
should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made
of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and
any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.

None of the paperwork provisions in the proposed Standard require sensitive information.
12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information. The statement should:
−49−

·

Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an
explanation of how the burden was estimated. Unless directed to do so, agencies should not
conduct special surveys to obtain information on which to base hour burden estimates.
Consultation with a sample (fewer than 10) of potential respondents is desirable. If the hour
burden on respondents is expected to vary widely because of differences in activity, size, or
complexity, show the range of estimated hour burden, and explain the reasons for the variance.
Generally, estimates should not include burden hours for customary and usual business
practices.

·

If this request for approval covers more than one form, provide separate hour burden estimates
for each form and aggregate the hour burdens in Item 13 of OMB Form 83-I.

·

Provide estimates of annualized cost to respondents for the hour burdens for collections of
information, identifying and using appropriate wage rate categories. The cost of contracting out
or paying outside parties for information collection activities should not be included here.
Instead, this cost should be included in Item 13.

Burden-Hour and Cost Determinations
Estimates of the burden hours and cost for each information collection requirement in the
proposed Standard are shown below (with a summary of these estimates, as well as the
estimated number of responses for each of these requirements, provided in Table 1).
Information regarding the number of employers/establishments, total number of cranes and
derricks, total number of hoisting jobs, total number of particular types of cranes and
derricks, and total number of particular crane-related operations performed is from the
Preliminary Economic And Regulatory Flexibility Analysis For The Proposed OSHA
Standard For Cranes and Derricks In Construction; this analysis is available as Pre- RFA in
the docket (Docket No. OSHA-2007-0066) established for the proposed standard.3
However, OSHA estimated most burden-hour determinations using the resources of the
Directorate of Construction’s staff who are familiar with the crane industry.
In determining the wage rates for the various occupations that perform the paperwork
requirements, the Agency relied on the rates used in the PEA. OSHA Construction staff used
data from the PEA to estimate the wage rate for each occupation used to calculate the burden
hours and costs for the applicable provisions. OSHA solicits comment regarding the
estimates used for these purposes. The estimated wage rates are listed as follows:
·
·
·
·
·
.
·

Qualified person:
Operator:
A/D Supervisor:
Registered Engineer:
Shift supervisor:
Auditor
Signal Person:

$36.33
$31.37
$36.22
$63.59
$36.22
$36.22
$25.15

3

The docket may be accessed at www.regulations.gov.
−50−

·
·
·
·

Qualified rigger:
Competent person:
Gen. constr. employee:
Clerical employee:

$18.59
$20.15
$16.16
$16.16

1) 29 CFR 1926.1402(c)(2)
OSHA estimated in the PEA that equipment covered by this subpart is used to perform
887,031 jobs per year and it is assumed that at least one set-up occurs for each of these jobs.
In addition, OSHA estimates in the PEA that 85% of these jobs are performed using rental
equipment. OSHA construction staff believes it is a usual and customary practice for
employers, especially equipment rental employers, to get information from the controlling
employer at the worksite regarding known hazards beneath equipment set up areas.
Therefore, OSHA construction staff estimates that employers on 10% of these hoisting jobs
would need this exchange of information as a work practice which is new to the controlling
employer. OSHA construction staff estimate that it would take a controlling employer, most
likely a shift supervisor, 5 minutes (.08 hour) to provide the required information regarding
the location of known hazards beneath the equipment set-up area to equipment users and
operators. The estimated annual burden hours and cost for this proposed paragraph is:
Burden hours: 887,031 equipment set-ups x .15 (non rental equip.) x .10 (new work
practice) x .08 hour (time for exchange of info.) x = 1,064 hours per year
Cost: 1,064 hours x $36.22 per hour (wage- shift supervisor) = $38,538 per year
2) 29 CFR 1926.1403(b) and 1926.1406(b)
OSHA believes that for most equipment used to perform construction activities, it is a usual
and customary practice for the owners and manufacturers to provide procedures for the A/D
of their equipment. Therefore, OSHA construction staff estimates that 10 employers may
own or use equipment that does not have the required documentation. Those employers, most
likely using a qualified person, will take 1 hour to develop procedures for safely performing
A/D operations. The yearly burden hours and cost of this proposed provision is estimated to
be:
Burden hours: 10 (equip. without A/D procedures) x 1 hour (document/maintain
procedures) = 10 hours per year
Cost: 10 hours per year x $36.33 per hour (wage- qualified person) = $363 per year
3) 29 CFR 1926.1404(f)(2)

−51−

OSHA construction staff estimates that 50 A/D jobsites per year will be configured such that it would
be necessary for an employee to be under the boom, jib, or other components when pins (or similar
devices) are being removed during A/D operations. It is estimated that it would take a qualified person
(most likely an A/D supervisor) one half hour (.5 hour) to develop alternatives to the A/D plan that
would minimize the duration and exposure of employees to the hazard of unintended, dangerous
movements of the equipment. OSHA staff also believes that employers would most likely
communicate information about this plan to its employees in a 10 minute (.17 hour) meeting before
A/D operations are performed
Burden hours: 50 (jobs where employees under boom) x [.5 hour (time develop plan) + .17 hour
(time for meeting)] = 34 hours
Cost: 34 hours x $36.22 per hour (wage of A/D supervisor) = $1,213 per year
4) 29 CFR 1926.1407(g) and 1926.1409
This provision also applies to power lines that are above 350 kV in accordance with
proposed section 1926.1409. OSHA estimates in the PEA that 25% of the 887,031
construction hoisting jobs per year are performed in the proximity of power lines. This
proposed paragraph requires that at least one electrocution hazard warning must be posted in
the cab and two more must be posted outside of the equipment at these jobsites. OSHA
construction staff estimates that 2% of the pieces of equipment on these jobs would not
already have these postings. The Agency also assumes that signs would last five years (i.e.,
an average annual rate of 20%), and that it would take a general construction employee 5
minutes (.08 hours) to fabricate a sign. OSHA estimates the annual burden hours and cost
for this proposed requirement are:
Burden hours: 887,031 (A/D jobs) x .25 (near power lines) x .02 (equip. do not have signs)
x 3 (no. of signs per piece of equipment) x .20 (annual replacement rate) x .08 hours
(posting) = 213 hours per year
Cost: 213 hours per year x $16.16 per hour (wage- construction employee) = $3,442 per
year
5) 29 CFR 1926.1408(b)(1) and 29 CFR 1926.1409
This provision also applies to power lines that are above 350 kV in accordance with
proposed section 1926.1409. OSHA estimates in the PEA that on 25% of the estimated
887,031 hoisting jobs performed in construction, cranes and derricks will be operated near
power lines. Subsequently, OSHA construction staff estimates that it will take a shift
supervisor 20 minutes (.33 hour) to plan and conduct a meeting prior to equipment
operations which would include the dissemination of information about the location of all
power lines and the methods that are being used to prevent encroachment and electrocution.
OSHA construction staff estimates that employers on 35% of these jobs would conduct this
−52−

meeting as a new work practice in accordance with this proposed provision. The estimated
annual burden hours and cost of this proposed paragraph are:
Burden hours: 887,031 (hoisting jobs) x .25 (hoisting jobs near power lines) x .35 (new
work practice) x .33 hour (plan and conduct meeting) = 25,613 hours
Cost: 25,613 hours per year x $36.22 (wage- shift supervisor) = $927,703 per year
6) 29 CFR 1926.1409
Burden hours/costs are accounted in proposed paragraphs 1926.1407(g), Table A to
1926.1407, and 1926.1408(b)(1).
7) 29 CFR 1926.1410(d)
OSHA estimates in the PEA that 25% of the estimated 887,031 hoisting jobs in construction
will be performed near power lines. In addition, OSHA construction staff estimates that 15%
of those jobs will require crane operations to be performed closer to power lines than is
allowed for the voltages identified in Table A of this proposed section. Employers, most
likely one A/D supervisor per job, on these jobs are required to have a planning meeting with
the utility operator to discuss the procedures necessary to avoid contact with the power lines
in the vicinity of the work area. The Agency believes it would take employers 1 hour to
arrange and participate in these planning meetings for these jobs. OSHA estimates the annual
burden hours and cost for this proposed requirement are:
Burden hours: 887,031 (jobs per year) x .25 (A/D jobs near power lines) x .15 (closer than
Table A) x 1 hour (A/D sup. plan/attend meeting) = 33,264 hours;
Cost: 33,264 hours per year x $36.22 (wage-A/D supervisor) = 1,204,822 per year
8) 29 CFR 1926.1410(e)
OSHA estimates in the PEA that 25% of the estimated 887,031 hoisting jobs in construction
will be performed near power lines. In addition, OSHA construction staff estimates that 15%
of those jobs will require crane operations to be performed closer to power lines than is
allowed for the voltages identified in Table A of this proposed section. Subsequently, OSHA
construction staff estimates that it would take the employer, most likely the registered
professional engineer required in paragraph (d) of this proposed section, 15 minutes (.25
hour) to document the procedures developed and make them available as required by this
proposed provision. In addition, the Agency requires that employers make these documents
available for reference while work is in progress. The burden-hour and cost estimates for
developing and making the proposed documentation accessible are:

−53−

Burden hours: 887,031 (jobs per year) x .25 (jobs near power lines) x .15 (jobs closer than
Table A) x .25 hour (develop and document procedures) = 8,316 hours per year
Cost: 8,316 hours per year x $63.59 per hour (wage- registered professional engineer) =
$528,814 per year
9) 29 CFR 1926.1410(f)
OSHA estimates in the PEA that 25% of the estimated 887,031 hoisting jobs in construction
will be performed near power lines. In addition, OSHA construction staff estimates that 15%
of those jobs will require crane operations to be performed closer to power lines than is
allowed for the voltages identified in Table A of this proposed section. Employers, most
likely the shift supervisor, and the utility operator on these jobs are required by this proposed
standard to conduct a meeting that will allow the equipment operator and other employees
who will be in the area of the equipment or load to review the hoisting procedures
documented in accordance with paragraph (e) of this proposed section. The Agency believes
it would take the employer, most likely the shift supervisor, 20 minutes (.33 hour) to arrange
and participate in these required meetings. OSHA estimates the annual burden hours and cost
for this proposed requirement are:
Burden hours: 887,031 (jobs per year) x .25 (jobs near power lines) x .15 (closer than Table
A) x .33 hour (time per meeting) = 10,977 hours
Cost: 10,977 hours per year x $36.22 per year (wage- shift supervisor) = $397,587
10) 29 CFR 1926.1410(j)
OSHA estimates in the PEA that 25% of the estimated 887,031 hoisting jobs in construction
will be performed near power lines. In addition, OSHA construction staff estimates that 15%
of those jobs will require crane operations to be performed closer to power lines than is
allowed for the voltages identified in Table A of this proposed section. OSHA construction
staff estimates that 1% of the procedures developed for these scenarios in accordance with
paragraph (e) of this proposed section will have deficiencies. After the development of new
procedures, the employer is required to conduct a meeting that would allow the equipment
operator and other affected employees to review the revised procedures. OSHA construction
staff also estimates that it would take employers, most likely shift supervisors, 1 hour to
arrange and participate in these meetings. OSHA estimates the annual burden hours and cost
for this proposed requirement are:
Burden hours: 887,031 (jobs per year) x .25 (jobs near power lines) x .15 (jobs closer than
Table A) x .01 (plans needing revisions) x 1.0 hour (plan/conduct meeting) = 333 hours per
year
Cost: 333 hours per year x $36.22 per hour (shift supervisor) = $12,061 per year
−54−

11) 29 CFR 1926.1412(a)(1)(i)
Of the 96,206 cranes in use per year as estimated in the PEA, OSHA construction staff
estimates that 1% of this equipment will be modified. In these scenarios, a qualified person
must inspect such modifications to ensure the modifications were completed in accordance
with proposed section 29 CFR 1926.1434, Equipment Modifications. OSHA construction
staff estimates that it would take a qualified person 15 min (.25 hour) to review the
modification approval document and confirm through inspection that the equipment
modification meets the conditions specified on the approval document. OSHA estimates that
the annual burden hours and cost of this proposed provision are:
Burden hours: 96,206 (equip. per year) x .01 (modified equipment) x .25 hour (time per
review) = 241 hours per year
Cost: 241 hours per year x $36.33 per hour (wage of qualified person) = $8,756 per year
12) 29 CFR 1926.1412(b)(1)(ii)(A)
OSHA estimates in the PEA that 887,031 hoisting jobs will be performed per year in the
construction industry. OSHA construction staff estimates that on 10% of these jobs, pieces of
equipment will be used on which repairs/adjustments have been made that will affect the safe
operation of the equipment. OSHA construction staff also estimates that the manufacturer’s
equipment criteria will not be available for 1% of those jobs using repaired/adjusted pieces of
equipment. Under these scenarios, a qualified person must determine if he or she must
develop criteria or if an RPE is needed to do so. Although it is not explicitly required by this
provision, the Agency assumes that 60% of the qualified persons will opt to develop and
document the criteria and 40% will opt to utilize an RPE. OSHA estimates that 80% of those
qualified persons will document the information. OSHA construction staff estimates that it would
take an average of 2 hours for a qualified person to develop, document, and maintain the
required information. The yearly burden hours and cost of this proposed paragraph are
estimated to be:
Burden hours: 887,031 (hoisting jobs) x .60 (done by qualified person) x .80 (will
document) x .10 (repaired/adjusted equip.) x .01 (equip. w/o mfr criteria) x 2 hours
(develop/document/maintain of criteria) = 852 hours per year
Cost: 852 hours per year x $36.33 per hour (qualified person) = $30,953 per year
13) 29 CFR 1926.1412(c)(2)(i)
OSHA construction staff estimates that 30% of the 887,031 hoisting jobs performed in
construction will require A/D. OSHA construction staff estimates that on 1% of these A/D jobs,
equipment will be used for which the manufacturer’s recommended configurations will not be
−55−

available. Under these scenarios, a qualified person must determine if he or she must develop
criteria that establishes safe configurations of the equipment or if there is a need for an RPE
to make such determinations. Although it is not explicitly required by this provision, the
Agency assumes that 60% of the qualified persons will opt to develop the criteria and the
other 40% would utilize an RPE. Of the 60% of qualified persons that will develop their own
criteria, OSHA estimates that 80% of those qualified persons will document the information.
OSHA construction staff estimates that it would take a qualified person 2 hours to develop,
document, and maintain the required information. The yearly burden hours and cost of this
proposed paragraph are estimated to be:
Burden hours: 887,031 (equip. per year) x .30 (A/D jobs) x .60 (done by qualified person) x
.80 (will document) x .01 (repaired/adjusted equip.) x .02 (equip. w/o mfr. criteria) x 2 hours
(develop/document/maintain of criteria) = 2,555 hours per year
Cost: 2,555 hours per year x $36.33 per hour (qualified person) = $92,823 per year
14) 29 CFR 1926.1412(e)(3), (h), 1926.1413(b)), 1926.1414(c)(3)(iii), and 1926.1437(h)(2)
Paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this proposed section requires documentation of monthly inspections
(12 per year) for the 96,206 pieces of hoisting equipment used in the construction per year as
OSHA estimates in the PEA. The employer must then maintain these monthly inspections for
3 months in accordance with proposed paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section. The employer
must also meet the requirements of this provision in accordance with proposed paragraph (h)
of this section when the equipment has been idle for three months or more. Similarly, a
documentation of monthly inspections of wire rope (1926.1413(b)(3)), precautions for
damaged wire rope use (1926.1414(c)(3)(iii)), and floating vessels/devices (1926.1437(h)(2))
used with the equipment is required. Therefore all of these identified documentation and
maintenance burdens will be taken under this proposed provision since it is assumed one
document will be used for these purposes. Of the 96,206 cranes and derricks used in
construction annually, OSHA believes that 85% of those cranes and derricks are owned by
rental companies which establish and maintain written monthly inspection records as a usual
and customary business practice. The remaining 15% are privately owned, requiring the
employer to perform monthly inspections of the cranes and derricks.
Section 5-2.1.2 of ASME B30.5-2000 and 3-2.1.3 of ANSI B30.3-2004 require the employer
to frequently (daily to monthly) inspect the equipment. OSHA believes these consensus
standard requirements are evidence that the performance of monthly inspections is already a
usual and customary business practice. Therefore, the only information collection burden
will be taken for the signing of these documents. Subsequently, OSHA construction staff
estimates that it would take 5 minutes (.08 hour) for a competent person to sign the
documentation of the completion of each of the required monthly inspections and to maintain
them for 3 months in accordance with proposed paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this proposed section.
The yearly burden hours and cost of this proposed paragraph are estimated to be:

−56−

Burden hours: 96,206 (equip. per year) x .15 (privately owned) x 12 (monthly inspections
per year) x .08 hour (documentation/maintenance) = 13,854 hours per year
Cost: 13,854 hours per year x $20.15 per hour (wage- competent person) = $279,158
per year
15) 29 CFR 1926.1412(f)(6), (g)(3), 1926.1413(c)(3)(ii), and 1926.1414(c)(2)(iii)
Paragraph (f)(6) of this proposed section and proposed section and 1926.1412(g)(3) both
require the documentation of monitored but “not yet a safety hazard” equipment deficiencies
that are discovered during an annual/comprehensive inspection and when the equipment has
been used under severe conditions. Similarly, even though the documentation burdens for
paragraphs 1926.1413(c)(3)(ii) and 1926.1414(c)(2)(iii) are specific to the continued use of
damaged or potentially inappropriate types wire rope for hoisting jobs under monitored
conditions, these documentation and maintenance burdens will also be taken under this
provision since it is assumed that all of these deficiencies would be monitored on the same
monthly inspection documents. Of the 96,206 cranes and derricks that will be used in the
construction industry annually, OSHA construction staff believes that 85% cranes and
derricks are owned by rental companies which establish and maintain written records as a
usual and customary business practice. The remaining 15% are privately owned, requiring
the employer to perform an annual inspection on the cranes and derricks. Upon discovery of
equipment deficiencies during the required annual/comprehensive inspections, OSHA
construction staff estimates that on 5 % of these inspections, at least one identified deficiency
will be determined “not yet a safety hazard” by a qualified person and need to be checked
during monthly inspections. Although not explicitly required by the standard, OSHA
believes it is usual and customary for 90% of the employers to track these identified “not yet
a safety hazard” deficiencies along with other required documentation of monthly inspection
information. OSHA construction staff estimates that it would take a competent person 30
minutes (.5 hour) to document these deficiencies monthly for an average of 3 months (.25
years). The yearly burden hours and cost of this proposed paragraph are estimated to be:
Burden hours: 96,206 (equip per year) x .15 (privately owned equip.) x .05 (insp. w/
monitored deficiencies) x .10 (not customary) x .5 hour (documentation and monitoring of
deficiencies) x .25 years (est. months deficiencies will be monitored) = 9 hours per year
Cost: 9 hours per year x $20.15 per hour (wage- competent person) = $181 per year
16) 29 CFR 1926.1412(f)(7), 1926.1413(c)(4), and 1926.1437(h)
Paragraph (f)(7) of this proposed section requires documentation of annual inspections for
the 96,206 pieces of hoisting equipment used in the construction per year as OSHA estimates
in the PEA. Addition information that must be included in this documentation for the annual
inspections of wire rope (1926.1413(c)(4)), and annual (1926.1437(h)(4)) and quadrennial
(1926.1437(h)(4)) inspections of external vessel/flotation devices used with the equipment.
−57−

All of these burdens will also be taken under this proposed provision. Of the 96,206 cranes
and derricks in the construction industry, OSHA believes that 85% cranes and derricks are
owned by rental companies which establish and maintain written records as a usual and
customary business practice. The remaining 15% are privately owned, requiring the
employer to perform an annual inspection of the cranes and derricks.
Paragraph 1926.550(a)(6) requires the employer to maintain records of annual inspections. In
addition, sections 5-2.1.5 of ASME B30.5-2000 and 3-2.1.4 of ANSI B30.3-2004 require the
employer to sign documentation of the periodic (monthly to annually) inspection of critical
parts of the equipment. OSHA believes that these consensus standard requirements are
further evidence that the documentation of inspections for most hoisting equipment is a
standard industry practice. Therefore OSHA construction staff estimates that for 90% of the
14431 privately owned cranes and derricks, it is a usual and customary business practice to
conduct annual inspections and maintain signed records of these inspections. Therefore, the
information collection burden applies only to the remaining 10% of those cranes and
derricks. Subsequently, OSHA construction staff estimates that it would take an average of
15 minutes (.25 hour) for a competent person to sign the documentation of the completion of
each of the annual/comprehensive inspections and to maintain this document until the next
annual inspection is completed. The yearly burden hours and cost of this proposed paragraph
are estimated to be:
Burden hours: 96,206 (equip. per year) x .15 (privately owned equip.) x .10 (not usual and
customary) x 1 (annual/comprehensive inspections per year) x .25 hour (signature and
maintenance) = 361 hours per year
Cost: 361 hours x $20.15 per hour (wage- competent person) = $7,274 per year
17) 29 CFR 1926.1413(a)(4)(ii)(A)
OSHA believes that number of shifts per hoisting job in construction is too variable to try to
estimate how many occur in the industry per year. However, OSHA estimates in the PEA
that 887,031 hoisting jobs will be performed in the construction industry per year. OSHA
construction staff estimates that during shift inspections on 1% of these jobs, Cat II wire rope
deficiencies will be discovered that will require the employer to make an assessment of
continued safe operations of equipment if the damaged wire rope continues to be used.
Furthermore, OSHA construction staff estimates that during the inspection of 3% of these
hoisting jobs, the employer will opt to obtain written approval from the manufacturer for
different criteria which would allow the rope to remain in service. Subsequently, OSHA
construction staff estimates that it would take the employer, most likely a competent person,
30 minutes (.5 hour) to generate such a request and obtain the required manufacturer’s
approval document for future reference. The yearly burden hours and cost of this proposed
paragraph are estimated to be:

−58−

Burden hours: 887,031 (jobs per year) x .01 (insp. w/ Cat II damaged wire rope) x .03
(employers. who opt to get approval) x .5 hour (obtain/maintenance of manufacturer’s
approval documentation) = 133 hours per year
Cost: 133 hours per year x $20.15 per hour (wage- competent person) = $2,680 per year
18) 29 CFR 1926.1413(a)(4)(iii)(F) and 1926.1414(c)(3)(i)
OSHA believes that the number of shifts per hoisting job in construction is too variable to try
to estimate how many occur in the industry per year. However, OSHA estimates in the PEA
that 887,031 hoisting jobs will be performed in the construction industry per year. OSHA
construction staff estimates that during shift inspections on 1% of these hoisting jobs, Cat. II
wire rope deficiencies will be discovered that would require the employer to make an
assessment of continued safe operations of equipment if the damaged wire rope continues to
be used. In addition OSHA construction staff estimates that during the shift inspection on
10% of these hoisting jobs, the employer will opt to obtain documented determinations from
a qualified person which specifies the criteria under which the wire rope could remain in
service. Subsequently, OSHA construction staff estimates that it would take a qualified
person, 1 hour to document criteria under which the damaged wire rope can continue to be
used. The yearly burden hours and cost of this proposed paragraph are estimated to be:
Burden hours: 887,031 (jobs per year) x .01 (jobs w/ Cat II damaged wire rope) x .10
(approval obtained) x 1 hour (documentation of determinations) = 887 hours per year
Cost: 887 hours per year x $36.33 per hour (wage- qualified person) = $32,225 per year
19) 29 CFR 1926.1413(b)(3)
Burden hours/costs are accounted as part of monthly inspection documentation required by
section 1926.1412(e)(3). (See section 1926.1412(e)(3) for accounting of burden hours)
20) 29 CFR 1926.1413(c)(3)(ii)
Burden hours/cost are accounted as part of annual/comprehensive inspection documentation
required by section 1926.1412(f)(6). (See section 1926.1412(f)(6) for accounting of burden
hours)
21) 29 CFR 1926.1413(c)(4)
Burden hours/cost are accounted as part of annual/comprehensive inspection documentation
required by section 1926.1412(f)(7). (See section .1412(f)(7) for accounting of burden hours)
22) 29 CFR 1926.1414(c)(2)(iii)

−59−

OSHA construction staff estimates that on 500 hoisting jobs performed in construction, Type
I rotation-resistant wire rope that has a design factor of less than 5 will be used. Of those
hoisting jobs, OSHA construction staff estimates that employers on only 10 % of those jobs
would request manufacturer’s approval under this scenario. This estimate was made because
it is assumed that 90% of the employers would merely opt to get a more appropriate grade of
wire rope for the job. Subsequently, OSHA construction staff believes it would take
employers, most likely a competent person, 30 minutes (.5 hour) to generate a request and
obtain/maintain written approval (from both the equipment and wire rope manufacturers) to
use the Type I rotation-resistant wire rope under prescribed worksite conditions. The yearly
burden hours and cost of this proposed paragraph are estimated to be:
Burden hours: 500 (job/Type I rope used) x .10 (jobs w/approval requests) x .5 hour
(maintenance of approval documentation) = 25 hours per year
Cost: 25 hours per year x $20.15 (wage- competent person) = $504 per year
23) 29 CFR 1926.1414(c)(3)(i)
Burden hours/costs are accounted for documentation would be required by proposed section
1926.1413(a)(4)(iii)(F).
24) 29 CFR 1926.1414(c)(3)(iii)
Burden hours/costs are accounted for documentation would be required by proposed section
1926.1412(e)(3).
25) 29 CFR 1926.1417(b)(1)
Therefore, OSHA construction staff estimates that for 50 pieces of equipment used to
perform construction activities, primarily older models, the manufacturer’s operating
procedures will not be available. Subsequently, OSHA construction staff estimates that,
under this scenario, it will take an employer 1 hour to develop and ensure compliance with
procedures that are necessary for the safe operation of the equipment and attachments.
Burden hours: 50 (equip. without mfrs. procedures) x 1 hour (document procedures) = 50
hours per year
Cost: 50 hours per year x $36.33 per hour wage (employer/qualified person) = $1,817 per
year
26) 29 CFR 1926.1417(b)(2)
OSHA construction staff estimates that for 50 pieces of equipment used to perform
construction activities, primarily older models, the manufacturer’s operating procedures will
−60−

not be available. Subsequently, OSHA construction staff estimates that, under this scenario,
it will take a qualified person 1 hour to develop procedures that are necessary for the safe
operation of the equipment and attachments.
Burden hours: 50 (equip. without mfrs. procedures) x 1 hour (document procedures) = 50
hours per year
Cost: 50 hours per year x $36.33 per hour wage (employer/qualified person) = $1,817 per
year
27) 29 CFR 1926.1417(b)(3)
OSHA construction staff estimates that for 50 pieces of equipment used to perform
construction activities, primarily older models, the manufacturer’s procedures related to the
capacity of the equipment will not be available. Under this scenario, OSHA construction staff
estimates that it would take 1 hour for a registered professional engineer (who is familiar with
the equipment) to develop these procedures. Although it is not explicitly required by this
provision, OSHA construction staff assumes that the registered professional engineers will
document these procedures. The yearly burden hours and cost of this proposed paragraph are
estimated to be:
Burden hours: 50 (equip. without mfrs. procedures) x 1 hour (document procedures) = 50
hours per year
Cost: 50 hours per year x $63.59 per hour wage (RPE) = $3,180 per year
28) 29 CFR 1926.1423(h)(2)
OSHA estimated in the PEA that 887,031 hoisting jobs will be performed in the construction
industry per year. OSHA construction staff estimates that the hoist lines of equipment on 2%
of these jobs will be used to anchor fall protection systems. Subsequently, OSHA assumes
that it would take the employer, most likely the shift supervisor, 1 minute (.02 hours) to
inform the operator that a fall protection system has been anchored to the load line of the
equipment. The yearly burden hours and cost of this proposed paragraph are estimated to be:
Burden hours: 887,031 (jobs per year) x .02 (equip. w/ fall protection anchored) x .02 hours
(information exchange) = 355 hours per year
Cost: 355 hours per year x $36.22 per hour (wage- shift supervisor) = $12,858 per year
29) 29 CFR 1926.1424(a)(2)(ii)
OSHA estimated in the PEA that 887,031 hoisting jobs will be performed in the construction
industry per year. OSHA construction staff estimates that hoisting equipment used on 60% of
−61−

these jobs will have rotating superstructures that must be barricaded in accordance with this
proposed provision. Because this barricade is already required by section 1926.550(a)(9) of
subpart N, OSHA believes the demarcation of hazardous areas within the swing radius of the
equipment’s superstructure is a usual and customary work practice of the industry. However,
in addition to the requirement to barricade this hazardous area, proposed paragraph
1926.1424(a)(2)(ii) specifies that a sign must also be posted. OSHA construction staff
estimates that employers on 40% of these hoisting jobs, as a new work practice, will post a
sign to identify these hazardous areas around the equipment as required. In light of this
assertion, it is further estimated that it would take a general construction employee 10
minutes (.17 hours) to fabricate and post the required sign for the barricaded area. The yearly
burden hours and cost of this proposed paragraph are estimated to be:
Burden hours: 887,031 (hoisting jobs) x .60 (w/rotating superstructures) .40 (new employer
practice) x .17 hours (sign fabrication/posting) = 36,191 hours per year
Cost: 36,191 hours per year x $16.16 per hour (wage- construction employee) =
$584,847 per year
30) 29 CFR 1926.1427(a), (e)(1), and 1926.1439(e)
This provision also applies to training documentation required in accordance with proposed
section 1926.1439(e). It is estimated in the PEA that a minimum of 96,206 operators per year
will use equipment covered by this proposed standard to perform construction work per year.
OSHA construction staff further estimates that 60% of those operators will operate
equipment that is not exempted from the certification requirements. It is anticipated that upon
the effective date of this rule, the required certification will become a condition of
employment for most employers. Therefore, OSHA construction staff believes, although not
explicitly required by this proposed provision, that most of the employers will only incur the
cost of maintaining a copy of each operator’s certification card for its own records. It is
estimated that it would take a construction clerical employee 5 minutes (.08 hour) to file and
maintain a copy of each operator’s certification document. The yearly burden hours and cost
of this proposed paragraph are estimated to be:
Burden hours: 96,206 (number of operator) x .60 (operators not exempted) x .08 hour (per
operator to copy/file/maintain) = 4,618 hours per year
Cost: 4,618 hours per year x $16.16 per hour (wage of clerical employee) = $74,627 per
year
31) 29 CFR 1926.1427(c)(5)(iii) and 1926.1439(e)
This provision also applies to training documentation required in accordance with proposed
section 1926.1439(e). OSHA estimates that no more than 10 employers covered by this
proposed standard would opt to establish an equipment operator certification/qualification
−62−

program and have it audited in accordance with proposed paragraph 1926.1427(c). It is also
estimated that 1 of these employers would have deficiencies found in their programs as the
result of an audit for which an auditor would have to submit a report to an OSHA Regional
Office. OSHA construction staff assumes that the auditors would file and maintain a copy of
this report for their records and it would take this auditor, most likely a clerical person, 10
minutes (.17 hour) to file and maintain this document. The yearly burden hours and cost of
this proposed paragraph are estimated to be:
Burden hours: 1 (Opt. 2 employers w/ program deficiencies) x .17 hour (file/maintenance of
documents) = 1 hour per year (rounded to 1)
Cost: 1 hour per year x $16.16 per hour (wage- construction employee) = $16 per year
32) 29 CFR 1926.1427(h)(1) and 1926.1439(e)
This provision also applies to training documentation required in accordance with proposed
section 1926.1439(e). If testing candidates opt to have the tests required under this proposed
section administered to them verbally, this proposed provision requires the candidate to pass
a written demonstration of literacy. It is estimated in the PEA that a minimum of 96,206
operators per year will use equipment covered by this proposed standard to perform
construction work per year. OSHA construction staff further estimates that 60% of those
operators will operate equipment that is not exempted from the certification requirements. It
is further estimated that 20 % of these testing candidates will need to be certified per year
and 10% of these will opt to take the test verbally. Therefore, OSHA construction staff
assumes that it would take the testing entity, most likely a qualified person, 30 minutes (.5
hour) to determine the testing candidate is literate relevant to the work. The yearly burden
hours and cost of this proposed paragraph are estimated to be:
Burden hours: 96,206 (no. of operators) x .20(% of operators testing per year) x .60 (% of
operators not exempted) x .10 (% of operators who opt for verbal test) x .5 hour (determine
literacy) = 577 hours per year
Cost: 577 hours per year x $36.33 per hour (wage- qualified person) = $20,962 cost per
year
33) 29 CFR 1926.1428(a)(2)
It is estimated in the PEA that at least one signal person would be needed to safely perform
hoisting jobs for each crane used in construction. However, OSHA construction staff
estimates that, due to the size and types of loads, size and types of hoisting equipment used,
and configurations of job sites, 40% of the equipment covered by this proposed standard
would not need a signal person when hoisting jobs are performed. Therefore it was estimated
that at least one signal person would be needed for the remaining 60% of the equipment used
to perform hoisting jobs under worksite conditions for which a signal person is needed.
−63−

Subsequently, it is estimated that it would take a qualified evaluator, most likely a qualified
manager/evaluator, 30 minutes (.5 hour) to assess whether a signal person meets the
requirements of this proposed section. Finally, it is estimated that only 40% of the employers
will conduct the assessments themselves and the other 60% will have a third party do these
required assessments. The yearly burden hours and cost of this proposed paragraph are
estimated to be:
Burden hours: 96,206 (equipment used per year) x .60 (equip need signal persons) x .5 hour
(time for assessment/document) x .40 (employer does assessment) = 11,545 hours per year
Cost: 11,545 hours per year x $36.22 per hour (wage- qualified evaluator) = $418,160
per year
34) 29 CFR 1926.1428(a)(3) and (b)
It is estimated in the PEA that at least one signal person would be needed to safely perform
hoisting jobs for each crane used in construction. However, OSHA construction staff
estimates that, due to the size and types of loads, size and types of hoisting equipment used,
and configurations of job sites, 40% of the equipment covered by this proposed standard
would not need a signal person when hoisting jobs are performed. Therefore it was estimated
that at least one signal person would be needed for the remaining 60% of the equipment used
to perform hoisting jobs under worksite conditions for which a signal person is needed. With
regard to the qualification of signal people, OSHA construction staff estimates that 20 % of
the signal persons would need to be qualified each year whether initially or re-qualified.
Subsequently, it is estimated that it would take a qualified evaluator, most likely a qualified
manager/administrator, 15 minutes (.25 hour) to document that a signal person meets or has
been re-qualified to meet the requirements of this proposed section. Furthermore, it is
estimated that about 40% of the employers would have their own evaluator and the other
60% would use a third party to meet this proposed requirement. The yearly burden hours and
cost of this proposed paragraph are estimated to be:
Burden hours: 96,206 (equipment used per year) x .60 (equip need signal persons) x .20
(qualified per year) x .40 (employer evaluator) x .25 hour (time for assessment/document) =
1,154 hours per year
Cost: 1,154 hours per year x $36.22 per hour (wage- qualified evaluator) = $41,798 per
year
35) 29 CFR 1926.1430(b)
Burden hours/costs for documentation that would be required by proposed section are
accounted under 1926.1428(a)(3).

−64−

36) 29 CFR 1926.1431(o)(3)
Because a pre-lift meeting is required already required by section 1926.550(g)(8)(ii) of
subpart N when personnel is hoisted using a platform, OSHA believes that meeting is a usual
and customary work practice of the industry. Likewise, the pre-lift meeting that is required
by paragraph 1926.1431(m)(1) is also considered by OSHA as a usual and customary work
practice of the industry. However, the hoisting of personnel with a boatswain’s chair as
addressed by proposed paragraph (o)(3) of this section is not addressed in the 29CFR 1926
nor in the ANSI consensus standards referenced by OSHA for the application of this
proposed standard. Therefore the pre-lift meeting referenced by this proposed provision and
required by proposed provision 1926.1431(m)(1) may be new to employers who would
choose this option for hoisting personnel in drill shafts. In light of these assumptions, OSHA
estimates that on 1% of the 887,031 hoisting jobs that will be performed in the construction
industry per year, the equipment will be used to hoist personnel. It is further estimated that
on only 15% of those personnel hoisting jobs, equipment would be used to hoist personnel in
a drilling shaft with a boatswain’s chair. Subsequently, OSHA construction staff estimates
that it will take an employer, most likely the shift supervisor, 30 minutes (.5 hour) to plan
and conduct this meeting prior to each trial lift and any time employees are newly assigned to
the hoisting operation. The estimated annual burden hours and cost of this proposed
paragraph are:
Burden hours: 887,031 (jobs per year) x .01 (hoisting jobs) x .15 (drilling jobs) x .5 hour
(plan and conduct meeting) = 665 hours per year
Cost: 665 hours per year x $36.22 per hour (wage-lift supervisor) = $24,086 per year
37) 29 CFR 1926.1431(p)(4)
Similar to the rationale described for paragraph (o)(3) of this proposed section, the hoisting
of personnel with a boatswain’s chair as addressed by proposed paragraph (p)(4) of this
section is not addressed in the 29CFR 1926 nor in the ANSI consensus standards referenced
by OSHA for the application of this proposed standard. Therefore the pre-lift meeting
referenced by this proposed provision and required by proposed provision 1926.1431(m)(1)
may be new to employers who would choose this option for hoisting personnel during the
performance of pile driving operations. In light of these assumptions, OSHA estimates that
on 1% of the 887,031 hoisting jobs that will be performed in the construction industry per
year, the equipment will be used to hoist personnel. It is further estimated that on only 15%
of those personnel hoisting jobs, equipment would be used to hoist personnel with a
boatswain’s chair for pile driving operations. Subsequently, OSHA construction staff
estimates that it will take an employer, most likely the shift supervisor, 30 minutes (.5 hour)
to plan and conduct this meeting prior to each trial lift and any time employees are newly
assigned to the hoisting operation. The estimated annual burden hours and cost of this
proposed paragraph are:

−65−

Burden hours: 887,031 (jobs per year) x .01 (hoisting jobs) x .15 (pile driving jobs) x .5
hour (plan and conduct meeting) = 665 hours per year
Cost: 665 hours per year x $36.22 per hour (wage-lift supervisor) = $24,086 per year
38) 29 CFR 1926.1431(r)
The hoisting of personnel with a marine hoisted personnel transfer device as addressed by
proposed paragraph (r) of this section is not addressed in 29 CFR Part 1926. Therefore the
pre-lift meeting referenced by this proposed provision and required by proposed provision
1926.1431(m)(1) may be new to employers who would choose this option for hoisting
personnel for the purpose of marine transfer. OSHA estimates that on 5% of the 887,031
hoisting jobs that will be performed in the construction industry per year, the equipment will
be used to hoist personnel. It is further estimated that on only 1% of those personnel hoisting
jobs, equipment would be used to hoist personnel with a marine hoisted transfer device.
Subsequently, OSHA construction staff estimates that it will take an employer, most likely
the shift supervisor, 30 minutes (.5 hour) to plan and conduct this meeting prior to each trial
lift and any time employees are newly assigned to the hoisting operation. The estimated
annual burden hours and cost of this proposed paragraph are:
Burden hours: 887,031 (jobs per year) x .01 (hoisting jobs) x .05 (marine transfer jobs) x .5
hour (plan and conduct meeting) = 222 hours per year
Cost: 222 hours per year x $36.22 per hour (wage-lift supervisor) = $8,041 per year
39) 29 CFR 1926.1432(a)
OSHA construction staff estimates that 1,000 hoisting jobs per year would require the use of
multiple cranes/derricks to lift a load. The development of a multiple-crane hoisting plan is
required by an ANSI standard and therefore has been considered a usual and customary work
practice in the industry. However, although it is not explicitly required by this provision, the
Agency assumes that most qualified persons will document this plan. OSHA construction
staff estimates that it would take a qualified person an average of 30 minutes (.5 hour) to
document a hoisting plan which meets the requirements of this proposed standard. The yearly
burden hours and cost of this proposed paragraph are estimated to be:
Burden hours: 1,000 (multiple crane/derrick lifts) x .5 hours (document plan) = 500 hours
Cost: 500 hours per year x $36.33 per hour (wage- qualified person) = $18,165 per year
40) 29 CFR 1926.1432(b)(2)
OSHA construction staff estimates that 1,000 hoisting jobs per year would require the use of
multiple cranes/derricks to lift a load. OSHA construction staff estimates it would take the
−66−

employer, most likely a shift supervisor, 15 minutes (.25 hour) to conduct a meeting to
exchange the required information with at least the operator, signal person, and any other
employees necessary to perform this type of hoisting operation. OSHA estimates the annual
burden hours and cost for this proposed requirement are:
Burden hours: 1,000 (multiple crane /derrick lifts) x .25 hour (shift supervisor) = 250 hours
per year
Cost: 250 hours per year x $36.22 per hour (shift supervisor) = $9,055 per year
41) 29 CFR 1926.1434(a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), (a)(3), and 1926.1441(b)(2)(i)(B)
This provision also applies to modifications made in accordance with proposed section
1926.1441(b)(2)(i)(B). Of the 96,206 cranes in use per year as estimated in the PEA, OSHA
construction staff estimates that 1% of this equipment will be modified. In these scenarios,
the manufacturer, most likely a qualified person, must approve such modifications submitted
by the employer to ensure that the modifications will not compromise the safe operation of
the equipment. OSHA construction staff estimates that it would take a qualified person 2
hours to review the modification request and document the modification approval. It is
implied that the employer, most likely a qualified person, would have to submit a
modification request to the manufacturer. OSHA construction staff estimates that it would
take a qualified person 1.5 hours to document and submit the required request. It is also
assumed that the employer would also submit proposed modifications of the load charts,
procedures and other necessary information that are required in accordance with proposed
paragraph (a)(ii) of this section. OSHA estimates that the annual burden hours and cost of
this proposed provision are:
Burden hours: 96,206 (equip. per year) x .01 (modified equipment) x 1.5 hours (time to
document and submit modifications of equipment/tags/charts/procedures) = 1,443 hours per
year
Cost: 1,443 hours per year x $36.33 per hour (wage of qualified person- employer) =
$52,424 per year
42) 29 CFR 1926.1434(a)(2)(i), (a)(3), and 1926.1441(b)(2)(i)(B)
This provision also applies to modifications made in accordance with proposed section
1926.1441(b)(2)(i)(B). Of the 96,206 cranes in use per year as estimated in the PEA, OSHA
construction staff estimates that 1% of this equipment will be modified. In these scenarios,
the employer, most likely a qualified person, must modify load charts, procedures,
instruction manuals and instruction plates/tags/decals as necessary to accord with the
modification/addition. OSHA construction staff estimates that it would take a qualified
person 30 minutes (.5 hour) to complete this task. OSHA estimates that the annual burden
hours and cost of this proposed provision are:
−67−

Burden hours: 96,206 (equip. per year) x .01 (modified equipment) x .5 hour (time to
modify tags/charts/procedures) = 481 hours per year
Cost: 481 hours per year x $36.33 per hour (wage of qualified person) = $17,475 per year
43) 29 CFR 1926.1436(g)(4)
OSHA estimates in the PEA that 96,206 pieces of hoisting equipment will be used in the
construction industry per year and that .5% of this equipment will be derricks which are not
permanently installed. OSHA construction staff estimates that about 80% of these derricks
per year will either be newly installed or need to be repositioned which both require testing
as specified by paragraph (g) of this proposed section. Subsequently, OSHA construction
staff estimates that it will take a competent person 10 minutes (.17 hour) to document the
results of this testing and maintain this record. OSHA estimates the annual burden hours and
cost for this proposed requirement are:
Burden hours: 96,206 (equip per year) x .005 (not permanently installed) x .80 (new or
relocated derricks) x .17 hour (doc/main. testing results) = 65 hours per year
Cost: 65 hours per year x $20.15 (salary- competent person) = $1,310 per year

44) 29 CFR 1926.1436(h)
OSHA estimates in the PEA that 96,206 pieces of hoisting equipment will be used per year in
the construction industry and that 2% of this equipment will be derricks. In addition, OSHA
construction staff estimates that 10% of these derricks will have repairs/adjustments made
which affect the safe operation of the equipment. Under this scenario, load testing must be
conducted and documented in accordance with proposed paragraph (g) of this section when a
qualified person has determined that such testing is necessary. Subsequently, OSHA
construction staff estimates that it would take the employer, most likely a competent person, 30
minutes to document the necessary load testing of a repaired/adjusted derrick. The yearly
burden hours and cost of this proposed paragraph are estimated to be:
Burden hours: 96,206 (equip. per year) x .10 (repaired/adjusted equip.) x .02 (derricks) x .5
hour (documentation of testing) = 96 hours per year
Cost: 96 hours per year x $20.15 per hour (salary- competent person) =1,934 per year
45) 29 CFR 1926.1437(c)(2)(ii)
OSHA estimates in the PEA that 96,206 pieces of hoisting equipment will be used in the
construction industry per year. OSHA construction staff estimates that 5% of this equipment
−68−

will be floating cranes and land cranes/derricks on barges. OSHA believes it is usual and
customary for the industry to mark by postings or barricade hazardous areas of a crane or
derrick. For instance, such methods are already required by 29 CFR 1926.550(a)(9)
regarding the swing radius of rotating superstructures of crawler, locomotive, and truck
cranes. Therefore OSHA construction staff estimates that only 5% of the floating cranes or
land cranes/derricks on barges will have hazardous areas that are not already marked by
postings or the employer would barricaded in accordance with this proposed provision as a
new work practice. Subsequently, OSHA estimates that it will take a general construction
employee 10 minutes (.17 hour) to mark the boundaries of this hazardous area with warning
lines, barricades, railings or similar control methods. The yearly burden hours and cost of
this proposed paragraph are estimated to be:
Burden hours: 96,206 (equip. per year) x .05 (floating cranes/derricks) x .05 (floating
cranes/derricks w/ hazardous areas not marked) x .17 hour (time to mark/post area) = 41
hours per year
Cost: 41 hours per year x $16.16 per hour (wage- gen. const. employee) = $663 per year
46) 29 CFR 1926.1437(h)(6)
Burden hours/costs for documentation of inspections that would be required by this proposed
section are accounted under 1926.1412(e)(3) and (f)(7).
47) 29 CFR 1926.1437(n)(1) and (n)(2)
Proposed paragraph (n)(2) allows the option of getting the rated capacity of the equipment
reduced by the equipment manufacturer or a qualified person to account for the maritime
conditions listed in paragraph (n)(1) of this proposed section. Subsequently, OSHA
construction staff estimates that on 2% of the 887,031 hoisting jobs that will be performed in
the construction industry per year, land cranes/derricks on barges pontoons, vessels, or other
means of floatation will be used. In addition, OSHA construction staff estimates that only
.5% of these will be land cranes and derricks that will be removed from the flotation devices
and reinstalled for particular hoisting jobs performed. Most will remain secured to the
flotation device and be used throughout the year without a need to be rated by a qualified
person again.
Since the employer has an option to use a qualified person (who is familiar with floating
crane/derrick designs) to determine the required ratings, OSHA construction staff estimates
that 30% of the employers would utilize this option and it would take this individual 1 hour
to complete the necessary calculations. Furthermore, OSHA construction staff believes that
most of these qualified people would document these calculations and take 30 minutes to do
it. This scenario is most likely when older models of equipment are used and the
manufacturer is no longer available. The other option allows the employer to rely on the
manufacturer for these calculations and it is estimated the other 70% of the employers would
−69−

utilize this option. Therefore, OSHA construction staff estimates that the manufacturer, most
likely an RPE, would also take 1.5 hours to make and document such determinations. The
yearly burden hours and cost of this proposed paragraph are estimated to be:
Burden hours: 887, 031 (hoisting jobs) x .02 (floating cranes/derricks) x .005 (removed and
reinstalled equip) x .30 (qualified person- employer) x 1.5 hours (document/develop) = 40
hours per year
Cost: 40 hours per year x $36.33 per hour (wage- qualified person) = $1,453 per year
48) 29 CFR 1926.1437(n)(5)(v)
The Agency estimates in the PEA that 887,031 of hoisting jobs will be performed in the
construction industry per year. Furthermore, OSHA estimates that 2% of the hoisting
equipment will be floating land cranes/derricks. Of these pieces of equipment, OSHA
construction staff estimates that only .5% of these will be land cranes and derricks that will
be removed from the flotation devices and reinstalled for particular hoisting jobs performed.
Most will remain secured to the flotation device and be used throughout the year without a
need to have its mounting mechanism assessed by a qualified person again. For the
equipment that will need reassessment, OSHA estimates that it will take a marine
engineer/registered professional engineer or a qualified person who is familiar with floating
crane/derrick designs, 1 hour to develop and document information which confirms the
safety of the equipment’s mounting design. It is estimated that 30% of the employers would
opt to use an existing employee who is a qualified person to make these determinations,
while the other 70% would hire a marine engineer. The yearly burden hours and cost of this
proposed paragraph for an existing employee who is a qualified person are estimated to be:
Burden hours: 887,031 (equip. per year) x .02 (floating cranes and derricks) x .005 (floating
land cranes/derricks reinstalled) x 1 hours (document development) x .30 (employers with
qualified person on staff) = 27 hours per year;
Cost: 27 hours per year x $36.33 per hour (wage- qualified person-employer) = $981 per
year;
49) 29 CFR 1926.1439(e)
Burden hours/costs are accounted as part of the documentation of training required by
section 1926.1427.
50) 29 CFR 1926.1440(a)
Burden hours/costs are accounted as part of the documentation required by all other sections
of this proposed standard except: 1926.1402, 1926.1415, 1926.1416, and 1926.1427.

−70−

51) 29 CFR 1926.1441(b)(2)(i)(B)
Burden hours/costs are accounted as part of the documentation required for modifications
under section 1926.1434(a)(1)(i) and (a)(2)(i).
52) 29 CFR 1926.1441(c)(2)(i)
OSHA estimates in the Per-RFA that 96,206 pieces of hoisting equipment that will be used in
the construction industry per year and OSHA construction staff estimates that 40% of this
equipment will be rated 2000 lbs or less in capacity. It is also estimated in the PEA that 85%
of this equipment will be rented. OSHA believes it is reasonable to assume that for the
majority of new and rented equipment, it is a usual and customary practice for the owners
and manufacturers of the equipment to provide operation procedures with their equipment.
Therefore, OSHA construction staff estimates that 1% of the equipment, generally older
models, will not have the manufacturer’s equipment operation procedures available. For this
equipment, OSHA construction staff estimates that it will take an employer, most likely a
shift supervisor or qualified person at a rental establishment, 10 minutes (.17 hour) to obtain
operational procedures developed by the qualified person specified in paragraph
1926.1441(c)(2)(ii) of this proposed section and ensure compliance with these procedures.
The yearly burden hours and cost of this proposed paragraph are estimated to be:
Burden hours: 96,206 (equip. per year) x .40 (equip- 2,000 lbs or less) x .15 (owned equip)
.01 (equip w/o procedures available) x .17 hour (procedures) = 10 hours;
Cost: 10 hours x $36.22 per hour (wage- shift supervisor) = $362 per year;
53) 29 CFR 1926.1441(c)(2)(ii)
OSHA estimates in the Per-RFA that 96, 206 pieces of hoisting equipment that will be used
in the construction industry per year and OSHA construction staff estimates that 40% of this
equipment will be rated 2000 lbs or less in capacity. It is also estimated in the PEA that 85%
of this equipment will be rented. OSHA believes it is reasonable to assume that for the
majority of new and rented equipment, it is a usual and customary practice for the owners
and manufacturers of the equipment to provide operational controls procedures with their
equipment. Therefore, OSHA construction staff estimates that 1% of the equipment,
generally older models, will not have the manufacturer’s equipment operational controls
procedures available for reference. For this equipment, OSHA estimates that it will take a
qualified person 1 hour to develop procedures for the operational controls. The yearly burden
hours and cost of this proposed paragraph are estimated to be:
Burden hours: 96,206 (equip. per year) x .40 (equip- 2,000 lbs or less) x .15 (owned equip)
.01 (w/o operational controls procedures available) x 1 hour (procedures development) = 58
hours

−71−

Cost: 58 hours x $36.33 per hour (wage- qualified person) = $2,107 per year
54) 29 CFR 1926.1441(c)(2)(iii)
OSHA estimates in the Per-RFA that 96, 206 pieces of hoisting equipment that will be used
in the construction industry per year and OSHA construction staff estimates that 40% of this
equipment will be rated 2000 lbs or less in capacity. It is also estimated in the PEA that 85%
of this equipment will be rented. OSHA believes it is reasonable to assume that for the
majority of new and rented equipment, it is a usual and customary practice for the owners
and manufacturers of the equipment to provide rated capacities with their equipment.
Therefore, OSHA construction staff estimates that 1% of the equipment, generally older
models, will not have the manufacturer’s equipment rated capacities available for reference.
For these jobs, OSHA estimates that it will take a registered professional engineer, who is
familiar with the equipment, 1 hour to develop procedures related to the capacity of the
equipment. The yearly burden hours and cost of this proposed paragraph are estimated to be:
Burden hours: 96,206 (jobs per year) x .40 (equip- 2,000 lbs or less) x .15 (owned equip) x
.01 (w/o rated capacities available) x 1 hour (procedures development) = 58 hours per year
Cost: 58 hours per year x $63.59 per hour (wage- registered professional engineer) =
$3,688 per year
55) 29 CFR 1926.1441(c)(3)(i)
OSHA estimates in the Per-RFA that 96, 206 pieces of hoisting equipment that will be used
in the construction industry per year and OSHA construction staff estimates that 40% of this
equipment will be rated 2,000 lbs or less in capacity. It is also estimated in the PEA that 85%
of this equipment will be rented. OSHA believes it is reasonable to assume that for the
majority of new and rented equipment, it is a usual and customary practice for the owners
and manufacturers of the equipment to provide the rated capacities chart for their equipment.
In addition, many equipment rental companies also provide equipment operators who will
ensure that the rated capacities chart for the equipment will be available in the operator’s
control station. Therefore, OSHA construction staff estimates that 1% of the equipment,
generally older models, will not have the manufacturer’s equipment rated capacities chart
available at the control station. Subsequently, OSHA construction staff assumes that it
would take the employer, most likely a shift supervisor, about 15 minutes (.25 hours) to
obtain and make this information available at the control station. OSHA estimates the annual
burden hours and cost for this proposed requirement are:
Burden hours: 96,206 (equip. per year) x .40 (equip- 2,000 lbs or less) x .15 (owned equip.)
x .01 (equip w/o load charts) .25 hours (obtaining/making information available) = 14 hours
Cost: 14 hours x $36.22 per hour (wage- shift supervisor) = $507 per hour

−72−

56) 29 CFR 1926.1441(c)(3)(ii)
OSHA estimates in the Per-RFA that 96, 206 pieces of hoisting equipment that will be used
in the construction industry per year and OSHA construction staff estimates that 40% of this
equipment will be rated 2,000 lbs or less in capacity. It is also estimated in the PEA that 85%
of this equipment will be rented. OSHA believes it is reasonable to assume that for the
majority of new and rented equipment, it is a usual and customary practice for the owners
and manufacturers of the equipment to provide procedures applicable to the operation of
their equipment, such as special hazard warnings, operating speeds, instructions and
operator’s manual. In addition, many equipment rental companies also provide equipment
operators who will ensure that these procedures will be available to him or her. Therefore
OSHA construction staff estimates that 1% of this equipment will not have these procedures
applicable to the operator. Subsequently, OSHA construction staff assumes that it would take
the employer, most likely a shift supervisor, about 15 minutes (.25 hour) to obtain and make
this information available to the operator. OSHA estimates the annual burden hours and cost
for this proposed requirement are:
Burden hours: 96,206 (equip. per year) x .40 (equip- 2,000 lbs or less) x .15 (owned equip.)
x .01 (equip w/o procedures available) x .25 hour (obtaining/making information available) =
14 hours per year
Cost: 14 hours x $36.22 per hour (wage- shift supervisor) = $507 per year

13. Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from
the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden shown in Items 12 and 14).
• The cost estimate should be split into two components: (a) a total capital and start-up cost
component (annualized over its expected useful life) and (b) a total operation and maintenance and
purchase of service component. The estimates should take into account costs associated with generating,
maintaining, and disclosing or providing the information. Include descriptions of methods used to
estimate major cost factors including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital
equipment, the discount rate(s), and the time period over which costs will be incurred. Capital and startup costs include, among other items, preparations for collecting information such as purchasing
computers and software; monitoring, sampling, drilling and testing equipment; and record storage
facilities.
• If cost estimates are expected to vary widely, agencies should present ranges of cost burdens and
explain the reasons for the variance. The cost of purchasing or contracting out information collections
services should be a part of this cost burden estimate. In developing cost burden estimates, agencies may
consult with a sample of respondent (fewer than 10), utilize the 60-day pre-OMB submission public
comment process and use existing economic or regulatory impact analysis associated with the rulemaking
containing the information collection, as appropriate.
• Generally, estimates should not include purchases of equipment or services, or portions thereof,
made: (1) prior to October 1, 1995, (2) to achieve regulatory compliance with requirements not associated
with the information collection, (3) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the
government, or (4) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.
−73−

Item 12 above provides the total cost of the information collection requirements specified by the proposed
Standard.

1) 29 CFR 1926.1404(j)
This proposed provision requires that written approval (from a registered engineer who is
familiar with the equipment) must be obtained when information is not available for the
employer to reference and ensure that the manufacturers’ limitations have not been exceeded
regarding the maximum length of boom that may be supported by only cantilevering during
A/D operations. OSHA construction staff estimates that equipment, primarily older
equipment models, on 1% of the 96,206 pieces of equipment that are in use annually as
estimated in the PEA will not have information available from the manufacturer regarding
cantilevered boom support. Subsequently, OSHA construction staff estimates that it would take
an average of 30 minutes (.5 hour) for a registered engineer to generate and maintain the
required information for employers who request this information. The yearly burden hours
and cost of this proposed paragraph are estimated to be:
Burden hours: .01 (equipment w/o man. specs) x 96,206 (equipment in use) x .5 hours
(maintenance and development of document) = 481.03 hours per year
Cost: 481.03 hours per year x $63.59 per hour (wage-registered engineer) = $30,589 per
year
2) 29 CFR 1926.1404(m)(1) and (m)(1)(ii)
This proposed provision requires that written approval (from a registered engineer who is
familiar with the equipment) must be obtained when selection of components and
configurations of the equipment that affect the capacity are not in accordance with the
manufacturer’s specifications. OSHA construction staff estimates that, primarily for older
equipment, employers will exercise this option during 1% of the 887,031A/D hoisting jobs
performed per year as estimated in the PEA. Subsequently, OSHA construction staff estimates
that it would take an average of 30 minutes (.5 hour) for a registered engineer to develop and
document the required information for employers who exercise this option. The yearly
burden hours and cost of this proposed paragraph are estimated to be:
Burden hours: .01 (equip. w/o man. specs) x 887,031 A/D jobs x .5 hours (maintenance and
development of document) = 4,435.16 hours
Cost: 4,435.16 hours x $63.59 per hour (wage- registered engineer) = $282,032 per year
3) 29 CFR 1926.1408 Table A and 1926.1409

−74−

This provision would also apply to section 1926.1409 for work around power lines that are
above 350 kV. OSHA estimates in the PEA that 25% of the estimated 887,031 hoisting jobs
in construction will be performed near power lines. In addition, OSHA construction staff
estimates that on 5% of those jobs, cranes and derrick will be operated close to power lines
that are over 1,000 KV. It is estimated that 90% of the employers would call the utility for
the information required by this provision. The other 10 % would opt to use an RPE to
calculate the minimum clearance distance applicable to 1,000KV power lines. Subsequently,
OSHA estimates it would take an RPE 30 minutes (.5 hour) to make the determination
required by Table A and to communicate this information to the employer.
Burden hours: 887,031 (hoisting jobs) x .25 (near power lines) x .10 (employers who
consult RPE) x .05 (jobs performed near 1,000KV lines) x .5 hour (calculate and
communicate) = 554.39 hours per year
Cost: 554.39 hours per year x $63.59 per hour (wage- RPE) = $35,254 per year
4) 29 CFR 1926.1410(c)(1)
OSHA estimates in the PEA that 25% of the estimated 887,031 hoisting jobs in construction
will be performed near power lines. In addition, OSHA construction staff estimates that on
5% of those jobs, cranes and derrick will be operated closer to power lines than Table A
allows. It is estimated that 90% of the employers would call the utility for the information
required by this provision. The other 10 % would opt to use an RPE to calculate the
minimum clearance distance applicable to the power lines. Subsequently, OSHA
construction staff estimates that it would take a shift supervisor 15 minutes (.25 hour) to get
this information from the utility or it would take an RPE 30 minutes (.5 hour) to make the
determination required by Table A and to communicate this information to the employer.
Burden hours: 887,031 (hoisting jobs) x .25 (near power lines) x .10 (employers who
consult RPE) x .05 (jobs performed inside of Table A) x .5 hour (calculate and communicate)
= 554.39 hours per year
Cost: 554.39 hours per year x $63.59 per hour (wage- RPE) = $35,254 per year
5) 29 CFR 1926.1411 Table T
OSHA estimates in the PEA that 25% of the estimated 887,031 hoisting jobs in construction
will be performed near power lines. In addition, OSHA construction staff estimates that on
5% of those jobs, cranes and derrick will be operated close to power lines that are over 1000
KV and the equipment will have to travel without a load in proximity of the power lines on
35% of those jobs. It is estimated that 90% of the employers would call the utility for
clearance distances while the other 10 % would opt to use an RPE to calculate the minimum
clearance distance applicable to these power lines. Subsequently, OSHA construction staff
estimates that it would take the employer 15 minutes to get the information from the utility or
−75−

it would take an RPE 30 minutes (.5 hour) to make the determination required by Table A
and to communicate this information to the employer.
Burden hours: 887,031 (hoisting jobs) x .25 (near power lines) x .35 (must travel without
load) x .10 (employers who consult RPE) x .05 (jobs performed near 1,000KV lines) x .5
hour (calculate and communicate) = 194.04 hours per year
Cost: 194.04 hours per year x $63.59 per hour (wage- RPE) = $12,339 per year
6) 29 CFR 1926.1412(b)(1)(ii)(A)
OSHA estimates in the PEA that 887,031 hoisting jobs will be performed per year in the
construction industry. OSHA construction staff estimates that on 10% of these jobs, pieces of
equipment will be used on which repairs/adjustments have been made that will affect the safe
operation of the equipment. OSHA construction staff also estimates that the manufacturer’s
equipment criteria will not be available for 1% of those jobs using repaired/adjusted pieces of
equipment. Under these scenarios, a qualified person must determine if he or she must
develop criteria or if an RPE is needed to do so. Although it is not explicitly required by this
provision, the Agency assumes that 60% of the qualified persons will opt to develop and
document the criteria and 40% will opt to utilize an RPE. OSHA estimates that 80% of those
qualified persons will document the information. OSHA construction staff estimates that it would
take an average of 2 hours for an RPE or qualified person to develop, document, and
maintain the required information. The yearly burden hours and cost of this proposed
paragraph are estimated to be:
Burden hours: 887, 031 (equip. per year) x .40 (done by RPE) x .10 (repaired/adjusted
equip.) x .01 (equip. w/o mfr criteria) x 2 hours (develop/document/maintain of criteria) =
709.62 hours per year
Cost: 709.62 hours per year x $63.59 per hour (wage- RPE person) = $45,125 per year
7) 29 CFR 1926.1412(c)(2)(i)
OSHA construction staff estimates that 30% of the 887,031 hoisting jobs performed in
construction will require A/D. OSHA construction staff estimates that on 1% of these A/D jobs,
equipment will be used for which the manufacturer’s recommended configurations will not be
available. Under these scenarios, a qualified person must determine if he or she must develop
criteria that establishes safe configurations of the equipment or if there is a need for an RPE
to make such determinations. Although it is not explicitly required by this provision, the
Agency assumes that 60% of the qualified persons will opt to develop the criteria themselves
and the other 40% would hire an RPE. OSHA construction staff estimates that it would take an
RPE or qualified person 2 hours to develop, document, and maintain the required
information. The yearly burden hours and cost of this proposed paragraph are estimated to
be:
−76−

Burden hours: 887,031 (equip. per year) x .30 (A/D jobs) x .40 (done by RPE) x .01 (equip.
w/o mfr criteria) x 2 hours (develop/document/maintain of criteria) = 2,128.87 hours per year
Cost: 2,128.87 hours per year x $63.59 per hour (wage- RPE person) = $135,375 per
year
8) 29 CFR 1926.1413(a)(4)(ii)(F)
OSHA believes that number of shifts per hoisting job in construction is too variable to try to
estimate how many occur in the industry per year. However, OSHA estimates in the PEA
that 887,031 hoisting jobs will be performed in the construction industry per year. OSHA
construction staff estimates that during shift inspections on 1% of these jobs, Cat II wire rope
deficiencies will be discovered that will require the employer to make an assessment of
continued safe operations of equipment if the damaged wire rope continues to be used.
Furthermore, OSHA construction staff estimates that during the inspection of 3% of these
hoisting jobs, the employer will opt to obtain written approval from the manufacturer for
different criteria which would allow the rope to remain in service. Subsequently, OSHA
construction staff estimates that it would take the manufacturer, most likely a qualified
person, 1 hour and 30 minutes (1.5 hours) to review the request from the employer and to
document a response. The yearly burden hours and cost of this proposed paragraph are
estimated to be:
Burden hours: 887,031 (jobs per year) x .01 (insp. w/ Cat II damaged wire rope) x .03
(employers. who opt to get approval) x 1.5 hour (review and documentation) = 399.16 hours
per year
Cost: 399.16 hours per year x $36.22 per hour (wage-qualified person-mfr.) = $14,458
per year
9) 29 CFR 1926.1427(c)(1)(ii) and 1926.1439(e)
This provision also applies to training documentation required in accordance with proposed
section 1926.1439(e). OSHA construction staff estimates that no more than 10 employers
will opt to get accredited and certify its own employees in accordance with Option 2 of this
proposed section. In addition, it is assumed that all of these employers will provide testing
materials to an auditor for approval in accordance because it is believed that obtaining a test
from accredited crane/derrick testing organizations would most likely not be cost effective
for the employer or the accredited testing organization will not provide tests for employers.
When employers choose to have their tests audited, it is estimated that it would take the
auditor, most likely a qualified educator/manager, 2 hours to review and approve the test the
employer would submit for approval. It is also very likely that the auditor will document this
approval. The yearly burden hours and cost of this proposed paragraph are estimated to be:

−77−

Burden hours: 10 (number of Option 2 employers) x 2 hours (time to
review/approve/document) = 20 hours per year
Cost: 20 hours per year x 63.59 (wage of qualified person- auditor) = $1,272 per year
10) 29 CFR 1926.1427(c)(2)(i), and 1926.1439(e)
This provision also applies to training documentation required in accordance with proposed
section 1926.1439(e). OSHA construction staff estimates that 10 employers or less will opt
to get accredited and certify its own employees in accordance with Option 2 of this proposed
section. It is estimated that it would take an auditor, most likely a qualified
educator/manager, 2 hours to review and approve the testing circumstances in accordance
with this proposed paragraph. The yearly burden hours and cost of this proposed paragraph
are estimated to be:
Burden hours: 10 (Option 2 employers) x 1 hour (time to review/approve) = 10 hours per
year
Cost: 10 hours per year x 63.59 (wage of qualified person- auditor) = $636 per year
11) 29 CFR 1926.1427(c)(5)(ii), (c)(5)(iv), and 1926.1439(e)
This provision also applies to training documentation required in accordance with proposed
section 1926.1439(e). OSHA construction staff estimates that no more than 10 employers
will opt to get accredited and certify its own employees in accordance with Option 2 of this
proposed section. It is estimated that it would take an auditor, most likely a qualified
educator/manager, 30 minutes (.5 hour) to document the audit and maintain that record for
three years. The yearly burden hours and cost of this proposed paragraph are estimated to be:
Burden hours: 10 (Option 2 employers) x .5 hour (time to document/maintain) = 5 hours per
year
Cost: 5 hours per year x 63.59 (wage of qualified person- auditor) = $ 318 per year
12) 29 CFR 1926.1427(c)(5)(iii), (c)(5)(iv), and 1926.1439(e)
This provision also applies to training documentation required in accordance with proposed
section 1926.1439(e). OSHA estimates that 1 of the 10 estimated Option 2 employers
covered by this proposed standard would fail the audit of its test and test administration
required by this proposed provision. Therefore it is estimated that it would take an auditor,
most likely a clerical employee, 15 minutes (.25 hour) to file a report to an OSHA Regional
Office regarding certification program deficiencies discovered during an audit. The yearly
burden hours and cost of this proposed paragraph are estimated to be:

−78−

Burden hours: 1 (employer who program fails) x .25 hour (time to file documents with
OSHA) = .25 hours per year
Cost: .25 hours per year x $16.16 per hour (wage- clerical employee) = $4 per year
13) 29 CFR 1926.1428(a)(2)
It is estimated in the PEA that at least one signal person would be needed to safely perform
hoisting jobs for each crane used in construction. However, OSHA construction staff
estimates that, due to the size and types of loads, size and types of hoisting equipment used,
and configurations of job sites, 40% of the equipment covered by this proposed standard
would not need a signal person when hoisting jobs are performed. Therefore it was estimated
that at least one signal person would be needed for the remaining 60% of the equipment used
to perform hoisting jobs under worksite conditions for which a signal person is needed.
Subsequently, it is estimated that it would take a qualified evaluator, most likely a qualified
manager/evaluator, 30 minutes (.5 hour) to assess whether a signal person meets the
requirements of this proposed section. Finally, it is estimated that only 40% of the employers
will conduct the assessments themselves and the other 60% will have a third party do these
required assessments. The yearly burden hours and cost of this proposed paragraph are
estimated to be:
Burden hours: 96,206 (equipment used per year) x .60 (equip need signal persons) x .5 hour
(time for assessment) x .60 (third party does assessment) = 17,317.08 hours per year
Cost: 17,317.08 hours per year x $ 36.22 per hour (wage- qualified evaluator) =
$627,225 per year
14) 29 CFR 1928(a)(3) and (b)
It is estimated in the PEA that at least one signal person would be needed to safely perform
hoisting jobs for each crane used in construction. However, OSHA construction staff
estimates that, due to the size and types of loads, size and types of hoisting equipment used,
and configurations of job sites, 40% of the equipment covered by this proposed standard
would not need a signal person when hoisting jobs are performed. Therefore it was estimated
that at least one signal person would be needed for the remaining 60% of the equipment used
to perform hoisting jobs under worksite conditions for which a signal person is needed. The
other 30% of the smaller equipment is used to perform hoisting jobs under worksite
conditions for which a signal person is not needed. With regard to the qualification of signal
people, OSHA construction staff estimates that 20 % of the signal persons would need to be
qualified each year whether initially or re-qualified. Subsequently, it is estimated that it
would take a qualified evaluator, most likely a qualified manager/administrator, 15 minutes
(.25 hour) to document that a signal person meets or has been re-qualified to meet the
requirements of this proposed section. Furthermore, it is estimated that about 30% of the
employers would have their own evaluator and the other 60% would use a third party to meet
−79−

this proposed requirement. The yearly burden hours and cost of this proposed paragraph are
estimated to be:
Burden hours: 96,206 (equipment used per year) x .60 (equip need signal persons) x .20
(qualified per year) x .60 (third party evaluator) x .25 hour (time for assessment/document) =
1,731.71 hours per year
Cost: 1,731.71 hours per year x $36.22 per hour (wage- qualified evaluator) = $62,722
per year
15) 29 CFR 1926.1430(b)
Burden hours/costs are accounted as part of the documentation of training required by
proposed section 1926.1428(a)(3).
16) 29 CFR 1926.1434(a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), (a)(3), and 1926.1441(b)(2)(i)(B)
This provision also applies to modifications made in accordance with proposed section
1926.1441(b)(2)(i)(B). Of the 96,206 cranes in use per year as estimated in the PEA, OSHA
construction staff estimates that 1% of this equipment will be modified. In these scenarios,
the manufacturer, most likely a qualified person, must approve such modifications submitted
by the employer to ensure that the modifications will not compromise the safe operation of
the equipment. OSHA construction staff estimates that it would take a qualified person 2
hours to review the modification request and document the modification approval. OSHA
estimates that the annual burden hours and cost of this proposed provision are:
Burden hours: 96,206 (equip. per year) x .01 (modified equipment) x 2 hours (time to do
review and document approval) = 1,924.12 hours per year
Cost: 1,924.12 hours per year x $36.22 per hour (wage of qualified person- mfr.) =
$69,692 per year
17) 29 CFR 1926.1434(a)(2)(i), (a)(3), and 1926.1441(b)(2)(i)(B)
This provision also applies to modifications made in accordance with proposed section
1926.1441(b)(2)(i)(B). Of the 96,206 cranes in use per year as estimated in the PEA, OSHA
construction staff estimates that 1% of this equipment will be modified. In these scenarios,
the employer, most likely a qualified person, must modify load charts, procedures,
instruction manuals and instruction plates/tags/decals as necessary to accord with the
modification/addition. OSHA construction staff estimates that it would take a qualified
person 30 minutes (.5 hour) to complete this task. OSHA estimates that the annual burden
hours and cost of this proposed provision are:

−80−

Burden hours: 96,206 (equip. per year) x .01 (modified equipment) x .5 hour (time to
modify tags/charts/procedures) = 481.03 hours per year
Cost: 481.03 hours per year x $36.22 per hour (wage of qualified person) = $17,423 per
year
18) 29 CFR 1926.1435(c)
Of the 96,206 cranes in use per year as estimated in the PEA, OSHA construction staff
estimates that 2% of this equipment will be tower cranes. Furthermore it is estimated that 1%
of the equipment, generally older models, will not have the manufacturer’s recommendations
and specifications available. Subsequently, when the manufacturer’s recommendations and
specifications are not available, OSHA construction staff estimates that it will take a
registered professional engineer, who is familiar with that type of equipment, 1.5 hours to
document and communicate an approval of the size and location of signs the employer may
display on the equipment specified by the employer. The yearly burden hours and cost of this
proposed paragraph are estimated to be:
Burden hours: 96,206 (hoisting equip) x .02 (tower cranes) x .01(w/o man. specs) x 1.5
hours (doc/com approval) = 28.86 hours per year
Cost: 28.86 hours per year x $63.59 per hour (wage- registered professional engineer) =
$1,835
19) 29 CFR 1926.1437(m)(4)
The Agency estimates that 96,206 pieces of hoisting equipment will be used in the
construction industry per year. Furthermore, OSHA estimates that 2% of the hoisting
equipment will be floating cranes/derricks. OSHA estimates that 1% of these floating
cranes/derricks will utilize employer-made equipment. Subsequently, OSHA estimates that it
will take a registered professional engineer 2 hours to develop and document information
that demonstrate that load charts and applicable parameters for equipment use meet
requirements of paragraphs (m)(1)-(3) of this proposed section. The yearly burden hours and
cost of this proposed paragraph are estimated to be:
Burden hours: 96,206 (equip. per year) x .02 (floating cranes/derricks) x .01 (w/ employermade equipment) x 2 hours (document development) = 38.48 hours per year
Cost: 96.206 hours per year x $63.59 per hour (wage- registered professional
engineer/qualified person) = $6,118 per year
20) 29 CFR 1926.1437(n)(1) and (n)(2)

−81−

Proposed paragraph (n)(2) allows the option of getting the rated capacity of the equipment
reduced by the equipment manufacturer or a qualified person to account for the maritime
conditions listed in paragraph (n)(1) of this proposed section. Subsequently, OSHA
construction staff estimates that on 2% of the 887,031 hoisting jobs that will be performed in
the construction industry per year, land cranes/derricks on barges pontoons, vessels, or other
means of floatation will be used. In addition, OSHA construction staff estimates that only
.5% of these will be land cranes and derricks that will be removed from the flotation devices
and reinstalled for particular hoisting jobs performed. Most will remain secured to the
flotation device and be used throughout the year without a need to be rated by a qualified
person again.
Since the employer has an option to use a qualified person (who is familiar with floating
crane/derrick designs) to determine the required ratings, OSHA construction staff estimates
that 30% of the employers would utilize this option. The other 70% of the employers would
likely use the other option, which allows the employer to rely on the manufacturer for these
calculations. OSHA construction staff estimates that the manufacturer, most likely an RPE,
would take 1.5 hours to make and document such determinations. The yearly burden hours
and cost of this proposed paragraph are estimated to be:
Burden hours: 887,031 (hoisting jobs) x .02 (floating cranes/derricks) x .005 (removed and
reinstalled equip) x .70 (qualified person- mfr./RPE) x 1.5 hours (document/develop) = 93.14
hours per year
Cost: 93.14 hours per year x $63.17 per hour (wage- RPE) = $5,884 per year
21) 29 CFR 1926.1437(n)(5)(v)
The Agency estimates in the PEA that 887,031 pieces of hoisting equipment will be used in
the construction industry per year. Furthermore, OSHA estimates that 2% of the hoisting
equipment will be floating cranes/derricks. Of these pieces of equipment, OSHA construction
staff estimates that only .5% of these will be land cranes and derricks that will be removed
from the flotation devices and reinstalled for particular hoisting job performed. Most will
remain secured to the flotation device and be used throughout the year without a need to be
rated by a qualified person again. For the jobs where the cranes and derricks are removed
from the flotation devices, OSHA estimates that it will take a marine engineer/registered
professional engineer or a qualified person who is familiar with floating crane/derrick
designs, 1 hour to develop and document information which confirms the safety of the
equipment’s mounting design. It is estimated that 30% of the employers would opt to use an
existing employee who is a qualified person to make these determinations, while the other
70% would contract for the services of a marine engineer. The yearly burden hours and cost
of this proposed paragraph for a marine engineer are estimated to be:

−82−

Burden hours: 887,031 (equip. per year) x .02 (floating cranes and derricks) x .005 (floating
land cranes/derricks reinstalled) x 1 hour (document development) x .70 (RPME) = 62.09
hours per year
Cost: 62.09 hours per year x $63.59 per hour (wage- marine engineer/registered
professional engineer) = $3,948 per year
22) 29 CFR 1926.1437(n)(5)(vi)
OSHA estimates in the Per-RFA that 96, 206 pieces of hoisting equipment will be used in the
construction industry per year. Furthermore, OSHA estimates that 2% of the hoisting
equipment will be floating cranes/derricks. OSHA believes it is reasonable to anticipate that
for 20% of the floating equipment used in the industry, land cranes/derricks will be mounted
on a flotation device/vessel and used to hoist loads. Subsequently, OSHA construction staff
estimates that for 3% of this equipment, mobile auxiliary cranes (two cranes/derricks on the
flotation device/vessel) will need to be mounted to a floatation device/vessel to perform the
construction hoisting job. For these jobs, OSHA estimates that it will take a marine
engineer/registered professional engineer, who is familiar with floating crane/derrick
designs, 2 hours to develop documents which confirm the safety of the equipment attachment
design. The yearly burden hours and cost of this proposed paragraph are estimated to be:
Burden hours: 96,206 (equip. per year) x .02 (floating cranes/derrick) x .20 (land
crane/derrick) x .03 (mobile auxiliary cranes jobs) x 2 hours (calculate/document) = 23.09
hours per year
Cost: 57.72 hours per year x $63.59 per hour (wage- marine engineer/registered
professional engineer) = $3,671 per year
23) 29 CFR 1926.1439(e)
Burden hours/costs are accounted as part of the certification/qualification documentation
required by proposed section 1926.1427(a), (c)(1), (c)(2)(i), (c)(5)(ii), and (c)(5)(iii).
14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal Government. Also, provide a description of the
method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as
equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), any other expense that would not have been incurred
without this collection of information. Agencies may also aggregate cost estimates from Items 12, 13, and
14 in a single table.

1) OSHA estimates that a compliance officer (GS-12, step 5), with an hourly wage rate of
$31.34, would spend about 30 minutes (.5 hour) during an inspection reviewing the
documents required by the proposed Standard. The Agency determines that its compliance
officers would inspect about 1,242 4 worksites each year on which pieces of equipment are
4

OSHA estimated the number of inspections by determining the inspection rate (1.4%) for all worksites
under the jurisdiction of the OSH Act (including both Federal OSHA and approved state-plan agencies), and
−83−

used that are regulated by the proposed Standard. OSHA considers other expenses, such as
equipment, overhead, and support staff salaries, to be normal operating expenses that would
occur without the paperwork requirements specified by the proposed Standard. Therefore,
the total cost of these paperwork requirements to the Federal government is:
Cost: 1,242 inspections x .5 hour x $31.34 = $19,462
2) OSHA estimates that a administrative assistant (GS-7, step 5) with an hourly wage rate of
$17.67, would spend about 15 minutes (.25 hour) filing and maintaining the documented
report submitted by an operator certification/qualification program auditor. This report
identifies deficiencies in an employer’s operator certification/qualification program as
required by proposed paragraph 1926.1427(c)(5)(iii). The Agency estimates that OSHA
Area Offices would receive about one of these reports each year. OSHA considers other
expenses, such as equipment, overhead, and support staff salaries, to be normal operating
expenses that would occur without the paperwork requirements specified by the proposed
Standard. Therefore, the total cost of these paperwork requirements to the Federal
government is:
Cost: 1 report x .25 hour x $17.67 = $4.00 per year
15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in Items 13 or 14 of the OMB
Form 83-1.

The burden hours for the collection of information requirements contained in the proposed
Standard would result in a total program change increase of 157,981 hours. The cost of the
NPRM would result in a program increase of $1,391,174.
16. For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation and
publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for
the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection information, completion of
report, publication dates, and other actions.

OSHA will not publish the information collected under the proposed Standard.
17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection,
explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

This Supporting Statement was developed for the proposed Standard; therefore, no expiration
date would be displayed.
18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in Item 19, "Certification for
Paperwork Reduction Act Submission," of OMB Form 83-I.

then multiplied the total number of worksites covered by the Standard (887,031) by this percentage (i.e., .014 x
887,031 = 1,242 inspections).
−84−

OSHA is not seeking an exception to the certification statement specified by Item 19 of
OMB 83-I.

−85−

Table 1
Proposed Burden Hours, Number of Responses, and Proposed Cost Each Year
for the Proposed Information Collection Requirements

Item 12 Information Collection Requirement
29 CFR 1926.1402(c)(2)
29 CFR 1926.1403(b) and 1926.1406(b)
29 CFR 1926.1404(f)(2)
29 CFR 1926.1407(g) and 1926.1409
29 CFR 1926.1408(b)(1) and 1926.1409
29 CFR 1926.1410(d) and (d)(2)(iv)
29 CFR 1926.1410(e)
29 CFR 1926.1410(f)
29 CFR 1926.1410(j)
29 CFR 1926.1412(a)(1)(i)
29 CFR 1926.1412(b) (1)(i)(A)
29 CFR 1926.1412(c)(2)(i)
29 CFR 1926.1412(e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(ii), (h), 1926.1413(b)(3), and
1926.1437(h)(2)
29 CFR 1926.1412(f)(6), (g)(3) and 1926.1413(c)(3)(ii)
29 CFR 1926.1412(f)(7), 1926.1413(c)(4), 1926.1437(h)(4), and (h)(6)
29 CFR 1926.1413(a)(4)(ii)(A)
29 CFR 1926.1413(a)(4)(iii)(F) and 1414(c)(3)(i)
29 CFR 1926.1414(c)(2)(iii)
29 CFR 1926.1417(b)(1)
29 CFR 1926.1417(b)(2)
29 CFR 1926.1417(b)(3)
29 CFR 1926.1423(h)(2)
29 CFR 1926.1424(a)(2)(ii)
29 CFR 1926.1427(a)
29 CFR 1926.1427(c)(5)(iii)
29 CFR 1926.1427(h)(1)
29 CFR 1926.1428(a)(2)
29CFR 1926.1428(a)(3) and (b)
29 CFR 1926.1431(o)(3)
29 CFR 1926.1431(p)(4)
29 CFR 1926.1431(r)
29 CFR 1926.1432(a)
29 CFR 1926.1432(b)(2)
29 CFR 1926.1434(a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii)
29 CFR 1926.1434(a)(2)(i) and (a)(3)
29 CFR 1926.1436(g)(4)
29 CFR 1926.1436(h)
29 CFR 1926.1437(c)(2)
29 CFR 1926.1437(n)(1) and (n)(2)
−86−

Proposed
Burden
Hours
1,064
10
34
213
25,613
33,264
8,316
10,977
333
241
852
2,555
13,854
9
361
133
887
25
50
50
50
355
36,191
4,618
1
577
11,545
1,154
665
665
222
500
250
1,443
481
65
96
41
40

Proposed
Cost ($)
$38,538
$363
$1,213
$3,442
$927,703
$1,204,822
$528,814
$397,587
$12,061
$8,756
$30,953
$92,823
$279,158
$181
$7,274
$2,680
$32,225
$504
$1,817
$1,817
$3,180
$12,858
$584,847
$74,627
$16
$20,962
$418,160
$41,798
$24,086
$24,086
$8,041
$18,165
$9,055
$52,424
$17,475
$1,310
1,934
$663
$1,453

Item 12 Information Collection Requirement
29 CFR 1926.1437(n)(5)(v)
29 CFR 1926.1441(c)(2)(i)
29 CFR 1926.1441(c)(2)(ii)
29 CFR 1926.1441(c)(2)(iii)
29 CFR 1926.1441(c)(3)(i)
29 CFR 1926.1441(c)(3)(ii)
Totals

Proposed
Burden
Hours
27
10
58
58
14
14
157,981

−87−

Proposed
Cost ($)
$981
$362
$2,107
$3,688
$507
$507
$4,896,041